Meeting Summary/Minutes

The Good Neighbor Environmental Board Meeting

El Camino Real Hotel

El Paso, Texas

September 24-25, 2008

Administration: U. S. Environmental Protection Agency

Office of Cooperative Environmental Management

Note:  The members of the Good Neighbor Environmental Board have
requested that the following caveat be inserted into all Board meeting
minutes:

The minutes that follow reflect what was conveyed during the course of
the meeting being summarized.  The Board is not responsible for any
potential inaccuracies that may appear in the minutes as a result of
information conveyed.  Moreover, the Board advises that additional
information sources be consulted in cases where any concern may exist
about statistics or any other information contained within the minutes.

Table of Contents

Wednesday, September 24, 2008

	Welcome and Introductions	 2

	Remembrance	 2

	Regional Welcome: 	 2

		By José Rodriguez, El Paso County Attorney

	The El Paso Smelter Issue	 4

		Bob Currey, Center for Environmental Resource Management

	Border Environment Cooperation Commission: New Project	 6

		By Daniel Chacón-Anaya and Maria-Elena Giner

	Regional Approach to Water Supply-El Paso Water Utilities	 8

		By Héctor Gonzáles, El Paso Water Utilities

	National Coordinators Meeting Update	11

		By Enrique Manzanilla, EPA, San Francisco and

		Alheli Baños-Keener, San Diego Border Office

	Public Comments	12

	Board Report Outs	12

		GNEB 12th Report Working Meeting	13

Thursday, September 25, 2008

	Business Meeting

		Call to Order	18

		Approval of Minutes	18

		Other Business:

		OIG Border 2012 Report Discussion	18			The White House CEQ Update	20

		Flooding in Nogales, Sonora, Mexico	21

		GNEB 2009 CY Schedule	21

		GNEB 12th Report Working Meeting	22

		Public Comments (None)

		Adjourn	24

	Appendix: Participants	25

The Good Neighbor Environmental Board Meeting

El Paso, Texas

September 24-25, 2008

Meeting Summary/Minutes

Day 1 –Wednesday, September 24, 2008					             (9:30 a.m.)

Background

The Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB or the Board) is an
independent advisory committee that is managed by the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA).  It advises the U.S. President and Congress on
good-neighbor practices along the U.S.-Mexico border.  The focus is on
the environmental and infrastructure needs of the U.S. states that are
contiguous to Mexico.

Welcome and Opening Remarks

Paul Ganster, Ph.D. Chair, welcomed Board members and guests to the Good
Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB) meeting, and described the nature of
the GNEB, which provides advice to the President and the U.S. Congress
mainly through the issuance of annual reports.  Board members represent
a wide-variety of governmental and non-governmental organizations, and
tribal groups, that focus on environmental issues along the Mexican
border.

Rafael DeLeon, Director, OCEM, thanked Carlos Rincón for the field trip
to the tire piles and cement factory and expressed his condolences to
the families of Carlos Marín and Arturo Herrera, who have provided a
public service to the border community.  Mr. DeLeon asked for a moment
of silence in remembrance.  Chair Ganster asked members of the Board to
introduce themselves.

Regional Welcome

José Rodríguez, El Paso County Attorney, welcomed Board members and
guests to the bi-national community of El Paso, and extended the welcome
from County Judge Cobos, who was unable to attend due to budget
hearings.  The El Paso County Attorney’s office is involved with
environmental enforcement by prosecuting all health and environmental
misdemeanors, such as illegal dumping, unlawful discharges of fluids on
the ground, and illegal burning. The environmental fine is determined by
the amount and type of illegal activity and substances.  The
Attorney’s Office employs a full-time environmental prosecutor,
Christina Viesco-Santos, who vigorously prosecutes cases, such as
improper septic systems and illegal dumping of construction debris.

The recently held 8th Annual Environmental  Summit was a collaborative
effort with the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ), the
City and County of El Paso , the non-profit “Keep El Paso
Beautiful,” and other interested groups and citizens.  This year, the
conference focused on illegal dumping of construction and demolition
debris.  Thanks to the legislative efforts of State Senator Eliot
Shapleigh, El Paso has the first environmental court that exclusively
prosecutes environmental crimes that affect health, the quality of life,
tourism, and economic development.

With regard to bi-national issues, his office has limited jurisdiction,
but there has been little cross-border dumping from the City of Juárez.
 A major issue was transport of hazardous wastes across the border.  An
Environmental Task Force was established with over 30 agencies involved
in environmental enforcement, such as TCEQ, Texas Parks and Wildlife
Department, the U. S. Border Patrol, the U.S. Attorney’s Office, the
Justice Department, the city and county police departments, and the
sheriff’s department.  The purpose was to collaborate and share
information about environmental pollution and infractions.  Also, a
member of his office, Christina Viesco-Santos, attended the first
meeting of the U.S./Mexico Border 2012 Environmental Program, and is a
member of the Border 2012 Environmental Compliance, Enforcement and
Stewardship Task Force.

A major issue at the border area is the border fence.  A suit was filed
by several agencies and organizations against the Department of Homeland
Security to stop the construction of the fence until the federal
government complies with federal, state, and local laws.  The Department
Secretary had waived the federal statues including the National
Environmental Protection Act, the Clean Air Act, the Safe Drinking Water
Act, the Endangered Species statute, the Historic Preservation statute,
and some Tribal statutes.  The Federal Circuit Court dismissed the case,
so now they can petition the U.S. Supreme Court for a review.

With regard to El Paso’s good neighbor relations with Mexico,
bi-national collaboration and cooperation is essential because the area
shares economic, cultural, and social ties.  The border fence does not
convey good neighbor, bi-national cooperation.

Questions and Answers

The issues of concern stated by Board members included the problem of
scrap tires sent to Juárez, Mexico, from the U. S.; the lack of
cross-deputization programs between the local and federal governments
for enforcement; bi-national cooperation, and cooperation between the
Attorney General’s Office, the TCEQ, and the Border 2012 Environmental
Compliance, Enforcement and Stewardship Task Force.

Mr. Rodríguez responded to these concerns by stating that:

At a recent conference of the Border 2012 group, a mayor of a border
town in Mexico suggested that the U.S. pass legislation to require
puncturing of tires prior to disposal because then they would be of
limited use to the Mexican operators.

Discussions have been held with the U. S. Customs and Border Protection
agency regarding cross-deputization, but their focus is on illegal
border crossings.  He would be glad to prosecute cases involving federal
environmental crimes, if he was given the legal rights to do this.

In regard to bi-national issues, their Mexican counterparts have been
invited to attend the Environmental Summits, but they have not yet
developed unified programs.

The cooperation between his office and the TCEQ and the Border 2012
staff has been excellent.

Stephen Niemeyer, TCEQ, suggested that Mr. Rodríguez review GNEB’s
10th Annual Report on the border fence issues in terms of border
environmental protection and border security.

The El Paso Smelter Issue

Robert Currey, Managing Director, Center for Environmental Resource
Management, University of Texas at El Paso, stated that he serves on the
Management Committee of the Southwest Consortium for Environmental
Research and Policy (SCERP) and on the U.S./Mexico Joint Advisory
Committee on the Improvement of Air Quality that was established under
the La Paz Agreement.  He works with three Border 2012 groups—the
Tri-State Regional Work Group, the Binational Air Policy Forum, and the
Environmental Health Work Group.  Mr. Currey would present an overview
of the issues concerning the American Smelting and Refining Company’s
(ASARCO) smelter in El Paso.

Speaking from the viewpoint of the U.S./Mexico Joint Advisory Committee,
and using a series of slides, Mr. Currey delineated the location of the
Smelter at the point where Texas, Chihuahua, and New Mexico come
together on the map, which was 2-3 miles from the GNEB meeting location.
 In 2002, ASARCO applied to renew its air quality permit and the renewal
has been contested.  The smelter was issued a permit in 1992 by the
Texas Air Control Board for a 10-year period.  In 1993, the Smelter
implemented a CONTOP (Continuous Top Feed Oxygen Processing) plant that
reduced pollution and they have spent millions of dollars modernizing
its plants.  The 820 foot stack emits a plume high in the air and
further downwind than previously.  The primary product now is copper,
but previously included lead and zinc, which had polluted the soil of
the nearby communities.

Mr. Currey delineated the history of health problems, such as lead
poisoning and possibly multiple sclerosis.  ASARCO had to pay
considerable fines to EPA in 1999, regarding Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA) waste disposal.  In 2000, studies revealed high
levels of lead in the soil of residential properties.  EPA confirmed the
contamination and ASARCO is in the process of cleaning up the top six
inches of soil in the yards of nearby neighborhoods.  Several public
citizen groups have contested the permit renewal for health reasons.
Supporters of the permit renewal are former employees and businesses.

In 2005, an administrative law review by two judges addressed several
questions, two of which were: Will the operation of the smelter cause or
contribute to air pollution?  Does ASARCO’s compliance history warrant
renewal?  After several hearings, the TCEQ issued an order that start-up
would require meeting several maintenance and technical conditions.
ASARCO is in compliance with the order, but the ownership is in
bankruptcy and may not be able to complete the required conditions.  EPA
has demanded a new source review with much higher standards than for a
renewal.

The Joint Advisory Committee (JAC) has made the following
recommendations:

A new source review by the TCEQ of the air pollution permitting
requirements.

Whether legacy issues of the plant’s operations merit cleanup before
closure.

The establishment of a Bi-national Citizens Advisory Committee

A comprehensive on-and-off site sampling of the area to determine the
past contamination and what would be the future dispositions of
emissions.

Questions and Comments

Sally Spener, IBWC, commented on the issues regarding contamination of
the American Canal and contamination from the ASARCO site, which has
prevented the re-building of the upper section of the canal.  The U. S.
Section of the IBWC has become a party to the bankruptcy case with a
claim against ASARCO for funds to do the cleanup.  Mr. Currey responded
that there may not be any money to do the cleanup.

Mike Connolly, Campo Kumeyaay Nation, asked three questions: (1) Was
there any groundwater contamination? (2) Why did former employees want
the plant to run again? (3) Why are no additional environmental impact
statements required?

Mr. Currey responded to the questions as follows:

There have been no significant reports of groundwater contamination.

Former employees had good paying jobs and could not always grasp the
long-term health consequences.

The TCEQ reviewed the Executive Director’s report which stated that
there were no scientific, regulatory, or legal reasons to deny the
permit.  At this point, ASARCO is in compliance with the order.

Christopher Brown, NM State University, asked for an explanation of the
JAC recommendation regarding on-site and off-site sampling in the U.S.
and Mexico and the modeling that has been done on the distribution and
background levels of contamination.  Mr. Currey explained that the
debate centered on the 9-10 years when hazardous waste was being
recycled at the plant, and the major concern was about persistent
organic and nuclear pollutants.  Looking at the modeling and the
downwind dispersion in the IH-10 (Interstate Highway 10) corridor,
specifically for heavy metals, many other industries could have
contributed to it, such as chrome recovery operations and fertilizer
plants.  Tests on the blood levels of children did not show anything
unusual.

Allyson Siwik, GRIP, asked if Texas had any financial assurance
requirements for cleanup.  Mr. Niemeyer responded that when they issued
the permit, ASARCO could not start up operations unless they met all of
the requirements in the Executive Director’s report.  If ASARCO fails
to complete the requirements the matter would be referred to the State
Office of Administrative Hearing for a contested case hearing.  Due to
the pending litigation, he was unable to comment further.  Mr. Currey
added that banks were asking for certificates of inspection before they
would grant a loan.

Border Environment Cooperation Commission (BECC): New Project Areas

Daniel Chacón -Anaya, General Manager, Border Environment Cooperation
Commission (BECC, or COCEF in Spanish), described the work of BECC and
in new project areas.  The first slide showed the sectors that they
worked with, of which water was at the center.  The climate change
challenges included the threat to water, which would require having good
relations with the public and private sectors.  Waste management would
be up-scaled to handle waste more efficiently.  A continuous issue is
road paving, because most Mexican cities have low paving coverage.  Two
new projects related to energy would be described with PowerPoint
slides.

BECC’s work could be grouped into seven programs, as follows:

Certification of clinical assistants’ program

Environmental management that includes programs and projects in Region 6
and Region 9 in coordination with EPA personnel

An EPA grant for Border 2012 programs

Strategic planning program to define the long-term and mid-term needs
for the border area.

Production of reports, projects, studies to increase knowledge to inform
the border communities about the construction projects

Public participation and community-capacity building to share the
benefits and possible increases in tariffs.  For example, of the 141
certified projects, there was only one community that did not want the
project.

Build-up of community-capacity that enhances the ability of communities
to handle, understand, and promote their own environmental projects.

Of the 141 certified projects, worth $3.1 billion, 75 are in Mexico and
are worth $2 billion; and 76 are in the U.S. and are worth $1.1 billion.
 The state of Texas has the most investment in the U.S. and the state of
Baja California in Mexico, because these are major population centers
that have major environmental infrastructure challenges.

Two new energy projects are a methane recovery project using manure to
produce electrical power, and a project converting grease to a
bio-diesel fuel to use at gas stations and for refineries to blend with
diesel fuel.  The cost of the latter project is $35 million, with the
final capacity to be the production of 25 million gallons of bio-diesel
fuel per year.

Mr. Chacón-Anaya described 86 other projects in the pipeline including
solid waste, paving, energy, water, wastewater, clinical assistance,
technical assistance, and construction financing.  For example, $35
million in financing has been used for technical assistance.  The Border
Environment Infrastructure Program (BEIF) program has been very
successful.  In water distribution, Mexican cities have 96 percent
coverage; and sewer coverage has increased from 70 to 86 percent since
1995.  At present the border area is above the rest of Mexico in
wastewater coverage, which has only 35 percent coverage.

Mr. Chacón-Anaya described the funding situation, which has varied over
the years.  The trend was $50 million a year, but in 2007, the proposal
was reduced to $26 million, and for 2008 around $20-25 million was
approved, but for 2009 only $10 million is proposed.  The sharp decline
in funding is problematic because the needs are still unmet.  Mexico has
also matched funds for BEIF money.  The funds were used for water
treatment plants, water distribution systems, wastewater treatment
plants, and sewer collection systems.  In 2005, 149 applications for
funding were received, 135 were applicable, and only 27 were funded.  In
the next period, 222 applications were received, 152 were applicable,
and 71 were funded.

Maria-Elena Giner, Deputy General Manager, BECC, explained that even
though U.S. funds are used on the Mexican side they have to have a
positive trans-border impact related to water and/or wastewater that may
reduce water-borne diseases.  The $500 million in BEIF funds have been
leveraged to fund $1.5 billion worth of infrastructure.  At present,
BECC is working on needs assessments with Mexico and the U.S. states of
Texas, California, and Arizona.  The unmet needs in Mexico are close to
$1 billion for basic water, sewer, wastewater, and solid waste sectors.
The sectoral plans are completed regarding paving and solid waste, such
as scrap tires, and a new project is being launched in the Rio
Grande/Rio Bravo Basin to encourage communities to get involved in
improving these rivers.

BECC is working on regional and border-level objectives to measure
results.  The goals are being discussed with the stakeholders and other
entities, such as Border 2012.  To get an assessment of the public
health and the environment, organizations and agencies need to
coordinate and cooperate through synergies, consensus, regulations,
funds, and initiatives.  Indicators need to be developed to assess
whether objectives have been met.

With the EPA grants and Border 2012 funds for environmental management,
there are 93 projects in Region 9, of which 72 are in the pipeline, and
21 have been completed.  In Region 9, there are 21 new projects selected
this year at $1.1 billion.  There are four Region 6 projects underway
and 40 proposals for new projects.  Two new projects include one in
which two communities will assess the capacity for methane production to
become part of EPA’s Methane to Market program.  The other project in
Reynosa and Matamoros is to collect all of the household hazardous waste
at various sites in the city, then send the waste to legal disposal
sites.  In the Rio Grande Valley, near El Paso and Juárez, we are going
to assess the health conditions of residents in 11 small communities
related to the EPA-funded projects.

For information management, documents are being transformed in a
systematic way into databases so we can have information collected and
processed as needed for quality assurance.  Standardization of documents
is difficult, but is needed for entry into databases.

In regard to Border 2012 programs, there are four common areas: water
pollution, air pollution, soil, and environmental health.  Other areas
to consider are energy, irrigation water, climate change, the loss of
bio-diversity, and planning for sustainability in the border
communities.

BECC is trying to reduce greenhouse gas and its use of energy by
reducing employee car-driving by car pooling and teleconferencing,
reducing the use of paper, and planting of trees.

Questions and Answers

Patti Krebs, Industrial Environmental Association, asked if the states
in Mexico had any plans to join the Western Climate Initiative and how
the carbon reduction from planting trees would be calculated.  Mr.
Chacón-Anaya responded that Mexico’s federal government is taking
part in that effort.  Mexico’s Border States are interested in working
with the U.S. states’ initiatives by partnering with them on climate
change.  A group is working on the method to calculate the carbon
reduction.

Christopher Brown asked if the PowerPoint presentation could be posted
on the GNEB website, and Chair Ganster thought it could be done.

Regional Approach to Water Supply-El Paso Water Utilities

Héctor González, Government Affairs Manager, El Paso Water Utilities,
discussed the organization, the issues faced, and the regional approach
to water supply.  El Paso is located in the Chihuahuan Desert with the
Hueco Bolsón and the Mesilla Bolsón as the primary sources of water,
plus the Rio Grande River.  The utility has purchased land outside of El
Paso for the right to import water from these ranches.

The major drivers are planning, regional issues and challenges, water
conservation, ground water management, reclaimed water, stormwater
management, partnerships, and natural resource stewardship.  Ed
Archuleta, President and CEO, has described the basic foundation for a
successful utility as having good policies and, good resources,
planning, and technical knowledge.

Under planning, the utility has a 50-year Water Resource Management
Plan, a 10-year Strategic Plan, a 10-year Capital Improvement Plan, a
five-year Financial Plan, and does customer surveys every other year.

El Paso Water Utilities has taken the lead in groundwater modeling and
research in cooperation with the University of Texas at El Paso, New
Mexico State University, and Texas A. & M. University.  Federal funding
is being sought for research.  The utility is involved regionally with
several organizations:

Tri-Regional Planning that includes Juárez, El Paso, and New Mexico

Paso Del Norte Water Task Force with representatives from Texas, New
Mexico, and Mexico

Paso Del Norte Water Group, which includes the business community in
Juarez and El Paso.  Juárez is included because they share ground water
and surface water supplies.  With the growing population there is a need
for more infrastructure and regional water management policies

Some of the accomplishments between the El Paso and Juarez utilities
include a December 1999 Memorandum of Understanding to agree to work
together, to meet, and to exchange information on technology and ground
water modeling along the river, and best water resource management
practices.  In the area of water reclamation, the Reclaimed Water
Program continues to expand.  The criteria for planning projects
includes a benefit to both countries, surface water alternatives, using
groundwater data, maximizing the use of existing infrastructure,
minimizing costs, and the best way to incorporate these projects within
ongoing initiatives.

Some of the regional challenges of working bi-nationally include
differences in the laws, sources of water, planning approaches, private
vs. public governance, resources, and leadership changes.  In El Paso,
the governing board makes decisions on budget and policies, whereas in
Mexico, policies are governed by the National Water Commission or the
State.

Some of the opportunities for cooperation are the ability to exchange
information on bi-national projects and to cooperate in efforts to
reduce the amount of pumping and preserve ground water.  They also have
a Joint Public Information Campaign centered on water reclamation and
they used television to educate people about water reclamation and
conservation.  Another benefit is to be able to present bi-national
projects for funding to both governments in Mexico City and Washington,
DC.  More recently, the private sector has been included to assist in
carrying out projects and providing political support.

The major change that will affect the water supply is the arrival and
projected increase of a large number of troops at Fort Bliss, which
would more than double the population over the next 20 years.  Over $800
million would be spent on capital improvements over the next 10 years.
Two facilities, the TecH20 Learning Center and the Desalination Plant,
are on Fort Bliss property.  The Learning Center is used to educate the
public about water issues.

The water conservation program has been a success.  Water usage has been
reduced from 220 gallons to 134 gallons per person per day by the end of
2007.  Peak demands have been reduced from 195 million gallons per day
to 154 million gallons per day, which defers about $300 million in
capital expenditures.  Groundwater levels have declined because Juárez
is 100 percent dependent on ground water, but less pumping is occurring
under conservation.  The reclaimed water program will be expanded to
supply water for irrigation and industrial use.

Recently, the responsibility for managing storm water was given to the
Board by the El Paso City Council.  The agency agreed to set aside a
separate fee dedicated to storm water management, planning, and
maintenance.  El Paso’s water rates are relatively low in comparison
to other cities.

The El Paso Water Utilities partnered with the Department of Defense in
completing the desalination plant, which produces 27.5 million gallons a
day.  Another area of cooperation is with the BECC and the North
American Development Bank (NADBank) by participating in operator
training at the TecH20 Center for utility officials from both sides of
the border. The new laboratory is considering testing water from Juárez
and outlying areas, so many of the projects are bi-national in nature.

In conclusion, we have diversified our resources, conserved and
reclaimed water, and may be importing water from outlying areas.
Increasing communication, continuing regional planning, and including
people from the public and private sectors in the planning process is
part of our future goals.

Questions and Answers

In response to a question about private funding, Mr. González responded
that they do not have any private funding, but have been successful in
obtaining federal funding for a total of $12 million over three years.

Ms Krebs, IEA, asked if the storm water utility was a special district.
Mr. González said that the storm water utility is a separate unit, but
is incorporated into the agency and shares many of the same staff.  Ms.
Krebs also wanted to know how the fees were structured.  Mr. González
replied that residential, commercial, and industrial fees are based on
different aspects.  For residences, it is based on square footage and
imperviousness of soil.  On the commercial side the fees were divided up
tenant by tenant.  Industrial sites have the largest areas and the
largest fees.

In response to a question from Michael Dorsey, San Diego DEH, about
replenishment of the ground water, Mr. González noted that there is
some recharge, but very little rainwater.  Importation of water and
desalination would provide some water resources, as well as
diversification and reduction of demand.  The 50-year Water Resource
Management Plan is looking at this.

Mr. Guerrero, USDA, asked if landowners that sell property rights could
get assistance in how to preserve the surface water for agriculture.
Mr. González said the water right leases are for 50-75 years for water
from the river, but that most of the leases are for small properties.
The large tracts would probably be used for industrial purposes.  They
work closely with Texas A. & M. University and the TecH20 Center to
encourage people to use native plants.

Dr. Brown asked if they had included the City of Juárez in their
100-year planning assumptions for ground water resources, and what the
plan was for the disposal of concentrate at the desalination plant.  Mr.
González said that the modeling plans included pumping of ground water
by the City of Juárez.  For the disposal of concentrate, the
concentrate is piped 22 miles away from the plant and re-injected into
the ground.  The quality of the brine being injected is better than what
is taken out of the ground.  Very extensive environmental studies were
done and this was the most feasible option.

Enrique Manzanilla, EPA, asked if the Department of Defense was
contributing to the price tag for expansion and improvements at Fort
Bliss.  Mr. González replied that in exchange for the land leased from
DOD, they have given them a reduction in their water rates.  The $800
million is an estimate and is based on a variety of options, such as
importation of water.  DOD provided some funds for environmental studies
for the desalination plant and for test drilling.

National Coordinators’ Meeting Update

Enrique Manzanilla, USEPA, Region 9, San Francisco, reported on the
National Coordinators Meeting, which was set up under the 1983 La Paz
Agreement for the two agencies, U.S. EPA and SEMARNAT (Secretary of
Environment and Natural Resources) in Mexico to meet on a regular basis
to report accomplishments under the umbrella of Border 2012.  He
introduced Alhelí Baños-Keener, of the San Diego Border Office and the
U.S/Mexico Border Program, to provide a brief overview of the National
Coordinators meeting.

Alheli Baños-Keener announced that she would be the EPA staff support
for completion of the 12th Annual Report.  She discussed the EPA Office
of the Inspector General (OIG) Report and provided an update on the
Border 2012 grants.  The Border 2012 Mid-Course Refinements provided an
opportunity to review the objectives and emerging priorities.  The Joint
Communiqué at the 2008 National Coordinators’ Meeting announced what
the goals and focus would be for the next five years.  For example, one
of the priorities is reduction of greenhouse gas emissions by building
information capacity, expanding voluntary reduction programs, and
developing institutional capacity to manage electronic waste and used
oil.

The Mid-Course Refinements include input from the ten U.S./Mexico Border
States, 26 U.S. tribes, communities in Mexico, and federal and state
environmental offices.  The MCR formalizes the program’s focus,
reaffirms commitments, and incorporates emerging issues.  The
significant changes that were made in each of the goals include the
following:

Reducing Water Contamination was expanded to include connecting
additional homes to potable water supply, wastewater collection and
treatment systems, and to improve quality of transboundary waters.

The Air Quality Goal added as a new objective to build Border Greenhouse
Gas Information Capacity and to expand voluntary, cost-effective
greenhouse gas emission reduction programs.

Reducing Land Contamination was expanded to focus on clean up of waste
tire piles through prevention of build-up at the source, recycling, and
management of waste streams, including electronic waste and lead acid
batteries.

Environmental Health was modified to focus on minimizing exposure to
household pesticides, obsolete and surplus pesticides and using less
toxic pesticides.

The name of this goal has changed to Enhanced Joint Readiness for
Environmental Response and the objective of uplifting four sister city
plans each year, so that any given plan is only four years old, was
added.  Also added was supplementing 75 percent of the Joint Contingency
Plans with certified training, risk analysis, and capacity building by
2012.

Improving Environmental Performance was still relevant, so the
objectives were only slightly modified.

In regard to the OIG report the Office of International Affairs is the
lead for EPA and they will respond to the Report by December 2008.  The
recommendations were to develop a strategic plan, operational guidance,
and performance measures.

Ms. Baños-Keener announced that 65 proposals for Border 2012 funds were
received based on the criteria of measurable results, leveraging,
partnerships, and self-sustainability in FY2008.  Twenty-eight projects
were selected.  The results will be released soon and GNEB will receive
a copy. In 2007, $500 for every $1000 was leveraged.

Enrique Manzanilla added that under the Household Hazardous Waste
Collection Program promotional campaigns and workshops are being used to
encourage recycling.  The City of Laredo was awarded a $300,000
Community Action for Renewed Environment (CARE) grant from EPA to
conduct a stakeholder, city-wide intervention plan of preventive
education to address environmental priorities.  The priorities include
reduction of levels of lead, mercury, and arsenic, untreated wastewater,
air pollution, illegal dumping, and port-related commercial activities.
Several cities have begun scrap tire reduction through co-processing.  A
cleanup of a lead smelter in Tijuana should be completed by mid-October.

Public Comments:  There were no public comments

Board Member Report Outs

Rafael Guerrero, Natural Resources Manager, USDA, said that USDA plans
to continue its planning process at a meeting with Mexico to be held in
mid-October, 2008.  Meeting participants will include staff from the
Natural Resources Conservation Service, agronomists, plant material
experts, and a hydrologist.

Shannon Sorzano, Deputy Assistant Secretary for International Affairs,
HUD, announced that over $1 million dollars was given to the
Hispanic-Serving Institution Assisting Community (HSIAC) grant program
for Colonias involved in energy-saving programs and activities.  The
focus is on loans to upgrade homes to Energy Star levels, build
affordable green houses, and passive solar homes.  Quick tips have been
published on how to save money by taking certain energy-saving steps.

Edward Elbrock reported that the Malpai Borderlands Group is working
with Homeland Security on issues regarding the security fence.  The
fence will not be built where there are natural physical barriers that
vehicles cannot drive over or through, so there may be some open space
for animals to pass through.

Michael Dorsey, Chief, Community Health Division, San Diego County
Department of Environmental Health, said he made a presentation at the
California Environmental Health Association Conference on the activities
of the Board and had presented GNEB’s 10th and 11th Annual Reports.
He wrote a brief article about GNEB, which will be published in the
organization’s journal.  On the state level, the child lead prevention
program’s budget will be cut by $1 million dollars.  The vector
control program has been working on reduction of mosquito vectors that
carry the West Nile Virus.  In San Diego County they had 18 human cases.
 They do flyovers over communities and locate the green swimming pools
and storm water conveyance systems which may be breeding mosquitoes.

John Wood, County Commissioner, Precinct 2, Cameron County, Brownsville,
Texas, reported on the damage from Hurricane Dolly, which has left flood
waters in the northern part of the county.  The irrigation districts did
not want the water pumped into their ditches because of possible
contamination.  Debris removal is still a problem in the Corpus Christi
areas.  Another problem is with the border fencing in Cameron County;
however, one of the criteria of the appropriation was for Homeland
Security to talk to the leaders and property owners about their issues.
Wind power generation is increasing in the area.

Lastly, to improve access between Mexico and the U.S., the West Rail
Relocation Project will move the rail outside the cities of Brownsville
and Matamoras to improve safety.  Brownsville wants to expand the
Veterans Bridge to improve the flow of truck traffic.  Mexico has funds
and is willing to expand the bridge.  Also, electronic billboards will
be used to control traffic based on trucking companies and freight
forwarders information.

Stephen Niemeyer said his TCEQ staff will be the liaison with the Laredo
Health Department on the Community Action for Renewable Energy (CARE)
project.  A major problem currently is flooding in the Rio Grande due to
water releases by Mexico from the Rio Conchos.  All of the reservoirs
are full and the Presidio-Ojinaga Port of Entry is under water.
Conference calls will he held with all of the county judges on the U.S.
side regarding the full international reservoirs. Mr. Niemeyer reported
on several meetings that would take place: The Border 2012 Environmental
Health Work Group on October 15, 2008; the Border Energy Forum of the
General Land Office in Monterrey, Mexico from October 23-25, 2008; and
the Border 2012 Environmental Compliance, Enforcement and Stewardship
Task Force, will meet in October, 2008.  He also reported that Diana
Borja, formerly a GNEB member, had retired at the end of August, 2008.

Commissioner Wood mentioned an excellent video developed by the
California Department of Water Resources explaining the needs for
infrastructure, and water and waste water levies that might be
instructive for the Board to review.

GNEB 12th Report Working Meeting: “Innovation, Including Incentives to
Prevent/Reduce Pollution of the U.S./Mexico Border.”

Chair Ganster introduced Mary Spock¸ an OCEM contractor, who would be
helping in writing, editing, and putting the report together.  The
challenges that faced the workgroups included:

Tightening up and refocusing the case studies to make sure the case
studies are related to the general thrust.

Discussing the overall concept of the report, the focus, and the
important stories.

Developing conclusions and recommendations.

Chair Ganster turned the meeting over to Diane Austin to facilitate and
focus the workgroup discussions.  Anne Marie Wolf would help with
compilation of the workgroup report.  Dr. Austin enumerated the steps to
be taken in each of the five workgroups: Solid Waste, Air,
Water/Wastewater, Energy and Communication/Outreach.  The steps that
each workgroup needed to take were the following:

Try to group the topics into chapters and avoid overlapping.

Concentrate on innovations needed to solve problems.

Decide whether the report structure defined at the last meeting really
fits the subject matter.

Decide whether the case studies are all applicable to the topic and
whether anything is left out that is not in the case studies.

Delineate the exact problems that arise from the case studies that could
lead to innovations and then specify the root problem.

Delineate the specific efforts that have been made to solve the problem
and decide whether they could be part of the innovative solutions.

The private/public sector needs to be included in each workgroup by
answering three questions: (1) What was the private/public cooperation?
(2) What are the links between policy and action? and (3) Is policy
driving action or vice versa?

Address local/state/federal/bi-national cooperation, where it is
relevant.

Delineate the specific innovations that address the specific problems.

Look for the linkages between workgroup subjects, such as bio-diesel
fuel, which fits in several places, such as, air, water, and energy.

Develop federal policy and action recommendations.

The overall message of the report needs to be determined after the
workgroups report.  For policy recommendations there may be several
levels: those that would be part of the Executive Summary, or the
Introduction, or the Final Conclusions.  Workgroups should list the
expert reviewers for each section who could comment on the subject, and
list what is missing from the reports.  At the end of the day, there
will be a brief report out from each group; and then the facilitators
will compile the reports and report back to the group tomorrow for
further discussion.

Dr. Austin continued to give instructions to the workgroups.  The case
studies should be used as written, but the problems could be expanded
beyond the case studies.  Questions provided by Dr. Austin would form
the basis for the introduction, chapters, and sections.  Each workgroup
would report on the structure, uniqueness, specific problems, existing
efforts, innovations, crossovers to other workgroups, and
recommendations. The report’s introduction would include the border
background, reasons for selecting the topics, uniqueness, and the
problems.  Members were then chosen for different groups based on their
knowledge and experience.  Groups were asked to report back by 5:00 p.m.

Workgroup Report Outs

After the workgroups met, Ms. Wolfe reported for the Communication and
Outreach workgroup on the report’s structure, which would have an
Executive Summary, followed by Recommendations at a Glance, and then the
workgroup reports.  The U.S. Border Region is unique because each side
impacts the other and shared problems require joint solutions.  Barriers
to cooperation were cultural, educational, empowerment, and a lack of
community responsibility.

With regard to existing efforts, the efforts by businesses, communities,
and on sustainability need to be reported and built on.  Innovations
included educational institutions’ education and training for industry
and community leaders, technology transfer, culturally-sensitive and
appropriate program, neighbors working with neighbors, building rapport
between communities and businesses, incentives for change, and
encouraging corporate and community responsibility. This workgroup’s
content would cross over to every other workgroup.

Recommendations included diversity in the funding process; encouraging
cooperation between academia, business, and communities to increase
technology transfer; continuing to be culturally sensitive and
appropriate; and encouraging corporate and citizen responsibility. The
group had a list of potential reviewers.

Allyson Siwik reported for the Solid Waste workgroup that the proposed
report structure was fine.  The scrap tire problem was unique because of
economic asymmetries.  The specific problem is uncontrolled dumping and
large piles of scrap tires in the border area leading to health effects,
such as vector-borne diseases, and air, water, and land contamination.
Across the border there is no integrated system of management.

Existing efforts to address the problem include cleanup of the largest
tire piles, qualified disposal services, EPA efforts, and the Border
2012 tire management initiative that is focused on prevention.  For
example, New Mexico uses scrap tires for engineering application.
Cementos de Chihuahua derives fuel from scrap tires and this will be
expanded.  Other efforts include Arizona’s use of rubberized asphalt,
tire enforcement amnesty programs, sustainable markets for used tires,
and California’s tire hauling regulation.

The innovations include efforts by Border 2012 to encourage Border
States to cooperate to deal with scrap tire management, public/private
partnerships on tire shredding, and implementation of the Border 2012
initiative.  The crossover with other workgroups includes Energy and Air
Quality.

Recommendations include government support for re-use and recycling of
used tires, development of management strategies, government support for
using rubber in asphalt resurfacing, and developing markets for chrome
rubber.  Export data from the U.S. could be provided to Mexico to keep
track of the volume of tires going to Mexico.  Enforcement and education
are also needed.  The workgroup had a list of potential reviewers.

Christopher Brown reported that the Water/Wastewater workgroup thought
the report framework was fine.  The uniqueness of the border area is
based on economic disparities and such issues as rapid urbanization,
population growth, industrialization, and environmental and human needs
and challenges.  These issues are all bi-national and transboundary in
nature, as each side affects the other side.  There are several layers
of jurisdictions and institutions that make policy development and
implementation difficult.

Problems include the region’s aridity, sudden flooding, and the lack
of infrastructure, non-potable water supplies, wastewater management,
and flood control.  Flood risk generates loss of life, contamination of
water supplies, human health problems, and contamination of wetlands.
Three of the case studies were related to wetlands problems.

Efforts in the past that have not worked are due to lack of funding for
infrastructure, lack of technical expertise, changes in political
regimes in Mexico, rapid population growth and lack of adequate up-front
planning.  Innovative approaches include using wastewater as a resource
instead of being of a waste product.

Crossover with other workgroups includes the Ecoparque with pollution
prevention, and environmental education.  A similar crossover is with
the Bahia Grande project where there is education of children; and
production of wildlife habits, open space, and green space.

Recommendations from the group include use of low-cost, low-tech
solutions, grassroots efforts, dealing with costs and time for big
projects, and adequate capacity and funding.  Base funding from
bi-national organizations, such as BECC, NADBank, and the Inter-American
Development Bank is necessary.  Border 2012 is an excellent model
through which the federal government provides money for projects.  The
federal governments could provide financial incentives to communities to
re-use wastewater.  Regulatory and administrative relief could be
provided to municipalities for water reclamation projects.  Innovative
means of regional cooperation similar to the San Diego Metro
Commission’s Joint Powers Agreement might be needed to allow
municipalities to work together.  The Southwest Consortium for
Environmental Research & Policy (SCERP) should be fully funded.  Dr.
Brown listed some reviewers for different sections.

Dr. Austin reviewed the Alternative Energy workgroup report.  The
workgroup liked the report structure and thought that energy should be
retained as a chapter.  Uniqueness is related to having access to Mexico
as a source of power through natural gas or the use or renewables
meeting the Minimum Portfolio Standards.  The specific problems include
the increased demand for energy, the relationship of water solutions to
the increased use of energy, reduction of greenhouse gases through use
of alternative energy sources, poverty, and the need for economic
development.

Some efforts are solar power, Minimum Portfolio Standards, Environmental
Management Systems, using energy from Mexico instead of developing
renewable sources, and energy conservation.  Most of the efforts address
the problems of the middle and upper classes and are not feasible for
low income residents.

Innovative approaches include bio-diesel conversion that increases
energy and reduces air and water pollution, and technologies for wind
power.  Innovations in regard to reduction of greenhouse gases include
the Western Climate Initiative, the Climate Registry, and cap-and-trade
programs for carbon emissions.  Crossovers to other areas could include
solid waste, wastewater, and air.

Policy recommendations include the following:

More consistent federal policies in the area of tax credits

The need to fund studies for pilot projects through venture capital or
government grants

Support for local and regional networks to cooperate and coordinate
activities

Recognition of unintended consequences.

Some of the large themes for the whole report would be that innovation
requires passion and commitment, flexible institutional structure and
behavior, education of leaders and the community, cooperation between
producers and users, and more revenues.

Stephen Niemeyer reported for the Air Quality workgroup, which
recognized that they could use previous reports about air quality to
delineate the problem; however, the case studies and reports need to be
updated.  The bi-national Joint Air Quality Advisory Committee (JAC)
that deals with air pollution problems in El Paso, Juárez, Chihuahua
and Doña Ana County, New Mexico, should be the focus of this report.
Victor Valenzuela staffs the JAC and he could list their
accomplishments.  The report could be a model for other border areas.
The GNEB 9th Annual Report also could be used as background information.

Linkages to other workgroups include scrap tires burning under solid
waste and community outreach.  Policy recommendations include local
involvement in decision-making, federal co-chairs, good data sources for
monitoring, and resources to support staff. A potential list of
reviewers was suggested.

Gary Gillen said if there were going to be photographs in the report; he
would need an outline of the report.  Dr. Brown added that he could help
with any maps that were needed.  Each workgroup was asked to provide a
list of needed visuals.  Dr. Austin concluded the meeting by asking
workgroup leaders to email their reports to her at   HYPERLINK
<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>.

Adjournment: The meeting was adjourned at 6:00 p.m.

Day 2	September 25, 2008							                (8:46 a.m.)

Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB) Business Meeting

Present: The same Board members and staff as on Day 1. (Allyson Siwik
was present the second day according to the transcript.)

Business Meeting Call to Order

Lorena Cedeño-Zambrano, Acting GNEB Designated Federal Officer (DFO),
opened the meeting with a discussion of the Travel Authorization form
for non-federal members.  Members would be sent a voucher back
electronically for them to sign.  The agency would prefer that members
receive payment by direct deposit.

Approval of Minutes

Chair Ganster asked for any corrections to the minutes from the March
2008 GNEB Meeting in Washington, DC, and the June 2008 Meeting in
Calexico, California.  He noted that minor corrections could be sent to
DFO Cedeño-Zambrano.  The March 2008 Washington, DC minutes had been
corrected for minor items.  Ms. Sorzano motioned to approve the minutes,
and Mr. Niemeyer seconded the motion. The minutes were approved as
written.

The June 2008 Calexico, CA, minutes were discussed.  Ms. Shannon had
several corrections to Commissioner Marin’s report which she thought
was due to the fact that the writer did not have access to the
PowerPoint presentations.  She asked that the PowerPoint presentations
be attached to the minutes.  Chair Ganster added that the transcriber
and the summary writer should have access to the PowerPoint
presentations.  Ms. Shannon, Mr. Niemeyer, and Dr. Brown, would provide
minor corrections to DFO Cedeño-Zambrano.  After some discussion, Ms.
Sorzano moved to approve the minutes.  Mr. Wood seconded the motion, and
the minutes were approved unanimously.

Office of the Inspector General’s (OIG) Border 2012 Report Discussion

Chair Ganster stated that in reviewing the OIG Report that it did not
capture the work of Border 2012, and that GNEB should send a letter of
comment on the Report.  For example, Border 2012 has accomplished a lot
of good work in the Border region and volunteers from all sectors carry
out the work.

Enrique Manzanilla said the deadline for comments set by the Office of
International Affairs (OIA) was 90 days.  EPA has accepted the three
recommendations re Border 2012 and is developing a strategic plan.  The
sooner the Board comments, the better, he noted.

Dr. Brown had three overarching comments: (1) the OIG and the Office of
International Affairs (OIA) were at odds with their approaches in
identifying accomplishments; (2) the organization of Border 2012
consists of many different workgroups and task forces and is cumbersome
and unwieldy; and (3) a letter of comment would be needed.

Ms. Keith thought it was standard to evaluate organizations on results
as opposed to efforts, but some environmental improvements cannot always
be measured.  For example, if people received training on how to report
spills, the results should be in terms of whether they understood the
training after a period of time, rather than how many took the training.

Dr. Brown agreed that the outcome measures needed to be improved, but
that noteworthy achievements should be reflected in the report to
provide an overview of the program.

Mr. Niemeyer thought that the EPA OIG officers were trying to measure
accountability in terms of dollars spent, but they missed the mark of
what Border 2012 is doing bi-nationally.  The report does not name the
people who were interviewed.  The valid criticisms have been dealt with
by EPA in the Mid-Course Review.

Chair Ganster added that the criticisms reminded him of the ones
directed at BECC and NADBank when these institutions were being
developed.  It needs to be understood that these are bi-national
organizations between Mexico and the United States that have very
different perspectives.  The GNEB needs to review and comment on the
state of lowered funding.

Additional Board members’ comments included the following:

Either the OIG office had a pre-conceived idea of what they would find
regardless of the evidence, or the proper documentation was not
reviewed. (Brown)

The $442,794 spent for the audit might have been better spent on the
program. (Wood)

A lot of documentation was provided to OIA by the regional offices, but
the documents from the quarterly meetings with the Deputy Administrator
may not have been included. (Manzanilla)

If the Board sends a response, it should be noted that the program
promised expanded funding to the communities, but the funding has been
reduced. (Austin)

A GNEB response should point out Border 2012 accomplishments but should
not attack the recommendations, specifically on the need to improve
management, because the management needs to be tightened up.  The
auditors can only look at what is being counted, so maybe the outcome
measures should be improved. (Gillen)

The outcomes of training could be documented to show the real benefits.
(Grijalva)

The Government Performance Results Act has emphasized differentiating
between outputs and outcomes and EPA is trying to measure environmental
results. (Manzanilla)

A major problem is the difficulty in counting the number of people in a
given community, so it is difficult to count the numbers who were doing
things. (Austin)

GNEB needs to alert the new administration about the importance of what
Border 2012 has accomplished. (Austin) (Fiore)

Rafael DeLeon, Director, Office of Cooperative Environmental Management,
EPA, reminded them that OIA had accepted the recommendations of the OIG
Report, but that the OIA could do a better job of publicizing the
accomplishments of Border 2012.  A letter of advice to the President and
Congress should not criticize the findings of the Report, but focus on
Border 2012 accomplishments.

Chair Ganster concluded the discussion by asking everyone to send him
their comments and he would draft a report based on today’s discussion
focused on Border 2012’s achievements and how Border communities have
been helped.

The White House Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) Update

DFO Lorena Cedeño-Zambrano provided a brief update on the White House
CEQ.  A new representative from the White House has been named and this
person will be provided a copy of the March 2008 GNEB report and will be
updated at a joint meeting.  The report will be reviewed by the staff at
CEQ who will still be in place after a change in administration.

In response to a question from Dr. Austin about the effect of a change
in administration on the GNEB Annual Report topics, Mr. DeLeon said that
both the Board’s preferred topics and those that the Administration
might propose would be considered.  Briefing papers would be provided
incorporating the Board’s and EPA’s issues and concerns for the new
administration’s transition team.  Mr. DeLeon asked the Board to
delineate the top two or three key issues and challenges to be included
in the briefing to the transition team.  The Board needs to decide
whether the topics for the annual report should be determined now or
after the new administration is in place.

Dr. Austin discussed the schedule for the rest of the day.  The
workgroup summaries were completed and could be discussed now, and then
sent out for more comments.  She suggested that members needed time to
review the summaries, pinpoint the highlights for the Executive Summary,
and exclude anything that should not be in the report.  After this, the
major topics or issues to present to EPA for the transition team ought
to be discussed.

DFO Cedeño-Zambrano suggested that in the Annual Report some of the
innovative projects accomplished by the Border 2012 program could be
highlighted.

Chair Ganster recommended that the Board first talk about scheduling the
GNEB 2009 meetings; then talk about important topic; and lastly, discuss
the GNEB Annual Report.

Director DeLeon thanked everyone for their great efforts.  He reminded
them that several member positions would be expiring in March 2009, but
all present members should come to the March meeting.  GNEB’s charter
was just renewed and goals and expected outcomes were part of the new
charter.  For example, for every meeting and report an impact should be
delineated.

Flooding in Nogales, Sonora, Mexico

Ann Marie Wolf, Sonora Environmental Research Institute (SERI) reported
on the flooding in Nogales, Sonora earlier this year due to heavy rain
and the installation of barriers in tunnels in Mexico by Homeland
Security that prevented the water from draining.  IBWC had no knowledge
of the installation.  Several homes and buildings were destroyed and a
few people died.  Ms. Wolf requested that GNEB send a letter to EPA
emphasizing the need for cooperation between agencies, especially
between Homeland Security and the IBWC.

Mr. Gillen suggested taking excerpts from past reports that emphasized
better coordination among federal agencies.  The GNEB report on Border
Security and the Environmental Protection would be an example.  The
letter would be drafted by Ms. Wolf and circulated, along with evidence
of the damage, to knowledgeable people and Board members.

GNEB 2009 CY Schedule

Chair Ganster stated that the Board needed to talk about topics for next
year and set a preliminary schedule for 2009.  The spring GNEB meeting
would be in March when Congress is in session.  Chair Ganster suggested
meeting in Southern Arizona in the border area in the fall.  After
considerable discussion based on the possibility of field trips, hotels,
and the likelihood of local support, it was decided to meet in the
border area in Nogales or nearby in Rio Rico.  There are several
significant water, wastewater, and groundwater issues at that Border,
and there is deteriorating infrastructure in the Nogales Wash.  Also,
the bio-diesel project related to the GNEB report is right on the
border.

Several members offered their support: Dr. Austin for translation
services; Ms. Spener for IBWC; Mr. Niemeyer for the TCEQ Border Affairs
staff; and Mr. Guerrero for NRCS.

A representative of the Department of Homeland Security and the EPA CEQ
would be invited to the meeting.

For the summer meeting, Ms Wolf suggested the Sycuan Resort Casino
Complex, because it is on a reservation and near Tecate.  Mr. Connolly
added that there was an EPA office at the Campo Nation and at other
tribes in the area.  A lot of work has been done on Campo Creek, which
becomes the Tecate River in Mexico.  One of the issues is with
discharges into the Tecate River from the Tecate Brewery.  Chair Ganster
added that there was a Border 2012/local partners project to build a
wetlands.  Mr. Brown said that SCERP had funded research in the area.
Mr. Manzanilla alerted the Board to a National Coordinators meeting in
late Spring or early Fall in the San Diego area.

Chair Ganster suggested forming a committee to explore the San Diego
area and the possibility of meeting at the Sycuan or San Diego
reservation.  Mr. Dorsey said he works closely with the tribal
government, and if they were given notice, it would not be a problem.
Mr. Joyce asked them to identify a two-week time span for the fall
meetings, such as the middle of March, early June, and the last two
weeks in October.

For 2009 topics, Mr. Connolly suggested “Measuring Results in the
Border Area” as a title for the 2009 report.  This would be a report
on the different methods used to measure results for Border 2012 and
state initiatives.  Other topics mentioned were as follows;

Water issues are related to the locations of the upcoming GNEB meetings.

Energy would include the environment, security, wind power, solar power,
greenhouse gas reduction, and other pollutant reductions.

Looking Ahead to the year 2020 to new project areas in the environment;
this could be tied into measuring now and in the future.

Climate change which includes water, wildfire, habitat, endangered
species issues, and future impacts the border area.  Climate change was
the theme of the Border Governors Conference this year

The impact of the growth of goods transportation at the coastal ports
and the cross-border traffic.

Mr. Joyce suggested providing a list of 8-10 topics, which could be
refined after the first of the year and discussed with the new CEQ
representative.  Chair Ganster said the list would be typed up and sent
to him, and he could circulate it to the Board for their input,
modifications, and additional ideas.  Dr. Brown offered to send him the
list that he had just typed.

GNEB 12th Report Working Meeting: “Innovation, including incentives,
to Prevent/Replace Pollution at the U.S.-Mexico Border”

Ms. Ann Marie Wolf stated that each workgroup had turned in their files
and they were reviewed by the facilitators.  Today they would review the
reports and then each group should send in the comments and feedback to
Dr. Austin and Ms. Wolf within two weeks.  The Proposed Report Structure
would be reviewed first, using the same categories that each workgroup
used in their reports.  Dr. Austin asked members to look at the other
workgroups reports to look for gaps or significant problems.

The report structure would include an Introduction, an Executive
Summary, and Recommendations.  The Executive Summary would include the
framework for the report, followed by the recommendations.  Workgroup
comments on uniqueness were similar from each workgroup.  The major
problems were selected from each group and placed in the “Overall”
category.  Each chapter would have the specific problems.  At the end
there would be a list of proposed reviewers.  The task was to decide
what should be in the Executive Summary.

The facilitators and other comments on the various chapters were as
follows:

The Water/Wastewater chapter should be expanded to address broader water
conservation and supply issues.  For example, case studies of drought
could be included.

Under Energy, a text box or a case study could be added on solar energy.

Feedback is needed on the exact items that workgroups think should be
left out of the report.

Each workgroup needs to delineate their specific photographs and
graphics.

Under the Air chapter, a complete revision was needed, because the case
study was outdated.  The focus should be on Joint Advisory Committee
with a text box on the Great Border Trade Out.  Other text boxes would
be added on transboundary emissions, reduction plans, and reforestation.

Case studies would require rewriting and editing.

Dr. Brown discussed two case studies on solar energy in Las Cruces.
Southwest Environmental Center (SWEC) was able to obtain a state grant
to put a 6-megawatt solar installation on a roof.  The energy will be
sold back to El Paso Electric utility.  A similar installation was done
at NMSU using the roof of a parking structure for 3-megawatts of solar
energy.  Chair Ganster said those could not be used because they were
not border-specific.

Mr. Guerrero brought up the irrigation conveyance system that BECC and
NADBank invested in during a drought as a possible case study.  Dr.
Rincón said that the project was important because of the policy issue,
because the farmers rendered some of their water rights back.  The saved
water was returned to the river, which flowed into the Rio Conchos and
the Rio Grande.  Funds were provided by the NADBank of $40 million to
both the U. S. and Mexican sides.  Mexico provided $300 million.  Ms.
Spener thought this project should not be included as a case study,
because the technology was not new and both sides felt that the other
side did not live up to their commitments.

Ms. Keith brought up an example from Cochise County in the Upper San
Pedro River where they are reusing wastewater, such as roof run-off and
storm water, for watering yards.  This would decrease the pumping from
the main aquifer in Southeastern Arizona.  A unique regional water
authority was set-up with governmental officials and the public.

Dr. Austin warned the groups to look critically at the case studies to
be sure that they are appropriate and tell the whole story.  The focus
should be on what was learned, even if things did not work out
perfectly.  She requested that the workgroup reporters send a list of
actual or needed photos to Mr. Gillen and graphics to Dr. Brown.  She
also asked them to alert her to any items that should not be in the
report and any items that should be included.

Ms. Wolf said the document would be emailed to members to review and to
send comments back by October 10, 2008.  Then, Dr. Austin and Ms. Wolf
would review the accumulated materials, discussion, and comments and
write a working draft.  DFO Cedeño-Zambrano said that she would
distribute the case studies to the board members.  Mr. Joyce said a
contractor would do the editing and writing of the final draft.  All of
the workshop materials and comments, photos, graphics, and working
drafts would be turned over to the contractor, who would also be
responsible for the final graphics and layout of the report.

Mr. Joyce asked members to think about the overall format and style as
to whether it should be the same as previous reports or changed.  Chair
Ganster thought it would be best to stay with the same format and style.
 Mr. Guerrero asked if the report could be published electronically or
in some other format.  Mr. Joyce answered that the report would be in a
PDF format on the website for downloading; and could be put on CD ROMs.
The central repository in Cincinnati for old reports could be queried as
the number of copies of past reports remained in order to determine the
correct number to be printed.

The Board agreed that hard copies were more likely to be read and have
an impact than a CD.  People on Capitol Hill were impressed with the
one-pager that was handed out last year.  The report should be published
in both English and Spanish.

Chair Ganster thanked the EPA staff for their assistance and Dr. Rincón
for setting up the field trip and providing staff for registration and
printing. The next GNEB meeting would be March 12-13, 2009. {Date to be
confirmed.}

Adjournment: The meeting was adjourned at 12:22 p.m.

Appendix

Meeting Participants

Non-Federal Board Members:

Diane Austin, Ph.D., Professor, University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona

Paul Ganster, Ph.D., Director, Institute for Regional Studies of the
Californias, San Diego State University, Chair, San Diego, California

Christopher P. Brown, Ph.D., Associate Professor, New Mexico State
University, Las Cruces, New Mexico

Mike L. Connolly, Councilman, Campo Kumeyaay Nation, Campo, California

Michael P. Dorsey, Chief, Community Health Divisions, San Diego County
Department of Environmental Health

Edward Elbrock, Rancher, Malpai Borderlands Group, Animas, New Mexico

Gary Gillen, President, Gillen Pest Control, Richmond Texas

Susan Keith, Director, Southern Regional Operations, Arizona Department
of Environmental Health (ADEQ), Tucson, Arizona

Patti Krebs, Executive Director, Industrial Environmental Association
(IEA), San Diego, California

Shannon Sorzano, U.S. Housing and Urban Development (HUD)

Stephen M. Niemeyer, P.E., Border Affairs Manager, IGR/Border Affairs,
Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ), Austin, Texas

Allyson Siwik, Executive Director, Gila Resources Information Project
(GRIP), Tyrone, New Mexico

Ann Marie A. Wolf, President, Sonora Environmental Research Institute
(SERI), Tucson, Arizona

John Wood, Commissioner, Cameron County, Brownsville, Texas

Federal Board Members:

Resource Specialists and Agency Alternates

Frank Fiore, NMED

Sylvia Grijalva, Department of Transportation (DOT)

Rafael Guerrero, National Resource Manager, Natural Resources
Conservation Service, USDA, Ft. Worth, Texas

Carlos Rincón, Ph.D, Border Office Director, U.S. EPA Region 6

Salvador Salinas, USDA

Sally Spener, Public Affairs Officer, IBWC, El Paso, Texas

EPA/OCEM Staff and Management:

Lorena Cedeño-Zambrano, Acting GNEB Designated Federal Officer (DFO)

Rafael DeLeon, Director, Office of Cooperative Environmental Management,
EPA

Mark Joyce, Associate Director, Office of Cooperative Environmental
Management, EPA

Geraldine Brown, Office of Cooperative Environmental Management, EPA

Ann-Marie Gantner, Office of Cooperative Environmental Management, EPA

Guests:

Anthony Cobos (Day 2)

Maria Elena Giner, BECC

John Cook (Day 2)

Elgin Dominguez, El Paso County Attorney’s Office

Erica Molina Johnson, El Paso Times

Heidi McIntyre, TCEQ

Carlos Peña, IBWC, U.S. Section

Mary Spock , SCG

Victor Valenzuela, TCEQ

Maria Dora Vazquez, EPA Border Office, El Paso (Day 2)

Speakers:

José Rodriguez, El Paso County Attorney

Bob Currey, CERM, UTEP

Daniel Chacón-Anaya, BECC

Héctor Gonzáles, El Paso Water Utilities

Enrique Manzanilla, EPA Region 9

Alheli Baños-Keener, EPA Border Office, San Diego

These minutes are an accurate description of the matters discussed
during this meeting.

_______________________________________

Paul Ganster

Chair

Good Neighbor Environmental Board

The Good Neighbor Environmental Board was created by the Enterprise for
the Americas Initiative Act of 1992. The board is responsible for
providing advice to the President and Congress on environmental and
infrastructure issues and needs within the states contiguous to Mexico.
The findings and recommendations of the Board do not represent the views
of the Agency, and this document does not represent information approved
or disseminated by the Environmental Protection Agency.

Audio Associates

301/577-5882

Audio Associates

301/577-5882

Good Neighbor Environmental Board Meeting							           PAGE  12

September 24-25, 2008

The Good Neighbor Environmental Board Meeting	  PAGE  2

September 24-25, 2008


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 100 (Tuesday, May 24, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 30045-30047]
[FR Doc No: 2011-12738]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2011-0012; Airspace Docket No. 10-ASO-44]

Amendment of Class D and Class E Airspace; Columbus Lawson AAF,
GA

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: This action would modify Class D and Class E airspace at
Lawson Army Airfield (AAF), Columbus, GA, by removing the reference to
the Columbus Metropolitan Airport Class C airspace area from the
description. Controlled airspace at Columbus Metropolitan Airport is
being downgraded due to decreased air traffic volume. This action is
necessary for the safety and management of air traffic within the
National Airspace System. This action also would update the geographic
coordinates of the Columbus Lawson AAF.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before July 8, 2011. The
Director of the Federal Register approves this incorporation by
reference action under title 1, Code of Federal Regulations, part 51,
subject to the annual revision of FAA, Order 7400.9 and publication of
conforming amendments.

ADDRESSES: Send comments on this rule to: U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, West Building Ground Floor, Room
W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001;
Telephone: 1-800-

647-5527; Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>. You must identify the Docket Number FAA-
2011-0012; Airspace Docket No. 10-ASO-44, at the beginning of your
comments. You may also submit and review received comments through the
Internet at http://www.regulations.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Fornito, Operations Support
Group, Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration, P.O.
Box 20636, Atlanta, Georgia 30320; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    Interested persons are invited to comment on this rule by
submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as they may desire.
Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the views and
suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing reasoned
regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are specifically invited
on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic, environmental, and
energy-related aspects of the proposal.
    Communications should identify both docket numbers (FAA Docket No.
FAA-2011-0012 and Airspace Docket No. 10-ASO-44) and be submitted in
triplicate to the Docket Management System (see ADDRESSES section for
address and phone number). You may also submit comments through the
Internet at http://www.regulations.gov.
    Annotators wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments
on this action must submit with those comments a self-addressed stamped
postcard on which the following statement is made: ``Comments to Docket
No. FAA-2011-0012; Airspace Docket No. 10-ASO-44.'' The postcard will
be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.
    All communications received before the specified closing date for
comments will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule.
The proposal contained in this notice may be changed in light of the
comments received. A report summarizing each substantive public contact
with FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the
docket.

Availability of NPRMs

    An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded from and
comments submitted through http://www.regulations.gov. Recently
published rulemaking documents can also be accessed through the FAA's
Web page at http://www.faa.gov/airports_airtraffic/air_traffic/publications/airspace_amendments/.
    You may review the public docket containing the rule, any comments
received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office
(see ADDRESSES section for address and phone number) between 9 a.m. and
5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays. An informal
docket may also be examined during normal business hours at the office
of the Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration, Room
210, 1701 Columbia Avenue, College Park, Georgia 30337.
    Persons interested in being placed on a mailing list for future
NPRM's should contact the FAA's Office of Rulemaking,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
to request a copy of Advisory Circular No. 11-2A, Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking Distribution System, which describes the application
procedure.

The Proposal

    The FAA is considering an amendment to Title 14, Code of Federal
Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 to amend Class D airspace and Class E
surface airspace at Lawson AAF, Columbus, GA. The volume of air traffic
has decreased at Columbus Metropolitan Airport, Columbus, GA, therefore
reference to the Class C airspace area is being removed from the
description. The geographic coordinates for Lawson AAF also would be
adjusted to coincide with the FAAs aeronautical database.
    Class D airspace designations and Class E surface airspace
designations are published in Paragraphs 5000 and 6002, respectively,
of FAA Order 7400.9U, dated August 18, 2010, and effective September
15, 2010, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class
D and Class E airspace designations listed in this document will be
published subsequently in the Order.
    The FAA has determined that this proposed regulation only involves
an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current.
It, therefore, (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under
Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under DOT
Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979);
and (3) does not warrant preparation of a Regulatory Evaluation as the
anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that
will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is
certified that this proposed rule, when promulgated, would not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities
under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, section 106
describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII,
Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's
authority. This proposed rulemaking is promulgated under the authority
described in subtitle VII, part, A, subpart I, section 40103. Under
that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign
the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the
efficient use of airspace. This proposed regulation is within the scope
of that authority as it proposes to amend Class D and E airspace at
Lawson AAF, Columbus, GA.

Lists of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

Adoption of the Amendment

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

PART 71--DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, B, C, D AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR
TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS

    1. The authority citation for part 71 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854,
24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.

Sec.  71.1  [Amended]

    2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of Federal
Aviation Administration Order 7400.9U, Airspace Designations and
Reporting Points, dated August 18, 2010, effective September 15, 2010,
is amended as follows:

Paragraph 5000 Class D Airspace.

* * * * *

ASO GA D Columbus Lawson AAF, GA [AMENDED]

Columbus Lawson AAF, GA
    (Lat. 32[deg]19'55'' N., long. 84[deg]59'14'' W.)

    That airspace extending upward from the surface to and including
2,700 feet MSL within a 5.2-mile radius of Lawson Army Airfield.
This Class D airspace area is effective during the specific dates
and times established in advance by a Notice to Airmen. The
effective date and time will thereafter be continuously published in
the Airport/Facility Directory.

Paragraph 6002 Class E Airspace Designated as Surface Areas.

* * * * *

ASO GA E2 Columbus Lawson AAF, GA [AMENDED]

Columbus Lawson AAF, GA
    (Lat. 32[deg]19'55'' N., long. 84[deg]59'14'' W.)

    Within a 5.2-mile radius of Lawson Army Airfield. This Class E
airspace area is effective during the specific dates and times
established in advance by a Notice to Airmen. The effective date and
time will thereafter be continuously published in the Airport/
Facility Directory.

    Issued in College Park, Georgia, on May 13, 2011.
Barry A. Knight,
Acting Manager, Operations Support Group, Eastern Service Center, Air
Traffic Organization.
[FR Doc. 2011-12738 Filed 5-23-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: April 7, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 67)]
[Notices]
[Page 18833-18835]
[DOCID:fr07ap08-106]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-57593; File No. SR-CBOE-2008-38]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange,
Incorporated; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed
Rule Change Regarding Fees for the CBOE Stock Exchange

April 1, 2008.
    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 March 31, 2008, the Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated
(``Exchange'' or ``CBOE'') filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in
Items I, II, and III below, which Items have been substantially
prepared by the Exchange. The Exchange has designated this proposal as
one establishing a due, fee, or other charge imposed by the Exchange
under Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \3\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(2)
thereunder,\4\ which renders it effective upon filing with the
Commission. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit
comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to modify its fees applicable to the CBOE
Stock Exchange (``CBSX''). The text of the proposed rule change is
available on the Exchange's Web site (http://www.cboe.org/legal), at
the Exchange's principal office, and at the Commission's Public
Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The CBSX fee schedule lists the fees applicable to trading on CBSX.
The CBOE Complex Order Auction system (``COA'') and Complex Order Book
(``COB''), governed by CBOE Rule 6.53C, facilitate the handling and
execution of complex orders by allowing for complex orders to rest in
the system and allowing for inbound complex orders to trigger an
auction where auction participants may submit complex order responses
to trade with the order that is being auctioned. Until recently, Rule
6.53C applied only to complex orders containing only options
components. In recent months, CBOE implemented an enhancement to the
Rule 6.53C COA/COB system to facilitate the execution of complex orders
containing a stock component (e.g., a buy-write order).\5\ As detailed
in that filing, the stock component of a stock-option complex order
handled by the system is executed on CBSX. The present filing seeks to
adopt special charges for the stock executions that result from stock-
option orders trading pursuant to Rule 6.53C.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 56903 (December 5,
2007), 72 FR 70356 (December 11, 2007) (SR-CBOE-2007-68).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The CBSX transaction fees for these orders will be based on whether
the stock-option order that initiated an execution pursuant to Rule
6.53C ultimately trades against another stock-option order or against
unrelated orders in the respective markets (CBOE and CBSX). By way of
example, a buy-write order auctioned by the system may trigger
responses to trade against the entire buy-write order as a package--
this is a stock-option order trading against another stock-option
order. On the other hand, a buy-write order processed by the system
could also ultimately be filled by: (i) The option component (an order
to sell a call) trading against a straight order to buy that call
resting in the CBOE Hybrid book, and (ii) the stock component (an order
to buy stock) trading against a straight sell order in the CBSX book.
    A stock trade on CBSX consisting of the stock component of two
stock-option orders trading against each other pursuant to Rule 6.53C
shall be charged as follows: the order that triggered a COA or that
triggered a trade with a resting COB order shall be charged $0.0005 per
share subject to a $1.00 minimum charge and a $25.00 maximum charge.
The order that responded to the auction or that was resting in the COB
prior to the trade shall not be charged and shall not receive a rebate.
    A stock trade on CBSX consisting of the stock component of a stock-
option order handled pursuant to Rule 6.53C trading against a resting
stock order on the CBSX book shall be charged as follows: the resting
order is considered a Maker of liquidity and receives the applicable
Maker rebate pursuant to the CBSX fee schedule, and the non-resting
stock order is charged the standard Taker rate pursuant to the CBSX fee
schedule.
    The changes take effect on Tuesday, April 1, 2008.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with Section 6(b) of the Act \6\ in general, and furthers the
objectives of Section 6(b)(4) of the Act \7\ in particular, in that it
is designed to provide for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues,
fees, and other charges among Exchange members and other persons using
its facilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

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

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

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

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change establishes or changes a
due, fee, or other charge imposed by the Exchange, it has become
effective upon filing pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \8\
and Rule 19b-4(f)(2) thereunder.\9\ At any time within 60 days of the
filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission may summarily
abrogate 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \9\ 17 CFR 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 e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File No. SR-CBOE-2008-38 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Nancy M. Morris,
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549-1090.
All submissions should refer to File Number SR-CBOE-2008-38. This file
number should be included on the subject line if e-mail 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 Commissions 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 inspection and copying in the
Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC
20549, on official business days between the hours of 10 a.m. and 3
p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available for inspection and
copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments received
will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit personal
identifying information from submissions. You should submit only
information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions
should refer to File Number SR-CBOE-2008-38 and should be submitted on
or before April 28, 2008.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E8-7115 Filed 4-4-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P