66728 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 209 / Friday, October 29, 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 

57,626). 

3 75 FR 25,202. 

* Proposed NEW document drafts are 

available from NFPA’s Web site—http:// 

www.nfpa.org, or may be obtained from 

NFPA’s Codes and Standards 

Administration, 1 Batterymarch Park, 

Quincy, Massachusetts 02169–7471. 

Dated: October 22, 2010. 

Harry S. Hertz, 

Director, Baldrige Performance Excellence 

Program. 

[FR Doc. 2010–27434 Filed 10–28–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

Bureau of Industry and Security 

Action Affecting Export Privileges; 

Orion Air, S.L. and Syrian Pearl 

Airlines: 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 45 

46015 Valencia, Spain; and Syrian 

Pearl Airlines, Damascus International 

Airport, Damascus, Syria, 

Respondents 

Order Renewing Temporary Denial of 

Export Privileges 

Pursuant to Section 766.24 of the 

Export Administration Regulations, 15 

CFR Parts 730–774 (2010) (‘‘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

On April 29, 2010, I renewed the TDO 

against the Respondents for an 

additional 180 days. That renewal was 

effective upon issuance and was 

published in the Federal Register on 

May 7, 2010.3 The current Order would 

expire on October 26, 2010, unless 

renewed in accordance with Section 

766.24 of the Regulations. 

On October 5, 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. A copy of this 

request was delivered to 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 being re-exported to Syria 

for Syrian Pearl Airlines’ use and 

benefit. 

Based on my review of the record, I 

find that the facts and circumstances 

that led to the issuance of the initial 

TDO and subsequent renewal Orders 

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 reexported 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. 

Additionally, there remains a 

substantial risk that, absent renewal of 

the TDO, the first aircraft, which 

remains in Syria, would 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 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 209 / Friday, October 29, 2010 / Notices 66729 

1See Notice of Amendment of Final 

Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and 

Antidumping Duty Order: Certain Preserved 

Mushrooms From the People’s Republic of China, 

64 FR 8308 (February 19, 1999), (the ‘‘Order’’). 

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 when 

acting for or on its behalf, any of its 

successors, assigns, agents, or 

employees; and Syrian Pearl Airlines, 

Damascus International Airport, 

Damascus, Syria, and when acting on its 

behalf, any of its successors, assigns, 

agents, or employees (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. Benefitting 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 re-export 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, re-export, 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. 

BIS may seek renewal of this Order by 

filing a written request with the 

Assistant Secretary of Commerce for 

Export Enforcement in accordance with 

the provisions of Section 766.24(d) of 

the Regulations, which currently 

provides that such a written renewal 

request must be submitted not later than 

20 days before the expiration date. The 

Respondents may oppose a request to 

renew this Order by doing so in 

accordance with Section 766.24(d), 

including filing a written submission 

with the Assistant Secretary for Export 

Enforcement, supported by appropriate 

evidence. Any opposition ordinarily 

must be received not later than seven 

days before the expiration date of the 

Order. 

Notice of the issuance of this Order 

shall be given to Respondents in 

accordance with Sections 766.5(b). This 

Order also shall be published in the 

Federal Register. 

This Order is effective upon issuance 

and shall remain in effect for 180 days. 

Issued this 22nd day of October 2010. 

David W. Mills, 

Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Export 

Enforcement. 

[FR Doc. 2010–27351 Filed 10–28–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DT–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–570–851] 

Certain Preserved Mushrooms From 

the People’s Republic of China: 

Preliminary Results of Antidumping 

Duty New Shipper Reviews 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

DATES: Effective Date: October 29, 2010. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce 

(the Department) is currently 

conducting two new shipper reviews 

(NSRs) of the antidumping duty order 

on certain preserved mushrooms from 

the People’s Republic of China (PRC) 1

covering the period of review (POR) 

February 1, 2009, through January 31, 

2010. We preliminarily determine that 

the sales made by Shandong Fengyu 

Edible Fungus Co., Ltd. (Fengyu) and by 

Zhangzhou Tongfa Foods Industry Co., 

Ltd. (Tongfa), were not made below 

normal value (NV). If these preliminary 

results are adopted in our final results 

of this review, we will instruct U.S. 

Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to 

liquidate entries of merchandise 

exported by Fengyu and Tongfa during 

the POR without regard to antidumping 

duties. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Fred 

Baker, Scott Hoefke, or Robert James, 

AD/CVD Operations, Office 7, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; 

telephone: (202) 482–2924, (202) 482– 

4947 or (202) 482–0649, respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On February 26, 2010, pursuant to 

section 751(a)(2)(B)(i) of the Tariff Act 

of 1930, as amended (the ‘‘Act’’), and 19 

CFR 351.214(c), the Department 

received NSR requests from Fengyu and 

Tongfa. The Department determined 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with NOTICES