30552 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 117 / Monday, June 17, 1996 / Proposed Rules

page 26036 in the issue of Thursday,

May 23, 1996, make the following

correction:

In the ADDRESSES section on page

26036, in the first column, last line, the

docket number was listed as 28537. This

number should be changed to read

28586.

Issued in Washington, DC on June 12,

1996.

Joseph A. Conte,

Acting Assistant Chief Counsel.

[FR Doc. 96–15334 Filed 6–14–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–M

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Customs Service

19 CFR Parts 101 and 122

Customs Service Field Organization;

Establishment of Sanford Port of Entry

AGENCY: Customs Service, Treasury.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

SUMMARY: This document proposes to

amend the Customs Regulations

pertaining to Customs field organization

by establishing a new port of entry at

Sanford, Florida. The new port of entry

would include Orlando-Sanford Airport,

located in the city of Sanford, Seminole

County, Florida, which is currently

operated as a user-fee airport known as

Sanford Regional Airport. This change

will assist the Customs Service in its

continuing efforts to achieve more

efficient use of 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 July 17, 1996.

ADDRESSES: Written comments

(preferably in triplicate) may be

addressed to the Regulations Branch,

Office of Regulations and Rulings, U.S.

Customs Service, 1301 Constitution

Avenue, NW., Washington, D.C. 20229.

Comments submitted may be inspected

at the Regulations Branch, Office of

Regulations and Rulings, Franklin

Court, 1099 14th St., NW, Suite 4000,

Washington, DC.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Harry Denning, Office of Field

Operations, Resource Management

Division (202) 927–0196.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

To achieve more efficient use of its

personnel, facilities, and resources, and

in order to provide better services to

carriers, importers, and the public in

Central Florida, Customs proposes to

amend § 101.3(b)(1), Customs

Regulations (19 CFR 101.3(b)(1)), by

establishing a new port of entry at

Sanford, Florida. The new port of entry,

located in Seminole County, Florida,

would include the Orlando-Sanford

Airport, which currently operates as

Sanford Regional Airport, and is listed

in § 122.15(b) of the Customs

Regulations as a user-fee airport.

Port of Entry Criteria

No formal application procedures

have been adopted for purposes of

requesting new or expanded Customs

services. The procedure most commonly

followed has been for a recognized civic

or government organization (such as a

chamber of commerce, seaport or airport

authority, or city government) to submit

a written request to the director of the

Customs port nearest where the facility

is or would be located, setting forth the

reason for the new or expanded service.

However, there is no prohibition which

prevents Customs from initiating the

establishment of a port of entry where

Customs has reason to believe or made

a determination that the necessity for a

new facility is justified. Favorable

consideration of requests normally

hinges on whether there is a sufficient

volume of import business (actual or

potential) to justify the expense of

maintaining a new office or expanding

service at an existing location.

The criteria considered by Customs in

determining whether to establish a port

of entry are found in T.D. 82–37 (47 FR

10137), as revised by T.D. 86–14 (51 FR

4559) and T.D. 87–65 (52 FR 16328).

Under these criteria, which are not

absolute, a community requesting a port

of entry designation must:

(1) Demonstrate that the benefits to be

derived justify the Federal Government

expense involved;

(2) Be serviced by at least two major

modes of transportation (rail, air, water,

or highway); and

(3) Have a minimum population of

300,000 within the immediate service

area (approximately a 70-mile radius).

In addition, if the facility applies for

designation as a port of entry based

solely upon the consumption entries

criterion (see below), it must make a

commitment to make optimal use of

electronic data transfer capabilities to

permit integration with Customs

Automated Commercial System (ACS),

which provides a means for the

electronic processing of entries of

imported merchandise. Further, the

actual or potential Customs workload

(minimum number of transactions per

year) at the proposed port of entry must

meet one of several alternative

minimum requirements:

(1) 15,000 international air

passengers; or

(2) 2,500 formal (over § 1,250 in

Customs value) or informal (not over

§ 1,250 in Customs value) consumption

entries; or

(3) In the case of land border ports,

150,000 vehicles; or

(4) 2,000 scheduled international

aircraft arrivals (passenger and/or

cargo); or

(5) 350 cargo vessel arrivals; or

(6) Any appropriate combination of

the above.

Lastly, facilities at the proposed port

of entry must include cargo and

passenger facilities, warehousing space

for the secure storage of imported cargo

pending final Customs inspection and

release, and administrative office space,

inspection areas, storage areas and other

space necessary for regular Customs

operations.

The proposal set forth in this

document is based on Customs analysis

of a report prepared for the Central

Florida Regional Airport Board which

manages the airport at Sanford and

shows projected workload figures for

the airport for the next decade. That

report provides that although Sanford

Regional Airport only became a user fee

airport in 1991, since 1980 it has

become the fastest growing airport for

international passenger clearance

services in Florida. In response to this

growth, the Airport Board has elected to

make substantial and long term

investment in new international arrival

facilities to serve this growing Central

Florida market. Current flight schedules

for the airport beginning in mid-April

1996 through October of this year

project some 413 charter airline flights

carrying approximately 118,732

international passengers.

With regard to the above criteria,

Customs believes that the Federal

Government would benefit from the port

of entry designation because OrlandoSanford Airport (currently operating as

Sanford Regional Airport) would be

available to share the workload

presently handled at ports of entry such

as Miami International Airport. The

report further provides that State Roads

46 and 417 provide highway access to

the airport, and that the population of

the Seminole county-area was 287,529

in 1990 and forecast to reach 392,500 by

the year 2000, which is well above the

minimum 300,000 required. Further, the

report provides that the Central Florida

Region—comprising the surrounding

counties of Lake, Volusia, Orange,

Brevard, and Osceola—offered a

combined additional population of
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 117 / Monday, June 17, 1996 / Proposed Rules 30553

1,623,518 in 1990, forecasted to reach

2,209,957 by the year 2000. Because

Sanford could qualify for port of entry

status on the strength of the potential

international passenger processing

figures at the airport alone, and is not

expected to process many consumption

entries, Customs believes that the

facility does not, at this time, have to

make a commitment to make optimal

use of electronic data transfer

capabilities to permit integration with

Customs Automated Commercial

System (ACS), which provides a means

for the electronic processing of entries

of imported merchandise. Lastly, since

the airport is currently a Customs user

fee airport, Customs knows that office,

storage, and examination space are

currently available for use by Customs.

Conditional Status

Based on the above, Customs believes

that there is sufficient justification for

establishment of the proposed port of

entry at Sanford. If, after reviewing the

public comments, Customs decides to

terminate Sanford’s designation as a

user-fee airport, then Customs will

notify the airport of that determination

in accordance with the provisions of 19

CFR 122.15(c). However, it is noted that

this proposal relies on potential, rather

than actual, workload figures. Therefore,

even if the proposed port of entry

designation is adopted as a final rule, in

3 years Customs will review the actual

workload generated within the new port

of entry. If that review indicates that the

actual workload is below the T.D. 82–

37 standards, as amended, procedures

may be instituted to revoke the port of

entry status. In such case, the Airport

may reapply to become a user fee airport

under the provisions of 19 U.S.C. 58b.

Description of Proposed Port of Entry

Limits

The geographical limits of the

proposed Sanford port of entry would

be as follows:

The Orlando-Sanford Airport, which

consists of approximately 2,000 acres

which are located in Seminole County,

Florida, beginning in the north/east at

the intersection of State Road 46 and

State Road 417 and proceeding south to

Lake Mary Boulevard, turning west to

Sanford Boulevard, and finally turning

north to State Road 46 to the point of

beginning.

Proposed Amendments

If the proposed port of entry

designation is adopted, the list of

Customs ports of entry at § 101.3(b)(1)

will be amended to include Sanford as

a port of entry in Florida, and Sanford

Regional Airport will be deleted from

the list of user-fee airports at

§ 122.15(b).

Comments

Before adopting this proposal as a

final rule, consideration will be given to

any written comments timely submitted

to Customs. Comments submitted will

be available for public inspection in

accordance with the Freedom of

Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552), § 1.4 of

the Treasury Department Regulations

(31 CFR 1.4), and § 103.11(b) of the

Customs Regulations (19 CFR

103.11(b)), on regular business days

between the hours of 9 a.m. and 4:30

p.m. at the Regulations Branch, Office of

Regulations and Rulings, U.S. Customs

Service, Franklin Court, 4th floor, 1099

14th St., NW, Washington, DC.

Authority

This change is proposed under the

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

2, 66, and 1624.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act, and

Executive Order 12866

Pursuant to provisions of the

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

et seq.), it is certified that, if adopted,

the proposed amendments will not have

a significant economic impact on a

substantial number of small entities, as

the proposed amendments concern the

status of only one airport facility.

Accordingly, the proposed amendments

are not subject to the regulatory analysis

or other requirements of 5 U.S.C. 603

and 604. This amendment does not meet

the criteria for a ‘‘significant regulatory

action’’ as specified in Executive Order

12866.

George J. Weise,

Commissioner of Customs.

Approved: May 15, 1996.

Dennis M. O’Connell,

Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary of the

Treasury.

[FR Doc. 96–15316 Filed 6–14–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4820–02–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Highway Administration

23 CFR Part 777

[FHWA Docket No. 96–8]

RIN 2125–AD78

Mitigation of Impacts to Wetlands

AGENCY: Federal Highway

Administration (FHWA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking

(NPRM); request for comments.

SUMMARY: In accordance with the

President’s Regulatory Reinvention

Initiative, the FHWA proposes to amend

its regulation outlining the procedures

to be followed in mitigating the impacts

of Federal-aid highway projects and

programs to wetlands. The current

regulation has become outdated as a

result of advances in the science of

wetland management and the

amendments made by sections 1006(d)

and 1007(a) of the Intermodal Surface

Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991

(ISTEA) (Pub. L. 102–240, 105

Stat.1914) to the statutory provisions of

title 23, United States Code (U.S.C.).

The ISTEA amendments significantly

alter the range and timing of alternatives

eligible for Federal-aid participation for

mitigation of wetland impacts due to

Federal-aid highway projects.

Accordingly, this proposal would revise

the current regulation to conform to the

ISTEA amendments, thereby providing

more flexibility to State highway

agencies in determining eligibility of

mitigation alternatives for Federal

participation. This proposal would

broaden the scope of the current

regulation to encompass all wetlands

mitigation projects eligible for Federal

participation, not just those involving

privately owned wetlands.

DATES: Comments must be received on

or before August 16, 1996.

ADDRESSES: Submit written, signed

comments to FHWA Docket No. 96–8,

Federal Highway Administration, Room

4232, HCC–10, Office of the Chief

Counsel, 400 Seventh Street, SW.,

Washington, D.C. 20590. All comments

received will be available for

examination at the above address

between 8:30 a.m. and 3:30 p.m., e.t.,

Monday through Friday, except Federal

holidays. Those desiring notice of

receipt of comments must include a selfaddressed, stamped postcard.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.

Paul Garrett, Office of Environment and

Planning, HEP–42, (202) 366–9173, or

Mr. Brett Gainer, Office of the Chief

Counsel, HCC–32, (202) 366–1372,

Federal Highway Administration, 400

Seventh Street, SW., Washington, D.C.

20590. Office hours are from 7:45 a.m.

to 4:15 p.m., e.t., Monday through

Friday, except Federal holidays.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

Executive Order (E.O.) 11990,

‘‘Protection of Wetlands,’’ requires all

Federal agencies to ‘‘avoid to the extent

possible the long and short term adverse

impacts associated with the destruction

or modification of wetlands’’ (42 FR

26961, May 25, 1977). Specifically, this