46786 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 151 / Monday, August 6, 2012 / Notices 

19 17 CFR 200.30–3(a)(12). 

IV. Solicitation of Comments 

Interested persons are invited to 

submit written data, views, and 

arguments concerning the foregoing, 

including whether the proposed rule 

change is consistent with the Exchange 

Act. Comments may be submitted by 

any of the following methods: 

Electronic Comments 

• Use the Commission’s Internet 

comment form (http://www.sec.gov/ 

rules/sro.shtml); or 

• Send an email to rulecomments@sec.gov. Please include File 

Number SR–CBOE–2012–049 on the 

subject line. 

Paper Comments 

• Send paper comments in triplicate 

to Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, 

Securities and Exchange Commission, 

100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 

20549–1090. 

All submissions should refer to File 

Number SR–CBOE–2012–049. This file 

number should be included on the 

subject line if email is used. To help the 

Commission process and review your 

comments more efficiently, please use 

only one method. The Commission will 

post all comments on the Commission’s 

Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/ 

rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the 

submission, all subsequent 

amendments, all written statements 

with respect to the proposed rule 

change that are filed with the 

Commission, and all written 

communications relating to the 

proposed rule change between the 

Commission and any person, other than 

those that may be withheld from the 

public in accordance with the 

provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be 

available for Web site viewing and 

printing in the Commission’s Public 

Reference Room, 100 F Street NE., 

Washington, DC 20549, on official 

business days between the hours of 10 

a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of the filing also 

will be available for inspection and 

copying at the principal office of the 

Exchange. All comments received will 

be posted without change; the 

Commission does not edit personal 

identifying information from 

submissions. You should submit only 

information that you wish to make 

available publicly. All submissions 

should refer to File Number SR–CBOE– 

2012–049 and should be submitted on 

or before August 27, 2012. 

For the Commission, by the Division of 

Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated 

authority.19

Kevin M. O’Neill, 

Deputy Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2012–19144 Filed 8–3–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8011–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF STATE 

[Public Notice 7971] 

60–Day Notice of Proposed 

Information Collection: Reporting 

Requirements for Responsible 

Investment in Burma 

ACTION: Notice of request for public 

comments. 

SUMMARY: The Department of State is 

seeking Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB) approval for the 

information collection described below. 

The purpose of this notice is to allow 60 

days for public comment in the Federal 

Register preceding submission to OMB. 

We are conducting this process in 

accordance with the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995. 

DATES: The Department will accept 

comments from the public up to October 

5, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

by any of the following methods: 

• Web: Persons with access to the 

Internet may view and comment on this 

notice by going to the Federal 

regulations Web site at 

www.regulations.gov. You can search for 

the document by: selecting ‘‘Notice’’ 

under Document Type, entering the 

Public Notice number as the ‘‘Keyword 

or ID’’, checking the ‘‘Open for 

Comment’’ box, and then click 

‘‘Search’’. If necessary, use the ‘‘Narrow 

by Agency’’ option on the Results page. 

• Email: BurmaPRA@state.gov. 

• Mail (paper, or CD submissions): 

U.S. Department of State, DRL/EAP 

Suite 7817, Burma Human Rights 

Officer, 2201 C St. NW., Washington, 

DC 20520. 

• Fax: None. 

• Hand Delivery or Courier: None. 

You must include the DS form 

number (if applicable), information 

collection title, and OMB control 

number in any correspondence. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Direct requests for additional 

information regarding the collection 

listed in this notice, including requests 

for copies of the proposed information 

collection and supporting documents, to 

Stacey May, U.S. Department of State, 

DRL/EAP Suite 7817, 2201 C St. NW., 

Washington, DC 20520, who may be 

reached on 202–647–8260 or at 

maysa2@state.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: • Title of 

Information Collection: Reporting 

Requirements on Responsible 

Investment in Burma. 

• OMB Control Number: None. 

• Type of Request: New Collection. 

• Originating Office: U.S. Department 

of State, DRL/EAP. 

• Form Number: None. 

• Respondents: U.S. persons and 

entities engaged in new investment in 

Burma in an amount over $500,000 in 

aggregate, per OFAC General License 17, 

which authorizes new investment in 

Burma. 

• Estimated Number of Respondents: 

150. 

• Estimated Number of Responses: 

150. 

• Average Hours Per Response: 21 

hours. 

• Total Estimated Burden: 3,150 

hours. 

• Frequency: Annually. 

• Obligation to Respond: Mandatory. 

We are soliciting public comments to 

permit the Department to: 

• Evaluate whether the proposed 

information collection is necessary for 

the proper performance of our 

functions. 

• Evaluate the accuracy of our 

estimate of the burden of the proposed 

collection, including the validity of the 

methodology and assumptions used. 

• Enhance the quality, utility, and 

clarity of the information to be 

collected. 

• Minimize the reporting burden on 

those who are to respond, including the 

use of automated collection techniques 

or other forms of technology. 

Abstract of proposed collection: 

Section 203(a)(1)(B) of the 

International Emergency Economic 

Powers Act (IEEPA) grants the President 

authority to, inter alia, prevent or 

prohibit any acquisition or transaction 

involving any property, in which a 

foreign country or a national thereof has 

any interest, by any person, or with 

respect to any property, subject to the 

jurisdiction of the United States, if the 

President declares a national emergency 

with respect to any unusual and 

extraordinary threat, which has its 

source in whole or substantial part 

outside the United States, to the 

national security, foreign policy, or 

economy of the United States. See 50 

U.S.C. 1701 et seq. 

In Executive Order 13047 of May 20, 

1997, the President determined that the 

actions and policies of the Government 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 151 / Monday, August 6, 2012 / Notices 46787 

of Burma, including its large-scale 

repression of the democratic opposition 

in Burma, constituted an unusual and 

extraordinary threat to the national 

security and foreign policy of the United 

States, declared a national emergency to 

deal with that threat, and prohibited 

new investment in Burma. In 

subsequent Executive Orders, the 

President modified the scope of the 

national emergency to address 

additional concerns with the actions 

and policies of the Government of 

Burma. In Executive Order 13448 of 

October 18, 2007, the President 

modified the emergency to address the 

continued repression of the democratic 

opposition in Burma, manifested in part 

through the commission of human 

rights abuses and pervasive public 

corruption. In Executive Order 13619 of 

July 11, 2012, the President further 

modified the emergency to address, 

inter alia, human rights abuses 

particularly in ethnic areas. In response 

to several political reforms by the 

Government of Burma and pursuant to 

authority granted by IEEPA, the 

Department of the Treasury’s Office of 

Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) issued a 

general license (GL 17) on July 11, 2012 

authorizing new investment in Burma, 

subject to certain restrictions and 

conditions. 

In order to support the Department of 

State’s efforts to assess the extent to 

which new U.S. investment authorized 

by GL 17 furthers U.S. foreign policy 

goals of improving human rights 

protections and facilitating political 

reform in Burma, GL 17 requires U.S. 

persons engaging in new investment in 

Burma to report to the Department of 

State information related to such 

investment, as laid out in the 

‘‘Reporting Requirements on 

Responsible Investment in Burma,’’ 

(hereafter referred to as the 

‘‘collection’’). This collection is 

authorized by section 203(a)(2) of 

IEEPA, which grants the President 

authority to keep a full record of, and 

to furnish under oath, in the form of 

reports or otherwise, complete 

information relative to any act or 

transaction referred to in section 

203(a)(1) of IEEPA. 

A copy of the ‘‘Reporting 

Requirements on Responsible 

Investment’’ can be reviewed at http:// 

www.humanrights.gov/wp-content/ 

uploads/2012/07/Burma-ResponsibleInvestment-Reporting-Reqs.pdf. 

Methodology: 

The Department of State will collect 

the information requested via electronic 

submission. 

Additional Information: 

It is the overarching policy goal of the 

U.S. Government to support political 

reform in Burma towards the 

establishment of a peaceful, prosperous, 

and democratic state that respects 

human rights and the rule of law. In the 

past, some foreign investment in Burma 

has been linked to human rights abuses, 

particularly in the area of natural 

resource development in ethnic 

minority regions. For example, some 

foreign investments have entailed 

acquisition and control of land in 

disputed ethnic minority territories 

exacerbating or contributing to both 

social unrest and armed conflict and 

leading to adverse community and 

environmental impacts. Increased 

military/security presence in disputed 

ethnic minority areas to provide 

security for foreign investment projects 

is reported to have led to seizures of 

farm land, involuntary relocations, 

forced labor, torture, summary 

execution, and sexual violence. In June 

2011, a 17-year ceasefire agreement with 

the Kachin Independence Army (KIA) 

broke down, and both the Burmese 

Government and the KIA have since 

publicly attributed the renewed armed 

fighting at least partially to foreignfunded investment projects, which 

include power generation, oil and gas, 

jade, and gold mining investment 

projects in the region. The Burma Army 

has reportedly forced civilians to work 

as porters and human mine sweepers in 

northern Shan State in connection with 

the Shwe Gas pipeline and there have 

been numerous recent reports of forced 

labor, torture, forced conscription, rape 

and sexual violence in Kachin and Shan 

states along the Shwe Gas pipeline 

corridor. 

The collection will help the 

Department of State, in consultation 

with other relevant government 

agencies, to evaluate whether easing the 

ban on investment by U.S. persons 

advances U.S. foreign policy goals to 

address the national emergency with 

respect to Burma. In addition, the 

Department of State will use the 

collection as a basis to conduct 

informed consultations with U.S. 

businesses to encourage and assist such 

businesses to develop robust policies 

and procedures to address any potential 

adverse human rights, worker rights, 

anti-corruption, environmental, or other 

impacts resulting from their investments 

and operations in Burma. The 

Department of State will use the 

collection of information about new 

investment with the Myanmar Oil and 

Gas Enterprise (MOGE) to track 

investment that involves MOGE and to 

identify investors with whom it may be 

beneficial to have targeted consultation 

on anti-corruption and human rights 

policies. The public, including civil 

society actors in Burma, may use 

publicly available information resulting 

from the collection to engage U.S. 

businesses on their responsible 

investment policies and procedures and 

to monitor the Burmese government’s 

management of revenues from 

investment. 

U.S. persons to whom this 

requirement applies will be required to 

submit a version of the report to the U.S. 

Government for public release, from 

which information considered in good 

faith to be exempt from disclosure 

under FOIA Exemption 4—i.e. trade 

secrets or commercial or financial 

information that is privileged or 

confidential—may be withheld. The 

Department of State will make this 

version of the report publically available 

in order to promote transparency with 

respect to new U.S. investments in 

Burma. In the past, the absence of 

transparency or publicly available 

information with respect to foreign 

investment activities in Burma has 

contributed to corruption and misuse of 

public funds, the erosion of public trust, 

and social unrest in ethnic minority 

areas and has led to further human 

rights abuses and repression by the 

government and military. Public 

disclosure of certain aspects of the 

collection therefore will promote the 

policy of transparency through new U.S. 

investment, a key U.S. foreign policy 

objective in Burma. 

Burmese civil society groups, 

particularly those representing ethnic 

minority communities, have requested 

that the Department of State make 

public certain information obtained 

through the collection on investments 

purportedly made for the benefit of the 

Burmese people, as a means of holding 

their own government accountable. 

Nobel Peace Prize laureate Aung San 

Suu Kyi, leader of Burma’s democratic 

opposition party and recently elected to 

a seat in Burma’s parliament, also 

underscored the importance of 

transparency in her recent remarks in 

Bangkok, noting that she did not want 

‘‘more investment to mean more 

possibilities for corruption.’’ This was 

among the most specific of the 

recommendations she made to the 

international community, stressing that 

‘‘Transparency is very important if we 

are going to avoid problems in the 

future* * * So whatever investments, 

governmental agreements, whatever aid 

might be proposed, please make sure 

that it is transparent, that the people of 

Burma are in a position to understand 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

46788 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 151 / Monday, August 6, 2012 / Notices 

what has been done, and how and for 

whom the benefits are intended.’’ 

Therefore public release of portions of 

this collection is aimed at providing 

civil society this type of information to 

both ensure the transparency of U.S. 

investment in Burma and to encourage 

civil society to partner with their 

government and U.S. companies 

towards building responsible 

investment, which ultimately promotes 

U.S. foreign policy goals. 

Dated: July 31, 2012. 

Daniel Baer, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary, Department of 

State. 

[FR Doc. 2012–19283 Filed 8–2–12; 4:15 pm] 

BILLING CODE 4710–18–P 

TRADE REPRESENTATIVE 

[Dispute No. WT/DS440/1] 

WTO Dispute Settlement Proceeding 

Regarding China—Anti-Dumping and 

Countervailing Duties on Certain 

Automobiles From the United States 

AGENCY: Office of the United States 

Trade Representative. 

ACTION: Notice; request for comments. 

SUMMARY: The Office of the United 

States Trade Representative (‘‘USTR’’) is 

providing notice that on July 9, 2012, 

the United States requested 

consultations with the Government of 

the People’s Republic of China 

(‘‘China’’) under the Marrakesh 

Agreement Establishing the World Trade 

Organization (‘‘WTO Agreement’’) 

concerning China’s antidumping and 

countervailing duty measures on certain 

automobiles from the United States. 

That request may be found at 

www.wto.org, contained in a document 

designated as WT/DS440/1. USTR 

invites written comments from the 

public concerning the issues raised in 

this dispute. 

DATES: Although USTR will accept any 

comments received during the course of 

the dispute settlement proceedings, 

comments should be submitted on or 

before August 31, 2012 to assure timely 

consideration by USTR. 

ADDRESSES: Public comments should be 

submitted electronically at 

www.regulations.gov, docket number 

USTR–2012–0016. If you are unable to 

provide submissions at 

www.regulations.gov , please contact 

Sandy McKinzy at (202) 395–9483 to 

arrange for an alternative method of 

transmission. 

If (as explained below) the comment 

contains confidential information, then 

the comment should be submitted by 

fax only to Sandy McKinzy at (202) 

395–3640. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dan 

Stirk, Associate General Counsel, Office 

of the United States Trade 

Representative, (202) 395–3150; and 

Joseph Rieras, Assistant General 

Counsel, Office of the United States 

Trade Representative, (202) 395–3150. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: USTR is 

providing notice that consultations have 

been requested pursuant to the WTO 

Understanding on Rules and Procedures 

Governing the Settlement of Disputes 

(‘‘DSU’’). If such consultations should 

fail to resolve the matter and a dispute 

settlement panel is established pursuant 

to the DSU, such a panel, which would 

hold its meetings in Geneva, 

Switzerland, would be expected to issue 

a report on its findings and 

recommendations within nine months 

after it is established. 

Major Issues Raised by the United 

States 

On July 9, 2012, the United States 

requested consultations concerning 

China’s antidumping and countervailing 

duty measures on certain automobiles 

from the United States. In November 

2009, China initiated antidumping and 

countervailing duty investigations on 

exports of certain automobiles from the 

United States. In December 2011, China 

imposed antidumping and 

countervailing duties on those products. 

In the course of its antidumping and 

countervailing investigations 

concerning certain automobiles from the 

United States, and in imposing duties 

on those products, China appears to 

have acted inconsistently with its 

obligations under the General 

Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 

(‘‘GATT 1994’’), the Agreement on 

Implementation of Article VI of the 

General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 

1994 (‘‘AD Agreement’’), and the 

Agreement on Subsidies and 

Countervailing Measures (‘‘SCM 

Agreement’’). China’s actions which 

appear to be inconsistent with its 

obligations include initiation of an 

investigation without sufficient 

evidence, failure to disclose essential 

facts underlying its conclusions, failure 

to adequately explain its findings and 

conclusions in sufficient detail, failure 

to provide non-confidential summaries 

of submissions, failure to objectively 

examine the evidence, failure to make 

determinations based on positive 

evidence, and failure to disclose 

calculations and data used to reach its 

conclusions. 

Specifically, the United States asserts 

in the request for consultations that 

China’s antidumping and countervailing 

duty measures on certain automobiles 

from the United States appear to be 

inconsistent with the following 

provisions of the GATT 1994, the AD 

Agreement, and the SCM Agreement: 

1. Articles 5.3 and 5.4 of the AD 

Agreement, and Articles 11.3 and 11.4 of the 

SCM Agreement, because: (a) China failed to 

examine the degree of support for, or 

opposition to, the application expressed by 

domestic producers of the like product prior 

to initiating the antidumping and 

countervailing duty investigations; (b) China 

initiated the investigations when domestic 

producers supporting the application 

accounted for less than 25 per cent of total 

production of the like product produced by 

the domestic industry; and (c) China failed to 

examine or review the accuracy and 

adequacy of the evidence provided in the 

application. 

2. Article 11.3 of the SCM Agreement 

because the application for a 

countervailing duty investigation failed 

to contain information reasonably 

available to the applicant and therefore 

there was insufficient evidence in the 

application to justify the initiation of a 

countervailing duty investigation with 

respect to several programs. 

3. Article 6.5.1 of the AD Agreement 

and Article 12.4.1 of the SCM 

Agreement because China failed to 

require the applicant to provide 

adequate non-confidential summaries of 

allegedly confidential information. 

4. Article 6.9 of the AD Agreement 

because China failed to adequately 

disclose the calculations and data used 

to establish the antidumping duty rates 

it determined. 

5. Articles 12.2 and 12.2.2 of the AD 

Agreement because China failed to 

provide in sufficient detail the findings 

and conclusions reached on all issues of 

fact and law it considered material, and 

the reasons for the acceptance or 

rejection of relevant arguments or 

claims. 

6. Article 6.8, including Annex II, 

paragraph 1, and Articles 6.9, 12.2, and 

12.2.2 of the AD Agreement and Articles 

12.7, 12.8, 22.3, and 22.5 of the SCM 

Agreement because: (a) China 

improperly based its determination of 

the ‘‘all others’’ antidumping and 

countervailing duty rates on the facts 

available; (b) China failed to disclose the 

essential facts underlying its ‘‘all 

others’’ rate determinations; (c) China 

failed to set forth in sufficient detail the 

findings and conclusions reached on all 

issues of fact and law it considered 

material in its ‘‘all others’’ rate 

determinations; and (d) with respect to 

the ‘‘all others’’ rates, China failed to 

make available all relevant information 

on the matters of fact and law and 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES