Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 176 / Wednesday, September 10, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 52577 

8 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B). 

9Although notice and comment were not 

required prior to the effective date of the interim 

final rule, the OCC nonetheless invited comments 

on all aspects of this interim final rule and intended 

to revise the interim final rule if necessary or 

appropriate in light of the comments received. As 

explained above, however, the OCC received no 

comments on the interim final rule. 

10 2 U.S.C. 1532. 

1Sections 403(1) and 411 of the Homeland 

Security Act of 2002 (‘‘the Act,’’ Pub. L. 107–296) 

transferred the United States Customs Service and 

its functions from the Department of the Treasury 

to the Department of Homeland Security; pursuant 

to section 1502 of the Act, the President renamed 

the ‘‘Customs Service’’ as the ‘‘Bureau of Customs 

and Border Protection.’’ Effective on March 31, 

2007, DHS changed the name of ‘‘Bureau of 

Customs and Border Protection’’ to ‘‘U.S. Customs 

and Border Protection (CBP)’’ (See 72 FR 20131, 

April 23, 2007). 

agency, for good cause, finds that 

‘‘notice and public procedure thereon 

are impracticable, unnecessary, or 

contrary to the public interest.’’ 8

As we have described, the asset 

brackets in the assessments table in 12 

CFR 8.2(a) were last revised in 1992 and 

did not reflect the current structure of 

the national banking industry. The OCC 

adopted the changes to that framework 

in the form of an interim final rule 

because completion of notice and 

comment rulemaking procedures prior 

to issuing the interim final rule would 

have required delaying implementation 

of the new asset brackets beyond the 

next scheduled assessment date. Such a 

delay would have been contrary to the 

public interest since it would have 

resulted in national banks’ continued 

payment of assessments under a 

framework that the OCC has determined 

is no longer representative of current 

industry structure and the OCC’s 

corresponding expenses of operation. 

Issuance of the interim final rule also 

furthered the public interest and 

reduced regulatory burden because it 

allowed the OCC, as appropriate, to 

issue an amended Notice of Fees that 

better reflects the structure of the 

national banking system and allocates 

the OCC’s expenses of operation on that 

basis. For the same reasons, the OCC 

found good cause to publish the interim 

final rule with an immediate effective 

date. See 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(1), 553(d)(3).9

Because the OCC determined for good 

cause that the APA did not require 

public notice and comment on the 

interim final rule, we did not publish a 

general notice of proposed rulemaking. 

Thus, the RFA, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 

601(2), does not apply to this final rule 

because it is not a rule for which the 

OCC was required to publish a general 

notice of proposed rulemaking pursuant 

to section 553(b) of the APA. 

Executive Order 12866 

The OCC has determined that this 

final rule is not a significant regulatory 

action under Executive Order 12866. 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 

1995 Determinations 

Section 202 of the Unfunded 

Mandates Reform Act of 1995 10

(Unfunded Mandates Act) requires that 

an agency prepare a budgetary impact 

statement before promulgating any rule 

likely to result in a Federal mandate 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 in any one year. 

If a budgetary impact statement is 

required, section 205 of the Unfunded 

Mandates Act also requires the agency 

to identify and consider a reasonable 

number of regulatory alternatives before 

promulgating the rule. The OCC has 

determined that this final rule will not 

result in expenditures by state, local, 

and tribal governments, in the aggregate, 

or by the private sector, of $100 million 

or more in any one year. Accordingly, 

the OCC has not prepared a budgetary 

impact statement or specifically 

addressed the regulatory alternatives 

considered. 

Paperwork Reduction Act 

In accordance with the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3506; 

5 CFR 1320 appendix A.1), we have 

reviewed the final rule to assess any 

information collections. There are no 

collections of information as defined by 

the Paperwork Reduction Act in the 

final rule. 

Lists of Subjects in 12 CFR Part 8 

Assessment of fees. 

PART 8—ASSESSMENT OF FEES 

■ Accordingly under the authority at 12 

U.S.C. 482 the interim rule amending 12 

CFR part 8 which was published at 73 

FR 9012 on February 19, 2008, and 

corrected at 73 FR 9012, Feb. 21, 2008 

is adopted as final without change. 

Dated: August 11, 2008. 

John C. Dugan, 

Comptroller of the Currency. 

[FR Doc. E8–20905 Filed 9–9–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4810–33–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Bureau of Customs and Border 

Protection 

19 CFR Part 122 

[CBP Dec. 08–39] 

Technical Amendment to List of User 

Fee Airports: Addition of Valley 

International Airport, Harlingen, TX 

AGENCY: Customs and Border Protection, 

Department of Homeland Security. 

ACTION: Final rule; technical 

amendment. 

SUMMARY: This document amends the 

Customs and Border Protection (CBP) 

Regulations by revising the list of user 

fee airports to reflect the recent user fee 

airport designation for Valley 

International Airport in Harlingen, 

Texas. User fee airports are those 

airports which, while not qualifying for 

designation as international or landing 

rights airports, have been approved by 

the Commissioner of CBP to receive, for 

a fee, the services of CBP officers for the 

processing of aircraft entering the 

United States, and the passengers and 

cargo of those aircraft. 

DATES: Effective Date: September 10, 

2008. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Scott Welch, Office of Field Operations, 

202–344–2642. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

Title 19, Code of Federal Regulations 

(CFR), sets forth at Part 122 regulations 

relating to the entry and clearance of 

aircraft in international commerce and 

the transportation of persons and cargo 

by aircraft in international commerce. 

Generally, a civil aircraft arriving 

from a place outside of the United States 

is required to land at an airport 

designated as an international airport. 

Alternatively, the pilot of a 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. 

Section 236 of Public Law 98–573 (the 

Trade and Tariff Act of 1984), codified 

at 19 U.S.C. 58b, created an option for 

civil aircraft desiring to land at an 

airport other than an international 

airport or a landing rights airport. A 

civil aircraft arriving from a place 

outside of the United States may ask for 

permission to land at an airport 

designated by the Secretary of 

Homeland Security 1 as a user fee 

airport. 

Pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 58b, an airport 

may be designated as a user fee airport 

if the Commissioner of CBP as delegated 

by the Secretary of Homeland Security 

determines that the volume of business 

at the airport is insufficient to justify 

customs services at the airport and the 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with RULES
52578 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 176 / Wednesday, September 10, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 

governor of the state in which the 

airport is located approves the 

designation. Generally, the type of 

airport that would seek designation as a 

user fee airport would be one at which 

a company, such as an air courier 

service, has a specialized interest in 

regularly landing. 

As the volume of business anticipated 

at this type of airport is insufficient to 

justify its designation as an 

international or landing rights airport, 

the availability of customs services is 

not paid for out of appropriations from 

the general treasury of the United States. 

Instead, customs services are provided 

on a fully reimbursable basis to be paid 

for by the user fee airport on behalf of 

the recipients of the services. 

The fees which are to be charged at 

user fee airports, according to the 

statute, shall be paid by each person 

using the customs services at the airport 

and shall be in the amount equal to the 

expenses incurred by the Commissioner 

of CBP in providing customs services 

which are rendered to such person at 

such airport, including the salary and 

expenses of those employed by the 

Commissioner of CBP to provide the 

customs services. To implement this 

provision, generally, the airport seeking 

the designation as a user fee airport or 

that airport’s authority agrees to pay a 

flat fee for which the users of the airport 

are to reimburse the airport/airport 

authority. The airport/airport authority 

agrees to set and periodically review the 

charges to ensure that they are in accord 

with the airport’s expenses. 

The Commissioner of CBP designates 

airports as user fee airports pursuant to 

19 U.S.C. 58b. See 19 CFR 122.15. If the 

Commissioner decides that the 

conditions for designation as a user fee 

airport are satisfied, a Memorandum of 

Agreement (MOA) is executed between 

the Commissioner of CBP and the local 

responsible official signing on behalf of 

the state, city or municipality in which 

the airport is located. In this manner, 

user fee airports are designated on a 

case-by-case basis. Section 19 CFR 

122.15 sets forth the grounds for 

withdrawal of a user fee designation and 

sets forth the list of designated user fee 

airports. Periodically, CBP updates the 

list of user fee airports at 19 CFR 

122.15(b) to reflect those that have been 

currently designated by the 

Commissioner. This document updates 

that list of user fee airports by adding 

Valley International Airport, in 

Harlingen, Texas to the list. On May 28, 

2008, the Commissioner signed an MOA 

approving the designation of user fee 

status for Valley International Airport. 

Inapplicability of Public Notice and 

Delayed Effective Date Requirements 

Because this amendment merely 

updates the list of user fee airports to 

include an airport already designated by 

the Commissioner of CBP in accordance 

with 19 U.S.C. 58b and neither imposes 

additional burdens on, nor takes away 

any existing rights or privileges from, 

the public, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 

553(b)(B), notice and public procedure 

are unnecessary, and for the same 

reasons, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), 

a delayed effective date is not required. 

The 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. 

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). 

List of Subjects in 19 CFR Part 122 

Air carriers, Aircraft, Airports, 

Customs duties and inspection, Freight. 

Amendment to Regulations 

■ Part 122, Code of Federal Regulations 

(19 CFR part 122) is amended as set 

forth below: 

PART 122—AIR COMMERCE 

REGULATIONS 

■ 1. The 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. 

■ 2. The listing of user fee airports in 

section 122.15(b) is amended as follows: 

by adding, in alphabetical order, in the 

‘‘Location’’ column ‘‘Harlingen, Texas’’

and by adding on the same line, in the 

‘‘Name’’ column, ‘‘Valley International 

Airport.’’

Dated: September 4, 2008. 

Jason P. Ahern, 

Acting Commissioner, U.S. Customs and 

Border Protection. 

[FR Doc. E8–20990 Filed 9–9–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9111–14–P 

DEPARTMENT OF STATE 

22 CFR Part 122 

[Public Notice 6353] 

Amendment to the International Traffic 

in Arms Regulations: Correction 

AGENCY: Department of State. 

ACTION: Correction of final rule. 

SUMMARY: This document makes a 

correction to the RIN stated in the final 

rule published on July 18, 2008 (73 FR 

41258) pertaining to ‘‘Renewal of 

Registration.’’ RIN 1400–AC50 should 

be RIN 1400–AC51. 

DATES: Effective Date: September 10, 

2008. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Mary Sweeney, Office of Defense Trade 

Controls Policy, Bureau of PoliticalMilitary Affairs, Department of State, 

(202) 663–2865. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

Department of State published a final 

rule (Public Notice 6300) in the Federal 

Register of July 18, 2008, amending Part 

122 of the International Traffic in Arms 

Regulations. 

In rule FR Doc. E8–16537 published 

on July 18, 2008 (73 FR 41258), make 

the following correction. 

1. On page 41258, second column, 

‘‘RIN 1400–AC50’’ should read ‘‘RIN 

1400–AC51.’’

Dated: September 4, 2008. 

Robert S. Kovac, 

Managing Director, Directorate of Defense 

Trade Controls, Department of State. 

[FR Doc. E8–21018 Filed 9–9–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4710–25–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY 

Fiscal Service 

31 CFR Part 210 

RIN 1510–AB00 

Federal Government Participation in 

the Automated Clearing House 

AGENCY: Financial Management Service, 

Fiscal Service, Treasury. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: We are amending our 

regulation governing the use of the 

Automated Clearing House (ACH) 

system by Federal agencies. The rule 

adopts, with some exceptions, the ACH 

Rules developed by NACHA—The 

Electronic Payments Association 

(NACHA) as the rules governing the use 

of the ACH Network by Federal 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with RULES