Modification of the Port Limits of Green Bay, WI, 69688-69690 [2011-29028]

Download as PDF 69688 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 217 / Wednesday, November 9, 2011 / Proposed Rules jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office/ certificate holding district office. (3) An AMOC that provides an acceptable level of safety may be used for any repair required by this AD if it is approved by the Boeing Commercial Airplanes Organization Designation Authorization (ODA) that has been authorized by the Manager, Seattle ACO to make those findings. For a repair method to be approved, the repair must meet the certification basis of the airplane and 14 CFR 25.571, Amendment 45, and the approval must specifically refer to this AD. outside the current port limits. The change is part of CBP’s continuing program to more efficiently utilize its personnel, facilities, and resources, and to provide better service to carriers, importers, and the general public. DATES: Comments must be received on or before January 9, 2012. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by docket number USCBP– 2011–0031, by one of the following methods: • Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// (k) Related Information www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments. (l) For more information about this AD, • Mail: Border Security Regulations contact Berhane Alazar, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM–120S, FAA, ACO, Branch, Regulations and Rulings, Office 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington of International Trade, Customs and 98057–3356; phone: (425) 917–6577; fax: Border Protection, 799 9th Street NW., (425) 917–6590; email: 5th Floor, Washington, DC 20229–1179. Berhane.Alazar@faa.gov. Instructions: All submissions received (2) For service information identified in must include the agency name and this AD, contact Boeing Commercial docket title for this rulemaking, and Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services must reference docket number USCBP– Management, P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H–65, 2011–0031. All comments received will Seattle, Washington 98124–2207; telephone be posted without change to http:// (206) 544–5000, extension 1; fax (206) 766– 5680; email me.boecom@boeing.com; Internet www.regulations.gov, including any https://www.myboeingfleet.com. You may personal information provided. For review copies of the referenced service detailed instructions on submitting information at the FAA, Transport Airplane comments and additional information Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, on the rulemaking process, see the Washington. For information on the ‘‘Public Participation’’ heading of the availability of this material at the FAA, call SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of (425) 227–1221. this document. Issued in Renton, Washington, on October Docket: For access to the docket to 21, 2011. read background documents or Kalene C. Yanamura, comments received, go to http:// Acting Manager, Transport Airplane www.regulations.gov. Submitted Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. comments may also be inspected during [FR Doc. 2011–28759 Filed 11–8–11; 8:45 am] regular business days between the hours BILLING CODE 4910–13–P of 9 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. at the Office of International Trade, Customs and Border Protection, 799 9th Street NW., DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 5th Floor, Washington, DC. SECURITY Arrangements to inspect submitted comments should be made in advance U.S. Customs and Border Protection by calling Mr. Joseph Clark at (202) 325– 0118. 19 CFR Part 101 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: [Docket No. USCBP–2011–0031] Robert Neustadt, Office of Field Operations, (312) 983–1201 (not a tollModification of the Port Limits of free number) or by email at Green Bay, WI Robert.Neustadt@dhs.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: AGENCY: U.S. Customs and Border Protection; Department of Homeland I. Public Participation Security. Interested persons are invited to ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. participate in this rulemaking by SUMMARY: U.S. Customs and Border submitting written data, views, or Protection (CBP) is proposing to extend arguments on all aspects of the the geographic limits of the port of proposed rule. U.S. Customs and Border Green Bay, Wisconsin, to update and Protection (CBP) also invites comments change the description of the port that relate to the economic, boundaries to refer to identifiable environmental, or federalism effects that roadways and waterways rather than might result from this proposed rule. townships and to include the entire Comments that will provide the most Austin Straubel Airport. Due to an error, assistance to CBP will reference a a portion of the airport is located specific portion of the proposed rule, VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:31 Nov 08, 2011 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 explain the reason for any recommended change, and include data, information, or authority that support such recommended change. II. Background and Purpose CBP ports of entry are locations where CBP officers and employees are assigned to accept entries of merchandise, clear passengers, collect duties, and enforce the various provisions of customs, immigration, agriculture and related U.S. laws at the border. The term ‘‘port of entry’’ is used in the code of Federal Regulations (CFR) in title 8 for immigration purposes and in title 19 for customs purposes. For customs purposes, CBP regulations list designated CBP ports of entry and the limits of each port in section 101.3(b)(1) of title 19 (19 CFR 101.3(b)(1)). For immigration purposes, CBP regulations list ports of entry for aliens arriving by vessel and land transportation in section 100.4(a) of title 8 (8 CFR 100.4(a)). These ports are listed according to location by districts and are designated as Class A, B, or C. Green Bay, Wisconsin, is included in this list in District No. 9, as a Class A port of entry, meaning a port that is designated as a port of entry for all aliens arriving by vessel and land transportation. As part of its continuing efforts to provide better service to carriers, importers, and the general public, CBP, of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), is proposing to extend the port boundaries for the port of entry at Green Bay, Wisconsin. The port of entry originally consisted of only the corporate limits of Green Bay, Wisconsin. Treasury Decision (T.D) 54597, May 27, 1958, expanded the port limits to also include several townships and the city of De Pere, all in the State of Wisconsin. Specifically, the current port limits of the Green Bay port of entry include the corporate limits of Green Bay, Wisconsin, and the territory within the townships of Ashwaubenon, Allouez, Preble and Howard and the city of De Pere, all in the State of Wisconsin. CBP is proposing to change the port limits because the boundaries of the listed townships are not easy to locate, one of the townships identified in T.D. 54597 (Preble) no longer exists, and due to an error, a portion of the Austin Straubel Airport is located outside the current port limits. In order to eliminate the discrepancy of the nonexistent township, to make the boundaries more easily identifiable to the public, and to correct the omission of a portion of the airport, CBP is proposing to amend 19 CFR 101.3(b)(1) to expand and revise the port boundaries. The proposed boundaries E:\FR\FM\09NOP1.SGM 09NOP1 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 217 / Wednesday, November 9, 2011 / Proposed Rules would include all the territory located within the current port limits as well as the entire Austin Straubel Airport. In addition, for ease of identification, the proposed boundaries would be identified by reference to specific roadways and waterways rather than by townships. CBP has determined that this proposed change would not result in a change in the service that is provided to the public by the port, nor require a change in the staffing or workload at the port. jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS III. Current Port Limits of Green Bay, Wisconsin The current port limits of the Green Bay port of entry are described by the corporate limits of Green Bay, Wisconsin, and the territory within the townships of Ashwaubenon, Allouez, Preble and Howard and the city of De Pere, all in the State of Wisconsin. We have included a map of the current port limits in the docket as ‘‘Attachment A: Green Bay (Current).’’ IV. Proposed Port Limits of Green Bay, Wisconsin The new port limits of Green Bay, Wisconsin, are proposed as follows: Beginning at the point in the Sensiba State Wildlife Area where Lineville Rd. meets the shore of Lake Michigan, proceeding west on Lineville Rd. to the intersection with Westline Rd.; then south on Westline Rd. to the intersection with Glendale Ave.; then west on Glendale Ave. to the intersection with County Line Rd. (Country Route U); then south on County Line Rd. to the intersection with Wisconsin State Route 29/32; then southeast on Route 29/32 to the intersection with Riverdale Dr. (County Route J); then southwest on Riverdale Dr. to the intersection with Hillcrest Dr.; then south on Hillcrest Dr. to the intersection with W Mason St. (State Route 54); then southwest on W Mason St. to the intersection with S Pine Tree Rd.; then south on S Pine Tree Rd. to the intersection with Orlando Dr.; then east on Orlando Dr. (which turns into Grant St.) to the intersection with 3rd St.; then north on 3rd St. to Main St. (State Route 32); then east on Main St. across the Fox River onto George St.; then east on George St. to the intersection with S Webster Ave.; then southwest on S Webster Ave. to Chicago St. (County Route G); then southeast on Chicago St. to the intersection with Monroe Rd. (County Route GV); then northeast on Monroe Rd. to the intersection with State Route 172; then east on State Route 172 to the intersection with Interstate 43; then northeast on I–43 to the intersection VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:31 Nov 08, 2011 Jkt 226001 with Manitowoc Rd.; then southeast on Manitowoc Rd. to the intersection with Eaton Rd. (County Route JJ), then east on Eaton Rd. to the intersection with S Vandenberg Rd. (County Route OO/QQ); then north on S Vandenberg Rd. to the intersection with Humboldt Rd., then northwest on Humboldt Rd. to the intersection with N Northview Rd.; then north on N Northview Rd. to the intersection with Luxemburg Rd.; then west on Luxemburg Rd. to the intersection with Spartan Rd.; then north on Spartan Rd. to the intersection with State Route 54/57; then northeast and north on Route 57 to the intersection with Van Lanen Rd.; then west on Van Lanen to the point where Van Lanen Rd. meets the shore of Lake Michigan. We have included a map of these proposed port limits in the docket as ‘‘Attachment B: Green Bay (Proposed).’’ V. Regulatory Requirements A. Signing Authority The signing authority for this document falls under 19 CFR 0.2(a). Accordingly, the notice of proposed rulemaking may be signed by the Secretary of Homeland Security (or her delegate). B. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review This proposed rule is not considered to be a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, as supplemented by Executive Order 13563. Accordingly, this proposed rule has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under Executive Order 12866. The proposed change is intended to expand the geographical boundaries of the Port of Green Bay, Wisconsin, and make it more easily identifiable to the public. There are no new costs to the public associated with this rule. C. Regulatory Flexibility Act The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) requires Federal agencies to examine the impact a rule would have on small entities. A small entity may be a small business (defined as any independently owned and operated business not dominant in its field that qualifies as a small business per the Small Business Act), a small notfor-profit organization, or a small governmental jurisdiction (locality with fewer than 50,000 people). This proposed rule does not directly regulate small entities. The proposed change is part of CBP’s continuing program to more efficiently utilize its personnel, facilities, and resources, and PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 69689 to provide better service to carriers, importers, and the general public. To the extent that all entities are able to more efficiently or conveniently access the facilities and resources within the proposed expanded geographical area of the new port limits, this proposed rule, if finalized, should confer benefits to CBP, carriers, importers, and the general public. Because this rule does not directly regulate small entities, we do not believe that this rule has a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. However, we welcome comments on that assumption. The most helpful comments are those that can give us specific information or examples of a direct impact on small entities. If we do not receive comments that demonstrate that the rule causes small entities to incur direct costs, we may certify that this action does not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities during the final rule. D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 This rule will not result in the expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more in any one year, and it will not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. Therefore, no actions are necessary under the provisions of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995. E. Executive Order 13132 The rule will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the National Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, in accordance with section 6 of Executive Order 13132, this rule does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a federalism summary impact statement. F. Authority This change is proposed under the authority of 5 U.S.C. 301, 6 U.S.C. 112, 203 and 211, 8 U.S.C. 1103 and 19 U.S.C. 2, 66 and 1624. VI. Proposed Amendment to Regulations If the proposed port limits for Green Bay, Wisconsin, are adopted, CBP will amend 19 CFR 101.3(b)(1) as necessary to reflect the new port limits. E:\FR\FM\09NOP1.SGM 09NOP1 69690 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 217 / Wednesday, November 9, 2011 / Proposed Rules Dated: November 4, 2011. Janet Napolitano, Secretary of Homeland Security. [FR Doc. 2011–29028 Filed 11–8–11; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9111–14–P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 180 [EPA–HQ–OPP–2011–0082; FRL–9325–1] Receipt of Several Pesticide Petitions Filed for Residues of Pesticide Chemicals in or on Various Commodities Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Notice of filing of petitions and request for comment. AGENCY: This document announces the Agency’s receipt of several initial filings of pesticide petitions requesting the establishment or modification of regulations for residues of pesticide chemicals in or on various commodities. DATES: Comments must be received on or before December 9, 2011. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by docket identification (ID) number and the pesticide petition number (PP) of interest as shown in the body of this document, by one of the following methods: • Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments. • Mail: Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) Regulatory Public Docket (7502P), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460–0001. • Delivery: OPP Regulatory Public Docket (7502P), Environmental Protection Agency, Rm. S–4400, One Potomac Yard (South Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. Deliveries are only accepted during the Docket Facility’s normal hours of operation (8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays). Special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information. The Docket Facility telephone number is (703) 305–5805. Instructions: Direct your comments to the docket ID number and the pesticide petition number of interest as shown in the body of this document. EPA’s policy is that all comments received will be included in the docket without change and may be made available on-line at http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS SUMMARY: VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:31 Nov 08, 2011 Jkt 226001 information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through regulations.gov or email. The regulations.gov Web site is an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an email comment directly to EPA without going through regulations.gov, your email address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD–ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the docket index available at http://www.regulations.gov. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available either in the electronic docket at http:// www.regulations.gov, or, if only available in hard copy, at the OPP Regulatory Public Docket in Rm. S– 4400, One Potomac Yard (South Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. The hours of operation of this Docket Facility are from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The Docket Facility telephone number is (703) 305–5805. A contact person, with telephone number and email address, is listed at the end of each pesticide petition summary. You may also reach each contact person by mail at Registration Division (7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460–0001. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 I. General Information A. Does this action apply to me? You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer. Potentially affected entities may include, but are not limited to: • Crop production (NAICS code 111). • Animal production (NAICS code 112). • Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311). • Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532). This listing is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this action. Other types of entities not listed in this unit could also be affected. The North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes have been provided to assist you and others in determining whether this action might apply to certain entities. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed at the end of the pesticide petition summary of interest. B. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for EPA? 1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA through regulations.gov or email. Clearly mark the part or all of the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or CD–ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD–ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD–ROM the specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket. Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. 2. Tips for preparing your comments. When submitting comments, remember to: i. Identify the document by docket ID number and other identifying information (subject heading, Federal Register date and page number). ii. Follow directions. The Agency may ask you to respond to specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part or section number. iii. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and substitute language for your requested changes. E:\FR\FM\09NOP1.SGM 09NOP1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 217 (Wednesday, November 9, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 69688-69690]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-29028]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

U.S. Customs and Border Protection

19 CFR Part 101

[Docket No. USCBP-2011-0031]


Modification of the Port Limits of Green Bay, WI

AGENCY: U.S. Customs and Border Protection; Department of Homeland 
Security.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) is proposing to 
extend the geographic limits of the port of Green Bay, Wisconsin, to 
update and change the description of the port boundaries to refer to 
identifiable roadways and waterways rather than townships and to 
include the entire Austin Straubel Airport. Due to an error, a portion 
of the airport is located outside the current port limits. The change 
is part of CBP's continuing program to more efficiently utilize its 
personnel, facilities, and resources, and to provide better service to 
carriers, importers, and the general public.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before January 9, 2012.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by docket number USCBP-
2011-0031, by one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. 
Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Mail: Border Security Regulations Branch, Regulations and 
Rulings, Office of International Trade, Customs and Border Protection, 
799 9th Street NW., 5th Floor, Washington, DC 20229-1179.
    Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name 
and docket title for this rulemaking, and must reference docket number 
USCBP-2011-0031. All comments received will be posted without change to 
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information 
provided. For detailed instructions on submitting comments and 
additional information on the rulemaking process, see the ``Public 
Participation'' heading of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of 
this document.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or 
comments received, go to http://www.regulations.gov. Submitted comments 
may also be inspected during regular business days between the hours of 
9 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. at the Office of International Trade, Customs and 
Border Protection, 799 9th Street NW., 5th Floor, Washington, DC. 
Arrangements to inspect submitted comments should be made in advance by 
calling Mr. Joseph Clark at (202) 325-0118.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert Neustadt, Office of Field 
Operations, (312) 983-1201 (not a toll-free number) or by email at 
Robert.Neustadt@dhs.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Public Participation

    Interested persons are invited to participate in this rulemaking by 
submitting written data, views, or arguments on all aspects of the 
proposed rule. U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) also invites 
comments that relate to the economic, environmental, or federalism 
effects that might result from this proposed rule. Comments that will 
provide the most assistance to CBP will reference a specific portion of 
the proposed rule, explain the reason for any recommended change, and 
include data, information, or authority that support such recommended 
change.

II. Background and Purpose

    CBP ports of entry are locations where CBP officers and employees 
are assigned to accept entries of merchandise, clear passengers, 
collect duties, and enforce the various provisions of customs, 
immigration, agriculture and related U.S. laws at the border. The term 
``port of entry'' is used in the code of Federal Regulations (CFR) in 
title 8 for immigration purposes and in title 19 for customs purposes. 
For customs purposes, CBP regulations list designated CBP ports of 
entry and the limits of each port in section 101.3(b)(1) of title 19 
(19 CFR 101.3(b)(1)).
    For immigration purposes, CBP regulations list ports of entry for 
aliens arriving by vessel and land transportation in section 100.4(a) 
of title 8 (8 CFR 100.4(a)). These ports are listed according to 
location by districts and are designated as Class A, B, or C. Green 
Bay, Wisconsin, is included in this list in District No. 9, as a Class 
A port of entry, meaning a port that is designated as a port of entry 
for all aliens arriving by vessel and land transportation.
    As part of its continuing efforts to provide better service to 
carriers, importers, and the general public, CBP, of the Department of 
Homeland Security (DHS), is proposing to extend the port boundaries for 
the port of entry at Green Bay, Wisconsin.
    The port of entry originally consisted of only the corporate limits 
of Green Bay, Wisconsin. Treasury Decision (T.D) 54597, May 27, 1958, 
expanded the port limits to also include several townships and the city 
of De Pere, all in the State of Wisconsin. Specifically, the current 
port limits of the Green Bay port of entry include the corporate limits 
of Green Bay, Wisconsin, and the territory within the townships of 
Ashwaubenon, Allouez, Preble and Howard and the city of De Pere, all in 
the State of Wisconsin. CBP is proposing to change the port limits 
because the boundaries of the listed townships are not easy to locate, 
one of the townships identified in T.D. 54597 (Preble) no longer 
exists, and due to an error, a portion of the Austin Straubel Airport 
is located outside the current port limits.
    In order to eliminate the discrepancy of the nonexistent township, 
to make the boundaries more easily identifiable to the public, and to 
correct the omission of a portion of the airport, CBP is proposing to 
amend 19 CFR 101.3(b)(1) to expand and revise the port boundaries. The 
proposed boundaries

[[Page 69689]]

would include all the territory located within the current port limits 
as well as the entire Austin Straubel Airport. In addition, for ease of 
identification, the proposed boundaries would be identified by 
reference to specific roadways and waterways rather than by townships. 
CBP has determined that this proposed change would not result in a 
change in the service that is provided to the public by the port, nor 
require a change in the staffing or workload at the port.

III. Current Port Limits of Green Bay, Wisconsin

    The current port limits of the Green Bay port of entry are 
described by the corporate limits of Green Bay, Wisconsin, and the 
territory within the townships of Ashwaubenon, Allouez, Preble and 
Howard and the city of De Pere, all in the State of Wisconsin. We have 
included a map of the current port limits in the docket as ``Attachment 
A: Green Bay (Current).''

IV. Proposed Port Limits of Green Bay, Wisconsin

    The new port limits of Green Bay, Wisconsin, are proposed as 
follows:
    Beginning at the point in the Sensiba State Wildlife Area where 
Lineville Rd. meets the shore of Lake Michigan, proceeding west on 
Lineville Rd. to the intersection with Westline Rd.; then south on 
Westline Rd. to the intersection with Glendale Ave.; then west on 
Glendale Ave. to the intersection with County Line Rd. (Country Route 
U); then south on County Line Rd. to the intersection with Wisconsin 
State Route 29/32; then southeast on Route 29/32 to the intersection 
with Riverdale Dr. (County Route J); then southwest on Riverdale Dr. to 
the intersection with Hillcrest Dr.; then south on Hillcrest Dr. to the 
intersection with W Mason St. (State Route 54); then southwest on W 
Mason St. to the intersection with S Pine Tree Rd.; then south on S 
Pine Tree Rd. to the intersection with Orlando Dr.; then east on 
Orlando Dr. (which turns into Grant St.) to the intersection with 3rd 
St.; then north on 3rd St. to Main St. (State Route 32); then east on 
Main St. across the Fox River onto George St.; then east on George St. 
to the intersection with S Webster Ave.; then southwest on S Webster 
Ave. to Chicago St. (County Route G); then southeast on Chicago St. to 
the intersection with Monroe Rd. (County Route GV); then northeast on 
Monroe Rd. to the intersection with State Route 172; then east on State 
Route 172 to the intersection with Interstate 43; then northeast on I-
43 to the intersection with Manitowoc Rd.; then southeast on Manitowoc 
Rd. to the intersection with Eaton Rd. (County Route JJ), then east on 
Eaton Rd. to the intersection with S Vandenberg Rd. (County Route OO/
QQ); then north on S Vandenberg Rd. to the intersection with Humboldt 
Rd., then northwest on Humboldt Rd. to the intersection with N 
Northview Rd.; then north on N Northview Rd. to the intersection with 
Luxemburg Rd.; then west on Luxemburg Rd. to the intersection with 
Spartan Rd.; then north on Spartan Rd. to the intersection with State 
Route 54/57; then northeast and north on Route 57 to the intersection 
with Van Lanen Rd.; then west on Van Lanen to the point where Van Lanen 
Rd. meets the shore of Lake Michigan. We have included a map of these 
proposed port limits in the docket as ``Attachment B: Green Bay 
(Proposed).''

V. Regulatory Requirements

A. Signing Authority

    The signing authority for this document falls under 19 CFR 0.2(a). 
Accordingly, the notice of proposed rulemaking may be signed by the 
Secretary of Homeland Security (or her delegate).

B. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review

    This proposed rule is not considered to be a ``significant 
regulatory action'' under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, as 
supplemented by Executive Order 13563. Accordingly, this proposed rule 
has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) 
under Executive Order 12866. The proposed change is intended to expand 
the geographical boundaries of the Port of Green Bay, Wisconsin, and 
make it more easily identifiable to the public. There are no new costs 
to the public associated with this rule.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) requires 
Federal agencies to examine the impact a rule would have on small 
entities. A small entity may be a small business (defined as any 
independently owned and operated business not dominant in its field 
that qualifies as a small business per the Small Business Act), a small 
not-for-profit organization, or a small governmental jurisdiction 
(locality with fewer than 50,000 people).
    This proposed rule does not directly regulate small entities. The 
proposed change is part of CBP's continuing program to more efficiently 
utilize its personnel, facilities, and resources, and to provide better 
service to carriers, importers, and the general public. To the extent 
that all entities are able to more efficiently or conveniently access 
the facilities and resources within the proposed expanded geographical 
area of the new port limits, this proposed rule, if finalized, should 
confer benefits to CBP, carriers, importers, and the general public.
    Because this rule does not directly regulate small entities, we do 
not believe that this rule has a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities. However, we welcome comments on 
that assumption. The most helpful comments are those that can give us 
specific information or examples of a direct impact on small entities. 
If we do not receive comments that demonstrate that the rule causes 
small entities to incur direct costs, we may certify that this action 
does not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of 
small entities during the final rule.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

    This rule will not result in the expenditure by State, local, and 
tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 
million or more in any one year, and it will not significantly or 
uniquely affect small governments. Therefore, no actions are necessary 
under the provisions of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995.

E. Executive Order 13132

    The rule will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on 
the relationship between the National Government and the States, or on 
the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels 
of government. Therefore, in accordance with section 6 of Executive 
Order 13132, this rule does not have sufficient federalism implications 
to warrant the preparation of a federalism summary impact statement.

F. Authority

    This change is proposed under the authority of 5 U.S.C. 301, 6 
U.S.C. 112, 203 and 211, 8 U.S.C. 1103 and 19 U.S.C. 2, 66 and 1624.

VI. Proposed Amendment to Regulations

    If the proposed port limits for Green Bay, Wisconsin, are adopted, 
CBP will amend 19 CFR 101.3(b)(1) as necessary to reflect the new port 
limits.


[[Page 69690]]


    Dated: November 4, 2011.
Janet Napolitano,
Secretary of Homeland Security.
[FR Doc. 2011-29028 Filed 11-8-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-14-P