Action Affecting Export Privileges; Orion Air, S.L. and Syrian Pearl Airlines, 22865-22867 [2011-9932]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 79 / Monday, April 25, 2011 / Notices
Affected Public: Individuals.
Estimated Number of Respondents:
20,500.
Estimated Time per Response: 15
minutes.
Estimated Total Annual Burden
Hours: 5,125.
Estimated Total Annual Cost: The
only cost to the respondent is his/her
time for completing the BC–170A
(recurring surveys), BC–170B (special
censuses), or BC–170D (decennial
censuses).
Respondent’s Obligation: Required to
obtain a benefit.
Legal Authority: Title 13, U.S.C. Section
23.
IV. Request for Comments
Comments are invited on: (a) Whether
the proposed collection of information
is necessary for the proper performance
of the functions of the agency, including
whether the information shall have
practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the
agency’s estimate of the burden
(including hours and cost) of the
proposed collection of information;
(c) ways to enhance the quality, utility,
and clarity of the information to be
collected; and (d) ways to minimize the
burden of the collection of information
on respondents, including through the
use of automated collection techniques
or other forms of information
technology.
Comments submitted in response to
this notice will be summarized and/or
included in the request for OMB
approval of this information collection;
they also will become a matter of public
record.
Dated: April 20, 2011.
Glenna Mickelson,
Management Analyst, Office of the Chief
Information Officer.
[FR Doc. 2011–9908 Filed 4–22–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–07–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
Bureau of Industry and Security
jdjones on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
Action Affecting Export Privileges;
Orion Air, S.L. and Syrian Pearl
Airlines
In the Matter of:
Orion Air, S.L., Canada Real de Merinas, 7
Edificio 5, 3’A, Eissenhower business
center, 28042 Madrid, Spain; and Ad. de
las Cortes Valencianas no 37, Esc.A Puerta
45 46015 Valencia, Spain; and Syrian Pearl
Airlines, Damascus International Airport,
Damascus, Syria, Respondents.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:21 Apr 22, 2011
Jkt 223001
Order Renewing Temporary Denial of
Export Privileges
Pursuant to Section 766.24 of the
Export Administration Regulations, 15
CFR parts 730–774 (2011) (‘‘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,
Acting Assistant Secretary Delli-Colli
issued an Order on November 2, 2009,
renewing the TDO for an additional 180
days, and I similarly issued a 180-day
renewal Order on April 29, 2010.2
Most recently, on October 22, 2010, I
renewed the TDO against the
Respondents for an additional 180 days.
This renewal was effective upon
issuance and was published in the
Federal Register on October 29, 2010.3
The current Order would expire on
April 20, 2011, unless renewed in
accordance with Section 766.24 of the
Regulations.
On March 28, 2011, 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. A copy of this
request was delivered to 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.
1 74
FR 24,786.
November 2, 2009 renewal Order was
published in the Federal Register on November 9,
2009 (74 FR 57,626). The April 29, 2010 renewal
Order was published in the Federal Register on
May 7, 2010 (75 FR 25,002).
3 75 FR 66,728 (October 29, 2010).
2 The
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
22865
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 reexported aircraft currently remains in
Syria under the control of Syrian Pearl
Airlines.
E:\FR\FM\25APN1.SGM
25APN1
jdjones on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
22866
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 79 / Monday, April 25, 2011 / Notices
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 being re-exported to Syria
for Syrian Pearl Airlines’ use and
benefit.
On December 10, 2010, pursuant to
Section 764.3(a)(2) of the Regulations,
BIS authorized Orion Air and Syrian
Pearl Airlines to enter into a three-way
release agreement with a third party that
would terminate the original lease
agreement between Orion Air and
Syrian Pearl Airlines and allow the
third party to take legal and physical
control of both aircraft. Additionally,
BIS authorized the performance of
maintenance needed to make both
aircraft flight-worthy, and authorized
the third party to remove aircraft EC–
JVO from Syria to any country not listed
in Country Group E:1 4 of Supplement 1
to Part 740 of the Regulations. Evidence
obtained by BIS indicates that in the
more than four months since this
authorization was granted, aircraft EC–
JVO has not been removed from Syria
and remains in Syria under Syrian
control. Thus, a significant risk remains
that absent renewal of the TDO, this
aircraft will be operated or disposed of
in violation of the Regulations.
Moreover, in spite of the authorization,
there has been no change regarding
aircraft EC–JVJ, which remains in the
same status in the United Kingdom.
Absent renewal of the TDO, there
remains a substantial continued risk
that aircraft EC–JVJ will be re-exported
contrary to the Regulations, given that,
inter alia, Orion Air acted with actual
knowledge and took deceptive and
evasive action, as discussed supra.
Based on my review of the record, I
find that the facts and circumstances
here, including those that led to the
issuance of the initial TDO and
subsequent renewal Orders, 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.
Furthermore, renewal of the TDO is
4 Group E:1 destinations are currently Syria, Iran,
Cuba, Sudan and North Korea. See Supplement No.
1 to 15 CFR part 740 (2011).
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:21 Apr 22, 2011
Jkt 223001
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 when
acting for or on its behalf, any of its
successors, assigns, agents, or
employees; and Syrian Pearl Airlines,
Damascus International Airport,
Damascus, Syria, and when acting on its
behalf, any of its successors, assigns,
agents, or employees (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. Benefitting 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 re-export 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
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
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, re-export, 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.
BIS may seek renewal of this Order by
filing a written request with the
Assistant Secretary of Commerce for
Export Enforcement in accordance with
the provisions of Section 766.24(d) of
the Regulations, which currently
provides that such a written renewal
request must be submitted not later than
20 days before the expiration date. The
Respondents may oppose a request to
renew this Order by doing so in
accordance with Section 766.24(d),
including filing a written submission
with the Assistant Secretary for Export
Enforcement, supported by appropriate
evidence. Any opposition ordinarily
must be received not later than seven
days before the expiration date of the
Order.
Notice of the issuance of this Order
shall be given to Respondents in
accordance with Sections 766.5(b). This
Order also shall be published in the
E:\FR\FM\25APN1.SGM
25APN1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 79 / Monday, April 25, 2011 / Notices
Federal Register. This Order is effective
upon issuance and shall remain in effect
for 180 days.
Issued this 18th day of April 2011.
David W. Mills,
Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Export
Enforcement.
[FR Doc. 2011–9932 Filed 4–22–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DT–P
Film Sheet and Strip (PET Film) from
the United Arab Emirates’’ (February 17,
2011).1 JBF submitted a timely case brief
on February 28, 2011. DuPont Teijin
Films, Mitsubishi Polyester Film, Inc.,
SKC, Inc., and Toray Plastics (America),
Inc. filed a timely rebuttal brief on
March 8, 2011. We did not receive a
case brief from FLEX.
Period of Review
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
The period of review is November 6,
2008, through October 31, 2009.
International Trade Administration
Scope of the Order
[A–520–803]
The products covered by the order are
all gauges of raw, pre-treated, or primed
polyethylene terephthalate film,
whether extruded or co-extruded.
Excluded are metallized films and other
finished films that have had at least one
of their surfaces modified by the
application of a performance-enhancing
resinous or inorganic layer more than
0.00001 inches thick. Also excluded is
roller transport cleaning film which has
at least one of its surfaces modified by
application of 0.5 micrometers of SBR
latex. Tracing and drafting film is also
excluded. PET Film is classifiable under
subheading 3920.62.00.90 of the
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the
United States (HTSUS). While HTSUS
subheadings are provided for
convenience and customs purposes, our
written description of the scope of the
order is dispositive.
Polyethylene Terephthalate Film,
Sheet, and Strip From the United Arab
Emirates: Final Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review
Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: On December 17, 2010, the
Department of Commerce (the
Department) published the preliminary
results of administrative review of the
antidumping duty order on
polyethylene terephthalate film (PET
Film) from the United Arab Emirates.
This review covers two producers/
exporters of subject merchandise: JBF
RAK LLC (JBF) and FLEX Middle East
FZE (FLEX). Based on the results of our
analysis of the comments received, we
have made changes to the preliminary
results, which are discussed below. For
the final dumping margins, see the
‘‘Final Results of Review’’ section below.
DATES: Effective Date: April 25, 2011.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Andrew Huston or Jun Jack Zhao, AD/
CVD Operations, Office 6, Import
Administration, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution
Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230;
telephone: (202) 428–4261 or (202) 482–
1396, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
jdjones on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
AGENCY:
Background
Since the preliminary results, the
following events have taken place. See
Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet,
and Strip From the United Arab
Emirates: Preliminary Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review, 75 FR 78968 (December 17,
2010) (Preliminary Results). A sales
verification of JBF was conducted from
December 12, 2010, through December
16, 2010. See Memorandum to the File,
‘‘Verification of the Sales Response of
JBF RAK LLC in the Antidumping
Review of Polyethylene Terephthalate
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:21 Apr 22, 2011
Jkt 223001
Analysis of Comments Received
The issues raised in the case and
rebuttal briefs by parties in this
administrative review are addressed in
the memorandum from Christian Marsh,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for
Antidumping and Countervailing Duty
Operations, to Ronald K. Lorentzen,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import
Administration, ‘‘Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review of Polyethylene
Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip
from the United Arab Emirates: Issues
and Decision Memorandum for the
Final Results’’ (Decision Memorandum),
dated concurrently with, and herby
adopted by this notice. A list of the
issues addressed in the Decision
Memorandum is appended to this
notice. The Decision Memorandum is
on file in the Department’s CRU, and
can be accessed directly on the Internet
at https://ia.ita.doc.gov/frn. The paper
copy and electronic version of the
Decision Memorandum are identical in
content.
1 Public versions of all memoranda referenced in
this notice are on file in the Department’s Central
Records Unit (CRU) in Room 7046 of the main
Department of Commerce building.
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
22867
Changes Since the Preliminary Results
Based on our analysis of the
comments received, we have made
adjustments to our margin calculations
for JBF. Specifically, we revised coding
in our comparison market SAS program
to correct an error that resulted in
different variable cost of manufacturing
figures being used for identical U.S. and
home market products.
Final Results of Review
As a result of our review, we
determine that the following weightedaverage margins exist for the period of
November 6, 2008, through October 31,
2009:
Manufacturer/exporter
FLEX Middle East FZE .........
JBF RAK LLC .......................
Weightedaverage
margin
(percent)
3.16
4.88
Assessment Rates
The Department shall determine, and
U.S. Customs and Border Protection
(CBP) shall assess, antidumping duties
on all appropriate entries. We will
instruct CBP to liquidate entries of
merchandise produced and/or exported
by Flex and JBF. For assessment
purposes, where the respondents
reported the entered value for their
sales, we calculated importer-specific
(or customer-specific) ad valorem
assessment rates based on the ratio of
the total amount of the dumping duties
calculated for the examined sales to the
total entered value of those same sales.
See 19 CFR 351.212(b). However, where
the respondents did not report the
entered value for their sales, we will
calculate importer-specific (or customerspecific) per-unit assessment rates. The
Department intends to issue appropriate
assessment instructions directly to CBP
15 days after the date of publication of
these final results of review.
The Department clarified its
‘‘automatic assessment’’ regulation on
May 6, 2003. See Antidumping and
Countervailing Duty Proceedings:
Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 68
FR 23954 (May 6, 2003). This
clarification will apply to entries of
subject merchandise during the POR
produced by Flex or JBF for which the
reviewed companies did not know their
merchandise was destined for the
United States. In such instances, we will
instruct CBP to liquidate non-reviewed
entries at the all-others rate of 4.80
percent from the investigation if there is
no rate for the intermediate
company(ies) involved in the
transaction. See Polyethylene
E:\FR\FM\25APN1.SGM
25APN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 79 (Monday, April 25, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 22865-22867]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-9932]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
Bureau of Industry and Security
Action Affecting Export Privileges; Orion Air, S.L. and Syrian
Pearl Airlines
In the Matter of:
Orion Air, S.L., Canada Real de Merinas, 7 Edificio 5, 3'A,
Eissenhower business center, 28042 Madrid, Spain; and Ad. de las
Cortes Valencianas no 37, Esc.A Puerta 45 46015 Valencia, Spain; and
Syrian Pearl Airlines, Damascus International Airport, Damascus,
Syria, Respondents.
Order Renewing Temporary Denial of Export Privileges
Pursuant to Section 766.24 of the Export Administration
Regulations, 15 CFR parts 730-774 (2011) (``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, Acting Assistant
Secretary Delli-Colli issued an Order on November 2, 2009, renewing the
TDO for an additional 180 days, and I similarly issued a 180-day
renewal Order on April 29, 2010.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 74 FR 24,786.
\2\ The November 2, 2009 renewal Order was published in the
Federal Register on November 9, 2009 (74 FR 57,626). The April 29,
2010 renewal Order was published in the Federal Register on May 7,
2010 (75 FR 25,002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Most recently, on October 22, 2010, I renewed the TDO against the
Respondents for an additional 180 days. This renewal was effective upon
issuance and was published in the Federal Register on October 29,
2010.\3\ The current Order would expire on April 20, 2011, unless
renewed in accordance with Section 766.24 of the Regulations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ 75 FR 66,728 (October 29, 2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On March 28, 2011, 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. A copy of this request was
delivered to 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.
[[Page 22866]]
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 being re-exported to Syria for Syrian
Pearl Airlines' use and benefit.
On December 10, 2010, pursuant to Section 764.3(a)(2) of the
Regulations, BIS authorized Orion Air and Syrian Pearl Airlines to
enter into a three-way release agreement with a third party that would
terminate the original lease agreement between Orion Air and Syrian
Pearl Airlines and allow the third party to take legal and physical
control of both aircraft. Additionally, BIS authorized the performance
of maintenance needed to make both aircraft flight-worthy, and
authorized the third party to remove aircraft EC-JVO from Syria to any
country not listed in Country Group E:1 \4\ of Supplement 1 to Part 740
of the Regulations. Evidence obtained by BIS indicates that in the more
than four months since this authorization was granted, aircraft EC-JVO
has not been removed from Syria and remains in Syria under Syrian
control. Thus, a significant risk remains that absent renewal of the
TDO, this aircraft will be operated or disposed of in violation of the
Regulations. Moreover, in spite of the authorization, there has been no
change regarding aircraft EC-JVJ, which remains in the same status in
the United Kingdom. Absent renewal of the TDO, there remains a
substantial continued risk that aircraft EC-JVJ will be re-exported
contrary to the Regulations, given that, inter alia, Orion Air acted
with actual knowledge and took deceptive and evasive action, as
discussed supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Group E:1 destinations are currently Syria, Iran, Cuba,
Sudan and North Korea. See Supplement No. 1 to 15 CFR part 740
(2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based on my review of the record, I find that the facts and
circumstances here, including those that led to the issuance of the
initial TDO and subsequent renewal Orders, 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.
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
when acting for or on its behalf, any of its successors, assigns,
agents, or employees; and Syrian Pearl Airlines, Damascus International
Airport, Damascus, Syria, and when acting on its behalf, any of its
successors, assigns, agents, or employees (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. Benefitting 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 re-export 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, re-export, 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.
BIS may seek renewal of this Order by filing a written request with
the Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Export Enforcement in
accordance with the provisions of Section 766.24(d) of the Regulations,
which currently provides that such a written renewal request must be
submitted not later than 20 days before the expiration date. The
Respondents may oppose a request to renew this Order by doing so in
accordance with Section 766.24(d), including filing a written
submission with the Assistant Secretary for Export Enforcement,
supported by appropriate evidence. Any opposition ordinarily must be
received not later than seven days before the expiration date of the
Order.
Notice of the issuance of this Order shall be given to Respondents
in accordance with Sections 766.5(b). This Order also shall be
published in the
[[Page 22867]]
Federal Register. This Order is effective upon issuance and shall
remain in effect for 180 days.
Issued this 18th day of April 2011.
David W. Mills,
Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Export Enforcement.
[FR Doc. 2011-9932 Filed 4-22-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DT-P
