Conferring Designated Port Status on Boston, MA

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