This part rewrites a rule in an older law about sea animals. The new rule is about Alaska Natives who live on the coast. It says when they may take a sea animal. It says when the crafts they make may be sold. It says states may not stop those sales.
The document says “is amended”Who acts: CongressHow: statuteSec. 2 in the PDF
What the document says
“Section 101(b) of the Marine Mammal Protection Act Of 1972 (16 U.S.C. 1371(b)) is amended to read as follows:”
The whole of section 2 hangs off this one instruction. It names the provision it changes, section 101(b) of the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C. 1371(b)), and replaces it entirely: the words that follow in this Act are the new subsection (b). This Act does not state what the old subsection said. The new subsection is headed Exemption for Alaskan Natives and runs to five paragraphs.
What the document actually says
“Section 101(b) of the Marine Mammal Protection Act Of 1972 (16 U.S.C. 1371(b)) is amended to read as follows:”
That sentence, in plain words
This part reaches into an older law. It finds one rule there. It throws out that rule. It puts new words in its place.
What this is about
A new law can change a law that came before it. Here it does not just swap a word. It replaces a whole rule at once. The new words sit in the older law from then on.
No action is recorded against this proposal. That is not evidence that none has been taken, and nobody has yet read it against the record. See what the tracker does not yet cover.
The document says “means”Who acts: CongressHow: statuteSec. 2 in the PDF
What the document says
“means an item composed wholly, or in some significant respect, of natural materials and that is produced, decorated, or fashioned in the exercise of traditional Alaska Native handicrafts by an Alaska Native who resides in Alaska and who dwells on the coast of the North Pacific Ocean or the Arctic Ocean without the use of a pantograph, multiple carvers, or any other mass copying device.”
The first of three terms the new subsection defines, and the one the rest of it turns on. Four tests are written into it: the item is wholly or in some significant respect of natural materials, it is produced, decorated, or fashioned in the exercise of traditional Alaska Native handicrafts, the maker is an Alaska Native who resides in Alaska and dwells on the coast of the North Pacific Ocean or the Arctic Ocean, and the work is done without a pantograph, multiple carvers, or any other mass copying device.
What the document actually says
“means an item composed wholly, or in some significant respect, of natural materials and that is produced, decorated, or fashioned in the exercise of traditional Alaska Native handicrafts by an Alaska Native who resides in Alaska and who dwells on the coast of the North Pacific Ocean or the Arctic Ocean without the use of a pantograph, multiple carvers, or any other mass copying device.”
That sentence, in plain words
The item has to be made of natural stuff, all of it or a good part of it. It has to be made by hand in an old Alaska Native craft. The maker has to be an Alaska Native who lives on the coast. No copying machine may be used, and no team of carvers.
What this is about
A pantograph is a tool that copies a shape over and over. The law rules that tool out here. It rules out other copying tools too. The coast named is the coast of the North Pacific Ocean or the Arctic Ocean.
No action is recorded against this proposal. That is not evidence that none has been taken, and nobody has yet read it against the record. See what the tracker does not yet cover.
The document says “means”Who acts: CongressHow: statuteSec. 2 in the PDF
What the document says
“includes a tooth or tusk from a walrus (Odobenus rosmarus) or a species of cetacean.”
The second of the three defined terms. Marine mammal ivory takes in a tooth or a tusk, from a walrus, named by its scientific name Odobenus rosmarus, or from a species of cetacean. The word used is includes, not means, so the list is not closed. The term is used later in the paragraph that bars state prohibitions.
What the document actually says
“includes a tooth or tusk from a walrus (Odobenus rosmarus) or a species of cetacean.”
That sentence, in plain words
Ivory here takes in a tooth or a tusk. It can come from a walrus. It can come from a whale or a dolphin.
What this is about
A cetacean is a whale, a dolphin, or a porpoise. The law says ivory includes these teeth and tusks. It does not say that is the whole list.
No action is recorded against this proposal. That is not evidence that none has been taken, and nobody has yet read it against the record. See what the tracker does not yet cover.
The document says “means”Who acts: CongressHow: statuteSec. 2 in the PDF
What the document says
“includes weaving, carving, stitching, sewing, lacing, beading, drawing, and painting.”
The third of the three defined terms, and it feeds the first: an item counts as authentic only if it is produced, decorated, or fashioned in the exercise of these crafts. Eight are listed, and here too the word is includes rather than means, so the list is not closed.
What the document actually says
“includes weaving, carving, stitching, sewing, lacing, beading, drawing, and painting.”
That sentence, in plain words
The crafts named are weaving and carving. They are stitching, sewing, and lacing. They are beading, drawing, and painting.
What this is about
This list feeds the rule above it. An item counts only if one of these crafts made it. The law does not say these eight are the whole list.
No action is recorded against this proposal. That is not evidence that none has been taken, and nobody has yet read it against the record. See what the tracker does not yet cover.
The document says “shall not”Who acts: CongressHow: statuteSec. 2 in the PDF
What the document says
“Except as provided in section 109, the provisions of this Act shall not apply with respect to the taking of any marine mammal by any Alaska Native who resides in Alaska and who dwells on the coast of the North Pacific Ocean or the Arctic Ocean if such taking--”
The core of the new subsection. The provisions of the Marine Mammal Protection Act do not apply to the taking of any marine mammal by an Alaska Native who both resides in Alaska and dwells on the coast of the North Pacific Ocean or the Arctic Ocean. Two things are carried on the face of it: the exemption is subject to whatever section 109 of that Act provides, and it holds only where the conditions set out in the clauses that follow are met. This Act does not say what section 109 provides.
What the document actually says
“Except as provided in section 109, the provisions of this Act shall not apply with respect to the taking of any marine mammal by any Alaska Native who resides in Alaska and who dwells on the coast of the North Pacific Ocean or the Arctic Ocean if such taking--”
That sentence, in plain words
The rules in the older law do not apply to some hunts. The hunter has to be an Alaska Native. That person has to live in Alaska and on the coast.
What this is about
Taking a sea animal means hunting or catching it. The older law limits that. This part lifts the limit for these hunters. But it only lifts it if the tests below are met. One other part of the older law still applies.
No action is recorded against this proposal. That is not evidence that none has been taken, and nobody has yet read it against the record. See what the tracker does not yet cover.
The document says “requires”Who acts: CongressHow: statuteSec. 2 in the PDF
What the document says
“(II) is done for purposes of creating and selling authentic Alaska Native articles of handicrafts and clothing; and”
The exemption reaches a taking done for either of two purposes, and no others. The first, at clause (i)(I), is subsistence purposes. The second is quoted here, and it covers both creating and selling. Selling is written into the statute as a qualifying purpose rather than left to be inferred.
What the document actually says
“(II) is done for purposes of creating and selling authentic Alaska Native articles of handicrafts and clothing; and”
That sentence, in plain words
One reason for a hunt can be to make crafts and clothes and sell them.
What this is about
The law gives two reasons that count. The first is food for the family and the village. The second is the one quoted here. A hunt for some other reason is not covered.
No action is recorded against this proposal. That is not evidence that none has been taken, and nobody has yet read it against the record. See what the tracker does not yet cover.
The document says “shall not”Who acts: CongressHow: statuteSec. 2 in the PDF
What the document says
“(ii) in each case, is not accomplished in a wasteful manner.”
A second condition, and it rides on both purposes: the words in each case tie it to the subsistence taking and the handicrafts taking alike. A taking accomplished in a wasteful manner falls outside the exemption. This Act does not define wasteful manner.
What the document actually says
“(ii) in each case, is not accomplished in a wasteful manner.”
That sentence, in plain words
The hunt may not waste the animal. That holds for both reasons above.
What this is about
This test comes on top of the reason for the hunt. A wasteful hunt is not covered at all. The law does not say here what waste means.
No action is recorded against this proposal. That is not evidence that none has been taken, and nobody has yet read it against the record. See what the tracker does not yet cover.
The document says “requires”Who acts: CongressHow: statuteSec. 2 in the PDF
What the document says
“An item presented as an authentic Alaska Native article of handicrafts and clothing may be sold in interstate commerce only if it comports with the definition provided in paragraph (1)(A).”
The first of two special rules. An item held out as an authentic Alaska Native article of handicrafts and clothing may go into interstate commerce only where it comports with the definition in paragraph (1)(A), which is the definition indexed above. The rule attaches to how the item is presented, not to what it is made of alone.
What the document actually says
“An item presented as an authentic Alaska Native article of handicrafts and clothing may be sold in interstate commerce only if it comports with the definition provided in paragraph (1)(A).”
That sentence, in plain words
An item can be sold from one state to another. But it has to fit the meaning given above.
What this is about
Above, the law sets out what a real Alaska Native craft item is. This rule points back at that. An item sold as one has to be one.
No action is recorded against this proposal. That is not evidence that none has been taken, and nobody has yet read it against the record. See what the tracker does not yet cover.
The document says “can”Who acts: CongressHow: statuteSec. 2 in the PDF
What the document says
“Any edible portion of a marine mammal taken for the purpose of creating and selling authentic Alaska Native articles of handicrafts and clothing may be sold for native consumption or in a native village or town in Alaska.”
The second special rule, and it deals with what is left when the craft material has been taken. Where the animal was taken for the handicrafts purpose, its edible portion may be sold, and the text sets two places for that sale: for native consumption, or in a native village or town in Alaska.
What the document actually says
“Any edible portion of a marine mammal taken for the purpose of creating and selling authentic Alaska Native articles of handicrafts and clothing may be sold for native consumption or in a native village or town in Alaska.”
That sentence, in plain words
The meat can be sold too. It can be sold for native people to eat. It can be sold in a native village or town in Alaska.
What this is about
This covers a hunt made to get craft material. The meat does not have to go to waste. The law says where it may be sold.
No action is recorded against this proposal. That is not evidence that none has been taken, and nobody has yet read it against the record. See what the tracker does not yet cover.
The document says “can”Who acts: SecretaryHow: statuteSec. 2 in the PDF
What the document says
“Notwithstanding paragraph (2), if, under this Act, the Secretary determines any species or stock of marine mammal subject to taking by Alaska Natives to be depleted, the Secretary may prescribe regulations upon the taking of such marine mammals by any Alaska Native described in this subsection.”
The exemption in paragraph (2) is not absolute. Where the Secretary determines that a species or stock taken by Alaska Natives is depleted, the Secretary may prescribe regulations on the taking of those marine mammals by any Alaska Native the subsection covers. The word is may, so the text creates a power rather than a duty, and the determination has to be made under the Marine Mammal Protection Act.
What the document actually says
“Notwithstanding paragraph (2), if, under this Act, the Secretary determines any species or stock of marine mammal subject to taking by Alaska Natives to be depleted, the Secretary may prescribe regulations upon the taking of such marine mammals by any Alaska Native described in this subsection.”
That sentence, in plain words
The Secretary may find that a kind of sea animal is running low. Then the Secretary can set rules on the hunt.
What this is about
The Secretary is the head of the department that runs this law. Above, the law lifts the limits on some hunts. This part lets the Secretary put limits back. It only lets that happen when a kind of animal is running low.
No action is recorded against this proposal. That is not evidence that none has been taken, and nobody has yet read it against the record. See what the tracker does not yet cover.
The document says “can”Who acts: SecretaryHow: statuteSec. 2 in the PDF
What the document says
“The regulations described in subparagraph (A) may be established with reference to species or stocks, geographical area, the season for taking, or any other factors related to the reason for establishing such regulations and consistent with the purposes of this Act.”
The regulations allowed by subparagraph (A) may be drawn by species or stocks, by geographical area, by the season for taking, or by any other factors. The catch-all carries two tests on its face: a factor has to be related to the reason for establishing the regulations, and consistent with the purposes of the Marine Mammal Protection Act.
What the document actually says
“The regulations described in subparagraph (A) may be established with reference to species or stocks, geographical area, the season for taking, or any other factors related to the reason for establishing such regulations and consistent with the purposes of this Act.”
That sentence, in plain words
The rules can name a kind of animal. They can name a place. They can name a time of year. They can rest on other things too.
What this is about
The law does not tie the Secretary to one way of writing rules. But any other thing named has to fit the reason for the rules. It also has to fit what the older law is for.
No action is recorded against this proposal. That is not evidence that none has been taken, and nobody has yet read it against the record. See what the tracker does not yet cover.
The document says “shall”Who acts: SecretaryHow: statuteSec. 2 in the PDF
What the document says
“The regulations described in subparagraph (A) shall be prescribed after notice and hearing required by section 103 of this title and shall be removed as soon as the Secretary determines that the need for their imposition has disappeared.”
Two duties on the same regulations. They are prescribed only after the notice and hearing required by section 103 of the Marine Mammal Protection Act, and they are removed as soon as the Secretary determines the need for them has disappeared. This Act does not set out what section 103 requires.
What the document actually says
“The regulations described in subparagraph (A) shall be prescribed after notice and hearing required by section 103 of this title and shall be removed as soon as the Secretary determines that the need for their imposition has disappeared.”
That sentence, in plain words
The Secretary has to tell people first and hold a hearing. The rules have to come off once they are no longer needed.
What this is about
A hearing is a meeting where people can speak. Another part of the older law sets out how that works. This part points at it. It does not say here what it asks for.
No action is recorded against this proposal. That is not evidence that none has been taken, and nobody has yet read it against the record. See what the tracker does not yet cover.
The document says “shall”Who acts: SecretaryHow: statuteSec. 2 in the PDF
What the document says
“the Secretary shall demonstrate in writing (and make such writing publicly available on the website of the Secretary) that, in consideration of the whole record, including Indigenous knowledge, such regulation, assessment, determination, or finding is supported by substantial evidence.”
The duty runs to four kinds of action named in the subparagraph: promulgating a regulation or making an assessment pursuant to a hearing or proceeding under this subsection or section 117(b)(2), making a determination of depletion under this subsection, and making a finding regarding unmitigable adverse impacts under subsection (a)(5) that affects stocks or persons the subsection covers. For each, the Secretary demonstrates in writing that the action is supported by substantial evidence on the whole record, and the record is stated to include Indigenous knowledge. The writing is made publicly available on the Secretary's website.
What the document actually says
“the Secretary shall demonstrate in writing (and make such writing publicly available on the website of the Secretary) that, in consideration of the whole record, including Indigenous knowledge, such regulation, assessment, determination, or finding is supported by substantial evidence.”
That sentence, in plain words
The Secretary has to put the reasons in writing. The writing has to go on the Secretary's website. It has to show the whole record backs the choice. Alaska Native knowledge counts as part of that record.
What this is about
The record is everything the Secretary looked at. This part says what the writing has to cover. It also says the public gets to read it.
No action is recorded against this proposal. That is not evidence that none has been taken, and nobody has yet read it against the record. See what the tracker does not yet cover.
The document says “shall apply”Who acts: CongressHow: statuteSec. 2 in the PDF
What the document says
“The requirement under subparagraph (D) shall only be applicable in an action brought by one or more Alaska Native organizations representing persons to which this subsection applies.”
A limit on the duty indexed above. The writing requirement in subparagraph (D) applies only in an action brought by one or more Alaska Native organizations representing persons the subsection covers. This Act does not define Alaska Native organization, and it does not say what kind of action is meant.
What the document actually says
“The requirement under subparagraph (D) shall only be applicable in an action brought by one or more Alaska Native organizations representing persons to which this subsection applies.”
That sentence, in plain words
The rule just above only counts in a case. The case has to be brought by an Alaska Native group. That group has to stand for the people this rule covers.
What this is about
A case here means a claim taken to court. The law does not say what a group has to look like. It does not spell out the kind of case either.
No action is recorded against this proposal. That is not evidence that none has been taken, and nobody has yet read it against the record. See what the tracker does not yet cover.
The document says “shall not”Who acts: CongressHow: statuteSec. 2 in the PDF
What the document says
“No State shall prohibit the interstate commerce, importation, sale, offer for sale, transfer, trade, barter, possession, or possession with the intent to sell, transfer, trade, or barter of marine mammal ivory or marine mammal bone or baleen incorporated under this title by an Alaska Native, into an authentic Alaska Native article of handicrafts and clothing.”
The paragraph is addressed to the States rather than to a federal officer. It lists the dealings a State may not prohibit: interstate commerce, importation, sale, offer for sale, transfer, trade, barter, possession, and possession with intent to sell, transfer, trade, or barter. The material covered is marine mammal ivory, as defined above, or marine mammal bone or baleen, and it has to have been incorporated by an Alaska Native into an authentic Alaska Native article of handicrafts and clothing.
What the document actually says
“No State shall prohibit the interstate commerce, importation, sale, offer for sale, transfer, trade, barter, possession, or possession with the intent to sell, transfer, trade, or barter of marine mammal ivory or marine mammal bone or baleen incorporated under this title by an Alaska Native, into an authentic Alaska Native article of handicrafts and clothing.”
That sentence, in plain words
A state may not ban these crafts. It may not ban selling them or trading them. It may not ban holding them or bringing them in.
What this is about
Baleen is the strainer in the mouth of some whales. The ivory, bone, or baleen has to be worked into a finished item. An Alaska Native has to have done that work. Only then does this rule cover it.
No action is recorded against this proposal. That is not evidence that none has been taken, and nobody has yet read it against the record. See what the tracker does not yet cover.
The document says “may not be construed”Who acts: CongressHow: statuteSec. 2 in the PDF
What the document says
“impact the rights of any Indian Tribe (as defined in section 4 of the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (25 U.S.C. 5304)) in effect on the date of enactment of the Alaska's Right to Ivory Sales and Tradition Act”
Two things the new subsection may not be construed to do. The first is quoted here: to impact the rights of any Indian Tribe, as that term is defined in section 4 of the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (25 U.S.C. 5304), that were in effect on the date of enactment. The Act was approved June 12, 2026, so that is the date the rights are measured at. The second, at subparagraph (B), is to undermine any government-to-government consultation or engagement.
What the document actually says
“impact the rights of any Indian Tribe (as defined in section 4 of the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (25 U.S.C. 5304)) in effect on the date of enactment of the Alaska's Right to Ivory Sales and Tradition Act”
That sentence, in plain words
This part does not touch the rights a Tribe already had. The rights counted are the ones in place the day this law passed.
What this is about
The law points to another law for what a Tribe is. That law is the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act. This law passed on June 12, 2026. A second line says it does not weaken talks between a Tribe and the government.
No action is recorded against this proposal. That is not evidence that none has been taken, and nobody has yet read it against the record. See what the tracker does not yet cover.
The rewrite itself, the three terms the new subsection defines, the exemption and the conditions on it, the two special rules on selling, the power to write rules for a depleted stock and the limits on that power, the writing the Secretary has to publish, who may raise that requirement, the bar on state prohibitions, and the rule of construction.
Nothing in the section is left out. The section replaces a whole subsection rather than striking single words, so there are no purely mechanical amendments here to set aside.
The section works by amending an older statute, the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, and that statute is not indexed here. So the site does not record what section 101(b) said before this change, and it does not record what section 109, section 103, section 117(b)(2) or subsection (a)(5) of that Act say, though the new text points at all four. A reader who wants any of that has to follow the citation into the Marine Mammal Protection Act.
