Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 141 / Friday, July 23, 2010 / Notices 43225 

13 17 CFR 200.30–3(a)(12). 

For the Commission, by the Division of 

Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated 

authority.13

Florence E. Harmon, 

Deputy Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2010–18034 Filed 7–22–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8010–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF STATE 

[Public Notice 7090] 

Culturally Significant Objects Imported 

for Exhibition Determinations: ‘‘Man, 

Myth, and Sensual Pleasures: Jan 

Gossart’s Renaissance’’ 

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 ‘‘Man, Myth, 

and Sensual Pleasures: Jan Gossart’s 

Renaissance,’’ 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, NY, from on or about 

October 5, 2010, until on or about 

January 17, 2011, and at possible 

additional exhibitions or venues yet to 

be determined, is in the national 

interest. Public Notice of these 

Determinations is ordered to be 

published in the Federal Register. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

further information, including a list of 

the exhibit objects, contact Carol B. 

Epstein, Attorney-Adviser, Office of the 

Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State 

(telephone: 202/632–6473). The address 

is U.S. Department of State, SA–5, L/PD, 

Fifth Floor, Washington, DC 20522– 

0505. 

Dated: July 15, 2010. 

Ann Stock, 

Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Educational 

and Cultural Affairs, Department of State. 

[FR Doc. 2010–18117 Filed 7–22–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4710–05–P 

DEPARTMENT OF STATE 

[Public Notice 7091] 

Culturally Significant Objects Imported 

for Exhibition Determinations: ‘‘The 

Holocaust—Uniforms, Canisters, and 

Shoes’’ 

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 

Holocaust—Uniforms, Canisters, and 

Shoes,’’ imported from abroad for 

temporary exhibition within the United 

States, are of cultural significance. The 

objects are imported pursuant to a loan 

agreement with the foreign owner or 

custodian. I also determine that the 

exhibition or display of the exhibit 

objects as part of the permanent exhibit 

at the U.S. Holocaust Memorial 

Museum, Washington, DC, from on or 

about September 2010 until on or about 

September 2015, and at possible 

additional exhibitions or venues yet to 

be determined, is in the national 

interest. Public Notice of these 

Determinations is ordered to be 

published in the Federal Register. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

further information, including a list of 

the exhibit objects, contact Carol B. 

Epstein, Attorney-Adviser, Office of the 

Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State 

(telephone: 202/632–6473). The address 

is U.S. Department of State, SA–5, L/PD, 

Fifth Floor, Washington, DC 20522– 

0505. 

Dated: July 15, 2010. 

Ann Stock, 

Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Educational 

and Cultural Affairs, Department of State. 

[FR Doc. 2010–18115 Filed 7–22–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4710–05–P 

DEPARTMENT OF STATE 

[Public Notice 7094] 

Finding of No Significant Impact: San 

Diego-Tijuana Airport Cross Border 

Facility 

SUMMARY: The Department of State 

announces a finding of no significant 

impact on the environment for the San 

Diego-Tijuana Airport Cross Border 

Facility international pedestrian bridge 

project sponsored by Otay-Tijuana 

Venture, L.L.C. An environmental 

impact statement will not be prepared. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Stewart Tuttle, U.S.-Mexico Border 

Affairs Coordinator, via e-mail at WHA– 

BorderAffairs@state.gov; by phone at 

202–647–6356; or by mail at Office of 

Mexican Affairs—Room 3909, 

Department of State, 2201 C St. NW., 

Washington, DC 20520. Information 

about Presidential permits is available 

on the Internet at http://www.state.gov/ 

p/wha/rt/permit/. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

following is the text of the Finding of 

No Significant Impact: 

Introduction 

Under Executive Order 11423, as 

amended, the Secretary of State is 

authorized to issue Presidential permits 

for the construction, connection, 

operation, and maintenance of facilities, 

including international bridges, at the 

borders of the United States if she finds 

them to be in the national interest. In 

2009, Otay-Tijuana Venture, LLC 

(sponsor) applied for a Presidential 

permit to construct, operate, and 

maintain the Cross Border Facility (CBF) 

project, an international pedestrian 

bridge across the United States-Mexico 

border linking a passenger facility in the 

Otay Mesa section of San Diego, 

California, with a commercial passenger 

airport terminal in Tijuana, Baja 

California, Mexico. The Department has 

determined that construction of the 

proposed bridge requires a Presidential 

permit under Executive Order 11423, as 

amended, because the proposed bridge 

would pierce the United States-Mexico 

border. 

The sponsor submitted in support of 

its application a draft environmental 

assessment (EA) that Helix 

Environmental Planning, Inc. prepared 

under the guidance and supervision of 

the U.S. Department of State 

(Department), consistent with the 

National Environment Policy Act 

(NEPA). The Department circulated the 

application and draft EA to the relevant 

federal, state, and local agencies for 

their review and received comments 

from some of those agencies. The 

sponsor responded to all the comments 

that agencies submitted by expanding 

and revising the draft EA. The 

Department also provided public notice 

of the draft EA in the Federal Register, 

74 FR 68906 (December 29, 2009), and 

invited public comment for 45 days. In 

response to that public notice, the 

Department received only one 

anonymous, non-substantive comment. 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with NOTICES

43226 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 141 / Friday, July 23, 2010 / Notices 

The discussion below and the 

Department’s finding of no significant 

impact (FONSI) are based upon the draft 

and final EA that Helix prepared, as 

supplemented by correspondence 

containing federal, state, and local 

agencies’ comments and the sponsor’s 

responses to those comments. 

Need and Purpose 

The San Diego/Tijuana region is the 

largest urban area along the U.S.— 

Mexico border, with a combined 

population of over four million people 

that is anticipated to grow to over five 

million by the year 2020. The U.S. and 

Mexican communities are closely linked 

and many people cross the border as 

part of their daily routine. Growth in 

cross-border trade and travel, combined 

with increased U.S. security 

requirements, has resulted in 

infrastructure-related challenges. As 

nearly constant congestion at the border 

indicates, existing infrastructure was 

not designed to handle current traffic 

volumes. The existing border crossings 

have become a bottleneck in the system 

of interchange between the two 

countries, restricting the movement of 

people and goods. 

Tijuana Airport is one of four airports 

serving interior Mexico from the 

southern California region. Many 

travelers between Mexico and southern 

California prefer the Tijuana Airport to 

the alternatives because it offers more 

frequent and direct flights to a wider 

range of destinations in Mexico as well 

as less expensive tickets. To reach the 

Tijuana Airport from the United States, 

passengers must cross the international 

border in a bus or private vehicle or on 

foot then taking a taxi, shuttle or bus to 

reach the airport. 

The San Diego-Tijuana CBF would 

provide U.S. originating or destined 

airline passengers using the Tijuana 

Airport the ability to access the airport 

without having to cross the U.S.— 

Mexico border via the congested San 

Ysidro, Otay Mesa, and future Otay 

Mesa East ports of entry (POE). This 

would provide airline passengers a 

quicker, more secure, and more reliable 

border crossing, freeing up capacity at 

the POEs, thus reducing the regional 

and national economic losses associated 

with border congestion. 

The sponsor’s proposed international 

pedestrian bridge would: 

• Provide a more convenient, costeffective, reliable, and secure crossing of 

the U.S.—Mexico border to access 

flights originating from and destined for 

the Tijuana Airport; 

• Facilitate cross-border movement of 

ticketed air travelers using Tijuana 

Airport to minimize economic losses to 

the San Diego-Tijuana region caused by 

long and unpredictable border waits and 

congestion; and 

• Develop facilities that would 

maintain and not compromise the 

security and integrity of the existing 

border. 

Proposed Action 

The sponsor proposes to build the 

CBF (including an above-grade 

pedestrian bridge), on- and off-site site 

roadway improvements, and parking 

areas. The CBF would consist of the 

phased construction of an 

approximately 75,000 square foot 

building on the southwestern nine acres 

of the site, along with a parking lot/ 

garage on an adjacent 10.2-acre portion 

of the site. At build-out, the CBF would 

be designed to serve up to 

approximately 17,225 average daily 

passengers (or 1,200 peak-hour airline 

passengers travelling north from Mexico 

into the United States). The CBF would 

accommodate U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection facilities, retail facilities, 

administrative and security offices, and 

mechanical and electrical space. 

The elevated, enclosed, secure, 

pedestrian bridge between the CBF and 

the entrance to the Tijuana Airport 

would be approximately 525 feet long 

and 33 feet wide. It would be divided 

into two corridors that would prevent 

contact between northbound and 

southbound pedestrians. Gates at the 

border would allow closure of the 

bridge during emergencies. The U.S. 

portion of the bridge would be 250 feet 

long and supported by pylons on both 

sides of the border. The base of the 

bridge would be a minimum of 19 feet 

above finished grade and provide for a 

minimum seven-foot clearance above 

the existing border fence. This height 

would accommodate required fire 

access and enable Border Patrol vehicles 

and future trucks along the truck route 

planned along the south boundary of the 

site to pass underneath the bridge 

structure. 

A 5.4-acre area east of the proposed 

CBF would initially be used for surface 

parking on an interim basis. This parcel 

is identified as a potential site for crossborder cargo operations. The timing, 

design, and operational details of a 

cargo facility have not been determined 

at this time, and, if implemented, would 

require an amended Presidential Permit 

and additional NEPA review. The 

project would be constructed in phases 

over time and as demand increases. 

The No Action Alternative 

Under the No Action Alternative, the 

CBF and related facilities would not be 

constructed. Air travelers would 

continue to use the San Ysidro, Otay 

Mesa, and the future Otay Mesa East 

POEs to reach Tijuana Airport from the 

United States. Air travelers and other 

border crossers would experience 

increasing travel delays at the POEs as 

population, economic growth, and 

security inspections expand. Worsening 

traffic congestion along the border 

would lead to increased air pollutant 

emissions due to vehicles idling in 

queues at the POEs. The CBF project site 

would continue to be zoned for 

industrial development. This alternative 

would not meet the purpose and need 

of the proposed project (as identified 

above) as it would not provide a more 

convenient and reliable timeframe for 

crossing the border to access flights, 

would not facilitate cross-border 

movement of the 17,225 ticketed air 

travelers that would use the CBF daily 

to access the airport and would lead to 

increased congestion. 

Affected Environment 

The project is proposed on a 

privately-owned, 24.6-acre graded, level 

site located immediately adjacent to the 

U.S.-Mexico border in San Diego 

County, California. The property is 

under the local jurisdiction of the City 

of San Diego and situated in the 

community of Otay Mesa, 

approximately three miles east of the 

San Ysidro POE and two miles west of 

the Otay Mesa POE. The Tijuana Airport 

passenger terminal lies in Mexico, 

approximately 500 feet south of the 

project site. In 2007–08, the project site 

was subdivided and graded for 

industrial park use under prior 

approvals from the City of San Diego. 

Approximately two acres of public 

right-of-way were dedicated on site, 

including travel lanes, sidewalks, curbs 

and gutters, street-side landscaping and 

cul-de-sacs. Other site improvements 

installed as part of the previous project 

consist of utility lines, including storm 

drain, electrical connections, water and 

sewer lines, and various interim 

erosion-control measures, such as 

sedimentation/detention basins and 

hydroseed. 

Land immediately surrounding the 

site is designated for industrial use and 

certain parcels contain industrial 

buildings and operations. Immediately 

to the west are developed industrial 

parcels, some of which contain 

industrial buildings. On land north of 

the project site is a drainage easement 

(including a detention structure) and 

improvements that receive on-site 

stormwater runoff and direct it toward 

the south. Vacant acres directly north of 

the project site are currently designated 

for industrial development. This 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 141 / Friday, July 23, 2010 / Notices 43227 

adjacent area was graded and improved 

in conjunction with the proposed 

project site under prior local approvals 

by the City of San Diego. South of and 

adjacent to the property is a 150-foot 

wide strip of land reserved for U.S. 

Border Patrol operations, as well as an 

area designated for a planned truck 

route that would lead from the south 

terminus of Britania Boulevard east 

toward the existing Otay Mesa POE. The 

U.S./Mexico border lies to the south of 

this 150-foot strip of land. 

Environmental Consequences 

No major adverse environmental 

effects are expected from the Proposed 

Action alternative if proper mitigation 

measures are implemented. The project 

could affect biological resources, 

unknown cultural resources, economic 

growth, air quality/global climate 

change, noise, traffic and other 

environmental factors. However, the 

project must comply with federal law, 

including any conditions of approval, 

which could consequently further 

minimize and/or mitigate any potential 

adverse effects. The conditions of 

approval (mitigation measures) are 

described below. 

Findings 

1. The EA was prepared consistent 

with all NEPA procedural requirements, 

including a 45-day public notice period 

and coordination with federal, tribal, 

state, and local governments. 

2. The environmental commitments 

(mitigation measures) are likely to offset 

any negative impacts identified by the 

EA. 

3. No disputes or controversies have 

arisen regarding the accuracy or 

presentation of environmental effects, as 

documented in the EA, supplemented 

by comments from relevant agencies 

and the public. 

4. Construction, operation, and 

maintenance of the CBF and associated 

pedestrian bridge are not likely to result 

in cumulative significant impacts. 

5. The California State Historic 

Preservation Officer reviewed the 

archeologist’s cultural resources survey 

for the project site, concurred that the 

Area of Potential Effect was properly 

determined and defined, and, on June 

21, 2010, made a Finding of No Historic 

Properties Affected. 

6. Implementation of this action will 

have no adverse impact on any Indian 

Trust Assets. 

7. Adherence to the environmental 

commitments described below, as well 

as the Environmental Assessment and 

related correspondence, ensures that 

implementation of the proposed action 

will not adversely affect biological 

resources. 

8. Implementation of the project will 

not adversely affect any threatened or 

endangered species. 

9. Construction or operation of the 

proposed international pedestrian 

crossing is not likely to result in any 

disproportionately high or adverse 

human health or environmental impact 

on minority populations, low-income 

populations, or Native American Indian 

tribes. 

10. Implementation of this action will 

not violate federal, state, or local law. 

Mitigation Measures 

As described in the Environmental 

Assessment and subsequent 

correspondence, the sponsor agrees to 

take the following actions to ensure that 

potentially significant impacts do not 

become significant. 

1. Air quality/Global Climate Change: 

Several measures will be implemented 

as part of the construction activities and 

project design to minimize emissions of 

greenhouse gases. As such, no 

additional avoidance, minimization, or 

mitigation measures would be required. 

Construction: 

• Minimizing equipment and truck 

idling 

• Recycling construction waste and 

construction debris 

Operations: 

• Installing basic building insulation 

to conserve energy 

• Locating glazing primarily on the 

east and north elevations 

• Planting trees to shade the structure 

on the west and south sides 

• Utilizing Energy Star appliances 

and light fixtures/sensors 

• Implementing a recycling program 

for solid waste/trash 

• Installing water-efficient 

landscaping and irrigation timers 

• Installing bike racks/parking 

• Providing bus, van, and taxi dropoff opportunities 

2. Noise: Measures will be 

implemented to ensure that 

construction activities would comply 

with the City of San Diego Noise 

Ordinance. Regarding operational traffic 

noise once the facility is operating, 

Federal Highway Administration 

guidance sets forth the criteria for 

determining when an abatement 

measure is reasonable and feasible. 

Feasibility of noise abatement is 

basically an engineering concern. A 

minimum 5 dBA reduction in the future 

noise level must be achieved for an 

abatement measure to be considered 

feasible. Other considerations include 

topography, access requirements, other 

noise sources and safety considerations. 

The reasonableness determination is 

basically a cost-benefit analysis. Factors 

used in determining whether a proposed 

noise abatement measure is reasonable 

include: residents’ acceptance, the 

absolute noise level, construction noise 

versus existing noise, environmental 

impacts of abatement, public and local 

agencies input, newly constructed 

development versus development predating 1978, and the cost per benefited 

residence. The above factors will be 

considered in developing potential 

noise abatement measures for the 

residential property along Siempre Viva 

Road that would be affected by traffic 

noise due to the Proposed Action. 

3. Water Quality: Implementation of 

the Proposed Action would require 

conformance with applicable regulatory 

requirements, including National 

Pollutant Discharge and Elimination 

System (NPDES), Clean Water Act, and 

associated City standards for 

compliance. No additional avoidance, 

minimization, or mitigation measures 

would be required. 

4. Public services and utilities: The 

applicant shall prepare and implement 

a waste management plan that includes 

the following elements for grading, 

construction, and occupancy phases of 

the project as applicable: 

• Tons of waste anticipated to be 

generated 

• Material type of waste to be 

generated 

• Source separation techniques for 

waste generated 

• How materials will be reused on 

site 

• Name and location of recycling, 

reuse or landfill facilities where waste 

will be taken if not reused on site 

• A ‘‘buy recycled’’ program 

• How the project will aim to reduce 

the generation of construction/ 

demolition debris 

• A plan of how waste reduction/ 

recycling goals will be communicated to 

subcontractors 

• A timeline for each of the phases of 

the project 

The plan shall strive for a goal of 50 

percent waste reduction and shall 

include specific performance measures 

to be assessed upon the completion of 

the project to measure success in 

achieving waste minimization goals. 

5. Cultural resources: Avoidance, 

minimization, and mitigation measures 

related to unknown archaeological 

resources for the Proposed Action 

would involve preparing and 

implementing an Archaeological 

Resources Monitoring Plan. The 

Monitoring Plan would likely include 

the following types of measures in 

accordance with standard construction 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with NOTICES

43228 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 141 / Friday, July 23, 2010 / Notices 

practices in southern California, with 

detailed requirements to be determined 

during the plan preparation and 

approval process: 

• A Qualified Archaeologist shall 

contract with a Native American 

monitor to be involved with the grading 

monitoring program; 

• The Qualified Archaeologist and 

Native American monitor shall attend 

the pre-grading meeting with the 

contractors to explain and coordinate 

the requirements of the monitoring 

program; 

• During the original cutting of 

previously undisturbed deposits, the 

archaeological monitor(s) and Native 

American monitor(s) shall be onsite full 

time to perform full-time monitoring. 

Inspections will vary based on the rate 

of excavation, the materials excavated, 

and the presence and abundance of 

artifacts and features. The frequency 

and location of inspections will be 

determined by the Qualified 

Archaeologist in consultation with the 

Native American monitor. 

• Monitoring of cutting of previously 

disturbed deposits will be determined 

by the Principal Investigator. 

• In the event that previously 

unidentified potentially significant 

cultural resources are discovered, the 

archaeological monitor(s) shall have the 

authority to divert or temporarily halt 

ground disturbance operations in the 

area of discovery to allow evaluation of 

potentially significant cultural 

resources. For significant cultural 

resources, a Research Design and Data 

Recovery Program to mitigate impacts 

shall be prepared by the Principal 

Investigator and then carried out using 

professional archaeological methods. 

Before construction activities are 

allowed to resume in the affected area, 

the artifacts shall be recovered and 

features recorded using professional 

archaeological methods. The Principal 

Investigator shall determine the amount 

of material to be recovered for an 

adequate artifact sample for analysis. 

• If any human bones are discovered, 

the Principal Investigator shall contact 

the County Coroner. In the event that 

the remains are determined to be of 

Native America origin, the Most Likely 

Descendant (MLD), as identified by the 

Native American Heritage Commission, 

shall be contacted by the Principal 

Investigator in order to determine 

proper treatment and disposition of the 

remains. 

• In the event that previously 

unidentified cultural resources are 

discovered, all cultural material 

collected during the grading monitoring 

program shall be processed and curated 

at a San Diego facility that meets federal 

standards per 36 CFR part 79 and, 

therefore, would be professionally 

curated and made available to other 

archaeologists/researchers for further 

study. The collections and associated 

records shall be transferred, including 

title, to an appropriate curation facility 

within San Diego County, to be 

accompanied by payment of the fees 

necessary for permanent curation. 

Evidence shall be in the form of a letter 

from the curation facility identifying 

that archaeological materials have been 

received and that all fees have been 

paid. 

6. Traffic: Because the Proposed 

Action is part of the City of San Diego’s 

Otay Mesa Community Plan, the project 

sponsor would be responsible for 

participating in the Facilities Benefit 

Assessment (FBA) and Public Facilities 

Financing Plan (PFFP) to fund the cost 

of the community-wide road and 

intersection improvements. All 

intersections and roadways planned in 

the Otay Mesa Community Plan area are 

forecast to operate at acceptable level of 

service in the future. The City is in the 

process of updating the Community 

Plan. 

Determination 

Consistent with NEPA (42 U.S.C. 4321 

et seq.), the regulations of the Council 

on Environmental Quality (40 CFR 

1500–1508), and the Department’s 

implementing regulations (22 CFR Part 

161, and in particular 22 CFR 161.7(c)), 

I find that issuance of a Presidential 

permit authorizing the construction, 

connection, operation, and maintenance 

of the Cross Border Facility, including 

an international pedestrian bridge, 

would not have a significant impact on 

the quality of the human environment. 

No Environmental Impact Statement 

will be prepared. A complete analysis of 

environmental impacts is contained 

within the EA, as supplemented by 

subsequent correspondence. 

Recommended 

Elizabeth Orlando, NEPA 

Coordinator, Office of 

Environmental Policy, Bureau of 

Oceans, Environment, and Science. 

Approved 

Alex Lee, Director, Office of Mexican 

Affairs, Bureau of Western 

Hemisphere Affairs. 

End text. 

Dated: July 19, 2010. 

Stewart Tuttle, 

U.S.-Mexico Border Affairs Coordinator, 

Department of State. 

[FR Doc. 2010–18118 Filed 7–22–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4710–29–P 

DEPARTMENT OF STATE 

[Public Notice 7093] 

Bureau of Political-Military Affairs; 

Lifting of Policy of Denial Regarding 

Activities of Presidential Airways, Inc. 

and its Subsidiaries/Affiliates 

Regulated Under the International 

Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) (22 

CFR Parts 120–130) 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that 

the Department of State is lifting the 

policy of denial regarding Presidential 

Airways, Inc. and its subsidiaries/ 

affiliates imposed on December 18, 2008 

(73 FR 77099) pursuant to section 38 of 

the Arms Export Control Act (AECA) (22 

U.S.C. 2778) and section 126.7 of the 

International Traffic in Arms 

Regulations (ITAR). 

DATES: Effective Date: July 7, 2010. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lisa 

V. Studtmann, Director, Office of 

Defense Trade Controls Compliance, 

Bureau of Political-Military Affairs, 

Department of State (202) 663–2980. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 

126.7 of the ITAR provides that any 

application for an export license or 

other approval under the ITAR may be 

disapproved, and any license or other 

approval or exemption granted may be 

revoked, suspended, or amended 

without prior notice whenever, among 

other things, the Department of State 

believes that 22 U.S.C. 2778, any 

regulation contained in the ITAR, or the 

terms of any U.S. Government export 

authorization (including the terms of a 

manufacturing license or technical 

assistance agreement, or export 

authorization granted pursuant to the 

Export Administration Act, as amended) 

has been violated by any party to the 

export or other person having a 

significant interest in the transaction; or 

whenever the Department of State 

deems such action to be in furtherance 

of world peace, the national security or 

the foreign policy of the United States, 

or is otherwise advisable. 

On December 2, 2008, the Department 

of State placed EP Investments, LLC, 

now Xe Services LLC (a/k/a Blackwater) 

(hereafter referred to as Xe), including 

its subsidiaries or associated companies, 

under a policy of denial to ensure that 

Xe is both capable of and willing to 

comply with the AECA and ITAR. 

On April 7, 2010, AAR International, 

Inc. (AAR) acquired some of Xe’s former 

subsidiaries, including Presidential 

Airways, Inc.; Aviation Worldwide 

Services, LLC; Air Quest, Inc.; STI 

Aviation, Inc.; and EP Aviation, LLC 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with NOTICES