Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 191 / Wednesday, October 1, 2008 / Notices 57051 

Economic Development Administration, 

Austin Regional Office, 504 Lavaca, 

Suite 1100, Austin, Texas 78701–2858, 

Telephone: (512) 381–8144, Fax: (512) 

381–8177. 

Applicants in Illinois, Indiana, 

Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio, Wisconsin 

and Muscatine and Scott counties, Iowa, 

may submit hard copy applications to: 

Economic Development Administration, 

Chicago Regional Office, 111 North 

Canal Street, Suite 855, Chicago, Illinois 

60606. 

Telephone: (312) 353–7706, Fax: (312) 

353–8575. 

Applicants in Colorado, Iowa 

(excluding Muscatine and Scott 

counties), Kansas, Missouri, Montana, 

Nebraska, North Dakota, South Dakota, 

Utah and Wyoming, may submit hard 

copy applications to: Economic 

Development Administration, 410 17th 

Street, Suite 250, Denver, CO 80202. 

Telephone: (303) 844–4714, Fax: (303) 

844–3968. 

Applicants in Connecticut, Delaware, 

District of Columbia, Maine, Maryland, 

Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New 

Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Puerto 

Rico, Rhode Island, Vermont, U.S. 

Virgin Islands, Virginia and West 

Virginia, may submit hard copy 

applications to: Economic Development 

Administration, Philadelphia Regional 

Office, Curtis Center, 601 Walnut Street, 

Suite 140 South, Philadelphia, 

Pennsylvania 19106. 

Telephone: (215) 597–4603, Fax: (215) 

597–1063. 

Applicants in Alaska, American 

Samoa, Arizona, California, Guam, 

Hawaii, Idaho, Marshall Islands, 

Micronesia, Nevada, Northern Mariana 

Islands, Oregon, Republic of Palau and 

Washington, may submit hard copy 

applications to: Economic Development 

Administration, Seattle Regional Office, 

Jackson Federal Building, Room 1890, 

915 Second Avenue, Seattle, 

Washington 98174. 

Telephone: (206) 220–7660, Fax: (206) 

220–7669. 

Paper Submissions: Applicants 

choosing this option must submit one 

original and two copies of the 

completed application via postal mail, 

shipped overnight or hand-delivered to 

the applicable regional office, unless 

otherwise directed by EDA staff. 

Department of Commerce mail security 

measures may delay receipt of United 

States Postal Service mail for up to two 

weeks. Therefore, applicants who wish 

to submit paper applications are advised 

to use guaranteed overnight delivery 

services. 

Electronic Submissions: Applicants 

choosing this option should submit 

applications in accordance with the 

instructions provided at http:// 

www.grants.gov. Please visit http:// 

www.grants.gov/assets/ 

FindApplyUserGuide.pdf for detailed 

instructions on electronic submissions. 

You may access the application 

packages for EDA’s two current funding 

announcements, Economic 

Development Assistance Programs 

(Funding Opportunity Number 

EDA021908) and Supplemental 

Appropriations Disaster Relief 

Opportunity (Funding Number 

EDA08112008) at http:// 

www.grants.gov/applicants/ 

apply_for_grants.jsp. The preferred file 

format for electronic attachments to the 

new Form ED–900 (e.g., the project 

description and letters of commitment 

for construction projects) is portable 

document format (PDF); however, EDA 

will accept electronic files in Microsoft 

Word, Microsoft Excel, or WordPerfect 

formats. 

Applicants should access the 

following link for assistance in 

navigating www.grants.gov and for a list 

of useful resources: http:// 

www.grants.gov/applicants/ 

applicant_help.jsp. If you do not find an 

answer to your question under 

Frequently Asked Questions, try 

consulting the Applicant’s User Guide. 

If you still cannot find an answer to 

your question, contact http:// 

www.grants.gov via e-mail at 

support@grants.gov or telephone at 

1.800.518.4726. The hours of operation 

for http://www.grants.gov are Monday– 

Friday, 7 a.m. to 9 p.m. (Eastern Time) 

(except for federal holidays). 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

additional information or for a paper 

copy of the applicable FFO 

announcement, contact the appropriate 

EDA regional office listed above. EDA’s 

Internet Web site at http://www.eda.gov 

also contains additional information on 

EDA and its programs. 

Paperwork Reduction Act: This 

document contains collection-ofinformation requirements subject to the 

Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA). The 

use of Form ED–900 (Application for 

Investment Assistance) has been 

approved by OMB under the control 

number 0610–0094. The use of Forms 

SF–424 (Application for Financial 

Assistance), SF–424A (Budget 

Information—Non-Construction 

Programs), SF–424B (Assurances—NonConstruction Programs), SF–424C 

Budget Information—Construction 

Programs, SF–424D (Assurances— 

Construction Programs), and SF–LLL 

Disclosure of Lobbying Activities (SF– 

LLL) has been approved under OMB 

control numbers 4040–0004, 4040–0006, 

4040–0007, 4040–0008, 4040–0009, and 

0348–0046, respectively. The use of 

Form CD–346 has been approved under 

OMB control number 0605–0001. 

Notwithstanding any other provision of 

law, no person is required to respond to, 

nor shall any person be subject to a 

penalty for failure to comply with, a 

collection of information subject to the 

requirements of the PRA unless that 

collection of information displays a 

currently valid OMB control number. 

Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory 

Planning and Review): This notice has 

been determined to be not significant for 

purposes of Executive Order 12866. 

Executive Order 13132 (Federalism): 

It has been determined that this notice 

does not contain policies with 

Federalism implications as that term is 

defined in Executive Order 13132. 

Administrative Procedure Act/ 

Regulatory Flexibility Act: Prior notice 

and an opportunity for public comments 

are not required by the Administrative 

Procedure Act or any other law for rules 

concerning grants, benefits, and 

contracts (5 U.S.C. 553(a)(2)). Because 

notice and opportunity for comment are 

not required pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553 or 

any other law, the analytical 

requirements of the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. ) are 

inapplicable. Therefore, a regulatory 

flexibility analysis has not been 

prepared. 

Dated: September 25, 2008. 

Benjamin Erulkar, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary of Commerce for 

Economic Development and Chief Operating 

Officer. 

[FR Doc. E8–23116 Filed 9–30–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–24–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

Bureau of Industry and Security 

Action Affecting Export Privileges; 

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.; 

Blue Sky Six Ltd.; Blue Airways; 

Mahan Airways; Blue Airways Fze 

In the matter of: 

Balli Group PLC, 5 Stanhope Gate, London, 

UK, W1K 1AH; 

Balli Aviation, 5 Stanhope Gate, London, UK, 

W1K 1AH; 

Balli Holdings, 5 Stanhope Gate, London, 

UK, W1K 1AH; 

Vahid Alaghband, 5 Stanhope Gate, London, 

UK, W1K 1AH; 

Hassan Alaghband, 5 Stanhope Gate, London, 

UK, W1K 1AH; 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
57052 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 191 / Wednesday, October 1, 2008 / Notices 

1The Related Persons Order was issued in 

accordance with Section 766.23 of the Regulations, 

15 CFR 766.23, and was published in the Federal 

Register on July 24, 2008. 

2Engaging in conduct prohibited by a denial 

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

(k). 

3None of the Respondents appealed the initial 

TDO. 

Blue Sky One Ltd. 5 Stanhope Gate London, 

UK W1K 1AH 

Blue Sky Two Ltd., 5 Stanhope Gate, London, 

UK, W1K 1AH; 

Blue Sky Three Ltd, 5 Stanhope Gate, 

London, UK, W1K 1AH; 

Blue Sky Four Ltd, 5 Stanhope Gate, London, 

UK, W1K 1AH; 

Blue Sky Five Ltd., 5 Stanhope Gate, London, 

UK, W1K 1AH; 

Blue Sky Six Ltd., 5 Stanhope Gate, London, 

UK, W1K 1AH; 

Blue Airways, 8/3 D Angaght Street, 376009 

Yerevan, Armenia; 

Mahan Airways, Mahan Tower, No. 21, 

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

Tehran, Iran, Respondents; 

and 

Blue Airways FZE, a/k/a Blue Airways, #G22 

Dubai Airport Free Zone, P.O. Box 393754 

DAFZA, Dubai, UAE; 

Blue Airways, Riqa Road, Dubai 52404, UAE, 

Related Persons 

Order Renewing Order Temporarily 

Denying Export Privileges 

Pursuant to Section 766.24 of the 

Export Administration Regulations, 15 

CFR Parts 730–774 (2008) (‘‘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 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., Blue Sky 

Six Ltd., Blue Airways and Mahan Air 

(collectively, ‘‘Respondents’’) and Blue 

Airways FZE and Blue Airways 

(collectively, the ‘‘Related Persons’’), as 

I find that renewal of the TDO is 

necessary in the public interest to 

prevent an imminent violation of the 

EAR. 

I. Procedural History 

On March 17, 2008, I 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 (‘‘TDO’’). Pursuant to 

Section 766.24(a), the TDO was issued 

ex parte and went into effect on March 

21, 2008, the date it was published in 

the Federal Register. On July 18, 2008, 

I issued an Order adding Blue Airways 

FZE and Blue Airways, both of Dubai, 

United Arab Emirates, as Related 

Persons to the TDO in accordance with 

Section 766.23 of the Regulations.1 The 

TDO would expire on September 17, 

2008, unless renewed in accordance 

with Section 766.24 of the Regulations. 

On August 28, 2008, BIS, through its 

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

filed a written request for renewal of the 

TDO against the Respondents for 180 

days and served a copy of its request on 

the Respondents in accordance with 

Section 766.5 of the Regulations. On 

September 10, 2008, 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. 

(collectively, ‘‘Balli’’ or the ‘‘Balli 

Respondents’’) filed a written 

opposition to the request for renewal of 

the TDO. No opposition to renewal of 

the TDO was received by Respondents 

Blue Airways of Armenia or Mahan Air 

of Iran. 

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 the term ‘‘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. Arguments 

BIS’s request for renewal of the TDO 

was based upon the facts underlying the 

issuance of the initial TDO, as well as 

evidence of continued actions by the 

Respondents that demonstrate a 

willingness to disregard U.S. export 

controls. The initial TDO was issued as 

a result of evidence that showed the 

Respondents engaged in conduct 

prohibited by the EAR by knowingly reexporting to Iran three U.S.-origin 

aircraft, specifically Boeing 747s 

(‘‘Aircraft 1–3’’), items subject to the 

EAR, without the required U.S. 

Government authorization. Further 

evidence submitted by BIS indicated 

that Respondents were attempting to reexport an additional three U.S.-origin 

Boeing 747s to Iran (‘‘Aircraft 4–6’’), and 

had ignored a re-delivery order for 

Aircraft 4–6 issued by BIS in accordance 

with Section 758.8(b) of the Regulation. 

In addition, as evidenced in BIS’s 

renewal request and the Balli Group’s 

opposition and ‘‘supplemental 

disclosure’’ dated September 10, 2008, 

the record before me also indicates that 

Aircraft 1–3 continue to be flown on 

Mahan Air routes in violation of the 

Regulations and the TDO. It also shows 

that Aircraft 1–3 have been and 

continue to be flown in further violation 

of the Regulations and the TDO on the 

routes of Iran Air, an Iranian 

Government airline.2

In its opposition to the request for 

renewal of the TDO, the Balli Group 

Respondents assert that OEE’s request 

for renewal does not meet the legal 

requirements and that further violations 

are not imminent. The Balli 

Respondents also assert that any 

violations of the Regulations involving 

Aircraft 1–3, and any false or misleading 

statements by the Balli Respondents, 

were not done or made with knowledge 

and were instead based on a 

misunderstanding of the Regulations, 

including the term ‘‘re-export’’; that 

they have been fully cooperating with 

BIS and are making concerted efforts to 

recover Aircraft 1–3 from Blue Airways 

of Armenia; and that the resume of 

[REDACTED], upon which OEE relied in 

part in its renewal request, is 

uncorroborated.3 The Balli Respondents 

also assert that if BIS’s goal is to prevent 

imminent or on-going violations of the 

EAR, BIS should limit renewal of the 

TDO to Respondents Blue Airways and 

Mahan Air only, and state that they do 

not contest that BIS has grounds to 

renew the TDO against Blue Airways 

and Mahan Air. 

C. Findings 

In determining whether to renew the 

TDO in order to prevent imminent 

violations of the Regulations, I have 

reviewed the entire record including 

BIS’s original request for a TDO filed in 

March 2008, BIS’s request to renew the 

TDO submitted on August 28, 2008, and 

the September 10, 2008 opposition 

submission filed by the Balli 

Respondent and its related 

supplemental disclosure that was filed 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 191 / Wednesday, October 1, 2008 / Notices 57053 

4The Monthly Aircraft Reports that were 

referenced by Balli in its September 10, 2008 

submission do not appear to include such reports 

post-dating June 2008. The record indicates, 

however, that Aircraft 1–3 are still being operated 

in violation of the Regulations. 

under separate cover and also is dated 

September 10, 2008. 

I find that violations of the 

Regulations have occurred involving the 

unlicensed re-export to Iran of Aircraft 

1–3. While the Balli Respondents have 

asserted that they did not understand 

the restrictions on the re-export to Iran 

of U.S.-origin aircraft, their submission 

and related evidence are more probative 

of what violations have occurred, rather 

than calling into question BIS’s 

evidence or its renewal request. 

Monthly Aircraft Reports, in the 

possession of the Balli Respondents per 

the stated lease agreements with 

Respondent Blue Airways, provide 

ample evidence that Aircraft 1–3 have 

been regularly being flown on Mahan 

Air routes, both before the Balli-Blue 

Airways lease agreements were 

extended in November 2007 and well 

into the TDO period.4 Moreover, these 

reports, as acknowledged in Balli’s 

submission, also show Aircraft 1–3 

regularly being flown on Iran Air routes. 

Rather than undercutting BIS’s requests, 

as Balli suggests, this evidence shows 

that the scope of violations is greater 

and even more significant than 

indicated in BIS’s initial and renewal 

requests. 

I also find that the July 2007 letters to 

Balli from Boeing explicitly alerted Balli 

that Boeing would not be able to service 

Aircraft 1–3 based on evidence that the 

aircraft were being operated contrary to 

U.S. export control laws and thus put 

the Balli Respondents on notice 

regarding potential violations involving 

the lease of Aircraft 1–3 to Blue 

Airways. Similarly, by letter dated 

October 10, 2007, BIS warned the Balli 

Group, via its English counsel, that ‘‘[i]t 

has come to BIS’s attention there is 

evidence that during this lease 

agreement Blue Airways operated the 

three 747s aircraft by or for the benefit 

of an Iranian entity, specifically Mahan 

Air.’’ 

In spite of these warnings, the Balli 

Respondents contend that they 

remained without knowledge of any 

potential unlawfulness regarding their 

conduct—maintaining what they term 

their ‘‘fundamental misunderstanding’’ 

of U.S. trade prohibitions. Balli’s 

Opposition, at 9. They assert that they 

‘‘failed to focus on the underlying 

substantive legal concerns associated 

with Boeing and BIS communications’’ 

because they believed they were part of 

a ‘‘disinformation campaign’’ 

orchestrated by ‘‘Iranian expatriate 

groups that have a long history of 

hostility to Balli interests and the 

Alaghband family[,]’’ including 

‘‘militant opposition groups hostile to 

Iran, including the Mujahedin-e-Khalq.’’ 

Balli’s Supplemental Disclosure, at 15, 

attached to and referenced in Balli’s 

Opposition; see also Balli’s Opposition, 

at 9. 

I find this assertion to be entirely 

unsubstantiated and unpersuasive. As 

appears to occur throughout Balli’s 

opposition, this assertion is not 

supported by any citation to any witness 

statement, whether sworn or unsworn, 

whether from one of the Balli 

Respondents or a third party. Moreover, 

evidence of or a finding of knowledge 

can be based not only on affirmative or 

positive knowledge, but also ‘‘is inferred 

from evidence of the conscious 

disregard of facts known to a person and 

is also inferred from a person’s willful 

avoidance of facts.’’ Section 772.1, at 

definition of ‘‘Knowledge.’’ In sum, 

Balli’s asserted explanation as to its 

claimed lack of knowledge is not 

credible or substantiated, and even if it 

were, knowledge would be established 

on the record here at least by a 

conscious disregard or willful 

ignorance. 

Similarly, to the extent that the Balli 

Respondents’ rely on a lack of 

knowledge or lack of understanding 

‘‘defense,’’ those efforts are unavailing. 

BIS has alleged that false statement 

violations have occurred concerning the 

destination and end-user of Aircraft 1– 

3. The record supports the conclusion 

that false or misleading statements were 

made, whether affirmatively or through 

concealment or omission of material 

facts. See Section 764.2(g) 

(Misrepresentation and Concealment of 

Facts). As noted above, at no point 

before last week did the Balli 

Respondents disclose Mahan Air’s 

involvement (or Iran Air’s). Moreover, 

after being warned by BIS (and Boeing), 

the Balli Respondents represented to 

BIS (through their English counsel) by 

letter dated November 16, 2007, that 

they ‘‘ha[d] tightened contractual 

representations required from Blue 

Airways to make more explicit that a 

breach of U.S. export laws would 

constitute a breach of the leases * * *.’’ 

The extension of the lease agreements 

signed by the Balli Respondents and 

Blue Airways in November 2007 (again 

shortly after BIS expressed its concern 

that the planes were being operated in 

violation of the Regulations) contains no 

such provision. In fact, the Balli 

Respondents now assert that such 

language was somehow covertly 

removed from the draft lease agreements 

by Blue Airways and that they, while 

being represented by a large Londonbased law firm signed the agreements 

anyway. At all relevant times, Balli 

knew that the aircraft were regularly 

being operated in and out of Iran. 

I also find that although the Balli 

Respondents have now turned over a 

number of documents to BIS regarding 

Aircraft 1–3 and Aircraft 4–6, including 

in conjunction with a supplemental 

disclosure dated September 10, 2008 

(the same day its opposition to renewing 

the TDO was filed), they have failed to 

produce any documents regarding lease 

payments by Blue Airways that are 

required under the terms of the lease 

agreements. The failure to produce to 

BIS, six months after the TDO issued 

and three months after the documents 

were specifically requested by BIS, what 

should be readily available information 

in any legitimate, arms length 

commercial transaction raises a 

significant concern on BIS’s part. Parties 

that describe themselves, as the Balli 

Respondents do in relation to Aircraft 

1–3, as ‘‘passive investors’’ with no 

operational role or interest, but focused 

instead on cash flow and opportunities 

to sell the aircraft should market 

conditions improve, could be expected 

to be particularly focused on such 

payment issues and documents. 

While BIS supports legitimate efforts 

to bring the violations to a halt, and has 

under consideration Balli’s recent 

request to engage in certain negotiations 

with Blue Airways that Balli has 

indicated will be designed to accelerate 

recovery of Aircraft 1–3 from Blue 

Airways, such stated intentions are not 

a sufficient basis to sustain Balli’s 

position that the TDO need not and 

should not be renewed. Moreover, 

according to Balli’s own submissions, it 

was not until June 27, 2008, over three 

months after the TDO was issued, that 

Balli served Blue Airways with notices 

of breach or termination under the 

leases. This appears to be the only legal 

step taken to date by the Balli against 

Blue Airways, a step which Balli states 

Blue Airways has contested under the 

terms of the lease agreements. Similarly, 

the request for permission to negotiate 

an ‘‘accelerated’’ recovery of the aircraft 

was not taken until September 4, 2008, 

just two weeks before the TDO was set 

to expire. Neither the extent nor pace of 

these actions has stemmed or appears 

likely to stem the ongoing violations, 

nor does either contradict BIS’s case or 

demonstrate that Balli’s dealings with 

Blue Airways have been arms-length or 

that its only tie to Blue Airways is a 

contractual one. 

Finally with regard to Aircraft 1–3, 

the Balli respondents argue that there is 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
57054 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 191 / Wednesday, October 1, 2008 / Notices 

5The Balli Respondents state in their submission 

that they were compelled to default on the loan 

financing for Aircraft 4–6, because BIS denied their 

request to re-negotiate or extend that financing. 

This assertion is unsubstantiated and without merit. 

I note, inter alia, that as with other actions taken 

relating Aircraft 1–3, the Balli Respondents filed 

their request at the eleventh hour, that the lender 

itself never sought permission to enter into 

negotiations with the Balli Respondents, and that 

the Balli Respondents do not address the option of 

self-financing the aircraft through the Balli Group. 

no ‘‘substantive corroborating evidence’’ 

concerning the resume of [REDACTED] 

referenced in BIS’s renewal request. 

However, the record here clearly 

demonstrates, inter alia, that violations 

of the Regulations have occurred, that 

those violations involved Mahan Air, 

and that the Balli Respondents knew or 

had reason to know of those violations. 

The Balli Respondents nonetheless 

renewed the lease agreements with Blue 

Airways, misrepresented or concealed 

material facts during BIS’s investigation, 

and have failed to take significant or 

diligent action against Blue Airways. 

The fact that the violations have also 

involved Iran Air, an Iranian 

Government airline, does not 

undermine the evidence relating to 

Mahan Air, given the evidence 

referenced by BIS that the Iranian 

Government is engaged in concerted 

covert efforts to acquire U.S.-origin 

aircraft. The evidence relating to Iran 

Air underscores, rather than 

undermines, the need for renewal of the 

TDO. 

Moreover, regardless of the weight 

accorded the [REDACTED] resume, the 

record demonstrates that violations are 

imminent; indeed, that they are 

ongoing. In short, in many ways, the 

Balli Respondents’ arguments amount to 

a bald assertion that BIS should ‘‘trust 

us,’’ but the record here indicates the 

contrary. 

I have considered all of Balli’s 

arguments regarding Aircraft 1–3 and 

found them unpersuasive. With regard 

to Aircraft 4–6, absent additional or 

supplemental evidence showing that the 

planes have in fact been repossessed by 

the lender and that the Balli 

Respondents no longer have or claim 

any interest in those aircraft, I find it 

premature to remove Blue Sky Four 

Ltd., Blue Sky Five Ltd., or Blue Sky Six 

Ltd. from the TDO. BIS will consider 

appropriate supplemental submissions 

by the Balli Respondents regarding 

Aircraft 4–6.5

I find that the evidence presented by 

BIS demonstrates that the Respondents 

have violated the EAR and the TDO 

involving re-exports to Iran of Aircraft 

1–3, that such violations have been 

significant, deliberate and covert, and 

that there is a likelihood of future 

violations. As such, a Temporary Denial 

Order (‘‘TDO’’) is needed to give notice 

to persons and companies in the United 

States and abroad that they should 

continue to cease dealing with the 

Respondents in export transactions 

involving items subject to the EAR. 

Such a TDO is consistent with the 

public interest to prevent or preclude 

violations of the EAR. 

Accordingly, I find pursuant to 

Section 766.24, that renewal of the TDO 

for 180 days is necessary in the public 

interest to prevent an imminent 

violation of the EAR. 

III. Order 

It is therefore ordered: 

First, that the Respondents, BALLI 

GROUP PLC, 5 Stanhope Gate, London, 

UK, W1K 1AH; BALLI AVIATION, 5 

Stanhope Gate, London, UK, W1K 1AH; 

BALLI HOLDINGS, 5 Stanhope Gate, 

London, UK, W1K 1AH; VAHID 

ALAGHBAND, 5 Stanhope Gate, 

London, UK, W1K 1AH; HASSAN 

ALAGHBAND, 5 Stanhope Gate, 

London, UK, W1K 1AH; BLUE SKY 

ONE LTD., 5 Stanhope Gate, London, 

UK, W1K 1AH; BLUE SKY TWO LTD., 

5 Stanhope Gate, London, UK, W1K 

1AH; BLUE SKY THREE LTD., 5 

Stanhope Gate, London, UK, W1K 1AH; 

BLUE SKY FOUR LTD., 5 Stanhope 

Gate, London, UK, W1K 1AH; BLUE 

SKY FIVE LTD., 5 Stanhope Gate, 

London, UK, W1K 1AH; BLUE SKY SIX 

LTD., 5 Stanhope Gate, London, UK, 

W1K 1AH; BLUE AIRWAYS, 8/3 D 

Angaght Street, 376009 Yerevan, 

Armenia; and MAHAN AIRWAYS, 

Mahan Tower, No. 21, Azadegan St., 

M.A. Jenah Exp.Way, Tehran, Iran (each 

a ‘‘Denied Person’’ and collectively the 

‘‘Denied Persons’’), and BLUE 

AIRWAYS FZE, a/k/a Blue Airways, 

#G22 Dubai Airport Free Zone, P.O. Box 

393754 DAFZA, Dubai, United Arab 

Emirates and BLUE AIRWAYS, Riqa 

Road, Dubai 52404, United Arab 

Emirates (each a ‘‘Related Person’’ and 

collectively the ‘‘Related 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 the Denied Persons or Related 

Persons any item subject to the EAR; 

B. Take any action that facilitates the 

acquisition or attempted acquisition by 

the Denied Persons or Related Persons 

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 the Denied Persons 

or Related Persons 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 Persons or 

Related Persons of any item subject to 

the EAR that has been exported from the 

United States; 

D. Obtain from the Denied Persons or 

Related Persons 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 the Denied 

Persons or Related Persons, or service 

any item, of whatever origin, that is 

owned, possessed or controlled by the 

Denied Persons or Related Persons 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 

Denied Persons 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 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 191 / Wednesday, October 1, 2008 / Notices 57055 

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 

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 served 

on the Respondents and the Related 

Persons and shall be published in the 

Federal Register. 

This Order is effective immediately 

and shall remain in effect for 180 days. 

Entered this 17th day of September, 2008. 

Darryl W. Jackson, 

Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Export 

Enforcement. 

[FR Doc. E8–23089 Filed 9–30–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DT–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

Initiation of Five-Year (‘‘Sunset’’) 

Review 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: In accordance with section 

751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as 

amended (‘‘the Act’’), the Department of 

Commerce (‘‘the Department’’) is 

automatically initiating a five-year 

review (‘‘Sunset Review’’) of the 

antidumping duty order listed below. 

The International Trade Commission 

(‘‘the Commission’’) is publishing 

concurrently with this notice its notice 

of Institution of Five-Year Review which 

covers the same order. 

DATES: Effective Date: October 1, 2008. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The 

Department official identified in the 

Initiation of Review section below at 

AD/CVD Operations, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street & Constitution 

Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20230. For 

information from the Commission 

contact Mary Messer, Office of 

Investigations, U.S. International Trade 

Commission at (202) 205–3193. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

The Department’s procedures for the 

conduct of Sunset Reviews are set forth 

in its Procedures for Conducting FiveYear (‘‘Sunset’’) Reviews of 

Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 

Orders, 63 FR 13516 (March 20, 1998) 

and 70 FR 62061 (October 28, 2005). 

Guidance on methodological or 

analytical issues relevant to the 

Department’s conduct of Sunset 

Reviews is set forth in the Department’s 

Policy Bulletin 98.3—Policies Regarding 

the Conduct of Five-Year (‘‘Sunset’’) 

Reviews of Antidumping and 

Countervailing Duty Orders: Policy 

Bulletin, 63 FR 18871 (April 16, 1998). 

Initiation of Review 

In accordance with 19 CFR 

351.218(c), we are initiating the Sunset 

Review of the following antidumping 

duty order: 

DOC case No. ITC case No. Country Product Department 

contact 

A–570–882 ................. 731–TA–1022 ............ PRC .................... Refined Brown Aluminum Oxide ..... Brandon Farlander (202) 482–0182. 

Filing Information 

As a courtesy, we are making 

information related to Sunset 

proceedings, including copies of the 

pertinent statute and Department’s 

regulations, the Department schedule 

for Sunset Reviews, a listing of past 

revocations and continuations, and 

current service lists, available to the 

public on the Department’s sunset 

Internet Web site at the following 

address: ‘‘http://ia.ita.doc.gov/sunset/.’’ 

All submissions in these Sunset 

Reviews must be filed in accordance 

with the Department’s regulations 

regarding format, translation, service, 

and certification of documents. These 

rules can be found at 19 CFR 351.303. 

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.103(c), the 

Department will maintain and make 

available a service list for these 

proceedings. To facilitate the timely 

preparation of the service list(s), it is 

requested that those seeking recognition 

as interested parties to a proceeding 

contact the Department in writing 

within 10 days of the publication of the 

Notice of Initiation. 

Because deadlines in Sunset Reviews 

can be very short, we urge interested 

parties to apply for access to proprietary 

information under administrative 

protective order (‘‘APO’’) immediately 

following publication in the Federal 

Register of this notice of initiation by 

filing a notice of intent to participate. 

The Department’s regulations on 

submission of proprietary information 

and eligibility to receive access to 

business proprietary information under 

APO can be found at 19 CFR 351.304– 

306. 

Information Required From Interested 

Parties 

Domestic interested parties defined in 

section 771(9)(C), (D), (E), (F), and (G) of 

the Act and 19 CFR 351.102(b) wishing 

to participate in a Sunset Review must 

respond not later than 15 days after the 

date of publication in the Federal 

Register of this notice of initiation by 

filing a notice of intent to participate. 

The required contents of the notice of 

intent to participate are set forth at 19 

CFR 351.218(d)(1)(ii). In accordance 

with the Department’s regulations, if we 

do not receive a notice of intent to 

participate from at least one domestic 

interested party by the 15-day deadline, 

the Department will automatically 

revoke the order without further review. 

See 19 CFR 351.218(d)(1)(iii). 

If we receive an order-specific notice 

of intent to participate from a domestic 

interested party, the Department’s 

regulations provide that all parties 

wishing to participate in the Sunset 

Review must file complete substantive 

responses not later than 30 days after 

the date of publication in the Federal 

Register of this notice of initiation. The 

required contents of a substantive 

response, on an order-specific basis, are 

set forth at 19 CFR 351.218(d)(3). Note 

that certain information requirements 

differ for respondent and domestic 

parties. Also, note that the Department’s 

information requirements are distinct 

from the Commission’s information 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES