Bureau of Political-Military Affairs; Statutory Debarment Under the Arms Export Control Act and the International Traffic in Arms Regulations, 13330-13332 [2010-6067]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with NOTICES
13330
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 53 / Friday, March 19, 2010 / Notices
would have to return any premium
received under certain conditions.
These conditions are: (1) If the borrower
prepays the loan for any reason during
the first 90 days after the settlement of
the Secondary Market sale; or (2) if the
borrower fails to make when due, the
first three monthly payments within the
month after the Secondary Market sale
and the borrower enters uncured default
within 275 days after the settlement
date of the Secondary Market sale. This
warranty provision, added to the Form
1086, helped to encourage investor
participation in the Secondary Market
by extending investment protection
beyond the principal amount of the
guaranteed portion to the premium paid
by the investor.
It is SBA’s understanding that under
new FASB guidelines for the accounting
treatment of a Secondary Market sale, as
detailed in FAS 166, a lender may not
treat any premium received as income
until the expiration of the warranty
period. In addition, if the lender sells
the loan and retains cash flow in excess
of the minimum servicing fee, the
transaction is considered a borrowing
and the lender must continue to retain
capital to support it. As a result, the
lender would have to hold more capital
because the original loan would still be
on the books along with the new
borrowing.
In light of the foregoing, SBA is
soliciting views from the public on the
effect of FAS 166 on SBA Lender and
investor participation in the SBA 7(a)
loan program and the SBA Secondary
Market Program. In addition, SBA is
soliciting views from the public on the
need to modify the structure of the 7(a)
loan program and/or the SBA Secondary
Market program. Commenters are
encouraged to submit suggestions that
could minimize any adverse impact of
FAS 166 on the 7(a) loan program and/
or SBA Secondary Market participants.
SBA has received several unsolicited
suggestions on how to address this
issue. Some of the suggestions may
require regulatory changes; others may
require form or contractual changes.
SBA has not taken a position on any of
these proposals. SBA is seeking
additional suggestions and ideas on how
to address the ramifications of FAS 166
on the 7(a) loan program and the SBA
Secondary Market Program, as well as
comments on the specific proposals
received to date, which are as follows:
1. Eliminate the warranty period from
the Form 1086 and the SBA Secondary
Market Program. Under this proposal,
SBA would modify the Form 1086 to
remove the warranty language. The
warranty provision afforded investors
some protection against early
VerDate Nov<24>2008
14:14 Mar 18, 2010
Jkt 220001
prepayment and may have discouraged
lenders from selling guaranteed portions
of loans they knew were susceptible to
early default. However, after the
warranty language was implemented,
Congress added a subsidy recoupment
fee (prepayment penalty) for borrowers,
which may have reduced the need for
the warranty provision. The subsidy
recoupment fee is charged to the
borrower if it prepays a loan in the first
three years of the life of the loan.
Secondary Market sales tend to occur in
the first year of the life of the loan.
Thus, borrowers have a financial
incentive not to prepay early in the life
of the loan that did not exist when the
warranty language was originally added
to the Form 1086. It is also possible that
SBA’s establishment of the Office of
Credit Risk Management (OCRM) has
reduced the need for the warranty
provision as OCRM monitors lender
activity and has the ability to scrutinize
prepayment activity, including a pattern
of early prepayments.
2. Permit or Require SBA Secondary
Market Broker Dealers to provide the
warranty to their customers. If SBA
were to permit or require broker dealers
to provide the warranty protection, the
selling lender would no longer be in the
position of having to return any funds
received from a secondary market sale.
SBA understands that many broker
dealers are currently holding many
loans in excess of ninety (90) days while
they create pools, so many loans may
actually be in the broker dealer’s
inventory during the warranty period.
While this change would result in a
liability for the broker dealers, the
broker dealer may be in a good position
to know which lender’s loans tend to
prepay or default during the warranty
period. This option would require
modification of the Form 1086 by SBA.
3. Permit a private sector insurance
fund to repay investors when a premium
is lost during the 90 day warranty
period. Under this proposal, lenders
would pay a portion of the premium
received into an insurance fund that
would be run by an entity not related to
SBA or to SBA participating lenders. If
a borrower prepays or defaults, the
investor would file a claim with the
insurance fund. SBA’s role in the
implementation of such an option
would consist only of removing the
warranty language from the Form 1086;
the fund would be established and run
by a private sector entity.
4. Make the warranty period optional.
Under this proposal, SBA would modify
the Form 1086 and related documents to
allow the buyers and sellers to decide
whether they wanted a warranty
included in the terms of the agreement
PO 00000
Frm 00087
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
for a particular sale. Commenters are
requested to provide suggestions on
how warranty information for a
particular sale could be communicated
to potential purchasers under this
proposal as such purchasers would need
to know in advance whether a particular
certificate included a warranty.
Implementing this change would
require modifications to both the Form
1086 and SBA’s contract with its Fiscal
and Transfer Agent.
Commenters are encouraged to submit
other suggestions or actions that could
minimize any adverse impact of FAS
166 on the 7(a) loan program and/or
SBA Secondary Market participants.
SBA is also seeking comments on
whether the existing warranty should be
left in place as it is currently structured.
Authority: 15 U.S.C. 634(b)(7)
Dated: March 5, 2010.
Eric R. Zarnikow,
Associate Administrator of Capital Access.
[FR Doc. 2010–6101 Filed 3–18–10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8025–01–P
DEPARTMENT OF STATE
[Public Notice 6924]
Bureau of Political-Military Affairs;
Statutory Debarment Under the Arms
Export Control Act and the
International Traffic in Arms
Regulations
ACTION:
Notice.
SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that
the Department of State has imposed
statutory debarment pursuant to
§ 127.7(c) of the International Traffic in
Arms Regulations (‘‘ITAR’’) (22 CFR
parts 120 to 130) on persons convicted
of violating, attempting to violate or
conspiring to violate Section 38 of the
Arms Export Control Act, as amended,
(‘‘AECA’’) (22 U.S.C. 2778).
DATES: Effective Date: Date of conviction
as specified for each person.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lisa
Studtmann, Director, Office of Defense
Trade Controls Compliance, Bureau of
Political-Military Affairs, Department of
State, (202) 663–2980.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section
38(g)(4) of the AECA, 22 U.S.C.
2778(g)(4), prohibits the Department of
State from issuing licenses or other
approvals for the export of defense
articles or defense services where the
applicant, or any party to the export, has
been convicted of violating certain
statutes, including the AECA. In
implementing this provision, Section
127.7 of the ITAR provides for ‘‘statutory
E:\FR\FM\19MRN1.SGM
19MRN1
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 53 / Friday, March 19, 2010 / Notices
debarment’’ of any person who has been
convicted of violating or conspiring to
violate the AECA. Persons subject to
statutory debarment are prohibited from
participating directly or indirectly in the
export of defense articles, including
technical data, or in the furnishing of
defense services for which a license or
other approval is required.
Statutory debarment is based solely
upon conviction in a criminal
proceeding, conducted by a United
States Court, and as such the
administrative debarment procedures
outlined in Part 128 of the ITAR are not
applicable.
The period for debarment will be
determined by the Assistant Secretary
for Political-Military Affairs based on
the underlying nature of the violations,
but will generally be for three years
from the date of conviction. At the end
of the debarment period, export
privileges may be reinstated only at the
request of the debarred person followed
by the necessary interagency
consultations, after a thorough review of
the circumstances surrounding the
conviction, and a finding that
appropriate steps have been taken to
mitigate any law enforcement concerns,
as required by Section 38(g)(4) of the
AECA. Unless export privileges are
reinstated, however, the person remains
debarred.
Department of State policy permits
debarred persons to apply to the
Director, Office of Defense Trade
Controls Compliance, for reinstatement
beginning one year after the date of the
debarment. Any decision to grant
reinstatement can be made only after the
statutory requirements of Section
38(g)(4) of the AECA have been
satisfied.
Exceptions, also known as transaction
exceptions, may be made to this
debarment determination on a case-bycase basis at the discretion of the
Assistant Secretary of State for PoliticalMilitary Affairs, after consulting with
the appropriate U.S. agencies. However,
such an exception would be granted
only after a full review of all
circumstances, paying particular
attention to the following factors:
Whether an exception is warranted by
overriding U.S. foreign policy or
national security interests; whether an
exception would further law
enforcement concerns that are
consistent with the foreign policy or
national security interests of the United
States; or whether other compelling
circumstances exist that are consistent
with the foreign policy or national
security interests of the United States,
and that do not conflict with law
enforcement concerns. Even if
VerDate Nov<24>2008
14:14 Mar 18, 2010
Jkt 220001
exceptions are granted, the debarment
continues until subsequent
reinstatement.
Pursuant to Section 38(g)(4) of the
AECA and Section 127.7(c) of the ITAR,
the following persons are statutorily
debarred as of the date of their AECA
conviction:
(1) Jesus Lorenzo Torres-Lopez,
November 19, 2009, U.S. District Court,
District of Arizona, Case # CR 09–
00616–002–TUC–JMR (HCE).
(2) Peter K. Spitz, November 25, 2008,
U.S. District Court, Southern District of
Florida, Case # 0:08–CR–60128–COHN.
(3) Traian Bujduveanu, June 12, 2009,
U.S. District Court, Southern District of
Florida, Case # 1:08–20612–CR–SEITZ–
002.
(4) Ugur Yildiz, December 23, 2009,
U.S. District Court, Northern District of
Illinois, Case # 08 CR 480–1.
(5) Bing Xu, July 2, 2009, U.S. District
Court, District of New Jersey, Case #
CR–08–240–01 (RMB).
(6) Artur (AKA Alex) Solomonyan,
March 6, 2009, U.S. District Court,
Southern District of New York, Case #
S1:05 cr 00327–01 (RJH).
(7) Christiaan Dewet (AKA David)
Spies, July 16, 2009, U.S. District Court,
Southern District of New York, Case #
S1:05 cr 00327–02 (RJH).
(8) Ioseb (AKA Soso) Kharabadze,
March 11, 2009, U.S. District Court,
Southern District of New York, Case #
S1:05 cr 00327–03 (RJH).
(9) John Reece Roth, July 28, 2009,
U.S. District Court, Eastern District of
Tennessee, Case # 3:08–CR–00069–1.
(10) Jose Luis Hernandez-Ochoa,
December 19, 2008, U.S. District Court,
Southern District of Texas, Case #
7:07CR00586–001.
(11) Luis Miguel HernandezHernandez, December 19, 2008, U.S.
District Court, Southern District of
Texas, Case # 7:07CR00586–002.
(12) Fernando Venegas-Arias,
December 31, 2008, U.S. District Court,
Southern District of Texas, Case #
7:07CR00586–003.
(13) Pedro Javier Lopez-Lopez,
December 31, 2008, U.S. District Court,
Southern District of Texas, Case #
7:07CR00586–004.
(14) Amado Iracheta-Delgado, April 9,
2009, U.S. District Court, Southern
District of Texas, Case # 7:07CR00595–
001.
(15) Laiza Moreno, April 9, 2009, U.S.
District Court, Southern District of
Texas, Case # 7:07CR00595–002.
(16) Julio Cesar Tamez-Hernandez,
February 16, 2009, U.S. District Court,
Southern District of Texas, Case #
7:07CR01349–001.
(17) Obed Damian Guajardo-Silva,
February 16, 2009, U.S. District Court,
PO 00000
Frm 00088
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
13331
Southern District of Texas, Case #
7:07CR01349–002.
(18) Juan Carlos Bocanegra, August
12, 2009, U.S. District Court, Southern
District of Texas, Case # 7:08CR00005–
001.
(19) Ramon Salazar-Rostro, January
19, 2009, U.S. District Court, Southern
District of Texas, Case # 7:08CR00956–
001.
(20) Justo Manuel FernandezHernandez, February 25, 2009, U.S.
District Court, Southern District of
Texas, Case # 1:08CR01058–001.
(21) Alejandro Reyes-Baez, June 1,
2009, U.S. District Court, Southern
District of Texas, Case # 7:08CR01617–
001.
(22) Nestor Rangel, June 12, 2009,
U.S. District Court, Southern District of
Texas, Case # 7:08CR01617–002.
(23) Juan Vasquez, August 12, 2009,
U.S. District Court, Southern District of
Texas, Case #7:08CR01610–001.
(24) Reynol Garcia, June 12, 2009,
U.S. District Court, Southern District of
Texas, Case #7:08CR01754–001.
(25) Antonio Rodriguez-Capetillo,
January 16, 2010, U.S. District Court,
Southern District of Texas, Case #
7:08CR01415–001.
(26) Mario Hector Quilantan-Garcia,
December 9, 2009, U.S. District Court,
Southern District of Texas, Case #
7:09CR00874–001.
(27) Pedro Cayetano Gonzalez-Flores,
December 31, 2009, U.S. District Court,
Southern District of Texas, Case #
7:09CR01019–001.
(28) Roberto Carlos Garcia-Salazar,
January 31, 2009, U.S. District Court,
Southern District of Texas, Case #
7:08CR01045–001.
(29) Manuel Rangel Rivera, January 9,
2009, U.S. District Court, Western
District of Texas, Case # DR–07–CR–
668(1)–AML.
(30) Ding Zhengxing (AKA Zhengxing
Ding and Zheng Xing Ding), July 21,
2009, U.S. District Court, Western
District of Texas, Case # EP–07–CR–
3289–FM(1).
(31) Su Yang (AKA Yang Su), May 22,
2009, U.S. District Court, Western
District of Texas, Case # EP–07–CR–
3289–FM(3).
(32) Taipan Enterprises, Ltd., January
7, 2010, U.S. District Court, Eastern
District of Virginia, Case #
1:10CR00002–001.
As noted above, at the end of the
three-year period following the date of
conviction, the above named persons/
entities remain debarred unless export
privileges are reinstated.
Debarred persons are generally
ineligible to participate in activity
regulated under the ITAR (see e.g.,
sections 120.1(c) and (d), and 127.11(a)).
E:\FR\FM\19MRN1.SGM
19MRN1
13332
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 53 / Friday, March 19, 2010 / Notices
Also, under Section 127.1(c) of the
ITAR, any person who has knowledge
that another person is subject to
debarment or is otherwise ineligible
may not, without disclosure to and
written approval from the Directorate of
Defense Trade Controls, participate,
directly or indirectly, in any export in
which such ineligible person may
benefit therefrom or have a direct or
indirect interest therein.
This notice is provided for purposes
of making the public aware that the
persons listed above are prohibited from
participating directly or indirectly in
activities regulated by the ITAR,
including any brokering activities and
in any export from or temporary import
into the United States of defense
articles, related technical data, or
defense services in all situations
covered by the ITAR. Specific case
information may be obtained from the
Office of the Clerk for the U.S. District
Courts mentioned above and by citing
the court case number where provided.
Dated: March 10, 2010.
Andrew J. Shapiro,
Assistant Secretary, Bureau of PoliticalMilitary Affairs, Department of State.
[FR Doc. 2010–6067 Filed 3–18–10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710–25–P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Surface Transportation Board
[STB Finance Docket No. 35358]
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with NOTICES
Regional Transportation District—
Acquisition Exemption—BNSF Railway
Company in Jefferson County, CO
Regional Transportation District
(RTD),1 has filed a verified notice of
exemption under 49 CFR 1150.41 to
acquire from BNSF Railway Company
(BNSF) a segment of the property,
approximately 9.55 miles in length,
known as the Golden Subdivision in
Jefferson County, CO, extending from
milepost 6.3, in Utah Junction, CO, to
the end of the line at approximately
milepost 15.85, in Golden, CO. RTD will
acquire the Golden Subdivision in two
separate but contiguous segments,
including: (1) The Gold Corridor East
portion between milepost 6.3 and
milepost 10.83; and (2) the Gold
Corridor West portion between milepost
10.83 and milepost 15.85.2 According to
is a political subdivision of the State of
Colorado.
2 RTD will also acquire an easement over a
portion of BNSF’s Front Range Subdivision from
milepost 0 to approximately milepost 6.3, for the
operation of passenger commuter rail service. RTD
states BNSF will retain its fee interest in the Front
RTD, BNSF will retain an exclusive
freight easement for the trackage on the
Golden Subdivision, and BNSF will
retain the exclusive right to operate
freight service on the entire line.
RTD states that RTD and BNSF
anticipate that they will execute three
agreements in conjunction with this
transaction before consummating the
transaction on or about April 5, 2010,
after the April 4, 2010 effective date of
this exemption (30 days after the
exemption was filed). These agreements
include: (a) Purchase and Sale
Agreement; (b) Relocation and
Construction Agreement; and (c) Joint
Corridor Use Agreement. According to
RTD, it will acquire no right or
obligation to provide freight rail service
on the Golden Subdivision, and it is
acquiring the property for the purpose
of providing intrastate passenger
commuter rail operations.3 RTD certifies
that, because it will conduct no freight
operations on the line segments being
acquired, its annual revenues from
freight operations as a result of this
transaction will not result in the
creation of a Class I or Class II rail
carrier.
If the notice contains false or
misleading information, the exemption
is void ab initio. Petitions to revoke the
exemption under 49 U.S.C. 10502(d)
may be filed at any time. The filing of
a petition to revoke does not
automatically stay the transaction.
Petitions for stay must be filed no later
than March 26, 2010 (at least 7 days
before the exemption becomes
effective).
An original and 10 copies of all
pleadings, referring to STB Finance
Docket No. 35358, must be filed with
the Surface Transportation Board, 395 E
Street, SW., Washington, DC 20423–
0001. In addition, a copy of each
pleading must be served on Charles A.
Spitulnik, 1001 Connecticut Avenue,
NW., Suite 800, Washington, DC 20036.
Board decisions and notices are
available on our Web site at
www.stb.dot.gov.
Decided: March 15, 2010.
By the Board, Rachel D. Campbell,
Director, Office of Proceedings.
Kulunie L. Cannon,
Clearance Clerk.
[FR Doc. 2010–6037 Filed 3–18–10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4915–01–P
1 RTD
VerDate Nov<24>2008
14:14 Mar 18, 2010
Jkt 220001
Range Subdivision and will continue its existing
freight operations on that line.
3 RTD states that it will separately file a motion
to dismiss this notice of exemption because it avers
that it will not become a rail carrier providing
transportation subject to Board jurisdiction.
PO 00000
Frm 00089
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Office of the Secretary
Application of Charter Air Transport,
Inc. for Commuter Authority
Correction
In notice document 2010–5555
appearing on page 12328 in the issue of
Monday, March 15, 2010, make the
following correction:
In the second column, in the first
paragraph, in the first line, ‘‘ (insert date
5 business days from publication)’’
should read ‘‘March 22, 2010’’.
[FR Doc. C1–2010–5555 Filed 3–18–10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 1505–01–D
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials
Safety Administration
Office of Hazardous Materials Safety;
Notice of Application for Special
Permits
AGENCY: Pipeline and Hazardous
Materials Safety Administration
(PHMSA), DOT.
ACTION: List of applications for
modification of special permits.
SUMMARY: In accordance with the
procedures governing the application
for, and the processing of, special
permits from the Department of
Transportation’s Hazardous Material
Regulations (49 CFR Part 107, Subpart
B), notice is hereby given that the Office
of Hazardous Materials Safety has
received the applications described
herein. This notice is abbreviated to
expedite docketing and public notice.
Because the sections affected, modes of
transportation, and the nature of
application have been shown in earlier
Federal Register publications, they are
not repeated here. Requests for
modification of special permits (e.g. to
provide for additional hazardous
materials, packaging design changes,
additional mode of transportation, etc.)
are described in footnotes to the
application number. Application
numbers with the suffix ‘‘M’’ denote a
modification request. These
applications have been separated from
the new application for special permits
to facilitate processing.
DATES: Comments must be received on
or before April 5, 2010.
Address Comments to: Record Center,
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials,
Safety Administration, U.S. Department
of Transportation, Washington, DC
20590.
E:\FR\FM\19MRN1.SGM
19MRN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 53 (Friday, March 19, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 13330-13332]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-6067]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF STATE
[Public Notice 6924]
Bureau of Political-Military Affairs; Statutory Debarment Under
the Arms Export Control Act and the International Traffic in Arms
Regulations
ACTION: Notice.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that the Department of State has
imposed statutory debarment pursuant to Sec. 127.7(c) of the
International Traffic in Arms Regulations (``ITAR'') (22 CFR parts 120
to 130) on persons convicted of violating, attempting to violate or
conspiring to violate Section 38 of the Arms Export Control Act, as
amended, (``AECA'') (22 U.S.C. 2778).
DATES: Effective Date: Date of conviction as specified for each person.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lisa Studtmann, Director, Office of
Defense Trade Controls Compliance, Bureau of Political-Military
Affairs, Department of State, (202) 663-2980.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 38(g)(4) of the AECA, 22 U.S.C.
2778(g)(4), prohibits the Department of State from issuing licenses or
other approvals for the export of defense articles or defense services
where the applicant, or any party to the export, has been convicted of
violating certain statutes, including the AECA. In implementing this
provision, Section 127.7 of the ITAR provides for ``statutory
[[Page 13331]]
debarment'' of any person who has been convicted of violating or
conspiring to violate the AECA. Persons subject to statutory debarment
are prohibited from participating directly or indirectly in the export
of defense articles, including technical data, or in the furnishing of
defense services for which a license or other approval is required.
Statutory debarment is based solely upon conviction in a criminal
proceeding, conducted by a United States Court, and as such the
administrative debarment procedures outlined in Part 128 of the ITAR
are not applicable.
The period for debarment will be determined by the Assistant
Secretary for Political-Military Affairs based on the underlying nature
of the violations, but will generally be for three years from the date
of conviction. At the end of the debarment period, export privileges
may be reinstated only at the request of the debarred person followed
by the necessary interagency consultations, after a thorough review of
the circumstances surrounding the conviction, and a finding that
appropriate steps have been taken to mitigate any law enforcement
concerns, as required by Section 38(g)(4) of the AECA. Unless export
privileges are reinstated, however, the person remains debarred.
Department of State policy permits debarred persons to apply to the
Director, Office of Defense Trade Controls Compliance, for
reinstatement beginning one year after the date of the debarment. Any
decision to grant reinstatement can be made only after the statutory
requirements of Section 38(g)(4) of the AECA have been satisfied.
Exceptions, also known as transaction exceptions, may be made to
this debarment determination on a case-by-case basis at the discretion
of the Assistant Secretary of State for Political-Military Affairs,
after consulting with the appropriate U.S. agencies. However, such an
exception would be granted only after a full review of all
circumstances, paying particular attention to the following factors:
Whether an exception is warranted by overriding U.S. foreign policy or
national security interests; whether an exception would further law
enforcement concerns that are consistent with the foreign policy or
national security interests of the United States; or whether other
compelling circumstances exist that are consistent with the foreign
policy or national security interests of the United States, and that do
not conflict with law enforcement concerns. Even if exceptions are
granted, the debarment continues until subsequent reinstatement.
Pursuant to Section 38(g)(4) of the AECA and Section 127.7(c) of
the ITAR, the following persons are statutorily debarred as of the date
of their AECA conviction:
(1) Jesus Lorenzo Torres-Lopez, November 19, 2009, U.S. District
Court, District of Arizona, Case CR 09-00616-002-TUC-JMR
(HCE).
(2) Peter K. Spitz, November 25, 2008, U.S. District Court,
Southern District of Florida, Case 0:08-CR-60128-COHN.
(3) Traian Bujduveanu, June 12, 2009, U.S. District Court, Southern
District of Florida, Case 1:08-20612-CR-SEITZ-002.
(4) Ugur Yildiz, December 23, 2009, U.S. District Court, Northern
District of Illinois, Case 08 CR 480-1.
(5) Bing Xu, July 2, 2009, U.S. District Court, District of New
Jersey, Case CR-08-240-01 (RMB).
(6) Artur (AKA Alex) Solomonyan, March 6, 2009, U.S. District
Court, Southern District of New York, Case S1:05 cr 00327-01
(RJH).
(7) Christiaan Dewet (AKA David) Spies, July 16, 2009, U.S.
District Court, Southern District of New York, Case S1:05 cr
00327-02 (RJH).
(8) Ioseb (AKA Soso) Kharabadze, March 11, 2009, U.S. District
Court, Southern District of New York, Case S1:05 cr 00327-03
(RJH).
(9) John Reece Roth, July 28, 2009, U.S. District Court, Eastern
District of Tennessee, Case 3:08-CR-00069-1.
(10) Jose Luis Hernandez-Ochoa, December 19, 2008, U.S. District
Court, Southern District of Texas, Case 7:07CR00586-001.
(11) Luis Miguel Hernandez-Hernandez, December 19, 2008, U.S.
District Court, Southern District of Texas, Case 7:07CR00586-
002.
(12) Fernando Venegas-Arias, December 31, 2008, U.S. District
Court, Southern District of Texas, Case 7:07CR00586-003.
(13) Pedro Javier Lopez-Lopez, December 31, 2008, U.S. District
Court, Southern District of Texas, Case 7:07CR00586-004.
(14) Amado Iracheta-Delgado, April 9, 2009, U.S. District Court,
Southern District of Texas, Case 7:07CR00595-001.
(15) Laiza Moreno, April 9, 2009, U.S. District Court, Southern
District of Texas, Case 7:07CR00595-002.
(16) Julio Cesar Tamez-Hernandez, February 16, 2009, U.S. District
Court, Southern District of Texas, Case 7:07CR01349-001.
(17) Obed Damian Guajardo-Silva, February 16, 2009, U.S. District
Court, Southern District of Texas, Case 7:07CR01349-002.
(18) Juan Carlos Bocanegra, August 12, 2009, U.S. District Court,
Southern District of Texas, Case 7:08CR00005-001.
(19) Ramon Salazar-Rostro, January 19, 2009, U.S. District Court,
Southern District of Texas, Case 7:08CR00956-001.
(20) Justo Manuel Fernandez-Hernandez, February 25, 2009, U.S.
District Court, Southern District of Texas, Case 1:08CR01058-
001.
(21) Alejandro Reyes-Baez, June 1, 2009, U.S. District Court,
Southern District of Texas, Case 7:08CR01617-001.
(22) Nestor Rangel, June 12, 2009, U.S. District Court, Southern
District of Texas, Case 7:08CR01617-002.
(23) Juan Vasquez, August 12, 2009, U.S. District Court, Southern
District of Texas, Case 7:08CR01610-001.
(24) Reynol Garcia, June 12, 2009, U.S. District Court, Southern
District of Texas, Case 7:08CR01754-001.
(25) Antonio Rodriguez-Capetillo, January 16, 2010, U.S. District
Court, Southern District of Texas, Case 7:08CR01415-001.
(26) Mario Hector Quilantan-Garcia, December 9, 2009, U.S. District
Court, Southern District of Texas, Case 7:09CR00874-001.
(27) Pedro Cayetano Gonzalez-Flores, December 31, 2009, U.S.
District Court, Southern District of Texas, Case 7:09CR01019-
001.
(28) Roberto Carlos Garcia-Salazar, January 31, 2009, U.S. District
Court, Southern District of Texas, Case 7:08CR01045-001.
(29) Manuel Rangel Rivera, January 9, 2009, U.S. District Court,
Western District of Texas, Case DR-07-CR-668(1)-AML.
(30) Ding Zhengxing (AKA Zhengxing Ding and Zheng Xing Ding), July
21, 2009, U.S. District Court, Western District of Texas, Case
EP-07-CR-3289-FM(1).
(31) Su Yang (AKA Yang Su), May 22, 2009, U.S. District Court,
Western District of Texas, Case EP-07-CR-3289-FM(3).
(32) Taipan Enterprises, Ltd., January 7, 2010, U.S. District
Court, Eastern District of Virginia, Case 1:10CR00002-001.
As noted above, at the end of the three-year period following the
date of conviction, the above named persons/entities remain debarred
unless export privileges are reinstated.
Debarred persons are generally ineligible to participate in
activity regulated under the ITAR (see e.g., sections 120.1(c) and (d),
and 127.11(a)).
[[Page 13332]]
Also, under Section 127.1(c) of the ITAR, any person who has knowledge
that another person is subject to debarment or is otherwise ineligible
may not, without disclosure to and written approval from the
Directorate of Defense Trade Controls, participate, directly or
indirectly, in any export in which such ineligible person may benefit
therefrom or have a direct or indirect interest therein.
This notice is provided for purposes of making the public aware
that the persons listed above are prohibited from participating
directly or indirectly in activities regulated by the ITAR, including
any brokering activities and in any export from or temporary import
into the United States of defense articles, related technical data, or
defense services in all situations covered by the ITAR. Specific case
information may be obtained from the Office of the Clerk for the U.S.
District Courts mentioned above and by citing the court case number
where provided.
Dated: March 10, 2010.
Andrew J. Shapiro,
Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Political-Military Affairs, Department
of State.
[FR Doc. 2010-6067 Filed 3-18-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-25-P
