[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 165 (Monday, August 26, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Page 52767]
[FR Doc No: 2013-20646]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[CERCLA-03-2013-0145; FRL 9900-34-Region 3]

Notice of Administrative Settlement Agreement Pursuant to Section
122(H) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act of 1980, as Amended

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Notice; request for public comment.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act (``CERCLA''), notice is hereby given
that a proposed administrative settlement agreement for recovery of
response costs (``Proposed Agreement'') associated with the Central
Chemical Superfund Site, Hagerstown, Washington County, Maryland was
executed by the Environmental Protection Agency (``EPA'') and is now
subject to public comment, after which EPA may modify or withdraw its
consent if comments received disclose facts or considerations that
indicate that the Proposed Agreement is inappropriate, improper, or
inadequate. The Proposed Agreement would resolve potential EPA claims
under Section 107(a) of CERCLA, against Herman F. Stamper, (``Settling
Party''). The Proposed Agreement would require Settling Party to
reimburse EPA $2,500.00 for response costs incurred by EPA for the
Site.
    For thirty (30) days following the date of publication of this
notice, EPA will receive written comments relating to the Proposed
Agreement. EPA's response to any comments received will be available
for public inspection at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before thirty (30) days after
the date of publication of this notice.

ADDRESSES: The Proposed Agreement and additional background information
relating to the Proposed Agreement are available for public inspection
at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch
Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103. A copy of the Proposed Agreement may be
obtained from Robin E. Eiseman (3RC41), Senior Assistant Regional
Counsel, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1650 Arch Street,
Philadelphia, PA 19103. Comments should reference the ``Central
Chemical Superfund Site, Proposed Settlement Agreement'' and ``EPA
Docket No. CERCLA-03-2013-0145,'' and should be forwarded to Robin E.
Eiseman at the above address.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robin E. Eiseman (3RC41), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, PA
19103, Phone:<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    Dated: August 9, 2013.
Karen Melvin,
Acting Director, Hazardous Site Cleanup Division, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region III.
[FR Doc. 2013-20646 Filed 8-23-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: July 20, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 139)]
[Notices]
[Page 39869-39873]
[DOCID:fr20jy07-97]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-56069; File No. SR-OCC-2006-19]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; The Options Clearing Corporation;
Order Granting Approval of a Proposed Rule Change Relating to Close-Out
Netting Procedures

July 13, 2007.

I. Introduction

    On October 10, 2006, The Options Clearing Corporation (``OCC'')
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'')
proposed rule change SR-OCC-2006-19 pursuant to section 19(b)(1) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'').\1\ On May 15, 2007, OCC
amended the proposed rule change. Notice of the proposal was published
in the Federal Register on May 29, 2007.\2\ On June 21, 2007, OCC again
amended the proposed rule change.\3\ Three comment letters were
received.\4\ For the reasons discussed below, the Commission is
granting approval of the proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 55788 (May 21, 2007), 72
FR 29569.
    \3\ Although the proposed rule change was amended after it was
noticed for comment in the Federal Register, republication of the
notice was not necessary because the June 21, 2007, amendment made
only a technical change regarding the application of a financial
accounting interpretation.
    \4\ Edward S. Grieb, Managing Director and Financial Controller,
Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. (June 19, 2007); Matthew Schroeder,
Chairman, Dealer Accounting Committee, Securities Industry and
Financial Markets Association (June 19, 2007); Gregory A. Sigrist,
Managing Director, Morgan Stanley, New York, New York (June 19,
2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description

Background

    OCC was asked by several of its Clearing Members to consider
adopting a rule that would allow for close-out netting of obligations
running between OCC and Clearing Members in the event of an OCC default
or insolvency. The reason was that such a rule could reduce applicable
capital requirements for a Clearing Member's parent company where the
parent is a U.S. or non-U.S. bank or part of a Consolidated Supervised
Entity (``CSE''). The absence of a netting agreement that would apply
in a default or insolvency of OCC could cause the minimum capital
requirement applicable to such a parent company and its subsidiaries to
be substantially larger on a consolidated basis than it would be
otherwise. In the absence of a netting agreement, applicable banking
regulations generally prohibit offsetting the Clearing Member's
liabilities to OCC on short positions in options and on other
obligations against the Clearing Member's credits from OCC with respect
to long options positions and from other obligations of OCC. In
addition, OCC believes that a close-out netting rule would clarify the
accounting treatment of obligations between OCC and its Clearing
Members.
    The proposed rule change is designed to allow Clearing Members to
comply with international standards under the Basel Capital Accord
adopted by the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision relating to
bilateral netting (``Basel Netting Standards'').\5\ It is OCC's
understanding that the capital rules applicable to most banks following
the Basel Netting Standards require that an enforceable netting
agreement be in place in order for mutual obligations between a
Clearing Member that is a bank affiliate and a counterparty such as OCC
to be treated on a net basis. The policy behind this requirement is to
ensure that obligations that are treated on a net basis for capital
purposes can actually be offset against one another in the event of the
failure of the counterparty. In the absence of an enforceable netting
agreement, there is concern that the representative of the failed
counterparty (i.e., OCC in this scenario) under applicable insolvency
law might be able to ``cherry pick'' by assuming the benefit of
contracts representing an asset to the bankruptcy estate while
rejecting contracts representing a liability. This would force the non-
defaulting counterparty (i.e., the Clearing Member in this scenario) to
perform in full on its liabilities while sharing with other unsecured
creditors in any amounts available for distribution from the bankruptcy
estate to satisfy its claims. An enforceable netting agreement
providing for ``close-out netting'' in the event of a default or
insolvency of OCC would avoid this potential result.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ For more information on the Basel Committee on Banking
Supervision and the Basel Netting Standards, see the Bank for
International Settlement's Web site at: http://www.bis.org.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Chapter XI of OCC's Rules, Suspension of a Clearing Member,
provides in considerable detail for

liquidation of the accounts of an insolvent Clearing Member including
provisions for close-out netting of the Clearing Member's obligations
against its assets to the extent permitted by customer protection rules
under the Act and under the Commodity Exchange Act (``CEA''). However,
OCC's rules do not presently contain any provisions that specifically
provide for close-out netting in the event of a default or insolvency
of OCC. Indeed, an OCC default or insolvency has always been considered
so unlikely that OCC's rules do not contain any provisions whatever
contemplating such events. OCC's management does not believe that an
OCC default or insolvency has become any more likely. On the contrary,
OCC's long history of safe operations and continually improved methods
of risk management suggest that such an event is more remote than ever.
Nevertheless, the Basel Netting Standards make it desirable for OCC to
put in place such a netting provision in order to clarify the capital
requirements applicable on a consolidated basis to parent companies of
Clearing Members that are subject to the Basel Netting Standards.
    The Basel Netting Standards are not directly applicable to the
determination of net capital requirements for broker-dealers under
Commission Rule 15c3-1.\6\ However, some Clearing Members are
subsidiaries of banks or bank holding companies that are subject to the
Basel Netting Standards when computing capital requirements on a
consolidated basis. In addition, several of OCC's largest Clearing
Members have volunteered to participate in the Commission's CSE
program. Finally, as noted below, OCC believes that a close-out netting
rule would also clarify the accounting treatment of obligations between
OCC and a Clearing Member under FIN 39.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 17 CFR 240.15c3-1.
    \7\ Financial Account Standards Board (``FASB'') Interpretation
No. 39, Offsetting of Amounts Related to Certain Contracts. FIN 39
specifies the circumstances in which assets and liabilities may be
treated as offsetting in financial statements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Basel Netting Standards and FIN 39 (collectively ``Netting
Standards'') are stated in general terms and do not contain detailed
requirements. OCC's proposed close-out netting procedures would clearly
permit Clearing Members to treat their obligations to OCC on a net
basis to the fullest extent consistent with the Commission's customer
protection rules in the event of an OCC default or insolvency. The
proposed rule change is also intended to protect the clearing system
from being thrown out of balance or forced into a disorderly
liquidation by a single Clearing Member's exercise of netting rights.
Unlike typical, purely bilateral OTC derivatives relationships, OCC's
contractual rights and obligations, while bilateral between OCC and any
individual Clearing Member, represent a balanced structure in which
every obligation owed by OCC to a Clearing Member is in turn matched by
a corresponding obligation of a Clearing Member to OCC. The creation of
individually exercisable netting rights that could be exercised
independently by each Clearing Member in the event of an OCC default or
insolvency could result in unfairness and disruption if no coordination
is imposed.

The Basel Netting Standards

    The Basel Netting Standards are contained in Basel II:
International Convergence of Capital Measurement and Capital Standards:
A Revised Framework--Comprehensive Version (June 2006) (``Basel II
Accord''). The Basel Netting Standards provide that a bank \8\ may net
transactions subject to any legally valid form of bilateral netting,
including netting of bilateral obligations arising from novation, if
the bank satisfies its national supervisor that it has a netting
contract with the counterparty ``which creates a single legal
obligation, covering all included transactions, such that the bank
would have either a claim to receive or obligation to pay only the net
sum of the positive and negative mark-to-market values of included
individual transactions in the event a counterparty fails to perform
due to any * * * default, bankruptcy, liquidation or similar
circumstances.'' \9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ These same standards are also applied to bank holding
companies.
    \9\ Basel Committee on Banking Supervision, Basel Capital
Accord: Treatment of Potential Exposure for Off-Balance Sheet Items
(April 1995) at Annex, p. 4. The relevant bilateral netting
standards under this 1995 publication were not overridden by the
Basel II Accord. Basel II Accord at p. 213. Basel II also allows
cross-product netting.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Basel Netting Standards also require that the bank have certain
``written and reasoned legal opinions that, in the event of a legal
challenge, the relevant courts and administrative authorities would
find the bank's exposure to be the net amount.'' The national
supervisor must be satisfied that the netting is enforceable under the
laws of each relevant jurisdiction. The proposed close-out netting
procedures are intended to support such an opinion.
    The Basel Netting Standards have been incorporated in applicable
bank regulatory laws or regulations in various jurisdictions. For
example, the substance of this standard appears in Article 12f of the
Swiss Banking Ordinance. It has also been incorporated into the capital
guidelines for various U.S. financial institutions.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See e.g., Regulations of the Office of the Comptroller of
the Currency applicable to national banks set forth at 12 CFR
appendix A to part 3 section (3)(b)(5)(ii)(B) (adopted July 1,
2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

FDICIA and Bankruptcy Code

    The proposed close-out netting procedures are designed to take
advantage of the netting provisions of Title IV of the Federal Deposit
Insurance Corporation Improvement Act of 1991 (``FDICIA'') and of the
applicable provisions of the United States Bankruptcy Code. Section 404
of FDICIA generally validates netting contracts among members of
clearing organizations notwithstanding any other provision of law.\11\
In order to qualify for this benefit, the ``netting contract'' must be
between ``members'' of a ``clearing organization,'' as each of these
terms is defined in FDICIA. OCC meets the definition of ``clearing
organization'' under FDICIA, and both it and its Clearing Members meet
the definition of ``members.'' Under FDICIA, the rules of a clearing
organization are expressly included within the definition of ``netting
contract.'' Accordingly, under section 404 of FDICIA, the netting
provisions of OCC's By-Laws and Rules, including the proposed revised
netting procedures, will be given effect in the event of OCC's default
or insolvency.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 12 U.S.C. 4403.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 362(b) of the United States Bankruptcy Code \12\ exempts
from the automatic stay provisions of the Bankruptcy Code the setoff
by, among other parties, stockbrokers, commodity brokers, or clearing
agencies of mutual debts or claims under commodity or securities
contracts. This section preserves OCC's ability to net obligations
between OCC and a suspended Clearing Member and similarly would protect
the ability of Clearing Members to net obligations under the proposed
netting procedures in the event of OCC's default or insolvency. In
addition, the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act
of 2005 (``BAPCPA'') \13\ added to the Bankruptcy Code new subsection
362(o) which provides that the right of setoff and other relevant
rights may not be stayed by any order of a court or administrative
agency in any proceeding under the Bankruptcy Code.\14\ This addition
was a significant expansion of the protections for

financial contracts under the Bankruptcy Code.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 11 U.S.C. 362(b).
    \13\ Public Law 109-8, 119 Stat. 23 (2005).
    \14\ 11 U.S.C. 362(o).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Prior Netting Filing and Clearing Member Comments

    OCC previously submitted and subsequently withdrew a proposed rule
change with respect to close-out netting (``Prior Netting
Filing'').\15\ After reviewing the Prior Netting Filing, some Clearing
Members questioned whether the netting procedures set forth in that
filing satisfied the Netting Standards. Specifically, Clearing Members
questioned whether:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ File No. SR-OCC-2005-17.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    1. The definition of insolvency in the Prior Netting Filing, which
covered only voluntary or involuntary cases under Chapter 7, needed to
be expanded to include other types of bankruptcies, particularly
Chapter 11 cases, and non-bankruptcy defaults;
    2. The procedures set forth in the Prior Netting Filing complied
with the Netting Standards in light of the inability of the Clearing
Members as the non-defaulting parties to initiate the netting process;
and
    3. The proposed procedures gave Clearing Members the ability to
promptly net and to close-out positions as required to comply with the
Netting Standards given the degree of control that OCC reserved to
itself in the process.
    After considering the Clearing Members' comments, OCC withdrew the
Prior Netting Filing and made modifications to the proposed netting
provisions which are reflected in the current filing. The primary
differences between the currently-proposed close-out netting procedures
and those contained in the Prior Netting Filing are that the currently-
proposed procedures:
    1. Significantly expand the definition of insolvency to include
non-bankruptcy defaults, specifically any failure by OCC to comply with
an undisputed obligation to deliver money or property to a Clearing
Member for a period of thirty days after the obligation becomes due,
and to include bankruptcy or insolvency proceedings under statutory
provisions other than Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code;
    2. Provide that upon the occurrence of an event of default or
insolvency, any Clearing Member that is neither suspended nor in
default with regard to an obligation to OCC may provide a notice to OCC
of its intention to terminate all cleared contracts and stock loan and
borrow positions in all of its accounts; and
    3. Establish a fixed termination time for all cleared contracts and
stock loan and borrow positions, which would be the close of business
on the third business day after OCC's receipt of the prescribed notice
from a Clearing Member unless a different time is mandated by the
Bankruptcy Code, and provide that the liquidation settlement date will
occur as promptly as practicable after the termination time (the
original provisions granted OCC the discretion to establish the
termination time and provided that the liquidation settlement date
would occur no earlier than the business day following the termination
date).
    OCC believes that the above modifications address the Clearing
Members' concerns while still permitting the liquidation process to
proceed in an orderly manner and the clearance system to remain in
balance.

Overview of Proposed Rule Change

    The proposed rule change consists of a single new Section 27,
Close-Out Netting, of Article VI of OCC's By-Laws, Clearance of
Exchange Transactions. Consistent with the requirements of the Basel
Netting Standards, the netting provision is applicable in the event
that OCC fails to perform its obligations with respect to cleared
contracts as the result of defaults by OCC in performing its
obligations under its rules or as the result of bankruptcy, a
liquidation of OCC, or similar circumstances. The close-out netting
procedures are drafted in such a way that they would only be triggered
by an event of default, as defined in new section 27(a). The procedures
would not be triggered by any delay in performance that is permitted
under OCC's By-Laws or Rules. For example, section 19 of Article VI of
OCC's By-Laws permits OCC to take specified actions, including
suspension of settlement obligations, in the event of a shortage of
underlying securities. These delays would not be considered an event of
default under section 27 and therefore would not allow a Clearing
Member to initiate the close-out netting procedures.
    Under the proposed close-out netting procedures, in the event of a
default or insolvency by OCC, OCC would be required to provide notice
of the default or insolvency to the Commission, the CFTC, all Clearing
Members, any clearing organizations with which OCC has cross-margining
or cross-guarantee agreements, and all markets for which OCC clears
transactions. The proposed procedures further provide that in the event
of an OCC default, any Clearing Member, so long as it is not suspended
or in default, may provide a written notice to OCC of its intent to
initiate the liquidation process with regard to its own contracts and
stock loan and borrow positions. This notice would, however, trigger a
liquidation of cleared contracts and positions of all Clearing Members.
This procedure is necessary because liquidating contracts and positions
of less than all Clearing Members would result in an imbalance of the
clearing system and therefore would be unworkable. The proposed
procedures establish the close of business on the third business day
after OCC's receipt of the liquidation notice from a Clearing Member as
the termination time unless the Bankruptcy Code prescribes a different
time.
    The proposed close-out netting procedures provide that when a
triggering event occurs, rights and obligations within and between
accounts of each Clearing Member will be netted to the same extent as
if the Clearing Member had been suspended and its accounts were being
liquidated under Chapter XI of the Rules. This is appropriate in that
those rules generally provide for the netting of assets against
liabilities to the extent permitted under applicable law, including the
customer protection rules referred to above. Assets remaining after all
legally permissible offsets would be returned to the Clearing Member
entitled to them. The Clearing Member would remain obligated to OCC
only to the extent of any remaining net liabilities following such
permitted offsets.
    If close-out netting were ever required because of the default or
insolvency of OCC, it seems likely that there would be no market
available in which to liquidate positions in cleared contracts through
market transactions. Accordingly, the proposed procedures contain a
provision for valuation of open cleared contracts based upon market
values of underlying interests and provide a reasonable means for OCC
to fix all necessary values of assets and liabilities for purposes of
the netting. Under the procedures, OCC is to provide valuations as
promptly as practicable but in any event within thirty days of the
termination time. Valuations would be based upon available market
information.

FIN 39: Offsetting of Amounts Related to Certain Contracts

    In addition to the potential benefit of the proposed close-out
netting procedures with respect to capital requirements applicable to
certain Clearing Members and their affiliates on a consolidated basis
under the Basel Netting Standards, OCC believes that the proposed
close-out netting procedures should also clarify the accounting
treatment of mutual

obligations running between OCC and its Clearing Members. OCC's
Clearing Members most commonly prepare their financial statements using
United States Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (``US GAAP'').
FIN 39 responds to certain questions relating to the circumstances in
which assets and liabilities may be treated as offsetting in financial
statements. FIN 39 is an interpretation of Accounting Principles Board
(``APB'') Opinion No. 10, which states that ``it is a general principle
of accounting that the offsetting of assets and liabilities in the
balance sheet is improper except where a right of setoff exists.'' FIN
39 provides a definition of a right of setoff and a statement of the
conditions under which a right of setoff exists. FIN 39 states, ``A
right of setoff is a debtor's legal right, by contract or otherwise, to
discharge all or a portion of the debt owed to another party by
applying against the debt an amount that the other party owes to the
debtor.'' FIN 39 sets forth the following four conditions which must be
met for there to exist a right of setoff:
    (1) Each of two parties owes the other determinable amounts.
    (2) The reporting party has the right to set off the amount owed
with the amount owed by the other party.
    (3) The reporting party intends to set off.
    (4) The right of setoff is enforceable at law.

It is the obligation of each Clearing Members to determine its proper
application of U.S. GAAP but OCC believes that proposed new section 27
will enable Clearing Members to conclude that conditions (1), (2), and
(4) have been met. (Condition (3) deals with intent, which is a factual
question.)

Discussion of Specific Provisions of Section 27

    The text of proposed new section 27 of Article VI of the By-Laws is
largely self-explanatory in light of the foregoing discussion of its
purpose. A few comments may nevertheless be helpful.
    Under proposed sections 27(a) and (b), if OCC should ever give
notice of its default or insolvency and a Clearing Member in turn
provide a notice of termination, the termination time may be later than
the time at which a Clearing Member's liquidation notice is given.\16\
This leaves open at least the theoretical possibility that, if there
are trading days or hours left between the time the notice is given and
the termination time, market participants could attempt to engage in
closing transactions at prices determined in the market to avoid being
subject to a forced liquidation at prices fixed by OCC.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ Under proposed section 27(b), the termination time would be
the close of business on the third business day following a Clearing
Member's liquidation notice unless the Bankruptcy Code prescribes a
different time. Under section 502(b) of the Bankruptcy Code, claims
against a debtor are valued as of the date of the filing of the
bankruptcy petition. Accordingly, in the event of a bankruptcy the
termination time would be on the date of the filing of the petition.
    \17\ 17 Such activity of market participants could start at the
time of OCC's default notice rather than the time of the liquidation
notice although as a practical matter a liquidation notice would
likely closely follow the default notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Proposed section 27(b) provides that in the event of a default or
insolvency and the requisite notice by a Clearing Member, positions of
all Clearing Members will be liquidated to the maximum extent permitted
by law and the By-Laws and Rules. The limitations on netting under
OCC's By-Laws and Rules are in general those mandated by applicable
law, such as the Commission's Rule 15c3-3. For example, where a
Clearing Member carries both proprietary and customer accounts netting
across accounts could cause the Clearing Member to be in violation of
Rule 15c3-3 and other customer protection rules. Accordingly, section
27 generally provides for netting within and not across different
accounts with specific exceptions set forth in section 27(d). In
addition, CEA segregation rules require separate segregation of
customer funds of futures customers. Accordingly, netting across
futures segregated funds accounts and other accounts is also generally
prohibited. Otherwise, the provisions of section 27(d) are intended to
maximize netting where consistent with customer protection rules. While
securities market-makers and specialists are generally not customers
within the meaning of Rule 15c3-3, they are ordinarily ``customers''
within the meaning of the Commission's hypothecation rules.\18\ OCC has
historically not permitted setoff between market-maker accounts and
customer accounts in which positions of other securities customers are
carried. This separation has been preserved in section 27(d)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ 17 CFR 240.8c-1 and 240.15c2-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Comments

    The Commission received three comment letters to the proposed rule
change.\19\ All three comment letters support the proposed rule change.
Two of the comment letters, one from the Dealer Accounting Committee of
the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association and one from
Lehman Brothers Holdings, Inc., state that the commenters support the
proposed rule change because it is designed to allow OCC's members to
comply with the Basel Capital Accord standards relating to bilateral
netting and because it will clarify the accounting treatment of
obligations between OCC and its clearing members. The third comment
letter, from Morgan Stanley, states that Morgan Stanley believes the
proposed rule change would result in significant improvement in
financial reporting, would better align financial reporting with risk
management practices, and would result in presenting the net credit
risk exposure related to derivative instruments cleared through the
OCC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ Supra note 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Discussion

    Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act requires, among other things, that
the rules of a clearing agency be designed to remove impediments to and
perfect the mechanism of a national system for the prompt and accurate
clearance and settlement of securities transactions.\20\ The proposed
rule change should help to reduce uncertainty by establishing the
procedures OCC and its Clearing Members must follow in the event of an
OCC default or insolvency. Accordingly, because the proposed rule
change establishes procedures that should reduce uncertainty and
streamline the final clearance and settlement process in the event OCC
defaults on it obligations to its members or otherwise becomes
insolvent, we find that the proposed rule change is designed to remove
impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a national system for the
prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of securities
transactions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ 5 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Although the proposed rule change applies in the event of the
default or insolvency of OCC, OCC considers such an event to be
unlikely. OCC's purpose in making the rule change is to allow its
Clearing Members and certain affiliates of its Clearing Members to
obtain better treatment under regulatory and financial standards where
such better treatment requires that close-out netting procedures are in
place. The close-out netting procedures are intended to allow Clearing
Members to (1) reduce the applicable capital requirements for the
Clearing Member's parent company where the parent is a U.S. or non-U.S.
bank or part of a CSE under the Basel Netting Standards; (2) take
advantage of the netting provisions of FDICIA and the applicable
provisions of the United States Bankruptcy Code; and (3) clarify the
accounting treatment of obligations

between OCC and each Clearing Member under FIN 39. While the Commission
believes that these intended benefits of the proposed rule change are
not inconsistent with our finding above that the proposed rule change
is designed to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a
national system for the prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of
securities transactions under section 17A the Act, we note that this
order relates only to OCC's obligations under section 17A of the Act
and neither makes any findings nor expresses any opinion with respect
to OCC's representations and interpretations regarding the application
of the Basel Netting Standards, FDCIA, Bankruptcy Code, or FIN 39.

V. Conclusion

    On the basis of the foregoing, the Commission finds that the
proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of the Act and
in particular section 17A of the Act and the rules and regulations
thereunder.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ In approving the proposed rule change, the Commission
considered the proposal's impact on efficiency, competition and
capital formation. 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to section 19(b)(2) of the Act,
that the proposed rule change (File No. SR-OCC-2006-19) be and hereby
is approved.

    For the Commission by the Division of Market Regulation,
pursuant to delegated authority.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E7-14019 Filed 7-19-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 1 (Tuesday, January 3, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 86-87]
[FR Doc No: 2022-28513]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Docket ID: FEMA-2022-0033; OMB No. 1660-NW160]

Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection;
Comment Request; Floodplain Administrator (FPA) National Training
Assessment

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, Department of Homeland
Security.

ACTION: 60-Day notice of new collection and request for comments.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), as part of its
continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites
the general public to take this opportunity to comment on a new
information collection. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995, this notice seeks comments concerning the training needs of
National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) Floodplain Administrators
(FPAs) throughout the United States.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before March 6, 2023.

ADDRESSES: To avoid duplicate submissions to the docket, please submit
comments at www.regulations.gov under Docket ID FEMA-2022-0033. Follow
the instructions for submitting comments.
    All submissions received must include the agency name and Docket
ID. 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 read the Privacy and
Security Notice that is available via a link on the homepage of
www.regulations.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael Gumpert, National Floodplain
Management Training Coordinator, FIMA, Floodplain Management Division,
[email protected],<PHONE_NUMBER>. You may contact the
Information Management Division for copies of the proposed collection
of information at email address: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP)
is authorized by the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 (title XIII
of Pub. L. 90-448, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 4001 et seq.). The general
purpose of the NFIP is to create a voluntary program of flood insurance
that can promote the public interest by providing appropriate
protection against the perils of flood losses and encouraging sound
land use by minimizing exposure of property to flood losses; and
integrate the objectives of a flood insurance program. Nationally, as
of December 2021, over 22,000 communities in 56 states and
jurisdictions participate in the NFIP. Each ``eligible or participating
community,'' shall legislatively (1) Appoint or designate the agency or
official with the responsibility, authority, and means to implement the
commitments of application to the National Flood Insurance Program and
(2) Designate the official responsible to submit a report to the
Federal Insurance Administrator concerning the community participation
in the Program, including, but not limited to the development and
implementation of flood plain management regulations. It is common for
eligible and participating communities to assign the FPA role to
employees who are also simultaneously responsible for other roles such
as Police Chief, Town Clerk, Grants Manager, Finance Manager. FPAs are
a diverse group with varied socio-economic backgrounds, needs,
challenges, abilities, schedules, learning styles, geographies, and
resources. A Training Strategy is needed to direct FEMA's limited FPA
Training budget into training solutions that address the unique needs
of FPAs as well as their varied socio-economic backgrounds, challenges,
abilities, schedules, learning styles, geographies, and resources to
advance equity, professional development, and retention of FPAs. To be
effective, the FPA Training Strategy must be grounded in an accurate
understanding FPAs' varied socio-economic backgrounds, needs,
challenges, abilities, schedules, learning styles, geographies, and
resources. To achieve this understanding, a Training Needs Assessment
must be performed. This data has not been collected previously.
    FEMA is requesting a three-year clearance to collect information
from FPAs regarding their training needs, floodplain management
experiences, and demographics to produce improved outcomes for the
NFIP. The data will be used to help FEMA, State, Tribal, and
Territorial NFIP Offices, and Floodplain Associations to develop
equitable

training strategies and solutions that effectively and efficiently
address the diverse abilities, schedules, learning styles, geographies
and resources of FPAs who implement this Federal Government program on
behalf of their local communities. The information collection, to be
administered by an independent, third-party research organization, will
allow for a data-informed approach to understanding the needs and
expectations of an important and specific group of FEMA partners and
customers for their development and program administration. By using
this approach, FEMA will be able to gain important insights about FPAs
and how to improve its offerings and support as well as to allocate
resources more effectively. The ultimate objective is to reduce the
socio-economic impact of floods through better preparation of FPAs to
assist communities adopt and enforce floodplain management regulations
that help mitigate flooding effects and thus support property owners,
renters, and businesses to recover faster after a flooding event.
    The primary law that supports the information collection efforts is
the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993, 31 U.S.C. 1116,
which has as one of its purposes ``improve Federal programs
effectiveness and public accountability by promoting a new focus on
results, service quality, and customer satisfaction.''

Collection of Information

    Title: Floodplain Administrator (FPA) National Training Needs
Assessment.
    Type of Information Collection: New information collection.
    OMB Number: 1660-NW160.
    FEMA Forms: FEMA Form FF-206-FY-22-159, Floodplain Administrator
Training Needs Assessment.
    Abstract: The online survey will collect information from
Floodplain Administrators regarding their training needs, floodplain
management experiences, and demographics. The data will be used to help
FEMA, State, Tribal, and Territorial NFIP Offices, and Floodplain
Associations to develop training strategies and solutions that
effectively and efficiently address those needs to produce improved
outcomes for the National Flood Insurance Program.
    Affected Public: State, local, or Tribal government.
    Estimated Number of Respondents: 6,323.
    Estimated Number of Responses: 6,323.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 3,161.5.
    Estimated Total Annual Respondent Cost: $124,310.
    Estimated Respondents' Operation and Maintenance Costs: $0.
    Estimated Respondents' Capital and Start-Up Costs: $0.
    Estimated Total Annual Cost to the Federal Government: $420,329.

Comments

    Comments may be submitted as indicated in the ADDRESSES caption
above. Comments are solicited to (a) evaluate whether the proposed data
collection is necessary for the proper performance of the agency,
including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b)
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; (c) enhance the quality, utility, and
clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) 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.

Millicent Brown Wilson,
Records Management Branch Chief, Office of the Chief Administrative
Officer, Mission Support, Federal Emergency Management Agency,
Department of Homeland Security.
[FR Doc. 2022-28513 Filed 12-30-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-47-P


[Federal Register: April 11, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 69)]
[Notices]
[Page 18306]
[DOCID:fr11ap06-67]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP06-286-000]

Dominion Transmission, Inc.; Notice of Proposed Changes in FERC
Gas Tariff

April 5, 2006.
    Take notice that on March 31, 2006, Dominion Transmission, Inc.
(DTI) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, Third Revised
Volume No. 1, the following tariff sheets, to become effective May 1,
2006:

Fourth Revised Sheet No. 0.
Second Revised Sheet No. 1149.
Second Revised Sheet No. 1150.
First Revised Sheet No. 1151.
First Revised Sheet No. 2051.
First Revised Sheet No. 2150.
Second Revised Sheet No. 2151.
First Revised Sheet No. 2152.
Third Revised Sheet No. 2153.
First Revised Sheet No. 2155.
Sheet No. 2156.
Second Revised Sheet No. 2501.

    DTI states that the purposes of this filing are to revise certain
of its proforma service agreements and to correct outdated or omitted
references.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices,
motions, or protests must be filed in accordance with the provisions of
Sec.  154.210 of the Commission's regulations (18 CFR 154.210). Anyone
filing an intervention or protest must serve a copy of that document on
the Applicant. Anyone filing an intervention or protest on or before
the intervention or protest date need not serve motions to intervene or
protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov.
 Persons unable to file electronically should submit an

original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible online at http://www.ferc.gov, using the

``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For

TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E6-5310 Filed 4-10-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 13 (Tuesday, January 21, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 3386-3388]
[FR Doc No: 2020-00869]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2020-N-0008]

Request for Nominations for Individuals and Consumer
Organizations for Advisory Committees

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is requesting that any
consumer organizations interested in participating in the selection of
voting and/or nonvoting consumer representatives to serve on its
advisory committees or panels notify FDA in writing. FDA is also
requesting nominations for voting and/or nonvoting consumer
representatives to serve on advisory committees and/or panels for which
vacancies currently exist or are expected to occur in the near future.
Nominees recommended to serve as a voting or nonvoting consumer
representative may be self-nominated or may be nominated by a consumer
organization. FDA seeks to include the views of women and men, members
of all racial and ethnic groups, and individuals with and without
disabilities on its advisory committees and, therefore, encourages
nominations of appropriately qualified candidates from these groups.

DATES: Any consumer organization interested in participating in the
selection of an appropriate voting or nonvoting member to represent
consumer interests on an FDA advisory committee or panel may send a
letter or email stating that interest to FDA (see ADDRESSES) by
February 20, 2020, for vacancies listed in this notice. Concurrently,
nomination materials for prospective candidates should be sent to FDA
(see ADDRESSES) by February 20, 2020. Nominations will be accepted for
current vacancies and for those that will or may occur through December
31, 2020.

ADDRESSES: All statements of interest from consumer organizations
interested in participating in the selection process should be
submitted electronically to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>by mail to
Advisory Committee Oversight and Management Staff, 10903 New Hampshire
Ave., Bldg. 32, Rm. 5122, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, or by Fax: 301-
847-8640.
    Consumer representative nominations should be submitted
electronically by logging into the FDA Advisory Committee Membership
Nomination Portal: https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/FACTRSPortal/FACTRS/index.cfm, by mail to Advisory Committee Oversight and
Management Staff, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 32, Rm. 5122, Silver
Spring, MD 20993-0002, or by Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>. Additional information
about becoming a member of an FDA advisory committee can also be
obtained by visiting FDA's website at http://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/default.htm.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For questions relating to
participation in the selection process: Kimberly Hamilton, Advisory
Committee Oversight and Management Staff, Food and Drug Administration,
10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 32, Rm. 5122, Silver Spring, MD 20993-
0002,<PHONE_NUMBER>, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    For questions relating to specific advisory committees or panels,
contact the appropriate contact person listed in table 1.

                  Table 1--Advisory Committee Contacts
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Contact person                      Committee/panel
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kathleen Hayes, Center for Biologics           Allergenic Products
 Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug         Advisory Committee.
 Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave.,
 Bldg. 71, Rm. 6307C, Silver Spring, MD 20993-
 0002,<PHONE_NUMBER>, email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Kalyani Bhatt, Center for Drugs Evaluation     Bone, Reproductive and
 and Research, Food and Drug Administration,    Urological Drugs
 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 31, Rm.        Advisory Committee,
 2438, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-796-   Psychopharmacologic
 9005, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>       Drugs Advisory
                                                Committee.
LaToya Bonner, Center for Drugs Evaluation     Dermatologic and
 and Research, Food and Drug Administration,    Ophthalmic Drugs
 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 31, Rm.        Advisory Committee.
 2428, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-796-
 2855, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Philip Bautista, Center for Drugs Evaluation   Drug Safety and Risk
 and Research, Food and Drug Administration,    Management Advisory
 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 31, Rm.        Committee.
 2430, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 240-762-
 8729, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Patricio Garcia, Center for Devices and        Clinical Chemistry and
 Radiological Health, Food and Drug             Clinical Toxicology
 Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave.,      Devices Panel,
 Bldg. 66, Rm. G610, Silver Spring, MD 20993-   Gastroenterology and
 0002,<PHONE_NUMBER>, email:                     Urology Devices Panel,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>                  Obstetrics and
                                                Gynecology Devices
                                                Panel.
Sara Anderson, Center for Devices and          Dental Products Devices
 Radiological Health, Food and Drug             Panel.
 Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave.,
 Bldg. 66, Rm. G616, Silver Spring, MD 20993-
 0002,<PHONE_NUMBER>, email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Evella Washington, Center for Devices and      Circulatory Systems
 Radiological Health, Food and Drug             Devices Panel.
 Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave.,
 Bldg. 66, Rm. G640, Silver Spring, MD 20993-
 0002,<PHONE_NUMBER>, email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Joannie Adams-White, Center for Devices and    Medical Devices Dispute
 Radiological Health, Food and Drug             Resolution Panel.
 Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave.,
 Bldg. 66, Rm. 5519, Silver Spring, MD 20993-
 0002,<PHONE_NUMBER>, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Aden Asefa, Center for Devices and             Immunology Devices Panel;
 Radiological Health, Food and Drug             Microbiology Devices
 Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave.,      Panel.
 Bldg. 66, Rm. G642, Silver Spring, MD 20993-
 0002,<PHONE_NUMBER>, email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>------------------------------------------------------------------------

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: FDA is requesting nominations for voting
and/or nonvoting consumer representatives for the vacancies listed in
table 2:

      Table 2--Committee Descriptions, Type of Consumer Representative Vacancy, and Approximate Date Needed
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Committee/panel/areas of expertise needed           Type of vacancy                Approximate date needed
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Allergenic Products Advisory Committee--    1-Voting.........................  August 31, 2020.
 Knowledgeable in the fields of allergy,
 immunology, pediatrics, internal
 medicine, biochemistry, and related
 specialties.
Bone, Reproductive and Urological Drugs     1-Voting.........................  Immediately.
 Advisory Committee--Knowledgeable in the
 fields of osteoporosis and metabolic bone
 disease, obstetrics, gynecology, urology,
 pediatrics, epidemiology, or statistics
 and related specialties.
Psychopharmacologic Drugs Advisory          1-Voting.........................  Immediately.
 Committee--Knowledgeable in the fields of
 psychopharmacology, psychiatry,
 epidemiology or statistics, and related
 specialties.
Dermatologic and Ophthalmic Drugs Advisory  1-Voting.........................  August 31, 2020.
 Committee--Knowledgeable in the fields of
 dermatology, ophthalmology, internal
 medicine, pathology, immunology,
 epidemiology or statistics, and other
 related professions.
Drug Safety and Risk Management Advisory    1-Voting.........................  May 31, 2020.
 Committee--Knowledgeable in risk
 communication, risk management, drug
 safety, medical, behavioral, and
 biological sciences as they apply to risk
 management, and drug abuse.
Clinical Chemistry and Clinical Toxicology  1-Non-Voting.....................  Immediately.
 Devices Panel--Doctor of Medicine or
 philosophy with experience in clinical
 chemistry (e.g., cardiac markers),
 clinical toxicology, clinical pathology,
 clinical laboratory medicine, and
 endocrinology.
Gastroenterology and Urology Devices        1-Non-Voting.....................  Immediately.
 Panel--Gastroenterologists, urologists
 and nephrologists.
Obstetrics and Gynecology Devices Panel--   1-Non-Voting.....................  Immediately.
 Experts in perinatology, embryology,
 reproductive endocrinology, pediatric
 gynecology, gynecological oncology,
 operative hysteroscopy, pelviscopy,
 electro-surgery, laser surgery, assisted
 reproductive technologies, contraception,
 postoperative adhesions, and cervical
 cancer and colposcopy; biostatisticians
 and engineers with experience in
 obstetrics/gynecology devices;
 urogynecologists; experts in breast care;
 experts in gynecology in the older
 patient; experts in diagnostic (optical)
 spectroscopy; experts in midwifery; labor
 and delivery nursing.
Dental Products Device Panel--Dentists,     1-Non-Voting.....................  Immediately.
 engineers and scientists who have
 expertise in the areas of dental
 implants, dental materials,
 periodontology, tissue engineering, and
 dental anatomy.
Circulatory Systems Devices Panel--         1-Non-Voting.....................  Immediately.
 Interventional cardiologists,
 electrophysiologists, invasive (vascular)
 radiologists, vascular and cardiothoracic
 surgeons, and cardiologists with special
 interest in congestive heart failure.
Medical Devices Dispute Resolution--        1-Non-Voting.....................  Immediately.
 Experts with broad, cross-cutting
 scientific, clinical, analytical or
 mediation skills.
Immunology Devices Panel--Persons with      1-Non-Voting.....................  Immediately.
 experience in medical, surgical, or
 clinical oncology, internal medicine,
 clinical immunology, allergy, molecular
 diagnostics, or clinical laboratory
 medicine.
Microbiology Devices Panel--Clinicians      1-Non-Voting.....................  Immediately.
 with an expertise in infectious disease,
 e.g., pulmonary disease specialists,
 sexually transmitted disease specialists,
 pediatric infectious disease specialists,
 experts in tropical medicine and emerging
 infectious diseases, mycologists;
 clinical microbiologists and virologists;
 clinical virology and microbiology
 laboratory directors, with expertise in
 clinical diagnosis and in vitro
 diagnostic assays, e.g., hepatologists;
 molecular biologists.
Radiology Devices Panel--Physicians with    1-Non-Voting.....................  Immediately.
 experience in general radiology,
 mammography, ultrasound, magnetic
 resonance, computed tomography, other
 radiological subspecialties and radiation
 oncology; scientists with experience in
 diagnostic devices, radiation physics,
 statistical analysis, digital imaging and
 image analysis.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Functions and General Description of the Committee Duties

A. Allergenic Products Advisory Committee

    Reviews and evaluates available data concerning the safety,
effectiveness, and adequacy of labeling of marketed and investigational
allergenic biological products or materials that are administered to
humans for the diagnosis, prevention, or treatment of allergies and
allergic disease as well as the affirmation or revocation of biological
product licenses, on the safety, effectiveness, and labeling of the
products, on clinical and laboratory studies of such products, on
amendments or revisions to regulations governing the manufacture,
testing and licensing of allergenic biological products, and on the
quality and relevance of FDA's research programs.

B. Bone, Reproductive and Urologic Drugs Advisory Committee

    Reviews and evaluates data on the safety and effectiveness of
marketed and investigational human drugs for use in the practice of
osteoporosis and metabolic bone disease, obstetrics, gynecology,
urology, and related specialties.

C. Psychopharmacologic Drugs Advisory Committee

    Reviews and evaluates data concerning the safety and effectiveness
of marketed and investigational human drug products for use in the
practice of psychiatry and related fields.

D. Dermatologic and Ophthalmic Drugs Advisory Committee

    Reviews and evaluates available data concerning the safety and
effectiveness of marketed and investigational human drug products for
use in the treatment of dermatologic and ophthalmic disorders.

E. Drug Safety and Risk Management Advisory Committee

    Risk management, risk communication, and quantitative evaluation of
spontaneous reports for drugs for human use and for any other

product for which the FDA has regulatory responsibility. Scientific and
medical evaluation of all information gathered by the Department of
Health and Human Services (DHHS) and the Department of Justice with
regard to safety, efficacy, and abuse potential of drugs or other
substances, and recommends actions to be taken by the DHHS with regard
to the marketing, investigation, and control of such drugs or other
substances.

F. Certain Panels of the Medical Devices Advisory Committee

    Reviews and evaluates data on the safety and effectiveness of
marketed and investigational devices and makes recommendations for
their regulation. With the exception of the Medical Devices Dispute
Resolution Panel, each panel, according to its specialty area, advises
on the classification or reclassification of devices into one of three
regulatory categories; advises on any possible risks to health
associated with the use of devices; advises on formulation of product
development protocols; reviews premarket approval applications for
medical devices; reviews guidelines and guidance documents; recommends
exemption of certain devices from the application of portions of the
Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act; advises on the necessity to ban a
device; and responds to requests from the Agency to review and make
recommendations on specific issues or problems concerning the safety
and effectiveness of devices. With the exception of the Medical Devices
Dispute Resolution Panel, each panel, according to its specialty area,
may also make appropriate recommendations to the Commissioner of Food
and Drugs (the Commissioner) on issues relating to the design of
clinical studies regarding the safety and effectiveness of marketed and
investigational devices.
    The Dental Products Panel also functions at times as a dental drug
panel. The functions of the dental drug panel are to evaluate and
recommend whether various prescription drug products should be changed
to over-the-counter status and to evaluate data and make
recommendations concerning the approval of new dental drug products for
human use.
    The Medical Devices Dispute Resolution Panel provides advice to the
Commissioner on complex or contested scientific issues between FDA and
medical device sponsors, applicants, or manufacturers relating to
specific products, marketing applications, regulatory decisions and
actions by FDA, and Agency guidance and policies. The Panel makes
recommendations on issues that are lacking resolution, are highly
complex in nature, or result from challenges to regular advisory panel
proceedings or Agency decisions or actions.

II. Criteria for Members

    Persons nominated for membership as consumer representatives on
committees or panels should meet the following criteria: (1)
Demonstrate an affiliation with and/or active participation in consumer
or community-based organizations, (2) be able to analyze technical
data, (3) be able to understand research design, (4) be able to discuss
benefits and risks, and (5) be able to evaluate the safety and efficacy
of products under review. The consumer representative should be able to
represent the consumer perspective on issues and actions before the
advisory committee; serve as a liaison between the committee and
interested consumers, associations, coalitions, and consumer
organizations; and facilitate dialogue with the advisory committees on
scientific issues that affect consumers.

III. Selection Procedures

    Selection of members representing consumer interests is conducted
through procedures that include the use of organizations representing
the public interest and public advocacy groups. These organizations
recommend nominees for the Agency's selection. Representatives from the
consumer health branches of Federal, State, and local governments also
may participate in the selection process. Any consumer organization
interested in participating in the selection of an appropriate voting
or nonvoting member to represent consumer interests should send a
letter stating that interest to FDA (see ADDRESSES) within 30 days of
publication of this document.
    Within the subsequent 30 days, FDA will compile a list of consumer
organizations that will participate in the selection process and will
forward to each such organization a ballot listing at least two
qualified nominees selected by the Agency based on the nominations
received, together with each nominee's current curriculum vitae or
r[eacute]sum[eacute]. Ballots are to be filled out and returned to FDA
within 30 days. The nominee receiving the highest number of votes
ordinarily will be selected to serve as the member representing
consumer interests for that particular advisory committee or panel.

IV. Nomination Procedures

    Any interested person or organization may nominate one or more
qualified persons to represent consumer interests on the Agency's
advisory committees or panels. Self-nominations are also accepted.
Nominations must include a current, complete r[eacute]sum[eacute] or
curriculum vitae for each nominee and a signed copy of the
Acknowledgement and Consent form available at the FDA Advisory
Nomination Portal (see ADDRESSES), and a list of consumer or community-
based organizations for which the candidate can demonstrate active
participation.
    Nominations must also specify the advisory committee(s) or panel(s)
for which the nominee is recommended. In addition, nominations must
also acknowledge that the nominee is aware of the nomination unless
self-nominated. FDA will ask potential candidates to provide detailed
information concerning such matters as financial holdings, employment,
and research grants and/or contracts to permit evaluation of possible
sources of conflicts of interest. Members will be invited to serve for
terms up to 4 years.
    FDA will review all nominations received within the specified
timeframes and prepare a ballot containing the names of qualified
nominees. Names not selected will remain on a list of eligible nominees
and be reviewed periodically by FDA to determine continued interest.
Upon selecting qualified nominees for the ballot, FDA will provide
those consumer organizations that are participating in the selection
process with the opportunity to vote on the listed nominees. Only
organizations vote in the selection process. Persons who nominate
themselves to serve as voting or nonvoting consumer representatives
will not participate in the selection process.
    This notice is issued under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5
U.S.C. app. 2) and 21 CFR part 14, relating to advisory committees.

    Dated: January 14, 2020.
Lowell J. Schiller,
Principal Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2020-00869 Filed 1-17-20; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


[Federal Register: July 23, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 142)]
[Notices]
[Page 42840]
[DOCID:fr23jy08-80]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Sunshine Act Meeting

    Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the
Government in the Sunshine Act, Public Law 94-409, that the Securities
and Exchange Commission will hold a Closed Meeting on July 24, 2008 at
2 p.m.
    Commissioners, Counsel to the Commissioners, the Secretary to the
Commission, and recording secretaries will attend the Closed Meeting.
Certain staff members who have an interest in the matters also may be
present.
    The General Counsel of the Commission, or his designee, has
certified that, in his opinion, one or more of the exemptions set forth
in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(3), (5), (7), (8), (9)(B), and (10) and 17 CFR
200.402(a)(3), (5), (7), (8), 9(ii) and (10) permit consideration of
the scheduled matters at the Closed Meeting.
    Commissioner Atkins, as duty officer, voted to consider the items
listed for the Closed Meeting in closed session.
    The subject matter of the Closed Meeting scheduled for July 24,
2008 will be:

Formal orders of investigation;
Institution and settlement of injunctive actions;
Institution and settlement of administrative proceedings of an
enforcement nature;
Adjudicatory matters;
A regulatory matter regarding a financial institution;
A litigation matter; and
Other matters related to enforcement proceedings.

    At times, changes in Commission priorities require alterations in
the scheduling of meeting items.
    For further information and to ascertain what, if any, matters have
been added, deleted or postponed, please contact:
    The Office of the Secretary at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: July 17, 2008.
Florence E. Harmon,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. E8-16762 Filed 7-22-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 240 (Wednesday, December 15, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 78232-78233]
[FR Doc No: 2010-31413]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Notice of Competing Preliminary Permit Applications Accepted for
Filing and Soliciting Comments, and Motions To Intervene

December 8, 2010.

Lock+\TM\ Hydro Friends Fund XLII..  Project No. 13739-000
FFP Missouri 10, LLC...............  Project No. 13751-000
Braddock Hydro, LLC................  Project No. 13778-000

    On May 18, 2010, Lock+\TM\ Hydro Friends Fund XLII, FFP Missouri
10, LLC, and Braddock Hydro, LLC filed applications, pursuant to
section 4(f) of the Federal Power Act, proposing to study the
feasibility of hydropower at the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Braddock
Lock and Dam located on the Monongahela River in Alleghany County,
Pennsylvania. The sole purpose of a preliminary permit, if issued, is
to grant the permit holder priority to file a license application
during the permit term. A preliminary permit does not authorize the
permit holder to perform any land-disturbing activities or otherwise
enter upon lands or waters owned by others without the owners' express
permission.
    Descriptions of the proposed Braddock Lock & Dam Projects:
Lock+\TM\ Hydro Friends Fund XLII's proposed project (Project No.
13739-000) would consist of: (1) One lock frame module 109 feet long,
40 feet high, and weighing 1.16 million pounds each, and containing 10
generating units a total combined capacity of 10 megawatts (MW); (2) a
38-foot-high, 75-foot-long prefabricated concrete wall attached to
pilings in the river to support the lock frame module; (3) a 25-foot-
long, 50-foot-wide switchyard containing a transformer; and (4) a
3,000-foot-long, 69-kilovolt (kv) transmission line to an existing
substation. The proposed project would have an average annual
generation of 43.83 gigawatts-hours (GWh), which would be sold to a
local utility.
    Applicant Contact: Mr. Mark R. Stover, Hydro Green Energy LLC, 5090
Richmond Avenue 390, Houston, TX 77056; phone<PHONE_NUMBER>
x709.
    FFP Missouri 10, LLC's proposed project (Project No. 13751-000)
would consist of: (1) An excavated intake and tailrace channel slightly
longer and wider than the powerhouse; (2) an 85-foot-long, 160-foot-
wide, 60-foot-high powerhouse containing two generating units having a
total installed capacity of 6.6 MW; and (3) a proposed 3,300-foot-long,
ranging from 34.0 to 230-kv transmission line. The proposed project
would have an average annual generation of 39.0 GWh, which would be
sold to a local utility.
    Applicant Contact: Ms. Ramya Swaminathan, Free Flow Power
Corporation, 33 Commercial Street, Gloucester, MA 01930; phone (978)
283-2822.
    Braddock Hydro, LLC's proposed project (Project No. 13778-000)
would consist of: (1) A 460-foot-long, excavated power canal; (2) a
230-foot-long excavated tailrace; (3) a powerhouse containing three
generating units having a total installed capacity of 13.2 MW; and (4)
a 0.5-mile-long, 69.0-kv transmission line. The proposed project would
have an average annual generation of 33.3 GWh, which would be sold to a
local utility.
    Applicant Contact: Mr. Brent Smith, Symbiotics LLC., P.O. Box 535,
Rigby, ID 83442; phone<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    FERC Contact: Gaylord Hoisington,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, competing
applications (without notices of intent), or notices of intent to file
competing applications: 60 days from the issuance of this notice.
Competing applications and notices of

intent must meet the requirements of 18 CFR 4.36. Comments, motions to
intervene, notices of intent, and competing applications may be filed
electronically via the Internet. See 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the
instructions on the Commission's Web site http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. Commenters can submit brief comments up to 6,000
characters, without prior registration, using the eComment system at
http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ecomment.asp. You must include your
name and contact information at the end of your comments. For
assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>call toll-free at<PHONE_NUMBER>; or, for
TTY, contact<PHONE_NUMBER>. Although the Commission strongly
encourages electronic filing, documents may also be paper-filed. To
paper-file, mail an original and seven copies to: Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20426.
    More information about this project, including a copy of the
application, can be viewed or printed on the ``eLibrary'' link of the
Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary.asp.
Enter the docket number (P-13739-000, 13751-000, or 13778-000) in the
docket number field to access the document. For assistance, contact
FERC Online Support.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-31413 Filed 12-14-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 220 (Thursday, November 18, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 64597-64600]
[FR Doc No: 2021-25153]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Office of the Secretary

[Docket No. OST-2021-0135]

Privacy Act of 1974; DOT/ALL 028; Employee Accommodations Files

AGENCY: Office of the Departmental Chief Information Officer, Office of
the Secretary of Transportation, Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Notice of a new system of records.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Privacy Act of 1974, the U.S.
Department of Transportation (DOT) intends to establish a new system of
records titled Employee Accommodations Files. This system allows DOT to
collect, use, maintain, and disseminate the records needed to process,
manage, maintain, and resolve reasonable accommodation requests from
employees or applicants for employment based on a medical condition/
disability or a sincerely held religious belief, practice, or
observance. This includes requests for a medical or religious
accommodation to decline the COVID-19 vaccination. The information will
be used to determine whether accommodations are legally required in
accordance with the Rehabilitation Act and Title VII of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964.

DATES: This new system of records is effective upon publication;
however, comments on the Routine Uses will be accepted on or before
December 20, 2021. The Routine Uses will become effective at the close
of the comment period. The Department may publish an amended System of
Records Notice (SORN) in light of any comments received.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by docket number OST-
2021-0135 by any of the following methods:
     Federal e-Rulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Mail: Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Ave. SE, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery or Courier: West Building Ground Floor, Room
W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Ave. SE, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET, Monday
through Friday, except Federal Holidays.
     Instructions: You must include the agency name and docket
number OST-2021-0135.
     All comments received will be posted without change to
https://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided.
    Privacy Act: Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all
comments received in any of our dockets by the name of the individual
submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf
of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review the
DOT's complete Privacy Act statement in the Federal Register published
on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78), or you may visit https://DocketsInfo.dot.gov.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments received, go to https://www.regulations.gov or to the street
address listed above. Follow the online instructions for accessing the
docket.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For general and privacy questions,
please contact: Karyn Gorman, Acting Departmental Chief Privacy
Officer, Department of Transportation, S-83, Washington, DC 20590,
Email: [email protected], Tel.<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    In accordance with the Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. 552a, the U.S.
Department of Transportation (DOT), Office of the Secretary, is
proposing a new system of records titled Employee Accommodations Files.
The Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, 29 U.S.C. 791 and Title VII
of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 2000e, require
DOT to grant employee requests for medical/disability accommodations or
religious accommodations because of a sincerely held religious belief,
practice or observance unless an undue hardship would result. DOT is
similarly required in some circumstances to grant employee requests for
medical accommodations because of disability. The government-wide
policy requiring all Federal employees as defined in 5 U.S.C. 2105 to
be vaccinated against COVID-19 is expected to generate many requests
for medical/disability and religious accommodations.
    In order to process and make a determination on an accommodation
request, DOT is required to collect information from Federal employees
and applicants for federal employment making such requests.
    This system will collect information related to individuals
requesting medical/disability and religious accommodations. These
accommodation requests include but are not limited to requests for
exemptions from vaccines. By requesting an accommodation, individuals
are authorizing DOT to collect and maintain a record of the information
submitted to support the request for the accommodation. The information
contained within this system of records will be collected directly from
the individual employees or applicants for federal employment who have
requested accommodations. This new system will be included in DOT's
inventory of record systems.
    DOT has also included DOT General Routine Uses, to the extent they
are compatible with the purposes of this System. As recognized by the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in its Privacy Act Implementation
Guidance and Responsibilities (65 FR 19746 (July 9, 1975)), the routine
uses include proper and necessary uses of information in the system,
even if such uses occur infrequently. DOT has included in this notice
routine uses for disclosures to law enforcement when the record, on its
face, indicates a violation of law, to DOJ for litigation purposes, or
when necessary in investigating or responding to a breach of this
system or other agencies' systems. DOT may disclose to Federal, State,
local, or foreign agency information relevant to law enforcement,
litigation, and proceedings before any court or adjudicative or
administrative body. OMB has long recognized that these types of
routine uses are ``proper and necessary'' uses of

information and qualify as compatible with agency systems (65 FR 19476,
April 11, 2000). In addition, OMB Memorandum M-17-12 directed agencies
to include routine uses that will permit sharing of information when
needed to investigate, respond to, and mitigate a breach of a Federal
information system. DOT also has included routine uses that permit
sharing with the National Archives and Records Administration when
necessary for an inspection, or to any federal government agency
engaged in audit or oversight related to this system. These types of
disclosures are necessary and proper uses of information in this system
because they further DOT's obligation to fulfil its records management
and program management responsibilities by facilitating accountability
to agencies charged with oversight in these areas.

Privacy Act

    The Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. 552a) governs the means by which the
federal government agencies collect, maintain, use, and disseminate
individuals' records. The Privacy Act applies to information that is
maintained in a ``system of records.'' A ``system of records'' is a
group of any 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. The Privacy Act extends rights and protections to
individuals who are U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents.
Additionally, the Judicial Redress Act (JRA) provides a covered person
with a statutory right to make requests for access and amendment to
covered records, as defined by the JRA, along with judicial review for
denials of such requests. In addition, the JRA prohibits disclosures of
covered records, except as otherwise permitted by the Privacy Act.
    Below is the description of the Employee Accommodations Files
System of Records. In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552a(r), DOT has
provided a report of this system of records to the OMB and to Congress.

SYSTEM NAME AND NUMBER:
    DOT/ALL 28; Employee Accommodations Files.

SECURITY CLASSIFICATION:
    Unclassified.

SYSTEM LOCATION:
    Records are maintained in a FedRAMP-certified third-party cloud
environment. Records may also be kept in other components and sub-
offices of DOT.

SYSTEM MANAGER(S):
    Office of Civil Rights, at Department of Transportation at 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590. Yvette Rivera, Associate
Director, Equity and Access Division, Departmental Office of Civil
Rights,<PHONE_NUMBER>. For the Federal Aviation Administration, the
Office of Civil Rights, 800 Independence Ave. SW, Washington, DC 20591.
Michael Looney, Program Manager,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

AUTHORITY FOR MAINTENANCE OF THE SYSTEM:
     Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 42 U.S.C. 2000e.
     Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, 29 U.S.C. 791.
     Executive Order 13164.
     29 CFR parts 1605, 1614.

PURPOSE(S) OF THE SYSTEM:
    The purpose of the system is to collect information from
individuals seeking medical/disability and/or religious accommodations
in order to approve or deny their requests.

CATEGORIES OF INDIVIDUALS COVERED BY THE SYSTEM:
    Categories of individuals within this system include: Individuals
who are current DOT employees and applicants for federal employment who
have requested medical/disability and/or religious accommodations.

CATEGORIES OF RECORDS IN THE SYSTEM:
    Records include the name of the individual seeking accommodations,
nature of the accommodation sought, including but not limited for
religious accommodations, how complying with such a requirement would
burden religious exercise, how long the belief has been held and the
reason for seeking exemption.
    For accommodations based on medical/disability, the records will
include information such as nature of the medical condition/disability,
functional limitations caused by the medical condition/disability, how
the requested accommodation would address the functional limitations,
medical documentation of the medical condition/disability, and other
information specific to the requested accommodation to determine
whether DOT is legally required to grant the request.
    PII elements: Name, title, email address, phone number, operating
administration, pay grade or band, supervisor information, other
information collected from requesters to make a determination regarding
a specific medical and/or religious accommodation request.

RECORD SOURCE CATEGORIES:
    DOT employees and applicants seeking medical/disability and/or
religious accommodations.

ROUTINE USES OF RECORDS MAINTAINED IN THE SYSTEM, INCLUDING CATEGORIES
OF USERS AND PURPOSES OF SUCH USES:
    Department General Routine Uses
    1. In the event that a system of records maintained by DOT to carry
out its functions indicates a violation or potential violation of law,
whether civil, criminal or regulatory in nature, and whether arising by
general statute or particular program pursuant thereto, the relevant
records in the system of records may be referred, as a routine use, to
the appropriate agency, whether Federal, State, local or foreign,
charged with the responsibility of investigating or prosecuting such
violation or charged with enforcing or implementing the statute, or
rule, regulation, or order issued pursuant thereto.
    2a. Routine Use for Disclosure for Use in Litigation. It shall be a
routine use of the records in this system of records to disclose them
to the Department of Justice or other federal agency conducting
litigation when--(a) DOT, or any agency thereof, or (b) Any employee of
DOT or any agency thereof, in his/her official capacity, or (c) Any
employee of DOT or any agency thereof, in his/her individual capacity
where the Department of Justice has agreed to represent the employee,
or (d) The United States or any agency thereof, where DOT determines
that litigation is likely to affect the United States, is a party to
litigation or has an interest in such litigation, and the use of such
records by the Department of Justice or other federal agency conducting
the litigation is deemed by DOT to be relevant and necessary in the
litigation, provided, however, that in each case, DOT determines that
disclosure of the records in the litigation is a use of the information
contained in the records that is compatible with the purpose for which
the records were collected.
    2b. Routine Use for Agency Disclosure in Other Proceedings. It
shall be a routine use of records in this system to disclose them in
proceedings before any court or adjudicative or administrative body
before which DOT or any agency thereof, appears, when--(a) DOT, or any
agency thereof, or (b) Any employee of DOT or any agency thereof in
his/her official capacity, or (c) Any employee of DOT or any agency
thereof in his/her individual capacity where DOT has

agreed to represent the employee, or (d) The United States or any
agency thereof, where DOT determines that the proceeding is likely to
affect the United States, is a party to the proceeding or has an
interest in such proceeding, and DOT determines that use of such
records is relevant and necessary in the proceeding, provided, however,
that in each case, DOT determines that disclosure of the records in the
proceeding is a use of the information contained in the records that is
compatible with the purpose for which the records were collected.
    3. Disclosure may be made to a Congressional office from the record
of an individual in response to an inquiry from the Congressional
office made at the request of that individual. In such cases, however,
the Congressional office does not have greater rights to records than
the individual. Thus, the disclosure may be withheld from delivery to
the individual where the file contains investigative or actual
information or other materials which are being used, or are expected to
be used, to support prosecution or fines against the individual for
violations of a statute, or of regulations of the Department based on
statutory authority. No such limitations apply to records requested for
Congressional oversight or legislative purposes; release is authorized
under 49 CFR 10.35(9).
    4. One or more records from a system of records may be disclosed
routinely to the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) in
records management inspections being conducted under the authority of
44 U.S.C. 2904 and 2906.
    5. DOT may make available to another agency or instrumentality of
any government jurisdiction, including State and local governments,
listings of names from any system of records in DOT for use in law
enforcement activities, either civil or criminal, or to expose
fraudulent claims, regardless of the stated purpose for the collection
of the information in the system of records. These enforcement
activities are generally referred to as matching programs because two
lists of names are checked for match using automated assistance. This
routine use is advisory in nature and does not offer unrestricted
access to systems of records for such law enforcement and related
antifraud activities. Each request will be considered on the basis of
its purpose, merits, cost effectiveness and alternatives using
Instructions on reporting computer matching programs to the Office of
Management and Budget, OMB, Congress, and the public, published by the
Director, OMB, dated September 20, 1989.
    6. DOT may disclose records from this system, as a routine use, to
appropriate agencies, entities, and persons when (1) DOT suspects or
has confirmed that the security or confidentiality of information in
the system of records has been compromised; (2) DOT has determined that
as a result of the suspected or confirmed compromise there is a risk of
harm to economic or property interests, identity theft or fraud, or
harm to the security or integrity of this system or other systems or
programs (whether maintained by DOT or another agency or entity) that
rely upon the compromised information; and (3) the disclosure made to
such agencies, entities, and persons is reasonably necessary to assist
in connection with DOT's efforts to respond to the suspected or
confirmed compromise and prevent, minimize, or remedy such harm.
    7. DOT may disclose records from this system, as a routine use, to
the Office of Government Information Services for the purpose of (a)
resolving disputes between FOIA requesters and federal agencies and (b)
reviewing agencies' policies, procedures, and compliance in order to
recommend policy changes to Congress and the President.
    8. DOT may disclose records from the system, as a routine use, to
contractors and their agents, experts, consultants, and others
performing or working on a contract, service, cooperative agreement, or
other assignment for DOT, when necessary to accomplish an agency
function related to this system of records.
    9. DOT may disclose records from this system, as a routine use, to
an agency, organization, or individual for the purpose of performing
audit or oversight operations related to this system of records, but
only such records as are necessary and relevant to the audit or
oversight activity. This routine use does not apply to intra-agency
sharing authorized under Section (b)(1) of the Privacy Act.
    10.

POLICIES AND PRACTICES FOR STORAGE OF RECORDS:
    Records relating to requests for accommodation relating to
mandatory COVID-19 vaccination are stored in the USDOT Vaccination
Application. Records relating to other disability-related requests for
accommodation are stored in the Reasonable Accommodation Management
System (RAMS). Requests for religious accommodations may be stored in
RAMS, or in systems at component or sub-office level.

POLICIES AND PRACTICES FOR RETRIEVAL OF RECORDS:
    Records on individuals will be retrieved by name.

POLICIES AND PRACTICES FOR RETENTION AND DISPOSAL OF RECORDS:
    Records will be held in accordance with NARA General Records
Control Schedule 2.3, Employee Relations Records, item 20, Reasonable
accommodation case files. Individual employee files created, received,
and maintained by EEO reasonable accommodation, diversity/disability
programs, employee relations coordinators, supervisors, administrators,
or Human Resource specialists containing records of requests for
reasonable accommodation and/or assistive technology devices and
services that have been requested for or by an employee. Includes:
Request, approvals and denials, notice of procedures for informal
dispute resolution or appeal processes, forms, correspondence, records
of oral conversations, policy guidance documents, medical records,
supporting notes and documentation. These records are temporary and
will be destroyed 3 years after employee separation from the agency or
all appeals are concluded, whichever is later; however, longer
retention is authorized if required for business use.

ADMINISTRATIVE, TECHNICAL, AND PHYSICAL SAFEGUARDS:
    Records in this system are safeguarded in accordance with
applicable rules and policies, including all applicable DOT automated
systems security and access policies. Strict controls have been imposed
to minimize the risk of compromising the information that is being
stored. Data is encrypted at rest and in transit. Access to records in
this system is limited to those individuals who have a need to know the
information for the performance of their official duties and who have
appropriate clearances or permissions.

RECORD ACCESS PROCEDURES:
    Individuals seeking notification of and access to any record
contained in this system of records, or seeking to contest its content,
may submit a request in writing to the System Manager at the address
identified in ``System Manager and Address'' above.
    When seeking records about yourself from this system of records or
any other Departmental system of records your request must conform with
the Privacy

Act regulations set forth in 49 CFR part 10. You must sign your
request, and your signature must either be notarized or submitted under
28 U.S.C. 1746, a law that permits statements to be made under penalty
of perjury as a substitute for notarization. While no specific form is
required, you may obtain forms for this purpose from the Chief Freedom
of Information Act Officer, http://www.dot.gov/foia or<PHONE_NUMBER>. In
addition, you should provide the following:
     An explanation of why you believe the Department would
have information on you;
     Identify which component(s) of the Department you believe
may have the information about you;
     Specify when you believe the records would have been
created;
     Provide any other information that will help the FOIA
staff determine which DOT component agency may have responsive records;
and
    If your request is seeking records pertaining to another living
individual, you must include a statement from that individual
certifying his/her agreement for you to access his/her records.
    Without this bulleted information the component(s) may not be able
to conduct an effective search, and your request may be denied due to
lack of specificity or lack of compliance with applicable regulations.

CONTESTING RECORD PROCEDURES:
    See Record Access Procedures.

NOTIFICATION PROCEDURES:
    See Record Access Procedures.

EXEMPTIONS PROMULGATED FOR THE SYSTEM:
    None.

HISTORY:
    None.

    Issued in Washington, DC.
Karyn Gorman,
Acting Departmental Chief Privacy Officer.
[FR Doc. 2021-25153 Filed 11-17-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P