Federal Register Vol. 82, No.80,

Take notice that on April 6, 2017, Northwest Pipeline LLC (Northwest), having its principal place of business at 295 Chipeta Way, Salt Lake City, Utah 84108 filed in the above referenced docket an application pursuant to section 7(b) and 7(c) of the Natural Gas Act (NGA), and Part 157 of the Commission's regulations requesting authorization to Northwest proposes to (1) remove and replace 1,700 feet of 30-inch pipeline and (2) remove 1,550 feet of previously abandoned-in-place 26-inch pipeline located in Whatcom County, Washington referred to as Nooksack Line Lowering Project (Project), all as more fully set forth in the application which is on file with the Commission and open to public inspection. The Project is designed to reduce the exposure to the pipeline caused by river channel migration and improve reliability for the benefit of existing customers. The total cost of the Project is approximately $16,585,331. The filing is available for review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site web at http://www.ferc.gov using the “eLibrary” link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to access the document. For assistance, contact FERC at [email protected] or call toll-free, (886) 208-3676 or TYY, (202) 502-8659.

Any questions concerning this application may be directed to Richard N. Stapler Jr., Business Development, 295 Chipeta Way, Salt Lake City, Utah 84108, by phone at (801) 584-6883, by fax (801) 584-6496 or by emailing [email protected].

Pursuant to section 157.9 of the Commission's rules (18 CFR 157.9), within 90 days of this Notice, the Commission staff will either: Complete its environmental assessment (EA) and place it into the Commission's public record (eLibrary) for this proceeding; or issue a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review. If a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review is issued, it will indicate, among other milestones, the anticipated date for the Commission staff's issuance of the final environmental impact statement (FEIS) or EA for this proposal. The filing of the EA in the Commission's public record for this proceeding or the issuance of a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review will serve to notify federal and state agencies of the timing for the completion of all necessary reviews, and the subsequent need to complete all federal authorizations within 90 days of the date of issuance of the Commission staff's FEIS or EA.

There are two ways to become involved in the Commission's review of this project. First, any person wishing to obtain legal status by becoming a party to the proceedings for this project should, on or before the comment date stated below file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, a motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.214 or 385.211) and the Regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.10). A person obtaining party status will be placed on the service list maintained by the Secretary of the Commission and will receive copies of all documents filed by the applicant and by all other parties. A party must submit seven copies of filings made in the proceeding with the Commission and must mail a copy to the applicant and to every other party. Only parties to the proceeding can ask for court review of Commission orders in the proceeding.

However, a person does not have to intervene in order to have comments considered. The second way to participate is by filing with the Secretary of the Commission, as soon as possible, an original and two copies of comments in support of or in opposition to this project. The Commission will consider these comments in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but the filing of a comment alone will not serve to make the filer a party to the proceeding. The Commission's rules require that persons filing comments in opposition to the project provide copies of their protests only to the party or parties directly involved in the protest.

Persons who wish to comment only on the environmental review of this project should submit an original and two copies of their comments to the Secretary of the Commission. Environmental commentors will be placed on the Commission's environmental mailing list, will receive copies of the environmental documents, and will be notified of meetings associated with the Commission's environmental review process. Environmental commentors will not be required to serve copies of filed documents on all other parties. However, the non-party commentors will not receive copies of all documents filed by other parties or issued by the Commission (except for the mailing of environmental documents issued by the Commission) and will not have the right to seek court review of the Commission's final order.

The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments, protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 7 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.

Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on May 11, 2017.

Take notice that on April 13, 2017, Navitas TN NG, LLC (Navitas), 3186D Airway Avenue, Costa Mesa, California 92626, filed an application, pursuant to section 7(f) of the Natural Gas Act (NGA),1 requesting that the Commission make a service area determination to allow it to enlarge or expand its natural gas distribution facilities across the Tennessee/Kentucky border without further Commission authorization. Navitas also requests a determination that it qualifies as a local distribution company for purposes of section 311 of the Natural Gas Policy Act of 1978 (NGPA) and a waiver of all accounting and reporting requirements and other regulatory requirements ordinarily applicable to natural gas companies under the NGA and the NGPA, all as more fully described in the application which is on file with the Commission and open to public inspection. The filing may also be viewed on the web at http://www.ferc.gov using the “eLibrary” link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to access the document. For assistance, contact FERC at [email protected] or call toll-free, (866) 208-3676 or TTY, (202) 502-8659.

Specifically, Navitas, a Tennessee local distribution company providing natural gas service to customers in north-central Tennessee and regulated by the Tennessee Regulatory Authority, request a service area determination to operate across the Tennessee/Kentucky border in order to service a small number of Kentucky customers.

Any questions regarding this application should be directed to Thomas Hartline, Navitas Utility Corporation, 3186D Airway Avenue, Costa Mesa, CA 92626, or call (714) 242-4064, or by email [email protected].

Pursuant to section 157.9 of the Commission's rules, 18 CFR 157.9, within 90 days of this Notice the Commission staff will either: Complete its environmental assessment (EA) and place it into the Commission's public record (eLibrary) for this proceeding; or issue a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review. If a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review is issued, it will indicate, among other milestones, the anticipated date for the Commission staff's issuance of the final environmental impact statement (FEIS) or EA for this proposal. The filing of the EA in the Commission's public record for this proceeding or the issuance of a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review will serve to notify federal and state agencies of the timing for the completion of all necessary reviews, and the subsequent need to complete all federal authorizations within 90 days of the date of issuance of the Commission staff's FEIS or EA.

There are two ways to become involved in the Commission's review of this project. First, any person wishing to obtain legal status by becoming a party to the proceedings for this project should, on or before the comment date stated below file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, a motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.214 or 385.211) and the Regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.10). A person obtaining party status will be placed on the service list maintained by the Secretary of the Commission and will receive copies of all documents filed by the applicant and by all other parties. A party must submit 7 copies of filings made in the proceeding with the Commission and must mail a copy to the applicant and to every other party. Only parties to the proceeding can ask for court review of Commission orders in the proceeding.

However, a person does not have to intervene in order to have comments considered. The second way to participate is by filing with the Secretary of the Commission, as soon as possible, an original and two copies of comments in support of or in opposition to this project. The Commission will consider these comments in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but the filing of a comment alone will not serve to make the filer a party to the proceeding. The Commission's rules require that persons filing comments in opposition to the project provide copies of their protests only to the party or parties directly involved in the protest.

Persons who wish to comment only on the environmental review of this project should submit an original and two copies of their comments to the Secretary of the Commission. Environmental commentors will be placed on the Commission's environmental mailing list, will receive copies of the environmental documents, and will be notified of meetings associated with the Commission's environmental review process. Environmental commentors will not be required to serve copies of filed documents on all other parties. However, the non-party commentors will not receive copies of all documents filed by other parties or issued by the Commission (except for the mailing of environmental documents issued by the Commission) and will not have the right to seek court review of the Commission's final order.

The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments, protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 5 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.

Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on May 11, 2017.

Take notice that on April 13, 2017, Navitas KY NG, LLC (Navitas), 3186D Airway Avenue, Costa Mesa, California 92626, filed an application, pursuant to section 7(f) of the Natural Gas Act (NGA),1 requesting that the Commission make a service area determination to allow it to enlarge or expand its natural gas distribution facilities across the Kentucky/Tennessee border without further Commission authorization. Navitas also requests a determination that it qualifies as a local distribution company for purposes of section 311 of the Natural Gas Policy Act of 1978 (NGPA) and a waiver of all accounting and reporting requirements and other regulatory requirements ordinarily applicable to natural gas companies under the NGA and the NGPA, all as more fully described in the application which is on file with the Commission and open to public inspection. The filing may also be viewed on the web at http://www.ferc.gov using the “eLibrary” link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to access the document. For assistance, contact FERC at [email protected] or call toll-free, (866) 208-3676 or TTY, (202) 502-8659.

Specifically, Navitas, a Kentucky local distribution company regulated by the Kentucky Public Service Commission and providing natural gas service to approximately 125 customers in Albany, Clinton County Kentucky in the southern portion of the state adjacent to the Tennessee border, request a service area determination to operate across the Tennessee border into Pickett County Tennessee near Byrdstown in order to access a natural gas supply interconnection, the B&W Pipeline, to service its Kentucky customers. Navitas' application is related to B&W Pipeline, Inc.'s application for a limited jurisdiction blanket certificate of public convenience and necessity filed in Docket No. CP17-78-000 on March 17, 2017.

Any questions regarding this application should be directed to Thomas Hartline, Navitas Utility Corporation, 3186D Airway Avenue, Costa Mesa, CA 92626, or call (714) 242-4064, or by email [email protected].

Pursuant to section 157.9 of the Commission's rules, 18 CFR 157.9, within 90 days of this Notice the Commission staff will either: complete its environmental assessment (EA) and place it into the Commission's public record (eLibrary) for this proceeding; or issue a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review. If a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review is issued, it will indicate, among other milestones, the anticipated date for the Commission staff's issuance of the final environmental impact statement (FEIS) or EA for this proposal. The filing of the EA in the Commission's public record for this proceeding or the issuance of a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review will serve to notify federal and state agencies of the timing for the completion of all necessary reviews, and the subsequent need to complete all federal authorizations within 90 days of the date of issuance of the Commission staff's FEIS or EA.

There are two ways to become involved in the Commission's review of this project. First, any person wishing to obtain legal status by becoming a party to the proceedings for this project should, on or before the comment date stated below file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, a motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.214 or 385.211) and the Regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.10). A person obtaining party status will be placed on the service list maintained by the Secretary of the Commission and will receive copies of all documents filed by the applicant and by all other parties. A party must submit 7 copies of filings made in the proceeding with the Commission and must mail a copy to the applicant and to every other party. Only parties to the proceeding can ask for court review of Commission orders in the proceeding.

However, a person does not have to intervene in order to have comments considered. The second way to participate is by filing with the Secretary of the Commission, as soon as possible, an original and two copies of comments in support of or in opposition to this project. The Commission will consider these comments in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but the filing of a comment alone will not serve to make the filer a party to the proceeding. The Commission's rules require that persons filing comments in opposition to the project provide copies of their protests only to the party or parties directly involved in the protest.

Persons who wish to comment only on the environmental review of this project should submit an original and two copies of their comments to the Secretary of the Commission. Environmental commentors will be placed on the Commission's environmental mailing list, will receive copies of the environmental documents, and will be notified of meetings associated with the Commission's environmental review process. Environmental commentors will not be required to serve copies of filed documents on all other parties. However, the non-party commentors will not receive copies of all documents filed by other parties or issued by the Commission (except for the mailing of environmental documents issued by the Commission) and will not have the right to seek court review of the Commission's final order.

The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments, protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 5 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.

Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on May 11, 2017.

Take notice that the Commission received the following exempt wholesale generator filings:

Docket Numbers: EG17-99-000.

Applicants: Horse Hollow Wind III, LLC.

Description: Notice of Self-Certification of Exempt Wholesale Generator Status of Horse Hollow Wind III, LLC.

Filed Date: 4/19/17.

Accession Number: 20170419-5209.

Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/10/17.

Docket Numbers: EG17-100-000.

Applicants: Post Wind, LLC.

Description: Notice of Self-Certification of Exempt Wholesale Generator Status of Post Wind, LLC.

Filed Date: 4/19/17.

Accession Number: 20170419-5210.

Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/10/17.

Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:

Docket Numbers: ER17-1438-000.

Applicants: Radford's Run Wind Farm, LLC.

Description: Baseline eTariff Filing: Application for Market Based Rate to be effective 6/1/2017.

Filed Date: 4/20/17.

Accession Number: 20170420-5019.

Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/11/17.

Docket Numbers: ER17-1439-000.

Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.

Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: 3317 WAPA & East River Electric Power Interconnection Agr to be effective 4/3/2017.

Filed Date: 4/20/17.

Accession Number: 20170420-5094.

Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/11/17.

Docket Numbers: ER17-1440-000.

Applicants: NorthWestern Corporation.

Description: Tariff Cancellation: Notice of Cancellation: SA 791, Utilities Agreement with MDT (Armington Slope) to be effective 4/21/2017.

Filed Date: 4/20/17.

Accession Number: 20170420-5098.

Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/11/17.

Docket Numbers: ER17-1441-000.

Applicants: ISO New England Inc., New England Power Pool Participants Committee.

Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: Changes to ISO-NE Financial Assurance Policy to be effective 9/12/2017.

Filed Date: 4/20/17.

Accession Number: 20170420-5106.

Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/11/17.

Docket Numbers: ER17-1442-000.

Applicants: Axiall, LLC.

Description: Baseline eTariff Filing: Application for Market Based Rate to be effective 5/26/2017.

Filed Date: 4/20/17.

Accession Number: 20170420-5137.

Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/11/17.

Docket Numbers: ER17-1443-000.

Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.

Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: 2014 Southwestern Power Administration Amendatory Agreement Sixth Extension to be effective 4/1/2017.

Filed Date: 4/20/17.

Accession Number: 20170420-5140.

Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/11/17.

Docket Numbers: ER17-1444-000.

Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.

Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: 2017-04-20_Day-Ahead Margin Assurance Payment (DAMAP) filing to be effective 4/21/2017.

Filed Date: 4/20/17.

Accession Number: 20170420-5168.

Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/11/17.

The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.

Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.

eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection:

a. Application Type: Request to Amend License Articles 401, 402, 403 and 406 to lower Somerset Reservoir elevation target for loon nesting.

b. Project No: P-2323-216.

c. Date Filed: April 10, 2017.

d. Applicant: TransCanada Hydro Northeast Inc.

e. Name of Project: Deerfield River Project.

f. Location: The project is located on the Deerfield River, in Windham and Bennington counties, Vermont, and Franklin and Berkshire counties, Massachusetts.

g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 791a-825r.

h. Applicant Contact: John Ragonese, TransCanada Hydro Northeast Inc., 4 Park Street, Suite 402, Concord, NH 03301-6373, (603) 225-5528.

i. FERC Contact: Zeena Aljibury, (202) 502-6065, [email protected].

j. Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, and protests: May 5, 2017.

The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file motions to intervene, protests, comments, or recommendations using the Commission's eFiling system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. Commenters can submit brief comments up to 6,000 characters, without prior registration, using the eComment system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ecomment.asp. You must include your name and contact information at the end of your comments. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at [email protected], (866) 208-3676 (toll free), or (202) 502-8659 (TTY). In lieu of electronic filing, please send a paper copy to: Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426. The first page of any filing should include docket number P-2323-216.

k. Description of Request: TransCanada Hydro Northeast, Inc. requests approval to amend license Articles 401, 402, 403, and 406 as well as the approved Vermont Flow Monitoring and Reservoir Operations Plan to adjust the target elevation of Somerset Reservoir during the common loon nesting period from 2,128.58 feet mean sea level (msl) to 2,128.23 feet msl, as requested by the Vermont Agency of Natural Resources and the Vermont Division of Fish and Wildlife to protect observed loon nests. The licensee also requests, with agency support, to change the target elevation period from May 1 to May 15 to align with the end of the minimum flow constraint at the Searsburg development and avoid conflicting resource requirements. Finally, the licensee proposes, with agency support, to adjust the start of operations data collection for reporting to the resources agencies from April 1 to April 15.

l. Locations of the Application: A copy of the application is available for inspection and reproduction at the Commission's Public Reference Room, located at 888 First Street NE., Room 2A, Washington, DC 20426, or by calling (202) 502-8371. This filing may also be viewed on the Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov using the “eLibrary” link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits (P-2323) in the docket number field to access the document. You may also register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp to be notified via email of new filings and issuances related to this or other pending projects. For assistance, call 1-866-208-3676 or email [email protected], for TTY, call (202) 502-8659. A copy is also available for inspection and reproduction at the address in item (h) above. Agencies may obtain copies of the application directly from the applicant.

m. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing list should so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission.

n. Comments, Protests, or Motions to Intervene: Anyone may submit comments, a protest, or a motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210, .211, .214, respectively. In determining the appropriate action to take, the Commission will consider all protests or other comments filed, but only those who file a motion to intervene in accordance with the Commission's Rules may become a party to the proceeding. Any comments, protests, or motions to intervene must be received on or before the specified comment date for the particular application.

o. Filing and Service of Documents: Any filing must (1) bear in all capital letters the title “COMMENTS”, “PROTEST”, or “MOTION TO INTERVENE” as applicable; (2) set forth in the heading the name of the applicant and the project number of the application to which the filing responds; (3) furnish the name, address, and telephone number of the person commenting, protesting or intervening; and (4) otherwise comply with the requirements of 18 CFR 385.2001 through 385.2005. All comments, motions to intervene, or protests must set forth their evidentiary basis and otherwise comply with the requirements of 18 CFR 4.34(b). All comments, motions to intervene, or protests should relate to project works that are the subject of the license amendment. Agencies may obtain copies of the application directly from the applicant. A copy of any protest or motion to intervene must be served upon each representative of the applicant specified in the particular application. If an intervener files comments or documents with the Commission relating to the merits of an issue that may affect the responsibilities of a particular resource agency, they must also serve a copy of the document on that resource agency. A copy of all other filings in reference to this application must be accompanied by proof of service on all persons listed in the service list prepared by the Commission in this proceeding, in accordance with 18 CFR 4.34(b) and 385.2010.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has submitted the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The notice for the proposed information collection is published to obtain comments from the public and affected agencies.

Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information are encouraged. Your comments should address any of the following: (a) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; (d) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses; and (e) Assess information collection costs.

To request additional information on the proposed project or to obtain a copy of the information collection plan and instruments, call (404) 639-7570 or send an email to [email protected]. Written comments and/or suggestions regarding the items contained in this notice should be directed to the Attention: CDC Desk Officer, Office of Management and Budget, Washington, DC 20503 or by fax to (202) 395-5806. Written comments should be received within 30 days of this notice.

Colorectal Cancer Control Program (CRCCP) Monitoring Activities (OMB Control Number 0920-1074, expires 06/30/2019)—Revision—National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion (NCCDPHP), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

CDC is requesting a revision to the approved information collection under OMB Control Number 0920-1074. CDC proposes use of a revised grantee survey instrument, as well as a revised clinic-level data collection template. The number of respondents will also decrease from 31 to 30 grantees, and the total estimated annualized burden will decrease.

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the second leading cause of death from cancer in the United States among cancers that affect both men and women. CRC screening has been shown to reduce incidence of and death from the disease. Screening for CRC can detect disease early when treatment is more effective and prevent cancer by finding and removing precancerous polyps. Of individuals diagnosed with early stage CRC, more than 90% live five or more years. To reduce CRC morbidity, mortality, and associated costs, use of CRC screening tests must be increased among age-eligible adults with the lowest CRC screening rates.

The purpose of the Colorectal Cancer Control Program (CRCCP): Organized Approaches to Increase Colorectal Cancer Screening (CDC-RFA-DP15-1502), is to increase CRC screening rates among an applicant defined target population of persons 50-75 years of age within a partner health system serving a defined geographical area or disparate population. The CRCCP includes 30 grantees that are state governments or bona-fide agents, universities, and tribal organizations.

The CRCCP was significantly redesigned in 2015 and has two components. Under Component 1, all grantees receive funding to support partnerships with health systems to implement up to four priority evidence-based interventions (EBIs) described in the Guide to Community Preventive Services, as well as other supporting activities (SAs). Grantees must implement at least two EBIs in each partnering health system. Under Component 2, six of the 30 grantees provide direct screening and follow-up clinical services for a limited number of individuals aged 50-64 in the program's priority population who are asymptomatic, at average risk for CRC, have inadequate or no health insurance for CRC screening, and are low income.

Two forms of data collection have been implemented to assess program processes and outcomes. In Program Year 1, the annual grantee survey monitored grantee program implementation, including (1) program management, (2) implementation of the EBIs and SAs, (3) health information technology (IT), (4) partnerships, (5) data use, (6) training and technical assistance (TA), and (7) clinical service delivery (for programs receiving Component 2 funding only). Clinic-level data collection assessed CRCCP's primary outcome of interest—CRC screening rates within partner health systems—by measuring: (1) Partner health system, clinic, and patient population characteristics, (2) reporting period (for screening rates), (3) Chart review screening rate data, (4) Electronic Health Record (EHR) screening rate, and (5) Priority evidence-based EBIs and SAs.

Based on feedback from grantees and internal subject matter experts, CDC proposes use of updated data collection instruments. Specifically, CDC plans to implement a revised CRCCP grantee survey that eliminates questions related to EBI and SA implementation as these data are more accurately reported at the clinic level. Conversely, CDC will implement a revised CRCCP clinic-level data collection template with additional data variables related to EBI and SA implementation, as well as monitoring and evaluation activities, at the clinic level.

Redesigned data elements will enable CDC to better gauge progress in meeting CRCCP program goals and monitor implementation activities, evaluate outcomes, and identify grantee technical assistance needs. In addition, data collected will inform program improvement and help identify successful activities that need to be maintained, replicated, or expanded.

OMB approval is requested for three years. The total estimated annualized burden hours have decreased from 210 to 204 hours. There are no costs to respondents other than their time.

Title: Voluntary Acknowledgement of Paternity and Required Data Elements for Paternity Establishment Affidavits.

OMB No.: 0970-0171.

Description: Section 466(a)(5)(C) of the Social Security Act requires States to enact laws ensuring a simple civil process for voluntarily acknowledging paternity via an affidavit. The development and use of an affidavit for the voluntary acknowledgment of paternity would include the minimum requirements of the affidavit specified by the Secretary under section 452(a)(7) and give full faith and credit to such an affidavit signed in any other State according to its procedures. The State must provide that, before a mother and putative father can sign a voluntary acknowledgement of paternity, the mother and putative father must be given notice, orally and in writing of the alternatives to, the legal consequences of, and the rights (including any rights, if one parent is a minor, due to minority status) and responsibilities of acknowledging paternity. The affidavits will be used by hospitals, birth record agencies, and other entities participating in the voluntary paternity establishment program to collect information from the parents of nonmarital children.

Respondents: The parents of nonmarital children and State and Tribal IV-D agencies, hospitals, birth record agencies and other entities participating in the voluntary paternity establishment program.

Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 782,003

Additional Information: Copies of the proposed collection may be obtained by writing to the Administration for Children and Families, Office of Planning, Research and Evaluation, 330 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20201. Attention Reports Clearance Officer. All requests should be identified by the title of the information collection. Email address: [email protected].

OMB Comment: OMB is required to make a decision concerning the collection of information between 30 and 60 days after publication of this document in the Federal Register. Therefore, a comment is best assured of having its full effect if OMB receives it within 30 days of publication. Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent directly to the following: Office of Management and Budget, Paperwork Reduction Project, Email: [email protected], Attn: Desk Officer for the Administration for Children and Families.

Title: State Plan Child Support Collection and Establishment of Paternity Title IV-D, OCSE-100.

OMB No.: 0970-0017.

Description: The Office of Child Support Enforcement has approved a IV-D state plan for each state. Federal regulations require states to amend their state plans only when necessary to reflect new or revised federal statutes or regulations or material change in any state laws, regulations, policies, or IV-D agency procedures. The requirement for submission of a state plan and plan amendments for the Child Support Enforcement program is found in sections 452, 454, and 466 of the Social Security Act.

Respondents: State IV-D Agencies.

Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 202.5 hours.

Additional Information: Copies of the proposed collection may be obtained by writing to the Administration for Children and Families, Office of Planning, Research and Evaluation, 330 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20201. Attention Reports Clearance Officer. All requests should be identified by the title of the information collection. Email address: [email protected].

OMB Comment: OMB is required to make a decision concerning the collection of information between 30 and 60 days after publication of this document in the Federal Register. Therefore, a comment is best assured of having its full effect if OMB receives it within 30 days of publication. Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent directly to the following: Office of Management and Budget, Paperwork Reduction Project, Email: [email protected]. Attn: Desk Officer for the Administration for Children and Families.

Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meetings.

The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The contract proposals and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the contract proposals, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of a meeting of the Board of Scientific Counselors, NICHD.

The meeting will be open to the public as indicated below, with the attendance limited to space available. Individuals who plan to attend and need special assistance, such as sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodations, should notify the Contact Person listed below in advance of the meeting.

The meeting will be closed to the public as indicated below in accordance with the provisions set forth in section 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended for the review, discussion, and evaluation of individual intramural programs and projects conducted by the EUNICE KENNEDY SHRIVER NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF CHILD HEALTH AND HUMAN DEVELOPMENT, including consideration of personnel qualifications and performance, and the competence of individual investigators, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

On September 22, 2016, the Assistant Administrator, Diversion Control Division, Drug Enforcement Administration, issued an Order to Show Cause to Robert Clark Maiocco, M.D. (Respondent), of Denver, Colorado. The Show Cause Order proposed the revocation of Respondent's DEA Certificate of Registration No. AM2281688, and the denial of any applications to renew or modify his registration, as well as the denial of “any applications for any other DEA registrations,” on the ground that he has “no state authority to handle controlled substances.” Show Cause Order, at 1 (citing 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(3) and 823(a)(3)).1

As to the Agency's jurisdiction, the Show Cause Order alleged that Respondent is registered “as a practitioner in Schedules II through V” under the above registration, at the location of “Colorado Lipidology Associates, 633 17th Street, Ste. 100, Denver, Co.” Id. The Order alleges that Respondent's registration does not expire until January 31, 2019. Id.

As to the substantive ground for the proceeding, the Show Cause Order alleged that “[o]n July 19, 2016, the Colorado Medical Board suspended [Respondent's] medical license.” Id. at 2. The Show Cause Order then alleged that Respondent is “currently without authority to practice medicine or handle controlled substances in the State of Colorado, the [S]tate in which [he is] registered with” DEA, and that as a consequence, his registration is subject to revocation.2

Following service of the Show Cause Order, Respondent requested a hearing. The matter was placed on the docket of the Office of Administrative Law Judges and assigned to ALJ Charles Wm. Dorman who issued an order directing the Government to file evidence supporting the allegation and “any motion for summary disposition” by 2 p.m. on November 7, 2016. Briefing Schedule For Lack Of State Authority Allegations (Briefing Schedule), at 1. In the same order, the ALJ directed Respondent to file any reply to the Government's motion by 2 p.m. on November 18, 2016. Noting that in his hearing request, Respondent had sought to hold the proceeding in abeyance “pending the resolution of the Colorado [Board] matter either via a negotiated disposition or a final agency order following the hearing . . . set for June 26-30, 2017,” Resp. Hrng. Req., at 2; the ALJ ordered that “if the Respondent wishes to formally request a continuance in this case, he must do so in a written motion for continuance.” Briefing Schedule, at 1.

On November 3, 2016, Respondent moved for a continuance of all proceedings in the matter until and including January 3, 2017. Resp.'s Mot. for Continuance, at 1. As grounds for the continuance, Respondent argued that the suspension of his state license was not a final agency action, that the state administrative case was currently being litigated, that the parties were engaged in active negotiations to resolve the matter “via a stipulated disposition that would allow [him] to return to the active practice of medicine,” and that “such a negotiated disposition may be reached within the next 45 to 60 days.” Id. at 2. Upon receipt of the motion, the ALJ ordered the Government to file a response by 2 p.m. on November 10, 2016; he also extended the deadline for the Government to file its summary disposition motion until November 18, 2016 and for Respondent to file his reply until November 30, 2016. Order for Government's Response to Respondent's Motion to Stay Proceedings, at 1.

On November 10, 2016, the Government filed a pleading which combined its Opposition to Respondent's Motion for Continuance and its Motion for Summary Disposition. Gov.'s Opp. to Resp.'s Mot. to Stay Proceedings and Gov.'s Mot. for Summ. Disp. (hereinafter, Mot. for Summ. Disp.), at 1. With respect to Respondent's stay motion, the Government suggested that Respondent's statements regarding the timing of a negotiated resolution of the state matter was speculative. Id. at 4. The Government then cited Agency precedent to argue that “even if the period of suspension is temporary or if there is the potential that Respondent's state controlled substance privileges will be reinstated, summary disposition is warranted because `revocation is also appropriate when a state license has been suspended, but with the possibility of future reinstatement.' ” Id. (quoting Roger A. Rodriguez, 70 FR 33206, 33207 (2005) (other citations omitted)). The Government thus maintained that Respondent's Motion for Continuance should be denied. Id.

As for the Government's Motion for Summary Disposition, it argued that based on the Order of Suspension issued to Respondent by the Colorado Medical Board, he does not have “authority to prescribe, administer, or dispense controlled substances in the State of Colorado.” Mot. for Summ. Disp., at 3. The Government argued that there is no dispute as to this material fact, id. at 2, and that “[a]bsent authority by the State of Colorado to dispense controlled substances, Respondent is not authorized to possess a DEA registration in that state.” Id. at 3 (citing 21 U.S.C. 802(21), 823(f), 824(a)(3), and Layfe Robert Anthony, 67 FR 35582 (2002)). The Government further argued that “DEA does not have statutory authority to maintain a registration if the registrant is without state authority to handle controlled substances,” and that therefore, Respondent's registration should be revoked. Id. (citation omitted).

On November 14, 2016, the ALJ denied Respondent's Motion for Continuance. Order Denying the Respondent's Motion for Continuance, at 1. The ALJ's explained that “[i]t is settled DEA precedent `that the existence of other proceedings in which Respondent is involved is not a basis upon which to justify a stay of DEA administrative enforcement proceedings.” Id. (quoting James Alvin Chaney, 80 FR 57391, 57393 (2015)).

On November 30, 2016, Respondent submitted a pleading captioned: “Respondent's Motion For Extension Of Time In Which To Submit His Response To The Government's Motion for Summary Disposition And, In The Alternative, His Response To The Government's Motion For Summary Disposition” (hereinafter, Extension Mot.). Therein, Respondent represented that he had “submitted a proposed Stipulation and Final Agency Order to” the Colorado Board, “which, if agreed to by the [Board], would result in the lifting of the suspension and the restoration of” his controlled substance dispensing authority in Colorado. Extension Mot., at 1-2. Respondent further represented that the proposed Stipulation was to be considered by the Board at its December 15, 2016 meeting and expressed his optimism that the Board would accept the Stipulation. Id. at 2. Further noting that the Board's decision would be dispositive of this matter either way, Respondent sought an extension of the time until December 20, 2016 to file his response to the Government's pending Motion for Summary Disposition. Id.

Citing “the interest of administrative/judicial economy,” the ALJ granted Respondent's motion and ordered Respondent to file his evidence of reinstatement and his Response to the Motion for Summary Disposition by December 20, 2016. Order Granting Respondent's Motion for Extension in Which to Submit His Response to the Government's Mot. for Summary Disposition, at 2. On December 20, 2016, Respondent filed his Response and a Status Report. Response to Gov. Mot. for Summ. Disp. and Status Rep., at 1. Therein, Respondent advised that “the parties in [the Board's proceeding] were unable to reach a resolution and [that] the matter will proceed to a hearing” scheduled for June 26 through June 30, 2017. Id. Respondent further acknowledged that his medical license had not been reinstated. Id.

The same day, the ALJ granted the Government's Motion. The ALJ noted that “[t]o maintain a DEA registration, a practitioner must be currently authorized to handle controlled substances in the jurisdiction in which the practitioner is registered.” R.D. at 3 (citing 21 U.S.C. 802(21), 823(f)). Finding that there was no dispute over the material fact that “Respondent lacks state authorization to handle controlled substances in Colorado,” the State in which he is registered with DEA, the ALJ granted the Government's Motion and recommended that Respondent's registration be revoked. Id. at 3-4.

Neither party filed exceptions to the Recommended Decision. Thereafter, the ALJ forwarded the record to my Office for final agency action. Having considered the record, I adopt the ALJ's factual finding, legal conclusions and recommended order. I make the following factual findings.

Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 556(e), I take official notice of Respondent's registration record with the Agency. According to the record, Respondent is the holder of Certificate of Registration No. AM2281688, pursuant to which he is authorized to dispense controlled substances in schedules II through V as practitioner, at the registered address of Colorado Lipidology Associates, 633 17th Street, Suite 100, Denver, Colorado. Respondent's registration does not expire until January 31, 2019.3 Accordingly, I find that Respondent has an active registration and that the Agency has jurisdiction.4

Respondent is also the holder of license number DR-36651, pursuant to which he is authorized to practice medicine as a physician by the Medical Board of Colorado. Mot. for Summ. Disp., Ex. 1, at 1. However, effective on July 19, 2016, the Board suspended Respondent's medical license “pending proceedings for suspension or revocation.” Id. at 2. According to the online records of the Colorado Division of Professions and Occupations, Respondent's suspension remains in effect as of the date of this Decision and Order. See 5 U.S.C. 556(e).

Pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(3), the Attorney General is authorized to suspend or revoke a registration issued under section 823 of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA), “upon a finding that the registrant . . . has had his State license . . . suspended [or] revoked . . . by competent State authority and is no longer authorized by State law to engage in the . . . dispensing of controlled substances.” Moreover, DEA has long held that the possession of authority to dispense controlled substances under the laws of the State in which a practitioner engages in professional practice is a fundamental condition for obtaining and maintaining a practitioner's registration. See, e.g., James L. Hooper, 76 FR 71371 (2011), pet. for rev. denied, 481 Fed. Appx. 826 (4th Cir. 2012); see also Frederick Marsh Blanton, 43 FR 27616 (1978) (“State authorization to dispense or otherwise handle controlled substances is a prerequisite to the issuance and maintenance of a Federal controlled substances registration.”).

This rule derives from the text of two provisions of the CSA. First, Congress defined “the term `practitioner' [to] mean[] a . . . physician . . . or other person licensed, registered or otherwise permitted, by . . . the jurisdiction in which he practices . . . to distribute, dispense, [or] administer . . . a controlled substance in the course of professional practice.” 21 U.S.C. 802(21). Second, in setting the requirements for obtaining a practitioner's registration, Congress directed that “[t]he Attorney General shall register practitioners . . . if the applicant is authorized to dispense . . . controlled substances under the laws of the State in which he practices.” 21 U.S.C. 823(f).

Because “the controlling question” in a proceeding brought under 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(3) is whether the holder of a DEA registration “is currently authorized to handle controlled substances in the [S]tate,” Hooper, 76 FR at 71371 (quoting Anne Lazar Thorn, 62 FR 12847, 12848 (1997)), the Agency has also long held that revocation is warranted even where a practitioner has lost his state authority by virtue of the State's use of summary process and the State has yet to provide a hearing to challenge the suspension. Bourne Pharmacy, 72 FR 18273, 18274 (2007); Wingfield Drugs, 52 FR 27070, 27071 (1987). Thus, it is of no consequence that the Colorado Medical Board has employed summary process in suspending Registrant's state license and that Respondent may prevail at the hearing schedule for late June.

Here, there is no dispute over the material fact that Respondent is no longer currently authorized to dispense controlled substances in Colorado, the State in which he is registered. Accordingly, I adopt the ALJ's recommendation that Respondent's registration be revoked.

Pursuant to the authority vested in me by 21 U.S.C. 824(a), as well as 28 CFR 0.100(b), I order that DEA Certificate of Registration AM2281688, issued to Robert Clark Maiocco, M.D., be, and it hereby is, revoked. Pursuant to the authority vested in me by 21 U.S.C. 823(f), I further order that any pending application of Robert C. Maiocco, M.D., to renew or modify his registration, be, and it hereby is, denied. This Order is effective immediately.5

On December 8, 2015, the Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement Administration (hereinafter, DEA or Government), issued an Order to Show Cause to David D. Moon, D.O. (hereinafter, Registrant), the holder of Certificates of Registration Nos. M9879024, in Tulsa, Oklahoma, and BM2782692, in Las Vegas, Nevada, authorizing him to prescribe controlled substances in Schedules II through V.1 GX 4. The Show Cause Order proposed the revocation of his Certificates of Registration and the denial of any pending application for renewal or modification of Registrant's registrations on the grounds that: (1) Registrant does not have authority to dispense controlled substances in the States in which he is registered and (2) he has committed acts which render his registrations “inconsistent with the public interest.” 2 Id. at 1 (citing 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(3) and (4)).

As the jurisdictional basis for the proceeding, the Show Cause Order alleged that both of Registrant's registrations expire on January 31, 2018. Id.

As the substantive grounds for the proceeding, the Show Cause Order alleged that on June 18, 2015, the Oklahoma State Board of Osteopathic Examiners revoked his Oklahoma osteopathic license, and that on August 11, 2015, the Nevada State Board of Osteopathic Medicine revoked his Nevada osteopathic license, which resulted in the status of his Nevada State Board of Pharmacy license becoming “inactive.” Id. at 2. Thus, due to the actions of the two Boards, the Registrant is without authority to handle controlled substances in the States in which he is registered with DEA.

The Show Cause Order alleged that on April 17, 2013, Registrant was arrested at McCarran International Airport while proceeding through a Transportation Security Administration checkpoint. Id. It further alleged that law enforcement officers found in his carry-on baggage drugs in pill bottles labeled for other people, drugs in unlabeled pill bottles, and loose drugs. Id. Based on the airport arrest, the Show Cause Order alleged that the Registrant possessed controlled substances with the intent to redistribute them to individuals for whom they were not originally dispensed, in violation of 21 U.S.C. 829(a) and (b), 21 U.S.C. 841(a)(1), 21 U.S.C. 842(a), 21 U.S.C. 843(a)(3), 21 U.S.C. 844(a), 21 U.S.C. 844a(a), and Nev. Rev. Stat. §§ 453-337-.338. Id. at 4. The Show Cause Order also alleged, based on the airport arrest, that Registrant possessed prescription bottles without a label or with an unreadable or illegible label in violation of 21 U.S.C. 825(a) and 21 U.S.C. 842(a). Id.

Based on a subsequent Government investigation and the execution of an Administrative Inspection Warrant (hereinafter, AIW), the Show Cause Order alleged that Registrant accepted controlled substances from non-DEA registered sources (patients) and redistributed those illicitly obtained controlled substances to other patients in violation of 21 U.S.C. 844(a) and 21 U.S.C. 841(a)(1), respectively. Id. Based on the execution of the AIW, the Show Cause Order also alleged that Response could not produce 32 controlled substance invoices in violation of 21 U.S.C. 842(a)(5) and 21 CFR 1304.21(a). Id. The Show Cause Order also alleged, based on the AIW, that Registrant failed to take a biennial inventory of controlled substances stored at one of his registered locations in violation of 21 U.S.C. 827(a) and (b) and 21 CFR 1304.11(c). Id. Also pursuant to the AIW, the Show Cause Order alleged that Registrant had significant shortages of controlled substances at his registered address in Tulsa, Oklahoma and was missing purchase records and that Registrant failed to maintain accurate and complete records and to account for controlled substances in violation of 21 U.S.C. 827(a)(3), 21 U.S.C. 842(a)(5), 21 CFR 1304.03, 21 CFR 1304.04, and 21 CFR 1304.21. Id. at 4-5.

Based on another Government investigation, the Show Cause Order alleged that Registrant issued at least 55 controlled substance prescriptions in Nevada under a registration which listed his registered address in Oklahoma in violation of 21 U.S.C. 822(e) and 21 CFR 1301.12(a) and (b)(3). Id. at 5.

The Show Cause Order also notified Registrant of his right to request a hearing on the allegations or to submit a written statement while waiving his right to a hearing, the procedure for electing each option, and the consequence for failing to elect either option. Id. at 5-6 (citing 21 CFR 1301.43).

According to the “Affidavit of Service of Order to Show Cause” submitted by a Diversion Investigator (hereinafter, DI) assigned to the DEA Tulsa Resident Office, on January 7, 2016, ten separate copies of the Show Cause Order were sent to Registrant by certified mail, first-class mail, and electronic mail to his registered addresses, as well as his last-known home and electronic mail addresses. GX 5. Specifically, the DI stated that the Government served the Show Cause Order on Registrant (1) by certified mail, return receipt requested addressed to Registrant's registered address at 11445 East 20th Street, Tulsa, Oklahoma 74128; (2) by regular first-class U.S. mail addressed to Registrant's registered address at 11445 East 20th Street, Tulsa, Oklahoma 74128; (3) by certified mail, return receipt requested addressed to Registrant's registered address at 241 N. Buffalo Drive, Bldg. 1, Las Vegas, Nevada 89145; (4) by regular first-class U.S. mail addressed to Registrant's registered address at 241 N. Buffalo Drive, Bldg. 1, Las Vegas, Nevada 89145; (5) by certified mail, return receipt requested addressed to Registrant's last known home address in Oklahoma at 2136 East 25th Street, Tulsa 74114; (6) by regular first-class U.S. mail addressed to Registrant's last known home address in Oklahoma at 2136 East 25th Street, Tulsa 74114; (7) by certified mail, return receipt requested addressed to Registrant's last known home address in Nevada at 2814 Soft Horizon Way, Las Vegas 89135; (8) by regular first-class U.S. mail addressed to Registrant's last known home address in Nevada at 2814 Soft Horizon Way, Las Vegas 89135; (9) by electronic mail at the email address that appears in DEA's registration database for Registrant's Tulsa registered location; and (10) by electronic mail at the email address that appears in DEA's registration database for Registrant's Las Vegas registered location.3 Id. at 1-2.

According to the “Supplemental Affidavit of Service of Order to Show Cause” (hereinafter, Supplemental Affidavit) submitted by the Tulsa Resident Office DI, the certified mail, return receipt and regular first-class mailings addressed to Registrant's registered address in Tulsa, Oklahoma were returned with the notation “return to sender, vacant.” GX 6, at 1. The Supplemental Affidavit stated that the mailings addressed to Registrant's registered address in Las Vegas and his last known home address in Oklahoma were not returned and the Government did not receive the certified return receipt green cards for those mailings sent certified mail, return receipt. Id. at 2. The Supplemental Affidavit stated that the regular first-class mailing addressed to Registrant's last known home address in Las Vegas was not returned. Id. at 3. The Supplemental Affidavit stated that the certified mail, return receipt mailing addressed to Registrant's last known home address in Las Vegas was returned with the notation “unclaimed.” Id. at 2. According to the Supplemental Affidavit, the electronic mailings did not generate any error message that they were not sent successfully or any notification that they were undeliverable. Id. at 3.

I find that the Government's service of the Show Cause Order on Registrant was legally sufficient. According to the Supreme Court, “due process does not require actual notice.” 4 Jones v. Flowers, 547 U.S. 220, 225 (2006) (citing Dusenbery v. United States, 534 U.S. 161, 170 (2002)). Instead, the Court has repeatedly stated that, “due process requires the government to provide `notice reasonably calculated, under all the circumstances, to apprise interested parties of the pendency of the action and afford them an opportunity to present their objections.' ” Jones v. Flowers, supra, 547 U.S. at 226 (citing Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306, 314 (1950)). Moreover, “the Due Process Clause does not require . . . heroic efforts by the Government” to find Registrant. Dusenbery, supra.

Here, the Government mailed the Show Cause Order by certified mail and by regular first-class mail to Registrant's addresses of record and last-known home addresses. The Government also emailed the Order to Show Cause to the email addresses which Registrant had provided to the Government. I find therefore that the Government's efforts were reasonably calculated under all the circumstances to apprise Registrant of the Order to Show Cause and to afford him an opportunity to present his objections.

On November 4, 2016, the Government submitted a Request for Final Agency Action (hereinafter, RFAA) and an evidentiary record to support its proposed action. On March 21, 2017, it updated its RFAA representing that “because Registrant has not requested a hearing within 30 days of any receipt of the . . . [Order to Show Cause] and has not otherwise corresponded or communicated with DEA regarding the . . . [Order to Show Cause], including the filing of any written statement in lieu of a hearing, he has waived his right to a hearing.” Id. at 4.

Based on the Government's representations and my review of the record, I find that more than 30 days have now passed since the date on which Registrant was served with the Show Cause Order and neither Registrant, nor anyone purporting to represent him, has requested a hearing or submitted a written statement while waiving his right to a hearing. Accordingly, I find that Registrant has waived his right to a hearing and his right to submit a written statement. 21 CFR 1301.43(d). I therefore issue this Decision and Order based on the record submitted by the Government. 21 CFR 1301.43(e).

Registrant currently holds DEA practitioner registrations BM9879024 and BM2782692, pursuant to which he is authorized to dispense controlled substances in Schedules II through V. GX 13 and 14. These registrations do not expire until January 31, 2018. Id.

DEA practitioner registration BM9879024 is assigned to Registrant at 11445 East 20th Street, Tulsa, OK 74128. GX 14, at 1. DEA practitioner registration BM2782692 is assigned to Registrant at “Accelerated Rehab & Pain Ctr, 241 N. Buffalo Drive, Bldg. 1, Las Vegas, NV 89145.” GX 13, at 1. However, from August 11, 2014 until December 15, 2014, the address associated with Registrant's BM2782692 registration was 11445 East 20th Street, Tulsa, OK 74128. Id. On December 15, 2014, Registrant changed the address associated with registration number BM2782692 to 241 N. Buffalo Drive, Bldg. 1, Las Vegas, NV 89145. Id.

By Order dated June 18, 2015, the Oklahoma State Board of Osteopathic Examiners revoked Registrant's license number 2965 to practice osteopathic medicine in the State of Oklahoma. GX 7.

Effective August 11, 2015, the Nevada State Board of Osteopathic Medicine revoked Registrant's license number 705 to practice osteopathic medicine in the State of Nevada. GX 8, at 4. Also, the status of Registrant's Nevada State Board of Pharmacy license number CS07559 is “revoked by other agency.” GX 9.5

On April 17, 2013, Registrant was arrested as he attempted to pass through a McCarran International Airport Transportation Security Administration checkpoint with an unregistered firearm. GX 10, at 2-3. Law enforcement officers found a large quantity of pills in Registrant's carry-on bag along with the firearm. Id. According to the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department Arrest Report (hereinafter, Arrest Report), Registrant was “arrested for possession of a controlled substance with intent to sell/distribute schedule three, possession of a controlled substance with intent to sell/distribute schedule four, possession of an unregistered firearm, and possession of hypodermic devices.” Id. at 7.

According to the Arrest Report, Registrant possessed controlled substances with the intent to redistribute them to individuals for whom they were not originally dispensed. Id. at 4-7. The Arrest Report contained a list of pills seized from Registrant at the time of his arrest. Id. at 4-5. Other than stating that the author of the Arrest Report, “Detective Shulke (phonetic), and Drug Enforcement Administration Special Agent C. Johnson conducted an inventory of the pharmaceutical products located in Moon's (phonetic) possession,” the Arrest Report did not include factual support for the officers' conclusions that the seized pills were the controlled substances the Arrest Report stated them to be. Id. at 4. It did not, for example, state that the officers submitted the seized pills for lab testing or analyzed them using a resource that identified them based on size, shape, color, and imprint. Thus, I cannot place any weight on the statements in the Arrest Report that the seized pills were, in fact, controlled substances. The Government has produced no other evidence establishing that any of the pills seized from Registrant on the date he was arrested were controlled substances.

Further, while the Arrest Report recounted Registrant “simply” stating that “some of his folks that he had previously treated were simply trying to destroy their medication, and . . . [Registrant] was willing to take possession of those medications again later to distribute to those that are indigent and in need,” the Arrest Report never stated that Registrant admitted possessing controlled substances not prescribed to himself or intended to redistribute controlled substances to individuals for whom they were not originally dispensed.6 Id. at 6.

Similarly, the record contains scant evidence regarding “the unreadableness/illegibility of some labels on the prescription bottles and the absence of any label on other prescription bottles.” GX 4, at 4. However, as stated above, the Arrest Report did not provide a basis for the officers' conclusions that the seized pills were controlled substances. Further, nothing else in the record established that the seized pills were controlled substances. Since the statutory sections cited in the Show Cause Order regarding these allegations only apply to controlled substances, and the record does not contain substantial evidence that the pills seized from Registrant at McCarran International Airport were, in fact, controlled substances, I cannot place any weight on the evidence in the record to support these alleged violations.” 7

After Registrant's arrest, the Government undertook a multi-faceted investigation of Registrant.

According to the affidavit of a DI assigned to DEA's Tulsa Resident Office, on May 2, 2013, she and other Investigators executed an Administrative Inspection Warrant at Registrant's Oklahoma registered address. GX 12, at 1. At that time, she reviewed all pertinent documents and controlled substances records that Registrant was required to keep. Id. She found that Registrant failed to maintain a biennial inventory. Id.

According to the Tulsa DI's affidavit, she issued administrative subpoenas to five entities for a complete sales history of all of Registrant's controlled substances purchases for the previous two years. Id. In comparing the information received from the five administrative subpoenas with the records Registrant provided during the inspection, she identified 32 invoices for controlled substances that Registrant failed to produce during the administrative inspection of May 2, 2013. Id. at 2.

While the Government submitted evidence concerning other portions of its AIW investigation of Registrant, GX 11 and 12, the evidence lacked a sufficient foundation. The evidence consisted of a copy of the AIW, a portion of the affidavit of a DI who participated in the execution of the AIW, and “a complete and accurate copy of the DEA Computation Chart” prepared as part of the DI's accountability audit. Id. These materials did not, however, provide a sufficient foundation or sufficient detail concerning the procedure followed during the audit of Registrant. Thus, I cannot place any weight on this evidence.

Further, no portion of these materials addressed the allegations in the AIW portion of the Show Cause Order that Registrant accepted controlled substances from non-DEA registered sources and redistributed those illicitly obtained controlled substances to other patients. GX 4, at 4. I examined the entire record for evidence concerning these two allegations. The Arrest Report stated that Registrant possessed a “large quantity” of “what appeared to be prescription medication” that “belonged to various family members and former patients.” GX 10, at 3. As I stated above, however, the Arrest Report did not contain factual support that the seized pills were controlled substances. Thus, I cannot place any weight on that evidence in the Arrest Report. For the same reason, the Arrest Report evidence cannot support the AIW-related allegations that Registrant accepted controlled substances from non-DEA registered sources and redistributed those illicitly obtained controlled substances to other patients. I found no other evidence in the record that supports these two AIW-related allegations.

According to the affidavit of a Diversion Group Supervisor assigned to the DEA Las Vegas District Office, on October 30, 2014, she and other Investigators conducted a Scheduled Investigation at a SAV-ON Pharmacy in Las Vegas, Nevada. GX 15, at 1. At that time, the Investigators reviewed six randomly selected bundles of prescriptions and noticed prescriptions written by Registrant during a period when he did not have a DEA registration in the State of Nevada. Id. On November 3, 2014, the Investigators obtained copies of Registrant's controlled substance prescriptions filled at that SAV-ON Pharmacy in Las Vegas from August 11, 2014 through October 29, 2014. Id.

I examined each of prescriptions the Government obtained from the Las Vegas SAV-ON Pharmacy. Based on my review of this evidence, from August 11, 2014 through October 29, 2014, Registrant issued at least 55 controlled substance prescriptions for drugs including oxycodone (23), morphine (17), adderall (six), tapentadol (six), methadone (two), and hydrocodone (one) on prescriptions showing Registrant's name as well as “Accelerated Rehabilitation & Pain Center” and its Las Vegas, Nevada contact information, Registrant's Nevada license number, and DEA registration number BM2782692.

Under Section 304 of the Controlled Substances Act (hereinafter, CSA), “[a] registration . . . to . . . dispense a controlled substance . . . may be . . . revoked by the Attorney General upon a finding that the registrant . . . has had his State license or registration . . . revoked . . . by competent State authority and is no longer authorized by State law to engage in the . . . dispensing of controlled substances . . . .” 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(3). Section 304 also provides that a registration may be revoked “upon a finding that the registrant . . . has committed such acts as would render his registration under section 823 of this title inconsistent with the public interest as determined under such section.” Id. § 824(a)(4).

In making the public interest determination, the CSA requires the consideration of the following factors:

“[T]hese factors are . . . considered in the disjunctive.” Robert A. Leslie, M.D., 68 FR 15227, 15230 (2003). It is well settled that I “may rely on any one or a combination of factors and may give each factor the weight [I] deem[ ] appropriate in determining whether” to revoke a registration. Id.; see also MacKay v. Drug Enforcement Admin., 664 F.3d 808, 816 (10th Cir. 2011); Volkman v. DEA, 567 F.3d 215, 222 (6th Cir. 2009); Hoxie v. DEA, 419 F.3d 477, 482 (6th Cir. 2005). Moreover, while I am required to consider each of the factors, I “need not make explicit findings as to each one.” MacKay, supra, 664 F.3d at 816 (quoting Volkman, 567 F.3d at 222); see also Hoxie, supra, 419 F.3d at 481.8

Under DEA's regulation, “[a]t any hearing for the revocation or suspension of a registration, the Administration shall have the burden of proving that the requirements for such revocation or suspension pursuant to . . . 21 U.S.C. [§ ] 824(a) . . . are satisfied.” 21 CFR 1301.44(e). The Government retains the burden of providing substantial evidence to support the proposed action even when the registrant does not request a hearing.

In this case, I conclude that the record supports two independent grounds for revoking Registrant's registrations. First, Registrant does not possess authority to dispense controlled substances under the laws of Oklahoma or Nevada, the States in which he is registered. 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(3). Second, Registrant violated multiple controlled substances-related regulatory requirements incumbent on registrants, thereby rendering his registrations “inconsistent with the public interest.” Id. § 824(a)(4).

DEA has long held that the possession of authority to dispense controlled substances under the laws of the State in which a practitioner engages in professional practice is a fundamental condition for obtaining and maintaining a registration. Frederick Marsh Blanton, 43 FR 27616 (1978) (“State authorization to dispense or otherwise handle controlled substances is a prerequisite to the issuance and maintenance of a Federal controlled substances registration”). See also Rezik A. Saqer, 81 FR 22122, 22126 (2016) (“DEA has interpreted the CSA in this manner for nearly 40 years.”) and James Hooper, 76 FR 71371 (2011) (collecting cases), pet for rev. denied, 481 Fed. Appx. 826 (4th Cir. 2012).

As DEA has repeatedly held, this rule derives from multiple provisions of the CSA. First, in section 802(21), Congress defined the term “practitioner” to mean “a physician . . . or other person licensed, registered or otherwise permitted, by . . . the jurisdiction in which he practices . . . to distribute, dispense, . . . [or] administer . . . a controlled substance in the course of professional practice . . . .” 21 U.S.C. 802(21). Second, Congress directed that the Attorney General “shall register practitioners . . . if the applicant is authorized to dispense . . . controlled substances under the laws of the State in which he practices.” Id. § 823(f). Third, Congress authorized revocation “upon a finding that the registrant . . . has had his State license . . . suspended [or] revoked . . . by competent State authority and is no longer authorized by State law to engage in the . . . dispensing of controlled substances.” Id. § 824(a)(3).

Here, the Government has provided substantial evidence establishing that Registrant no longer possesses authorization to dispense controlled substances in Oklahoma and Nevada, the States in which he is registered. As found above, on June 18, 2015, the Oklahoma State Board of Osteopathic Examiners revoked Registrant's osteopathic license, GX 7, and effective August 11, 2015, the Nevada State Board of Osteopathic Medicine revoked his osteopathic license. GX 8. See also GX 9. Accordingly, I find the Government has proved by substantial evidence that Registrant's authorizations to prescribe controlled substances in both Oklahoma and Nevada have been revoked and I take official notice that both States' revocations remain in place as of the date of this Decision and Order. I, therefore, find that Registrant is currently without authority to dispense controlled substances in Oklahoma and Nevada, the States in which he is registered, and he is, therefore, not entitled to maintain his DEA registrations. Frederick Marsh Blanton, supra. Accordingly, I will order that his two registrations, BM9879024 and BM2782692, be revoked and that any pending application for the renewal or modification of these registrations be denied. 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(3), id. § 823(f).

Pursuant to section 304(a)(4), the Attorney General is also authorized to revoke a registration “upon a finding that the registrant . . . has committed such acts as would render his registration under section 823 of this title inconsistent with the public interest as determined under such section.” 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(4).

In this matter, while I have considered all of the factors, I find the Government's evidence as to factors two and four dispositive.9 I find that the record taken as a whole provides substantial evidence that Registrant violated provisions of the CSA requiring (1) the holding of a separate registration; (2) the taking of a biennial inventory; and (3) the maintenance of “complete and accurate” records.

The CSA requires a “separate registration . . . at each principal place of business or professional practice where the applicant . . . distributes . . . or dispenses controlled substances . . . .” 21 U.S.C. 822(e)(1). See also 21 CFR 1301.12(a); Clarification of Registration Requirements for Individual Practitioners, 71 FR 69478 (2006); Joe W. Morgan, 78 FR 61961 (2013). The CSA's definition of “dispense” explicitly includes the prescribing of a controlled substance. 21 U.S.C. 802(10).

Based on my review of the evidence submitted by the Government, the Registrant issued, from August 11, 2014 through October 29, 2014, at least 55 controlled substance prescriptions on prescriptions showing Registrant's name as well as “Accelerated Rehabilitation & Pain Center” and its Las Vegas, Nevada contact information, Registrant's Nevada license number, and DEA registration number BM2782692. Supra. Also during this time period, according to the evidence submitted by the Government, the address associated with DEA registration BM2782692 was in Oklahoma. Supra.

The Order to Show Cause alleged that, by issuing these 55 prescriptions “in one state under a DEA registration issued for another state,” Registrant violated 21 U.S.C. 822(e) and 21 CFR 1301.12(a) and (b)(3). GX 4, at 5. These legal provisions, however, do not concern issuing a prescription “in one state under a DEA registration issued for another state.” Id. Instead, they require a separate registration at each principal place of business or professional practice where controlled substances are dispensed.

Under 21 CFR 1306.05(a), controlled substance prescriptions are to “bear . . . the name, address and registration number of the practitioner,” among other things. Registrant's address on the 55 prescriptions the Government submitted is in Nevada. Thus, I conclude that Registrant maintained a principal place of business or professional practice in Nevada from August 11, 2014 through October 29, 2014 from which he issued at least 55 prescriptions for controlled substances. During this period, however, Registrant was not registered with the DEA in Nevada. Supra. Thus, I find that Registrant violated the separate registration requirements of 21 U.S.C. 822(e) and 21 CFR 1301.12(a) and (b)(3).

The CSA requires “every registrant . . . as soon . . . as such registrant first engages in the . . . dispensing of controlled substances, and every second year thereafter, [to] make a complete and accurate record of all stocks thereof on hand . . . .” 21 U.S.C. 827(a)(1). See also 21 U.S.C. 842(a)(5) (“unlawful acts” include “to refuse or negligently fail to make, keep, or furnish any record, report, notification, declaration, order or order form, statement, invoice, or information required . . .”). As found above, during the execution of the AIW, Registrant could not produce a biennial inventory. Supra. Thus, I find that Registrant violated the CSA by failing to maintain a biennial inventory.

The CSA also requires registrants to maintain, on a current basis, complete and accurate records of each controlled substance received or dispensed. See 21 U.S.C. 827(a)(3) and 21 CFR 1304.21(a). See also 21 U.S.C. 842(a)(5). According to the DI, during the administrative inspection of May 2, 2013, Registrant failed to produce 32 invoices for controlled substances he had purchased. Supra. Thus, I find that Registrant violated the CSA by failing to comply with its recordkeeping requirements concerning controlled substances.

Pursuant to the authority vested in me by 21 U.S.C. 824(a) and 21 U.S.C. 823(f), as well as 28 CFR 0.100(b), I order that DEA Certificates of Registration BM9879024 and BM2782692 issued to David D. Moon, D.O., be, and they hereby are, revoked. I further order that any pending application of David D. Moon, D.O., to renew or modify these registrations, as well as any other pending application, be, and it hereby is, denied. This order is effective May 30, 2017.

In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, as amended), the National Science Foundation (NSF) announces the following meeting:

Name and Committee Code: Proposal Review Panel for Materials Research—Partnership for Research and Education in Materials, California State University Los Angeles SV (#1203).

Date and Time:

Place: California State University—Los Angeles, 5151 State University Drive, Los Angeles, CA 90032.

Type of Meeting: Part-Open.

Contact Person: Dr. Jose Caro, Program Director, Partnership for Research and Education in Materials, PREM., Division of Materials Research, Room 1065, National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22230; Telephone (703) 292-4914.

Purpose of Meeting: NSF site visit to provide advice and recommendations concerning further NSF support for the Center.

Reason for Late Notice: Due to unforeseen scheduling complications and the necessity to proceed with review of the Center.

Reason for Closing: The work being reviewed during closed portions of the site visit will include information of a proprietary or confidential nature, including technical information; financial data, such as salaries and personal information concerning individuals associated with the proposals. These matters are exempt under 5 U.S.C. 552b(c), (4) and (6) of the Government in the Sunshine Act.

In accordance with Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, as amended), the National Science Foundation (NSF) announces the following meeting:

Name and Committee Code: Advisory Committee for International Science and Engineering (#25104).

Date and Time:

Place: National Science Foundation, 4121 Wilson Boulevard, Stafford II, Suite 1155.01, Arlington, Virginia 22230.

Type of Meeting: Part-Open.

Contact Person: Roxanne Nikolaus, Program Manager, National Science Foundation, 4121 Wilson Boulevard, Stafford II, Suite 1155.01, Arlington, Virginia 22230; 703-292-8710.

Purpose of Meeting: To provide advice, recommendations and counsel on major goals and policies pertaining to international programs and activities.

Reason for Closing: Session having to do with overall strategy for international science collaboration will include discussion of potential proposed agency actions and may properly be closed to the public under 5 U.S.C. 552b(c), (9), (B) of the Government in the Sunshine Act.

In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, as amended), the National Science Foundation (NSF) announces the following meeting:

Name and Committee Code: Proposal Review Panel for Materials Research—Partnership for Research and Education in Materials, University of Puerto Rico at Humacao SV (#1203).

Date and Time:

1. Financial Matters.

2. Strategic Issues.

3. Governors' Executive Session—Discussion of prior agenda items and Board governance.

1. Remarks of the Postmaster General and CEO and Chairman of the Temporary Emergency Committee of the Board.

2. Approval of Minutes of Previous Meetings.

3. Committee Reports.

4. Quarterly Report on Financial Performance.

5. Quarterly Service Performance Report.

6. Tentative Agenda for the June 20 Meeting.

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: Representative Payee Monitoring; OMB 3220-0151. Under Section 12 of the Railroad Retirement Act (RRA), the RRB may pay annuity benefits to a representative payee when an employee, spouse, or survivor annuitant is incompetent or a minor. The RRB is responsible for determining if direct payment to an annuitant or a representative payee would best serve the annuitant's best interest. The accountability requirements authorizing the RRB to conduct periodic monitoring of representative payees, including a written accounting of benefit payments received, are prescribed in 20 CFR 266.7. The RRB utilizes the following forms to conduct its representative payee monitoring program.

Form G-99a, Representative Payee Report, is used to obtain information needed to determine whether the benefit payments certified to the representative payee have been used for the annuitant's current maintenance and personal needs and whether the representative payee continues to be concerned with the annuitant's welfare. RRB Form G-99c, Representative Payee Evaluation Report, is used to obtain more detailed information from a representative payee who fails to complete and return Form G-99a or in situations when the returned Form G-99a indicates the possible misuse of funds by the representative payee. Form G-99c contains specific questions concerning the representative payee's performance and is used by the RRB to determine whether or not the representative payee should continue in that capacity. The RRB proposes no changes to Forms G-99a and G-99c.

In response to the RRB's Office of Inspector General's recommendation to strengthen the controls of the agency's representative payee monitoring program, the RRB proposes new Form G-106, Statement of Care and Responsibility to Annuitant. In cases where the representative payee does not have custody of the annuitant, Form G-106 will be used to solicit information about the representative payee's performance and the annuitant's well-being from the custodian of the annuitant. The proposed form contains specific questions concerning the representative payee's performance, and will be used by the RRB to determine whether or not the representative payee should continue in that capacity.

Completion of the forms in this collection is required to retain benefits.

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 [email protected]. Comments regarding the information collection should be addressed to Brian Foster, Railroad Retirement Board, 844 North Rush Street, Chicago, Illinois 60611-1275 or emailed to [email protected]. Written comments should be received within 60 days of this notice.

On January 25, 2017, NYSE Arca, Inc. (“NYSE Arca” or “Exchange”) 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 list and trade shares of the Bitcoin Investment Trust under NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8.201. The proposed rule change was published for comment in the Federal Register on February 9, 2017.3

On March 22, 2017, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,4 the Commission designated a longer period within which to approve the proposed rule change, disapprove the proposed rule change, or institute proceedings to determine whether to approve or disapprove the proposed rule change.5 The Commission received four comment letters on the proposed rule change.6 On April 6, 2017, the Exchange filed Amendment No. 1 to the proposed rule change.

The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comment on the proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment No. 1,7 from interested persons and is instituting proceedings under Section 19(b)(2)(B) of the Act 8 to determine whether to approve or disapprove the proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment No. 1.

The Exchange proposes to list and trade shares of the following under NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8.201: Bitcoin Investment Trust (“Trust”). The proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site at www.nyse.com, at the principal office of the Exchange, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of those statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such statements.

Under NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8.201, the Exchange may propose to list and/or trade pursuant to unlisted trading privileges (“UTP”) “Commodity-Based Trust Shares.” 9 The Exchange proposes to list and trade shares (“Shares”) of the Trust pursuant to NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8.201.10

The sponsor of the Trust is Grayscale Investments, LLC (“Sponsor”), a Delaware limited liability company. The Sponsor is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Digital Currency Group, Inc. (“Digital Currency Group”). The trustee for the Trust is Delaware Trust Company (“Trustee”). The Bank of New York Mellon will be the Trust's transfer agent (in such capacity, “Transfer Agent”) and the administrator of the Trust (in such capacity, “Administrator”). Xapo Inc. is the custodian for the Trust (“Custodian”).11 ALPS Portfolio Solutions Distributor, Inc. will be the marketing agent for the Trust (“Marketing Agent”).

The Trust is a Delaware statutory trust, organized on September 13, 2013, that operates pursuant to a trust agreement between the Sponsor and the Trustee. The Trust has no fixed termination date.

According to the Registration Statement, each Share will represent a proportional interest, based on the total number of Shares outstanding, in the bitcoins held by the Trust, less the Trust's liabilities, which include accrued but unpaid fees and expenses. The Trust's assets will consist solely of bitcoins held on the Trust's behalf by the Custodian. The Trust has not had a cash balance at any time since inception. When selling bitcoins to pay expenses, the Sponsor will endeavor to sell the exact number of bitcoins needed to pay expenses in order to minimize the Trust's holdings of assets other than bitcoin. As a consequence, the Trust expects that it will not record any cash flow from its operations and that its cash balance will be zero at the end of each reporting period.

The activities of the Trust will be limited to (i) issuing “Baskets” (as defined below) in exchange for bitcoins deposited by the “Authorized Participants” (as defined below) or “Liquidity Providers” (as defined below), as applicable, with the Custodian as consideration, (ii) transferring actual bitcoins as necessary to cover the Sponsor's management fee and selling bitcoins as necessary to pay certain other fees that are not contractually assumed by the Sponsor, (iii) transferring actual bitcoins in exchange for Baskets surrendered for redemption by the Authorized Participants, (iv) causing the Sponsor to sell bitcoins on the termination of the Trust and (v) engaging in all administrative and custodial procedures necessary to accomplish such activities in accordance with the provisions of applicable agreements. The Trust is not actively managed. It will not engage in any activities designed to obtain a profit from, or to ameliorate losses caused by, changes in the market price of bitcoins.

According to the Registration Statement, the Trust is neither an investment company registered under the Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended, (“1940 Act”) 12 nor a commodity pool for purposes of the Commodity Exchange Act,13 and neither the Sponsor nor the Trustee is subject to regulation as a commodity pool operator or a commodity trading adviser in connection with the Shares.

According to the Registration Statement, and as further described below, the investment objective of the Trust will be for the Shares to reflect the performance of the value of a bitcoin as represented by the TradeBlock XBX Index (“Index”),14 less the Trust's liabilities and expenses.

The Shares are designed to provide investors with a cost-effective and convenient way to invest in bitcoin. A substantial direct investment in bitcoins may require expensive and sometimes complicated arrangements in connection with the acquisition, security and safekeeping of the bitcoins and may involve the payment of substantial fees to acquire such bitcoins from third-party facilitators through cash payments of U.S. dollars. Although the Shares will not be the exact equivalent of a direct investment in bitcoins, they will provide investors with an alternative that constitutes a relatively cost-effective way to participate in bitcoin markets through the securities market.

The following is a brief introduction to the bitcoin industry and the bitcoin market based on information provided in the Registration Statement.

A bitcoin is a decentralized digital currency that is issued by, and transmitted through, an open-source digital protocol platform using cryptographic security that is known as the “Bitcoin Network.” The Bitcoin Network is an online, peer-to-peer user network that hosts a public transaction ledger, known as the “Blockchain,” and the source code that comprises the basis for the cryptography and digital protocols governing the Bitcoin Network. No single entity owns or operates the Bitcoin Network, the infrastructure of which is collectively maintained by a decentralized user base. Bitcoins can be used to pay for goods and services or can be converted to fiat currencies, such as the U.S. dollar, at rates determined on electronic marketplaces where exchange participants may first use fiat currency to trade, buy and sell bitcoins based on bid-ask trading (“Bitcoin Exchanges”) or in individual end-user-to-end-user transactions under a barter system.

The Blockchain is comprised of a digital file, downloaded and stored, in whole or in part, on all bitcoin users' software programs. The file includes all “blocks” that have been solved by miners and is updated to include new blocks as they are solved. As each newly solved block refers back to and “connects” with the immediately prior solved block, the addition of a new block adds to the Blockchain in a manner similar to a new link being added to a chain. Because each new block records outstanding bitcoin transactions, and outstanding transactions are settled and validated through such recording, the Blockchain represents a complete, transparent and unbroken history of all transactions on the Bitcoin Network.

Bitcoins are “stored” or reflected on the Blockchain. The Blockchain records the transaction history of all bitcoins in existence and, through the transparent reporting of transactions, allows the Bitcoin Network to verify the association of each bitcoin with the digital wallet that owns them. The Bitcoin Network and bitcoin software programs can interpret the Blockchain to determine the exact bitcoin balance of any digital wallet listed in the Blockchain as having taken part in a transaction on the Bitcoin Network.

In order to own, transfer or use bitcoins, a person generally must have internet access to connect to the Bitcoin Network. Bitcoin transactions between parties occur rapidly (typically between a few seconds and a few minutes) and may be made directly between end-users without the need for a third-party intermediary, although there are entities that provide third-party intermediary services. To prevent the possibility of double-spending a single bitcoin, each transaction is recorded, time stamped and publicly displayed in a block in the publicly available Blockchain. Thus, the Bitcoin Network provides confirmation against double-spending by memorializing every transaction in the Blockchain, which is publicly accessible and downloaded in part or in whole by all users' Bitcoin Network software programs as described above.

The Bitcoin Network is decentralized and does not rely on either governmental authorities or financial institutions to create, transmit or determine the value of bitcoins. Rather, bitcoins are created and allocated by the Bitcoin Network protocol through a “mining” process subject to a strict, well-known issuance schedule. The value of bitcoins is determined by the supply of and demand for bitcoins in the bitcoin exchange market (and in private end-user-to-end-user transactions), as well as the number of merchants that accept them. As bitcoin transactions can be broadcast to the Bitcoin Network by any user's bitcoin software and bitcoins can be transferred without the involvement of intermediaries or third parties, there are little or no transaction costs in direct peer-to-peer transactions on the Bitcoin Network. Third-party service providers such as Bitcoin Exchanges and bitcoin third-party payment processing services may charge significant fees for processing transactions and for converting, or facilitating the conversion of, bitcoins to or from fiat currency.

“Off-Blockchain transactions” involve the transfer of control over, or ownership of, a specific digital wallet holding bitcoins, or of the reallocation of ownership of certain bitcoins in a pooled-ownership digital wallet, such as a digital wallet owned by a Bitcoin Exchange. Off-Blockchain transactions are not truly bitcoin transactions in that they do not involve the transfer of transaction data on the Bitcoin Network and do not reflect a movement of bitcoins between addresses recorded in the Blockchain. Information and data regarding Off-Blockchain transactions are generally not publicly available in contrast to “true” bitcoin transactions, which are publicly recorded on the Blockchain. Off-Blockchain transactions are subject to risks as any such transfer of bitcoin ownership is not protected by the protocol behind the Bitcoin Network or recorded in and validated through the Blockchain mechanism.

Prior to engaging in bitcoin transactions, a user must first obtain a digital bitcoin “wallet” (analogous to a bitcoin account) in which to store bitcoins. A wallet can be obtained, among other ways, through an open-source software program that generates bitcoin addresses and enables users to engage in the transfer of bitcoins with other users. A user may install a bitcoin software program on a computer or mobile device that will generate a bitcoin wallet or, alternatively, a user may retain a third party to create a digital wallet to be used for the same purpose. There is no limit on the number of digital wallets a user can have, and each such wallet includes one or more unique addresses and a verification system for each address consisting of a “public key” and a “private key,” which are mathematically related.

In a typical bitcoin transaction, the bitcoin recipient must provide the spending party with the recipient's digital wallet address, an identifying series of 27 to 34 alphanumeric characters that represents the wallet's routing number on the Bitcoin Network and allows the Blockchain to record the sending of bitcoins to the recipient's wallet. The receiving party can provide this address to the spending party in alphanumeric format or an encoded format such as a Quick Response Code (commonly known as a QR Code), which may be scanned by a smartphone or other device to quickly transmit the information. This activity is analogous to a recipient providing an address in wire instructions to the payor so that cash may be wired to the recipient's account.

After the provision of the receiving wallet's digital address, the spending party must enter the address into its bitcoin software program along with the number of bitcoins to be sent. The number of bitcoins to be sent will typically be agreed upon between the two parties based on a set number of bitcoins or an agreed upon conversion of the value of fiat currency to bitcoins. Most bitcoin software programs also allow, and often suggest, the payment of a transaction fee (also known as a miner's fee). Transaction fees are not required to be included by many bitcoin software programs, but, when they are included, they are paid by the spending party on top of the specified amount of bitcoins being sent in the transaction. Transaction fees, if any, are typically a fractional number of bitcoins (for example, 0.005 or 0.0005 bitcoins) and are automatically transferred by the Bitcoin Network to the bitcoin miner that solves and adds the block recording the spending transaction on the Blockchain.

After the entry of the receiving wallet's address, the number of bitcoins to be sent and the transaction fees, if any, to be paid, the spending party will transmit the spending transaction. The transmission of the spending transaction results in the creation of a data packet by the spending party's bitcoin software program. The data packet includes data showing (i) the receiving wallet's address, (ii) the number of bitcoins being sent, (iii) the transaction fees, if any, and (iv) the spending party's digital signature, verifying the authenticity of the transaction. The data packet also includes references called “inputs” and “outputs,” which are used by the Blockchain to identify the source of the bitcoins being spent and record the flow of bitcoins from one transaction to the next transaction in which the bitcoins are spent. The digital signature exposes the spending party's digital wallet address and public key to the Bitcoin Network, though, for the receiving party, only its digital wallet address is revealed. The spending party's bitcoin software will transmit the data packet onto the decentralized Bitcoin Network, resulting in the propagation of the information among the software programs of bitcoin users across the Bitcoin Network for eventual inclusion in the Blockchain. Typically, the data will spread to a vast majority of bitcoin miners within the course of less than one minute.

Bitcoin miners record transactions when they solve for and add blocks of information to the Blockchain. When a miner solves for a block, it creates that block, which includes data relating to (i) the solution to the block, (ii) a reference to the prior block in the Blockchain to which the new block is being added and (iii) all transactions that have occurred but have not yet been added to the Blockchain. The miner becomes aware of outstanding, unrecorded transactions through the data packet transmission and propagation discussed above. Typically, bitcoin transactions will be recorded in the next chronological block if the spending party has an internet connection and at least one minute has passed between the transaction's data packet transmission and the solution of the next block. If a transaction is not recorded in the next chronological block, it is usually recorded in the next block thereafter.

Bitcoin transactions that are micropayments (typically, less than 0.01 bitcoins) and that do not include transaction fees to miners are currently deprioritized for recording, meaning that, depending on bitcoin miner policies, these transactions may take longer to record than typical transactions if the transactions do not include a transaction fee. Additionally, transactions initiated by spending wallets with poor connections to the Bitcoin Network (i.e., few or poor quality connections to nodes or “supernodes” that relay transaction data) may be delayed in the propagation of their transaction data and, therefore, transaction recording on the Blockchain. Finally, to the extent that a miner chooses to limit the transactions it includes in a solved block (whether by the payment of transaction fees or otherwise), a transaction not meeting that miner's criteria will not be included.

To the extent that a transaction has not yet been recorded, there is a greater chance that the spending wallet can double-spend the bitcoins sent in the original transaction. If the next block solved is by an honest miner not involved in the attempt to double-spend bitcoin and if the transaction data for both the original and double-spend transactions have been propagated onto the Bitcoin Network, the transaction that is received with the earlier time stamp will be recorded by the solving miner, regardless of whether the double-spending transaction includes a larger transaction fee. If the double-spend transaction propagates to the solving miner and the original transaction has not, then the double-spending has a greater chance of success. As a result of the high difficulty in successfully initiating a double-spend without the assistance of a coordinated attack, the probability of success for a double-spend transaction attempt is limited.

Upon the addition of a block included in the Blockchain, the bitcoin software program of both the spending party and the receiving party will show confirmation of the transaction on the Blockchain and reflect an adjustment to the bitcoin balance in each party's digital wallet, completing the bitcoin transaction. Typically, bitcoin software programs will automatically check for and display additional confirmations of six or more blocks in the Blockchain.

To ensure the integrity of bitcoin transactions from the recipient's side (i.e., to prevent double-spending by a payor), every bitcoin transaction is broadcast to the Bitcoin Network and recorded in the Blockchain through the mining process, which time-stamps the transaction and memorializes the change in the ownership of the bitcoin(s) transferred. Adding a block to the Blockchain requires bitcoin miners to exert significant computational effort to verify it is a valid transaction. According to the Registration Statement, requiring this computational effort, or “proof of work,” prevents a malicious actor from either adding fraudulent blocks to generate bitcoins (i.e., counterfeit bitcoins) or overwriting existing valid blocks to reverse its prior transactions.

A transaction in bitcoins between two parties is recorded in the Blockchain in a block only if that block is accepted as valid by a majority of the nodes on the Bitcoin Network. Validation of a block is achieved by confirming the cryptographic “hash value” included in the block's solution and by the block's addition to the longest confirmed Blockchain on the Bitcoin Network. For a transaction, inclusion in a block on the Blockchain constitutes a “confirmation” of the bitcoin transaction. As each block contains a reference to the immediately preceding block, additional blocks appended to and incorporated into the Blockchain constitute additional confirmations of the transactions in such prior blocks, and a transaction included in a block for the first time is confirmed once against double-spending. The layered confirmation process makes changing historical blocks (and reversing transactions) exponentially more difficult the further back one goes in the Blockchain. Bitcoin Exchanges and users can set their own threshold as to how many confirmations are required until funds from the transferor are considered valid. However, statistically speaking, a transaction is virtually final after six confirmations as it would be extremely difficult to challenge the validity of the transaction at that point.

According to the Registration Statement, at this point in the evolution of the Bitcoin Network, bitcoin transactions are considered irreversible. Once a transaction appears in the Blockchain, no one has the authority to reverse it. If someone were to attempt to undo a past transaction in a block recorded on the Blockchain, such individual would have to exert tremendous processing power in a series of complicated transactions that may not be achieved at this point in the Bitcoin Network's development.

According to the Registration Statement, all transactions on the Bitcoin Network are secured using public-key cryptography, a technique which underpins many online transactions. Public-key cryptography works by generating two mathematically related keys (one a public key and the other a private key). One of these, the private key, is retained in the individual's digital wallet and the other key is made public and serves as the address to which bitcoin(s) can be transferred and from which money can be transferred by the owner of the bitcoin wallet. In the case of bitcoin transactions, the public key is an address (a string of letters and numbers) that is used to encode payments, which can then only be retrieved with its associated private key, which is used to authorize the transaction. In other words, the payor uses his private key to approve any transfers to a recipient's account. Users on the Bitcoin Network can confirm that the user signed the transaction with the appropriate private key, but cannot reverse engineer the private key from the signature.

According to the Registration Statement, the Custodian is responsible for keeping the private key or keys that provide access to the Trust's digital wallets and vaults secure. Pursuant to a request from the Sponsor or the Trust, the Custodian will establish and maintain an account with one or more wallets (“Wallet Account”) and one or more cold-storage vault accounts (“Vault Account” and, together with the Wallet Account and any subaccounts associated therewith, the “Bitcoin Account”) in the name of the Sponsor and the Trust. The Custodian deposits and withdraws bitcoins to and from the Bitcoin Account at the instruction of the Sponsor. The Custodian is responsible for administering the Bitcoin Account.

The Bitcoin Account is maintained by the Custodian and cold storage mechanisms are used for the Vault Account by the Custodian. Each digital wallet of the Trust may be accessed using its corresponding private key. The Custodian's custodial operations maintain custody of the private keys that have been deposited in cold storage at its various vaulting premises which are located in geographically dispersed locations across the world, including but not limited to the United States, Europe (including Switzerland) and South America. According to the Registration Statement, the locations of the vaulting premises change regularly and are kept confidential by the Custodian for security purposes.

The term “cold storage” refers to a safeguarding method by which the private keys corresponding to bitcoins stored on a digital wallet are removed from any computers actively connected to the internet. Cold storage of private keys may involve keeping such wallet on a non-networked computer or electronic device or storing the public key and private keys relating to the digital wallet on a storage device (for example, a USB thumb drive) or printed medium (for example, papyrus or paper) and deleting the digital wallet from all computers. According to the Registration Statement, most of the private keys in the Wallet Account and all of the private keys in the Vault Account are kept in cold storage. A digital wallet may receive deposits of bitcoins but may not send bitcoins without use of the bitcoins' corresponding private keys. In order to send bitcoin from a digital wallet in which the private keys are kept in cold storage, either the private keys must be retrieved from cold storage and entered into a bitcoin software program to sign the transaction, or the unsigned transaction must be sent to the “cold” server in which the private keys are held for signature by the private keys. At that point, the user of the digital wallet can transfer its bitcoins.

According to the Registration Statement, the Custodian is the custodian of the Trust's private keys and will utilize certain security procedures such as algorithms, codes, passwords, encryption or telephone call-backs in the administration and operation of the Trust and the safekeeping of its bitcoins and private keys. The Custodian has created a Vault Account for the Trust assets in which private keys are placed in cold storage. According to the Registration Statement, the Custodian segregates the private keys stored with it from any other assets it holds or holds for others.

According to the Registration Statement, multiple distinct private keys must sign any transaction in order to transfer the Trust's bitcoins from a multi-signature address to any other address on the Bitcoin blockchain. Distinct private keys required for multi-signature address transfers reside in geographically dispersed vault locations. The Custodian refers to these vault locations, where transactions are signed by private keys, as “signing vaults.” In addition to multiple signing vaults, the Custodian maintains multiple “back-up vaults” in which backup private keys are stored. According to the Registration Statement, in the event that one or more of the “signing vaults” were to be compromised, back-up vaults can be activated and used as signing vaults to complete a transaction within 72 hours.

Therefore, according to the Registration Statement, if any one signing vault were to be compromised, it would have no impact on the ability of the Trust to access its bitcoins, other than a possible delay in operations of 72 hours, while one or more of the back-up vaults was transitioned to a signing vault. According to the Registration Statement, these security procedures ensure that there is no single point of failure in the protection of the Trust's assets.

The Custodian is authorized to accept, on behalf of the Trust, deposits of bitcoins from “Authorized Participant Self-Administered Accounts” (as defined below) or “Liquidity Provider Accounts” (as defined below), as applicable, held with the Custodian and transfer such bitcoins into the Bitcoin Account. Deposits of bitcoins will be immediately available to the Trust to the extent such bitcoins have not already been transferred to the Vault Account. Bitcoins transferred to the Bitcoin Account will be directly deposited into digital wallets for which the keys are already in cold storage.

According to the Registration Statement, if bitcoins need to be withdrawn from the Trust in connection with a redemption, the Custodian will ensure that the private keys to those bitcoins sign the withdrawal transaction.

According to the Registration Statement, the process by which bitcoins are created and bitcoin transactions are verified is called mining.15 To begin mining, a miner can download and run a mining client, which, like regular Bitcoin Network software programs, turns the user's computer into a “node” on the Bitcoin Network that validates blocks. Bitcoin transactions are recorded in new blocks that are added to the Blockchain and new bitcoins being issued to the miners. Miners, through the use of the bitcoin software program, engage in a set of prescribed complex mathematical calculations in order to add a block to the Blockchain and thereby confirm bitcoin transactions included in that block's data.

In order to add blocks to the Blockchain, a miner must map an input data set (i.e., the Blockchain, plus a block of the most recent Bitcoin Network transactions and an arbitrary number called a “nonce”) to a desired output data set of a predetermined length, i.e., a hash value, using the SHA-256 cryptographic hash algorithm. Each unique block can only be solved and added to the Blockchain by one miner; therefore, all individual miners and mining pools on the Bitcoin Network are engaged in a competitive process of constantly increasing their computing power to improve their likelihood of solving for new blocks. According to the Registration Statement, as more miners join the Bitcoin Network and its processing power increases, the Bitcoin Network adjusts the complexity of the block-solving equation to maintain a predetermined pace of adding a new block to the Blockchain approximately every ten minutes.

A miner's proposed block is added to the Blockchain once a majority of the nodes on the Bitcoin Network confirms the miner's work. Miners that are successful in adding a block to the Blockchain are automatically awarded bitcoins for their effort plus any transaction fees paid by transferors whose transactions are recorded in the block. This reward system is the method by which new bitcoins enter into circulation to the public.

The supply of new bitcoins is mathematically controlled in a manner so that the number of bitcoins grows at a limited rate pursuant to a pre-set schedule. The number of bitcoins awarded for solving a new block is automatically halved after every 210,000 blocks are added to the Blockchain. Recently, in July 2016, the fixed reward for solving a new block decreased from 25 bitcoins to 12.5 bitcoins per block and this is expected to decrease by half to become 6.25 bitcoins after the next 210,000 blocks have entered the Bitcoin Network, which is expected to be July 2020. This deliberately controlled rate of bitcoin creation means that the number of bitcoins in existence will increase at a controlled rate until the number of bitcoins in existence reaches the pre-determined 21 million bitcoins. According to the Registration Statement, as of March 15, 2017, approximately 16.22 million bitcoins have been mined, and estimates of when the 21 million bitcoin limitation will be reached range up to the year 2140.

According to the Registration Statement, due to the peer-to-peer framework of the Bitcoin Network and the protocols thereunder, transferors and recipients of bitcoins are able to determine the value of the bitcoins transferred by mutual agreement or barter with respect to their transactions. As a result, the most common means of determining the value of a bitcoin is by surveying one or more Bitcoin Exchanges where bitcoins are bought, sold and traded. On each Bitcoin Exchange, bitcoins are traded with publicly disclosed valuations for each transaction, measured by one or more fiat currencies such as the U.S. dollar or the Chinese yuan.

According to the Registration Statement, historically, a large percentage of the global trading volume occurred on self-reported, unregulated exchanges located in China. In January 2017, some of the largest China-based Bitcoin Exchanges implemented certain adjustments to their terms, including the introduction of a 0.2% fixed-rate transaction fee for all bitcoin buy and sell orders. In February 2017, certain smaller China-based Bitcoin Exchanges also imposed or increased trading fees on their respective exchanges. In the subsequent weeks, some of the largest China-based Bitcoin Exchanges halted bitcoin withdrawals. According to the Registration Statement, these events have substantially reduced the volume traded on Chinese exchanges and changed the global liquidity profile for bitcoins.

For example, according to the Registration Statement, from May 10, 2015 to January 24, 2017, the three primary China-based Bitcoin Exchanges, BTCC, Huobi and OKCoin, reported a total trade volume of approximately 1.35 billion bitcoins and an average daily trade volume of 2.16 million bitcoins, comprising more than 95% of the global exchange-traded volume based on data from the Index Provider. According to the Registration Statement, during this period, the exchanges that comprised the Index, reported a total trade volume of 33.03 million bitcoins and an average daily trade volume of approximately 53,000 bitcoins, accounting for approximately 2.3% of the global exchange-traded volume and 78.5% of the U.S. dollar-denominated trade volume.

However, according to the Registration Statement, from January 25, 2017 to March 15, 2017, following the introduction of fixed-rate transaction fees in response, the three primary China-based Bitcoin Exchanges, BTCC, Huobi and OKCoin, reported a total trade volume of approximately 1.35 million bitcoins and an average daily trade volume of approximately 27,000 bitcoins, comprising only 25.2% of the global exchange-traded volume based on data from the Index Provider. During this period, the exchanges that comprised the Index, reported a total trade volume of approximately 1.89 million bitcoins and an average daily trade volume of nearly 39,000 bitcoins, accounting for 35.2% of the global exchange-traded volume and 73.6% of the U.S. dollar-denominated trade volume.

According to the Registration Statement, similar to other currency pairs, such as euro to bitcoin, movements in pricing on the Chinese exchanges are generally in line with U.S. dollar-denominated exchanges. For example, according to the Registration Statement, based on data from the Index Provider, from May 10, 2015 to March 15, 2017, the 4:00 p.m., Eastern Time (“E.T.”), spot price on the three primary Chinese yuan-denominated exchanges (BTC China, Huobi and OKCoin) differed from the “Bitcoin Index Price” (as defined below) by only 1.6% on average.

According to the Registration Statement, bitcoin price indexes have also been developed by a number of service providers in the bitcoin space. For example, Coindesk, a digital currency content provider and wholly-owned subsidiary of Digital Currency Group, launched a proprietary bitcoin price index in September 2013, and bitcoinaverage.com provides an average of all bitcoin prices on several Bitcoin Exchanges. The Sponsor uses the Index calculated by the Index Provider to determine the “Bitcoin Index Price,” as described below under “Bitcoin Index Price.”

Currently, there are numerous Bitcoin Exchanges operating worldwide in a number of currency pairs including, among others, bitcoin to U.S. dollar, bitcoin to euro, bitcoin to Chinese yuan and bitcoin to Indian rupee. According to the Registration Statement, most of the data with respect to prevailing valuations of bitcoin come from such Bitcoin Exchanges. These exchanges include established exchanges such as Bitstamp, GDAX and Bitfinex, which provide a number of options for buying and selling bitcoins. Among the Bitcoin Exchanges eligible for inclusion in the Index, domicile, regulation and legal compliance varies.

The table below sets forth (1) the aggregate number of bitcoin trades made on the eight largest U.S. dollar-denominated Bitcoin Exchanges by trade volume from May 10, 2015 to March 15, 2017 and (2) the market share of trade volume of each such Bitcoin Exchange.

Information regarding each Bitcoin Exchange may be found, where available, on the Web sites for such Bitcoin Exchanges, among other places.

According to the Registration Statement, in addition to open online Bitcoin Exchanges, there are “dark pools,” which are bitcoin trading platforms that do not publicly report bitcoin trade data. Market participants have the ability to execute large block trades on a dark pool without revealing those trades and the related price data to the public bitcoin exchange market, although any withdrawal from or deposit to a dark pool platform may be recorded on the Blockchain.19

Bitcoin may also be traded over-the-counter (“OTC”). OTC trades are not required to be reported through any facilities. However, according to the Sponsor, based on publicly available information, OTC trading may not represent a material volume of overall bitcoin trading. The OTC markets operate in a similar manner to dark pools. However, typically, OTC trades are institutional size block transactions (though on a much lower scale relative to the size of block transactions for other commodities or industries) or transactions made on behalf of high-net worth individuals.

According to the Sponsor, some OTC intermediaries that facilitate OTC trading, such as Genesis and itBit, provide summary statistics on an ad hoc basis. For instance, in April 2016, itBit reported that it had traded approximately 25,500 bitcoins, valued at approximately $10.3 million U.S. dollars, which would account for roughly 1.94% of the bitcoin trading volume across the eight highest volume U.S. dollar-denominated exchanges. For the fourth quarter of 2016, Genesis reported trading approximately 70,326 bitcoins, valued at approximately $51.4 million U.S. dollars. According to the Sponsor, the reported Genesis volume would comprise roughly 2.33% of the trading volume across the eight highest volume U.S. dollar-denominated exchanges during that time period.

According to the Sponsor, volatility in bitcoin was pronounced in its earliest days through late 2013. According to the Sponsor, during that time period, almost all bitcoin trading activity centered on two exchanges, which centralized the global order book and led to large price movements. Since then, the bitcoin trading environment has matured with the development of dozens of exchanges around the world, resulting in more transparency with respect to bitcoin pricing, in increased trading volume and in greater liquidity. Additionally, the globalization of bitcoin exchanges, ranging from those domiciled in the United States to other areas of the globe, such as China, has led to development of many bitcoin currency pairs, garnering more market participants. Today, the largest trading pairs are bitcoin to Chinese yuan, bitcoin to U.S. dollars and bitcoin to euro.

Bitcoin price volatility has declined since the inception of bitcoin. According to the Sponsor and as detailed in Exhibit 3, recent figures, such as the three, six and twelve-month volatility charts, show that the volatility of bitcoin is now at levels comparable to those seen for other commodities such as natural gas and continues to trend downward.

According to the Sponsor, while bitcoin price volatility has declined and its volatility approximately corresponds to that of certain commodities, the volatility of bitcoin is not correlated with the volatility of other commodities over shorter- (i.e., three to six months) and longer-term (i.e., longer than one year) investment horizons, reinforcing the important role bitcoin can play as a diversifying asset in an investor's portfolio.

According to the Sponsor, demand for bitcoins is based on several factors. Demand may be based on speculation regarding the future appreciation of the value of bitcoins. Continuing development of various applications utilizing the Bitcoin Network for uses such as remittance, payment for goods and services, recording transfer of ownership of certain assets and settlement of both financial and non-financial assets have led many investors to speculate that the price of bitcoins will appreciate as use of these applications increases. As additional applications are developed, demand may increase. Additionally, some investors have developed analogs between bitcoin and other scarce assets such as gold. Bitcoin shares many of the same characteristics as gold, e.g., scarcity, but has superior utility, portability and divisibility. If investors shift a portion of their asset allocations from gold to bitcoin, the demand for bitcoins could increase. Furthermore, bitcoins are used in day-to-day transactions for the purchase of goods and services. As additional merchants continue to accept bitcoins for the purchase of goods and services, demand for bitcoins may increase. Relatedly, as merchants accept bitcoins for sales of goods and services, supply of bitcoins could increase on the exchange markets as these merchants look to liquidate their bitcoin for fiat currencies.

The “Bitcoin Index Price” is the U.S. dollar value of a bitcoin as represented by the Index, calculated at 4:00 p.m., E.T., on each business day. If the Index becomes unavailable, or if the Sponsor determines in good faith that the Index does not reflect an accurate bitcoin value, then the Sponsor will, on a best efforts basis, contact the Index Provider in order to obtain the Bitcoin Index Price. If after such contact the Index remains unavailable or the Sponsor continues to believe in good faith that the Index does not reflect an accurate bitcoin value, then the Administrator will utilize the following cascading set of rules to calculate the Bitcoin Index Price. For the avoidance of doubt, the Sponsor will employ the below rules sequentially and in the order presented below, should one or more specific rule(s) fail:

(i) Bitcoin Index Price = The price set by the Index as of 4:00 p.m., E.T., on the valuation date. According to the Registration Statement, the Index is a U.S. dollar-denominated composite reference rate for the price of bitcoin based on the volume-weighted price at trading venues selected by the Index Provider. Trading venues used to calculate the Index may include Bitcoin Exchanges, OTC markets or derivative platforms. According to the Registration Statement, to ensure that the Index Provider's trading venue selection process is impartial, the Index Provider considers depth of liquidity, compliance with applicable legal and regulatory requirements, data availability, U.S. domicile and acceptance of U.S. dollar deposits. The Index Provider conducts a quarterly review of these criteria. According to the Registration Statement, as of the date of the Registration Statement, the eligible Bitcoin Exchanges selected by the Index Provider include Bitfinex, Bitstamp, GDAX (formerly known as Coinbase Exchange) and itBit.21 Bitfinex is a trading platform based in Hong Kong for digital currencies, including bitcoin, that offers many advanced features such as margin and exchange trading and margin funding. Bitstamp is a European Union-based bitcoin marketplace that enables people from all around the world to safely buy and sell bitcoins. GDAX, based in San Francisco, California, is a digital currency exchange. itBit is a New York City-based, regulated global exchange that offers retail and institutional investors a powerful platform to buy and sell bitcoin. According to the Registration Statement, in the calculation of the Bitcoin Index Price, the Index Provider cleanses the trade data and compiles it in such a manner as to algorithmically reduce the impact of anomalistic or manipulative trading. This is accomplished by adjusting the weight of each input based on price deviation relative to the observable set of data for the relevant trading venue, as well as recent and long-term trading volume at each venue relative to the observable set for the relevant trading venues. The Index Provider reduces the weighting of data inputs as they get further from the mean price across the trading venues and ultimately excludes any trade with a price that deviates beyond a certain predetermined threshold level from the mean. In addition, the Index groups “trade bursts” (i.e., a group of small-size trades in a short period of time, typically under one second) and movements during off-peak trading hours on any given venue into single data inputs, which reduces the potentially erratic price movements caused by small, individual orders. The Index Provider formally reevaluates the weighting algorithm quarterly, but maintains discretion to change the way in which the Index is calculated based on its periodic review or in extreme circumstances. The precise formula underlying the Index is proprietary.

According to the Registration Statement, the Index Provider does not currently include data from OTC markets or derivative platforms. OTC data is not currently included because of the potential for trades to include a significant premium or discount paid for larger liquidity, which creates an uneven comparison relative to more active markets. There is also a higher potential for OTC transactions to not be arms-length and thus not be representative of a true market price. Bitcoin derivative markets are also not currently included as the markets remain relatively thin. According to the Registration Statement, the Index Provider will consider International Organization of Securities Commissions (“IOSCO”) principles for financial benchmarks and the management of trading venues of bitcoin derivatives when considering inclusion of OTC or derivative platform data in the future.

According to the Registration Statement, to calculate the Bitcoin Index Price, the weighting algorithm is applied to the price and volume of all inputs for the immediately preceding 24-hour period as of 4:00 p.m., E.T., on the valuation date. According to the Registration Statement, to measure volume data and trading halts, the Index Provider monitors trading activity and regards as eligible those Bitcoin Exchanges that it determines represent a substantial portion of U.S. dollar-denominated trading over a sustained period on a platform without a significant history of trading disruptions. The Index Provider maintains a monitoring system that tests for these criteria on an ongoing basis.

The description of the Index is based on information publicly available at the Index Provider's Web site at https://tradeblock.com/markets/index/. The Index spot price will be available on the Index Provider's Web site and/or from one or more major market data vendors.

If the Index becomes unavailable, or if the Sponsor determines in good faith that the Index does not reflect an accurate bitcoin value, then the Sponsor will, on a best efforts basis, contact the Index Provider to obtain the Bitcoin Index Price directly from the Index Provider. If after such contact, the Index remains unavailable or the Sponsor continues to believe in good faith that the Index does not reflect an accurate bitcoin value, then the Sponsor will employ the next rule to determine the Bitcoin Index Price.

(ii) Bitcoin Index Price = The volume-weighted average bitcoin price for the immediately preceding 24-hour period as of 4:00 p.m., E.T., on the valuation date as calculated based upon the volume-weighted average bitcoin prices of the Major Bitcoin Exchanges as published by an alternative third party's public data feed that the Sponsor believes is accurately and reliably providing market data (i.e., is receiving up-to-date and timely market data from constituent exchanges) (“Second Source”). “Major Bitcoin Exchanges” are those Bitcoin Exchanges that are online, trade on a 24-hour basis and make transaction price and volume data publicly available. Subject to the next sentence, if the Second Source becomes unavailable (for example, data sources from the Second Source for bitcoin prices become unavailable, unwieldy or otherwise impractical for use), or if the Sponsor determines in good faith that the Second Source does not reflect an accurate bitcoin value, then the Sponsor will, on a best efforts basis, contact the Second Source in an attempt to obtain the relevant data. If after such contact the Second Source remains unavailable or the Sponsor continues to believe in good faith that the Second Source does not reflect an accurate bitcoin price, then the Sponsor will employ the next rule to determine the Bitcoin Index Price.

(iii) Bitcoin Index Price = The volume-weighted average bitcoin price as calculated by dividing (a) the U.S. dollar value of the bitcoin transactions on the Major Bitcoin Exchanges by (b) the total number of bitcoins traded on the Major Bitcoin Exchanges, in each case for the 24-hour period from 4:00 p.m., E.T. (or as soon as practicable thereafter), on the business day prior to the valuation date to 4:00 p.m., E.T. (or as soon as practicable thereafter), on the valuation date as published by a third party's public data feed that the Sponsor believes is accurately and reliably providing market data (i.e., is receiving up-to-date and timely market data from eligible exchanges), subject to the requirement that such data is calculated based upon a volume-weighted average bitcoin price obtained from the Major Bitcoin Exchanges (“Third Source”). Subject to the next sentence, if the Third Source becomes unavailable (for example, data sources from the Third Source become unavailable, unwieldy or otherwise impractical for use), or if the Sponsor determines in good faith that the Third Source does not reflect an accurate bitcoin price, then the Sponsor will, on a best efforts basis, contact the Third Source in an attempt to obtain the relevant data. If after such contact the Third Source remains unavailable or the Sponsor continues to believe in good faith that the Third Source does not reflect an accurate bitcoin value then the Sponsor will employ the next rule to determine the Bitcoin Index Price.

(iv) Bitcoin Index Price = The volume-weighted average bitcoin price as calculated by dividing (a) the U.S. dollar value of the bitcoin transactions on the Bitcoin Benchmark Exchanges by (b) the total number of bitcoins traded on the Bitcoin Benchmark Exchanges, in each case for the 24-hour period from 4:00 p.m., E.T. (or as soon as practicable thereafter), on the business day prior to the valuation date to 4:00 p.m., E.T. (or as soon as practicable thereafter), on the valuation date. A “Bitcoin Benchmark Exchange” is a Bitcoin Exchange that represents at least 25% of the aggregate U.S. dollar-denominated trading volume of the bitcoin market during the last 30 consecutive calendar days and that to the knowledge of the Sponsor is in substantial compliance with the laws, rules and regulations, including any anti-money laundering (“AML”) and know-your-customer (“KYC”) procedures, of such Bitcoin Exchange's applicable jurisdiction; provided that if there are fewer than three such Bitcoin Exchanges, then the Bitcoin Benchmark Exchanges will include such Bitcoin Exchange or Bitcoin Exchanges that meet the above-described requirements as well as one or more additional Bitcoin Exchanges, selected by the Sponsor, that have had monthly trading volume of at least 50,000 bitcoins during the last 30 consecutive calendar days and that to the knowledge of the Sponsor is in substantial compliance with the laws, rules and regulations, including any AML and KYC procedures, of such Bitcoin Exchange's applicable jurisdiction.

The Sponsor will review the composition of the exchanges that comprise the Bitcoin Benchmark Exchanges at the beginning of each month, or more frequently if necessary, in order to ensure the accuracy of its composition. Subject to the next sentence, if one or more of the Bitcoin Benchmark Exchanges become unavailable (for example, data sources from the Bitcoin Benchmark Exchanges of bitcoin prices become unavailable, unwieldy or otherwise impractical for use), or if the Sponsor determines in good faith that the Bitcoin Benchmark Exchange does not reflect an accurate bitcoin value, then the Sponsor will, on a best efforts basis, contact the Bitcoin Benchmark Exchange that is experiencing the service outages in an attempt to obtain the relevant data. If after such contact one or more of the Bitcoin Benchmark Exchanges remain unavailable or the Sponsor continues to believe in good faith that the Bitcoin Benchmark Exchange does not reflect an accurate bitcoin price, then the Sponsor will employ the next rule to determine the Bitcoin Index Price.

(v) Bitcoin Index Price = The Sponsor will use its best judgment to determine a good faith estimate of the Bitcoin Index Price.

Data used for the above calculation of the Bitcoin Index Price is gathered by the Administrator or its delegate who calculates the Bitcoin Index Price each business day as of 4:00 p.m., E.T., or as soon thereafter as practicable. The Administrator will disseminate the Bitcoin Index Price each business day.

The Index Provider may change the trading venues that are used to calculate the Index, or otherwise change the way in which the Index is calculated at any time. The Index Provider does not have any obligation to consider the interests of the Sponsor, the Administrator, the Trust, the shareholders or anyone else in connection with such changes. The Index Provider is not required to publicize or explain the changes, or to alert the Sponsor or the Administrator to such changes. The Index Provider will consider IOSCO principles for financial benchmarks and the management of trading venues of bitcoin derivatives when considering inclusion of OTC or derivative platform data in the future.

According to the Registration Statement, the Trust's assets will consist solely of bitcoin. The Administrator will determine the value of the Trust for operational purposes (herein referred to as “Bitcoin Holdings”), which is the aggregate U.S. dollar value, based on the Bitcoin Index Price, of the Trust's bitcoins less its liabilities, on each day the Shares trade on the Exchange as of 4:00 p.m. E.T., or as soon thereafter as practicable.22 The Administrator will also determine the Bitcoin Holdings per Share, which equals the Trust's Bitcoin Holdings divided by the number of outstanding Shares. The Sponsor will publish the Bitcoin Holdings and the Bitcoin Holdings per Share each business day at 4:00 p.m., E.T., or as soon thereafter as practicable at the Trust's Web site at https://grayscale.co/bitcoin-investment-trust/#market-performance.

To calculate the Bitcoin Holdings, the Administrator will determine the Bitcoin Index Price and multiply the Bitcoin Index Price by the aggregate number of bitcoins owned by the Trust as of 4:00 p.m., E.T., on the immediately preceding day. The Administrator will add the U.S. dollar value of any bitcoins, as calculated using the Bitcoin Index Price, receivable under pending creation orders, if any, determined by multiplying the number of creation Baskets represented by such creation orders by the Basket Bitcoin Amount and then multiplying such product by the Bitcoin Index Price. The Administrator will subtract (i) the U.S. dollar value of the bitcoins, as calculated using the Bitcoin Price Index, constituting any accrued but unpaid fees, (ii) the U.S. dollar value of the bitcoins to be distributed under pending redemption orders, determined by multiplying the number of redemption Baskets represented by such redemption orders by the Basket Bitcoin Amount and then multiplying such product by the Bitcoin Index Price and (iii) certain expenses of the Trust.

The Sponsor will publish the Bitcoin Index Price, the Bitcoin Holdings and the Bitcoin Holdings per Share on the Trust's Web site as soon as practicable after its determination. If the Bitcoin Holdings and Bitcoin Holdings per Share have been calculated using a price per bitcoin other than the Bitcoin Index Price, the publication on the Trust's Web site will note the valuation methodology used and the price per bitcoin resulting from such calculation.

While the Trust's investment objective is for the Shares to reflect the performance of the value of a bitcoin as represented by the Index, less the Trust's liabilities and expenses, the Shares may trade in the secondary market at prices that are lower or higher than the Bitcoin Holdings per Share. The amount of the discount or premium in the trading price relative to the Bitcoin Holdings per Share may be influenced by non-concurrent trading hours and liquidity between the secondary market and larger Bitcoin Exchanges in the bitcoin exchange market. While the Shares will be listed and trade on the Exchange from 9:30 a.m. until 4:00 p.m., E.T., liquidity in the global bitcoin markets may fluctuate depending upon the volume and availability of larger Bitcoin Exchanges. As a result, during periods in which bitcoin exchange market liquidity is limited or a major Bitcoin Exchange is off-line, trading spreads, and the resulting premium or discount, on the Shares may widen.

Because of the potential for arbitrage inherent in the structure of the Trust, the Sponsor believes that the Shares will not trade at a material discount or premium to the underlying bitcoin held by the Trust. The arbitrage process, which in general provides investors the opportunity to profit from differences in prices of assets, increases the efficiency of the markets, serves to prevent potentially manipulative efforts, and can be expected to operate efficiently in the case of the Shares and bitcoin. If the price of the Shares deviates enough from the price of bitcoin to create a material discount or premium, an arbitrage opportunity is created. If the Shares are inexpensive compared to the bitcoin that underlies them, an arbitrageur may buy the Shares at a discount, immediately redeem them in exchange for bitcoin, and sell the bitcoin in the cash market at a profit. If the Shares are expensive compared to the bitcoin that underlies them, an arbitrageur may sell the Shares short, buy enough bitcoin to acquire the number of Shares sold short, acquire the Shares through the creation process, and deliver the Shares to close out the short position.23 In both instances, the arbitrageur serves to efficiently correct price discrepancies between the Shares and the underlying bitcoin.

According to the Registration Statement, the Trust will issue and redeem “Baskets,” each equal to a block of 100 Shares, only to Authorized Participants. The size of a Basket is subject to change. The creation and redemption of a Basket require the delivery to the Trust, or the distribution by the Trust, of the number of whole and fractional bitcoins represented by each Basket being created or redeemed, the number of which is determined by dividing the number of bitcoins owned by the Trust at 4:00 p.m., E.T., on the trade date of a creation or redemption order, by the number of Shares outstanding at such time (calculated to one one-hundred-millionth of one bitcoin), as adjusted for the number of whole and fractional bitcoins constituting accrued but unpaid fees and expenses of the Trust and multiplying the quotient obtained by 100 (“Basket Bitcoin Amount”). The Basket Bitcoin Amount multiplied by the number of Baskets being created or redeemed is the “Total Basket Bitcoin Amount.” The Basket Bitcoin Amount will gradually decrease over time as the Trust's bitcoins are used to pay the Trust's expenses. According to the Registration Statement, as of the date of the Registration Statement, each Share currently represents approximately 0.093 of a bitcoin.

Authorized Participants are the only persons that may place orders to create and redeem Baskets. Each Authorized Participant must (i) be a registered broker-dealer, (ii) enter into a participant agreement with the Sponsor, the Administrator, the Marketing Agent and the Liquidity Providers (“Participant Agreement”) and (iii) in the case of the creation or redemption of Baskets that do not use the “Conversion Procedures” (as defined below), own a bitcoin wallet address that is recognized by the Custodian as belonging to the Authorized Participant (“Authorized Participant Self-Administered Account”). Authorized Participants may act for their own accounts or as agents for broker-dealers, custodians and other securities market participants that wish to create or redeem Baskets. Shareholders who are not Authorized Participants will only be able to redeem their Shares through an Authorized Participant.

Although the Trust will create Baskets only upon the receipt of bitcoins, and will redeem Baskets only by distributing bitcoins, an Authorized Participant may deposit cash with the Administrator, which will facilitate the purchase or sale of bitcoins through a Liquidity Provider on behalf of an Authorized Participant (“Conversion Procedures”). “Liquidity Providers” must (i) enter into a Participant Agreement with the Sponsor, the Trust, the Marketing Agent and each Authorized Participant and (ii) own a bitcoin wallet address that is recognized by the Custodian as belonging to a Liquidity Provider (“Liquidity Provider Account”).

The Conversion Procedures will be facilitated by a single Liquidity Provider. On an order-by-order basis, the Sponsor will select the Liquidity Provider that it believes will provide the best execution of the Conversion Procedures, and will base its decision on factors such as the Liquidity Provider's creditworthiness, financial stability, ability to obtain the best price, the timing and speed of execution, liquidity and the likelihood of, and capabilities in, execution, clearance and settlement. In the event that an order cannot be filled in its entirety by a single Liquidity Provider, additional Liquidity Provider(s) will be selected by the Sponsor to fill the remaining amount based on the criteria above.

The trade date on which the Basket Bitcoin Amount is determined is different for in-kind and in-cash orders. For in-kind orders, the trade date is the day on which an order is placed, whereas the trade date for in-cash orders is the day after which an order is placed. This could result in a different execution price for in-kind and in-cash orders.

For example, if an Authorized Participant submits an in-kind order at 2:00 p.m., E.T., on a Monday, the Basket Bitcoin Amount required to purchase a Basket of Shares will be determined at 4:00 p.m., E.T., or as soon as practicable thereafter, on that same day. Alternatively, for in-cash orders, if an Authorized Participant submits an order at 2:00 p.m., E.T., on a Monday and pays the requisite Cash Collateral Amount (as defined below) at 3:00 p.m., E.T., on that same date, the Total Basket Bitcoin Amount will nevertheless be determined at 4:00 p.m., E.T., or as soon as practicable thereafter, on Tuesday. Pursuant to the Conversion Procedures, the Authorized Participant is obligated to pay the Cash Exchange Rate (as defined below) which is calculated on Monday, times the Total Basket Bitcoin Amount, which is calculated on Tuesday. The Liquidity Provider is required to deposit the Total Basket Bitcoin Amount as calculated on Tuesday, even if there were a chance [sic] in the price of bitcoin since Monday.

To create Baskets in-kind, Authorized Participants will send the Administrator a creation order on the trade date. In-kind creation orders must be placed no later than 3:59:59 p.m., E.T., on each business day. The Marketing Agent will accept or reject the creation order, and this determination will be communicated to the Authorized Participant by the Administrator on that same date. The Total Basket Bitcoin Amount will be determined as soon as practicable after 4:00 p.m., E.T., on that date. On the business day following the trade date, the Authorized Participant will transfer the Total Basket Bitcoin Amount to the Custodian. Once the Total Basket Bitcoin Amount is received by the Custodian, the Administrator will instruct the Transfer Agent to deliver the creation Baskets to the Authorized Participant.

To create Baskets using the Conversion Procedures, Authorized Participants will send the Administrator a creation order on the business day preceding the trade date. In-cash creation orders must be placed no later than 4:59:59 p.m., E.T., on each business day. The Marketing Agent will accept or reject the creation order, and this determination will be communicated to the Authorized Participants by the Administrator on that same date. Upon receiving instruction from the Administrator that a creation order has been accepted by the Marketing Agent, the Authorized Participant will send 110% of the U.S. dollar value of the Total Basket Bitcoin Amount (“Cash Collateral Amount”). The Total Basket Bitcoin Amount will be determined as soon as practicable after 4:00 p.m., E.T., the following day. Once the Cash Collateral Amount is received by the Administrator, the Sponsor will notify the Liquidity Provider of the creation order. The Liquidity Provider will then provide a firm quote to the Authorized Participant for the Total Basket Bitcoin Amount, determined by using the “Cash Exchange Rate,” which, in the case of a creation order, is the Index spot price at the time at which the Cash Collateral Amount is received by the Administrator, plus applicable fees. If the Liquidity Provider's quote is greater than the Cash Collateral Amount received, the Authorized Participant will be required to pay the difference. Provided that payment for the Total Basket Bitcoin Amount is received by the Administrator, the Liquidity Provider will deliver the bitcoins to the Custodian on the settlement date on behalf of the Authorized Participant. The Liquidity Provider may realize any arbitrage opportunity between the firm quote that it provides to the Authorized Participant and the price at which it sources the requisite bitcoin for the Total Basket Bitcoin Amount. After the Custodian receives the Total Basket Bitcoin Amount, the Administrator will instruct the Transfer Agent to deliver the Creation Baskets to the Authorized Participant. The Administrator will then send the Liquidity Provider the cash equal to the Cash Exchange Rate times the Total Basket Bitcoin Amount, plus applicable fees. The Administrator will return any remaining amount of the Cash Collateral Amount to the Authorized Participant.

To redeem Baskets in-kind, Authorized Participants will send the Administrator a redemption order on the trade date. In-kind redemption orders must be placed no later than 3:59:59 p.m., E.T., on each business day. The Marketing Agent will accept or reject the redemption order and the Total Basket Bitcoin Amount will be determined as soon as practicable after 4:00 p.m., E.T., on that same date. On the second business day following the trade date, the Authorized Participant will deliver to the Transfer Agent redemption Baskets from its account. Once the redemption Baskets are received by the Transfer Agent, the Custodian will transfer the Total Basket Bitcoin Amount to the Authorized Participant and the Transfer Agent will cancel the Shares.

To redeem Baskets using the Conversion Procedures, Authorized Participants will send the Administrator a redemption order. In-cash redemption orders must be placed no later than 4:59:59 p.m., E.T., on each business day. The Marketing Agent will accept or reject the redemption order on that same date. A Liquidity Provider will then provide a firm quote to an Authorized Participant for the Total Basket Bitcoin Amount, determined by using the “Cash Exchange Rate,” which, in the case of a redemption order, is the Index spot price minus applicable fees at the time at which the Administrator notifies the Authorized Participant that an order has been accepted.

The Liquidity Provider will send the Administrator the cash proceeds equal to the Cash Exchange Rate times the Total Basket Bitcoin Amount, minus applicable fees. The Liquidity Provider may realize any arbitrage opportunity between the firm quote that it provides to the Authorized Participant and the price at which it sells the requisite bitcoin for the Total Basket Bitcoin Amount. Once the Authorized Participant delivers the redemption Baskets to the Transfer Agent, the Administrator will send the cash proceeds to the Authorized Participant and the Transfer Agent will cancel the Shares. At the instruction of the Administrator, the Custodian will then send the Liquidity Provider the Total Basket Bitcoin Amount.

The Sponsor represents that Liquidity Providers will only transact with exchanges and OTC trading partners that have met AML and KYC regulatory requirements. Authorized Participants that create and redeem Baskets using the Conversion Procedures will be responsible for reimbursing the relevant Liquidity Provider for any expenses incurred in connection with the Conversion Procedures. The Authorized Participants will also pay a variable fee to the Administrator for its facilitation of the Conversion Procedures. There are no other fees related to the Conversion Procedures that will be charged by the Sponsor or the Custodian.

The creation or redemption of Shares may be suspended generally, or refused with respect to particular requested creations or redemptions, during any period when the transfer books of the Transfer Agent are closed or if circumstances outside the control of the Sponsor or its delegates make it for all practical purposes not feasible to process creation orders or redemption orders. The Administrator may reject an order if such order is not presented in proper form as described in the Participant Agreement or if the fulfillment of the order, in the opinion of counsel, might be unlawful.

The Trust's Web site (https://grayscale.co/bitcoin-investment-trust/) will include quantitative information on a per-Share basis updated on a daily basis, including, for the Trust (i) the current Bitcoin Holdings per Share daily and the prior business day's Bitcoin Holdings and the reported closing price, (ii) the mid-point of the bid-ask price 24 in relation to the Bitcoin Holdings as of the time the Bitcoin Holdings is calculated (“Bid-Ask Price”) and a calculation of the premium or discount of such price against such Bitcoin Holdings and (iii) data in chart format displaying the frequency distribution of discounts and premiums of the daily Bid-Ask Price against the Bitcoin Holdings, within appropriate ranges, for each of the four previous calendar quarters (or for the life of the Trust, if shorter). In addition, on each business day the Trust's Web site will provide pricing information for the Shares.

The Trust's Web site will provide an intra-day indicative value (“IIV”) per Share updated every 15 seconds, as calculated by the Exchange or a third party financial data provider during the Exchange's Core Trading Session (9:30 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., E.T.) 25 The IIV will be calculated by using the prior day's closing Bitcoin Holdings per Share as a base and updating that value during the NYSE Arca Core Trading Session to reflect changes in the value of the Trust's bitcoin holdings during the trading day.

The IIV disseminated during the NYSE Arca Core Trading Session should not be viewed as an actual real time update of the Bitcoin Holdings, which will be calculated only once at the end of each trading day. The IIV will be widely disseminated on a per Share basis every 15 seconds during the NYSE Arca Core Trading Session by one or more major market data vendors. In addition, the IIV will be available through on-line information services.

The Bitcoin Holdings for the Trust will be calculated by the Administrator once a day and will be disseminated daily to all market participants at the same time. To the extent that the Administrator has utilized the cascading set of rules described in “Bitcoin Index Price” above, the Trust's Web site will note the valuation methodology used and the price per bitcoin resulting from such calculation. Quotation and last-sale information regarding the Shares will be disseminated through the facilities of the Consolidated Tape Association (“CTA”).

Quotation and last sale information for bitcoin will be widely disseminated through a variety of major market data vendors, including Bloomberg and Reuters. In addition, the complete real-time price (and volume) data for bitcoin is available by subscription from Reuters and Bloomberg. The spot price of bitcoin is available on a 24-hour basis from major market data vendors, including Bloomberg and Reuters. Information relating to trading, including price and volume information, in bitcoin will be available from major market data vendors and from the exchanges on which bitcoin are traded. The normal trading hours for bitcoin exchanges are 24-hours per day, 365-days per year.

The Trust will provide Web site disclosure of its Bitcoin Holdings daily. The Web site disclosure of the Trust's Bitcoin Holdings will occur at the same time as the disclosure by the Sponsor of the Bitcoin Holdings to Authorized Participants so that all market participants are provided such portfolio information at the same time. Therefore, the same portfolio information will be provided on the public Web site as well as in electronic files provided to Authorized Participants. Accordingly, each investor will have access to the current Bitcoin Holdings of the Trust through the Trust's Web site.

Additional information regarding the Index may be found at https://tradeblock.com/markets/index/.

The Trust will be subject to the criteria in NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8.201, including 8.201(e), for initial and continued listing of the Shares. A minimum of 100,000 Shares will be required to be outstanding at the start of trading. With respect to application of Rule 10A-3 under the Act, the Trust will rely on the exception contained in Rule 10A-3(c)(7). The Exchange believes that the anticipated minimum number of Shares outstanding at the start of trading is sufficient to provide adequate market liquidity.

The Exchange deems the Shares to be equity securities, thus rendering trading in the Shares subject to the Exchange's existing rules governing the trading of equity securities. Trading in the Shares on the Exchange will occur in accordance with NYSE Arca Equities Rule 7.34(a).26 The Exchange has appropriate rules to facilitate transactions in the Shares during all trading sessions. As provided in NYSE Arca Equities Rule 7.6, the minimum price variation (“MPV”) for quoting and entry of orders in equity securities traded on the NYSE Arca Marketplace is $0.01, with the exception of securities that are priced less than $1.00 for which the MPV for order entry is $0.0001.

Further, NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8.201 sets forth certain restrictions on Equity Trading Permit Holders (“ETP Holders”) acting as registered Market Makers in the Shares to facilitate surveillance. Pursuant to NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8.201(g), an ETP Holder acting as a registered Market Maker in the Shares is required to provide the Exchange with information relating to its trading in the underlying bitcoin, related futures or options on futures, or any other related derivatives. Commentary .04 of NYSE Arca Equities Rule 6.3 requires an ETP Holder acting as a registered Market Maker, and its affiliates, in the Shares to establish, maintain and enforce written policies and procedures reasonably designed to prevent the misuse of any material nonpublic information with respect to such products, any components of the related products, any physical asset or commodity underlying the product, applicable currencies, underlying indexes, related futures or options on futures and any related derivative instruments (including the Shares).

As a general matter, the Exchange has regulatory jurisdiction over its ETP Holders and their associated persons, which include any person or entity controlling an ETP Holder. A subsidiary or affiliate of an ETP Holder that does business only in commodities or futures contracts would not be subject to Exchange jurisdiction, but the Exchange could obtain information regarding the activities of such subsidiary or affiliate through surveillance sharing agreements with regulatory organizations of which such subsidiary or affiliate is a member.

With respect to trading halts, the Exchange may consider all relevant factors in exercising its discretion to halt or suspend trading in the Shares. Trading on the Exchange in the Shares may be halted because of market conditions or for reasons that, in the view of the Exchange, make trading in the Shares inadvisable. These may include: (1) The extent to which conditions in the underlying bitcoin markets have caused disruptions and/or lack of trading or (2) whether other unusual conditions or circumstances detrimental to the maintenance of a fair and orderly market are present. In addition, trading in Shares will be subject to trading halts caused by extraordinary market volatility pursuant to the Exchange's “circuit breaker” rule.27

The Exchange will halt trading in the Shares if the Bitcoin Holdings of the Trust is not calculated or disseminated daily. The Exchange may halt trading during the day in which an interruption occurs to the dissemination of the IIV or the Index spot price, as discussed above. If the interruption to the dissemination of the IIV or the Index spot price persists past the trading day in which it occurs, the Exchange will halt trading no later than the beginning of the trading day following the interruption.28 In addition, if the Exchange becomes aware that the Bitcoin Holdings with respect to the Shares is not disseminated to all market participants at the same time, it will halt trading in the Shares until such time as the Bitcoin Holdings is available to all market participants.

The Exchange represents that trading in the Shares will be subject to the existing trading surveillances administered by the Exchange, as well as cross-market surveillances administered by the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (“FINRA”) on behalf of the Exchange, which are designed to detect violations of Exchange rules and applicable federal securities laws.29 The Exchange represents that these procedures are adequate to properly monitor Exchange trading of the Shares in all trading sessions and to deter and detect violations of Exchange rules and federal securities laws applicable to trading on the Exchange.

The surveillances referred to above generally focus on detecting securities trading outside their normal patterns, which could be indicative of manipulative or other violative activity. When such situations are detected, surveillance analysis follows and investigations are opened, where appropriate, to review the behavior of all relevant parties for all relevant trading violations.

The Exchange or FINRA, on behalf of the Exchange, or both, will communicate as needed regarding trading in the Shares with other markets and other entities that are members of the Intermarket Surveillance Group (“ISG”), and the Exchange or FINRA, on behalf of the Exchange, or both, may obtain trading information regarding trading in the Shares from such markets and other entities. In addition, the Exchange may obtain information regarding trading in the Shares from markets and other entities that are members of ISG or with which the Exchange has in place a comprehensive surveillance sharing agreement (“CSSA”).30

Also, pursuant to NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8.201(g), the Exchange is able to obtain information regarding trading in the Shares and the underlying bitcoin or any bitcoin derivative through ETP Holders acting as registered Market Makers, in connection with such ETP Holders' proprietary or customer trades through ETP Holders which they effect on any relevant market.

The Exchange also has a general policy prohibiting the distribution of material, non-public information by its employees.

All statements and representations made in this filing regarding (i) the description of the portfolio, (ii) limitations on portfolio holdings or reference assets or (iii) the applicability of Exchange rules and surveillance procedures shall constitute continued listing requirements for listing the Shares on the Exchange.

The issuer has represented to the Exchange that it will advise the Exchange of any failure by the Trust to comply with the continued listing requirements, and, pursuant to its obligations under Section 19(g)(1) of the Act, the Exchange will monitor for compliance with the continued listing requirements. If the Trust is not in compliance with the applicable listing requirements, the Exchange will commence delisting procedures under NYSE Arca Equities Rule 5.5(m).

Prior to the commencement of trading, the Exchange will inform its ETP Holders in an “Information Bulletin” of the special characteristics and risks associated with trading the Shares. Specifically, the Information Bulletin will discuss the following: (1) The procedures for purchases and redemptions of Shares in Baskets (including noting that the Shares are not individually redeemable); (2) NYSE Arca Equities Rule 9.2(a), which imposes a duty of due diligence on its ETP Holders to learn the essential facts relating to every customer prior to trading the Shares; (3) how information regarding how the Index and the IIV are disseminated; (4) the requirement that ETP Holders deliver a prospectus to investors purchasing newly issued Shares prior to or concurrently with the confirmation of a transaction; (5) the possibility that trading spreads and the resulting premium or discount on the Shares may widen during the Opening and Late Trading Sessions, when an updated IIV will not be calculated or publicly disseminated; and (6) trading information. For example, the Information Bulletin will advise ETP Holders, prior to the commencement of trading, of the prospectus delivery requirements applicable to the Trust. The Exchange notes that investors purchasing Shares directly from the Trust will receive a prospectus. ETP Holders purchasing Shares from the Trust for resale to investors will deliver a prospectus to such investors.

In addition, the Information Bulletin will reference that the Trust is subject to various fees and expenses as described in the Registration Statement. The Information Bulletin will disclose that information about the Shares of the Trust is publicly available on the Trust's Web site.

The Information Bulletin will also discuss any relief, if granted, by the Commission or the staff from any rules under the Act.

The basis under the Act for this proposed rule change is the requirement under Section 6(b)(5) 31 that an exchange have rules that are designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to remove impediments to, and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest.

The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices in that the Shares will be listed and traded on the Exchange pursuant to the initial and continued listing criteria in NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8.201. The Exchange has in place surveillance procedures that are adequate to properly monitor trading in the Shares in all trading sessions and to deter and detect violations of Exchange rules and applicable federal securities laws. The Exchange or FINRA, on behalf of the Exchange, or both, will communicate as needed regarding trading in the Shares with other markets that are members of the ISG, and the Exchange or FINRA, on behalf of the Exchange, or both, may obtain trading information regarding trading in the Shares from such markets. In addition, the Exchange may obtain information regarding trading in the Shares from markets that are members of ISG or with which the Exchange has in place a CSSA. Also, pursuant to NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8.201(g), the Exchange is able to obtain information regarding trading in the Shares and the underlying bitcoin or any bitcoin derivative through ETP Holders acting as registered Market Makers, in connection with such ETP Holders' proprietary or customer trades through ETP Holders which they effect on any relevant market.

The proposed rule change is designed to promote just and equitable principles of trade and to protect investors and the public interest in that there is a considerable amount of bitcoin price and bitcoin market information available on public Web sites and through professional and subscription services. Investors may obtain on a 24-hour basis bitcoin pricing information based on the spot price for bitcoin from various financial information service providers. The closing price and settlement prices of bitcoin are readily available from the bitcoin exchanges and other publicly available Web sites. In addition, such prices are published in public sources, or on-line information services such as Bloomberg and Reuters. The Trust will provide Web site disclosure of its bitcoin holdings daily. Quotation and last-sale information regarding the Shares will be disseminated through the facilities of the CTA. The IIV will be widely disseminated on a per Share basis every 15 seconds during the NYSE Arca Core Trading Session (normally 9:30 a.m., E.T., to 4:00 p.m., E.T.) by one or more major market data vendors. In addition, the IIV will be available through on-line information services. The Exchange represents that the Exchange may halt trading during the day in which an interruption to the dissemination of the IIV or the Index spot price occurs. If the interruption to the dissemination of the IIV or the Index spot price persists past the trading day in which it occurred, the Exchange will halt trading no later than the beginning of the trading day following the interruption. In addition, if the Exchange becomes aware that the Bitcoin Holdings with respect to the Shares is not disseminated to all market participants at the same time, it will halt trading in the Shares until such time as the Bitcoin Holdings is available to all market participants. The Bitcoin Holdings per Share will be calculated daily and made available to all market participants at the same time. One or more major market data vendors will disseminate for the Trust on a daily basis information with respect to the most recent Bitcoin Holdings per Share and Shares outstanding.

The proposed rule change is designed to perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest in that it will facilitate the listing and trading of an additional type of exchange-traded product that will enhance competition among market participants, to the benefit of investors and the marketplace. As noted above, the Exchange has in place surveillance procedures relating to trading in the Shares and may obtain information via ISG from other exchanges that are members of ISG or with which the Exchange has entered into a CSSA. In addition, as noted above, investors will have ready access to information regarding the Trust's bitcoin holdings, IIV and quotation and last sale information for the Shares.

The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange notes that the proposed rule change will facilitate the listing and trading of an additional type of exchange-traded product, and the first such product based on bitcoin, which will enhance competition among market participants, to the benefit of investors and the marketplace.

No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change.

The Commission is instituting proceedings pursuant to Section 19(b)(2)(B) of the Act 32 to determine whether the proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment No. 1, should be approved or disapproved. Institution of proceedings is appropriate at this time in view of the legal and policy issues raised by the proposed rule change, as discussed below. Institution of proceedings does not indicate that the Commission has reached any conclusions with respect to any of the issues involved. Rather, as described below, the Commission seeks and encourages interested persons to provide comments on the proposed rule change.

Pursuant to Section 19(b)(2)(B) of the Act,33 the Commission is providing notice of the grounds for disapproval under consideration. The Commission is instituting proceedings to allow for additional analysis of the proposed rule change's consistency with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act, which requires, among other things, that the rules of a national securities exchange be “designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices” and “to protect investors and the public interest.” 34

The Commission requests that interested persons provide written submissions of their views, data, and arguments with respect to the issues identified above, as well as any other concerns they may have with the proposal, as modified by Amendment No. 1. In particular, the Commission invites the written views of interested persons concerning whether the proposal is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) or any other provision of the Act, or the rules and regulations thereunder. Although there do not appear to be any issues relevant to approval or disapproval which would be facilitated by an oral presentation of views, data, and arguments, the Commission will consider, pursuant to Rule 19b-4, any request for an opportunity to make an oral presentation.35

Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments regarding whether the proposal, as modified by Amendment No. 1, should be approved or disapproved by May 18, 2017. Any person who wishes to file a rebuttal to any other person's submission must file that rebuttal by June 1, 2017. The Commission asks that commenters address the sufficiency of the Exchange's statements in support of the proposal and statements of commenters.36 In addition to any other comments commenters may wish to submit about the proposed rule change, the Commission invites commenters' views concerning any features that distinguish the Exchange's proposal from other proposals to list and trade shares of commodity-trust ETPs.

Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:

• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or

• Send an email to [email protected]. Please include File Number SR-NYSEArca-2017-06 on the subject line.

• Send paper comments in triplicate to Brent J. Fields, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.

On February 16, 2017, ICE Clear Credit LLC (“ICC”) 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 (SR-ICC-2017-003) to amend ICC's End-of-Day Price Discovery Policies and Procedures to implement a new price submission process for Clearing Participants (“CP”). The proposed rule change was published for comment in the Federal Register on March 9, 2017.3 The Commission received no comments regarding the proposed changes.

Section 19(b)(2) of the Act provides that within 45 days of the publication of the notice of the filing or a proposed rule change, or within such longer period up to 90 days as the Commission may designate if it finds such longer period to be appropriate and publishes its reasons for so finding, or as to which the self-regulatory organization consents, the Commission shall either approve the proposed rule change, disapprove the proposed rule change, or institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be disapproved.4 The 45th day from the publication of the Notice is April 23, 2017.

The Commission is extending the 45-day time period for Commission action on the proposed rule change. ICC proposes to revise its End of Day Price Discovery Policies and Procedures to implement a new Clearing Participant price submission process to remove the intermediary agent through which Clearing Participants currently submit required prices, and replace it with a process through which Clearing Participants submit prices directly to ICC. The Commission finds that it is appropriate to designate a longer period within which to take action on the proposed rule change so that it has sufficient time to consider ICC's proposed rule change and the associated operational risks.

Accordingly, the Commission, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act, extends the period by which the Commission shall either approve or disapprove, or institute proceedings to determine whether to disapprove, the proposed rule change (File No. SR-ICC-2017-003) to no later than June 7, 2017.

On February 17, 2017, Bats BZX Exchange, Inc. (“BZX”) 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 list and trade shares of the Amplify YieldShares Oil Hedged MLP Fund, a series of the Amplify ETF Trust. The proposed rule change was published for comment in the Federal Register on March 7, 2017.3 On March 30, 2017, the Exchange filed Amendment No. 2 to the proposed rule change, and on April 7, 2017, the Exchange filed Amendment No. 3 to the proposed rule change.4 The Exchange filed Amendment No. 4 to the proposed rule change on April 19, 2017.5 The Commission has received no comment letters on the proposed rule change.

Section 19(b)(2) of the Act 6 provides that within 45 days of the publication of notice of the filing of a proposed rule change, or within such longer period up to 90 days as the Commission may designate if it finds such longer period to be appropriate and publishes its reasons for so finding, or as to which the self-regulatory organization consents, the Commission shall either approve the proposed rule change, disapprove the proposed rule change, or institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be disapproved. The 45th day after publication of the notice for this proposed rule change is April 21, 2017. The Commission is extending this 45-day time period.

The Commission finds it appropriate to designate a longer period within which to take action on the proposed rule change so that it has sufficient time to consider this proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment Nos. 3 and 4. Accordingly, the Commission, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,7 designates June 5, 2017, as the date by which the Commission shall either approve or disapprove, or institute proceedings to determine whether to disapprove, the proposed rule change (File No. SR-BatsBZX-2017-14), as modified by Amendment Nos. 3 and 4.

• Use the Commission's Internet submission form (http://www.sec.gov/info/smallbus/acsec.shtml); or