Proposed Rules. Notice of intent

7,303 words·~33 min read·/register/2006/06/15/06-5434

A research copy — for the controlling text, always check the official state or federal source. Not legal advice.

BILLING CODE 3510-22-P 71 115 Thursday, June 15, 2006 Notices DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request June 9, 2006. The Department of Agriculture has submitted the following information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. Comments regarding

(a)whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;

(b)the accuracy of the agency's estimate of burden including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

(c)ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected;

(d)ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology should be addressed to: Desk Officer for Agriculture, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), *OIRA_Submission@OMB.EOP.GOV* or fax

(202)395-5806 and to Departmental Clearance Office, USDA, OCIO, Mail Stop 7602, Washington, DC 20250-7602. Comments regarding these information collections are best assured of having their full effect if received within 30 days of this notification. Copies of the submission(s) may be obtained by calling

(202)720-8681. An agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number and the agency informs potential persons who are to respond to the collection of information that such persons are not required to respond to the collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. Rural Utilities Service *Title:* Lien Accommodations and Subordinations 7 CFR Part 1717, Subparts R and S. *OMB Control Number:* 0572-0100. *Summary of Collection:* The Rural Electrification Act (RE Act) of 1936, 7 U.S.C. 901 *et seq.,* as amended, authorizes and empowers the Administrator of the Rural Utilities Service

(RUS)to make loans in the several States and Territories of the United States for rural electrification and the furnishing electric energy to persons in rural areas who are not receiving central station service. The RE Act also authorizes and empowers the Administrator of RUS to provide financial assistance to borrowers for purposes provided in the RE Act by accommodating or subordinating loans made by the National Rural Utilities Cooperative Finance Corporation, the Federal Financing Bank, and other lending agencies. *Need and Use of the Information:* RUS will used the information to determine an applicant's eligibility for a lien accommodation or lien subordination under the RE Act; facilitates an applicant's solicitation and acquisition of non-RUS loans as to converse available Government funds; monitor the compliance of borrowers with debt covenants and regulatory requirements in order to protect loan security; and subsequently to granting the lien accommodation of lien subordination, administer each so as to minimize its cost to the Government. If the information were not collected, RUS would not be able to accomplish its statutory goals. *Description of Respondents:* Not-for-profit institutions; Business or other for-profit. *Number of Respondents:* 12. *Frequency of Responses:* Reporting: On occasion. *Total Burden Hours:* 233. Charlene Parker, Departmental Information Collection Clearance Officer. [FR Doc. E6-9333 Filed 6-14-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-15-P DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Agricultural Research Service Notice of Intent To Grant Exclusive License AGENCY: Agricultural Research Service, USDA. ACTION: Notice of intent. SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, intends to grant to Becton Dickinson of Sparks, Maryland, an exclusive license to U.S. Patent No. 5,891,709, “Campy-Cefex selective and differential medium for campylobacter”, issued on April 6, 1999. Notice is hereby given that the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, intends to grant to Becton Dickinson of Sparks, Maryland, an exclusive license to U.S. Patent No. 6,368,847, “Selective media for recovery and enumeration of campylobacters”, issued on April 9, 2002. DATES: Comments must be received by July 17, 2006. ADDRESSES: Send comments to: USDA, ARS, Office of Technology Transfer, 5601 Sunnyside Avenue, Rm. 4-1174, Beltsville, Maryland 20705-5131. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: June Blalock of the Office of Technology Transfer at the Beltsville address given above; telephone: 301-504-5989. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Federal Government's patent rights in the inventions are assigned to the United States of America, as represented by the Secretary of Agriculture. It is in the public interest to so license the inventions as Becton Dickinson of Sparks, Maryland has submitted a complete and sufficient application for a license. The prospective exclusive license will be royalty-bearing and will comply with the terms and conditions of 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR 404.7. The prospective exclusive license may be granted unless, within thirty

(30)days from the date of this published Notice, the Agricultural Research Service receives written evidence and argument which establishes that the grant of the license would not be consistent with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR 404.7. Richard J. Brenner, Assistant Administrator. [FR Doc. E6-9351 Filed 6-14-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-03-P ANTITRUST MODERNIZATION COMMISSION Request for Public Comment AGENCY: Antitrust Modernization Commission. ACTION: Request for public comment. SUMMARY: The Antitrust Modernization Commission requests comments from the public regarding specific questions relating to the issues selected for Commission study. DATES: Comments are due by July 10, 2006. ADDRESSES: By electronic mail: *comments@amc.gov* . By mail: Antitrust Modernization Commission, Attn: Public Comments, 1120 G Street, NW., Suite 810, Washington, DC 20005. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Andrew J. Heimert, Executive Director & General Counsel, Antitrust Modernization Commission. Telephone:

(202)233-0701; e-mail: *info@amc.gov* . Internet: *http://www.amc.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Antitrust Modernization Commission was established to “examine whether the need exists to modernize the antitrust laws and to identify and study related issues.” Antitrust Modernization Commission Act of 2002, Public Law 107-273, § 11053, 116 Stat. 1856. In conducting its review of the antitrust laws, the Commission is required to “solicit the views of all parties concerned with the operation of the antitrust laws.” Id. By this request for comments, the Commission seeks to provide a full opportunity for interested members of the public to provide input regarding certain issues selected for Commission study. From time to time, the Commission may issue additional requests for comment on issues selected for study. Comments should be submitted in written form. Comments should identify the topic to which it relates. Comments need not address every question within the topic. Comments exceeding 1500 words should include a brief (less than 250 word) summary. Commenters may submit additional background materials (such as articles, data, or other information) relating to the topic by separate attachment. Comments should identify the person or organization submitting the comments. If comments are submitted by an organization, the submission should identify a contact person within the organization. Comments should include the following contact information for the submitter: an address, telephone number, and email address (if available). Comments submitted to the Commission will be made available to the public in accordance with Federal laws. Comments may be submitted either in hard copy or electronic form. Electronic submissions may be sent by electronic mail to *comments@amc.gov* . Comments submitted in hard copy should be delivered to the address specified above, and should enclose, if possible, a CD-ROM or a 3 1/2 inch computer diskette containing an electronic copy of the comment. The Commission prefers to receive electronic documents (whether by email or on CD-ROM/diskette) in portable document format (.pdf), but also will accept comments in Microsoft Word format. The AMC has issued this request for comments pursuant to its authorizing statute and the Federal Advisory Committee Act. Antitrust Modernization Commission Act of 2002, Public Law 107-273, § 11053, 116 Stat. 1758, 1856; Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App., 10(a)(3). Topic for Comment The Commission requests comment on the following topic. Civil Remedies 1. The Commission is evaluating a proposal to reform indirect purchaser litigation. The potential reform would consist of three principal components:

(1)Legislative overruling of *Illinois Brick Co.* v. *Illinois* , 431 U.S. 720 (1977), so that indirect purchaser claims could be brought under federal antitrust law, and *Hanover Shoe, Inc.* v. *United Shoe Machinery,* 392 U.S. 481 (1968), so as to allow assertion of the pass-on defense;

(2)Statutory provisions either

(a)to allow removal of all state indirect purchaser actions to federal court to the full extent permitted under Article III, or

(b)to preempt state indirect purchaser laws; and

(3)Statutory provisions to allow the consolidation of all related direct and indirect purchaser actions in a single Federal district court for pre-trial and trial proceedings. Should the Commission recommend such reform to Congress? Should the proposal be modified in any respects? In responding, please also comment on the following: a. Is a provision that would allow removal of state indirect purchaser actions necessary or desirable, in light of the generally applicable removal provisions contained in the Class Action Fairness Act? b. Is preemption of state indirect purchaser actions necessary or desirable if state indirect purchaser actions may be removed to Federal court? c. Should the Commission also recommend to Congress that courts be required to use structured proceedings to resolve purchaser claims? Those proceedings would resolve liability in the one phase, determine total damages in another, and allocate damages among direct and indirect claimants in a separate phase. Would structured proceedings work better if courts could combine certain phases of the proceedings, especially liability and total damages, in appropriate cases in the exercise of their discretion? d. To what extent would the legislative overruling of *Hanover Shoe* create new challenges in the process of certifying appropriate classes of claimants? Can any such challenges be resolved fully through the structured approach suggested in

(c)above? 2. The Commission is evaluating a proposal to alter the circumstances in which treble damages are awarded to successful antitrust plaintiffs. The proposal would provide as follows: The court, in its discretion, may limit the award to single damages based on consideration of the following factors: a. Whether the violation was *per se* or rule of reason; b. whether the violation involved single-firm or multi-firm conduct; c. whether the violation was related to an otherwise pro-competitive joint venture; d. the state of the development of the law with respect to the challenged conduct as an antitrust violation; e. whether the challenged conduct was overt or covert; f. whether the challenged conduct was criminal; g. whether there has also been a related government action; h. whether it is a competitor that is alleging the conduct was anticompetitive; and, i. whether the violation was proven by clear and convincing evidence. Should the Commission recommend such reform to Congress? Should any of the factors listed above be removed? Are there any other factors that should also be included? 3. Should the Commission recommend to Congress that courts in their discretion be permitted to increase the damages multiplier above three? For example, should courts be able to increase the multiplier above three where the conduct has significant effects outside the United States for which damages will not be paid? 4. The Commission is evaluating a proposal to change the current regime regarding private antitrust actions. The proposal would provide as follows: a. In all matters where the government institutes criminal proceedings and obtains a guilty verdict by plea or trial, all unlawful gains made by the defendants and precomplaint and prejudgment interest thereon shall be disgorged in that proceeding, together with such fines as may be provided by law and a civil penalty of 200% of the amount disgorged. i. The disgorged unlawful gains shall be apportioned among those from whom they were taken directly or indirectly by the criminal court in a summary proceeding to be concluded within 90 days of the entry of a final criminal judgment as to all defendants. Classes of direct and indirect claimants may participate through counsel in that proceeding. Claims of less than $100 shall be disregarded and the amounts attributable to such claims paid to the Treasury. ii. Fines and civil penalties shall accrue solely to the Treasury, but the court may award compensation from those amounts to any private party found to have been a material factor in the instigation or successful conduct of the government's investigation and prosecution or to its counsel. b. In the case of defendants acquitted of criminal charges, private claims may be asserted as otherwise provided by law, but only the actual amount of unlawful gain may be recovered. Should the Commission recommend such reform to Congress? Should any of the particular components be modified? Dated: June 12, 2006. By direction of the Antitrust Modernization Commission. Andrew J. Heimert, Executive Director & General Counsel, Antitrust Modernization Commission. [FR Doc. E6-9363 Filed 6-14-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6820-YH-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Bureau of the Census [Docket Number 060505120-6120-01] Census Information Center Program AGENCY: Bureau of the Census. ACTION: Notice; request for proposals. SUMMARY: The Bureau of the Census (Census Bureau) seeks proposals from eligible organizations to create 15 Census Information Centers. This notice provides information related to eligibility and program requirements. The Census Information Center

(CIC)Program is an integral part of the Census Bureau's data dissemination network. The CIC Program was established over 17 years ago to make census data more widely available to nongovernmental organizations representing hard-to-enumerate populations. There are currently 45 such organizations participating as Census Information Centers in the CIC Program. The Census Bureau will consider all complete proposals received before the appropriate deadline. DATES: Written proposals must be received on or before August 15, 2006. ADDRESSES: Written proposals should be sent to Mr. Stanley J. Rolark, Chief, Customer Liaison Office, U.S. Census Bureau, 4700 Silver Hill Road, Room 3634, Federal Office Building 3, Washington, DC 20233; Telephone:

(301)763-1544; Fax:

(301)457-4784; E-mail: *Stanley.J.Rolark@census.gov* . FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Ceci A. Villa, Customer Liaison Office, U.S. Census Bureau, 4700 Silver Hill Road, Room 3620, Federal Office Building 3, Washington, DC 20233; Telephone:

(301)763-6415; Fax:

(301)457-4784; E-mail: *Ceci.A.Villa@census.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This section provides information on eligibility, program requirements, proposal format and content, submission instructions, selection, and notification process. Established in 1988, the Census Information Center

(CIC)Program is a cooperative venture among the U.S. Census Bureau and national level, community-based organizations and colleges and universities created to serve as auxiliary data distribution centers that reach underserved populations. Accordingly, each Census Information Center has its own target audience often requiring unique information. The CIC Program includes organizations, such as chambers of commerce; minority-serving colleges and universities; civil rights, social justice, and social service groups; think tanks; and research organizations. The mission of the CIC Program is to provide efficient access to Census Bureau data products through a wide data dissemination network of organizations. Those organizations effectively process and disseminate Census Bureau data to underserved population groups in easily understandable formats. To accomplish this mission, Census Information Centers work in partnership with the Census Bureau through the Customer Liaison Office. The Census Information Centers are recognized as official sources of demographic, economic, and social statistics produced by the Census Bureau. Census Information Centers provide training and technical assistance to local governments, businesses, community groups, and other interested data users so that they may access and use Census Bureau data for research, program administration, planning, and decision-making purposes. Census Information Centers have successfully used census data and local information to support activities promoting change in underserved communities. They have used census data and local statistics to help local communities and minority businesses qualify for reconstruction resources in the wake of the September 11 attack on New York City; establish empowerment zones and revitalization areas in Brooklyn, NY, and Shreveport, LA; obtain youth services and construct after school facilities in local communities in Nashville, TN, and Oakland, CA; provide baseline data to measure the effectiveness of national programs on crime in Washington, DC, public housing; develop ways to link children in need with public services in Minnesota; help local organizations draft grant proposals; and provide American Indians on the Navajo Reservation and across the country access to Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF). In addition to the Census Information Centers, the Census Bureau's overall data dissemination network includes participants in the State Data Center/Business and Industry Data Center Program, Census Depository Libraries, and the 12 Census Regional Office Partnership and Data Services staff. The combined network includes nearly 2,000 entities located throughout the 48 contiguous states, Alaska, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, the Northern Marianna Islands, American Samoa, Guam, and the U.S. Virgin Islands. A Memorandum of Agreement is signed with the participants to serve as official repositories for census data. We are interested in maintaining a CIC Program that represents the Nation's diversity and includes organizations with an interest and ability to provide underserved communities access to Census Bureau data. A. Eligibility National, regional, and community-based nonprofit organizations representing underserved communities are eligible to participate in the CIC Program. Organizations must have research as part of their mission or as a component of their organization. Organizations must have the ability to effectively disseminate data and information to their members, community data-users, or persons served in the community. Some of the types of organizations we are seeking to include are, but are not limited to, minority think tanks, research organizations, minority serving colleges and universities, Tribal colleges, minority chambers of commerce, economic development corporations, social service organizations, rural community and minority business organizations, as well as organizations that support community and economic development activities, and organizations that serve children and families. B. Program Requirements The Census Bureau does not provide funding to CIC Program participants. The Census Bureau does provide access to the full array of its data products, training and technical support free of charge to the Census Information Centers. In return, the Census Information Centers discuss what census data mean for local communities. The Census Information Centers produce reports, fact sheets, briefs, and other materials in different formats, on more specific subjects, and for more unique geographic areas (communities) than those produced by the Census Bureau. Both parties must sign a Memorandum of Agreement and adhere to the following program responsibilities: Census Bureau Responsibilities • Provide program administration and staff support to the Census Information Centers. • Provide free access to a wide variety of census products, information, and services, including but not limited to, printed reports, CD-ROM/DVD products, electronic files, Internet-based products (through the American Fact Finder, among other sources), subscriptions, documentation, guides, catalogs, statistical compendia, indexes, maps, mapping databases, and other reference materials. This does not include access to confidential data or preparation of custom tabulations. • Provide training and technical support on Census Bureau data products and services. This assistance includes, but is not limited to, training at Census Bureau headquarters, training sponsored by Census Bureau regional offices, and training via available technologies such as the Internet, teleconferences, videoconferencing, and other training methods. • Provide advance notification of data release(s) through e-mail. • Sponsor and pay the travel expenses of Census Information Center representatives to attend an annual training conference and other meetings as appropriate and as budget permits. • Maintain a Web site for the CIC Program. Census Information Center Responsibilities • Disseminate Census Bureau data and information to persons served and local communities. • Provide training, education, and technical assistance to persons served and local communities on how to access Census Bureau data. • Assist data users in understanding and accessing Census Bureau data and information, and answering questions from the public and persons served about what the data means for local communities and neighborhoods. • Provide dedicated office space, staff, and equipment to operate your Census Information Center. • Provide access to census data and information by establishing a library or reference center with reasonable “walk-in” access by the public (optional). • Support Census Bureau programs by assisting with outreach, promotion and recruitment efforts for the Census Bureau's censuses and surveys. • Submit an annual report of activities. • Establish and/or maintain a Web site or Web page that highlights the work of your Census Information Center and links to the Census Bureau Web site. • Attend an annual training conference. Travel expenses to be covered by the Census Bureau, as budget permits. • Communicate regularly with the Census Bureau liaison. Provide him/her with updates on your Census Information Center activities. Make him/her aware of any data or data product issues, needs, or concerns expressed by local data users. C. Suggested Proposal Format and Content The suggested format below encourages applicants to describe their organization, data dissemination plans, community outreach activities and record of service to underserved populations, research and data use capabilities and expertise, and past experience working with Census Bureau data or the Census Bureau. However, applicants are not required to use the suggested format. All submissions will be given full consideration, regardless of format. Format The following is the suggested format. Please make sure your proposal adheres to the following guidelines, if possible: • A cover letter with an original signature. • Proposals should not exceed 10 pages. This does not include the cover letter. • Proposals must be in English. • Submit proposals on 8 1/2 by 11-inch paper with printing on one side only (single sided). Your typewritten letter and proposal should use Times New Roman or similar type and a 12-point font. Content/Questions 1. Briefly describe your organization and how it meets the eligibility requirements in Section A, “Eligibility.” Include background information about your organization's history, mission, programs, services, persons served, etc. 2. Briefly describe your organizations research and data use capabilities. Include information about your organization's expertise in conducting research, any research or data products your organization regularly produces, and any specific areas of application for your organization's research, especially as it relates to underserved communities. 3. Briefly describe how your organization will disseminate Census Bureau data and information to your constituents and local underserved communities. Include how your organization will provide data access to those without Internet access. Also discuss how your organization will assist data users find, interpret, and understand the data they need, as well as, the various uses and implications on the data within their community. 4. Describe the resources your organization will commit to your Census Information Center, if your organization were selected to participate. Include information on the staff, equipment, space, etc., your organization will make available to your Census Information Center. 5. Describe what would be the focus of your Census Information Center, if your organization were selected to participate. Include information on the geographic area(s) you will cover, racial/ ethnic populations you will serve, and the types of services you will offer. 6. Briefly describe how your organization has worked with the Census Bureau or Census Bureau data or data products in the past. D. Submission Instructions Proposals must be received by the date identified in the DATES section of this notice. Submit proposals to the official identified in the ADDRESSES section of this notice. E. Selection Process • Following an initial screening, Census Bureau staff will select seven independent reviewers who will individually review and score the remaining proposals based on the strength of the responses to the questions in Section C, under content/questions. The independent reviewers will make their individual recommendations to the Census Bureau. All submissions will be given full consideration, regardless of the format. • Proposals will be evaluated as follows: ○ Quality and innovativeness of the organization's plans to disseminate census data to persons served and to the local underserved communities. 45% ○ Expertise of the applicant organization in conducting research, producing research products, and research that focuses on underserved communities. 20% ○ Resources and level of organization available to effectively carry out the program requirements, including staff, equipment and space. 20% ○ Relevancy of the types of services offered and the communities served by the applicant organization. 5% ○ Ability to disseminate data to their membership and local community. 5% ○ Level of knowledge of and previous interaction with the Census Bureau or Census Bureau data products. 5% • Senior Census Bureau staff will make final decisions on the organizations selected for the CIC Program. Preference shall be given to nonprofit organizations with research as part of their missions or as a component of their organization. The highest consideration will be given to an organization's data dissemination plans, as reflected in the 45% percentage weight given to this criterion. F. Notification Process Organizations selected to participate in the CIC Program will be notified in writing by September 15, 2006. The Census Bureau Program Office administering the CIC Program will advise organizations whose proposals are declined as promptly as possible. If your organization is selected, you must send a representative to a training conference on October 10-13, 2006. G. Paperwork Reduction Act Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person is required to respond to, nor shall a person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with, a collection of information subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act

(PRA)unless that collection of information displays a current valid Office of Management and Budget

(OMB)control number. In accordance with the PRA, Title 44, United States Code, Chapter 35, OMB approved this information collection under OMB control number 0607-0760. Dated: June 9, 2006. Charles Louis Kincannon, Director, Bureau of the Census. [FR Doc. E6-9262 Filed 6-14-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-07-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Bureau of Industry and Security [Docket No. 05-BIS-21] In the Matter of: Kailash Muttreja, MUTCO International, Kelenberweg 37 1101, EX Amsterdam, Netherlands, Respondent; Decision and Order In a charging letter filed on November 22, 2005, the Bureau of Industry and Security

(BIS)alleged that Respondent, Kailash Muttreja (Muttreja), 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. §§2401-2420 (2000)) (the Act). 2 1 The Regulations are currently codified at 15 CFR parts 730-774 (2006). The charged violations occurred in 2000 through 2002. The Regulations governing the violations at issue are found in the 2000 through 2002 versions of the Code of Federal Regulations (15 CFR parts 730-774 (2000-2002)). 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 reauthorized 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 2, 2005 (70 FR 45,273 (August 5, 2005)), has continued the Regulations in effect under IEEPA. BIS alleged that Muttreja conspired to obtain toxins, including Aflatoxin (M1, P1, Q1) and Staphyloccocal Enterotoxin (A and B), items subject to the Regulations and classified under export control classification number

(ECCN)1C351, on behalf of a North Korean end-user and to export those toxins to North Korea. The charging letter also alleged that Muttreja solicited a violation of the Regulations by ordering the above-mentioned toxins from a U.S. company and by agreeing to complete the shipment of the toxins from the Netherlands to North Korea. In accordance with Section 766.3(b)(1) of the Regulations, on November 22, 2005, BIS mailed the notice of issuance of the charging letter by registered mail to Muttreja at his last known address. BIS has established that this charging letter was served in accordance with Section 766.3 of the Regulations and that BIS received the signed mail return receipt on January 18, 2006. To date, Muttreja 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 April 20, 2006. This Motion for Default Order recommended that Muttreja be denied export privileges under the Regulations for a period of six years. Under Section 766.7(a) of the Regulations, “[f]ailure of the respondent 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.” Based upon the record before him, the ALJ held Muttreja in default. On May 24, 2006, based on the record before him, the ALJ issued a Recommended Decision and Order in which he found that Muttreja committed one violation of Section 764.2(d) and one violation of Section 764.2(c) of the Regulations. The ALJ recommended the penalty of denial of Muttreja's export privileges for six years. The ALJ's Recommended Decision and Order, 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 importance of preventing future unauthorized exports. Based on my review of the entire record, I affirm the findings of fact and conclusions of law in the ALJ's Recommended Decision and Order. *Accordingly, it is therefore ordered* , *First,* that, for a period of six years from the date this Order is published in the **Federal Register** , Kailash Muttreja, MUTCO International, Kelenberweg 37 1101, EX Amsterdam, Netherlands, and when acting for or on his behalf, his representatives, agents, assigns, or employees (“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. Benefiting 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 upon publication in the **Federal Register.** Dated: June 9, 2006. David H. McCormick, Under Secretary of Commerce for Industry and Security. Department of Commerce—Bureau of Industry and Security [Docket No: 05-BIS-21] In the Matter of: Kailash Muttreja, MUTCO International, Kelenberweg 37 1101, EX Amsterdam, Netherlands, Respondent; Recommended Decision and Order On November 22, 2005, the Bureau of Industry and Security, U.S. Department of Commerce (“BIS”), issued a charging letter initiating this administrative enforcement proceeding against Kailash Muttreja (“Muttreja”). The Charging Letter alleged that Muttreja committed two violations of the Export Administration Regulations (currently codified at 15 CFR parts 730-774 (2006)) (the “Regulations”), 1 issued under the Export Administration Act of 1979, as amended (50 U.S.C. App. §§ 2401-2420 (2000)) (the “Act,). 2 1 The charged violations occurred in 2000 through 2002. The Regulations governing the violations at issue are found in the 2000 through 2002 versions of the Code of Federal Regulations (15 CFR parts 730-774 (2000-2002)). 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 was 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. 1701-06 (2000)) (“IEEPA”). On November 13, 2000, the Act was reauthorized 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)), as extended by the Notice of August 2, 2005 (70 FR 45,273 (August 5, 2005)), has continued the Regulations in effect under IEEPA. Specifically, the Charging Letter alleged that Muttreja conspired and acted in concert with others, known and unknown, to export toxins from the United States to North Korea without the required Department of Commerce license. BIS alleged that the goal of the conspiracy was to obtain toxins, including Aflatoxin (M1, P1, Q1) and Staphyloccocal Enterotoxin (A and B), items subject to the Regulations and classified under export control classification number (“ECCN”) 1C351, on behalf of a North Korean end-user and to export those toxins to North Korea. BIS alleged that, in furtherance of the conspiracy, Muttreja ordered the toxins from a co-conspirator in the United States and agreed to complete the export to North Korea once the toxins were delivered to the Netherlands from the United States. BIS alleged that, contrary to Section 742.2 of the Regulations, no Department of Commerce license was obtained for the export from the Untied States to North Korea. (Charge 1). The Charging Letter filed by BIS also alleged that, in or about July 2002, Muttreja solicited a violation of the Regulations by ordering toxins, including Aflatoxin (M1, P1, Q1) and Staphyloccocal Enterotoxin (A and B), items subject to the Regulations and classified under export control classification number (“ECCN”) 1C351, from a co-conspirator in the United States and agreeing to complete the export of the toxins to North Korea. BIS also alleged that, contrary to Section 742.2 of the Regulations, no Department of Commerce license was obtained for the export from the United States to North Korea. (Charge 2). Section 766.3(b)(1) of the Regulations provides that notice of the issuance of a charging letter shall be served on a respondent by mailing a copy by registered or certified mail addressed to the respondent at the respondent's last known address. In accordance with the Regulations, on November 22, 2005, BIS mailed the notice of issuance of a charging letter by registered mail to Muttreja at his last known address: MUTCO International, Kelenberweg 37 1101, EX Amsterdam, Netherlands. BIS has submitted evidence that establishes that this Charging Letter was served in accordance with Section 766.3 of the Regulations and that BIS received the signed return receipt on January 18, 2006. Section 766.6(a) of the Regulations provides, in pertinent part, that “[t]he respondent must answer the charging letter within 30 days after being served with notice of issuance of the charging letter” initiating the administrative enforcement proceeding. To date, Muttreja has not filed an answer to the Charging Letter. Pursuant to the default procedures set forth in Section 766.7 of the Regulations, the undersigned finds the facts to be as alleged in the Charging Letter, and hereby determines that those facts establish that Muttreja committed one violation of Section 764.2(d), and one violation of Section 764.2(c) of the Regulations. Section 764.3 of the Regulations sets forth the sanctions BIS may seek for violations of the Regulations. The applicable sanctions are:

(i)A monetary penalty,

(ii)suspension from practice before the Bureau of Industry and Security, and

(iii)a denial of export privileges under the Regulations. * See* 15 CFR 764.3 (2006). Because Muttreja solicited the export of toxins, items controlled by BIS for Anti-Terrorism reasons for export to North Korea, BIS requests that the undersigned recommends to the Under Secretary of Commerce for Industry and Security 3 that Muttreja's export privileges be denied for six years. 3 Pursuant to section 13(c)(1) of the Export Administration Act and Section 766.17(b)(2) of the Regulations, in export control enforcement cases, the Administrative Law Judge makes recommended findings of fact and conclusions of law that the Under Secretary must affirm, modify or vacate. The Under Secretary's action is the final decision for the U.S. Commerce Department. BIS has suggested these sanctions because Muttreja's role in conspiring to export toxins to North Korea, as well as his role in ordering toxins for export to North Korea, represents a significant potential harm to the essential national interests protected by U.S. export controls. 4 BIS has noted that the items involved in the attempted export in this case involved Aflatoxins (M1, PI, Q1) and Staphyloccocal Enterotoxins (A and B). These items are controlled by BIS for Anti-Terrorism reasons. BIS asserted that Muttreja's role in conspiring and soliciting the export of these items for delivery to North Korea—a country that the United States Government designated as a state sponsor of international terrorism—represents significant harm to the national interests protected by U.S. export controls. 5 Furthermore, BIS believes that the imposition of a six-year denial order is appropriate in this case since BIS may face difficulties in collecting a monetary penalty, as Muttreja is not located in the United States. Finally, BIS believes that the recommended denial order is particularly appropriate in this case, since Muttreja has failed to respond to the Charging Letter filed by BIS. In light of these circumstances, BIS believes that the denial of Muttreja's export privileges for six years is an appropriate sanction. 4 *See* 15 CFR 766.1, Supp. No.1, III, A. (Stating that a denial order may be considered even in matters involving simple negligence or carelessness, if the violation(s) involves “harm to the national security or other *essential interests protected by the export control system* ,” if the violations are of such a nature and extent that a monetary fine alone represents an insufficient penalty * * * .) (emphasis added). 5 *See id.* (“ *Designation Involved:* BIS is more likely to seek a greater monetary penalty and/or denial or export privileges * * * in cases involving:

(1)exports or reexports to countries subject to anti-terrorism controls * * *.”) (emphasis in original). On this basis, the undersigned concurs with BIS and recommends that the Under Secretary enter an Order denying Muttreja's export privileges for a period of six years. Such a denial order is consistent with penalties imposed in past cases under the Regulations involving shipments to countries designated as “Terrorist Supporting Countries.” 6 *See In the Matter of Petrom GmbH International Trade* , 70 FR 32,743 (June 6, 2005) (affirming the recommendations of the Administrative Law Judge that a twenty year denial order and a civil monetary sanction of $143,000 were appropriate where knowing violations involved a shipment of EAR99 items to Iran); *In the Matters of Yaudat Mustafa Talyi a.k.a. Yaudat Mustafa a.k.a. Joseph Talyi* , 69 FR 77,177 (December 27, 2004) (affirming the ALJ's recommendations that a twenty year denial order and maximum civil penalty of $11,000 per violation were appropriate where an individual exported oil field parts to Libya without authorization, in violation of a BIS order temporarily denying his export privileges and with knowledge that a violation would occur; and solicited a violation of the Regulations by ordering oil field parts from a U.S. manufacturer without authorization and with knowledge that a violation would occur); *In the Matter of Arian Transportvermittlungs. GmbH* , 69 FR 28,120 (May 18, 2004) (affirming the recommendation of the Administrative Law Judge that a ten year denial order was appropriate where knowing violations involved a shipment of a controlled item to Iran); *In the Matter of Jabal Damavand General Trading Company* , 67 FR 32,009 (May 13, 2002) (affirming the recommendation of the Administrative Law Judge that a ten year denial order was appropriate where knowing violations involved shipments of EAR99 items to Iran); *In the Matter of Adbulamir* , 68 FR 57,406 (October 3, 2003) (affirming the recommendation of the Administrative Law Judge that a twenty year denial order was appropriate where knowing violations involved shipments of EAR99 items to Iran as a part of a conspiracy to ship such items through Canada to Iran). 6 BIS's list of Terrorist Supporting Countries is set forth in 15 CFR part 740, Supp. No. 1, Country Group E:1. A six year denial of Muttreja's export privileges is warranted because Muttreja's violations, like those of the respondents in the above-cited case, involved exports made to Terrorist Supporting Countries in violation of U.S. export control laws. The terms of the denial of export privileges against Muttreja should be consistent with the standard language used by BIS in such orders. The language is: [REDACTED SECTION] [REDACTED SECTION] [REDACTED SECTION] [REDACTED SECTION] This Order, which constitutes the final agency action in this matter, is effective upon publication in the **Federal Register** . Accordingly, the undersigned refers 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 Section 766.7 of the Regulations. Within 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: May 24, 2006. Joseph N. Ingolia, Chief Administrative Law Judge. [FR Doc. 06-5434 Filed 6-14-06; 8:45 am]

Connectionstraces to 8

Traces to 8 documents

U.S. Code

CFR