[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 120 (Friday, June 21, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 29254-29258]
[FR Doc No: 2019-13118]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-86121; File No. SR-NYSEArca-2019-42]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing
and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend the NYSE
Arca Equities Fees and Charges

June 17, 2019.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) \1\ of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the ``Act'') \2\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\3\ notice is hereby
given that, on June 3, 2019, NYSE Arca, Inc. (``NYSE Arca'' or the
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II,
and III below, which Items have been prepared by the self-regulatory
organization. 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\ 15 U.S.C. 78a.
    \3\ 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 the NYSE Arca Equities Fees and
Charges (``Fee Schedule'') to modify the per share credit associated
with the Retail Order Step-Up Tier 2. The Exchange proposes to
implement the fee change effective June 3, 2019. The proposed rule
change is available on the Exchange's website at www.nyse.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 self-regulatory organization
included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the
proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the
proposed rule change. The text of those statements may be examined at
the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared
summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most
significant parts of such statements.

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange currently provides credits to ETP Holders, including
Market Makers, who enter Retail Orders \4\ on the Exchange.\5\ The
Exchange has multiple levels of such credits that are based on an ETP
Holder's \6\ trading volume of Retail Orders on the Exchange. The
Exchange proposes to amend the Fee Schedule to decrease the per share
credit under the Retail Order Step-Up Tier 2 for displayed liquidity in
Retail Orders. The Exchange proposes to implement the fee change
effective June 3, 2019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ A Retail Order is an agency order or a riskless principal
order that meets the criteria of Financial Industry Regulatory
Authority, Inc. Rule 5320.03 that originates from a natural person
and is submitted to the Exchange by a Retail Member Organization
(``RMO''), provided that no change is made to the terms of the order
with respect to price or side of market and the order does not
originate from a trading algorithm or any other computerized
methodology. See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 74947 (May 13,
2015), 80 FR 28735 (May 19, 2015) (SR-NYSEArca-2015-39). RMO is
defined in Rule 7.44-E(a)(2) as an ETP Holder that is approved by
the Exchange to submit Retail Orders. This reference to Retail
Orders in the Retail Order Step-Up Tier 2 qualifications means
orders that are not executed in the Retail Liquidity Program.
    \5\ See Retail Order Tier, Retail Order Step-Up Tier 1 and
Retail Order Step-Up Tier 2 on the Fee Schedule at https://www.nyse.com/publicdocs/nyse/markets/nyse-arca/NYSE_Arca_Marketplace_Fees.pdf.
    \6\ All references to ETP Holders in connection with the Retail
Order Step-Up Tiers include Market Makers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Background
    The Exchange operates in a highly competitive environment. The
Commission has repeatedly expressed its preference for competition over
regulatory intervention in determining prices, products, and services
in the securities markets. Specifically, in Regulation NMS, the
Commission highlighted the importance of market forces in determining
prices and SRO revenues and, also, recognized that current regulation
of the market system ``has been remarkably successful in promoting
market competition in its broader forms that are most important to
investors and listed companies.'' \7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51808 (June 9,
2005), 70 FR 37496, 37499 (June 29, 2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As the Commission itself recognized, the market for trading
services in NMS stocks has become ``more fragmented and competitive.''
\8\ Indeed, equity trading is currently dispersed across 13
exchanges,\9\ 32 alternative trading systems,\10\ and numerous broker-
dealer internalizers and wholesalers, all competing for order flow.
Based on publicly-available information, no single exchange has more
than 18% market share (whether including or excluding auction
volume).\11\ Therefore, no exchange possesses significant pricing power
in the execution of equity order flow. More specifically, in the first
quarter of 2019, the Exchange averaged less than 9% market share of
executed volume of equity trades.\12\ The Exchange believes that the
ever-shifting market share among the exchanges from month to month
demonstrates that market participants can shift order flow, or
discontinue or reduce use of certain categories of products, in
response to fee changes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51808, 84 FR 5202,
5253 (February 20, 2019) (File No. S7-05-18) (Transaction Fee Pilot
for NMS Stocks Final Rule) (``Transaction Fee Pilot'').
    \9\ See Cboe U.S Equities Market Volume Summary at https://markets.cboe.com/us/equities/market_share.
    \10\ See FINRA ATS Transparency Data (May 6, 2019), available at
https://otctransparency.finra.org/otctransparency/AtsIssueData.
Although 54 alternative trading systems were registered with the
Commission as of April 30, 2019, only 32 are currently trading. A
list of alternative trading systems registered with the Commission
is available at https://www.sec.gov/foia/docs/atslist.htm.
    \11\ See Cboe Global Markets U.S. Equities Market Volume Summary
(May 31, 2019), available at http://markets.cboe.com/us/equities/market_share/.
    \12\ Based on Cboe U.S. Equities Market Volume Summary, the
Exchange's market share of intraday trading (excluding auctions) for
the months of January 2019, February 2019 and March 2019 was 9.01%,
8.33% and 9.02%, respectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The competition for Retail Order flow is even more stark,
particularly as it relates to exchange versus off-exchange venues. For
example, the Exchange examined Rule 606 disclosures from three
prominent retail brokerages: E-Trade, TD Ameritrade and Charles Schwab.
For securities listed on the New York Stock Exchange LLC in the first
quarter of 2019, TD Ameritrade routed 80% of its limit orders to off-
exchange venues.\13\ Similarly, E-Trade Financial and Charles Schwab
routed more than 77% and more than 90%,\14\ respectively, of its limit
orders to off-exchange venues.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See https://www.tdameritrade.com/retail-en_us/resources/pdf/AMTD2054.pdf.
    \14\ See https://content.etrade.com/etrade/powerpage/pdf/OrderRouting11AC6.pdf. See also https://www.schwab.com/public/schwab/nn/legal_compliance/important_notices/order_routing.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange thus needs to compete in the first instance with non-
exchange venues for Retail Order flow, and with the 12 other exchange
venues for that Retail Order flow that is not directed off-exchange.
This competition is particularly acute for non-marketable Retail
Orders, i.e., Retail Orders that provide liquidity, and even more
fiercely for non-marketable Retail Orders that provide displayed
liquidity on an exchange. Accordingly, competitive forces compel the
Exchange to use exchange transaction fees and credits, particularly as
they relate to competing for Retail Order flow, because market
participants can readily trade on competing venues if they deem pricing
levels at those other venues to be more favorable.
    To respond to this competitive environment, the Exchange has
established Retail Order Step-Up tiers, which are designed to provide
an incentive for ETP Holders to route Retail Orders that provide
displayed liquidity to the Exchange by providing higher credits
correlated to an ETP Holder's higher trading volume in Retail Orders on
the Exchange. Specifically, to qualify for the Retail Order Step-Up
Tier 2, an ETP Holder must:

    (1) submit an average daily share volume per month of resting
limit orders (i.e., provide liquidity) in an amount equal to or
greater than 1.10% or more of US CADV,\15\ and
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ US CADV means United States Consolidated Average Daily
Volume for transactions reported to the Consolidated Tape, excluding
odd lots through January 31, 2014 (except for purposes of Lead
Market Maker pricing), and excludes volume on days when the market
closes early and on the date of the annual reconstitution of the
Russell Investments Indexes. Transactions that are not reported to
the Consolidated Tape are not included in US CADV.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (2) execute during the month, Retail Orders with a time-in-force
of Day that is an increase of 0.35% or more of the US CADV from the
ETP Holder's April 2018 ADV, taken as a percentage of US CADV.

    Currently, if an ETP Holder meets the Retail Order Step-Up Tier 2
qualifications, such ETP Holder is eligible to earn a credit of $0.0038
per share for Retail Orders in Tape A, Tape B and Tape C Securities
that provide displayed liquidity to the Book.
Proposed Rule Change
    The Exchange proposes to reduce the credit that would be paid to an
ETP

Holder that qualifies for the Retail Order Step-Up Tier 2 to $0.0035.
To date, only one ETP Holder has qualified for the Retail Order Step-Up
Tier 2 rates. The proposed change would reduce the differences in
credits available to Retail Orders that provide displayed liquidity on
the Exchange from ETP Holders qualifying for this tier versus the
credits available to Retail Orders that provide displayed liquidity on
the Exchange from other ETP Holders. The Exchange believes that by
lowering the credit available under this tier, it would be more closely
align with the credits available for other Retail Orders that provide
liquidity on the Exchange.
    With this proposed change, the following credits would be available
to ETP Holders that provide liquidity in Retail Orders.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ The Exchange's Fee Schedule is available here: https://www.nyse.com/publicdocs/nyse/markets/nyse-arca/NYSE_Arca_Marketplace_Fees.pdf.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Tier                    Credit for providing liquidity
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Basic Rate...................  $0.0030 (all Tapes).
Retail Order Tier............  $0.0033 (all Tapes).
Retail Order Step-Up Tier 1..  $0.0033 (all Tapes).
Retail Order Step-Up Tier 2..  $0.0035 (all Tapes) (displayed
                                liquidity).
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As noted above, under the Retail Order Step-Up Tier 1, an ETP
Holder that meets the applicable qualifications is eligible for a
credit of $0.0033 per share for Retail Orders that provide liquidity to
the Book. The Exchange believes that the continued difference in per
share credit that would be available under the Retail Order Step-Up
Tier 2 ($0.0035) as compared to both the Retail Order Tier ($0.0033)
and the Retail Order Step-Up Tier 1 ($0.0033) would continue to promote
the display of a greater number of Retail Orders on the Exchange.
    The proposed changes are not otherwise intended to address any
other issues, and the Exchange is not aware of any significant problems
that market participants would have in complying with the proposed
changes.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with Section 6(b) of the Act,\17\ in general, and furthers the
objectives of Sections 6(b)(4) and (5) of the Act,\18\ in particular,
because it provides for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues,
fees, and other charges among its members, issuers and other persons
using its facilities and does not unfairly discriminate between
customers, issuers, brokers or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \18\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4) and (5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change provides for
the equitable allocation of reasonable dues and fees and is not
unfairly discriminatory for the following reasons.
    As noted above, the Exchange operates in a highly competitive
market. The Commission has repeatedly expressed its preference for
competition over regulatory intervention in determining prices,
products, and services in the securities markets. Specifically, in
Regulation NMS, the Commission highlighted the importance of market
forces in determining prices and SRO revenues and, also, recognized
that current regulation of the market system ``has been remarkably
successful in promoting market competition in its broader forms that
are most important to investors and listed companies.'' \19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51808 (June 9,
2005), 70 FR 37496, 37499 (June 29, 2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As the Commission itself recognized, the market for trading
services in NMS stocks has become ``more fragmented and competitive.''
\20\ Indeed, equity trading is currently dispersed across 13
exchanges,\21\ 32 alternative trading systems,\22\ and numerous broker-
dealer internalizers and wholesalers, all competing for order flow.
Based on publicly-available information, no single exchange has more
than 18% market share (whether including or excluding auction
volume).\23\ Therefore, no exchange possesses significant pricing power
in the execution of equity order flow. More specifically, in the first
quarter of 2019, the Exchange averaged less than 9% market share of
executed volume of equity trades (excluding auction volume).\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51808, 84 FR 5202,
5253 (February 20, 2019) (File No. S7-05-18) (Final rule).
    \21\ See Cboe U.S Equities Market Volume Summary at https://markets.cboe.com/us/equities/market_share.
    \22\ See FINRA ATS Transparency Data (May 6, 2019), available at
https://otctransparency.finra.org/otctransparency/AtsIssueData.
Although 54 alternative trading systems were registered with the
Commission as of April 30, 2019, only 32 are currently trading. A
list of alternative trading systems registered with the Commission
is available at https://www.sec.gov/foia/docs/atslist.htm.
    \23\ See Cboe Global Markets U.S. Equities Market Volume Summary
(May 31, 2019), available at http://markets.cboe.com/us/equities/market_share/.
    \24\ Based on Cboe U.S. Equities Market Volume Summary, the
Exchange's market share of intraday trading (excluding auctions) for
the months of January 2019, February 2019 and March 2019 was 9.01%,
8.33% and 9.02%, respectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As noted above, the competition for Retail Order flow is stark
given the amount of retail limit orders that are routed to non-exchange
venues. The Exchange believes that the ever-shifting market share among
the exchanges from month to month demonstrates that market participants
can shift order flow, or discontinue to reduce use of certain
categories of products, in response to fee changes. This competition is
particularly acute for non-marketable, or limit, retail orders, i.e.,
retail orders that can provide liquidity on an exchange. That
competition is even more fierce for retail limit orders that provide
displayed liquidity on an exchange. Accordingly, competitive forces
constrain exchange transaction fees, particularly as they relate to
competing for retail orders.
    The Exchange believes that the proposed change is reasonable
because the new, lower credit under the Retail Order Step-Up Tier 2
would continue to encourage ETP Holders to send Retail Orders to the
Exchange to qualify for the pricing tier. As noted above, the Exchange
operates in a highly competitive environment, particularly for
attracting Retail Order flow that provides displayed liquidity on an
exchange. The Exchange believes it is reasonable to continue to provide
a higher credit for Retail Orders that provide displayed liquidity if
an ETP Holder meets the qualifications for the Retail Order Step-Up
Tier 2.
    The Exchange further believes it is an equitable allocation of
reasonable fees to reduce the credit that would be available under the
Retail Order Step-Up Tier 2 because it would reduce the difference in
credits available for Retail Orders that provide liquidity, while still
providing an increased credit to provide an incentive for ETP Holders
to route displayed liquidity to the Exchange.
    Further, given the competitive market for attracting Retail Order
flow, the Exchange notes that with this proposed rule change, the
Exchange's pricing for

Retail Orders would be comparable to credits currently in place on
other exchanges that the Exchange competes with for order flow. For
example, the Nasdaq Stock Market LLC (``Nasdaq'') provides its members
with a credit of $0.0033 per share if such member has an 85% add to
total volume (adding liquidity and removing liquidity) ratio during a
billing month.\25\ Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc. (``BZX'') provides its
members with a credit of $0.0032 per share for retail orders that add
liquidity to that market.\26\ Also, until recently, the Exchange's
current credit of $0.0038 per share was comparable to the Retail Volume
Tier that was in place on Cboe EDGX Exchange, Inc. (``EDGX''), which
provided members of that exchange a credit of $0.0037 per share. EDGX
recently eliminated the Retail Volume Tier.\27\ This proposed rule
change is a competitive response to the EDGX filing, and lowers the
credit by 9% from the current level.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ See Nasdaq Price List, Rebate to Add Displayed Designated
Retail Liquidity, at http://nasdaqtrader.com/Trader.aspx?id=PriceListTrading2.
    \26\ See BZX Fee Schedule, Fee Codes and Associated Fees, at
https://markets.cboe.com/us/equities/membership/fee_schedule/bzx/.
    \27\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 85852 (May 14,
2019), 84 FR 22919 (May 20, 2019) (SR-CboeEDGX-2019-030).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes the proposed change is also reasonable
because it is designed to attract higher volumes of Retail Orders
transacted on the Exchange by ETP Holders which would benefit all
market participants by offering greater price discovery, increased
transparency, and an increased opportunity to trade on the Exchange.
    The Exchange believes that the proposed change is equitable and not
unfairly discriminatory because it would apply to all ETP Holders on an
equal and non-discriminatory basis. The Exchange further believes that
the proposed change is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory
because it is reasonably related to the value to the Exchange's market
quality associated with higher volume in Retail Orders. The Exchange
notes that currently 12 firms submit Retail Orders that add liquidity
on the Exchange and of those 12 firms, just one qualifies for the
Retail Order Step-Up Tier 2 when one or more of the other 11 firms
could achieve the tier and qualify for the same credits and fees if
those firms directed more of their Retail Orders to the Exchange.
    Further, the Exchange notes that, with this proposed rule change,
the difference between the highest credit provided for Retail Orders,
$0.0035 per share, and the credit for Retail Orders that do not qualify
for any of the Retail Order pricing tiers, $0.0030 per share, is
$0.0005, or 15%, which the Exchange believes is small given the
requirements that ETP Holders are required to meet to qualify for the
higher credit. Similarly, with this proposed rule change, the
difference in the highest credit for Retail Orders, $0.0035 per share,
and the credit provided for Retail Orders to those ETP Holders
qualifying for the Retail Order Tier or Retail Order Step-Up Tier 1,
$0.0033 per share, would only be $0.0002 per share, or 6%. Therefore,
the Exchange believes the proposed change to the Retail Order Step-Up
Tier 2 pricing tier is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory
because it is available to all ETP Holders on an equal basis and
provides discounts that are reasonably related to the value to the
Exchange's market quality associated with higher volumes. In today's
competitive marketplace, order flow providers have a choice of where to
direct liquidity-providing order flow, and while only one ETP Holder
has qualified to date for these rates, the Exchange believes there are
additional ETP Holders that could qualify if they chose to direct their
order flow to the Exchange.
    The Exchange believes that recalibrating the credits for providing
liquidity will continue to attract order flow and liquidity to the
Exchange, thereby contributing to price discovery on the Exchange and
benefiting investors generally.
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is equitable
and not unfairly discriminatory because maintaining or increasing the
proportion of Retail Orders in exchange-listed securities that are
executed on a registered national securities exchange (rather than
relying on certain available off-exchange execution methods) would
contribute to investors' confidence in the fairness of their
transactions and would benefit all investors by deepening the
Exchange's liquidity pool, supporting the quality of price discovery,
promoting market transparency and improving investor protection. This
aspect of the proposed rule change also is consistent with the Act
because all similarly situated ETP Holders would pay the same rate, as
is currently the case, and because all ETP Holders, would be eligible
to qualify for the rates by satisfying the related threshold, where
applicable. Furthermore, the submission of Retail Orders is optional
for ETP Holders in that they could choose whether to submit Retail
Orders and, if they do, the extent of its activity in this regard.
    Finally, the Exchange believes that it is subject to significant
competitive forces, as described below in the Exchange's statement
regarding the burden on competition.
    For the foregoing reasons, the Exchange believes that the proposal
is consistent with the Act.

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

    In accordance with Section 6(b)(8) of the Act,\28\ the Exchange
believes that the proposed rule change would not impose any burden on
competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the
purposes of the Act. Instead, as discussed above, the Exchange believes
that the proposed change would encourage the submission of additional
liquidity to a public exchange, thereby promoting market depth, price
discovery and transparency and enhancing order execution opportunities
for ETP Holders. As a result, the Exchange believes that the proposed
change furthers the Commission's goal in adopting Regulation NMS of
fostering competition among orders, which promotes ``more efficient
pricing of individual stocks for all types of orders, large and
small.'' \29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(8).
    \29\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51808, 70 FR 37495,
37498-99 (June 29, 2005) (S7-10-04) (Final Rule).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Intramarket Competition. The proposed change is designed to attract
additional order flow to the Exchange. The Exchange believes that the
proposed reduced credit would continue to incentivize market
participants to submit orders that qualify as Retail Orders to the
Exchange. Greater liquidity benefits all market participants on the
Exchange by providing more trading opportunities and encourages ETP
Holders to send orders, thereby contributing to robust levels of
liquidity, which benefits all market participants. The proposed credits
would be available to all similarly-situated market participants, and,
as such, the proposed change would not impose a disparate burden on
competition among market participants on the Exchange.
    Intermarket Competition. The Exchange operates in a highly
competitive market in which market participants can readily choose to
send their orders to other exchange and off-exchange venues if they
deem fee levels at those other venues to be more favorable. The
Exchange notes that for the months of January 2019, February 2019 and
March 2019, the Exchange's

market share of intraday trading (excluding auctions) was 9.01%, 8.33%
and 9.02%, respectively.\30\ In such an environment, the Exchange must
continually adjust its fees and rebates to remain competitive with
other exchanges and with off-exchange venues. Because competitors are
free to modify their own fees and credits in response, and because
market participants may readily adjust their order routing practices,
the Exchange does not believe its proposed fee change can impose any
burden on competition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ See note 12, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the proposed change could promote
competition between the Exchange and other execution venues, including
those that currently offer similar order types and comparable
transaction pricing, by encouraging additional orders to be sent to the
Exchange for execution.

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

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

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

    The foregoing rule change is effective upon filing pursuant to
Section 19(b)(3)(A) \31\ of the Act and subparagraph (f)(2) of Rule
19b-4 \32\ thereunder, because it establishes a due, fee, or other
charge imposed by the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \32\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission
takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings under
Section 19(b)(2)(B) \33\ of the Act to determine whether the proposed
rule change should be approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-NYSEArca-2019-42 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-NYSEArca-2019-42. 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-NYSEArca-2019-42 and should be submitted
on or before July 12, 2019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\34\
Vanessa A. Countryman,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-13118 Filed 6-20-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


Outline of Transport Rule Revisions for Program Implementation
III. Specific Revisions
      A. Budgets/New Unit Set-aside Revisions
         * Of approximately 3,600 units in the Transport Rule EGU inventory, proposal would revise control assumptions at only about a dozen units, based on updated information about planned controls.
         * Proposal includes re-calculation of new unit set-asides in a couple of states to account for new facilities coming online, to ensure allowance availability to new units
         * Proposal also considers new information provided by utilities and system operators regarding immediate-term operational constraints that drive out-of-merit-order dispatch of certain units, whose emissions would affect the calculation of Transport Rule state budgets
         * Results in revisions to budgets in FL, LA, MI, MS, NE, NJ, NY, TX, and WI, and revisions to new unit set-asides in AR and TX
B. Allowance Allocation Revisions to Units Covered by Existing Utility Consent Decrees
         * Proposal aligns allocations to units under consent decrees to match their maximum allowable emissions, which ensures that all other allowances under that state budget remain available to other sources
C. Amend the Assurance Penalty Provisions to Make Them Effective Starting in 2014
         * Starting the assurance provisions in 2014 will help promote the pace of robust allowance market development and will encourage trading to go forward immediately for reductions in the 2012-2013 timeframe
         * Smoothes transition from CAIR to Transport Rule programs
D. Correct Typographical Errors
         * These edits are cosmetic corrections.
IV. Recordation of Transport Rule Allowances

         * EPA will record 99.7% of allowances from final Transport Rule on schedule for program implementation and promotion of markets; the other 0.3%, plus any new allowances resulting from the proposed revisions, will be recorded promptly after issuance of the final revisions rule.


[Federal Register: October 30, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 209)]
[Notices]
[Page 63305]
[DOCID:fr30oc06-75]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

 [Project No. 516-417]

South Carolina Electric & Gas Company; Notice of Availability of
Environmental Assessment

October 24, 2006.
    In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission)
regulations, 18 CFR part 380 (Order No. 486, 52 FR 47897), the Office
of Energy Projects has reviewed an application for non-project use of
project lands and waters at the Saluda Hydroelectric Project (FERC No.
516), and has prepared an Environmental Assessment (EA) for the
proposed non-project use. The project is located on Lake Murray, in
Lexington County, South Carolina.
    In the application, South Carolina Electric & Gas Company requests
Commission authorization to permit the use of almost 2.0 acres of
project lands that lie below the 360-foot-msl-contour (full pool
elevation) to construct a 100-slip docking facility and a boat launch
for the residents of Pintail Point subdivision. The EA contains
Commission staff's analysis of the probable environmental impacts of
the proposal and concludes that approving the licensee's application,
with staff's recommended measures and modifications, would not
constitute a major federal action significantly affecting the quality
of the human environment.
    The EA is attached to a Commission order titled ``Order Modifying
and Approving Application for Non-Project Use of Project Lands and
Waters,'' which was issued October 10, 2006, and is available for
review and reproduction at the Commission's Public Reference Room,
located at 888 First Street, NE., Room 2A, Washington, DC 20426. The EA
may also be viewed on the Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov

using the ``elibrary'' link. Enter the project number (prefaced by P-)
and excluding the last three digits, in the docket number field to
access the document. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll-free at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or for TTY,

contact<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E6-18129 Filed 10-27-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 242 (Monday, December 19, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 77590]
[FR Doc No: 2022-27450]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings

    Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural
Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:

Filings Instituting Proceedings

    Docket Numbers: RP23-278-000.
    Applicants: ANR Pipeline Company.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: ANR--Koch 138487 Negotiated
Rate Agmt to be effective 12/10/2022.
    Filed Date: 12/12/22.
    Accession Number: 20221212-5112.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 12/27/22.

    Docket Numbers: RP23-279-000.
    Applicants: Rockies Express Pipeline LLC.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: REX 2022-12-12 Negotiated Rate
Agreement to be effective 12/12/2022.
    Filed Date: 12/12/22.
    Accession Number: 20221212-5152.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 12/27/22.

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

Filings in Existing Proceedings

    Docket Numbers: RP23-180-001.
    Applicants: Eastern Shore Natural Gas Company.
    Description: Compliance filing: ESNG Operational Purchase & Sales
Compliance to be effective 12/10/2022.
    Filed Date: 12/13/22.
    Accession Number: 20221213-5072.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 12/27/22.

    Any person desiring to protest in any the above proceedings must
file in accordance with Rule 211 of the Commission's Regulations (18
CFR 385.211) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified
comment date.
    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system
(https://elibrary.ferc.gov/idmws/search/fercgensearch.asp) by querying
the docket number.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: December 13, 2022.
Debbie-Anne A. Reese,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-27450 Filed 12-16-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 131 (Tuesday, July 11, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 31963-31964]
[FR Doc No: 2017-14481]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings #1

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

    Docket Numbers: EC17-135-000.
    Applicants: Shell Energy North America (US), L.P., MP2 Energy LLC,
MP2 Energy NE LLC.
    Description: Application for Authorization for Disposition of
Jurisdictional Facilities under Section 203 of the Federal Power Act
and Request for Expedited Action of Shell Energy North America (US),
L.P., et al.
    Filed Date: 6/30/17.
    Accession Number: 20170630-5429.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/21/17.

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

    Docket Numbers: ER10-1511-007; ER10-2231-006; ER10-1714-009.
    Applicants: Louisville Gas and Electric Company, Kentucky Utilities
Company, LG&E Energy Marketing, Inc.
    Description: Triennial Market Power Update of the PPL Southeast
Companies.
    Filed Date: 6/30/17.
    Accession Number: 20170630-5413.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/29/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER10-2498-004.
    Applicants: South Carolina Electric & Gas Company.
    Description: Updated Market Power Analysis for the Southeast Region
of South Carolina Electric & Gas Company.
    Filed Date: 6/27/17.
    Accession Number: 20170703-0001.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/28/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-794-005.
    Applicants: Catalyst Paper Operations, Inc.
    Description: Triennial Market Power Analysis for the Northeast
Region of Catalyst Paper Operations, Inc.
    Filed Date: 6/30/17.
    Accession Number: 20170630-5357.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/29/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-1723-000.
    Applicants: Green Power Solutions of Georgia, LLC.
    Description: Report Filing: Supplement to Petition of Green Power
Solutions of Georgia LLC to be effective N/A.
    Filed Date: 6/30/17.
    Accession Number: 20170630-5313.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/21/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-1757-000.
    Applicants: Entergy New Orleans, LLC.

    Description: Supplement to June 5, 2017 Entergy New Orleans, LLC
tariff filing.
    Filed Date: 6/29/17.
    Accession Number: 20170629-5255.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/20/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-1830-000.
    Applicants: CXA Sundevil Holdco, Inc.
    Description: Report Filing: Supplement to Petition of CXA Sundevil
Holdco, Inc to be effective N/A.
    Filed Date: 6/30/17.
    Accession Number: 20170630-5354.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/21/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-2043-000.
    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: 3330 City of Nixa, Missouri
to be effective 6/1/2017.
    Filed Date: 7/3/17.
    Accession Number: 20170703-5188.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/24/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-2044-000.
    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: 3215R2 People's Electric
Cooperative NITSA NOA to be effective 6/1/2017.
    Filed Date: 7/3/17.
    Accession Number: 20170703-5189.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/24/17.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following public
utility holding company filings:

    Docket Numbers: PH17-17-000.
    Applicants: LS Power Development, LLC.
    Description: FERC-65B Waiver--Notice of Non-Material Change in
Fact.
    Filed Date: 6/30/17.
    Accession Number: 20170630-5431.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/21/17.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by
clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00
p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be
considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the
proceeding.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: July 5, 2017.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-14481 Filed 7-10-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460

OFFICE OF

PREVENTION, PESTICIDES,

AND TOXIC SUBSTANCES

  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 MEMORANDUM

Date:  		June 5, 2009

Subject: 	 Label Language for Tau-fluvalinate (PC Code 109302) Outdoor
Non-Agricultural Products

From:  	Molly Clayton, Chemical Review Manager

		Risk Management Brach 3

		Special Review and Reregistration Division (7908P)

Through:	Michael Goodis, Branch Chief

		Risk Management Brach 3

		Special Review and Reregistration Division (7908P)

To:		Richard Gebken, Product Manager Team 10

		Insecticide Branch

		Registration Division

As you know, recent pyrethroid data submitted to the Agency, as well as
water quality monitoring efforts in California, have highlighted
existing concerns regarding exposure of aquatic organisms and habitats
to pyrethroid chemicals.  To address these concerns, EPA has worked with
various stakeholders to develop label statements specific to pyrethroid
non-agricultural use patterns which will serve to reduce potential
runoff and drift that can result from non-agricultural applications of
pyrethroid end-use products.

Label statements appearing in the “Directions for Use” section of
the revised tau-fluvalinate label table, attached, include formulation-
and use-specific statements, which are largely based on non-agricultural
best management and good stewardship practices.  The Agency is also
implementing the PR Notice 2008-1 “Environmental Hazard General
Labeling Statements on Outdoor Residential Use Products” on all
pyrethroid non-agricultural outdoor products.  These environmental
hazard statements are also formulation-specific and contain clear,
concise, easy-to-read information which will also serve to reduce
potential off-site runoff and drift.

These specific “Directions for Use” and “Environmental Hazard
Statements” are for all pyrethroid active ingredients, including those
that were subject to reregistration such as tau-fluvalinate, and for all
pyrethroid end-use products registered for use in residential,
commercial, institutional, and industrial areas, applied by both
professional pest control operators and residential consumers.

Since tau-fluvalinate registrants previously submitted labels reflecting
the Reregistration Eligibility Decision (RED) as part of the product
reregistration process and 8-month Product Data Call-In response, they
should not be required to submit revised labels.  Instead, the
Registration Division should identify the necessary changes during the
internal label review process, and a complete list of necessary label
revisions should be communicated to tau-fluvalinate registrants prior to
completion of product reregistration.

The revised label table attached reflects the new label language that is
required for tau-fluvalinate non-agricultural products. These label
statements should also be included on all future tau-fluvalinate
products with outdoor non-agricultural uses registered by the Agency.

If you have any questions, please contact me by email at   HYPERLINK
<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>or by phone at
(703) 603-0522.

Tau-fluvalinate Labeling Changes Summary Table- Revised May 14, 2009

Description	Amended Labeling Language 	Placement on Label

Manufacturing Use Products

For all Manufacturing Use Products	“Only for formulation into an
insecticide for the following uses: perimeter treatments to include
outdoor surfaces, containerized nursery stock, woody and herbaceous
ornamentals, ant mound treatments, greenhouse application, indoor
ornamentals, flower and foliage cuttings, and the Special Local Needs
(SLN) registration for use on carrots and brassica/cole crops grown for
seed in California;”	Directions for Use

One of these statements may be added to a label to allow reformulation
of the product for a specific use or all additional uses supported by a
formulator or user group	“This product may be used to formulate
products for specific use(s) not listed on the MP label if the
formulator, user group, or grower has complied with U.S.  EPA submission
requirements regarding support of such use(s).”

“This product may be used to formulate products for any additional
use(s) not listed on the MP label if the formulator, user group, or
grower has complied with U.S.  EPA submission requirements regarding
support of such use(s).”	Directions for Use

Environmental Hazards Statements Required by the RED and Agency Label
Policies	“This pesticide is toxic to fish and aquatic organisms.  Do
not discharge effluent containing this product into lakes, streams,
ponds, estuaries, oceans, or public waters unless in accordance with the
requirements of  a National Pollutant Discharge Eliminations System
(NPDES) permit and the permitting authority has been notified in writing
prior to discharge.  Do not discharge effluent containing this product
to sewer systems without previously notifying the local sewage treatment
plant authority.  For guidance, contact your State Water Board or
Regional Office of the Environmental Protection Agency.”
Precautionary Statements – Environmental Hazards

End-Use Products Intended for Occupational Use (WPS and non-WPS)

Other Precautionary Statements	“If workers enter the treated area
and/or contact treated surfaces:

pesticide residues that get on their skin may cause itching or
irritation that can

        be severe, and

they should avoid skin contact with treated foliage and/or surfaces, and

     -      they should wash the affected skin immediately if irritation
begins to occur.”	Precautionary Statements following First Aid
Statements

PPE Requirements Established by the RED for liquid (FlC) formulations
“Personal Protective Equipment (PPE)”

“Some materials that are chemical-resistant to this product are”
[registrant inserts correct material(s)]. For more information, follow
instructions in Supplement Three of PR Notice 93-7.  “If you want more
options, follow the instructions for category” [registrant inserts A,
B, C, D, E, F, G or H] “on an EPA chemical-resistance category
selection chart.”

“All mixers, loaders, applicators, and other handlers must wear:

-long-sleeve shirt,

-long pants,

-shoes and socks,

-chemical-resistant gloves, and

- A NIOSH-approved respirator with:

-- a dust/mist filter with MSHA/NIOSH approval number prefix TC-21C or

-- any N** R, P, or HE filter.(

* Instruction to Registrant: Drop the (N( type prefilter from the
respirator statement, if the pesticide product contains, or is used
with, oil.

See engineering controls for additional requirements.	Precautionary
Statements: Hazards to Humans and Domestic Animals

PPE Requirements Established by the RED for impregnated strip (IMPR)
formulation.	“Personal Protective Equipment (PPE)”

“Some materials that are chemical-resistant to this product are”
[registrant inserts correct material(s)]. For more information, follow
instructions in Supplement Three of PR Notice 93-7.  “If you want more
options, follow the instructions for category” [registrant inserts A,
B, C, D, E, F, G or H] “on an EPA chemical-resistance category
selection chart.”

“All handlers must wear chemical-resistant gloves.”	Precautionary
Statements: Hazards to Humans and Domestic Animals

User Safety Requirements for all formulations	“Follow manufacturer’s
instructions for cleaning/ maintaining PPE.  If no such instructions for
washables exist, use detergent and hot water.  Keep and wash PPE
separately from other laundry.”

	Precautionary Statements: Hazards to Humans and Domestic Animals
immediately following the PPE requirements

User Safety Requirements for liquid formulations only	“Discard
clothing or other absorbent materials that have been drenched or heavily
contaminated with this product’s concentrate.  Do not reuse them.”
Precautionary Statements: Hazards to Humans and Domestic Animals
immediately following the PPE requirements

Engineering Controls for Aerial Applications for Section 24(c) labels
only	Enclosed Cockpits

“Engineering Controls:

Pilots must use an enclosed cockpit that meets the requirements listed
in the WPS for agricultural pesticides [40 CFR 170.240(d)(6) and must
wear long-sleeve shirt, long pants, shoes, and socks.
Chemical-resistant gloves and respirator need not be worn.”
Immediately following/below Precautionary Statements: Hazards to Humans
and Domestic Animals

Engineering Controls: Optional Use by Handlers for Section 24(c) labels
only	Engineering Control Statement for Optional Use (WPS Only)

“Engineering Controls: When applicators use an enclosed cab in a
manner that meets the requirements listed in the Worker Protection
Standard (WPS) for agricultural pesticides [40 CFR170.240(d)(5)], the
handler PPE requirements may be reduced or modified as specified in the
WPS.”	 Immediately following/below Precautionary Statements: Hazards
to Humans and Domestic Animals

User Safety Recommendations for all products	“USER SAFETY
RECOMMENDATIONS”

“Users should wash hands before eating, drinking, chewing gum, using
tobacco, or using the toilet.”	Precautionary Statements under: Hazards
to Humans and Domestic Animals immediately following Engineering
Controls

(Must be placed in a box.)

Additional User Safety Recommendations for liquid formulations only
“Users should remove clothing/ PPE immediately if pesticide gets
inside.  Then wash thoroughly and put on clean clothing.”

“Users should remove PPE immediately after handling this product.
Wash the outside of gloves before removing.  As soon as possible, wash
thoroughly and change into clean clothing.”	Precautionary Statements
under: Hazards to Humans and Domestic Animals immediately following
Engineering Controls

(Must be placed in a box.)

Restricted-entry Interval for WPS for liquid formulations only  	“Do
not enter or allow worker entry into treated areas during the restricted
entry interval (REI) of 12 hours.”	Directions for Use, Agricultural
Use Requirements Box

Early Reentry Personal Protective Equipment for liquid formulations only
 	“PPE required for early entry to treated areas that is permitted
under the Worker Protection Standard and that involves contact with
anything that has been treated, such as soil, plants, or water, is:

-coveralls,

-chemical-resistant gloves made of any waterproof material,

-shoes plus socks.”	Directions for Use, Agricultural Use Requirements
Box

General Application Restrictions for liquid formulations only	“Do not
apply this product in a way that will contact workers or other persons,
either directly or through drift.  Only protected handlers may be in the
area during application.”	Place in the Directions for Use directly
above the Agricultural Box, if there is one, otherwise place in the
Directions for Use under General Precautions and Restrictions.

General Application Restrictions for All Products That Do Not Contain
Directions for Use in Drains or Sewers	Products labeled for use around
or near floor drains must contain the following statement.

“Application is prohibited directly into sewers or drains, or to any
area like a gutter where drainage to sewers, storm drains, water bodies,
or aquatic habitat can occur.  Do not allow the product to enter any
drain during or after application.”	Directions for Use

General Application Restrictions for liquid formulations	“Do not apply
this product through any type of irrigation system. Not for broadcast
use in nurseries. Not for use on sod farms, on grass grown for seed, or
on golf course turf. Do not apply this product by aerial application.
“	Place in the Directions for Use directly after the Agricultural Box,
if there is one, otherwise place in the Directions for Use under General
Precautions and Restrictions.

Application Restrictions for 24(c) labels	“Aerial application is
permitted.  Do not apply by ground within 25 feet or by air within 150
feet of lakes, reservoirs, rivers, permanent streams, marshes or natural
ponds, estuaries, and commercial fish ponds.”	Directions for Use under
General Precautions or Restrictions and/or Application Instructions

Application Restrictions 	“Do not water the treated area to the point
of run-off.”

“Do not make applications during the rain.”	Directions for use

Additional Application Restrictions for Non-Agricultural General Outdoor
Surface and Space Sprays, except for outdoor fogging devices	“All
outdoor applications must be limited to spot or crack and crevice
treatments only, except for the following permitted uses:

Treatment to soil or vegetation around structures;

Applications to lawns, turf, and other vegetation;

Applications to building foundations, up to a maximum height of 3 feet.

Other than applications to building foundations, all outdoor
applications to impervious surfaces such as sidewalks, driveways,
patios, porches and structural surfaces (such as windows, doors, and
eaves) are limited to spot and crack-and-crevice applications, only.”

Note to registrant:  If the end use product does not contain directions
for use consistent with the exceptions above the exceptions may be
eliminated from the label.

	Directions for Use

Environmental Hazards Statements for Liquid Concentrates Used on
Agricultural, Nursery, and Other Commercial Outdoor Sites	“This
pesticide is toxic to fish and aquatic organisms.  Do not apply directly
to water, or to areas where surface water is present, or to inter-tidal
areas below the mean high water mark.  Drift and runoff from treated
areas may be hazardous to fish and aquatic organisms in adjacent aquatic
sites.  Do not contaminate water when cleaning equipment or disposing of
equipment washwaters.”	Precautionary Statements – Environmental
Hazards

Environmental Hazard Statements on Liquid Concentrate Consumer Outdoor
Products (e.g., liquids mixed with water by the user for a tank sprayer
or hose-end attachment)	“This pesticide is toxic to fish and aquatic
organisms.  To protect the environment, do not allow pesticide to enter
or run off into storm drains, drainage ditches, gutters or surface
waters.  Applying this product in calm weather when rain is not
predicted for the next 24 hours will help to ensure that wind or rain
does not blow or wash pesticide off the treatment area.  Rinsing
application equipment over the treated area will help avoid run off to
water bodies or drainage systems.”	Precautionary Statements –
Environmental Hazards

Spray Drift Label Language for 24(c) labels	“SPRAY DRIFT MANAGEMENT”

“Avoiding spray drift at the application site is the responsibility of
the applicator and the grower.  The interactions of many equipment and
weather-related factors determine the potential for spray drift.  The
applicator and the grower are responsible for considering all these
factors when making decisions.”

“For aerial applications:”

“The boom length must not exceed 70% of the wingspan or 85% of the
rotor blade diameter.”

“Do not make any type of application into temperature inversions.”

“When applications are made with a cross-wind, the swath will be
displaced downwind.  The applicator must compensate for this
displacement at the downwind edge of the application area by adjusting
the path of the aircraft upwind.”

“Use the largest droplet size consistent with pest control. Formation
of very small droplets may be minimized by appropriate nozzle selection,
by orienting nozzles away from the air stream as much as possible, and
by avoiding excessive spray boom pressure.”

“Spray should be released at the lowest height consistent with good
pest control and flight safety. Applications more than 10 feet above the
crop canopy should be avoided.”

”For Aerial and Ground Applications:”

“Make aerial or ground applications when the wind velocity favors
on-target product deposition (approximately 3 to 10 mph). Do not apply
when wind velocity exceeds 15 mph. Avoid applications when wind gusts
approach 15 mph.”

“Risk of exposure to aquatic areas can be reduced by avoiding growth
of vegetative filter strip.”

“Low humidity and high temperatures increase the evaporation rate of
spray droplets and therefore the likelihood of increased spray drift to
aquatic areas.”

 “Applicators must follow all state and local pesticide drift
requirements regarding application of tau-fluvalinate. Where states have
more stringent regulations, they must be observed.”

 “All aerial and ground application equipment must be properly
maintained and calibrated using appropriate carriers or surrogates”.
Directions for Use under General Precautions or Restrictions and/or
Application Instructions

 PAGE

 PAGE   2


M: So just to reiterate, and please correct me—

R: This did give me a problem.

M: So basically you’re saying that if you were presented with a
situation where it would, in fact, affect the whole United States and
everything was above board and fair, that you would be willing to pay
between 101 and 200 percent more, but it sounds like maybe you didn’t
buy or—that the dynamics whereby it would be more—

R: Right.  I couldn’t understand why.  As a matter of fact, I think I
did double-takes and looked back, is it saying less 100 percent or 200
percent less?  Or more?  [East Providence, RI, 8/12/10, pp.6]

***

M: What are other comments on the pictures that were on the survey?

R: I think it’s on page two, they were very good. I don’t get hung
up on the numbers. With the food web, I couldn’t trace it but I
understood the point they were making. It made a point.

R: There was a variation with the dots because I was looking at this I
would like to see where the generators were and...

R: There are a lot of generators on there. [laughter]

R: They are in blue and the manufacturers are blue as well. You can’t
tell the difference. This looks like…

R: They all look good. [Several respondents agreed.]

M: The color in the legend is different from the color on the map?

R: Yes. I’m guessing that’s a generator that’s on a river. You
have to really look at it, but you can’t tell the difference if you
just look at the red, the charts and map.

R: Yes, the rivers have that rectangular design maybe. [laughter]

R: Those were the discrepancies in it…

R: I think rectangle’s on there.

R: They are, they’re up there.

R: Maybe that’s just…

R: I think they’re the customers.

R: Yes, the customers.

R: Those are manufacturers.

M: There is a little bit of confusion regarding the shapes and colors on
the map.

R: Yes.  [Charlotte, NC, 9/8/10, pp.12]

***

M: We talked a little bit about the pictures in the survey so far.
I’d just like to ask a little bit more about that.  And I guess in
general what did you think about the pictures that were in the survey?
Were they helpful to you in making good answers?  Or were there any
pictures that stood out as being particularly helpful or maybe
particularly confusing?

R: I think it’s good there’s especially a map of our area because
that made it more realistic that you know it effects our area like
Philadelphia region specifically, so they were important.

M: And do you feel you had enough information on where the effects were
gonna happen?

R: Kind of.

R: Maybe?

R: I don’t know.  [Philadelphia, PA, 9/23/10, pp.6]

***

M: Let me ask you, what did the rest of you – I know that you didn’t
even get to question five – but for those of you who did – or who
got to the national question, question eight, it’s now – where
it’s talking about natural versus northeast policies, there was just a
comment that cost was more. How did you interpret that, what did you
think about that?

R: I couldn’t believe how much more we had to pay when a larger sum of
people came into the –

R: [crosstalk]

R: It’s like Massachusetts covering the rest of the country.

R: Exactly.

R: Taxachusetts.

R: [crosstalk]

R: Maine has foreclosures, Florida has foreclosures, you know.

R: [crosstalk, crosstalk]

M: So how did you vote for question eight, then?

R: I voted no.

R: I voted no.

R: I shut it down.

R: Yeah.  [Waltham, MA, 7/29/10, pp.13]

Importance of Protecting Aquatic Ecosystems Compared to Other Issues

The majority of participants thought that protecting aquatic ecosystems
is at least somewhat important compared to other issues that the
government might address, with many indicating that it is important or
very important. Question 2 was revised within the draft survey to
compare “protection of aquatic ecosystems” more generally to
“other issues that the government might address – such as public
safety, education, and health”, in order to prevent confusion among
participants regarding the question’s purpose. The majority of
participants rated protecting aquatic life and habitat” as at least
somewhat important with many participants selecting “very important”
and very few participants selecting “not important”. Multiple
participants stated that they view improvements of aquatic ecosystems as
an important issue without directly comparing it to other issues the
government might address. Some also raised the economy and jobs as
important issues, and some described fish losses and related regulations
in the context of these issues.

M: Actually skip ahead to page 6.  It's question 2 in the middle where
it says "Compared to other issues that the government might address such
as public safety, education, and health.  How important is protecting a
part of ecosystems here."  So how did you respond on that one?

R: I put the second—number 4, which is "almost very important."

M: So were you thinking about other issues when you're completing the
survey at all?

R: [inaudible] go through the survey I was thinking about tourism in
Rhode Island, and take New England [inaudible], we are a very tourist
area.  One of the big reasons because we're an ocean state.  We're so
close to the beaches, and we have beautiful beaches and waterfronts and
so forth.  And that's being depleted.  Our ecosystems are being damaged,
and no tourist wants to go to an area where it's polluted.  No tourists
are going, you know, get a hotel room next to a lake or whatever that
smells of rotting whatever, you know, fish or a beach front area that's
damaged.  So that definitely plays into my mind.  And, you know, I love
snorkeling, and I love being outdoors especially.  I'm a beach guy so
that plays heavily into my influence.  I don't think we do enough for
our ecosystems [inaudible].

M: So you were pretty much focused on the aquatic ecosystems and fish
and things like that?

R: Yes.  [East Providence, RI, 8/12/10, Interview #1, pp.3]

***

M: Turning, then, I guess, to question two, which is this page right
here, could you tell me how you reacted to that question, how you
answered it?

R: Almost all of it was important. I’m not a big aquatic—I’m not a
fisherman or anything like that, so to me that was the only one that was
somewhat important. The rest of them, reducing my cost, is very
important.

R: Why would they put reducing taxes as a questions in here? I mean,
I’m just asking. Is that just a trick question?

M: I’m going to not answer that. [crosstalk] I’ll happily answer
anything after we’re done.

R: It’s just kind of weird to have that thrown in.

R: The only thing I wasn’t sure was the homeland security link. I feel
like that one’s kind of thrown in.

R: That’s the same thing as reducing taxes. Does that pertain to what
we’re talking about here? I don’t know.

R: I put not important on both. Where are the control questions?
[crosstalk]

R: We live on the water, so I’m concerned about all of it. I have
children that are in the water, and so very important.  [East
Providence, RI, 7/21/10, pp.6]

***

M: And what about the rest of you? Other thoughts on what kind of the
pros or the benefits for voting for one of these options might be?

R: Well, I suppose that the population obviously continues to grow,
therefore what we have now isn’t necessarily going to be enough in the
future, so therefore you have to do something to try to protect and
preserve that, but it’s supply and demand, I suppose.

R: And also, you have to look at the employment factor. This industry
employs a lot of people, and if you start losing fish population,
you’re going to lose a lot more jobs.

M: Now when you say “this industry,” which –

R: The fishing industry.

R: Just ask the people in the Gulf right now.

R: That’s right. And it’s not just the fishermen, it’s the
restaurateurs, it’s the waiters, it’s the whole economy, [inaudible]
and everything.  [Waltham, MA, 7/29/10, pp.13]

***

M: What's that?  No, please.

R: Sort of the same thing.  I just want to know cost, whether more jobs
would be created by [inaudible] equipment, manufacturing equipment,
monitoring equipment – take care of the equipment, you know, would
there be some job creation in this cost?  Because that's—

M: And when you say equipment —

R: Well, the filters, the, you know, monitoring equipment, whatever is
necessary to have the, you know, this fully implemented.  Would there
still be job creation?  [St. Louis, MO, 8/4/10, pp.3]

 In this report, we use the citation format (#X-Z to refer to page Z of
the transcript for focus group X. Citations to cognitive interviews use
a similar format, (#X/Y-Z), where Y represents the interview number.

 Where “M:” stands for moderator and “R:” stands for respondent.

 Audiotapes for two cognitive interviews were inaudible and could not be
transcribed.

 In this report, we use the citation format (#X-Z to refer to page Z of
the transcript for focus group X. Citations to cognitive interviews use
a similar format, (#X/Y-Z), where Y represents the interview number.

 Where “M:” stands for moderator and “R:” stands for respondent.

 Audiotapes for two cognitive interviews were inaudible and could not be
transcribed.

Abt Associates Inc., January 19, 2011	Focus Group Findings	  PAGE  i

January 19, 2011


			  UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

		        DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

			  OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

			          WASHINGTON, D.C.

Issued by the Department of Transportation on July 13, 2005

NOTICE OF ACTION TAKEN -- DOCKETS OST-2004-17517

________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________

This serves as notice to the public of the action described below, taken
by the Department official indicated (no additional confirming order
will be issued in this matter).

Applicant:  Caribbean Star Airlines, Ltd. & Caribbean Sun Airlines, Inc.
  Date Filed:  March 10, 2005

Relief requested:

Caribbean Star Airlines, Ltd.—Renew exemption from 49 U.S.C. § 41301
to engage in scheduled foreign air transportation of persons, property
and mail between St. John’s, Antigua and Barbuda, on the one hand, and
San Juan, Puerto Rico, and St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands, on the other
hand, pursuant to a code-share arrangement with Caribbean Sun Airlines,
Inc., (Caribbean Sun), a U.S. certificated air carrier.  Caribbean Star
further requests that we amend that authority to the extent necessary to
permit Caribbean Star to engage in scheduled foreign air transportation
of persons, property and mail on flights operated by Caribbean Sun
between St. John’s, Antigua and Barbuda, on the one hand, and San
Juan, Puerto Rico, and St. Thomas and St. Croix, U.S. Virgin Islands, on
the other hand, operated directly or via the intermediate points
Anguilla, Barbados, Tortola (BVI), Dominica, Grenada, Martinique, St.
Eustacius, St. Kitts, St. Lucia, St. Maarten, St. Vincent, Tobago, and
Trinidad, with Fifth Freedom traffic rights, to the extent consistent
with the aviation agreement between the United States and Antigua and
Barbuda.  The flights will be operated pursuant to a code-share
arrangement between Caribbean Star and Caribbean Sun.  Caribbean Star
asks that we grant the requested authority for a two year period.

Caribbean Sun Airlines, Inc.—Renew statement of authorization under 14
CFR Part 212 to permit Caribbean Sun to display the designator code of
Caribbean Star on flights operated by Caribbean Sun between San Juan,
Puerto Rico, and St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands, on the one hand, and
St. John’s, Antigua and Barbuda, on the other hand.  Caribbean Sun
further request that we amend that authority to the extent necessary to
permit Caribbean Sun to display the designator code of Caribbean Star on
flights operated by Caribbean Sun between San Juan, Puerto Rico, St.
Croix and St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands, on the one hand, and the
Caribbean points (named above) on the other hand.

If renewal, date and citation of last action:  Renews and amends
authority last granted May 21, 2004, in this docket

Applicant(s) representative:  Nathaniel P. Breed, Jr.<PHONE_NUMBER>

DOT Analyst:  George Wellington<PHONE_NUMBER>

Responsive pleadings:  None filed

DISPOSITION

Action:  Approved in part, dismissed in part 				Action date:  July 13,
2005

Effective dates of exemption authority granted Caribbean Star:  July 13,
2005 - July 13, 2006

Effective dates of the statement of authorization granted Caribbean Sun:
 July 13, 2005 - Indefinite

Basis for approval (bilateral agreement/reciprocity):  Air Services
Agreement between the United States and the United Kingdom to which
Antigua and Barbuda acceded upon independence in 1981 (the Agreement),
and, with respect to services to be operated by Caribbean Star to and
from St. Eustacius, reciprocity on the part of Antigua and Barbuda.

2

Except to the extent exempted/waived, this authority is subject to the
terms, conditions, and limitations indicated:

X  Standard exemption conditions (Caribbean Star Attachment A &
Caribbean Sun Attachment B), the Agreement  and Caribbean Sun’s
Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity (Order 2002-12-18).

Special conditions/Partial grant/Denial basis/Remarks:  Caribbean Star
was designated by the Government of Antigua and Barbuda on February 20,
2004, on U.K. Route 9 in Annex 1 of the Agreement, to perform its
proposed services.

Caribbean Star may not conduct U.S. operations with its own aircraft and
crews without further action by the Department.

The statement of authorization granted to Caribbean Sun is subject to
the following conditions:

(a)  The statement of authorization will remain in effect only as long
as (i) Caribbean Sun and Caribbean Star continue to hold the necessary
underlying authority to operate the code-share services at issue, and
(ii) the code-share agreement providing for the code-share operations
remains in effect.

(b)  Caribbean Sun and/or Caribbean Star must promptly notify the
Department (Office of International Aviation) if the code-share
agreement providing for the code-share operations is no longer effective
or the carriers decide to cease operating any or all of the approved
code-share services.  Such notices should be filed in Docket
OST-2004-17517.

(c)  The code-sharing operations conducted under this authority must
comply with 14 CFR 257 and with any amendments to the Department’s
regulations concerning code-share arrangements that may be adopted.
Notwithstanding any provisions in the contract between the carriers, our
approval here is expressly conditioned upon the requirements that the
subject foreign air transportation be sold in the name of the carrier
holding out such service in computer reservation systems and elsewhere;
that the carrier selling such transportation (i.e., the carrier shown on
the ticket) accept responsibility for the entirety of the code-share
journey for all obligations established in its contract of carriage with
the passenger; and that the passenger liability of the operating carrier
be unaffected.  Further, the operator shall not permit the code of its
U.S. code-sharing partner to be carried on any flight that enters,
departs, or transits the airspace of any area for whose airspace the
Federal Aviation Administration has issued a flight prohibition.

(d)  The authority granted here is specifically conditioned so that
neither Caribbean Sun nor Caribbean Star shall give any force or effect
to any contractual provisions between themselves that are contrary to
these conditions.

Action taken by:   Paul L. Gretch, Director

		      Office of International Aviation

________________________________________________________________________
_________

Under authority assigned by the Department in its regulations, 14 CFR
Part 385, we found that (1) the applicant was qualified to perform the
proposed operations; (2) our action was consistent with Department
policy; (3) grant of the authority was consistent with the public
interest; and (4) grant of the authority would not constitute a major
regulatory action under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975.
To the extent not granted/deferred/dismissed, we denied all requests in
the referenced Docket.  We may amend, modify, or revoke the authority
granted in this Notice at any time without hearing at our discretion.

Persons entitled to petition the Department for review of the action set
forth in this Notice under the Department’s regulations, 14 CFR §
385.30, may file their petitions within seven (7) days after the date of
issuance of this Notice.  This action was effective when taken, and the
filing of a petition for review will not alter such effectiveness.

An electronic version of this document is available on the World Wide
Web at:

http://dms.dot.gov//reports/reports_aviation.asp

Foreign Carrier Exemption Conditions

In the conduct of the operations authorized, the foreign carrier
applicant(s) shall:

(1)  Not conduct any operations unless it holds a currently effective
authorization from its homeland for such operations, and it has filed a
copy of such authorization with the Department;

(2)  Comply with all applicable requirements of the Federal Aviation
Administration, including, but not limited to, 14 CFR Parts 129, 91, and
36, and with all applicable U.S. Government requirements concerning
security, including, but not limited to, 49 CFR Part 1546 or 1550, as
applicable.  To assure compliance with all applicable U.S. Government
requirements concerning security, the holder shall, before commencing
any new service (including charter flights) from a foreign airport that
would be the holder’s last point of departure for the United States,
contact its International Principal Security Inspector (IPSI) to advise
the IPSI of its plans and to find out whether the Transportation
Security Administration has determined that security is adequate to
allow such airport(s) to be served;

(3)  Comply with the requirements for minimum insurance coverage
contained in 14 CFR Part 205, and, prior to the commencement of any
operations under this authority, file evidence of such coverage, in the
form of a completed OST Form 6411, with the Federal Aviation
Administration’s Program Management Branch (AFS-260), Flight Standards
Service (any changes to, or termination of, insurance also shall be
filed with that office);

(4)  Not operate aircraft under this authority unless it complies with
operational safety requirements at least equivalent to Annex 6 of the
Chicago Convention;

(5)  Conform to the airworthiness and airman competency requirements of
its Government for international air services;

(6)  Except as specifically exempted or otherwise provided for in a
Department Order, comply with the requirements of 14 CFR Part 203,
concerning waiver of Warsaw Convention liability limits and defenses;

(7)  Agree that operations under this authority constitute a waiver of
sovereign immunity, for the purposes of 28 U.S.C. 1605(a), but only with
respect to those actions or proceedings instituted against it in any
court or other tribunal in the United States that are: (a)  based on its
operations in international air transportation that, according to the
contract of carriage, include a point in the United States as a point of
origin, point of destination, or agreed stopping place, or for which the
contract of carriage was purchased in the United States; or (b)  based
on a claim under any international agreement or treaty cognizable in any
court or other tribunal of the United States.  In this condition, the
term "international air transportation" means "international
transportation" as defined by the Warsaw Convention, except that all
States shall be considered to be High Contracting Parties for the
purpose of this definition;

(8)  Except as specifically authorized by the Department, originate or
terminate all flights to/from the United States in its homeland;

(9)  Comply with the requirements of 14 CFR Part 217, concerning the
reporting of scheduled, nonscheduled, and charter data;

(10) If charter operations are authorized, except as otherwise provided
in the applicable aviation agreement, comply with the Department's rules
governing charters (including 14 CFR Parts 212 and 380); and

(11) Comply with such other reasonable terms, conditions, and
limitations required by the public interest as may be prescribed by the
Department, with all applicable orders or regulations of other U.S.
agencies and courts, and with all applicable laws of the United States.

This authority shall not be effective during any period when the holder
is not in compliance with the conditions imposed above.  Moreover, this
authority cannot be sold or otherwise transferred without explicit
Department approval under Title 49 of the U.S. Code.

										Attachment B

U.S. Carrier Exemption Conditions

In the conduct of the operations authorized, the U.S. carrier
applicant(s) shall:

(1)  Hold at all times effective operating authority from the government
of each country served;

(2)  Comply with applicable requirements concerning oversales contained
in 14 CFR 250 (for scheduled operations, if authorized);

(3)  Comply with the requirements for reporting data contained in 14 CFR
241;

(4)  Comply with requirements for minimum insurance coverage, and for
certifying that coverage to the Department, contained in 14 CFR 205;

(5)  Except as specifically exempted or otherwise provided for in a
Department Order, comply with the requirements of 14 CFR 203, concerning
waiver of Warsaw Convention liability limits and defenses;

(6)  Comply with all applicable requirements of the Federal Aviation
Administration and with all applicable U.S. Government requirements
concerning security, including, but not limited to, 49 CFR Part 1544.
To assure compliance with all applicable U.S. Government requirements
concerning security, the holder shall, before commencing any new service
(including charter flights) to or from a foreign airport, contact its
International Principal Security Inspector (IPSI) to advise the IPSI of
its plans and to find out whether the Transportation Security
Administration has determined that security is adequate to allow such
airport(s) to be served; and

(7)  Comply with such other reasonable terms, conditions, and
limitations required by the public interest as may be prescribed by the
Department of Transportation, with all applicable orders and regulations
of other U.S. agencies and courts, and with all applicable laws of the
United States.

The authority granted shall be effective only during the period when the
holder is in compliance with the conditions imposed above.

   See basis for approval and special conditions, below.

  Caribbean Star sought authority for a two year period.  However, as is
our usual practice in conferring exemption authority in the
circumstances presented, we are limiting the term of authority to one
year.  We dismiss Caribbean Star’s request to the extent it seeks
longer-term exemption authority.  Caribbean Star may, of course, seek
renewal of this authority in accordance with the Department’s
regulations.

  Antigua and Barbuda is currently a Category 2 country under the
FAA’s International Aviation Safety Assessment Program (IASA).

  We expect this notification to be received within 10 days of such
noneffectiveness or of such decision.

05/2004