Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 220 / Tuesday, November 15, 2011 / Notices 70805 

• Estimated Number of Respondents: 

3,500 annually. 

• Estimated Number of Responses: 

3,500. 

• Average Hours per Response: 

1 hour (60 minutes). 

• Total Estimated Burden: 3,500 

annual hours. 

• Frequency: On occasion. 

• Obligation to Respond: Required to 

obtain or retain a benefit. 

DATES: Submit comments to the Office 

of Management and Budget (OMB) for 

up to 30 days from November 15, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: Direct comments to the 

Department of State Desk Officer in the 

Office of Information and Regulatory 

Affairs at the Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB). You may submit 

comments by the following methods: 

• Email: 

oira_submission@omb.eop.gov. You 

must include the DS form number, 

information collection title, and OMB 

control number in the subject line of 

your message. 

• Fax: (202) 395–5806. Attention: 

Desk Officer for Department of State. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: You 

may obtain copies of the proposed 

information collection and supporting 

documents from Sumitra Siram, Office 

of Admissions, Bureau of Population, 

Refugees and Migration (PRM), PRM/ 

Admissions, 2401 E Street NW., Suite 

L505, SA–1 Washington, DC 20522, who 

may be reached on (202) 453–9250 or at 

SiramS@state.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: We are 

soliciting public comments to permit 

the Department to: 

• Evaluate whether the proposed 

information collection is necessary to 

properly perform our functions. 

• Evaluate the accuracy of our 

estimate of the burden of the proposed 

collection, including the validity of the 

methodology and assumptions used. 

• Enhance the quality, utility, and 

clarity of the information to be 

collected. 

• Minimize the reporting burden on 

those who are to respond, 

Abstract of Proposed Collection 

The Affidavit of Relationship (AOR) is 

required by the Department of State to 

establish qualifications for access to the 

Priority 3—Family Reunification 

category of the United States Refugee 

Admissions Program (USRAP)—by 

persons of certain nationalities of 

special humanitarian concern who are 

family members of qualifying ‘‘anchors’’ 

(persons already admitted to the U.S. as 

refugees or granted asylum, including 

persons who may now be lawful 

permanent residents or U.S. citizens). 

Qualifying family members of U.S.- 

based anchors include spouses, 

unmarried children under age 21, and 

parents. Eligible nationalities are 

selected following careful review of 

several factors, including the United 

Nations High Commissioner for 

Refugees’ annual assessment of refugees 

in need of resettlement, prospective or 

ongoing repatriation efforts, and U.S. 

foreign policy interests. The Priority 3 

category is outlined in the annual 

Proposed Refugee Admissions—Report 

to Congress, which is submitted on 

behalf of the President in fulfillment of 

the requirements of Section 207(e)(1)– 

(7) of the Immigration and Nationality 

Act, and authorized by the annual 

Presidential Determination for Refugee 

Admissions. 

Methodology 

Information for the Affidavit of 

Relationship (AOR) is collected in 

person by Voluntary Agencies around 

the United States, which are 

organizations that work under 

cooperative agreements with the 

Department of State, to provide a means 

for current or former refugees and 

asylees to claim a relationship with 

certain family members that would 

qualify those family members to apply 

for access to refugee processing under 

the Priority 3 category of the U.S. 

Refugee Admissions Program. The 

Voluntary Agencies then forward the 

completed AORs to the Department of 

State’s Refugee Processing Center (RPC) 

for data entry and case processing. 

Dated: November 8, 2011. 

Kelly A. Gauger, 

Deputy Director, Office of Admissions, Bureau 

of Population, Refugees, and Migration, 

Department of State. 

[FR Doc. 2011–29472 Filed 11–14–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4710–33–P 

DEPARTMENT OF STATE 

[Public Notice 7686] 

Culturally Significant Objects Imported 

for Exhibition Determinations: ‘‘The 

Renaissance Portrait From Donatello 

to Bellini’’ 

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given of the 

following determinations: Pursuant to 

the authority vested in me by the Act of 

October 19, 1965 (79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 

2459), Executive Order 12047 of March 

27, 1978, the Foreign Affairs Reform and 

Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 Stat. 

2681, et seq.; 22 U.S.C. 6501 note, et 

seq.), Delegation of Authority No. 234 of 

October 1, 1999, and Delegation of 

Authority No. 236–3 of August 28, 2000, 

I hereby determine that the objects to be 

included in the exhibition ‘‘The 

Renaissance Portrait from Donatello to 

Bellini,’’ imported from abroad for 

temporary exhibition within the United 

States, are of cultural significance. The 

objects are imported pursuant to loan 

agreements with the foreign owners or 

custodians. I also determine that the 

exhibition or display of the exhibit 

objects at the Metropolitan Museum of 

Art, New York, New York, from on or 

about December 19, 2011, until on or 

about March 18, 2012, and at possible 

additional exhibitions or venues yet to 

be determined, is in the national 

interest. I have ordered that Public 

Notice of these Determinations be 

published in the Federal Register. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

further information, including a list of 

the exhibit objects, contact Paul W. 

Manning, Attorney-Adviser, Office of 

the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of 

State (telephone: (202) 632–6469). The 

mailing address is U.S. Department of 

State, SA–5, L/PD, Fifth Floor (Suite 

5H03), Washington, DC 20522–0505. 

Dated: November 8, 2011. 

J. Adam Ereli, 

Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary, Bureau 

of Educational and Cultural Affairs, 

Department of State. 

[FR Doc. 2011–29473 Filed 11–14–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4710–05–P 

DEPARTMENT OF STATE 

[Public Notice 7685] 

Bureau of Political-Military Affairs; 

Statutory Debarment Under the Arms 

Export Control Act and the 

International Traffic in Arms 

Regulations 

ACTION: Notice; Notice of Correction. 

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 attempting 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, November 2, 1993, 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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

70806 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 220 / Tuesday, November 15, 2011 / Notices 

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) Heriberto Alanis-Ortiz; September 

11, 2010; U.S. District Court, Southern 

District of Texas; Case No. 

7:10CR00178–S1–001; January 1978. 

(2) Amen Ahmed Ali, (aka Ali Amen 

Alrowhani, Amin Al Rohany, Ameen 

Alrohany); January 18, 2011; U.S. 

District Court, Eastern District of 

California; Case No. 1:06CR00292–001; 

June 1950. 

(3) Rogelio Barajas; February 15, 2011; 

U.S. District Court, Northern District of 

Illinois; Case No. 09–CR–1058; August 

1967. 

(4) Brian William Barthrop; December 

22, 2010; U.S. District Court, District of 

Arizona; Case No. CR–09–00731–001– 

TUC–RRC (CRP); October 1946. 

(5) Jesse Ivan Cantu; March 15, 2011; 

U.S. District Court, Southern District of 

Texas; Case No. 1:10CR01201–002; 

December 1986. 

(6) Charles Carper; October 20, 2010; 

U.S. District Court, District of Hawaii; 

Case No. 1:08CR00655–002; May 1986. 

(7) Isaac Cervantes-Sanchez; February 

24, 2011; U.S. District Court, Southern 

District of Texas; Case No. 

7:10CR01331–S1–001; March 1981. 

(8) Chitron Electronics, Inc.; February 

9, 2011; U.S. District Court, District of 

Massachusetts; Case No. 1:08–CR– 

10386–004–PBS . 

(9) Lawrence Davis (aka Larry Davis); 

April 23, 2009; U.S. District Court, 

Southern District of New York; Case No. 

1:07–CR–1023–01(LAK); July 1945. 

(10) Gwendolyn Douglas (aka Gwen 

Douglas); April 14, 2009; U.S. District 

Court, Southern District of New York; 

Case No. 07CR–1006; March 1955. 

(11) Cesar Augusto Flores-Demara; 

February 14, 2011; U.S. District Court, 

District of Arizona; Case No. CR–10– 

01581–001–TUC–DCB(CRP); February 

1974. 

(12) Ernesto Gonzalez-Reyes; October 

4, 2010; U.S. District Court, Southern 

District of Texas; Case No. 

7:10CR00440–001; August 1961. 

(13) Mythili Gopal; August 18, 2008; 

U.S. District Court, District of the 

District of Columbia; Case No. CR 07– 

0292–01; June 1970. 

(14) Noshir S. Gowadia; February 4, 

2011; U.S. District Court, District of 

Hawaii; Case No. 1:05CR00486–001; 

April 1944. 

(15) Raul Gutierrez-Marroquin; 

February 17, 2011; U.S. District Court, 

Southern District of Texas; Case No. 

1:10CR01201–001; May 1988. 

(16) Fidel Jesus Hernandez; November 

23, 2010; U.S. District Court, District of 

Arizona; Case No. CR–07–02111–002– 

TUC–DCB(CRP); February 1973. 

(17) Boniface Ibe; July 12, 2011; U.S. 

District Court, District of Maryland; 

Case No. DKC–8–11–CR–00097–001; 

June 1961. 

(18) Gong Kim; January 25, 2011; U.S. 

District Court, District of Oregon; Case 

No. CR–10–25–01–HA; August 1971. 

(19) Mark Komoroski; July 29, 2010; 

U.S. District Court, Middle District of 

Pennsylvania; Case No. 3:CR08–228; 

July 1962. 

(20) Chi Tong Kuok, (aka Edison 

Kuok, Eddy Kuok, James Kuok, Yoko 

Chong, Yoko Kawasaki); September 16, 

2010; U.S. District Court, Southern 

District of California; Case No. 

09CR2581–BEN; March 1967. 

(21) Jose Lara; January 27, 2011; U.S. 

District Court, Southern District of 

Texas; Case No. 1:10CR00698–001; 

October 1983. 

(22) Gregorio Larios, Jr.; March 17, 

2011; U.S. District Court, Southern 

District of Texas; Case No. 

1:10CR00742–001; November 1980. 

(23) Sergio Rafael Lopez-Medina; 

March 15, 2011; U.S. District Court, 

Southern District of Texas; Case No. 

1:10CR00699–002; August 1990. 

(24) Xiaodong Sheldon Meng; June 24, 

2008; U.S. District Court, Northern 

District of California; Case No. CR–04– 

20216–001–JF; January 1964. 

(25) Chanoch Miller; January 7, 2011; 

U.S. District Court, Southern District of 

Florida; Case No. 0:10CR60177–COHN– 

2; December 1956. 

(26) Jose Jesus Miramontes-Duarte; 

April 23, 2011; U.S. District Court, 

Southern District of Texas; Case No. 

7:09CR00339–002; May 1951. 

(27) Abraham Molina-Barron; May 13, 

2011; U.S. District Court, District of 

Arizona; Case No. CR–10–02778–001– 

TUC–CKJ(HCE); December 1972. 

(28) Jacques Monsieur; October 1, 

2010; U.S. District Court, Southern 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 220 / Tuesday, November 15, 2011 / Notices 70807 

District of Alabama; Case No. 09– 

00186–001–WS; March 1953. 

(29) George Frank Myles Jr. (aka 

George Miles); November 10, 2008; U.S. 

District Court, Southern District of 

Florida; Case No. 07–20930–CR– 

UNGARO; September 1948. 

(30) Emenike Charles Nwankwoala; 

January 6, 2011; U.S. District Court, 

District of Maryland; Case No. PJM–8– 

10–CR–00179–001; October 1960. 

(31) Andrew V. O’Donnell; August 1, 

2011; U.S. District Court, Northern 

District of Georgia; Case No. 1:10–CR– 

491–CAP; July 1997. 

(32) Joseph O’Toole; December 14, 

2010; U.S. District Court, Southern 

District of Florida; Case No. 

0:10CR60177–COHN–1; May 1931. 

(33) Sergio Perez-Contreras; August 2, 

2011; U.S. District Court, Southern 

District of Texas; Case No. 

7:09CR00339–001; March 1938 

(34) Julio Cesar Ramirez; June 30, 

2011; U.S. District Court, Southern 

District of Texas; Case No. 

7:11CR00288–001; July 1989. 

(35) Julio Salazar-Galan; October 22, 

2010; U.S. District Court, Southern 

District of Texas; Case No. 

1:10CR00400–001; July 1990. 

(36) Juan Sauceda-Rangel; May 23, 

2011; U.S. District Court, Southern 

District of Texas; Case No. 

7:10CR01794–001; May 1981. 

(37) Christian Sepulveda-Ortiz; 

December 17, 2010; U.S. District Court, 

District of Arizona; Case No. CR–10– 

02111–001–TUC–CKJ(DTF); June 1983. 

(38) Parthasarathy Sudarshan; June 

17, 2008; U.S. District Court, District of 

the District of Columbia; Case No. CR 

08–0037; June 1960. 

(39) Paul Taylor; March 18, 2011; U.S. 

