68862 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 234 / Thursday, December 6, 2007 / Notices 

1 7 U.S.C. § 6(c). 

2 17 CFR Part 35. 

3 Jurisdiction is retained for, inter alia, provisions 

of the CEA proscribing fraud and manipulation. See 

Commission Reg. § 35.2, 17 CFR § 35.2 

(Commission regulations are hereinafter cited as 

‘‘Reg. § _’’). 

4Reg. § 35.1(b)(1)(i). 

5 ‘‘Commodity’’ is defined in Section 1a(4) of the 

Act to include a variety of specified agricultural 

products, ‘‘and all other goods and articles, except 

onions * * * and all services, rights and interests 

in which contracts for future delivery are presently 

or in the future dealt in.’’

6See 58 F.R. 5587 (January 22, 1993). 

Aquatic Release Conservation ((877) 

411–4272), 1870 Mason Ave., Daytona 

Beach, FL 32117. 

Registration Materials 

To ensure that workshop certificates 

are linked to the correct permits, 

participants will need to bring the 

following items with them to the 

workshop: 

Individual vessel owners must bring a 

copy of the appropriate permit(s), a 

copy of the vessel registration or 

documentation, and proof of 

identification. 

Representatives of a business owned 

or co–owned vessel must bring proof 

that the individual is an agent of the 

business (such as articles of 

incorporation), a copy of the applicable 

permit(s), and proof of identification. 

Vessel operators must bring proof of 

identification. 

Workshop Objectives 

The protected species safe handling, 

release, and identification workshops 

are designed to teach longline and 

gillnet fishermen the required 

techniques for the safe handling and 

release of entangled and/or hooked 

protected species, such as sea turtles, 

marine mammals, and smalltooth 

sawfish. Identification of protected 

species will also be taught at these 

workshops in an effort to improve 

reporting. Additionally, individuals 

attending these workshops will gain a 

better understanding of the 

requirements for participating in these 

fisheries. The overall goal for these 

workshops is to provide participants the 

skills needed to reduce the mortality of 

protected species, which may prevent 

additional regulations on these fisheries 

in the future. 

Grandfathered Permit Holders 

Participants in the industry–

sponsored workshops on safe handling 

and release of sea turtles that were held 

in Orlando, FL (April 8, 2005) and in 

New Orleans, LA (June 27, 2005) were 

issued a NOAA workshop certificate in 

December 2006 that is valid for three 

years. Grandfathered permit holders 

must include a copy of this certificate 

when renewing limited access shark and 

limited access swordfish permits each 

year. Failure to provide a valid NOAA 

workshop certificate may result in a 

permit denial. 

Dated: December 3, 2007. 

Alan D. Risenhoover, 

Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, 

National Marine Fisheries Service. 

[FR Doc. E7–23697 Filed 12–5–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–S 

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING 

COMMISSION 

Notice of Request for Comment on 

Exemption Requests 

AGENCY: Commodity Futures Trading 

Commission. 

Requests to extend, pursuant to the 

exemptive authority in section 4(c) of 

the Commodity Exchange Act, the 

exemption granted under Part 35 of the 

Commission’s regulations to certain 

over-the-counter swaps that do not 

otherwise meet certain of the 

requirements imposed by Commission 

Regulation 35.2 and to determine that, 

subject to certain conditions, floor 

brokers and floor traders are eligible 

swap participants. 

SUMMARY: The Commodity Futures 

Trading Commission (‘‘CFTC’’ or 

‘‘Commission’’) is requesting comment 

on whether to extend the exemption 

granted under Part 35 of the 

Commission’s regulations to certain 

over-the-counter (‘‘OTC’’) swaps that do 

not meet certain of the requirements 

otherwise imposed by Commission 

Regulation 35.2. This exemption has 

been requested by ICE Clear U.S., Inc. 

(‘‘ICE Clear’’), a registered derivatives 

clearing organization. The Commission 

is also requesting comment on whether 

ICE Futures U.S., Inc. (‘‘ICE Futures 

U.S.’’) floor traders and floor brokers 

who are registered with the 

Commission, when trading for their own 

accounts, may be determined to be 

eligible swap participants and permitted 

to enter into certain specified OTC swap 

transactions. This exemption has been 

requested by ICE Futures U.S., a 

designated contract market. Authority 

for extending this relief is found in 

Section 4(c) of the Commodity Exchange 

Act (‘‘CEA’’ or ‘‘Act’’).1

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before January 7, 2008. 

ADDRESSES: Comments may be 

submitted by any of the following 

methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov/http:// 

frwebgate.access.gpo/cgi-bin/leaving. 

Follow the instructions for submitting 

comments. 

• E-mail: secretary@cftc.gov. Include 

‘‘ICE Clear Section 4(c) Request’’ in the 

subject line of the message. 

• Fax: 202–418–5521. 

• Mail: Send to David A. Stawick, 

Secretary, Commodity Futures Trading 

Commission, Three Lafayette Centre, 

1155 21st Street, NW., Washington, DC 

20581. 

• Courier: Same as mail above. 

All comments received will be posted 

without change to http:// 

www.CFTC.gov/. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lois 

J. Gregory, Special Counsel, 816–960–

7719, lgregory@cftc.gov, or Robert B. 

Wasserman, Associate Director, 202–

418–5092, rwasserman@cftc.gov, 

Division of Clearing and Intermediary 

Oversight; or Duane C. Andresen, 

Special Counsel, 202–418–5492, 

dandresen@cftc.gov, Division of Market 

Oversight, Commodity Futures Trading 

Commission, Three Lafayette Centre, 

1151 21st Street, NW., Washington, DC 

20581. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. The ICE Clear Petition 

ICE Clear, the clearing organization 

for ICE Futures U.S., seeks to offer 

eligible swap participants who enter 

into certain bilateral swap transactions 

involving coffee, sugar, or cocoa the 

opportunity to submit them to ICE Clear 

for clearing. ICE Clear has represented 

that swap transactions in various 

agricultural products, including coffee, 

sugar, and cocoa, currently trade in OTC 

markets exempt from provisions of the 

CEA pursuant to Part 35 of the 

Commission’s regulations. These are 

commonly swap agreements entered 

into by participants exchanging fixed for 

floating reference prices. Participants in 

these markets include trade houses, 

commodity lenders, producers, end 

users, and large speculators. 

Part 35 of the Commission’s 

regulations 2 exempts swap agreements 

and eligible persons entering into these 

agreements from most provisions of the 

Act.3 The term ‘‘swap agreement’’ is 

defined to include, among other types of 

agreements, ‘‘a * * * commodity 

swap,’’ 4 which latter term includes 

swaps on agricultural products.5 Part 35 

was promulgated pursuant to authority 

provided to the Commission in Section 

4(c) of the Act to exempt certain 

transactions in order to promote 

innovation and competition.6 Various 

exemptions and exclusions were 

subsequently added to the Act by the 

Commodity Futures Modernization Act 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 234 / Thursday, December 6, 2007 / Notices 68863 

7Pub. L. 106–554, 114 Stat. 2763 (2000). 

8See, e.g., CEA §§ 2(d), (g) and (h). 

9Reg. § 35.2(b). 

10Reg.§ 35.2(c). 

11The OTC transaction would be required to 

involve the coffee, sugar, or cocoa underlying the 

corresponding cleared-only contract. The unit size, 

quality, and other specifications for the OTC coffee, 

sugar, or cocoa transaction would be approximately 

equivalent to the unit size, quality, and other 

specifications of the corresponding physical 

delivery futures contract listed on ICE Futures. 12Reg. § 35.1(b)(2)(x). 

13These conditions are substantially similar to 

the conditions included in two previously issued 

Commission orders that permit floor members to be 

eligible contract participants (‘‘ECPs’’) pursuant to 

Section 1a(12)(C) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. 1a(12)(C). On 

March 14, 2006, the Commission issued an order 

that permitted Chicago Mercantile Exchange floor 

members to be ECPs with respect to OTC 

transactions in excluded commodities entered into 

pursuant to Section 2(d)(1) of the Act. On August 

3, 2006, the Commission issued an order that 

permitted New York Mercantile Exchange floor 

members to be ECPs with respect to OTC 

transactions in exempt commodities entered into 

pursuant to Section 2(h)(1) of the Act. 

14Section 4(c)(1) of the CEA, 7 U.S.C. 6(c)(1), 

provides in full that: 

In order to promote responsible economic or 

financial innovation and fair competition, the 

Commission by rule, regulation, or order, after 

notice and opportunity for hearing, may (on its own 

initiative or on application of any person, including 

any board of trade designated or registered as a 

contract market or derivatives transaction execution 

facility for transactions for future delivery in any 

commodity under section 7 of this title) exempt any 

agreement, contract, or transaction (or class thereof) 

that is otherwise subject to subsection (a) of this 

section (including any person or class of persons 

offering, entering into, rendering advice or 

rendering other services with respect to, the 

agreement, contract, or transaction), either 

unconditionally or on stated terms or conditions or 

for stated periods and either retroactively or 

prospectively, or both, from any of the requirements 

of subsection (a) of this section, or from any other 

provision of this chapter (except subparagraphs 

(c)(ii) and (D) of section 2(a)(1) of this title, except 

that the Commission and the Securities and 

Exchange Commission may by rule, regulation, or 

order jointly exclude any agreement, contract, or 

transaction from section 2(a)(1)(D) of this title), if 

the Commission determines that the exemption 

would be consistent with the public interest. 

of 2000 (‘‘CFMA’’),7 but none apply to 

agricultural contracts.8

Part 35 requires, inter alia, that a 

swap agreement not be part of a fungible 

class of agreements that are 

standardized as to their material 

economic terms 9 and that the 

creditworthiness of any party having an 

interest under the agreement be a 

material consideration in entering into 

or negotiating the terms of the 

agreement.10 Under the arrangement 

that ICE Clear seeks to establish, OTC 

contracts would be submitted for 

clearing, a process that would 

extinguish the original OTC contract 

and replace it with an equivalent 

number of cash-settled ‘‘cleared-only’’

futures contracts, with the 

clearinghouse interposed as central 

counterparty.11 A cleared-only contract 

could be offset by another cleared-only 

contract. Thus, clearing of these OTC 

contracts would result in contracts that 

are fungible with other cleared-only 

contracts with approximately equivalent 

terms. In addition, the creditworthiness 

of the counterparty would not be a 

consideration. Accordingly, the OTC 

contracts ICE Clear would clear in the 

fashion proposed would not fulfill all of 

the conditions of Part 35. 

However, Part 35 further invites ‘‘any 

person [to] apply to the Commission for 

exemption from any of the provisions of 

the Act * * * for other arrangements or 

facilities.’’ ICE Clear has petitioned the 

Commission for an order under Section 

4(c) of the Act that would permit 

cleared OTC swaps involving coffee, 

sugar, and cocoa to be exempt on the 

same basis as other swaps are exempt 

under Part 35. 

II. The ICE Futures U.S. Petition 

ICE Futures U.S. seeks to permit floor 

traders and floor brokers (collectively, 

floor members) who are registered with 

the Commission, when trading for their 

own accounts, to enter into the OTC 

swap transactions discussed above. Part 

35, however, defines the term eligible 

swap participant (‘‘ESP’’) to include 

floor members only as follows: (1) Floor 

members generally who are other than 

natural persons or proprietorships; (2) 

floor members who are natural persons, 

provided they have total assets 

exceeding at least $10,000,000; or (3) 

floor members who are proprietorships, 

provided they have total assets 

exceeding at least $10,000,000, or have 

the obligations under the swap 

agreement guaranteed or otherwise 

supported by certain other ESPs, or have 

a net worth of $1,000,000 and enter into 

the swap agreement in connection with 

the conduct of their business or to 

manage the risk of an asset or liability 

owned or incurred in the conduct of 

their business or reasonably likely to be 

owned or incurred in the conduct of 

their business.12 ICE Futures U.S. has 

petitioned the Commission for an order 

under Section 4(c) of the Act that would 

permit all ICE Futures U.S. floor 

members who are registered with the 

Commission, when trading for their own 

accounts, to be ESPs for the purpose of 

entering into bilateral swap transactions 

involving agricultural commodities as 

described above. 

ICE Futures U.S. represents that all 

floor members entering into the swap 

transactions would be sophisticated and 

knowledgeable in the relevant products 

and markets and would be fully capable 

of evaluating the transactions. Further, 

because the transaction results in a 

cleared-only futures contract, floor 

members would not be subject to 

counterparty credit risk and would rely 

on the credit of ICE CLEAR and their 

clearing futures commission merchants 

(‘‘FCMs’’). 

The Commission anticipates that any 

Section 4(c) order issued in response to 

this request would be subject to the 

following conditions: 

(1) The contracts, agreement or 

transactions would have to be executed 

pursuant to the requirements of Part 35, 

as modified herein. 

(2) The ICE Futures U.S. floor member 

would have to obtain a financial 

guarantee for the OTC swap transactions 

from an ICE Futures U.S. clearing 

member that: 

(i) Is registered with the Commission 

as an FCM; and 

(ii) Clears the OTC swap transactions 

thus guaranteed. 

(3) Permissible OTC swap 

transactions would be limited to 

‘‘cleared-only’’ contracts in the 

following eligible products: cocoa, 

coffee and sugar. 

(4) Permissible OTC swap 

transactions would have to be submitted 

for clearance by an ICE Futures U.S. 

clearing member to ICE Clear pursuant 

to ICE Clear Rules. 

(5) An ICE Futures U.S. floor member 

could not enter into OTC swap 

transactions with another ICE Futures 

U.S. floor member as the counterparty 

for ICE Clear ‘‘cleared-only’’ contracts. 

(6) ICE Futures U.S. would maintain 

appropriate compliance systems in 

place to monitor the OTC swap 

transactions of its floor members.13

III. Section 4(c) of the Commodity 

Exchange Act 

Section 4(c)(1) of the CEA empowers 

the CFTC to ‘‘promote responsible 

economic or financial innovation and 

fair competition’’ by exempting any 

transaction or class of transactions from 

any of the provisions of the CEA 

(subject to exceptions not relevant here) 

where the Commission determines that 

the exemption would be consistent with 

the public interest.14 The Commission 

may grant such an exemption by rule, 

regulation, or order, after notice and 

opportunity for hearing, and may do so 

on application of any person or on its 

own initiative. 

In enacting Section 4(c), Congress 

noted that the goal of the provision ‘‘is 

to give the Commission a means of 

providing certainty and stability to 

existing and emerging markets so that 

financial innovation and market 

development can proceed in an effective 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES

68864 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 234 / Thursday, December 6, 2007 / Notices 

15House Conf. Report No. 102–978, 1992 

U.S.C.C.A.N. 3179, 3213. 

16Section 4(c)(2) of the CEA, 7 U.S.C. 6(c)(2), 

provides in full that: 

The Commission shall not grant any exemption 

under paragraph (1) from any of the requirements 

of subsection (a) of this section unless the 

Commission determines that—

(A) the requirement should not be applied to the 

agreement, contract, or transaction for which the 

exemption is sought and that the exemption would 

be consistent with the public interest and the 

purposes of this Act; and 

(B) the agreement, contract, or transaction—

(i) will be entered into solely between appropriate 

persons; and 

(ii) will not have a material adverse effect on the 

ability of the Commission or any contract market or 

derivatives transaction execution facility to 

discharge its regulatory or self-regulatory duties 

under this Act. 

17CEA § section 3(b), 7 U.S.C. 5(b). See also CEA 

§ section 4(c)(1), 7 U.S.C. § 6(c)(1) (purpose of 

exemptions is ‘‘to promote responsible economic or 

financial innovation and fair competition’’). 

18 44 U.S.C. § 3507(d). 

19 7 U.S.C. § 19(a). 

and competitive manner.’’15 Permitting 

the clearing of OTC coffee, sugar, and 

cocoa transactions by ICE Clear, as well 

as permitting ICE Futures U.S. floor 

members to trade such products, as 

discussed above, may foster both 

financial innovation and competition. It 

may benefit the marketplace by 

providing ESPs the ability to bring 

together flexible negotiation with 

central counterparty guarantees and 

capital efficiencies. The CFTC is 

requesting comment on whether it 

should exempt the OTC transactions in 

coffee, sugar, and cocoa that are 

proposed to be cleared through ICE 

Clear as described above, in the same 

fashion as are other contracts that are 

exempt pursuant to Part 35 of the 

Commission’s regulations. The CFTC is 

also requesting comment on whether it 

should determine ICE Futures U.S. floor 

members, subject to certain conditions, 

to be ESPs for the purpose of entering 

into the OTC transactions in coffee, 

sugar and cocoa. 

Section 4(c)(2) provides that the 

Commission may grant exemptions only 

when it determines that the 

requirements for which an exemption is 

being provided should not be applied to 

the agreements, contracts, or 

transactions at issue, and the exemption 

is consistent with the public interest 

and the purposes of the CEA; that the 

agreements, contracts or transactions 

will be entered into solely between 

appropriate persons; and that the 

exemption will not have a material 

adverse effect on the ability of the 

Commission or any contract market or 

derivatives transaction execution 

facility to discharge its regulatory or 

self-regulatory responsibilities under the 

CEA.16

The purposes of the CEA include 

‘‘promot[ing] responsible innovation 

and fair competition among boards of 

trade, other markets, and market 

participants.’’ 17 It may be consistent 

with these and the other purposes of the 

CEA, and with the public interest, for 

the OTC contracts described herein and 

submitted for clearing as described 

herein to be exempt as are other 

contracts under Part 35 of the 

Commission’s regulations. However, the 

exception of agricultural commodities 

from the exemptions and exclusions 

provided under the CFMA for OTC 

transactions may be relevant to the 

analysis. Accordingly, the CFTC is 

requesting comment as to whether an 

exemption from the requirements of the 

CEA should be granted in the context of 

these transactions and these potential 

participants. 

Section 4(c)(3) includes within the 

term ‘‘appropriate persons’’ a number of 

specified categories of persons deemed 

appropriate under the Act for entering 

into transactions exempt by the 

Commission under Section 4(c). This 

includes persons the Commission 

determines to be appropriate in light of 

their financial or other qualifications, or 

the applicability of appropriate 

regulatory protections. ESPs, as defined 

in Part 35 of the Commission’s 

regulations, will be eligible to submit for 

clearing to ICE Clear the OTC 

transactions described above. That 

definition includes many of the classes 

of persons explicitly referred to in CEA 

Section 4(c)(3) (e.g., a bank or trust 

company) as well as some classes of 

persons who are included under the 

category of Section 4(c)(3)(K) (‘‘[s]uch 

other persons that the Commission 

determines to be appropriate in light of 

their financial or other qualifications, or 

the applicability of appropriate 

regulatory protections’’). The 

Commission is proposing to include as 

appropriate persons for this extended 

relief under Part 35 all of the persons 

who meet the definition of ESP in 

Commission Regulation § 35.1(b)(2). For 

the purposes of the extended relief 

requested by ICE Futures U.S., the 

Commission is also proposing to expand 

upon this list of appropriate persons to 

include, as discussed above, ICE Futures 

U.S. floor members. The Commission 

seeks comment on this determination. 

In light of the above, the Commission 

also is requesting comment as to 

whether these exemptions will affect its 

ability to discharge its regulatory 

responsibilities under the CEA, or with 

the self-regulatory duties of any contract 

market or derivatives clearing 

organization. 

IV. Request for Comment 

The Commission requests comment 

on all aspects of the issues presented by 

these exemption requests. 

V. Related Matters 

A. Paperwork Reduction Act 

The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

(‘‘PRA’’) 18 imposes certain 

requirements on federal agencies 

(including the Commission) in 

connection with their conducting or 

sponsoring any collection of 

information as defined by the PRA. The 

exemption would not, if approved, 

require a new collection of information 

from any entities that would be subject 

to the exemption. 

B. Cost-Benefit Analysis 

Section 15(a) of the CEA,19 requires 

the Commission to consider the costs 

and benefits of its action before issuing 

an order under the CEA. 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, Section 15(a) 

simply requires the Commission to 

‘‘consider the costs and benefits’’ of its 

action. 

Section 15(a) of the CEA further 

specifies that costs and benefits shall be 

evaluated in light of five broad areas of 

market and public concern: protection 

of market participants and the public; 

efficiency, competitiveness, and 

financial integrity of futures markets; 

price discovery; sound risk management 

practices; and other public interest 

considerations. Accordingly, the 

Commission could 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 was necessary or appropriate to 

protect the public interest or to 

effectuate any of the provisions or to 

accomplish any of the purposes of the 

CEA. 

The Commission is considering the 

costs and benefits of an exemptive order 

in light of the specific provisions of 

Section 15(a) of the CEA, as follows: 

1. Protection of market participants 

and the public. The contracts that are 

the subject of the exemptive request will 

only be entered into by persons who are 

‘‘appropriate persons’’ as set forth in 

Section 4(c) of the Act. 

2. Efficiency, competition, and 

financial integrity. Extending the 

exemption granted under Part 35 to 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 234 / Thursday, December 6, 2007 / Notices 68865 

these swap agreements to allow them to 

be cleared may promote liquidity and 

transparency in the markets for OTC 

derivatives on coffee, sugar, and cocoa, 

as well as on futures on those 

commodities. Extending the exemption 

also may promote financial integrity by 

providing the benefits of clearing to 

these OTC markets. Determining ICE 

Futures U.S. floor members to be ESPs 

may increase the flow of trading 

information between markets, increase 

the pool of potential counterparties for 

participants trading OTC, and provide 

essential trading expertise to the market. 

3. Price discovery. Price discovery 

may be enhanced through market 

competition. 

4. Sound risk management practices. 

Clearing of OTC transactions may foster 

risk management by the participant 

counterparties. ICE Clear’s risk 

management practices in clearing these 

transactions would be subject to the 

Commission’s supervision and 

oversight. 

5. Other public interest 

considerations. The requested 

exemption may encourage market 

competition in agricultural derivative 

products without unnecessary 

regulatory burden. 

After considering these factors, the 

Commission has determined to seek 

comment on the exemption requests as 

discussed above. The Commission also 

invites public comment on its 

application of the cost-benefit provision. 

* * * * * 

Issued in Washington, DC, on November 

30, 2007 by the Commission. 

David A. Stawick, 

Secretary of the Commission. 

[FR Doc. E7–23635 Filed 12–5–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6351–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

Office of Secretary 

[DOD–2007–OS–0130] 

Privacy Act of 1974; Systems of 

Records 

AGENCY: Defense Finance and 

Accounting Service. 

ACTION: Notice to Add a System of 

Records. 

SUMMARY: The Defense Finance and 

Accounting Service (DFAS) is proposing 

to add a system of records notices to its 

inventory of record systems subject to 

the Privacy Act of 1974, (5 U.S.C. 552a), 

as amended. 

DATES: This action will be effective 

without further notice on January 7, 

2008 unless comments are received that 

would result in a contrary 

determination. 

ADDRESSES: Send comments to the 

FOIA/PA Program Manager, Corporate 

Communications and Legislative 

Liaison, Defense Finance and 

Accounting Service, 6760 E. Irvington 

Place, Denver, CO 80279–8000. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. 

Linda Krabbenhoft at (303) 676–6045. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

Defense Finance and Accounting 

Service notices for systems of records 

subject to the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 

U.S.C. 552a), as amended, have been 

published in the Federal Register and 

are available from the address above. 

The proposed system report, as 

required by 5 U.S.C. 552a(r) of the 

Privacy Act of 1974, as amended, was 

submitted on November 29, 2007 to the 

House Committee on Oversight and 

Government Reform, the Senate 

Committee on Government Affairs, and 

the Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) pursuant to paragraph 4c of 

Appendix I to OMB Circular No. A–130, 

‘Federal Agency Responsibilities for 

Maintaining Records about Individuals,’

dated December 12, 2000, 65 FR 239. 

Dated: November 30, 2007. 

L.M. Bynum, 

Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison 

Officer, Department of Defense. 

T7901 

SYSTEM NAME: 

Standard Finance and Accounting 

Payment System. 

SYSTEM LOCATIONS: 

Defense Information Systems Agency, 

Defense Enterprise Computing Center-St 

Louis, Post Office Box 20012, St. Louis, 

MO 63120–0012. 

Defense Finance and Accounting 

Service—Indianapolis, 8899 East 56th 

Street, Indianapolis, IN 46249–2700. 

Defense Finance Accounting 

Service—Columbus, 3990 East Broad 

Street, Building 21, Columbus OH 

43213–2317. 

Defense Finance and Accounting 

Service—Kansas City, 1500 E. Bannister 

Street, Kansas City, MO 64197–0001. 

For a list of other DFAS, U.S. Army, 

and Marine Corps sites utilizing the 

system contact the Standard Finance 

System, Redesigned Subsystem, System 

Manager, Defense Finance and 

Accounting Service—Indianapolis, 

Information Technology Directorate, 

8899 East 56th Street, Indianapolis, IN 

46249–2700. Telephone number (317) 

510–4003. 

CATEGORIES OF INDIVIDUALS COVERED BY THE

SYSTEM: 

Active duty military members (Army 

and U.S. Marine Corps), Reserve and 

Guard military members, Army Military 

Academy cadets, Army Reserve Officer 

Training Corps (ROTC) students, DoD 

contractors, and vendors. 

CATEGORIES OF RECORDS IN THE SYSTEM: 

Individual’s name, Social Security 

Number (SSN), home address, and 

military branch of service, military 

status, disbursing and accounting 

transaction data. 

AUTHORITY FOR MAINTENANCE OF THE SYSTEM: 

5 U.S.C. 301, Departmental 

Regulations; Department of Defense 

Financial Management Regulation 

(DoDFMR) 7000.14–R, Volume 5; 31 

U.S.C. Sections 3511, 3512, and 3513; 

and E.O. 9397 (SSN). 

PURPOSE(S): 

The system processes payments and 

collections utilizing the Electronic 

Funds Transfer system. It is a multifunctional, interactive, automated 

disbursing and accounting system 

composed of several functional modules 

that perform vendor pay, travel pay, and 

military payroll payment. Defense 

Finance and Accounting Service, U.S. 

Army, and Marine Corps will use the 

system for processing accounting and 

disbursing transactions in contingency 

locations requiring foreign currency 

operations. 

ROUTINE USES OF RECORDS MAINTAINED IN THE

SYSTEM, INCLUDING CATEGORIES OF USERS AND

THE PURPOSES OF SUCH USES: 

In addition to those disclosures 

generally permitted under 5 U.S.C. 

552a(b) of the Privacy Act, these records 

or information contained therein may 

specifically be disclosed outside the 

DoD as a routine use pursuant to 5 

U.S.C. 552a(b)(3) as follows: 

To Federal Reserve banks to distribute 

payments made through the direct 

deposit system to financial 

organizations or their processing agents 

authorized by individuals to receive and 

deposit payments in their accounts. 

The ‘Blanket Routine Uses’ published 

at the beginning of the DoD compilation 

of systems of records notices apply to 

this system. 

POLICIES AND PRACTICES FOR STORING, 

RETRIEVING, ACCESSING, RETAINING, AND

DISPOSING OF RECORDS IN THE SYSTEM: 

STORAGE: 

Electronic storage media. 

RETRIEVABILITY: 

Name and Social Security Number 

(SSN). 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES