Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 230 / Wednesday, December 1, 2004 / Notices 69887

1The violations charged occurred between 2000 

and 2002. The Regulations governing the violations 

at issue are found in the 2000, 2001, and 2002 

versions of the Code of Federal Regulations (15 CFR 

parts 730 through 774 (2000–2002). 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 and it remained in effect 

through August 20, 2001. Executive Order 13222 

was reauthorized (3 CFR, 2001 Comp., p. 783 

(2002)), which has been extended by successive 

Presidential Notices, the most recent being that of 

August 7, 2003 (68 FR 47833, August 11, 2003), 

continues the Regulations in effect under IEEPA.

for supplemental economic data from 

intercepted anglers; 1.5 minutes for 

verification calls; 1 minute for nonfishing households, and .5 minutes for 

non-households.

Needs and Uses: Marine recreational 

anglers are surveyed for catch and effort 

data, fish biology data, and angler 

socioeconomic characteristics. These 

data are required to carry out provisions 

of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery 

Conservation and Management Act (16 

U.S.C. 1801 et seq.), as amended, 

regarding conservation and management 

of fishery resources.

Affected Public: Business or other forprofit, and individuals or households.

Frequency: On occasion.

Respondent’s Obligation: Voluntary.

OMB Desk Officer: David Rostker, 

(202) 395–3897.

Copies of the above information 

collection proposal can be obtained by 

calling or writing Diana Hynek, 

Departmental Paperwork Clearance 

Officer, (202) 482–0266, Department of 

Commerce, Room 6625, 14th and 

Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, 

DC 20230 (or via the Internet at 

dHynek@doc.gov).

Written comments and 

recommendations for the proposed 

information collection should be sent 

within 30 days of publication of this 

notice to David Rostker, OMB Desk 

Officer, FAX number (202) 395–7285, or 

DavidlRostker@omb.eop.gov.

Dated: November 23, 2004.

Gwellnar Banks,

Management Analyst, Office of the Chief 

Information Officer.

[FR Doc. 04–26514 Filed 11–30–04; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–22–S

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Bureau of Industry and Security 

[Docket Nos. 04–BIS–02 and 04–BIS–03] 

Decision and Order

In the Matters of: Technology Options 

(India) Pvt. Ltd., Pilot #168, Behind Maria 

Mansion, CST Road, Kalina, Mumbai 400 098 

India; and Shivram Rao, of Technology 

Options (India) Pvt. Ltd., Pilot #168, Behind 

Maria Mansion, CST Road, Kalina, Mumbai 

400 098 India, Respondents.

On February 2, 2004, the Bureau of 

Industry and Security (‘‘BIS’’) issued 

separate charging letters against the 

respondents, Technology Options 

(India) Pvt. Ltd. (Technology Options) 

and Shivram Rao (Rao), that alleged four 

violations each of the Export 

Administration Regulations 

(Regulations).1 The charging letters 

alleged that the respondents each 

committed one violation of section 

764.2(d), two violations of section 

764.2(h), and one violation of section 

764.2(g) of the Regulations, issued 

under the Export Administration Act of 

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

2420 (2000)) (‘‘Act’’).2

Specifically, the charging letters 

alleged that, on or about April 1, 2002, 

through on or about August 31, 2001, 

Technology Options and Shivram Rao, 

acting in his capacity as Managing 

Director of Technology Options, 

conspired with others, known and 

unknown, to export from the United 

States to the Indira Ghandi Centre for 

Atomic Research (‘‘IGCAR’’) a thermal 

mechanical fatigue rest system and a 

universal testing machine, both items 

subject to the Regulations, without the 

required export licenses from BIS as 

provided in section 744.1(c) of the 

Regulations. At all relevant times, 

IGCAR was an organization on the 

Entity List set forth at Supplement No. 

4 to part 744 of the Regulations. In 

furtherance of the conspiracy, BIS 

alleged that false documentation as 

submitted to the U.S. exporter that 

provided that a party other than IGCAR 

was the ultimate consignee for the 

export from the United States of the 

items at issue. By conspiring to bring 

about an act in violation of the 

Regulations, BIS charged that the 

respondents committed one violation 

each of section 764.2(d) of the 

Regulations. 

The charging letters further alleged 

that, in connection with the export of 

the fatigue test system and universal 

testing machine to IGCAR, on or about 

June 13, 2000, and on or about 

December 21, 2000, the respondents 

took actions to evade the Regulations, 

including developing and employing a 

scheme by which Technology Options 

would receive the export of the items at 

issue from the United States without a 

BIS export license and then divert them 

to the true ultimate consignee, IGCAR, 

in violation of the Regulations. BIS 

alleged that, by engaging in such 

transactions, the respondents committed 

two violations each of section 764.2(h) 

of the Regulations. 

Finally, the charging letters alleged 

that, on or about August 16, 2001 

through on or about April 8, 2002, in 

connection with the export of the 

fatigue test system reference above, the 

respondents made false statements to 

the U.S. Government regarding their 

knowledge of and involvement in the 

export. Specifically, BIS alleged that the 

respondents made inconsistent and false 

statements to U.S. Foreign Commercial 

Service Officers regarding the end user 

of the fatigue test equipment. In doing 

so, BIS charged that the respondents 

committed one violation each of section 

764.2(g) of the Regulations. 

On the basis of the factual record 

before the Administrative Law Judge 

(ALJ), he found that the respondents 

failed to file an answer to BIS’s charging 

letter within the time required by the 

Regulations. Indeed, service of the 

notice of issuance of a charging letter on 

the respondents was properly effected 

on February 16, 2004, a response to the 

charging letter was due no later than 

March 17, 2004, and the record does not 

include any such response from the 

respondents. The ALJ therefore held 

Technology Options and Rao in default. 

Under the default procedures set forth 

in section 766.7(a) of the Regulations, 

‘‘[f]ailure of the respondent to file 

answer within the time provided 

constitutes a waiver of the respondent’s 

right to appear,’’ and ‘‘on BIS’s motion 

and without further notice to the 

respondent, [the ALJ] shall find the facts 

to be as alleged in the charging letter.’’

Accordingly, on October 28, 2004, the 

ALJ issued a Recommended Decision 

and Order, in which he found that the 

facts alleged in the charging letter 

constitute the findings of fact in this 

matter and, thereby, establish that the 

respondents committed one violation of 

section 764.2(d), two violations of 

section 764.2(h), and one violation of 

section 764.2(g) of the Regulations. The 

AJL also recommended a penalty of a 

15-year denial of the respondents’

export privileges.

Pursuant to section 766.22 of the 

Regulations, the ALJ’s Recommended 

Decision and Order has been referred to 

me for final action. Based on my review 

of the entire record, I find that the 

record supports the ALJ’s findings of 

fact and conclusions of law regarding 

each of the above-referenced charges. I 

69888 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 230 / Wednesday, December 1, 2004 / Notices 

1The violations charged occurred in 2000 and 

2001. The Regulations governing the violations at 

issue are found in the 2000 and 2001 versions of 

the Code of Federal Regulations (15 CFR parts 730 

through 774 (2000–2001)). 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 

through 1706 (2000)) (IEEPA). On November 13, 

2000, the Act was reauthorized 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), has 

continued the Regulations in effect under IEEPA.

also find that the penalty recommended 

by the ALJ is appropriate given the 

nature and scope of the violations, the 

disregard of the Regulations 

demonstrated by the respondents, and 

the lack of any mitigating factors. 

Specifically, the respondents engaged 

in transactions to evade the Regulations 

and conspired to export items useful in 

the development or production of 

nuclear weapons to an organization on 

the Entity List. BIS charged that 

Technology Options acted as a front 

company for the purpose of diverting 

U.S.-origin items to IGCAR without the 

necessary authorization. BIS also 

charged that the respondents did not 

cooperate with the investigation or 

participate in this proceeding. Indeed, 

the respondents made false statements 

to U.S. officials during the course of the 

investigation about the true location of 

the items that had been exported to 

IGCAR. There are no mitigating factors 

on the record that would justify a 

reduction in the denial order. Further, 

the imposition of a civil penalty in this 

case may not be effective, given the 

difficult of collecting payment against a 

party outside the United States. In light 

of these circumstances, I affirm the 

findings of fact and conclusions of law 

of the ALJ’s Recommended Decision 

and Order. 

It is hereby ordered,

First, that, for a period of 10 years 

from the date on which this Order takes 

effect, Technology Options (India) Pvt. 

Ltd. (Technology Options) and Shivram 

Rao, of Technology Options (both 

located at Pilot #168, Behind Maria 

Mansion, CST Road, Kalina, Mumbai 

400 098, India), and all of their 

successors or assigns, and, when acting 

for or on behalf of Technology Options, 

its officers, representatives, agents, and 

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 Regulation, 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 

connection with any other activity 

subject to the Regulations. 

Second, 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 

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. 

Third, that after notice and 

opportunity for comment as provided in 

section 766.23 of the Regulations, any 

person, firm, corporation, or business 

organization related to a Denied Person 

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. 

Fourth, 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 Order,’’ shall be 

published in the Federal Register. 