District Court, District of Delaware; Case 

No. 09CR121–LPS; August 1966. 

(40) Alain Teran; January 13, 2011; 

U.S. District Court, Southern District of 

Texas; Case No. 1:10CR00699–001; June 

1986. 

(41) Eduardo Torres; November 4, 

2010; U.S. District Court, Southern 

District of Texas; Case No. 

1:10CR00330–001; August 1980. 

(42) Andrei Antonio Torres-Vasquez; 

November 15, 2010; U.S. District Court, 

Southern District of Texas; Case No. 

7:10CR01111–001; December 1985. 

(43) Stephanie Monique Townsend; 

August 24, 2010; U.S. District Court, 

Southern District of California; Case No. 

09CR4271–MMA; January 1989. 

(44) Rolando Trevino; June 10, 2011; 

U.S. District Court, Southern District of 

Texas; Case No. 7:10CR01793–001; 

August 1987. 

(45) Universal Industries Limited, 

Inc.; August 22, 2011; U.S. District 

Court, Southern District of Florida; Case 

No. 9:11–80058–CR–MARRA–2. 

(46) Yufeng Wei (aka Annie Wei); 

February 4, 2011; U.S. District Court, 

District of Massachusetts; Case No. 

1:08–CR–10386–002–PBS; April 1964. 

(47) Zhen Zhou Wu (aka Alex Wu); 

January 27, 2011; U.S. District Court, 

District of Massachusetts; Case No. 

1:08–CR–10386–001–PBS; March 1964. 

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(c) 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 export in 

which such ineligible person may 

benefit there from or have a direct or 

indirect interest therein. 

Further, Federal Register document 

93–26888, published at 58 FR 58586, 

Tuesday, November 2, 1993, is corrected 

on page 58586, line 50 through line 57 

to read as follows: 

1. Tsutomu Iida, 333 8th Maloka-Cho 

Totsuka-Ku, Kokohama, Japan, 18 U.S.C. 371 

(conspiracy to violate 22 U.S.C. 2778), 

December 17, 1992, United States v. Japan 

Aviation Electronics Industry, Ltd., et al., 

U.S. District Court, District of Columbia, 

Criminal Docket No. 91–516–10. 

That notice of statutory debarment 

incorrectly identified the debarred party 

as ‘‘Tsotomu Ida.’’ 

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: November 8, 2011. 

Andrew J. Shapiro, 

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

[FR Doc. 2011–29470 Filed 11–14–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4710–25–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Notice of Passenger Facility Charge 

(PFC) Approvals and Disapprovals 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Monthly notice of PFC 

approvals and disapprovals. In October 

2011, there were six applications 

approved. This notice also includes 

information on one application, 

approved in September 2011, 

inadvertently left off the September 

2011 notice. Additionally, 14 approved 

amendments to previously approved 

applications are listed. 

SUMMARY: The FAA publishes a monthly 

notice, as appropriate, of PFC approvals 

and disapprovals under the provisions 

of the Aviation Safety and Capacity 

Expansion Act of 1990 (Title IX of the 

Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 

1990) (Pub. L. 101–508) and Part 158 of 

the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 

CFR part 158). This notice is published 

pursuant to paragraph d of § 158.29. 

PFC Applications Approved 

Public Agency: City of Orlando, 

Florida. 

Application Number: 11–14–C–00– 

MCO. 

Application Type: Impose and use a 

PFC. 

PFC Level: $3.00. 

Total PFC Revenue Approved In This 

Decision: $26,952,400. 

Earliest Charge Effective Date: 

February 1, 2026. 

Estimated Charge Expiration Date: 

June 1, 2026. 

Class of Air Carriers Not Required To 

Collect PFC’s: None. 

Brief Description of Projects Approved 

For Collection and Use: 

Emergency electrical system 

improvements: Landside phase 2 and 

airside terminal 4 phase 1 (design and 

construction). 

Enplane road structural 

improvements (design and 

construction). 

Landside signage improvements 

(design and construction). 

Taxiway B–2 extension and taxiway 

B–1 rehabilitation (design and 

construction). 

Elevator and escalator safety code 

compliance improvements (design and 

construction). 

Runway 18U36R structural joint 

rehabilitation. 

Closed circuit television 

improvements (design and 

construction). 

Brief Description of Projects Partially 

Approved For Collection and Use: 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES