Action Affecting Export Privileges; Oriental Trading Corporation, 12676-12678 [06-2359]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
12676
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 48 / Monday, March 13, 2006 / Notices
Authority: Pub. L. 94–582, 90 Stat. 2867,
as amended (7 U.S.C. 71 et seq.).
James E. Link,
Administrator, Grain Inspection, Packers and
Stockyards Administration.
[FR Doc. E6–3501 Filed 3–10–06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410–EN–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
Foreign–Trade Zones Board
(Docket 8–2006)
wwhite on PROD1PC61 with NOTICES
Foreign-Trade Zone 202—Los Angeles,
CA, Application for Subzone, Sharp
Electronics Corporation, (Office and
Consumer Electronics/Home Products/
Solar Panels Distribution), Huntington
Beach, California
An application has been submitted to
the Foreign–Trade Zones Board (the
Board) by the Board of Harbor
Commissioners of the City of Los
Angeles, grantee of FTZ 202, requesting
special–purpose subzone status for the
office and consumer electronics/ home
products/solar panels warehousing and
distribution facility of Sharp Electronics
Corporation (Sharp), in Huntington
Beach, California. The application was
submitted pursuant to the provisions of
the Foreign–Trade Zones Act, as
amended (19 U.S.C. 81a–81u), and the
regulations of the Board (15 CFR part
400). It was formally filed on February
27, 2006.
The Sharp facility (939,800 sq. ft. of
enclosed space on 23.4 acres) is located
at 5901 Bolsa Avenue, Huntington
Beach, California. The facility (97
employees) may be used under FTZ
procedures for the testing, packaging,
warehousing and distribution of
consumer electronics/home products/
solar panels. Sharp’s application
indicates that 5 percent of the
merchandise handled at the facility is
domestically–sourced and includes
products manufactured at and
transferred from Subzone No. 77A,
Sharp Manufacturing Company of
America’s manufacturing facility in
Memphis, Tennessee.
Zone procedures would exempt Sharp
from Customs duty payments on foreign
products that are re–exported. On
domestic sales, the company would be
able to defer payments until
merchandise is shipped from the plant.
The company would be able to avoid
duty on foreign merchandise which
becomes scrap/waste. Sharp also
anticipates realizing significant
logistical/procedural benefits. The
application indicates that all of the
above–cited savings from FTZ
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:58 Mar 10, 2006
Jkt 208001
procedures would help improve the
facility’s international competitiveness.
In accordance with the Board’s
regulations, a member of the FTZ Staff
has been designated examiner to
investigate the application and report to
the Board.
Public comment is invited from
interested parties. Submissions (original
and 3 copies) shall be addressed to the
Board’s Executive Secretary at one of
the following addresses:
1. Submissions Via Express/Package
Delivery Services: Foreign–TradeZones Board, U.S. Department of
Commerce, Franklin Court Building
- Suite 4100W, 1099 14th St. NW,
Washington, D.C. 20005; or
2. Submissions Via the U.S. Postal
Service: Foreign–Trade-Zones
Board, U.S. Department of
Commerce, FCB - Suite 4100W,
1401 Constitution Ave. NW,
Washington, D.C. 20230.
The closing period for their receipt is
May 12, 2006. Rebuttal comments in
response to material submitted during
the foregoing period may be submitted
during the subsequent 15–day period (to
May 30, 2006).
A copy of the application and
accompanying exhibits will be available
for public inspection at the Office of the
Foreign–Trade Zones Board’s Executive
Secretary at address Number 1 listed
above, and at the U.S. Department of
Commerce Export Assistance Center,
3300 Irvine Avenue, Suite 305, Newport
Beach, CA 92660.
Dated: March 3, 2006.
Dennis Puccinelli,
Executive Secretary.
[FR Doc. E6–3535 Filed 3–10–06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S
Whereas, notice inviting public
comment has been given in the Federal
Register (70 FR 9615, 2/28/2005);
Whereas, the Board adopts the
findings and recommendations of the
examiner’s report, and finds that the
requirements of the FTZ Act and
Board’s regulations would be satisfied,
and that approval of the application
would be in the public interest if
approval is subject to the conditions
listed below;
Now, therefore, the Board hereby
orders:
The application for manufacturing
authority under zone procedures within
Subzone 61I, is approved, subject to the
FTZ Act and the Board’s regulations,
including § 400.28, and subject to the
following conditions:
1. Foreign status (19 CFR § 146.41,
146.42) products consumed as fuel
for the petrochemical complex shall
be subject to the applicable duty
rate.
2. Privileged foreign status (19 CFR
§ 146.41) shall be elected on all
foreign merchandise admitted to the
subzone, except that non–privileged
foreign (NPF) status (19 CFR
§ 146.42) may be elected on refinery
inputs covered under HTSUS
Subheadings #2709.00.10,
#2709.00.20, #2710.11.25,
#2710.11.45, #2710.19.05,
#2710.19.10, #2710.19.45,
#2710.91.00, #2710.99.05,
#2710.99.10, #2710.99.16,
#2710.99.21 and #2710.99.45 which
are used in the production of:
-petrochemical feedstocks (examiners
report, Appendix ‘‘C’’);
-products for export;
-and, products eligible for entry under
HTSUS # 9808.00.30 and
# 9808.00.40 (U.S. Government
purchases).
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
Signed at Washington, DC, this 28th day of
February 2006.
Foreign-Trade Zones Board
David M. Spooner,
Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Import
Administration, Alternate Chairman, ForeignTrade Zones Board.
Attest:
Dennis Puccinelli,
Executive Secretary.
[FR Doc. E6–3536 Filed 3–10–06; 8:45 am]
Order No. 1439
Approval of Manufacturing Authority—
Subzone 61I, Shell Chemicals
Yabucoa, Inc., (Oil Refinery), Yabucoa,
Puerto Rico
Pursuant to its authority under the
Foreign–Trade Zones Act of June 18, 1934, as
amended (19 U.S.C. 81a–81u), the Foreign–
Trade Zones Board (the Board) adopts the
following Order:
Whereas, the Puerto Rico Trade and
Exports Company, grantee of FTZ 61,
has requested manufacturing authority
on behalf of Shell Chemicals Yabucoa,
Inc. (Shell), within Subzone 61I at the
Shell refinery in Yabucoa, Puerto Rico
(FTZ Docket 8–2005, filed 2/11/2005);
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
Bureau of Industry and Security
Action Affecting Export Privileges;
Oriental Trading Corporation
In the Matters of: Oriental Trading
Corporation, 1st Floor, Masco Plaza, Blue
E:\FR\FM\13MRN1.SGM
13MRN1
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 48 / Monday, March 13, 2006 / Notices
Area, P.O. Box 2879, Islamabad, Pakistan,
Respondent; Order Renewing Temporary
Denial Order as to Oriental Trading
Corporation.
wwhite on PROD1PC61 with NOTICES
Pursuant to Section 766.24 of the
Export Administration Regulations
(‘‘EAR’’), 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
Oriental Trading Corporation, 1st Floor,
Masco Plaza, Blue Area, P.O. Box 2879,
Islamabad, Pakistan.
On March 8, 2005, the Acting
Assistant Secretary of Commerce for
Export Enforcement found that the
Respondent 1 had conspired to
undertake acts that violated the EAR,
that such violations had been deliberate
and covert, and that there was a strong
likelihood of future violations,
particularly given the nature of the
transactions and the elaborate steps that
had been taken by the Respondent to
avoid detection by the U.S. Government
while knowing that its actions were in
violation of the EAR. 70 FR 12442 (Mar.
14, 2005). This finding was based on
evidence presented by BIS that
indicated that the Respondent had
conspired with others, known and
unknown, to cause items subject to the
EAR to be illegally exported to Pakistan,
that it caused exports of items
controlled for nuclear non-proliferation
reasons to Pakistan with knowledge that
violations of the EAR would occur, and
that it took actions intending to violate
the EAR.
BIS continues to investigate this
matter and believes that all of the facts
found in the original Order continue to
justify the renewal of the Order,
especially given the nature of the
transactions and the steps that have
been taken by the Respondent to avoid
detection by the U.S. Government while
knowing its actions were in violation of
the EAR. BIS believes evidence
1 The original order applied to Gold Technology
Limited, Flat 23C, 97 High Street, Hong Kong; Hero
Peak Limited, Flat C, Block 4, 11/F Golden Bldg,
145 Fuk Wa Street, Sham Shui Po, Kowloon, Hong
Kong and Room D, 11/F, Fui Nam Building, 48–51
Connaught Road West, Hong Kong; Joanna Liu, Flat
23C, 97 High Street, Hong Kong; Portson Trading
Limited, Room D, 8/F, 217–223 Tung Choi Street,
Mongkok, Kowloon, Hong Kong and Room 709
Wing Shan Tower, 173 Des Voeux Road Central,
Hong Kong, and Room 2208, 22/F, 118 Connaught
Road West, Hong Kong; Sunford Trading Limited,
Room 2208 22/F, 118 Connaught Road West, Hong
Kong; and Zhenke International Trading Co. Ltd.
Tianjin Port Free Trade Zone, Room 801, Gold
Beauty Building No. 88, Haibain 8 Road, TPFTZ,
Tianjin, Peoples Republic of China. The Office of
Export Enforcement is not seeking to renew this
temporary denial order against any party other than
Oriental Trading Corporation.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:58 Mar 10, 2006
Jkt 208001
described in the initial request for the
Order supports this renewal.
Based on the evidence submitted by
BIS, I find that renewal of the Order
naming the Respondent is necessary, in
the public interest, to prevent an
imminent violation of the EAR. A copy
of the request for renewal of this Order
was served upon the Respondent in
accordance with the requirements of 15
CFR 766.24 of the EAR, and no response
was received in opposition to this
request within the applicable time
period described in that section.
It is therefore ordered:
First, that the Respondent, at the
address listed above, and its successors
and assigns and when acting on behalf
of the Respondent, its officers,
employees, agents or representatives,
(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
Export Administration Regulations
(‘‘EAR’’), or in any other activity subject
to the EAR 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 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:
A. Export or reexport to or on behalf
of the Denied Persons 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 financial or other support
activities related to a transaction
whereby the Denied Persons acquire or
attempt 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 Persons of
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
12677
any item subject to the EAR that has
been exported from the United States;
D. Obtain from the Denied Persons in
the United States any item subject to the
EAR 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 EAR that has
been or will be exported from the
United States and which is owned,
possessed or controlled by the Denied
Persons, or service any item, of
whatever origin, that is owned,
possessed or controlled by the Denied
Persons 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 the Respondent
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
Respondent 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
Respondent may oppose a request to
renew this Order by filing a written
submission with the Assistant Secretary
for Export Enforcement, which must be
received no later than seven days before
the expiration date of the Order.
A copy of this Order shall be served
on the Respondent, and shall be
published in the Federal Register.
This Order is effective on March 10,
2006 and shall remain in effect for 180
days.
E:\FR\FM\13MRN1.SGM
13MRN1
12678
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 48 / Monday, March 13, 2006 / Notices
Entered this 3rd day of March, 2006.
Darryl W. Jackson,
Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Export
Enforcement.
[FR Doc. 06–2359 Filed 3–10–06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DT–M
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Institute of Standards and
Technology
[Docket No. 051114299–5299–01]
Announcing Draft Federal Information
Processing Standard (FIPS) 186–3,
Digital Signature Standard (DSS), and
Request for Comments
National Institute of Standards
and Technology (NIST), Commerce.
ACTION: Notice; Request for Comments.
wwhite on PROD1PC61 with NOTICES
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: This notice announces Draft
Federal Information Processing
Standard 186–3, Digital Signature
Standard, for public review and
comment. The draft standard,
designated ‘‘Draft FIPS 186–3,’’ is
proposed to revise and supersede FIPS
186–2.
FIPS 186, first published in 1994,
specifies a digital signature algorithm
(DSA) to generate and verify digital
signatures. Later revisions (FIPS 186–1
and FIPS 186–2, adopted in 1998 and
1999, respectively) adopt two additional
algorithms specified in American
National Standards (ANS) X9.31 (Digital
Signatures Using Reversible Public Key
Cryptography for the Financial Services
Industry (rDSA)), and X9.62 (The
Elliptic Curve Digital Signature
Algorithm (ECDSA)).
The original DSA algorithm, as
specified in FIPS 186, 186–1 and 186–
2, allows key sizes of 512 to 1024 bits.
With advances in technology, it is
prudent to consider larger key sizes.
Draft FIPS 186–3 allows the use of 1024,
2048 and 3072-bit keys. Other
requirements have also been added
concerning the use of ANS X9.31 and
ANS X9.62. In addition, the use of the
RSA algorithm as specified in Public
Key Cryptography Standard (PKCS) #1
(RSA Cryptography Standard) is
allowed.
Prior to the submission of this
proposed standard to the Secretary of
Commerce for review and approval, it is
essential that consideration is given to
the needs and views of the public, users,
the information technology industry,
and Federal, State and local government
organizations. The purpose of this
notice is to solicit such views.
DATES: Comments must be received on
or before June 12, 2006.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:58 Mar 10, 2006
Jkt 208001
Written comments may be
sent to: Chief, Computer Security
Division, Information Technology
Laboratory, Attention: Comments on
Draft FIPS 186–3, 100 Bureau Drive,
Stop 8930, National Institute of
Standards and Technology,
Gaithersburg, MD 20899–8930.
Electronic comments may also be sent
to: elaine.barker@nist.gov.
The current FIPS 186–2 and its
proposed replacement, Draft FIPS 186–
3, are available electronically at https://
csrc.nist.gov/publications/fips/
index.html and https://csrc.nist.gov/
publications/drafts.html, respectively.
Comments received in response to this
notice will be published electronically
at https://csrc.nist.gov/CryptoToolkit/
tkdigsigs.html.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Elaine Barker, Computer Security
Division, National Institute of Standards
and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD
20899–8930, telephone (301) 975–2911.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: FIPS 186,
Digital Signature Standard (DSS), first
issued in 1994, specified a single
technique for the generation and
verification of digital signatures. FIPS
186–1 adopted a second technique that
was approved as ANS X9.31, Digital
Signatures Using Reversible Public Key
Cryptography for the Financial Services
Industry (rDSA), by the American
National Standards Institute (ANSI).
FIPS 186–2 adopted a third technique
that computed digital signatures using
elliptic curve technology as specified in
another ANSI standard, ANS X9.62,
Elliptic Curve Digital Signature
Algorithm (ECDSA).
Digital signature algorithms require
keys to generate secure signatures. With
advances in technology, the size of these
keys must be increased to provide
adequate security. rDSA and ECDSA
have been specified with sufficient
flexibility to use various key sizes. DSA
was specified for key sizes between 512
and 1024 bits. Key sizes below 1024 bits
are currently not considered adequate.
Therefore, the requirements for key
sizes for DSA, as specified in FIPS 186–
3, have been revised to include key sizes
of 2048 and 3072 bits, in addition to the
previously allowed 1024-bit key size.
These key sizes provide security that is
equivalent to the 80, 112 and 128-bit
key sizes of symmetric key encryption
algorithms such as TDEA (Triple Data
Encryption Algorithm), as specified in
NIST Special Publication 800–67, and
AES (Advanced Encryption Standard),
as specified in FIPS 197.
ANS X9.31, published in 1998,
specifies the generation of keys and
digital signatures for only an 80-bit
ADDRESSES:
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
security level. Draft FIPS 186–3
specifies criteria for the generation of
keys and digital signatures for
additional security levels.
Many cryptographic applications use
the RSA algorithm that was specified in
PKCS #1 and that was developed by
RSA Security. PKCS #1 is considered to
provide adequate security for Federal
Government applications. Therefore, in
the interests of providing
interoperability, Draft FIPS 186–3
allows implementations of PKCS #1 in
addition to that of ANS X9.31 and
specifies criteria for the generation of
keys for PKCS #1 digital signature
applications; no provision is currently
provided in PKCS #1 for the generation
of digital signature keys.
ANS X9.62 was published in 1998
and is currently under revision. Other
requirements have been added in Draft
FIPS 186–3 to address deficiencies
present in the current ANS X9.62; these
additional requirements are consistent
with the proposed ANS X9.62 revision.
FIPS 186–2 included several methods
for random number generation for the
80-bit security level. Draft FIPS 186–3
includes a new random number
generator that can be used to provide
random numbers at multiple security
levels. This random number generator is
based on the Approved hash functions
specified in FIPS 180–2, Secure Hash
Standard.
Draft FIPS186–3 includes methods for
the generation of domain parameters
and digital signature keys. These
methods are referenced by NIST Special
Publication 800–56, Recommendation
for Pair-Wise Key Establishment
Schemes Using Discrete Logarithm
Cryptography, for the generation of
domain parameters and keys for key
establishment.
Draft FIPS 186–3 requires that parties
have various assurances when
generating and verifying digital
signatures. Methods for obtaining these
assurances will be specified in a future
publication to be issued in the NIST
Special Publication (SP) series, SP 800–
89, Recommendation for Obtaining
Assurances for Digital Signature
Applications.
Authority: NIST’s activities to develop
computer security standards to protect
Federal sensitive (unclassified) systems are
undertaken pursuant to specific
responsibilities assigned to NIST in Section
5131 of the Information Technology
Management Reform Act of 1996 (Pub .L.
104–106) and the Federal Information
Security Management Act of 2002 (Pub. L.
107–347).
E.O. 12866: This notice has been
determined not to be significant for the
purposes of E.O. 12866.
E:\FR\FM\13MRN1.SGM
13MRN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 48 (Monday, March 13, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Pages 12676-12678]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 06-2359]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
Bureau of Industry and Security
Action Affecting Export Privileges; Oriental Trading Corporation
In the Matters of: Oriental Trading Corporation, 1st Floor,
Masco Plaza, Blue
[[Page 12677]]
Area, P.O. Box 2879, Islamabad, Pakistan, Respondent; Order Renewing
Temporary Denial Order as to Oriental Trading Corporation.
Pursuant to Section 766.24 of the Export Administration Regulations
(``EAR''), 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 Oriental Trading Corporation, 1st Floor,
Masco Plaza, Blue Area, P.O. Box 2879, Islamabad, Pakistan.
On March 8, 2005, the Acting Assistant Secretary of Commerce for
Export Enforcement found that the Respondent \1\ had conspired to
undertake acts that violated the EAR, that such violations had been
deliberate and covert, and that there was a strong likelihood of future
violations, particularly given the nature of the transactions and the
elaborate steps that had been taken by the Respondent to avoid
detection by the U.S. Government while knowing that its actions were in
violation of the EAR. 70 FR 12442 (Mar. 14, 2005). This finding was
based on evidence presented by BIS that indicated that the Respondent
had conspired with others, known and unknown, to cause items subject to
the EAR to be illegally exported to Pakistan, that it caused exports of
items controlled for nuclear non-proliferation reasons to Pakistan with
knowledge that violations of the EAR would occur, and that it took
actions intending to violate the EAR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The original order applied to Gold Technology Limited, Flat
23C, 97 High Street, Hong Kong; Hero Peak Limited, Flat C, Block 4,
11/F Golden Bldg, 145 Fuk Wa Street, Sham Shui Po, Kowloon, Hong
Kong and Room D, 11/F, Fui Nam Building, 48-51 Connaught Road West,
Hong Kong; Joanna Liu, Flat 23C, 97 High Street, Hong Kong; Portson
Trading Limited, Room D, 8/F, 217-223 Tung Choi Street, Mongkok,
Kowloon, Hong Kong and Room 709 Wing Shan Tower, 173 Des Voeux Road
Central, Hong Kong, and Room 2208, 22/F, 118 Connaught Road West,
Hong Kong; Sunford Trading Limited, Room 2208 22/F, 118 Connaught
Road West, Hong Kong; and Zhenke International Trading Co. Ltd.
Tianjin Port Free Trade Zone, Room 801, Gold Beauty Building No. 88,
Haibain 8 Road, TPFTZ, Tianjin, Peoples Republic of China. The
Office of Export Enforcement is not seeking to renew this temporary
denial order against any party other than Oriental Trading
Corporation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
BIS continues to investigate this matter and believes that all of
the facts found in the original Order continue to justify the renewal
of the Order, especially given the nature of the transactions and the
steps that have been taken by the Respondent to avoid detection by the
U.S. Government while knowing its actions were in violation of the EAR.
BIS believes evidence described in the initial request for the Order
supports this renewal.
Based on the evidence submitted by BIS, I find that renewal of the
Order naming the Respondent is necessary, in the public interest, to
prevent an imminent violation of the EAR. A copy of the request for
renewal of this Order was served upon the Respondent in accordance with
the requirements of 15 CFR 766.24 of the EAR, and no response was
received in opposition to this request within the applicable time
period described in that section.
It is therefore ordered:
First, that the Respondent, at the address listed above, and its
successors and assigns and when acting on behalf of the Respondent, its
officers, employees, agents or representatives, (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 Export
Administration Regulations (``EAR''), or in any other activity subject
to the EAR 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 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:
A. Export or reexport to or on behalf of the Denied Persons 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 financial or other support
activities related to a transaction whereby the Denied Persons acquire
or attempt 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 Persons of any item subject to
the EAR that has been exported from the United States;
D. Obtain from the Denied Persons in the United States any item
subject to the EAR 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 EAR
that has been or will be exported from the United States and which is
owned, possessed or controlled by the Denied Persons, or service any
item, of whatever origin, that is owned, possessed or controlled by the
Denied Persons 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 the Respondent 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 Respondent 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 Respondent may
oppose a request to renew this Order by filing a written submission
with the Assistant Secretary for Export Enforcement, which must be
received no later than seven days before the expiration date of the
Order.
A copy of this Order shall be served on the Respondent, and shall
be published in the Federal Register.
This Order is effective on March 10, 2006 and shall remain in
effect for 180 days.
[[Page 12678]]
Entered this 3rd day of March, 2006.
Darryl W. Jackson,
Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Export Enforcement.
[FR Doc. 06-2359 Filed 3-10-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DT-M
