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