Establishment of Port of Entry at New River Valley, VA, and Termination of the User-Fee Status of New River Valley Airport, 20005-20006 [06-3694]

Download as PDF Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 75 / Wednesday, April 19, 2006 / Rules and Regulations Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on April 12, 2006. Francis A. Favara, Manager, Engine and Propeller Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. 06–3724 Filed 4–18–06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910–13–P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Bureau of Customs and Border Protection 19 CFR Parts 101 and 122 USCBP–2005–0030 and [CBP Dec. 06– 10] Establishment of Port of Entry at New River Valley, VA, and Termination of the User-Fee Status of New River Valley Airport AGENCY: Customs and Border Protection, DHS. ACTION: Final rule. rmajette on PROD1PC67 with RULES1 SUMMARY: This document amends Department of Homeland Security regulations pertaining to the field organization of the Bureau of Customs and Border Protection by conditionally establishing a new port of entry at New River Valley, Virginia, and terminating the user-fee status of New River Valley Airport. The new port of entry consists of all the area surrounded by the continuous outer boundaries of the Montgomery, Pulaski and Roanoke counties in the Commonwealth of Virginia, including New River Valley Airport, which currently is operated as a user-fee airport. These changes will assist the Bureau of Customs and Border Protection in its continuing efforts to provide better service to carriers, importers and the general public. EFFECTIVE DATE: May 19, 2006. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dennis Dore, Office of Field Operations, 202–344–2776. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background In a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking published in the Federal Register (70 FR 38637) on July 5, 2005, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), Bureau of Customs and Border Protection (CBP), proposed to amend 19 CFR 101.3(b)(1) by conditionally establishing a new port of entry at New River Valley, VA. The new port of entry, as proposed, would include the area surrounded by the continuous outer boundaries of the Montgomery, Pulaski and Roanoke counties in the VerDate Aug<31>2005 15:12 Apr 18, 2006 Jkt 208001 Commonwealth of Virginia. This area includes New River Valley Airport, located in the town of Dublin, Virginia, which currently operates and is listed as a user-fee airport at 19 CFR 122.15(b). The change of status for New River Valley Airport, from a user-fee airport to inclusion within the boundaries of a port of entry, would subject the airport to the passenger processing fee provided for at 19 U.S.C. 58c(a)(5)(B). CBP proposed to establish the new port of entry based on its review of the level and pace of development in the New River Valley area. CBP evaluated whether there is a sufficient volume of import business (actual or potential) to justify the expense of maintaining a new office or expanding service in the New River Valley area based on the criteria for port of entry designations set forth in Treasury Decision (T.D.) 82–37 (Revision of Customs Criteria for Establishing Ports of Entry and Stations, 47 FR 10137), as revised by T.D. 86–14 (51 FR4559) and T.D. 87–65 (52 FR 16328). New River Valley was proposed to be a conditional port of entry based on the potential of the area. The actual and potential workload statistics of the area were set forth in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. See 70 FR at 38637–38. Analysis of Comments and Conclusion Several comments were received in response to the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. All of the comments were favorable to the proposal. Each comment was favorable in the entirety; no alternate courses of action, limitations or possible problems were presented by the commenters. Because CBP continues to believe that the potential volume of import business in New River Valley supports a new port of entry there, and that the establishment of the new port of entry will assist CBP in its continuing efforts to provide better service to carriers, importers and the general public, CBP is conditionally establishing the new port of entry as proposed. In three years, CBP will review the actual workload generated within the new port of entry. If that review indicates that the actual workload is below the criteria set forth under T.D. 82–37 standards (as amended), CBP may institute procedures to revoke the port of entry status. In such case, New River Valley airport may reapply to become a userfee airport under the provisions of 19 U.S.C. 58b. Description of the New Port of Entry Limits The geographical limits of the new New River Valley port of entry are as PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 20005 follows: The continuous outer boundaries of the Montgomery, Pulaski and Roanoke counties in the Commonwealth of Virginia. Authority This change is made under the authority of 5 U.S.C. 301 and 19 U.S.C. 2, 66, and 1624, and the Homeland Security Act of 2002, Public Law 107– 296 (November 25, 2002). The Regulatory Flexibility Act and Executive Order 12866 With DHS approval, CBP establishes, expands and consolidates CBP ports of entry throughout the United States to accommodate the volume of CBP-related activity in various parts of the country. The Office of Management and Budget has determined that this final rule is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866. This action also will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Accordingly, it is certified that this document is not subject to the additional requirements of the provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Signing Authority The signing authority for this document falls under 19 CFR 0.2(a) because the establishment of a new port of entry and the termination of the userfee status of an airport are not within the bounds of those regulations for which the Secretary of the Treasury has retained sole authority. Accordingly, this final rule may be signed by the Secretary of Homeland Security or his delegate. List of Subjects 19 CFR Part 101 Customs duties and inspection, Customs ports of entry, Exports, Imports, Organization and functions (Government agencies). 19 CFR Part 122 Customs duties and inspection, Airports, Imports, Organization and functions (Government agencies). Amendments to CBP Regulations For the reasons set forth above, part 101, CBP Regulations (19 CFR part 101), and part 122, CBP Regulations (19 CFR part 122), are amended as set forth below. I PART 101—GENERAL PROVISIONS 1. The general authority citation for part 101 and the specific authority citation for section 101.3 continue to read as follows: I E:\FR\FM\19APR1.SGM 19APR1 20006 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 75 / Wednesday, April 19, 2006 / Rules and Regulations Authority: 5 U.S.C. 301; 19 U.S.C. 2, 66, 1202 (General Note 3(i), Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States), 1623, 1624, 1646a. Sections 101.3 and 101.4 also issued under 19 U.S.C. 1 and 58b; * * * * * § 101.3 [Amended] 2. The list of ports in § 101.3(b)(1) is amended by adding, in alphabetical order under the state of Virginia, ‘‘New River Valley’’ in the ‘‘Ports of entry’’ column and ‘‘CBP Dec. 06–10’’ in the ‘‘Limits of Port’’ column. I PART 122—AIR COMMERCE REGULATIONS 1. The general authority for part 122 continues to read as follows: I Authority: 5 U.S.C. 301; 19 U.S.C. 58b, 66, 1431, 1433, 1436, 1448, 1459, 1590, 1594, 1623, 1624, 1644, 1644a, 2071 note. * * § 122.15 * * * [Amended] 2. The list of user fee airports at 19 CFR 122.15(b) is amended by removing ‘‘Dublin, Virginia’’ from the ‘‘Location’’ column and, on the same line, ‘‘New River Valley Airport’’ from the ‘‘Name’’ column. I Dated: April 11, 2006. Michael Chertoff, Secretary. [FR Doc. 06–3694 Filed 4–18–06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9111–14–P DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR National Indian Gaming Commission 25 CFR Part 517 RIN 3141–AA21 Freedom of Information Act Procedures National Indian Gaming Commissionl, Interior. ACTION: Final rule. rmajette on PROD1PC67 with RULES1 AGENCY: SUMMARY: The purpose of this document is to amend the procedures followed by the National Indian Gaming Commission (Commission) when processing a request under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), as amended so that the Commission will be in compliance with the provisions of the amendment to FOIA. DATES: Effective Date: These regulations take effect May 19, 2006. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeannie McCoy, FOIA Officer, 1441 L VerDate Aug<31>2005 15:12 Apr 18, 2006 Jkt 208001 Street, NW., Suite 9100, Washington, DC 20005 at (202) 632–7003 or by fax (202) 632–7066 (these numbers are not toll free). SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA), enacted on October 17, 1988, established the National Indian Gaming Commission (Commission). Congress enacted the FOIA in 1966 and last modified it with the Electronic Freedom of Information Act Amendments of 1996. This amendment addresses FOIA reading rooms and those documents available electronically, agency backlogs of requests, change in fees, and preservation of records among other things. The changes will bring the Commission in compliance with the FOIA, as amended. Regulatory Flexibility Act: The Commission certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). The factual basis for this certification is as follows: This rule is procedural in nature and will not impose substantive requirements that could be deemed impacts within the scope of the Act. For this reason, the Commission has concluded that the rule will not have a significant impact on those small entities subject to the rule. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act: The Commission is an independent regulatory agency, and, as such, is not subject to the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act. Even so, the Commission has determined that this final rule does not impose an unfunded mandate on State, local, or tribal governments, or on the private sector, of more than $100 million per year. Thus, it is not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act, 2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq. Furthermore, this rule will not have a unique effect on tribal governments. Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act: The rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804(2), the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act. The rule will not result in an annual effect on the economy of more than $100 million per year; a major increase in costs or prices for consumers, individual industries, Federal, State, or local government agencies, or geographic regions; or significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or on the ability of U.S. based enterprises. Paperwork Reduction Act: The rule does not contain any information collection requirements for which OMB approval under the Paperwork PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501–3520) would be required. National Environmental Policy Act: The Commission has determined that this rule does not constitute a major Federal Action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment and that no detailed statement is required pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. Comments: In response to our Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, published October 18, 2005 (70 FR 60470), we received comments from three separate Tribes. The comments from these three Tribes were identical. Comment: The commenter casts doubt on the NIGCs status as an independent regulatory agency by arguing that, based on the NIGC’s recent partnership with the Department of Justice, the NIGC might not be an independent regulatory agency. This comment was made in response to the agency’s assertion that it is not subject to the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act. Response: To the extent you have called into question the independence of the agency, we disagree. Although established ‘‘within the Department of the Interior,’’ Congress deemed the Commission to be an ‘‘independent Federal regulatory authority,’’ 25 U.S.C. 2702(3), and the Courts agree: Sac and Fox Nation v. Norton, 240 F.3d 1250, 1265 n.12 (10th Cir. 2001) (‘‘Although the Commission is nominally part of the Department of the Interior, the Secretary conceded at oral argument that the Commission functions as an independent entity.’’). Several courts have held as much. See also United States ex rel. Hall v. Tribal Dev. Corp., 49 F.3d 1208 (7th Cir. 1995) (the NIGC is a ‘‘three-member independent agency within the Department of the Interior’’); United States ex rel. Mosay v. Buffalo Bros. Management, 20 F.3d 739 (7th Cir. 1994) (‘‘Congress enacted the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, which establishes a three-member independent agency within the Department of the Interior, the National Indian Gaming Commission, to supervise Indian gambling.’’); United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians v. Oklahoma, 927 F.2d 1170 (10th Cir. 1991) (‘‘Gaming over which the federal government holds jurisdiction is subject to the supervision of a[n] * * * independent regulatory authority, the National Indian Gaming Commission’’). Comment: The commenter was concerned that the definition of ‘‘Requester’’ included an, ‘‘Indian Tribe’’ thereby requiring Tribes to pay the same fees as other requestors. Additionally, they inquire if Tribes could be exempt from the FOIA entirely. E:\FR\FM\19APR1.SGM 19APR1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 75 (Wednesday, April 19, 2006)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 20005-20006]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 06-3694]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Bureau of Customs and Border Protection

19 CFR Parts 101 and 122

USCBP-2005-0030 and [CBP Dec. 06-10]


Establishment of Port of Entry at New River Valley, VA, and 
Termination of the User-Fee Status of New River Valley Airport

AGENCY: Customs and Border Protection, DHS.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This document amends Department of Homeland Security 
regulations pertaining to the field organization of the Bureau of 
Customs and Border Protection by conditionally establishing a new port 
of entry at New River Valley, Virginia, and terminating the user-fee 
status of New River Valley Airport. The new port of entry consists of 
all the area surrounded by the continuous outer boundaries of the 
Montgomery, Pulaski and Roanoke counties in the Commonwealth of 
Virginia, including New River Valley Airport, which currently is 
operated as a user-fee airport. These changes will assist the Bureau of 
Customs and Border Protection in its continuing efforts to provide 
better service to carriers, importers and the general public.

EFFECTIVE DATE: May 19, 2006.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dennis Dore, Office of Field 
Operations, 202-344-2776.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    In a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking published in the Federal 
Register (70 FR 38637) on July 5, 2005, the Department of Homeland 
Security (DHS), Bureau of Customs and Border Protection (CBP), proposed 
to amend 19 CFR 101.3(b)(1) by conditionally establishing a new port of 
entry at New River Valley, VA. The new port of entry, as proposed, 
would include the area surrounded by the continuous outer boundaries of 
the Montgomery, Pulaski and Roanoke counties in the Commonwealth of 
Virginia. This area includes New River Valley Airport, located in the 
town of Dublin, Virginia, which currently operates and is listed as a 
user-fee airport at 19 CFR 122.15(b). The change of status for New 
River Valley Airport, from a user-fee airport to inclusion within the 
boundaries of a port of entry, would subject the airport to the 
passenger processing fee provided for at 19 U.S.C. 58c(a)(5)(B).
    CBP proposed to establish the new port of entry based on its review 
of the level and pace of development in the New River Valley area. CBP 
evaluated whether there is a sufficient volume of import business 
(actual or potential) to justify the expense of maintaining a new 
office or expanding service in the New River Valley area based on the 
criteria for port of entry designations set forth in Treasury Decision 
(T.D.) 82-37 (Revision of Customs Criteria for Establishing Ports of 
Entry and Stations, 47 FR 10137), as revised by T.D. 86-14 (51 FR4559) 
and T.D. 87-65 (52 FR 16328). New River Valley was proposed to be a 
conditional port of entry based on the potential of the area. The 
actual and potential workload statistics of the area were set forth in 
the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. See 70 FR at 38637-38.

Analysis of Comments and Conclusion

    Several comments were received in response to the Notice of 
Proposed Rulemaking. All of the comments were favorable to the 
proposal. Each comment was favorable in the entirety; no alternate 
courses of action, limitations or possible problems were presented by 
the commenters. Because CBP continues to believe that the potential 
volume of import business in New River Valley supports a new port of 
entry there, and that the establishment of the new port of entry will 
assist CBP in its continuing efforts to provide better service to 
carriers, importers and the general public, CBP is conditionally 
establishing the new port of entry as proposed. In three years, CBP 
will review the actual workload generated within the new port of entry. 
If that review indicates that the actual workload is below the criteria 
set forth under T.D. 82-37 standards (as amended), CBP may institute 
procedures to revoke the port of entry status. In such case, New River 
Valley airport may reapply to become a user-fee airport under the 
provisions of 19 U.S.C. 58b.

Description of the New Port of Entry Limits

    The geographical limits of the new New River Valley port of entry 
are as follows: The continuous outer boundaries of the Montgomery, 
Pulaski and Roanoke counties in the Commonwealth of Virginia.

Authority

    This change is made under the authority of 5 U.S.C. 301 and 19 
U.S.C. 2, 66, and 1624, and the Homeland Security Act of 2002, Public 
Law 107-296 (November 25, 2002).

The Regulatory Flexibility Act and Executive Order 12866

    With DHS approval, CBP establishes, expands and consolidates CBP 
ports of entry throughout the United States to accommodate the volume 
of CBP-related activity in various parts of the country. The Office of 
Management and Budget has determined that this final rule is not a 
significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866. This action 
also will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial 
number of small entities. Accordingly, it is certified that this 
document is not subject to the additional requirements of the 
provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.).

Signing Authority

    The signing authority for this document falls under 19 CFR 0.2(a) 
because the establishment of a new port of entry and the termination of 
the user-fee status of an airport are not within the bounds of those 
regulations for which the Secretary of the Treasury has retained sole 
authority. Accordingly, this final rule may be signed by the Secretary 
of Homeland Security or his delegate.

List of Subjects

19 CFR Part 101

    Customs duties and inspection, Customs ports of entry, Exports, 
Imports, Organization and functions (Government agencies).

19 CFR Part 122

    Customs duties and inspection, Airports, Imports, Organization and 
functions (Government agencies).

Amendments to CBP Regulations

0
For the reasons set forth above, part 101, CBP Regulations (19 CFR part 
101), and part 122, CBP Regulations (19 CFR part 122), are amended as 
set forth below.

PART 101--GENERAL PROVISIONS

0
1. The general authority citation for part 101 and the specific 
authority citation for section 101.3 continue to read as follows:


[[Page 20006]]


    Authority: 5 U.S.C. 301; 19 U.S.C. 2, 66, 1202 (General Note 
3(i), Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States), 1623, 1624, 
1646a.

    Sections 101.3 and 101.4 also issued under 19 U.S.C. 1 and 58b;
* * * * *


Sec.  101.3  [Amended]

0
2. The list of ports in Sec.  101.3(b)(1) is amended by adding, in 
alphabetical order under the state of Virginia, ``New River Valley'' in 
the ``Ports of entry'' column and ``CBP Dec. 06-10'' in the ``Limits of 
Port'' column.

PART 122--AIR COMMERCE REGULATIONS

0
1. The general authority for part 122 continues to read as follows:


    Authority: 5 U.S.C. 301; 19 U.S.C. 58b, 66, 1431, 1433, 1436, 
1448, 1459, 1590, 1594, 1623, 1624, 1644, 1644a, 2071 note.
* * * * *


Sec.  122.15  [Amended]

0
2. The list of user fee airports at 19 CFR 122.15(b) is amended by 
removing ``Dublin, Virginia'' from the ``Location'' column and, on the 
same line, ``New River Valley Airport'' from the ``Name'' column.

    Dated: April 11, 2006.
Michael Chertoff,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 06-3694 Filed 4-18-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-14-P