This Order, which constitutes the 

final agency action in this matter, is 

effective upon publication in the 

Federal Register.

Dated: November 24, 2004. 

Kenneth I. Juster, 

Under Secretary of Commerce for Industry 

and Security.

Recommended Decision and Order on 

Motion for Default Order 

On February 2, 2004, the Bureau of 

Industry and Security, United States 

Department of Commerce (BIS), issued a 

charging letter initiating this administrative 

enforcement proceeding against Technology 

Options (India) Pvt. Ltd. (‘‘Technology 

Options’’). The charging letter alleged that 

Technology Options committed one violation 

of section 764.2(d), one violation of section 

764.2(g), and two violations of section 

764.2(h) of the Export Administration 

Regulations (currently codified at 15 CFR 

parts 730 through 774 (2004)) (the 

‘‘Regulations’’) 1, issued under the Export 

Administration Act of 1979, as amended (50 

U.S.C. app. 2401–2420 (2000)) (the ‘‘Act’’).2

In accordance with section 766.7 of the 

Regulations, BIS moved for the issuance of an 

Order of Default against Technology Options, 

because Technology Options has not 

answered or otherwise responded to the 

charging letter as required by the 

Regulations.

A. Legal Basis for Issuing an Order of Default 

Section 766.7 of the Regulations state that 

BIS may file a Motion for an Order of Default 

if a respondent fails to file a timely Answer 

to a charging letter. That section, entitled 

‘‘Default,’’ provides in pertinent part:

Failure of the respondent to file an answer 

within the time provided constitutes a waiver 

of the respondent’s right to appear and 

contest the allegations in the charging letter. 

In such event, the administrative law judge, 

on BIS’s motion and without further notice 

to the respondent, shall find the facts to be 

as alleged in the charging letter and render 

an initial or recommended decision 

containing findings of fact and appropriate 

conclusions of law and issue or recommend 

an order imposing appropriate sanctions.

15 CFR 766.7 (2004). 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 230 / Wednesday, December 1, 2004 / Notices 69889

3The persons on the Entity List are end-users 

who have been determined to present an 

unacceptable risk of diversion to the development 

of weapons of mass destruction or the missiles used 

to delivery such weapons.

4Pursuant to section 13(c)(1) of the Act and 

section 766.17(b)(2) of the Regulations, in export 

control enforcement cases, the Administrative Law 

Judge makes recommended findings of fact and 

conclusions of law that the Under Secretary must 

affirm, modify or vacate. The Under Secretary’s 

actions is the final decision for the agency.

Pursuant to section 766.7 of the 

Regulations, as respondent must file an 

Answer to the charging letter ‘‘within 30 days 

after being served with notice of the issuance 

of the charging letter’’ initiating the 

proceeding. 

B. Service of the Charging Letter 

Section 766.3(b)(1) of the Regulations 

provides that notice of issuance of a charging 

letter shall be served on a respondent by 

mailing a copy via registered or certified mail 

addressed to the respondent at the 

respondent’s last known address. In 

accordance with that section, as previously 

mentioned, on February 2, 2004, BIS sent a 

notice of issuance of the charging letter by 

registered mail to Respondent Technology 

Options, at its last known address: 

Technology Options (India) Pvt. Ltd., Plot 

#168, Behind Maria Mansion, CST Road, 

Kalina, Mumbai 400 098, India. BIS 

submitted evidence establishing that on 

February 16, 2004, Technology Options 

received the notice of issuance of a charging 

letter. These actions constitute service under 

the Regulations. 

Section 766.6(a) of the Regulations 

provides, in pertinent part, that ‘‘[t]he 

respondent must answer the charging letter 

within 30 days after being served with notice 

of issuance of the charging letter[.]’’ Since 

service was effectuated on February 16, 2004, 

Technology Options’ Answer to the charging 

letter was due no later than March 16, 2004. 

Technology Options did not file an Answer 

to the Charging letter nor did Technology 

Options request an extension of time to 

answer the Charging letter under section 

766.16(b)(2). Accordingly, because 

Technology Options failed to answer or 

otherwise respond to the charging letter 

within thirty days from the date he received 

the notice of issuance of the charging letter, 

as required by section 766.6 of the 

Regulations, Technology Options is in 

default.

C. Summary of Violations 

The charging letter filed by BIS included 

a total of four charges. Specifically, the 

charging letter alleged that from on or about 

April 1, 2000, through on or about August 31, 

2001, Technology Options conspired with 

others, known and unknown, to export from 

the United States to the Indira Gandhi Centre 

for Atomic Research (‘‘IGCAR’’) a thermal 

mechanical fatigue test system (‘‘fatigue test 

system’’) and a universal testing machine, 

both items subject to the Regulations, 

without a BIS export license as required by 

section 744.11 of the Regulations. See Gov’t 

Ex. 3. At all relevant times, IGCAR was an 

organization listed on the Entity List set forth 

at Supplement No. 4 to part 744 of the 

Regulations (‘‘Entity List’’).3 In furtherance of 

the conspiracy, false documentation was 

submitted to the United States exporter that 

provided that a party other than IGCAR was 

the ultimate consignee for the items to be 

exported from the United States.

The charging letter further alleged that on 

or about June 13, 2000, in connection with 

the export of the fatigue test system and 

attempted export of the universal testing 

machine, Technology Options took actions to 

evade the Regulations. Specifically, 

Technology Options, with others, known and 

unknown, developed and employed a 

scheme by which the company with which 

Technology Options was affiliated, 

Technology Options (India) Pvt. Ltd. 

(‘‘Technology Options’’), would receive the 

export of the fatigue test system from the 

United States without a BIS license and then 

divert it to the true ultimate consignee, 

IGCAR, in violation of the Regulation. 

The charging letter also alleged that on or 

about August 16, 2001, through on or about 

April 8, 2002, in connection with the export 

of the fatigue test system references above, 

Technology Options made false statement to 

the U.S. Government regarding its knowledge 

of and involvement in the export. 

Specifically, Technology Options made 

misleading and false statements to U.S. 

Foreign Commercial Service Officers 

regarding the end user of the fatigue test 

system. 

Pursuant to the default procedures set forth 

in section 766.7 of the Regulations, I find the 

facts to be as alleged in the charging letter, 

and hereby determine that those facts 

establish that Technology Options committed 

one violations of section 764.2(d), one 

violation of section 764(g), and two 

violations of 764.2(h) of the Regulations. 

Section 764.3 of the Regulations 

establishes the sanctions that BIS may seek 

for the violations charged in this proceeding. 

The applicable sanctions are a civil monetary 

penalty, suspension from practice before the 

Department of Commerce, and a denial of 

export privileges under the Regulations. See

15 CFR 764.3 (2004). 

Because Technology Options violated the 

Regulations by conspiring and engaging in 

transactions to evade the Regulations, BIS 

request that I recommend to the Under 

Secretary of Commerce for Industry and 

Security 4 that Technology Options’ export 

privileges be denied for fifteen (15) years. BIS 

has suggest this sanction because Technology 

Options has demonstrated a severe disregard 

for U.S. export control laws. Further, BIS 

believes that imposition of a civil penalty in 

this case may be ineffective, given the 

difficulty of collecting payment against a 

party outside of the United States. In light of 

these circumstances, BIS believes that the 

denial of Technology Options’ export 

privileges for fifteen (15) years is an 

appropriate sanction.

Given the foregoing, I concur with BIS and 

recommend that the Under Secretary enter an 

Order denying Technology Options’ export 

privileges for a period of fifteen (15) years. 

The terms of the denial of export privileges 

against Technology Options should be 

consistent with the standard language used 

by BIS in such order. The language is: 

[Portions of recommend decision and order 

REDACTED] 

Accordingly, I am referring this 

Recommended Decision and Order to the 

Under Secretary for review and final action 

for the agency, without further notice to the 

Respondent, as provided in section 766.7 of 

the Regulations. 

Within 30 days after receipt of this 

Recommended Decision and Order, the 

Under Secretary shall issue a written order 

affirming, modifying, or vacating the 

Recommended Decision and Order. See 15 

CFR 766.22(c).

The Honorable Joseph N. Ingolia, 

Chief Administrative Law Judge.

Done and dated this 27 of October, at 

Baltimore, MD. 

Certificate of Service 

I hereby certify that I served the 

Recommended Decision and Order by 

Federal Express to the following person:

Technology Options (India) Pvt. Ltd., 

Pilot #168, Behind Maria Mansion, CST 

Road, Kalina, Mumbai 400 098, India.

Alyssa L. Paladino, 

Law Clerk, ALJ Docketing Center, United 

States Coast Guard, 40 S. Gay Street, Room 

412, Baltimore, MD 21202. Phone: (410) 

962–7434. Facsimile: (410) 962–1742.

Done and dated this 28 day of October 2004 

Baltimore, Maryland.

[FR Doc. 04–26519 Filed 11–30–04; 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. 

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 

(2004) of the Department of Commerce 

(the Department) Regulations, that the 

Department conduct an administrative 

review of that antidumping or 

countervailing duty order, finding, or 

suspended investigation.