Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 184 / Friday, September 22, 2006 / Notices 55427 

1The charged violations occurred from 1999 

through 2000. The Regulations governing the 

violations at issue are found in the 1999 through 

2000 versions of the Code of Federal Regulations 

(15 CFR Parts 730–774 (1999–2000)). Actions taken 

during this administrative enforcement proceeding 

are governed by the Regulations in effect at the time 

such actions take place. 

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. 297 (2001)), continued the 

Regulations in effect under the International 

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

Sections 1701–1706 (2000)) (‘‘IEEPA’’). On 

November 13, 2000, the Act was reauthorized and 

it 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 August 3, 

2006 (71 FR 44,551 (August 7, 2006)), has 

continued the Regulations in effect under IEEPA. 

the Recommended Decision and Order. 

See 15 CFR 766.22(c). 

Done and Dated August 30, 2006. 

Joseph N. Ingolia, 

Chief Administrative Law Judge. 

[FR Doc. 06–8066 Filed 9–21–06; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–33–M 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

Bureau of Industry and Security 

[Docket No. 04–BIS–21] 

In the Matter of Mohammad Al-Mashan 

Group, Jleeb Asoukh Commercial 

Area, Alwaha Complex, First Floor #1, 

Safat, Kuwait and P.O. Box 5909, Safat 

13060 Kuwait, Respondent; Decision 

and Order 

In a charging letter filed on October 

25, 2004, the Bureau of Industry and 

Security (‘‘BIS’’) alleged that 

Respondent, Mohammad Al-Mashan 

Group (‘‘MAMG’’), committed two 

violations of the Export Administration 

Regulations (‘‘Regulations’’) 1, issued 

under the Export Administration Act of 

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

Sections 2401–2420 (2000)) (the 

‘‘Act’’).2

Specifically, the charging letter 

alleged that during the period between 

on or about October 27, 1999 and on or 

about February 23, 2000, MAMG 

engaged in conduct prohibited by the 

Regulations when it transferred an 

uncooled infrared camera, an item 

subject to the Regulations and 

controlled on the Commerce Control 

List for national security reasons, to an 

individual from the United Arab 

Emirates in violation of a BIS license 

condition. The BIS license that 

authorized the export of the camera 

from the United States to MAMG 

prohibited the resale, transfer, or 

reexport of the camera to anyone other 

than the approved end-users on the 

license without prior authorization by 

the U.S. Government. In transferring the 

camera to a non-approved end-user 

without prior U.S. Government 

authorization, MAMG committed one 

violation of Section 764.2(a) of the 

Regulations. 

The charging letter further alleged 

that during the period on or about 

October 27, 1999 and on or about 

February 23, 2000, MAMG transferred 

an uncooled infrared camera, an item 

subject to the Regulations and 

controlled on the Commerce Control 

List for national security reasons, to an 

individual from the United Arab 

Emirates with knowledge, or reason to 

know, that a violation would 

subsequently occur in connection with 

the item. Specifically, at the time 

MAMG transferred the camera, it knew, 

or had reason to know, that the BIS 

license authorizing the export of the 

camera from the United States to 

MAMG prohibited the resale, transfer, 

or reexport of the camera by MAMG to 

any entity other than those listed on the 

license as approved end-users without 

prior U.S. Government authorization. In 

transferring the camera with such 

knowledge, MAMG committed one 

violation of Section 764.2(e) of the 

Regulations. 

In accordance with Section 766.3 of 

the Regulations, on October 25, 2004, 

BIS mailed the notice of issuance of the 

charging letter by registered mail to 

MAMG at its last known address. The 

charging letter was returned to BIS 

unopened. As stated in the ALJ’s 

Recommended Decision and Order, 

although service of the notice of 

issuance of the charging letter by 

registered mail did not result in actual 

delivery of the charging letter, MAMG 

constructively refused delivery of the 

charging letter when it was served in 

accordance with Section 766.3 of the 

Regulations but returned to BIS as 

undeliverable. To date, MAMG has not 

filed an answer to the charging letter 

with the ALJ, as required by the 

Regulations. 

In accordance with Section 766.7 of 

the Regulations, and because more than 

thirty days had passed since delivery of 

the charging letter was constructively 

refused, BIS filed a Motion for Default 

Order on July 19, 2006. This Motion for 

Default Order recommended that 

MAMG be denied export privileges 

under the Regulations for a period of ten 

years. Under Section 766.7(a) of the 

Regulations, ‘‘[f]ailure of the respondent 

to file an 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.’’

On August 30, 2006, based on the 

record before him, the ALJ found 

MAMG in default, and issued a 

Recommended Decision and Order in 

which he found that MAMG committed 

one violation of Section 764.2(a) and 

one violation of Section 764.2(e) of the 

Regulations. The ALJ recommended the 

penalty of denial of MAMG’s export 

privileges for ten years. 

The ALJ’s Recommended Decision 

and Order, together with the entire 

record in this case, has been referred to 

me for final action under Section 766.22 

of the Regulations. 

I find that the record supports the 

ALJ’s findings of fact and conclusions of 

law. I also find that the penalty 

recommended by the ALJ is appropriate, 

given the nature of the violations, the 

lack of mitigating circumstances, and 

the importance of preventing future 

unauthorized exports. 

Based on my review of the entire 

record, I affirm the findings of fact and 

conclusions of law in the ALJ’s 

Recommended Decision and Order. 

Accordingly, it is therefore ordered, 

First, that, for a period of ten (10) 

years from the date this Order is 

published in the Federal Register, 

Mohammad Al-Mashan Group, Jleeb 

Asoukh Commercial Area, Alwaha 

Complex, First Floor #1, Safat, Kuwait 

and with an address at P.O. Box 5909, 

Safat 13060 Kuwait (‘‘MAMG’’), its 

successors and assigns, and when acting 

for or on behalf of MAMG, its 

representatives, agents, assigns and 

employees (‘‘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 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
55428 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 184 / Friday, September 22, 2006 / Notices 

1The violations charged occurred from 1999 

through 2000. The Regulations governing the 

violations at issue are found in the 1999 through 

2000 versions of the Code of Federal Regulations 

(15 CFR Parts 730–774 (1999–2000)). Actions taken 

during this administrative enforcement proceeding 

are governed by the Regulations in effect at the time 

such actions take place. 

2From August 21, 1994 through November 12, 

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

President, through Executive Order 12,924, 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 remained in effect 

through August 20, 2001. Since August 21, 2001, 

the Act has been in lapse and the President, through 

Executive Order 13,222 of August 17, 2001, 3 CFR, 

2001 Comp. 783 (2002), as extended by the Notice 

of August 2, 2005, 70 FR 45,273 (Aug. 5, 2005), has 

continued the Regulations in effect under the 

IEEPA. 

C. Benefitting 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. 

Second, that no person may, directly 

or indirectly, do any of the following: 

A. Export or reexport to or on behalf 

of the Denied Person any item subject to 

the Regulations; 

B. Take any action that facilitates the 

acquisition or attempted acquisition by 

the 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 the 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 the Denied Person of 

any item subject to the Regulations that 

has been exported from the United 

States; 

D. Obtain from the 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 the Denied 

Person, or service any item, of whatever 

origin, that is owned, possessed or 

controlled by the 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 the 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 does not 

prohibit any export, reexport, or other 

transaction subject to the Regulations 

where the only items involved that are 

subject to the Regulations are the 

foreign-produced direct product of U.S.- 

origin technology. 

Fifth, that this Order shall be served 

on the Denied Person and on BIS, and 

shall be published in the Federal 

Register. In addition, the ALJ’s 

Recommended Decision and Order, 

except for the section related to the 

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: September 18, 2006. 

Mark Foulon, 

Acting Under Secretary of Commerce for 

Industry and Security. 

Recommended Decision and Order 

On October 24, 2004, the Bureau of 

Industry and Security, U.S. Department 

of Commerce (‘‘BIS’’), issued a charging 

letter initiating this administrative 

enforcement proceeding against the 

Mohammad Al-Mashan Group 

(‘‘MAMG’’). The charging letter alleged 

that MAMG committed one violation of 

§ 764.2(a) and one violation of § 764.2(e) 

of the Export Administration 

Regulations (currently codified at 15 

CFR Parts 730–774 (2006)) (the 

‘‘Regulations’’).1 The Regulations are 

issued under the Export Administration 

Act of 1979, as amended (50 U.S.C. app. 

2401–2420 (2000)) (the ‘‘Act’’).2 In 

accordance with § 766.7 of the 

Regulations, BIS has moved for the 

issuance of an Order of Default against 

MAMG for failure to file an answer to 

the allegations contained in the charging 

letter issued by BIS within the time 

period required by law. 

A. Legal Authority for Issuing an Order 

of Default 

Section 766.7 of the Regulations states 

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 (2006). 

Pursuant to § 766.6 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 Notice of Issuance of 

Charging Letter 

In this case, BIS served notice of 

issuance of the charging letter in 

accordance with § 766.3(b)(1) of the 

Regulations when it sent a copy of the 

charging letter by registered mail to 

MAMG at its last known address on 

October 25, 2005. After the letter was 

returned unopened, BIS sent a copy of 

the charging letter by registered mail to 

MAMG at its only other known address. 

That letter was also returned to BIS, but 

postage marks indicated that the letter 

had remained in Kuwait for 

approximately one month. Finally, in 

one last attempt to provide actual notice 

to MAMG, BIS mailed a copy of the 

charging letter to its last known address 

via Federal Express. The final letter was 

delivered. 

Although there is no evidence that the 

letters were actually refused by a 

representative of MAMG, MAMG is 

determined to have constructively 

refused delivery as of the date the notice 

sent out on October 25, 2004 was 

returned to BIS. I find that delivery of 

a charging letter is deemed 

constructively refused when the letter 

has been properly served at the 

respondent’s last known address in 

accordance with § 766.3 of the 

Regulations but has been returned to 

BIS as undeliverable. See In re Export 

Materials, Inc. (Docket No. 98–BXA–09), 

64 FR 40,820, (July 28, 1999) (Decision 

and Order); see also In re Modern 

Engineering Services, Ltd. (Docket No. 

97–BXA–01), 65 FR 81,822 (Dec. 27, 

2000), (Decision and Order). BIS may 

legally pursue a default judgment 

against MAMB because more than thirty 

(30) days have passed without response 

from MAMG. 

C. Summary of Violations Charged 

The charging letter issued by BIS 

included a total of two charges. 

Specifically, the charging letter alleged 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 184 / Friday, September 22, 2006 / Notices 55429 

that during the period between on or 

about October 27, 1999 and on or about 

February 23, 2000, MAMG engaged in 

conduct prohibited by the Regulations 

when it transferred an uncooled infrared 

camera, an item subject to the 

Regulations, to an individual from the 

United Arab Emirates in violation of a 

BIS license condition. The BIS license 

that authorized the export of the camera 

from the United States to MAMG 

prohibited the resale, transfer, or 

reexport of the camera to anyone other 

than the approved end-users on the 

license without prior authorization by 

the U.S. Government. In transferring the 

camera to a non-approved end-user 

without prior U.S. Government 

authorization, MAMG committed one 

violation of § 764.2(a) of the 

Regulations. 

The charging letter further alleged 

that during the period on or about 

October 27, 1999 and on or about 

February 23, 2000, MAMG transferred 

an uncooled infrared camera, an item 

subject to the Regulations, to an 

individual from the United Arab 

Emirates with knowledge or reason to 

know that a violation would 

subsequently occur in connection with 

the item. Specifically, at the time 

MAMG transferred the camera, it knew 

or had reason to know that the BIS 

license authorizing the export of the 

camera from the United States to 

MAMG prohibited the resale, transfer, 

or reexport of the camera by MAMG to 

any entity other than those listed on the 

license as approved end-users without 

prior U.S. Government authorization. In 

transferring the camera with such 

knowledge, MAMG committed one 

violation of § 764.2(e) of the 

Regulations. 

D. Penalty Recommendation 

[REDACTED SECTION] 

E. Conclusion 

Accordingly, I am referring this 

Recommended Decision and Order to 

the Under Secretary of Commerce for 

Industry and Security for review and 

final action for the agency, without 

further notice to the Respondent, as 

provided in § 766.7 of the Regulations. 

Within thirty (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 August 30th, 2006. 

Joseph N. Ingolia, 

Chief Administrative Law Judge. 

[FR Doc. 06–8067 Filed 9–21–06; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–33–M 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

Bureau of Industry and Security 

Deemed Export Advisory Committee; 

Notice of Partially Closed Meeting 

The Deemed Export Advisory 

Committee (DEAC) will meet on October 

12, 2006, 9 a.m., in the main lobby of 

the Herbert C. Hoover Building, 14th 

Street between Constitution and 

Pennsylvania Avenues, NW., 

Washington, DC. The Committee shall 

advise the Secretary on deemed export 

licensing policy. A tentative agenda of 

topics for discussion is listed below. 

While these topics will likely be 

discussed, this list is not exhaustive and 

there may be discussions on other 

related items during the public session. 

October 12 

Public Session 

1. Introductory Remarks. 

2. Current Deemed Export Control 

Policy Issues. 

3. Technology Transfer Issues. 

4. U.S. Industry Competitiveness. 

5. U.S. Academic and Government 

Research Communities. 

Closed Session 

6. Discussion of matters determined to 

be exempt from the provisions relating 

to public meetings found in 5 U.S.C. 

app.2 §§ 10(a)(1) and 10(a)(3). 

A limited number of seats will be 

available for the public session. 

Reservations are not accepted. To the 

extent time permits, members of the 

public may present oral statements to 

the Committee. 

The public may submit written 

statements at any time before or after the 

meeting. However, to facilitate 

distribution of public presentation 

materials to Committee members, the 

Committee suggests that public 

presentation materials or comments be 

forwarded before the meeting to Ms. 

Yvette Springer at 

Yspringer@bis.doc.gov. 

The Assistant Secretary for 

Administration, with the concurrence of 

the delegate of the General Counsel, 

formally determined on September 14, 

2006, pursuant to section 10(d) of the 

Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 

amended (5 U.S.C. app.2 § (10)(d)), that 

the portion of the meeting dealing with 

matters that are (A) specifically 

authorized under criteria established by 

an Executive order to be kept secret in 

the interests of national defense or 

foreign policy and (B) in fact properly 

classified pursuant to such Executive 

order (5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(1)(A) and (1)(B)), 

shall be exempt from the provisions 

relating to public meetings found in 5 

U.S.C. app.2 §§ 10(a)(1) and 10(a)(3). 

The remaining portions of the meeting 

will be open to the public. 

For more information, call Yvette 

Springer at (202) 482–4814. 

Dated: September 19, 2006. 

Yvette Springer, 

Committee Liaison Officer. 

[FR Doc. 06–8068 Filed 9–21–06; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–JT–M 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE. 

International Trade Administration 

[A–427–801] 

Ball Bearings and Parts Thereof from 

France: Notice of Court Decision Not in 

Harmony 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce 

SUMMARY: On September 1, 2006, the 

United States Court of International 

Trade affirmed in part and struck in part 

the Department of Commerce’s 

redetermination on remand of the final 

results of the administrative review of 

the antidumping duty order on ball 

bearings and parts thereof from France. 

See SKF USA Inc., SKF France S.A., and 

Sarma v. United States, Court No. 03–

00490, slip op. 06–133 (CIT 2006). The 

Department is now issuing this notice of 

court decision not in harmony with the 

Department’s determination. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: September 22, 2006. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Yang Jin Chun or Richard Rimlinger, 

AD/CVD Operations, Office 5, Import 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; 

telephone: (202) 482–5760 or (202) 482–

4477, respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On June 16, 2003, the Department of 

Commerce (the Department) published 

the final results of the administrative 

review of the antidumping duty order 

on ball bearings and parts thereof from 

France for the period May 1, 2001, 

through April 30, 2002. See Ball 

Bearings and Parts Thereof from France, 

et al.; Final Results of Antidumping 

Duty Administrative Reviews, 

Rescission of Administrative Reviews in 

Part, and Determination Not to Revoke 

Order in Part, 68 FR 35623 (June 16, 

2003). SKF France S.A., SKF USA Inc., 

and Sarma (hereafter ‘‘SKF’’) filed a 

lawsuit challenging the final results. On 

August 24, 2005, the United States 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES