Richard Keigwin/DC/USEPA/US
12/07/2007 02:01 PM	To
	"Thompson, John E \(OES\)"<EMAIL_ADDRESS>	cc
	Aaron Levy/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, <EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Christine Augustyniak/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, "Finman, Hodayah H \(OES\)"
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>"Klein, Jeffrey M"<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Ross
Brennan/DC/USEPA/US@EPA
	bcc

	Subject
	RE: 2008 CUE Rule - Iodomethane uptake estimate

John--

Thanks for your comments.  Regarding Florida, I just received confirmation
that they didn't register Iodomethane at their decision meeting this
week.  The State requested additional data (beyond that required by EPA)
from Arysta related to water exposure issues.  Iodomethane will come back
up for review at their January meeting.  I'll keep everyone informed as I
receive additional information.  No additional states have registered
iodomethane since OPP completed its draft analysis.

I share your concern about setting a precedent.  I think this piece of the
analysis could benefit from some additional characterization before
finalizing.  Would be happy to discuss specifics with you if you are free
this afternoon.

--Rick

"Thompson, John E \(OES\)"<EMAIL_ADDRESS>12/07/2007 12:19 PM
	To
	Aaron Levy/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, <EMAIL_ADDRESS>	cc
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Ross Brennan/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Richard
Keigwin/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Christine Augustyniak/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, "Finman,
Hodayah H \(OES\)"<EMAIL_ADDRESS>"Klein, Jeffrey M"
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>	Subject
	RE: 2008 CUE Rule - Iodomethane uptake estimate

Thanks OAR for your continued efforts on the rule and also t Christine
and OPP for putting together an analysis in a short period of time.  A
few process and then some substantive thoughts on the document provided.
Also, I'm assuming Florida didn't register this week, but does anyone
know for sure?  Would like to put that to bed if we can.

1.  What happens to this document that OPP circulated around?  Do we
need a technical determination to back up what we put in the rule, and
if so, does this get posted to the docket???  If our analysis needs to
be made public, I would have some specific comments on the text to add
some nuance in certain areas and add some of my favorite non-committal
State Department standard text in others.

2.  I can now see more clearly the point Rick was making about the
difficulty inherent in trying to make such an estimate in a short period
of time.  I think it might be useful to have a brief discussion of some
of this.

I see that you are using the 20% of acreage applied in the EUP as a
proxy for economic feasibility.  I recognize we are short on time, but
not sure its an appropriate proxy even as a general matter, but more
specifically the decision of whether to use IodoMethane in 2006 on the
acreage was likely influenced by much more than economic feasibility.
It would have been influenced by regulatory constraints, the amount of
methyl bromide on the market because we got a CUE that had determined
they needed MB that didn't consider IM because it wasn't available, lack
of familiarity with the product, inertia, etc...  My concern would be
whether we are double applying reductions by using a very broad proxy in
element 3, and then coming back in element 4 and accounting again for
other limiting factors, some or all of which would have contributed to
the 20% of acreage of the EUP accounted for on point 3.

With that said, I respect the need to be cautious, and wouldn't suggest
we should be cutting things down to the bone by making a series of
optimistic assumptions that could leave users without a realistic
option.  My question, though, would be whether we should first apply a
factor of 1/5th to the amount, and then follow it up with another factor
of 1/20th to 1/10th given that these issues seem to have considerable
overlap so it would appear we would account for some factors more than
once.  Maybe there is no way to avoid it, but of a roughly 579 ton
potential amount of replacement after accounting for the limited 2008
partial year factor), we end up with a 6-12 ton range of adjustment.  I
didn't expect something very big, but that's pretty small.  Sorry,
couldn't resist the usual state department test which is pretty
unscientific, and amounts to whether it looks reasonable from a
non-technical perspective.

4.  My last thought is that in some way I think we need to nuance this
approach.  I'm wondering if OPP agrees, but while we may need to use
this 20% proxy given how little time we have now, I think we need to be
careful that we don't set a precedent for the future that this is a
number we will continue to rely on.  Presumably, when we have more time,
we would revert to an OPP process (dare I say a Delphi process) that
would make a more general assessment of what a transition would look
like in terms of scope and timeline.

Thanks again to OPP for sending this around.  Hopefully we can work
through this stuff quickly and see if we can come to a resolution.
Thanks,

John T

-----Original Message-----
From<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>Sent: Thursday, December 06, 2007 6:12 PM
To<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Thompson, John E (OES)
Cc<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>Subject: 2008 CUE Rule - Iodomethane uptake estimate

Hello Burleson and John,

EPA estimates that based on currently available information iodomethane
can replace 5,789 -- 11,578 kilograms of methyl bromide in 2008
(representing between 0.023% to 0.045% of the 1991 baseline).  Briefly,
OPP's technical estimate accounts for the following:
- 14 States have registered iodomethane
- due to time-limited registration, iodomethane will be available for 10
of 12 months in 2008 (i.e. 83% of growing season)
- there are restrictions on iodomethane, such as buffer zones, that do
not apply to  methyl bromide
- the total cost of using iodomethane is currently greater than the cost
of methyl bromide
- grower inexperience with iodomethane, and a nascent distribution
system

EPA/OPP has expressed support for any value within the technical range.
EPA/SPD supports the high end of the range primarily because other
states, most notably Florida, may register iodomethane during 2008.  SPD
also notes that while iodomethane is only registered for 10 months in
2008, the first 10 months usually accounts for more than 83% of annual
fumigation volume.

With agreement from USDA and DOS, EPA is prepared to consider 11,578 kg
of iodomethane uptake in the 2008 Final Rule, and update the preamble
accordingly.  Please respond ASAP so that we can move this rule forward.

Thanks again,

Aaron Levy
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Stratospheric Protection Division
1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW (6205J)
Washington, DC 20460
Tel:<PHONE_NUMBER>
Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>
Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 120 (Monday, June 23, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 35605-35607]
[FR Doc No: 2014-14542]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-72410; File No. SR-MIAX-2014-27]

Self-Regulatory Organizations: Notice of Filing and Immediate
Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change by Miami International
Securities Exchange LLC To Establish a Billing Dispute Practice

June 17, 2014.
    Pursuant to the provisions of Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice
is hereby given that on June 9, 2014, Miami International Securities
Exchange LLC (``MIAX'' or ``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission (``Commission'') a proposed rule change as
described in Items I, II, and III below, which Items have been prepared
by the Exchange. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit
comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange is filing a proposal to amend various Exchange Rules
related to fees and the cover page of the MIAX Options Fee Schedule.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
Web site at http://www.miaxoptions.com/filter/wotitle/rule_filing, at
MIAX's principal office, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

 1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend Rules 200(e), 208, and 1203. The

Exchange also proposes to amend the Fee Schedule to add language
regarding fee disputes.
    First, the Exchange proposes to amend Rule 200(e) to eliminate the
description of when the Trading Permit fee is due and payable each
month. Currently, Rule 200(e) states that the Trading Permit fee is due
and payable in full on or before the first day on which the Trading
Permit is effective. However, as the Exchange's Fee Schedule indicates,
the monthly Trading Permit fees are calculated for certain Members \3\
based upon the greatest number of assigned classes on any given day
within a particular calendar month. The Exchange proposes to amend Rule
200(e) to eliminate the statement indicating that the entire Trading
Permit fee shall be due and payable on or before the first day on which
the Trading Permit is effective because the Exchange does not actually
calculate and invoice the Trading Permit fee until the month is
completed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The amount of the monthly Trading Permit fee for a Lead
Market Maker (``LMM'') or a Registered Market Maker (``RMM'') is
calculated based on the number of their assigned classes. The amount
of the monthly Trading Permit fee for an Electronic Exchange Member
(``EEM'') is a flat rate and not dependent upon the number of
classes traded or any other such measure. Nevertheless, the
Exchange, for consistency purposes, invoices Trading Permit fees in
arrears for all Members.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Second, the Exchange proposes to amend Rule 208 to provide that the
monthly Exchange invoices are to be paid in full on a timely basis.
Rule 208 describes the MIAX Billing System and the requirement to
designate a Clearing Member for the payment of Exchange invoices. Rule
208 currently requires the designated Clearing Member to pay on a
timely basis ``any amount that is not disputed'' by the Member rather
than the full amount of the Exchange invoice. The Exchange proposes to
amend Rule 208 to provide that the designated Clearing Member shall pay
to the Exchange on a timely basis the full amount of each monthly
Exchange invoice because, as discussed in detail below, the Exchange
proposes to handle fee disputes in Proposed Rule 1203(e). In accordance
with the Proposed Rule 1203(e), the Exchange expects all invoices to be
paid in full including any disputed amount. If the dispute is resolved
in the Member's favor, any disputed amount will be subsequently
credited to the Clearing Member on behalf of that Member's account. The
Exchange believes that this change will avoid confusion because it will
be consistent with Proposed Rule 1203(e). In addition, the Exchange
proposes replacing the term ``designated'' in the first sentence of
Rule 208 with the term ``assessed'' to more accurately reflect the
action being taken by the Exchange.
    The Exchange proposes to create Rule 1203(e) to establish a billing
practice to prevent Members from contesting their bills long after they
have been sent an invoice. In accordance with Proposed Rule 1203(e),
all disputes concerning fees, dues or charges assessed by the Exchange
must be submitted to the Exchange in writing and must be accompanied by
supporting documentation. All disputes related to fees, dues or other
charges must be submitted to the Exchange no later than sixty (60) days
after the date of the monthly invoice. All Exchange invoices are due in
full on a timely basis and payable in accordance with Rule 208. Any
disputed amount resolved in the Member's favor will be subsequently
credited to the Clearing Member's account at the Clearing Corporation.
The Exchange provides Members with both daily and monthly fee reports
and thus believes Members should be aware of any potential billing
errors within sixty calendar days of issuance of an invoice. Requiring
that Members dispute an invoice within this time period will encourage
them to promptly review their invoices so that any disputed charges can
be addressed in a timely manner while the information and data
underlying those charges (e.g., applicable fees and order information)
is still easily and readily available. This practice will avoid issues
that may arise when Members do not dispute an invoice in a timely
manner, and will conserve Exchange resources that would have to be
expended to resolve untimely billing disputes. The Exchange notes that
this type of provision is common among other exchanges.\4\ In addition,
the Exchange proposes to state that all billing disputes must be
submitted to the Exchange in writing,\5\ and must be accompanied by
supporting documentation. The Exchange believes that this requirement,
which is also similar to requirements of other exchanges,\6\ will
further streamline the billing dispute process. In addition, in order
for Members to be fully aware of this rule regarding fee disputes, the
Exchange proposes to place a statement on the cover of the MIAX Options
Fee Schedule and at the bottom of each invoice regarding the handling
of billing disputes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See e.g., Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 62661 (August
6, 2010), 75 FR 49544 (August 13, 2010) (SR-Phlx-2010-110); 71297
(January 14, 2014), 79 FR 3442 (January 21, 2014) (SR-ISE-2014-02).
    \5\ The Exchange invoice specifies contact information for
billing inquiries.
    \6\ See supra note 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposed rule change is consistent
with Section 6(b) \7\ of the Act in general, and furthers the
objectives of Section 6(b)(4) \8\ of the Act in particular, in that it
is designed to provide for an equitable allocation of reasonable dues,
fees and other charges among Exchange Members and other persons using
its facilities. In addition, the Exchange believes the proposed rule
change also furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act \9\
in particular, in that it is designed to promote just and equitable
principles of trade, to foster cooperation and coordination with
persons engaged in facilitating transactions in securities, and, in
general, to protect investors and the public interest, and it is not
designed to permit unfair discrimination among customers, brokers, or
dealers. The Exchange's proposal relates to how fees are invoiced and
collected and will protect investors and the public interest by
eliminating potential confusion that could be caused by the existing
language used to describe the Exchange's billing practices. The
Exchange's proposal provides for the equitable allocation of fees, dues
and other charges because it applies equally to all Members and any
persons using the facilities or services of the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additionally, the Exchange believes the requirement that all
invoices be paid in full and billing disputes be submitted within 60
days after the date of the invoice is reasonable because the Exchange
provides ample tools to properly and swiftly monitor and account for
various charges incurred in a given month. Also, the proposal is
equitable because it equally applies to all Members. The Exchange's
administrative costs will be lowered as a result of this policy. The
proposed provision regarding fee disputes promotes the protection of
investors and the public interest by providing a clear and concise
mechanism in the Exchange Rules for Members to dispute fees and the
Exchange to review such disputes in a timely manner. In addition, the
proposed 60 day limitation is fair and equitable since it will be
implemented prospectively on all Members, only applying to invoices
issued after the proposed rule change becomes operative.

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 proposed rule changes to
revise Exchange Rules related to fees and to add a new provision
regarding fee disputes should reduce possible confusion regarding the
procedures for establishing, invoicing and collecting fees, dues and
other charges. Since the Exchange proposes no substantive changes
regarding fees applicable to Members, the proposal does not impose any
burden on competition.

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

    Written comments were neither solicited nor received.

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

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i)
Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii)
become operative for 30 days after the date of the filing, or such
shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become effective
pursuant to 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \10\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) \11\
thereunder.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \11\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
requires a self-regulatory organization to give the Commission
written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change at
least five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed
rule change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission.
The Exchange has satisfied this requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission
takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings 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-MIAX-2014-27 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-MIAX-2014-27. 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 the filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; 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-MIAX-2014-27 and should be
submitted on or before July 14, 2014.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-14542 Filed 6-20-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P