[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 78 (Thursday, April 22, 2004)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 21806-21810]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-9181]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR PART 14

RIN 1018-AT59


Conferring Designated Port Status on Houston, Texas; Louisville, 
Kentucky; and Memphis, Tennessee

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Proposed rule; notice of hearings.

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

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, propose to make 
Houston, Texas; Louisville, Kentucky; and Memphis, Tennessee, 
designated ports under section 9(f) of the Endangered Species Act of 
1973 (ESA). This action would allow the direct importation and 
exportation of wildlife and wildlife products through these growing 
international ports. We are proposing to amend the regulations in 50 
CFR Part 14 to reflect this designation. We will hold public hearings 
to collect comments on this change. We also seek written comments from 
the public.

DATES: Submit comments on or before May 24, 2004. See the Supplementary 
Information section for information on the public hearing dates and the 
dates by which you must request approval to participate in these 
hearings.

ADDRESSES: Comments and materials concerning this proposed rule should 
be sent to: Special Agent in Charge, Branch of Investigations, U.S. 
Fish and Wildlife Service, Office of Law Enforcement, 4401 North 
Fairfax Drive, MS 3000, Arlington, Virginia 22203. Comments and 
materials may be hand-delivered to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 
4501 North Fairfax Drive, Suite 3000, Arlington, Virginia, between the 
hours of 8 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday. For the locations of 
the public hearings and information on presenting oral or written 
comments, see the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gregory Jackson, Special Agent in 
Charge, Branch of Investigations, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 
Office of Law Enforcement, at (703) 358-1949.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background

    The ESA requires that all fish and wildlife, with only limited 
exceptions, be imported and exported through designated ports. 
Designated ports facilitate U.S. efforts to monitor wildlife trade and 
enforce wildlife protection laws and regulations by funneling wildlife 
shipments through a limited number of locations. The Secretary of the 
Interior, with approval of the Secretary of the Treasury, designates 
ports for wildlife trade by regulation after holding a public hearing 
and collecting and considering public comments. The Service selects 
designated ports based upon numerous criteria, such as volume of 
wildlife shipments, geographic diversity, frequency of requests for 
designated port exception permits, and the proximity to existing ports 
of entry. The Service presently has 14 designated ports of entry for 
the importation and exportation of wildlife and wildlife products: 
Anchorage, Alaska; Atlanta, Georgia; Baltimore, Maryland; Boston, 
Massachusetts; Chicago, Illinois; Dallas/Fort Worth, Texas; Honolulu, 
Hawaii; Los Angeles, California; Miami, Florida; New Orleans, 
Louisiana; New York,

[[Page 21807]]

New York; Portland, Oregon; San Francisco, California; and Seattle, 
Washington. The Service maintains a staff of wildlife inspectors at 
each designated port to inspect and clear wildlife shipments.
    Regulatory exceptions allow certain types of wildlife shipments to 
enter or leave the country through ports which are not designated. 
Under certain conditions, importers and exporters can obtain a permit 
from the Service, called a designated port exception permit, that 
allows their use of non-designated ports. The importer or exporter will 
be responsible for additional fees associated with the designated port 
exception permit ($25) and the inspection of their wildlife shipment at 
a non-designated port.

Need for Proposed Rulemaking

    Existing and projected increases in air and express cargo, along 
with substantial growth in the number of airline passengers, 
international visitors, and hunters seeking clearance of wildlife 
imports and exports, justify the proposed designation of the ports of 
Houston, Louisville, and Memphis. The designation of these ports will 
improve service, while reducing costs, for international air and ocean 
cargo and mail carriers, small businesses, and the public, while 
maintaining effective monitoring and regulation of the U.S. wildlife 
trade.
    In the Fiscal Year 2004 budget appropriation for the Service's 
Office of Law Enforcement, monies were appropriated by Congress in the 
amount of $700,000 each for the purpose of establishing the designated 
ports of Louisville and Memphis. The Service has not received an 
appropriation from Congress to designate the port of Houston. However, 
the designation of Houston has been under discussion for some time. At 
present, the Service has three wildlife inspectors on duty in Houston, 
which fulfills the staffing requirement that the Service has 
established for a designated port in funding and staffing models. 
Therefore, the designation of Houston would amount to changing the 
status of an existing Service port and would not require start-up costs 
as would be the case in Louisville and Memphis.
    Houston is one of the fastest growing ports of entry in the nation 
in both international airfreight and shipping. The three airports 
comprising the Houston Airport System handled 42,016,609 passengers and 
330,701 tons of cargo in 2002. International air cargo tonnage at 
George Bush Intercontinental increased by more than 62 percent in the 
past 10 years with a 10 percent per year increase in the past 5 years. 
Houston is the primary air cargo gateway to and from Mexico, and the 
Houston sea port handles 81 steamship lines with 6,414 vessel calls, 
hauling 175,000,000 tons of cargo between Houston and 200 countries 
worldwide in 2002. The Port of Houston ranks first in the United States 
in tonnage imported, and third in tonnage exported. Houston also has an 
extensive designated Foreign Trade Zone.
    Service records indicate that a wide variety of wildlife and 
wildlife products are imported and exported through Houston under 
designated port exception permits. These wildlife and wildlife products 
include game trophies, reptile leather goods, scientific and museum 
specimens, live tropical fish, and curios. The number of designated 
port exception permits issued for the port of Houston suggests that 
demand for the use of this port is high. In addition, the number of 
import/export licenses issued to companies in the State of Texas has 
nearly doubled since 2001. Doubtless, many of these companies are doing 
business in or near the Houston area and would benefit from the 
designation of this port.
    At present, the designated ports of entry for wildlife and wildlife 
products nearest to Houston are Dallas/Fort Worth, Texas (approximately 
239 miles) and New Orleans, Louisiana (approximately 347 miles). In the 
2003 Fiscal Year, 4,434 wildlife shipments were processed in Dallas/
Forth Worth and 659 wildlife shipments were processed in New Orleans. 
We estimate that a significant fraction of this volume will be shipped 
directly to Houston for Service inspection and clearance upon its 
designation, resulting in considerable savings in shipping time and 
costs. Currently, importations or exportations of wildlife or wildlife 
products arriving in Houston without Service clearance must be either 
shipped in-bond, under U.S. Bureau of Customs and Border Protection 
(CBP) authority, to designated ports of entry for Service inspection 
and clearance, or must be accompanied by a designated port exception 
permit that authorizes Service inspection and clearance in Houston. 
Designated port exception permits for Houston are issued on a regular 
basis since the Service does have three wildlife inspectors on duty at 
that location. However, either alternative creates delays and increased 
costs to businesses.
    In Louisville, the presence of the United Parcel Service (UPS) hub 
at the Louisville International Airport makes Louisville the 6th 
largest handler of air cargo in the world. In 2002, UPS at Louisville 
handled 3,360,155,981 lbs. of air cargo in 3.5 million shipments, 
including approximately 665,000 CBP import entries. In addition, the 
port of Louisville had 34,354 CBP entries for other importations and 
waterborne cargo at the Louisville Container Freight Port separate from 
the UPS facility.
    At present, the designated ports of entry for wildlife and wildlife 
products nearest to Louisville are Chicago, Illinois (approximately 297 
miles) and Atlanta, Georgia (approximately 421 miles). In the 2003 
Fiscal Year, 5,434 wildlife shipments were processed in Chicago and 
2,020 wildlife shipments were processed in Atlanta. In addition, 11,800 
wildlife shipments were processed in Anchorage, which is the Pacific 
rim first port of landing for UPS. We estimate that a significant 
fraction of this volume will be shipped directly to Louisville for 
Service inspection and clearance upon its designation, resulting in 
considerable savings in shipping time and costs. Currently, 
importations or exportations of wildlife or wildlife products arriving 
in Louisville without Service clearance must be shipped in-bond, under 
CBP authority, to designated ports of entry for Service inspection and 
clearance, thereby creating delays and increased costs to businesses. 
Designated port exception permits for Louisville are issued on an 
extremely limited basis since the Service does not currently have staff 
at that location, and issuing these permits can only be done subject to 
the availability of Service staff from other ports to conduct 
inspections.
    In Memphis, the presence of the Federal Express (FedEx) 
headquarters and Superhub makes Memphis International Airport the 
world's largest processor of international airfreight, handling 2.63 
million metric tons in 2001, more than Los Angeles or Hong Kong. 
FedEx's global network spans over 210 countries, and 121,000 
international shipments pass through the Memphis hub each day. More 
than 130 foreign-owned firms from 22 countries employing over 17,000 
workers have relocated to Memphis in the past 20 years. In addition, 
Memphis is home to both rail and waterborne freight imports and 
exports, with a CBP port of entry for such cargo. In 2001, the 
International Port of Memphis handled 16,907,000 tons of cargo. Memphis 
is served by five Class 1 railroads, which operate approximately 220 
freight trains daily through the city.
    At present, the designated ports of entry for wildlife and wildlife 
products nearest to Memphis are New Orleans, Louisiana (approximately 
402 miles), Dallas, Texas (approximately 452 miles),

