3552 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 15 / Friday, January 23, 2015 / Notices 

1The Regulations, currently codified at 15 CFR 

parts 730–774 (2014), originally issued pursuant to 

the Export Administration Act of 1979, as amended 

(50 U.S.C. app. §§ 2401–2420 (2000)). Since August 

21, 2001, the Act has been in lapse and the 

President, through Executive Order 13222 of August 

17, 2001 (3 CFR, 2001 Comp. 783 (2002)), which 

has been extended by successive Presidential 

Notices, the most recent being that of August 7, 

2014 (79 FR 46,959 (Aug. 11, 2014)), has continued 

the Regulations in effect under the International 

Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701, 

et seq. (2006 & Supp. IV 2010)). 

2See note 5, infra. 

3The July 22, 2014 Order was published in the 

Federal Register on July 29, 2014. 79 FR 44002 (Jul. 

29, 2014). The TDO previously had been renewed 

on September 17, 2008, March 16, 2009, September 

11, 2009, March 9, 2010, September 3, 2010, 

February 25, 2011, August 24, 2011, February 15, 

2012, August 9, 2012, February 4, 2013, July 31, 

2013, and January 24, 2014. The August 24, 2011 

renewal followed the modification of the TDO on 

July 1, 2011, which added Zarand Aviation as a 

respondent. Each renewal or modification order 

was published in the Federal Register. 

4As of July 22, 2014, Zarand Aviation was no 

longer subject to the TDO. 

5The December 24, 2014 renewal request does 

not include Gatewick LLC. On August 13, 2014, BIS 

and Gatewick LLC resolved administrative charges 

against Gatewick, including a charge for acting 

contrary to the terms of a BIS denial order (15 CFR 

764.2(k)). In addition to the payment of a civil 

penalty, the settlement includes a seven-year denial 

order. The first two years of the denial period are 

active, with the remaining five years suspended on 

condition that Gatewick LLC pays the civil penalty 

in full and timely fashion and commits no further 

violation of the Regulations during the seven-year 

denial period. The Gatewick LLC Final Order was 

published in the Federal Register on August 20, 

2014. See 79 FR 49283 (Aug. 20, 2014). 

CFR 400.2(c)) as an option for the 

establishment or reorganization of 

zones; 

Whereas, the Cleveland Cuyahoga 

County Port Authority, grantee of 

Foreign-Trade Zone 40, submitted an 

application to the Board (FTZ Docket B– 

70–2014, docketed 10/1/2014) for 

authority to expand the service area of 

the zone to include Lake County, Ohio, 

as described in the application, adjacent 

to the Cleveland, Ohio Customs and 

Border Protection port of entry; 

Whereas, notice inviting public 

comment was given in the Federal 

Register (79 FR 61050, 10/9/2014) and 

the application has been processed 

pursuant to the FTZ Act and the Board’s 

regulations; and, 

Whereas, the Board adopts the 

findings and recommendations of the 

examiner’s report, and finds that the 

requirements of the FTZ Act and the 

Board’s regulations are satisfied; 

Now, therefore, the Board hereby 

orders: 

The application to reorganize FTZ 40 

to expand the service area under the 

ASF is approved, subject to the FTZ Act 

and the Board’s regulations, including 

Section 400.13, and to the Board’s 

standard 2,000-acre activation limit for 

the zone. 

Signed at Washington, DC, this 9th day of 

January 2015. 

Paul Piquado, 

Assistant Secretary of Commerce for 

Enforcement and Compliance, Alternate 

Chairman, Foreign-Trade Zones Board. 

ATTEST: 

Andrew McGilvray, 

Executive Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2015–01230 Filed 1–22–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

Bureau of Industry and Security 

Order Renewing Order Temporarily 

Denying Export Privileges 

Mahan Airways, Mahan Tower, No. 21, 

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

Tehran, Iran; 

Pejman Mahmood Kosarayanifard a/k/a 

Kosarian Fard, P.O. Box 52404, Dubai, 

United Arab Emirates; 

Mahmoud Amini, G#22 Dubai Airport Free 

Zone, P.O. Box 393754, Dubai, United Arab 

Emirates; and P.O. Box 52404, Dubai, 

United Arab Emirates; and Mohamed 

Abdulla Alqaz Building, Al Maktoum 

Street, Al Rigga, Dubai, United Arab 

Emirates; 

Kerman Aviation a/k/a GIE Kerman Aviation, 

42 Avenue Montaigne 75008, Paris, France; 

Sirjanco Trading LLC, P.O. Box 8709, Dubai, 

United Arab Emirates; 

Ali Eslamian, 4th Floor, 33 Cavendish 

Square, London, W1G0PW, United 

Kingdom; and 2 Bentinck Close, Prince 

Albert Road St. Johns Wood, London 

NW87RY, United Kingdom; 

Mahan Air General Trading LLC, 19th Floor 

Al Moosa Tower One, Sheik Zayed Road, 

Dubai 40594, United Arab Emirates; 

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

Square, London, W1G 0PV, United 

Kingdom; 

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

Albert Road, London, NW8 7RY, United 

Kingdom; 

Mehdi Bahrami, Mahan Airways—Istanbul 

Office, Cumhuriye Cad. Sibil Apt No: 101 

D:6, 34374 Emadad, Sisli Istanbul, Turkey. 

Pursuant to Section 766.24 of the 

Export Administration Regulations, 15 

CFR parts 730–774 (2014) (‘‘EAR’’ or the 

‘‘Regulations’’),1 I hereby grant the 

request of the Office of Export 

Enforcement (‘‘OEE’’) to renew the July 

22, 2014 Order Temporarily Denying the 

Export Privileges of Mahan Airways, 

Pejman Mahmood Kosarayanifard, 

Mahmoud Amini, Kerman Aviation, 

Sirjanco Trading LLC, Ali Eslamian, 

Mahan Air General Trading LLC, Skyco 

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

Mehdi Bahrami.2 I find that renewal of 

the Temporary Denial Order (‘‘TDO’’) is 

necessary in the public interest to 

prevent an imminent violation of the 

EAR. 

I. Procedural History 

On March 17, 2008, Darryl W. 

Jackson, the then-Assistant Secretary of 

Commerce for Export Enforcement 

(‘‘Assistant Secretary’’), signed a TDO 

denying Mahan Airways’ export 

privileges for a period of 180 days on 

the grounds that its issuance was 

necessary in the public interest to 

prevent an imminent violation of the 

Regulations. The TDO also named as 

denied persons Blue Airways, of 

Yerevan, Armenia (‘‘Blue Airways of 

Armenia’’), as well as the ‘‘Balli Group 

Respondents,’’ namely, Balli Group 

PLC, Balli Aviation, Balli Holdings, 

Vahid Alaghband, Hassan Alaghband, 

Blue Sky One Ltd., Blue Sky Two Ltd., 

Blue Sky Three Ltd., Blue Sky Four Ltd., 

Blue Sky Five Ltd., and Blue Sky Six 

Ltd., all of the United Kingdom. The 

TDO was issued ex parte pursuant to 

Section 766.24(a), and went into effect 

on March 21, 2008, the date it was 

published in the Federal Register. 

The TDO subsequently has been 

renewed in accordance with Section 

766.24(d), including most recently on 

July 22, 2014.3 As of March 9, 2010, the 

Balli Group Respondents and Blue 

Airways were no longer subject to the 

TDO. As part of the February 25, 2011 

TDO renewal, Gatewick LLC (a/k/a 

Gatewick Freight and Cargo Services, a/ 

k/a Gatewick Aviation Services), 

Mahmoud Amini, and Pejman 

Mahmood Kosarayanifard (‘‘Kosarian 

Fard’’) were added as related persons in 

accordance with Section 766.23 of the 

Regulations. On July 1, 2011, the TDO 

was modified by adding Zarand 

Aviation as a respondent in order to 

prevent an imminent violation.4 As part 

of the August 24, 2011 renewal, Kerman 

Aviation, Sirjanco Trading LLC, and Ali 

Eslamian were added to the TDO as 

related persons. Mahan Air General 

Trading LLC, Skyco (UK) Ltd., and 

Equipco (UK) Ltd. were added as related 

persons on April 9, 2012. Mehdi 

Bahrami was added to the TDO as a 

related person as part of the February 4, 

2013 renewal order. 

On December 24, 2014, BIS, through 

its Office of Export Enforcement 

(‘‘OEE’’), submitted a written request for 

renewal of the TDO.5 The written 

request was made more than 20 days 

before the scheduled expiration of the 

current TDO dated July 22, 2014. Notice 

of the renewal request also was 

provided to Mahan Airways in 

accordance with Sections 766.5 and 

766.24(d) of the Regulations. No 

opposition to the renewal of the TDO 

has been received from Mahan. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 15 / Friday, January 23, 2015 / Notices 3553 

6A 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). 

7Engaging in conduct prohibited by a denial 

order violates the Regulations. 15 CFR 764.2(a) and 

(k). 

8The 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. 

9See http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/

sanctions/OFAC-Enforcement/pages/

20120919.aspx. 

Furthermore, no appeal of the related 

person determinations I made as part of 

the September 3, 2010, February 25, 

2011, August 24, 2011, April 9, 2012, 

and February 4, 2013 renewal or 

modification orders has been made by 

Kosarian Fard, Mahmoud Amini, 

Kerman Aviation, Sirjanco Trading LLC, 

Ali Eslamian, Mahan Air General 

Trading LLC, Skyco (UK) Ltd., Equipco 

(UK) Ltd., or Mehdi Bahrami.6

II. Renewal of the TDO 

A. Legal Standard 

Pursuant to Section 766.24, BIS may 

issue or renew an order temporarily 

denying a respondent’s export privileges 

upon a showing that the order is 

necessary in the public interest to 

prevent an ‘‘imminent violation’’ of the 

Regulations. 15 CFR 766.24(b)(1) and 

776.24(d). ‘‘A violation may be 

‘imminent’ either in time or degree of 

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

may show ‘‘either that a violation is 

about to occur, or that the general 

circumstances of the matter under 

investigation or case under criminal or 

administrative charges demonstrate a 

likelihood of future violations.’’ Id. As 

to the likelihood of future violations, 

BIS may show that the violation under 

investigation or charge ‘‘is significant, 

deliberate, covert and/or likely to occur 

again, rather than technical or negligent 

[.]’’ Id. A ‘‘lack of information 

establishing the precise time a violation 

may occur does not preclude a finding 

that a violation is imminent, so long as 

there is sufficient reason to believe the 

likelihood of a violation.’’ Id. 

B. The TDO and BIS’s Request for 

Renewal 

OEE’s request for renewal is based 

upon the facts underlying the issuance 

of the initial TDO and the TDO renewals 

in this matter and the evidence 

developed over the course of this 

investigation indicating a blatant 

disregard of U.S. export controls and the 

TDO. The initial TDO was issued as a 

result of evidence that showed that 

Mahan Airways and other parties 

engaged in conduct prohibited by the 

EAR by knowingly re-exporting to Iran 

three U.S.-origin aircraft, specifically 

Boeing 747s (‘‘Aircraft 1–3’’), items 

subject to the EAR and classified under 

Export Control Classification Number 

(‘‘ECCN’’) 9A991.b, without the required 

U.S. Government authorization. Further 

evidence submitted by BIS indicated 

that Mahan Airways was involved in the 

attempted re-export of three additional 

U.S.-origin Boeing 747s (‘‘Aircraft 4–6’’) 

to Iran. 

As discussed in the September 17, 

2008 renewal order, evidence presented 

by BIS indicated that Aircraft 1–3 

continued to be flown on Mahan 

Airways’ routes after issuance of the 

TDO, in violation of the Regulations and 

the TDO itself.7 It also showed that 

Aircraft 1–3 had been flown in further 

violation of the Regulations and the 

TDO on the routes of Iran Air, an 

Iranian Government airline. Moreover, 

as discussed in the March 16, 2009, 

September 11, 2009 and March 9, 2010 

Renewal Orders, Mahan Airways 

registered Aircraft 1–3 in Iran, obtained 

Iranian tail numbers for them (EP–MNA, 

EP–MNB, and EP–MNE, respectively), 

and continued to operate at least two of 

them in violation of the Regulations and 

the TDO,8 while also committing an 

additional knowing and willful 

violation when it negotiated for and 

acquired an additional U.S.-origin 

aircraft. The additional acquired aircraft 

was an MD–82 aircraft, which 

subsequently was painted in Mahan 

Airways’ livery and flown on multiple 

Mahan Airways’ routes under tail 

number TC–TUA. 

The March 9, 2010 Renewal Order 

also noted that a court in the United 

Kingdom (‘‘U.K.’’) had found Mahan 

Airways in contempt of court on 

February 1, 2010, for failing to comply 

with that court’s December 21, 2009 and 

January 12, 2010 orders compelling 

Mahan Airways to remove the Boeing 

747s from Iran and ground them in the 

Netherlands. Mahan Airways and the 

Balli Group Respondents had been 

litigating before the U.K. court 

concerning ownership and control of 

Aircraft 1–3. In a letter to the U.K. court 

dated January 12, 2010, Mahan Airways’ 

Chairman indicated, inter alia, that 

Mahan Airways opposes U.S. 

Government actions against Iran, that it 

continued to operate the aircraft on its 

routes in and out of Tehran (and had 

158,000 ‘‘forward bookings’’ for these 

aircraft), and that it wished to continue 

to do so and would pay damages if 

required by that court, rather than 

ground the aircraft. 

The September 3, 2010 renewal order 

discussed the fact that Mahan Airways’ 

violations of the TDO extended beyond 

operating U.S.-origin aircraft and 

attempting to acquire additional U.S.- 

origin aircraft. In February 2009, while 

subject to the TDO, Mahan Airways 

participated in the export of computer 

motherboards, items subject to the 

Regulations and designated as EAR99, 

from the United States to Iran, via the 

United Arab Emirates (‘‘UAE’’), in 

violation of both the TDO and the 

Regulations, by transporting and/or 

forwarding the computer motherboards 

from the UAE to Iran. Mahan Airways’ 

violations were facilitated by Gatewick 

LLC, which not only participated in the 

transaction, but also has stated to BIS 

that it acts as Mahan Airways’ sole 

booking agent for cargo and freight 

forwarding services in the UAE. 

Moreover, in a January 24, 2011 filing 

in the U.K. court, Mahan Airways 

asserted that Aircraft 1–3 were not being 

used, but stated in pertinent part that 

the aircraft were being maintained in 

Iran especially ‘‘in an airworthy 

condition’’ and that, depending on the 

outcome of its U.K. court appeal, the 

aircraft ‘‘could immediately go back into 

service . . . on international routes into 

and out of Iran.’’ Mahan Airways’ 

January 24, 2011 submission to U.K. 

Court of Appeal, at p. 25, ¶¶ 108, 110. 

This clearly stated intent, both on its 

own and in conjunction with Mahan 

Airways’ prior misconduct and 

statements, demonstrated the need to 

renew the TDO in order to prevent 

imminent future violations. Two of 

these three 747s subsequently were 

removed from Iran and are no longer in 

Mahan Airways’ possession. The third 

of these 747s, with Manufacturer’s 

Serial Number (‘‘MSN’’) 23480 and 

Iranian tail number EP–MNE, remained 

in Iran under Mahan’s control. Pursuant 

to Executive Order 13324, it was 

designated a Specially Designated 

Global Terrorist (‘‘SDGT’’) by the U.S. 

Department of the Treasury’s Office of 

Foreign Assets Control (‘‘OFAC’’) on 

September 19, 2012.9 Furthermore, as 

discussed in the February 4, 2013 Order, 

open source information indicated that 

this 747, painted in the livery and logo 

of Mahan Airways, had been flown 

between Iran and Syria, and was 

suspected of ferrying weapons and/or 

other equipment to the Syrian 

Government from Iran’s Islamic 

Revolutionary Guard Corps. Open 

source information showed that this 

aircraft had flown from Iran to Syria as 

recently as June 30, 2013, and continues 

to show that it remains in active 

operation in Mahan Airways’ fleet. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
3554 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 15 / Friday, January 23, 2015 / Notices 

10The Airbus A310s are powered with U.S.-origin 

engines. The engines are subject to the EAR and 

classified under Export Control Classification 

(‘‘ECCN’’) 9A991.d. The Airbus A310s contain 

controlled U.S.-origin items valued at more than 10 

percent of the total value of the aircraft and as a 

result are subject to the EAR. They are classified 

under ECCN 9A991.b. The reexport of these aircraft 

to Iran requires U.S. Government authorization 

pursuant to Sections 742.8 and 746.7 of the 

Regulations. 

11OEE 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. 

12See note 10, supra. 

13See http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/

sanctions/OFAC-Enforcement/pages/

20120919.aspx. Mahan Airways was previously 

designated by OFAC as a SDGT on October 18, 

2011. 77 FR 64,427 (October 18, 2011). 

14 Kral Aviation was referenced in the February 

4, 2013 Order as ‘‘Turkish Company No. 1.’’ Kral 

Aviation purchased a GE CF6–50C2 aircraft engine 

(MSN 517621) from the United States in July 2012, 

on behalf of Mahan Airways. OEE was able to 

prevent this engine from reaching Mahan by issuing 

a redelivery order to the freight forwarder in 

accordance with Section 758.8 of the Regulations. 

OEE also issued Kral Aviation a redelivery order for 

the second CF6–50C2 engine (MSN 517738) on July 

30, 2012. The owner of the second engine 

subsequently cancelled the item’s sale to Kral 

Aviation. In September 2012, OEE was alerted by 

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. 

15Pioneer Logistics, Gulnihal Yegane, and Kosol 

Surinanda also were added to the Entity List on 

December 12, 2013. See 78 FR 75458 (Dec. 12, 

2013). 

16See 76 FR 50407 (Aug. 15, 2011). The July 22, 

2014 TDO renewal order also referenced two Airbus 

A320 aircraft painted in the livery and logo of 

Mahan Airways and operating under Iranian tail 

numbers EP–MMK and EP–MML, respectively. 

OEE’s investigation also showed that Mahan 

obtained these aircraft in November 2013, from 

Khors Air Company, another Ukrainian airline that, 

like Ukrainian Mediterranean Airlines, was added 

to BIS’s Entity List on August 15, 2011. Open 

source evidence indicates the two Airbus A320 

aircraft may be been transferred by Mahan Airways 

to another Iranian airline in October 2014, and 

issued Iranian tail numbers EP–APE and EP–APF, 

respectively. 

In addition, as first detailed in the 

July 1, 2011 and August 24, 2011 orders, 

and discussed in subsequent renewal 

orders in this matter, Mahan Airways 

also continued to evade U.S. export 

control laws by operating two Airbus 

A310 aircraft, bearing Mahan Airways’ 

livery and logo, on flights into and out 

of Iran.10 At the time of the July 1, 2011 

and August 24, 2011 Orders, these 

Airbus A310s were registered in France, 

with tail numbers F–OJHH and F–OJHI, 

respectively.11

The August 2012 renewal order also 

found that Mahan Airways had acquired 

another Airbus A310 aircraft subject to 

the Regulations,12 with MSN 499 and 

Iranian tail number EP–VIP, in violation 

of the TDO and the Regulations. On 

September 19, 2012, all three Airbus 

A310 aircraft (tail numbers F–OJHH, F– 

OJHI, and EP–VIP) were designated as 

SDGTs.13

The February 4, 2013 Order laid out 

further evidence of continued and 

additional efforts by Mahan Airways 

and other persons acting in concert with 

Mahan, including Kral Aviation and 

another Turkish company, to procure 

U.S.-origin engines (MSNs 517621 and 

517738) and other aircraft parts in 

violation of the TDO and the 

Regulations.14 The February 4, 2013 

renewal order also added Mehdi 

Bahrami as a related person in 

accordance with Section 766.23 of the 

Regulations. Bahrami, a Mahan VicePresident and the head of Mahan’s 

Istanbul Office, also was involved in 

Mahan’s acquisition of the original three 

Boeing 747s (Aircraft 1–3) that resulted 

in the original TDO, and has had a 

business relationship with Mahan 

dating back to 1997. 

The July 31, 2013 Order detailed 

additional evidence obtained by OEE 

showing efforts by Mahan Airways to 

obtain another GE CF6–50C2 aircraft 

engine (MSN 528350) from the United 

States via Turkey. Multiple Mahan 

employees, including Mehdi Bahrami, 

were involved in or aware of matters 

related to the engine’s arrival in Turkey 

from the United States, plans to visually 

inspect the engine, and prepare it for 

shipment from Turkey. 

Mahan sought to obtain this U.S.- 

origin engine through Pioneer Logistics 

Havacilik Turizm Yonetim Danismanlik 

(‘‘Pioneer Logistics’’), an aircraft parts 

supplier located in Turkey, and its 

director/operator, Gulnihal Yegane, a 

Turkish national who previously has 

conducted Mahan related business with 

Mehdi Bahrami and Ali Eslamian. 

Moreover, as referenced in the July 31, 

2013 Order, a sworn affidavit by Kosol 

Surinanda, also known as Kosol 

Surinandha, Managing Director of 

Mahan’s General Sales Agent in 

Thailand, stated that the shares of 

Pioneer Logistics for which he was the 

listed owner are ‘‘actually the property 

of and owned by Mahan.’’ He further 

stated that he held ‘‘legal title to the 

shares until otherwise required by 

Mahan’’ but would ‘‘exercise the rights 

granted to [him] exactly and only as 

instructed by Mahan and [his] vote and/ 

or decisions [would] only and 

exclusively reflect the wills and 

demands of Mahan[.]’’ 15

The January 24, 2014 Order outlined 

OEE’s continued investigation of Mahan 

Airways’ activities and detailed an 

attempt by Mahan, which OEE 

thwarted, to obtain, via an Indonesian 

aircraft parts supplier, two U.S.-origin 

Honeywell ALF–502R–5 aircraft engines 

(MSNs LF5660 and LF5325), items 

subject to the Regulations, from a U.S. 

company located in Texas. An invoice 

of the Indonesian aircraft parts supplier 

dated March 27, 2013, listed Mahan 

Airways as the purchaser of the engines 

and included a Mahan ship-to address. 

OEE also obtained a Mahan air waybill 

dated March 12, 2013, listing numerous 

U.S.-origin aircraft parts subject to the 

Regulations—including, among other 

items, a vertical navigation gyroscope, a 

transmitter, and a power control unit— 

being transported by Mahan from 

Turkey to Iran in violation of the TDO. 

The July 22, 2014 Order discusses 

open source evidence from the MarchJune 2014 time period regarding two 

BAE regional jets, items subject to the 

Regulations, that were painted in the 

livery and logo of Mahan Airways and 

operating under Iranian tail numbers 

EP–MOK and EP–MOI, respectively. In 

addition, aviation industry resources 

indicated that these aircraft were 

obtained by Mahan Airways in late 

November 2013 and June 2014, from 

Ukrainian Mediterranean Airline, a 

Ukrainian airline that was added to 

BIS’s Entity List (Supplement No. 4 to 

Part 744 of the Regulations) on August 

15, 2011, for acting contrary to the 

national security and foreign policy 

interests of the United States.16 OEE’s 

on-going investigation indicates that 

both BAE regional jets remain active in 

Mahan’s fleet, with open source 

information showing EP–MOI being 

used on flights into and out of Iran as 

recently as January 12, 2015. The 

continued operation of these aircraft by 

Mahan Airways violates the TDO. 

In addition to the continued operation 

of aircraft such as EP–MOI, OEE’s 

December 24, 2014 renewal request 

includes evidence of additional 

attempts by Mahan Airways to acquire 

items subject the Regulations in further 

violation of the TDO. In March 2014, 

OEE became aware of an inertial 

reference unit bearing serial number 

1231 (‘‘the IRU’’) that had been sent to 

the United States for repair. The IRU is 

subject to the Regulations, classified 

under ECCN 7A103, and controlled for 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 15 / Friday, January 23, 2015 / Notices 3555 

17See http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/

sanctions/OFAC-Enforcement/Pages/

20140829.aspx. See 79 FR 55073 (Sep. 15, 2014). 

OFAC also blocked the property and property 

interests of Pioneer Logistics of Turkey on August 

29, 2014. Id. Mahan Airways’ use of Pioneer 

Logistics in an effort to evade the TDO and the 

Regulations was discussed in a prior renewal order, 

as summarized, supra, at 10. BIS added both Asian 

Aviation Logistics and Pioneer Logistics to the 

Entity List on December 12, 2013. See 78 FR 75458 

(Dec. 12, 2013). 

missile technology reasons. Upon closer 

inspection, it was determined that IRU 

came from or had been installed on an 

Airbus A340 aircraft bearing MSN 056. 

Further investigation has revealed that 

as of approximately February 2014, this 

aircraft was registered under Iranian tail 

number EP–MMB and had been painted 

in the livery and logo of Mahan 

Airways. On August 14, 2014, the 

United States Attorney’s Office for the 

District of Maryland filed a civil 

forfeiture complaint for the IRU 

pursuant to 22 U.S.C. 401(b). The Court 

issued an Order of Forfeiture for the IRU 

on December 2, 2014. EP–MMB remains 

listed as active in Mahan Airways’ fleet. 

Finally on August 29, 2014, the U.S. 

Department of Treasury’s Office of 

Foreign Assets Control (‘‘OFAC’’) 

blocked the property and interests in 

property of Asian Aviation Logistics of 

Thailand, a Mahan Airways affiliate or 

front company, pursuant to Executive 

Order 13224. In doing so, OFAC 

described Mahan Airway’s use of Asian 

Aviation Logistics to evade sanctions by 

making payments on behalf of Mahan 

Air for the purchase of engines and 

other equipment.17

C. Findings 

Under the applicable standard set 

forth in Section 766.24 of the 

Regulations and my review of the entire 

record, I find that the evidence 

presented by BIS convincingly 

demonstrates that Mahan Airways has 

repeatedly violated the EAR and the 

TDO, that such knowing violations have 

been significant, deliberate and covert, 

and that there is a likelihood of future 

violations. OEE’s on-going investigation 

continues to reveal or discover 

additional attempts by Mahan to acquire 

items subject to the Regulations through 

its extensive network of agents and 

affiliates in third countries. Therefore, 

renewal of the TDO is necessary to 

prevent imminent violation of the EAR 

and to give notice to companies and 

individuals in the United States and 

abroad that they should continue to 

cease dealing with Mahan Airways and 

the other denied persons under the TDO 

in connection with export transactions 

involving items subject to the EAR. 

IV. Order 

It is therefore ordered: 

First, that MAHAN AIRWAYS, Mahan 

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

Jenah Exp. Way, Tehran, Iran; PEJMAN 

MAHMOOD KOSARAYANIFARD A/K/ 

A KOSARIAN FARD, P.O. Box 52404, 

Dubai, United Arab Emirates; 

MAHMOUD AMINI, G#22 Dubai 

Airport Free Zone, P.O. Box 393754, 

Dubai, United Arab Emirates, and P.O. 

Box 52404, Dubai, United Arab 

Emirates, and Mohamed Abdulla Alqaz 

Building, Al Maktoum Street, Al Rigga, 

Dubai, United Arab Emirates; KERMAN 

AVIATION A/K/A GIE KERMAN 

AVIATION, 42 Avenue Montaigne 

75008, Paris, France; SIRJANCO 

TRADING LLC, P.O. Box 8709, Dubai, 

United Arab Emirates; ALI ESLAMIAN, 

4th Floor, 33 Cavendish Square, London 

W1G0PW, United Kingdom, and 2 

Bentinck Close, Prince Albert Road St. 

Johns Wood, London NW87RY, United 

Kingdom; MAHAN AIR GENERAL 

TRADING LLC, 19th Floor Al Moosa 

Tower One, Sheik Zayed Road, Dubai 

40594, United Arab Emirates; SKYCO 

(UK) LTD., 4th Floor, 33 Cavendish 

Square, London, W1G 0PV, United 

Kingdom; EQUIPCO (UK) LTD., 2 

Bentinck Close, Prince Albert Road, 

London, NW8 7RY, United Kingdom; 

and MEHDI BAHRAMI, Mahan 

Airways-Istanbul Office, Cumhuriye 

Cad. Sibil Apt No: 101 D:6, 34374 

Emadad, Sisli Istanbul, Turkey; and 

when acting for or on their behalf, any 

successors or assigns, agents, or 

employees (each a ‘‘Denied Person’’ and 

collectively the ‘‘Denied Persons’’) may 

not, directly or indirectly, participate in 

any way in any transaction involving 

any commodity, software or technology 

(hereinafter collectively referred to as 

‘‘item’’) exported or to be exported from 

the United States that is subject to the 

Export Administration Regulations 

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

to the EAR including, but not limited to: 

A. Applying for, obtaining, or using 

any license, License Exception, or 

export control document; 

B. Carrying on negotiations 

concerning, or ordering, buying, 

receiving, using, selling, delivering, 

storing, disposing of, forwarding, 

transporting, financing, or otherwise 

servicing in any way, any transaction 

involving any item exported or to be 

exported from the United States that is 

subject to the EAR, or in any other 

activity subject to the EAR; or 

C. Benefitting in any way from any 

transaction involving any item exported 

or to be exported from the United States 

that is subject to the EAR, or in any 

other activity subject to the EAR. 

Second, that no person may, directly 

or indirectly, do any of the following: 

A. Export or reexport to or on behalf 

of a Denied Person any item subject to 

the EAR; 

B. Take any action that facilitates the 

acquisition or attempted acquisition by 

a Denied Person of the ownership, 

possession, or control of any item 

subject to the EAR that has been or will 

be exported from the United States, 

including financing or other support 

activities related to a transaction 

whereby a Denied Person acquires or 

attempts to acquire such ownership, 

possession or control; 

C. Take any action to acquire from or 

to facilitate the acquisition or attempted 

acquisition from a Denied Person of any 

item subject to the EAR that has been 

exported from the United States; 

D. Obtain from a Denied Person in the 

United States any item subject to the 

EAR with knowledge or reason to know 

that the item will be, or is intended to 

be, exported from the United States; or 

E. Engage in any transaction to service 

any item subject to the EAR that has 

been or will be exported from the 

United States and which is owned, 

possessed or controlled by a Denied 

Person, or service any item, of whatever 

origin, that is owned, possessed or 

controlled by a Denied Person if such 

service involves the use of any item 

subject to the EAR that has been or will 

be exported from the United States. For 

purposes of this paragraph, servicing 

means installation, maintenance, repair, 

modification or testing. 

Third, that, after notice and 

opportunity for comment as provided in 

section 766.23 of the EAR, any other 

person, firm, corporation, or business 

organization related to a Denied Person 

by affiliation, ownership, control, or 

position of responsibility in the conduct 

of trade or related services may also be 

made subject to the provisions of this 

Order. 

Fourth, that this Order does not 

prohibit any export, reexport, or other 

transaction subject to the EAR where the 

only items involved that are subject to 

the EAR are the foreign-produced direct 

product of U.S.-origin technology. 

In accordance with the provisions of 

Sections 766.24(e) of the EAR, Mahan 

Airways may, at any time, appeal this 

Order by filing a full written statement 

in support of the appeal with the Office 

of the Administrative Law Judge, U.S. 

Coast Guard ALJ Docketing Center, 40 

South Gay Street, Baltimore, Maryland 

21202–4022. In accordance with the 

provisions of Sections 766.23(c)(2) and 

766.24(e)(3) of the EAR, Mahmoud 

Amini, Pejman Mahmood 

Kosarayanifard, Kerman Aviation, 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
3556 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 15 / Friday, January 23, 2015 / Notices 

Sirjanco Trading LLC, Ali Eslamian, 

Mahan Air General Trading LLC, Skyco 

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

Mehdi Bahrami may, at any time, appeal 

their inclusion as a related person by 

filing a full written statement in support 

of the appeal with the Office of the 

Administrative Law Judge, U.S. Coast 

Guard ALJ Docketing Center, 40 South 

Gay Street, Baltimore, Maryland 21202– 

4022. 

In accordance with the provisions of 

Section 766.24(d) of the EAR, BIS may 

seek renewal of this Order by filing a 

written request not later than 20 days 

before the expiration date. A renewal 

request may be opposed by Mahan 

Airways as provided in Section 

766.24(d), by filing a written submission 

with the Assistant Secretary of 

Commerce for Export Enforcement, 

which must be received not later than 

seven days before the expiration date of 

the Order. 

A copy of this Order shall be provided 

to Mahan Airways and each related 

person, and shall be published in the 

Federal Register. This Order is effective 

immediately and shall remain in effect 

for 180 days. 

Dated: January 16, 2015. 

David W. Mills, 

Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Export 

Enforcement. 

[FR Doc. 2015–01215 Filed 1–22–15; 8:45 a.m.] 

BILLING CODE P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

Proposed Information Collection; 

Comment Request; International 

Dolphin Conservation Program 

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 March 24, 2015. 

ADDRESSES: Direct all written comments 

to Jennifer Jessup, Departmental 

Paperwork Clearance Officer, 

Department of Commerce, Room 6616, 

14th and Constitution Avenue NW., 

Washington, DC 20230 (or via the 

Internet at JJessup@doc.gov). 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Requests for additional information or 

copies of the information collection 

instrument and instructions should be 

directed to: Justin Greenman, (562) 980– 

3264 or justin.greenman@noaa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Abstract 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration (NOAA) collects 

information to implement the 

International Dolphin Conservation 

Program Act (Act). The Act allows entry 

of yellowfin tuna into the United States 

(U.S.), under specific conditions, from 

nations in the International Dolphin 

Conservation Program that would 

otherwise be under embargo. The Act 

also allows U.S. fishing vessels to 

participate in the yellowfin tuna fishery 

in the eastern tropical Pacific Ocean 

(ETP) on terms equivalent with the 

vessels of other nations. NOAA collects 

information to allow tracking and 

verification of ‘‘dolphin safe’’ and ‘‘nondolphin safe’’ tuna products from catch 

through the U.S. market. 

The regulations implementing the Act 

are at 50 CFR parts 216 and 300. The 

recordkeeping and reporting 

requirements at 50 CFR parts 216 and 

300 form the basis for this collection of 

information. This collection includes 

permit applications, notifications, tuna 

tracking forms, reports, and 

certifications that provide information 

on vessel characteristics and operations 

in the ETP, the origin of tuna and tuna 

products, and certain other information 

necessary to implement the Act. 

II. Method of Collection 

Paper applications, other paper 

records, electronic and facsimile 

reports, and telephone calls are required 

from participants. Methods of submittal 

include transmission of paper forms via 

regular mail and facsimile as well as 

electronic submission via email or an 

FTP site (password protected). 

III. Data 

OMB Number: 0648–0387. 

Form Number: None. 

Type of Review: Regular submission 

(extension of a current information 

collection). 

Affected Public: Business or other forprofit organizations; individuals or 

households. 

Estimated Number of Respondents: 

144. 

Estimated Time per Response: 35 

minutes for a vessel permit application; 

10 minutes for an operator permit 

application, a notification of vessel 

arrival or departure, a change in permit 

operator; a notification of a net 

modification or a monthly tuna storage 

removal report; 30 minutes for a request 

for a waiver to transit the ETP without 

a permit (and subsequent radio 

reporting) or for a special report 

documenting the origin of tuna (if 

requested by the NOAA Administrator); 

10 hours for an experimental fishing 

operation waiver; 15 minutes for a 

request for a Dolphin Mortality Limit; 

35 minutes for written notification to 

request active status for a small tuna 

purse seine vessel; 5 minutes for written 

notification to request inactive status for 

a small tuna purse seine vessel or for 

written notification of the intent to 

transfer a tuna purse seine vessel to 

foreign registry and flag; 60 minutes for 

a tuna tracking form or for a monthly 

tuna receiving report. 

Estimated Total Annual Burden 

Hours: 341. 

Estimated Total Annual Cost to 

Public: $1,250. 

IV. Request for Comments 

Comments are invited on: (a) Whether 

the proposed collection of information 

is necessary for the proper performance 

of the functions of the agency, including 

whether the information shall have 

practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the 

agency’s estimate of the burden 

(including hours and cost) of the 

proposed collection of information; (c) 

ways to enhance the quality, utility, and 

clarity of the information to be 

collected; and (d) ways to minimize the 

burden of the collection of information 

on respondents, including through the 

use of automated collection techniques 

or other forms of information 

technology. 

Comments submitted in response to 

this notice will be summarized and/or 

included in the request for OMB 

approval of this information collection; 

they also will become a matter of public 

record. 

Dated: January 16, 2015. 

Glenna Mickelson, 

Management Analyst, Office of the Chief 

Information Officer. 

[FR Doc. 2015–01060 Filed 1–22–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES