60-day FRN 84 FR 66924

66924

Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 235 / Friday, December 6, 2019 / Notices
Number of
respondents

Form name

Total
responses

Hours per
response

Total hour
burden

SOAR Web-based Data Form (Part I) .................................
Annual Report Questions (Part II) .......................................

700
75

3
1

2,100
75

.25
1

525
37.50

Total ..............................................................................

775

........................

2,175

........................

562.50

Send comments to Summer King,
SAMHSA Reports Clearance Officer,
Room 15E–57B, 5600 Fishers Lane,
Rockville, MD 20857 OR email her a
copy at [email protected].
Written comments should be received
by February 4, 2020.
Summer King,
Statistician.
[FR Doc. 2019–26324 Filed 12–5–19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4162–20–P

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration
Services
[OMB Control Number 1615–0095]

Agency Information Collection
Activities; Revision of a Currently
Approved Collection: Notice of Appeal
or Motion
U.S. Citizenship and
Immigration Services, Department of
Homeland Security.
ACTION: 60-Day notice.
AGENCY:

The Department of Homeland
Security (DHS), U.S. Citizenship and
Immigration (USCIS) invites the general
public and other Federal agencies to
comment upon this proposed revision of
a currently approved collection of
information or new collection of
information. In accordance with the
Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of
1995, the information collection notice
is published in the Federal Register to
obtain comments regarding the nature of
the information collection, the
categories of respondents, the estimated
burden (i.e., the time, effort, and
resources used by the respondents to
respond), the estimated cost to the
respondent, and the actual information
collection instruments.
DATES: Comments are encouraged and
will be accepted for 60 days until
February 4, 2020.
ADDRESSES: All submissions received
must include the OMB Control Number
1615–0095 in the body of the letter, the
agency name and Docket ID USCIS–
2008–0027. To avoid duplicate
SUMMARY:

lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with NOTICES

Responses
per
respondent

VerDate Sep<11>2014

16:11 Dec 05, 2019

Jkt 250001

submissions, please use only one of the
following methods to submit comments:
(1) Online. Submit comments via the
Federal eRulemaking Portal website at
http://www.regulations.gov under eDocket ID number USCIS–2008–0027;
(2) Mail. Submit written comments to
DHS, USCIS, Office of Policy and
Strategy, Chief, Regulatory Coordination
Division, 20 Massachusetts Avenue NW,
Washington, DC 20529–2140.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
USCIS, Office of Policy and Strategy,
Regulatory Coordination Division,
Samantha Deshommes, Chief, 20
Massachusetts Avenue NW,
Washington, DC 20529–2140, telephone
number 202–272–8377 (This is not a
toll-free number. Comments are not
accepted via telephone message). Please
note contact information provided here
is solely for questions regarding this
notice. It is not for individual case
status inquiries. Applicants seeking
information about the status of their
individual cases can check Case Status
Online, available at the USCIS website
at http://www.uscis.gov, or call the
USCIS Contact Center at 800–375–5283
(TTY 800–767–1833).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Paperwork Reduction Act
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3501–12, DHS is
required to provide 60-day notice in the
Federal Register to solicit comments
from the public on proposed collections
of information. USCIS published this
Notice at 84 FR 39359 on August 9,
2019. USCIS received comments and in
reviewing has made a determination
that additional edits to the collection of
information are necessary. Due to the
nature of the changes, USCIS is
publishing a second 60-day notice in the
Federal Register to present these
changes and to obtain public comment.
II. Proposed Changes to the Form
Instructions for Form I–290B
USCIS is proposing several changes to
the Form I–290B Instructions. USCIS
proposes to clarify the AAO’s
procedures pertaining to the
consideration of evidence submitted for
the first time on appeal and the
requirement that affected parties
address each ground of ineligibility

PO 00000

Frm 00055

Fmt 4703

Sfmt 4703

raised in the unfavorable decision.
USCIS proposes to permit affected
parties to waive the ‘‘initial field
review’’ of their appeal for faster
processing. USCIS proposes to explain
its standard of review for appeals of
discretionary decisions. USCIS also
proposes to clarify that it does not have
appellate jurisdiction over Adam Walsh
Act ‘‘no-risk’’ determinations. USCIS is
proposing these changes to better inform
affected parties of administrative
appellate procedures and facilitate the
AAO’s review of the substantive merits
of appeals. The specific changes
proposed are discussed as follows:
(1) Appeals Must Address All Grounds
of Ineligibility Identified in the
Unfavorable Decision
The proposed Form I–290B and
instructions state that appeals must
address each ground of ineligibility
identified in the unfavorable decision. If
an affected party does not address one
or more ground(s) of ineligibility in the
unfavorable decision, the issue(s) may
be deemed waived for the appeal.
Further, the proposed form and
instructions explain that a waived
ground of ineligibility may form the sole
basis for a dismissed appeal. See, e.g.,
Matter of M-A-S-, 24 I&N Dec. 762, 767
n.2 (BIA 2009). This proposed language
underscores to affected parties the
importance of addressing each stated
ground of the unfavorable decision on
appeal. USCIS believes that this
clarification of current practice will
improve the quality of appeals and
facilitate the AAO’s review of the
substantive merits of appeals.
(2) Affected Parties May Waive the
‘‘Initial Field Review’’ Process
The proposed Form I–290B and
instructions permit affected parties to
waive the ‘‘initial field review’’ (IFR)
process. The regulations at 8 CFR
103.3(a)(2)(ii)–(v) provide that an appeal
to the AAO be reviewed by the officer
that made the unfavorable decision (or
by the officer with jurisdiction over the
matter in cases where the affected party
has moved) before the appeal is sent to
the AAO. The officer reviews the appeal
to determine whether to take favorable
action (e.g., by granting a motion to
reopen or a motion to reconsider and

E:\FR\FM\06DEN1.SGM

06DEN1

Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 235 / Friday, December 6, 2019 / Notices

lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with NOTICES

approving the benefit request). If the
officer decides not to take favorable
action, the appeal is then forwarded to
the AAO for appellate review.
Unless favorable action is taken, the
IFR process delays the adjudication of
appeals, because of the additional step
prior to AAO review. Many stakeholders
are not aware of the IFR process, and
they contact the AAO for case status
inquiries when the AAO has yet to
receive the appeal. This delay often
causes frustration. Further, affected
parties sometimes send supplemental
materials to the AAO when the appeal
itself is at a USCIS service center or
field office pending IFR. Other times,
affected parties incorrectly send
materials to a service center or field
office when the appeal has already been
transferred to the AAO.
USCIS proposes to provide affected
parties with the option to waive the IFR
process in order to have their case
reviewed sooner by the AAO. However,
USCIS acknowledges that taking
advantage of this option means that the
affected party will give up the
opportunity to have favorable action
taken more quickly on their case during
IFR. In addition, by waiving IFR and
having the appeal sent directly to the
AAO, the affected party waives review
by the officer who made the unfavorable
decision of whether an untimely appeal
meets the requirements of a motion to
reopen or a motion to reconsider under
8 CFR 103.3(a)(2)(v)(B)(2).
(3) Clarification of the ‘‘Initial Field
Review’’ Process When Evidence Is Not
Submitted Concurrently With the
Appeal; and Treatment of Newly
Submitted Evidence on Appeal
DHS regulations do not provide for
the submission of evidence in support
of a standard appeal. The regulations
allow for the submission of a brief only.
See 8 CFR 103.3(a)(2)(vi) (‘‘The affected
party may submit a brief with Form I–
290B.’’); see also 8 CFR 103.3 (1958),
7.11 (1952). Only the Special
Agricultural Worker and Legalization
regulations specifically allow for the
submission of new evidence on appeal,
since these applicants may not file a
motion to reopen or reconsider. 8 CFR
103.3(a)(3)(i) (noting that the Form I–
694 appeal may be ‘‘accompanied by
any additional new evidence’’).
In 1991, the Immigration and
Naturalization Service amended the
instructions to Form I–290B to include
the option of submitting new evidence
with the appeal brief. The reason for
this change was the implementation of
the IFR process. The submission of
evidence on appeal permitted the
immigration officer who issued the

VerDate Sep<11>2014

16:11 Dec 05, 2019

Jkt 250001

unfavorable decision to decide during
IFR whether to treat the appeal as a
motion to reopen or forward the appeal
to the AAO for review. 54 FR 29344
(Proposed Rule); 55 FR 20767–01 (Final
Rule).
In Matter of Obaigbena, 19 I&N Dec.
533 (BIA 1988), the Board of
Immigration Appeals (BIA) determined
that where a petitioner fails to timely
and substantively respond to a Notice of
Intent to Deny (NOID) or make a
reasonable request for an extension, the
BIA will not consider any evidence first
offered on appeal as its review is limited
to the record of proceeding before the
district director. In Matter of Soriano, 19
I&N Dec. 764 (BIA 1988), the BIA held
that if a petitioner was put on notice of
an evidentiary requirement (by statute,
regulation, form instructions, request for
evidence (RFE), NOID, etc.) and was
given a reasonable opportunity to
provide the evidence, then any new
evidence submitted on appeal
pertaining to that requirement would
not be considered, and the appeal
would be adjudicated based on the
evidentiary record before the director.
Conversely, if the petitioner had not
been put on notice of the deficiency or
given a reasonable opportunity to
address it before the denial, and on
appeal the petitioner submits additional
evidence addressing the deficiency, the
record would generally be remanded to
allow the director to initially consider
and address the newly submitted
evidence.
For these reasons, except in exigent
circumstances and at USCIS discretion,
the AAO will not consider evidence
submitted for the first time on appeal if:
• The affected party was put on
notice of an evidentiary requirement (by
statute, regulation, form instructions,
RFE, NOID, notice of intent to revoke,
etc.);
• The affected party was given a
reasonable opportunity to provide the
evidence; and
• The evidence was reasonably
available to the affected party at the
time it was supposed to have been
submitted.
USCIS also proposes to clarify on
Form I–290B that if the affected party
elects to submit evidence on appeal, the
evidence must be submitted
concurrently with the appeal in order
for the officer who issued the
unfavorable decision (or the officer with
jurisdiction over the matter in cases
where the affected party has moved) to
review the new evidence for favorable
action as a motion to reopen. If the
affected party elects to submit a brief or
evidence after the filing of the appeal,
the affected party must submit it

PO 00000

Frm 00056

Fmt 4703

Sfmt 4703

66925

directly to the AAO. See 8 CFR 103.3
(a)(2)(viii); Instructions for Notice of
Appeal or Motion at https://
www.uscis.gov/i-290b. This means that
the officer conducting IFR will not have
an opportunity to review the new
evidence and therefore cannot treat the
appeal as a motion to reopen prior to
forwarding the appeal to the AAO. This
clarification in the form and
instructions is meant to make it
absolutely clear to filers what happens
if the evidence is not concurrently
submitted with the Form I–290B but is
instead submitted later with the brief to
the AAO. Further, as the appellate
process was not meant to provide for the
submission of evidence in support of an
appeal, this clarification also elucidates
that, except in exigent circumstances,
the submission of evidence directly to
the AAO may only result at most in a
remand, provided the evidence is
material and does not fall into one of the
three categories described above.
(4) Abuse of Discretion Standard of
Review for Discretionary Decisions
For USCIS discretionary decisions,
the officer generally identifies and
weighs the applicable positive and
negative factors, which may include the
alien’s conduct, character, relationships,
ties to the United States, medical
condition, and other humanitarian
factors. See, e.g., USCIS Policy Manual,
Vol. 7, Ch. 10, ‘‘Legal Analysis and Use
of Discretion’’ (2019). To determine
whether a denial is based on discretion,
the AAO reviews the written decision
for an analysis that weighs both positive
and adverse factors, followed by
unambiguous language to indicate that
the matter is denied ‘‘as a matter of
discretion,’’ and a specific citation to a
statute that confers discretionary
authority.
A majority of discretionary
immigration benefits are not subject to
review on appeal. See, e.g., 8 CFR 207.3
(refugee waivers), 209.2(f) (application
for adjustment of status of alien granted
asylum), 212.3(c) (application for
advance permission to return to an
unrelinquished domicile under section
212(c) of the Act), 214.1(c)(5)
(applications for extension of
nonimmigrant stay), 216.5(f) (hardship
waiver for joint petition to remove
conditions for alien spouse), 240.25(e)
(application for voluntary departure),
245.2(a)(5)(ii) (adjustment of status
under section 245(a) of the Act),
245.2(a)(5)(iii) (adjustment of status
under the Act of 1966), 245.2(c)
(adjustment of status under section
214(d) of the Act), 249.2(b) (record of
admission under section 249 of the Act),
and 274a.13(c) (applications for

E:\FR\FM\06DEN1.SGM

06DEN1

lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with NOTICES

66926

Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 235 / Friday, December 6, 2019 / Notices

employment authorization). A smaller
number of discretionary case types fall
under the appellate jurisdiction of the
AAO. See 8 CFR 212.2(h) (requests for
consent to reapply for admission),
212.7(a)(3) (applications for waiver of
certain grounds of inadmissibility),
223.2(g) (applications for reentry
permits and refugee travel documents),
244.10(d) (application for Temporary
Protected Status), 245.23(i) (applications
for T adjustment of status), and
245.24(f)(2) (applications for U
adjustment of status).
The AAO may review questions of
law, policy, fact, and discretion de novo.
See section 557(b) of the Administrative
Procedure Act (APA); Powers and
Duties of Service Officers, 49 FR 7355
(Feb. 29, 1984). See also Soltane v.
USDOJ, 381 F.3d 143, 145–46 (3rd Cir.
2004); Sadeghzadeh v. USCIS, 322
F.Supp.3d 12, 19 (DDC 2018). The
AAO’s de novo review authority is also
acknowledged in its precedent
decisions. See, e.g., Matter of Simeio
Solutions, LLC, 26 I&N Dec. 542, 542 n.1
(AAO 2015).
While de novo review may be suitable
for questions of law and fact, DHS has
questioned whether this de novo review
approach is appropriate for
discretionary decisions given the initial
adjudicator’s role in developing the
record, identifying the discretionary
factors, and ultimately weighing the
alien’s conduct, character, relationships,
and other humanitarian factors.
Appellate bodies traditionally use three
different standards of review (de novo,
clear error, and abuse of discretion)
depending on whether the issue being
reviewed is a question of law, fact, or
discretion, respectively. De novo review
is the lowest or least deferential
standard of review. With de novo
review, the appellate adjudicator does
not give any deference to the decision
below. It considers the issue anew, as if
no decision had been previously
rendered. De novo review traditionally
applies to questions of law, such as
statutory and regulatory interpretation.
Conversely, ‘‘abuse of discretion’’ is the
highest or most deferential standard of
review. Abuse of discretion requires a
firm conviction that a discretionary
decision is grossly unsound,
unreasonable, contrary to law, or
unsupported by the evidence. See
Black’s Law Dictionary (11th ed. 2019).
This level of deference is traditionally
given to an exercise of discretionary
authority.
To that end, DHS proposes to revise
the instructions for Form I–290B to
inform affected parties that the AAO
will review discretionary USCIS
decisions using the abuse of discretion

VerDate Sep<11>2014

16:11 Dec 05, 2019

Jkt 250001

standard of review. This means that the
AAO will not overrule the an exercise
of discretion unless there is a firm
conviction the decision is grossly
unsound, unreasonable, contrary to law,
or unsupported by the evidence. This
level of review is appropriate because
the AAO should not overturn a
reasonable exercise of discretion simply
because the appeals officer in his or her
discretion would have reached a
different result.
(5) AAO Does Not Have Appellate
Jurisdiction Over ‘‘No Risk’’
Determinations Under the Adam Walsh
Act
The proposed Form I–290B
Instructions clarify that the AAO does
not have jurisdiction over appeals of
‘‘no risk’’ determinations under the
Adam Walsh Child Protection and
Safety Act of 2006, Public Law 109–248,
120 Stat. 587 (AWA). Section 402(a)(2)
of the AWA bars approval of familybased visa petitions filed by U.S.
citizens who have been convicted of a
‘‘specified offense against a minor’’
unless the DHS Secretary, in his or her
‘‘sole and unreviewable discretion,’’
determines that the U.S. citizen poses
‘‘no risk’’ to the beneficiary of the
petition.
The AAO’s appellate jurisdiction is
based on a delegation of authority from
the Secretary of Homeland Security. See
Delegation Number 0150.1(U) (effective
March 1, 2003). The Secretary may
delegate any authority or function to
administer and enforce the immigration
laws to any official, officer, or DHS
employee. 6 U.S.C. 112(b)(1) (2012); 8
U.S.C. 1103(a)(4); 8 CFR 2.1.
Regarding AWA ‘‘no risk’’
determinations, in Matter of AceijasQuiroz, 26 I&N Dec. 294 (BIA 2014), the
BIA held that Congress entrusted AWA
‘‘no risk’’ determinations to DHS, not
the BIA. USCIS subsequently issued a
policy memorandum agreeing that DHS
maintains sole jurisdiction over AWA
‘‘no risk’’ determinations. See PM–602–
0124, Initial Field Review of Appeals to
the Administrative Appeals Office (Nov.
4, 2015). However, the Secretary has not
delegated appellate authority to the
AAO by revising Delegation 0150.1(U)
or through other means provided by 8
CFR 2.1. Although USCIS officers may
certify cases involving AWA ‘‘no risk’’
determinations to the AAO, the
Secretary has not yet delegated
appellate authority over AWA ‘‘no risk’’
determinations to the AAO.
Accordingly, in order for USCIS to
review an adverse AWA ‘‘no risk’’
determination decision, the correct
course of action is to file a motion to
reopen or reconsider on Form I–290B.

PO 00000

Frm 00057

Fmt 4703

Sfmt 4703

This clarification has been added to
the Form I–290B Instructions because in
the past, the AAO is aware that it
incorrectly reviewed at least one appeal
of an AWA ‘‘no risk’’ determination, in
addition to multiple cases that were
properly certified for review.
Additionally, the AAO had posted
inconsistent information on the USCIS
website regarding AWA jurisdiction.
Consequently, to reduce stakeholder
confusion regarding this issue, this
proposed language has been included in
the update to the Form I–290B
Instructions.
III. Administrative Procedure Act
(APA)
This proposed Form revision is a
procedural rule and as a rule ‘‘of agency
organization, procedure, or practice,’’ is
exempt from the APA and USCIS is not
required to provide notice and an
opportunity to comment prior to its
issuance. See 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(A). The
proposed revisions to the form and
instructions clearly outline the
requirements and documentation
necessary to support a request for an
appeal or motion. The revised Form I–
290B simply effectuates technical
changes to appeals and motions
squarely within the definition of a
procedural rule. The substantive
standards for appeals and motions
remain unchanged and a revision that
changes evidence or filing requirements
but does not ‘‘change the substantive
standards by which [USCIS] evaluates
[appeals] . . . fall[s] comfortably within
the realm of the ‘procedural.’ ’’ JEM
Broad. Co., 22 F.3d at 327; see also Am.
Hosp. Ass’n v. Bowen, 834 F.2d 1037,
1055 (D.C. Cir. 1987) (concluding that
‘‘the focus and timing of review are
matters for agency discretion, falling
well within § 553’s procedural
exemption’’ provided substantive
standards remain unchanged).
To the extent the proposed revisions
are not procedural, they are still exempt
from notice-and-comment rulemaking
because they are, at most,
‘‘interpretive.’’ Interpretive rules, which
‘‘merely explain, but do not add to, the
substantive law that already exists in
the form of a statute or legislative rule.’’
Mora-Meraz v. Thomas, 601 F.3d 933,
940 (9th Cir. 2010) (‘‘[A]gencies issue
interpretive rules to clarify or explain
existing law or regulations so as to
advise the public of the agency’s
construction of the rules it administers.’’
Here, 8 CFR 103.3 and 103.5 set forth
the requirements for appeals including
the evidence to support the reasons the
USCIS decision is incorrect. The five
changes outlined above simply clarify
regulatory requirements and do not

E:\FR\FM\06DEN1.SGM

06DEN1

Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 235 / Friday, December 6, 2019 / Notices
change substantive standards for
appeals and motions, just the
procedural steps and evidence for filing.
Comments
You may access the information
collection instrument with instructions,
or additional information by visiting the
Federal eRulemaking Portal site at:
http://www.regulations.gov and enter
USCIS–2008–0027 in the search box.
Regardless of the method used for
submitting comments or material, all
submissions will be posted, without
change, to the Federal eRulemaking
Portal at http://www.regulations.gov,
and will include any personal
information you provide. Therefore,
submitting this information makes it
public. You may wish to consider
limiting the amount of personal
information that you provide in any
voluntary submission you make to DHS.
DHS may withhold information
provided in comments from public
viewing that it determines may impact
the privacy of an individual or is
offensive. For additional information,
please read the Privacy Act notice that
is available via the link in the footer of
http://www.regulations.gov.
Written comments and suggestions
from the public and affected agencies
should address one or more of the
following four points:
(1) Evaluate whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary
for the proper performance of the
functions of the agency, including
whether the information will have
practical utility;
(2) Evaluate the accuracy of the
agency’s estimate of the burden of the
proposed collection of information,
including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used;
(3) Enhance the quality, utility, and
clarity of the information to be
collected; and
(4) 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
responses.

lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with NOTICES

Overview of This Information
Collection
(1) Type of Information Collection:
Revision of a Currently Approved
Collection.
(2) Title of the Form/Collection:
Notice of Appeal or Motion.
(3) Agency form number, if any, and
the applicable component of the DHS

VerDate Sep<11>2014

16:11 Dec 05, 2019

Jkt 250001

sponsoring the collection: I–290B;
USCIS.
(4) Affected public who will be asked
or required to respond, as well as a brief
abstract: Primary: Individuals or
households. Form I–290B standardizes
requests for appeals and motions and
ensures that the basic information
required to adjudicate appeals and
motions is provided by applicants and
petitioners, or their attorneys or
representatives. USCIS uses the data
collected on Form I–290B to determine
whether an applicant or petitioner is
eligible to file an appeal or motion,
whether the requirements of an appeal
or motion have been met, and whether
the applicant or petitioner is eligible for
the requested immigration benefit. Form
I–290B can also be filed with ICE by
schools appealing decisions on Form I–
17 filings for certification to ICE’s
Student and Exchange Visitor Program
(SEVP).
(5) An estimate of the total number of
respondents and the amount of time
estimated for an average respondent to
respond: The estimated total number of
respondents for the information
collection I–290B is 28,000 and the
estimated hour burden per response is
1.5 hours.
(6) An estimate of the total public
burden (in hours) associated with the
collection: The total estimated annual
hour burden associated with this
collection is 42,000 hours.
(7) An estimate of the total public
burden (in cost) associated with the
collection: The estimated total annual
cost burden associated with this
collection of information is $8,652,000.
Dated: November 29, 2019.
Kathy Nuebel Kovarik,
Acting Deputy Director, U.S. Citizenship and
Immigration Services, Department of
Homeland Security.
[FR Doc. 2019–26331 Filed 12–5–19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111–97–P

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Bureau of Land Management
[LLNVS00000.L19200000.ET0000.
LRORF1708700.XXX .MO# 4500140293]

Public Land Order No. 7890, Extension
of Public Land Order No. 7419; Nevada
Bureau of Land Management,
Interior.
ACTION: Public Land Order.
AGENCY:

This Public Land Order (PLO)
extends the duration of the withdrawal
created by PLO No. 7419, issued
effective December 9, 1999, for an

SUMMARY:

PO 00000

Frm 00058

Fmt 4703

Sfmt 4703

66927

additional 20-year term. The extension
is necessary for the Department of the
Air Force (DAF), Nellis Air Force Base
(AFB), to continue providing safety
buffers from potentially hazardous
areas, protect populated areas, and
comply with Department of Defense
Directive No. 6055.09E regarding
ammunition and explosive safety
standards on lands adjacent to the Live
Ordnance Loading Areas at Nellis AFB,
northeast of Las Vegas, Clark County,
Nevada. The safety buffer zone includes
security patrol roads and a security
checkpoint.
This PLO takes effect on
December 10, 2019.

DATES:

Tom
Seley, Project Manager, at email tseley@
blm.gov or call 702–515–5293; Bureau
of Land Management, Southern Nevada
District Office, 4701 North Torrey Pines
Drive, Las Vegas, NV 89130. Persons
who use a telecommunications device
for the deaf may call the Federal Relay
Service (FRS) at 1–800–877–8339 to
leave a message or question for the
above individual. The FRS is available
24 hours a day, 7 days a week. You will
receive a reply during normal business
hours.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

This
Order extends the existing withdrawal
to continue its protective purpose and
reserve the lands for use by the DAF,
Nellis AFB.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Order
By virtue of the authority vested in
the Secretary of the Interior by Section
204(f) of the Federal Land Policy and
Management Act of 1976, 43 U.S.C.
1714(f), it is ordered as follows:
1. Public Land Order No. 7419 (64 FR
69025 (1999)), which withdrew public
lands from settlement, sale, location, or
entry under the United States mining
laws but not from leasing under the
mineral leasing laws for the DAF Nellis
AFB, with the legal land description
amended as described in the November
19, 2018, Federal Register notice of
withdrawal application (83 FR 58282),
is hereby extended for a period of 20
years.
2. This withdrawal extended by this
Order will expire on December 9, 2039,
unless, as a result of a review conducted
prior to the expiration date pursuant to
Section 204(f) of the Federal Land
Policy and Management Act of 1976, 43
U.S.C. 1714(f), the Secretary determines
that the withdrawal shall be further
extended.

E:\FR\FM\06DEN1.SGM

06DEN1