A bill to designate a mountain in the State of Alaska as Denali.
Summary
SB 573 is a short naming bill that would designate the mountain in Alaska located at the coordinates 63°04′12″ N, 151°00′18″ W as “Denali.” The bill also provides that any reference in federal law, maps, regulations, documents, papers, or other records to that mountain would be treated as a reference to Denali. In practical terms, the measure is intended to standardize the federal name for the mountain.
The bill does not create a new program, authorize spending, or alter land management rules. Its legal effect is limited to federal nomenclature and reference consistency, ensuring that the mountain is identified as Denali across federal materials. Because the bill is narrowly focused, its impact is primarily symbolic and administrative, affecting federal agencies, publications, and records that refer to the mountain.
Impact
SB 573 would amend federal usage by formally designating the specified Alaska mountain as Denali and requiring federal references to conform to that name. It would affect how federal laws, maps, regulations, and official records identify the mountain, but it would not change ownership, jurisdiction, environmental protections, or other substantive state or federal law governing the area. The principal parties affected are federal agencies and any entities relying on federal geographic references.
Sentiment
The available context suggests generally favorable or uncontroversial treatment of the bill. It was introduced by Senator Murkowski, with Senator Sullivan as a cosponsor, indicating Alaska support for the designation. The bill was referred to the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources and received hearings in the Subcommittee on National Parks, which is consistent with a routine consideration of a geographically focused naming measure. No votes or recorded opposition are provided in the available materials.
Contention
No specific points of contention appear in the provided text or context. Because the bill is limited to a federal designation of a mountain’s name, any disagreement would likely center on naming conventions, historical usage, or the administrative need for federal consistency rather than on policy effects. The absence of transcripts, amendments, or votes suggests that no major dispute is documented in the available record.