[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
