Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 217 / Wednesday, November 9, 2011 / Proposed Rules 69685 

considered valid unless unanimously 

approved. 

* * * * * 

5. Amend § 987.52 by designating the 

existing text as paragraph (a) and by 

adding a new paragraph (b) to read as 

follows: 

§ 987.52 [Amended] 

(a) * * * 

(b) The Committee may, with the 

approval of the Secretary, recommend 

that the handling of any date variety be 

exempted from regulations established 

pursuant to §§ 987.39 through 987.51 

and §§ 987.61 through 987.72. 

6. Amend § 987.72 by redesignating 

paragraphs (b) through (d) as paragraphs 

(c) through (e), respectively; by adding 

a new paragraph (b); and by revising 

redesignated paragraph (d) to read as 

follows: 

§ 987.72 [Amended] 

* * * * * 

(b) Delinquent payments. Any 

assessment not paid by a handler within 

a period of time prescribed by the 

Committee may be subject to an interest 

or late payment charge, or both. The 

period of time, rate of interest, and late 

payment charge shall be as 

recommended by the Committee and 

approved by the Secretary. 

(c) * * * 

(d) Operating reserve. The Committee, 

with the approval of the Secretary, may 

establish and maintain during one or 

more crop years an operating monetary 

reserve in an amount not to exceed the 

average of one year’s expenses incurred 

during the most recent five preceding 

crop years, except that an established 

reserve need not be reduced to conform 

to any recomputed average. Funds in 

reserve shall be available for use by the 

Committee for expenses authorized 

pursuant to § 987.71. 

* * * * * 

7. Amend § 987.82 by revising 

paragraph (b)(2), redesignating 

paragraph (b)(3) as paragraph (b)(4), and 

adding a new paragraph (b)(3) to read as 

follows: 

§ 987.82 [Amended] 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(2) When favored by producers. The 

Secretary shall terminate the provisions 

of this part at the end of any crop year 

whenever he or she finds that such 

termination is favored by a majority of 

the producers of dates who, during that 

crop year, have been engaged in the 

production for market of dates in the 

area of production: Provided, That such 

majority have, during such period, 

produced for market more than 50 

percent of the volume of such dates 

produced for market within said area; 

but such termination shall be effective 

only if announced on or before August 

1 of the then current crop year. 

(3) Continuance referendum. The 

Secretary shall conduct a referendum 

six years after the effective date of this 

section and every sixth year thereafter to 

ascertain whether continuance of this 

part is favored by producers. The 

Secretary may terminate the provisions 

of this part at the end of any crop year 

in which he or she has found that 

continuance of this part is not favored 

by producers who, during a 

representative period determined by the 

Secretary, have been engaged in the 

production for market of dates in the 

production area. 

* * * * * 

8. Revise § 987.124(a) to read as 

follows: 

§ 987.124 Nomination and polling. 

(a) Date producers and producerhandlers shall be provided an 

opportunity to nominate and vote for 

individuals to serve on the Committee. 

For this purpose, the Committee shall, 

no later than June 15 of every third year, 

provide date producers and producerhandlers nomination and balloting 

material by mail or equivalent electronic 

means, upon which producers and 

producer-handlers may nominate 

candidates and cast their votes for 

members and alternate members of the 

Committee in accordance with the 

requirements in paragraphs (b)(1) and 

(b)(2) of this section, respectively. All 

ballots are subject to verification. 

Balloting material should be provided to 

voters at least two weeks before the due 

date and should contain, at least, the 

following information: 

(1) The names of incumbents who are 

willing and eligible to continue to serve 

on the Committee; 

(2) The names of other persons 

willing and eligible to serve; 

(3) Instructions on how voters may 

add write-in candidates; 

(4) The date on which the ballot is 

due to the Committee or its agent; and 

(5) How and where to return ballots. 

[FR Doc. 2011–29032 Filed 11–8–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–02–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2011–1168; Directorate 

Identifier 2010–NM–239–AD] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing 

Company Model 767–200 and –300 

Series Airplanes 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking 

(NPRM). 

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new 

airworthiness directive (AD) for all The 

Boeing Company Model 767–200 and 

–300 series airplanes. This proposed AD 

was prompted by reports of cracks in 

the inner chords at both left-side and 

right-side stations 859.5, 883.5, and 

903.5. This proposed AD would require 

repetitive inspections of the frame inner 

chord transition radius for cracks, and 

related investigative and corrective 

actions if necessary. We are proposing 

this AD to prevent large cracks in the 

frames and adjacent structure that can 

adversely affect the structural integrity 

of the airplane. 

