Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 157 / Thursday, August 14, 1997 / Notices 43503

1The violations at issue occurred between mid1990 and early 1992. The Regulations governing

those violations are found in the 1990, 1991, and

1992 versions of the Code of Federal Regulations

(15 C.F.R. parts 768–799 (1990, 1991, and 1992))

and are referred to hereinafter as the former

Regulations. Since that time, the Regulations have

been reorganized and restructured; the restructured

Regulations, currently codified at 15 C.F.R. Parts

730–774 (1997), establish the procedures that apply

to the matters set forth in this Decision and Order.

2The Act expired on August 20, 1994. Executive

Order 12924 (3 C.F.R. 1994 Comp. 917 (1995)),

extended by Presidential Notices of August 15, 1995

(3 C.F.R. 1995 Comp. 501 (1996)) and August 14,

1996 (3 C.F.R., 1996 Comp. 298 (1997)), continued

the Regulations in effect under the International

Emergency Economic Powers Act (currently

codified at 50 U.S.C. 1701–1706).

3The copy of the charging letter addressed to Ace

at his residential address was returned to BXA

during April 1996. (It had been marked by South

African postal authorities as ‘‘Unclaimed’’.) On

April 24, 1996, BXA sent a copy of the November

27, 1995 charging letter to Ace at a second business

address in Cape Town, South Africa. Ace received

this copy of the charging letter on June 13, 1996.

The final EIS is scheduled to be

completed in August 1998. In the final

EIS, the Forest Service is required to

respond to comments and responses

received during the comment period

that pertain to the environmental

consequences discussed in the draft EIS

and applicable laws, regulations, and

policies considered in making the

decision regarding this proposal. Sonny

O’Neal, Forest Supervisor, Wenatchee

National Forest, is the responsible

official. As the responsible official he

will document the decision and reasons

for the decision in the Record of

Decision. That decision will be subject

to Forest Service Appeal Regulations 36

CFR Part 215.

Dated: July 28, 1997.

Elton Thomas,

Natural Resources Group Leaders.

[FR Doc. 97–21543 Filed 8–13–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410–11–M

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Bureau of Export Administration

Decision and Order

In the Matter of: Ian Ace, with addresses

at 4 Mimosa Way, Pinelands, South Africa,

A. Rosenthal (PTY) Ltd., P.O. Box 3721, 13

Loop Street, Cape Town, South Africa, and

A. Rosenthal (PTY) Ltd., P.O. Box 44198, 65

7th Street, Denmyr Building, 2104 Linden,

South Africa, Respondent.

Decision and Order

On November 27, 1995, the Office of

Export Enforcement, Bureau of Export

Administration, United States

Department of Commerce (hereinafter

‘‘BXA’’), issued a charging letter

initiating an administrative proceeding

against Ian Ace. The charging letter

alleged that Ian Ace committed seven

violations of the Export Administration

Regulations (currently codified at 15

C.F.R. parts 730–774 (1997)) (hereinafter

the ‘‘Regulations’’),1 issued pursuant to

the Export Administration Act of 1979,

as amended (50 U.S.C. app. sections

2401–2420) (hereinafter the ‘‘Act’’).2

Specifically, the charging letter

alleged that, between mid-1990 and

early 1992, Ace, manager of A.

Rosenthal (PTY) Ltd., Cape Town, South

Africa, conspired with James L.

Stephens, president and co-owner of

Weisser’s Sporting Goods, National City,

California, and Karl Cording, co-owner

and managing director of A. Rosenthal

(PTY) Ltd., Windhoek, Namibia, to

export and, on two separate occasions,

actually exported U.S.-origin shotguns,

with barrel lengths of 18 inches and

over, to Namibia and South Africa,

without applying for and obtaining from

the U.S. Department of Commerce the

validated export licenses Ace knew or

had reason to know were required under

the Act and Regulations. In addition,

BXA alleged that, in furtherance of the

conspiracy, and in connection with each

of those exports, Ace made false or

misleading representations of material

fact to a U.S. Government Agency in

connection with the preparation,

submission, or use of export control

documents. BXA alleged that, in so

doing, Ace committed one violation of

Section 787.3(b), two violations of

Section 787.4(a), two violations of

Section 787.5(a), and two violations of

Section 787.6 of the former Regulations,

for a total of seven violations of the

former Regulations.

BXA issued a charging letter to Ace at

his residential address in Pinelands,

South Africa, and at his business

address in Linden, South Africa. BXA

has presented evidence that Ace was

served with notice of issuance of the

charging letter at his Linden, South

Africa, business address on December 9,

1995.3 Ace failed to answer the charging

letter. Thus, on June 26, 1997, pursuant

to Section 766.7 of the Regulations, BXA

moved that the Administrative Law

Judge find that facts to be as alleged in

the charging letter and render a

Recommended Decision and Order.

Following BXA’s motion, on July 8,

1997, Chief Administrative Law Judge

Joseph A. Angel issued a Recommended

Decision and Default Order in which he

found the facts to be as alleged in the

charging letter. He concluded that those

facts constituted violations of the Act

and Regulations. The Administrative

Law Judge also concurred with BXA’s

recommendation that the appropriate

penalty to be imposed for these

violations is a denial, for a period of 20

years, of all of Act’s export privileges.

As provided by Section 766.22(a) of the

Regulations, the Administrative Law

Judge referred the Recommended

Decision and Order to me for final

action.

Based on my review of the entire

record, I affirm the findings of fact and

conclusions of law in the Recommended

Decision and Order of the

Administrative Law Judge. I believe that

the Administrative Law Judge’s

recommended denial of export

privileges for 20 years is appropriate.

This case is aggravated by the fact that

Ace violated export controls that were

designed to express U.S. abhorrence

with apartheid as then practiced in

South Africa. These violations were

serious and undetermined important

U.S. foreign policy interests. A lengthy

period of denial will help keep U.S.-

origin items out of his hands and make

future violations less likely. Finally, this

penalty is, as the Administrative Law

Judge explained, consistent with the

penalties received by the other

participants in these violations.

Accordingly, it is therefore ordered,

First, that for a period of 20 years from

the date of this Order, Ian Ace, with the

following addresses, 4 Mimosa Way,

Pinelands, South Africa; A. Rosenthal

(PTY) Ltd., P.O. Box 3721, 13 Loop

Street, Cape Town, South Africa; and A.

Rosenthal (PTY) Ltd., P.O. Box 44198,

65 7th Street, Denmyr Building, 2104

Linden, South Africa, 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. Benefiting 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.
43504 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 157 / Thursday, August 14, 1997 / Notices

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

a 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 a 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 a denied

person, or service any item, of whatever

origin, that is owned, possessed or

controlled by a 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

§ 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 a copy of this Order shall

be served on Ace and BXA, and shall be

published in the Federal Register.

This Order, which constitutes final

agency action in this matter, is effective

immediately.

Dated: August 8, 1997.

William A. Reinsch,

Under Secretary for Export Administration.

[FR Doc. 97–21453 Filed 8–13–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DT–M

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A–549–502]

Notice of Extension of Time Limit for

Antidumping Duty Administrative

Review of Certain Circular Welded

Carbon Steel Pipes and Tubes From

Thailand

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

EFFECTIVE DATE: August 14, 1997.

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce

(the Department) is extending the time

limit for the final results of the

antidumping duty administrative review

for the antidumping order on Certain

Circular Welded Carbon Steel Pipes and

Tubes from Thailand, pursuant to the

Tariff Act of 1930, as amended by the

Uruguay Round Agreements Act

(hereinafter, ‘‘the Act’’).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John

Totaro or Dorothy Woster, Import

Administration, International Trade

Administration, U.S. Department of

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution

Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20230,

telephone (202) 482–1398 or 482–3362,

respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under

§ 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act, the Department

may extend the deadline for completion

of an administrative review if it

determines that it is not practicable to

complete the review within the

statutory time limit of 365 days. In the

instant case, the Department has

determined that it is not practicable to

complete this review within the

statutory time limit. See Memorandum

from Joseph A. Spetrini to Robert S.

LaRussa (August 7, 1997).

Because it is not practicable to

complete this review within the time

limits mandated by the Act (245 days

from the last day of the anniversary

month for preliminary results, 120 days

after publication of the preliminary

determination for final results), in

accordance with section 751(a)(3)(A) of

the Act, the Department is extending the

time limit for the final results until

October 7, 1997.

Dated: August 8, 1997.

Roland L. MacDonald,

Executive Director, AD/CVD Enforcement

Office VII.

[FR Doc. 97–21582 Filed 8–13–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A–351–820]

Notice of Final Results of Antidumping

Duty Administrative Review:

Ferrosilicon From Brazil

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

SUMMARY: On April 8, 1997, the

Department of Commerce (the

Department) published the preliminary

results of its administrative review of

the antidumping duty order on

Ferrosilicon from Brazil. This review

covers exports of this merchandise to

the United States by two manufacturers/

exporters, Companhia Brasileria

Carbureto de Calcio (‘‘CBCC’’) and

Companhia Ferroligas Minas GeraisMinasligas (‘‘Minasligas’’), during the

period March 1, 1995, through February

29, 1996.

We gave interested parties an

opportunity to comment on the

preliminary results. Based on our

analysis of the comments received and

the correction of certain clerical and

computer programming errors, we have

changed our results from those

presented in our preliminary results, as

described below in the comment section

of this notice. The final results are listed

below in the section ‘‘Final Results of

Review.’’

EFFECTIVE DATE: August 14, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Cameron Werker or Sal Tauhidi,

AD/CVD Enforcement Group II, Office

Four, Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th

Street and Constitution Avenue, NW.,

Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202)

482–3874 and (202) 482–4851,

respectively.

The Applicable Statute

Unless otherwise indicated, all

citations to the statute are references to

the provisions effective January 1, 1995,

the effective date of the amendments

made to the Tariff Act of 1930 (the Act),

by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act

(URAA). In addition, unless otherwise

indicated, all citations to the

Department’s regulations are to the