                                Momfluorothrin

                     Interim Registration Review Decision
                               Case Number 7457

                                  March 2020

			Approved by: _________
					   Elissa Reaves, Ph.D.
                                 Acting Director
                           Pesticide Re-evaluation Division

                  Date:	 -  - _____3-16-2020__________
                               Table of Contents

I.	INTRODUCTION	3
A.	Updates Since the Proposed Interim Decision was Issued	4
B.	Summary of Momfluorothrin Registration Review	5
C.	Summary of Public Comments on the Proposed Interim Decision and Agency Responses	6
II.	USE AND USAGE	7
III.	SCIENTIFIC ASSESSMENTS	7
A.	Human Health Risks	7
1. Pyrethroids FQPA Safety Factor Determination	8
2. Risk Summary and Characterization	10
3. Human Incidents and Epidemiology	11
4. Tolerances	11
5. Human Health Data Needs	11
B.	Ecological Risks	12
C.	Benefits Assessment	12
IV.	INTERIM REGISTRATION REVIEW DECISION	12
A.	Risk Mitigation and Regulatory Rationale	12
1.	Label Clarification	13
B.	Tolerance Actions	13
C.	Interim Registration Review Decision	13
D.	Data Requirements	13
V.	NEXT STEPS AND TIMELINE	13
A.	Interim Registration Review Decision	13
APPENDICES	15
Appendix A:  Labeling Changes for Momfluorothrin Products	15
Appendix B:  Endangered Species Assessment	16
Appendix C:  Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program	17

 INTRODUCTION

This document is the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA or the agency) Interim Registration Review Decision (ID) for momfluorothrin (PC Code 016331, case 7457), and is being issued pursuant to 40 CFR §§ 155.56 and 155.58. A registration review decision is the agency's determination whether a pesticide continues to meet, or does not meet, the standard for registration in the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). The agency may issue, when it determines it to be appropriate, an interim registration review decision before completing a registration review. Among other things, the interim registration review decision may require new risk mitigation measures, impose interim risk mitigation measures, identify data or information required to complete the review, and include schedules for submitting the required data, conducting the new risk assessment and completing the registration review. Additional information on momfluorothrin can be found in the EPA's public docket (EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0752) at www.regulations.gov.

FIFRA, as amended by the Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) of 1996, mandates the continuous review of existing pesticides. All pesticides distributed or sold in the United States must be registered by the EPA based on scientific data showing that they will not cause unreasonable risks to human health or to the environment when used as directed on product labeling. The registration review program is intended to make sure that, as the ability to assess and reduce risk evolves and as policies and practices change, all registered pesticides continue to meet the statutory standard of no unreasonable adverse effects. Changes in science, public policy, and pesticide use practices will occur over time. Through the registration review program, the agency periodically re-evaluates pesticides to make sure that as these changes occur, products in the marketplace can continue to be used safely. Information on this program is provided at http://www.epa.gov/pesticide-reevaluation. In 2006, the agency implemented the registration review program pursuant to FIFRA § 3(g) and will review each registered pesticide every 15 years to determine whether it continues to meet the FIFRA standard for registration.

The EPA is issuing an ID for momfluorothrin so that it can move forward with aspects of the registration review that are complete. Likewise, the agency will complete endocrine screening for momfluorothrin, pursuant to the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) § 408(p), before completing registration review. See Appendix C for additional information on the endocrine screening for the momfluorothrin registration review.

Momfluorothrin [2,3,5,6-Tetrafluoro-4-(methoxymethyl)benzyl (EZ)-(1RS,3RS;1RS,3SR)-3-(2-cyanoprop-1-enyl)-2,2-dimethylcyclopropanecarboxy1ate] is a Type I synthetic pyrethroid insecticide and was first registered in 2015. Momfluorothrin is used as a spot, and crack and crevice treatment targeting flying, crawling, and stinging insects and other arthropod pests. It is used in commercial and residential settings and has indoor and outdoor uses including application to indoor perimeters and mattresses. Momfluorothrin does not have agricultural uses, and products containing the active ingredient may be used by both residential and commercial handlers.

Momfluorothrin is a member of the pyrethroids and pyrethrins class of insecticides, which share the same mode of action.  The pyrethroids and pyrethrins work by altering nerve function, initially causing paralysis in target insect pests (also known as "knockdown"), and eventually resulting in death.  The agency has determined that the pyrethroids and pyrethrins belong to a common mechanism group (http://www.regulations.gov; EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0489-0006).  A screening-level cumulative risk assessment to assess human health risks was completed in 2011.  This analysis did not identify cumulative risks of concern for children and adults. For further information, please see Section III. 2. of this document and the cumulative risk assessment for the pyrethroids and pyrethrins, published on November 9, 2011 (available at http://www.regulations.gov; EPA-HQ-OPP-2011-0746).

In September 2019 the EPA published its Pyrethroids and Pyrethrins Ecological Risk Mitigation Proposal for 23 Chemicals, which summarizes the ecological risk assessment approach and outlines EPA's mitigation to address potential ecological risks for other pyrethroids with the potential for risks to the environment. For specific information on the ecological mitigation measures for these other pyrethroids please refer to the Pyrethroids and Pyrethrins Ecological Risk Mitigation Proposal for 23 Chemicals located in the Special Docket for Pyrethroids, Pyrethrins, and Synergists located at http://www.regulations.gov (Docket #: EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0331).

However, for momfluorothrin there is no reasonable expectation for any registered use to cause direct or indirect adverse effects to federally listed threatened and endangered species. Therefor, no adverse modification of critical habitat for federally listed species is expected from the use of momfluorothrin. Because of the low likelihood of exposure to terrestrial and aquatic organisms the EPA has made a "No Effect" (NE) finding and a "No Modification (NM)" of designated critical habitat determinations finding under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and is not requiring any mitigation for momfluorothrin.

This document is organized in five sections: the Introduction, which includes this summary and a summary of public comments and the EPA's responses; Use and Usage, which describes how and why momfluorothrin is used and summarizes data on its use; Scientific Assessments, which summarizes the EPA's risk and benefits assessments, updates or revisions to previous risk assessments, and provides broader context with a discussion of risk characterization; the Interim Registration Review Decision, which describes the mitigation measures to address risks of concern, if any, and the regulatory rationale for the EPA's ID; and, lastly, the Next Steps and Timeline for completion of this registration review.

 Updates Since the Proposed Interim Decision was Issued

In November 2019, the EPA published the PID for momfluorothrin.  No comments were received on the momfluorothrin PID.  However, there were five comments received on the proposed text describing how to define a spot treatment on labels from the National Pest Management Association (NPMA), the National Association of Landscape Professionals (NALP), the Responsible Industry for a Sound Environment (RISE), Bayer CropScience, and the Pyrethroids Working Group (PWG).  These comments were submitted in the Special Docket for Pyrethroids, Pyrethrins, and Synergists (Docket #: EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0331) in response to the Pyrethrins and Pyrethrins Ecological Risk Mitigation Proposal for 23 Chemicals.  Based on the comments received from these commenters, the momfluorothrin ID has been updated to include revised spot treatment language.

 Summary of Momfluorothrin Registration Review

Pursuant to 40 CFR § 155.50, the EPA formally initiated registration review for momfluorothrin with the opening of the registration review docket for the case. The following summary highlights the docket opening and other significant milestones that have occurred thus far during the registration review of momfluorothrin.

 November 2016--The agency announced the availability in the momfluorothrin docket of the Momfluorothrin Combined Work Plan and Draft Preliminary Risk Assessment Registration Review and the Momfluorothrin. Draft Human Health Risk Assessment for Registration Review in the Federal Register (FR) Notice, along with several support documents, for a 60-day public comment period. The agency also posted the Preliminary Comparative Environmental Fate and Ecological Risk Assessment for the Registration Review of Eight Synthetic Pyrethroids and the Pyrethrins (also referred to as the "Ecological Risk Assessment"), and the Ecological Risk Management Rationale for Pyrethroids in Registration Review (also referred to as the "Rationale Document") to the momfluorothrin docket for the 60-day public comment period. The same FR Notice (81 FR 85952) also announced the availability of the risk assessments for several other pyrethroids, and the Ecological Risk Assessment and Rationale Document, in the individual chemical dockets. The comment period was extended from January until July 2017.
 During the public comment period, EPA received over 1,400 public comments across all the dockets of the pyrethroids.
 Fourteen comments were received in the momfluorothrin docket (one comment, on an unrelated pesticide, was submitted to the momfluorothrin docket in error). None of these comments addressed momfluorothrin specifically and all comments were posted to other pyrethroids dockets. These comments and the agency's responses can be found in the EFED/PRD Response to Comments document, which is available at www.regulations.gov docket number EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0331.
 None of the comments addressed momfluorothrin specifically, and none of the comments changed the ecological risk conclusions and effects determination for the momfluorothrin case.

 July 2019  -  The agency published USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs' Re-Evaluation of the FQPA Safety Factor for Pyrethroids: Updated Literature and CAPHRA Program Data Review on the webpage https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2019-08/documents/2019-pyrethroid-fqpa-caphra.pdf, which discusses the data and rationale underlying the agency's decision to remove the 10X FQPA safety factor for the pyrethroids, including momfluorothrin.

 September 2019  -  The agency announced the availability of momfluorothrin PID in the momfluorothrin registration review docket (EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0752), for a 60-day public comment period. The agency also announced the availability of the Pyrethroids and Pyrethrins Ecological Risk Mitigation Proposal for 23 Chemicals in the Special Docket for Pyrethroids, Pyrethrins, and Synergists located at http://www.regulations.gov (Docket #: EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0331) for a 60-day public comment period. A Readers Guide - Instructions for Commenting on the Registration Review Documents in the Pyrethroids Group was also added to the chemical docket. Comments were submitted to the relevant docket to ensure timely consideration of comments (i.e., comments related to the ecological risk mitigation were submitted through the pyrethroids special docket, EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0331).
              Along with the momfluorothrin PID, the following documents are also available in the momfluorothrin registration review docket (EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0752):
 Momfluorothrin: Updated Human Health Draft Risk Assessment in Support of Registration Review.
 Readers Guide- Instructions for Commenting on the Registration Review Documents in Pyrethroids Group.

 March 2020-The agency is now announcing the availability of the Momfluorothrin Interim Registration Review Decision.

Summary of Public Comments on the Proposed Interim Decision and Agency Responses
The agency published the momfluorothrin proposed interim decision for public comment on November 12, 2019.  The comment period closed on January 12, 2020.  During that time, the agency received no public comments for the momfluorothrin PID specifically. However, several public comments were received for Pyrethroids and Pyrethrins Ecological Risk Mitigation Proposal for 23 Chemicals and provide suggestions on the proposed text describing how to define a spot treatment on labels for momfluorothrin.  Comments were received from the National Pest management (NPMA), the National Association Landscape (NALP), the Responsible Industry for a Sound Environment (RISE), Bayer CropScience, and the Pyrethroid Working Group (PWG). The Agency's response to these comments are summarized below.
Comments Submitted by NPMA (EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0331-0096, PWG (EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0331-0162), Bayer CropScience (EPA-HQ-OPP-0331-0170), NALP (EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0331-0163, and RISE (EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0331-0085).

Comment: The organizations listed above commented on the proposed language ("Spot treatments must not exceed two feet in size (2ft. by 1 ft.) other than ant mound treatment, not to exceed 10% of the treatment area") for outdoor, non-agriculture spot treatment applications of pyrethroid products. The commenters stated that the proposed language is confusing as written and difficult to understand.  Additionally, the commenters stated that the proposal differs from spot treatment language previously provided by the agency. In particular, the commenters objected to the statement limiting spot treatments to a total of 10% of the entire treatment area because (1) there is a lack of data to support this number, (2) spot treatments are generally considered to comprise approximately 20% of the area to be treated, and  (3) they also expressed concern about the need for flexibility to address areas outside of the normal treatment area to ensure control of target pests.

EPA Response:  The agency acknowledges and thanks these organizations for these comments.  Based on the feedback received, EPA has revised the spot treatment language to reduce confusion and allow for flexibility to control pests outside of the application area, to read as follows:

      "Individual spot treatments must not exceed two square feet in size (2ft. by 1 ft.)."
 USE AND USAGE

Like other pyrethroids, momfluorothrin acts to prevent sodium channels in an organism's neuronal membranes from closing, resulting in paralysis and eventual death. The Insecticide Resistance Action Committee (IRAC, 2018) categorizes momfluorothrin and other synthetic pyrethroids in Mode of Action Group 3A.

Momfluorothrin is used in both residential and commercial settings, including application to indoor perimeters and mattresses. The products for momfluorothrin are all ready-to-use sprays. EPA has very limited usage data for momfluorothrin because the pesticide usage data available to the agency covers agricultural uses, and momfluorothrin has no agricultural uses. Nationally, residential consumers purchased around 100,000 lbs of pyrethroid insecticides for indoor use in 2016.  However, the extent to which momfluorothrin is a component of this usage is not known.   Momflourothrin products are marketed for use against a variety of flying, crawling, and stinging insects and other arthropods such as flies, mosquitoes, wasps, hornets, yellow jackets, roaches, ticks, bed bugs, centipedes, scorpions, and certain species of ants and spiders.

SCIENTIFIC ASSESSMENTS

 Human Health Risks

A summary of the agency's human health risk assessment is presented below. The agency used the most current science policies and risk assessment methodologies to prepare a risk assessment in support of the registration review of momfluorothrin.  For additional details on the human health assessment for momfluorothrin, see Momfluorothrin: Draft Human Health Risk Assessment for Registration Review, Momfluorothrin: Human Health Risk Assessment for a Use of the New Active Ingredient in Indoor Residential Settings and Outdoors in Commercial/Residential Settings, and Momfluorothrin: Updated Human Health Draft Risk Assessment in Support of Registration Review, which are available in the momfluorothrin registration review docket EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0752.

 1. Pyrethroids FQPA Safety Factor Determination

The Food Quality Protection Act (1996) requires EPA to apply a ten-fold margin of safety (10X FQPA safety factor) for infants, children, and women of child-bearing age to account for potential juvenile sensitivity to pesticides, unless there are reliable data to reduce this safety factor. The agency considers the FQPA safety factor as having two components: 3X assigned to pharmacokinetic (PK) differences and 3X to pharmacodynamic (PD) differences. The PK component depicts the process of chemicals being absorbed, distributed, metabolized, and excreted from and in the body. The PD component determines how a chemical brings about target tissue responses at a given dose.

For the pyrethroids that went through reregistration, which did not include momfluorothrin, EPA determined the toxicological database provided reliable information to reduce the 3X FQPA PD component of the safety factor for all populations to 1X.  While there was enough information to reduce the 3X FQPA PK safety factor for women of child-bearing age to 1X, some uncertainty remained for infants and children because available animal data indicated an increase in sensitivity to pyrethroids for juvenile rats compared to adult rats.  EPA required developmental neurotoxicity studies (DNTs) with the intention of addressing this uncertainty; however, after a 2009 review of the pyrethroids toxicological database, which considered all the available reproductive and developmental studies, the agency determined that the DNT did not provide sufficient information related to the susceptibility of infants and children. Therefore, EPA notified registrants that they could satisfy outstanding DCI requirements for pyrethroids DNT studies by citing the previously submitted DNT studies for six pyrethroids.  In addition, in order to address the uncertainty of comparative life-stage sensitivity, EPA solicited protocols from all pyrethroid companies in 2010, requesting interested parties submit a protocol for a study designed to identify and quantify potential juvenile sensitivity. A majority of the pyrethroid registrants formed a group called the Pyrethroid and Pyrethrins Technical Working Group (PPTWG) and they were ultimately the only group to submit a protocol for review.

In July 2010, the FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel (SAP) convened to review the PPTWG protocol, which using a combination of in vitro studies, targeted in vivo studies, and physiologically based pharmacokinetic (PBPK) models to evaluate the life-stage sensitivity of pyrethroids.  The SAP supported PBPK modeling as an appropriate path forward for addressing juvenile sensitivity, and some elements of the proposal were modified following SAP and EPA recommendations. The PPTWG was eventually expanded and became the Council for the Advancement of Pyrethroid Human Risk Assessment (CAPHRA).
Between late 2010 and early 2015, CAPHRA's efforts were focused on development of the overall approach using data for deltamethrin and permethrin to first develop the PBPK model parameterized for these two active ingredients (Type II and Type I pyrethroids, respectively).  By May 2015, the CAPHRA knowledge-base for deltamethrin and permethrin was robust enough for critical evaluation of the approach, including their intended use of the data for read-across along with computational approaches for modeling other pyrethroids.  The SAP encouraged the CAPHRA to address certain deficiencies in the dataset and PBPK model but were generally supportive of the PBPK approach.

Following the 2015 SAP, the EPA and the CAPHRA continued to meet regularly to work through technical issues, as well as discuss updates on the status of the research program.  By spring 2018, the CAPHRA submitted the in vitro and in vivo studies, as well as the PBPK model code and a related white paper to the EPA. The CAPHRA white paper described the integration of multiple data streams and the modeling approach to determine the key contributors to age-related toxicokinetic difference. The October 2018 peer review noted deficiencies in the white paper, as well as opportunities for further testing of the model parameters.  In addition, the peer review panel requested full model documentation and recommended an independent quality assurance (QA) review after CAPHRA addressed these issues identified by the panel.

