52288 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 171 / Tuesday, September 5, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 

approach probably did result in changes 

that ultimately were not strictly 

required for compliance. However, these 

changes do improve the overall 

flammability of the materials and are 

not wasted effort. 

The NATA concurred with the rule, 

but was concerned the now outdated 

part numbers associated with noncomplying parts have not been purged 

from parts catalogs. The NATA requests 

the FAA help industry deal with the 

issue of out of date parts catalogs. Parts 

catalogs are not directly regulated 

documents, and the FAA does not 

typically maintain oversight of them. 

However, the FAA will work with 

operators and airframe manufacturers to 

help facilitate updating of the parts 

catalogs. 

Boeing suggested a rewording of the 

preamble discussion of insulation that is 

the subject of airworthiness directives as 

follows: ‘‘Insulation that is the subject 

of airworthiness directives (even if that 

insulation is bonded to the surface of 

the duct and would otherwise be 

excluded by this rule) must still be 

replaced in accordance with those 

airworthiness directives.’’

While the FAA acknowledges the 

suggested rewording is more explicit, 

the intent is the same. This discussion 

in the preamble was purely a reminder, 

and does not introduce a requirement or 

deviate in any way from standard 

procedure. No change to the rule is 

required. 

Conclusion 

After consideration of the comments 

submitted in response to the final rule; 

request for comments, the FAA has 

determined that no further rulemaking 

action is necessary and Amendments 

Nos. 91–290, 121–320, 125–50, and 

135–103 remain in effect as adopted. 

Issued in Washington, DC, on August 25, 

2006. 

John J. Hickey, 

Director, Aircraft Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. E6–14632 Filed 9–1–06; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Customs and Border Protection 

19 CFR Part 101 

[USCBP–2006–0057; CBP Dec. 06–23] 

Establishment of New Port of Entry at 

Sacramento, CA; Realignment of the 

Port Limits of the Port of Entry at San 

Francisco, CA 

AGENCY: Customs and Border Protection; 

Department of Homeland Security. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This document amends the 

Department of Homeland Security 

(DHS) regulations pertaining to the field 

organization of the Bureau of Customs 

and Border Protection (CBP) by 

establishing a new port of entry at 

Sacramento, California, and terminating 

the user fee status of Sacramento 

International Airport. In order to 

accommodate this new port of entry, 

this document realigns the port 

boundaries of the port of entry at San 

Francisco, California (San FranciscoOakland), since these boundaries 

currently encompass area that is 

included within the new port of 

Sacramento. This change is part of 

CBP’s continuing program to more 

efficiently utilize its personnel, 

facilities, and resources to provide 

better service to carriers, importers, and 

the general public. 

EFFECTIVE DATES: October 5, 2006. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Dennis Dore, Office of Field Operations, 

202–344–2776. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

In a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 

(NPRM) published in the Federal 

Register (70 FR 52336) on September 2, 

2005, CBP proposed to amend 19 CFR 

101.3(b)(1) by establishing a new port of 

entry at Sacramento, California. In the 

notice, CBP proposed to include in the 

port of Sacramento the Sacramento 

International Airport, currently a user 

fee airport. In addition, CBP proposed to 

realign the San Francisco-Oakland port 

of entry since it includes area within the 

proposed port of Sacramento. 

CBP proposed the establishment of 

the new port of entry because the 

Sacramento area satisfies the current 

criteria for port of entry designations as 

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 FR 4559) and T.D. 87–65 (52 FR 

16328). Under these criteria, CBP 

evaluates whether there is a sufficient 

volume of import business (actual or 

potential) to justify the expense of 

establishing a new office or expanding 

service at an existing location. The 

NPRM detailed how the Sacramento 

area meets the criteria. 

Sacramento International Airport 

currently is a user fee airport. User fee 

airports, based on the volume of their 

business, do not qualify for designation 

as CBP ports of entry. User fee airports 

are approved by the Commissioner of 

CBP to receive the services of CBP 

officers for the processing of aircraft 

entering the United States and their 

passengers and cargo on a fully 

reimbursable basis to be paid for by the 

airport on behalf of the recipients of the 

services; the airport pays a fee for the 

services and then seeks reimbursement 

from the actual users of those services. 

Passenger-processing fees under 19 

U.S.C. 58c(a)(5)(B) are collected from 

passengers at ports of entry. Because a 

user fee airport pays a fee on a fully 

reimbursable basis for the services 

performed by CBP, CBP does not also 

collect the passenger processing fee. In 

the notice, CBP proposed to terminate 

the user fee status of Sacramento 

International Airport, which would also 

terminate the system of reimbursable 

fees for Sacramento International 

Airport. Thus, if Sacramento 

International Airport were to become 

part of a CBP port of entry, the airport 

would then become subject to the 

passenger-processing fee provided for at 

19 U.S.C. 58c(a)(5)(B). 

The current port limits of the San 

Francisco-Oakland port of entry are 

described in Treasury Decision (T.D.) 

82–9 (47 FR 1286), effective February 

11, 1982, and include area within the 

proposed port of Sacramento. 

Accordingly, it was proposed that, if 

Sacramento is established as a port of 

entry as described in the NPRM, the 

geographical limits of the port of entry 

at San Francisco-Oakland would be 

modified. The port of entry at San 

Francisco-Oakland, with its modified 

port description, would continue to 

meet the criteria for port of entry status. 

Analysis of Comments 

Fourteen (14) comments were 

received in response to the September 2, 

2005, NPRM. Twelve (12) of these 

comments were in support of the 

proposal. 

Three (3) commenters who supported 

the proposal and the two (2) 

commenters who objected to the 

proposal raised issues regarding Mather 

Airport which is located on Mather 

Boulevard and Highway 50, east of 


erjones on PRODPC60 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 171 / Tuesday, September 5, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 52289 

Sacramento. The three commenters who 

supported the proposal sought 

‘‘clarification’’ as to whether Mather 

Airport was to be included within the 

boundaries of the new Sacramento port 

of entry. The two (2) commenters who 

objected to the proposal were concerned 

that there would be additional aircraft 

noise that might occur at Mather Airport 

if air cargo carrier workload was 

relocated there from Sacramento 

International Airport. 

Mather Airport, located in 

Sacramento County just 12 miles from 

downtown Sacramento, is, in fact, 

located within the boundaries of the 

proposed CBP Port of Sacramento, 

California. Mather Airport has 

previously been located within the port 

of entry at San Francisco, California 

(San Francisco-Oakland). The 

reassignment of Mather airport from the 

port of San Francisco to the port of 

Sacramento will not result in any 

change in the functioning or processing 

of aircraft at that facility. CBP has no 

plans to relocate air cargo carrier 

workload from Sacramento International 

Airport to Mather Airport. Therefore, 

CBP anticipates no additional aircraft 

noise at Mather Airport as a result of 

this rule. 

To address the issue of noise that 

might occur at Mather Airport, one of 

these commenters also requested a 

comprehensive regional plan and full 

environmental disclosure pursuant to 

the California Environmental Quality 

Act (CEQA) and the National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). 

Since Mather Airport is merely being 

reassigned to the port of Sacramento 

from the port of San Francisco and CBP 

has no reason to expect an increase in 

air cargo carrier workload at Mather 

Airport as a result of this change, CBP 

does not anticipate any environmental 

impact from this rule relating to Mather 

Airport. 

Conclusion 

After consideration of the comments 

received, CBP continues to believe that 

the establishment of a new port of entry 

at Sacramento, California, and 

realignment of the port boundaries of 

the port of entry at San Francisco, 

California (San Francisco-Oakland) will 

assist CBP in its continuing efforts to 

provide better service to carriers, 

importers and the general public. 

Therefore, CBP is establishing the new 

port of entry of Sacramento to include 

the territory as proposed in the notice 

and the port of entry description of San 

Francisco-Oakland will be revised as 

proposed in the notice. 

Port Description of Sacramento, 

California 

The port limits of the port of entry of 

Sacramento, California are as follows: (i) 

The corporate limits of Sacramento, 

including the adjacent territory 

comprised of the McClellan and Mather 

airports in Sacramento County; (ii) all 

territory on the San Joaquin River in 

Contra Costa and San Joaquin Counties, 

to and including Stockton (which 

includes Stockton Metropolitan 

Airport); (iii) from Sacramento, 

southwest along U.S. Interstate 80, east 

along Airbase Parkway, to and including 

the territory comprising Travis Air 

Force Base; (iv) all points on the 

Sacramento River in Solano, Yolo and 

Sacramento Counties, from the junction 

of the Sacramento River with the San 

Joaquin River in Sacramento County, to 

and including Sacramento, California; 

and (v) all points on the Sacramento 

River Deep Water Ship Channel in 

Solano, Yolo and Sacramento Counties, 

(a) from and including, the junction of 

Cache Slough with the Sacramento 

River, to and including Sacramento; and 

(b) from Sacramento northwest along 

Interstate 5 to Airport Boulevard, north 

along Airport Boulevard, to and 

including the territory comprising the 

Sacramento International Airport in 

Sacramento County. All of the territory 

included in the port of Sacramento is 

located within the State of California. 

Revised Port Description of San 

Francisco-Oakland 

The geographical limits of the port of 

San Francisco-Oakland are realigned to 

include all the territory within the 

corporate limits of San Francisco and 

Oakland and all points on the San 

Francisco Bay, San Pablo Bay, 

Carquinez Strait and Suisan Bay. 

Sacramento International Airport 

Sacramento International Airport is 

now within the boundaries of the 

Sacramento port of entry and will no 

longer be a user fee airport. It will now 

be subject to the passenger processing 

fee provided for at 19 U.S.C. 

58c(a)(5)(B). The list of user fee airports 

at 19 CFR 122.15(b) need not be 

amended because ‘‘Sacramento 

International Airport’’ is not currently 

included in that list. 

Authority 

This change is made under the 

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

2, 66, and 1624, and section 6 U.S.C. 

203 of the Homeland Security Act of 

2002, Pub. L. 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 regulatory 

action is not significant within the 

meaning of 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, the modification of the port 

limits of an existing 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 or her 

delegate). 

List of Subjects in 19 CFR Part 101 

Customs duties and inspection, 

Customs ports of entry, Exports, 

Imports, Organization and functions 

(Government agencies). 

Amendments to Regulations 

■ For the reasons set forth above, part 

101 of the regulations (19 CFR part 101), 

is amended as set forth below. 

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: 

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; 

* * * * * 

■ 2.The list of ports in section 

101.3(b)(1) is amended by adding, in 

alphabetical order under the State of 

California ‘‘Sacramento’’ in the ‘‘Ports of 

entry’’ column and ‘‘CBP Dec. 06–23’’ in 

the ‘‘Limits of Port’’ column. Also under 

the State of California, the ‘‘Limits of 

Port’’ column for ‘‘San FranciscoOakland’’ will be amended by deleting 

‘‘Including Benicia, Martinez, Richard, 

Sacramento, San Jose, and Stockton, 


erjones on PRODPC60 with RULES
52290 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 171 / Tuesday, September 5, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 

T.D. 82–9’’ and adding ‘‘CBP Dec. 06–

23.’’

Dated: August 25, 2006. 

Michael Chertoff, 

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 06–7393 Filed 9–1–06; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9111–14–P 

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS 

AFFAIRS 

38 CFR Part 3 

RIN 2900–AM48 

Forfeiture; Correction 

AGENCY: Department of Veterans Affairs. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Veterans 

Affairs (VA) is amending its regulations 

concerning forfeiture of benefit 

payments and improved pension 

payments. A review of VA’s 

adjudication regulations revealed a need 

for clarification and minor 

typographical errors. This document 

makes changes to provide clarification 

and eliminate the errors. The effect of 

these actions is to clarify the respective 

regulations. 

DATES: Effective Date: September 5, 

2006. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Trude Steele, Consultant, Compensation 

and Pension Service, Policy and 

Regulations Staff, Veterans Benefits 

Administration, Department of Veterans 

Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue, NW., 

Washington, DC 20420, (202) 273–7210. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: At the 

Regional Office level, except in the VA 

Regional Office, Manila, Philippines, 

VA regulation 38 CFR 3.905(a) 

authorizes the Regional Counsel to 

determine whether the evidence 

warrants formal consideration as to 

forfeiture. In the Manila Regional Office, 

the Veterans Service Center Manager is 

authorized to make this determination. 

Currently, 38 CFR 3.669(a), which was 

published with a typographical error, 

states that benefit payments will be 

suspended effective the date of last 

payment upon ‘‘receipt of notice from a 

Regional Counsel the Veterans Service 

Center Manager [sic] in the Manila 

Regional Office * * *.’’ To clarify 

§ 3.669(a) and to ensure consistency 

with § 3.905(a), this document amends 

§ 3.669(a) to specify that, although 

benefit payments are generally 

suspended upon receipt of notice from 

a Regional Counsel, in cases under the 

jurisdiction of the Manila Regional 

Office, payments are suspended upon 

receipt of notice from the Veterans 

Service Center Manager. 

This document also corrects a 

typographical error by replacing the 

words ‘‘less the’’ with ‘‘less than’’ in 38 

CFR 3.30(b), Improved Pension—

Quarterly. VA is amending this 

regulation for clarity and accuracy. 

Administrative Procedure Act 

This final rule consists of 

nonsubstantive changes. Accordingly, 

there is a basis for dispensing with prior 

notice and comment and the delayed 

effective date provisions of 5 U.S.C. 553. 

Paperwork Reduction Act 

This document contains no provisions 

constituting a collection of information 

under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

U.S.C. 3501–3521). 

Regulatory Flexibility Act 

Because no notice of proposed 

rulemaking is required in connection 

with the adoption of this final rule, no 

regulatory flexibility analysis is required 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

U.S.C. 601–612). Even so, the Secretary 

hereby certifies that this final rule will 

not have a significant economic impact 

on a substantial number of small entities 

as they are defined in the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act. 

Executive Order 12866—Regulatory 

Planning and Review 

Executive Order 12866 directs 

agencies to assess all costs and benefits 

of available regulatory alternatives and, 

when regulation is necessary, to select 

regulatory approaches that maximize 

net benefits (including potential 

economic, environmental, public health 

and safety, and other advantages; 

distributive impacts; and equity). The 

Order classifies a rule as a significant 

regulatory action requiring review by 

the Office of Management and Budget if 

it meets any one of a number of 

specified conditions, including: Having 

an annual effect on the economy of $100 

million or more, creating a serious 

inconsistency or interfering with an 

action of another agency, materially 

altering the budgetary impact of 

entitlements or the rights of entitlement 

recipients, or raising novel legal or 

policy issues. VA has examined the 

economic, legal, and policy implications 

of this final rule and has concluded that 

it is not a significant regulatory action 

under Executive Order 12866. 

Unfunded Mandates 

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 requires, at 2 U.S.C. 1532, that 

agencies prepare an assessment of 

anticipated costs and benefits before 

issuing any rule that may result in the 

expenditure by State, local, and tribal 

governments, in the aggregate, or by the 

private sector, of $100 million or more 

(adjusted annually for inflation) in any 

year. This final rule would have no such 

effect on State, local, and tribal 

governments, or on the private sector. 

Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance 

Numbers and Titles 

The Catalog of Federal Domestic 

Assistance program numbers and titles 

for this proposal are 64.104, Pension for 

Non-Service-Connected Disability for 

Veterans; 64.105, Pension to Veterans 

Surviving Spouses, and Children; 

64.109, Veterans Compensation For 

Service-Connected Disability; and 

64.110, Veterans Dependency And 

Indemnity Compensation For ServiceConnected Death. 

List of Subjects in 38 CFR Part 3 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Claims, Disability benefits, 

Health care, Pensions, Radioactive 

materials, Veterans, Vietnam. 

Approved: August 25, 2006. 

Gordon H. Mansfield, 

Deputy Secretary of Veterans Affairs. 

■ For the reasons set forth in the 

preamble, 38 CFR part 3 is amended as 

follows: 

PART 3—ADJUDICATION 

Subpart A—Pension, Compensation, 

and Dependency and Indemnity 

Compensation 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 3, 

subpart A, continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 38 U.S.C. 501(a), unless 

otherwise noted. 

§ 3.30 [Amended] 

■ 2. Section 3.30(b) is amended by 

removing ‘‘less the’’ and adding, in its 

place, ‘‘less than’’. 

■ 3. Section 3.669(a) is revised to read 

as follows: 

§ 3.669 Forfeiture. 

(a) General. Upon receipt of notice 

from a Regional Counsel (or in cases 

under the jurisdiction of the Manila 

Regional Office, the Veterans Service 

Center Manager) that a case is being 

formally submitted for consideration of 

forfeiture of a payee’s rights under 

§ 3.905 of this part or that the payee has 

been indicted for subversive activities, 

payments will be suspended effective 

date of last payment. 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. E6–14660 Filed 9–1–06; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8320–01–P 


erjones on PRODPC60 with RULES