[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 164 (Wednesday, August 24, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 52890-52892]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-21624]
========================================================================
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. 76, No. 164 / Wednesday, August 24, 2011 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 52890]]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
U.S. Customs and Border Protection
8 CFR Part 100
19 CFR Part 101
[Docket No. USCBP-2011-0017]
Closing of the Port of Whitetail, MT
AGENCY: U.S. Customs and Border Protection; DHS.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) is proposing to close
the port of entry of Whitetail, Montana. The proposed 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 October 24, 2011.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by docket number USCBP-
2011-0017, 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-2011-0017. 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: Mr. Roger Kaplan, Acting Director,
Office of Field Operations, Audits and Self-Inspection, (202) 325-4543
(not a toll-free number) or by e-mail at [email protected].
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 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
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 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.
Whitetail, Montana is included in this list, in District No. 30, 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.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Class B ports are designated ports of entry for aliens
arriving by vessel or land transportation, who, at the time of
applying for admission, are in possession of certain, specified
documentation or admissible under a certain documentary waiver.
Class C ports are designated ports of entry only for aliens arriving
by vessel transportation as crewmen, as the term is defined by the
Immigration and Nationality Act with respect to vessels.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On July 20, 2010, the Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) notified
CBP of its intent to close the Big Beaver port of entry in
Saskatchewan, Canada. The port of Big Beaver is located approximately
100 yards to the north of the CBP port of Whitetail, Montana. The
factors influencing CBSA's decision to close the port of Big Beaver
include the low volume of traffic at that port and the close proximity
of alternate Canadian ports of entry at Regway and Coronach. Based on
these factors, CBSA determined that closing the Big Beaver port would
allow for a more efficient use of Canadian funds and resources.
CBSA closed the Big Beaver port on April 1, 2011. Big Beaver's
closure has created a situation where travelers from Canada may
continue to enter the United States at Whitetail but travelers leaving
the United States for Canada must do so at a port other than Big
Beaver.
The port of Whitetail is one of CBP's least trafficked ports. The
port has processed an average of less than 4 privately owned vehicles
per day for the last 4 years. Whitetail currently operates only from
morning until evening (8 a.m. through 9 p.m. during the months of June
through September; 9 a.m. through 6 pm during the months of September
through May). The facility was built in 1964 and has undergone little
renovation since that time. CBP has determined that the facility does
not have the infrastructure to meet modern operational, safety, and
technological demands for ports of entry and that major renovations
would be required if Whitetail were to continue operations. The costs
of such renovations are discussed in Section IV of this document.
The two ports of entry closest to Whitetail are the ports of
Raymond,
[[Page 52891]]
Montana and Scobey, Montana. Raymond is located about 60 miles east of
Whitetail, and Scobey is located about 40 miles west of Whitetail. If
the port of entry at Whitetail is closed, the traffic normally seen at
that port will be processed at these two ports. The port of Raymond
operates 24 hours, providing additional convenience to those normally
crossing at the port of Whitetail.
In view of the closure of the adjacent Canadian port of Big Beaver,
the limited usage of the port of Whitetail, the location of the
alternative ports, and the analysis of the net benefit of the port
closure discussed in Section IV of this document (including the cost of
necessary renovations were the port to remain open), CBP is proposing
to close the Whitetail, Montana, port of entry to better utilize CBP
funds and resources. This action would further CBP's ongoing goal of
more efficiently utilizing its personnel, facilities, and resources.
Consultations/Assessments
CBP will conduct further assessments focusing on how to secure the
area, reroute traffic to the closest ports, and calculate any
additional costs associated with the potential port closure. CBP also
will consult and coordinate with CBSA and the Montana Department of
Transportation regarding the planned closure. CBP is currently
conducting the initial phases of an environmental study to ensure that
the proposed port closure complies with applicable environmental laws
such as the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA).
III. Congressional Notification
On September 28, 2010, the Commissioner of CBP notified Congress of
CBP's intention to close the port of entry at Whitetail, Montana,
fulfilling the congressional notification requirements of 19 U.S.C.
2075(g)(2) and section 417 of the Homeland Security Act (6 U.S.C. 217).
IV. Regulatory Requirements
A. Signing Authority
The signing authority for this document falls under 19 CFR 0.2(a).
Accordingly, this notice of proposed rulemaking is signed by the
Secretary of Homeland Security.
B. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review
This rule is not a significant regulatory action under Executive
Order 12866, as supplemented by Executive Order 13563, and has not been
reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under that order.
Below is CBP's assessment of the benefits and costs of this regulatory
action.
1. Baseline Conditions
Whitetail averaged 1,261 cars and 57 trucks a year from 2007 to
2009. CBP assigns four full time staff to the crossing, costing about
$457,000 per year, including benefits. In addition, CBP spends about
$35,000 a year on operating expenses such as utilities and maintenance.
The total annual cost of operating the crossing is about $492,000. DHS
has determined that the Whitetail port of entry requires significant
renovation and expansion, requiring an estimated $8 million to build
facilities that meet all current safety and security standards. Since
this construction is the only alternative to closing the crossing, CBP
would spend about $8.5 million the first year (construction plus
operating costs) and $0.5 million each subsequent year if the crossing
were to remain open.
2. Costs of Closing the Port
The costs of the proposed closure fall into three categories--the
cost to CBP to physically close the port, the cost to U.S. travelers
entering the United States to drive to the next nearest port, and the
cost to the economy of lost revenue resulting from potential decreased
Canadian travel. CBP estimates that it will cost approximately $158,000
to physically close the port, which involves building road barricades,
boarding up the building, and managing asbestos.
In addition to the cost to the government of closing the port, we
must examine the impact of this proposed closing on U.S. travelers (per
guidance provided in OMB Circular A-4, this analysis is focused on
costs and benefits to U.S. entities). Approximately 1,318 vehicles and
2,571 passengers cross from Canada into the United States each year at
Whitetail. If the port is closed, these travelers would need to travel
to an alternate port, which could cost them both time and money.
As noted, the two ports closest to Whitetail are Raymond, which is
about 60 miles east, and Scobey, which is about 40 miles west. The
alternate port travelers choose to use will depend on their point of
origin and their destination. In general, the closer the point of
origin or destination to Whitetail, the more the traveler will be
affected by the closure. Because CBP does not collect data on either of
these points, for the purposes of this analysis we will assume the
worst case scenario--that all crossers begin their trip at a point just
across the border from Whitetail and travel to a point just on the U.S.
side of the border. We estimate that such a detour would add 1 hour and
40 miles to the crossers' trip. Since it is unlikely that all crossings
at Whitetail originate and end immediately at the border, this
methodology likely overstates the cost to travelers.
In 2007, Industrial Economics, Inc. (IEc) conducted a study for CBP
to develop ``an approach for estimating the monetary value of changes
in time use for application in [CBP's] analyses of the benefits and
costs of major regulations.'' \2\ We follow the three-step approach
detailed in IEc's 2007 analysis to monetize the increase in travel time
resulting from the closure of Whitetail: (1) Determine the local wage
rate, (2) determine the purpose of the trip, and (3) determine the
value of the travel delay as a result of this rule. We start using the
median hourly wage rate for Montana of $13.65 per hour, as the effects
of the rule are local.\3\ We next determine the purpose of the trip.
For the purposes of this analysis, we assume this travel will be
personal travel and will be local travel. We identify the value of time
multiplier recommended by the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT)
for personal, local travel, as 0.5.\4\ Finally, we account for the
value of the travel delay. Since the added time spent traveling is
considered more inconvenient than the baseline travel, we account for
this by using a factor that weighs time inconvenienced more heavily
than baseline travel time. This factor, 1.47, is multiplied by the
average wage rate and the DOT value of time multiplier for personal,
local travel for a travel time value of $10.04 per traveler ($13.65 x
0.5 x 1.47).\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Robinson, Lisa A. 2007. ``Value of Time.'' Submitted to US
Customs and Border Protection on February 15, 2007. The paper is
contained in its entirely as Appendix D in the Regulatory Assessment
for the April 2008 final rule for the Western Hemisphere Travel
Initiative requirements in the land environment (73 FR 18384; April
3, 2008). See http://www.regulations.gov document numbers USCBP-
2007-0061-0615 and USCBP-2007-0061-0616.
\3\ Bureau of Labor Statistics, May 2009. http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes_mt.htm#00-0000.
\4\ U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT), Revised
Departmental Guidance, Valuation of Travel Time in Economic
Analysis, (Memorandum from E. H. Frankel), February 2003, Tables 1.
\5\ Wardman, M., ``A Review of British Evidence on Time and
Service Quality Valuations,'' Transportation Research Part E, Vol.
37, 2001, pp. 107-128.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We next multiply the estimated number of travelers entering the
U.S. through Whitetail in a year (2,571) by the average delay (1 hour)
to arrive at the number of additional hours travelers would be delayed
as a result of this rule--2,571 hours. We multiply this by
[[Page 52892]]
the value of wait time ($10.04) to arrive at the value of the
additional driving time travelers arriving in the United States once
Whitetail is closed. Finally, we double this to account for round trip
costs to reach a total time cost of $51,626.
Besides the cost of additional travel time, we must consider the
vehicle costs of a longer trip. We must first estimate the number of
miles the closure of Whitetail would add to travelers' trips. The
annual traffic arriving at Whitetail is 1,300 vehicles. Since we assume
that the closure will add 40 miles to each crossing, the closure will
add a total of 52,000 miles to travelers' trips each year. We next
monetize the delay by applying the IRS's standard mileage rate for
business travel of $0.50 to these vehicles, which includes fuel costs,
wear-and-tear, and depreciation of the vehicle. Because this is an
estimate for business travel, it may overstate slightly costs for
leisure travelers using their vehicles on leisure activities. Finally,
we double the costs to account for the return trip. We estimate that a
closure of Whitetail will cost U.S. citizens $52,000 in additional
vehicular costs.
The final cost we must consider is the cost to the economy of lost
revenue resulting from potential decreased Canadian travel. Because of
the lack of data on the nature of travel through Whitetail and its
effect on the local economy, we are unable to monetize or quantify
these costs. We therefore discuss this qualitatively.
Since both U.S. and foreign travelers will be inconvenienced by the
closure of the port of Whitetail, it is possible that fewer foreign
travelers will choose to cross the border into the United States. To
the extent that these visitors were spending money in the United
States, local businesses would lose revenue. Since fewer than four
vehicles a day enter the United States at Whitetail, this effect is
likely to be very small. Also, these revenue losses could be mitigated
by those U.S. citizens who would now choose to remain in the United
States. We believe that the total impacts on the economy due to
decreased travel to the United States are negligible.
In summary, the closure of the port of Whitetail would cost CBP
$158,000 in direct closure costs in the first year, and U.S. travelers
$51,626 in time costs and $52,000 in vehicle costs annually. Total
costs to close the port are thus approximately $262,000 in the first
year and $104,000 each following year.
3. Net Effect of Closure
The costs to CBP of leaving the port of Whitetail open are $8.5
million the first year and $500,000 each following year. The cost of
closing the port are $262,000 the first year and $104,000 each
following year. Thus, the net benefit of the Whitetail closure is about
$8.2 million the first year and $396,000 each year after that.
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
This section examines the impact of the rule on small entities as
required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 603), as amended
by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement and Fairness Act of 1996.
A small entity may be a small business (defined as any independently
owned and operated business not dominant in its field that qualifies as
a small business per the Small Business Act); a small not-for-profit
organization; or a small governmental jurisdiction (locality with fewer
than 50,000 people).
Because CBP does not collect data on the number of small businesses
that use the port of Whitetail, we cannot estimate how many would be
affected by this rule. However, an average of only four vehicles cross
into the United States at Whitetail each day, and the total cost of the
rule to the public is only about $104,000 a year, even assuming the
longest possible detour for all traffic. DHS does not believe that this
cost rises to the level of a significant economic impact. DHS thus
believes that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on
a substantial number of small entities. DHS welcomes any comments
regarding this assessment. If it does not receive any comments
contradicting this finding, DHS will certify that this rule will not
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities at the final rule stage.
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
This rule will not 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, and it will not significantly or
uniquely affect small governments. Therefore, no actions are necessary
under the provisions of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995.
E. Executive Order 13132
The rule will not have substantial direct effects 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. Therefore, in accordance with section 6 of Executive
Order 13132, this rule does not have sufficient federalism implications
to warrant the preparation of a federalism summary impact statement.
V. Authority
This change is proposed under the authority of 5 U.S.C. 301, 6
U.S.C. 112, 203 and 211, 8 U.S.C. 1103 and 19 U.S.C. 2, 66 and 1624.
VI. Proposed Amendment to Regulations
If the proposed closure of the port of Whitetail, Montana, is
adopted, CBP will amend the lists of CBP ports of entry at 19 CFR
101.3(b)(1) and 8 CFR 100.4(a) to reflect this change.
Janet Napolitano,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-21624 Filed 8-23-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-14-P