Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 241 / Monday, December 17, 2018 / Notices 64563 

proposed take as a percentage of stock 

abundance that are high compared to 

actual take that will occur. This is the 

case with the resident stocks of killer 

whale and harbor seal (Lynn Canal/ 

Stephens Passage stock). 

As reported, a small number of harbor 

seals, most of which reside in Taiya 

Inlet year-round, will be exposed to 

construction activities for three months. 

The total population estimate in the 

Lynn Canal/Stephens Passage stock is 

9,478 animals over 1.37 million acres 

(5,500 km2) of area in their range, which 

results in an estimated density of 36 

animals within Taiya Inlet. The largest 

Level B harassment zone within the 

inlet occupies 17.9 km2, which 

represents less than 0.4 percent of the 

total geographical area occupied by the 

stock. The great majority of these 

exposures will be to the same animals 

given their residency patterns. 

Based on the analysis contained 

herein of the proposed activity 

(including the proposed mitigation and 

monitoring measures) and the 

anticipated take of marine mammals, 

NMFS preliminarily finds that small 

numbers of marine mammals will be 

taken relative to the population size of 

the affected species or stocks. 

Unmitigable Adverse Impact Analysis 

and Determination 

There are no relevant subsistence uses 

of the affected marine mammal stocks or 

species implicated by this action. The 

proposed project will occur near but not 

overlap with the subsistence area used 

by the villages of Hoonah and Angoon 

(Wolfe et al. 2013; N. Kovaces, Skagway 

Traditional Council, personal 

communication). Harbor seals and 

Steller sea lions are available for 

subsistence harvest in this area (Wolfe 

et al. 2013). Therefore, NMFS has 

preliminarily determined that the total 

taking of affected species or stocks 

would not have an unmitigable adverse 

impact on the availability of such 

species or stocks for taking for 

subsistence purposes. 

Endangered Species Act 

Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered 

Species Act of 1973 (ESA: 16 U.S.C. 

1531 et seq.) requires that each Federal 

agency insure that any action it 

authorizes, funds, or carries out is not 

likely to jeopardize the continued 

existence of any endangered or 

threatened species or result in the 

destruction or adverse modification of 

designated critical habitat. To ensure 

ESA compliance for the issuance of 

IHAs, NMFS consults internally, in this 

case with the Alaska Regional Office, 

whenever we propose to authorize take 

for endangered or threatened species. 

NMFS is proposing to authorize take 

of the Steller sea lion western DPS and 

humpback whale Mexico DPS, which 

are listed under the ESA. On November 

29, 2018, the NMFS Office of Protected 

Resources has requested initiation of 

section 7 consultation with the Alaska 

Regional Office for the issuance of this 

IHA. NMFS will conclude the ESA 

consultation prior to reaching a 

determination regarding the proposed 

issuance of the authorization. 

Proposed Authorization 

As a result of these preliminary 

determinations, NMFS proposes to issue 

an IHA to WP&YR for conducting the 

Railroad Dock dolphin installation 

project in Skagway, Alaska from 

February 1, 2019 through April 30, 

2019, provided the previously 

mentioned mitigation, monitoring, and 

reporting requirements are incorporated. 

A draft of the IHA itself is available for 

review in conjunction with this notice 

at https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/ 

national/marine-mammal-protection/ 

incidental-take-authorizationsconstruction-activities 

Request for Public Comments 

We request comment on our analyses, 

the proposed authorization, and any 

other aspect of this Notice of Proposed 

IHA for the proposed action. We also 

request comment on the potential for 

renewal of this proposed IHA as 

described in the paragraph below. 

Please include with your comments any 

supporting data or literature citations to 

help inform our final decision on the 

request for MMPA authorization. 

On a case-by-case basis, NMFS may 

issue a second one-year IHA without 

additional notice when (1) another year 

of identical or nearly identical activities 

as described in the Specified Activities 

section is planned or (2) the activities 

would not be completed by the time the 

IHA expires and a second IHA would 

allow for completion of the activities 

beyond that described in the Dates and 

Duration section, provided all of the 

following conditions are met: 

• A request for renewal is received no 

later than 60 days prior to expiration of 

the current IHA. 

• The request for renewal must 

include the following: 

(1) An explanation that the activities 

to be conducted beyond the initial dates 

either are identical to the previously 

analyzed activities or include changes 

so minor (e.g., reduction in pile size) 

that the changes do not affect the 

previous analyses, take estimates, or 

mitigation and monitoring 

requirements. 

(2) A preliminary monitoring report 

showing the results of the required 

monitoring to date and an explanation 

showing that the monitoring results do 

not indicate impacts of a scale or nature 

not previously analyzed or authorized. 

• Upon review of the request for 

renewal, the status of the affected 

species or stocks, and any other 

pertinent information, NMFS 

determines that there are no more than 

minor changes in the activities, the 

mitigation and monitoring measures 

remain the same and appropriate, and 

the original findings remain valid. 

Dated: December 12, 2018. 

Donna S. Weiting, 

Director, Office of Protected Resources, 

National Marine Fisheries Service. 

[FR Doc. 2018–27258 Filed 12–14–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING 

COMMISSION 

Request for Input on Crypto-Asset 

Mechanics and Markets 

AGENCY: Commodity Futures Trading 

Commission. 

ACTION: Request for input. 

SUMMARY: The Commodity Futures 

Trading Commission (‘‘Commission’’ or 

‘‘CFTC’’) in furtherance of the LabCFTC 

initiative is seeking public comment 

and feedback on this Request for Input 

(‘‘RFI’’) in order to better inform the 

Commission’s understanding of the 

technology, mechanics, and markets for 

virtual currencies beyond Bitcoin, 

namely here Ether and its use on the 

Ethereum Network. The Commodity 

Exchange Act (‘‘CEA’’) grants the 

Commission regulatory authority over 

the commodity futures markets. The 

Commission is seeking public feedback 

in furtherance of oversight of these 

markets and regulatory policy 

development. The input from this 

request will advance the CFTC’s 

mission of ensuring the integrity of the 

derivatives markets as well as 

monitoring and reducing systemic risk 

by enhancing legal certainty in the 

markets. The RFI seeks to understand 

similarities and distinctions between 

certain virtual currencies, including 

here Ether and Bitcoin, as well as Etherspecific opportunities, challenges, and 

risks. The Commission welcomes all 

public comments on these and related 

issues. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before February 15, 2019. 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with NOTICES1
64564 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 241 / Monday, December 17, 2018 / Notices 

1 17 CFR 145.9. All Commission regulations cited 

herein are set forth in chapter I of Title 17 of the 

Code of Federal Regulations. 

2See, e.g., 7 U.S.C. 5(b). 

3 ‘‘A CFTC Primer on Virtual Currencies,’’ (Oct. 

17, 2017), https://www.cftc.gov/sites/default/files/ 

idc/groups/public/documents/file/labcftc_

primercurrencies100417.pdf. 

4See, e.g., Testimony of Chairman J. Christopher 

Giancarlo before the Senate Committee On 

Appropriations Subcommittee on Financial 

Services and General Government (June 5, 2018), 

https://www.cftc.gov/PressRoom/SpeechesTest

imony/opagiancarlo47. 

5CFTC Staff Advisory No. 18–14 (May 21, 2018), 

https://www.cftc.gov/sites/default/files/idc/groups/ 

public/%40lrlettergeneral/documents/letter/2018- 

05/18-14_0.pdf. 

6See Primer, supra note 3, at 4 (citing IRS Notice 

2014–21, available at https://www.irs.gov/ 

businesses/small-businesses-self-employed/virtualcurrencies). See also Proposed Interpretation on 

Virtual Currency ‘‘Actual Delivery’’ in Retail 

Transactions (Dec. 15, 2017), 82 FR 60335 (Dec. 20, 

2017), https://www.cftc.gov/sites/default/files/idc/ 

groups/public/@lrfederalregister/documents/file/ 

2017-27421a.pdf. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, 

identified by the title, ‘‘Virtual Currency 

RFI,’’ by any of the following methods: 

• CFTC website: https://

comments.cftc.gov. Follow the 

instructions to Submit Comments 

through the website. 

• Mail: Send to Christopher 

Kirkpatrick, Secretary of the 

Commission, Commodity Futures 

Trading Commission, Three Lafayette 

Centre, 1155 21st Street NW, 

Washington, DC 20581. 

• Hand Delivery/Courier: Same as 

Mail, above. 

Please submit comments by only one 

of these methods. 

All comments should be submitted in 

English or accompanied by an English 

translation. Comments will be posted as 

received to https://www.cftc.gov. You 

should submit only information that 

you wish to make available publicly. If 

you wish the Commission to consider 

information that may be exempt from 

disclosure under the Freedom of 

Information Act (‘‘FOIA’’), a petition for 

confidential treatment of the exempt 

information may be submitted according 

to the procedures established in the 

Commission’s regulations at 17 CFR 

145.9.1 The Commission reserves the 

right, but shall have no obligation, to 

review, prescreen, filter, redact, refuse, 

or remove any or all of your submission 

from https://www.cftc.gov that it may 

deem to be inappropriate for 

publication, such as obscene language. 

All submissions that have been redacted 

or removed that contain comments on 

the merits of the RFI will be retained in 

the public comment file and will be 

considered as required under the 

Administrative Procedure Act and other 

applicable laws, and may be accessible 

under the FOIA. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Daniel Gorfine, Director of LabCFTC 

and Chief Innovation Officer, (202) 418– 

5625; Bianca M. Gomez, Counsel on 

FinTech and Innovation, Office of 

General Counsel, (202) 418–5627; or 

LabCFTC@cftc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

A. Introduction 

The CEA grants the Commission 

regulatory authority over the commodity 

futures markets.2 LabCFTC was 

launched by the Commission in order to 

further the CFTC’s goal of evolving as a 

21st century regulator and keeping pace 

with technological innovation. LabCFTC 

is dedicated to facilitating marketenhancing financial technology 

(‘‘FinTech’’) innovation, informing 

policy, and ensuring that we have the 

regulatory and technological tools and 

understanding to keep pace with 

changing markets. LabCFTC is designed 

to make the CFTC more accessible to all 

innovators and to inform the 

Commission’s understanding of 

emerging technologies and their 

regulatory implications. One such area 

of emerging innovation involves virtual 

currencies. 

In further advancing its mission, 

LabCFTC published a primer on the 

topic of virtual currencies in October 

2017 (the ‘‘Primer’’) in order to help 

educate the public on potential 

applications and use-cases, the CFTC’s 

role and jurisdictional oversight, and 

potential risks and challenges that 

investors and users may face involving 

virtual currencies.3

In December 2017, the Chicago 

Mercantile Exchange Inc. (‘‘CME’’) and 

the CBOE Futures Exchange (‘‘CFE’’) 

self-certified and began offering new 

contracts for bitcoin futures products 

following discussions with Commission 

staff regarding compliance with the CEA 

and Commission rules and regulations. 

In line with Chairman Giancarlo’s 

repeated statements 4 regarding the 

unique nature and risks of virtual 

currency-related products, the CFTC’s 

Division of Market Oversight (‘‘DMO’’) 

and Division of Clearing and Risk 

(‘‘DCR’’) issued on May 21, 2018 a joint 

staff advisory 5 that gives exchanges and 

clearinghouses registered with the CFTC 

guidance on certain enhancements 

when listing a derivative contract based 

on virtual currency pursuant to 

Commission regulations. The input 

being sought here will better inform the 

Commission and its operating divisions 

as the market evolves and potentially 

seeks to list new virtual currency based 

futures and derivatives products. 

B. Bitcoin as a Virtual Currency 

In its October 2017 Primer, LabCFTC 

cited the IRS to define a virtual currency 

as ‘‘a digital representation of value that 

functions as a medium of exchange, a 

unit of account, and/or a store of value 

. . . [but that] does not have legal 

tender status.’’ 6 The Primer further 

noted key characteristics of Bitcoin, 

including that it: 

D Is ‘‘pseudonymous’’ (or partially 

anonymous) in that an individual is 

identified by an alpha-numeric public 

key/address; 

D Relies on cryptography (and unique 

digital signatures) for security based on 

public and private keys and complex 

mathematical algorithms; 

D Runs on a decentralized peer-topeer network of computers and 

‘‘miners’’ that operate on open-source 

software and do ‘‘work’’ to validate and 

irrevocably log transactions on a 

permanent public distributed ledger 

visible to the entire network; 

D Solves the lack of trust between 

participants who may be strangers to 

each other on a public ledger through 

the transaction validation work noted in 

the bullet above; and 

D Enables the transfer of ownership 

without the need for a trusted, central 

intermediary. 

The Primer noted potential 

applications or use cases of a virtual 

currency like Bitcoin, including that it 

may serve as a store of value, be used 

for trading, enable payments and value 

transfers, power applications built upon 

the virtual currency network, and 

facilitate money transfers or 

international remittances. The Primer 

further highlighted a range of potential 

risks around virtual currencies, 

including technology, operational, 

cybersecurity, speculative, and fraud 

and manipulation risks. 

C. Ether as a Virtual Currency 

In June 2018, the Director of the 

Securities and Exchange Commission’s 

(‘‘SEC’’) Division of Corporation 

Finance, Bill Hinman, delivered a 

speech which conveyed Mr. Hinman’s 

personal views. In the speech, he 

addressed the question of whether ‘‘a 

digital asset that was originally offered 

in a securities offering [could] ever be 

later sold in a manner that does not 

constitute an offering of a security.’’ He 

explained among other factors that since 

the network on which Bitcoin operates 

appears to be decentralized and there is 

no central third party whose efforts are 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 241 / Monday, December 17, 2018 / Notices 64565 

7 ‘‘Digital Asset Transactions: When Howey Met 

Gary (Plastic),’’ Remarks of William Hinman, 

Director, Division of Corporation Finance, SEC at 

the Yahoo Finance All Markets Summit: Crypto 

(June 14, 2018), https://www.sec.gov/news/speech/ 

speech-hinman-061418. 

8See Ethereum Foundation, Frequently Asked 

Questions, available at https://www.ethereum.org/ 

ether (last visited Aug. 22, 2018). 

9See id. 

a key determining factor in the success 

of Bitcoin, ‘‘[a]pplying the disclosure 

regime of the federal securities laws to 

the offer and resale of Bitcoin would 

seem to add little value.’’ He further 

stated that, in addition to Bitcoin, 

‘‘based on my understanding of the 

present state of Ether, the Ethereum 

network and its decentralized structure, 

current offers and sales of Ether are not 

securities transactions.’’ Finally, he 

stated that ‘‘[o]ver time, there may be 

other sufficiently decentralized 

networks and systems where regulating 

the tokens or coins that function on 

them as securities may not be 

required.’’ 7

Ether is a virtual currency that was 

launched on the Ethereum Network in 

2015. It is an open network that 

currently relies on a proof of work 

consensus mechanism, but developers, 

including through the Ethereum 

Foundation, have plans to shift the 

protocol to a proof of stake consensus 

model in order, at least in part, to 

reduce energy consumption required to 

validate the ledger.8 The Ethereum 

Network is often viewed as a platform 

that permits ready creation and use of 

smart contracts that can power 

decentralized applications or 

organizations. In this way, Ether is used 

as ‘‘fuel’’ to compensate miners for 

maintaining a public ledger for such 

networks.9 To date, Ether has typically 

been one of the top three virtual 

currencies by market capitalization. 

II. Request for Input 

The Commission is seeking public 

feedback namely on Ether and the 

Ethereum Network in order to better 

understand these technologies given 

Ether’s size in the market and 

potentially unique attributes relative to 

Bitcoin. The Commission is issuing this 

RFI in order to gather public feedback 

on a range of questions related to the 

underlying technology, opportunities, 

risks, mechanics, use cases, and 

markets, related to Ether and the 

Ethereum Network. The requested 

information will inform the work of 

LabCFTC and the Commission as a 

whole. The Commission welcomes any 

relevant comments, including related 

topics that may not be specifically 

mentioned but which a commenter 

believes should be considered. 

Specific Questions for Input 

In addition to any general input, the 

Commission is interested in responses 

to the following questions: 

Purpose and Functionality 

1. What was the impetus for 

developing Ether and the Ethereum 

Network, especially relative to Bitcoin? 

2. What are the current functionalities 

and capabilities of Ether and the 

Ethereum Network as compared to the 

functionalities and capabilities of 

Bitcoin? 

3. How is the developer community 

currently utilizing the Ethereum 

Network? More specifically, what are 

prominent use cases or examples that 

demonstrate the functionalities and 

capabilities of the Ethereum Network? 

4. Are there any existing or 

developing commercial enterprises that 

are using Ether to power economic 

transactions? If so, how is Ether 

recorded for accounting purposes in a 

comprehensive set of financial 

statements? 

5. What data sources, analyses, 

calculations, variables, or other factors 

could be used to determine Ether’s 

market size, liquidity, trade volume, 

types of traders, ownership 

concentration, and/or principal ways in 

which the Ethereum Network is 

currently being used by market 

participants? 

6. How many confirmations on the 

Ethereum blockchain are sufficient to 

wait to ensure that the transaction will 

not end up on an invalid block? 

Technology 

7. How is the technology underlying 

Ethereum similar to and different from 

the technology underlying Bitcoin? 

8. Does the Ethereum Network face 

scalability challenges? If so, please 

describe such challenges and any 

potential solutions. What analyses or 

data sources could be used to assess 

concerns regarding the scalability of the 

underlying Ethereum Network, and in 

particular, concerns about the network’s 

ability to support the growth and 

adoption of additional smart contracts? 

9. Has a proof of stake consensus 

mechanism been tested or validated at 

scale? If so, what lessons or insights can 

be learned from the experience? 

10. Relative to a proof of work 

consensus mechanism does proof of 

stake have particular vulnerabilities, 

challenges, or features that make it 

prone to manipulation? In responding 

consider, for example, that under a 

proof of stake consensus mechanism, 

the chance of validating a block may be 

proportional to staked wealth. 

11. There are reports of disagreements 

within the Ether community over the 

proposed transition to a proof of stake 

consensus model. Could this transition 

from a proof of work to a proof of stake 

verification process result in a 

fragmented or diminished Ether market 

if the disagreements are not resolved? 

12. What capability does the 

Ethereum Network have to support the 

continued development and increasing 

use of smart contracts? 

Governance 

13. How is the governance of the 

Ethereum Network similar to and 

different from the governance of the 

Bitcoin network? 

14. In light of Ether’s origins as an 

outgrowth from the Ethereum Classic 

blockchain, are there potential issues 

that could make Ether’s underlying 

blockchain vulnerable to future hard 

forks or splintering? 

Markets, Oversight and Regulation 

15. Are there protections or 

impediments that would prevent market 

participants or other actors from 

intentionally disrupting the normal 

function of the Ethereum Network in an 

attempt to distort or disrupt the Ether 

market? 

16. What impediments or risks exist 

to the reliable conversion of Ether to 

legal tender? How do these 

impediments or risks impact regulatory 

considerations for Commission 

registrants with respect to participating 

in any transactions in Ether, including 

the ability to obtain or demonstrate 

possession or control or otherwise hold 

Ether as collateral or on behalf of 

customers? 

17. How would the introduction of 

derivative contracts on Ether potentially 

change or modify the incentive 

structures that underlie a proof of stake 

consensus model? 

18. Given the evolving nature of the 

Ether cash markets underlying potential 

Ether derivative contracts, what are the 

commercial risk management needs for 

a derivative contract on Ether? 

19. Please list any potential impacts 

on Ether and the Ethereum Network that 

may arise from the listing or trading of 

derivative contracts on Ether. 

20. Are there any types of trader or 

intermediary conduct that has occurred 

in the international Ether derivative 

markets that raise market risks or 

challenges and should be monitored 

closely by trading venues or regulators? 

21. What other factors could impact 

the Commission’s ability to properly 

oversee or monitor trading in derivative 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with NOTICES1
64566 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 241 / Monday, December 17, 2018 / Notices 

contracts on Ether as well as the 

underlying Ether cash markets? 

22. Are there any emerging best 

practices for monitoring the Ethereum 

Network and public blockchains more 

broadly? 

Cyber Security and Custody 

23. Are there security issues peculiar 

to the Ethereum Network or Ethereumsupported smart contracts that need to 

be addressed? 

24. Are there any best practices for the 

construction and security of Ethereum 

wallets, including, but not limited to, 

the number of keys required to sign a 

transaction and how access to the keys 

should be segregated? 

25. Are there any best practices for 

conducting an independent audit of 

Ether deposits? 

In providing your responses, please be 

as specific as possible, and offer 

concrete examples where appropriate. 

Please provide any relevant data to 

support your answers where 

appropriate. The Commission 

encourages all relevant comments on 

related items or issues; commenters 

need not address every question. 

III. Conclusion 

The Commission appreciates your 

time and effort responding to this RFI 

on Crypto-asset Mechanics and Markets. 

The information provided by 

stakeholders will help us refine our 

understanding of this area of innovation 

and better inform the work of the 

Commission, including the evaluation 

of potential derivatives contracts. More 

broadly, the input from this request will 

further aid the Commission in 

identifying FinTech trends and related 

opportunities, challenges, and risks. In 

that respect, we look forward to 

continuing to engage proactively with 

the innovator community and market 

participants in order to help facilitate 

market-enhancing innovation and 

ensure market integrity. 

Issued in Washington, DC, on December 

11, 2018, by the Commission. 

Christopher Kirkpatrick, 

Secretary of the Commission. 

Appendix to Request for Input on 

Crypto-asset Mechanics and Markets— 

Commission Voting Summary 

On this matter, Chairman Giancarlo and 

Commissioners Quintenz, Behnam, Stump, 

and Berkovitz voted in the affirmative. No 

Commissioner voted in the negative. 

[FR Doc. 2018–27167 Filed 12–14–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6351–01–P 

BUREAU OF CONSUMER FINANCIAL 

PROTECTION 

[Docket No. CFPB–2018–0041] 

Agency Information Collection 

Activities: Comment Request 

AGENCY: Bureau of Consumer Financial 

Protection. 

ACTION: Notice and request for comment. 

SUMMARY: In accordance with the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

(PRA), the Bureau of Consumer 

Financial Protection (Bureau) is 

requesting to renew the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) 

approval for an existing information 

collection, titled Interstate Land Sales 

Full Disclosure Act (Regulations J, K & 

L) 12 CFR 1010, 1011, 1012. 

DATES: Written comments are 

encouraged and must be received on or 

before February 15, 2019 to be assured 

of consideration. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, 

identified by the title of the information 

collection, OMB Control Number (see 

below), and docket number (see above), 

by any of the following methods: 

• Electronic: Go to http://

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Email: FederalRegisterComments@

cfpb.gov. Include Docket No. CFPB– 

2018–0041 in the subject line of the 

message. 

• Mail: Comment Intake, Bureau of 

Consumer Financial Protection 

(Attention: PRA Office), 1700 G Street 

NW, Washington, DC 20552. 

• Hand Delivery/Courier: Comment 

Intake, Bureau of Consumer Financial 

Protection (Attention: PRA Office), 1700 

G Street NW, Washington, DC 20552. 

Please note that comments submitted 

after the comment period will not be 

accepted. In general, all comments 

received will become public records, 

including any personal information 

provided. Sensitive personal 

information, such as account numbers 

or Social Security numbers, should not 

be included. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Documentation prepared in support of 

this information collection request is 

available at www.regulations.gov. 

Requests for additional information 

should be directed to Darrin King, PRA 

Officer, at (202) 435–9575, or email: 

CFPB_PRA@cfpb.gov. If you require this 

document in an alternative electronic 

format, please contact CFPB_

Accessibility@cfpb.gov. Please do not 

submit comments to these email boxes. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Title of Collection: Interstate Land 

Sales Full Disclosure Act (Regulations J, 

K & L) 12 CFR 1010, 1011, 1012. 

OMB Control Number: 3170–0012. 

Type of Review: Renewal without 

change of an existing information 

collection. 

Affected Public: Businesses and other 

for-profit entities. 

Estimated Number of Respondents: 

197. 

Estimated Total Annual Burden 

Hours: 3,411. 

Abstract: The Interstate Land Sales 

Full Disclosure Act (ILSA) requires land 

developers to register subdivisions of 

100 or more non-exempt lots or units 

and to provide each purchaser with a 

disclosure document designated as a 

property report, 15 U.S.C. 1703–1704. 

ILSA was enacted in response to a 

nation-wide proliferation of developers 

of unimproved subdivisions who made 

elaborate and often fraudulent, claims 

about their land to unsuspecting lot 

purchasers. Information is submitted to 

the Bureau of Consumer Financial 

Protection (Bureau) to assure 

compliance with ILSA and the 

implementing regulations. The Bureau 

also investigates developers who are not 

in compliance with the regulations. 

Request for Comments: Comments are 

invited on: (a) Whether the collection of 

information is necessary for the proper 

performance of the functions of the 

Bureau, including whether the 

information will have practical utility; 

(b) The accuracy of the Bureau’s 

estimate of the burden of the collection 

of information, including the validity of 

the methods and the 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 information 

on respondents, including through the 

use of automated collection techniques 

or other forms of information 

technology. Comments submitted in 

response to this notice will be 

summarized and/or included in the 

request for OMB approval. All 

comments will become a matter of 

public record. 

Dated: December 11, 2018. 

Darrin A. King, 

Paperwork Reduction Act Officer, Bureau of 

Consumer Financial Protection. 

[FR Doc. 2018–27262 Filed 12–14–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4810–AM–P 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with NOTICES1