In the Matter of: S.P. Equipamentos de Proteção ao Trabalho Ltda., Rua Visconde de Inhaúma 386-Saúde, 04146-030 São Paulo, Brazil, Respondent; Final Decision and Order, 9503-9505 [07-949]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 41 / Friday, March 2, 2007 / Notices
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
Architectural and
Transportation Barriers Compliance
Board.
ACTION: Notice of meeting.
AGENCY:
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
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.
ADDRESSES:
Lisa Fairhall,
Deputy General Counsel.
[FR Doc. E7–3639 Filed 3–1–07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8150–01–P
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:
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with NOTICES
SUMMARY:
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
VerDate Aug<31>2005
18:44 Mar 01, 2007
Jkt 211001
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
Bureau of Industry and Security
[Docket No. 04–BIS–15]
In the Matter of: S.P. Equipamentos de
Protecao ao Trabalho Ltda., Rua
¸˜
´
´
Visconde de Inhauma 386–Saude,
˜
04146–030 Sao 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
Protecao ao Trabalho Ltda. (‘‘S.P.
¸˜
Equipamentos’’), committed two
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
9503
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
1 The 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.
2 From 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.
E:\FR\FM\02MRN1.SGM
02MRN1
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 Protecao ao Trabalho
¸˜
´
Ltda., Rua Visconde de Inhauma, 386´
˜
Saude, 04146–030 Sao 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
VerDate Aug<31>2005
18:44 Mar 01, 2007
Jkt 211001
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
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
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 Protecao ao Trabalho Ltda. (Docket No.:
¸˜
04–BIS–15), to be sent via FedEx or mailed
first-class, postage prepaid to:
S.P. Equipamentos de Protecao ao Trabalho
¸˜
´
Ltda., Rua Visconde de Inhauma, 386–
´
˜
Saude, 04146–030 Sao 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 Protecao 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))
E:\FR\FM\02MRN1.SGM
02MRN1
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 41 / Friday, March 2, 2007 / Notices
(‘‘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.
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.
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:
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.
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
C. Summary of Violations Charged
D. Penalty Recommendation
[REDACTED SECTION]
E. Conclusion
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with NOTICES
1 The
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.
2 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
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)).
VerDate Aug<31>2005
18:44 Mar 01, 2007
Jkt 211001
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
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
9505
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
Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
AGENCY:
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.
E:\FR\FM\02MRN1.SGM
02MRN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 41 (Friday, March 2, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Pages 9503-9505]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 07-949]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
Bureau of Industry and Security
[Docket No. 04-BIS-15]
In the Matter of: S.P. Equipamentos de Prote[ccedil][atilde]o ao
Trabalho Ltda., Rua Visconde de Inha[uacute]ma 386-Sa[uacute]de, 04146-
030 S[atilde]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 Prote[ccedil][atilde]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 non-approved end-user without prior U.S. Government
authorization, S.P. Equipamentos committed one violation of Section
764.2(a) of the Regulations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The 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.
\2\ From 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
[[Page 9504]]
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 Prote[ccedil][atilde]o ao Trabalho Ltda., Rua
Visconde de Inha[uacute]ma, 386-Sa[uacute]de, 04146-030 S[atilde]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 Prote[ccedil][atilde]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 Prote[ccedil][atilde]o ao Trabalho Ltda., Rua
Visconde de Inha[uacute]ma, 386-Sa[uacute]de, 04146-030 S[atilde]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 Prote[ccedil][atilde]o ao Trabalho Ltda. (``S.P.
Equipamentos''). The Charging Letter alleged that S.P. Equipamentos
committed one violation of Sec. 764.2(a) and one violation of Sec.
764.2(e) of the Export Administration Regulations (currently codified
at 15 CFR Parts 730-774 (2006))
[[Page 9505]]
(``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 Sec. 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The 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.
\2\ 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 44,551 (August 7, 2006)), has continued the Regulations in
effect under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50
U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 1701-1706 (2000)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 Sec. 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 Sec. 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 Sec. 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 Sec. 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 Sec. 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 Sec. 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
