1 Supporting Statement for Renewal of Existing Information Collection Request for Confidentiality Rules 1. Identification of the Information Collection 1( a) Renewal of Existing Information Collection Request for Confidentiality Rules; EPA ICR No. 1665.06, OMB CONTROL No 2020 0003.

1( b) Short Characterization The U. S. Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA) originally established the procedures described in 40 CFR, part 2, subpart B, in 1976 to protect the confidentiality of information while also respecting the rights of the public to obtain access to information under the Freedom of Information Act ( FOIA, 5 U. S. C. § 552).

This request for the renewal of an existing information collection request ( ICR) covers the existing provisions in 40 CFR, part 2, subpart B. These provisions describe:

the procedures industry must follow in asserting and justifying confidentiality claims;

the procedures EPA must follow in reviewing business information claimed as confidential, notifying and providing affected businesses with an opportunity to comment, reviewing industry substantiations, and making final confidentiality determinations; and

the requirement for the signing and maintenance of confidentiality agreements by all contractor/ subcontractor employees who are given access to confidential information in the course of performing work for EPA.

2. Need For and Use of the Collection 2( a) Need/ Authority for the Collection EPA administers a number of environmental protection statutes, ( e. g., the Clean Water Act; the Clean Air Act; the Toxic Substances Control Act; the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act; and the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act) under which the Agency collects information, such as data on toxic chemicals, waste streams, industrial processes, and regulatory compliance, from facilities in many economic sectors. In addition, businesses submit information to EPA without the Agency requesting it. In many instances, companies consider the information they submit to EPA to be confidential business information ( CBI).

In accordance with 40 CFR part 2, subpart B, when EPA finds it necessary to make a 2 final confidentiality determination ( e. g., in response to a FOIA request or in the course of rulemaking or litigation), or an advance confidentiality determination, it notifies the affected business by sending a letter requesting substantiation of the confidentiality claim. This letter provides the affected business with an opportunity to submit comments ( i. e., a substantiation). Industry comments are very helpful to EPA in making final confidentiality determinations.

When EPA utilizes contractor/ subcontractor services for activities involving CBI, the contractor/ subcontractor must ensure that all its employees who will be given access to CBI have signed confidentiality agreements. These agreements state that employees shall use the confidential information only for the work in the contract/ subcontract, shall refrain from disclosing the information, and shall return all copies of the information to EPA upon request or completion of the project. The contractor/ subcontractor company must also maintain a file of these confidentiality agreements.

The procedures laid out in 40 CFR, part 2, subpart B, derive their authority from FOIA, as amended, 5 U. S. C. 552, the Trade Secrets Act, as amended, 18 U. S. C. 1905, the Federal housekeeping statute, as amended, 5 U. S. C. 301, the Administrative Procedure Act, as amended, 5 U. S. C. 553, and the confidentiality provisions of environmental statutes administered by EPA, as follows:

° § § 114, 206, 208, 301, and 307, Clean Air Act, as amended ( 42 U. S. C. 7414, 7525, 7542, 7601, 7607) ° § § 308, 501, and 509( a), Clean Water Act, as amended ( 33 U. S. C. 1318, 1361, 1369( a)) ° § 13, Noise Control Act of 1972, as amended ( 42 U. S. C. 4912) ° § § 1445 and 1450, Safe Drinking Water Act, as amended ( 42 U. S. C. 300j 4, 300j 9) ° § § 2002, 3001, 3007, and 9005, Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, as amended ( 42 U. S. C. 6912, 6921, 6927, 6991d) ° § § 8( c), 11, 12( b), and 14, Toxic Substances Control Act, as amended ( 15 U. S. C. 2607( c), 2610, 2611( b), 2613) ° § § 10, 12, and 25, Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, as amended, ( 7 U. S. C. 136h, 136j, 136w) ° § 408( i), Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, as amended ( 21 U. S. C. 346a( i)) ° § § 104( f) and 108, Marine Protection Research and Sanctuaries Act of 1972, as amended ( 33 U. S. C. 1414( f), 1418) ° § § 104 and 115, Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980, as amended ( 42 U. S. C. 9604, 9615) ° § 505, Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act, as amended ( 15 U. S. C. 2005) [ REPEALED]

2( b) Use/ Users of the Data EPA will use the information received from industry to help determine whether 3 particular information has been claimed as confidential, whether the Agency needs to make a formal confidentiality determination, and whether the information in question is indeed entitled to confidential treatment under Exemption 4 of FOIA.

3. Non Duplication, Consultations and Other Collection Criteria 3( a) Non Duplication This information is not elsewhere collected from businesses.

3( b) Public Notice Required Prior to ICR Submission to OMB EPA published a notice of the renewal of the existing information collection request for confidentiality rules in the Federal Register on April 10, 2003 ( 68 FR 17631) and invited public comments. EPA received comments from one organization, CDM Federal Programs Corporation ( CDM), which provided a burden estimate for preparing a standard substantiation ( no search and review of documents required) of a CBI claim. CDM estimates that it takes up to 4 hours at an average cost of $ 125.00 to prepare a standard substantiation of a CBI claim. This burden estimate was added to the data sets for the prior renewal information collection request ( 2000 Renewal ICR) to determine an average total hour burden per substantiation request. CDM stated that the burden to prepare a substantiation may increase substantially if they are required to search, locate, and review documents stored off site.

3( c) Consultations For the 2000 Renewal ICR, EPA contacted a sample of nine businesses to evaluate the industry burden associated with preparing a substantiation. Four of these nine businesses responded, reporting burden estimates varying from 6 to 18 hours. The hourly wages for the employees involved in the substantiation process ranged from $ 50.00/ hour to $ 140.00/ hour. In addition, EPA requested burden estimates from EPA program and regional offices. Their responses provided the basis for the Agency burden estimates.

As part of its efforts for renewing this ICR, EPA sought to evaluate whether the burden to small businesses associated with preparing substantiations fell within the burden range established in the 2000 Renewal ICR. Using contact information provided by multiple EPA offices, the Agency contacted a number of small businesses to identify those that have substantiated CBI claims and were willing to provide estimates of the burden associated with preparing a substantiation. Most of the businesses EPA contacted had never received a substantiation request, and many had no knowledge of the substantiation process. See Attachment A for further details on the Agency's efforts to identify and survey small businesses. 4 However, three small businesses did respond to EPA's survey, providing their burden estimates. These estimates were added to the industry burden data sets for the 2000 Renewal ICR to determine an average total hour burden per substantiation request.

EPA also received a comment from Eastman Chemical Company (" Eastman") on the Federal Register notice that announced that EPA was forwarding the ICR paperwork to OMB for review ( 68 FR 52766; September 5, 2003). Eastman did not comment on the burden estimates or the labor estimates. The company did comment on the wording of the letters, and asked for changes in certain language in the questions to align the questions better with the regulations on which the letters are based ( 40 CFR § 2.204( e)( 4)). EPA found merit with several of the points made in the comment and made changes to the questions in the letters based on the comment. However, the changes are meant to clarify the language and should not affect the burden estimates. Details of the changes can be found in the response to comment, which EPA is placing in the docket.

3( d) Effects of Less Frequent Collection The letters are sent only when EPA finds it necessary to make a final confidentiality determination ( e. g., in response to a FOIA request or in the course of rulemaking or litigation) or an advance confidentiality determination. The affected business is notified by sending a letter requesting substantiation of the confidentiality claim. This letter provides the affected business with an opportunity to submit comments ( i. e., a substantiation). If the letters were sent to affected entities less frequently, these entities would lose the opportunity to substantiate their CBI claims. This would be a disservice to the public.

3( e) General Guidelines Only one provision of this collection exceeds the Paperwork Reduction Act guidelines at 5 CFR 1320.5( d)( 2). This collection calls for responses to be furnished to EPA within 15 working days after the business receives the letter requesting substantiation. Under 5 CFR 1320.5( d)( 2)( ii), EPA must justify why the response needs to be prepared within a period shorter than 30 days after receipt of the collection. In the context of addressing the time frame for determinations under the FOIA, EPA " tentatively" determined that 15 days is " a reasonable period for the business to furnish comments and substantiating data concerning its claim." 40 FR 21987, 21988, 21989 ( May 20, 1975) and 41 FR 36902, 36908 ( September 1, 1976). EPA has found through experience in the years since these regulations were promulgated ( at 40 CFR part 2) that 15 days fits well with the general timetable of FOIA responses. In addition, the 15 day period enables EPA to commence other activities such as rulemaking in a timely manner since the final CBI determination can be made with relatively little delay. 5 3( f) Confidentiality and Sensitive Questions 1. Confidentiality Under EPA's current CBI regulations ( 40 CFR part 2, subpart B), respondents may claim substantiations submitted to EPA as confidential.

2. Sensitive Questions Not applicable. This information collection does not include questions of a sensitive nature.

4. The Respondents and the Information Requested 4( a) Respondents/ SIC Codes Respondents could potentially include any business submitting a document to EPA that it claims as CBI. EPA receives such information from both the manufacturing ( SIC codes 20 39) and non manufacturing sectors ( no SIC codes identified).

4( b) Information Requested A. Substantiation of confidentiality claim Whenever EPA finds it necessary to determine the confidentiality of information that has been claimed as CBI ( e. g., in response to a FOIA request or in connection with rulemaking or litigation, or with regard to an advance confidentiality determination) ( 40 CFR 2.204 ( a), ( c) and ( d), 2.206), it must notify affected businesses orally and in writing and provide them with an opportunity to comment ( 40 CFR 2.204( e)).

With this Renewal ICR, EPA is proposing to use an updated Request for Substantiation letter (" proposed letter"). The proposed letter is made up of two separate sample letters that address different factual situations: Sample Letter A, which requests a substantiation in response to a FOIA request, and Sample Letter B, which requests a substantiation in support of Agency rulemaking or litigation, in the case of an advance confidentiality determination, or for any other Agency purpose. The use of two letters is a clarification of existing EPA procedures.

Some of the information requested differs slightly from the current Request for Substantiation letter, concerning the possible voluntary nature of the submission and the issue of substantial competitive harm, and takes into account the vast amount of information now available electronically.

1. Data Items 6 The written notice from EPA ( 40 CFR 2.204( e)( 1) and ( 4)) invites the business's comments on the following:

( i) The portions of the information which are alleged to be entitled to confidential treatment; ( ii) The period of time for which confidential treatment is desired by the business ( e. g., until a certain date, until the occurrence of a specified event, or permanently); ( iii) The purpose for which the information was furnished to EPA and the approximate date of submission, if known; ( iv) Whether a business confidentiality claim accompanied the information when it was received by EPA; ( v) Measures taken by the business to guard against undesired disclosure of the information to others; ( vi) The extent to which the information has been disclosed to others, and the precautions taken in connection therewith; ( vii) Pertinent confidentiality determinations, if any, by EPA or other Federal agencies; and a copy of any such determination, or reference to it, if available; ( viii) Whether the business asserts that disclosure of the information would be likely to result in substantial harmful effects on the business's competitive position, and if so, what those harmful effects would be, why they should be viewed as substantial, and an explanation of the causal relationship between disclosure and such harmful effects; and ( ix) Whether the business asserts that the information is voluntarily submitted information as defined in 40 CFR § 2.201( i), and if so, whether and why disclosure of the information would tend to lessen the availability to EPA of similar information in the future.

2. Respondent Activities To complete the collection, the respondent must:

a. Read EPA's request for comments; b. Review the information claimed as confidential; and c. Prepare and submit a substantiation to EPA.

B. Designation by Business of Addressee for Notices and Inquiries Pursuant to 40 CFR 2.213, a business may elect to designate an official contact for inquiries and notices concerning confidentiality claims.

1. Data Items Name and address of the business making the designation, and the name and address 7 of the designated person or office.

2. Respondent Activities To identify and submit the information to EPA.

C. Confidentiality agreements When EPA utilizes the services of contractors/ subcontractors, all contractor/ subcontractor employees who may be given access to confidential information must first sign confidentiality agreements stating that they will honor the terms of the contract/ subcontract which requires protection of CBI. See, e. g., 40 CFR 2.301( h)( 2)( ii).

1. Data Items Signed confidentiality agreements.

2. Respondent activities The contractor must: a. Require each employee given access to CBI to read and sign a confidentiality agreement, and b. Maintain a file of such agreements. See 40 CFR 2.301( h)( 2)( iv).

In addition to the information collections discussed above, when EPA intends to disclose CBI to contractors/ subcontractors, other Federal agencies, or Congress, EPA generally notifies affected businesses. During a specified period of time prior to disclosure, businesses may submit comments. Industry has rarely submitted comments to EPA under these circumstances.

5. The Information Collected   Agency Activities, Collection Methodology, and Information Management 5( a) Agency Activities 1. Review and make a preliminary determination of whether business information may be entitled to confidential treatment. This review would be undertaken in response to a FOIA request or when EPA desires to determine the confidentiality of information within its possession for other purposes ( e. g., rulemaking, litigation, or an advance confidentiality determination). It would involve determining whether a business confidentiality claim exists or whether a Federal court or an EPA legal office has previously determined that the information in question is entitled to treatment as CBI. 8 2. Notify the affected business orally and in writing that the Agency is determining the confidentiality of the information and provide the business with an opportunity to comment. 3. Review the substantiation received ( if any) and make a final determination whether the business information in question is entitled to confidential treatment. This determination will be made by the appropriate EPA legal office as described in 40 CFR 2.205.

5( b) Collection Methodology and Management The types of information that are requested are described under 4( b) above. EPA notifies affected businesses orally and in writing that it is determining the confidentiality of information they have submitted and affords them the opportunity to comment. Affected businesses may submit comments by the date specified in the notice ( i. e., postmarked or hand delivered no later than the specified date); or if a request for an extension of the comment period is made by the business and approved by the EPA legal office before the comments are due, the comment period may be extended ( 40 CFR 2.205( b)( 2)).

Confidential information that is submitted to EPA is protected in accordance with the policies and procedures discussed in ( 1) Chapter 8, " Information Security," of EPA's Information Resources Management ( IRM) Policy Manual, Directive 2100, revised December 20, 1999; ( 2) the EPA Information Security Manual, Directive 2195A1, December 20, 1999; and ( 3) information security procedures issued by EPA organizations with statutory authority for the information [ e. g., EPA's Office of Prevention, Pesticides, and Toxic Substances has developed specific procedures for protecting the confidentiality of information obtained under the Toxic Substances Control Act ( TSCA) and the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act ( FIFRA)].

5( c) Small Entity Flexibility EPA does not have the flexibility to waive the need for substantiations from small entities for several reasons: ( 1) EPA is required to disclose information that is requested under FOIA, unless the information is specifically exempt; ( 2) if EPA discloses information that is entitled to confidential treatment, the Federal government could be held liable under the Federal Tort Claims Act and individual Federal employees could be subject to criminal liability under the Trade Secrets Act and other statutes, and ( 3) the submitter of the information is in the best position to explain why particular information should be entitled to confidential treatment.

5( d) Collection Schedule The collection of substantiations occurs on a case by case basis as needed. 9 6. Estimating the Burden and Cost of the Collection See Table 1 for a summary of the burden on both EPA and respondents, Table 2 for the estimated burden on respondents, and Table 3 for the estimated burden on EPA.

6( a) Estimating Respondent Burden and Cost A. Substantiation of confidentiality claim EPA receives approximately 1384 FOIA requests for information that is claimed as CBI each year. In addition, there are approximately 617 other instances per year that require EPA to examine the confidentiality of business information. Yet formal confidentiality determinations are not always required. For example, after consulting with an individual who requested information under FOIA, the Agency may be able to provide the information that is of most interest to the requester without disclosing any CBI. In other cases, EPA may find that a Federal Court or EPA legal office has previously determined that the information in question is entitled to confidential treatment, and further examination of the information may not be required.

EPA estimates that in accordance with the procedures outlined in 40 CFR part 2, subpart B, the Agency would notify 543 businesses annually that a final confidentiality determination on information the business has previously claimed as CBI ( or which could be expected to be CBI) is being made, and provide them with an opportunity to submit comments explaining why previously submitted information should be treated as confidential. Each affected business then has an opportunity to submit comments explaining why the information should be protected ( i. e., a substantiation). Of the 543 businesses, EPA estimates that approximately 443 businesses would respond by submitting substantiations.

EPA estimates that it takes industry approximately 14.20 hours ( 2.20 attorney hrs., 4.00 manager hrs., 7.00 technical hrs., and 1.00 clerical hr.) and $ 1,106.70 ($ 60.00/ attorney hr., $ 33.22/ manager hr., $ 35.01/ technical hr., and $ 17.05/ clerical hr.; wages are multiplied by 2.1 to ensure costs are fully loaded to include additional administrative costs) in labor to prepare and submit each substantiation; or a total of 6,290.60 hours at a cost of $ 490,268.10 in labor for all 443 substantiations. For those 100 businesses that do not submit substantiations, they are still likely to spend about 1 hour ( 0.50 manager hr. and 0.50 technical hour) at a cost of $ 71.64 ($ 33.22/ manager hr. and $ 35.01/ technical hr. multiplied by 2.1) in labor to review EPA's notice, examine the information in question, and make a decision not to respond; or a total of 100 hours at a cost of $ 7,164.00 in labor costs for reviewing and deciding not to respond in 100 cases. The total burden on industry to review and, if desired, respond to 543 EPA substantiation requests is 6,390.60 hours at a cost of $ 497,432.10 in labor. 10 B. Confidentiality agreements When EPA utilizes the services of contractors/ subcontractors in implementing 40 CFR, part 2, subpart B, all contractor/ subcontractor employees who may be given access to confidential information must first sign confidentiality agreements stating that they will honor the terms of the contract which requires the protection of CBI. In addition, the contractor/ subcontractor businesses must maintain a file of all such agreements. EPA estimates that there are about 129 contractor/ subcontractor businesses that handle CBI in connection with their work for EPA each year. These 129 contractor/ subcontractor businesses together have a total of approximately 658 employees who must sign confidentiality agreements each year. Each employee would need approximately 0.10 hour to review and sign an agreement, at a cost of $ 6.98 in labor ( 0.10 manager hr. at $ 33.22/ manager hr. multiplied by 2.1); employees' review and signature of all agreements would require approximately 65.80 hours at a cost of $ 4,592.84 in labor per year. In addition, each subcontractor/ contractor business would need approximately 0.50 hour at a cost of $ 17.90 in labor per year to maintain a file of employee confidentiality agreements ( 0.50 clerical hr. at $ 17.05/ clerical hr. multiplied by 2.1); the 129 contractor/ subcontractor businesses together would require a total of 64.50 hours at a labor cost of $ 2,309.10 to maintain a file of confidentiality agreements. The total burden for signing and maintaining confidentiality agreements would thus be 130.30 hours at a cost of $ 6,901.94.

C. Overall Respondent Burden The overall burden for handling confidentiality claims   including the substantiation process and the signing/ maintaining of confidentiality agreements   would be 6,520.90 hours at a total labor cost of $ 504,334.04 per year. EPA estimates that no capital costs or operation and maintenance costs would be incurred as a result of this information collection.

6( b) Estimating Agency Burden and Cost The burden on EPA involved in evaluating confidentiality claims, notifying affected businesses, and making final confidentiality determinations varies depending on the complexity of the claim. In some cases, the information that industry claims as confidential is specific and easy to identify; yet in other cases, entire reports may be claimed as confidential. In the latter case, a significant amount of time may be required just to review the information in question. In other cases, EPA may be able to satisfy a FOIA request without going through the entire substantiation process, if after conferring with a requestor, the Agency is able to provide the information of interest without releasing CBI.

Based on past experience, EPA estimates that on average, it takes approximately 7 hours ( 4 attorney hrs., 2 technical hrs., and 1 clerical hour) at a cost of $ 388.88 11 ($ 39.31/ attorney hr., GS 14, Step 5; $ 33.26/ technical hr., GS 13, Step 5; and $ 19.29/ clerical hr., GS 9, Step 5; wages are multiplied by 1.6 to ensure costs are fully loaded to include additional administrative costs) to conduct an initial review of a confidentiality claim and prepare and request a substantiation from the submitter. Thus, in order to review the information in question and prepare approximately 543 substantiation requests per year, EPA would spend a total of 3,801.00 hours in staff time at a total labor cost of $ 211,161.84.

In addition, after industry comments are received, it takes approximately 8 hours ( 6 attorney hrs. and 2 technical hrs.) at a cost of $ 483.81 ($ 39.31/ attorney hr., GS 14, Step 5 and $ 33.26/ technical hr., GS 13, Step 5 multiplied by 1.6) to review the comments and determine whether the information that is claimed as confidential is indeed entitled to confidential treatment. It would take EPA a total of 3,544.00 hours at a total labor cost of $ 214,327.83 to review the approximately 443 substantiations that would be submitted by industry. ( Of the 543 businesses, EPA estimates that approximately 443 businesses would respond by submitting substantiations.)

The total burden to EPA to review the initial information submitted to EPA, make a preliminary determination of confidentiality, request comments from industry, review the substantiations received, and make final confidentiality determinations would be approximately 7,345.00 hours at a total labor cost of $ 425,489.67 per year.

6( c) Bottom Line Burden Hours and Cost 1. Substantiation of Confidentiality Claims For 443 Businesses Submitting Substantiations: Burden: 14.20 hrs. x 443 = 6,290.60 hrs. Costs: $ 1,106.70 x 443 = $ 490,268.10 For 100 Businesses Deciding Not To Respond: Burden: 1 hr. x 100 = 100 hrs. Costs: $ 71.64 x 100 = $ 7,164.00 Totals: 6,290.60 + 100 = 6,390.60 hrs. $ 490,268.10 + $ 7,164.00 = $ 497,432.10 2. Confidentiality agreements For 658 Contractor/ Subcontractor Employees To Review and Sign Confidentiality Agreements: Burden: 0.10 hours x 658 respondents/ year = 65.80 hrs. Costs: $ 6.98 x 658 = $ 4,592.84 12 For 129 Contractor/ Subcontractor Businesses to Maintain and File Confidentiality Agreements: Burden: 0.50 hours x 129 respondents/ year = 64.50 hours Costs: $ 17.90 x 129 respondents/ year = $ 2,309.10 Totals: 65.80 hrs. + 64.50 hrs. = 130.30 hrs. Costs: $ 4,592.84 + $ 2,309.10 = $ 6,901.94 3. Total Burden and Costs for Respondents:

Burden: 6,390.60 hrs. + 130.30 = 6,520.90 hours Costs: $ 497,432.10 + $ 6,901.94 = $ 504,334.04 4. The Agency Tally For Initial Review, Preliminary Determination, and Request for Substantiation: Burden: 7 hrs. x 543 = 3,801.00 hrs. Costs: $ 388.88 x 543 = $ 211,161.84 For Review of Substantiations and Final Confidentiality Determination: Burden: 8 hrs. x 443 = 3,544.00 hrs. Costs: $ 483.81 x 443 = $ 214,327.83 Totals: Burden: 3,801.00 hrs. + 3,544.00 hrs. = 7,345.00 hrs. Costs: $ 211,161.84 + $ 214,327.83 = $ 425,489.67 5. Variations in the Annual Bottom Line Variations in the annual burden on EPA and respondents could potentially occur due to changes in:

° the number of FOIA requests that EPA receives for information that has been claimed as confidential; ° the number of times that EPA determines that a formal confidentiality determination is necessary and notifies affected businesses, providing them with an opportunity to comment; and ° the number of times that affected businesses decide to submit substantiations.

At this time, EPA does not foresee any significant changes in the annual burdens outlined above.

6( d) Reasons for Change in Burden 13 EPA estimates that the overall burden will not be affected by the new Request for Substantiation letter ( i. e., proposed letter). EPA anticipates that the letter's new inquiries will not require any research beyond that needed to answer the questions that appear in the current letter, or generally needed to prepare the substantiation. Also, the Agency anticipates that the respondents will be able to answer these new inquiries with a minimal amount of time and effort.

Adding the new data sets collected for this Renewal ICR to the data collected for the 2000 Renewal ICR results in an average hours per substantiation request estimate of 10.80 hours. A review of these new data sets reveals that the burden to these four businesses ( three small businesses) associated with preparing substantiations falls within the same burden range as reported for the 2000 Renewal ICR. In addition, these new data points represent a small sample size of small businesses and low hourly burden estimates characteristic of substantiations requiring minimal document search and review efforts. As such, consideration of these new data points does not merit modifying the 14.00 hour industry burden estimate reported in the 2000 Renewal ICR.

The total hours per request estimate reported in section 6( a) A. ( 14.20 hours) includes 0.20 hours per request for an attorney to read EPA's request for a substantiation. This change reflects a minor adjustment to the 2000 Renewal ICR burden estimate to correct an oversight when preparing the prior burden estimate. The previous estimate for the total hours per request only incorporated burden estimates for one manager and one technical employee to review EPA's request for substantiation. As new burden data did not result in a significant burden change, and burden will be unaffected by the new Request for Substantiation letter, no other adjustments have been made to the estimate of 14.00 hours per request ( calculated for the 2000 Renewal ICR).

Hourly wages for private industry for each employee category were revised to reflect 2001 wages reported by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Hourly wages for EPA employees for each category were revised to reflect current wages according to the U. S. Office of Personnel Management's 2003 General Schedule. Wages were fully loaded to include all administrative costs in addition to labor costs. These adjustments led to an increase in the overall cost burden.

6( e) Burden Statement The annual public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 4.90 hours per response ( 6,520.90 hrs./ 1330 responses = 4.90 hrs./ response). Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable 14 instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15.

To comment on the Agency's need for this information, the accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden, including the use of automated collection techniques, EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID No. OEI 2003 0003, which is available for public viewing at the OEI Docket in the EPA Docket Center ( EPA/ DC), EPA West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Avenue., NW, Washington, DC. The EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is open from 8: 30 a. m. to 4: 30 p. m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Reading Room is ( 202) 566 1744, and the telephone number for the OEI Docket is ( 202) 566 1752. An electronic version of the public docket is available through EPA Dockets ( EDOCKET) at http:// www. epa. gov/ edocket. Use EDOCKET to submit or view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the public docket, and to access those documents in the public docket that are available electronically. Once in the system, select " search," then key in the docket ID number identified above. Also, you can send comments to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street, NW, Washington, DC 20503, Attention: Desk Office for EPA. Please include the EPA Docket ID No. ( OEI 2003 0003) and OMB control number ( 2020 0003) in any correspondence. 15 Attachment A Efforts to Identify Small Businesses to Survey to Solicit Input on the Burden Associated with Substantiating CBI Claims

EPA National Center for Environmental Research, Small Business Innovation Research, FY 2003 Awards  contacted a list of 46 small businesses. None of the small businesses have ever substantiated a CBI claim.

EPA Small Business Ombudsman's Office ° Provided a list of trade associations to contact to identify small businesses that may have substantiated CBI claims. ° Received contact information for two small businesses. ° Interviewed one small business regarding the burden to substantiate CBI claims. ° The other business did not meet the definition of a small business. ° Provided the EPA contractor, Industrial Economics, Incorporated ( IEc), with a contact in the Pesticides Ombudsman's Office. ° Pesticides Ombudsman's Office does not track businesses that substantiate CBI claims.

EPA National Environmental Performance Track Member Website  contacted 17 small businesses. None of the small businesses have ever substantiated a CBI claim.

EPA WasteWise Membership Listing  contacted four small businesses. None of the small businesses have ever substantiated a CBI claim.

EPA Office of Pesticide Programs ° Provided a list of three small businesses that have substantiated CBI claims in the past. ° One business stated that they have never substantiated a CBI claim. ° One business did not respond to our calls. ° Interviewed a representative from one business regarding the burden to substantiate a CBI claim.

EPA Contracts Office ° Provided a list of two small businesses that have substantiated CBI claims in the past. ° Interviewed a representative from one business regarding the burden to substantiate a CBI claim. ° The other business stated that they have never substantiated a CBI claim.


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 77 (Tuesday, April 22, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 22413-22415]
[FR Doc No: 2014-09060]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket Number USCG-2014-0161]
RIN 1625-AA00

Safety Zone; Xterra Swim, Myrtle Beach, SC

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Temporary final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone during
the Xterra swim, a swimming race occurring on waters of the
Intracoastal Waterway in Myrtle Beach, South Carolina. The Xterra Swim
is scheduled to take place on Sunday, May 4, 2014. The temporary safety
zone is necessary for the safety of the swimmers, participant vessels,
spectators, and the general public during the event. Persons and
vessels are prohibited from entering, transiting through, anchoring in,
or remaining within the safety zone unless authorized by the Captain of
the Port Charleston or a designated representative.

DATES: This rule is effective on May 4, 2014. This rule will be
enforced from 7:30 a.m. until 8:15 a.m. on May 4, 2014.

ADDRESSES: Documents mentioned in this preamble are part of docket
USCG-2014-0161. To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being
available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type the
docket number in the ``SEARCH'' box and click ``SEARCH.'' Click on Open
Docket Folder on the line associated with this rulemaking. You may also
visit the Docket Management Facility in Room W12-140 on the ground
floor of the Department of Transportation West Building, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule,
call or email Chief Warrant Officer Christopher Ruleman, Sector
Charleston Waterways Management, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone (843) 740-
3184, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you have questions on
viewing the docket, call Cheryl Collins, Program Manager, Docket
Operations, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Acronyms

DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

A. Regulatory History and Information

    The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary final rule without prior
notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section
4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b). This
provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and
opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those
procedures are ``impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public
interest.'' Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good
cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM)
with respect to this rule because the Coast Guard did not receive
necessary information about the event until March 6, 2014. As a result,
the Coast Guard did not have sufficient time to publish an NPRM and to
receive public comments prior to the event. Any delay in the effective
date of this rule would be contrary to the public interest because
immediate action is needed to minimize potential danger to the race
participants, spectators and the general public.
    Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3) and for the same reasons as stated above,
the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule
effective less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register.

B. Basis and Purpose

    (a) The legal basis for the rule is the Coast Guard's authority to
establish regulated navigation areas and other limited access areas: 33
U.S.C. 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701, 3306, 3703; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33
CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, 160.5; Pub. L. 107-295, 116 Stat. 2064;
Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.
    The purpose of the rule is to ensure the safety of the swimmers,
participant vessels, spectators, and the general public during the
Xterra Swim.

C. Discussion of the Final Rule

    On Sunday, May 4, 2014, the Xterra Swim is scheduled to take place
on the waters of the Intracoastal Waterway between the following two
points of position and the North shore: 33[deg]45'02'' N,
78[deg]50'53'' W to 33[deg]45'11'' N, 78[deg]50'32'' W. The race will
consist of an 800 yard swim loop with approximately 150 swimmers.

D. Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and
executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses
based on these statutes and executive orders.

1. Regulatory Planning and Review

    This rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f)
of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, as
supplemented by Executive Order 13563, Improving Regulation and
Regulatory Review, and does not require an assessment of potential
costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of Executive Order 12866 or
under section 1 of Executive Order 13563. The Office of Management and
Budget has not reviewed it under those Orders. The economic impact of
this rule is not significant for the following reasons: (1) The safety
zone will only be enforced for a total of 45 minutes; (2) although
persons and vessels may not enter, transit through, anchor in, or
remain within the safety zone without authorization from the Captain of
the Port Charleston or a designated representative, they may operate in
the surrounding area during the enforcement period; (3) persons and
vessels may still enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within
the safety zone if authorized by the Captain of the Port Charleston or
a designated representative; and (4) the Coast Guard will provide
advance notification of the safety zone to the local maritime community
by Local Notice to Mariners and Broadcast Notice to Mariners.

2. Impact on Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601-612), as
amended, requires federal agencies to consider the potential impact of
regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term ``small
entities'' comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations
that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their
fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than
50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule
will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities.
    (1) This rule would affect the following entities, some of which
may be small entities: The owners or operators of vessels intending to
transit or anchor in a portion of the Intracoastal Waterway in Myrtle
Beach, South

Carolina from 7:30 a.m. until 8:15 a.m. on May 4, 2014.
    (2) For the reasons discussed in the Regulatory Planning and Review
section above, this rule will not have a significant economic impact on
a substantial number of small entities.

3. Assistance for Small Entities

    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your
small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have
questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please
contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT,
above.
    Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal
employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal
regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory
Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory
Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and
rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to
comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR
(1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small
entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or
action of the Coast Guard.

4. Collection of Information

    This rule will not call for a new collection of information under
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

5. Federalism

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on States, on the
relationship between the national government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and determined
that this rule does not have implications for federalism.

6. Protest Activities

    The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters.
Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section to coordinate protest activities so that
your message can be received without jeopardizing the safety or
security of people, places or vessels.

7. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538)
requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary
regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may
result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in
the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for
inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in
such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere
in this preamble.

8. Taking of Private Property

    This rule will not cause a taking of private property or otherwise
have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental
Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property
Rights.

9. Civil Justice Reform

    This rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2)
of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation,
eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.

10. Protection of Children

    We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection
of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule
is not an economically significant rule and does not create an
environmental risk to health or risk to safety that may
disproportionately affect children.

11. Indian Tribal Governments

    This rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order
13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments,
because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more
Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and
Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities
between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.

12. Energy Effects

    This action is not a ``significant energy action'' under Executive
Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use.

13. Technical Standards

    This rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not
consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.

14. Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security
Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which
guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined
that this action is one of a category of actions that do not
individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human
environment. This rule involves a temporary safety zone on waters of
the Intracoastal Waterway in Myrtle Beach, South Carolina during the
Xterra Swim event on Sunday, May 4, 2014. Persons and vessels are
prohibited from entering, transiting through, anchoring in, or
remaining within the safety zone unless authorized by the Captain of
the Port Charleston or a designated representative. This rule is
categorically excluded from further review under paragraph (34)(g) of
Figure 2-1 of the Commandant Instruction. We seek any comments or
information that may lead to the discovery of a significant
environmental impact from this rule.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

    Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends
33 CFR part 165 as follows:

PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

0
1. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1231; 33 CFR 1.05-1(g), and 160.5;
Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.

0
2. Add a temporary Sec.  165.T07-0161 to read as follows:

Sec.  165.T07-0161  Safety Zone; Xterra Swim, Myrtle Beach, SC.

    (a) Regulated area. The following regulated area is a safety zone:
All waters within the following two points of position and the North
shore: 33[deg]45'02'' N, 78[deg]50'53'' W to 33[deg]45'11'' N,
78[deg]50'32'' W. The Xterra Swim race consists of an 800 yard swim
loop with approximately 150 swimmers. All coordinates are North
American Datum 1983.
    (b) Definition. The term ``designated representative'' means Coast
Guard Patrol Commanders, including Coast Guard coxswains, petty
officers, and other officers operating Coast Guard vessels, and
Federal, state, and local officers designated by or assisting the
Captain of the Port Charleston in the enforcement of the regulated
area.

    (c) Regulations. (1) All persons and vessels are prohibited from
entering, transiting through, anchoring in, or remaining within the
regulated area unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Charleston
or a designated representative.
    (2) Persons and vessels desiring to enter, transit through, anchor
in, or remain within the regulated area may contact the Captain of the
Port Charleston by telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or a designated
representative via VHF radio on channel 16, to request authorization.
If authorization to enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within
the regulated area is granted by the Captain of the Port Charleston or
a designated representative, all persons and vessels receiving such
authorization must comply with the instructions of the Captain of the
Port Charleston or a designated representative.
    (3) The Coast Guard will provide notice of the regulated area by
Local Notice to Mariners, Broadcast Notice to Mariners, and on-scene
designated representatives.
    (d) Effective date. This rule is effective on May 4, 2014. This
rule will be enforced from 7:30 a.m. until 8:15 a.m. on Sunday, May 4,
2014.

    Dated: April 4, 2014.
R.R. Rodriguez,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Charleston.
[FR Doc. 2014-09060 Filed 4-21-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 64 (Monday, April 4, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 18547-18548]
[FR Doc No: 2011-7778]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 2524-018--Oklahoma]

Grand River Dam Authority, Salina Pumped Storage Project; Notice
of Proposed Restricted Service List for a Programmatic Agreement for
Managing Properties Included in or Eligible for Inclusion in the
National Register of Historic Places

    Rule 2010 of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's
(Commission) Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.2010, provides
that, to eliminate unnecessary expense or improve administrative
efficiency, the Secretary may establish a restricted service list for a
particular phase or issue in a proceeding. The restricted service list
should contain the names of persons on the service list who, in the
judgment of the decisional authority establishing the list, are active
participants with respect to the phase or issue in the proceeding for
which the list is established.
    The Commission staff is consulting with the Oklahoma Historical
Society (Oklahoma SHPO) and the Advisory Council on Historic
Preservation (Advisory Council) pursuant to the Advisory Council's
regulations, 36 CFR part 800, implementing section 106 of the National
Historic Preservation Act, as amended, (16 U.S.C. 470f), to prepare a
Programmatic Agreement for managing properties included in, or eligible
for inclusion in, the National Register of Historic Places at the
existing Salina Pumped Storage Project, located on the Saline Creek arm
of Lake Hudson in Mayes County, Oklahoma.
    The Programmatic Agreement, when executed by the Commission, the
Oklahoma SHPO, and the Advisory Council, would satisfy the Commission's
section 106 responsibilities for all individual undertakings carried
out in accordance with the license until the license expires or is
terminated (36 CFR 800.13[e]). The Commission's responsibilities
pursuant to section 106 for the project would be fulfilled through the
Programmatic Agreement, which the Commission staff proposes to draft in
consultation with certain parties listed below.
    Grand River Dam Authority, as licensee for Project No. 2524-018, is
invited to participate in consultations to develop the Programmatic
Agreement and to sign as a concurring party to the Programmatic
Agreement. For purposes of commenting on the Programmatic Agreement, we
propose to restrict the service list for Project No. 2524-018 as
follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------------------------------------------------
John Fowler, Executive Director,         Frank Hecksher, Peoria Tribe of
 Advisory Council on Historic             Oklahoma, 118 S. Eight Tribes
 Preservation, The Old Post Office        Trail, Miami, OK 74354.
 Building, Suite 803, 1100 Pennsylvania
 Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20004.
Melvena Heisch, Deputy SHPO, Oklahoma    Ted Isham, Emman Spain,
 Historical Society, 800 Nazih Zuhdi      Muscogee (Creek) Nation, P.O.
 Drive, Oklahoma, OK 73105-7917.          Box 580, Okmulgee, OK 74447.
Dr. Robert Brooks, State Archaeologist,  James Munkres, Osage Nation,
 Oklahoma Archeological Survey, 111 E.    627 Grandview, Pawhuska, OK
 Chesapeake Street, Norman, OK 73019.     74056.
Dr. Darrell E. Townsend II, Grand River  George Strack, THPO, Miami
 Dam Authority, P.O. Box 70, Langley,     Tribe of Oklahoma, P.O. Box
 OK 74350-0070.                           1326, Miami, OK 74355.
Charles Atkins, Grand River Dam          Jodi Hayes, Shawnee Tribe, P.O.
 Authority, P.O. Box 70, Langley, OK      Box 189, Miami, OK 74355.
 74350-0070.
Dr. Timothy G. Baugh, Historical,        Charles Coleman, Thlopthlocco
 Archaeologist, Oklahoma Historical       Tribal Town, P.O. Box 188,
 Society, 800 Nazih Zuhdi Drive,          Okemah, OK 74859-0188.
 Oklahoma, OK 73105-7917.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Any person on the official service list for the above-captioned
proceedings may request inclusion on the restricted service list, or
may request that a restricted service list not be established, by
filing a motion to that effect within 15 days of this notice date. An
original plus seven copies of any such motion must be filed with the
Secretary of the Commission (888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC
20426) and must be served on each person whose name appears on the
official service list. If no such motions are filed, the restricted
service list will be effective at the end of the 15 day period.
Otherwise, a further notice will be issued ruling on the motion.

    Dated: March 28, 2011.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-7778 Filed 4-1-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: February 15, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 31)]
[Notices]
[Page 8008-8010]
[DOCID:fr15fe06-137]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-53244; File No. SR-Amex-2006-003]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; American Stock Exchange LLC;
Notice of Filing and Order Granting Accelerated Approval of a Proposed
Rule Change and Amendment No. 1 Thereto To Adjust the Close of Normal
Trading Hours in Equity Options and Narrow-Based Index Options

February 7, 2006.
    Pursuant to section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on January 5, 2006, the American Stock Exchange LLC (``Amex'' or
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I and
II below, which Items have been prepared by the Amex. On January 31,
2006, the Exchange filed Amendment No. 1 to the proposed rule
change.\3\ The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments
on the proposed rule change, as amended, from interested persons and to
approve the amended proposal on an accelerated basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ In Amendment No. 1, the Exchange requested that the
implementation date for the new closing time be changed from
February 1, 2006, as was originally proposed, to February 13, 2006.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance
of the Proposed Rule Change

    The Amex proposes to amend Exchange Rules 1, 918--ANTE, 936C--ANTE
and 903C to adjust the close of normal trading hours in equity options
and options based on stock index industry groups (``narrow-based index
options'') from 4:02 p.m. eastern time (``e.t.'') to 4 p.m. e.t. The
Exchange proposes that these changes be implemented on February 13,
2006.\4\ The text of the proposed rule change, as amended, is available
on the Amex's Web site at (http://www.amex.com), at the Amex's Office

of the Secretary, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

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

A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

1. Purpose
    According to the Exchange, the purpose of the proposed rule change,
as amended, is to amend the Amex's rules to conform to an industry-wide
consensus to change the close of trading hours for equity options and
narrow-based index options from 4:02 p.m. e.t. to 4 p.m. e.t. After the
change, the time of the close of trading in these Amex options will
correspond to the normal time set for the close of trading on the
primary exchanges listing the stocks underlying the Amex options. The
primary exchanges generally close at 4 p.m. e.t.
    The Exchange notes that, on May 14, 1997, the Amex received
approval to move the close of equity options trading from 4:10 p.m. to
4:02 p.m.\5\ The change was prompted by improvements in the
dissemination of closing prices in the underlying securities, the
limited ability of public customers to reach as quickly as professional
traders news announcements in the last ten minutes of trading, and the
difficulties experienced by options specialists and

registered options traders to make orderly markets without the ability
to hedge or otherwise offset market risk with transactions in the
underlying stock.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 38640 (May 14,
1997), 62 FR 28081 (May 22, 1997). According to the Exchange, from
1978 through 1997, equity options were traded until 4:10 p.m. to
allow investors to trade options based upon the final closing prices
of the underlying securities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The rationale to continue trading options for a period of time
after the close of trading on the primary markets for the underlying
securities was that the extended time period allowed options traders to
respond to later reports of closing prices over the consolidated tape.
If the price of a late reported trade on an underlying security was
substantially different from the previous reported price, the extended
trading session would give options traders the opportunity to bring
options quotes in line with the closing price of the underlying
security.
    However, the Exchange submits that because of technological
advances in the processing and reporting of transactions, this two
minute time period is no longer necessary to trade options after the
underlying securities close trading. Additionally, price aberrations
can occur if an option is traded when the underlying stock is no longer
trading, since there is a close relationship in the price of the
underlying stock and the overlying options. As a result, it is
difficult for the market to price options accurately when the
underlying security is not trading.
    The Exchange also proposes to change the closing time for narrow-
based index options, as defined in Amex Rule 900C, because such indexes
are subject to the same pricing problems as options on individual
stocks. A significant news announcement on one component of a narrow-
based index could have a significant effect on that index. The Exchange
is not at this time proposing to change the closing time of 4:15 p.m.
for options on a broad-based index, as defined in Amex Rule 900C,
because it is unlikely that a significant news announcement by the
issuer on one component stock of a broad-based index is likely to have
a significant effect on the price of that broad-based index.
    The Exchange notes that all options exchanges have determined to
make similar uniform changes to their rules, to modify the closing time
in equity options and narrow-based index options from 4:02 p.m. e.t. to
4 p.m. e.t. on a coordinated basis. These industry-wide changes are
proposed to be effective on February 13, 2006.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Amendment No. 1, supra note 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change, as amended, is
consistent with section 6(b) of the Act \7\ in general, and furthers
the objectives of section 6(b)(5) of the Act \8\ in particular, because
it is designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and
practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster
cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in facilitating
transactions in securities, to remove impediments to and perfect the
mechanisms of a free and open market and a national market system, and,
in general, to protect investors and the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5). The statutory basis with which the
Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent has
been corrected from Section 6(b)(4) of the Act to Section 6(b)(5) of
the Act. Telephone conversation between Nyieri Nazarian, Assistant
General Counsel, Amex, and Johnna B. Dumler, Attorney, Division of
Market Regulation, Commission, on January 11, 2006.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition

    The Amex does not believe that the proposed rule change, as
amended, will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or
appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed
Rule Change Received From Members, Participants or Others

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

III. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule
change, as amended, is consistent with the Act. Comments may be
submitted by any of the following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form at (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml.
); or     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include

File Number SR-Amex-2006-003 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Nancy M. Morris,
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549-1090.

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-Amex-2006-003. This file
number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml
). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all

written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection and
copying in the Commission's Public Reference Section. Copies of such
filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the
principal office of the Amex. All comments received will be posted
without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying
information from submissions. You should submit only information that
you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to
File Number SR-Amex-2006-003 and should be submitted on or before March
8, 2006.

IV. Commission's Findings and Order Granting Accelerated Approval of
Proposed Rule Change

    After careful review, the Commission finds that the proposed rule
change, as amended, is consistent with the requirements of the Act and
the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a national
securities exchange.\9\ In particular, the Commission finds that the
proposal is consistent with section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\10\ which
requires, among other things, that the rules of a national securities
exchange be designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and
practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster
cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in facilitating
transactions in securities, to remove impediments to and perfect the
mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and,
in general, to protect investors and the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ In approving this proposal, the Commission has considered
the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition, and capital
formation. 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission notes that the Exchange believes that the need to
continue trading options for some period of time after the close of
trading in the underlying securities markets is no longer necessary
because improvements in the processing and reporting of transactions
have obviated

the need to respond to late reports of closing prices over the
consolidated tape in order to bring options quotes in line with the
closing price of the underlying security. Moreover, the Exchange
believes that allowing two additional minutes of options trading after
trading on the underlying primary exchanges has ended may actually
result in pricing aberrations. Because the two minute delay between the
close of normal trading in equity options and narrow-based index
options and the corresponding underlying equity markets is no longer
necessary, the Commission believes that eliminating the delay is in the
public interest and appropriate for the protection of investors and the
maintenance of fair and orderly markets. Therefore, the Commission
finds that it is consistent with the Act for the Exchange to amend its
rules to change the close of normal trading hours in equity and narrow-
based index options from 4:02 p.m. (e.t.) to 4 p.m. (e.t).
    The Commission finds good cause for approving this proposed rule
change, as amended, before the thirtieth day after publication of
notice thereof in the Federal Register. The Commission notes that all
of the options exchanges have filed substantially similar proposals and
seek to implement these industry-wide changes simultaneously on
February 13, 2006.\11\ For example, on December 20, 2005, the
Commission published for comment in the Federal Register a similar
proposed rule change submitted by the Chicago Board Options Exchange,
Incorporated (``CBOE'').\12\ The Commission received no comments on the
CBOE's proposed rule change. The Commission believes that the Amex's
proposed rule change, as amended, raises no new issues or novel
regulatory questions. Accordingly, the Commission finds good cause,
pursuant to section 19(b)(2) of the Act,\13\ for approving the proposed
rule change, as amended, prior to the thirtieth day after publication
in the Federal Register. In addition, because the existence of
dissimilar closing times among the options exchanges could lead to
confusion for options investors and broker-dealers, the Commission
finds good cause to accelerate approval of the proposed rule change, as
amended, to enable the six options exchanges to simultaneously amend
their hours of trading on an industry-wide basis in a uniform
manner.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See note 14, infra.
    \12\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 52949 (December 13,
2005), 70 FR 75513 (December 20, 2005) (SR-CBOE-2005-104). See also
Securities Exchange Act Release No. 53055 (January 5, 2006), 71 FR
2279 (January 13, 2006) (SR-ISE-2005-58).
    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
    \14\ The Commission notes that it is simultaneously approving
similar proposals from the other options exchanges. See Securities
Exchange Act Release Nos. 53245 (SR-BSE-2006-02); 53446 (SR-CBOE-
2005-104); 53248 (SR-ISE-2005-58); 53249 (SR-PCX-2005-138); and
53247 (SR-Phlx-2006-01) (February 7, 2006).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\15\ that the proposed rule change and Amendment No. 1 thereto (SR-
Amex-2006-003) be, and hereby are, approved on an accelerated basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation,
pursuant to delegated authority.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

J. Lynn Taylor,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. E6-2109 Filed 2-14-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P