Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 79 / Monday, April 25, 2011 / Notices 22865 

1 74 FR 24,786. 

2The November 2, 2009 renewal Order was 

published in the Federal Register on November 9, 

2009 (74 FR 57,626). The April 29, 2010 renewal 

Order was published in the Federal Register on 

May 7, 2010 (75 FR 25,002). 

3 75 FR 66,728 (October 29, 2010). 

Affected Public: Individuals. 

Estimated Number of Respondents: 

20,500. 

Estimated Time per Response: 15 

minutes. 

Estimated Total Annual Burden 

Hours: 5,125. 

Estimated Total Annual Cost: The 

only cost to the respondent is his/her 

time for completing the BC–170A 

(recurring surveys), BC–170B (special 

censuses), or BC–170D (decennial 

censuses). 

Respondent’s Obligation: Required to 

obtain a benefit. 

Legal Authority: Title 13, U.S.C. Section 

23. 

IV. Request for Comments 

Comments are invited on: (a) Whether 

the proposed collection of information 

is necessary for the proper performance 

of the functions of the agency, including 

whether the information shall have 

practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the 

agency’s estimate of the burden 

(including hours and cost) of the 

proposed collection of information; 

(c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, 

and clarity of the information to be 

collected; and (d) ways to minimize the 

burden of the collection of information 

on respondents, including through the 

use of automated collection techniques 

or other forms of information 

technology. 

Comments submitted in response to 

this notice will be summarized and/or 

included in the request for OMB 

approval of this information collection; 

they also will become a matter of public 

record. 

Dated: April 20, 2011. 

Glenna Mickelson, 

Management Analyst, Office of the Chief 

Information Officer. 

[FR Doc. 2011–9908 Filed 4–22–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–07–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

Bureau of Industry and Security 

Action Affecting Export Privileges; 

Orion Air, S.L. and Syrian Pearl 

Airlines 

In the Matter of: 

Orion Air, S.L., Canada Real de Merinas, 7 

Edificio 5, 3’A, Eissenhower business 

center, 28042 Madrid, Spain; and Ad. de 

las Cortes Valencianas no 37, Esc.A Puerta 

45 46015 Valencia, Spain; and Syrian Pearl 

Airlines, Damascus International Airport, 

Damascus, Syria, Respondents. 

Order Renewing Temporary Denial of 

Export Privileges 

Pursuant to Section 766.24 of the 

Export Administration Regulations, 15 

CFR parts 730–774 (2011) (‘‘EAR’’ or the 

‘‘Regulations’’), I hereby grant the 

request of the Bureau of Industry and 

Security (‘‘BIS’’) to renew for 180 days 

the Order Temporarily Denying the 

Export Privileges of Respondents Orion 

Air, S.L. (‘‘Orion Air’’) and Syrian Pearl 

Airlines (collectively, ‘‘Respondents’’), 

as I find that renewal of the temporary 

denial order (‘‘TDO’’ or the ‘‘Order’’) is 

necessary in the public interest to 

prevent an imminent violation of the 

EAR. 

I. Procedural History 

On May 7, 2009, then-Acting 

Assistant Secretary of Commerce for 

Export Enforcement Kevin Delli-Colli 

signed an Order Temporarily Denying 

the Export Privileges of the Respondents 

for 180 days on the grounds that its 

issuance was necessary in the public 

interest to prevent an imminent 

violation of the Regulations. Pursuant to 

Section 766.24(a), the TDO was issued 

ex parte and was effective upon 

issuance. Copies of the TDO were sent 

to each Respondent in accordance with 

Section 766.5 of the Regulations and the 

Order was published in the Federal 

Register on May 26, 2009.1 Thereafter, 

Acting Assistant Secretary Delli-Colli 

issued an Order on November 2, 2009, 

renewing the TDO for an additional 180 

days, and I similarly issued a 180-day 

renewal Order on April 29, 2010.2

Most recently, on October 22, 2010, I 

renewed the TDO against the 

Respondents for an additional 180 days. 

This renewal was effective upon 

issuance and was published in the 

Federal Register on October 29, 2010.3

The current Order would expire on 

April 20, 2011, unless renewed in 

accordance with Section 766.24 of the 

Regulations. 

On March 28, 2011, BIS, through its 

Office of Export Enforcement (‘‘OEE’’), 

filed a written request for renewal of the 

TDO against the Respondents for an 

additional 180 days. A copy of this 

request was delivered to the 

Respondents in accordance with Section 

766.5 of the Regulations. No opposition 

to renewal of the TDO has been received 

from either Orion Air or Syrian Pearl 

Airlines. 

II. Discussion 

A. Legal Standard 

Pursuant to section 766.24(d)(3) of the 

EAR, the sole issue to be considered in 

determining whether to continue a TDO 

is whether the TDO should be renewed 

to prevent an imminent violation of the 

EAR, as ‘‘imminent’’ violation is defined 

in Section 766.24. ‘‘A violation may be 

‘imminent’ either in time or in degree of 

likelihood.’’ 15 CFR 766.24(b)(3). BIS 

may show ‘‘either that a violation is 

about to occur, or that the general 

circumstances of the matter under 

investigation or case under criminal or 

administrative charges demonstrate a 

likelihood of future violations.’’ Id. As to 

the likelihood of future violations, BIS 

may show that ‘‘the violation under 

investigation or charges is significant, 

deliberate, covert and/or likely to occur 

again, rather than technical and 

negligent[.]’’ Id. A ‘‘lack of information 

establishing the precise time a violation 

may occur does not preclude a finding 

that a violation is imminent, so long as 

there is sufficient reason to believe the 

likelihood of a violation.’’ Id. 

B. Findings 

As part of its initial TDO request, BIS 

presented evidence that on or about 

May 1, 2009, Orion Air re-exported a 

BAE 146–300 aircraft (tail number EC– 

JVO) to Syria, and specifically to Syrian 

Pearl Airlines, without the U.S. 

Government authorization required by 

General Order No. 2 of Supplement 1 to 

Part 736 of the EAR. The aircraft is 

subject to the Regulations because it 

contains greater than a 10-percent de 

minimis amount of U.S.-origin content. 

Orion Air engaged in this re-export 

transaction despite having been directly 

informed of the export licensing 

requirements by the U.S. Government. 

Moreover, Orion Air not only engaged 

in this conduct after having received 

actual as well as constructive notice of 

the applicable license requirements, but 

then sought to evade the Regulations 

and U.S. export controls by giving the 

U.S. Government false assurances that it 

would put the transaction on hold due 

to the U.S. Government’s concerns. 

BIS also produced evidence that the 

re-exported aircraft bore the livery, 

colors and logos of Syrian Pearl 

Airlines, a national of Syria, a Country 

Group E:1 destination; was flight 

capable; and under the terms of the 

lease agreement was to be based in and 

operated out of Syria during the lease 

term. The record also shows that the reexported aircraft currently remains in 

Syria under the control of Syrian Pearl 

Airlines. 


jdjones on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
22866 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 79 / Monday, April 25, 2011 / Notices 

4 Group E:1 destinations are currently Syria, Iran, 

Cuba, Sudan and North Korea. See Supplement No. 

1 to 15 CFR part 740 (2011). 

In addition to the unauthorized reexport described above, Acting 

Assistant Secretary Delli-Colli also 

concluded that additional violations 

were imminent based on statements by 

Orion Air to the U.S. Government in 

May 2009 that Orion Air planned to reexport an additional BAE 146–300 

aircraft (tail number EC–JVJ) to Syria, 

and specifically to Syrian Pearl Airlines. 

This second aircraft was at the time 

undergoing maintenance in the United 

Kingdom, and remains located there. 

Moreover, the agreement between Orion 

Air and Syrian Pearl Airlines involved 

both aircraft being re-exported to Syria 

for Syrian Pearl Airlines’ use and 

benefit. 

On December 10, 2010, pursuant to 

Section 764.3(a)(2) of the Regulations, 

BIS authorized Orion Air and Syrian 

Pearl Airlines to enter into a three-way 

release agreement with a third party that 

would terminate the original lease 

agreement between Orion Air and 

Syrian Pearl Airlines and allow the 

third party to take legal and physical 

control of both aircraft. Additionally, 

BIS authorized the performance of 

maintenance needed to make both 

aircraft flight-worthy, and authorized 

the third party to remove aircraft EC– 

JVO from Syria to any country not listed 

in Country Group E:1 4 of Supplement 1 

to Part 740 of the Regulations. Evidence 

obtained by BIS indicates that in the 

more than four months since this 

authorization was granted, aircraft EC– 

JVO has not been removed from Syria 

and remains in Syria under Syrian 

control. Thus, a significant risk remains 

that absent renewal of the TDO, this 

aircraft will be operated or disposed of 

in violation of the Regulations. 

Moreover, in spite of the authorization, 

there has been no change regarding 

aircraft EC–JVJ, which remains in the 

same status in the United Kingdom. 

Absent renewal of the TDO, there 

remains a substantial continued risk 

that aircraft EC–JVJ will be re-exported 

contrary to the Regulations, given that, 

inter alia, Orion Air acted with actual 

knowledge and took deceptive and 

evasive action, as discussed supra. 

Based on my review of the record, I 

find that the facts and circumstances 

here, including those that led to the 

issuance of the initial TDO and 

subsequent renewal Orders, continue to 

show that renewal of the TDO for an 

additional 180 days is necessary and in 

the public interest to prevent an 

imminent violation of the EAR. 

Furthermore, renewal of the TDO is 

needed to give notice to persons and 

companies in the United States and 

abroad that they should cease dealing 

with the Respondents in export 

transactions involving items subject to 

the EAR. 

It is therefore ordered: 

First, that, Orion Air, S.L., Canada 

Real de Merinas, 7 Edificio 5, 3’A, 

Eissenhower business center, 28042 

Madrid, Spain, and Ad. de las Cortes 

Valencianas no 37, Esc.A Puerta 

4546015 Valencia, Spain, and when 

acting for or on its behalf, any of its 

successors, assigns, agents, or 

employees; and Syrian Pearl Airlines, 

Damascus International Airport, 

Damascus, Syria, and when acting on its 

behalf, any of its successors, assigns, 

agents, or employees (each a ‘‘Denied 

Person’’ and collectively the ‘‘Denied 

Persons’’) may not, directly or indirectly, 

participate in any way in any 

transaction involving any commodity, 

software or technology (hereinafter 

collectively referred to as ‘‘item’’) 

exported or to be exported from the 

United States that is subject to the 

Export Administration Regulations 

(‘‘EAR’’), or in any other activity subject 

to the EAR including, but not limited to: 

A. Applying for, obtaining, or using 

any license, license exception, or export 

control document; 

B. Carrying on negotiations 

concerning, or ordering, buying, 

receiving, using, selling, delivering, 

storing, disposing of, forwarding, 

transporting, financing, or otherwise 

servicing in any way, any transaction 

involving any item exported or to be 

exported from the United States that is 

subject to the EAR, or in any other 

activity subject to the EAR; or 

C. Benefitting in any way from any 

transaction involving any item exported 

or to be exported from the United States 

that is subject to the EAR, or in any 

other activity subject to the EAR. 

Second, that no person may, directly 

or indirectly, do any of the following: 

A. Export or re-export to or on behalf 

of any Denied Person any item subject 

to the EAR; 

B. Take any action that facilitates the 

acquisition or attempted acquisition by 

any Denied Person of the ownership, 

possession, or control of any item 

subject to the EAR that has been or will 

be exported from the United States, 

including financing or other support 

activities related to a transaction 

whereby any Denied Person acquires or 

attempts to acquire such ownership, 

possession or control; 

C. Take any action to acquire from or 

to facilitate the acquisition or attempted 

acquisition from any Denied Person of 

any item subject to the EAR that has 

been exported from the United States; 

D. Obtain from any Denied Person in 

the United States any item subject to the 

EAR with knowledge or reason to know 

that the item will be, or is intended to 

be, exported from the United States; or 

E. Engage in any transaction to service 

any item subject to the EAR that has 

been or will be exported from the 

United States and which is owned, 

possessed or controlled by any Denied 

Person, or service any item, of whatever 

origin, that is owned, possessed or 

controlled by any Denied Person if such 

service involves the use of any item 

subject to the EAR that has been or will 

be exported from the United States. For 

purposes of this paragraph, servicing 

means installation, maintenance, repair, 

modification or testing. 

Third, that after notice and 

opportunity for comment as provided in 

section 766.23 of the EAR, any other 

person, firm, corporation, or business 

organization related to any of the 

Respondents by affiliation, ownership, 

control, or position of responsibility in 

the conduct of trade or related services 

may also be made subject to the 

provisions of this Order. 

Fourth, that this Order does not 

prohibit any export, re-export, or other 

transaction subject to the EAR where the 

only items involved that are subject to 

the EAR are the foreign-produced direct 

product of U.S.-origin technology. 

In accordance with the provisions of 

Section 766.24(e) of the EAR, the 

Respondents may, at any time, appeal 

this Order by filing a full written 

statement in support of the appeal with 

the Office of the Administrative Law 

Judge, U.S. Coast Guard ALJ Docketing 

Center, 40 South Gay Street, Baltimore, 

Maryland 21202–4022. 

BIS may seek renewal of this Order by 

filing a written request with the 

Assistant Secretary of Commerce for 

Export Enforcement in accordance with 

the provisions of Section 766.24(d) of 

the Regulations, which currently 

provides that such a written renewal 

request must be submitted not later than 

20 days before the expiration date. The 

Respondents may oppose a request to 

renew this Order by doing so in 

accordance with Section 766.24(d), 

including filing a written submission 

with the Assistant Secretary for Export 

Enforcement, supported by appropriate 

evidence. Any opposition ordinarily 

must be received not later than seven 

days before the expiration date of the 

Order. 

Notice of the issuance of this Order 

shall be given to Respondents in 

accordance with Sections 766.5(b). This 

Order also shall be published in the 


jdjones on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 79 / Monday, April 25, 2011 / Notices 22867 

1Public versions of all memoranda referenced in 

this notice are on file in the Department’s Central 

Records Unit (CRU) in Room 7046 of the main 

Department of Commerce building. 

Federal Register. This Order is effective 

upon issuance and shall remain in effect 

for 180 days. 

Issued this 18th day of April 2011. 

David W. Mills, 

Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Export 

Enforcement. 

[FR Doc. 2011–9932 Filed 4–22–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DT–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–520–803] 

Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, 

Sheet, and Strip From the United Arab 

Emirates: Final Results of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: On December 17, 2010, the 

Department of Commerce (the 

Department) published the preliminary 

results of administrative review of the 

antidumping duty order on 

polyethylene terephthalate film (PET 

Film) from the United Arab Emirates. 

This review covers two producers/ 

exporters of subject merchandise: JBF 

RAK LLC (JBF) and FLEX Middle East 

FZE (FLEX). Based on the results of our 

analysis of the comments received, we 

have made changes to the preliminary 

results, which are discussed below. For 

the final dumping margins, see the 

‘‘Final Results of Review’’ section below. 

DATES: Effective Date: April 25, 2011. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Andrew Huston or Jun Jack Zhao, AD/ 

CVD Operations, Office 6, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; 

telephone: (202) 428–4261 or (202) 482– 

1396, respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

Since the preliminary results, the 

following events have taken place. See 

Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, 

and Strip From the United Arab 

Emirates: Preliminary Results of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review, 75 FR 78968 (December 17, 

2010) (Preliminary Results). A sales 

verification of JBF was conducted from 

December 12, 2010, through December 

16, 2010. See Memorandum to the File, 

‘‘Verification of the Sales Response of 

JBF RAK LLC in the Antidumping 

Review of Polyethylene Terephthalate 

Film Sheet and Strip (PET Film) from 

the United Arab Emirates’’ (February 17, 

2011).1 JBF submitted a timely case brief 

on February 28, 2011. DuPont Teijin 

Films, Mitsubishi Polyester Film, Inc., 

SKC, Inc., and Toray Plastics (America), 

Inc. filed a timely rebuttal brief on 

March 8, 2011. We did not receive a 

case brief from FLEX. 

Period of Review 

The period of review is November 6, 

2008, through October 31, 2009. 

Scope of the Order 

The products covered by the order are 

all gauges of raw, pre-treated, or primed 

polyethylene terephthalate film, 

whether extruded or co-extruded. 

Excluded are metallized films and other 

finished films that have had at least one 

of their surfaces modified by the 

application of a performance-enhancing 

resinous or inorganic layer more than 

0.00001 inches thick. Also excluded is 

roller transport cleaning film which has 

at least one of its surfaces modified by 

application of 0.5 micrometers of SBR 

latex. Tracing and drafting film is also 

excluded. PET Film is classifiable under 

subheading 3920.62.00.90 of the 

Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the 

United States (HTSUS). While HTSUS 

subheadings are provided for 

convenience and customs purposes, our 

written description of the scope of the 

order is dispositive. 

Analysis of Comments Received 

The issues raised in the case and 

rebuttal briefs by parties in this 

administrative review are addressed in 

the memorandum from Christian Marsh, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for 

Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 

Operations, to Ronald K. Lorentzen, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration, ‘‘Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review of Polyethylene 

Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip 

from the United Arab Emirates: Issues 

and Decision Memorandum for the 

Final Results’’ (Decision Memorandum), 

dated concurrently with, and herby 

adopted by this notice. A list of the 

issues addressed in the Decision 

Memorandum is appended to this 

notice. The Decision Memorandum is 

on file in the Department’s CRU, and 

can be accessed directly on the Internet 

at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/frn. The paper 

copy and electronic version of the 

Decision Memorandum are identical in 

content. 

Changes Since the Preliminary Results 

Based on our analysis of the 

comments received, we have made 

adjustments to our margin calculations 

for JBF. Specifically, we revised coding 

in our comparison market SAS program 

to correct an error that resulted in 

different variable cost of manufacturing 

figures being used for identical U.S. and 

home market products. 

Final Results of Review 

As a result of our review, we 

determine that the following weightedaverage margins exist for the period of 

November 6, 2008, through October 31, 

2009: 

Manufacturer/exporter 

Weightedaverage 

margin 

(percent) 

FLEX Middle East FZE ......... 3.16 

JBF RAK LLC ....................... 4.88 

Assessment Rates 

The Department shall determine, and 

U.S. Customs and Border Protection 

(CBP) shall assess, antidumping duties 

on all appropriate entries. We will 

instruct CBP to liquidate entries of 

merchandise produced and/or exported 

by Flex and JBF. For assessment 

purposes, where the respondents 

reported the entered value for their 

sales, we calculated importer-specific 

(or customer-specific) ad valorem 

assessment rates based on the ratio of 

the total amount of the dumping duties 

calculated for the examined sales to the 

total entered value of those same sales. 

See 19 CFR 351.212(b). However, where 

the respondents did not report the 

entered value for their sales, we will 

calculate importer-specific (or customerspecific) per-unit assessment rates. The 

Department intends to issue appropriate 

assessment instructions directly to CBP 

15 days after the date of publication of 

these final results of review. 

The Department clarified its 

‘‘automatic assessment’’ regulation on 

May 6, 2003. See Antidumping and 

Countervailing Duty Proceedings: 

Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 68 

FR 23954 (May 6, 2003). This 

clarification will apply to entries of 

subject merchandise during the POR 

produced by Flex or JBF for which the 

reviewed companies did not know their 

merchandise was destined for the 

United States. In such instances, we will 

instruct CBP to liquidate non-reviewed 

entries at the all-others rate of 4.80 

percent from the investigation if there is 

no rate for the intermediate 

company(ies) involved in the 

transaction. See Polyethylene 


jdjones on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES