FINAL VERSION

 Officially approved by the Chair and Board at the Brownsville, Texas
GNEB Board Meeting, July24-25, 2007 subject to edits duly incorporated
into text that follows

Meeting Summary/Minutes

The Good Neighbor Environmental Board Meeting

Sky Room, Hotel Washington

515 15th Street NW

Washington, DC

March 13-14, 2007

Administration: U. S. Environmental Protection Agency

Office of Cooperative Environmental Management

Table of Contents

	Participants	 1

	Welcome and Introductions	.5

Panel Discussion on the Tenth Report: Environmental Protection and
Border Security on the U.S.-Mexico Border	.6

		Keynote Remarks	 6

		Panel I: Undocumented Human Crossings	.7

		Panel II: Hazardous Materials Crossings	.9

		Public Comment Session
…………………………………………………. 11

Speaker Briefings on Eleventh Report Theme: “Natural Hazards and the
U.S.-Mexico: Border Environment	12

		Introduction and Overview
…………………………………………………12

		Keynote Address	13

		USGS Senior Science Advisor for Earthquakes and Geological Hazards	13

		Office International Affairs, FEMA, DHS	14

		Office of Preparedness and Emergency Operations, HHS	16

	Consejo Consultivo Report	18

	Business Meeting and Strategic Planning Session	19

		Membership Introductions and Goals	19

		Approval of the Minutes from Last Meeting	19

		Discussion of Eleventh Report	20

		Strategic Planning Session	23

		Remarks from the EPA Administrator	25

		Board Member Report-Outs	27

		Wrap Up and Adjournment	27

	Appendix: List of Public Attendees	28

The Good Neighbor Environmental Board Meeting

Sky Room, Hotel Washington

515 15th Street NW

Washington, DC

March 13-14, 2007

Meeting Participants:

Non-Federal Board Members

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

Michael P. Dorsey, Chief, Hazardous Materials Division, 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, Southern Regional Director, Arizona Department of
Environmental Quality (ADEQ), Tucson, Arizona

Patti Krebs, Executive Director, Industrial Environmental Association
(IEA)

Jennifer A. Montoya, U.S. Program Director, Chihuahuan Desert
Conservation Project, World Wildlife Fund, Las Cruces, New Mexico

Stephen M. Niemeyer, P.E., Texas Commission on Environmental Quality
(TCEQ), Austin, Texas

Robert Varady, Ph.D., Deputy Director, Udall Center for Studies in
Public Policy, University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona

Ann Marie A. Wolf, President, Sonora Environment Research Institute,
Tucson, Arizona

John Wood, Commissioner, Cameron County, City of Brownsville, Texas

Federal Board Members

Daniel D. Darrach, Coordinator, U.S.-Mexico Border Affairs, U.S.
Department of State (DOS), Washington, DC

Marilyn DiSirio, Associate Director of Global Health, U.S. Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Department of Health and Human
Services (DHHS), Atlanta, Georgia

Carl Edlund, Director of Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division,
Region 6, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Dallas, Texas

Linda Lawson, Director, Safety, Energy and the Environment, U.S.
Department of Transportation (DOT)

Carlos Marin, Commissioner, U.S. Section, International Boundary and
Water Commission, (IBWC), El Paso, Texas

Gary Robison, Acting Associate Chief, Office of Border Patrol, U.S.
Department of Homeland Security (DHS)

Rosendo Treviño, Special Assistant to the Chief, U.S. Department of
Agriculture (USDA), San Antonio, Texas

Shannon H. Sorzano, Deputy Assistant Secretary for International
Affairs, Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)

James Stefanov, U.S. Geological Service (USGS), U.S. Department of
Interior, (DOI), Austin, Texas

Resource Specialists and Agency Alternates

Christina Machion Quilaqueo, Program Analyst, HUD,Washington, DC

Rachael Poynter, Office of Mexico Affairs, DOS, Washington, DC

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

Lana Corales, CDC, DHHS, Atlanta Georgia

Consejo Consultivo de Desarrollo Sustenable Representative, SEMARNAT

Flavio Olivieri, Northwest Region Representative

EPA/OCEM Staff and Management

Elaine Koerner, GNEB Designated Federal Officer (DFO)

Rafael DeLeon, OCEM Director

Mark Joyce, OCEM Associate Director

Geraldine Brown

Juliana Madrid

Lois Williams

Jannell Young-Ancrum

Speakers:

Jerry Clifford, U.S. Coordinator, Border 2012 Program, and Deputy
Assistant Administrator, Office of International Affairs, EPA

David V. Aguilar, Chief, U.S. Border Patrol, DHS

John C. Twiss, Director, Law Enforcement & Investigations, U.S. Forest
Service, USDA

Larry R. Parkinson, Deputy Assistant Secretary, Law Enforcement and
Security, DOI

Dana Tulis, Deputy Director, Office of Solid Waste andEmergency
Response, EPA

Bob Richard, Deputy Associate Administrator for Hazardous Materials
Safety, DOT

Todd Owens, Executive Director, Cargo and Conveyance Security, DHS, for
Jayson P. Ahern, Assistant Commissioner, Office of Field Operations,
CPB, DHS

Jorge Navarro, Border Coordinator, Mexican Foreign Ministry

David Applegate, Senior Science Advisor for Earthquakes and Geological
Hazards, USGS, DOI

Sonja Neiuwejaar, Deputy Director, Office of International Affairs,
FEMA, DHS

Dr. Kevin Yeskey, M.D., Deputy Assistant Secretary (Acting), Office of
Preparedness and Emergency Operations, HHS

Flavio Olivieri, NW Region Representative, Consejo Consultivo, SEMARNAT

Public Commenters:

Juan Antonio Flores, Public Affairs Director, North American Development
Bank

Karen Senhadji, International Affairs, DOI

Lisa Almodovar, Mexico Team Leader, OIA, EPA

Public Attendees: See Appendix

Meeting Summary/Minutes

DRAFT/DRAFT/DRAFT/DRAFT

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.

Day 1 – March 13. 2007

									(9:00 a.m.)

Media event to publicly release the Good Neighbor Environmental Board
(GNEB) Tenth Report to the President and Congress  preceded the Board
meeting

Welcome and Opening Remarks					(10:00 a.m.)

Dr. Ganster, Ph.D,. Chair, welcomed Board members and guests to the Good
Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB) meeting and asked board members to
introduce themselves.

Elaine Koerner, Designated Federal Officer (DFO) asked members of the
audience to introduce themselves. Self-introductions took place

Chair Ganster then gave an overview of the Tenth Report for those who
had not attended the media event preceding the meeting.  He stated that
the Tenth Report looked at the effects of security activities in two
areas: ports of entry and in more rural areas of the border region.  For
the more rural areas, the Board recommended strengthening communication
and collaboration among security agencies, environmental protection
agencies, and land management agencies so as to both provide security
and also maintain quality of life for border communities.  The Board
also recommended employing a mix of technology and personnel to reflect
the differing geographical terrain and population groupings along
diverse sections of the border.

For ports of entry, where hazardous materials (hazmat) can provide an
added security risk, the Board recommends increasing the number of
hazmat inspectors onsite.  It also recommends establishing sites and
hours specific for hazmat vehicles, which have increased due to expanded
trade between the U.S. and Mexico.  In addition, the Board calls for
more extensive information sharing between environmental agencies and
security agencies.  Moreover, the Board says in its report, liability
issues need to be resolved for cross-border emergency responders.  And,
finally, information needs to be shared with tribal communities about
hazardous materials being transported across their lands.

Morning Panel Sessions on the Tenth Report

Keynote Remarks							(10:15 a.m.)

Jerry Clifford, Deputy Assistant Administrator for International Affairs
and U.S. Coordinator, Border 2012 Program, congratulated the GNEB on the
Tenth Report and noted that the meeting attendees included a broad
representation of federal agencies and other border security experts
dealing with border security and environmental issues.  Mr. Clifford was
also pleased with the cooperation between the GNEB and the Border 2012
program in solving the many public health and environmental border
problems

For the GNEB reports and recommendations, Mr. Clifford asked that the
Board consider the policy implications of their topics, recommendations,
and advice for border enforcement and environmental protection agencies.

For Border 2012, Mr. Clifford discussed the U.S.-Mexico Environmental
Program Border 2012 Midterm Report and enumerated the guiding
principles.  Principles related to GNEB included fostering public and
stakeholder participation, reducing the highest public health and
environmental risks, recognizing the sovereignty of U.S. tribes, and
addressing the disproportionate environmental impacts on border
citizens.

Mr. Clifford then reported on the accomplishments of the Border 2012 in
cooperation with Border Environment Cooperation Commission (BECC), North
American Development Bank (NADBank), and the IBWC, including funds for
water and wastewater infrastructure projects, removing tire piles and
hazardous wastes, and improving tracking of information on border
facilities and hazardous waste.  Border 2012 is working with the
American Indian Office to develop a North American conference on
indigenous communities dealing with the environment and public health.

Mr. Clifford described the work of the Commission for Environmental
Cooperation (CEC) and its three major areas of focus.  The CEC’s
advisory groups have recommended integrating the work of the CEC, Border
2012, and the GNEB.  The CEC would be glad to discuss areas of
cooperation. In response to questions about funding related to policy
recommendations for the border region, Mr. Clifford said the EPA budget
for FY2007 was just approved by Congress at the FY2006 level.  By
removing the earmarks, Congress was able to retain the FY2006 level for
water and water infrastructure projects for the NADBank and the BECC.
The Southwest Center for Environmental Research and policy (SCERP) is
zeroed out for FY2007.  For FY2008, the President recommended only $10
million for border infrastructure.  The Office of International Affairs
budget would be reduced by 20 percent.  The funds for extramural
projects would be cut by 50 percent to $1 million.  In Mexico, the same
office received a 25 percent reduction under the new administration of
President Felipe Calderón.

In response to a suggestion about partnering with DHS to fund some
projects, Mr. Clifford thought there might be opportunities to work with
DHS to leverage resources for public health and environmental issues.
The GNEB Tenth Report could facilitate this dialogue.

Panel 1: Undocumented Human Crossings				(10:30 a.m.)

Chair Ganster introduced the first panel, which had been charged with
discussing their feedback on the Board’s recommendations about
security and environmental protection related to undocumented human
crossings between ports of entry.

David V. Aguilar, Chief, U.S. Border Patrol, DHS, stated that DHS Border
Patrol strategy is focused on reducing illegal entries of terrorists and
drug and human smugglers, as well as using non-intrusive technologies
and improving quality of life. The Border Patrol operates in three
environments: urban, rural, and remote areas.  Different strategies and
technologies are needed for the different environments.  The Border
Patrol’s goal is to maximize the efficiency and effectiveness of
resources while minimizing the intrusiveness of border patrol
activities.

John C. Twiss, Director, Law Enforcement & Investigations, U.S. Forest
Service, Department of Agriculture (USDA), stated that the Forest
Service could support the recommendations of the GNEB Tenth Report.  The
Report shows a clear understanding of the issues, the agency’s
mission, the value of risk, and the barriers to achieving both resource
protections and border security.  The Forest Service agrees with the
need for collaboration among the various agencies and with employing a
mix of technologies and people to achieve these goals.

Mr. Twiss provided a brief  Forest Service update regarding border
security and natural resource issues, particularly in the 60-mile border
of the Coronado National Forest, which is an unsafe area.  The problems
are importation of illegal drugs, armed drug and human smugglers,
illegal growing of marijuana in more than 40 national forests, and
damage from foot traffic, trash, abandoned vehicles, garbage, erosion,
and destruction of wildlife habitat.  Mr. Twiss lauded the efforts of
Chief Aguilar in improving the relationship between the Border Patrol
and the Forest Service by forming an interagency task force, employing a
land management coordinator, developing an MOU between USDA and DOI, and
co-locating facilities.  Best management practices are being promoted
for Border Patrol activities.

Mr. Twiss discussed the Tenth Report challenges as they pertain to the
Forest Service.  The Forest Service is identifying sensitive resources,
strengthening communication with the public, and would consider
establishing an office to analyze the impact of border security on the
environment.  The problem with the second challenge of clean-up is the
safety of bringing in volunteers.  The Forest Service agrees with the
report’s third challenge as cited: damage to wildlife from fencing.

Larry R. Parkinson, Deputy Assistant Secretary, Law Enforcement and
Security, Department of Interior (DOI), stated that the GNEB Tenth
Report was a balanced report. The agency agrees with the conclusions and
they look forward to working with the GNEB to implement the
recommendations.  The important aspect of the public’s and rangers’
safety needs more development in the report.  Rangers have been
threatened by smugglers, who use a wide variety of sophisticated weapons
and technology.  Secretary Kempthorne, after a visit to the border area,
said the government has lost control of public lands.  In the remote
areas, flexibility in types of barriers is the key.

Mr. Parkinson focused on the collaboration between DOI, DHS, and the
Forest Service based on a MOU signed by the three Secretaries that
includes environmental sensitivity.  DOI has a law enforcement
component, and about 200 of 4,000 officers are deployed in the Southwest
border area.  He noted Chief Aguilar’s work in developing a Public
Lands Liaison Agent in every Border Patrol sector, who would work with
the public land managers to address environmental issues.  He agreed
with the Report’s statement that vigorous border security can actually
prevent or limit harm to the environment by apprehending people as soon
as possible, and also prevent some of the 200 deaths a year in the
desert.

Panel I Questions and Comments

In response to a question about displacement of illegal persons and
activities to Texas because of border patrol activities in Arizona,
Chief Aguilar agreed that displacement would occur, but they are
increasing resources and infrastructure to prevent criminal activity
along the Texas border as well. By the end of September, a security
system would cover 72 miles at the Texas border.  Under the SBI Net
program, $1.2 billion will be spent to increase surveillance.

As to whether the National Guard could be used to provide safety for
park management employees, Mr. Parkinson said the National Guard is
assisting the Border Patrol in building infrastructure, but is not
engaged in law enforcement activities.  Chief Aguilar added that in
Operation Jump Start, more than 6,000 National Guard personnel enabled
them to gain over 340 miles of additional surveillance.  By the end of
FY2008, DOI will have 18,500 personnel, up from 12,550 currently working
at the border.

Robert Varady brought up the difference between border patrol activities
which appeared to focus on illegal activity rather than on preventing
terrorists from entering the country.  Chief Aguilar responded that the
vast amount of clutter and illegal activity at the border must be
mitigated to prevent the possibility of terrorists entering the border.
The ports of entry are guarded by the Office of Field Operations, not
the Border Patrol.

Mr. Parkinson added that in 2005, 366 illegal aliens from special
interest countries, including Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, and Pakistan,
were apprehended at the borders.  Three of these aliens later were
convicted of terrorist activities.

Susan Keith expressed concern about the use of Border Patrol checkpoints
in fragile environmental areas as opposed to highways in Arizona.  Chief
Aguilar responded that checkpoints use a wide range of technical devices
to avoid environmental damage and need to cover remote areas, not just
highways.

Panel II: Hazardous Materials Crossings				(11:30 a.m.)

Chair Ganster stated that the next Panel would focus on hazardous
material crossings.

Dana Tulis, Deputy, Office of Emergency Management, Office of Solid
Waste and Emergency Response, EPA, said she serves as the Co-Chair of
the Border 2012 Emergency Preparedness and Response Program Workgroup
(BWWG), which was set up under the 1983 La Paz agreement between the
U.S. and Mexico under the auspices of EPA and its Mexican counterpart
SEMARNAT.  An official from the Mexican enforcement agency,
Procuraduría Federal de Protección al Ambiente (PROFEPA), serves as
the other Co-Chair.

The Workgroup operates as the steering committee for the Joint Response
Team (JRT), which is similar to the U.S. National Response Team (NRT).
The NRT coordinates 14 agency efforts and serves as a backup of
resources for local and states’ first responders.  The JRT includes
U.S. and Mexican national agencies, as well as state and local agencies
and tribes along both sides of the border.

Some of the BWWG accomplishments to date in emergency preparedness and
response include developing 14 sister city emergency response plans,
training personnel, conducting tabletop and field exercises on hazardous
materials, and revising the Joint Contingency Plan to coordinate
international, state and local efforts to improve communication.

The Workgroup’s initiatives for 2006/2007 have included testing and
updating the notification system between Mexico and the U.S.; expediting
cross-border responses for people and equipment under the Trusted
Traveler Program; securing liability insurance coverage for local
emergency cross-border responders, and strengthening partnerships with
U.S. and Mexican offices at all levels, including CBP, NorthCom (DOD
asset), Protección Civil, CENACOM, and Aduanas.

Bob Richard, Associate Administrator, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials
Safety Administration (PHMSA), Department of Transportation (DOT),
provided an overview of his administration, which works with other
offices within DOT to regulate hazardous materials transportation.  One
of his collateral duties is as Chairman of the United Nations
Subcommittee on the Transport of Dangerous Goods, which writes
regulations on international transport.

Prior to 1992, Mr. Richard said, Mexico did not have any hazardous
materials regulations, so PHMSA worked with officials there to establish
these regulations.  PHMSA has responsibilities in the areas of
enforcement, planning, and training, and writes regulations for
carriers, shippers, manufacturers, and governments.  PHMSA inspectors
cannot cover all of the law enforcement activities, so this area is
shared with state and local governments. Training has been done on both
sides of the border for emergency response teams, carriers and shippers.

The goal for the hazmat program is to prevent risk by working with
hazmat transporters on increasing safety and security.  PHMSA works with
other Federal agencies, such as the Federal Aviation Administration, the
U.S. Coast Guard, and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to
enforce regulations under their modalities. PHMSA meets twice a year
with Mexico to ensure that regulations are harmonized.

Development and dissemination of training and information materials is a
major part of enhancing hazardous materials transportation safety.
Other materials available include a CD on hazmat and security awareness,
training videos, and an emergency response guidebook.

Todd Owens, Executive Director, Cargo and Conveyance Security, Office of
Field Operations, DHS, spoke on behalf of Jayson Ahern, Assistant
Commissioner, Office of Field Operations, who was on travel to Canada.
The Office of Field Operations has responsibility for operations within
the 324 official ports of entry, of which 42 are on the Mexican border.
Mr. Owens is responsible for cargo programs, including inspection
technology, gamma and x-ray imaging systems, and all radiation portal
detection equipment.

The agency employs a risk management approach to detect whether the 29.5
million containers and trailers that enter the U.S. each year, whether
by land or sea, contain hazardous materials, weapons of mass
destruction, illegal humans, narcotics, or illegal weapons.  Mr. Owens
described some of the methods used to detect illegal or dangerous cargo:
an automated targeting system, assignment of a risk score, and imaging
systems.  Radiation portal monitors enables screening to be improved
compared with a year ago.  An industry partnership allows the agency to
secure the supply chain through the Customs Trade Partnership against
Terrorism.

In addition, the Free and Secure Trade (FAST) Program requires that all
truck drivers carrying hazmat materials from Canada and Mexico possess a
FAST card, which speeds up transport.  A layered enforcement strategy
allows them to assign a risk based on a risk score.  Hazmat materials
inspection is assisted by state and local officers.

Panel II Questions and Comments

Carl Edlund asked if the country is prepared for multiple types of
threats.  Ms. Tulis answered that EPA is doing gaps analysis to prepare
for five simultaneous events.

Flavio Olivieri asked whether Mexican trucks carrying hazmat materials
were allowed to obtain a FAST pass and cross the border, and if RFID
technologies are used to track hazmat containers.  Mr. Richard said that
Mexican hazmat trucks can come into a commercial zone in the U.S., but
cannot go long-haul.  RFID is one method to track hazardous materials.
The type of approach depends on the degree of risk.

Public Comment Session							(12:30 p.m.)

DFO Koerner announced the meeting was open for public comments.  Three
people were signed up to speak: Karen Sennhadji, Juan Antonio Flores,
and Lisa Almodovar.

Karen Senhdaji, U. S. Department of Interior (DOI), wanted to highlight
the dedication of DOI biologists, archeologists and interpretative
rangers, who have stayed onsite in their public lands positions along
the border despite the challenges.  The Bureau of Land Management staff
has had a long history of working with the border patrol in exchanging
information about eco-sensitive areas and different cultures.  Ms.
Senhadji also said that BLM also talked to colleagues about the
importance of Border Patrol techniques in providing security.

Juan Antonio Flores, Public Affairs Director, North American Development
Bank (NADBank) thanked the Board for its letters of support, which were
instrumental in advancing the policy initiatives of the institution.
The newly established joint Board of Directors for both NADBank and BECC
has met twice, and a large number of projects have been approved for
financing.  The total amount of funding for projects is now $844.42
million.  The majority of the funds, around $493.9 million, come from
EPA’s border fund.  The total cost of the 98 projects is more than
$2.5 billion.  In the U.S.-Mexico border area, there are now 17
communities that are provided for the first time with wastewater
treatment service.

The problem is that EPA’s border fund has continued to diminish over
the years, from $100 million down to $50 million.  Even worse, the
FY2008 budget for the Border Environmental Infrastructure Fund (BEIF) is
only $10 million.  The pace of BECC and NADBank projects development and
financing of basic water and wastewater infrastructure projects would be
significantly impacted at that funding level were this figure to be the
final funding figure.

Mr. Flores invited GNEB members to the NADBank/BECC Board meeting on
March 27, 2007, in San Antonio, Texas.  He said the NADBank/BECC Board
would be considering several potential projects in the new sectors of
renewable energy, air quality, etc., as well as basic water, wastewater,
and solid waste projects.  Many of these projects are private sector
initiatives.

Questions and Comments for Mr. Flores

Stephen Niemeyer asked whether the explanation for the decreased funding
was related to the slowness of fund disbursement for projects by the
NADBank.  Mr. Flores answered that NADBank is moving to accelerate fund
disbursement by fully funding projects that are approved and under way.
Funding is required up front for project development, and has been held
up by political considerations.  For example, $60 million was designated
for the international wastewater treatment plant in Nogales, but has not
been dispersed due to political and engineering dilemmas.  NADBank needs
to improve its coordination and oversight of local project sponsors to
ensure that construction stays on track and funds are disbursed
accordingly.

In response to questions from Ms. Keith, Mr. Flores explained that
NADBank is capitalized with funds from both the U.S. and Mexican
governments, and this does not require Congressional approval.  The BEIF
grant is appropriated by Congress and administered by NADBank.  There is
no annual federal grant program from Mexico to the Bank.  Any funds from
BEIF for projects in Mexico must be matched dollar-for-dollar by Mexico.

Christopher Brown asked how to support the need for more funds.  Mr.
Flores answered that Congress makes the decisions, but key stakeholders
in the area, such as the U.S.-Mexico Chamber of Commerce, the Border
Trade Alliance, etc., need to provide support.  Chair Ganster added that
the border environmental projects in general are having difficulty in
gaining Congressional support throughout the country. After said
discussion, Christopher Brown suggested that the Board write a Comment
Letter on the topic.

Lisa Almodovar, Office of International Affairs, EPA, addressed the
budgetary problem of the Border 2012 program, which would lose one-third
of its budget in the proposed FY2008 budget.  Border 2012 is asking its
stakeholders and partners to provide ideas about priorities and ways to
help border communities with their environmental problems.  She invited
GNEB members to the National Coordinators meeting on May 22, 2007, in
San Antonio and to provide comments on the Border 2012 program.

Questions and comments for Ms. Almodovar

DFO Koerner asked if there was a deadline for comments.  Ms. Almodovar
responded that comments could be received prior to the May meeting or
before November.  In November, they will be putting everyone’s
comments into a refined addendum for FY2008.  Michael Dorsey was
concerned because Border 2012 had been cut back every year, which he
felt was unacceptable.  Chair Ganster and DFO Koerner suggested that
this issue be discussed in the following day’s GNEB business meeting.

Afternoon Speaker Briefings on the Eleventh Report Theme:

Natural Hazards and the U.S.-Mexico Border Environment

Introduction and Overview						(2:00 p.m.)

Chair Ganster opened the afternoon session by stating that the Board
would hear from several experts on the major issues for the GNEB
Eleventh Report, whose theme was the environmental effects of natural
hazards at the border.

Chair Ganster asked members to focus on the policy implications related
to environmental and infrastructure issues.  To date, the Eleventh
Report has been discussed at the GNEB Alpine Texas meeting and in a
conference call.  These discussions provided three options for
structuring the report and developing workgroups as follows: 1) Focus on
the context that would include the type of disaster, location, history,
institutional framework. The types of disasters include wind and water,
hurricanes, occasional tornadoes, fires and earthquakes; 2) Focus on
context, mitigation, and preparedness, and then look at response,
recovery, and rebuilding of human systems; and 3) Focus on context,
effects, and responses related to human health, species, and eco systems
effects.

Mr. Treviño, Ms. DiSirio, and Mr. Niemeyer suggested adding drought as
a type of disaster due to the effects of desertification on agriculture,
mass migration to the urban areas, and global climate change.

Keynote Remarks							(2:15 p.m.)

Jorge Navarro, Border Coordinator, Mexican Foreign Ministry, said that
the new Ambassador of Mexico sends his greetings and recognizes the
outstanding work of the GNEB.  Mr. Navarro focused his remarks on
emergency preparedness and responses by border communities to natural
hazards that threaten the environment.  The 1993 La Paz Meeting
definition of the border has been changed to include 300 kilometers
inside Mexico.  The 14 pair cities on the border face the same problems
from natural hazards, air pollution, and solid waste disposal which
affect the well-being of populations.  Mr. Navarro enumerated several
natural hazards which had occurred in Mexico such as dust clouds,
flooding in El Paso, and forest fires in California.

To provide a common response to these disasters, the U.S.-Mexico Joint
Response Team was established by the La Paz agreement.  The JRT has
representatives from the U.S. and Mexico, federal, state, and local
agencies responsible for emergency prevention, preparedness, and
response in the border region.  The JRT formed a Joint Contingency Plan
(JCP) that established a federal mechanism for cooperation in responding
to natural hazardous incidents.  A better dialogue is needed between the
U. S. National Response Center and the National Communications Center in
Mexico.  In Mexico, the Center for Environmental Emergencies of the
Federal Attorney General for Environmental Protection also receives
notification of disasters.

The main question is whether the JCP recognizes all natural hazards.
The JCP provides the foundation for establishing sister city,
bi-national, emergency responses.  The JCP provides local emergency
response teams with the mechanisms for addressing cooperative issues and
concerns and recommendations for emergency response planning, exercises,
and training

Mr. Navarro closed by stating that the Eleventh Report should prove very
useful to Mexico and Mexican authorities and researchers would like to
participate in a mutual dialogue on the natural hazards report.  Chair
Ganster thanked Mr. Navarro for his remarks and agreed that input from
Mexican authorities and researchers should be incorporated into the
process.

Speakers									(2:30 p.m.)

David Applegate, Senior Science Advisor for Earthquakes and Geological
Hazards, USGS, DOI, welcomed the opportunity to speak about the
bi-national issues and policy related to natural hazards at the border.
The end goal is to reduce the vulnerabilities from both manmade threats
and natural hazards.  Reduction of some vulnerabilities may create other
problems, such as the mass population movement into formerly rural and
hazardous areas.

Mr. Applegate used a series of slides to cover the role USGS in managing
six major natural hazards: earthquakes, hurricanes, flooding, drought,
wildfires, and tsunamis.

The USGS has statutory responsibility for issuing warnings and
notifications for earthquakes, volcanoes, and landslides, and provides
support for NOAA for measuring tsunamis and floods.  Mr. Applegate is a
member of a Subcommittee on Disaster Reduction which is part of the
White House National Science and Technology Council, consisting of 22
agencies that look at a wide range of natural disasters and their impact
on society.

A detailed presentation of six types of hazards was presented.  Some of
the topics included the President’s Disaster Declaration; the Dare to
Prepare Campaign; the Drought Impact Reporter; the earthquake potential
from faults; hurricane and flooding damage in increasingly populous
areas; debris flow from former wildfires; a potential tsunami in the San
Diego/Tijuana area.; and measuring drought with stream gauge data.

Questions and Comments

Chair Ganster asked about rating the likelihood of hazards and the
concentration of resources.  Mr. Applegate replied that it was difficult
to quantify the impacts of hazards because of the variability in
intensity and the degree of suddenness.

Sally Spener commented that the IBWC operates and maintains the Rio
Grande Flood Control Project, which consists of levees that were in
danger of breaching in the El Paso flood of 2006.  Ms. Spener hoped that
the Eleventh Report would consider the issues and make recommendations
related to flood control and prevention of environmental damage.

Dr. Brown asked if the science advisory effort linked floods and
droughts to global climate change.  Mr. Applegate replied that the
Climate Change Research Program is coordinating efforts related to
climate change.

(3:15 p.m.)

Sonja Nieuwejaar, Director, Office of International Affairs, FEMA,
Department of Homeland Security, stated that it was FEMA’s mission to
assist the United States in mitigating, preparing for, responding to,
and recovering from both manmade and natural hazards. Ms. Neiuwejaar
would focus on how the U.S. and its international counterparts are
managing and responding to cross border events on the local, state,
national, bi-national, and tri-national level.  She provided a summary
of emergency management challenges and suggested recommendations for
moving forward.

One of the major incidents in 2006 was the Júarez La Montada Dam Safety
Incident near El Paso. An international team consisting of the cities of
El Paso and Júarez, the Army Corps of Engineers, and the IWBC, was
assembled to avoid potential disaster. Although cross-border
communication was good, there are no cross-border plans to address dam
safety.  The U. S. government could not provide direct assistance unless
Mexico’s government requested it.  The U.S. Ambassador must declare a
disaster to allow the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID)
to provide assistance.

In the Arizona/Sonora Cross-Border exercises; the states of Arizona and
Sonora combined the four counties of Yuma, Pima, Santa Cruz, and Cochise
under one region to hold bi-national exercises in an improvised
explosive and hazardous material event.  A series of similar exercises
demonstrated the need for sister-city, sister-state, and bi-national
planning.

After Hurricane Katrina, the U.S. developed cross-border International
Assistance Plans (IAS).  The IAS established standard operating
procedures for requesting assistance, reviewing offers, determining
acceptability of offers, managing logistics and distributing
commodities.  Many U.S. agencies are involved in IAS including the State
Department, FEMA, USAID, and DOD.

Ms. Nieuwejaar depicted twelve cross-border bi-national initiatives
including contingency plans with Mexico and Canada.  The Cross Border
Tri-National Initiatives of the Security and Prosperity Partnership
(SPP) provide a framework for cooperation between emergencies and for a
potential avian influenza pandemic in the U.S., Canada, and Mexico.

The challenges of cross-border emergency management include
coordination, organization, legal, regulatory, operational, logistical,
and financial.  For organizational contacts, the definition of
triggering events and responsibilities must be established.  Legal and
regulatory challenges make it difficult to determine what help can be
given and accepted.  Medical licensing and credentialing varies from
country to country.  Customs duties, passport requirements, and resource
manifests must be waived.

Interoperability of equipment posed the largest challenge.  Global
standards are needed for emergency responses.  Command and control over
personnel needs further discussion.  Mobilization of resources requires
specification of locations and handling equipment.  Financial challenges
related to reimbursement of expenses and transfer of funds.  In dealing
with the public, messages must be clear and the same for both countries.
 Cross-border evacuation plans need development.

In looking forward, the present initiatives at all governmental levels
need to be reviewed and coordinated.  Best practices and information
need to be shared between plans.  The various single hazard events may
need to be coordinated into one emergency response plan.  Lastly, an
overall mutual assistance plan needs to be focused more on mitigation
and preparedness activities so that information, data collection,
training, and exercises could be shared.

Questions and Comments

Mr. Elbrock asked if drought should be considered a natural hazard.  Ms.
Nieuwejaar said that FEMA would treat drought the same as other
emergency hazards, if it was so designated.  Mr. Applegate said that
drought is a different hazard due to its slow onset, but should be
mitigated because of its significant impacts

Mr. Varady commented that the U.S. should recognize Mexico as a good
neighbor in managing emergencies.  He thought that emergencies should be
treated differently, with rules and regulations that are determined in
advance.  Ms. Nieuwejaar responded that regulations for accepting
assistance were codified after Katrina and will be used in the next
disaster.

Dr. Brown asked if FEMA had reviewed its procedures to identify
problems.

Ms. Nieuwejaar said that many agencies, including the White House
Homeland Security Council and the Government Accountability Office,
asked what FEMA was going to do to address problems in emergency
management.  Assistance agencies including FEMA, the State Department,
and USAID reviewed and addressed problems and issues related to their
purview to develop a system for the next disaster.

John Wood described three examples of cross border assistance provided
by the City of Brownsville to disasters on the Mexican side of the
border.  He thought that “red tape” needed to be set aside in time
of life-threatening disaster.  Mr. Wood also noted that his city had
established good relations with border officials to ease cross-border
assistance.

In response to a question about the new passport requirements in land
boundary crossings, Rachel Poynter, Office of Mexico Affairs, U.S.
Department of State (DOS), said that DOS and DHS have not yet resolved
that issue.  Ms. Spener thought this should be addressed in the Eleventh
Report.  Ms. Spener asked if undocumented aliens could receive aid from
FEMA.  Ms. Nieuwejaar said she would need to go back to the agency for
the answer to that question.

Mr. Dorsey asked if there was a plan for transporting medical supplies
and patients across the border if resources were inadequate in the
neighboring country.  Ms. Nieuwejaar said that USAID that would respond
to an international disaster and determine if medical assistance could
be provided to another country.  FEMA could decide if medical assistance
could be accepted in the U.S.  States have the responsibility to
determine if medical certification could be waived.

Mr. Edlund added that there is a structure for responding to emergencies
that involves the federal, state and local governments’ emergency
support systems and FEMA is the lead agency.  He thought the structure
should be reviewed for the Eleventh Report.  In response to a request,
DFO Koerner said Ms. Nieuwejaari’s presentation would be sent to Board
members on a CD.

(4:15 p.m.)

Kevin Yeskey, M.D., Deputy Assistant Secretary (Acting), Office of
Preparedness and Emergency Operations (OPEO), Department of Health and
Human Services (HHS), spoke from a medical and public health standpoint
in describing the general approaches to hazards and challenges to
international responses.  The National Response Plan (NPR) currently
being rewritten is for domestic response and is primarily a support
mechanism for states and localities.  A pandemic influenza event would
require more Federal resources.  Dr. Yeskey then described the focus of
HHS in preparedness, response and recovery activities and public health
considerations in an emergency.

The White House Report on Hurricane Katrina recommended a single unified
command and control center within HHS for all health and medical
responses.  The December 2006 Pandemic All Hazards Preparedness Act
identified the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response as the
lead official within HHS.  The Emergency Support Function Eight services
include public health, primary care, acute care, in-patient care, and
other duties such as victim identification.  Under the Incident Command
System, HHS responses are structured under national standards.

Some of the biggest public health problems include population
displacement, rumor control, and secondary effects on the environment.
One of the biggest issues for preparedness is medical staff capacity.
The National Disaster Medical System has 6,000 volunteers in teams who
are under the control of OPEO, and five rapid deployment teams, but very
few of these people have passports and could not be deployed
internationally without waivers.  Medical volunteers can be federalized
to move across state lines, but foreign nationals cannot be federalized.

Response and recovery preparedness issues include clean-up of water,
air, debris, insects, microorganisms, and toxins.  Sanitation system
restoration is needed to prevent wastewater going into rivers.

Questions and Comments

Chair Ganster indicated a concern about the population movement of
around 100,000 Mexican nationals in Tijuana who could be on the U.S.
side of the border during a disaster.

Dr. Yeskey answered that states have mutual aid agreements and the FEMA
compact managed by DHS for bringing in resources.  Chair Ganster asked
about bringing in private companies’ medical resources.  Dr. Yeskey
agreed that private industry resources need to be utilized for medical
assistance.

Ms. DiSirio asked for an explanation of how the U.S. is able to respond
to tsunamis or other disasters in foreign countries.   Dr. Yeskey
explained that requests from foreign nations are made through DOS to the
President.  USAID and DHS send a Disaster Assistance Response Team
(DART) to assess the needs.  DOD gets involved through its various
commands, depending on the area.  Funding for international responses is
not structured as it is for national responses.  In domestic disasters,
HHS can deploy medical resources through mission assignments.
Internationally, responses are slower, because resources are further
away and duplication must be avoided.

Ms. Spener commented that Mexico does not request foreign aid in the
event of a disaster.  Even though mutual aid does occur at the local
level, she doubted that USAID’s response teams would be going into
Mexico.

Mr. Niemeyer asked if HHS had MOUs with Mexico for medical assistance.
Ms. DiSirio, CDC, said that there were no MOUs with Mexico.  CDC
responds to requests from the Officer of Federal Disaster Assistance in
the International Emergency Refugee Health Branch or from the World
Health Organization.

Consejo Consultivo Report						(5:00 p.m.)

Flavio Olivieri, Northwest Representative, provided an update on the
Consejo organizational structure and activities under SEMARNET.
Personnel changes that have occurred include Felipe Calderón, President
of Mexico; Juan Elvira, Secretary of the Environment; and Mateo
Castillo, Office of Civic Participation.  The National Council meets on
June 4-5, 2007 in Mexico City.  Mr. Olivieri invited Chair Ganster to
the NW Regional Consejo on March 28-30, 2007, in Tijuana. The National
Council will accept new members by December, 2007.  Some of the
priorities and activities included development of a national strategic
plan under the new President; follow-up on the recommendations responded
to by the Secretary; collaboration with SEMARNAT on the National
Environmental Public Participation Strategies; and follow-up on the All
American Canal and border security systems.

Successes in 2006 included legal marine zoning in the sea of Cortez,
participation in the Fourth World Water Forum, and development of the
National Sustainable Development Education Program with the Department
of Education.

Questions and Comments

In response to a question about marine environmental zoning, Mr.
Olivieri explained that it was an effort by several agencies to agree on
how to use and protect the Sea of Cortez in view of the competition
between tourism, commercial industries, fisheries, and indigenous
communities.

Chair Ganster asked about the sustainable development projects and how
the new administration might affect future activities.  Mr. Olivieri
responded that the Calderón administration had used the word
“sustainability,” in all their proposals.  SEMARNAT seems to be
getting more support and giving more authority to state governments.
Information on environmental events is being shared with Consejo
Councils.

Ms. Krebs asked if businesses are regulated differently in the states or
regions.  Mr. Olivieri replied that the federal law should be applied
nationwide, although states may have different regulations. More
authority is being given to the states and municipalities in the new
Administration.

Adjournment: The meeting was adjourned at 5:07 p.m.

Day 2 – March 14, 2007

										(8:00 a.m.)

Business Meeting and Strategic Planning Session

Business Meeting

New Member Introductions, Goals for Board Membership

DFO Elaine Koerner opened the business meeting and welcomed the three
new, non-Federal members: Patti Krebs, John Wood, and Susan Keith.
Daniel Darrach, Department of State, and Gary Robinson, DHS, were
recently appointed Federal members.  After the new members spoke briefly
about their interests, Chair Ganster presented them with GNEB pins.

Sally Spener noted that President Bush, at a meeting in Mexico that
week, issued a statement about the need for cooperation on trade,
immigration, and security between both countries and acknowledged the
need to protect their shared natural resources.

Approval of the Minutes

Chair Ganster asked if there were any changes to the minutes.  Stephen
Niemeyer and Christopher Brown provided DFO Koerner with some minor
corrections and typographical errors which would be incorporated before
the minutes are posted on the website.  Several members thought the
minutes were well done.  Gary Gillen moved adoption of the minutes with
changes as provided to DFO Koerner.  Dr. Brown seconded the motion and
the minutes were approved unanimously.

Dissemination Plan for the Tenth Report

DFO Koerner briefly reviewed the dissemination plan for the GNEB Tenth
Report.  She asked members to note the number of reports they would like
to receive and indicate where they could distribute the report.  Dr.
Brown suggested making a one page summary of the key highlights, with a
brief cover letter and a URL for the GNEB website link, for distribution
to Congressional Offices and other busy, influential people.  Ms.
Montoya offered to have the World Wildlife Fund office in Mexico City
distribute the report to the Mexican border delegation.  Another member
suggested sending the report to the EPA attaché in Mexico.

DFO Koerner acknowledged that the distribution system was not
systematic.  She encouraged members to distribute copies to colleagues
and at meetings and to report back to her for the tracking report.
Around 4,000 copies had been printed.  The possibility of using CDs or
DVDs could be discussed in the future.

Discussion of the Eleventh Report					(8:30 a.m.)

To focus the Board’s thinking on the GNEB mission of advising the
President and Congress on environmental infrastructure issues, DFO
Koerner proposed four questions as follows:

How are air, water, waste, and related infrastructure affected by border
region natural hazards?

How are human and environmental health affected?

Why does the border region deserve special focus in terms of this issue?

What can and should the Federal Government do to better manage natural
resources in the border region to better protect human health and the
environment?

Mr. Niemeyer commented that state and local governments and other
partners should be included in Question 4.  Ms. Keith thought one of the
main questions was “Why should EPA be involved?  She added that if a
huge earthquake happened in another state, it could affect Arizona in
terms of population displacement, and health concerns would be
paramount.

Mr. Gillen and Dr. Brown identified the need to heed Mr. Clifford’s
urge to keep the report relevant to science-based policy and to focus on
actionable events.  DFO Koerner added that the report should clearly
communicate what is the current policy and system and what changes are
being recommended.  Ms. Keith added that the report should focus on
emerging issues that would need new policy.  Ms. Montoya thought the
focus should be on current programs and responsibilities.  Mr. Stefanov
said that the connection between the selected topic and the border
environment needs to be clearly stated.

Gary Gillen emphasized the importance of ensuring that GNEB’s work is
focused on what is valuable to the President.  DFO Koerner reminded them
of the Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) that were developed with the
Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ). The goal was to create a more
direct line with the Office of the President and have a dialogue between
the GNEB and CEQ, starting with the Twelfth Report.  Mark Joyce
described the step-wise process in more detail that would ensure GNEB
reports would be useful to the President and the entire government.

In response to a question from Ms. DiSirio, Mr. Joyce said there was no
systematic way to document or assess whether action was taken on
advisory committee recommendations.  This assessment is more difficult
because the recommendations involve many governmental agencies and
programs.  Chair Ganster reminded the Board of Robert Varady’s
subgroup on evaluation that worked on assessing the impact of GNEB’s
recommendations.  Mr. Joyce added that the GNEB has been an important
force in changing EPA’s policies, even though it may take several
years for the policies to be changed.  Mr. Dorsey said that
Congressional priorities and GNEB’s expert opinions were both
important and that GNEB needs to make a better case for chosen topics.

Mr. Edlund suggested allowing Mr. Clifford to review the conceptual
outline of GNEB report topics.  Mr. Joyce thought that CEQ would also be
a good sounding board for drafts of the reports.  DFO Koerner reminded
the Board that although the GNEB is in partnership with Border 2012,
GNEB is an independent board.

Chair Ganster raised the issue of outside support for doing research and
drafting report.  Mr. Joyce stated that Rafael DeLeon, Director of OCEM,
was committed to getting a support contract for this Board and the other
EPA/OCEM advisory committees, but that the process of governmental
contracting was difficult.  Some short-term support is possible.
Several members made suggestions for hiring students or interns, such as
through university grants and USGS contracts.  DFO Koerner suggested the
need for a conference call on the subject.  Members agreed and several
volunteered to participate: James Stefanov, Marilyn DiSirio, Rosendo
Treviño, and Carl Edlund.  The conference call to review options for
hiring a student to do research and write reports would be held March 27
at 2:00 p.m. EST.

To focus the Board on the Eleventh Report, Chair Ganster asked them to
review a list of FEMA-declared disasters which had affected border
counties from 1998 to the present.  Chair Ganster asked members to
suggest possible recommendations in the area of natural hazard
disasters.  Board members suggested the following:

Bi-national preparedness plans, including command and control issues,
personnel, communications, interoperability, and exercises

Emergency responders cross-border functions and problems, such as
passports

Flood protection that benefits the environment.

Bi-national wildfire and flood disaster planning

The relationship between border security and natural disasters, such as
flooding

Formal structures and their authority to engage in bi-national
operations, such as the State Department, and structures that are needed

Mexico’s policies and actions in border disasters

Development of natural hazards preparedness plans and training programs.

Suggestions on research and review of plans and involvement and of other
agencies, organizations, and governments in development of the report
included:

FEMA/DHS that are responsible for disaster management

Collaboration and mutual agreements or MOUs with Mexico similar to the
Border Liaison Mechanism

HHS and CDC for health protection expertise and plans

Local governmental emergency response plans, problems and gaps

The 14 Sister City agreements on emergency responses

County disaster preparedness plans developed after Katrina and their
relationship to cross-border events.

Suggestions for structuring the report included making a check lists in
three parts: 1) actions that are immediately doable, 2) actions that are
doable, but require more resources; and 3) barriers to actions.  Another
suggestion was to consider one or two worst case disaster scenarios,
like an earthquake or hurricane, and determine what emergency responses
would be required and how well prepared and equipped responders are to
handle the disasters.

Chair Ganster asked DFO Koerner to discuss a possible theme and
workgroups.  DFO Koerner suggested the main theme: What are the
environmental effects of natural hazards and what actions are needed?
She suggested three workgroups based on Board expertise as follows:

Air quality, water quality, land and related infrastructure issues, such
as drinking water plants, sewage treatment plants, etc.

Wildlife and ecosystems

Human health.

Key issues, such as the institutional framework, and context would be
part of the introduction.  Mr. Stefanov offered to be involved in
writing the introduction.

The discussion of themes and workgroup structure and issues yielded the
following:

Combining Workgroup 2 with 1 or as a subset of 1.

Grouping by context, mitigation and preparedness, and response and
recovery.

Focusing on disasters that would have trans-border effects and any event
within 100 miles of the border

Focusing on the unique preparation and mitigation of natural hazards
near the border

Having members with different expertise in each workgroup

Including drought as a natural disaster related to air quality and human
diseases

It was determined that combining options 2 and 3 as the main framework
so that items in option 1-3 would be repeated under preparedness,
response and recover, and mitigation.  Three workgroups were defined as
context, planning and mitigation, and response and rebuilding.  Members
signed up for the workgroups and coordinators, as follows:

Context: James Stefanov, Coordinator, Rosario Marin, Deputy Coordinator,
 Rachel Poynter, Gary Gillen, Robert Varady, Sally Spener, and
Christopher Brown.

Planning and Mitigation: Jennifer Montoya, Co-Coordinator, Michael
Dorsey, Co-Coordinator, Ann Marie Wolf, Susan Keith, Marilyn DiSirio,
John Wood.

Response and Rebuilding: Carl Edlund, Coordinator, Stephen Niemeyer
Deputy Coordinator, Gary Robinson, and Edward Elbrock.

Ms. Keith was concerned about overlap with the Tenth Report in terms of
disaster responses to hazmat hazards protocols, which have already been
written down.  Mr. Dorsey thought the natural disaster responses would
be on a larger scale.  Mr. Edlund offered to present a slide show to the
Board on response procedures related to Katrina and other disasters.
Ms. Montoya explained that not all counties were as well-prepared as
Arizona.  The focus in planning and mitigation would be on how to
prevent land degradation from creating natural disasters.  Commissioner
Marin added that the issue of flood control models goes beyond emergency
response and includes endangered species and collaboration with Mexico.

To explain the importance of drought and desertification as a natural
disaster, Mr. Treviño offered to summarize the findings from the United
Nations Convention on Drought and send it to members.  DFO Koerner said
the Context Workgroup would be tasked with determining which issues
would be included.  Other members could be involved in the first
conference call on context to have input into included issues.

DFO Koerner asked members to set dates and times for workgroup
conference calls:

Context:  April 5 at 11:00 a.m. EST

Planning and Mitigation: April 3 at 12:00 noon EST

Recovery and Rebuilding: April 10 at 3:00 p.m. EST

Mr. Gillen offered to coordinate the photographs for the report and
asked members to send him pictures related to their section of the
report.

Strategic Planning								(9:30 a.m.)

DFO Koerner reviewed materials in the GNEB folders related to Strategic
Planning, including mission, vision, goals and principles, CEQ’s SOPs,
and a work plan grid.  DFO Koerner would add names of the new workgroups
to the work grid.  Ms. Montoya suggested removing the name of Karen
Chapman from the planning committee, since she will be moving away.
Chair Ganster offered to be on the Las Cruces meeting planning group and
to help with the field visit.

Mr. Niemeyer shared some concerns about the GNEB mission, vision and
goals statements.  He asked for clarification of the meaning of
“community input.”  DFO Koerner answered that this meant input from
people in border communities.  Mr. Niemeyer made several other
suggestions for changes as follows:

Change “enable” strategic allocation to “facilitate.”

Change “result” to “The desired result.”

Change “retain” independent perspective to “emphasize.”

DFO Koerner asked if members agreed with these changes and there were no
objections, so the changes would be made.

He also suggested that, under the SOP with CEQ the word “GNEB” be
changed to OCEM since the final agreements were made between OCEM and
CEQ.

DFO Koerner asked if members agreed with these changes and there were no
objections, so the changes would be made.

Dr. Brown voiced a concern about the role and status of Federal members
in regard to recusing themselves from signing GNEB’s advisory letters.
 Various Federal members replied that there were various reasons related
to their agencies’ policies and procedures that caused them to recuse
themselves, but that these were rare occasions.  Letters were reviewed
by Federal members on a case-by-case basis.  After some discussion, DFO
Koerner said that the legislation specifically calls for voting Federal
Board members.  She suggested further discussion of the role of Federal
members at the next meeting.

Chair Ganster suggested writing a comment letter on Border 2012,
including its successes and ideas for course corrections.  Dr. Brown
said he was in favor of this letter and also one on BEIF funding that
was suggested in the public comments on Day 1. Chair Ganster thought
more study would be required to develop a statement.  Ms. Montoya
requested that members be provided a copy of the Border 2012 report.
Mr. Niemeyer and Mr. Dorsey both stated that the Border 2012 letter
should include the need for more funds. Mr. Dorsey, Dr. Brown, Ms. Wolf,
and Mr. Niemeyer offered to help with the letter.  A conference call to
discuss the letter was set up for April 16, 2007, at 3:00 p.m. EST.  The
concept of a separate letter on BEIF funding was approved and Chair
Ganster said a call for volunteers would be emailed to members.

DFO Koerner asked what OCEM did that worked well for the GNEB in the
past year and what areas need to be more effective or need more
resources.  Positive items mentioned included community meetings, field
trips, a higher profile for GNEB reports, and a focus on timely and
variable topics.  Members also noted that the Chair was able to guide
the Board to consensus on issues.  The DFO and the OCEM staff received
recognition for their support and responsiveness.

Chair Ganster asked members to discuss challenges for the future.  Ms.
Montoya would like to have a freer flow of discussion that does not
depend on naming who speaks.  To reduce the amount of paper, several
members would prefer to have pre-meeting papers emailed to them: Mr.
Dorsey, Dr Varady, Ms. Wolf, Mr. Stefanov, Ms. Krebs, Mr. Olivieri, Ms.
DiSirio, Ms. Poynter, and Mr. Darrach.  Dr. Brown and other members were
concerned about the GSA system for purchasing airline tickets, which
could be obtained for much less by individuals, and which would allow
people to fly to more than one place on the same ticket.  Several
members thought the Rogers travel agency was very helpful and
accommodating.

After this, several housekeeping items were reviewed by Lois Williams,
OCEM, in terms of how to account for and receive payments.  Chair
Ganster said he would like the issue of transportation in government
vans to be clarified.  Mr. Joyce answered that the issue was being
studied and guidance should soon be finalized.

Khanna Johnston, OCEM, informally briefed the Board on lobbying policy
with Congress.  The anti-lobbying law that applies to Federal employees
and contractors does not apply to GNEB members.  However, use of
appropriated funds, such as for travel, does prohibit indirect lobbying,
which is telling someone else to lobby a Congressional representative
for a program, legislation or funds.  The charters that set up the FACA
committee members do not allow lobbying.  However, members could share
findings and recommendations with Congress, because this is
information-sharing.  Ms. Johnston said that she was told that the
connection between financing of travel and lobbying was too remote to be
a concern.

Remarks from EPA Administrator Stephen L. Johnson		(10:15 a.m.)

Stephen L. Johnson, EPA Administrator thanked members for their
willingness to serve on the Board and for their work on the excellent
Tenth Report.  The Report’s themes, messages, and recommendations were
in concert with EPA’s relationship with border nations and globally to
improve the environment and security.  He stated that the Inspector
General had commented favorably on EPA’s responses to the hurricane
disaster.  He also said he was pleased to report that the President’s
FY2008 budget had $10 million for the U.S.-Mexico border and EPA has as
additional $40 million of unobligated funds.  During 2006, 22,000 more
people at the border gained access to safe and clean water.
Administrator Johnson closed by stating that the U.S. has one of the
world’s premier environmental protection agencies.  He urged the Board
to provide EPA with insights in the Eleventh Report on how to handle
natural disasters.

Board Member Report-Outs						(12:30 p.m.)

James Stefanov, USGS, DOI, reported on several developments to improve
data collection and monitoring along the border as follows:

Development of the Colonia Health Infrastructure and Platting Status
Tool (CHPST) that monitors progress, set infrastructure priorities, and
measure quality of life

Cooperation between USGS, IBWC, and INEGI to build bi-national GIS data
sets for natural resources for the border region

Coordination of the bi-national watershed delineations and hydrographic
network

Integration of bi-national and transboundary water quality data,
contaminant data, and land cover/use data to look at linkages between
environmental conditions and human health issues at the border

Partnership between the zoos in San Diego and Mexico and SEMARNAT to set
up a condor captive breeding facility at the request of the U.S.
Ambassador to Mexico.

Christopher Brown, Ph.D. New Mexico State University, reported on
several topics;

A Federal Highway Administration grant to proceed on a border
infrastructure needs assessment, Phase 2, under the joint bi-national
transportation planning group that involves FHWA, the Mexican Secretaria
de Communicación y Transporte, and 10 border states’ departments of
transportation

A project with the World Wildlife Fund to do GIS mapping in the Paso del
Norte region related to conservation

Publication of a report by the New Mexico Journal of Science on water
resource vulnerability in the Paso del Norte region in cooperation with
the Southwest Consortium on Environmental Research and Policy (SCERP).

A final report on another SCERP project on developing a bi-national GIS
system.

Sally Spener, IWBC, announced that President Bush had appointed
Commissioner Marin as Commissioner of the U.S. section; he has been
serving as Acting Commissioner.  The Nogales International Wastewater
Treatment Plant is being upgraded.  However, the international outfall
interceptor that conveys sewage to the treatment plant is not being
upgraded due to lack of funding.

Jennifer Montoya, WWF, reported that river restoration will receive $2.5
million of Governor Richardson’s capital budget.  This is the start of
a statewide initiative to integrate all of the state agencies that are
involved in river management on the Rio Grande.

Carl Edlund, Region 6, EPA, handed out a one-page report that included
an upcoming Border 2012 National Coordinators Meeting on May 22-24,
2007; an update of the U.S.-Mexico Border 2012 video; a conference on
scrap tire and used oil management; BEIF funding in the quarterly
management report; and several other items. He also said that the EPA
office had briefed Senator Feinstein’s office. DFO Koerner asked for a
copy of the quarterly report to email to members.

Rosendo Treviño, National Resources Conservation Service, USDA,
distributed fact sheets on USDA activities.  The fact sheets included
the reauthorization of the Farm Bill and information on an MOU between
the USDA Secretary, and the Mexican Agriculture and Economic Secretary
to reestablish the U.S.-Mexico Consultative Committee on Agriculture
(CCA).  Mr. Treviño is a member of the CCA Board.  Mr. Treviño added
that the NRCS has received large increases in funds for conservation
since 1995.  State conservationists focus their assistance on shared
watersheds with Mexico.  The U. S. and Mexican conservationists will
stage a bi-national earth day celebration in Alpine, Texas on May 23.

Lana Corrales, CDC, reported for Marilyn DiSirio, who had to leave for
the airport, on CDC’s National Center for Environmental Health and
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry activities.  An
environmental health workgroup involving CDC, Mexico, USEPA, and Border
2012 health task forces is working to reach consensus on border-wide
priorities for FY2007 to promote health indicator projects on traffic
and air pollution, dengue fever, and gastrointestinal illness in Baja,
California, related to new water systems. She is also involved with the
Border Indicators Task Force to improve environmental health and the
Border Health Commission on lead poisoning.

Stephen Niemeyer, P.E., Texas Commission on Environmental Quality,
distributed a written report that included the Border 2012 meeting in
Austin on February 27, 2007; a Water Work Table Meeting at the Border
Governor’s Conference on February 21, 2007; a TCEQ and University of
Texas conference on scrap tires and used-oil on February 26 to March 1,
2007; and a 2007 Border to Border Transportation Conference on April
17-19, 2007.  Mr. Niemeyer pointed out that Deputy Secretary of State
Buddy Garcia was appointed and was approved by the Texas Senate as the
new TCEQ Commissioner.

Rachel Poynter, Office of Mexico Affairs, Department of State, described
her role in covering U.S.-Mexico environment and health issues and
working with U.S. agencies such as EPA, DOI, USGS, and Fish and
Wildlife.  Three issues of interest to the Board included a communiqué
related to migratory bird habitat conservation, a NEPA assessment of the
Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative and land requirements; and a
meeting with all of the border governors. DHS, FEMA, and DOS are working
on more rapid movement of resources across the border.  A plan would be
developed similar to the one developed for the Canadian border.

Michael Dorsey, San Diego County Department of Environmental Health,
discussed the emergency management institute at the University of Baja
California in Tijuana that trains first responders.  In October, 2005, a
settlement with Equilon for $10.5 million enabled them to purchase
emergency response equipment for the City of Tijuana Fire Department.
Recently, Mr. Dorsey was appointed Chief of the Community Health
Division in charge of the Vector Control Program, oversight of landfills
and burn sites, occupational health, and radiological health.

Susan Keith, Arizona Department of Environmental Quality, reported that
ADEQ received a Border 2012 grant to clean up migrant waste and develop
a stakeholder process for future clean-ups.  ADEQ is studying air
quality in the border sister cities and is working with IBWC on planning
for the international Nogales wastewater plant.

Dr. Brown asked about the new RFID chip in passports that would allow
more rapid border crossings.  Ms. Poynter responded that the technology
was being developed and undergoing a NEPA assessment of the effect on
wait times at the border.  Mr. Olivieri said that his passport is
screened whenever he crosses into the U.S. from Mexico, but the
technology for scanning passports for U.S. exits to Mexico was not yet
in place.

Wrap Up and Adjournment					  (1:20 p.m.)

DFO Koerner set up a conference call to plan for the July 24-25 GNEB
meeting in Brownsville, Texas, for Monday, April 2, 2007 at 12 noon EST.
 Mr. Joyce congratulated the Board on their work in developing the
recommendations for the Tenth Report that received favorable comments
from Administrator Johnson and other agency officials.

The meeting was adjourned at 1:30 p.m.

Appendix

Mary Brandt, U.S. IBWC

Don Coelho, U.S. National Park Service

Eric Cook, Border Programs, GSA

Adam Domby, Congressman Girjalva’s Office

Luis Fernandez, EPA

Mike Feullo, BNA

Carey Fitzmaurice, EPA

Laura Gomez, OIA, EPA

Mark Harvey, Office of Law Enforcement, Security, and Emergency
Management, National Park Service, DOI

Khanna Johnston, OCEM, AO, EPA

Ellie Kanipe, OSW, EPA

Emily Kilcrease, Office of International Affairs, DOI

Deborah Kopsick, RPI, ORIA, EPA

Teresa Kuklinski, EPA

Corinne Lackner, Defenders of Wildlife

Todd Owen, CBP, DHS

Jonathan Putnam, National Park Service

Toni Rousey, OCEM, AO, EPA

Russell Smith, Office of the U.S. Trade Representative

Sue Stendebach, EPA

Tim Sullivan, U.S. Border Patrol

Tyanne Stewart, AEIO, EPA

Kim Thorsen, Director, Office of Law Enforcement, Security, and
Emergency Management, DOI

EPA Good Neighbor Environmental Advisory Board						  PAGE  28

March 13-14, 2007

Good Neighbor Environmental Board Meeting

March 13-14, 2007

Good Neighbor Environmental Board Meeting		  PAGE  2

March 13-14, 2007


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 69 (Wednesday, April 10, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 14427-14429]
[FR Doc No: 2019-07051]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-85515; File No. SR-CboeEDGX-2019-014]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Cboe EDGX Exchange, Inc.; Notice
of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To
Amend EDGX Rules To Clarify the Handling of Orders That Contain Both a
Post Only Instruction and Certain Other Order Handling Instructions
Maintained To Facilitate Compliance With Rule 610(d) of Regulation NMS

April 4, 2019.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on March 25, 2019, Cboe EDGX Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or
``EDGX'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I and II
below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The Exchange
filed the proposal as a ``non-controversial'' proposed rule change
pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act \3\ and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6) thereunder.\4\ 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)(iii).
    \4\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    Cboe EDGX Exchange, Inc. (``EDGX'' or the ``Exchange'') is filing
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the ``Commission'') a
proposed rule change to amend EDGX rules to clarify the handling of
orders that contain both a Post Only instruction and certain other
order handling instructions maintained to facilitate compliance with
Rule 610(d) of Regulation NMS. The text of the proposed rule change is
attached as Exhibit 5.
    The text of the proposed rule change is also available on the
Exchange's website (http://markets.cboe.com/us/options/regulation/rule_filings/edgx/), at the Exchange's Office of the Secretary, 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 purpose of the proposed rule change is to amend EDGX rules to
clarify the handling of orders that contain both a Post Only
instruction and certain other order handling instructions maintained to
facilitate compliance with Rule 610(d) of Regulation NMS (the ``Locked
and Crossed Markets Rule''). An order entered with a Post Only
instruction does not remove liquidity, except when the order is an
order to buy or sell a security priced below $1.00, or when executing
as the taker of liquidity would be economically beneficial to the firm
entering the order--i.e., if the value of such execution when removing
liquidity equals or exceeds the value of such execution if the order
instead posted to the EDGX Book and subsequently provided liquidity,
including the applicable fees charged or rebates provided.\5\ Today,
the Exchange's rules state that this handling applies to Post Only
orders entered with Price Adjust \6\ or Display-Price Sliding \7\
instruction, which are re-pricing instructions used for compliance with
the Locked and Crossed Markets Rule. Thus, an executable order entered
with a Post Only instruction is eligible to remove liquidity in the
circumstances described in EDGX Rule 11.6(n)(4) instead of having its
ranked price or display price adjusted pursuant to those order handling
instructions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See EDGX Rule 11.6(n)(4). To determine at the time of a
potential execution whether the value of such execution when
removing liquidity equals or exceeds the value of such execution if
the order instead posted to the EDGX Book and subsequently provided
liquidity, the Exchange will use the highest possible rebate paid
and highest possible fee charged for such executions on the
Exchange.
    \6\ ``Price Adjust'' is an order instruction requiring that
where an order would be a Locking Quotation of an external market or
Crossing Quotation if displayed by the System on the EDGX Book at
the time of entry, the order will be displayed and ranked at a price
that is one Minimum Price Variation lower (higher) than the Locking
Price for orders to buy (sell). See EDGX Rule 11.6(l)(1)(A).
    \7\ ``Display-Price Sliding'' is an order instruction requiring
that where an order would be a Locking Quotation or Crossing
Quotation of an external market if displayed by the System on the
EDGX Book at the time of entry, will be ranked at the Locking Price
in the EDGX Book and displayed by the System at one Minimum Price
Variation lower (higher) than the Locking Price for orders to buy
(sell). See EDGX Rule 11.6(l)(1)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    However, the Exchange also offers a ``Cancel Back'' instruction
that is not covered by EDGX Rule 11.6(n)(4). An order entered with a
Cancel Back instruction is immediately cancelled instead of re-priced
when displaying the order at its limit price would create a violation
of the Locked and Crossed Markets Rule.\8\ All orders must include a
Price Adjust, Display-Price Sliding, or Cancel Back instruction,\9\ and
orders entered with a Post Only instruction are handled in the same
manner regardless of which of these three additional instructions is
applied. The Exchange therefore proposes to amend EDGX Rule 11.6(n)(4)
to eliminate references to Display-Price Sliding and Price Adjust,
similar to the current rules in place on its affiliated equities
exchanges, Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc. (``BZX'') and Cboe BYX Exchange,
Inc. (``BYX'').\10\ The Exchange believes that removing the references
to these two instructions in the rule would reduce potential confusion
as the order handling described in the rule today applies to all orders
entered with a Post Only instruction, and not a specific subset of
those orders. No changes to the Exchange's trading or other systems are
contemplated by this proposed change, which is instead designed to
increase transparency around the Exchange's current operation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ ``Cancel Back'' is an instruction the User may attach to an
order instructing the System to immediately cancel the order when,
if displayed by the System on the EDGX Book at the time of entry, or
upon return to the System after being routed away, would create a
violation of Rule 610(d) of Regulation NMS or Rule 201 of Regulation
SHO, or the order cannot otherwise be executed or posted by the
System to the EDGX Book at its limit price. See EDGX Rule 11.6(b).
    \9\ Display-Price Sliding is applied as the default handling
unless Price Adjust or Cancel Back is elected [sic] See EDGX Rule
11.8(b)(10).
    \10\ See BZX Rule 11.9(c)(6) and BYX Rule 11.9(c)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with
the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act,\11\ in general, and
Section 6(b)(5) of

the Act,\12\ in particular, in that it is designed to remove
impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and
a national market system, to promote just and equitable principles of
trade, and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest
and not to permit unfair discrimination between customers, issuers,
brokers, or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Specifically, the Exchange believes that the proposed rule change
is consistent with the public interest and the protection of investors
as it would avoid potential confusion about how an order is handled if
entered with both a Post Only and Cancel Back instruction. Today, the
Exchange's rules provide that an order entered into the EDGX Book with
a Post Only instruction would remove liquidity in certain
circumstances, such as when economically beneficial for the order. In
addition, the rules specify that this handling applies to orders
entered with a Price Adjust or Display-Price Sliding instruction. The
rules, however, are silent as to the handling applied if an order with
a Post Only instruction contains a Cancel Back instruction. The
Exchange's order handling is, in fact, the same regardless of which of
these instructions are chosen by the member. As such, the Exchange
believes that it is appropriate to amend EDGX Rule 11.6(n)(4) to
eliminate references to the Price Adjust or Display-Price Sliding
instruction, thereby making clear that this handling applies to all
orders entered with a Post Only instruction and not only those that
also contain Price Adjust or Display-Price Sliding instructions.
    The Exchange believes that this order handling, which mirrors that
in place on the Exchange's affiliated equities markets (i.e., BZX and
BYX) is appropriate regardless of whether an order entered with a Post
Only instruction also contains a Display-Price Sliding, Price Adjust,
or Cancel Back instruction. Specifically, the Exchange believes that it
is consistent with just and equitable principles of trade to permit an
order entered with a Post Only instruction to remove liquidity when the
order is an order to buy or sell a security priced below $1.00, or when
executing as the taker of liquidity would be economically beneficial to
the firm entering the order. This handling is designed to ensure that
orders entered with a Post Only instruction are eligible to trade in
certain circumstances where the entering firm may have an interest in
securing an execution on entry--i.e., as the taker of liquidity--
notwithstanding the member's use of the Post Only instruction. Although
the Exchange's rules currently mention order handling for the Display-
Price Sliding and Price Adjust instructions specifically, this
functionality should be applied equally to any order entered with a
Post Only instruction. Thus, amending the rule as proposed would
provide additional transparency into a feature offered by the Exchange
that is potentially beneficial to members that utilize the Post Only
instruction.

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change would
impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. Rather, the proposed rule
change would remove ambiguity in the EDGX rules describing the Post
Only instruction by amending those rules consistent with rules
currently in place for the Exchange's affiliates, BZX and BYX. No
change to the Exchange's order handling is contemplated by this
proposed rule change, which would merely clarify the current handling
for certain orders entered with a Post Only instruction. The Exchange
therefore believes that the proposed rule change would increase
transparency around the operation of the Exchange to the benefit of
members and investors, without imposing any significant burden on
competition.

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 on the proposed rule
change.

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

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i)
Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii)
become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or
such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \13\ and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6) thereunder.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \14\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii)
requires a self-regulatory organization to give the Commission
written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change, along
with a brief description and text of the proposed rule change, at
least five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed
rule change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission.
The Exchange has satisfied this requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule
change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of
the following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to [email protected]. Please include
File Number SR-CboeEDGX-2019-014 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities
and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-CboeEDGX-2019-014. This
file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's internet website (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml).
Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written
statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with
the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed
rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those
that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions
of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for website viewing and printing in
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549, on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and
3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection
and copying at the principal

office of the Exchange. All comments received will be posted without
change. Persons submitting comments are cautioned that we do not redact
or edit personal identifying information from comment submissions. You
should submit only information that you wish to make available
publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-CboeEDGX-2019-
014, and should be submitted on or before May 1, 2019.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Eduardo A. Aleman,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-07051 Filed 4-9-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 86 (Wednesday, May 4, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 25231-25232]
[FR Doc No: 2011-10021]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 97

[Docket No. 30780; Amdt. No. 3423]

Standard Instrument Approach Procedures, and Takeoff Minimums and
Obstacle Departure Procedures; Miscellaneous Amendments

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final Rule.

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

SUMMARY: This rule establishes, amends, suspends, or revokes Standard
Instrument Approach Procedures (SIAPs) and associated Takeoff Minimums
and Obstacle Departure Procedures for operations at certain airports.
These regulatory actions are needed because of the adoption of new or
revised criteria, or because of changes occurring in the National
Airspace System, such as the commissioning of new navigational
facilities, adding new obstacles, or changing air traffic requirements.
These changes are designed to provide safe and efficient use of the
navigable airspace and to promote safe flight operations under
instrument flight rules at the affected airports.

DATES: This rule is effective May 4, 2011. The compliance date for each
SIAP, associated Takeoff Minimums, and ODP is specified in the
amendatory provisions.
    The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in
the regulations is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as
of May 4, 2011.

ADDRESSES: Availability of matter incorporated by reference in the
amendment is as follows:

For Examination

    1. FAA Rules Docket, FAA Headquarters Building, 800 Independence
Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591;
    2. The FAA Regional Office of the region in which the affected
airport is located;
    3. The National Flight Procedures Office, 6500 South MacArthur
Blvd., Oklahoma City, OK 73169 or
    4. The National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For
information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-
6030, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html.
    Availability--All SIAPs are available online free of charge. Visit
http://nfdc.faa.gov to register. Additionally, individual SIAP and
Takeoff Minimums and ODP copies may be obtained from:
    1. FAA Public Inquiry Center (APA-200), FAA Headquarters Building,
800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591; or
    2. The FAA Regional Office of the region in which the affected
airport is located.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Harry J. Hodges, Flight Procedure
Standards Branch (AFS-420) Flight Technologies and Programs Division,
Flight Standards Service, Federal Aviation Administration, Mike
Monroney Aeronautical Center, 6500 South MacArthur Blvd., Oklahoma
City, OK 73169 (Mail Address: P.O. Box 25082 Oklahoma City, OK 73125)
telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This rule amends Title 14, Code of Federal
Regulations, part 97 (14 CFR part 97) by amending the referenced SIAPs.
The complete regulatory description of each SIAP is listed on the
appropriate FAA Form 8260, as modified by the National Flight Data
Center (FDC)/Permanent Notice to Airmen (P-NOTAM), and is incorporated
by reference in the amendment under 5 U.S.C. 552(a), 1 CFR part 51, and
Sec.  97.20 of Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations.
    The large number of SIAPs, their complex nature, and the need for a
special format make their verbatim publication in the Federal Register
expensive and impractical. Further, airmen do not use the regulatory
text of the SIAPs, but refer to their graphic depiction on charts
printed by publishers of aeronautical materials. Thus, the advantages
of incorporation by reference are realized and publication of the
complete description of each SIAP contained in FAA form documents is
unnecessary. This amendment provides the affected CFR sections and
specifies the types of SIAP and the corresponding effective dates. This
amendment also identifies the airport and its location, the procedure
and the amendment number.

The Rule

    This amendment to 14 CFR part 97 is effective upon publication of
each separate SIAP as amended in the transmittal. For safety and
timeliness of change considerations, this amendment incorporates only
specific changes contained for each SIAP as modified by FDC/P-NOTAMs.
    The SIAPs, as modified by FDC P-NOTAM, and contained in this
amendment are based on the criteria contained in the U.S. Standard for
Terminal Instrument Procedures (TERPS). In developing these changes to
SIAPs, the TERPS criteria were applied only to specific conditions
existing at the affected airports. All SIAP amendments in this rule
have been previously issued by the FAA in a FDC NOTAM as an emergency
action of immediate flight safety relating directly to published
aeronautical charts. The circumstances which created the need for all
these SIAP amendments requires making them effective in less than 30
days.
    Because of the close and immediate relationship between these SIAPs
and safety in air commerce, I find that notice and public procedure
before adopting these SIAPs are impracticable and contrary to the
public interest and, where applicable, that good cause exists for
making these SIAPs effective in less than 30 days.

Conclusion

    The FAA has determined that this 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. For the same reason, the FAA
certifies that this amendment will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of
the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 97

    Air Traffic Control, Airports, Incorporation by reference, and
Navigation (Air).

    Issued in Washington, DC, on April 15, 2011.
Ray Towles,
Deputy Director, Flight Standards Service.

Adoption of the Amendment

    Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, Title 14,
Code of Federal regulations, Part 97, 14 CFR part 97, is amended by
amending Standard Instrument Approach Procedures, effective at 0901 UTC
on the dates specified, as follows:

PART 97--STANDARD INSTRUMENT APPROACH PROCEDURES

0
1. The authority citation for part 97 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40106, 40113, 40114, 40120,
44502, 44514, 44701, 44719, 44721-44722.

0
2. Part 97 is amended to read as follows:

Sec. Sec.  97.23, 97.25, 97.27, 97.29, Sec.  97.31, 97.33,
97.35  [Amended]

    By amending: Sec.  97.23 VOR, VOR/DME, VOR or TACAN, and VOR/DME or
TACAN; Sec.  97.25 LOC, LOC/DME, LDA, LDA/DME, SDF, SDF/DME; Sec.
97.27 NDB, NDB/DME; Sec.  97.29 ILS, ILS/DME, MLS, MLS/DME, MLS/RNAV;
Sec.  97.31 RADAR SIAPs; Sec.  97.33 RNAV SIAPs; and Sec.  97.35 COPTER
SIAPs, Identified as follows:

* * * Effective Upon Publication

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
     AIRAC date           State               City                  Airport          FDC No.    FDC date                      Subject
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2-Jun-11............  IN             Terre Haute...........  Terre Haute Intl--        1/2732     4/1/11  VOR/DME RWY 5, Amdt 17C
                                                              Hulman Field.
2-Jun-11............  LA             Lake Charles..........  Lake Charles Rgnl....     1/2810     4/1/11  RNAV (GPS) RWY 15, Orig
2-Jun-11............  IL             Chicago (West Chicago)  Chicago/DuPage.......     1/3065    4/12/11  VOR OR GPS RWY 2L, Orig&-A
2-Jun-11............  IL             Chicago (West Chicago)  Chicago/DuPage.......     1/3066    4/12/11  RNAV (GPS) RWY 10, Orig
2-Jun-11............  IL             Chicago (West Chicago)  Chicago/DuPage.......     1/3067    4/12/11  VOR RWY 10, Amdt 12
2-Jun-11............  IL             Chicago (West Chicago)  Chicago/DuPage.......     1/3068    4/12/11  ILS OR LOC RWY 2L, Amdt 2
2-Jun-11............  IL             Chicago (West Chicago)  Chicago/DuPage.......     1/3069    4/12/11  ILS OR LOC RWY 10, Amdt 7B
2-Jun-11............  MN             Eveleth...............  Eveleth--Virginia         1/4562     4/1/11  VOR RWY 27, Orig-A
                                                              Muni.
2-Jun-11............  PA             Zelienople............  Zelienople Muni......     1/4697     4/6/11  RNAV (GPS) RWY 35, Orig-B
2-Jun-11............  WV             Petersburg............  Grant County.........     1/5884    4/12/11  LDA/DME B, Amdt 3
2-Jun-11............  NC             Rocky Mount...........  Rocky Mount--Wilson       1/8971     4/7/11  RNAV (GPS) RWY 4, Amdt 1
                                                              Regional.
2-Jun-11............  NC             Fayetteville..........  Fayetteville Regional/    1/8973     4/6/11  VOR RWY 4, Amdt 16
                                                              Grannis Field.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2011-10021 Filed 5-3-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P