DATES: We must receive comments on 

this proposed AD by December 27, 

2011. 

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, 

using the procedures found in 14 CFR 

11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following 

methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to 

http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Fax: (202) 493–2251. 

• Mail: U.S. Department of 

Transportation, Docket Operations, 

M–30, West Building Ground Floor, 

Room W12–140, 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590. 

• Hand Delivery: Deliver to Mail 

address above between 9 a.m. and 

5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except 

Federal holidays. 

For service information identified in 

this proposed AD, contact Boeing 

Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data 

& Services Management, P.O. Box 3707, 

MC 2H–65, Seattle, Washington 98124– 

2207; telephone (206) 544–5000, 

extension 1; fax (206) 766–5680; email 

me.boecom@boeing.com; Internet 

https://www.myboeingfleet.com. You 

may review copies of the referenced 

service information at the FAA, 

Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 

Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington. 

For information on the availability of 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
69686 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 217 / Wednesday, November 9, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

this material at the FAA, call (425) 227– 

1221. 

Examining the AD Docket 

You may examine the AD docket on 

the Internet at http:// 

www.regulations.gov; or in person at the 

Docket Management Facility between 

9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through 

Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD 

docket contains this proposed AD, the 

regulatory evaluation, any comments 

received, and other information. The 

street address for the Docket Office 

(phone: (800) 647–5527) is in the 

ADDRESSES section. Comments will be 

available in the AD docket shortly after 

receipt. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Berhane Alazar, Aerospace Engineer, 

Airframe Branch, ANM–120S, FAA, 

Seattle Aircraft Certification Office 

(ACO), 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, 

Washington 98057–3356; phone: (425) 

917–6577; fax: (425) 917–6590; email: 

Berhane.Alazar@faa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Comments Invited 

We invite you to send any written 

relevant data, views, or arguments about 

this proposal. Send your comments to 

an address listed under the ADDRESSES

section. Include ‘‘Docket No. FAA– 

2011–1168; Directorate Identifier 2010– 

NM–239–AD’’ at the beginning of your 

comments. We specifically invite 

comments on the overall regulatory, 

economic, environmental, and energy 

aspects of this proposed AD. We will 

consider all comments received by the 

closing date and may amend this 

proposed AD because of those 

comments. 

We will post all comments we 

receive, without change, to http:// 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information you provide. We 

will also post a report summarizing each 

substantive verbal contact we receive 

about this proposed AD. 

Discussion 

We have received reports of cracks in 

the inner chords at both left-side and 

right-side stations 859.5, 883.5, and 

903.5. The reports indicate crack lengths 

that range from 0.10 inch up to 1.8 

inches that originate from the inner 

chord transition radius. In some cases, 

the crack has intersected adjacent 

fastener holes. Analysis has determined 

the cause of the cracks in the frame 

inner chords to be a stress concentration 

at the transition radius. Cracks in the 

frame inner chord transition radius can 

propagate and intersect fastener holes in 

the frame chord. These cracks can 

propagate further into the frame 

structure and adjacent structure and 

become large enough to adversely affect 

the structural integrity of the airplane. 

Relevant Service Information 

We reviewed Boeing Service Bulletin 

767–53A0209, Revision 1, dated July 27, 

2011. This service information describes 

procedures for repetitive detailed 

inspections or surface high frequency 

eddy current (HFEC) inspections of the 

frame inner chord transition radius for 

cracks at stations 859.5, 883.5, and 

903.5, as applicable, left and right 

buttock line 89, below water line 200; 

and related investigative and corrective 

actions, if necessary. 

Related investigative actions include a 

detailed inspection for filler(s) between 

the frame and stub-beam, and measuring 

for filler thickness if necessary; and an 

open hole HFEC inspection for cracks in 

the frame inner chord, failsafe chord, 

frame web, doubler (if necessary), and 

stub-beam, if necessary. 

Corrective actions include contacting 

Boeing for repair instructions; repairing; 

and oversizing the holes, and trimming 

out the inner chord transition radius 

crack and installing a 1-to-2 hole repair 

angle; if necessary. 

The compliance time for the initial 

inspection is either 11,000 total flight 

cycles or 2,400 flight cycles after the 

date on the service bulletin (whichever 

occurs later); or 14,000 total flight cycles 

or 3,000 flight cycles after the date on 

the service bulletin (whichever occurs 

later); depending on airplane 

configuration. The repetitive inspection 

interval ranges between 2,400 and 6,000 

flight cycles, depending on the 

inspection type. 

FAA’s Determination 

We are proposing this AD because we 

evaluated all the relevant information 

and determined the unsafe condition 

described previously is likely to exist or 

develop in other products of the same 

type design. 

Proposed AD Requirements 

This proposed AD would require 

accomplishing the actions specified in 

the service information described 

previously, except as discussed under 

‘‘Differences Between the Proposed AD 

and the Service Information.’’ 

The post-repair inspections specified 

in Tables 2, 4, 6, and 8 of paragraph 

1.E., ‘‘Compliance,’’ of Boeing Service 

Bulletin 767–53A0209, Revision 1, 

dated July 27, 2011, are not required by 

this proposed AD. 

Differences Between the Proposed AD 

and the Service Information 

Boeing Service Bulletin 767– 

53A0209, Revision 1, dated July 27, 

2011, specifies to contact the 

manufacturer for instructions on how to 

repair certain conditions, but this 

proposed AD would require repairing 

those conditions in one of the following 

ways: 

• In accordance with a method that 

we approve; or 

• Using data that meet the 

certification basis of the airplane, and 

that have been approved by the Boeing 

Commercial Airplanes Organization 

Designation Authorization (ODA) whom 

we have authorized to make those 

findings. 

Costs of Compliance 

We estimate that this proposed AD 

will affect 325 airplanes of U.S. registry. 

We estimate the following costs to 

comply with this proposed AD: 

ESTIMATED COSTS

Action Labor cost Parts cost Cost per product Cost on U.S. operators 

Detailed or HFEC inspection 23 or 26 work-hours × $85 

per hour = $1,955 or 

$2,210 per inspection cycle.

$0 $1,955 or $2,210 per inspection cycle.Up to $718,250 per inspection 

cycle. 

We estimate the following costs to do 

any necessary repairs that would be 

required based on the results of the 

proposed inspection. We have no way of 

determining the number of aircraft that 

might need these repairs. 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 217 / Wednesday, November 9, 2011 / Proposed Rules 69687 

ON-CONDITION COSTS

Action Labor cost Parts cost Cost per product 

Repair ............................................ 24 work-hours × $85 per hour = 

$2,040.

$383 to $8,327 per frame ............. $2,423 to $10,367 per frame. 

On-condition detailed and HFEC 

inspections and measurement.

7 work-hours × $85 per hour = 

$595 per frame.

$0 .................................................. $595. 

Authority for This Rulemaking 

Title 49 of the United States Code 

specifies the FAA’s authority to issue 

rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, 

section 106, describes the authority of 

the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: 

Aviation Programs, describes in more 

detail the scope of the Agency’s 

authority. 

We are issuing this rulemaking under 

the authority described in Subtitle VII, 

Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: 

‘‘General requirements.’’ Under that 

section, Congress charges the FAA with 

promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in 

air commerce by prescribing regulations 

for practices, methods, and procedures 

the Administrator finds necessary for 

safety in air commerce. This regulation 

is within the scope of that authority 

because it addresses an unsafe condition 

that is likely to exist or develop on 

products identified in this rulemaking 

action. 

Regulatory Findings 

We determined that this proposed AD 

would not have federalism implications 

under Executive Order 13132. This 

proposed AD would not have a 

substantial direct effect 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. 

For the reasons discussed above, I 

certify this proposed regulation: 

(1) Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ under Executive Order 12866, 

(2) Is not a ‘‘significant rule’’ under 

the DOT Regulatory Policies and 

Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 

1979), 

(3) Will not affect intrastate aviation 

in Alaska, and 

(4) Will not have a significant 

economic impact, positive or negative, 

on a substantial number of small entities 

under the criteria of the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act. 

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 

Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation 

safety, Incorporation by reference, 

Safety. 

The Proposed Amendment 

Accordingly, under the authority 

delegated to me by the Administrator, 

the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 

39 as follows: 

PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS 

DIRECTIVES 

1. The authority citation for part 39 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. 

§ 39.13 [Amended] 

2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding 

the following new airworthiness 

directive (AD): 

The Boeing Company: Docket No. FAA– 

2011–1168; Directorate Identifier 2010– 

NM–239–AD. 

(a) Comments Due Date 

We must receive comments by December 

27, 2011. 

(b) Affected ADs 

None. 

(c) Applicability 

This AD applies to The Boeing Company 

Model 767–200 and –300 series airplanes, 

certificated in any category, as identified in 

Boeing Service Bulletin 767–53A0209, 

Revision 1, dated July 27, 2011. 

(d) Subject 

Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC)/ 

Air Transport Association (ATA) of America 

Code 53: Fuselage. 

(e) Unsafe Condition 

This AD was prompted by reports of cracks 

in the inner chords at both left-side and rightside stations 859.5, 883.5, and 903.5. We are 

issuing this AD to prevent large cracks in the 

frames and adjacent structure that can 

adversely affect the structural integrity of the 

airplane. 

(f) Compliance 

Comply with this AD within the 

compliance times specified, unless already 

done. 

(g) Repetitive Inspections, Related 

Investigative Actions, and Corrective 

Actions 

Except as required by paragraph (h)(2) of 

this AD, at the times specified in paragraph 

1.E., ‘‘Compliance,’’ of Boeing Service 

Bulletin 767–53A0209, Revision 1, dated July 

27, 2011: Perform a detailed inspection or a 

surface high frequency eddy current (HFEC) 

inspection for cracking in the frame inner 

chord transition radius at stations 859.5, 

883.5, and 903.5, as applicable, left buttock 

line and right buttock line 89, below water 

line 200; and do all applicable related 

investigative and corrective actions; in 

accordance with the Accomplishment 

Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin 767– 

53A0209, Revision 1, dated July 27, 2011; 

except as required by paragraph (h)(1) of this 

AD. Do all applicable related investigative 

and corrective actions before further flight. If 

no cracking is found, repeat the inspections 

thereafter at the applicable interval specified 

in paragraph 1.E., ‘‘Compliance,’’ of Boeing 

Service Bulletin 767–53A0209, Revision 1, 

dated July 27, 2011. 

Note 1: The post-repair inspections 

specified in Tables 2, 4, 6, and 8 of paragraph 

1.E., ‘‘Compliance,’’ of Boeing Service 

Bulletin 767–53A0209, Revision 1, dated July 

27, 2011, may be used in support of 

compliance with Section 121.1109(c)(2) or 

129.109(c)(2) of the Federal Aviation 

Regulations (14 CFR 121.1109(c)(2) or 14 CFR 

129.109(c)(2)). 

(h) Exceptions to the Service Information 

(1) If any cracking is found during any 

inspection required by this AD, and Boeing 

Service Bulletin 767–53A0209, Revision 1, 

dated July 27, 2011, specifies to contact 

Boeing for appropriate action: Before further 

flight, repair the cracking using a method 

approved in accordance with the procedures 

specified in paragraph (j) of this AD. 

(2) Where Boeing Service Bulletin 767– 

53A0209, Revision 1, dated July 27, 2011, 

specifies a compliance time after the date on 

the service bulletin, this AD requires 

compliance within the specified compliance 

time after the effective date of this AD. 

(i) No Reporting Required 

Although Boeing Service Bulletin 767– 

53A0209, Revision 1, dated July 27, 2011, 

specifies to submit certain information to the 

manufacturer, this AD does not include that 

requirement. 

(j) Alternative Methods of Compliance 

(AMOCs) 

(1) The Manager, Seattle Aircraft 

Certification Office (ACO), FAA, has the 

authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if 

requested using the procedures found in 14 

CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, 

send your request to your principal inspector 

or local Flight Standards District Office, as 

appropriate. If sending information directly 

to the manager of the ACO, send it to the 

attention of the person identified in the 

Related Information section of this AD. 

Information may be emailed to: 9-ANMSeattle-ACO-AMOC-Requests@faa.gov. 

(2) Before using any approved AMOC, 

notify your appropriate principal inspector, 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
69688 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 217 / Wednesday, November 9, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

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. 

(k) Related Information 

(l) For more information about this AD, 

contact Berhane Alazar, Aerospace Engineer, 

Airframe Branch, ANM–120S, FAA, ACO, 

1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington 

98057–3356; phone: (425) 917–6577; fax: 

(425) 917–6590; email: 

Berhane.Alazar@faa.gov. 

(2) For service information identified in 

this AD, contact Boeing Commercial 

Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services 

Management, P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H–65, 

Seattle, Washington 98124–2207; telephone 

(206) 544–5000, extension 1; fax (206) 766– 

5680; email me.boecom@boeing.com; Internet 

https://www.myboeingfleet.com. You may 

review copies of the referenced service 

information at the FAA, Transport Airplane 

Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, 

Washington. For information on the 

availability of this material at the FAA, call 

(425) 227–1221. 

Issued in Renton, Washington, on October 

21, 2011. 

Kalene C. Yanamura, 

Acting Manager, Transport Airplane 

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. 2011–28759 Filed 11–8–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

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 tollfree 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 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS