58182 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 192 / Wednesday, October 5, 2005 / Notices 

1The EAR, which are currently codified at 15 

CFR Parts 730–774 (2005), are issued under the 

Export Administration Act of 1979, as amended (50 

U.S.C. app. 2401–2420) (2000) (the ‘‘Act’’). From 

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 200 Comp. 

397 (2001)), continued the EAR in effect under the 

International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 

U.S.C. 1701–1707 (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 2, 2005, (70 FR 45,273 (Aug. 5, 

2005)), continued the Regulations in effect under 

the IEEPA. 

Legal Authority: Title 13 of the United 

States Code, sections 141 and 193. 

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: September 29, 2005. 

Madeleine Clayton, 

Management Analyst, Office of the Chief 

Information Officer. 

[FR Doc. 05–19894 Filed 10–4–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–07–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

Bureau of Industry and Security 

Action Affecting Export Privileges; 

Ghashim Group, Inc.; Mazen Ghashim; 

MNC Group International, In the Matter 

of: Ghashim Group, Inc., d.b.a. KZ 

Results, 3334 Walnut Bend Land, 

Houston, Texas 77042, and Mazen 

Ghashim, 10734 Overbrook Lane, 

Houston, Texas 77042, Respondents, 

and MNC Group International, Inc., 

d.b.a. Wearform, d.b.a. Sports Zone, 

d.b.a. Soccer Zone, 3334 Walnut Bend 

Lane, Houston, Texas 77042; Related 

Person 

Order Renewing Order Temporarily 

Denying Export Privileges 

Pursuant to Section 766.24 of the 

Export Administration Regulations 

(‘‘EAR’’),1 the Bureau of Industry and 

Security (‘‘BIS’’), U.S. Department of 

Commerce, through its Office of Export 

Enforcement (‘‘OEE’’), has requested 

that I renew for 180 days an Order 

temporarily denying the export 

privileges under the EAR of: Ghashim 

Group, Inc. doing business as (‘‘d.b.a.’’) 

KZ Results, 3334 Walnut Bend Lane, 

Houston, Texas 77042 (‘‘Ghashim 

Group’’) and Mazen Ghashim, 10734 

Overbrook Lane, Houston, Texas 77042 

(hereinafter collectively referred to as 

the ‘‘Respondents’’); and related person 

MNC Group International, Inc. d.b.a. 

Wearform, d.b.a. Sports Zone, and d.b.a. 

Soccer Zone, 3334 Walnut Bend Lane, 

Houston, Texas 77042 (‘‘MNC’’). 

On April 7, 2005, I found that 

evidence presented by BIS 

demonstrated that the Respondents 

conspired to commit acts that violated 

the EAR, that such violations had been 

deliberate and covert, and that there was 

a strong likelihood of future violations, 

particularly given the nature of the 

transactions and the elaborate steps 

taken by Respondents to avoid detection 

by the U.S. Government while knowing 

that their actions were in violation of 

the EAR. 70 FR 17,645 (Apr. 7, 2005). 

This finding was based on evidence that 

indicated that Respondents had 

conspired with others to cause 

computers, which are subject to the EAR 

and controlled for national security and 

anti-terrorism reasons, to be illegally 

exported to Syria. The evidence also 

indicated that, after learning of the EAR 

requirements governing the export of 

computers to Syria, Respondents 

developed and implemented a scheme 

to avoid these requirements by causing 

computers to be exported to Syria 

through the United Arab Emirates with 

knowledge that violations of the EAR 

would occur. 

I also found that MNC was a Related 

Person pursuant to 15 CFR 766.23 

because it is owned and operated by 

Mazen Ghashim, who is the President of 

Ghashim Group, and it is operated out 

of the same facilities as Ghashim Group. 

The evidence showed Ghashim and 

MNC conspired to export garment 

samples, items that are subject to the 

EAR, from the United States to Syria 

without the required BIS export licenses 

in violation of the Regulations. 

BIS believes that all of the facts found 

in the original Order continue to justify 

the renewal of the Order, particularly 

given the nature of the transactions and 

the steps that have been taken by 

Respondents to avoid detection by the 

U.S. Government while knowing their 

actions were in violation of the EAR. 

BIS believes that the evidence described 

in its initial Temporary Denial Order 

request supports this Order. 

Based on the evidence submitted by 

BIS, I find that renewal of the Order 

naming Respondents and the Related 

Person is necessary, in the public 

interest, to prevent an imminent 

violation of the EAR. A copy of the 

request for renewal of this Order was 

served upon Respondents and the 

Related Person in accordance with the 

requirements of 15 CFR 766.24 of the 

EAR, and no responses were received in 

opposition to this request within the 

applicable time period described in that 

section. 

It is therefore ordered: 

First, that the Respondents, Ghashim 

Group, Inc. D.B.A. KZ Results, 3334 

Walnut Bend Lane, Houston, Texas 

77042, its successors or assigns, and 

when acting for or on behalf of Ghashim 

Group, Inc., its officers, representatives, 

agents, or employees; Mazen Ghashim 

10734 Overbrook Lane, Houston, Texas 

77042, and, when acting for or on behalf 

of Mazen Ghashim, his representatives, 

agents, assigns or employees; and 

Related Person MNC Group 

International, Inc. d.b.a. Wearform, 

d.b.a. Sports Zone, and d.b.a. Soccer 

Zone, 3334 Walnut Bend Lane, Houston, 

Texas 77042, its successors or assigns, 

and when acting for or on behalf of 

MNC Group International, Inc., its 

officers, representatives, agents, or 

employees (collectively, 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’’) 

exported or to be exported from the 

United States that is subject to the 

Export Administration Regulations 

(‘‘EAR’’), or in any other activity subject 

to the EAR, 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 EAR, or in any other 

activity subject to the EAR; or 

C. Benefiting in any way from any 

transaciton involving any item exported 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 192 / Wednesday, October 5, 2005 / Notices 58183 

or to be exported from the United States 

that is subject to the EAR, or in any 

other activity subject to the EAR. 

Second, that no person may, directly 

or indirectly, do any of the following: 

A. Export or reexport to or on behalf 

of the Denied Persons any item subject 

to the EAR; 

B. Take any action that facilitates the 

acquisition or attempted acquisition by 

the Denied Persons of the ownership, 

possession, or control of any item 

subject to the ear that has been or will 

be exported from the United States, 

including financing or other support 

activities related to a transaction 

whereby the Denied Persons acquire or 

attempt 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 Persons of 

any item subject to the EAR that has 

been exported from the United States; 

D. Obtain from the Denied Persons in 

the United States any item subject to the 

EAR 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 EAR that has 

been or will be exported from the 

United States and which is owned, 

possessed or controlled by the Denied 

Persons, or service any item, of 

whatever origin, that is owned, 

possessed or controlled by the Denied 

Persons if such service involves the use 

of any item subject to the EAR 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 EAR, any other 

person, firm, corporation, or business 

organization related to any of the 

Respondents 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 EAR where the 

only items involved that are subject to 

the EAR are the foreign-produced direct 

product of U.S.-origin technology. 

In accordance with the provisions of 

Section 766.24(e) and Section 766.23(c) 

of the EAR, the Respondents and the 

Related Person, respectively, may, at 

any time, appeal this Order by filing a 

full written statement in support of the 

appeal with the Office of the 

Administrative Law Judge, U.S. Coast 

Guard ALJ Docketing Center, 40 South 

Gay Street, Baltimore, Maryland 21202–

4022. 

