Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 103 / Wednesday, May 30, 2007 / Notices 29965 

1The violations charged occurred in 2000. The 

Regulations governing the violations at issue are 

found in the 2000 version of the Code of Federal 

Regulations (15 CFR parts 730–774 (2000)). The 

2007 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. 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. 

Charge 2 (15 CFR 764.2(h)—Engaging in a 

Transaction With Intent To Evade the 

Regulations) 

Between on or about October 19, 2000, and 

on or about November 22, 2000, Diaz 

Sanchez took actions with intent to evade the 

Regulations. Specifically, on or about 

October 19, 2000, Diaz Sanchez, acting 

through his company Winter Aircraft, 

acquired aircraft parts, items subject to the 

Regulations and classified under ECCN 

9A991, from U.S. suppliers with intent to 

transship such items to Iran. Winter Aircraft 

failed to inform the U.S. suppliers of the 

ultimate destination of the items and, as 

such, no license was obtained from the U.S. 

Government for this transaction, as was 

required by Section 746.7 of the Regulations. 

On or about November 22, 2000, Winter 

Aircraft transshipped the aircraft parts 

subject to the EAR to Iran with a substantial 

markup in price. In taking these actions, Diaz 

Sanchez committed one violation of Section 

764.2(h) 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 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). 

Dated: May 1, 2007. 

The Honorable Joseph N. Ingolia, 

Chief Administrative Law Judge. 

[FR Doc. 07–2677 Filed 5–29–07; 8:45 a.m.] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DT–M 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

Bureau of Industry and Security 

[Docket No. 05–BIS–15] 

In the Matter of: Winter Aircraft 

Products SA; a/k/a Ruf S. Lopez SA, 

C/Ferrocarril 41, 1 DCHA, 28045 

Madrid, Spain; Respondent; Final 

Decision and Order 

This matter is before me upon a 

Recommended Decision and Order of 

the Administrative Law Judge (‘‘ALJ’’). 

In a charging letter filed on September 

12, 2005, the Bureau of Industry and 

Security (‘‘BIS’’) alleged that 

Respondent, Winter Aircraft Products 

SA (hereinafter ‘‘Winter Aircraft’’), also 

known as Ruf S. Lopez SA., committed 

two violations of the Export 

Administration Regulations (currently 

codified at 15 CFR parts 730–774) 

(2007)) (‘‘Regulations’’) 1, issued under 

the Export Administration Act of 1979, 

as amended (50 U.S.C. app. 2401–2420 

(2000)) (the ‘‘Act’’).2 Specifically, the 

charging letter alleged that between on 

or about November 1,2000, and on or 

about November 17, 2000, Winter 

Aircraft took actions with intent to 

evade the Regulations. Specifically, on 

or about November 1, 2000, Winter 

Aircraft acquired aircraft parts, items 

subject to the Regulations and classified 

under Export Control Classification 

Number (‘‘ECCN’’) 9A991, from U.S. 

suppliers with intent to transship such 

items to Iran. Winter Aircraft failed to 

inform the U.S. suppliers of the ultimate 

destination of the items and, as such, no 

license was obtained from the U.S. 

Government for this transaction, as was 

required by Section 746.7 of the 

Regulations. On or about November 17, 

2000, Winter Aircraft transshipped the 

aircraft parts subject to the Regulations 

to Iran. In taking these actions, Winter 

Aircraft committed one violation of 

Section 764.2(h) of the Regulations. 

The charging letter further alleged 

that between on or about October 19, 

2000, and on or about November 22, 

2000, Winter Aircraft took actions with 

intent to evade the Regulations. 

Specifically, on or about October 19, 

2000, Winter Aircraft acquired aircraft 

parts, items subject to the Regulations 

and classified under ECCN 9A991, from 

U.S. suppliers with intent to transship 

such items to Iran. Winter Aircraft failed 

to inform the U.S. suppliers of the 

ultimate destination of the items and, as 

such, no license was obtained from the 

U.S. Government for this transaction, as 

was required by Section 746.7 of the 

Regulations. On or about November 22, 

2000, Winter Aircraft transshipped the 

aircraft parts subject to the Regulations 

to Iran. In taking these actions, Winter 

Aircraft committed one violation of 

Section 764.2(h) of the Regulations. 

In accordance with Section 

766.3(b)(1) of the Regulations, on 

September 12, 2005, BIS mailed the 

notice of issuance of the charging letter 

by registered mail to Winter Aircraft at 

its last known address. The notice of 

issuance of a charging letter was 

received by Winter Aircraft on or about 

September 21, 2005. The file establishes 

that BIS and Winter Aircraft engaged in 

several months of correspondence 

regarding the matter, and that BIS 

counsel advised Winter Aircraft to file 

an answer to the charging letter. To 

date, however, Winter Aircraft 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, BIS filed a Motion for 

Default Order on March 20, 2007. This 

Motion for Default Order recommended 

that Winter Aircraft be denied export 

privileges under the Regulations for a 

period of ten years. Under Section 

766.7(a) of the Regulations, ‘‘[fJailure 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.’’ Based upon the record 

before him, the ALJ found Winter 

Aircraft in default. 

On May 1, 2007, ALJ issued a 

Recommended Decision and Order in 

which he found that Winter Aircraft 

committed two violations of Section 

764.2(h). The ALJ also recommended 

the penalty of denial of Winter Aircraft’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 and the facts of this case, 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 years 

from the date of this Order, Winter 

Aircraft Product SA, a/k/a Ruf S. Lopez 

SA, C/Ferrocarril 41, 28045 Madrid, 

Spain, its successors and assigns, and 

when acting for or on behalf of Winter 

Aircraft, its representatives, agents and 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
29966 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 103 / Wednesday, May 30, 2007 / Notices 

1The violations charged occurred in 2000. The 

Regulations governing the violations at issue are 

found in the 2000 version of the Code of Federal 

Regulations (15 CFR parts 730–774 (2000)). The 

2006 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 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 it 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 Compo 783 (2002), as extended by the Notice 

of August 3, 2006, 71 FR 44551 (Aug. 7, 2006), has 

continued the Regulations in effect under the 

IEEPA. 

employees (hereinafter collectively 

referred to as the ‘‘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. 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 immediately. 

Dated: May 24, 2007. 

Mark Foulon, 

Acting Under Secretary of Commerce for 

Industry and Security. 

Recommended Decision and Order 

On September 12, 2005, the Bureau of 

Industry and Security, U.S. Department 

of Commerce (BIS), issued a charging 

letter initiating this administrative 

enforcement proceeding against Winter 

Aircraft Products SA (‘‘Winter 

Aircraft’’), also known as Ruf S. Lopez 

SA. The charging letter alleged that 

Winter Aircraft committed two 

violations of the Export Administration 

Regulations (currently codified at 15 

CFR parts 730–774 (2006)) (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 

§ 766.7 of the Regulations, BIS has 

moved for the issuance of an Order of 

Default against Winter Aircraft as 

Winter Aircraft has failed to file an 

answer to the allegations 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 

Winter Aircraft at its last known address 

on September 12, 2005. BIS has 

submitted evidence that establishes that 

this charging letter was received by 

Winter Aircraft on or about September 

21, 2005. In addition, BIS also received 

a letter from Winter Aircraft 

acknowledging receipt of the charging 

letter on September 21, 2005. Further, 

BIS and Winter Aircraft have engaged in 

several months of correspondence 

regarding the matter. BIS counsel has 

advised Winter Aircraft repeatedly to 

file an answer to the charging letter with 

the Administrative Law Judge (‘‘ALJ’’). 

Winter Aircraft has failed to file an 

answer to the charging letter as required 

by section 766.6 of the Regulations. 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 103 / Wednesday, May 30, 2007 / Notices 29967 

Accordingly, Winter Aircraft is in 

default. 

C. Summary of Violations Charged 

The charging letter filed by BIS 

included a total of two charges. 

Specifically, the charging letter alleged 

the following: 

Charge 1 (15 CFR 764.2(h)—Engaging in a 

Transaction With Intent To Evade the 

Regulations) 

Between on or about November 1, 2000, 

and on or about November 17, 2000, Winter 

Aircraft took actions with intent to evade the 

Regulations. Specifically, on or about 

November 1, 2000, Winter Aircraft acquired 

aircraft parts, items subject to the Regulations 

and classified under Export Control 

Classification Number (‘‘ECCN’’) 9A991, from 

U.S. suppliers with intent to transship such 

items to Iran. Winter Aircraft failed to inform 

the U.S. suppliers of the ultimate destination 

of the items and, as such, no license was 

obtained from the U.S. Government for this 

transaction, as was required by Section 746.7 

of the Regulations. On or about November 17, 

2000, Winter Aircraft transshipped the 

aircraft parts subject to the EAR to Iran with 

a substantial markup in price. In taking these 

actions, Winter Aircraft committed one 

violation of Section 764.2(h) of the 

Regulations. 

Charge 2 (15 CFR 764.2(h)—Engaging in a 

Transaction With Intent To Evade the 

Regulations) 

Between on or about October 19, 2000, and 

on or about November 22, 2000, Winter 

Aircraft took actions with intent to evade the 

Regulations. Specifically, on or about 

October 19, 2000, Winter Aircraft acquired 

aircraft parts, items subject to the Regulations 

and classified under ECCN 9A991, from U.S. 

suppliers with intent to transship such items 

to Iran. Winter Aircraft failed to inform the 

U.S. suppliers of the ultimate destination of 

the items and, as such, no license was 

obtained from the U.S. Government for this 

transaction, as was required by Section 746.7 

of the Regulations. On or about November 22, 

2000, Winter Aircraft transshipped the 

aircraft parts subject to the EAR to Iran with 

a substantial markup in price. In taking these 

actions, Winter Aircraft committed one 

violation of Section 764.2(h) 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 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 May 1, 2007, Baltimore, 

Maryland. 

The Honorable Joseph N. Ingolia, 

Chief Administrative Law Judge. 

[FR Doc. 07–2676 Filed 5–25–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DT–M 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

Request for Duty-Free Entry of 

Scientific Instrument or Apparatus 

ACTION: Proposed information 

collection; comment request. 

SUMMARY: The Department of 

Commerce, as part of its continuing 

effort to reduce paperwork and 

respondent burdens, invites the general 

public and other Federal agencies to 

take this opportunity to comment on 

continuing information collections, as 

required by the Paperwork Reduction 

Act of 1995, Public Law 104–13 (44 

U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). 

DATES: Written comments must be 

submitted on or before July 30, 2007. 

ADDRESSES: Direct all written comments 

to Diana Hynek, Departmental 

Paperwork Clearance Officer, 

Department of Commerce, Room 6625, 

14th & Constitution Avenue, NW., 

Washington, DC 20230 or via internet at 

dHynek@doc.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Request for additional information or 

copies of the information collection 

instrument and instructions should be 

directed to: Faye Robinson, Statutory 

Import Programs Staff, Room 2104, U.S. 

Department of Commerce, Washington, 

DC 20230; phone number (202) 482–

1660, fax number (202) 482–0949 or via 

the Internet at 

Faye_Robinson@ita.doc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Abstract 

The Departments of Commerce and 

Homeland Security (‘‘DHS’’) are 

required to determine whether nonprofit 

institutions established for scientific or 

educational purposes are entitled to 

duty-free entry for scientific instruments 

the institutions import under the 

Florence Agreement. Form ITA–338P 

enables: (1) DHS to determine whether 

the statutory eligibility requirements for 

the institution and the instrument are 

fulfilled, and (2) Commerce to make a 

comparison and finding as to the 

scientific equivalency of comparable 

instruments being manufactured in the 

United States. Without the collection of 

the information, DHS and Commerce 

would not have the necessary 

information to carry out the 

responsibilities of determining 

eligibility for duty-free entry assigned 

by law. 

II. Method of Collection 

A copy of Form ITA–338P is provided 

on and downloadable from a Web site 

at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/sips/sipsfap or 

the potential applicant may request a 

copy from the Department. The 

applicant completes the form and then 

forwards it via mail to DHS. 

Upon acceptance by DHS as a valid 

application, the application is 

transmitted to Commerce for further 

processing. 

III. Data 

OMB Number: 0625–0037. 

Form Number: ITA–338P. 

Type of Review: Regular submission. 

Affected Public: State or local 

government; Federal agencies; not forprofit institutions. 

Estimated Number of Respondents: 

65. 

Estimated Time Per Response: 2 

hours. 

Estimated Total Annual Burden 

Hours: 130. 

Estimated Total Annual Costs: $2,860. 

IV. Request for Comments 

Comments are invited on (a) Whether 

the proposed collection of information 

is necessary for the proper performance 

of the functions of the agency, including 

whether the information shall have 

practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the 

agency’s estimate of the burden 

(including hours and costs) of the 

proposed collection of information; (c) 

ways to enhance the quality, utility, and 

clarity of the information to be 

collected; and (d) ways to minimize the 

burden of the collection of information 

on respondents, including through the 

use of automated collection techniques 

or forms of information technology. 

Comments submitted in response to 

this notice will be summarized and/or 

included in the request for OMB 

approval of this information collection; 

they also will become a matter of public 

record. 

Dated: May 23, 2007. 

Gwellnar Banks, 

Management Analyst, Office of the Chief 

Information Officer. 

[FR Doc. E7–10340 Filed 5–29–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES