62886 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 176 / Wednesday, September 13, 2023 / Notices 

seizure medication with the dosage and 

frequency remaining the same since 

2021. Their physician states that they 

are supportive of Adam Brunson 

receiving an exemption. 

Alan Glinsmann 

Alan Glinsmann is a 65-year-old class 

AM CDL holder in Kansas. They have a 

history of post traumatic seizures and 

have been seizure free since January 

1981. They take anti-seizure medication 

with the dosage and frequency 

remaining the same since 1983. Their 

physician states that they are supportive 

of Alan Glinsmann receiving an 

exemption. 

Alex Hunter 

Alex Hunter is a 61-year-old class 1 

license holder in South Dakota. They 

have a history of generalized idiopathic 

epilepsy and have been seizure free 

since January 2015. They take antiseizure medication with the dosage and 

frequency remaining the same since 

2018. Their physician states that they 

are supportive of Alex Hunter receiving 

an exemption. 

Kyle Jones 

Kyle Jones is a 54-year-old class A 

CDL holder in Indiana. They have a 

history of seizure disorder and have 

been seizure free since 2012. They have 

not taken anti-seizure medication since 

2014. Their physician states that they 

are supportive of Kyle Jones receiving 

an exemption. 

Ryan McKnelly 

Ryan McKnelly is a 45-year-old class 

A CDL holder in South Dakota. They 

have a history of generalized idiopathic 

epilepsy and have been seizure free 

since 2001. They take anti-seizure 

medication with the dosage and 

frequency remaining the same since 

2003. Their physician states that they 

are supportive of Ryan McKnelly 

receiving an exemption. 

Alfonso V. Mendoza 

Alfonso V. Mendoza is a 33-year-old 

class C license holder in California. 

They have a history of seizure disorder 

and have been seizure free since 

December 2008. They take anti-seizure 

medication with the dosage and 

frequency remaining the same since 

2008. Their physician states that they 

are supportive of Alfonso V. Mendoza 

receiving an exemption. 

Jerrid Pace 

Jerrid Pace is a 33-year-old class A 

CDL holder in Tennessee. They have a 

history of complex partial seizure and 

have been seizure free since 2015. They 

take anti-seizure medication with the 

dosage and frequency remaining the 

same since 2013. Their physician states 

that they are supportive of Jerrid Pace 

receiving an exemption. 

Elsa Santo 

Elsa Santo is a 62-year-old class B 

license holder in New Jersey. They have 

a history of epilepsy and have been 

seizure free since May 2015. They take 

anti-seizure medication with the dosage 

and frequency remaining the same since 

November 2015. Their physician states 

that they are supportive of Elsa Santo 

receiving an exemption. 

Brandon Schindele 

Brandon Schindele is a 39-year-old 

class D license holder in Minnesota. 

They have a history of seizure disorder 

and have been seizure free since 1995. 

They take anti-seizure medication with 

the dosage and frequency remaining the 

same since 1993. Their physician states 

that they are supportive of Brandon 

Schindele receiving an exemption. 

Travis Stevens 

Travis Stevens is a 33-year-old class 0 

license holder in Michigan. They have 

a history of grand mal epilepsy and have 

been seizure free since August 2008. 

They take anti-seizure medication with 

the dosage and frequency remaining the 

same since August 2013. Their 

physician states that they are supportive 

of Travis Stevens receiving an 

exemption. 

Brad Wetli 

Brad Wetli is a 44-year-old class A 

CDL holder in Indiana. They have a 

history of seizure disorder and have 

been seizure free since 1997. They take 

anti-seizure medication with the dosage 

and frequency remaining the same since 

1997. Their physician states that they 

are supportive of Brad Wetli receiving 

an exemption. 

IV. Request for Comments 

In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) 

and 31315(b), FMCSA requests public 

comment from all interested persons on 

the exemption petitions described in 

this notice. We will consider all 

comments received before the close of 

business on the closing date indicated 

under the DATES section of the notice. 

Larry W. Minor, 

Associate Administrator for Policy. 

[FR Doc. 2023–19754 Filed 9–12–23; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–EX–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration 

Petition for Exemption From the 

Federal Motor Vehicle Theft Prevention 

Standard; Nissan North America, Inc. 

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration (NHTSA), 

Department of Transportation (DOT). 

ACTION: Grant of petition for exemption. 

SUMMARY: This document grants in full 

the Nissan North America, Inc.’s 

(Nissan) petition for exemption from the 

Federal Motor Vehicle Theft Prevention 

Standard (theft prevention standard) for 

its Z vehicle line beginning in model 

year (MY) 2024. The petition is granted 

because the agency has determined that 

the antitheft device to be placed on the 

line as standard equipment is likely to 

be as effective in reducing and deterring 

motor vehicle theft as compliance with 

the parts-marking requirements of the 

theft prevention standard. Nissan also 

requested confidential treatment for 

specific information in its petition. 

Therefore, no confidential information 

provided for purposes of this notice has 

been disclosed. 

DATES: The exemption granted by this 

notice is effective beginning with the 

2024 model year. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Carlita Ballard, Office of International 

Policy, Fuel Economy, and Consumer 

Programs, NHTSA, West Building, 

W43–439, NRM–310, 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590. Ms. 

Ballard’s phone number is (202) 366– 

5222. Her fax number is (202) 493–2990. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under 49 

U.S.C. chapter 331, the Secretary of 

Transportation (and the National 

Highway Traffic Safety Administration 

(NHTSA) by delegation) is required to 

promulgate a theft prevention standard 

to provide for the identification of 

certain motor vehicles and their major 

replacement parts to impede motor 

vehicle theft. NHTSA promulgated 

regulations at 49 CFR part 541 (theft 

prevention standard) to require partsmarking for specified passenger motor 

vehicles and light trucks. Pursuant to 49 

U.S.C. 33106, manufacturers that are 

subject to the parts-marking 

requirements may petition the Secretary 

of Transportation for an exemption for 

a line of passenger motor vehicles 

equipped with an antitheft device as 

standard equipment that the Secretary 

decides is likely to be as effective in 

reducing and deterring motor vehicle 

theft as compliance with the partsmarking requirements. In accordance 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 176 / Wednesday, September 13, 2023 / Notices 62887 

1 49 CFR 543.7 specifies that the manufacturer 

must include a statement that their entire vehicle 

line is equipped with an immobilizer that meets 

one of the following standards: 

(1) The performance criteria (subsections 8 

through 21) of C.R.C, c. 1038.114, Theft Protection 

and Rollaway Prevention (in effect March 30, 2011), 

as excerpted in appendix A of [part 543]; 

(2) National Standard of Canada CAN/ULC– 

S338–98, Automobile Theft Deterrent Equipment 

and Systems: Electronic Immobilization (May 1998); 

(3) United Nations Economic Commission for 

Europe (UN/ECE) Regulation No. 97 (ECE R97), 

Uniform Provisions Concerning Approval of 

Vehicle Alarm System (VAS) and Motor Vehicles 

with Regard to Their Alarm System (AS) in effect 

August 8, 2007; or 

(4) UN/ECE Regulation No. 116 (ECE R116), 

Uniform Technical Prescriptions Concerning the 

Protection of Motor Vehicles Against Unauthorized 

Use in effect on February 10, 2009. 2 49 U.S.C. 33106(d). 

3 49 CFR 543.6(a)(3). 

4 49 CFR 543.6(a)(4). 

5 49 CFR 543.6(a)(5). 

6 49 CFR 512.20(a). 

with this statute, NHTSA promulgated 

49 CFR part 543, which establishes the 

process through which manufacturers 

may seek an exemption from the theft 

prevention standard. 

49 CFR 543.5 provides general 

submission requirements for petitions 

and states that each manufacturer may 

petition NHTSA for an exemption of 

one vehicle line per model year. Among 

other requirements, manufacturers must 

identify whether the exemption is 

sought under section 543.6 or section 

543.7. Under section 543.6, a 

manufacturer may request an exemption 

by providing specific information about 

the antitheft device, its capabilities, and 

the reasons the petitioner believes the 

device to be as effective at reducing and 

deterring theft as compliance with the 

parts-marking requirements. Section 

543.7 permits a manufacturer to request 

an exemption under a more streamlined 

process if the vehicle line is equipped 

with an antitheft device (an 

‘‘immobilizer’’) as standard equipment 

that complies with one of the standards 

specified in that section.1

Section 543.8 establishes 

requirements for processing petitions for 

exemption from the theft prevention 

standard. As stated in section 543.8(a), 

NHTSA processes any complete 

exemption petition. If NHTSA receives 

an incomplete petition, NHTSA will 

notify the petitioner of the deficiencies. 

Once NHTSA receives a complete 

petition the agency will process it and, 

in accordance with section 543.8(b), 

will grant the petition if it determines 

that, based upon substantial evidence, 

the standard equipment antitheft device 

is likely to be as effective in reducing 

and deterring motor vehicle theft as 

compliance with the parts-marking 

requirements of part 541. 

Section 543.8(c) requires NHTSA to 

issue its decision either to grant or to 

deny an exemption petition not later 

than 120 days after the date on which 

a complete petition is filed. If NHTSA 

does not make a decision within the 

120-day period, the petition shall be 

deemed to be approved and the 

manufacturer shall be exempt from the 

standard for the line covered by the 

petition for the subsequent model year.2

Exemptions granted under part 543 

apply only to the vehicle line or lines 

that are subject to the grant and that are 

equipped with the antitheft device on 

which the line’s exemption was based, 

and are effective for the model year 

beginning after the model year in which 

NHTSA issues the notice of exemption, 

unless the notice of exemption specifies 

a later year. 

Sections 543.8(f) and (g) apply to the 

manner in which NHTSA’s decisions on 

petitions are to be made known. Under 

section 543.8(f), if the petition is sought 

under section 543.6, NHTSA publishes 

a notice of its decision to grant or deny 

the exemption petition in the Federal 

Register and notifies the petitioner in 

writing. Under section 543.8(g), if the 

petition is sought under section 543.7, 

NHTSA notifies the petitioner in writing 

of the agency’s decision to grant or deny 

the exemption petition. 

This grant of petition for exemption 

considers Nissan Motor North America, 

Inc.’s (Nissan) petition for its Z vehicle 

line beginning in MY 2024. Based on 

the information provided in Nissan’s 

petition, NHTSA has determined that 

the antitheft device to be placed on its 

vehicle line as standard equipment is 

likely to be as effective in reducing and 

deterring motor vehicle theft as 

compliance with the parts-marking 

requirements of the theft prevention 

standard. 

I. Specific Petition Content 

Requirements Under 49 CFR 543.6 

Pursuant to 49 CFR part 543, 

Exemption from Vehicle Theft 

Prevention, Nissan petitioned for an 

exemption for its specified vehicle line 

from the parts-marking requirements of 

the theft prevention standard, beginning 

in MY 2024. Nissan petitioned under 49 

CFR 543.6, Petition: Specific content 

requirements, which, as described 

above, requires manufacturers to 

provide specific information about the 

antitheft device installed as standard 

equipment on all vehicles in the line for 

which an exemption is sought, the 

antitheft device’s capabilities, and the 

reasons the petitioner believes the 

device to be as effective at reducing and 

deterring theft as compliance with the 

parts-marking requirements. 

More specifically, section 543.6(a)(1) 

requires petitions to include a statement 

that an antitheft device will be installed 

as standard equipment on all vehicles in 

the line for which the exemption is 

sought. Under section 543.6(a)(2), each 

petition must list each component in the 

antitheft system, and include a diagram 

showing the location of each of those 

components within the vehicle. As 

required by section 543.6(a)(3), each 

petition must include an explanation of 

the means and process by which the 

device is activated and functions, 

including any aspect of the device 

designed to: (1) facilitate or encourage 

its activation by motorists; (2) attract 

attention to the efforts of an 

unauthorized person to enter or move a 

vehicle by means other than a key; (3) 

prevent defeating or circumventing the 

device by an unauthorized person 

attempting to enter a vehicle by means 

other than a key; (4) prevent the 

operation of a vehicle which an 

unauthorized person has entered using 

means other than a key; and (5) ensure 

the reliability and durability of the 

device.3

In addition to providing information 

about the antitheft device and its 

functionality, petitioners must also 

submit the reasons for their belief that 

the antitheft device will be effective in 

reducing and deterring motor vehicle 

theft, including any theft data and other 

data that are available to the petitioner 

and form a basis for that belief,4 and the 

reasons for their belief that the agency 

should determine that the antitheft 

device is likely to be as effective as 

compliance with the parts-marking 

requirements of part 541 in reducing 

and deterring motor vehicle theft. In 

support of this belief, the petitioners 

should include any statistical data that 

are available to the petitioner and form 

the basis for the petitioner’s belief that 

a line of passenger motor vehicles 

equipped with the antitheft device is 

likely to have a theft rate equal to or less 

than that of passenger motor vehicles of 

the same, or a similar, line which have 

parts marked in compliance with part 

541.5

The following sections describe 

Nissan’s petition information provided 

pursuant to 49 CFR part 543, Exemption 

from Vehicle Theft Prevention. To the 

extent that specific information in 

Nissan’s petition is subject to a properly 

filed confidentiality request, that 

information was not disclosed as part of 

this notice.6


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
62888 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 176 / Wednesday, September 13, 2023 / Notices 

7See, e.g., 70 FR 74107 (Dec. 14, 2005). NHTSA 

has previously concluded that the lack of a visual 

or audio alarm has not prevented some antitheft 

devices from being effective protection against theft, 

where the theft data indicate a decline in theft rates 

for vehicle lines that have been equipped with 

devices similar to that what the petitioner is 

proposing to use. 

II. Nissan’s Petition for Exemption 

In a petition dated November 17, 

2022, Nissan requested an exemption 

from the parts-marking requirements of 

the theft prevention standard for the Z 

vehicle line beginning with MY 2024. 

In its petition, Nissan provided a 

detailed description and diagram of the 

identity, design, and location of the 

components of the antitheft device for 

the Z vehicle line. Nissan stated that its 

MY 2024 Z vehicle line will be installed 

with a passive, electronic engine 

immobilizer device as standard 

equipment, as required by 543.6(a)(1). 

Key components of the antitheft device 

include an engine immobilizer, 

immobilizer control (CONT ASSY– 

SMART KEYLESS), engine control 

module (ECM), body control module, 

immobilizer antenna and a key FOB 

with a pre-registered key-ID microchip. 

Pursuant to Section 543.6(a)(3), 

Nissan explained that activation of its 

immobilizer device occurs 

automatically when the ignition switch 

is turned to the ‘‘OFF’’ position. Nissan 

also stated that the immobilizer device 

prevents normal operation of the vehicle 

without using a special key. Nissan 

explained that when the brake SW or 

clutch is on and the key FOB is near the 

engine start switch, the BMC scans the 

Key-ID via the immobilizer ANT. The 

microchip then transmits the key-ID via 

radio wave. Next, the key-ID is received 

by the antenna and is amplified and 

transmitted to the BMC. Nissan further 

stated that the ECM will ‘‘request’’ the 

BCM to start the encrypted 

communication, and once the code is 

accepted, the BCM will send an OKcode and an encrypted code to the ECM. 

If the code is not accepted, the 

immobilizer control unit will send a 

NG-code. Nissan stated that the ECM 

will only stop the motor if it receives a 

NG-code from the BCM, the encrypted 

code is not correct, or no signal is 

received from the BCM. 

As required in section 543.6(a)(3)(v), 

Nissan provided information on the 

reliability and durability of its proposed 

device. Nissan stated that its antitheft 

device is tested for specific parameters 

to ensure its reliability and durability. 

Nissan provided a detailed list of the 

tests conducted and believes that the 

device is reliable and durable since the 

device complied with its specified 

requirements for each test. Nissan stated 

that its immobilizer device satisfies the 

European Directive ECE R116, including 

tamper resistance. Nissan further stated 

that all control units for the device are 

located inside the vehicle, providing 

further protection from unauthorized 

accessibility of the device from outside 

the vehicle. Nissan also stated that if a 

potential intruder were to damage the 

immobilizer system, it is designed so 

that the motor cannot be restarted and 

that the motor will restart only after 

transmission of the correct Key-ID and 

encrypted code are accepted. Nissan 

also stated that if an intruder were to 

substitute another immobilizer unit, the 

vehicle would still not be operable since 

the immobilizer and ECM are codepaired. 

Nissan stated that the proposed 

device is functionally equivalent to the 

antitheft device installed on the MY 

2011 Nissan Cube vehicle line which 

was granted a parts-marking exemption 

by the agency on April 14, 2010 (75 FR 

19458). The agency notes that the theft 

rates for the Nissan Cube using an 

average of 3 MYs data (2012–2014), are 

0.3322, 0.6471 and 2.0373 per thousand 

vehicles produced, respectively. For 

reference, the theft rate for MY 2014 

passenger vehicles stolen in calendar 

year 2014 is 1.1512 thefts per thousand 

vehicles produced (82 FR 28246). 

Nissan also referenced the National 

Insurance Crime Bureau’s data which it 

stated showed a 70% reduction in theft 

when comparing MY 1997 Ford 

Mustangs (with a standard immobilizer) 

to MY 1995 Ford Mustangs (without an 

immobilizer). Nissan also referenced the 

Highway Loss Data Institute’s data 

which reported that BMW vehicles 

experienced theft loss reductions 

resulting in a 73% decrease in relative 

claim frequency and a 78% lower 

average loss payment per claim for 

vehicles equipped with an immobilizer. 

Additionally, Nissan stated that theft 

rates for its Pathfinder vehicle line 

experienced reductions from model year 

(MY) 2000 to 2001 and subsequent years 

with implementation of an engine 

immobilizer device as standard 

equipment. Specifically, Nissan stated 

that the agency’s theft rate data for MY’s 

2001 through 2005 reported theft rates 

of 1.9146, 1.8011, 1.1482, 0.8102, and 

1.7298 respectively for the Nissan 

Pathfinder. 

Nissan compared its device to other 

similar devices previously granted 

exemptions by the agency. Specifically, 

it referenced the agency’s grant of full 

exemptions to General Motors 

Corporation for its Buick Riviera and 

Oldsmobile Aurora vehicle lines (58 FR 

44872, August 25, 1993) and its Cadillac 

Seville vehicle line (62 FR 20058, April 

24, 1997) from the parts-marking 

requirements of the theft prevention 

standard. Nissan stated that it believes 

that since its device is functionally 

equivalent to other comparable 

manufacturers’ devices that have 

already been granted parts-marking 

exemptions by the agency, along with 

the evidence of reduced theft rates for 

vehicle lines equipped with similar 

devices and advanced technology of 

transponder electronic security, the 

Nissan immobilizer device will have the 

potential to achieve the level of 

effectiveness equivalent to those 

vehicles already exempted by the 

agency. 

III. Decision To Grant the Petition 

Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 33106 and 49 

CFR 543.8(b), the agency grants a 

petition for exemption from the partsmarking requirements of part 541, either 

in whole or in part, if it determines that, 

based upon substantial evidence, the 

standard equipment antitheft device is 

likely to be as effective in reducing and 

deterring motor vehicle theft as 

compliance with the parts-marking 

requirements of part 541, or deemed 

approved under 49 U.S.C. 33106(d). As 

discussed above, in this case, Nissan’s 

petition is granted under 49 U.S.C. 

33106(d). 

This conclusion is based on the 

information Nissan provided about its 

antitheft device. NHTSA believes, based 

on Nissan’s supporting evidence, the 

antitheft device described for its vehicle 

line is likely to be as effective in 

reducing and deterring motor vehicle 

theft as compliance with the partsmarking requirements of the theft 

prevention standard. 

The agency concludes that Nissan’s 

antitheft device will provide four of the 

five types of performance features listed 

in section 543.6(a)(3) 7: promoting 

activation; preventing defeat or 

circumvention of the device by 

unauthorized persons; preventing 

operation of the vehicle by 

unauthorized entrants; and ensuring the 

reliability and durability of the device. 

However, the agency wishes to note that 

the Z line will not provide any visible 

or audible indication of unauthorized 

vehicle entry (i.e., flashing lights and 

horn alarm). 

The agency notes that 49 CFR part 

541, Appendix A–1, identifies those 

lines that are exempted from the theft 

prevention standard for a given model 

year. 49 CFR 543.8(f) contains 

publication requirements incident to the 

disposition of all part 543 petitions. 

Advanced listing, including the release 

of future product nameplates, the 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 176 / Wednesday, September 13, 2023 / Notices 62889 

8The agency wishes to minimize the 

administrative burden that section 543.10©(2) 

could place on exempted vehicle manufacturers 

and itself. The agency did not intend in drafting 

part 543 to require the submission of a modification 

petition for every change to the components or 

design of an antitheft device. The significance of 

many such changes could be de minimis. Therefore, 

NHTSA suggests that if a manufacturer with an 

exemption contemplates making any changes, the 

effects of which might be characterized as de 

minimis, it should consult the agency before 

preparing and submitting a petition to modify. 

1https://occ.gov/topics/supervision-andexamination/bank-management/mutual-savingsassociations/mutual-savings-association-advisorycommittee.html. 

beginning model year for which the 

petition is granted and a general 

description of the antitheft device is 

necessary in order to notify law 

enforcement agencies of new vehicle 

lines exempted from the parts-marking 

requirements of the theft prevention 

standard. 

If Nissan decides not to use the 

exemption for its requested vehicle line, 

the manufacturer must formally notify 

the agency. If such a decision is made, 

the line must be fully marked as 

required by 49 CFR 541.5 and 541.6 

(marking of major component parts and 

replacement parts). 

NHTSA notes that if Nissan wishes in 

the future to modify the device on 

which the exemption is based, the 

company may have to submit a petition 

to modify the exemption. Section 

543.8(d) states that a part 543 exemption 

applies only to vehicles that belong to 

a line exempted under this part and 

equipped with the antitheft device on 

which the line’s exemption is based. 

Further, section 543.10(c)(2) provides 

for the submission of petitions ‘‘to 

modify an exemption to permit the use 

of an antitheft device similar to but 

differing from the one specified in the 

exemption.’’ 8

The agency wishes to minimize the 

administrative burden that section 

543.10(c)(2) could place on exempted 

vehicle manufacturers and itself. The 

agency did not intend in drafting part 

543 to require the submission of a 

modification petition for every change 

to the components or design of an 

antitheft device. The significance of 

many such changes could be de 

minimis. Therefore, NHTSA suggests 

that if Nissan contemplates making any 

changes, the effects of which might be 

characterized as de minimis, it should 

consult the agency before preparing and 

submitting a petition to modify. 

For the foregoing reasons, the agency 

hereby grants in full Nissan’s petition 

for exemption for the Z vehicle line 

from the parts-marking requirements of 

49 CFR part 541, beginning with its MY 

2024 vehicles. 

Issued under authority delegated in 49 CFR 

1.95 and 501.8. 

Milton E. Cooper, 

Acting Associate Administrator for 

Rulemaking. 

[FR Doc. 2023–19761 Filed 9–12–23; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY 

Office of the Comptroller of the 

Currency 

[Docket ID OCC–OCC–2023–0014] 

Mutual Savings Association Advisory 

Committee; Meeting 

AGENCY: Office of the Comptroller of the 

Currency (OCC), Treasury. 

ACTION: Notice of Federal Advisory 

Committee meeting. 

SUMMARY: The OCC announces a 

meeting of the Mutual Savings 

Association Advisory Committee 

(MSAAC). 

DATES: A public meeting of the MSAAC 

will be held on Tuesday, October 3, 

2023, beginning at 8:30 a.m. Eastern 

Daylight Time (EDT). The meeting will 

be in person and virtual. 

ADDRESSES: The OCC will host the 

October 3, 2023 meeting of the MSAAC 

at the OCC’s offices at 400 7th Street 

SW, Washington, DC 20219 and 

virtually. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Michael R. Brickman, Deputy 

Comptroller for Specialty Supervision, 

(202) 649–5420, Office of the 

Comptroller of the Currency, 

Washington, DC 20219. If you are deaf, 

hard of hearing, or have a speech 

disability, please dial 7–1–1 to access 

telecommunications relay services. You 

also may access prior MSAAC meeting 

materials on the MSAAC page of the 

OCC’s website.1

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under the 

authority of the Federal Advisory 

Committee Act (the Act), 5 U.S.C. 1001 

et seq, and the regulations 

implementing the Act at 41 CFR part 

102–3, the OCC is announcing that the 

MSAAC will convene a meeting on 

Tuesday, October 3, 2023. The meeting 

is open to the public and will begin at 

8:30 a.m. EDT. The purpose of the 

meeting is for the MSAAC to advise the 

OCC on regulatory or other changes the 

OCC may make to ensure the health and 

viability of mutual savings associations. 

The agenda includes a discussion of 

current topics of interest to the industry. 

Members of the public may submit 

written statements to the MSAAC. The 

OCC must receive written statements no 

later than 5:00 p.m. EDT on Thursday, 

September 28, 2023. Members of the 

public may submit written statements to 

MSAAC@occ.treas.gov. 

Members of the public who plan to 

attend the meeting should contact the 

OCC by 5:00 p.m. EDT on Thursday, 

September 28, 2023, to inform the OCC 

of their desire to attend the meeting and 

whether they will attend in person or 

virtually, and to obtain information 

about participating in the meeting. 

Members of the public may contact the 

OCC via email at MSAAC@

OCC.treas.gov or by telephone at (202) 

649–5420. Attendees should provide 

their full name, email address, and 

organization, if any. For persons who 

are deaf, hard of hearing, or have a 

speech disability, please dial 7–1–1 to 

arrange telecommunications relay 

services for this meeting. 

Michael J. Hsu, 

Acting Comptroller of the Currency. 

[FR Doc. 2023–19732 Filed 9–12–23; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY 

Financial Crimes Enforcement Network 

Privacy Act of 1974; System of 

Records 

AGENCY: Financial Crimes Enforcement 

Network (FinCEN), Treasury. 

ACTION: Notice of a new system of 

records. 

SUMMARY: In accordance with the 

Privacy Act of 1974, as amended, 

FinCEN is proposing to establish a new 

system of records titled Treasury/ 

FinCEN .004 for information collected 

by FinCEN in connection with the 

implementation of the Corporate 

Transparency Act (CTA). The CTA 

requires certain entities to report to 

FinCEN identifying information 

associated with the entities themselves, 

their beneficial owners, and their 

company applicants (together, beneficial 

ownership information or BOI). The 

CTA also authorizes FinCEN to disclose 

BOI to authorized recipients, subject to 

strict protocols on security and 

confidentiality. 

DATES: This action will be effective 

without further notice on October 13, 

2023 unless it is modified in response 

to comments. Comments must be 

submitted by [the aforementioned date]. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1