Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 96 / Wednesday, May 17, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 31263

The ports of Seattle (Section 35,

Township 27 North, Range 3 East, West

Meridian, County of Snohomish, and

the geographical area beginning at the

intersection of N.W. 205th Street and

the waters of Puget Sound, proceeding

in an easterly direction along the King

County line to its intersection with

100th Avenue N.E., thence southerly

along 100th Avenue N.E. and its

continuation to the intersection of 100th

Avenue S.E. and S.E. 240th Street,

thence westerly along S.E. 240th Street,

to its intersection with North Central

Avenue, thence southerly along North

Central Avenue, its continuation as

South Central Avenue and 83rd Avenue

South and its connection to Auburn

Way North, thence southerly along

Auburn Way North and its continuation

as Auburn Way South to its intersection

with State Highway 18, thence westerly

along Highway 18 to its intersection

with A Street S.E., then southerly along

A Street S.E. to its intersection with the

King County Line, then westerly along

the King County Line to its intersection

with the waters of Puget Sound and

then northerly along the shores of Puget

Sound to its intersection with N.W.

205th Street, the point of beginning, all

within the County of King, State of

Washington), Anacortes, Bellingham,

Everett, Friday Harbor, Neah Bay,

Olympia, Port Angeles, Port Townsend,

and the territory in Tacoma, beginning

at the intersection of the westernmost

city limits of Steilacoom and The

Narrows and proceeding easterly along

Main Street to the intersection of

Stevens Street, then southerly along

Stevens Street to the intersection of

Washington Boulevard, then easterly

along Washington Boulevard to the

intersection of Gravely Lake Drive S.W.,

then southeasterly to the intersection of

Nyanza Road, SW, then southerly to its

intersection with Pacific Highway (U.S.

Route 99), then proceeding in a

northeasterly direction along Pacific

Highway to its intersection with 112

Street East and continuing in an easterly

direction along 112 Street East to its

intersection with the northwest corner

of McChord Air Force Base, then

proceeding along the northern, then

western, then southern boundary of

McChord Air Force Base to its

intersection, just west of Lake

Mondress, with the northern boundary

of the Fort Lewis Military Reservation,

then proceeding in an easterly direction

along the northern boundary of the Fort

Lewis Military Reservation to its

intersection with Pacific Avenue (SR–7),

then proceeding in a southerly direction

along Pacific Avenue (SR–7) to its

intersection with SR–507, then

proceeding in a southeasterly direction

along SR–7 to its intersection with

224th Street East, then proceeding in an

easterly direction along 224th Street

East to its intersection with Meridian

Street South (SR–161), then proceeding

in a northerly direction along Meridian

Street South (SR–161) to the

intersection with 176 Street East, then

easterly along 176 Street East extended

to the intersection with Sunrise

Parkway East, then northwesterly along

Sunrise Parkway East to the intersection

with 122nd Avenue East, then northerly

to the intersection with Old Military

Road East, then northeasterly to the

intersection with SR–162, then

northerly along SR–162 to the

intersection with SR–410, then easterly

along SR–410 to the intersection with

166th Avenue East, then northerly to the

intersection with Sumner-Tapps

Highway, continuing northeasterly

along Sumner-Tapps Highway to 16th

Street East, then easterly to 182 Avenue

East, then northerly to the northern

boundary of Pierce County, then

proceeding in a westerly direction along

the northern boundary of Pierce County

to its intersection with Puget Sound,

then proceeding in a generally

southwesterly direction along the banks

of the East Passage of Puget Sound,

Commencement Bay, and The Narrows

to the point of intersection with the

westernmost city limits of Steilacoom,

Washington, including all points and

places on the southern boundary of the

Juan de Fuca Strait from the eastern port

limits of Neah Bay to the western port

limits of Port Townsend, all points and

places on the western boundary of Puget

Sound, including Hood Canal, from the

port limits of Port Townsend to the

northern port limits of Olympia, all

points and places on the southern

boundary of Puget Sound from the port

limits of Olympia to the western port

limits of Tacoma, and all points and

places on the eastern boundary of Puget

Sound and contiguous waters from the

port limits of Tacoma north to the

southern port limits of Bellingham, all

in the State of Washington.

Authority

This change is being made under the

authority of 5 U.S.C. 301 and 19 U.S.C.

2, 66 and 1624.

Regulatory Flexibility Act and

Executive Order 12866

Customs establishes, expands and

consolidates Customs ports of entry

throughout the United States to

accommodate the volume of Customsrelated activity in various parts of the

country. Although a notice was issued

for public comment on this subject

matter, because this document relates to

agency management and organization, it

is not subject to the notice and

procedure requirements of 5 U.S.C. 553.

Accordingly, this document is not

subject to the provisions of the

Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601

et seq.). Agency organization matters

such as this port extension are not

subject to Executive Order 12866.

Drafting Information

The principal author of this document

was Janet L. Johnson, Regulations

Branch. However, personnel from other

offices participated in its development.

List of Subjects in 19 CFR Part 101

Customs duties and inspection,

Exports, Imports, Organization and

functions (Government agencies).

Amendment to the Regulations

For the reasons set forth above, part

101 of the Customs Regulations is

amended as set forth below.

PART 101—GENERAL PROVISIONS

1. The general authority citation for

part 101 and the specific authority

citation for § 101.3 continue to read as

follows:

Authority: 5 U.S.C. 301, 19 U.S.C. 2, 66,

1202 (General Note 20, 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. In the list of ports in § 101.3(b)(1),

under the state of Washington, the

‘‘Limits of port’’ column adjacent to

‘‘Puget Sound’’ in the ‘‘Ports of entry’’

column is amended by removing the

reference ‘‘T.D. 96–63’’ and adding in its

place ‘‘T.D. 00–35’’.

Raymond W. Kelly,

Commissioner of Customs.

Approved: March 30, 2000.

John P. Simpson,

Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Treasury.

[FR Doc. 00–12365 Filed 5–16–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4820–02–P

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Customs Service

19 CFR Part 122

[T.D. 00–34]

Revised List of User Fee Airports

AGENCY: Customs Service, Treasury.

ACTION: Final rule.

31264 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 96 / Wednesday, May 17, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

SUMMARY: This document amends the

Customs Regulations by revising the list

of user fee airports. User fee airports are

those which, while not qualifying for

designation as international or landing

rights airports because of insufficient

volume or value of business, have been

approved by the Commissioner of

Customs to receive the services of

Customs officers on a fee basis for the

processing of aircraft entering the

United States and their passengers and

cargo.

EFFECTIVE DATE: May 17, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Betsy Passuth, Office of Field

Operations, 202–927–0795.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

Part 122, Customs 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.

Under § 1644a, Title 19, United States

Code (19 U.S.C.1644a), the Secretary of

the Treasury is authorized to designate

places in the United States as ports of

entry for civil aircraft arriving from any

place outside of the United States, and

for merchandise carried on the aircraft.

These airports are referred to as

international airports, and the location

and name of each are listed in § 122.13,

Customs Regulations (19 CFR 122.13).

In accordance with § 122.33, Customs

Regulations (19 CFR 122.33), the first

landing of every civil aircraft entering

the United States from a foreign area

must be at one of these international

airports, unless the aircraft has been

specifically exempted from this

requirement or permission to land

elsewhere has been granted. Customs

officers are assigned to all international

airports to accept entries of

merchandise, collect duties and enforce

the customs laws and regulations.

Other than making an emergency or

forced landing, if a civil aircraft desires

to land at an airport not designated by

Customs as an international airport, the

pilot may request permission to land at

a specific airport and, if granted,

Customs assigns personnel to that

airport for the aircraft. The airport

where the aircraft is permitted to land

is called a landing rights airport (19 CFR

122.24).

Section 236 of Pub. L. 98–573 (the

Trade and Tariff Act of 1984), codified

at 19 United States Code 58b (19 U.S.C.

58b), creates an option for civil aircraft

desiring to land at an airport other than

an international or landing rights

airport. A civil aircraft arriving from a

place outside the United States may ask

Customs for permission to land at an

airport designated by the Secretary of

the Treasury as a user fee airport.

Pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 58b, an airport

may be designated as a user fee airport

if the Secretary of the Treasury

determines that the volume of Customs

business at the airport is insufficient to

justify the availability of Customs

services at the airport and the governor

of the State in which the airport is

located approves the designation.

Generally, the type of airport that would

seek designation as a user fee airport

would be one at which a company, such

as an air courier service, has a

specialized interest in regularly landing.

Inasmuch as the volume of business

anticipated at these airports is

insufficient to justify their designation

as an international or landing rights

airport, the availability of Customs

services is not paid for out of Customs

appropriations from the general treasury

of the United States. Instead, the

services of Customs officers are

provided on a fully reimbursable basis

to be paid for by the user fee airports on

behalf of the recipients of the services.

The fees which are to be charged at

user fee airports, according to the

statute, shall by paid by each person

using Customs services at the airport

and shall be in the amount equal to the

expenses incurred by the Secretary of

the Treasury in providing Customs

services that are rendered to such

persons at such airport, including the

salary and expenses of those employed

by the Secretary of the Treasury to

provide the Customs services. To

implement this provision, the airport

seeking the designation as a user fee

airport or that airport’s authority agrees

to pay Customs a flat fee annually and

the users of the airport are to reimburse

that airport/airport authority. The

airport/airport authority agrees to set

and periodically review its charges to

ensure that they are in accord with the

airport’s expenses.

Pursuant to Treasury Department

Order No. 165, Revised (Treasury

Decision 53564), all the rights,

privileges, powers, and duties vested in

the Secretary of the Treasury by the

Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, by the

navigation laws, or by any other laws

administered by Customs are transferred

to the Commissioner of Customs.

Accordingly, the authority granted to

the Secretary of the Treasury to

designate user fee airports and to

determine appropriate fees is delegated

to the Commissioner of Customs.

Under this authority, Customs has

determined that certain conditions must

be met before an airport can be

designated as a user fee airport. At least

one full-time Customs officer must be

requested, and the airport must be

responsible for providing Customs with

satisfactory office space, equipment and

supplies, at no cost to the Federal

Government.

In § 122.15(b), Customs Regulations

(19 CFR 122.15(b)), Customs sets forth a

list of the user fee airports designated by

the Commissioner of Customs in

accordance with 19 U.S.C. 58b. This

document updates the list.

Inapplicability of Public Notice and

Delayed Effective Date Requirements

Because this amendment merely lists

those user fee airports designated by the

Commissioner of Customs in accordance

with 19 U.S.C. 58b and neither imposes

additional burdens on, nor takes away

any existing rights or privileges from,

the public, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.

553(b)(B), notice and public procedure

are unnecessary, and 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 Order 12866

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.

Drafting Information

The principal author of this document

was Janet L. Johnson, Regulations

Branch, Office of Regulations and

Rulings, U.S. Customs Service.

However, personnel from other offices

participated in its development.

List of Subjects in 19 CFR Part 122

Air carriers, Aircraft, Airports,

Customs duties and inspection, Freight.

Amendments to the Regulations

Part 122, Customs Regulations (19

CFR part 122) is amended as set forth

below:

PART 122—AIR COMMERCE

REGULATIONS

1. The authority citation for Part 122,

Customs Regulations, continues to read

as follows:

Authority: 5 U.S.C. 301; 19 U.S.C. 58b, 66,

1433, 1436, 1448, 1459, 1590, 1594, 1623,

1624, 1644, 1644a.

2. Section 122.15(b) is amended by

revising the list of airports to read as

follows:

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 96 / Wednesday, May 17, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 31265

§ 122.15 User fee airports.

* * * * *

(b)List of user fee airports. * * *

Location Name

Addison, Texas ......... Addison Airport.

Blountville, Tennessee.Tri-City Regional Airport.

Blytheville, Arkansas Arkansas Aeroplex.

Broomfield, Colorado Jefferson County Airport.

Daytona Beach, Florida.Daytona Beach International Airport.

Decatur, Indiana ........ Decatur Airport.

Dublin, Virginia .......... New River Valley Airport.

Egg Harbor Township, New Jersey.Atlantic City International Airport.

Englewood, Colorado Centennial Airport.

Fargo, North Dakota Hector International

Airport.

Fort Wayne, Indiana Baer Field Airport.

Fort Worth, Texas ..... Fort Worth Alliance

Airport.

Johnson City, New

York.

Binghamton Regional

Airport.

Lexington, Kentucky .. Blue Grass Airport.

Manchester, New

Hampshire.

Manchester Airport.

Medford, Oregon ....... Rogue Valley International Airport.

Melbourne, Florida .... Melbourne Airport.

Midland, Texas .......... Midland International

Airport.

Morristown, New Jersey.Morristown Municipal

Airport.

Moses Lake, Washington.Port of Moses Lake.

Myrtle Beach, South

Carolina.

Myrtle Beach International Airport.

Ocala, Florida ............ Ocala Regional Airport.

Palm Springs, California.Palm Springs International Airport.

Rochester, Minnesota Rochester Airport.

San Bernardino, California.San Bernardino International Airport.

Sarasota, Florida ....... Sarasota/Bradenton

International Airport.

Scottsdale, Arizona ... Scottsdale Airport.

Terre Haute, Indiana Hulman Regional Airport.

Victorville, California Southern California

Logistics Airport.

Waterford, Michigan .. Oakland International

Airport.

Waukegan, Illinois ..... Waukegan Regional

Airport.

West Chicago, Illinois Dupage County Airport.

West Trenton, New

Jersey.

Trenton Mercer Airport.

Wheeling, Illinois ....... Palwaukee Airport.

Wilmington, Ohio ....... Wilmington Airport.

Ypsilanti, Michigan .... Willow Run Airport.

* * * * *

Raymond W. Kelly,

Commissioner of Customs.

Approved: March 30, 2000.

John P. Simpson,

Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Treasury.

[FR Doc. 00–12366 Filed 5–16–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4820–02–P

POSTAL SERVICE

39 CFR Part 913

Procedures for the Issuance of

Administrative Subpoenas Under 39

U.S.C. 3016

AGENCY: Postal Service.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: This final rule establishes

procedures for the issuance of

administrative subpoenas in

investigations of false representations

and lotteries under 39 U.S.C. 3005(a). It

adopts with changes a proposed rule

published for public comment on March

16, 2000 (65 FR 14229–30). For reasons

stated below, this rule will become

effective immediately.

EFFECTIVE DATE: May 17, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Elizabeth P. Martin, (202) 268–3022.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The

Deceptive Mail Prevention and

Enforcement Act, Public Law 106–168,

113 Stat. 1806 (December 12, 1999),

generally amended chapter 30 of title

39, United States Code, to make

nonmailable certain deceptive matter

relating to sweepstakes, skill contests,

and facsimile checks. It also amended

provisions relating to administrative

procedures and orders, and added civil

penalties relating to such matters.

Under new 39 U.S.C. 3016, the

Postmaster General has authority to

issue administrative subpoenas

requiring the production of any records

(including books, papers, documents,

and other tangible things which

constitute or contain evidence) which

the Postmaster General considers

relevant or material in any investigation

conducted under 39 U.S.C. 3005(a),

dealing with false representations and

lotteries.

On March 16, 2000, the Postal Service

published in the Federal Register a

proposed new Part 913 to title 39 of the

Code of Federal Regulations to establish

the procedures to be used for the

issuance of the administrative

subpoenas authorized under 39 U.S.C.

3016 (65 FR 14229–30). The proposed

rules set forth the conditions under

which subpoenas may be issued, the

methods of service of subpoenas, the

means by which subpoenas may be

enforced, and the restrictions on the

disclosure of subpoenaed information.

Although exempt by 39 U.S.C. 410(a)

from the notice and comment

requirements of the Administrative

Procedure Act, the Postal Service

invited comments on the proposed new

Part 913. The Postal Service received

two comments, and has considered and

incorporated several of the points raised

therein.

Publishers Clearing House (PCH)

suggested that § 913.1(a) should

acknowledge that the authority to issue

the subpoenas lies with the Postmaster

General. The regulation has been

changed to clarify that fact. Both PCH

and the Postal Service Office of the

Inspector General (OIG) expressed

concern that the regulations should

more closely track the language of the

statute regarding conditions precedent

to the issuance of a subpoena. A new

§ 913.1(c) has been added to address

those concerns. Current subsections (c)

and (d) are relettered as (d) and (e). New

§ 913.1(d)(3) similarly addresses the

concern regarding conditions precedent.

New section 913(d)(1) is changed to

clarify that only a specifically

authorized Inspector may submit a

request. At the suggestion of the OIG,

new 913.1(d)(4) is changed to clarify

that the General Counsel, at his or her

discretion, may issue or deny a

subpoena, require additional

information, or honor requests to amend

or supplement a request.

Both the OIG and PCH expressed

concerns with respect to the clarity of

§ 913.4. We have considered their

suggestions, however, we have not

adopted their proposed language. The

language published is that which is

contained in the statute, and thus any

lack of clarity is statutory. We interpret

that language to state that anything

turned over pursuant to a subpoena is

exempt from release under the Freedom

of Information Act.

Finally, the OIG suggested that certain

new reporting requirements concerning

the number of cases in which the

authority under 39 U.S.C. 3016 is used

should be addressed by these

regulations. We have determined that

the reporting requirements are not

relevant to the process by which

subpoenas are requested and issued,

and have declined to make the

suggested change.

With regard to the effective date, we

have determined that there is good

cause to make the new regulations

effective upon publication. We believe

that the public interest would not be

served by providing persons who might