18690 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 78 / Friday, April 24, 2009 / Notices 

12 Joint Project Agreement Between the U.S. 

Department of Commerce and the Internet 

Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, 

Amendment 7, http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/ 

domainname/agreements/jpa/ 

ICANNJPAl09292006.htm. 

1Tariq Ahmed is also known as Tariq Amin, 

Tariq Ahmad, and Tariq Ahmad Amin. 

2The charged violations occurred during 2002. 

The Regulations governing the violations at issue 

are found in the 2002 version of the Code of Federal 

Regulations (15 CFR parts 730–774 (2002)). The 

2008 Regulations establish the procedures that 

apply to this matter. 

3Since August 21, 2001 the Act has been in lapse. 

However, 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 

July 23, 2008 (73 FR 43603 (July 25, 2008)), has 

continued the Regulations in effect under the 

International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 

U.S.C. 1701–1707). 

4 ‘‘ECCN’’ refers to ‘‘Export Control Classification 

Number.’’ Supp. 1 to 15 CFR § 774. 

5The Charging Letter included a second evasion 

charge, Charge Two, relating to BIS’s export control 

documentation filing requirements. By Notice of 

Withdrawal filed with the Administrative Law 

Judge simultaneously with its Motion for Default 

Order, BIS provided notice that it was withdrawing 

Charge Two. Thus, Charge Two was not part of 

BIS’s Motion for Default Order. 

broad commitments endorsed by the 

ICANN Board as an annex to the JPA. 

Specifically, ICANN committed to take 

action on the responsibilities set out in 

the Affirmation of Responsibilities 

established in ICANN Board Resolution 

06.71, dated September 25, 2006.12

Those responsibilities included 

activities in the following categories: 

security and stability, transparency, 

accountability, root server security and 

relationships, TLD management, multi– 

stakeholder model, role of governments, 

IP addressing, corporate responsibility, 

and corporate administrative structure. 

What steps has ICANN taken to meet 

each of these responsibilities? Have 

these steps been successful? If not, what 

more could be done to meet the needs 

of the community served in these areas? 

5. The current JPA called for NTIA to 

conduct a mid–term review. That 

review revealed that ICANN needed to 

take further steps to increase 

institutional confidence related to long– 

term stability, accountability, 

responsiveness, continued private sector 

leadership, stakeholder participation, 

increased contract compliance, and 

enhanced competition. What steps has 

ICANN taken to address the concerns 

expressed in the mid–term review 

process? Have these steps been 

successful? If not, what more could be 

done to meet the needs of the 

community served in these areas? 

6. The JPA between the Department of 

Commerce and ICANN is an agreement 

by mutual consent to effectuate the 

transition of the technical coordination 

and management of the Internet DNS in 

a manner that ensures the continued 

stability and security of the Internet 

DNS. Has sufficient progress been 

achieved for the transition to take place 

by September 30, 2009? If not, what 

should be done? What criteria should be 

used to make that determination? 

7. Given the upcoming expiration of 

the JPA, are there sufficient safeguards 

in place to ensure the continued 

security and stability of the Internet 

DNS, private sector leadership, and that 

all stakeholder interests are adequately 

taken into account? If yes, what are 

they? Are these safeguards mature and 

robust enough to ensure protection of 

stakeholder interests and the model 

itself in the future? If no, what 

additional safeguards should be put in 

place? 

8. The JPA provides that before its 

termination, NTIA and ICANN are to 

collaborate on a DNS Project Report that 

will document ICANN’s policies and 

procedures designed and developed 

pursuant to the agreement. What should 

be included in this report? 

EX PARTE COMMUNICATIONS: 

Any oral presentation to NTIA 

regarding the substance of this 

proceeding will be considered an ex 

parte presentation, and the substance of 

the meeting will be placed on the public 

record and become a part of this docket. 

No later than two (2) business days after 

an oral presentation or meeting, an 

interested party must submit a 

memorandum to NTIA, which 

summarizes the substance of the 

communication. Any written 

presentations provided in support of the 

oral communication or meeting will also 

be placed on the public record and 

become a part of this docket. Such ex 

parte communications must be 

submitted to 

DNSTransition@ntia.doc.gov in one of 

the above listed formats and clearly 

labeled as an ex parte presentation. All 

ex parte documents will be posted at 

http://www.ntia.doc.gov/comments/ 

2009/dnstransition. 

Dated: April 20, 2009. 

Anna M. Gomez, 

Acting Assistant Secretary for 

Communications and Information 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. E9–9409 Filed 4–23–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–60–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

Bureau of Industry and Security 

[05–BIS–26] 

In the Matter of Tariq Ahmed; Final 

Decision and Order 

In the Matter of: Tariq Ahmed, 612 

Business Centre, Mumtaz Hasan Road, 

Off I.I. Chundrigar Road, Karachi, 

Pakistan, Respondent 

Final Decision and Order 

This matter is before me upon a 

Recommended Decision and Order 

(‘‘RDO’’) of an Administrative Law 

Judge (‘‘ALJ’’), as further described 

below. 

On December 15, 2005, the Bureau of 

Industry and Security (‘‘BIS’’) issued a 

charging letter alleging that Respondent, 

Tariq Ahmed,1 committed two 

violations of the Export Administration 

Regulations (currently codified at 15 

CFR parts 730–774 (2008) 

(‘‘Regulations’’)),2 issued pursuant to 

the Export Administration Act of 1979, 

as amended (50 U.S.C. app. 2401–2420 

(2000)) (‘‘Act’’).3 The charging letter 

included a charge that was based on 

actions taken by Tariq Ahmed to evade 

licensing requirements governing the 

export of items subject to the 

Regulations from the United States to a 

Pakistani organization listed on BIS’s 

Entity List. Specifically, Charge One 

alleged as follows: 

Charge 1 (15 CFR 764.2(h)—Actions 

Taken with Intent to Evade the 

Provisions of the Regulations) 

On or about April 27, 2002, T[ariq] 

Ahmed took actions with the intent to 

evade the U.S. Government’s licensing 

requirements for exports to Pakistan. 

Specifically, T[ariq] Ahmed took 

actions, including but not limited to, the 

submission of false information to a 

freight forwarder in connection with an 

export of components for an online 

chemical monitoring system, items 

subject to the Regulations (EAR99 and 

4A994 4), from the United States to the 

Karachi Nuclear Power Plant 

(‘‘KANUPP’’) in Karachi, Pakistan via 

the UAE. T[ariq] Ahmed provided 

shipping information representing that 

the consignee was in the UAE but 

omitting the final destination for the 

items. The purpose of T[ariq] Ahmed’s 

actions was to conceal the end-user, 

KANUPP, a Pakistani organization on 

the Entity List set forth in Supplement 

No. 4 to Part 744 of the Regulations and 

for which a Department of Commerce 

export license was required by Section 

744.1 of the Regulations. In so doing, 

T[ariq] Ahmed committed one violation 

of Section 764.2(h) of the Regulations.5

In accordance with § 766.3(b)(1) of the 

Regulations, on December 15, 2005, BIS 

mailed the notice of issuance of the 

charging letter by registered mail to 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 78 / Friday, April 24, 2009 / Notices 18691 

6Mr. Ahmed is the principal of the respondent in 

the relating proceeding, Advanced Technical 

System (‘‘ATS’’), a company located in Dubai, 

United Arab Emirates (‘‘UAE’’). 

Tariq Ahmed at his last known address, 

which is in Pakistan. Although BIS did 

not receive a signed return mail receipt 

for the letter, the charging letter was 

apparently delivered no later than 

January 17, 2006, as the BIS attorney 

(Ms. Huda) named in the charging letter 

reported receiving a telephone message 

that day from Mr. Ahmed seeking to 

discuss that letter, as well as the 

charging letter served in a related 

administrative proceeding also initiated 

by BIS on December 15, 2005, In the 

Matter of Advanced Technical System 

(Docket No. 05–BIS–25).6 According to 

the filed pleadings, on the following 

day, January 18, 2006, Ms. Huda 

returned the call. She and Mr. Ahmed 

discussed the possibility of settlement, 

and Mr. Ahmed concurred in Ms. 

Huda’s suggestion of a 60-day stay in 

both proceedings to pursue settlement 

discussions. BIS subsequently filed an 

unopposed request to stay both 

proceedings. An order granting a stay 

until May 14, 2006 was issued on April 

4, 2006. 

To date, Mr. Ahmed has not filed an 

answer to BIS’s charging letter. Neither 

has Mr. Ahmed responded to the motion 

for default or to the recommended 

decision and order, both of which were 

served upon him at his last known 

address. 

Under Section 766.6(a) of the 

Regulations, the ‘‘respondent must 

answer the charging letter within 30 

days after being served with notice of 

issuance’’ of the charging letter. Section 

766.7(a) of the Regulations provides, in 

turn, that the ‘‘[f]ailure of the 

respondent to file an answer within the 

time provided constitutes a waiver of 

the respondent’s right to appear and 

contest the allegations in the charging 

letter,’’ and that ‘‘on BIS’s motion and 

without further notice to the 

respondent, [the ALJ] shall find the facts 

to be as alleged in the charging letter[.]’’ 

In accordance with Section 766.7 of 

the Regulations, and because more than 

thirty days had passed since Tariq 

Ahmed had been served with the 

charging letter, BIS filed a Motion for 

Default Order on January 12, 2009. This 

Motion for Default Order recommended 

that Tariq Ahmed be denied export 

privileges under the Regulations for a 

period of seven years. 

On March 20, 2009, based on the 

record before him, the ALJ issued a RDO 

in which he found Tariq Ahmed in 

default, found the facts to be as alleged 

in Charge One of the charging letter, and 

determined that those facts established 

that Mr. Ahmed had committed the 

violation alleged in Charge One of the 

charging letter, specifically, one 

violation of Section 764.2(h). The ALJ 

also recommended the penalty of denial 

of Mr. Ahmed’s export privileges for 

seven years, citing BIS’s arguments in 

favor of such a penalty, including the 

sensitivity of the ultimate end user, a 

Pakistani entity on BIS’s Entity List, a 

compilation of end-users that pose a risk 

of diversion to weapons of mass 

destruction programs. Additionally, the 

ALJ referred to BIS’s argument that the 

penalty was warranted as Mr. Ahmed’s 

actions were part of a larger criminal 

conspiracy to violate U.S. export control 

laws and regulations. Mr. Ahmed pled 

guilty to one count of violating the 

federal conspiracy statute in connection 

with making shipments to Pakistan. 

The AJL’s RDO, together with the 

entire record in this case, has been 

referred to me for final action under 

section 766.22 of the Regulations. I find 

that, consistent with section 766.7(a), 

the findings of fact and conclusions of 

law in the recommended decision and 

order are fully supported. I also find 

that the penalty recommended by the 

ALJ is appropriate, given the nature of 

the violation and the importance of 

preventing future unauthorized exports. 

Based on my review of the entire 

record, I affirm the findings of fact and 

conclusions of law in the ALJ’s RDO. 

Accordingly, It Is Therefore Ordered 

First, that, for a period of seven (7) 

years from the date this Order is 

published in the Federal Register, Tariq 

Ahmed, 612 Business Centre, Mumtaz 

Hasan Road, Off I.I. Chundrigar Road, 

Karachi, Pakistan, and when acting for 

or on behalf of Tariq Ahmed, his 

representatives, agents, assigns and 

employees (hereinafter collectively 

referred to as the ‘‘Denied Person’’), 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 

Regulations, or in any other activity 

subject to the Regulations, 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 Regulations, or in any 

other activity subject to the Regulations; 

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 Regulations, or in 

any other activity subject to the 

Regulations. 

Second, that no person may, directly 

or indirectly, do any of the following: 

A. Export or reexport to or on behalf 

of the Denied Person any item subject to 

the Regulations; 

B. Take any action that facilitates the 

acquisition or attempted acquisition by 

the Denied Person of the ownership, 

possession, or control of any item 

subject to the Regulations that has been 

or will be exported from the United 

States, including financing or other 

support activities related to a 

transaction whereby the 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 the Denied Person of 

any item subject to the Regulations that 

has been exported from the United 

States; 

D. Obtain from the Denied Person in 

the United States any item subject to the 

Regulations 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 Regulations that 

has been or will be exported from the 

United States and that is owned, 

possessed or controlled by the Denied 

Person, or service any item, of whatever 

origin, that is owned, possessed or 

controlled by the Denied Person if such 

service involves the use of any item 

subject to the Regulations 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 Regulations, any 

person, firm, corporation, or business 

organization related to the 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 Regulations 

where the only items involved that are 

subject to the Regulations are the 

foreign-produced direct product of U.S.- 

origin technology. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES

18692 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 78 / Friday, April 24, 2009 / Notices 

1The Digital Television Transition and Public 

Safety Act of 2005 § 3006, 47 U.S.C. § 309 note 

(2008), Pub. L. No. 109-171, 120 Stat. 25. The PSIC 

grant program requirements were subsequently 

amended by the Implementing Recommendations of 

the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007 § 2201, 47 U.S.C. 

§ 309 note (2008), Pub. L. No. 110-53, 121 Stat. 276. 

2For additional information regarding the PSIC 

Grant Program, see, Public Safety Interoperable 

Communications Grant Program, Improving 

Interoperable Communications Nationwide: 

Overview of Initial State and Territory Investments, 

http://www.ntia.doc.gov/psic/PSIC%20 

Investment%20Data%20Analysis%20 

(report%20only).pdf. 

3Section 4 of the Call Home Act of 2006, 47 

U.S.C. § 309 note (2008), Pub. L. No. 109-459, 120 

Stat. 3399, mandated that all PSIC funds be 

awarded by September 30, 2007. 

4 74 Fed. Reg. 7663 (2009). 

5National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, 42 

U.S.C. § 4321 (2008); Council on Environmental 

Quality for Implementing the Procedural Provisions 

of NEPA, 40 C.F.R. parts 1500-1508 (2008). 

Fifth, that this Order shall be served 

on the Denied Person and on BIS, and 

shall be published in the Federal 

Register. 

This Order, which constitutes the 

final agency action in this matter, is 

effective upon publication in the 

Federal Register. 

Dated: April 17, 2009. 

Daniel O. Hill, 

Acting Under Secretary of Commerce for 

Industry and Security. 

Certificate of Service 

I hereby certify that on April __, 2009, 

I caused the foregoing Response of BIS 

to the ALJ’s Recommended Decision 

and Order and Final Decision and Order 

to be sent by Federal Express to: Tariq 

Ahmed, 612 Business Centre, Mumtaz 

Hasan Road, Off I.I. Chundrigar Road, 

Karachi, Pakistan. 

Sandra Lambright, 

Senior Paralegal Specialist. 

[FR Doc. E9–9400 Filed 4–23–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DT–M 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Telecommunications and 

Information Administration 

Notice of Availability of a Final Finding 

of No Significant Impact (FONSI) for 

the Public Safety Interoperable 

Communications (PSIC) Grant 

Program 

AGENCY: National Telecommunications 

and Information Administration, U.S. 

Department of Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: The National 

Telecommunications and Information 

Administration (NTIA) publishes this 

notice of availability of a Final Finding 

of No Significant Impact (FONSI). The 

Final FONSI was written to evaluate the 

environmental impact of the Public 

Safety Interoperable Communications 

(PSIC) Grant Program. 

DATES: The effective date of the Final 

FONSI is April 24, 2009. 

ADDRESSES: The Final FONSI is 

available online at http:// 

www.regulations.gov and also will be 

available on NTIA’s website at http:// 

www.ntia.doc.gov/psic. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Written requests for a hard copy of the 

Final FONSI should be submitted to: 

Ms. Laura Pettus, National 

Telecommunications and Information 

Administration, 1401 Constitution 

Avenue, N.W., Room 4812, Washington, 

DC 20230. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

Digital Television Transition and Public 

Safety Act of 2005 (the Act) directed 

NTIA, in consultation with the 

Department of Homeland Security 

(DHS), to establish and administer a 

grant program to assist public safety 

agencies in the advancement of 

interoperable communications.1 The 

Act authorized NTIA to make payments 

not to exceed $1 billion, in the 

aggregate, through fiscal year 2010 to 

carry out the PSIC program. The grant 

program assisted public safety agencies 

in the acquisition of, deployment of, or 

training for the use of interoperable 

communications systems that can 

utilize reallocated public safety 

spectrum in the 700 MHz band for radio 

communication.2

On September 30, 2007, the PSIC 

Grant Program awarded $968,385,000 to 

fund interoperable communications 

projects for 56 States and Territories.3

These awards represent the largest 

single infusion of Federal funding ever 

provided for State, Territory, and local 

agencies to implement interoperable 

communications solutions for public 

safety. 

On February 19, 2009, NTIA 

published a Notice of Availability of a 

Final Programmatic Environmental 

Assessment (PEA) and Draft FONSI for 

the PSIC Grant Program.4 The comment 

period closed on March 23, 2009. NTIA 

received three (3) comments. These 

comments were from the Association of 

Public-Safety Communications Officials 

(APCO), the National Public Safety 

Telecommunications Council (NPSTC), 

and the Federal Communications 

Commissions (FCC). The APCO and 

NPSTC commenters suggested that 

NTIA’s chosen environmental 

procedures would be overly 

burdensome and that NTIA should use 

the FCC’s environmental evaluation 

process. NTIA notes that the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

(NEPA) would not permit this approach 

under these circumstances, and thus, 

did not amend the draft FONSI in 

response. NTIA did clarify in the final 

FONSI that the Tower Construction 

Notification System should only be used 

for projects involving communication of 

towers and is not suitable for use for 

other types of PSIC-funded projects. 

NTIA prepared the Final FONSI in 

accordance with the requirements of 

NEPA and the Council on 

Environmental Quality (CEQ) 

regulations for implementing NEPA.5

The Final FONSI may be reviewed at 

http://www.regulations.gov or on 

NTIA’s website as noted above. In 

addition, copies may be obtained by 

writing to Ms. Laura Pettus as provided 

above. 

Dated: April 20, 2009. 

Kathy D. Smith, 

Chief Counsel, National Telecommunications 

and Information Administration. 

[FR Doc. E9–9410 Filed 4–23–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–60–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

RIN 0648–XO31 

Marine Mammals; File No. 13614 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice; issuance of permit. 

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that 

Sea World, Inc., 9205 South Park Center 

Loop, Suite 400, Orlando, FL 32819 

[Brad Andrews, Responsible Party] has 

been issued a permit to import one pilot 

whale (Globicephala melas) for public 

display. 

ADDRESSES: The permit and related 

documents are available for review 

upon written request or by appointment 

in the following office(s): Permits, 

Conservation and Education Division, 

Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, 

1315 East-West Highway, Room 13705, 

Silver Spring, MD 20910; phone 

(301)713–2289; fax (301)427–2521; 

andSouthwest Region, NMFS, 501 West 

Ocean Blvd., Suite 4200, Long Beach, 

CA 90802–4213; phone (562)980–4001; 

fax (562)980–4018. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Jennifer Skidmore or Kristy Beard, 

(301)713–2289. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES