Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 219 / Tuesday, November 15, 2005 / Notices 69311 

1The charged violations occurred in 2000. The 

Regulations governing the violations at issue are 

found in the 2000 version of the Code of Federal 

Regulations. 15 CFR parts 730–774 (2000). The 2005 

Regulations establish the procedures that apply to 

this matter. 2From August 21, 1994 through November 12, 

2000, the Act was in lapse. During that period, the 

President, through Executive Order 12924, which 

had been extended by successive Presidential 

Notices, the last of which was August 3, 2000 (3 

CFR, 2000 Comp. 397 (2001)), continued the 

Regulations in effect under the International 

Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701–

1706 (2000)) (‘‘IEEPA’’). On November 13, 2000, the 

Act was reauthorized by Pub. L. No. 106–508 (114 

Stat. 2360 (2000)) 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 13222 of August 17, 2001 (3 CFR, 2001 

Comp. 783 (2002)), which has been extended by 

successive Presidential Notices, the most recent 

being that of August 2, 2005 (70 FR 45273, Aug. 5, 

2005), has continued the Regulations in effect under 

IEEPA. 3Action Affecting Export Privileges; Suburban 

Guns (Pty) Ltd., 63 FR 15,828 (Apr. 1, 1998). 4EAR99 is a designation for items subject to the 

Regulations but not listed on the Commerce Control 

List. 

in the United States. These data will be 

a vital source for accurately measuring 

the sales, commissions, sales arranged 

for others, e-commerce, and operating 

expenses of these types of companies. 

The BEA has made repeated requests for 

this information. The expanded ATS 

will cover all sales from the wholesale 

sector compared to about 90 percent of 

sales in the present ATS sample. 

Beginning with the survey year 2005, 

the goal will be to maximize industry 

coverage within our available resources. 

In order to establish reporting 

arrangements and reduce respondent 

burden, we will mail report forms to a 

sample of firms on a company basis and 

contact them in person, as well as by 

phone and mail. We will mail firms in 

the survey an introduction letter, report 

forms, and a flyer instructing them how 

to reply electronically. We request that 

forms be completed and returned 30 

days after receipt. The report forms will 

request similar data items, but different 

forms will be used to accommodate 

wholesale distributors, MSBO, and 

AGBR companies, as well as both large 

and small firms. Later, if necessary, 

additional mail follow-ups and 

telephone follow-ups will be conducted. 

The primary users of these data are 

federal, state, and local government 

agencies, including the Census Bureau, 

the Bureau of Labor Statistics, and BEA. 

Other users include business firms, 

academics, trade associations, and 

research and consulting organizations. 

On September 20, 2005 (70 FR 55104), 

the Census Bureau published in the 

Federal Register a notice and request for 

comments on the expansion of the ATS. 

We received two comments that were 

not responsive to the solicitation. 

Accordingly, the Census Bureau is 

adopting, without change, its proposal 

to include agents, broker, and electronic 

markets in the 2005 Annual Trade 

Survey. 

Executive Order 12866 

This notice has been determined to be 

not significant for purposes of Executive 

Order 12866. 

Regulatory Flexibility Act 

The Chief Counsel for Regulation of 

the Department of Commerce certified 

to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the 

Small Business Administration that this 

notice would not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. The factual 

basis for this certification was published 

in the earlier notice and request for 

comment (09/20/05; 70 FR 55104). No 

comments were received regarding the 

economic impact of that notice. As a 

result, no final regulatory flexibility 

analysis was prepared. 

Paperwork Reduction Act 

Notwithstanding any other provision 

of law, no person is required to respond 

to, nor shall a person be subject to a 

penalty for failure to comply with, a 

collection of information subject to 

requirements of the Paperwork 

Reduction Act (PRA) unless that 

collection of information displays a 

current valid Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB) control number. This 

notice contains a collection of 

information subject to the requirements 

of the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). In 

accordance with the PRA, OMB 

approved on September 21, 2005, with 

control number 0607–0195, the 

collection of all information associated 

with this notice. We estimate the 

number of additional respondents to be 

390 and estimate an additional 677 

annual burden hours with this 

expanded data collection. Also, we 

estimate that the time for the additional 

responses associated with this data 

collection will be approximately 28 

minutes. We will furnish report forms to 

organizations included in the survey, 

and additional copies will be available 

upon written request to the Director, 

U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC 

20233–0101. 

Dated: November 9, 2005. 

Charles Louis Kincannon, 

Director, Bureau of the Census. 

[FR Doc. 05–22598 Filed 11–15–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–07–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

Bureau of Industry and Security 

[05–BIS–01] 

In the Matter of: Phaedon Nicholas 

Criton Constan-Tatos (a.k.a. Fred 

Tatos) Suburban Guns (Pty) Ltd., 119 

Main Road, P.O. Box 30, Plumstead 

7800, Cape Town, South Africa; 

Respondent 

Decision and Order 

This matter is before me upon a 

Recommended Decision and Order of an 

Administrative Law Judge (‘‘ALJ’’), as 

further described below. 

In a Charging Letter filed on January 

28, 2005, the Bureau of Industry and 

Security (‘‘BIS’’) alleged that respondent 

Phaedon Nicholas Criton Constan-Tatos 

a.k.a. Fred Tatos (‘‘Tatos’’) committed 

five violations of the Export 

Administration Regulations (the 

‘‘Regulations’’) 1, issued under the 

Export Administration Act of 1979, as 

amended (50 U.S.C. app. sections 2401–

2420 (2000)) (the ‘‘Act’’).2 Specifically, 

BIS alleged that Tatos committed two 

violations of section 764.2(a), two 

violations of section 764.2(e), and one 

violation of section 764.2(k) of the 

Regulations. The Charging Letter alleged 

that, in violation of a denial of export 

privileges imposed against Suburban 

Guns (Pty) Ltd. (‘‘Suburban Guns’’) by 

BIS on April 1, 1998,3 Tatos twice 

facilitated the acquisition by Suburban 

Guns of shotgun screw chokes, choke 

tubes, and barrels, which are classified 

under Export Control Classification 

Number (‘‘ECCN’’) 0A984, and of other 

shotgun accessories, which are 

designated as EAR99 items, from U.S. 

companies.4 The Charging Letter further 

alleged that Tatos committed these acts 

in violation of the Denial Order imposed 

against Suburban Guns with knowledge 

that violations of an Order issued under 

the Act and the Regulations would 

occur. Finally, the Charging Letter 

alleged that Tatos made a false 

representation to an official of BIS 

during BIS’s investigation of this case 

when he stated in an e-mail 

communication to a BIS Office of Export 

Enforcement Special Agent that 

Suburban Guns had not imported any 

items from the United States since the 

imposition of the Denial Order against 

it. 

BIS’s Charging Letter was served by 

certified mail on Tatos on January 28, 

2005, and received on or about February 

11, 2005. Tatos did not file an answer 

to BIS’s Charging Letter with the ALJ. 

On August 4, 2005, BIS filed a Motion 

for Default with the ALJ, recommending 

69312 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 219 / Tuesday, November 15, 2005 / Notices 

1The charged violations occurred in 2000. The 

Regulations governing the violations at issue are 

found in the 2000 version of the Code of Federal 

Regulations (15 CFR parts 730–74 (2000)). The 2005 

Regulations establish the procedures that apply to 

this matter. 

2Sections 50 U.S.C. 2401–2420 (2000) 

(hereinafter, ‘‘the Act’’). From August 21, 1994 

through November 12, 2000, the Act was in lapse. 

During that period, the President, through 

Executive Order 12924, which was extended by 

successive Presidential Notices, the last of which 

was August 3, 2000 (3 CFR, 2000 Comp. 397 

(2001)), continued the Regulations in effect under 

that Tatos be denied export privileges 

for a period of five years and that Tatos 

be required to pay a $55,000 penalty. 

Thereafter, on September 21, 2005, 

based on the record before it, the ALJ 

issued a Recommended Decision and 

Order in which he found that Tatos 

committed five violations of the 

Regulations and recommended the 

penalty proposed by BIS—denial of 

Tatos’ export privileges for five years 

and imposition of a $55,000 penalty 

against Tatos. 

The ALJ’s Recommended Decision 

and Order, together with the entire 

record in this case, has been referred to 

me for final action under section 766.22 

of the Regulations. I find that the record 

supports the ALJ’s findings of fact and 

conclusions of law regarding the 

liability of Tatos for the abovereferenced charges. I also find that the 

penalty recommended by the ALJ is 

appropriate, given the nature of the 

violations and the importance of 

preventing future unauthorized exports. 

Based on my review of the entire record, 

I affirm the findings of fact and 

conclusions of law in the ALJ’s 

Recommended Decision and Order. 

Accordingly, It Is Therefore Ordered, 

First, that a civil penalty of $55,000 is 

assessed against Phaedon Nicholas 

Criton Constan-Tatos a.k.a. Fred Tatos 

(‘‘Tatos’’), which shall be paid 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. 

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, 

Tatos 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 Tatos. Accordingly, if Tatos 

should fail to pay the civil penalty in a 

timely manner, the undersigned may 

enter an Order denying all of Tatos’

export privileges for a period of one year 

from the date of entry of this Order. 

Fourth, that, for a period of five years 

from the date of this Order, Phaedon 

Nicholas Criton Constan-Tatos a.k.a. 

Fred Tatos 119 Main Road, P.O. Box 30, 

Plumstead 7800, Cape Town, South 

Africa, and when acting for or on behalf 

of Tatos, his representatives, agents, 

assigns, and employees (‘‘Denied 

Person’’), 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. 

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 that 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 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. 

Seventh, that this Order does not 

prohibit any export, re-export 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 this Order shall be served 

on the Respondent and on BIS, and 

shall be published in the Federal 

Register. In addition, the ALJ’s 

Recommended Decision and Order, 

except for the section related to the 

Recommended Order, shall be 

published in the Federal Register. 

This Order, which constitutes the 

final agency action in this matter, is 

effective upon publication in the 

Federal Register. 

Dated: October 20, 2005. 

David H. McCormick, 

Under Secretary for Industry and Security. 

Recommended Decision and Order 

On January 28, 2005, the Bureau of 

Industry and Security, U.S. Department 

of Commerce (hereinafter, ‘‘BIS’’), 

issued a charging letter initiating this 

administrative enforcement proceeding 

against Phaedon Nicholas Criton 

Constan-Tatos (a.k.a. Fred Tatos) 

(hereinafter, ‘‘Tatos’’ ). The charging 

letter alleged that Tatos committed five 

(5) violations of the Export 

Administration Regulations (currently 

codified at 15 CFR parts 730–74 (2005)) 

(‘‘the Regulations’’),1 issued under the 

Export Administration Act of 1979, as 

amended.2

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 219 / Tuesday, November 15, 2005 / Notices 69313 

the International Emergency Economic Powers Act 

(50 U.S.C. 1701–06 (2000)) (hereinafter, ‘‘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 13222 

of August 17, 2001 (3 CFR, 2001 Comp. 783 (2002)), 

as extended by the Notice of August 2, 2005 (70 FR 

45273 (August 5, 2005)), has continued the 

Regulations in effect under IEEPA. 

3Pursuant to section 13(c)(1) of the Export 

Administration Act and section 766.17(b)(2) of the 

Regulations, in export control enforcement cases, 

the Administrative Law Judge makes recommended 

findings of fact and conclusions of law that the 

Under Secretary must affirm, modify or vacate. The 

Under Secretary’s action is the final decision for the 

U.S. Commerce Department. 

Specifically, the charging letter 

alleged that Tatos violated the Denial 

Order imposed against Suburban Guns 

(Pty) Ltd. by placing an order on or 

about February 2, 2000, with a U.S. 

company for shotgun screw chokes, 

choke tubes, and other accessories, 

which were exported to Suburban Guns 

(Pty) Ltd. on or about March 1, 2000 

(Charge 1). The charging letter also 

alleged that Tatos violated Suburban 

Guns (Pty) Ltd.’s Denial Order by 

placing an additional order on or about 

March 29, 2000, with a U.S. company 

for shotgun barrels and screw chokes, 

which were exported to Suburban Guns 

(Pty) Ltd. on or about March 30, 2000 

(Charge 3). Pursuant to the Denial Order 

imposed against Suburban Guns (Pty) 

Ltd., Tatos was prohibited from 

facilitating the acquisition of any item 

subject to the Regulations that was 

exported or to be exported from the 

United States. See Action Affecting 

Export Privileges; Suburban Guns (Pty) 

Ltd., 63 FR 15828 (Apr. 1, 1998). The 

BIS charging letter also alleged that, in 

both exports described above, Tatos 

ordered and purchased the items with 

knowledge that violations of an Order 

issued under the Act and the 

Regulations would occur (Charges 2 and 

4). Finally, the BIS charging letter 

alleged that, on or about October 28, 

2004, Tatos made a false representation 

to an official of BIS in the course of a 

BIS investigation (Charge 5). 

Section 766.3(b)(1) of the Regulations 

provides that notice of issuance of a 

charging letter shall be served on a 

respondent by mailing a copy by 

registered or certified mail addressed to 

the respondent at the resondent’s last 

known address. In accordance with the 

Regulations, on January 28, 2005, BIS 

mailed the notice of issuance of a 

charging letter by certified mail to Tatos 

at: Phaedon Nicholas Criton ConstanTatos (a.k.a. Fred Tatos), Suburban Guns 

(Pty) Ltd., 119 Main Road, P.O. Box 30, 

Plumstead 7800, Cape Town, South 

Africa. BIS has submitted evidence that 

establishes that this charging letter was 

received by Suburban Guns (Pty) Ltd. on 

or about February 11, 2005. These 

actions constitute service under the 

Regulations. 

Section 766.6(a) of the Regulations 

provides, in pertinent part, that ‘‘[t]he 

respondent must answer the charging 

letter within thirty (30) days after being 

served with notice of issuance of the 

charging letter’’ initiating the 

administrative enforcement proceeding. 

To date, Tatos has not filed an answer 

to the charging letter. 

Pursuant to the default procedures set 

forth in section 766.7 of the Regulations, 

I find the facts to be as alleged in the 

charging letter, and hereby determine 

that those facts establish Tatos 

committed two violations of section 

764.2(e), one violation of section 

764.2(g), and two violations of section 

764.2(k) of the Regulations. 

Section 764.3 of the Regulations sets 

forth the sanctions BIS may seek for 

violations of the Regulations. The 

applicable sanctions are: (1) A monetary 

penalty; (2) suspension from practice 

before the Department of Commerce; 

and (3) denial of export privileges under 

the Regulations. See 15 CFR 764.3 

(2005). Because Tatos knowingly 

violated the Regulations by violating the 

Denial Order imposed against Suburban 

Guns (Pty) Ltd. and made a false 

representation to an official of BIS in the 

course of the investigation of these 

circumstances, BIS requests that I 

recommend to the Undersecretary of 

Commerce for Industry and Security 3

that Suburban Guns (Pty) Ltd.’s export 

privileges be denied for five (5) years, 

and that I impose a civil penalty of fiftyfive thousand dollars ($55,000). 

BIS has suggested these sanctions 

because Tatos’ actions, in twice 

violating a Denial Order imposed 

against Suburban Guns (Pty) Ltd., doing 

so with knowledge that a violation of 

the Regulations was occurring, and 

making a false representation to an 

official of BIS investigating these 

circumstances evidence a blatant 

disregard for U.S. export control laws. 

Further, BIS believes that denying 

Tatos’ export privileges in this case is 

not a sufficient deterrent to Tatos, as 

evidenced by his willingness to violate 

the denial order in effect against 

Suburban Guns (Pty) Ltd. In light of 

these circumstances, BIS believes that 

appropriate action is the denial of Tatos’

export privileges for five (5) years and 

a civil penalty of fifty-five thousand 

dollars ($55,000). 

On this basis, I concur with BIS and 

recommend that the Under Secretary 

enter an Order denying Tatos’ export 

privileges for a period of five (5) years 

and requiring Tatos to pay a civil 

penalty in the amount of fifty-five 

thousand dollars ($55,000). These 

penalties are consistent with penalties 

imposed in recent cases under the 

Regulations involving violations of 

denial orders. In the Matters of Yaudat 

Mustafa Talyi a.k.a. Yaudat Mustafa 

a.k.a. Joseph Talyi, 41 Chamale Cove 

East, Slidell, Louisiana 70460, 

Respondents; Decision and Order, 69 FR 

77.177 (Dec. 27, 2004) (affirming the 

ALJ’s recommendations that a twenty 

year denial and maximum civil penalty 

of $11,000 per violation was appropriate 

where an individual exported oil field 

parts to Libya without authorization, in 

violation of the terms and conditions of 

a BIS order temporarily denying his 

export privileges and with knowledge 

that a violation would occur; and 

solicited a violation of the Regulations 

by ordering oil field parts from an 

equipment manufacturer located in the 

United States without authorization and 

with knowledge that a violation would 

occur). A five (5) year denial of Tatos’

export privileges is warranted because 

Tatos’ violations, like those of the 

defendants in the above-cited case, were 

deliberate acts in violation of an order 

denying export privileges. 

Recommended Order—[Redacted] 

Accordingly, I am referring this 

Recommended Decision and Order to 

the Under Secretary of Commerce for 

Industry and Security for review and 

final action for the agency, without 

further notice to the respondent, as 

provided in section 766.7 of the 

Regulations. 

Within thirty (30) days after receipt of 

this Recommended Decision and Order, 

the Under Secretary will issue a written 

order affirming, modifying or vacating 

the Recommended Decision and Order. 

See 15 CFR 766.22(c). 

Done and dated this 21st day of 

September 2005, New York, NY. 

Walter J. Brudzinski, 

Administrative Law Judge, U.S. Coast 

Guard. 

Certificate of Service 

I hereby certify that I have served the 

foregoing Recommended Decision and 

Order by Federal Express to the 

following persons: 

Under Secretary for Export 

Administration, Bureau of Industry and 

Security, U.S. Department of Commerce, 

Room H–3839, 14th & Constitution 

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230. 

Phone: 202–482–5301. 

ALJ Docketing Center, Baltimore, 40 

S. Gay Street, Room 412, Baltimore, 

Maryland 21202–4022. Phone: 410–

962–7434. 

69314 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 219 / Tuesday, November 15, 2005 / Notices 

1The charged violations occurred in 2000. The 

Regulations governing the violations at issue are 

found in the 2000 version of the Code of Federal 

Regulations. 15 CFR parts 730–774 (2000). The 2005 

Regulations establish the procedures that apply to 

this matter. 

2From August 21, 1994 through November 12, 

2000, the Act was in lapse. During that period, the 

President, through Executive Order 12924, which 

had been extended by successive Presidential 

Notices, the last of which was August 3, 2000 (3 

CFR, 2000 Comp. 397 (2001)), continued the 

Regulations in effect under the International 

Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701–

1706 (2000)) (‘‘IEEPA’’). On November 13, 2000, the 

Act was reauthorized by Public Law No. 106–508 

(114 Stat. 2360 (2000)) 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 13222 of August 17, 2001 (3 CFR, 

2001 Comp. 783 (2002)), which has been extended 

by successive Presidential Notices, the most recent 

being that of August 2, 2005 (70 FR 45273, Aug. 5, 

2005), has continued the Regulations in effect under 

IEEPA. 

3Action Affecting Export Privileges; Suburban 

Guns (Pty) Ltd., 63 FR 15828 (Apr. 1, 1998). 

4EAR99 is a designation for items subject to the 

Regulations but not listed on the Commerce Control 

List. 

Done and dated this 21st day of 

September, 2005 at New York, NY. 

Regina V. Thompson, 

Paralegal Specialist, Assistant to the 

Administrative Law Judge. 

[FR Doc. 05–22608 Filed 11–14–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DT–M 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

Bureau of Industry and Security 

[05–BIS–02] 

In the Matter of: Suburban Guns (Pty) 

Ltd., 119 Main Road, Plumstead 7800, 

Cape Town, South Africa, Respondent 

Decision and Order 

This matter is before me upon a 

Recommended Decision and Order of an 

Administrative Law Judge (‘‘ALJ’’), as 

further described below. 

In a charging letter filed on January 

28, 2005, the Bureau of Industry and 

Security (‘‘BIS’’) alleged that respondent 

Suburban Guns (Pty) Ltd. (‘‘Suburban 

Guns’’) committed four violations of the 

Export Administration Regulations (the 

‘‘Regulations’’),1 issued under the 

Export Administration Act of 1979, as 

amended (50 U.S.C. app. §§ 2401–2420 

(2000)) (the ‘‘Act’’).2 Specifically, BIS 

alleged that Suburban Guns committed 

two violations of section 764.2(a) and 

two violations of section 764.2(e) of the 

Regulations. The charging letter alleged 

that, in violation of a denial of export 

privileges imposed against it by BIS on 

April 1, 1998,3 Suburban Guns placed 

two orders with U.S. companies for 

shotgun screw chokes, choke tubes, and 

barrels, which are classified under 

Export Control Classification Number 

(‘‘ECCN’’) 0A984, and for other shotgun 

accessories, which are designated as 

EAR99 items.4 The charging letter 

further alleged that Suburban Guns 

committed these acts in violation of the 

Denial Order imposed against it with 

knowledge that a violation of an Order 

issued under the Act and the 

Regulations would occur. 

BIS’s charging letter was served by 

certified mail on Suburban Guns on 

January 28, 2005, and received on or 

about February 10, 2005. Suburban 

Guns did not file an answer to BIS’s 

charging letter with the ALJ. 

On August 4, 2005, BIS filed a Motion 

for Default with the ALJ, recommending 

that Suburban Guns be denied export 

privileges for a period of five years, 

beginning on July 25, 2007 when its 

current Denial Order expires, and that 

Suburban Guns be required to pay a 

$44,000 penalty. Thereafter, on 

September 21, 2005, based on the record 

before it, the ALJ issued a 

Recommended Decision and Order in 

which he found that Suburban Guns 

committed four violations of the 

Regulations and recommended the 

penalty proposed by BIS—denial of 

Suburban Guns’ export privileges for 

five years, beginning on July 25, 2007, 

and imposition of a $44,000 penalty 

against Suburban Guns. 

The ALJ’s Recommended Decision 

and Order, together with the entire 

record in this case, has been referred to 

me for final action under section 766.22 

of the Regulations. I find that the record 

supports the ALJ’s findings of fact and 

conclusions of law regarding the 

liability of Suburban Guns for the 

above-referenced charges. I also find 

that the penalty recommended by the 

ALJ is appropriate, given the nature of 

the violations and the importance of 

preventing future unauthorized exports. 

Based on my review of the entire record, 

I affirm the findings of fact and 

conclusions of law in the ALJ’s 

Recommended Decision and Order. 

Accordingly, it is Therefore Order, 

First, that a civil penalty of $44,000 is 

assessed against Suburban Guns, which 

shall be paid 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. 

Second, that, pursuant to the Debt 

Collection Act of 1982, as amended (31 

U.S.C. 3701–3720E (2000)), the civil 

penalty owned 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, 

Suburban Guns 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 privileged granted, or to 

be granted, to Suburban Guns. 

Accordingly, if Suburban Guns should 

fail to pay the civil penalty in a timely 

manner, the undersigned may enter an 

Order denying all of Suburban Guns’

export privileges for a period of one year 

from the date of entry of this Order. 

Fourth, that, for a period of five years 

from July 25, 2007, the date of 

expiration of the Denial Order imposed 

against Suburban Guns in Action 

Affecting Export Privileges; Suburban 

Guns (Pty) Ltd., 63, FR 15828 (Apr. 1, 

1998), Suburban Guns (Pty) Ltd. 119 

Main Road, P.O. Box 30, Plumstead 

7800, Cape Town, South Africa, and all 

of its successors or assigns, and, when 

acting for or on behalf of Suburban 

Guns, its officers, representatives, 

agents, and employees (‘‘Denied 

Person’’), 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. 

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,