5916 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 21 / Tuesday, February 3, 2009 / Notices 

1From 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. 

sections 1701–1707) (‘‘IEEPA’’). On November 13, 

2000, the Act was reauthorized and remained in 

effect through August 20, 2001. Since August 21, 

2001, the Act has been in lapse and the President, 

through Executive Order 13222 of August 17, 2001 

(3 CFR, 2001 Comp. 783 (2002)), which has been 

extended by successive Presidential Notices, the 

most recent being that of July 23, 2008 (73 FR 

43603, July 25, 2008), has continued the 

Regulations in effect under IEEPA. 

2 In the charging letter, LaFleur’s name was 

inadvertently misspelled as ‘‘Lefleur’’, which BIS 

sought to correct in its Motion for Decision. I agree 

with the conclusion in the RDO that this spelling 

change was not substantive and in no way 

prejudiced LaFleur, who clearly understood that the 

charging letter was addressed to him. RDO, at 3, fn. 

4. 

3The certified record, including the original copy 

of the RDO dated December 8, 2008, was received 

in my office on December 11, 2008. 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

Submission for OMB Review; 

Comment Request 

The Department of Commerce will 

submit to the Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB) for clearance the 

following proposal for collection of 

information under the provisions of the 

Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 

Chapter 35). 

Agency: Bureau of Industry and 

Security (BIS). 

Title: Offsets in Military Exports. 

OMB Control Number: 0694–0084. 

Form Number(s): None. 

Type of Request: Regular submission. 

Burden Hours: 270. 

Number of Respondents: 30. 

Average Hours per Response: 9. 

Needs and Uses: This information 

collection is required by the Defense 

Production Act. The Act requires United 

States firms to furnish information to 

the Department of Commerce regarding 

offset agreements exceeding $5,000,000 

in value associated with sales of weapon 

systems or defense-related items to 

foreign countries or foreign firms. 

Offsets are industrial or commercial 

compensation practices required as a 

condition of purchase in either 

government-to-government or 

commercial sales of defense articles 

and/or defense services as defined by 

the Arms Export Control Act and the 

International Traffic in Arms 

Regulations. Such offsets are required 

by most major trading partners when 

purchasing U.S. military equipment or 

defense-related items. 

Affected Public: Business or other forprofit organizations. 

Frequency: On occasion. 

Respondent’s Obligation: Mandatory. 

OMB Desk Officer: Jasmeet Seehra, 

(202) 395–3123. 

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 7845, 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 Jasmeet Seehra, OMB Desk 

Officer, FAX number (202) 395–5167, or 

Jasmeet_K._Seehra@omb.eop.gov. 

Dated: January 29, 2009. 

Gwellnar Banks, 

Management Analyst, Office of the Chief 

Information Officer. 

[FR Doc. E9–2239 Filed 2–2–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–33–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

[Docket No. 07–BIS–0028] 

Under Secretary for Industry and 

Security; In the Matter of: Wayne 

LaFleur, 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. 

In a charging letter filed on December 

18, 2007, the Bureau of Industry and 

Security (‘‘BIS’’) alleged that 

Respondent Wayne LaFleur committed 

one violation of the Export 

Administration Regulations (currently 

codified at 15 CFR Parts 730–774 (2008) 

(‘‘Regulations’’)), issued pursuant to the 

Export Administration Act of 1979, as 

amended (50 U.S.C. app. sections 2401– 

2420 (2000)) (the ‘‘Act’’),1 when he 

exported a vessel to Cuba during a 

regatta without the license required by 

the Regulations. Specifically, the charge 

against Respondent Wayne LaFleur is as 

follows: 

Charge 1 15 CFR 764.2(a)—Exporting a 

Vessel Without the Required License 

Between on or about May 22, 2003 

through on or about May 31, 2003, 

[LaFleur] engaged in conduct prohibited 

by the Regulations when he exported 

the vessel 

EKA, an item subject to the 

Regulations and classified on the 

Commerce Control List under Export 

Control Classification Number 

(‘‘ECCN’’) 8A992.f, to Cuba during a 

regatta without the required Department 

of Commerce authorization. On more 

than one occasion prior to the regatta, 

BIS’s Office of Export Enforcement had 

advised race organizers that all regatta 

participants required a Department of 

Commerce export license prior to 

exporting their vessel to Cuba. On or 

about May 22, 2003, the Office of Export 

Enforcement met with [LaFleur] and 

other regatta participants at the regatta’s 

pre-launch party and informed [LaFleur] 

that a license was required for the 

temporary export of vessels to Cuba 

during the regatta. On or about May 23, 

2003, the Office of Export Enforcement 

provided [LaFleur] with a written letter 

indicating again that an export license 

was required by all regatta participants 

who took their vessels to Cuba and that 

a particular license that had been 

identified by some participants as 

authority to take their vessel to Cuba 

during the regatta did not in fact 

authorize the temporary export of a 

vessel. Pursuant to Section 746.2 of the 

Regulations, a license is required for the 

export of vessels to Cuba and no license 

was obtained for the export of the EKA 

to Cuba. In temporarily exporting a 

vessel to Cuba without the required 

license, [LaFleur] committed one 

violation of Section 764.2(a) of the 

Regulations. 

December 18, 2007 Charging Letter 

against Wayne LaFleur, at 1–2 (Exhibit 

Q to BIS’s Motion for Decision).2

On October 31, 2008, BIS filed a 

motion for decision on the record 

against Respondent LaFleur as to the 

above charge. Based on the record 

before him, the ALJ determined that 

reliable and substantial evidence 

demonstrated clearly, under the 

applicable preponderance standard, that 

the facts described in the charging letter 

more probably than not occurred as 

alleged by BIS. RDO, at 7.3 The ALJ 

found that LaFleur committed one 

violation of Section 764.2(a) of the 

Regulations when he exported to Cuba 

the vessel EKA, an item subject to the 

Regulations and classified under ECCN 

8A992.f, without the export license 

required by the Regulations. Id. The ALJ 

also recommended, following 

consideration of the record, that LaFleur 

be assessed a monetary penalty of 

$8,000.00 and a denial of export 

privileges for three years. RDO, at 10– 

11. The ALJ further recommended that 

the denial of export privileges be 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with NOTICES