Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 193 / Friday, October 4, 2024 / Notices 80857 

grantee of FTZ 227, requesting subzone 

status for the facility of Canoo Inc., 

located in Pryor, Oklahoma. The 

application was submitted pursuant to 

the provisions of the Foreign-Trade 

Zones Act, as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a– 

81u), and the regulations of the FTZ 

Board (15 CFR part 400). It was formally 

docketed on October 1, 2024. 

The proposed subzone (10 acres) is 

located at 4461 Zarrow Street, Building 

625, Pryor, Oklahoma. No authorization 

for production activity has been 

requested at this time. The proposed 

subzone would be subject to the existing 

activation limit of FTZ 227. 

In accordance with the FTZ Board’s 

regulations, Camille Evans of the FTZ 

Staff is designated examiner to review 

the application and make 

recommendations to the Executive 

Secretary. 

Public comment is invited from 

interested parties. Submissions shall be 

addressed to the FTZ Board’s Executive 

Secretary and sent to: ftz@trade.gov. The 

closing period for their receipt is 

November 13, 2024. Rebuttal comments 

in response to material submitted 

during the foregoing period may be 

submitted during the subsequent 15-day 

period to November 29, 2024. 

A copy of the application will be 

available for public inspection in the 

‘‘Online FTZ Information Section’’ 

section of the FTZ Board’s website, 

which is accessible via www.trade.gov/ 

ftz. 

For further information, contact 

Camille Evans at Camille.Evans@

trade.gov. 

Dated: October 1, 2024. 

Elizabeth Whiteman, 

Executive Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2024–22970 Filed 10–3–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

Foreign-Trade Zones Board 

[S–172–2024] 

Foreign-Trade Zone 40; Application for 

Subzone; Permco, Inc.; Montville and 

Streetsboro, Ohio 

An application has been submitted to 

the Foreign-Trade Zones (FTZ) Board by 

the Cleveland Cuyahoga County Port 

Authority, grantee of FTZ 40, requesting 

subzone status for the facilities of 

Permco, Inc., located in Montville and 

Streetsboro, Ohio. The application was 

submitted pursuant to the provisions of 

the Foreign-Trade Zones Act, as 

amended (19 U.S.C. 81a–81u), and the 

regulations of the FTZ Board (15 CFR 

part 400). It was formally docketed on 

September 30, 2024. 

The proposed subzone would consist 

of the following sites: Site 1 (2.33 acres) 

1500 Frost Road, Streetsboro; and Site 2 

(0.54 acres) 16445 Gar Highway, 

Montville. No authorization for 

production activity has been requested 

at this time. The proposed subzone 

would be subject to the existing 

activation limit of FTZ 40. 

In accordance with the FTZ Board’s 

regulations, Juanita Chen of the FTZ 

Staff is designated examiner to review 

the application and make 

recommendations to the Executive 

Secretary. 

Public comment is invited from 

interested parties. Submissions shall be 

addressed to the FTZ Board’s Executive 

Secretary and sent to: ftz@trade.gov. The 

closing period for their receipt is 

November 13, 2024. Rebuttal comments 

in response to material submitted 

during the foregoing period may be 

submitted during the subsequent 15-day 

period to November 29, 2024. 

A copy of the application will be 

available for public inspection in the 

‘‘Online FTZ Information Section’’ 

section of the FTZ Board’s website, 

which is accessible via www.trade.gov/ 

ftz. 

For further information, contact 

Juanita Chen at juanita.chen@trade.gov. 

Dated: September 30, 2024. 

Elizabeth Whiteman, 

Executive Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2024–22941 Filed 10–3–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

Bureau of Industry and Security 

[Docket Number: 24–TDO–0001] 

Final Decision and Order 

In the Matter of: 

SkyTechnic, Kiyevskoye Shosse 22–Y, 

Moskovsky Settlement, Moscow, Russia 

108811; 

Skywind International Limited, Room 2403A 

24/F Lippo CTR Tower One, 89 

Queensway, Admiralty, Hong Kong; 

Hong Fan International, Shop 102, Level 1, 

One Exchange Square, Hong Kong, and 

Room A 11/F Henfa Commercial Building, 

348–350 Lockhart Road, Hong Kong, and 

Vistra Corporate Services Centre, Wickhams 

Cay II, Road Town, Tortola, British Virgin 

Islands; 

Lufeng Limited, Room A 11/F Henfa 

Commercial Building, 348–350 Lockhart 

Road, Hong Kong, and 

Vistra Corporate Services Centre, Wickhams 

Cay II, Road Town, Tortola, British Virgin 

Islands; 

Unical dis Ticaret Ve Lojistik JSC, 34140 

Zeytinlik Mh. Halcki Sk, Iten Han Gue 

Carsi Blok No 28/58, Bakirkoy, Istanbul, 

Turkey, and 

Room A 11/F Henfa Commercial Building, 

348–350 Lockhart Road, Hong Kong; 

Izzi Cup DOO, Koste Cukia 14, Zemun 

200915, Serbia, and 

Jl.Danau Tondano No. 55, 80228 Sanur—Bali, 

Indonesia; 

Alexey Sumchenko, Hong Kong; 

Anna Shumakova, Russia; 

Branimir Salevic, Koste Cukia 14, Zemun 

200915, Serbia, and 

Jl.Danau Tondano No. 55, 80228 Sanur—Bali, 

Indonesia; 

Danijela Salevic, Koste Cukia 14, Zemun 

200915, Serbia, and 

Jl.Danau Tondano No. 55, 80228 Sanur—Bali, 

Indonesia 

AGENCY: Office of the Undersecretary for 

Industry and Security, Bureau of 

Industry and Security, Commerce. 

Before me for my final decision is a 

Recommended Decision (‘‘RD’’) issued 

on September 4, 2024, by 

Administrative Law Judge (‘‘ALJ’’) 

Tommy Cantrell. The RD recommends 

that I dismiss the appeal filed by Alexey 

Sumchenko (‘‘Sumchenko’’) of the 

Temporary Denial Order (‘‘TDO’’) 

issued against him on June 12, 2024. As 

discussed further below, I accept the 

findings of fact and conclusions of law 

in the ALJ’s RD. As a result, 

Sumchenko’s appeal is dismissed and 

the TDO issued against him is affirmed. 

I. Background 

On June 12, 2024, the Assistant 

Secretary of Commerce for Export 

Enforcement (‘‘Assistant Secretary’’) of 

the Bureau of Industry and Security 

(‘‘BIS’’) issued a TDO against 

Sumchenko, Hong Fan International 

(‘‘Hong Fan’’), Lufeng Limited 

(‘‘Lufeng’’), and Skywind International 

Limited (‘‘Skywind’’)—three companies 

with which Sumchenko was affiliated— 

and several other companies and 

individuals, including SkyTechnic, a 

Russian aircraft parts supplier. 89 FR 

51302. The TDO states that SkyTechnic 

‘‘developed and continues to utilize a 

network of Hong Kong-based shell 

companies, including Skywind, Hong 

Fan, and Lufeng, to obtain civil aircraft 

parts from the United States and 

obfuscate the ultimate end users of 

those parts in Russia, contrary to the 

requirements of the [Export 

Administration Regulations (the ‘‘EAR’’ 

or the ‘‘Regulations’’)].’’ Id. 

On July 25, 2024, Sumchenko, 

through counsel, filed an appeal with 

the U.S. Coast Guard ALJ Docketing 

Center pursuant to 15 CFR 766.24(e)(3) 

of the EAR. On July 29, 2024, the Chief 

ALJ assigned the appeal to ALJ Cantrell. 

On August 20, 2024, BIS filed a 

response to the appeal. ALJ Cantrell 

issued the RD on September 4, 2024, 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
80858 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 193 / Friday, October 4, 2024 / Notices 

which my office received on September 

5, 2024. On September 6, 2024, the BIS 

Appeals Coordinator requested views 

from the parties on extending the time 

to issue my Final Decision in this 

appeal. Both parties consented to an 

extension of time, and, on September 

11, 2024, I issued an Order extending 

the period of time to issue this Final 

Decision to September 30, 2024. 

II. Standard 

Section 766.24 of the EAR authorizes 

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)(l), (b)(4). 

The Regulations require that the TDO 

define the imminent violation and state 

why the TDO was issued without a 

hearing. Id. at § 766.24(b)(2). Because all 

TDOs are public, ‘‘the description of the 

imminent violation and the reasons for 

proceeding on an ex parte basis . . . 

shall be stated in a manner that is 

consistent with national security, 

foreign policy, business confidentiality, 

and investigative concerns. Id. 

A violation may be imminent ‘‘either 

in time or in degree of likelihood.’’ Id. 

at 766.24(b)(3). Accordingly, ‘‘BIS may 

show a violation is about to occur, or 

that the general circumstances of the 

matter under investigation . . . 

demonstrate a likelihood of future 

violations.’’ Id. To establish the 

likelihood of a future violation, ‘‘BIS 

may show that the violation under 

investigation . . . is significant, 

deliberate, covert and/or likely to occur 

again, rather than technical or 

negligent.’’ Id. 

The Regulations provide that a 

‘‘respondent may appeal [the issuance 

of a TDO] on the grounds that the 

finding that the order is necessary in the 

public interest to prevent an imminent 

violation is unsupported.’’ Id. at 

§ 766.24(e)(2). 

III. Discussion 

In his appeal, Sumchenko argues that 

there is no support for the finding that 

the TDO against him is necessary to 

prevent an imminent violation of the 

EAR. Sumchenko Appeal at 5. 

Specifically, Sumchenko argues that the 

alleged misconduct outlined in the TDO 

occurred after he relinquished 

ownership of Hong Fan, Lufeng, and 

Skywind, and that there is no evidence 

that he was aware of or involved in the 

conduct that occurred when he did own 

the companies. Sumchenko Appeal at 

5–7. 

The ALJ makes fourteen 

recommended findings of fact in the RD. 

RD at 4–5. I accept these recommended 

findings of fact. Based on these findings 

of fact, the ALJ concluded in the RD that 

BIS successfully demonstrated the TDO 

against Sumchenko was necessary to 

prevent an imminent violation of the 

EAR. RD at 8. For reasons discussed 

below, I agree with the ALJ’s 

conclusion. 

First, the record shows that 

Sumchenko was the owner and director 

of Hong Fan, Lufeng, and Skywind 

during 2022 and 2023. RD at 6. 

Specifically, with respect to Hong Fan 

and Lufeng, Sumchenko was the owner 

of these entities until he transferred his 

ownership interest in June 2022. 

Sumchenko Appeal at 7 and Exs. E and 

F. He was a director of Hong Fan and 

Lufeng until he resigned those positions 

in November 2022. Sumchenko Appeal 

at 6. As noted in BIS’s response to 

Sumchenko’s appeal, even though 

Sumchenko had transferred his 

ownership rights in Hong Fan and 

Lufeng in June 2022, Sumchenko was 

identified as the beneficial owner of 

bank accounts for Hong Fan and Lufeng 

until at least September 2023. BIS 

Response at 5–6; RD at 4. For Skywind, 

Sumchenko was a director and owner 

until he resigned his position and 

transferred his ownership rights in 

Skywind in November 2023. 

Sumchenko Appeal at 6; RD at 4. 

Second, the record reflects that 

between June 2022 and March 2023, 

Hong Fan, Lufeng, and Skywind were 

involved in transactions or attempted 

transactions to deliberately obtain U.S.- 

origin aircraft parts on behalf of Russian 

entities, and to conceal the true 

identities of the Russian purchasers in 

those transactions, in violation of the 

Regulations. RD at 8. 

Third, as discussed above, during the 

time that Hong Fan, Lufeng and 

Skywind were involved in violations of 

the EAR, Sumchenko was an owner or 

director of these companies, or the 

beneficial owner of bank accounts 

connected to these entities. Sumchenko 

argues in his appeal that because he was 

no longer the owner of Hong Fan and 

Lufeng at the time of some of the 

conduct at issue in the TDO, the ‘‘sole 

connection’’ between the conduct 

outlined in the TDO as it relates to those 

entities and Sumchenko ‘‘has been 

broken.’’ Sumchenko Appeal at 7. I find 

that the other connections established in 

the record, such as Sumchenko’s 

position as director of Hong Fan and 

Lufeng until November 2022 and his 

role as beneficial owner of bank 

accounts for these companies until at 

least September 2023, are enough to 

connect Sumchenko to the conduct that 

involved Hong Fan and Lufeng through 

September 2023. As a result, I agree 

with the ALJ’s conclusion that 

Sumchenko shares responsibility for the 

conduct of Hong Fan, Lufeng, and 

Skywind described in the TDO, which 

includes transactions deliberately 

designed to evade the prohibitions of 

the EAR. RD at 8. 

As discussed above, the Regulations 

allow BIS to issue a denial order upon 

a showing that ‘‘the order is necessary 

in the public interest to prevent an 

imminent violation of [the EAR.]’’ 15 

CFR 766.24(b)(1). A violation may be 

considered ‘‘imminent’’ either in time or 

‘‘or in degree of likelihood.’’ Id. at 

§ 766.24(b)(3). BIS may consider past 

participation in deliberate violations of 

the EAR as a factor when deciding 

whether a person is likely to participate 

in future violations of the EAR. See 15 

CFR 766.24(b)(3). BIS has established 

that Hong Fan, Lufeng, and Skywind 

were involved in deliberate violations of 

the EAR, and that Sumchenko is 

responsible for that conduct based on 

his various roles with these companies 

at the time the conduct took place. As 

a result, I agree with the ALJ’s 

conclusion in the RD that, BIS has 

established additional violations are 

‘‘imminent’’ within the meaning of 15 

CFR 766.24(b)(3), and that the TDO 

against Sumchenko is necessary to 

prevent an imminent violation of the 

EAR. 

Sumchenko argued in his appeal that 

even if he was the owner and director 

of companies that violated the EAR, BIS 

has not established that he ‘‘was 

involved in or even knew about those 

events.’’ Sumchenko Appeal at 6. The 

ALJ found this argument unpersuasive, 

and I find it unpersuasive as well. As 

the ALJ notes, Sumchenko made no 

effort to refute the allegations against 

Hong Fan, Lufeng, or Skywind. RD at 9. 

Just as important, Sumchenko makes no 

effort to explain his role in these 

companies or how each of these 

companies could have been involved in 

a scheme to violate the EAR without his 

knowledge given his various roles, 

including as owner or director. In 

addition, Sumchenko concedes that in 

February 2023, he directed a third party 

to pay Lufeng approximately $450,000. 

Sumchenko Appeal at 4. Sumchenko 

argues, however, that ‘‘it is not clear 

how directing ‘a third party to pay 

Lufeng’ indicates ownership or control 

over Lufeng.’’ Id. Setting aside the fact 

that Sumchenko only offers vague 

assurances ‘‘based on information and 

belief’’ that the transaction was related 

to ‘‘the process of divestment that Mr. 

Sumchenko was undertaking at the 

time,’’ Sumchenko offers no specific 

explanation for why he would direct a 

third party to make payment to Lufeng 

if he no longer had an interest in the 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 193 / Friday, October 4, 2024 / Notices 80859 

1Title 15 CFR parts 730–774 (EAR), were 

promulgated under the Export Administration Act 

of 1979 (EAA), formerly codified at 50 U.S.C. 4601– 

4623. Although the EAA expired on August 21, 

2001, the President, through Executive Order 13222 

of August 17, 2001, and through successive 

Presidential Notices, continued the EAR in full 

force and effect under the International Emergency 

Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), codified at 50 U.S.C. 

1701, et seq. The EAA was repealed in 2018, with 

the enactment of the Export Control Reform Act 

(ECRA). See 50 U.S.C. § 4826. The ECRA provides 

BIS with permanent statutory authority to 

administer the EAR. The ECRA specifically states 

that all administrative or judicial proceedings 

commenced prior to its enactment are not disturbed 

by the new legislation. See Id. 

2Pursuant to an interagency agreement, United 

States Coast Guard (USCG) Administrative Law 

Judges are permitted to adjudicate BIS cases. 

3See Attachment A for a listing of exhibits. 

company. See Sumchenko Appeal at 5. 

And since Sumchenko was the 

beneficial owner of a bank account for 

Lufeng at the time he instructed the 

third party to transfer payment, his 

potential access to the funds suggests 

his financial interest in Lufeng, 

including the receipt of any benefits of 

the scheme to provide U.S.-origin parts 

to entities in Russia without 

authorization, continued after he 

transferred his ownership and resigned 

as director. Indeed, Sumchenko’s efforts 

to distance himself from Hong Fan and 

Lufeng via changes to corporate 

paperwork, while at the same time 

maintaining control of related bank 

accounts and directing payment to 

Lufeng, may have been part of an 

attempt to evade detection. For these 

reasons, I agree with the ALJ’s 

conclusion that Sumchenko may be 

held responsible for the actions of Hong 

Fan, Lufeng, and Skywind described in 

the TDO. RD at 9. I further agree with 

the ALJ’s conclusion that ‘‘in the 

absence of the TDO, nothing would 

prevent [Sumchenko] from creating new 

companies to engage in the same 

violative conduct.’’ RD at 10. 

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, and 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. 

Alan F. Estevez, 

Under Secretary of Commerce for Industry 

and Security. 

United States of America 

Bureau of Industry and Security 

Washington, D.C. 20230 

In the Matter of: 

SkyTechnic, Kiyevskoye Shosse 22–Y, 

Moskovsky Settlement, Moscow, Russia 

108811 

Skywind International Limited, Room 2403A 

24/F Lippo CTR Tower One, 89 

Queensway, Admiralty, Hong Kong 

Hong Fan International, Shop 102, Level 1, 

One Exchange Square, Hong Kong, and 

Room A 11/F Henfa Commercial Building, 

348–350 Lockhart Road, Hong Kong, and 

Vistra Corporate Services Centre, Wickhams 

Cay II, Road Town, Tortola, British Virgin 

Islands 

Lufeng Limited, Room A 11/F Henfa 

Commercial Building, 348–350 Lockhart 

Road, Hong Kong, and 

Vistra Corporate Services Centre, Wickhams 

Cay II, Road Town, Tortola, British Virgin 

Islands 

Unical dis Ticaret Ve Lojistik JSC, 34140 

Zeytinlik Mh. Halcki Sk, Iten Han Gue 

Carsi Blok No 28/58, Bakirkoy, Istanbul, 

Turkey, and 

Room A 11/F Henfa Commercial Building, 

348–350 Lockhart Road, Hong Kong 

Izzi Cup DOO, Koste Cukia 14, Zemun 

200915, Serbia, and 

Jl.Danau Tondano No. 55, 80228 Sanur—Bali, 

Indonesia 

Alexey Sumchenko, Hong Kong 

Anna Shumakova, Russia 

Branimir Salevic, Koste Cukia 14, Zemun 

200915, Serbia, and 

Jl.Danau Tondano No. 55, 80228 Sanur—Bali, 

Indonesia 

Danijela Salevic, Koste Cukia 14, Zemun 

200915, Serbia, and 

Jl.Danau Tondano No. 55, 80228 Sanur—Bali, 

Indonesia 

Respondents 

Docket Number: 24–TDO–0001 

The Hon. Tommy Cantrell Administrative 

Law Judge 

Recommended Decision and Order 

This matter comes before me on 

Alexey Sumchenko’s (Respondent) 

appeal of the Order Temporarily 

Denying Export Privileges (TDO) issued 

by the U.S. Department of Commerce 

Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS), 

through its Office of Export Enforcement 

(OEE) on June 12, 2024. OEE issued the 

TDO pursuant to the Export 

Administration Regulations (EAR), 

specifically 15 CFR 766.24.1 After 

considering the evidence and arguments 

presented by the parties, and in 

accordance with the applicable law and 

regulations, I find BIS demonstrated the 

TDO is necessary in the public interest 

to prevent an imminent violation of the 

EAR, and I recommend the TDO be 

affirmed. 

I. Procedural Background 

On June 12, 2024, OEE issued a TDO 

against Respondent, preventing him 

from participating in transactions 

subject to the EAR for 180 days. On July 

25, 2024, Respondent filed an appeal of 

the TDO. Thereafter, the Chief 

Administrative Law Judge assigned this 

matter to me on July 29, 2024, for 

adjudication.2 On August 5, 2024, the 

parties filed a stipulation extending BIS’ 

deadline to submit a reply to the appeal. 

BIS filed a reply to the appeal on August 

20, 2024. 

Respondent’s appeal included seven 

documentary exhibits (Exhibits A–G), 

and a copy of the June 12, 2024, TDO 

(Ex. A). OEE’s reply included two 

exhibits (Exhibits 1–2).3 The record is 

now closed, and the appeal is ripe for 

a recommended decision. 

II. Recommended Findings of Fact 

1. Skywind International Limited 

(Skywind), Hong Fan Global Limited 

(Hong Fan), and Lufeng Limited 

(Lufeng), are companies registered to do 

business in Hong Kong. (Exs. B–D, 

respectively). 

2. Respondent was an owner and 

director of Skywind, Hong Fan, and 

Lufeng during 2022–2023. (Exs. A–G; 

Exs. 1–2). 

3. Respondent transferred his 

ownership interest in and resigned his 

position as director of Skywind on 

November 23, 2023. (Ex. G). 

4. Respondent resigned his position as 

director of Hong Fan on November 14, 

2022, but remained a beneficial owner 

of Hong Fan until at least September 6, 

2023. (Exs. E, and 1). 

5. Respondent resigned his position as 

director of Lufeng on November 14, 

2022, but remained a beneficial owner 

of Lufeng until at least September 6, 

2023. (Exs. F and 2). 

6. SkyTechnic is an aircraft parts 

supplier based in Moscow, Russia. (Ex. 

A at 3, 7). 

7. During May and June 2022, Anna 

Shumakova, on behalf of SkyTechnic, 

discussed with Izzi Cup (a company 

registered in Serbia) methods of 

purchasing aircraft parts from the 

United States (U.S.) in contravention of 

export controls, including by using 

Skywind as a straw purchaser of the 

items. (Ex. A at 7). 

8. In May 2022, Shumakova, on behalf 

of Skywind, informed a freight 

forwarder Skywind would complete 

purchases of aircraft parts on behalf of 

Pobeda Airlines, a Russian airline 

company that itself became the subject 

of a TDO on June 24, 2022. (Ex. A at 7). 

9. In June 2022, SkyTechnic began 

using Hong Fan to facilitate the 

purchase of aircraft parts from the U.S. 

(Ex. A at 7). 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
80860 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 193 / Friday, October 4, 2024 / Notices 

10. Also in June 2022, Lufeng engaged 

in a transaction with Izzi Cup and 

served as the straw purchaser on an 

invoice for aircraft parts meant for 

SkyTechnic. (Ex. A at 8). 

11. In October 2022, Hong Fan 

attempted to ship aircraft parts to the 

Maldives for Euro Asia. Euro Asia had 

a sales relationship with AeroflotRussian Airlines (Aeroflot), a company 

that itself became the subject of a TDO 

on April 7, 2022. (Ex. A at 7–8; see PJSC 

Aeroflot, 1 Arbat St., 119019, Moscow, 

Russia; Order Temporarily Denying 

Export Privileges, 87 FR 21611 (Apr. 12, 

2022)). 

12. In November 2022, Hong Fan 

worked with a freight forwarder to 

facilitate the purchase of aircraft parts 

for Pobeda Airlines, and the associated 

invoice was issued to SkyTechnic. (Ex. 

A at 8). 

13. In February 2023, Respondent 

directed a third party to pay Lufeng 

approximately $450,000.00 for services 

rendered to Skywind. (Ex. A at 5). 

14. During February and March 2023, 

Hong Fan served as a straw purchaser 

for SkyTechnic, for the export of aircraft 

parts from the U.S., which were 

ultimately delivered to Aeroflot in 

Russia. (Ex. A at 8). 

III. Opinion and Recommended 

Conclusions of Law 

BIS issues and enforces the EAR 

‘‘under laws relating to the control of 

certain exports, reexports, and 

activities.’’ 15 CFR 730.1. The EAR is 

‘‘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 EEO 

issue a TDO on an ex parte basis. 15 

CFR 766.24(a). A TDO is valid for a 

maximum of 180 days and the Assistant 

Secretary may renew a TDO in 

additional 180-day increments as 

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

(d)(4). 

A violation may be imminent ‘‘either 

in time or in degree of likelihood.’’ 15 

CFR 766.24(b)(3). Accordingly, BIS may 

attempt to show ‘‘a violation is about to 

occur, or that the general circumstances 

of the matter under investigation . . . 

demonstrate a likelihood of future 

violations.’’ Id. With respect to 

demonstrating the likelihood of future 

violations, BIS ‘‘may show that the 

violation under investigation . . . is 

significant, deliberate, covert and/or 

likely to occur again, rather than 

technical or negligent . . .’’ Id. 

Ultimately, to obtain a TDO against a 

respondent, BIS must show ‘‘the order 

is necessary in the public interest to 

prevent an imminent violation’’ of the 

EAR. 15 CFR 766.24(b)(1). Conversely, 

to prevail on appeal, a respondent must 

show ‘‘the finding that the order is 

necessary in the public interest to 

prevent an imminent violation is 

unsupported.’’ 15 CFR 766.24(e)(2). 

A. BIS Demonstrated Likelihood of 

Imminent Violation 

The June 12, 2024, TDO set forth facts 

showing a likelihood Respondent would 

imminently violate the EAR unless his 

export privileges were revoked. It 

established that BIS implemented a 

license requirement for the export to 

Russia of any aircraft or aircraft parts 

listed in Export Control Classification 

Number (ECCN) 9A991 on February 24, 

2022. (Ex. A at 4). See Implementation 

of Sanctions Against Russia Under the 

Export Administration Regulations 

(EAR), 87 FR 12226 (Mar. 3, 2022) (to 

be codified at 15 CFR parts 734, 738, 

740, 742, 744, 746, and 772). On March 

2, 2022, BIS excluded any aircraft 

registered in, owned, or controlled by, 

or under charter or lease by Russia, or 

a national of Russia, from being eligible 

for license exception Aircraft, Vessels, 

and Spacecraft (AVS). (Ex. A at 5). See 

Imposition of Sanctions Against Belarus 

Under the Export Administration 

Regulations (EAR), 87 FR 13048 (Mar. 8, 

2022) (to be codified at 15 CFR parts 

734, 738, 740, 742, 744, and 746). The 

TDO then established that after those 

dates, companies owned and controlled 

by Respondent acted to subvert these 

export controls to obtain prohibited 

aircraft parts for Russian companies. 

Specifically, the record shows 

Respondent was an owner and director 

of Skywind International Limited 

(Skywind), Hong Fan Global Limited 

(Hong Fan), and Lufeng Limited 

(Lufeng), during 2022–2023. (Exs. A–G; 

Exs. 1–2). Skywind, Hong Fan, and 

Lufeng are, and at all times relevant 

were, companies registered to do 

business in Hong Kong. (Exs. A–D). 

During May and June 2022, Anna 

Shumakova, on behalf of a Russian 

aircraft parts company called 

SkyTechnic, discussed with Izzi Cup, a 

company registered in Serbia, methods 

of purchasing aircraft parts from the 

U.S. in contravention of export controls, 

including using Skywind as a straw 

purchaser of the items. (Ex. A at 7). In 

May 2022, Shumakova, on behalf of 

Skywind, informed a freight forwarder 

that Skywind would purchase aircraft 

parts on behalf of Pobeda Airlines, a 

Russian airline company that itself 

became the subject of a TDO on June 24, 

2022. (Ex. A at 7). See Pobeda Airlines, 

108811, Russian Federation, Moscow, p. 

Moskovskiy Kievskoe shosse 22nd km, 

4/1. Moscow, Russia; Order Temporarily 

Denying Export Privileges, 87 FR 38707 

(Jun. 29, 2022). Then in June 2022, 

SkyTechnic began using Hong Fan to 

facilitate the purchase of aircraft parts 

from the U.S. (Ex. A at 7). And in June 

2022, Lufeng served as the straw 

purchaser on an invoice for aircraft 

parts meant for SkyTechnic. (Ex. A at 8). 

In October 2022, Hong Fan attempted 

to facilitate the purchase of aircraft parts 

for Euro Asia, a company with a sales 

relationship with Aeroflot-Russian 

Airlines (Aeroflot), a company that itself 

became the subject of a TDO on April 

7, 2022. (Ex. A at 7–8). See PJSC 

Aeroflot, 1 Arbat St., 119019, Moscow, 

Russia; Order Temporarily Denying 

Export Privileges, 87 FR 21611 (Apr. 12, 

2022). In November 2022, Hong Fan 

worked with a freight forwarder to 

facilitate the purchase of aircraft parts 

for Pobeda Airlines, and the associated 

invoice was issued by SkyTechnic. (Ex. 

A at 8). During February and March 

2023, Hong Fan served as a straw 

purchaser for SkyTechnic, for the export 

of aircraft parts from the U.S. which 

were ultimately delivered to Aeroflot in 

Russia. (Ex. A at 8). 

Pursuant to the regulations governing 

these proceedings, a TDO is appropriate 

to prevent an imminent violation of the 

EAR. 15 CFR 766.24(b)(1). To show a 

violation is ‘‘imminent,’’ BIS may 

demonstrate a temporal proximity to a 

future violation or may show ‘‘that the 

general circumstances of the matter . . . 

demonstrate a likelihood of future 

violations.’’ 15 CFR 766.24(b)(3). In this 

regard, ‘‘BIS may show that the 

violation under investigation or charges 

is significant, deliberate, covert and/or 

likely to occur again, rather than 

technical or negligent . . .’’ 15 CFR 

766.24(b)(3). Here, the TDO clearly set 

out numerous instances of violations of 

the export controls imposed on 

February 24 and March 2, 2022, wherein 

the violations were not technical, but 

deliberate. For example, the TDO set 

forth in May and June of 2022, 

SkyTechnic discussed with Izzi Cup a 

strategy for obtaining U.S.-origin aircraft 

parts by placing Skywind on the invoice 

as the purchaser. (Ex. A at 7). The TDO 

then set forth numerous instances 

between June and November 2022 in 

which Skywind, Hong Fan, and Lufeng 

engaged in transactions to deliberately 

obtain U.S.-origin aircraft parts and 

conceal the actual purchasers (Russian 

companies). (Ex. A at 7–8). 

Respondent led the companies that 

engaged in these violations, and thus 

Respondent shares responsibility for 

those violations. Having shown 

Respondent already violated the EAR in 

a deliberate manner, BIS successfully 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 193 / Friday, October 4, 2024 / Notices 80861 

demonstrated that further violations 

were ‘‘imminent’’ within the meaning of 

15 CFR 766.24, and an order 

temporarily denying Respondent’s 

export privileges would be necessary to 

prevent them. 

B. Respondent’s Argument and 

Evidence Did Not Diminish BIS’ Case 

As stated above, Respondent must 

show there is no support for the finding 

the TDO is necessary to prevent an 

imminent violation of the EAR. 15 CFR 

766.24(e)(2). In his appeal, Respondent 

presented seven exhibits, one of which 

was a copy of the June 12, 2024, TDO 

(Ex. A); the remaining six exhibits were 

business records showing Respondent’s 

transfer of ownership in and resignation 

as director of Skywind, Hong Fan, and 

Lufeng. (Exs. B–G). With these exhibits 

as support, Respondent makes two 

arguments. He first argues a TDO is not 

necessary to prevent him from 

imminently violating the EAR because 

he is no longer an owner or director of 

Skywind, Hong Fan, and Lufeng. 

Specifically, Respondent argues the 

TDO ‘‘addresses alleged violations that 

occurred after February 2022,’’ and that 

Respondent ‘‘was divesting his 

ownership and resigning’’ from the 

companies during 2022 and 2023. 

(Appeal at Para. 14). Respondent asserts 

his ‘‘ownership of the companies is the 

only allegation that purportedly ties him 

to the alleged violations described in the 

TDO.’’ (Appeal at Para. 14). I am not 

persuaded. 

First, I note Respondent never 

challenged the truth of the allegations of 

the TDO, he merely distances himself 

from the conduct by stating he gave up 

ownership of two of the companies 

(Hong Fan and Lufeng) by June 2022. 

(Appeal at Paras. 15, 16). Respondent 

conveniently ignores his own exhibits, 

which show he was still director of the 

companies until November 14, 2022. 

(Exs. E, F). 

Respondent’s exhibits also show he 

remained in control, as owner and 

director, of Skywind until November 23, 

2023. (Ex. G). Despite Respondent’s 

claim that he relinquished control of 

Hong Fan and Lufeng by November 14, 

2022, BIS presented exhibits in its reply 

showing Respondent was listed as a 

beneficial owner of Hong Fan and 

Lufeng until at least September 6, 2023. 

(Exs. E, F; Exs. 1, 2). The TDO set forth 

numerous violations of the EAR 

committed by Skywind, Hong Fan, and 

Lufeng that occurred from May through 

November 2022, while Respondent was, 

by both his and BIS’ claims, owner and 

director of the companies. (Ex. A at 7– 

8). As the director and owner of these 

companies, it is reasonable to conclude 

an order proscribing Respondent’s 

export privileges is necessary to prevent 

future violations. 

Respondent alternatively argues even 

if he was in control of the companies 

while they were engaged in the illicit 

conduct, the TDO does not prove he 

‘‘was involved in or even knew about 

those events.’’ (Appeal at Para. 14). I 

find this argument unpersuasive. As 

owner and director of the companies, 

Respondent’s role imparts responsibility 

on him for the actions of the company. 

See Faour v. U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, 

985 F.2d 217 (5th Cir. 1993) (petitioner 

was responsibly connected to actions of 

company because he was an officer, 

director, and owner of stock during time 

that company committed repeated 

violations of the law). Respondent did 

not refute any allegations of violative 

conduct in the TDO, but instead only 

demonstrated he has executed 

paperwork to divest from the 

companies. In the absence of the TDO, 

nothing would prevent Respondent 

from creating new companies to engage 

in the same violative conduct. 

Wherefore, 

ORDER 

It is hereby recommended the 

Temporary Denial Order be affirmed. 

Done and dated September 4, 2024, at 

Houston, Texas 

The Hon. Tommy Cantrell, 

Administrative Law Judge, United States 

Coast Guard. 

Attachment A: Exhibit List 

Attachment A 

Respondent’s Exhibits 

Exhibit A: Temporary Denial Order 

issued Jun. 12, 2024 

Exhibit B: Company Particulars— 

Skywind International Limited 

Exhibit C: Company Particulars—Hong 

Fan Global Limited 

Exhibit D: Company Particulars—Lufeng 

Limited 

Exhibit E: Resignation and transfer 

instruments—Hong Fan 

Exhibit F: Resignation and transfer 

instruments—Lufeng 

Exhibit G: Resignation and transfer 

instruments—Skywind 

BIS Exhibits 

Exhibit 1: Sep. 6, 2023, email re: Hong 

Fan 

Exhibit 2: Sep. 6, 2023, email re: Lufeng 

Certificate of Service 

I hereby certify that I have transmitted 

the above document to the following 

persons, as indicated below: 

ALJ Docketing Center, U.S Custom 

House, Email: aljdocketcenter@

uscg.mil, Phone: (410) 962–5100, Sent 

by email 

Gregory Michelsen, Esq., Tristan de 

Vega, Esq., Office of Chief Counsel for 

BIS, U.S. Dept. of Commerce, Sent by 

email 

George Benaur, Esq., Benaur Law LLC, 

Sent by email 

Done and dated September 4, 2024, at 

Houston, Texas 

Ericka J. Pollard, 

Paralegal Specialist to The Hon. Tommy 

Cantrell Administrative Law Judge 

United States Coast Guard 

[FR Doc. 2024–22549 Filed 10–3–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DT–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[C–557–831] 

Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic Cells, 

Whether or Not Assembled Into 

Modules, From Malaysia: Preliminary 

Affirmative Countervailing Duty 

Determination and Alignment of Final 

Determination With Final Antidumping 

Duty Determination 

AGENCY: Enforcement and Compliance, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of 

Commerce (Commerce) preliminarily 

determines that countervailable 

subsidies are being provided to 

producers and exporters of crystalline 

silicon photovoltaic cells, whether or 

not assembled into modules (solar 

cells), from Malaysia. The period of 

investigation is January 1, 2023, through 

December 31, 2023. Interested parties 

are invited to comment on this 

preliminary determination. 

DATES: Applicable October 4, 2024. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Preston Cox or Scarlet Jaldin, AD/CVD 

Operations, Office VI, Enforcement and 

Compliance, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue 

NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: 

(202) 482–5041 or (202) 482–4275, 

respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICESEN04OC24.001</GPH> EN04OC24.002</GPH>