Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 99 / Tuesday, May 26, 2009 / Notices 24785 

1The Regulations are currently codified in the 

Code of Federal Regulations at 15 CFR Parts 730– 

774 (2009). The violations alleged occurred 2004. 

The Regulations governing the allegation at issue 

are found in the 2004 version of the Code of Federal 

Regulations (15 CFR Parts 730–774 (2004)). The 

2009 Regulations govern the procedural aspects of 

the case. 

2 50 U.S.C. app. §§ 2401–2420 (2000). Since 

August 21, 2001, has been in lapse and the 

President, through Executive Order 13222 of August 

17, 2001 (3 CFR 2001 Comp. p. 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)), continues the 

Regulations in effect under the International 

Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701– 

1706 (2000)). 

Dated: May 21, 2009. 

Paul N. Doremus, 

NOAA NEPA Coordinator, Office of Program 

Planning and Integration. 

[FR Doc. E9–12295 Filed 5–21–09; 4:15 pm] 

BILLING CODE 3510–12–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

Bureau of Industry and Security 

Action Affecting Export Privileges; 

Matthew Ayadpoor In the Matter of: 

Matthew Ayadpoor, 9700 Mayview 

Court, Oklahoma City, OK, 73159; 

Respondent; Order Relating To 

Matthew Ayadpoor 

The Bureau of Industry and Security, 

U.S. Department of Commerce (‘‘BIS’’) 

has notified Matthew Ayadpoor 

(‘‘Ayadpoor’’), of its intention to initiate 

an administrative proceeding against 

Ayadpoor pursuant to Section 766.3 of 

the Export Administration Regulations 

(the ‘‘Regulations’’),1 and Section 13(c) 

of the Export Administration Act of 

1979, as amended (the ‘‘Act’’),2 through 

the issuance of a proposed charging 

letter to Ayadpoor that alleged that he 

committed four violations of the 

Regulations. Specifically, these charges 

are: 

Charge 1 15 CFR 764.2(c)— 

Solicitation and Attempt 

On or about June 2, 2004, Ayadpoor 

engaged in conduct prohibited by the 

Regulations by attempting to have 

piston-type differential pressure gauges, 

which is subject to the Regulations and 

classified as EAR99, exported to Iran 

without the required U.S. Government 

authorization. Specifically, Ayadpoor 

ordered a freight forwarding company to 

export the gauges to Iran via the United 

Arab Emirates (‘‘UAE’’). Pursuant to 

Section 560.204 of the Iranian 

Transactions Regulations maintained by 

the Department of the Treasury’s Office 

of Foreign Assets Control (‘‘OFAC’’), an 

export to a third country intended for 

transshipment to Iran is a transaction 

that requires OFAC authorization. 

Pursuant to Section 746.7 of the 

Regulations, no person may engage in 

the exportation of an item subject to 

both the Regulations and the Iranian 

Transactions Regulations without 

authorization from OFAC. No OFAC 

authorization was obtained for the 

export described herein. In engaging in 

the activity described herein, Ayadpoor 

committed one violation of Section 

764.2(c) of the Regulations. 

Charge 2 15 CFR 764.2(e)—Acting 

with Knowledge of a Violation 

In connection with charge one above, 

on or about June 4, 2004, Ayadpoor 

violated the Regulations by ordering the 

export of items subject to the 

Regulations from the United States with 

knowledge that a violation of the 

Regulations would occur in connection 

with the item. Specifically, Ayadpoor 

attempted to export items subject to the 

Regulations and the Iranian 

Transactions Regulations, with 

knowledge or reason to know that the 

items would be exported to Iran via the 

UAE without the required U.S. 

Government authorization. Ayadpoor 

had knowledge that U.S. products could 

not be sold to sanctioned countries, 

including Iran, a fact he acknowledged 

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

special agents. Additionally, Ayadpoor 

negotiated for the items with persons in 

Iran, knowing that the items would be 

shipped there via the UAE. In so doing, 

Ayadpoor committed one violation of 

Section 764.2(e) of the Regulations. 

Charge 3 15 CFR 764.2(g)— 

Misrepresentation and Concealment of 

Facts 

On or about September 8, 2004, 

Ayadpoor made a false and/or 

misleading statement to OEE special 

agents in the course of an investigation 

subject to the Regulations. Specifically, 

Ayadpoor told the agents that he had 

not participated in any export 

transactions with the UAE company 

associated with the June 2004 

transaction since that transaction. This 

was a false statement in that on or about 

August 31, 2004, Ayadpoor ordered that 

a second shipment of gauges be 

exported to the same UAE company. In 

so doing, Ayadpoor committed one 

violation of Section 764.2(g) of the 

Regulations. 

Charge 4 15 CFR 764.2(i)—Failure To 

Comply With Recordkeeping 

Requirements 

On or about September 8, 2004, 

Ayadpoor failed to comply with the 

recordkeeping requirements set forth in 

Section 762.2 of the Regulations. 

Specifically, Ayadpoor failed to retain 

export control documents, including 

waybills, and/or other pertinent 

documents in connection with its export 

of gauges, described in Charge 3, above. 

In so doing, Ayadpoor committed one 

violation of Section 764.2(i) of the 

Regulations. 

Whereas, BIS and Ayadpoor have 

entered into a Settlement Agreement 

pursuant to Section 766.18(a) of the 

Regulations whereby they agreed to 

settle this matter in accordance with the 

terms and conditions set forth therein, 

and 

Whereas, I have approved of the terms 

of such Settlement Agreement; It is 

therefore ordered: 

First, Ayadpoor shall be assessed a 

civil penalty in the amount of $25,000, 

the payment of which shall be 

suspended for a period of one (1) year 

from the date of entry of the Order, and 

thereafter shall be waived, provided that 

during the period of suspension, 

Ayadpoor has committed no violation of 

the Act, or any regulation, order, or 

license issued thereunder. 

Second, that for a period of one (1) 

year from the date of entry of the Order, 

Ayadpoor, his representatives, assigns 

or agents (‘‘Denied Person’’) may not 

participate, directly or indirectly, 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. 

Third, 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, 

24786 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 99 / Tuesday, May 26, 2009 / Notices 

1The EAR is currently codified at 15 CFR Parts 

730–774 (2009). The EAR are issued under the 

Export Administration Act of 1979, as amended (50 

U.S.C. app. 2401–2420 (2000)) (‘‘EAA’’). Since 

August 21, 2001, the Act has been in lapse and 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– 

1706 (2000)) (‘‘IEEPA’’). 

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 which 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. 

Fourth, 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 Ayadpoor 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. 

Fifth, that the proposed charging 

letter, the Settlement Agreement, and 

this Order shall be made available to the 

public. 

Sixth, 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 immediately. 

Entered this 15th day of May, 2009. 

Kevin Delli-Colli, 

Acting Assistant Secretary of Commerce for 

Export Enforcement. 

[FR Doc. E9–12190 Filed 5–22–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DT–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

Bureau of Industry and Security 

Action Affection Export Privileges: 

Orion Air S.L.; Syrian Pearl Airlines 

In the Matter of: 

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. 

Order Temporarily Denying Export 

Privileges 

Pursuant to Section 766.24 of the Export 

Administration Regulations (‘‘EAR’’),1 the 

Bureau of Industry and Security (‘‘BIS’’), U.S. 

Department of Commerce, through its Office 

of Export Enforcement (‘‘OEE’’), has 

requested that I issue an Order temporarily 

denying, for a period of 180 days, the export 

privileges under the EAR of: 

1. 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. 

2. Syrian Pearl Airlines, Damascus 

International Airport, Damascus, Syria. 

BIS has 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 

Airways without the U.S. Government 

authorization required by General Order No. 

2 of Supplement 1 to Part 736 of the EAR. 

This re-export took place after Orion Air had 

been directly informed of the export 

licensing requirements by the U.S. 

Government, and thus had actual as well as 

constructive notice of those licensing 

requirements, and occurred despite 

assurances made by Orion Air that it would 

put the transaction on hold based on the U.S. 

Government’s concerns. 

The aircraft is powered with four U.S.- 

origin engines and also contains a U.S.-origin 

auxiliary power unit (‘‘APU’’) and electronic 

flight instrumentation system (‘‘EFIS’’), all of 

which are items subject to the EAR. The 

engines and APU are classified as Export 

Control Classification Number (‘‘ECCN’’) 

9A991.d and the EFIS is classified as ECCN 

7A994. Because the aircraft contains greater 

than a 10 percent de minimis of U.S.-origin 

items, a fact Orion Air acknowledged, the 

aircraft is also subject to the EAR if reexported to Syria and is classified as ECCN 

9A991.b. No license was obtained from BIS 

for export or re-export of the U.S.-origin parts 

contained in the aircraft, nor the aircraft 

itself. BIS has also produced evidence that 

the re-exported aircraft bears the livery, 

colors and logos of Syrian Pearl Airlines, a 

national of Syria, a country group E:1 

destination. 

Moreover, BIS argues that future violations 

of the EAR are imminent based on statements 

by Orion Air to the U.S. Government that 

Orion Air plans to re-export an additional 

BAE 146–300 aircraft, currently located in 

Spain, to Syria and specifically to Syrian 

Pearl Airlines. This information is 

corroborated by publically available 

information in the Syrian press and 

contained in industry data bases. Based on 

this evidence, including Orion’s recent reexport to Syria in violation of the EAR, it is 

highly likely that this additional aircraft will 

be re-exported to Syria contrary to U.S. 

export control laws. 

I find that the evidence presented by BIS 

demonstrates that a violation of the 

Regulations is imminent in both time and 

degree of likelihood. The conduct in this case 

is deliberate, significant and likely to occur 

again absent the issuance of a TDO. As such, 

a 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. Such a 

TDO is consistent with the public interest to 

preclude future violations of the EAR. 

Accordingly, I find that a TDO naming 

Orion Air and Syrian Pearl Airlines is 

necessary, in the public interest, to prevent 

an imminent violation of the EAR. 

This Order is being issued on an ex parte 

basis without a hearing based upon BIS’s 

showing of an imminent violation. 

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.