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, 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 219 / Tuesday, November 15, 2005 / Notices 69315 

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. 250 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 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. 

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 section in this matter, is 

effective upon publication in the 

Federal Register. 

Dated: October 20, 2005. 

David H. McCormick, 

Under Secretary for Industry and Security. 

Department of Commerce 

Bureau of Industry and Security 

[Docket No. 05–BIS–02] 

In the Matter of: Suburban Guns (Pty) 

Ltd., 119 Main Road, P.O. Box 30, 

Plumstead 7800, Cape Town, South 

Africa, Respondent 

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 Suburban 

Guns (Pty) Ltd. The charging letter alleged 

that Suburban Guns (Pty) Ltd. committed 

four (4) 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

Specifically, the charging letter alleged that 

Suburban Guns (Pty) Ltd. violated the Denial 

Order imposed against it 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 Suburban Guns (Pty) 

Ltd. violated its 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 it, Suburban Guns 

(Pty) Ltd. was prohibited from participating 

in any transaction involving 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, Suburban Guns 

(Pty) Ltd. 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). 

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 

respondent’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 

Suburban Guns (Pty) Ltd. at: 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 10, 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, Suburban Guns (Pty) 

Ltd. 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 that Suburban Guns (Pty) Ltd. 

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 Suburban Guns (Pty) Ltd. 

knowingly violated the Regulations by 

violating the Denial Order imposed against it, 

BIS requests that I recommended to the 

Undersecretary of Commerce for Industry 

and Security 3 that Suburban Guns (Pty) 

Ltd.’s export privileges be denied for five (5) 

years, beginning on July 25, 2007, when its 

current Denial Order, issued pursuant to 

section 11(h) of the Export Administration 

Act expires, and that I imposes to a civil 

penalty of forty-four thousand dollars 

($44,000). 

BIS has suggested these sanctions because 

Suburban Guns (Pty) Ltd.’s actions, in twice 

violating a Denial Order imposed against it, 

doing so with knowledge that a violation of 

the Regulations was occurring evidence a 

blatant disregard for U.S. export control laws. 

Further, BIS believes that denying Suburban 

Guns (Pty) Ltd.’s export privileges in this 

case is not a sufficient deterrent to Suburban 

Guns (Pty) Ltd.’s, as evidenced by its 

willingness to violate the denial order in 

effect against it. In light of these 

circumstances, BIS believes that appropriate 

69316 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 219 / Tuesday, November 15, 2005 / Notices 

section is the denial of Suburban Guns (Pty) 

Ltd.’s export privileges for five (5) years and 

a civil penalty of forty-four thousand dollars 

($44,000). 

On this basis, I concur with BIS and 

recommend that the Under Secretary enter an 

Order denying Suburban Guns (Pty) Ltd.’s 

export privileges for a period of five (5) years 

and requiring Suburban Guns (Pty) Ltd. to 

pay a civil penalty in the amount of fortyfour thousand dollars ($44,000). 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 77177 (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 Suburban Guns (Pty) 

Ltd.’s export privileges is warranted because 

Suburban Guns (Pty) Ltd.’s 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. 

Walter J. Brudzinski, 

Administrative Law Judge, U.S. Coast Guard. 

Certificate of Service 

I hereby certify that I have served the 

foregoing Recommended Decision & 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. 

Done and dated this 21st day of September, 

2005. New York, NY. 

Regina V. Thompson, 

Paralegal Specialist, Assistant to the 

Administrative Law Judge. 

[FR Doc. 05–22607 Filed 11–14–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DT–M 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–588–804] 

Notice of Correction to Amended Final 

Results of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review: Ball Bearings 

and Parts Thereof from Japan 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: On October 21, 2005, the 

Department of Commerce published in 

the Federal Register the amended final 

results of the administrative review of 

the antidumping duty order on ball 

bearings and parts thereof from Japan. 

The period of review is May 1, 2003, 

through April 30, 2004. Based on the 

correction of a certain ministerial error, 

we have changed the margin for Nippon 

Pillow Block Co., Ltd., for the 

administrative review of ball bearings 

and parts thereof from Japan. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: November 15, 2005. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Yang Jin Chun or Richard Rimlinger, 

Import Administration, International 

Trade Administration, U.S. Department 

of Commerce, 14th Street and 

Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, 

DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–5760 or 

(202) 482–4477, respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On October 21, 2005, the Department 

of Commerce (the Department) 

published in the Federal Register the 

amended final results of the 

administrative review of the 

antidumping duty order on ball bearings 

and parts thereof (ball bearings) from 

Japan covering the period May 1, 2003, 

through April 30, 2004 (70 FR 61252) 

(Amended Final Results Notice). 

We received a timely allegation of a 

ministerial error from Nippon Pillow 

Block Co., Ltd (NPB). In its comments 

dated October 26, 2005, NPB alleged 

that the Department released a correct 

amended margin percentage for NPB in 

the Department’s October 14, 2005, 

amended final analysis memorandum 

but published an incorrect amended 

margin percentage for NPB in the 

Amended Final Results Notice. The 

petitioner did not comment on the 

alleged ministerial error. 

We agree with NPB that the published 

margin was incorrect. We are now 

issuing the correct amended margin 

percentage for NPB in this notice. 

Amended Final Results of Review 

As a result of the correction of a 

clerical error, the weighted–average 

margin for exports of ball bearings by 

NPB for the period May 1, 2003, through 

April 30, 2004, is 15.51 percent. 

The Department will determine and 

the U.S. Bureau of Customs and Border 

Protection (CBP) shall assess 

antidumping duties on all appropriate 

entries. We will issue appropriate 

assessment instructions directly to CBP 

within 15 days of publication of these 

amended final results of review. Where 

the importer-/customer–specific 

assessment rate or amount is above de 

minimis, we will instruct CBP to assess 

duties on all entries of subject 

merchandise by that importer or for that 

customer. 

We will also direct CBP to collect 

cash deposits of estimated antidumping 

duties on all appropriate entries in 

accordance with the procedures 

discussed in Ball Bearings and Parts 

Thereof from France, et al.: Final 

Results of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Reviews, 70 FR 54711 

(September 16, 2005), and at the rate as 

amended by this notice. The amended 

deposit requirements are effective for all 

shipments of the subject merchandise 

entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, 

for consumption on or after the date 

these amended final results are 

published in the Federal Register. 

We are issuing and publishing this 

notice in accordance with sections 

751(a)(1) and 777(i) of the Tariff Act of 

1930, as amended, and 19 CFR 

§ 351.224(e). 

Dated: November 8, 2005. 

Stephen J. Claeys, 

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. E5–6302 Filed 11–14–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–570–836] 

Glycine from the People’s Republic of 

China; Continuation of Antidumping 

Duty Order 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: As a result of the 

determinations by the Department of 

Commerce (‘‘the Department’’) and the 

International Trade Commission (‘‘ITC’’) 

that revocation of the antidumping duty