Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 45 / Thursday, March 6, 2008 / Notices 12073 

1The violations charged occurred in 2004. The 

Regulations governing the violations at issue are 

found in the 2004 version of the Code of Federal 

Regulations (15 CFR Parts 730–774 (2004)). The 

2007 Regulations establish the procedures that 

apply to this matter. 

2Since 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 15, 

2007 (72 FR 46,137 (August 16, 2007)), has 

continued the Regulations in effect under the 

International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 

U.S.C. 1701–1706 (2000)) (‘‘IEEPA’’). 

All applicants will be notified by the 

USDA Rural Development State Offices 

in regards to the Agency’s decision on 

their application. 

This program is listed in the Catalog 

of Federal Domestic Assistance under 

Number 10.775 and is subject to the 

provisions of Executive Order 12372, 

which requires intergovernmental 

consultation with state and local 

officials. 

USDA is participating as a partner in 

the government-wide Grants.gov site. 

Applicants may submit grant-only 

applications to the Agency in either 

electronic or paper format. Please be 

mindful that the application deadline 

for electronic format differs from the 

deadline for paper format. The 

electronic format deadline will be based 

on Washington, DC time. The paper 

format deadline is local time for each 

USDA Rural Development State Office. 

Users of Grants.gov will be able to 

download a copy of the application 

package, complete it off line, and then 

upload and submit the application via 

the Grants.gov site. You may not e-mail 

an electronic copy of a grant application 

to USDA Rural Development; however, 

the Agency encourages your 

participation in Grants.gov. 

• When you enter the Grants.gov site, 

you will find information about 

submitting an application electronically 

through the site as well as the hours of 

operation. USDA Rural Development 

strongly recommends that you do not 

wait until the application deadline date 

to begin the application process through 

Grants.gov. To use Grants.gov, 

applicants must have a Dun and 

Bradstreet Data Universal Numbering 

System (DUNS) number which can be 

obtained at no cost via a toll-free request 

line at 1–866–705–5711 or online at 

http://fedgov.dnb.com/webform. 

• You may submit all documents 

electronically through the Web site, 

including all information typically 

included on the application for 

Renewable Energy Systems and Energy 

Efficiency Improvements Program, and 

all necessary assurances and 

certifications. After electronically 

submitting an application through the 

Web site, the applicant will receive an 

automatic acknowledgement from 

Grants.gov that contains a Grants.gov 

tracking number. 

• USDA Rural Development may 

request that the applicant provide 

original signatures on forms at a later 

date. 

• If applicants experience technical 

difficulties on the closing date and are 

unable to meet the 4:30 p.m. 

(Washington, DC time) deadline, print 

out your application and submit it to 

your respective State Office. If 

applicants submit applications to a State 

Office, applicants must meet the closing 

date and local time deadlines. 

Applicants may access the electronic 

grant application for Renewable Energy 

Systems and Energy Efficiency 

Improvements Program at http:// 

www.Grants.gov. 

Please note that applicants must 

locate the downloadable application 

package for this program by the CFDA 

Number or FedGrants Funding 

Opportunity Number, which can be 

found at http://www.Grants.gov. 

Paperwork Reduction Act 

In accordance with the Paperwork 

Reduction Act, the paperwork burden 

has been cleared by the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) under 

OMB Control Number 0570–0050. 

Nondiscrimination Statement 

USDA prohibits discrimination in all 

its programs and activities on the basis 

of race, color, national origin, age, 

disability, and where applicable, sex, 

marital status, familial status, parental 

status, religion, sexual orientation, 

genetic information, political beliefs, 

reprisal, or because all or part of an 

individual’s income is derived from any 

public assistance program. (Not all 

prohibited bases apply to all programs.) 

Persons with disabilities who require 

alternative means for communication of 

program information (braille, large 

print, audiotape, etc.) should contact 

USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720–

2600 (voice and TDD). 

To file a complaint of discrimination, 

write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil 

Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, 

SW., Washington, DC 20250–9410, or 

call (800) 795–3272 (voice), or (202) 

720–6382 (TDD). ‘‘USDA is an equal 

opportunity provider, employer, and 

lender.’’

Dated: February 29, 2008. 

Ben Anderson, 

Administrator, Rural Business-Cooperative 

Service. 

[FR Doc. E8–4305 Filed 3–4–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–XY–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

Bureau of Industry and Security 

[Docket No. 07–BIS15–21] 

In the Matter of: Mr. Ali Asghar 

Manzarpour, Preston Technical 

Services, Ltd.-UK, 17 Preston Village 

Mews Middle Road, Brighton East 

Sussex BN1 6XU, England; and c/o 

Maria House, 35 Millers Rd., Brighton 

BN1 5NP, England, Respondent; Final 

Decision and Order 

This matter is before me upon a 

Recommended Decision and Order 

(‘‘RDO’’) of the Administration Law 

Judge (‘‘ALJ’’) issued on February 4, 

2008. 

In a charging letter filed on July 27, 

2007, the Bureau of Industry and 

Security (‘‘BIS’’) alleged that 

Respondent, Ali Asghar Manzarpour 

(‘‘Manzarpour’’), Director of Preston 

Technical Services, Ltd., committed 

three violations of the Export 

Administration Regulations (currently 

codified at 15 CFR Parts 730–774) 

(2007)) (‘‘Regulations’’),1 issued under 

the Export Administration Act of 1979, 

as amended (50 U.S.C. app. 2401–2420 

(2000)) (the ‘‘Act’’).2

Specifically, the charging letter 

alleged that on or about April 28, 2004, 

Manzarpour caused, aided, or abetted in 

the doing of an act prohibited by the 

Regulations by facilitating and 

coordinating the export of a single 

engine aircraft that is subject to the 

Regulations, classified under Export 

Control Classification Number (ECCN) 

9A991.b and controlled for antiterrorism (AT) reasons, to Iran without 

the required export authorization. 

Specifically, Manzarpour ordered a 

freight-forwarding company to ship the 

aircraft from the United States to the 

United Kingdom (UK) knowing that Iran 

was the ultimate destination. Upon its 

arrival in the UK, Manzarpour 

instructed the freight forwarder to 

transship the item to Iran, but the item 

was detained before leaving the UK. 

Pursuant to section 560.204 of the 

Iranian Transactions Regulations 

maintained by the Department of the 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES

12074 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 45 / Thursday, March 6, 2008 / Notices 

Treasury’s Office for Foreign Assets 

Control (‘‘OFAC’’), the export of an item 

to a third country intended for 

transshipment to Iran is a transaction 

that requires OFAC authorization. 

Under section 746.7 of the Regulations, 

no person may engage in the exportation 

of an item subject to both the 

Regulations and the Iranian 

Transactions Regulations without 

authorization from OFAC. No OFAC 

authorization was obtained for the 

export. BIS charged that in so doing, 

Manzarpour committed one violation of 

section 764.2(b) of the Regulations. 

The charging letter also alleged that 

on or about April 28, 2004, Manzarpour 

violated the Regulations by ordering, 

selling, and/or buying an item for export 

from the United States with knowledge 

that a violation of the Regulations 

would occur in connection with the 

items. Specifically, Manzarpour 

ordered, bought, and/or sold an aircraft 

subject to the Regulations and the 

Iranian Transactions Regulations, with 

knowledge or reason to know that the 

item would be exported to Iran, via the 

UK, without the required U.S. 

Government authorization. Manzarpour 

had knowledge that the U.S. item could 

not be sold to sanctioned countries, 

including Iran, a fact he acknowledged 

during an interview with UK Customs 

officials. BIS charged that in so doing, 

Manzarpour committed one violation of 

section 764.2(e) of the Regulations. 

Finally, the charging letter alleged 

that on or about April 28, 2004, 

Manzarpour took actions with intent to 

evade the Regulations. Specifically, 

Manzarpour, acting through his 

companies, Preston Technical Services 

Ltd.-UK and Baronmode, Ltd.-UK, 

acquired an aircraft subject to the 

Regulations, and classified as ECCN 

9A991.b, from U.S. suppliers with 

intent to transship the aircraft to Iran. 

Manzarpour and his companies failed to 

inform the U.S. suppliers of the ultimate 

destination of the item and, as such, no 

license was obtained from the U.S. 

Government for this transaction, as was 

required by section 746.7 of the 

Regulations. BIS charged that in so 

doing, Manzarpour committed one 

violation of section 746.2(h) of the 

Regulations. 

In accordance with section 766.3(b)(1) 

of the Regulations, on July 27, 2007, BIS 

mailed the notice of issuance of the 

charging letter by registered mail to 

Manzarpour at his last known address. 

Failing to receive a return receipt, BIS 

also mailed a copy by registered mail to 

Manzarpour at an alternate address on 

September 4, 2007. In addition, BIS 

attempted to serve the charges on 

Manzarpour by various other means, 

including facsimile, Federal Express 

and electronic mail. 

BIS presented evidence that on 

September 20, 2007, delivery of the 

charging letter, sent on September 4, 

2007, was attempted via registered mail 

and ‘‘refused.’’ Thus, under section 

766.3(c) of the Regulations, the ALJ 

deemed September 20, 2007 the 

effective date of service based on the 

‘‘refusal.’’ To date, however, 

Manzarpour has not filed an answer to 

the charging letter with the ALJ, as 

required by the Regulations. 

In accordance with section 766.7 of 

the Regulations, BIS filed a Motion for 

Default Order on December 4, 2007, 

which it supplemented on December 17, 

2007. Under section 766.7(a), ‘‘[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.’’

The Motion for Default Order 

recommended that Manzarpour be 

denied export privileges under the 

Regulations for a period of twenty years. 

Based on the record before him, the 

ALJ issued an RDO on February 4, 2008, 

in which he found Manzarpour in 

default and held that the Respondent 

had committed one violation of section 

764.2(b), one violation of section 

764.2(e) and one violation of section 

764.2(h). The ALJ also recommended 

the penalty of denial of Manzarpour’s 

export privileges under the Regulations 

for twenty years. 

The RDO, together with the entire 

record in this case, has been referred to 

me for final action under section 766.22 

of the Regulations. I find that the record 

supports the ALJ’s findings of fact and 

conclusions of law concerning 

Manzarpour’s default and concerning 

his violations of the Regulations as 

alleged in the charging letter. I also find 

that the penalty recommended by the 

ALJ is appropriate, given the facts of 

this case, the nature of the violations, 

and the importance of preventing future 

unauthorized exports. 

I do note, however, one clarification 

regarding dictum contained in the ALJ’s 

Recommended Decision and Order. On 

pages 4 and 9 of the RDO, the ALJ 

concluded that notice of the charging 

letter was provided to Manzarpour via 

registered mail. On page 9 of the RDO, 

in addressing attempts to serve the 

charging letter by means of electronic 

mail and Federal Express, the ALJ 

states: ‘‘The problem with both methods 

of service is that they are not authorized 

under 15 CFR 766.3(b) as an acceptable 

means of obtaining service.’’ I agree 

with the ALJ that, in this particular case, 

BIS did not present sufficient evidence 

to establish service by means other than 

or in addition to registered mail. The 

Regulations do not, however, preclude 

use of a delivery service, such as 

Federal Express, to effectively serve 

charges. Use of such an alternative 

means of service could satisfy section 

766.3(b)(2) or (b)(3) of the Regulations 

under certain circumstances. The 

Regulations provide that effective 

service of a charging letter can be 

satisfied if delivered to or left with an 

appropriate officer or agent pursuant to 

section 766.3(b)(2), or with a person of 

suitable age and discretion who resides 

at the Respondent’s last known dwelling 

pursuant to section 766.3(b)(3), and a 

certificate of service is signed by the 

person making such service stating the 

method of service and the identity of the 

person with whom the charging letter 

was left as indicated in section 

766.3(b)(4). 

The clarification discussed above 

does not affect the findings or 

conclusions reached by the ALJ 

concerning Manzarpour’s default or his 

violations of the Regulations. Based on 

my review of the entire record, I affirm 

the findings of act and conclusions of 

law in the RDO, with the clarification 

discussed above. 

Accordingly, It is therefore ordered, 

First, that for a period of twenty (20) 

years from the date this Order is 

published in the Federal Register, Ali 

Agar Manzarpour, Preston Technical 

Services, Ltd.-UK, 17 Preston Village 

Mews Middle Road, Brighton East 

Sussex BN1 6XU, England, and c/o 

Maria House, 35 Millers Rd., Brighton 

BN1 5NP, England, and when acting for 

or on his behalf, his representatives, 

agents, assigns, or employees (‘‘Denied 

Person’’) may not, directly or indirectly, 

participate in any way in any 

transaction involving any commodity, 

software or technology (hereinafter 

collectively referred to as ‘‘item’’) 

exporter 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 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 45 / Thursday, March 6, 2008 / Notices 12075 

1The charged violation occurred in 2004. The 

regulations governing the violations at issue are 

found in the 2004 version of the Code of Federal 

Regulations (15 CFR 730–774 (2001–02)). The 2007 

regulations codified at 15 CFR Part 766 establish the 

procedural rules that apply to this matter. 

2The EAA and all regulations promulgated there 

under expired on August 20, 201. See 50 U.S.C. 

App. 2419. Three days before its expiration, on 

august 17, 2001, the President declared the lapse of 

the EAA constitutes a national emergency. See 

Exec. Order. No. 13222, reprinted in 3 CFR at 783–

784, 2001 Comp. (2002). Exercising authority under 

the International Emergency Economic Powers Act 

(‘‘IEEPA’’), 50 U.S.C. §§ 1701–1706 (2002), the 

President maintained the effectiveness of the EAA 

and its underlying regulations throughout the 

expiration period by issuing Exec. Order. No. 13222 

on august 17, 2001. Id. The effectiveness of the 

export control laws and regulations were further 

extended by successive Notices issued by the 

President; the most recent being that of august 15, 

2007. See Notice: Continuation of Emergency 

Regarding Export Control Regulations, 72 Fed. Reg. 

46, 137 (August 15, 2007). Courts have held that the 

continuation of the operation and effectiveness of 

the EAA and its regulations through the issuance 

of Executive Orders by the President constitutes a 

valid exercise of authority. See Wisconsin Project 

on Nuclear Arms Control v. United States Dep’t of 

Commerce, 317 F.3d 275, 278–79 (D.C. Cir. 2003); 

times Publ’g Co. v. U.S. Department of Commerce, 

236 F.3d 1286, 1200 (11th Cir. 2001). 

other activity subject to the regulations; 

or 

C. Benefiting in any way from any 

transaction involving any item exported 

or to be exported from the United States 

that is subject to the Regulations, or in 

any other activity subject to the 

Regulations. 

Second, that no person may, directly 

or indirectly, do any of the following: 

A. Export or reexport to or on behalf 

of the Denied Person any item subject to 

the Regulations; 

Take any action that facilitates the 

acquisition or attempted acquisition by 

the Denied Person of the ownership, 

possession, or control of any item 

subject to the Regulations that has been 

or will be exported from the United 

States, including financing or other 

support activities related to a 

transaction whereby the Denied Person 

acquires or attempts to acquire such 

ownership, possession or control; 

C. Take any action to acquire from or 

to facilitate the acquisition or attempted 

acquisition from the Denied Person of 

any item subject to the Regulations that 

has been exported from the United 

States; 

D. Obtain from the Denied Person in 

the United States any item subject to the 

Regulations with knowledge or reason 

to know that the item will be, or is 

intended to be, exported from the 

United States; or 

E. Engage in any transaction to service 

any item subject to the Regulations that 

has been or will be exported from the 

United States and that is owned, 

possessed or controlled by the Denied 

Person, or service any item, of whatever 

origin, that is owned, possessed or 

controlled by the Denied Person if such 

service involves the use of any item 

subject to the Regulations that has been 

or will be expected from the United 

States. For purposes of this paragraph, 

servicing means installation, 

maintenance, repair, modification or 

testing. 

Third, that after notice and 

opportunity for comment as provided in 

section 766.23 of the Regulations, any 

person, firm, corporation, or business 

organization related to the Denied 

Person by affiliation, ownership, 

control, or position of responsibility in 

the conduct of trade or related services 

may also be made subject to the 

provisions of this Order. 

Fourth, that this Order does not 

prohibit any export, reexport, or other 

transaction subject to the Regulations 

where the only items involved that are 

subject to the Regulations are the 

foreign-produced direct product of U.S.- 

origin technology. 

Fifth, that this Order shall be served 

on the Denied Person and on BIS, and 

shall be published in the Federal 

Register. In addition, the ALJ’s 

Recommended Decision and Order, 

except for the section related to the 

Recommended Order, shall be 

published in the Federal Register. 

This Order, which constitutes the 

final agency action in this matter, is 

effective upon publication in the 

Federal Register. 

Dated: March 3, 2008. 

Daniel O. Hill, 

Acting Under Secretary of Commerce for 

Industry and Security. 

Redacted Copy 

Recommended Decision and Order; 

Default 

The Bureau of Industry and Security 

(‘‘BIS’’ or ‘‘Agency’’) commenced this 

administrative enforcement action 

seeking imposition of sanctions against 

Ali Asghar Manzarpour, Director of 

Preston Technical Services, Ltd 

(‘‘Respondent’’). On July 27, 2007, BIS 

issued and served a Charging Letter by 

registered mail to Mr. Manzarpour’s last 

known address. The Charging Letter 

alleges that on April 28, 20041 Mr. 

Manzarpour committed three violations 

of the Export Administration Act of 

1979 (‘‘Act’’), as amended and codified 

at 50 U.S.C. App. Sections 2401–20 

(2000), and the Export Administration 

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

as amended and codified at 15 CFR 

Parts 730–74 (2007).2 To date Mr. 

Manzarpour has not filed an Answer to 

the Charging Letter. Pursuant to 15 CFR 

766.7, BIS filed a Motion for Default. 

For reasons stated herein, the Motion 

for Default filed in granted. 

I. Findings of Fact 

Charge 1 alleges Mr. Manzarpour 

violated 15 CFR 764.2(b), on or about 

April 28, 2004, by causing, aiding, or 

abetting an act prohibited by the EAR 

when he ordered a freight forwarding 

company to export a single engine 

aircraft from the United States (U.S.) 

without the required government 

authorization to the United Kingdom 

(UK) knowing that Iran was the ultimate 

destination. Pursuant to Section 560.204 

of the Iranian Transactions Regulations, 

the export of an item to a third country 

intended for transshipment to Iran is a 

transaction that requires the Department 

of the Treasury’s Office of Foreign 

Assets Controls (‘‘OFAC’’) 

authorization. Under Section 746.7 of 

the regulations, no person may engage 

in the exportation of an item subject to 

both the Regulations and the Iranian 

Transactions Regulations without 

authorization from OFAC. No OFAC 

authorization was obtained for the 

export. (BIS Exhibit (Ex.) A). 

Charge 2 alleges Mr. Manzarpour 

violated 15 CFR 766.2(e), on or about 

April 28, 2004, by acting with 

knowledge of a violation when he 

ordered, sold, and/or bought the aircraft 

at issue knowing or having reason to 

know that the item would be 

transshipped to Iran via the UK without 

the required U.S. government 

authorization. (Id.). 

Charge 3 alleges Mr. Manzarpour 

violated 15 CFR 764.2(h), on or about 

April 28, 2004, by acting with the intent 

to evade the EAR when he, acting 

through his companies, Preston 

Technical Services Ltd.-UK and 

Baronmode, Ltd.-UK, acquired the 

aircraft from U.S. suppliers without 

disclosing that the intended ultimate 

destination of the item was Iran, and 

thereby failing to obtain the required 

U.S. government license for the 

transaction. (Id.). 

BIS first attempted to serve the 

Charging Letter on July 27, 2007 by 

registered mail at Mr. Manzarpour’s last 

known address: Preston Technical 

Services, Ltd.-UK, 17 Preston Village 

Mews Middle Road, Brighton East 

Sussex, BN1 6XU, United Kingdom. 

(Id.). To date, BIS has not received a 

return receipt for the registered mail, the 

Charging Letter has not been returned 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES

12076 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 45 / Thursday, March 6, 2008 / Notices 

3BIS obtained the address for Mr. Manzarpour at 

Preston Technical Services from two sources: (1) 

Commercial Invoice No. 2283/04 dated 18-March2004 for the aircraft at issue in this case; and (2) 

a written statement dated July 6, 2004 drafted on 

Preston Technical Services’ letterhead and signed 

by Mr. Manzarpour in his capacity as the 

organization’s Director. (BIS Ex. B–C). 

4BIS filed the Supplement to the Motion for 

Default Order and Amended Recommended 

Decision and Order after receiving the returned 

Charging Letter sent registered mail on September 

4, 2007 to Mr. Manzarpour at Baronmode, Ltd.’s 

business address located at 35 Millers Road marked 

‘‘refused.’’

5Although Modern Engineering Services was 

issued by the predecessor to the Bureau of Industry 

& Security, the Bureau of Export Administration, 

the statements of law enunciated therein serves as 

appropriate guidance. 

by the U.S. Post Office, and Mr. 

Manzarpour has not filed an Answer.3

Thereafter, on September 4, 2007, BIS 

made a series of unsuccessful attempts 

to serve a copy of the Charging Letter 

through various mediums, including: (a) 

Facsimile sent to the last know Preston 

Technical Services company fax number 

listed on the July 6, 2004, written 

statement signed by Mr. Manzarpour; (b) 

registered mail sent to Mr. Manzarpour 

at Baronmode, Ltd.’s last known 

business address reported in Dunn and 

Bradstreet as Maria House, 35 Millers 

Road, Brighton East Sussex BN1 5NP, 

United Kingdom (the Ultimate 

Consignee on the Shipper’s Export 

Declaration form dated 4/28/2004 for 

the export of the aircraft at issue from 

the United States); (c) six electronic 

mails (‘‘e-mails’’) sent to several 

addresses compiled from a variety of 

sources; and (d) Federal Express 

(‘‘FedEx’’) to Preston Technical 

Services’ address. See (BIS Ex. C–J). 

The fax number for Preston Technical 

Services was no longer in working 

order; four of the six e-mails failed and 

the remaining two e-mails were 

successfully relayed but there are no 

assurances that they were read; and 

delivery of the FedEx to Preston 

Technical Services proved unsuccessful. 

See (BIS Ex. D, I, J). The Charging Letter 

sent registered mail on September 4, 

2007 to Mr. Manzarpour at Baronmode, 

Ltd.’s business address located at 35 

Millers Road was returned to BIS on 

December 7, 2007, with ‘‘refused’’

marked on the front of the envelope. See 

(BIS Ex. U). More specifically, the 

registered mail return receipt shows that 

the letter was ‘‘refused’’ on September 

20, 2007. (Id). 

In the interim, on September 7, 2007, 

BIS directed FedEx to deliver the 

Charging Letter to Mr. Manzarpour at 

Maria House, 35 Millers Road, Brighton 

East Sussex BN1 5NP, United Kingdom. 

The Charging Letter was successfully 

delivered by FedEx to the address on 

Millers Road and was signed for by F. 

Lynn on September 18, 2007. See (BIS 

Ex. K). To date, Mr. Manzapour has not 

filed an Answer to the Charging Letter. 

Based on Mr. Manzapour’s failure to 

file an answer, on December 4, 2007, 

BIS filed a Motion for Default Order 

together with a Recommended Decision 

and Order. BIS filed a Supplement to 

the Motion for Default Order and an 

Amended Recommended Decision and 

Order on December 17, 2007.4 In both 

Motions, BIS seeks imposition of a 

twenty (20) year Denial Order against 

Mr. Manzarpour. 

II. Applicable Law/Regulations 

The procedural regulations governing 

service of the Charging Letter instituting 

administrative enforcement proceedings 

against a respondent is set forth in 15 

CFR 766.3(b), which states in pertinent 

part as follows: 

(b) Notice of issuance of charging letter 

instituting administrative enforcement 

proceeding. A respondent shall be notified of 

the issuance of a charging letter, or any 

amendment or supplement thereto: 

(1) By mailing a copy by registered or 

certified mail addressed to the respondent at 

the respondent’s last known address; 

(2) By leaving a copy with the respondent 

or with an officer, a managing or general 

agent, or any other agent authorized by 

appointment or by law to receive service of 

process for the respondent; or 

(3) By leaving a copy with a person of 

suitable age and discretion who resides at the 

respondent’s last known dwelling. 

The Under Secretary has upheld that 

service of the Charging Letter is effective 

where the Agency makes diligent goodfaith efforts to provide actual notice to 

respondent at the last known address, 

but never receives a return receipt for 

the Charging Letter. In re Modern 

Engineering Services, Ltd., 65 FR 81,822 

(Dec. 27, 2000).5 The ‘‘date of service’’

is defined as ‘‘the date of * * * delivery 

[of the Charging Letter], or its attempted 

delivery if delivery is refused.’’ 15 CFR 

766.3(c). 

A respondent is required to file an 

answer within thirty (30) days after 

being served with the Charging Letter. 

See 15 CFR 766.6(a). Failure of the 

respondent to file an answer within the 

time prescribed by regulation 

constitutes a waiver of respondent’s 

right to appear and contest the 

allegations in the Charging Letter. Id. at 

766.7. It also entitles BIS to seek a 

default judgment. See In re Daqing 

Zhou, 71 FR 65,775 (Nov. 9, 2006). 

Section 766.7 further provides that upon 

BIS’s motion and without further notice 

to respondent, the judge shall find the 

facts as to be alleged in the Charging 

Letter and render an initial or 

recommended decision and order. 15 

CFR 766.7. 

III. Discussion 

In this case, BIS has established that 

notice of the Charging Letter was served 

on Mr. Manzarpour in accordance with 

15 CFR 766.3(b)(1). BIS presented 

evidence that on July 27, 2007, the 

Charging Letter was sent by registered 

mail to Mr. Manzarpour at Preston 

Technical Services, Ltd.-UK, 17 Preston 

Village Mews Middle Road, Brighton 

East Sussex, BN1 6XU, United 

Kingdom, Respondent’s last known 

address obtained from a commercial 

invoice and a signed written statement. 

BIS also presented evidence that 

diligent and good-faith efforts were 

made to provide actual notice of the 

Charging Letter to Mr. Manzarpour, 

including: (a) Facsimile to Respondent’s 

last known fax number; (b) FedEx to 

Respondent’s last known address; (c) email to various last known e-mail 

addresses used by Respondent; and (d) 

both registered mail and FedEx to 

Respondent’s last known alternate 

business addresses. 

BIS presented evidence that F. Lynn 

signed for the Charging Letter on 

September 18, 2007, which was sent to 

Mr. Manzarpour by FedEx at a last 

known alternate address located on 35 

Millers Road. In its Supplement to 

Motion for Default, BIS presented 

additional evidence that delivery of the 

Charging Letter, dated September 4, 

2007, sent by registered mail to Mr. 

Manzarpour at the same alternate 

address, was ‘‘refused’’ on September 

20, 2007. 

As to the date of service and the date 

of ‘‘refusal’’, BIS raises three (3) 

arguments in support of its Motion for 

Default. First, BIS argues that October 

25, 2007 (ninety (90) days after the 

Charging Letter was first issued) should 

be deemed the date of attempted 

delivery and constructive refusal. 

Second, Respondent argues that the date 

on which the Charging Letter was 

successfully delivered to Manzarpour’s 

last known e-mail addresses or 

September 18, 2007 (i.e., the date in 

which the Charging Letter was received 

by F. Lynn via FedEx) might be 

acceptable as the date of service. Third, 

BIS argues that September 20, 2007 (i.e., 

the date in which delivery of the 

registered mail to Manzarpour at his last 

known alternate address) should be 

considered the date of service. 

In an effort to shed some light on 

determining the date of service, BIS’s 

arguments are address in full detail. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 45 / Thursday, March 6, 2008 / Notices 12077 

(1) October 25, 2007 Is Not an 

Acceptable Date of Service 

First, in its initial Motion for Default 

dated December 4, 2007, BIS argued that 

the date of service should be October 25, 

2007 (i.e., ninety (90) days after the date 

in which the Charging Letter was first 

sent via registered mail to Respondent). 

To support its argument, BIS relies on 

Modern Engineering Services. This 

argument is rejected because, in the 

present case, the ninety (90) day time 

period for registered mail delivery from 

the U.S. to the UK is speculative. 

BIS’s reliance on Modern Engineering 

Services is misplaced. The ninety (90) 

day period discussed in that case was 

based on information received from the 

U.S. Post Office establishing that it takes 

a maximum of ninety (90) days for 

registered mail sent from the U.S. to 

reach Pakistan. See 65 FR 81,822. In 

other words, the ninety (90) days period 

was case specific it did not establish a 

bright line rule to be applied to all BIS 

cases. 

In the present case, BIS presented no 

evidence concerning the maximum 

amount of time it takes registered mail 

sent from the U.S. to reach the UK. 

Without such evidence BIS’s argument 

fails. 

The Date of Successful Delivery of the 

Charging Letter on September 4, 2007 to 

Respondent’s Last Known E-mail 

Addresses and the Date in Which the 

Charging Letter Was Received by F. 

Lynn Via FedEx Are Not Acceptable as 

the Date of Service 

BIS’s alternative argument raised in 

its Motion for Default is that September 

4, 2007 or September 18, 2007 could be 

deemed the date of service. September 

4, 2007 is the date when two messages 

containing the Charging Letter were 

successfully relayed to Respondent’s 

last known e-mail addresses. 

Conversely, September 18, 2007 is the 

date in which F. Lynn signed for the 

FedEx package containing the Charging 

Letter sent to Respondent’s last known 

alternate business address. The problem 

with both methods of service is that 

they are not authorized under 15 CFR 

766.3(b) as an acceptable means of 

obtaining service. As such, BIS’s 

alternative argument is rejected. 

(3) September 20, 2007 Is the True Date 

of Service 

Third, in its supplemental Motion for 

Default Order, BIS argues that the date 

of service should be September 20, 

2007, which is the date delivery of the 

Charging Letter by registered mail was 

‘‘refused.’’ This argument is well taken. 

BIS has established that in a goodfaith effort to provide Respondent with 

notice of the Charging Letter, a courtesy 

copy was sent via registered mail on 

September 4, 2007 to Respondent at an 

alternate address located at 35 Miller 

Road in accordance with 15 CFR 

766.3(b). BIS presented evidence that on 

September 20, 2007 delivery of the 

Charging Letter was attempted and 

‘‘refused.’’ Thus, under 15 CFR 766.3(c), 

September 20, 2007 is deemed the 

effective date of service based on the 

‘‘refusal.’’ This means that 15 CFR 

766.6(a) required Mr. Manzarpour to file 

an Answer to the Charging Letter no 

later than October 30, 2007 (i.e., 30 days 

after service of the Charging Letter). To 

date, Respondent has not filed an 

Answer. Accordingly, BIS is entitled to 

a default judgment, and Respondent is 

deemed to have waived his right to 

appear and contest the allegations in the 

Charging Letter. 

IV. Conclusion of Law 

Pursuant to the default procedures set 

forth in 15 CFR 766.7, Manzarpour is 

found to have committed one violation 

of Section 764.2(b), one violation of 

Section 764.2(e), and one violation of 

Section 764.2(h) as alleged in the 

Charging Letter. 

V. Penalty Assessment 

Section 764.3 of the EAR sets forth the 

sanctions BIS may seek for violations. 

The sanctions include: (i) A monetary 

penalty; (ii) suspension from practice 

before BIS, and (iii) denial of export 

privileges. See 15 CFR 766.3. A denial 

order may be considered an appropriate 

sanction even in matters involving 

simple negligence or carelessness, if the 

violation involves ‘‘harm to the national 

security or other essential interests 

protected by the export control system,’’

if the violations are of such a nature and 

extent that a monetary fine alone 

represents an insufficient penalty. See 

15 CFR Part 766, Supp. No. 1, III, A. 

Based on the severity of Mr. 

Manzarpour’s actions, a 20-year denial 

of Mr. Manzarpour’s export privileges is 

recommended. Such a denial order is 

consistent with sanctions imposed in 

similar cases. For instance, in In re 

Yaudat Mustafa Talvi a/k/a Yaudat 

Mustafa a/k/a Joseph Talvi, the Under 

Secretary affirmed a 20-year denial 

order and civil penalty of $121,000 for 

the unauthorized export of oil field 

parts to Libya where respondent 

solicited a violation of the EAR with 

knowledge that a violation would occur. 

69 FR 77,177 (Dec. 27, 2004). Similarly, 

in In re Daqing Zhou, a 20-year denial 

order was affirmed where respondent 

conspired to export and caused the 

export of items controlled for national 

security reasons to China without the 

required license and with knowledge 

that a violation would occur. 71 FR 

65,775. 

In this case, BIS established that a 20- 

year denial order is appropriate because 

of Mr. Manzarpour’s severe disregard for 

U.S. export laws and regulations. The 

facts found proved shows that Mr. 

Manzarpour caused a violation of the 

EAR by ordering a freight forwarder to 

export a single engine aircraft to Iran 

without the required U.S. government 

authorization. (BIS Ex. C, L, M, P and 

R). The aircraft was classified under 

ECCN 9A991.b and controlled for antiterrorism (AT) reasons. The facts found 

proved also establish that Mr. 

Manzarpour knew that the U.S.-origin 

item could not be sold to sanction 

countries, such as Iran; a fact Mr. 

Manzarpour acknowledged during an 

interview with UK Customs officials. 

(BIS Ex. C, O at 11–13). Yet, Mr. 

Manzarpour failed to disclose the 

aircraft’s ultimate destination from U.S. 

suppliers in an attempt to evade the 

EAR. Therefore, no OFAC authorization 

was obtained for the transaction. (BIS 

Ex. P). 

These actions cannot be condoned. 

The 20-year denial order is further 

supported where, as in this case, 

Respondent shows a history of 

attempting to evade U.S. export control 

laws and regulations. BIS presented 

evidence that there is a pending 

criminal indictment against Mr. 

Manzarpour in the U.S. District Court 

for the District of Columbia involving 

the acts described in the Charging Letter 

as well as other exports and attempted 

exports of items subject to the EAR from 

the United States to Iran via Austria. 

(BIS Ex. S). BIS presented additional 

evidence that Mr. Manzarpour has 

indicated in public statements to UK 

media that the transactions are legal. 

(BIS Ex. T at 4). Given his past actions 

and recent statements, there is a strong 

likelihood that future sales of U.S.- 

origin goods would be diverted to Iran 

in violation of the Iranian Transaction 

Regulations and the EAR. Future 

detection of such violations might prove 

difficult given the fact that Mr. 

Manzarpour lives and operates business 

abroad. 

In light of the above, denial of Mr. 

Manzarpour’s U.S. export privileges is 

an appropriate sanction. This is 

especially true given the fact assessment 

of a monetary penalty alone might prove 

inadequate and, based on Mr. 

Manzarpour’s business operations 

abroad, BIS would likely face 

difficulties collection a monetary 

penalty. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES

12078 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 45 / Thursday, March 6, 2008 / Notices 

6

7United States coast Guard Administrative Law 

Judges perform adjudicatory functions required for 

the Bureau of Industry and Security with approval 

from the Office of Personnel Management pursuant 

to a memorandum of understanding between the 

Coast Guard and the Bureau of Industry and 

Security. 

1On December 18, 2006, we published a 

correction to the notice of Opportunity to Request 

Review to correct the POR. See Antidumping or 

Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended 

Investigation; Opportunity to Request 

Administrative Review; Correction, 71 FR 75709 

(December 18, 2006). 

VI. Recommended Order 6

[Redacted Section] 

Accordingly, this Recommended 

Decision and Order is being referred to 

the Under Secretary for Industry & 

Security for review and final action for 

the agency, without further notice to the 

respondent as provided in Section 766.7 

of the Regulations. 

Pursuant to Section 766.22(b), the 

parties have 12 days from the date of 

issuance of this recommended decision 

and order in which to submit 

simultaneous responses. Parties 

thereafter shall have eight days from 

receipt of any response(s) in which to 

submit replies. Any response or reply 

must be received within the time 

specified by the Under Secretary. 

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 February 4, 2008, 

Baltimore, Maryland. 

Joseph N. Ingolia, 

Administrative Law Judge, U.S. Coast Guard 7

[FR Doc. 08–974 Filed 3–5–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DT–M 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

Applications for Duty-Free Entry of 

Scientific Instruments 

Pursuant to section 6(c) of the 

Educational, Scientific and Cultural 

Materials Importation Act of 1966 (Pub. 

L. 89–651, as amended by Pub. L. 106–

36; 80 Stat. 897; 15 CFR part 301), we 

invite comments on the question of 

whether instruments of equivalent 

scientific value, for the purposes for 

which the instruments shown below are 

intended to be used, are being 

manufactured in the United States. 

Comments must comply with 15 CFR 

301.5(a)(3) and (4) of the regulations and 

be postmarked on or before March 26, 

2008. Address written comments to 

Statutory Import Programs Staff, Room 

2104, U.S. Department of Commerce, 

Washington, DC 20230. Applications 

may be examined between 8:30 a.m. and 

5 p.m. at the U.S. Department of 

Commerce in Room 2104. 

Docket Number: 08–004. Applicant: 

VA Connecticut Healthcare System, 

Neuroscience Research Center (127A), 

VA Connecticut Healthcare System, 950 

Campbell Avenue, West Haven, CT 

06516. Instrument: Electron Microscope, 

Model JEM–1011. Manufacturer: Jeol, 

Inc., Japan. Intended Use: The 

instrument is intended to be used to 

examine the molecular ultrastructure of 

brain, spinal cord and other nervous 

tissue samples obtained from control 

and experimental animals. The 

objectives of these research 

investigations are to understand the 

mechanisms of nerve cell damage and 

loss following injury and to examine the 

efficacy of different therapeutic 

interventions that can eliminate or 

minimize dysfunction following 

nervous system injury. Application 

accepted by Commissioner of Customs: 

February 8, 2008. 

Docket Number: 08–005. Applicant: 

University of Utah, 201 S. President’s 

Circle, Salt Lake City, UT 84112. 

Instrument: Electron Microscope, Model 

600 Quanta FEG. Manufacturer: FEI 

Company, Czech Republic. Intended 

Use: The instrument is intended to be 

used primarily for electron beam 

lithography as well as chemical 

characterization of a wide variety of 

materials. The instrument will be used 

to measure the size and chemical 

composition of nanoparticles and 

nanostructures. It will also be used to 

create nanostructures using electron 

beam lithography. Application accepted 

by Commissioner of Customs: February 

17, 2008. 

Docket Number: 08–006. Applicant: 

Advocate Lutheran General Hospital—

Em/Pathology, 1775 Dempster, 5th 

Floor, Park Ridge, IL 60068. Instrument: 

Electron Microscope, Model H–7650. 

Manufacturer: Hitachi HighTechnologies Corp., Japan. Intended 

Use: The instrument is intended to be 

used primarily as a tool in the 

pathologic diagnosis of human diseases, 

mainly in: (a) Kidney biopsies, to aid in 

the diagnosis of medical and certain 

hereditary kidney diseases; (b) biopsies 

and/or resections of certain 

undifferentiated cancers; (c) biopsies of 

muscles, nerves, or brain, to identify 

certain metabolic and hereditary 

disorders of these organs; and (d) 

biopsies of the respiratory and 

alimentary tracts, to identify certain 

developmental disorders of these 

organs. It will also be used to aid in the 

training of physician residents in 

pathology during their rotations in 

Nephropathology and Surgical 

Pathology. Application accepted by 

Commissioner of Customs: February 12, 

2008. 

Dated: March 3, 2008. 

Faye Robinson, 

Director, Statutory Import Programs Staff. 

[FR Doc. E8–4407 Filed 3–5–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[C–533–821] 

Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat 

Products From India: Notice of 

Extension of Final Results of 

Countervailing Duty Administrative 

Review 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John 

Conniff at (202) 482–1009, AD/CVD 

Operations, Office 3, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Ave, NW., Washington, DC 20230. 

Background 

On December 1, 2006, the Department 

published a notice of opportunity to 

request an administrative review of this 

CVD order. See Antidumping or 

Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or 

Suspended Investigation; Opportunity 

to Request Administrative Review, 71 

FR 69543 (December 1, 2006) 

(Opportunity to Request Review).1 On 

January 9, 2008, the Department 

published the preliminary results of this 

review. See Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon 

Steel Flat Products from India: Notice of 

Preliminary Results of Countervailing 

Duty Administrative Review, 73 FR 1578 

(January 9, 2008). The final results of 

this review are currently due no later 

than May 8, 2008. 

Extension of Time Limit of Final 

Results 

Section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act 

of 1930, as amended (‘‘the Act’’), 

requires the Department to issue final 

results within 120 days after the date on 

which the preliminary results are 

published. However, if it is not 

practicable to complete the review 

within that time period, section 

751(a)(3)(A) of the Act allows the 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES