Action Affecting Export Privileges; Mahan Airways, 47915-47917 [E9-22547]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 180 / Friday, September 18, 2009 / Notices
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Forest Service
Eastern Washington Cascades
Provincial Advisory Committee and the
Yakima Provincial Advisory Committee
Forest Service, USDA.
Notice of Meeting.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
SUMMARY: The Eastern Washington
Cascades Provincial Advisory
Committee and the Yakima Provincial
Advisory Committee will meet on
October 7, 2009 at the OkanoganWenatchee National Forest
Headquarters Office, 215 Melody Lane,
Wenatchee, WA. During this meeting
information will be shared about the
Forest’s Travel Management plan and
process, the Forest Plan update, and
Cabin Users Fee Fairness Act. All
Eastern Washington Cascades and
Yakima Province Advisory Committee
meetings are open to the public.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Direct questions regarding this meeting
to Becki Heath, Designated Federal
Official, USDA, Okanogan-Wenatchee
National Forest, 215 Melody Lane,
Wenatchee, Washington 98801, 509–
664–9200.
Dated: September 14, 2009.
Rebecca Lockett Heath,
Designated Federal Official, OkanoganWenatchee National Forest.
[FR Doc. E9–22548 Filed 9–17–09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410–11–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
Department of Commerce: National
Webinar for Industry on Climate
Change Negotiations Under the United
Nations Framework Convention on
Climate Change (UNFCCC)
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with NOTICES
AGENCY: International Trade
Administration, Department of
Commerce.
ACTION: Notice of meeting.
SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of
Commerce (DOC) will host a Webinar
(online presentations and audio
conference) for industry participants on
September 22, 2009. Participants will
learn from U.S. government officials
about the status of current negotiations
and hear about key issues for U.S.
industry, as well as potential
commercial opportunities. The Webinar
will also allow private sector
stakeholders, particularly industry and
trade associations, to advise U.S.
officials on the impact a new UNFCCC
agreement could have on their
VerDate Nov<24>2008
15:10 Sep 17, 2009
Jkt 217001
respective operations and on associated
commercial opportunities.
DATES: September 22, 2009.
ADDRESSES: To participate in the
Webinar, please contact Frank Caliva,
Office of Energy & Environmental
Industries, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of
Commerce, 1401 Constitution Ave.,
NW., Room 4053, Washington, DC
20230; 202–482–8245;
Frank.Caliva@mail.doc.gov.
47915
intellectual property, financing, and
related commercial opportunities.
Cheryl McQueen,
Acting Director, Office of Energy and
Environmental Industries, U.S. Department
of Commerce.
[FR Doc. E9–22586 Filed 9–17–09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DR–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
Bureau of Industry and Security
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Action Affecting Export Privileges;
Mahan Airways
Participation
Any private sector participant may
register to attend; the number of call-in
lines is limited and available on a firstcome, first-serve basis. Please contact
Frank Caliva, Office of Energy &
Environmental Industries, International
Trade Administration, U.S. Department
of Commerce, at 202–482–8245 or
Frank.Caliva@mail.doc.gov to register
and receive call-in and log-on
instruction.
The United Nations Framework
Convention on Climate Change—The
UNFCCC was signed in 1992 in Rio de
Janeiro, Brazil, and entered into force on
March 21, 1994. Currently, 193 states
have ratified the Convention, including
the United States. The treaty requires
national inventories of greenhouse gas
emissions from developed countries,
and encourages national action to stem
greenhouse gas emissions and slow
climate change. Developed nations also
pledge to share technology and
resources with developing nations.
Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations
Framework Convention on Climate
Change—The Kyoto Protocol was
adopted in December 1997, entered into
force on February 16, 2005, and has
been ratified by 188 countries and the
European Community. While the United
States signed the document, the U.S.
Senate has never ratified the treaty. The
Kyoto Protocol sets binding emissions
targets for 37 industrialized countries,
includes mechanisms for measuring and
reporting emissions, and provides for
financing and technology assistance to
developing countries. The commitment
period specified in the Protocol will
expire at the end of 2012.
Current UNFCCC Negotiations—
Negotiations under the UNFCCC are
underway to formulate a successor
agreement to the Kyoto Protocol. The
discussions have the goal of concluding
an agreement in Copenhagen this
December. Potential impacts on U.S.
industrial competitiveness will be
discussed during the upcoming webinar
including technology transfer,
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
In the matter of: Mahan Airways, Mahan
Tower, No. 21, Azadegan St., M.A. Jenah
Exp. Way, Tehran, Iran; Respondent.
Order Renewing Order Temporarily
Denying Export Privileges
Pursuant to Section 766.24 of the
Export Administration Regulations, 15
CFR Parts 730–774 (2009) (‘‘EAR’’ or the
‘‘Regulations’’), I hereby grant the
request of the Bureau of Industry and
Security (‘‘BIS’’) to renew for 180 days
the Order Temporarily Denying the
Export Privileges of Respondent Mahan
Airways (the ‘‘TDO’’), 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 March 17, 2008, the Assistant
Secretary of Commerce for Export
Enforcement (‘‘Assistant Secretary’’)
signed an Order Temporarily Denying
the Export Privileges of Mahan Airways,
as well as Balli Group PLC, Balli
Aviation, Balli Holdings, Vahid
Alaghband, Hassan Alaghband, Blue
Sky One Ltd., Blue Sky Two Ltd., Blue
Sky Three Ltd., Blue Sky Four Ltd., Blue
Sky Five Ltd., Blue Sky Six Ltd, and
Blue Airways, for 180 days on the
grounds that its issuance was necessary
in the public interest to prevent an
imminent violation of the Regulations
(‘‘TDO’’). The TDO was issued ex parte
pursuant to Section 766.24(a), and went
into effect on March 21, 2008, the date
it was published in the Federal
Register. On July 18, 2008, the Assistant
Secretary issued an Order adding Blue
Airways FZE and Blue Airways, both of
Dubai, United Arab Emirates, as Related
Persons to the TDO in accordance with
Section 766.23 of the Regulations.1 On
September 17, 2008, the TDO was
renewed for an additional 180 days in
accordance with Section 766.24 of the
1 The Related Persons Order was issued in
accordance with Section 766.23 of the Regulations,
15 CFR 766.23, and was published in the Federal
Register on July 24, 2008.
E:\FR\FM\18SEN1.SGM
18SEN1
47916
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 180 / Friday, September 18, 2009 / Notices
Regulations via an order effective upon
issuance.2 On March 16, 2009, the TDO
was renewed for an additional 180 days
via an order that also was effective upon
issuance.3
On August 20, 2009, BIS, through its
Office of Export Enforcement (‘‘OEE’’),
filed a written request for renewal of the
TDO against Mahan Airways for an
additional 180 days, and served a copy
of its request on the Respondent in
accordance with Section 766.5 of the
Regulations. No opposition to renewal
of the TDO has been received from
Mahan Airways. BIS did not seek
renewal of the TDO as to Balli Group
PLC, Balli Aviation, Balli Holdings,
Vahid Alaghband, Hassan Alaghband,
Blue Sky One Ltd., Blue Sky Two Ltd.,
Blue Sky Three Ltd., and Blue Airways
of Armenia. OEE also did not seek
renewal as to the Related Persons Blue
Airways and Blue Airways FZE of
Dubai, United Arab Emirates.
II. Discussion
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with NOTICES
A. Legal Standard
Pursuant to section 766.24(d)(3) of the
EAR, the sole issue to be considered in
determining whether to continue a TDO
is whether the TDO should be renewed
to prevent an ‘‘imminent’’ violation of
the EAR as defined in Section 766.24.
‘‘A violation may be ‘imminent’ either
in time or in 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 and 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.
B. The TDO and BIS’s Request for
Renewal
OEE’s request for renewal of the TDO
is based upon the facts underlying the
issuance of the initial TDO, as well as
evidence developed over the course of
this investigation indicating a clear
willingness on the part of Mahan
2 The September 17, 2008 Renewal Order was
published in the Federal Register on October 1,
2008.
3 The March 16, 2009 Renewal order was
published in the Federal Register on March 25,
2009.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
15:10 Sep 17, 2009
Jkt 217001
Airways to continue to disregard U.S.
export controls and the TDO. The initial
TDO was issued as a result of evidence
that showed that the Mahan Airways
along with other parties engaged in
conduct prohibited by the EAR by
knowingly re-exporting to Iran three
U.S.-origin aircraft, specifically Boeing
747s (‘‘Aircraft 1–3’’), items subject to
the EAR and classified under Export
Control Classification Number
(‘‘ECCN’’) 9A991.b, without the required
U.S. Government authorization. Further
evidence submitted by BIS indicated
that Mahan Airways was involved in the
attempted re-export of three additional
U.S.-origin Boeing 747s to Iran.
As more fully discussed in the
September 17, 2008 TDO Renewal
Order, evidence presented by BIS
indicated that Aircraft 1–3 continued to
be flown on Mahan Airways’ routes
after issuance of the TDO, in violation
of the Regulations and the TDO itself.4
It also showed that Aircraft 1–3 had
been flown in further violation of the
Regulations and the TDO on the routes
of Iran Air, an Iranian Government
airline. In addition, as more fully
discussed in the March 16, 2009
Renewal Order, in October 2008, Mahan
Airways caused Aircraft 1–3 to be
deregistered from the Armenian civil
aircraft registry and subsequently
registered the aircraft in Iran. The
aircraft were relocated to Iran and have
been issued Iranian tail numbers,
including EP–MNA and EP–MNB, and
continue to be operated on Mahan
Airways’ flights in violation of the
Regulations and the TDO.
OEE seeks renewal of the TDO against
Mahan Airways based on its
participation in the violations discussed
in the initial and renewed TDOs, as well
as additional evidence of unlawful
actions obtained by OEE since it last
requested renewal of the TDO on
February 24, 2009. In addition to the
Boeing 747’s discussed above, OEE has
presented evidence as part of its current
renewal request indicating that in early
2009, while subject to the TDO, Mahan
Airways acquired an additional U.S.origin aircraft in violation of the
Regulations and the TDO itself. The
additional aircraft is an MD–82 aircraft
painted in Mahan Airways livery and
currently flying under tail number TC–
TUA.
C. Findings
In determining whether to renew the
TDO in order to prevent imminent
violation of the Regulations, I have
4 Engaging in conduct prohibited by a denial
order violates the Regulations. 15 CFR 764.2(a) and
(k).
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
reviewed the entire record, including
OEE’s current and prior submissions
and related evidence. I find that
violations of the Regulations have
occurred and continue to occur
involving the unlicensed re-export of
three U.S.-origin 747s presently
possessed by Mahan Airways.
Moreover, the aircraft are currently
located in Iran and are registered and/
or operated by Mahan Airways in
violation of the Regulations and the
TDO. The likelihood of future violations
by Mahan Airways is further heightened
by its acquisition of the U.S.-origin MD–
82 aircraft in clear violation of the TDO.
I find that the evidence presented by
BIS convincingly demonstrates that
Mahan Airways has continued to violate
the EAR and the TDO and that such
knowing violations have been
significant, deliberate and covert, and
that there is a likelihood of future
violations. As such, a TDO is needed to
give notice to persons and companies in
the United States and abroad that they
should continue to cease dealing with
Mahan Airways in export transactions
involving items subject to the EAR.
Such a TDO is consistent with the
public interest to prevent violations of
the EAR.
Accordingly, I find pursuant to
Section 766.24, that renewal of the TDO
for 180 days against Mahan Airways is
necessary in the public interest to
prevent an imminent violation of the
EAR.
III. Order
It is therefore ordered: First, that the
Respondent, MAHAN AIRWAYS,
Mahan Tower, No. 21, Azadegan St.,
M.A. Jenah Exp.Way, Tehran, Iran (the
‘‘Denied Person’’) may not, directly or
indirectly, participate in any way in any
transaction involving any commodity,
software or technology (hereinafter
collectively referred to as ‘‘item’’)
exported or to be exported from the
United States that is subject to the
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
E:\FR\FM\18SEN1.SGM
18SEN1
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 180 / Friday, September 18, 2009 / Notices
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 Person any item subject to
the EAR;
B. Take any action that facilitates the
acquisition or attempted acquisition by
the Denied Person of the ownership,
possession, or control of any item
subject to the 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 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 EAR that has
been exported from the United States;
D. Obtain from the 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 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 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 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 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
Respondent 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.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
15:10 Sep 17, 2009
Jkt 217001
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
Respondent 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 Respondent and shall be
published in the Federal Register.
This Order is effective immediately
and shall remain in effect for 180 days.
Entered this 11th day of September 2009.
Kevin Delli-Colli,
Acting Assistant Secretary of Commerce for
Export Enforcement.
[FR Doc. E9–22547 Filed 9–17–09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–D2–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
Census Bureau
Proposed Information Collection;
Comment Request; Survey of Income
and Program Participation (SIPP) Wave
6 of the 2008 Panel
AGENCY: U.S. Census Bureau,
Commerce.
ACTION: Notice.
SUMMARY: The Department of
Commerce, as part of its continuing
effort to reduce paperwork and
respondent burden, invites the general
public and other Federal agencies to
take this opportunity to comment on
proposed and/or continuing information
collections, as required by the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995,
Public Law 104–13 (44 U.S.C.
3506(c)(2)(A)).
DATES: To ensure consideration, written
comments must be submitted on or
before November 17, 2009.
ADDRESSES: Direct all written comments
to Diana Hynek, Departmental
Paperwork Clearance Officer,
Department of Commerce, Room 7845,
14th and Constitution Avenue, NW.,
Washington, DC 20230 (or via the
Internet at dHynek@doc.gov).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Requests for additional information or
copies of the information collection
instrument(s) and instructions should
be directed to Patrick J. Benton, Census
Bureau, Room HQ–6H045, Washington,
DC 20233–8400, (301) 763–4618.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
47917
I. Abstract
The Census Bureau conducts the
SIPP, which is a household-based
survey designed as a continuous series
of national panels. New panels are
introduced every few years with each
panel usually having durations of one to
four years. Respondents are interviewed
at 4-month intervals or ‘‘waves’’ over
the life of the panel. The survey is
molded around a central ‘‘core’’ of labor
force and income questions that remain
fixed throughout the life of the panel.
The core is supplemented with
questions designed to address specific
needs, such as obtaining information on
household members participation in
government programs as well as prior
labor force patterns of household
members. These supplemental questions
are included with the core and are
referred to as ‘‘topical modules.’’
The SIPP represents a source of
information for a wide variety of topics
and allows information for separate
topics to be integrated to form a single,
unified database so that the interaction
between tax, transfer, and other
government and private policies can be
examined. Government domestic-policy
formulators depend heavily upon the
SIPP information concerning the
distribution of income received directly
as money or indirectly as in-kind
benefits and the effect of tax and
transfer programs on this distribution.
They also need improved and expanded
data on the income and general
economic and financial situation of the
U.S. population. The SIPP has provided
these kinds of data on a continuing basis
since 1983 permitting levels of
economic well-being and changes in
these levels to be measured over time.
The 2008 panel is currently scheduled
for 4 years and will include 13 waves
of interviewing beginning September
2008. Approximately 65,300 households
were selected for the 2008 panel, of
which 42,032 households were
interviewed. We estimate that each
household contains 2.1 people, yielding
88,267 person-level interviews in Wave
1 and subsequent waves. Interviews take
30 minutes on average. Three waves
will occur in the 2008 SIPP Panel
during FY 2010. The total annual
burden for 2008 Panel SIPP interviews
would be 132,400 hours in FY 2010.
The topical modules for the 2008
Panel Wave 6 collect information about:
• Adult Well-Being.
• Employer Provided Health Benefits.
• Functional Limitations and
Disability (Adults and Children).
• Support for Non-Household
Members.
• Child Support Agreements.
E:\FR\FM\18SEN1.SGM
18SEN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 180 (Friday, September 18, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 47915-47917]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-22547]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
Bureau of Industry and Security
Action Affecting Export Privileges; Mahan Airways
In the matter of: Mahan Airways, Mahan Tower, No. 21, Azadegan
St., M.A. Jenah Exp. Way, Tehran, Iran; Respondent.
Order Renewing Order Temporarily Denying Export Privileges
Pursuant to Section 766.24 of the Export Administration
Regulations, 15 CFR Parts 730-774 (2009) (``EAR'' or the
``Regulations''), I hereby grant the request of the Bureau of Industry
and Security (``BIS'') to renew for 180 days the Order Temporarily
Denying the Export Privileges of Respondent Mahan Airways (the
``TDO''), 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 March 17, 2008, the Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Export
Enforcement (``Assistant Secretary'') signed an Order Temporarily
Denying the Export Privileges of Mahan Airways, as well as Balli Group
PLC, Balli Aviation, Balli Holdings, Vahid Alaghband, Hassan Alaghband,
Blue Sky One Ltd., Blue Sky Two Ltd., Blue Sky Three Ltd., Blue Sky
Four Ltd., Blue Sky Five Ltd., Blue Sky Six Ltd, and Blue Airways, for
180 days on the grounds that its issuance was necessary in the public
interest to prevent an imminent violation of the Regulations (``TDO'').
The TDO was issued ex parte pursuant to Section 766.24(a), and went
into effect on March 21, 2008, the date it was published in the Federal
Register. On July 18, 2008, the Assistant Secretary issued an Order
adding Blue Airways FZE and Blue Airways, both of Dubai, United Arab
Emirates, as Related Persons to the TDO in accordance with Section
766.23 of the Regulations.\1\ On September 17, 2008, the TDO was
renewed for an additional 180 days in accordance with Section 766.24 of
the
[[Page 47916]]
Regulations via an order effective upon issuance.\2\ On March 16, 2009,
the TDO was renewed for an additional 180 days via an order that also
was effective upon issuance.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The Related Persons Order was issued in accordance with
Section 766.23 of the Regulations, 15 CFR 766.23, and was published
in the Federal Register on July 24, 2008.
\2\ The September 17, 2008 Renewal Order was published in the
Federal Register on October 1, 2008.
\3\ The March 16, 2009 Renewal order was published in the
Federal Register on March 25, 2009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On August 20, 2009, BIS, through its Office of Export Enforcement
(``OEE''), filed a written request for renewal of the TDO against Mahan
Airways for an additional 180 days, and served a copy of its request on
the Respondent in accordance with Section 766.5 of the Regulations. No
opposition to renewal of the TDO has been received from Mahan Airways.
BIS did not seek renewal of the TDO as to Balli Group PLC, Balli
Aviation, Balli Holdings, Vahid Alaghband, Hassan Alaghband, Blue Sky
One Ltd., Blue Sky Two Ltd., Blue Sky Three Ltd., and Blue Airways of
Armenia. OEE also did not seek renewal as to the Related Persons Blue
Airways and Blue Airways FZE of Dubai, United Arab Emirates.
II. Discussion
A. Legal Standard
Pursuant to section 766.24(d)(3) of the EAR, the sole issue to be
considered in determining whether to continue a TDO is whether the TDO
should be renewed to prevent an ``imminent'' violation of the EAR as
defined in Section 766.24. ``A violation may be `imminent' either in
time or in 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 and 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.
B. The TDO and BIS's Request for Renewal
OEE's request for renewal of the TDO is based upon the facts
underlying the issuance of the initial TDO, as well as evidence
developed over the course of this investigation indicating a clear
willingness on the part of Mahan Airways to continue to disregard U.S.
export controls and the TDO. The initial TDO was issued as a result of
evidence that showed that the Mahan Airways along with other parties
engaged in conduct prohibited by the EAR by knowingly re-exporting to
Iran three U.S.-origin aircraft, specifically Boeing 747s (``Aircraft
1-3''), items subject to the EAR and classified under Export Control
Classification Number (``ECCN'') 9A991.b, without the required U.S.
Government authorization. Further evidence submitted by BIS indicated
that Mahan Airways was involved in the attempted re-export of three
additional U.S.-origin Boeing 747s to Iran.
As more fully discussed in the September 17, 2008 TDO Renewal
Order, evidence presented by BIS indicated that Aircraft 1-3 continued
to be flown on Mahan Airways' routes after issuance of the TDO, in
violation of the Regulations and the TDO itself.\4\ It also showed that
Aircraft 1-3 had been flown in further violation of the Regulations and
the TDO on the routes of Iran Air, an Iranian Government airline. In
addition, as more fully discussed in the March 16, 2009 Renewal Order,
in October 2008, Mahan Airways caused Aircraft 1-3 to be deregistered
from the Armenian civil aircraft registry and subsequently registered
the aircraft in Iran. The aircraft were relocated to Iran and have been
issued Iranian tail numbers, including EP-MNA and EP-MNB, and continue
to be operated on Mahan Airways' flights in violation of the
Regulations and the TDO.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Engaging in conduct prohibited by a denial order violates
the Regulations. 15 CFR 764.2(a) and (k).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
OEE seeks renewal of the TDO against Mahan Airways based on its
participation in the violations discussed in the initial and renewed
TDOs, as well as additional evidence of unlawful actions obtained by
OEE since it last requested renewal of the TDO on February 24, 2009. In
addition to the Boeing 747's discussed above, OEE has presented
evidence as part of its current renewal request indicating that in
early 2009, while subject to the TDO, Mahan Airways acquired an
additional U.S.-origin aircraft in violation of the Regulations and the
TDO itself. The additional aircraft is an MD-82 aircraft painted in
Mahan Airways livery and currently flying under tail number TC-TUA.
C. Findings
In determining whether to renew the TDO in order to prevent
imminent violation of the Regulations, I have reviewed the entire
record, including OEE's current and prior submissions and related
evidence. I find that violations of the Regulations have occurred and
continue to occur involving the unlicensed re-export of three U.S.-
origin 747s presently possessed by Mahan Airways. Moreover, the
aircraft are currently located in Iran and are registered and/or
operated by Mahan Airways in violation of the Regulations and the TDO.
The likelihood of future violations by Mahan Airways is further
heightened by its acquisition of the U.S.-origin MD-82 aircraft in
clear violation of the TDO.
I find that the evidence presented by BIS convincingly demonstrates
that Mahan Airways has continued to violate the EAR and the TDO and
that such knowing violations have been significant, deliberate and
covert, and that there is a likelihood of future violations. As such, a
TDO is needed to give notice to persons and companies in the United
States and abroad that they should continue to cease dealing with Mahan
Airways in export transactions involving items subject to the EAR. Such
a TDO is consistent with the public interest to prevent violations of
the EAR.
Accordingly, I find pursuant to Section 766.24, that renewal of the
TDO for 180 days against Mahan Airways is necessary in the public
interest to prevent an imminent violation of the EAR.
III. Order
It is therefore ordered: First, that the Respondent, MAHAN AIRWAYS,
Mahan Tower, No. 21, Azadegan St., M.A. Jenah Exp.Way, Tehran, Iran
(the ``Denied Person'') may not, directly or indirectly, participate in
any way in any transaction involving any commodity, software or
technology (hereinafter collectively referred to as ``item'') exported
or to be exported from the United States that is subject to the 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
[[Page 47917]]
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 Person any item
subject to the EAR;
B. Take any action that facilitates the acquisition or attempted
acquisition by the Denied Person of the ownership, possession, or
control of any item subject to the 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 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 EAR that has been exported from the United States;
D. Obtain from the 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 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 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 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 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 Respondent 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 Respondent 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 Respondent and shall be
published in the Federal Register.
This Order is effective immediately and shall remain in effect for
180 days.
Entered this 11th day of September 2009.
Kevin Delli-Colli,
Acting Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Export Enforcement.
[FR Doc. E9-22547 Filed 9-17-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-D2-P
