Action Affecting Export Privileges; Orion Air, S.L. and Syrian Pearl Airlines; Order Renewing Order Temporarily Denying Export Privileges, 25202-25203 [2010-10812]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
25202
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 88 / Friday, May 7, 2010 / Notices
ANNEX—QUANTITY-BASED SAFEGUARD TRIGGER—Continued
Product
Trigger level
Cotton, Processed, Not Spun .................................................
3,995 kilograms .....................
31,338 kilograms ...................
[FR Doc. 2010–10878 Filed 5–6–10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410–10–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
Bureau of Industry and Security
Action Affecting Export Privileges;
Orion Air, S.L. and Syrian Pearl
Airlines; Order Renewing Order
Temporarily Denying Export Privileges
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
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. (‘‘Orion Air’’) 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.
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
I. Procedural History
On May 7, 2009, then-Acting
Assistant Secretary of Commerce for
Export Enforcement Kevin Delli-Colli
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 Thereafter,
on November 2, 2009, Acting Assistant
Secretary Delli-Colli issued an Order
renewing the TDO for an additional 180
1 74
FR 24,786.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:19 May 06, 2010
Jkt 220001
Period
September 11, 2009 to September 10, 2010.
September 11, 2010 to September 10, 2011.
days.2 The current Order would expire
on May 1, 2010, unless renewed in
accordance with section 766.24 of the
Regulations.
On April 9, 2010, BIS, through its
Office of Export Enforcement (‘‘OEE’’),
filed a written request for renewal of the
TDO against the Respondents for an
additional 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 ‘‘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) to Syria, and specifically to Syrian
Pearl Airlines, without the U.S.
Government authorization required by
General Order No. 2 of Supplement 1 to
Part 736 of the EAR. The aircraft is
subject to the Regulations because it
2 The November 2, 2009 renewal Order was
effective immediately and was published in the
Federal Register on November 9, 2009 (74 FR
57626).
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
contains greater than a 10-percent de
minimis amount of U.S.-origin content.
Orion Air engaged in this re-export
transaction despite having been directly
informed of the export licensing
requirements by the U.S. Government.
Moreover, Orion Air not only engaged
in this conduct after having received
actual as well as constructive notice of
the applicable license requirements, but
then sought to evade the Regulations
and U.S. export controls by giving the
U.S. Government false assurances that it
would put the transaction on hold due
to the U.S. Government’s concerns.
BIS also produced evidence that the
re-exported aircraft bore the livery,
colors and logos of Syrian Pearl
Airlines, a national of Syria, a Country
Group E:1 destination; was flight
capable; and under the terms of the
lease agreement was to be based in and
operated out of Syria during the lease
term. The record also shows that the reexported aircraft currently remains in
Syria under the control of Syrian Pearl
Airlines.
In addition to the unauthorized reexport described above, Acting
Assistant Secretary Delli-Colli also
concluded that additional violations
were imminent based on statements by
Orion Air to the U.S. Government in
May 2009 that Orion Air planned to reexport an additional BAE 146–300
aircraft (tail number EC–JVJ) to Syria,
and specifically to Syrian Pearl Airlines.
This second aircraft was at the time
undergoing maintenance in the United
Kingdom, and remains located there.
Moreover, the agreement between Orion
Air and Syrian Pearl Airlines involved
both aircraft. Based on my review of the
record, I find that the facts and
circumstances that led to the issuance of
the initial TDO and the November 2009
renewal Order continue to show that
renewal of the TDO for an additional
180 days is necessary and in the public
interest to prevent an imminent
violation of the EAR. Absent renewal of
the TDO, there remains a substantial
continued risk that the second aircraft
will be re-exported contrary to the
Regulations, given that, inter alia, Orion
Air acted with actual knowledge and
took deceptive and evasive action. This
finding alone would justify renewal.
There also would be a substantial risk
that, absent renewal of the TDO, the first
aircraft, which remains in Syria, would
E:\FR\FM\07MYN1.SGM
07MYN1
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 88 / Friday, May 7, 2010 / Notices
be operated or disposed of in violation
of the Regulations. Furthermore,
renewal of the TDO 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
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:19 May 06, 2010
Jkt 220001
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.
Issued this 29th day of April 2010.
David W. Mills,
Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Export
Enforcement.
[FR Doc. 2010–10812 Filed 5–6–10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DT–P
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
25203
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
Proposed Information Collection;
Comment Request; Regional
Economic Data Collection Program for
Southeast Alaska
AGENCY: National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).
ACTION: Notice.
SUMMARY: The Department of
Commerce, as part of its continuing
effort to reduce paperwork and
respondent burden, invites the general
public and other Federal agencies to
take this opportunity to comment on
proposed and/or continuing information
collections, as required by the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
DATES: Written comments must be
submitted on or before July 6, 2010.
ADDRESSES: Direct all written comments
to Diana Hynek, Departmental
Paperwork Clearance Officer,
Department of Commerce, Room 6625,
14th and Constitution Avenue, NW.,
Washington, DC 20230 (or via the
Internet at dHynek@doc.gov).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Requests for additional information or
copies of the information collection
instrument and instructions should be
directed to Chang Seung, (206) 526–
4250 or Chang.Seung@noaa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Abstract
The regional or community economic
analysis of proposed fishery
management policies is required by the
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery
Conservation and Management Act,
National Environmental Policy Act, and
Executive Order 12866, among others.
To satisfy these mandates and inform
policymakers and the public of the
likely regional economic impacts
associated with fishery management
policies, appropriate economic models
and the data to implement them are
needed.
Much of the data required for regional
economic analysis associated with
Southeast Alaska fisheries are either
unavailable or unreliable. Accurate
fishery-level data on employment, labor
income, and expenditures in the
Southeast Alaska fishery and related
industries are not currently available
but are needed to estimate the effects of
fisheries on the economy of Southeast
Alaska. In this planned survey effort,
data on these important regional
economic variables will be collected
and used to develop models that will
E:\FR\FM\07MYN1.SGM
07MYN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 88 (Friday, May 7, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 25202-25203]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-10812]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
Bureau of Industry and Security
Action Affecting Export Privileges; Orion Air, S.L. and Syrian
Pearl Airlines; Order Renewing Order Temporarily Denying Export
Privileges
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
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. (``Orion
Air'') 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, then-Acting Assistant Secretary of Commerce for
Export Enforcement Kevin Delli-Colli 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\ Thereafter, on November 2, 2009,
Acting Assistant Secretary Delli-Colli issued an Order renewing the TDO
for an additional 180 days.\2\ The current Order would expire on May 1,
2010, unless renewed in accordance with section 766.24 of the
Regulations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 74 FR 24,786.
\2\ The November 2, 2009 renewal Order was effective immediately
and was published in the Federal Register on November 9, 2009 (74 FR
57626).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On April 9, 2010, BIS, through its Office of Export Enforcement
(``OEE''), filed a written request for renewal of the TDO against the
Respondents for an additional 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
``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) to Syria, and specifically to Syrian Pearl
Airlines, without the U.S. Government authorization required by General
Order No. 2 of Supplement 1 to Part 736 of the EAR. The aircraft is
subject to the Regulations because it contains greater than a 10-
percent de minimis amount of U.S.-origin content. Orion Air engaged in
this re-export transaction despite having been directly informed of the
export licensing requirements by the U.S. Government. Moreover, Orion
Air not only engaged in this conduct after having received actual as
well as constructive notice of the applicable license requirements, but
then sought to evade the Regulations and U.S. export controls by giving
the U.S. Government false assurances that it would put the transaction
on hold due to the U.S. Government's concerns.
BIS also produced evidence that the re-exported aircraft bore the
livery, colors and logos of Syrian Pearl Airlines, a national of Syria,
a Country Group E:1 destination; was flight capable; and under the
terms of the lease agreement was to be based in and operated out of
Syria during the lease term. The record also shows that the re-exported
aircraft currently remains in Syria under the control of Syrian Pearl
Airlines.
In addition to the unauthorized re-export described above, Acting
Assistant Secretary Delli-Colli also concluded that additional
violations were imminent based on statements by Orion Air to the U.S.
Government in May 2009 that Orion Air planned to re-export an
additional BAE 146-300 aircraft (tail number EC-JVJ) to Syria, and
specifically to Syrian Pearl Airlines. This second aircraft was at the
time undergoing maintenance in the United Kingdom, and remains located
there. Moreover, the agreement between Orion Air and Syrian Pearl
Airlines involved both aircraft. Based on my review of the record, I
find that the facts and circumstances that led to the issuance of the
initial TDO and the November 2009 renewal Order continue to show that
renewal of the TDO for an additional 180 days is necessary and in the
public interest to prevent an imminent violation of the EAR. Absent
renewal of the TDO, there remains a substantial continued risk that the
second aircraft will be re-exported contrary to the Regulations, given
that, inter alia, Orion Air acted with actual knowledge and took
deceptive and evasive action. This finding alone would justify renewal.
There also would be a substantial risk that, absent renewal of the TDO,
the first aircraft, which remains in Syria, would
[[Page 25203]]
be operated or disposed of in violation of the Regulations.
Furthermore, renewal of the TDO 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.
Issued this 29th day of April 2010.
David W. Mills,
Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Export Enforcement.
[FR Doc. 2010-10812 Filed 5-6-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DT-P
