46480 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 192 / Thursday, October 5, 2017 / Notices 

1Henry also was convicted of a second count, 

specifically, conspiracy in violation of 18 U.S.C. 

Section 371. He was sentenced on this count to 60 

months in prison and three years of supervision 

release. His sentence on this count runs 

concurrently with his sentence, disused in the text 

above, for violating Section 38 of the AECA. 

1The Regulations are currently codified in the 

Code of Federal Regulations at 15 CFR parts 730– 

774 (2017). The Regulations issued pursuant to the 

Export Administration Act of 1979 (50 U.S.C. 4601– 

4623 (Supp. III 2015) (available at http://

uscode.house.gov)) (‘‘EAA’’ or ‘‘the Act’’). 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 15, 

2017 (82 FR 39005 (Aug. 16, 2017)), has continued 

the Regulations in effect under the International 

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

et seq. (2012)). 2BIS provided notice to Dahua via Henry. 

provisions of Part 756 of the 

Regulations. 

Fifth, a copy of this Order shall be 

delivered to the Hussain, and shall be 

published in the Federal Register. 

Sixth, this Order is effective 

immediately and shall remain in effect 

until October 3, 2026. 

Issued this 28th day of September, 2017. 

Karen H. Nies-Vogel, 

Director, Office of Exporter Services. 

[FR Doc. 2017–21476 Filed 10–4–17; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

Bureau of Industry and Security 

In the Matter of: Mark Henry (a/k/a 

Weida Zheng, a/k/a Scott Russel, a/k/a 

Bob Wilson, a/k/a Joanna Zhong), 

Inmate Number: 75602–053, FCI 

Schuylkill, Federal Correctional 

Institution, Satellite Camp, P.O. Box 

670, Minersville, PA 17954; 

Respondent; Dahua Electronics 

Corporation (a/k/a Bao An 

Corporation), 134–12 59th Avenue, 

Flushing, NY 11355, Related Person 

Order Denying Privileges 

A. Denial of Export Privileges of Mark 

Henry, a/k/a Weida Zheng, a/k/a Scott 

Russel, a/k/a Bob Wilson, a/k/a Joanna 

Zhong 

On November 19, 2015, in the U.S. 

District Court for the Eastern District of 

New York, Mark Henry, a/k/a Weida 

Zheng, a/k/a Scott Russel, a/k/a Bob 

Wilson, a/k/a Joanna Zhong (‘‘Henry’’), 

was convicted of violating Section 38 of 

the Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 

2778 (2012)) (‘‘AECA’’). Specifically, 

Henry was convicted of willfully and 

knowingly exporting, causing to be 

exported, and attempting to export from 

the United States to Taiwan defense 

articles listed on the United States 

Munitions List, specifically, ablative 

materials for use, among other things, as 

a protective coating for rocket nozzles, 

without the required State Department 

license. Henry was sentenced to 78 

months in prison for violating Sections 

38(b)(2) and (c) of the AECA, along with 

three years of supervised release and a 

$200 assessment.1

Section 766.25 of the Export 

Administration Regulations (‘‘EAR’’ or 

‘‘Regulations’’) 1 provides, in pertinent 

part, that ‘‘[t]he Director of the Office of 

Exporter Services, in consultation with 

the Director of the Office of Export 

Enforcement, may deny the export 

privileges of any person who has been 

convicted of a violation of the EAA 

[Export Administration Act of 1979], the 

EAR, or any order, license or 

authorization issued thereunder; any 

regulation, license, or order issued 

under the International Emergency 

Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701– 

1706); 18 U.S.C. 793, 794 or 798; section 

4(b) of the Internal Security Act of 1950 

(50 U.S.C. 783(b)), or section 38 of the 

Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 

2778).’’ 15 CFR 766.25(a); see also 

Section 11(h) of the EAA, 50 U.S.C. 

4610(h). The denial of export privileges 

under this provision may be for a period 

of up to ten (10) years from the date of 

the conviction. 15 CFR 766.25(d); see 

also 50 U.S.C. 4610(h). In addition, 

Section 750.8 of the Regulations states 

that the Bureau of Industry and Security 

(‘‘BIS’’)’s Office of Exporter Services 

may revoke any BIS licenses previously 

issued pursuant to the EAA or the 

Regulations in which the person had an 

interest at the time of his/her 

conviction. 

BIS received notice of Henry’s 

conviction for violating Section 38 of 

the AECA, and has provided notice and 

an opportunity for Henry to make a 

written submission to BIS, as provided 

in Section 766.25 of the Regulations. 

BIS has not received a submission from 

Henry. Based upon my review and 

consultations with BIS’s Office of 

Export Enforcement, including its 

Director, and the facts available to BIS, 

I have decided to deny Henry’s export 

privileges under the Regulations for a 

period of ten (10) years from the date of 

Henry’s conviction. I have also decided 

to revoke all licenses issued pursuant to 

the Act or Regulations in which Henry 

had an interest at the time of his 

conviction. 

B. Denial of Export Privileges of Related 

Person Dahua Electronics Corporation, 

a/k/a Bao An Corporation 

Section 766.25(h) of the Regulations 

provides that the Director of BIS’s Office 

of Exporter Services, in consultation 

with the Director of BIS’s Office of 

Export Enforcement, may take action in 

accordance with Section 766.23 of the 

Regulations to make applicable to 

related persons a denial order that is 

being sought or has issued under 

Section 766.25. Section 766.23 provides, 

in turn, that in order to prevent evasion 

of a denial order issued pursuant to Part 

766 of the Regulations, including 

pursuant to Section 766.25, the denial 

order made be made applicable not only 

to the respondent, but also to other 

persons related to the respondent by 

ownership, control, position of 

responsibility, affiliation, or other 

connection in the conduct of trade or 

business. 

As provided in Section 766.23, BIS 

gave notice to Dahua Electronics 

Corporation a/k/a Bao An Corporation 

(‘‘Dahua’’) that it intended to deny Mark 

Henry’s export privileges pursuant to 

Section 766.25 for a period of up to ten 

(10) years from the date of his 

conviction and intended to make that 

denial order applicable to Dahua 

pursuant to Sections 766.25 and 

766.23.2 BIS also provided notice that it 

has reason to believe that Dahua is 

related to Henry as set forth in Section 

766.23, that is, by ownership, control, 

position of responsibility, affiliation, or 

other connection in the conduct of trade 

or business, and reason to believe that 

naming Dahua as a person related to 

Henry would be necessary to prevent 

evasion of a denial order imposed 

against Henry. BIS gave Dahua an 

opportunity to oppose its addition as a 

related party by informing Dahua that it 

could make a written submission 

describing why Dahua is not related to 

Henry or why a denial order against 

Henry should not be applied to Dahua. 

Having received no submission from 

or on behalf of Dahua, I have decided, 

following consultations with BIS’s 

Office of Export Enforcement, including 

its Director, to name Dahua as a Related 

Person and make this Denial Order 

applicable to Dahua, thereby denying its 

export privileges for ten (10) years from 

the date of Henry’s conviction, that is, 

until November 19, 2025. I have also 

decided to revoke all licenses issued 

pursuant to the Act or Regulations in 

which Dahua had an interest at the time 

of Henry’s conviction. 


ethrower on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 192 / Thursday, October 5, 2017 / Notices 46481 

3As set forth in Section 766.23(c), the only issues 

that may be raised in such an appeal are whether 

the person so named is related to the respondent 

and whether the order is justified in order to 

prevent evasion. Thus, Dahua may not appeal the 

issuance of the denial order against Henry. 

1The Regulations are currently codified in the 

Code of Federal Regulations at 15 CFR parts 730– 

774 (2017). The Regulations issued pursuant to the 

Export Administration Act (50 U.S.C. 4601–4623 

(Supp. III 2015) (available at http://

uscode.house.gov)) (‘‘EAA’’ or ‘‘the Act’’). Since 

Continued 

Dahua was incorporated in New York 

State, and remains listed there as an 

active corporation. Henry, a naturalized 

U.S. citizen born in China, operated 

Dahua out of his residence in Flushing, 

New York, and is believed to own 

Dahua. He used Dahua to purchase 

various items from companies located in 

the United States, including tools, 

machine parts, materials used in 

machinery, and industrial chemicals, for 

export to end users or customers located 

in Asia, including China and Taiwan. 

Operating through Dahua, Henry 

received requests for products from 

customers located overseas and solicited 

orders for those products from suppliers 

and manufacturers located in the United 

States, including in connection with the 

violation of the AECA for which he was 

convicted. Thus, I find that Dahua is 

related to Henry within the meaning of 

Section 766.23, and that Dahua should 

be added as a related person to prevent 

evasion of this order. 

Accordingly, it is hereby ordered: 

First, from the date of this Order until 

November 19, 2025, Mark Henry, a/k/a 

Weida Zheng, a/k/a Scott Russel, a/k/a 

Bob Wilson, a/k/a Joanna Zhong, with a 

last known address of FCI Schuylkill, 

Federal Correctional Institution, 

Satellite Camp, P.O. Box 670, 

Minersville, PA 17954, and when acting 

for or on his behalf, his successors, 

assigns, employees, agents, or 

representatives, and Dahua Electronics 

Corporation, a/k/a Bao An Corporation, 

with a last known address of 134–12 

59th Avenue, Flushing, NY 11355, and 

when acting for or on its behalf, its 

successors, assigns, directors, officers, 

employees, agents, or representatives 

(each ‘‘a Denied Person’’ and 

collectively ‘‘the Denied Persons’’) may 

not, directly or indirectly, participate in 

any way in any transaction involving 

any commodity, software or technology 

(hereinafter collectively referred to as 

‘‘item’’) exported or to be exported from 

the United States that is subject to the 

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 engaging 

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 

from any other activity subject to the 

Regulations. 

Second, no person may, directly or 

indirectly, do any of the following: 

A. Export or reexport to or on behalf 

of a Denied Person any item subject to 

the Regulations; 

B. Take any action that facilitates the 

acquisition or attempted acquisition by 

a 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 a 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 a Denied Person of any 

item subject to the Regulations that has 

been exported from the United States; 

D. Obtain from a 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 which is owned, 

possessed or controlled by a Denied 

Person, or service any item, of whatever 

origin, that is owned, possessed or 

controlled by a 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, in addition to the Related 

Person named above, after notice and 

opportunity for comment as provided in 

section 766.23 of the Regulations, any 

other individual, firm, corporation, or 

other association or organization or 

other person related to a Denied Person 

by ownership, control, position of 

responsibility, affiliation, or other 

connection in the conduct of trade or 

business may also be made subject to 

the provisions of this Order if necessary 

to prevent evasion of this Order. 

Fourth, in accordance with Part 756 

and Section 766.25(g) of the 

Regulations, Henry may file an appeal of 

the issuance of this Order against him 

with the Under Secretary of Commerce 

for Industry and Security. The appeal 

must be filed within 45 days from the 

date of this Order and must comply 

with the provisions of Part 756 of the 

Regulations. 

Fifth, in accordance with Part 756 and 

Section 766.23(c) of the Regulations, 

Dahua may file an appeal of its being 

named as a related person in this Order 

with the Under Secretary of Commerce 

for Industry and Security.3 This appeal 

must be filed within 45 days from the 

date of this Order and must comply 

with the provisions of Part 756 of the 

Regulations. 

Sixth, a copy of this Order shall be 

delivered to Henry and Dahua and shall 

be published in the Federal Register. 

Seventh, this Order is effective 

immediately and shall remain in effect 

until November 19, 2025. 

Issued this 28th day of September, 2017. 

Karen H. Nies-Vogel, 

Director, Office of Exporter Services. 

[FR Doc. 2017–21475 Filed 10–4–17; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

Bureau of Industry and Security 

In the Matter of: Robert J. Shubert, Sr., 

Currently Incarcerated at: Inmate 

Number: 96749–020, FCI Coleman Low, 

P.O. Box 1031, Coleman, FL 33521; and 

With a Prior Known Address at: 417 

Hedlund Drive, Warner Robbins, GA 

31088 

Order Denying Export Privileges 

On October 15, 2014, in the U.S. 

District Court, Middle District of 

Georgia, Robert J. Shubert, Sr. 

(‘‘Shubert’’) was convicted of violating 

Section 38 of the Arms Export Control 

Act (22 U.S.C. 2778 (2012)) (‘‘AECA’’). 

Specifically, Shubert was convicted of 

knowingly and willfully exporting, from 

the United States to Japan, Dual Sensor 

Night Vision Goggles designated as 

defense articles on the United States 

Munitions List, without the required 

U.S. Department of State licenses. 

Shubert was sentenced to 78 months in 

prison, 36 months of supervised release, 

a $15,000 fine, and a $300 assessment. 

Section 766.25 of the Export 

Administration Regulations (‘‘EAR’’ or 

‘‘Regulations’’) 1 provides, in pertinent 


ethrower on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES