Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 195 / Wednesday, October 11, 2023 / Notices 70417 

Certificate of Service 

I hereby certify that I have served by 

electronic mail the foregoing 

Recommended Decision to Dismiss 

Appeal upon the following: 

Gregory Michelsen, Esq., Andrea Duvall, 

Esq., Attorneys for Bureau of Industry 

and Security, Office of Chief Counsel 

for Industry and Security, U.S. 

Department of Commerce (Sent via 

electronic mail) 

Wendy Wysong, Esq., Ali Burney, Esq., 

Steptoe & Johnson HK LLP, Attorneys 

for Respondent (Sent via electronic 

mail) 

U.S. Coast Guard, ALJ Docketing Center, 

Attn: Hearing Docket Clerk (Sent via 

electronic mail) 

I hereby certify that I have forwarded 

by Express Courier the foregoing 

Recommended Decision to Dismiss 

Appeal and the case file upon the 

following: 

Alan F. Estevez, Under Secretary for 

Industry and Security, Bureau of 

Industry and Security, U.S. 

Department of Commerce (Sent via 

Fed Ex) 

Done and dated August 24, 2023, at 

Galveston, Texas. 

[FR Doc. 2023–22434 Filed 10–10–23; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DT–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

Bureau of Industry and Security 

[Docket Number: 23–BIS–TDO–1] 

In the Matter of: OOO Pegas Touristik, 

5 Building 1, Volokoplamsk Highway, 

Moscow, Russian Federation, 125080, 

Appellant; Final Decision and Order 

Before me for my final decision is a 

Recommended Decision (RD), issued on 

August 23, 2023, by Administrative Law 

Judge (ALJ) Tommy Cantrell. The RD 

recommends that this appeal filed by 

OOO Pegas Touristik (Pegas) be 

dismissed. As further discussed below, 

I accept the findings of fact and 

conclusions of law in the ALJ’s RD. 

I. Background 

Pegas appeals a Temporary Denial 

Order (TDO) temporarily denying the 

export privileges of Nordwind Airlines 

(Nordwind), first issued by the Assistant 

Secretary of Commerce for Export 

Enforcement (Assistant Secretary) of the 

Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS or 

the Agency) on June 24, 2022, 87 FR 

38704. The Export Administration 

Regulations (EAR or Regulations) at 15 

CFR 766.24 authorize the Assistant 

Secretary to issue a TDO for a period of 

up to 180 days to prevent an ‘‘imminent 

violation’’ of the Regulations. 15 CFR 

766.24(b)(1), (b)(4). Moreover, a TDO 

may be made applicable to ‘‘related 

persons’’ in accordance with § 766.23 of 

the Regulations. 

The Agency subsequently renewed 

the TDO against Nordwind twice, on 

December 20, 2022, 87 FR 79725, and 

June 15, 2023, 88 FR 40202. Upon the 

second renewal, the Agency added 

Pegas as a related person to the TDO, 

then modified the TDO on June 27, 

2023, to remove Pegas as a related 

person, 88 FR 42290. 

On August 4, 2023, Pegas, through 

counsel, filed an appeal (Pegas Appeal) 

with the U.S. Coast Guard ALJ 

Docketing Center (Docketing Center) 

pursuant to 15 CFR 766.23(c) of the 

EAR. After assignment of the matter to 

an ALJ by the Docketing Center on 

August 10, 2023, BIS filed a response to 

the appeal on August 17, 2023. ALJ 

Cantrell issued the August 23, 2023, RD, 

which my office received on August 24, 

2023. On August 24, 2023, Pegas 

requested a hearing and/or opportunity 

to respond to the ALJ’s RD. Upon 

consideration of the views of the parties, 

I issued an order on August 29, 2023, 

denying Pegas’s request for a hearing 

and granting its request to submit a 

response. The order also extended the 

period of time to issue this Final 

Decision and set forth a schedule for 

additional written submissions by the 

parties. Consistent with the order, Pegas 

filed a ‘‘Response to the Administrative 

Law Judge’s Recommended Decision’’ 

(Pegas Response) on September 6, 2023, 

and the Agency filed a ‘‘Reply to 

Response by Non-Party OOO Pegas 

Touristik’’ (BIS Reply) on September 15, 

2023. 

II. Standard 

As described above, § 766.24(b) of the 

Regulations addresses the Assistant 

Secretary’s authority to issue TDOs. To 

issue a TDO, BIS must make a showing 

that the order is necessary in the public 

interest to prevent an ‘‘imminent 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1EN11OC23.002</GPH> EN11OC23.003</GPH>

TOMMY CANTRELL 

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE 

UNITED STATES COAST GUARD 

Ericka J. Pollard 

Paralegal Specialist to 

Tommy Cantrell 

Administrative Law Judge 

United States Coast Guard 
70418 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 195 / Wednesday, October 11, 2023 / Notices 

1 ‘‘Ex. 1’’ references the first of 12 exhibits 

attached to the Appeal dated August 4, 2023. 

2BIS published this TDO on the Federal Register 

on June 21, 2023. See 88 FR 40202. 

violation’’ of the Regulations. 15 CFR 

766.24(b)(1). The Regulations authorize 

the issuance of a TDO on an ex parte 

basis but require that the order define 

the imminent violation and state why it 

was issued without a hearing. Id. at 

§ 766.24(b)(2). BIS also has the authority 

to renew the TDO for additional 

periods. Id. at § 766.24(d)(1). 

To prevent evasion of the TDO, the 

Assistant Secretary may apply the terms 

of the TDO to ‘‘related persons,’’ that is, 

‘‘other persons then or thereafter related 

to the respondent by ownership, 

control, position of responsibility, 

affiliation, or other connection in the 

conduct of trade or business.’’ Id. at 

§ 766.23(a). When seeking to add a 

related person to a denial order, ‘‘BIS 

shall, except in an ex parte proceeding 

under § 766.24(a) of this part,’’ give that 

person notice and an opportunity to 

oppose such an action. Id. at § 766.23(b). 

‘‘Related persons’’ may not oppose the 

issuance or renewal of a TDO, but may 

file an appeal with an ALJ, who issues 

an RD for the review of the Under 

Secretary in accordance with § 766.24(e) 

of the Regulations. See id. at 

§§ 766.23(c)(2)(ii), 766.24(d)(3)(ii). For 

appeals by related persons, the 

Regulations provide that the ‘‘sole 

issues to be raised and ruled on in any 

such appeal are whether the person so 

named is related to the respondent and 

whether the order is justified in order to 

prevent evasion.’’ Id. at § 766.23(c). 

III. Discussion 

Pegas’s appeal requests that an Order 

be issued ‘‘that orders the Assistant 

Secretary to issue an amended Order 

that retroactively nullifies and voids the 

addition of Pegas Touristik as a related 

person to the TDO and the subjection of 

Pegas Touristik to a denial order from 

June 15, 2023, to June 27, 2023.’’ Pegas 

Appeal at 11. Pegas also seeks a public 

acknowledgement from BIS that its 

designation of Pegas as a related person 

to the TDO and the addition of Pegas to 

the BIS Denied Persons List was in 

error. Pegas Appeal at 10, Pegas 

Response at 8. In short, the limited 

scope of the appeal under § 766.23(c) of 

the Regulations prevents me from doing 

as Pegas requests. 

The ALJ makes twelve recommended 

findings of fact in the RD. RD at 2–3. I 

accept these recommended findings of 

fact. Three of the Recommended Facts 

(2, 9, and 10) were discussed in the 

additional submissions by the parties, 

and warrant additional discussion. In its 

response to the RD, Pegas describes 

these three Recommended Facts as 

‘‘materially incomplete and/or 

misleading,’’ but concedes that 

Recommended Facts 9 and 10 are 

indeed factually accurate. Pegas 

Response at 6–7. Because both parties 

agree on accuracy, see id., BIS Reply at 

2, I decline to disturb the ALJ’s fact 

determinations and accept 

Recommended Facts 9 and 10 as set 

forth in the RD. Regarding 

Recommended Fact 2, Pegas argues that 

this fact should be ‘‘clarified’’ to reflect 

additional information about alleged 

deficiencies in the TDO renewal 

process, but does not explicitly contest 

its accuracy. Pegas Response at 6. I am 

unpersuaded by Pegas’s contention that 

Recommended Fact 2 as submitted by 

the ALJ is insufficient, and think the 

clarification requested by Pegas is not 

necessary for the disposition of this 

§ 766.23(c) appeal. Thus I accept 

Recommended Fact 2 as set forth in the 

RD. 

Regarding the conclusion of law in 

the RD, I agree that Pegas seeks relief 

outside the scope of an appeal as set 

forth in 15 CFR 766.23(c). As discussed 

above, the Regulations limit the scope of 

the appeal to two issues: whether the 

related person is related to the 

respondent subject to the TDO, and 

whether the TDO is justified to prevent 

evasion. 15 CFR 766.23(c). Although 

Pegas takes issue in its appeal with the 

process by which it was added as a 

related person to the Nordwind TDO on 

June 15, 2023, Pegas’s appeal does not 

address in detail whether it is indeed 

related to Nordwind, nor does it address 

whether the TDO was justified to 

prevent evasion. Regardless, as of June 

27, 2023, Pegas was no longer a related 

person under § 766.23 to the Nordwind 

TDO, and therefore an appeal under 

§ 766.23(c) is no longer available to 

Pegas. The ALJ concludes that he 

‘‘cannot rule on these issues because 

there is no TDO currently in effect 

naming Pegas as a related person, thus, 

[he] cannot affirm, modify, or vacate as 

part of this appeal,’’ RD at 5, and I agree. 

IV. Conclusion and Order 

Based on my review of the record, I 

accept the findings of fact and 

conclusions of law made by the ALJ in 

his RD. I also confirm that as of the date 

of issuance of this Final Decision and 

Order, Pegas is not listed on the BIS 

Denied Persons List, nor is it subject to 

the license requirements and 

prohibitions in the Nordwind TDO. 

Accordingly, it is therefore ordered: 

First, that this appeal is dismissed. 

Second, that this Final Decision and 

Order shall be served on Appellants and 

on BIS and shall be published in the 

Federal Register. In addition, the ALJ’s 

Recommended Decision shall also be 

published in the Federal Register. 

This Order, which constitutes the 

Department’s final decision with regard 

to this appeal, is effective immediately. 

Dated: September 29, 2023. 

Alan F. Estevez, 

Under Secretary of Commerce for Industry 

and Security. 

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF 

COMMERCE, BUREAU OF INDUSTRY 

AND SECURITY, WASHINGTON, DC 

20230 

In the matter of: OOO Pegas Touristik, 

Appellant. 

Docket No.: 23–BIS–TDO1 

RECOMMENDED DECISION 

Issued by: Honorable Tommy Cantrell, 

Administrative Law Judge 

Issued: August 23, 2023 

On August 4, 2023, OOO Pegas 

Touristik (Pegas) filed an appeal 

pursuant to 15 CFR 766.23(c) of the 

Export Administration Regulations 

(EAR). Specifically, Pegas requests I 

issue an order directing the Assistant 

Secretary of Commerce for Export 

Enforcement (Assistant Secretary) to 

‘‘issue an amended Order that 

retroactively nullifies and voids the 

addition of Pegas as a related person’’ to 

a Temporary Denial Order (TDO) issued 

to Nordwind Airlines (Nordwind), ‘‘as 

well as Pegas Touristik’s inclusion in 

the [Denied Persons List] order from 

June 15, 2023, to June 27, 2023.’’ 

(Appeal at 3). The Bureau of Industry 

and Security (BIS) opposes the appeal, 

arguing there is no factual or legal basis 

to support the appeal or the relief Pegas 

seeks. For the reasons set forth herein, 

I recommend the appeal be dismissed. 

I. Procedural Background 

On June 24, 2022, the Assistant 

Secretary issued a TDO to Russian 

airline Nordwind pursuant to 15 CFR 

766.24. (Ex. 1).1 In accordance with BIS 

regulations, the Assistant Secretary 

renewed the TDO for an additional 180 

days on December 20, 2022. (Ex. 2). The 

Assistant Secretary again renewed the 

TDO on June 15, 2023, this time adding 

Pegas as a related person pursuant to 15 

CFR 766.23 of the EAR. (Ex. 3).2

Thereafter, following discussions and an 

exchange of information between BIS 

and Pegas, the Assistant Secretary 

issued a ‘‘Modification of June 15, 2023 

Renewal of Temporary Denial Order,’’ 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 195 / Wednesday, October 11, 2023 / Notices 70419 

3BIS published this TDO on the Federal Register 

on June 30, 2023. See 88 FR 42290. 

4Pursuant to an interagency agreement, United 

States Coast Guard (USCG) Administrative Law 

Judges are permitted to adjudicate BIS cases. 

5The TDO refers to Pegas as a ‘‘Denied Person’’ 

but the record does not contain a separate ‘‘Denied 

Persons List’’ or ‘‘DPL.’’ For purposes of this 

decision, I consider the naming of Pegas as a related 

person the same as its inclusion on a DPL. 

6The EAR primarily relate to the implementation 

of the Export Administration Act of 1979. 15 CFR 

730.2. 

7At the crux of Pegas’s appeal is the argument 

BIS acted outside its regulations when it named the 

company a related party without first giving it 

notice and an opportunity to oppose the action. It 

asserts this allegedly ultra vires activity should 

render the June 15, 2023, TDO null and void. I note, 

however, the Assistant Secretary issued and 

renewed the Nordwind TDO on an ex parte basis 

pursuant to 15 CFR 766.24. Specifically, the June 

15, 2023, TDO which added Pegas as a related party 

was also issued ex parte in accordance with 15 CFR 

766.24. As such, as a related party Pegas could not 

oppose its issuance or renewal but could file an 

appeal pursuant to § 766.23(c). 15 CFR 

766.24(d)(3)(ii); 15 CFR 766.23(b). 

removing Pegas from the Nordwind 

TDO. (Exs. 3–7).3

On August 4, 2023, Pegas filed this 

appeal with the United States Coast 

Guard Administrative Law Judge 

Docketing Center (Docketing Center).4

The appeal letter included twelve 

exhibits. On August 10, 2023, the 

Docketing Center assigned this case to 

me for adjudication. BIS submitted its 

response to the appeal on August 17, 

2023. The record is now closed and the 

appeal is ripe for decision. 

II. Recommended Findings of Fact 

1. On June 24, 2022, the Assistant 

Secretary issued a Temporary Denial 

Order (TDO) to Russian airline 

Nordwind Airlines (Norwind), 

temporarily denying Nordwind’s export 

privileges on an ex parte basis pursuant 

to 15 CFR 766.24 to prevent an 

‘‘imminent violation’’ of the Export 

Administration Regulations (EAR). (Ex. 

1). 

2. On June 15, 2023, the Assistant 

Secretary renewed the TDO and added 

Pegas as a related person. (Ex. 3). 

3. As modified, the June 15, 2023, 

TDO refers to both Nordwind Airlines 

and Pegas as ‘‘Denied Persons’’ who 

‘‘may not, directly or indirectly, 

participate in any way in any 

transaction involving any commodity, 

software or technology . . . exported or 

to be exported from the United States 

that is subject to the EAR . . . .’’ 5 (Ex. 

3). 

4. BIS published the June 15, 2023 

TDO in the Federal Register on June 21, 

2023. See 88 FR 40202. 

5. On June 20, 2023, Pegas contacted 

BIS to express concerns about the TDO, 

specifically arguing the addition of 

Pegas as a related person was legally 

and factually incorrect because BIS did 

not provide Pegas with advance notice 

or an opportunity to oppose the action. 

(Ex. 4). 

6. On June 21, 2023, the Office of 

Export Enforcement (OEE) requested 

information from Pegas regarding its 

business operations, ownership and 

corporate structure, and other facts 

related to certain individuals, including 

information regarding whether Pegas 

was related to Nordwind Airlines. (Ex. 

5). 

7. Following discussions between 

Pegas and BIS, on June 27, 2023, the 

Assistant Secretary issued a modified 

TDO removing Pegas as a related 

person. (Exs. 6a, 6b, 7). 

8. BIS published the June 27, 2023, 

TDO in the Federal Register on June 30, 

2023. See 88 FR 42290. 

9. The modified TDO does not discuss 

specific reasons for the removal but 

states the OEE requested ‘‘Pegas 

Touristik be removed from the TDO to 

allow the opportunity for additional 

administrative process under Part 766 of 

the Regulations.’’ (Ex. 7). 

10. On July 24, 2023, BIS corrected 

the Table of Contents for Export 

Violations on its website to indicate the 

June 15, 2023, TDO related solely to 

Nordwind Airlines. (Ex. 11). 

11. On July 28, 2023, Pegas requested 

the Assistant Secretary issue an order 

which clearly and definitively states 

‘‘Pegas Touristik was erroneously added 

as a related person to the June 15 Order 

and to the List of Denied Persons’’ and 

‘‘Pegas Touristik has never been subject 

to a valid denial order imposed by the 

U.S. Department of Commerce’s Bureau 

of Industry and Security.’’ (Ex. 10). 

12. In response, BIS sent Pegas an 

email noting the following: ‘‘BIS issued 

an Order on June 27, 2023, removing 

Pegas Touristik as a party from the June 

15, 2023 Nordwind TDO. Additionally, 

on July 24, 2023, BIS amended the 

caption in its EFOIA Table of Contents. 

Given the above, no further action is 

necessary.’’ (Ex. 11). 

III. Opinion and Recommended 

Conclusion of Law 

BIS regulations related to export 

administration are issued ‘‘under laws 

relating to the control of certain exports, 

reexports, and activities.’’ 15 CFR 

730.1.6 Its export control provisions 

‘‘are intended to serve the national 

security, foreign policy, 

nonproliferation of weapons of mass 

destruction, and other interests of the 

United States.’’ 15 CFR 730.6. To 

prevent an imminent violation of the 

EAR, BIS may request the Assistant 

Secretary issue a TDO on an ex parte 

basis. 15 CFR 766.24(a). The TDO is 

only valid for 180 days, but the 

Assistant Secretary may renew it in 

additional 180-day increments as 

deemed necessary. 15 CFR 766.24(b)(4), 

766.24(d)(4). When deciding to renew 

an order, the only issue to be considered 

‘‘is whether the temporary denial order 

should be continued to prevent an 

imminent violation.’’ 15 CFR 

766.24(d)(3). The Assistant Secretary 

may also modify or amend a TDO. 15 

CFR 766.24(d), 766.23(b). 

To prevent evasion of a TDO, the 

Assistant Secretary may apply the order 

‘‘not only to the respondent, but also to 

other persons then or thereafter related 

to the respondent by ownership, 

control, position of responsibility, 

affiliation, or other connection in the 

conduct of trade or business.’’ 15 CFR 

766.23(a), 766.24(c). When adding a 

related party to an order affecting export 

privileges, ‘‘BIS shall, except in an ex 

parte proceeding under § 766.24’’ give 

that person notice and an opportunity to 

oppose the action. 15 CFR 766.23(b). 

Where the Assistant Secretary issues 

or renews a TDO on an ex parte basis 

pursuant to 15 CFR 766.24, persons 

‘‘designated as a related person may not 

oppose the issuance or renewal of the 

temporary denial order, but may file an 

appeal in accordance with § 766.23(c).’’ 

15 CFR 766.24(d)(3)(ii). The only issues 

that may be raised on appeal are 

‘‘whether the person so named is related 

to the respondent and whether the order 

is justified in order to prevent evasion.’’ 

15 CFR 766.23(c). An administrative law 

judge then submits a recommended 

decision to the Under Secretary for 

Industry and Security ‘‘recommending 

whether the issuance or the renewal of 

the temporary denial order should be 

affirmed, modified, or vacated.’’ 15 CFR 

766.24(e)(4). 

Having outlined the relevant 

regulations governing this appeal, I now 

turn to the facts of the case. 

a. Pegas Seeks Relief Outside the Scope 

of an Appeal as Set Forth in 15 CFR 

766.23(c) 

Here, the issues that may be raised 

and ruled upon in an appeal under 15 

CFR 766.23(c) are (1) whether Pegas is 

related to Nordwind Airlines, and (2) 

whether the order naming Pegas as a 

related person is justified to prevent 

evasion of the Nordwind TDO. 15 CFR 

766.23(c). Pegas does not argue either of 

these issues.7 Ultimately, I cannot rule 

on these issues because there is no TDO 

currently in effect naming Pegas as a 

related person, thus, I cannot affirm, 

modify, or vacate as part of this appeal. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
70420 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 195 / Wednesday, October 11, 2023 / Notices 

15 CFR 766.24(e)(4). The Assistant 

Secretary removed Pegas from the 

Nordwind TDO on June 27, 2023. (Ex. 

7). According to Pegas, BIS also 

removed it from its list of ‘‘Denied 

Persons.’’ (Ex. 9). The latest version of 

the Nordwind TDO is not called into 

question and remains in effect regarding 

Nordwind Airlines—not Pegas—until 

December 12, 2023. 

While I understand Pegas’s business 

concerns, the regulations do not grant 

me authority to issue an order 

retroactively nullifying the addition of 

Pegas as a related party in the June 15, 

2023, TDO. In light of the above, I 

recommend this appeal be dismissed. 

Done and dated this 23rd day of August 

2023, at Galveston, Texas. 

Certificate of Service 

I hereby certify that I have served by 

electronic mail the foregoing 

Recommended Decision upon the 

following: 

Gregory Michelsen, Esq., Andrea Duvall, 

Esq., Attorneys for Bureau of Industry 

and Security, Office of Chief Counsel 

for Industry and Security, 

U.S. Department of Commerce (Sent via 

electronic mail) 

Melissa B. Mannino, Esq., Lana 

Muranovic, Esq., Orga Cadet, Esq., 

BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP, 

Attorneys for Respondent (Sent via 

electronic mail) 

U.S. Coast Guard, ALJ Docketing Center, 

Attn: Hearing Docket Clerk (Sent via 

electronic mail) 

I hereby certify that I have forwarded 

by Express Courier the foregoing 

Recommended Decision and the case 

file upon the following: 

Alan F. Estevez, Under Secretary for 

Industry and Security, Bureau of 

Industry and Security, U.S. 

Department of Commerce (Sent via 

Fed Ex) 

[FR Doc. 2023–22433 Filed 10–10–23; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–33–P 

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 

Presidential Advisory Commission on 

Advancing Educational Equity, 

Excellence, and Economic Opportunity 

for Black Americans; Meeting 

AGENCY: White House Initiative on 

Advancing Educational Equity, 

Excellence, and Economic Opportunity 

for Black Americans, Office of the 

Secretary, U.S. Department of 

Education. 

ACTION: Announcement of an open 

meeting. 

SUMMARY: This notice sets forth the 

agenda for the October 26–27, 2023, 

meeting of the Presidential Advisory 

Commission on Advancing Educational 

Equity, Excellence, and Economic 

Opportunity for Black Americans (PAC) 

and provides information to members of 

the public about how to submit written 

comments before the meeting. Notice of 

the meeting is required and is intended 

to notify the public of its opportunity to 

attend. 

DATES: The PAC will be meeting on 

October 26 and 27, 2023, from 10 a.m. 

to 5 p.m. E.D.T. 

ADDRESSES: The October 26, 2023, 

meeting will be held at the White 

House. The October 27, 2023, meeting 

will be in the Barnard Auditorium at the 

U.S. Department of Education, located 

at 400 Maryland Avenue SW, 

Washington, DC 20202. The public may 

join both meetings virtually. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Monique Toussaint, Designated Federal 

Official, U.S. Department of Education, 

White House Initiative on Advancing 

Educational Equity, Excellence, and 

Economic Opportunity for Black 

Americans, 400 Maryland Avenue SW, 

Washington, DC 20202. Telephone: 

(202) 260–0964. Email: 

monique.toussaint@ed.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

PAC’s Statutory Authority and 

Function: The PAC is established by 

Executive Order 14050 (October 19, 

2021). The PAC is governed by the 

provisions of 5 U.S.C. Chapter 10 

(Federal Advisory Committees), which 

sets forth standards for the formation 

and use of advisory committees. The 

purpose of the PAC is to advise the 

President, through the Secretary of the 

U.S. Department of Education, on all 

matters pertaining to advancing 

educational equity, excellence, and 

economic opportunity for Black 

Americans and communities. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1EN11OC23.000</GPH> EN11OC23.001</GPH>

TOMMY CANTRELL 

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE 

UNITED STATES COAST GUARD 

Done and dated August 23, 2023, at 

Galveston, Texas ~ (olla,v:f 

Ericka J. Pollard 

Paralegal Specialist to 

Tommy Cantrell 

Administrative Law Judge 

United States Coast Guard