6410 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 24 / Monday, February 7, 2005 / Notices 

manufacturer by a company in New 

Jersey. The purchase order stated that 

end-user of the triggered spark gaps was 

a hospital in the South Africa. The 

manufacturer of the triggered sparks 

gaps confirmed that a standard or 

normal size order of triggered spark gaps 

for a hospital would be five to six. On 

or about September 29, 2003, the U.S. 

manufacturer made the first shipment 

under the purchase order to the New 

Jersey company. On or about October 3, 

2003, the New Jersey then shipped 

approximately 66 triggered spark gaps 

from the United States to South Africa. 

On or about October 19, 2003, the 

triggered spark gaps were shipped from 

South Africa to Pakistan (the intended 

destination of the triggered spark gaps) 

without a BIS license by persons who 

were conspirators with the 

Respondents.

Additionally, in 2003, Respondents 

were involved in at least two 

unauthorized export of oscilloscopes 

from the United States to Pakistan 

through South Africa, including one 

export to a Pakistani corporation on 

BIS’s Entity List, the Al-Technique 

Corporation of Pakistan, Ltd. 

I find the evidence presented by BIS 

demonstrates that the Respondents have 

conspired to violate the EAR, that such 

violations have been deliberate and 

covert, and that there is a strong 

likelihood of future violations, 

particularly given the nature of the 

transactions and the elaborate steps that 

have been taken by Respondents to 

avoid detection by the U.S. Government 

while knowing that their actions were in 

violation of the EAR. As such, a 

Temporary Denial Order (‘‘TDO’’) is 

needed to give notice to persons and 

companies in the United States and 

abroad that they should cease dealing 

with the Respondents in export 

transactions involving items subject to 

the EAR. Such a TDO is consistent with 

the public interest to preclude future 

violations of the EAR.

Accordingly, I find that a TDO 

naming Pakland and Khan as 

Respondents is necessary, in the public 

interest, to prevent an imminent 

violation of the EAR. This Order is 

issued on an ex parte basis without a 

hearing based upon BIS’s showing of an 

imminent violation. 

It is therefore ordered:

First, that the Respondents, Pakland 

PME Corporation, Unit 7 & 8, 2nd Floor, 

Mohammadi Plaza, Jinnah Avenue, Blue 

Area, F–6/4, Islamabad–44000, Pakistan, 

and Humayun Khan, Unit 7 & 8, 2nd 

Floor, Mohammadi Plaza, Jinnah 

Avenue, Blue Area, F–6/4, Islamabad–

44000, Pakistan (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. Benefitting in any way from 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. 

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 acquires or 

attempts to acquire such ownership, 

possession or control; 

C. Take any action to acquire from or 

to facilitate 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 

order 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) of the EAR, the 

Respondents 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. 

In accordance with the provisions of 

Section 766.24(d) of the EAR, BIS may 

seek renewal of this Order by filing a 

written request not later than 20 days 

before the expiration date. The 

Respondents 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. 

A copy of this Order shall be served 

on the Respondents shall be published 

in the Federal Register. 

This Order is effective upon date of 

publication in the Federal Register and 

shall remain in effect for 180 days.

Entered this 31st day of January, 2005. 

Wendy L. Wysong, 

Acting Assistant Secretary of Commerce for 

Export Enforcement.

[FR Doc. 05–2240 Filed 2–4–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DT–M

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Bureau of Industry and Security 

Action Affecting Export Privileges; 

Wen Enterprises, Ning Wen, Hailin Lin, 

and Beijung Rich Linscience 

Electronics Company; Order 

Temporarily Denying Export Privileges

In the Matters of: Wen Enterprises, 402 

Wild Oak Drive, Manitowoc, WI 54220; and, 

Ning Wen, 402 Wild Oak Drive, Manitowoc, 

WI 54220; and, Hailin Lin, 402 Wild Oak 

Drive, Manitowoc, WI 54220; and, Beijing 

Rich Linscience Electronics Company, No. 2 

Zhong Guan Cun South Avenue, Cyber Mode 

Room 1001, Haidian District, Beijing, 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 24 / Monday, February 7, 2005 / Notices 6411

1The EAR, which are currently codified at 15 

CFR Parts 730–774 (2004), are issued under the 

Export Administration Act of 1979, as amended (50 

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

EAA was in effect from November 13, 2000 through 

August 20, 2001 but lapsed on August 21, 2001. 

However, the President, through Executive Order 

13222 of August 17, 2001 (3 CFR, 2001 Comp. 783 

(2002)), as extended by the Notice of August 6, 2004 

(69 FR 48763, August 10, 2004), has continued the 

EAR in effect under the International Emergency 

Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701–1706 (2000)).

People’s Republic of China 100086; 

Respondents.

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 issue an Order temporarily 

denying export privileges of Wen 

Enterprises (‘‘WE’’), 402 Wild Oak 

Drive, Manitowoc, WI 54220; Ning Wen 

(‘‘Wen’’), 402 Wild Oak Drive, 

Manitowoc, WI 54220; Hailin Lin 

(‘‘Lin’’), 402 Wild Oak Drive, 

Manitowoc, WI 54220; and Beijing Rich 

Linscience Electronics Company 

(‘‘BRLE’’), No. 2 Zhong Guan Cun South 

Avenue, Cyber Mode Room 1001, 

Haidian District, Beijing, China 100086 

(hereinafter collectively referred to as 

the ‘‘Respondents’’).

BIS has presented evidence that 

shows that Respondents have conspired 

together and with others, known and 

unknown, to illegally export items 

subject to the EAR, including national 

security controlled electronic 

components, to the People’s Republic of 

China (‘‘PRC’’) without the Department 

of Commerce necessary licenses. 

Specifically, the evidence shows that 

WE’s sole business is exporting 

electronic components and 

semiconductor chips to BRLE in the 

PRC. WE has two employees: (1) Wen, 

the owner of WE, and (2) Lin, Wen’s 

wife who runs WE. WE does not sell 

domestically and does not sell to any 

customer other than BRLE. The 

evidence shows that on more than 30 

occasions during the period of June 7, 

2002 through September 17, 2004, WE 

exported national security controlled 

electronic components to BRLE in the 

PRC with knowledge that export 

licenses were required for the items and 

that those licenses were neither applied 

for nor received. The evidence also 

shows that BRLE caused such exports to 

happen with knowledge that a violation 

of the EAR would subsequently occur. 

BRLE is a distributor and not the enduser of these electronic components.

I find the evidence presented by BIS 

demonstrates that the Respondents 

conspired to do acts that violate the 

EAR and did in fact commit numerous 

violations of the EAR by participating in 

the unlicensed export of national 

security controlled items to the PRC. I 

further find that such violations have 

been significant, deliberate and covert, 

and are likely to occur again, especially 

given the nature of the structure and 

relationships of the Respondents. As 

such, a Temporary Denial Order 

(‘‘TDO’’) is needed to give notice to 

persons in the United States and abroad 

that they should cease dealing with the 

Respondents in export transactions 

involving commodities, software or 

technology that are subject to the EAR. 

Such a TDO is consistent with the 

public interest to preclude future 

violations of the EAR. 

Accordingly, I find that a TDO 

naming WE, Wen, Lin and BRLE as 

Respondents is necessary and in the 

public interest, to prevent an imminent 

violation of the EAR. This Order is 

issued on an ex parte basis without a 

hearing based upon BIS’s showing of an 

imminent violation. 

It is therefore ordered:

First, that the Respondents, Wen 

Enterprises, 402 Wild Oak Drive, 

Manitowoc, WI 54220; Ning Wen, 402 

Wild Oak Drive, Manitowoc, WI 54220; 

Hailin Lin, 402 Wild Oak Drive, 

Manitowoc, WI 54220; and Beijing Rich 

Linscience Electronics Company, No. 2 

Zhong Guan Cun South Avenue, Cyber 

Mode Room 1001, Haidian District, 

Beijing, China 100086, and their 

successors and assigns and when or for 

acting on behalf of any of the 

Respondents, their officers, agents or 

representatives, (‘‘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 

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. 

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 EAR; 

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 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 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 EAR that has 

been exported from the United States; 

D. Obtain from the Denied Person 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 

Person, or service any item, of whatever 

origin, that is owned, possessed or 

controlled by the Denied Person is 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) of the EAR, the 

Respondents 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. 

In accordance with the provisions of 

Section 766.24(d) of the Ear, BIS may 

seek renewal of this Order by filing a 

written request not later than 20 days 

6412 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 24 / Monday, February 7, 2005 / Notices 

before the expiration date. The 

Respondents 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. 

A copy of this Order shall be served 

on the Respondents and shall be 

published in the Federal Register

This Order is effective immediately 

and shall remain in effect for 180 days.

Entered this 31st day of January, 2005. 

Wendy L. Wysong, 

Acting Assistant Secretary of Commerce for 

Export Enforcement.

[FR Doc. 05–2239 Filed 2–4–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DT–M

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Bureau of Industry and Security 

Information Systems Technical 

Advisory Committee; Notice of 

Partially Closed Meeting 

The Information Systems Technical 

Advisory Committee (ISTAC) will meet 

on February 23 and 24, 2005, 9 a.m., at 

the Space and Naval Warfare Systems 

Center (SPAWAR), Building 33, Cloud 

Room, 53560 Hull Street, San Diego, 

California, 92152. The Committee 

advises the Office of the Assistant 

Secretary for Export Administration on 

technical questions that affect the level 

of export controls applicable to 

information systems equipment and 

technology. 

February 23:

Public Session 

1. Opening remarks and 

introductions. 

2. Comments or presentations by the 

public. 

3. Presentation on Excimer Lasers and 

EUV. 

4. Presentation on Microwave 

Semiconductor Technology. 

5. Overview of the STI Cell processor. 

February 23–24:

Closed Session 

6. Discussion of matters determined to 

be exempt from the provisions relating 

to public meetings found in 5 U.S.C. 

app. 2 §§ 10(a)(1) and 10(a). 

A limited number of seats will be 

available for the public session. 

Reservations are not accepted. To the 

extent time permits, members of the 

public may present oral statements to 

the Committee. The public may submit 

written statements at any time before or 

after the meeting. However, to facilitate 

distribution of public presentation 

materials to Committee members, the 

Committee suggests that public 

presentation materials or comments be 

forwarded before the meeting to Ms. Lee 

Ann Carpenter at Lcarpent@bis.doc.gov.

The Assistant Secretary for 

Administration, with the concurrence of 

the delegate of the General Counsel, 

formally determined on January 31, 

2005, pursuant to Section 10(d) of the 

Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 

amended (5 U.S.C. app. 2 (10)(d)), that 

the portion of the meeting concerning 

trade secrets and commercial or 

financial information deemed privileged 

or confidential as described in 5 U.S.C. 

552b(c)(4) and the portion of the 

meeting concerning matters the 

disclosure of which would be likely to 

frustrate significantly implementation of 

an agency action as described in 5 

U.S.C. 552b(c)(9)(B) shall be exempt 

from the provisions relating to public 

meetings found in 5 U.S.C. app. 2 10(a)1 

and 10(a)(3). 

The remaining portions of the meeting 

will be open to the public. For more 

information, call Lee Ann Carpenter at 

(202) 482–2583.

Dated: February 2, 2005. 

Lee Ann Carpenter, 

Committee Liaison Officer.

[FR Doc. 05–2246 Filed 2–4–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–JT–M

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Bureau of Industry and Security 

Transportation and Related Equipment 

Technical Advisory Committee; Notice 

of Open Meeting 

The Transportation and Related 

Equipment Technical Advisory 

Committee will meet on March 17, 

2005, 9:30 a.m., in the Herbert C. 

Hoover Building, Room 3884, 14th 

Street Between Pennsylvania & 

Constitution Avenues, NW., 

Washington, DC. The Committee 

advises the Office of the Assistant 

Secretary for Export Administration 

with respect to technical questions that 

affect the level of export controls 

applicable to transportation and related 

equipment or technology. 

Agenda 

1. Opening remarks and 

introductions. 

2. Update on country-specific 

policies. 

3. Update on regulations and 

procedures. 

4. Review of Wassenaar Arrangement 

and Technical Working Group issues. 

5. Review of Missile Technology 

Control Regime issues. 

6. Update on Commerce Control List 

issues. 

7. Update on status of U.S. Munitions 

List review. 

8. Presentation of papers, proposals 

and comments by the public. 

The meeting will be open to the 

public and a limited number of seats 

will be available. Reservations are not 

accepted. To the extent time permits, 

members of the public may present oral 

statements to the Committee. Written 

statements may be submitted at any 

time before or after the meeting. 

However, to facilitate distribution of 

public presentation materials to 

Committee members, the Committee 

suggests that you forward your public 

presentation materials to Lee Ann 

Carpenter at Lcarpent@bis.doc.gov.

For more information, call Ms. 

Carpenter on (202) 482–2583.

Dated: February 2, 2005. 

Lee Ann Carpenter, 

Committee Liaison Officer.

[FR Doc. 05–2247 Filed 2–4–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–JT–M

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A–570–863]

Honey from the People’s Republic of 

China: Initiation of New Shipper 

Antidumping Duty Review

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce.

EFFECTIVE DATE: February 7, 2005.

SUMMARY: In December 2004, the 

Department of Commerce (‘‘the 

Department’’) received a request to 

conduct a new shipper review of the 

antidumping duty order on honey from 

the People’s Republic of China (‘‘PRC’’). 

We have determined that this request 

meets the statutory and regulatory 

requirements for the initiation of a new 

shipper review.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Anya Naschak at (202) 482–6375 or 

Kristina Boughton at (202) 482–8173; 

AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

The Department received a timely 

request from Kunshan Xin’an Trade Co., 

Ltd. (‘‘Xinan’’) in accordance with 19