Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 41 / Friday, March 2, 2007 / Notices 9503 

1The violations charged occurred in 2002. The 

Regulations governing the violations at issues are 

found in the 2002 version of the Code of Federal 

Regulations (15 CFR Parts 730–774 (2002)). 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 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 preauthorized 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. 

currently designated official agencies. 

North Dakota Grain Inspection (North 

Dakota) also applied but subsequently 

withdrew its application. State Grain 

applied for designation to provide 

official services in the entire area 

currently assigned to them. Mid-Iowa 

applied for all or part of the area 

currently assigned to State Grain. GIPSA 

is publishing this notice to provide 

interested persons the opportunity to 

present comments concerning the 

applicants. Commenters are encouraged 

to submit reasons and pertinent data for 

support or objection to the designation 

of the applicants. All comments must be 

submitted to the Compliance Division at 

the above address. Comments and other 

available information will be considered 

in making a final decision. GIPSA will 

publish notice of the final decision in 

the Federal Register, and GIPSA will 

send the applicants written notification 

of the decision. 

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 71 et seq. 

Pat Donohue-Galvin, 

Acting Administrator, Grain Inspection, 

Packers and Stockyards Administration. 

[FR Doc. E7–3647 Filed 3–1–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–KD–P 

ARCHITECTURAL AND 

TRANSPORTATION BARRIERS 

COMPLIANCE BOARD 

Meeting 

AGENCY: Architectural and 

Transportation Barriers Compliance 

Board. 

ACTION: Notice of meeting. 

SUMMARY: The Architectural and 

Transportation Barriers Compliance 

Board (Access Board) has scheduled its 

regular business meetings to take place 

in Washington, DC, Monday through 

Wednesday, March 12–14, 2007, at the 

times and location noted below. 

DATES: The schedule of events is as 

follows: 

Monday, March 12, 2007 

10:30–Noon Technical Programs Committee 

1:30–3 p.m. Planning and Evaluation 

Committee 

3–3:30 Budget Committee 

3:30–5 Committee of the Whole—Board 

meeting dates; Additional Board 

members; Transfer heights for 

amusement rides (Closed Session) 

Tuesday, March 13, 2007 

9–Noon Passenger Vessels Guidelines Ad 

Hoc Committee 

1:30–5 p.m. Transportation Vehicle 

Guidelines Ad Hoc Committee 

Wednesday, March 14, 2007 

9 a.m.–Noon Electronic and Information 

Technology–Access Issues in Electronic 

and Information Technology 

1:30–3 p.m. Board Meeting 

ADDRESSES: All meetings will be held at 

The Madison Hotel, 1177 15th Street, 

NW., Washington, DC 20005. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

further information regarding the 

meetings, please contact Lawrence W. 

Roffee, Executive Director, (202) 272–

0001 (voice) and (202) 272–0082 (TTY). 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: At the 

Board meeting, the Access Board will 

consider the following agenda items: 

• Approval of the January 2007 draft 

Board Meeting Minutes 

• Technical Programs Committee 

Report 

• Planning and Evaluation Committee 

Report 

• Budget Committee Report 

• Committee of the Whole Report 

• Transportation Vehicle Guidelines 

Ad Hoc Committee Report 

• Passenger Vessels Guidelines Ad 

Hoc Committee Report 

• Election of Officers 

All meetings are accessible to persons 

with disabilities. An assistive listening 

system, computer assisted real-time 

transcription (CART), and sign language 

interpreters will be available at the 

Board meetings. Persons attending 

Board meetings are requested to refrain 

from using perfume, cologne, and other 

fragrances for the comfort of other 

participants. 

Lisa Fairhall, 

Deputy General Counsel. 

[FR Doc. E7–3639 Filed 3–1–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8150–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

Bureau of Industry and Security 

[Docket No. 04–BIS–15] 

In the Matter of: S.P. Equipamentos de 

Protec ̧a ̃o ao Trabalho Ltda., Rua 

Visconde de Inhau ́ma 386–Sau ́de, 

04146–030 Sa ̃o Paulo, Brazil, 

Respondent; Final Decision and Order 

This matter is before me upon a 

Recommended Decision and Order 

(‘‘RDO’’) of an Administrative Law 

Judge (‘‘ALJ’’), as further described 

below. 

In a charging letter filed on September 

13, 2004, the Bureau of Industry and 

Security (‘‘BIS’’) alleged that 

Respondent, S.P. Equipamentos de 

Protec ̧a ̃o ao Trabalho Ltda. (‘‘S.P. 

Equipamentos’’), committed two 

violations of the Export Administration 

Regulations (‘‘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, the charging letter alleged 

that S.P. Equipamentos engaged in 

conduct prohibited by the Regulations 

by transferring one thermal imaging 

camera classified under Export Control 

Classification Number (‘‘ECCN’’) 

6A003.b.4 to the State Secretariet of 

Civil Defense (Military Police of the 

State of Rio de Janeiro) in violation of 

condition 4 of license D274828, which 

forbade the resale, reexport, or transfer 

of the thermal imaging camera to any 

part other than that listed on the license 

without the prior approval of the United 

States Government. In transferring the 

thermal imaging camera to a nonapproved end-user without prior U.S. 

Government authorization, S.P. 

Equipamentos committed one violation 

of Section 764.2(a) of the Regulations. 

The charging letter further alleged 

that S.P. Equipamentos sold one thermal 

imaging camera classified under ECCN 

6A003.b.4 to the State Secretariet of 

Civil Defense (Military Police of the 

State of Rio Janeiro) with the knowledge 

that doing so was a violation of 

condition 4 of license D274828, which 

forbade the resale, reexport, or transfer 

of the thermal imaging camera to any 

party other than that listed on the 

license without the prior approval of the 

United States Government. In 

transferring the thermal imaging camera 

with such knowledge, S.P. 

Equipamentos committed one violation 

of Section 764.2(e) of the Regulations. 

In accordance with Section 

766.3(b)(1) of the Regulations, on 

September 13, 2004, BIS mailed the 

notice of issuance of the charging letter 

by registered mail to S.P. Equipamentos 

at its last known address. The record 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with NOTICES
9504 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 41 / Friday, March 2, 2007 / Notices 

establishes that the notice of issuance of 

a charging letter was received by S.P. 

Equipamentos on September 24, 2004. 

Counsel for S.P. Equipamentos filed a 

Notice of Appearance in this matter of 

February 7, 2005. To date, however, S.P. 

Equipamentos has not filed an answer to 

the charging letter with the ALJ, as 

required by the Regulations. 

In accordance with Section 766.7 of 

the Regulations, BIS filed a Motion for 

Default Order on or about November 11, 

2006. This Motion for Default Order 

recommended that S.P. Equipamentos 

be denied export privileges for a period 

of ten years. Under Section 766.7(a) of 

the Regulations, ‘‘[f]ailure of the 

respondents 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.’’ The ALJ has found S.P. 

Equipamentos in default. 

On January 31, 2007, based on the 

record before him, the ALJ issued an 

RDO in which he found that S.P. 

Equipamentos committed one violation 

of Section 764.2(a) and one violation of 

Section 764.2(e). The ALJ also 

recommended the penalty of denial of 

S.P. Equipamentos’ export privileges 

under the Regulations for ten years. 

The ALJ’s RDO, 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. 

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 as recommended by 

the ALJ. 

Accordingly, it is therefore ordered, 

FIRST, that for a period of ten years 

from the date of this Order, S.P. 

Equipamentos de Protec ̧a ̃o ao Trabalho 

Ltda., Rua Visconde de Inhau ́ma, 386- 

Sau ́de, 04146–030 Sa ̃o Paulo, Brazil, its 

successors and assigns, and when acting 

for or on behalf of S.P. Equipamentos, 

its representatives, agents 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. 

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 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. 

Third, 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. 

Fourth, 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. 

Fifth, 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 26, 2007. 

Mark Foulon, 

Acting Under Secretary of Commerce, for 

Industry and Security. 

Certificate of Service 

I hereby certify that on February 26, 2007, 

I caused a copy of the foregoing Decision and 

Order signed by Mark Foulon, Acting Under 

Secretary of Commerce for Industry and 

Security, in the matter of S.P. Equipamentos 

de Protec ̧a ̃o ao Trabalho Ltda. (Docket No.: 

04–BIS–15), to be sent via FedEx or mailed 

first-class, postage prepaid to: 

S.P. Equipamentos de Protec ̧a ̃o ao Trabalho 

Ltda., Rua Visconde de Inhau ́ma, 386–

Sau ́de, 04146–030 Sa ̃o Paulo, Brazil. 

ALJ Docketing Center, Attn: Jenny L. Collins, 

United States Coast Guard, 40 S. Gay 

Street, Room 412, Baltimore, MD 21202–

4022. 

I hereby also certify that on February 26, 

2007, a copy of the same foregoing Decision 

and Order was delivered to Melissa B. 

Mannino, Esq., Office of Chief Counsel for 

Industry and Security, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, Room H–3839, 14th and 

Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 

20030. 

Catherine J. Parker, 

Executive Secretariat. 

Recommended Decision and Order 

On September 13, 2004, the Bureau of 

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

Department of Commerce, issued a 

Charging Letter initiating this 

administrative enforcement proceeding 

against S.P. Equipmantos de Protec ̧a ̃o ao 

Trabalho Ltda. (‘‘S.P. Equipamentos’’). 

The Charging Letter alleged that S.P. 

Equipamentos committed one violation 

of § 764.2(a) and one violation of 

§ 764.2(e) of the Export Administration 

Regulations (currently codified at 15 

CFR Parts 730–774 (2006)) 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 41 / Friday, March 2, 2007 / Notices 9505 

1The charged violations occurred during 2002. 

The Regulations governing the violations at issue 

are found in the 2002 version of the Code of Federal 

Regulations (15 CFR Parts 730–774 (2002)). The 

2006 Regulations establish the procedures that 

apply to this matter. 

2Since 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 

44,551 (August 7, 2006)), has continued the 

Regulations in effect under the International 

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

§§ 1701–1706 (2000)). 

(‘‘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 S.P. Equipamentos as S.P. 

Equipamentos failed 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 776.7 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 letter * * *’’ initiating 

the proceeding. 

B. Service of the Notice of Issuance of 

Charging Letter 

In this 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 registered mail to 

S.P. Equipamentos at its last known 

address on September 13, 2004. BIS 

submitted evidence that established the 

Charging letter was received by S.P. 

Equipamentos on or about September 

24, 2004. Counsel for S.P. Equipamentos 

filed a Notice of Appearance in this 

matter on February 7, 2005. To date, 

however, S.P. Equipamentos has failed 

to file an answer or otherwise file a 

response to the Charging Letter. 

Accordingly, because S.P. 

Equipamentos failed to file an answer to 

the Charging Letter within thirty (30) 

days from the time it received notice of 

issuance of the Charging Letter, as 

required by § 766.6 of the Regulations, 

the undersigned finds S.P. 

Equipamentos to be in default. 

C. Summary of Violations Charged 

The Charging Letter issued by BIS 

included a total of two (2) charges. 

Specifically, the Charging letter alleged 

that on one occasion, on or about 

February 25, 2002, S.P. Equipamentos 

engaged in conduct prohibited by the 

Regulations by transferring one thermal 

imaging camera classified under Export 

Control Classification Number 

(‘‘ECCN’’) 6A003.b.4 to State Secretariet 

of Civil Defense (Military Police of the 

State of Rio de Janeiro) in violation of 

condition 4 of license D274828, which 

forbade the resale, reexport, or transfer 

of the thermal imaging camera to any 

party other than that listed on the 

license without the prior approval of the 

United States Government. In 

transferring the thermal imaging camera 

to a non-approved end-user without 

prior U.S. Government authorization, 

S.P. Equipamentos committed one 

violation of § 764.2(a) of the 

Regulations. (Charge 1). 

The Charging Letter further alleged 

that S.P. Equipamentos sold one thermal 

imaging camera classified under ECCN 

6A003.b.4 to the State Secretariet of 

Civil Defense (Military Police of the 

State of Rio de Janeiro) with the 

knowledge that doing so was a violation 

of condition 4 license D274828, which 

forbade the resale, reexport, or transfer 

of the thermal imaging camera to any 

party other than that listed on the 

license without the prior approval of the 

United States Government. In 

transferring the thermal imaging camera 

with such knowledge, S.P. 

Equipamentos committed one violation 

of § 764.2(e) of the Regulations. 

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 thirty (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 31, 2007. 

The Honorable Joseph N. Ingolia, 

Chief Administrative Law Judge. 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that I have served the 

foregoing RECOMMENDED DECISION 

AND ORDER by First Class Mail, 

Postage Prepaid to the following person: 

Peter R. Klason, Esq., Office of Chief 

Counsel for Industry and Security, 

U.S. Department of Commerce, Room 

H–3839, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230, 

Telephone: (202) 482–5301, 

Facsimile: (202) 482–0085. 

Jenny L. Collins, 

Hearing Docket Clerk. 

Done and dated this 2nd day of February, 

2007, Baltimore, Maryland. 

[FR Doc. 07–949 Filed 3–1–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DT–M 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

Antidumping or Countervailing Duty 

Order, Finding, or Suspended 

Investigation; Opportunity To Request 

Administrative Review 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

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, NW., Washington, DC 20230, 

telephone: (202) 482–4697. 

Background 

Each year during the anniversary 

month of the publication of an 

antidumping or countervailing duty 

order, finding, or suspension of 

investigation, an interested party, as 

defined in section 771(9) of the Tariff 

Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), may 

request, in accordance with section 

351.213(2004) of the Department of 

Commerce (the Department) 

Regulations, that the Department 

conduct an administrative review of that 

antidumping or countervailing duty 

order, finding, or suspended 

investigation. 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with NOTICES