Under the regulations in “Subpart L—Fruits and Vegetables” (7 CFR 319.56-1 through 319.56-12, referred to below as the regulations), the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) prohibits or restricts the importation of fruits and vegetables into the United States from certain parts of the world to prevent plant pests from being introduced into or disseminated within the United States.

Section 319.56-4 contains a performance-based process for approving the importation of commodities that, based on the findings of a pest risk analysis (PRA), can be safely imported subject to one or more of the designated phytosanitary measures listed in paragraph (b) of that section. Under that process, APHIS proposes to authorize the importation of a fruit or vegetable into the United States if, based on findings of a PRA, we determine that the measures can mitigate the plant pest risk associated with the importation of that fruit or vegetable. APHIS then publishes a notice in the Federal Register announcing the availability of the PRA that evaluates the risks associated with the importation of a particular fruit or vegetable. Following the close of the 60-day comment period, APHIS will issue a subsequent Federal Register notice announcing whether or not we will authorize the importation of the fruit or vegetable subject to the phytosanitary measures specified in the notice.

In accordance with that process, we published a notice  1 in the Federal Register on May 2, 2019 (84 FR 18764-18765, Docket No. APHIS-2019-0013), in which we announced the availability, for review and comment, of a PRA that evaluated the risks associated with the importation of fresh soursop  2 ( Annona muricata ) fruit from Mexico into the continental United States. The PRA consisted of a pest list identifying pests of quarantine significance that could follow the pathway of the importation of fresh soursop fruit into the continental United States from Mexico and a risk management document (RMD) identifying phytosanitary measures to be applied to that commodity to mitigate the pest risk.

We solicited comments on the notice for 60 days, ending on July 1, 2019. Based on a public request to extend the comment period, APHIS did so, and the extended comment period closed on August 2, 2019. We received 28 comments by the close of the comment period. They were from the national plant protection organization (NPPO) of Mexico, an industry group representing Mexican fruit packers, State departments of agriculture within the United States, a county government, a committee representing domestic avocado producers, a trade association representing domestic citrus producers, an agricultural extension agent, domestic soursop producers, and private citizens.

We have categorized the comments according to topic areas, summarizing and responding to each comment below.

One commenter stated that Mexico's NPPO and authorities lack the expertise necessary to implement the systems approach, particularly phytosanitary inspections.

We consider the NPPO of Mexico to have sufficient training to conduct phytosanitary inspections, which are required for the importation of many commodities from Mexico, and which are conducted routinely.

Several commenters stated that Mexico lacked sufficient personnel to conduct phytosanitary inspections.

APHIS will require that a phytosanitary inspection is conducted by the NPPO of Mexico and a phytosanitary certificate is issued in order for the shipment of soursop to be allowed to enter the United States for irradiation treatment; shipments that lack this phytosanitary certificate will be refused entry. However, we have no reason to believe that Mexico lacks sufficient personnel to perform this task. As noted above, phytosanitary inspections are performed routinely within Mexico, and the NPPO of Mexico has not expressed concerns about insufficient resources to perform them.

Several commenters stated that the NPPO lacked the integrity and incentives for adequate phytosanitary inspection; they alleged a history of lying and cheating within the NPPO.

Mexico is a signatory to the World Trade Organization's Sanitary and Phytosanitary Agreement. As such, it has agreed to respect the phytosanitary measures the United States imposes on the importation of plants and plant products from Mexico when the United States demonstrates the need to impose these measures in order to protect plant health within the United States. The pest list that accompanied the initial notice provided evidence of such a need.

With that being said, all shipments of soursop are subject to inspection at ports of entry, and an inspector will monitor all irradiation treatments of soursop from Mexico and may inspect articles prior to irradiation for quarantine pests.

Four comments cited concerns that market access to the United States of fresh produce from Mexico provides a vehicle for illegally transporting drugs, money, and/or people.

The commenters provided no evidence to substantiate these concerns. However, as noted above, all shipments of soursop are subject to inspection at ports of entry.

Several commenters expressed concern that APHIS did not describe the Mexican chemical control measures in its assessment of market access for soursop. One of the commenters asked whether APHIS has determined that the chemicals Mexican producers may use on soursop are harmonized with those that U.S. producers may use, while another asked who will monitor to ensure that only chemicals approved for use in the United States are applied. One of the commenters asked how APHIS will ensure that chemicals that are harmful to human health are not used.

The United States does not have direct control over pesticides that are used on food commodities such as soursop in other countries, and it will fall to the NPPO of Mexico to monitor which chemicals are used at registered places of production.

However, there are regulations in the United States concerning the importation of food to ensure that commodities do not enter the United States containing illegal pesticide residues. Through section 408 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has the authority to establish, change, or cancel tolerances for food commodities. These EPA-set tolerances are the maximum levels of pesticide residues that have been determined, through comprehensive safety evaluations, to be safe for human consumption. Tolerances apply to both food commodities that are grown in the United States and food commodities that are grown in other countries and imported into the United States. The EPA tolerance levels are enforced once the commodity enters the United States. Chemicals such as DDT that are banned in the United States do not have tolerances on food commodities. Federal Government food inspectors are responsible for monitoring food commodities that enter the United States to confirm that tolerance levels are not exceeded and that residues of pesticide chemicals that are banned in the United States are not present on the commodities.

Several commenters stated that, since the notice was issued, Mexico had experienced a significant and widespread outbreak of Mediterranean fruit fly ( Ceratitis capitata, Medfly) in the State of Colima, indicating a breakdown of trapping and control measures at production sites. One other commenter stated that fruit fly outbreaks in the area of Mexico bordering Texas had become more frequent.

Mexico worked with the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) and the International Atomic Energy Agency's (IAEA's) technical cooperation program and more than 200 technicians to employ sterile insect techniques (SIT) after a Medfly detection in Colima. Mexican authorities, who imposed a quarantine on the region during eradication efforts, declared the Medfly completely eradicated. APHIS determined that no fruit fly host material was exported to the United States from the incident.

Sterile male medflies in the SIT initiative were produced at a facility in Mexico, with a design that benefited from IAEA expertise, inaugurated in 2021. It is the second largest in the world with a production capacity of 1,000 million sterile medflies every week. The new facility, located in the state of Chiapas, focuses on mass production of sterile insects. Together with the El Pino facility in Guatemala, it helps maintain the containment barrier that prevents the introduction and spread of the pest to northern Guatemala, Mexico, and the United States.

Several commenters stated that irradiation, the primary mitigation, is not failsafe in the event of high infestation levels. Several other commenters echoed this last point and stated that other measures should be included in the systems approach to ensure that irradiation is effective at neutralizing quarantine pests. One commenter, the NPPO of Mexico, stated that in order to be eligible to export, soursop producers in Mexico must be registered with the NPPO, and that such registration is associated with integrated pest management at the place of production, including monitoring for and control of fruit flies.

We agree with the commenters who stated that fruit fly trapping at places of production is warranted in order to reduce pest pressures and help ensure that the soursop fruit to be irradiated is not infested with fruit flies. We have added a requirement for pest management for fruit flies and other pests to the final RMD. We will also require places of production to be registered with the NPPO of Mexico so that the NPPO may monitor the placement and servicing of traps; as noted by the NPPO of Mexico, this is currently a requirement for all soursop producers in Mexico who wish to be eligible to export soursop.

Several commenters stated that they believe that the introduction of quarantine pests from the importation of soursop from Mexico is likely because the climate in Florida and, especially, south Florida is especially suitable to the establishment and spread of quarantine pests.

We have determined, for the reasons described in this final notice as well as the RMD that accompanies this final notice, that the measures specified in the RMD will effectively mitigate the risk associated with the importation of soursop from Mexico.

One commenter asked that APHIS employ additional databases in Spanish and English to assess pest introduction risk.

APHIS notes that sources in both Spanish and English were consulted in preparing the quarantine pest list for the soursop market access request.

To facilitate comments from Spanish-speaking members of the public without internet access, two commenters requested that APHIS provide: Spanish translations of APHIS' website, pest risk assessments, and economic documents, as well as a means of submitting an official comment that did not rely on internet access, email access, or access to an online portal. The commenters also asked that comments received in Spanish be translated and taken into consideration.

APHIS affirms the U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA's) overarching commitment to environmental justice as regards its actions and activities, and, to the extent practicable, we do make our outreach materials available in languages other than English when we are aware of stakeholder groups who are not native English speakers and who are particularly impacted by or interested in our actions. We also note that there are a variety of free internet tools available that will translate documents and web pages from one language to another, often without charge. However, given the more than 7,000 languages currently in existence, it is not logistically feasible nor equitable to expect the Agency to translate all of its documents into any one language.

Regarding submission of comments, consistent with the requirements of the eGovernment Act of 2022, APHIS allows comments on all of its Federal Register documents to be submitted through postal mail and considers such comments to be official comments, regardless of the language of the submission. APHIS already endeavors and will continue to try to translate comments received in languages other than English in its consideration of comments. However, in order to ensure the best or most accurate characterization and response to comments, APHIS suggests that all submissions be made in English.

As we mentioned previously in this document, the initial notice made available a pest list that identified pests of quarantine significance that could follow the pathway of the importation of fresh soursop fruit into the continental United States from Mexico. These were Optatus palmaris Pascoe, the Annonaceae fruits weevil, Neosilba glaberrima, a lance fly, Anastrepha fraterculus (Wiedemann), the South American fruit fly, Anastrepha striata Schiner, the guava fruit fly, Ceratitis capitata, Mediterranean fruit fly or Medfly, Nipaecoccus viridis, the spherical mealybug, Bephratelloides pomorum (Fabricius), the soursop wasp, Oenomaus ortygnus, the aquamarine hairstreak butterfly, Cerconota anonella, the Annona fruit borer, and Talponia batesi Heinrich, a moth. No introduction of a new quarantine pest has occurred in Mexico that would infest soursop fruit since APHIS' analysis was completed.

One commenter faulted the pest list for not including Frankliniella difficilis among pests it evaluated for the importation, noting that the insect is impervious to irradiation and has been reported as a persistent pest of mamey sapote and avocado in Morelos, Mexico.

While Frankliniella difficilis is present in Mexico and while it is a quarantine pest for the continental United States, APHIS has found no evidence to suggest that it is a pest of soursop. For these reasons, APHIS did not include it in the pest list.

Another commenter stated that the pest list did not include five pests of soursop that pose risks to California's agriculture and environment, Aleurodicus dispersus, Paracoccus marginatus, Pseudococcus jackbeardsleyi, Russellaspis pustulans, and Bephratelloides cubensis. APHIS regards all five of these pests as nonactionable, meaning that they are none of the following: (1) Quarantine pests that are not present in the United States; (2) regulated non-quarantine pests that are not present in the United States; (3) pests that are in the United States in limited distribution and under official control or are candidates for official control; or (4) pests that require evaluation for regulatory action. Because they are non-actionable, they were not included in the pest list.

A commenter also stated that numerous fruit flies attack soursop, specifically citing Neosilba glaberrima, N. pendula, Anastrepha fraterculus, A. ludens, A. obliqua, A. striata, and Ceratitis capitata.

As noted above, Neosilba glaberrima, Anastrepha fraterculus, A. striata, and Ceratitis capitata were included in the pest list as quarantine pests that could follow the pathway of the importation of soursop from Mexico and thus require mitigation. This mitigation is first and foremost the irradiation treatment required under the systems approach. Neosilba pendula, Anastrepha ludens, and A. obliqua are listed in Section 1.1 of the pest list as quarantine pests. However, the section indicates that there is inadequate evidence for a host association of these pests with soursop. Hence, we did not develop mitigations specific to these pests. Nonetheless, it should be noted that all fruit fly species are sterilized at 150 Gy, and the dose required for this importation will be 400 Gy.

The same commenter expressed concern that Optatus palmaris, the Annonaceae fruits weevil, is a significant pest of soursop.

We included Optatus palmaris in the pest list as a quarantine pest that could follow the pathway of the importation of soursop from Mexico and thus requires mitigation.

The same commenter specifically requested inclusion of Lance fly ( Neosilba batesi ); also, the fungal diseases black canker ( Phomopsis spp.), purple blotch ( Phytophthora palmivora ), brown rot ( Rhizopus stolonifera ), burning string ( Corticium koleroga ), and zoned spot ( Sclerotium coffeicolum ), citing references specific to soursop in Mexico in support of this request.

Neosilba batesi (Curran) is present in Florida and not under official control, and it is therefore non-actionable and not a quarantine pest for the continental United States. Hence, it was not included in the pest list.

With regard to the fungi referenced by the commenter, these fungi have been reported on other Annona species such as A. cherimola, but APHIS found no evidence of them on A. muricata. These fungi are also ubiquitous in the United States, and they are thus both non-actionable and not quarantine pests.

Another commenter asked APHIS to define the basis for its assertion that Parlatoria cinerea Hadden, armored scale, is not an actionable pest as regards soursop importation. The commenter asserted that the pest does occur on fruit and that no economic analysis has been made of its potential cost to U.S. producers if it is introduced here.

APHIS acknowledges that Parlatoria cinerea Hadden is present in Mexico, and it has been reported as a pest of Annona muricata. Although it is a quarantine pest for the continental United States, APHIS has determined that fruit for consumption is an unlikely pathway for the introduction of diaspidid scales, such as Parlatoria cinerea, due to their very limited ability to disperse to new host plants. Hence, it is not an actionable pest at U.S. ports of entry.

A commenter expressed concern that APHIS had not assessed the economic effect of non-actionable insects, such as several scales or mealy bugs that are in the United States but not present in Florida or south Florida. The commenter stated that detection probabilities prior to shipment have not been determined, also that inspection of all fruit loads upon arrival in a locale are impossible. The commenter stated that, in light of this, there is a possibility of introduction of non-actionable pests, and that non-actionable pests have impacts on farmers.

As noted in a previous response, a pest must be considered actionable if it is a pest of quarantine significance that is not present in the United States or if it is a pest of quarantine significance that is in the United States in limited distribution and under official control or is a candidate for official control. Therefore, non-actionable pests do not meet either our or the International Plant Protection Convention's definition of a quarantine pest, and we do not consider specific mitigation measures necessary for them.

However, APHIS has developed a program, the Federally Recognized State Managed Phytosanitary Program (FRSMP), to afford protections to States when commodities are determined at a port of entry to harbor a plant pest that is not a quarantine pest but is of concern to a particular State. Information regarding the petition process for FRSMP is found here: https://www.aphis.usda.gov/plant_health/plant_pest_info/frsmp/downloads/petition_guidelines.pdf.

In the RMD, we proposed that soursop from Mexico would have to be commercially produced and part of a commercial consignment. We further indicated that, in order to be considered commercially produced, culling of fruit prior to shipment would need to occur.

One commenter questioned culling process effectiveness for Opatus palmaris, four fruit fly species, and three lepidoptera species. The commenter stated that, at various stages of the pests' development, these pests are internal feeders and may not cause visible damage that would result in culling.

The purpose of the irradiation treatment described in the RMD is to mitigate the risk of internally feeding pests, other than lepidoptera, that are not detected during a visual inspection. Moreover, APHIS disagrees with the commenter that these pests may not cause visible damage; damage from these internal feeders is visible and often conspicuous and would lead to culling of the fruit by the time it reaches a packinghouse.

We proposed that the soursop would have to be irradiated with a minimum absorbed dose of 400 Gy and follow the requirements of 7 CFR part 305 with treatments approved as effective at neutralizing quarantine pests.

One commenter stated that soursop should be allowed to be irradiated in the continental United States, citing a bilateral agreement with Mexico. The commenter interpreted the RMD to limit irradiation treatment to prior to the fruit's arrival at a port of entry into the United States.

The RMD stated that fruit must be irradiated with a minimum absorbed dose of 400 Gy and follow the requirements of part 305. That part contains APHIS' regulations governing phytosanitary treatments. Section 305.9 contains APHIS' irradiation treatment regulations. The commenter appears to be referring to one of the requirements for irradiation of imported commodities within the United States, which is for the NPPO of a country from which articles are to be imported into the United States to sign a framework equivalency workplan with APHIS.

The commenter is correct that the NPPO of Mexico has signed such a workplan and met other preconditions for domestic irradiation of part 305. The RMD therefore allows irradiation of soursop at approved facilities within the United States.

Several commenters challenged the efficacy of APHIS' irradiation dosage, stating that it may not kill the moth lepidoptera pupae and larvae inside the soursop fruit. They stated that this is acknowledged in the USDA treatment manual. The commenters also noted that several lepidopteran species, including Cerconota anonella, infest soursop in Mexico.

While it is true that irradiation at a minimum absorbed dose of 400 Gy may not neutralize lepidoptera, irradiation was not intended within the RMD as a specific mitigation for lepidoptera. As noted in the RMD, the lepidoptera of quarantine significance listed in the pest list, while internal feeders, cause visible damage to the fruit that renders it unmarketable and would result in it being culled. Thus, it is expected that the visual inspection required in culling would detect the pupal and larval stages of the three lepidoptera pests in soursop.

One commenter noted a discrepancy between this provision of the RMD and the economic effects abstract, or economic effects assessment (EEA), that accompanied the initial notice. In the EEA, we indicated that “most shipments” will be irradiated, which the commenter pointed out could be as little as 51 percent of total shipments. The commenter also asserted that the EEA did not provide any context about which shipments would be subject to irradiation and which would not, or who would adjudicate whether irradiation should be administered to the shipment.

The initial EEA did not clearly state, but the initial RMD, our final RMD, and this notice all affirm, that all shipments will have to be irradiated.

One commenter questioned Mexico's ability to administer irradiation treatment and stated that this should be verified through test protocols before we allow it to occur for soursop intended for export to the United States. In contrast, the NPPO of Mexico pointed out that they have irradiation facilities that have been approved by APHIS and have used these facilities to irradiate commodities in accordance with part 305 for more than a decade. Two other commenters stated that approval of the facilities occurred in November 2008, and that pests have not been identified on irradiated commodities following treatment. These latter commenters cited this as evidence that the irradiation program in Mexico is well established.

For the reasons cited by the NPPO of Mexico and the latter commenters, we do not consider it necessary to conduct test protocols of irradiation treatment in Mexico. However, we must here underscore that § 305.9 (a) through (o) lays out in detail the provisions required for irradiation treatment of any imported regulated articles ( i.e., fruits, vegetables, cut flowers, and foliage), as well as such regulated articles moved interstate from Hawaii and U.S. territories. Protocols and conditions for irradiation facilities and their certification; compliance, monitoring, and interagency agreements; treatment framework equivalency workplans; related packaging, container, dosage, records, inspection; and other requirements are all specified therein.

We proposed that soursop from Mexico imported into the United States would be subject to inspection at ports of arrival into the United States.

Several commenters stated that port-of-entry inspections were insufficient in frequency and sampling size to detect quarantine pests, particularly fruit fly larvae, that may be present in soursop from Mexico.

The RMD prescribes a systems approach for the mitigation of plant pests of soursop imported from Mexico into the United States. As noted previously, port-of-entry inspections are just one type of inspection of soursop within the systems approach and will be required for all shipments entering into the United States. Additionally, the NPPO of Mexico must inspect all shipments prior to issuing a phytosanitary certificate, and an inspector may inspect shipments prior to or after irradiation treatment. To that end, we reiterate that all shipments will have to be treated with irradiation treatment for fruit flies.

Several commenters indicated that port-of-entry inspection had failed to detect oriental fruit fly (OFF)-infestations in imported products, leading to a significant outbreak in Florida.

APHIS has no evidence that the OFF outbreak was due to insufficient port-of-entry inspections of imported fruit.

One commenter requested that specific eradication and research programs, as well as commitments of resources, be in place to mitigate potential pest introduction impact. Another commenter stated that treatment of soursop for pests upon entry to the United States, as well as within Mexico, should be allowed.

The comments presume a likelihood that APHIS' prescribed systems approach will fail to mitigate pest introduction to the United States. APHIS would not entertain the market access for soursop if it lacked confidence that a systems approach would prevent quarantine pests from following the pathway of importation into the United States. APHIS does not find that the comments provided evidence that contravenes the efficacy of the systems approach or supports denial of the market access to soursop.

Finally, a commenter asked APHIS to have laboratories test soursop fruit before it is taken for supply to the United States. Specifically, the commenter asked that the fruit be required to ripen and overripen in laboratories in Mexico before being allowed to be shipped to the United States, citing a protocol for durian from Mexico that the commenter asserted to be operational and effective as a precedent.

We are uncertain what protocol the commenter is referring to. The import requirements for durian from Mexico are that it must be accompanied by a permit issued by APHIS and is subject to inspection at ports of entry into the United States. Nonetheless, we do not consider such testing necessary for soursop from Mexico to be warranted. For the reasons set forth in the initial RMD, the revised RMD, and this notice, we consider the mitigations of the revised RMD to be sufficient to address the plant pest risk associated with the importation of soursop from Mexico.

Three commenters noted that the EEA that accompanied the initial notice had stated that there was no domestic production of soursop in the United States. The commenters stated that there were in fact domestic producers, and that APHIS has not conducted analysis of imported soursop impact on domestic grower wellbeing. The commenters provided information from local surveys and grower contacts, as well as the status of soursop production in Florida.

APHIS has updated the EEA for the soursop market access based on information the public provided during the comment period.

Public comments APHIS received in 2019 suggested a presence of 11 acres of commercial soursop production area in Florida's Miami-Dade County, the only region in the continental United States that has a tropical climate suitable for soursop production. Among other findings of the revised EEA, Florida's soursop acreage is increasing within this limited production area in Miami-Dade County, in part because soursops are considered as a potential alternative cash crop to avocados, the production of which has been declining since the outbreak of Laurel Wilt disease in 2011. Assuming an average yield of 3.2 to 3.6 tons per acre, APHIS estimates that approximately 35 to 40 tons of soursop were produced in Florida in 2018.

The revised EEA, most recently updated in 2024, also examines the growth of Mexico's soursop production, the relatively stable fresh soursop imports from Grenada to the United States (presently only Grenada is authorized to export fresh soursops to the United States), the total acreage available for all domestic tropical fruit tree production in southern Florida in 2018, and available economic census data for U.S. tropical fruit production and commerce to indicate potential production areas of soursops in Florida.

Several commenters stated that imports of soursop from Mexico will adversely impact the domestic market for soursop in Florida. Five commenters stated that domestic acreage is slowly growing, and the market is niche and sensitive to quantity and price fluctuations. These latter commenters stated that Mexico's projected shipment quantity will disproportionally cut soursop prices and pressure the U.S. domestic producers to compete with one another.

As noted above, APHIS has revised the EEA to take domestic production—as well as current import volume from Grenada, the only country currently authorized to ship fresh soursop to the United States—into consideration. However, the estimated domestic production is only 30 to 35 tons annually in southern Florida. In this regard, we note that this notice provides Mexico with market access to the entire continental United States, including major metropolitan areas where fresh soursop is currently not available. While it is possible soursop from Mexico will be imported for distribution to Florida, it is also possible that it will be imported for distribution to other areas of the continental United States. Additionally, given the currently limited scope of the market, allowing soursop importation may increase consumer awareness of soursop, spurring an increase in demand.

One of the commenters characterized APHIS' assessment as indifferent toward domestic soursop producers in that it views the market access as only harming small entities and merchants. Commenters also expressed concern that the import will have a negative impact on the domestic growers, whom the commenters stated are small, family-owned businesses, for a very modest and localized domestic demand for soursop, which, the commenters stated, domestic growers are presently meeting. They stated that even with time, education, and diversification, demand for soursop in the United States could not increase to levels justifying this imported volume. They stated that the domestic supply is seasonally met, and APHIS had not conducted an analysis of the impacts of additional import volume on seasonal or counter-seasonal demand. Similarly, one commenter characterized domestic production as in an “incubator stage,” in which demand increases very slowly and influxes of product could significantly adversely impact the domestic market.

We cannot with certainty determine that consumers will favorably respond to fresh soursops with which they are not presently familiar. We have thus not been able to substantiate the commenters' concerns that domestic demand throughout the continental United States is localized, seasonal, or modest, particularly given that it is not currently available in most major metropolitan areas in the United States.

Two commenters stated that domestic grower costs are much greater than in Mexico for the same crops and that cheaply produced soursop imports in increased volume will be harmful to domestic growers. They believed that Mexico's big scale production at lower production costs will overwhelm domestic production.

A commodity's production costs abroad, broadly construed, do not necessarily equate to costs of production for that commodity when it is required to meet stringent standards for importation to the United States. In this regard, we note that the NPPO of Mexico indicated that their export program for soursop imposes additional requirements on producers that are not required of soursop producers that sell domestically within Mexico. We also note that the other standards of the RMD, particularly irradiation, will impose other logistics costs to retain freshness for soursops' short shelf-life, costs that domestic producers would not encounter.

Ten commenters stated that in assessing economic impact of the market access request from Mexico, APHIS cannot ignore possible pest eradication costs, nor effects past introductions of pests and diseases have had on U.S. growers. They cited unintentional pest and disease introductions at great, documented quarantine expense. Among impacts they noted, domestic commercial citrus packinghouses have been cut from 88 to 14. Five commenters in a related concern maintained that this importation is much more broadly economically significant because the listed quarantine-able pests pose potential risk to Florida's $120 billion agricultural industry. These commenters feared a spill-over effect on large numbers of avocado growers and their $100 million related industry, as they are exposed to the same pest and disease risks as soursop growers in this importation.

We have determined, for the reasons described in this final notice, as well as the RMD that accompanies this final notice, that the measures specified in the RMD will effectively mitigate the risks associated with the importation of soursop from Mexico. Thus, we do not believe that the economic losses due to pest or disease introduction that the commenters feared will materialize, and therefore do not need to be analyzed.

One commenter stated that each time the Mediterranean fruit fly has been detected in Florida, fewer control methods have been available, as the pest has been increasingly resistant to aerial pesticide spraying. The commenter cited one recent eradication cost estimate ranging widely from $24 to $56 million.

APHIS acknowledges the severity of past fruit fly outbreaks in its revised EEA, but APHIS reiterates that the provisions of the revised RMD will address the plant pest risk associated with the importation of soursop from Mexico, for the reasons set forth in the initial RMD, the revised RMD, and this document. If we considered those mitigations insufficient, we would not approve such importation.

Another commenter asserted that meeting soursop demand with domestic production is safer and returns dollars to the local economy, rather than draining the local economy.

As indicated above, APHIS has no information indicating that domestic demand for fresh soursop throughout the continental United States is met by domestic production and distribution, which is currently limited and localized. Notwithstanding this, under the Plant Protection Act (7 U.S.C. 7701 et seq. ), APHIS cannot base its determinations on economic cost competitiveness considerations or economic impacts.

Another commenter asked APHIS to conduct an income impact study of domestic grower prices in the event of soursop importation, especially if the importation is at volumes stated in the proposed market access.

APHIS does not have, nor did commenters provide, data that would allow us to complete such an analysis. However, such an analysis is not warranted. The commenter's stated assumption was that imports of soursop would directly compete with domestic production in areas of current domestic distribution. As noted above, we have no data suggesting this will occur, particularly given the scope of the market access and the absence of fresh soursop in most major metropolitan areas.

As stated in the revised EEA, we evaluated whether it would have an impact high enough to trigger a Major designation under the Congressional Review Act and concluded that it would not. In this particular case, the entire domestic industry has a market value of far less than $100 million. Thus, even a complete collapse in the domestic soursop price would not be sufficient to trigger such a designation. APHIS finds no evidence such a collapse will occur, and it is possible that soursop imports could expand access to other metropolitan areas ( e.g., cities in Arizona, California, and Texas), leading to more market access rather than additional competition for domestic growers.

In addition to considering the total value of the market effects, the revised EEA also noted that many of the soursop producers are small entities. Precise income effects on these growers would be difficult for APHIS to determine exactly due to the absence of detailed data.

Mexico is a major producer of soursops. The production of soursops increased rapidly in Mexico up to 2021, when Mexican producers grew 39,905 tons of soursops on 10,012 planted acres. That reflected a 380 percent increase in production and a 260 percent increase in planted acreage from 2000, when 8,321 tons of soursops were produced on 2,792 planted acres. In 2023, this moderated as Mexican producers grew 30,121 tons of soursops on 8,080 planted acres. That still reflected a 262 percent increase in production and a 190 percent increase in planted acres from 2000. Mexico's NPPO estimates that 200 metric tons of fresh soursops would initially be exported to the continental United States each year if exports were authorized. From 2017 to 2023, the United States imported an average of 256 tons of fresh soursops per year from Grenada, with an average value of $1.2 million in Customs value  3 and $1.6 million in Cost, Insurance, Freight import (CIF) value, 4 respectively.

Due to fresh soursop's short shelf-life, all soursops are air-shipped to the United States, mainly to Miami. However, as already noted, as more soursops are imported into the United States, the market may expand outside the Maimi area to other metropolitan regions. In the event of such an expansion, domestic soursop producers might even be at a slight competitive harvest and timely shipping advantage for the delicate fruit within the United States, over longer imported distances.

Therefore, in accordance with § 319.56-4(c)(3)(iii), we are announcing our decision to authorize the importation into the continental United States of fresh soursop fruit from Mexico subject to the phytosanitary measures identified in the RMD that accompanies this final notice.

These conditions will be listed in the USDA, APHIS Agricultural Commodity Import Requirements (ACIR) database ( https://acir.aphis.usda.gov/s/ ). 5 In addition to these specific measures, each shipment must be subject to the general requirements listed in § 319.56-3 that are applicable to the importation of all fruits and vegetables.

In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. ), the recordkeeping and burden requirements associated with this action are included under the Office of Management and Budget control number 0579-0049.

The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service is committed to compliance with the E- Government Act to promote the use of the internet and other information technologies, to provide increased opportunities for citizen access to Government information and services, and for other purposes. For information pertinent to E-Government Act compliance related to this notice, please contact Mr. Joseph Moxey, APHIS' Paperwork Reduction Act Coordinator, at (301) 851-2533.

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 1633, 7701-7772, and 7781-7786; 21 U.S.C. 136 and 136a; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 371.3.

The purpose of the meeting is to:

1. Discuss any old business from last year;

2. Finalize award amounts on chosen proposals;

3. Discuss committee vacancies;

4. Approve meeting minutes;

5. Schedule the next meeting.

The agenda will include time for individuals to make oral statements of three minutes or less. Individuals wishing to make an oral statement should make a request in writing at least three days prior to the meeting date to be scheduled on the agenda. Written comments may be submitted to the Forest Service up to 14 days after the meeting date listed under DATES .

Please contact the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT , by or before the deadline, for all questions related to the meeting. All comments, including names and addresses when provided, are placed in the record and are available for public inspection and copying. The public may inspect comments received upon request.

Meeting Accommodations: The meeting location is compliant with the Americans with Disabilities Act, and the USDA provides reasonable accommodation to individuals with disabilities where appropriate. If you are a person requiring reasonable accommodation, please make requests in advance for sign language interpretation, assistive listening devices, or other reasonable accommodation to the person listed under the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section or contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TTY) or USDA through the Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339. Additionally, program information may be made available in languages other than English.

USDA programs are prohibited from discriminating based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, gender identity (including gender expression), sexual orientation, disability, age, marital status, family/parental status, income derived from a public assistance program, political beliefs, or reprisal or retaliation for prior civil rights activity, in any program or activity conducted or funded by USDA (not all bases apply to all programs). Remedies and complaint filing deadlines vary by program or incident.

Equal opportunity practices in accordance with USDA's policies will be followed in all appointments to the committee. To ensure that the recommendations of the committee have taken into account the needs of the diverse groups served by the USDA, membership shall include, to the extent practicable, individuals with demonstrated ability to represent the many communities, identities, races, ethnicities, backgrounds, abilities, cultures, and beliefs of the American people, including underserved communities. USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer, and lender.

These committee meeting is available to the public through the meeting link above. Any interested member of the public may listen to the meeting. At the meeting, an open comment period will be provided to allow members of the public to make a statement as time allows. Per the Federal Advisory Committee Act, public minutes of the meeting will include a list of persons who are present at the meeting. If joining via phone, callers can expect to incur regular charges for calls they initiate over wireless lines, according to their wireless plan. The Commission will not refund any incurred charges. Callers will incur no charge for calls they initiate over land-line connections to the toll-free telephone number. Closed captioning will be available for individuals who are deaf, hard of hearing, or who have certain cognitive or learning impairments. To request additional accommodations, please email ebohor@usccr.gov at least 10 business days prior to the meeting.

Members of the public are entitled to submit written comments; the comments must be received in the regional office within 30 days following the meetings. Written comments may be emailed to Barbara Delaviez at bdelaviez@usccr.gov. Persons who desire additional information may contact the Regional Programs Coordination Unit at 1-312-353-8311.

Records generated from these meetings may be inspected and reproduced at the Regional Programs Coordination Unit Office, as they become available, both before and after the meetings. Records of the meeting will be available via www.facadatabase.gov under the Commission on Civil Rights, Colorado Advisory Committee link. Persons interested in the work of this Committee are directed to the Commission's website, http://www.usccr.gov, or may contact the Regional Programs Coordination Unit at ebohor@usccr.gov.

Committee meetings are available to the public through the videoconference link above. Any interested member of the public may listen to the meeting. An open comment period will be provided to allow members of the public to make a statement as time allows. Per the Federal Advisory Committee Act, public minutes of the meeting will include a list of persons who are present at the meeting. If joining via phone, callers can expect to incur regular charges for calls they initiate over wireless lines, according to their wireless plan. The Commission will not refund any incurred charges. Closed captions will be provided for individuals who are deaf, hard of hearing, or who have certain cognitive or learning impairments. To request additional accommodations, please email Angelica Trevino, Support Services Specialists, at atrevino@usccr.gov at least 10 business days prior to the meeting. Members of the public are entitled to make comments during the open period at the end of the meeting. Members of the public may also submit written comments; the comments must be received in the Regional Programs Unit within 30 days following the meeting. Written comments may be emailed to Kayla Fajota (DFO) at kfajota@usccr.gov.

Records generated from this meeting may be inspected and reproduced at the Regional Programs Coordination Unit Office, as they become available, both before and after the meeting. Records of the meetings will be available via www.facadatabase.gov under the Commission on Civil Rights, Hawai'i Advisory Committee link. Persons interested in the work of this Committee are directed to the Commission's website, http://www.usccr.gov, or may contact the Regional Programs Coordination Unit at atrevino@usccr.gov.

On September 27, 2024, Commerce published in the Federal Register the final determination in the circumvention inquiry for the AD order on PC strand Mexico. 1 In the Final Determination, we inadvertently omitted the “Liquidation of Entries” section announcing our intent to order the liquidation of entries of merchandise subject to the AD order on PC strand from Mexico that entered during the prior administrative review period for the AD order on PC strand from Mexico. Specifically, Commerce did not receive a request to conduct an administrative review for the AD order on PC strand from Mexico for the period from January 1, 2023, to December 31, 2023, 2 thus entries of subject merchandise during this period were automatically liquidated pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(c). However, following the Preliminary Determination, Commerce instructed U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to collect cash deposits and suspend the liquidation of entries of merchandise covered by the inquiry that were entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after July 31, 2023, until specific instructions for liquidation were issued. 3

In the Federal Register of September 27, 2024, in FR Doc 2024-22113, on page 79253, in the third column, correct the text by adding the following section below the “Final Circumvention Determination” section:

For all entries of merchandise subject to the AD order on PC strand from Mexico, entered or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption on or before December 31, 2023, Commerce intends to instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to liquidate those entries at the applicable AD rates for those entries. 4

Commerce intends to issue liquidation instructions to CBP no earlier than 41 days after the date of publication of this notice in the Federal Register . If a timely notice of intent to contest this final determination is filed at the U.S. Court of International Trade, the assessment instructions will direct CBP not to liquidate relevant entries until the time for parties to file a request for a statutory injunction has expired ( i.e., within 90 days of publication).

This notice is issued and published in accordance with section 781(a) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.226(g)(2).

The MMPA prohibits the “take” of marine mammals, with certain exceptions. Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq. ) direct the Secretary of Commerce (as delegated to NMFS) to allow, upon request, the incidental, but not intentional, taking of small numbers of marine mammals by U.S. citizens who engage in a specified activity (other than commercial fishing) within a specified geographical region if certain findings are made, regulations are promulgated (when applicable), and public notice and an opportunity for public comment are provided.

An authorization for incidental takings shall be granted if NMFS finds that the taking will have a negligible impact on the species or stock(s) and will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of the species or stock(s) for taking for subsistence uses (where relevant). If such findings are made, NMFS must prescribe the permissible methods of taking; “other means of effecting the least practicable adverse impact” on the affected species or stocks and their habitat, paying particular attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar significance, and on the availability of the species or stocks for taking for certain subsistence uses (referred to as “mitigation”); and requirements pertaining to the monitoring and reporting of such takings. The MMPA defines “take” to mean harass, hunt, capture, or kill, or attempt to harass, hunt, capture, or kill any marine mammal (16 U.S.C. 1362(13); 50 CFR 216.103). Level A harassment is defined as any act of pursuit, torment, or annoyance which has the potential to injure a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild (16 U.S.C. 1362(18); 50 CFR 216.3). Level B harassment is defined as any act of pursuit, torment, or annoyance which has the potential to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild by causing disruption of behavioral patterns, including, but not limited to, migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering (16 U.S.C. 1362(18); 50 CFR 216.3). Section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA and the implementing regulations at 50 CFR part 216, subpart I authorize NMFS to propose and, if appropriate, promulgate regulations and issue an associated LOA. NMFS promulgated regulations on January 23, 2024 (89 FR 4370) for the taking of marine mammals incidental to the construction of the Atlantic Shores South Project offshore of New Jersey. The LOA authorizes Project Company 1, and those persons it authorizes or funds to conduct activities on its behalf, to take marine mammals incidental to specified activities during the construction of the Project and requires them to implement mitigation, monitoring, and reporting requirements.

In response to their petition to promulgate incidental take regulations and issue an associated Letter of Authorization, on September 24, 2024, NMFS promulgated a final rule (89 FR 77972) establishing a framework for authorizing the taking of marine mammals by Project Company 1. Specifically, the rule allows for take of 16 species of marine mammals comprising 17 stocks by Level B harassment (all 17 stocks) and by Level A harassment (9 stocks) incidental to construction activities occurring in Federal and State waters off of New Jersey, specifically within and around the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) Commercial Lease of Submerged Lands for Renewable Energy Development on the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) Lease Areas OCS-A 0499 and OCS-A-0570 (collectively, “Lease Area”) and along two export cable routes to sea-to-shore transition points (collectively referred to as the “Project Area”), over the course of 5 years (January 1, 2025 through December 31, 2029). The final rule included the following specified activities: the installation of up to 200 wind turbine generators (WTGs) on jacket and/or monopile foundations using impact pile driving; the installation of up to 10 offshore substations (OSSs) on multi-legged jacket foundations using pin piles using impact pile driving; the installation of one meteorological tower (Met Tower) on a monopile using impact pile driving; nearshore cable landfall work comprising of the installation and subsequent removal of nearshore temporary cofferdams at the sea-to-shore transition points located in Sea Girt, New Jersey (the Monmouth landfall site) and in Atlantic City, New Jersey (the Atlantic City landfall site) by vibratory pile driving; high-resolution geophysical (HRG) marine site characterization surveys using active acoustic sources; fishery and ecological monitoring surveys; the deployment of up to four temporary meteorological and oceanographic (metocean) buoys; the placement of scour protection; the installation of the export cable routes from OSSs to shore-based converter stations and inter-array cables between turbines by trenching, laying, and burial activities; vessel transit within the specified geographical region to transport crew, supplies, and materials; and WTG operation.

Marine mammals exposed to elevated noise levels during foundation impact pile driving may be taken by Level A harassment, and marine mammals exposed to elevated noise levels during impact and vibratory pile driving and HRG site characterization surveys may be taken by Level B harassment. No mortality or serious injury of any marine mammal is anticipated or authorized.

In accordance with the MMPA, as amended, NMFS has issued a LOA to Project Company 1 authorizing the take, by harassment, of marine mammals incidental to specified activities within the specified geographical region. As previously stated, no mortality or serious injury of any marine mammal species is anticipated or authorized. The incidental takes authorized herein are the same as those analyzed and authorized in the final rule (89 FR 77972, September 24, 2024). The number of takes, by species, authorized may be found in table 1 in the LOA, which is available at https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/permit/incidental-take-authorizations-under-marine-mammal-protection-act.

Takes of marine mammals will be minimized through the following required mitigation and monitoring measures, as applicable for each specified activity: (1) implementation of seasonal/time of day work restrictions; (2) use of multiple NMFS-approved Protected Species Observers to visually observe for marine mammals (with any detection within specifically designated zones triggering a delay or shutdown, as applicable); (3) use of NMFS-approved passive acoustic monitoring (PAM) operators to acoustically detect marine mammals, with a focus on detecting baleen whales (with any detection within designated zones triggering a delay or shutdown, as applicable); (4) implementation of clearance and shutdown zones; (5) use of soft-start upon commencement of impact pile driving and ramp-up of certain acoustic sources during HRG surveys; (6) use of noise attenuation technology during foundation pile driving; (7) use of situational awareness monitoring for marine mammal presence; (8) use of sound field verification monitoring; (9) use of PAM within the vessel transit corridor for Project vessels to travel over 10 knots (11.5 miles per hour); (10) implementation of several vessel strike avoidance measures to avoid vessel strikes, including but not limited to, vessel speed restrictions and separation zones between marine mammals and project vessels; and (11) requirements for personal training, gear use, and actions required to be undertaken for trawl surveys during fishery monitoring surveys. Additionally, NMFS may modify the LOA's mitigation, monitoring, or reporting measures, based on new information. Project Company 1 is also required to submit frequent and situational reports, as specified in the LOA.

Based on the findings discussed in the preamble of the final rule, NMFS has determined that the take authorized in the LOA is of small numbers, will have a negligible impact on marine mammal stocks, will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of the affected marine mammal stock for subsistence uses, and the mitigation measures provide a means of affecting the least practicable adverse impact on the affected stocks and their habitat.

This 36(b)(1) arms sales notification is published to fulfill the requirements of section 155 of Public Law 104-164 dated July 21, 1996. The following is a copy of a letter to the Speaker of the House of Representatives with attached Transmittal 23-66, Policy Justification, and Sensitivity of Technology.

(i) Prospective Purchaser: Government of the Republic of Bulgaria

(ii) Total Estimated Value:

Funding Source: National Funds

(iii) Description and Quantity or Quantities of Articles or Services under Consideration for Purchase: The Government of the Republic of Bulgaria has requested to buy one hundred eighty-three (183) Stryker Family of Vehicles, including:

Major Defense Equipment (MDE):

Non-MDE:

The following are also included: support service equipment; M-153A4 Common Remote Operated Weapons Stations (CROWS); Forward Repair Systems (FRS); M2A1 .50 caliber machine guns; M6 smoke grenade launchers and associated spares; Harris radios; AN/VAS-5 Driver's Vision Enhancer (DVE); DVE-Wide; communications equipment; RS6 (LW30) Remote Weapon Systems; TACFLIR 280 HDEP systems; Ranger R20SS Radar; ROVER6Si transceivers; spare parts; Basic Issue Items (BII), Components of End Items (COEI), and Additional Authorized List (AAL); Special Tools and Test Equipment (STTE); technical manuals; OCONUS Deprocessing Service; OCONUS contractor provided training and Field Service Representatives (FSR); component assembly in-country; and other related elements of logistics and program support.

(iv) Military Department: Army (BU-B-UCP, BU-B-UCS)

(v) Prior Related Cases, if any: None

(vi) Sales Commission, Fee, etc., Paid, Offered, or Agreed to be Paid: None

(vii) Sensitivity of Technology Contained in the Defense Article or Defense Services Proposed to be Sold: See Attached Annex

(viii) Date Report Delivered to Congress: September 1, 2023

* As defined in Section 47(6) of the Arms Export Control Act.

The Government of the Republic of Bulgaria has requested to buy one hundred eighty-three (183) Stryker Family of Vehicles. The proposed sale would consist of: ninety (90) XM1296 Infantry Carrier Vehicles—Dragoon (ICVD); seventeen (17) M1126 Infantry Carrier Vehicles (ICV); nine (9) M1132 Engineer Squad Vehicles (ESV); thirty-three (33) M1130 Command Vehicles (CV); twenty-four (24) M1133 Medical Evacuation Vehicles (MEV); ten (10) M1135 Nuclear, Biological, Chemical Reconnaissance Vehicles (NBCRV); five (5) Heavy Expanded Mobility Tactical Truck (HEMTT) Light Equipment Transports (LET); five (5) Modular Catastrophic Recovery Systems (MCRS); two (2) M1120A4 HEMTT Load Handling Systems; five (5) M984A4 Wrecker HEMTTs; and one hundred seven (107) M240 Coaxial 7.62mm machine guns. Also included is support service equipment; M-153A4 Common Remote Operated Weapons Stations (CROWS); Forward Repair Systems (FRS); M2A1 .50 caliber machine guns; M6 smoke grenade launchers and associated spares; Harris radios; AN/VAS-5 Driver's Vision Enhancer (DVE); DVE-Wide; communications equipment; RS6 (LW30) Remote Weapon Systems; TACFLIR 280 HDEP systems; Ranger R20SS Radar; ROVER6Si transceivers; spare parts; Basic Issue Items (BII), Components of End Items (COEI), and Additional Authorized List (AAL); Special Tools and Test Equipment (STTE); technical manuals; OCONUS Deprocessing Service; OCONUS contractor provided training and Field Service Representatives (FSR); component assembly in-country; and other related elements of logistics and program support. The estimated total cost is $1.5 billion.

This proposed sale will support the foreign policy and national security objectives of the United States by helping to improve the security of a North Atlantic Treaty Organization ally that is a force for political stability and economic progress in Europe.

The proposed sale will improve Bulgaria's rapid infantry deployment and force projection capability. Bulgaria will use this enhanced capability to strengthen its homeland defense and deter regional threats. Bulgaria will have no difficulty absorbing this equipment and services into its armed forces.

The principal contractor will be General Dynamics Land Systems, Anniston, AL. There are no known offset agreements proposed in connection with this potential sale.

Implementation of this proposed sale will require twenty (20) Stryker contractor representatives to travel to Bulgaria for twenty-four (24) months to conduct contractor logistics support, training, and component assembly support.

There will be no adverse impact on U.S. defense readiness as a result of this proposed sale.

(vii) Sensitivity of Technology:

1. The Stryker Family of Vehicles (FoV) are all derived from the Flat Bottom Infantry Carrier Vehicle (ICV). The ICV supplies the common suspension (except for the ICVD), drive line, major C4 components, and hull to the FoV. The FoV is powered by a 350 horsepower C7 Caterpillar diesel engine and runs on eight wheels that feature run flat capability and a central tire inflation system (CTIS). It contains a vehicle height management system to aid in transportability. The FoV is supported by a communications suite that integrates the Single Channel Ground and Airborne Radio System (SINCGARS) radio family and Global Positioning System (GPS) and their commercially exportable equivalents, and has a Mission Equipment Package that add to the ICV common capabilities. The Stryker is deployable by C-130 aircraft and is combat capable upon arrival; it is also capable of self-deployment by highway and can conduct self-recovery. It has a low noise level that reduces crew fatigue and enhances survivability. It moves about the battlefield quickly and is optimized for close, complex, or urban terrain. The Stryker program leverages non-developmental items with common subsystems and components to quickly acquire and field these systems.

2. The XM914E1 is a single feed chain gun that fires linked, percussion-primed 30mm x 113mm ammunition. The gun is powered by a 1 horsepower 28V (volt) direct current (DC) motor and incorporates hang fire safety protection. Actual operation of the gun is accomplished via the platform's fire control system in conjunction with and through the dedicated Gun Control Unit (GCU). The GCU provides all electrical power to the gun, including operational and sensor level 28V DC power. The weapon has a cyclic firing rate of 200 ± 25 shots per minute. Actual firing rate varies within the specification range due to system level characteristics, such as inputted voltage and ammunition feed system loads.

3. The RS6 Remote Weapon System (RWS) is an externally mounted weapon mounting and control system that allows the gunner to remain inside the vehicle protected by armor while firing a variety of crew-served weapons, including the XM914E1 chain gun. The RS6 allows for remote day and night sighting and ballistic control capability, providing first-burst engagement of targets at maximum effective weapon range while on the move.

4. The AN/VAS-5 Driver's Vision Enhancer (DVE) is compact thermal camera providing armored vehicle drivers with day or nighttime visual awareness in clear or reduced vision (fog, smoke, dust, etc.) situations. The system provides the driver a 50-degree viewing angle using a high-resolution infrared sensor and image stabilization to reduce the effect of shock and vibration. The viewer and monitor are ruggedized for operation in tactical environments.

5. The Driver's Vision Enhancer (DVE-Wide) mounted on the XM1296 ICVD, is a compact thermal camera providing armored vehicle drivers with day or nighttime visual awareness in clear or reduced vision (fog, smoke, dust, etc.) situations. The system provides the driver a 180-degree viewing angle using a high-resolution infrared sensor and image stabilization to reduce the effect of shock and vibration. The viewer and monitor are ruggedized for operation in tactical environments.

1. The Common Remote Operated Weapon Station (CROWS) is an externally-mounted weapon mounting and control system that allows the gunner to remain inside the vehicle protected by armor while firing a variety of crew-served weapons. The CROWS allows for remote day and night sighting and ballistic control capability, providing first-burst engagement of targets at maximum effective weapon range while on the move.

2. hC2 BMS solution—the hC2 Software Suite is a complete COMMAND and Control (C2) solution that offers clarity, simplicity, and high performance to address real world C2 challenges at all echelon levels. The hC2 Suite connects the headquarters all the way down the echelon to the tactical edge. At the core of the hC2 Suite is hC2 Tactical Communications, which enables full integration and interoperability of the three hC2 components: COMMAND, PATROL and DISMOUNT. hC2 Tactical Communications provides networked COMMAND and control and shared situational awareness, allowing for information exchange across echelons. hC2 Tactical Communications is operable on limited bandwidth, high latency tactical radio data communications frequencies. hC2 also supports IP and non-IP radios and can handle different types of radios, even within the same vehicle.

3. The highest level of classification of defense articles, components, and services included in this potential sale is SECRET.

4. If a technologically advanced adversary were to obtain knowledge of the specific hardware and software elements, the information could be used to develop countermeasures that might reduce weapon system effectiveness or be used in the development of a system with similar or advanced capabilities.

5. A determination has been made that Bulgaria can provide the same degree of protection for the sensitive technology being released as the U.S. Government. This sale is necessary in furtherance of the U.S. foreign policy and national security objectives outlined in the Policy Justification.

6. All defense articles and services listed in this transmittal have been authorized for release and export to the Republic of Bulgaria.

This 36(b)(1) arms sales notification is published to fulfill the requirements of section 155 of Public Law 104-164 dated July 21, 1996. The following is a copy of a letter to the Speaker of the House of Representatives with attached Transmittal 23-59, Policy Justification, and Sensitivity of Technology.

(i) Prospective Purchaser: Government of Australia

(ii) Total Estimated Value:

(iii) Description and Quantity or Quantities of Articles or Services under Consideration for Purchase:

Major Defense Equipment (MDE):

Non-MDE:

Also included are Reduced Range Practice Rocket (RRPR) Pods; intercom systems to support the HIMARS Launcher; M1084A2 HIMARS Re-Supply Vehicles (RSV); trailers; 9300-SL60TN Forklift, Side Loader; radio/ communication mounts; machine gun mounts; wheel guards; ruggedized laptops; training; training equipment; publications for HIMARS and its munitions and spares; services; other support equipment; and other related elements of program and logistic support.

(iv) Military Department: Army (AT-B-UNP)

(v) Prior Related Cases, if any: AT-B-UMJ, AT-B-UMK, AT-B-UKI

(vi) Sales Commission, Fee, etc., Paid, Offered, or Agreed to be Paid: None known at this time

(vii) Sensitivity of Technology Contained in the Defense Article or Defense Services Proposed to be Sold: See Attached Annex

(viii) Date Report Delivered to Congress: August 18, 2023

* As defined in Section 47(6) of the Arms Export Control Act.

The Government of Australia has requested to buy up to twenty-two (22) M142 High Mobility Artillery Rocket Systems (HIMARS); sixty (60) M30A1 Guided Multiple Launch Rocket System (GMLRS) Alternative Warhead (AW) Pods with Insensitive Munitions Propulsion System (IMPS); forty (40) M31A1 GMLRS Unitary (GMLRS-U) High Explosive (HE) Pods with IMPS; sixty-six (66) M30A2 Extended Range (ER)-GMLRS AW Pods; and twenty-four (24) M31A2 ER GMLRS Unitary (HE) Pods. Also included are Reduced Range Practice Rocket (RRPR) Pods; intercom systems to support the HIMARS Launcher; M1084A2 HIMARS Re-Supply Vehicles (RSV); trailers; 9300-SL60TN Forklift, Side Loader; radio/communication mounts; machine gun mounts; wheel guards; ruggedized laptops; training; training equipment; publications for HIMARS and its munitions, and spares; services; other support equipment; and other related elements of program and logistic support. The estimated total program cost is $975 million.

This proposed sale will support the foreign policy and national security objectives of the United States. Australia is one of our most important allies in the Western Pacific. The strategic location of this political and economic power contributes significantly to ensuring peace and economic stability in the region. It is vital to the U.S. national interest to assist our ally in developing and maintaining a strong and ready self-defense capability.

The proposed sale will improve Australia's capability to meet current and future threats and will enhance interoperability with U.S. forces and other allied forces. Australia will use the capability to strengthen its homeland defense and provide greater security for its critical infrastructure. Australia will have no difficulty absorbing this equipment into its armed forces.

The proposed sale of this equipment and support will not alter the basic military balance in the region.

The principal contractors will be Lockheed Martin, Grand Prairie, TX; L3Harris Corporation, Melbourne, FL; Leonardo DRS, Arlington, VA; and Oshkosh Corporation, Stafford, VA. There are no known offset agreements in connection with this potential sale.

Implementation of this proposed sale will not require the assignment of U.S. Government or contractor representatives to Australia.

There will be no adverse impact on U.S. defense readiness as a result of this proposed sale.

(vii) Sensitivity of Technology:

1. The M142 High Mobility Artillery Rocket System (HIMARS) is a wheeled launcher mounted on a 5-ton Family of Medium Tactical Vehicles truck chassis and is transportable by C-130. HIMARS is the modern Army-fielded version of the Multiple Launch Rocket System (MLRS) M270 launcher and can fire all the MLRS Family of Munitions (FOM), including Guided Multiple Launch Rocket System (GMLRS) variants and the Army Tactical Missile System (ATACMS). Utilizing the MLRS FOM, the HIMARS can engage targets between 15 and 300 kilometers with GPS-aided precision accuracy.

2. The Guided Multiple Launch Rocket System (GMLRS) M31A2 Unitary is the Army's primary munition for units fielding the M142 HIMARS and M270Al Multiple Launcher Rocket System (MLRS) Launchers. The M31 Unitary is a solid propellant artillery rocket that uses Global Positioning System/Precise Positioning Service (GPS/PPS)-aided inertial guidance to deliver a single high-explosive blast fragmentation warhead accurately and quickly to targets at ranges from 15-70 kilometers. The rockets are fired from a launch pod container that also serves as the storage and transportation container for the rockets. Each rocket pod holds six (6) total rockets.

3. The M30A2 GMLRS Alternative Warhead shares a greater than 90% commonality with the M31A1 Unitary. The primary difference between the GMLRS-U and GMLRS-AW is the replacement of the Unitary's high explosive warhead with a 200-pound fragmentation warhead of pre-formed tungsten penetrators which is optimized for effectiveness against large area and imprecisely located targets. The munitions otherwise share a common motor, GPS/PPS-aided inertial guidance and control system, fusing mechanism, multi-option height of burst capability, and effective range of 15-70km.

4. The Extended Range (ER) GMLRS provides a persistent, responsive, all-weather, rapidly deployed, long-range, surface-to-surface, area- and point-precision strike capability. The XM403 Alternative Warhead (AW) carries a 200-pound fragmentation assembly filled with high explosives which, upon detonation, accelerates two layers of preformed penetrators optimized for effectiveness against large area and imprecisely located targets. The XM404 Unitary variant is a 200-pound class unitary with a steel blast-fragmentation case, designed for low collateral damage against point targets. The ER GMLRS maintains the accuracy and effectiveness demonstrated by the baseline GMLRS out to a maximum range of 150 km while also including a new Height of Burst (HOB) capability.

5. The highest level of classification of defense articles, components, and services included in this potential sale is SECRET.

6. If a technologically advanced adversary were to obtain knowledge of the specific hardware and software elements, the information could be used to develop countermeasures that might reduce weapon system effectiveness or be used in the development of a system with similar or advanced capabilities.

7. A determination has been made that Australia can provide the same degree of protection for the sensitive technology being released as the U.S. Government. This sale is necessary in furtherance of the U.S. foreign policy and national security objectives outlined in the Policy Justification.

8. All defense articles and services listed in this transmittal are authorized for release and export to Australia.

Section 543 of the Carl Levin and Howard P. “Buck” McKeon National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year (FY) 2015 (Pub. L. 113-291) required the Secretary of Defense to develop a plan that would allow a restricted reporting adult victim of sexual assault to disclose suspect or incident information for the purpose of identifying serial offenders. In response to this requirement, the Naval Criminal Investigative Service (NCIS) developed a database to catalogue and centralize all victim entries into the CATCH program. The eligibility for the CATCH was later extended beyond just Restricted Reporters. The details in submitted CATCH entries are compared against reported subjects in adult sexual assault investigations and other CATCH Program entries. The sexual assault investigation records used for comparison include investigative reports prepared by DoD law enforcement, or other Federal, State, local, Tribal, or foreign law enforcement or investigative bodies, if such records exist. Entries in the CATCH system will consist of information voluntarily submitted into the CATCH system by eligible victims without identifying such victims, through established CATCH processes. At the present time, the CATCH Program gives adult sexual assault victims who filed (1) Restricted Reports, (2) certain Unrestricted Reports where the name of the suspect is not reported to or uncovered by law enforcement, or (3) no official report with the Sexual Assault Prevention and Response (SAPR) program, an opportunity to submit suspect information (without identifying the victim) into the CATCH system after receiving a user name and password from a Sexual Assault Response Coordinator (SARC) or Family Advocacy Program (FAP) representative. There is no self-service feature for CATCH entries; victims must go through a SARC or FAP representative, so they are apprised of their victim's rights and the CATCH Program is fully explained. The Military Criminal Investigative Organizations (MCIOs) specially assigned to CATCH Headquarters, not at the victim's installation, analyze suspect information in victim entries submitted into the CATCH Program. If a match is identified, the investigators will notify SAPR or FAP personnel of the match; the CATCH system protects the identity of the victim by not maintaining information that identifies the victim. The victim's contact information is stored in a separate database, the Defense Sexual Assault Incident Database (DSAID) File Locker or FAP case management system, which is only accessible to certain SAPR and FAP personnel, not MCIOs. Moreover, section 550 of Public Law 116-92 (National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2020) contained additional protections specifically for Restricted Reporters to safeguard the restricted nature of their reports, notwithstanding a victim disclosure made pursuant to the CATCH program. More information about the CATCH Program may be found at the U.S. Department of Defense Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Organization website at https://www.sapr.mil/catch . Additionally, DoD is issuing a notice of proposed rulemaking to exempt this system of records from certain provisions of the Privacy Act elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register . DoD system of records notices (SORNs) have been published in the Federal Register and are available from the address in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT or on the Privacy and Civil Liberties Directorate website at https://dpcld.defense.gov .

Under the Privacy Act, a “system of records” is a group of records under the control of an agency from which information is retrieved by the name of an individual or by some identifying number, symbol, or other identifying particular assigned to the individual. In the Privacy Act, an individual is defined as a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident.

In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552a(r) and Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular No. A-108, DoD has provided a report of this system of records to the OMB and to Congress.

This 36(b)(1) arms sales notification is published to fulfill the requirements of section 155 of Public Law 104-164 dated July 21, 1996. The following is a copy of a letter to the Speaker of the House of Representatives with attached Transmittal 23-48, Policy Justification, and Sensitivity of Technology.

This 36(b)(1) arms sales notification is published to fulfill the requirements of section 155 of Public Law 104-164 dated July 21, 1996. The following is a copy of a letter to the Speaker of the House of Representatives with attached Transmittal 23-60, Policy Justification, and Sensitivity of Technology.

(i) Prospective Purchaser: Government of Japan

(ii) Total Estimated Value:

(iii) Description and Quantity or Quantities of Articles or Services under Consideration for Purchase:

Major Defense Equipment (MDE):

Non-MDE:

Also included are JASSM Anti-jam Global Positioning System Receivers (JAGR), training missiles, and missile containers; munitions support and support equipment; spare parts, consumables, accessories, and repair/return support; integration and test support and equipment; personnel training and equipment; classified and unclassified software delivery and support; classified and unclassified publications and technical documentation; transportation support; U.S. Government and contractor engineering, technical, and logistics support services; studies and surveys; and other related elements of logistics and program support.

(iv) Military Department: Air Force (JA-D-YBH)

(v) Prior Related Cases, if any: JA-D-QES

(vi) Sales Commission, Fee, etc., Paid, Offered, or Agreed to be Paid: None known at this time

(vii) Sensitivity of Technology Contained in the Defense Article or Defense Services Proposed to be Sold: See Attached Annex

(viii) Date Report Delivered to Congress: August 28, 2023

* As defined in Section 47(6) of the Arms Export Control Act.

The Government of Japan has requested to buy fifty (50) AGM-158B/B-2 Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missiles with Extended Range (JASSM-ER). Also included are JASSM Anti-jam Global Positioning System Receivers (JAGR), training missiles, and missile containers; munitions support and support equipment; spare parts, consumables, accessories, and repair/return support; integration and test support and equipment; personnel training and equipment; classified and unclassified software delivery and support; classified and unclassified publications and technical documentation; transportation support; U.S. Government and contractor engineering, technical, and logistics support services; studies and surveys; and other related elements of logistics and program support. The estimated total cost is $104 million.

This proposed sale will support the foreign policy goals and national security objectives of the United States by improving the security of a major ally that is a force for political stability and economic progress in the Indo-Pacific region.

The proposed sale will improve Japan's capability to meet current and future threats by providing stand-off capability via advanced, long-range strike systems for employment on Japan Air Self-Defense Force (JASDF) fighter aircraft including but not limited to the F-15J. Japan will have no difficulty absorbing these articles and services into its armed forces.

The proposed sale of this equipment and support will not alter the basic military balance in the region.

The principal contractor will be Lockheed Martin, Orlando, FL. There are no known offset agreements proposed in connection with this potential sale.

Implementation of this proposed sale will not require the assignment of any additional U.S. Government or contractor representatives to Japan.

There will be no adverse impact on U.S. defense readiness as a result of this proposed sale.

(vii) Sensitivity of Technology:

1. The AGM-158B/B-2 Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missile with Extended Range (JASSM-ER) All Up Round (AUR) is a low-observable, highly survivable, subsonic cruise missile designed to penetrate next-generation air defense systems enroute to target. The JASSM-ER is designed to kill hard, medium-hardened, soft, and area-type targets. A turbo-fan engine and reconfigured fuel tanks provide added capacity. The extended range over the baseline was obtained by going from a turbo jet to a turbo-fan engine and by reconfiguring the fuel tanks for added capacity.

a. The JASSM Anti-Jam Global Positioning System (GPS) Receiver (JAGR) is an imbedded GPS receiver that resides within the AUR of the JASSM-ER missile and is programed during the AUR-build process to be country-specific. It provides GPS/Inertial Navigation System (INS)-protected GPS null steering antenna systems that can minimize or eliminate undesirable interference, jamming signals, or noise during midcourse guidance.

b. The AGM-158B-2 system capabilities include all the capabilities of the AGM-158B. The AGM-158B-2 configuration will have different internal components to address multiple obsolescence issues as well as subcomponent updates to position for M-Code and other potential upgrades.

2. The highest level of classification of defense articles, components, and services included in this potential sale is SECRET.

3. If a technologically advanced adversary were to obtain knowledge of the specific hardware and software elements, the information could be used to develop countermeasures that might reduce weapon system effectiveness or be used in the development of a system with similar or advanced capabilities.

4. A determination has been made that Japan can provide substantially the same degree of protection for the sensitive technology being released as the U.S. Government. This sale is necessary in furtherance of the U.S. foreign policy and national security objectives outlined in the Policy Justification.

5. All defense articles and services listed in this transmittal have been authorized for release and export to Japan.

This 36(b)(1) arms sales notification is published to fulfill the requirements of section 155 of Public Law 104-164 dated July 21, 1996. The following is a copy of a letter to the Speaker of the House of Representatives with attached Transmittal 23-25, Policy Justification, and Sensitivity of Technology.

(i) Prospective Purchaser: Taipei Economic and Cultural Representative Office in the United States (TECRO)

(ii) Total Estimated Value:

(iii) Description and Quantity or Quantities of Articles or Services under Consideration for Purchase:

Major Defense Equipment (MDE):

None

Non-MDE:

Included are Infrared Search and Track (IRST) systems; integration and test support and equipment; aircraft and munitions support and support equipment; software delivery and support; spare parts, consumables and accessories, and repair and return support; publications and technical documentation; personnel training and training equipment; studies and surveys; U.S. Government and contractor engineering, technical, and logistics support services; and other related elements of logistical and program support.

(iv) Military Department: Air Force (TW-D-QBF)

(v) Prior Related Cases, if any: TW-D-SAD

(vi) Sales Commission, Fee, etc., Paid, Offered, or Agreed to be Paid: None known at this time

(vii) Sensitivity of Technology Contained in the Defense Article or Defense Services Proposed to be Sold: See Attached Annex

(viii) Date Report Delivered to Congress: August 23, 2023

* As defined in Section 47(6) of the Arms Export Control Act.

The Taipei Economic and Cultural Representative Office in the United States (TECRO) has requested to buy F-16 Infrared Search and Track (IRST) systems; integration and test support and equipment; aircraft and munitions support and support equipment; software delivery and support; spare parts, consumables and accessories, and repair and return support; publications and technical documentation; personnel training and training equipment; studies and surveys; U.S. Government and contractor engineering, technical, and logistics support services; and other related elements of logistical and program support. There is no Major Defense Equipment (MDE). The estimated total cost is $500 million.

This proposed sale is consistent with U.S. law and policy as expressed in Public Law 96-8.

This proposed sale serves U.S. national, economic, and security interests by supporting the recipient's continuing efforts to modernize its armed forces and to maintain a credible defensive capability. The proposed sale will help improve the security of the recipient and assist in maintaining political stability, military balance, and economic progress in the region.

The proposed sale will improve the recipient's capability to meet current and future threats by contributing to the recipient's abilities to defend its airspace, provide regional security, and increase interoperability with the United States through its F-16 program. The recipient will have no difficulty absorbing this equipment into its armed forces.

The proposed sale of this equipment and support will not alter the basic military balance in the region.

The principal contractors will be Lockheed Martin Corporation, St. Louis, MO. There are no known offset agreements proposed in connection with this potential sale. The purchaser typically requests offsets. Any offset agreement would be defined in negotiations between the purchaser and the contractor(s).

Implementation of this proposed sale will not require the assignment of any additional U.S. Government or contractor representatives.

There will be no adverse impact on U.S. defense readiness as a result of this proposed sale.

(vii) Sensitivity of Technology:

1. The Infrared Search and Track System (IRST) is a high resolution, passive, infrared sensor system that searches for, detects, and tracks threats with infrared signatures at long ranges within its field of regard. It functions without emitting any radiation of its own and enables aircrews to detect adversaries before those adversaries see or sense them.

2. The highest level of classification of defense articles, components, and services included in this potential sale is SECRET.

3. If a technologically advanced adversary were to obtain knowledge of the specific hardware and software elements, the information could be used to develop countermeasures that might reduce weapon system effectiveness or be used in the development of a system with similar or advanced capabilities.

4. A determination has been made that the recipient can provide substantially the same degree of protection for the sensitive technology being released as the U.S. Government. This sale is necessary in furtherance of the U.S. foreign policy and national security objectives outlined in the Policy Justification.

5. All defense articles and services listed in this transmittal have been authorized for release and export to the recipient.

The Department, in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)), provides the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps the Department assess the impact of its information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand the Department's information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format. The Department is soliciting comments on the proposed information collection request (ICR) that is described below. The Department is especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) is this collection necessary to the proper functions of the Department; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the Department enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the Department minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology. Please note that written comments received in response to this notice will be considered public records.

Title of Collection: National Evaluation of the Pathways to Partnerships Program (84.421E).

OMB Control Number: 1820-NEW.

Type of Review: New ICR.

Respondents/Affected Public: Individuals or Households.

Total Estimated Number of Annual Responses: 17,137.

Total Estimated Number of Annual Burden Hours: 4,760.

Abstract: The U.S. Department of Education's Rehabilitation Services Administration (RSA) requests clearance for new data collection activities to support the evaluation of the 84.421E Federal fiscal year (FFY) 2023 Disability Innovation Fund (DIF), Pathways to Partnerships Innovative Model Demonstration Project. The purpose of the DIF, as provided by the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2022 (Pub. L. 117-103), is to support innovative activities aimed at increasing competitive integrated employment as defined in section 7 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Rehabilitation Act) (29 U.S.C. 705(5)) for children, youth, and other individuals with disabilities. The program aims to create systematic and seamless approaches to offering transition services to children with disabilities, ages 10-13 and youth with disabilities ages 14 to 24 through collaborations among State vocational rehabilitation (VR) agencies, State education agencies (SEAs), local education agencies (LEAs), Federally funded Centers for Independent Living (CILs), and other organizations offering services to this population. RSA is investing a total of $198,975,322 in grant funding to the 20 States through the FFY 2023 DIF.

This request covers primary data collection activities for the National Evaluation of the Pathways to Partnerships Program. These activities include the following:

In September 2023, RSA awarded five-year cooperative agreements for the 84.421E FFY 2023 DIF model demonstration projects. The awards provide 20 State VR agencies or SEAs with funding to implement Pathways to Partnerships model demonstration projects. The Pathways to Partnerships models vary across the 20 projects, but the projects' purpose is to create and implement systematic approaches to delivering transition services to children and youth with disabilities. The approaches must entail establishing close partnerships across key agencies to deliver these services in ways likely to improve the education and employment outcomes of children and youth with disabilities.

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission gives notice of its intent to submit the recordkeeping requirements contained in the Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures (UGESP or Uniform Guidelines)  1 to the Office of Management and Budget for a three-year extension without change under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA).

Pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, and OMB regulation 5 CFR 1320.8(d)(1), the EEOC invites public comments that will enable the agency to:

Collection Title: Recordkeeping Requirements of the Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures, 29 CFR part 1607, 41 CFR part 60-3, 28 CFR part 50, 5 CFR part 300.

OMB Number: 3046-0017.

Type of Respondent: Businesses or other institutions; Federal Government; State or local governments and farms.

North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) Code: Multiple.

Standard Industrial Classification Code (SIC): Multiple.

Description of Affected Public: Any employer, Government contractor, labor organization, or employment agency covered by the Federal equal employment opportunity laws.

Respondents: 887,869.

Responses: 887,869.

Recordkeeping Hours: 15,422,941 per year.

Number of Forms: None.

Form Number: None.

Frequency of Report: None.

Abstract: The Uniform Guidelines provide fundamental guidance for all Title VII-covered employers about the use of employment selection procedures. The records addressed by UGESP are used by respondents to ensure that they are complying with Title VII and Executive Order 11246; by the Federal agencies that enforce Title VII and Executive Order 11246 to investigate, conciliate, and litigate charges of employment discrimination; and by complainants to establish violations of Federal equal employment opportunity laws. While there are no data available to quantify these benefits, the collection of accurate applicant flow data enhances each employer's ability to address deficiencies in recruitment and selection processes, including detecting barriers to equal employment opportunity.

Burden Statement: There are no reporting requirements associated with UGESP. The burden being estimated is the cost of collecting and storing a job applicant's gender, race, and ethnicity data.

The only paperwork burden derives from this recordkeeping. Only employers covered under Title VII and Executive Order 11246 are subject to UGESP. However, for the purposes of burden calculation, data for all employers are counted. 2 The number of employers with 15 or more employees is estimated at 887,869 which combines estimates from private employment, 3 the public sector, 4 colleges and universities, 5 apprenticeship programs, 6 and referral unions. 7 Employers with 15 or more employees represent approximately 13.5% of all employers in the U.S. and employ about 86.2% of all employees in the U.S. 8

This burden assessment is based on an estimate of the number of job applications submitted to all employers in one year, including paper-based and electronic applications. The total number of job applications submitted every year to covered employers is estimated to be 1,850,752,956 based on an average of approximately 26 applications  9 for every hire and a Bureau of Labor Statistics data estimate of 71,046,000 annual hires. 10 This figure also includes 136,806 applicants for union membership reported on the EEO-3 form for 2022.

The employer burden associated with collecting and storing applicant demographic data is based on the following assumptions: applicants would need to be asked to provide three pieces of information—sex, race/ethnicity, and an identification number (a total of approximately 13 keystrokes); the employer may need to transfer information received to a database either manually or electronically; and the employer would need to store the 13 characters of information for each applicant. Recordkeeping costs and burden are assumed to be the time cost associated with entering 13 keystrokes.

Assuming that the required recordkeeping takes 30 seconds per record, and assuming a total of 1,850,752,956 paper and electronic applications per year (as calculated above), the resulting UGESP burden hours would be 15,422,941. Based on a wage rate of $22.94  11 per hour for the individuals entering the data, the collection and storage of applicant demographic data would come to approximately $353,802,267 per year. The foregoing assumptions likely are over-inclusive because many employers have electronic job application processes that should be able to capture applicant flow data automatically.

While the burden hours and costs for the UGESP recordkeeping requirement seem large, the average burden per employer is relatively small. UGESP applies to an estimated 887,869 employers, or about 13.5% of employers in the U.S., and these employers employ about 86.2% of employees in the U.S. 12 Therefore, the estimated cost per covered employer is about $398. Additionally, 36.4% of employees work for firms with at least 5,000 employees, 13 for which the burden of data entry is transferred to the applicants via use of electronic application systems. Finally, UGESP allows for simplified recordkeeping for employers with more than 15 but less than 100 employees. 14

OMB Control Number: 3060-0179.

Title: Section 73.1590, Equipment Performance Measurements.

Form Number: N/A.

Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.

Respondents: Business or other for-profit entities; not-for-profit institutions.

Number of Respondents and Responses: 13,049 respondents and 13,049 responses.

Estimated Time per Response: 0.5-18 hours.

Frequency of Response: Recordkeeping requirement.

Total Annual Burden: 12,335 hours.

Total Annual Cost: No cost.

Obligation to Respond: Required to obtain or retain benefits. The statutory authority for this collection is contained in Section 154(i) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended.

Needs and Uses: The information collection requirements contained in 47 CFR 73.1590(d) require licensees of AM, FM and TV stations to make audio and video equipment performance measurements for each main transmitter. These measurements and a description of the equipment and procedures used in making the measurements must be kept on file at the transmitter or remote control point for two years. In addition, this information must be made available to the FCC upon request.

As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), the FCC invited the general public and other Federal Agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collection. Comments are requested concerning: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimates; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4), the FCC seeks specific comment on how it might “further reduce the information collection burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.”

OMB Control Number: 3060-0715.

Title: Telecommunications Carriers' Use of Customer Proprietary Network Information and Other Customer Information.

Form Number: N/A.

Type of Review: Revision of a currently approved collection.

Respondents: Business or other for-profit entities, and state, local, or tribal government.

Number of Respondents and Responses: 2,935 respondents; 91,735,200 responses.

Estimated Time per Response: 0.1-120 hours.

Frequency of Response: On occasion, annual, and one-time reporting requirements; recordkeeping; and third party disclosure requirements.

Obligation to Respond: Mandatory. Statutory authority for these collections are contained in Sections 201 and 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 201, 222.

Total Annual Burden: 269,534 hours.

Total Annual Cost: No Cost.

Needs and Uses: Section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 222, establishes the duty of telecommunications carriers to protect the confidentiality of its customers' proprietary information. This proprietary information includes personally identifiable information derived from a customer's relationship with a provider of telecommunications services. This information collection implements the statutory obligations of Section 222. These regulations impose safeguards to protect Customer Proprietary Network Information (CPNI) and other customer proprietary information against unauthorized access and disclosure.

On November 16, 2023, the FCC released the SIM Swap and Port-Out Fraud Order (88 FR 85794 (December 8, 2023)), which adopted a baseline framework to combat SIM swap fraud by amending section 64.2010 of the CPNI rules to add paragraph (h) on Subscriber Identity Module (SIM) changes and adds new information collection requirements in paragraphs (h)(3), (h)(5), (h)(6), and (h)(8) of that rule. A SIM swap involves the fraudulent transfer (or “swap”) of an account from a device associated with one SIM to a device associated with a different SIM, allowing a bad actor to control the victim's mobile account and access the victim's CPNI. The new rules establish a uniform framework that gives wireless providers flexibility to implement customer authentication and security methods to address SIM swap fraud. The SIM Swap and Port-Out Fraud Order modifies the existing CPNI collection requirements to require wireless providers to: (1) immediately notify customers of any requests for a SIM change associated with the customer's account before the SIM change is completed; (2) provide customers with advance notice of any account protection measures offered; (3) maintain a clear process for customers to report SIM fraud and promptly provide customers with documentation of fraud involving their accounts; and (4) track and maintain for three years a record of SIM change requests and authentication measures used.

On December 21, 2023, the Commission released the Data Breach Report and Order (89 FR 9968 (February 12, 2024)), which modifies the scope of customer data and reportable breaches covered by the Commission's rules, and also modifies the Commission's data breach notification rules to require covered service providers to electronically notify the FCC of a reportable data breach through a link to a central reporting facility, contemporaneously with the existing obligation to notify the United States Secret Service Bureau (Secret Service) and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), and adopts equivalent requirements for Telecommunications Relay Services (TRS) providers. Covered service providers include providers of telecommunications, interconnected Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP), and TRS. All covered providers are required to maintain a record, electronically or in some other manner, of any breaches discovered, and notifications made. Covered providers are also required to submit, via the central reporting facility, an annual reporting of certain small breaches.

OMB Control Number: 3060-0742.

Title: Sections 52.21 through 52.37, Telephone Number Portability, 47 CFR part 52, subpart (C), and CC Docket No. 95-116.

Form Number: N/A.

Type of Review: Revision of a currently approved collection.

Respondents: Business or other for profit entities.

Number of Respondents and Responses: 1,626 respondents; 13,672,050 responses.

Estimated Time per Response: 0.0666 hours-60 hours.

Frequency of Response: On occasion and one-time reporting requirements, recordkeeping requirement, and third party disclosure requirement.

Obligation to Respond: Required to obtain or retain benefits. Statutory authority for this information collection is contained in 47 U.S.C. 151, 152, 154(i), 201-205, 215, 251(b)(2), 251(e)(2) and 332 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended.

Total Annual Burden: 792,235 hours.

Total Annual Cost: No cost.

Needs and Uses: Section 251(b)(2) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, requires LECs to “provide, to the extent technically feasible, number portability in accordance with requirements prescribed by the Commission.” Through the LNP process, consumers have the ability to retain their phone number when switching telecommunications service providers, enabling them to choose a provider that best suits their needs and enhancing competition. In the Porting Interval Order and Further Notice, the Commission mandated a one business day porting interval for simple wireline-to-wireline and intermodal port requests. The information collected in the standard local service request data fields is necessary to complete simple wireline-to-wireline and intermodal ports within the one business day porting interval mandated by the Commission and will be used to comply with Section 251 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996.

On November 16, 2023, the FCC released a Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (88 FR 85794 (Dec. 8, 2023)) ( SIM Swap and Port-Out Fraud Order ), which adds new information collection requirements. The SIM Swap and Port-Out Fraud Order adopted baseline measures to increase protections for customers against fraudulent port-outs by adding new section 52.37 in Part 52, and adds new information collection requirements in paragraphs (c), (e), and (g), of that rule. Port-out fraud occurs where a bad actor impersonates a customers of a wireless provider and convinces the provider to port the real customer's telephone number to a new wireless provider and a device that the bad actor controls, allowing a bad actor to control the victim's mobile account and receive text messages and phone calls intended for the victim. The new rules establish a uniform framework that gives wireless providers flexibility to implement customer authentication and security methods to address port-out fraud. Wireless providers are required to comply with the new or modified rules except where the Safe Connections Act requires alternate procedures to be used. The SIM Swap and Port-Out Fraud Order modifies the existing Local Number Portability collection requirements to require wireless providers to: (1) immediately notify customers of any requests for a port-out request associated with the customer's account before effectuating the request; (2) provide customers with advance notice of any account protection measures offered; and (3) maintain a clear process for customers to report fraudulent number ports, and promptly provide customers with documentation of fraudulent ports involving their accounts.

The notice amendment includes administrative updates to refine details published under summary, addresses, supplementary information, purpose of the system, policies and practices for storage of records, administrative safeguards, record access procedures, and the history section. These sections are amended to refine previously published information about the system of records. The dates, further information contact, system name, security classification, system location, system manager, authority for maintenance of the system, categories of individuals covered by the system, categories of records in the system, record source categories, routine uses, policies and practices for retrieval of records, policies and procedures for retention and disposal of records, contesting records procedures, notification procedures, and exemptions promulgated sections remain unchanged.

To further promote the use of mediation, conflict resolution, and labor relations management in accordance with FMCS's mission, FMCS sponsors and co-sponsors conferences. These conferences educate and train members of the public and private sectors. GovDelivery is a web-based email subscription management application, provided by Granicus, that allows members of the public to subscribe to get information from the FMCS via email. Subscribers can choose from numerous subscriptions offered by FMCS, including, but not limited to, press releases, training opportunities, and event-related notifications. Attendees and participants may subscribe via a secure web page, to receive FMCS emails through a signup page on fmcs.gov.

On June 15, 1984, OMB delegated to the Board authority under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) to approve and assign OMB control numbers to collections of information conducted or sponsored by the Board. Board-approved collections of information are incorporated into the official OMB inventory of currently approved collections of information. The OMB inventory, as well as copies of the PRA Submission, supporting statements (which contain more detailed information about the information collections and burden estimates than this notice), and approved collection of information instrument(s) are available at https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain . These documents are also available on the Federal Reserve Board's public website at https://www.federalreserve.gov/apps/reportingforms/home/review or may be requested from the agency clearance officer, whose name appears above. On the page displayed at the link above, you can find the supporting information by referencing the collection identifier, FR HMDA LAR.

Collection title: Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Disclosure Requirements Associated with the CFPB's Home Mortgage Disclosure Act Loan/Application Register Required by Regulation C.

Collection identifier: FR HMDA LAR.

OMB control number: 7100-0247.

General description of collection: The HMDA was enacted in 1975 and is implemented by Regulation C. Generally, the HMDA requires certain depository and non-depository institutions that make certain mortgage loans to collect, report, and disclose data about originations and purchases of mortgage loans, as well as loan applications that do not result in originations (for example, applications that are denied or withdrawn).

The FR HMDA LAR is the Board's information collection associated with the CFPB's Regulation C. The FR HMDA LAR is used to (1) help determine whether financial institutions are serving the housing needs of their communities, (2) assist public officials in distributing public-sector investments so as to attract private investment to areas where it is needed, and (3) assist in identifying possible discriminatory lending patterns and enforcing anti-discrimination statutes.

Frequency: Quarterly and annually.

Respondents: Except those that are supervised by the CFPB: state member banks, their subsidiaries, subsidiaries of bank holding companies, subsidiaries of savings and loan holding companies, U.S. branches and agencies of foreign banks (other than federal branches, federal agencies, and insured state branches of foreign banks), commercial lending companies owned or controlled by foreign banks, and organizations operating under section 25 or 25A of the Federal Reserve Act (12 U.S.C. 601-604a; 611-631).

Total estimated number of respondents: 654.

Total estimated annual burden hours: 960,235.

Current actions: On June 7, 2024, the Board published a notice in the Federal Register (89 FR 48636) requesting public comment for 60 days on the extension, without revision, of the FR HMDA LAR. The comment period for this notice expired on August 6, 2024. The Board did not receive any comments.

On June 15, 1984, OMB delegated to the Board authority under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) to approve and assign OMB control numbers to collections of information conducted or sponsored by the Board. In exercising this delegated authority, the Board is directed to take every reasonable step to solicit comment. In determining whether to approve a collection of information, the Board will consider all comments received from the public and other agencies.

During the comment period for this proposal, a copy of the proposed PRA OMB submission, including the draft reporting form and instructions, supporting statement (which contains more detail about the information collection and burden estimates than this notice), and other documentation, will be made available on the Board's public website at https://www.federalreserve.gov/apps/reportingforms/home/review or may be requested from the agency clearance officer, whose name appears above. On the page displayed at the link above, you can find the supporting information by referencing the collection identifier, FR 4027. Final versions of these documents will be made available at https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain, if approved.

The Board invites public comment on the following information collection, which is being reviewed under authority delegated by the OMB under the PRA. Comments are invited on the following:

a. Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the Board's functions, including whether the information has practical utility;

b. The accuracy of the Board's estimate of the burden of the proposed information collection, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

c. Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected;

d. Ways to minimize the burden of information collection on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and

e. Estimates of capital or startup costs and costs of operation, maintenance, and purchase of services to provide information.

At the end of the comment period, the comments and recommendations received will be analyzed to determine the extent to which the Board should modify the proposal.

Collection title: Recordkeeping Provisions Associated with the Guidance on Sound Incentive Compensation Policies.

Collection identifier: FR 4027.

OMB control number: 7100-0327.

General description of collection: The interagency Guidance on Sound Incentive Compensation Policies (the Guidance) is intended to assist banking organizations in designing and implementing incentive compensation arrangements that do not encourage imprudent risk-taking and that are consistent with the safety and soundness of the organization. The Guidance contains voluntary recordkeeping activities. With respect to organizations regulated by the Board, the voluntary Guidance applies to U.S. bank holding companies, savings and loan holding companies, state member banks, Edge and agreement corporations, and the U.S. operations of foreign banks with a branch, agency, or commercial lending company subsidiary in the United States (collectively, banking organizations).

Frequency: As needed.

Respondents: Banking organizations, as defined above.

Total estimated number of respondents: 5,122.

Total estimated annual burden hours: 205,440.

On June 15, 1984, OMB delegated to the Board authority under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) to approve and assign OMB control numbers to collections of information conducted or sponsored by the Board. Board-approved collections of information are incorporated into the official OMB inventory of currently approved collections of information. The OMB inventory, as well as copies of the PRA Submission, supporting statements (which contain more detailed information about the information collections and burden estimates than this notice), and approved collection of information instrument(s) are available at https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain . These documents are also available on the Federal Reserve Board's public website at https://www.federalreserve.gov/apps/reportingforms/home/review or may be requested from the agency clearance officer, whose name appears above. On the page displayed at the link above, you can find the supporting information by referencing the collection identifier, FR Z.

Collection title: Recordkeeping and Disclosure Requirements Associated with CFPB's Regulation Z.

Collection identifier: FR Z.

OMB control number: 7100-0199.

General description of collection: The Truth in Lending Act (TILA) and Regulation Z require creditors to provide consumers with disclosures about the costs, terms, and related information regarding a wide range of credit products for personal, family, or household purposes. Depending on the credit product, required disclosures include information that must be provided at the time of the consumer's application for credit, at consummation (for closed-end credit) or account-opening (for open-end credit), and throughout the term of the loan. The TILA and Regulation Z also contain rules concerning recordkeeping and credit advertising.

The FR Z is the Board's information collection associated with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's (CFPB's) Regulation Z. FR Z is used to promote the informed use of credit by consumers for personal, family, or household purposes by requiring these disclosures about the terms and costs of these products, as well as ensuring that consumers are provided with timely information on the nature and costs of the residential real estate settlement process.

Frequency: Event-generated.

Respondents: State member banks with assets of $10 billion or less that are not affiliated with an insured depository institution with assets over $10 billion (irrespective of the consolidated assets of any holding company); non-depository affiliates of such state member banks; and non-depository affiliates of bank holding companies that are not affiliated with an insured depository institution with assets over $10 billion.

Total estimated number of respondents: 3,695.

Total estimated annual burden hours: 387,079.

Current actions: On June 7, 2024, the Board published a notice in the Federal Register (89 FR 48645) requesting public comment for 60 days on the extension, without revision, of the FR Z. The comment period for this notice expired on August 6, 2024. The Board did not receive any comments.

On June 15, 1984, OMB delegated to the Board authority under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) to approve and assign OMB control numbers to collections of information conducted or sponsored by the Board. In exercising this delegated authority, the Board is directed to take every reasonable step to solicit comment. In determining whether to approve a collection of information, the Board will consider all comments received from the public and other agencies.

During the comment period for this proposal, a copy of the proposed PRA OMB submission, including the draft reporting form and instructions, supporting statement (which contains more detail about the information collection and burden estimates than this notice), and other documentation, will be made available on the Board's public website at https://www.federalreserve.gov/apps/reportingforms/home/review or may be requested from the agency clearance officer, whose name appears above. On the page displayed at the link above, you can find the supporting information by referencing the collection identifier, FR K. Final versions of these documents will be made available at https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain, if approved.

The Board invites public comment on the following information collection, which is being reviewed under authority delegated by the OMB under the PRA. Comments are invited on the following:

a. Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the Board's functions, including whether the information has practical utility;

b. The accuracy of the Board's estimate of the burden of the proposed information collection, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

c. Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected;

d. Ways to minimize the burden of information collection on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and

e. Estimates of capital or startup costs and costs of operation, maintenance, and purchase of services to provide information.

At the end of the comment period, the comments and recommendations received will be analyzed to determine the extent to which the Board should modify the proposal.

Collection title: Recordkeeping Requirements of Regulation H and Regulation K Associated with the Procedures for Monitoring Bank Secrecy Act Compliance.

Collection identifier: FR K.

OMB control number: 7100-0310.

General description of collection: Section 208.63 of the Board's Regulation H—Membership of State Banking Institutions in the Federal Reserve System (12 CFR part 208) requires state member banks to establish and maintain in writing procedures reasonably designed to ensure and monitor compliance with the provisions of the Bank Secrecy Act (BSA) and its implementing regulations. Sections 211.5(m)(1) and 211.24(j)(1) of the Board's Regulation K—International Banking Operations (12 CFR part 211) impose those same requirements on Edge and agreement corporations and, except for a federal branch or a federal agency or a state branch that is insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), the U.S. branches, agencies, and representative offices of foreign banks operating in the United States.

Frequency: One-time and on occasion.

Respondents: State member banks; Edge and agreement corporations; and U.S. branches, agencies, and representative offices of foreign banks operating in the United States, except for a federal branch or a federal agency or a state branch that is insured by the FDIC.

Total estimated number of respondents: 878.

Total estimated annual burden hours: 3,544.

On June 15, 1984, OMB delegated to the Board authority under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) to approve and assign OMB control numbers to collections of information conducted or sponsored by the Board. Board-approved collections of information are incorporated into the official OMB inventory of currently approved collections of information. The OMB inventory, as well as copies of the PRA Submission, supporting statements (which contain more detailed information about the information collections and burden estimates than this notice), and approved collection of information instrument(s) are available at https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain. These documents are also available on the Federal Reserve Board's public website at https://www.federalreserve.gov/apps/reportingforms/home/review or may be requested from the agency clearance officer, whose name appears above. On the page displayed at the link above, you can find the supporting information by referencing the collection identifier, FR B.

Collection title: Recordkeeping and Disclosure Requirements Associated with CFPB's Regulation B.

Collection identifier: FR B.

OMB control number: 7100-0201.

General description of collection: The Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA) was enacted in 1974 and is implemented by the CFPB's Regulation B. The ECOA prohibits discrimination in any aspect of a credit transaction because of race, color, religion, national origin, sex, marital status, age, receipt of public assistance, or the fact that the applicant has in good faith exercised any right under the Consumer Credit Protection Act. To aid in implementation of this prohibition, the statute and Regulation B subject creditors to various mandatory disclosure requirements, notification provisions informing applicants of action taken on credit applications, provision of appraisal reports in connection with mortgages, credit history reporting, monitoring rules, and recordkeeping requirements. The FR B is the Board's information collection associated with the CFPB's Regulation B for institutions the Board supervises.

Frequency: Event generated and annually.

Respondents: Except those that are supervised by the CFPB: state member banks, their subsidiaries, subsidiaries of bank holding companies, subsidiaries of savings and loan holding companies, U.S. branches and agencies of foreign banks (other than federal branches, federal agencies, and insured state branches of foreign banks), commercial lending companies owned or controlled by foreign banks, and organizations operating under section 25 or 25A of the Federal Reserve Act (12 U.S.C. 601-604a; 611-631).

Total estimated number of respondents: 841.

Total estimated annual burden hours: 81,346.

Current actions: On July 1, 2024, the Board published a notice in the Federal Register (89 FR 54463) requesting public comment for 60 days on the extension, without revision, of the FR B. The comment period for this notice expired on August 30, 2024. The Board did not receive any comments.

Description: The following activities are associated with the Child and Family Services and Reviews (CFSR) collection: CFSR Statewide Assessment; CFSR On-site Review; and the CFSR Program Improvement Plan. The collection of information for review of state child and family services programs (45 CFR 1355.33(b), 1355.33(c) and 1355.35(a)) is to determine whether such programs are in substantial conformity with state plan requirements under titles IV-B and IV-E of the Social Security Act (the Act) and is authorized by section 1123(a) [42 U.S.C. 1320a-2a] of the Act. The CFSR looks at the outcomes related to safety, permanency and well-being of children served by the child welfare system and at seven systemic factors that support the outcomes. The information collection is needed to monitor state plan requirements under titles IV-B and IV-E of the Act and is required by federal statute. The resultant information will allow ACF to determine if states are in compliance with state plan requirements and are achieving desired outcomes for children and families. If necessary, ACF will require states to revise applicable statutes, rules, policies, and procedures, and provide proper training to staff, through the development and implementation of program improvement plans. The CFSR reviews not only address conformity with state plan requirements but also assist states in enhancing the capacities to serve children and families. In computing the number of burden hours for this information collection, ACF based the annual burden estimates on ACF's and states' experiences in conducting reviews and developing program improvement plans.

Respondents: State Title IV-E Agencies.

Annual Burden Estimates

Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 20,878.

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 1320a-2a.

On October 16, 2024, CISA published a request for comment on voluntary, draft Product Security Bad Practices guidance (89 FR 83508). In the draft guidance, we provided an overview of product security practices that are deemed exceptionally risky, particularly for organizations supporting critical infrastructure or national critical functions (NCFs), and it provides recommendations for software manufacturers to voluntarily mitigate these risks. The guidance contained in the document is non-binding, and while CISA encourages organizations to avoid these bad practices, the document imposes no requirement on them to do so. The draft guidance is scoped to software manufacturers who develop software products and services, including on-premises software, cloud services, and software as a service (SaaS), used in support of critical infrastructure or NCFs. The request for comment provided for a 45-day comment period, set to close on December 2, 2024. CISA received requests to extend the deadline given the Thanksgiving holiday. Therefore, the comment period is now open through December 16, 2024.

This notice is issued under the authority of 6 U.S.C. 652 and 659.

All interested stakeholders are invited to comment on this notice and the security requirements described herein by submitting written data, comments, views, or arguments using the method identified in the ADDRESSES section. Interested stakeholders may view a copy of the proposed security requirements on CISA's website by visiting https://www.cisa.gov and searching for “Proposed Security Requirements for Restricted Transactions.” A copy of the proposed security requirements is also included in the docket for this notice and request for comment, docket number CISA-2024-0029. All members of the public are invited to comment including, but not limited to, specialists in the field, academic experts, industry stakeholders, and public interest groups.

Instructions: All submissions must include the agency name and Docket ID for this notice. Comments may be submitted electronically via the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal.

To submit comments electronically:

1. Go to www.regulations.gov and enter CISA-2024-0029 in the search field,

2. Click the “Comment Now!” icon, complete the required fields, and

3. Enter or attach your comments.

All submissions, including attachments and other supporting materials, will become part of the public record and may be subject to public disclosure. CISA reserves the right to publish relevant comments publicly, unedited and in their entirety. Personal information, such as account numbers or Social Security numbers, or names of other individuals, should not be included. Do not submit confidential business information or otherwise sensitive or protected information. All comments received will be posted to http://www.regulations.gov. Commenters are encouraged to identify the number of the specific topic or topics that they are addressing.

Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or comments received, go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for the Docket ID.

On February 28, 2024, the President issued E.O. 14117 entitled “Preventing Access to Americans' Bulk Sensitive Personal Data and U.S. Government-Related Data by Countries of Concern” (the “Order”), pursuant to his authority under the Constitution and laws of the United States, including the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq. ), the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1601 et seq. ), and section 301 of Title 3, United States Code. In the Order, the President expanded the scope of the national emergency declared in E.O. 13873 of May 15, 2019 “Securing the Information and Communications Technology and Services Supply Chain,” and further addressed the national emergency with additional measures in E.O. 14034 of June 9, 2021, “Protecting Americans' Sensitive Data from Foreign Adversaries.” Specifically, Section 2(a) of E.O. 14117 directs the Attorney General, in coordination with the Secretary of Homeland Security and in consultation with the heads of relevant agencies, to issue, subject to public notice and comment, regulations that prohibit or otherwise restrict United States persons from engaging in any acquisition, holding, use, transfer, transportation, or exportation of, or dealing in, any property in which a foreign country or national thereof has any interest (“transaction”), where the transaction: (i) involves bulk sensitive personal data or United States Government-related data, as defined by final rules implementing the Order; (ii) is a member of a class of transactions that has been determined by the Attorney General to pose an unacceptable risk to the national security of the United States because the transactions may enable countries of concern or covered persons to access bulk sensitive personal data or United States Government-related data in a manner that contributes to the national emergency described in the Order; and (iii) meets other criteria specified by the Order. 1

Among other things, the E.O., at Section 2(c) instructs the Attorney General, in coordination with the Secretary of Homeland Security and in consultation with the relevant agencies, to issue regulations identifying specific categories of transactions (“restricted transactions”) that meet the criteria described in (ii) above for which the Attorney General determines that security requirements, to be established by the Secretary of Homeland Security through the Director of CISA in accordance with Section 2(d) of the Order, adequately mitigate the risks of access by countries of concern or covered persons  2 to bulk sensitive personal data or United States Government-related data. In turn, Section 2(d) directs the Secretary of Homeland Security, acting through the Director of CISA, to propose, seek public comment on, and publish those security requirements, and Section 2(e) delegates to the Secretary of Homeland Security the President's powers under IEPPA as necessary to carry out Section 2(d).

On March 5, 2024, DOJ published an advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) explaining a proposed framework that DOJ is considering for its forthcoming rules that would regulate certain data transactions involving bulk U.S. sensitive personal data and government-related data, as DOJ proposed to define these terms in the ANPRM. 89 FR 15780. The ANPRM states that DOJ is considering identifying three classes of restricted data transactions to address critical risk areas to the extent they involve countries of concern or covered persons and bulk U.S. sensitive personal data: vendor agreements; employment agreements; and investment agreements. 89 FR 15783. If implemented as described, such categories of transactions would be restricted, and otherwise prohibited unless they meet the security requirements developed by DHS in coordination with DOJ. See 89 FR 15788. The ANPRM includes an outline of what the security requirements might entail. 89 FR 15795. Through the ANPRM, DOJ also proposes a framework for enforcement of its regulations. See 89 FR 15797-15798.

DOJ is issuing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM), Provisions Pertaining to Preventing Access to U.S. Sensitive Personal Data and Government-Related Data by Countries of Concern or Covered Persons, [DOJ Docket No. NSD-104, RIN 1124-AA01], in the proposed rule section of this issue of the Federal Register for public comment. Through this notice, CISA announces the proposed security requirements applicable to the classes of restricted transactions defined in DOJ's NPRM and requests public comment on the content of the security requirements.

The primary goal of the proposed security requirements is to address national-security and foreign-policy threats that arise when countries of concern  3 and covered persons access bulk U.S. sensitive personal data or U.S. government-related data that may be implicated by the categories of restricted transactions. As explained in E.O. 14117, unrestricted transfers of Americans' bulk sensitive personal data and U.S. government-related data to countries of concern present a range of threats to national security and foreign policy. See 89 FR 15421. Access to bulk sensitive personal data and government-related data can allow countries of concern to engage in malicious cyber-enabled activities and malign foreign influence. See 89 FR 15422. With access to such data, countries of concern can track and build profiles on U.S. individuals, including members of the military and Federal employees and contractors, for illicit purposes such as blackmail and espionage. Id. Countries of concern can also use access to this data to collect information on activists, academics, journalists, dissidents, political figures, or members of non-governmental organizations or marginalized communities to intimidate them; curb political opposition; limit freedoms of expression, peaceful assembly, or association; or enable other forms of suppression of civil liberties. Id. In making this assessment, DOJ noted that the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) has assessed that adversaries view data, including personally identifiable information on U.S. citizens, “as a strategic resource” to increase the effectiveness of their espionage, influence, kinetic, and cyber-attack operations and provide a strategic advantage over the United States. See id. (citing Office of the Director of National Intelligence, Annual Threat Assessment of the U.S. Intelligence Community at 26 (Feb. 6, 2023), https://perma.cc/4B2Y-7NVD ). DOJ assessed that advanced technologies, including big-data analytics, artificial intelligence, and high-performance computing, increase the ability of countries of concern to analyze and manipulate large tranches of data to more effectively target, influence, and coerce people in the United States. See 89 FR 15781 and E.O. 14117.

The proposed security requirements are designed to mitigate the risk of sharing bulk U.S. sensitive personal data or U.S. government-related data with countries of concern or covered persons through restricted transactions. 4 They do this by imposing conditions specifically on the covered data that may be shared as part of a restricted transaction, on the covered systems more broadly (both terms CISA is proposing to define within the security requirements), and on the organization as a whole. While the proposed requirements on covered systems and on an organization's governance of those systems apply more broadly than to the data at issue and the restricted transaction itself, CISA assesses that implementation of these requirements is necessary to validate that the organization has the technical capability and sufficient governance structure to appropriately select, successfully implement, and continue to apply the proposed covered data-level security requirements in a way that addresses the risks identified by DOJ for the restricted transactions. For example, to ensure and validate that a covered system denies covered persons access to covered data, it is necessary to maintain audit logs of accesses as well as organizational processes to utilize those logs. Similarly, it is necessary for an organization to develop identity management processes and systems to establish an understanding of which persons may have access to different data sets.

In addition to proposed requirements on covered systems, applying security requirements on the covered data itself that may be accessed in a restricted transaction is also necessary to address the risks. The specific requirements that are most technologically and logistically appropriate for different types of restricted transactions may vary. For example, some transactions may be amenable to approaches that minimize data or process it in such a way that does not reveal covered data to covered persons. In other cases, techniques such as access control and encryption may be more appropriate to deny any access by covered persons to covered data. The proposed security requirements contemplate multiple options to minimize the risk to covered data, though all the options build upon the foundation of the proposed requirements imposed on covered systems and the organization as a whole. While CISA is proposing that U.S. persons  5 engaging in restricted transactions must implement all the organizational and covered-system level requirements, CISA proposes that such persons will have some flexibility to determine which combination of data-level requirements are sufficient to fully and effectively prevent access to covered data by covered persons and/or countries of concern, based on the nature of the transaction and the data at issue.

The proposed security requirements are divided into two sections: organizational and covered system-level requirements (Section I) and covered data-level requirements (Section II). The listed requirements were selected with the intent of directly mitigating the risk of access to covered data, with additional requirements included to ensure effective governance of that access, as well as approaches for establishing an auditable basis for compliance purposes. Requirements that directly mitigate the risk of access include I.B.1-2, I.B.4-6, and all data-level requirements (II.A.1-3, II.B.1-3, II.C, and II.D). Requirements included as a mechanism for ensuring proper implementation and governance of those access controls include I.A.1-7. Additional requirements incorporated as a mechanism for ensuring auditable compliance of the aforementioned access controls include I.B.3 and I.C. These proposed requirements reflect a minimum set of practices that CISA believes are required for effective data protection, as informed by CISA's operational experience. Through this notice, CISA seeks additional input based on the experience industry stakeholders. These requirements have been designed to be representative of broadly accepted industry best practices and are intended to address the needs of national security without imposing an unachievable burden on industry.

As directed by E.O. 14117, the proposed security requirements are based on National Institute of Standards & Technology (NIST) Cybersecurity Framework (CSF), and the NIST Privacy Framework (PF). 89 FR 15424. See NIST, Cybersecurity Framework ver. 2.0, available at https://www.nist.gov/cyberframework, and NIST, Privacy Framework ver. 1.0, available at https://www.nist.gov/privacy-framework. CISA has also leveraged existing performance goals, guidance, practices, and controls, including the CISA Cross-Sector Cybersecurity Performance Goals (CPGs), which are themselves based on the NIST CSF and PF. CISA, Cross-Sector Cybersecurity Performance Goals, available at https://www.cisa.gov/cross-sector-cybersecurity-performance-goals. By leveraging existing performance goals, guidance, practices, and controls, CISA hopes to mitigate the burden of understanding and implementing the security requirements where necessary. In the proposed security requirements, CISA included parentheticals noting the specific NIST CSF and PF provisions upon which the proposed security requirements are based. CISA is seeking additional public comment on these references.

The DOJ NPRM proposes to require, consistent with E.O. 14117, that United States persons engaging in restricted transactions must comply with the final security requirements by incorporating the standards by reference.

Finally, the proposed security requirements include a definitions section. To the extent the proposed requirements use a term already proposed to be defined in the DOJ rulemaking, CISA's use of that term in the proposed security requirement would carry the same meaning. For the purpose of these proposed security requirements, CISA proposes to include definitions for six terms used exclusively in the proposed security requirements:

• Asset. CISA proposes to define the term to mean data, personnel, devices, systems, and facilities that enable the organization to achieve business purposes. This proposed definition is derived from the CSF NIST CSF version 1.1, which defined asset as “[t]he data, personnel, devices, systems, and facilities that enable the organization to achieve business purposes.”

• Covered data. CISA proposes to define the term to mean the two categories of data identified by the E.O. and that DOJ is proposing to regulate—bulk U.S. sensitive personal data or government-related data.

• Information system. CISA proposes to define this term consistent with the definition in the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3502. 6 The term would mean a discrete set of information resources organized for the collection, processing, maintenance, use, sharing, dissemination, or disposition of information.

• Covered system. CISA proposes to define this term as a specific type of information system that is used to conduct a number of activities related to covered data as part of a restricted transaction. These activities are drawn from a combination of the activities in the proposed definition of information system in the proposed security requirements and the activities in the DOJ ANPRM's proposed definition of access. See 89 FR 15788; proposed 28 CFR 202.201. The term would mean an information system used to obtain, read, copy, decrypt, edit, divert, release, affect, alter the state of, view, receive, collect, process, maintain, use, share, disseminate, or dispose of covered data as part of a restricted transaction, regardless of whether the data is encrypted, anonymized, pseudonymized, or de-identified.

• Network. CISA proposes to define this term, which CISA developed consistent with the definition of the term in NIST Special Publication 800-171 rev. 3, Protecting Controlled Unclassified Information in Nonfederal Systems and Organizations. The term would mean a system of interconnected components, which may include routers, hubs, cabling, telecommunications controllers, key distribution centers, and technical control devices.

CISA is committed to seeking and incorporating public input into its approach to the development and content of the security requirements required by E.O. 14117. The proposed security requirements are available for review on CISA's website by visiting https://www.cisa.gov and searching for “Proposed Security Requirements for Restricted Transactions.” A copy of the proposed security requirements is also included in the docket for this notice and request for comment, docket number CISA-2024-0029. Below is a list of questions regarding the proposed security requirements for which CISA believes feedback could be particularly useful. CISA seeks a balanced approach to development of the security requirements, which would mitigate the risks of access to Americans' bulk sensitive personal data or government-related data by countries of concern while accounting for the impact that adopting these measures may have on those entities that would implement them. CISA encourages public comment on these topics and any other topics that commenters believe may be useful to CISA in the development of the forthcoming security requirements. The type of feedback that is most useful to the agency will identify specific approaches that CISA may want to consider and provide information supporting why the approach would foster a cost-effective and balanced approach. As discussed in more detail below, commenters may want to consider submitting views on organizational- and system-level requirements and/or data-level requirements. Feedback that contains specific information, data, or recommendations is more useful to CISA than generic feedback that omits these components. For comments that contain any numerical estimates, CISA encourages the commenter to provide any assumptions made in calculating the numerical estimates.

Below is a non-exhaustive list of questions that are meant to assist members of the public in formulating their comments in response to this notice. The list of questions is not intended to restrict the issues that commenters may address. For more information on the proposed regulatory structure in which the security requirements will apply, please review DOJ's NPRM, Provisions Pertaining to Preventing Access to U.S. Sensitive Personal Data and Government-Related Data by Countries of Concern or Covered Persons, [DOJ Docket No. NSD-104, RIN 1124-AA01], published in today's proposed rule section of the Federal Register for public comment.

1. Are the proposed security requirements sufficiently robust to mitigate the risks of access to Americans' bulk sensitive personal data or government-related data by countries of concern?

2. Are the proposed organizational- and system-level requirements sufficient to provide U.S. persons engaging in restricted transactions confidence that logical and physical access to covered data is sufficiently managed to deny access to covered persons or countries of concern?

3. Do the security requirements provide sufficient flexibility, clarity, and specificity for the types of restricted transactions typically engaged in by U.S. entities, including to avoid overly burdening commercial activity not involving covered data while providing sufficient level of detail to aid in compliance verification?

4. Are there other data-level requirements (beyond those listed in Section II of the proposed security requirements) that CISA should consider that would enable U.S. entities to engage in commercial transactions without revealing covered data to covered persons or countries of concern?

5. The current approach allows for flexibility to determine which data-level requirements are sufficient to fully and effectively prevent access to covered data by covered persons and/or countries of concern. Are there data-level requirements that CISA should consider requiring in all cases?

6. What additional interpretive guidance would be helpful to U.S. entities in determining which data-level requirements should be applied based on the nature of the transaction and the data at issue?

7. What substantive requirements should CISA consider in Section II.C. to further define appropriate privacy-enhancing technologies that may be used within restricted transactions?

8. Should the standards for data aggregation in Section II.A differ from the proposed definition of bulk in the DOJ regulations? If so, are there requirements CISA should impose for U.S. persons engaged in restricted transactions to ensure that covered data is not re-constructable through aggregation while permitting more granular thresholds?

9. Are there additional substantive standards that should be added to the data-level requirements in Section II to better ensure their implementation can achieve the policy goal of not permitting access to covered data by covered persons or countries of concern?

10. To what extent could the measures described currently be reversed, broken, or circumvented by a technologically sophisticated actor? Are there additional conditions that would better or more appropriately mitigate this risk? If so, please describe them in detail.

11. To what extent could the measures described be rendered reversible, breakable, or able to be circumvented by anticipated future technology advances? What type of future technology advances would pose the greatest risk to these types of protective measures?

12. Would it be useful to the entities likely to undertake restricted transactions if CISA mapped these requirements to ISO-27001 or example controls from NIST Special Publication 800-171 ( e.g., to facilitate compliance audits)?

In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA; 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. ) and its implementing regulations at 5 CFR 1320, all information collections require approval under the PRA. We may not conduct or sponsor and you are not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

As part of our continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burdens, we invite the public and other Federal agencies to comment on new, proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps us assess the impact of our information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand our information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format.

On August 7, 2024, we published in the Federal Register (89 FR 64476) a notice of our intent to request that OMB renew this information collection. In that notice, we solicited comments for 60 days, ending on October 7, 2024. In a continued effort to increase public awareness of, and participation in, our public commenting processes associated with information collection requests, the Service also published the Federal Register notice on Regulations.gov (Docket No. FWS-HQ-MB-2024-0093) to provide the public with an additional method to submit comments (in addition to the typical U.S. mail submission method). We received an anonymous comment in response to that notice which did not address the information collection requirements; therefore, no response is required.

We are especially interested in public comment addressing the following:

(1) Whether or not the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether or not the information will have practical utility;

(2) The accuracy of our estimate of the burden for this collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

(3) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

(4) How might the agency 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, e.g., permitting electronic submission of response.

Comments that you submit in response to this notice are a matter of public record. We will include or summarize each comment in our request to OMB to approve this ICR. Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.

Abstract: The Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA; 16 U.S.C. 703 et seq. ) prohibits the unauthorized take of migratory birds and authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to regulate take of migratory birds in the United States. Under this authority, we control the hunting of migratory game birds through regulations in 50 CFR part 20. On January 1, 1991, we banned lead shot for hunting waterfowl and coots in the United States.

This is a non-form collection. Regulations at 50 CFR 20.134 outline the application and approval process for new types of nontoxic shot. When considering approval of a candidate material as nontoxic, we must ensure that it is not hazardous in the environment and that secondary exposure (ingestion of spent shot or its components) is not a hazard to migratory birds. To make that decision, we require each applicant to provide information about the solubility and toxicity of the candidate material. Additionally, for law enforcement purposes, a noninvasive field detection device must be available to distinguish candidate shot from lead shot. This information constitutes the bulk of an application for approval of nontoxic shot. The Director uses the data in the application to decide whether to approve a material as nontoxic.

Title of Collection: Approval Procedures for Nontoxic Shot and Shot Coatings (50 CFR 20.134).

OMB Control Number: 1018-0067.

Form Number: None.

Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.

Respondents/Affected Public: Businesses that produce and/or market approved nontoxic shot types or nontoxic shot coatings.

Total Estimated Number of Annual Respondents: 1.

Total Estimated Number of Annual Responses: 1.

Estimated Completion Time per Response: 3,200 hours.

Total Estimated Number of Annual Burden Hours: 3,200 hours.

Respondent's Obligation: Required to obtain or retain a benefit.

Frequency of Collection: On occasion.

Total Estimated Annual Nonhour Burden Cost: $26,630 ($1,630 application processing fee and $25,000 for solubility testing).

An agency may not conduct or sponsor and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

The authority for this action is the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. ).

We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce the availability of a proposed general conservation plan (GCP), as well as an associated draft environmental assessment (EA), for routine development projects in New York, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia that may impact Indiana bat ( Myotis sodalis ), northern long-eared bat ( Myotis septentrionalis ), and/or tricolored bat ( Perimyotis subflavus ). We invite comments from the public and local, State, Tribal, and Federal agencies.

We developed and now make available the GCP to provide a streamlined mechanism to assist future individual applicants engaged in certain otherwise lawful routine development projects to meet statutory and regulatory requirements of a habitat conservation plan for issuance of an incidental take permit under section 10(a)(1)(B) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA; 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq. ), while promoting conservation of the Indiana bat ( Myotis sodalis ), the northern long-eared bat ( Myotis septentrionalis ), and the tricolored bat ( Perimyotis subflavus ). The GCP includes measures to minimize and mitigate impacts to the covered species. Permits issued under the GCP would authorize incidental take of the covered species for up to 15 years after the GCP becomes effective. We developed the GCP in accordance with section 10(a)(2)(A) of the ESA (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq. ).

We prepared the draft EA in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. ) to evaluate the potential effects to the natural and human environment resulting from issuing permits under the GCP.

Section 9 of the ESA and its implementing regulations prohibit the “take” of animal species listed as endangered or threatened. Take is defined under the ESA as to “harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct” (16 U.S.C. 1532). However, under section 10(a)(1)(B) of the ESA, we may issue permits to authorize take of listed species that is incidental to, and not the purpose of, carrying out an otherwise lawful activity ( i.e., “incidental taking” (50 CFR 17.3)). Regulations governing permits for the incidental taking of endangered and threatened species, respectively, are found in the Code of Federal Regulations at 50 CFR 17.22 and 50 CFR 17.32.

The proposed action is approval of the GCP that has been prepared by the Service in accordance with section 10(a)(2)(A) of the ESA to provide a more efficient and standardized mechanism for proponents engaged in certain otherwise lawful routine development projects on non-Federal lands. The proposed GCP describes the routine development activities for which the plan establishes associated conservation measures an applicant would agree to undertake first to avoid and then to minimize and mitigate for the impacts of the incidental take of the listed (and proposed) bat species to the maximum extent practicable, and to ensure that incidental take will not appreciably reduce the likelihood of the survival and recovery of these species in the wild. The GCP would allow private individuals, local and State agencies, and other non-Federal entities to meet the statutory and regulatory requirements of the ESA by applying for a permit and complying with the requirements of the GCP, including all applicable avoidance, minimization, and mitigation actions. We propose that applications for projects falling within the GCP and which adopt all applicable plan requirements would meet the permit issuance criteria as required by section 10(a)(2)(B) of the ESA, thereby enabling the establishment of a programmatic permitting and conservation process to address a defined suite of project types impacting defined listed species within a defined planning area. The GCP would be available for adoption and use by eligible applicants for a period of 10 years. Individual permits issued through the streamlined GCP process may be authorized for a term of up to 5 years. Therefore, permittees would have up to 5 years to complete their projects, even if the permit is issued in the final year ( i.e., year 10) of the GCP. If a project proponent is unable to complete their covered activities during the duration of their permit, they can request a permit renewal (for up to 5 additional years) from the Service.

The proposed GCP would cover the bat species in table 1.

The draft EA provides the required NEPA documentation for the proposed Federal action (approval of a conservation plan and subsequent issuance of permits pursuant to section 10(a)(1)(B) of the ESA), providing information on the environmental baseline and a discussion of impacts to the human and natural environment that may occur as a result of implementation of the GCP. Importantly, the scope of the EA is limited to evaluation of the proposed GCP as a mechanism to standardize permit issuance for covered activities; this EA neither evaluates nor results in approval of the routine development activities. Land use approval(s) for individual projects would continue to be the responsibility of the local or State agency(ies) that have appropriate jurisdiction(s) over individual projects. A section 10(a)(1)(B) incidental take permit issued by the Service does not authorize the covered activities themselves; rather, it authorizes only the take of covered species resulting from those activities.

We are also considering a no-action alternative to the proposed action in the EA. Under this no-action alternative, the Service would not approve the proposed GCP as a standardized mechanism for compliance with section 10 of the ESA. Project proponents planning to conduct otherwise lawful routine development activities involving potential impacts to Indiana bat, northern long-eared bat, and/or tricolored bat would continue to develop project-specific HCPs in order to apply for and obtain permits authorizing those species to be taken.

All comments received, including names and addresses, will become part of the administrative record associated with this action. If you submit a comment via https://www.regulations.gov, your entire comment, including any personal identifying information such as your address, phone number, and email address, will be posted on the website.

If you submit a hardcopy comment that includes personal identifying information, you may request at the top of your document that we withhold this information from public review. However, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. We will post all hardcopy comments on https://www.regulations.gov.

The Service will evaluate the comments received to determine whether the GCP meets the requirements of section 10(a) of the ESA (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq. ). We will also conduct an intra-Service consultation pursuant to section 7 of the ESA to evaluate the effects of the proposed take. After considering the above findings, we will determine whether the permit issuance criteria of section 10(a)(l)(B) of the ESA have been met. If met, the Service will implement the GCP and issue ITPs to qualified applicants that agree to comply with all avoidance, minimization, and mitigation actions that apply to their proposed projects.

We provide this notice under section 10(c) of the ESA (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq. ) and its implementing regulations (50 CFR 17.22 and 17.32) and NEPA (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. ) and its implementing regulations (40 CFR 1500-1508 and 43 CFR 46).

The authorized officer for this action has reviewed the environmental analysis in the Final EIS and has selected the North and South Overburden Storage Facility Alternative (Preferred Alternative/Selected Alternative), along with the applicable Applicant-Committed Environmental Protection Measures (ACEPMs) specified in Sections 2.1.13 and 2.2.2 of the Final EIS. The BLM's selection is based on the environmental analysis in the Final EIS, which was published on September 20, 2024. There were no substantial changes to the Final EIS during the 30-day public availability period following publication. An errata sheet was issued following the Final EIS correcting Final EIS Page 4-41, fifth paragraph, line 8, from “approximately 100 feet” to “approximately 25 feet.”

The ROD approves the plan of operations for the Project (NVNV106205338) submitted to the BLM pursuant to 43 CFR 3809 and 3715, and the analysis in the Final EIS. The BLM has considered the analysis of the effectiveness of the mitigation measures, and has determined that implementation of the ROD, with the identified mitigation measures, will not cause unnecessary or undue degradation of the public lands and is consistent with applicable legal requirements.

In accordance with 40 CFR 1505.2(c), the mitigation measures and ACEPMs represent practicable means to avoid or minimize environmental harm from the BLM's Selected Alternative. The ACEPMs, which were developed to avoid or minimize environmental impacts resulting from the Selected Alternative, are part of the Plan. All ACEPMs were designed to avoid or minimize environmental impacts to resources affected by the Plan. All mitigation within the BLM's authority will be implemented and enforced.

The ROD is conditioned on compliance with the Biological Opinion issued by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) provided in Appendix A of the ROD and all other necessary local, State, and Federal approvals, authorizations, and permits. Other agencies, including but not limited to Esmeralda County and USFWS, are responsible for issuing and enforcing their own decisions and applicable authorizations for the Project.

Approval of the Project constitutes the final decision of the Department of the Interior (DOI) and, in accordance with the regulations at 43 CFR 4.410(a)(3) and Blue Star, Inc., 41 IBLA 333 (1979), is not subject to administrative appeal under DOI regulations at 43 CFR part 4.

The properties listed in this notice are being considered for listing or related actions in the National Register of Historic Places. Nominations for their consideration were received by the National Park Service before October 24, 2024. Pursuant to 36 CFR 60.13, comments are being accepted concerning the significance of the nominated properties under the National Register criteria for evaluation.

Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.

Nominations submitted by State or Tribal Historic Preservation Officers

Key: State, County, Property Name, Multiple Name (if applicable), Address/Boundary, City, Vicinity, Reference Number.

In accordance with the PRA and 5 CFR 1320.8(d)(1), we provide the general public and other Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on new, proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps us assess the impact of our information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand our information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format.

A Federal Register notice with a 60-day public comment period soliciting comments on this collection of information was published on July 12, 2024 (89 FR 57165). No comments were received.

As part of our continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burdens, we are again soliciting comments from the public and other Federal agencies on the proposed ICR that is described below. We are especially interested in public comment addressing the following:

(1) Whether or not the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether or not the information will have practical utility;

(2) The accuracy of our estimate of the burden for this collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

(3) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

(4) How might the agency 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, e.g., permitting electronic submission of response.

Comments that you submit in response to this notice are a matter of public record. Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.

Abstract: This authority and responsibility are among those delegated to BSEE. The regulations at 30 CFR 250, subpart C requirements concern pollution prevention and control and are the subject of this collection. This request also covers any related Notices to Lessees and Operators (NTLs) that BSEE issues to clarify, supplement, or provide additional guidance on some aspects of our regulations.

The information collected under Subpart C is used in our efforts to:

• record the location of items lost overboard to aid in recovery during site clearance activities on the lease;

• conduct operations according to all applicable regulations, requirements, and in a safe and workmanlike manner;

• properly handle for the protection of OCS workers and the environment the discharge or disposal of drill cuttings, sand, and other well solids, including those containing naturally occurring radioactive materials (NORM); and

• inspect facilities daily for the prevention of pollution and ensure that any observed problems are corrected.

Title of Collection: 30 CFR part 250, subpart C, Pollution Prevention and Control.

OMB Control Number: 1014-0023.

Form Number: None.

Type of Review: Revision of a currently approved collection.

Respondents/Affected Public: Potential respondents include Federal OCS oil, gas, and sulfur lessees and/or operators and holders of pipeline rights-of-way.

Total Estimated Number of Annual Respondents: Currently there are approximately 555 Federal OCS oil, gas, and sulfur lessees and holders of pipeline rights-of-way. Not all the potential respondents will submit information in any given year, and some may submit multiple times.

Total Estimated Number of Annual Responses: 3,168.

Estimated Completion Time per Response: Varies from 1 hour to 134 hours, depending on activity.

Total Estimated Number of Annual Burden Hours: 137,835.

Respondent's Obligation: Responses are mandatory.

Frequency of Collection: Submissions are generally on occasion, weekly, and daily.

Total Estimated Annual Nonhour Burden Cost: None.

An agency may not conduct, or sponsor and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

The authority for this action is the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. ).

Background. —On October 4, 2024, the Commission determined that the domestic interested party group response to its notice of institution (89 FR 54536, July 1, 2024) of the subject five-year reviews was adequate and that the respondent interested party group response was inadequate. The Commission did not find any other circumstances that would warrant conducting full reviews. 1 Accordingly, the Commission determined that it would conduct expedited reviews pursuant to section 751(c)(3) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(c)(3)). 2

For further information concerning the conduct of these reviews and rules of general application, consult the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, part 201, subparts A and B (19 CFR part 201), and part 207, subparts A, D, E, and F (19 CFR part 207).

Staff report. —A staff report containing information concerning the subject matter of the reviews has been placed in the nonpublic record, and will be made available to persons on the Administrative Protective Order service list for these reviews on December 30, 2024. A public version will be issued thereafter, pursuant to § 207.62(d)(4) of the Commission's rules.

Written submissions. —As provided in § 207.62(d) of the Commission's rules, interested parties that are parties to the reviews and that have provided individually adequate responses to the notice of institution, 3 and any party other than an interested party to the reviews may file written comments with the Secretary on what determinations the Commission should reach in the reviews. Comments are due on or before 5:15 p.m. on January 8, 2025 and may not contain new factual information. Any person that is neither a party to the five-year reviews nor an interested party may submit a brief written statement (which shall not contain any new factual information) pertinent to the reviews by January 8, 2025. However, should the Department of Commerce (“Commerce”) extend the time limit for its completion of the final results of its reviews, the deadline for comments (which may not contain new factual information) on Commerce's final results is three business days after the issuance of Commerce's results. If comments contain business proprietary information (BPI), they must conform with the requirements of §§ 201.6, 207.3, and 207.7 of the Commission's rules. The Commission's Handbook on Filing Procedures, available on the Commission's website at https://www.usitc.gov/documents/handbook_on_filing_procedures.pdf, elaborates upon the Commission's procedures with respect to filings.

In accordance with §§ 201.16(c) and 207.3 of the rules, each document filed by a party to the reviews must be served on all other parties to the reviews (as identified by either the public or BPI service list), and a certificate of service must be timely filed. The Secretary will not accept a document for filing without a certificate of service.

Determination. —The Commission has determined these reviews are extraordinarily complicated and therefore has determined to exercise its authority to extend the review period by up to 90 days pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 1675(c)(5)(B).

Authority: These reviews are being conducted under authority of title VII of the Act; this notice is published pursuant to § 207.62 of the Commission's rules.

Background A. Background on EEO-1 Reports

Multi-establishment employers must file annually a “Consolidated Report” (formerly known as a Type 2 Report) for all employees at the employer's headquarters as well as all its establishments, categorized by job category, sex, and race or ethnicity.

Since 1966, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has required eligible employers to submit workforce demographic data (EEO-1 Component 1) on an annual basis. All private employers that are covered by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended (Title VII) and that have 100 or more employees are required to file the workforce demographic data. 42 U.S.C. 2000e-8(c);29 CFR 1602.7. In addition, OFCCP's regulations require federal contractors  1 and first-tier subcontractors that are covered by Executive Order 11246 and that have 50 or more employees to file the EEO-1 Report. 41 CFR 60-1.7(a).

The EEO-1 Report is administered as a single data collection to meet the statistical needs of both EEOC and OFCCP. OFCCP's regulations describe the EEO-1 Report as being “promulgated jointly . . . [with] the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.” 41 CFR 60-1.7(a)(1). Employers submit their data to the EEOC. See EEOC, Agency Information Collection Activities: Existing Collection, 88 FR 27504 (May 2, 2023). OFCCP then obtains the EEO-1 data of federal contractors from the EEOC.

Section 709(e) of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 imposes criminal penalties and makes it unlawful for any officer or employee of EEOC from making public the employment data derived from any of its data collections prior to the institution of any proceeding under EEOC's authority involving such information. 42 U.S.C. 2000e-8(e). Because OFCCP obtains EEO-1 data for contractors under its own E.O. 11246 authority, some courts have held that the Title VII prohibition against disclosure provision does not apply to OFCCP. See; Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. General Services Admin., 509 F.2d 527, 529 (D.C. Cir. 1974). Accordingly, the EEO‐1 data of federal contractors received by OFCCP are subject to the provisions of FOIA, meaning that members of the public may file FOIA requests asking OFCCP to disclose such records in its possession.

Executive Order 12600 (E.O. 12600), published on June 23, 1987, established a formal process for notifying persons who submit confidential commercial information to the United States when that information becomes the subject of a FOIA request. 3 CFR 235 (1988), reprinted in 5 U.S.C. 552 note (2012 & supp. V 2017). Exemption 4 to the FOIA protects against the disclosure of “trade secrets and commercial or financial information obtained from a person [that is] privileged or confidential.” 5 U.S.C. 552(b)(4). E.O. 12600 is based on the principle that companies are entitled to notification and an opportunity to object to disclosure of this category of information before an agency makes a possible disclosure determination.

The Department's regulations implementing E.O. 12600 can be found at 29 CFR 70.26. These regulations require the agency to notify submitters of a FOIA request when it has reason to believe that the information requested may be protected from disclosure under Exemption 4 but has not yet made a determination. 29 CFR 70.26(d)(2). Further, the Department's regulations provide that when notification of a voluminous number of submitters is required, notice can be effectuated by posting and publishing it “in a place reasonably calculated to accomplish notification.” Id. at 70.26(j). Given OFCCP's best estimate that these FOIA requests cover at least 14,000 unique federal contractors, OFCCP is fulfilling its notification obligation through this Federal Register notice, a contemporaneous posting on the OFCCP website ( https://www.dol.gov/agencies/ofccp/submitter-notice-response-portal ), and notification to all federal contractors and federal contractor representatives that have registered and provided electronic mail contact information through the agency's Contractor Portal and/or have subscribed to OFCCP's GovDelivery electronic mail listserv.

Once notified, the Department's regulations state that submitters will be provided a reasonable time to respond to the notice. Id. at 70.26(e). If a submitter has any objection to disclosure, it is “required to submit a detailed written statement as to why the information is a trade secret or commercial or financial information that is privileged or confidential.” Id. If the agency receives a timely written objection, it will give careful consideration to the objection prior to making a decision whether the requested information should be disclosed or withheld under FOIA Exemption 4. E.O. 12600, Sec. 5. If the agency determines that disclosure is appropriate notwithstanding the submitter's objection, the agency will provide the submitter written notice of the reason for the decision, and a specified disclosure date that is a reasonable time subsequent to the notice. 29 CFR 70.26(f).

Consistent with E.O. 12600 and the Department's regulations, OFCCP is hereby notifying federal contractors that submitted a Consolidated EEO-1 Report for the 2021 reporting year (hereinafter Covered Contractors) of both aforementioned FOIA requests. 2 Covered Contractors have 40 days from the date of this Notice, or December 9, 2024, to submit to OFCCP a written objection to the disclosure of its 2021 Consolidated EEO-1 Report. Written objections must be received by OFCCP no later than this date. To facilitate this process, OFCCP has created a web form through which Covered Contractors may submit written objections, which can be found at https://www.dol.gov/agencies/ofccp/submitter-notice-response-portal. OFCCP strongly encourages Covered Contractors that wish to submit written objections to utilize this web form to facilitate processing. If utilizing the web form is not feasible, contractors may also submit written objections via email at OFCCPSubmitterResponse@dol.gov, or by mail to the contact provided in this notice. Regardless of the delivery system used, any objections filed by Covered Contractors must include the contractor's name, address, contact information for the contractor (or its representative), and should, at minimum, address the following questions in detail so that OFCCP may evaluate the objection to determine whether the information should be withheld or disclosed pursuant to FOIA Exemption 4:

1. What specific information from the 2021 EEO-1 Report does the contractor consider to be a trade secret or commercial or financial information?

2. What facts support the contractor's belief that this information is commercial or financial in nature?

3. Does the contractor customarily keep the requested information private or closely-held? What steps have been taken by the contractor to protect the confidentiality of the requested data, and to whom has it been disclosed?

4. Does the contractor contend that the government provided an express or implied assurance of confidentiality? If no, were there express or implied indications at the time the information was submitted that the government would publicly disclose the information?

5. How would disclosure of this information harm an interest of the contractor protected by Exemption 4 (such as by causing foreseeable harm to the contractor's economic or business interests)?

In the event that a Covered Contractor fails to respond to the notice within the time specified, it will be considered to have no objection to disclosure of the information. See 29 CFR 70.26(e). For Covered Contractors that do submit timely objections, OFCCP will independently evaluate the objection(s) submitted consistent with the agency's regulations described herein and other relevant legal authority. If OFCCP determines to disclose the information over the objection of the Covered Contractor, OFCCP will provide written notice to the Covered Contractor of the reasons the disclosure objections were not sustained, a description of the information that will be disclosed, and a specified disclosure date that is a reasonable time subsequent to the notice. Id. at 70.26(f).

This information collection protects miners by assuring that up-to-date, accurate mine maps contain the information needed to clarify the best alternatives for action during an emergency operation. Also, coal mine operators routinely use maps to create safe and effective development plans.

Mine maps are schematic depictions of critical mine infrastructure, such as water, power, transportation, ventilation, and communication systems. Using accurate, up-to-date maps during a disaster, mine emergency personnel can locate refuges for miners and identify sites of explosion potential; they can know where stationary equipment was placed, where ground was secured, and where they can best begin a rescue operation. During a disaster, maps can be crucial to the safety of the emergency personnel who must enter a mine to begin a search for survivors.

Mine maps may describe the current status of an operating mine or provide crucial information about a long-closed mine that is being reopened.

Coal mine operators use map information to develop safe and effective plans and to help determine hazards before beginning work in areas, such as abandoned underground mines or the worked-out and inaccessible areas of an active underground or surface mine. Abandoned mines or inaccessible areas of active mines may have water inundation potentials and explosive levels of methane or lethal gases. If an operator, unaware of the hazards, were to mine into such an area, miners could be killed or seriously injured. For additional substantive information about this ICR, see the related notice published in the Federal Register on July 12, 2024 (89 FR 57168).

Comments are invited on: (1) whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Department, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of the agency's estimates of the burden and cost of the collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information collection; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

This information collection is subject to the PRA. A Federal agency generally cannot conduct or sponsor a collection of information, and the public is generally not required to respond to an information collection, unless the OMB approves it and displays a currently valid OMB Control Number. In addition, notwithstanding any other provisions of law, no person shall generally be subject to penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information that does not display a valid OMB Control Number. See 5 CFR 1320.5(a) and 1320.6.

Agency: DOL-MSHA.

Title of Collection: Mine Mapping and Records of Opening, Closing, and Reopening of Mines.

OMB Control Number: 1219-0073.

Affected Public: Businesses or other for-profits.

Number of Respondents: 376.

Frequency: On occasion.

Number of Responses: 1,540.

Annual Burden Hours: 8,308 hours.

Total Estimated Annual Other Costs Burden: $5,134,836.