83 FR 15498 - Extension of Port Limits of Savannah, GA

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
U.S. Customs and Border Protection

Federal Register Volume 83, Issue 70 (April 11, 2018)

Page Range		15498-15499
FR Document		2018-07381

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.

Federal Register, Volume 83 Issue 70 (Wednesday, April 11, 2018)

[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 70 (Wednesday, April 11, 2018)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 15498-15499]
From the Federal Register Online  [www.thefederalregister.org]
[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 http://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 http://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

Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 70 / Wednesday, April 11, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 15499

Creek; then proceeding north on Federal regulations on small entities. A small authority citation for section 101.3
Interstate Highway 95 to the point of entity may be a small business (defined continue to read as follows:
beginning at the Georgia-South Carolina as any independently owned and Authority: 5 U.S.C. 301; 6 U.S.C. 101, et
state line. operated business not dominant in its seq.; 19 U.S.C. 2, 66, 1202 (General Note 3(i),
field that qualifies as a small business Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United
Authority per the Small Business Act); a small not- States), 1623, 1624, 1646a.
This change is made under the for-profit organization; or a small * * * * *
authority of 5 U.S.C. 301, 6 U.S.C. 101, governmental jurisdiction (locality with Section 101.3 and 101.4 also issued under
et seq.; 19 U.S.C. 2, 66, 1202 (General fewer than 50,000 people). 19 U.S.C. 1 and 58b.
Note 3(i), Harmonized Tariff Schedule This final rule merely expands the * * * * *
of the United States), 1623, 1624, 1646a. limits of an existing port of entry and
does not impose any new costs on the § 101.3 [Amended]
Regulatory Requirements public. Accordingly, we certify that this ■ 2. In § 101.3(b)(1), the table is
A. Executive Orders 12866, 13563 and rule will not have a significant amended under the State of Georgia by
13771 economic impact on a substantial removing from the ‘‘Limits of port’’
number of small entities. column for Savannah the present limits
Executive Orders 12866 (‘‘Regulatory
Planning and Review’’) and 13563 C. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of description ‘‘Including territory
(‘‘Improving Regulation and Regulatory 1995 described in E.O. 8367, Mar. 5, 1940 (5
Review’’) direct agencies to assess the This rule will not result in the FR 985).’’ and adding the words ‘‘CBP
costs and benefits of available regulatory expenditure by State, local, and tribal Dec. 18–03’’ in its place.
alternatives and, if regulation is governments, in the aggregate, or by the Dated: April 4, 2018.
necessary, to select regulatory private sector, of $100 million or more Elaine C. Duke,
approaches that maximize net benefits in any one year, and it will not Deputy Secretary of Homeland Security.
(including potential economic, significantly or uniquely affect small [FR Doc. 2018–07381 Filed 4–10–18; 8:45 am]
environmental, public health and safety governments. Therefore, no actions are BILLING CODE 9111–14–P
effects, distributive impacts, and necessary under the provisions of the
equity). Executive Order 13563 Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of
emphasizes the importance of 1995.
quantifying both costs and benefits, of DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, D. Executive Order 13132
Occupational Safety and Health
and of promoting flexibility. Executive This rule will not have substantial
Administration
Order 13771 (‘‘Reducing Regulation and direct effects on the States, on the
Controlling Regulatory Costs’’) directs relationship between the National
29 CFR Part 1926
agencies to reduce regulation and Government and the States, or on the
control regulatory costs and provides distribution of power and Safety and Health Regulations for
that ‘‘for every one new regulation responsibilities among the various Construction
issued, at least two prior regulations be levels of government. Therefore, in
identified for elimination, and that the accordance with section 6 of Executive CFR Correction
cost of planned regulations be prudently Order 13132, this rule does not have
■ In Title 29 of the Code of Federal
managed and controlled through a sufficient federalism implications to
Regulations, Part 1926, revised as of July
budgeting process.’’ warrant the preparation of a federalism
1, 2017, on page 88, in § 1926.60,
The Office of Management and Budget summary impact statement.
remove paragraph (o)(8)(ii).
(OMB) has not designated this rule a
Signing Authority [FR Doc. 2018–07530 Filed 4–10–18; 8:45 am]
significant regulatory action under
section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866. The signing authority for this BILLING CODE 1301–00–D

Accordingly, OMB has not reviewed it. document falls under 19 CFR 0.2(a)
As this rule is not a significant because the extension of port limits is
regulatory action, this rule is exempt not within the bounds of those DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
from the requirements of Executive regulations for which the Secretary of SECURITY
Order 13771. See OMB’s Memorandum the Treasury has retained sole authority.
‘‘Guidance Implementing Executive Accordingly, this final rule may be Coast Guard
Order 13771, Titled ‘Reducing signed by the Secretary of Homeland
Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Security (or her delegate). 33 CFR Part 165
Costs’ ’’ (April 5, 2017). List of Subjects in 19 CFR Part 101 [Docket Number USCG–2018–0291]
The final rule expands the
geographical boundaries of the Customs ports of entry, Harbors, RIN 1625–AA00
Savannah, Georgia, port of entry, and Organization and functions
(Government agencies), Seals and Safety Zone; Ohio River, Cincinnati,
makes the boundaries more easily OH
identifiable to the public. There are no insignia, Vessels.
new costs to the public associated with Amendment to the Regulations AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.
this rule. For the reasons set forth above, part ACTION: Temporary final rule.
nshattuck on DSK9F9SC42PROD with RULES

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act 101, CBP Regulations (19 CFR part 101),
SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is
is amended as set forth below:
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 establishing a temporary safety zone for
U.S.C. 601 et. seq.), as amended by the PART 101—GENERAL PROVISIONS all navigable waters of the Ohio River,
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement extending the entire width of the river,
and Fairness Act of 1996, requires ■ 1. The general authority citation for from mile marker (MM) 490.0 to MM
agencies to assess the impact of part 101 and the relevant specific 491.5. This safety zone is necessary to

VerDate Sep<11>2014 14:51 Apr 10, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\11APR1.SGM 11APR1

Document Created: 2018-04-10 23:59:18
Document Modified: 2018-04-10 23:59:18

Category		Regulatory Information
Collection		Federal Register
sudoc Class		AE 2.7: GS 4.107: AE 2.106:
Publisher		Office of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration
Section		Rules and Regulations
Action		Final rule.
Dates		Effective Date: May 11, 2018.
Contact		Roger Kaplan, Office of Field Operations, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, (202) 325-4543, or by email at [email protected]
FR Citation		83 FR 15498
CFR Associated		Customs Ports of Entry; Harbors; Organization and Functions (government Agencies); Seals and Insignia and Vessels

83 FR 15498 - Extension of Port Limits of Savannah, GA

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITYU.S. Customs and Border Protection

Federal Register Volume 83, Issue 70 (April 11, 2018)

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
U.S. Customs and Border Protection