Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 224 / Monday, November 22, 2010 / Notices 71075 

1The EAR is currently codified at 15 CFR parts 

730–774 (2010). The EAR are issued under the 

Export Administration Act of 1979, as amended (50 

U.S.C. app. §§ 2401–2420 (2000)) (‘‘EAA’’). 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 12, 

2010 (75 FR 50681 (Aug. 16, 2010)), has continued 

the Regulations in effect under the International 

Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701, 

et seq.) (‘‘IEEPA’’). 

case briefs not later than 15 days after 

the date of publication of this notice. 

See 19 CFR 351.309(c)(ii). Rebuttal 

briefs, which must be limited to issues 

raised in case briefs, may be filed not 

later than 20 days after the date of 

publication of this notice. Parties who 

submit case briefs or rebuttal briefs in 

this changed circumstances review are 

requested to submit with each 

argument: (1) A statement of the issue; 

and (2) a brief summary of the 

argument. Consistent with 19 CFR 

351.216(e), we will issue the final 

results of this changed-circumstances 

review no later than 270 days after the 

date on which this review was initiated, 

or within 45 days of publication of these 

preliminary results if all parties agree to 

our preliminary finding. 

During the course of this antidumping 

duty changed circumstances review, the 

cash deposit requirements for the 

subject merchandise exported and 

manufactured by Lamina y Placa will 

continue to be the all-others rate 

established in the investigation. See 

Notice of Antidumping Duty Orders: 

Certain Circular Welded Non-Alloy 

Steel Pipe from Brazil, the Republic of 

Korea (Korea), Mexico, and Venezuela, 

and Amendment to Final Determination 

of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: 

Certain Circular Welded Non-Alloy 

Steel Pipe from Korea, 57 FR 49453 

(November 2, 1992). 

This notice of initiation and 

preliminary results is published in 

accordance with sections 751(b)(1) and 

777(i)(1) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.216 

and 19 CFR 351.221(c)(3). 

Dated: November 15, 2010. 

Ronald K. Lorentzen, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. 2010–29384 Filed 11–19–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

Bureau of Industry and Security 

Regulations and Procedures Technical 

Advisory Committee; Notice of 

Partially Closed Meeting 

The Regulations and Procedures 

Technical Advisory Committee (RPTAC) 

will meet December 8, 2010, 9 a.m., 

Room 3884, in the Herbert C. Hoover 

Building, 14th Street between 

Constitution and Pennsylvania 

Avenues, NW., Washington, DC. The 

Committee advises the Office of the 

Assistant Secretary for Export 

Administration on implementation of 

the Export Administration Regulations 

(EAR) and provides for continuing 

review to update the EAR as needed. 

Agenda 

Public Session 

1. Opening remarks by the Chairman. 

2. Opening remarks by Bureau of 

Industry and Security. 

3. Export Enforcement update. 

4. Regulations update. 

5. Working group reports. 

6. Automated Export System (AES) 

update. 

7. Presentation of papers or comments 

by the Public. 

Closed Session 

8. Discussion of matters determined to 

be exempt from the provisions 

relating to public meetings found in 

5 U.S.C. app. 2 §§ 10(a)(1) and 

10(a)(3). 

The open session will be accessible 

via teleconference to 20 participants on 

a first come, first serve basis. To join the 

conference, submit inquiries to Ms. 

Yvette Springer at 

Yspringer@bis.doc.gov no later than 

December 1, 2010. 

A limited number of seats will be 

available for the public session. 

Reservations are not accepted. To the 

extent that time permits, members of the 

public may present oral statements to 

the Committee. The public may submit 

written statements at any time before or 

after the meeting. However, to facilitate 

the distribution of public presentation 

materials to the Committee members, 

the Committee suggests that presenters 

forward the public presentation 

materials prior to the meeting to Ms. 

Springer via email. 

The Assistant Secretary for 

Administration, with the concurrence of 

the delegate of the General Counsel, 

formally determined on November 3, 

2010, pursuant to Section 10(d) of the 

Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 

amended (5 U.S.C. app. 2 § (10)(d)), that 

the portion of the meeting dealing with 

matters the disclosure of which would 

be likely to frustrate significantly 

implementation of an agency action as 

described in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(9)(B) shall 

be exempt from the provisions relating 

to public meetings found in 5 U.S.C. 

app. 2 §§ 10(a)1 and 10(a)(3). The 

remaining portions of the meeting will 

be open to the public. 

For more information, call Yvette 

Springer at (202) 482–2813. 

Dated: November 17, 2010. 

Yvette Springer, 

Committee Liaison Officer. 

[FR Doc. 2010–29374 Filed 11–19–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–JT–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

Bureau of Industry and Security 

Action Affecting Export Privileges; 

Anvik Technologies Sdn. Bhd., a/k/a 

Anvik Technologies; Babak Jafarpour, 

a/k/a Bob Jefferson 

Anvik Technologies Sdn. Bhd., a/k/a 

Anvik Technologies 

Level 20, Menara Standard Chartered, 

30 Jalan Sultan Ismail, Kuala 

Lumpur 50250, Malaysia 

Level 36, Menara Citibank, 165 Jalan 

Ampang, Kuala Lumpur 50450, 

Malaysia 

Level 19, Two International Finance 

Centre, 8 Finance Street Central 

Hong Kong 

155 North Wacker Drive, 42nd Floor, 

Chicago, IL 60606; and 

Babak Jafarpour, a/k/a Bob Jefferson 

Level 20, Menara Standard Chartered, 

30 Jalan Sultan Ismail, Kuala 

Lumpur 50250, Malaysia 

Level 36, Menara Citibank, 165 Jalan 

Ampang, Kuala Lumpur 50450, 

Malaysia 

Level 19, Two International Finance 

Centre, 8 Finance Street Central 

Hong Kong 

155 North Wacker Drive, 42nd Floor, 

Chicago, IL 60606 

Respondents. 

Order Temporarily Denying Export 

Privileges 

Pursuant to Section 766.24 of the 

Export Administration Regulations 

(‘‘EAR’’ or the ‘‘Regulations’’),1 the 

Bureau of Industry and Security (‘‘BIS’’), 

U.S. Department of Commerce, through 

its Office of Export Enforcement 

(‘‘OEE’’), has requested that I issue an 

Order temporarily denying, for a period 

of 180 days, the export privileges under 

the EAR of: 

1. Anvik Technologies Sdn. Bhd. a/k/a 

Anvik Technologies. 

Level 20, Menara Standard Chartered, 

30 Jalan Sultan Ismail, Kuala 

Lumpur 50250, Malaysia. 

Level 36, Menara Citibank, 165 Jalan 

Ampang, Kuala Lumpur 50450, 

Malaysia. 

Level 19, Two International Finance 

Centre, 8 Finance Street Central 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
71076 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 224 / Monday, November 22, 2010 / Notices 

2As explained further below, this address is an 

address for ‘‘virtual office space’’ leased by 

Respondents from a company called Servcorp. See 

note 4. infra. It is BIS’s understanding that other 

persons also rent ‘‘virtual office space’’ at this 

address. The only current users at this address 

subject to this Temporary Denial Order as issued 

are the Respondents listed above. Other persons 

currently using this address are not subject to the 

Order. 

3See footnote 2 above. 

4A ‘‘virtual office’’ arrangement provides users 

with communication and physical office services 

available to a typical lessee of office space, 

providing the appearance that the user maintains an 

office at the virtual office location. Virtual office 

users can use phone numbers, physical/mailing 

addresses, receptionist services, etc. without 

actually leasing space or ever being present at the 

virtual office. 

Hong Kong. 

155 North Wacker Drive, 42nd Floor, 

Chicago, IL 60606.2

2. Babak Jafarpour a/k/a Bob Jefferson. 

Level 20, Menara Standard Chartered, 

30 Jalan Sultan Ismail, Kuala 

Lumpur 50250, Malaysia. 

Level 36, Menara Citibank, 165 Jalan 

Ampang, Kuala Lumpur 50450, 

Malaysia. 

Level 19, Two International Finance 

Centre, 8 Finance Street Central 

Hong Kong. 

155 North Wacker Drive, 42nd Floor, 

Chicago, IL 60606.3. 

Legal Standard 

Pursuant to Section 766.24(b) of the 

Regulations, BIS may issue a TDO upon 

a showing that the order is necessary in 

the public interest to prevent an 

‘‘imminent violation’’ of the Regulations. 

15 CFR 766.24(b)(1). ‘‘A violation may 

be ‘imminent’ either in time or degree 

of likelihood.’’ 15 CFR 766.24(b)(3). BIS 

may show ‘‘either that a violation is 

about to occur, or that the general 

circumstances of the matter under 

investigation or case under criminal or 

administrative charges demonstrate a 

likelihood of future violations.’’ Id. As to 

the likelihood of future violations, BIS 

may show that ‘‘the violation under 

investigation or charges is significant, 

deliberate, covert and/or likely to occur 

again, rather than technical or 

negligent[.]’’ Id. A ‘‘lack of information 

establishing the precise time a violation 

may occur does not preclude a finding 

that a violation is imminent, so long as 

there is sufficient reason to believe the 

likelihood of a violation.’’ Id. 

Background and Findings 

OEE has presented evidence that, on 

multiple occasions, beginning in 

October 2009 and continuing to date, 

Anvik Technologies Sdn. Bhd. 

(‘‘Anvik’’), and its owner and operator 

Babak Jafarpour, have procured and 

attempted to procure various items 

subject to the Regulations for export 

from the United States to Iran, via 

transshipment through third countries, 

including Malaysia and Hong Kong, 

without obtaining the required 

authorization from the U.S. 

Government. 

OEE, through its investigation, has 

provided evidence that Anvik and 

Jafarpour (hereinafter collectively 

referred to as ‘‘Respondents’’) have been 

utilizing a global network of leased 

‘‘virtual offices’’ 4 to procure items from 

the United States and ship those items 

to Iran through third countries. 

Respondents use the leased virtual 

office space in order to obtain various 

addresses, including the addresses in 

Malaysia and Hong Kong, that 

Respondents then provide to suppliers 

as the ultimate destination and endusers of the items while disguising the 

true ultimate destination and end-users 

in Iran. OEE has identified at least four 

transactions where the Respondents 

have shipped or attempted to ship items 

to Iran using the same method of 

operation, including two attempted 

exports to Iran as recently as September 

2010. In this section, I discuss evidence 

obtained by OEE relating to those 

transactions and submitted to me in 

support of its TDO request. 

Between February and June 2010, 

Respondents exchanged email messages 

with a U.S. manufacturer concerning the 

procurement of microwave mixers and 

bias tees. These items, which are 

components used in communications 

and radar systems, are subject to the 

Regulations and designated as EAR99. 

Respondents’ email messages with the 

U.S. manufacturer originated in Iran. 

However, Respondents completed an 

end-user statement that they provided to 

the U.S. manufacturer stating that the 

microwave mixers and bias tees were to 

be used by Anvik at its address at 155 

North Wacker Drive, 42nd Floor, 

Chicago, IL 60606. 

On September 7, 2010, on the 

instructions of Respondents, the U.S. 

manufacturer shipped the microwave 

mixers and bias tees to the address in 

Chicago provided by Respondents. 

However, the Chicago, IL address is for 

the ‘‘virtual office’’ at which 

Respondents do not occupy any 

physical space or otherwise have 

operations that would enable them to 

use these items there, and instead only 

lease certain services, such as remote 

receptionist and administrative support 

and use of the local phone number and 

address. When the microwave mixers 

and bias tees arrived in Chicago, the 

‘‘virtual office’’ staff, on the instructions 

of Respondent Jafarpour, replaced the 

manufacturer’s invoice with one 

provided by him and shipped the items 

to another of Respondents’ ‘‘virtual 

office’’ addresses, at Level 20, Menara 

Standard Chartered, 30 Jalan Sultan 

Ismail, Kuala Lumpur 50250, Malaysia. 

Jafarpour instructed the virtual office 

staff in Malaysia to forward the package 

to Iran upon receipt. However, the 

shipment was stopped in Malaysia prior 

to being delivered to the virtual office 

address there. 

As provided in Section 746.7 of the 

Regulations, no person may export or 

reexport any item that is subject to the 

EAR, if such transaction is prohibited by 

the Iranian Transactions Regulations (31 

CFR part 560) and has not been 

authorized by OFAC. The evidence 

shows that using the scheme described 

above, Respondents took actions to 

evade the Regulations by exporting 

microwave mixers and bias tees from 

the United States to Iran through 

Malaysia. Respondents intended to have 

the shipment relabeled and delivered to 

a forwarder/shipper for transshipment 

to Iran once it arrived in Malaysia. 

Respondents had not sought or received 

the required U.S. Government 

authorization. 

OEE’s investigation has uncovered 

another recent attempt by Respondents 

to procure items for Iranian end-users in 

violation of the Regulations. Beginning 

in or about September 2010, 

Respondents attempted to export GPS 

timing boards, items subject to the 

Regulations, classified as Export Control 

Classification Number 7A994, and 

controlled for anti-terrorism reasons, 

from the United States to Iran without 

the license required under Section 742.8 

of the Regulations to export or reexport 

anti-terrorism controlled items to Iran. 

The order was placed with a U.S. 

manufacturer through its Swedish 

distributor. The purchase order 

submitted by Anvik stated that the 

terms of delivery were ‘‘FOB USA,’’ 

indicating that Respondents knew the 

items were being exported from the 

United States. Respondents ordered the 

GPS timing boards using an address at 

Level 19, Two International Finance 

Centre, 8 Finance Street Central, Hong 

Kong. This address is ‘‘virtual office’’ 

space leased by Respondents. 

Respondents provided a different 

address, at Level 20, Menara Standard 

Chartered, 30 Jalan Sultan Ismail, Kuala 

Lumpur 50250, Malaysia, as the ‘‘ship 

to’’ address on the order form. This 

address also is ‘‘virtual office’’ space 

leased by Respondents. The shipping 

label on the package that arrived at 

Respondent Anvik’s address in Malaysia 

stated that it was from the U.S. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 224 / Monday, November 22, 2010 / Notices 71077 

5On September 17, 2008, the U.S. Department of 

Treasury designated Iran Electronics Industries as a 

Weapons of Mass Destruction proliferator or 

supporter pursuant to Executive Order 13382. Iran 

Electronics Industries was designated because it is 

owned or controlled by Iran’s Ministry of Defense 

and Armed Forces Logistics (MODAFL). MODAFL, 

which was designated under Executive Order 13382 

on October 25, 2007, controls other previously 

designated entities DIO, and Aerospace Industries 

Organization, which is the overall manager and 

coordinator of Iran’s missile program. 

manufacturer in New York, United 

States, and the packing list included an 

export control warning from the U.S. 

manufacturer and a certificate of U.S. 

origin. Information provided by the 

forwarder demonstrates that, once the 

GPS timing boards were delivered to the 

address in Malaysia, they were 

immediately relabeled for shipment by 

the same forwarder to Iran. The 

shipment from Malaysia to Iran was 

stopped in Singapore while en route to 

Iran. 

OEE also has uncovered other 

transactions in which Respondents were 

able to successfully procure items 

subject to the Regulations and cause 

their export from the United States to 

Iran via transshipment through third 

countries. Respondents used methods 

similar to those described above, having 

the items shipped to ‘‘virtual offices’’ 

they leased abroad and then 

transshipping the items from there to 

Iran. 

In September 2009, Respondents 

placed an order with a U.S. 

manufacturer through its Singaporebased distributor for ten digital phase 

shifters. These items, which have a 

number of uses, including in radar 

systems, satellite communications, 

phase cancellation and beamforming 

modules, are subject to the Regulations 

and designated as EAR99. Respondents 

provided the U.S. manufacturer and its 

distributor with an end-user statement 

indicating that the digital phase shifters 

would be used by Anvik at Level 36, 

Menara Citibank, 165 Jalan Ampang, 

Kuala Lumpur 50450, Malaysia, and 

certifying that the items ‘‘will not be 

diverted to any country, company or 

individual that is prohibited by the U.S. 

Government.’’ The address listed on the 

end-user statement is a ‘‘virtual office’’ 

address leased by Respondents. On 

October 19, 2009, the U.S. manufacturer 

exported the digital phase shifters to 

Anvik in Malaysia via the distributor in 

Singapore. Evidence uncovered by OEE 

demonstrates that, once the package 

arrived in Malaysia, Respondents 

promptly instructed the ‘‘virtual office’’ 

staff to ship the package to ECI Co. in 

Shiraz, Iran. Respondents did not obtain 

the required U.S. Government 

authorization to export the digital phase 

shifters from the United States to Iran. 

On October 27, 2009, a U.S. 

manufacturer exported a 

millidioptometer to Anvik at Level 36, 

Menara Citibank, 165 Jalan Ampang, 

Kuala Lumpur 50450, Malaysia. This 

item, which is a measuring tool used for 

various optical systems, including those 

in aircraft systems, is subject to the 

Regulations and designated as EAR99. 

The address provided by Anvik is a 

virtual office address leased by 

Respondents. Evidence obtained by OEE 

indicates that, at the request of 

Respondent Jafarpour, the virtual office 

staff arranged for the millidioptometer 

to be promptly transshipped on 

Respondents’ behalf from Malaysia to 

IOI (Isfahan Optics Institute), a 

subsidiary of Iran Electronics Industries 

in Isfahan, Iran.5 Respondents did not 

obtain the required U.S. Government 

authorization to export the digital phase 

shifters from the United States to Iran. 

In addition to the evidence discussed 

above showing continued deliberate and 

covert actions by Anvik and Jafarpour to 

cause or attempt to cause items to be 

exported from the United States to Iran 

via third countries without obtaining 

U.S. Government authorization, BIS also 

has submitted direct evidence that 

Respondents had actual knowledge of 

the U.S. embargo against Iran. For 

example, in communications in June 

2009, with a prospective supplier based 

in Canada, Respondent Jafarpour 

acknowledges knowing that the United 

States maintains an embargo against 

Iran. 

OEE submits, in sum, that future 

violations of the EAR are imminent as 

defined in Section 766.24 of the 

Regulations. I agree based on the 

evidence of Respondents’ continued 

deliberate, significant, and covert efforts 

to procure items from the United States 

for export to Iran via third countries 

without the required U.S. Government 

authorization, including by providing 

false information to U.S. companies 

about end-users in an effort to prevent 

U.S. law enforcement officials from 

discovering and ultimately stopping 

Respondents’ conduct. Accordingly, I 

find that the evidence presented by OEE 

demonstrates that a violation of the 

Regulations by Respondents is 

imminent in both time and degree of 

likelihood. The conduct in this case is 

deliberate, significant, and likely to 

occur again absent the issuance of a 

TDO. As such, a TDO is needed to give 

notice to persons and companies in the 

United States and abroad that they 

should cease dealing with the 

Respondents in export transactions 

involving items subject to the EAR. 

Accordingly, I find that a TDO 

naming Anvik Technologies Sdn. Bhd. 

and Babak Jafarpour is necessary, in the 

public interest, to prevent an imminent 

violation of the EAR. 

This Order is being issued on an ex 

parte basis without a hearing based 

upon BIS’s showing of an imminent 

violation. 

I. Order 

It is therefore ordered: 

First, that the Respondents, Anvik 

Technologies SDN. BHD. also known as 

(‘‘a/k/a’’) Anvik Technologies, Level 20, 

Menara Standard Chartered, 30 Jalan 

Sultan Ismail, Kuala Lumpur 50250, 

Malaysia; Level 36, Menara Citibank, 

165 Jalan Ampang, Kuala Lumpur 

50450, Malaysia; Level 19, Two 

International Finance Centre, 8 Finance 

Street Central, Hong Kong; 155 North 

Wacker Drive, 42nd Floor, Chicago, IL 

60606; Babak Jafarpour a/k/a Bob 

Jefferson, Level 20, Menara Standard 

Chartered, 30 Jalan Sultan Ismail, Kuala 

Lumpur 50250, Malaysia; Level 36, 

Menara Citibank, 165 Jalan Ampang, 

Kuala Lumpur 50450, Malaysia; Level 

19, Two International Finance Centre, 8 

Finance Street Central, Hong Kong; 155 

North Wacker Drive, 42nd Floor, 

Chicago, IL 60606, and each of their 

successors or assigns and, when acting 

for or on behalf of any of the foregoing, 

each of their officers, representatives, 

agents or employees (each a ‘‘Denied 

Person’’ and collectively the ‘‘Denied 

Persons’’) may not, directly or indirectly, 

participate in any way in any 

transaction involving any commodity, 

software or technology (hereinafter 

collectively referred to as ‘‘item’’) 

exported or to be exported from the 

United States that is subject to the 

Export Administration Regulations 

(‘‘EAR’’), or in any other activity subject 

to the EAR including, but not limited to: 

A. Applying for, obtaining, or using 

any license, License Exception, or 

export control document; 

B. Carrying on negotiations 

concerning, or ordering, buying, 

receiving, using, selling, delivering, 

storing, disposing of, forwarding, 

transporting, financing, or otherwise 

servicing in any way, any transaction 

involving any item exported or to be 

exported from the United States that is 

subject to the EAR, or in any other 

activity subject to the EAR; or 

C. Benefitting in any way from any 

transaction involving any item exported 

or to be exported from the United States 

that is subject to the EAR, or in any 

other activity subject to the EAR. 

Second, that no person may, directly 

or indirectly, do any of the following: 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
71078 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 224 / Monday, November 22, 2010 / Notices 

A. Export or reexport to or on behalf 

of a Denied Person any item subject to 

the EAR; 

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 EAR 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 EAR that has been 

exported from the United States; 

D. Obtain from a Denied Person in the 

United States any item subject to the 

EAR with knowledge or reason to know 

that the item will be, or is intended to 

be, exported from the United States; or 

E. Engage in any transaction to service 

any item subject to the EAR that has 

been or will be exported from the 

United States and which is owned, 

possessed or controlled by 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 EAR that has been or will 

be exported from the United States. For 

purposes of this paragraph, servicing 

means installation, maintenance, repair, 

modification or testing. 

Third, that, after notice and 

opportunity for comment as provided in 

section 766.23 of the EAR, any other 

person, firm, corporation, or business 

organization related to 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. 

Fourth, that this Order does not 

prohibit any export, reexport, or other 

transaction subject to the EAR where the 

only items involved that are subject to 

the EAR are the foreign-produced direct 

product of U.S.-origin technology. 

In accordance with the provisions of 

Section 766.24(e) of the EAR, the 

Respondents may, at any time, appeal 

this Order by filing a full written 

statement in support of the appeal with 

the Office of the Administrative Law 

Judge, U.S. Coast Guard ALJ Docketing 

Center, 40 South Gay Street, Baltimore, 

Maryland 21202–4022. 

BIS may seek renewal of this Order by 

filing a written request with the 

Assistant Secretary of Commerce for 

Export Enforcement in accordance with 

the provisions of Section 766.24(d) of 

the EAR, which currently provides that 

such a written request must be 

submitted not later than 20 days before 

the expiration date. A Respondent may 

oppose a request to renew this Order in 

accordance with Section 766.24(d), 

including by filing a written submission 

with the Assistant Secretary of 

Commerce for Export Enforcement, 

supported by appropriate evidence. Any 

opposition ordinarily must be received 

not later than seven days before the 

expiration date of the Order. 

Notice of the issuance of this Order 

shall be given to Respondents in 

accordance with Sections 766.5(b) and 

766.24(b)(5) of the Regulations. This 

Order also shall be published in the 

Federal Register. 

This Order is effective immediately 

and shall remain in effect for 180 days. 

Issued this 15th day of November 2010. 

David W. Mills, 

Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Export 

Enforcement. 

[FR Doc. 2010–29327 Filed 11–19–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DT–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[C–570–938] 

Citric Acid and Certain Citrate Salts 

From People’s Republic of China: 

Partial Rescission of Countervailing 

Duty Administrative Review 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

DATES: Effective Date: November 22, 

2010. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Seth 

Isenberg or Patricia Tran, AD/CVD 

Operations, Office 1, Import 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; 

telephone (202) 482–0588 and (202) 

482–1503, respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On May 3, 2010, the U.S. Department 

of Commerce (‘‘Department’’) issued a 

notice of opportunity to request an 

administrative review of this order for 

the period of review (‘‘POR’’) September 

19, 2008, through December 31, 2009. 

See Antidumping or Countervailing 

Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended 

Investigation; Opportunity To Request 

Administrative Review, 75 FR 23236–37 

(May 3, 2010). On June 1, 2010, in 

accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b), the 

Department received a timely request 

from Archer Daniels Midland Company, 

Cargill, Incorporated, and Tate & Lyle 

Americas LLC (collectively, 

‘‘Petitioners’’) to conduct an 

administrative review of 56 companies. 

On June 30, 2010, the Department 

published the notice of initiation of this 

countervailing duty administrative 

review, covering the 56 companies. See 

Initiation of Antidumping and 

Countervailing Duty Administrative 

Reviews and Requests for Revocation in 

Part, 75 FR 37759 (June 30, 2010). On 

August 17, 2010, the Department issued 

a respondent selection memorandum 

selecting RZBC Co., Ltd./RZBC Import & 

Export Co., Ltd. and RZBC (Juxian) Co., 

Ltd. (collectively, ‘‘RZBC’’); and Yixing 

Union Biochemical Co., Ltd. and Yixing 

Union Cogeneration Co., Ltd. 

(collectively, ‘‘Yixing-Union’’) as 

mandatory respondents. See 

Memorandum to Susan H. Kuhbach 

from Patricia M. Tran, regarding 

Respondent Selection: Countervailing 

Duty Administrative Review—Citric 

Acid and Certain Citrate Salts (August 

17, 2010). 

Partial Rescission of Countervailing 

Duty Administrative Review 

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), the 

Secretary will rescind an administrative 

review, in whole or in part, if the party 

who requested the administrative 

review withdraws the request within 90 

days of the date of publication of the 

notice of initiation of the requested 

administrative review. On September 

27, 2010, Petitioners withdrew their 

request for an administrative review of 

the following companies: 

A.H.A. International Co., Ltd. 

Changsha Huari Bio Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. 

Changsha Huayang Chemical Co., Ltd. 

China North Industry Guangzhou 

Corporation 

Feiyu Fine Chemical 

Gansu Xuejing Biochemical Co., Ltd. 

Great Vision International 

Hai Hui Group Co., Ltd. 

High Hope International Group Jiangsu 

Native 

Produce Import & Export Co., Ltd. 

Huangshi Xinghua Biochemical Co., Ltd. 

Hunan Dongting Citric Acid Chemicals Co., 

Ltd. 

Hunan Yinhai Petrochemicals Group Co., 

Ltd. 

Jiali Bio Group (Qingdao) Limited 

Jiangsu Gadot Nuobei Biochemical 

Jiangsu Nuobei Biochemical Co., Ltd. 

Juxian Hongde Citric Acid Co., Ltd. 

Kelong International Co., Ltd. 

Laiwu Taihe Biochemistry Co. Ltd. 

Lianyungang Best Biochemical Technology 

Co. Ltd. 

Lianyungang Famous Chemical, Ltd. 

Lianyungang JF International Trade Co., Ltd. 

Lianyungang Nuobei Biochemical 

Technology Co., Ltd. 

Lianyungang Reliance 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES