[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 147 (Tuesday, August 2, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-18774]


[[Page Unknown]]

[Federal Register: August 2, 1994]


_______________________________________________________________________

Part IV





Department of the Interior





_______________________________________________________________________



Fish and Wildlife Service



_______________________________________________________________________



50 CFR Part 36




Regulations Prohibiting Taking of Free Ranging Wolves and Wolverines on 
Alaska National Wildlife Refuges on the Same Day the Trapper or Hunter 
Is Airborne; Rule
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 36

RIN 1018-AC16

 
Regulations Prohibiting Taking of Free Ranging Wolves and 
Wolverines on Alaska National Wildlife Refuges on the Same Day the 
Trapper or Hunter Is Airborne

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This rule prohibits trappers and hunters from shooting free 
ranging wolves and wolverines in national wildlife refuges (refuges) in 
Alaska on the same day in which the person is airborne, except that 
trappers may use firearms to dispatch wolves or wolverines that are 
legally trapped or snared on the same day in which flying occurred. The 
prohibition does not apply to trappers and hunters transported on 
regularly scheduled commercial flights between public airports. Hunting 
and trapping will continue to be allowed on Alaska refuges pursuant to 
applicable, non-conflicting State of Alaska (State) and Federal laws 
and regulations, as specifically authorized by the Alaska National 
Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA) of 1980. Aircraft access to 
and within Alaska refuges for sport or subsistence hunting, trapping, 
fishing and other traditional activities, and for travel to and from 
villages and homesites will continue to be allowed subject to 
reasonable regulations to protect refuge resources and ensure that uses 
are compatible with refuge purposes.

EFFECTIVE DATE: September 1, 1994.

ADDRESSES: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Refuges and Wildlife, 1011 
East Tudor Road, Anchorage, AK 99503-6199.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Refer all questions to Tony Booth at 
the address listed under the heading ADDRESSES: Telephone 907-786-3384.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    The National Wildlife Refuge Administration Act of 1966 (Pub. L. 
89-669; 16 U.S.C. 668dd-668ee) provides guidelines and directives for 
the use of the National Wildlife Refuge System and authorizes the 
Secretary of the Interior to allow uses within any area of the refuge 
system provided ``such uses are compatible with the major purposes for 
which such areas were established.''
    In 1980, Congress passed the Alaska National Interest Lands 
Conservation Act (ANILCA; Pub. L. 96-487) which established new, and 
added to existing, national wildlife refuges in Alaska. Sections 302 
and 303 of ANILCA established purposes for which each refuge shall be 
managed. Section 304 of ANILCA prohibits the Secretary, subject to 
valid existing rights, from permitting any use for any purpose unless 
such use or purpose is compatible with the purposes of the refuge. 
Section 304 also requires the Secretary to prescribe such regulations 
and impose such terms and conditions as may be necessary and 
appropriate to ensure that activities carried out under any use granted 
under any authority are so compatible. Section 1110 of ANILCA directs 
the Secretary to permit use of airplanes on Alaska refuges for 
traditional activities and that such access shall be subject to 
reasonable regulation to protect the natural and other values of the 
refuge. The intent of Congress to allow hunting and trapping on Alaska 
refuges is reflected in the special regulations for Alaska National 
Wildlife Refuges contained in Title 50, Part 36 of the Code of Federal 
Regulations (CFR).
    In 1992, after many years of controversy, the State prohibited the 
land and shoot method of taking wolves by making it illegal to shoot a 
wolf until 3:00 a.m. on the day following the day the hunter or trapper 
was airborne (i.e., ``same-day-airborne'' prohibition). Prohibition of 
taking wildlife during the same-day-airborne allows adequate access to 
wildlife resources but prevents abuses that could result from hunters 
or trappers being able to spot and drive or track wildlife from the air 
and then land and immediately shoot the animal. However, in July 1993, 
the Alaska Board of Game (Board) reconsidered the same-day-airborne 
prohibition and adopted a new regulation that allows trappers to shoot 
wolves and certain other furbearers the same-day-airborne. The new 
State trapping regulation is more restrictive than the pre-1992 land 
and shoot allowances in that it requires the trapper to be at least 300 
feet from the airplane before shooting the furbearer. As of October 1, 
1993, any person who purchases a trapping license can shoot free 
ranging wolves same-day-airborne if at least 300 feet from the 
airplane. State hunting regulations continue to prohibit hunters from 
shooting wolves and wolverines until 3:00 a.m. on the day after the 
hunter flew.
    In response to the State's regulation, the Service published a 
proposed rule in the Federal Register on December 22, 1993, which is 
intended to accomplish the following:
    1. Prohibit same-day-airborne taking of wolves and wolverines with 
firearms except that trappers could use firearms to dispatch legally 
caught wolves or wolverines in a trap or snare on the same-day-
airborne, and this prohibition would not apply to people transported on 
regularly scheduled commercial airlines between public airports;
    2. Satisfy legal mandates to provide for hunting and trapping on 
Alaska refuges and adequately provide for aircraft access to refuge 
resources;
    3. Maintain compatibility between hunting and trapping and 
legislative purposes, the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge 
System, and established Service policies; and
    4. Provide more effective enforcement of hunting and trapping laws 
and regulations.
    The proposed rule had a 60-day public comment period and public 
hearings were held in Anchorage and Fairbanks, Alaska.

Summary of Public Comments

    Twenty-four persons presented oral comments at public hearings in 
Anchorage and Fairbanks, Alaska. The Service also received 
approximately 2100 letters and cards from the public commenting 
specifically on the proposed rule. The Service also received several 
hundred letters that do not specifically address the proposed rule, but 
express concerns related to same-day-airborne or land and shoot taking 
of wolves. The Service also considered comments received from the 
Subsistence Regional Advisory Councils and the administrative record of 
those Council meetings where the issue of same-day-airborne taking of 
wolves was addressed. After considering all public comments, the 
Service has decided to proceed with this final rule and found no 
compelling reason to change the regulatory language from that provided 
in the proposed rule.

Analysis of Public Comments

(a) Opinions of the Alaska Public not Seriously Considered

    Several commenters, who objected to the proposed regulation, 
expressed their belief that the Service ignores opinions of Alaska 
residents and inappropriately relies on ``Lower 48'' opinions.
    The Service considered all public opinions and views on the 
proposed rule and did not disregard opinions of Alaskan residents. In 
fact, the Service provided special attention to comments and concerns 
received from Alaskans. Comments from Alaskan residents were mixed, but 
the majority of Alaskans apparently do not support same-day-airborne 
shooting of wolves. A 1992 public opinion survey of Alaskans (by 
Dittman Research Corporation) indicated that 66 percent of the survey 
participants felt that the public should not be allowed to shoot wolves 
that are located with use of aircraft. The proposed rule received 
strong support from several individuals and organizations associated 
with the Alaska tourism industry who objected to allowing same-day-
airborne shooting of wolves and noted that it portrays a bad image of 
Alaskans.

(b) Support of the Proposed Regulations or Stronger or Broader 
Provisions to Extend Prohibition to Other Areas or Other Species

    The Service received over 2100 public comments in direct response 
to the proposed rule. The Service and the Department of Interior also 
received, and continue to receive, several hundred other letters 
expressing opposition to same-day-airborne taking of wolves and 
requesting action to prohibit such activities. The overwhelming 
majority of the comments supported the proposed regulation. Numerous 
commenters also stated their preference for stronger or broader 
regulations against same-day-airborne methods of taking wildlife. Many 
people advocated elimination of all hunting and trapping of wolves and 
many others advocated extending the applicability of same-day-airborne 
shooting prohibitions to other species and/or other areas.
    Adoption of this final rule does not foreclose additional 
regulatory measures by the Service to address same-day-airborne 
shooting of wildlife in areas outside the National Wildlife Refuge 
System. The Service has the authority to take such action pursuant to 
the Airborne Hunting Act if warranted. The Service acknowledges some of 
the justification or rationale for prohibiting same-day-airborne take 
of wolves and wolverines would apply to other wildlife species as well. 
In fact, the Service strongly considered extending the same-day-
airborne prohibitions to other game and furbearer species. However, in 
order to minimize the preemptive effect of this regulation on 
traditional State management authorities and responsibilities, the 
Service limited applicability to the species most subjected or most 
vulnerable to the problems associated with same-day-airborne take. 
Wolves and wolverines receive relatively high interest and demand by 
hunters and trappers who use airplanes in Alaska, from both a 
recreational standpoint as a game species and from an economic 
standpoint as furbearers that generally bring a good price for their 
furs. Other species not already protected by State same-day-airborne 
regulations are far less vulnerable to abuse of same-day-airborne 
methods and/or less desirable to hunters and trappers who use 
airplanes. Therefore, the Service decided that there was not sufficient 
justification to include other species.
    Several commenters who supported the proposed rule requested 
emergency closure actions to immediately eliminate such activities on 
refuges. Emergency closure authority is generally limited to more 
immediate threats or problems. The same-day-airborne shooting of wolves 
involves long-term and chronic problems, but poses no immediate threat 
to wolf populations or other Alaska refuge resources.

