Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 39 / Wednesday, February 28, 2007 / Notices 8967 

1The charged violations occurred from 1998, 

1999 and 2001. The Regulations governing the 

violations at issue are found in the 1998, 1999 and 

2001 versions of the Code of Federal Regulations 

(15 CFR parts 730–774 (1998–1999, 2001)). Actions 

taken during this administrative enforcement 

proceeding are governed by the Regulations in 

effect at the time such actions take place. 

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 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 3, 2006, (71 FR 44,551 (August 

7, 2006)), has continued the Regulations in effect 

under IEEPA. 

Signed at Washington, DC, this 12th day of 

February 2007. 

David M. Spooner, 

Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Import 

Administration. 

Alternate Chairman Foreign–Trade Zones 

Board. 

Attest: 

Andrew McGilvray, 

Executive Secretary. 

[FR Doc. E7–3428 Filed 2–27–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

Bureau of Industry and Security 

[Docket No. 05–BIS–10 

In the Matter of: William Kovacs, 24 

Georgetown Road, Boxford, MA 01921, 

Respondent; Final 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 June 28, 

2005, the Bureau of Industry and 

Security (‘‘BIS’’) alleged that 

Respondent, William Kovacs, 

committed six violations of the Export 

Administration Regulations 

(‘‘Regulations’’)1, issued under the 

Export Administration Act of 1979, as 

amended (50 U.S.C. app. 2401–2420 

(2000)) (the ‘‘Act’’),2 related to the 

illegal export of an industrial furnace to 

the Beijing Research Institute of 

Materials and Technology (‘‘BRIMT’’) in 

the People’s Republic of China. The 

export of the furnace, which took place 

in 1999, required a license because the 

exporter, Elatec (Kovacs’ company), 

knew or had reason to know at the time 

of the export that the item would be 

used in the design, development, 

production, or use of missiles in or by 

China, as described in 744.3(a)(2) of the 

Regulations. A license application 

submitted for the export was explicitly 

denied by BIS before the export 

occurred, and no license for the export 

was ever obtained. 

The charging letter alleged that 

Kovacs sold, transferred, forwarded 

and/or disposed of the furnace with 

knowledge that a violation would 

subsequently occur, that Kovacs 

conspired to export the furnace without 

a license, that Kovacs caused the 

furnace to be exported without a 

license, and that Kovacs took actions 

with the intent to evade the Regulations 

in connection with the furnace export. 

Further, the charging letter alleged that 

Kovacs made two false statements to the 

U.S. Government during the 

investigation of the illegal export. 

In accordance with 766.3(b)(1) of the 

Regulations, on June 28, 2005, BIS 

mailed the notice of issuance of the 

charging letter by certified mail to 

Kovacs at his last known address. The 

notice of issuance of a charging letter 

was received and signed for by Kovacs 

on July 5, 2005. To date, Kovacs has not 

filed an answer to the charging letter 

with the ALJ, as required by the 

Regulations. 

In accordance with 766.7 of the 

Regulations, BIS filed a Motion for 

Default Order on January 11, 2007. This 

Motion for Default Order recommended 

that Kovacs be denied export privileges 

under the Regulations for a period of 5 

years and be assessed a monetary 

penalty of $66,000. Under 766.7(a) of 

the Regulations, ‘‘[f]ailure of the 

respondent to file an answer within the 

time provided constitutes a waiver of 

the respondent’s right to appear,’’ and 

‘‘on BIS’s motion and without further 

notice to the respondent, ]the ALJ] shall 

find the facts to be as alleged in the 

charging letter.’’ Based upon the record 

before him, the ALJ held Kovacs in 

default. 

On January 26, 2007, the ALJ issued 

a Recommended Decision and Order in 

which he found that Kovacs committed 

one violation each of § 764.2(b), (d), (e) 

and (h) of the Regulations, and two 

violations of § 764.2(g) of the 

Regulations. The ALJ also recommended 

the penalty of denial of Kovacs’ export 

privileges for five years and a monetary 

penalty of $66,000. 

The ALJ’s Recommended Decision 

and Order, together with the entire 

record in this case, has been referred to 

me for final action under § 766.22 of the 

Regulations. 

I find that the record supports the 

ALJ’s findings of fact and conclusions of 

law. I also find that the penalty 

recommended by the ALJ is appropriate, 

given the nature of the violations and 

the facts of this case, 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 contained in the 

ALJ’s Recommended Decision and 

Order. 

Accordingly, it is therefore ordered, 

First, that a civil penalty of $66,000 is 

assessed against Kovacs which shall be 

paid to the 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, 

Kovacs will be assessed, in addition to 

the full amount of the civil penalty and 

interest, a penalty charge and an 

administrative charge, as further 

described in the attached Notice. 

Third, that, for a period of five years 

from the date of this Order, William 

Kovacs, 24 Georgetown Road, Boxford, 

MA 01921, and when acting for or on 

behalf of Kovacs, his representatives, 

agents, assigns and employees 

(hereinafter collectively referred to as 

the ‘‘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. Benefitting 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. 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
8968 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 39 / Wednesday, February 28, 2007 / Notices 

1The charged violations occurred during 1998, 

1999 and 2001. The Regulations governing the 

violations at issue are found in the 1998, 1999 and 

2001 versions of the Code of Federal Regulations 

(15 CFR parts 730–774 (1998–1999, 2001)). The 

2006 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 12,924, 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 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 3, 2006, 71 FR 44551 (Aug. 7, 2006), has 

continued the Regulations in effect under the 

IEEPA. 

Fourth, 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 

Untied 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. 

Fifth, that, after notice and 

opportunity for comment as provided in 

§ 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. 

Sixth, that this Order does not 

prohibit any export, reexport, or other 

transaction subject to the Regulations 

where the only items involved that are 

subject to the Regulations are the 

foreign-produced direct product of U.S.- 

origin technology. 

Seventh, that this Order shall be 

served on the Denied Person 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 immediately. 

Dated: February 22, 2007. 

Mark Foulon, 

Acting Under Secretary of Commerce for 

Industry and Security. 

Attachments 

Notice 

The Order to which this Notice is 

attached describes the reasons for the 

assessment of the civil monetary 

penalty. It also specifies the amount 

owed and the date by which payment of 

the civil penalty is due and payable. 

Under the Debt Collection Act of 

1982, as amended (31 U.S.C. 3701–

3720E (2000)), and the Federal Claims 

Collection Standards (31 CFR parts 900–

904 (2002)), interest accrues on any and 

all civil monetary penalties owed and 

unpaid under the Order, from the date 

of the Order until paid in full. The rate 

of interest assessed respondent is the 

rate of the current value of funds to the 

U.S. Treasury on the date that the Order 

was entered. However, interest is 

waived on any portion paid within 30 

days of the date of the Order. See 31 

U.S.C.A. 3717 and 31 CFR 901.9. 

The civil monetary penalty will be 

delinquent if not paid by the due date 

specified in the Order. If the penalty 

becomes delinquent, interest will 

continue to accrue on the balance 

remaining due and unpaid, and 

respondent will also be assessed both an 

administrative charge to cover the cost 

of processing and handling the 

delinquent claim and a penalty charge 

of 6 percent per year. However, 

although the penalty charge will be 

computed from the date that the civil 

penalty becomes delinquent, it will be 

assessed only on sums due and unpaid 

for over 90 days after that date. See 31 

U.S.C.A. 3717 and 31 CFR 901.9. 

The foregoing constitutes the initial 

written notice and demand to 

respondent in accordance with 

§ 901.2(b) of the Federal Claims 

Collection Standards (31 CFR 901.2(b)). 

Instructions for Payment of Civil 

Penalty 

1. The civil penalty check should be 

made payable to: U.S. Department of 

Commerce. 

2. The check should be mailed to: 

U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau 

of Industry and Security, Room H–6622, 

14th Street and Constitution Avenue, 

NW., Washington, DC. Attn: Jennifer 

Kuo. 

Recommended Decision and Order 

On June 28, 2005, the Bureau of 

Industry and Security (‘‘BIS’’), U.S. 

Department Commerce, issued a 

Charging Letter initiating this 

administrative enforcement proceeding 

against William Kovacs (‘‘Kovacs’’). The 

Charging Letter alleged that Kovacs 

committed six violations of the Export 

Administration Regulations (currently 

codified at 15 CFR parts 730–774 

(2006)) (‘‘Regulations’’),1 issued under 

the Export Administration Act of 1979, 

as amended (50 U.S.C. App. 2401–2420 

(2000)) (‘‘Act’’).2 In accordance with 

§ 766.7 of Regulations, BIS moved for 

the issuance of an Order of Default 

against Kovacs for his failure to file an 

answer to the allegations in the 

Charging letter issued by BIS within the 

time period required by law. 

A. Legal Authority for Issuing an Order 

of Default 

Section 766.7 of the Regulations states 

that BIS may file a motion for an order 

of default if a respondent fails to file a 

timely answer to a charging letter. That 

section, entitled Default, provides in 

pertinent part: 

Failure of the respondent to file an answer 

within the time provided constitutes a waiver 

of the respondent’s right to appear and 

contest the allegations in the charging letter. 

In such event, the administrative law judge, 

on BIS’s motion and without further notice 

to the respondent, shall find the facts to be 

as alleged in the charging letter and render 

an initial or recommended decision 

containing findings of fact and appropriate 

conclusions of law and issue or recommend 

an order imposing appropriate sanctions. 

15 CFR 766.7 (2005). 

Pursuant to § 766.6 of the Regulations, 

a respondent must file an answer to the 

charging letter ‘‘within 30 days after 

being served with notice of the issuance 

of the charging latter * * *’’ initiating 

the proceeding. 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 39 / Wednesday, February 28, 2007 / Notices 8969 

B. Service of the Notice of Issuance of 

Charging Letter 

In the case, BIS served notice of 

issuance of the Charging Letter in 

accordance with § 766.3(b)(1) of the 

Regulations when it sent a copy of the 

Charging Letter by certified mail to 

Kovacs at his last known address on 

June 28, 2005. The notice of issuance of 

a charging letter was received and 

signed for by Kovacs on July 5, 2005. 

C. Summary of Violations Charged 

The Charging Letter issued by BIS 

included a total of six (6) charges related 

to the illegal export of a manufacturing 

furnace to the Beijing Research Institute 

of Materials and Technology (‘‘BRIMT’’) 

in the People’s Republic of China. The 

export of the furnace, which took place 

in 1999, required a license because the 

exporter, Elatec (Kovacs’ company), 

knew or had reason to know at the time 

of the export that the item would be 

used in the design, development, 

production, or use of missiles in or by 

China, as described in § 744.39a)(2) of 

the Regulations. A license application 

submitted for the export was explicitly 

denied by BIS before the export 

occurred, and no license for the export 

was over obtained. 

The Charging Letter alleged that 

Kovacs sold, transferred, forwarded 

and/or disposed of the furnace with 

knowledge that a violation would 

subsequently occur, that Kovacs 

conspired to export the furnace without 

a license, that Kovacs caused the 

furnace to be exported without a 

license, and that Kovacs took actions 

with the intent to evade the Regulations 

in connection with the furnace export. 

Furthermore, the Charging Letter alleged 

that Kovacs made two false statements 

to the U.S. Government during the 

investigation of the illegal export. 

D. Penalty Recommendation 

[Redacted Section] 

E. Conclusion 

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 § 766.7 of the Regulations. 

Within 30 days after receipt of this 

Recommended Decision and Order, the 

Under Secretary shall issue a written 

order affirming, modifying, or vacating 

the Recommended Decision and Order. 

See 15 CFR 766.22(c). 

Dated: January 26, 2007. 

The Honorable Joseph N. Ingolia, 

Chief Administrative Law Judge. 

[FR Doc. 07–905 Filed 2–27–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DT–M 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

Initiation of Antidumping and 

Countervailing Duty Administrative 

Reviews 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce 

(the Department) has received requests 

to conduct administrative reviews of 

various antidumping and countervailing 

duty orders and findings with January 

anniversary dates. In accordance with 

the Department’s regulations, we are 

initiating those administrative reviews. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: February 28,2007. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Sheila E. Forbes, Office of AD/CVD 

Operations, Customs Unit, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20230, 

telephone: (202) 482–4697. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

The Department has received timely 

requests, in accordance with 19 CFR 

351.213(b)(2004), for administrative 

reviews of various antidumping and 

countervailing duty orders and findings 

with January anniversary dates. With 

respect to the antidumping duty order 

on Wooden Bedroom Furniture from the 

People’s Republic of China, the 

initiation of the antidumping duty 

administrative review for that case is 

being published in a separate initiation 

notice. 

Initiation of Reviews: 

In accordance with section 19 CFR 

351.221(c)(1)(i), we are initiating 

administrative reviews of the following 

antidumping and countervailing duty 

orders and findings. We intend to issue 

the final results of these reviews not 

later than January 31, 2008. 

Antidumping Duty Proceedings Period to be Reviewed 

THE PEOPLE’S REPUBLIC OF CHINA: Folding Gift Boxes1.

A–570–866 ................................................................................................................................................................. 1/1/06 - 12/31/06 

Red Point Paper Products Co., Ltd./Red Point Paper Products.

Factory (Dongguan Shilong)/Silver Team Trading Ltd..

THE PEOPLE’S REPUBLIC OF CHINA: Wooden Bedroom Furniture2.

A–570–890 ................................................................................................................................................................. 1/1/06 - 12/31/06 

Countervailing Duty Proceedings.

None..

Suspension Agreements.

RUSSIA: Certain Cut–to-Length Carbon Steel Plate.

A–821–808 ................................................................................................................................................................. 1/1/06 - 12/31/06 

Joint Stock Company Severstal.

1 If one of the above named companies does not qualify for a separate rate, allother exporters of Folding Gift Boxes from the People’s Republic of China who have not qualified for a separate rate are deemed to be covered by this review as part of the single PRC entity of which the 

named exporters are a part. 2The administrative review for the above referenced case will be published in a separate initiation notice. 

During any administrative review 

covering all or part of a period falling 

between the first and second or third 

and fourth anniversary of the 

publication of an antidumping duty 

order under section 351.211 or a 

determination under section 

351.218(f)(4) to continue an order or 

suspended investigation (after sunset 

review), the Secretary, if requested by a 

domestic interested party within 30 

days of the date of publication of the 

notice of initiation of the review, will 

determine, consistent with FAG Italia v. 

United States, 291 F.3d 806 (Fed. Cir. 

2002), as appropriate, whether 

antidumping duties have been absorbed 

by an exporter or producer subject to the 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES