[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 247 (Monday, December 27, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Pages 77177-77181]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-28186]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Under Secretary for Industry and Security

[Docket No. 03-BIS-013]


In the Matters of: Yaudat Mustafa Talyi a.k.a. Yaudat Mustafa 
a.k.a. Joseph Talyi, 41 Chamale Cove East, Slidell, Louisiana 70460, 
Respondents; Decision and Order

    On June 22, 2004, the Bureau of Industry and Security (``BIS'') 
issued a charging letter against the respondent, Yaudat Mustafa Talyi, 
a.k.a. Yaudat Mustafa, a.k.a. Joseph Talyi (``Talyi''), that alleged 11 
violations of the Export Administration Regulations (Regulations),\1\ 
which were issued under the Export Administration Act of 1979,

[[Page 77178]]

as amended (50 U.S.C. app. 2401-2420 (2000)) (``Act'').\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The violations charged occurred between 2001 and 2002. The 
Regulations governing the violations at issue are found in the 2001 
and 2002 versions of the Code of Federal Regulations (15 CFR parts 
730-774 (2001-2002)). The 2004 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. Executive Order 13222 of August 17, 
2001 (3 CFR, 2001 Comp., p. 783 (2002)), which has been extended by 
successive Presidential Notices, the most recent being that of 
August 7, 2003 (68 FR 47833, August 11, 2003), continues the 
Regulations in effect under IEEPA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Specifically, the charging letter alleged that, on or about May 29, 
2001, Talyi exported oil field parts, items subject to both the 
Regulations and the Libyan Sanctions Regulations of the Treasury 
Department's Office of Foreign Assets Control (``OFAC''), to Libya 
without obtaining authorization from OFAC as required by section 746.4 
of the Regulations. In doing so, Talyi committed one violation of 
section 764.2(a) of the Regulations.
    The charging letter also alleged that, in March 2002, Talyi 
solicited a violation of the Regulations by ordering oil field parts, 
items subject to both the Regulations and the Libyan Sanctions 
Regulations, from an original equipment manufacturer located in the 
United States, for export to an end-user in Libya without the required 
OFAC authorization. In doing so, Talyi committed one violation of 
section 764.2(c) of the Regulations.
    The charging letter alleged that Talyi ordered the items related to 
the May 2001 export and the March 2002 solicitation from original 
equipment manufacturers located in the United States with knowledge 
that a violation of the Regulations would occur. Specifically, Talyi 
ordered the items knowing that they would be exported to end-users in 
Libya and with knowledge that authorization from OFAC was required but 
would not be obtained. In doing so, Talyi committed two violations of 
section 764.2(e) of the Regulations.
    Further, the charging letter alleged that, between October 2002 and 
on or about December 13, 2002, Talyi participated in four transactions 
concerning items subject to the Regulations that were to be exported 
from the United States in violation of a BIS order temporarily denying 
his export privileges. On two separate occasions--or about October 22, 
2002, and on or about November 11, 2002--Talyi sent e-mails to an oil 
field equipment broker located in the United States that directed the 
broker to obtain price quotations for oil field parts that were to be 
exported from the United States to the United Arab Emirates. Between 
October and November of 2002, Talyi also arranged for the attempted 
export of items subject to the Regulations from the United States to 
the United Arab Emirates from a grocery store in Slidell, Louisiana. 
Then, on or about December 13, 2002, Talyi sent an e-mail to the oil 
field equipment broker referenced above that included an attachment 
describing the technical information about the oil field parts to be 
exported from the United States to the United Arab Emirates. In the e-
mail, Talyi asked the broker if he would like to handle the file and 
directed the broker to clarify parts specifications in response to 
comments provided by the end-user in the United Arab Emirates. Talyi's 
participation in these four transactions was contrary to the terms and 
conditions of a September 30, 2002, BIS Temporary Denial Order denying 
Talyi's export privileges. In doing so, Talyi committed four violations 
of Section 764.2(k) of the Regulations.
    The charging letter alleged that, in connection with three of the 
violations of Section 764.2(k) of the Regulations discussed above, 
Talyi ordered the items at issue with knowledge that such actions were 
in violation of the terms and conditions of a September 30, 2002, BIS 
Temporary Denial Order. In so doing, Talyi committed three violations 
of section 764.2(e) of the Regulations.
    On the basis of the factual record before the Administrative Law 
Judge (``ALJ''), he found that Talyi failed to file an answer to BIS's 
charging letter within the time required by the Regulations. Indeed, as 
service of the notice of issuance of the charging letter on Talyi's 
counsel was properly effected on June 30, 2004, a response to the 
charging letter was due no later than July 30, 2004. The record does 
not include any such response from the respondent. The ALJ therefore 
held Talyi in default.
    Under the default procedures set forth in 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.'' Accordingly, on November 18, 2004, the ALJ issued a 
Recommended Decision and Order, in which he found that the facts 
alleged in the charging letter constitute the findings of fact in this 
matter and, thereby, establish that Talyi committed one violation of 
section 764.2(a), one violation of section 764.2(c), five violations of 
section 764.2(e), and four violations of section 764.2(k) of the 
Regulations. The ALJ also recommended a 20-year denial of the 
respondent's export privileges and a maximum civil penalty of $121,000 
against the respondent.
    Pursuant to Section 766.22 of the Regulations, the ALJ's 
Recommended Decision and Order has been referred to me for final 
action. Based on my review of the entire record, I find that the record 
supports the ALJ's findings of fact and conclusions of law regarding 
each of the above-referenced charges. I also find that the penalty 
recommended by the ALJ is appropriate given the complete disregard for 
U.S. export control laws demonstrated by the respondent. Talyi 
knowingly violated the Regulations, violated the terms and conditions 
of a Temporary Denial Order, breached his plea agreement in a criminal 
case by refusing to sign a civil settlement agreement offered by BIS, 
and failed to participate in this administrative proceeding.
    Specifically, Talyi knowingly violated the Regulations by ordering 
and shipping oil field parts from the United States to Libya, a 
sanctioned country. He also violated the terms and conditions of a BIS 
Temporary Denial Order on four occasions by participating in exports 
and attempted exports to the United Arab Emirates. On three of these 
occasions, Talyi ordered the items at issue with knowledge that the 
required U.S. government authorization would not be obtained. In 
January 29, 2004, pursuant to a plea agreement filed with the U.S. 
District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, Talyi pled guilty 
to two felony counts of violating the International Emergency Economic 
Powers Act for his participation in the export and attempted export of 
items from the United States to the United Arab Emirates in violation 
of the Temporary Denial Order. In the plea agreement, Talyi agreed to 
settle the BIS administrative case by paying a $75,000 civil penalty 
and accepting a 10-year denial of export privileges. However, Talyi 
subsequently refused to sign the settlement agreement, and Talyi's 
counsel ignored repeated attempts by counsel for BIS to discuss the 
matter in spring of 2004. Moreover, once this administrative proceeding 
was initiated against Talyi, he did not respond to the charging letter 
or otherwise participate in the proceeding. In light of these 
circumstances, I affirm the findings of fact and conclusions of law of 
the ALJ's Recommended Decision and Order.
    It is hereby ordered,
    First, that a civil penalty of $121,000 is assessed against Talyi, 
which shall be

[[Page 77179]]

paid to the Department of Commerce within 30 days from the date of 
entry of this Order. Payment shall be made in the manner specified in 
the attached instructions.
    Second, that, pursuant to the Debt Collection Act of 1982, as 
amended (31 U.S.C. 3701-3720E (2000)), the civil penalty owed under 
this Order accrues interest as more fully described in the attached 
Notice, and, if payment is not made by the due date specified herein, 
Talyi will be assessed, in addition to the full amount of the civil 
penalty and interest, a penalty charge and an administrative charge, as 
further described in the attached Notice.
    Third, that, for a period of 20 years from the date on which this 
Order takes effect, Yaudat Mustafa Talyi, a.k.a. Yaudat Mustafa, a.k.a. 
Joseph Talyi (``Talyi''), 41 Chamale Cove East, Slidell, Louisiana 
70460, and, when acting for or on behalf of Talyi, his representatives, 
agents, assigns, and employees (individually referred to as ``a 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 connection with any other activity subject to 
the Regulations.
    Fourth, that no person may directly or indirectly, do any of the 
following:
    A. Export or reexport to or on behalf of a Denied Person any item 
subject to the Regulations;
    B. Take any action that facilitates the acquisition or attempted 
acquisition by a Denied Person of the ownership, possession, or control 
of any item subject to the Regulations that has been or will be 
exported from the United States, including financing or other support 
activities related to a transaction whereby a Denied Person acquires or 
attempts to acquire such ownership, possession, or control;
    C. Take any action to acquire from or to facilitate the acquisition 
or attempted acquisition from a Denied Person of any item subject to 
the Regulations that has been exported from the United States;
    D. Obtain from a Denied Person in the United States any item 
subject to the Regulations with knowledge or reason to know that the 
item will be, or is intended to be, exported from the United States; or
    E. Engage in any transaction to service any item subject to the 
Regulations that has been or will be exported from the United States 
and that is owned, possessed, or controlled by a Denied Person, or 
service any item, of whatever origin, that is owned, possessed, or 
controlled by a Denied Person if such service involves the use of any 
item subject to the Regulations that has been or will be exported from 
the United States. For purposes of this paragraph, ``servicing'' means 
installation, maintenance, repair, modification, or testing.
    Fifth, 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 a 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.
    Sixth, 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: December 20, 2004.
Kenneth I. Juster,
Under Secretary of Commerce for Industry and Security.

Notice

    The Order to which this Notice is attached describes the reasons 
for the assessment of the civil monetary penalty. It also specifies the 
amount owed and the date by which the civil penalty is due and payable.
    Under the Debt Collection Act of 1982, as amended (31 U.S.C. 3701-
3720E (2000)), and the Federal Claims Collection Standards (31 CFR 
Parts 900-904 (2002)), interest accrues on any and all civil monetary 
penalties owed and unpaid under the Order, from the date of the Order 
until paid in full. The rate of interest assessed respondent is the 
rate of the current value of funds to the U.S. Treasury on the date 
that the Order was entered. However, interest is waived on any portion 
paid within 30 days of the date of the Order. See 31 U.S.C. 3717 and 31 
CFR 901.9
    The civil monetary penalty will be delinquent if not paid by the 
due date specified in the Order. If the penalty becomes delinquent, 
interest will continue to accrue on the balance remaining due and 
unpaid, and respondent will also be assessed both an administrative 
charge to cover the cost of processing and handling the delinquent 
claim, and a penalty charge of six percent per year. Although the 
penalty charge will be computed from the date that the civil penalty 
becomes delinquent, it will be assessed only on sums due and unpaid for 
over 90 days after the date. See 31 U.S.C. 3717 and 31 CFR 901.9.
    The foregoing constitutes the initial written notice and demand to 
respondent in accordance with section 901.2(b) of the Federal Claims 
Collection Standards (31 CFR 901.2(b)).

Instructions for Payment of Civil Penalty

    1. The civil penalty check should be made payable to: U.S. 
Department of Commerce.
    2. The check should be mailed to: U.S. Department of Commerce, 
Bureau of Industry and Security, Export Enforcement Team, Room H-6883, 
14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230. Attn: 
Sharon Gardner.

United States Department of Commerce, Bureau of Industry and Security

[Docket No. 03-BIS-13]

    In the Matter of: Yaudat Mustafa Talyi a.k.a Yaudat Mustafa 
a.k.a. Joseph Talyi 41 Chamale Cove East, Sidell, Louisiana 70460 
and Oakdale FDC Federal Bureau of Prisons P.O. Box 5060 Oakdale, 
Louisiana 71463 Respondent; Decision and Order on Motion for Default 
Order.
    On June 22, 2004, the Bureau of Industry and Security, U.S. 
Department of Commerce (``BIS'') issued a charging letter initiating 
this administrative enforcement proceeding against Respondent, 
Yaudat Mustafa Talyi, a.k.a. Yaudat Mustafa, a.k.a. Joseph Talyi 
(``Talyi''). The charging letter alleged that Talyi committed eleven 
(11) violations of the Export Administration Regulations (currently 
codified at 15 CFR parts 730-774 (2004)) (the ``Regulations'',\1\ 
issued under the Export

[[Page 77180]]

Administration Act of 1979, as amended (50 U.S.C. App. 2401-2420 
(2000)) (the ``Act''),\2\ relating to his export activities 
concerning items exported or to be exported from the United States 
to Libya in violations of U.S. export control laws and to the United 
Arab Emirates in violation of a temporary denial order (``initial 
TDO'') issued by BIS on September 30, 2002. See Exhibit 1, BIS 
Initial TDO, dated September 30, 2002 (67 FR 62225 (October 4, 
2002)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The charged violations occurred from 2001 to 2002. The 
Regulations governing the violations at issue are found in the 2001 
to 2002 versions of the Code of Federal Regulations (15 CFR parts 
730-774 (2001-2002)). The 2004 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 1322 of 
August 17, 2001 (3 CFR 2001 Comp. 783 (2002)), as extended by the 
Notice of August 6, 2004 (69 Fed. Reg. 48763, August 10, 2004), has 
continued the Regulations in effect under the IEEPA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Procedural Background

    The procedural background in this matter insists of three 
interrelated elements concerning Talyi and his unlawful export 
activities: (i) a BIS temporary denial order (``initial TDO''),\3\ 
(ii) a federal criminal case against Talyi, and (iii) this resulting 
administrative enforcement proceeding.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ A temporary denial order may be issued against a person by 
the Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Export Enforcement for up to 
180 days based on a finding that there is sufficient evidence that 
the order is necessary in the public interest to prevent an imminent 
violations of the Act, the Regulations, or any order license or 
authorization issued there under. See 15 CFR 766.24.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

a. BIS Temporary Denial Orders Issued Against Talyi

    On September 30, 2002, the Assistant Secretary of Commerce for 
Export Enforcement (``Assistant Secretary'') issued the initial TDO 
denying the export privileges of International Business Services, 
Ltd. (``IBS''), and its owner, Talyi, for one hundred and eighty 
(180) days based on evidence indicating they were involved in 
illegal exports of oil field parts to Libya and Sudan. See Exhibit 
1, BIS Initial TDO, dated September 30, 2002 (67 FR 62225 (October 
2, 2002)).\4\ The Assistant Secretary renewed the initial TDO 
against Talyi on four subsequent occasions, each for the maximum 
period of one hundred and eighty (180) days, based on further 
evidence demonstrating Talyi had violated the initial TDO. See 68 FR 
15982 (April 2, 2003); 68 FR 56261 (September 30, 2003); 69 FR 15291 
(March 25, 2004); and 69 FR 57671 (September 27, 2004). The current 
TDO is set to expire on March 12, 2005.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The initial TDO also named Talyi's business, Top Oil Tools, 
as a related person. See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. Criminal Case Against Talyi

    On January 29, 2004, pursuant to a plea agreement filed in the 
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, Talyi 
pled guilty to two felony counts of violating the International 
Emergency Economic Powers Act for his participation in the export 
and attempted export of items from the United States to the United 
Arab Emirates that were violations of the initial TDO. See Exhibit 
2, Talyi Plea Agreement, dated January 29, 2004.
    On April 28, 2004, Talyi was sentenced to five months in prison, 
five months of home confinement, and one year of supervised release 
for the two felony convictions. See Exhibit 3, Talyi Judgment 
Commitment Order, dated April 29, 2004. Talyi was also ordered to 
pay a twenty-five thousand dollar ($25,000) criminal fine and a two 
hundred dollar ($200) special asssessment. See id. Talyi has a 
projected release date from federal prison on December 1, 2004, at 
which time he will begin his five month term of home confinement.
    Talyi's plea agreement stated that Talyi agreed to settle the 
BIS administrative case by paying a seventy-five thousand dollar 
($75,000) civil penalty and accepting a ten (10) year denial of 
exporting privileges. See Exhibit 2, Talyi Plea Agreement, dated 
January 29, 2004. The plea agreement also states that a copy of the 
settlement agreement for BIS's administrative case was attached 
thereto. See id. The settlement agreement for BIS's administrative 
case was attached thereto. See id. The settlement agreement 
incorporated BIS's allegations that Talyi committed eleven (11) 
violations of the Regulations for his export activities concerning 
oil field parts to be exported from the United States to Libya 
without the required U.S. Government authorizations for 
participating in export transactions in violation of the initial 
TDO. See Exhibit 4, BIS Settlement Agreement.

c. Administrative Case Against Talyi

    On March 2, 2004, about six weeks prior to Talyi's criminal 
sentencing, BIS sent settlement documents to Talyi's counsel for the 
administrative case. Those settlement documents contained the 
agreement that Talyi would pay a seventy-five thousand dollar 
($75,000) civil penalty and receive a ten (1) year denial of his 
export privileges for the eleven (11) charges contained in the 
proposed charging letter. However, Talyi refused to sign the 
settlement agreement and Talyi's counsel ignored repeated attempts 
by counsel for BIS to discuss the matter throughout the spring of 
2004. Specifically, Talyi's counsel did not return any of BIS's 
calls nor did he respond to any correspondence sent by BIS's counsel 
concerning this matter. See e.g. Exhibits 5 and 6, BIS Letters to 
Frank DeSalvo, dated May 25, 2004 and June 16, 2004.
    As a result, on June 22, 2004, BIS filed a charging letter 
thereby initiating this formal administrative proceeding against 
Talyi. See Exhibit 7, BIS Charging Letter, dated June 22, 2004. As 
discussed infra, BIS served a copy of this charging letter on 
Talyi's counsel. See Exhibit 8, U.S. Postal Service, Certified Mail 
Returned Receipt. On July 9, 2004, after no response from Talyi or 
his counsel, Talyi's failure to enter into the BIS settlement 
agreement, and his apparent breach of his plea agreement, BIS 
withdrew its offer of settlement. See Exhibit 9, Letter to Frank 
DeSalvo, dated July 9, 2004. To date, Talyi has not entered into a 
settlement agreement that is consistent with his criminal plea 
agreement and has been unwilling to engage in constructive 
settlement negotiations with BIS.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ After BIS filed the charging letter and withdrew its 
settlement offer, Talyi (through his counsel) made a counter-offer 
to BIS. However, because this counter-offer was not consistent with 
the terms of Talyi's plea agreement and the BIS settlement agreement 
to which Talyi had previously agreed, BIS rejected Talyi's counter-
offer.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Facts

a. Talyi's Illegal Exports to Libya

    The BIS charging letter stated that on or about May 29, 2001, 
Talyi ordered and exported oil field parts from the United States to 
Libya with knowledge that the required authorization from the U.S. 
Government would not be obtained. See Exhibit 7, BIS Charging 
Letter, dated June 22, 2004, Charges 1-2. BIS further charged that 
between, on, or about March 14, 2002, and on or about March 26, 
2002, Talyi ordered oil field parts from an original equipment 
manufacturer located in the United States for export to an end-user 
in Libya with knowledge that the required U.S. Government 
authorization not be obtained. See id., Charges 3-4.

b. Talyi's Participation in Illegal Exports or Attempted Export to 
the United Arab Emirates.

    BIS also charged Talyi with violations concerning his 
participation in exports or attempted exports to the United Arab 
Emirates. See Exhibit 7, BIS Charging Letter, dated June 22, 2004. 
Specifically, BIS charged that on four occasions between, on, or 
about October 22, 2002, and on or about December 13, 2002, Talyi 
participated in an export or attempted export of items from the 
United Arab Emirates in violation of the initial TDO. See id., 
Charges 9-11.

III. Service of the Charging Letter

    In accordance with Section 766.3(b)(1) of the Regulations, on 
June 22, 2004, BIS mailed the notice of issuance of a charging 
letter by registered mail to Talyi's attorney, Frank G. DeSalvo, at 
his last known address: Frank G. DeSalvo, Esq., 201 South Galvez 
Street, New Orleans, Louisiana, 70119. See Exhibit 10, U.S. Postal 
Service Certified mail Receipt, dated June 22, 2004. According to 
the registered mail receipt, the notice of issuance of a charging 
letter was received by Mr. DeSalvo's office on June 30, 2004. See 
Exhibit 8, U.S. Postal Service, Certified Mail Returned Receipt. To 
date, Talyi has failed to answer or otherwise respond to the 
charging letter.
    Accordingly, because Talyi has not answered or otherwise 
responded to the charging letter within thirty (30) days from the 
time he received notice of issuance of the charging letter, as 
required by Section 766.6 of the Regulations, Talyi has defaulted in 
this matter.

[[Page 77181]]

IV. Legal Basis for Issuing an Order of Default

    Section 766.7 of the Regulations states that BIS may file a 
motion for an Order of Default if a responder fails to file a timely 
answer to a charging letter. That section, entitled Default, 
provided in pertinent part:
    Failure of the respondent to file an answer within the time 
provided constituted a waiver of the responder'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 sanctions.
    15 CFR 766.7 (2004).
    Pursuant to section 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'' 
initiated the proceeding.

