Reorganization of Foreign-Trade Zone 84 Under Alternative Site Framework; Houston, Texas, 7838-7839 [2015-02975]

Download as PDF 7838 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 29 / Thursday, February 12, 2015 / Notices I. Abstract The U. S. Census Bureau plans to continue the current Office of Management and Budget clearance for the Annual Survey of School System Finances. The Annual Survey of School System Finances is the only comprehensive source of public elementary-secondary school system finance data collected on a nationwide scale using uniform definitions, concepts, and procedures. The collection covers the revenues, expenditures, debt, and assets of all public elementary-secondary school systems. This data collection has been coordinated with the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). The NCES uses this collection to satisfy its need for school finance data. Fiscal data provided by respondents aid data users in measuring the effectiveness of resource allocation. The products of this data collection make it possible for data users to search a single database to obtain information on such things as per pupil expenditures and the percent of state, local, and federal funding for each school system. Elementary-secondary education related spending is the single largest financial activity of state and local governments. Education finance statistics provided by the Census Bureau allow for analyses of how public elementary-secondary school systems receive their funding and how they are spending their funds. Rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES II. Method of Collection A letter is mailed electronically at the beginning of each survey period to solicit the assistance of the state education agencies. This letter officially announces the opening of the data collection period and requests some administrative data, such as the estimated date of submission, any change to the reporting format from prior year, and updated contact information for the state coordinator. The survey form (F–33) contains item descriptions and definitions of the elementary-secondary education finance items collected jointly by the Census Bureau and NCES. It is used primarily as a worksheet and instruction guide by the state education agencies providing school finance data centrally for the school systems in their respective states. The Census Bureau collects almost all of the finance data for local school systems from state education agency databases through central collection arrangements with the state education agencies. The states transfer this information in electronic format over the Internet via file transfer protocol. The Census Bureau has also facilitated central VerDate Sep<11>2014 13:54 Feb 11, 2015 Jkt 235001 collection of school system finance data by accepting data in multiple formats. Supplemental forms are sent to school systems in states where the state education agency cannot provide information on assets (F–33–L1), indebtedness (F–33–L2), or both (F–33– L3). III. Data OMB Control Number: 0607–0700. Form Number: F–33, Supplemental forms: F–33–L1, F–33–L2 and F–33–L3. Type of Review: Regular submission. Affected Public: State and local governments. Estimated Number of Respondents: F– 33: 51; Supplemental: 3,658. Estimated Time per Response: F–33: 56 hrs. 21 minutes; Supplemental: 15 minutes. Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 3,789 hrs. Estimated Total Annual Cost: $0. Respondents Obligation: Voluntary. Legal Authority: Title 13, U.S.C., Sections 161 and 182. IV. Request for Comments Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency’s estimate of the burden (including hours and cost) of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection; they also will become a matter of public record. Dated: February 6, 2015. Glenna Mickelson, Management Analyst, Office of the Chief Information Officer. [FR Doc. 2015–02866 Filed 2–11–15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–07–P PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Foreign-Trade Zones Board [Order No. 1964] Reorganization of Foreign-Trade Zone 84 Under Alternative Site Framework; Houston, Texas 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 Port of Houston Authority, grantee of Foreign-Trade Zone 84, submitted an application to the Board (FTZ Docket B–53–2014, docketed 08–01–2014) for authority to reorganize under the ASF with a service area of Harris County, Texas, within and adjacent to the Houston Customs and Border Protection port of entry, FTZ 84’s existing Sites 1, 2, 3, 8, 10, 20, 26, 28 and 29 would be categorized as magnet sites, existing Sites 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 23 and 24 would be categorized as usage-driven sites, and Temporary Sites 27, 30 and 32 would maintain their current zone designation; Whereas, notice inviting public comment was given in the Federal Register (79 FR 46249–46250, 08–07– 2014) 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; Now, therefore, the Board hereby orders: The application to reorganize FTZ 84 under the ASF is approved, 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 a ASF sunset provision for magnet sites that would terminate authority for Sites 1, 8, 10, 20, 26, 28 and 29 if not activated within five years from the month of approval and for Site 2 if not activated within the initial eight years from the month of approval, and to a ASF sunset provision for usagedriven sites that would terminate authority for Sites 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 23 and 24 if no foreignstatus merchandise is admitted for a bona fide customs purpose within three years from the month of approval. E:\FR\FM\12FEN1.SGM 12FEN1 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 29 / Thursday, February 12, 2015 / Notices Signed at Washington, DC, this 30 day of January 2015. Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Enforcement and Compliance, Alternate Chairman, Foreign-Trade Zones Board. Andrew McGilvray, Executive Secretary. [FR Doc. 2015–02975 Filed 2–11–15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Bureau of Industry and Security Order Denying Export Privileges In the Matter of: Maple Pacific Corporation, 26671 Sierra Vista, Mission Viejo, CA 96292, Respondent; Andrew Hsu, 26671 Sierra Vista, Mission Viejo, CA 96292, Related Person. Rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES A. Denial of Export Privileges of Maple Pacific Corporation On February 6, 2012, in the U.S. District Court, Central District of California, Maple Pacific Corporation (‘‘Maple Pacific’’), was convicted of violating the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701, et seq. (2006 & Supp. IV 2010)) (‘‘IEEPA’’). Specifically, Maple Pacific willfully exported and transshipped goods, namely, industrial parts used to maintain equipment in the steel manufacturing industry, from the United States to Iran without first obtaining from the United States Department of Commerce, Office of Foreign Assets Control, a license or written authorization for such export and transshipment, knowing such a license or authorization was required. Maple Pacific was sentenced to probation for two years, a $5,000 fine and $400 assessment. Section 766.25 of the Export Administration Regulations (‘‘EAR’’ or ‘‘Regulations’’) 1 provides, in pertinent part, that ‘‘[t]he Director of the Office of Exporter Services, in consultation with the Director of the Office of Export Enforcement, may deny the export privileges of any person who has been 1 The Regulations are currently codified in the Code of Federal Regulations at 15 CFR parts 730– 774 (2014). The Regulations are issued pursuant to the Export Administration Act of 1979 (50 U.S.C. app. §§ 2401–2420 (2000)) (‘‘the EAA’’ or ‘‘the Act’’). Since August 21, 2001, the EAA has been in lapse and the President, through Executive Order 13222 of August 17, 2001 (3 CFR, 2001 Comp. 783 (2002)), which has been extended by successive Presidential Notices, the most recent being that of August 7, 2014 (79 FR 46959 (August 11, 2014)), has continued the Regulations in effect under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701, et seq. (2006 & Supp. IV 2010)). VerDate Sep<11>2014 13:54 Feb 11, 2015 Jkt 235001 convicted of a violation of the EAA, the EAR, of any order, license or authorization issued thereunder; any regulation, license, or order issued under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701– 1706); 18 U.S.C. 793, 794 or 798; section 4(b) of the Internal Security Act of 1950 (50 U.S.C. 783(b)), or section 38 of the Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2778).’’ 15 CFR 766.25(a); see also Section 11(h) of the EAA, 50 U.S.C. app. § 2410(h). The denial of export privileges under this provision may be for a period of up to ten (10) years from the date of the conviction. 15 CFR 766.25(d); see also 50 U.S.C. app. § 2410(h). In addition, Section 750.8 of the Regulations states that the Bureau of Industry and Security’s Office of Exporter Services may revoke any Bureau of Industry and Security (‘‘BIS’’) licenses previously issued in which the person had an interest in at the time of his conviction. BIS received notice of Maple Pacific’s conviction for violating the IEEPA, and has provided notice and an opportunity for Maple Pacific to make a written submission to BIS, as provided in Section 766.25 of the Regulations. BIS has not received a submission from Maple Pacific. Based upon my review and consultations with BIS’s Office of Export Enforcement, including its Director, and the facts available to BIS, I have decided to deny Maple Pacific’s export privileges under the Regulations for a period of ten (10) years from the date of Maple Pacific’s conviction. I have also decided to revoke all licenses issued pursuant to the Act or Regulations in which Maple Pacific had an interest at the time of its conviction. B. Denial of Export Privileges of Related Person Andrew Hsu Pursuant to Sections 766.25(h) and 766.23 of the Regulations, the Director of BIS’s Office of Exporter Services, in consultation with the Director of BIS’s Office of Export Enforcement, may, in order to prevent evasion of a denial order, make a denial order applicable not only to the respondent, but also to other persons related to the respondent by ownership, control, position of responsibility, affiliation, or other connection in the conduct of trade or business. As provided in Section 766.23 of the Regulations, BIS gave notice to Andrew Hsu (‘‘Hsu’’) that his export privileges under the Regulations could be denied for up to ten (10) years due to his relationship with Maple Pacific and that BIS believed that naming Hsu as a person related to Maple Pacific would be necessary to prevent evasion of a PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 7839 denial order imposed against Maple Pacific. In providing such notice, BIS gave Hsu an opportunity to oppose its addition to the Maple Pacific Denial Order as a related party. Having received no submission from Hsu, I have decided, following consultations with BIS’s Office of Export Enforcement, including its Director, to include name Hsu as a Related Person and make this Denial Order applicable to Hsu, thereby denying his export privileges for ten (10) years from the date of Maple Pacific’s conviction. I have also decided to revoke all licenses issued pursuant to the Act or Regulations in which Hsu had an interest at the time of Maple Pacific’s conviction. The 10-year denial period is scheduled to end on February 6, 2022. Hsu is the sole owner of Maple Pacific and performed all aspects of Maple Pacific’s operations. Therefore, Hsu is related to Maple Pacific within the meaning of Section 766.23. BIS also has reason to believe that Hsu should be added as a related person in order to prevent evasion of this Denial Order. Accordingly, it is hereby ordered: First, from the date of this Order until February 6, 2022, Maple Pacific Corporation, with a last known address of 26671 Sierra Vista, Mission Viejo, CA 96292, and when acting for or on its behalf, its successors, assigns, directors, officers, employees, agents, or representatives, and Andrew Hsu, with a last known address of 26671 Sierra Vista, Mission Viejo, CA 96292, and when acting for or on his behalf, his successors, assigns, employees, agents, or representatives (each as ‘‘Denied Person’’ and collectively the ‘‘Denied Persons’’) may not, directly or indirectly, participate in any way in any transaction involving any commodity, software or technology (hereinafter collectively referred to as ‘‘item’’) exported or to be exported from the United States that is subject to the Regulations, or in any other activity subject to the Regulations, including but not limited to: A. Applying for, obtaining, or using any license, License Exception, or export control document; B. Carrying on negotiations concerning, or ordering, buying, receiving, using, selling, delivering, storing, disposing of, forwarding, transporting, financing, or otherwise servicing in any way, any transaction involving any item exported or to be exported from the United States that is subject to the Regulations, or in any other activity subject to the Regulations; or E:\FR\FM\12FEN1.SGM 12FEN1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 29 (Thursday, February 12, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 7838-7839]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-02975]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

 DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Foreign-Trade Zones Board

[Order No. 1964]


Reorganization of Foreign-Trade Zone 84 Under Alternative Site 
Framework; Houston, Texas

    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 Port of Houston Authority, grantee of Foreign-Trade 
Zone 84, submitted an application to the Board (FTZ Docket B-53-2014, 
docketed 08-01-2014) for authority to reorganize under the ASF with a 
service area of Harris County, Texas, within and adjacent to the 
Houston Customs and Border Protection port of entry, FTZ 84's existing 
Sites 1, 2, 3, 8, 10, 20, 26, 28 and 29 would be categorized as magnet 
sites, existing Sites 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 23 and 24 
would be categorized as usage-driven sites, and Temporary Sites 27, 30 
and 32 would maintain their current zone designation;
    Whereas, notice inviting public comment was given in the Federal 
Register (79 FR 46249-46250, 08-07-2014) 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;
    Now, therefore, the Board hereby orders:
    The application to reorganize FTZ 84 under the ASF is approved, 
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 a ASF sunset provision for magnet sites that would terminate 
authority for Sites 1, 8, 10, 20, 26, 28 and 29 if not activated within 
five years from the month of approval and for Site 2 if not activated 
within the initial eight years from the month of approval, and to a ASF 
sunset provision for usage-driven sites that would terminate authority 
for Sites 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 23 and 24 if no 
foreign-status merchandise is admitted for a bona fide customs purpose 
within three years from the month of approval.


[[Page 7839]]


    Signed at Washington, DC, this 30 day of January 2015.
Paul Piquado,
Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Enforcement and Compliance, 
Alternate Chairman, Foreign-Trade Zones Board.
Andrew McGilvray,
Executive Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-02975 Filed 2-11-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.