This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER

contains documents other than rules or

proposed rules that are applicable to the

public. Notices of hearings and investigations,

committee meetings, agency decisions and

rulings, delegations of authority, filing of

petitions and applications and agency

statements of organization and functions are

examples of documents appearing in this

section.

Notices Federal Register

70414 

Vol. 88, No. 195 

Wednesday, October 11, 2023 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

Bureau of Industry and Security 

[Docket Number: 23–BIS–TDO2] 

In the Matter of: Southwind Airlines, 

Appellant; Final Decision and Order 

Before me for my final decision is a 

Recommended Decision (RD) issued by 

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Tommy 

Cantrell on August 24, 2023, and 

received by my office on August 25, 

2023. The RD recommends that this 

appeal filed by Cortex Havacilik ve 

Turizm Ticaret Anonim Sirketi d/b/a 

Southwind Airlines (Southwind) be 

dismissed. As further discussed below, 

I accept the findings of fact and 

conclusions of law made by the ALJ in 

his RD. 

I. Background 

Southwind 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 OOO 

Pegas Touristik (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 8, 2023, Southwind, 

through counsel, filed an 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 14, 

2023, BIS filed a response to the appeal 

on August 21, 2023. On August 24, 

2023, ALJ Cantrell issued the RD, which 

my office received on August 25, 2023. 

On August 31, 2023, the BIS Appeals 

Coordinator requested views from the 

parties on an extension of time to issue 

my Final Decision in this appeal. Both 

parties consented, and on August 31, 

2023, I issued an Order extending the 

period of time to issue this Final 

Decision to September 29, 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 

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 

Southwind’s appeal specifically 

requests that an Order be issued ‘‘that 

the [Nordwind] TDO Renewal be 

withdrawn and that BIS issue an order 

affirmatively reinstating the status quo 

as it existed prior to June 15, 2023, and 

making it clear that companies may 

continue to transact with Southwind 

Airlines.’’ Southwind Appeal at 18. The 

limited scope of the appeal under 

§ 766.23 (c) of the Regulations prevents 

me from doing as Southwind requests. 

The ALJ makes twelve recommended 

findings of fact in the RD. RD at 3–4. I 

accept these recommended findings of 

fact. 

Regarding the first conclusion of law 

in the RD, I agree that Southwind is not 

a ‘‘related person’’ with standing to 

bring an appeal pursuant to 15 CFR 

766.23. Southwind alleges that it 

suffered harm as a result of the June 15, 

2023, TDO, which stated, in relevant 

part, that BIS’s Office of Export 

Enforcement ‘‘has reason to believe that 

Pegas has made additional efforts to 

evade export controls on Russia in part 

by entering into charter agreements with 

a Turkish airline that started shortly 

after the imposition of stringent Russiarelated export controls [. . .] for 

international flights into Russia on U.S. 

origin aircraft without the required BIS 

authorization.’’ BIS Ex. 1 at 7. This 

language was removed in the June 27, 

2023, modified TDO issued against 

Nordwind only. 

Southwind concedes that BIS did not 

name Southwind Airlines as a related 

person subject to the terms of the TDO 

but alleges that the language in the TDO 

was sufficiently detailed to identify 

Southwind as the ‘‘Turkish airline’’ that 

‘‘entered into charter agreements’’ with 

Pegas in support of its efforts to evade 

U.S. export controls on Russia. 

Southwind Appeal at 12. According to 

Southwind, this language has had the 

same effect on Southwind as if it had 

actually been named as a related person. 

Southwind states that the interpretation 

of this language by a key business 

partner, Pratt & Whitney, led Pratt & 

Whitney to cease support of engines 

aboard aircraft leased by Southwind, 

jeopardizing its business operations. Id. 

at 2. Nevertheless, BIS has never named 

Southwind as a related person subject to 

the Nordwind TDO. Nor, as observed in 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 195 / Wednesday, October 11, 2023 / Notices 70415 

1 I note Southwind also submitted an appeal to 

the Undersecretary of Commerce for Industry and 

Security pursuant to 15 CFR 756.2 on August 7, 

2023. (Appeal at 8). 

2 ‘‘BIS Ex.’’ references the exhibits attached to 

BIS’s response dated August 21, 2023. 

3 ‘‘Ex.’’ refers to the exhibits attached to 

Southwind’s appeal dated August 8, 2023. 

4Pursuant to an interagency agreement, United 

States Coast Guard Administrative Law Judges are 

permitted to adjudicate BIS cases. 

the RD, does a mere inference by a 

business partner that Southwind is the 

unnamed ‘‘Turkish airline’’ described in 

the TDO render Southwind a related 

person with standing to appeal the 

Nordwind TDO. RD at 5. As such, 

Southwind does not have appeal rights 

under § 766.23(c), which provides only 

‘‘persons named by BIS in an order as 

related to the respondent’’ an avenue for 

appeal. 

Regarding the second conclusion of 

law in the RD, I agree that Southwind 

seeks relief outside the scope of 15 CFR 

766.23. The Regulations limit the scope 

of the appeal to two issues: whether the 

related person is indeed related to the 

respondent subject to the TDO— 

Nordwind in this case—and whether the 

TDO is justified to prevent evasion. 15 

CFR 766.23(c). Southwind’s request that 

BIS withdraw the June 15, 2023, TDO 

and issue an order removing the 

reference to the ‘‘Turkish airline’’ and 

clarifying that Southwind did not 

engage in any EAR violations does not 

fall within the scope of appeal as 

outlined in § 766.23(c). The ALJ has 

concluded that he cannot direct BIS to 

provide this requested relief to 

Southwind; 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 Southwind 

has never been a party to the Nordwind 

TDO, and therefore has never been 

subject to the license requirements and 

prohibitions in the Nordwind TDO. 

Moreover, I confirm that as of the date 

of issuance of this Final Decision and 

Order, Southwind is not listed on the 

BIS Denied Persons List. 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: Southwind Airlines, 

Southwind Airlines, Appellant. 

Docket No.: 23–TDO–0002 

RECOMMENDED DECISION 

Issued by: Honorable Tommy Cantrell, 

Administrative Law Judge 

Issued: August 24, 2023 

On August 8, 2023, Cortex Havacilik 

ve Turizm Ticaret Anonim Sirketi d/b/ 

a Southwind Airlines (Southwind) filed 

an appeal pursuant to 15 CFR 766.23(c) 

of the Export Administration 

Regulations (EAR).1 Specifically, 

Southwind asks that I issue an order 

directing BIS to withdraw a June 15, 

2023, Temporary Denial Order (TDO) 

issued to Nordwind Airlines. 

Southwind also asks that I issue an 

order ‘‘removing the reference to the 

Turkish airline and clarifying it has no 

reason to believe this Company is 

engaged in any violations of the EAR.’’ 

(Appeal at 3). For the reasons set forth 

herein, I recommend this appeal be 

dismissed. 

Background 

On June 15, 2023, the Assistant 

Secretary of Commerce for Export 

Enforcement (Assistant Secretary) 

renewed a TDO to Russian airline 

Nordwind Airlines pursuant to 15 CFR 

766.24. (BIS Ex. 1).2 The renewed TDO 

added the corporation Pegas Touristik a/ 

k/a Pegas Touristik OOO (Pegas) as a 

related person in accordance with 15 

CFR 766.23. Id. Furthermore, the TDO 

stated the Office of Export Enforcement 

(OEE) ‘‘has reason to believe that Pegas 

has made additional efforts to evade 

export controls on Russia in part by 

entering into charter agreements with a 

Turkish airline that started shortly after 

the imposition of stringent Russiarelated export controls.’’ Id. (emphasis 

added). However, nothing in the TDO 

named the Turkish airline. 

Thereafter, on June 27, 2023, the 

Assistant Secretary removed Pegas from 

the Nordwind TDO. (BIS Ex. 2). On July 

28, 2023, Southwind contacted BIS and 

informed BIS, Pratt & Whitney, a 

business partner, inferred that 

Southwind was the ‘‘Turkish airline’’ 

described in the TDO. (Ex. 1).3 In 

response to this exchange, BIS provided 

Southwind with an email confirming it 

was not ‘‘on the BIS Entity List or 

Denied Persons List.’’ (Exs. 15, 16, 17). 

However, according to Southwind, this 

did not resolve the misunderstanding 

regarding its operations. (Ex. 14 at 3). 

On August 8, 2023, Southwind filed 

this appeal with the United States Coast 

Guard Administrative Law Judge 

Docketing Center (Docketing Center).4

The appeal letter includes 25 exhibits. 

On August 14, 2023, the Docketing 

Center assigned this case to me for 

adjudication. BIS submitted its response 

to the appeal on August 21, 2023, and 

included 3 exhibits. The record is now 

closed and the appeal is ripe for 

decision. 

Recommended Findings of Fact 

1. On June 15, 2023, the Assistant 

Secretary renewed a Temporary Denial 

Order (TDO) issued to Russian airline 

Nordwind Airlines. (BIS Ex. 1). BIS 

renewed the Nordwind TDO pursuant to 

15 CFR 766.24 to prevent an ‘‘imminent 

violation’’ of the Export Administration 

Regulations (EAR). Id. 

2. The renewed TDO added Pegas as 

a related person and stated the OEE 

‘‘has reason to believe that Pegas has 

made additional efforts to evade export 

controls on Russia in part by entering 

into charter agreements with a Turkish 

airline that started shortly after the 

imposition of stringent Russia-related 

export controls . . . for international 

flights into Russia on U.S.-origin aircraft 

without the required BIS authorization.’’ 

(BIS Ex. 1). 

3. Southwind’s business partner Pratt 

& Whitney inferred Southwind was the 

‘‘Turkish airline’’ referenced in the TDO 

and stopped providing support to 

Southwind’s aircraft engines. (Ex. 1). 

4. On June 27, 2023, following 

discussions between Pegas and BIS, the 

Assistant Secretary issued a modified 

TDO removing Pegas as a related 

person. (BIS Ex. 2). 

5. The modified TDO states ‘‘Pegas 

Touristik should be removed from the 

TDO to allow the opportunity for 

additional administrative process under 

Part 766 of the Regulations.’’ (BIS Ex. 2). 

6. On June 28, 2023, counsel for 

Southwind informed BIS ‘‘problems are 

mounting for the company given the 

language in the [modified] TDO.’’ (Ex. 

14, p. 3). Counsel noted Pegas’ removal 

from the TDO did not ‘‘resolve the 

misunderstanding’’ regarding 

Southwind’s operations. (Ex. 14, p. 3). 

7. Southwind reiterated its issues to 

BIS on multiple occasions in late July 

2023. (Ex. 16). It requested BIS provide 

an email Southwind could forward to 

Pratt & Whitney to ‘‘assuage their 

concerns that BIS would find a violation 

if they serviced the engines.’’ (Ex. 16). 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
70416 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 195 / Wednesday, October 11, 2023 / Notices 

5The EAR primarily relate to the implementation 

of the Export Administration Act of 1979. 15 CFR 

730.2. 

6 It also follows that because Southwind was not 

named as a related person, the regulations did not 

require BIS to give it notice and an opportunity to 

oppose the renewal of the TDO. 15 CFR 766.23(b). 

This is especially true in the present case, where 

BIS issued and renewed the TDO on an ex parte 

basis pursuant to 15 CFR 766.24. See 15 CFR 

766.24(d)(3)(ii) (where TDO is issued or renewed on 

ex parte basis, related persons ‘‘may not oppose the 

issuance or renewal of the TDO but may file an 

appeal in accordance with § 766.23(c)’’); 15 CFR 

766.23(b). 

7As noted above, the June 28, 2023, modification 

removed Pegas as a related person. (BIS Ex. 2). I 

cannot rule on whether the June 15, 2023, TDO, 

which is no longer in effect and which did not 

name Southwind as a related party, was justified to 

prevent evasion of the Nordwind TDO. 

8. On July 24, 2023, Southwind 

responded to a number of questions 

from BIS regarding the ownership and 

operation of the company. (Ex. 15). 

9. On July 28, 2023, the Office of 

Chief Counsel for Industry and Security 

sent Southwind an email confirming 

‘‘neither Southwind nor Cortex 

Havacilik VE TUR TIC. A.C. are on the 

BIS Entity List or Denied Persons List.’’ 

(Ex. 17). 

10. The email further states: ‘‘[N]o 

Southwind aircraft are currently on the 

list of aircraft identified on BIS’s 

website as having operated in apparent 

violation of U.S. export controls on 

Russia. However, this list of aircraft is 

not exhaustive, and the restrictions also 

apply in any situation in which a person 

has knowledge that a violation of the 

EAR has occurred, is about to occur, or 

is intended to occur in connection with 

an aircraft or other item that is subject 

to the EAR, whether or not such aircraft 

or other item is included on BIS’s 

website.’’ (Ex. 17). 

11. Southwind forwarded the BIS 

email to Pratt & Whitney on July 28, 

2023. (Ex. 18). 

12. On August 2, 2023, Pratt & 

Whitney restored access to the ‘‘P&W 

Engine Wise Connect Portal and the 

applications accessed through the 

portal’’ but noted ‘‘the Engine Health 

Monitoring/ADEM application will 

again be functional, however, no engine 

data is being transmitted.’’ (Ex. 18). 

Opinion and Recommended 

Conclusions of Law 

BIS regulations related to export 

administration are issued ‘‘under laws 

relating to the control of certain exports, 

reexports, and activities.’’ 15 CFR 

730.1.5 These 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, the Assistant Secretary may issue 

a TDO on an ex parte basis. 15 CFR 

766.24(a). The TDO ‘‘will deny export 

privileges to any person named in the 

order as provided for in § 764.3(a)(2) of 

the EAR.’’ 15 CFR 766.24(a). The order 

is valid for 180 days, but the Assistant 

Secretary may renew it, more than once, 

in additional 180-day increments. 15 

CFR 766.24(b)(4), 766.24(d)(4). The 

Assistant Secretary may also modify or 

amend a TDO. 15 CFR 766.24(d), 

766.23(b). 

To prevent evasion of the 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 person to an order affecting 

export privileges, ‘‘BIS shall, except in 

an ex parte proceeding under 

§ 766.24(a)’’ 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). In such an 

appeal, the ‘‘sole issues to be raised and 

ruled on . . . 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 and 

conclude Southwind has no standing to 

bring this appeal pursuant to 15 CFR 

766.23(c) as it was not named by BIS as 

a related person. I also conclude the 

relief Southwind seeks is outside the 

scope of an appeal as set forth in 15 CFR 

766.23(c). 

1. Southwind Is Not a ‘‘Related Person’’ 

With Standing To Bring an Appeal 

Pursuant to 15 CFR 766.23 

As a preliminary matter, BIS did not 

name Southwind as a related person 

when it renewed the Nordwind TDO on 

June 15, 2023. It simply did not apply 

the Nordwind TDO to Southwind. Pratt 

& Whitney inferred Southwind was the 

‘‘Turkish airline’’ associated with Pegas, 

a corporation designated by BIS as 

related to Nordwind. But this inference 

does not render Southwind a related 

person with standing to appeal the 

Nordwind TDO. See 15 CFR 766.23(c) 

(‘‘Any person named by BIS in an order 

as related to the respondent may appeal 

that action’’) (emphasis added).6

2. Southwind Seeks Relief Outside the 

Scope of 15 CFR 766.23 

Even if BIS had named Southwind as 

a related person with standing to bring 

this appeal, Southwind seeks relief 

outside the scope of such an appeal. 15 

CFR 766.23(c). The regulations 

specifically limit the appeal to two 

issues: whether Southwind is related to 

Nordwind and whether the TDO is 

justified in order to prevent evasion. 15 

CFR 766.23(c). Southwind does not ask 

me to rule on either issue, and even so, 

the record shows there is no current 

TDO naming Southwind as a related 

person that I could affirm, modify, or 

vacate as part of this appeal.7

Southwind instead asks that I direct 

BIS to (1) withdraw the June 15, 2023, 

TDO, and (2) issue an order removing 

the reference to the ‘‘Turkish airline’’ 

and clarifying Southwind did not 

engage in any violations of the EAR. 

Southwind seeks to reinstate ‘‘the status 

quo prior to June 15, 2023, making it 

clear that companies may continue to 

transact with Southwind Airlines.’’ 

(Appeal, p. 12). I cannot direct BIS to 

provide this relief to Southwind. 

I note, however, BIS emailed 

Southwind on July 28, 2023, 

definitively stating the company is not 

on the BIS Entity List or Denied Persons 

List, and none of Southwind’s aircraft 

are ‘‘on the list of aircraft identified on 

BIS’s website as having operated in 

apparent violation of U.S. export 

controls on Russia.’’ (Ex. 17). 

Furthermore, the current version of the 

Nordwind TDO, published on the 

Federal Registry on July 30, 2023, does 

not prohibit any company from 

transacting with Southwind. (BIS Ex. 2). 

In light of the above, I recommend 

Southwind’s appeal be dismissed. 

Done and dated this 24th day of August 

2023, at Galveston, Texas. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
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