Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 97 / Thursday, May 19, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 30415 

1For purposes of this technical rule, an ‘‘aircraft’’ 

is defined as any device used or designed for 

navigation or flight in air and does not include 

hovercraft. 19 CFR 122.1(a). 

2A landing rights airport is ‘‘any airport, other 

than an international airport or user fee airport, at 

which flights from a foreign area are given 

permission by Customs to land.’’ 19 CFR 122.1(f). 

3Sections 403(1) and 411 of the Homeland 

Security Act of 2002 (Pub. L. 107–296, 116 Stat. 

2135, 2178–79 (2002)), codified 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 newly established U.S. Department 

of Homeland Security. The Secretary of Homeland 

Security delegated the authority to designate user 

fee facilities (UFF) to the Commissioner of CBP 

through Department of Homeland Security 

Delegation, Sec. II.A., No. 7010.3 (May 11, 2006). 

The Chief Operating Officer and Senior Official 

Performing the Duties of the Commissioner 

subsequently delegated the authority to the 

Executive Assistant Commissioner (EAC) of the 

Office of Field Operations, on March 23, 2020, to 

designate new UFFs. On December 23, 2020, the 

broader authority to withdraw a facility’s 

designation as a UFF, as well as execute, amend, 

or terminate Memorandum of Agreements, was also 

delegated to the EAC of the Office of Field 

Operations. 

ASW TX E5 Palestine, TX [Amended] 

Palestine Municipal Airport, IA 

(Lat. 31°46′47′′ N, long. 95°42′23′′ W) 

That airspace extending upward from 700 

feet above the surface within a 6.6-mile 

radius of Palestine Municipal Airport. 

Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on May 12, 

2022. 

Martin A. Skinner, 

Manager, Operations Support Group, ATO 

Central Service Center. 

[FR Doc. 2022–10675 Filed 5–18–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

U.S. Customs and Border Protection 

19 CFR Part 122 

[CBP Dec. 22–09] 

Technical Amendment to List of User 

Fee Airports: Removal of One Airport 

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 removing one airport 

from the list of user fee airports. User 

fee airports are airports that have been 

approved by the Commissioner of CBP 

to receive, for a fee, the customs services 

of CBP officers for processing aircraft, 

passengers, and cargo entering the 

United States, but do not qualify for 

designation as international or landing 

rights airports. Specifically, this 

technical amendment reflects the 

removal of the designation of user fee 

airport status for the Hillsboro Airport 

in Hillsboro, Oregon. 

DATES: Effective May 19, 2022. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Ryan Flanagan, Director, Alternative 

Funding Program, Office of Field 

Operations, U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection at Ryan.H.Flanagan@

cbp.dhs.gov or 202–550–9566. 

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 engaged 

in international commerce and the 

transportation of persons and cargo by 

aircraft in international commerce.1

Generally, a civil aircraft arriving from 

outside the United States must land at 

an airport designated as an international 

airport. Alternatively, 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.2

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 alternative option for 

civil aircraft seeking to land at an 

airport that is neither an international 

airport nor a landing rights airport. This 

alternative option allows the Secretary 

of Treasury to designate an airport, 

upon request by the airport authority or 

other sponsoring entity, as a user fee 

airport.3 Pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 58b and 

connected delegated authorities, a 

requesting airport may be designated as 

a user fee airport only if 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 by appropriations from 

the general treasury of the United States. 

Instead, the user fee airport pays for the 

customs services provided by CBP. The 

user fee airport must pay the fees 

charged, which must be in an amount 

equal to the expenses incurred by CBP 

in providing customs and related 

services at the user fee airport, 

including the salary and expenses of 

CBP employees to provide such 

services. See 19 U.S.C. 58b; see also 19 

CFR 24.17(a)–(b). 

CBP designates airports as user fee 

airports in accordance with 19 U.S.C. 

58b and 19 CFR 122.15 and on a caseby-case basis. If CBP decides that the 

conditions for designation as a user fee 

airport are satisfied, a Memorandum of 

Agreement (MOA) is executed between 

CBP and the sponsor of the user fee 

airport. Pursuant to 19 CFR 122.15(c), 

the designation of an airport as a user 

fee airport must be withdrawn if either 

CBP or the airport authority gives 120 

days written notice of termination to the 

other party, or if any amounts due to 

CBP are not paid on a timely basis. 

The list of designated user fee airports 

is set forth in 19 CFR 122.15(b). 

Periodically, CBP updates the list to 

include newly designated airports that 

were not previously on the list, to reflect 

any changes in the names of the 

designated user fee airports, and to 

remove airports that are no longer 

designated as user fee airports. 

Recent Change Requiring Update to the 

List of User Fee Airports 

This document updates the list of user 

fee airports in 19 CFR 122.15(b) by 

removing the Hillsboro Airport in 

Hillsboro, Oregon. On November 30, 

2020, the General Aviation Operations 

Supervisor of the Hillsboro Airport 

requested termination of the user fee 

status for the Hillsboro Airport, and the 

General Aviation Operations Supervisor 

and CBP mutually agreed to terminate 

the user fee status of Hillsboro Airport 

effective on July 20, 2021. 

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 a conforming change by updating 

the list of user fee airports by removing 

one airport in light of CBP’s withdrawal 

of its designation as a user fee airport 

under 19 U.S.C. 58b. 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. 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES1
30416 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 97 / Thursday, May 19, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

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. 

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). CBP 

Commissioner Chris Magnus, 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: 

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. 

* * * * * 

§ 122.15 [Amended] 

■ 2. In § 122.15, amend the table in 

paragraph (b) by removing the entry for 

‘‘Hillsboro, Oregon’’. 

Dated: May 13, 2022. 

Robert F. Altneu, 

Director, Regulations & Disclosure Law 

Division, Regulations & Rulings, Office of 

Trade, U.S. Customs and Border Protection. 

[FR Doc. 2022–10668 Filed 5–18–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9111–14–P 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

Office of the Secretary 

32 CFR Part 310 

[Docket ID: DoD–2020–OS–0084] 

RIN 0790–AK99 

Privacy Act of 1974; Implementation 

AGENCY: Office of the Secretary of 

Defense (OSD), Department of Defense 

(DoD). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The DoD is issuing a final rule 

to amend its regulations to exempt 

portions of the DoD–0003, 

‘‘Mobilization Deployment Management 

Information System (MDMIS),’’ system 

of records from certain provisions of the 

Privacy Act of 1974. 

DATES: This rule is effective on June 21, 

2022. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. 

Rahwa Keleta, Privacy and Civil 

Liberties Division, Directorate for 

Privacy, Civil Liberties and Freedom of 

Information, Office of the Assistant to 

the Secretary of Defense for Privacy, 

Civil Liberties, and Transparency, 

Department of Defense, 4800 Mark 

Center Drive, Mailbox #24, Suite 08D09, 

Alexandria, VA 22350–1700; 

OSD.PCLFD@mail.mil; (703) 571–0070. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Discussion of Comments and Changes 

In the notice of proposed rulemaking 

(NPRM), the proposed rule was to be 

published at 32 CFR 310.13(e)(3). DoD 

is now publishing this rule at 32 CFR 

310.13(e)(9). The proposed rule 

published in the Federal Register on 

December 16, 2020 (85 FR 81438– 

81439). Comments were accepted for 60 

days until February 16, 2021. One 

comment was received. Please see the 

summarized comment and the 

Department’s response as follows: 

DoD received one substantive 

comment on the NPRM. The commenter 

voiced concern regarding the 

classification process within the DoD. 

Although this comment does not 

directly pertain to the Privacy Act and 

the exemption claimed for this SORN, to 

promote public understanding in this 

area, a description of the DoD 

classification process is provided in this 

preamble. 

Executive Order 13526 prescribes the 

framework for the Federal government 

(to include DoD) to classify national 

security information. Only DoD 

personnel who are delegated original 

classification authority in writing are 

authorized to review the DoD’s 

information and make the initial 

decision that an item of information 

could reasonably be expected to cause 

identifiable or describable damage to the 

national security if it were disclosed to 

the public. Several oversight and 

compliance safeguarding mechanisms 

exist to ensure the process to classify 

information is appropriate. 

These existing safeguarding 

mechanisms include the following: 

Personnel authorized to make original 

classification determinations are 

required to receive training in proper 

classification, including the avoidance 

of over-classification, and 

declassification at least once a calendar 

year. Additionally, information may 

only be classified if it pertains to 

specific categories or subjects, including 

military plans, weapons systems, or 

operations and intelligence activities. 

Furthermore, agency heads must (on a 

periodic basis) complete a 

comprehensive review of the agency’s 

classification guidance, to include 

reviewing information that is classified 

within the agency; provide the results of 

such review to appropriate officials 

outside the agency at the National 

Archives and Records Administration 

(NARA); and release an unclassified 

version of the review to the public. 

Authorized holders of classified 

information are also encouraged and 

expected to ‘‘challenge’’ classification 

determinations if they believe the 

classification status is improper, and 

any individual or entity can request any 

Federal agency to review classified 

information for declassification, 

regardless of its age or origin, in 

accordance with the Mandatory 

Declassification Review (MDR) process. 

Additional information about the MDR 

process can be found on the NARA’s 

MDR program page at https://

www.archives.gov/isoo/training/mdr. In 

the interest of protecting information 

critical to the Nation’s defense, it is 

appropriate for the DoD to properly 

classify and exempt such information 

from public release under the Privacy 

Act so as to protect U.S. national 

security. 

Having considered the public 

comment, the DoD will implement the 

rulemaking without any changes 

resulting from the comment. However, 

DoD will make one corrective edit to 32 

CFR 310.13(e)(9)(iii)(A). In the prior 

NPRM, records in that paragraph were 

referenced as ‘‘common enterprise 

records,’’ a term that does not appear in 

the DoD–0003 system of records notice 

nor necessarily apply to records in the 

MDMIS. The final rule removes this 

description and simply references 

‘‘records in this system.’’ 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES1