Technical Amendment to List of User Fee Airports: Addition of Four Airports, 44708-44710 [2020-15475]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
44708
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 143 / Friday, July 24, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
In the swaps market, a number of swap
execution facilities (‘‘SEFs’’) provide for posttrade disclosure of the name of the
counterparty, a practice that is known as
‘‘name give-up.’’ This protocol is a vestige of
the pre-Dodd-Frank era, when few swaps
were centrally cleared and market
participants needed to know their
counterparty’s identity to manage the
associated credit risk. Given the advent of
central clearing, many have appropriately
questioned the continuing need for post-trade
name give-up for cleared swaps. Others have
gone further, criticizing the practice as
anticompetitive, an obstacle to broad and
diverse participation on SEFs, and
potentially inconsistent with numerous
provisions of the Commodity Exchange Act
(‘‘CEA’’) and Commission regulations.
In 2019, after considering responses to a
request for comment on the issue,5 the
Commission issued a proposed rule
(‘‘Proposal’’) to restrict name give-up such
that trades that are executed anonymously
on-SEF and cleared would remain
anonymous after execution.6 Public
comments on the Proposal reflected a variety
of differing viewpoints and interests. The
agency carefully considered all comments in
crafting the final rule we voted to approve
today.
We believe the final rule reflects a
balanced approach, is workable, and will
improve overall market vibrancy. The rule
prohibits name give-up for swaps that are
executed anonymously and intended to be
cleared. However, it does not apply to swaps
that are not intended to be executed
anonymously, such as trades done via a
name-disclosed request for quote. The rule
also includes a limited exception for package
transactions 7 with at least one component
that is an uncleared swap or a non-swap
instrument. This exception reflects current
technological and operational realities that
require counterparty disclosure for the nonswap or non-cleared swap component of
such trades.8 In addition, the rule includes a
phased implementation schedule to allow
SEFs and market participants time to adjust
to the changes.
We believe the rule’s fundamental
objective—protecting trading anonymity
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES
5 CFTC
Request for Comment on Post-Trade Name
Give-Up on Swap Execution Facilities, 83 FR
61,571 (Nov. 30, 2018).
6 Post-Trade Name Give-Up on Swap Execution
Facilities, 84 FR 72262 (Dec. 31, 2019).
7 The rule defines a ‘‘package transaction’’ as
‘‘consist[ing] of two or more component
transactions executed between two or more
counterparties where: (i) Execution of each
component transaction is contingent upon the
execution of all other component transactions; and
(ii) the component transactions are priced or quoted
together as one economic transaction with
simultaneous or near-simultaneous execution of all
components.’’
8 As noted in the preamble to the final rule, we
urge SEFs and their participants to work towards
an infrastructure that ultimately does support
anonymous post-trade processing for packages
including certain cleared non-swap components
(e.g., U.S. Treasuries). The preamble to the final
rule also notes the Commission’s intention to
monitor market developments and evaluate the
continued need for the package transaction
exception in the future.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:42 Jul 23, 2020
Jkt 250001
where it is possible to do so—is key to two
statutory goals for the SEF regime: (1)
Promoting swaps trading on SEFs 9 and (2)
promoting fair competition among market
participants, including through impartial
access to a SEF’s trading platform.10 Indeed,
we hope the rule will help attract a diverse
set of additional market participants who
have been deterred from trading on these
platforms by the practice of post-trade name
give-up, but remain interested in bringing
liquidity and competition to SEFs.
The issue of name give-up can be a bit of
a lightning rod, sometimes inciting
passionate disagreements between
stakeholders. We and CFTC staff stand ready
to work with market participants and market
operators to resolve any new issues that may
arise as the rule is implemented. We hope
that all parties to this debate can
constructively move forward together toward
the goals of sound derivatives regulation and
robust financial markets.
Appendix 3—Supporting Statement of
Commissioner Brian Quintenz
I will vote in favor of today’s final rule to
prohibit post-trade name give-up practices
for swaps executed, pre-arranged, or prenegotiated anonymously on or pursuant to
the rules of a swap execution facility (SEF)
and intended-to-be-cleared (Final Rule).
As I have noted previously, I have
concerns about the government banning an
established trading practice that has evolved
from natural market forces to support swaps
liquidity provision. Client swap activity is
inherently dealer and relationship-sourced.
That is why the name-disclosed Request for
Quote (RFQ) model has been highly favored
over the anonymous Central Limit Order
Book (CLOB) model in the client market.
Although the Final Rule predicts that the ban
on name give-up will result in increased
participation and competition in the dealerto-dealer market, I remain concerned that
banning post-trade name give-up will
negatively impact dealers’ ability to hedge
efficiently on existing inter-dealer platforms,
which will ultimately lead to a degradation
in the pricing and liquidity provision of
swaps trading on dealer-to-client platforms. I
am also doubtful that new entrants into the
wholesale market will use the advantages of
that participation to add any meaningful
liquidity in the client market, making it even
less certain that the benefits of enhanced
competition hoped for in this Final Rule will
be passed through to end-users.
Despite my concerns, I am supporting the
Final Rule because it adopts an important
exception from the prohibition, as well as an
incremental approach that will give the
Commission and market participants time to
transition into compliance, observe the
9 CEA section 5h(e), 7 U.S.C. 7b–3(e). In this
regard, the CFTC intends to complete a preliminary
study of the state of swaps markets one year after
the initial phase of the rule takes effect, and to
follow up with further study after the rule has been
in effect for three years.
10 CEA section 3(b), 7 U.S.C. 5(b) (listing fair
competition among market participants as a goal of
the CEA); CEA section 5h(f)(2)(B)(i) (requiring a SEF
to establish and enforce rules to provide
participants impartial access to the market).
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
impact of the Final Rule, and make
adjustments in the future, if necessary.
For example, the Final Rule includes a
significant exception for package transactions
that include a component transaction that is
not a swap intended-to-be-cleared. The
exception would include U.S. Treasury swap
spread package trades involving an intendedto-be-cleared swap and a U.S. Treasury
security component. These package
transactions are rarely traded on dealer-toclient platforms, but make up a significant
portion of volume on dealer-to-dealer
platforms. Recognizing this important
difference between markets is a small but
necessary accommodation to ensure package
trades can continue to be efficiently executed
in light of this mandated change to market
trading protocols.
The Final Rule also adopts staggered
compliance deadlines, with the most liquid
swaps coming into compliance first, and less
liquid swaps becoming subject to the ban in
July 2021. In the interim, the Commission
plans to conduct a preliminary study of the
Final Rule’s impact on SEF trading by July
2021, with a further study to be conducted
by July 2023. These studies will allow the
Commission to assess if the ban on post-trade
name give-up is, in fact, increasing
competition and liquidity on SEFs, as the ban
is intended to do. If a more fulsome analysis
reveals that the ban has not yielded its
expected benefits, or may not be appropriate
for certain products given their liquidity
profile, I expect further adjustments will be
made to maintain a well-functioning swaps
market.
Lastly, I would like to thank staff of the
Division of Market Oversight for working
with my staff to incorporate many of my
comments into the Final Rule.
[FR Doc. 2020–14343 Filed 7–23–20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6351–01–P
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY
U.S. Customs and Border Protection
19 CFR Part 122
[CBP Dec. 20–10]
Technical Amendment to List of User
Fee Airports: Addition of Four Airports
U.S. Customs and Border
Protection; DHS.
ACTION: Final rule; technical
amendment.
AGENCY:
This document amends U.S.
Customs and Border Protection (CBP)
regulations by revising the list of user
fee airports to reflect the designation of
user fee status for four additional
airports: New York Stewart
International Airport in New Windsor,
New York; Lakeland Linder
International Airport in Lakeland,
Florida; Boca Raton Airport in Boca
Raton, Florida; and Ontario
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\24JYR1.SGM
24JYR1
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 143 / Friday, July 24, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
International Airport in Ontario,
California. User fee airports are those
airports which, while not qualifying for
designation as international or landing
rights airports, have been approved by
the Commissioner of CBP to receive, for
a fee, the customs services of CBP
officers for the processing of aircraft
entering the United States, and the
passengers and cargo of those aircraft.
DATES: Effective July 24, 2020.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Chris Sullivan, Director, Alternative
Funding Program, Office of Field
Operations, U.S. Customs and Border
Protection at Christopher.J.Sullivan@
cbp.dhs.gov or 202–344–3907.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
Title 19, part 122 of the Code of
Federal Regulations (19 CFR part 122)
sets forth regulations relating to the
entry and clearance of aircraft in
international commerce and the
transportation of persons and cargo by
aircraft in international commerce.
Generally, a civil aircraft arriving from
a place outside of the United States is
required to land at an airport designated
as an international airport.
Alternatively, the pilot of a civil aircraft
may request permission to land at a
specific airport and, if landing rights are
granted, the civil aircraft may land at
that landing rights airport.
Section 236 of the Trade and Tariff
Act of 1984 (Pub. L. 98–573, 98 stat.
2948, 2994 (1984)), codified at 19 U.S.C.
58b, created an option for civil aircraft
desiring to land at an airport other than
an international airport or a landing
rights airport. A civil aircraft arriving
from a place outside of the United States
may ask for permission to land at an
airport designated by the Commissioner
of CBP 1 as a user fee airport.
Pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 58b, an airport
may be designated as a user fee airport
if the Commissioner of CBP determines
that the volume or value of business at
the airport is insufficient to justify the
unreimbursed availability of customs
services at the airport and the governor
of the state in which the airport is
located approves the designation. As the
volume or value of business cleared
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES
1 Sections
403(1) and 411 of the Homeland
Security Act of 2002 (Pub. L. 107–296, 116 stat.
2135, 2178–79 (2002)), codified as amended at 6
U.S.C. 203(1) and 211, transferred certain functions,
including the authority to designate user fee
facilities, from the U.S. Customs Service of the
Department of the Treasury to the Department of
Homeland Security. The Secretary of Homeland
Security delegated the authority to designate user
fee facilities to the Commissioner of CBP through
Department of Homeland Security Delegation, Sec.
II.A., No. 7010.3 (May 11, 2006).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:42 Jul 23, 2020
Jkt 250001
through this type of airport is
insufficient to justify the availability of
customs services at no cost, customs
services provided by CBP at the airport
are not funded out of appropriations
from the general treasury of the United
States. Instead, customs services
provided by CBP are paid for by the user
fee airport. The fees charged must be
paid by the user fee airport and must be
in the amount equal to the expenses
incurred by the Commissioner of CBP in
providing customs services at such
airport, including the salary and
expenses of those employed by the
Commissioner of CBP to provide the
customs services. See 19 U.S.C. 58b.
The Commissioner of CBP designates
airports as user fee airports in
accordance with 19 U.S.C. 58b and
pursuant to 19 CFR 122.15. User fee
airports are designated on a case-by-case
basis. If the Commissioner decides that
the conditions for designation as a user
fee airport are satisfied, a Memorandum
of Agreement (MOA) is executed
between the Commissioner of CBP and
the user fee airport sponsor.
The list of designated user fee airports
is set forth in 19 CFR 122.15(b).
Periodically, CBP updates the list to
reflect designated airports that have not
yet been added to the list and to reflect
any changes in the names of the
designated user fee airports.
Recent Changes Requiring Updates to
the List of User Fee Airports
This document updates the list of user
fee airports in 19 CFR 122.15(b) by
adding the following four airports: New
York Stewart International Airport in
New Windsor, New York; Lakeland
Linder International Airport in
Lakeland, Florida; Boca Raton Airport
in Boca Raton, Florida; and Ontario
International Airport in Ontario,
California. During the last several years,
the Commissioner of CBP signed MOAs
designating each of these four airports
as a user fee airport.2
Inapplicability of Public Notice and
Delayed Effective Date Requirements
Under the Administrative Procedure
Act (5 U.S.C. 553(b)), an agency is
exempted from the prior public notice
and comment procedures if it finds, for
good cause, that such procedures are
impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary
to the public interest. This final rule
makes conforming changes by updating
the list of user fee airports to add four
2 The Commissioner of CBP signed an MOA
designating Ontario International Airport on March
23, 2018; Boca Raton Airport on August 25, 2017;
New York Stewart International Airport on June 21,
2017; and Lakeland Linder International Airport on
November 16, 2016.
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
44709
airports that have already been
designated by the Commissioner of CBP
in accordance with 19 U.S.C. 58b as
user fee airports. Because this
conforming rule has no substantive
impact, is technical in nature, and does
not impose additional burdens on or
take away any existing rights or
privileges from the public, CBP finds for
good cause that the prior public notice
and comment procedures are
impracticable, unnecessary, and
contrary to the public interest. For the
same reasons, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
553(d)(3), a delayed effective date is not
required.
Regulatory Flexibility Act and
Executive Orders 12866 and 13771
Because no notice of proposed
rulemaking is required, the provisions
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5
U.S.C. 601 et seq.) do not apply. This
amendment does not meet the criteria
for a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ as
specified in Executive Order 12866.
Additionally, because this amendment
is not a significant regulatory action it
is not subject to the requirements of
Executive Order 13771.
Paperwork Reduction Act
There is no new collection of
information required in this document;
therefore, the provisions of the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44
U.S.C. 3507) are inapplicable.
Signing Authority
This document is limited to a
technical correction of CBP regulations.
Accordingly, it is being signed under
the authority of 19 CFR 0.1(b). The
Acting Commissioner Mark A. Morgan,
having reviewed and approved this
document, is delegating the authority to
electronically sign this document to
Robert F. Altneu, who is the Director of
the Regulations and Disclosure Law
Division for CBP, for purposes of
publication in the Federal Register.
List of Subjects in 19 CFR Part 122
Air carriers, Aircraft, Airports,
Customs duties and inspection, Freight.
Amendments to Regulations
Part 122, of title 19 of the Code of
Federal Regulations (19 CFR part 122) is
amended as set forth below:
PART 122—AIR COMMERCE
REGULATIONS
1. The general authority citation for
part 122 continues to read as follows:
■
E:\FR\FM\24JYR1.SGM
24JYR1
44710
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 143 / Friday, July 24, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
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.
*
*
*
*
*
2. In § 122.15, amend the table in
paragraph (b) by adding entries for
‘‘Boca Raton, Florida’’, ‘‘Lakeland,
Florida’’, ‘‘New Windsor, New York’’,
and ‘‘Ontario, California’’ in
alphabetical order to read as follows.
■
§ 122.15
*
Location
*
*
Name
*
*
*
*
*
Boca Raton, Florida .................................................................................. Boca Raton Airport.
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
Lakeland, Florida ...................................................................................... Lakeland Linder International Airport.
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
New Windsor, New York .......................................................................... New York Stewart International Airport.
Ontario, California ..................................................................................... Ontario International Airport.
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
Dated: July 14, 2020.
Robert F. Altneu,
Director, Regulations & Disclosure Law
Division, Regulations & Rulings, Office of
Trade, U.S. Customs and Border Protection.
*
*
submitted on or after October 1, 2020,
and for all renewal applications
submitted on or after October 1, 2020.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Scott A. Brinks, Regulatory Drafting &
Policy Support Section (DPW),
Diversion Control Division, Drug
Enforcement Administration; Mailing
Address: 8701 Morrissette Drive,
Springfield, Virginia 22152; Telephone:
(571) 362–3261.
Drug Enforcement Administration
I. Executive Summary
[FR Doc. 2020–15475 Filed 7–23–20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111–14–P
The Diversion Control Program
21 CFR Parts 1301 and 1309
[Docket No. DEA–501]
RIN 1117–AB51
Registration and Reregistration Fees
for Controlled Substance and List I
Chemical Registrants
Drug Enforcement
Administration, Department of Justice.
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
The Drug Enforcement
Administration (DEA) is adjusting the
fee schedule for registration and
reregistration fees necessary to recover
the costs of its Diversion Control
Program relating to the registration and
control of the manufacture, distribution,
dispensing, importation and exportation
of controlled substances and list I
chemicals as mandated by the
Controlled Substances Act (CSA). This
final rule adopts the notice of proposed
rulemaking published on March 16,
2020, to change the fee schedule and
codify existing practices of the issuance
of refunds by DEA for applicant
registration fees, without change.
DATES: This final rule is effective
October 1, 2020. The new fee schedule
will be in effect for all new applications
SUMMARY:
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES
User fee airports.
*
*
(b) * * *
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:42 Jul 23, 2020
Jkt 250001
DEA’s Diversion Control Program
(DCP) is administered by the Diversion
Control Division (DC). DC ensures the
availability of controlled substances and
listed chemicals for legitimate use in the
United States. The DCP is responsible
for maintaining a closed system of
distribution by preventing diversion of
controlled substances and listed
chemicals in the United States and
enforcing the provisions of the CSA for
DEA. The DCP regulates over 1.8
million registrants, ensuring their
compliance with the CSA.
Legal Authority
The DCP is a strategic component of
DEA’s law enforcement mission, which
regulates the registration and control of
the manufacture, distribution,
dispensing, importation, and
exportation of pharmaceutical
controlled substances and listed
chemicals. The DCP implements and
enforces the CSA to help prevent,
detect, and eliminate the diversion of
controlled substances and listed
chemicals into the illicit market while
ensuring a sufficient supply of
controlled substances and listed
chemicals for legitimate medical,
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
*
*
scientific, research, and industrial
purposes.1
Under the CSA, DEA is authorized to
charge reasonable fees relating to the
registration and control of the
manufacture, distribution, dispensing,
import, and export of controlled
substances and listed chemicals. 21
U.S.C. 821 and 958(f). DEA must set fees
at a level that ensures the recovery of
the full costs of operating the various
aspects of its DCP. 21 U.S.C. 886a. Each
year, DEA is required by statute to
transfer the first $15 million of fee
revenues into the general fund of the
Treasury and the remainder of the fee
revenues is deposited into a separate
fund of the Treasury called the
Diversion Control Fee Account (DCFA).
21 U.S.C. 886a(1). On at least a quarterly
basis, the Secretary of the Treasury is
required to reimburse DEA an amount
from the DCFA ‘‘in accordance with
estimates made in the budget request of
the Attorney General for those fiscal
years’’ for the operation of the DCP.2 21
U.S.C. 886a(1)(B) and (D). The first $15
million of fee revenues that are
transferred to the Treasury do not
support any DCP activities.
The Proposed Rule
DEA published a notice of proposed
rulemaking (NPRM) on March 16, 2020,
in the Federal Register, proposing new
registration and reregistration fees for
registrants, as well as proposing to
codify existing practices of issuing
refunds for these fees in limited
1 The Attorney General’s delegation of authority
to DEA may be found at 28 CFR 0.100.
2 The DCP consists of the pharmaceutical
controlled substance and listed chemical diversion
control activities of DEA. These activities are
related to the registration and control of the
manufacture, distribution, dispensing, importation,
and exportation of controlled substances and listed
chemicals (21 U.S.C. 886a(2)).
E:\FR\FM\24JYR1.SGM
24JYR1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 143 (Friday, July 24, 2020)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 44708-44710]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-15475]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
U.S. Customs and Border Protection
19 CFR Part 122
[CBP Dec. 20-10]
Technical Amendment to List of User Fee Airports: Addition of
Four Airports
AGENCY: U.S. Customs and Border Protection; DHS.
ACTION: Final rule; technical amendment.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document amends U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP)
regulations by revising the list of user fee airports to reflect the
designation of user fee status for four additional airports: New York
Stewart International Airport in New Windsor, New York; Lakeland Linder
International Airport in Lakeland, Florida; Boca Raton Airport in Boca
Raton, Florida; and Ontario
[[Page 44709]]
International Airport in Ontario, California. User fee airports are
those airports which, while not qualifying for designation as
international or landing rights airports, have been approved by the
Commissioner of CBP to receive, for a fee, the customs services of CBP
officers for the processing of aircraft entering the United States, and
the passengers and cargo of those aircraft.
DATES: Effective July 24, 2020.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Chris Sullivan, Director, Alternative
Funding Program, Office of Field Operations, U.S. Customs and Border
Protection at [email protected] or 202-344-3907.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
Title 19, part 122 of the Code of Federal Regulations (19 CFR part
122) sets forth regulations relating to the entry and clearance of
aircraft in international commerce and the transportation of persons
and cargo by aircraft in international commerce. Generally, a civil
aircraft arriving from a place outside of the United States is required
to land at an airport designated as an international airport.
Alternatively, the pilot of a civil aircraft may request permission to
land at a specific airport and, if landing rights are granted, the
civil aircraft may land at that landing rights airport.
Section 236 of the Trade and Tariff Act of 1984 (Pub. L. 98-573, 98
stat. 2948, 2994 (1984)), codified at 19 U.S.C. 58b, created an option
for civil aircraft desiring to land at an airport other than an
international airport or a landing rights airport. A civil aircraft
arriving from a place outside of the United States may ask for
permission to land at an airport designated by the Commissioner of CBP
\1\ as a user fee airport.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Sections 403(1) and 411 of the Homeland Security Act of 2002
(Pub. L. 107-296, 116 stat. 2135, 2178-79 (2002)), codified as
amended at 6 U.S.C. 203(1) and 211, transferred certain functions,
including the authority to designate user fee facilities, from the
U.S. Customs Service of the Department of the Treasury to the
Department of Homeland Security. The Secretary of Homeland Security
delegated the authority to designate user fee facilities to the
Commissioner of CBP through Department of Homeland Security
Delegation, Sec. II.A., No. 7010.3 (May 11, 2006).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 58b, an airport may be designated as a user
fee airport if the Commissioner of CBP determines that the volume or
value of business at the airport is insufficient to justify the
unreimbursed availability of customs services at the airport and the
governor of the state in which the airport is located approves the
designation. As the volume or value of business cleared through this
type of airport is insufficient to justify the availability of customs
services at no cost, customs services provided by CBP at the airport
are not funded out of appropriations from the general treasury of the
United States. Instead, customs services provided by CBP are paid for
by the user fee airport. The fees charged must be paid by the user fee
airport and must be in the amount equal to the expenses incurred by the
Commissioner of CBP in providing customs services at such airport,
including the salary and expenses of those employed by the Commissioner
of CBP to provide the customs services. See 19 U.S.C. 58b.
The Commissioner of CBP designates airports as user fee airports in
accordance with 19 U.S.C. 58b and pursuant to 19 CFR 122.15. User fee
airports are designated on a case-by-case basis. If the Commissioner
decides that the conditions for designation as a user fee airport are
satisfied, a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) is executed between the
Commissioner of CBP and the user fee airport sponsor.
The list of designated user fee airports is set forth in 19 CFR
122.15(b). Periodically, CBP updates the list to reflect designated
airports that have not yet been added to the list and to reflect any
changes in the names of the designated user fee airports.
Recent Changes Requiring Updates to the List of User Fee Airports
This document updates the list of user fee airports in 19 CFR
122.15(b) by adding the following four airports: New York Stewart
International Airport in New Windsor, New York; Lakeland Linder
International Airport in Lakeland, Florida; Boca Raton Airport in Boca
Raton, Florida; and Ontario International Airport in Ontario,
California. During the last several years, the Commissioner of CBP
signed MOAs designating each of these four airports as a user fee
airport.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ The Commissioner of CBP signed an MOA designating Ontario
International Airport on March 23, 2018; Boca Raton Airport on
August 25, 2017; New York Stewart International Airport on June 21,
2017; and Lakeland Linder International Airport on November 16,
2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inapplicability of Public Notice and Delayed Effective Date
Requirements
Under the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553(b)), an agency
is exempted from the prior public notice and comment procedures if it
finds, for good cause, that such procedures are impracticable,
unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest. This final rule makes
conforming changes by updating the list of user fee airports to add
four airports that have already been designated by the Commissioner of
CBP in accordance with 19 U.S.C. 58b as user fee airports. Because this
conforming rule has no substantive impact, is technical in nature, and
does not impose additional burdens on or take away any existing rights
or privileges from the public, CBP finds for good cause that the prior
public notice and comment procedures are impracticable, unnecessary,
and contrary to the public interest. For the same reasons, pursuant to
5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), a delayed effective date is not required.
Regulatory Flexibility Act and Executive Orders 12866 and 13771
Because no notice of proposed rulemaking is required, the
provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) do
not apply. This amendment does not meet the criteria for a
``significant regulatory action'' as specified in Executive Order
12866. Additionally, because this amendment is not a significant
regulatory action it is not subject to the requirements of Executive
Order 13771.
Paperwork Reduction Act
There is no new collection of information required in this
document; therefore, the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of
1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507) are inapplicable.
Signing Authority
This document is limited to a technical correction of CBP
regulations. Accordingly, it is being signed under the authority of 19
CFR 0.1(b). The Acting Commissioner Mark A. Morgan, having reviewed and
approved this document, is delegating the authority to electronically
sign this document to Robert F. Altneu, who is the Director of the
Regulations and Disclosure Law Division for CBP, for purposes of
publication in the Federal Register.
List of Subjects in 19 CFR Part 122
Air carriers, Aircraft, Airports, Customs duties and inspection,
Freight.
Amendments to Regulations
Part 122, of title 19 of the Code of Federal Regulations (19 CFR
part 122) is amended as set forth below:
PART 122--AIR COMMERCE REGULATIONS
0
1. The general authority citation for part 122 continues to read as
follows:
[[Page 44710]]
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.
* * * * *
0
2. In Sec. 122.15, amend the table in paragraph (b) by adding entries
for ``Boca Raton, Florida'', ``Lakeland, Florida'', ``New Windsor, New
York'', and ``Ontario, California'' in alphabetical order to read as
follows.
Sec. 122.15 User fee airports.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Location Name
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
Boca Raton, Florida.................... Boca Raton Airport.
* * * * * * *
Lakeland, Florida...................... Lakeland Linder International
Airport.
* * * * * * *
New Windsor, New York.................. New York Stewart International
Airport.
Ontario, California.................... Ontario International Airport.
* * * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
Dated: July 14, 2020.
Robert F. Altneu,
Director, Regulations & Disclosure Law Division, Regulations & Rulings,
Office of Trade, U.S. Customs and Border Protection.
[FR Doc. 2020-15475 Filed 7-23-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-14-P
