13098 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 43 / Monday, March 5, 2012 / Notices 

1Privacy and Innovation Blueprint at 2, available 

at http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/ 

privacy-final.pdf (proposing a privacy 

multistakeholder process that consists of ‘‘open, 

transparent forums in which stakeholders who 

share an interest in specific markets or business 

contexts will work toward consensus on 

appropriate, legally enforceable codes of conduct’’); 

id. at 23–25, 37 (discussing importance of 

consensus in multistakeholder processes that 

develop Internet policy and standards). 

2See Privacy and Innovation Blueprint at 23–24, 

37 (discussing importance of consensus in 

multistakeholder processes). 

3Currently, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) 

brings cases based on violations of a company’s 

public commitments in its privacy statements under 

the FTC’s authority to prevent deceptive acts or 

practices. See 15 U.S.C. 45. A code of conduct 

developed through a multistakeholder process 

likely would be enforceable under this authority. 

4Privacy and Innovation Blueprint at 24. 

5 Id. 

6 Id. at 27. 

good faith, (2) will not operate to the 

disadvantage of such endangered or 

threatened species, and (3) are 

consistent with the purposes and 

policies set forth in section 2 of the 

ESA. 

Dated: February 28, 2012. 

P. Michael Payne, 

Chief, Permits and Conservation Division, 

Office of Protected Resources, National 

Marine Fisheries Service. 

[FR Doc. 2012–5307 Filed 3–2–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Telecommunications and 

Information Administration 

[Docket No. 120214135–2135–01] 

RIN 0660–XA27 

Multistakeholder Process To Develop 

Consumer Data Privacy Codes of 

Conduct 

AGENCY: National Telecommunications 

and Information Administration, U.S. 

Department of Commerce. 

ACTION: Request for public comments. 

SUMMARY: The National 

Telecommunications and Information 

Administration (NTIA) is requesting 

comment on substantive consumer data 

privacy issues that warrant the 

development of legally enforceable 

codes of conduct, as well as procedures 

to foster the development of these 

codes. NTIA invites public comment on 

these issues from all stakeholders with 

an interest in consumer data privacy, 

including the commercial, academic 

and civil society sectors, and from 

federal and state enforcement agencies. 

DATES: Comments are due on or before 

5 p.m. Eastern Daylight Savings Time on 

March 26, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: Written comments may be 

submitted by email to 

privacyrfc2012@ntia.doc.gov. Comments 

submitted by email should be machinesearchable and should not be copyprotected. Written comments also may 

be submitted by mail to 1401 

Constitution Avenue NW., Room 4725, 

Washington, DC 20230. Responders 

should include the name of the person 

or organization filing the comment, as 

well as a page number, on each page of 

their submissions. All comments 

received are a part of the public record 

and will generally be posted to http:// 

www.ntia.doc.gov/category/internetpolicy-task-force without change. All 

personal identifying information (for 

example, name, address, etc.) 

voluntarily submitted by the commenter 

may be publicly accessible. Do not 

submit Confidential Business 

Information or otherwise sensitive or 

protected information. NTIA will accept 

anonymous comments (enter ‘‘N/A’’ in 

the required fields if you wish to remain 

anonymous). 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Aaron Burstein, National 

Telecommunications and Information 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue 

NW., Room 4725, Washington, DC 

20230; telephone (202) 482–1055; email 

aburstein@ntia.doc.gov. Please direct 

media inquiries to NTIA’s Office of 

Public Affairs, (202) 482–7002. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

The Executive Office of the President 

released Consumer Data Privacy in a 

Networked World: A Framework for 

Protecting Privacy and Promoting 

Innovation in the Global Digital 

Economy (the ‘‘Privacy and Innovation 

Blueprint’’) on February 23, 2012. Two 

central elements of the Privacy and 

Innovation Blueprint are: (1) A 

Consumer Privacy Bill of Rights, which 

is a set of principles the Administration 

believes should govern the handling of 

personal data in commercial sectors that 

are not subject to existing Federal 

privacy statutes; and (2) a 

multistakeholder process, which NTIA 

will convene, to develop legally 

enforceable codes of conduct that 

specify how the Consumer Privacy Bill 

of Rights applies in specific business 

contexts. 

These discussions will be open to 

participation by all interested 

stakeholders, transparent, and 

consensus-driven.1 Open participation 

is necessary to ensure that codes of 

conduct reflect input from the broad 

array of stakeholders that have interests 

in putting the Consumer Privacy Bill of 

Rights into practice. Any person or 

organization may choose to participate, 

no one is under an obligation to 

participate once discussions have 

started, and NTIA anticipates that there 

will be opportunities to join a process 

once it is underway. Transparency is 

necessary to allow those who do not 

participate in the process to understand 

how participants reached their 

decisions. Consensus of a broad set of 

stakeholders, achieved through a 

transparent process, will lend 

legitimacy to the code of conduct. At the 

same time, consensus will encourage 

companies to adopt codes of conduct; 

the decision to adopt a code of conduct 

is voluntary, and companies are 

unlikely to adopt a code about which 

they have serious reservations.2

The privacy multistakeholder process 

is voluntary. A code of conduct will not 

be binding on a company unless and 

until that company affirmatively 

commits to follow it. NTIA expects that 

a company’s public commitment to 

follow a code of conduct will be legally 

enforceable, provided the company is 

subject to the Federal Trade 

Commission’s jurisdiction.3 Enforceable 

codes of conduct based on the 

principles set forth in the Consumer 

Privacy Bill of Rights will provide 

consumers clear, understandable 

baseline protections and give businesses 

greater certainty about how agreed upon 

privacy principles apply to them. 

Companies will build consumer trust by 

engaging directly with consumers and 

other stakeholders during the process 

and adopting a code of conduct that 

stakeholders develop through this 

process.4 Moreover, in any enforcement 

action based on conduct covered by a 

code, the FTC would likely consider a 

company’s adherence to such a code 

favorably.5

NTIA’s role in the privacy 

multistakeholder process will be to 

provide a forum for discussion and 

consensus-building among stakeholders. 

In situations in which stakeholders 

disagree over how best to interpret the 

Consumer Privacy Bill of Rights, NTIA’s 

role, as explained in the Privacy and 

Innovation Blueprint, ‘‘will be to help 

the parties reach clarity on what their 

positions are and whether there are 

options for compromise toward 

consensus, rather than substituting its 

own judgment.’’ 6 Furthermore, 

stakeholder groups convened to develop 

codes of conduct will not be advisory 

committees, as neither NTIA nor any 

other Federal agency or office will seek 

consensus advice or recommendations 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 43 / Monday, March 5, 2012 / Notices 13099 

7See id. at 24 (stating that ‘‘the stakeholders 

themselves will control the process and its results’’ 

and ‘‘[t]here is no Federal regulation at the end of 

the process’’). Because participants will not provide 

‘‘advice or recommendations’’ as a group to the 

Federal Government, the multistakeholder 

processes discussed here should not be subject to 

the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5. U.S.C. App. 

2. See id. § 3(2) (defining ‘‘advisory committee’’ to 

include the establishment or utilization of a group 

‘‘in the interest of obtaining advice or 

recommendations for the President or one or more 

agencies or officers of the Federal Government,’’ 

subject to certain exceptions). 

8 Department of Commerce, Commercial Data 

Privacy and Innovation in the Internet Economy: A 

Dynamic Policy Framework, Dec. 16, 2010, http:// 

www.ntia.doc.gov/reports/2010/IPTF_Privacy_

GreenPaper_12162010.pdf. 

9The full statement of the Transparency principle 

in the Consumer Privacy Bill of Rights is as follows: 

Transparency: Consumers have a right to easily 

understandable and accessible information about 

privacy and security practices. At times and in 

places that are most useful to enabling consumers 

to gain a meaningful understanding of privacy risks 

and the ability to exercise Individual Control, 

companies should provide clear descriptions of 

what personal data they collect, why they need the 

data, how they will use it, when they will delete 

the data or de-identify it from consumers, and 

whether and for what purposes they may share 

personal data with third parties. 

Privacy and Innovation Blueprint at 14. 

10A recent report that summarizes current app 

economy data is Gartner, Inc., Gartner Says 

Worldwide Mobile Application Store Revenue 

Forecast to Surpass $15 Billion in 2011, Jan. 26, 

2011, http://www.gartner.com/it/ 

page.jsp?id=1529214; Il-Horn Hann, Siva 

Viswanathan, and Byungwan Koh, The Facebook 

App Economy, Sept. 19, 2011, http://www.rhsmith.

umd.edu/digits/pdfs_docs/research/2011/

AppEconomyImpact091911.pdf (estimating that 

‘‘employment impact of developers building apps 

on the Facebook Platform in the United States in 

2011 is 182,744 full time jobs’’ and ‘‘the total 

employment value of Facebook’s app economy is 

$12.19 billion’’). 

11See, e.g., Ann Cavoukian, Ph.D., Comment on 

the Privacy and Innovation Green Paper, at 5, Jan. 

27, 2011; Center for Democracy & Technology 

Comment on the Privacy and Innovation Green 

Paper, at 10, Jan. 28, 2011; CTIA—The Wireless 

Association Comment on the Privacy and 

Innovation Green Paper, at 4, Jan. 28, 2011; TRUSTe 

Comment on the Privacy and Innovation Green 

Paper, at 8, Jan. 28, 2011. 

12See Future of Privacy Forum, FPF Survey: Free 

Mobile Apps Better than Paid on Privacy Policies, 

Dec. 19, 2011, http://www.futureofprivacy.org/ 

2011/12/19/fpf-survey-finds-free-mobile-appsbetter-than-paid-on-privacy-policies/(reporting on a 

study of paid apps conducted in May 2011 and a 

study of free apps conducted in December 2011). 

13TRUSTe, More Consumers Say Privacy—Over 

Security—is Biggest Concern When Using Mobile 

Applications on Smartphones, Apr. 27, 2011 

(reporting results of survey of top 340 free mobile 

apps conducted jointly with Harris Interactive), 

http://www.truste.com/blog/2011/04/27/surveyresults-are-in-consumers-say-privacy-is-a-biggerconcern-than-security-on-smartphones/. 

14See, e.g., FTC, Mobile Apps for Kids: Current 

Privacy Disclosures are Disappointing (staff report), 

at 17, available at http://www.ftc.gov/os/2012/02/ 

120216mobile_apps_kids.pdf. 

15See, e.g., CTIA, Best Practices and Guidelines 

for Location Based Services, available at http:// 

www.ctia.org/business_resources/wic/index.cfm/ 

AID/11300 (last visited Jan. 18, 2012); Future of 

Privacy Forum and Center for Democracy & 

Technology, Best Practices for Mobile Applications 

Developers, available at http:// 

www.futureofprivacy.org/wp-content/uploads/ 

Apps-Best-Practices-v-beta.pdf (last visited Jan. 18, 

2012); GSMA, Mobile and Privacy: Privacy Design 

Guidelines for Mobile Application Development, 

Feb. 2012, available at http://www.gsma.com/go/ 

download/?file=gsmaprivacydesignguide

linesformobileapplicationdevelopmentv1.pdf; 

Mobile Marketing Association, Global Code of 

Conduct, July 15, 2008, available at http:// 

mmaglobal.com/codeofconduct.pdf; PrivacyChoice, 

Mobile Policymaker, http://privacychoice.org/ 

resources/policymaker (last visited Jan. 18, 2012). 

In addition, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) 

has called for stakeholders to ‘‘identify the best 

means and place for conveying data practices in 

plain language and in easily accessible ways on the 

small screens of mobile devices.’’ FTC, Mobile Apps 

for Kids: Current Privacy Disclosures are 

Disappointing, supra note 14, at 3. See also FTC, 

FTC Seeks Input to Revising its Guidance to 

Business About Disclosures in Online, May 26, 

2011, available at http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2011/05/ 

dotcom.shtm. 

16See California Office of the Attorney General et 

al., Joint Statement of Principles, Feb. 22, 2012, 

http://ag.ca.gov/cms_attachments/press/pdfs/

n2630_signed_agreement.pdf. 

on policy issues from participants in 

these privacy multistakeholder 

processes.7

Request for Comment 

Consumer Data Privacy Issues To 

Address Through Enforceable Codes of 

Conduct 

NTIA plans to facilitate the 

development of enforceable codes of 

conduct that implement the full 

Consumer Privacy Bill of Rights. 

Initially, NTIA seeks to conduct a 

privacy multistakeholder process 

focused on a definable area where 

consumers and businesses will receive 

the greatest benefit in a reasonable 

timeframe. Areas of consumer data 

privacy in which stakeholders have 

begun to collaborate to develop 

practices, or to develop consensus 

around specific practices, could provide 

such a starting point. For example, 

commenters on the Department of 

Commerce’s ‘‘Privacy and Innovation 

Green Paper’’ 8 were in broad agreement 

that transparency is a key element of 

protecting consumers’ privacy. An 

initial privacy multistakeholder process 

could focus on the Privacy and 

Innovation Blueprint’s call to give 

consumers ‘‘easily understandable and 

accessible information about privacy 

and security practices’’ in a particular 

business setting.9 Future iterations of 

the process could build on this initial 

work toward a comprehensive, 

enforceable code of conduct for that 

setting. 

To identify potential consumer data 

privacy topics that would benefit from 

a multistakeholder process as well as 

risks and concerns, NTIA seeks 

comment from stakeholders. 

1. NTIA seeks comment on what 

issues should be addressed through the 

privacy multistakeholder process. 

Among a variety of alternatives, NTIA is 

considering convening an initial 

multistakeholder process to facilitate 

the implementation of the Transparency 

principle in the privacy notices for 

mobile device applications (‘‘mobile 

apps’’). Mobile apps are gaining in 

social and economic importance.10

However, as several commenters on the 

Privacy and Innovation Green Paper 

noted, mobile devices pose distinct 

consumer data privacy issues, such as 

disclosing relevant information about 

personal data practices on a small 

display.11 Moreover, practices 

surrounding the disclosure of consumer 

data privacy practices do not appear to 

have kept pace with these rapid 

developments in technology and 

business models. Recent studies found 

that 33 percent of the top 10 paid 

mobile apps for three major mobile 

phone operating systems (thus, a total of 

30 paid apps were studied), and 66 

percent of the top 10 free mobile apps 

for the same operating systems, have 

privacy policies,12 while a broader 

study found that only 19 percent of free 

mobile apps have a link to a privacy 

policy.13 With respect to apps directed 

at children, a recent FTC report found 

that parents generally cannot determine 

which app poses privacy risks to their 

children before downloading an app.14

A common set of practices that 

implement the Transparency principle 

in the Consumer Privacy Bill of Rights 

could provide guidance to mobile apps 

developers, operating systems, and apps 

stores, as well as better inform 

consumers about how mobile apps use 

personal data. An NTIA-convened effort 

toward this end could build on initial 

efforts to develop codes of conduct and 

best practices for mobile apps and 

devices 15 and complement recent 

commitments by mobile device platform 

providers to promote transparency in 

the mobile arena.16

NTIA seeks comment on other 

potential topics, including: 

• Other issues associated with mobile 

apps in general (e.g., a code of conduct 

that implements the full Consumer 

Privacy Bill of Rights) 

• Mobile apps that provide locationbased services 

• Cloud computing services, i.e., 

those that store data in architectures 

that provide on-demand self-service, 

broad network access, resource pooling, 

rapid elasticity, and measured 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
13100 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 43 / Monday, March 5, 2012 / Notices 

17See Peter Mell and Tim Gance, The NIST 

Definition of Cloud Computing, version 15, Oct. 7, 

2009, http://csrc.nist.gov/groups/SNS/cloudcomputing/cloud-def-v15.doc (characterizing cloud 

computing with these five characteristics). 

18A privacy multistakeholder process could 

extend protections required of online services 

directed toward children under 13 years old under 

the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act of 

1998 (COPPA), 15 U.S.C. 6501–6506. The FTC’s 

COPPA Rule can be found at 16 CFR Part 312. 

19Executive Office of the President, National 

Strategy for Trusted Identities in Cyberspace: 

Enhancing Online Choice, Efficiency, Security, and 

Privacy, Apr. 2011, http://www.whitehouse.gov/ 

sites/default/files/rss_viewer/ 

NSTICstrategy_041511.pdf. 

20Potentially relevant examples mentioned in the 

Privacy and Innovation Blueprint include the 

Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and 

Numbers (ICANN), the Internet Engineering Task 

Force (IETF), and the World Wide Web Consortium 

(W3C). Privacy and Innovation Blueprint at 25. The 

Internet Governance Forum (IGF) is another 

potentially relevant multistakeholder forum for 

Internet policy development. See Internet 

Governance Forum, The Internet Governance 

Forum, http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/ (last 

visited Feb. 3, 2012). NTIA welcomes discussion of 

these and any other examples of multistakeholder 

policy development processes that commenters 

believe are relevant to developing privacy-related 

codes of conduct. 

21See Memorandum for the Heads of Executive 

Departments and Agencies, Open Government 

Directive, Dec. 8, 2009, available at http:// 

www.whitehouse.gov/open/documents/opengovernment-directive; Memorandum for the Heads 

of Executive Departments and Agencies, 

‘‘Transparency and Open Government,’’ Jan. 21, 

2009, available at http://www.whitehouse.gov/ 

the_press_office/ 

TransparencyandOpenGovernment/. 22Privacy and Innovation Blueprint at 26. 

service; 17 or specific cloud computing 

market segments 

• Accountability mechanisms (to 

enable companies to demonstrate how 

they are implementing the Consumer 

Privacy Bill of Rights) 

• Online services directed toward 

teenagers (individuals 13 or older and 

younger than 18) 

• Online services directed toward 

children (individuals under 13 years 

old) 18

• Trusted identity systems, such as 

those discussed in the National Strategy 

for Trusted Identities in Cyberspace 19

• The use of multiple technologies, 

e.g., browser cookies, local shared 

objects, and browser cache, to collect 

personal data 

This list is not exhaustive, and NTIA 

welcomes comments on any of these 

topics as well as descriptions of other 

topics that commenters would like 

NTIA to consider for the privacy 

multistakeholder process. 

2. Please comment on what factors 

should be considered in selecting issues 

for the privacy multistakeholder 

process. 

Implementing the Multistakeholder 

Process 

Commenters also may wish to provide 

their views on how stakeholder 

discussions of the proposed issue(s) 

should be structured to ensure 

openness, transparency, and consensusbuilding. Analogies to other Internetrelated multistakeholder processes, 

whether they are concerned with policy 

or technical issues, could be especially 

valuable.20 Possible subjects for 

comment include: 

Open Participation 

The Privacy and Innovation Blueprint 

calls for a code of conduct development 

process that is open to any interested 

participant. A broad array of 

perspectives and expertise will be 

necessary to ensure that the privacy 

multistakeholder process thoroughly 

addresses the issues before it. NTIA, as 

convener of the privacy 

multistakeholder process, will not set 

criteria that prospective participants 

must meet, such as their ability to 

represent specific industries or 

consumer interests. Nonetheless, there 

may be practical obstacles to such broad 

participation. For example, the time 

required to participate and the expense 

of attending in-person meetings may 

make it difficult for some stakeholders 

to participate. The following questions 

seek input on how NTIA can keep these 

barriers to a minimum and ensure that 

the privacy multistakeholder process is 

open, as a practical matter, to all 

interested stakeholders. 

3. How can NTIA promote 

participation by a broad range of 

stakeholders, i.e., from industry, civil 

society, academia, law enforcement 

agencies, and international partners? 

4. Which stakeholders should 

participate? What kinds of expertise or 

perspectives should participants have? 

5. How can NTIA best ensure the 

process is inclusive, given that 

participants will likely have different 

levels of resources available to support 

their participation? 

6. Are pre-requisites for participating 

in the privacy multistakeholder process 

consistent with the principle of 

openness? For example, what impact 

would a requirement to submit a brief 

position paper in advance of a 

stakeholder meeting have on 

participation? 

7. What balance should NTIA seek to 

achieve between in-person and virtual 

meetings? 

Transparency 

Providing timely, relevant 

information in an accessible manner is 

crucial to effective transparency.21

Transparency, in turn, will enable all 

stakeholders to understand how 

decisions within the privacy 

multistakeholder process are reached, 

whether they participate in the process 

or not. 

8. Which technologies could facilitate 

discussions among stakeholders before, 

during, and after in-person meetings? 

9. How should discussions during 

meetings be memorialized and 

published? Are verbatim transcripts or 

full recordings necessary, or would a 

more abbreviated record be appropriate? 

10. How can NTIA facilitate broad 

public review of codes of conduct 

during their development? 

11. What procedures should 

stakeholders follow to explain their 

decisions on issues discussed within the 

privacy multistakeholder process? 

12. What procedures should 

stakeholders follow to explain decisions 

they reach in concert with other 

stakeholders? 

Building Consensus 

Ideally, stakeholders who decide to 

help develop an enforceable code of 

conduct will do so with a ‘‘willingness 

to work in good faith toward reaching 

consensus on the code’s provisions.’’ 22

Consensus, however, does not have a 

single definition. The obstacles to 

consensus are also likely to vary, based 

in part on how consensus is defined. 

NTIA seeks comments on how other 

multistakeholder processes in the 

Internet policy and standards realms 

have defined and reached (or failed to 

reach) consensus. 

13. Are there lessons from existing 

consensus-based, multistakeholder 

processes in the realms of Internet 

policy or technical standard-setting that 

could be applied to the privacy 

multistakeholder process? If so, what 

are they? How do they apply? 

14. How did those groups define 

consensus? What factors were important 

in bringing such groups to consensus? 

15. Are there multistakeholder efforts 

that have failed to achieve consensus? 

Why did these efforts fail to reach 

consensus? What policies or standards, 

if any, resulted from these efforts? 

16. In what ways could NTIA 

encourage stakeholders to reach 

consensus? Under what circumstances 

should NTIA facilitate discussions 

among sub-groups of stakeholders to 

help them reach consensus? In these 

cases, what measures would be 

necessary to keep the overall process 

transparent? 

Response to this Request for Public 

Comments is voluntary. Commenters are 

free to address any or all of the issues 

identified above, as well as provide 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 43 / Monday, March 5, 2012 / Notices 13101 

information on other topics that they 

think are relevant to developing policies 

consistent with open, transparent, 

voluntary, consensus-based processes 

for developing consumer data privacy 

codes of conduct. Please note that the 

Government will not pay for response 

preparation or for the use of any 

information contained in the response. 

Dated: February 29, 2012. 

Lawrence E. Strickling, 

Assistant Secretary for Communications and 

Information. 

[FR Doc. 2012–5220 Filed 3–2–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–60–P 

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING 

COMMISSION 

Agency Information Collection 

Activities Under OMB Review 

AGENCY: Commodity Futures Trading 

Commission. 

ACTION: Notice of intent to renew. 

SUMMARY: In compliance with the 

Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 

3501 et seq.), this notice announces that 

the Information Collection Request (ICR) 

abstracted below has been forwarded to 

the Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) for review and comment. The 

ICR describes the nature of the 

information collection and its expected 

costs and burden; it includes the actual 

data collection instruments (if any). 

DATES: Comments must be submitted on 

or before April 4, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: Send comments regarding 

the burden estimated or any other 

aspect of the information collection, 

including suggestions for reducing the 

burden, to the addresses below. Please 

refer to OMB Control No. 3038–0021 in 

any correspondence. 

Martin B. White, Office of the General 

Counsel, Commodity Futures Trading 

Commission, 1155 21st Street NW., 

Washington, DC 20581; 

and 

Office of Information and Regulatory 

Affairs, Office of Management and 

Budget, Attention: Desk Officer for 

CFTC, 725 17th Street Washington, 

DC 20503. 

Comments may also be submitted by 

any of the following methods: 

The agency’s Web site, at http:// 

comments.cftc.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments 

through the Web site. 

Mail: David A. Stawick, 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. 

Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

Please submit your comments using 

only one method and identity that it is 

for the renewal of 3038–0021. 

All comments must be submitted in 

English, or if not, accompanied by an 

English translation. Comments will be 

posted as received to www.cftc.gov. You 

should submit only information that 

you wish to make available publicly. If 

you wish the Commission to consider 

information that you believe is exempt 

from disclosure under the Freedom of 

Information Act, a petition for 

confidential treatment of the exempt 

information may be submitted according 

to the procedures established in § 145.9 

of the Commission’s regulations. See 17 

CFR 145.9. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Martin B. White, Office of the General 

Counsel, Commodity Futures Trading 

Commission, 1155 21st Street NW., 

Washington, DC 20581, (202) 418–5129; 

Fax: (202) 418–5567; email: 

mwhite@cftc.gov and refer to OMB 

Control No. 3038–0021. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Title: Regulations Governing 

Bankruptcies of Commodity Brokers 

(OMB Control No. 3038–0021). This is 

a request for extension of a currently 

approved information collection. 

Abstract: This collection of 

information involves recordkeeping and 

notice requirements in the CFTC’s 

bankruptcy rules for commodity broker 

liquidations, 17 CFR Part 190. These 

requirements are intended to facilitate 

the effective, efficient, and fair conduct 

of liquidation proceedings for 

commodity brokers and to protect the 

interests of customers in these 

proceedings. 

An agency may not conduct or 

sponsor, and a person is not required to 

respond to, a collection of information 

unless it displays a currently valid OMB 

control number. The OMB control 

numbers for the CFTC’s regulations 

were published on December 30, 1981. 

See 46 FR 63035 (Dec. 30, 1981). The 

Federal Register notice with a 60-day 

comment period soliciting comments on 

this collection of information was 

published on December 29, 2012 (73 FR 

81916). 

Burden statement: Commodity broker 

liquidations occur at unpredictable and 

irregular intervals; for purposes of 

estimating information collection 

burden this notice assumes an average 

of one commodity broker liquidation 

every three years. The CFTC further 

notes that the information collection 

burden will vary in particular 

commodity broker liquidations 

depending on the size of the commodity 

broker, the extent to which accounts are 

able to be quickly transferred, and other 

factors specific to the circumstances of 

the liquidation. The Commission 

estimates the average burden of this 

collection of information as follows: 

Rule 190.02(a)(1) 

Estimated Respondents or 

Recordkeepers per Year: .33. 

Estimated Reports Annually per 

Respondent or Recordkeeper: 2. 

Estimated Hours per Response: .5. 

Estimated Total Hours per Year: .33. 

Rule 190.02(a)(2) 

Estimated Respondents or 

Recordkeepers per Year: .33. 

Estimated Reports Annually per 

Respondent or Recordkeeper: 1. 

Estimated Hours per Response: 2. 

Estimated Total Hours per Year: .67. 

Rule 190.02(b)(1) 

Estimated Respondents or 

Recordkeepers per Year: .33. 

Estimated Reports Annually per 

Respondent or Recordkeeper: 4. 

Estimated Hours per Response: 1. 

Estimated Total Hours per Year: 1.32. 

Rule 190.02(b)(2) 

Estimated Respondents or 

Recordkeepers per Year: .33. 

Estimated Reports Annually per 

Respondent or Recordkeeper: 10,000. 

Estimated Hours per Response: .1. 

Estimated Total Hours per Year: 330. 

Rule 190.02(b)(3) 

Estimated Respondents or 

Recordkeepers per Year: .05 (rarely if 

ever occurs). 

Estimated Reports Annually per 

Respondent or Recordkeeper: 10,000. 

Estimated Hours per Response: .2. 

Estimated Total Hours per Year: 100. 

Rule 190.02(b)(4) 

Estimated Respondents or 

Recordkeepers per Year: .33. 

Estimated Reports Annually per 

Respondent or Recordkeeper: 10,000. 

Estimated Hours per Response: .2. 

Estimated Total Hours per Year: 660. 

Rule 190.02(c) 

Estimated Respondents or 

Recordkeepers per Year: .33. 

Estimated Reports Annually per 

Respondent or Recordkeeper: 10. 

Estimated Hours per Response: 10. 

Estimated Total Hours per Year: 33. 

Rule 190.03(a)(1) 

Estimated Respondents or 

Recordkeepers per Year: .33. 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES