Order Renewing Order Temporarily Denying Export Privileges, 3552-3556 [2015-01215]

Download as PDF 3552 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 15 / Friday, January 23, 2015 / Notices CFR 400.2(c)) as an option for the establishment or reorganization of zones; Whereas, the Cleveland Cuyahoga County Port Authority, grantee of Foreign-Trade Zone 40, submitted an application to the Board (FTZ Docket B– 70–2014, docketed 10/1/2014) for authority to expand the service area of the zone to include Lake County, Ohio, as described in the application, adjacent to the Cleveland, Ohio Customs and Border Protection port of entry; Whereas, notice inviting public comment was given in the Federal Register (79 FR 61050, 10/9/2014) and the application has been processed pursuant to the FTZ Act and the Board’s regulations; and, Whereas, the Board adopts the findings and recommendations of the examiner’s report, and finds that the requirements of the FTZ Act and the Board’s regulations are satisfied; Now, therefore, the Board hereby orders: The application to reorganize FTZ 40 to expand the service area under the ASF is approved, subject to the FTZ Act and the Board’s regulations, including Section 400.13, and to the Board’s standard 2,000-acre activation limit for the zone. Signed at Washington, DC, this 9th day of January 2015. Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Enforcement and Compliance, Alternate Chairman, Foreign-Trade Zones Board. ATTEST: Andrew McGilvray, Executive Secretary. [FR Doc. 2015–01230 Filed 1–22–15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Bureau of Industry and Security tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Order Renewing Order Temporarily Denying Export Privileges Mahan Airways, Mahan Tower, No. 21, Azadegan St., M.A. Jenah Exp. Way, Tehran, Iran; Pejman Mahmood Kosarayanifard a/k/a Kosarian Fard, P.O. Box 52404, Dubai, United Arab Emirates; Mahmoud Amini, G#22 Dubai Airport Free Zone, P.O. Box 393754, Dubai, United Arab Emirates; and P.O. Box 52404, Dubai, United Arab Emirates; and Mohamed Abdulla Alqaz Building, Al Maktoum Street, Al Rigga, Dubai, United Arab Emirates; Kerman Aviation a/k/a GIE Kerman Aviation, 42 Avenue Montaigne 75008, Paris, France; Sirjanco Trading LLC, P.O. Box 8709, Dubai, United Arab Emirates; VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:05 Jan 22, 2015 Jkt 235001 Ali Eslamian, 4th Floor, 33 Cavendish Square, London, W1G0PW, United Kingdom; and 2 Bentinck Close, Prince Albert Road St. Johns Wood, London NW87RY, United Kingdom; Mahan Air General Trading LLC, 19th Floor Al Moosa Tower One, Sheik Zayed Road, Dubai 40594, United Arab Emirates; Skyco (UK) Ltd., 4th Floor, 33 Cavendish Square, London, W1G 0PV, United Kingdom; Equipco (UK) Ltd., 2 Bentinck Close, Prince Albert Road, London, NW8 7RY, United Kingdom; Mehdi Bahrami, Mahan Airways—Istanbul Office, Cumhuriye Cad. Sibil Apt No: 101 D:6, 34374 Emadad, Sisli Istanbul, Turkey. Pursuant to Section 766.24 of the Export Administration Regulations, 15 CFR parts 730–774 (2014) (‘‘EAR’’ or the ‘‘Regulations’’),1 I hereby grant the request of the Office of Export Enforcement (‘‘OEE’’) to renew the July 22, 2014 Order Temporarily Denying the Export Privileges of Mahan Airways, Pejman Mahmood Kosarayanifard, Mahmoud Amini, Kerman Aviation, Sirjanco Trading LLC, Ali Eslamian, Mahan Air General Trading LLC, Skyco (UK) Ltd., Equipco (UK) Ltd., and Mehdi Bahrami.2 I find that renewal of the Temporary Denial Order (‘‘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 Blue Airways, of Yerevan, Armenia (‘‘Blue Airways of Armenia’’), as well as the ‘‘Balli Group Respondents,’’ namely, 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. The TDO was issued ex parte pursuant to 1 The Regulations, currently codified at 15 CFR parts 730–774 (2014), originally issued pursuant to the Export Administration Act of 1979, as amended (50 U.S.C. app. §§ 2401–2420 (2000)). Since August 21, 2001, the Act has been in lapse and the President, through Executive Order 13222 of August 17, 2001 (3 CFR, 2001 Comp. 783 (2002)), which has been extended by successive Presidential Notices, the most recent being that of August 7, 2014 (79 FR 46,959 (Aug. 11, 2014)), has continued the Regulations in effect under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701, et seq. (2006 & Supp. IV 2010)). 2 See note 5, infra. PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 Section 766.24(a), and went into effect on March 21, 2008, the date it was published in the Federal Register. The TDO subsequently has been renewed in accordance with Section 766.24(d), including most recently on July 22, 2014.3 As of March 9, 2010, the Balli Group Respondents and Blue Airways were no longer subject to the TDO. As part of the February 25, 2011 TDO renewal, Gatewick LLC (a/k/a Gatewick Freight and Cargo Services, a/ k/a Gatewick Aviation Services), Mahmoud Amini, and Pejman Mahmood Kosarayanifard (‘‘Kosarian Fard’’) were added as related persons in accordance with Section 766.23 of the Regulations. On July 1, 2011, the TDO was modified by adding Zarand Aviation as a respondent in order to prevent an imminent violation.4 As part of the August 24, 2011 renewal, Kerman Aviation, Sirjanco Trading LLC, and Ali Eslamian were added to the TDO as related persons. Mahan Air General Trading LLC, Skyco (UK) Ltd., and Equipco (UK) Ltd. were added as related persons on April 9, 2012. Mehdi Bahrami was added to the TDO as a related person as part of the February 4, 2013 renewal order. On December 24, 2014, BIS, through its Office of Export Enforcement (‘‘OEE’’), submitted a written request for renewal of the TDO.5 The written request was made more than 20 days before the scheduled expiration of the current TDO dated July 22, 2014. Notice of the renewal request also was provided to Mahan Airways in accordance with Sections 766.5 and 766.24(d) of the Regulations. No opposition to the renewal of the TDO has been received from Mahan. 3 The July 22, 2014 Order was published in the Federal Register on July 29, 2014. 79 FR 44002 (Jul. 29, 2014). The TDO previously had been renewed on September 17, 2008, March 16, 2009, September 11, 2009, March 9, 2010, September 3, 2010, February 25, 2011, August 24, 2011, February 15, 2012, August 9, 2012, February 4, 2013, July 31, 2013, and January 24, 2014. The August 24, 2011 renewal followed the modification of the TDO on July 1, 2011, which added Zarand Aviation as a respondent. Each renewal or modification order was published in the Federal Register. 4 As of July 22, 2014, Zarand Aviation was no longer subject to the TDO. 5 The December 24, 2014 renewal request does not include Gatewick LLC. On August 13, 2014, BIS and Gatewick LLC resolved administrative charges against Gatewick, including a charge for acting contrary to the terms of a BIS denial order (15 CFR 764.2(k)). In addition to the payment of a civil penalty, the settlement includes a seven-year denial order. The first two years of the denial period are active, with the remaining five years suspended on condition that Gatewick LLC pays the civil penalty in full and timely fashion and commits no further violation of the Regulations during the seven-year denial period. The Gatewick LLC Final Order was published in the Federal Register on August 20, 2014. See 79 FR 49283 (Aug. 20, 2014). E:\FR\FM\23JAN1.SGM 23JAN1 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 15 / Friday, January 23, 2015 / Notices Furthermore, no appeal of the related person determinations I made as part of the September 3, 2010, February 25, 2011, August 24, 2011, April 9, 2012, and February 4, 2013 renewal or modification orders has been made by Kosarian Fard, Mahmoud Amini, Kerman Aviation, Sirjanco Trading LLC, Ali Eslamian, Mahan Air General Trading LLC, Skyco (UK) Ltd., Equipco (UK) Ltd., or Mehdi Bahrami.6 II. Renewal of the TDO tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES A. Legal Standard Pursuant to Section 766.24, BIS may issue or renew an order temporarily denying a respondent’s export privileges upon a showing that the order is necessary in the public interest to prevent an ‘‘imminent violation’’ of the Regulations. 15 CFR 766.24(b)(1) and 776.24(d). ‘‘A violation may be ‘imminent’ either in time or 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 charge ‘‘is significant, deliberate, covert and/or likely to occur again, rather than technical or 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 the TDO renewals in this matter and the evidence developed over the course of this investigation indicating a blatant disregard of 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 6 A party named or added as a related person may not oppose the issuance or renewal of the underlying temporary denial order, but may file an appeal of the related person determination in accordance with Section 766.23(c). VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:05 Jan 22, 2015 Jkt 235001 that Mahan Airways was involved in the attempted re-export of three additional U.S.-origin Boeing 747s (‘‘Aircraft 4–6’’) to Iran. As discussed in the September 17, 2008 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.7 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. Moreover, as discussed in the March 16, 2009, September 11, 2009 and March 9, 2010 Renewal Orders, Mahan Airways registered Aircraft 1–3 in Iran, obtained Iranian tail numbers for them (EP–MNA, EP–MNB, and EP–MNE, respectively), and continued to operate at least two of them in violation of the Regulations and the TDO,8 while also committing an additional knowing and willful violation when it negotiated for and acquired an additional U.S.-origin aircraft. The additional acquired aircraft was an MD–82 aircraft, which subsequently was painted in Mahan Airways’ livery and flown on multiple Mahan Airways’ routes under tail number TC–TUA. The March 9, 2010 Renewal Order also noted that a court in the United Kingdom (‘‘U.K.’’) had 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. Mahan Airways and the Balli Group Respondents had been litigating before the U.K. court concerning ownership and control of Aircraft 1–3. In a letter to the U.K. court dated January 12, 2010, Mahan Airways’ Chairman indicated, inter alia, that Mahan Airways opposes U.S. Government actions against Iran, that it continued 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. The September 3, 2010 renewal order discussed the fact that Mahan Airways’ violations of the TDO extended beyond operating U.S.-origin aircraft and 7 Engaging in conduct prohibited by a denial order violates the Regulations. 15 CFR 764.2(a) and (k). 8 The third Boeing 747 appeared to have undergone significant service maintenance and may not have been operational at the time of the March 9, 2010 renewal order. PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 3553 attempting to acquire additional U.S.origin aircraft. In February 2009, while subject to the TDO, Mahan Airways participated in the export of computer motherboards, items subject to the Regulations and designated as EAR99, from the United States to Iran, via the United Arab Emirates (‘‘UAE’’), in violation of both the TDO and the Regulations, by transporting and/or forwarding the computer motherboards from the UAE to Iran. Mahan Airways’ violations were facilitated by Gatewick LLC, which not only participated in the transaction, but also has stated to BIS that it acts as Mahan Airways’ sole booking agent for cargo and freight forwarding services in the UAE. Moreover, in a January 24, 2011 filing in the U.K. court, Mahan Airways asserted that Aircraft 1–3 were not being used, but stated in pertinent part that the aircraft were being maintained in Iran especially ‘‘in an airworthy condition’’ and that, depending on the outcome of its U.K. court appeal, the aircraft ‘‘could immediately go back into service . . . on international routes into and out of Iran.’’ Mahan Airways’ January 24, 2011 submission to U.K. Court of Appeal, at p. 25, ¶¶ 108, 110. This clearly stated intent, both on its own and in conjunction with Mahan Airways’ prior misconduct and statements, demonstrated the need to renew the TDO in order to prevent imminent future violations. Two of these three 747s subsequently were removed from Iran and are no longer in Mahan Airways’ possession. The third of these 747s, with Manufacturer’s Serial Number (‘‘MSN’’) 23480 and Iranian tail number EP–MNE, remained in Iran under Mahan’s control. Pursuant to Executive Order 13324, it was designated a Specially Designated Global Terrorist (‘‘SDGT’’) by the U.S. Department of the Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (‘‘OFAC’’) on September 19, 2012.9 Furthermore, as discussed in the February 4, 2013 Order, open source information indicated that this 747, painted in the livery and logo of Mahan Airways, had been flown between Iran and Syria, and was suspected of ferrying weapons and/or other equipment to the Syrian Government from Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. Open source information showed that this aircraft had flown from Iran to Syria as recently as June 30, 2013, and continues to show that it remains in active operation in Mahan Airways’ fleet. 9 See http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/ sanctions/OFAC-Enforcement/pages/ 20120919.aspx. E:\FR\FM\23JAN1.SGM 23JAN1 3554 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 15 / Friday, January 23, 2015 / Notices tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES In addition, as first detailed in the July 1, 2011 and August 24, 2011 orders, and discussed in subsequent renewal orders in this matter, Mahan Airways also continued to evade U.S. export control laws by operating two Airbus A310 aircraft, bearing Mahan Airways’ livery and logo, on flights into and out of Iran.10 At the time of the July 1, 2011 and August 24, 2011 Orders, these Airbus A310s were registered in France, with tail numbers F–OJHH and F–OJHI, respectively.11 The August 2012 renewal order also found that Mahan Airways had acquired another Airbus A310 aircraft subject to the Regulations,12 with MSN 499 and Iranian tail number EP–VIP, in violation of the TDO and the Regulations. On September 19, 2012, all three Airbus A310 aircraft (tail numbers F–OJHH, F– OJHI, and EP–VIP) were designated as SDGTs.13 The February 4, 2013 Order laid out further evidence of continued and additional efforts by Mahan Airways and other persons acting in concert with Mahan, including Kral Aviation and another Turkish company, to procure U.S.-origin engines (MSNs 517621 and 517738) and other aircraft parts in violation of the TDO and the Regulations.14 The February 4, 2013 10 The Airbus A310s are powered with U.S.-origin engines. The engines are subject to the EAR and classified under Export Control Classification (‘‘ECCN’’) 9A991.d. The Airbus A310s contain controlled U.S.-origin items valued at more than 10 percent of the total value of the aircraft and as a result are subject to the EAR. They are classified under ECCN 9A991.b. The reexport of these aircraft to Iran requires U.S. Government authorization pursuant to Sections 742.8 and 746.7 of the Regulations. 11 OEE subsequently presented evidence that after the August 24, 2011 renewal, Mahan Airways worked along with Kerman Aviation and others to de-register the two Airbus A310 aircraft in France and to register both aircraft in Iran (with, respectively, Iranian tail numbers EP–MHH and EP–MHI). It was determined subsequent to the February 15, 2012 renewal order that the registration switch for these A310s was cancelled and that Mahan Airways then continued to fly the aircraft under the original French tail numbers (F– OJHH and F–OJHI, respectively). Both aircraft apparently remain in Mahan Airways’ possession. 12 See note 10, supra. 13 See http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/ sanctions/OFAC-Enforcement/pages/ 20120919.aspx. Mahan Airways was previously designated by OFAC as a SDGT on October 18, 2011. 77 FR 64,427 (October 18, 2011). 14 Kral Aviation was referenced in the February 4, 2013 Order as ‘‘Turkish Company No. 1.’’ Kral Aviation purchased a GE CF6–50C2 aircraft engine (MSN 517621) from the United States in July 2012, on behalf of Mahan Airways. OEE was able to prevent this engine from reaching Mahan by issuing a redelivery order to the freight forwarder in accordance with Section 758.8 of the Regulations. OEE also issued Kral Aviation a redelivery order for the second CF6–50C2 engine (MSN 517738) on July 30, 2012. The owner of the second engine subsequently cancelled the item’s sale to Kral Aviation. In September 2012, OEE was alerted by VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:05 Jan 22, 2015 Jkt 235001 renewal order also added Mehdi Bahrami as a related person in accordance with Section 766.23 of the Regulations. Bahrami, a Mahan VicePresident and the head of Mahan’s Istanbul Office, also was involved in Mahan’s acquisition of the original three Boeing 747s (Aircraft 1–3) that resulted in the original TDO, and has had a business relationship with Mahan dating back to 1997. The July 31, 2013 Order detailed additional evidence obtained by OEE showing efforts by Mahan Airways to obtain another GE CF6–50C2 aircraft engine (MSN 528350) from the United States via Turkey. Multiple Mahan employees, including Mehdi Bahrami, were involved in or aware of matters related to the engine’s arrival in Turkey from the United States, plans to visually inspect the engine, and prepare it for shipment from Turkey. Mahan sought to obtain this U.S.origin engine through Pioneer Logistics Havacilik Turizm Yonetim Danismanlik (‘‘Pioneer Logistics’’), an aircraft parts supplier located in Turkey, and its director/operator, Gulnihal Yegane, a Turkish national who previously has conducted Mahan related business with Mehdi Bahrami and Ali Eslamian. Moreover, as referenced in the July 31, 2013 Order, a sworn affidavit by Kosol Surinanda, also known as Kosol Surinandha, Managing Director of Mahan’s General Sales Agent in Thailand, stated that the shares of Pioneer Logistics for which he was the listed owner are ‘‘actually the property of and owned by Mahan.’’ He further stated that he held ‘‘legal title to the shares until otherwise required by Mahan’’ but would ‘‘exercise the rights granted to [him] exactly and only as instructed by Mahan and [his] vote and/ or decisions [would] only and exclusively reflect the wills and demands of Mahan[.]’’ 15 The January 24, 2014 Order outlined OEE’s continued investigation of Mahan Airways’ activities and detailed an attempt by Mahan, which OEE thwarted, to obtain, via an Indonesian aircraft parts supplier, two U.S.-origin a U.S. exporter that another Turkish company (‘‘Turkish Company No. 2’’) was attempting to purchase aircraft spare parts intended for re-export by Turkish Company No. 2 to Mahan Airways. See February 4, 2013 Order. On December 31, 2013, Kral Aviation was added to BIS’s Entity List, Supplement No. 4 to Part 744 of the Regulations. See 78 FR 75458 (Dec. 12, 2013). Companies and individuals are added to the Entity List for engaging in activities contrary to the national security or foreign policy interests of the United States. See 15 CFR 744.11. 15 Pioneer Logistics, Gulnihal Yegane, and Kosol Surinanda also were added to the Entity List on December 12, 2013. See 78 FR 75458 (Dec. 12, 2013). PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 Honeywell ALF–502R–5 aircraft engines (MSNs LF5660 and LF5325), items subject to the Regulations, from a U.S. company located in Texas. An invoice of the Indonesian aircraft parts supplier dated March 27, 2013, listed Mahan Airways as the purchaser of the engines and included a Mahan ship-to address. OEE also obtained a Mahan air waybill dated March 12, 2013, listing numerous U.S.-origin aircraft parts subject to the Regulations—including, among other items, a vertical navigation gyroscope, a transmitter, and a power control unit— being transported by Mahan from Turkey to Iran in violation of the TDO. The July 22, 2014 Order discusses open source evidence from the MarchJune 2014 time period regarding two BAE regional jets, items subject to the Regulations, that were painted in the livery and logo of Mahan Airways and operating under Iranian tail numbers EP–MOK and EP–MOI, respectively. In addition, aviation industry resources indicated that these aircraft were obtained by Mahan Airways in late November 2013 and June 2014, from Ukrainian Mediterranean Airline, a Ukrainian airline that was added to BIS’s Entity List (Supplement No. 4 to Part 744 of the Regulations) on August 15, 2011, for acting contrary to the national security and foreign policy interests of the United States.16 OEE’s on-going investigation indicates that both BAE regional jets remain active in Mahan’s fleet, with open source information showing EP–MOI being used on flights into and out of Iran as recently as January 12, 2015. The continued operation of these aircraft by Mahan Airways violates the TDO. In addition to the continued operation of aircraft such as EP–MOI, OEE’s December 24, 2014 renewal request includes evidence of additional attempts by Mahan Airways to acquire items subject the Regulations in further violation of the TDO. In March 2014, OEE became aware of an inertial reference unit bearing serial number 1231 (‘‘the IRU’’) that had been sent to the United States for repair. The IRU is subject to the Regulations, classified under ECCN 7A103, and controlled for 16 See 76 FR 50407 (Aug. 15, 2011). The July 22, 2014 TDO renewal order also referenced two Airbus A320 aircraft painted in the livery and logo of Mahan Airways and operating under Iranian tail numbers EP–MMK and EP–MML, respectively. OEE’s investigation also showed that Mahan obtained these aircraft in November 2013, from Khors Air Company, another Ukrainian airline that, like Ukrainian Mediterranean Airlines, was added to BIS’s Entity List on August 15, 2011. Open source evidence indicates the two Airbus A320 aircraft may be been transferred by Mahan Airways to another Iranian airline in October 2014, and issued Iranian tail numbers EP–APE and EP–APF, respectively. E:\FR\FM\23JAN1.SGM 23JAN1 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 15 / Friday, January 23, 2015 / Notices missile technology reasons. Upon closer inspection, it was determined that IRU came from or had been installed on an Airbus A340 aircraft bearing MSN 056. Further investigation has revealed that as of approximately February 2014, this aircraft was registered under Iranian tail number EP–MMB and had been painted in the livery and logo of Mahan Airways. On August 14, 2014, the United States Attorney’s Office for the District of Maryland filed a civil forfeiture complaint for the IRU pursuant to 22 U.S.C. 401(b). The Court issued an Order of Forfeiture for the IRU on December 2, 2014. EP–MMB remains listed as active in Mahan Airways’ fleet. Finally on August 29, 2014, the U.S. Department of Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (‘‘OFAC’’) blocked the property and interests in property of Asian Aviation Logistics of Thailand, a Mahan Airways affiliate or front company, pursuant to Executive Order 13224. In doing so, OFAC described Mahan Airway’s use of Asian Aviation Logistics to evade sanctions by making payments on behalf of Mahan Air for the purchase of engines and other equipment.17 C. Findings tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Under the applicable standard set forth in Section 766.24 of the Regulations and my review of the entire record, I find that the evidence presented by BIS convincingly demonstrates that Mahan Airways has repeatedly violated the EAR and the TDO, that such knowing violations have been significant, deliberate and covert, and that there is a likelihood of future violations. OEE’s on-going investigation continues to reveal or discover additional attempts by Mahan to acquire items subject to the Regulations through its extensive network of agents and affiliates in third countries. Therefore, renewal of the TDO is necessary to prevent imminent violation of the EAR and to give notice to companies and individuals in the United States and abroad that they should continue to cease dealing with Mahan Airways and the other denied persons under the TDO in connection with export transactions involving items subject to the EAR. 17 See http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/ sanctions/OFAC-Enforcement/Pages/ 20140829.aspx. See 79 FR 55073 (Sep. 15, 2014). OFAC also blocked the property and property interests of Pioneer Logistics of Turkey on August 29, 2014. Id. Mahan Airways’ use of Pioneer Logistics in an effort to evade the TDO and the Regulations was discussed in a prior renewal order, as summarized, supra, at 10. BIS added both Asian Aviation Logistics and Pioneer Logistics to the Entity List on December 12, 2013. See 78 FR 75458 (Dec. 12, 2013). VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:05 Jan 22, 2015 Jkt 235001 IV. Order It is therefore ordered: First, that MAHAN AIRWAYS, Mahan Tower, No. 21, Azadegan St., M.A. Jenah Exp. Way, Tehran, Iran; PEJMAN MAHMOOD KOSARAYANIFARD A/K/ A KOSARIAN FARD, P.O. Box 52404, Dubai, United Arab Emirates; MAHMOUD AMINI, G#22 Dubai Airport Free Zone, P.O. Box 393754, Dubai, United Arab Emirates, and P.O. Box 52404, Dubai, United Arab Emirates, and Mohamed Abdulla Alqaz Building, Al Maktoum Street, Al Rigga, Dubai, United Arab Emirates; KERMAN AVIATION A/K/A GIE KERMAN AVIATION, 42 Avenue Montaigne 75008, Paris, France; SIRJANCO TRADING LLC, P.O. Box 8709, Dubai, United Arab Emirates; ALI ESLAMIAN, 4th Floor, 33 Cavendish Square, London W1G0PW, United Kingdom, and 2 Bentinck Close, Prince Albert Road St. Johns Wood, London NW87RY, United Kingdom; MAHAN AIR GENERAL TRADING LLC, 19th Floor Al Moosa Tower One, Sheik Zayed Road, Dubai 40594, United Arab Emirates; SKYCO (UK) LTD., 4th Floor, 33 Cavendish Square, London, W1G 0PV, United Kingdom; EQUIPCO (UK) LTD., 2 Bentinck Close, Prince Albert Road, London, NW8 7RY, United Kingdom; and MEHDI BAHRAMI, Mahan Airways-Istanbul Office, Cumhuriye Cad. Sibil Apt No: 101 D:6, 34374 Emadad, Sisli Istanbul, Turkey; and when acting for or on their behalf, any successors or 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. PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 3555 Second, that no person may, directly or indirectly, do any of the following: A. Export or reexport to or on behalf of a Denied Person any item subject to the EAR; B. Take any action that facilitates the acquisition or attempted acquisition by a 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 a 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 a Denied Person of any item subject to the EAR that has been exported from the United States; D. Obtain from a 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 a Denied Person, or service any item, of whatever origin, that is owned, possessed or controlled by a 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 a 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 Sections 766.24(e) of the EAR, Mahan Airways 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 Sections 766.23(c)(2) and 766.24(e)(3) of the EAR, Mahmoud Amini, Pejman Mahmood Kosarayanifard, Kerman Aviation, E:\FR\FM\23JAN1.SGM 23JAN1 3556 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 15 / Friday, January 23, 2015 / Notices Sirjanco Trading LLC, Ali Eslamian, Mahan Air General Trading LLC, Skyco (UK) Ltd., Equipco (UK) Ltd., and/or Mehdi Bahrami may, at any time, appeal their inclusion as a related person 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. A renewal request may be opposed by Mahan Airways as provided in Section 766.24(d), by filing a written submission with the Assistant Secretary of Commerce 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 provided to Mahan Airways and each related person, and shall be published in the Federal Register. This Order is effective immediately and shall remain in effect for 180 days. Dated: January 16, 2015. David W. Mills, Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Export Enforcement. [FR Doc. 2015–01215 Filed 1–22–15; 8:45 a.m.] BILLING CODE P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request; International Dolphin Conservation Program National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Notice. AGENCY: 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 March 24, 2015. ADDRESSES: Direct all written comments to Jennifer Jessup, Departmental Paperwork Clearance Officer, Department of Commerce, Room 6616, 14th and Constitution Avenue NW., tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES SUMMARY: VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:05 Jan 22, 2015 Jkt 235001 Washington, DC 20230 (or via the Internet at JJessup@doc.gov). FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection instrument and instructions should be directed to: Justin Greenman, (562) 980– 3264 or justin.greenman@noaa.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Abstract National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) collects information to implement the International Dolphin Conservation Program Act (Act). The Act allows entry of yellowfin tuna into the United States (U.S.), under specific conditions, from nations in the International Dolphin Conservation Program that would otherwise be under embargo. The Act also allows U.S. fishing vessels to participate in the yellowfin tuna fishery in the eastern tropical Pacific Ocean (ETP) on terms equivalent with the vessels of other nations. NOAA collects information to allow tracking and verification of ‘‘dolphin safe’’ and ‘‘nondolphin safe’’ tuna products from catch through the U.S. market. The regulations implementing the Act are at 50 CFR parts 216 and 300. The recordkeeping and reporting requirements at 50 CFR parts 216 and 300 form the basis for this collection of information. This collection includes permit applications, notifications, tuna tracking forms, reports, and certifications that provide information on vessel characteristics and operations in the ETP, the origin of tuna and tuna products, and certain other information necessary to implement the Act. II. Method of Collection Paper applications, other paper records, electronic and facsimile reports, and telephone calls are required from participants. Methods of submittal include transmission of paper forms via regular mail and facsimile as well as electronic submission via email or an FTP site (password protected). III. Data OMB Number: 0648–0387. Form Number: None. Type of Review: Regular submission (extension of a current information collection). Affected Public: Business or other forprofit organizations; individuals or households. Estimated Number of Respondents: 144. Estimated Time per Response: 35 minutes for a vessel permit application; 10 minutes for an operator permit application, a notification of vessel PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 9990 arrival or departure, a change in permit operator; a notification of a net modification or a monthly tuna storage removal report; 30 minutes for a request for a waiver to transit the ETP without a permit (and subsequent radio reporting) or for a special report documenting the origin of tuna (if requested by the NOAA Administrator); 10 hours for an experimental fishing operation waiver; 15 minutes for a request for a Dolphin Mortality Limit; 35 minutes for written notification to request active status for a small tuna purse seine vessel; 5 minutes for written notification to request inactive status for a small tuna purse seine vessel or for written notification of the intent to transfer a tuna purse seine vessel to foreign registry and flag; 60 minutes for a tuna tracking form or for a monthly tuna receiving report. Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 341. Estimated Total Annual Cost to Public: $1,250. 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: January 16, 2015. Glenna Mickelson, Management Analyst, Office of the Chief Information Officer. [FR Doc. 2015–01060 Filed 1–22–15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–22–P E:\FR\FM\23JAN1.SGM 23JAN1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 15 (Friday, January 23, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 3552-3556]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-01215]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

 DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Bureau of Industry and Security


Order Renewing Order Temporarily Denying Export Privileges

Mahan Airways, Mahan Tower, No. 21, Azadegan St., M.A. Jenah Exp. 
Way, Tehran, Iran;
Pejman Mahmood Kosarayanifard a/k/a Kosarian Fard, P.O. Box 52404, 
Dubai, United Arab Emirates;
Mahmoud Amini, G#22 Dubai Airport Free Zone, P.O. Box 393754, Dubai, 
United Arab Emirates; and P.O. Box 52404, Dubai, United Arab 
Emirates; and Mohamed Abdulla Alqaz Building, Al Maktoum Street, Al 
Rigga, Dubai, United Arab Emirates;
Kerman Aviation a/k/a GIE Kerman Aviation, 42 Avenue Montaigne 
75008, Paris, France;
Sirjanco Trading LLC, P.O. Box 8709, Dubai, United Arab Emirates;
Ali Eslamian, 4th Floor, 33 Cavendish Square, London, W1G0PW, United 
Kingdom; and 2 Bentinck Close, Prince Albert Road St. Johns Wood, 
London NW87RY, United Kingdom;
Mahan Air General Trading LLC, 19th Floor Al Moosa Tower One, Sheik 
Zayed Road, Dubai 40594, United Arab Emirates;
Skyco (UK) Ltd., 4th Floor, 33 Cavendish Square, London, W1G 0PV, 
United Kingdom;
Equipco (UK) Ltd., 2 Bentinck Close, Prince Albert Road, London, NW8 
7RY, United Kingdom;
Mehdi Bahrami, Mahan Airways--Istanbul Office, Cumhuriye Cad. Sibil 
Apt No: 101 D:6, 34374 Emadad, Sisli Istanbul, Turkey.

    Pursuant to Section 766.24 of the Export Administration 
Regulations, 15 CFR parts 730-774 (2014) (``EAR'' or the 
``Regulations''),\1\ I hereby grant the request of the Office of Export 
Enforcement (``OEE'') to renew the July 22, 2014 Order Temporarily 
Denying the Export Privileges of Mahan Airways, Pejman Mahmood 
Kosarayanifard, Mahmoud Amini, Kerman Aviation, Sirjanco Trading LLC, 
Ali Eslamian, Mahan Air General Trading LLC, Skyco (UK) Ltd., Equipco 
(UK) Ltd., and Mehdi Bahrami.\2\ I find that renewal of the Temporary 
Denial Order (``TDO'') is necessary in the public interest to prevent 
an imminent violation of the EAR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The Regulations, currently codified at 15 CFR parts 730-774 
(2014), originally issued pursuant to the Export Administration Act 
of 1979, as amended (50 U.S.C. app. Sec. Sec.  2401-2420 (2000)). 
Since August 21, 2001, the Act has been in lapse and the President, 
through Executive Order 13222 of August 17, 2001 (3 CFR, 2001 Comp. 
783 (2002)), which has been extended by successive Presidential 
Notices, the most recent being that of August 7, 2014 (79 FR 46,959 
(Aug. 11, 2014)), has continued the Regulations in effect under the 
International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701, et seq. 
(2006 & Supp. IV 2010)).
    \2\ See note 5, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 Blue Airways, of Yerevan, Armenia (``Blue Airways of 
Armenia''), as well as the ``Balli Group Respondents,'' namely, 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. 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.
    The TDO subsequently has been renewed in accordance with Section 
766.24(d), including most recently on July 22, 2014.\3\ As of March 9, 
2010, the Balli Group Respondents and Blue Airways were no longer 
subject to the TDO. As part of the February 25, 2011 TDO renewal, 
Gatewick LLC (a/k/a Gatewick Freight and Cargo Services, a/k/a Gatewick 
Aviation Services), Mahmoud Amini, and Pejman Mahmood Kosarayanifard 
(``Kosarian Fard'') were added as related persons in accordance with 
Section 766.23 of the Regulations. On July 1, 2011, the TDO was 
modified by adding Zarand Aviation as a respondent in order to prevent 
an imminent violation.\4\ As part of the August 24, 2011 renewal, 
Kerman Aviation, Sirjanco Trading LLC, and Ali Eslamian were added to 
the TDO as related persons. Mahan Air General Trading LLC, Skyco (UK) 
Ltd., and Equipco (UK) Ltd. were added as related persons on April 9, 
2012. Mehdi Bahrami was added to the TDO as a related person as part of 
the February 4, 2013 renewal order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The July 22, 2014 Order was published in the Federal 
Register on July 29, 2014. 79 FR 44002 (Jul. 29, 2014). The TDO 
previously had been renewed on September 17, 2008, March 16, 2009, 
September 11, 2009, March 9, 2010, September 3, 2010, February 25, 
2011, August 24, 2011, February 15, 2012, August 9, 2012, February 
4, 2013, July 31, 2013, and January 24, 2014. The August 24, 2011 
renewal followed the modification of the TDO on July 1, 2011, which 
added Zarand Aviation as a respondent. Each renewal or modification 
order was published in the Federal Register.
    \4\ As of July 22, 2014, Zarand Aviation was no longer subject 
to the TDO.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On December 24, 2014, BIS, through its Office of Export Enforcement 
(``OEE''), submitted a written request for renewal of the TDO.\5\ The 
written request was made more than 20 days before the scheduled 
expiration of the current TDO dated July 22, 2014. Notice of the 
renewal request also was provided to Mahan Airways in accordance with 
Sections 766.5 and 766.24(d) of the Regulations. No opposition to the 
renewal of the TDO has been received from Mahan.

[[Page 3553]]

Furthermore, no appeal of the related person determinations I made as 
part of the September 3, 2010, February 25, 2011, August 24, 2011, 
April 9, 2012, and February 4, 2013 renewal or modification orders has 
been made by Kosarian Fard, Mahmoud Amini, Kerman Aviation, Sirjanco 
Trading LLC, Ali Eslamian, Mahan Air General Trading LLC, Skyco (UK) 
Ltd., Equipco (UK) Ltd., or Mehdi Bahrami.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The December 24, 2014 renewal request does not include 
Gatewick LLC. On August 13, 2014, BIS and Gatewick LLC resolved 
administrative charges against Gatewick, including a charge for 
acting contrary to the terms of a BIS denial order (15 CFR 
764.2(k)). In addition to the payment of a civil penalty, the 
settlement includes a seven-year denial order. The first two years 
of the denial period are active, with the remaining five years 
suspended on condition that Gatewick LLC pays the civil penalty in 
full and timely fashion and commits no further violation of the 
Regulations during the seven-year denial period. The Gatewick LLC 
Final Order was published in the Federal Register on August 20, 
2014. See 79 FR 49283 (Aug. 20, 2014).
    \6\ A party named or added as a related person may not oppose 
the issuance or renewal of the underlying temporary denial order, 
but may file an appeal of the related person determination in 
accordance with Section 766.23(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Renewal of the TDO

A. Legal Standard

    Pursuant to Section 766.24, BIS may issue or renew an order 
temporarily denying a respondent's export privileges upon a showing 
that the order is necessary in the public interest to prevent an 
``imminent violation'' of the Regulations. 15 CFR 766.24(b)(1) and 
776.24(d). ``A violation may be `imminent' either in time or 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 charge ``is significant, deliberate, covert and/or 
likely to occur again, rather than technical or 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 the TDO renewals in this matter and the 
evidence developed over the course of this investigation indicating a 
blatant disregard of 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 discussed in the September 17, 2008 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.\7\ 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. Moreover, as 
discussed in the March 16, 2009, September 11, 2009 and March 9, 2010 
Renewal Orders, Mahan Airways registered Aircraft 1-3 in Iran, obtained 
Iranian tail numbers for them (EP-MNA, EP-MNB, and EP-MNE, 
respectively), and continued to operate at least two of them in 
violation of the Regulations and the TDO,\8\ while also committing an 
additional knowing and willful violation when it negotiated for and 
acquired an additional U.S.-origin aircraft. The additional acquired 
aircraft was an MD-82 aircraft, which subsequently was painted in Mahan 
Airways' livery and flown on multiple Mahan Airways' routes under tail 
number TC-TUA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Engaging in conduct prohibited by a denial order violates 
the Regulations. 15 CFR 764.2(a) and (k).
    \8\ The third Boeing 747 appeared to have undergone significant 
service maintenance and may not have been operational at the time of 
the March 9, 2010 renewal order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The March 9, 2010 Renewal Order also noted that a court in the 
United Kingdom (``U.K.'') had 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. Mahan 
Airways and the Balli Group Respondents had been litigating before the 
U.K. court concerning ownership and control of Aircraft 1-3. In a 
letter to the U.K. court dated January 12, 2010, Mahan Airways' 
Chairman indicated, inter alia, that Mahan Airways opposes U.S. 
Government actions against Iran, that it continued 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.
    The September 3, 2010 renewal order discussed the fact that Mahan 
Airways' violations of the TDO extended beyond operating U.S.-origin 
aircraft and attempting to acquire additional U.S.-origin aircraft. In 
February 2009, while subject to the TDO, Mahan Airways participated in 
the export of computer motherboards, items subject to the Regulations 
and designated as EAR99, from the United States to Iran, via the United 
Arab Emirates (``UAE''), in violation of both the TDO and the 
Regulations, by transporting and/or forwarding the computer 
motherboards from the UAE to Iran. Mahan Airways' violations were 
facilitated by Gatewick LLC, which not only participated in the 
transaction, but also has stated to BIS that it acts as Mahan Airways' 
sole booking agent for cargo and freight forwarding services in the 
UAE.
    Moreover, in a January 24, 2011 filing in the U.K. court, Mahan 
Airways asserted that Aircraft 1-3 were not being used, but stated in 
pertinent part that the aircraft were being maintained in Iran 
especially ``in an airworthy condition'' and that, depending on the 
outcome of its U.K. court appeal, the aircraft ``could immediately go 
back into service . . . on international routes into and out of Iran.'' 
Mahan Airways' January 24, 2011 submission to U.K. Court of Appeal, at 
p. 25, ]] 108, 110. This clearly stated intent, both on its own and in 
conjunction with Mahan Airways' prior misconduct and statements, 
demonstrated the need to renew the TDO in order to prevent imminent 
future violations. Two of these three 747s subsequently were removed 
from Iran and are no longer in Mahan Airways' possession. The third of 
these 747s, with Manufacturer's Serial Number (``MSN'') 23480 and 
Iranian tail number EP-MNE, remained in Iran under Mahan's control. 
Pursuant to Executive Order 13324, it was designated a Specially 
Designated Global Terrorist (``SDGT'') by the U.S. Department of the 
Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control (``OFAC'') on September 19, 
2012.\9\ Furthermore, as discussed in the February 4, 2013 Order, open 
source information indicated that this 747, painted in the livery and 
logo of Mahan Airways, had been flown between Iran and Syria, and was 
suspected of ferrying weapons and/or other equipment to the Syrian 
Government from Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. Open source 
information showed that this aircraft had flown from Iran to Syria as 
recently as June 30, 2013, and continues to show that it remains in 
active operation in Mahan Airways' fleet.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/sanctions/OFAC-Enforcement/pages/20120919.aspx.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 3554]]

    In addition, as first detailed in the July 1, 2011 and August 24, 
2011 orders, and discussed in subsequent renewal orders in this matter, 
Mahan Airways also continued to evade U.S. export control laws by 
operating two Airbus A310 aircraft, bearing Mahan Airways' livery and 
logo, on flights into and out of Iran.\10\ At the time of the July 1, 
2011 and August 24, 2011 Orders, these Airbus A310s were registered in 
France, with tail numbers F-OJHH and F-OJHI, respectively.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ The Airbus A310s are powered with U.S.-origin engines. The 
engines are subject to the EAR and classified under Export Control 
Classification (``ECCN'') 9A991.d. The Airbus A310s contain 
controlled U.S.-origin items valued at more than 10 percent of the 
total value of the aircraft and as a result are subject to the EAR. 
They are classified under ECCN 9A991.b. The reexport of these 
aircraft to Iran requires U.S. Government authorization pursuant to 
Sections 742.8 and 746.7 of the Regulations.
    \11\ OEE subsequently presented evidence that after the August 
24, 2011 renewal, Mahan Airways worked along with Kerman Aviation 
and others to de-register the two Airbus A310 aircraft in France and 
to register both aircraft in Iran (with, respectively, Iranian tail 
numbers EP-MHH and EP-MHI). It was determined subsequent to the 
February 15, 2012 renewal order that the registration switch for 
these A310s was cancelled and that Mahan Airways then continued to 
fly the aircraft under the original French tail numbers (F-OJHH and 
F-OJHI, respectively). Both aircraft apparently remain in Mahan 
Airways' possession.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The August 2012 renewal order also found that Mahan Airways had 
acquired another Airbus A310 aircraft subject to the Regulations,\12\ 
with MSN 499 and Iranian tail number EP-VIP, in violation of the TDO 
and the Regulations. On September 19, 2012, all three Airbus A310 
aircraft (tail numbers F-OJHH, F-OJHI, and EP-VIP) were designated as 
SDGTs.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See note 10, supra.
    \13\ See http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/sanctions/OFAC-Enforcement/pages/20120919.aspx. Mahan Airways was previously 
designated by OFAC as a SDGT on October 18, 2011. 77 FR 64,427 
(October 18, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The February 4, 2013 Order laid out further evidence of continued 
and additional efforts by Mahan Airways and other persons acting in 
concert with Mahan, including Kral Aviation and another Turkish 
company, to procure U.S.-origin engines (MSNs 517621 and 517738) and 
other aircraft parts in violation of the TDO and the Regulations.\14\ 
The February 4, 2013 renewal order also added Mehdi Bahrami as a 
related person in accordance with Section 766.23 of the Regulations. 
Bahrami, a Mahan Vice-President and the head of Mahan's Istanbul 
Office, also was involved in Mahan's acquisition of the original three 
Boeing 747s (Aircraft 1-3) that resulted in the original TDO, and has 
had a business relationship with Mahan dating back to 1997.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ Kral Aviation was referenced in the February 4, 2013 Order 
as ``Turkish Company No. 1.'' Kral Aviation purchased a GE CF6-50C2 
aircraft engine (MSN 517621) from the United States in July 2012, on 
behalf of Mahan Airways. OEE was able to prevent this engine from 
reaching Mahan by issuing a redelivery order to the freight 
forwarder in accordance with Section 758.8 of the Regulations. OEE 
also issued Kral Aviation a redelivery order for the second CF6-50C2 
engine (MSN 517738) on July 30, 2012. The owner of the second engine 
subsequently cancelled the item's sale to Kral Aviation. In 
September 2012, OEE was alerted by a U.S. exporter that another 
Turkish company (``Turkish Company No. 2'') was attempting to 
purchase aircraft spare parts intended for re-export by Turkish 
Company No. 2 to Mahan Airways. See February 4, 2013 Order.
    On December 31, 2013, Kral Aviation was added to BIS's Entity 
List, Supplement No. 4 to Part 744 of the Regulations. See 78 FR 
75458 (Dec. 12, 2013). Companies and individuals are added to the 
Entity List for engaging in activities contrary to the national 
security or foreign policy interests of the United States. See 15 
CFR 744.11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The July 31, 2013 Order detailed additional evidence obtained by 
OEE showing efforts by Mahan Airways to obtain another GE CF6-50C2 
aircraft engine (MSN 528350) from the United States via Turkey. 
Multiple Mahan employees, including Mehdi Bahrami, were involved in or 
aware of matters related to the engine's arrival in Turkey from the 
United States, plans to visually inspect the engine, and prepare it for 
shipment from Turkey.
    Mahan sought to obtain this U.S.-origin engine through Pioneer 
Logistics Havacilik Turizm Yonetim Danismanlik (``Pioneer Logistics''), 
an aircraft parts supplier located in Turkey, and its director/
operator, Gulnihal Yegane, a Turkish national who previously has 
conducted Mahan related business with Mehdi Bahrami and Ali Eslamian. 
Moreover, as referenced in the July 31, 2013 Order, a sworn affidavit 
by Kosol Surinanda, also known as Kosol Surinandha, Managing Director 
of Mahan's General Sales Agent in Thailand, stated that the shares of 
Pioneer Logistics for which he was the listed owner are ``actually the 
property of and owned by Mahan.'' He further stated that he held 
``legal title to the shares until otherwise required by Mahan'' but 
would ``exercise the rights granted to [him] exactly and only as 
instructed by Mahan and [his] vote and/or decisions [would] only and 
exclusively reflect the wills and demands of Mahan[.]'' \15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ Pioneer Logistics, Gulnihal Yegane, and Kosol Surinanda 
also were added to the Entity List on December 12, 2013. See 78 FR 
75458 (Dec. 12, 2013).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The January 24, 2014 Order outlined OEE's continued investigation 
of Mahan Airways' activities and detailed an attempt by Mahan, which 
OEE thwarted, to obtain, via an Indonesian aircraft parts supplier, two 
U.S.-origin Honeywell ALF-502R-5 aircraft engines (MSNs LF5660 and 
LF5325), items subject to the Regulations, from a U.S. company located 
in Texas. An invoice of the Indonesian aircraft parts supplier dated 
March 27, 2013, listed Mahan Airways as the purchaser of the engines 
and included a Mahan ship-to address. OEE also obtained a Mahan air 
waybill dated March 12, 2013, listing numerous U.S.-origin aircraft 
parts subject to the Regulations--including, among other items, a 
vertical navigation gyroscope, a transmitter, and a power control 
unit--being transported by Mahan from Turkey to Iran in violation of 
the TDO.
    The July 22, 2014 Order discusses open source evidence from the 
March-June 2014 time period regarding two BAE regional jets, items 
subject to the Regulations, that were painted in the livery and logo of 
Mahan Airways and operating under Iranian tail numbers EP-MOK and EP-
MOI, respectively. In addition, aviation industry resources indicated 
that these aircraft were obtained by Mahan Airways in late November 
2013 and June 2014, from Ukrainian Mediterranean Airline, a Ukrainian 
airline that was added to BIS's Entity List (Supplement No. 4 to Part 
744 of the Regulations) on August 15, 2011, for acting contrary to the 
national security and foreign policy interests of the United 
States.\16\ OEE's on-going investigation indicates that both BAE 
regional jets remain active in Mahan's fleet, with open source 
information showing EP-MOI being used on flights into and out of Iran 
as recently as January 12, 2015. The continued operation of these 
aircraft by Mahan Airways violates the TDO.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See 76 FR 50407 (Aug. 15, 2011). The July 22, 2014 TDO 
renewal order also referenced two Airbus A320 aircraft painted in 
the livery and logo of Mahan Airways and operating under Iranian 
tail numbers EP-MMK and EP-MML, respectively. OEE's investigation 
also showed that Mahan obtained these aircraft in November 2013, 
from Khors Air Company, another Ukrainian airline that, like 
Ukrainian Mediterranean Airlines, was added to BIS's Entity List on 
August 15, 2011. Open source evidence indicates the two Airbus A320 
aircraft may be been transferred by Mahan Airways to another Iranian 
airline in October 2014, and issued Iranian tail numbers EP-APE and 
EP-APF, respectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition to the continued operation of aircraft such as EP-MOI, 
OEE's December 24, 2014 renewal request includes evidence of additional 
attempts by Mahan Airways to acquire items subject the Regulations in 
further violation of the TDO. In March 2014, OEE became aware of an 
inertial reference unit bearing serial number 1231 (``the IRU'') that 
had been sent to the United States for repair. The IRU is subject to 
the Regulations, classified under ECCN 7A103, and controlled for

[[Page 3555]]

missile technology reasons. Upon closer inspection, it was determined 
that IRU came from or had been installed on an Airbus A340 aircraft 
bearing MSN 056. Further investigation has revealed that as of 
approximately February 2014, this aircraft was registered under Iranian 
tail number EP-MMB and had been painted in the livery and logo of Mahan 
Airways. On August 14, 2014, the United States Attorney's Office for 
the District of Maryland filed a civil forfeiture complaint for the IRU 
pursuant to 22 U.S.C. 401(b). The Court issued an Order of Forfeiture 
for the IRU on December 2, 2014. EP-MMB remains listed as active in 
Mahan Airways' fleet.
    Finally on August 29, 2014, the U.S. Department of Treasury's 
Office of Foreign Assets Control (``OFAC'') blocked the property and 
interests in property of Asian Aviation Logistics of Thailand, a Mahan 
Airways affiliate or front company, pursuant to Executive Order 13224. 
In doing so, OFAC described Mahan Airway's use of Asian Aviation 
Logistics to evade sanctions by making payments on behalf of Mahan Air 
for the purchase of engines and other equipment.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/sanctions/OFAC-Enforcement/Pages/20140829.aspx. See 79 FR 55073 (Sep. 15, 2014). 
OFAC also blocked the property and property interests of Pioneer 
Logistics of Turkey on August 29, 2014. Id. Mahan Airways' use of 
Pioneer Logistics in an effort to evade the TDO and the Regulations 
was discussed in a prior renewal order, as summarized, supra, at 10. 
BIS added both Asian Aviation Logistics and Pioneer Logistics to the 
Entity List on December 12, 2013. See 78 FR 75458 (Dec. 12, 2013).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Findings

    Under the applicable standard set forth in Section 766.24 of the 
Regulations and my review of the entire record, I find that the 
evidence presented by BIS convincingly demonstrates that Mahan Airways 
has repeatedly violated the EAR and the TDO, that such knowing 
violations have been significant, deliberate and covert, and that there 
is a likelihood of future violations. OEE's on-going investigation 
continues to reveal or discover additional attempts by Mahan to acquire 
items subject to the Regulations through its extensive network of 
agents and affiliates in third countries. Therefore, renewal of the TDO 
is necessary to prevent imminent violation of the EAR and to give 
notice to companies and individuals in the United States and abroad 
that they should continue to cease dealing with Mahan Airways and the 
other denied persons under the TDO in connection with export 
transactions involving items subject to the EAR.

IV. Order

    It is therefore ordered:
    First, that MAHAN AIRWAYS, Mahan Tower, No. 21, Azadegan St., M.A. 
Jenah Exp. Way, Tehran, Iran; PEJMAN MAHMOOD KOSARAYANIFARD A/K/A 
KOSARIAN FARD, P.O. Box 52404, Dubai, United Arab Emirates; MAHMOUD 
AMINI, G#22 Dubai Airport Free Zone, P.O. Box 393754, Dubai, United 
Arab Emirates, and P.O. Box 52404, Dubai, United Arab Emirates, and 
Mohamed Abdulla Alqaz Building, Al Maktoum Street, Al Rigga, Dubai, 
United Arab Emirates; KERMAN AVIATION A/K/A GIE KERMAN AVIATION, 42 
Avenue Montaigne 75008, Paris, France; SIRJANCO TRADING LLC, P.O. Box 
8709, Dubai, United Arab Emirates; ALI ESLAMIAN, 4th Floor, 33 
Cavendish Square, London W1G0PW, United Kingdom, and 2 Bentinck Close, 
Prince Albert Road St. Johns Wood, London NW87RY, United Kingdom; MAHAN 
AIR GENERAL TRADING LLC, 19th Floor Al Moosa Tower One, Sheik Zayed 
Road, Dubai 40594, United Arab Emirates; SKYCO (UK) LTD., 4th Floor, 33 
Cavendish Square, London, W1G 0PV, United Kingdom; EQUIPCO (UK) LTD., 2 
Bentinck Close, Prince Albert Road, London, NW8 7RY, United Kingdom; 
and MEHDI BAHRAMI, Mahan Airways-Istanbul Office, Cumhuriye Cad. Sibil 
Apt No: 101 D:6, 34374 Emadad, Sisli Istanbul, Turkey; and when acting 
for or on their behalf, any successors or 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 reexport to or on behalf of a Denied Person any item 
subject to the EAR;
    B. Take any action that facilitates the acquisition or attempted 
acquisition by a 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 a 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 a Denied Person of any item subject to 
the EAR that has been exported from the United States;
    D. Obtain from a 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 a Denied Person, or service any item, 
of whatever origin, that is owned, possessed or controlled by a 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 a 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 Sections 766.24(e) of the EAR, 
Mahan Airways 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 Sections 766.23(c)(2) and 766.24(e)(3) of the EAR, 
Mahmoud Amini, Pejman Mahmood Kosarayanifard, Kerman Aviation,

[[Page 3556]]

Sirjanco Trading LLC, Ali Eslamian, Mahan Air General Trading LLC, 
Skyco (UK) Ltd., Equipco (UK) Ltd., and/or Mehdi Bahrami may, at any 
time, appeal their inclusion as a related person 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. A renewal request may be 
opposed by Mahan Airways as provided in Section 766.24(d), by filing a 
written submission with the Assistant Secretary of Commerce 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 provided to Mahan Airways and each 
related person, and shall be published in the Federal Register. This 
Order is effective immediately and shall remain in effect for 180 days.

    Dated: January 16, 2015.
David W. Mills,
Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Export Enforcement.
[FR Doc. 2015-01215 Filed 1-22-15; 8:45 a.m.]
BILLING CODE P