[[Page 21808]]

and Atlanta, Georgia (approximately 463 miles). In the 2003 Fiscal 
Year, 659 wildlife shipments were processed in New Orleans, 4,434 
wildlife shipments were processed in Dallas, and 2,020 wildlife 
shipments were processed in Atlanta. In addition, 11,800 wildlife 
shipments were processed in Anchorage, which is the Pacific rim first 
port of landing for FedEx. We estimate that a significant percentage of 
this volume will be shipped directly to Memphis for Service inspection 
and clearance upon its designation, resulting in considerable savings 
in shipping time and costs. Currently, importations or exportations of 
wildlife or wildlife products arriving in Memphis without Service 
clearance must be shipped in-bond, under CBP authority, to designated 
ports of entry for Service inspection and clearance, thereby creating 
delays and increased costs to businesses. Designated port exception 
permits for Memphis are issued on an extremely limited basis since the 
Service has only one special agent at that location whose 
responsibilities extend far beyond the port. While there are 18 CBP 
inspectors and 10 U.S. Department of Agriculture Inspectors in Memphis, 
the absence of Service inspectors increases the likelihood that illegal 
wildlife shipments are imported or exported through Memphis impacting 
both the United States' ability to fulfill treaty obligations under the 
Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) and 
creating an avenue for the introduction of injurious or invasive 
species into the nation. Prior to September 11, 2001, CBP inspectors in 
Memphis initiated about 156 wildlife-related seizures per year, mostly 
consisting of reptile leather goods. The single Service agent stationed 
in Memphis is responsible for criminal investigations in all of West 
Tennessee and therefore has very little time to devote to import/export 
matters. However, by spending minimal time at the FedEx air facility, 
he routinely makes about 40 seizures of illegally imported wildlife or 
wildlife products annually. Designated port status for Memphis will 
expedite the processing of wildlife shipments, which is financially 
advantageous for Memphis' and the region's carriers, importers, and 
exporters, while interdicting the illegal international import and 
export trade in wildlife and wildlife products.
    In summary, the Service proposes that the ports of Houston, 
Louisville, and Memphis receive designated port status. The 
justification for this proposal is based primarily on past and 
projected increases in the import and export of wildlife or wildlife 
products through these ports. If this proposed rule is finalized, the 
result will be to ease the financial and administrative burden on 
companies and individuals seeking to import or export wildlife or 
wildlife products through the ports of Houston, Louisville and Memphis. 
If this proposed rule is finalized, the list of designated ports will 
be alphabetized by city name.

Notice of Public Hearings

    Section 9(f) of the ESA, 16 U.S.C. 1538(f)(1), requires that the 
public be given an opportunity to comment at a public hearing before 
the Secretary of the Interior confers designated port status on any 
port. Under the ESA, the Service has scheduled the following public 
hearings:
    Houston, Texas: A public hearing will be held on June 10, 2004, at 
6 p.m. The hearing will be held at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 
conference room located at 16639 W. Hardy, Houston, Texas, 77060, 
telephone number (281) 876-1520. All interested persons wishing to 
present oral or written comments at this hearing should request 
approval in writing by May 24, 2004. The address for requesting 
approval is: Resident Agent in Charge, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 
16639 W. Hardy, Houston, Texas, 77060. If they desire, persons 
requesting approval may submit a written copy of their proposed oral 
comments.
    Louisville, Kentucky: A public hearing will be held on July 8, 
2004, at 3 p.m. The hearing will be held at: Louisville Bar Center, 
Seminar Room, 600 West Main Street, Louisville, Kentucky. Persons may 
enter this facility from both the Main Street and the 6th Street 
entrance. The Louisville Bar Association does not allow media coverage 
in their facility. All interested persons wishing to present oral or 
written comments at this hearing should request approval in writing by 
June 17, 2004. The address for requesting approval is: Resident Agent 
in Charge, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 220 Great Circle Road, Suite 
150, Nashville, Tennessee, 37228. If they desire, persons requesting 
approval may submit a written copy of their proposed oral comments.
    Memphis, Tennessee:A public hearing will be held on July 1, 2004, 
at 6 p.m. The hearing will be held at: Memphis Regional Chamber, 22 
North Front Street, Suite 200, Conference Room, Memphis, Tennessee. All 
interested persons wishing to present oral or written comments at this 
hearing should request approval in writing by June 10, 2004. The 
address for requesting approval is: Resident Agent in Charge, U.S. Fish 
and Wildlife Service, 220 Great Circle Road, Suite 150, Nashville, 
Tennessee, 37228. If they desire, persons requesting approval may 
submit a written copy of their proposed oral comments.

Public Comments Requested

    We intend that any final action resulting from this proposed rule 
be as accurate and effective as possible. Therefore, we request 
comments or suggestions from the public, other concerned government 
agencies, the scientific community, industry, or any other interested 
party concerning this proposed rule.
    Our practice is to make all comments, including names and home 
addresses of respondents, available for public review during regular 
business hours. Individual respondents may request that we withhold 
their home address from the rulemaking record, which we will honor to 
the extent allowable by law. In some circumstances, we would withhold 
from the rulemaking record a respondent's identity, as allowable by 
law. If you wish for us to withhold your name and/or address, you must 
state this prominently at the beginning of your comments. However, we 
will not consider anonymous comments. We will make all submissions from 
organizations or businesses, and from individuals identifying 
themselves as representatives or officials of organizations or 
businesses, available for public inspection in their entirety.

Clarity of the Rule

    Executive Order 12866 requires each agency to write regulations and 
notices that are easy to understand. We invite your comments on how to 
make proposed rules easier to understand, including answers to 
questions such as the following: (1) Are the requirements in the 
proposed rule clearly stated? (2) Does the proposed rule contain 
technical language or jargon that interferes with the clarity? (3) Does 
the format of the proposed rule (grouping and order of sections, use of 
headings, paragraphing, etc.) aid or reduce its clarity? (4) Is the 
description of the proposed rule in the ``Supplementary Information'' 
section of the preamble helpful in understanding the proposed rule? (5) 
What else could we do to make the proposed rule easier to understand? 
Send a copy of any comments that concern how we could make this 
proposed rule easier to understand to: Office of Regulatory Affairs, 
Department of the Interior, Room 7229, 1849 C Street, NW., Washington, 
DC 20240. You may e-mail your comments to this address: 
[email protected].

[[Page 21809]]

Required Determinations

Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review)

    This proposed rule has not been reviewed by the Office of 
Management and Budget (OMB) under Executive Order 12866. Under the 
criteria in Executive Order 12866, this proposed rule is not a 
significant regulatory action.
    a. This proposed rule will not have an annual economic effect of 
$100 million or adversely affect an economic sector, productivity, 
jobs, the environment, or other units of government. A cost-benefit and 
economic analysis is not required.
    The purpose of this proposed rule is to confer designated port 
status on Houston, Louisville, and Memphis. Changing the status of 
these ports will have very little or no adverse effect on the economic 
sector, productivity, jobs or the environment, or other units of 
government. This proposed rule is intended to decrease the 
administrative and financial burden on wildlife importers and exporters 
by allowing them to use the ports of Houston, Louisville, and Memphis 
for all varieties of wildlife shipments. This proposed rule provides a 
significant benefit to those businesses that import or export wildlife 
or wildlife products by allowing the inspection of shipments in 
Houston, Louisville, and Memphis, and will result in a savings for the 
importer or exporter in both time and the expense of shipping to a 
designated port for Service inspection and clearance.
    b. This proposed rule will not create inconsistencies with other 
agencies' actions.
    The Service is the lead agency regulating wildlife trade through 
the declaration process, the issuance of permits to conduct activities 
affecting wildlife and their habitats, and carrying out the United 
States' obligations under CITES. Therefore, this proposed rule has no 
effect on other agencies' responsibilities and will not create 
inconsistencies with other agencies' actions.
    c. This proposed rule will not materially affect entitlements, 
grants, user fees, loan programs, or the rights and obligations of 
their recipients.
    This proposed rule will not materially affect entitlements, grants, 
loan programs, or the rights and obligations of their recipients. This 
proposed rule will, however, affect user fees. User fees will be 
decreased or cancelled depending on whether the import or export of 
wildlife or wildlife products is for commercial purposes. For example, 
in establishing Houston as a designated port, which is currently 
staffed with three wildlife inspectors, commercial importers and 
exporters will save a minimum of $40 per shipment and noncommercial 
importers and exporters will save a minimum of $95 per shipment. In 
establishing Memphis and Louisville as designated ports, which are not 
currently staffed with wildlife inspectors, commercial importers and 
exporters will save all costs associated with inspections and 
clearance, such as travel, salary, and per diem, and noncommercial 
importers and exporters will save the $55 administrative fee plus all 
costs associated with inspections and clearance. In addition, 
establishing Houston, Louisville, and Memphis as designated ports will 
also save all importers and exporters the $25 designated port exception 
permit fee.
    d. This proposed rule will not raise novel legal or policy issues.
    This proposed rule will not raise novel legal or policy issues 
because it is based upon specific language in the ESA and the Code of 
Federal Regulations which has been applied numerous times to various 
ports around the country.

Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.)

    The Department of the Interior has determined that this proposed 
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.).
    Most of the businesses that engage in commerce by importing or 
exporting wildlife or wildlife products would be considered small 
businesses as defined under the Regulatory Flexibility Act. This 
proposed rule is intended to ease the financial and administrative 
burden on companies and individuals seeking to import or export 
wildlife or wildlife products through the ports of Houston, Louisville, 
and Memphis. This burden will be eased through the reduction or 
elimination of user fees, and the elimination of the need for 
designated port exception permits. In addition, the designation of 
these ports will provide small entities with opportunities for 
additional brokerage, freight forwarding, and related services to 
accommodate the increased volume of imports and exports of wildlife and 
wildlife products through these ports.

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (5 U.S.C. 804(2)

    This proposed rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804(2), the 
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act.
    a. This proposed rule does not have an annual effect on the economy 
of $100 million or more.
    This proposed rule will not increase costs for small entities. The 
ports of Houston, Louisville, and Memphis cannot currently clear 
imports when the shipper requests Service clearance at those ports but, 
these shipments must continue under CBP bond to a designated port. Upon 
the designation of Houston, Louisville and Memphis, the elimination of 
costs associated with shipping under CBP bond to a designated port 
should amount to a substantial savings for importers and exporters of 
wildlife or wildlife products. In addition, the designation of these 
ports will provide small entities with opportunities for additional 
brokerage, freight forwarding, and related services to accommodate the 
increased volume of imports and exports of wildlife and wildlife 
products through these ports.
    b. This proposed rule will not cause a major increase in costs or 
prices for consumers, individual industries, Federal, State, or local 
government agencies, or geographic regions.
    This proposed rule is intended to ease the financial and 
administrative burden on companies and individuals seeking to import or 
export wildlife or wildlife products through the ports of Houston, 
Louisville, and Memphis, thereby decreasing costs or prices for 
consumers or individual businesses.
    c. This proposed rule does not have significant negative effects on 
competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or the 
ability of U.S.-based companies to compete with foreign-based 
companies.
    This proposed rule is intended to ease the financial and 
administrative burden on companies and individuals seeking to import or 
export wildlife or wildlife products through the ports of Houston, 
Louisville, and Memphis, thereby promoting competition, employment, and 
investment, and increasing the ability of U.S.-based enterprises to 
compete with foreign-based enterprises.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.)

    Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.), 
this rule, as proposed, will not ``significantly or uniquely'' affect 
small governments.
    a. This proposed rule will not significantly or uniquely affect 
small governments. A Small Government Agency Plan is not required.
    We are the lead agency for carrying out regulations that govern and 
monitor the importation and exportation of wildlife and wildlife 
products.

[[Page 21810]]

Therefore this proposed rule has no effect on small government's 
responsibilities.
    b. This proposed rule will not produce a Federal requirement that 
may result in the combined expenditure by State, local, or tribal 
governments of $100 million or greater in any year, so it is not a 
``significant regulatory action'' under the Unfunded Mandates Reform 
Act.

Executive Order 12630 (Takings)

    Under Executive Order 12630, this proposed rule does not have 
significant takings implications. Under Executive Order 12630, this 
proposed rule does not affect any constitutionally protected property 
rights. This proposed rule will not result in the physical occupancy of 
property, the physical invasion of property, or the regulatory taking 
of any property. A takings implication assessment is not required. The 
purpose of this proposed rule is to confer designated port status on 
the ports of Houston, Louisville, and Memphis. The result will be 
easing the financial and administrative burden on the public by 
eliminating the need for non-designated port permits, and decreasing or 
eliminating the administrative fees associated with shipment 
inspections. Therefore, this proposed rule does not have significant 
takings implications.

Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)

    Under Executive Order 13132, this proposed rule does not have 
significant Federalism effects. A Federalism evaluation is not 
required. This proposed rule will not have a substantial direct effect 
on the States, on the relationship between the Federal government and 
the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among 
the various levels of government.

Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform)

    Under Executive Order 12988, the Office of the Solicitor has 
determined that this proposed rule does not overly burden the judicial 
system and meets the requirements of sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of the 
Order. Specifically, this proposed rule has been reviewed to eliminate 
errors and ensure clarity, has been written to minimize lawsuits, 
provides a clear legal standard for affected actions, and specifies in 
clear language the effect on existing Federal law or regulation.

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.)

    This proposed rule does not contain any information collection 
requirements that require approval by the Office of Management and 
Budget under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.

National Environmental Policy Act

    This proposed rule has been analyzed under the criteria of the 
National Environmental Policy Act and 318 DM 2.2 (g) and 6.3 (D). This 
proposed rule does not amount to a major Federal action significantly 
affecting the quality of the human environment. An environmental impact 
statement/evaluation is not required. This proposed rule is 
categorically excluded from further National Environmental Policy Act 
requirements, under part 516 of the Departmental Manual, Chapter 2, 
Appendix 1.10.

Executive Order 13175 (Tribal Consultation) and 512 DM 2 (Government-
to-Government Relationship With Tribes)

    Under the President's memorandum of April 29, 1994, ``Government-
to-Government Relations with Native American Tribal Governments'' (59 
FR 22951), Executive Order 13175, and 512 DM 2, we have evaluated 
possible effects on Federally recognized Indian tribes and have 
determined that there are no effects. Individual tribal members are 
subject to the same regulatory requirements as other individuals who 
engage in the import and export of wildlife or wildlife products.

Executive Order 13211 (Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use)

    On May 18, 2001, the President issued Executive Order 13211 on 
regulations that significantly affect energy supply, distribution, and 
use. Executive Order 13211 requires agencies to prepare Statements of 
Energy Effects when undertaking certain actions. The purpose of this 
proposed rule is to confer designated port status on the ports of 
Houston, Louisville, and Memphis. This proposed rule is not a 
significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866 and it is not 
expected to significantly affect energy supplies, distribution, and 
use. Therefore, this action is a not a significant energy action and no 
Statement of Energy Effects is required.

Endangered Species Act

    A determination has been made under Section 7 of the ESA that the 
proposed revision of Part 14 will not affect federally listed species.

Author

    The originator of this proposed rule is Mark Phillips, Office of 
Law Enforcement, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C.

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 14

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

Proposed Regulation Promulgation

    For the reasons described above, we propose to amend part 14, 
subchapter B of Chapter 1, title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations 
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. 668, 704, 712, 1382, 1538(d)-(f), 1540(f), 
3371-3378, 4223-4244, and 4901-4916; 18 U.S.C. 42; 31 U.S.C. 9701.

    2. Revise Sec.  14.12 to read as follows:


Sec.  14.12  Designated ports.

    The following ports of entry are designated for the importation and 
exportation of wildlife and wildlife products and are referred to 
hereafter as ``designated ports:''
    (a) Anchorage, Alaska.
    (b) Atlanta, Georgia.
    (c) Baltimore, Maryland.
    (d) Boston, Massachusetts.
    (e) Chicago, Illinois.
    (f) Dallas/Fort Worth, Texas.
    (g) Honolulu, Hawaii.
    (h) Houston, Texas.
    (i) Los Angeles, California.
    (j) Louisville, Kentucky.
    (k) Memphis, Tennessee.
    (l) Miami, Florida.
    (m) New Orleans, Louisiana.
    (n) New York , New York.
    (o) Portland, Oregon.
    (p) San Francisco, California.
    (q) Seattle, Washington.

    Dated: April 12, 2004.
Craig Manson,
Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.
[FR Doc. 04-9181 Filed 4-21-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P