The EPA worked with the CAPHRA to discuss the white paper updates, model testing, and additional information necessary for EPA's evaluation of the weight of evidence (WOE).  CAPHRA completed this work in July 2019, and EPA determined it could proceed with its WOE determination, which included review of the open literature and well as data generated by CAPHRA.

EPA has concluded that no new information of suitable quality was available on the age-related PD properties of the pyrethroids. Therefore, the previous conclusion that the PD contribution to the FQPA safety factor is 1X remains the same. With regard to PK, recent data including human PBPK models, as well as in vivo and in vitro data on protein binding, enzyme ontogeny and metabolic clearance, support the conclusion that the PK contribution to the FQPA safety factor is 1X for all populations. In December 2019, EPA determined that while the use of a PBPK model is appropriate to evaluate the potential for differential sensitivity of pyrethroids, as a class, between juveniles and adults, the model is not robust enough to be used for the development of chemical-specific uncertainty factors in the risk assessments for individual pyrethroids except those on which the model was conducted (deltamethrin and permethrin).

EPA's full evaluation, USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs' Re-Evaluation of the FQPA Safety Factor for Pyrethroids: Updated Literature and CAPHRA Program Data Review (July 2019), is available at www.regulations.gov (EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0331).

 2. Risk Summary and Characterization
A human health risk assessment for momfluorothrin, Momfluorothrin: Human Health Risk Assessment for a Proposed Use of the New Active Ingredient in Indoor Residential Settings and Outdoors in Commercial/Residential Settings, was completed in 2014 for proposed uses of
momfluorothrin. There have been no new uses proposed since the 2014 assessment but the most recent human health risk assessment for momfluorothrin, Momfluorothrin: Updated Human Health Draft Risk Assessment in Support of Registration Review, has updated risk estimates and serves as the draft risk assessment for the purposes of registration review. No exposure from food is anticipated and drinking water exposure is also not expected from the registered uses of momfluorothrin so a dietary exposure and risk assessment was not conducted. As no dermal endpoint of concern was identified, residential handler, residential post-application, occupational handler, and occupational post-application scenarios are based on inhalation exposures only.  All inhalation scenarios resulted in margins of exposure (MOE) greater than the level of concern and are not of concern. Momfluorothrin is not registered for use on sites that are likely to result in spray drift exposure to bystanders. There are currently no existing or proposed food uses for momfluorothrin and residues of momfluorothrin are not expected in drinking water from the proposed uses of momfluorothrin; therefore, a quantitative aggregate risk assessment is not required. There are no risks of concern for dietary (food and water), residential handler and post-application, residential bystander, aggregate exposure, and occupational handler and post-application scenarios.

For more information on the human health risks of momfluorothrin, refer to the Momfluorothrin: Updated Human Health Draft Risk Assessment in Support of Registration Review, Momfluorothrin: Draft Human Health Risk Assessment for Registration Review and Momfluorothrin: Human Health Risk Assessment for a Proposed Use of the New Active Ingredient in Indoor Residential Settings and Outdoors in Commercial/Residential Settings, which are available in the public docket.

Cumulative Risks

The agency is required to consider the cumulative risks of chemicals sharing a common
mechanism of toxicity. The agency has determined that the pyrethroids and pyrethrins belong to a common mechanism group (http://www.regulations.gov; EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0489-0006) with respect to human health. The members of this group share the ability to interact with voltage-gated sodium channels in the nervous system, which ultimately leads to neurotoxicity. A cumulative risk assessment for the pyrethroids and pyrethrins was published on Nov. 9, 2011 and is available at http://www.regulations.gov; EPA-HQ-OPP-2011-0746. No cumulative risks of concern were identified at that time. For information regarding EPA's efforts to evaluate the human health risk of exposure to pyrethroids, refer to http://www.epa.gov/oppsrrd1/reevaluation/pyrethroids-pyrethrins.html.  After all of the chemical-specific interim decisions have been completed for the pyrethroids class of pesticides, an update of the cumulative risk assessment may be performed in association with registration review.

 3. Human Incidents and Epidemiology
No human health incidents have been reported for momfluorothrin since the time products containing the active ingredient were first registered in 2015. It is possible, at least in part, that the lack of incident data is related to the relatively recent introduction of the products and limited adoption of the products by consumers because they are new.

The Agricultural Health Study (AHS) is a high quality, prospective epidemiology study evaluating the link between pesticide use and various health outcomes including cancer. Momfluorothrin is not included as an analyte in the AHS so the study does not provide information specific for momfluorothrin.

An epidemiological report was developed to assess the association between exposure to the pyrethroids in humans and adverse carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic outcomes, as well as select individual pyrethroid chemicals, including momfluorothrin. Overall, the epidemiological report found little substantive evidence to suggest a clear, associative, or causal relationship between exposure to pyrethroids and cancer and non-cancer health endpoints in the studies, including the AHS. For further information, please see Pyrethroids: Tier II Epidemiological Report dated April 30, 2019.

 4. Tolerances
There are no registered food/feed uses and no established tolerances for residues of momfluorothrin.

 5. Human Health Data Needs
There are no data deficiencies for the registration review of momfluorothrin in regard to the toxicology, residue chemistry, and occupational and residential exposure data requirements.
Ecological Risks

 The agency concluded that potential risks to non-target aquatic and terrestrial organisms, including pollinators, are highly unlikely given the limited potential for exposure from momfluorothrin. The EPA also made a "No Effect" determination for all listed (threatened and endangered) species and a "No Habitat Modification" determination for all designated critical habitats for momfluorothrin.

Although momfluorothrin does not have ecological risks of concern, it is one of the 23 pyrethroids noted in the Ecological Risk Management Rationale for Pyrethroids in Registration Review, a companion piece to the 2016 Preliminary Comparative Environmental Fate and Ecological Risk Assessment for Registration Review of Eight Synthetic Pyrethroids and the Pyrethrins. This rationale document summarized potential risk concerns for the pyrethroids excluded from the quantitative ecological assessment. Chemicals noted in the Rationale Document include: cyphenothrin, d‐phenothrin, etofenprox, flumethrin, imiprothrin, momfluorothrin, prallethrin, tau‐fluvalinate, tefluthrin, and tetramethrin.

For additional details on the ecological assessment for the pyrethroids, see the Preliminary Comparative Environmental Fate and Ecological Risk Assessment for Registration Review of Eight Synthetic Pyrethroids and the Pyrethrins, the Ecological Risk Management Rationale for Pyrethroids in Registration Review, and the Environmental Fate and Ecological Risk Assessment for the Section 3 New Chemical Registration of the Pyrethroid Insecticide Momfluorothrin, which are available in the public docket under Docket Number EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0752.

Benefits Assessment

While many of the arthropods that momfluorothrin can be used to control are nuisance pests, a few, such as some ant species and ticks, are considered public health threats.

Some other synthetic pyrethroids can serve as alternatives to momfluorothrin. For ants and cockroaches, non-pyrethroid alternatives also exist, such as hydramethylnon, indoxacarb, and abamectin. A number of pyrethroid and non-pyrethroid pesticides are also used to control fleas and ticks.

For information on the benefits of pyrethroids in general, refer to the Pyrethroids Ecological Risk Mitigation Proposal, also available in the public docket (EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0331).

INTERIM REGISTRATION REVIEW DECISION

 Risk Mitigation and Regulatory Rationale

The agency has determined that there are no risks of concern associated with the registered use of momfluorothrin.  As a result, the agency is not requiring additional mitigation measures beyond those needed to clarify, update, and improve consistency of labeling for all momfluorothrin products and uses.

 Label Clarification

The agency is requiring the inclusion of a general statement on spot treatment guidance stating the following: "Individual spot treatments in, on, or around man-made structures must not exceed two square feet in size (2ft. by 1 ft.)." This clarification will define what a spot treatment is to help the user of momfluorothrin apply products appropriately.

Tolerance Actions

Since there are no registered food/feed uses and no established tolerances for residues of momfluorothrin, no changes to the tolerance levels, crop listings, or the tolerance expression are necessary at this time.

Interim Registration Review Decision

In accordance with 40 CFR §§ 155.56 and 155.58, the agency is issuing this ID. Except for the Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program (EDSP) of this case, the agency has made the following interim decision: (1) no additional data are required at this time; and (2) changes to the affected registrations and their labeling are needed at this time, as described in Section IV. A and Appendix A of this document.

In this ID, the agency is making no human health or environmental safety findings associated with the EDSP screening of momfluorothrin. The agency's final registration review decision for momfluorothrin will be dependent upon the result of the agency's EDSP FFDCA § 408(p) determination.

Data Requirements

The agency does not anticipate calling-in additional data for the registration review of momfluorothrin at this time.
NEXT STEPS AND TIMELINE
 Interim Registration Review Decision

A Federal Register Notice will announce the availability of this ID for momfluorothrin. However, a final decision for momfluorothrin may be issued without the agency having previously issued an interim decision. A final decision on the momfluorothrin registration review case will occur after an EDSP FFDCA § 408(p) determination.

 Implementation of Mitigation Measures

Once the Interim Registration Review Decision is issued, the momfluorothrin registrants must submit amended labels that include the label changes described in Appendix A. The revised labels and requests for amendment of registrations must be submitted to the agency for review within 60 days following issuance of the Interim Registration Review Decision in the docket.

Registrants must submit a cover letter, a completed Application for Registration (EPA form 8570-1) and electronic copies of the amended product labels. Two copies for each label must be submitted, a clean copy and an annotated copy with changes. In order for the application to be processed, registrants must include the following statement on the Application for Registration (EPA form 8570-1):

"I certify that this amendment satisfies the requirements of the momfluorothrin Interim Registration Review Decision and EPA regulations at 40 CFR Section 152.44, and no other changes have been made to the labeling of this product. I understand that it is a violation of 18 U.S.C. Section 1001 to willfully make any false statement to EPA. I further understand that if this amendment is found not to satisfy the requirements of the Momfluorothrin Interim Registration Review Decision and 40 CFR Section 152.44, this product may be in violation of FIFRA and may be subject to regulatory and/or enforcement action and penalties under FIFRA."

Within the required timeframe, registrants must submit the required documents to the EPA's Pesticide Submission Portal (PSP), which can be accessed through the EPA's Central Data Exchange (CDX) using the following link: https://cdx.epa.gov/. Registrants may instead send paper copies of their amended product labels, with an application for a fast-track, agency initiated non-PRIA label amendment to Veronica Dutch at one of the following addresses, so long as the labels and application are submitted within the required timeframe:

      VIA US Mail
USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs
Pesticide Re-evaluation Division
Mail Code 7508P
1200 Pennsylvania Ave NW
Washington, DC 20460-0001

      VIA Courier
Pesticide Re-evaluation Division
c/o Front End Processing
Room S-4910, One Potomac Yard
2777 South Crystal Drive
Arlington, VA 22202-4501

 APPENDICES
 Appendix A:  Labeling Changes for Momfluorothrin Products
                                  Description
                  Label Language for Momfluorothrin Products
                              Placement on Label

                               End Use Products

Spot Treatment Statement
"Individual spot treatments must not exceed two square feet in size (2ft. by 1 ft.)."
Directions for use

 Appendix B:  Endangered Species Assessment

The agency has determined there is no reasonable expectation for any registered use of momfluorothrin to cause direct or indirect adverse effects to threatened and endangered species. No adverse modification of critical habitat is expected from the use of momfluorothrin. The agency has based these determinations on the current limited use pattern for momfluorothrin, which results in a very limited potential of exposure for non-target terrestrial and aquatic organisms. Because EPA has made a "No Effect" determination under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) for all listed species and designated critical habitat for such species, consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service under ESA § 7(a)(2) is not required.

 Appendix C:  Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program

As required by FIFRA and FFDCA, the EPA reviews numerous studies to assess potential adverse outcomes from exposure to chemicals. Collectively, these studies include acute, sub-chronic and chronic toxicity, including assessments of carcinogenicity, neurotoxicity, developmental, reproductive, and general or systemic toxicity. These studies include endpoints which may be susceptible to endocrine influence, including effects on endocrine target organ histopathology, organ weights, estrus cyclicity, sexual maturation, fertility, pregnancy rates, reproductive loss, and sex ratios in offspring. For ecological hazard assessments, the EPA evaluates acute tests and chronic studies that assess growth, developmental and reproductive effects in different taxonomic groups. As part of its most recent registration decision for momfluorothrin, the EPA reviewed these data and selected the most sensitive endpoints for relevant risk assessment scenarios from the existing hazard database. However, as required by FFDCA § 408(p), momfluorothrin is subject to the Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program (EDSP).

The EPA has developed the EDSP to determine whether certain substances (including pesticide active and other ingredients) may have an effect in humans or wildlife similar to an effect produced by a "naturally occurring estrogen, or other such endocrine effects as the Administrator may designate." The EDSP employs a two-tiered approach to making the statutorily required determinations. Tier 1 consists of a battery of 11 screening assays to identify the potential of a chemical substance to interact with the estrogen, androgen, or thyroid (E, A, or T) hormonal systems. Chemicals that go through Tier 1 screening and are found to have the potential to interact with E, A, or T hormonal systems will proceed to the next stage of the EDSP where the EPA will determine which, if any, of the Tier 2 tests are necessary based on the available data. Tier 2 testing is designed to identify any adverse endocrine-related effects caused by the substance and establish a dose-response relationship between the dose and the E, A, or T effect.

Under FFDCA § 408(p), the agency must screen all pesticide chemicals. Between October 2009 and February 2010, the EPA issued test orders/data call-ins for the first group of 67 chemicals, which contains 58 pesticide active ingredients and 9 inert ingredients. The agency has reviewed all of the assay data received for the List 1 chemicals and the conclusions of those reviews are available in the chemical-specific public dockets. A second list of chemicals identified for EDSP screening was published on June 14, 2013, and includes some pesticides scheduled for registration review and chemicals found in water. Neither of these lists should be construed as a list of known or likely endocrine disruptors. Momfluorothrin is not on either list. For further information on the status of the EDSP, the policies and procedures, the lists of chemicals, future lists, the test guidelines and the Tier 1 screening battery, please visit the EPA website.

In this ID, the EPA is making no human health or environmental safety findings associated with the EDSP screening of momfluorothrin. Before completing this registration review, the agency will make an EDSP FFDCA § 408(p) determination.


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 219 (Thursday, November 13, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 67520-67526]
[FR Doc No: 2014-26811]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-73547; File No. SR-BOX-2014-25]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; BOX Options Exchange LLC; Notice
of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To
Amend the Fee Schedule on the BOX Market LLC (``BOX'') Options Facility

November 6, 2014.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on October 31, 2014, BOX Options Exchange LLC (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 Exchange. The Exchange filed the
proposed rule change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act,\3\
and Rule 19b-4(f)(2) thereunder,\4\ which renders the proposal
effective upon filing with the Commission. The Commission is publishing
this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from
interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
    \4\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange is filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') a proposed rule change to amend the Fee Schedule to
amend the Fee Schedule [sic] on the BOX Market LLC (``BOX'') options
facility. While changes to the fee schedule pursuant to this proposal
will be effective upon filing, the changes will become operative on
November 1, 2014. The text of the proposed rule change is available
from the principal office of the Exchange, at the Commission's Public
Reference Room and also on the Exchange's Internet Web site at http://boxexchange.com.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to make a number of changes to the BOX Fee
Schedule.
Exchange Fees
Non-Auction Transactions
    First, the Exchange proposes to amend Section I (Exchange Fees) to
establish a subsection entitled ``Non-Auction Transactions.'' \5\ The
Exchange then proposes to adopt the current fee structure for Non-
Auction Transactions in Select Symbols for all Non-Auction transactions
on BOX. With this change the Select Symbols fee structure outlined in
Section I.C. of the BOX Fee Schedule will be removed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Non-Auction Transactions are those transactions executed on
the BOX Book.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Currently, Non-Auction Transactions in non-Select Symbols are
subject to the fee structure outlined in Section I of the BOX Fee
Schedule. For every Non-Auction Transaction, Public Customers are
assessed a $0.07 fee per contract and Professional Customers and Broker
Dealers $0.42 per contract. Market Makers are assessed a per contract
fee based upon the Market Maker's Monthly ADV in all transactions
executed on BOX, as calculated at the end of each month. All Non-
Auction Transactions for that month are charged the same per contract
fee according to the ADV achieved by the Market Maker, which ranges
from $0.13 to $0.35.
    In proposed Section I.A. (Non-Auction Transactions), the Exchange
proposes to adopt a pricing model where the Exchange will assess
transaction fees and credits dependent upon three factors: (i) The
account type of the Participant submitting the order; (ii) whether the
Participant is a liquidity provider or liquidity taker; and (iii) the
account type of the contra party. Non-Auction Transactions in Penny
Pilot Classes will also be assessed different fees or credits than Non-
Auction Transactions in Non-Penny Pilot Classes.
    The Exchange also proposes to specify that these transactions will
now be exempt from the Liquidity Fees and Credits outlined in Section
II of the BOX Fee Schedule. The proposed fee structure for all Non-
Auction Transactions is as follows:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                        Penny pilot classes           Non-penny pilot classes
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
         Account type             Contra party      Maker  fee/     Taker  fee/     Maker  fee/     Taker  fee/
                                                      credit          credit          credit          credit
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Public Customer...............  Public Customer.           $0.00           $0.00           $0.00           $0.00
                                Professional              (0.22)          (0.22)          (0.57)          (0.57)
                                 Customer/Broker
                                 Dealer.
                                Market Maker....          (0.22)          (0.22)          (0.57)          (0.57)

Professional Customer or        Public Customer.            0.55            0.59            0.90            0.94
 Broker Dealer.
                                Professional                0.20            0.35            0.30            0.35
                                 Customer/Broker
                                 Dealer.
                                Market Maker....            0.20            0.39            0.30            0.39
Market Maker..................  Public Customer.            0.51            0.55            0.85            0.90
                                Professional                0.00            0.05            0.00            0.10
                                 Customer/Broker
                                 Dealer.
                                Market Maker....            0.10            0.29            0.10            0.29
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For example, if a Public Customer submitted an order to the BOX
Book in a Penny Pilot Class (making liquidity), the Public Customer
would be credited $0.22 if the order interacted with a Market Maker's
order and the Market Maker (taking liquidity) would be charged $0.55.
To expand on this example, if the Market Maker instead submitted an
order to the BOX Book in a Penny Pilot Class (making liquidity), the
Market Maker would be charged $0.51 if the order interacted with a
Public Customer's order and the Public Customer (taking liquidity)
would again be credited $0.22.
Tiered Volume Rebate for Non-Auction Transactions
    Accordingly, the Exchange proposes to adopt the same tiered volume-
based rebate for Market Makers and Public Customers in Non-Auction
Transactions that was previously applied to Non-Auction Transactions in
Select Symbols. Specifically, Market Makers and Public Customers will
receive a per contract rebate based on ADV considering all transactions
executed on BOX by the Market Maker or Public Customer, respectively,
as calculated at the end of each month. All Non-Auction Transactions
for that month will receive the same per contract rebate according to
the ADV achieved by the Market Maker or Public Customer. However, the
Exchange proposes to specify that Non-Auction Transactions where a
Public Customer order interacts with another Public Customer order will
be exempt from the per contract rebate listed below. These transactions
will still count toward the Public Customer's monthly ADV.
    The new per contract rebate for Market Makers and Public Customers
in Non-Auction Transactions as set forth in Section I.A.1. of the BOX
Fee Schedule will be as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          Per contract
                                                             rebate
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Market Maker Monthly ADV:
    100,001 contracts and greater....................            ($0.15)
    60,001 contracts to 100,000 contracts............             (0.10)
    35,001 contracts to 60,000 contracts.............             (0.07)
    10,001 contracts to 35,000 contracts.............             (0.03)
    1 contract to 10,000 contracts...................               0.00

Public Customer Monthly ADV:
    35,001 contracts and greater.....................             (0.10)
    15,001 contracts to 35,000 contracts.............             (0.06)
    5,001 contracts to 15,000 contracts..............             (0.03)
    1 contract to 5,000 contracts....................               0.00
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Auction Transactions
    The Exchange then proposes to amend Section I (Exchange Fees) to
establish a subsection entitled ``Auction Transactions.'' \6\ The
Auction Transactions fees for Public Customers, Professional Customers
and Broker Dealers will remain unchanged. For Market Makers, the
Exchange proposes to adopt a fee of $0.20 for PIP Orders, COPIP Orders
and Agency Orders.\7\ Currently Market Makers are assessed a per
contract fee based upon the Market Maker's Monthly ADV in all
transactions executed on BOX, as calculated at the end of each month.
All PIP, COPIP and Agency Orders for that month are charged the same
per contract fee according to the ADV achieved by the Market Maker,
which ranges from $0.13 to $0.35. The Exchange then proposes to remove
the Tiered Fee Schedule for Market Makers based upon Monthly Average
Daily Volume in current Section I.B.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Auction Transactions are those transactions executed through
the Price Improvement Period (``PIP''), the Complex Order Price
Improvement Period (``COPIP''), the Solicitation Auction mechanism,
and the Facilitation Auction mechanism. All COPIP transactions will
be charged per contract per leg.
    \7\ A PIP Order or COPIP Order is a Customer Order (an agency
order for the account of either a customer or a broker-dealer)
designated for the PIP or COPIP, respectively. An Agency Order is a
block-size order that an Order Flow Provider seeks to facilitate as
agent through the Facilitation Auction or Solicitation Auction
mechanism.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The new Auction Transactions as set forth in Section I.B. of the
BOX Fee Schedule will be as follows:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   Account type
                                 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         Professional
                                    Public customer        customer          Broker dealer       Market maker
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PIP Order, COPIP Order, or        $0.00.............  $0.37.............  $0.37.............  $0.20
 Agency Order.
Improvement Order in PIP or       0.15..............  0.37..............  0.37..............  0.30
 COPIP \8\.
Responses in the Solicitation or  0.15..............  0.37..............  0.37..............  0.30
 Facilitation Auction Mechanisms.
Primary Improvement Order,\9\     Based on ADV, see   Based on ADV, see   Based on ADV, see   Based on ADV, see
 Facilitation Order, or            Section I. B.1.     Section I. B.1.     Section I. B.1.     Section I. B.1.
 Solicitation Order.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Liquidity Fees and Credits
    Since all Non-Auction Transactions will now fall under Section I
[sic] the new fee structure and be exempt from Section II Liquidity
Fees and Credits, BOX proposes to remove subsection C (Non-Auction
Transactions) from Section II. With the removal of subsection C, the
Exchange proposes to move the bullet regarding non-immediately
marketable orders to Section II.A (PIP and COPIP Transactions). A non-
immediately marketable order that executes against a PIP Order or a
COPIP Order, therefore becoming an Unrelated Order, will continue to be
charged as an Improvement Order for purposes of the BOX Fee Schedule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ An Improvement Order is a response to a PIP or COPIP
auction.
    \9\ A Primary Improvement Order is the matching contra order
submitted to the PIP or COPIP on the opposite side of an agency
order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange then proposes to edit the language in proposed Section
II.C, formerly Section II.D. (Exempt Transactions) and add the
following fees for transactions which occur on the opening or re-
opening of trading. For these transactions, which are deemed neither to
``add'' nor ``remove'' liquidity, the Exchange proposes to assess a
flat fee per contract of $0.00 for Public Customers, $0.20 for
Professional Customers and Broker Dealers and $0.12 for Market Makers.
The Exchange also proposes to clarify that outbound Eligible Orders
routed to an Away Exchange, as defined in Rule 15000 Series, remain
subject to the fees outlined in Section IV. Eligible Orders Routed to
an Away Exchange.
    Finally, the Exchange proposes to remove the ``Select Symbols''
language in Section II.C. (Exempt Transactions) that states that Non-
Auction Transactions in Select Symbols will be considered exempt from
all liquidity fees and credits. With the proposed changes, all Non-
Auction Transactions will be considered exempt.
MNX
    The Exchange also proposes to amend the Fee Schedule to remove the
reference to the Mini Nasdaq 100 Index (NDX) [sic].
    Because the Exchange has delisted the Mini-NDX[supreg] Index (MNX),
the Exchange proposes to remove the reference to MNX from the BOX Fee
Schedule. Currently, Section I (Exchange Fees) of the BOX Fee Schedule
provides for a surcharge to be applied to options on any index traded
on BOX; which includes a $0.22 per contract surcharge for options on
MNX. The Exchange has since delisted options on MNX and they are no
longer traded on BOX. As such, no related surcharge will apply and the
Exchange is proposing to remove the reference from the BOX Fee
Schedule.
Other
    Finally, the Exchange is proposing to make additional non-
substantive changes to the Fee Schedule. Specifically, the Exchange is
renumbering certain footnotes, headings and internal references to
accommodate the above proposed changes to the Fee Schedule. The
Exchange also proposes to move the BOX Volume Rebate from current
Section I.E of the Fee Schedule to proposed Section I.B (Auction
Transactions).
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposal is consistent with the
requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act, in general, and Section
6(b)(4) and 6(b)(5) of the Act,\10\ in particular, in that it provides
for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and other
charges among BOX Participants and other persons using its facilities
and does not unfairly discriminate between customers, issuers, brokers
or dealers. The proposed changes will allow the Exchange to be
competitive with other exchanges and to apply fees and credits in a
manner that is equitable among all BOX Participants. Further, the
Exchange operates within a highly competitive market in which market
participants can readily direct order flow to any other competing
exchange if they determine fees at a particular exchange to be
excessive.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4) and (5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Exchange Fees
Non-Auction Transactions
    The Exchange believes adopting the current fee structure for Non-
Auction Transactions in Select Symbols for all Non-Auction
Transactions, regardless of symbol, is reasonable, equitable and not
unfairly discriminatory. Even though the Select Symbol fee structure
for Non-Auction Transactions was only adopted last month, it was well
received by Participants and the industry and the Exchange believes it
is appropriate to now apply it to all Non-Auction Transactions. The
proposed fee structure is intended to attract order flow to the
Exchange by offering all market participants incentives to submit their
Non-Auction orders to the Exchange. The practice of providing
additional incentives to increase order flow is, and has been, a common
practice in the options markets.\11\ Further, the Exchange believes it
is appropriate to provide incentives for market participants which will
result in greater liquidity and ultimately benefit all Participants
trading on the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See International Securities Exchange LLC (``ISE'')
Schedule of Fees, Section I. Regular Order Fees and Rebates for
Standard Options, Non-Select Symbols (page 6); NASDAQ OMX PHLX,
(``PHLX''), Pricing Schedule Section B, ``Customer Rebate Program'';
and NYSE Arca, Inc (``Arca'') Options Fees and Charges, ``Customer
Monthly Posting Credit Tiers and Qualifications for Executions in
Penny Pilot Issues'' (page 4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also believes it is equitable, reasonable and not
unfairly discriminatory to assess fees and credits according to the
account type of the Participant originating the order and the contra
party. This proposed fee structure was recently adopted by the Exchange
for Non-Auction Transactions

in Select Symbols \12\ and is similar to the model adopted by the
Exchange for Complex Orders Fees \13\ and has been accepted by both the
Commission and the industry.\14\ The result of this structure is that a
Participant does not know the fee it will be charged when submitting
certain orders. Therefore, the Participant must recognize that it could
be charged the highest applicable fee on the Exchange's schedule, which
may, instead, be lowered or changed to a credit depending upon how the
order interacts. This structure has been favorably received by the
industry and BOX Participants; therefore the Exchange is proposing to
apply the same structure to all Non-Auction Transactions. After
adopting this type of structure for Non-Auction Transactions, a Public
Customer submitting an order on the BOX Book will recognize that it
will not pay a fee for these transactions and that depending upon with
whom the order executes, the Public Customer may receive an additional
benefit for submitting the order. Likewise, a Professional Customer or
Broker Dealer submitting an order will recognize that it will not be
charged more than $0.59 in Penny Pilot issues and $0.94 in Non-Penny
Pilot issues. The same is true for Market Makers, who will recognize
that their maximum charge when submitting a Non-Auction order will be
$0.55 in Penny Pilot issues and $0.90 in Non-Penny Pilot issues.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 73397 (October 21,
2014), 79 FR 63982 (October 27, 2014) (Notice of Filing and
Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change to Amend the Fee
Schedule on the BOX Market LLC Options Facility).
    \13\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 71312 (January 15,
2014), 79 FR 3649 (January 22, 2014) (Notice of Filing and Immediate
Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend the Fee Schedule To
Establish Fees for Complex Order Price Improvement Period
(``COPIP'') Transactions).
    \14\ This type of structure was also adopted by NYSE Arca in
2012. See Securities Release No. 68405 (December 11, 2012), 77 FR
74719 (December 17, 2012) (SR-NYSEArca-2012-137).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the proposed fees and credits for Public
Customers in Non-Auction Transactions are reasonable. Under the
proposed fee structure Public Customers will either pay a Maker fee of
$0.00 or receive a Maker/Taker credit of $0.22 for Penny Pilot classes
and $0.57 for Non-Penny Pilot classes. These potential fees and credits
are reasonable and will at all times be less than the current $0.07
Exchange Fee that Public Customers pay in Non-Auction Transactions.
    The Exchange believes providing a credit or charging no fee to
Public Customers for all Non-Auction Transactions is equitable and not
unfairly discriminatory. The securities markets generally, and BOX in
particular, have historically aimed to improve markets for investors
and develop various features within the market structure for Public
Customer benefit. Accordingly, the Exchange believes that charging no
fee or providing a credit for Public Customers is appropriate and not
unfairly discriminatory. Public Customers are less sophisticated than
other Participants and the credit will help to attract a high level of
Public Customer order flow to the BOX Book and create liquidity, which
the Exchange believes will ultimately benefit all Participants trading
on BOX.
    Finally, the Exchange believes it is reasonable, equitable and not
unfairly discriminatory to give Public Customers a credit when their
orders execute against a non-Public Customer and, accordingly, charge
non-Public Customers a higher fee when their orders execute against a
Public Customer. As stated above, the Exchange aims to improve markets
by developing features for the benefit of its Public Customers. Similar
to the payment for order flow and other pricing models that have been
adopted by the Exchange and other exchanges to attract Public Customer
order flow, the Exchange increases fees to non-Public Customers in
order to provide incentives for Public Customers. The Exchange believes
that providing incentives for Non-Auction Transactions by Public
Customers is reasonable and, ultimately, will benefit all Participants
trading on the Exchange by attracting Public Customer order flow.
    The Exchange believes that charging Professional Customers and
Broker Dealers higher fees than Public Customers for Non-Auction
Transactions is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory. Professional
Customers, while Public Customers by virtue of not being Broker
Dealers, generally engage in trading activity more similar to Broker
Dealer proprietary trading accounts (submitting more than 390 standard
orders per day on average). The Exchange believes that the higher level
of trading activity from these Participants will draw a greater amount
of BOX system resources than that of non-professional, Public
Customers. Because this higher level of trading activity will result in
greater ongoing operational costs, the Exchange aims to recover its
costs by assessing Professional Customers and Broker Dealers higher
fees for transactions.
    The Exchange also believes it is equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory for BOX Market Makers to be assessed lower fees than
Professional Customers and Broker Dealers for Non-Auction Transactions
because of the significant contributions to overall market quality that
Market Makers provide. Specifically, Market Makers can provide higher
volumes of liquidity and lowering their fees will help attract a higher
level of Market Maker order flow to the BOX Book and create liquidity,
which the Exchange believes will ultimately benefit all Participants
trading on BOX. As such, the Exchange believes it is appropriate that
Market Makers be charged lower transaction fees than Professional
Customers and Broker Dealers for Non-Auction Transactions.
    The Exchange believes that the proposed fees and credits for all
other Participants in Non-Auction Transactions are reasonable. Under
the proposed fee structure, a Professional Customer or Broker Dealer
making liquidity and interacting with a Professional Customer, Broker
Dealer or Market Marker will either be charged a fee of $0.20 for Penny
Pilot Classes or $0.30 for Non-Penny Pilot Classes. If the Professional
Customer or Broker Dealer is instead taking liquidity in either Penny
Pilot or Non-Penny Pilot Classes, it will be charged $0.35 if it
interacts with a Professional Customer or Broker Dealer and $0.39 if it
interacts with a Market Maker. The Exchange believes the fees listed
above are reasonable as they are lower than the current $0.42 Exchange
Fee charged to Broker Dealers and Professional Customers in Non-Auction
Transactions.
    Similarly, in the proposed fee structure a Market Maker making
liquidity in both Penny Pilot and Non-Penny Pilot Classes will either
be charged a fee of $0.00 for interacting with a Professional Customer
or Broker Dealer or $0.10 for interacting with another Market Maker. If
the Market Maker is instead taking liquidity, it will be charged $0.05
(for Penny Pilot Classes) and $0.10 (for Non-Penny Pilot Classes) if it
interacts with a Professional Customer or Broker Dealer. If a Market
Maker is taking liquidity and interacts with another Market Maker they
will be charged $0.29 in all situations. The Exchange believes the fees
listed above are reasonable as they are, in most situations, lower than
the current $0.13 to $0.35 Exchange Fee range for Market Makers under
the BOX Fee Schedule and are in line with what is currently charged by
the industry.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ Many U.S. Options Exchanges do not differentiate their fees
between auction and non-auction transactions. However, the general
range for Market Maker fees is between $0.10 and $0.89. See NASDAQ
OMX BX (``BX'') Options Pricing, Chapter XV, Sec. 2; BX charges both
BX Options Market Makers and Non-Customer/Non-BX Options Market
Makers a fee of $0.46 to remove liquidity in Penny Pilot Options and
a fee of $0.89 to remove liquidity in Non-Penny Pilot Options, a fee
to add liquidity in Penny Pilot Options of $0.40 to BX Options
Market Makers and $0.45 to Non-Customer/Non-BX Options Market
Makers, and a fee to add liquidity in Non-Penny Pilot Options of
$0.50 to BX Options Market Makers (or $0.85 when interacting with
Customer) and $0.88 for Non-Customer/Non-BX Options Market Makers.
See NYSE Arca Options (``Arca'') Fees and Charges page 3; Arca
charges NYSE Arca Market Makers $0.16 for manual executions, $0.49
to take liquidity in Penny Pilot Issues, and $0.87 to take liquidity
in Non Penny Pilot Issues. See International Securities Exchange
(``ISE'') Schedule of Fees, Section I; ISE charges Market Makers
$0.10 for making liquidity in select symbols and $0.42 for taking
liquidity in select symbols.

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

    The Exchange believes it is reasonable, equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory for Professional Customers, Broker Dealers and Market
Makers to be charged higher fees for both making and taking liquidity
when interacting with Public Customers. In the proposed fee structure,
a Professional Customer or Broker Dealer interacting with a Public
Customer will be charged a $0.55 Maker fee or $0.59 Taker fee for Penny
Pilot Classes and a $0.90 Maker fee or $0.94 Taker fee for Non-Penny
Pilot Classes. Similarly a Market Marker interacting with a Public
Customer will be charged a $0.51 Maker fee or $0.55 Taker fee for Penny
Pilot Classes and a $0.85 Maker fee or $0.90 Taker fee for Non-Penny
Pilot Classes. While these fees are higher than what these Participants
are currently charged for Non-Auction Transactions in Non-Select
Symbols, the Exchange believes they are reasonable as they are in line
when compared to similar fees in the options industry.\16\ Further, as
stated above, the Exchange believes charging a higher fee for
interactions with a Public Customer is equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory because it allows the Exchange to incentivize Public
Customer order flow by offering credits to Public Customers in Non-
Auction Transactions. The Exchange believes that providing incentives
for Non-Auction Transactions by Public Customers will benefit all
Participants trading on the Exchange by attracting this Public Customer
order flow.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ Id. Professional Customer and Broker Dealers are also
charged anywhere from $0.10 to $0.89 within the option exchange fee
schedules referenced above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes it is reasonable, equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory for Professional Customers, Broker Dealers and Market
Makers to be charged a higher fee for orders removing liquidity when
compared to the fee they receive for orders that add liquidity.
Charging a lower fee for orders that add liquidity will promote
liquidity on the Exchange and ultimately benefit all participants on
BOX. Further, the concept of incentivizing orders that add liquidity
over orders that remove liquidity is commonly accepted within the
industry as part of the ``Make/Take'' liquidity model.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ The ``Make/Take'' model is currently used by the
International Securities Exchange LLC (``ISE') and NASDAQ OMX PHLX
LLC (``PHLX'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Further, the Exchange believes it is equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory to charge the Professional Customer or Broker Dealer
more for taking liquidity against a Market Maker than they are charged
for taking liquidity against other Professional Customers or Broker
Dealers. As stated above, the Exchange proposes to provide certain
incentives to Market Makers because of the high volumes of liquidity
they can provide and increasing fees for Professional Customers and
Broker Dealers taking liquidity will allow the Exchange to offer these
incentives, ultimately benefiting all Participants trading on BOX.
    Finally, the Exchange also believes it is reasonable to charge
Professional Customers, Broker Dealers, and Market Makers less for
certain executions in Penny Pilot issues compared to Non-Penny Pilot
issues because these classes are typically more actively traded;
assessing lower fees will further incentivize order flow in Penny Pilot
issues on the Exchange, ultimately benefiting all Participants trading
on BOX. Additionally, the Exchange believes it is reasonable to give a
greater credit to Public Customers for Non-Auction Transactions in Non-
Penny Pilot issues as compared to Penny Pilot issues. Since these
classes have wider spreads and are less actively traded, giving a
larger credit will further incentivize Public Customers to trade in
these classes, ultimately benefitting all Participants trading on BOX.
    The Exchange believes that the proposed Non-Auction Transactions
fee structure will keep the Exchange competitive with other exchanges
and will be applied in an equitable manner among all BOX Participants.
The Exchange believes the proposed fee structure is reasonable and
competitive with fee structures in place on other exchanges. Further,
the Exchange believes that the competitive marketplace impacts the fees
proposed for BOX.
Tiered Volume Rebate for Non-Auction Transactions
    BOX believes it is reasonable, equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory to introduce tiered volume based rebates for Market
Makers and Public Customers in all Non-Auction Transactions. Other
exchanges employ similar incentive programs,\18\ and the Exchange
believes that its proposed volume thresholds and rebates are reasonable
and competitive when compared to incentive structures at other
exchanges.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ See Section B of the PHLX Pricing Schedule entitled
``Customer Rebate Program'' and CBOE's Volume Incentive Program
(VIP). CBOE's Volume Incentive Program (``VIP'') pays certain tiered
rebates to Trading Permit Holders for electronically executed
multiply-listed option orders which include AIM orders. Note that
these exchanges base these rebate programs on the percentage of
total national Public Customer volume traded on their respective
exchanges, which the Exchange is not proposing to do.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additionally, the Exchange believes that the proposed volume
thresholds are reasonable because they will incentivize Public
Customers and Market Makers to direct order flow to the Exchange to
obtain the benefit of the rebate, which will in turn benefit all market
participants by increasing liquidity on the Exchange. The Exchange
believes that its proposed volume threshold and rebate is competitive
when compared to rebate structures at other exchanges. Finally, the
Exchange believes it is reasonable to exempt Non-Auction Transactions
where a Public Customer order interacts with another Public Customer
order from the per contract rebate. The Exchange does not believe a
rebate in this situation is appropriate, as neither Public Customer
will be paying a fee for the transaction. Further, these transactions
will still count toward the Public Customer's monthly ADV.
    The Exchange also believes it is equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory to only adopt these structures for Public Customers and
Market Makers. The proposed volume credits are intended to further
encourage Public Customer and Market Maker Non-Auction order flow to
the Exchange. Increased Public Customer and Market Maker volume will
provide greater liquidity, which benefits all market participants on
the Exchange. The practice of incentivizing increased Public Customer
order flow is common in the options markets. Further, Market Makers
also provide significant contributions to overall market quality.
Specifically, Market Makers can provide high volumes of liquidity and
lowering their Non-Auction Transaction fees will potentially help
attract a higher level of

Market Maker order flow and create liquidity, which the Exchange
believes will ultimately benefit all Participants trading on BOX.
Auction Transactions
    The Exchange believes it reasonable to remove the tiered fee
structure for Market Makers based upon ADV. The tiered fee structure
was adopted to incentivize Market Makers to direct order flow to the
Exchange, which the Exchange believes is now unnecessary with the
adoption of the new Non-Auction Transactions fee structure as well as
the Tiered Volume Rebates for Market Makers in Non-Auction
Transactions. Additionally, in Auction Transactions Market Makers
remain eligible for the BOX Volume Rebate for all PIP and COPIP Orders
of 250 and under contracts. The Exchange believes it is reasonable to
adopt a flat $0.20 per contract fee for Market Makers in PIP Orders,
COPIP Orders, and Agency Orders. Specifically, the Exchange believes
the fee strikes the appropriate balance between the $0.13 to $0.35 fees
that Market Makers are currently charged for these orders and is
reasonable when compared to similar fees among the industry.\19\
Finally, the Exchange believes it is equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory to charge a Market Maker less for PIP Orders, COPIP
Orders, and Agency Orders than what is charged to Professional
Customers and Broker Dealers. Generally, Market Makers have obligations
on BOX that other Participants do not. They must maintain active two-
sided markets in the classes in which they are appointed and must meet
certain minimum quoting requirements. Market Makers can also provide
high volumes of liquidity and assessing lower transaction fee [sic] may
help attract a higher level of Market Maker order flow and create
liquidity, which the Exchange believes will ultimately benefit all
Participants trading on BOX.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ See supra, note 15.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Liquidity Fees and Credits
    The Exchange believes that exempting all Non-Auction Transactions
from Section II (Liquidity Fees and Credits) is reasonable, equitable
and not unfairly discriminatory. The Exchange's Liquidity Fees and
Credits are intended to attract order flow to the Exchange by offering
incentives to all market participants to submit orders to the Exchange
and the Exchange believes that the proposed fee structure will provide
appropriate incentives to encourage Participants to submit Non-Auction
Transactions to the Exchange. The Exchange believes that exempting Non-
Auction Transactions from liquidity fees and credits is reasonable
compared to the similar fees and credits offered by the other
exchanges. The Exchange believes exempting Non-Auction Transactions
from liquidity fees and credits is not unfairly discriminatory as the
exemption from the liquidity fees and credits applies equally to all
Participants on the Exchange.
    The Exchange believes it is reasonable edit [sic] the Exempt
Transactions subsection and to assess a flat fee for transactions which
occur on the opening or re-opening of trading and are deemed neither to
``add'' nor ``remove'' liquidity. With the proposed fee structure for
Non-Auction Transactions, which assess fees and credits dependent upon
whether the Participant is a liquidity provider or liquidity taker,
transactions on the opening or re-opening will not being [sic] charged
an Exchange fee. For example, under the proposed Non-Auction fee
structure a transaction on the opening would not be charged an Exchange
Fee under Section I of the BOX Fee Schedule. Instead the Exchange is
proposing to ensure that these transactions are assessed a fee. The
Exchange has previously had this type of fee within the BOX Fee
Schedule \20\ and other exchanges with liquidity fees and credits also
spell out how these transactions are treated within their respective
fee schedules.\21\ The Exchange believes assessing a flat fee of $0.00
for Public Customers, $0.20 for Professional Customers and Broker
Dealers and $0.12 for Market Makers is in line with the Non-Auction
Transactions fees outlined in the new fee structure. The Exchange
believes it is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory for Public
Customers to be charged no fee for transactions which occur on the
opening or re-opening of trading. As stated above, the Exchange aims to
improve markets by developing features for the benefit of its Public
Customers. The Exchange also believes it is equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory to charge a Market Maker less for these transactions
than what is charged to Professional Customers and Broker Dealers; as
stated above, Market Makers have obligations that other Participants do
not and can also provide high volumes of liquidity that will ultimately
benefit all Participants on the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 61342 (January 13,
2010), 75 FR 3503 (January 21, 2014 [sic]) (Notice of Filing and
Immediate Effectiveness of a [sic] Proposed Rule Change to Amend
[sic] the Fee Schedule of the Boston Options Exchange Facility).
    \21\ See ISE Gemini, LLC (``ISE Gemini'') Schedule of Fees
Section I. Footnote 4 and Section II. Footnote 4. See NASDAQ OMX BX,
Inc. (``BX'') Chapter XV Options Pricing Sec. 2(2). See NASDAQ
Options Market LLC (``NOM'') Chapter XV Options Pricing Sec. 2(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

MNX
    The Exchange believes it is reasonable to remove from the BOX Fee
Schedule a reference to a fee that is no longer applicable as options
on MNX have been delisted and are no longer traded on BOX. The Exchange
also believes it is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory to remove
all references to MNX as this applies equally to all Participants on
the Exchange.

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
    The Exchange believes that adopting the proposed fee structure for
all Non-Auction Transactions will not impose a burden on competition
among various Exchange Participants. BOX currently assesses distinct
standard contract Exchange Fees for different account and transaction
types. The Exchange believes that applying a fee structure that is
determined according to whether the order removes or adds liquidity,
the account type of the Participant submitting the order, and the
contra party will result in Participants being charged appropriately
for these transactions. Submitting an order is entirely voluntary and
Participants can determine which type of order they wish to submit, if
any, to the Exchange.
    Further, the Exchange believes that this proposal will enhance
competition between exchanges because it is designed to allow the
Exchange to better compete with other exchanges for order flow.
    Finally, the Exchange notes that it operates in a highly
competitive market in which market participants can readily favor
competing exchanges. In such an environment, the Exchange must
continually review, and consider adjusting, its fees and credits to
remain competitive with other exchanges. For the reasons described
above, the Exchange believes that the proposed rule change reflects
this competitive environment.

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

    No written comments were either solicited or received.

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Exchange Act \22\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(2)
thereunder,\23\ because it establishes or changes a due, or fee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
    \23\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule
change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of
the following methods:
Electronic Comments
     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-BOX-2014-25 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-BOX-2014-25. 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 Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site 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 such filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-BOX-2014-25, and should be
submitted on or before December 4, 2014.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-26811 Filed 11-12-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: November 16, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 221)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 66685-66686]
[DOCID:fr16no06-15]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 239 and 258

[EPA-R07-RCRA-2006-0877; FRL-8242-9]

Adequacy of Missouri Municipal Solid Waste Landfill Program

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action approves Missouri's Research, Development and
Demonstration (RD&D) permit program and updates to the approved
Municipal Solid Waste Landfill Permit (MSWLP) program. On March 22,
2004, the EPA issued final regulations allowing RD&D permits to be
issued to certain municipal solid waste landfills by approved states.
On April 14, 2006, Missouri submitted an application to the EPA seeking
Federal approval of its RD&D requirements and to update Federal
approval of its MSWLP program.

DATES: This direct final determination is effective January 16, 2007,
without further notice unless EPA receives adverse comments by December
18, 2006. If adverse comments are received, EPA will publish a timely
response or withdrawal of the direct final rule in the Federal Register
informing the public that the rule will or will not take effect.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R07-
RCRA-2006-0877, by one of the following methods:
    1. http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instruction for

submitting comments.
    2. E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    3. Mail: Send written comments to Chilton McLaughlin, EPA Region 7,
Solid Waste/Pollution Prevention Branch, 901 North 5th Street, Kansas
City, Kansas 66101.
    4. Hand Delivery or Courier. Deliver your comments to Chilton
McLaughlin, EPA Region 7, Solid Waste/Pollution Prevention Branch, 901
North 5th Street, Kansas City, Kansas 66101.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R07-RCRA-
2006-0877. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information

provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit through http://www.regulations.gov
 or e-mail information that you consider to be CBI

or otherwise protected. The http://www.regulations.gov Web site is an

``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of
your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without
going through http://www.regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be

automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is
placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you
submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name
and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any
disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA
may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid
the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of
any defects or viruses.
    Docket: All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the
http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some

information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket
materials are available either electronically in http://www.regulations.gov
 or in hard copy at the Environmental Protection

Agency, Solid Waste/Pollution Prevention Branch, 901 North 5th Street,
Kansas City, Kansas 66101. The Regional Office's official hours of
business are Monday through Friday, 8 to 4:30, excluding Federal
holidays. The interested persons wanting to examine these documents
should make an appointment with the office at least 24 hours in
advance.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Chilton McLaughlin at<PHONE_NUMBER>,
or by e-mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    On March 22, 2004, the EPA issued final regulations allowing RD&D
permits to be issued at certain municipal solid waste landfills (69 FR
13242). This new provision may only be implemented by an approved
State. While States are not required to seek approval for this new
provision, those States that are interested in providing RD&D permits
to municipal solid waste landfills must seek approval from EPA before
issuing such permits. Missouri received final approval for 40 CFR part
258 provisions on April 13, 1994 (59 FR 17526). This request
incorporates the November 27, 1996, rule (61 FR 60328, at 60337), which
adds financial mechanisms for local governments, and the April 10,
1998, rule (63 FR 17706, at 17729), which adds financial test and
corporate guarantee to financial assurance mechanisms. Approval
procedures for new provisions of 40 CFR part 258 are outlined in 40 CFR
239.12. On April 14, 2006, Missouri submitted an application for
approval of its RD&D permit provisions and update of the approved MSWLP
program.

II. Decision

    After a thorough review, EPA Region 7 determined that Missouri's
RD&D provisions as defined under Missouri Solid Waste Management
Regulations, 10 CSR 80, and Missouri Solid Waste Management Statute,
Title 16: Conservation, Resources and Development, Chapter 260:
Environmental Control are adequate to ensure compliance with the
Federal criteria as defined at 40 CFR 258.4.

III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This action approves State solid waste requirements pursuant to
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Section 4005 and imposes
no Federal requirements. Therefore, this rule complies with applicable
executive orders and statutory provisions as follows:
    1. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning Review--The Office of
Management and Budget has exempted this action from its review under
Executive Order (EO) 12866;
    2. Paperwork Reduction Act: This action does not impose an
information collection burden under the Paperwork Reduction Act;
    3. Regulatory Flexibility Act: After considering the economic
impacts of today's action on small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act, I certify that this action will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities;
    4. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act: Because this action approves pre-
existing requirements under State law and does not impose any
additional enforceable duty beyond that required by State law, this
action does not contain any unfunded mandate, or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Act;
    5. Executive Order 13132: Federalism--EO 13132 does not apply to
this action because this action will not have federalism implications
(i.e., there are no substantial direct effects on States, on the
relationship between the national government and States, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities between Federal and State
governments);
    6. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination with Indian
Tribal Governments--EO 13175 does not apply to this action because it
will not have tribal implications (i.e., there are no substantial
direct effects on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship
between the Federal government and Indian tribes, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal
government and Indian tribes);
    7. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children from Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks--This action is not subject to EO 13045
because it is not economically significant and is not based on health
or safety risks;
    8. Executive Order 13211: Actions that Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use--This action is not subject to EO 13211
because it is not a significant regulatory action as defined in EO
12866;
    9. National Technology Transfer Advancement Act: EPA approves State
programs so long as the State programs meet the criteria delineated in
RCRA. It would be inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, in its
review of a State program, to require the use of any particular
voluntary consensus standard in place of another standard that meets
RCRA requirements. Thus, section 12(d) of the National Technology
Transfer and Advancement Act does not apply to this action;
    10. Congressional Review Act: EPA will submit a report containing
this action and other information required by the Congressional Review
Act (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.) to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication in the Federal Register.

List of Subjects

40 CFR Part 239

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Intergovernmental relations, Waste treatment and disposal.

40 CFR Part 258

    Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Waste treatment disposal,
Water pollution control.

    Authority: This action is issued under the authority of section
2002, 4005 and 4010(c) of the Solid Waste Disposal Act, as amended,
42 U.S.C. 6912, 6945 and 6949(a).

    Dated: November 6, 2006.
John B. Askew,
Regional Administrator, Region 7.
 [FR Doc. E6-19384 Filed 11-15-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P