This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER

contains documents other than rules or

proposed rules that are applicable to the

public. Notices of hearings and investigations,

committee meetings, agency decisions and

rulings, delegations of authority, filing of

petitions and applications and agency

statements of organization and functions are

examples of documents appearing in this

section.

Notices Federal Register

71397

Vol. 69, No. 236

Thursday, December 9, 2004

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–

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–

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.

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

Bureau of Industry and Security 

In the Matters of Technology Options 

(India) Pvt. Ltd. and Shivram Rao 

On Wednesday, December 1, 2004, 

the Federal Register published the 

November 24, 2004 Decision and Order 

issued by the Under Secretary of 

Commerce, Bureau of Industry and 

Security (BIS), United States 

Department of Commerce, in the abovereferenced matters (69 FR 69887). This 

notice corrects certain errors in 

connection with the publication of the 

Decision and Order. There is a minor 

error in the address listed for the 

respondents, Technology Options 

(India) Pvt. Ltd. and Shivram Rao, on 

pages 69887–69888. The correct address 

for both the respondents is ‘‘Plot #168, 

Behind Maria Mansion, CST Road, 

Kalina, Mumbai 400 098 India’’ rather 

than ‘‘Pilot #168, Behind Maria 

Mansion, CST Road, Kalina, Mumbai 

400 098 India.’’

In addition, this notice corrects two 

additional publication errors that appear 

on page 69887. In the first sentence of 

the second paragraph of the Decision 

and Order, the correct spelling of 

‘‘Indira Ghandi Centre for Atomic 

Research’’ is ‘‘Indira Gandhi Centre for 

Atomic Research.’’ Also in the same 

sentence, the correct spelling of 

‘‘mechanical fatigue rest system’’ is 

‘‘mechanical fatigue test system.’’

While the Administrative Law Judge’s 

(ALJ) October 27, 2004 Recommended 

Decision and Order concerning 

Technology Options (India) Pvt. Ltd. 

(Docket # 04–BIS–02) was published as 

an attachment to the Under Secretary’s 

Decision and Order, the October 27, 

2004 Recommended Decision and Order 

of the ALJ concerning the second 

respondent, Shivram Rao (Docket # 04–

BIS–03), was inadvertently not 

published. The Recommended and 

Decision Order of the ALJ related to 

Shivrm Rao, a portion of which has 

been redacted, shall hereby be 

published in the Federal Register.

Dated: December 3, 2004. 

Kenneth I. Juster, 

Under Secretary for Industry and Security.

Recommended Decision and Order on 

Motion for Default Order 

[Docket No. 04–BIS–03] 

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 Shivram Rao (‘‘RAO’’). The 

charging letter alleged that Rao 

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 730–774 (2004)) (the 

‘‘Regulations’’),1 issued under the 

Export Administration Act of 1979, as 

amended (50 USC 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 Rao, as Rao 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 Part 766.7 (2004):

Pursuant to Section 766.7 of the 

Regulations, a 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 copy via 

registered or certified mail addressed to 

the respondent at the respondent’s last 

known address. In accordance with that 

section, on February 2, 2004, BIS sent a 

notice of issuance of the charging letter 

by registered mail to Respondent Rao, at 

his last known address: Technology 

Options (India) Pvt. Ltd., Plot #168, 

Behind Maria Mansion, CST Road, 

Kalina, Mumbai 400 098, India. BIS also 

submitted evidence establishing that on 

February 2, 2004, 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 effected on 

February 16, 2004, Rao’s Answer to the 

charging letter was due no later than 

March 16, 2004. Rao did not file an 

Answer to the Charging letter nor did 

Rao request an extension of time to 

answer the Charging letter under 

Section 766.16(b)(2). Accordingly, 

because Rao 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 

766.66 of the Regulations, Rao is in 

default. 

71398 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 236 / Thursday, December 9, 2004 / Notices 

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 Seciton 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.

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, 

Rao 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, Rao 

took actions to evade the Regulations. 

Specifically, Rao, with others, known 

and unknown, developed and employed 

a scheme by which the company with 

which Rao 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, Rao made false 

statements to the U.S. Government 

regarding its knowledge of an 

involvement in the export. Specifically, 

Rao 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 Rao 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 

estalbishes 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 Part 764.3 (2004). 

Because Rao violated the Regulations 

by conspiring and engaging in 

transactions to evade the Regulations, 

BIS requests that I recommend to the 

Under Secretary of Commerce for 

Industry and Security4 that Rao’s export 

privileges be denied for fifteen (15) 

years. BIS has suggested this sanction 

because Rao 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 Rao’s 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 Rao’s 

export privileges for a period of fifteen 

(15) years. 

The terms of the denial of export 

privileges against Rao should be 

consistent with the standard language 

used by BIS in such order. The language 

is: 

[Portions of this Recommended 

Decision have been 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).

Done and dated this 27th of October at 

Baltimore, MD.

Joseph N. Ingolia, 

Chief Administrative Law Judge.

Certificate of Service 

I hereby certify that I served the 

Recommended Decision and Order by 

Federal Express to the following person: 

Shivram Rao, Technology Options 

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

Maria Mansion, CST Road, Kalina, 

Mumbai 400 098, India.

Done and dated this 28th day of October 

2004, at Baltimore, Maryland. 

Alyssa L. Paladino, 

Law Clerk, ALJ Docketing Center, U.S. Coast 

Guard.

[FR Doc. 04–27059 Filed 12–8–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–33–M

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration 

U.S. Microelectronics Trade Mission

AGENCY: International Trade 

Administration, Department of 

Commerce.

ACTION: Notice to U.S. Microelectronics 

Trade Mission to Shanghai, China, 

March 14–17, 2005. 

SUMMARY: The United States Department 

of Commerce, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Commercial 

Service, Office of Global Trade Programs 

is organizing a microelectronics trade 

mission to China, March 14–17, 2005. 

This trade mission will take place 

during the renowned annual Shanghai 

exhibition Electronica and 

Productronica China 2005—co-located 

with SEMICON China. Participating 

firms will not only have pre-arranged 

one-on-one meetings scheduled for 

them by the U.S. Commercial Service in 

Shanghai, but will also have the 

opportunity to make additional business 

contacts at the exhibition. A similar 

microelectronics mission took place in 

March 2004.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Office of Global Trade Programs; Room 

2012; Department of Commerce; 

Washington, DC 20230; Tel: (202) 482–

4457; Fax: (202) 482–0178.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: U.S. 

Microelectronics Trade Mission, 

Shanghai, China, March 14–17, 2005. 

Mission Statement 

I. Description Of The Mission 

The United States Department of 

Commerce, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Commercial 

Service, Office of Global Trade Programs 

is organizing a microelectronics trade 

mission to China, March 14–17, 2005. 

This trade mission will take place 

during the renowned annual Shanghai 

exhibition Electronica and 

Productronica China 2005—co-located 

with SEMICON China. Participating 

firms will not only have pre-arranged 

one-on-one meetings scheduled for