Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 57 / Friday, March 23, 2012 / Notices 17009 

Additionally, some alternatives propose 

new road construction within MA–12. 

This would result in exceeding the open 

road density standard during the life of 

the project and require a site-specific 

Forest Plan amendment. All roads 

opened for project activities and all 

newly constructed roads would be 

effectively closed after completion of 

project activities, so there would be no 

long term increase in open road 

densities. 

Specifically, the proposed action 

(Alternative 2) would increase ORDs in 

MA–12 to 2.3 miles per square mile 

during harvest activities if all roads 

were open concurrently. Alternative 3 

would result in an ORD of 2.6 miles per 

square mile during operations, and 

Alternative 4 would not change the 

existing condition. Following 

completion of project activities, open 

road densities would return to preproject levels. 

Possible Alternatives 

Four alternatives have been 

identified; the No Action, the Proposed 

Action described in this Notice of 

Intent, an action alternative that more 

specifically addresses concerns and 

issues related to an on-going, aggressive 

expansion of mountain pine beetle 

activity into stands dominated by 

lodgepole pine, and an action 

alternative that would address concerns 

regarding new road construction which 

would accomplish stand treatments 

using the existing transportation system. 

Responsible Official 

As the Kootenai National Forest 

Supervisor, I am the responsible official 

for this decision. 

Nature of Decision To Be Made 

My decision will be whether or not to 

implement the proposed action as 

described, including timber harvest, 

road work, prescribed burning to 

enhance big game forage, approval of a 

project-specific amendment to the 

Forest Plan for open road density in 

MA–12, changes in some Management 

Area designation for difficult 

regeneration sites, and to exceed the 40 

acre opening size limit under the 

National Forest Management Act (1976), 

or to implement an alternative course of 

action, as expressed in alternatives to 

the proposed action. 

Scoping Process 

It is important that reviewers provide 

their comments at such times and in 

such manner that they are useful to the 

agency’s preparation of the 

environmental impact statement. 

Therefore, comments should be 

provided prior to the close of the 

comment period and should clearly 

articulate the reviewer’s concerns and 

contentions. 

Comments received in response to 

this solicitation, including names and 

addresses of those who comment, will 

be part of the public record for this 

proposed action. Comments submitted 

anonymously will be accepted and 

considered, however. 

Dated: March 8, 2012. 

Paul Stantus, 

Acting Forest Supervisor. 

[FR Doc. 2012–7052 Filed 3–22–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–11–P 

OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL 

COORDINATOR FOR ALASKA 

NATURAL GAS TRANSPORTATION 

PROJECTS 

Review of Federal Permit Conditions 

AGENCY: Office of the Federal 

Coordinator for Alaska Natural Gas 

Transportation Projects. 

ACTION: Notice and request for public 

comment. 

SUMMARY: The Office of the Federal 

Coordinator for Alaska Natural Gas 

Transportation Projects is proposing to 

implement its statutory responsibilities 

under the Alaska Natural Gas Pipeline 

Act (15 U.S.C. 720) with respect to 

federal permit conditions imposed on 

the gas pipeline project. This policy 

statement will establish the agency’s 

procedures for determining whether 

certain conditions included in a 

certificate, right-of-way, permit, lease, or 

other authorization for an Alaska 

natural gas transportation project by 

other federal agencies are prohibited 

under the Alaska Natural Gas Pipeline 

Act. 

DATES: Submit comments on or before 

April 23, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: Address all comments 

concerning this notice to Frank 

Richards, Deputy Federal Coordinator, 

Office of the Federal Coordinator for 

Alaska Natural Gas Transportation 

Projects; 188 W. Northern Lights Blvd., 

Suite 600; Anchorage, AK 99503. 

Submit electronic comments to: 

frichards@arcticgas.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Frank Richards, Deputy Federal 

Coordinator, Alaska Natural Gas 

Transportation Projects, 907–271–5240. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

Congress enacted the Alaska Natural 

Gas Pipeline Act in 2004 (15 U.S.C. 720) 

to encourage completion of a pipeline to 

deliver natural gas from Alaska’s North 

Slope to the Lower 48 states. The Alaska 

Natural Gas Pipeline Act establishes a 

new process for approval and 

construction of the pipeline, either a 

project that completes the Alaska 

Natural Gas Transportation System that 

President Carter approved in 1977 

pursuant to the Alaska Natural Gas 

Transportation Act of 1976 (15 U.S.C. 

719), or a different pipeline project 

under the Natural Gas Act. The Alaska 

Natural Gas Pipeline Act of 2004 created 

the Office of the Federal Coordinator for 

Alaska Natural Gas Transportation 

Projects and charged the Federal 

Coordinator, the agency head, with four 

primary responsibilities: (1) Coordinate 

the expeditious discharge of all 

activities by all federal agencies with 

respect to an Alaska natural gas 

pipeline; (2) Ensure that all federal 

agencies comply with the Alaska 

Natural Gas Pipeline Act; (3) Prohibit 

federal agencies from imposing permit 

conditions that would prevent or impair 

in any significant respect the 

expeditious construction and operation 

of the project unless the conditions are 

required by law. The act directs the 

Federal Coordinator to determine 

whether a term or condition would 

prevent or impair in any significant 

respect the expeditious construction 

and operation of the project; and (4) 

Participate with the state of Alaska in a 

joint construction surveillance and 

monitoring agreement. 

In addition, Congress transferred to 

the Federal Coordinator all of the 

responsibilities and authorities of the 

Federal Inspector under the Alaska 

Natural Gas Transportation Act of 1976. 

These responsibilities will be applicable 

if the Alaska Natural Gas Transportation 

System gas line is completed or if the 

1980’s prebuilt sections of that project 

are expanded or modified within the 

United States to handle Alaska gas. 

This policy addresses the third of the 

four statutory requirements listed above 

by explaining how the Federal 

Coordinator will determine whether 

conditions that federal agencies intend 

to impose on permits, rights-of-way or 

other authorizations for an Alaska gas 

transportation project will prevent or 

impair in any significant respect the 

expeditious construction and operation 

of the project. 

Several sections of the Alaska Natural 

Gas Pipeline Act require the Federal 

Coordinator to consider permit 

conditions imposed by federal agencies 

with respect to the pipeline. Section 

106(d)(2), Public Law 108–324, 118 Stat. 

1255 prohibits agencies from including 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
17010 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 57 / Friday, March 23, 2012 / Notices 

certain conditions in permits and other 

approvals, it states: 

(2) PROHIBITION OF CERTAIN TERMS 

AND CONDITIONS—No Federal agency may 

include in any certificate, right-of-way, 

permit, lease, or other authorization issued to 

an Alaska natural gas transportation project 

any term or condition that may be permitted, 

but is not required, by any applicable law if 

the Federal Coordinator determines that the 

term or condition would prevent or impair in 

any significant respect the expeditious 

construction and operation, or an expansion, 

of the Alaska natural gas transportation 

project. 

Thus, the Alaska Natural Gas Pipeline 

Act of 2004 prohibits conditions that 

may be included but are not required by 

any applicable law if the Federal 

Coordinator determines that the 

condition would prevent or impair in 

any significant respect the expeditious 

construction and operation, or an 

expansion, of the Alaska natural gas 

transportation project. The Federal 

Coordinator’s function with regard to 

some conditions is limited. Under the 

Alaska Natural Gas Pipeline Act, 

Division C, Section 106(d)(4), Public 

Law 108–324 denies the Federal 

Coordinator any authority to override 

the Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission’s implementation of open 

seasons for the project or the 

Commission’s orders for expansion of 

the project under Section 105 of the 

Alaska Natural Gas Pipeline Act, or to 

add or impose any terms or conditions 

to the Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission certificate or any agency’s 

permit or other authorization for the 

project. Division C, Section 106(d)(4), 

Public Law 108–324 states: 

(4) LIMITATION—The Federal Coordinator 

shall not have authority to— 

(A) Override— 

(i) The implementation or enforcement of 

regulations issued by the Commission under 

section 103; or 

(ii) An order by the Commission to expand 

the project under section 105; or 

(B) Impose any terms, conditions, or 

requirements in addition to those imposed by 

the Commission or any agency with respect 

to construction and operation, or an 

expansion of, the project. 

The Alaska Natural Gas Pipeline Act 

also prohibits federal agencies from 

amending any previously issued permit 

or authorization to add conditions 

determined by the Federal Coordinator 

to prevent or impair in any significant 

respect the expeditious construction 

and operation of the pipeline. 

(3) PROHIBITION OF CERTAIN 

ACTIONS—Unless required by law, no 

Federal agency shall add to, amend, or 

abrogate any certificate, right-of-way, permit, 

lease, or other authorization issued to an 

Alaska natural gas transportation project if 

the Federal Coordinator determines that the 

action would prevent or impair in any 

significant respect the expeditious 

construction and operation, Or an expansion, 

of the Alaska natural gas transportation 

project. ANGPA § 106(d)(3). 

The prohibition of permit conditions 

which would prevent or impair in any 

significant respect expeditious 

construction and operation does not 

apply to conditions adopted by state 

agencies, even those issued pursuant to 

programs encouraged or funded by the 

federal government. However, if a stateissued permit includes a condition 

which is incorporated into a federal 

permit by a federal agency, the Federal 

Coordinator may review the condition 

that the federal agency adopted. Any 

determination the Federal Coordinator 

makes would not affect the state 

condition, just the applicability of the 

federal permit condition. 

II. Discussion of Proposed Policy 

The Office of the Federal Coordinator 

for Alaska Natural Gas Transportation 

Projects proposes to implement 

provisions of the Alaska Natural Gas 

Transportation Act of 2004 by policy, 

which will establish the process by 

which the Federal Coordinator will 

exercise its responsibility to determine 

whether permit conditions would 

interfere with completion of the project. 

This policy will apply to the agency’s 

review of conditions initially included 

in a permit or authorization for an 

Alaska natural gas transportation 

project, as well as any renewal or 

reissuance of permits or other 

authorizations. 

A. Intention To Work With Other 

Agencies 

It is the Office of the Federal 

Coordinator for Alaska Natural Gas 

Transportation Projects’ intention to 

work closely with other federal agencies 

before, during and after the National 

Environmental Policy Act process and 

during the permit application review 

process of each agency in order to 

identify the likely need for permit 

conditions early and to determine as 

soon as possible whether a particular 

permit condition would be inconsistent 

with the Alaska Natural Gas Pipeline 

Act’s statutory prohibition. The Office 

of the Federal Coordinator for Alaska 

Natural Gas Transportation Projects 

expects that through coordination with 

other federal agencies and the permit 

applicant, it should be able to resolve 

concerns about most terms and 

conditions early on and either avoid a 

formal review process or conclude it 

expeditiously. 

B. Definitions 

(1) Condition: The agency proposes to 

define term or condition of the Alaska 

Natural Gas Pipeline Act, Section 106(d) 

(2), Public Law 108–324, 118 Stat. 

1255—referred to in this policy as 

condition—to mean any obligation not 

proposed by the applicant but proposed 

to be added to the permit or 

authorization by a federal agency. That 

includes all terms, stipulations or 

conditions required by the agency and 

any other requirement imposed by a 

federal agency. It excludes any 

obligation included by the applicant in 

its application, even if the obligation is 

suggested by an agency. 

(2) Certificate, Right-Of-Way, Permit, 

Lease, or Other Authorization: The 

agency proposes to define certificate, 

right-of-way, permit, lease or other 

authorization to mean any certificate, 

right-of-way, permit, lease, approval or 

other authorization required in order to 

construct or operate an Alaska natural 

gas transportation project, but excludes 

permissions for useful, but not required 

authorizations. Accordingly, federal 

loan guarantees, licenses for 

communications equipment not 

necessary for the project and other such 

permissions would not be subject to 

OFC review. 

(3) Alaska Natural Gas 

Transportation Project: The agency does 

not intend to propose a definition of 

Alaska natural gas transportation 

project, as that term is defined in the 

Alaska Natural Gas Pipeline Act in 

Section 102 of Public Law 108–324, 118 

Stat. 1255. It is important to note that 

the definition includes the entire 

system, not simply the pipeline. 

Therefore, this permit review policy 

will cover conditions addressing 

support facilities, compressor stations, 

the gas treatment plant, and other parts 

of the project. 

(4) Prevent or Impair in Any 

Significant Respect the Expeditious 

Construction and Operation of the 

Project: The agency does not intend to 

define prevent or impair in any 

significant respect the expeditious 

construction and operation of the 

project because the agency believes this 

should be interpreted based on the 

circumstances of the project at the time 

of an agency’s action, the agency’s 

intention and justification in crafting 

the proposed condition, and the 

condition’s effect on the project. Prevent 

or impair in any significant respect 

cannot be well-defined in the absence of 

specific circumstances. As an example, 

a condition that causes a significant 

delay in the first in-service date 

contractually agreed to between the 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 57 / Friday, March 23, 2012 / Notices 17011 

pipeline owner and/or operator and a 

shipper could, if extreme, be deemed to 

impair expeditious construction and 

operation of the project. However, such 

a determination could only be made if 

the contractual in-service date were 

reasonable in light of the complexity of 

the project and other circumstances. 

C. Process for Review of Permit 

Conditions 

The Office of the Federal Coordinator 

for Alaska Natural Gas Transportation 

Projects does not intend to review every 

condition on every permit. Rather, the 

agency will review permit conditions at 

the request of the applicant or 

permittee. In addition, agency reserves 

the right to select conditions for review 

on its own initiative. When the 

permitting agency’s practice or 

regulations allow that agency or the 

Office of the Federal Coordinator to 

share a draft permit condition with an 

applicant, the Office of the Federal 

Coordinator will work with the 

applicant and the agency as early as 

possible to identify problematic permit 

conditions. An applicant may request 

review of a permit condition by the 

Office of the Federal Coordinator prior 

to issuance if the applicant believes it 

may prevent or impair in any significant 

respect the expeditious construction 

and operation of the project. 

If the practice of the permitting 

agency does not allow draft permit 

conditions to be shared with an 

applicant, the permittee will have to 

wait to request review of a permit 

condition until after the permit is 

issued. 

Requests from the applicant or the 

permittee for review of permit 

conditions should specify what specific 

condition will prevent or impair 

expeditious construction and operation 

of the project and should explain why 

the condition will have a detrimental 

impact on the project. 

D. Information Required for Review 

The Office of the Federal Coordinator 

will need background information from 

the agency in order to conduct its 

review, including: 

(1) The language of the specific 

condition. 

(2) A citation to the legal requirement 

for the condition. 

(3) Any analysis the agency has 

prepared of the cost of implementing 

the condition. 

(4) Any other information that 

explains the agency’s reasons to include 

the condition, especially the 

circumstances that require its inclusion. 

This should include any discussion of 

the benefits of the conditions, or a costbenefit analysis if one has been 

prepared. 

(5) If the permit has not been issued, 

a statement addressing whether it is 

permissible under the agency’s practice 

to share the draft condition with the 

applicant. 

The Office of the Federal Coordinator 

expects this information should be 

readily available from the agency and 

will not impose a burden on the agency, 

as it should have already documented 

the need for the condition as part of the 

administrative record. Accordingly, the 

Office of the Federal Coordinator 

anticipates that the agency will be able 

to provide this information within ten 

(10) calendar days of Office of the 

Federal Coordinator’s notification of a 

review and request for additional 

information. 

Based on Office of the Federal 

Coordinator’s review of the proposed 

condition, the Federal Coordinator will 

determine whether the condition would 

prevent or impair in any significant 

respect the expeditious construction 

and operation of the project. In most 

cases, the Office of the Federal 

Coordinator’s review should be 

completed in less than thirty (30) days 

after a project applicant requests a 

review. The Federal Coordinator will 

provide notice of its decision and 

reasoning to the applicant and the 

agency. If the Federal Coordinator 

determines that the condition or 

proposed condition would prevent or 

impair in any significant respect the 

expeditious construction and operation 

of the project, the Office of the Federal 

Coordinator will facilitate a meeting 

between the permittee or applicant and 

the issuing agency and, if appropriate, 

other experts, in order to help resolve 

the issue. 

III. Proposed Policy for Review of 

Federal Permit Conditions for an 

Alaska Natural Gas Pipeline Project 

The purpose of this policy is to 

explain how the Office of the Federal 

Coordinator (OFC) will exercise its 

responsibilities with respect to review 

of permit conditions under Section 

106(d) of the Alaska Natural Gas 

Pipeline Act (ANGPA). This policy 

applies to the issuance of initial 

permits, as well as the renewal or 

reissuance of permits for an Alaska 

natural gas transportation project. 

It is the OFC’s intention to work 

closely with other federal agencies 

before, during and after the National 

Environmental Policy Act process and 

during the permit application review 

process of each agency in order to 

identify the likely need for permit 

conditions early and to determine as 

soon as possible whether a particular 

permit condition would be precluded by 

ANGPA’s statutory prohibition. The 

OFC expects that through coordination 

with other federal agencies and the 

permit applicant, it should be able to 

resolve concerns about most terms and 

conditions early on and either avoid a 

formal review process or conclude it 

expeditiously. 

1. Definitions 

(a) Term or condition in Section 

106(d)(2) of ANGPA—referred to in this 

policy as condition—means any 

obligation not proposed by the applicant 

but proposed to be added to the permit 

or authorization by a federal agency. 

This includes all terms, stipulations, 

conditions or additions to the 

application and any other requirement 

imposed by an agency. It excludes any 

obligation included by the applicant in 

its application, even if the obligation is 

suggested by an agency. 

(b) Certificate, right-of-way, permit, 

lease or other authorization means any 

certificate, right-of-way, permit, lease, 

approval or other authorization required 

in order to construct or operate an 

Alaska natural gas transportation 

project. 

2. Review of Proposed Terms or 

Conditions 

(a) Review of permit conditions by 

request of applicant. 

(1) An applicant for a permit or a 

permittee for any permit, certificate, 

right-of-way or other authorization for 

an Alaska natural gas transportation 

project may request the Federal 

Coordinator to review any condition 

included in or proposed for inclusion in 

a permit, certificate, right-of-way or 

other authorization. 

(2) Such requests must be made to the 

Federal Coordinator no later than 30 

days after permit issuance. 

(3) The request shall include a 

specific identification of each condition 

which the applicant or permittee 

believes is inconsistent with ANGPA 

and an explanation of the basis of that 

belief, including information that 

supports the contention that the permit 

condition would prevent or impair in 

any significant respect the expeditious 

construction and operation of the 

project. 

(4) The Federal Coordinator may 

review a permit condition even if the 

permittee has not requested review. 

(b) Materials necessary for review. 

If the Federal Coordinator receives a 

request for review of any condition, the 

OFC will notify the issuing agency of 

the request. The OFC will need the 

following information from the agency: 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
17012 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 57 / Friday, March 23, 2012 / Notices 

(1) The language of the specific 

condition. 

(2) A citation to the legal requirement 

for the condition. 

(3) Any analysis the agency has 

prepared of the cost of implementing 

the condition. 

(4) Any other information that 

explains the agency’s reasons to include 

the condition, especially the 

circumstances that require its inclusion. 

This should include any discussion of 

the benefits of the conditions, or a costbenefit analysis if one has been 

prepared. 

(5) If the permit has not yet been 

issued, a statement addressing whether 

agency practice or regulations would 

allow OFC to discuss the proposed 

condition with the applicant. 

(c) Permit condition review. 

In determining whether a proposed 

permit condition would prevent or 

impair expeditious construction and 

operation of the project, the OFC will 

consider: 

(1) Any delays in project construction 

and operation caused by the condition. 

(2) All other available information, 

including, if available, the project’s cost 

of meeting the condition. 

(3) The statutory and regulatory basis 

for the condition, as provided by the 

issuing agency. 

(4) The views of the applicant. 

(d) The OFC will endeavor to 

complete its review within 30 days after 

a request from an applicant or 

permittee. 

(e) The Federal Coordinator’s decision 

(1) The Federal Coordinator will 

determine whether the proposed 

condition would prevent or impair in 

any significant respect the expeditious 

construction and operation of an Alaska 

natural gas transportation project or 

expansion of that project. The Federal 

Coordinator’s decision will be sent to 

the agency and the applicant or 

permittee. 

(2) If the Federal Coordinator 

determines that the condition or 

proposed condition would prevent or 

impair in any significant respect the 

expeditious construction and operation 

of the project, the OFC will facilitate a 

meeting between the permittee or 

applicant and the issuing agency and, if 

appropriate, other experts, in order to 

help resolve the issue. 

Dated: March 9, 2012. 

Larry Persily, 

Federal Coordinator. 

[FR Doc. 2012–6406 Filed 3–22–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6820–TP–M 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

Foreign-Trade Zones Board 

[Docket 17–2012] 

Foreign-Trade Zone 158—Vicksburg/ 

Jackson, MS; Application for 

Manufacturing Authority; Morgan 

Fabrics Corporation (Upholstered 

Furniture Covering Sets), Verona, MS 

An application has been submitted to 

the Foreign-Trade Zones Board (the 

Board) by the Greater Mississippi 

Foreign-Trade Zone, Inc., grantee of FTZ 

158, requesting manufacturing authority 

on behalf of Morgan Fabrics Corporation 

(MFC), to manufacture upholstered 

furniture covering sets under FTZ 

procedures within FTZ 158. The 

application was submitted pursuant to 

the provisions of the Foreign–Trade 

Zones Act, as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a– 

81u), and the regulations of the Board 

(15 CFR part 400). It was formally filed 

on March 19, 2012. 

The MFC facility (33 employees) is 

located at 108 Lipford Road within the 

Tupelo Lee Industrial Park (Site 17) in 

Verona, Lee County, Mississippi. The 

application proposes that MFC would 

utilize foreign-origin ‘‘micro-denier 

suede’’ fabric (up to 3 million square 

yards per year) to be cut and sewn into 

upholstery covering sets (i.e., furniture 

parts) under FTZ procedures. The 

finished covering sets (HTSUS 9401.90; 

duty free) would be shipped from the 

zone to U.S. furniture manufacturing 

plants where they would be 

incorporated into upholstered furniture. 

The proposed scope of authority 

under FTZ procedures would only 

involve duty savings on foreign origin, 

micro-denier suede fabrics (classified 

under HTSUS Headings 5407, 5512, 

5515, 5516, 5903, 5906, 6001, 6005, 

6006; duty rate range: 2.7–17.2%) 

finished with a caustic soda wash 

process, which the applicant indicates 

are not produced by U.S. mills. The 

application indicates that MFC does not 

seek FTZ benefits on any other foreign 

fabrics that the company may use in 

production at the facility (i.e., full duties 

would be paid on all such fabrics). 

On foreign micro-denier suede fabric 

used in production for the U.S. market, 

the company would be able to choose 

the finished upholstery covering set 

(i.e., furniture part) duty rate (free) after 

the fabric has been cut, sewn, and 

formed into covering sets, at which time 

they would be entered for consumption 

from the zone. The application indicates 

that the savings from FTZ procedures 

would help improve the facility’s 

international competitiveness. 

In accordance with the Board’s 

regulations, Pierre Duy of the FTZ Staff 

is designated examiner to evaluate and 

analyze the facts and information 

presented in the application and case 

record and to report findings and 

recommendations to the Board. 

Public comment is invited from 

interested parties. Submissions (original 

and 3 copies) shall be addressed to the 

Board’s Executive Secretary at the 

address below. The closing period for 

their receipt is May 22, 2012. Rebuttal 

comments in response to material 

submitted during the foregoing period 

may be submitted during the subsequent 

15-day period to June 6, 2012. 

A copy of the application will be 

available for public inspection at the 

Office of the Executive Secretary, 

Foreign-Trade Zones Board, Room 2111, 

U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 

Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, 

DC 20230–0002, and in the ‘‘Reading 

Room’’ section of the Board’s Web site, 

which is accessible via www.trade.gov/ 

ftz. 

For further information, contact Pierre 

Duy at Pierre.Duy@trade.gov or (202) 

482–1378. 

Dated: March 19, 2012. 

Andrew McGilvray, 

Executive Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2012–7059 Filed 3–22–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

Foreign-Trade Zones Board 

[Docket 18–2012] 

Foreign-Trade Zone 64—Jacksonville, 

FL; Application for Reorganization 

(Expansion of Service Area) Under the 

Alternative Site Framework 

An application has been submitted to 

the Foreign-Trade Zones (FTZ) Board 

(the Board) by the Jacksonville Port 

Authority, grantee of FTZ 64, requesting 

authority to reorganize its zone to 

expand its service area under the 

alternative site framework (ASF) 

adopted by the Board (74 FR 1170, 1/12/ 

09 (correction 74 FR 3987, 1/22/09); 75 

FR 71069–71070, 11/22/10). The ASF is 

an option for grantees for the 

establishment or reorganization of 

general-purpose zones and can permit 

significantly greater flexibility in the 

designation of new ‘‘usage-driven’’ FTZ 

sites for operators/users located within 

a grantee’s ‘‘service area’’ in the context 

of the Board’s standard 2,000-acre 

activation limit for a general-purpose 

zone project. The application was 

submitted pursuant to the Foreign-Trade 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES