This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER

contains documents other than rules or

proposed rules that are applicable to the

public. Notices of hearings and investigations,

committee meetings, agency decisions and

rulings, delegations of authority, filing of

petitions and applications and agency

statements of organization and functions are

examples of documents appearing in this

section.

Notices Federal Register

106406 

Vol. 89, No. 249 

Monday, December 30, 2024 

1Admin. Conf. of the U.S., Statement #20, Agency 

Use of Artificial Intelligence, 86 FR 6616 (Jan. 22, 

2021). 

2 Id. 

3Admin. Conf. of the U.S., Recommendation 

2023–3, Using Algorithmic Tools in Retrospective 

Review of Agency Rules, 88 FR 42,681 (July 3, 

2023). 

4Admin. Conf. of the U.S., Recommendation 

2021–1, Managing Mass, Computer-Generated, and 

Falsely Attributed Comments, 86 FR 36,075 (July 8, 

2021). 

5Admin. Conf. of the U.S., Recommendation 

2022–3, Automated Legal Guidance at Federal 

Agencies, 87 FR 39,798 (July 5, 2022). 

6Recommendation 2023–3, supra note 3. For 

purposes of this Recommendation, ‘‘algorithmic 

tools’’ includes AI technologies but not basic 

scientific or computing tools. 

7See Admin. Conf. of the U.S., Recommendation 

2012–7, Agency Use of Third-Party Programs to 

ADMINISTRATIVE CONFERENCE OF 

THE UNITED STATES 

Adoption of Recommendations 

AGENCY: Administrative Conference of 

the United States. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: The Assembly of the 

Administrative Conference of the 

United States adopted three 

recommendations at its hybrid (virtual 

and in-person) Eighty-second Plenary 

Session: Using Algorithmic Tools in 

Regulatory Enforcement, Public 

Engagement in Agency Rulemaking 

Under the Good Cause Exemption, and 

Nonlawyer Assistance and 

Representation in Agency 

Adjudications. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

Recommendation 2024–5, Kazia 

Nowacki; Recommendation 2024–6, 

Benjamin Birkhill; and 

Recommendation 2024–7, Lea Robbins. 

For each of these recommendations the 

address and telephone number are: 

Administrative Conference of the 

United States, Suite 706 South, 1120 

20th Street NW, Washington, DC 20036; 

Telephone 202–480–2080. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

Administrative Conference Act, 5 U.S.C. 

591–596, established the Administrative 

Conference of the United States. The 

Conference studies the efficiency, 

adequacy, and fairness of the 

administrative procedures used by 

Federal agencies and makes 

recommendations to agencies, the 

President, Congress, and the Judicial 

Conference of the United States for 

procedural improvements (5 U.S.C. 

594(1)). For further information about 

the Conference and its activities, see 

www.acus.gov. 

The Assembly of the Conference met 

during its Eighty-second Plenary 

Session on December 12, 2024, to 

consider three proposed 

recommendations and conduct other 

business. All three recommendations 

were adopted. 

Recommendation 2024–5, Using 

Algorithmic Tools in Regulatory 

Enforcement. This recommendation 

provides best practices for using 

artificial intelligence, predictive 

analytics, and other algorithmic tools to 

support agencies’ regulatory 

enforcement efforts. It addresses the 

potential benefits and risks of using 

algorithmic tools to detect, investigate, 

and prosecute noncompliance with the 

law and identifies policies, practices, 

and organizational structures that 

agencies can put in place to ensure they 

enforce the law fairly, accurately, and 

efficiently. 

Recommendation 2024–6, Public 

Engagement in Agency Rulemaking 

Under the Good Cause Exemption. This 

recommendation provides best practices 

for public engagement when agencies 

find good cause to forgo notice-andcomment rulemaking procedures under 

the Administrative Procedure Act. It 

encourages agencies to use direct final 

rulemaking, interim final rulemaking, 

and alternative methods of public 

engagement to ensure robust public 

participation even when they rely 

properly on the good cause exemption. 

Recommendation 2024–7, Nonlawyer 

Assistance and Representation in 

Agency Adjudications. This 

recommendation provides best practices 

for agencies to increase the availability 

of nonlawyer representation and 

assistance to participants in their 

adjudicative systems. It provides 

guidance on the establishment of rules 

authorizing qualification or, as 

appropriate, accreditation of nonlawyer 

representatives; ways to make such 

processes accessible and transparent; 

and strategies for coordinating with 

other government agencies and 

nongovernmental organizations to 

increase the availability of 

representation and assistance. 

The Conference based its 

recommendations on research reports 

and prior history that are posted at: 

https://www.acus.gov/event/82ndplenary-session. 

Authority: 5 U.S.C. 595. 

Dated: December 23, 2024. 

Shawne C. McGibbon, 

General Counsel. 

Appendix—Recommendations of the 

Administrative Conference of the 

United States 

Administrative Conference Recommendation 

2024–5 

Using Algorithmic Tools in Regulatory 

Enforcement 

Adopted December 12, 2024 

The use of artificial intelligence (AI) and 

other algorithmic tools is changing how 

government agencies do their work. As the 

Administrative Conference has recognized, 

these tools ‘‘hold out the promise of lowering 

the cost of completing government tasks and 

improving the quality, consistency, and 

predictability of agencies’ decisions.’’ At the 

same time, these tools ‘‘raise concerns about 

the full or partial displacement of human 

decision making and discretion.’’ 1 The 

Conference adopted Statement #20, Agency 

Use of Artificial Intelligence, in 2020 to help 

agencies consider when and how to use 

algorithmic tools appropriately.2 More 

recently, it adopted specific 

recommendations addressing the use of 

algorithmic tools to review regulations,3

manage public comments,4 and provide 

guidance to the public.5

In this Recommendation, the Conference 

turns to the use of algorithmic tools in 

regulatory enforcement. An algorithmic tool 

is a computer-based process that ‘‘uses a 

series of rules or inferences drawn from data 

to transform specified inputs into outputs to 

make decisions or support decision 

making.’’ 6 Many agencies engage in 

regulatory enforcement—that is, detecting, 

investigating, and prosecuting potential 

violations of the laws they administer. These 

agencies are often ‘‘faced with assuring the 

compliance of an increasing number of 

entities and products without a 

corresponding growth in agency resources.’’ 7


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 249 / Monday, December 30, 2024 / Notices 106407 

Assess Regulatory Compliance, 78 FR 2941, 2941 

(Jan. 15, 2013). 

8 Id. In Recommendation 2012–7, the Conference 

noted that agencies ‘‘may leverage private resources 

and expertise in ways that make regulation more 

effective and less costly.’’ Id. 

9 David Freeman Engstrom, Daniel E. Ho, 

Catherine M. Sharkey & Mariano-Florentino 

Cue ́llar, Government by Algorithm in Federal 

Administrative Agencies 22 (Feb. 2020) (report to 

the Admin. Conf. of the U.S.); accord Cary 

Coglianese, A Framework for Governmental Use of 

Machine Learning 31 (Dec. 8, 2020) (report to the 

Admin. Conf. of the U.S.). 

10Michael Karanicolas, Artificial Intelligence and 

Regulatory Enforcement (Dec. 9, 2024) (report to the 

Admin. Conf. of the U.S.); cf. Recommendation 

2023–3, supra note 3; Admin. Conf. of the U.S., 

Recommendation 2021–10, Quality Assurance 

Systems in Agency Adjudication, 87 FR 1722 (Jan. 

12, 2022); Recommendation 2021–1, supra note 4; 

Statement #20, supra note 1; Admin. Conf. of the 

U.S., Recommendation 2018–3, Electronic Case 

Management in Federal Administrative 

Adjudication, 83 FR 30,686 (June 29, 2018). 

11 ‘‘Explainability’’ allows those using or 

overseeing AI systems to ‘‘gain deeper insights into 

the functionality and trustworthiness of the system, 

including its outputs,’’ and helps users understand 

the potential effects and purposes of an AI system. 

Nat’l Inst. Of Standards & Tech., Artificial 

Intelligence Risk Management Framework (AI RMF 

1.0) 16 (2023) [hereinafter AI RMF 1.0]. 

12Statement #20, supra note 1, at 6617. 

13See id. at 6618. 

14See Off. Of Mgmt. & Budget, Exec. Off. Of The 

President, M—24—10, Advancing Governance, 

Innovation, And Risk Management For Agency Use 

Of Artificial Intelligence 29 (2024) (providing a 

comprehensive definition of ‘‘rights-impacting’’ 

uses of AI). 

15Pub. L. 116–260, div. U, title 1, § 104 (2020) 

(codified at 40 U.S.C. 11301 note). 

16See Exec. Order No. 13,960, Promoting the Use 

of Trustworthy Artificial Intelligence in the Federal 

Government, 85 FR 78,939 (Dec. 3, 2020). 

17Exec. Order No. 14,110 § 10.1(b), Safe, Secure, 

and Trustworthy Development and Use of Artificial 

Intelligence, 88 FR 75,191, 75,218 (Oct. 30, 2023); 

OMB Memorandum M–24–10, supra note 14. 

18See OMB Memorandum M–24–10, supra note 

14, at 29. 

19 Id.; see also Off. of Sci. & Tech. Pol’y, Exec. Off. 

of the President, Blueprint for an AI Bill of Rights 

(2022); AI RMF 1.0, supra note 11. 

20Exec. Order No. 14,110, supra note 17. 

21Off. of Mgmt. & Budget, Exec. Off. of the 

President, M–24–18, Advancing the Responsible 

Acquisition of Artificial Intelligence in Government 

(2024), at 1. 

As agencies seek ways to make regulatory 

compliance ‘‘more effective and less 

costly,’’ 8 many are considering how they can 

use algorithmic tools to perform regulatory 

enforcement tasks such as monitoring 

compliance; detecting potential 

noncompliance; identifying potential 

subjects for investigation, inspection, or 

audit; and gathering evidence to determine 

whether corrective action against a regulated 

person is warranted. Indeed, a report to the 

Conference analyzing the use of AI in federal 

administrative agencies found that ‘‘AI has 

made some of its most substantial inroads in 

the context of agency enforcement 

activities.’’ 9

The use of algorithmic tools in regulatory 

enforcement presents special opportunities 

for agencies. When used appropriately, such 

tools may enable agencies to perform 

enforcement tasks even more efficiently, 

accurately, and consistently. Algorithmic 

tools may be particularly useful in 

performing many of the most time- and 

resource-intensive tasks associated with 

regulatory enforcement, such as synthesizing 

voluminous records, determining patterns in 

complex filings, and identifying activities 

that might require additional review by a 

human being. 

At the same time, significant challenges 

and concerns arise in agencies’ use of 

algorithmic tools in regulatory 

enforcement.10 The Conference has 

previously identified possible risks 

associated with agencies’ use of algorithmic 

tools, including insufficient transparency, 

internal and external oversight, and 

explainability; 11 the potential to 

unintentionally create or exacerbate ‘‘harmful 

biases’’ by encoding and deploying them at 

scale; 12 and the possibility that agency 

personnel will devolve too much decisional 

authority to AI systems.13 Such risks are 

heightened when, as in the regulatory 

enforcement context, agencies use 

algorithmic tools to make decisions or take 

actions that affect a person’s rights, civil 

liberties, privacy, safety, equal opportunities, 

or access to government resources or 

services.14

Since the Conference issued Statement 

#20, Congress enacted the AI in Government 

Act, which directs the Director of the Office 

of Management and Budget (OMB) to provide 

agencies with guidance on removing barriers 

to agency AI use ‘‘while protecting civil 

liberties, civil rights, and economic and 

national security’’ and on best practices for 

identifying, assessing, and mitigating harmful 

bias.15 Executive Order 13,960, Promoting 

the Use of Trustworthy Artificial Intelligence 

in the Federal Government, identifies 

principles for agencies when designing, 

developing, acquiring, and using AI and 

directs agencies to inventory their uses of AI 

and make those inventories publicly 

available.16 Executive Order 14,110, Safe, 

Secure, and Trustworthy Development and 

Use of Artificial Intelligence, requires 

agencies to designate Chief AI Officers, who 

have primary responsibility for overseeing 

their agencies’ AI use and coordinating with 

other agencies, and establishes the Chief AI 

Officer Council to coordinate the 

development and use of AI across agencies.17

OMB Memorandum M–24–10, Advancing 

Governance, Innovation, and Risk 

Management for Agency Use of Artificial 

Intelligence, which implements the AI in 

Government Act and Executive Order 14,110, 

provides guidance to agencies on 

strengthening the effective and appropriate 

use of AI, advancing innovation, and 

managing risks, particularly those related to 

rights-impacting uses of AI.18 Memorandum 

M–24–10 further provides risk-management 

practices for agency uses of AI that affect 

people’s rights, which are derived from the 

Office of Science and Technology Policy’s 

Blueprint for an AI Bill of Rights and the 

National Institute of Standards and 

Technology’s AI Risk Management 

Framework.19 Those practices include 

‘‘conducting public consultation; assessing 

data quality; assessing and mitigating 

disparate impacts and algorithmic 

discrimination; providing notice of the use of 

AI; continuously monitoring and evaluating 

deployed AI; and granting human 

consideration and remedies for adverse 

decisions made using AI.’’ 20 Additionally, 

OMB issued Memorandum M–24–18, 

Advancing the Responsible Acquisition of 

Artificial Intelligence in Government, which 

‘‘integrat[es] these considerations for AI risk 

management into agency acquisition 

planning.’’ 21

Consistent with these authorities, this 

Recommendation provides a framework for 

using algorithmic tools in regulatory 

enforcement in ways that promote the 

efficient, accurate, and consistent 

administration of the law while also 

safeguarding rights, civil liberties, privacy, 

safety, equal opportunities, and access to 

government resources and services. 

RECOMMENDATION 

1. When considering possible uses of 

algorithmic tools to perform regulatory 

enforcement tasks, agencies should consider 

whether and to what extent such tools will: 

a. Promote efficiency, accuracy, and 

consistency; 

b. Create or exacerbate unlawful or harmful 

biases; 

c. Produce an output that agency 

decisionmakers can understand and explain; 

d. Devolve decisional authority to 

automated systems; 

e. Adversely affect rights, civil liberties, 

privacy, safety, equal opportunities, and 

access to government resources or services; 

f. Use inappropriately or reveal publicly, 

directly or indirectly, confidential business 

information or trade secrets; and 

g. Affect the public’s perception of the 

agency and how fairly it administers 

regulatory programs. 

2. When agencies use algorithmic tools to 

perform regulatory enforcement tasks, they 

should assess the risks associated with using 

such tools, including those in Paragraph 1, 

and put in place oversight mechanisms and 

data quality assurance practices to mitigate 

such risks. During a risk assessment process, 

agencies should consider, among other 

things, the: 

a. Ability to customize tools and systems 

to the agency’s ongoing needs and to specific 

use cases; 

b. Tendency of such tools to produce 

unexpected outcomes that could go beyond 

their intended uses or have the potential for 

biased or harmful outcomes; 

c. Training and testing methodologies used 

in developing and maintaining such tools; 

d. Quality assurance practices available for 

data collection and use, including the 

dependency of such tools on the 

completeness and veracity of the underlying 

data on which they rely; and 

e. Oversight procedures available to the 

agency and the public to ensure responsible 

use of such tools. 

3. When agencies use algorithmic tools to 

perform regulatory enforcement tasks, 

agencies should ensure that any agency 

personnel who use such tools or rely on their 

outputs to make enforcement decisions 

receive adequate training on the capabilities, 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
106408 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 249 / Monday, December 30, 2024 / Notices 

1See Admin. Conf. of the U.S., Recommendation 

2018–7, Public Engagement in Rulemaking, 84 FR 

2146 (Feb. 6, 2019). 

2 5 U.S.C. 553(b)–(c). 

3 Id. § 553(b)(B). 

4Util. Solid Waste Activities Grp. v. EPA, 236 

F.3d 749, 754 (D.C. Cir. 2001); see also Attorney 

General’s Manual on the Administrative Procedure 

Act 30–31 (1947). 

5Mack Trucks, Inc. v. EPA, 682 F.3d 87, 94 (D.C. 

Cir. 2012) (quoting Util. Solid Waste Activities Grp., 

236 F.3d at 755). 

6Metzenbaum v. Fed. Energy Regul. Comm’n, 675 

F.2d 1282, 1291 (D.C. Cir. 1982). 

7 Mack Trucks, Inc., 682 F.3d at 95. 

8See Recommendation 2018–7, supra note 1; see 

also Admin. Conf. of the U.S., Office of the Chair, 

Statement of Principles for Public Engagement in 

Agency Rulemaking (rev. Sept. 1, 2023). 

9The APA does not define direct final rulemaking 

or interim final rulemaking. Agencies developed 

these terms to describe commonly used processes 

for engaging with the public when they invoke the 

good cause exemption. 

10Admin. Conf. of the U.S., Recommendation 83– 

2, The ‘‘Good Cause’’ Exemption from APA 

Rulemaking Requirements, 48 FR 31180 (July 7, 

1983). 

11Admin. Conf. of the U.S., Recommendation 95– 

4, Procedures for Noncontroversial and Expedited 

Rulemaking, 60 FR 43110 (Aug. 18, 1995). 

12 Id. 

13See, e.g., U.S. Gov’t Accountability Off., GAO– 

13–21, Agencies Could Take Additional Steps to 

Respond to Public Comments (2012); see also Cong. 

Rsch. Serv., R44356, The Good Cause Exception to 

Notice and Comment Rulemaking: Judicial Review 

of Agency Action (2016). 

14 Little Sisters of the Poor Saints Peter & Paul 

Home v. Pennsylvania, 591 U.S. 657, 683 (2020). 

15See Mark Squillace, Best Practices for Agency 

Use of the Good Cause Exemption for Rulemaking 

(Dec. 4, 2024) (report to the Admin. Conf. of the 

U.S.). 

risks, and limits of such tools and understand 

how to appropriately assess their outputs 

before relying on them. 

4. When agencies provide notice to 

regulated persons of an action taken during 

an investigation, inspection, audit, or 

prosecution, they should specify if an 

algorithmic tool provided a meaningful basis 

for taking that action, consistent with 

existing legal requirements. 

5. Consistent with legal requirements, 

agencies should notify the public on their 

websites of algorithmic tools they 

meaningfully use to investigate, inspect, 

audit, or gather evidence to discover noncompliance by regulated entities, along with 

information about the sources and nature of 

the data used by such tools. 

6. Agencies that meaningfully use or are 

considering using algorithmic tools in 

regulatory enforcement should engage with 

persons interested in or affected by the use 

of such tools to identify possible benefits and 

harms associated with their use. 

7. Agencies that use algorithmic tools to 

perform regulatory enforcement tasks should 

provide effective processes whereby persons 

can voice concerns or file complaints 

regarding the use or outcome resulting from 

the use of such tools so that agencies may 

respond or take corrective action. 

8. The Chief AI Officer Council should 

facilitate collaboration and the exchange of 

information among agencies that use or are 

considering using algorithmic tools in 

regulatory enforcement. 

Administrative Conference Recommendation 

2024–6 

Public Engagement in Agency Rulemaking 

Under the Good Cause Exemption 

Adopted December 12, 2024 

Public participation plays an essential role 

in agency rulemaking. Agencies facilitate 

such participation through public 

engagement activities designed to elicit input 

from the public, including efforts to enhance 

public understanding of the rulemaking 

process and foster meaningful public 

participation in it. As the Administrative 

Conference has recognized, ‘‘[b]y providing 

opportunities for public input and dialogue, 

agencies can obtain more comprehensive 

information, enhance the legitimacy and 

accountability of their decisions, and 

increase public support for their rules.’’ 1 The 

Administrative Procedure Act (APA) 

recognizes the value of public participation 

in rulemaking by generally requiring agencies 

to publish a notice of proposed rulemaking 

in the Federal Register and provide 

interested persons an opportunity to submit 

written comments on rulemaking proposals.2

However, notice-and-comment procedures 

can be time-consuming and resourceintensive, and there are circumstances in 

which the costs of those procedures may 

outweigh their benefits in terms of public 

participation. For this reason, the APA 

permits agencies to forgo notice-andcomment procedures when, among other 

reasons, they find for ‘‘good cause’’ that such 

procedures would be ‘‘impracticable, 

unnecessary, or contrary to the public 

interest’’ and they incorporate this finding 

and ‘‘a brief statement of reasons’’ for it in 

their rules.3 Notice and comment may be 

‘‘impracticable’’ when an agency ‘‘finds that 

due and timely execution of its functions 

would be impeded by the notice otherwise 

required [by the APA].’’ 4 Notice and 

comment may be ‘‘unnecessary’’ when a rule 

is ‘‘a routine determination, insignificant in 

nature and impact, and inconsequential to 

the industry and to the public’’ 5 or when the 

agency lacks discretion regarding the 

substance of the rule.6 And notice and 

comment may be ‘‘contrary to the public 

interest’’ in ‘‘the rare circumstance when 

ordinary procedures—generally presumed to 

serve the public interest—would in fact harm 

that interest.’’ 7

The Conference has long encouraged 

robust public participation in agency 

rulemaking and has identified effective 

methods for engaging with the public outside 

of, and to supplement, the notice-andcomment process.8 The fact that notice and 

comment is unnecessary, impracticable, or 

contrary to the public interest does not mean 

that no public engagement is appropriate. 

Indeed, such engagement may be especially 

important precisely because standard notice 

and comment is not occurring. And such 

engagement can also help agencies determine 

whether the good cause exemption is 

applicable. 

Of course, the same factors that make a 

comment period inappropriate may weigh 

equally against other types of public 

engagement as well. Neither the agency nor 

the public is well served by needless or 

counterproductive efforts to engage the 

public. Such circumstances are rare, 

however. The goal of this Recommendation 

is to identify ways in which agencies can 

meaningfully and usefully engage the public 

even when relying on the good cause 

exemption. 

Agencies engage with the public in a 

variety of ways when invoking the good 

cause exemption. The two primary 

rulemaking mechanisms are usually referred 

to as direct final rulemaking and interim final 

rulemaking.9 When notice and comment is 

unnecessary, agencies sometimes use direct 

final rulemaking, in which the agency 

simultaneously publishes a final rule and 

solicits comments on it, with the rule going 

into effect only if no significant adverse 

comments are received. When notice and 

comment is impracticable or contrary to the 

public interest, agencies sometimes use 

interim final rulemaking, in which, at the 

same time the rule is published, they request 

public comment on a final rule for the 

purpose of deciding whether to reaffirm, 

modify, or replace the published rule in light 

of those comments. Agencies sometimes also 

use other, more informal procedures— 

including publishing requests for 

information, engaging in targeted outreach, 

and convening listening sessions with 

interested persons—when they invoke the 

good cause exemption. 

The Conference has addressed direct final 

rulemaking and interim final rulemaking in 

prior recommendations. In Recommendation 

83–2, The ‘‘Good Cause’’ Exemption from 

APA Rulemaking Requirements, the 

Conference encouraged agencies to ‘‘provide 

a post-promulgation comment opportunity 

for rules they adopt under the good cause 

exemption.’’ 10 In Recommendation 95–4, 

Procedures for Noncontroversial and 

Expedited Rulemaking, the Conference 

recommended that agencies ‘‘use direct final 

rulemaking in all cases where the 

‘unnecessary’ prong of the good cause 

exemption is available, unless the agency 

determines that the process would not 

expedite issuance of such rules,’’ and 

provided best practices for doing so.11 In 

Recommendation 95–4, the Conference 

recommended that agencies use interim final 

rulemaking when they conclude that using 

notice-and-comment procedures would be 

‘‘impracticable’’ or ‘‘contrary to the public 

interest,’’ and provided best practices for 

doing so.12

The Conference is revisiting the topic of 

public engagement in rulemaking under the 

good cause exemption for two reasons. First, 

best practices for public engagement have 

become increasingly important as agencies 

rely more frequently on the good cause 

exemption.13 Second, there have been legal 

developments since 1995, particularly a 2020 

decision by the Supreme Court on interim 

final rulemaking.14

Based on a reexamination of agency 

rulemaking practices under the good cause 

exemption,15 this Recommendation identifies 

best practices for enhancing public 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 249 / Monday, December 30, 2024 / Notices 106409 

1See Admin. Conf. of the U.S., Recommendation 

2023–6, Identifying and Reducing Burdens on the 

Public in Administrative Proceedings, 89 FR 1511 

(Jan. 10, 2024); Admin. Conf. of the U.S., 

Recommendation 2016–6, Self-Represented Parties 

in Administrative Proceedings, 81 FR 94319 (Dec. 

23, 2016). 

engagement in rulemaking under the good 

cause exemption, particularly when agencies 

use direct final rulemaking and interim final 

rulemaking. It also encourages agencies to 

use alternative methods—such as publishing 

requests for information, engaging in targeted 

outreach, convening listening sessions with 

interested persons, and soliciting postadoption comments—to reap the benefits of 

robust public participation even when they 

rely properly on the good cause exemption. 

Recommendations 83–2 and 95–4 are 

superseded to the extent that they 

recommend public engagement practices that 

are inconsistent with this Recommendation. 

Recommendation 

Direct Final Rulemaking 

1. Except in the rare instance that an 

agency determines that direct final 

rulemaking would not expedite issuance of a 

rule, an agency should use direct final 

rulemaking when it: 

a. For good cause finds that it is 

‘‘unnecessary’’ to undertake notice-andcomment rulemaking; and 

b. Concludes that the rule is unlikely to 

elicit any significant adverse comments. 

2. When an agency uses direct final 

rulemaking, it should publish in the Federal 

Register a rule that: 

a. Identifies the rule as a ‘‘direct final 

rule’’; 

b. Provides a brief statement explaining the 

basis for the agency’s finding that it is 

unnecessary to undertake notice-andcomment rulemaking; 

c. Provides a statement of the rule’s basis 

and purpose and explains the issues the 

agency considered in developing the rule; 

d. Provides a period of at least 30 days 

during which interested persons may submit 

comments regarding the substance of the 

rule; 

e. Explains that the agency will withdraw 

the direct final rule if it receives any 

significant adverse comments and specifies 

any additional actions that the agency may 

take if it withdraws the direct final rule; 

f. Specifies when the rule will take effect 

if the agency receives no significant adverse 

comments (see Paragraph 5); 

g. If applicable, specifies whether the 

agency will issue a subsequent notice in the 

Federal Register confirming that the agency 

received no significant adverse comments 

(see Paragraph 5); and 

h. Identifies any companion proposed rule, 

as described in Paragraph 3. 

3. When an agency issues a direct final 

rule, it may consider publishing in the same 

issue of the Federal Register a companion 

proposed rule that will serve as a notice of 

proposed rulemaking if the agency later 

withdraws the direct final rule upon 

receiving any significant adverse comments. 

In the event the agency receives significant 

adverse comments, the agency should 

consider providing an additional period for 

public comment on the companion proposed 

rule. 

4. An agency should consider any 

comment received during direct final 

rulemaking to be a significant adverse 

comment if the comment explains why: 

a. The rule would be inappropriate, 

including challenges to the rule’s underlying 

premise or approach; or 

b. The rule would be ineffective or 

unacceptable without a change. 

5. Absent exceptional circumstances for 

providing a different effective date, the 

agency should provide that a direct final rule 

will take effect at least 30 days after the close 

of the comment period if the agency receives 

no significant adverse comments or at least 

30 days after publication of a subsequent 

notice in the Federal Register confirming 

that the agency received no significant 

adverse comments. An agency that does not 

publish a confirmation notice should 

consider providing an effective date greater 

than 30 days after the close of the comment 

period if the agency believes it is necessary 

to ensure that it has adequate time to 

withdraw the rule in the event it receives 

significant adverse comments. 

6. If the agency receives any significant 

adverse comments or otherwise decides to 

withdraw the direct final rule before it takes 

effect, the agency should publish a notice in 

the Federal Register that states that the 

agency is withdrawing the direct final rule 

and describes any further rulemaking the 

agency will conduct on the matter. If the 

agency previously requested comments in a 

companion proposed rule as described in 

Paragraph 3, the agency may proceed with 

notice-and-comment rulemaking consistent 

with the proposed rule. 

Interim Final Rulemaking 

7. An agency is encouraged to use interim 

final rulemaking when it for good cause finds 

that it is ‘‘impracticable’’ or ‘‘contrary to the 

public interest’’ to undertake notice-andcomment rulemaking. 

8. When an agency uses interim final 

rulemaking, it should publish in the Federal 

Register a rule that: 

a. Identifies the rule as an ‘‘interim final 

rule’’; 

b. Provides a brief statement explaining the 

basis for the agency’s finding that is 

‘‘impracticable’’ or ‘‘contrary to the public 

interest’’ to undertake notice-and-comment 

rulemaking; 

c. Provides a statement of the rule’s basis 

and purpose and explains the issues the 

agency considered in developing the rule; 

d. Provides a period of at least 30 days (or 

in most cases at least 60 days, in particular 

for ‘‘major rules’’ as defined in the 

Congressional Review Act) during which 

interested persons may submit comments 

regarding the substance of the rule or the 

agency’s finding that notice-and-comment 

rulemaking is impracticable or contrary to 

the public interest; 

e. Explains that the agency will consider 

any comments that it receives in response to 

the interim final rule; 

f. As applicable, sets forth the agency’s 

plans for supplemental public engagement 

(see Paragraph 11) and solicits public input 

on those public engagement plans; 

g. Explains that the rule is being adopted 

without prior notice and comment, specifies 

the date upon which the rule will take effect, 

and identifies the rule’s expiration date if 

applicable; and 

h. Specifies that the agency will consider 

the comments and complete the rulemaking 

by reaffirming, modifying, or withdrawing 

the interim final rule (see Paragraph 9). 

9. An agency should conclude the interim 

final rulemaking by publishing a new final 

rule in the Federal Register that responds to 

all significant comments and reaffirms, 

modifies, or withdraws the interim final rule 

as appropriate. Consistent with agency 

resources and priorities, an agency should 

publish the new final rule as expeditiously 

as possible and should prioritize ‘‘major 

rules’’ as defined in the Congressional 

Review Act. 

Additional Public Engagement 

10. When appropriate, an agency should 

use additional forms of public engagement, 

including those identified in 

Recommendation 2018–7, Public 

Engagement in Rulemaking, before 

considering whether to invoke the good 

cause exemption when such engagement 

would help the agency (a) determine if 

notice-and-comment rulemaking is 

unnecessary, impracticable, or contrary to the 

public interest or (b) develop the rule. The 

agency should explain in the direct or 

interim final rule what additional public 

engagement the agency undertook. 

11. An agency should consider using 

supplemental forms of public engagement 

after issuing an interim final rule. Consistent 

with Executive Order 13,563 and 

Recommendation 2021–2, Periodic 

Retrospective Review, an agency should 

prioritize for retrospective review interim 

final rules that are ‘‘major rules’’ as defined 

in the Congressional Review Act. An agency 

should explain in any subsequent final rule 

what supplemental public engagement the 

agency undertook. 

12. Consistent with Recommendation 

2014–4, ‘‘Ex Parte’’ Communications in 

Informal Rulemaking, an agency should 

disclose ex parte communications that occur 

during supplemental public engagement. For 

purposes of applying Recommendation 

2014–4, an interim final rule should be 

considered the equivalent of a notice of 

proposed rulemaking. 

Administrative Conference Recommendation 

2024–7 

Nonlawyer Assistance and Representation in 

Agency Adjudications 

Adopted December 12, 2024 

Millions of people each year participate in 

administrative adjudicative proceedings to 

access federal programs and resolve legal 

issues. Some adjudicative proceedings are 

simple enough—or could be made simple 

enough—for people to navigate on their own, 

and the Administrative Conference has 

identified best practices for reducing 

administrative burdens and assisting selfrepresented parties.1 But many adjudicative 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
106410 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 249 / Monday, December 30, 2024 / Notices 

2Admin. Conf. of the U.S., Recommendation 86– 

1, Nonlawyer Assistance and Representation, 51 FR 

25641, 25642 n.2 (July 16, 1986). 

3White House Legal Aid Interagency Roundtable, 

Access to Justice in Federal Administrative 

Proceedings: Nonlawyer Assistance and Other 

Strategies 1 (2023) [hereinafter WH–LAIR Report]. 

4Pamela Herd, Donald Moynihan, & Amy 

Widman, Identifying and Reducing Burdens in 

Administrative Processes 41 (Dec. 5, 2023) (report 

to the Admin. Conf. of the U.S.). 

5Recommendation 2016–6, supra note 1, at 

94,320; see also, Recommendation 86–1, supra note 

2, at 25,642; WH–LAIR Report, supra note 3, at 19 

(‘‘Studies show that legal assistance improves legal 

outcomes.’’). 

6See Amy Widman, Nonlawyer Assistance and 

Representation (Dec. 9, 2024) (report to the Admin. 

Conf. of the U.S.). 

7See 5 U.S.C. 555(b) (‘‘A person compelled to 

appear in person before an agency . . . is entitled 

to be accompanied, represented, and advised by 

counsel or, if permitted by the agency, by other 

qualified representative.’’). Examples of nonlawyers 

who represent or assist parties in agency 

proceedings include other licensed professionals 

such as accountants, social workers, and paralegals; 

law students; union representatives; human 

resources professionals; corporate officers; tribal 

advocates; agency employees; community members; 

and family members. The Conference recognizes 

that there is an ongoing discussion about the best 

way to describe representatives who do not hold an 

active law license. For the purposes of this 

Recommendation, the Conference refers to this 

group as ‘‘nonlawyer representatives’’ because it is 

consistent with two prior recommendations of the 

Conference, the Model Rules of Representative 

Conduct, and the 2023 report of the White House 

Legal Aid Interagency Roundtable. Use of the term 

‘‘nonlawyer’’ is not meant to suggest any 

deficiencies in representation offered by such 

individuals, nor should it deter any individual 

agency from adopting a different term. The 

Conference encourages agencies to remain attentive 

to the ongoing discussion within the legal 

community about terminology in this area and to 

consider updating their usage accordingly. 

8Federal law may specify criteria or processes 

that an agency must use in determining whether a 

nonlawyer representative is qualified to represent 

participants in proceedings before it. See, e.g., 5 

U.S.C. 500(c) (providing that individuals duly 

qualified to practice as a certified public accountant 

in a state may represent participants in Internal 

Revenue Service proceedings upon filing with the 

agency a written declaration as specified by law). 

9See WH–LAIR Report, supra note 3, at vii. 

10Recommendation 86–1, supra note 2, at 25,642. 

11Admin. Conf. of the U.S., Recommendation 

2023–5, Best Practices for Adjudication Not 

Involving an Evidentiary Hearing, 89 FR 1509 (Jan. 

10, 2024). 

12Recommendation 2023–6, supra note 1, at 

1513. 

13Admin. Conf. of the U.S., Model Rules of 

Representative Conduct (2024). The Model Rules 

were developed by a working group of public- and 

private-sector representatives. 

proceedings are so complex, or involve such 

significant stakes, that people engaging with 

them benefit from representation by 

individuals with expertise in those programs 

or assistance from individuals who can help 

them navigate the proceedings. 

It is helpful to distinguish between 

‘‘representation’’ and ‘‘assistance.’’ 

Representation is used to denote that the 

individual is ‘‘standing in the shoes’’ of the 

participant and can speak for that individual 

even when they are not present. Other 

activities that likely indicate representation 

include counseling on eligibility for an 

agency program or signing official records.2

‘‘Assistance’’ is broader and used to indicate 

many other forms of help that may be 

beneficial to a person in dealing with an 

agency; this may include educating someone 

on process, counseling someone about rights 

and remedies generally, and, in some cases, 

helping someone navigate a form or benefits 

application. In most cases, representation 

will include various forms of assistance, but 

assistance does not include representation. 

Representation and assistance, whether by 

lawyers or nonlawyers, are particularly 

valuable, even in seemingly straightforward 

adjudicatory proceedings, when they help 

people access relevant and accurate 

information about agency programs, program 

eligibility, and information on how to 

complete forms correctly and submit 

required information.3 For example, although 

the use of digital technologies, such as online 

forms and virtual hearings, is an effective 

strategy for increasing accessibility, it can 

also act as a barrier for people who lack 

access to digital tools or lack the skills to 

navigate these systems. Such challenges can 

be present for anyone, but those lacking 

representation or assistance may become so 

overwhelmed that they forgo rights and 

benefits to which they are entitled.4 More 

generally, a lack of representation or 

assistance often can lead to incorrect or 

unfair outcomes. 

Representation and assistance not only 

help participants in adjudicatory proceedings 

but also benefit agencies. Without 

representation or assistance, an individual 

may be less likely to properly and timely 

complete adjudicative requirements, which 

can delay proceedings. Additionally, those 

without representation or assistance may 

require more support from the agency, 

including the adjudicator, which can strain 

resources and reduce efficiency.5

Many people, however, particularly lowincome people and members of historically 

underserved communities, are unable to 

access representation or assistance.6 One 

barrier is the shortage of affordable legal 

services. This concern is particularly acute in 

remote and rural areas, where not only are 

lawyers relatively scarce and may not have 

relevant expertise, but they may not be 

accessible to people who need them due to 

the long distances required to visit in person, 

inability to consult virtually, and other 

barriers. 

Federal agencies have long innovated 

various ways to widen the pool of available 

representatives and expand assistance. For 

example, many agencies currently permit 

participants in agency adjudications to be 

represented by qualified or accredited 

nonlawyers.7 In many instances, the decision 

maker (whether or not an administrative law 

judge) makes an informal determination 

whether a representative is ‘‘qualified,’’ but 

some adjudicative systems provide for a 

formal accreditation system to determine 

which nonlawyer representatives are 

qualified to practice in those systems.8

Increasing availability of nonlawyer 

representation and assistance can be 

particularly beneficial in meeting the needs 

of communities of special populations, 

including veterans and servicemembers, 

members of tribal communities, people with 

disabilities, people with criminal records, 

immigrants, and disaster survivors.9

Members of such communities often benefit 

from representation and assistance provided 

by nongovernmental organizations, advocacy 

groups, and others already operating to meet 

the needs and face the challenges within 

such communities. These community ties 

function as a way to build trust among 

participants and serve as a deep source of 

knowledge and expertise that can bear on 

representation and assistance. That trust can 

in turn inspire public confidence in agency 

adjudication. Agencies can engage with such 

groups to help increase availability and 

awareness of nonlawyer representation and 

assistance in these communities. 

There are barriers to increasing availability 

of nonlawyer representation and assistance, 

including barriers that agencies may be able 

to address through their rules regarding 

representation and assistance. Agencies vary 

in their requirements, oversight, and 

encouragement of such representation and 

assistance. While reasonable requirements for 

qualification or accreditation, as well as 

continuing education, help ensure the quality 

and competence of representation, overly 

burdensome requirements can unnecessarily 

reduce the availability of nonlawyer 

representation. When agencies do not 

affirmatively inform participants of the 

availability of such representation or 

assistance, participants may not be aware of 

these resources. 

The issue of nonlawyer representation and 

assistance has been a long-standing concern 

of the Conference. As early as 1986, the 

Conference recommended that agencies 

permit and encourage nonlawyer 

representation and assistance because of the 

substantial number of individuals needing or 

desiring representation and assistance in 

filling out forms, filing claims, and appearing 

in agency proceedings who were unable to 

afford or otherwise obtain such 

representation or assistance by lawyers.10 In 

2023, the Conference adopted two 

recommendations addressing agency 

adjudicatory processes that encourage 

agencies to allow participants in many 

adjudications ‘‘to be represented by a lawyer 

or a lay person with relevant expertise’’ 11

and to establish ‘‘rules authorizing accredited 

or qualified nonlawyer representatives to 

practice before the agency.’’ 12 And in 2024, 

the Conference’s Chair released Model Rules 

of Representative Conduct, that, among other 

topics, address the qualifications and 

conduct of nonlawyer representatives.13

This Recommendation expands on the 

Conference’s previous recommendations by 

identifying best practices for incorporating 

and increasing representation and assistance 

by permitting broader practice by nonlawyers 

in different types of adjudicative systems and 

providing guidance to make processes 

governing nonlawyer representation and 

assistance more accessible and transparent. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 249 / Monday, December 30, 2024 / Notices 106411 

Recommendation 

Availability of Nonlawyer Assistance 

1. Agencies should permit nonlawyers— 

including friends, family members, and other 

individuals—to assist participants 

throughout the adjudicative process. For 

example, agencies should freely allow 

nonlawyers to help participants navigate and 

complete forms, obtain necessary documents 

and records, and accompany participants to 

interviews and hearings for moral support, 

unless there is reason to exclude such 

individuals (e.g., allowing participation in an 

interview or hearing could cause a disruption 

or adversely affect testimony). 

2. Agencies should encourage and expand 

opportunities for nonlawyer assistance 

through programs that authorize, educate, 

and/or certify individuals to provide 

participants with information, support, and 

dedicated assistance, either by staffing and 

operating such programs directly or 

providing guidance and/or grant funding to 

nonprofit organizations to perform those 

functions. 

Availability of Nonlawyer Representation 

3. To increase the availability of 

representation for participants in their 

adjudications, agencies should establish rules 

authorizing qualified (see paragraphs 4–5) 

and, as appropriate, accredited (see 

paragraphs 6–9) nonlawyer representatives to 

practice before them. 

Qualifications of Nonlawyer Representatives 

4. Agencies should establish reasonable 

qualifications required for nonlawyer 

representatives to practice before them, 

without adding unnecessary burdens. When 

determining whether a nonlawyer is 

qualified to represent a participant in an 

agency proceeding, agencies should consider 

the factors listed in the Model Rules of 

Representative Conduct, such as the 

representative’s relationship to the 

participant; their knowledge, expertise, 

experience, or skill; and their fitness to serve. 

5. Agencies should have a process for 

determining whether an individual who has 

been disbarred should thereby be 

disqualified from serving as a nonlawyer 

representative in a particular case. 

Accreditation of Nonlawyer Representatives 

6. In addition to establishing qualifications 

for nonlawyer representatives, the following 

types of agencies should consider developing 

and implementing accreditation programs for 

nonlawyer representatives to help ensure the 

quality and competency of representation in 

their adjudicative proceedings: 

a. Agencies conducting adversarial 

adjudications with evidentiary hearings; 

b. Agencies that adjudicate a high volume 

of cases involving historically underserved 

communities; and 

c. Agencies with adjudications that involve 

specialized or technical subject matter. 

7. Agencies with accreditation programs 

should consider implementing reasonable 

initial and continuing education 

requirements for nonlawyer representatives, 

either by providing such education directly 

or by working with organizations that 

employ, educate, or mentor nonlawyer 

representatives. In doing so, agencies should 

avoid imposing education requirements that 

unnecessarily burden representatives. 

8. Agencies regularly should review the 

requirements of their accreditation programs 

to ensure they are reasonable and beneficial 

without adding unnecessary burdens. 

9. Agencies with programs for accrediting, 

educating, and regulating nonlawyer 

representatives who practice before them 

should have funding to ensure availability of 

representation and reduce wait times for 

accreditation. 

Oversight and Enforcement 

10. Agencies should establish rules to 

govern the conduct and ethical obligations of 

nonlawyer representatives. 

11. Agencies should establish procedures 

for reviewing allegations or evidence of 

noncompliance by nonlawyer representatives 

with their rules of conduct; adjudicating 

allegations that nonlawyer representatives 

have violated those rules; and imposing 

sanctions on nonlawyer representatives 

found to have violated the rules of conduct. 

Agencies should also ensure they have 

procedures for enforcing such sanctions. 

12. Agencies should provide for 

administrative review of any sanctions 

imposed on nonlawyer representatives for 

violation of relevant conduct rules. 

13. Agencies may consider using the Model 

Rules of Representative Conduct as a 

resource in establishing the rules and 

procedures outlined in paragraphs 10–12. 

Transparency With Regard to Representation 

and Assistance 

14. To improve participants’ awareness of 

options for representation and assistance, 

including by qualified or accredited 

nonlawyers, agencies should inform 

participants about such options early and 

throughout adjudications, including at levels 

of decision making prior to an opportunity 

for a hearing and by posting relevant 

information on their websites. 

15. Agencies should publish the following 

in the Code of Federal Regulations and on 

their websites: 

a. Rules prescribing the qualifications 

required for nonlawyer representatives; 

b. Rules for accrediting, educating, and 

regulating nonlawyer representatives, for 

agencies with formal accreditation programs; 

and 

c. Rules governing the conduct and ethical 

obligations of nonlawyer representatives, as 

well as procedures for adjudicating alleged 

violations of these rules and imposing 

sanctions. 

16. To inform and protect participants, 

agencies should publish on their websites the 

names of nonlawyer representatives who 

have been sanctioned, the nature of the 

sanction, and, as relevant, the specified 

period of the sanction. Agencies may omit 

certain information regarding the nature of 

the violation or sanction as necessary to 

preserve recognized privacy interests. 

Agencies should consider establishing, when 

appropriate, procedures for removing 

information about sanctioned representatives 

from their websites after a certain period of 

time has elapsed or a sanction is no longer 

in effect. 

Coordination and Collaboration With Regard 

to Representation and Assistance 

17. Agencies with overlapping subject 

matters, similar adjudication systems, or 

similar regulatory structures for nonlawyer 

representation should identify opportunities 

for interagency coordination of accreditation 

or education programs for nonlawyer 

representatives, to save resources and 

promote consistency. 

18. When authorized by law, agencies 

should expand grant funding opportunities 

for nonprofit organizations that employ, 

educate, or mentor nonlawyers who 

represent or assist participants. 

19. Agencies should work with law and 

other professional school clinics to expand 

programs that allow students to represent 

participants under the supervision of lawyers 

or other accredited professionals or to 

provide assistance to participants. 

20. Agencies should engage with 

community-based organizations, 

nongovernmental organizations, advocacy 

groups, and other organizations that can 

assist in building trust among participants 

and improve nonlawyer representation and 

assistance by bringing knowledge of and 

expertise in issues facing those communities. 

21. Agencies should collaborate with state 

bar associations and other relevant licensing 

authorities to reduce the effect that state 

prohibitions against unauthorized practice of 

law may have on the ability of nonlawyers 

to represent parties before them. 

Data 

22. Agencies should gather and maintain 

baseline comparative data on representation, 

including by nonlawyers, to (1) help agencies 

and others assess whether rules and 

procedures regarding nonlawyer 

representation are achieving agency goals in 

making such representation available and 

accessible; and (2) identify opportunities for 

expanding access to representation. Such 

data should include, at a minimum, the type 

and number of nonlawyer representatives; 

the outcomes, in aggregate, of cases in which 

parties have no representation, lawyer 

representation, or nonlawyer representation; 

the number of pending applications for 

accreditation; and average wait time for 

applications to be reviewed. Agencies should 

make data regarding representation publicly 

available, including on their websites, and 

regularly update it. 

23. To the extent practicable, agencies 

should gather and maintain data on 

assistance, including by nonlawyers, to 

assess participants’ experiences with and 

access to various forms of assistance. 

Agencies may collect such information by, 

for example, surveying participants regarding 

whether they received any assistance, the 

type of assistance they received, and the 

effectiveness of such assistance. To help with 

the assessment of funding opportunities, 

agencies may also require grantees, as a 

condition of their grants, to report on the 

types of assistance they provide, the number 

of participants they assist, and the outcomes 

of such assistance (e.g., the individual 

applied for benefits). Agencies should make 

data on assistance publicly available, 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
106412 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 249 / Monday, December 30, 2024 / Notices 

including on their websites, and regularly 

update it. 

[FR Doc. 2024–31352 Filed 12–27–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6110–01–P 

AGENCY FOR INTERNATIONAL 

DEVELOPMENT 

Center for Faith-Based and 

Neighborhood Partnerships (FBNP) 

Partner Meeting Survey 

AGENCY: United States Agency for 

International Development. 

ACTION: Notice of information collection; 

request for comment. 

SUMMARY: The U.S. Agency for 

International Development/Center for 

Faith-Based and Neighborhood 

Partnerships (USAID/IPI/LFT/FBNP), as 

part of the Agency’s continuing effort to 

reduce paperwork and respondent 

burden, invites the general public and 

other Federal agencies to take this 

opportunity to comment on the 

following new information collection, as 

required by the Paperwork Reduction 

Act of 1995. Comments are requested 

concerning: Whether the proposed or 

continuing collections of information 

are necessary for the proper 

performance of the functions of the 

agency, including whether the 

information shall have practical utility; 

the accuracy of the burden estimates; 

ways to enhance the quality, utility, and 

clarity of the information collected; and 

ways to minimize the burden of the 

collection of the information on the 

respondents. 

DATES: All comments should be 

submitted within 60 calendar days from 

the date of this publication. 

ADDRESSES: To access and review the 

electronic Google forms survey tool, 

please use: https://forms.gle/ 

4JR8nLLzZmmsPNkv8. 

Interested persons are invited to 

submit comments regarding the 

proposed information collection to 

Amanda Vigneaud, Initiative Lead, 

USAID/IPI/LFT/FBNP at cfbnp@

usaid.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

specific questions related to collection 

activities, please contact Amanda 

Vigneaud, Initiative Lead, USAID/IPI/ 

LFT/FBNP at cfbnp@usaid.gov or 202– 

712–1815. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Title of Collection: Center for FaithBased and Neighborhood Partnerships 

(FBNP) Partner Meeting Survey 2024. 

OMB Number: Not yet known. 

Expiration Date: Not yet known. 

Type of Request: New collection. 

Form Number: Not yet known. 

Affected Public: Point of contact from 

faith-based organizations that have met 

with USAID/IPI/LFT/FBNP in 2024. 

Estimated Number of Respondents: 

70. 

Estimated Total Annual Burden 

Hours: 20–25. 

Abstract: The Center for Faith-Based 

and Neighborhood Partnerships 

(USAID/IPI/LFT/FBNP) met with 

approximately 70 organizations in 2024. 

This survey will be sent to the points of 

contact from the partner meetings to 

collect information on outcomes 

following the partner’s meeting with the 

team. If the collection is not conducted, 

it will affect the ability of USAID/IPI/ 

LFT/FBNP to improve their partner 

engagement process. Method of 

collection will be electronic using 

Google forms survey. The data will be 

collected and maintained by USAID/IPI/ 

LFT/FBNP on their Google platform. 

Amanda Vigneaud, 

Initiative Lead, USAID/IPI/LFT/FBNP. 

[FR Doc. 2024–31189 Filed 12–27–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6116–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Submission for OMB Review; 

Comment Request 

The Department of Agriculture has 

submitted the following information 

collection requirement(s) to OMB for 

review and clearance under the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 

Public Law 104–13. Comments are 

required regarding; whether the 

collection of information is necessary 

for the proper performance of the 

functions of the agency, including 

whether the information will have 

practical utility; the accuracy of the 

agency’s estimate of burden including 

the validity of the methodology and 

assumptions used; ways to enhance the 

quality, utility and clarity of the 

information to be collected; and ways to 

minimize the burden of the collection of 

information on those who are to 

respond, including through the use of 

appropriate automated, electronic, 

mechanical, or other technological 

collection techniques or other forms of 

information technology. 

Comments regarding this information 

collection received by January 29, 2025 

will be considered. Written comments 

and recommendations for the proposed 

information collection should be 

submitted within 30 days of the 

publication of this notice on the 

following website www.reginfo.gov/ 

public/do/PRAMain. Find this 

particular information collection by 

selecting ‘‘Currently under 30-day 

Review—Open for Public Comments’’ or 

by using the search function. 

An agency may not conduct or 

sponsor a collection of information 

unless the collection of information 

displays a currently valid OMB control 

number and the agency informs 

potential persons who are to respond to 

the collection of information that such 

persons are not required to respond to 

the collection of information unless it 

displays a currently valid OMB control 

number. 

Farm Production and Conservation 

Business Center 

Title: Request for Geospatial Products 

and Services. 

OMB Control Number: 0565–NEW. 

Summary of Collection: In accordance 

with the Paperwork Reduction Act, 

1995, he Farm Production and 

Conservation (FPAC) is requesting 

comments from all interested 

individuals and organizations on a new 

information collection request for the. 

The information collection is needed to 

enable the Department of Agriculture to 

effectively administrate the Geospatial 

and Aerial Photography Programs. GEO 

has the responsibility for acquiring and 

conducting coordination of the FPAC’s 

geospatial datasets and the aerial 

photography flying contracts and remote 

sensing programs. The geospatial data 

and digital aerial imagery secured by 

FPAC BC is public domain and 

reproductions are available at cost to 

any customer with a need. All receipts 

from the sale of geospatial products and 

services are retained by FPAC BC. This 

collection will get an FPAC OMB 

control number. The FPAC–ISD–441, 

Request for Geospatial Products and 

Services, is the form FPAC supplies to 

the customers for placing an order for 

aerial imagery products and services. 

The burden hours have decreased 

because FPAC–ISD–441B Request for 

Custom Aerial Print and FPAC– 

ISD441D One Time Credit Card 

Payment Authorization forms are now 

obsolete. 

For the following estimated total 

annual burden on respondents, the 

formula used to calculate the total 

burden hour is the estimated average 

time per responses hours multiplied by 

the estimated total annual responses. 

The information collection request will 

get new FPAC OMB control number. 

Estimate of Burden: Public reporting 

burden for the information collection is 

estimated to average 16 minutes per 

response. 

Type of Respondents: Farmers, 

Ranchers, and other customers who 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1