Action Affecting Export Privileges; Orion Air, S.L.; Syrian Pearl Airlines, 57626-57627 [E9-26946]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
57626
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 215 / Monday, November 9, 2009 / Notices
Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C.
chapter 35).
Agency: National Institute of
Standards and Technology (NIST).
Title: Proposed Information
Collection; Comment Request; Hollings
Manufacturing Extension Partnership
(HMEP) Program Application
Requirements.
OMB Control Number: None.
Form Number(s): None.
Type of Request: Regular submission.
Burden Hours: 1,344.
Number of Respondents: 12.
Average Hours per Response: 112.
Needs and Uses: The objective of the
NIST Hollings Manufacturing Extension
Partnership Program (HMEP) is to
enhance productivity, technological
performance, and strengthen the global
competitiveness of small- and mediumsized U.S.-based manufacturing firms.
Affected Public: Not-for-profit
institutions; State or local government;
consortia of not-for-profit institutions.
Frequency: On occasion.
Respondent’s Obligation: Required to
obtain benefits.
OMB Desk Officer: Jasmeet Seehra,
(202) 395–3123.
Copies of the above information
collection proposal can be obtained by
calling or writing Diana Hynek,
Departmental Paperwork Clearance
Officer, (202) 482–0266, Department of
Commerce, Room 7845, 14th and
Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington,
DC 20230 (or via the Internet at
dHynek@doc.gov).
Written comments and
recommendations for the proposed
information collection should be sent
within 30 days of publication of this
notice to Jasmeet Seehra, OMB Desk
Officer, FAX number (202) 395–5806 or
via the Internet at
Jasmeet_K._Seehra@omb.eop.gov.
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 Respondents Orion
Air, S.L. and Syrian Pearl Airlines
(collectively, ‘‘Respondents’’), as I find
that renewal of the temporary denial
order (‘‘TDO’’ or the ‘‘ORDER’’) is
necessary in the public interest to
prevent an imminent violation of the
EAR.
Dated: November 4, 2009.
Gwellnar Banks,
Management Analyst, Office of the Chief
Information Officer.
[FR Doc. E9–26920 Filed 11–6–09; 8:45 am]
II. Discussion
BILLING CODE 3510–13–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
Bureau of Industry and Security
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES
Action Affecting Export Privileges;
Orion Air, S.L.; Syrian Pearl Airlines
In the Matter of:
Orion Air, S.L., Canada Real de Merinas, 7
Edificio 5, 3’A, Eissenhower Business
Center, 28042 Madrid, Spain;
Ad. de las Cortes Valencianas no 37, Esc.A
Puerta 45 46015 Valencia, Spain;
Syrian Pearl Airlines, Damascus International
Airport, Damascus, Syria; Respondents.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:52 Nov 06, 2009
Jkt 220001
I. Procedural History
On May 7, 2009, 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
Regulations. Pursuant to Section
766.24(a), the TDO was issued ex parte
and was effective upon issuance. Copies
of the TDO were sent to each
Respondent in accordance with Section
766.5 of the Regulations and the Order
was published in the Federal Register
on May 26, 2009.1 The TDO would
expire on November 3, 2009, unless
renewed in accordance with Section
766.24 of the Regulations.
On October 13, 2009, BIS, through its
Office of Export Enforcement (‘‘OEE’’),
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 Regulations. No
opposition to renewal of the TDO has
been received from either Orion Air or
Syrian Pearl Airlines.
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 the term ‘‘imminent’’ violation
is 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
1 74
PO 00000
FR 24,786.
Frm 00002
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
‘‘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. Findings
As part of its initial TDO request, BIS
presented evidence that on or about
May 1, 2009, Orion Air re-exported a
BAE 146–300 aircraft (tail number EC–
JVO), an item subject to the Regulations
because the aircraft contains greater
than a 10 percent de minimis of U.S.origin content, to Syria and specifically
to Syrian Pearl Airways without the
U.S. Government authorization required
by General Order No. 2 of Supplement
1 to Part 736 of the EAR. This re-export
took place after Orion Air had been
directly informed of the export licensing
requirements by the U.S. Government,
and thus had actual as well as
constructive notice of those licensing
requirements, and occurred despite
assurances made by Orion Air that it
would put the transaction on hold based
on the U.S. Government’s concerns. BIS
has also produced evidence that the reexported aircraft bears the livery, colors
and logos of Syrian Pearl Airlines, a
national of Syria, a Country Group E:1
destination. The aircraft currently
remains in Syria under the control of
Syrian Pearl Airways and is flight
capable. These facts, in addition to
Orion’s conscious disregard of U.S.
Government warnings, heighten the
concerns of further violations in
connection with this aircraft should the
TDO not be renewed.
Additionally, BIS argued that future
violations of the EAR remain imminent
based on previous statements by Orion
Air to the U.S. Government that Orion
Air had planned to re-export an
additional BAE 146–300 aircraft,
currently located in the United
Kingdom, to Syria and specifically to
Syrian Pearl Airlines. Evidence
indicates that the issuance of the
original TDO prevented this unlicensed
reexport to Syria, and to date neither
Orion nor Syrian Pearl has presented
BIS with evidence of an alternative
disposition of the second aircraft that is
in compliance with the Regulations.
Therefore, absent renewal of the TDO,
there remains a risk that this aircraft
would be reexported contrary to U.S.
export control laws.
I find the facts and circumstances
here, including those which led to the
initial TDO, show that renewal of the
E:\FR\FM\09NON1.SGM
09NON1
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 215 / Monday, November 9, 2009 / Notices
TDO for an additional 180 days is
necessary and in the public interest to
prevent an imminent violation of the
EAR. Furthermore, renewal of the Order
is needed to give notice to persons and
companies in the United States and
abroad that they should cease dealing
with the Respondents in export
transactions involving items subject to
the EAR.
It is therefore ordered:
FIRST, that, Orion Air, S.L., Canada
Real de Merinas, 7 Edificio 5, 3’A,
Eissenhower business center, 28042
Madrid, Spain, and Ad. de las Cortes
Valencianas no 37, Esc.A Puerta
4546015 Valencia, Spain; and Syrian
Pearl Airlines, Damascus International
Airport, Damascus, Syria. (each a
‘‘Denied Person’’ and collectively the
‘‘Denied Persons’’) may not, directly or
indirectly, participate in any way in any
transaction involving any commodity,
software or technology (hereinafter
collectively referred to as ‘‘item’’)
exported or to be exported from the
United States that is subject to the
Export Administration Regulations
(‘‘EAR’’), or in any other activity subject
to the EAR including, but not limited to:
A. Applying for, obtaining, or using
any license, license exception, or export
control document;
B. Carrying on negotiations
concerning, or ordering, buying,
receiving, using, selling, delivering,
storing, disposing of, forwarding,
transporting, financing, or otherwise
servicing in any way, any transaction
involving any item exported or to be
exported from the United States that is
subject to the EAR, or in any other
activity subject to the EAR; or
C. 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 any Denied Person any item subject
to the EAR;
B. Take any action that facilitates the
acquisition or attempted acquisition by
any 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 any 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 any Denied Person of
any item subject to the EAR that has
been exported from the United States;
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:52 Nov 06, 2009
Jkt 220001
D. Obtain from any 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 any Denied
Person, or service any item, of whatever
origin, that is owned, possessed or
controlled by any 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 any of the
Respondents by affiliation, ownership,
control, or position of responsibility in
the conduct of trade or related services
may also be made subject to the
provisions of this Order.
FOURTH, that this Order does not
prohibit any export, reexport, or other
transaction subject to the EAR where the
only items involved that are subject to
the EAR are the foreign-produced direct
product of U.S.-origin technology.
In accordance with the provisions of
Section 766.24(e) of the EAR, the
Respondents may, at any time, appeal
this Order by filing a full written
statement in support of the appeal with
the Office of the Administrative Law
Judge, U.S. Coast Guard ALJ Docketing
Center, 40 South Gay Street, Baltimore,
Maryland 21202–4022.
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
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 upon issuance
and shall remain in effect for 180 days.
Entered this 2nd day of November 2009.
Kevin Delli-Colli,
Acting Assistant Secretary of Commerce for
Export Enforcement.
[FR Doc. E9–26946 Filed 11–6–09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DT–P
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
57627
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[C–423–809]
Stainless Steel Plate in Coils From
Belgium: Final Results of
Countervailing Duty Administrative
Review
AGENCY: Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: On June 4, 2009, the U.S.
Department of Commerce (‘‘the
Department’’) published in the Federal
Register its Preliminary Results of the
administrative review of the
countervailing duty order on stainless
steel plate in coils (‘‘SSPC’’) from
Belgium for the period January 1, 2007,
through December 31, 2007. See
Stainless Steel Plate in Coils from
Belgium: Preliminary Results of
Countervailing Duty Administrative
Review, 74 FR 26844 (June 4, 2009)
(‘‘Preliminary Results’’).
On September 16, 2009, the
Department issued a post-preliminary
analysis regarding certain additional
information placed on the record of this
administrative review after the
Preliminary Results were issued. We
provided interested parties an
opportunity to comment on our
Preliminary Results and our postpreliminary analysis. The final results
do not differ from the Preliminary
Results, where we found the net subsidy
rate to be zero.
DATES: Effective Date: November 9,
2009.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Alexander Montoro or Mary Kolberg,
AD/CVD Operations, Office 1, Import
Administration, U.S. Department of
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution
Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230;
telephone: (202) 482–0238 and (202)
482–1785, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
The following events have occurred
since the publication of the Preliminary
Results of this review. On July 9, 2009,
the Department extended the briefing
and hearing schedules in order to
provide parties with additional time to
consider the results of the Department’s
post-preliminary analysis.
As noted in the Preliminary Results,
the Government of Belgium (‘‘GOB’’)
requested an extension to file its
response to the Department’s May 4,
2009, supplemental questionnaire,
which we granted. See Preliminary
Results at 26844. The GOB submitted
E:\FR\FM\09NON1.SGM
09NON1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 215 (Monday, November 9, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 57626-57627]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-26946]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
Bureau of Industry and Security
Action Affecting Export Privileges; Orion Air, S.L.; Syrian Pearl
Airlines
In the Matter of:
Orion Air, S.L., Canada Real de Merinas, 7 Edificio 5, 3'A,
Eissenhower Business Center, 28042 Madrid, Spain;
Ad. de las Cortes Valencianas no 37, Esc.A Puerta 45 46015 Valencia,
Spain;
Syrian Pearl Airlines, Damascus International Airport, Damascus,
Syria; Respondents.
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 Respondents Orion Air, S.L. and Syrian
Pearl Airlines (collectively, ``Respondents''), as I find that renewal
of the temporary denial order (``TDO'' or the ``ORDER'') is necessary
in the public interest to prevent an imminent violation of the EAR.
I. Procedural History
On May 7, 2009, 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 Regulations. Pursuant to Section 766.24(a), the TDO
was issued ex parte and was effective upon issuance. Copies of the TDO
were sent to each Respondent in accordance with Section 766.5 of the
Regulations and the Order was published in the Federal Register on May
26, 2009.\1\ The TDO would expire on November 3, 2009, unless renewed
in accordance with Section 766.24 of the Regulations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 74 FR 24,786.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On October 13, 2009, BIS, through its Office of Export Enforcement
(``OEE''), 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 Regulations. No
opposition to renewal of the TDO has been received from either Orion
Air or Syrian Pearl Airlines.
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 the
term ``imminent'' violation is 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. Findings
As part of its initial TDO request, BIS presented evidence that on
or about May 1, 2009, Orion Air re-exported a BAE 146-300 aircraft
(tail number EC-JVO), an item subject to the Regulations because the
aircraft contains greater than a 10 percent de minimis of U.S.-origin
content, to Syria and specifically to Syrian Pearl Airways without the
U.S. Government authorization required by General Order No. 2 of
Supplement 1 to Part 736 of the EAR. This re-export took place after
Orion Air had been directly informed of the export licensing
requirements by the U.S. Government, and thus had actual as well as
constructive notice of those licensing requirements, and occurred
despite assurances made by Orion Air that it would put the transaction
on hold based on the U.S. Government's concerns. BIS has also produced
evidence that the re-exported aircraft bears the livery, colors and
logos of Syrian Pearl Airlines, a national of Syria, a Country Group
E:1 destination. The aircraft currently remains in Syria under the
control of Syrian Pearl Airways and is flight capable. These facts, in
addition to Orion's conscious disregard of U.S. Government warnings,
heighten the concerns of further violations in connection with this
aircraft should the TDO not be renewed.
Additionally, BIS argued that future violations of the EAR remain
imminent based on previous statements by Orion Air to the U.S.
Government that Orion Air had planned to re-export an additional BAE
146-300 aircraft, currently located in the United Kingdom, to Syria and
specifically to Syrian Pearl Airlines. Evidence indicates that the
issuance of the original TDO prevented this unlicensed reexport to
Syria, and to date neither Orion nor Syrian Pearl has presented BIS
with evidence of an alternative disposition of the second aircraft that
is in compliance with the Regulations. Therefore, absent renewal of the
TDO, there remains a risk that this aircraft would be reexported
contrary to U.S. export control laws.
I find the facts and circumstances here, including those which led
to the initial TDO, show that renewal of the
[[Page 57627]]
TDO for an additional 180 days is necessary and in the public interest
to prevent an imminent violation of the EAR. Furthermore, renewal of
the Order is needed to give notice to persons and companies in the
United States and abroad that they should cease dealing with the
Respondents in export transactions involving items subject to the EAR.
It is therefore ordered:
FIRST, that, Orion Air, S.L., Canada Real de Merinas, 7 Edificio 5,
3'A, Eissenhower business center, 28042 Madrid, Spain, and Ad. de las
Cortes Valencianas no 37, Esc.A Puerta 4546015 Valencia, Spain; and
Syrian Pearl Airlines, Damascus International Airport, Damascus, Syria.
(each a ``Denied Person'' and collectively the ``Denied Persons'') may
not, directly or indirectly, participate in any way in any transaction
involving any commodity, software or technology (hereinafter
collectively referred to as ``item'') exported or to be exported from
the United States that is subject to the Export Administration
Regulations (``EAR''), or in any other activity subject to the EAR
including, but not limited to:
A. Applying for, obtaining, or using any license, license
exception, or export control document;
B. Carrying on negotiations concerning, or ordering, buying,
receiving, using, selling, delivering, storing, disposing of,
forwarding, transporting, financing, or otherwise servicing in any way,
any transaction involving any item exported or to be exported from the
United States that is subject to the EAR, or in any other activity
subject to the EAR; or
C. 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 any Denied Person any item
subject to the EAR;
B. Take any action that facilitates the acquisition or attempted
acquisition by any 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 any 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 any Denied Person of any item subject to
the EAR that has been exported from the United States;
D. Obtain from any 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 any Denied Person, or service any
item, of whatever origin, that is owned, possessed or controlled by any
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 any of the Respondents by affiliation,
ownership, control, or position of responsibility in the conduct of
trade or related services may also be made subject to the provisions of
this Order.
FOURTH, that this Order does not prohibit any export, reexport, or
other transaction subject to the EAR where the only items involved that
are subject to the EAR are the foreign-produced direct product of U.S.-
origin technology.
In accordance with the provisions of Section 766.24(e) of the EAR,
the Respondents may, at any time, appeal this Order by filing a full
written statement in support of the appeal with the Office of the
Administrative Law Judge, U.S. Coast Guard ALJ Docketing Center, 40
South Gay Street, Baltimore, Maryland 21202-4022.
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 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 upon issuance and shall remain in effect
for 180 days.
Entered this 2nd day of November 2009.
Kevin Delli-Colli,
Acting Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Export Enforcement.
[FR Doc. E9-26946 Filed 11-6-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DT-P
