From:
Jones, DonnaLee<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Sent:
Monday, April 25, 2016 12:05 PM
To:
Zavoda, Rich<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Cc:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>David Ailor<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>Subject:
RE: USEPA 114 Request - Coke Ovens (63 Subpart CCCCC Pushing, Quenching, Battery Stack - Information Collection Request (Coke ICR)

Hello Rich- Now that my shock at your shock has settled down, I can see perhaps where you may have been confused by some of the discussion leading up to the ICR mailout. Much of our discussion prior to the ICR mail out was focused on Enclosure 2 and who should do the testing because EPA believes that Enclosure 1 is not as much of a burden as the testing part of the ICR. I had always planned to send out Enclosure 1 to every plant that was eligible, considering the nine maximum letters. The facilities who are not receiving any part of the ICR are involved in some kind of legal activity with EPA and I had been asked not to send anything to these companies. The one exception is SunCoke's Vansant (Jewel) plant, which did not receive the ICR because this plant uses an obsolete process (nonrecovery) and SunCoke was already testing at two of their facilities but completing Enclosure 1 for all three remaining plants. One of the SunCoke three plants is actually involved in a minor legal action but I was not asked to avoid it, so I did not.

Im sorry for the misunderstanding and, as I said in my previous email, we can work with you on schedule for Enclosure 1 for Warren facility. Submit what you can for each group of questions required by the schedule and note which ones you will do later.
_____________________________________________________________
Regards,
Donna Lee Jones, Ph.D.
Senior Technical Advisor, Metals Sector
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Sector Policies and Programs Division / Metals & Inorganic Chemicals Group (D 243-02)
Research Triangle Park, NC  27711  Tele:<PHONE_NUMBER>  Fax<PHONE_NUMBER>
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Reasonableness never fails to be appreciated."  - anon.

From: Jones, DonnaLee
Sent: Friday, April 22, 2016 12:15 PM
To: Zavoda, Rich<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Cc<EMAIL_ADDRESS>David Ailor<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>Subject: Re: USEPA 114 Request - Coke Ovens (63 Subpart CCCCC Pushing, Quenching, Battery Stack - Information Collection Request (Coke ICR)

I was told that these facilities were separately incorporated. Therefore, I had to send two separate letters which then took up two slots of my nine letter maximum to comply with the Paperwork Reduction Act. Consequently, this prevented me from sending an ICR to another facility and limited the data collection ability of the Coke ICR. So for your company to tell me now that these facilities are in fact one company sounds to me like wanting to have your cake and eat it too. If I had been able to consider these facilities under one parent company, I would have made the considerations you have recently requested. Its also rather late in the game to tell me this since you received the attached tables some time ago, as per their date, which was before the mail out of the ICR which you and David Ailor and all others in the industry knew was impending. Therefore, unless you or David Ailor can convince another facility in the industry to take your place, I will need to stand by EPA's request. We can work with you on schedule, however.

Regards,
Donna Lee Jones, Ph.D.
Senior Technical Advisor, Metals Sector
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Sector Policies and Programs Division / Metals & Inorganic Chemicals Group (D243-02)
Research Triangle Park, NC  27711  Tele:<PHONE_NUMBER>  Fax<PHONE_NUMBER>
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Reasonableness never fails to be appreciated."  - anon.

From: Zavoda, Rich<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Sent: Friday, April 22, 2016 11:41 AM
To: Jones, DonnaLee
Cc<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Subject: USEPA 114 Request - Coke Ovens (63 Subpart CCCCC Pushing, Quenching, Battery Stack - Information Collection Request (Coke ICR)

Dr. Jones,
ArcelorMittal Burns Harbor LLC and ArcelorMittal Monessen LLC were selected by EPA in the 4/4/16 Section 114 request to complete a comprehensive information request (Enclosure 1) and to conduct extensive stack testing (Enclosure 2). EPA also selected ArcelorMittal Warren to complete the Coke ICR Enclosure 1, as noted in your attached 4/4/16 email.  These combined actions impose a disadvantage to ArcelorMittal compared to its competitors.
EPA is not requiring any other byproduct coke plant entity to test at more than one coke plant or at more than one coke battery.  EPA did not request every byproduct coke plant to complete the comprehensive information request (Enclosure 1).  Several of our byproduct coke plant competitors were not required to complete either the information request (Enclosure 1) or to conduct stack testing (Enclosure 2).
Attached is your 4/1/16 email that provided the table of ICR companies required to complete the Coke ICR Enclosure 1 and/or 2.
Also attached is the list of all coke plants that David Ailor, American Coke and Coal Chemicals Institute, emailed to you on 4/1/16.
ArcelorMittal respectfully requests that EPA not require ArcelorMittal Warren to complete the Coke ICR Enclosure 1.
Rich Zavoda | Regional Manager, Air Quality Program
ArcelorMittal USA
Environmental Affairs| 4020 Kinross Lakes Parkway, Richfield, Ohio 44286-9000
T +1<PHONE_NUMBER> | F +1<PHONE_NUMBER> | www.arcelormittal.com


20 MR. STOKES: What to do. Here is what 21 happened. They did  they made errors in 22 submitting their invoices. I don't believe it. We 23 have been paid very quickly by the government, but 24 not state agencies, not these grants. So there is Mason Tillman Associates, Ltd. June 2005 Draft for Discussion Purposes Only Client Name Disparity Study 1 cxcv 98 1 no telling. So why not put somebody in here like 2 where my vendors work for me, I pay them, whether 3 my customer pays me or not, because that's my 4 responsibility.

5 So why should these primes that, because 6 they have the big project, they have to have more 7 dollars than me, why should they be let off the 8 hook? They need to pay at least within 30 days 9 from the time the work is completed, that would be 10 my recommendation, not seven to five days and they 11 use that, and it's just like you said, you believe 12 them. What can I do?

13 MS. PATRICK: Thank you.

14 DIRECTOR BROWN: Thank you.

15 MS. LYNN DONLEY: I have a suggestion for 16 them. My name is Lynn Donley with ORC here in 17 Region V. Perhaps  my first reaction to your 18 comment is the forces of the marketplace will drive Mason Tillman Associates, Ltd. June 2005 Draft for Discussion Purposes Only Client Name Disparity Study 1 cxcvi 19 that prime out of business, because no one is going 20 to want to work for him, but perhaps something can 21 be added to our own rule about notification of when 22 payment is made to the prime.

23 ( Chorus of " good idea.")

24 MS. DONLEY: When the payment is made to the Mason Tillman Associates, Ltd. June 2005 Draft for Discussion Purposes Only Client Name Disparity Study 1 cxcvii 99 1 prime, it goes all the way down the trail.

2 MR. LANCE STOKES ( ECI Unlimited, Inc.): CCR 3 does that.

4 DIRECTOR BROWN: CCR is not under this. This 5 is indirect, so CCR doesn't apply here. You got to 6 know what program we're talking about. I just 7 heard that come from the audience. CCR is not in 8 play here. That is direct procurement. We will 9 talk about that later.

10 MS. PATRICK: That is a good suggestion.

11 DIRECTOR BROWN: Very good, Lynn. We will be 12 talking to you about that.

13 MR. SUDHIR MANTRI ( Integrated Environmental 14 Solutions, Inc.): I'm Sudhir Mantri, Integrated 15 Environmental Solutions from Gary, Indiana. I got 16 I two questions regarding payment. Most of the 17 time, the prime subcontractors, Dr. Stokes said it 18 very well, when we pay our subcontractors we use, Mason Tillman Associates, Ltd. June 2005 Draft for Discussion Purposes Only Client Name Disparity Study 1 cxcviii 19 it is typically within 45 to 60 days, but we have 20 seen from the bigger companies, the larger 21 companies, delaying the project until almost six 22 months sometimes. Okay.

23 The thing that if you are a prime 24 contractor, you should have enough resources Mason Tillman Associates, Ltd. June 2005 Draft for Discussion Purposes Only Client Name Disparity Study 1 cxcix 100 1 available to manage the contract. If we can use 2 our credit to pay our vendors, why can't you use 3 your credit lines to pay yours subcontractors? You 4 know? I mean, there should be a minimum policy, 60 5 to 90 days, policy that is reasonable. A lot of 6 times what happens is that, you know, even the 7 subcontractor's work could be done, you know, in a 8 short period, but the project could be a lot longer 9 project. It might include the invoices in time, so 10 they would probably take 160 days to send their 11 invoice, you know. And the whole process, nobody 12 has to back stop.

13 The second question regarding 8A, can 14 cities, can they actually set aside contracts for 15 8A companies? You know, they receive a revolving 16 loan fund or something like that. What I heard,

17 the city has to go for bid and then go for general.

18 DIRECTOR BROWN: 8A is applicable at the Mason Tillman Associates, Ltd. June 2005 Draft for Discussion Purposes Only Client Name Disparity Study 1 cc 19 federal government contracting level. It does not 20 apply at the state and local municipality. You 21 have to go to each one of them, and we've got 50 22 states, trust territories. Everybody's got 23 something different. You got some from the water 24 board. Theirs is different. We have to deal with Mason Tillman Associates, Ltd. June 2005 Draft for Discussion Purposes Only Client Name Disparity Study 1 cci 101 1 each one of those individually.

2 MR. JESSE ANZALDUA ( Anzaldua Mechanical,

3 Inc.): Thank you. Jesse Anzaldua, Anzaldua 4 Mechanical. The only way you are going to control 5 this is by putting a penalty if they don't pay 6 within 30 days, with a 2 percent penalty that they 7 have to pay their own every month. And the only 8 way you are going to make general contractors 9 comply is by giving them a fine.

10 MS. PATRICK: I am going to ask for a quick 11 question. As far as your negotiation as a 12 subcontractor with the prime, in your contracts 13 where it talks about payment, do you have 14 provisions that say my payment is not contingent 15 upon your payment by anybody else? Do you 16 negotiate those types of terms in your agreement 17 with the prime contractor?

18 MR. LANCE STOKES ( ECI Unlimited, Inc.): Of Mason Tillman Associates, Ltd. June 2005 Draft for Discussion Purposes Only Client Name Disparity Study 1 ccii 19 course, you try to do that, and sometimes it is 20 refused. I always slash out that I have to wait 21 five days, and I write in, you have to pay me 22 within 30 days. And they will either blow past it 23 or say " Okay, Lance, we will use you anyway," and 24 pay you when they want to or they get somebody Mason Tillman Associates, Ltd. June 2005 Draft for Discussion Purposes Only Client Name Disparity Study 1 cciii 102 1 else.

2 MS. PATRICK: Just wondering.

3 MS. CLAIRE WILLIAMS ( Environmental Design 4 International, Inc.): Claire Williams,

5 Environmental Design, local environmental civil 6 engineering company. First, I want to say thank 7 you to the Metropolitan Water Reclamation for 8 coming out and giving you their opinion. We do a 9 lot of work for them as subcontractors and that 10 letter of intent is a very good idea. We get it 11 from the prime before the contract starts. I think 12 MWRGC sends us paperwork. We fill out the 13 paperwork along with the letter and send it back to 14 them, which is in writing from the prime that says 15 what we are going to do, how much, percentage or 16 dollars, so that's a very good idea. But as far as 17 the payment or the negotiating subcontracts, you 18 can negotiate that, but if you make it too hard for Mason Tillman Associates, Ltd. June 2005 Draft for Discussion Purposes Only Client Name Disparity Study 1 cciv 19 them, they will find somebody else to do the work,

20 and that is the bottom line.

21 And so  and, of course, you know, the 22 time passes and that seven days becomes 12 days,

23 14, so that's the kind of  that is, the reality 24 of the situation is, that they will find somebody Mason Tillman Associates, Ltd. June 2005 Draft for Discussion Purposes Only Client Name Disparity Study 1 ccv 103 1 else to do the work.

2 MS. PATRICK: I think you also asked me to get 3 a better picture of what it is you guys are doing 4 for that, and when we consider that provision, we 5 will take all that into account.

6 Let's see. Moving along, next on number 7 5, " A recipient must the completion of a few new 8 forms to prevent ' bait and switch' tactics at the 9 subcontract level by the prime contractors which 10 can circumvent the spirit of the program. The 11 forms would be completed by either the prime 12 contractors or DBE subcontractors, depending on the 13 applicable form."

14 Those forms are just so that we  that 15 EPA and the recipients know what is going on, what 16 the agreement is, what type of services you are 17 providing, because at this point we have no 18 mechanism to know. And with these forms, at least Mason Tillman Associates, Ltd. June 2005 Draft for Discussion Purposes Only Client Name Disparity Study 1 ccvi 19 we will be informed what's going on and the 20 recipient will be better informed of what is going 21 on at the subcontract level, because at least if we 22 know, you know, if we can start asking questions,

23 you may not have all the teeth, but it is different 24 when EPA starts asking questions than it is when Mason Tillman Associates, Ltd. June 2005 Draft for Discussion Purposes Only Client Name Disparity Study 1 ccvii 104 1 the recipient can ask the same questions.

2 So if they know that we are the primary 3 source of money, and if we are looking at things 4 and they say, " Hey, recipient, what's going on 5 here," and pay a little bit more attention to this,

6 so that's the reason why we have those forms 7 included with this to know what is going on with 8 that letter.

9 The next thing, we've been talking about 10 a lot already, the fair share codes. I'm not sure 11 how much deeper we need to go into them. I think 12 we've beat them up and said what they are really 13 about already, and we know that they don't have a 14 whole lot of teeth, and might find less of a 15 backlash. ( Laughter).

16 MR. LANCE STOKES ( ECI Unlimited Inc.): Lance 17 Stokes, ECI Unlimited.

18 FROM THE FLOOR: Detroit. Mason Tillman Associates, Ltd. June 2005 Draft for Discussion Purposes Only Client Name Disparity Study 1 ccviii 19 MR. STOKES: That's where I'm from, Detroit,

20 environmental engineers and consultants. In any of 21 these fair share codes, in this area of the 22 program, I see a gaping hole that appears to have 23 been omitted, which is performance bond. When you 24 give the money to the states and the municipalities Mason Tillman Associates, Ltd. June 2005 Draft for Discussion Purposes Only Client Name Disparity Study 1 ccix 105 1 and the different entities that you distribute it 2 to and then they ask for a performance bond, I 3 think early on in the discussion, the gentleman 4 brought up the point that contracts were

5 programs were combining the moneys.

6 Now, I don't  in our experience, we do 7 quite well, but we are still limited on the extent 8 of bonding that we can get. So if I see a half 9 million dollar job, I can easily get five $ 100,000 10 bonds, so I get them to break them up. Now, if 11 they are bundling them or a municipality doesn't 12 really pay sincerity to these goals, if you will, I 13 don't know how else to phrase it and be nice, but 14 the only  here is what they  they stop and they 15 will tell you, " We're sorry, we can't use anyone 16 because  we can't use any minority businesses or 17 DBEs because they couldn't get performance 18 bonding." And who determines performance bonding? Mason Tillman Associates, Ltd. June 2005 Draft for Discussion Purposes Only Client Name Disparity Study 1 ccx 19 The insurance companies. And you think the 20 insurance companies, in the United States cares 21 about what EPA is saying? No, no, they don't care 22 what anybody is saying. So when is EPA going to do 23 something? This is our role. When do you do 24 something about performance bonds for minority Mason Tillman Associates, Ltd. June 2005 Draft for Discussion Purposes Only Client Name Disparity Study 1 ccxi 106 1 companies?

2 DIRECTOR BROWN: Before you leave, I have a 3 question on bonding. Since 9/ 11, has it been 4 difficult for you all to get bonding?

5 ( Chorus of yeses.)

6 MR. LANCE STOKES ( ECI Unlimited, Inc.):

7 Listen, in Michigan, before 9/ 11 it was difficult 8 to get funding for bonding. Are you kidding me?

9 ( Laughter)

10 DIRECTOR BROWN: Even worse now?

11 MR. STOKES: One gentleman I know is smart 12 enough, he got a whole church  the black church 13 in Detroit is strong. He got the whole  several 14 of the church congregation to get enough money to 15 raise his performance bond. It's known, for an 16 African American company, no difference. As a 17 matter of fact, it is harder because insurance 18 rates have gone up, skyrocketed. Mason Tillman Associates, Ltd. June 2005 Draft for Discussion Purposes Only Client Name Disparity Study 1 ccxii 19 DIRECTOR BROWN: I mean, we've heard something 20 to that effect, as well.

21 MR. STOKES: The cost is more. They look at 22 you like  for me, they listen to me on the phone,

23 everything is fine. I had a situation when I 24 finally went to go pick up the bond, their jaws Mason Tillman Associates, Ltd. June 2005 Draft for Discussion Purposes Only Client Name Disparity Study 1 ccxiii 107 1 dropped to the floor. They thought I was a white 2 guy on the phone and I walked in and they said, my 3 god, he's going to have that much performance bond.

4 So that's a big hole in all of this has hasn't been 5 addressed in operating

6 DIRECTOR BROWN: Do you have some suggestions 7 on how we can address performance bond?

8 MR. STOKES: Yes, I do. Yes, I do. There is 9 a tri  there's something called a tripatriarch.

10 Are you familiar with that?

11 DIRECTOR BROWN: Oh, yes.

12 MR. STOKES: It covers performance bonding. I 13 can get you some more information on it. And what 14 that is, it is bonding by third party that is not 15  it is an agreement. It is not an insurance 16 company. But 99.9 percent of the bonding companies 17 are insurance companies.

18 So just like  for example, SBA Mason Tillman Associates, Ltd. June 2005 Draft for Discussion Purposes Only Client Name Disparity Study 1 ccxiv 19 guarantees loans to small businesses. If SBA could 20 make that same guarantee to the insurance company,

21 because the insurance companies care about the 22 money, and they have it. It is very interesting.

23 The insurance companies have the least amount of 24 information truly about environmental, but they are Mason Tillman Associates, Ltd. June 2005 Draft for Discussion Purposes Only Client Name Disparity Study 1 ccxv 108 1 extremely opinionated when it comes to ethnicity

2 African American ethnicities and other ethnicities,

3 Spanish, Hispanic, American Indian nations. So I 4 recommend that EPA step to the plate, either 5 provide some sort of guarantee or negotiate with 6 SBA to guarantee so that minority companies can get 7 performance bonds. Because none of this is going 8 to happen. All they're going to tell you, " We 9 tried; we couldn't find one that could get a 10 performance bond."

11 DIRECTOR BROWN: Okay.

12 MR. STOKES: Because you need  well, we 13 have  we make a lot of money, but as far as 14 owning assets, that's why our performance bonding 15 is limited, because we don't own a building. We 16 own some equipment, but we rent more equipment 17 because we are engineers, not contractors.

18 DIRECTOR BROWN: Okay. Thank you. Mason Tillman Associates, Ltd. June 2005 Draft for Discussion Purposes Only Client Name Disparity Study 1 ccxvi 19 MS. PATRICK: Okey dokey. Where were we? We 20 just talked about fair share goals. One of the 21 things that we have instituted, is sometimes we 22 found that they can drag their feet about coming 23 and negotiating goals with us. One of the 24 provisions we have is that the rule requires a Mason Tillman Associates, Ltd. June 2005 Draft for Discussion Purposes Only Client Name Disparity Study 1 ccxvii 109 1 recipient to submit a proposed share, fair share 2 objectives and supporting documentation to the 3 agency no later than 90 days after acceptance of 4 the assistance award. Instead of relying on grant 5 conditions to accomplish similar results, they are 6 supposed to do this task.

7 A recipient would not be able to spend 8 any of its financial assistance reward or 9 procurement as a four category, which means you 10 can't buy nothing, until the fair share objective 11 negotiation process has been complete. That's a 12 very important provision. It's a new provision. I 13 am making sure everybody is aware, this is what we 14 are proposing, what we want to go forward with to 15 make sure that the goal is actually in place and 16 negotiated, okay?

17 DIRECTOR BROWN: That is for the grantee.

18 MS. PATRICK: For the grantees. It's also Mason Tillman Associates, Ltd. June 2005 Draft for Discussion Purposes Only Client Name Disparity Study 1 ccxviii 19 important to point out, the cost of preparing an 20 availability analysis for the disparity studies to 21 support your goal may be  we don't know, a 22 hundred percent; it would have to be worked out on 23 a case by case basis talking to your grant 24 specialists who determine this  but you may be Mason Tillman Associates, Ltd. June 2005 Draft for Discussion Purposes Only Client Name Disparity Study 1 ccxix 110 1 grant eligible, depending on specific fact 2 situation. You have to look at that to find out 3 what the confinds of your grant are to find out if 4 possible, if those expenses can be grant eligible.

5 DIRECTOR BROWN: We, most likely, will not pay 6 for a disparity study. Your grant is probably not 7 enough to cover the cost of the disparity study,

8 what they cost, but there may be places where, in 9 coming up with some of your availability analysis,

10 that that may be grant eligible. May be. It's on 11 a case by case basis.

12 Lynn.

13 MS. LYNN DONLEY: Well, understanding that it 14 is on a case by case basis, I am sure it would be 15 helpful to provide, perhaps, an illustrative 16 example. What fact pattern might raise the 17 possibility of being able to use the grant money to 18 pay for those studies? Mason Tillman Associates, Ltd. June 2005 Draft for Discussion Purposes Only Client Name Disparity Study 1 ccxx 19 MS. PATRICK: I have absolutely no idea.

20 MS. DONLEY: Okay.

21 MS. PATRICK: We were just told as a quick 22 answer by grants people that it is possible. What 23 that possible situation is, I have no earthly idea.

24 But it is something we can look into to find out Mason Tillman Associates, Ltd. June 2005 Draft for Discussion Purposes Only Client Name Disparity Study 1 ccxxi 111 1 what type of things would be possible.

2 DIRECTOR BROWN: I think in areas where you 3 will have a recipient that receives multiple grants 4 from EPA, and you have these goals that have to be 5 negotiated, you may be able to spread the cost of 6 the availability analysis over those grants to 7 cover the availability analysis.

8 Again, we have to get back with the 9 program office, because this very well may  it 10 doesn't mean you are going to get more money. You 11 may still get the same amount, and so the juggle 12 here is how much do you take from the technical 13 side for the administrative. Because that probably 14 will be the question that we have to address. Not 15 saying you're going to get more money in the grant 16 to cover. You get a certain amount of money for 17 the grant, and you have to choose how you're going 18 to spend that, but if you are a grant recipient and Mason Tillman Associates, Ltd. June 2005 Draft for Discussion Purposes Only Client Name Disparity Study 1 ccxxii 19 you receive several, you may be able to spread that 20 across all of those if it applies. And that is 21 something that we would have to take a look at.

22 Yes, ma'am.

23 MS. YULANDA McCARTY HARRIS ( City of Toledo):

24 So are you saying  Mason Tillman Associates, Ltd. June 2005 Draft for Discussion Purposes Only Client Name Disparity Study 1 ccxxiii 112 1 DIRECTOR BROWN: What's your name again?

2 MS. McCARTY HARRIS: Yulanda McCarty Harris.

3 I'm with the City of Toledo. I see that you said 4 that this concept is not new, although this is

5 the concept is not new. So are you saying that 6 this possibly could exist now? And I will go back 7 to the situation where we have  we have a WPCLF 8 loan through the State of Ohio which has a grant 9 from EPA. So is that grant possibly available 10 through the EPA now for the availability analysis,

11 or it doesn't exist?

12 MS. PATRICK: To get a grant specifically to 13 do an availability analysis for that specific 14 purpose? No. But if the recipient, being in your 15 case the State of Ohio, decides that it would like 16 to take a portion of what they already received to 17 go towards doing an availability analysis, it is 18 possible they can do that under the grant that they Mason Tillman Associates, Ltd. June 2005 Draft for Discussion Purposes Only Client Name Disparity Study 1 ccxxiv 19 currently have as sort of an administrative cost.

20 MS. McCARTY HARRIS: Okay. So we, basically,

21 once we do our loan, we can say, we want a portion 22 of this carved out for availability analysis?

23 MS. PATRICK: You can work that out.

24 DIRECTOR BROWN: You have to work that out, Mason Tillman Associates, Ltd. June 2005 Draft for Discussion Purposes Only Client Name Disparity Study 1 ccxxv 113 1 and I would say, in advance.

2 MS. McCARTY HARRIS: Okay.

3 DIRECTOR BROWN: Not do it and then go back 4 and say, I want  no. You work it out in advance 5 with the grant person and your project office.

6 MS. McCARTY HARRIS: Okay, great.

7 DIRECTOR BROWN: Okay?

8 MS. McCARTY HARRIS: Thank you.

9 DIRECTOR BROWN: Not after the fact.

10 MS. SHARON GREEN: It would have to be in the 11 work plan.

12 DIRECTOR BROWN: In the work plan. You can't 13 say Ms. Brown told me I could do this. ( Laughter)

14 Yes, sir. Can you come to the mic,

15 please.

16 MR. GEORGE STONE ( U. S. Environmental 17 Protection Agency  Region V): Also

18 DIRECTOR BROWN: I can't hear you yet. She Mason Tillman Associates, Ltd. June 2005 Draft for Discussion Purposes Only Client Name Disparity Study 1 ccxxvi 19 can't hear you.

20 Mr. Stone, thank you.

21 MR. STONE: George Stone, US EPA, in the 22 grants office. Also, that portion of the 23 availability analysis that will be used will have 24 to be related to that activity, that specific Mason Tillman Associates, Ltd. June 2005 Draft for Discussion Purposes Only Client Name Disparity Study 1 ccxxvii 114 1 grant.

2 DIRECTOR BROWN: That's right.

3 MR. STONE: So, therefore, it would have to be 4 spread out throughout the different grants that you 5 receive from USEPA. So your availability analysis 6 administrative charge that you are charging to your 7 grant is not going to just be a hundred percent 8 charge to one grant.

9 DIRECTOR BROWN: Right.

10 MR. STONE: It would have to be spread out 11 through the activities of various grants. So if 12 you got a wastewater grant, that portion of 13 availability analysis related to wastewater could 14 be charged to that portion of the grant, and then 15 your land grant or your air grant, those portions 16 would be segmented out. Okay. I don't want you 17 to  when you left the mic, I was thinking that 18 you believed that a hundred percent of the grant Mason Tillman Associates, Ltd. June 2005 Draft for Discussion Purposes Only Client Name Disparity Study 1 ccxxviii 19 could be discharged for availability analysis

20 DIRECTOR BROWN: No.

21 MR. STONE:  under a given program.

22 DIRECTOR BROWN: No.

23 MR. STONE: That's not right.

24 MS. YULANDA McCARTY HARRIS ( City of Toledo): Mason Tillman Associates, Ltd. June 2005 Draft for Discussion Purposes Only Client Name Disparity Study 1 ccxxix 115 1 Just a portion of each grant

2 MR. STONE: Just the portion that is related 3 to that

4 MS. McCARTY HARRIS: That related to the area 5 that you want to do the availability analysis on?

6 MR. STONE: That's correct.

7 MS. McCARTY HARRIS: Okay.

8 DIRECTOR BROWN: But if you do that right, by 9 the time you finish, depending on what kind of 10 grantee and the number of grants you get, it may be 11 paid for by your grant money.

12 MS. PATRICK: And it may be a good idea for 13 you to contact other entities in the state that are 14 receiving EPA money and saying, " Hey, don't you 15 want to get on board this and use a percentage of 16 what you get to go towards this," because if all of 17 you gang up, because the availability analysis 18 would sort of  it would benefit all of you. Mason Tillman Associates, Ltd. June 2005 Draft for Discussion Purposes Only Client Name Disparity Study 1 ccxxx 19 DIRECTOR BROWN: If they

20 MS. PATRICK: If you could do one.

21 DIRECTOR BROWN: If they

22 MS. PATRICK: Have a common goal to negotiate 23 it.

24 DIRECTOR BROWN: If they are the lead agent. Mason Tillman Associates, Ltd. June 2005 Draft for Discussion Purposes Only Client Name Disparity Study 1 ccxxxi 116 1 MS. PATRICK: Right.

2 DIRECTOR BROWN: And they may not necessarily 3 be.

4 MS. PATRICK: And even if you don't do the 5 agency, we have a situation where we will negotiate 6 a goal directly with the individual entities.

7 DIRECTOR BROWN: Right.

8 MS. PATRICK: So you don't have to operate 9 under the lead agency. But there is a way to do 10 it, to structure it to make it worth your energy.

11 The next thing is that the improved fair 12 share goals remain in effect for three fiscal 13 years. If significant changes occur during that 14 three year time period making the data that your 15 goals were based upon obsolete, a recipient of EPA 16 will have to renegotiate those goals. Okay?

17 Determining fair share goals is 18 something we've already pretty much talked about. Mason Tillman Associates, Ltd. June 2005 Draft for Discussion Purposes Only Client Name Disparity Study 1 ccxxxii 19 It cannot be based on the availability analysis or 20 disparity study, looking at your relevant 21 geographic area and what businesses are available 22 to do the work.

23 And

24 DIRECTOR BROWN: We are not asking the grant Mason Tillman Associates, Ltd. June 2005 Draft for Discussion Purposes Only Client Name Disparity Study 1 ccxxxiii 117 1 recipients to redefine what your relevant area of 2 work is. We are asking you to show and to 3 demonstrate what your current practices are. Where 4 do you go to define your contacts? That is your 5 geographic area. We are not saying, because I 6 think I heard earlier, and I am not sure if there 7 is a misunderstanding. We are not limiting you to 8 where you can go. We are telling you to define for 9 us what your practice is already. And then from 10 that, you determine what your geographic location 11 is.

12 If, for example, if the state of Chicago 13 has  ( laughter) I mean the State of Michigan

14 I'm sorry, I know there's a difference. If the 15 State of Michigan  if the State of Michigan,

16 because of how vast and how large it is, you have 17 an upper and lower, kind of, area, well, up here 18 you go someplace else and go over to other Mason Tillman Associates, Ltd. June 2005 Draft for Discussion Purposes Only Client Name Disparity Study 1 ccxxxiv 19 neighboring states to draw from your pool for 20 contractors to come, Ohio and other places, then 21 that's what you consider. And we're not saying 22 that you can't go someplace else. What is your 23 current practice that you use to draw from? Where 24 is your current pool of contractors coming from? Mason Tillman Associates, Ltd. June 2005 Draft for Discussion Purposes Only Client Name Disparity Study 1 ccxxxv 118 1 That's what you need to factor in.

2 Okay. We are not saying you can't  if 3 you go all over, I mean, if we're in Washington,

4 DC, people come from New York, from North Carolina,

5 from Georgia, depending on the type of work to do 6 work in D. C. If that's what you do, then that's 7 what your geographical area should be considered.

8 But you have to tell us. We are not telling you 9 what that is. We will look at it. And we want to 10 see how you came up with it, and documentation to 11 support how you came up with it, but you have to 12 tell us what that is.

13 MS. PATRICK: The next thing is under G, race 14 and gender conscious efforts  to the extent good 15 faith efforts prove to be inadequate to achieve the 16 fair share goals of MBEs and WBEs, we encourage a 17 recipient or prime contractor to take responsible 18 race and/ or gender conscience action to the extent Mason Tillman Associates, Ltd. June 2005 Draft for Discussion Purposes Only Client Name Disparity Study 1 ccxxxvi 19 necessary to more closely achieve their fair share 20 goals, including price incentives and technical 21 evaluation credits. Prior notification of the 22 contemplated actions of EPA is required. Okay?

23 The next thing is Exemptions. We're 24 proposing to exempt recipients of an EPA financial Mason Tillman Associates, Ltd. June 2005 Draft for Discussion Purposes Only Client Name Disparity Study 1 ccxxxvii 119 1 assistance agreement in the amount of $ 250,000 or 2 less for a single assistance agreement, or of more 3 than one financial assistance agreement with a 4 combined total of $ 250,000 or less in any one 5 fiscal year from the fair share negotiations 6 requirements.

7 These are the exemptions Jeanette talked 8 about at the beginning, when she said there are 9 some that we're building in, but it is only 10 exempting them from negotiations, not from 11 reporting, not from the six good faith efforts.

12 That is very important that you understand that.

13 That same $ 250,000 exemption also 14 applies to the Brownfields Program and the Safe 15 Drinking Water Act Program and all of the loan 16 programs, as well. That same exemption applies.

17 We also have  we also have exemptions 18 that are specific to tribes and intertribal Mason Tillman Associates, Ltd. June 2005 Draft for Discussion Purposes Only Client Name Disparity Study 1 ccxxxviii 19 consortia. That is that grants that are PPG 20 eligible, which includes 17 different grant 21 categories, two tribes will be exempted from 22 negotiations, as well as tag grants to tribes also 23 are exempted from negotiations. Regardless as to 24 the dollar amount. Okay? Mason Tillman Associates, Ltd. June 2005 Draft for Discussion Purposes Only Client Name Disparity Study 1 ccxxxix 120 1 Also, specific to tribes and insularies 2 and trust territory, there is a three year phase in 3 period for the rule, primarily because we have 4 never negotiated goals with these entities before,

5 and they are completely new to that process. And 6 so we're doing a three year phase in period to get 7 them up to speed, move on to education and make 8 sure they understand what the expectations are,

9 particularly, what we do in negotiations of a fair 10 share objective.

11 DIRECTOR BROWN: The other piece to that,

12 because we do have someone from the tribe here, one 13 from the tribe here

14 ( Chorus of " she left.")

15 DIRECTOR BROWN: Did she leave?

16 MS. PATRICK: She will be back tomorrow?

17 FROM THE FLOOR: She is coming back tomorrow.

18 DIRECTOR BROWN: Okay. Mason Tillman Associates, Ltd. June 2005 Draft for Discussion Purposes Only Client Name Disparity Study 1 ccxl 19 MS. PATRICK: We will hold that for her.

20 Next thing is recordkeeping and 21 reporting. A recipient of a continuing educational 22 program grant or other annual grant will be 23 subject  will be required to create and maintain 24 a bidders list. Such a list must be kept only  Mason Tillman Associates, Ltd. June 2005 Draft for Discussion Purposes Only Client Name Disparity Study 1 ccxli 121 1 must only be kept until the grant project period 2 has expired and the recipient is no longer 3 receiving funding under the grant.

4 In addition, a recipient under EPA's 5 financial assistance agreement, to capitalize on 6 the revolving loan funds  that is another word 7 for our loan programs, brown bills, blah, blah,

8 blah  also must require entities receiving 9 identified loans, to create and maintain a bidder's 10 list if the loan  list if the loan recipient is 11 subject to or chooses to follow competitive bidding 12 requirements.

13 The purpose of a bidders list is to 14 provide the recipient and entities receiving 15 identified loans who conduct competitive bidding 16 with as accurate of a database as possible about 17 the universe of MBE/ WBE and nonMBE/ WBE prime and 18 subcontractors. Mason Tillman Associates, Ltd. June 2005 Draft for Discussion Purposes Only Client Name Disparity Study 1 ccxlii 19 Such a list must be kept only for the 20 project period for that identified loan has ended.

21 Recipients are required to comply with the 22 recordkeeping requirements even if they are exempt 23 from applying from  negotiating the fair share 24 objective requirements. That's very important. Mason Tillman Associates, Ltd. June 2005 Draft for Discussion Purposes Only Client Name Disparity Study 1 ccxliii 122 1 We have experienced a lot of comment 2 about the bidders list, particularly when we were 3 in Atlanta. People were asking, well, what 4 information do you want to capture? What do you 5 want on that list?

6 DIRECTOR BROWN: What is your definition of a 7 bidders list?

8 MS. PATRICK: Because we realize that 9 definition varies in different areas, and that's 10 something that we are looking at and we want to 11 receive more comments on. So we make sure we are 12 capturing or having a recipient capture real 13 relevant information so when you're developing the 14 comments that you may want to do in writing and 15 submit to us, please keep that in mind. We are 16 specifically looking for comments about what things 17 you all would like to see on the bidders list as 18 well as things we are thinking about. Mason Tillman Associates, Ltd. June 2005 Draft for Discussion Purposes Only Client Name Disparity Study 1 ccxliv 19 Okay. The next thing  we're 20 obviously, we're at the bottom. We are excited, we 21 are going to have some time left  is waivers. We 22 built in a specific rule on the possibility a 23 director can have  can grant waivers from any 24 requirements of Part 33 that are not based on the Mason Tillman Associates, Ltd. June 2005 Draft for Discussion Purposes Only Client Name Disparity Study 1 ccxlv 123 1 statute or Executive Order.

2 To give you an idea of things that she 3 could not make waivers from, can't waiver reporting 4 and she cannot waiver the six good faith efforts,

5 just to give you an idea. When we say they don't 6 go away, even the director can't take them away.

7 So don't come asking for an exemption from them 8 because it is not going to work. Okay?

9 The next step. I want to let you all 10 know how you can make your comments in writing, so 11 if you're here today and you were shy about the mic 12 or you couldn't get in a word edge wise because 13 Lance was always there ( laughter)

14 DIRECTOR BROWN: Sorry, Lance.

15 MS. PATRICK:  then we have a way for you to 16 make your comments in writing. If you would 17 turn  I don't know if you all have the full text 18 of the rule in your packet. If not, I am not sure Mason Tillman Associates, Ltd. June 2005 Draft for Discussion Purposes Only Client Name Disparity Study 1 ccxlvi 19 what's in your packet.

20 Yes, you do have it. If you turn to the 21 second page, which is page 43825, it starts with 22 the top column, B, how and to whom do I submit 23 comments. If you highlight or circle that section 24 in your actual rule, it lists all the different Mason Tillman Associates, Ltd. June 2005 Draft for Discussion Purposes Only Client Name Disparity Study 1 ccxlvii 124 1 ways we will accept comments. We will take them by 2 mail, by e mail, online, and they all go directly 3 to the docket system. Do not mail your comments 4 directly to me.

5 DIRECTOR BROWN: Or me. ( Laughter)

6 MS. PATRICK: If you mail them to us, we will 7 forward them, but if you want to get them at the 8 right place, they should go to the docket people at 9 EPA because they handle all of this in terms of 10 gathering that information. And the way to contact 11 them is all listed here. So really pay attention 12 to this. If you do it electronically, it will make 13 our lives a lot easier. Because even if you send 14 it in in writing, all they are going to do is turn 15 around and reduce it to electronics and put it in 16 the docket.

17 So that's a very easy way to submit your 18 comments. And we really, really want your Mason Tillman Associates, Ltd. June 2005 Draft for Discussion Purposes Only Client Name Disparity Study 1 ccxlviii 19 comments. Because as this thing goes forward, we 20 don't want anybody to say, well, no one asked me 21 about that. That's why we are going across the 22 country and making sure we are having these 23 discussions with everybody.

24 DIRECTOR BROWN: Just as vocal as you all have Mason Tillman Associates, Ltd. June 2005 Draft for Discussion Purposes Only Client Name Disparity Study 1 ccxlix 125 1 been today  and we welcome that. We are big 2 girls. We can handle it. We want you to put your 3 comments in writing. And I would strongly suggest 4 that.

5 MS. PATRICK: The comment period right now

6 what was your question? I want to make sure I 7 heard you correctly.

8 FROM THE FLOOR: The deadline.

9 MS. PATRICK: Yes. The comment period closes 10 January the 20th, however, we are extending that 11 comment period. If you look after your federal 12 register notice, the next week or two, you are 13 going to see that we are going to try to extend it 14 to February 28, the last day of February, because 15 we had to add one more hearing. We are going to 16 Alaska, but we're not going until February. So we 17 want to make sure they have the opportunity to make 18 their comments, as well, before the official period Mason Tillman Associates, Ltd. June 2005 Draft for Discussion Purposes Only Client Name Disparity Study 1 ccl 19 closes. So I'm giving you advance notice. It is 20 actually going to be until February 28th, okay.

21 Yes, ma'am.

22 MS. AMY CROWE ( Metropolitan Water Reclamation 23 District of Greater Chicago): Do you have a look 24 ahead as far as the date when you're going to put Mason Tillman Associates, Ltd. June 2005 Draft for Discussion Purposes Only Client Name Disparity Study 1 ccli 126 1 all this together and publish it for final?

2 MS. PATRICK: We are hoping  it truly 3 depends on the volume of comments we receive. So 4 far it is looking pretty good that we can get 5 through pretty quickly because people really 6 haven't given a lot of comments. However, I think 7 Chicago is going to be a turning point for that.

8 We are going to get a lot of comments, and I'm glad 9 about that. It gives us something to work with.

10 We are hoping by the time we go through 11 comments and back to EPA internal process, we have 12 to go through getting all these concurrent and 13 stuff all over again.

14 DIRECTOR BROWN: Various programs.

15 MS. PATRICK: My hope is that within a year,

16 it can be done.

17 MS. CROWE: Okay.

18 MS. PATRICK: But I'm a very optimistic Mason Tillman Associates, Ltd. June 2005 Draft for Discussion Purposes Only Client Name Disparity Study 1 cclii 19 person. I really am. And so that is my best 20 optimistic, you know, determination on that.

21 MS. CROWE: One thing that came up during the 22 discussion a couple minutes ago was about 23 performance bonding. The ordinance at the Water 24 District has remedial provisoin that we've had for Mason Tillman Associates, Ltd. June 2005 Draft for Discussion Purposes Only Client Name Disparity Study 1 ccliii 127 1 many, many years that protects minority and women 2 businesses from being denied subcontract solely on 3 the basis of their inability to get a bond. And so 4 basically all that means is that we go to the prime 5 contractor, the prime contractor produces a 6 performance bond, and they are restricted and told 7 not to deny a contract to minority or women 8 business. But they bond the job anyway. So we 9 have included that in our ordinance as a remedial 10 provision because that is a problem looking for a 11 bond.

12 DIRECTOR BROWN: And, ma'am, you are going to 13 send us your entire  is this it, that you gave 14 me?

15 MS. CROWE: That is the resolution and 16 ordinance.

17 DIRECTOR BROWN: Okay.

18 MS. CROWE: I gave you two pieces  Mason Tillman Associates, Ltd. June 2005 Draft for Discussion Purposes Only Client Name Disparity Study 1 ccliv 19 DIRECTOR BROWN: Okay.

20 MS. CROWE:  but you said you were going to 21 take care of it.

22 DIRECTOR BROWN: Yes, I am.

23 MS. CROWE: I am going to do it, too, but in 24 the meantime, you can help me, and I will help you. Mason Tillman Associates, Ltd. June 2005 Draft for Discussion Purposes Only Client Name Disparity Study 1 cclv 128 1 One way or the other, we will get it in there.

2 MS. PATRICK: I have a question. Do you want 3 your ordinance to also go to the docket?

4 MS. CROWE: I would appreciate that.

5 MS. PATRICK: No problem, I will just forward 6 it on or I will just mail or scan it in.

7 MS. CROWE: That would be great, because we 8 make constant reference to our ordinance.

9 MS. PATRICK: Right. And we don't

10 MS. CROWE: All right.

11 MS. PATRICK: And another thing we are going 12 to need before we go in, do you have a business 13 card, because there is nothing  we're going to 14 want to know the name of your organization and 15 reference, and I don't see it on the comments here.

16 So we need that. They docket at least the name of 17 the organization. If you want to. Another 18 thing  I'm sorry. You can do this anonymously, Mason Tillman Associates, Ltd. June 2005 Draft for Discussion Purposes Only Client Name Disparity Study 1 cclvi 19 as well. Your name doesn't have to be involved.

20 But do you want to be anonymous, or do you want 21 them to know?

22 MS. CROWE: I can't be anonymous at this point 23 in my life. ( Laughter)

24 MS. DONLEY: Kimberly, you can always identify Mason Tillman Associates, Ltd. June 2005 Draft for Discussion Purposes Only Client Name Disparity Study 1 cclvii 129 1 that as  what is this, state or municipality?

2 Ordinance that addresses the particular issue.

3 DIRECTOR BROWN: Yes, sir, Josh.

4 MR. JOSHUA BUNKER ( State of Minnesota): Joshua 5 Bunker, Minnesota's Pollution Control Agency. I 6 know we have been kind of having public comments 7 throughout the entire time and I've been holding 8 off while some contractors and subcontractors have 9 been taking care of business.

10 I would like to first share with you a 11 couple pieces. I don't intend to go through these 12 entire six pages. They are kind of preliminary,

13 comments from Minnesota. First of all, a 14 disclaimer. I didn't write the state laws. I'm 15 just a representative. ( Laughter) I am not the 16 governor. I don't have the executive type of 17 authorities to change things. I am just telling 18 you like it is right now as I see it from Mason Tillman Associates, Ltd. June 2005 Draft for Discussion Purposes Only Client Name Disparity Study 1 cclviii 19 Minnesota's Pollution Control Agency.

20 DIRECTOR BROWN: Okay.

21 MR. BUNKER: And how this process could affect 22 our business and certainly then as procurement goes 23 under our grant agreements, then they would affect 24 the majority of the rest of you in this room. And Mason Tillman Associates, Ltd. June 2005 Draft for Discussion Purposes Only Client Name Disparity Study 1 cclix 130 1 I am going to hop and skip though this. And so 2 that is why I want to give you a copy of this. And 3 certainly if anyone would like to comment for the 4 state statutes, I can direct you to those places,

5 also.

6 State procurement systems, toward the 7 bottom of page 1, I just wanted to comment that it 8 is not fully apparent within the proposed language 9 whether or not EPA intends to recognize existing 10 state procurement systems that comply with state 11 law for the purpose of this proposed rule and its 12 amendments to existing regulation. The last 13 paragraph states that, in this part, subpart 36, it 14 is amended by removing it. And the language in 15 there states that when procuring property and 16 services under a grant, a state will follow the 17 same policies and procedures it uses for 18 procurements from its nonfederal funds. Mason Tillman Associates, Ltd. June 2005 Draft for Discussion Purposes Only Client Name Disparity Study 1 cclx 19 So this change would effectively remove 20 the ability for states to rely upon their existing 21 systems for compliance with the EPA proposed rule 22 under part 41. However, there remains a conflict 23 in language in part 35, subpart 936 2, that says 24 granting procurement systems, grantees may use Mason Tillman Associates, Ltd. June 2005 Draft for Discussion Purposes Only Client Name Disparity Study 1 cclxi 131 1 their own procurement systems and procedures, which 2 meet applicable requirements of state and territory 3 laws, so that language remains within part 35.

4 That wasn't excluded.

5 MS. PATRICK: Wait. We don't view it as 6 inconsistent. We don't view it as saying that the 7 grantee cannot use its current. In fact, we 8 encourage it. Whatever your procurement systems 9 are, we can't really, you know, get into that.

10 That's what they are.

11 And so what we were saying is, you have 12 to use the same policies and procedures that you 13 use for all of your procurements. So it was 14 whatever the state can set up, whatever it is your 15 procurement in Minnesota, we want you to use that.

16 So that there is not a difference in that. It is 17 actually being interpreted as to not be in conflict 18 with that other statute. Mason Tillman Associates, Ltd. June 2005 Draft for Discussion Purposes Only Client Name Disparity Study 1 cclxii 19 MR. BUNKER: On the face of that, of that 20 information in the proposed rule, it appears that 21 you are saying states are no longer able to use 22 their existing systems which comply with state 23 laws.

24 DIRECTOR BROWN: Okay. Thank you. Mason Tillman Associates, Ltd. June 2005 Draft for Discussion Purposes Only Client Name Disparity Study 1 cclxiii 132 1 MR. BUNKER: That's where a large number of 2 states, especially in Region V, where a number have 3 challenge with the proposed information.

4 This is becoming a much happier day 5 ( laughter) in Minnesota. Well, great, I will skip 6 on through, but would love to see that

7 DIRECTOR BROWN: In writing clarify.

8 MR. BUNKER:  where you describe, please.

9 Because, if not, and just to let the rest of the 10 room know what is going on, is that the state 11 doesn't have the resources or the ability to do 12 things outside of existing systems. And so if we 13 then say that we need to certify specific to the 14 part itself, we lose our ability to start to get 15 into certifying, let alone the kind of processes as 16 they stand.

17 In 33, part 106, at the bottom of page 18 2, the language states the recipients must ensure Mason Tillman Associates, Ltd. June 2005 Draft for Discussion Purposes Only Client Name Disparity Study 1 cclxiv 19 that each procuring contract awards contains the 20 terms and conditions that would be included in the 21 appendix suggesting it isn't clear whether the term 22 and condition must be included in pass through 23 agreements.

24 MS. PATRICK: In what agreements? Mason Tillman Associates, Ltd. June 2005 Draft for Discussion Purposes Only Client Name Disparity Study 1 cclxv 133 1 DIRECTOR BROWN: Pass through.

2 MR. BUNKER: In pass through agreements which 3 are not directly benefiting the recipient and 4 therefore not always viewed as procurement related 5 so they would be assistance, passing through grants 6 projects where the subrecipients would be the 7 primary beneficiaries, our system doesn't 8 necessarily recognize it all the time as 9 procurement. And, therefore, it's a question of 10 whether or not the rest of the language in the part 11 would follow pass through agreements, as stated by 12 this information.

13 Secondly, in that same subpart, in No.

14 2, the suggestion, I believe it should clearly 15 place the responsibility on the loan recipients,

16 not the initial recipients concerning the terms and 17 conditions are included in all sublevel 18 procurement. As the language states right now, I Mason Tillman Associates, Ltd. June 2005 Draft for Discussion Purposes Only Client Name Disparity Study 1 cclxvi 19 could certainly write into a contract the language 20 that is included in the appendix to this part, but,

21 for me, then, to monitor it and ensure that the 22 subrecipients also stated that would be overly 23 burdensome for the states, other than just writing 24 in the contract and saying you must include. For Mason Tillman Associates, Ltd. June 2005 Draft for Discussion Purposes Only Client Name Disparity Study 1 cclxvii 134 1 the recipient to have to deal with that second tier 2 in their contractual language, that would be a 3 challenge.

4 DIRECTOR BROWN: Did you all hear that?

5 MS. SHARON GREEN: Still got to do it.

6 MS. DONLEY: It is the policing issues that we 7 have all over the board, and it is going to come 8 down to making sure everybody knows what the 9 requirements are all the way down, so that at the 10 very bottom someone is not seeing those 11 requirements met, they can make a complaint. And 12 during the break, it was suggested to me and in the 13 Office of Regional Counsel, because these are 14 federal funds, these types of complaints may be 15 appropriate for our Office of Inspector General,

16 which may be a shortcut through the morass of oh,

17 gee, you have a recourse with a huge class action 18 complaint, which is nobody's quick guarantee of Mason Tillman Associates, Ltd. June 2005 Draft for Discussion Purposes Only Client Name Disparity Study 1 cclxviii 19 success.

20 MS. PATRICK: And the IG

21 MR. BUNKER: But in this section, if you name 22 the subrecipient as being responsible for including 23 that language for their subcontractors, it's much 24 stronger than for my level of the state to say, you Mason Tillman Associates, Ltd. June 2005 Draft for Discussion Purposes Only Client Name Disparity Study 1 cclxix 135 1 must include the rest of these pieces.

2 On page 3, subpart 201 A, at the end of 3 that first paragraph, it says, the section states 4 that the entity must be properly certified, period.

5 Suggesting to include language as defined by the 6 subpart or something else or else you were going to 7 get other people saying I am certified.

8 Page 4, subpart 212, can a private 9 certified charge a fee to an entity to process the 10 MBE's application for certification? Question: If 11 EPA, itself, would not charge a fee for certifying 12 MBEs and WBEs, if carried out their certification 13 activities, why, then, would it be acceptable for 14 EPA to avoid certifying and place private 15 certifiers in its place and charge a fee to people 16 who are already economically disadvantaged 17 individuals and/ or businesses to pay those 18 additional fees? Mason Tillman Associates, Ltd. June 2005 Draft for Discussion Purposes Only Client Name Disparity Study 1 cclxx 19 Continuing on ( laughter), toward the top 20 of page 5, subpart 302 A, this is a question of the 21 time that it should take for payments for primes 22 and to pass them on to subcontractors.

23 DIRECTOR BROWN: Uh huh.

24 MR. BUNKER: States would love to hear  I Mason Tillman Associates, Ltd. June 2005 Draft for Discussion Purposes Only Client Name Disparity Study 1 cclxxi 136 1 should say, my office would love to hear any 2 consensus, suggestion on amount of time. That 3 would just be very helpful if that can come out.

4 If not, then you rely upon a lot of environmental 5 program people to drive business practices and that 6 might not be the best place to put responsibility.

7 DIRECTOR BROWN: I think you can take back to 8 the state and look at what was suggested here.

9 MR. BUNKER: 7 to 10.

10 DIRECTOR BROWN: 7 to 10.

11 MR. BUNKER: I will be happy to do that.

12 DIRECTOR BROWN: We have had 15 and we've also 13 had 30. And one place also had, I think it said 45 14 at the longest, but we've heard anywhere from 3, 7 15 to 10, 15, 30, 45.

16 MR. BUNKER: I can bring those back, but being 17 state government.

18 DIRECTOR BROWN: We will say, it will be Mason Tillman Associates, Ltd. June 2005 Draft for Discussion Purposes Only Client Name Disparity Study 1 cclxxii 19 specific.

20 MR. BUNKER: Okay. Toward the bottom of 21 page 5, subpart 404, when it is talking about 22 recipients have a particular number of days to get 23 their fair share objectives, to the question, what 24 would happen if the recipient did not submit its Mason Tillman Associates, Ltd. June 2005 Draft for Discussion Purposes Only Client Name Disparity Study 1 cclxxiii 137 1 information within the period of time, other than 2 an inability to expend funds on procurement,

3 especially if your assistance agreement was only 4 for salary costs?

5 MS. PATRICK: Well, if the agreement is only 6 for salary costs, the program doesn't kick in 7 anyway. So we are  we are fine with you. You 8 can go forward and do what you want.

9 MR. BUNKER: Go around and it will kick in 10 anyway?

11 MS. PATRICK: The second you go  you need to 12 talk to us.

13 DIRECTOR BROWN: And you can't spend it. And 14 we have  I don't think this was  was this one 15 of the reasons where we looked at stop paying? I 16 mean, We've done it. We've done it.

17 MS. DONLEY: Yes, it was for Minnesota.

18 ( Laughter) Mason Tillman Associates, Ltd. June 2005 Draft for Discussion Purposes Only Client Name Disparity Study 1 cclxxiv 19 DIRECTOR BROWN: And then they hurried up and 20 got on board with what needed to be done. But the 21 program doesn't kick in, Josh, unless you go out 22 and buy something. If they decide to use it on 23 salaries

24 MS. PATRICK: All on salaries. Mason Tillman Associates, Ltd. June 2005 Draft for Discussion Purposes Only Client Name Disparity Study 1 cclxxv 138 1 DIRECTOR BROWN:  and nothing but salaries,

2 then the program doesn't kick in. If you decide to 3 do it with people already on state government 4 payroll, the program does not kick in. That's your 5 choice.

6 MR. BUNKER: I will just leave that hanging,

7 of course, since I can't speak anything otherwise.

8 DIRECTOR BROWN: I will come talk to you a 9 little bit later.

10 MR. BUNKER: All right.

11 DIRECTOR BROWN: Thank you.

12 MR. BUNKER: In page 6, subpart 501 B, the 13 recordkeeping requirements of this part, if the 14 fair share objectives are part of the main focus on 15 minority and women's business enterprise, why is 16 this rule concerned with small businesses, hub zone 17 businesses, SBRAs and SRAs?

18 MS. PATRICK: The term DBE, once we switch  Mason Tillman Associates, Ltd. June 2005 Draft for Discussion Purposes Only Client Name Disparity Study 1 cclxxvi 19 DIRECTOR BROWN: Is for all of that.

20 MS. PATRICK:  is going to encompass all of 21 that. That is why we're not even calling it the 22 WME/ WBE program anymore, because it is going to 23 include everything.

24 MR. BUNKER: But our reporting requirements, Mason Tillman Associates, Ltd. June 2005 Draft for Discussion Purposes Only Client Name Disparity Study 1 cclxxvii 139 1 the disparity analysis

2 MS. PATRICK: Once the rule

3 MR. BUNKER:  the forms, everything else is 4 currently strictly MBE/ WBE

5 MS. PATRICK: Right.

6 MR. BUNKER:  for reporting. Are all those 7 pieces going to change? Are we going to have to 8 pay attention to those DBEs that are listed within 9 these parts and the forms will change?

10 MS. PATRICK: The forms are going to have to 11 change once the rule goes final. I believe that is 12 something we already sort of discussed with our 13 coordinator saying, we brought that same point 14 going to have to reflect some different things 15 asked for this reporting, because the term doesn't 16 change. That is something that we are dealing 17 with.

18 MR. BUNKER: In the language that in Mason Tillman Associates, Ltd. June 2005 Draft for Discussion Purposes Only Client Name Disparity Study 1 cclxxviii 19 calculating fair share objectives, that language 20 doesn't seem specific enough, then, to say they 21 actually are dealing with other than MBEs or WBEs.

22 I didn't glean any of that out of that language.

23 MS. PATRICK: Okay.

24 MR. BUNKER: Just below it in subpart 502, the Mason Tillman Associates, Ltd. June 2005 Draft for Discussion Purposes Only Client Name Disparity Study 1 cclxxix 140 1 reporting requirements. Although I don't have it 2 written here, because I put it in the wrong place 3 at the top, as far as reporting, Minnesota will be 4 submitting something that is looking to have an 5 exemption for assistance agreements under a 6 particular dollar amount from reporting. You will 7 just receive it.

8 MS. PATRICK: That's nice.

9 MR. BUNKER: And the observation under  I'm 10 sorry, in subpart 502, reporting requirements, it 11 provides that reporting frequency for EPA form, as,

12 quote, except for recipients of continuing 13 environmental program grants, which report on an 14 annual basis, I would love to say agreed as a 15 recipient of continuing environmental program 16 grants, Minnesota will be happy to report annually.

17 ( Laughter)

18 DIRECTOR BROWN: That's people from the grants Mason Tillman Associates, Ltd. June 2005 Draft for Discussion Purposes Only Client Name Disparity Study 1 cclxxx 19 office, right? ( Laughter)

20 MR. BUNKER: Now, because I think this will be 21 caught at some point after I've stated that,

22 unless, of course, that is fine with everybody in 23 the back and front of the room.

24 DIRECTOR BROWN: We got it. Mason Tillman Associates, Ltd. June 2005 Draft for Discussion Purposes Only Client Name Disparity Study 1 cclxxxi 141 1 MR. BUNKER: Okay. And if that doesn't remain 2 in itself, because there might be others that don't 3 receive this EP grants, to adjust all reporting on 4 that 5700 52 A to an annual basis. This will 5 minimize reporting burdens of recipients, reduce 6 numbers of no activity reports submitted to EPA 7 regional coordinators and increase the likelihood 8 that submitted reports will actually include 9 manageable MBE/ WBE and subsequent groups for 10 inclusion in there, and we, of course, happily 11 report on all subcontract information actively 12 right now.

13 And then the last part, comment on the 14 appendix to part 33, the term and condition.

15 Referring back to the statement in subpart 106,

16 which says recipients must ensure that each 17 procurement contract awards, just to make sure that 18 is consistent because, if not, we are likely to Mason Tillman Associates, Ltd. June 2005 Draft for Discussion Purposes Only Client Name Disparity Study 1 cclxxxii 19 view only things termed as strictly procurement.

20 DIRECTOR BROWN: Procurement.

21 MR. BUNKER: As needed to include these parts,

22 instead of all activity under these assistance 23 agreements themselves as these being included in 24 that part. I will send you some of the  well, Mason Tillman Associates, Ltd. June 2005 Draft for Discussion Purposes Only Client Name Disparity Study 1 cclxxxiii 142 1 not you directly, but

2 MS. PATRICK: Send in.

3 MR. BUNKER: I will send in.

4 DIRECTOR BROWN: Okay. Thank you, Josh.

5 MS. PATRICK: Thank you very much.

6 DIRECTOR BROWN: Okay. You were going to

7 okay, Lance. ( Laughter)

8 MR. LANCE STOKES ( ECI Unlimited, Inc.):

9 Lance Stokes, ECI Unlimited, Inc., out of Detroit,

10 Michigan, environmental engineers and consultants.

11 I simply want to just speak in 12 opposition to his suggestion for annual reporting.

13 We talked earlier today. We don't have any 14 policing as it is. I suggest quarterly reporting.

15 Why? Simply this. And if there is a money 16 problem, use some of the money from the grant,

17 include that in the grant money that you obtained 18 to be able to report quarterly. If you wait 12 Mason Tillman Associates, Ltd. June 2005 Draft for Discussion Purposes Only Client Name Disparity Study 1 cclxxxiv 19 months, a lot of stuff can happen in between. So I 20 stand in strong opposition and be glad I don't live 21 in Minnesota to that annual reporting. Thank you.

22 DIRECTOR BROWN: Thank you.

23 MS. PATRICK: Next.

24 MS. BETH DORIA ( Federation of Women Mason Tillman Associates, Ltd. June 2005 Draft for Discussion Purposes Only Client Name Disparity Study 1 cclxxxv 143 1 Contractors): Beth Doria, Executive Director of 2 the Federation of Women Contractors. The 3 Federation of Women Contractors is a membership 4 organization comprised of women who own and control 5 construction or construction related firms.

6 Membership in the Chicagoland area is 120 women 7 business owners in construction. The Federation 8 has read the proposed EPA DBE rules and preamble 9 thoroughly and support most aspects of the proposed 10 rule and support the comments and recommendations 11 of the Metropolitan Water Reclamation District's 12 comments, as well.

13 It has been our direct experience that 14 the MWRGC has successfully implemented an 15 affirmative action program that has made 16 significant opportunities available to minority and 17 women and disadvantaged business owners. It is one 18 of the oldest and most successful affirmative Mason Tillman Associates, Ltd. June 2005 Draft for Discussion Purposes Only Client Name Disparity Study 1 cclxxxvi 19 action programs in the state.

20 On the section on name change, we at the 21 FWC disagree with the proposed language and propose 22 the change be limited to language now set forth in 23 the affirmative action ordinance of the MWRDGC.

24 On the section on certification, we are Mason Tillman Associates, Ltd. June 2005 Draft for Discussion Purposes Only Client Name Disparity Study 1 cclxxxvii 144 1 thrilled that the EPA would no longer accept any 2 self certifications and MWD  MWDBE certification 3 of SBA 8A states, municipalities and private 4 certifiers such as the Chicago Minority Business 5 Development Council and the WBDC Women's Business 6 Enterprise National Council certification will be 7 accepted as long as EPA citizenship requirements 8 are met.

9 On certification issues, we also agree 10 with the five categories of individuals or group 11 who not  who would not qualify for MW DBE 12 certifications on that, besides criteria are to be 13 based on NACIS industry standards.

14 However, the members of the federation 15 disagree with the language related to the issue of 16 ownership and control. Under the proposed changes,

17 33.103, a DBE is defined as an entity owned or 18 controlled by an individual who is socially and Mason Tillman Associates, Ltd. June 2005 Draft for Discussion Purposes Only Client Name Disparity Study 1 cclxxxviii 19 economically disadvantaged under EPA's 8 percent 20 statute. The Federation and its members object to 21 the inclusion of any entity that is only controlled 22 by a socially and economically disadvantaged 23 individual. Ownership and control is the only true 24 reflection of the beneficiaries or the risk Mason Tillman Associates, Ltd. June 2005 Draft for Discussion Purposes Only Client Name Disparity Study 1 cclxxxix 145 1 bearers. We believe only those businesses that are 2 owned, operated and controlled by a minority or a 3 woman should be included in this program.

4 We support the provisions requiring that 5 a personal net worth cap of $ 750,000 would apply to 6 be eligible in the program. We agree with the 7 proposed provisions on contract administration and 8 are pleased that the EPA has outlined these in 9 detail. We are especially pleased with the 10 provision that required its prime contractors to 11 pay subcontractors for satisfactory performance 12 within a specific number of days from the prime 13 contractor's receipt of payment from the recipient 14 and support the suggestion that subcontractors are 15 notified when payment is made to primes and 16 subsequent payment to be issued to the subs in 17 seven to ten days.

18 Regarding the provision on the Mason Tillman Associates, Ltd. June 2005 Draft for Discussion Purposes Only Client Name Disparity Study 1 ccxc 19 submission of fair share goals, the Federation 20 supports the Metropolitan Water Reclamation 21 District so that the language should revert to the 22 language in the affirmative action program of the 23 MWRDGC.

24 In this area of challenges to MW DBE Mason Tillman Associates, Ltd. June 2005 Draft for Discussion Purposes Only Client Name Disparity Study 1 ccxci 146 1 programs around the country, the Federation of 2 Women Contractors is especially pleased with the 3 provisions for race and gender conscious efforts 4 and actions to achieve fair share goals including 5 price incentives.

6 Thank you.

7 MS. PATRICK: Thank you.

8 DIRECTOR BROWN: Thank you. Is there anyone 9 else?

10 MR. JOSHUA BUNKER ( State of Minnesota): Joshua 11 Bunker, private citizen living in St. Paul,

12 Minnesota. ( Laughter) I just want to get out the 13 door. Living in Minnesota.

14 FROM THE FLOOR: The land of Jesse Ventura.

15 ( Laughter)

16 MR. BUNKER: No longer the land of Jesse 17 Ventura. And as a member of the black community 18 looking at some of these rule changes, it is Mason Tillman Associates, Ltd. June 2005 Draft for Discussion Purposes Only Client Name Disparity Study 1 ccxcii 19 lamentable in some ways that it feels like the onus 20 or responsibility across the board is on these 21 minority women and small businesses to meet the bar 22 of federal regulations. I would certainly welcome 23 the gentleman from Detroit to come to Minnesota and 24 speak up and have a voice, because in many ways, Mason Tillman Associates, Ltd. June 2005 Draft for Discussion Purposes Only Client Name Disparity Study 1 ccxciii 147 1 there are so few voices being heard in different 2 places.

3 There are challenges with state systems 4 across the board, because state systems often rely 5 upon people to self identify in the system to be 6 able to engage in procurement. In Minnesota, just 7 because I happen to know a little about that, not 8 enough, there is not a requirement at a state level 9 to go out and solicit all available vendors at all 10 times. The business themself would have to be 11 certified under state laws, live or reside and 12 operate within Minnesota unless there is an 13 additional procurement level added to a particular 14 program or particular process, and then, according 15 to state laws, there would be a particular number 16 of organizations that would have to be solicited,

17 and this is contrary to the language that is 18 included in the fair share goals, good faith Mason Tillman Associates, Ltd. June 2005 Draft for Discussion Purposes Only Client Name Disparity Study 1 ccxciv 19 positive efforts, however you might list these 20 pieces.

21 Because that is a proactive, get the 22 information down, whereas state systems and other 23 business systems more often react by saying, well,

24 let's see who we have in house right now and we Mason Tillman Associates, Ltd. June 2005 Draft for Discussion Purposes Only Client Name Disparity Study 1 ccxcv 148 1 will go with those and take a subsection of those 2 to go ahead and comply with state law.

3 Now, whatever you can do to erase my 4 name in any way ( laughter), and I will be taking 5 this time that I've spoken right now as vacation 6 and not representing my organization in these 7 comments. Thank you very much. ( Laughter and 8 applause)

9 MR. FREDERICK NEWELL ( Newell Abatement/ Lead 10 Investigative Services, Inc.): Frederick Newell 11 with Lead Investigator and Newell Abatement out of 12 St. Paul, Minnesota. I started taking notes 13 earlier on just some of the problems that I noted 14 everybody seemed to have and the frustration level 15 that we seem to face, frustrated because the 16 system, the process seems to be design to keep a 17 loop and most of the money still goes up with. So 18 I have been trying to find a solution for this Mason Tillman Associates, Ltd. June 2005 Draft for Discussion Purposes Only Client Name Disparity Study 1 ccxcvi 19 problem. Unfortunately, I haven't, but I did want 20 to bring several points to bear.

21 The percentage of businesses that does 22 not really seem to be tracing necessary to 23 determine not only what businesses go through but 24 what percentage of their revenue actually comes Mason Tillman Associates, Ltd. June 2005 Draft for Discussion Purposes Only Client Name Disparity Study 1 ccxcvii 149 1 from these programs. I have actually been in 2 business since ' 95, been certified with hub zone 3 and most federal programs all throughout the state 4 programs, and I have gotten very, very little from 5 any of these programs. Actually, what they do is 6 they take up more of my time, and when they take up 7 more time, I am usually required to drop them just 8 to go and get business for my business.

9 So I think that the emphasis has to be 10 not on just keeping the process going and hoping 11 that we get something out it, but changing the 12 process, because when the process gets this 13 frustrating, when they come in hoping to hear 14 something, as the gentleman was saying, and they 15 find out they're saying, well, we will have to deal 16 with that in another meeting. I'll admit, I drove 17 all of last night just to get here and I almost 18 walked out after I got here because I was expecting Mason Tillman Associates, Ltd. June 2005 Draft for Discussion Purposes Only Client Name Disparity Study 1 ccxcviii 19 something based on the brochures that was sent to 20 me, saying this is getting in with EPA and getting 21 business through EPA.

22 But, unfortunately, if we are back to 23 the grant level with the cat groups or with the 24 community groups who I have to work with, and Mason Tillman Associates, Ltd. June 2005 Draft for Discussion Purposes Only Client Name Disparity Study 1 ccxcix 150 1 that's been a big frustration in Minnesota, because 2 as he said, there are contractors who normally 3 always the state goes with, just that level of 4 group that they are used to. No one goes out and 5 finds out what else is out there. And, once again,

6 being certified with all these groups, I still 7 don't get an invitation to the table or find out 8 later that the projects have already happened and 9 that there was no one really monitoring or 10 requiring that contractors like myself be brought 11 in.

12 So it puts us in a position to where,

13 like I said, the process itself takes more time and 14 rewards are very few.

15 I did want to, also just want to point 16 out one thing on this, on the payment schedule, as 17 a small contractor or been out there since 1995 and 18 had to diversify just to make sure that we are able Mason Tillman Associates, Ltd. June 2005 Draft for Discussion Purposes Only Client Name Disparity Study 1 ccc 19 to continue and have done so well, that 30 days is,

20 and in my view, should be a minimum, not seven days 21 after. Because what happens is, the prime 22 contractor gets his money and then he gets seven 23 more days of grace period while I am paying that 24 additional seven days of interest on my money until Mason Tillman Associates, Ltd. June 2005 Draft for Discussion Purposes Only Client Name Disparity Study 1 ccci 151 1 I get money back. So it's always based on the 2 calculation of interest and cost to the contractor 3 and subcontractor, and then there are many of them 4 who really do what they said, they will tell you,

5 " I haven't gotten it." I have got a contractor 6 right now who's 90 days out and he keeps saying 7 that, " as soon as I get money from the state, you 8 will get yours."

9 MS. PATRICK: You will get yours.

10 MR. NEWELL: Now, his eye has been blackened 11 with the state, but that's only because he should 12 have done as I do my people. I don't put my 13 workers off. I don't put my subcontractors off.

14 They get their pay according to when they do their 15 work and if I put them out 30 days, that's only 16 because that's the arrangement. But I, as a small 17 contractor, understand that everybody do not have,

18 not only the big bank account, but either way they Mason Tillman Associates, Ltd. June 2005 Draft for Discussion Purposes Only Client Name Disparity Study 1 cccii 19 still don't want to pay more money on the contract 20 than what they expect to get out of it.

21 So my encouragement would be not to go 22 at it as a  so many days after but do the math.

23 If he is going to get his in 30 days, the 24 subcontractor should get his in 30 days. Mason Tillman Associates, Ltd. June 2005 Draft for Discussion Purposes Only Client Name Disparity Study 1 ccciii 152 1 Thank you.

2 DIRECTOR BROWN: Sir, I just wanted to 3 comment. In the information that went out, we are 4 talking about doing business with EPA. How many of 5 you, as minority businesses, knew that there was 6 another vehicle that is possibly available to do 7 business indirectly with EPA prior to coming here?

8 How many of you all knew that?

9 ( There was a few show of hands.)

10 DIRECTOR BROWN: But for the most part, you 11 didn't. The money is green, and you need to know 12 where to go to follow it. And the government 13 changes how it is doing business. You are going to 14 have to change how you do business if you want to 15 go after the money.

16 What I said earlier on is, $ 1.2 billion 17 goes out of this agency in contracts. Four times 18 that goes out of this agency, $ 4.2 billion Mason Tillman Associates, Ltd. June 2005 Draft for Discussion Purposes Only Client Name Disparity Study 1 ccciv 19 annually. And I have been at EPA ten years. It 20 wasn't like that when I first got here, but over 21 the course of time, and with the last two 22 administrations, we've seen more being given to the 23 states and local governments. You need to be able 24 to follow and do the math. Follow the money so you Mason Tillman Associates, Ltd. June 2005 Draft for Discussion Purposes Only Client Name Disparity Study 1 cccv 153 1 know where to go. Our intent was to tell you that 2 this is available to you. You just need to know 3 about it, find out and make connections with some 4 of these state representatives and these grantees 5 that are here, so you can follow the money and get 6 in the loop.

7 So anyone who came here, I'm hoping 8 you're not going to be disappointed, and I'm glad 9 you didn't leave, because now you have been given 10 more information in terms of how to do business 11 with us, whether it is directly or indirectly. And 12 I will still talk to you about doing business with 13 us directly, but as the money is shifting, you need 14 to know where to go to get it.

15 MS. PATRICK: Why don't we do this. We have 16 an hour left on our time here in the room.

17 ( WHEREUPON, discussion was had 18 off the record.) Mason Tillman Associates, Ltd. June 2005 Draft for Discussion Purposes Only Client Name Disparity Study 1 cccvi 19 MS. PATRICK: Why don't we break for ten 20 minutes, come back, and Jeanette will talk about 21 the direct procurement opportunities with EPA, and 22 we will have discussion for an hour.

23 ( WHEREUPON, the hearing was 24 concluded at 12: 31 p. m.) Mason Tillman Associates, Ltd. June 2005 Draft for Discussion Purposes Only Client Name Disparity Study 1 cccvii 154 1 STATE OF ILLINOIS )

2 ) SS:

3 COUNTY OF DU PAGE )

4 I, JACQUELINE M. TIMMONS, a Certified 5 Shorthand Reporter of the State of Illinois, do 6 hereby certify that I reported in shorthand the 7 proceedings had at the hearing aforesaid, and that 8 the foregoing is a true, complete and correct 9 transcript of the proceedings of said hearing as 10 appears from my stenographic notes so taken and 11 transcribed under my personal direction.

12 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I do hereunto set my 13 hand at Chicago, Illinois, this 23rd day of 14 February, 2004.

15 16 17 Certified Shorthand Reporter 18 Mason Tillman Associates, Ltd. June 2005 Draft for Discussion Purposes Only Client Name Disparity Study 1 cccviii 19 C. S. R. Certificate No. 84 2949.

20 21 22 23 24


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 199 (Wednesday, October 15, 2014)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 61790-61791]
[FR Doc No: 2014-24450]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2014-0743; Airspace Docket No. 14-ASW-2]

Proposed Establishment of Class E Airspace; Cypress, TX

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: This action proposes to establish Class E airspace at Cypress,
TX. Controlled airspace is necessary to accommodate new Standard
Instrument Approach Procedures (SIAPs) at Dry Creek Airport. The FAA is
taking this action to enhance the safety and management of Instrument
Flight Rules (IFR) operations for SIAPs at the airport.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before December 1, 2014.

ADDRESSES: Send comments on this proposal to the U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West
Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001. You
must identify the docket number FAA-2014-0743/Airspace Docket No. 14-
ASW-2, at the beginning of your comments. You may also submit comments
through the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov. You may review the
public docket containing the proposal, any comments received, and any
final disposition in person in the Dockets Office between 9:00 a.m. and
5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The Docket
Office (telephone 1-800-647-5527), is on the ground floor of the
building at the above address.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rebecca Shelby, Central Service
Center, Operations Support Group, Federal Aviation Administration,
Southwest Region, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Fort Worth, TX 76137; telephone:
817-321-7740.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed
rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as
they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the
views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing
reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are
specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic,
environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal.
Communications should identify both docket numbers and be submitted in
triplicate to the address listed above. Commenters wishing the FAA to
acknowledge receipt of their comments on this notice must submit with
those comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the
following statement is made: ``Comments to Docket No. FAA-2014-0743/
Airspace Docket No. 14-ASW-2.'' The postcard will be date/time stamped
and returned to the commenter.

Availability of NPRMs

    An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the
Internet at http://www.regulations.gov. Recently published rulemaking
documents can also be accessed through the FAA's Web page at http://www.faa.gov/airports_airtraffic/air_traffic/publications/airspace_amendments/.
    You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any
comments received and any final disposition in person in the Dockets
Office (see ADDRESSES section for address and phone number) between
9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. An informal docket may also be examined during normal
business hours at the office of the Central Service Center, 2601
Meacham Blvd., Fort Worth, TX 76137.
    Persons interested in being placed on a mailing list for future
NPRMs should contact the FAA's Office of Rulemaking<PHONE_NUMBER>, to
request a copy of Advisory Circular No. 11-2A, Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking Distribution System, which describes the application
procedure.

The Proposal

    This action proposes to amend Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations
(14 CFR), Part 71 by establishing Class E airspace extending upward
from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.5-mile radius of Dry Creek
Airport, Cypress, TX, to accommodate new standard instrument approach
procedures. Controlled airspace is needed for the safety and management
of IFR operations at the airport.
    Class E airspace areas are published in Paragraph 6005 of FAA Order
7400.9Y, dated August 6, 2014 and effective September 15, 2014, which
is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace
designation listed in this document will be published subsequently in
the Order.
    The FAA has determined that this proposed regulation only involves
an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current.
It, therefore, (1) is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under
Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under DOT
Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979);
and (3) does not warrant preparation of a Regulatory Evaluation as the
anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that
will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is
certified that this rule, when promulgated, will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the
criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the U.S. Code. Subtitle 1, Section 106 describes
the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation
Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority.
This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the
FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of
airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient
use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority
as it would

establish controlled airspace at Dry Creek Airport, Cypress, TX.

Environmental Review

    This proposal will be subject to an environmental analysis in
accordance with FAA Order 1050.1E, ``Environmental Impacts: Policies
and Procedures'' prior to any FAA final regulatory action.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (Air).

The Proposed Amendment

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR Part 71 as follows:

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

0
1. The authority citation for part 71 continues to read as follows:

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

Sec.  71.1  [Amended]

0
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order 7400.9Y,
Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 6, 2014 and
effective September 15, 2014, is amended as follows:

Paragraph 6005 Class E Airspace areas extending upward from 700
feet or more above the surface of the earth.

* * * * *

ASW TX E5 Cypress, TX [New]

Dry Creek Airport, TX
    (Lat. 29[deg]59'11'' N., long. 95[deg]41'08'' W.)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 6.5-mile radius of Dry Creek Airport.

    Issued in Fort Worth, TX, on October 4, 2014.
Robert W. Beck,
Manager, Operations Support Group, ATO Central Service Center.
[FR Doc. 2014-24450 Filed 10-14-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4901-14-P


[Federal Register: February 27, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 38)] [Correction]                [Page 9863] [DOCID:fr27fe06-101]

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-53276; File No. SR-NASD-2005-098]

  Self[dash]Regulatory Organizations; National Association of  Securities Dealers, Inc.; Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change and  Amendment No. 1 Thereto Relating to the Submission of SEC Rule 15c2-11  Information on Non[dash]Nasdaq Securities

Correction

    In notice document E6-2368 beginning on page 8875 in the issue of  Tuesday, February 21, 2006, make the following correction:     On page 8877, in the third column, in the second and third lines  from the top, ``March 10, 2006'' should read ``March 14, 2006''.

[FR Doc. Z6-2368 Filed 2-24-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 1505-01-D