Reorganization and Expansion of Foreign-Trade Zone 214 Under Alternative Site Framework; Lenoir County, North Carolina, 67293 [2016-23700]

Download as PDF 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