Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 179 / Thursday, September 16, 2010 / Notices 56513 

7See Sections 731 and 747 of the Dodd-Frank 

Act. 

8 In a separate action, the Commission has issued 

orders providing grandfather relief to parties 

affected by the Dodd-Frank Act’s elimination of the 

CEA Section 2(h)(3)–(7) exempt commercial market 

(‘‘ECM’’) provision and the CEA Section 5d exempt 

board of trade (‘‘EBOT’’) provision. In that matter, 

the Commission foresaw that many entities that 

currently operate as ECMs or EBOTs will seek to 

become either swap execution facilities (‘‘SEFs’’) or 

designated contract markets (‘‘DCMs’’) when the 

Commission adopts regulations implementing 

Dodd-Frank’s requirements for those facilities. 

Because the new SEF and DCM regulatory 

provisions are not likely to be completed until close 

to the same time that the ECM and EBOT provisions 

are deleted from the CEA, the Commission 

anticipated that there would be a large number of 

new SEF and DCM applications at that time. In 

order to ease this congestion of applications, and to 

facilitate the transition of current ECM and EBOT 

businesses to the new regulatory regime mandated 

by the Dodd-Frank Act, the Commission provided 

limited grandfather relief to EBOTs and ECMs. 

9 In addition to deleting the CEA Section 2(h)(1)– 

(2) Exempt Commodity Exemption from the CEA, 

the Dodd-Frank Act also will delete two other 

provisions that provide for the exclusion of bilateral 

swaps from the CEA—Section 2(d)(2) for excluded 

commodities (mostly financial products) and 

Section 2(g) for non-agricultural commodities. The 

Commission notes that the Dodd-Frank Act does 

not provide for the possibility of any grandfather 

relief for parties relying on those exclusions, which 

partially overlap with the Section 2(h)(1)–(2). The 

Commission also pledges to be attentive to the 

transition needs of parties that rely on those 

provisions, as well as Section 2(h)(1)–(2) users, as 

it considers Dodd-Frank Act-required regulations. 

10 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. 

11 5 CFR 1320.3(h)(4). 

12 7 U.S.C. 19(a). 

13 5 U.S.C. 601(2). 

14See 5 U.S.C 603. 

those already involved in an activity or 

business from the new regulations to be 

established by the statute because it is 

anticipated that it may be difficult for 

the parties to transition the activity or 

business to the new regulatory scheme. 

The Commission is aware of the 

transformational nature of the DoddFrank Act and its potential impact on 

the swaps industry. The Commission 

also recognizes that bilateral swaps 

trading activity currently conducted in 

reliance upon the CEA’s Exempt 

Commodity Exemption will likely 

become subject to any number of 

regulatory provisions implementing the 

requirements of the Dodd-Frank Act, 

including business conduct standards, 

recordkeeping and reporting 

requirements, and capital and margin 

requirements.7 Until the contents and 

timing of the Commission’s regulations 

affecting bilateral swaps are better 

known, however, the Commission has 

determined not to grant grandfather 

relief as it is impossible to know at this 

time whether such relief will be 

necessary.8

In implementing the important 

requirements of the Dodd-Frank Act, the 

Commission will strive to ensure that 

current practices will not be unduly 

disrupted during the transition to the 

new regulatory regime. Persons relying 

upon the Exempt Commodity 

Exemption will have an opportunity to 

comment on each of the rulemakings 

that may affect them, which will permit 

the Commission to consider and adopt 

appropriate regulatory provisions to 

address transitioning from the Exempt 

Commodity Exemption to the DoddFrank regulations as they become 

effective. Additionally, while the 

Commission has chosen at this time not 

to grant grandfather relief to parties that 

rely on the Exempt Commodity 

Exemption, if it later determines that 

Dodd-Frank Act-required regulations 

might pose particular difficulties for 

such parties that cannot be addressed in 

final regulations, the Commission is 

committed to use its available 

exemptive authorities to address such a 

situation. Any relief that the 

Commission determines to grant will 

not be limited to persons who may wish 

to file a petition.9

II. Related Matters 

a. Paperwork Reduction Act 

This notice does not impose any 

recordkeeping or information collection 

requirements, or other collections of 

information that require approval of the 

Office of Management and Budget 

(‘‘OMB’’) under the Paperwork 

Reduction Act (‘‘PRA’’).10 Requests for 

comment that are published in the 

Federal Register in which collections of 

information are not embedded are 

excluded from PRA compliance by OMB 

regulations.11 Collections of information 

that may be required as a condition for 

the grant of grandfather relief for 

persons relying on the Exempt 

Commodity Exemption will be 

addressed at the time such conditions 

may be imposed. 

b. Cost-Benefit Analysis 

Section 15(a) of the CEA 12 requires 

the Commission to consider the costs 

and benefits of its actions before taking 

certain actions under the Act. This 

notice is neither a regulation nor an 

order to which Section 15(a) applies. 

c. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act 

(‘‘RFA’’) requires that agencies consider 

the impact of their rules on small 

businesses. This notice is not a ‘‘rule for 

which the agency publishes a general 

notice of proposed rulemaking.’’ 13

Therefore, the Commission is not 

required to conduct a regulatory 

flexibility analysis.14

Issued in Washington, DC, on September 

10, 2010, by the Commission. 

David A. Stawick, 

Secretary of the Commission. 

Concurring Statement of Commissioner 

Scott D. O’Malia 

Regarding the Treatment of Petitions 

Seeking Grandfather Relief Pursuant to 

Section 723 of the Dodd-Frank Act for 

Trading Activity Done in Reliance 

Upon Section 2(h)(1)–(2) 

I concur in the Commission’s decision to 

presently decline to grant relief under 

Section 723 of the Dodd-Frank Act to persons 

transacting business in exempt commodities 

in reliance upon Sections 2(h)(1)–(2) of the 

Commodity Exchange Act (the ‘‘Act’’). While 

the Commission has chosen to decline to 

grant relief at this time, it is not restricted 

from using its authority to address and 

provide relief to such persons in the future. 

In an effort to proactively ensure the 

smoothest possible transition of these 

bilateral markets for transactions in exempt 

commodities into the new regulatory 

landscape, it is my hope that the Commission 

will revisit the issue at least ninety days prior 

to the Dodd-Frank Act effective date. The 

Commission remains committed to the 

efficient functioning of the markets in 

exempt commodities, and the path that we 

take in each rulemaking under the DoddFrank Act will only be enhanced by the 

comments we receive. Therefore, I urge all 

market participants who currently rely on 

Sections 2(h)(1)–(2) of the Act to help shape 

the new regulatory frontier by submitting 

their comments to the Commission. 

[FR Doc. 2010–23141 Filed 9–15–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6351–01–P 

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING 

COMMISSION 

Orders Regarding the Treatment of 

Petitions Seeking Grandfather Relief 

for Exempt Commercial Markets and 

Exempt Boards of Trade 

AGENCY: Commodity Futures Trading 

Commission. 

ACTION: Notice; final orders. 

SUMMARY: The Commission is issuing 

orders whereby entities currently 

operating as exempt commercial 

markets, pursuant to Section 2(h)(3)–(7) 

of the Commodity Exchange Act, or 

exempt boards of trade, pursuant to 

Section 5d of the Commodity Exchange 

Act, may receive grandfather relief to 

continue to operate in accordance with 

those provisions notwithstanding their 

deletion from the Commodity Exchange 

Act, effective July 15, 2011, by the 

Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and 

Consumer Protection Act. The 

Commission’s orders set forth various 

conditions for such grandfather relief, 

including the filing of a relief petition 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

56514 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 179 / Thursday, September 16, 2010 / Notices 

1See Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and 

Consumer Protection Act, Public Law 111–203, 124 

Stat. 1376 (2010). The text of the Dodd-Frank Act 

may be accessed at http://www.cftc.gov./ 

LawRegulation/OTCDERIVATIVES/index.htm. 

2Pursuant to Section 701 of the Dodd-Frank Act, 

Title VII may be cited as the ‘‘Wall Street 

Transparency and Accountability Act of 2010.’’ 

3 7 U.S.C. 1 et seq. 

4The same provision of the Dodd-Frank Act that 

eliminated EBOTs also deleted CEA Section 5a—a 

provision that established a category of regulated 

markets known as derivatives transaction execution 

facilities (‘‘DTEFs’’). See Section 734 of the DoddFrank Act. The Dodd-Frank Act does not, however, 

authorize the Commission to grant grandfather 

relief to the DTEFs. Accordingly, DTEFs are not 

addressed in the Commission’s subject order. 

Notably, the Commission has never registered a 

DTEF. 

5See Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 

2000, Public Law 106–554, 114 Stat. 2763 (2000). 

6See Section 723(a)(1)(A) of the Dodd-Frank Act. 

7See Section 734(a) of the Dodd-Frank Act. 

8Currently, there are 16 ECMs and 6 EBOTs with 

active Notifications of Operation or Annual 

Certifications on file with the Commission. 

and a swap execution facility or 

designated contract market application 

with the Commission. 

DATES: Effective Date: September 10, 

2010. Comments on this notice will be 

accepted until October 18, 2010. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

or petitions for relief, identified with 

‘‘ECM/EBOT Grandfather Relief’’ in the 

subject line, whichever is appropriate, 

by any of the following methods: 

• E-mail for Comments: 

ecmebotcomments@cftc.gov. E-mail for 

petitions: ecmebotpetitionscftc.gov. 

• Mail: David A. Stawick, Secretary of 

the Commission, Commodity Futures 

Trading Commission, Three Lafayette 

Centre, 1155 21st Street, NW., 

Washington, DC 20581. 

• Hand Delivery/Courier: Same as 

mail above. 

All comments must be submitted in 

English, or if not, accompanied by an 

English translation. Comments and 

petitions will be posted as received to 

http://www.cftc.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

David P. Van Wagner, Chief Counsel, 

Division of Market Oversight, 

Commodity Futures Trading 

Commission, Three Lafayette Centre, 

1155 21st Street, NW., Washington, DC 

20581. Telephone: (202) 418–5481. Email: dvanwagner@cftc.gov; or Beverly 

E. Loew, Assistant General Counsel, 

Office of the General Counsel, same 

address. Telephone: (202) 418–5648. Email: bloew@cftc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Introduction 

On July 21, 2010, President Obama 

signed into law the Dodd-Frank Wall 

Street Reform and Consumer Protection 

Act (‘‘Dodd-Frank Act’’).1 Title VII of the 

Dodd-Frank Act 2 amended the 

Commodity Exchange Act (‘‘CEA’’) 3 to 

establish a comprehensive new 

regulatory framework for swaps and 

security-based swaps. Among other 

changes to the CEA, the Dodd-Frank Act 

eliminated certain exempt market 

categories—exempt commercial markets 

(‘‘ECMs’’) and exempt boards of trade 

(‘‘EBOTs’’)—from the CEA; established a 

new regulated market category—swap 

execution facilities (‘‘SEFs’’); revised 

certain requirements for an extant 

regulated market category—designated 

contract markets (‘‘DCMs’’); and 

authorized the Commission to grant 

grandfather relief for entities in the 

eliminated exempt market categories in 

order to assist those entities to transition 

their business models to a different 

market category.4

II. Background and Discussion 

a. Exempt Commercial Markets and 

Exempt Boards of Trade 

Sections 723 and 734 of the DoddFrank Act will strike from the CEA 

enabling provisions for two categories of 

exempt markets established by the 

Commodity Futures Modernization Act 

of 2000 (‘‘CFMA’’).5 Specifically, Section 

723 of the Dodd-Frank Act will strike 

CEA Section 2(h)(3)–(7) and, thus, 

eliminate the ECM category.6 Similarly, 

Section 734 of the Dodd-Frank Act will 

strike CEA Section 5d and, thus, 

eliminate the EBOT category.7

The Commission notes that ECMs and 

EBOTs are both required to operate their 

execution platforms as trading facilities, 

as that term is defined by CEA Section 

1a(34), and must limit access to a 

narrow group of market participants— 

eligible commercial entities in the case 

of ECMs and eligible contract 

participants in the case of EBOTs. These 

requirements are not inconsistent with 

the execution platform and market 

participant requirements for DCMs or 

SEFs as they are set forth in the CEA 

and the Dodd-Frank Act. Accordingly, 

while the ECM and EBOT provisions 

will be eliminated from the CEA 

effective July 15, 2011, the basic 

structural requirements for both of those 

market categories should facilitate the 

ability of ECMs and EBOTs to transition 

to either the SEF or DCM market 

category; provided, of course, that they 

comply with the enhanced regulatory 

requirements for those two categories. 

Sections 723 and 734 of the DoddFrank Act contain similar grandfather 

provisions for ECMs and EBOTs, 

respectively, whereby they may petition 

the Commission to continue to operate 

as ECMs and EBOTs. With some 

variation, both sections establish three 

basic requirements regarding the 

processing of grandfather petitions. 

First, entities seeking grandfather 

treatment must submit their petitions to 

the Commission by a set deadline: ECMs 

must submit their petitions within sixty 

days of the enactment of the DoddFrank Act (i.e., by September 20, 2010) 

and EBOTs must submit their petitions 

by the Dodd-Frank Act’s effective date 

(i.e., by July 15, 2011). Second, the 

Commission must consider all petitions 

in a ‘‘prompt manner.’’ Third, the 

Commission may grant grandfather 

treatment for up to one year. In the case 

of EBOT petitions, the Dodd-Frank Act 

makes clear that the one-year period 

would commence with the Dodd-Frank 

Act’s effective date of July 15, 2011. By 

contrast, the Dodd-Frank Act does not 

specify what the reference date should 

be for the running of any grandfather 

period for ECMs. 

The Commission expects that many 

entities that currently operate as ECMs 

or EBOTs will seek to become either 

SEFs or DCMs when the Commission 

adopts regulations implementing DoddFrank’s requirements for those facilities. 

While the Commission expects to adopt 

SEF and DCM regulations prior to the 

July 15, 2011, effective date for deleting 

the ECM and EBOT provisions from the 

CEA, the Commission also anticipates 

that concurrent with the 

implementation of those new provisions 

it will have to process a large number 

of SEF and DCM applications from 

ECMs, EBOTs and interdealer brokers.8

In order to ease this congestion of 

applications, and to facilitate the 

transition of current ECM and EBOT 

businesses to the new regulatory regime 

mandated by the Dodd-Frank Act, the 

Commission believes that it would be 

appropriate to provide grandfather relief 

allowing EBOTs and ECMs to continue 

to operate as EBOTs and ECMs after the 

July 15, 2011, effective date of the DoddFrank Act. 

Accordingly, the Commission is 

issuing orders that would establish 

procedures whereby ECMs and EBOTs 

may petition for and receive grandfather 

relief from the otherwise applicable 

provisions of the Dodd-Frank Act, so 

long as they submit both timely and 

acceptable grandfather relief requests 

and either DCM or SEF applications. To 

be acceptable, the grandfather relief 

request shall contain a commitment to 

provide the Commission and its staff 

with access to the books and records of 

the ECM or EBOT relating to its 

business as an ECM or EBOT in 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 179 / Thursday, September 16, 2010 / Notices 56515 

9 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. 

10 7 U.S.C. 19(a). 

11The Commission is aware of certain ECMs that 

have block trade mechanisms whereby large-sized 

block transactions are executed away from the 

ECM’s central marketplace, but in accordance with 

the ECM’s rules, and subsequently reported to the 

ECM and treated as fungible with positions 

established through the central marketplace. Those 

block trades and resultant positions should be 

considered within the scope of the ECM grandfather 

relief being granted by this release. 

12 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. 

13 66 FR 42256, 42268 (Aug. 10, 2001). 

14See Section 754 of the Dodd-Frank Act. 

15See Section 754 of the Dodd-Frank Act. 

accordance with the requirements in 

Commission Regulation 1.31, 17 CFR 

1.31, effective July 15, 2011. Failure to 

comply with any request for books and 

records in accordance with the 

requirements of Commission Regulation 

1.31 shall constitute a basis for 

revocation of the grandfather relief. The 

grandfather relief will extend for as long 

as the ECM or EBOT has a legitimate 

DCM or SEF application pending before 

the Commission and, accordingly, the 

relief will expire upon the 

Commission’s approval or disapproval 

of the application. 

b. Eligible Contract Participants 

Operating Pursuant to Section 2(h)(1) 

Section 723 of the Dodd-Frank Act, 

which eliminated the ECM category 

from the CEA, also deleted CEA Section 

2(h)(1)–(2)—a provision that provides 

an exemption for certain types of 

bilateral trading conducted off of 

regulated markets. Although the DoddFrank Act authorizes the Commission to 

grant grandfather relief to trading 

activity that relies upon CEA Section 

2(h)(1)–(2), the nature of that trading 

activity is qualitatively different from 

trading activity on EBOTs and ECMs, 

both of which must operate as trading 

facilities, as that term is defined in CEA 

Section 1a(34). Accordingly, the issue of 

grandfather treatment for Section 

2(h)(1)–(2) bilateral trading will be 

addressed by the Commission in a 

separate action. 

III. Related Matters 

a. Paperwork Reduction Act 

The Commission has determined that 

these proposed orders will not impose 

any new recordkeeping or information 

collection requirements, or other 

collections of information that require 

approval of the Office of Management 

and Budget under the Paperwork 

Reduction Act (‘‘PRA’’).9 Collections of 

information that may be associated with 

a SEF or DCM application required as a 

condition for receiving relief will be 

addressed within the SEF and DCMrelated rulemakings implementing the 

Dodd-Frank Act. 

b. Cost-Benefit Analysis 

Section 15(a) of the CEA 10 requires 

the Commission to consider the costs 

and benefits of its actions before issuing 

an order under the Act. By its terms, 

Section 15(a) does not require the 

Commission to quantify the costs and 

benefits of an order or to determine 

whether the benefits of the order 

outweigh its costs; rather, it requires 

that the Commission ‘‘consider’’ the 

costs and benefits of its actions. Section 

15(a) further specifies that the costs and 

benefits shall be evaluated in light of 

five broad areas of market and public 

concern: (1) Protection of market 

participants and the public; (2) 

efficiency, competitiveness and 

financial integrity of futures markets; (3) 

price discovery; (4) sound risk 

management practices; and (5) other 

public interest considerations. The 

Commission may in its discretion give 

greater weight to any one of the five 

enumerated areas and could in its 

discretion determine that, 

notwithstanding its costs, a particular 

order is necessary or appropriate to 

protect the public interest or to 

effectuate any of the provisions or 

accomplish any of the purposes of the 

Act. The Commission has determined 

that providing grandfather relief to 

ECMs and EBOTs, as provided in these 

orders, will mitigate market disruptions 

by permitting ECMs and EBOTs to 

continue to operate while they 

transition into new market categories 

once the Dodd-Frank Act becomes 

effective.11

c. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act 

(‘‘RFA’’) 12 requires that agencies 

consider the impact of their rules on 

small businesses. The Commission 

previously has determined that neither 

ECMs nor EBOTs are small entities for 

purposes of the RFA.13 Accordingly, the 

Chairman, on behalf of the Commission, 

hereby certifies pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 

605(b) that these Orders, taken in 

connection with Sections 2(h)(3)–(7) 

and 5d of the Act and with the Part 36 

rules, will not have a significant impact 

on a substantial number of small 

entities. 

IV. Orders 

a. ECM Grandfather Order 

After considering the complete record 

in this matter, the Commission has 

determined to issue the following Order 

pursuant to its authority under Section 

723(c) of the Dodd-Frank Act: 

It is hereby ordered that any ECM that 

meets all of the following applicable 

conditions may continue to operate 

pursuant to the provisions of CEA 

Section 2(h)(3)–(7) until July 15, 2012 

(one year after the general effective date 

of the Dodd-Frank Act’s amendments to 

the CEA): 14

(1) The ECM must have filed with the 

Commission by September 20, 2010, a 

grandfather relief petition that: 

(a) Is labeled ‘‘Exempt Commercial 

Market Grandfather Relief Petition Filed 

Pursuant to Section 723(c)(2)(A) of the 

Dodd-Frank Act,’’ 

(b) Identifies the requesting ECM, 

(c) Identifies a contact person at the 

ECM, including that person’s contact 

information at the ECM, and 

(d) Grants the Commission and its 

representatives access to the books and 

records of the ECM relating to its 

business as an ECM in accordance with 

the requirements of Commission 

Regulation 1.31, starting July 15, 2011 

and throughout the pendency of the 

grandfather relief. 

(2) The ECM must have filed a formal 

SEF or DCM application with the 

Commission within sixty days after the 

effective date of final regulations 

implementing the provisions of either 

Section 733 or 735 of the Dodd-Frank 

Act, whichever is appropriate. 

(3) The ECM’s SEF or DCM 

application is currently pending before 

the Commission. 

b. EBOT Grandfather Order 

After considering the complete record 

in this matter, the Commission has 

determined to issue the following Order 

pursuant to its authority under Section 

734(c)(1) of the Dodd-Frank Act: 

It is hereby ordered that any EBOT 

that meets all of the following 

applicable conditions may continue to 

operate pursuant to the provisions of 

CEA Section 5d up until July 15, 2012 

(one year after the general effective date 

of the Dodd-Frank Act’s amendments to 

the CEA): 15

(1) The EBOT must have filed with 

the Commission by July 15, 2011, a 

grandfather relief petition that: 

(a) Is labeled ‘‘Exempt Board of Trade 

Grandfather Relief Petition Filed 

Pursuant to Section 734(c)(1) of the 

Dodd-Frank Act,’’ 

(b) Identifies the requesting EBOT, 

(c) Identifies a contact person at the 

EBOT, including that person’s contact 

information at the EBOT, and 

(d) Grants the Commission and its 

representatives access to the books and 

records of the EBOT relating to its 

business as an EBOT in accordance with 

the requirements of Commission 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

56516 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 179 / Thursday, September 16, 2010 / Notices 

Regulation 1.31, starting July 15, 2011 

and throughout the pendency of the 

grandfather relief. 

(2) The EBOT must have filed a 

formal SEF or DCM application with the 

Commission within sixty days after the 

effective date of final regulations 

implementing the provisions of either 

Section 733 or 735 of the Dodd-Frank 

Act, whichever is appropriate. 

(3) The EBOT’s SEF or DCM 

application is currently pending before 

the Commission. 

Issued in Washington, DC, on September 

10, 2010, by the Commission. 

David A. Stawick, 

Secretary of the Commission. 

[FR Doc. 2010–23142 Filed 9–15–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6351–01–P 

CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY 

COMMISSION 

Sunshine Act Meetings 

FEDERAL REGISTER CITATION OF PREVIOUS

ANNOUNCEMENT: Vol. 75, No. 175, 

Friday, September 10, 2010, page 55312. 

PREVIOUSLY ANNOUNCED TIME AND DATE OF

MEETING: 10 a.m.–11 a.m., Wednesday 

September 15, 2010. 

CHANGES IN MEETING: Meeting postponed 

to September 22, 2010, 10 a.m.–11 a.m. 

For a recorded message containing the 

latest agenda information, call (301) 

504–7948. 

CONTACT PERSON FOR ADDITIONAL

INFORMATION: Todd A. Stevenson, Office 

of the Secretary, 4330 East West 

Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814 (301) 

504–7923. 

Dated: September 14, 2010. 

Todd A. Stevenson, 

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2010–23276 Filed 9–14–10; 4:15 pm] 

BILLING CODE 6355–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

Office of the Secretary 

[Docket No. DoD–2010–OS–0086] 

Submission for OMB Review; 

Comment Request 

ACTION: Notice. 

The Department of Defense has 

submitted to OMB for clearance, the 

following proposal for collection of 

information under the provisions of the 

Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 

Chapter 35). 

DATES: Consideration will be given to all 

comments received by October 18, 2010. 

Title and OMB Number: Defense 

Acquisition University, Student 

Information System (SIS); OMB Control 

Number 0704–TBD. 

Type of Request: New. 

Number of Respondents: 90,000. 

Responses per Respondent: 1. 

Annual Responses: 90,000. 

Average Burden per Response: 5 

minutes. 

Annual Burden Hours: 7,500 hours. 

Needs and Uses: The information 

collection requirement is necessary to 

permit an individual to register for a 

DAU training course. The information is 

used to evaluate the individual’s 

eligibility for a course and to notify the 

individual of approval or disapproval of 

the request. It is also used to notify the 

training facility of assignments to 

classes, and for cost analysis, budget 

estimates and financial planning. 

Affected Public: Individuals or 

household. 

Frequency: On occasion. 

Respondent’s Obligation: Required to 

obtain or retain benefits. 

OMB Desk Officer: Ms. Jasmeet 

Seehra. 

Written comments and 

recommendations on the proposed 

information collection should be sent to 

Ms. Seehra at the Office of Management 

and Budget, Desk Officer for DoD, Room 

10236, New Executive Office Building, 

Washington, DC 20503. 

You may also submit comments, 

identified by docket number and title, 

by the following method: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

Instructions: All submissions received 

must include the agency name, docket 

number and title for this Federal 

Register document. The general policy 

for comments and other submissions 

from members of the public is to make 

these submissions available for public 

viewing on the Internet at http:// 

www.regulations.gov as they are 

received without change, including any 

personal identifiers or contact 

information. 

DOD Clearance Officer: Ms. Patricia 

Toppings. 

Written requests for copies of the 

information collection proposal should 

be sent to Ms. Toppings at WHS/ESD/ 

Information Management Division, 1777 

North Kent Street, RPN, Suite 11000, 

Arlington, VA 22209–2133. 

Dated: September 3, 2010. 

Patricia L. Toppings, 

OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, 

Department of Defense. 

[FR Doc. 2010–23090 Filed 9–15–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 5001–06–P 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

Office of the Secretary 

Federal Advisory Committee; Military 

Leadership Diversity Commission 

(MLDC) 

AGENCY: Office of the Under Secretary of 

Defense for Personnel and Readiness. 

ACTION: Meeting notice. 

SUMMARY: Under the provisions of the 

Federal Advisory Committee Act of 

1972 (5 U.S.C., Appendix, as amended), 

the Government in the Sunshine Act of 

1976 (5 U.S.C. 552b, as amended), and 

41 CFR 102–3.150, the Department of 

Defense announces that the Military 

Leadership Diversity Commission 

(MLDC) will meet September 27–29, 

2010, in Baltimore, MD. 

DATES: The meeting will be held on 

September 27 (from 7 p.m. to 9:30 p.m.), 

September 28 (from 8 a.m. to 8 p.m.), 

and September 29, 2010 (from 8 a.m. to 

5:30 p.m.). 

An Administrative Working Meeting 

that is scheduled for September 27 from 

7 to 8 p.m. is closed to the public. 

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at 

the Mt. Washington Conference Center, 

5801 Smith Ave, Suite 1100, Baltimore, 

MD 21209. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Master Chief Steven A. Hady, 

Designated Federal Officer, MLDC, at 

(703) 602–0838 or (571) 882–0140, 1851 

South Bell Street, Suite 532, Arlington, 

VA. E-mail: steven.Hady@wso.whs.mil. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Due to 

internal DoD difficulties, beyond the 

control of the Military Leadership 

Diversity Commission or its Designated 

Federal Officer, the Government was 

unable to process the Federal Register 

notice for the September 27–29, 2010, 

meeting of the Military Leadership 

Diversity Commission as required by 41 

CFR 102–3.150(a). Accordingly, the 

Advisory Committee Management 

Officer for the Department of Defense, 

pursuant to 41 CFR 102–3.150(b), 

waives the 15-calendar day notification 

requirement. 

Purpose of the Meeting 

The purpose of the meeting is for the 

commissioners of the Military 

Leadership Diversity Commission to 

continue their efforts to address 

congressional concerns as outlined in 

the commission charter. 

Agenda 

September 27, 2010 

7 p.m.–8 p.m. 

Administrative Working Meeting 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES