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