[Federal Register: May 10, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 90)]
[Notices]
[Page 26612-26613]
[DOCID:fr10my07-44]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP07-429-000]

Dominion Cove Point LNG, LP; Notice of Proposed Changes in FERC
Gas Tariff

May 4, 2007.
    Take notice that on May 1, 2007, Dominion Cove Point LNG, LP (Cove
Point) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, Original
Volume No. 1, Second Revised Sheet No. 216, to become effective June 1,
2007.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices,
motions, or protests must be filed in accordance with the provisions of
Sec.  154.210 of the Commission's regulations (18 CFR 154.210). Anyone
filing an intervention or protest must serve a copy of that document on
the Applicant. Anyone filing an intervention or protest on or before
the intervention or protest date need not serve motions to intervene or

protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of 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 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the

``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For

TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E7-8975 Filed 5-9-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


January 24, 2000 Statement Supporting the Renewal of the Information Collection Procedure for Title III Trade Secrecy Regulations 1. Identification of the Information Collection 1 ( a) Trade Secret Claims for Community Right to Know and Emergency Planning ( EPCRA Section 322)  EPA No. 1428.05 1 ( b) Short Characterization This information collection request pertains to trade secrecy claims submitted under Section 322 of the Emergency Planning and Community Right to Know Act of 1986 ( EPCRA), also known as Title III of SARA, the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act. Title III contains provisions requiring facilities to report to State and local authorities, and EPA, the presence, use and release of extremely hazardous substances ( described in Sections 302 and 304) and hazardous and toxic chemicals ( described in Sections 311, 312 and 313 respectively). Section 322 of Title III allows a facility to withhold the specific chemical identity from these Title III reports if the facility asserts a claim of trade secrecy for that chemical identity. The provision establishes the requirements and procedures that facilities must follow to request trade secrecy treatment of chemical identities, as well as the procedures for submitting public petitions to the Agency for review of the " sufficiency" of trade secrecy claims.

Trade secrecy protection is provided for specific chemical identities contained in reports submitted under each of the following Title III sections:

o 303 ( d)( 2) Facility notification of changes that have or are about to occur.

o 303 ( d)( 3) Local Emergency Planning Committee ( LEPC) requests for facility information to develop or implement emergency plans.

o 311 Material Safety Data Sheets ( MSDSs) submitted by facilities, or lists of those chemicals submitted in place of the MSDSs.

o 312 Tier II emergency and hazardous chemical inventory forms.

o 313 Toxic chemical release inventory forms.

Section 322 requires that facilities requesting trade secrecy protection submit to EPA, in conjunction with their Title III report, an explanation showing that their claim for the chemical identity meets the four statutory criteria of trade secrecy enumerated in subsection ( b) of that provision. 2 January 24, 2000 Facility owners and operators submit trade secrecy claims only to EPA. Claims consist of either one or two versions of the Title III report depending on the type of report, and two versions of an up front substantiation of the trade secrecy claim. The substantiation is designed to gather sufficient factual support to indicate whether the claim will meet the four statutory criteria of trade secrecy. It is an EPA developed form, and is discussed in detail in Part 3( b)( i) below.

Section 322( d) also provides for a public petition process to request the disclosure of chemical identities claimed as trade secret. The final rule does not specify a petition format, but does require that a petition contain certain elements set forth below in Part 3( b)( ii).

EPA is required by Section 322( h) to identify the adverse health and environmental effects associated with the Section 313 toxic chemicals claimed as trade secret and to include this information in the Toxic Chemical Release Inventory database required by Section 313( j).

That provision also instructs the Governor or State Emergency Response Commission to identify the adverse health effects of the chemicals claimed as trade secret under Sections 303, 311 and 312 and provide this information to persons requesting the infor mation. These details are not discussed herein because there is no Federal involvement in this activity. Pursuant to the statute, this exchange of information occurs between third parties, i. e., States and persons requesting such information. Because EPA has no knowledge or responsibility in this area, the Agency is not responsible for documenting burden/ costs in such situations. ( Dole v. United Steelworkers of America, 110 S. Ct. 929 ( 1990)).

Section 323 regulations contain provisions allowing health professionals to gain access to trade secret chemical identities under three different circumstances:

o non emergency treatment and diagnosis. The chemical identity of a hazardous chemical, extremely hazardous substance or toxic chemical must be given to a health professional if the information is needed in the diagnosis or treatment of an exposed individual.

o medical emergencies. Expedited access to the identity of chemicals to which people have been exposed is provided for health professionals.

o preventative measures. Health professionals studying chemical exposure and health effects for local governments are also given access to chemical identities upon written request.

Two preconditions must be met in order for health professionals to gain access to trade secret chemical identity in non emergency and preventative measure situations; they must submit a written statement of need and a written confidentiality agreement to the facility owner or operator prior to obtaining the information. No such requirements exist in the medical emergency situation, but the owner or operator disclosing the information may require a written confidentiality agreement and statement of need as soon as circumstances permit. 3 January 24, 2000 The Offices that will use trade secret information are the Chemical Emergency Preparedness and Prevention Office ( CEPPO) in the Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response and the Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics ( OPPT) in the Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances. Trade secrecy claims are stored in areas designed to assure the confidentiality of the collected information.

2. Need/ Authority for Collection; Use/ Users of the Data 2 ( a) Need/ Authority for Collection The specific provision of Title III authorizing this collection is Section 322, Trade Secrets. Congress's intent in writing trade secrecy provisions under Title III was to balance industry's concern with the protection of legitimate trade secrets with communities' right to know chemical identification information, by establishing procedures for asserting claims, for the public to obtain review of their validity, and for an Agency claim review process which eliminates legally invalid and frivolous claims.

Section 322( a)( 1)( B) requires a facility that requests trade secrecy protection for a Title III chemical to substitute a generic chemical class or category name in the place on the Title III submittal where the withheld specific chemical identity is normally reported. A copy of this Title III submittal, as well as the withheld chemical identification information, are to be submitted separately to the EPA pursuant to Sections 322( a)( 2)( A)( iii) and ( a)( 2)( B)( ii).

A facility is entitled to withhold chemical identification information according to Section 322( a)( 2)( A)( i), only if that facility claims that such information is a trade secret on the basis of the following four factors which are enumerated in the provisions of Section 322( b)( 1)( 4):

o The facility has not disclosed the chemical identity to any other person, other than a member of a local emergency planning committee, an officer or employee of the United States or a State or local government, an employee of such person, or a person who is bound by a confidentiality agreement, and the facility has taken reasonable measures to protect the confidentiality of such information and will continue to take such measures;

o The information is not required to be disclosed or otherwise made available to the public under any other Federal or State law;

o Disclosure of the information is likely to cause substantial harm to the competitive position of the facility; and o The chemical identity is not readily discoverable through reverse engineering.

A facility is required under Section 322( 2)( A) to make its claim of trade secrecy by 4 January 24, 2000 submitting, in conjunction with its Title III report, an explanation containing the reasons, including specific descriptions, why the subject information satisfies the four statutory criteria. Within 30 days after receipt of a public petition, EPA is required under Section 322( d) to review the information contained in a claimant's explanation to determine whether a claim is " sufficient." If the Agency determines a claim is " sufficient," Section 322( d)( 3)( A) provides for the claimant's submission of supplemental information to establish the veracity of the assertions contained in the substantiation. If the Agency determines that a claim is " insufficient," or that the chemical identity is not a trade secret, and further determines that the claim is frivolous, Section 325( d) requires that the Agency assess a civil or administrative penalty for the claim.

Section 322( f) permits a facility to designate, apart from the specific chemical identity, information which is contained in their claim explanation to be entitled to protection under the Trade Secrets Act, 18 U. S. C., Section 1905. Except for information entitled to such protection, the provision requires that the Agency make all claim explanations publicly available. Further, Title III Section 324( a) mandates that EPA, the States, and local authorities, make each hardcopy Title III report publicly available during normal working hours at locations designated by the above entities, as appropriate, in a manner consistent with the provisions of Section 322, ( i. e., with the generic chemical name substituted for the specific chemical identity where a trade secrecy claim is made for the latter).

The final rule, which provides for the submission of two versions of the report and the substantiation, enables EPA, State Emergency Response Commissions ( SERCs) and LEPCs to fulfill the statutory mandate that public access be readily available to documents containing only the generic chemical descriptions, and that the specific chemical identity and other designated trade secret information be accorded confidential treatment.

The final rule provides for submission to EPA of a sanitized and an unsanitized version of the substantiation form, a sanitized and where indicated, an unsanitized version of the Title III report by a facility requesting trade secrecy protection for a Title III reported chemical. The sanitized and unsanitized versions of these documents are identical in all respects except that the trade secret chemical identification information reported in the unsanitized version is deleted from the sanitized version and a generic class or category name is substituted in its place. Also, other information provided in the unsanitized substantiation that is designated as a trade secret by a facility is deleted from the sanitized substantiation. Claimants submit only a sanitized version of Section 303( d)( 2) and ( d)( 3) reports, and Section 311 MSDSs to appropriate State and local authorities.

Answers to the substantiation questions described below provide the " specific description" stipulated in Section 322( a)( 2)( ii) on why a facility believes trade secrecy should apply. Without this information, the Agency would not be in a position to evaluate whether or not a claim to withhold the chemical identity is " sufficient," nor would it have the time ( statutorily set at 30 days) required to request and review the data in response to a petition for identity disclosure. 5 January 24, 2000 Further, this information is needed in order for the Agency to evaluate claims for frivolousness and seek related penalties under Section 325. On a broader scale, the information collection request is also necessary in order for EPA to evaluate whether the claim is complete under Sections 322( a)( 1) and ( a)( 2).

In order to assess the sufficiency, validity and frivolousness of claims, the Agency for several reasons developed a standardized claim substantiation form. It was anticipated that the form would reduce confusion about what information is to be supplied to meet the four statutory criteria. It was also anticipated that the form would help submitters more easily determine if they have sufficient bases to make trade secrecy claims, ensure that all submissions are evaluated on the basis of comparable information, and " flag" the documents for procedural safeguards to quickly identify, review and protect the confidentiality of the claim.

It has been EPA's experience, based on reviews of the substantiations submitted in the past six reporting years, that use of a standardized substantiation form has: ( 1) enabled submitters to adequately understand and develop information necessary to submit a " sufficient" claim; ( 2) enabled EPA to ensure that all submissions are evaluated on the basis of comparable information, and; ( 3) served as an efficient identifier of the trade secret status of the document and associated report, and hence, has ensured the use of appropriate Agency handling and routing procedures protective of their confidentiality.

2 ( b) Use/ Users of the Data The trade secrecy claim information is used only by the CEPPO and OPPT and is needed by these offices in order to: ( 1) perform the Agency's review of claims as required by Section 322 ( d) to determine whether the claims are " sufficient" to support a finding that the specific chemical identity withheld is a trade secret; ( 2) ensure that claims for all withheld chemical identities are complete in accordance with the requirements of Sections 322 ( a) ( 1) and ( a) ( 2), and; ( 3) evaluate claims for frivolousness and the attendant assessment of penalties stipulated in Section 325 ( d)( 1).

3. Respondents/ SIC Codes; Information Requested 3 ( a) Respondents/ SIC Codes Sections 303, 311 and 312 claims are submitted by both the manufacturing sector, ( SIC codes 20 39) and the non manufacturing sector. No range of SIC codes exists for the nonmanufacturing sector. Examples of this sector include the construction industry and dry cleaners. Examples of the manufacturing sector include chemical manufacturers and paper manufacturers. Section 313 claims are submitted by covered sectors which as of reporting year 1998 include: metal mining (( SIC code 10 ( except 1011, 1081, and 1094)), coal mining (( SIC code 12 ( except 1241)), manufacturers ( SIC codes 20 39), electric utilities ( SIC codes 4911 ( limited to facilities 6 January 24, 2000 that combust coal and/ or oil for the purpose of generating electricity for distribution in commerce), 4931 ( limited to facilities that combust coal and/ or oil for the purpose of generating electricity for distribution in commerce), 4939 ( limited to facilities that combust coal and/ or oil for the purpose of generating electricity for distribution in commerce)), commercial hazardous waste treatment ( SIC code 4953 ( limited to facilities regulated under the RCRA Subtitle C, 42 U. S. C. section 6921 et seq.)), chemical and allied products wholesale ( SIC code 5169), petroleum bulk terminals and plants ( also known as stations) wholesale ( SIC code 5171), and solvent recovery services ( SIC code 7389 ( limited to facilities primarily engaged in solvents recovery services on a contract or fee basis)). In addition, federal facilities were added to the respondent community by Executive Order 12856. Federal facilities were required to report beginning calendar year 1994. Federal facility reporting did result in a significant increase in trade secrecy claims. Section 313 reports are due to EPA by July 1 for each year for activities that occurred during the previous calendar year. For example, reports for calendar year 1998 activities were due by July 1, 1999. Petitions are voluntarily submitted by any interested member of the public. Any potential rulemaking expanding Section 313 reporting community is not expected to result in an increase in percentage of trade secret claims to non trade secret claims.

3 ( b) Information Requested ( i) Data Items for Trade Secrecy Claims Based on the four Section 322( b) substantiation requirements, the Agency developed six core questions to comprise a standard substantiation form. ( See Attachment 1)

Questions one and two on the form directly refer to the first criterion of Section 322( b). The first question, on " specific measures" is the detail required by the submitter to prove to the EPA reviewer that reasonable safeguards have been taken to prevent unauthorized disclosure of the specific chemical identity. Answers to the second question will be used by the Agency to evaluate the facility's claim that the specific chemical identity has not been disclosed to anyone not bound by a confidentiality agreement.

Answers to the form's third question respond to the statute's second criterion that the submitter show that a State or Federal agency has not already determined that the chemical identity is not a trade secret, or that there are no existing State or Federal statutes prohibiting the claiming of the chemical identity as a trade secret.

Questions four and five require answers to the facility's known connection with the use of the chemical, and estimates of competitive harm that would result from disclosure. Submitters must provide EPA with a description of their unique use of the chemical ( 3.4i), known linkages of the chemical to the facility in publications and patents ( 3.4ii), an explanation of how competitors could deduce use from disclosure of the chemical identity ( 3.4iii), and why knowledge of this use would be valuable to competitors ( 3.4iv). Specific indications of the competitive harm resulting 7 January 24, 2000 from disclosures are asked in question five. These questions refer back to the third criterion of Section 322.

Question six enables EPA to identify the prevalence of the chemical in the company's products or releases, and the corresponding ability of competitors to identify the chemical through reverse engineering. This issue is specifically addressed in the fourth criterion.

In addition, blocks on the first page of the form provide space for accurate chemical identification of the claimed secret ( CAS number, chemical identity), a field for substitution of the generic class or category, a check off box to clearly identify the type of Title III report for which the claim is being asserted, and the facility Dun and Bradstreet number ( for precise facility and record identification). There is no additional burden to collect this information because it is transferred directly from the reports required under the various sections of Title III for which a claim is being made.

Finally, the submitter must sign a certification statement, found on the last page of the form, that the information is true to the best knowledge and belief of the submitter.

( ii) Data Items for Public Petition Process No specific petition format is required. However, the final rule does require that the following be included in a petition:

o the petitioner's name, address and telephone number;

o the name and address of the company claiming trade secrecy;

o a copy of the relevant sanitized Title III report ( e. g., MSDS, Tier II or toxic chemical release form); and o a specific indication of the chemical identity that is being requested for disclosure.

EPA requires a copy of the Title III report in order to prevent any confusion about the particular disclosure in question. By statute, copies of facility filings are available at designated State or local entities. In writing the proposed and final regulations, the Agency considered these elements to be the minimum needed to successfully identify and begin the review of a trade secrecy claim.

4. The Information Collected  Agency Activities, Collection Methodology, and Information Management 4 ( a) Agency Activities 8 January 24, 2000 o Process and store the data.

o Review the claims for completeness, " sufficiency" and frivolousness.

o Respond to requests for confidential information from State Governors, and nonconfidential information from the public.

o Respond to petitions from the public for disclosure of chemical identities claimed as trade secret.

o Prepare adverse health and environmental effects data for relevant chemical identities claimed as trade secret.

4 ( b) Collection Methodology and Management The collection of trade secrecy claims is accomplished by respondents sending their claim submissions to EPA. The sanitized or non trade secret versions of the Title III report and the substantiation are stored so as to be easily accessible to the public. Data reported on the sanitized version of a Title III, Section 313 report is entered in the Toxic Chemical Inventory database. The unsanitized versions of the Title III report and the substantiation are handled, labeled and stored in a manner protective of their confidentiality.

The unsanitized trade secret versions of these documents are reviewed to determine the " sufficiency" validity and frivolousness of the claims. Both the sanitized and unsanitized documents are used to review the generic chemical class or category name in light of the specific chemical identity claimed as trade secret, to ensure the appropriateness of the generic description. For Section 313 claims, both chemical descriptions are reviewed and used to devise adverse health and environmental effects data which are representative of the characteristics of the specific chemical identity withheld, and protective of the trade secret chemical identity.

While use of magnetic tape or information technology is being encouraged in the relatively uniform Title III reporting sections, the unique nature and length of trade secrecy substantiation responses will not confer any special advantage to their being reported on alternative media. Standardized responses are not expected, or encouraged, to answers on: facility safeguards to protect confidentiality of a chemical, the extent of disclosure to local, State and Federal government entities, discussions of the use of the chemical  and competitors' ability to discover it, and statements on harm to competitive position.

The public petition process applies only to a chemical identity that a facility claims as trade secret, and not to other information contained in a substantiation which a facility has claimed as a trade secret. After receiving a petition, EPA has 30 days to determine whether the assertions on a facility's substantiation form ( if true) would form a " sufficient" basis for a trade secrecy claim. If 9 January 24, 2000 the form meets the criteria of sufficiency, EPA will notify the submitter that they have 30 days to submit supplemental material supporting the truth of the assertions made in the substantiation. If the claim does not meet the criteria of sufficiency, EPA will notify the submitter that the claim will be denied. The facility may appeal to the Office of General Counsel or submit a statement of good cause to amend the substantiation. EPA will then accept or reject the statement, allowing or disallowing the submission of additional information. Finally, EPA will determine, based on all the information a facility has submitted, whether the claim warrants trade secrecy.

EPA initiated reviews may be conducted following the same steps involved in the public petition process and result in an Agency decision regarding the " sufficiency" of the trade secrecy claims. However, EPA initiated reviews may be less formal and culminate in the withdrawal of a claim by a facility prior to the issuance of a formal Agency decision on the merits of the claim. The less formal reviews usually involve claims which are determined incomplete upon EPA review or complete claims which are thought by EPA to demonstrate obvious problems or weaknesses. In these circumstances, the Agency has contacted the facilities by telephone or by issuing a Notice of Noncompliance ( NON). The facilities have responded by formally withdrawing their claims prior to a formal decision on the merits of the claims.

4 ( c) Small Entity Flexibility The regulatory provisions of Sections 311 312 and the statutory provision of Section 313 inherently minimize the burden for small entities. Sections 311 312 have reporting thresholds under which facilities are not required to report. Section 313 applies only to facilities with 10 or more full time employees.

The option to submit a trade secrecy claim on a Title III report is voluntary. Facilities that submit trade secrecy claims are doing so because they believe it is to their benefit. In addition, the need to claim trade secrecy protection for a chemical identity is just as important to small companies as it is to large ones. Therefore, the need to supply information to support a submission, as well as to review it, is dependent upon a firm's demonstration that it can adequately answer the four criteria found in the statute. Any firm, regardless of size, need only provide as much, or as little, detail as it feels necessary to support its claim under the statute.

4 ( d) Collection Schedule The collection schedule is voluntary. Under Section 322, a specific chemical identity claimed as a trade secret is withheld from the face of Title III reports. That provision requires that claim explanations, and the information claimed as a trade secret, be submitted concurrently with the submission of the Title III reports. Apart from the statutory mandate that requires the filing of a claim each time the subject chemical is reported in a Title III submission, an updated claim is necessary to establish the current applicability of the four statutory criteria of trade secrecy. Even the slightest change in the circumstances which support the claim can be pivotal to 10 January 24, 2000 the " sufficiency," validity, and frivolousness of the claim. Even where previously created substantiations are relevant and appropriate for use at a later time, EPA encourages submitters to carefully review the substantiations.

In the case of Sections 312 and 313, the reporting is annual and facilities submit a current claim annually with those reports. With regard to Section 311, a claim must be resubmitted to EPA if an MSDS or list is updated. According to the Sections 311 312 final rule, an initial MSDS or list must be updated within three months after the facility owner or operator discovers significant new information regarding an aspect of a hazardous chemical. With regard to Section 303( d)( 2) and ( d)( 3), a claim need not be resubmitted to EPA after the initial communication to the relevant LEPC, unless further communication follows between the facility and LEPC which discusses the specific chemical identity in question.

5. Nonduplication, Consultations, and other Collection Criteria 5 ( a) Nonduplication The information that we request from trade secrecy claim submitters is not duplicated by any other Agency collection since the collection of information is entirely Title III oriented. In addition, unlike other statutes permitting confidential business information claims, Title III: ( 1) permits trade secrecy claims only for specific chemical identification information; ( 2) permits claims for a chemical identity only in very narrowly defined circumstances which are stipulated in the statute, and; ( 3) requires an up front substantiation of the applicability of those narrowly defined circumstances by a claimant at the time the report for a chemical claimed as trade secret is filed.

5 ( b) Consultations In the previous ICR, EPA estimated that it will take 16 to 29 hours to prepare trade secrecy claim package for sections 303, 311 and 312. EPA received this information by contacting a few submitters of claims in 1993. EPA recently contacted a few submitters of trade secrecy claims in reporting years 1996 through 1998. Submitters informed EPA that the fixed costs of 22 hours remains the same as was estimated in the previous ICR, however, the variable costs estimated previously are now lower. Submitters informed EPA that it only requires between two and four hours to prepare new claims and between one and three hours to prepare resubmittals of trade secret claims. ( Memorandum from Sicy Jacob, OSWER/ EPA, 8/ 12/ 99).

5( c) Public Notice In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act ( 44 U. S. C. 3501 et seq.), the Agency notified the public through the Federal Register notice on the resubmission of this ICR on September 16, 1999 ( 64 FR 50280). EPA did not receive any comments. 11 January 24, 2000 5 ( d) Effects of Less Frequent Collection Although submitting answers to the trade secrecy substantiation form questions is a necessary step towards ensuring eventual protection of a chemical identity, the decision to seek that protection is entirely voluntary. The submission process involves one initial collection of information for " sufficiency," with the possibility of a request for supplementary information [ as provided in Section 322 ( d)( 3)( A)] to establish veracity of the assertions stated in the substantiation if EPA determines that a claim is initially " sufficient" during a review initiated by public petition or the Agency.

5 ( e) Confidentiality and Sensitive Questions All trade secrecy claims submitted to EPA under Title III are handled and stored according to procedures set out in the Interim OSWER Procedures For Protecting Title III Trade Secret Documents. These procedures were developed expressly for Title III trade secrecy claims with the knowledge that these documents are sensitive. Handling and review of documents containing Title III trade secret information is permitted only by persons who have obtained formal clearance to access the information based on a work related need to engage in these activities. When not being processed or reviewed by authorized individuals, the claim submissions containing trade secret information are stored in restricted access areas. To ensure that appropriate handling procedures are activated and the confidentiality of Title III trade secret submissions is maintained, the Agency attaches a cover sheet to the top of each trade secret document and otherwise marks the document to clearly identify the document as Title III confidential.

6. Estimating the Burden and Cost of the Collection 6( a) Estimated Number of Trade Secrecy Claims Costs to the Government and to respondents are based on actual numbers of trade secrecy claims received during reporting years ( RYs) 1996 through 1998. The reporting year corresponds to the calendar year. The deadline for submitting claims for a given reporting year falls in the following calendar year. For example, the deadline for submitting claims under section 311/ 312 for reporting year 1997 is March 1, 1998 ( deadline for submitting the hazardous chemical inventory reports under section 312), and the deadline for section 313 claims is July 1, 1998 ( deadline for submitting Toxic Chemical Release Reporting Form). Any facilities that may wish to file trade secrecy claims in these reporting forms must submit the trade secrecy claim package with these reports.

The cost and burden of processing the claims submitted for reporting year 1997 are incurred in FY 98. There is a one year lag between the reporting year for submitting claims ( e. g., 12 January 24, 2000 RY97) and the fiscal year for processing claims under sections 311/ 312 ( e. g. FY98), and there may be a two year lag between the reporting year ( e. g., 1997) for submitting claims and the fiscal year for processing claims under section 313 if some of the claims submitted in July 1998 are processed in October or later of 1998, which is fiscal year 1999. However, to be consistent, in this ICR, all section 311/ 312 and section 313 claims from one reporting year will be treated as having been processed in the following fiscal year.

Table 1 presents the actual number of submissions indicating trade secret claims for all sections of Title III for FYs 1997 to 1999 ( corresponding to RY96 through RY98). For the three year period, the total number of claims submitted was 890. The number of claims submitted under section 313 includes claims that are later withdrawn by submitters. The actual number of valid claims for section 313 is approximately five per year. ( Personal communication from Tim Crawford, IMD/ EPA, 8/ 17/ 99). Claims are withdrawn for four principal reasons. First, submitters have unintentionally identified their claims as trade secret. EPA then requested submitters to re submit a revision to indicate that their claim is not a trade secret. Second, submitters have submitted the same claim more than once. In most cases, the submitters will later withdraw their claim. Third, submitters have sent EPA a claim that is incomplete. Instead of submitting a revision, the submitter may request to withdraw its claim. Fourth, the chemical claimed trade secret may not be a reportable chemical during a particular reporting year. When submitters who had been sending in claims marked trade secret that were incomplete, i. e., they were missing sanitized data, and were contacted by the Agency, many submitters determined that they did not intend to submit a trade secret claim after all, and withdrew their claims. ( Memorandum from Donna Stephens, IMD/ EPA, 7/ 12/ 99).

Table 2 shows the estimated number of trade secret claims expected to be filed by facilities in the new ICR period of FY00 through FY02. For section 313, some claims may pertain to RYs 1998 through 2000. Overall, the number of trade secret claims filed is expected to increase slightly over the number actually submitted in the previous period. No claims are expected to be filed under section 303. ( Memoranda from Sicy Jacob, OSWER/ EPA, 8/ 12/ 99.)

The number of section 313 trade secret submissions is expected to increase from current levels because of a TRI chemical expansion activity which became effective in TRI reporting year 1998 ( FY99 and FY00). The expansion is projected to result in an additional 10,000 TRI Form R submissions, which should result in a small increase in trade secret claims. In addition, approximately 17,300 additional TRI reports are expected to be submitted when TRI reporting is expanded to include both lower thresholds and new chemicals under the TRI Persistent Bioaccumulative Toxic ( PBT) chemicals rule. The PBT reporting, which is expected to become required in RY00, or FY01 or FY02, is expected to generate approximately five additional trade secret claim submissions per year. ( Personal communication from Tim Crawford, IMD/ EPA, 8/ 17/ 99).

Table 1 13 January 24, 2000 Actual Number of Trade Secret Claims FY 1997  FY 1999  SARA Section FY97 FY98 FY99 Total  303( d) 2 and ( d)( 3) 0 0 0 0 311/ 312 347 212 280 839 313 16 16 19 51  Total 363 228 299 890  Sources: Memorandum from Sicy Jacob, OSWER/ EPA, 8/ 12/ 99, and Personal communication from Tim Crawford, IMD/ EPA, 8/ 17/ 99.

Table 2 Estimated Number of Trade Secret Claims FY 2000  FY 2002  SARA Section FY00 FY01 FY02 Total  303( d) 2 and ( d)( 3) 0 0 0 0 311/ 312 280 280 280 840 313 24 24 29 77  Total 304 304 309 917  Sources: Memorandum from Sicy Jacob, OSWER/ EPA, 8/ 12/ 99, and Personal communication from Tim Crawford, IMD/ EPA, 8/ 17/ 99.

6( b) Estimating Agency Burden and Cost 14 1Government labor costs are calculated using the following fully loaded wage rates for 1999: GS 13, $ 44.48/ hr; GS 12, $ 37.41/ hr; GS 9, $ 25.79/ hr; GS 7, $ 21.08/ hr.

2U. S. Dept. of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics data from Economic Analysis of the Proposed Rule to Modify Reporting of Persistent Bioaccumulative Toxic Chemicals Under EPCRA Section 313, Economic and Policy Analysis Branch, OPPT, EPA, Dec. 1998. Table 4 3, p. 4 6.

January 24, 2000 Costs to the Federal Government for processing trade secret claims, the petition and review processes, and for providing adverse health effects data, are presented in Table 3. Each of the three cost areas is discussed below.

( i) Processing and Storage of Trade Secret Claims EPA will incur expenses to process and store each trade secret claim submission. These activities include affixing document control number labels and trade secret cover sheets, processing basic information about the claims, checking for completeness, and storing the submissions. EPA must store all trade secret submissions and be prepared to respond to public petitions for disclosure of the subject chemical identities. Both fixed and variable costs are estimated.

Fixed costs are incurred for maintenance and operation of the existing storage and filing system for section 313 claims. Fixed costs for the three year period ( FY97 99) covered by the expiring ICR for 115 square feet of storage space were $ 2,288, unchanged from the previous reporting period ( Personal communication from Tim Crawford, IMD/ EPA, 8/ 17/ 99). Storage of section 311/ 312 records requires a minimum amount of space, and is handled by the Federal Records Center, at no charge to the Agency ( Memorandum from Sicy Jacob, OSWER/ EPA, 8/ 12/ 99).

Variable costs are estimated by program. 1 For sections 303 and 311/ 312 of EPCRA, costs supporting inventory of new claims, and storage, retrieval, and checking of claims for completeness, are estimated to be approximately $ 145 ( 2.25 hours) per claim. 2 Variable costs associated with processing section 313 claims are estimated to be approximately $ 856 ( 28.33 hours) per claim for FY00 through FY02 ( Update of memorandum from Janette Petersen, IMD/ EPA, 9/ 30/ 96).

Based on these figures, costs for processing trade secret submissions for OPPT and OSWER are estimated to be $ 63,432 per year for FY00 and FY01, and $ 67,712 for FY02. A weighted average cost per claim is $ 202 for FY 00 and 01, and $ 217 for FY02. Total costs are estimated to be $ 194,576 for the three year period. The increase in costs in FY02 is attributable to the additional trade secret claims expected when the TRI PBT rule goes into effect. 15 January 24, 2000 The total burden hours for the first two years are estimated to be 1,310 and 1,452 hours for FY02. Total burden hours are estimated to be 4,072 for the three year period. A weighted average burden per claim is 4.3 hours for FY00 and FY01, and 4.7 hours for FY02.

( ii) Petition/ Claim Review In addition to the costs associated with processing and storing trade secret claim documents, the Federal government will also incur costs by responding to petitions filed by the public requesting the Agency's review of specific claims, and as a result of EPA initiated review of claims.

The process established for petitioning and reviewing trade secret claims follows a standard series of steps. The costs of this process, however, are dependent on the merits of the claims and decisions that facilities make to contest an EPA finding if a trade secret claim is disallowed. The costs are also dependent on the number of petitions that the public files and the number and magnitude of EPA initiated reviews.

The actual number of petitions which has been filed over the history of the program is two; the first petition during FY89 pertained to one claim, and the second during FY90 pertained to 10 claims asserted by one facility. No new petitions have been received by the Agency during the period of the expiring ICR. ( Memorandum from Sicy Jacob, OSWER/ EPA, 8/ 12/ 99, and personal communication with Tim Crawford, IMD/ EPA, 8/ 17/ 99). The low rate of petitions received is believed to be the result of Agency initiated review activities in the absence of petitions. In the absence of any new petition activity, previous ICRs have assumed 10 claims per year, as occurred in 1990. However, given that no new petitions have been received in nine years, a more realistic assumption would be to average the number of claims over the past nine years, and use the average of one claim per year ( assuming each petition pertains to one claim) for this ICR.

The estimates for the costs of the petition process to the government included in the initial ICR originated from the RIA, which developed three scenarios to identify the potential steps and time involved for EPA, as well as petitioners and facilities in claim reviews. The scenarios ranged from a low level to a high level, or complex review. Based on State community right to know programs, an estimate of the likelihood of occurrence for each petition scenario was identified and a weighted average cost of petition review was calculated. The RIA assumed that no public petitions would result in a petitioner, the EPA, or a facility taking legal action. In the event of a court challenge, the RIA recognized that the costs of the process would likely be much higher than the estimated cost of the most complicated review case. However, the RIA did not consider the cost associated with a court challenge because estimating legal costs is difficult and there were no cases under existing programs on which to base such an estimate. 16 January 24, 2000 These assumptions, in combination with the actual costs incurred to review the 10 claims pertaining to the 1990 petition and the actual costs incurred in connection with the internallygenerated Agency review of trade secret claims, were used to determine the estimated costs to EPA shown in Table 3. Burden and cost for low level and complex review are estimated separately.

Low level review burden and cost were estimated based on an actual public citizen petition received, pertaining to one claim asserted by one facility. The review involved approximately 30 hours of Agency time primarily spent by professional staff at the GS 13 level ( fully loaded hourly wage of $ 44.48/ hour, 1999). The Agency's finding of " insufficiency" was not challenged.

In the previous ICR, the Agency based its estimates of future burden and costs for complex reviews on data pertaining to actual reviews conducted under section 313. These reviews were Agency initiated, however, and not the result of any public petition. The previous ICR based its cost and burden calculations on 53 complex reviews per year for the period. However, that number is based not on the number of actual high level, or complex reviews, but on the number of chemical delisting petitions submitted to the TRI program. The actual number of high level, Agency initiated reviews is five per year, or 15 for the next three year period of FY00 through FY02. ( Personal communication with Tim Crawford, IMD/ EPA, 8/ 17/ 99). The annual burden is thus estimated to be 185 hours and the total annual cost, $ 8,225. The average burden per review is estimated at 37 hours, and the average cost per review is estimated to be $ 1,645 ( all labor at fully loaded 1999 GS 13 hourly rate). For the three year period, the total burden is estimated to be 555 hours, and the cost, $ 24,675. All Agency initiated reviews were carried out under section 313; the Agency does not initiate reviews of claims made under sections 311 and 312 ( Memorandum from Sicy Jacob, OSWER/ EPA, 8/ 12/ 99, and personal communication from Tim Crawford, IMD/ EPA, 8/ 17/ 99).

EPA recognizes that the estimated burden hours per review presented here for complex reviews exceed those estimated for low level reviews by only about 20 percent on average. However, based on review activities conducted for the previous ICR, this narrow range was believed to provide the most reasonable estimate of anticipated resource requirements over the three year period. Agency staff do not expect the hourly burden estimates to change over the next three year period ( Memorandum from Sicy Jacob, OSWER/ EPA, 8/ 12/ 99, and personal communication from Tim Crawford, IMD/ EPA, 8/ 17/ 99). In addition, changes to the TRI program will result in significant expansion of the program and could alter the number of both low level and complex reviews. At this time, however, it is impossible to estimate what those changes, or their impacts, might be ( Personal communication from Tim Crawford, IMD/ EPA, 8/ 17/ 99).

Under Section 322( g), EPA has the responsibility to provide trade secret information to States who request such information. One such request was received, but the company withdrew 17 January 24, 2000 its trade secret claim. Therefore, this ICR does not estimate costs or burdens because no additional requests are expected, and the Agency does not have adequate experience on which to base an estimate.

( iii) Provision of Adverse Health Effects Information Table 3 also shows the estimated costs incurred to collect and distribute health hazard data for EPCRA section 313 chemicals claimed as trade secret. During the previous three years ( FY97 through FY99), a total of 12 profiles were prepared using a total of approximately 132 hours. Four profiles are expected to be prepared each year again during FY00 through FY02. The burden estimate for FY97 through FY99 shown in the table is based on an annual projected burden of 11.2 hours per profile, or 44.8 hours per year at the GS 13 level ($ 44.48/ hr, 1999). The estimated burden per profile has not changed from the previous ICR. The total annual cost is estimated to be $ 1,992. For the three year period, the total burden is estimated to be 135 hours, at a cost of $ 5,976. ( Personal communication with Tim Crawford, IMD/ EPA, 8/ 17/ 99.

Although the RIA identified three additional tasks included as part of the provision of health effects data, no additional burden was estimated to be associated with these tasks. This is because these tasks ( sanitizing hazard profiles, provision of section 313 data to the public upon request, and provision of section 313 data to states upon request) are either not performed ( e. g., no requests for trade secret data have been received from the states) or are performed routinely as part of the normal Toxic Release Inventory ( TRI) data release ( Personal communication from Tim Crawford, IMD/ EPA, 8/ 17/ 99).

The total burden to the federal government for managing claims submitted under sections 303, and 311/ 312 over the three year period covered by this ICR will be 1,779 hours, at a cost of $ 112,752. For handling section 313 claims, the federal government burden is estimated to be 2,730 hours for the three year period, at a total cost of $ 99,150. The grand total hours is 4,509 hours, or 1503 hours per year, and $ 211,902 for the three year period. 18 January 24, 2000 Table 3 Cost to Federal Government  Sections 322/ 323 Cost Type FY00 FY01 FY02 Total 1. Processing and Storing Trade Secret Claims Fixed Costs Section 313: Dollars $ 2,288 $ 2,288 $ 2,288 $ 6,864 Variable Costs Section 303, 311/ 312:

Number of Claims 280 280 280 840 Hours per Claim 2.25 2.25 2.25 Dollars per Claim $ 145 $ 145 $ 145 Section 313: Number of Claims 24 24 29 77 Hours per Claim 28.33 28.33 28.33 Dollars per Claim $ 856 $ 856 $ 856 Hours All 1,310 1,310 1,452 4,072 Dollars All $ 61,144 $ 61,144 $ 65,424 $ 187,712 Subtotal  All Costs Hours 1,310 1,310 1,452 4,072 Dollars $ 63,432 $ 63,432 $ 63,712 $ 194,576 Weighted Avg. Burden/ Claim 4.3 4.3 4.7 19 January 24, 2000 Weighted Avg. Cost/ Claim $ 202 $ 202 $ 217

Cost Type FY00 FY01 FY02 Total

2. Agency Review Process A. Low Level Review ( Assumes each petition pertains to one claim)

Number of Petitions 1 1 1 3 Hours per Petition 30 30 30 Dollars per Petition $ 1,334 $ 1,334 $ 1,334 Hours  all petitions 30 30 30 90 Cost  all petitions $ 1,334 $ 1,334 $ 1,334 $ 4,002

2. Agency Review Process B. Complex Review Number of Reviews 5 5 5 15 Hours per Review 37 37 37 Dollars per Review $ 1,645 $ 1,645 $ 1,645 Hours All 185 185 185 555 Cost All $ 8,225 $ 8,225 $ 8,225 $ 24,675

3. Provision of Adverse Health Effects Information 20 January 24, 2000 Number of Profiles 4 4 4 12 Hours per Profile 11.2 11.2 11.2

Cost Type FY00 FY01 FY02 Total

Cost per Profile $ 498 $ 498 $ 498 Hours All 45 45 45 135 Dollars $ 1,992 $ 1,992 $ 1,992 $ 5,976

Federal Government Totals A. Sections 303, 311/ 312 ( Low Level Review)

Hours 593 593 593 1,779 Dollars $ 37,584 $ 37,584 $ 37,584 $ 112,7 52 B. Section 313 ( Complex Review)

Hours 910 910 910 2,730 Dollars $ 33,050 $ 33,050 $ 33,050 $ 99,150 Grand Totals Hours 1,503 1,503 1,503 4,509 Cost $ 70,634 $ 70,634 $ 70,634 $ 211,902  21 January 24, 2000 Note: Totals may not add up exactly due to rounding. 22 January 24, 2000 6( c) Estimating Respondent Burden and Costs ( i) Forms Completion One of the major cost components associated with trade secret claims is the cost to facilities to prepare substantiations. The time required to complete this process for each chemical will vary with the complexity of the situation, the number of chemicals that a facility seeks to claim, and the amount of detail that a facility includes in each answer. The cost estimates presented in Table 4 are based on phone conversations with trade secret submitters and on assumptions about the time it takes to complete various activities, which are explained in brief below.

Facilities will incur two types of costs in the handling and filing of trade secret claims: fixed costs ( i. e., costs that do not vary with the number of chemicals claimed trade secret) and variable costs, which are incurred on a per claim basis. In all cases, all facilities that file trade secret claims will incur fixed costs; these costs will be incurred only once, however, reflecting the fact that actions such as rule familiarization, chemical selection, and preparation of facility identification information will be undertaken only once. It is assumed that only facilities making first time trade secret claims incur fixed costs; although other facilities may spend time reading the rule and deciding whether to make a claim, this analysis does not attribute those costs to the regulation.

The number of first time claims prepared annually was estimated based on an assumption that approximately one quarter of the claims received are submitted by new facilities ( first time filers) or pertain to chemicals for which an existing submitter is claiming a trade secret for the first time. ( Memorandum from Sicy Jacob, OSWER/ EPA 8/ 12/ 99). ( See Table 4, 1. Forms Completion  Facilities, Fixed Costs: 304 x .25 = 76.) While the burden associated with claims falling into the second category will not include rule familiarization, it does include time spent by the submitter to determine whether a trade secret claim is necessary ( chemical selection). This effort is a major portion of overall fixed costs. The 22 hours allocated to forms completion, fixed costs are broken down as follows: 10.8 hours, management; 11 hours, technical; and .2 hours, secretarial ( Memorandum from Bob Andrei, EETD/ EPA, 1993).

The second type of costs that facilities will incur are variable costs; facilities will incur these costs for each chemical claimed as trade secret. These costs include preparing the trade secret substantiation, sanitizing the report, and mailing the report to EPA. In this ICR, burden hours used to calculate variable costs for all trade secret claims expected during FY00 through FY02 have been updated to reflect the effort required to prepare original substantiations for a given chemical that does not have a previously submitted substantiation prepared, as well as resubmittal of previously submitted claims. Repeat submitters incur somewhat lower per unit 23 3U. S. EPA, Economic Analysis of the Proposed Rule To Modify Reporting of Persistent Bioaccumulative Toxic Chemicals Under EPCRA Section 313. U. S. EPA, Washington, D. C. Dec. 1998, Table 4 3, p. 4 6.

January 24, 2000 preparation cost than those incurred by facilities filing first time, or original claims for several reasons. First, resubmitting facilities that assert a claim repeatedly for the same chemical under the same Title III section 313, 311/ 312 or 303 can use essentially the same substantiation form answers that were used in the original substantiation claim. Second, facilities save money by filing essentially the same substantiation with reports submitted under multiple Title III sections during the same reporting year. Third, facilities save by submitting essentially the same substantiation form answers to support claims for multiple chemicals reported pursuant to the same Title III section. These cost savings occur when, for instance, a facility makes claims for multiple chemicals which comprise the same formulation or portions of a formulation.

This year OSWER contacted five actual submitters of trade secret claims under sections 311/ 312 to obtain updated burden estimates for submitting claims. Submitters of new claims reported time requirements of two to four hours, with an average of three hours. Submitters of previously submitted claims, who submitted between one and 40 claims, reported times of one to three hours, with an average of two hours total for all claims. ( Memorandum from Sicy Jacob, IMD/ EPA, 8/ 12/ 99). Erring on the conservative side, this ICR assumes that each facility spends the highest amount, four hours per claim, for variable costs. The hours are broken down as follows: .25 hour, management; 2 hours, technical; and 1.75 hours, secretarial ( Breakdown proportionally same as previous ICR, which was taken from Memorandum from Bob Andrei, EETD/ EPA, 1993).

The cost to respondents is estimated based on the time needed to complete the tasks described above, and the hourly labor wage rates at appropriate levels. Wage rates, including fringe costs and overhead, are $ 86.86/ hr. for management time, $ 64.30/ hr. for technical time, and $ 25.63/ hr. for clerical time.

Wage rates are from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, and are updated by the Employer Cost Index to March 1998. The same wage rates were used in a recent EPA Economic Analysis pertaining to a Toxic Release Inventory rulemaking. 3 The wage rates represent the mix of labor categories deemed appropriate for the Agency's Comprehensive Assessment and Information Rule ( CAIR). 24 January 24, 2000 Table 4 Burden/ Costs to Respondents by Activity Sections 322/ 323

Affected Entity FY00 FY01 FY02 Total 1. Forms Completion  Facilities Fixed Costs Number Affected 76 76 77 229 Hours Per Facility 22 22 22 Dollars Per Facility $ 1,577 $ 1,577 $ 1,577 Hours All 1,672 1,672 1,694 5,038 Dollars All $ 119,852 $ 119,852 $ 121,429 $ 361,133 Variable Costs Number Affected 304 304 309 917 Hours Per Facility 4 4 4 Dollars Per Facility $ 169 $ 169 $ 169 Hours All 1,216 1,216 1,236 3,668 Dollars All $ 51,376 $ 51,376 $ 52,221 $ 54,973 Subtotal Hours All 2,888 2,888 2,930 8,706 Dollars All $ 171,228 $ 171,228 $ 173,650 $ 516,106  25 January 24, 2000

Affected Entity FY00 FY01 FY02 Total

2. Petition Process Petitioners ( General Public)

Number of Petitions 1 1 1 3 Hours Per Petition 2.5 2.5 2.5 Dollars per Petition $ 161 $ 161 $ 161 Hours All 2.5 2.5 2.5 7.5 Cost All $ 161 $ 161 $ 161 $ 483

Facilities Number of Petitions/ Reviews 6 6 6 18 Avg. Hours Per Petition 32.7 32.7 32.7 Dollars per Petition $ 2,840 $ 2,840 $ 2,840 Hours All 196 196 196 588 Cost All $ 17,040 $ 17,040 $ 17,040 $ 51,120

Subtotal Hours All 198.5 198.5 198.5 596 Cost All $ 17,201 $ 17,201 $ 17,201 $ 51,603 26 January 24, 2000

Affected Entity FY00 FY01 FY02 Total

3. Third Party Notification State Gov'ts/ SERCS Number of Inquiries 5 5 5 15 Hours per Inquiry 1 1 1 Dollars per Inquiry $ 33 $ 33 $ 33 Health Professionals Number of Inquiries 5 5 5 15 Hours per Inquiry 1 1 1 Dollars per Inquiry $ 64 $ 64 $ 64 Facilities Number of Inquiries 10 10 10 30 Hours per Inquiry 1 1 1 Dollars per Inquiry $ 56 $ 56 $ 56 Hours All 20 20 20 60 Dollars All $ 1,045 $ 1,045 $ 1,045 $ 3,135 Total Respondent Burden Hours All 3,107 3,107 3,149 9,363 Cost All $ 189,474 $ 189,474 $ 191,896 $ 570,844 27 January 24, 2000  ( ii) Petition and Review The petition and review process will also cause certain facilities and public petitioners to incur costs when the Agency reviews the validity of trade secrets claims. Petitioner efforts involve preparing the petition requesting that EPA review the trade secret claim. The requisite elements of a petition include the following: the petitioner's name, address and telephone number; the name and address of the company claiming trade secrecy; and, a copy of the submission in which the chemical identity is claimed as trade secret with a specific indication as to which chemical identity the petitioner seeks to have disclosed.

The Agency assumes that the two scenarios regarding complexity of claims which were considered in estimating EPA costs ( see Table 3) also apply to costs to petitioners and facilities in the petition process and to facilities in EPA initiated reviews. The previous ICR assigned no facility burden in connection with Agency initiated reviews of trade secret claims. As in the previous ICR, the Agency assumes that all Agency initiated reviews would involve facilities at an increased level of effort, relative to a low level petition initiated review. The additional effort was assumed proportional to the additional effort required by EPA ( 20 percent above low level). Table 4 incorporates the burden required by these additional reviews in a weighted average cost per review. This weighted average cost was calculated based on the estimate of 28 hours burden required for low level petition review used in the previous ICR ( Memorandum from Dorothy McManus, OSWER/ EPA, 10/ 21/ 93). Thus, 28 hours was used as the burden estimate for all low level reviews. For Agency initiated reviews, 33.6 hours ( 28 x 1.20) was used. The Agency did not receive any petitions from the public during the previous ICR period for sections 311/ 312. The number of 1 petition for section 313 is from the assumption of an average of one petition ( containing 1 claim) per year, and the projected number of five Agency initiated complex reviews, from Table 3. Costs were calculated using the technical hourly wage rate of $ 64.30 for the one petition from the general public, and the managerial hourly wage rate of $ 86.86 for the five complex petitions/ reviews.

( iii) Third Party Notification Also under the heading of variable costs is the burden and cost to facilities responding to requests for information on the health effects of trade secret chemicals in non emergency and preventative measure situations from health professionals and state governors or State Emergency Response Commissions ( SERCs). The state government inquiries can be made as the result of a public request for the information. These costs and burdens were not required to be included in previous ICRs.

Based on limited telephone inquiries made in 1996, in 1995 the estimated number of information requests from state governors was one, and from health professions, one ( Memorandum from Lea Anne Gleason, OSWER/ EPA, 10/ 30/ 96.) However, to avoid 28 January 24, 2000 underestimating the potential cost and burden, this ICR is continuing to assume that five inquiries will be made each year by each of five different state governments and health professionals. Facilities are therefore assumed to respond to 10 inquiries each year. The estimated burden for each organization is one hour (. 5 hour management, or GS 13 equivalent for the state government, and .5 hour for secretarial, or GS 7 for states). For health professionals, the estimated burden is one hour, technical labor ( Memorandum from Lea Anne Gleason, OSWER/ EPA, 10/ 30/ 96)). The cost per inquiry is estimated to be $ 33 for state governments, $ 64 for health professionals, and $ 56 for facilities. The total burden for all three types of organizations is estimated to be 10 hours per year, and the cost, $ 209 per year.

( iv) Respondent Burden Table 5 presents the corresponding burden hours for each category of respondent discussed in the previous sections.

( v) Capital and O& M Costs There are no capital and operation and maintenance costs associated with any requirements in this ICR.

( vi) Explanation of Difference of Annual Reporting Burden The previous ICR requested an average annual burden of 8,641 hours, while this ICR requests 3,121 hours, a 64 percent decline. The average annual burden per respondent has fallen by 64 percent from 26.7 hours, to 9.9 hours. Three principal reasons are behind such dramatic declines. First, the Agency obtained updated estimates on the variable costs incurred by facilities during the forms completion activity. The new information showed a 75 percent decline in the average burden, from 16 hours down to four hours, which was the high end of the estimates. Second, the Agency changed its outdated assumption regarding the number of petitions that it expects to receive. The Agency had been basing its assumption of 10 claims ( contained in one petition) on a single experience in 1990. No new petitions have been received since then, so rather than continue to use the assumption that 10 claims would be received every year, this ICR took an average of the 10 claims over the past nine years, and used the figure of 1 claim per year. Third, the Agency had been using the figure of 53 claims undergoing complex review each year, in the burden calculations. This year, however, Agency staff realized that the high figure of 53 actually including primarily TRI delisting petitions, and that the real number of petitions undergoing complex review each year is no greater than five.

In the expiring ICR, the estimated number of respondents for FY99 was 304, which is very close to the number of 299 respondents for FY99, and the same as the number expected in each of the next three years. 29 January 24, 2000 The annual government burden for low level reviews of trade secret claims will fall dramatically to just 30 hours each year down from 300 hours. This is caused by the change in the assumption regarding how many petitions will be received, discussed above. The annual government burden for complex reviews will also fall dramatically, to 185 hours from 1,961 hours, again because of a correction in the number of complex review conducted, from 53 down to five. The burden hours per review, however, are unchanged from the previous ICR. On the cost side, these reductions in government hours have caused the government's costs to drop substantially from $ 582,921 for the three year period, to $ 211,902. 30 January 24, 2000 Table 5 Burden to Respondents  Sections 322/ 323 of SARA Title III

Group Affected/ Activity FY00 FY01 FY02 Total

Facilities Forms Completion Number Affected 304 304 319 917 Avg. Hours per 8.5 8.5 8.5 Hours All 2,888 2,888 2,888 8,706 Petition Review Number Affected 6 6 6 18 Avg. Hours Per 32.7 32.7 32.7 Hours All 196 196 196 588 Third Party Notification Number Affected 10 10 10 30 Avg. Hours per 1 1 1 Hours All 10 10 10 30 Petitioners Petition/ Review Number Affected 1 1 1 3 Hours per 2.5 2.5 2.5 Hours All 2.5 2.5 2.5 7.5 31 January 24, 2000 Others ( State Gov'ts and Health Professionals)

Third Party Notification Number Affected 10 10 10 10 Hours Per 1 1 1 Hours All 10 10 10 30

FY00 FY01 FY02 Total

Total for all affected ( non Federal)

Number Affected 315 315 315 950 Hours per 9.9 9.9 9.9 Burden All 3,107 3,107 3,149 9,363 32 January 24, 2000 6( d) Burden Statement The annual public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 9.9 hours per claim. 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 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 such a request, and a person or facility 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.

Send comments on the Agency's need for this information ( EPA ICR No. 1428.05), including suggestions for reducing the burden, to: Director, Office of Environmental Information, Collection Strategies Division, Mailcode 2822, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, D. C. 20460; and to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street, N. W., Washington, D. C. 20503, Attention: Desk Officer for EPA. Include the EPA ICR number and OMB control number in any correspondence.


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 154 (Thursday, August 9, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 39484-39485]
[FR Doc No: 2018-17005]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-83770; File No. SR-BX-2018-035]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Nasdaq BX, Inc.; Notice of Filing
and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend BX Options
Rules at Chapter I, Section 1 To Define Certain Terms

August 3, 2018.
    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 July 23, 2018, Nasdaq BX, Inc. (``BX'' or ``Exchange'') filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission (``SEC'' or ``Commission'') the
proposed rule change as described in Items I and II below, which Items
have been prepared by the Exchange. The Commission is publishing this
notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested
persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend BX Options Rules at Chapter I,
Section 1 to define certain terms.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
website at http://nasdaqbx.cchwallstreet.com/, at the principal office
of the Exchange, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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 and
discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The
text of these 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 aspects of such
statements.

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

1. Purpose
    BX rules currently do not define an ``in-the-money'' or ``out-of-
the-money'' option. The Exchange proposes to define these terms at
Chapter I, Section 1 to bring greater transparency to BX rules. In
addition, the Exchange notes that the terms, ``in-the-money'' and
``out-of-the-money'' are generally accepted terms in the options
industry. These terms are utilized throughout the options industry. The
Exchange desires for its Participants to have a clear understanding of
how BXs System defines these terms.
    The Exchange proposes to define an ``in-of-the-money'' option at
Chapter I, Section 1(a)(68). The Exchange proposes that the term ``in-
the-money'' shall mean the following: For call options, all strike
prices below the offer in the underlying security on the primary
listing market; for put options, all strike prices above the bid in the
underlying security on the primary listing market. The Exchange
proposes to define an ``out-of-the-money'' option at Chapter I, Section
1(a)(69). The Exchange proposes that the term ``out-of-the-money''
shall mean the following: For call options, all strike prices above the
offer in the underlying security on the primary listing market; for put
options, all strike prices below the bid in the underlying security on
the primary listing market.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section
6(b) of the Act,\3\ in general, and furthers the objectives of Section
6(b)(5) of the Act,\4\ in particular, in that it is designed to promote
just and equitable principles of trade, 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.
The Exchange's proposal to define the terms ``in-the-money'' and ``out-
of-the-money'' options is consistent with the Act and protects
investors and the public interest by bringing greater transparency to
the Rulebook. In addition, the Exchange notes that the terms, ``in-the-
money'' and ``out-of-the-money'' are generally accepted terms in the
options industry. These terms are utilized throughout the options
industry. The Exchange desires for its Participants to have a clear
understanding of how BX's System defines these terms.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

Exchange's proposal to define the terms ``in-the-money'' and ``out-of-
the-money'' options does not unduly burden competition, rather it adds
greater transparency to the Rulebook.

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

    No written comments were either solicited or received.

III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for
Commission Action

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i)
Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii)
become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or
such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act \5\ and
subparagraph (f)(6) of Rule 19b-4 thereunder.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \6\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
requires a self-regulatory organization to give the Commission
written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change at
least five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed
rule change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission.
The Exchange has satisfied this requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) \7\ normally
does not become operative prior to 30 days after the date of the
filing. However, pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii),\8\ the Commission
may designate a shorter time if such action is consistent with the
protection of investors and the public interest. The Exchange requests
that the Commission waive the 30-day operative delay so that the
proposal may become operative immediately upon filing. The Exchange
represents that immediately defining the terms ``in-the-money'' and
``out-of-the-money'' options within its Rulebook would provide greater
transparency to its Participants. For the same reason, the Commission
believes that waiving the 30-day operative delay is consistent with the
protection of investors and the public interest. Accordingly, the
Commission waives the 30-day operative delay and designates the
proposed rule change operative upon filing.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \8\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
    \9\ For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay, the
Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency,
competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is: (i)
Necessary or appropriate in the public interest; (ii) for the
protection of investors; or (iii) otherwise in furtherance of the
purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the
Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the
proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to [email protected]. Please include
File Number SR-BX-2018-035 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-BX-2018-035. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's internet website (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 website viewing and printing in
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549, on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and
3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection
and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments
received will be posted without change. Persons submitting comments are
cautioned that we do not redact or edit personal identifying
information from comment submissions. You should submit only
information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions
should refer to File Number SR-BX-2018-035 and should be submitted on
or before August 30, 2018.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-17005 Filed 8-8-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P