Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 90 / Monday, May 11, 1998 / Notices 25817

1The 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)), August 14, 1996

(3 C.F.R., 1996 Comp. 298 (1997)), and August 13,

1997 (62 FR 43629, August 15, 1997), continued the

Regulations in effective under the International

Emergency Economic Powers Act (currently

codified at 50 U.S.C.A. §§ 1701–1706 (1991 & Supp.

1998)).

2BXA understands that the ultimate goal of this

project is to bring fresh water from wells drilled in

southeast and southwest Libya through prestressed

concrete cylinder pipe to the coastal cities of Libya.

This multibillion dollar, multiphase engineering

endeavor is being performed by the Dong Ah

Construction Company of Seoul, South Korea.

Export Trade Certificates of Review, and

with the concurrence of the Department

of Justice, issue such certificates where

the requirements of the Act are satisfied.

The Act requires that Commerce, with

Justice concurrence, issue regulations

governing the evaluation and issuance

of certificates before Commerce can

accept applications for certification. The

collection of information is necessary

for the antitrust analysis which is a

prerequisite to issuance of a certificate.

Without the information there would be

no basis upon which a certificate could

be issued.

In the Department of Commerce, this

economic and legal analysis will be

performed by the Office of Export

Trading Company Affairs and the Office

of the General Counsel. The Department

of Justice analysis will be conducted by

the Antitrust Division. The purpose of

such analysis is to make a determination

as to whether or not to approve an

application and issue an Export Trade

Certificate of Review. If this information

is not collected, the antitrust analysis

cannot be performed and without that

analysis no certificate can be issued. A

certificate provides its holder and

members named in the certificate (a)

immunity from government actions

under state and Federal antitrust laws

for the export conduct specified in the

certificate; (b) some protection from

frivolous private suits by limiting their

liability in private actions to actual

damages when the challenged activities

are covered by an Export Certificate of

Review. Title III was enacted to reduce

uncertainty regarding application of

U.S. antitrust laws to export activities—

especially those involving actions by

domestic competitors.

II. Method of Collection

Form ITA–4093P is sent by request to

U.S. firms.

III. Data

OMB Number: 0625–0125.

Form Number: ITA–4093P.

Type of Review: Revision-Regular

Submission.

Affected Public: Business or other forprofit; not-for-profit institutions and

State, local or Tribal Government.

Estimated Number of Respondents:

30.

Estimated Time Per Response: 32

hours.

Estimated Total Annual Burden

Hours: 960.

Estimated Total Annual Costs: The

estimated annual cost for this collection

is $344,400 ($260,000 government and

$134,400 respondents).

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 5, 1998.

Linda Engelmeier,

Departmental Forms Clearance Officer, Office

of Management and Organization.

[FR Doc. 98–12419 Filed 5–8–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DR–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Bureau of Export Administration

Action Affecting Export Privileges;

Thane-Coat, Inc, Jerry Vernon Ford

and Preston John Engebretson

In the Matters of: Thane-Coat, Inc., 12725

Royal Drive, Stafford, Texas 77477, Jerry

Vernon Ford, President, Thane-Coat, Inc.,

12725 Royal Drive, Stafford, Texas 77477,

and with an address at, 7707 Augustine

Drive, Houston, Texas 77036, and Preston

John Engebretson, Vice-President, ThaneCoat, Inc., 12725 Royal Drive, Stafford, Texas

77477, and with an address at 8903

Bonhomme Road, Houston, Texas 77074,

Respondents.

Decision and Order on Renewal of

Temporary Denial Order

On October 31, 1997, Acting Assistant

Secretary for Export Enforcement Frank

W. Deliberti issued a Decision and

Order on Renewal of Temporary Denial

Order (hereinafter ‘‘Order’’ or ‘‘TDO’’),

renewing for 180 days a May 5, 1997

Order naming Thane-Coat, Inc.; Jerry

Vernon Ford, president Thane-Coat,

Inc.; Preston John Engebretson, vicepresident, Thane-Coat, Inc.; Export

Materials, Inc.; and Thane-Coat,

International, Ltd. (Thane-Coat, Inc.,

Ford, and Engebretson hereinafter

referred to collectively as the

‘‘Respondents’’ and Export Materials,

Inc. and Thane-Coat, International, Ltd.,

the ‘‘affiliated companies’’), as persons

temporarily denied all U.S. export

privileges 62 FR 60063–60065

(November 6, 1997). The Order will

expire on April 29, 1998.

On April 17, 1998, pursuant to

Section 766.24 of the Export

Administration Regulations (15 C.F.R.

Parts 730–774 (1997)) (hereinafter the

‘‘Regulations’’), issued pursuant to the

Export Administration Act of 1979, as

amended (50 U.S.C.A. app. §§ 2401–

2420 (1991 & Supp. 1998)) (hereinafter

the ‘‘Act’’),1 the Office of Export

Enforcement, Bureau of Export

Administration, United States

Department of Commerce (hereinafter

‘‘BXA’’), requested that the Assistant

Secretary for Export Enforcement renew

the Order against Thane-Coat, Inc., Jerry

Vernon Ford, and Preston John

Engebretson for 180 days, pursuant to

terms agreed to by and between the

parties.

In its request, BXA stated that, as a

result of an ongoing investigation, it had

reason to believe that, during the period

from approximately June 1994 through

approximately July 1996, Thane-Coat,

Inc., through Ford and Engebretson, and

using its affiliated companies, ThaneCoat, International, Ltd. and Export

Materials, Inc., made approximately 100

shipments of U.S.-origin pipe coating

materials, machines, and parts to the

Dong Ah Consortium in Benghazi,

Libya. These items were for use in

coating the internal surface of

prestressed concrete cylinder pipe for

the Government of Libya’s Great ManMade River Project.2 Moreover, BXA’s

investigation gave it reason to believe

that the Respondents and the affiliated

companies employed a scheme to export

U.S.-origin products from the United

States, through the United Kingdom, to

Libya, a country subject to a

comprehensive economic sanctions

program, without the authorizations

required under U.S. law, including the

Regulations. The approximate value of

the 100 shipments at issue was $35

million. In addition, the Respondents

and the affiliated companies undertook

several significant and affirmative
25818 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 90 / Monday, May 11, 1998 / Notices

3On April 9, 1998, BXA requested that the

Assistant Secretary for Export Enforcement renew

the October 31, 1997 TDO against Thane-Coat,

International, Ltd. and Export Materials, Inc.

actions in connection with the

solicitation of business on another

phase of the Great Man-Made River

Project.

BXA has stated that it believes that

the matters under investigation and the

information obtained to date in that

investigation support renewal of the

TDO issued against the Respondents.3

In that regard, BXA and the

Respondents reached an agreement,

whereby BXA has sought a renewal of

the TDO in a ‘‘non-standard’’ format,

denying all of the Respondents’ U.S.

export privileges to the United

Kingdom, The Bahamas, Libya, Cuba,

Iraq, North Korea, Iran, and any other

country or countries that may be made

subject in the future to a general trade

embargo by proper legal authority. In

return, the Respondents agreed that,

among other conditions, at least 14 days

in advance of any export that any of the

Respondents intends to make of any

item from the United States to any

destination world-wide, the

Respondents will provide to BXA’s

Dallas Field Office (i) notice of the

intended export, (ii) copies of all

documents reasonably related to the

subject transaction, including, but not

limited to, the commercial invoice and

bill of lading, and (iii) the opportunity,

during the 14-day notice period, to

inspect physically the item at issue to

ensure that the intended shipment is in

compliance with the Export

Administration Act, the Export

Administration Regulations, or any

order issued thereunder.

Based on BXA’s showing, I find that

it is appropriate to renew the order

temporarily denying the export

privileges of Thane-Coat, Inc., Jerry

Vernon Ford, and Preston John

Engebretson in a ‘‘non-standard’’ format,

incorporating the terms agreed to by and

between the parties. I find that such

renewal is necessary in the public

interest to prevent an imminent

violation of the Regulations and to give

notice to companies in the United States

and abroad to cease dealing with these

persons in any commodity, software, or

technology subject to the Regulations

and exported or to be exported to the

United Kingdom, the Bahamas, Libya,

Cuba, Iraq, North Korea, Iran, and any

other country or countries that may be

made subject in the future to a general

trade embargo by proper legal authority,

or in any other activity subject to the

Regulations with respect to these

specific countries. Moreover, I find such

renewal is in the public interest in order

to reduce the substantial likelihood that

Thane-Coat, Inc., Ford, and Engebretson

will engage in activities which are in

violation of the Regulations.

Accordingly, It is therefore ordered:

First, that Thane-Coat, Inc., and all of

its successors or assigns, officers,

representatives, agents, and employees

when acting on its behalf, Jerry Vernon

Ford, and all of his successors, or

assigns, representatives, agents and

employees when acting on his behalf;

and Preston John Engebretson, and all of

his successors, or assigns,

representatives, agents, and employees

when acting on his behalf (all of the

foregoing parties hereinafter collectively

referred to as the ‘‘denied persons’’),

may not, directly or indirectly,

participate in any way in any

transaction involving any commodity,

software or technology (hereinafter

collectively referred to as ‘‘item’’)

subject to the Export Administration

regulations (hereinafter the

‘‘Regulations’’) and exported or to be

exported from the United States to the

United Kingdom, the Bahamas, Libya,

Cuba, Iraq, North Korea, or Iran, or to

any other country or countries that may

be made subject in the future to a

general trade embargo pursuant to

proper legal authority (hereinafter the

‘‘Covered Countries’’), or in any other

activity subject to the Regulations with

respect to the Covered Countries,

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 that is subject to the

Regulations and that is exported or to be

exported from the United States to any

of the Covered Countries, 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

to any of the Covered Countries 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 any of the denied persons any item

subject to the Regulations to any of the

Covered Countries;

B. Take any action that facilitates the

acquisition, or attempted acquisition by

any of the denied persons of the

ownership, possession, or control of any

item subject to the Regulations that has

been or will be exported from the

United States to any of the Covered

Countries, including financing or other

support activities related to a

transaction whereby any of the denied

persons 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 any of the denied

persons of any item subject to the

Regulations that has been exported from

the United States to any of the Covered

Countries;

D. Obtain from any of the denied

persons 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 to any

of the Covered Countries; 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 to any of the Covered

Countries, and which is owned,

possessed or controlled by any of the

denied persons, or service any item, of

whatever origin, that is owned,

possessed or controlled by any of the

denied persons if such service involves

the use of any item subject to the

Regulations that has been or will be

exported from the United States to any

of the Covered Countries. For purposes

of this paragraph, servicing means

installation, maintenance, repair,

modification or testing.

Third, that, at least 14 days in

advance of any export that any of the

denied persons intends to make of any

item from the United States to any

destination world-wide, the denied

person will provide to BXA’s Dallas

Field Office (i) notice of the intended

export, (ii) copies of all documents

reasonably related to the subject

transaction, including, but not limited

to, the commercial invoice and bill of

lading, and (iii) the opportunity, during

the 14-day notice period, to inspect

physically the item at issue to ensure

that the intended shipment is in

compliance with the Export

Administration Act, the Export

Administration Regulations, or any

order issued thereunder.

Fourth, 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 any of the denied

persons 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.
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 90 / Monday, May 11, 1998 / Notices 25819

Fifth, 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.

This Order is effective immediately

and shall remain in effect for 180 days.

A copy of this Order shall be served

on each Respondent and shall be

published in the Federal Register.

Entered this 29th day of April, 1998.

F. Amanda DeBusk,

Assistant Secretary for Export Enforcement.

Certificate of Service

I hereby certify that, on April 30,

1998, I caused the foregoing Decision

and Order on Renewal of Temporary

Denial Order to be mailed first-class,

postage prepaid to:

Thane-Coat, Inc. 12725 Royal Drive

Stafford, Texas 77477,

Jerry Vernon Ford President ThaneCoat, Inc. 12725 Royal Drive Stafford,

Texas 77477,

and

Preston John Engebretson VicePresident Thane-Coat, Inc. 12725

Royal Drive Stafford, Texas 77477.

Lucinda G. Maruca,

Secretary, Office of the Assistant Secretary

for Export Enforcement.

[FR Doc. 98–12421 Filed 5–8–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DT–M

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Foreign-Trade Zones Board

[Order No. 976]

Expansion of Foreign-Trade Zone 98,

Birmingham, AL

Pursuant to its authority under the ForeignTrade Zones Act of June 18, 1934, as

amended (19 U.S.C. 81a–81u), the ForeignTrade Zones Board (the Board) adopts the

following Order:

Whereas, an application from the City

of Birmingham, Alabama, grantee of

Foreign-Trade Zone 98, for authority to

expand FTZ 98 to include five

additional sites in Birmingham,

Alabama, within the Birmingham

Customs port of entry area, was filed by

the Board on April 29, 1997 (FTZ

Docket 39–97, 62 FR 26772, 5/15/97;

amended, 2/16/98, withdrawing a sixth

proposed site for the Pizitz/McRae

Warehouse);

Whereas, notice inviting public

comment was given in Federal Register

and the application has been processed

pursuant to the FTZ Act and the Board’s

regulations; and,

Whereas, the Board adopts the

findings and recommendations of the

examiner’s report, and finds that the

requirements of the FTZ Act and

Board’s regulations are satisfied, and

that the proposal is in the public

interest;

Now, therefore, the Board hereby

orders:

The application to expand FTZ 98, as

amended, is approved, subject to the

Act and the Board’s regulations,

including Section 400.28.

Signed at Washington, DC, this 28th day of

April 1998.

Robert S. LaRussa,

Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Import

Administration, Alternate Chairman, ForeignTrade Zones Board.

Dennis Puccinelli,

Acting Executive Secretary.

[FR Doc. 98–12332 Filed 5–8–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

FOREIGN-TRADE ZONES BOARD

[Order No. 978]

Expansion of Foreign-Trade Zone 205,

Ventura County, CA

Pursuant to its authority under the

Foreign-Trade Zones Act of June 18,

1934, as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a–81u),

the Foreign-Trade Zones Board (the

Board) adopts the following Order:

Whereas, an application from the

Board of Harbor Commissioners, Oxnard

Harbor District, grantee of Foreign-Trade

Zone 205, for authority to expand FTZ

205-Site 1 and Site 2, located in Port

Hueneme and Oxnard, California,

within the Port Hueneme Customs port

of entry area, was filed by the Board on

June 4, 1997 (FTZ Docket 47–97, 62 FR

33829, 6/23/97);

Whereas, notice inviting public

comment was given in Federal Register

and the application has been processed

pursuant to the FTZ Act and the Board’s

regulations; and,

Whereas, the Board adopts the

findings and recommendations of the

examiner’s report, and finds that the

requirements of the FTZ Act and

Board’s regulations are satisfied, and

that the proposal is in the public

interest;

Now, therefore, the Board hereby

orders:

The application to expand FTZ 205 is

approved, subject to the Act and the

Board’s regulations, including Section

400.28.

Signed at Washington, DC, this 28th day of

April 1998.

Robert S. LaRussa,

Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Import

Administration, Alternate Chairman, ForeignTrade Zones Board.

Dennis Puccinelli,

Acting Executive Secretary.

[FR Doc. 98–12329 Filed 5–8–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Foreign-Trade Zones Board

[Order No. 974]

Grant of Authority for Subzone Status;

Chevron Products Company (Oil

Refinery), Richmond, CA

Pursuant to its authority under the

Foreign-Trade Zones Act of June 18,

1934, as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a–81u),

the Foreign-Trade Zones Board (the

Board) adopts the following Order:

Whereas, by an Act of Congress

approved June 18, 1934, an Act ‘‘To

provide for the establishment * * * of

foreign-trade zones in ports of entry of

the United States, to expedite and

encourage foreign commerce, and for

other purposes,’’ as amended (19 U.S.C.

81a–81u) (the Act), the Foreign-Trade

Zones Board (the Board) is authorized to

grant to qualified corporations the

privilege of establishing foreign-trade

zones in or adjacent to U.S. Customs

ports of entry;

Whereas, the Board’s regulations (15

CFR Part 400) provide for the

establishment of special-purpose

subzones when existing zone facilities

cannot serve the specific use involved;

Whereas, an application from the San

Francisco Port Commission, grantee of

Foreign-Trade Zone 3, for authority to

establish special-purpose subzone status

at the oil refinery complex of Chevron

Products Company, located in

Richmond, California, was filed by the

Board on June 12, 1997, and notice

inviting public comment was given in

the Federal Register (FTZ Docket 49–97,

62 FR 33828, 6/23/97); and,

Whereas, the Board adopts the

findings and recommendations of the

examiner’s report, and finds that the

requirements of the FTZ Act and

Board’s regulations would be satisfied,

and that approval of the application

would be in the public interest if

approval is subject to the conditions

listed below;

Now, Therefore, the Board hereby

authorizes the establishment of a

subzone (Subzone 3B) at the oil refinery

complex of Chevron Products Company,

located in Richmond, California, at the