[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 194 (Friday, October 6, 1995)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 52347-52348]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-24864]
========================================================================
Proposed Rules
Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________
This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains notices to the public of
the proposed issuance of rules and regulations. The purpose of these
notices is to give interested persons an opportunity to participate in
the rule making prior to the adoption of the final rules.
========================================================================
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 194 / Friday, October 6, 1995 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 52347]]
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
Customs Service
19 CFR Part 101
Customs Service Field Organization--Sioux Falls, SD
AGENCY: Customs Service, Department of the Treasury.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document proposes to amend the Customs Regulations
pertaining to the field organization of Customs by establishing Sioux
Falls, South Dakota, as a port of entry. The change is being proposed
as part of Customs continuing efforts to obtain 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 November 6, 1995.
ADDRESSES: Written comments (preferably in triplicate) may be addressed
to the Regulations Branch, U.S. Customs Service, Franklin Court, 1301
Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20229. Comments submitted
may be inspected at the Regulations Branch, Office of Regulations and
Rulings, Franklin Court, 1099 14th Street, N.W., Suite 4000,
Washington, D.C.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bob Jones, Office of Field Operations
(202-927-0456).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
As part of its continuing efforts to obtain more efficient use of
its personnel, facilities, and resources and to provide better service
to carriers, importers, and the general public, Customs is proposing to
amend Sec. 101.3 of the Customs Regulations (19 CFR 101.3) by
establishing a port of entry at Sioux Falls, South Dakota, and
encompassing the counties of Minnehaha and Lincoln in the State of
South Dakota.
The Governor of the State of South Dakota has requested the
establishment of a port of entry within South Dakota which does not
presently have a port of entry. In support of the port of entry
request, it has been stated to Customs that the proposed port of entry
will yield significant immediate and future economic benefits for the
State of South Dakota, including the retention and expansion of jobs,
the more efficient transportation of imported and exported merchandise,
the opportunity for establishment of a foreign trade zone, the expanded
development of infrastructure within the proposed port, an enhanced
business competitiveness for existing enterprises, and the opportunity
to encourage new businesses to locate within South Dakota. The Customs
office within the requested port of entry would be located at the Joe
Foss Field airport in Sioux Falls which is the largest urban area
within the State of South Dakota.
In T.D. 82-37 (47 FR 10137), as revised by T.D. 86-14 (51 FR 4559)
and by T.D. 87-65 (52 FR 16328), Customs has set forth certain criteria
which should be considered in connection with a request for port of
entry designation. Specifically, the community for which such
designation is requested must: (1) demonstrate that the benefits to be
derived justify the Federal Government expense involved; (2) except in
the case of land border ports, be serviced by at least two major modes
of transportation (rail, air, water, or highway); and (3) except in the
case of land border ports, have a minimum population of 300,000 within
the immediate service area (approximately a 70-mile radius). In
addition, T.D. 82-37, as revised, provides that at least one of the
following actual or potential workload criteria must be met in the area
to be serviced by the requested port of entry (minimum number of
transactions per year): (1) 15,000 international air passengers; (2)
2,500 (formal) consumption entries, with the applicant location
committing to optimal use of electronic data input means to permit
integration with any Customs system for electronic processing of
entries, and with no more than half of the 2,500 entries being
attributed to one private party; (3) for land border ports, 150,000
vehicles; (4) 2,000 scheduled international aircraft arrivals
(passengers and/or cargo); (5) 350 cargo vessel arrivals; or (6) any
appropriate combination of the foregoing. Finally, T.D. 82-37, as
revised, provides that facilities at the location must include wharfage
and anchorage adequate for oceangoing vessels in the case of a water
port, 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.
In connection with the request for designation of the Sioux Falls
port of entry it has been represented to Customs that the cost to the
Federal Government would only involve the services of one full-time
Customs official and therefore would be minimal when compared to the
significant benefits, described above, that port of entry status would
impart to the South Dakota business community. As regards
transportation services, Sioux Falls is located at the junction of two
major interstate highways (Interstate 90 and Interstate 29), is
serviced by a major national freight railway company, and is serviced
at the Joe Foss Field airport by national passenger and cargo airlines,
express air freight services and commuter airlines. It has also been
represented to Customs that the greater metropolitan area of Sioux
Falls has a population of 139,236 based on 1990 census figures and that
a population of well over 300,000 exists within a 70-mile radius of
Sioux Falls. With regard to actual or potential workload, the only
figures provided to Customs concerned annual projections of import
entries that would be filed within the requested port of entry by
existing businesses, with no single company accounting for more than
half of the projected entries: 2,709 in 1996, 3,147 in 1997, and 3,253
in 1998; it was also stated to Customs that the Sioux Falls Regional
Airport Authority is committed to making optimal use of electronic data
transfer capability to permit integration with the Customs Automated
Commercial System for processing entries. Finally, it has been
represented to Customs that the Joe Foss Field airport has exceptional
cargo and passenger facilities, that passenger areas can be secured to
accommodate international arrival passenger clearance, that there are
several warehouse facilities in close proximity
[[Page 52348]]
to the Joe Foss Field airport that are suitable for the secure storage
of cargo pending inspection and release by Customs, and that the Sioux
Falls Regional Airport Authority has committed to providing
administrative office space, inspection areas, storage areas, and other
space necessary for regular Customs operations and will also furnish
the Customs office with necessary communications equipment such as a
computer, a telephone, a facsimile machine, and computer lines as well
as access to photocopiers.
Based on the information provided to Customs and summarized above,
Sioux Falls would meet the current minimum criteria for port of entry
designation set forth in T.D. 82-37, as revised. It is noted that the
proposal relies on potential, rather than actual, workload figures.
Therefore, even if the proposed port of entry designation is adopted as
a final rule, Customs will in 3 years review the actual workload
generated within the port of entry. If that review indicates that the
actual workload is below the T.D. 82-37 standards, procedures will be
instituted to revoke port of entry status. Of course, if port of entry
status is revoked, the City of Sioux Falls will have the opportunity to
apply for user fee airport status under 19 U.S.C. 58b.
Proposed Limits of Port of Entry
The geographical limits of the proposed port of entry of Sioux
Falls would be as follows:
All of Minnehaha and Lincoln Counties in the State of South Dakota.
If the proposed port of entry designation is adopted, the list of
Customs ports of entry in 19 CFR 101.3(b) will be amended accordingly.
Comments
Before adopting this proposal, consideration will be given to any
written comments (preferably in triplicate) 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),
Sec. 1.4, Treasury Department Regulations (31 CFR 1.4), and
Sec. 103.11(b), Customs Regulations (19 CFR 103.11(b)), on regular
business days between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. at the
Regulations Branch, Office of Regulations and Rulings, Franklin Court,
1099 14th Street, N.W., Suite 4000, Washington, D.C.
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
Customs routinely establishes, expands, and consolidates Customs
ports of entry throughout the United States to accommodate the volume
of Customs-related activity in various parts of the country. Although
this document is being issued with notice for public comment, it is not
subject to the notice and public procedure requirements of 5 U.S.C. 553
because it relates to agency management and organization. Accordingly,
this document is not subject to the provisions of the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). In addition, matters involving
agency management and organization are not subject to Executive Order
12866.
Michael H. Lane,
Acting Commissioner of Customs.
Approved: September 14, 1995.
John P. Simpson,
Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Treasury.
[FR Doc. 95-24864 Filed 10-5-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4820-02-P