The Order becomes effective on 

October 3, 2005, and shall remain in 

effect for 180 days until and including 

March 31, 2006. In accordance with the 

provisions of Section 766.24(d) and 

Section 766.23(c) of the EAR, BIS may 

seek renewal of this Order by filing a 

written request not later than 20 days 

before the expiration date, on or before 

March 11, 2006, with the Assistant 

Secretary for Export Enforcement. The 

Respondents and the Related Person 

may oppose a request to renew this 

Order by filing a written submission 

with the Assistant Secretary for Export 

Enforcement, which must be received 

not later than seven days before the 

expiration date of the Order, on or 

before March 24, 2006. 

A copy of this Order shall be served 

on the Respondents and the Related 

Person, and shall be published in the 

Federal Register. 

Entered this 28th day of September, 2005. 

Thomas W. Andrukonis, 

Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary of 

Commerce for Export Enforcement. 

[FR Doc. 05–19895 Filed 10–4–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DT–M 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

(A–427–801, A–428–801, A–475–801, A–412–

801) 

Antifriction Bearings and Parts Thereof 

from France, Germany, Italy, and the 

United Kingdom; Five–Year Sunset 

Reviews of Antidumping Duty Orders; 

Final Results 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: On June 1, 2005, the 

Department of Commerce (the 

Department) initiated a sunset review of 

the antidumping duty orders on 

antifriction bearings and parts thereof 

from France, Germany, Italy and the 

United Kingdom pursuant to section 

751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as 

amended (the Act). On the basis of the 

notice of intent to participate and 

adequate substantive responses filed on 

behalf of the domestic interested parties 

and inadequate responses from 

respondent interested parties, the 

Department conducted expedited sunset 

reviews. As a result of these sunset 

reviews, the Department finds that 

revocation of the antidumping duty 

orders would likely lead to continuation 

or recurrence of dumping at the levels 

listed below in the section entitled 

‘‘Final Results of Reviews.’’

EFFECTIVE DATE: October 5, 2005. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Zev 

Primor or Fred W. Aziz, Office 5, AD/ 

CVD Operations, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; 

telephone: (202) 482–4114 or (202) 482–

4023. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On June 1, 2005, the Department 

initiated sunset reviews of the 

antidumping duty orders on antifriction 

bearings and parts thereof from France, 

Germany, Italy, and the United 

Kingdom pursuant to section 751(c) of 

the Act. See Initiation of Five–Year 

(‘‘Sunset’’) Reviews, 70 FR 31423 (June 

1, 2005). The Department received 

Notices of Intent to Participate from the 

Timken Company, Pacamor Kubar 

Bearings, RBC Bearings, and NSK 

Corporation (NSK USA) (collectively, 

‘‘the domestic interested parties’’) 

within the deadline specified in 19 CFR 

351.218(d)(1)(i) of the Department’s 

regulations (‘‘Sunset Regulations’’). The 

domestic interested parties claimed 

interested–party status under section 

771(9)(C) of the Act as producers of a 

domestic like product in the United 

States. We received complete 

substantive responses from the domestic 

interested parties within the 30–day 

deadline specified in 19 CFR 

351.218(d)(3)(i). 

We did not receive substantive 

responses from any respondent 

interested parties in the sunset reviews 

of the antidumping duty orders on 

antifriction bearings and parts thereof 

from France, Germany, or Italy. As a 

result, pursuant to section 751(c)(3)(B) 

of the Act and 19 CFR 

351.218(e)(1)(ii)(C)(2), the Department 

conducted expedited sunset reviews of 

these orders. 

For the sunset review of the 

antidumping duty order on antifriction 

bearings and parts thereof from the 

United Kingdom, the Department 

received a substantive response from 

respondent NSK Europe Ltd. and NSK 

Bearings Ltd. (collectively, NSK UK). 

The Department found that NSK UK did 

not meet the adequacy threshold 

pursuant to section 351.218(e)(1)(ii)(A) 

of the Sunset Regulations. For more 

information, see the Adequacy 

Determination Memorandum from the 

Sunset Team to Laurie Parkhill, dated 

July 21, 2005. As a result, pursuant to 

section 751(c)(3)(B) of the Act and 19