Order Renewing Order Temporarily Denying Export Privileges, 45276-45282 [2016-16567]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
45276
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 134 / Wednesday, July 13, 2016 / Notices
Average Hours per Response: 30
minutes per response.
Needs and Uses: The information
collected from defense contractors and
suppliers on Form BIS–999, Request for
Special Priorities Assistance, is required
for the enforcement and administration
of special priorities assistance under the
Defense Production Act, the Selective
Service Act and the Defense Priorities
and Allocation System regulation.
Affected Public: Businesses and other
for-profit institutions.
Frequency: On occasion.
Respondent’s Obligation: Required to
obtain benefits.
This information collection request
may be viewed at www.reginfo.gov.
Follow the instructions to view the
Department of Commerce collections
currently under review by OMB.
Written comments and
recommendations for the proposed
information collection should be sent
within 30 days of publication of this
notice to OIRA Submission@
omb.eop.gov or fax to (202) 395–5806.
Dated: July 7, 2016.
Glenna Mickelson,
Management Analyst, Office of the Chief
Information Officer.
[FR Doc. 2016–16475 Filed 7–12–16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–33–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
Economic Development Administration
Notice of Petitions by Firms for
Determination of Eligibility To Apply
for Trade Adjustment Assistance
Economic Development
Administration, Department of
Commerce.
AGENCY:
Notice and opportunity for
public comment.
ACTION:
Pursuant to Section 251 of the Trade
Act 1974, as amended (19 U.S.C. 2341
et seq.), the Economic Development
Administration (EDA) has received
petitions for certification of eligibility to
apply for Trade Adjustment Assistance
from the firms listed below.
Accordingly, EDA has initiated
investigations to determine whether
increased imports into the United States
of articles like or directly competitive
with those produced by each of these
firms contributed importantly to the
total or partial separation of the firm’s
workers, or threat thereof, and to a
decrease in sales or production of each
petitioning firm.
LIST OF PETITIONS RECEIVED BY EDA FOR CERTIFICATION ELIGIBILITY TO APPLY FOR TRADE ADJUSTMENT ASSISTANCE
[6/16/2016 through 7/1/2016]
Firm name
Date
accepted for
investigation
Firm address
Marlen Textiles, Inc .................
500 Orchard Street, New
Haven, MO 63068.
6/16/2016
Infinity Valve and Supply, LLC
351 Griffin Road, Youngsville,
LA 70592.
2173 Coteau Road, Houma,
LA 70364.
1075 West North Temple, Salt
Lake City, UT 84116.
110 Commerce Street, East
Haven, CT 06437.
6/24/2016
Suretank USA, LLC .................
jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
EnviroTech Molded Products,
Inc.
TEK–MOTIVE, Inc ...................
Any party having a substantial
interest in these proceedings may
request a public hearing on the matter.
A written request for a hearing must be
submitted to the Trade Adjustment
Assistance for Firms Division, Room
71030, Economic Development
Administration, U.S. Department of
Commerce, Washington, DC 20230, no
later than ten (10) calendar days
following publication of this notice.
Please follow the requirements set
forth in EDA’s regulations at 13 CFR
315.9 for procedures to request a public
hearing. The Catalog of Federal
Domestic Assistance official number
and title for the program under which
these petitions are submitted is 11.313,
Trade Adjustment Assistance for Firms.
Miriam J. Kearse,
Lead Program Analyst.
[FR Doc. 2016–16527 Filed 7–12–16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–WH–P
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:08 Jul 12, 2016
Jkt 238001
6/24/2016
6/30/2016
7/1/2016
Product(s)
The firm is a manufacturer of economy fabrics used to make
boat covers, tarps, furniture covers, awnings, tents and
other products.
The firm is a manufacturer of precision machines, fittings and
components.
The firm is a manufacturer of cargo baskets.
The firm is a manufacturer of plastic pipe fitting parts and
components for various industries.
The firm is a manufacturer of disc brake pads for the
aftermarket, primarily for trucks and fleet-use vehicles.
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, 33 Cavendish Square, 4th
Floor, London, W1G0PW, United Kingdom
and 2 Bentinck Close, Prince Albert Road
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
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., 33 Cavendish Square, 4th
Floor, 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;
Al Naser Airlines, a/k/a al-Naser Airlines, a/
k/a Alnaser Airlines and, Air Freight Ltd.
Home 46, Al-Karrada, Babil Region,
District 929, St 21 Beside Al Jadirya Private
Hospital, Baghdad, Iraq and Al Amirat
Street, Section 309, St. 3/H.20 Al Mansour
Baghdad, Iraq, and P.O. Box 28360, Dubai,
United Arab Emiratesand P.O. Box 911399,
Amman 11191, Jordan;
Ali Abdullah Alhay, a/k/a Ali Alhay, a/k/a
Ali Abdullah Ahmed Alhay, Home 46, AlKarrada, Babil Region, District 929, St 21,
Beside Al Jadirya Private Hospital,
Baghdad, Iraq and Anak Street, Qatif,
Saudi Arabia 61177;
E:\FR\FM\13JYN1.SGM
13JYN1
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 134 / Wednesday, July 13, 2016 / Notices
Bahar Safwa General Trading, P.O. Box
113212 Citadel Tower, Floor-5, Office
#504, Business Bay, Dubai, United Arab
Emirates and P.O. Box 8709, Citadel
Tower, Business Bay, Dubai, United Arab
Emirates;
Sky Blue Bird Group, a/k/a Sky Blue Bird
Aviation, a/k/a Sky Blue Bird Ltd, a/k/a
Sky Blue Bird FZC, P.O. Box 16111, Ras Al
Khaimah Trade Zone, United Arab
Emirates;
Issam Shammout, a/k/a Muhammad Isam
Muhammad Anwar Nur Shammout, a/k/a
Issam Anwar, Philips Building, 4th Floor,
Al Fardous Street, Damascus, Syria and Al
Kolaa, Beirut, Lebanon 151515 and17–18
Margaret Street, 4th Floor, London, W1W
8RP, United Kingdomand Cumhuriyet
Mah. Kavakli San St. Fulya, Cad. Hazar
Sok. No.14/A Silivri, Istanbul, Turkey
Pursuant to Section 766.24 of the
Export Administration Regulations, 15
CFR parts 730–774 (2016) (‘‘EAR’’ or the
‘‘Regulations’’),1 I hereby grant the
request of the Office of Export
Enforcement (‘‘OEE’’) to renew the
January 7, 2016 Temporary Denial Order
(the ‘‘TDO’’). The January 7, 2016 Order
denied 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., Mehdi Bahrami, Al Naser
Airlines, Ali Abdullah Alhay, Bahar
Safwa General Trading, Sky Blue Bird
Group, and Issam Shammout.2 I find
that renewal of the TDO is necessary in
the public interest to prevent an
imminent violation of the EAR.
jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
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,
1 The Regulations, currently codified at 15 CFR
parts 730–774 (2016), originally issued pursuant to
the Export Administration Act of 1979. 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,
2015 (80 FR 48,223 (Aug. 11, 2015)), 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 3, infra.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:08 Jul 12, 2016
Jkt 238001
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
January 7, 2016.3 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.4 On July 1, 2011, the TDO
was modified by adding Zarand
Aviation as a respondent in order to
prevent an imminent violation.5 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 May 21, 2015, the TDO was
modified to add Al Naser Airlines, Ali
Abdullah Alhay, and Bahar Safwa
General Trading as respondents. Sky
Blue Bird Group and its chief executive
3 The January 7, 2016 Order was published in the
Federal Register on January 15, 2016 (81 F.R. 2161,
Jan. 15, 2016). 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, January 24, 2014, July 22, 2014, January 16,
2015, and July 13, 2015. The August 24, 2011
renewal followed the modification of the TDO on
July 1, 2011, which added Zarand Aviation as a
respondent. The July 13, 2015 renewal followed the
modification of the TDO on May 21, 2015, which
added Al Naser Airlines, Ali Abdullah Alhay, and
Bahar Safwa General Trading as respondents. Each
renewal or modification order was published in the
Federal Register.
4 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).
5 As of July 22, 2014, Zarand Aviation was no
longer subject to the TDO.
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
45277
officer Issam Shammout were added to
the TDO as related persons as part of the
July 13, 2015 renewal order.6
On June 15, 2016, BIS, through its
Office of Export Enforcement (‘‘OEE’’),
submitted a written request for renewal
of the TDO. The written request was
made more than 20 days before the
scheduled expiration of the current
TDO, which issued on January 7, 2016.
Notice of the renewal request also was
provided to Mahan Airways, Al Naser
Airlines, Ali Abdullah Alhay, and Bahar
Safwa General Trading in accordance
with Sections 766.5 and 766.24(d) of the
Regulations. No opposition to the
renewal of the TDO has been received.
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,
February 4, 2013, and July 13, 2015
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., Mehdi Bahrami, Sky
Blue Bird Group, or Issam Shammout.7
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
6 The U.S. Department of the Treasury’s Office of
Foreign Assets Control (‘‘OFAC’’) designated Sky
Blue Bird and Issam Shammout as Specially
Designated Global Terrorists (‘‘SDGTs’’) on May 21,
2015, pursuant to Executive Order 13324, for
‘‘providing support to Iran’s Mahan Air.’’ See 80 FR
30762 (May 29, 2015).
7 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).
E:\FR\FM\13JYN1.SGM
13JYN1
45278
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 134 / Wednesday, July 13, 2016 / Notices
jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
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.8 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,9 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
8 Engaging in conduct prohibited by a denial
order violates the Regulations. 15 CFR 764.2(a) and
(k).
9 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.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:08 Jul 12, 2016
Jkt 238001
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 acted 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 Airway’s 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
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
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, 2012.10 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.
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.11 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.12
The August 2012 renewal order also
found that Mahan Airways had acquired
another Airbus A310 aircraft subject to
the Regulations, with MSN 499 and
Iranian tail number EP–VIP, in violation
of the TDO and the Regulations.13 On
September 19, 2012, all three Airbus
A310 aircraft (tail numbers F–OJHH, F–
OJHI, and EP–VIP) were designated as
SDGTs.14
10 See https://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/
sanctions/OFAC-Enforcement/pages/
20120919.aspx.
11 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 export or reexport of
these aircraft to Iran requires U.S. Government
authorization pursuant to Sections 742.8 and 746.7
of the Regulations.
12 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.
13 See note 12, supra.
14 See https://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/
sanctions/OFAC-Enforcement/pages/
20120919.aspx. Mahan Airways was previously
E:\FR\FM\13JYN1.SGM
13JYN1
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 134 / Wednesday, July 13, 2016 / Notices
jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
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—two GE CF6–50C2
engines, with MSNs 517621 and
517738, respectively—and other aircraft
parts in violation of the TDO and the
Regulations.15 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 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 had
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
designated by OFAC as a SDGT on October 18,
2011. 77 FR 64,427 (October 18, 2011).
15 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.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:08 Jul 12, 2016
Jkt 238001
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 were ‘‘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[.]’’ 16
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 discussed
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.17
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.18 OEE’s
16 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).
17 The BAE regional jets are powered with U.S.origin engines. The engines are subject to the EAR
and classified under ECCN 9A991.d. These aircraft
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 export or
reexport of these aircraft to Iran requires U.S.
Government authorization pursuant to Sections
742.8 and 746.7 of the Regulations.
18 See 76 FR 50407 (Aug. 15, 2011). The July 22,
2014 TDO renewal order also referenced two Airbus
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
45279
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.
The January 16, 2015 Order detailed
evidence of additional attempts by
Mahan Airways to acquire items subject
the Regulations in further violation of
the TDO. Specifically, 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
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 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.
The January 16, 2015 Order also
described related efforts by the
Departments of Justice and Treasury to
further thwart Mahan’s illicit
procurement efforts. Specifically, 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) that resulted in the court
issuing an Order of Forfeiture on
December 2, 2014. EP–MMB remains
listed as active in Mahan Airways’ fleet.
Additionally, on August 29, 2014,
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 for the purchase of engines
and other equipment.19
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.
19 See https://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
E:\FR\FM\13JYN1.SGM
Continued
13JYN1
45280
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 134 / Wednesday, July 13, 2016 / Notices
jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
The May 21, 2015 modification order
detailed the acquisition of two aircraft,
specifically an Airbus A340 bearing
MSN 164 and an Airbus A321 bearing
MSN 550, that were purchased by Al
Naser Airlines in late 2014/early 2015
and are currently located in Iran under
the possession, control, and/or
ownership of Mahan Airways.20 The
sales agreements for these two aircraft
were signed by Ali Abdullah Alhay for
Al Naser Airlines.21 Payment
information reveals that multiple
electronic funds transfers (‘‘EFT’’) were
made by Ali Abdullah Alhay and Bahar
Safwa General Trading in order to
acquire MSNs 164 and 550.
The May 21, 2015 modification order
also laid out evidence showing the
respondents’ attempts to obtain other
controlled aircraft, including aircraft
physically located in the United States
in similarly-patterned transactions
during the same recent time period.
Transactional documents involving two
Airbus A320s bearing MSNs 82 and 99,
respectively, again showed Ali
Abdullah Alhay signing sales
agreements for Al Naser Airlines.22 A
review of the payment information for
these aircraft similarly revealed EFTs
from Ali Abdullah Alhay and Bahar
Safwa General Trading that follow the
pattern described for MSNs 164 and
550, supra. MSNs 82 and 99 were
detained by OEE Special Agents prior to
their planned export from the United
States.
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 13–14. BIS added both
Asian Aviation Logistics and Pioneer Logistics to
the Entity List on December 12, 2013. See 78 FR
75458 (Dec. 12, 2013).
20 Both of these aircraft are powered by U.S.origin engines that are subject to the Regulations
and classified under ECCN 9A991.d. Both aircraft
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 regardless of their
location. The aircraft are classified under ECCN
9A991.b. The export or re-export of these aircraft to
Iran requires U.S. Government authorization
pursuant to Sections 742.8 and 746.7 of the
Regulations.
21 Ali Abdullah Alhay is a 25% owner of Al Naser
Airlines.
22 Both aircraft were physically located in the
United States and therefore are subject to the
Regulations pursuant to Section 734.3(a)(1).
Moreover, these Airbus A320s are powered by U.S.origin engines that are subject to the Regulations
and classified under Export Control Classification
Number ECCN 9A991.d. The Airbus A320s 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 regardless of the their
location. The aircraft are classified under ECCN
9A991.b. The export or re-export of these aircraft to
Iran requires U.S. Government authorization
pursuant to Sections 742.8 and 746.7 of the
Regulations.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:08 Jul 12, 2016
Jkt 238001
The July 13, 2015 Order outlined
evidence showing that Al Naser
Airlines’ attempts to acquire aircraft on
behalf of Mahan Airways extended
beyond MSNs 164 and 550 to include a
total of nine aircraft.23 Four of the
aircraft, all of which are subject to the
Regulations and were obtained by
Mahan from Al Naser Airlines, had been
issued the following Iranian tail
numbers: EP–MMD (MSN 164), EP–
MMG (MSN 383), EP–MMH (MSN 391)
and EP–MMR (MSN 416),
respectively.24 Publicly available flight
tracking information provided evidence
that at the time of the July 13, 2015
renewal, both EP–MMH and EP–MMR
were being actively flown on routes into
and out of Iran in violation of the TDO
and Regulations.25
The January 7, 2016 Order discussed
evidence that Mahan Airways had
begun actively flying EP–MMD, another
of the aircraft Mahan obtained from Al
Naser Airlines as discussed in the July
13, 2015 renewal order, on international
routes into and out of Iran, including
from/to Bangkok, Thailand.
Additionally, the January 7, 2016 Order
described publically available aviation
database and flight tracking information
indicating that Mahan was continuing
its efforts to acquire Iranian tail
numbers and press into active service
under Mahan’s livery and logo at least
two more of the Airbus A340 aircraft it
obtained from Al Naser Airlines: EP–
23 This evidence included a press release dated
May 9, 2015, that appeared on Mahan Airways’
Web site and stated that Mahan ‘‘added 9 modern
aircraft to its air fleet[,]’’ and that the newly
acquired aircraft included eight Airbus A340s and
one Airbus A321. See https://www.mahan.aero/en/
mahan-air/press-room/44. The press release was
subsequently removed from Mahan Airways’ Web
site. Publicly available aviation databases similarly
showed that Mahan had obtained nine additional
aircraft from Al Naser Airlines in May 2015,
including MSNs 164 and 550. As also discussed in
the July 13, 2015 renewal order, Sky Blue Bird
Group, via Issam Shammout, was actively involved
in Al Naser Airlines’ acquisition of MSNs 164 and
550, and the attempted acquisition of MSNs 82 and
99 (which were detained by OEE).
24 The Airbus A340s are powered by U.S.-origin
engines that are subject to the Regulations and
classified under ECCN 9A991.d. The Airbus A340s
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 regardless of the
their location. The aircraft are classified under
ECCN 9A991.b. The export or re-export of these
aircraft to Iran requires U.S. Government
authorization pursuant to Sections 742.8 and 746.7
of the Regulations.
25 There is some publically available information
indicating that the aircraft Mahan Airways is flying
under Iranian tail number EP–MMR is now MSN
615, rather than MSN 416. Both aircraft are Airbus
A340 aircraft that Mahan acquired from Al Naser
Airlines in violation of the TDO and the
Regulations. Moreover, both aircraft were
designated as SDGTs by OFAC on May 21, 2015,
pursuant to Executive Order 13324. See 80 FR
30762 (May 29, 2015).
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
MME (MSN 371) and EP–MMF (MSN
376), respectively. Since January 2016,
EP–MME has logged flights to and from
Tehran, Iran involving various
destinations, including Guangzhou,
China and Dubai, United Arab Emirates
in further violation of the TDO and the
Regulations.
The June 15, 2016 renewal request
presents similar publically available
information indicating that Mahan has
operated EP–MMF on routes into and
out of Iran. Publically available flight
tracking information shows that
between June 7, 2016, and June 14,
2016, EP–MMF flew on routes from
Tehran, Iran to Beijing, China and
Shanghai, China, respectively.
Additional evidence obtained by OEE
since the January 7, 2016 renewal shows
that in or about November 2015, Mahan
Airways acquired a BAE Avro RJ–85
aircraft (MSN E2392) in violation of the
TDO and that the aircraft now bears
Iranian tail number EP–MOR.26 This
evidence includes information available
on the Web site of Iran’s civil aviation
authority.
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 the denied persons
have acted in violation of the EAR and
the TDO, that such violations have been
significant, deliberate and covert, and
that there is a likelihood of future
violations. 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 and reexport 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;
26 The BAE Avro RJ–85 is powered by U.S.-origin
engines that are subject to the Regulations and
classified under ECCN 9A991.d. The BAE Avro RJ–
85 contains controlled U.S.-origin items valued at
more than 10 percent of the total value of the
aircraft and as a result is subject to the EAR
regardless of the its location. The aircraft is
classified under ECCN 9A991.b, and its export or
re-export to Iran requires U.S. Government
authorization pursuant to Sections 742.8 and 746.7
of the Regulations.
E:\FR\FM\13JYN1.SGM
13JYN1
jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 134 / Wednesday, July 13, 2016 / Notices
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,
33 Cavendish Square, 4th Floor, 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., 33 Cavendish Square, 4th
Floor, 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; AL
NASER AIRLINES A/K/A AL–NASER
AIRLINES A/K/A ALNASER AIRLINES
AND AIR FREIGHT LTD., Home 46, AlKarrada, Babil Region, District 929, St
21, Beside Al Jadirya Private Hospital,
Baghdad, Iraq, and Al Amirat Street,
Section 309, St. 3/H.20, Al Mansour,
Baghdad, Iraq, and P.O. Box 28360,
Dubai, United Arab Emirates, and P.O.
Box 911399, Amman 11191, Jordan; ALI
ABDULLAH ALHAY A/K/A ALI
ALHAY A/K/A ALI ABDULLAH
AHMED ALHAY, Home 46, Al-Karrada,
Babil Region, District 929, St 21, Beside
Al Jadirya Private Hospital, Baghdad,
Iraq, and Anak Street, Qatif, Saudi
Arabia 61177; BAHAR SAFWA
GENERAL TRADING, P.O. Box 113212,
Citadel Tower, Floor-5, Office #504,
Business Bay, Dubai, United Arab
Emirates, and P.O. Box 8709, Citadel
Tower, Business Bay, Dubai, United
Arab Emirates; SKY BLUE BIRD GROUP
A/K/A SKY BLUE BIRD AVIATION A/
K/A SKY BLUE BIRD LTD A/K/A SKY
BLUE BIRD FZC, P.O. Box 16111, Ras
Al Khaimah Trade Zone, United Arab
Emirates; and ISSAM SHAMMOUT A/
K/A MUHAMMAD ISAM
MUHAMMAD ANWAR NUR
SHAMMOUT A/K/A ISSAM ANWAR,
Philips Building, 4th Floor, Al Fardous
Street, Damascus, Syria, and Al Kolaa,
Beirut, Lebanon 151515, and 17–18
Margaret Street, 4th Floor, London,
W1W 8RP, United Kingdom, and
Cumhuriyet Mah. Kavakli San St. Fulya,
Cad. Hazar Sok. No.14/A Silivri,
Istanbul, Turkey, and when acting for or
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:08 Jul 12, 2016
Jkt 238001
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
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
45281
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, Al Naser Airlines, Ali
Abdullah Alhay, and/or Bahar Safwa
General Trading 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,
Pejman Mahmood Kosarayanifard,
Mahmoud Amini, Kerman Aviation,
Sirjanco Trading LLC, Ali Eslamian,
Mahan Air General Trading LLC, Skyco
(UK) Ltd., Equipco (UK) Ltd., Mehdi
Bahrami, Sky Blue Bird Group, and/or
Issam Shammout 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, Al Naser Airlines, Ali
Abdullah Alhay, and/or Bahar Safwa
General Trading 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, Al Naser Airlines,
Ali Abdullah Alhay, and Bahar Safwa
General Trading and each related
person, and shall be published in the
Federal Register. This Order is effective
E:\FR\FM\13JYN1.SGM
13JYN1
45282
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 134 / Wednesday, July 13, 2016 / Notices
immediately and shall remain in effect
for 180 days.27
Dated: July 7, 2016.
Richard R. Majauskas,
Deputy Assistant Secretary of Commerce for
Export Enforcement.
[FR Doc. 2016–16567 Filed 7–12–16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A–570–601]
Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts
Thereof, Finished and Unfinished,
From the People’s Republic of China:
Preliminary Results of Changed
Circumstances Review and Intent To
Reinstate Shanghai General Bearing
Co., Ltd. in the Antidumping Duty
Order
Enforcement and Compliance,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce
(the Department) is conducting a
changed circumstances review of the
antidumping duty order on tapered
roller bearings and parts thereof,
finished and unfinished (TRBs), from
the People’s Republic of China (PRC) to
determine whether Shanghai General
Bearing Co., Ltd. (SGBC/SKF) has
resumed dumping TRBs and whether
the antidumping order should be
reinstated for TRBs from the PRC
manufactured and exported by SGBC/
SKF. The period of review is June 1,
2014, through May 31, 2015.
We preliminarily determine that
SGBC/SKF has sold TRBs at less than
normal value (NV) and that TRBs
produced and exported by SGBC/SKF
should be reinstated in the antidumping
order on TRBs from the PRC. We will
instruct U.S. Customs and Border
Protection (CBP) to suspend liquidation
of all entries of TRBs manufactured and
exported by SGBC/SKF and entered, or
withdrawn from warehouse, for
consumption on or after the date of
publication of this notice in the Federal
Register. Interested parties are invited to
comment on these preliminary results.
DATES: Effective Date: July 13, 2016.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Alice Maldonado, Enforcement and
Compliance, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution
Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230;
telephone (202) 482–4682.
jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
AGENCY:
27 Review and consideration of this matter have
been delegated to the Deputy Assistant Secretary of
Commerce for Export Enforcement.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:08 Jul 12, 2016
Jkt 238001
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Scope of the Order
The merchandise covered by the order
includes tapered roller bearings and
parts thereof. The subject merchandise
is currently classifiable under
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the
United States (HTSUS) subheadings:
8482.20.00, 8482.91.00.50, 8482.99.15,
8482.99.45, 8483.20.40, 8483.20.80,
8483.30.80, 8483.90.20, 8483.90.30,
8483.90.80, 8708.70.6060, 8708.99.2300,
8708.99.4850, 8708.99.6890,
8708.99.8115, and 8708.99.8180. The
HTSUS subheadings are provided for
convenience and customs purposes
only; the written description of the
scope of the order is dispositive.1
Tolling of Deadlines for Preliminary
Results
As explained in the memorandum
from the Acting Assistant Secretary for
Enforcement and Compliance, the
Department exercised its discretion to
toll all administrative deadlines for the
duration of the closure of the Federal
Government during Snowstorm
‘‘Jonas.’’ 2 Therefore, all deadlines in
this segment of the proceeding have
been extended by four days. The revised
deadline for the preliminary results of
this review is now July 5, 2016.3
Basis for Reinstatement
In requesting revocation, pursuant to
19 CFR 351.222(b)(2)(i)(B), SGBC/SKF
agreed to immediate reinstatement of
the order, so long as any exporter or
1 For a complete description of the scope of the
order, see memorandum from Gary Taverman,
Associate Deputy Assistant Secretary for
Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations,
to Ronald K. Lorentzen, Acting Assistant Secretary
for Enforcement and Compliance, dated July 5, 2016
entitled ‘‘Decision Memorandum for the
Preliminary Results of the Antidumping Duty
Changed Circumstances Review of Tapered Roller
Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and
Unfinished, from the People’s Republic of China’’
(Preliminary Decision Memorandum), issued
concurrently with and hereby adopted by this
notice.
2 See Memorandum to the Record from Ron
Lorentzen, Acting Assistant Secretary for
Enforcement and Compliance, regarding ‘‘Tolling of
Administrative Deadlines As a Result of the
Government Closure During Snowstorm Jonas,’’
dated January 27, 2016.
3 We aligned the deadlines of this processing with
those in the concurrent 2014–2015 administrative
review of TRBs from the PRC. See memorandum
from Alice Maldonado, International Trade
Compliance Analyst, Office II, to Christian Marsh,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and
Countervailing Duty Operations, entitled ‘‘Tapered
Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and
Unfinished, from the People’s Republic of China:
Changed Circumstances Review of Shanghai
General Bearing Company, Ltd., entitled, Alignment
with the 2014–2015 Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review of Tapered Roller Bearings
from the People’s Republic of China,’’ dated
October 27, 2015.
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
producer is subject to the order, if the
Secretary concludes that subsequent to
the revocation, SGBC/SKF sold TRBs at
less than NV.4 Under 19 CFR
351.222(b)(2)(i)(B) as long as any
exporter or producer is subject to an
antidumping duty order which remains
in force, an entity previously granted a
revocation may be reinstated under that
order if it is established that the entity
has resumed the dumping of subject
merchandise.
In this case, because other exporters
in the PRC remain subject to the TRBs
order, the order remains in effect, and
SGBC/SKF may be reinstated in the
order. The Department granted SGBC/
SKF revocation based in part upon its
agreement to immediate reinstatement
in the antidumping duty order if the
Department were to find that the
company resumed dumping of TRBs
from the PRC.5
As discussed in the Preliminary
Decision Memorandum, we have
examined SGBC/SKF’s response and
have preliminarily found that SGBC/
SKF’s dumping margin for the review
period is greater than de minimis.
Accordingly, we preliminarily intend to
reinstate SGBC/SKF in the antidumping
duty order on TRBs from the PRC.
Methodology
The Department is conducting this
changed circumstances review in
accordance with section 751(b)(1) of the
Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act),
and 19 CFR 351.216(d). As noted above,
this changed circumstances review is
being conducted with respect to TRBs
from the PRC manufactured and
exported by SGBC/SKF. For SGBC/SKF,
we calculated constructed export prices
in accordance with section 772 of the
Act. Because the PRC is a non-market
economy (NME) within the meaning of
section 771(18) of the Act, NV has been
calculated in accordance with section
773(c) of the Act.
For a full description of the
methodology underlying our
conclusions, see the Preliminary
Decision Memorandum. The
Preliminary Decision Memorandum is a
public document and is on file
electronically via Enforcement and
Compliance’s Antidumping and
Countervailing Duty Centralized
Electronic Service System (ACCESS).
ACCESS is available to registered users
4 See Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof,
Finished and Unfinished, From the People’s
Republic of China; Final Results of Antidumping
Duty Administrative Review and Revocation in Part
of Antidumping Duty Order, 62 FR 6189 (February
11, 1997) (for the 1993–1994 review) (SGBC/SKF
Revocation).
5 See SGBC/SKF Revocation, 62 FR at 6214.
E:\FR\FM\13JYN1.SGM
13JYN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 134 (Wednesday, July 13, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 45276-45282]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-16567]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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, 33 Cavendish Square, 4th Floor, 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., 33 Cavendish Square, 4th Floor, 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;
Al Naser Airlines, a/k/a al-Naser Airlines, a/k/a Alnaser Airlines
and, Air Freight Ltd. Home 46, Al-Karrada, Babil Region, District
929, St 21 Beside Al Jadirya Private Hospital, Baghdad, Iraq and Al
Amirat Street, Section 309, St. 3/H.20 Al Mansour Baghdad, Iraq, and
P.O. Box 28360, Dubai, United Arab Emiratesand P.O. Box 911399,
Amman 11191, Jordan;
Ali Abdullah Alhay, a/k/a Ali Alhay, a/k/a Ali Abdullah Ahmed Alhay,
Home 46, Al-Karrada, Babil Region, District 929, St 21, Beside Al
Jadirya Private Hospital, Baghdad, Iraq and Anak Street, Qatif,
Saudi Arabia 61177;
[[Page 45277]]
Bahar Safwa General Trading, P.O. Box 113212 Citadel Tower, Floor-5,
Office #504, Business Bay, Dubai, United Arab Emirates and P.O. Box
8709, Citadel Tower, Business Bay, Dubai, United Arab Emirates;
Sky Blue Bird Group, a/k/a Sky Blue Bird Aviation, a/k/a Sky Blue
Bird Ltd, a/k/a Sky Blue Bird FZC, P.O. Box 16111, Ras Al Khaimah
Trade Zone, United Arab Emirates;
Issam Shammout, a/k/a Muhammad Isam Muhammad Anwar Nur Shammout, a/
k/a Issam Anwar, Philips Building, 4th Floor, Al Fardous Street,
Damascus, Syria and Al Kolaa, Beirut, Lebanon 151515 and17-18
Margaret Street, 4th Floor, London, W1W 8RP, United Kingdomand
Cumhuriyet Mah. Kavakli San St. Fulya, Cad. Hazar Sok. No.14/A
Silivri, Istanbul, Turkey
Pursuant to Section 766.24 of the Export Administration
Regulations, 15 CFR parts 730-774 (2016) (``EAR'' or the
``Regulations''),\1\ I hereby grant the request of the Office of Export
Enforcement (``OEE'') to renew the January 7, 2016 Temporary Denial
Order (the ``TDO''). The January 7, 2016 Order denied 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., Mehdi Bahrami,
Al Naser Airlines, Ali Abdullah Alhay, Bahar Safwa General Trading, Sky
Blue Bird Group, and Issam Shammout.\2\ I find that renewal of the 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
(2016), originally issued pursuant to the Export Administration Act
of 1979. 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, 2015
(80 FR 48,223 (Aug. 11, 2015)), 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 3, 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 January 7, 2016.\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.\4\ On July 1, 2011, the TDO was
modified by adding Zarand Aviation as a respondent in order to prevent
an imminent violation.\5\ 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 January 7, 2016 Order was published in the Federal
Register on January 15, 2016 (81 F.R. 2161, Jan. 15, 2016). 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, January 24, 2014, July 22, 2014, January 16,
2015, and July 13, 2015. The August 24, 2011 renewal followed the
modification of the TDO on July 1, 2011, which added Zarand Aviation
as a respondent. The July 13, 2015 renewal followed the modification
of the TDO on May 21, 2015, which added Al Naser Airlines, Ali
Abdullah Alhay, and Bahar Safwa General Trading as respondents. Each
renewal or modification order was published in the Federal Register.
\4\ 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).
\5\ As of July 22, 2014, Zarand Aviation was no longer subject
to the TDO.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On May 21, 2015, the TDO was modified to add Al Naser Airlines, Ali
Abdullah Alhay, and Bahar Safwa General Trading as respondents. Sky
Blue Bird Group and its chief executive officer Issam Shammout were
added to the TDO as related persons as part of the July 13, 2015
renewal order.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ The U.S. Department of the Treasury's Office of Foreign
Assets Control (``OFAC'') designated Sky Blue Bird and Issam
Shammout as Specially Designated Global Terrorists (``SDGTs'') on
May 21, 2015, pursuant to Executive Order 13324, for ``providing
support to Iran's Mahan Air.'' See 80 FR 30762 (May 29, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On June 15, 2016, BIS, through its Office of Export Enforcement
(``OEE''), submitted a written request for renewal of the TDO. The
written request was made more than 20 days before the scheduled
expiration of the current TDO, which issued on January 7, 2016. Notice
of the renewal request also was provided to Mahan Airways, Al Naser
Airlines, Ali Abdullah Alhay, and Bahar Safwa General Trading in
accordance with Sections 766.5 and 766.24(d) of the Regulations. No
opposition to the renewal of the TDO has been received. 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,
February 4, 2013, and July 13, 2015 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., Mehdi Bahrami, Sky Blue Bird Group, or Issam
Shammout.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ 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
[[Page 45278]]
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.\8\ 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,\9\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Engaging in conduct prohibited by a denial order violates
the Regulations. 15 CFR 764.2(a) and (k).
\9\ 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 acted 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 Airway's 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.\10\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ See https://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/sanctions/OFAC-Enforcement/pages/20120919.aspx.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.\11\ 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.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ 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 export or reexport of
these aircraft to Iran requires U.S. Government authorization
pursuant to Sections 742.8 and 746.7 of the Regulations.
\12\ 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, with
MSN 499 and Iranian tail number EP-VIP, in violation of the TDO and the
Regulations.\13\ On September 19, 2012, all three Airbus A310 aircraft
(tail numbers F-OJHH, F-OJHI, and EP-VIP) were designated as SDGTs.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ See note 12, supra.
\14\ See https://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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 45279]]
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--two GE CF6-50C2 engines, with
MSNs 517621 and 517738, respectively--and other aircraft parts in
violation of the TDO and the Regulations.\15\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ 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 had
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 were ``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[.]'' \16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ 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 discussed 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.\17\ 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.\18\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ The BAE regional jets are powered with U.S.-origin engines.
The engines are subject to the EAR and classified under ECCN
9A991.d. These aircraft 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 export or reexport of these aircraft to Iran requires
U.S. Government authorization pursuant to Sections 742.8 and 746.7
of the Regulations.
\18\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The January 16, 2015 Order detailed evidence of additional attempts
by Mahan Airways to acquire items subject the Regulations in further
violation of the TDO. Specifically, 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
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 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.
The January 16, 2015 Order also described related efforts by the
Departments of Justice and Treasury to further thwart Mahan's illicit
procurement efforts. Specifically, 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) that
resulted in the court issuing an Order of Forfeiture on December 2,
2014. EP-MMB remains listed as active in Mahan Airways' fleet.
Additionally, on August 29, 2014, 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 for
the purchase of engines and other equipment.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ See https://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 13-
14. BIS added both Asian Aviation Logistics and Pioneer Logistics to
the Entity List on December 12, 2013. See 78 FR 75458 (Dec. 12,
2013).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 45280]]
The May 21, 2015 modification order detailed the acquisition of two
aircraft, specifically an Airbus A340 bearing MSN 164 and an Airbus
A321 bearing MSN 550, that were purchased by Al Naser Airlines in late
2014/early 2015 and are currently located in Iran under the possession,
control, and/or ownership of Mahan Airways.\20\ The sales agreements
for these two aircraft were signed by Ali Abdullah Alhay for Al Naser
Airlines.\21\ Payment information reveals that multiple electronic
funds transfers (``EFT'') were made by Ali Abdullah Alhay and Bahar
Safwa General Trading in order to acquire MSNs 164 and 550.
The May 21, 2015 modification order also laid out evidence showing
the respondents' attempts to obtain other controlled aircraft,
including aircraft physically located in the United States in
similarly-patterned transactions during the same recent time period.
Transactional documents involving two Airbus A320s bearing MSNs 82 and
99, respectively, again showed Ali Abdullah Alhay signing sales
agreements for Al Naser Airlines.\22\ A review of the payment
information for these aircraft similarly revealed EFTs from Ali
Abdullah Alhay and Bahar Safwa General Trading that follow the pattern
described for MSNs 164 and 550, supra. MSNs 82 and 99 were detained by
OEE Special Agents prior to their planned export from the United
States.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ Both of these aircraft are powered by U.S.-origin engines
that are subject to the Regulations and classified under ECCN
9A991.d. Both aircraft 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 regardless of their location. The
aircraft are classified under ECCN 9A991.b. The export or re-export
of these aircraft to Iran requires U.S. Government authorization
pursuant to Sections 742.8 and 746.7 of the Regulations.
\21\ Ali Abdullah Alhay is a 25% owner of Al Naser Airlines.
\22\ Both aircraft were physically located in the United States
and therefore are subject to the Regulations pursuant to Section
734.3(a)(1). Moreover, these Airbus A320s are powered by U.S.-origin
engines that are subject to the Regulations and classified under
Export Control Classification Number ECCN 9A991.d. The Airbus A320s
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 regardless of the their location. The aircraft are
classified under ECCN 9A991.b. The export or re-export of these
aircraft to Iran requires U.S. Government authorization pursuant to
Sections 742.8 and 746.7 of the Regulations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The July 13, 2015 Order outlined evidence showing that Al Naser
Airlines' attempts to acquire aircraft on behalf of Mahan Airways
extended beyond MSNs 164 and 550 to include a total of nine
aircraft.\23\ Four of the aircraft, all of which are subject to the
Regulations and were obtained by Mahan from Al Naser Airlines, had been
issued the following Iranian tail numbers: EP-MMD (MSN 164), EP-MMG
(MSN 383), EP-MMH (MSN 391) and EP-MMR (MSN 416), respectively.\24\
Publicly available flight tracking information provided evidence that
at the time of the July 13, 2015 renewal, both EP-MMH and EP-MMR were
being actively flown on routes into and out of Iran in violation of the
TDO and Regulations.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ This evidence included a press release dated May 9, 2015,
that appeared on Mahan Airways' Web site and stated that Mahan
``added 9 modern aircraft to its air fleet[,]'' and that the newly
acquired aircraft included eight Airbus A340s and one Airbus A321.
See https://www.mahan.aero/en/mahan-air/press-room/44. The press
release was subsequently removed from Mahan Airways' Web site.
Publicly available aviation databases similarly showed that Mahan
had obtained nine additional aircraft from Al Naser Airlines in May
2015, including MSNs 164 and 550. As also discussed in the July 13,
2015 renewal order, Sky Blue Bird Group, via Issam Shammout, was
actively involved in Al Naser Airlines' acquisition of MSNs 164 and
550, and the attempted acquisition of MSNs 82 and 99 (which were
detained by OEE).
\24\ The Airbus A340s are powered by U.S.-origin engines that
are subject to the Regulations and classified under ECCN 9A991.d.
The Airbus A340s 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 regardless of the their location. The
aircraft are classified under ECCN 9A991.b. The export or re-export
of these aircraft to Iran requires U.S. Government authorization
pursuant to Sections 742.8 and 746.7 of the Regulations.
\25\ There is some publically available information indicating
that the aircraft Mahan Airways is flying under Iranian tail number
EP-MMR is now MSN 615, rather than MSN 416. Both aircraft are Airbus
A340 aircraft that Mahan acquired from Al Naser Airlines in
violation of the TDO and the Regulations. Moreover, both aircraft
were designated as SDGTs by OFAC on May 21, 2015, pursuant to
Executive Order 13324. See 80 FR 30762 (May 29, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The January 7, 2016 Order discussed evidence that Mahan Airways had
begun actively flying EP-MMD, another of the aircraft Mahan obtained
from Al Naser Airlines as discussed in the July 13, 2015 renewal order,
on international routes into and out of Iran, including from/to
Bangkok, Thailand. Additionally, the January 7, 2016 Order described
publically available aviation database and flight tracking information
indicating that Mahan was continuing its efforts to acquire Iranian
tail numbers and press into active service under Mahan's livery and
logo at least two more of the Airbus A340 aircraft it obtained from Al
Naser Airlines: EP-MME (MSN 371) and EP-MMF (MSN 376), respectively.
Since January 2016, EP-MME has logged flights to and from Tehran, Iran
involving various destinations, including Guangzhou, China and Dubai,
United Arab Emirates in further violation of the TDO and the
Regulations.
The June 15, 2016 renewal request presents similar publically
available information indicating that Mahan has operated EP-MMF on
routes into and out of Iran. Publically available flight tracking
information shows that between June 7, 2016, and June 14, 2016, EP-MMF
flew on routes from Tehran, Iran to Beijing, China and Shanghai, China,
respectively. Additional evidence obtained by OEE since the January 7,
2016 renewal shows that in or about November 2015, Mahan Airways
acquired a BAE Avro RJ-85 aircraft (MSN E2392) in violation of the TDO
and that the aircraft now bears Iranian tail number EP-MOR.\26\ This
evidence includes information available on the Web site of Iran's civil
aviation authority.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ The BAE Avro RJ-85 is powered by U.S.-origin engines that
are subject to the Regulations and classified under ECCN 9A991.d.
The BAE Avro RJ-85 contains controlled U.S.-origin items valued at
more than 10 percent of the total value of the aircraft and as a
result is subject to the EAR regardless of the its location. The
aircraft is classified under ECCN 9A991.b, and its export or re-
export to Iran requires U.S. Government authorization pursuant to
Sections 742.8 and 746.7 of the Regulations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 the denied
persons have acted in violation of the EAR and the TDO, that such
violations have been significant, deliberate and covert, and that there
is a likelihood of future violations. 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 and reexport
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;
[[Page 45281]]
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, 33 Cavendish Square,
4th Floor, 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., 33 Cavendish
Square, 4th Floor, 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; AL NASER
AIRLINES A/K/A AL-NASER AIRLINES A/K/A ALNASER AIRLINES AND AIR FREIGHT
LTD., Home 46, Al-Karrada, Babil Region, District 929, St 21, Beside Al
Jadirya Private Hospital, Baghdad, Iraq, and Al Amirat Street, Section
309, St. 3/H.20, Al Mansour, Baghdad, Iraq, and P.O. Box 28360, Dubai,
United Arab Emirates, and P.O. Box 911399, Amman 11191, Jordan; ALI
ABDULLAH ALHAY A/K/A ALI ALHAY A/K/A ALI ABDULLAH AHMED ALHAY, Home 46,
Al-Karrada, Babil Region, District 929, St 21, Beside Al Jadirya
Private Hospital, Baghdad, Iraq, and Anak Street, Qatif, Saudi Arabia
61177; BAHAR SAFWA GENERAL TRADING, P.O. Box 113212, Citadel Tower,
Floor-5, Office #504, Business Bay, Dubai, United Arab Emirates, and
P.O. Box 8709, Citadel Tower, Business Bay, Dubai, United Arab
Emirates; SKY BLUE BIRD GROUP A/K/A SKY BLUE BIRD AVIATION A/K/A SKY
BLUE BIRD LTD A/K/A SKY BLUE BIRD FZC, P.O. Box 16111, Ras Al Khaimah
Trade Zone, United Arab Emirates; and ISSAM SHAMMOUT A/K/A MUHAMMAD
ISAM MUHAMMAD ANWAR NUR SHAMMOUT A/K/A ISSAM ANWAR, Philips Building,
4th Floor, Al Fardous Street, Damascus, Syria, and Al Kolaa, Beirut,
Lebanon 151515, and 17-18 Margaret Street, 4th Floor, London, W1W 8RP,
United Kingdom, and Cumhuriyet Mah. Kavakli San St. Fulya, Cad. Hazar
Sok. No.14/A Silivri, 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, Al Naser Airlines, Ali Abdullah Alhay, and/or Bahar
Safwa General Trading 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,
Pejman Mahmood Kosarayanifard, Mahmoud Amini, Kerman Aviation, Sirjanco
Trading LLC, Ali Eslamian, Mahan Air General Trading LLC, Skyco (UK)
Ltd., Equipco (UK) Ltd., Mehdi Bahrami, Sky Blue Bird Group, and/or
Issam Shammout 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, Al Naser Airlines, Ali Abdullah Alhay, and/or
Bahar Safwa General Trading 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, Al Naser
Airlines, Ali Abdullah Alhay, and Bahar Safwa General Trading and each
related person, and shall be published in the Federal Register. This
Order is effective
[[Page 45282]]
immediately and shall remain in effect for 180 days.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ Review and consideration of this matter have been delegated
to the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Export
Enforcement.
Dated: July 7, 2016.
Richard R. Majauskas,
Deputy Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Export Enforcement.
[FR Doc. 2016-16567 Filed 7-12-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P
