Data Portability, 69873-69874 [2016-24246]

Download as PDF 69873 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 195 / Friday, October 7, 2016 / Notices the methodology and assumptions used; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of the information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. By John H. Brolin, Acting Secretary of the Board, the National Credit Union Administration, on October 3, 2016. Dated: October 3, 2016. Troy S. Hillier, NCUA PRA Clearance Officer. Madeline Gonzalez, 202–606–2838, or email pay-leave-policy@opm.gov. U.S. Office of Personnel Management. Sheldon Friedman, Chairman, Federal Prevailing Rate Advisory Committee. [FR Doc. 2016–24325 Filed 10–6–16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6325–49–P RAILROAD RETIREMENT BOARD Proposed Collection; Comment Request [FR Doc. 2016–24267 Filed 10–6–16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7535–01–P OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT Federal Prevailing Rate Advisory Committee; Cancellation of Upcoming Meeting U.S. Office of Personnel Management. AGENCY: ACTION: FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Notice. The Federal Prevailing Rate Advisory Committee is issuing this notice to cancel the October 20, 2016, public meeting scheduled to be held in Room 5A06A, U.S. Office of Personnel Management Building, 1900 E Street NW., Washington, DC. The original Federal Register notice announcing this meeting was published Wednesday, November 25, 2015, at 80 FR 73839. SUMMARY: Summary: In accordance with the requirement of Section 3506 (c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 which provides opportunity for public comment on new or revised data collections, the Railroad Retirement Board (RRB) will publish periodic summaries of proposed data collections. Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed information collection is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information has practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the RRB’s estimate of the burden of the collection of the information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden related to the collection of information on respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Title and purpose of information collection: Supplement to Claim of Person Outside the United States; OMB 3220–0155. Under the Social Security Amendments of 1983 (Pub. L. 98–21), which amends Section 202(t) of the Social Security Act, effective January 1, 1985, the Tier I or the overall minimum (O/M) portion of an annuity, and Medicare benefits payable under the Railroad Retirement Act to certain beneficiaries living outside the U.S., may be withheld. The benefit withholding provision of Public Law 98–21 applies to divorced spouses, spouses, minor or disabled children, students, and survivors of railroad employees who (1) initially became eligible for Tier I amounts, O/M shares, and Medicare benefits after December 31, 1984; (2) are not U.S. citizens or U.S. nationals; and (3) have resided outside the U.S. for more than six consecutive months starting with the annuity beginning date. The benefit withholding provision does not apply, however to a beneficiary who is exempt under either a treaty obligation of the U.S., in effect on August 1, 1956, or a totalization agreement between the U.S. and the country in which the beneficiary resides, or to an individual who is exempt under other criteria specified in Public Law 98–21. RRB Form G–45, Supplement to Claim of Person Outside the United States, is currently used by the RRB to determine applicability of the withholding provision of Public Law 98–21. Completion of the form is required to obtain or retain a benefit. One response is requested of each respondent. The RRB proposes no changes to Form G–45. ESTIMATE OF ANNUAL RESPONDENT BURDEN Annual responses Time (minutes) Burden (hours) G–45 ............................................................................................................................................ mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES Form No. 100 10 17 Additional Information or Comments: To request more information or to obtain a copy of the information collection justification, forms, and/or supporting material, contact Dana Hickman at (312) 751–4981 or Dana.Hickman@RRB.GOV. Comments regarding the information collection should be addressed to Charles Mierzwa, Railroad Retirement Board, 844 North Rush Street, Chicago, Illinois 60611–2092 or emailed to Charles.Mierzwa@RRB.GOV. Written comments should be received within 60 days of this notice. Charles Mierzwa, Associate Chief Information Officer for Policy and Compliance. [FR Doc. 2016–24323 Filed 10–6–16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7905–01–P OFFICE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY POLICY Data Portability ACTION: VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:36 Oct 06, 2016 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Request for information. Frm 00096 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 Many modern service providers give people access to their own data in machine readable format to download and use as they see fit. Proponents of increased data portability point to numerous, significant benefits for users, service providers, and the broader public. For users, perhaps the most important benefits are the ability to create backups of their most important data, like photographs, tax returns, and other financial information while reducing the danger of becoming locked-in to a single service provider, especially in a world where service providers may change business models or discontinue products. SUMMARY: E:\FR\FM\07OCN1.SGM 07OCN1 mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES 69874 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 195 / Friday, October 7, 2016 / Notices Consumers may also benefit from increased competition. If consumers cannot switch easily between platforms, then it may be difficult for would-be services to enter the market, potentially resulting in less innovation or higher prices. Increasing data portability may induce businesses to compete with one another to offer better prices and higher quality services so as to win or retain a customer’s business. Service providers, meanwhile, can benefit from offering data portability to increase user trust through the transparency and ease of switching data portability provides, and to help manage the termination of services. Finally, the public benefits when data portability increases competition, provides some sense of accountability, and promotes transparency as to what information a provider is holding. Others may point to potential private and public downsides. With lower switching costs, businesses might adjust their business models and become more selective in their initial customer acquisition strategy or invest less in their customer relationships, which might leave some sets of customers worse off than before. Some privacy and security advocates also worry that the strength of data portability—easier sharing of information—could encourage more information sharing, including when it might be inadvisable from a privacy perspective or when a criminal successfully breaks into an unsecured service. The Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) is interested in understanding the benefits and drawbacks of increased data portability as well as potential policy avenues to achieve greater data portability. The views of the American people, including stakeholders such as consumers, academic and industry researchers, and private companies, are important to inform an understanding of these questions. DATES: Responses must be received by November 23, 2016 to be considered. ADDRESSES: You may submit responses by any of the following methods (online is preferred): • Online: You may submit via the web form at: https:// www.whitehouse.gov/webform/requestinformation-regarding-data-portability. • Email: USCTO@ostp.eop.gov. Include [Data Portability] in the subject line of the message. • Mail: Data Portability RFI, c/o Alexander Macgillivray, Eisenhower Executive Office Building (Office 437), 1650 Pennsylvania Ave NW., Washington, DC 20502. If submitting a VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:36 Oct 06, 2016 Jkt 241001 response by mail, please allow sufficient time for mail processing. Instructions: Response to this RFI is voluntary. Responses exceeding 5,000 words will not be considered. Respondents need not comment on all topics; however, they should clearly indicate the number of each topic to which they are responding (please see Supplementary Information for list of topics). Brevity is appreciated. Responses to this RFI may be posted without change online. OSTP therefore requests that no business proprietary information or personally identifiable information be submitted in response to this RFI. Please note that the U.S. Government will not pay for response preparation, or for the use of any information contained in the response. Disclaimer: Responses to this RFI will not be returned. The Office of Science and Technology Policy is under no obligation to acknowledge receipt of the information received, or to provide feedback to respondents with respect to any information submitted under this RFI. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Alexander Macgillivray (202) 494–0085. OSTP is particularly interested in responses related to the following topics: (1) The potential benefits and drawbacks of increased data portability; (2) the industries or types of data that would most benefit or be harmed by increased data portability; (3) the specific steps the Federal Government, private companies, associations, or others might take to encourage or require greater data portability (and the important benefits or drawbacks of each approach); (4) best practices in implementing data portability; and (5) any additional information related to data portability policy making, not requested above, that you believe OSTP should consider with respect to data portability. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Ted Wackler, Deputy Chief of Staff and Assistant Director. [FR Doc. 2016–24246 Filed 10–6–16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3270–F6–P PO 00000 Frm 00097 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34–79029; File No. SR– NYSEMKT–2016–83] Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE MKT LLC; Notice of Filing of Partial Amendment No. 2 and Order Granting Accelerated Approval of a Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Partial Amendment No. 2, To Amend Rule 67—Equities Relating to the Tick Size Pilot Program October 3, 2016. I. Introduction On August 25, 2016, NYSE MKT LLC (‘‘Exchange’’ or ‘‘NYSE MKT’’) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (‘‘Commission’’) pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (‘‘Act’’) 1 and Rule 19b–4 thereunder,2 a proposed rule change to (1) change system functionality to implement the Plan to Implement a Tick Size Pilot Program (‘‘Plan’’ or ‘‘Pilot’’) 3 submitted to the Commission pursuant to Rule 608 of Regulation NMS 4 under the Act, (2) clarify the operation of certain exceptions to the Trade-at Prohibition 5 on Pilot Securities in the Test Group Three, (3) amend the Limit Up/Limit Down (‘‘LULD’’ price controls set forth in Exchange Rule 80C—Equities regarding the Regulation NMS Plan to Address Extraordinary Market Volatility (‘‘LULD Plan’’),6 and (4) amend the Exchange’s Trading Collars calculation in Exchange Rule 1000-Equities. The proposed rule change was published for comment in the Federal Register on September 15, 2016.7 The Commission received two comment letters on the proposal.8 On September 27, 2016, the 1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). CFR 240.19b–4. 3 See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 74892 (May 6, 2015), 80 FR 27513 (May 13, 2015) (‘‘Approval Order’’). Unless otherwise specified, capitalized terms used in this order are defined as set forth in the Plan. 4 17 CFR 242.608. 5 Exchange Rule 67(e)(4)(A)—Equities defines the ‘‘Trade-at Prohibition’’ to mean the prohibition against executions by a Trading Center of a sell order for a Pilot Security at the price of a Protected Bid or the execution of a buy order for a Pilot Security at the price of a Protected Offer during regular trading hours. See also Plan Section I(LL) and Plan Section VI(D). 6 See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 67091 (May 31, 2012), 77 FR 33498 (June 6, 2012) (File No. 4–631). 7 See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 78803 (September 9, 2016), 81 FR 63552. 8 See Letters from Eric Swanson, EVP, General Counsel, Bats Global Markets, Inc., Elizabeth K. King, General Counsel and Corporate Secretary, New York Stock Exchange; and Thomas A. Wittman, EVP, Global Head of Equities, Nasdaq, 2 17 E:\FR\FM\07OCN1.SGM 07OCN1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 195 (Friday, October 7, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 69873-69874]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-24246]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

OFFICE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY POLICY


Data Portability

ACTION: Request for information.

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

SUMMARY: Many modern service providers give people access to their own 
data in machine readable format to download and use as they see fit. 
Proponents of increased data portability point to numerous, significant 
benefits for users, service providers, and the broader public. For 
users, perhaps the most important benefits are the ability to create 
backups of their most important data, like photographs, tax returns, 
and other financial information while reducing the danger of becoming 
locked-in to a single service provider, especially in a world where 
service providers may change business models or discontinue products.

[[Page 69874]]

    Consumers may also benefit from increased competition. If consumers 
cannot switch easily between platforms, then it may be difficult for 
would-be services to enter the market, potentially resulting in less 
innovation or higher prices. Increasing data portability may induce 
businesses to compete with one another to offer better prices and 
higher quality services so as to win or retain a customer's business. 
Service providers, meanwhile, can benefit from offering data 
portability to increase user trust through the transparency and ease of 
switching data portability provides, and to help manage the termination 
of services. Finally, the public benefits when data portability 
increases competition, provides some sense of accountability, and 
promotes transparency as to what information a provider is holding.
    Others may point to potential private and public downsides. With 
lower switching costs, businesses might adjust their business models 
and become more selective in their initial customer acquisition 
strategy or invest less in their customer relationships, which might 
leave some sets of customers worse off than before. Some privacy and 
security advocates also worry that the strength of data portability--
easier sharing of information--could encourage more information 
sharing, including when it might be inadvisable from a privacy 
perspective or when a criminal successfully breaks into an unsecured 
service.
    The Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) is interested in 
understanding the benefits and drawbacks of increased data portability 
as well as potential policy avenues to achieve greater data 
portability. The views of the American people, including stakeholders 
such as consumers, academic and industry researchers, and private 
companies, are important to inform an understanding of these questions.

DATES: Responses must be received by November 23, 2016 to be 
considered.

ADDRESSES: You may submit responses by any of the following methods 
(online is preferred):
     Online: You may submit via the web form at: https://www.whitehouse.gov/webform/request-information-regarding-data-portability.
     Email: USCTO@ostp.eop.gov. Include [Data Portability] in 
the subject line of the message.
     Mail: Data Portability RFI, c/o Alexander Macgillivray, 
Eisenhower Executive Office Building (Office 437), 1650 Pennsylvania 
Ave NW., Washington, DC 20502. If submitting a response by mail, please 
allow sufficient time for mail processing.
    Instructions: Response to this RFI is voluntary. Responses 
exceeding 5,000 words will not be considered. Respondents need not 
comment on all topics; however, they should clearly indicate the number 
of each topic to which they are responding (please see Supplementary 
Information for list of topics). Brevity is appreciated. Responses to 
this RFI may be posted without change online. OSTP therefore requests 
that no business proprietary information or personally identifiable 
information be submitted in response to this RFI. Please note that the 
U.S. Government will not pay for response preparation, or for the use 
of any information contained in the response.
    Disclaimer: Responses to this RFI will not be returned. The Office 
of Science and Technology Policy is under no obligation to acknowledge 
receipt of the information received, or to provide feedback to 
respondents with respect to any information submitted under this RFI.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Alexander Macgillivray (202) 494-0085.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: OSTP is particularly interested in responses 
related to the following topics: (1) The potential benefits and 
drawbacks of increased data portability; (2) the industries or types of 
data that would most benefit or be harmed by increased data 
portability; (3) the specific steps the Federal Government, private 
companies, associations, or others might take to encourage or require 
greater data portability (and the important benefits or drawbacks of 
each approach); (4) best practices in implementing data portability; 
and (5) any additional information related to data portability policy 
making, not requested above, that you believe OSTP should consider with 
respect to data portability.

Ted Wackler,
Deputy Chief of Staff and Assistant Director.
[FR Doc. 2016-24246 Filed 10-6-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 3270-F6-P