Extension of Port Limits of Savannah, GA, 15498-15499 [2018-07381]
Download as PDF
15498
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 70 / Wednesday, April 11, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on April 3,
2018.
Scott A. Horn,
Deputy Director for Regulatory Operations,
Compliance & Airworthiness Division,
Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2018–07285 Filed 4–10–18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–13–P
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY
U.S. Customs and Border Protection
19 CFR Part 101
[Docket No. USCBP–2017–0017; CBP Dec.
18–03]
Extension of Port Limits of Savannah,
GA
U.S. Customs and Border
Protection, Department of Homeland
Security.
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
This document adopts as a
final rule, with changes, proposed
amendments to U.S. Customs and
Border Protection (CBP) regulations
pertaining to the expansion of the
geographical limits of the port of entry
of Savannah, Georgia. The port limits
will be expanded to make the
boundaries more easily identifiable to
the public and to allow for uniform and
continuous service to the extended area
of Savannah, Georgia. This change is
part of CBP’s continuing program to use
its personnel, facilities, and resources
more efficiently and to provide better
service to carriers, importers, and the
general public.
DATES: Effective Date: May 11, 2018.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Roger Kaplan, Office of Field
Operations, U.S. Customs and Border
Protection, (202) 325–4543, or by email
at Roger.Kaplan@dhs.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
SUMMARY:
nshattuck on DSK9F9SC42PROD with RULES
Background
In a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
(NPRM) published in the Federal
Register (82 FR 30807) on July 3, 2017,
U.S. Customs and Border Protection
(CBP) proposed to amend § 101.3(b)(1)
of title 19 of the Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR) to extend the
geographical limits of the port of entry
of Savannah, Georgia. The proposed
boundaries of the port of entry included
the majority of Chatham County,
Georgia, as well as a small portion of
Jasper County, South Carolina.
As explained in the NPRM, Savannah,
Georgia was designated as a customs
VerDate Sep<11>2014
14:51 Apr 10, 2018
Jkt 244001
port of entry by the President’s message
of March 3, 1913, concerning the
reorganization of the U.S. Customs
Service pursuant to the Act of August
24, 1912 (37 Stat. 434; 19 U.S.C. 1).
Executive Order 8367, dated March 5,
1940, established specific geographical
boundaries for the port of entry of
Savannah, Georgia.
In the July 2017 NPRM, CBP proposed
to amend the geographical limits of the
port of entry of Savannah, Georgia
because the current boundaries
established by the Executive Order do
not include a large portion of SavannahHilton Head International Airport,
including the site of a proposed
replacement Federal Inspection Service
facility for arriving international
travelers, or distribution centers and
cold storage agricultural facilities that
support the seaport. Also, most of the
projected facilities, such as a new ship
terminal with two berths for container
ships and bonded warehouses, which
will be built on the region’s remaining
undeveloped properties will be outside
of the boundaries of the current port of
entry. CBP determined that the
extension of the boundaries would not
result in a change in the service that is
provided to the public by the port and
would not require a change in the
staffing or workload at the port. For the
proposed rule, CBP posted on the
docket on https://www.regulations.gov a
map of the Savannah area with the
current port limits marked by blue lines
and the proposed port limits marked by
red lines.
The NPRM solicited public comment
on the proposed rulemaking. The public
comment period closed on September 1,
2017.
Discussion of Comments
One commenter responded to the
solicitation of comments to the
proposed rule. A description of the
comment received, together with CBP’s
analysis, is set forth below.
Comment:
The commenter fully supported the
expansion of the port limits, but was
concerned that the proposed limits did
not take into consideration the
warehouses and distribution centers
being built to accommodate the current
volume of trade. The commenter
suggested that the western portion of the
boundary line be extended to the county
line (west of Interstate Highway 95) to
support the future growth of the area,
provide jobs and further solidify
Savannah’s position in international
trade.
CBP Response:
CBP agrees with the commenter’s
suggestion to extend the western portion
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
of the boundary line as the purpose of
expanding the port of entry of Savannah
is to provide better services to the
carriers, importers and the general
public. In addition, CBP has become
aware that import facilities are just
outside of Chatham County. Thus, CBP
is extending the western boundary
slightly into Effingham County to
include those facilities. The further
extension of the port would not require
a change in staffing or workload at the
port.
Conclusion
After review of the comment, CBP has
determined to further expand the
boundaries of the Savannah port of
entry in this final rule. Instead of the
western boundaries being along the
Federal Interstate Highway 95, they
begin where Highway 204 (Fort Argyle
Road) intersects with Federal Interstate
Highway 95, then proceed north to the
intersection with Old River Road, then
north along Old River Road until it
intersects with Federal Interstate
Highway 16, then east along Federal
Interstate Highway 16 until it meets the
Chatham County line, and then north
along the Chatham County line until it
meets the intersection with Federal
Interstate Highway 95 and the GeorgiaSouth Carolina state line. The new port
limits are described below, and the map
posted on the docket on https://
www.regulations.gov shows the new
port limits as expanded by this final
rule marked by the blue and black lines.
Port Description of Savannah, Georgia
The final port limits of the port of
entry of Savannah, Georgia, are as
follows: From 32°14.588′ N–081°
08.455′ W (where Federal Interstate
Highway 95 crosses the Georgia-South
Carolina state line) and extending in a
straight line to 32°04.903′ N–
080°54.998′ W (where Walls Cut meets
Wright River and Turtle Island); then
proceeding in a straight line to
31°52.651′ N–081°03.331′ W (where
Adams Creek meets Green Island
Sound); then proceeding northwest in a
straight line to 32°00.280′ N–081°17.00′
W (where Highway 204 intersects
Federal Interstate Highway 95); then
proceeding northwest along Fort Argyle
Road (Highway 204) to the intersection
with Old River Road; then proceeding
north on Old River Road to the
intersection with Federal Interstate
Highway 16; then proceeding southeast
along Federal Interstate Highway 16 to
the Chatham County line; then
proceeding northeast and then east
along the length of the Chatham County
line until it intersects with Federal
Interstate Highway 95 at Knoxboro
E:\FR\FM\11APR1.SGM
11APR1
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 70 / Wednesday, April 11, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
Creek; then proceeding north on Federal
Interstate Highway 95 to the point of
beginning at the Georgia-South Carolina
state line.
Authority
This change is made under the
authority of 5 U.S.C. 301, 6 U.S.C. 101,
et seq.; 19 U.S.C. 2, 66, 1202 (General
Note 3(i), Harmonized Tariff Schedule
of the United States), 1623, 1624, 1646a.
Regulatory Requirements
nshattuck on DSK9F9SC42PROD with RULES
A. Executive Orders 12866, 13563 and
13771
Executive Orders 12866 (‘‘Regulatory
Planning and Review’’) and 13563
(‘‘Improving Regulation and Regulatory
Review’’) direct agencies to assess the
costs and benefits of available regulatory
alternatives and, if regulation is
necessary, to select regulatory
approaches that maximize net benefits
(including potential economic,
environmental, public health and safety
effects, distributive impacts, and
equity). Executive Order 13563
emphasizes the importance of
quantifying both costs and benefits, of
reducing costs, of harmonizing rules,
and of promoting flexibility. Executive
Order 13771 (‘‘Reducing Regulation and
Controlling Regulatory Costs’’) directs
agencies to reduce regulation and
control regulatory costs and provides
that ‘‘for every one new regulation
issued, at least two prior regulations be
identified for elimination, and that the
cost of planned regulations be prudently
managed and controlled through a
budgeting process.’’
The Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) has not designated this rule a
significant regulatory action under
section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866.
Accordingly, OMB has not reviewed it.
As this rule is not a significant
regulatory action, this rule is exempt
from the requirements of Executive
Order 13771. See OMB’s Memorandum
‘‘Guidance Implementing Executive
Order 13771, Titled ‘Reducing
Regulation and Controlling Regulatory
Costs’ ’’ (April 5, 2017).
The final rule expands the
geographical boundaries of the
Savannah, Georgia, port of entry, and
makes the boundaries more easily
identifiable to the public. There are no
new costs to the public associated with
this rule.
B. Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5
U.S.C. 601 et. seq.), as amended by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
and Fairness Act of 1996, requires
agencies to assess the impact of
VerDate Sep<11>2014
14:51 Apr 10, 2018
Jkt 244001
regulations on small entities. 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 notfor-profit organization; or a small
governmental jurisdiction (locality with
fewer than 50,000 people).
This final rule merely expands the
limits of an existing port of entry and
does not impose any new costs on the
public. Accordingly, we certify that this
rule will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities.
C. 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.
D. Executive Order 13132
This 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.
Signing Authority
The signing authority for this
document falls under 19 CFR 0.2(a)
because the extension of port limits is
not within the bounds of those
regulations for which the Secretary of
the Treasury has retained sole authority.
Accordingly, this final rule may be
signed by the Secretary of Homeland
Security (or her delegate).
15499
authority citation for section 101.3
continue to read as follows:
Authority: 5 U.S.C. 301; 6 U.S.C. 101, et
seq.; 19 U.S.C. 2, 66, 1202 (General Note 3(i),
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United
States), 1623, 1624, 1646a.
*
*
*
*
*
Section 101.3 and 101.4 also issued under
19 U.S.C. 1 and 58b.
*
*
§ 101.3
*
*
*
[Amended]
2. In § 101.3(b)(1), the table is
amended under the State of Georgia by
removing from the ‘‘Limits of port’’
column for Savannah the present limits
description ‘‘Including territory
described in E.O. 8367, Mar. 5, 1940 (5
FR 985).’’ and adding the words ‘‘CBP
Dec. 18–03’’ in its place.
■
Dated: April 4, 2018.
Elaine C. Duke,
Deputy Secretary of Homeland Security.
[FR Doc. 2018–07381 Filed 4–10–18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111–14–P
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Occupational Safety and Health
Administration
29 CFR Part 1926
Safety and Health Regulations for
Construction
CFR Correction
In Title 29 of the Code of Federal
Regulations, Part 1926, revised as of July
1, 2017, on page 88, in § 1926.60,
remove paragraph (o)(8)(ii).
■
[FR Doc. 2018–07530 Filed 4–10–18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 1301–00–D
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY
Coast Guard
33 CFR Part 165
List of Subjects in 19 CFR Part 101
Customs ports of entry, Harbors,
Organization and functions
(Government agencies), Seals and
insignia, Vessels.
[Docket Number USCG–2018–0291]
Amendment to the Regulations
For the reasons set forth above, part
101, CBP Regulations (19 CFR part 101),
is amended as set forth below:
AGENCY:
PART 101—GENERAL PROVISIONS
1. The general authority citation for
part 101 and the relevant specific
■
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
RIN 1625–AA00
Safety Zone; Ohio River, Cincinnati,
OH
ACTION:
Coast Guard, DHS.
Temporary final rule.
The Coast Guard is
establishing a temporary safety zone for
all navigable waters of the Ohio River,
extending the entire width of the river,
from mile marker (MM) 490.0 to MM
491.5. This safety zone is necessary to
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\11APR1.SGM
11APR1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 70 (Wednesday, April 11, 2018)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 15498-15499]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-07381]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
U.S. Customs and Border Protection
19 CFR Part 101
[Docket No. USCBP-2017-0017; CBP Dec. 18-03]
Extension of Port Limits of Savannah, GA
AGENCY: U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland
Security.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document adopts as a final rule, with changes, proposed
amendments to U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) regulations
pertaining to the expansion of the geographical limits of the port of
entry of Savannah, Georgia. The port limits will be expanded to make
the boundaries more easily identifiable to the public and to allow for
uniform and continuous service to the extended area of Savannah,
Georgia. This change is part of CBP's continuing program to use its
personnel, facilities, and resources more efficiently and to provide
better service to carriers, importers, and the general public.
DATES: Effective Date: May 11, 2018.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Roger Kaplan, Office of Field
Operations, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, (202) 325-4543, or by
email at [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
In a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) published in the Federal
Register (82 FR 30807) on July 3, 2017, U.S. Customs and Border
Protection (CBP) proposed to amend Sec. 101.3(b)(1) of title 19 of the
Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) to extend the geographical limits of
the port of entry of Savannah, Georgia. The proposed boundaries of the
port of entry included the majority of Chatham County, Georgia, as well
as a small portion of Jasper County, South Carolina.
As explained in the NPRM, Savannah, Georgia was designated as a
customs port of entry by the President's message of March 3, 1913,
concerning the reorganization of the U.S. Customs Service pursuant to
the Act of August 24, 1912 (37 Stat. 434; 19 U.S.C. 1). Executive Order
8367, dated March 5, 1940, established specific geographical boundaries
for the port of entry of Savannah, Georgia.
In the July 2017 NPRM, CBP proposed to amend the geographical
limits of the port of entry of Savannah, Georgia because the current
boundaries established by the Executive Order do not include a large
portion of Savannah-Hilton Head International Airport, including the
site of a proposed replacement Federal Inspection Service facility for
arriving international travelers, or distribution centers and cold
storage agricultural facilities that support the seaport. Also, most of
the projected facilities, such as a new ship terminal with two berths
for container ships and bonded warehouses, which will be built on the
region's remaining undeveloped properties will be outside of the
boundaries of the current port of entry. CBP determined that the
extension of the boundaries would not result in a change in the service
that is provided to the public by the port and would not require a
change in the staffing or workload at the port. For the proposed rule,
CBP posted on the docket on https://www.regulations.gov a map of the
Savannah area with the current port limits marked by blue lines and the
proposed port limits marked by red lines.
The NPRM solicited public comment on the proposed rulemaking. The
public comment period closed on September 1, 2017.
Discussion of Comments
One commenter responded to the solicitation of comments to the
proposed rule. A description of the comment received, together with
CBP's analysis, is set forth below.
Comment:
The commenter fully supported the expansion of the port limits, but
was concerned that the proposed limits did not take into consideration
the warehouses and distribution centers being built to accommodate the
current volume of trade. The commenter suggested that the western
portion of the boundary line be extended to the county line (west of
Interstate Highway 95) to support the future growth of the area,
provide jobs and further solidify Savannah's position in international
trade.
CBP Response:
CBP agrees with the commenter's suggestion to extend the western
portion of the boundary line as the purpose of expanding the port of
entry of Savannah is to provide better services to the carriers,
importers and the general public. In addition, CBP has become aware
that import facilities are just outside of Chatham County. Thus, CBP is
extending the western boundary slightly into Effingham County to
include those facilities. The further extension of the port would not
require a change in staffing or workload at the port.
Conclusion
After review of the comment, CBP has determined to further expand
the boundaries of the Savannah port of entry in this final rule.
Instead of the western boundaries being along the Federal Interstate
Highway 95, they begin where Highway 204 (Fort Argyle Road) intersects
with Federal Interstate Highway 95, then proceed north to the
intersection with Old River Road, then north along Old River Road until
it intersects with Federal Interstate Highway 16, then east along
Federal Interstate Highway 16 until it meets the Chatham County line,
and then north along the Chatham County line until it meets the
intersection with Federal Interstate Highway 95 and the Georgia-South
Carolina state line. The new port limits are described below, and the
map posted on the docket on https://www.regulations.gov shows the new
port limits as expanded by this final rule marked by the blue and black
lines.
Port Description of Savannah, Georgia
The final port limits of the port of entry of Savannah, Georgia,
are as follows: From 32[deg]14.588' N-081[deg] 08.455' W (where Federal
Interstate Highway 95 crosses the Georgia-South Carolina state line)
and extending in a straight line to 32[deg]04.903' N-080[deg]54.998' W
(where Walls Cut meets Wright River and Turtle Island); then proceeding
in a straight line to 31[deg]52.651' N-081[deg]03.331' W (where Adams
Creek meets Green Island Sound); then proceeding northwest in a
straight line to 32[deg]00.280' N-081[deg]17.00' W (where Highway 204
intersects Federal Interstate Highway 95); then proceeding northwest
along Fort Argyle Road (Highway 204) to the intersection with Old River
Road; then proceeding north on Old River Road to the intersection with
Federal Interstate Highway 16; then proceeding southeast along Federal
Interstate Highway 16 to the Chatham County line; then proceeding
northeast and then east along the length of the Chatham County line
until it intersects with Federal Interstate Highway 95 at Knoxboro
[[Page 15499]]
Creek; then proceeding north on Federal Interstate Highway 95 to the
point of beginning at the Georgia-South Carolina state line.
Authority
This change is made under the authority of 5 U.S.C. 301, 6 U.S.C.
101, et seq.; 19 U.S.C. 2, 66, 1202 (General Note 3(i), Harmonized
Tariff Schedule of the United States), 1623, 1624, 1646a.
Regulatory Requirements
A. Executive Orders 12866, 13563 and 13771
Executive Orders 12866 (``Regulatory Planning and Review'') and
13563 (``Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review'') direct agencies
to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives
and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that
maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental,
public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity).
Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both
costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of
promoting flexibility. Executive Order 13771 (``Reducing Regulation and
Controlling Regulatory Costs'') directs agencies to reduce regulation
and control regulatory costs and provides that ``for every one new
regulation issued, at least two prior regulations be identified for
elimination, and that the cost of planned regulations be prudently
managed and controlled through a budgeting process.''
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has not designated this
rule a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive
Order 12866. Accordingly, OMB has not reviewed it. As this rule is not
a significant regulatory action, this rule is exempt from the
requirements of Executive Order 13771. See OMB's Memorandum ``Guidance
Implementing Executive Order 13771, Titled `Reducing Regulation and
Controlling Regulatory Costs' '' (April 5, 2017).
The final rule expands the geographical boundaries of the Savannah,
Georgia, port of entry, and makes the boundaries more easily
identifiable to the public. There are no new costs to the public
associated with this rule.
B. Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et. seq.), as amended
by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement and Fairness Act of 1996,
requires agencies to assess the impact of regulations on small
entities. 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).
This final rule merely expands the limits of an existing port of
entry and does not impose any new costs on the public. Accordingly, we
certify that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
C. 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.
D. Executive Order 13132
This 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.
Signing Authority
The signing authority for this document falls under 19 CFR 0.2(a)
because the extension of port limits is not within the bounds of those
regulations for which the Secretary of the Treasury has retained sole
authority. Accordingly, this final rule may be signed by the Secretary
of Homeland Security (or her delegate).
List of Subjects in 19 CFR Part 101
Customs ports of entry, Harbors, Organization and functions
(Government agencies), Seals and insignia, Vessels.
Amendment to the Regulations
For the reasons set forth above, part 101, CBP Regulations (19 CFR
part 101), is amended as set forth below:
PART 101--GENERAL PROVISIONS
0
1. The general authority citation for part 101 and the relevant
specific authority citation for section 101.3 continue to read as
follows:
Authority: 5 U.S.C. 301; 6 U.S.C. 101, et seq.; 19 U.S.C. 2, 66,
1202 (General Note 3(i), Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United
States), 1623, 1624, 1646a.
* * * * *
Section 101.3 and 101.4 also issued under 19 U.S.C. 1 and 58b.
* * * * *
Sec. 101.3 [Amended]
0
2. In Sec. 101.3(b)(1), the table is amended under the State of
Georgia by removing from the ``Limits of port'' column for Savannah the
present limits description ``Including territory described in E.O.
8367, Mar. 5, 1940 (5 FR 985).'' and adding the words ``CBP Dec. 18-
03'' in its place.
Dated: April 4, 2018.
Elaine C. Duke,
Deputy Secretary of Homeland Security.
[FR Doc. 2018-07381 Filed 4-10-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-14-P