Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 65 / Tuesday, April 5, 2011 / Notices 18715 

the Forest. A given herbicide may be 

effective on many target species but 

each site would usually be treated with 

only one of the ten approved herbicides 

(some tank mixes may be used); 

however, a different herbicide might be 

used in a follow-up treatment. The more 

herbicides choices in the toolbox, the 

better the effect expected over time (R6 

2005 FEIS page 4–18, 4–26). 

A site-specific, non-significant 

amendment to the Malheur Forest Plan 

is also proposed to add an 11th 

herbicide, aminopyralid, to the list of 

authorized herbicides for use on the 

Forest to treat invasive plants. 

Aminopyralid was not labeled for 

wildland use in 2005; however, the R6 

2005 ROD Standard 16 acknowledges 

that new herbicides may be added given 

proper analysis. Aminopyralid has 

undergone extensive risk assessment 

since 2005. It is proposed for use 

because it would increase the 

effectiveness of treatment for some 

broadleaf target species, and reduce 

potential adverse impacts, compared to 

herbicides authorized in the R6 2005 

ROD. Aminopyralid is likely to be 

effective on a large proportion of the 

current target species acreage. 

Possible Alternatives 

The Forest Service is considering an 

alternative of treating without the use of 

aminopyralid and only using the 10 

herbicides approved in the R6 2005 

ROD. The No Action alternative will 

also be considered, which would 

continue the current non-herbicide 

program on the Malheur National 

Forest. 

Responsible Official 

The Responsible Official is the 

Malheur National Forest Supervisor. 

Nature of Decision To Be Made 

The Forest Supervisor will make the 

following decisions based on the 

interdisciplinary analysis: (1) Whether 

or not to authorize site-specific invasive 

plant treatments using herbicides and 

other methods; (2) whether or not to 

implement an Early Detection and 

Rapid Response process for infestations 

that are detected over the next 5 to 15 

years; (3) what mitigation measures 

(design features) are required and (4) 

what monitoring and adaptive 

management will occur. 

Preliminary Issues 

The following issues were identified 

in scoping that occurred in 2006: 

Human Health: The health of forestry 

workers and the public may be at risk 

from exposure to herbicides. Chemical 

spray drift or contact by walking 

through recently sprayed areas may 

increase the risk, particularly to people 

who have heightened sensitivity to 

chemicals. In addition, health 

consequences could result from well 

water and other drinking water 

contaminated by herbicides. 

Treatment Effectiveness: Existing 

invasive species populations may 

continue to expand and new 

populations could become established 

without using all methods aggressively. 

Wildlife: Herbicides, particularly 

when applied through broadcast 

spraying, may harm terrestrial wildlife 

species. 

Non-target Plants: Herbicides, 

particularly when applied through 

broadcast spraying, may harm nontarget plants. 

Soil Biology: Herbicide use may harm 

soil organisms or soil biology. 

Fish and Water: Herbicide treatments 

on riparian areas have the potential to 

adversely affect water quality and 

aquatic ecosystems. 

Permits or Licenses Required 

Pesticide application licenses will be 

required for those implementing this 

project. Pesticide Use Proposals for 

wilderness herbicide applications need 

to be signed by the Regional Forester; 

otherwise Pesticide Use Proposals are 

signed by the Forest Supervisor. This 

project may involve riparian herbicide 

application subject to a Department of 

Environmental Quality water quality 

permit. 

Scoping Process 

This notice of intent initiates a new 

scoping process to guide the 

development of the environmental 

impact statement. Scoping comments 

from 2006 are part of the record and will 

be used to generate issues and 

alternatives for detailed study in the 

EIS. Scoping comments sent previously 

need not be re-sent; new comments are 

also welcome. No public meetings are 

planned. 

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, those who only 

submit anonymous comments will not 

have standing to appeal the subsequent 

decision under 36 CFR 215. 

Dated: March 28, 2011. 

Teresa Raaf, 

Forest Supervisor. 

[FR Doc. 2011–7727 Filed 4–4–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–11–P 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Forest Service 

Prince William Sound Resource 

Advisory Committee 

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA. 

ACTION: Notice of meeting. 

SUMMARY: The Prince William Sound 

Resource Advisory Committee will meet 

in Whittier, Alaska. The committee is 

meeting as authorized under the Secure 

Rural Schools and Community SelfDetermination Act (Pub. L. 110–343) 

and in compliance with the Federal 

Advisory Committee Act. The purpose 

of the meeting is to review, discuss and 

select projects to be funded thru the 

Secure Rural Schools Act. 

DATES: The meeting will be held April 

22nd and April 23rd, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held on 

the 15th floor of the Begich Towers Inc. 

building located at 100 Kenai Street, 

Whitter, AK. Written comments should 

be sent to Teresa Benson P.O. Box 280, 

Cordova, AK 99574. Comments may 

also be sent via e-mail to 

tbenson@fs.fed.us, or via facsimile to 

(907) 424–7214. 

All comments, including names and 

addresses when provided, are placed in 

the record and are available for public 

inspection and copying. The public may 

inspect comments received at the 

Cordova Ranger District (612 2nd Street, 

Cordova, AK) or the Glacier Ranger 

District (145 Forest Station Road, 

Girdwood, AK). 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Teresa Benson, Designated Federal 

Official, c/o USDA Forest Service, P.O. 

Box 280, Cordova, Alaska 99574, 

telephone (907) 424–4742. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

meeting is open to the public. The 

following business will be conducted: 

The Prince William Sound Resource 

Advisory Committee (RAC) will be 

discussing and voting on proposals that 

have been received from communities of 

the Prince William Sound. The 

proposals that may receive funding 

would enhance forest ecosystems or 

restore and improve land health and 

water quality on the Chugach National 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
18716 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 65 / Tuesday, April 5, 2011 / Notices 

1 I received the certified record from the ALJ, 

including the original copy of the RDO, for my 

review on March 1, 2011. The RDO is dated 

February 28, 2011, and incorporates the ALJ’s 

October 12, 2010 Order Partially Granting BIS’s 

Motion for Summary Decision. As discussed further 

infra, BIS moved for summary decision as to Charge 

Two of the Charging Letter in July 2010. The Order 

Partially Granting BIS’s Motion for Summary 

Decision granted BIS summary decision on Charge 

Two, but reserved ruling as to the recommended 

sanction because Charge One was still pending. In 

order to expedite resolution of this matter, BIS 

withdrew Charge One in November 2010. The 

Order Partially Granting BIS’s Motion for Summary 

Decision is part of the RDO, but where that Order 

is cited, for ease of reference, the citations are made 

directly to the pertinent pages of that Order, rather 

than citing it as an attachment to the RDO. 

2See note 1, supra. 

3The Regulations, which are currently codified at 

15 CFR parts 730–774 (2010), were issued pursuant 

to the Export Administration Act of 1979, as 

amended (50 U.S.C. app. 2401–2420 (2000)) (the 

‘‘Act’’). Since August 21, 2001, the Act has been in 

lapse and the President, through Executive Order 

13,222 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 12, 2010 (75 FR 50,681 (Aug. 16, 2010)), has 

continued the Regulations in effect under the 

International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 

U.S.C. 1701, et seq.). The violation remaining at 

issue in this case occurred in 2004. The Regulations 

governing the violation at issue are found in the 

2004 version of the Code of Federal Regulations (15 

CFR parts 730–774 (2004)). The 2010 Regulations 

govern the procedural aspects of this case. 

4As referenced supra at note 1 and as discussed 

further infra, BIS withdrew Charge One after BIS 

had moved for and been granted summary decision 

as to Charge Two. 

Forest and other near-by lands 

including the communities of Chenega, 

Cordova, Tatitlek, Valdez and Whittier. 

The RAC is responsible for approving 

projects with funds made available from 

years 2008–2012. 

The public is welcome to attend the 

April 22–23 RAC meeting. Committee 

discussion is limited to Forest Service 

staff and Committee members. However, 

public input opportunity will be 

provided and individuals will have the 

opportunity to address the Committee at 

that time. 

Persons who wish to bring related 

matters to the attention of the 

Committee may file written statements 

with the Committee staff before or after 

the meeting. Public input sessions will 

be provided and individuals who made 

written requests by April 21st will have 

the opportunity to address the 

Committee at those sessions. 

Dated: March 23, 2011. 

Teresa M. Benson, 

District Ranger. 

[FR Doc. 2011–8001 Filed 4–4–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–11–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

Bureau of Industry and Security 

[10–BIS–0001] 

Manoj Bhayana, Respondent; Final 

Decision and Order 

This matter is before me upon a 

Recommended Decision and Order 

(‘‘RDO’’) of an Administrative Law Judge 

(‘‘ALJ’’), as further described below.1

I. Background 

As discussed in the RDO, the 

allegations in this case stem from an 

investigation by the Bureau of Industry 

and Security (‘‘BIS’’) of a sale and 

(unlicensed) export of graphite rods and 

pipes from the United States to 

Pakistan, via the United Arab Emirates 

(‘‘UAE’’), in which Respondent Manoj 

Bhayana directly participated. See RDO, 

at 2, 4. During the investigation, BIS 

sought to determine, inter alia, the type 

of graphite that had been exported by 

SparesGlobal, Inc. (‘‘SparesGlobal’’), of 

Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, and the 

ultimate end-user of the items. 

Respondent was SparesGlobal’s primary 

sales representative for the transaction, 

working directly with the U.S. supplier 

(Ameri-Source, Inc.) and freight 

forwarder (K.C. International Transport, 

Inc.), and with SparesGlobal’s customer 

(Taif Trading, LLC), a trading company 

located in Dubai, UAE. See RDO, at 4– 

5; Order Partially Granting BIS’s Motion 

for Summary Decision, at 3, 5.2

The transaction documentation 

included a mill test certificate certifying 

that the graphite being exported met the 

specifications for a type of graphite (CS 

grade extruded graphite) produced by 

UCAR Carbon Company, doing business 

as GrafTech International Ltd. (‘‘UCAR/ 

GrafTech’’). As he later admitted, 

Respondent Bhayana knew that the 

exported graphite items were not UCAR 

graphite and had not been produced by 

UCAR/Graftech. He also knew that the 

mill test certificate, which was on 

UCAR/GrafTech letterhead, had been 

created at Ameri-Source, Inc. (‘‘AmeriSource’’), not by UCAR/GrafTech. 

Respondent sent the mill test certificate 

to the freight forwarder to facilitate the 

export, which occurred in December 

2003. RDO, at 4–5. 

During the course of BIS’s 

investigation of this matter, in a 

September 7, 2004 e-mail to a BIS 

Special Agent, Respondent denied 

having any knowledge of the origin of 

the mill test certificate. Following 

months of additional investigation, BIS 

executed a search warrant at 

SparesGlobal in November 2004. 

Bhayana was present and was 

interviewed by BIS Special Agents. 

During that interview, Respondent 

provided the mill test certificate in 

response to the Special Agents’ 

questions about the exported items, 

knowing, but not informing the agents, 

that the certificate contained false and 

misleading information. See RDO, at 5– 

6. 

In a Charging Letter issued on January 

15, 2010, BIS alleged that Respondent 

Bhayana had committed two violations 

of the Export Administration 

Regulations (‘‘EAR’’ or ‘‘Regulations’’).3

Charge One alleged that Respondent had 

violated Section 764.2(b) of the 

Regulations when he caused, aided or 

abetted the submission of a false and 

misleading SED. In Charge Two, the 

remaining charge at issue here,4 BIS 

alleged that respondent violated Section 

764.2(g) by making false and misleading 

statements to BIS Special Agents during 

the course of a BIS investigation. 

Charge Two alleged, in full, as 

follows: 

Charge 2: 15 CFR 764.2(g): False Statement 

Made to BIS During an Investigation 

Bhayana made false and misleading 

representations and statements in the course 

of a BIS investigation. On or about September 

8, 2004, a BIS Special Agent asked about the 

mill certificate relating to the Shipper’s 

Export Declaration (SED) filed on December 

2, 2003, and referenced in Charge 1 above. In 

an e-mailed response to the Special Agent, 

Bhayana stated: ‘‘The test certificate was 

provided by [our supplier] to us. We do not 

have any knowledge about its origin.’’ On or 

about November 3, 2004, Bhayana was again 

asked about the mill certificate during an inperson interview with BIS Special Agents, 

and again provided copies of this forged mill 

certificate to the Special Agents. During this 

interview, Bhayana also gave the BIS Special 

Agents a signed written statement referencing 

the mill test certificate specifications or 

‘‘specs,’’ in which, he indicated, ‘‘These specs 

which are being submitted here [to the 

Special Agents] are the material specs which 

were shipped under this shipment.’’ In fact, 

Bhayana had worked with others to create 

the forged mill certificate falsifying the type 

of graphite rod being exported and knew that 

the certificate contained false information 

when he provided it to the Special Agents. 

When confronted later in the same interview 

by the Special Agents with evidence that the 

certificate had been forged, Bhayana signed 

a second written statement. In this second 

signed statement, Bhayana admitted that his 

earlier statements to the Special Agents were 

false. Specifically, Bhayana admitted that 

SparesGlobal’s supplier, Ameri-Source, Inc., 

which was not the actual manufacturer or 

distributor of GrafTech’s UCAR graphite, 

‘‘suppl[ied] * * * the certificate on 

[GrafTech] UCAR letterhead showing the 

[false] specs and mill test reports,’’ and then 

‘‘prepared some certificate and faxed it to us 

for the approval.’’ In so doing, Bhayana 

committed one violation of Section 764.2(g) 

of the Regulations. 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES