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. 

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 

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 

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. 


Rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 29 / Thursday, February 12, 2015 / Notices 7839 

1The 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)). 

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. 

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 

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 

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 


Rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES