The Department of Agriculture has submitted the following information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. Comments are requested regarding; whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; the accuracy of the agency's estimate of burden including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; and ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

Comments regarding this information collection received by April 12, 2021 will be considered. Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be submitted within 30 days of the publication of this notice on the following website www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain. Find this particular information collection by selecting “Currently under 30-day Review—Open for Public Comments” or by using the search function. An agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number and the agency informs potential persons who are to respond to the collection of information that such persons are not required to respond to the collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

Title: Foot-and-Mouth Disease; Prohibition on Importation of Farm Equipment.

OMB Control Number: 0579-0195.

Summary of Collection: The Animal Health Protection Act (AHPA) of 2002 is the primary Federal law governing the protection of animal health. (The AHPA is contained in Title X, Subtitle E, Sections 10401-18 of Public Law 107-171, May 13, 2002, the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002, and can be found at 7 U.S.C. 8301 et. seq. ) It gives the Secretary of Agriculture broad authority to detect, control, or eradicate pests or diseases of livestock or poultry. The Secretary may also prohibit or restrict import or export of any animal or related material if necessary, to prevent the spread of any livestock or poultry pest or disease.

As a result of the occurrences of foot-and-mouth disease (FMD) in different parts of the world, under 9 CFR 94.1(c) APHIS prohibits the importation of all used farm equipment into the United States from regions in which FMD exists, unless the exporter provides certification signed by an authorized official of the national animal health service of the exporting region stating that the equipment, after its last use and prior to export, has been steam-cleaned free of all exposed dirt and particulate material in the exporting region. APHIS inspects all such farm equipment to ensure it complies with the regulations.

Need and Use of the Information: APHIS will collect information through the use of a certification statement completed by the farm equipment exporter and signed by an authorized official of the national animal health service of the region of origin, stating that the steam-cleaning of the equipment was done prior to export to the United States. This is necessary to help prevent the introduction of FMD into the United States. If the information were not collected APHIS would be not be able to determine risk associated with importing farm equipment and would be forced to stop the importation of used farm equipment from FMD affected regions. This could financially impact exporters and importers of the equipment.

Description of Respondents: Business or other for-profit; Federal Government.

Number of Respondents: 79.

Frequency of Responses: Reporting: On occasion.

Total Burden Hours: 1,159.

Title: Self Certification Medical Statement.

OMB Control Number: 0579-0196.

Summary of Collection: The United States Department of Agriculture is responsible for ensuring consumers that food and farm products are moved from producer to consumer in the most efficient, dependable, economical, and equitable system possible. Each year, the United States Department of Agriculture's Marketing and Regulatory Programs (MRP) agency hires individuals for commodity grading and inspection positions to ensure this process is efficient and effective. These positions often involve arduous conditions and require direct contact with meat, dairy, fresh or processed fruits and vegetables, and poultry intended for human consumption; and cotton and tobacco products intended for consumer use. 5 CFR part 339 authorizes an agency to request medical information from an applicant that may assist management with employment decisions concerning covered positions that have specific medical or physical fitness requirements. APHIS will collect the applicant's medical information using MRP Form 5 (Self-Certification Medical Statement).

Need and Use of the Information: The information collected from prospective employees assists MRP officials, administrative personnel, and servicing Human Resources Offices in determining an applicant's physical fitness and suitability for employment in positions with approved medical standards and physical requirements. If the information was not collected, APHIS would not be able to accurately determine the applicant's fitness to safely perform the duties of the covered positions.

Description of Respondents: Individuals.

Number of Respondents: 1,826.

Frequency of Responses: Reporting: On occasion.

Total Burden Hours: 306.

Title: Commercial Transportation of Equines for Slaughter.

OMB Control Number: 0579-0332.

Summary of Collection: Section 901-905 of the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996 (7 U.S.C. 1901) authorize the Secretary of Agriculture to issue guidelines for regulating the commercial transportation of equine for slaughter, by persons regularly engaged in that activity within the United States. Specifically, the Secretary is authorized to regulate the food, water, and rest provided to the equines equines while they are in transit and to review related issues be appropriate to ensuring that these animals are treated humanely. To implement the provisions of this Act, the Veterinary Services program of the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) has established minimum standards to ensure the humane movement of equines for slaughter.

Need and Use of the Information: APHIS will collect information in the form of owner-shipper certificates of fitness to travel to slaughter facility; certificate of veterinary inspection; application of backtags; collection of business information on any person found to be transporting horses to a slaughtering facility; and recordkeeping. The collected information is use to ensure that equines being transported for slaughter receive adequate food, water, and rest and are treated humanely. If the information was collected less frequently or not collected, APHIS' ability to ensure that equines destined for slaughter are treated humanely would be significantly hampered.

Description of Respondents: Business or other for profit, Individuals or Households, and Federal Government.

Number of Respondents: 332.

Frequency of Responses: Reporting: On occasion ; Recordkeeping, and Third-Party Disclosure:

Total Burden Hours: 8,608.

Title: National Veterinary Services Laboratories Request Forms.

OMB Control Number: 0579-0430.

Summary of Collection: The Animal Health Protection Act (7 U.S.C. 8301-8317) provides the Secretary of Agriculture broad authority to prohibit or restrict, through orders and regulations, the importation or entry of any animal, article, or means of conveyance if USDA determines that the prohibition or restriction is necessary to prevent the introduction or spread of any pest or disease of livestock within the United States. Disease prevention is the most effective method for maintaining a healthy animal population.

In connection with this disease prevention mission, the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) National Veterinary Services Laboratories (NVSL) safeguard U.S. animal health and contribute to public health by ensuring that timely and accurate laboratory support is provided by their nationwide animal health diagnostic system.

Need and Use of the Information: APHIS will collect information using VS Form 4-9, Request for Reagents or Supplies; VS Form 4-10, NVSL Customer Contact Update; and VS Form 4-11, NVSL Application for Laboratory Training and; VS Form 12, NVSL Laboratories Kit and Instrument Order form. These forms are used to safeguard the U.S. animal population from pests and diseases. If the information was collected less frequently or not collected, APHIS would be unable to process reagent orders or provide requested training.

Description of Respondents: Foreign Federal Government; Individuals or households; Businesses; State, Local or Tribal Government.

Number of Respondents: 1,115.

Frequency of Responses: Reporting: On occasion.

Total Burden Hours: 1,223.

Title: Standardizing Phytosanitary Treatment Regulations: Approval of Cold Treatment and Irradiation Facilities; Cold Treatment Schedules; Establishment of Fumigation and Cold Treatment Compliance Agree.

OMB Control Number: 0579-0450.

Summary of Collection: The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) is responsible for preventing plant diseases or insect pests from entering the United States, preventing the spread of pests and noxious weeds not widely distributed into the United States, and eradicating those imported pests when eradication is feasible. The Plant Protection Act (7 U.S.C. 7701— et seq. ) authorizes the Department to carry out this mission. Under the Plant Protection Act, the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) is authorized, among other things, to regulate the importation of plants, plant products, and other articles to prevent the introduction of plant pests into the United States. The phytosanitary treatment regulations established generic criteria that allows for the approval of new cold treatment and irradiation facilities; cold treatment schedules; and the establishment of fumigation and cold treatment compliance agreements.

Need and Use of the Information: APHIS will collect information using PPQ form 519, Compliance Agreements, PPQ form 530, Limited Permit and other collection activities to provide generic criteria for new cold treatment and irradiation facilities, cold treatment schedules, and the establishment of fumigation and cold treatment compliance agreements.

Description of Respondents: Business or other for profit, State, Local, and Tribal Government; Federal Government (Foreign).

Number of Respondents: 92.

Frequency of Responses: Reporting; Annually.

Total Burden Hours: 196.

This matter is before me upon a Recommended Decision and Order on Sanction (“Sanction RDO”) of an Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”). On January 26, 2021, the ALJ referred the Sanction RDO to me pursuant to 15 CFR 766.17(b)(2). In the Sanction RDO, the ALJ found that Respondent Alexander Brazhnikov, Jr. (“Respondent”) violated 15 CFR 764.2(d) by conspiring with others to violate the Export Administration Regulations (currently codified at 15 CFR parts 730-774) (“EAR” or “Regulations”) by exporting regulated items to Russian End-Users on the Entity List without the required licenses. The ALJ recommended that a denial of export privileges for 15 years be assessed against Respondent. For the reasons set forth below, I affirm the Sanction RDO and issue the attached Order imposing sanction.

As described in further detail below, on April 21, 2020, in this same case, the ALJ issued an Order Partially Granting Motion for Summary Decision (“Summary Decision Order”) in which he found that Respondent had violated the EAR. The ALJ attached the Summary Decision Order to the Sanction RDO. I affirm the Summary Decision Order as well.

On June 11, 2015, Respondent pled guilty to a three-count Criminal Information in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. Count Three charged Respondent with conspiracy to willfully export from the United States to Russia electronic components under the jurisdiction of the Department of Commerce without first having obtained the required licenses from the Department of Commerce, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 371. The object of the conspiracy was to evade the EAR by supplying controlled electronics components to Russian end-users, including defense contractors licensed to procure parts for the Russian military, the Federal Security Service of the Russian Federation (FSB), and Russian entities involved in the design of nuclear weapons and tactical platforms. The overt acts alleged in furtherance of the conspiracy included that on or about November 20, 2013, and on or about April 23, 2014, Respondent and his co-conspirators caused the export of electronic components obtained from certain U.S. manufacturers to Russia on behalf of “a banned entity for which no export license could have lawfully been obtained.” Respondent specifically admitted to engaging in these overt acts as part of his plea allocution.

In a Charging Letter filed on April 22, 2019, the Bureau of Industry and Security (“BIS”) alleged that Respondent committed one violation of the EAR, stemming from his involvement in a conspiracy to violate the Regulations in connection with the export to Russia of U.S.-origin electronic components and other items subject to the Regulations. The violation alleged in the charging letter is as follows:  1

On December 16, 2019, BIS filed a motion for summary decision pursuant to 15 CFR 766.8. BIS argued that as a result of Respondent's criminal conviction for Count Three, there was no genuine issue of material fact as to whether he had violated the EAR as alleged in the Charging Letter, and that BIS was entitled to a summary decision as a matter of law. 8 On February 10, 2020, Respondent filed an opposition to the motion.

On April 21, 2020, the ALJ issued the Summary Decision Order. The ALJ determined that BIS had met its burden to show that there was no genuine issue of material fact as to the allegations supporting the violation alleged in the charging letter, and accordingly found that Respondent violated 15 CFR 764.2(d). As BIS had not argued for a particular sanction in its motion, the ALJ ordered the parties to submit written briefs stating their position as to an appropriate sanction. The ALJ did not certify his ruling in the Summary Decision Order to the Under Secretary for final decision.

On May 29, 2020, BIS submitted a brief requesting that the ALJ recommend that Respondent's export privileges be denied for at least 15 years. On that same day, Respondent filed a brief arguing that a six-month denial period was appropriate.

On January 26, 2021, the ALJ issued the Sanction RDO recommending a 15-year denial period. In the Sanction RDO, the ALJ again found that Respondent had violated 15 CFR 764.2. As previously stated, the Sanction RDO incorporated the Summary Decision Order as an attachment. The ALJ referred the Sanction RDO to me for review and final decision.

Under Section 766.17(b)(2) of the EAR, in proceedings such as this one, the ALJ shall issue a recommended decision that includes recommended findings of fact, conclusions of law, and findings as to whether there has been a violation of the EAR or any order, license or authorization issued thereunder. If the ALJ finds that one or more violations have been committed, the ALJ shall recommend an order imposing administrative sanctions, or such other action as the ALJ deems appropriate. The ALJ must also “immediately certify” the record to the Under Secretary for a final decision in accordance with Section 766.22 of the EAR.

The Under Secretary shall issue a written order affirming, modifying or vacating the recommended decision and order of the ALJ based on the written record for decision, including the transcript of any hearing, and any submissions by the parties concerning the recommended decision. 15 CFR 766.22(c).

On February 5, 2021, I issued a notice to the parties clarifying that my review of this case would include both the Sanction RDO and the incorporated Summary Decision Order and, taking note that Respondent had been representing himself, gave the parties additional time, until February 17, 2021, to respond to both decisions.

On February 17, 2021, BIS submitted a response recommending that I find that Respondent had violated the EAR and affirm the recommended sanction. Respondent did not submit a response or a reply to the BIS response.

In the Summary Decision Order and again in the Sanction RDO, the ALJ correctly found that “[b]etween January 2008 through June 2014, Respondent violated 15 CFR 764.2(d) by conspiring with others to violate the EAR by exporting regulated items to Russian end-users on BIS' Entity List without the required licenses.” Respondent, in pleading guilty to Count Three of the Information, admitted to all of the material facts alleged in the Charging Letter. The District Court, in accepting the Defendant's guilty plea, determined that there was a factual basis to support the plea. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(b)(3) (“Before entering judgment on a guilty plea, the court must determine that there is a factual basis for the plea.”).

As the ALJ concluded in the Summary Decision Order, under the doctrine of collateral estoppel, Respondent cannot challenge the underlying facts that he admitted to in his criminal case. See SEC. v. Bilzerian, 29 F.3d 689, 694 (D.C. 1994) (“[C]ollateral estoppel prohibits relitigation of an issue of fact or law that has been decided in earlier litigation.”). In this case, the Charging Letter included underlying facts from Respondent's criminal case that establish as a matter of law that Respondent violated Section 764.2(d).

The Sanction RDO recommended an order imposing a denial of export privileges for 15 years as a penalty against Respondent. In recommending this penalty, the ALJ noted the years-long scheme, the sophisticated effort to evade detection, the deliberateness of the violation, and that the end-user for the transactions described in the Charging Letter was an organization on BIS's Entity List that poses a risk to U.S. national security. The ALJ's analysis in support of the recommended sanction was well-reasoned and persuasive. I agree with his determination that a 15-year denial of export privileges is appropriate.

Based on my review of the written record and for the reasons described above, I affirm the recommended finding in the Summary Decision Order and Sanction RDO that Respondent violated the EAR as alleged in the Charging Letter, and affirm the recommended sanction of a 15-year denial of export privileges in the Sanction RDO.

Accordingly, it is therefore ordered:

FIRST, that for a period of Fifteen (15) years from the date that this Order is published in the Federal Register , Alexander Brazhnikov, Jr., with a last known address of 234 Central Avenue, Mountainside, New Jersey 07092, and when acting for or on his behalf, his successors, assigns, representatives, agents, or employees (hereinafter collectively referred to as “Denied Person”), 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 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 engaging in any other activity subject to the EAR; or

C. Benefitting in any way from any transaction involving any item exported or to be exported from the United States that is subject to the EAR, or from any other activity subject to the EAR.

SECOND, 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 EAR;

B. Take any action that facilitates the acquisition or attempted acquisition by the Denied Person of the ownership, possession, or control of any item subject to the EAR that has been or will be exported from the United States, including financing or other support activities related to a transaction whereby 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 EAR that has been exported from the United States;

D. Obtain from the Denied Person in the United States any item subject to the EAR with knowledge or reason to know that the item will be, or is intended to be, exported from the United States; or

E. Engage in any transaction to service any item subject to the EAR that has been or will be exported from the United States and which is owned, possessed or controlled by 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 EAR that has been or will be exported from the United States. For purposes of this paragraph, servicing means installation, maintenance, repair, modification or testing.

THIRD, after notice and opportunity for comment as provided in Section 766.23 of the EAR, any person, firm, corporation, or business organization related to the Denied Person by ownership, control, position of responsibility, affiliation, or other connection in the conduct of trade or business may also be made subject to the provisions of this Order.

FOURTH, that this Order shall be served on Alexander Brazhnikov, Jr. and on BIS, and shall be published in the Federal Register . In addition, the ALJ's Summary Decision Order and the Sanction RDO described above, shall also be published in the Federal Register , except for the section with the Recommended Order in the Sanction RDO.

This Order, which constitutes the final agency action in this matter, is effective upon publication in the Federal Register .

This case arises from Alexander Brazhnikov, Jr.'s (Respondent) violation of the Export Administration Regulations (EAR or Regulations). Prior to the institution of this administrative proceeding, Respondent pled guilty in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey on June 11, 2015, to, inter alia, having conspired to violate the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), the statutory scheme that gave effect to the EAR. 9

On April 22, 2019, the Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS or Agency) initiated this administrative proceeding by issuing a Charging Letter against Respondent alleging one violation, conspiracy to violate the EAR, under 15 CFR 764.2(d). The charge read as follows:

Neither party requested a hearing in this case, and accordingly, the ALJ issued an Order on October 18, 2019, holding that the parties had waived their right to a hearing and the case would proceed on the record, and further setting forth a schedule for discovery, motions, and final briefs. See 15 CFR 766.6(c) and 766.15.

On December 16, 2019, BIS filed a Motion for Summary Decision with supporting documentation, contending Respondent's criminal conviction in U.S. District Court demonstrates there is no dispute Respondent committed a violation of the EAR under 15 CFR 764.2(d). In response, Respondent filed an opposition to the motion.

On April 21, 2020, the ALJ issued an Order Partially Granting Motion for Summary Decision (Summary Decision Order), finding Respondent's arguments did not create a genuine issue of material fact and that BIS was entitled to a decision as a matter of law that Respondent violated the EAR under 15 CFR 764.2(d). Respondent did not dispute his conviction and did not object to the documents BIS attached to its Motion, which included his plea allocution. Respondent was thus collaterally estopped from denying the facts set forth in the Charging Letter, as they were the same facts to which Respondent admitted through his guilty plea in the federal criminal case. Accordingly, the ALJ found Charge 1 proved, but reserved ruling on the sanction. The Summary Decision Order included Recommended Findings of Fact and Recommended Ultimate Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. See Attachment A.

On May 29, 2020, BIS submitted a final brief contending Respondent should be denied export privileges for at least 15 years. On the same date, Respondent filed a brief, in the form of a letter, arguing that deprivation of export privileges for six months would be a sufficient sanction.

The record is now ripe for decision on sanction.

After considering the whole record, including the parties' final briefs, and the Summary Decision Order, I find the following facts proved by preponderant evidence:

The Administrative Procedure Act (APA) governs proceedings for administrative penalties for EAR violations. 5 U.S.C. 554, et seq. See 50 U.S.C. 4819(c)(2) (“Any civil penalty under this subsection may be imposed only after notice and opportunity for an agency hearing on the record in accordance with sections 554 through 557 of Title 5.”) Pursuant to the APA, the burden in this proceeding lies with BIS to prove the charge against Respondent by reliable, probative, and substantial evidence. 5 U.S.C. 556(d). The “reliable, probative, and substantial” standard is synonymous with the “preponderance of the evidence” standard of proof. Steadman v. SEC, 450 U.S. 91, 102 (1981); In the Matter of Abdulmir Madi, et al., 68 FR 57406 (October 3, 2003).

As noted in the Summary Decision Order, BIS has already established there is no genuine dispute of material fact concerning the alleged violations. Concrete Pipe & Products v. Construction Laborers Pension Trust, 508 U.S. 602, 622 (1993). Therefore, at this stage of the proceedings, those facts in the Summary Decision Order are established. However, BIS still retains the burden to prove any additional aggravating facts offered in support of its request for sanction with preponderant evidence, meaning BIS must show the fact's existence is more probable than not. 5 U.S.C. 556(d). After determining which facts have been proven by preponderant evidence, it is then up to the ALJ to determine an appropriate sanction. 11

Section 764.3 of the EAR describes the permissible sanctions BIS may seek for the violation charged in this proceeding: (1) A civil penalty, (2) a denial of export privileges under the Regulations, and (3) an exclusion from practice. See 15 CFR 764.3. Supplement Number 1 to 15 CFR part 766, titled Guidance on Charging and Penalty Determinations in Settlement of Administrative Enforcement Cases (“Penalty Guidance”), provides non-binding guidance on penalty determinations in the context of settlement discussions between BIS and respondents in administrative enforcement cases. The Penalty Guidance was created to aid settlement negotiations, and does not create any right or obligation as to what penalty or sanction BIS may seek after litigation; however, it provides helpful guideposts for considering an appropriate sanction even in the context of a litigated enforcement action.

The Penalty Guidance discusses actions that may be considered “aggravating factors.” Such actions include conduct that shows the respondent knew he/she was violating U.S. laws or regulations, i.e., a deliberate intent to violate the EAR; intentional concealment of conduct for the purpose of misleading authorities or other parties involved in the transaction; and conduct that implicates U.S. national security and/or U.S. foreign policy, e.g., by exporting items to individuals/organizations on BIS “Entity List.” See 15 CFR part 766, Supp. No. 1, at § III “Aggravating Factors.”

As addressed in the Findings of Fact, above, Respondent admitted to engaging in deliberate acts with his co-conspirators meant to conceal their actions, including creating bank accounts for shell companies to conceal the true source of the funds, using his New Jersey-based corporations to repackage and ship the items to the Russian end-users, shipping components to false addresses to conceal the true identity of the Russian end-users, and falsifying the value of the exports to evade EEI filing requirements. Respondent admitted to these acts in his plea allocution before the Federal District Court, and accordingly BIS has proven these facts by preponderant evidence. (Mot. for Summ. Dec., Ex. 4 (Respondent's Plea Allocution)). A party's deliberateness in violating the EAR and concealment of the conduct are aggravating factors that are given substantial weight. See 15 CFR part 766, Supp No. 1, at §§ III(A) and IV(B). There is no dispute that Respondent willfully and deliberately used sophisticated tactics to evade detection by U.S. authorities and to conceal the identities of the true end-users from the U.S. vendors.

In its final brief, BIS asserts that pursuant to section 764.3 of the regulations, BIS may seek administrative sanctions including a civil penalty of up to $307,922 per violation or twice the value of the transaction upon which the penalty is imposed, whichever is greater. BIS also states that in view of the $65 million criminal forfeiture imposed in regard to the criminal action, BIS is not recommending an additional civil penalty in this matter, but contends Respondent's conduct is of such a serious nature that a 15-year denial of export privileges is “not only necessary but proportionate to other cases, especially considering the activities of the prohibited end-users at issue such as VNIITF.” (BIS Final Brief, p. 9). 12 BIS argues that VNIITF assists Russia in the development of its nuclear weapons program. 13 VNIITF is currently, and was at the time of Respondent's conduct, on BIS' Entity List. The Entity List was established to identify organizations that pose a significant national security concern:

The degree to which the conduct implicates national security concerns due to the sensitivity of the items exported or the nature of the recipient of the exports is another factor that is given substantial weight. Here, the recipient, VNIITF, is considered an organization to which exports must be carefully controlled because of potential harm to the national security or foreign policy. Respondent's conduct in providing VNIITF with electronic components is highly troubling.

The Penalty Guidance likewise discusses actions that may be considered “mitigating factors.” Such actions include immediate cessation of the unlawful conduct once it was discovered, quick and decisive efforts to ascertain the cause and extent of the violation, and exceptional cooperation with the agency to investigate and resolve violations. See 15 CFR part 766, Supp. No. 1, at § III “Mitigating Factors.”

In his Final Brief, Respondent presents the following in support of his contention that a six-month denial of export privileges is appropriate:

Respondent did not elaborate on his efforts to aid those impacted by COVID-19 or explain why that should be considered a mitigating factor in these administrative enforcement proceedings.

In his opposition to BIS' Motion for Summary Decision, Respondent did not acknowledge his responsibility for his violations of the EAR, but instead asserted that his father took responsibility for the charges. Respondent's failure to acknowledge his responsibility came after he pled guilty in the criminal case and formally admitted in a plea hearing before a U.S. District Court judge that he had engaged in the violations and acts of concealment discussed above. In addition to avoiding an admission of responsibility, Respondent has not presented any evidence that he will implement an export compliance program, or make any effort to ensure his activities comport with export regulations, if he is allowed to continue in the export business. Likewise, he has not demonstrated cooperation in any significant manner with BIS in the present case. A mere contention of some form of community service relating to the COVID-19 pandemic is not evidence and does not present any valid basis for mitigation of sanctions for the charged violations.

BIS points to the imposition of a 10-year denial of export privileges in the case In the Matters of: Trilogy International Associates, Inc., William Michael Johnson, Respondents, 83 FR 9259 (Mar. 5, 2018). In Trilogy, the course of conduct lasted from January 2010 through May 2010, wherein the respondents exported an explosives detector and 115 analog to digital converters to Russia. The Under Secretary of Commerce for Industry and Security found the respondents were “willfully ignoring, or, at best, blinding themselves to their compliance obligations.” 83 FR at 9262. Trilogy did not involve export of items to an organization on the Entity List, and the time period of the illegal acts was much briefer than Respondent's four-year course of conduct. Moreover, unlike the instant case, the respondents in Trilogy were found to have “willfully ignored” or “blinded themselves” to the regulations, as opposed to having engaged in extensive, deliberate concealment efforts. As such, a harsher penalty for Respondent seems appropriate.

BIS also cites two cases in which administrative enforcement actions were brought against the respondents after they had been convicted of conspiracy to violate the IEEPA under 18 U.S.C. 371 and 50 U.S.C. 1705, as in the instant case, by exporting items to Russian end-users. In those cases, In the Matter of: Alexey Krutilin, 82 FR 43218 (Sep. 14, 2017) and In the Matter of: Dmitrii Karpenko, 82 FR 43217 (Sep. 14, 2017), the Office of Export Enforcement proceeded under 15 CFR 766.25, which allows the immediate imposition of an administrative penalty without the need for a charging letter and opportunity for hearing, but restricts the penalty to a maximum ten-year denial of export privileges. The respondent in Krutilin was given the maximum ten-year denial penalty. The respondent in Karpenko was given a five-year denial penalty. Neither of those cases mentioned the involvement of Russian organizations on the Entity List.

Another case cited by BIS involving a clearly deliberate violation of export control regulations is In the Matter of: Yavuz Cizmeci, 80 FR 18194 (Apr. 3, 2015), wherein the respondent aided Iran Air in procuring a Boeing 747 in direct violation of a Temporary Denial Order (“TDO”). The TDO, issued on June 6, 2008, prohibited a company called Ankair from “directly or indirectly, participating in any way in any transaction involving the Boeing 747 . . . .” Yet, on June 26, 2008, the respondent, CEO of Ankair, assisted in transferring possession of the plane to Iran Air. The transaction value was estimated at approximately $5.3 million. The respondent settled the administrative enforcement action and agreed to a $50,000 civil penalty and a 20-year denial of export privileges. While this case is factually distinct, both cases involve intentional violations of the EAR and transactions in the millions of dollars.

Respondent violated the EAR by conspiring with others to, inter alia, export electronic components to an organization on the Entity List. Respondent further admitted to engaging in a years' long, sophisticated scheme to evade detection by U.S. authorities. The deliberateness of Respondent's violations and concealment efforts, the extent of the activity, and the fact that Respondent helped to export controlled items to an organization that is considered to pose a risk to U.S. national security, all justify an extensive period of denial of export privileges. Respondent failed to provide any mitigating evidence. Considering the 20-year denial imposed in Cizmeci, the ten-year denials imposed in Trilogy and Krutilin, and the five-year denial imposed in Karpenko, a 15-year denial of export privileges for Respondent's conduct is comparable to sanctions imposed in similar cases and reasonable when considered in light of the applicable Penalty Guidance factors. Accordingly, I find that a 15-year denial of export privileges is appropriate.

This Recommended Decision and Order is being referred to the Under Secretary for review and final action by overnight carrier as provided under 15 CFR 766.17(b)(2). Due to the short period of time for review by the Under Secretary, all papers filed with the Under Secretary in response to this Recommended Decision and Order must be sent by personal delivery, facsimile, express mail, or other overnight carrier as provided in 15 CFR 766.22(a).

Submissions by the parties must be filed with the Under Secretary for Export Administration, Bureau of Industry and Security, U.S. Department of Commerce, Room H-3898, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230, within twelve (12) days from the date of issuance of this Recommended Decision and Order. Thereafter, the parties have eight (8) days from receipt of any responses in which to submit replies. See 15 CFR 766.22(b).

Within thirty (30) days after receipt of this Recommended Decision and Order, the Under Secretary shall issue a written order, affirming, modifying, or vacating the Recommended Decision and Order. See 15 CFR 766.22(c). A copy of the regulations regarding review by the Under Secretary can be found in Attachment B.

The Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) initiated this administrative enforcement action against Alexander Brazhnikov, Jr. (Respondent) by serving a Charging Letter against him on April 22, 2019. BIS brought one Charge against Respondent, under 15 CFR 764.2(d), alleging he conspired with others to do acts that constitute violations of the Export Administration Regulations (EAR).

As the basis for Charge 1, BIS alleged Respondent conspired with others from January 2008 through June 2014 to export regulated electronic components from the U.S. to Russian customers listed on BIS's “Entity List” without the required licenses. 14 BIS supports Charge 1 with Respondent's June 11, 2015 guilty plea and subsequent conviction in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey of conspiracy to violate the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) by acting with others to cause the export of electronic components from United States manufacturers to Russia on behalf of an entity for which no export license could have lawfully been obtained. According to the Charging Letter, the facts underlying the criminal case are the same as the facts underlying this administrative action.

On December 16, 2019, BIS filed a Motion for Summary Decision, arguing Respondent's conviction demonstrates there is no dispute Respondent committed a violation of the EAR under 15 CFR 764.2(d). Respondent filed a late response on February 10, 2020, listing his contentions in three numbered paragraphs, arguing (1) his father took responsibility for all of the actions alleged in the Charging Letter, (2) BIS did not prove that “these parts were U.S.-Origin,” and (3) the total cost of the exported items listed in two sample invoices attached by BIS to its Motion for Summary Decision was $734.58. For the reasons set forth below, the undersigned is PARTIALLY GRANTING BIS' Motion for Summary Decision.

The alleged offenses occurred between January 2008 and June 2014. At that time, BIS had jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to the IEEPA and the EAR promulgated under the Export Administration Act of 1979 (EAA), codified at 50 U.S.C. 4601-4623. See 15 CFR parts 730-774. Although the EAA had lapsed at that time, the President, through Executive Order 13,222 of August 17, 2001, and through successive Presidential Notices, continued the regulations in full force and effect under the IEEPA. 50 U.S.C. 1701, et seq.

In August 2018, Congress enacted the John S. McCain National Defense Authorization Act containing the Export Control Reform Act of 2018, which repealed much of the EAA but provided BIS with permanent statutory authority to administer the EAR. See 50 U.S.C. 4826. The 2018 Act specifically states all administrative actions made or administrative proceedings commenced prior to its enactment are not disturbed by the new legislation. See Id. Accordingly, BIS currently has jurisdiction over this matter, as it did at the time of the alleged offenses.

The regulations governing BIS civil penalty enforcement proceedings allow a party to move for summary decision disposing of some or all of the issues in the case if there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and the moving party is entitled to summary decision as a matter of law. 15 CFR 766.8. A dispute over a material fact is “genuine” if the evidence is such that a reasonable fact finder could render a ruling in favor of the non-moving party. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986).

The moving party bears the initial burden of production to identify those portions of the record that demonstrate an absence of genuine issues of material fact. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 330-331 (1986). Once the moving party meets that initial burden, the burden of production then shifts to the non-moving party to identify specific evidentiary material that demonstrates a genuine issue for trial. Id. Mere denials of allegations are not sufficient to demonstrate a genuine issue of material fact. Sanders v. Nunley, 634 F.Supp. 474, 476 (N.D. Ga. 1985).

When considering the ultimate burden of persuasion, the ALJ must apply the “substantive evidentiary standard of proof that would apply at the trial on the merits.” Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. at 252. Here, the standard of proof is the standard set forth in the Administrative Procedure Act—a preponderance of the evidence. 50 U.S.C. 4819(c)(2); Sea Island Broadcasting Corp. of S.C. v. F.C.C., 627 F.2d 240, 243 (1980).

According to Charge 1, BIS alleges Respondent conspired with others to violate the EAR under 15 CFR 764.2(d), from January 2008 through June 2014 to procure electronic components from U.S. vendors and export the components to Russian end-users, while evading U.S. licensing regulations prohibiting such export transactions. (Mot. for Summ. Dec., Ex. 1 [Charging Letter], pp. 1-3). The electronic components were listed on BIS's Commerce Control List. The Russian end-users were listed on BIS' Entity List, and, as such, were entities deemed by the U.S. “to pose a significant risk of being or becoming involved, in activities contrary to the national security or foreign policy interests of the United States.” 15 CFR 744.16.

BIS maintains authority over the exportation of certain items. These items are listed on the Commerce Control List (CCL), and divided into categories, such as “nuclear materials,” “telecommunications and information security,” and “aerospace and propulsion.” 15 CFR 774.1(a); 15 CFR 738.2(a). Categories are divided into groups, such as “materials,” “software,” and “technology.” 15 CFR 738.2(b). Within each category and group, items are identified by an Export Control Classification Number (ECCN). 15 CFR 738.2(d).

An ECCN listing provides information on the reasons that BIS regulates that particular item; one must cross-reference the information in the ECCN listing with information provided in the Commerce Country Chart to determine if a license is required to export the item to a particular country. 15 CFR 738.2, 738.4; Supplement No. 1 to Part 738 (Commerce Country Chart).

In addition to the Commerce Control List, the EAR provides another layer of regulation by way of the Entity List, which specifies individuals, businesses, and organizations to whom the export of certain items is prohibited without a license. With regard to the Entity List, the EAR provides:

As stated in the regulation, above, items subject to regulation by virtue of being on the Commerce Control List may also be subject to additional regulation if the end-users are listed on the Entity List.

BIS contends no genuine issue of material fact exists as to Charge 1 because Respondent pled guilty to a Federal criminal charge of conspiracy to violate the IEEPA  15 in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey on June 11, 2015, in Case. No. 2:15-CR-00300-WJM-1. (Mot. for Summ. Dec., p. 4-5; Ex. 2 (Criminal Information); Ex. 3 (Plea Agreement); Ex. 4 (Transcript of Plea Hearing); Ex. 5 (Judgment in a Criminal Case). The facts underlying the criminal case are the same facts underlying this administrative action.

BIS attached the Criminal Information for Case. No. 2:15-CR-00300-WJM-1 to its Motion for Summary Decision, which describes in detail the actions taken by Respondent and his co-conspirators to export regulated items to Russian organizations on the Entity List without obtaining the required licenses. (Mot. for Summ. Dec., Ex. 2). BIS also attached the plea agreement executed by Respondent, the transcript of the plea hearing, the judgment of conviction, and Respondent's response to BIS's Requests for Admission in this administrative action. (Mot. for Summ. Dec., Exs. 3-6, respectively).

Through his responses to the Requests for Admission, Respondent conceded the authenticity of the documents related to his criminal conviction attached to BIS' Motion for Summary Decision. (Mot. for Summ. Dec., Ex. 6 at Requests for Admission Nos. 1-3). Respondent also admitted to many of the underlying facts in his response to the Requests for Admission. (Mot. for Summ. Dec., Ex. 6 at Requests for Admission Nos. 5, 7, 14, 16, 19, 26-30). The facts Respondent did not admit to in the Requests for Admission are contradicted by Respondent's statements made under oath during the plea hearing. For example, Respondent denied the following Request for Admission:

Despite Respondent's denial of that Request for Admission, he answered as follows in his plea hearing in the criminal case:

Collateral estoppel prevents Respondent from denying or re-litigating the facts set forth in the Charging Letter, because they are the same facts he admitted in his federal criminal case. Smith v. SEC., 129 F.3d 356, 362 (6th Cir. 1997) (conviction for insider trading creates situation where “[i]n order to prevail in the civil action, the SEC now needs only to move for summary judgment on the basis of the collateral estoppel effect of that conviction.”); SEC. v. Bilzerian, 29 F.3d 689, 693-694 (D.C. Cir. 1994) (“the district court found that Bilzerian was collaterally estopped from contesting the facts set forth in support of the SEC's civil claims because the same facts formed the basis of his criminal conviction.”). Accordingly, there is no genuine dispute over whether Respondent committed acts constituting conspiracy to violate the EAR. The specific facts are set forth in the following section.

Respondent was the owner, operator, and CEO of several business incorporated in New Jersey. Respondent's father was the owner, operator, and CEO of several Russian business entities. Respondent's father was one of Respondent's co-conspirators with respect to the following actions. Between January 2008 and June 2014, Respondent and his co-conspirators, through the afore-mentioned businesses, exported electronic components from the U.S. to Russian end-users, knowing the EAR required licenses for such exports and not obtaining the required licenses. (Mot. for Summ. Dec., pp. 5-6, 8; Ex. 4 at pp. 17-18, 23).

One of the end-users to which Respondent and his co-conspirators exported items was the All-Russian Scientific Research Institute of Technical Physics (VNIITF) Academician E.I. Zababakhina. BIS placed the VNIITF on the Entity List in 1997, and it remained there at all times from 2008 to 2014. BIS added the Academician E.I. Zababakhina to the Entity List as an alias for the VNIITF in 2010. (Mot. for Summ. Dec., pp. 8-9); see Entity List at Supplement No. 4 to 15 CFR part 744.

On November 20, 2013, Respondent and his co-conspirators sent multiple shipments of electronic components, evidenced by four invoices, to VNIITF Academician E.I. Zababakhina. (Mot. for Summ. Dec., Ex. 2 at p. 15; Ex. 4 at p. 24; Ex. 11). BIS, through certified Licensing Determinations, determined some of the items in the shipments were electronic components found on the Commerce Control List under ECCN EAR99. (Mot. for Summ. Dec., Ex. 9).

On April 23, 2014, Respondent and his co-conspirators again shipped electronic components to VNIITF Academician E.I. Zababakhina. (Mot. for Summ. Dec., Ex. 2 at p. 15; Ex. 4 at 24; Ex. 12). BIS performed a certified Licensing Determination, concluding the components were found on the Commerce Control List under ECCN EAR99. (Mot. for Summ. Dec., Ex. 10).

Pursuant to the Entity List, a license was required to export “all items subject to the EAR” to VNIITF Academician E.I. Zababakhina. See Supplement No. 4 to Part 744. As the November 20, 2013 and April 23, 2014 shipments contained items subject to the EAR, Respondent was prohibited from exporting the items without obtaining a license from BIS. 15 CFR 744.16(a). As evidenced by his statement at the plea hearing, Respondent and his co-conspirators knew licenses were required for these exports and failed to obtain them. (Mot. for Summ. Dec., Ex. 4 at p. 23-24).

In his Response to the Motion for Summary Decision, Respondent makes three contentions. First, Respondent contends his father “took all responsibility for it.” (Resp. to Mot. for Summ. Dec., p. 1). In support, Respondent attached a document drafted in Russia, along with a translated copy, purportedly made by Respondent's father on October 10, 2019. The document states Respondent's father is the owner of two companies (Zond-R, Inc.; Telecom Multipliers, Inc.) involved in the scheme to violate the IEEPA. (Resp. to Mot. for Summ. Dec., Ex. 1). Respondent's argument here is merely a denial of the Charge and does not give rise to a genuine issue of material fact. Sanders, 634 F.Supp. at 476. Contrary to Respondent's bald assertion, the document does not state Respondent's father takes all responsibility for the scheme, it only affirms Respondent's father owns companies involved in the scheme. Further, Respondent is estopped from arguing now that his father actually owned those companies, because Respondent admitted in the June 11, 2015 plea hearing in Criminal Case No. 2:15-CR-00300-WJM-1 he owned Zond-R, Inc. and Telecom Multipliers, Inc. (Mot. for Summ. Dec., Ex. 4 at p. 17).

Second, Respondent argues “BIS did not provide ANY evidence that these parts were U.S.-Origin.” (Resp. to Mot. for Summ. Dec., p. 1). This argument lacks merit because one element of the crime to which Respondent pled guilty was the fact that he, along with his co-conspirators, illegally exported U.S.-origin electronics to Russian organizations. (Mot. for Summ. Dec., Ex. 4 at pp. 20-24).

Finally, Respondent argues the cost of the electronic components he conspired to export was $734.58, not $46,669.71. Respondent is referring to the November 20, 2013 and April 23, 2014 export transactions mentioned by BIS in the Charging Letter, which were among the overt acts Respondent admitted to in the criminal case. (Mot. for Summ. Dec., Ex. 1 at pp. 2-3). The Charging Letter does contain some errors in the amount of the transactions; the invoices attached to BIS's Motion for Summary Decision show the amounts were listed in rubles, not dollars. (Mot. for Summ. Dec., Exs. 11, 12).

However, the specific value of the exports is not a material fact. A fact is material if it “might affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law.” Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248. The pertinent elements of the criminal charge against Respondent in the U.S. District Court and the administrative charge against Respondent in this proceeding are (1) Respondent conspired with others (2) to export U.S. electronic components (3) to Russian organizations on BIS's “Entity List” (4) without the licenses required by the EAR. See 18 U.S.C. 371; 50 U.S.C. 1705; 15 CFR 744.16. The cost of the items is immaterial in regard to finding a violation proven. While the EAR provides a limited licensing exception for certain exports under a certain monetary value, this exception does not apply to items exported to Russia or items exported to entities on the Entity List. See 15 CFR 740.3; Suppl. No. 1 to Part 740. 16 17

BIS met its burden of production as to Charge 1, conspiracy to violate the EAR under 15 CFR 764.2(d), with evidence that Respondent pled guilty a related federal criminal charge. The facts underlying the criminal charge being identical to the facts underlying the instant administrative charge, Respondent is estopped from denying them. Respondent filed a late response to the Motion for Summary Decision but failed to identify any triable issues of fact. Considering BIS' evidence as a whole, BIS met its ultimate burden of persuasion, showing by a preponderance of the evidence that no genuine issue of material fact exists and BIS is entitled, as a matter of law, to a decision in its favor as to Charge 1.

Section 764.3 of the EAR establishes the sanctions BIS may seek for the violations charged in this proceeding. The sanctions are: (1) A monetary penalty, (2) denial of export privileges under the regulations, and (3) exclusion of practice before the Department of Commerce. BIS has not moved for any particular sanction to be imposed. Accordingly, sanctions will be addressed following an opportunity for the parties to be heard on the issue. In keeping with the October 18, 2019 Scheduling Order, this matter shall proceed on the record. The parties shall submit final written briefs stating their positions as to an appropriate sanction on or before May 29, 2020. There will not be any reply briefs.

Wherefore ,

It is hereby ordered , BIS's Motion for Summary Decision is GRANTED IN PART. Charge 1, brought pursuant to 15 CFR 764.2(d), is found PROVEN.

It is further ordered , the parties shall submit written briefs stating their positions as to an appropriate sanction on or before May 29, 2020.

Take notice that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) will convene its annual Commissioner-led Reliability Technical Conference in the above-referenced proceeding on Thursday, September 30, 2021 from approximately 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Eastern time. The conference will be held either in-person—at the Commission's headquarters at 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426 in the Commission Meeting Room (with a WebEx option available)—or electronically.

The purpose of this conference is to discuss policy issues related to the reliability of the Bulk-Power System.

The conference will be open for the public to attend, and there is no fee for attendance. Supplemental notices will be issued prior to the conference with further details regarding the agenda, how to register to participate, and the format (including whether the technical conference will be held in-person or electronically). Information on this technical conference will also be posted on the Calendar of Events on the Commission's website, www.ferc.gov, prior to the event.

The conference will also be transcribed. Transcripts will be available for a fee from Ace Reporting, (202) 347-3700.

Commission conferences are accessible under section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. For accessibility accommodations, please send an email to accessibility@ferc.gov, call toll-free (866) 208-3372 (voice) or (202) 208-8659 (TTY), or send a fax to (202) 208-2106 with the required accommodations.

For more information about this technical conference, please contact Lodie White at Lodie.White@ferc.gov or (202) 502-8453. For information related to logistics, please contact Sarah McKinley at Sarah.Mckinley@ferc.gov or (202) 502-8368.

Take notice that on February 24, 2021, Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC (Columbia), 700 Louisiana Street, Suite 1300, Houston, TX 77002-2700 filed in the above referenced docket a prior notice pursuant to sections 157.205 and 157.216 of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's regulations under the Natural Gas Act, requesting authorization to abandon three injection/withdrawal wells and associated pipelines and appurtenances, located in its Ripley and Terra Alta Storage Fields in Jackson and Preston Counties, West Virginia (2021 Ripley and Terra Alta Wells Abandonment Project or Project). Columbia proposes to abandon these facilities under authorities granted by its blanket certificate issued in Docket No. CP83-76-000. 1 The proposed abandonments will have no impact on Columbia's existing customers or affect Columbia's existing storage operations. The estimated cost for the Project is approximately $1.6 million, all as more fully set forth in the request which is on file with the Commission and open to public inspection.

In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the Federal Register , the Commission provides all interested persons an opportunity to view and/or print the contents of this document via the internet through the Commission's Home Page ( http://ferc.gov ) using the “eLibrary” link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to access the document. At this time, the Commission has suspended access to the Commission's Public Reference Room, due to the proclamation declaring a National Emergency concerning the Novel Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19), issued by the President on March 13, 2020. For assistance, contact the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission at FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov or call toll-free, (886) 208-3676 or TYY, (202) 502-8659.

Any questions concerning this application should be directed to Sorana Linder, Director, Modernization & Certificates, (832) 320-5209, sorana_linder@tcenergy.com, Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC, 700 Louisiana Street, Suite 1300, Houston, TX 77002-2700.

Pursuant to Section 157.9 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 2 within 90 days of this Notice the Commission staff will either: Complete its environmental review and place it into the Commission's public record (eLibrary) for this proceeding; or issue a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review. If a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review is issued, it will indicate, among other milestones, the anticipated date for the Commission staff's issuance of the final environmental impact statement (FEIS) or environmental assessment (EA) for this proposal. The filing of an EA in the Commission's public record for this proceeding or the issuance of a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review will serve to notify federal and state agencies of the timing for the completion of all necessary reviews, and the subsequent need to complete all federal authorizations within 90 days of the date of issuance of the Commission staff's FEIS or EA.

There are three ways to become involved in the Commission's review of this project: You can file a protest to the project, you can file a motion to intervene in the proceeding, and you can file comments on the project. There is no fee or cost for filing protests, motions to intervene, or comments. The deadline for filing protests, motions to intervene, and comments is 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on May 4, 2021. How to file protests, motions to intervene, and comments is explained below.

Pursuant to section 157.205 of the Commission's regulations under the NGA, 3 any person 4 or the Commission's staff may file a protest to the request. If no protest is filed within the time allowed or if a protest is filed and then withdrawn within 30 days after the allowed time for filing a protest, the proposed activity shall be deemed to be authorized effective the day after the time allowed for protest. If a protest is filed and not withdrawn within 30 days after the time allowed for filing a protest, the instant request for authorization will be considered by the Commission.

Protests must comply with the requirements specified in section 157.205(e) of the Commission's regulations, 5 and must be submitted by the protest deadline, which is May 4, 2021. A protest may also serve as a motion to intervene so long as the protestor states it also seeks to be an intervenor.

Any person has the option to file a motion to intervene in this proceeding. Only intervenors have the right to request rehearing of Commission orders issued in this proceeding and to subsequently challenge the Commission's orders in the U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeal.

To intervene, you must submit a motion to intervene to the Commission in accordance with Rule 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure  6 and the regulations under the NGA  7 by the intervention deadline for the project, which is May 4, 2021. As described further in Rule 214, your motion to intervene must state, to the extent known, your position regarding the proceeding, as well as your interest in the proceeding. For an individual, this could include your status as a landowner, ratepayer, resident of an impacted community, or recreationist. You do not need to have property directly impacted by the project in order to intervene. For more information about motions to intervene, refer to the FERC website at https://www.ferc.gov/resources/guides/how-to/intervene.asp.

All timely, unopposed motions to intervene are automatically granted by operation of Rule 214(c)(1). Motions to intervene that are filed after the intervention deadline are untimely and may be denied. Any late-filed motion to intervene must show good cause for being late and must explain why the time limitation should be waived and provide justification by reference to factors set forth in Rule 214(d) of the Commission's Rules and Regulations. A person obtaining party status will be placed on the service list maintained by the Secretary of the Commission and will receive copies (paper or electronic) of all documents filed by the applicant and by all other parties.

Any person wishing to comment on the project may do so. The Commission considers all comments received about the project in determining the appropriate action to be taken. To ensure that your comments are timely and properly recorded, please submit your comments on or before May 4, 2021. The filing of a comment alone will not serve to make the filer a party to the proceeding. To become a party, you must intervene in the proceeding.

There are two ways to submit protests, motions to intervene, and comments. In both instances, please reference the Project docket number CP21-59-000 in your submission.

(1) You may file your protest, motion to intervene, and comments by using the Commission's eFiling feature, which is located on the Commission's website ( www.ferc.gov) under the link to Documents and Filings. New eFiling users must first create an account by clicking on “eRegister.” You will be asked to select the type of filing you are making; first select General” and then select “Protest”, “Intervention”, or “Comment on a Filing”; or 8

(2) You can file a paper copy of your submission by mailing it to the address below. Your submission must reference the Project docket number CP21-59-000.

To mail via USPS, use the following address: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426.

To mail via any other courier, use the following address: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 12225 Wilkins Avenue, Rockville, Maryland 20852.

The Commission encourages electronic filing of submissions (option 1 above) and has eFiling staff available to assist you at (202) 502-8258 or FercOnlineSupport@ferc.gov.

Protests and motions to intervene must be served on the applicant either by mail or email (with a link to the document) at: sorana_linder@tcenergy.com, 700 Louisiana Street, Suite 1300, Houston, TX 77002-2700. Any subsequent submissions by an intervenor must be served on the applicant and all other parties to the proceeding. Contact information for parties can be downloaded from the service list at the eService link on FERC Online.

Throughout the proceeding, additional information about the project will be available from the Commission's Office of External Affairs, at (866) 208-FERC, or on the FERC website at www.ferc.gov using the “eLibrary” link as described above. The eLibrary link also provides access to the texts of all formal documents issued by the Commission, such as orders, notices, and rulemakings.

In addition, the Commission offers a free service called eSubscription which allows you to keep track of all formal issuances and submittals in specific dockets. This can reduce the amount of time you spend researching proceedings by automatically providing you with notification of these filings, document summaries, and direct links to the documents. For more information and to register, go to www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp.

Take notice that the Commission received the following electric corporate filings:

Docket Numbers: EC21-64-000.

Applicants: Tumbleweed Solar, LLC, Tumbleweed Energy Storage, LLC.

Description: Application for Authorization Under Section 203 of the Federal Power Act of Tumbleweed Solar, LLC, et al.

Filed Date: 3/4/21.

Accession Number: 20210304-5131.

Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/25/21.

Take notice that the Commission received the following exempt wholesale generator filings:

Docket Numbers: EG21-100-000.

Applicants: PGR 2020 Lessee 8, LLC.

Description: Notice of Self-Certification of Exempt Wholesale Generator Status of PGR 2020 Lessee 8, LLC.

Filed Date: 3/5/21.

Accession Number: 20210305-5113.

Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/26/21.

Docket Numbers: EG21-101-000.

Applicants: Sugar Solar, LLC.

Description: Notice of Self-Certification of Exempt Wholesale Generator Status of Sugar Solar, LLC.

Filed Date: 3/5/21.

Accession Number: 20210305-5114.

Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/26/21.

Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:

Docket Numbers: ER21-746-001.

Applicants: Mayflower Power & Gas LLC.

Description: Tariff Amendment: Amendment to 1 to be effective 4/1/2021.

Filed Date: 3/4/21.

Accession Number: 20210304-5168.

Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/25/21.

Docket Numbers: ER21-815-001.

Applicants: Tri-State Generation and Transmission Association, Inc.

Description: Tariff Amendment: Amendment to Service Agreement No. 726 to be effective 12/30/2020.

Filed Date: 3/4/21.

Accession Number: 20210304-5178.

Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/25/21.

Docket Numbers: ER21-1073-001.

Applicants: DATC SLTP, LLC.

Description: Tariff Amendment: Amendment to 2 to be effective 4/11/2021.

Filed Date: 3/5/21.

Accession Number: 20210305-5212.

Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/26/21.

Docket Numbers: ER21-1075-001.

Applicants: DATC Midwest Holdings, LLC.

Description: Tariff Amendment: Amendment to 10 to be effective 4/11/2021.

Filed Date: 3/5/21.

Accession Number: 20210305-5210.

Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/26/21.

Docket Numbers: ER21-1271-001.

Applicants: Georgia Power Company.

Description: Tariff Amendment: Errata to Rabun Gap Enhanced Reliability Upgrade Construction Agreement Filing to be effective 2/23/2021.

Filed Date: 3/4/21.

Accession Number: 20210304-5191.

Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/25/21.

Docket Numbers: ER21-1272-001.

Applicants: Mississippi Power Company.

Description: Tariff Amendment: Errata to Rabun Gap Enhanced Reliability Upgrade Construction Agreement Filing to be effective 2/23/2021.

Filed Date: 3/4/21.

Accession Number: 20210304-5192.

Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/25/21.

Docket Numbers: ER21-1274-000.

Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc., American Transmission Company LLC.

Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: 2021-03-05 SA 2771 ATC-Cloverland 1st Rev CFA to be effective 5/5/2021.

Filed Date: 3/5/21.

Accession Number: 20210305-5023.

Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/26/21.

Docket Numbers: ER21-1275-000.

Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc., American Transmission Company LLC.

Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: 2021-03-05 SA 2774 ATC-City of Cedarburg 1st Rev CFA to be effective 5/5/2021.

Filed Date: 3/5/21.

Accession Number: 20210305-5026.

Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/26/21.

Docket Numbers: ER21-1276-000.

Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc., American Transmission Company LLC.

Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: 2021-03-05_SA 2793 ATC-City of Eagle River 1st Rev CFA to be effective 5/5/2021.

Filed Date: 3/5/21.

Accession Number: 20210305-5032.

Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/26/21.

Docket Numbers: ER21-1277-000.

Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc., American Transmission Company LLC.

Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: 2021-03-05_SA 2794 ATC-City of Gladstone 1st Rev CFA to be effective 5/5/2021.

Filed Date: 3/5/21.

Accession Number: 20210305-5033.

Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/26/21.

Docket Numbers: ER21-1278-000.

Applicants: ISO New England Inc., New England Power Pool Participants Committee.

Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: ISO-NE and NEPOOL; Revisions to NYISO Coordination Agreement to be effective 5/4/2021.

Filed Date: 3/5/21.

Accession Number: 20210305-5076.

Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/26/21.

Docket Numbers: ER21-1279-000.

Applicants: Southern California Edison Company.

Description: Tariff Cancellation: Cancel WAPA 161-KV Interconnection and Operation RS 482 GAC028 to be effective 5/5/2021.

Filed Date: 3/5/21.

Accession Number: 20210305-5110.

Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/26/21.

Docket Numbers: ER21-1280-000.

Applicants: Southern California Edison Company.

Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: SCE submits New TO Tariff Appendix XIV, Morongo Transmission WOD Formula Rate to be effective 5/5/2021.

Filed Date: 3/5/21.

Accession Number: 20210305-5131.

Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/26/21.

Docket Numbers: ER21-1281-000.

Applicants: Arkansas Electric Cooperative Corporation.

Description: Annual Informational Attachment O filing of Arkansas Electric Cooperative Corporation.

Filed Date: 3/5/21.

Accession Number: 20210305-5145.

Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/26/21.

Docket Numbers: ER21-1282-000.

Applicants: Arkansas Electric Cooperative Corporation.

Description: Annual Informational Attachment H filing of Arkansas Electric Cooperative Corporation.

Filed Date: 3/5/21.

Accession Number: 20210305-5147.

Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/26/21.

Docket Numbers: ER21-1283-000.

Applicants: New York Independent System Operator, Inc., Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation.

Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: 205: Joint TPIA among NYISO, NMPC and Transco, SA 2599 to be effective 2/19/2021.

Filed Date: 3/5/21.

Accession Number: 20210305-5152.

Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/26/21.

Docket Numbers: ER21-1284-000.

Applicants: New York State Electric & Gas Corporation.

Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: Revisions to 2020 Facilities Agreement Update to be effective 3/6/2021.

Filed Date: 3/5/21.

Accession Number: 20210305-5183.

Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/26/21.

Docket Numbers: ER21-1285-000.

Applicants: NSTAR Electric Company.

Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: Design and Engineering Agreement ? Vineyard Wind LLC to be effective 3/6/2021.

Filed Date: 3/5/21.

Accession Number: 20210305-5196.

Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/26/21.

Docket Numbers: ER21-1286-000.

Applicants: New York Independent System Operator, Inc.

Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: 205: NYISO ISO-NE Coordination Agreement to be effective 5/5/2021.

Filed Date: 3/5/21.

Accession Number: 20210305-5197.

Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/26/21.

Docket Numbers: ER21-1287-000.

Applicants: Public Service Company of Colorado.

Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: 2021-03-05_OATT Gen Mod & Replcmt Proc to be effective 5/5/2021.

Filed Date: 3/5/21.

Accession Number: 20210305-5213.

Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/26/21.

Docket Numbers: ER21-1288-000.

Applicants: California Independent System Operator Corporation.

Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: 2021-03-05 Transmission Control Agreement Amendment to Add Morongo Transmission to be effective 5/6/2021.

Filed Date: 3/5/21.

Accession Number: 20210305-5246.

Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/26/21.

The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system ( https://elibrary.ferc.gov/idmws/search/fercgensearch.asp ) by querying the docket number.

Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.

eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

Take notice that Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) staff will convene a technical conference to discuss issues surrounding the threat to electric system reliability posed by climate change and extreme weather events. Commissioners may attend and participate in the technical conference.

Reliable electric service is vital to the nation's economy, national security, and public health and safety, and prolonged power outages can have significant humanitarian consequences, as the nation recently witnessed in Texas and the south-central United States. This technical conference will address concerns that because extreme weather events are increasing in frequency, 1 intensity, geographic expanse, and duration, the number and severity of weather-induced events in the electric power industry may also increase. 2

This technical conference will also address the specific challenges posed to electric system reliability by climate change and extreme weather, which may vary by region. For example, addressing the reliability challenges associated with wildfires may not be appropriate in a region where a different challenge, such as weather-driven fuel supply interruptions, is more likely to occur.

Through this proceeding in Docket No. AD21-13-000, the Commission seeks to understand the near, medium and long-term challenges facing the regions of the country; how decisionmakers in the regions are evaluating and addressing those challenges; and whether further action from the Commission is needed to help achieve an electric system that can withstand, respond to, and recover from extreme weather events.

The technical conference will be held on the afternoons of Tuesday, June 1, 2021 and Wednesday, June 2, 2021 from approximately 1 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time each day. The technical conference will be held via teleconference (over WebEx) and will be open to the public. Registration for the conference is not required and there is no fee for attendance. A supplemental notice will be issued seeking comments prior to the technical conference. Following comment submissions, an additional supplemental notice will be issued with further details regarding the technical conference agenda, as well as any changes in timing or logistics. Information will also be posted on the Calendar of Events on the Commission's website, www.ferc.gov, prior to the event. The conference will be transcribed. Transcripts will be available for a fee from Ace Reporting, (202) 347-3700.

Commission conferences are accessible under section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. For accessibility accommodations, please send an email to accessibility@ferc.gov, call toll-free (866) 208-3372 (voice) or (202) 208-8659 (TTY), or send a fax to (202) 208-2106 with the required accommodations.

Individuals interested in participating as panelists should self-nominate through the WebEx registration form by 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, April 7, 2021 at: https://ferc.webex.com/ferc/onstage/g.php?MTID=eff91ed43b5be08b7808828631394b5c5.

For more information about this technical conference, please contact Rahim Amerkhail, 202-502-8266, rahim.amerkhail@ferc.gov for technical questions or Sarah McKinley, 202-502-8368, sarah.mckinley@ferc.gov for logistical issues.

Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection.

a. Type of Application: New Major License.

b. Project No.: 2533-062.

c. Date Filed: March 1, 2021.

d. Applicant: Brainerd Public Utilities.

e. Name of Project: Brainerd Hydroelectric Project (Brainerd Project).

f. Location: The Brainerd Project is located on the Mississippi River, in the City of Brainerd, in Crow Wing County, Minnesota. The project does not occupy federal land.

g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 791 (a)-825(r).

h. Applicant Contact: Scott Magnuson, Superintendent, Brainerd Public Utilities, 8027 Highland Scenic Road, P.O. Box 273, Brainerd, MN 56401. Phone (218) 825-3213 or email at smagnuson@bpu.org.

i. FERC Contact: Patrick Ely at (202) 502-8570 or email at patrick.ely@ferc.gov.

j. This application is not ready for environmental analysis at this time.

k. The Brainerd Project consists of: (1) A short left embankment; (2) a 256-foot-long powerhouse containing five turbine generators with a totaled installed capacity of 2.9425 megawatts (MW); (3) a 78-foot-long slide gate section; (4) a 207-foot-long bascule (crest) gate section; (5) a single 20-foot-wide steel Tainter gate; (6) a 200-foot-long right embankment; (7) a 236-foot-long, 2.4-kilovolt overhead transmission line; (8) a 25-foot-high dam; and (9) 2,500-acre impoundment.

The Brainerd Project is operated in a run-of-river mode with an estimated annual energy production of approximately 19,392 megawatt hours. Brainerd Public Utilities proposes to continue operating the project as a run-of-river facility and does not propose any new construction to the project. A license amendment allows for a sixth turbine generator unit, which would increase the total installed capacity to 3.5425 MW. The sixth turbine generator unit has not yet been installed. See 156 FERC ¶ 62,045 (2016).

l. A copy of the application can be viewed on the Commission's website at http://www.ferc.gov using the “eLibrary” link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to access the document. At this time, the Commission has suspended access to the Commission's Public Reference Room due to the proclamation declaring a National Emergency concerning the Novel Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19) issued on March 13, 2020. For assistance, contact FERC at FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov or call toll-free, (866) 208-3676 or (202) 502-8659 (TTY).

m. You may also register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp to be notified via email of new filings and issuances related to this or other pending projects. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support.

n. Procedural schedule: The application will be processed according to the following preliminary schedule. Revisions to the schedule will be made as appropriate.

o. Final amendments to the application must be filed with the Commission no later than 30 days from the issuance date of the notice of ready for environmental analysis.

Take notice that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) staff will convene, in the above-referenced proceeding, virtual listening sessions from March 17, 2021 to March 25, 2021, to solicit public input on how the Commission should establish and operate the Office of Public Participation (OPP) pursuant to section 319 of the Federal Power Act (FPA) (16 U.S.C. 825q-1). The public may also submit written comments by April 23, 2021. The listening sessions will be led by Commission staff, and may be attended by one or more Commissioners.

In December 2020, Congress directed the Commission to provide a report, by June 25, 2021, detailing its progress towards establishing the OPP. Section 319 of the FPA directs the Commission to establish the OPP to “coordinate assistance to the public with respect to authorities exercised by the Commission,” including assistance to those seeking to intervene in Commission proceedings. (16 U.S.C. 825q-1). A February 22, 2021 notice announced a Commissioner-led workshop to be held on April 16, 2021, from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Eastern time, and requested speaker nominations by March 10, 2021. The February 22, 2021 notice can be found on the Commission's website and eLibrary.

Commission staff plan to hold listening sessions to hear from several stakeholder groups. The sessions will give members of the public an opportunity to provide their thoughts and ideas on how the Commission should create the OPP to encourage and facilitate public participation. Following a brief introduction from Commission staff, each session will be open to the public for 3-5 minutes of comment per participant. The Commission plans to hold the following sessions:

• Landowners and Communities Affected by Infrastructure Development, Wednesday, March 17, 2021, 1:00 to 2:30 p.m.

• Environmental Justice Communities and Tribal Interests, Monday, March 22, 2021, 1:00 to 2:30 p.m.

• Tribal Governments, Wednesday, March 24, 2021, at 10:00 to 11:30 a.m. (session 1); 1:00 to 2:30 p.m. (session 2).

• Energy Consumers and Consumer Advocates, Thursday, March 25, 2021, 1:00 to 2:30 p.m.

In advance of the listening sessions, participants may wish to consider the issues listed below:

1. Section 319 of the FPA states that the OPP will be administered by a Director. (16 U.S.C. 825q-1(a)(2)(A)). In addition to the Director, how should the office be structured?

2. Should the Commission consider creating an advisory board for OPP? If so, what role would the board serve and who should be on the board?

3. How should the OPP coordinate assistance to persons intervening or participating, or seeking to intervene or participate, in a Commission proceeding?

4. To what extent do you, or the organization you represent, currently interact with the Commission? What has hindered or helped your ability to participate in Commission proceedings?

5. Have you engaged with other governmental entities—such as local, state, and other federal agencies—on matters involving your interests? If so, how did those agencies engage in outreach, and what practices improved your ability to participate in their processes?

6. How should the OPP engage with Tribal Governments, environmental justice communities, energy consumers, landowners, and other members of the public affected by Commission proceedings?

7. Section 319 of the FPA allows the Commission to promulgate rules to offer compensation for attorney fees and other expenses to intervenors and participants who substantially contribute to a significant Commission proceeding if participation otherwise would result in significant financial hardship. (16 U.S.C. 825q-1(b)(2)). How should the Commission approach the issue of intervenor compensation? What should the OPP's role be with respect to intervenor compensation? How should the Commission establish a budget for and fund intervenor compensation? What lessons can the Commission learn from the administration of similar state intervenor compensation programs?

The sessions will be open for the public to attend, and there is no fee for attendance. Listening sessions will be audio-only. Call-in information details, including preregistration, can be found on the OPP website. Information will also be posted on the Calendar of Events on the Commission's website, www.ferc.gov, prior to the event. The listening sessions will be transcribed and placed into the record approximately one week after the session date.

The listening sessions will be accessible under section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. For accessibility accommodations, please send an email to accessibility@ferc.gov or call toll free 1-866-208-3372 (voice) or 202-502-8659 (TTY), or send a FAX to 202-208-2106 with the required accommodations.

The public may also submit written comments on these topics to the record in Docket No. AD21-9-000 by Friday, April 23, 2021. Please file comments using the Commission's eFiling system at https://ferconline.ferc.gov/FERCOnline.aspx. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov, (866) 208-3676 (toll free), or (202) 502-8659 (TTY).

For questions about the listening sessions, please contact Stacey Steep of the Office of General Counsel at (202) 502-8148, or send an email to OPPWorkshop@ferc.gov, and Sarah McKinley, (202) 502-8368, sarah.mckinley@ferc.gov, for logistical issues.

Take notice that on February 26, 2021 pursuant to Rule 207 of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission) Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.207, 1 Navigator Borger Express LLC (Navigator), filed a petition for declaratory order (Petition) requesting that the Commission issue a declaratory order approving the requested rulings set forth herein related to a project it is developing that is designed to provide transportation of crude oil from Cushing, Oklahoma to Borger, Texas (Borger Express System or Project).

Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Petitioner.

In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the Federal Register , the Commission provides all interested persons an opportunity to view and/or print the contents of this document via the internet through the Commission's Home Page ( http://ferc.gov ) using the “eLibrary” link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to access the document. At this time, the Commission has suspended access to the Commission's Public Reference Room, due to the proclamation declaring a National Emergency concerning the Novel Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19), issued by the President on March 13, 2020. For assistance, contact the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission at FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov or call toll-free, (886) 208-3676 or TYY, (202) 502-8659.

The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments, protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically may mail similar pleadings to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426. Hand delivered submissions in docketed proceedings should be delivered to Health and Human Services, 12225 Wilkins Avenue, Rockville, Maryland 20852.

Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on March 30, 2021.

The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for approval, pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 1841 et seq. ) (BHC Act), Regulation Y (12 CFR part 225), and all other applicable statutes and regulations to become a bank holding company and/or to acquire the assets or the ownership of, control of, or the power to vote shares of a bank or bank holding company and all of the banks and nonbanking companies owned by the bank holding company, including the companies listed below.

The public portions of the applications listed below, as well as other related filings required by the Board, if any, are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank(s) indicated below and at the offices of the Board of Governors. This information may also be obtained on an expedited basis, upon request, by contacting the appropriate Federal Reserve Bank and from the Board's Freedom of Information Office at https://www.federalreserve.gov/foia/request.htm. Interested persons may express their views in writing on the standards enumerated in the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)).

Comments regarding each of these applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors, Ann E. Misback, Secretary of the Board, 20th Street and Constitution Avenue NW, Washington DC 20551-0001, not later than April 12, 2021.

A. Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis (Chris P. Wangen, Assistant Vice President), 90 Hennepin Avenue, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55480-0291:

1. American Bancor, Ltd., Dickinson, North Dakota; to acquire voting shares of The Citizens State Bank of Finley, Finley, North Dakota.

The notificants listed below have applied under the Change in Bank Control Act (Act) (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and § 225.41 of the Board's Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.41) to acquire shares of a bank or bank holding company. The factors that are considered in acting on the applications are set forth in paragraph 7 of the Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)(7)).

The public portions of the applications listed below, as well as other related filings required by the Board, if any, are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank(s) indicated below and at the offices of the Board of Governors. This information may also be obtained on an expedited basis, upon request, by contacting the appropriate Federal Reserve Bank and from the Board's Freedom of Information Office at https://www.federalreserve.gov/foia/request.htm. Interested persons may express their views in writing on the standards enumerated in paragraph 7 of the Act.

Comments regarding each of these applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors, Ann E. Misback, Secretary of the Board, 20th Street and Constitution Avenue NW, Washington DC 20551-0001, not later than March 26, 2021.

A. Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis (David L. Hubbard, Senior Manager) P.O. Box 442, St. Louis, Missouri 63166-2034. Comments can also be sent electronically to Comments.applications@stls.frb.org :

1. Travis Brown; the Angela J. McLane Revocable Trust; Angela J. McLane, individually and as trustee of the Angela J. McLane Revocable Trust; and David Rowland, all of Poplar Bluff, Missouri; to become members of the McLane Family Control Group, a group acting concert, by retaining voting shares of Midwest Bancorporation, Inc., Poplar Bluff, Missouri, and thereby retaining voting shares of First Midwest Bank of Dexter, Dexter, Missouri, First Midwest Bank of Poplar Bluff, Poplar Bluff, Missouri, and First Midwest Bank of the Ozarks, Piedmont, Missouri.

B. Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis (Chris P. Wangen, Assistant Vice President), 90 Hennepin Avenue, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55480-0291:

1. The Nancy B. Miller Trust dated July 1, 2020, and the Win R. Miller Trust dated July 1, 2020, Nancy B. Miller and Win R. Miller as trustees, and the Mary A. Walquist Trust dated June 5, 2020, Mary A. Walquist as trustee, all of Marine on St. Croix, Minnesota, to become members of the Walquist/Miller Family Control Group, a group acting in concert, by acquiring voting shares of Marine Bancshares, Inc., and thereby indirectly acquiring voting shares of Security State Bank of Marine, both of Marine on St. Croix, Minnesota.

2. Jerome M. Bauer and Susanne M. Bauer, both of Durand, Wisconsin; to acquire voting shares of Security Financial Services Corporation, and thereby indirectly acquire voting shares of Security Financial Bank, both of Durand, Wisconsin, and Jackson County Bank, Black River Falls, Wisconsin.

In addition, Jerome M. Bauer, Susanne M. Bauer, Tad M. Bauer, Jodi N. Bauer, Timothy A. Hoffman, Julie M. Hoffman, Janice M. Spindler, and Steven R. Spindler, all of Durand, Wisconsin; the Chad W. and Amanda S. Smith Revocable Grantor Trust, Amanda S. Smith, both of Eau Galle, Washington, individually, and together with Chad W. Smith, as co-trustees, Durand Washington; the James M. and Linda M. Bauer Revocable Grantor Trust, James M. Bauer and Linda M. Bauer, as co-trustees, the John J. and Mary Jane Brantner Revocable Grantor Trust, John J. Brantner and Mary Jane Brantner, as co-trustees, and the Larry J. and Marcia J. Weber Revocable Grantor Trust, Larry J. Weber, as trustee, all of Durand, Wisconsin; as a group acting in concert, to retain voting shares of Security Financial Services Corporation, and thereby indirectly retain voting shares of Security Financial Bank and Jackson County Bank.