Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB)
Meeting
September 24, 2013
12:00  -  4:00 p.m.
EPA East Building
1201 Constitution Avenue, NW
Washington, D.C.

Call-In: 1-866-299-3188; Conference Code:<PHONE_NUMBER>#
Adobe Connect: https://epa.connectsolutions.com/gnebmeetingroom/
Final Meeting Summary
Welcome and Introductions
Diane Austin, Chair, GNEB; Mark Joyce, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), GNEB Designated Federal Officer (DFO); Cynthia Jones-Jackson, Office of Diversity, Advisory Committee Management and Outreach (ODACMO); Denise Benjamin-Sirmons (ODACMO)
Dr. Diane Austin thanked the GNEB members for their efforts and for participating in the meeting. She noted participants who were registered for the video portion of the meeting via Adobe Connect and conducted a roll call for teleconference-only participants.
Mr. Mark Joyce also expressed his appreciation to the participants for their work on the advice letter and attendance at this meeting. He praised the Board for their progress to date, which has provided an excellent foundation for writing the advice letter and the 16th Report of the GNEB to the President and Congress of the United States. Mr. Joyce stated that a quorum of 17 Board members had not been achieved for this meeting. The Board is not able to conduct official business without a quorum. If a quorum is achieved, the GNEB members will be able to discuss the remaining substantive issues in the advice letter. If closure is reached on the substantive issues, the Board may move to adopt the advice letter. From that point forward, only editorial changes to the advice letter may be made. Without a quorum, however, the participants may proceed with introductions, a discussion of ground rules and a review of the comments to the draft advice letter. Mr. Joyce reminded the participants that the meeting was open to the public. Members of the press had indicated that they would attend.
Ms. Cynthia Jones-Jackson thanked Dr. Austin for her leadership and the workgroup leaders for their contributions to the draft advice letter. She agreed with Mr. Joyce about the outstanding progress that the Board has made toward drafting the advice letter and the report. Ms. Jones-Jackson introduced Ms. Denise Benjamin-Sirmons, the new director of the new office, ODACMO.
Ms. Benjamin-Sirmons also expressed her appreciation of the service of the GNEB members as well as the efforts of the team at ODACMO who provide logistical support for the Board meetings. She explained the new organizational structure of ODACMO. The office was formed on July 28, 2013, and Ms. Benjamin-Sirmons assumed her appointment as ODACMO Director on August 12, 2013. The office's mission is to facilitate the ability of individuals from a diversity of backgrounds -- internal and external to EPA -- to provide advice and recommendations to the Agency on environmental policies and programs. Two guiding principles of the office are EPA's recognition of the importance of the advisory committees' work, as confirmed by EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy, and a commitment to facilitating the ability of the advisory committees to achieve their missions within the budgetary constraints that are affecting the federal government. Reducing the number of face-to-face meetings, as implemented by Ms. Jones-Jackson for the GNEB, is vital for operating in a time of fiscal restraint and likely will continue in the future. Ms. Benjamin-Sirmons asked the participants to share their ideas on making the virtual Board meetings more effective. Ms. Benjamin-Sirmons also apologized for a change in schedule that prevented her and Ms. Jones-Jackson from participating in the full meeting of the Board as she had planned.
Dr. Austin responded that the goal of the Board members is to have one face-to-face meeting per year, but she recognized that this might not be achievable. She thanked the Board members for their willingness to conduct the business of the Board virtually via videoconference, email and telephone.
Mr. Joyce conducted an official roll call. A quorum of 17 GNEB members was not achieved. He clarified that Alternate members do not have standing to vote on approval of the advice letter. Ms. Stephanie McCoy (ODACMO) attempted to contact the GNEB members not in attendance via telephone to achieve a quorum.
Overview of the Agenda
Diane Austin, Chair, GNEB
Dr. Austin noted that approval of the advice letter was the only official action on the meeting agenda. She indicated that the participants would proceed with editing the advice letter based on the comments received.
Review of Comments
Dr. Austin noted that comments on the advice letter had been received prior to the meeting from Dr. Keith Pezzoli, the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality and EPA Region 9. Dr. Austin asked the other Board members who had comments but had not yet contributed to send them at this point to Ms. Ann-Marie Gantner via email, including the line numbers to which the comments referred. The comments have not been incorporated into the draft to preserve the line numbers, but the relevant sections have been highlighted. The relevant sections to EPA Region 9's comments have not been highlighted yet because they were received recently. Dr. Austin recognized the editing team, Mr. Timothy Treviño and Mr. Luis E. Ramírez (not in attendance).
The procedure for editing would be that Ms. Gantner would share a draft advice letter via Adobe Connect, which included the comments, and edit it in real time. Dr. Austin asked the participants to enter suggestions for alternative text using the "chat" function of Adobe Connect. For Dr. Teresa R. Pohlman, who was unable to access Adobe Connect, Dr. Austin arranged that she email her suggestions to Mr. Stephen Niemeyer, who would add them to the chat discussion for her. Ms. Allie Wechsler would copy suggested text from the chat discussion into the meeting notes. Dr. Austin reminded the GNEB members that the Board operates by consensus. Members can vote to agree with a change, disagree but not block a change or block a change. The edits that would be discussed at this meeting would be those that were substantive in nature rather than editorial.
Dr. Austin stated that after the advice letter is finalized and edited by the editing team, final copyediting would be performed by the contractor, The Scientific Consulting Group, Inc.
The participants began editing the advice letter from its end to preserve the original line numbering.
4. Ecological Restoration in Urban Areas
A participant asked for clarification about the following passage (lines 363 - 365):
Because of the complexity associated with high levels of human activity in urban ecosystems, approaches vary from maintaining and enhancing native plant diversity, or specific rare and endangered plant or animal species, to restoring and enhancing habitats and cultural landscapes.
Dr. Austin stated that the comments from EPA Region 9 regarding the above sentence were that "cultural landscape" should be defined in the advice letter and that in some ecological restoration cases, such as preventing erosion of denuded areas, native plants might not be the best solution. Dr. Austin noted the Board's decision to add a definition of cultural landscape and a discussion of the need to consider costs in erosion prevention.
Dr. Austin indicated that there was a further comment, referring to the following sentence from lines 359 to 362:
For example, the haphazard urbanization (i.e., building human settlement on steep, unstable slopes, without adequate infrastructure) like that taking place in the Tijuana canyon lands, causes severe erosion during rain storms, causing ecological devastation on both sides of the U.S.-Mexico Border.
indicating that the advice letter should discuss the link between the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and haphazard development. Mr. Niemeyer responded that causality might be difficult to prove. Instead, an argument could be made associating proximity to the United States with rapid development in the Mexico border region. Ms. Edna A. Mendoza concurred, citing differences in urban planning in Mexico and U.S. border communities. Mr. Jack Monger and Mr. Niemeyer were of the opinion that a possible connection between NAFTA and development was beyond the purview of the Board. Dr. Austin recognized the consensus not to include a reference to NAFTA in the advice letter.
Dr. Austin asked the Board members about adding material on inequalities in urban planning between Mexico and U.S. border communities. The participants discussed this option. Dr. Pezzoli asserted that it is already discussed sufficiently in the advice letter. Mr. Timothy Treviño maintained that urban planning is primarily a local- rather than a federal-level issue. A participant argued that watershed connectivity often requires a transborder approach to urban planning, as is the case in San Diego and Tijuana. A Board member noted that urban planning is relevant to EPA's environmental justice activities. The Board members reached a consensus not to add additional text on urban planning.
3. Border Security and Impacts on Ecological Restoration
Dr. Pohlman expressed a general comment that this section needs to balance the priorities of ecological restoration with the missions of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and other federal agencies. She stated that it is important for the Board to be perceived as practical and knowledgeable about issues rather than overly idealistic. She suggested adding a statement at the beginning of the section that would read something like: "We recognize the vital mission of the Department of Homeland Security and need for protection against illegal immigration ..." Dr. Austin asked Dr. Pohlman to provide verbatim text to propose to the Board.
The participants discussed revisions to the following sentence (lines 351 - 353):
DHS also has begun to incorporate training and guidance related to environmental issues into its practices. Staff receive some training on environmental protection and tribal relations.
Dr. Pohlman sent to Mr. Niemeyer relevant statistics, as well as alternative text to substitute for the above paragraph:
DHS also has begun to incorporate training and guidance related to environmental issues into its practices. In addition, appropriate DHS personnel and Border Patrol officers receive training on environmental protection and tribal customs and relations, and they now incorporate environmental protection and tribal liaison in their daily routine. The border fence has helped deter the crossing of undocumented aliens through tribal land such as that of the Tohono O'odham Nation along the Arizona border with the Mexican state of Sonora, slowing the dumping of trash associated with illegal crossings.
Ms. Jill Sherman-Warne commented in the chat discussion that there is rapid turnover among Border Patrol officers. Mr. Mike Vizzier commended the DHS for its commitment to the above training programs considering the Border Patrol's high personnel turnover rates. Ms. Mendoza stated that in general, it is important to include funding for resources as well as training. For example, the Tucson Border Patrol is trained in trash removal but has no funding for trash bags. She also requested that "training on environmental protection" be clarified in the report but indicated that the phrase was acceptable for the advice letter.
Dr. Austin questioned the existence of data on changes in trash dumping associated with illegal crossings as a result of U.S. border controls and objected to the term "undocumented aliens." Dr. Pohlman cited data on the decrease in the number of undocumented immigrants as a result of U.S. border controls, but Dr. Austin replied that specific data on trash dumping was needed to include the statement in the advice letter. Ms. Mendoza added that she would not agree to add the statement about trash dumping unless the Tohono O'odham Nation reviewed it. Mr. Niemeyer suggested deleting the last sentence of the suggested text for the advice letter and collecting data on trash dumping for the report. The Board members supported substituting the new text with the final sentence deleted as follows:
DHS also has begun to incorporate training and guidance related to environmental issues into its practices. In addition, appropriate DHS personnel and Border Patrol officers receive training on environmental protection and tribal customs and relations, and they now incorporate environmental protection and tribal liaison in their daily routine.
Mr. Joyce reminded Dr. Austin of a comment related to the project cited on lines 344 to 345:
...a project to stabilize fill slopes, offset loss of vegetation, and re-establish habitat in Zone A-1, San Diego Sector.
that had not been highlighted to discuss in this meeting. EPA Region 9 had suggested indicating that some of these efforts could be applied to other areas such as Tijuana, Mexico, and a mechanism to provide this training to Tijuana land-use planners and environmental officials would be useful. Dr. Austin asked Ms. Alhelí Baños-Keener whether the comment is proposing adding a recommendation to provide training. Ms. Baños-Keener answered that she would inquire as to whether the person who had made that comment wanted it to be included as a recommendation or a statement. Mr. Vizzier and Dr. Pezzoli agreed with including it as a recommendation, but were concerned that the recommendation might interfere with the operations of EPA Region 9. If the comment is proposing a recommendation, Dr. Austin asked for verbatim text. She added a note in the advice letter that a recommendation might be added.
Dr. Pohlman stressed the importance of DHS being recognized for its ecological restoration activities, which are not widely known. Dr. Pohlman proposed replacing the text from lines 334 to 339:
There have also been issues with scraping and erosion associated with border security activities and operations. In addition, U.S. border tribes have also been affected by the construction and maintenance of the fence. As noted in the 13th GNEB report, foremost is the disruption of connectivity for species moving across the border, and for water flow. Tribes and DOI staff report the issues caused by Border Patrol activities, such as tire dragging to look for tracks of undocumented aliens and workers, continue to cause problems and increase erosion.
with the following:
Recognizing the positive impacts and clarifying that illegal activity is the nexus for border impacts, it could also be noted that DHS is committed to responsible environmental stewardship and ecological restoration efforts are an integral part of that commitment. However, there have been consequences to Border Patrol Activities. Tribes and DOI staff report the issues caused by Border Patrol activities, such as tire dragging to look for tracks of undocumented aliens and workers, continue to cause problems and increase erosion.
Ms. Mendoza reworded Dr. Pohlman's suggested text as follows:
Recognizing the positive impacts to facilitate trade and clarifying that illegal activity is the primary nexus for border impacts, it could also be noted that DHS is committed to responsible environmental stewardship and ecological restoration efforts are an integral part of that commitment as per internal policy. However, tribes and DOI staff report the issues caused by Border Patrol activities, such as tire dragging to look for tracks of undocumented border crossers and workers, continue to cause problems and increase erosion.
Dr. Austin noted that legal activities also have very large impacts on the border environment. The term "increased human activity" is not apt because the passage refers specifically to Border Patrol activity. Other participants also expressed concern about the term "primary nexus." In addition, Mr. Thomas Hastings stated that the term that the White House uses is "undocumented immigrants." The Board members agreed to use this term to replace "undocumented aliens" or other such references throughout the advice letter. Dr. Austin asked Dr. Greg Eckert to provide a citation for the DHS internal policy and Ms. Mendoza to revise the passage per the participants' comments. Ms. Mendoza proposed the following, with Dr. Austin's modification indicated by a strikeout:
Recognizing the positive impacts to facilitate trade and clarifying that increased border protection activities have impacts in the region, it could also be noted that DHS is committed to responsible environmental stewardship and that ecological restoration efforts are an integral part of that commitment as per internal policy. However, Border Patrol activities continue to have consequences. For example, tribes and DOI staff report dragging to look for tracks of undocumented immigrants and workers, continue to cause problems and increase erosion.
Dr. Eckert emphasized the need to include a sentence referring to the legacy of impacts to resources from illegal crossings and Border Patrol actions. Agencies and landowners that cope with this legacy need support. Ms. Sherman-Warne also suggested changing "tire dragging" to "tire dragging and use of off-road vehicles." Dr. Austin asked Ms. Mendoza to make the changes that were discussed. The revised text will replace the text on lines 334 to 339.
2. Water and Watershed Issues
Dr. Austin indicated that most of the comments in this section were ones of clarification. Mr. Niemeyer, however, had suggested added the following paragraph at the end of the section (i.e., after line 322):
On a positive note, on September 16 the chairmen of the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality and the Texas Water Development Board and the EPA Region 6 Administrator sent a joint letter on colonias to three Texas associations. Colonias are economically disadvantaged areas, often lacking water, wastewater, and other basic services. The letter to the Texas Association of Counties, the Texas Municipal League, and the Texas Association of Regional Councils asked for the members of those organizations to cooperate with state and federal agencies to provide services to colonia residents. If colonia residents receive wastewater service, ecological restoration follows.
Ms. Sally Spener asked for clarification of the phrase "ecological restoration follows." Mr. Niemeyer replied that he meant that the source of pollution must be stopped before beginning an ecological restoration. Dr. Pezzoli proposed the following revision to the sentence:
If colonia residents receive wastewater service, the prospect for successful ecological restoration increases dramatically.
Mr. Niemeyer agreed to the change. Dr. Ivonne Santiago observed that the proximity of septic tanks to drinking water wells was a major problem in colonias.
Ms. Mendoza asked about the reference to seasonal pulse flow in the paragraph on Minute 319 (lines 285 - 291). Dr. Austin responded that the Board had agreed to delete the word "seasonal" (line 287).
1. Collaborative Efforts Under the La Paz Agreement
Dr. Austin stated that there were no substantive comments in this section.
Ecological Restoration in This Border Context
Dr. Austin stated that there were no substantive comments in this section (lines 160 - 204) either.
The Border Context
Dr. Austin stated that there were no substantive comments in this section (lines 132 - 159). Dr. Santiago suggested that material on the political context of implementing sustainable measures should be included. Dr. Austin asked her to draft verbatim text to propose to the Board to add to the general background section. Dr. Santiago suggested adding the following text after line 150:
The contextual border reality (geographical, political, economical) requires the development of sustainable ecological restoration actions.
Mr. Niemeyer asked for clarification of the phrase "contextual border reality." Dr. Santiago answered that the phrase depicts the complexity of border issues, which are geographic, political and economic in origin. Sustainable measures are needed that can be implemented regardless of changing future conditions. Mr. Niemeyer suggested the phrase "unique situation of the border." Dr. Santiago did not agree that this phrasing captured the magnitude of the issue and the need for a holistic approach that many communities seek. In the chat discussion, Mr. Vizzier proposed the following alternative text:
The complex geographic, politics, and economics of the border region requires the development of sustainable ecological restoration actions.
There was consensus to use this text.
Dr. Pezzoli advocated for including a reference to the Superfund Research Program, which is funded by the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) and is one of 16 national programs established by the federal government to manage problems associated with Superfund sites. The University of California, San Diego, Dr. Pezzoli's institution, is funded by the program to study ecological restoration in an urban area. After the final sentence that ends on line 126, Dr. Pezzoli proposed adding the following sentence to refer to the program:
The federal government is already supporting some of this work, on the U.S. side of the border, through innovative "Community Engagement" and "Research Translation" activities funded by the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS), Superfund Research Program.
There were no objections to adding this sentence to the action letter as it provides an example of an activity of a different federal agency from the others already included.
Dr. Austin asked whether the reference to the President on line 97 should be retained given that the advice letter is addressed to the President. The Board members agreed to change "the President and the federal government" to "the federal government."
Recommendations
The Board's recommendations are presented on lines 39 to 130. Dr. Austin indicated that EPA Region 9 had requested adding specific examples in this section. She questioned mentioning specific organizations such as Alter Terra on line 120. Dr. Pezzoli agreed, noting that the Tijuana River Valley Recovery Team (TRVRT) was comprised of many organizations, although Alter Terra was the principal nongovernmental organization. Ms. Mendoza, Dr. Jose Francisco Zamora-Arroyo and Dr. Cyrus B. H. Reed agreed with including the TRVRT project in the advice letter without citing particular participating organizations and providing more details about the project in the report. A consensus was reached to include the TRVRT in the advice letter but delete the reference to Alter Terra.
Dr. Austin stated that EPA Region 9 had asked the Board to provide specific examples of models of ecological planning and restoration in reference to the following recommendation on lines 93 to 95:
...the federal government should provide funding and support research to link existing models of ecological planning and restoration to ecosystems along the U.S.-Mexico border.
Dr. Santiago responded that the examples of linkages of models in Workgroup #4's table were not developed for the United States. There was a consensus not to change the advice letter but to add these examples to the report and comment on whether they were applicable to the border region.
Referring to the recommendation in lines 83 to 91:
::	The federal government should support the acquisition of the data necessary to measure the effectiveness of ecological restoration programs and activities. The data presently collected and analyzed to determine the efficacy of ecological restoration activities along the U.S.-Mexico Border are extremely wide ranging, encompassing varying (among other things) habitats, geographies (including both U.S. and Mexican geographies), periods of record, purposes (historic ecological conditions, rapid ecological assessments, Viability Assessments, Performance, etc.), constituents, qualities, and scales. A comprehensive data collection program is paramount to the success of any ecological restoration activities along the U.S.-Mexico Border.
Dr. Austin reported that EPA Region 9 asked the Board to specify the federal agencies to which it is referring and clarify whether it was recommending supporting or funding. Mr. Dave Anderson was in favor of retaining the broad term "support" and not citing particular agencies. The intent of the recommendation is to convey the importance of data collection rather than identify particular agencies for the task. Participants in the chat discussion, however, noted that "support" was not a very precise verb. The Board members agreed to substitute the phrase "support development and fund implementation of" for "support."
In regard to the recommendation on lines 76 to 80:
::	The U.S. federal government should conduct and support research that would assist and inform ecological restoration of water bodies and associated habitat. There is an ongoing need for research regarding groundwater availability, invasive species control, and how the volume and timing of water releases from reservoirs can impact habitat.
EPA Region 9 asked for clarification about the agencies that were to conduct and support research and the audience that was to be informed. Ms. Alison Krepp favored retaining "and inform" because her agency often is questioned about the ways in which its research is "making a difference." A participant proposed rephrasing the recommendation to convey this more clearly. Dr. Austin asked Ms. Krepp to rewrite the recommendation.
Dr. Austin noted the suggestion from the Water Resources Department of the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality, conveyed by Ms. Mendoza, to add the text in red to the sentence on lines 76 to 77, as indicated below:
::	The U.S. federal government should conduct and support research that would assist and inform ecological restoration of water bodies and associated habitat within the framework of existing governing agreements and treaties.
The Board agreed to this change.
Dr. Austin asked the Board members to approve the following addition in red to the bulleted paragraph on lines 66 to 73:
::	U.S. federal agencies, such as the USGS, Bureau of Reclamation and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and IBWC, as well as U.S. state and Mexican stakeholders and tribal partners, should participate in U.S. state environmental flow reviews, as permitted by state law. Where no U.S. state environmental flow review or process is occurring, these federal agencies should convene basin-wide analyses of environmental flows that are developed with Mexican, state and tribal partners to help identify the quantity, timing and quality of flows and beneficiaries of these ecosystem services. These analyses should be shared with U.S. state environmental flow reviews when and if they occur.
There was a consensus to make these additions.
The Board members agreed to make the addition indicated in red to the text on lines 59 to 60:
::	The U.S. federal natural resource agencies and the IBWC, in collaboration, should develop metrics, standards, and models for environmental flows for use in water planning to...
Dr. Austin indicated that EPA Region 9 also had inquired whether developing the metrics referred to on line 60 and collecting the information cited in the sentence on lines 62 to 65:
Needed information includes analysis of the range of flow characteristics, such as peak flow and monthly flow variation, and base flows to support planning for allocations, wildlife habitat needs, recreation and treatment capacity.
would require the installation and maintenance of flow meters. If so, the Board should specify the resources required. The Board agreed to provide more detail about resources needed for flow monitoring in the report rather than the advice letter.
The participants discussed the recommendation on lines 50 to 58 (Note: "[should?]" was in the quoted text):
::	In order to begin developing a restoration framework for the Colorado River Basin, the U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI) can [should?] continue to provide institutional and technical support to the Colorado River Basin Water Supply and Demand Study and other efforts to gain information for better management of border watersheds and water bodies. The solutions examined and adopted in such studies should include those that promote healthy river flows in the Lower Colorado River Basin and DOI could disseminate results, including through other agencies such as the IBWC, of the Colorado River Basin Water Supply and Demand Study to stakeholders in other border watersheds.
At Dr. Austin's suggestion, the Board members agreed to delete "Lower" on line 55. Dr. Austin stated that the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality recommended replacing "should" with "can" on line 51. Dr. Santiago preferred "should" but indicated that the first part of the sentence was more important to preserve. Mr. Treviño observed that the paragraph is not clear about whether it is recommending support for the institutions conducting the Colorado River Basin Study or the recommendations that derive from the results of the study. The participants could not identify the author of the paragraph and were not sure of the intended meaning. Ms. Spener indicated that regarding support, the study was a partnership between the Department of the Interior's (DOI) Bureau of Reclamation and local and state agencies. There were many implementation recommendations from the study, some of which might have been within the purview of the federal government and others might have been state or local initiatives. Dr. Eckert volunteered to contact the Bureau of Reclamation for more details about the extent of federal support and initiatives related to the Colorado River Basin Study.
Ms. Spener supported a study similar to the Colorado River Basin Water Supply and Demand Study for the Rio Grande Basin. She added that Commissioner Edward Drusina has advocated for such an effort. The resources for a Rio Grande Basin Study have not been available, however, and the investigation would need to incorporate data from the Mexican part of the basin. Compared to the Colorado River, a much larger portion of the Rio Grande watershed lies in Mexico. Mr. Treviño concurred with mentioning the need for a Rio Grande Basin Study in the report.
Dr. Reed noted that this recommendation was made implicitly in the paragraph on lines 66 to 73. Using the chat discussion, he suggested adding the following sentence at the end of that paragraph to clarify the connection with the Colorado River Basin Study:
Federal agencies should utilize lessons learned from the Colorado River Basin Water Supply and Demand Study when conducting these analyses.
Dr. Austin asked the participants whether they would like to add a separate recommendation for a Rio Grande Basin Study to the advice letter. Dr. Reed expressed concern about crafting the recommendation because it would involve multiple agencies in the United States and Mexico. Mr. Treviño supported a separate recommendation. Mr. Niemeyer preferred to discuss a Rio Grande Basin Study in the report.
EPA Region 9 commented on the following bulleted paragraph (lines 46 - 49):
::	There is a framework currently in place to develop performance indicators along the U.S.-Mexico Border as part of the EPA Border 2020 Program. These performance indicators should be expanded to include ecological restoration to ensure that the ecological systems along the border remain viable.
They asked for clarification on the way in which ecological restoration would be translated to an indicator that would be measurable. There might be differences in perspective on what would be considered to be restored. Dr. Eckert and Mr. Anderson suggested that the intent was to recommend that Border 2020 work with partners to develop indicators, as well as to state that indicators would be useful. The recommendation might need rephrasing. Dr. Reed suggested clarifying that federal agencies would collaborate with stakeholders and Mexico to develop performance indicators. He argued that Border 2020 was focused on gray issues rather than ecological restoration. Dr. Austin asked Dr. Reed, Mr. Anderson and Dr. Eckert to clarify the paragraph.
Referring to lines 43 to 45:
::	The BECC-NADB should take into consideration ecological impacts and benefits of new environmental infrastructure projects and establish protocols to do so by January 2014.
EPA Region 9 asked for examples and observed that the Border Environment Cooperation Commission (BECC) already would attest to considering ecological restoration in its projects. Ms. Mendoza responded that the BECC does not do so for all of its projects (e.g., infrastructure projects). Mr. Niemeyer observed that any project receiving EPA funding must comply with National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) regulations by conducting an environmental assessment and being issued a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) before proceeding. Dr. Austin expressed doubt that the official process always was followed. Ms. Spener stated that projects certified by the BECC must meet certain environmental criteria. Dr. Reed offered to revise the sentence for accuracy and submit it to Ms. Maria Elena Giner and Mr. Juan Antonio Flores of the BECC for review. He offered the following draft text:
The BECC-NADB should develop best practices to better to take into consideration ecological impacts and benefits of new environmental infrastructure projects and look at ways to utilize environmental infrastructure to enhance ecological restoration. The BECC-NADB should establish protocols to do so by January 2014.
Ms. Spener noted that a January 2014 deadline might not be possible, however, given the meeting schedule of the BECC Board of Directors. "January 2014" will be changed to "2014." Dr. Austin stated that feedback will be needed from the BECC and the North American Development Bank (NADB).
Dr. Austin drew the participants' attention to two new recommendations. One was about applying the lessons learned by the DHS on stabilizing slopes and offsetting loss of vegetation to other areas and developing a mechanism to provide training to Tijuana officials. Dr. Pezzoli supported the recommendation for the advice letter in principle but requested additional background about it. Ms. Mendoza supported it but wanted to make it more general to apply throughout the border region. Deferring the recommendation to the report would be acceptable.
The other new recommendation referred to the need for training and resources for the Border Patrol. For the second recommendation, Mr. Vizzier proposed advocating that "environmental protection and training as a component of ecological restoration [continue] to be emphasized and continually improved in recognition of the negative effects of border security on environmental protect[ion] and ecological restoration." The recommendation would refer to the "continuing growth of [the Border Patrol] and changing conditions along the border [that] make training [on] environmental protection an ongoing challenge." Dr. Austin noted that this recommendation should be reviewed by Dr. Pohlman, who was no longer in attendance. Dr. Pezzoli and Ms. Mendoza registered their support for the new recommendations.
Discussion and Revisions of the GNEB Advice Letter
Dr. Austin stated that a quorum had not been achieved at this meeting; therefore, it was not possible to vote on approval of the revised advice letter, including the two new recommendations. Mr. Joyce suggested that the revisions discussed for this letter be made and that the revised letter be voted on at the next scheduled meeting of the GNEB on October 1, 2013. Dr. Austin expressed doubt that the revisions could be completed by October 1. Dr. Pezzoli also was concerned about achieving a quorum on October 1, noting that he would not be able to attend but would be willing to vote by proxy to approve the revised letter given that it is close to being finalized. Mr. Joyce clarified that Board members cannot vote by proxy. Official GNEB business must be accomplished in a public meeting with a quorum of Board members present. The Board then decided to cancel the October 1, 2013, public meeting.
Dr. Austin offered to add the revised text to the draft advice letter. The participants confirmed that there was no additional text from the chat discussion that had not been copied into Ms. Wechsler's notes. Dr. Austin asked Mr. Treviño to coordinate with the editors to discuss the changes. Ms. Gantner proposed that the editors meet via teleconference on October 1, 2013.
Mr. Joyce suggested that a new Board meeting be scheduled for early November 2013 to vote on approval of the advice letter. By September 27, 2013, Ms. Ganter will distribute a Doodle poll to the Board members to select a date during the week of November 4 or 11 for the next Board meeting.
Public Comments
There were no oral public comments provided at this meeting, and there were no written public comments received by the DFO prior to this meeting.
Adjournment
Dr. Pezzoli thanked Dr. Austin for her leadership in chairing the meeting. Dr. Austin responded by expressing her gratitude to the writers and the meeting participants. She stated that she had noted the points that had been suggested for inclusion in the report. In addition to approval of the advice letter, the organization of the report will be an agenda item for the November 2013 Board meeting. The meeting was adjourned at 3:59 p.m.
Action Items
Dr. Austin will make the revisions approved at this meeting to the draft advice letter.
Dr. Eckert will provide a citation for the DHS internal policy on responsible environmental stewardship.
Ms. Krepp will rewrite the recommendation on lines 76 to 80.
Dr. Eckert will contact the Bureau of Reclamation for more details about the extent of federal support and initiatives related to the Colorado River Basin Study.
Dr. Reed, Mr. Anderson and Dr. Eckert will clarify the paragraph on lines 46 to 49.
Dr. Reed will revise the recommendation on lines 43 to 45 and submit it to Ms. Giner and Mr. Flores of the BECC for review.
Mr. Treviño will coordinate with the editors to finalize the advice letter.
An editors' meeting will take place via teleconference on October 1, 2013.
By September 27, 2013, Ms. Ganter will distribute a Doodle poll to the Board members to select a date during the week of November 4 or 11 for the next GNEB meeting.
                   Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB)
                             Meeting Participants

Nonfederal State, Local and Tribal Members
Diane Austin, Ph.D. (Chair)
Associate Research Anthropologist
Bureau of Applied Research in Anthropology
University of Arizona
Tucson, AZ
Dave Anderson, P.E., D.WRE, CFM, CPESC
Client Service Manager
CDM Smith, Inc.
Austin, TX
Edna A. Mendoza
Director
Office of Border Environmental Protection
Arizona Department of Environmental Quality
Phoeniz, AZ
Jamie Michael
Department Manager
Health and Human Services
Dona Ana County
Las Cruces, NM
Jack Monger
Executive Director
Industrial Environmental Association
San Diego, CA
Keith Pezzoli, Ph.D.
Director of Field Research, Continuing Lecturer
Superfund Research Center, Community Engagement
Urban Studies and Planning Program
University of California, San Diego
La Jolla, CA
Cyrus B. H. Reed, Ph.D.
Conservation Director
Sierra Club, Lone Star Chapter
Austin, TX
Carlos Rubinstein
Commissioner
Texas Commission on Environmental Quality
Austin, TX
Ivonne Santiago, Ph.D.
Lecturer
Department of Civil Engineering
The University of Texas at El Paso
El Paso, TX
Jill Sherman-Warne
Exectutive Director
Native American Environmental Protection Coalition
San Deigo, CA
Timothy Treviño
Senior Director of Strategic Planning & Agency Communications
Alamo Area Council of Governments
San Antonio, TX
Mike Vizzier
Chief
Hazardous Materials Division
Department of Environmental Health
San Diego County
San Diego, CA
Erin Ward
Director
U.S.-Mexico Border Projects
New Mexico Water Resources Research Institute
Las Cruces, NM
Jose Francisco Zamora-Arroyo, Ph.D.
Director
Colorado River Delta Program
Sonoran Institute
Tucson, AZ

Federal Members
Department of Homeland Security
Teresa R. Pohlman, Ph.D., LEED, AP
Director
Sustainability and Environmental Programs
Chief Readiness Support Officer
Department of Homeland Security
Washington, D.C.
Department of the Interior
Greg Eckert, Ph.D.
Restoration Ecologist
National Park Service
Department of Interior
Fort Collins, CO
International Boundary and Water Commission
Edward Drusina
Commissioner
U.S. Section
International Boundary and Water Commission
El Paso, TX

Designated Federal Officer
Mark Joyce
Acting Designated Federal Officer
Good Neighbor Environmental Board
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D.C.

Nonfederal State, Local and Tribal Alternates
Texas Commission on Environmental Quality
Stephen M. Niemeyer, P.E.
Border Affairs Manager and Colonias Coordinator
Intergovernmental Relations Division
Texas Commission on Environmental Quality
Austin, TX

Federal Alternates
Department of Commerce -- NOAA
Alison Krepp
NOAA Estuarine Reserves Division
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Department of Commerce
Silver Spring, MD
Department of State
Thomas Hastings
Department of State
Washington, D.C.
International Boundary and Water Commission
Sally Spener
Foreign Affairs Officer
U.S. Section
International Boundary and Water Commission
El Paso, TX

EPA Regional Office Contacts
Region 9
Alhelí Baños-Keener
U.S.-Mexico Border Specialist
U.S. EPA, Region 9
San Diego, CA

EPA Participants
Denise Benjamin-Sirmons
Director
Office of Diversity, Advisory Committee Management and Outreach
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D.C.
Ann-Marie Gantner
Office of Diversity, Advisory Committee Management and Outreach
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D.C.
Cynthia Jones-Jackson
Associate Director
Office of Diversity, Advisory Committee Management and Outreach
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D.C.
Stephanie McCoy
Office of Diversity, Advisory Committee Management and Outreach
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D.C.

Other Participants
Allie Wechsler
University of Arizona
Tucson, AZ
Bertha Venegas
National Resources Conservation Service
Department of Agriculture
Temple, TX

Contractor Support
Jennifer G. Lee, Ph.D.
Science Writer/Editor
The Scientific Consulting Group, Inc.
Gaithersburg, MD

                       Good Neighbor Environmental Board

                                    Agenda

                          Tuesday, September 24, 2013
                            12:00  -  4:00 p.m. EDT
            Call-In: 1-866-299-3188; Conference Code:<PHONE_NUMBER>#

12:00 p.m.		Welcome and Introductions
                     *                      Mark Joyce, Associate Director
                  GNEB Acting Designated Federal Officer

                     * Cynthia Jones-Jackson, Associate Director
                        U.S. EPA Office of Diversity, Advisory Committee Management and Outreach

                     * Denise Benjamin-Sirmons, Director
                        U.S. EPA Office of Diversity, Advisory Committee Management and Outreach

                     * Diane Austin, Chair
                  Good Neighbor Environmental Board

                     * Board Members

12:20 p.m.		Overview of the Agenda
                     * Diane Austin, Chair
			Good Neighbor Environmental Board

12:30 p.m.		Review of Comments

1:00 p.m.		Discussion and Revision of the Advice Letter

3:00 p.m.		Discussion of the GNEB Report
                     * Next Steps

3:50 p.m.		Public Comments

4:00 p.m.		Adjournment
These minutes are an accurate description of the matters discussed during this meeting.

				11/25/2013
Diane Austin					        Date
Chair
Good Neighbor Environmental Board

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

From:	Austin, Diane E - (daustin<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Sent:	Monday, November 25, 2013 1:33 AM
To:	Gantner, Ann-Marie
Subject:	Approval of GNEB September meeting summary
Attachments:	GNEB_Sep_24_2013_Meeting_Summary_final DA.docx

Ann Marie,

Attached please find the final meeting summary for the September 2013 meeting of the GNEB. I made one minor change on p. 12 to clarify the subject of the sentence.

With that change, I approve the summery.

Thanks!
Diane


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 136 (Monday, July 16, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 41840-41841]
[FR Doc No: 2012-17203]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-67386; File No. SR-BX-2012-044]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NASDAQ OMX BX, Inc.; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Modify
BX's Fee Schedule Governing Order Routing

July 10, 2012.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on June 28, 2012, NASDAQ OMX BX, Inc. (``BX'' or the ``Exchange'')
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') a
proposed rule change as described in Items I and II below, which Items
have been prepared by the Exchange. The Commission is publishing this
notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested
persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    BX proposes to modify BX's fee schedule governing order routing. BX
will implement the proposed change on July 2, 2012. The text of the
proposed rule change is available at http://nasdaqomxbx.cchwallstreet.com/, at BX's principal office, and at the
Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

    In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization
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 those statements may be examined at
the places specified in Item III below. The Exchange has prepared
summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most
significant parts of such statements.

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

1. Purpose
    BX is making a minor modification to the schedule governing fees
for use of its routing services. Effective July 2, 2012, the NASDAQ OMX
PSX (``PSX'') facility of NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC (``Phlx'') has reduced
the fees that it charges for accessing liquidity.\3\ Accordingly, BX is
making a conforming change to the fee that it charges for routing
orders to PSX. In making this change, BX is reducing current charges
that range as high as $0.0035 per share executed to a uniform rate of
$0.0005 per share executed in all instances.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See SR-Phlx-2012-87 (June 27, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    BX believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the
provisions of Section 6 of the Act,\4\ in general, and with Sections
6(b)(4) and (5) of the Act,\5\ in particular, in that it provides for
the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees and other charges
among members and issuers and other persons using any facility or
system which BX operates or controls, and is not designed to permit
unfair discrimination between customers, issuers, brokers or dealers.
All similarly situated members are subject to the same fee structure,
and access to BX is offered on fair and non-discriminatory terms. The
change is reasonable because the proposed fee for routing orders to PSX
reflects the reduction in the fee that will be charged by PSX to BX
with respect to such orders.\6\ The change is consistent with an
equitable allocation of fees because it will bring the economic
attributes of routing orders to PSX in line with the cost of executing
orders there. Finally, the change is not unfairly discriminatory
because it solely applies to members that opt to route orders to PSX.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4) and (5).
    \6\ Depending on volume of routed orders in a month, BX will be
charged either $0.0005 or $0 per share executed. In a circumstance
where the charge was $0, BX believes that it is nevertheless
appropriate to charge a markup above this cost to reflect the
additional costs of offering routing services and the value of such
services.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, BX notes that it operates in a highly competitive market
in which market participants can readily favor competing venues if they
deem fee levels at a particular venue to be excessive. In such an
environment, BX must continually adjust its fees to remain competitive
with other exchanges and with alternative trading systems that have
been exempted from compliance with the statutory standards applicable
to exchanges. BX believes that the proposed rule change reflects this
competitive environment because it is designed to ensure that the
charges for use of the BX routing facility to route to PSX reflect a
reduction in the cost of such routing.

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

    BX does not believe that the proposed rule change will result in
any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act, as amended. Because the market
for order execution is extremely competitive, members may readily opt
to disfavor BX's routing services if they believe that alternatives
offer them better value. The proposed change is designed to ensure that
the charges for use of the BX routing facility to route to PSX reflect
a reduction in the cost of such routing, thereby allowing it to remain
competitive.

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

    Written comments were neither solicited nor received.

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act.\7\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(a)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-BX-2012-044 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-BX-2012-044. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used.
    To help the Commission process and review your comments more
efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all
comments on the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments,
all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that
are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating
to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person,
other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance
with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site
viewing and printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F
Street NE., Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the
hours of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be
available for inspection and copying at the principal offices of the
Exchange. All comments received will be posted without change; the
Commission does not edit personal identifying information from
submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make
available publicly.
    All submissions should refer to File Number SR-BX-2012-044, and
should be submitted on or before August 6, 2012.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-17203 Filed 7-13-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: November 7, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 214)]
[Notices]
[Page 67468]
[DOCID:fr07no05-67]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP05-671-001]

Portland Natural Gas Transmission System; Notice of Compliance
Filing

November 1, 2005.
    Take notice that on October 28, 2005, Portland Natural Gas
Transmission System (PNGTS) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas
Tariff, Original Volume No. 1, the following tariff sheets, to become
effective on September 1, 2005:

Substitute Second Revised Sheet No. 323
Substitute Third Revised Sheet No. 357
Original Sheet No. 357A
Substitute Fifth Revised Sheet No. 380

    PNGTS states that the purpose of its filing is to comply with the
Commission's October 13, 2005 Letter Order in this proceeding.
    PNGTS states that copies of this filing are being served on all
jurisdictional customers, interested State commissions, and persons on
the official service list in this proceeding.
    Any person desiring to protest this filing must file in accordance
with Rule 211 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18
CFR 385.211). Protests to this filing will be considered by the
Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will
not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Such protests
must be filed in accordance with the provisions of Section 154.210 of
the Commission's regulations (18 CFR 154.210). Anyone filing a protest
must serve a copy of that document on all the parties to the
proceeding.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests in lieu
of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons

unable to file electronically should submit an original and 14 copies
of the protest to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First
Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the

``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For

TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E5-6162 Filed 11-4-05; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 27 (Wednesday, February 9, 2022)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 7387-7388]
[FR Doc No: 2022-02676]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R05-OAR-2021-0441; FRL-9160-02-R5]

Air Plan Approval; Michigan; Base Year Emissions Inventory for
the 2010 Sulfur Dioxide Standard

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving, under
the Clean Air Act (CAA), revisions to the State Implementation Plan
(SIP) submitted by the Michigan Department of Environment, Great Lakes,
and Energy (EGLE) on June 30, 2021. The revisions address the emission
inventory requirements for the St. Clair County nonattainment area
under the 2010 sulfur dioxide (SO2) National Ambient Air
Quality Standard (NAAQS or standard). The CAA requires states to
develop and submit, as SIP revisions, emission inventories for all
areas designated as nonattainment for any NAAQS. EPA proposed to
approve this action on October 26, 2021, and received no adverse
comments.

DATES: This final rule is effective on March 11, 2022.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID
No. EPA-R05-OAR-2021-0441. All documents in the docket are listed on
the www.regulations.gov website. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, i.e., Confidential Business
Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted
by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is
not placed on the internet and will be publicly available only in hard
copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available either
through www.regulations.gov or at the Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 5, Air and Radiation Division, 77 West Jackson Boulevard,
Chicago, Illinois 60604. This facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30
p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding Federal holidays and facility
closures due to COVID-19. We recommend that you telephone Emily
Crispell, Environmental Scientist, at<PHONE_NUMBER> before visiting
the Region 5 office.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Emily Crispell, Environmental
Scientist, Control Strategies Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J),
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard,
Chicago, Illinois 60604,<PHONE_NUMBER>, [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA.

I. Background Information

    On October 26, 2021, EPA proposed to approve revisions to
Michigan's SIP addressing the SO2 emissions inventory
requirement of CAA section 172(c)(3) and certification of a fully
approved Nonattainment New Source Review (NSR) program for the partial
St. Clair County SO2 nonattainment area for the 2010
SO2 NAAQS (86 FR 59073). An explanation of the CAA
requirements, a detailed analysis of the revisions, and EPA's reasons
for proposing approval were provided in the notice of proposed
rulemaking (NPRM) and will not be restated here. The public comment
period for this proposed rule ended on November 26, 2021. EPA received
no comments on the proposal.

II. Final Action

    EPA is approving EGLE's SIP revision submitted to address the
SO2-related emission inventory and NSR certification
requirements for the partial St. Clair County SO2
nonattainment area for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS. A Clean Data
Determination for the St. Clair County area was finalized in a separate
action on December 6, 2021 (86 FR 69173). The emission inventory we are
approving into the SIP is specified in Table 1 of the NPRM (86 FR
59073). We are approving the emission inventory because it contains
comprehensive, accurate, and current inventories of actual emissions
for all relevant sources in accordance with CAA section 172(c)(3), and
because EGLE adopted the emission inventories after providing
reasonable public notice. EPA is also approving the certification of
Michigan's fully approved NSR program, which was approved by the EPA
into the SIP on December 16, 2013 (78 FR 76064) and meets the
requirements of CAA section 172(c)(5).

III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
action merely approves State law as meeting Federal requirements and
does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state
law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review
by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58
FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because

application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the CAA;
and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian
reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has
demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian
country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose
substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
    This action is subject to the Congressional Review Act, and EPA
will submit a rule report to each House of the Congress and to the
Comptroller General of the United States. This action is not a ``major
rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by April 11, 2022. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect
the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor
does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may
be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or
action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to
enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Sulfur oxides.

    Dated: February 2, 2022.
Debra Shore,
Regional Administrator, Region 5.

    For the reasons stated in the preamble, EPA amends 40 CFR part 52
as follows:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

0
2. In Sec.  52.1170, the table in paragraph (e) is amended by adding an
entry for ``2010 SO2 Nonattainment New Source Review
Certification'' immediately after the entry for ``2010 Sulfur Dioxide
Clean Data Determination'' and adding an entry under the subheading
``Emissions Inventories'' for ``2010 SO2 Standard 2014 base
year'' after the entry for ``2010 SO2 Standard 2012 base
year'' to read as follows:

Sec.  52.1170   Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (e) * * *

                       EPA-Approved Michigan Nonregulatory and Quasi-Regulatory Provisions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     Applicable
   Name of nonregulatory SIP        geographic or         State       EPA approval date          Comments
           provision             nonattainment area  submittal date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
2010 SO2 Nonattainment New       St. Clair County         6/30/2021  2/9/2022, [INSERT
 Source Review Certification.     (part).                             Federal Register
                                                                      CITATION].

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              Emissions Inventories
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
2010 SO2 Standard 2014 base      St. Clair County         6/30/2021  2/9/2022, [INSERT
 year.                            (part).                             Federal Register
                                                                      CITATION].

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2022-02676 Filed 2-8-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


52718 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 156 / Tuesday, August 13, 2002 / Notices Dated: August 2, 2002. Geoffrey H. Grubbs, Director, Office of Science and Technology. [FR Doc. 02– 20450 Filed 8– 12– 02; 8: 45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560– 50– P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [FRL– 7258– 1]

Agency Information Collection Activities: Continuing Collection; Comment Request; General Hazardous Waste Facility Standards AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U. S. C. 3501 et seq.), this notice announces that EPA is planning to submit the following continuing Information Collection Request (ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB): General Hazardous Waste Facility Standards, EPA ICR # 1571.07, OMB Control Number 2050– 0120, expires December 31, 2002. Before submitting the ICR to OMB for review and approval, EPA is soliciting comments on specific aspects of the proposed information collection as described below.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before October 15, 2002. ADDRESSES: Comments may be submitted by mail, through hand delivery/ courier, or electronically. Follow the detailed instructions as provided in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section. The mailing address, referencing Docket ID No. RCRA– 1999– 0027, is: RCRA Docket Information Center, Office of Solid Waste (5305G), U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Headquarters, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20460– 001. Hand deliveries of comments should be made to the Arlington, Virginia address below. Comments may also be submitted electronically through the Internet to: rcra docket@ epa. gov. Comments in electronic format should also be identified by the Docket ID No. RCRA– 1999– 0027. All electronic comments must be submitted as an ASCII file avoiding the use of special characters and any form of encryption. Commenters should not submit any confidential business information (CBI) electronically. An original and two copies of CBI must be submitted under separate cover to: RCRA CBI Document Control Officer, Office of Solid Waste (5303W), U. S. EPA, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington DC 20460– 001. Hand deliveries must be brought to the RCRA Information Center (RIC), located at Crystal Gateway I, First Floor, 1235 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, VA. The RIC is open from 9: 00 a. m. to 4: 00 p. m. Monday through Friday, excluding federal holidays. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David Eberly by phone at (703) 308– 8645, by mail at the Office of Solid Waste (5303W), U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20460– 001, or by e mail at eberly. david@ epa. gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

A. How Can I Get Copies of the ICR Supporting Statement and Other Related Information?

1. Docket. EPA has established an official public docket for this ICR under Docket ID No. RCRA– 1999– 0027. The official public docket consists of the documents specifically referenced in the ICR, any public comments received, and other information related to this ICR. Although a part of the official docket, the public docket does not include Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. The official public docket is the collection of materials that is available for public viewing at the RCRA Information Center (see ADDRESSES above). This Docket Facility is open from 9: 00 a. m. to 4: 00 p. m. Monday through Friday, excluding federal holidays. It is recommended that the public make an appointment by calling (703) 603– 9230. The public may copy a maximum of 100 pages from any regulatory docket at no charge. Additional copies are $0.15/ page 2. Electronic Access. You may access this Federal Register document electronically through the EPA Internet under the `` Federal Register'' listings at http:// www. epa. gov/ fedrgstr/. You may use EPA Dockets at http:// www. epa. gov/ edocket/ to submit or view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the official public docket, and to access those documents in the public docket that are available electronically. Once in the system, select `` search, '' then key in the docket identification number. Certain types of information will not be placed in the EPA Dockets. Information claimed as CBI, and other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute, which is not included in the official public docket, will not be available for public viewing in EPA's electronic public docket. EPA's policy is that copyrighted material will not be placed in EPA's electronic public docket but will be available only in printed, paper form in the official public docket. To the extent feasible, publicly available docket materials will be made available in EPA's electronic public docket. When a document is selected from the index list in EPA Dockets, the system will identify whether the document is available for viewing in EPA's electronic public docket. Although not all docket materials may be available electronically, you may still access any of the publicly available docket materials through the docket facility identified in A. 1 above. For public commenters, it is important to note that EPA's policy is that public comments, whether submitted electronically or in paper, will be made available for public viewing in EPA's electronic public docket as EPA receives them and without change, unless the comment contains copyrighted material, CBI, or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. When EPA identifies a comment containing copyrighted material, EPA will provide a reference to that material in the version of the comment that is placed in EPA's electronic public docket. The entire printed comment, including the copyrighted material, will be available in the public docket. Public comments submitted on computer disks that are mailed or delivered to the docket will be transferred to EPA's electronic public docket. Public comments that are mailed or delivered to the Docket will be scanned and placed in EPA's electronic public docket. Where practical, physical objects will be photographed, and the photograph will be placed in EPA's electronic public docket along with a brief description written by the docket staff.

B. How and to Whom Do I Submit Comments? You may submit comments electronically, by mail, or through hand delivery/ courier. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, identify the appropriate docket identification number in the subject line on the first page of your comment. Please ensure that your comments are submitted within the specified comment period. Comments received after the close of the comment period will be marked `` late. '' EPA is not required to consider these late comments in formulating a final decision. 1. Electronically. If you submit an electronic comment as prescribed VerDate Aug< 2,> 2002 15: 36 Aug 12, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\ FR\ FM\ 13AUN1. SGM pfrm17 PsN: 13AUN1 52719 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 156 / Tuesday, August 13, 2002 / Notices below, EPA recommends that you include your name, mailing address, and an e mail address or other contact information in the body of your comment. Also include this contact information on the outside of any disk or CD ROM you submit, and in any cover letter accompanying the disk or CD ROM. This ensures that you can be identified as the submitter of the comment and allows EPA to contact you in case EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties or needs further information on the substance of your comment. EPA's policy is that EPA will not edit your comment, and any identifying or contact information provided in the body of a comment will be included as part of the comment that is placed in the official public docket, and made available in EPA's electronic public docket. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. i. EPA Dockets. Your use of EPA's electronic public docket to submit comments to EPA electronically is EPA's preferred method for receiving comments. Go directly to EPA Dockets at http:// www. epa. gov/ edocket, and follow the online instructions for submitting comments. To access EPA's electronic public docket from the EPA Internet Home Page, select `` Information Sources, '' `` Dockets, '' and `` EPA Dockets. '' Once in the system, select `` search, '' and then key in Docket ID No. RCRA– 1999– 0027. The system is an `` anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your identity, e mail address, or other contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. ii. E mail. Comments may be sent by electronic mail (e mail) to rcradocket epa. gov, Attention Docket ID No. RCRA– 1999– 0027. In contrast to EPA's electronic public docket, EPA's email system is not an `` anonymous access'' system. If you send an e mail comment directly to the Docket without going through EPA's electronic public docket, EPA's e mail system automatically captures your e mail address. E mail addresses that are automatically captured by EPA's e mail system are included as part of the comment that is placed in the official public docket, and made available in EPA's electronic public docket. iii. Disk or CD ROM. You may submit comments on a disk or CD ROM that you mail to the mailing address identified in ADDRESSES. These electronic submissions will be accepted in WordPerfect or ASCII file format. Avoid the use of special characters and any form of encryption. 2. By Mail. Send an original and two copies of their comments, referencing Docket ID No. RCRA– 1999– 0027, to: RCRA Docket Information Center, Office of Solid Waste (5305G), U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Headquarters, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20460– 001. 3. By Hand Delivery or Courier. Deliver your comments to: RCRA Information Center (RIC), located at Crystal Gateway I, First Floor, 1235 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, VA, Attention Docket ID No. RCRA– 1999– 0027. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation, from 9: 00 a. m. to 4: 00 p. m. Monday through Friday, excluding federal holidays.

C. How Should I Submit CBI to the Agency?

Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI electronically through EPA's electronic public docket or by e mail. Send or deliver information identified as CBI only to: RCRA CBI Document Control Officer, Office of Solid Waste (5303W), U. S. EPA, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington DC 20460– 001, Attention Docket ID No. RCRA– 1999– 0027. You may claim information that you submit to EPA as CBI by marking any part or all of that information as CBI (if you submit CBI on disk or CD ROM, mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD ROM the specific information that is CBI). Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes any information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket and EPA's electronic public docket. If you submit the copy that does not contain CBI on disk or CD ROM, mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM clearly that it does not contain CBI. Information not marked as CBI will be included in the public docket and EPA's electronic public docket without prior notice. If you have any questions about CBI or the procedures for claiming CBI, please consult the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. D. What Information Is EPA Particularly Interested in?

Pursuant to section 3506( c)( 2)( A) of the PRA, EPA specifically solicits comments and information to enable it to: 1. Evaluate whether the proposed collections of information are necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Agency, including whether the information will have practical utility. 2. Evaluate the accuracy of the Agency's estimates of the burdens of the proposed collections of information. In particular, for this ICR, EPA is soliciting information on the estimates for performing waste analyses as required in 40 CFR 264.13( a)( 1) and 40 CFR 265.13( a)( 1). 3. Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected. 4. Minimize the burden of the collections of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated or electronic collection technologies or other forms of information technology, e. g., permitting electronic submission of responses. Affected entities: Entities potentially affected by this action are owners and operators of hazardous waste treatment, storage, and disposal facilities. Title: General Hazardous Waste Facility Standards, EPA ICR # 1571.07, OMB Control Number 2050– 0120, expires on December 31, 2002. Abstract: Section 3004 of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), as amended, requires that the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) develop standards for hazardous waste treatment, storage, and disposal facilities (TSDFs) as may be necessary to protect human health and the environment. Subsections 3004( a)( 1), (3), (4), (5), and (6) specify that these standards include, but not be limited to, the following requirements:   Maintaining records of all hazardous wastes identified or listed under subtitle C that are treated, stored, or disposed of, and the manner in which such wastes were treated, stored, or disposed of;   Operating methods, techniques, and practices for treatment, storage, or disposal of hazardous waste;   Location, design, and construction of such hazardous waste treatment, disposal, or storage facilities;   Contingency plans for effective action to minimize unanticipated damage from any treatment, storage, or disposal of any such hazardous waste; and VerDate Aug< 2,> 2002 15: 36 Aug 12, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\ FR\ FM\ 13AUN1. SGM pfrm17 PsN: 13AUN1 52720 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 156 / Tuesday, August 13, 2002 / Notices   Maintaining or operating such facilities and requiring such additional qualifications as to ownership, continuity of operation, training for personnel, and financial responsibility as may be necessary or desirable. The regulations implementing these requirements are codified in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Title 40, parts 264 and 265. The collection of this information enables EPA to properly determine whether owners/ operators or hazardous waste treatment, storage, and disposal facilities meet the requirements of Section 3004( a) of RCRA. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15. Burden Statement: This proposed ICR is an estimate of the total respondent burden for all activities related to general facility operating requirements, record keeping requirements, contingency plan and emergency reporting requirements, releases from solid waste management units, closure/ post closure requirements, financial requirements, corrective action management unit requirements, and conditions applicable to all permits. The total burden to respondents as estimated in the proposed ICR for `` General Facility Standards (# 1571.07) '' is 719,059 hours per year, at a cost of $45,380,950 per year. This estimate was based on owners and operators of hazardous waste management facilities complying with the information collection requirements set forth in 40 CFR parts 264 and 265, subparts B– H and by using an average hourly respondent labor cost (including overhead) of $108.00 for legal staff, $77.00 for managerial staff, $57.00 for technical staff, and $29.00 for clerical staff. EPA estimates the total number of respondents per year to be 2,724, which includes both permitted and interim status facilities. The number of respondents varies depending upon the category of each facility and the required activity. The annual public reporting burden and record keeping burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 319 hours per respondent. For general facility operating standards, there is no associated reporting. The record keeping burden for general facility operating standards is estimated to average 119 hours per respondent per year. This estimate includes time for reading the regulations, preparing and submitting notices, collecting and documenting waste analysis data, and developing a waste analysis plan, inspection schedule, personnel training schedule, and construction quality assurance plan. For operating record requirements, the record keeping burden is estimated to average 131 hours per year. This burden includes time to collect and file information in the operating record. There is no associated reporting burden for these requirements. For contingency plan and emergency procedure requirements, there is no associated reporting burden. The record keeping burden is estimated to average one hour per respondent per year. For requirements covering releases from solid waste management units, the public reporting burden is estimated to average 1 hour per respondent per year. This estimate includes time to read the regulations and prepare and submit demonstrations. There is no associated record keeping burden for these requirements. For closure and post closure requirements, the public reporting burden is estimated to average 45 hours per respondent per year. This estimate includes time to read the regulations; prepare and submit plans, notices, demonstrations, certifications, and records; and make modifications to plans. The record keeping burden is estimated to average 1 hour per respondent per year. For financial requirements, the public reporting burden is estimated to average 16 hours per respondent per year. This estimate includes time to read the regulations and prepare and submit financial and liability assurance documentation. There is no associated record keeping burden for these requirements. For permit condition requirements, the public reporting burden is estimated to average 6 hours per respondent per year. This estimate includes time to read the regulations, and prepare and submit information requested by EPA, required by the permit, or required as a result of an incident that occurs at the facility. There is no associated record keeping burden for these requirements. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.

Dated: August 2, 2002. Elizabeth A. Cotsworth, Director, Office of Solid Waste. [FR Doc. 02– 20453 Filed 8– 12– 02; 8: 45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560– 50– P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [FRL– 7252– 9 ]

Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comment Request; 2003 Hazardous Waste (Biennial) Report AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: We are announcing our plan to submit the following Information Collection Request (ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB): The 2003 Hazardous Waste Report, also known as the Biennial Report. Before submitting this ICR to OMB for review and approval, we are asking for comments on the information collection.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before October 15, 2002.

ADDRESSES: EPA, Office of Solid Waste (5302W), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert Burchard (703) 308– 8450, fax: (703) 308– 8433, burchard. robert@ epa. gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Affected entities: Entities affected by this action are those which generate, treat, store, or dispose of hazardous waste. Title: `` The 2003 Hazardous Waste Report (Biennial Report) '' EPA ICR No. 0976.10, OMB Control No. 2050– 0024. This ICR renews an on going information collection from hazardous waste generators and treatment, storage, or disposal facilities. This collection is done on a two year cycle, and is required by Sections 3002 and 3004 of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). The information collected is collected via a mechanism known as the Biennial Report. The Biennial Report provides information on the quantities, type, and management of hazardous waste in the VerDate Aug< 2,> 2002 15: 36 Aug 12, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\ FR\ FM\ 13AUN1. SGM pfrm17 PsN: 13AUN1