[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 123 (Tuesday, June 28, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page ]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-15565]


[Federal Register: June 28, 1994]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 14

RIN 1018-AC07


Conferring Designated Port Status on Boston, MA

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Fish and Wildlife Service confers designated port status 
on Boston, Massachusetts pursuant to section 9(f) of the Endangered 
Species Act of 1973. The direct importation and exportation of fish and 
wildlife, including parts and products, will now be permitted through 
Boston, Massachusetts. Under this final rule, Boston, Massachusetts 
will be added to the list of Customs ports of entry designated for the 
importation and exportation of wildlife. A public hearing on this 
proposal was held on December 8, 1993, in the Massachusetts Port 
Authority, Maritime Department, Fish Pier East II, Northern Avenue, 
Boston, Massachusetts 02210.

EFFECTIVE DATE: This rule is effective on July 28, 1994.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Special Agent A. Eugene Hester, Assistant Regional Director, U.S. Fish 
and Wildlife Service, P.O. Box 779, Hadley, Massachusetts, ((413) 253-
8340).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    Designated ports are the cornerstone of the process by which the 
Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) regulates the importation and 
exportation of wildlife in the United States. With limited exceptions, 
all fish or wildlife must be imported and exported through such ports 
as required by section 9(f) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, 16 
U.S.C. 1538(f). The Secretary of the Interior is responsible for 
designating these ports by regulation, with the approval of the 
Secretary of the Treasury after notice and the opportunity for public 
hearing.
    On January 4, 1974, the Service promulgated a final rule 
designating eight Customs ports of entry for the importation and 
exportation of wildlife (39 FR 1158). A ninth port was added on 
September 1, 1981, when a final rule was published naming Dallas/Fort 
Worth, Texas a designated port (46 FR 43834). On March 15, 1990, a 
final rule was published naming Portland, Oregon as the tenth 
designated port of entry (55 FR 9730). An eleventh port was added on 
May 20, 1992, when the final rule was published naming Baltimore, 
Maryland as a designated port (57 FR 21355).
    A proposed rule, including a notice of public hearing was published 
in the Federal Register of November 12, 1993 (58 FR 59978).

Need for Final Rulemaking

    Containerized air and ocean cargo has become the paramount means by 
which both live wildlife and wildlife products are transported into and 
out of the United States. The use of containerized cargo by the airline 
and shipping industries has compounded the problems encountered by the 
Service and by wildlife importers and exporters in the Boston area. In 
many instances, foreign suppliers will containerize entire shipments 
and route them directly to Boston. If, upon arrival, the shipment 
contains any wildlife, those items must be shipped under Customs bond 
to a designated port for clearance. In most cases, this has involved 
shipping wildlife products to New York, New York, the nearest 
designated port, but reshipment has been both time consuming and 
expensive. To alleviate this problem, Boston importers and exporters 
have attempted to direct entire shipments, even though they contain 
only a small number of wildlife items, to a designated port prior to 
their arrival at Boston. This method of shipment meets the current 
regulatory requirements of the Service; however, it is again time 
consuming and entails additional expense. It is also contrary to the 
increasing tendency of foreign suppliers to ship consignments directly 
to regional ports such as Boston. In addition, time is a key element 
when transporting live wildlife and perishable wildlife products. 
Without designated port status, business in Boston cannot import and 
export wildlife products directly, and consequently may be unable to 
compete economically with merchants in other international trading 
centers located in designated ports. With airborne and maritime 
shipments into and out of Boston steadily increasing, the Service has 
concluded that the port should be designated for wildlife imports and 
exports. Conferring this status on Boston serves not only the interests 
of business in the region, but will also facilitate the mission of the 
Service in two ways. First, clearance of wildlife shipments in Boston 
will relieve inspectors at the port of New York who are now handling 
cargo for both ports. Second, it will eliminate the need for the 
administrative processing of permits by the Regional office that are 
issued to Boston area importers who are able to qualify for those 
permits on the basis of demonstrated economic hardship. Also, Boston's 
growth as a major east coast port of entry combined with modernization 
of shipping routes, make it an essential commercial link to the New 
England area.

Results of Public Hearing and Written Comments

    Section 9(f) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, 16 U.S.C. 
1538(f), requires that the public be given an opportunity to comment at 
a hearing prior to the Secretary of the Interior conferring designated 
port status on any port. Accordingly, the Service held a public hearing 
on November 8, 1993, from 9 a.m. to 12 Noon. The hearing was held in 
the Massachusetts Port Authority, Maritime Department, Fish Pier East 
II, Northern Avenue, Boston, Massachusetts 02210. Seven persons 
presented oral and/or written testimony at the hearing, representing 
Maritime Department at the Massachusetts Port Authority, Advance 
Brokers, Boston Customs Broker and Freight Forwarders Association, 
Tower International, International Cargo Systems, and Liberty 
International. Most of the witnesses stated that shipping to New York 
or another designated port for inspections when small numbers of 
wildlife items are involved is detrimental to the economic well being 
of their clients. They felt that designation would allow their 
companies and their customers to become more competitive on both time 
and cost. The Boston Customs Brokers and Freight Forwarders Association 
had reviewed port inspection statistics and felt that the volume of 
shipments in Boston justifies designated port status as they are larger 
than some currently designated ports. International Cargo Systems, is a 
freight forwarder whose primary business involves seafood, is 
anticipating a 30 percent increase in business if Boston becomes a 
designated port. Liberty International complained about the application 
process necessary to obtain a designated port exception permit. In 
their opinion, it is so time consuming that many potential importers 
will not deal in wildlife products simply to avoid the delays. The 
witnesses felt that designated port status would increase the numbers 
of potential users at the port of Boston.
    One additional written comment submitted by MONITOR, on January 10, 
1994, was received by the Service during the public comment period. The 
commenter opposed the designation of Boston as a port of entry because 
in the commenter's opinion the designation of a twelfth port for the 
importation and exportation of wildlife would spread the staff and 
finances of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service even thinner, 
diminishing the Service's effectiveness in wildlife law enforcement. 
The Service believes that this rule will not have a negative impact on 
other wildlife enforcement efforts nor reduce the detection of illegal 
shipments elsewhere by the placement of a wildlife inspector at Boston.
    The Service also receives requests for wildlife identification 
assistance from other Federal Agencies such as U.S. Customs and the 
U.S. Department of Agriculture (APHIS) at Boston and Canadian border 
ports. While many of these locations are not part of the designated 
port area, it is important for wildlife inspection services to be 
available at such major international facilities when the need arises. 
This also relieves the burden of Service Special Agents in the Boston 
area who must take time from other investigational priorities to 
address inspection needs. This is particularly important during the 
migratory bird hunting season as waterfowl resource protection in the 
regional flyway is a priority.

Required Determinations

    This rule has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and 
Budget under Executive Order 12866. The Department of the Interior 
(Department) has determined that this rule will not have a significant 
economic effect on a substantial number of small entities under the 
Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). As discussed above, 
opening Boston as a port of entry will have a slight economic benefit 
to the Boston area businesses. This action is not expected to have 
significant taking implications, as per Executive Order 12630. This 
rule does not contain any additional information collection 
requirements which require approval by the Office of Management and 
Budget under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. This 
action does not contain any federalism impacts as described in 
Executive Order 12612. These final rule changes in the regulations in 
Part 14 are regulatory and enforcement actions which are covered by a 
categorical exclusion from National Environmental Policy Act procedures 
under 516 Department Manual and an Environmental Action Memorandum is 
on file at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service office in Arlington, 
Virginia. A determination has been made pursuant to Section 7 of the 
Endangered Species Act that this revision of Part 14 will not effect 
federally listed species.
    The Department has certified to the Office of Management and Budget 
that these final regulations meet the applicable standards provided in 
Section 2(a) and 2(b)(2) of Executive Order 12778.

Authorship: The primary author of this rule is Law Enforcement 
Specialist, Paul McGowan, Division of Law Enforcement, U.S. Fish and 
Wildlife Service, Washington, DC.

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 14

    Exports, Fish, Imports, Labeling, Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements, Transportation and Wildlife.

Regulation Promulgation

    For the reasons set out in the preamble, title 50, Chapter 1, 
Subchapter B of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as set forth 
below.

PART 14--IMPORTATION, EXPORTATION, AND TRANSPORTATION OF WILDLIFE

    1. The authority citation for Part 14 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 16 U.S.C. 705,712, 1382, 1538(d)-(f), 1540(f), 3371-
3378, 4223-4244, and 4901-4916; 18 U.S.C. 42; 31 U.S.C. 483(a).

    2. Section 14.12 is amended by removing the word ``and'' at the end 
of paragraph (j), by removing the period at the end of paragraph (k) 
and adding in its place ``; and'', and by adding a new paragraph (l) to 
read as follows:


Sec. 14.12  Designated ports.

* * * * *
    (l) Boston, Massachusetts.

    Dated: May 23, 1994.
George T. Frampton, Jr.,
Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.
[FR Doc. 94-15565 Filed 6-27-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-M