Reorganization and Expansion of Foreign-Trade Zone 214 Under Alternative Site Framework; Lenoir County, North Carolina, 67293 [2016-23700]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 190 / Friday, September 30, 2016 / Notices
• Integrated Partnership and
Communications Working Group
Report
Dated: September 22, 2016.
John H. Thompson,
Director, Bureau of the Census.
[FR Doc. 2016–23670 Filed 9–29–16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–07–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
Foreign-Trade Zones Board
[Order No. 2013]
Reorganization and Expansion of
Foreign-Trade Zone 214 Under
Alternative Site Framework; Lenoir
County, North Carolina
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES
Pursuant to its authority under the ForeignTrade Zones Act of June 18, 1934, as
amended (19 U.S.C. 81a–81u), the ForeignTrade Zones Board (the Board) adopts the
following Order:
Whereas, the Board adopted the
alternative site framework (ASF) (15
CFR Sec. 400.2(c)) as an option for the
establishment or reorganization of
zones;
Whereas, the North Carolina
Department of Transportation, grantee
of Foreign-Trade Zone 214, submitted
an application to the Board (FTZ Docket
B–20–2016, docketed April 13, 2016) for
authority to reorganize and expand
under the ASF with a service area of the
Counties of Pender, New Hanover,
Brunswick, Duplin, Columbus, Bladen,
Robeson, Beaufort, Pitt, Hyde, Onslow,
Jones, Craven, Pamlico, Lenoir, Carteret,
Wilson, Edgecombe, Nash, Wayne,
Greene and Cumberland, within and
adjacent to the Wilmington, Morehead
City and Raleigh-Durham Customs and
Border Protection ports of entry. FTZ
214’s existing Sites 1, 5, 6 (as modified)
and 7 would be categorized as magnet
sites and Sites 2, 3 and 4 would be
categorized as usage-driven sites, and
the grantee proposes three additional
magnet sites (Sites 8, 9 and 10);
Whereas, notice inviting public
comment was given in the Federal
Register (81 FR 23456–23457, April 21,
2016) and the application has been
processed pursuant to the FTZ Act and
the Board’s regulations; and,
Whereas, the Board adopts the
findings and recommendation of the
examiner’s report, and finds that the
requirements of the FTZ Act and the
Board’s regulations are satisfied
provided that inclusion of Robeson
County in the service area is limited to
the portion of the county east of
Interstate 95 (I–95);
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:49 Sep 29, 2016
Jkt 238001
Now, therefore, the Board hereby
orders:
The application to reorganize and
expand FTZ 214 under the ASF is
approved, with the service area
described above (i.e., inclusion of
Robeson County in the service area is
limited to the portion of the county east
of I–95), subject to the FTZ Act and the
Board’s regulations, including Section
400.13, to the Board’s standard 2,000acre activation limit for the zone, to ASF
sunset provisions for magnet sites that
would terminate authority for Sites 1, 7,
8, 9 and 10 if not activated within five
years from the month of approval and
for Sites 5 and 6 if not activated within
the initial ten years from the month of
approval, and to an ASF sunset
provision for usage-driven sites that
would terminate authority for Sites 2, 3
and 4 if no foreign-status merchandise
is admitted for a bona fide customs
purpose within three years from the
month of approval.
Dated: September 15, 2016.
Paul Piquado,
Assistant Secretary of Commerce for
Enforcement and Compliance, Alternate
Chairman, Foreign-Trade Zones Board.
[FR Doc. 2016–23700 Filed 9–29–16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[Docket No. 160713610–6783–02]
RIN 0625–XC020
Cost Recovery Fee Schedule for the
EU–U.S. Privacy Shield Framework
International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of
Commerce.
ACTION: Final notice of implementation
of a cost recovery program fee.
AGENCY:
The Department of Commerce
published the Cost Recovery Fee
Schedule for the EU–U.S. Privacy
Shield Framework on July 22, 2016 (81
FR 47752). We gave interested parties an
opportunity to comment on the fee
schedule. No comments were received
and so the fee schedule is considered
final until further review one year after
implementation of the program.
Consistent with the guidelines in OMB
Circular A–25,1 the U.S. Department of
Commerce’s International Trade
Administration (ITA) has implemented
a cost recovery program fee to support
the operation of the EU–U.S. Privacy
SUMMARY:
1 https://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/circulars_
a025.
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
67293
Shield Framework (Privacy Shield),
which requires that U.S. organizations
pay an annual fee to ITA in order to
participate in the Privacy Shield. The
cost recovery program supports the
administration and supervision of the
Privacy Shield program and supports
the provision of Privacy Shield-related
services, including education and
outreach. The Privacy Shield fee
schedule was effective on August 1,
2016, when ITA began accepting selfcertifications under the Privacy Shield
Framework.
DATES: This fee schedule was effective
August 1, 2016.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Requests for additional information
regarding the EU–U.S. Privacy Shield
Framework should be directed to Grace
Harter, Department of Commerce,
International Trade Administration,
Room 20001, 1401 Constitution Avenue
NW, Washington, DC, tel. 202–482–
4936 or 202–482–1512 or via email at
privacyshield@trade.gov. Additional
information on ITA fees is available at
trade.gov/fees.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
Consistent with the guidelines in
OMB Circular A–25, federal agencies are
responsible for implementing cost
recovery program fees.
The role of ITA is to strengthen the
competitiveness of U.S. industry,
promote trade and investment, and
ensure fair trade through the rigorous
enforcement of our trade laws and
agreements. ITA works to promote
privacy policy frameworks to facilitate
the flow of data across borders to
support international trade.
The United States and the European
Union (EU) share the goal of enhancing
privacy protection but take different
approaches to protecting personal data.
Given those differences, the Department
of Commerce (DOC) developed the
Privacy Shield in consultation with the
European Commission, as well as with
industry and other stakeholders, to
provide organizations in the United
States with a reliable mechanism for
personal data transfers to the United
States from the European Union while
ensuring the protection of the data as
required by EU law.
In July 2016, the European
Commission approved the EU–U.S.
Privacy Shield Framework. The
published Privacy Shield Principles are
available at: [insert link]. The DOC has
issued the Privacy Shield Principles
under its statutory authority to foster,
promote, and develop international
commerce (15 U.S.C. 1512). ITA will
E:\FR\FM\30SEN1.SGM
30SEN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 190 (Friday, September 30, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Page 67293]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-23700]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
Foreign-Trade Zones Board
[Order No. 2013]
Reorganization and Expansion of Foreign-Trade Zone 214 Under
Alternative Site Framework; Lenoir County, North Carolina
Pursuant to its authority under the Foreign-Trade Zones Act of
June 18, 1934, as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a-81u), the Foreign-Trade
Zones Board (the Board) adopts the following Order:
Whereas, the Board adopted the alternative site framework (ASF) (15
CFR Sec. 400.2(c)) as an option for the establishment or reorganization
of zones;
Whereas, the North Carolina Department of Transportation, grantee
of Foreign-Trade Zone 214, submitted an application to the Board (FTZ
Docket B-20-2016, docketed April 13, 2016) for authority to reorganize
and expand under the ASF with a service area of the Counties of Pender,
New Hanover, Brunswick, Duplin, Columbus, Bladen, Robeson, Beaufort,
Pitt, Hyde, Onslow, Jones, Craven, Pamlico, Lenoir, Carteret, Wilson,
Edgecombe, Nash, Wayne, Greene and Cumberland, within and adjacent to
the Wilmington, Morehead City and Raleigh-Durham Customs and Border
Protection ports of entry. FTZ 214's existing Sites 1, 5, 6 (as
modified) and 7 would be categorized as magnet sites and Sites 2, 3 and
4 would be categorized as usage-driven sites, and the grantee proposes
three additional magnet sites (Sites 8, 9 and 10);
Whereas, notice inviting public comment was given in the Federal
Register (81 FR 23456-23457, April 21, 2016) and the application has
been processed pursuant to the FTZ Act and the Board's regulations;
and,
Whereas, the Board adopts the findings and recommendation of the
examiner's report, and finds that the requirements of the FTZ Act and
the Board's regulations are satisfied provided that inclusion of
Robeson County in the service area is limited to the portion of the
county east of Interstate 95 (I-95);
Now, therefore, the Board hereby orders:
The application to reorganize and expand FTZ 214 under the ASF is
approved, with the service area described above (i.e., inclusion of
Robeson County in the service area is limited to the portion of the
county east of I-95), subject to the FTZ Act and the Board's
regulations, including Section 400.13, to the Board's standard 2,000-
acre activation limit for the zone, to ASF sunset provisions for magnet
sites that would terminate authority for Sites 1, 7, 8, 9 and 10 if not
activated within five years from the month of approval and for Sites 5
and 6 if not activated within the initial ten years from the month of
approval, and to an ASF sunset provision for usage-driven sites that
would terminate authority for Sites 2, 3 and 4 if no foreign-status
merchandise is admitted for a bona fide customs purpose within three
years from the month of approval.
Dated: September 15, 2016.
Paul Piquado,
Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Enforcement and Compliance,
Alternate Chairman, Foreign-Trade Zones Board.
[FR Doc. 2016-23700 Filed 9-29-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