(c) Non-Compliance With Access Provisions of Section 1110 of ANILCA

    Several commenters expressed concern that the proposed rule 
violates access provisions in Section 1110 of ANILCA and applicable 
regulations (43 CFR 36.11) and that the Service did not comply with 
administrative procedures for restricting access. Section 1110 of 
ANILCA permits use of airplanes on Alaska refuges for traditional 
activities (subject to reasonable regulations to protect natural and 
other values) and provides that such access may only be closed by the 
Service following a determination that such access is detrimental to 
refuge resource values.
    The regulation does not restrict aircraft access to or within 
national wildlife refuges. Aircraft access to and within Alaska refuges 
for hunting, trapping, fishing and other traditional activities will 
continue to be allowed. It provides reasonable restriction against 
shooting free ranging wolves and wolverines immediately after a person 
has flown in an aircraft, as necessary to alleviate law enforcement 
problems and protect values associated with ethical and fair chase 
standards. These regulations are not solely dependent on a 
determination that same-day-airborne hunting or trapping is detrimental 
to wolf populations. Even if construed as an access restriction, the 
Service believes the same-day-airborne prohibition is a reasonable 
regulation needed to protect natural and other values of Alaska 
refuges. The Service reviewed the administrative procedures related to 
the promulgation of these regulations and determined the process used 
does fulfill the legal public participation and closure requirements 
(50 CFR 36.42) related to the restriction of an otherwise allowed 
activity.

(d) Legal Authority to Regulate the Taking of Fish and Wildlife

    The most prevalent objection to the proposed rule involved the 
Service's authority to regulate methods and means of harvesting 
resident game species. The State of Alaska and many Alaskans argued the 
sole authority to regulate hunting and trapping of resident wildlife in 
Alaska rests with the State. As such, they claimed the proposed rule 
constitutes an unauthorized and unwarranted extension of Federal 
jurisdiction that intrudes into the State's responsibilities to manage 
resident fish and wildlife. Associated arguments were presented that 
the proposed regulations violate Section 1314 of ANILCA by attempting 
to regulate harvest methods and contradicts Department of the Interior 
policy concerning State and Federal relationships, and the Master 
Memorandum of Understanding between the Alaska Department of Fish and 
Game and the Service.
    Our review found that the regulation is in compliance with Section 
1314 of ANILCA and there is ample legal precedent supporting the 
Service's authority to regulate uses on national wildlife refuges as 
needed to ensure compatibility with refuge purposes and legal mandates, 
and to protect refuge resources and other values. Section 1314 of 
ANILCA does not diminish this authority.
    The Service remains committed to administering our mandates and 
responsibilities in a way that avoids unnecessary interference with the 
State of Alaska's ability to manage resident wildlife. However, the 
Service feels the regulation is needed because the State's revised 
regulation authorizing same-day-airborne shooting of wolves allows, and 
even invites, excessive reliance on aircraft to pursue and take wolves, 
which inevitably results in abuse and violations of the Airborne 
Hunting Act and exacerbates enforcement problems. The significant 
diversion of resource management funds needed to reasonably ensure 
compliance with the Airborne Hunting Act and other applicable laws and 
regulations, when State regulations allow same-day-airborne shooting of 
wolves, contravenes the Refuge Recreation Act. Though airplanes serve 
an important role as a vehicle for access in Alaska, it is evident from 
public comments received that most of the American public objects to 
the heavy and direct reliance on aircraft to locate and take wolves, 
and strongly supports prohibition of such activities on refuge lands. 
The Service repeatedly advised the State of our concerns and initiated 
promulgation of these regulations only after the State failed to 
adequately address Service concerns.

(e) The Proposed Rule Is Not Based on a Biological Problem

    Many commenters stated that there is not a biological basis for the 
regulations since wolf and wolverine populations in Alaska are healthy; 
these species are managed by the State to ensure continued viability of 
populations; Service concerns about impacts to the species are 
speculative; and there is no data to indicate that same-day-airborne 
shooting of wolves constitutes a threat to wolf populations in Alaska.
    The need for this regulation is not based on immediate threats to 
wolf or wolverine populations on Alaskan refuges. The Service does not 
expect a significant increase in the legal harvest of wolves to result 
from the State regulatory allowance for same-day-airborne shooting of 
wolves. Only a very small portion of Alaskans participate in or benefit 
from whatever same-day-airborne wolf hunting and trapping opportunities 
the State allows. The Service is more concerned about the associated 
enforcement problems that will provide additional incentive and 
opportunity for illegal harvests and ethical problems. Furthermore, 
there is potential for localized impacts on refuge wolf populations, if 
trappers or hunters are allowed and it becomes more popular to shoot 
wolves the same-day-airborne.
    State officials indicated that same-day-airborne shooting of wolves 
is not intended to manage or control wolf populations, but only to 
provide harvest opportunity. Thus there is no biological or resource 
management need to allow such activities. In deciding to proceed with 
this regulation, the Service found, after consideration of all 
substantive public comment, that all problems associated with same-day-
airborne shooting of wolves far outweigh the limited benefits or 
additional opportunity it provides, particularly when there is no 
biological or management need to continue such practices.

(f) Law Enforcement Concerns and Justification are Speculative and 
Misleading

    Several commenters expressed their belief that the Service's 
concerns related to law enforcement problems were unfounded or 
exaggerated and that the regulations would mislead or confuse hunters 
who are trying to comply with State regulations.
    The Service's law enforcement concerns and justifications are based 
on professional opinions and extensive experiences of Service law 
enforcement agents in Alaska. Testimony provided by defendants during 
cases involving prosecution for violations of the Airborne Hunting Act 
corroborate the Service's law enforcement concerns.
    In addition, the Service's law enforcement concerns and 
justifications for the proposed rule were reinforced by comments 
received from some Alaskan residents who have personally witnessed or 
observed that same-day-airborne take commonly entails abusive and 
illegal practices of chasing, herding and harassing wolves with 
airplanes. Some wolf hunters and aircraft owners/operators indicated 
that it is all but impossible or rare to take wolves same-day-airborne 
without violating the Airborne Hunting Act. Some commenters made the 
point that the only effective means to take wolves same-day-airborne is 
to drive a wolf to exhaustion and/or to a place where a hunter can 
safely land and shoot it.

(g) Ethics and Fair Chase for Hunting Do Not Apply to Trapping

    Some commenters stated same-day-airborne taking of wolves is done 
under a State trapping license and, therefore, the practice does not 
conflict with Service policy in the Refuge Manual or other fair chase 
principles and ethics associated with sport hunting.
    Based on the overwhelming majority of comments received, this 
belief is not shared by the large majority of the public, including 
most other sportsmen. The Service does not believe that it should 
ignore ethical and fair chase considerations that strongly affect 
public perceptions of hunting and trapping on refuges. To disregard or 
fail to consider and respond to ethical considerations of fair chase 
and other perceptions and views shared by the majority of the general 
public may ultimately jeopardize the future of hunting and trapping 
opportunities on national wildlife refuges.
    Alaska regulations allow trappers to shoot wolves and other 
furbearers with firearms or any other legal weapon as a lawful method 
of trapping. Thus, a person can shoot wolves with a trapping license as 
well as with a hunting license. The Service disagrees with the argument 
that possession of a trapping license exempts a person from all ethical 
obligations and standards of fair chase, particularly when anyone can 
purchase a trapping license to shoot wolves.

(h) Inconsistent With Federal Government's Legal Obligation to 
Accommodate Subsistence Uses

    Several commenters expressed views that the regulations would limit 
subsistence activities or reduce traditional trapping opportunities and 
are not in compliance with Section 811 of ANILCA requiring that 
subsistence users have reasonable access to subsistence resources.
    The regulations apply to general or sport harvest of wolves and 
wolverines. Federal subsistence regulations already prohibit same-day-
airborne take of wolves and wolverines for subsistence purposes. Access 
is not restricted, as already discussed.
    The Service received contradictory comments and views from Alaskan 
residents on the need and legitimacy of same-day-airborne shooting of 
wolves as customary and traditional subsistence activity. The State and 
some Alaskan residents, including some rural Alaskans, contend that 
same-day-airborne or land and shoot take of wolves is a traditional and 
legitimate subsistence activity that should be allowed to continue on 
Alaska refuges. Other Alaskan residents contend it is not a legitimate 
subsistence activity, but rather a sport or recreational activity for 
urban hunters and trappers.

(i) Potential Economic Effects on Individual Trappers

    Several commenters stated that the regulation could have a 
significant economic impact on individual trappers dependent on this 
customary and traditional practice. The loss of opportunity for some 
trappers to take a few or an occasional wolf while same-day-airborne 
could mean a substantial reduction in seasonal gross value of the 
individual trapper's income.
    The potential for such impacts is likely minimal but difficult to 
ascertain in light of contradictory public responses. The Service 
received few comments from individuals who claimed that the regulation 
would significantly impact them economically. Some individuals 
experienced in wolf hunting and trapping contend that, because the 
opportunity to shoot wolves same-day-airborne is very limited, few 
wolves are taken by such methods. Other individuals who have hunted and 
trapped wolves indicated that shooting wolves same-day-airborne should 
be allowed because it constitutes the most or only effective means of 
trapping wolves. However, there is no compelling evidence that 
individuals are likely to suffer significant economic hardship over 
loss of limited opportunities to legally shoot wolves same-day-
airborne.

(j) Relationship Between the Prohibition of Same-Day-Airborne Taking 
and the Purposes, Missions and Policies of the National Wildlife Refuge 
System in Alaska

    Some commenters questioned or disputed whether there was any 
legitimate relationship between the prohibition of same-day-airborne 
shooting of wolves and wolverines and the legislative purposes or 
missions and policies applicable to Alaska refuges.
    In addition to the legislative purposes of each refuge, there are 
various other applicable legislative mandates, missions and policies 
which guide or must be considered in management of Alaska refuges. 
Collectively, our legal mandates and mission and policy guidance direct 
management emphasis on Alaska refuges at conserving, protecting and 
enhancing fish and wildlife resources in their natural diversity to 
meet a broad spectrum of public needs and benefits.
    In this case, the Service carefully evaluated the implications of 
allowing same-day-airborne shooting of wolves on Alaska refuges. Though 
it poses no immediate biological threat, there is no biological or 
management need for allowing same-day-airborne shooting of wolves and 
very few people benefit from the additional opportunities it provides. 
The Service balanced the limited benefits of allowing same-day-airborne 
shooting of wolves against the associated law enforcement and ethical 
problems, and the increased law enforcement costs of allowing this 
activity. The Service ultimately concluded that prohibition of same-
day-airborne shooting of wolves and wolverines would serve to 
collectively benefit or further the legal mandates, purposes, missions 
and policies applicable to management of the national wildlife refuge 
system in Alaska. Applicable Service policies concerning ethical 
standards and fair chase were discussed in the proposed rule document.

(k) Undermines or Interferes With State's Ability to Control or Manage 
Wolves and Affected Prey Species

    Some commenters argued that the same-day-airborne prohibition takes 
away or undermines an effective management tool of the State to control 
wolf populations to benefit game species.
    State officials have asserted that same-day-airborne allowances are 
intended only to provide a reasonable harvest opportunity for trappers, 
and are not intended for predator control or management purposes. It is 
our evaluation that the Service's same-day-airborne prohibition will 
not undermine or interfere with State wolf management or control 
programs.

(l) Unwarranted Restriction of Opportunity To Continue Traditional Use

    Some commenters argued that same-day-airborne or even land and 
shoot methods of taking wolves in Alaska constitute traditional uses 
that Congress intended to protect under provisions of ANILCA. As such, 
our proposed regulation would eliminate legitimate traditional hunting 
and trapping activities and access needed in remote roadless areas and 
therefore violates the Congressional intent of ANILCA. On the other 
hand, some commenters stated the view that excessive and direct 
reliance on aircraft for taking wolves should not be used or allowed as 
replacement for the traditional hunting and trapping skills and 
activities that Congress intended to protect in Alaska.
    The ANILCA provides for the continuation of hunting and trapping 
opportunities as legitimate traditional uses of refuge lands in Alaska, 
and specifically allows use of aircraft for access to and within 
refuges for such traditional uses, subject to reasonable regulations 
and compatibility with refuge purposes. The proposed rule does not 
compromise either of these directives. It does not close refuges to 
hunting or trapping, nor does it preclude or restrict aircraft access 
for these and other traditional activities. ANILCA does not direct the 
Service to ensure use of aircraft for land and shoot or related methods 
of same-day-airborne shooting of wolves and other wildlife. There is no 
clear indication, nor is it reasonable to presume, that Congress 
intended to allow such activities on public lands, particularly when 
they invite or result in chronic violations of Federal laws and 
policies.

(m) Same-Day-Airborne Methods Provide the Most or Only Effective 
Alternative Means of Taking Wolves in Alaska

    Several commenters who indicated experience in trapping and hunting 
wolves expressed the concern that same-day-airborne shooting 
opportunities provide the only effective means or the most effective 
alternative to taking wolves with traps and snares in the vast and 
remote roadless areas of Alaska. A few commenters argued that same-day-
airborne or even land and shoot methods offer more humane and more 
selective means of taking wolves. Traps and snares take non-target 
species while same-day-airborne methods are more selective to the 
target species.
    The Service considered and weighed such potential advantages of 
allowing same-day-airborne shooting wolves and wolverines against the 
problems and consequences and found the problems outweigh the benefits.
    Evaluation of public comments on the benefits and effectiveness of 
same-day-airborne take of wolves was complicated by the apparent 
contradiction or inconsistency in responses from people purportedly 
experienced in such methods. Some commenters argued that same-day-
airborne shooting is needed to maintain an effective and selective 
method of taking wolves. Other experienced wolf hunters and/or trappers 
argued that it should be allowed by virtue of its very limited 
effectiveness. They contended that same-day-airborne shooting of 
wolves, particularly with the State's new requirement to be 300 feet 
from the airplane, involves very difficult methods that require 
considerable skill and offer very limited opportunities to be 
successful. It results in a very limited increase in harvest. Still 
other responses from some individuals knowledgeable or experienced in 
same-day-airborne shooting activities reinforce the Service's concerns 
that it allows or invites abuse and violations of the Airborne Hunting 
Act and should be prohibited.

(n) Advantages and Impacts of Using Aircraft Exaggerated

    Some commenters disagreed with statements in the proposed rule 
concerning the advantage of using aircraft to detect and kill wildlife, 
contending that the Service exaggerated the advantages and impacts of 
using aircraft for taking wolves.
    As discussed above, there is significant inconsistency in public 
comments on the effectiveness and impacts of same-day-airborne shooting 
of wolves, even among those individuals experienced in such activities. 
The Service recognizes that opportunities and advantages to hunters or 
trappers who shoot wolves on the same-day-airborne, as well as the 
impacts to wolf populations, are generally limited when such activities 
are accomplished in compliance with the Airborne Hunting Act. 
Unfortunately, same-day-airborne allowances create significant 
enforcement problems and provide greater opportunity and advantage to 
violators.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    This rulemaking does not contain information collection 
requirements that require approval by the Office of Management and 
Budget under 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.

Environmental Considerations

    This rulemaking is categorically excluded under 40 Code of Federal 
Regulations 1508.4 from the requirements of the National Environmental 
Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4347) as an activity directly 
related to the enforcement of fish and wildlife laws and as an 
administrative action that will have no potential for causing 
substantial environmental impact.

Economic Effect

    This rulemaking was not subject to Office of Management and Budget 
review under Executive Order 12866. A review under the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act of 1980 (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) has been done to 
determine whether the rulemaking would have a significant effect on a 
substantial number of small entities, which include businesses, 
organizations or governmental jurisdictions. This rulemaking would have 
no significant effect on such entities. Public comment revealed that 
trappers who use aircraft for access rarely take free ranging wolves 
while working their traplines after landing.

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 36

    Aircraft, Alaska, Alaska National Wildlife Refuge System, Hunting, 
Trapping, Wildlife, Wildlife refuges.

    Accordingly, Part 36 of Chapter 1 of Title 50 of the Code of 
Federal Regulations is amended as follows:

PART 36--[AMENDED]

    1. The authority citation for Part 36 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 16 U.S.C. 460(k) et seq., 668dd et seq., 742(a) et 
seq., 3101 et seq., and 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.

    2. Section 36.32 is amended by adding paragraph (c)(1)(iv) to read 
as follows:


Sec. 36.32  Taking of fish and wildlife.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (iv) It shall be unlawful for a person having been airborne to use 
a firearm or any other weapon to take or assist in taking a wolf or 
wolverine until after 3:00 a.m. on the day following the day in which 
the flying occurred, except that a trapper may use a firearm or any 
other weapon to dispatch a legally caught wolf or wolverine in a trap 
or snare on the same day in which the flying occurred. This prohibition 
does not apply to flights on regularly scheduled commercial airlines 
between regularly maintained public airports.
* * * * *
    Dated: July 18, 1994.
George T. Frampton, Jr.,
Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.
[FR Doc. 94-18774 Filed 8-1-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P