Federal Register Notice

2100 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 9 / Wednesday, January 14, 2004 / Proposed Rules Constitutionally Protected Property from further environmental SUMMARY: We, the Fish and Wildlife Rights. documentation. This rule allows States Service (Service), announce a to require proof of liability insurance as reexamination of regulatory Civil Justice Reform a precondition for vessel numbering and mechanisms in relation to the 1998 This proposed rule meets applicable therefore concerns documentation of finding for a petition to list the Florida standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of vessels. An ‘‘Environmental Analysis black bear (Ursus americanus Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Check List’’ is available in the docket floridanus), under the Endangered Reform, to minimize litigation, where indicated under the ‘‘Public Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended. eliminate ambiguity, and reduce Participation and Request for Pursuant to a court order, we have burden. Comments’’ section of this preamble. reexamined only one factor, the Protection of Children Comments on this section will be inadequacy of existing regulatory considered before we make the final mechanisms in effect at the time of our We have analyzed this proposed rule decision on whether this rule should be previous 1998 12-month finding. under Executive Order 13045, categorically excluded from further DATES: The finding announced in this Protection of Children from environmental review. document was made on December 24, Environmental Health Risks and Safety 2003. Risks. This rule is not an economically List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 174 ADDRESSES: The complete file for this significant rule and would not create an Marine safety, Reporting and environmental risk to health or risk to finding is available for public recordkeeping requirements. inspection, by appointment, during safety that might disproportionately For the reasons discussed in the affect children. normal business hours at the U.S. Fish preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to and Wildlife Service, Jacksonville Indian Tribal Governments amend 33 CFR Part 174 as follows: Ecological Services Field Office, 6620 Southpoint Drive South, Jacksonville, This proposed rule does not have PART 174—STATE NUMBERING AND FL 32216–0958. tribal implications under Executive CASUALTY REPORTING SYSTEMS Order 13175, Consultation and FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Coordination with Indian Tribal 1. The authority citation for part 174 John W. Kasbohm (see ADDRESSES Governments, because it would not have is revised to read as follows: section), telephone (904) 232–2580; a substantial direct effect on one or Authority: 46 U.S.C. 6101 and 12302; facsimile (904) 232–2404. more Indian tribes, on the relationship Department of Homeland Security Delegation SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: No. 0170.1 (92). between the Federal Government and Background Indian tribes, or on the distribution of 2. Amend § 174.31 by revising the The Florida black bear (Ursus power and responsibilities between the section heading, redesignating americanus floridanus) is a subspecies Federal Government and Indian tribes. paragraph (b) as paragraph (c), and of the black bear (Ursus americanus), adding a new paragraph (b) to read as Energy Effects which ranges from northern Alaska and follows: We have analyzed this proposed rule Canada south to northern Mexico. under Executive Order 13211, Actions § 174.31 Terms imposed by States for According to Hall (1981), the Florida Concerning Regulations That numbering of vessels. black bear was primarily restricted to Significantly Affect Energy Supply, * * * * * Florida, but also occurred in coastal Distribution, or Use. We have (b) Proof of liability insurance for a plain areas of Georgia, Alabama, and determined that it is not a ‘‘significant vessel except a recreational-type public extreme southeastern Mississippi. energy action’’ under that order because vessel of the United States; or Following extensive human it is not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ * * * * * development, the distribution of the under Executive Order 12866 and is not Florida black bear has become likely to have a significant adverse effect Dated: January 8, 2004. fragmented and reduced. Population on the supply, distribution, or use of David S. Belz, sizes and densities prior to the arrival of energy. The Administrator of the Office Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Director of the first European colonists are not of Information and Regulatory Affairs Operations. known; but, the Florida Game and Fresh has not designated it as a significant [FR Doc. 04–748 Filed 1–13–04; 8:45 am] Water Fish Commission (Commission energy action. Therefore, it does not BILLING CODE 4910–15–P 1993; now the Florida Fish and Wildlife require a Statement of Energy Effects Conservation Commission) estimated under Executive Order 13211. that possibly 11,500 bears once DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR inhabited Florida. Environment Our involvement with the Florida We have analyzed this proposed rule Fish and Wildlife Service black bear began with the species’ under Commandant Instruction inclusion as a category 2 species in M16475.lD (the ‘‘Instruction’’), which 50 CFR Part 17 notices of review published on guides the Coast Guard in complying December 30, 1982 (47 FR 58454), with the National Environmental Policy Endangered and Threatened Wildlife September 18, 1985 (50 FR 37958), Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321– and Plants; Reexamination of January 6, 1989 (54 FR 554), and 4370f), and have made a preliminary Regulatory Mechanisms in Relation to November 21, 1991 (56 FR 53804). At determination that there are no factors the 1998 Florida Black Bear Petition that time, category 2 species were in this case that would limit the use of Finding defined as those for which information a categorical exclusion under section AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, in our possession indicated that listing 2.B.2 of the Instruction. Therefore, we Interior. was possibly appropriate, but for which believe that this rule should be sufficient data on biological ACTION: Proposed rule; notice of petition categorically excluded, under Figure 2– vulnerability and threat were not finding. 1, paragraph (34)(d) of the Instruction, currently available to support proposed VerDate jul<14>2003 14:39 Jan 13, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\14JAP1.SGM 14JAP1 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 9 / Wednesday, January 14, 2004 / Proposed Rules 2101 rules. On May 20, 1990, we received a HHK, U.S. District Court for the District mechanisms warranted listing the black petition from Ms. Inge Hutchison of of Columbia) claiming our decision was bear as a threatened species. Lake Geneva, Florida, to list the Florida arbitrary, capricious, and an abuse of Pursuant to the Court’s order, we are black bear as a threatened species. The discretion, violating the Administrative providing our reexamination of the petition cited the following threats: (1) Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 551 et seq.) and regulatory mechanisms being Illegal hunting by beekeepers, the ESA. First, plaintiffs alleged that our undertaken and enforced at the time of gallbladder poachers, and others, (2) determination that listing was not our 1998 finding. Regulatory loss and fragmentation of critical warranted, based on the existence of mechanisms that are mentioned in the habitat, (3) hunting pressure, and (4) four larger secure populations ‘‘Summary of Factors’’ section below as road mortality. We made a 90-day distributed throughout the bear’s part of our reexamination were in effect petition finding on October 18, 1990 (55 historic range, was inconsistent with the in 1998. However, we describe the FR 42223), that substantial information ESA because we erroneously interpreted regulatory mechanisms in the present was presented. Based on the the phrase ‘‘all or a significant portion tense because we have been asked by information received and information in of its range.’’ Plaintiffs argued that our the court to make a current our files, a 12-month finding was made projection of the likely loss of a large reexamination. We have also included on January 7, 1992 (57 FR 596), percentage (approximately 40%) of as footnotes, separate from our court- indicating that the Service believed that existing bear habitat over the foreseeable ordered reexamination, updates on the petitioned action was warranted but future obligated us to list the species several regulatory mechanisms that have precluded by higher priority listing because this amount constituted a been revised since 1998 in an effort to actions. significant portion of the species’ range. provide the best available information At the time of the finding, we Second, plaintiffs argued that our regarding protections for the Florida assigned the species a level 9 priority decision not to list was arbitrary and black bear. Based upon this review, we based on our listing priority system that capricious based on our 1992 have determined that the existing had been published on September 21, ‘‘warranted but precluded’’ finding, and regulatory mechanisms are not 1983 (48 FR 43098). ‘‘Level 9’’ meant on the combined effects of habitat inadequate so as to warrant listing the that the species was subject to imminent destruction, habitat isolation, roadkill, Florida black bear under the ESA. but moderate-to-low threats throughout and hunting. Third, plaintiffs asserted its range. The species was included as Summary of Factors Affecting the that our determination that existing Species a category 1 candidate in the November regulatory mechanisms were adequate 15, 1994, animal review notice (59 FR to protect the bear was incorrect because Section 4(a)(1) of the ESA and its 58982). At that time, a category 1 it relied on possible future regulations implementing regulations (50 CFR Part candidate (now referred to as a rather than those that were both 424) set forth the procedures for listing ‘‘candidate’’) was one for which we had authorized and implemented at the time species as endangered or threatened. on file sufficient information to support of our finding. They provide that a species may be issuance of a proposed rule.

Load more