[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