8218 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 24 / Tuesday, February 5, 2013 / Notices 

Dated: January 30, 2013. 

Paul Kryglik, 

Director, Office of Regulations, Social 

Security Administration. 

[FR Doc. 2013–02456 Filed 2–4–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4191–02–P 

DEPARTMENT OF STATE 

[Public Notice 8175] 

Bureau of Political-Military Affairs; 

Statutory Debarment Under the Arms 

Export Control Act and the 

International Traffic in Arms 

Regulations 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that 

the Department of State has imposed 

statutory debarment pursuant to 

§ 127.7(c) of the International Traffic in 

Arms Regulations (‘‘ITAR’’) (22 CFR 

parts 120 to 130) on persons convicted 

of violating, or conspiracy to violate, 

Section 38 of the Arms Export Control 

Act, as amended, (‘‘AECA’’) (22 U.S.C. 

2778). Further, a public notice was 

published in the Federal Register on 

Tuesday, July 24, 2012, listing persons 

statutorily debarred pursuant to the 

ITAR; this notice makes one correction 

to that notice. 

DATES: Effective Date: The effective date 

is the date of this notice. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lisa 

Aguirre, Director, Office of Defense 

Trade Controls Compliance, Bureau of 

Political-Military Affairs, Department of 

State (202) 632–2798. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 

38(g)(4) of the AECA, 22 U.S.C. 

2778(g)(4), prohibits the Department of 

State from issuing licenses or other 

approvals for the export of defense 

articles or defense services where the 

applicant, or any party to the export, has 

been convicted of violating certain 

statutes, including the AECA. The 

statute permits limited exceptions to be 

made on a case-by-case basis. In 

implementing this provision, Section 

127.7 of the ITAR provides for 

‘‘statutory debarment’’ of any person 

who has been convicted of violating or 

conspiring to violate the AECA. Persons 

subject to statutory debarment are 

prohibited from participating directly or 

indirectly in the export of defense 

articles, including technical data, or in 

the furnishing of defense services for 

which a license or other approval is 

required. 

Statutory debarment is based solely 

upon conviction in a criminal 

proceeding, conducted by a United 

States Court, and as such the 

administrative debarment procedures 

outlined in Part 128 of the ITAR are not 

applicable. 

The period for debarment will be 

determined by the Assistant Secretary 

for Political-Military Affairs based on 

the underlying nature of the violations, 

but will generally be for three years 

from the date of conviction. Export 

privileges may be reinstated only at the 

request of the debarred person followed 

by the necessary interagency 

consultations, after a thorough review of 

the circumstances surrounding the 

conviction, and a finding that 

appropriate steps have been taken to 

mitigate any law enforcement concerns, 

as required by Section 38(g)(4) of the 

AECA. Unless export privileges are 

reinstated, however, the person remains 

debarred. 

Department of State policy permits 

debarred persons to apply to the 

Director, Office of Defense Trade 

Controls Compliance, for reinstatement 

beginning one year after the date of the 

debarment. Any decision to grant 

reinstatement can be made only after the 

statutory requirements of Section 

38(g)(4) of the AECA have been 

satisfied. 

Exceptions, also known as transaction 

exceptions, may be made to this 

debarment determination on a case-bycase basis at the discretion of the 

Assistant Secretary of State for PoliticalMilitary Affairs, after consulting with 

the appropriate U.S. agencies. However, 

such an exception would be granted 

only after a full review of all 

circumstances, paying particular 

attention to the following factors: 

Whether an exception is warranted by 

overriding U.S. foreign policy or 

national security interests; whether an 

exception would further law 

enforcement concerns that are 

consistent with the foreign policy or 

national security interests of the United 

States; or whether other compelling 

circumstances exist that are consistent 

with the foreign policy or national 

security interests of the United States, 

and that do not conflict with law 

enforcement concerns. Even if 

exceptions are granted, the debarment 

continues until subsequent 

reinstatement. 

Pursuant to Section 38(g)(4) of the 

AECA and Section 127.7(c) of the ITAR, 

the following persons are statutorily 

debarred as of the date of this notice 

(Name; Date of Conviction; District; 

Case No.; Month/Year of Birth): 

(1) Luis Alejandro Yanez Almeida; 

December 8, 2012; U.S. District Court, 

Southern District of Texas; Case No. 

7:12CR00275–001; October, 1988. 

(2) Freddy Arguelles; October 5, 2012; 

U.S. District Court, Southern District of 

Florida; Case No. 0:12–20478–CR– 

DIMITROULEAS–002; October 1974. 

(3) Victor Brown; October 9, 2012; 

U.S. District Court, Southern District of 

Florida; Case No. 0:12–20479–CR– 

DIMITROULEAS–002; September 1956. 

(4) Fidel Ignacio Cisneros; November 

2, 2012; U.S. District Court, Middle 

District of Florida; Case No. 6:12–cr– 

123–Orl–28TBS; April 1970. 

(5) Victor Dobrogaiev, (aka Viktor 

Dobrogaiev); July 30, 2012; U.S. District 

Court, District of Arizona; Case No. CR 

10–00233–002–PHX–FJM; August 1963. 

(6) Kirk Drellich; October 29, 2012; 

U.S. District Court, Southern District of 

Florida; Case No. 1:12–cr–20477–RSR– 

1; April 1963. 

(7) Raul Garcia-Nevarez; July 20, 

2012; U.S. District Court, Western 

District of Texas; Case No. EP–09–CR– 

3418–DB; August 1955. 

(8) Martin Guillen-Cruz; September 

10, 2012; U.S. District Court, Southern 

District of Texas; Case No. 

7:10CR01446–001; August 1991. 

(9) Benjamin Raul Hernandez; 

November 26, 2012; U.S. District Court, 

Western District of Texas; Case No. DR– 

11–CR–1354(1)–AM; July 1983. 

(10) Ryan Mathers; July 3, 2012; U.S. 

District Court, District of Hawaii; Case 

No. 1:08CR00655–001; November 1987. 

(11) Diana Siboney Navarro-Hinojosa; 

February 24, 2012; U.S. District Court, 

Southern District of Texas; Case No. 

7:10–cr–01440; August 1983. 

(12) Arturo Guillermo Nino Palacios, 

(aka Arturo Guillermo Nino); June 12, 

2012; U.S. District Court, Western 

District of Texas; Case No. W–11–CR– 

200(03); June 1983. 

(13) Carlos Javier Paez-Renteria; July 

21, 2012; U.S. District Court, Southern 

District of Texas; Case No. 

7:11CR00164–001; September 1989. 

(14) Yusuf Kutbuddin Patanwala; 

November 30, 2012; U.S. District Court, 

Western District of Texas; Case No. W– 

12–CR–020(01); April 1950. 

(15) Alberto Pichardo; September 20, 

2012; U.S. District Court, Southern 

District of Florida; Case Nos. 0:12– 

20478–CR–DIMITROULEAS–001 and 

0:12–20479–CR–DIMITROULEAS–001; 

November 1972. 

(16) Juan Ricardo Puente-Paez; May 

29, 2012; U.S. District Court, Southern 

District of Texas; Case No. 

7:12CR00083–001; April 1978. 

(17) Pablo Reducindo-Chavez; 

September 27, 2012; U.S. District Court, 

Southern District of Texas; Case No. 

7:11CR00019–001; October 1965. 

(18) Geoffrey B. Roose; July 13, 2012; 

U.S. District Court, Western District of 

Washington; Case No. 2:12CR00043JCC– 

001; May 1984. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 24 / Tuesday, February 5, 2013 / Notices 8219 

(19) Mario Salinas-Lucio; January 9, 

2012; U.S. District Court, Southern 

District of Texas; Case No. 

1:09CR00824–001; January 1968. 

(20) Leoncio Sanchez; June 22, 2012; 

U.S. District Court, Southern District of 

Texas; Case No. 1:11CR01100–002; 

August 1989. 

(21) Andro Telemi; November 30, 

2012; U.S. District Court, Northern 

District of Illinois; Case No. 09 CR 736– 

2; June 1970. 

(22) Guillermo Enrique Villarreal; 

June 22, 2012; U.S. District Court, 

Southern District of Texas; Case No. 

1:11CR01100–001; October 1974. 

As noted above, at the end of the 

three-year period following the date of 

this notice, the above named persons/ 

entities remain debarred unless export 

privileges are reinstated. 

Debarred persons are generally 

ineligible to participate in activity 

regulated under the ITAR (see e.g., 

sections 120.1(c) and (d), and 127.11(a)). 

Also, under Section 127.1(d) of the 

ITAR, any person who has knowledge 

that another person is subject to 

debarment or is otherwise ineligible 

may not, without disclosure to and 

written approval from the Directorate of 

Defense Trade Controls, participate, 

directly or indirectly, in any ITARcontrolled export in which such 

ineligible person may benefit there from 

or have a direct or indirect interest 

therein. 

Further, Federal Register document 

2012–18043, published at 77 FR 43414, 

Tuesday, July 24, 2012, is corrected on 

page 43415, by deletion in its entirety of 

lines 66 through 70, inclusive. That 

notice of statutory debarment 

incorrectly included as a debarred party 

the following record: 

‘‘(33) Balraj Naidu; December 20, 2010; 

U.S. District Court, District of Maryland, Case 

No. CCB–1–08–CR–0091–002; February, 

1967.’’ 

Mr. Naidu was indicted under seal in 

February, 2008, for, inter alia, 

conspiracy to violate, and violation of, 

the AECA. The judgment filed by the 

court and dated December 20, 2010 and 

relied on for purposes of statutory 

debarment stated as the nature of the 

offense for which judgment was entered 

‘‘Conspiracy to Violate the Arms Export 

Control Act’’ and cited to U.S. Code 

Title and Sections ‘‘18:371 & 22:2778.’’ 

Subsequently, the court filed an 

amended judgment dated May 16, 2012, 

to correctly identify as the nature of the 

offense for which judgment was entered 

‘‘Conspiracy to Provide Material 

Support to a Foreign Terrorist 

Organization’’ and cited to U.S. Code 

Title and Sections ‘‘18 USC 2339B(a)(1); 

18 USC 2339A(b)(1).’’ As Mr. Naidu was 

not, in fact, convicted of violating, or 

conspiracy to violate, the AECA, the 

provisions of Section 127.7(c) of the 

ITAR are not applicable. 

This notice is provided for purposes 

of making the public aware that the 

persons listed above are prohibited from 

participating directly or indirectly in 

activities regulated by the ITAR, 

including any brokering activities and 

in any export from or temporary import 

into the United States of defense 

articles, related technical data, or 

defense services in all situations 

covered by the ITAR. Specific case 

information may be obtained from the 

Office of the Clerk for the U.S. District 

Courts mentioned above and by citing 

the court case number where provided. 

Dated: January 16, 2013. 

Andrew J. Shapiro, 

Assistant Secretary, Bureau of PoliticalMilitary Affairs, Department of State. 

[FR Doc. 2013–02491 Filed 2–4–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4710–25–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Office of the Secretary 

Applications for Certificates of Public 

Convenience and Necessity and 

Foreign Air Carrier Permits 

Notice of Applications for Certificates 

of Public Convenience and Necessity 

and Foreign Air Carrier Permits Filed 

Under Subpart B (formerly Subpart Q) 

during the Week Ending January 12, 

2013. The following Applications for 

Certificates of Public Convenience and 

Necessity and Foreign Air Carrier 

Permits were filed under Subpart B 

(formerly Subpart Q) of the Department 

of Transportation’s Procedural 

Regulations (See 14 CFR 301.201 et 

seq.). The due date for Answers, 

Conforming Applications, or Motions to 

Modify Scope are set forth below for 

each application. Following the Answer 

period DOT may process the application 

by expedited procedures. Such 

procedures may consist of the adoption 

of a show-cause order, a tentative order, 

or in appropriate cases a final order 

without further proceedings. 

Docket Number: DOT–OST–2013– 

0006. 

Date Filed: January 7, 2013. 

Due Date for Answers, Conforming 

Applications, or Motion to Modify 

Scope: January 28, 2013. 

Description: Application of Sirio 

S.p.A. requesting a foreign air carrier 

permit and exemption authority to 

engage in the following operations using 

small aircraft: (a) Foreign charter air 

transportation of persons, property, and 

mail from any point or points behind 

any Member State of the European 

Community via any point or points in 

any Member State and via intermediate 

points to any point or points in the 

United States and beyond; (b) foreign 

charter air transportation of persons, 

property, and mail between any point or 

points in the United States and any 

point or points in any Member State of 

the European Common Aviation Area; 

(c) foreign charter cargo air 

transportation between any point and 

points in the United States and any 

other point or points; and (d) charter 

transportation consistent with any 

future, additional rights that may be 

granted to foreign air carriers of the 

Member States of the European 

Community. 

Docket Number: DOT–OST–2009– 

0010. 

Date Filed: January 8, 2013. 

Due Date for Answers, Conforming 

Applications, or Motion to Modify 

Scope: January 29, 2013. 

Description: Application of 1263343 

Alberta Inc. d/b/a enerjet (‘‘enerjet’’) 

requesting that the Department amend 

its foreign air carrier permit to enable it 

to engage in scheduled air 

transportation of persons, property, and 

mail between Canada and the United 

States as more specifically: enerjet seeks 

authority to (i) conduct scheduled 

foreign air transportation of persons, 

property, and mail from points behind 

Canada, via Canada and intermediate 

points, to a point or points in the United 

States and beyond, co-extensive with 

that provided for in Annex 1, Section 

1.B of the Open Skies Agreement (the 

‘‘Air Transport Agreement’’) between 

Canada and the United States signed on 

March 12, 2007 and (ii) scheduled and 

charter foreign air transportation of 

cargo between any point or points in the 

United States and any other point or 

points; in addition to maintaining its 

existing authority. 

Docket Number: DOT–OST–2008– 

0105 and DOT–OST–2011–0076. 

Date Filed: January 10, 2013. 

Due Date for Answers, Conforming 

Applications, or Motion to Modify 

Scope: January 31, 2013. 

Description: Application of Federal 

Express Corporation (‘‘FedEx Express’’) 

requesting renewal of its certificate of 

public convenience and necessity for 

Route 568, authorizing FedEx Express to 

engage in scheduled foreign all-cargo air 

transportation between a point or points 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES