22756 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 74 / Tuesday, April 17, 2012 / Notices 

1The February 15, 2012 TDO Renewal Order was 

published in the Federal Register on February 23, 

2012. See 77 FR 10719. 

2The TDO was subsequently renewed in 

accordance with Section 766.24(d) of the 

Regulations on September 17, 2008, March 16, 

2009, September 11, 2009, March 9, 2010, 

September 3, 2010, February 25, 2011, August 24, 

2011, and most recently on February 15, 2012. Each 

renewal order was published in the Federal 

Register. As of March 9, 2010, the Balli Group 

Respondents and Blue Airways were no longer 

subject to the TDO. 

Industrial Park, Best Road and Shank 

Road, Brawley (formerly Site 2b); Site 

10: (78.11 acres)—Desert Real Estate 

parcels, Cole Road and Sunset 

Boulevard, Calexico (formerly part of 

Site 3b); Site 11: (35.47 acres)—Portico 

Industrial Park, Cole Road and 

Enterprise Boulevard, Calexico 

(formerly part of Site 3b); Site 12: (59.49 

acres)—Kloke Tract, Cole Road, Portico 

Boulevard and Weakley Road, Calexico 

(formerly part of Site 3b); Site 13: (57.45 

acres)—Las Palmas/Estrada Business 

Park, Estrada Boulevard and Arguelles 

Street, Calexico (formerly part of Site 

3b); and, Site 14: (7.54 acres)—Calexico 

Industrial Park, 190 East Cole Road and 

2360, 2420, 2430, 4360 M.L. King 

Avenue, Calexico (formerly part of Site 

3b). 

For further information, contact 

Christopher Kemp at 

Christopher.Kemp@trade.gov, or (202) 

482–0862. 

Dated: April 11, 2012. 

Andrew McGilvray, 

Executive Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2012–9236 Filed 4–16–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

Bureau of Industry and Security 

Modification of Temporary Denial 

Order Making Temporary Denial of 

Export Privileges Applicable to Related 

Persons 

Mahan Airways, Mahan Tower, No. 21, 

Azadegan St., M.A. Jenah Exp. Way, 

Tehran, Iran. 

Zarand Aviation, a/k/a GIE Zarand Aviation, 

42 Avenue Montaigne, 75008 Paris, France; 

and 

112 Avenue Kleber, 75116 Paris, France. 

Gatewick LLC, a/k/a Gatewick Freight & 

Cargo Services, a/k/a/ Gatewick Aviation 

Services, 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. 

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, P.O. Box 8709, Dubai, 

United Arab Emirates. 

Ali Eslamian, 4th Floor, 33 Cavendish 

Square, London, W1G0PW, United 

Kingdom; and 

2 Bentinck Close, Prince Albert Road St. 

Johns Wood, London NW87RY, United 

Kingdom. 

Mahan Air General Trading LLC, 19th Floor 

Al Moosa Tower One, Sheik Zayed Road, 

Dubai 40594, United Arab Emirates. 

Skyco (UK) Ltd., 4th Floor, 33 Cavendish 

Square, London, W1G 0PV, United 

Kingdom. 

Equipco (UK) Ltd., 2 Bentinck Close, Prince 

Albert Road, London, NW8 7RY, United 

Kingdom. 

Respondents. 

Pursuant to Section 766.23 of the 

Export Administration Regulations, 15 

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

‘‘Regulations’’), including the provision 

on notice and an opportunity to 

respond, I hereby grant the request of 

the Office of Export Enforcement 

(‘‘OEE’’) to modify the February 15, 

2012 Renewal Order Temporarily 

Denying the Export Privileges of Mahan 

Airways, Zarand Aviation, Gatewick 

LLC, Pejman Mahmood Kosarayanifard, 

Mahmoud Amini, Kerman Aviation, 

Sirjanco Trading LLC and Ali 

Eslamian.1 Specifically, I find it 

necessary to add the following persons 

as related persons in order to prevent 

evasion of the TDO: 

Mahan Air General Trading LLC, 19th 

Floor Al Moosa Tower One, Sheik 

Zayed Road, Dubai 40594, United 

Arab Emirates. 

Skyco (UK) Ltd., 4th Floor, 33 

Cavendish Square, London, W1G 0PV, 

United Kingdom. 

Equipco (UK) Ltd., 2 Bentinck Close, 

Prince Albert Road, London, NW8 

7RY, United Kingdom. 

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.2

On July 1, 2011, the TDO was 

modified by adding Zarand Aviation as 

a denied person in order to prevent an 

imminent violation involving an Airbus 

A310 aircraft owned by Zarand Aviation 

being operated on behalf of Mahan 

Airways in violation of the Regulations 

and the TDO. Additionally, the August 

24, 2011 TDO Renewal Order added 

Kerman Aviation, Sirjanco Trading LLC, 

and Ali Eslamian to the TDO as denied 

persons in order to prevent evasion of 

the TDO given that they are related 

persons to Mahan Airways. 

II. Addition of Related Persons 

A. Legal Standard 

Section 766.23 of the Regulations 

provides that ‘‘[i]n order to prevent 

evasion, certain types of orders under 

this part may be made applicable not 

only to the respondent, but also to other 

persons then or thereafter related to the 

respondent by ownership, control, 

position of responsibility, affiliation, or 

other connection in the conduct of trade 

or business. Orders that may be made 

applicable to related persons include 

those that deny or affect export 

privileges, including temporary denial 

orders * * * .’’ 15 CFR 766.23(a). 

B. OEE’s Request To Add Mahan Air 

General Trading LLC, Skyco (UK) Ltd., 

and Equipco (UK) Ltd. to the TDO via 

the Related Person Provision of Section 

766.23 of the Regulations 

OEE has requested that Mahan Air 

General Trading LLC, Skyco (UK) Ltd., 

and Equipco (UK) Ltd. be added as 

related persons to Mahan Airways, 

Zarand Aviation and/or Ali Eslamian, as 

further discussed below, in order to 

prevent evasion of the TDO. As noted 

above, each entity was provided written 

notice of OEE’s intent to add them to the 

TDO pursuant to Section 766.23. No 

response was received from Mahan Air 

General Trading LLC. Skyco (UK) Ltd. 

and Equipco (UK) Ltd., as discussed 

further below, submitted written 

responses, through the same U.S. 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 74 / Tuesday, April 17, 2012 / Notices 22757 

3The Airbus A310 aircraft are powered with U.S.- 

origin engines. The engines are subject to the EAR 

and classified under ECCN 9A991.d. The 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 as ECCN 9A991.b. The reexport of these 

aircraft to Iran would require U.S. Government 

authorization pursuant to Section 746.7 of the 

Regulations, as would the reexport of the aircraft 

engines. 

4As discussed in the August 24, 2011 Renewal 

Order, this litigation related to the ownership of 

three of the U.S.-origin Boeing 747s that had been 

unlawfully reexported to Iran and led to the initial 

issuance of the TDO. 

counsel, opposing their respective 

additions to the TDO. 

C. The Evidence, Respondent’s 

Contentions, and Findings Under 

Section 766.23 

1. Mahan Air General Trading LLC 

In accordance with Section 766.23 of 

the Regulations, OEE provided Mahan 

Air General Trading with notice, via a 

notice letter sent on January 27, 2012, of 

its intent to seek an order adding Mahan 

Air General Trading to the TDO as a 

related person to Mahan Airways and 

Zarand Aviation in order to prevent 

evasion of the TDO. No response has 

been received from Mahan Air General 

Trading. 

Mahan Air General Trading’s articles 

of incorporation list Mahan Airways’ 

Managing Director, Hamid Arabnejad, as 

an owner. In addition, French corporate 

registration documents list Mahan Air 

General Trading as a Groupement 

D’interet Economique (‘‘Economic 

Interest Group’’) member of both Zarand 

Aviation and Kerman Aviation, entities 

which were added to the TDO on July 

1, 2011 and August 24, 2011, 

respectively. Zarand Aviation and 

Kerman Aviation each owns an Airbus 

A310 aircraft 3 that bears the livery and 

logo of Mahan Airways and operates on 

flights into and out of Iran in violation 

of the Regulations and the TDO. After 

Zarand Aviation and Kerman Aviation 

were added to the TDO, both aircraft 

were de-registered in France and 

subsequently registered in Iran with, 

respectively, Iranian tail numbers EP– 

MHH and EP-MHI. Both aircraft remain 

active in Mahan Airways’ fleet. 

Mahan Air General Trading also 

shares the same Dubai address and fax 

number with Sirjanco Trading LLC, 

another denied party related to Mahan 

Airways that acquires and resells 

aircraft parts and components. Sirjanco 

is owned in part by Ghulam Redha 

Khodra Mahmoudi a/k/a Gholemreza 

Mahmoudi, a Mahan Airways’ 

shareholder and its Vice-President for 

Business Development. 

In sum, I find that Mahan Air General 

Trading is related to Mahan Airways 

and Zarand Aviation by ownership, 

control, position of responsibility, and/ 

or other connection in the conduct of 

trade or business, and that it is 

necessary to add Mahan Air General 

Trading to the TDO in order to prevent 

evasion of the TDO. 

2. Skyco (UK) Ltd. (‘‘Skyco’’) 

In accordance with Section 766.23 of 

the Regulations, OEE provided Skyco 

with notice, via a notice letter send on 

January 27, 2012, of its intent to seek an 

order adding Skyco to the TDO as a 

related person to Mahan Airways in 

order to prevent evasion of the TDO. 

Skyco opposed its addition to the TDO, 

via a letter dated February 17, 2012. 

Skyco, through counsel, argues that it is 

not related to Mahan Airways within 

the meaning of Section 766.23 and that 

BIS has not demonstrated that its 

addition is needed to prevent evasion of 

the TDO. 

As discussed in the August 24, 2011 

TDO Renewal Order, a copy of which 

accompanied OEE’s notice letter, 

Skyco’s corporate registration lists 

Gholemreza Mahmoudi, who is 

discussed above, and Ali Eslamian, a 

named party under the TDO since 

August 24, 2011, as directors of Skyco. 

Mr. Eslamian also is listed as Skyco’s 

corporate secretary. 

Mr. Mahmoudi’s positions in both 

Mahan Airways and Skyco establish 

that Skyco is a related person to Mahan 

under Section 766.23 of the Regulations. 

In addition, Mr. Eslamian previously 

has admitted during testimony in 

litigation in the United Kingdom 

between Mahan Airways and the Balli 

Group that he formed Skyco with 

Mahan Airways’ Managing Director 

Hamid Arabnejad and Mr. Mahmoudi to 

carry out transactions on behalf of 

Mahan Airways.4 Mr. Eslamian 

admitted to OEE in July 2009 and again 

in June 2011 that Skyco buys and sells 

aircraft, aircraft engines, and other 

aviation related services, and that Skyco 

was established to supply Mahan with 

parts that Mahan otherwise couldn’t get 

because of the embargo. 

Skyco’s response to the notice letter 

does not address these relationships 

between it and Mahan Airways, whether 

as to or via Mr. Mahmoudi or Mr. 

Eslamian. Skyco generally contends, 

instead, that it is not related to Mahan 

Airways and that it has not been 

provided an opportunity to challenge 

OEE’s ‘‘information that suggests that 

Skyco may evade the TDO.’’ Skyco 

Response Letter, at 1–2. 

Contrary to these assertions, OEE has 

demonstrated that Skyco is a related 

person to Mahan Airways and Skyco’s 

due process argument is unavailing. The 

relationship between Skyco and Mahan 

Airways is demonstrated by evidence 

provided by Mr. Eslamian or is 

information within Skyco’s possession, 

custody, or control or otherwise known 

or available to Skyco. This evidence 

alone provides sufficient reason to 

believe that the TDO should be made 

applicable to Skyco to prevent evasion 

of the TDO. There is, of course, 

additional evidence indisputably 

showing that Skyco was created and has 

acted or operated for the purpose of 

facilitating Mahan Airways’ activities in 

violation of the Regulations and the 

TDO. This evidence similarly has been 

provided by Skyco via Mr. Eslamian or 

was previously known or available to 

Skyco. Moreover, with or without that 

piece of evidence, my determination 

would here would be the same. 

Based on the above, I find that Skyco 

is related to Mahan Airways by position 

of responsibility, control, and/or other 

connection in the conduct of trade, and 

that it is necessary to add Skyco to the 

TDO as a related person in order to 

prevent evasion of the Order. 

Skyco also has argued that BIS has 

never suggested that Skyco may have 

violated the Regulations and that the 

interview Mr. Eslamian provided to BIS 

Special Agents on June 23, 2011, and 

other asserted cooperation undermines 

OEE’s TDO request. Skyco Response 

Letter, at 1–2. The former contention is 

belied by, inter alia, the August 24, 2011 

and February 15, 2012 Renewal Orders. 

The latter contention seeks to challenge 

BIS’s investigative judgment and 

prosecutorial discretion, and can also be 

read as an attempt, contrary to Section 

766.24 of the Regulations, to indirectly 

challenge the August 24, 2011 and 

February 15, 2012 Renewal Orders. As 

such, the argument is not a proper basis 

of opposition under Section 766.23. To 

the extent it was deemed otherwise, I 

would reject the contention based on 

the record here. Indeed, among other 

things, the same cooperation argument 

has been made by Equipco based on the 

same meeting between Mr. Eslamian 

and the BIS Special Agents in June 

2011. But neither Skyco nor Equipco, 

which share the same counsel, address 

the more recent activities led by Mr. 

Eslamian, as discussed in the February 

15, 2012 Renewal Order and further 

discussed below, regarding the 

attempted acquisition of aircraft subject 

to the EAR in violation of the 

Regulations and the TDO. 

3. Equipco (UK) Ltd. (‘‘Equipco’’) 

In accordance with Section 766.23 of 

the Regulations, OEE provided Equipco 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
22758 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 74 / Tuesday, April 17, 2012 / Notices 

with notice, via a notice letter sent on 

January 27, 2012, of its intent to seek an 

order adding Equipco as a related 

person to Mahan Airways and/or Ali 

Eslamian in order to prevent evasion of 

the TDO. Equipco opposed its addition 

to the TDO, via a letter dated February 

17, 2012. Equipco argues that it is not 

related to Mahan Airways within the 

meaning of Section 766.23, that Section 

766.23 does not permit its addition to 

the TDO based on the fact that it is 

related to Mr. Eslamian, and that BIS 

has not demonstrated that its addition is 

needed to prevent evasion of the Order. 

Equipco is owned and operated by 

Mr. Eslamian, and does not dispute that 

it is related to him. Equipco is 

represented by the same counsel as 

Skyco, as noted above, and makes 

essentially the same contentions as 

Skyco, except that it makes the 

additional argument that Section 766.23 

does not permit its addition to the TDO 

based on its relationship with Mr. 

Eslamian. 

I will not repeat in this section my 

discussion of the overlapping arguments 

made by Skyco and Equipco. As to 

Equipco’s additional argument, Equipco 

contends that under Section 766.23, BIS 

must have evidence that the ‘‘person is 

‘related to [the person or entity named 

in the existing TDO] by ownership, 

position of responsibility, affiliation or 

other connection in the conduct of trade 

or business * * * ’ ’’ Equipco Response 

Letter, at 1 (bracketed text supplied by 

Equipco). Equipco does not explain how 

or why this contention supports its 

position, and in actuality the contention 

supports the contrary conclusion, that 

is, that BIS is not prohibited or 

precluded from adding Skyco to the 

TDO based on its relationship with Mr. 

Eslamian, a denied person under the 

TDO, simply because he was initially 

added to the TDO as a related person. 

Equipco’s proposed interpretation 

would run counter to the purpose of 

Section 766.23, which is to prevent 

evasion of the TDO, whether by Mr. 

Eslamian or other persons or entities. 

That purpose would be undermined if 

parties to the TDO could effectively 

evade it by shifting their activities from 

one entity to another. 

Moreover, the record here 

demonstrates that there is a connection 

in the conduct of trade or business 

between Equipco and Mahan Airways. 

As detailed in the February 15, 2012 

TDO renewal order, Eslamian/Equipco 

engaged in negotiations with a Brazilian 

airline as recently as December 2011, in 

an attempt to acquire an aircraft engine 

and two Airbus A320 that are subject to 

the Regulations. In conversations with 

the Brazilian Airline, Eslamian stated 

that the items are being acquired on 

behalf of ‘‘a very dear customer of 

another company of ours, Skyco UK 

Ltd.’’ These negotiations continued after 

Eslamian’s addition to the TDO on 

August 24, 2011, and demonstrate his 

willingness to use his company Equipco 

to carry out activities for or on behalf of 

denied persons in violation of the 

Regulations and the TDO. Eslamian 

remains positioned to participate in or 

facilitate Mahan Airway’s unlawful 

acquisition and use of aircraft, aircraft 

engines and related aircraft services. 

As discussed in the August 24, 2011 

and February 12, 2012 Renewal Orders, 

Mr. Eslamian has a longstanding 

business relationship with Mahan 

Airways’ senior officers and was 

involved in Mahan Airways’ original 

conspiracy to acquire U.S.-origin 747s. 

He was originally approached by Mr. 

Arabnejad (Mahan Airways’ Managing 

Director) and Mr. Mahmoudi (a Mahan 

Airways’ shareholder and its Vice 

President for Business Development), 

who were seeking to establish a 

company in the United Kingdom for the 

purpose of making arrangements for 

them which Mahan Air was unable to 

do directly. Eslamian, along with 

Arabnejad and Mahmoudi, subsequently 

formed Skyco, where Eslamian has 

admitted to being a shareholder and 

managing director. Additionally, 

Eslamian inspected the 747s that Mahan 

was seeking to illegally acquire. At the 

request of Mahan Airways, he also 

attended the initial meetings between 

Mahan Airways and the Balli Group 

principals during which it was 

proposed that the Balli Group or Balli 

entities would act as a front for Mahan 

Airways in Mahan’s scheme to acquire 

U.S.-origin aircraft. Furthermore, during 

his June 2011 meeting with BIS Special 

Agents, which his counsel attended, Mr. 

Eslamian admitted his longstanding 

business relationship and connections 

to senior Mahan Airways officers and/ 

or directors, including Mr. Arabnejad 

and Mr. Mahmoudi. Eslamian was able 

to provide detailed insight into how 

Mahan Airways maintains and repairs 

its aircraft through the use of facilities 

in third countries. 

Given Mr. Eslamian’s role at Equipco, 

the indisputable evidence of his longrunning and extensive ties to Mahan 

Airways, and his demonstrated 

willingness to use Equipco (and other 

entities he owns, controls or manages in 

whole or part) as a vehicle to evade the 

Regulations and the TDO, I find without 

merit Equipco’s argument that it cannot 

be added to the TDO consistent with 

Section 766.23. 

Based on the above, I find that 

Equipco is connected to Mahan Airways 

in the conduct of trade or business and 

thus is a related person to Mahan 

Airways, and that Equipco is related to 

Ali Eslamian by ownership, control, and 

position of responsibility. I also find 

whether considering both its 

relationship to both Mahan Airways and 

Mr. Eslamian, or only it relationship 

with Mahan, that Equipco should be 

added to the TDO in order to prevent its 

evasion. 

In sum, under the applicable standard 

set forth in Section 766.23 of the 

Regulations and my review of the record 

here, I find that the evidence presented 

by OEE convincingly demonstrates that 

Mahan Air General Trading LLC, Skyco 

(UK) Ltd. and Equipco (UK) Ltd, are 

related to, as applicable, Mahan 

Airways, Zarand Aviation and/or Ali 

Eslamian, and that adding them to the 

TDO is necessary to prevent its evasion. 

IV. Order 

It is therefore ordered: 

First, that MAHAN AIRWAYS, Mahan 

Tower, No. 21, Azadegan St., M.A. 

Jenah Exp. Way, Tehran, Iran; ZARAND 

AVIATION, A/K/A GIE ZARAND 

AVIATION, 42 Avenue Montaigne, 

75008 Paris, France, and 112 Avenue 

Kleber, 75116 Paris, France; GATEWICK 

LLC, A/K/A GATEWICK FREIGHT & 

CARGO SERVICES, A/K/A GATEWICK 

AVIATION SERVICE, 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; PEJMAN 

MAHMOOD KOSARAYANIFARD A/K/ 

A KOSARIAN FARD, P.O. Box 52404, 

Dubai, United Arab Emirates; and 

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; MAHAN 

AIR GENERAL TRADING LLC, 19th 

Floor Al Moosa Tower One, Sheik 

Zayed Road, Dubai 40594, United Arab 

Emirates; SKYCO (UK) LTD., 4th Floor, 

33 Cavendish Square, London, W1G 

0PV, United Kingdom; and EQUIPCO 

(UK) LTD., 2 Bentinck Close, Prince 

Albert Road, London, NW8 7RY, United 

Kingdom 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 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 74 / Tuesday, April 17, 2012 / Notices 22759 

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. Benefiting 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 766.23(c) of the EAR, Zarand 

Aviation, at any time, may 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. 

A copy of this Order shall be sent to 

Mahan Air General Trading LLC, Skyco 

(UK) Ltd., and Equipco (UK) Ltd. and 

shall be published in the Federal 

Register. This Order is effective 

immediately and shall remain in effect 

until August 13, 2012, unless renewed 

in accordance with Section 766.24(d) of 

the Regulations. 

Dated: April 9, 2012. 

David W. Mills, 

Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Export 

Enforcement. 

[FR Doc. 2012–9154 Filed 4–16–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

Proposed Information Collection; 

Comment Request; Southeast Region 

Bottlenose Dolphin Conservation 

Outreach Survey 

AGENCY: National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: The Department of 

Commerce, as part of its continuing 

effort to reduce paperwork and 

respondent burden, invites the general 

public and other Federal agencies to 

take this opportunity to comment on 

proposed and/or continuing information 

collections, as required by the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

submitted on or before June 18, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: Direct all written comments 

to Jennifer Jessup, Departmental 

Paperwork Clearance Officer, 

Department of Commerce, Room 6616, 

14th and Constitution Avenue NW., 

Washington, DC 20230 (or via the 

Internet at JJessup@doc.gov). 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Requests for additional information or 

copies of the information collection 

instrument and instructions should be 

directed to Stacey Horstman, (727) 824– 

5312 or Stacey.Horstman@noaa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Abstract 

This request is for a revision of a 

current information collection. 

The objective of these surveys is to 

assess the level of awareness on issues 

related to regulations preventing 

feeding/harassment of wild bottlenose 

dolphins, which are protected under the 

Marine Mammal Protection Act. In 

particular, the surveys are designed to 

determine what commercial businesses 

and the general public know about 

specific regulations prohibiting feeding 

and harassment of bottlenose dolphins, 

and how they gained their knowledge 

and/or perceptions on the topic. The 

first survey was conducted in Panama 

City, Florida, where numerous 

incidences of dolphin harassment and 

feeding are continually documented. 

Revision: The intent is to use this 

survey in one to two other geographic 

areas of the southeast region that are 

also ‘‘hot-spots’’ for dolphin harassment 

and feeding activities to gain a similar 

understanding and ensure outreach 

messages are appropriate for intended 

audiences. 

National Marine Fisheries Service 

(NMFS) will request information from 

local residents, tourists, and commercial 

businesses through a one-time survey in 

the geographic location identified in the 

revision supporting statement. This 

information, upon receipt, will be used 

to develop effective and better-targeted 

outreach efforts in order to enhance 

bottlenose dolphin conservation in the 

southeast United States. 

II. Method of Collection 

Participants voluntarily complete 

paper questionnaires and methods of 

submittal include on-site, mail, and 

facsimile transmission of paper forms. 

III. Data 

OMB Control Number: 0648–0594. 

Form Number: None. 

Type of Review: Regular submission 

(revision of a current information 

collection). 

Affected Public: Individuals; business 

or other for-profits organizations. 

Estimated Number of Respondents: 

1,200. 

Estimated Time per Response: 20 

minutes. 

Estimated Total Annual Burden 

Hours: 400. 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES