58884 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 190 / Friday, October 1, 2004 / Notices 

1The alleged violations occurred from 1998 

through 1999. The Regulations governing the 

violations at issue are found in the 1998 and 1999 

versions of the Code of Federal Regulations (15 CFR 

parts 730–774 (1998–1999)). The 2004 Regulations 

establish the procedures that apply to this matter.

2From August 21, 1994 through November 12, 

2000, the Act was in lapse. During that period, the 

President, through Executive Order 12924, which 

had been extended by successive Presidential 

Notices, the last of which was August 3, 2000 (3 

CFR, 2000 Comp. 397 (2001)), continued the 

Regulations in effect under the International 

Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701–

1706 (2000)) (‘‘IEEPA’’). On November 13, 2000, the 

Act was reauthorized by Pub. L. 106–508, and it 

remained in effect through August 20, 2001. 

Executive Order 13222 of August 17, 2001 (3 CFR, 

2001 Comp., p. 783 (2002)), which has been 

extended by successive Presidential Notices, the 

most recent being that of August 6, 2004 (69 FR 

48763, August 10, 2004), continues the Regulations 

in effect under IEEPA.

Executive Secretary at one of the 

following addresses: 

1. Submissions via Express/Package 

Delivery Services: Foreign-Trade Zones 

Board, U.S. Department of Commerce, 

Franklin Court Building—Suite 4100W, 

1099 14th St., NW., Washington, DC 

20005; or 

2. Submissions via U.S. Postal 

Service: Foreign-Trade Zones Board, 

U.S. Department of Commerce, FCB—

Suite 4100W, 1401 Constitution Ave., 

NW., Washington, DC 20230.

Dated: September 24, 2004. 

Dennis Puccinelli, 

Executive Secretary.

[FR Doc. 04–22134 Filed 9–30–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Foreign-Trade Zones Board 

[Order No. 1355] 

Expansion of Foreign-Trade Zone 170; 

Clark County, IN 

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 Indiana Port 

Commission, grantee of Foreign-Trade 

Zone 170, submitted an application to 

the Board for authority to expand FTZ 

170-Site 1 to include the entire 993-acre 

Clark Maritime Center in Jeffersonville, 

Indiana, within the Louisville Customs 

port of entry (FTZ Docket 62–2003; filed 

11/10/03); 

Whereas, notice inviting public 

comment was given in the Federal 

Register (68 FR 65872, 11/24/03) and 

the application has been processed 

pursuant to the FTZ Act and the Board’s 

regulations; and, 

Whereas, the Board adopts the 

findings and recommendations of the 

examiner’s report, and finds that the 

requirements of the FTZ Act and 

Board’s regulations are satisfied, and 

that the proposal is in the public 

interest; 

Now, therefore, the Board hereby 

orders: 

The application to expand FTZ 170–

Site 1 is approved, subject to the Act 

and the Board’s regulations, including 

Section 400.28, and further subject to 

the Board’s standard 2,000-acre 

activation limit for the overall zone 

project.

Signed at Washington, DC, this 24th day of 

September 2004. 

James J. Jochum, 

Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Import 

Administration, Alternate Chairman, ForeignTrade Zones Board.

[FR Doc. 04–22135 Filed 9–30–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Foreign-Trade Zones Board 

[Order No. 1356] 

Grant of Authority for Subzone Status 

Eubank Manufacturing Enterprises, 

Inc.; Longview, TX 

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 Foreign-Trade Zones Act 

provides for ‘‘* * * the establishment 

* * * of foreign-trade zones in ports of 

entry of the United States, to expedite 

and encourage foreign commerce, and 

for other purposes,’’ and authorizes the 

Foreign-Trade Zones Board (the Board) 

to grant to qualified corporations the 

privilege of establishing foreign-trade 

zones in or adjacent to U.S. Customs 

ports of entry; 

Whereas, the Board’s regulations (15 

CFR part 400) provide for the 

establishment of special-purpose 

subzones when existing zone facilities 

cannot serve the specific use involved, 

and when the activity results in a 

significant public benefit and is in the 

public interest; 

Whereas, Gregg County, Texas, 

grantee of Foreign-Trade Zone 234, has 

made application for authority to 

establish special-purpose subzone status 

at the air conditioning and heating 

equipment manufacturing plant of 

Eubank Manufacturing Enterprises, Inc., 

located in Longview, Texas (FTZ Docket 

36–2003, filed 7–21–2003; application 

amended 6–29–2004 to remove products 

under HTSUS Heading 7019 from the 

scope of authority); 

Whereas, notice inviting public 

comment was given in the Federal 

Register (68 FR 44282, 7–28–2003); and, 

Whereas, the Board adopts the 

findings and recommendations of the 

examiner’s report, and finds that the 

requirements of the FTZ Act and 

Board’s regulations are satisfied, and 

that approval of the application, as 

amended, is in the public interest; 

Now, Therefore, the Board hereby 

grants authority for subzone status at the 

air conditioning and heating equipment 

manufacturing plant of Eubank 

Manufacturing Enterprises, Inc., located 

in Longview, Texas (Subzone 234A), at 

the location described in the 

application, subject to the FTZ Act and 

the Board’s regulations, including 

section 400.28.

Signed at Washington, DC, this 24th day of 

September 2004. 

James J. Jochum, 

Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Import 

Administration, Alternate Chairman, ForeignTrade Zones Board.

[FR Doc. 04–22136 Filed 9–30–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Bureau of Industry and Security 

[Docket Nos. 03–BIS–12 and 03–BIS–11] 

In the Matters of: Xinjian Yi and Yu Yi, 

Respondents; Decision and Order 

On November 5, 2003, the Bureau of 

Industry and Security (‘‘BIS’’) issued 

separate charging letters against Xinjian 

Yi and Yu Yi (collectively known as 

‘‘Respondents’’), alleging that the 

Respondents had each committed three 

violations of the Export Administration 

Regulations (the ‘‘Regulations’’),1 which 

were issued under the Export 

Administration Act of 1979, as amended 

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

‘‘Act’’),2

BIS charged that Xinjian Yi: (i) In or 

about June 1998 through in or about July 

1998, conspired with others to export 

from the United States to the People’s 

Republic of China (‘‘PRC’’) thermal 

imaging cameras, which were classified 

under export control classification 

number (‘‘ECCN’’) 6A003 and controlled 

for national security reasons, without a 

BIS export license in violation of 

Section 764.2(d) of the Regulations; (ii) 

in or about July 1998, exported the 

national security controlled thermal 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 190 / Friday, October 1, 2004 / Notices 58885

3BIS did not move for summary decision as to the 

false statement charge against each Respondent.

4After the issuance of the ALJ’s Order granting 

BIS’s Summary Decision Motion, BIS withdrew the 

remaining false statement charges against each 

Respondent.

imaging cameras to the PRC without the 

required license in violation of Section 

764.2(a) of the Regulations; and (iii) in 

or about July 1999, made a false 

statement to an Office of Export 

Enforcement (‘‘OEE’’) Special Agent 

about the thermal imaging cameras 

during the course of the OEE 

investigation, in violation of Section 

764.2(g) of the Regulations. 

BIS charged that Yu Yi: (i) In or about 

June 1998 through in or about July 1998, 

conspired with others to export from the 

United States to the PRC thermal 

imaging cameras, which were classified 

under ECCN 6A003 and controlled for 

national security reasons, without a BIS 

export license in violation of § 764.2(d) 

of the Regulations; (ii) aided and abetted 

the unlicensed export of the national 

security controlled thermal imaging 

cameras to the PRC in violation of 

§ 764.2(b) of the Regulations; and (iii) in 

or about April 1999, made a false 

statement to an OEE Special Agent 

about the thermal imaging cameras in 

the course of the OEE investigation, in 

violation of § 764.2(g) of the 

Regulations. 

These cases were consolidated 

pursuant to a motion filed by the 

parties. 

On March 12, 2004, BIS filed a 

Motion for Summary Decision on two of 

the three charges filed against each 

Respondent.3 Respondents opposed the 

Motion. On April 28, 2004, the 

Administrative Law Judge (‘‘ALJ’’) 

granted BIS’s Motion for Summary 

Decision, holding that Xinjian Yi and 

Yu Yi had each violated § 764.2(d) of 

the Regulations by conspiring to export 

thermal imaging cameras to the PRC 

without the required license. He also 

found that Xinjian Yi had violated 

§ 764.2(a) of the Regulations by making 

the unlicensed export of the thermal 

imaging cameras, and that Yu Yi had 

violated § 764.2(b) by aiding and 

abetting the unlicensed export to the 

PRC. Specifically, the ALJ held that BIS 

‘‘met it’s [sic] burden by the submission 

of reliable, probative and relevant 

evidence * * * in that no genuine issue 

of material fact was present and [BIS] 

was entitled to judgment as a matter of 

law.’’ 4 ALJ’s Recommended Decision 

and Order at 8.

In June 2004, the parties filed their 

briefs for the proposed civil penalties. 

On August 25, 2004, the ALJ issued his 

Recommended Decision and Order, 

recommending that each Respondent be 

fined $22,000 and that each 

Respondent’s export privileges under 

the Regulations be denied for 10 years, 

as proposed by BIS. Specifically, the 

ALJ found that the ‘‘record does not 

support the Respondent’s [sic] 

arguments to allow mitigation of the 

proposed civil penalty assessments.’’

ALJ’s Recommended Decision and 

Order at 11. 

Pursuant to § 766.22 of the 

Regulations, the ALJ’s Recommended 

Decision and Order has been referred to 

me for final action. In the Respondents’

responses to the ALJ’s Recommended 

Decision and Order, the Respondents do 

not challenge the ALJ’s factual and legal 

conclusions with respect to each of the 

charges. Rather, the Respondents argue 

that the ALJ’s civil penalty assessment 

is unjustified and should be mitigated.

Based upon my review of the entire 

record, I find that the evidence supports 

the ALJ’s findings of fact and 

conclusions of law regarding each of the 

above-referenced charges. I also find 

that the penalties recommended by the 

ALJ are appropriate given the sensitivity 

of the cameras involved, the country of 

ultimate destination, the concerted 

actions of the Respondents, the 

inconsistent and incomplete 

information provided by the 

Respondents, and the absence of strong 

or persuasive mitigating factors. The 

Repondent’s concerted actions to export 

national security-controlled items to the 

PRC without the required export license 

from BIS is a significant aggravating 

factor. BIS has determined that this type 

of transaction is detrimental to U.S. 

national security interests, and has, in 

fact, denied a license for the export of 

similar items to the same PRC end-user 

at issue. That significant aggravating 

factor combined with inconsistent 

statements made by the Respondents 

during the course of the investigation 

and the incomplete financial 

information provided cannot be 

overcome by the mitigating factors 

alleged by the Respondents. 

It is hereby ordered,

First, that a civil penalty of $22,000 is 

assessed against each Xinjian Yi and Yu 

Yi, which shall be paid to the 

Department of Commerce within 30 

days from the date of entry of this 

Order. Payment shall be made in the 

manner specified in the attached 

instructions. 

Second, that, pursuant to the Debt 

Collection Act of 1982, as amended (31 

U.S.C. 3701–3720E (2000)), the civil 

penalty owned under this Order accrues 

interest as more fully described in the 

attached Notice, and, if payment is not 

made by the due date specified herein, 

Xinjian Yi and Yu Yi will be assessed, 

in addition to the full amount of the 

civil penalty and interest, a penalty 

charge and an administrative charge, as 

further described in the attached Notice. 

Third, that, for a period of 10 years 

from the date on which this order takes 

effect, Xinjian Yi of Wuhan, People’s 

Republic of China, and Yu Yi of Wuhan, 

People’s Republic of China, their 

successors or assigns and, when acting 

for or on behalf of them, their officers, 

representatives, agents, or employees 

(individually referred to as ‘‘a Denied 

Person’’), 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 

C. Benefiting in any way from 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. 

Fourth, that no person may, directly 

or indirectly, do any of the following: 

A. Export or reexport to or on behalf 

of a Denied Person any item subject to 

the Regulations;

B. Take any action that facilitates the 

acquisition or attempted acquisition by 

a Denied Person of the ownership, 

possession, or control of any item 

subject to the Regulations that has been 

or will be exported from the United 

States, including financing or other 

support activities related to a 

transaction whereby a Denied Person 

acquires or attempts to acquire such 

ownership, possession, or control; 

C. Take any action to acquire from or 

to facilitate the acquisition or attempted 

acquisition from a Denied Person of any 

item subject to the Regulations that has 

been exported from the United States; 

D. Obtain from a Denied Person in the 

United States any item subject to the 

Regulations with knowledge or reason 

to know that the item will be, or is 

58886 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 190 / Friday, October 1, 2004 / Notices 

5The export licensing information on pages 7 and 

10 of the ALJ Recommended Decision it protected 

by the confidentiality provisions of section 12(c) of 

the Act.

1The regulations are currently codified in the 

Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) at 15 CFR parts 

730–774 (2004). The regulations governing the 

violations at issue are found in the 1998 version of 

the CFR. The 1998 regulations and the degree to 

which they pertain to this matter are substantially 

the same as the 2004 version.

2From August 21, 1994, through November 12, 

2000, the Act was in lapse. During that period, the 

President, through Executive Order 12924, which 

has been extended by successive Presidential 

Notices, continued the Regulations in effect under 

the International Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 

1701–1706 (1994 & Supp. V. 1999)) (‘‘IEEPA’’). On 

November 13, 2000, the Act was reauthorized and 

it remained in effect through August 20, 2001. Since 

that time, the Act has been in lapse and the 

President, through Executive Order 13222 of August 

17, 2001, as extended by subsequent Notices (the 

last being found at 68 FR 47833 (August 7, 2003)), 

has continued the regulations in effect under 

IEEPA.

intended to be, exported from the 

United States; or 

E. Engage in any transaction to service 

any item subject to the Regulations that 

has been or will be exported from the 

United States and that is owned, 

possessed, or controlled by a Denied 

Person, or service any item, of whatever 

origin, that is owned, possessed, or 

controlled by a Denied Person if such 

service involves the use of any item 

subject to the Regulations that has been 

or will be exported from the United 

States. For purposes of this paragraph, 

‘‘servicing’’ means installation, 

maintenance, repair, modification, or 

testing. 

Fifth, that, after notice and 

opportunity for comment as provided in 

Seciton 766.23 of the Regulations, any 

person, firm, corporation, or business 

organization related to the Denied 

Persons by affiliation, ownership, 

control, or position of responsibility in 

the conduct of trade or related services 

may also be made subject to the 

provisions of this Order. 

Sixth, that this Order shall be served 

on the Denied Persons and on BIS and 

shall be published in the Federal 

Register. In addition, the ALJ’s 

Recommended Decision and Order, 

except for the section with the heading 

‘‘Recommended Sanction’’ and the 

export licensing information 5 on pages 

7 and 10, shall be published in the 

Federal Register.

This Order, which constitutes the 

final ageancy action in this matter, is 

effective upon pulication in the Federal 

Register.

Dated: September 27, 2004. 

Kenneth I. Juster, 

Under Secretary of Commerce for Industry 

and Security.

Instructions for Payment of Civil 

Penalty 

1. The civil penalty check should be 

made payable to: U.S. Department of 

Commerce. 

2. The check should be mailed to: 

U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau 

of Industry and Security, Export 

Enforcement Team, Room H–6883, 14th 

Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., 

Washington, DC 20230. Attn: Sharon 

Gardner.

Notice 

The Order to which this Notice is 

attached describes the reasons for the 

assessment of the civil monetary 

penalty. It also specifies the amount 

owed and the date by which payment of 

the civil penalty is due and payable. 

Under the Debt Collection Act of 

1982, as amended (31 U.S.C. 3701–

3720E (2000)), and the Federal Claims 

Collection Standards (31 CFR parts 900–

904 (2002)), interest accrues on any and 

all civil monetary penalties owed and 

unpaid under the Order, from the date 

of the Order until paid in full. The rate 

of interest assessed respondent is the 

rate of the current value of funds to the 

U.S. Treasury on the date that the Order 

was entered. However, interest is 

waived on any portion paid within 30 

days of the date of the Order. See 31 

U.S.C.A section 3717 and 31 CFR 901.9. 

The civil monetary penalty will be 

delinquent if not paid by the due date 

specified in the Order. If the penalty 

becomes delinquent, interest will 

continue to accrue on the balance 

remaining due and unpaid, and 

respondent will also be assessed both an 

administrative charge to cover the cost 

of processing and handling the 

delinquent claim and a penalty charge 

of six percent per year. However, 

although the penalty charge will be 

computed from the date that the civil 

penalty becomes delinquent, it will be 

assessed only on sums due and unpaid 

for over 90 days after that date. See 31 

U.S.C.A. section 3717 and 31 CFR 901.9. 

The foregoing constitutes the initial 

written notice and demand to 

respondent in accordance with 

§ 901.2(b) of the Federal Claims 

Collection Standards (31 CFR 901.2(b)). 

Recommended Decision and Order and 

Order Granting Agency’s 

Recommendation for Imposition of 

Civil Penalty Assessment 

On November 5, 2003, the Bureau of 

Industry and Security (BIS or Agency) 

filed formal Complaints against Xinjian 

Yi and Yu Yi charging each with three 

(3) separate violations of the Export 

Administration Regulations (EAR) (15 

CFR parts 730–74) 1 issued pursuant to 

the Export Administration Act of 1979 

(Act), as amended (50 U.S.C. 2401–420 

(1991 and Supp. 2001)).2 Upon motion 

by the parties, both cases were 

consolidated into a single proceeding. 

On March 12, 2004 BIS filed a Motion 

for Summary Decision regarding the 

first and second charges filed against 

both Respondents. By Order issued on 

April 28, 2004, the Undersigned 

Administrative Law Judge granted the 

Agency’s Motion for Summary Decision 

(Summary Decision Order). In so doing, 

it was held that the Agency met its 

burden to prove the respective charges 

that Xinjian Yi: (1) Conspired to violate 

the Export Administration Regulations 

and (2) unlawfully exported thermal 

imaging cameras to the People’s 

Republic of China (PRC) and that Yu Yi: 

(1) Conspired to violate the Export 

Administration Regulations and (2) 

aided and abetted the unauthorized 

export of thermal imaging cameras to 

the People’s Republic of China. At that 

time, a hearing was set for May 18, 

2004, to hear the final remaining 

charges.

On or about May 10, 2004, the Agency 

notified this office of its intent to 

withdraw the remaining third charge 

filed against each Respondent. The 

parties requested to cancel the 

scheduled hearing and sought to file 

briefs regarding final sanctions. On May 

19, 2004, an Order was issued to cancel 

the scheduled hearing and to provide 

the parties an opportunity to file briefs 

on the issue of sanctions. 

On June 24, 2004, Respondents 

Xinjian Yi and Yu Yi filed their Brief on 

Proposed Civil Penalty (Respondent’s 

Brief) with nine (9) attached exhibits. 

Respondent’s Brief argued for the 

mitigation of any civil monetary penalty 

and submitted that the appropriate 

penalty should be the denial of 

Respondent’s export privileges for a 

reasonable period of time (one year 

period of time for each charge). On June 

29, 2004, the Agency filed its 

Recommendation for Imposition of 

Administrative Penalties Against 

Xinjian Yi and Yu Yi (Agency’s Brief) 

with six (6) exhibits. The Agency seeks 

the maximum civil penalty assessment 

of $22,000.00 and a ten (10) year period 

of time for denial of export privileges for 

each Respondent.

As a result of the Agency’s decision 

to withdraw the remaining charges, the 

issuance of the April 28, 2004, 

Summary Decision Order has effectively 

decided the legal issues in this matter. 

However, it should be noted that no 

credibility determinations have been 

made regarding the parties and no 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 190 / Friday, October 1, 2004 / Notices 58887

3Unless otherwise noted the following 

designations are used: (1) Exhibits referenced are 

those attached with the Agency’s Motion for 

Summary Decision, (2) any reference made to 

Respondents’ exhibits (Opposition Motion to BIS’s 

Motion for Summary Decision) will be designated 

as R–1, R–2, etc.

witness testimony has been received. I 

have carefully reviewed the record in its 

entirety and specifically, the parties’

briefs and exhibits concerning the 

award of sanctions. I find that the 

Agency has sustained its burden for the 

award of sanctions as it proposed. 

Respondents’ arguments are well pled 

but fall short of providing the necessary 

legal documentation to overcome or 

mitigate the Agency’s proposed 

sanctions. As such, the Agency is hereby

awarded the full civil penalty 

assessment of $22,000.00 and a ten (10) 

year period of time for denial of export 

privileges as filed against each 

Respondent. The civil penalty 

assessment is based on the following. 

Charging Letter 

The final charges against the 

Respondents are as follows: 

Xinjian Yi 

Charge 1: Conspiracy To Violate the 

Export Administration Regulations—15 

CFR 764.2(d).

Beginning on or about June 1998 and 

continuing through and in or about July 

1998, Xinjian Yi conspired and acted in 

concert with others, known and unknown, to 

violate the Regulations. The purpose of the 

conspiracy was to export thermal imaging 

cameras from the United States to the 

People’s Republic of China without a BIS 

export license. The thermal imaging cameras 

were items subject to the Regulations and 

covered by export control classification 

number (‘‘ECCN’’) 6A003.b. As set forth in 

§ 742.2 of the Regulations, a BIS export 

license was required before the thermal 

imaging cameras could be exported to the 

People’s Republic of China. To accomplish 

the conspiracy, the conspirators, including 

Xinjian Yi, participated in a scheme to have 

a co-conspirator purchase the cameras from 

a U.S. distributor, have the U.S. distributor 

ship the cameras to a destination in the 

United States, and then have a co-conspirator 

carry the cameras by hand to the People’s 

Republic of China without a BIS export 

license. In doing so, Xinjian Yi committed 

one violation of § 764.2(d) of the Regulations.

Charge 2: Exporting Thermal Imaging 

Cameras to the People’s Republic of 

China Without the Required BIS Export 

License—15 CFR § 764.2(a).

In connection with the conspiracy referenced 

in Charge 1, in or about July 1998, Xinjian 

Yi exported or caused the export of the three 

thermal imaging cameras, items covered by 

ECCN 6A003.b of the Regulations, from the 

United States to the People’s Republic of 

China without a license from BIS as required 

by § 742.4 of the Regulations. In doing so, 

Xinjian Yi committed one violation of 

§ 764.2(b) of the Regulations.

Yu Yi 

Charge 1: Conspiracy To Violate the 

Export Administration Regulations—15 

CFR § 764.2(d).

Beginning in or about June 1998 and 

continuing through and in or about July 

1998, Yu Yi conspired and acted in concert 

with others, known and unknown, to violate 

the Regulations. The purpose of the 

conspiracy was to export thermal imaging 

cameras from the United States to the 

People’s Republic of China without a BIS 

export license. The thermal imaging cameras 

were items subject to the Regulations and 

covered by export control classification 

number (‘‘ECCN’’) 6A003.b. As set forth in 

§ 742.2 of the Regulations, a BIS export 

license was required before the thermal 

imaging cameras could be exported to the 

People’s Republic of China. To accomplish 

the conspiracy, the conspirators, including 

Yu Yi, participated in a scheme to have a coconspirator purchase the cameras from a U.S. 

distributor, have the U.S. distributor ship the 

cameras to a destination in the United States, 

and then have a co-conspirator carry the 

cameras by hand to the People’s Republic of 

China without a BIS export license. In doing 

so, Yu Yi committed one violation of 

§ 764.2(d) of the Regulations.

Charge 2: Aiding and Abetting the 

Unauthorized Export of Thermal 

Imaging Cameras to the People’s 

Republic of China—15 CFR § 764.2(b).

In connection with the conspiracy referenced 

in Charge 1, in or about July 1998, Yu Yi 

aided and abetted the unauthorized export of 

the three thermal imaging cameras, items 

covered by ECCN 6A003.b of the Regulations, 

from the United States to the People’s 

Republic of China without a license from BIS 

as required by § 742.4 of the Regulations. In 

doing so, Yu Yi committed one violation of 

§ 764.2(b) of the Regulations.

Finding of Facts 

The findings of facts, unless otherwise 

noted, were previously determined by 

the issuance of the April 28, 2004 

Summary Decision Order. They are 

essentially as follows: 3

1. Xinjian Yi is a chinese citizen who 

lives in Wuhan, People’s Republic of 

China (‘‘PRC’’). 

2. At the times relevant hereto, Mr. Yi 

was a professor in the Department of 

Opto-electronic Engineering at 

Huazhong University of Science and 

Technology in Wuhan, PRC. 

3. Yu Yi is the daughter of Xinjian Yi. 

See the July 21, 1999 letter from Yu Yi, 

which is attached hereto as Exhibit E. 

4. At the times relevant hereto, Yu Yi 

was employed in Dallas, Texas. Ex.E. 

5. In 1998, Xinjian Yi contacted Yu Yi 

and requested her assistance in 

purchasing thermal imaging cameras 

(‘‘cameras’’) from Accurate Locators, 

Inc., a U.S. company. Exs. D and E. 

6. Pursuant to her father’s request, Yu 

Yi contacted Accurate Locators and 

purchased one thermal imaging camera. 

Exs. D and E. 

7. Yu Yi told Accurate Locators to 

send the camera to her sister, Yong Yi, 

who lived in Boston, Massachusetts. 

Exs. D and E. 

8. Yu Yi wired payment for the 

camera to Accurate Locators. Ex.E.

9. The funds used by Yu Yi to pay for 

the camera were transferred to her from 

the PRC. Ex. E. 

10. Accurate Locators shipped the 

camera to Yong Yi’s address in Boston. 

Exs. D and E. 

11. Xinjian Yi traveled from the PRC 

to Boston on or about June 1998 and 

stayed with his daughter, Yong Yi. Exs. 

B and E. 

12. After arriving in Boston, Xinjian 

Yi took possession of the camera that 

had been shipped to his daughter’s 

house in Boston. Exs. B and E. 

13. Xinjian Yi then asked Yu Yi to 

buy two more cameras from Accurate 

Locators. Ex. E. 

14. Pursuant to her father’s request, 

Yu Yi purchased two additional thermal 

imaging cameras for him from Accurate 

Locators. Ex. E. 

15. Yu Yi told Accurate Locators to 

send the two cameras using funds that 

had been wired to her from the PRC. Ex. 

E. 

16. Yu Yi wired the company 

payment for the two cameras using 

funds that had been wired to her from 

the PRC. Ex. E. 

17. Xinjian Yi received all three 

cameras and on or about July 1998 

traveled back to the PRC with the three 

cameras. Ex. B. 

18. Yu Yi believed the cameras were 

for use by Xinjian Yi for some research 

he was conducting at the University in 

the PRC. Ex. E. 

19. The cameras were items subject to 

the regulations and classified under 

Export Control Classification Number 

6A003.b. A copy of the licensing 

determinations is attached hereto as Ex. 

F. 

20. A license from BIS was required 

for the export of the cameras from the 

United States to the PRC. Ex. F. 

21. No License from BIS was obtained 

for the export of the cameras from the 

United States to PRC. Ex. B. 

In addition to the above, the following 

findings of fact have been determined 

based on the parties’ recent filings. 

22. Yu Yi now resides in the PRC. 

Respondent’s Brief at 5. 

23. The thermal imaging cameras in 

question remain in the PRC. Agency’s 

Brief, Ex. 1. 

24. [Redacted. See footnote 5.] was 

denied an export license for the 

58888 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 190 / Friday, October 1, 2004 / Notices 

purchase of a [Redacted.] thermal 

imaging camera in 2000 (subsequent to 

the unlawful export in this matter) 

based on the determination by the 

Department of Commerce that ‘‘this 

export would be detrimental to U.S. 

national security interests.’’ Agency’s 

Brief, Ex. 2. 

25. Yu Yi’s March 31, 1999 United 

States bank statement contained a total 

amount of $38,570.89 U.S. dollars. 

Agency’s Brief, Ex. 6. A deposit 

certification in the amount of $5,040.75 

U.S. dollars was made by Yu Yi to the 

Bank of China on May 20, 2003. 

Respondent’s Brief, Ex. 4.

Conclusions of Law 

1. Xinjian Yi and Yu Yi conspired to 

violate the Export Administration 

Regulation found under 15 CFR 

764.2(d), issued pursuant to the Export 

Administration Act of 1979, as amended 

(50 U.S.C. app. 2401–420 (1991 & Supp. 

2001)). They participated in a scheme to 

export thermal imaging cameras which 

are subject to the regulations and 

covered by an export control 

classification number (ECCN) requiring 

a BIS export license for export to the 

People’s Republic of China. 

2. Xinjian Yi violated the Export 

Administration Regulation found under 

15 CFR 764.2(a), issued pursuant to the 

Export Administration Act of 1979, as 

amended (50 U.S.C. app. 2401–420 

(1991 & Supp. 2001)) by exporting 

thermal imaging cameras to the People’s 

Republic of China without having an 

export license as required by § 764.2(a). 

3. Yu Yi violated the Export 

Administration Regulations found 

under 15 CFR 764.2(b), issued pursuant 

to the Export Administration Act of 

1979, as amended (50 U.S.C. app. 2401–

420 (1991 & Supp. 2001)) by aiding and 

abetting Xinjian Yi with the 

unauthorized export of thermal imaging 

cameras to the People’s Republic of 

China. 

Discussion 

As held by the April 28, 2004, 

Summary Decision Order, it was 

determined that the Agency met it’s 

burden by the submission of reliable, 

probative, and relevant evidence with 

regard to the respective two (2) charges 

filed against Respondents in that no 

genuine issue of material fact was 

present and the Agency was entitled to 

judgment as a matter of law. Following 

the Agency’s subsequent withdrawal of 

the respective final third charge and the 

filing of the parties’ briefs concerning 

the award of sanctions, this matter is 

now ripe for issuance of the 

Recommended Decision and Order. 

Respondents argue and submit 

exhibits to support the view that they 

acted without knowledge and intent 

which inadvertently led to violations of 

the EAR. Respondents contend that the 

purchase of the thermal imaging 

cameras was based on the ability to get 

similar cameras at a cheaper price in the 

United States. The thermal imaging 

cameras were to be used for a university 

research project to develop a system for 

detecting and analyzing overheating 

problems in power distribution lines. 

For this reason Xinjian Yi contacted his 

daughter, Yu Yi, who at that time 

resided in the United States, to assist 

him with the purchase and delivery of 

the thermal imaging cameras from the 

United States to the People’s Republic 

of China (PRC). Yu Yi’s involvement is 

simply argued to be that of a dutiful 

daughter who sought not benefit, other 

than the gratitude of her father. 

The Agency contends that 

Respondents’ lack credibility and noted, 

a ‘‘pattern of untrue statements’’

allegedly made during the investigation 

of this matter. While no determination 

is made regarding Respondents’

credibility, the Report of Investigative 

Activity (Respondent Brief, Ex. 3) 

indicated that Yu Yi was ‘‘combative 

and evasive.’’ More importantly, 

however, Respondents have failed to 

provide support for their arguments, 

including, but not limited to, whether or 

not the university research project was 

ever conducted or actually 

contemplated. At this point, the record 

reveals no documentary evidence, and 

Respondents have not provided, other 

than arguments, that Respondents’

actions were simply innocent and 

inadvertent.

Respondents further argue that the 

ultimate destination (the PRC) for the 

thermal imaging cameras does not raise 

any terrorism concerns because the PRC 

is not listed as a state sponsor of 

terrorism by the United States. 

Respondents support their claim, in 

part, by submitting documentation to 

show that thermal imaging cameras, 

arguably of similar quality to those at 

issue, are widely available in the PRC. 

Respondents contend that even if 

requested, an export license would 

likely have been granted and that no 

United States national security interest 

would have been challenged. 

The Agency disagrees and submits 

documentation that shows [Redacted. 

See footnote 5.] made a request in 

November 1999 for an export license for 

a [Redacted.] thermal imaging camera 

[Redacted.] This request was rejected by 

the Department of Commerce as 

‘‘detrimental to U.S. national security 

interests.’’ While Respondents have 

submitted numerous documents that 

show the apparent availability of similar 

thermal imaging cameras in the PRC, the 

fact remains that the United States 

Department of Commerce and the 

Bureau of Industry and Security have 

classified the thermal imaging cameras 

in question under an ECCN requiring an 

export license determination and have 

denied such request as ‘‘detrimental to 

U.S. national security interests.’’

[Redacted.] 

Finally, Respondents contend that the 

inadvertent violation of the EAR was 

simply the result of inexperience by 

novice persons who were unaware of 

export laws and regulations. 

Respondents do not have any prior 

history of export violations and argue 

that they never attempted to hide or 

conceal their identities or actions. 

Respondents’ further argue an inability 

to pay stating that Xinjian Yi is now 

retired and living off his pension and 

Yu Yi is unemployed and raising a 

family. Based on all of the above, 

Respondents seek to totally mitigate or 

in the alternative, suspend or defer the 

monetary civil penalty assessment while 

seeking an export period of denial for 

one (1) year, (citing In the Matter of: 

Basem A. Alhalabi, 03–BIS–03, June 24, 

2003 (settlement agreement denying 

Respondent’s export privileges for a one 

(1) year period of time for the export of 

a thermal imaging camera to Syria)). 

Conclusion 

Responsents’ filings have been well 

written and argued throughout this 

proceeding. However, Respondents fail 

to provide in the record the necessary 

legal documentation to support 

mitigation of the proposed civil penalty 

assessments. Simply put, the record 

does not support the Respondent’s 

arguments to allow mitigation of the 

proposed civil penalty assessments. The 

record indicates that Yu Yi was not 

totally cooperative during the 

investigation, that the financial 

documentation submitted is incomplete 

and Yu Yi’s bank statements and 

deposit documentation raises other 

questions rather than provide answers. 

The record also lacks any affidavits or 

sworn statements, including 

documentation of Xinjian Yi’s proposed 

research. With regard to the cited 

settlement agreement for Alhalabi, no 

weight is given to the sanction for this 

matter. Wherefore, Respondents’

supporting documentation is not 

sufficient to overcome the Agency’s 

proposal to individually assess a civil 

penalty assessment of $22,000.00 and a 

ten (10) year period of time for denial 

of export privileges. 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 190 / Friday, October 1, 2004 / Notices 58889

[Section on ‘‘Recommended 

Sanction’’ redacted. See footnote 5.]

Done and dated this 25th day of August, 

2004, at New York, New York. 

Walter J. Brudzinski, 

Administrative Law Judge.

[FR Doc. 04–22057 Filed 9–30–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–33–M

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration 

Antidumping or Countervailing Duty 

Order, Finding, or Suspended 

Investigation; Opportunity To Request 

Administrative Review

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of Opportunity to 

Request Administrative Review of 

Antidumping or Countervailing Duty 

Order, Finding, or Suspended 

Investigation. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

Each year during the anniversary 

month of the publication of an 

antidumping or countervailing duty 

order, finding, or suspension of 

investigation, an interested party, as 

defined in section 771(9) of the Tariff 

Act of 1930, as amended, may request, 

in accordance with section 351.213 

(2003), that the Department conduct an 

administrative review of that 

antidumping or countervailing duty 

order, finding, or suspended 

investigation. 

Opportunity To Request a Review 

Not later than the last day of October 

2004, interested parties may request 

administrative review of the following 

orders, findings, or suspended 

investigations, with anniversary dates in 

October for the following periods:

Period 

Antidumping Duty Proceedings

Brazil: Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod, A–351–832 ..................................................................................................... 10/1/03–9/30/04 

Canada: 

Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod, A–122–840 ......................................................................................................... 10/1/03–9/30/04 

Hard Red Spring Wheat, A–122–847 .................................................................................................................................... 5/8/03–9/30/04 

Indonesia: Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod, A–560–815 .............................................................................................. 10/1/03–9/30/04 

Italy: Pressure Sensitive Tape, A–475–059 .................................................................................................................................. 10/1/03–9/30/04 

Mexico: Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod, A–201–830 .................................................................................................. 10/1/03–9/30/04 

Moldova: Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod, A–841–805 ................................................................................................ 10/1/03–9/30/04 

Republic of Korea: Polyvinyl Alcohol, A–580–850 ........................................................................................................................ 3/20/03–9/30/04 

The People’s Republic of China: 

Barium Carbonate, A–570–880 .............................................................................................................................................. 3/17/03–9/30/04 

Barium Chloride, A–570–007 ................................................................................................................................................. 10/1/03–9/30/04

Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel, A–570–849 .................................................................................................................. 11/3/03–9/30/04 

Cotton Shop Towels, A–570–003 .......................................................................................................................................... 10/1/03–9/30/04 

Helical Spring Lock Washers, A–570–822 ............................................................................................................................. 10/1/03–9/30/04 

Polyvinyl Alcohol, A–570–879 ................................................................................................................................................ 3/20/03–9/30/04 

Trinidad and Tobago: Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod, A–274–804 ............................................................................ 10/1/03–9/30/04 

Ukraine: Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod, A–823–812 ................................................................................................. 10/1/03–9/30/04

Countervailing Duty Proceedings

Brazil: Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod, C–351–833 .................................................................................................... 1/1/03–12/31/03 

Canada: Hard Red Spring Wheat, C–122–848 ............................................................................................................................. 3/10/03–12/31/03 

Iran: Roasted In-Shell Pistachios, C–507–601 ............................................................................................................................. 1/1/03–12/31/03

Suspension Agreements

Russia: 

Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel, A–821–808 .................................................................................................................. 10/1/03–9/30/04 

Uranium, A–821–802 .............................................................................................................................................................. 10/1/03–9/30/04 

In accordance with section 351.213(b) 

of the regulations, an interested party as 

defined by section 771(9) of the Act may 

request in writing that the Secretary 

conduct an administrative review. For 

both antidumping and countervailing 

duty reviews, the interested party must 

specify the individual producers or 

exporters covered by an antidumping 

finding or an antidumping or 

countervailing duty order or suspension 

agreement for which it is requesting a 

review, and the requesting party must 

state why it desires the Secretary to 

review those particular producers or 

exporters. If the interested party intends 

for the Secretary to review sales of 

merchandise by an exporter (or a 

producer if that producer also exports 

merchandise from other suppliers) 

which were produced in more than one 

country of origin and each country of 

origin is subject to a separate order, then 

the interested party must state 

specifically, on an order-by-order basis, 

which exporter(s) the request is 

intended to cover. 

As explained in Antidumping and 

Countervailing Duty Proceedings: 

Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 69 

FR 23954 (May 6, 2003), the Department 

has clarified its practice with respect to 

the collection of final antidumping 

duties on imports of merchandise where 

intermediate firms are involved. The 

public should be aware of this 

clarification in determining whether to 

request an administrative review of 

merchandise subject to antidumping 

findings and orders. See also the Import 

Administration Web site at http://

www.ia.ita.doc.gov.

Six copies of the request should be 

submitted to the Assistant Secretary for 

Import Administration, International