24656 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 80 / Wednesday, April 25, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

1Ports of entry for immigration purposes are 

currently listed at 8 CFR 100.4. 

Commission has in a series of recent cases 

considered these Interconnection Customer 

Interconnection Facilities to be open access 

transmission facilities and required that the 

original developer (G1 in the above 

schematic) file an OATT within 60 days of 

a request for service on these facilities. In 

light of comments received, this NOI seeks 

feedback on whether the filing of an OATT, 

modifications to the LGIA/LGIP, or other 

means are better for addressing third-party 

access to facilities at issue here. 

[FR Doc. 2012–9848 Filed 4–24–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6717–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

U.S. Customs and Border Protection 

19 CFR Part 101 

[Docket No. USCBP–2012–0006] 

Extension of Port Limits of 

Indianapolis, IN 

AGENCY: U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection, DHS. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection (CBP) is proposing to extend 

the geographical limits of the port of 

entry of Indianapolis, Indiana. The 

proposed extension will make the 

boundaries more easily identifiable to 

the public and will allow for uniform 

and continuous service to the extended 

area of Indianapolis, Indiana. The 

proposed change is part of CBP’s 

continuing program to use its personnel, 

facilities, and resources more efficiently, 

and to provide better service to carriers, 

importers, and the general public. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before June 25, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: Please submit comments, 

identified by docket number, by one of 

the following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments 

via docket number USCBP–2012–0006. 

• Mail: Border Security Regulations 

Branch, Office of International Trade, 

U.S. Customs and Border Protection, 

Mint Annex, 799 9th Street NW., 

Washington, DC 20229–1179. 

Instructions: All submissions received 

must include the agency name and 

docket number for this rulemaking. All 

comments received will be posted 

without change to http:// 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided. 

Docket: For access to the docket to 

read background documents or 

comments received, go to http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Comments 

submitted will be available for public 

inspection in accordance with the 

Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 

552) and 19 CFR 103.11(b) on normal 

business days between the hours of 9 

a.m. and 4:30 p.m. at the Border 

Security Regulations Branch, Office of 

International Trade, U.S. 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: 

Roger Kaplan, Office of Field 

Operations, U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection, (202) 325–4543, or by email 

at Roger.Kaplan@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. 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 

As part of its continuing efforts to use 

CBP’s personnel, facilities, and 

resources more efficiently, and to 

provide better service to carriers, 

importers, and the general public, CBP 

is proposing to extend the limits of the 

Indianapolis, Indiana, port of entry. 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)).1

Indianapolis was designated as a 

customs port of entry by the President’s 

message of March 3, 1913, concerning a 

reorganization of the customs service 

pursuant to the Act of August 24, 1912 

(37 Stat. 434; 19 U.S.C. 1). Although 

CBP is not aware of any document 

which specifically sets forth the 

geographical boundaries of the 

Indianapolis port of entry, the port 

limits are generally understood to be the 

corporate limits of the city of 

Indianapolis. 

In 1970, by act of the Indiana 

legislature, the city of Indianapolis 

consolidated with the surrounding 

county of Marion. However, four 

municipalities within Marion County 

remained excluded from the corporate 

limits of Indianapolis. Additionally, 

members of the trade community have 

expressed a need for CBP services in 

areas west and south of the city limits. 

CBP would like to extend the 

boundaries of the port of entry of 

Indianapolis, Indiana, to include all the 

territory within the boundaries of 

Marion County, Indiana, as well as 

portions of the neighboring counties of 

Boone, Hendricks, and Johnson. This 

update is necessary to clarify the 

geographic limits of the port. The 

update will also allow CBP to better 

serve the public in the greater 

Indianapolis area, by providing regular 

service to (1) municipalities within 

Indianapolis that are not technically 

within the city limits, and to (2) 

locations to the immediate west and 

south of the city. The proposed change 

in the boundaries of the port of 

Indianapolis, Indiana, will not result in 

a change in the service that is provided 

to the public by the port and will not 

require a change in the staffing or 

workload at the port. 

III. Proposed Port Limits of 

Indianapolis, Indiana 

The new port limits of Indianapolis, 

Indiana, are proposed as follows: 

In the State of Indiana, all of Marion 

County; that part of Boone County 

which is west of Interstate Route 65 and 

east of State Route 39; that part of 

Hendricks County which is east of State 

Route 39; and that part of Johnson 

County which is east of State Route 37, 

north of State Route 144, and west of 

Interstate Route 65. 

CBP has included a map of the 

proposed port limits in the docket as 

‘‘Attachment: Port of Entry of 

Indianapolis—Proposed Limits.’’ 

IV. Statutory and Regulatory Reviews 

A. Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 

DHS does not consider this proposed 

rule to be a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ under section 3(f) of Executive 

Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and 

Review, as supplemented by Executive 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 80 / Wednesday, April 25, 2012 / Proposed Rules 24657 

Order 13563. The proposed change is 

intended to expand the geographical 

boundaries of the Indianapolis, Indiana, 

port of entry and make the boundaries 

more easily identifiable to the public. 

There are no new costs to the public 

associated with this rule, and the rule 

does not otherwise implicate the factors 

set forth in section 3(f) of Executive 

Order 12866. Accordingly, this rule has 

not been submitted to the Office of 

Management and Budget for review. 

B. 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 merely expands 

the limits of an existing port of entry 

and does not impose any new costs on 

the public. Accordingly, we certify that 

this rule would not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. 

C. Signing Authority 

The signing authority for this 

document falls under 19 CFR 0.2(a) 

because the extension of port limits is 

not within the bounds of those 

regulations for which the Secretary of 

the Treasury has retained sole authority. 

Accordingly, this notice of proposed 

rulemaking may be signed by the 

Secretary of Homeland Security (or her 

delegate). 

V. Authority 

This change is proposed under the 

authority of 5 U.S.C. 301; 6 U.S.C. 203; 

19 U.S.C. 2 & note, 66, and 1624. 

VI. Proposed Amendment to the 

Regulations 

If the proposed port limits are 

adopted, CBP will amend the list of CBP 

ports of entry at 19 CFR 101.3(b)(1) to 

reflect the new description of the limits 

of the Indianapolis, Indiana, port of 

entry. 

Dated: April 10, 2012. 

Janet Napolitano, 

Secretary of Homeland Security. 

[FR Doc. 2012–9996 Filed 4–24–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9111–14–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY 

Internal Revenue Service 

26 CFR Part 1 

[REG–137589–07] 

RIN 1545–BH60 

Local Lodging Expenses 

AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS), 

Treasury. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: This document contains 

proposed regulations relating to the 

deductibility of expenses for lodging 

when not traveling away from home 

(local lodging). The regulations affect 

taxpayers who pay or incur expenses for 

local lodging. 

DATES: Comments or a request for a 

public hearing must be received by July 

24, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: Send submissions to 

CC:PA:LPD:PR (REG–137589–07), room 

5203, Internal Revenue Service, P.O. 

Box 7604, Ben Franklin Station, 

Washington, DC 20044. Submissions 

may be hand delivered Monday through 

Friday between the hours of 8 a.m. and 

4 p.m. to CC:PA:LPD:PR (REG–137589– 

07), Courier’s Desk, Internal Revenue 

Service, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., 

Washington, DC. Alternatively, 

taxpayers may submit comments 

electronically via the Federal 

eRulemaking Portal at http:// 

www.regulations.gov (IRS REG–137589– 

07). 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Concerning the proposed regulations, R. 

Matthew Kelley, (202) 622–7900; 

concerning submission of comments or 

a request for a hearing, Funmi Taylor, 

(202) 622–7180 (not toll-free numbers). 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

This document contains proposed 

amendments to 26 CFR part 1 relating 

to the deduction of local lodging 

expenses. 

Section 1.262–1 of the Income Tax 

Regulations generally disallows a 

deduction for local lodging expenses. 

The proposed regulations allow 

taxpayers to deduct local lodging 

expenses as ordinary and necessary 

business expenses in appropriate 

circumstances. 

Business Expenses Generally 

Section 162(a) of the Internal Revenue 

Code (Code) allows a deduction for all 

of the ordinary and necessary expenses 

paid or incurred during the taxable year 

in carrying on any trade or business. 

Whether an expense is ordinary and 

necessary is a question of fact. In 

general, a trade or business expense is 

ordinary if it is normal, usual, or 

customary in the taxpayer’s type of 

business. An expense is necessary if it 

is appropriate and helpful for the 

development of the taxpayer’s business. 

See Commissioner v. Heininger, 320 

U.S. 467, 475 (1943). An expense that 

serves primarily to furnish the taxpayer 

with a social or personal benefit, and is 

only secondarily related to business, is 

not a necessary business expense under 

section 162(a). 

Employee Expenses 

An expense that an employee must 

bear as a condition of employment may 

be a deductible employee business 

expense. See Sibla v. Commissioner, 

611 F.2d 1260 (9th Cir. 1980), acq. 

(1985–2 CB viii) (contributions to 

firemen’s mess required as a condition 

of employment are deductible business 

expenses). However, expenses that 

primarily are for the employee’s 

personal benefit or convenience are not 

deductible employee business expenses. 

See Commissioner v. Flowers, 326 U.S. 

465 (1946) (a taxpayer’s expenses for 

lodging near his principal work 

location, to avoid a long commute to 

and from his primary residence, were 

nondeductible personal expenses 

incurred solely because of the taxpayer’s 

decision to maintain his primary 

residence far from his work location). 

Deductible Employee Expenses 

The tax consequences to an employee 

who is reimbursed by an employer for 

an expense, or who receives property or 

services resulting from an employer’s 

payment of an expense, depend on 

whether the expense is one that would 

have been deductible if paid directly by 

the employee. 

For example, if an employee pays an 

expense and an employer reimburses 

the employee under a reimbursement or 

other expense allowance arrangement, 

the reimbursement is not includible in 

the employee’s income if it is made 

under an accountable plan. A 

reimbursement is treated as made under 

an accountable plan only if it is made 

for an expense that would be deductible 

by the employee under sections 161 

through 199. See sections 62(a)(2)(A) 

and 62(c). 

Similarly, if an employer provides 

property or services to an employee in 

the course of business, the value of the 

benefit to the employee is excludable 

from the employee’s income if the 

benefit constitutes a working condition 

fringe under section 132(a)(3). A 

working condition fringe is defined as 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1