69540 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 231 / Friday, December 1, 2006 / Notices 

1 15 CFR Parts 730–774 (2006). 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 EAA 

has been in lapse and the President, through 

Executive Order 13222 of August 17, 2001 (3 CFR, 

2001 Comp. 783 (2002)), as extended most recently 

by the Notice of August 3, 2006 (71 FR 44,551, 

(August 7, 2006)), has continued the EAR in effect 

under the International Emergency Economic 

Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701–1706 (2000)) 

(‘‘IEEPA’’). 

for the food service, the SLA ‘‘may’’

exercise its right to respond. The State 

official expressed surprise that the FBI 

had not offered to negotiate or solicit a 

contract after the SLA waived the 

Randolph-Sheppard priority. 

According to the SLA comment, the 

FBI indicated that it considered the 

SLA’s earlier waiver of its priority to be 

final, which would explain why no 

subsequent offer to negotiate or solicit 

for the food service was forthcoming. 

The Committee believes that allowing 

the SLA to ignore its own priority 

waiver at this late hour, when a capable 

nonprofit agency is ready to create many 

jobs by providing this food service and 

the SLA has identified no blind vendor 

ready and able to serve as an alternative 

provider, could not have been the intent 

of the Randolph-Sheppard Act. In the 

absence of the Randolph-Sheppard 

priority, the Committee sees no bar to 

adding the food service to the 

Procurement List. 

Deletions 

On September 29, 2006, the 

Committee for Purchase From People 

Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled 

published notice (70 FR 57464; 57465) 

of proposed deletions to the 

Procurement List. 

After consideration of the relevant 

matter presented, the Committee has 

determined that the services listed 

below are no longer suitable for 

procurement by the Federal Government 

under 41 U.S.C. 46–48c and 41 CFR 51–

2.4. 

Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification 

I certify that the following action will 

not have a significant impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

The major factors considered for this 

certification were: 

1. The action may result in additional 

reporting, recordkeeping or other 

compliance requirements for small 

entities. 

2. The action may result in 

authorizing small entities to furnish the 

services to the Government. 

3. There are no known regulatory 

alternatives which would accomplish 

the objectives of the Javits-WagnerO’Day Act (41 U.S.C. 46–48c) in 

connection with the services deleted 

from the Procurement List. 

End of Certification 

Accordingly, the following services 

are deleted from the Procurement List: 

Services 

Service Type/Location: Custodial 

Services, Denver Federal Center 

(Buildings 41, 44, and 48), Denver, 

CO. 

NPA: Aspen Diversified Industries, Inc., 

Colorado Springs, CO. 

Contracting Activity: GSA, PBS Region 

8, Denver, CO. 

Service Type/Location: Janitorial/ 

Custodial, Federal Records Center 

and USDA Laboratory, East Point, 

GA. 

NPA: WORKTEC, Jonesboro, GA. 

Contracting Activity: GSA, PBS. 

Service Type/Location: Janitorial/ 

Grounds and Related Services, 

Motor Pool Office and Garage, 450 

N. Grande, Tucson, AZ. 

NPA: Beacon Group SW, Inc., Tucson, 

AZ. 

Contracting Activity: GSA, PBS—

9PMFC, San Francisco, CA. 

Service Type/Location: Repair of Small 

Hand Tools, Robins Air Force Base, 

Robins AFB, GA. 

NPA: Epilepsy Association of Georgia, 

Warner Robins, GA. 

Contracting Activity: Department of the 

Air Force. 

Sheryl D. Kennerly, 

Director, Information Management. 

[FR Doc. E6–20364 Filed 11–30–06; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6353–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

Bureau of Industry and Security 

Action Affecting Export Privileges; 

Data Physics Corporation, Data 

Physics China, Data Physics China, Sri 

Welaratna, Bill Chen 

Data Physics Corporation, 2025 Gateway 

Place, Suite 260, San Jose, California 95110. 

Data Physics China, 1605B Westgate Tower, 

1038 Nanjing Road West, Shanghai, P.R. 

China 200041. Data Physics China, RM. 1509, 

Building 2, Xinquduan Jiayan, No. 5 

Changchunquia Road, Haidian District, 

Beijing, P.R. China 100089. Sri Welaratna, 

President, Data Physics Corporation, 2025 

Gateway Place, Suite 260, San Jose, 

California 95110. Bill Chen, Manager, AKA: 

Yuequan Chen, Data Physics China, RM. 

1509, Building 2, Xinquduan Jiayan, No. 5 

Changchunquia Road, Haidian District, 

Beijing, P.R. China 100089, Respondents. 

Order Renewing Order Temporarily 

Denying Export Privileges 

Pursuant to section 766.24 of the 

Export Administration Regulations 

(‘‘EAR’’),1 I hereby grant the Bureau of 

Industry and Security’s request for 

renewal of the Order Temporarily 

Denying the Export Privileges of 

Respondents, Data Physics Corporation, 

Data Physics China (Shanghai and 

Beijing Offices), Sri Welaratna and Bill 

Chen for 180 days as I find that renewal 

of the TDO is necessary in the public 

interest to prevent an imminent 

violation of the EAR. 

I. Procedural History 

On May 12, 2006, I signed an Order 

Temporarily Denying the Export 

Privileges of the Respondents for 180 

days on the grounds that its issuance 

was necessary in the public interest to 

prevent an imminent violation of the 

EAR (‘‘TDO’’). Pursuant to Section 

766.24(a), the TDO was issued ex parte 

and went into effect on May 23, 2006, 

the date it was published in the Federal 

Register. The TDO is valid through 

November 19, 2006. 

On October 13, 2006, the Bureau of 

Industry and Security (‘‘BIS’’), through 

its Office of Export Enforcement, filed a 

written request for renewal of the TDO 

against the Respondents for 180 days 

and served a copy of its request on the 

Respondents in accordance with Section 

766.5 of the EAR. On November 6, 2006, 

Data Physics Corporation, Data Physics 

China (Shanghai and Beijing Offices) 

and Sri Welaratna (collectively referred 

to hereinafter as ‘‘Data Physics Group’’) 

filed a written opposition to the request 

for renewal of the TDO. The Data 

Physics Group also requested the 

production of documents and a hearing. 

I approved Data Physics Group’s two 

requests for production of documents as 

good cause was shown and I ordered 

that BIS produce the relevant 

nonprivileged documents by 1 p.m. on 

November 3, 2006. BIS served the Data 

Physics Group with its responses in a 

timely manner and a hearing on the 

record was held on the request for 

renewal on November 8, 2006 at the 

U.S. Department of Commerce in 

Washington, DC. BIS and the Data 

Physics Group each presented oral 

arguments. 

II. Discussion 

(A) Legal Standard 

Pursuant to section 766.24(d)(3) of the 

EAR, the sole issue in determining 

whether to continue a TDO is whether 

the TDO should be renewed to prevent 

an imminent violation of the EAR. ‘‘A 

violation may be ‘imminent’ either in 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 231 / Friday, December 1, 2006 / Notices 69541 

1aNone of the Respondents appealed the initial 

TDO. 

2The Data Physics Group contests that OEE 

recommended conducting Internet searches. The 

basis of this challenge was that the advice regarding 

conducting Internet searches was not included in 

the power point slides. 

time or in degree of likelihood.’’ 15 CFR 

766.24(b)(3). This includes a violation 

that ‘‘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 

violation.’’ Id. Significant, deliberate, 

and covert violations are more probative 

of imminence and the likelihood of 

future violations than lesser technical 

ones. 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. 

(B) Arguments 

BIS’s request for renewal of the TDO 

was based upon the facts underlying the 

issuance of the initial TDO as well as 

evidence of continued actions by the 

Respondents that demonstrate a 

willingness to disregard U.S. export 

controls. The initial TDO was issued as 

a result of evidence that showed the 

Data Physics Corporation and Data 

Physics China (Shanghai and Beijing 

offices), with the knowledge of Data 

Physics’ President Sri Welaratna, and 

manager, Bill Chen, engaged in conduct 

prohibited by the EAR by knowingly 

selling and exporting spherical 

couplings and a test shaker, items 

subject to the EAR, to China HaiYang 

Electro Mechanical Technology 

Academy (a.k.a. ‘‘3rd Academy’’ or 

‘‘Beijing 3 yuan’’), an entity engaged in 

the design, development, production 

and use of cruise missile systems, 

without an export license as required by 

Section 744.3 of the EAR. The evidence 

further showed that the Respondents 

attempted to conceal the identity of the 

end-user by using a false customer 

name—the ‘‘27th Locomotive Factory.’’

The new evidence presented by BIS in 

support of the renewal of the TDO 

includes documents indicating that Data 

Physics Corporation exported to an 

entity in China after it had been 

informed by BIS’s Office of Export 

Enforcement that the end-user was of 

missile proliferation concern, that the 

Data Physics Group may be soliciting an 

illegal transaction, failing to submit 

evidence to BIS in accordance with 

certain license conditions, and 

negotiating export transactions while 

the TDO was in effect. 

In its opposition to the request for 

renewal of the TDO, the Data Physics 

Group challenges BIS’s evidence that 

was the basis for the initial TDO as well 

as the new evidence that was included 

in the request for renewal of the TDO.1a

Data Physics made multiple arguments 

opposing the basis for the initial TDO, 

including arguing that the 27th 

Locomotive was a legitimate end-user, 

that the transactions posed no 

traditional ‘‘red flags,’’ the evidence 

supporting BIS’s claim that it was 

exporting to the 3rd Academy is not 

credible as it is based on hearsay 

statements of a terminated employee 

who retracted his statements, and the 

documents obtained from a Data Physics 

computer were not probative of Data 

Physics and the President’s knowledge. 

The Data Physics Group also presented 

evidence arguing that the new evidence 

submitted by BIS in support of the 

renewal (the export to Shanghai Xinyue 

Instruments Factory, that the Data 

Physics Group may be soliciting an 

illegal transaction, failing to submit 

evidence to BIS in accordance with 

certain license conditions and 

negotiating export transactions while 

the TDO was in effect) was not correct 

and/or was insufficient to prove that 

renewal of the TDO was appropriate. 

III. Findings 

As to the new evidence submitted by 

BIS in support of its request for renewal 

of the TDO, I find that the Data Physics 

Group, through its written submission 

and oral arguments, provided sufficient 

evidence to rebut a significant part of 

BIS’s evidence concerning the issues 

that the Data Physics Group may be 

soliciting an illegal transaction, failing 

to submit evidence to BIS in accordance 

with certain license conditions, and 

negotiating export transactions while 

the TDO was in effect, and that BIS did 

not provide further evidence to rebut 

this evidence presented by the Data 

Physics Group. 

However, I do find that the evidence 

presented by BIS in its renewal request 

as to Data Physics Corporation’s export 

to the Shanghai Xinyue Instrument 

Factory is persuasive and credible 

evidence that proves that the TDO 

should be renewed to prevent an 

imminent violation of the EAR and that 

the Data Physics Group did not provide 

sufficient or persuasive evidence to 

rebut BIS’s evidence. First, it is 

uncontested that Data Physics 

Corporation exported a vector vibration 

controller, an item subject to the EAR, 

in September 2005 to the Shanghai 

Xinyue Instrument Factory in China 

without a BIS export license or 

otherwise consulting with BIS after Data 

Physics and its President, Sri Welaratna, 

were advised by Special Agent in 

Charge (‘‘SAC’’) Salcido that the 

Shanghai Xinyue Instrument Factory 

was of missile proliferation concern. 

While the Data Physics Group tried to 

dispute the significance of this 

transaction by arguing that the 

notification by SAC Salcido occurred in 

2002, the notification was in response to 

a March 2002 letter from Data Physics’

President, Sri Welaratna, to OEE 

regarding sponsorship of three visitors 

from Shanghai Xinyue Instrument 

Factory by Data Physics, and BIS has 

not placed Shanghai Xinyue on the 

Entity List or any other list, I find those 

arguments unpersuasive and troubling 

as the evidence on this export further 

demonstrates the Respondents’

willingness to knowingly export to 

entities of missile proliferation concern 

without seeking advice or authorization 

from the U.S. Government prior to 

exporting. Significantly, in between the 

time of SAC Salcido’s E-mail 

notification to Mr. Welaratna and Data 

Physics that Shanghai Xinyue is of 

missile proliferation concern and the 

September 2005 export to Shanghai 

Xinyue by Data Physics, two significant 

events happened. First, the export 

occurred after OEE executed a search 

warrant on Data Physics Corporation in 

connection with believed illegal 

exports. In April 2005, OEE agents 

executed a search warrant at Data 

Physics and during execution of the 

search warrant, OEE agents found 

copies of Part 744 of the EAR in the 

office of the Data Physics manager who 

is responsible for export compliance. 

Second, this Data Physics manager 

attended a May 2005 BIS sponsored 

seminar on export training during 

which an OEE agent gave a presentation 

that focused on Part 744 of the EAR, the 

Enhanced Proliferation Control 

Initiative, and specifically 

recommended doing research on 

customers, including Internet searches, 

prior to exporting.2 Notwithstanding 

these events, Data Physics still exported 

a vector vibration controller to the 

Shanghai Xinyue Instrument Factory, an 

entity of missile proliferation concern, 

without any consultation with BIS after 

having been notified by OEE that the 

end-user was of missile proliferation 

concern. Significantly, the evidence 

indicates that Data Physics only 

checked the BIS Entity List and other 

lists before exporting a vector vibration 

controller to Shanghai Xinyue. This 

limited action by Data Physics is 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with NOTICES1
69542 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 231 / Friday, December 1, 2006 / Notices 

3The Federal Rules of Evidence do not apply and 

evidence that was relevant and material was 

entertained and given appropriate weight. 15 CFR 

766.13. 

4The Data Physics Group has submitted evidence 

that this is Bill Chen’s handwriting. 

particularly troubling as the 

uncontested facts prove that Data 

Physics and its President, SRI 

Welaratna, know that Data Physics sells 

and exports item that have military enduses, including for the design, 

development and production of 

missiles, and were notified that 

Shanghai Xinyue was of missile 

proliferation concern. While, I find this 

evidence alone is a sufficient basis for 

renewal of the TDO against all 

Respondents, I also find that the 

evidence serving as the basis of the 

initial TDO is a further basis for renewal 

of the TDO against all Respondents. 

As to the evidence underlying the 

initial TDO, I do not find the Data 

Physics Group provided sufficient 

credible evidence to rebut BIS’s credible 

and persuasive evidence that 

Respondents knowingly participated in 

the sale and unauthorized exports of 

spherical couplings and a test shaker, 

items subject to the EAR, to the 3rd 

Academy, an entity engaged in the 

design, development, production and 

use of cruise missile systems, and took 

actions to conceal these transactions by 

using a false end-user name. This 

evidence is the basis of the TDO. I 

further find that the evidence before me, 

presented both in the written 

submissions and oral arguments, 

regarding the Respondents knowingly 

selling and exporting spherical 

couplings and a test shaker to the 3rd 

Academy without an export license 

reveals violative actions that were 

significant, deliberate and covert and 

indicate a likelihood of future violations 

absent continuation of the TDO. Hence, 

on this basis alone I find that renewal 

of the TDO is appropriate. 

First, the Data Physics Group 

incorrectly contends that BIS is arguing 

that the 27th Locomotive does not exist, 

and that if it does exist, that it would 

not use the type of equipment at issue. 

The evidence submitted by BIS does not 

go to the existence of the 27th 

Locomotive but to the fact that the 

Respondents used the name of the 27th 

Locomotive in attempts to conceal the 

fact it was selling and exporting 

spherical couplings and a test shaker to 

the 3rd Academy, an entity engaged in 

the design, development, production 

and use of cruise missile systems. I find 

that these arguments raised by the Data 

Physics Group are not on point and 

unpersuasive. 

The Data Physics Group further 

argues that there were no traditional 

‘‘red flags’’ relating to exports to the 

27th Locomotive as the 27th Locomotive 

is not on DIS’s Entity List or any other 

such list. This argument too is 

unpersuasive as BIS is basing its charges 

on Section 744.3 of the EAR and 

because of the internal Data Physics’ emails that clearly and unequivocally 

provide that references for the customer 

Beijing 3 Yuan (a.k.a 3rd Academy) 

should be referred to as the 27th 

Locomotive. This evidence is persuasive 

and indicates that several Data Physics 

employees (not just Bill Chen) were 

aware of attempts to conceal the identity 

of the 3rd Academy. Further, Data 

Physics Corporation is a company of 

less than 40 employees and it knows 

that the items it sells, including 

spherical couplings and test shakers, 

have military end-uses. Hence, I find 

these arguments of the Data Physics 

Group to be unpersuasive. 

The Data Physics Group also argues 

that a significant portion of BIS’s 

evidence, statements from a disgruntled 

former Data Physics employee who was 

terminated and who subsequently 

retracted his statements, is not credible 

and is hearsay and, as such, is 

inadmissible. Again, the Data Physics 

Group’s arguments fall short. The 

evidence submitted by BIS in support of 

its initial TDO clearly shows that there 

is independent evidence that 

corroborates the allegations from the 

former employee. Specifically, there is a 

series of e-mails between the former 

employee, Bill Chen, and at least two 

other current Data Physics employees 

that expressly provide that the customer 

name of the 27th Locomotive should be 

used when referring to the 3rd Academy 

or Beijing 3 Yuan. The evidence is 

admissible 3 and based upon the 

corroborating evidence, I find the 

statements persuasive. In addition, the 

Data Physics Group also contended that 

Bill Chen was gone from the company 

and that any threat did not continue. I 

disagree. Bill Chen is on administrative 

leave from Data Physics and at least one 

of the employees involved in the e-mail 

exchange directing the 3rd Academy to 

be referred to as the 27th Locomotive is 

still with Data Physics. 

Further, the Data Physics Group tried 

to argue that BIS’s evidence that the 3rd 

Academy is engaged in design, 

development, production and use of 

cruise missile systems was not reliable 

as it consisted of searches from the 

Internet. These arguments also were not 

persuasive. Again the evidence is 

admissible and the Data Physics Group 

did not provide any evidence as to what 

types of activities the 3rd Academy is 

engaged in. Rather, their arguments 

focused on whether the 27th 

Locomotive was a legitimate end-user. 

Hence, all the evidence on the 3rd 

Academy before me provides that the 

3rd Academy is engaged in the design, 

development, production and use of 

cruise missile systems. 

The Data Physics Group further 

argues that the e-mails and other 

documents reflecting communications 

between Bill Chen and other Data 

Physics employees which contained the 

statements that the 3rd Academy should 

be referred to as the 27th Locomotive 

were not known to any Data Physics 

employees in the United States and do 

not demonstrate an intent by certain 

Respondents to conceal the true identity 

of the end-user from BIS. I disagree. 

These e-mails were obtained from Bill 

Chen’s Data Physics’ lap top computer 

which was in the United States and Mr. 

Chen worked in the United States and 

China for Data Physics. Further, the 

exports to the 3rd Academy could not 

have been handled by just one or two 

persons. In fact, e-mails were seized at 

Data Physics California headquarters 

that had 27th Locomotive in the subject 

line but had ‘‘3 Yuan 3 * * *’’ hand 

written in the upper right hand corner.4

Further, the Data Physics Group did not 

provide any credible evidence to 

explain the statements directing the 3rd 

Academy be referred to as the 27th 

Locomotive. In fact, while several 

affidavits submitted by the Data Physics 

Group contained explicit statements 

that ‘‘I do not recall ever hearing any 

references to the customer 27th 

Locomotive using another entity name, 

nor do I recall seeing documentation 

that referred to this entity under another 

name;’’ the affidavit from an individual 

who was included in the e-mails does 

not contain a similar statement. 

A find that the evidence presented by 

BIS demonstrates that the Respondents 

have violated the EAR, that such 

violations have been significant, 

deliberate and covert, and that there is 

a likelihood of future violations. As 

such a Temporary Denial Order 

(‘‘TDO’’) is needed to give notice to 

persons and companies in the United 

States and abroad that they should 

continue to cease dealing with the 

Respondents in export transactions 

involving items subject to the EAR. 

Such a TDO is consistent with the 

public interest to preclude violations of 

the EAR. 

Accordingly, I find that renewing the 

TDO naming Data Physics Corporation, 

its two offices in China, Sri Welaratna 

and Bill Chen should be continued for 

180 days as it is necessary in the public 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 231 / Friday, December 1, 2006 / Notices 69543 

1Or the next business day, if the deadline falls 

on a weekend, Federal holiday or any other day 

when the Department is closed. 

interest to prevent an imminent 

violation of the EAR. 

The Data Physics Group also 

requested that to the extent the TDO is 

renewed that it be limited to exports 

and reexports to China. Based upon the 

evidence, I disagree. 

IV. ORDER 

It Is Therefore Ordered: 

FIRST, that the Respondents, DATA 

PHYSICS CORPORATION, 2025 

Gateway Place, Suite 260, San Jose, 

California, 95110, and DATA PHYSICS 

CHINA, 1605B Westgate Tower, 1038 

Nanjing Road West, Shanghai, P.R. 

China, 200041, and DATA PHYSICS 

CHINA, RM. 1509, Building 2, 

Xinquaduan Jiayan, No. 5 

Changchunquia Road, Haidian District, 

Beijing, P.R. China, 100089, SRI 

WELARANTNA, President, Data 

Physics Corporation, 2025 Gateway 

Place, Suite 260, San Jose, California, 

95110, and BILL CHEN, Manager, AKA: 

Yuequan Chen, Data Physics China, RM. 

1509, Building 2, Xinqudauan Jiayan, 

No. 5 Changchunquia Road, Haidian 

District, Beijing, P.R. China, 100089 

(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. Benefiting in any way from any 

transaction involving any item exported 

or to be exported from the United States 

that is subject to the EAR, or in any 

other activity subject to the EAR. 

Second, that no person may, directly 

or indirectly, do any of the following: 

A. Export or reexport to or on behalf 

of the Denied Persons any item subject 

to the EAR; 

B. Take any action that facilitates the 

acquisition or attempted acquisition by 

the Denied Persons 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 the Denied Persons 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 Persons of 

any item subject to the EAR that has 

been exported from the United States; 

D. Obtain from the Denied Persons in 

the United States any item subject to the 

EAR with knowledge or reason to know 

that the item will be, or is intended to 

be, exported from the United States; or 

E. Engage in any transaction to service 

any item subject to the EAR that has 

been or will be exported from the 

United States and which is owned, 

possessed or controlled by the Denied 

Persons, or service any item, or 

whatever origin, that is owned, 

possessed or controlled by the Denied 

Persons if such service involves the use 

of any item subject to the EAR that has 

been or will be exported from the 

United States. For purposes of this 

paragraph, servicing means installation, 

maintenance, repair, modification or 

testing. 

Third, that, after notice and 

opportunity for comment as provided in 

section 766.23 of the EAR, any other 

person, firm, corporation, or business 

organization related to any of the 

Denied Persons 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 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. 

In accordance with the provisions of 

Section 766.24(d) of the EAR, BIS may 

seek renewal of this Order by filing a 

written request not later than 20 days 

before the expiration date. The 

Respondents may oppose a request to 

renew this Order by filing a written 

submission with the Assistant Secretary 

of Commerce for Export Enforcement, 

which must be received not later than 

seven days before the expiration date of 

the Order. 

A copy of this Order shall be served 

on the Respondents and shall be 

published in the Federal Register. 

This Order is effective immediately 

and shall remain in effect for 180 days. 

Entered this 17th day of November, 2006. 

Darryl W. Jackson, 

Assistant Secretary of Commerce, for Export 

Enforcement. 

[FR Doc. 06–9419 Filed 11–30–06; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DT–M 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

Antidumping or Countervailing Duty 

Order, Finding, or Suspended 

Investigation; Opportunity To Request 

Administrative Review 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Sheila E. Forbes, Office of AD/CVD 

Operations, Office 4, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230, 

telephone: (202) 482–4697. 

Background 

Each year during the anniversary 

month of the publication of an 

antidumping or countervailing duty 

order, finding, or suspension of 

investigation, an interested party, as 

defined in section 771(9) of the Tariff 

Act of 1930, as amended, may request, 

in accordance with section 351.213 

(2004) of the Department of Commerce 

(the Department) Regulations, that the 

Department conduct an administrative 

review of that antidumping or 

countervailing duty order, finding, or 

suspended investigation. 

Opportunity to Request a Review: Not 

later than the last day of December 

2006,1 interested parties may request 

administrative review of the following 

orders, findings, or suspended 

investigations, with anniversary dates in 

December for the following periods: 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with NOTICES1