Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB)

Meeting

Thursday, March 22, 2012

EPA East Building

1201 Constitution Avenue, NW

Washington, D.C.

Meeting Summary

Welcome and Introductions

Mark Joyce, EPA, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Management and
Outreach (OFACMO), GNEB Acting Designated Federal Officer (DFO); Cynthia
Jones-Jackson, EPA, Acting Director, OFACMO; and Diane Austin, Chair,
GNEB

Mr. Mark Joyce (EPA, OFACMO), Acting DFO for GNEB, welcomed new and
existing members to the meeting. He commented that this is the first
webinar conducted by GNEB. Mr. Joyce congratulated the Board on the
success of the 14th Report of the Good Neighbor Environmental Board to
the President and Congress of the United States and stated that work
already has begun on the 15th report (hereafter referred to as
“report”). The Board is further along on the report than it has been
for past reports at this time of the year.  It is essential that there
is a clear understanding among Board members concerning the scope and
organization of the report. Workgroups should have completed their
assigned text by the end of May 2012 so that the contractor, The
Scientific Consulting Group, Inc. (SCG), can compile and edit it into a
working draft.

Ms. Cynthia Jones-Jackson (EPA, OFACMO) welcomed meeting participants.
She thanked GNEB, as well as the National Advisory Council for
Environmental Policy and Technology (NACEPT) for assistance and
Dr. Diane Austin (University of Arizona) for her leadership. She also
welcomed the new members and thanked them for their participation.
Federal advisory committees, such as GNEB, have proven to be an
effective mechanism for advancing the priorities of the EPA and
President Barack Obama while ensuring that many views are represented.
This Board, specifically, is essential in helping to shape the
environment and improve conditions in the U.S./Mexico border region.
That strength is enhanced by the unique perspectives and experiences of
the Board members and the specializations that each has obtained. She
thanked returning GNEB members for agreeing to serve an additional year
to assist the new Board members in acclimating to the Federal Advisory
Committee Act (FACA) process.

Ms. Jones-Jackson announced that Mr. Keith Takata (EPA Region 9) is
retiring on April 2, 2012, and will be stepping down from the Board. Mr.
Takata and Region 9 have done great work compiling the draft outline for
the report. He has been an asset to the Board, and the EPA and GNEB are
grateful for his hard work.

Dr. Austin, GNEB Chair, welcomed GNEB members to the March 2012 meeting.
She explained that this meeting is being conducted in a
webinar/teleconference format because of EPA budgetary constraints; the
intention is to identify a system that allows the Board to conduct its
work effectively in the midst of these budgetary limitations.

The meeting is open to the public, and therefore, there must be a record
of the participants. She asked the Board members, staff and other
participants to introduce themselves, and then Dr. Austin reviewed the
agenda for the meeting.

Reclamation: Managing Water in the West

Overview of the Colorado River Basin Water Supply and Demand Study

Carly Jerla, Co-Study Manager, U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S.
Bureau of Reclamation

Ms. Carly Jerla stated that the cost of the Colorado River Basin Water
Supply and Demand Study is shared equally by each Colorado River Basin
state. The study is part of the reclamation program, which is one of
several programs that fall under an initiative enacted to meet the needs
of the Clean Water Act.

The study’s objectives are to assess future water supply and demand
imbalances during the next 50 years and develop and evaluate
opportunities for resolving imbalances. It is a 2.5-year study that
began in January 2010. The study is for planning only and is not aimed
at making decisions; it is intended to provide technical information for
future studies/activities.

Ms. Jerla indicated that the historical Colorado River water supply and
use is highly variable but there is a definite increasing trend in water
use. There were multiple occurrences of water supply issues in 1977;
however, there is a large capacity for water storage along the Colorado
River Basin. The study is attempting to determine what the water supply
versus use trend will look like during the next 50 years. There are many
factors that can affect this outcome, including storage capacity,
hydropower capacity, demand alterations and population changes, among
others. These challenges require innovative and creative solutions.

There are four study phases: (1) water supply assessment, (2) water
demand assessment, (3) system reliability analysis, and (4) development
and evaluation of opportunities. The first two phases interrelate in
that approaches and scenarios involving supply and demand must be
identified. Outcomes from phase three can indicate the locations of
large imbalances and assist in the development of opportunities in phase
four. Most of phases one and two have been completed, and the remainder
of phase two and phase three are being accomplished currently. Phase
four began in November 2011 via a public outreach period in which
researchers gained ideas and insight from citizens.

For phase one, there are different scenarios to project water supply.
One scenario is to utilize a paleoclimatology tree ring method that
allows the observation of water supply in the basin from

1,200 years ago to assist in forecasting future water supply. A global
climate model projection method uses 112 different scenarios to examine
possible occurrences under climate change influences.

For phase two, there are four scenarios being studied: (1) current
projected, which examines the current patterns (i.e., “business as
usual”) and the projected outcomes; (2) slow growth, which anticipates
slow growth based on economic efficiency; (3) rapid growth, which
observes the possible outcomes from an economic resurgence; and (4)
enhanced environment, which examines the possible outcomes given
expanded environmental awareness and stewardship.

The base concept of phase three is to understand baseline reliability.
Following this, the state of the system will be simulated for the next
50 years with and without various options/strategies. Metrics such as
water quality, flood control and recreational resources will be used to
quantify impacts to basin resources. There are limitations to the
temporal and spatial scale of detail.

Phase four must include a broad range of options and strategies. Ms.
Jerla presented a climate change scenario and the projected future water
supply and demand under those constraints. The predicted water demand is
greater than the water supply; however, many more imbalances must be
considered

(e.g., reservoir storage) before the scenario is completed.

More than 140 options were submitted by the public to the study
regarding water management, and there are four broad categories that
encompass the majority of these options. These categories are: increase
water supply, reduce water demand, modify operations, and governance and
implementation. Most of the public suggestions involve ideas for
reducing water demand.

The process for developing and evaluating options and strategies for
water supply and demand began with the solicitation for public ideas.
Following this process step, the researchers will develop and evaluate
representative options, package options into portfolios and evaluate
their performance, and identify key elements of robust portfolios. When
options are packaged into portfolios, these portfolios will be arranged,
for example, by low cost options, feasibility options, certainty options
and so forth. Packaging of innovative ideas is necessary to successfully
navigate water supply/demand imbalances.

The study timeline indicates that technical updates will be published
presently, a final draft study report will be published in June 2012,
and a final study report will be published in July 2012.

Discussion

Mr. Robert Apodaca (U.S. Department of Agriculture [USDA] Natural
Resources Conservation Service [NRCS]) supported the idea of continued
dialogue with USDA’s NRCS as results continue to be identified.

Ms. Jerla indicated that the PowerPoint presentation is considered
public information and can be made available on request.

Environmental Flows and the SB 3 Process

Ron Ellis, Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ), Manager,
Water Rights Permitting and Availability Section

Mr. Ron Ellis said that the TCEQ provides support for environmental
flows processes with staff from the Texas Environmental Advisory Board
and Texas Parks and Wildlife Department.

In 2007, Congress passed House Bill 3 and Senate Bill 3 (SB 3) that
referred to the environmental flow process in Texas. SB 3 specifically
was related to the development, management and preservation of the water
resources of the state. SB 3 established a nine-member Environmental
Flows Advisory Group from Texas. This group then appointed the Statewide
Science Advisory Committee (which has the objective to provide advice)
and the Basin and Bay Area Stakeholder Committees (which represent many
interests including agriculture, cities, industry, environment and so
forth). Each stakeholder committee appoints an Expert Science Team for
its environmental system.

According to the schedule established by SB 3, the Expert Science Team
has 1 year to develop an environmental flow regime analysis and
recommend environmental flow regimes. The stakeholder committees then
have 6 months to review and develop recommendations to submit to the
TCEQ.

After submission of recommendations to the TCEQ, each stakeholder
committee and Expert Science Team must develop a work plan. Currently,
only one stakeholder group has submitted a work plan. The TCEQ examines
the recommendations and work plans and considers them in context of the
Texas Water Code, Section 11.147(b)(1)–(10).

For implementation of the rulemaking requirements of SB 3, the TCEQ will
conduct three separate rulemakings: (1) the river basin and bay system
consisting of the Trinity and San Jacinto Rivers and Galveston Bay and
the river basin and bay system consisting of the Neches Rivers and
Sabine Lake Bay; (2) the river basin and bay system consisting of the
Colorado and Lavaca Rivers and Matagorda and Lavaca Bays and the river
basin and bay system consisting of the Guadalupe, San Antonio, Mission
and Aransas Rivers and Mission, Copano, Aransas and San Antonio Bays;
and (3) the river basin and bay system consisting of the Neuces River
and Corpus Christi and Baffin Bays; the river basin and bay system
consisting of the Rio Grande, the Rio Grande estuary and the Lower
Laguna Madre; and the Brazos River and its associated bay and estuary
system. The first rulemaking was adopted in April 2011, the second and
third are scheduled to be adopted by September 2012 and 2013,
respectively.

SB 3 is an adaptive management process, and information on group
activities and progress in all of the basins is available at the TCEQ
website (http://www.tceq.texas.gov/permitting/water_rights/eflows).

Discussion

Dr. Cyrus B.H. Reed (Conservation Director, Sierra Club) indicated that
SB 3 was considered important legislation because it was the first to
take state resources and assess environmental flows of rivers into bays.
Many interest groups are involved and the process is of high importance.
Mr. Edward Drusina (Commissioner, International Boundary and Water
Commission) commented that the report on the Rio Grande River segment is
pending, and he questioned its completion. Mr. Ellis indicated a June 1,
2012, deadline.

A participant questioned the incorporation of Mexico on the Rio Grande
issue. Mr. Ellis responded that the statute is specific in regarding
scientific teams that apply only to American water and stakeholders.

Ms. Mary Kelly (Parula, LLC) questioned the targets for flows for
healthy rivers regarding the river itself and said that it is a
scientific exercise in the Rio Grande for determining what a healthy
river looks like.

Nongovernmental Organization (NGO) Perspective and Commentary

Mary Kelly, Parula, LLC

Ms. Kelly commended Ms. Jerla and her team at the U.S. Bureau of
Reclamation on their hard work on that important study. The timeline is
aggressive, which is challenging because the basin is massive with
highly vocal stakeholders from all perspectives. The Bureau has been
open and fair in encouraging input from all stakeholders. From the NGO
perspective, the Colorado River Basin Study described by Ms. Jerla is
important because it examines future demand scenarios that are
operational.

A healthy river encompasses more than just flow targets and endangered
species, and this is recognized in the study. NGOs do not support
studies designed to observe potential futures that are based solely on
“business as usual” scenarios, and the Colorado River Basin Study
takes this into account by studying various scenarios.

Ms. Kelly asked about the next steps in the study because the result
will not be in the form of a decision document. Taking the study to the
“next step” is important to ensure that it achieves a desired
impact. As has been observed during the past decade, river and water
conditions can go from healthy to supply shortage rapidly, so handling
this challenge should not be postponed. The Colorado River Basin Study
has indicated that knowledge is lacking in river modeling capacity. If
GNEB could work for better modeling across the Mexican border as well,
the result would be exciting.

Ms. Kelly commented that SB 3 is a massively-sized experiment that
attempts to set water flow regime targets for every basin in Texas. This
encompasses developing the science for understanding what a healthy
river looks like and how to attain that.

Standards currently are being set for every basin in the state. The
aspirational idea supporting SB 3 was to avoid having river management
mandated solely by endangered species concerns. There is positive
stakeholder involvement in the rulemaking process for these basins. Two
challenges that must be addressed are locating full funding and
integrating the environmental flows process with the state water
planning process.

The Texas Water Matters website (http://texaswatermatters.org/) is a
good source for further information.

Discussion

A participant commented that the Rio Grande study will be available soon
and that the report will be helpful. Ms. Kelly responded that the Rio
Grande is a divided basin that is more fully appropriated on paper. The
process currently is in motion to examine restoration possibilities and
their future impacts. The upper river segment is driven by flows, and to
restore flow in the upper segment, the water source(s) must be
investigated. Ms. Kelly foresees that the tools utilized in the Colorado
River Basin Study will assist the United States and Mexico in jointly
examining these issues. For the Rio Grande River specifically, the river
is shared between the United States and Mexico, which means that a large
number of people will benefit from healthy river regimes.

Dr. Greg Eckert (Restoration Ecologist, U.S. National Park Service)
questioned the scope of restoration opportunities (i.e., flow quantity
or other ecosystem attributes). Ms. Kelly replied that both are taken
into account, and the weight of the restoration type would depend on the
exact location and factors at that location (e.g., riparian, aquatic,
vegetation and so forth).

Dr. Austin said that narrowing the focus of this report to address
conditions in the border region has been challenging because water
issues extend beyond the border region, in both supply and pollution,
because of the fact that many issues are being handled at the state
level.

Responding to a participant, Ms. Kelly commented that a Commission for
Environmental Cooperation grant is not expressly examining water flows
from the Conchos but is beginning to study irrigator attitudes about the
water issues at hand. The reference for that report has not been
finalized, however.

General Discussion

Ms. Jerla reiterated that the Colorado River Basin Study is a U.S.
action to study healthy river flow and types of water
delivery/imbalances, and this directly impacts Mexico. When considering
the next steps for this project, Mexico should play a role in the
discussion.

Dr. Austin questioned whether fully appropriated rivers include
in-stream flows, and Ms. Jerla responded that in-stream flows rights are
adjudicated and would be included in appropriate analyses. Ms. Jerla
pointed out that the “fully appropriated” terminology does not
necessarily mean that all of the water is being used. Mr. Ellis added
that if a basin is mostly or fully appropriated, however, most of the
stream water is accounted for.

Mr. Stephen M. Niemeyer (Borders Affairs Manager and Colonias
Coordinator, TCEQ) said that the Watermaster Program currently is in
effect in two basins (Rio Grande and South Texas), and the TCEQ is
hoping to expand the program to other basins. The Watermaster Program
basically controls water rights and withdrawals and has active
monitoring of diversions.

Ms. Kelly stated that regarding monitoring and computer modeling,
challenges are experienced when individuals have specific questions to
be addressed because the models are inadequate to handle such tasks. The
water availability models in Texas for appropriations or ecological flow
modeling need to be updated.  Mr. Ellis responded that TCEQ has a
contract with Texas A&M University to update these models.

Mr. Niemeyer questioned whether the Rio Grande stream gauging was
sufficient. Years ago, the Mexican states were adamant concerning
improved stream gauging in Mexico because it was unclear how much was
available. Getting improved gauges can be challenging. Mr. Drusina
mentioned that the International Boundary and Water Commission (IBWC)
has invested several million dollars in updating a stream accounting
system to achieve a state-of-the-art system. This will be accomplished
by the end of 2012. More work is necessary in Mexico, and that is a
focus because simultaneous monitoring on a website would be optimal.
Water accounting is important; however, water quality also is highly
valuable. Water quality is a necessary focus because many river segments
used by numerous people, especially in the Laredo, Texas, area, are
impaired.

Ms. Jerla commented that a major enhancement that is necessary to the
modeling effort is ecological responses on smaller scales. Such an
enhancement can assist in understanding performance; however, to achieve
that modeling enhancement, data must be gathered at that smaller spatial
scale. Uncertainties in modeling begin to “snowball” when the scale
resolution is not optimal. Ms. Kelly agreed and said that it is a
technical challenge.

Mr. Thomas Ruiz (New Mexico Environment Department, Office of the
Secretary) said that groundwater is a significant issue in New Mexico.
Comparing aquifer data with Mexico concerning water quality and flow
(which is important for usage) is an important issue and priority.

State of Water Infrastructure in the U.S.-Mexico Border Region

Maria Elena Giner, General Manager, and Renata Manning-Gbogbo, Projects
Director, Border Environment Cooperation Commission (BECC)

Ms. Renata Manning-Gbogbo indicated that the BECC state of the water
infrastructure includes needs assessments, needs versus investment
resources, and sustainable development. Six states in Mexico have
developed and published their needs assessments. The needs assessments
for the United States are under development. Ms. Maria Elena Giner
commented that the United States’ needs assessments are expected to be
completed by early summer (Texas and California) or in a couple of weeks
(Arizona).

In Mexico, the water services coverage has significantly increased,
especially in wastewater treatment. These projects are instrumental in
removing wastewater discharge from water bodies, but the current
national average is approximately 42 percent. Significant achievement
has been influenced by U.S./Mexican border funds. U.S. states have
contributed investments to those projects, and federal funds have been a
catalyst for obtaining matching funds from Mexico. Whether the projects
are in the United States or Mexico, they all must document a benefit to
the United States.

Results for the needs assessments in the six Mexico bordering states
indicate an overall

$1,468,310 investment requirement (individual states requiring about
$200–300 million). It is important to emphasize that these are new
service investments and that the needs assessments do not quantify
rehabilitations or upgrade requirements. Wastewater treatment
deficiencies to meet capacity are included in the needs assessments.

Regarding infrastructure needs in the United States, attaining access to
data was more difficult than for Mexico. In the United States, there
were individual wells and onsite disposal systems that complicated
analyses and assessments of service coverage. Another confounding factor
for models and analyses is that many states do not collect data and
connect water systems. For example, Texas does not manage wastewater
collection. The assessment required a dependence on the federal Clean
Water Needs Survey; however, this requires states to report county-level
data, and these data were not always high quality.

It is estimated that nearly $8.46 billion is needed to provide safe and
satisfactory centralized drinking and waste water services to all U.S.
border communities. Centralized wastewater and drinking water services
may not be the best answer to provide adequate services in all cases;
however, specialized needs (such as arsenic problems in New Mexico and
Arizona) must be considered. One priority area is addressing a lack of
wastewater connections to the water system. This gap in centralized
service primarily exists in rural settings and requires an investment to
make improvements or connect to centralized service.

The data gathering process in Mexico involves accessing publicly
available data on connections to a centralized system. When data are
collected and conclusions made, this information is shared with state
agencies. Data gathering in the United States centers around meeting
with individuals across sectors to collect the data. Inherent in this
process is ascertaining data gaps. Tribal lands play an important role
in the data gathering process. Lack of tribal data does not necessarily
imply that the data have not been gathered but that there is a gap in
the data reporting process.

There have been several successful programs addressing infrastructure
needs. In the most recent solicitation, there were 25 U.S. projects that
were Category 1 (addressing acute human health issues) and were not
funded; this represented $160 million of unmet needs. Other programs
include the Community Assistance Program (CAP), Technical Assistance
Programs and Institutional Capacity Building. The CAP program (financed
by the NADB) focuses on small, economically distressed community
projects. The Technical Assistance Programs, including the Project
Development Assistance Program (PDAP), funded by the EPA, play an
important role in helping BECC work with communities by providing grants
to more than150 communities in the border region. Institutional capacity
building programs provide an optimal opportunity for utilities to mentor
each other. BECC and the North American Development Bank offer seminars
throughout the year that help provide education and training. Border
2012 and special grants provide an opportunity to work closer with the
EPA and establish potential opportunities.

Program funding has become increasingly challenging as appropriations
have declined. This requires meticulous prioritization of needs in the
process cycles. There are a consistently large number of applicants with
large investment needs; however, only 23 of the 200 applications were
accepted in the last cycle. GNEB should consider in its report the need
for sufficient investment in planning (i.e., needs assessments, master
plan investments, funding source collaboration), self-sustaining
utilities, and new and leveraged program resources.

Discussion

A participant questioned the coordination of resource contributions from
U.S. states with community planning organizations (CPOs) and regional
planning bodies in Mexico. Ms. Giner responded that with funds primarily
coming from the EPA, the master planning process has been completed
(drinking and waste water are not considered urban development
planning). This is positive because the U.S. community provides input,
process and planning. Although the master planning process is slow,
technical assistance worth nearly $34 million has been provided; 75
percent of these funds have gone to planning and feasibility, and 85
percent to implemented projects.

Mr. Luis E. Ramírez (Ramírez Advisors Inter-National, LLC) asked for
clarification on the infrastructure needs for the United States,
specifically for Arizona. What do the indicated numbers include? Do
those numbers refer to unserved households? Ms. Manning-Gbogbo responded
that the numbers reflect households and are intended to display that
they are not connected to a centralized system. Mr. Ramírez pointed out
that this should not imply that they are unserved (e.g., septic tanks),
and a participant indicated that private drinking wells also could be in
use. Ms. Manning-Gbogbo responded that identifying the appropriate
methodology for ascertaining unserved households is difficult. Ms. Giner
added that these are macro-level analyses based on reporting
requirements. It is important to examine deeply the assessment and
determine the water quality issues present and their magnitude. Mr. Luis
Olmedo (Comité Civico Del Valle, Inc.) commented that there is a
similar problem for California data. In California, there is a process
that serves assessment needs. The process is integrated and required by
statutes following application for an infrastructure grant. Examining
watershed management plans will allow for a greater assessment of
California needs.

Dr. Reed commented that it would be helpful if BECC could provide GNEB
with a program list that indicates the money obtained by individual
states and tribes. This could be included in the report.

Report Out From Workgroups on the 15th Report

Context Workgroup

Mr. Timothy Treviño, Sr. Director of Strategic Planning and Agency
Communications, Alamo Area Council of Governments

Mr. Timothy Treviño said that the first chapter of the Context
Workgroup draft would be at the general overview level, and the
subsequent chapters would be more focused. Referring to the Workgroup
draft that was disseminated, the Demographics and Census section handles
water quality/quantity and examines this in the context of demographics
to identify the character of a population. Based on data availability,
the population can be broken down by user classification (e.g.,
residential, commercial, industrial).

The Overview of Issues section identified five issue areas: financial
resources, differences in water regulatory agencies’ response by
state, binational understandings and treaties/agreements with Mexico,
tribal issues, acknowledgements of interdependence, and emerging issues.
Mr. Treviño noted that the Colorado River Process is being showcased in
the draft and that GNEB should suggest any others that might be
important.

The Emerging Issues area includes several matters that are occurring at
present, including: (1) decrease in financial resources that is greater
than the increase in financial need, (2) fragmentation of habitat,

(3) rapid urbanization on the border, (4) water as a public health
issue, (5) shale gas development, (6) climate change, (7) draw-down and
recharging of aquifers, (8) watershed rehabilitation, and (8) public
safety and related responses. While perusing documents, Mr. Treviño
found that it may be cogent to include a chapter on the state of the
current water infrastructure.

Mr. Treviño also commented that in Texas there is a litigation issue on
pumping and related matters. There is a “right-to-capture” doctrine
in Texas and so the following questions arise: What are the limitations
on pumping within aquifers? Are there limited caps? Texas is in an
uncertain state at present.

Mr. Treviño explained that the “shale gas development” issue under
“Emerging Issues” is incorrect because drinking water does not
belong in that subcategory. Drinking water is, however, being used in
the hydraulic fracturing (fracking) process and small communities allow
the purchase of their municipal water by oil companies. This is an issue
of concern because of the supply and demand of water for economic
development.

Water Supply Workgroup

Sally Spener, Public Affairs Officer, International Boundary and Water
Commission

Ms. Sally Spener said that the Water Supply Workgroup divided its issues
into five major sections: sources, needs, existing infrastructure,
challenges/threats and alternatives. In the outline she provided, these
sections are fleshed out in more detail. Regarding the Needs Section,
Ms. Spener indicated that many of these needs (e.g., agriculture,
domestic, aging infrastructure, population growth and fracking) contain
a substantial amount of information. Federal employees on the GNEB could
provide further information on water supply projects along the border
region.

Ms. Spener commented that in the Alternatives Section, research has been
done on population growth, water supply and so forth, and it has been
found that many people will face significant future concerns about
adequate water supply.

There was some overlap between the Water Supply Workgroup outline and
that of other Workgroups.

Water Quality Workgroup

David Henkel, Ph.D., Professor Emeritus, School of Architecture and
Planning, University of New Mexico

Dr. David Henkel echoed Ms. Spener’s observation about overlapping
Workgroup outlines. The Water Quality Workgroup outline begins with a
section on purpose. Following this, there are several sections of focus
(i.e., introduction, management and regulation of the resource, key
water quality issues, responses and new facilities/approaches).

The issues discussed in this report are complex, so there is a risk of
losing certain audiences if the report deliberations are overly
complicated. For example, in considering surface and groundwater, space
is necessary to detail rural and urban components, as well as nonpoint
source issues. Nested issues such as these are important to link to
other Workgroups; however, they cannot all be addressed in the detail
they deserve. Report readers should be informed of ways they can become
involved. Dr. Henkel said that if certain topics match up with those of
other Workgroup sections, they should be cross referenced. Doing so will
allow users to follow certain threads of interest in a linear fashion.

It is important not to underestimate the complexity of how topics and
situations are linked to each other. Situations exist regarding water
management and emerging threats where municipalities on one side of the
U.S.-Mexico border withdraw water without realizing the impact this has
on the other side of the border. Other ongoing problems involve water
quality regulations. Although the Workgroup has not reached solid
conclusions, the members are working to organize themselves across
workgroups and identify all such issues.

Dr. Teresa R. Pohlman (U.S. Department of Homeland Security) added that
it is important to ensure that the same areas are not covered by
multiple Workgroups; responsibility must be delineated.

Water Treatment Workgroup

Robert Apodaca, Assistant Chief–West, USDA/NRCS

Mr. Apodaca stated that the Water Treatment Workgroup began its outline
with an introduction into water treatment along the U.S.-Mexico border.
The original outline, compiled by Arizona Workgroup members, detailed
drinking water, wastewater and water infrastructure. The Workgroup
decided that a broader view of water treatment programming in the four
border states and tribes was needed. From a 19-page outline, the
Workgroup identified three areas that were the most important to the
four different border states: (1) build capacity for wastewater
treatment plants, (2) address untreated wastewater and irrigation water
flow quality from Mexico to the United States, and (3) increase
wastewater and drinking water service. These should be accomplished
while addressing regulatory issues that impact border-specific issues
such as arsenic problems and treatments in the water.

From the tribal perspective, there were three recommendations: (1)
ensure that capacity is built with tribal governments so that they have
authority over their own waters, (2) develop capacity for tribal water
quality standards, and (3) identify permitting processes for power
plants that address the water and wastewater released into areas
affecting tribal governments. These themes strongly resonated with the
nontribal themes.

Mr. Niemeyer, co-chair of the Workgroup, commented that any area of the
outline can be a major topic of discussion for the whole report. The
Workgroup agreed on the above three topics, however, as the most
pertinent. Drinking water issues regarding water treatment were
considered, but most of the focus was on wastewater. Education on these
issues is important and GNEB must decide on ideas that can be presented
as recommendations for the federal government. A main constituent in
dealing with wastewater treatment is the EPA (because of the Clean Water
Act); however, local authorities play a major role.

General Discussion

Dr. Austin inquired whether further information gaps existed. A
participant replied that the report is comprehensive, but to identify
missing components it will be necessary to pinpoint the exact message
that the report will deliver. Dr. Reed responded that managing water
supply for future needs is one concept that is missing.

A participant commented that states and municipalities have difficulty
handling certain water issues

(e.g., wastewater, waste and stormwater conveyance, infrastructure)
because they involve active engagement with Mexico, which is difficult
for a state or municipality to achieve.

Mr. Niemeyer indicated that the major water issues are supply and
demand. He questioned whether there is enough water to sustain all of
the water uses along the border. Agriculture consumes 80 percent of
water along the border, and as the population increases, that will
become more problematic. He suggested that GNEB members examine the 5th,
8th, and 13th GNEB reports because of the information that is conveyed
on water issues and to assist in developing a message for the current
report. He also thought that the infrastructure needs outlined by BECC,
which total $8.5 billion, should be mentioned in the report.

Ms. Angela Palazzolo (U.S. Department of State) asked what binational
issues and types of coordination are of interest to GNEB for the 15th
report. She expressed interest in learning about these from board
members.

A participant reiterated the need for GNEB members to review the 8th and
13th reports to ensure that the messages conveyed in the current report
do not merely repeat what already has been said. Critical elements from
earlier reports should be referenced. A participant noted that there is
an economic and financial theme that holds constant throughout the
issues discussed. Financial resources are not a trivial element, and if
the report highlights these contexts, it will be more helpful for
decision/policy makers.

Dr. Austin repeated the major issues that the GNEB mentioned in the
meeting, including better engagement with Mexico, ensuring ample water
for an increasing population, ensuring clean water, and caring for other
needs such as lack of water. Economic and drought considerations are
common themes across these issues. Dr. Henkel added natural habitat
issues to this list. A participant elaborated that stormwater management
(including soil moisture retention and intense flooding) is related to
increased urbanization along the border in financial “watersheds.”
Better engagement with Mexico on these and financial issues is
imperative.

Dr. Austin questioned how the Context Workgroup outline can be
maintained in less than a 200-page document, especially regarding the
handling of redundancies. Mr. Niemeyer commented that the Context
Workgroup outline could actually outline the entire report. He agreed
that key issues related to water along the border include improved
coordination with Mexico, projecting future water demands, and drought
issues. He suggested that GNEB choose three to four issues and devote
the report to them, with issues such as fracking consuming minimal
report space. Ms. Alison Krepp (National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration) agreed. Ms. Palazzolo said that previous reports contain
subsections on coordination mechanisms with Mexico. These could be
examined by GNEB and she suggested focusing on specific recommendations
because they are more constructive than general comments.

Mr. Drusina commented that border issues with Mexico must have an
emphasis on localities. Localities must work to address water issues
within their community, and if these issues cross the border, then work
must continue with Mexico via the legislative arena. He said that the
report should focus on population growth and the related impact on water
quality and volume. Dr. Eckert thought that overlapping general planning
needs should be summarized in the report via a scenario focus. Mr.
Drusina thought there is a focus on process planning, which is usually
funded by extra community funds; however, poorer border communities do
not have that ability. The report should demonstrate that such a need
exists. Dr. Henkel added that local funds could be utilized in a more
coordinated manner with state funds. He suggested that the report
examine a range of small cases that exemplify certain major issues, and
the composite of these cases will illustrate the issues in general.

Dr. Austin pointed out a contradiction between local-level planning on
the U.S. side of the border and financial master planning on the Mexico
side of the border. The Board must consider its exact message in this
regard. Mr. Niemeyer agreed that GNEB cannot change Mexico, but it can
recommend that the United States take actions with Mexico that will have
a positive effect on U.S. communities along the border. He also pointed
out that the term “climate change” has now been replaced by
“climate variability.” A participant thought all of the water issues
raised during the discussion could be placed in two categories: (1)
planning for the future and (2) infrastructure needs.

Dr. Pohlman said that one alteration to the “climate change” term is
“climate change adaptation.” She expressed that the topic garnering
the most interest and discussion time during public meetings is
employment. She warned against being too “clinical” in the water
issues analysis and not being sensitive to the main issue with which the
public is concerned, which is jobs. Dr. Austin responded that regardless
of the direction the report takes, resources will be required to build
infrastructure, and that requires people and jobs.

Dr. Austin strongly suggested GNEB consider the case study approach to
the report. Workgroups can consider planning for future infrastructure
needs and water supply in the context of case studies. Dr. Pohlman
suggested that Board members should refine the existing Workgroup
outlines and make them adhere more tightly to the two emphasis
areas—future planning and infrastructure needs. A participant proposed
adding a section on economic development and water demand, and Dr.
Pohlman concurred.

A participant commented that the outlines are a positive step forward
and suggested that the Board determine the areas of overlap between the
Workgroups and then decide which group should work on what areas.

Mr. Niemeyer agreed with Dr. Pohlman that jobs are key; therefore, the
report should mention that water by the border is important to
population economics. He emphasized the need for simplicity in the
report to adequately reach policy makers. He mentioned that water
planning is not accomplished at the federal level but instead at local
and state levels; therefore, GNEB should determine what the federal
government actually can achieve toward ensuring sufficient water in the
border area. Mr. Ramírez added that the report should make the
important connection between economics and water infrastructure to
ensure that it is relevant to current needs.

Dr. Henkel suggested that the Context Workgroup state the major issues
from its outline and focus them into categories related to future
demands. Three issues should be examined in detail. Ms. Krepp pointed
out that the GNEB report should offer advice on these border issues but
it is not intended to educate the audience on each issue.

Dr. Austin said that the Workgroup structures would remain the same but
the Workgroups’ efforts should focus on the identified key drivers.
Each Workgroup should look to answering how these issues will be managed
and moved forward. The outlines should be focused on actions that the
federal government has the authority to take. Case studies (e.g.,
urbanization, rural issues) could point to the different levels of need
and speak to different water topics. A participant agreed and asserted
that members should consider specific recommendations to the federal
government to address a failing water system.

Mr. Treviño questioned whether case studies should be identified by
specific states because the states handle these issues differently. Dr.
Henkel responded that regions, watersheds and states can take different
approaches to water issues. This substantial variation means that each
case study does not have to move in “lock-step.” Readers should be
able to view a variety of scenarios and approaches.

Mr. Joyce agreed that emphasizing themes by considering case studies is
a positive step. An emphasis should be placed on actions that the
federal government can implement and not scenarios in which only a state
government can act. GNEB should remember that this report is submitted
to President Barack Obama and the federal government.

Dr. Austin confirmed that the idea is to use an introductory chapter in
the report to cover background issues (e.g., water quality, water
supply) and use case studies to make important points. Dr. Henkel agreed
and said that the Workgroups should remain as they are, and each group
can contribute information for location case studies that are chosen.
Dr. Austin reiterated that each Workgroup can choose four case studies
that address different aspects of the discussed issues. She indicated
that the chosen case studies should not be anomalies from the border
region but should be representative case studies that emphasize the
discussed water issues. A participant suggested one case study be
utilized per Workgroup to encapsulate that Workgroup’s focus. Dr.
Austin said that one to two case studies per Workgroup should be
adequate, and Mr. Niemeyer agreed. He also mentioned that the report
should specify that complex water issues along the border become more
multifarious because of dealings with Mexico. Dr. Austin reminded GNEB
that if a particular Workgroup requires further input, it can reach out
to other Board members in a different Workgroup.

Dr. Austin suggested that Workgroup drafts of recommendations be
completed by the end of April 2012. Mr. Joyce confirmed that date and
said that by the end of May 2012 Workgroup final drafts will be given to
Dr. Erinn Howard (The Scientific Consulting Group, Inc.) for compilation
and light editing. The compiled report will be distributed to the Board
members for the June 2012 meeting.

Public Comments

Dr. Austin called for public comments.

Ms. Lucy Camacho (El Paso, Texas) commented that there is not an equal
collaboration with Mexico. She suggested that an optimal strategy for
engaging with Mexico is to express a desire for collaboration that
protects the interests of both countries and ensures that communities on
both sides of the border benefit.  Mexican water office individuals
should be engaged in this process.

Development in the border region has increased water consumption in
local communities over time, and the public has had to consistently pay
more for water. Many people can no longer afford the cost of watering
their lawns, and the water often is dirty. It is necessary to find
methods to reuse water and clean up the available water for
homeowners’ use and for irrigation.

General Discussion

Mr. Niemeyer commented that premium rates have increased, which causes
water rates to increase. A Board member said that examining regional
water plans can address Ms. Camacho’s concerns, especially regarding
water reuse. Dr. Henkel responded that in Mexico there are residential
properties that utilize gray water for irrigation. Domestic reuse of
water is a great solution.

Board Business

Membership Recruitment

Ms. Jones-Jackson said that on December 17, 2012, or January 18, 2013,
the terms for the Board members will expire. In mid-April 2012 a process
to recruit new members will commence. A participant explained that GNEB
members are appointed for 2-year terms and that it would be optimal for
all members to be on the same cycle. Ms. Jones-Jackson asked GNEB
members to recommend qualified candidates to be considered for Board
membership.  She emphasized that prospective new members should be from
various sectors (e.g., academia, federal government, non-governmental
organizations, industry, tribal governments).

Mr. Joyce and Ms. Jones-Jackson explained that the EPA Administrator
sends letters to government agencies to recruit potential GNEB members
from the government sector.  This process is separate from that for the
recruitment of nongovernment members. They noted that current members
can be reinstated for another term. There is an internal policy,
however, that members cannot serve on the Board for more than a 4- to
6-year period. Ms. Jones-Jackson informed members that the appointment
process does not end with her; member appointment goes through review,
and the Administrator is the one with the authority to appoint members.
Therefore, some candidates recommended for Board membership may not be
approved.

Mr. Joyce said that when the Federal Register notice becomes available,
GNEB members should distribute it broadly in a broadcast announcement.
This will allow for the largest recruitment pool possible. Similar to
federal member recruitment, letters are sent to states to alert them of
this process to assist in efficient member recruitment.

Ms. Ann-Marie Gantner (EPA) mentioned that members seeking reappointment
must send their résumé with a letter explaining their interest in
being considered for reappointment.

June Meeting Discussion

Ms. Gantner said that a committee has been formed to plan the June
meeting, and it has chosen various June meeting dates. If any members
are interested in participating in the meeting committee, they should
inform Ms. Gantner.

The June meeting will take place in El Paso, Texas, from June 27 through
June 29, 2012. The 27th currently is scheduled as a half-day field day.
June 28 and 29 are regular meeting days. Dr. Austin explained that the
committee identified sites for members to see, as well as speakers and
agenda suggestions.

Ms. Gantner said that EPA’s Lotus system allows her to rapidly publish
notes and conference materials and allows for GNEB members to retrieve
them with ease. She previously distributed an email to help members
register for Lotus. Quickplace is where registration occurs and allows
Ms. Gantner to notify members of new documents to be retrieved. In
response to Ms. Gantner’s question about how best to manage sharing
information about documents that are received, Dr. Austin suggested that
Ms. Gantner send Board members a “weekly digest” describing new
materials for them to retrieve on the Lotus system.

Dr. Austin stated that two Board members have volunteered to review the
translated version of the 14th report. Mr. Niemeyer and Dr. Rincón
additionally have agreed to assist in this process. Comments and edits
will be provided to Ms. Gantner by March 30, 2012. Mr. Joyce confirmed
that there should be no Internet circulation of the Spanish version of
the report until it has been ensured to be an accurate representation.

Ms. Jones-Jackson expressed the monetary difficulties of distributing a
large number of hard-copies of the 14th GNEB report resulting from
recently imposed budgetary constraints. She requested that Board members
reconsider the number of hard-copies that they require and consider the
distribution of an electronic version. The updated number of reports
that each member needs should be communicated to Ms. Gantner. Dr. Henkel
commented that one hard-copy should be placed in the state library of
each border state, which would allow access by many states and
individuals.

Interaction With Congress

Ms. Jones-Jackson indicated that interaction with Congress via a written
document has been considered. Discussions with the U.S. Office of
General Counsel regarding the office providing written documentation has
not yet yielded success because they are overburdened. Mr. Tim Sherer
(OFACMO) and Mr. James McCleary (OFACMO) were invited to the GNEB
meeting to discuss these issues more in depth because of their
familiarity with FACA, the charter and other related documentation
regarding lobbying. Dr. Austin commented that as members of an advisory
board, GNEB members are prohibited from lobbying.

Mr. Niemeyer and Mr. Treviño suggested continuing the discussion at a
later date because the meeting was running long. There was a general
consensus among members to postpone this discussion.

Dr. Austin thanked the presenters and Board members for their
participation in the new meeting format. She stated that when a document
regarding Congress interaction is obtained, it will be distributed to
the Board for discussion, possibly during a teleconference. Dr. Austin
adjourned the meeting at 5:30 p.m.

Action Items

Board members should send comments and edits regarding the Spanish
translation of the 14th GNEB report to Ms. Gantner by March 30, 2012.

Workgroup drafts of sections of the 15th report are due by the end of
April 2012.

Workgroup final drafts are due by the end of May 2012, when they will be
given to Dr. Howard at SCG for compilation and editing.

Board members interested in participating in the committee for planning
the June GNEB meeting should contact Ms. Gantner.

The June GNEB meeting will be held in El Paso, Texas, from June 27–29,
2012. June 27 will be a half-day field meeting, and June 28 and 29 will
be regular full-days.

Board members should revise the number of hard-copy reports that they
require and send this information to Ms. Gantner.

Ms. Gantner will send emails to the GNEB members about conference call
dates and subsequent reminders.

Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB)

Meeting Participants

Nongovernment, State, Local, and Tribal Members of the Board

Diane Austin, Ph.D., Chair

Associate Research Anthropologist

Bureau of Applied Research in Anthropology

University of Arizona

Tucson, AZ

Cecilia E. Aguillon

Director

Market Development and Government Relations

KYOCERA Solar, Inc.

San Diego, CA

Evaristo Cruz

Director

Environmental Management Office

Ysleta del Sur Pueblo

El Paso, TX

Veronica Garcia

Deputy Director

Waste Programs Division

Arizona Department of Environmental Quality

Phoenix, AZ

David Henkel, Ph.D.

Professor Emeritus

Community and Regional Planning Program

School of Architecture and Planning

University of New Mexico

Albuquerque, NM

Stephen M. Niemeyer, P.E.

Borders Affairs Manager and Colonias Coordinator

Intergovernmental Relations Division

Texas Commission on Environmental Quality

Austin, TX

Luis Olmedo

Executive Director

Comite Civico Del Valle, Inc.

Brawley, CA

Mike Ortega

Cochise County Administrator

Board of Supervisors

Bisbee, AZ

Luis E. Ramírez, MSFS

President

Ramirez Advisors Inter-National, LLC

Phoenix, AZ

Cyrus B.H. Reed, Ph.D.

Conservation Director

Lone Star Chapter Sierra Club

Austin, TX

Thomas Ruiz, M.S.

Border/Environmental Justice Liaison

Office of the Secretary

New Mexico Environment Department

Las Cruces, NM

Timothy Treviño

Director of Public Relations

Alamo Area Council of Governments

San Antonio, TX

Antonio Noé Zavaleta, Ph.D.

Director

Texas Center for Border and Transnational Studies

University of Texas at Brownsville

Brownsville, TX

Federal Members of the Board and Alternates

Department of Agriculture–Natural Resources Conservation Service

Robert M. Apodaca

Assistant Chief–West

Natural Resources Conservation Service

U.S. department of Agriculture

Albuquerque, NM

International Boundary and Water Commission

Edward Drusina

Commissioner

United States Section

International Boundary and Water Commission

El Paso, TX

Department of the Interior

Greg Eckert, Ph.D.

National Park Service

Fort Collins, CO

Department of Commerce–National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

David Kennedy

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

Silver Spring, MD

Department of Commerce–National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

Alison Krepp

Estuarine Reserves Division

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

Silver Spring, MD

Environmental Protection Agency

Enrique Manzanilla

Director

Communities and Ecosystems Division

EPA Region 9

San Francisco, CA

Department of State

Angela Palazzolo

International Relations Officer

U.S.-Mexico Border Affairs

Washington, D.C.

Department of Homeland Security

Teresa R. Pohlman, Ph.D.

Director

Occupational Safety and Environmental Programs

Office of Chief Administrative Officer

Management Directorate

Department of Homeland Security

Washington, D.C.

International Boundary and Water Commission

Sally Spener

Public Affairs Officer

International Boundary and Water Commission

El Paso, TX

Acting Designated Federal Officer

Mark Joyce

Acting Designated Federal Officer

Good Neighbor Environmental Board

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Office of Federal Advisory Committee Management and Outreach

Washington, D.C.

EPA Participants

Alhelí Baños-Keener

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Region 9

San Diego, CA

James Downing

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Office of Federal Advisory Committee Management and Outreach

Washington, D.C.

Douglas Eberhardt

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Region 9

San Francisco, CA

Ann-Marie Gantner

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Office of Federal Advisory Committee Management and Outreach

Washington, D.C.

Jose Francisco Garcia, Jr.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Region 9

San Francisco, CA

Cynthia Jones-Jackson

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Office of Federal Advisory Committee Management and Outreach

Washington, D.C.

Thomas Konner

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Region 9

San Francisco, CA

Doug Liden

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Region 9

San Diego, CA

James McCleary

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Office of Federal Advisory Committee Management and Outreach

Washington, D.C.

Megan Moreau

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Office of Federal Advisory Committee Management and Outreach

Washington, D.C.

Carlos Rincón, Ph.D.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Region 6

El Paso, TX

Tim Sherer

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Office of Federal Advisory Committee Management and Outreach

Washington, D.C.

Tomas Torres

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Region 9

San Diego, CA

Other Participants

Dave Anderson

FORM Sustainable Planning & Community

Development

Lucy Camacho

University of Texas at El Paso

El Paso, TX

Ron Ellis

Texas Commission on Environmental Quality

Austin, TX

Juan Antonio Flores

North American Development Bank

San Antonio, TX

Maria Elena Giner

Border Environment Cooperation Commission

Juárez, Mexico

Hans Huth

Arizona Department of Environmental Quality

Phoenix, AZ

Carly Jerla

U.S. Bureau of Reclamation

Boulder, CO

Mary Kelly

Parula, LLC

Austin, TX

Renata Manning-Gbogbo

Border Environment Cooperation Commission

El Paso, TX

Dean Moulis

Arizona Department of Environmental Quality

Phoenix, AZ

Lauren Oertel

Texas Commission on Environmental Quality

Austin, TX

Luis Romero

Puerto Rico

Jock Whittlesey

U.S. Department of State

Washington, D.C.

Royisha Young

University of Arizona

Tucson, AZ

Contractor Support

Erinn Howard, Ph.D.

Senior Science Writer

The Scientific Consulting Group, Inc.

Gaithersburg, MD

  PAGE  2 		March 22, 2012, Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB)
Meeting Summary

March 22, 2012, Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB) Meeting Summary
  PAGE  1

  PAGE  16 		March 22, 2012, Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB)
Meeting Summary

March 22, 2012, Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB) Meeting Summary
  PAGE  17


[Federal Register: August 19, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 159)]
[Notices]
[Page 41880-41881]
[DOCID:fr19au09-47]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 13375-000]

Community Hydro, LLC; Notice of Preliminary Permit Application
Accepted for Filing and Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and
Competing Applications

August 12, 2009.
    On February 20, 2009, Community Hydro, LLC filed an application for
a preliminary permit, pursuant to section 4(f) of the Federal Power
Act, proposing to study the feasibility of the Falls Lake Dam
Hydroelectric Project, located on the Neuse River, Wake County, North
Carolina. The sole purpose of a preliminary permit, if issued, is to
grant the permit holder priority to file a license application during
the permit term. A preliminary permit does not authorize the permit
holder to perform any land disturbing activities or otherwise enter
upon lands or waters owned by others without the owners' express
permission.

    The proposed project would consist of: (1) Six turbine-generators
with a total installed capacity of 2,500 kW; (2) a 700-foot-long, 13.8
kV transmission line; and (3) appurtenant facilities. The proposed
project would generate about 8,300 megawatt-hours annually.
    Applicant Contact: Lori Barg, Community Hydro LLC, 113 Bartlett
Road, Plainfield, VT, phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    FERC Contact: Sergiu Serban,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, competing
applications (without notices of intent), or notices of intent to file
competing applications: 60 days from the issuance of this notice.
Comments, motions to intervene, notices of intent, and competing
applications may be filed electronically via the Internet. See 18 CFR
385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site
under the ``e-Filing'' link. If unable to be filed electronically,
documents may be paper-filed. To paper-file, an original and eight
copies should be mailed to: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. For
more information on how to submit these types of filings please go to
the Commission's Web site located at http://www.ferc.gov/filing-
comments.asp.
    More information about this project, including a copy of the
application, can be viewed or printed on the ``eLibrary'' link of
Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary.asp.
Enter the docket number (P-13375) in the docket number field to access
the document. For assistance, call toll-free 1-866-208-3372.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-19828 Filed 8-18-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 216 (Friday, November 7, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 66368]
[FR Doc No: 2014-26450]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-9918-92-Region-6]

Proposed Administrative Settlement Pursuant to the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Notice; request for public comment.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with Section 122(i) of the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, as amended
(``CERCLA''), 42 U.S.C. 9622(i), notice is hereby given of a proposed
administrative settlement concerning the EXPLO Systems, Inc., Superfund
Site (``Site''), generally located on a portion of Camp Minden, Webster
Parrish, Louisiana.
    This Settlement Agreement provides for the performance of a removal
action by Settling Respondent, the payment of certain response costs
incurred by Settling Respondent by the Settling Federal Agency, and the
payment of certain response costs incurred by the United States, by the
Settling Respondent at or in connection with the Site.
    For thirty (30) days following the date of publication of this
notice, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (``Agency'') will
receive written comments solely on the Agency's cost recovery
component, at Paragraphs 38.a and 38.1a, of this Settlement Agreement.
The Agency may withhold consent from or seek to modify the Agency's
cost recovery component, at Paragraphs 38.a and 38.1a, of the
Settlement Agreement, if comments received disclose facts or
considerations which indicate that the Settlement Agreement is
inappropriate, improper, or inadequate. The Agency's response to any
comments received will be available for public inspection at 1445 Ross
Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before December 8, 2014.

ADDRESSES: The proposed settlement and additional background
information relating to the settlement are available for public
inspection at 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733. A copy of the
proposed settlement may be obtained from Cynthia Brown at 1445 Ross
Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733 or by calling<PHONE_NUMBER>. Comments
should reference the EXPLO Systems, Inc., Superfund Site, Camp Minden,
Webster Parrish, Louisiana, and EPA Docket Number 06-08-14, and should
be addressed to Cynthia Brown at the address listed above.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: George Malone, Assistant Regional
Counsel, 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733 or call (214) 665-
8030.

    Dated: October 22, 2014.
James McDonald,
Acting Regional Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2014-26450 Filed 11-6-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


1 SUPPORTING STATEMENT 1. IDENTIFICATION OF THE INFORMATION COLLECTION ( a) TITLE OF THE INFORMATION COLLECTION Information Collection Request ( ICR) 1039.09, OMB Control No. 2030 0005, covers an Agency requirement for contractors to submit technical and financial progress reports under cost reimbursement, indefinite quantity, time and material, and labor hour types of contracts. The information collection is entitled: Monthly Progress Reports, Submission of Invoices, and Related Information. The current ICR expires on February 28, 2003.

( b) SHORT CHARACTERIZATION Appropriate Government surveillance of contractor performance is required to give reasonable assurance that efficient methods and effective cost controls are being used for various cost reimbursable and fixed rate contracts.

On a monthly basis, the Agency requires contractors to provide the Project Officer with a report detailing ( a) what was accomplished on the contract during that period, ( b) what remains to be done, and ( c) expenditures for the same period of time. This allows the Project Officer to monitor the efficiency and cost effectiveness of the work being performed. These progress reports become part of the contract file.

2. NEED FOR AND USE OF THE COLLECTION ( a) NEED/ AUTHORITY FOR THE COLLECTION FAR 16.301 3( b) and 16.601( b)( 1) require that cost reimbursement, time and material and labor hour contracts be monitored in terms of financial and technical efficiency. Environmental Protection Agency Acquisition Regulation ( EPAAR) 1511.011 72 prescribes the clause for progress reports which is used for these types of contracts. EPAAR clause 1552.211 72, Monthly Progress Report, provides the specific requirements of the report.

( b) USE/ USERS OF THE DATA Progress reports will be used by the Project Officer to monitor the contractor's progress under a specific contract. If problems with the contractor's performance arise, the Contracting Officer may also review the progress reports to determine what action may need to be taken.

3. THE RESPONDENTS AND THE INFORMATION REQUESTED ( a) RESPONDENTS/ NORTH AMERICAN INDUSTRY CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM 2 ( NAICS) CODES The majority of respondents fall into one of the following NAICS codes: 511210 for prepackaged computer software, 541511 for computer processing services, 541710 for computer related services, or 339 for miscellaneous services.

( b) INFORMATION REQUESTED Under this ICR, respondents will be required to provide the following information:

 Progress made during the reporting period including percent of project completed, description of the action of work accomplished, and a schedule of deliverables for the reporting period;

 Specific discussions of difficulties encountered and remedial action taken during the reporting period and anticipated activity during the subsequent reporting period;

 A list of outstanding actions awaiting the Contracting Officer's authorization;

 Cumulative costs at the contract level for: the amount claimed for the current reporting period, the amount obligated, originally invoiced, paid, suspended, disallowed and remaining approved for the cumulative period and contract life;

 Labor hours consisting of a list of employees, their labor categories, and the number of hours worked;

 Labor hours expended and direct labor hours and costs detailed for the current reporting period.

 Labor hours negotiated, expended and remaining, and labor hours and costs detailed for the cumulative contract period and cumulative contract life.

 The estimated labor hours and costs to be expended during the next reporting period.

 The current dollar ceilings, net amount invoiced and remaining amounts in several categories.

 Unbilled allowable costs for the current reporting period and cumulative for the contract.

 Actual average direct labor costs compared with the negotiated average for the current contract period.

 Similar financial status information to that already outlined, but at the work assignment 3 level or delivery order level.

4. THE INFORMATION COLLECTED  AGENCY ACTIVITIES, COLLECTION METHODOLOGY AND INFORMATION MANAGEMENT ( a) AGENCY ACTIVITIES Once the information is received by the Agency, it is reviewed by the Project Officer against existing financial data, contractor deliverables and agency records for verification. If no discrepancies are noted, the report is placed in the contract file.

( b) COLLECTION METHODOLOGY AND MANAGEMENT Many respondents prepare their reports by computer. Software programs are available which easily track financial data. Submissions are accepted in any format so long as the required data is provided. Various software programs are used by the Agency to monitor contractor activity under contracts requiring progress reports.

( c) SMALL BUSINESS FLEXIBILITY Only the minimum information necessary to ensure the contractor is performing in a technically effective and cost efficient manner is required. Because the information requested is vital to the effective monitoring of Agency contracts, separate or simplified procedures cannot be developed for small businesses.

( d) COLLECTION SCHEDULE Most contractors invoice once a month under service contracts. Progress reports are required on a monthly basis so that charges on the invoice can be reconciled with financial and technical information provided in the report.

5. NONDUPLICATION, CONSULTATION AND OTHER COLLECTION CRITERIA ( a) NONDUPLICATION Monthly progress reports are unique to each individual contract. Information concerning the financial and technical progress of a contractor under a specific contract is not available from any other source.

( b) CONSULTATIONS For this ICR action, the following firms and individuals, which currently have a significant number of contracts with the Agency, were called to discuss the use of and the amount of time it 4 takes to complete the information request:

Name Affiliation Phone Ms. Brenda Smith Techlaw ( 703) 818 3000 Mr. Richard Grazioli Lockheed Martin ( 732) 225 4931 Mr. Jack Sulima Gannet Fleming ( 404) 522 1381 ext. 117 Individuals consulted indicated the information requested is readily available. The individuals consulted indicated that they understood the need for the information collection and did not find the collection excessively burdensome. Estimated time to complete the information collection was considered in " Respondent Burden Estimate."

( c) EFFECTS OF LESS FREQUENT COLLECTION Most EPA contracts involve complex services requiring numerous contractor employees and extensive funding. It is imperative that the Agency be aware of the actions the contractor is taking and the amount of funding expended on a monthly basis. Less frequent collection would jeopardize the Agency's ability to determine the reasonableness of costs and to take timely action in the event of technical or cost problems under its contracts.

( d) GENERAL GUIDELINES This information collection follows OMB's general guidelines with the exception of requiring the same information from small entities as other respondents and requiring the information to be submitted more often than quarterly. Monthly progress reports are mandatory for those holding Agency contracts with reporting requirements.

Progress reports are required on a monthly basis. Contracts requiring progress reports generally run from three to five years. Most contractors invoice once a month under these contracts. By submitting the progress report with the invoice the contractor gives the Project Officer, who is responsible for monitoring the contract, an opportunity to review the financial information contained in the progress report, and compare it to the invoice. Monthly review of this information allows the Agency to promptly note when performance or cost problems arise and take immediate action.

This information is required because of the complex nature of the contracts used. Every contractor, even small entities, must provide the information in order for the Agency to adequately monitor the contracts.

( e) Information collected under this request, particularly cost and pricing data, is treated as Confidential Business Information ( CBI). This information is protected from public release in accordance with the Agency's confidentially regulation, 40 C. F. R. Part 2.201 et seq. 5 ( f) Public Notice Required Prior to ICR Submission to OMB: The Federal Register document required under 5 CFR 1320.8( d), soliciting comments on this collection of information was published on 07/ 26/ 2002, 64 FR 43177. No comments were received.

6. ESTIMATING THE BURDEN AND THE COST OF THE COLLECTION ( a) ESTIMATING RESPONDENT BURDEN ( i) Labor Costs Respondent burden is based on historical data and figures provided during the consultations referred to in paragraph 5( b). Collection activity hours have decreased slightly since last clearance received, due mainly to improved tracking software, and increasing familiarity with EPA reporting requirements.

Collection Activity Hours Per Month Rate Cost 1. Gather information 23.00 $ 90.23 $ 2,075.29 2. Compile and Process 13.25 $ 44.56 $ 590.42 information TOTALS 36.25 $ 2,665.71 In most instances, it is the contractor's project manager who manages effort under the contract and ultimately prepares the progress report. The information gathering is performed by the assistant project manager. Compilation and information processing is performed by a data entry clerk. EPA's Cost Advisory and Financial Analysis Division estimates the loaded rate for an assistant project manager to be $ 90.23 per hour and the loaded rate for a data entry clerk to be $ 44.56 per hour. These figures are consistent with current rates paid under Agency contracts.

EPA currently has 324 active contracts of the type which require progress reports. These 324 contracts each require a monthly progress report ( 324 contracts x 12 months each = 3,888 responses). Respondents take 36.25 hours per month to complete each response. Therefore, total burden for one year is 140,940 hours. The annual cost to respondents based on the figures shown above is $ 10,364,280 ($ 2,665.71 per response x 3,888 responses). Contractors are reimbursed for these costs under the applicable contract.

( ii) Capital/ Start up Costs Because it will not be necessary for respondents to acquire any capital goods to provide the requested information, EPA has not estimated any capital/ start up costs.

( iii) Operating and Maintenance Costs 6 Operating and maintenance costs consist of postage and photocopying, are estimated at $ 10.00 per response x 3,888 responses = $ 38,880.00.

( b) ESTIMATED AGENCY BURDEN AND COST Agency burden estimates were developed by procurement personnel who work with the types of contracts addressed in this clearance. On the average, the same amount of time is required to review the data for each type of contract. Progress reports are reviewed by the Agency Project Officer and Contracting Officer responsible for the contract. Agency burden is calculated as follows:

Collection Activity Hours Per Month Rate Cost Audit/ review data submissions 2 $ 30.00 $ 60.00 Burden hours for the contracting officer and the project officer are combined for a total of two ( 2) hours. Calculations are based on both these individuals being GS 13s. Estimate includes GS 13 salary at $ 31.84 per hour, multiplied by a factor of 1.16 to reflect benefits, which yields a loaded rate of $ 36.93. Therefore, total annual agency burden is summarized as follows: Total burden hours: 3,888 responses x two hours per response = 7,776 hours. Total burden costs: $ 60.00 per response x 3,888 responses = $ 233,280.

( c) REASONS FOR CHANGE IN BURDEN In the last OMB clearance, respondent burden was estimated at 177,045 hours. The current estimate is 140,940 hours for an overall decrease of 36,105 hours. A comparison of the last OMB approval and the present request is presented below:

Prior Approval Present Request 407 contracts 324 contracts 4,884 responses 3,888 responses 36.25 hours per response 36.25 hours per response The total number of contracts and corresponding responses have decreased since the previous approval, resulting in an overall decrease in burden cost.

7. BURDEN STATEMENT The annual public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 36.25 hours per response. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, 7 install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.

To comment on the Agency's need for this information, the accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden, including the use of automated collection techniques, EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID No. OEI 2002 0012, which is available for public viewing at the Office of Environmental Information ( OEI) Docket in the EPA Docket Center ( EPA/ DC), EPA West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW, Washington, DC. The EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is open from 8: 30 a. m. to 4: 30 p. m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Reading Room is ( 202) 566 1744, and the telephone number for the OEI Docket is ( 202) 566 1752. An electronic version of the public docket is available through EPA Dockets ( EDOCKET) at http:// www. epa. gov/ edocket. Use EDOCKET to submit or view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the public docket, and to access those documents in the public docket that are available electronically. Once in the system, select " search," then key in the docket ID number identified above. Also, you can send comments to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street, NW, Washington, DC 20503, Attention: Desk Office for EPA. Please include the EPA Docket ID No. OEI 2002 0012 and OMB Control Number 2030 0005 in any correspondence.


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 226 (Monday, November 24, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 69937-69939]
[FR Doc No: 2014-27708]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-73632; File No. SR-FINRA-2014-046]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Financial Industry Regulatory
Authority, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a
Proposed Rule Change To Modify the Gross Income Assessment Pricing
Structure

November 18, 2014.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on November 7, 2014, Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc.
(``FINRA'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``SEC''
or ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I,
II, and III below, which Items have been prepared by FINRA. FINRA has
designated the proposed rule change as ``establishing or changing a
due, fee or other charge'' under Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act \3\
and Rule 19b-4(f)(2) thereunder,\4\ which renders the proposal
effective upon receipt of this filing by 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    FINRA is proposing to modify the Gross Income Assessment pricing
structure in Section 1(c) of Schedule A to the FINRA By-Laws.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on FINRA's Web
site at http://www.finra.org, at the principal office of FINRA 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, FINRA 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. FINRA 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 proposed rule change is intended to provide limited relief from
the Gross Income Assessment (``GIA'') for some smaller FINRA members
due to the unanticipated effect of a 2009 change to the method of
calculating the assessment. The GIA is one of a few primary revenue
sources that funds FINRA's regulatory operations \5\ and is based on a
firm's annual gross revenue.\6\ In 2008, FINRA established a seven-tier
rate structure to assess the GIA, with a minimum assessment of $1,200.
The tiered rates, which have remained unchanged, are as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ FINRA's primary member regulatory pricing structure also
includes the Trading Activity Fee, the Personnel Assessment (``PA'')
and the Branch Office Assessment, as well as the processing of new
and continuing membership applications.
    \6\ Schedule A to the FINRA By-Laws defines gross revenue for
assessment purposes as total income as reported on FOCUS form Part
II or IIA, excluding commodities income.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (1) $1,200.00 on annual gross revenue up to $1 million;
    (2) 0.1215% of annual gross revenue greater than $1 million up to
$25 million;
    (3) 0.2599% of annual gross revenue greater than $25 million up to
$50 million;
    (4) 0.0518% of annual gross revenue greater than $50 million up to
$100 million;
    (5) 0.0365% of annual gross revenue greater than $100 million up to
$5 billion;
    (6) 0.0397% of annual gross revenue greater than $5 billion up to
$25 billion; and
    (7) 0.0855% of annual gross revenue greater than $25 billion.
    As a result of this structure, GIA revenues are derived
overwhelmingly from medium-sized and larger firms. Due to rebates,
firms with revenues of $1 million or less effectively have paid no GIA
since 2008.
    In November 2009, the Commission approved changes to the GIA and PA
intended to help FINRA achieve a more consistent and predictable
funding stream to carry out its regulatory mandate.\7\ The economic and
industry downturns in 2008 and 2009 had exposed FINRA's vulnerability
to year-to-year volatility in members' gross revenues. GIA revenues in
2009 dropped precipitously due to write-offs

taken in late 2008, particularly by the largest securities firms.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 61042 (November 20,
2009), 74 FR 62616 (November 30, 2009) (Order Approving File No. SR-
FINRA-2009-057).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To ameliorate this vulnerability and smooth out the volatility
inherent in the GIA, FINRA amended Schedule A to base the GIA on the
greater of (1) the tier rate applied to a member's annual gross revenue
from the preceding calendar year (``current year GIA'') or (2) a three-
year average of GIA to be calculated by adding the current year GIA to
the GIA assessed on the member in the previous two calendar years and
dividing by three (``averaged GIA'') (together ``the reformulated
calculation''). Thus, the change was intended to maintain the GIA rate
structure, while building a buffer against industry downturns.
    While the reformulated calculation has been effective in
stabilizing FINRA's GIA revenues, an unanticipated impact of the new
structure has been that firms can be locked in to a higher GIA as the
result of a spike in gross revenue during a single year. The following
example of a hypothetical Tier 2 firm illustrates the effect:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                GIA based
                                          Prior year assessable    GIA based on    reformulated     Variance in
                 Year                      gross FOCUS revenue      prior year      calculation       GIA fee
                                                                   revenue only   (current rule)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2008..................................  $4 million..............          $4,860             n/a             n/a
2009..................................  $4 million..............           4,860             n/a             n/a
2010..................................  $4 million..............           4,860          $4,860              $0
2011..................................  $10 million.............          12,150          12,150               0
2012..................................  $6 million..............           7,290           8,100             810
2013..................................  $4 million..............           4,860           8,370           3,510
2014..................................  $3 million..............           3,645           6,705           3,060
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Thus, in years 2012 through 2014, the firm would be assessed an
amount based on the average GIA that is significantly greater than the
current GIA calculation, despite declining or flattening revenues
during those years. This is due to the knock-on effect that the higher
GIA fee in 2011 has created on the rolling three-year average
calculations.
    The original purpose of the previous rule change was to minimize
the impact on FINRA revenues of down years suffered by mid-sized and
large firms. FINRA had not contemplated the effect that intermittent
significant increases in gross revenue could have on the GIA in
subsequent years for smaller firms, where the relative impact can be
greater. Accordingly, the proposed rule change would eliminate the
averaged GIA component of the assessment calculation where a firm's
prior year gross revenue does not exceed $25 million; i.e., those firms
that fall within the lowest two tiers. In those circumstances, the firm
would be assessed the current year GIA.
    Based on 2013 FOCUS revenues, FINRA estimates that 87% (1,365) of
the firms with revenues of $25 million or less would benefit from the
pricing change. FINRA further estimates that the change would result in
savings to those firms of approximately $3.5 million, or approximately
2.0% of total GIA revenue. FINRA found that the proposed assessment
approach would have had similar impacts as applied to firm revenues in
2011 and 2012; in other words, the back tested impact is generally
consistent for the past three years' worth of FOCUS data for active
firms. FINRA notes that no firms would be worse off due to the pricing
change. Since the current reformulated calculation assesses the greater
of current year GIA or averaged GIA, the firms that would benefit from
the change are those firms that have been subject to the higher
averaged GIA. The remaining firms have paid only the current year GIA,
which would continue under the proposed rule change, even if their
revenues decrease.
    FINRA recognizes this effect of averaging potentially affects all
firms, so FINRA also considered the impact of eliminating the averaging
component from the remaining tiers. Based on an analysis, FINRA found
that a significantly lower number of firms with revenues in these
higher revenue tiers were impacted by the averaging calculation.
However, extending this pricing change to these firms would have a
material financial impact on the funding of FINRA's regulatory program.
    Therefore, FINRA is proposing to apply the modified pricing
structure to firms that do not exceed the $25 million tier. The
relative negative impact of the current calculation falls
disproportionately on those firms with gross revenues of $25 million or
less, while the revenue impact on FINRA would be less at that
threshold. At the same time, with a $25 million threshold, the
reformulated calculation that includes the averaged GIA would continue
to apply to the largest concentration of firms with potentially
significant year-to-year volatility in gross revenues.
    FINRA has filed the proposed rule change for immediate
effectiveness. FINRA is proposing that the implementation date of the
proposed rule change will be January 1, 2015.
2. Statutory Basis
    FINRA believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the
provisions of Section 15A(b)(5) of the Act,\8\ which requires, among
other things, that FINRA rules provide for the equitable allocation of
reasonable dues, fees and other charges among members and issuers and
other persons using any facility or system that FINRA operates or
controls. The Commission previously found both the current year GIA and
the reformulated calculation to be an equitable allocation of
reasonable fees.\9\ FINRA believes the proposed modification to the GIA
pricing structure remains reasonable, since it continues to apply
either the current year GIA or the averaged GIA to all members and does
not increase the assessment rates. FINRA also believes the proposed
rule change retains an equitable allocation of fees, as it would
continue to apply the reformulated calculation on members that
accounted for approximately 98% of the revenue from GIA in 2013, while
potentially lessening, under very particular circumstances, the
assessment on members that accounted for only about 2% of revenue from
the GIA. Furthermore, the proposed rule change is both reasonable and
equitable with respect to the firms in the $25 million tier, as no firm
within that tier would be worse off. Instead, the proposed rule change
would align those firms that have had to pay the higher averaged GIA

with those firms that have only paid the current year GIA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-3(b)(5).
    \9\ See Securities Exchange Release No. 57474 (March 11, 2008),
73 FR 14517 (March 18, 2008) (Order Approving File No. SR-FINRA-
2008-001) and Securities Exchange Act Release No. 61042 (November
20, 2009), 74 FR 62616 (November 30, 2009) (Order Approving File No.
SR-FINRA-2009-057).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The GIA is predicated on the fact that larger firms individually
require greater regulatory resources. The proposed rule change largely
keeps in place a GIA pricing structure that, as the Commission noted in
approving the reformulated calculation in SR-FINRA-2009-057, ``is
reasonable in that it achieves a generally equitable impact across
FINRA's membership and correlates the fees assessed to the regulatory
services provided by FINRA.'' \10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See supra note 9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    FINRA does not believe that the proposed rule change will result in
any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposed rule change would
reduce the costs of approximately one-third of FINRA members. As
described in Item II.A. above, FINRA considered various thresholds for
applying the modified GIA pricing structure to strike the appropriate
balance between providing limited relief to smaller firms negatively
impacted by the current GIA calculation, while maintaining a pricing
structure that adequately supports its regulatory programs and
minimizes revenue volatility.

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \11\ and paragraph (f)(2) of Rule 19b-4
thereunder.\12\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \12\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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-FINRA-2014-046 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-FINRA-2014-046. 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 FINRA. 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-FINRA-2014-046 and should be
submitted on or before December 15, 2014.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-27708 Filed 11-21-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P