Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 167 / Wednesday, August 29, 2007 / Notices 49701 

1The violations charged occurred between 2000 

and 2003. The Regulations governing the violation 

at issue are found in the 2000 through 2003 version 

of the Code of Federal Regulations (15 CFR parts 

730–774 (2000–2003)). The 2007 Regulations 

govern the procedural aspects of this case. 

2Since 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)), 

as extended by successive Presidential Notices, the 

most recent being that of August 3, 2006 (71 Fed. 

Reg. 44,551 (Aug. 7, 2006)), has continued the 

Regulations in effect under the International 

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

§ 1701–1706 (2000)). 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

Bureau of Industry and Security 

[Docket No. 06–BIS–13] 

Action Affecting Export Privileges; 

Norman Spector; In the Matter of: 

Norman Spector, 27 Bethpage Drive, 

Monroe Township, NJ 08831, 

Respondent 

Order Relating to Norman Spector 

The Bureau of Industry and Security, 

U.S. Department of Commerce (‘‘BIS’’) 

has initiated an administrative 

proceeding against Norman Spector 

(‘‘Spector’’) pursuant to Section 766.3 of 

the Export Administration Regulations 

(currently codified at 15 CFR parts 730–

774 (2007)) (the ‘‘Regulations’’),1 and 

Section 13(c) of the Export 

Administration Act of 1979, as amended 

(50 U.S.C. app. § 2401–2420 (2000)) (the 

‘‘Act’’),2 through issuance of a charging 

letter to Spector that alleged that 

Spector committed 44 violations of the 

Regulations. Specifically, the charges 

are: 

Charges 1–14 15 CFR 764.2(a)—Export 

of Microwave Amplifers Without the 

Required Licenses 

On 14 occasions, between on or about 

November 9, 2000 and January 9, 2003, 

Spector engaged in conduct prohibited 

by the Regulations by exporting or 

causing to be exported microwave 

amplifiers, items subject to the 

Regulations and classified under Export 

Control Classification Number 

(‘‘ECCN’’) 3A001.b.4, to the People’s 

Republic of China (‘‘China’’) without the 

Department of Commerce license 

required by § 742.4 of the Regulations. 

In so doing, Spector committed 14 

violations of § 764.2(a) of the 

Regulations. 

Charge 15 15 CFR 764.2(c)—

Attempted Export of Microwave 

Amplifiers Without the Required 

License 

On or about March 13, 2003, Spector 

attempted a violation of the Regulations 

by attempting to export microwave 

amplifiers, items subject to the 

Regulations and classified under ECCN 

3A001.b.4, to China without the 

Department of Commerce license 

required by § 742.4 of the Regulations. 

In so doing, Spector committed one 

violation of § 764.2(c) of the 

Regulations. 

Charges 16–30 15 CFR 764.2(e)—

Selling Microwave Amplifiers With 

Knowledge of a Violation of the 

Regulations 

With respect to the exports or 

attempted exports as described in 

Charges 1–15 above, Spector sold 

microwave amplifiers with the 

knowledge that a violation was about to 

occur or was intended to occur in 

connection with the microwave 

amplifiers. At all times relevant hereto, 

Spector knew or had reason to know 

that the microwave amplifiers in 

question required a Department of 

Commerce license for export to China, 

and that the required license had not 

been obtained. In so doing, Spector 

committed 15 violations of § 764.2(e) of 

the Regulations. 

Charge 31–44 15 CFR 764.2(g)—False 

Statement on Shipper’s Export 

Declarations as to Authority To Export 

With respect to the exports or 

attempted exports as described in 

Charges 1–11 and 13–15, above Spector 

filed or caused to be filed Shipper’s 

Export Declarations (‘‘SEDs’’) with the 

United States Government that 

contained false statements of fact. 

Specifically, Spector filed or caused to 

be filed 14 SEDs that stated that the 

microwave amplifiers that were the 

subjects of the SEDs did not require 

licenses (‘‘NLR’’). This representation is 

false as at all times relevant to this case 

a Department of Commerce license was 

required to export the microwave 

amplifiers in question in this case to 

China. In so doing, Spector committed 

14 violations of § 764.2(g) of the 

Regulations. 

Whereas, BIS and Spector have 

entered into a Settlement Agreement 

pursuant to § 766.18(b) of the 

Regulations whereby they agreed to 

settle this matter in accordance with the 

terms and conditions set forth therein; 

and 

Whereas, I have approved of the terms 

of such Settlement Agreement; It is 

Therefore Ordered: 

First, that a civil penalty of $462,000 

is assessed against Spector. Spector 

shall pay $22,000 to the U.S. 

Department of Commerce within 30 

days from the date of entry of this 

Order. Payment shall be made in the 

manner specified in the attached 

instructions. Payment of the remaining 

$440,000 shall be suspended for a 

period of one year from the date of entry 

of this Order and thereafter shall be 

waived, provided that during the period 

of suspension, Spector has committed 

no violation of the Act, or any 

regulation, order, or license issued 

thereunder and has made the payment 

of $22,000, described above, in a timely 

manner. 

Second, that, pursuant to the Debt 

Collection Act of 1982, as amended (31 

U.S.C. 3701–3720E (2000)), the civil 

penalty owed under this Order accrues 

interest as more fully described in the 

attached Notice, and, if payment is not 

made by the due date specified herein, 

Spector will be assessed, in addition to 

the full amount of the civil penalty and 

interest, a penalty charge and an 

administrative charge, as more fully 

described in the attached Notice. 

Third, that the timely payment of the 

civil penalty set forth above is hereby 

made a condition to the granting, 

restoration, or continuing validity of any 

export license, license exception, 

permission, or privilege granted, or to be 

granted, to Spector. Accordingly, if 

Spector should fail to pay the civil 

penalty in a timely manner, the 

undersigned may enter an Order 

denying all of Spector’s export 

privileges under the Regulations for a 

period of one year from the date of entry 

of this Order. 

Fourth, that for a period of twentyfive years from the date of entry of this 

Order, Norman Spector, 27 Bethpage 

Drive, Monroe Township, New Jersey 

08831, and, when acting for or on behalf 

of Spector, his representatives, agents, 

assigns, or employees, (‘‘Denied 

Person’’) may not participate, directly or 

indirectly, 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 Regulation, or in any other 

activity subject to the Regulations; or 

C. Benefiting in any way from any 

transaction involving any item exported 

or to be exported from the United States 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
49702 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 167 / Wednesday, August 29, 2007 / Notices 

that is subject to the Regulations, or in 

any other activity subject to the 

Regulations. 

Fifth, 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 which 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. 

Sixth, 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 Spector 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 the 

Order. 

Seventh, 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. 

Eighth, that the charging letter, the 

Settlement Agreement, this Order, and 

the record of this case as defined by 

Section 766.20 of the Regulations shall 

be made available to the public. 

Ninth, that the administrative law 

judge shall be notified that this case is 

withdrawn from adjudication. 

Tenth, that this Order shall be served 

on the Denied Person and on BIS, and 

shall be published in the Federal 

Register. 

This Order, which constitutes the 

final agency action in this matter, is 

effective immediately. 

Entered this 21st day of August, 2007. 

Wendy L. Wysong, 

Acting Assistant Secretary of Commerce for 

Export Enforcement. 

[FR Doc. 07–4228 Filed 8–28–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DT–M 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–201–817] 

Oil Country Tubular Goods from 

Mexico: Notice of NAFTA Panel 

Decision Not In Harmony With Final 

Results of Sunset Administrative 

Review 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: On July 19, 2007, a Bi–

National Panel (‘‘Panel’’) constituted 

under the North American Free Trade 

Agreement (‘‘NAFTA’’) affirmed the 

Department of Commerce’s (‘‘the 

Department’s’’) redetermination on 

remand of the final results of the sunset 

review on oil country tubular goods 

from Mexico. See In the Matter of: Oil 

Country Tubular Goods from Mexico; 

Final Results of Sunset Review of the 

Antidumping Duty Order, USA–MEX–

2001–1904–03 (July 19, 2007) (‘‘NAFTA 

Final Decision’’). The Panel issued its 

Notice of Final Panel Action in the 

above–referenced matter on July 30, 

2007. This case arises out of the 

Department’s determination in the final 

results of the first sunset review 

covering entries for the five years after 

August 11, 1995. See Oil Country 

Tubular Goods (‘‘OCTG’’) from Mexico: 

Final Results of Sunset Review of 

Antidumping Order, 66 FR 14131 

(March 9, 2001) and accompanying 

Issues and Decision Memorandum 

(‘‘Final Results’’). Consistent with the 

decision of the United States Court of 

Appeals for the Federal Circuit in 

Timken Co. v. United States, 893 F.2d 

337 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (‘‘Timken’’), the 

Department is notifying the public that 

the NAFTA Final Decision and the 

Notice of Final Panel Action are not in 

harmony with the Department’s Final 

Results. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: August 9, 2007 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John 

Drury or Angelica Mendoza, AD/CVD 

Operations, Office 7, Import 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; 

telephone: (202) 482–0195 or (202) 482–

3019, respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the 

Final Results, the Department 

determined that revocation of the 

antidumping duty order would likely 

lead to the continuation or recurrence of 

dumping. Subsequent to the completion 

of the sunset review, Tubos de Aceros 

de Mexico, S.A. (‘‘TAMSA’’) challenged 

the Department’s findings and requested 

that a Bi–National Panel review the final 

determination. From 2005 to 2007, the 

Panel issued multiple decisions 

remanding various aspects of the 

Department’s decision to the agency. 

See Panel decisions of February 11, 

2005, February 3, 2006, July 28, 2006, 

and January 17, 2007. In response to the 

Panel’s January 17, 2007, order, the 

Department analyzed the 

redetermination on remand and found 

that TAMSA’s ’other factors’ did not 

outweigh the likelihood presumption of 

dumping due to the virtual cessation of 

exports of OCTG by TAMSA during the 

five-year review period. The Panel 

disagreed with the Department’s factual 

and legal conclusions with regard to the 

issues, and remanded the review to the 

Department on June 1, 2007, with 

instructions that the Department ‘‘make 

a determination consistent with the 

decision of this Panel to the effect that 

the evidence on the record does not 

support a finding of likelihood of 

recurrence or continuation of dumping 

upon revocation of the antidumping 

duty order.’’ See In the Matter of: Oil 

Country Tubular Goods from Mexico; 

Final Results of Sunset Review of the 

Antidumping Duty Order, USA–MEX–

2001–1904–03 (June 1, 2007) at page 27. 

Consistent with the Panel’s 

instructions, the Department issued a 

determination on June 11, 2007, where 

the Department ‘‘made a determination 

to the effect that the evidence on the 

record does not support a finding or 

likelihood of recurrence or continuation 

of dumping upon revocation of the 

antidumping duty order.’’ See Fifth 

Redetermination on Remand, Oil 

Country Tubular Goods from Mexico: 

Sunset Review, (June 11, 2007) at page 

2. On July 19, 2007, the Panel affirmed 

the Department’s fifth remand 

redetermination. See NAFTA Final 

Decision. The Panel issued its Notice of 

Final Panel Action on July 30, 2007. 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES