South Carolina Code of Regulations Chapter 104 - SOUTH CAROLINA STATE PORTS AUTHORITY
South Carolina Code of Regulations Chapter 104 — South Carolina State Ports Authority
1. Purpose and Scope
Chapter 104 of the South Carolina Code of Regulations governs the operational, financial, and procedural aspects of the South Carolina State Ports Authority (SCSPA). It primarily regulates:
Terminal tariffs (fees charged for use of port facilities),
Foreign Trade Zone No. 21 rates and management,
Procedures for handling import and export cargo.
The regulations ensure SCSPA operates efficiently, safely, and fairly while promoting commerce through the state’s ports.
2. Statutory Authority
The SCSPA’s regulatory authority flows from the South Carolina Code, Title 54, Chapter 3 (Sections 54-3-130 to 54-3-140), which:
Establishes the SCSPA as a state agency tasked with developing and managing ports in South Carolina.
Empowers the SCSPA to make rules and regulations regarding its facilities, including setting fees, tariffs, and operational procedures.
Authorizes the SCSPA to operate Foreign Trade Zones (FTZ), special areas that facilitate trade under unique customs regulations.
3. Key Sections of Chapter 104
a. Terminal Tariff No. 1 A (§ 104-10)
Sets out the fees, rates, and charges users must pay to use SCSPA terminal facilities.
Includes charges for dockage, wharfage, storage, cargo handling, and other services.
Ensures uniformity and transparency in fees.
b. Foreign Trade Zone No. 21 Rates and Charges (§ 104-20)
Regulates financial terms for the use of the Foreign Trade Zone.
FTZs allow goods to be imported, stored, and manipulated with deferred customs duties.
This section specifies user fees and ensures FTZ usage complies with federal customs law and state rules.
c. Foreign Trade Zone No. 21 Use and Management (§ 104-25)
Governs who can use FTZ 21 and for what purposes.
Sets standards for operational conduct within the zone.
Ensures efficient management consistent with trade regulations.
d. Procedures for Handling Import and Export Cargo (§ 104-30)
Establishes handling procedures to ensure safety, security, and efficiency.
Covers roles and responsibilities of all parties involved in cargo handling.
Aims to reduce damage, delay, and disputes.
4. Key Case Law Affecting Chapter 104
While there is limited case law directly addressing the specifics of Chapter 104 regulations, several important cases clarify SCSPA’s legal powers, immunity, and regulatory environment:
a. Sovereign Immunity and Regulatory Authority
Federal Maritime Commission v. South Carolina State Ports Authority (2002)
The U.S. Supreme Court held that SCSPA, as an arm of the State, enjoys sovereign immunity and cannot be compelled to participate in a federal administrative proceeding brought by a private party before the Federal Maritime Commission. This ruling highlights that while SCSPA can regulate its tariffs and procedures, challenges to those rules cannot always proceed through federal administrative agencies due to state immunity.
Ristow v. South Carolina Ports Authority (1995)
The Fourth Circuit held SCSPA is protected by the Eleventh Amendment, which shields states from certain lawsuits in federal court. This immunity can protect SCSPA from some legal challenges to its regulations or operations, including tariff disputes or operational decisions.
b. Compliance with Local Laws
City of Charleston v. South Carolina State Ports Authority (1992)
SCSPA attempted to build facilities without local zoning or architectural review board approval. The South Carolina Supreme Court ruled SCSPA must comply with local ordinances despite being a state agency. This case indicates that even though SCSPA has broad powers under Chapter 104 and its statutes, it does not automatically supersede local laws unless clearly stated.
c. Eminent Domain and Development Powers
South Carolina State Ports Authority v. Jasper County (2006)
This case affirmed SCSPA’s power to condemn property for port development. However, it also clarified that SCSPA's powers must be balanced against local government interests and that legislative intent is critical in determining exclusivity of power. This impacts how regulations (including those in Chapter 104) interact with other government entities.
d. Liability and Safety
Mills v. South Carolina State Ports Authority (2021)
The Court of Appeals ruled on a negligence claim involving a cargo-handling accident at the port. While SCSPA enjoys sovereign immunity in some respects, it can still be liable in tort where negligence is proven. This case underscores the importance of procedural regulations (like those in § 104-30 on cargo handling) for setting standards of care.
5. Practical Legal Implications
Challenges to Tariffs and Charges: Users of port facilities may dispute fees set under § 104-10, but such disputes face hurdles due to SCSPA’s sovereign immunity and limited avenues for judicial review.
Procedural Compliance: Regulations on cargo handling (§ 104-30) establish operational standards that, if violated, could lead to liability for damages or injuries.
Local Government Interaction: Although SCSPA has regulatory authority, it must respect local zoning and permitting laws unless state law expressly preempts local regulations.
Foreign Trade Zone Governance: Management and use of FTZ 21 (§§ 104-20 and 104-25) must align with both federal customs laws and SCSPA regulations; misuse can lead to administrative sanctions or loss of FTZ privileges.
6. Summary
South Carolina Code of Regulations Chapter 104 empowers the SCSPA to set fees, manage foreign trade zones, and regulate cargo handling to facilitate port operations. Case law affirms SCSPA’s sovereign immunity and regulatory authority but also underscores that it must comply with local laws and can be held liable in negligence. Challenges to its tariffs and regulations are limited by these legal protections.
RELATED Blog
0 comments