Action Affecting Export Privileges; Pakland PME Corporation and Humayun Khan; Order Renewing Order Temporarily Denying Export Privileges, 45366-45367 [05-15477]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
45366
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 150 / Friday, August 5, 2005 / Notices
recordkeeping or other compliance
requirements for small entities other
than the small organizations that will
furnish the products to the government.
2. If approved, the action will result
in authorizing small entities to furnish
the products to the government.
3. There are no known regulatory
alternatives which would accomplish
the objectives of the Javits-WagnerO’Day Act (41 U.S.C. 46–48c) in
connection with the products proposed
for addition to the Procurement List.
Comments on this certification are
invited.
Commenters should identify the
statement(s) underlying the certification
on which they are providing additional
information.
(End of Certification)
The following product is proposed for
addition to Procurement List for
production by the nonprofit agencies
listed:
NPA: None currently authorized.
Contracting Activity: Department of
Transportation.
Service Type/Location: Janitorial/Custodial/
Hill City Office and Shop, Hill City, SD.
NPA: Southern Hills Developmental
Services, Inc., Hot Springs, SD.
Contracting Activity: Department of Interior,
Reston, VA.
Service Type/Location: Janitorial/Custodial/
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (Bosque del
Apache National Wildlife Refuge),
Socorro, NM.
NPA: Tresco, Inc., Las Cruces, NM.
Contracting Activity: Department of Interior,
Reston, VA.
Product
Tape, Baggage Inspection.
NSN: 7510–00–NIB–0673—2″ (inches)
wide by 110 yards long.
NPA: Cincinnati Association for the Blind,
Cincinnati, OH.
Contracting Activity: Transportation Security
Administration, Arlington, VA.
Action Affecting Export Privileges;
Pakland PME Corporation and
Humayun Khan; Order Renewing Order
Temporarily Denying Export Privileges
Deletions
Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification
I certify that the following action will
not have a significant impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
The major factors considered for this
certification were:
1. If approved, the action may result
in additional reporting, recordkeeping
or other compliance requirements for
small entities.
2. If approved, the action may result
in authorizing small entities to furnish
the services to the government.
3. There are no known regulatory
alternatives which would accomplish
the objectives of the Javits-WagnerO’Day Act (41 U.S.C. 46–48c) in
connection with the services proposed
for deletion from the Procurement List.
(End of Certification)
The following services are proposed
for deletion from the Procurement List:
Services
Service Type/Location: Dispatcher/Federal
Building, 222 West 7th Avenue,
Anchorage, AK.
NPA: Portland Habilitation Center, Inc.,
Portland, OR.
Contracting Activity: General Services
Administration.
Service Type/Location: Grounds
Maintenance/Federal Aviation
Administration Air Route Traffic,
Auburn, WA.
VerDate jul<14>2003
15:34 Aug 04, 2005
Jkt 205001
G. John Heyer,
General Counsel.
[FR Doc. E5–4222 Filed 8–4–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6353–01–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
Bureau of Industry and Security
In the Matters of: Pakland PME
Corporation, Unit 7&8, 2nd Floor,
Mohammadi Plaza, Jinnah Avenue, Blue
Area, F–6/4, Islamabad–44000, Pakistan,
and, Humayun Khan, Unit 7&8, 2nd
Floor, Mohammadi Plaza, Jinnah
Avenue, Blue Area, F–6/4, Islamabad–
44000, Pakistan, Respondents.
Pursuant to Section 766.24 of the
Export Administration Regulation
(‘‘EAR’’),1 the Bureau of Industry and
Security (‘‘BIS’’), U.S. Department of
Commerce, through its Office of Export
Enforcement (‘‘OEE’’), has requested
that I renew for 180 days an Order
temporarily denying export privileges of
Pakland PME Corporation, (‘‘Pakland’’),
Unit 7&8, 2nd Floor, Mohammadi Plaza,
Jinnah Avenue, Blue Area, F–6/4,
Islamabad–44000, Pakistan and,
Humayun Khan, (‘‘Khan’’), Unit 7&8,
2nd Floor, Mohammadi Plaza, Jinnah
Avenue, Blue Area, F–6/4, Islamabad–
44000, Pakistan (hereinafter collectively
referred to as the ‘‘Respondents’’).
On January 31, 2005, I found that
evidence presented by BIS
demonstrated that the Respondents
conspired to do acts that violated the
1 The EAR are at 15 CFR parts 730–774 (2005).
The EAR are issued under the Export
Administration Act of 1979, as amended (50 U.S.C.
app. 2401–2420 (2000)) (‘‘EAA’’). The EAA lapsed
on August 21, 2001. However, the President,
through Executive Order 13222 of August 17, 2001
(3 CFR, 2001 Comp. 783 (2002)), as extended by the
Notice of August 6, 2004 (69 FR 48763, August 10,
2004), has continued the EAR in effect under the
International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50
U.S.C. 1701–1706 (2000)).
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
EAR and did in fact commit numerous
violations of the EAR by participating in
the unlicensed export of triggered spark
gaps and oscilloscopes, items controlled
for nuclear non-proliferation reasons to
Pakistan. I further found that such
violations had been significant,
deliberate and covert, and were likely to
occur again, especially given the nature
of the structure and relationships of the
Respondents.
OEE has presented additional
evidence that Khan has been indicted
for his role in the illegal exports of
triggered spark gaps and oscilloscopes
to Pakistan. In addition, OEE has
presented evidence that Khan and
Pakland have refused to return to the
United States an oscilloscope that was
sent to Pakistan for demonstration
purposes only. All parties to this TDO
have been given notice of the request for
renewal.
It Is Therefore Ordered:
First, that the Respondents, Pakland
PME Corporation, (‘‘Pakland’’), Unit
7&8, 2nd Floor, Mohammadi Plaza,
Jinnah Avenue, Blue Area, F–6/4,
Islamabad–44000, Pakistan and,
Humayun Kahn, (‘‘Khan’’), Unit 7&8,
2nd Floor, Mohammadi Plaza, Jinnah
Avenue, Blue Area, F–6/4, Islamabad–
44000, Pakistan (hereinafter collectively
referred to as (‘‘Respondents’’), and their
successors and assigns and when acting
on behalf of any of the Respondents,
their officers, employees, agents or
representatives, (‘‘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
Export Administration Regulations
(‘‘EAR’’), or in any other activity subject
to the EAR including, but 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 EAR, or in any other
activity subject to the EAR; 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 EAR, or in any
other activity subject to the EAR.
Second, that no person may, directly
or indirectly, do any of the following:
E:\FR\FM\05AUN1.SGM
05AUN1
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 150 / Friday, August 5, 2005 / Notices
A. Export or reexport to or on behalf
of the Denied Person any item subject to
the EAR;
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 EAR 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 EAR that has
been exported from the United States;
D. Obtain from the Denied Person in
the United States any item subject to the
EAR with knowledge or reason to
known 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 EAR that has
been or will be exported from the
United States and which 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 EAR 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 EAR, any other
person, firm, corporation, or business
organization related to any of the
Respondents 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 EAR where the
only items involved that are subject to
the EAR are the foreign-produced direct
product of U.S.-origin technology.
In accordance with the provisions of
Section 766.24(e) of the EAR, the
Respondents may, at any time, appeal
this Order by filing a full written
statement in support of the appeal with
the Office of the Administrative Law
Judge, U.S. Coast Guard ALJ Docketing
Center, 40 South Gay Street, Baltimore,
Maryland 21202–4022.
In accordance with the provisions of
Section 766.24(d) of the EAR, BIS may
seek renewal of this Order by filing a
written request not later than 20 days
before the expiration date. The
VerDate jul<14>2003
15:34 Aug 04, 2005
Jkt 205001
Respondents may oppose a request to
renew this Order by filing a written
submission with the Assistant Secretary
for Export Enforcement, which must be
received not later than seven days
before the expiration date of the Order.
A copy of this Order shall be served
on the Respondents and the Related
Party, and shall be published in the
Federal Register.
This order is effective on August 6,
2005, and shall remain in effect for 180
days.
Entered this 1st day of August, 2005.
Wendy L. Wysong,
Acting Assistant Secretary of Commerce for
Export Enforcement.
[FR Doc. 05–15477 Filed 8–4–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DT–M
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
A–570–863
Honey from the People’s Republic of
China: Initiation of New Shipper
Antidumping Duty Review
Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
EFFECTIVE DATE: August 5, 2005.
SUMMARY: In June 2005, the Department
of Commerce (‘‘the Department’’)
received two requests to conduct new
shipper reviews of the antidumping
duty order on honey from the People’s
Republic of China (‘‘PRC’’). We have
determined that these requests meet the
statutory and regulatory requirements
for the initiation of new shipper
reviews.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Anya Naschak at (202) 482–6375 or
Candice Kenney Weck at (202) 482–
0938; AD/CVD Operations, Office 9,
Import Administration, International
Trade Administration, U.S. Department
of Commerce, 14th Street and
Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington,
DC 20230.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
AGENCY:
Background
The Department received timely
requests from Shanghai Taiside Trading
Co., Ltd. (‘‘Shanghai Taiside’’) and
Wuhan Shino–Food Trade Co., Ltd.
(‘‘Shino–Food’’) in accordance with 19
CFR 351.214 (c), for new shipper
reviews of the antidumping duty order
on honey from the PRC, which has a
December annual anniversary month,
and a June semi–annual anniversary
month. Shanghai Taiside and Shino–
Food identified themselves as producers
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
45367
and exporters of honey. As required by
19 CFR 351.214(b)(2)(i), and (iii)(A),
Shanghai Taiside and Shino–Food
certified that they did not export honey
to the United States during the period
of investigation (‘‘POI’’), and that they
have never been affiliated with any
exporter or producer which exported
honey to the United States during the
POI. Furthermore, the two companies
have also certified that their export
activities are not controlled by the
central government of the PRC,
satisfying the requirements of 19 CFR
351.214(b)(2)(iii)(B). Pursuant to the
Department’s regulations at 19 CFR
351.214(b)(2)(iv), Shanghai Taiside and
Shino–Food submitted documentation
establishing the date on which the
subject merchandise was first entered
for consumption in the United States,
the volume of that first shipment and
any subsequent shipments, and the date
of the first sale to an unaffiliated
customer in the United States.
On July 14, 2005, the Department
issued a pre–initiation supplemental
questionnaire to Shanghai Taiside to
clarify certain information submitted in
their request to the Department for a
new shipper review. In Shanghai
Taiside’s supplemental questionnaire
response, dated July 18, 2005, Shanghai
Taiside responded to the Department’s
request for clarification on its
relationship to the importer of record,
the merchandise under review, and
entry documentation. Also, on July 26,
2005, Shanghai Taiside submitted
comments on information obtained by
the Department concerning their U.S.
customer.
The Department conducted Customs
database queries to confirm that
Shanghai Taiside’s and Shino–Food’s
shipments had officially entered the
United States via assignment of an entry
date in the Customs database by U.S.
Customs and Border Protection (‘‘CBP’’).
In addition, the Department confirmed
the existence of Shanghai Taiside and
Shino–Food and their U.S. customers.
Initiation of Review
In accordance with section
751(a)(2)(B) of the Tariff Act of 1930
(‘‘the Act’’), as amended, and 19 CFR
351.214(d)(1), and based on information
on the record, we are initiating new
shipper reviews for Shanghai Taiside
and Shino–Food. See Memorandum to
the File through James C. Doyle, ‘‘New
Shipper Review Initiation Checklist,’’
dated August 1, 2005. Although we
found that Shanghai Taiside’s U.S.
customer had asserted in a trade show
publication that it is a packing division
of a Chinese exporter of honey,
Shanghai Taiside asserts in its July 26,
E:\FR\FM\05AUN1.SGM
05AUN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 150 (Friday, August 5, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 45366-45367]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-15477]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
Bureau of Industry and Security
Action Affecting Export Privileges; Pakland PME Corporation and
Humayun Khan; Order Renewing Order Temporarily Denying Export
Privileges
In the Matters of: Pakland PME Corporation, Unit 7&8, 2nd Floor,
Mohammadi Plaza, Jinnah Avenue, Blue Area, F-6/4, Islamabad-44000,
Pakistan, and, Humayun Khan, Unit 7&8, 2nd Floor, Mohammadi Plaza,
Jinnah Avenue, Blue Area, F-6/4, Islamabad-44000, Pakistan,
Respondents.
Pursuant to Section 766.24 of the Export Administration Regulation
(``EAR''),\1\ the Bureau of Industry and Security (``BIS''), U.S.
Department of Commerce, through its Office of Export Enforcement
(``OEE''), has requested that I renew for 180 days an Order temporarily
denying export privileges of Pakland PME Corporation, (``Pakland''),
Unit 7&8, 2nd Floor, Mohammadi Plaza, Jinnah Avenue, Blue Area, F-6/4,
Islamabad-44000, Pakistan and, Humayun Khan, (``Khan''), Unit 7&8, 2nd
Floor, Mohammadi Plaza, Jinnah Avenue, Blue Area, F-6/4, Islamabad-
44000, Pakistan (hereinafter collectively referred to as the
``Respondents'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The EAR are at 15 CFR parts 730-774 (2005). The EAR are
issued under the Export Administration Act of 1979, as amended (50
U.S.C. app. 2401-2420 (2000)) (``EAA''). The EAA lapsed on August
21, 2001. However, the President, through Executive Order 13222 of
August 17, 2001 (3 CFR, 2001 Comp. 783 (2002)), as extended by the
Notice of August 6, 2004 (69 FR 48763, August 10, 2004), has
continued the EAR in effect under the International Emergency
Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701-1706 (2000)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On January 31, 2005, I found that evidence presented by BIS
demonstrated that the Respondents conspired to do acts that violated
the EAR and did in fact commit numerous violations of the EAR by
participating in the unlicensed export of triggered spark gaps and
oscilloscopes, items controlled for nuclear non-proliferation reasons
to Pakistan. I further found that such violations had been significant,
deliberate and covert, and were likely to occur again, especially given
the nature of the structure and relationships of the Respondents.
OEE has presented additional evidence that Khan has been indicted
for his role in the illegal exports of triggered spark gaps and
oscilloscopes to Pakistan. In addition, OEE has presented evidence that
Khan and Pakland have refused to return to the United States an
oscilloscope that was sent to Pakistan for demonstration purposes only.
All parties to this TDO have been given notice of the request for
renewal.
It Is Therefore Ordered:
First, that the Respondents, Pakland PME Corporation,
(``Pakland''), Unit 7&8, 2nd Floor, Mohammadi Plaza, Jinnah Avenue,
Blue Area, F-6/4, Islamabad-44000, Pakistan and, Humayun Kahn,
(``Khan''), Unit 7&8, 2nd Floor, Mohammadi Plaza, Jinnah Avenue, Blue
Area, F-6/4, Islamabad-44000, Pakistan (hereinafter collectively
referred to as (``Respondents''), and their successors and assigns and
when acting on behalf of any of the Respondents, their officers,
employees, agents or representatives, (``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 Export Administration
Regulations (``EAR''), or in any other activity subject to the EAR
including, but 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 EAR, or in any other activity
subject to the EAR; 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 EAR, or in any other activity subject to the EAR.
Second, that no person may, directly or indirectly, do any of the
following:
[[Page 45367]]
A. Export or reexport to or on behalf of the Denied Person any item
subject to the EAR;
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 EAR 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 EAR that has been exported from the United States;
D. Obtain from the Denied Person in the United States any item
subject to the EAR with knowledge or reason to known 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 EAR
that has been or will be exported from the United States and which 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 EAR 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 EAR, any other person, firm, corporation, or
business organization related to any of the Respondents 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 EAR where the only items involved that
are subject to the EAR are the foreign-produced direct product of U.S.-
origin technology.
In accordance with the provisions of Section 766.24(e) of the EAR,
the Respondents may, at any time, appeal this Order by filing a full
written statement in support of the appeal with the Office of the
Administrative Law Judge, U.S. Coast Guard ALJ Docketing Center, 40
South Gay Street, Baltimore, Maryland 21202-4022.
In accordance with the provisions of Section 766.24(d) of the EAR,
BIS may seek renewal of this Order by filing a written request not
later than 20 days before the expiration date. The Respondents may
oppose a request to renew this Order by filing a written submission
with the Assistant Secretary for Export Enforcement, which must be
received not later than seven days before the expiration date of the
Order.
A copy of this Order shall be served on the Respondents and the
Related Party, and shall be published in the Federal Register.
This order is effective on August 6, 2005, and shall remain in
effect for 180 days.
Entered this 1st day of August, 2005.
Wendy L. Wysong,
Acting Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Export Enforcement.
[FR Doc. 05-15477 Filed 8-4-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DT-M
