[Federal Register: March 12, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 48)]
[Notices]
[Page 11958-11962]
[DOCID:fr12mr10-171]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-61669; File No. SR-NASDAQ-2009-081]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC; Order
Granting Approval of Proposed Rule Change To Modify the Fees for
Listing on the Nasdaq Stock Market and the Fee for Written
Interpretations of Nasdaq Listing Rules

March 5, 2010.

I. Introduction

    On October 6, 2009, The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC (``Nasdaq'') filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission''), pursuant
to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ a proposed rule change
modifying the application, entry and annual fees currently charged to
issuers listed on the Nasdaq Global and Nasdaq Global Select Markets,
as well as the fee for written interpretations of Nasdaq listing rules.
The proposed rule change was published for comment in the Federal
Register on November 4, 2009.\3\ The Commission received three comment
letters from one commenter on the proposal.\4\ Nasdaq submitted four
letters in response to the comments.\5\ This order approves the
proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 60899 (October 28,
2009), 74 FR 57212 (``Notice'').
    \4\ See Letters to Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, Commission,
from Jesse W. Markham, Jr., Roger Myers, and Stephen Ryerson, Holme
Roberts & Owen LLP (writing on behalf of Business Wire, Inc.), dated
November 24, 2009 (``Business Wire Letter 1''); January 8, 2010
(stating its intent to respond to Nasdaq's response to its initial
letter); and January 14, 2010 (``Business Wire Letter 2'').
    \5\ See Letter to Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, Commission,
from Arnold P. Golub, Vice President and Associate General Counsel,
The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC, dated December 23, 2009 (``Nasdaq
Letter 1''); from Michael N. Sohn and Donna E. Patterson, Arnold &
Porter, LLP, dated December 23, 2009 (writing on behalf of Nasdaq)
(``Nasdaq Letter 2''); from Arnold P. Golub, Vice President and
Associate General Counsel, The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC, dated
January 22, 2010 (``Nasdaq Letter 3''); and February 5, 2010
(``Nasdaq Letter 4'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description of the Proposal

A. Nasdaq Global and Global Select Application, Entry and Annual Fees

    Nasdaq currently imposes a $5,000 application fee on a company
applying to list on the Nasdaq Global or Nasdaq Global Select
Markets.\6\ Nasdaq

proposes to increase this fee to $25,000. The application fee would
continue to be credited towards entry fees upon listing, and thus, this
change would not affect the overall fees a company pays to list.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ The application fee is non-refundable. The Global Select
Market is a segment of The Nasdaq Global Market. See Nasdaq Rule
5005(a)(25) and (29).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Nasdaq also proposes to modify the entry fee a company pays when
listing on the Nasdaq Global or Nasdaq Global Select Markets.
Currently, those fees are charged in three tiers, based on the number
of shares the company has outstanding, and range from $100,000 to
$150,000.\7\ Nasdaq proposes to create, for Nasdaq Global and Nasdaq
Global Select listings, an additional tier for companies issuing over
50 million to 100 million shares and to increase the entry fee by
$25,000 to $75,000, depending on the number of shares to be listed.\8\
These fees were last increased in January 2002.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ The current entry fees for Nasdaq Global and Nasdaq Global
Select listings are as follows: $100,000 for up to 30 million
shares; $125,000 for 30+ to 50 million shares; and $150,000 for over
50 million shares. See Nasdaq Rule 5910(a).
    \8\ The proposed entry fees for Nasdaq Global and Nasdaq Global
Select listings are as follows: $125,000 for up to 30 million
shares; $150,000 for 30+ to 50 million shares; $200,000 for 50+ to
100 million shares; and $225,000 for shares over 100 million.
    \9\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 45206 (December 28,
2001), 67 FR 621 (January 4, 2002) (approving SR-NASD-2001-76).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, Nasdaq proposes to modify the annual fee imposed on
domestic and foreign issues and American Depositary Receipts (``ADRs'')
listed on the Nasdaq Global and Nasdaq Global Select Markets. The
proposed change would result in revised annual fees for domestic and
foreign issues for Nasdaq Global and Nasdaq Global Select listings,
ranging from $35,000 to $99,500, based on the number of shares
outstanding, and a maximum increase of $5,000, depending on the
company's total shares outstanding.\10\ In addition, Nasdaq proposes to
combine two of the existing seven fee tiers to create a new tier for
companies with over 10 million to 50 million shares outstanding. As a
result, according to Nasdaq, there would be no fee increase for
approximately 25 percent of Nasdaq companies.\11\ Annual fees for
domestic and foreign \12\ companies were last increased in January
2007.\13\ The revised annual fee applicable to ADRs listed on Nasdaq
Global and Nasdaq Global Select would result in an annual increase
ranging from $8,775 to $20,000, and the revised fee would range from
$30,000 to $50,000, depending on the number of ADRs outstanding.\14\ In
addition, Nasdaq proposes to expand the size of the tiers of shares
outstanding on which these proposed fees are based. Annual fees for
ADRs were last increased in February 2004.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ The current annual fees for domestic and foreign issues
listed on Nasdaq Global and Nasdaq Global Select are as follows:
$30,000 for up to 10 million shares; $35,000 for 10+ to 25 million
shares; $37,500 for 25+ to 50 million shares; $45,000 for 50+ to 75
million shares; $65,500 for 75+ to 100 million shares; $85,000 for
100+ to 150 million shares; and $95,000 for over 150 million shares.
See Nasdaq Rule 5910(c).
    \11\ The proposed annual fees for domestic and foreign issues
listed on Nasdaq Global or Nasdaq Global Select are as follows:
$35,000 for up to 10 million shares; $37,500 for 10+ to 50 million
shares; $46,500 for 50+ to 75 million shares; $68,500 for 75+ to 100
million shares; $89,000 for 100+ to 150 million shares; and $99,500
for shares over 150 million. Companies with 25 million to 50 million
shares outstanding would not face a fee increase under the proposed
change.
    \12\ Telephone conversation between Arnold Golub, Vice President
and Associate General Counsel, Nasdaq, and Terri Evans, Special
Counsel, and Arisa Tinaves, Special Counsel, Division of Trading and
Markets, Commission, on November 5, 2009 (clarifying that fees for
foreign companies also were last increased in January 2007).
    \13\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 55202 (January 30,
2007), 72 FR 6017 (February 8, 2007) (approving SR-NASDAQ-2006-40).
    \14\ The current annual fees for ADRs listed on Nasdaq Global
and Nasdaq Global Select are as follows: $21,225 for up to 10
million ADRs; $26,500 for 10+ to 25 million ADRs; $29,820 for 25+ to
50 million ADRs; and $30,000 for over 50 million ADRs. See Nasdaq
Rule 5910(d). The proposed annual fee for ADRs is as follows:
$30,000 for up to 10 million ADRs; $37,500 for 10+ to 50 million
ADRs; $42,500 for 50+ to 75 million ADRs; and $50,000 for ADRs over
75 million.
    \15\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 49169 (February 2,
2004), 69 FR 6009 (February 9, 2004) (approving SR-NASD-2003-178).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Fee for Written Interpretations of Nasdaq Listing Rules

    Nasdaq also proposes to change the fee for written interpretations
of Nasdaq listing rules 5000 through 5900 \16\ for all companies listed
on Nasdaq's Capital, Global and Global Select Markets. Currently, for a
written interpretation, a company is required to submit a non-
refundable fee of $5,000 for a regular request, which is generally
completed within four weeks from the date Nasdaq receives all
information necessary to respond to the request, or $15,000 for an
expedited request, in which the company requests a response by a
specific date that is less than four weeks after the date Nasdaq
receives all necessary information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ The Commission notes that the 5000 series Rules are
entitled NASDAQ Listing Rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Nasdaq proposes to eliminate the alternative for a non-expedited
request and require all companies seeking a written interpretation to
pay $15,000. Further, Nasdaq proposes to modify the timeframes in which
Nasdaq would respond to interpretive requests. As revised, the rule
would state that Nasdaq would generally respond to all requests for a
written interpretation within four weeks from the date Nasdaq receives
all information necessary to respond to the request, although Nasdaq
would attempt to respond by a sooner date if the company so requires.
Nasdaq will continue, as it currently does, to not charge companies for
oral interpretations of its rules.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ The Commission notes that Nasdaq has stated that it does
not charge companies for oral interpretation requests of their
rules. Telephone conversation on October 28, 2009 between Arnold
Golub, Vice President and Associate General Counsel, Nasdaq and
Sharon Lawson, Senior Special Counsel, Commission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Implementation

    The revised annual fee schedule would be effective January 1, 2010.
The application and entry fee schedule would be effective for companies
that apply for listing after Commission approval of the proposed rule
change; thus a company that applied and paid the application fee prior
to Commission approval would be charged an entry fee according to the
fee schedule in effect at the time of its application. Finally, we note
that the change to the interpretive fees is effective upon approval of
the fee in this order.

III. Summary of Comments

    The Commission received three comment letters on the proposed rule
change from Business Wire.\18\ Generally, Business Wire requests that
the Commission: ``(1) deny Nasdaq's proposal to increase its fees
absent assurances that Nasdaq is not engaged in cross-subsidization of
its information dissemination services subsidiary through application,
entry, and annual fees for listings; (2) require transparency in all
future pricing proposals from Nasdaq; and (3) restrict Nasdaq's
ownership of and/or involvement in business outside its core function
that create actual or apparent conflicts of interest.'' \19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ See supra note 4.
    \19\ See Business Wire Letters 1 and 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    According to Business Wire, Nasdaq is increasing its ``fee
structure to cover unspecified cost increases at the same time it is
attempting to attract new listings by offering millions of dollars in
`free' Information Dissemination Services [(``IDSs'')] bundled into the
listing fee.'' \20\ Business Wire believes that Nasdaq is, in fact,
raising its fees to subsidize the delivery of free or discounted IDSs
to current or prospective listed companies through GlobeNewswire and
other affiliates that provide IDSs such as press release services,
webcasting, Web hosting and

EDGAR filings, all of which Nasdaq refers to as its ``Core Services,''
and which are offered under the umbrella of Nasdaq affiliate Nasdaq OMX
Group Corporate Services, Inc. (``NOCS'').\21\ According to Business
Wire, Nasdaq jointly markets itself and the IDSs offered by NOCS, to
induce companies listed on other exchanges to switch listings or to
retain Nasdaq listings, by effectively reducing a company's listing
costs through the provision of IDSs.\22\ Specifically, Business Wire
asserts that Nasdaq offers extensive free or discounted IDSs to certain
listed companies and that, in fact, Nasdaq has offered ``up to five
years of free or heavily discounted wire distribution * * * to certain
companies either as an inducement to switch listings or as part of a
package deal to reduce the cost of the company's existing listing on
Nasdaq.'' \23\ According to Business Wire, the alleged cross-
subsidization unduly burdens competition and inequitably allocates fees
among its issuers in violation of Sections 6(b)(4), (5) and (8) of the
Act, as well as Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ See Business Wire Letter 1; see also Business Wire Letter 2
(stating that the proposed rule change fails to explain why
additional revenue is needed).
    \21\ See Business Wire Letter 1. The Commission notes that
Nasdaq clarified that NOCS and Nasdaq are separate subsidiaries of
NASDAQ OMX Group, Inc. See Nasdaq Letter 1. Nasdaq also clarified
that references in its letters to Nasdaq Corporate Services, Inc.,
NASDAQ OMX Corporate Services, Inc., and Nasdaq Corporate Services,
LLC should all be references to NASDAQ OMX Group Corporate Services,
Inc. Telephone conversation on March 3, 2010 between Arnold Golub,
Vice President and Associate General Counsel, Nasdaq, and Terri
Evans, Special Counsel, Commission.
    \22\ See Business Wire Letter 2.
    \23\ See Business Wire Letter 2.
    \24\ See Business Wire Letter 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Specifically, Business Wire argues that Nasdaq's proposal fails to
satisfy Section 6(b)(4) of the Act, which requires the equitable
allocation of reasonable dues, fees and other charges among its
issuers, because listed companies that use Nasdaq's free or discounted
IDSs pay the same listing fees as listed companies that elect not to do
so and purchase such services from third parties. Business Wire
believes that Nasdaq's fees are not equitably allocated because one set
of listed companies is subsidizing another by effectively paying,
through their listing fees, a portion of the costs that are incurred by
Nasdaq to provide free or discounted IDSs.\25\ Business Wire further
asserts that the proposed fee increases would facilitate Nasdaq's
alleged tying and cross-subsidization in violation of the antitrust
laws and would, therefore, be inconsistent with just and equitable
principles of trade under Section 6(b)(5) of the Act.\26\ Moreover,
Business Wire believes that Nasdaq's proposed fee increases would
impose a burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. According to Business Wire,
Nasdaq's ``cross-subsidization provides no significant benefit to
investors, listed companies, or the exchange system that might make
such a significant impact on competition necessary or appropriate.''
\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ See Business Wire Letter 1.
    \26\ See Business Wire Letter 1.
    \27\ See Business Wire Letter 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Business Wire also alleges that Nasdaq is tying its IDSs to its
listing services in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act.
According to Business Wire, a tying arrangement violates Section 1 of
the Sherman Act ``if the seller has appreciable economic power in the
tying product market and if the arrangement affects a substantial
volume of commerce in the tied market.'' \28\ Business Wire believes
that Nasdaq's free or discounted offerings meet the legal standard of a
tying arrangement in violation of the antitrust laws.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ See Business Wire Letter 1.
    \29\ Business Wire believes that Nasdaq is tying together its
listing services and its IDSs because customers that list on Nasdaq
and are provided such free or discounted services will effectively
be precluded from switching to another source of IDSs since they
would be paying for Nasdaq's IDSs, whether they use them or not,
through the elevated listing fees. Business Wire further alleges
that Nasdaq has sufficient market power to coerce purchase of the
tied product since the only way to avoid the indirect cost of
Nasdaq's IDSs would be for a company to either not list on Nasdaq or
incur significant costs to move their listing to a different
exchange. Lastly, Business Wire asserts that the amount of commerce
affected in the IDSs' market is far above the ``not insubstantial''
requirement of the Sherman Act (asserting that Nasdaq is offering
millions of dollars of free wire distribution and other IDSs). See
Business Wire Letters 1 and 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additionally, Business Wire alleges that Nasdaq, by offering free
or discounted IDSs, evinces an attempt to monopolize in violation of
Section 2 of the Sherman Act.\30\ Specifically, Business Wire alleges
that Nasdaq is engaging in predatory anti-competitive conduct. Business
Wire urges the Commission to ensure that no part of the proposed fee
increase is used to subsidize Nasdaq's provision of IDSs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ See Business Wire Letter 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, Business Wire states that Nasdaq's offering of IDSs
creates a conflict of interest with its role as a self-regulatory
organization. For example, Business Wire believes that Nasdaq's role in
enforcing compliance with rules relating to the dissemination of
material information by listed companies could result in Nasdaq
effectively becoming the ``preferred provider'' of IDSs.\31\
Accordingly, Business Wire believes that not only should Nasdaq's
proposal be rejected, but that Nasdaq should be required to sell
GlobeNewswire or operate it on a strict arms-length basis.\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ See Business Wire Letter 1; see also Business Wire Letter 2
(stating by ``intertwining its listing services with Globe's
Information Dissemination Services, Nasdaq is circumventing any
controls between its regulatory function and the non-regulated
services provided by its affiliated entities.'')
    \32\ See Business Wire Letters 1 and 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Response to Comments

    In response to Business Wire's comments, Nasdaq asserts that its
proposed fee change satisfies the requirements of the Act.\33\
Specifically, Nasdaq states that its ``proposed fees are in all cases
equal to, or less than, the fees charges by other exchanges'' and are
supported by improvements to its market and regulatory process, as well
as by changes in the marketplace.\34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ See Nasdaq Letters 1, 3 and 4.
    \34\ See Nasdaq Letter 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    According to Nasdaq, it must now ``spread its fixed costs,
including the costs for regulation, across fewer listed companies and
applicants than in the past.'' \35\ Specifically, Nasdaq states that
the number of companies listed on Nasdaq has declined approximately ten
percent, but that its regulatory costs have either remained constant or
increased.\36\ Nasdaq also asserts that the proposal does not permit
unfair discrimination between customers, issuers, brokers, or dealers.
According to Nasdaq the proposed fees are ``allocated based on shares
outstanding, as are Nasdaq's current fees and fees for other exchanges,
and that similarly situated companies would be charged the same fees.''
\37\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ See Nasdaq Letter 1.
    \36\ See Nasdaq Letter 3. Nasdaq represents that from December
31, 2006 until December 31, 2009, the number of companies listed on
Nasdaq has declined from 3,193 companies to 2,852 companies.
    \37\ See Nasdaq Letter 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Further, in response to Business Wire's concern that Nasdaq's
proposed fees unduly burden competition in violation of Section 6(b)(8)
of the Act, Nasdaq believes that in assessing competition, the
Commission should be concerned with competition among the entities it
regulates, such as exchanges, brokers, dealers, and issuers, and not
competitive issues in other areas of the economy.\38\ Accordingly,
Nasdaq asserts that the only competitive impact of the proposed rule
change would be to allow Nasdaq ``to recover the costs of, and continue
to make, improvements to its market and regulatory process, and

therefore to continue to compete with other listing markets * * *.''
\39\ Nasdaq also believes that any potential conflicts of interest are
addressed by its separation of its regulatory functions, including the
listing department, from its business functions, as well as through the
rule filing process.\40\ Moreover, the effectiveness of its regulatory
program is subject to periodic Commission examination.\41\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ See Nasdaq Letter 1.
    \39\ See Nasdaq Letter 1.
    \40\ See Nasdaq Letter 1.
    \41\ See Nasdaq Letter 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Nasdaq also represents that its proposed fee changes are not
designed to recoup GlobeNewswire's costs,\42\ and that ``GlobeNewswire
is profitable on a stand-alone basis, even after considering the
marketing expenses it incurs when offering products for free on a trial
basis, and there is therefore no need for Nasdaq to cross-subsidize
GlobeNewswire * * *.'' \43\ According to Nasdaq, GlobeNewswire makes
promotional and partnership offers to current and prospective customers
as part of its marketing efforts.\44\ However, Nasdaq acknowledges that
such marketing efforts on behalf of NOCS, including GlobeNewswire,
``typically occur in meetings and discussions about the company's
choice of listing market.'' \45\ Nasdaq represents, however, that while
NOCS will continue to offer a sample of services on a complimentary or
discounted basis, such offers will be made regardless of where the
company is listed or determines to list.\46\ In addition, Nasdaq
represents that while NOCS, including GlobeNewswire, may offer, without
regard to the company's choice of listing market, promotional packages
of services to broad categories of companies with certain
characteristics, it will not offer any individually customized packages
of free or discounted services to any company.\47\ Accordingly, Nasdaq
believes that ``any discounts provided for NOCS products cannot be
misconstrued as being offered in connection with a company's listing on
Nasdaq.'' \48\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \42\ See Nasdaq Letter 1.
    \43\ See Nasdaq Letter 3.
    \44\ See Nasdaq Letter 1.
    \45\ See Nasdaq Letter 4.
    \46\ Nasdaq represents that any future offers of free and
discounted services by NOCS will explicitly and expressly provide
that companies are free to accept the offer whether or not they
choose to list on Nasdaq. See Nasdaq Letter 4.
    \47\ See Nasdaq Letter 4. Nasdaq has represented that it will
not offer any customized packages of free or discounted services,
unless the Commission specifically states that it is permitted to do
so. Telephone conversation on February 22, 2010 between Arnold
Golub, Vice President and Associate General Counsel, Nasdaq and
Sharon Lawson, Senior Special Counsel, Commission.
    \48\ See Nasdaq Letter 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Also, in response to Business Wire's antitrust claims, Nasdaq
disputes Business Wire's allegation that Nasdaq illegally ties
GlobeNewswire and other IDSs to a company's listing on Nasdaq.\49\
Nasdaq asserts that companies wishing to list on Nasdaq are not forced
to use IDSs provided by Nasdaq since neither the receipt of such
services nor a Nasdaq listing are conditioned on the other.\50\
Therefore, Nasdaq believes that the promotional offers for
GlobeNewswire services do not constitute tying.\51\ Nasdaq further
asserts that ``Business Wire's claim that the costs of the * * *
promotions are the unstated basis for Nasdaq's listing fee proposal is
pure speculation.'' \52\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \49\ See Nasdaq Letter 2. Nasdaq maintains that NOCS, Nasdaq's
affiliate, has offered and plans to offer a limited amount of free
or discounted ``Core Services'' to all companies whether the company
is listed on Nasdaq or not.
    \50\ According to Nasdaq, ``[i]llegal tying is the `seller's
exploitation of its control over the tying product * * * to force
the buyer into the purchase of a tied product * * * that the buyer
either did not want at all, or might have preferred to purchase
elsewhere on different terms.'' See Nasdaq Letter 2.
    \51\ See Nasdaq Letter 2. Nasdaq asserts, among other things,
that any offers of GlobeNewswire free or discounted services when
competing for listings would fail the coercion element of the
Sherman Act, since Nasdaq is willing to and does offer the listing
service alone without the IDSs. Additionally, according to Nasdaq,
because Nasdaq must compete for listings, Nasdaq does not have the
requisite market power required under the Sherman Act for a tying
claim. See Nasdaq Letter 2.
    \52\ See Nasdaq Letter 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, Nasdaq asserts that the promotional nature of the offering
alone precludes a predatory pricing claim constituting attempted
monopolization under Section 2 of the Sherman Act. Nasdaq notes that
courts routinely hold that promotional offers cannot constitute
predatory pricing.\53\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \53\ Nasdaq further states that GlobeNewswire does not pose a
real danger of driving competitors from the market, since
GlobeNewswire only processes approximately 10 percent of corporate
news releases in the U.S. Nasdaq also notes the substantial
resources available to Business Wire. See Nasdaq Letter 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. Discussion and Commission's Findings

    The Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent
with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations
thereunder applicable to a national securities exchange.\54\
Specifically, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change is
consistent with Sections 6(b)(4), (b)(5), and (b)(8) of the Act,\55\
which require, in part, that the rules of an exchange: (i) Provide for
the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and other charges
among its members and issuers and other persons using its facilities;
(ii) are not designed to permit unfair discrimination between
customers, issuers, brokers or dealers; and (iii) do not impose any
burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of
the purposes of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \54\ In approving the proposed rule change, the Commission has
considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition,
and capital formation. 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
    \55\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4), (b)(5) and (b)(8).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission believes that assurances it has received from Nasdaq
in response to the comments of Business Wire adequately address the
concerns expressed that Nasdaq is acting in an anti-competitive manner
that is inconsistent with the Act. Specifically, Nasdaq has represented
that promotional offers of IDSs made by its affiliate, NOCS, are made
regardless of whether or not a prospective customer is listed or may
become listed on Nasdaq. Furthermore, NOCS will limit its promotional
activities to: (1) Offering a free or discounted sampling of IDSs--its
``Core Services'' package--to all prospective customers; and (2)
perhaps offering other packages of complimentary or discounted IDSs to
broad categories of companies. In either case, the free or discounted
services offered by NOCS ``will explicitly and expressly provide that
companies will be free to accept the offer and test NOCS services
whether or not they choose to list on Nasdaq.'' \56\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \56\ See Nasdaq Letter 4. In expressly and explicitly notifying
companies that permitted offers are not contingent on a Nasdaq
listing, Nasdaq further represents that any mention of a permitted
offer on a Nasdaq or NOCS Web site will also state that the offer is
not conditioned on the companies' choice of listing market. The
Commission notes it is important that any communications,
irrespective of the method, on permitted free or discounted services
make it expressly and explicitly clear that such services are
available whether or not the company lists on Nasdaq.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on Nasdaq's representation that offers of IDSs by NOCS will
be made independent of the listing status of NOCS customers or
potential customers, as well as additional information contained in
Nasdaq's responses,\57\ the Commission does not believe that the
proposed increases in listing fees cross-subsidize NOCS services in any
way that constitutes an inappropriate burden on competition or an
inequitable allocation of fees, or fails to promote just and equitable
principles of trade, in a manner inconsistent with the Act.
Accordingly, we find that the proposed changes to Nasdaq listing fees
is consistent with the requirements of the

Act and, in particular, provides for an equitable allocation of
reasonable fees among its issuers consistent with Section 6(b)(4) of
the Act, does not unfairly discriminate between issuers consistent with
Section 6(b)(5) of the Act, and is consistent with Section 6(b)(8) of
the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \57\ See Nasdaq Letters 1-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As to the concerns raised by Business Wire that the offering of
IDSs by NOCS creates a conflict of interest with Nasdaq's self-
regulatory functions since, among other things, Nasdaq enforces rules
relating to the dissemination of material information by listed
companies, Nasdaq has represented that it has effectively separated its
regulatory functions from its business functions, and that its business
functions, including those of NOCS, in no way influence the regulatory
oversight of listed companies and their disclosure requirements.\58\
The Commission believes that Nasdaq's assurances concerning the
separation of its business and regulatory functions adequately address
the conflict of interest concerns raised by Business Wire. The
Commission also notes that it oversees Nasdaq as a registered national
securities exchange, including the performance of its regulatory
functions in a manner consistent with the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \58\ Telephone conversation on March 5, 2010 between Arnold
Golub, Vice President and Associate General Counsel, Nasdaq and
Sharon Lawson, Senior Special Counsel, Commission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With respect to its application, annual, and entry fees, Nasdaq has
represented that the proposed increase in fees better reflects the
costs associated with, among other things, listing application reviews,
Nasdaq's new on-line application center, and enhancements to its
listings compliance systems.\59\ Moreover, Nasdaq notes that the number
of listed companies on Nasdaq has declined approximately 10% since
2006, so that its regulatory costs must be allocated among fewer listed
companies.\60\ Nasdaq further notes that, despite the decline in
listings, because of enhancements to its compliance programs and
changes in regulatory requirements, the number of issuer filings that
it reviews has substantially increased since 2002, and that the
workload to monitor compliance in recent years has increased due to
market conditions and other issues.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \59\ See Nasdaq Letter 4.
    \60\ See Nasdaq Letter 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission notes that Nasdaq's fees are comparable to and, in
some instances, less than similar fees of the New York Stock
Exchange.\61\ Further, the Commission did not receive any comment
letters from currently-listed Nasdaq companies or prospective listed
companies opposing the fee increase. Thus, the Commission finds that
Nasdaq's proposed fees are reasonable, equitably allocated among
issuers, and otherwise consistent with the requirements of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \61\ See NYSE Sections 902.02 and 902.03 of the NYSE Listed
Company Manual.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, with respect to the increased fee for written
interpretations, Nasdaq has represented that the fee increase is
reasonable given the costs incurred by Nasdaq in connection with such
requests. Nasdaq is proposing to charge $15,000 for all written
interpretation requests, and eliminate the distinction between a
regular request, which currently costs $5,000, and an expedited request
which currently costs $15,000. Nasdaq noted that since January 2008,
the large majority of requests for a written interpretation (nearly
75%) are expedited reviews. While the Commission would be concerned if
the written interpretive fee was set at a level so high that issuers
were deterred from seeking such written interpretations when needed,
this does not appear to be the case since the majority of issuers today
elect to pay $15,000 for an expedited review. Accordingly, the
Commission believes that the proposed fee increase provides for the
equitable allocation of reasonable fees among issuers consistent with
Section 6(b)(4) of the Act, does not unfairly discriminate between
issuers consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act, and is otherwise
consistent with the requirements of the Act. Moreover, the Commission
notes that with respect to interpretations, issuers will still continue
to receive oral interpretations at no charge.\62\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \62\ See supra note 17.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

VI. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\63\ that the proposed rule change (SR-Nasdaq-2009-081) be, and it
hereby is, approved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \63\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\64\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \64\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-5413 Filed 3-11-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT SUBMISSION Please read the instructions before completing this form. For additional forms or assistance in completing this form, contact your agency's Paperwork Clearance Officer. Send two copies of this form, the collection instrument to be reviewed, the Supporting Statement and any additional documentation to: Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Docket Library, Room 10102, 725 17th Street NW Washington, DC 20503.

1. Agency/ Subagency originating request U. S. EPA, Office of Administration and Resources Management, Office of Acquisition Management 2. OMB control number b. None 2030 0044 3. Type of information collection ( check one) a. New collection b. Revision of a currently approved collection c. X Extension of a currently approved collection d. Reinstatement, without change, of a previously approved collection for which approval has expired e. Reinstatement, with change, of a previously approved collection for which approval has expired f. Existing collection in use without an OMB control number 4. Type of review requested ( check one) a. X Regular b. Emergency  Approval requested by: c. Delegated 5. Small entities Will this information collection have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? Yes X No For b f, note item A2 of Supporting Statement Instructions 6. Requested expiration date a. X Three years from approval date b Other, Specify:_____

7. Title: Drug Testing for Contractor Employees ( Renewal)

8. Agency form number( s) ( If applicable) 2183.02 9. Keywords : Procurement, Government 10. Abstract: The Agency has determined that select contracts involved with Emergency Response ( ER), Superfund ( SF), Information Systems ( IS), Facility Services ( FS), and Research Support ( RS) have significant security concerns and must be tested by the contractor for the presence of marijuana, cocaine, opiates, amphetamines, phencyclidene ( PCP), but only for sites designated as sensitive by the Contracting Officer or On Scene Coordinator. EPA shall not require random drug testing or testing for alcohol. The Contractor shall maintain records associated with all drug testing.

ER services are vulnerable because they are first responders to emergency situations that perform work at sensitive sites such as sites that involve law enforcement activities, indoor cleanups ( including household residences), drug lab cleanups, and response actions at geographically sensitive locations such as military installations and government buildings. SF contracts have security concerns under the Response Action Contracts in the cleanup of hazardous waste from sites across the country and Enforcement Support type services responsible for enforcement cases against responsible parties. IS services involve vulnerable services such as computer support, access to Local Area Networks ( LAN) and Confidential Business Information ( CBI), access to Toxic Substance Control Act ( TSCA) CBI, Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act ( FIFRA) CBI, payroll/ accounting data, and systems development. FS contracts involve security concerns in the areas of constructing emergency response center, prepare facility to test anthrax, guard services, operations & maintenance of facilities, and emergency response warehouse operations. RS services are largely laboratory type services that are involved with security sensitive activities such as laboratory analysis for Homeland Security, genetic modified herbicides, ground water ecosystems, stored chemical pathogens, and engine testing.

11. Affected public ( Mark primary with " P" and all others that apply with " X") a. Individuals or households d. Farms b. P Business or other for profit e. Federal Government c. X Not for profit institutions f. State, Local or Tribal Government 12. Obligation to respond ( Mark primary with " P" and all others that apply with " X") a. Voluntary b. X Required to obtain or retain benefits c. P Mandatory 13. Annual reporting and recordkeeping hour burden a. Number of respondents 450 b. Total annual responses 450 1. Percentage of these responses collected electronically 0 % c. Total hours requested 450 d. Current OMB inventory 225 e. Difference 225 f. Explanation of difference 1. Program Change 0 2. Adjustment 225 14. Annual reporting and recordkeeping cost burden ( in thousands of dollars) a. Total annualized capital/ startup costs 0 b. Total annual costs ( O& M) 0 c. Total annualized cost requested 0 d. Current OMB inventory 0 e. Difference 0 f. Explanation of difference 1. Program change 0 2. Adjustment 0 15. Purpose of information collection ( Mark Primary With " P" and all others that apply with " X") a. __ Application for benefits e. Program planning or management b. __ Program evaluation f. Research c. __ General purpose statistics g. P Regulatory or compliance d. __ Audit 16. Frequency of recordkeeping or reporting ( check all that apply) a. X Recordkeeping b. Third party disclosure c. X Reporting 1. X On occasion 2. Weekly 3. Monthly 4. Quarterly 5. Semi annually 6. Annually 7. Biannually 8. Other ( describe)

17. Statistical methods Does this information collection employ statistical methods? Yes X No 18. Agency contact ( person who can best answer questions regarding the content of this submission) Name: Paul Schaffer Phone: ( 202) 564 4366 OMB 83 I 10/ 95 19. Certification for Paperwork Reduction Act Submissions On behalf of this Federal agency, 1 certify that the collection of information encompassed by this request complies with 5 CFR 1320.9.

NOTE: The text of 5 CFR 1320.9, and the related provisions of 5 CFR 1320.8( b)( 3), appear at the end of the instructions. The certification is to be made with reference to those regulatory provisions as set forth in the instructions.

The following is a summary of the topics, regarding the proposed collection of information, that the certification covers:

( a) It is necessary for the proper performance of agency functions;

( b) It avoids unnecessary duplication;

( c) It reduces burden on small entities;

( d) It uses plain, coherent, and unambiguous terminology that is understandable to respondents;

( e) Its implementation will be consistent and compatible with current reporting and recordkeeping practices;

( f) It indicates the retention periods for recordkeeping requirements;

( g) It informs respondents of the information called for under 5 CFR 1320.8( b)( 3): ( i) Why the information is being collected ( ii) Use of information; ( iii) Burden estimate; ( iv) Nature of response ( voluntary, required for a benefit, or mandatory); ( v) Nature and extent of confidentiality; and ( vi) Need to display currently valid OMB control number;

( h) It was developed by an office that has planned and allocated resources for the efficient and effective management and use of the information to be collected ( see note in Item 19 of the instructions);

( i) It uses effective and efficient statistical survey methodology; and ( j) It makes appropriate use of information technology.

If you are unable to certify compliance with any of these provisions, identify the item below and explain the reason in Item 18 of the Supporting Statement.

Signature of Program Official Leigh Pomponio, Manager / S/ Policy & Oversight Service Center Policy, Training and Oversight Division Office of Acquisition Management Date 9/ 13/ 05 Signature of Senior Official or designee Oscar Morales, Director Collection Strategies Division Office of Environmental Information Date OMB 83 I 10/ 95 Certification Requirement for Paperwork Reduction Act Submissions 5 CFR 1320.9 reads " As part of the agency submission to OMB of a proposed collection of information, the agency ( through the head of the agency, the Senior Official or their designee) shall certify ( and provide a record supporting such certification) that the proposed collection of information

"( a) is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including that the information to be collected will have practical utility;

"( b) is not unnecessarily duplicative of information otherwise reasonably accessible to the agency;

"( c) reduces to the extent practicable and appropriate the burden on persons who shall provide information to or for the agency, including with respect to small entities, as defined in the Regulatory Flexibility Act 5 U. S. C § 601( 6)), the use of such techniques as:

"( 1) establishing differing compliance or reporting requirements or timetables that take into account the resources available to those who are to respond; "( 2) the clarification, consolidation, or simplification of compliance and reporting requirements; or collection of information , or any part thereof; "( 3) an exemption from coverage of the collection of information, or any part thereof;

"( d) is written using plain, coherent, and unambiguous terminology and is understandable to those who are to respond;

"( e) is to be implemented in ways consistent and compatible, to the maximum extent practicable, with the existing reporting and recordkeeping practices of those who are to respond;

"( f) indicates for each recordkeeping requirement the length of time persons are required to maintain the records specified;

"( g) informs potential respondents of the information called for under § 1320.8( b)( 3); [ see below]

"( h) has been developed by an office that has planned and allocated resources for the efficient and effective management and use of the information to be collected, including the processing of the information in a manner which shall enhance, where appropriate, the utility of the information to agencies and the public;

"( i) uses effective and efficient statistical survey methodology appropriate to the purpose for which the information is to be collected; and "( j) to the maximum extent practicable, uses appropriate information technology to reduce burden and improve data quality, agency efficiency and responsiveness to the public."

NOTE: 5 CFR 1320.8( b)( 3) requires that each collection of information:

"( 3) informs and provides reasonable notice to the potential persons to whom the collection of information is addressed of: "( i) the reasons the information is planned to be and/ or has been used to further the proper performance of the functions of the agency; "( ii) the way such information is planned to be and/ or has been used to further the proper performance of the functions of the agency; "( iii) an estimate, to the extent practicable, of the average burden of the collection ( together with a request that the public direct to the agency any comments concerning the accuracy of this burden estimate and any suggestions for reducing this burden); "( iv) whether responses to the collection of information are voluntary, required to obtain or retain a benefit ( citing authority), or mandatory ( citing authority); "( v) the nature and extent of confidentiality to be provided, if any ( citing authority); and "( vi) the fact that any 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."

OMB 83 I ( Instructions) 10/ 95


Materials Characterization Paper

In Support of the

Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking –

Identification of Nonhazardous Materials That Are Solid Waste

Cement Kiln Dust (CKD)

December 16, 2008

================================================================

1.	Definition of CKD

Cement kiln dust (CKD) is a fine-grained, solid, highly alkaline
material removed from the cement kiln exhaust gas by scrubbers
(filtration baghouses and /or electrostatic precipitators).  The
composition of CKD varies among plants and over time at a single plant.
Much of the material comprising CKD is incompletely reacted raw
material, including a raw mix at various stages of burning, and
particles of clinker.

2.	Annual Quantities of CKD Generated and Used

Sectors that generate CKD:

CKD is generated by NAICS industry sector 327310, Cement Manufacturing
(U.S. Census Bureau, 2002).  This sector included 247 facilities in 2002
according to the U.S. Census of Manufacturers.  EPA reports that this
sector included 144 facilities in 2006 (EPA 2006).

Quantities of CKD generated:

An estimated 13 to 17 million short tons of CKD are generated per year
(EPA 2008).

Trends in generation of CKD:

Generation of CKD is directly connected to the production of cement
clinker (the initial product of a cement kiln before processing).
Significant increases in U.S. clinker capacity are expected to
materialize during 2008 to 2012, anticipating an increase in production.
The U.S. cement industry has announced plans to increase clinker
capacity by nearly 25 million metric tons between 2007 and 2012. The
capacity expansion reflects a $5.9 billion investment, which will
increase capacity 27 percent compared to 2006 U.S. clinker capacity
(Cement Americas 2008).  Assuming that capacity utilization is constant,
a CKD production increase of 27 percent is also anticipated.

The U.S. cement industry has adopted a year 2020 voluntary target of a
60 percent reduction (from a 1990 baseline) in the amount of cement kiln
dust disposed per ton of clinker produced (EPA 2007). Through CKD
reduction efforts by Portland Cement Association (PCA) member companies,
this goal was accomplished in 2004. The PCA is currently developing a
new CKD reduction goal (IEEE-IAS 2008).

3.	Uses of CKD

Ingredient uses of CKD:

Because of the high percentage of raw mix and clinker in CKD, CKD can be
directly reused in the cement kiln for clinker manufacture (EPA 2008).
The cement industry recycles more than 75 percent of its CKD, nearly
eight million tons each year (EPA 2006).

CKD partially substitutes for virgin raw materials in kiln feed. Kiln
feed is generally comprised of about 80 percent carbonate of lime and
about 20 percent silica with much lower quantities of alumina and iron.
Limestone is the primary source of calcium for nearly all cement plants.
Shale, clay, and sand are the primary materials fed as sources of silica
and alumina (EPA 1995). CKD can substitute for any or all of these
materials, depending on the composition of the clinker from which it was
generated.

Non-combustion uses of CKD:

CKD not returned to the production process can be sold for various types
of commercial applications, including agricultural soil enhancement,
base stabilizing for pavements, wastewater treatment, waste remediation,
low-strength backfill and municipal landfill cover. These applications
depend primarily on the chemical and physical characteristics of the
CKD.  The major parameters that determine CKD characteristics are the
raw feed material, type of kiln operation, dust collection systems, and
fuel type. Since the properties of CKD can be significantly affected by
the design, operation and materials used in a cement kiln, the chemical
and physical characteristics of CKD must be evaluated on an individual
plant basis (IEEE-IAS 2008).

Quantities of CKD landfilled:

The majority of CKD is recycled directly back to the cement kiln, thus
avoiding disposal; however, CKD must periodically be removed from the
system due to increasing concentrations of various contaminants that may
compromise the quality of the clinker. The Portland Cement Association
estimates that 6.4 million tons of CKD were landfilled in 2003 (EPA
2006).

Quantities of CKD stockpiled/stored:

CKD that cannot be recycled back into the cement kiln (because of
excessive alkali content, as well as other operational factors) is
removed from the system and often collected onsite in piles or monofills
(EPA 1995).  Current estimates of the stockpiled quantity of CKD are not
available, however.

A recent trend at some cement manufacturing facilities is the removal or
“mining” of CKD placed in landfills or other long-term management
units. From the PCA CKD surveys of member companies, it was estimated
that the amount of CKD removed from onsite landfills has grown from just
over 13,400 metric tons in 1998 to more than 261,000 metric tons in
2006. Because CKD is very similar to the raw materials entering the kiln
system and may contain partially processed feed or final product, it
requires less processing prior to use in the kiln and thus, less energy.
Consequently, CKD is becoming more valuable as manufacturing costs rise
(IEEE-IAS 2008).

Exhibit 1:  Overview of Generation and Use of CKD in 2004

Commodity	Annual Quantity Generated 	Annual Quantity Used as Ingredient
Annual Quantity Landfilled	Annual Quantity in Other Uses	Total Quantity
Stockpiled

Cement Kilns	Other

-------------------------------- Short Tons
------------------------------

Cement kiln dust	13.23–16.53 million	0.36 milliona	0	6.4 million	1.23
million	Not Available

Sources:

Unless otherwise noted, data is from U.S. EPA, Study on Increasing the
Usage of Recovered Mineral Components in Federally Funded Projects
Involving Procurement of Cement or Concrete to Address the

Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A
Legacy for Users, April 28, 2008.

Notes:

Based on PCA data and discussions with industry personnel, actual rate
of reuse in cement kilns appears to be underreported.  Subsequently, the
estimated quantity landfilled is likely overstated.

4.	Management and Combustion processes for CKD

Types of units using CKD:

Cement kiln dust is returned to cement kilns during the clinker
manufacturing process.

Sourcing of CKD:

A closed-loop process captures CKD from exhaust gas scrubbers at cement
plants and returns it directly to the kiln.

Processing of CKD:

CKD captured from kiln exhaust gasses is directly reinjected back into
the kiln, and does not require processing.  CKD mined from stockpiles
may require processing prior to injection into the cement kiln.

State status of CKD use as ingredient:

According to state responses to a 2006 survey by the Association of
State and Territorial Solid Waste Management Officials (ASTSWMO),
Florida and Iowa have pre-approved the use of CKD in the production of
cement as a beneficial use, exempting it from the case-by-case approval
process for designation of beneficial use (ASTSWMO 2007, p.B-9).

5.	CKD Composition and Impacts

Composition of CKD:

CKD is comprised of thermally unchanged raw materials, dehydrated clay,
decarbonated (calcined) limestone, ash from fuel, and newly formed
minerals corresponding to all stages of processing up through the
formation of the clinker. An unusual feature of CKD is that, unlike
typical by-product materials that are substantially different than the
product, CKD is essentially cement clinker that does not quite meet
commercial specifications (EPA 1995).

The primary constituents in CKD are silicates, calcium oxide, carbonates
(expressed as loss of CO2 and H2O on ignition), potassium oxide,
sulfates, chlorides, various metal oxides, and sodium oxide (EPA 1995).

CKD contains insignificant amounts of trace metals and therefore metal
concentrations are not usually a concern for most applications. A
comprehensive study by the Portland Cement Association evaluated the
presence of trace metals in CKD from 79 plants in the United States and
10 plants in Canada using both conventional and other fuels. Each CKD
sample was tested for the eight RCRA metals: arsenic, barium, cadmium,
chromium, lead, mercury, selenium, and silver. The samples were also
analyzed for antimony, beryllium, thallium and nickel. Results showed
that the average level of trace metals found in the CKD were
significantly below the regulation limits (IEEE-IAS 2008).

The predominant trace metals in CKD include antimony, barium, lead,
manganese, strontium, thallium, and zinc, and the minor trace metals
include beryllium, copper, hexavalent chromium, mercury, nickel, silver,
and thallium (EPA 1995).  The concentration of these metals in CKD
varies significantly by cement plant depending on the mix of raw feed
materials used in clinker production and the type of fuel used in the
cement kiln (May 1999).

Impacts of CKD use:

In clinker manufacture, CKD partially offsets the need for virgin
material feed, such as limestone and natural constituents (rock). Thus,
returning CKD to the cement kiln can reduce the unit consumption of
virgin feed stock in the kiln, which may then reduce the costs of raw
materials and emissions from extraction and processing of virgin
materials, as CKD requires less processing (and thus less energy) for
use in cement than virgin raw materials. However, using CKD in place of
virgin materials may change the emissions from the kiln to the extent
CKD has a different emissions profile than the alternative virgin
materials when burned in the kiln.

Some of the metal constituents in CKD (e.g., mercury and lead) may be
volatilized when the material is heated to high temperatures in the
cement kiln.

The specific lifecycle impacts of CKD use as a raw material in clinker
production are not evaluated here because of uncertainties in lifecycle
scenario development. For example, it is difficult to determine the
replacement ratio between CKD and other raw feed materials in clinker
production. Thus, the correct quantity of material to be modeled is
unclear. In addition, CKD may substitute for a variety of virgin raw
materials as well as other secondary materials (e.g., blast furnace
slag, CCPs, foundry sand, etc.); the choice of material often depends on
location-specific factors such as the proximity of material sources to
the cement kiln and relative availability of different materials.
Avoided upstream impacts depend heavily on the specific material being
displaced in the lifecycle scenario.

References

Association of State and Territorial Solid Waste Management Officials
(ASTSWMO). 2007, 2006 Beneficial Use Study Report, published by
Association of State and Territorial Solid Waste Management Officials,
November 2007.

Cement Americas, January 1, 2008, Cement Americas Forecast 2008,
accessed at:   HYPERLINK
"http://cementamericas.com/mag/cement_forecast_0101/index.html"
http://cementamericas.com/mag/cement_forecast_0101/index.html .

IEEE-Industry Applications Society (IEEE-IAS). 2008, Beneficial Uses of
Cement Kiln Dust, presented at the 2008 IEEE/PCA 50th Cement Industry
Technical Conference., Miami, FL, May 19-22, 2008

May, Mallory. May 1, 1999, A Study on Trace Metals  in Portland Cement
Kiln Dust, accessed at:   HYPERLINK
"http://cementamericas.com/mag/cement_study_trace_metals/"
http://cementamericas.com/mag/cement_study_trace_metals/ .

United States Census Bureau, 2002 Economic Census, Industry Snapshots
for Cement Manufacturing, accessed on August 18, 2008 at:   HYPERLINK
"http://quarterhorse.dsd.census.gov/TheDataWeb_HotReport/servlet/HotRepo
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>AICS2002=327310&forward=20071204152004.Var.NAICS2002"
http://quarterhorse.dsd.census.gov/TheDataWeb_HotReport/servlet/HotRepor
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>ICS2002=327310&forward=20071204152004.Var.NAICS2002 .

United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1995, Report to
Congress on Cement Kiln Dust, accessed at:   HYPERLINK
"http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/other/ckd/cement2.htm"
http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/other/ckd/cement2.htm .

United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2006, Sector
Strategies Performance Report: Cement, accessed at:    HYPERLINK
"http://www.epa.gov/ispd/pdf/2006/cement.pdf"
http://www.epa.gov/ispd/pdf/2006/cement.pdf .

United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). March 2007, Energy
Trends in Selected Manufacturing Sectors: Opportunities and Challenges
for Environmentally Preferable Energy Outcomes, accessed at:
HYPERLINK "http://www.epa.gov/ispd/pdf/energy/report.pdf"
http://www.epa.gov/ispd/pdf/energy/report.pdf .

United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). April 28, 2008,
Study on Increasing the Usage of Recovered Mineral Components in
Federally Funded Projects Involving Procurement of Cement or Concrete to
Address the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity
Act: A Legacy for Users.

 Because of the high rate of direct reuse, CKD generation rates are not
routinely measured, and limited data are available. U.S. cement kiln
industry personnel estimate that CKD generation (including material
returned to the kiln) is equivalent to approximately 15% to 20% (by
weight) of total annual clinker production (EPA 2008).

  The sources consulted for this document do not provide detailed
information on the actual processing steps.

 PAGE

 PAGE   6

Cement Kiln Dust (CKD)


Harvey Richmond/RTP/USEPA/US

03/11/2008 04:45 PM

To

<EMAIL_ADDRESS>"Johansson, Robert"<EMAIL_ADDRESS> cc

Lydia Wegman/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, <EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>Tricia Crabtree/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Joseph Pinto/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

Subject

Fw: (Please disregard previous email and use this one) Edits for Revised O3 NFR preamble

With respect to the comments on the footnote 15 on p. 30 of the draft preamble concerning PRB, attached is a revised footnote with our proposed language for the preamble.

I checked with Dr. Pinto and the CD did not discuss year-to-year variability in PRB.  While we expect the variability to be within the noise of the estimated range, there is nothing specifically in the CD that allows us to address this.

I also checked the CASAC specific comments by Dr. Russell and he was discussing the overall approach in his comments and doesn't mention the 2001 year at all.  Therefore, we don't propose to make any revisions to p.132.  We had already included the phrase "using 2001 meteorology" on pages 129 and 130, in addition to the inclusion of "2001" in footnote 15 on p. 30 in the edits sent yesterday.

Harvey

    Harvey M. Richmond

    Ambient Standards Group

    Health and Environmental Impacts Division

    U.S. EPA

    C504-06

    RTP, NC  27711

    (office)<PHONE_NUMBER>

    (fax)<PHONE_NUMBER>

    (email<EMAIL_ADDRESS> _


[Federal Register: August 7, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 151)]
[Notices]
[Page 39695-39696]
[DOCID:fr07au09-72]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-SFUND-2006-0361; FRL-8939-8]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to OMB for
Review and Approval; Comment Request; Trade Secret Claims for Emergency
Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (Renewal), EPA ICR No.
1428.08, OMB Control No. 2050-0078

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)(44 U.S.C.
3501 et seq.), this document announces that an Information Collection
Request (ICR) has been forwarded to the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) for review and approval. This is a request to renew an existing
approved collection. The ICR, which is abstracted below, describes the
nature of the information collection and its estimated burden and cost.

DATES: Additional comments may be submitted on or before September 8,
2009.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
SFUND-2006-0361, to (1) EPA online using http://www.regulations.gov
(our preferred method), by e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or by
mail to: EPA Docket Center, Environmental Protection Agency, Superfund
Docket (Mail code: 28221T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC
20460, and (2) OMB by mail to: Office of Information and Regulatory
Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Attention: Desk Officer
for EPA, 725 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20503.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sicy Jacob, Office of Emergency
Management, 5104A, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania
Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax
number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; E-mail address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: EPA has submitted the following ICR to OMB
for review and approval according to the procedures prescribed in 5 CFR
1320.12. On February 27, 2009 (74 FR 8937), EPA sought comments on this
ICR pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.8(d). EPA received no comments. Any
additional comments on this ICR should be submitted to EPA and OMB
within 30 days of this notice.
    EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID
No. EPA-HQ-SFUND-2006-0361, which is available for online viewing at
http://www.regulations.gov, or in person viewing at the Superfund
Docket in the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West, Room 3334, 1301
Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The EPA/DC 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 Superfund Docket is 202-566-
0276.
    Use EPA's electronic docket and comment system at http://
www.regulations.gov, to submit or view public comments, access the
index listing of the contents of the docket, and to access those
documents in the docket that are available electronically. Once in the
system, select ``docket search,'' then key in the docket ID number
identified above. Please note that EPA's policy is that public
comments, whether submitted electronically or in paper, will be made
available for public viewing at http://www.regulations.gov as EPA
receives them and without change, unless the comment contains
copyrighted material, confidential business information (CBI), or other
information whose public disclosure is restricted by statute. For
further information about the electronic docket, go to http://
www.regulations.gov.
    Title: Trade Secret Claims for Emergency Planning and Community
Right-to-Know Act (Renewal).
    ICR numbers: EPA ICR No. 1428.08, OMB Control No. 2050-0078.
    ICR Status: This ICR is scheduled to expire on August 31, 2009.
Under OMB regulations, the Agency may continue to conduct or sponsor
the collection of information while this submission is pending at OMB.
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
in title 40 of the CFR, after appearing in the Federal Register when
approved, are listed in 40 CFR part 9, are displayed either by
publication in the Federal Register or by other appropriate means, such
as on the related collection instrument or form, if applicable. The
display of OMB control numbers in certain EPA regulations is
consolidated in 40 CFR part 9.
    Abstract: 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. EPA published the trade secrecy regulations on July 29, 1988
(58 FR 28772), codified in 40 CFR part 350.
    Burden Statement: The annual public reporting and recordkeeping
burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 9.5
hours per 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
instructions and requirements which have subsequently changed; 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.
    Respondents/Affected Entities: Entities that submit trade secret
claims, including the manufacturing sector, coal and metal mining,
electric utilities, construction, dry cleaners, chemical and paper
manufacturers.
    Estimated Number of Respondents: 327.
    Frequency of Response: Annually.
    Estimated Total Annual Hour Burden: 3,106 hours.
    Estimated Total Annual Cost: $195,447, which includes no annualized
capital or O&M costs.

    Changes in the Estimates: There is a decrease of 1,552 hours in the
total estimated burden currently identified in the OMB Inventory of
Approved ICR Burdens. This decrease in burden is due to the decrease in
the number of facilities that EPA estimates will make trade secret
claims over the next three years covered by this ICR.

    Dated: August 4, 2009.
John Moses,
Director, Collection Strategies Division.
[FR Doc. E9-18962 Filed 8-6-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 117 (Monday, June 18, 2018)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 28155]
[FR Doc No: 2018-12962]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket No. USCG-2018-0461]

Safety Zone; City of Port Aransas Fourth of July Fireworks, Port
Aransas, TX

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of enforcement of regulation.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard will enforce the safety zone for the City of
Port Aransas' Fourth of July Fireworks Display on July 4, 2018, to
provide for the safety of life on these navigable waterways during this
event. Our regulation for marine events within the Eighth Coast Guard
District identifies the regulated area for this event in Port Aransas,
TX. During the enforcement period, entry into this zone is prohibited
unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Sector Corpus Christi
(COTP) or a designated representative.

DATES: The regulations in 33 CFR 165.801, Table 4, Line 3 will be
enforced from 8:15 p.m. through 9:15 p.m. on July 4, 2018.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions about this
notice of enforcement, call or email Petty Officer Kevin Kyles, Sector
Corpus Christi Waterways Management Division, U.S. Coast Guard;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Coast Guard will enforce the safety zone
in 33 CFR 165.801, Table 4, Line 3, for the City of Port Aransas'
Fourth of July Fireworks Display from 8:15 p.m. through 9:15 p.m. on
July 4, 2018. This action is being taken to provide for the safety of
life on this navigable waterway during the event. Our regulation for
marine events within the Eighth Coast Guard District, Sec.  165.801,
specifies the location of the regulated area for the City of Port
Aransas' Fourth of July Fireworks, which encompasses portions of Corpus
Christi Ship Channel and Roberts Point Park. As reflected in Sec. Sec.
165.23 and 165.801(a), if you are the operator of a vessel in the
regulated area you must comply with directions from the Captain of the
Port Sector Corpus Christi (COTP) or any designated representative.
Persons or vessels desiring to enter the zones must request permission
from the COTP or a designated representative. They can be reached on
VHF FM channel 16 or by telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>. If permission is
granted, all persons and vessels shall comply with the instructions of
the COTP or designated representative. Designated representatives
include commissioned, warrant, and petty officers of the U.S. Coast
Guard.
    In addition to this notice of enforcement in the Federal Register,
the COTP or a designated representative will inform the public through
Broadcast Notice to Mariners (BNMs), Local Notices to Mariners (LNMs),
Marine Safety Information Bulletins (MSIBs), and/or through other means
of public notice as appropriate at least 24 hours in advance of each
enforcement.

    Dated: June 7, 2018.
E.J. Gaynor,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Sector Corpus Christi.
[FR Doc. 2018-12962 Filed 6-15-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register: January 30, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 20)]
[Notices]
[Page 5540-5542]
[DOCID:fr30ja08-54]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings  1

January 22, 2008.
    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER96-496-016; ER99-14-013; ER99-3658-003.
    Applicants: Northeast Utilities Service Company; Select Energy,
Inc.
    Description: Northeast Utilities Service Co. on behalf of Northeast
Utilities Companies et al. submits a request for renewed market-based
rate authorization.
    Filed Date: 01/14/2008
    Accession Number: 20080116-0101.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, March 14, 2008.

    Docket Numbers: ER96-1361-013; ER99-2781-011; ER98-4138-009; ER00-
1770-019; ER02-453-010; ER98-3096-015; ER07-903-002; ER05-1054-003;
ER01-202-008; ER04-472-007.
    Applicants: Atlantic City Electric Company; Delmarva Power & Light
Company; Potomac Electric Power Company; Conectiv Energy Supply, Inc.;
Conectiv Atlantic Generation, LLC; Conectiv Delmarva Generation LLC;
Conectiv Bethlehem, LLC; Pepco Energy Services, Inc.; Bethlehem
Renewable Energy, LLC; Eastern Landfill Gas, LLC; Potomac Power
Resources, LLC; Fauquier Landfill Gas, LLC.
    Description: PHI Entities submits updated market power study and
revised market-based rate tariffs under Part 1 of 5.
    Filed Date: 01/14/2008.
    Accession Number: 20080116-0074.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, March 14, 2008.

    Docket Numbers: ER96-2495-030; ER97-4143-018; ER98-2075-024; ER98-
542-020; ER07-26-001.
    Applicants: AEP Power Marketing Inc; AEP Service Corporation; AEP
Energy Partners, Inc.; CSW Energy Services, Inc.; Central and South
West Services, Inc.
    Description: Supplement to Attachment B of updated market power
analysis of American Electric Power Service Corporation affiliates.
    Filed Date: 01/15/2008
    Accession Number: 20080115-5052.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, March 14, 2008.

    Docket Numbers: ER96-2585-007; ER99-2387-005; ER02-1470-005; ER02-
1573-005; ER98-6-012; ER05-1249-005; EC06-125-000.
    Applicants: Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation; New England Power
Company; KeySpan-Ravenswood, Inc.; KeySpan-Glenwood Energy Center, LLC;
KeySpan-Port Jefferson Energy Center, LLC; granite State Electric
Company; Massachusetts Electric Company; The Narragansett Electric
Company; National Grid plc and KeySpan Corporation.
    Description: National Grid USA submits the Triennial Market Power
Analysis Filing re Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation, et al.
    Filed Date: 01/14/2008.
    Accession Number: 20080117-0043.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, March 14, 2008.

    Docket Numbers: ER97-1481-011.
    Applicants: Idaho Power Company.
    Description: Idaho Power Company submits revisions to Paragraph 1
of the Market Based Rates Tariff in compliance with Order 697.
    Filed Date: 01/11/2008.
    Accession Number: 20080116-0045.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, February 1, 2008.

    Docket Numbers: ER97-2872-005; ER97-4234-076.
    Applicants: Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp.
    Description: Central Hudson Gas and Electric Corp. submits its
updated market power analysis in compliance with Order 697.
    Filed Date: 01/11/2008.
    Accession Number: 20080116-0106.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, March 14, 2008.

    Docket Numbers: ER97-4314-011; ER01-2783-008; ER05-20-003.

    Applicants: Old Dominion Electric Cooperative, Inc.; TEC Trading,
Inc.; New Dominion Energy Cooperative.
    Description: Old Dominion Electric Cooperative et al. submits an
updated market power analyses in support of continued authorization to
make wholesale sales of electric energy.
    Filed Date: 01/14/2008.
    Accession Number: 20080116-0073.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, March 14, 2008.

    Docket Numbers: ER98-1466-005; ER00-814-006; ER00-2924-006; ER02-
1638-005.
    Applicants: Allegheny Power; Allegheny Energy Supply Company, LLC;
Green Valley Hydro, LLC; Buchanan Generation, LLC.
    Description: Allegheny Power et al. submit a combined Triennial
Market Power Analysis etc. in compliance with the Commission's Order
697.
    Filed Date: 01/14/2008.
    Accession Number: 20080117-0017.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, March 14, 2008.

    Docket Numbers: ER98-4159-011; ER04-268-008; ER06-398-005; ER06-
399-005; ER07-157-003.
    Applicants: Duquesne Light Company; Duquesne Power, LLC; Duquesne
Keystone, LLC; Duquesne Conemaugh, LLC; Macquarie Cook Power Inc.
    Description: Duquesne Light Company et al. submit their updated
market power analysis pursuant to Order 697.
    Filed Date: 01/11/2008.
    Accession Number: 20080116-0111.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, March 14, 2008.

    Docket Numbers: ER99-1522-004; ER04-359-002; ER02-723-003; ER06-
796-002; ER07-553-001; ER07-554-001; ER07-555-001; ER07-556-001; ER07-
557-001.
    Applicants: Bangor Hydro-Electric Company; Emera Energy Services,
Inc.; Emera Energy U.S. Subsidiary No. 1, Inc; Emera Energy U.S.
Subsidiary No. 2, Inc.; Emera Energy Services Subsidiary No. 1 LLC;
Emera Energy Services Subsidiary No. 2 LLC; Emera Energy Services
Subsidiary No. 3 LLC; Emera Energy Services Subsidiary No. 4 LLC; Emera
Energy Services Subsidiary No. 5 LLC.
    Description: Bangor Hydro-Electric Co et al. submit the Updated
Market Power Analysis.
    Filed Date: 01/14/2008.
    Accession Number: 20080117-0047.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, March 14, 2008.

    Docket Numbers: ER99-2251-008; ER99-2252-009; ER98-2491-014; ER97-
705-019; ER02-2080-008; ER02-2546-009; ER99-3248-011; ER99-1213-009;
ER01-1526-009.
    Applicants: Consolidated Edison Company of New York; Orange and
Rockland Utilities, Inc.; Consolidated Edison Energy, Inc.; Ocean
Peaking Power, L.L.C.; CED Rock Springs, Inc.; Consolidated Edison
Energy of Massachusetts; Lakewood Cogeneration, L.P.; Newington Energy,
L.L.C.
    Description: Con Edison Companies submits their triennial Market
Power Analysis.
    Filed Date: 01/11/2008.
    Accession Number: 20080117-0049.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, March 14, 2008

    Docket Numbers: ER99-2948-012; ER00-2918-011; ER00-2917-011; ER97-
2261-022; ER01-556-010; ER01-1654-013; ER02-2567-011; ER02-699-005;
ER04-485-008; ER07-247-003; ER07-244-003; ER07-245-003.
    Applicants: Baltimore Gas and Electric Company; Constellation Power
Source Generation, Inc.; Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, Inc.;
Constellation Energy Commodities Group; Handsome Lake Energy, LLC; Nine
Mile Point Nuclear Station, LLC; Constellation NewEnergy, Inc.;
Constellation Energy Commodities Group Maine, LLC; R.E. Ginna Nuclear
Power Plant, LLC; Raven One, LLC; Raven Two, LLC; Raven Three, LLC.
    Description: Baltimore Gas and Electric Company et al. submits its
triennial market power update.
    Filed Date: 01/14/2008.
    Accession Number: 20080116-0096.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, March 14, 2008.

    Docket Numbers: ER00-1712-008; ER02-2408-003; ER00-744-006; ER02-
1327-005; ER00-1703-003; ER02-1749-003; ER02-1747-003; ER99-4503-005;
ER00-2186-003; ER01-1559-004
    Applicants: PPL Electric Utilities Corporation; Lower Mount Bethel
Energy, LLC; PPL Brunner Island, LLC, PPL Holtwood, LLC, PPL Martins
Creek, LLC, PPL Susquehanna, LLC; PPL University Park, LLC; PPL
EnergyPlus, LLC; PPL Edgewood Energy, LLC; PPL Shoreham Energy, LLC;
PPL Great Works, LLC; PPL Maine, LLC; PPL Wallingford Energy LLC.
    Description: PPL Companies submits a Triennial Market Power Update
that supports the continued allowance of market-based rates.
    Filed Date: 01/14/2008.
    Accession Number: 20080116-0103.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, March 14, 2008.

    Docket Numbers: ER00-3251-015; ER99-754-016; ER98-1734-014; ER01-
1919-011; ER01-1147-006; ER01-513-021; ER99-2404-011;
    Applicants: Exelon Generating Company, LLC; AmerGen Energy Company,
LLC; Commonwealth Edison Company; Exelon Energy Company; PECO Energy
Company; Exelon West Medway, LLC; Exelon Wyman LLC; Exelon New Boston
LLC; Exelon Framingham LLC; Exelon New England Power Marketing, L.P.
    Description: The MBR Companies submits updated market power
analysis and revised tariff sheets in compliance with Order 697.
    Filed Date: 01/14/2008.
    Accession Number: 20080116-0104.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, March 14, 2008.

    Docket Numbers: ER01-468-008; ER00-3621-009; ER00-3746-009; ER04-
318-004; ER05-36-005; ER05-37-005; ER05-34-005; ER05-35-005; ER04-249-
005; ER99-1695-010; ER02-23-011; ER97-30-006; ER96-2869-013; ER97-3561-
005; ER00-1737-011.
    Applicants: Dominion Energy Marketing, Inc.; Dominion Nuclear
Connecticut, Inc.; Dominion Nuclear Marketing III, LLC; Dominion Energy
Kewaunee, Inc.; Dominion Energy Brayton Point, LLC; Dominion Energy
Manchester Street, Inc. Dominion Energy New England, Inc.; Dominion
Energy Salem; Dominion Retail, Inc.; Elwood Energy, LLC; Fairless
Energy, LLC; Kincaid Generation, LLC; State Line Energy, L.L.C.;
Virginia Electric and Power Company;
    Description: Virginia Electric and Power Company et al. submits
market power analyses for the two markets and two Commission-designated
submarkets in which the Dominion Companies operate.
    Filed Date: 01/14/2008.
    Accession Number: 20080116-0092.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, March 14, 2008.

    Docket Numbers: ER01-1403-006; ER06-1443-002; ER04-366-005; ER01-
2968-007; ER01-845-006; ER05-1122-004; ER08-107-001.
    Applicants: FirstEnergy Operating Companies; Pennsylvania Power
Company; Jersey Central Power & Light Co.; FirstEnergy Solutions Corp.;
FirstEnergy Generation Corp.; FirstEnergy Nuclear Generation Corp.;
FirstEnergy Generation Mansfield Unit 1.
    Description: FirstEnergy Operating Companies submit the updated
market power analyses in compliance with Order 697.
    Filed Date: 01/14/2008.
    Accession Number: 20080116-0086.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, March 14, 2008.

    Docket Numbers: ER05-320-005; ER02-999-007; ER97-2460-010; ER97-
2463-007.
    Applicants: Unitil Energy Systems, Inc.; Unitil Power Corporation;
Fitchburg Gas and Electric Light Company.
    Description: Unitil Energy Systems, Inc. et al. submit its updated
market power analysis for market-based rate authority in compliance
with Order 697.
    Filed Date: 01/14/2008.
    Accession Number: 20080116-0108.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, March 14, 2008.

    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest in any of the above
proceedings 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) on or before 5 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment
date. It is not necessary to separately intervene again in a subdocket
related to a compliance filing if you have previously intervened in the
same docket. 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. Anyone filing a motion to
intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the
Applicant. In reference to filings initiating a new proceeding,
interventions or protests submitted on or before the comment deadline
need not be served on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov.
 To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet

access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First St. NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above proceedings are accessible in the
Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the
above list. They are also 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 email notification
when a document is added to a subscribed dockets(s). For assistance
with any FERC Online service, please e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E8-1584 Filed 1-29-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P