29960 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 

2007 Regulations establish the procedures that 

apply to this matter. 

D–1676(PR)(S)—Self-Assessment 

Checklist—Spanish 

D–1690(LG)—Address List—local 

government 

D–1690(TG)—Address List—tribal 

government 

D–1690(PR)(S)—Address List—Puerto 

Rico (Spanish) 

D–1691(LG)—Address List Add 

Page—local government 

D–1691(TG)—Address List Add 

Page—tribal government 

D–1691(PR)(S)—Address List Add 

Page—Puerto Rico (Spanish) 

D–1692(LG)—Address Count List—

local government 

D–1692(TG)—Address Count List—

tribal government 

D–1692(PR)(S)—Address Count List—

Puerto Rico (Spanish) 

Type of Review: Reinstatement, with 

change, of a previously approved 

collection for which approval has 

expired. 

Affected Public: Tribal, state, and 

local governments. 

Estimated Number of Respondents: 

19,780 governments. 

Estimated Time Per Response: 196 

hours on average; will vary by 

population size of government. 

Estimated Total Annual Burden 

Hours: 3,909,829. 

Estimated Total Annual Cost: $0. 

Respondent’s Obligation: Voluntary. 

Legal Authority: Title 13 U.S.C., 

Chapter 1, Subchapter 1, Section 16. 

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 cost) 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 other 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 24, 2007. 

Gwellnar Banks, 

Management Analyst, Office of the Chief 

Information Officer. 

[FR Doc. E7–10361 Filed 5–29–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–07–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

Bureau of Industry and Security 

Voluntary Self-Disclosure of 

Antiboycott Violations 

ACTION: Proposed information 

collection: Comment request. 

SUMMARY: The Department of 

Commerce, as part of its continuing 

effort to reduce paperwork and 

respondent burden, invites the general 

public and other Federal agencies to 

take this opportunity to comment on 

proposed and/or 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 and Constitution Avenue, NW., 

Washington DC 20230, (or via the 

Internet at dHynek@doc.gov.). 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Requests for additional information or 

copies of the information collection 

instrument(s) and instructions should 

be directed to Larry Hall, BIS ICB 

Liaison, Department of Commerce, 

Room 6622, 14th & Constitution 

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Abstract 

This collection of information 

supports enforcement of the antiboycott 

provisions for the Export 

Administration Regulations (EAR) by 

providing a method for industry to 

voluntarily self-disclose antiboycott 

violations. 

II. Method of Collection 

Paper form. 

III. Data 

OMB Number: 0694–0132. 

Form Number: None. 

Type of Review: Regular submission. 

Affected Public: Businesses or other 

for-profit organizations, and not-forprofit institutions. 

Estimated Number of Respondents: 

10. 

Estimated Time Per Response: 10 to 

600 hours per response. 

Estimated Total Annual Burden 

Hours: 1,280. 

Estimated Total Annual Cost: No 

start-up capital expenditures. 

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 cost) 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 other forms of information 

technology. In addition, the public is 

encouraged to provide suggestions on 

how to reduce and/or consolidate the 

current frequency of reporting. 

Comments submitted in response to 

this notice will be summarized and/or 

included in the request for OMB 

approval of this information collection; 

they will also become a matter of public 

record. 

Dated: May 23, 2007 

Gwellnar Banks, 

Management Analyst, Office of the Chief 

Information Officer. 

[FR Doc. E7–10328 Filed 5–29–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DT–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

Bureau of Industry and Security 

[Docket No. 05–BIS–16] 

In the Matter of: Rufina Sanchez Lopez, 

Principal; 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, Rufina Sanchez Lopez, 

(‘‘Sanchez Lopez’’), in her capacity as 

Principal of Winter Aircraft Products SA 

(‘‘Winter Aircraft’’), 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 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 103 / Wednesday, May 30, 2007 / Notices 29961 

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. 

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

charging letter alleged that between on 

or about November 1, 2000, and on or 

about November 17, 2000, Sanchez 

Lopez took actions with intent to evade 

the Regulations. Specifically, on or 

about November 1, 2000, Sanchez 

Lopez, acting through her company 

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 

to Iran. In taking these actions, Sanchez 

Lopez 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, Sanchez Lopez took actions with 

intent to evade the Regulations. 

Specifically, on or about October 19, 

2000, Sanchez Lopez, acting through her 

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 Regulations to Iran. In 

taking these actions, Sanchez Lopez 

committed one violation of Section 

764.2(h) of the Regulations. 

On September 12, 2005, BIS mailed 

the notice of issuance of the charging 

letter by registered mail to Sanchez 

Lopez at her last known address, in 

accordance with Section 766.3(b)(1) of 

the Regulations. The notice of issuance 

of a charging letter was received by 

Sanchez Lopez on or about September 

21, 2005. To date, Sanchez Lopez 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 Sanchez Lopez be denied export 

privileges under the Regulations for a 

period often 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.’’ Based upon the record 

before him, the ALJ found Sanchez 

Lopez in default. 

On May 1, 2007, the ALJ issued a 

Recommended Decision and Order in 

which he found that Sanchez Lopez 

committed two violations of Section 

764.2(h). The ALJ recommended the 

penalty of denial of 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, Rufina 

Sanchez Lopez, Principal, Winter 

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

SA, C/Ferrocarril 41, 28045 Madrid, 

Spain, and when acting for or on behalf 

of Sanchez Lopez, her representatives, 

agents and 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, 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
29962 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 Comp. 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. 

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 Rufina 

Sanchez Lopez, (‘‘Sanchez Lopez’’), in 

her capacity as Principal of Winter 

Aircraft Products SA (‘‘Winter 

Aircraft’’). The charging letter alleged 

that Sanchez Lopez 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 Sanchez Lopez as 

Sanchez Lopez 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 

and 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 

Sanchez Lopez at her last known 

address on September 12, 2005. 

Although, BIS did not receive the signed 

registered mail receipt, BIS did receive 

a letter from Winter Aircraft, the 

company in which Sanchez Lopez is 

Principal, 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 Sanchez Lopez, 

through her company Winter Aircraft, 

repeatedly to file an answer to the 

charging letter with the Administrative 

Law Judge (‘‘ALJ’’). Sanchez Lopez has 

failed to file an answer to the charging 

letter as required by section 766.6 of the 

Regulations. Accordingly, Sanchez 

Lopez 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, Sanchez 

Lopez, took actions with intent to evade the 

Regulations. Specifically, on or about 

November 1, 2000, Sanchez Lopez, acting 

through her company 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, 

Sanchez Lopez 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, Sanchez 

Lopez took actions with intent to evade the 

Regulations. Specifically, on or about 

October 19, 2000, Sanchez Lopez, acting 

through her 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, 

Sanchez Lopez committed one violation of 

Section 764.2(h) of the Regulations. 

D. Penalty Recommendation 

[REDACTED SECTION] 

E. Conclusion 

Accordingly, the undersigned refers 

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). 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 103 / Wednesday, May 30, 2007 / Notices 29963 

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. 

Dated: May 1, 2007. 

Joseph N. Ingolia, 

Chief Administrative Law Judge. 

[FR Doc. 07–2675 Filed 5–25–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DT–M 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

Bureau of Industry and Security 

[Docket No. 05–BIS–17] 

In the Matter of: Jose Alberto Diaz 

Sanchez, President, 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, Jose Alberto Diaz Sanchez, 

(‘‘Diaz Sanchez’’), in his capacity as 

President of Winter Aircraft Products 

SA (‘‘Winter Aircraft’’), 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, Diaz Sanchez 

took actions with intent to evade the 

Regulations. Specifically, on or about 

November 1, 2000, Diaz Sanchez, acting 

through his company 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, Diaz 

Sanchez 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, 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 

to Iran. In taking these actions, Diaz 

Sanchez 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 Diaz Sanchez at his 

last known address. The notice of 

issuance of a charging letter was 

received by Diaz Sanchez on or about 

September 21, 2005. The record 

establishes that BIS and Diaz Sanchez 

engaged in several months of 

correspondence regarding the matter, 

and BIS counsel advised Diaz Sanchez 

to file an answer to the charging letter. 

To date, Diaz Sanchez 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 Diaz Sanchez be denied export 

privileges 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.’’ Based upon the record before 

him, the ALJ found Diaz Sanchez in 

default. 

On May 1, 2007, the ALJ issued a 

Recommended Decision and Order in 

which he found that Diaz Sanchez 

committed two violations of § 764.2(h). 

The ALJ also recommended the penalty 

of denial of 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, Jose Alberto 

Diaz Sanchez, President, Winter Aircraft 

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

Ferrocarril 41, 28045 Madrid, Spain, 

and when acting for or on behalf of Diaz 

Sanchez, his representatives, agents and 

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 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES