Action Affecting Export Privileges; MAHAN AIRWAYS; Mahan Airways, Mahan Tower, No. 21, Azadegan St., M.A. Jenah Exp. Way, Tehran, Iran, Respondent; Order Renewing Order Temporarily Denying Export Privileges, 13079-13081 [2010-5889]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 52 / Thursday, March 18, 2010 / Notices
Census Bureau solely as statistical
records, as required under Title 13
U.S.C., and are not used in whole or in
part in making any determination about
an identifiable individual. This
exemption is made in accordance with
the Department’s rules which appear in
15 CFR part 4 subpart B and in
accordance with agency rules published
in the rules section of this Federal
Register.’’
Dated: March 12, 2010.
Brenda Dolan,
Department of Commerce, Freedom of
Information/Privacy Act Officer.
[FR Doc. 2010–5943 Filed 3–17–10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–07–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
Bureau of Industry and Security
Action Affecting Export Privileges;
MAHAN AIRWAYS; Mahan Airways,
Mahan Tower, No. 21, Azadegan St.,
M.A. Jenah Exp. Way, Tehran, Iran,
Respondent; Order Renewing Order
Temporarily Denying Export Privileges
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICES
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 (‘‘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, Darryl W.
Jackson, the then-Assistant Secretary of
Commerce for Export Enforcement
(‘‘Assistant Secretary’’), signed a TDO
denying Mahan Airways’ export
privileges for a period of 180 days on
the grounds that its issuance was
necessary in the public interest to
prevent an imminent violation of the
Regulations. The TDO also named as
denied persons 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., and Blue Sky Six Ltd. (all
of the United Kingdom and hereinafter
collectively referred to as the ‘‘Balli
Group Respondents’’), as well as Blue
Airways (of Yerevan, Armenia). 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, in accordance with
VerDate Nov<24>2008
17:08 Mar 17, 2010
Jkt 220001
Section 766.23 of the Regulations,
Assistant Secretary Jackson issued an
Order adding Blue Airways FZE and
Blue Airways, both of Dubai, United
Arab Emirates (‘‘the UAE’’), to the TDO
as persons related to Blue Airways of
Armenia (along with Blue Airways FZE
and Blue Airways of the UAE,
hereinafter collectively referred to as the
Blue Airways Respondents).1 On
September 17, 2008, Assistant Secretary
Jackson renewed the TDO for an
additional 180 days in accordance with
Section 766.24 of the Regulations, via an
order effective upon issuance, and on
March 16, 2009, the TDO was similarly
renewed by then-Acting Assistant
Secretary Kevin Delli-Colli.2 On
September 11, 2009,3 Acting Assistant
Secretary Delli-Colli renewed the TDO
for an additional 180 days against
Mahan Airways. The TDO was not
renewed against the Balli Group
Respondents or the Blue Airways
Respondents.
On February 17, 2010, 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.
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
1 The Related Persons Order 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. The March 16, 2009 Renewal Order was
published in the Federal Register on March 25,
2009.
3 The September 11, 2009 Renewal Order was
published in the Federal Register on September 18,
2009.
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
13079
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 is based
upon the facts underlying the issuance
of the initial TDO and TDO renewals in
this matter and the evidence developed
over the course of this investigation
indicating Mahan Airways’ clear
willingness to continue to disregard
U.S. export controls and the TDO. The
initial TDO was issued as a result of
evidence that showed that Mahan
Airways and 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 (‘‘Aircraft 4–6’’)
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 were
issued Iranian tail numbers, including
EP–MNA and EP–MNB, and continued
to be operated on Mahan Airways’
routes in violation of the Regulations
and the TDO.
Moreover, as discussed in the
September 11, 2009 Renewal Order,
Mahan Airways continued to operate
Aircraft 1–3 in violation of the
Regulations and the TDO, and also
committed an additional knowing and
willful violation of the Regulations and
the TDO when it negotiated for and
acquired an additional U.S.-origin
4 Engaging in conduct prohibited by a denial
order violates the Regulations. 15 CFR 764.2(a) and
(k).
E:\FR\FM\18MRN1.SGM
18MRN1
13080
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 52 / Thursday, March 18, 2010 / Notices
aircraft. The additional aircraft was an
MD–82 aircraft, which was
subsequently painted in Mahan Airways
livery and flown on multiple Mahan
Airways’ routes under tail number TC–
TUA.
OEE seeks renewal of the TDO against
Mahan Airways based on its
participation in the violations discussed
in the initial and renewed TDOs and
Mahan Airways’ continued defiance of
the Regulations and the TDO by
operating at least two of Aircraft 1–3 on
its routes in and out of Iran since the
September 11, 2009 Renewal Order, and
the third of those aircraft during part of
that time period.5 OEE also notes that in
addition to Mahan Airway’s on-going
violations of the Regulations and TDO,
a United Kingdom court found Mahan
Airways in contempt of court on
February 1, 2010, for failing to comply
with that court’s December 21, 2009 and
January 12, 2010 orders compelling
Mahan Airways to remove the Boeing
747s from Iran and ground them in the
Netherlands. See Exhibit 3 to OEE’s
Renewal Request. Mahan Airways and
the Balli Group Respondents have been
litigating before the U.K. court
concerning ownership and control of
Aircraft 1–3. OEE’s submission also
includes a copy of a letter from Mahan
Airways’ Chairman to the U.K. court
dated January 12, 2010, in which Mahan
Airways indicates, inter alia, that it
opposes U.S. Government actions
against Iran, that it was continuing to
operate the aircraft on its routes in and
out of Tehran (and had 158,000
‘‘forward bookings’’ for these aircraft),
and that it wished to continue to do so
and would pay damages if required by
that court, rather than ground the
aircraft. See Exhibit 4 to OEE’s Renewal
Request.
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICES
C. Findings
Under the applicable standard set
forth in Section 766.24 of the
Regulations and my review of the record
here, I find that violations of the
Regulations have occurred and continue
to occur involving the unlicensed reexport of U.S.-origin Boeing 747s
presently under Mahan Airways’
possession and control. The aircraft are
currently located in Iran and are
registered and/or operated by Mahan
Airways in violation of the Regulations
and the most recent Renewal Order
dated September 11, 2009. Mahan
Airways’ continued course of conduct
5 The third Boeing 747 appears to have undergone
significant service maintenance and was not in
flight operation during part of the renewal period.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
17:08 Mar 17, 2010
Jkt 220001
illustrates its refusal to comply with the
TDO or U.S. export control laws.6
I find that the evidence presented by
BIS convincingly demonstrates that
Mahan Airways has repeatedly violated
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 imminent
violation 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
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;
6 My findings are made pursuant to Section
766.24 and the Regulations, and are not based on
the contempt finding against Mahan Airways in the
U.K. litigation, which I understand is still ongoing.
I note, however, that Mahan Airways’ statements
and actions in that litigation are consistent with my
findings here.
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
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,
E:\FR\FM\18MRN1.SGM
18MRN1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 52 / Thursday, March 18, 2010 / Notices
Issued this March 7, 2010.
David W. Mills,
Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Export
Enforcement.
• Hand delivered: National Marine
Fisheries Service, 777 Sonoma Avenue,
Suite 325, Santa Rosa, CA 95404 ATTN:
Recovery Coordinator/CCC Coho
Salmon Comments. Business hours are
8 am to 5 pm Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays.
• Via fax: 707–578–3435. Please
include the following on the cover page
of the fax ‘‘ATTN: Recovery
Coordinator/CCC Coho Salmon Public
Draft Recovery Plan Comments’’.
[FR Doc. 2010–5889 Filed 3–17–10; 8:45 am]
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
BILLING CODE 3510–DT–P
Charlotte Ambrose, North Central
California Coast Recovery Coordinator
(707–575–6068).
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.
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
NMFS is
charged with the recovery of Pacific
salmon and steelhead species listed
under the ESA. Recovery means that
listed species and their ecosystems are
restored, and their future secured, so
that the protections of the ESA are no
longer necessary. The ESA specifies that
recovery plans must include: (1) a
description of management actions
necessary to achieve the plan’s goals for
the conservation and survival of the
species; (2) objective, measurable
criteria which, when met, would result
in the species being removed from the
list; and (3) estimates of time and costs
required to achieve the plan’s goal and
the intermediate steps towards that goal.
Section 4(f) of the ESA, as amended in
1988, requires that public notice and an
opportunity for public review and
comment be provided during recovery
plan development. NMFS is hereby
soliciting relevant information on CCC
Coho Salmon ESU populations and their
freshwater/marine habitats.
NMFS worked closely with the
California Department of Fish and Game
to integrate, where appropriate, recovery
actions included in the previously
approved February 2004 Recovery
Strategy for California Coho Salmon.
The document was used as a
foundational tool to aid in the
development of the Draft Plan. NMFS
requests relevant information from the
public that should be considered by
NMFS during preparation of the final
recovery plan.
Persons wishing to review the Draft
Plan can obtain an electronic copy (i.e.,
CD ROM) from Ms. Andrea Berry by
calling 1–866–300–2948 or by e-mailing
a request to andrea.berry@noaa.gov with
the subject line ‘‘CD ROM Request for
CCC coho Salmon and Recovery Draft
Plan.’’ Electronic copies of the Draft Plan
are also available on line on the
following NMFS websites:
• https://swr.nmfs.noaa.gov/recovery
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
RIN 0648–XV18
Endangered and Threatened Species;
Notice of Intent to Prepare a Recovery
Plan for Central California Coast Coho
Salmon
National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
Commerce.
ACTION: Notice of availability; request
for comments and notice of public
meetings.
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICES
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: NMFS announces that the
Draft Recovery Plan for Central
California Coast coho salmon (Draft
Plan) is available for public review and
comment. The Draft Plan addresses the
Central California Coast coho salmon
(Oncorhynchus kisutch) Evolutionarily
Significant Unit (ESU). NMFS is
soliciting review and comment from the
public and all interested parties on the
Draft Plan. In addition, public meetings
will be announced as opportunities for
providing comments on the Draft Plan
(dates to be determined).
DATES: NMFS will consider and address
all substantive comments received
during the comment period. Comments
must be received no later than 5 p.m.
Pacific daylight time on May 17, 2010.
Public meetings will also be held (see
Public Meetings section below).
ADDRESSES: Comments may be
submitted by any of the following
methods:
• Via email:
CohoRecovery.swr@noaa.gov (No files
larger than 5MB can be accepted).
• Via U.S. mail: Charlotte A.
Ambrose, National Marine Fisheries
Service, 777 Sonoma Avenue, Suite 325,
Santa Rosa, CA 95404 ATTN: Recovery
Coordinator/CCC Coho Salmon Public
Draft Recovery Plan Comments.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
17:08 Mar 17, 2010
Jkt 220001
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
13081
• ftp://ftp.afsc.noaa.gov/SWR/Public/
Public draft recovery plan CCC coho
salmon/
Public Meetings
Public meetings are planned for Ft.
Bragg, Santa Cruz and Santa Rosa, CA.
Information on exact locations, dates
and times will be posted on the above
website.
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.
Dated: March 15, 2010.
Angela Somma,
Chief, Endangered Species Division, Office
of Protected Resources, National Marine
Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 2010–5983 Filed 3–17–10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–22–S
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
RIN 0648–XRO1
Fisheries off West Coast States;
Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery;
Trawl Rationalization Program
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
Commerce.
ACTION: Notice of public workshop.
SUMMARY: NMFS announces a workshop
to solicit feedback from owners and
managers of shoreside processors that
intend to take delivery of trawl-caught
groundfish under the proposed Trawl
Rationalization Program. We are
interested in feedback concerning
proposed regulations to improve catch
monitoring and accounting in the trawl
fisheries. Specifically, we seek feedback
into proposed requirements for catch
weighing, and the development of Catch
Monitoring and Control Plans (CMCPs)
that shoreside processors would be
required to submit and conduct
operations under. The workshop is open
to the public, but NMFS is particularly
seeking participation by people who are
knowledgeable about the operations of
shoreside processors that intend to
participate in the rationalized trawl
fishery.
DATES: The public workshops will be
held on March 26, 2010, at 10 a.m. in
Astoria Oregon; at 10 a.m. in Newport
Oregon; and on April 1, 2010, at 10 a.m.
in Eureka.
ADDRESSES: The Astoria Oregon
workshop will be held at the Holiday
Inn Express, 204 W Marine Drive. The
Newport Oregon workshop will be held
at the Guinn Library, Hartfield Marine
E:\FR\FM\18MRN1.SGM
18MRN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 52 (Thursday, March 18, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 13079-13081]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-5889]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
Bureau of Industry and Security
Action Affecting Export Privileges; MAHAN AIRWAYS; 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 (``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, Darryl W. Jackson, the then-Assistant Secretary
of Commerce for Export Enforcement (``Assistant Secretary''), signed a
TDO denying Mahan Airways' export privileges for a period of 180 days
on the grounds that its issuance was necessary in the public interest
to prevent an imminent violation of the Regulations. The TDO also named
as denied persons 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., and
Blue Sky Six Ltd. (all of the United Kingdom and hereinafter
collectively referred to as the ``Balli Group Respondents''), as well
as Blue Airways (of Yerevan, Armenia). 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, in
accordance with Section 766.23 of the Regulations, Assistant Secretary
Jackson issued an Order adding Blue Airways FZE and Blue Airways, both
of Dubai, United Arab Emirates (``the UAE''), to the TDO as persons
related to Blue Airways of Armenia (along with Blue Airways FZE and
Blue Airways of the UAE, hereinafter collectively referred to as the
Blue Airways Respondents).\1\ On September 17, 2008, Assistant
Secretary Jackson renewed the TDO for an additional 180 days in
accordance with Section 766.24 of the Regulations, via an order
effective upon issuance, and on March 16, 2009, the TDO was similarly
renewed by then-Acting Assistant Secretary Kevin Delli-Colli.\2\ On
September 11, 2009,\3\ Acting Assistant Secretary Delli-Colli renewed
the TDO for an additional 180 days against Mahan Airways. The TDO was
not renewed against the Balli Group Respondents or the Blue Airways
Respondents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The Related Persons Order 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. The March 16, 2009 Renewal
Order was published in the Federal Register on March 25, 2009.
\3\ The September 11, 2009 Renewal Order was published in the
Federal Register on September 18, 2009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On February 17, 2010, 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.
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 is based upon the facts underlying the
issuance of the initial TDO and TDO renewals in this matter and the
evidence developed over the course of this investigation indicating
Mahan Airways' clear willingness to continue to disregard U.S. export
controls and the TDO. The initial TDO was issued as a result of
evidence that showed that Mahan Airways and 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 (``Aircraft 4-6'') 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 were
issued Iranian tail numbers, including EP-MNA and EP-MNB, and continued
to be operated on Mahan Airways' routes 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Moreover, as discussed in the September 11, 2009 Renewal Order,
Mahan Airways continued to operate Aircraft 1-3 in violation of the
Regulations and the TDO, and also committed an additional knowing and
willful violation of the Regulations and the TDO when it negotiated for
and acquired an additional U.S.-origin
[[Page 13080]]
aircraft. The additional aircraft was an MD-82 aircraft, which was
subsequently painted in Mahan Airways livery and flown on multiple
Mahan Airways' routes under tail number TC-TUA.
OEE seeks renewal of the TDO against Mahan Airways based on its
participation in the violations discussed in the initial and renewed
TDOs and Mahan Airways' continued defiance of the Regulations and the
TDO by operating at least two of Aircraft 1-3 on its routes in and out
of Iran since the September 11, 2009 Renewal Order, and the third of
those aircraft during part of that time period.\5\ OEE also notes that
in addition to Mahan Airway's on-going violations of the Regulations
and TDO, a United Kingdom court found Mahan Airways in contempt of
court on February 1, 2010, for failing to comply with that court's
December 21, 2009 and January 12, 2010 orders compelling Mahan Airways
to remove the Boeing 747s from Iran and ground them in the Netherlands.
See Exhibit 3 to OEE's Renewal Request. Mahan Airways and the Balli
Group Respondents have been litigating before the U.K. court concerning
ownership and control of Aircraft 1-3. OEE's submission also includes a
copy of a letter from Mahan Airways' Chairman to the U.K. court dated
January 12, 2010, in which Mahan Airways indicates, inter alia, that it
opposes U.S. Government actions against Iran, that it was continuing to
operate the aircraft on its routes in and out of Tehran (and had
158,000 ``forward bookings'' for these aircraft), and that it wished to
continue to do so and would pay damages if required by that court,
rather than ground the aircraft. See Exhibit 4 to OEE's Renewal
Request.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ The third Boeing 747 appears to have undergone significant
service maintenance and was not in flight operation during part of
the renewal period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. Findings
Under the applicable standard set forth in Section 766.24 of the
Regulations and my review of the record here, I find that violations of
the Regulations have occurred and continue to occur involving the
unlicensed re-export of U.S.-origin Boeing 747s presently under Mahan
Airways' possession and control. The aircraft are currently located in
Iran and are registered and/or operated by Mahan Airways in violation
of the Regulations and the most recent Renewal Order dated September
11, 2009. Mahan Airways' continued course of conduct illustrates its
refusal to comply with the TDO or U.S. export control laws.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ My findings are made pursuant to Section 766.24 and the
Regulations, and are not based on the contempt finding against Mahan
Airways in the U.K. litigation, which I understand is still ongoing.
I note, however, that Mahan Airways' statements and actions in that
litigation are consistent with my findings here.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I find that the evidence presented by BIS convincingly demonstrates
that Mahan Airways has repeatedly violated 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 imminent violation 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 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,
[[Page 13081]]
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.
Issued this March 7, 2010.
David W. Mills,
Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Export Enforcement.
[FR Doc. 2010-5889 Filed 3-17-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DT-P