V. Sanctions

    Section 764.3 of the Regulations establishes the sanctions that 
BIS may seek for the violations charged in this proceeding. The 
applicable sanctions are: (i) a civil penalty; (ii) suspension from 
practice before the Department of Commerce; and (iii) a denial of 
export privileges under the Regulations. See 15 CFR 764.3 (2004).
    BIS requests that I recommend to the Under Secretary of Commerce 
for Industry and Security (``Under Secretary'') \6\ that Talyi's 
export privileges under the Regulations be denied for twenty (20) 
years and that Talyi be ordered to pay a one hundred twenty-one 
thousand dollar ($121,000) civil penalty to the Department of 
Commerce, the maximum civil penalty allowable based on the charges 
in the charging letter. See Bureau of Industry and Security's Motion 
for Default Order, at 7-9. I agree with BIS, in that Talyi has 
exhibited a severe disregard and contempt for U.S. export control 
laws. See Exhibit 2, Talyi Plea Agreement, dated January 29, 2004; 
see also Exhibit 3, Talyi Judgment and Commitment Order, dated April 
29, 2004. Talyi has deliberately and covertly participated in export 
transactions of items from the United States to the United Arab 
Emirates in violation of an initial TDO issued by BIS. See id. Talyi 
is currently serving a prison term resulting from his felony guilty 
plea to these violations of the TDO. See Exhibit 3, Talyi Judgment 
and Commitment Order, dated April 29, 2004. Furthermore, Talyi 
exported and solicited oil field parts from the United States to 
Libya, a country against which the United States maintained an 
economic embargo because of Libya's support for international 
terrorism, when Talyi knew the required U.S. government 
authorization would not be obtained. See Exhibit 7, BIS Charging 
Letter, dated June 22, 2004.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Pursuant to section 13(c)(1) of the Act and section 
766.17(b)(2) of the Regulations, in export control enforcement 
cases, the ALJ issues a recommended decision and order which is 
reviewed by the Under Secretary, who issues the final decision for 
the agency.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    BIS has also established that Talyi failed to enter into a 
settlement agreement consistent with that to which Talyi previously 
agreed in his criminal plea agreement, but has refused to engage in 
any good faith settlement negotiations with BIS concerning the case. 
See Exhibit 2, Talyi Plea Agreement, dated January 29, 2004; see 
also Exhibit 3, Talyi Judgment and Commitment Order, dated April 29, 
2004; Exhibits 5 and 6, EIS Letters to Frank DeSalvo, dated May 25, 
2004, and June 16, 2004. In light of the above, through his illegal 
actions Talyi has demonstrated that this is the kind of case for 
which a lengthy denial order and the maximum civil penalty are 
necessary because Talyi simply cannot be trused to comply with U.S. 
export control laws. See id.
    Based on the foregoing, I concur with BIS and recommend that the 
Under Secretary enter an Order denying Talyi's export privileges for 
a period of twenty (20) years and assess a twenty-one thousand 
dollar ($121,000) civil penalty against Talyi. Such a denial order 
and civil penalty are consistent with penalties imposed in recent 
cases under the Regulations involving illegal exports to Iran, a 
country that is subject to a similar embargo as that which had 
applied to Libya during the relevant time period. See In the Matter 
of Jabal Damavand General Trading Company, 67 FR 32009 (May 13, 
2002) (affirming the ALJ's recommendations that a ten year denial 
was appropriate where violations involved shipments of EAR99 items 
to Iran); In the Matter of Adbulamir Mahdi, 68 FR 57406 (October 3, 
2003) (affirming the ALJ's recommendations that a twenty (20) year 
denial was appropriate where violations involved shipments of oil 
field equipment to Iran as part of a conspiracy to ship items 
through Canada to Iran).
    The recommended penalties are also consistent with settlements 
reached in significant BIS cases under the Regulations concerning 
illegal exports of pipe coating materials to Libya. See In the 
Matter of Jerry Vernon Ford. 67 FR 7352 (Tuesday, February 19, 2002) 
(settlement agreement for a twenty-five (25) year denial); and In 
the Matter of Thane-Coat, Inc., 67 FR 7351 (Tuesday, February 19, 
2002) (settlement agreement for a civil penalty of one million, one 
hundred twenty thousand dollars ($1,120,000) (five hundred twenty 
thousand dollars ($520,000) suspended for two years and a twenty-
five (25) year denial).

[Portions Redacted]

    Accordingly, I am referring this Recommended Decision and Order 
to the Under Secretary 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).

    Done and dated this 18 of November, at Baltimore, MD.
Joseph N. Ingolia,
Chief Administrative Law Judge.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

    I hereby certify that I served the Decision and Order on Motion 
for Default Order by Federal Express to the following person: Frank 
G. DeSalvo, Esq., 201 South Galvez St., New Orleans, LA 70119.

    Done and dated this 18 day of November 2004 Baltimore, Maryland.
Alyssa L. Paladino,
Law Clerk, ALJ Docketing Center, United States Coast Guard, 40 S. Gay 
Street, Room 412, Baltimore, MD 21202. Phone: (410) 962-7434. 
Facsimile: (410) 962-1742.
[FR Doc. 04-28186 Filed 12-23-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DT-M