25202 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 88 / Friday, May 7, 2010 / Notices 

1 74 FR 24,786. 

2The November 2, 2009 renewal Order was 

effective immediately and was published in the 

Federal Register on November 9, 2009 (74 FR 

57626). 

ANNEX—QUANTITY-BASED SAFEGUARD TRIGGER—Continued 

Product Trigger level Period 

Cotton, Processed, Not Spun ................................................. 3,995 kilograms ..................... September 11, 2009 to September 10, 2010. 

31,338 kilograms ................... September 11, 2010 to September 10, 2011. 

[FR Doc. 2010–10878 Filed 5–6–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–10–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

Bureau of Industry and Security 

Action Affecting Export Privileges; 

Orion Air, S.L. and Syrian Pearl 

Airlines; Order Renewing Order 

Temporarily Denying Export Privileges 

Orion Air, S.L., Canada Real de Merinas, 

7 Edificio 5, 3’A, Eissenhower 

business center, 28042 Madrid, Spain 

Ad. de las Cortes Valencianas no 37, 

Esc.A Puerta 45 46015 Valencia, 

Spain 

Syrian Pearl Airlines, Damascus 

International Airport, Damascus, 

Syria, Respondents 

Pursuant to Section 766.24 of the 

Export Administration Regulations, 15 

CFR parts 730–774 (2009) (‘‘EAR’’ or the 

‘‘Regulations’’), I hereby grant the 

request of the Bureau of Industry and 

Security (‘‘BIS’’) to renew for 180 days 

the Order Temporarily Denying the 

Export Privileges of Respondents Orion 

Air, S.L. (‘‘Orion Air’’) and Syrian Pearl 

Airlines (collectively, ‘‘Respondents’’), 

as I find that renewal of the temporary 

denial order (‘‘TDO’’ or the ‘‘Order’’) is 

necessary in the public interest to 

prevent an imminent violation of the 

EAR. 

I. Procedural History 

On May 7, 2009, then-Acting 

Assistant Secretary of Commerce for 

Export Enforcement Kevin Delli-Colli 

signed an Order Temporarily Denying 

the Export Privileges of the Respondents 

for 180 days on the grounds that its 

issuance was necessary in the public 

interest to prevent an imminent 

violation of the Regulations. Pursuant to 

Section 766.24(a), the TDO was issued 

ex parte and was effective upon 

issuance. Copies of the TDO were sent 

to each Respondent in accordance with 

section 766.5 of the Regulations and the 

Order was published in the Federal 

Register on May 26, 2009.1 Thereafter, 

on November 2, 2009, Acting Assistant 

Secretary Delli-Colli issued an Order 

renewing the TDO for an additional 180 

days.2 The current Order would expire 

on May 1, 2010, unless renewed in 

accordance with section 766.24 of the 

Regulations. 

On April 9, 2010, BIS, through its 

Office of Export Enforcement (‘‘OEE’’), 

filed a written request for renewal of the 

TDO against the Respondents for an 

additional 180 days and served a copy 

of its request on the Respondents in 

accordance with section 766.5 of the 

Regulations. No opposition to renewal 

of the TDO has been received from 

either Orion Air or Syrian Pearl 

Airlines. 

II. Discussion 

A. Legal Standard 

Pursuant to section 766.24(d)(3) of the 

EAR, the sole issue to be considered in 

determining whether to continue a TDO 

is whether the TDO should be renewed 

to prevent an imminent violation of the 

EAR, as ‘‘imminent’’ violation is defined 

in section 766.24. ‘‘A violation may be 

‘imminent’ either in time or in 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 charges is significant, 

deliberate, covert and/or likely to occur 

again, rather than technical and 

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. Findings 

As part of its initial TDO request, BIS 

presented evidence that on or about 

May 1, 2009, Orion Air re-exported a 

BAE 146–300 aircraft (tail number EC– 

JVO) to Syria, and specifically to Syrian 

Pearl Airlines, without the U.S. 

Government authorization required by 

General Order No. 2 of Supplement 1 to 

Part 736 of the EAR. The aircraft is 

subject to the Regulations because it 

contains greater than a 10-percent de 

minimis amount of U.S.-origin content. 

Orion Air engaged in this re-export 

transaction despite having been directly 

informed of the export licensing 

requirements by the U.S. Government. 

Moreover, Orion Air not only engaged 

in this conduct after having received 

actual as well as constructive notice of 

the applicable license requirements, but 

then sought to evade the Regulations 

and U.S. export controls by giving the 

U.S. Government false assurances that it 

would put the transaction on hold due 

to the U.S. Government’s concerns. 

BIS also produced evidence that the 

re-exported aircraft bore the livery, 

colors and logos of Syrian Pearl 

Airlines, a national of Syria, a Country 

Group E:1 destination; was flight 

capable; and under the terms of the 

lease agreement was to be based in and 

operated out of Syria during the lease 

term. The record also shows that the reexported aircraft currently remains in 

Syria under the control of Syrian Pearl 

Airlines. 

In addition to the unauthorized reexport described above, Acting 

Assistant Secretary Delli-Colli also 

concluded that additional violations 

were imminent based on statements by 

Orion Air to the U.S. Government in 

May 2009 that Orion Air planned to reexport an additional BAE 146–300 

aircraft (tail number EC–JVJ) to Syria, 

and specifically to Syrian Pearl Airlines. 

This second aircraft was at the time 

undergoing maintenance in the United 

Kingdom, and remains located there. 

Moreover, the agreement between Orion 

Air and Syrian Pearl Airlines involved 

both aircraft. Based on my review of the 

record, I find that the facts and 

circumstances that led to the issuance of 

the initial TDO and the November 2009 

renewal Order continue to show that 

renewal of the TDO for an additional 

180 days is necessary and in the public 

interest to prevent an imminent 

violation of the EAR. Absent renewal of 

the TDO, there remains a substantial 

continued risk that the second aircraft 

will be re-exported contrary to the 

Regulations, given that, inter alia, Orion 

Air acted with actual knowledge and 

took deceptive and evasive action. This 

finding alone would justify renewal. 

There also would be a substantial risk 

that, absent renewal of the TDO, the first 

aircraft, which remains in Syria, would 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 88 / Friday, May 7, 2010 / Notices 25203 

be operated or disposed of in violation 

of the Regulations. Furthermore, 

renewal of the TDO is needed to give 

notice to persons and companies in the 

United States and abroad that they 

should cease dealing with the 

Respondents in export transactions 

involving items subject to the EAR. 

It is therefore ordered: 

First, that, Orion Air, S.L., Canada 

Real de Merinas, 7 Edificio 5, 3’A, 

Eissenhower business center, 28042 

Madrid, Spain, and Ad. de las Cortes 

Valencianas no 37, Esc.A Puerta 

4546015 Valencia, Spain; and Syrian 

Pearl Airlines, Damascus International 

Airport, Damascus, Syria (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. Benefiting in any way from any 

transaction involving any item exported 

or to be exported from the United States 

that is subject to the EAR, or in any 

other activity subject to the EAR. 

Second, that no person may, directly 

or indirectly, do any of the following: 

A. Export or reexport to or on behalf 

of any Denied Person any item subject 

to the EAR; 

B. Take any action that facilitates the 

acquisition or attempted acquisition by 

any 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 any 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 any Denied Person of 

any item subject to the EAR that has 

been exported from the United States; 

D. Obtain from any 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 any Denied 

Person, or service any item, of whatever 

origin, that is owned, possessed or 

controlled by any 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 any of the 

Respondents 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 

section 766.24(e) of the EAR, the 

Respondents 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 

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. The 

Respondents may oppose a request to 

renew this Order by filing a written 

submission with the Assistant Secretary 

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 served 

on the Respondents and shall be 

published in the Federal Register. 

This Order is effective upon issuance 

and shall remain in effect for 180 days. 

Issued this 29th day of April 2010. 

David W. Mills, 

Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Export 

Enforcement. 

[FR Doc. 2010–10812 Filed 5–6–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DT–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

Proposed Information Collection; 

Comment Request; Regional 

Economic Data Collection Program for 

Southeast Alaska 

AGENCY: National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 

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 July 6, 2010. 

ADDRESSES: Direct all written comments 

to Diana Hynek, Departmental 

Paperwork Clearance Officer, 

Department of Commerce, Room 6625, 

14th and Constitution Avenue, NW., 

Washington, DC 20230 (or via the 

Internet at dHynek@doc.gov). 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Requests for additional information or 

copies of the information collection 

instrument and instructions should be 

directed to Chang Seung, (206) 526– 

4250 or Chang.Seung@noaa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Abstract 

The regional or community economic 

analysis of proposed fishery 

management policies is required by the 

Magnuson-Stevens Fishery 

Conservation and Management Act, 

National Environmental Policy Act, and 

Executive Order 12866, among others. 

To satisfy these mandates and inform 

policymakers and the public of the 

likely regional economic impacts 

associated with fishery management 

policies, appropriate economic models 

and the data to implement them are 

needed. 

Much of the data required for regional 

economic analysis associated with 

Southeast Alaska fisheries are either 

unavailable or unreliable. Accurate 

fishery-level data on employment, labor 

income, and expenditures in the 

Southeast Alaska fishery and related 

industries are not currently available 

but are needed to estimate the effects of 

fisheries on the economy of Southeast 

Alaska. In this planned survey effort, 

data on these important regional 

economic variables will be collected 

and used to develop models that will 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES