Document ID: EPA-HQ-OA-2002-0001-0081
Agency: epa
Document Type: Supporting & Related Material
Title: 
Posted Date: 2005-06-17T04:00Z

U.
S.
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
AGENCY
OFFICE
OF
SMALL
AND
DISADVANTAGED
BUSINESS
UTILIZATION
In
Re:
)
)
PUBLIC
HEARING
ON
EPA
)
PROPOSED
DBE
RULE
)
)
_________________________)

PUBLIC
HEARING
San
Francisco,
California
Tuesday,
January
20,
2004
Reported
by:
DIANE
M.
GALLAGHER,
RPR
CSR
No.
Michigan
2191
JOB
No.
49235
1
2
3
U.
S.
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
AGENCY
4
OFFICE
OF
SMALL
AND
DISADVANTAGED
BUSINESS
UTILIZATION
5
6
7
8
In
Re:
)
)
9
PUBLIC
HEARING
ON
EPA
)
PROPOSED
DBE
RULE
)
10
)
_________________________)
11
12
13
14
15
Public
Hearing
held
at
EPA
Regional
Office,

16
75
Hawthorne
Street,
1st
Floor
Conference
Room,

17
San
Francisco,
California,
from
9:
23
a.
m.,
to
18
12:
50
p.
m.,
on
Tuesday,
January
20,
2004.

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
2
1
PRESENT:
2
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
AGENCY
3
JEANETTE
BROWN,
Director
4
Office
of
Small
and
Disadvantaged
Business
Utilization
5
6
KIMBERLY
PATRICK,
Attorney
Office
of
Small
and
Disadvantaged
7
Business
Utilization
8
JOE
OCHAB
9
Small
Business
Advocate
Region
9
10
11
RICHARD
DE
PALMA
Mason
Tillman
Associates,
Ltd
12
Lake
Merritt
Plaza
1999
Harrison
Street,
Suite
600
13
Oakland,
California
94612
510­
238­
4679
14
email:
rdepalma@
mtaltd.
com
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
3
1
San
Francisco,
California
­
Tuesday,
January
20,
2004
2
9:
23
a.
m.
­
12:
50
p.
m.

3
4
R
E
C
O
R
D
5
MR.
OCHAB:
Good
morning
everyone.
Welcome
to
6
the
Pacific
Southwest
Region
of
the
U.
S.
Environmental
7
Protection
Agency.
We
also
call
it
Region
9,
and
I
8
welcome
you
from
the
Regional
District
and
Wayne
Nastri
9
and
all
of
the
regional
staff,
and
I
am
Joe
Ochab,
the
10
Small
Business
Advocate/
Women
Business
Enterprise
11
Coordinator
here
in
Region
9.

12
Like
the
agenda
says,
I
am
here
in
the
region,

13
and
I
welcome
all
of
you
again,
and
my
task
this
morning
14
is
very
simple.
I
am
to
introduce
the
speakers
today
15
and
also
cover
a
few
housekeeping
matters.
16
So
my
task,
again,
now
that
I
have
the
17
microphone,
is
to
introduce
our
speakers
and
to
cover
a
18
few
housekeeping
items.

19
I
believe
all
of
you
hopefully
have
registered
20
outside
in
the
lobby,
so
we
get
your
names
and
you
got
21
the
written
information,
handouts
that
were
provided.

22
Also,
there
are,
of
course,
restrooms
and
23
phones.
If
you
go
out
this
door
and
take
a
left,
the
24
second
set
of
doors,
between
the
corridor
here
and
the
25
outside
lobby,
you
will
find
the
restrooms
and
the
4
1
phones.

2
For
security
reasons,
also,
unless
you
have
an
3
appointment
upstairs
in
the
EPA
or
wish
to
visit
the
4
library,
we
ask
that
you
stay
on
the
main
floor,
first
5
floor.

6
You
are
welcome,
of
course,
to
use
the
Eagle
7
Nest
Cafeteria
that's
in
the
building,
or
outside,
if
8
you
wish
to
smoke.

9
Again,
welcome
to
this
public
hearing.

10
I
might
mention,
too,
a
little
plug
for
small
11
business.
Many
of
you
are
small
businesses,
and
12
hopefully
at
the
table
you
have
picked
up
this
yellow
13
flyer,
How
to
Do
Business
with
EPA
Region
9.

14
We
at
Region
9
wish,
and
the
agency
as
a
whole
15
wish
to
diversify
our
vendor
database
and
welcome
an
16
opportunity
to
talk
with
you
if
you
would
like
to
have
17
goods
and
services
to
sell
the
EPA,
and
please
catch
me
18
at
a
break
or
after
the
meeting
and
we
can
talk
or
set
19
up
a
time
in
which
we
can
talk
later,
if
you
would
like.

20
Again,
with
us
today
is
Jeanette
Brown,

21
Director
of
the
Office
of
Small
and
Disadvantaged
22
Business
Utilization,
and
Attorney
Kimberly
Patrick,

23
both
of
whom
are
from
Washington,
D.
C.,
and
the
Office
24
of
Small
and
Disadvantaged
Business
Utilization,
OSDBU,

25
whichever
you
prefer,
is
the
lead
agency
for
this
rule
5
1
making.

2
And
Jeanette
and
Kimberly
and
other
staff
have
3
made
a
strong
effort
to
get
the
word
out
about
this
4
particular
proposed
regulation
which
affects
minority
5
and
women
business
owners.

6
We
value
your
input,
and
we
are
grateful
that
7
you
have
come
today
to
both
hear
a
little
bit
about
this
8
proposal,
as
well
as
to
give
us
your
oral
comments.

9
Of
course,
we
want
to
have
a
regulation
that
10
responds
to
the
DBEs,
the
needs
of
the
DBEs,

11
Disadvantaged
Business
Enterprises,
that
is
defensible
12
in
light
of
the
Federal
Court
rulings
and
also
that's
13
workable,
and
Jeanette
and
Kimberly
have
been
on
the
14
road
a
lot
in
the
last
­­
since
September,
I
believe,

15
since
the
rule
was
published,
the
proposed
regulation
16
was
published
in
the
Federal
Register
in
July,
and,
of
17
course,
for
Jeanette,
this
is
her
second
trip
back.

18
In
an
effort
to
try
to
get
input,
Jeanette
came
19
out
here
about
two
years
ago,
I
believe
it
was,
and
held
20
a
preliminary
hearing
to
explain
what
the
agency
was
21
proposing
and
to
hear
your
comments,
and
those
comments
22
were
considered,
and
along
with
the
agency's
input
when
23
we
had
the
internal
review
were
folded
into
the
current
24
proposal.

25
I
want
to
just
mention
that
Jeanette
and
6
1
Kimberly
are
passionate
on
the
subject.
They
are
2
energized.
You
will
find
them
engaging
and
they
will
be
3
open
to
your
comments.

4
Without
further
ado,
I
pass
the
floor
to
5
Jeanette
Brown.

6
MS.
BROWN:
Good
morning.
I
need
to
use
the
7
microphone,
and
I
like
to
kind
of
move
around.
We
have
8
to
accommodate
our
stenographer
here
because
this
is
a
9
public
hearing,
and
she
will
be
capturing
the
proceeds
10
here
so
we
can
take
it
back
to
make
sure
that
we
fully
11
understand.

12
As
Joe
indicated,
we
have
been
around
the
13
country.
Last
week
we
were
in
Chicago.
The
week
14
before
that
we
were
in
Billings,
Montana.
In
two
weeks
15
we
will
be
in
Anchorage,
Alaska.
We
have
been
all
over
16
the
place
trying
to
get
word
out
about
this
proposed
17
rule,
to
talk
to
people
about
what
it
means
and
to
also
18
solicit
input
from
you
all,
so
we
make
sure
that
as
19
public
policy
is
being
performed
or
formed
that
you
all
20
will
have
an
opportunity
to
provide
input.

21
So
today
we
do
want
to
hear
from
you.

22
I
cannot
and
will
not
give
you
an
answer
to
23
everything.
Part
of
it,
what
we'll
do
is
we
will
go
24
through
the
rule
and
try
to
put
it
in
layman's
terms;

25
but
I
would
strongly
suggest
that
if
you
have
not
7
1
received
a
copy,
if
you
have
not
read
it,
you
need
to
2
read
it
in
detail,
and
let
us
know
what
the
impact
is
to
3
you,
what
it
means
to
you.

4
And
so
with
that
today
I
want
to
solicit
5
comments.
The
rule
is
scheduled
to
close.
It
was
6
scheduled
to
close
on
the
20th,
which
is
today,
but
we
7
are
extending
that
to
make
sure
that
we
have
enough
8
time.
Right
now
it
looks
like
at
least
through
the
28th
9
of
February.

10
We
have
been
invited
to
Alaska
to
meet
with
the
11
Alaskan
natives
there.
We
want
to
make
sure
they
have
12
time
for
their
comments
to
be
in
the
public
record.

13
It
may
go
a
little
bit
longer
than
that.
I
14
don't
know.
I
need
to
see
what
the
rules
are
when
we
15
get
back
to
Washington.
But
right
now
we
know
at
least
16
through
the
28th
of
February.

17
So
please
take
this
time
to
hear
and
listen
to
18
us
as
we
go
through
what
the
proposed
rule
is
doing
and
19
saying,
and
then
think
about
it,
and
give
us
your
input.

20
Before
we
do
that,
though,
one
of
the
things
I
21
would
like
to
know
­­
I
know
we
have
a
listing
of
who
is
22
registered
­­
but
I
always
like
to
get
good
feedback
of
23
who
you
are.

24
If
at
this
time
you
would
come
to
the
25
microphone,
not
everybody
at
once.
This
is
your
one,
8
1
two­
second
hall
of
fame.
Give
me
a
quick
information
2
on
the
company
you
represent,
who
you
are,
and
let
me
3
know
a
little
bit
­­
not
a
dissertation,
just
a
little
4
bit
about
you.
If
you
are
an
8(
a),
(
HUB)
Zone,

5
woman­
owned,
that
kind
of
thing.

6
You
never
know
who
is
in
the
audience.
We
7
could
have
people
in
here
from
the
program
office,
from
8
the
grant
office,
other
places
who
may
be
in
need
of
9
minority
women­
owned
businesses.

10
This
is
your
one,
two­
second
hall
of
fame.

11
Not
five
minutes.
We
want
to
get
through
the
agenda.

12
But
help
me.
Please
give
me
a
little
bit
about
who
you
13
are
so
I
can
get
a
feel
for
my
audience.
Thank
you.
14
MR.
JOHNSON:
My
name
is
Gerald
Johnson.
I
am
15
the
publisher
of
this
newspaper,
Small
Business
16
Exchange.
We
do
outreach
to
minority
women,
and
we
are
17
a
trade
and
focus
newspaper,
and
if
you
had
advertised
18
in
our
newspaper,
this
place
would
have
been
full,

19
packed,
jammed.

20
MR.
DAYRIT:
Ignacio
Dayrit,
Project
manager,

21
City
of
Emeryville.
EPA
grant
for
cleanup.

22
MR.
EDSON:
Allen
Edson,
president
of
23
Remediation
Services.
We
are
a
small
environmental
24
contracting
company.
We
are
desperately
interested
in
25
doing
business
with
the
EPA.
9
1
We
need
a
break,
you
know.
We
need
the
side
2
door,
the
back
door,
even
somewhere
from
the
roof
opened
3
for
us
to
get
an
opportunity
to
get
into
the
business
4
stream
here
in
the
Bay
Area,
and
I
am
hoping
the
5
proposed
rule
will
offer
us
some
opportunities.

6
You
know,
as
you
are
aware,
this
is
a
very
7
competitive
industry,
and
it's
tough
for
a
brother
like
8
me
to
get
in,
and
I
am
not
8(
a)
certified.
Hopefully
9
that
will
happen
this
year.

10
But
we
also
need
some
other
opportunities
and
11
other
ways
and
other
vehicles
to
get
inside
the
business
12
stream.

13
MS.
SAMSON:
Good
morning.
I'm
Marlene
Samson
14
with
Cost
Less
Maintenance
Services
Company.
We
15
provide
janitorial
­­
commercial
janitorial
services
for
16
many
companies,
and
we
are
here
because
we
are
very
17
interested
also
since
we
have
or
are
involved
with
18
clients
that
require
us
to
be
DBEs,
and
we
want
to
see
19
how
the
changes
will
affect
us
directly.
20
MS.
EDGAR:
Norma
Edgar.
I'm
here
with
21
Marlene
Samson.
We
recently
got
our
certification
as
a
22
DBE
enterprise,
and
also
we
are
a
women­
owned
business.

23
We
are
also
going
to
be
certified
by
the
Small
24
Business,
SBA,
and
also
we
have
a
security
company
which
25
is
a
women­
owned
business
also.
10
1
MS.
CHANG:
My
name
is
Anita
Cheng.
I
am
2
supply
diversity
coordinator
of
Department
of
Water
and
3
Power,
city
of
Los
Angeles.

4
MR.
LEE:
Mike
Lee.
I
work
here
in
the
EPA
5
Region
9
project
office
for
construction
grants.
I'm
6
trying
to
get
a
better
understanding
of
the
rule.

7
MS.
JOHANSEN:
I'm
Judy
Johansen.
I'm
a
grant
8
specialist
here
at
Region
9
EPA.

9
MS.
VILLARREAL:
Martha
Villarreal,
also
a
10
grant
specialist
here
in
Region
9.

11
MR.
RANADIVE:
Hi.
My
name
is
Anil
Ranadive,

12
I'm
with
a
company
called
Value
CAD.
We
are
a
small
13
business,
just
recently
been
(
HUB)
Zone
certified.
We
14
are
in
the
business
of
computer­
assisted
drafting,
and
15
we
would
love
to
work
with,
meet
with
any
of
the
persons
16
here.

17
MS.
CHRISTIAN:
My
name
is
Camille
Christian,

18
Christian
General
Services.
We
do
construction
cleanup
19
throughout
the
Bay
Area,
and
we
were
being
solicited
to
20
do
work
that
needed
to
have
been
inspected,
and
we
21
didn't
know
about
it
until
someone
clued
me
in.

22
So
I
am
here
to
find
out
more
about
things
like
23
that
and
about
the
rulings
and
how
they
affect
us.

24
MS.
DOUGHERTY:
I'm
Kathleen
Dougherty
from
the
25
Procurement
Office
of
Arizona
Office
of
Environmental
11
1
Quality,
and
I'm
here
to
learn
more
about
the
rule,
and
2
I
am
also
glad
to
hear
about
all
of
the
people
I
could
3
call
up
to
see
if
they
would
like
to
bid
on
some
of
our
4
work.

5
MS.
BILLINGSLY:
Good
morning.
My
name
is
Lacy
6
Billingsley,
Billingsley
&
Brown,
We
provide
7
audio­
visual
Equipment
Services
and
Presentations,

8
support
to
conferences
and
trade
shows
both
nationally
9
and
locally.
The
company
is
based
in
Oakland,

10
California,
and
we
also
have
an
expanding
branch
that
is
11
working
on
installations
throughout
the
Bay
Area.

12
MR.
JAREZ:
Michael
Jarez,
Consulting
Link
13
2000,
a
management
and
government
consulting
firm.
We
14
do
a
lot
of
work
with
small
businesses
who
want
to
get
15
certified
with
the
government
agencies.

16
I
am
certified
myself,
MBE
and
my
8(
a)
is
17
pending
right
now.
I
work
with
small
businesses
in
18
relation
to
government,
and
I
am
a
government
contractor
19
too.

20
MR.
LEE:
My
name
is
Hayden
Lee,
Hayden
J.
Lee
21
Consultants,
Inc.
We
are
a
consulting
firm
22
specializing
in
DBE
certification
and
compliance
23
services.

24
Our
clients
are
basically
government
agencies,

25
such
as
CalTrans,
BART,
City
of
Los
Angeles,
so
on.
12
1
MS.
CORTEZ:
Good
morning.
My
name
is
Aurora
2
Cortez.
I
am
the
project
manager
for
Yerba
Buena
3
Engineering
and
Construction.
We
do
heavy
construction,

4
civil.
We
are
actually
big
on
wetlands
restoration,
5
erosion,
flood
control,
earth
work
remediation
services.

6
I
think
90
percent
of
our
work
is
with
the
7
government,
CalTrans,
Core
of
Engineers,
the
Navy,
etc.,

8
but
we
have
yet
to
break
into
the
EPA
market.
That
is
9
what
we
are
hoping
to
do.

10
MS.
SHEET:
Kate
Sheet,
I
am
with
McWilliams,

11
Myer
Technology
Group.
We
are
a
database
consulting
12
company.
We
also
do
project
management,
business
13
assistance
analysis,
technical
writing
and
preparation
14
documentation
work.

15
We
do
a
lot
of
work
­­
we
are
a
women­
owned
16
business,
and
we
are
certified
with
the
Department
of
17
Transportation,
City
and
County
of
San
Francisco,
and
18
with
the
state's
small
business
organization.

19
We
do
a
lot
of
work
with
local,
county,
and
20
also
state
agencies,
and
also
we
are
interested
in
21
becoming
more,
doing
more
work
with
the
Federal
22
agencies.

23
MR.
INGRAM:
Good
morning,
and
thank
you
for
24
inviting
me
to
this
public
hearing.

25
My
name
is
James
Ingram,
and
I
would
like
to
13
1
say
good
morning
to
you,
Hayden,
for
certifying
me
as
a
2
DBE
firm.

3
My
name
is
James
Ingram,
James
E.
Ingram
&

4
Company,
Inc.
We
are
a
commercial
property
casualty
5
insurance
brokerage
firm.
We
specialize
in
commercial
6
property
casualty,
bonds,
employee
benefits,
errs
and
7
omission
insurance.

8
We
are
currently
certified
as
a
DBE
(
HUB)
Zone
9
firm,
certified
with
the
state
of
California,
as
a
small
10
business,
City
of
Oakland.
Thank
you.
11
MS.
TRACHTA:
Hi,
my
name
is
Serena
Trachta,

12
I'm
a
principal
with
Full
Circle
Design
Group,
we
are
13
full­
service
architectural
firm,
women­
owned
business
14
here
in
San
Francisco
and
I'm
here
to
gain
information
15
on
the
federal
contracting
opportunities.

16
MS.
HILL:
Good
morning.
Tracy
Hill,
and
I
am
17
with
Outsource
Consulting
Services.
Our
company
is
a
18
company
that
provides
people.

19
So
if
you
are
looking
for
consultants
for
20
projects,
particularly
in
the
areas
of
information
21
technology
or
call
center
project,
program
management,

22
that's
what
we
do.
We
are
certified
as
a
small
23
disadvantaged
business,
(
HUB)
Zone
business,
located
in
24
Oakland,
California.

25
We
are
a
women­
owned
business
and
a
14
1
minority­
owned
business,
and,
as
well,
we
have
our
2
Federal
GSA
Schedule
70.
So
we
here
to
more
understand
3
the
DBE
ruling
on
our
company,
but
we
hope
we
will
have
4
an
opportunity
or
get
an
opportunity
to
do
some
business
5
with
the
EPA.

6
MR.
SALAZAR:
I'm
Matt
Salazar
with
the
EPA.

7
I
am
here
just
wanting
to
find
out
about
the
public
8
comment
process.

9
MS.
BROWN:
What
program
are
you
with,
Matt?

10
MR.
SALAZAR:
Air
enforcement.

11
MR.
CARATINI:
I
am
Jose
Caratini,
EPA
drinking
12
water
state
revolving
fund
and
I
am
here
to
learn
more
13
about
the
program
and
also
how
EPA
will
use
the
14
citizenship
requirement
and
its
criteria
in
how
it
will
15
determine
the
disadvantaged.

16
MR.
CAMACHO:
Morning.
May
name
is
Rick
17
Camacho.
I
am
with
Bay
Construction
Company
and
we
are
18
a
small
business,
and
I
am
here
to
learn
more
about
the
19
process.

20
MR.
RAMIREZ:
I
am
Peter
Ramirez.
I
represent
21
the
California
DVBE
Alliance,
Disabled
Veterans
22
Entrepreneurs,
throughout
the
state
and
nationally.

23
MS.
BASHAM:
Hi,
I
am
Adele
Basham
with
the
24
state
of
Nevada,
Division
of
Environmental
Protection,

25
and
I
am
here
representing
both
the
drinking
water
and
15
1
clean
water
state
revolving
loan
fund
program.

2
MS.
FELETTO:
I'm
Nadine
Feletto,
California
3
Department
of
Health
Services,
Drinking
Water
SRF
4
Program.

5
I
was
here
at
your
previous
hearing
as
well,

6
and
we
continue
to
have
interest
and
concern
about
the
7
impact
of
the
rule
on
the
drinking
water
SRF
program,

8
and
we
are
hoping
to
see
an
evolution
to
keep
it
as
9
simplified
as
possible
in
the
kinds
of
projects
and
10
loans
that
we
fund.

11
MR.
CROTEAUX:
I
am
Darren
Croteaux,
Toxichem
12
Management
Systems.
We
are
a
minority­
owned
business.

13
We
perform
soil
and
groundwater
contamination
assessment
14
and
remediation
services
throughout
the
Bay
Area,
and
we
15
are
interested
in
working
with
the
EPA.

16
MR.
LINDSKOG:
Good
morning.
My
name
is
17
Curtis
Lindskog
with
Kleinfelder,
Inc.

18
I
am
here
to
understand
the
impact
of
the
DBE
19
rule
as
it
affects
our
federal
contracts
that
we
have
20
with
our
subcontractors.

21
MR.
BORRMANN:
Good
morning.
I'm
Ralph
22
Borrmann,
with
the
Bay
Area
Air
Quality
Management
23
District.
We
are
a
multi­
county
government
agency
that
24
deals
with
air,
and
are
here
to
learn
more
about
the
25
rule.
16
1
MS.
BOONSTRA:
Good
morning.
My
name
is
Jody
2
Boonstra.
I
am
with
Big
E
Construction
Company.
We
are
3
an
8(
a)
certified,
we
are
also
(
HUB)
Zone
certified.

4
I
am
here
to
find
out
how
the
ruling
will
5
affect
our
business
and
also
possibly
to
do
work
with
6
the
EPA.

7
MR.
BOONSTRA:
Good
morning.
I
am
Eric
8
Boonstra,
the
president
of
Big
E
Construction
Company,

9
8(
a),
(
HUB)
Zone
certified,
been
in
this
industry
about
10
9
years
and
am
just
trying
to
eagerly
market
our
company
11
and
get
our
name
out
and
talk
and
hope
to
bring
in
some
12
work
with
the
EPA
and
other
federal
agencies.

13
MS.
BROWN:
Before
you
sit
down,
tell
us
who
14
you
are
and
use
the
microphone,
please.

15
MR.
OLIVIER:
My
name
is
Waymon
Olivier.
I
am
16
with
Oliver
&
Associates,
graphic
design
and
print,
San
17
Francisco.

18
MS.
BROWN:
Thank
you.
Welcome.
There's
a
19
good
mix
here.
And
you
may
be
wondering
why
I
take
the
20
time
to
do
that.

21
An
opportunity
always
exists,
and
as
minority,

22
women­
owned
businesses,
you
need
to
be
aware
at
EPA
we
23
spend
about
1.2
billion
dollars
annually
in
contracts.

24
That's
an
opportunity
for
you
to
contract
directly
with
25
us,
to
enter
into
contracts
with
EPA
directly.
17
1
On
the
other
side
of
that,
annually
we
spend
2
about
4
times
that,
4.2
billion
dollars
annually
in
3
grants.

4
We
give
that
money
out
to
states,
local
5
municipalities,
colleges
and
universities,
tribes,

6
trust
territories.
You
name
it.
And
as
a
result
of
7
that,
there
may
be
an
opportunity
for
them
to
contract,

8
if
they
so
chose.
They
don't
have
to,
but
if
they
9
decide
to
go
out
and
contract,
our
program
kicks
in.

10
Make
the
connection.
As
minority
and
women­

11
owned
businesses,
money
is
green.
You
need
to
know
12
where
to
go
to
find
it.

13
Part
of
what
we
are
going
to
do
today
is
to
14
talk
about
that
process.

15
Today
we
will
be
dealing
primarily
in
this
16
hearing
with
our
proposed
rule
as
it
relates
to
the
17
grant
side
of
the
house.

18
Okay.
If
you
want
me
to
talk
about
doing
19
business
with
EPA
directly,
we
can
do
that
after
the
20
hearing.
But
now
we
are
talking
about
the
proposed
21
rule,
the
proposed
changes.
We
are
going
to
go
over
the
22
key
elements
of
the
proposed
rule
in
terms
of
the
23
changes
that
we
have
identified,
and
we
will
take
your
24
comments
and
your
questions.

25
In
the
DBE
or
MBE/
WBE
program,
we
don't
get
18
1
involved
with
8(
a)
and
(
HUB)
Zone.
It's
direct
2
procurement.
It's
good
to
know
that
you
have
Joe
Ochab
3
here
as
your
MBE/
WBE
coordinator.

4
How
many
of
you
brought
business
cards?

5
Everybody's
hands
in
the
room
should
be
up.

6
How
many
of
you
brought
a
capability
statement?

7
Everybody's
hands
should
be
up.
Think
about
this:

8
Opportunity.
9
You
come
into
a
Federal
building
for
a
meeting
10
with
government
people,
you
never
know
who
is
going
to
11
be
here.
Make
the
connection.

12
You
have
people
from
the
program
offices,
from
13
the
state
and
local
jurisdictions
who
are
looking
for
14
you.
How
are
they
going
to
find
you?
How
are
they
15
going
to
know
or
remember
who
you
were?

16
What
are
you
going
to
put
in
their
hands?
You
17
have
people
from
Arizona
and
other
places.
They
need
to
18
take
this
information
back
with
them.
So
use
this
as
a
19
learning
opportunity.
Next
time,
come
prepared.

20
I
don't
know
when
or
if
we
will
do
this
again,

21
but
think
about
where
you
are
going
because
this
is
our
22
business.
This
is
what
it's
about.

23
So
today,
as
we
get
ready
to
go
through
the
24
proposed
changes,
we
are
not
going
to
read
it
word
for
25
word,
but
we
will
give
you
what
in
laymen's
terms,
I
say
19
1
it
because
the
attorneys
wrote
it,
we
have
to
interpret
2
and
understand
it.
We
will
give
clarification
where
3
needed.

4
If
you
have
a
question,
I
need
you
to
come
to
5
the
microphone,
and
every
time
you
speak,
I
need
you
to
6
speak
into
the
microphone,
tell
us
who
you
are,
for
the
7
public
record,
and
what
organization
or
company
you
8
represent,
and
then
say
your
question.

9
Some
of
your
questions
I
may
be
able
to
10
address.
Others
I
may
not.
And
we
will
say,
we
will
11
take
them
under
advisement
and
we
will
go
on,
because
I
12
don't
have
an
answer
for
everything.

13
We
have
been
on
the
road
now
­­
the
rule
was
14
published
in
the
Federal
Register
in
July
­­
we
have
15
been
on
the
road
since
September.
We
have
been
all
16
around
the
country
doing
just
this,
getting
feedback
and
17
input
from
you.

18
As
someone
indicated,
I
think
Joe
and
another
19
lady
who
was
here
about
two
years
ago,
this
isn't
the
20
first
time
we
have
addressed
this.
We
have
been
here
21
before.
We
gave
a
brief
overview,
and
we
came
out
with
22
what
we
thought
the
rule
was
going
to
be
and
went
back
23
on
the
road.

24
We
heard
from
you,
we
went
back
and
made
some
25
changes,
some
of
which
people
from
all
over
the
country
20
1
came
in
and
gave
us
comments.

2
That
helped
us
formulate
this
policy,
and
now
3
we
have
the
proposed
rule,
and
we
are
seeking
additional
4
comments
before
the
comment
period
is
over,
and
we
go
5
back
to
the
drawing
board
taking
a
look
at
what's
come
6
into
us
before
we
finalize
this
policy.

7
You
may
be
wondering
why
we
are
doing
this.

8
Our
program
has
been
around
for
a
long
time.

9
But
there
was
a
Supreme
Court
decision
that
10
came
out
back
in
1995.
It
was
called
the
Adarand
versus
11
Pena,
a
case
that
challenged
­­
or
was
the
Adarand
12
decision,
came
out
of
the
state
of
Colorado.
I
am
not
13
an
attorney,
but
it
changed
the
fabric
of
what
we
do
14
with
federal
government
in
terms
of
procurement.

15
Now,
in
order
for
us
to
have
a
program
that
16
exists,
it's
got
to
be
based
on
something.

17
Our
DBE
program
in
years
passed,
many
of
the
18
state
and
local
recipients
of
EPA
money
you'll
recall
in
19
their
grants
there
was
a
clause,
a
flat
8
percent.
That
20
was
the
goal
they
had
to
work
to
to
ensure
that
21
minorities
and
women
were
included
in
the
process.

22
The
8
percent
was
set
by
Congress.
It
wasn't
23
based
on
anything.
It
basically
was
what
they
thought
24
we
should
be
getting
in
terms
of
minority
participation.

25
What
we
all
need
to
understand
is
this
is
21
1
federal
money.
It's
not
mine,
it's
not
the
other
people
2
who
work
here
at
EPA;
but
as
taxpayers,
minorities
and
3
women­
owned
businesses
you
should
be
afforded
an
4
opportunity
to
participate
in
the
procurement
process,

5
irregardless
of
which
side
it's
on.
You
need
to
know
6
where
it
is
and
what
that
process
is
and
how
you
as
a
7
viable
business
can
come
and
participate
as
taxpayers,

8
as
citizens
­­
well,
we
will
talk
about
citizenship
9
later
­­
but
as
viable
businesses.

10
As
minority
businesses,
we
are
saying
you
come
11
fully
equipped,
ready
and
able
to
do
the
work,
is
that
12
right?
When
you
call
the
carpenter,
they
come
with
13
their
tools
and
do
what
needs
to
be
done.

14
As
minority
and
women­
owned
businesses,
we
are
15
saying,
that's
what
you
do
as
well.

16
Our
job
is
to
ensure,
you
know,
where
the
17
opportunities
are
and
what
the
process
is.

18
As
a
result
of
the
Adarand
decision,
it
changes
19
how
we
have
to
do
business
with
the
Federal
government.

20
Now
we
use
availability
analysis
based
on
where
21
minorities
and
women
are
located,
to
say
what,
how
much,

22
and
we
negotiate
in
a
much
more
thoroughly,
hopefully,

23
way
than
we
did
in
the
past
with
the
state
and
grant
24
recipients
in
terms
of
what
the
goals
should
be.

25
In
some
places
the
goals
are
as
high
as
30
22
1
percent,
depending
on
the
availability
of
minorities
and
2
women
in
the
geographic
location;
other
places
it
could
3
be
as
low
as
two
percent.
Depends
where
you
look,

4
where
the
minorities
and
women
are
located.

5
What
we
will
do
now
is
go
over
some
of
the
6
major
or
key
elements
of
the
proposed
rule
and
what
the
7
changes
are;
and
as
we
go
through
them,
if
you
have
8
questions,
please,
by
all
means,
come
to
the
microphone.

9
Any
questions?
Any
comments?

10
Kimberly
will
get
started.

11
MS.
PATRICK:
Okay.
Good
morning
everybody.

12
If
you
look
inside
the
packages,
you
were
given
a
13
document
Summary
of
Major
Elements
of
the
Proposed
DBE
14
Rule
and
Preamble.
Does
everybody
have
that?
This
is
15
what
we
will
be
following
today
as
we
go
through
it.
I
16
think
you
would
rather
we
do
this
than
the
entire
17
booklet,
which
is
the
actual
text
of
the
rule.
I
don't
18
want
to
bore
everybody.
We
will
do
it
the
short
way.

19
This
document
just
highlights
the
major
20
elements.
A
quick
thing
that
shows
the
major
changes
21
to
the
rule.
This
is
what
we
will
follow
along
with.

22
That
being
said,
the
first
major
change
to
the
23
program
is
going
to
be
the
change
in
name.

24
We
are
currently
the
MBE/
WBE
Program,
Minority
25
Women's
Business
Enterprise
and
whatever.
We
are
not
23
1
MBE/
WBE
anymore.
We
are
changing
the
name
of
the
2
program
to
the
DBE,
Disadvantaged
Business
Enterprise
3
Program.

4
There
are
a
number
of
reasons
why
we
made
that
5
change.
And,
first,
and
foremost,
the
Adarand
decision,
6
of
course,
which
means,
to
have
disadvantaged
status,
I
7
don't
have
to
be
a
minority
or
a
woman.
So
the
name
of
8
the
program
needs,
has
to
be
inclusive
of
the
fact
that
9
it
can
include
a
broader
category
of
people
based
on
10
that
decision.

11
Another
primary
reason
why
we
changed
the
name
12
of
the
program
is
to
be
consistent
with
DOT's
currently
13
established
program,
which
is
much
larger
than
ours
and
14
more
well
known
than
ours.

15
Where
we
can
create
consistencies
in
16
government,
we
want
to
take
an
opportunity
to
do
that.

17
The
next
major
thing,
which
will
affect
a
lot
18
of
the
business
owners
that
are
here
in
the
room,
and
I
19
am
glad
we
have
a
good
number
of
you
out
there,
it's
the
20
certification
program.

21
In
the
past,
the
agency
relied
on
self
22
certification,
which
basically
meant,
if
you
said
you
23
were
a
minority
or
women­
owned
business,
we
believed
24
you,
and
that's
the
end
of
the
inquiry.

25
Because
of
the
Adarand
decision,
any
types
of
24
1
things
we
do
like
this
needs
to
have
a
firm
basis.

2
We
can't
rely
on
a
person's
word,
although
it
would
be
3
nice
if
we
lived
in
that
day
and
age
and
we
could.
We
4
need
more
to
substantiate
our
decisions
about
that.

5
Part
of
that
is
we
are
going
to
get
into
the
6
area
of
certification
because
we
realize
we
are
not
an
7
agency
who
really
wants
to
get
into
certification
8
business
wholesale.

9
We
love
it
when
agencies
like
SBA,
DOT,
who
10
have
bigger
programs
are
supposed
to
be
doing
that
kind
11
of
thing
get
into
that
area.
12
We
decided
we
will
accept
SBA
certifications
13
and
also
will
accept
DOT
certifications.

14
Currently
the
way
the
regulation
is
set
out,
we
15
are
only
accepting
DOT
certifications
from
US
citizens.

16
That
is
the
current
language
in
the
rule.

17
We
do
understand
there's
a
large
concern
about
18
that
here
in
this
region
about
only
accepting
19
certification
from
US
citizens,
and
we
are
definitely
20
looking
forward
to
getting
comments
about
that
from
21
those
of
you
in
the
audience
with
whom
this
is
an
issue.

22
We
want
to
hear
from
you
in
this
process.

23
The
way
the
program
currently
works,
if
an
24
entity
such
as
a
business
had
a
certification
from
SBA
25
or
from
DOT,
you
show
us
proof
of
that
certification.
25
1
EPA
would,
in
turn,
take
that
information
and
give
you
2
an
EPA
certification
so
that
we
don't
have
to
do
the
leg
3
work
twice.

4
We
want
to
make
this
process
easy
on
the
5
business
owner
to
use
certifications
you
currently
have.

6
So
there's
not
a
lot
of
repossessing
of
7
paperwork
and
going
through
months
and
months
and
months
8
of
process.

9
Also,
we
are
set
up
to
accept
certifications
10
from
states,
from
localities,
from
tribal
communities
as
11
long
as
the
criteria
for
those
certifications
are
equal
12
to
the
criteria
that
we
have
set
up
in
our
rule.

13
So
if
you
have
a
state
certification,
as
long
14
as
the
basis
of
that
certification
is
the
same
as
our
15
requirements,
we
will
accept
that
state
certification.

16
What
you
have
to
do
in
the
process,
let
us
know
17
which
state
certification
you
have
and
what
the
criteria
18
were
for
you
to
get
that
certification
before
we
can
19
say,
okay,
you
have
this
certification
from
whatever
20
county
in
California,
it
matches
ours,
we
can
accept
21
this,
and
give
you
a
certification
from
EPA.

22
MS.
BROWN:
We
have
done
a
preliminary
look
at
23
what
state
certification
programs
are
out
there.

24
When
we
started
this
process
­­
by
the
way,
we
25
have
been
doing
this
now
for
five
and­
a­
half
years
to
26
1
get
to
this
point,
and
from
what
I
understand,
many
2
people
tell
us
that
for
doing
a
rule
in
EPA,
that's
not
3
long.
Seems
like
a
long
time
to
me,
but
maybe
not.

4
What
we
found
is
of
the
50
states,
probably
5
about
­­

6
MS.
PATRICK:
There
were
about
11
whose
7
programs
we
saw
were
not
consistent
with
EPA's
8
standards,
and
that's
primarily
because
those
states
9
didn't
have
programs
at
all.
The
state,
at
the
state
10
level,
did
not
certify
entities
period.

11
A
large
part
of
that,
the
affirmative
action,

12
the
bad
wave
the
country
went
through,
a
lot
of
states
13
abandoned
their
programs
regarding
minority­
owned
14
businesses.

15
And
so
most
of
the
states
actually
do
have
16
programs
in
place
that
have
standards
that
meet
ours.

17
I
must
say
that's
as
a
preliminary
review,
and
18
it
is
not
a
counsel­
blessed
review.
It
was
a
review
19
done
internally
in
our
office
just
to
get
a
snapshot
to
20
see
what
potentially
we
would
be
dealing
with
in
terms
21
of
the
number
of
certifications
we
would
do
­­

22
MS.
BROWN:
Go
ahead.

23
MR.
INGRAM:
Is
California
one
of
those
states?
24
MS.
BROWN:
We
need
you
to
use
the
microphone
25
and
tell
us
where
you
are
from
and
your
name.
27
1
MR.
INGRAM:
I'm
James
Ingram,
James
E.
Ingram
2
&
Company,
Inc.
I
am
wondering
if
you
would
consider
3
the
Unified
Certification
Process?
Rather
than
having
4
to
submit
a
certification
to
EPA,
why
not
piggy­
on
the
5
current
Unified
Certification
Process.

6
As
a
small
business,
you
could
spend
a
lot
of
7
time
trying
to
get
a
certification
completed.

8
So
when
you
submit
the
paperwork
on
the
Unified
9
Certification
Process,
possibly
to
have
EPA
as
being
10
listed
so
that
it
could
cut
down
in
paperwork.

11
MS.
BROWN:
Could
you
go
into
more
detail
as
12
to
what
it
is?
I
haven't
heard
it
­­

13
MR.
INGRAM:
As
I
understand,
the
Unified
14
Certification
Process
is
a
process
that
if
you
are
15
certified
by
one
agency,
it's
good
for
any
agency
16
throughout.
I
believe,
nationwide.

17
If
I
am
certified
with
CalTrans,
it
means
I
am
18
certified
with
BART,
ACT
Transit,
all
of
the
agencies
19
that
receive
federal
funds.

20
So
I
would
think
if
EPA
could
consider
working
21
it
into
its
program,
it
would
be
helpful
to
small
22
businesses.
Thank
you.

23
MS.
PATRICK:
Outside
of
accepting
SBA,
DOT
24
state,
tribal
certification,
we
realize
EPA
has
things
25
about
its
program
that
are
unique,
and
because
of
those
28
1
differences
there
are
certain
categories
of
2
certifications
that
the
agency
knows
it
will
have
to
do
3
as
a
matter
of
first
impression.
4
Currently
DOT
does
certify
women­
owned
5
businesses,
but
SBA
does
not.
So
EPA
is
aware
of
the
6
fact
that
it
would
probably
have
to
certify
a
number
of
7
women­
owned
businesses.

8
The
last
change
of
the
Disabled
Veteran
Owned
9
Businesses,
especially
with
the
new
law
that
is
just
10
going
into
effect,
which
will
have
SBA
certifying
that
11
universe
of
business
owners,
so
I
guess
a
part
of
this
12
has
changed
a
little
bit
since
the
few
days
since
this
13
has
been
written.

14
But
EPA
is
also
in
a
position
to
certify
15
Service
Disabled
Veteran
Owned
businesses.

16
Also
EPA
has
a
very
interesting
setup
with
our
17
statutes.

18
In
our
8
percent
statute,
we
require
that
an
19
entity
be
owned
and/
or
controlled
by
a
disadvantaged
or
20
minority
individual.

21
In
our
10
percent
statute,
we
require
that
a
22
business
be
owned
and/
or
controlled,
which
is
the
23
standard
that
is
consistent
with
SBA
and
DOT
and
just
24
about
everybody
else's
programs.

25
Because
we
are
not
at
liberty
to
go
back
and
29
1
change
a
statute,
we
have
to
be
inclusive
of
that
body
2
of
business
owners
where
the
business
is
owned
or
3
controlled.

4
So
that's
a
unique
category
that
only
EPA
would
5
be
able
to
certify
because
of
that
distinction.

6
MS.
BROWN:
One
of
the
other
things
I
will
say
7
too
is
with
the
Service
Disabled
Veterans
Program,

8
President
Bush
signed,
I
guess,
into
law
two
weeks
9
before
Christmas,
somewhere
thereabouts,
a
program
now
10
which
gives
Service
Disabled
Veterans
the
same
11
preference,
basically,
as
an
8(
a)
or
a
(
HUB)
Zone,
but
12
the
connection
there
is
you
have
to
be
Service
Disabled
13
and
not
disabled,
and
so
there
is
a
unique
difference
14
there.

15
Sir,
if
could
use
the
microphone
and
tell
us
16
your
name.

17
MR.
O'CONNOR:
Kevin
O'Connor,
California
18
Disabled
Veterans
Business
Enterprise
Alliance.
I
19
really
appreciate
your
comments.

20
You
are
indicating
there
was
some
reciprocity
21
between
your
agency
and
some
state
and
local
agencies,

22
that
you
would
accept
those
certificates,
and,
as
you
23
may
know,
California
has
a
certified
disabled
veteran
24
program,
DBE
program.
It's
a
pretty
rigorous
25
certification
that
you
offer.
30
1
Would
your
agency
accept
those
certificates?

2
MS.
PATRICK:
Yes.

3
MS.
BROWN:
We
would
have
to
look
at
how
you
4
came
up
with
that
and
consider
that
and
then
­­

5
MS.
PATRICK:
It
would
be
just
like
the
other
6
categories.
As
long
as
the
criteria
matched
our
7
criteria,
we
would
be
in
a
position
to
accept
that
8
certification.

9
MS.
BROWN:
Right.

10
MR.
O'CONNOR:
Thank
you.

11
MS.
PATRICK:
The
next
thing
is
the
net
worth
12
certification.
Private
and
voluntary
organizations
13
controlled
by
individuals
who
are
socially
and
14
economically
disadvantaged.

15
The
major
thing
in
the
net
worth
requirement,
16
we
are
proposing
that
an
individual
have
a
net
worth
no
17
greater
than
$
750,000
to
be
eligible
for
our
program,

18
and
that
would
exclude
your
interest
in
your
personal
19
residence
and
your
personal
interest
in
the
business,

20
and
that
is
what
we
would
look
at
in
determining
that
21
net
worth.

22
MS.
BROWN:
This
net
worth
requirement
is
23
consistent
with
SBA.

24
MS.
PATRICK:
No
other
questions
on
25
certification?
31
1
MS.
FELETTO:
Nadine
Feletto,
California
Health
2
Services.
Could
you
go
a
little
more
into
the
concept
3
of
the
$
750,000
net
worth,
in
order
to
have
a
sense
of
4
what
size
of
a
business
entity
is
going
to
be
excluded
5
de
facto
by
this
process?

6
MS.
PATRICK:
Well,
EPA's
program
does
not
7
include,
we
don't
look
at
the
size
of
the
business
at
8
all.
This
is
only
going
toward
your
personal
net
9
worth.
And
what
we
would
look
at
is
what
things
are
10
included
in
your
personal
net
worth,
excluding
your
11
interest
in
your
home
and
excluding
your
personal
12
interest
in
the
business
itself.

13
We
will
back
those
numbers
out
and
take
a
look
14
at
what
your
net
worth
is.
If
it's
less
than
$
750,000,

15
then
you
are
eligible
under
this
program.
Did
that
16
help?
Okay.

17
Nothing
else
on
certification?

18
The
next
thing
is
the
Good
Faith
Effort.

19
Currently
in
our
regulations
we
have
to
name
20
two
different
things,
but
substantively
they
are
the
21
same
steps
that
we
want
businesses
to
go
through
to
make
22
sure
minority
women­
owned
businesses
are
included
in
the
23
process.

24
And
one
part
of
our
regulations
we
have
what's
25
called
the
6
affirmative
steps
and
in
another
part
we
32
1
have
what's
called
the
6
positive
efforts,
and
we
are
2
combining
that
and
calling
them
all
the
6
Good
Faith
3
Efforts,
just
to
provide
some
consistency
once
again.

4
And
let
me
explain
what
Good
Faith
Efforts
are
5
about.

6
They
are
measures
we
expect
our
recipients,
who
7
are
our
grantees
to
undergo
in
making
sure
the
minority
8
and
women­
owned
businesses
are
included
in
any
9
procurement
processes
they
have
using
EPA
money.

10
Those
six
good
faith
efforts
also
trickle
down
11
to
the
next
tier,
to
the
prime
contractors
the
recipient
12
may
be
working
with.

13
So
when
the
prime
goes
out
and
tries
to
find
14
subcontractors,
the
expectation
and
the
requirement
is
15
those
prime
contractors
will
go
through
the
same
good
16
faith
efforts
the
women
and
minority
businesses
are
17
taking
into
consideration.

18
It
will
be
the
whole
universe
of
DBEs
are
taken
19
into
consideration
with
their,
for
the
recipient,
with
20
their
prime
contractor
and
the
prime
contractor
with
21
their
subcontractor.
Okay?

22
MS.
CHENG:
Anita
Cheng,
Department
of
Water
23
and
Power,
Los
Angeles.

24
Will
you
please
explain
to
me
the
6
Good
Faith
25
Steps?
33
1
MS.
PATRICK:
Sure.
Let
me
refer
to
the
2
actual
text
here.
Each
of
you
have
that
in
the
booklet.

3
Go
to
page
43848,
the
section
called
subpart
(
C),
Good
4
Faith
Efforts.
What
does
this
subpart
require?

5
A
recipient
including
one
exempted
from
6
applying
the
fair
share
objective
requirements
by
33.411
7
is
required
to
make
the
following
good
faith
efforts
8
whenever
procuring
construction
equipment,
services
and
9
supplies
under
an
EPA
financial
assistance
agreement,

10
even
if
it
has
achieved
its
fair
share
objectives
under
11
subpart
D.

12
The
first
effort,
(
a)
Ensure
DBEs
are
made
13
aware
of
contracting
opportunities
to
the
fullest
extent
14
practicable
through
outreach
and
recruitment
activities.

15
For
Indian
Tribal,
State
and
local
and
16
Government
recipients,
this
will
include
placing
DBEs
on
17
solicitation
lists
and
soliciting
them
whenever
they
are
18
potential
sources.

19
The
next
effort,
(
b)
Make
information
on
20
forthcoming
opportunities
available
to
DBEs
and
arrange
21
time
frames
for
contracts
and
establish
delivery
22
schedules,
where
the
requirements
permit,
in
a
way
that
23
encourages
and
facilitates
participation
by
DBEs
in
the
24
competitive
process.
This
includes,
whenever
possible,

25
posting
solicitations
for
bids
or
proposals
for
a
34
1
minimum
of
30
calendar
days
before
the
bid
or
proposal
2
closing
date.

3
Do
you
really
want
me
to
read
all
six
of
them?

4
MS.
CHENG:
Thank
you.

5
MS.
BROWN:
There
is
a
question
in
the
back.

6
MS.
COLBERT:
Regina
Colbert,
Raibon
&
Colbert
7
Associates.

8
How
deep
are
the
subcontracting
disclosure
9
requirements
going
to
be?
Are
you
going
to
expect
the
10
obligations
to
be
met
for
the
sub
of
the
subs?

11
MS.
PATRICK:
For
the
sub
of
subs,
we
only
go
12
down
to
making
the
requirements
applicable
to
the
prime
13
contractor.

14
We
go
to
the
recipient
first;
recipient
to
the
15
prime,
and
the
subs
at
this
point
do
not
go
that
low
in
16
terms
of
what
information
we
want
to
capture.

17
MS.
BROWN:
We
do,
however,
and
we
have
18
created
some
forms,
and
we
will
talk
about
those,
where
19
the
subcontractor
to
the
prime
contractor,
not
the
grant
20
recipient,
would
possibly
be
required
to
show
us
or
give
21
us
some
additional
information.

22
One
of
the
things
on
the
good
effort,
I
need
to
23
say,
the
six
good
faith
steps,
these
are
on
the
books
24
now.
This
is
not
new.
And
every
grant
recipient
that
25
is
receiving
EPA
funds
should
be
carrying
this
out.
35
1
This
is
not
something
that
we
can
exempt
nor
do
2
we
want
to.
We
need
to
make
sure
here,
again,
we
want
3
to
make
sure
women
and
minorities
are
included
in
the
4
process.

5
If
you
are
a
grant
recipient
and
you
are
6
receiving
EPA
funds,
this
is
something
that
is
currently
7
on
the
books.
You
don't
have
to
wait
until
the
rule
is
8
in
place.
It's
here
now.
You
should
be
carrying
this
9
out.

10
One
of
the
things
we
have
seen
as
we
have
gone
11
across
the
country,
the
good
old
boy
network
system
is
12
alive
and
well.
We
need
to
make
sure
as
grant
13
recipients
and
all
people
who
receive
funds
that
we
are
14
inclusive
of
minority
and
women
into
the
procurement
15
process;
that
some
of
the
practices
that
we
have
seen
16
throughout
the
country
need
to
be
opened
up
so
that
17
minority
and
women­
owned
businesses
know
what
the
18
process
is
and
that
we
give
them,
everybody
ample
time
19
to
submit
a
bid
and
are
not
keeping
something
out
three
20
or
four
days.

21
Some
people
are
comfortable
with
going
to
the
22
same
people
over
and
over
again.
That
may
work
well
23
when
you
are
spending
your
own
money.
But
when
you
are
24
a
recipient
of
federal
funds,
you
need
to
open
up
that
25
process.
Okay.
36
1
MR.
RAMIREZ:
Peter
Ramirez.

2
Going
back
to
good
faith
effort,
we
are
quite
3
involved
in
the
good
faith
effort
presently
in
the
state
4
of
California,
and
we
find
this
needs
to
be
tightened
5
up.

6
The
prime
is
making
a
mockery
of
what
is
on
the
7
books,
and
they
circumvent
the
rulings
and
the
8
requirements.
So
it
needs
to
really
be
tightened
up.

9
MS.
BROWN:
Could
you
give
us
suggestions
on
10
how
and
what
that
should
include?

11
MR.
RAMIREZ:
We
will
forward
that
to
you.

12
MS.
BROWN:
Thank
you.
We
would
appreciate
13
that.

14
MR.
INGRAM:
James
Ingram,
James
E.
Ingram
&

15
Company,
Inc.

16
I
don't
see
here
any
enforcements.
How
do
you
17
plan
to
enforce,
if,
in
fact,
prime
does
not
meet
the
18
good
faith
effort?
What
section
is
it
in
here?
19
MS.
PATRICK:
You
will
not
find
a
section
what
20
the
enforcements
are.
You
have
to
understand,
we
are
21
not
an
affirmative
action
program.

22
The
things
that
we
require
are
not
based
on
23
quota.

24
Things
like
quotas,
things
like
the
words
25
"
requirement"
or
using
the
words
"
you
must",
puts
us
37
1
into
an
area
where
we
are
not
quite
legally
defensible,

2
given
the
current
climate
we
are
in.

3
To
be
frank
and
honest,
yes,
we
would
like
a
4
program
with
a
nice
set
of
hungry
teeth
to
bite
back
5
when
people
don't
do
what
they
are
supposed
to.

6
But
the
reality
of
the
situation
is,
in
order
7
for
a
program
to
survive,
we
have
to
walk
a
very
tight
8
rope
in
terms
of
what
we
can
require
and
not
require.
I
9
understand
the
sentiment,
if
this
had
some
real
10
enforcement
behind
us.
For
us
to
continue
to
exist,
we
11
have
to
be
careful
with
that.

12
Does
that
mean
we
have
no
recourse?
Does
that
13
mean
there's
nothing
we
can
do?
A
lot
of
the
things
we
14
have
in
the
rule
are
in
terms
of
us
being
able
to
do
15
more
oversight
with
our
grantees.
We
are
looking
to
16
getting
more
involved
in
this
particular
area,
forms
and
17
requirements
that
come
back
to
us.

18
Frankly,
a
lot
of
the
things
that
happen
at
a
19
subcontract
level
we
don't
know
about
because
currently
20
they
are
not
required
to
report
back
on
those
types
of
21
things.

22
Some
of
the
things
that
we
are
going
to
require
23
people
to
send
back
to
us,
so
we
are
aware
of
what's
24
going
on,
are
forms
that
talk
about
things,
making
sure
25
the
subcontractor
is
getting
the
deal
he
is
supposed
to
38
1
get
with
the
prime.

2
We
have
some
new
contracting
provisions
that
3
were
not
in
place
before.
A
lot
of
this
we
couldn't
do
4
anything
about
because
we
didn't
know
it
was
happening.

5
So
there
are
changes
in
the
rule
to
make
us
6
more
aware.

7
MS.
BROWN:
One
of
the
things,
it
has
to
be
8
documented,
is
that
whole
back
funding.
Sometimes
it's
9
difficult
but
what
we
have
where
negotiations
have
not
10
been
completed
in
a
timely
manner
have
over
the
course
11
since
I
have
been
here
been
able
to
hold
back
at
least
12
the
procurement
dollars
for
funding
that
has
been
13
identified
in
some
of
these
grants
until
that
is
done.

14
But
we
want
to
take
a
look
at
what
the
process
is.

15
Again,
like
Kimberly
says,
we
don't
see
this
as
16
an
affirmative
action
program.
We
are
asking
our
grant
17
recipients
that
they
understand,
whatever
they
do
is
18
subject
to
scrutiny
and
challenge.
So
they
have
to
19
defend,
should
there
be
a
challenge
in
court,
what
they
20
have
done
as
we
have.

21
MR.
INGRAM:
I
would
like
to
suggest
that
you
22
look
at
Title
49
of
the
federal
regulations,
426.
There
23
is
a
complaint
process.
A
DBE
can
file
a
complaint.
As
24
a
small
business
there
really
isn't
any
teeth
in
these
25
program,
if
there
isn't
some
method
of
being
able
to
39
1
legitimately
complain
if
your
process
is
not
being
2
followed.
Again,
look
at
that
section.

3
MR.
EDSON:
Allen
Edson,
I
am
with
Remediation
4
Services.
My
question,
of
the
4.2
billion
that
was
5
awarded
in
grants,
what
is
the
percentage
in
the
past
6
fiscal
year
that
went
to
DBEs?

7
MS.
BROWN:
Overall,
we
look
at
both
4.2
plus
8
and
1.2
billion
and
on
average
EPA
is
spending
probably
9
close
to
25
percent
of
their
dollars
in
a
minority
10
business
community.
Wish
it
were
better,
but
that's
not
11
bad
either.
That's
both
inclusive
of
both
contracts
12
and
grants.

13
MR.
O'CONNOR:
Kevin
O'Connor.
Regarding
the
14
good
faith
effort
and
enforcement,
in
the
bids
I
have
15
participated
in,
if
they
do
not,
if
the
good
faith
16
effort
is
not
part
of
the
bid
package,
the
bid
is
17
considered
nonresponsive.

18
Would
that
be
the
case
here
and
that
would
be
a
19
form
of
enforcement?

20
MS.
PATRICK:
At
that
level,
the
expectation
is
21
that,
once
the
money
is
given
out,
there
are
a
lot
of
22
things
we
expect
the
recipient
to
do
in
terms
of
the
23
recipients,
through
its
procurement
practices,
the
good
24
faith
efforts
be
included
in
the
bid,
or
is
something
25
nonresponsive.
That's
the
decision
of
what
the
40
1
procurement
practices
are
by
the
recipient.

2
So
at
that
level,
while
we
require
the
3
recipient
to
make
sure
that
the
prime
contractor
is
4
doing
the
good
faith
effort
is
our
requirement.

5
How
the
recipient
goes
about
making
sure
that
6
the
prime
does
that,
it's
pretty
much
left
up
to
what
7
their
procurement
practices
are.

8
MR.
BOONSTRA:
Eric
Boonstra,
Big
E
9
Construction
Company.
Touching
base
on
the
good
faith
10
effort,
just
to
give
a
for
instance,
what
I
am
finding
11
on
the
subcontract
level,
a
lot
of
the
larger
prime
12
contractors
who
are
getting
the
larger
dollar
contracts
13
that
have
the
bid
good
faith
effort
requirements,
8(
a),

14
(
HUB)
Zone,
women­
owned,
etc.,
etc.,
they
have
just
been
15
sending
out
documents
or
requests,
request
for
bid,

16
request
for
quotations.

17
You
put
your
signatures
on
them
and
send
them
18
back
to
them
via
fax,
email,
and
they
never
contact
you
19
back
and
you
can
really
march
forth
on
it.

20
I
am
not
sure
if
they
have
been
meeting
the
21
good
faith
effort
doing
this,
but
just
kind
of
compiling
22
all
of
the
responses
with
people
signing
these
documents
23
saying
they
are
interested
in
bidding
and
then
they
are
24
not
going
any
further
in
requesting
those
bids,
and
25
another
thing,
they
have
been,
in
different
instances
41
1
that
I
have
heard
through
the
industry
they
have
been
2
able
to
negotiate
with
the
Federal
agency,
and
they
3
don't
allow
the
same
negotiation
process
through
the
4
subcontract
level.

5
Is
there
any
form
or
anything
being
done
to
6
track
that?
I
mean,
if
the
good
faith
effort
is
being
7
met
because
they
have
the
documents,
but
they
are
not
8
really
trying
to
meet
the
good
faith
effort.

9
MS.
BROWN:
One
of
the
forms,
the
forms
are
10
currently
under
reform
at
OMB
for
approval.
So
not
all
11
have
come
back
yet.

12
One
of
the
forms
we
included
was
one
where
a
13
subcontractor
to
a
prime
would
be
requested
to
fill
out
14
information
that
they
negotiated
with
the
sub
­­
with
15
the
prime
contractor
­­
and
send
that
back
in
so
we
can
16
take
a
look,
and
we
could,
because
this
is
all
part
of
17
the
grant
file,
and
then
we
could,
from
that
18
information,
go
back
and
find
out
if,
in
fact,
you
got
19
what
you
said
you
thought
you
were
going
to
get
in
terms
20
of
your
negotiation,
and
from
that
we
probably
could
21
tell
­­
this
is
all
new,
and
what's
being
proposed
in
22
the
rule
­­
we
could
probably
tell
too
whether
or
not
23
those
kinds
of
things
even
existed.
If
your
name
was
24
given
and
you
never
heard
anything
else,
that's
the
kind
25
of
feedback
we
want
back
from
you.
42
1
This
is
new.
This
is
not
currently
in
our
2
program
now,
but
under
the
proposed
rule
this
is
what
we
3
are
proposing.

4
We
are
hearing
this
kind
of
thing
all
over
the
5
country.
So
it's
not
just
unique
to
this
area.

6
And
we
recognize
there
are
some
things
that
we
7
could
possibly
do
to
at
least
give
us
a
better
view
of
8
what's
going
on
with
some
of
the
recipients.

9
MR.
DAYRIT:
Ignacio
Dayrit,
City
of
10
Emeryville.
We
are
a
small
city,
the
city
of
11
Emeryville
is
a
small
city
and
there
are
other
small
12
cities
in
our
situation.
We
rely
on
our
people's
13
certifications
when
we
enter
into
our
contracts;
and
two
14
things:
One,
we
have
goals
for
MBE.
Separate
15
percentage
for
WBE.
So
will
it
change?
Will
there
16
just
be
a
DBE
number
or
still
an
MBE/
WBE
percentage
we
17
have
to
meet?
That's
the
first
question.

18
And
the
second
question,
again,
we
rely
upon
19
our
people's
certification.
Is
there
some
type
of
20
database?
Maybe
that's
a
question
for
the
audience.

21
We
would
like
to
get
our
prime
contractors'

22
information
on
these
MBEs
and
WBEs
we
would
like
to
23
subcontract
to,
and
also
have
prime
contractors,
but
24
it's
hard
for
us.

25
We
don't
have
a
list,
and
it
would
be,
a
lot
of
43
1
small
cities
shy
away
from
EPA
funding,
because
having
2
that
kind
of
funding
is
a
hassle
you
have
to
go
through.

3
It's
difficult.
You
have
to
go
through
a
lot
of
hoops
4
to
meet
the
EPA
requirements.
That
is
one
of
the
main
5
factors
in
regard
to
getting
funding.

6
MS.
BROWN:
We
do
want
to
be
inclusive
and
we
7
know
in
a
lot
of
small
communities
you
do
have
minority
8
and
women­
owned
businesses,
and
we
just
need
to
be
9
included
in
the
process.

10
Back
to
the
latter
question
about
databases
11
available.
There
are
a
number
of
databases
out
there
12
right
now.

13
In
the
years
past
we
recommended
ProNet,
but
14
ProNet
doesn't
exist
anymore.
It
was
taken
over
by
15
DOT.
It's
the
CCR,
where
you
can
get
in
on
the
16
internet,
and
anybody
wanting
to
do
business
with
the
17
Federal
government,
they
have
to
be
registered
there.

18
There
are
a
number
of
places
you
and
your
local
19
area
can
go,
Chamber
of
Commerce
and
other
20
organizations,
people
that
represent
people
in
21
organizations
that
do
certifications.

22
So
as
we
have
gotten
into
this
age
where
we
23
have
the
internet,
where
a
lot
of
technology
and
24
information
is
readily
available
and
assessable,
and
it
25
is
at
the
tip
of
your
fingers
where
to
go.
44
1
If
you
go
to
our
web
site,
www.
epa.
gov/
osdbu,
2
we
can
link
you,
where
we
used
to
link
you
to
CCR,
also
3
SBA,
we
link
also
to
CCR
to
ProNet
and
all
of
those.

4
There's
another
database
out
there
that
is
5
specifically
for
minority­
owned
businesses
that
is
6
established
and
maintained
by
the
Department
of
7
Commerce,
and
that's
the
Phoenix
database
that's
done
by
8
MBDA,
Minority
Business
Development
Agency.

9
What
they
will
do,
it's
free
for
any
minority
10
business.
All
you
have
to
do
is
go
in,
key
in
your
11
information.
As
long
as
you
are
a
minority­
owned
12
business,
they
will
then
link,
similar
to
what
CCR
and
13
what
ProNet
does,
or
did,
this
one,
though,
under
the
14
Phoenix
database
will
match
and
send
directly
to
the
15
minority
business
an
email
saying,
there
is
a
16
requirement
here
by
this
state
agency
or
so
and
so.
You
17
need
to
get
in
contact
with.

18
So
it
cuts
down
on
what
the
actual
minority
19
business
has
to
do
with
regard
to
spending
time
on
the
20
internet.

21
But
all
you
have
to
do,
if
you
are
a
local
22
jurisdiction
is
go
there
send
them
information
in
terms
23
of
what
it
is
you
are
looking
for,
and
I
am
sure
they
24
will
work
with
you.

25
So
the
information
is
there.
All
too
often
we
45
1
hear
they
don't
exist.
You
can
see
they
are
out
here.

2
In
this
age,
what
we
do
with
EPA
more
and
more
3
­­
and
I
have
been
with
the
agency
about
10
years
­­
in
4
the
beginning
we
couldn't
find
a
lot
that
worked
with
5
minorities
and
with
women
that
do
the
work
that
EPA
6
does.
But
now
that's
not
true.
They
are
out
there.

7
We
have
to
make
sure,
though,
we
are
opening
up
and
8
providing
opportunity
for
them.

9
While
it
may
be
difficult
in
your
local
10
jurisdiction,
I
think
if
you
have
access
to
the
11
internet,
you
will
be
able
to
find
them.

12
Then
you
have
another
question.

13
MS.
PATRICK:
About
the
goals,
yes,
you
will
14
still
be
required
to
negotiate
with
MBE
or
WBE
or
also
15
looking
at
the
DBE
goal.
So
we're
looking
at
the
16
three,
if
I
am
correct.
People
still
have
to
negotiate
17
an
MBE
and
a
separate
WBE
goal.

18
MS.
BROWN:
Because
each
one
is
different.

19
MS.
PATRICK:
They
are
different.
Each
one
is
20
different.

21
MR.
BORRMANN:
Ralph
Borrmann,
Bay
Area
Air
22
Quality
Management
District.
There
are
two
databases
23
that
are
on
line.
One
is
MTC,
and
also
CalTrans,
and
24
that
lists,
you
know,
fairly
complete
information
for
25
DBEs.
46
1
MS.
BROWN:
Here
in
the
state
of
California.

2
MS.
COLBERT:
Regina
Colbert,
Raibon
&
Colbert
3
Associates.

4
On
the
good
effort,
swapping
out
your
5
subcontractors
sort
of
along
the
line
­­
if
you're
6
included
in
the
bid
submittal
packages,
and
somewhere
7
along
the
line
they
decide
to
trade
in
for
several
other
8
subs,
how
is
that
mechanism
captured
in
your
process?

9
MS.
PATRICK:
We
have
a
lot
of
provisions,

10
which
is
the
next
section
we
will
go
into
about
11
different
contract
administration
provisions,
and
some
12
are
designed
to
prevent
major
switch
tactics,
some
of
13
the
things
we
will
address
in
that
section.
14
So
when
we
cover
that,
if
you
still
have
the
15
question,
okay,
but
I
think
it
will
cover
most
of
what
16
you
are
concerned
about.

17
MR.
O'CONNOR:
Kevin
O'Connor
again.
Again
18
getting
back
to
the
Service
Disabled
Veterans
issues,

19
you
discussed
the
Public
Law
108­
183,
I
believe
that
20
gives
the
status;
also
Public
Law
106­
50
signed
into
law
21
by
President
Clinton
and
that
gave,
created
a
three
22
percent
goal
for
Service
Disabled
Veterans
on
federal
23
contracts,
and
I
was
just
wondering
if
you
are
going
to
24
incorporate
that
three
percent
goal
in
your
regulations,

25
and,
if
it
is,
will
the
three
percent
goal
trickle
down
47
1
to
the
subcontractors.

2
MS.
PATRICK:
That
particular
goal
that's
on
3
direct
contracting,
that
would
mean
contractors
that
4
work
directly
with
EPA.
That
doesn't
apply
to
this
5
program.

6
This
program
is
for
procurements
that
occur
7
under
EPA
grants
or
assistance
agreements.
Like
our
8
revolving
loan,
like
second
tier.
That
does
apply
to
9
this
one.

10
MS.
BROWN:
None
of
those
goals
apply
to
this
11
program.
Indirectly
we
don't
have
those.
Our
goals
12
are
based
on
the
availability
of
minorities
and
women
in
13
geographic
locations.
They
are
separate
and
distinct,

14
two
different
programs.

15
MS.
FELETTO:
Nadine
Feletto,
California
Health
16
Services.
Could
you
go
into
a
little
bit
more
detail
17
with
regard
to
the
goals?
Right
now
recipients,
I
18
believe,
we,
at
least,
have
eight
goals;
four
for
WBEs
19
and
four
for
MBEs
and
then
construction
equipment,
20
supplies
categories.

21
Are
you
now
envisioning
twelve
goals?
What
22
does
that
constellation
or
grid
look
like?

23
MS.
PATRICK:
Right
now
the
way
it's
written
24
in
the
proposed
rule
is
that
we
will
solely
look
at
MBE
25
and
WBE.
48
1
The
third
category
is
not
in
here,
but
there's
2
been
a
lot
of
questions
about
if
you
are
changing
to
a
3
DBE
program,
is
there
going
to
be
a
DBE
type
of
goal.

4
That
is
something
we
have
not
really
looked
at
at
this
5
point.

6
So
in
terms
of
what
is
currently
in
this
7
version
of
the
document
is
still
just
the
two
8
categories.

9
If
it
changes,
or
there's
a
reason
to
change
10
beyond
that,
we
are
not
really
sure
at
this
point
11
because
it
doesn't
address
DBE
as
a
separate
category
12
right
now.

13
But
the
logical
conclusion
would
be,
if
we
are
14
changing
to
the
DBE
program,
you
need
to
have
a
DBE
15
goal.

16
So
more
than
likely
it
may
turn
into
12
17
different
categories.

18
MS.
BROWN:
We
need
comments
from
you.
You
19
will
be
affected
by
it.
That's
something
you
would
20
have
to
negotiate.
If
that
is
something
that
you
would
21
not
like
to
see,
we
need
that
on
record.

22
MS.
PATRICK:
The
problem
is
each
one
of
those
23
things
will
capture
something
different
because
one
24
would
see
MBE
and
WBE
is
a
subset
of
the
larger
DBE.

25
In
terms
of
doing
numbers,
they
would
be
49
1
drastically
different.
If
you
looked
at
the
universe
of
2
minority­
owned
businesses
and
the
universe
of
women­

3
owned
business
owners
and
larger
universe
of
DBE,
which
4
includes
everybody,
the
numbers
will
look
even
more
5
different.

6
If
you
took
a
straight
DBE
goal,
if
you
had
7
that
as
your
only
goal,
you
could
say,
okay,
if
you
look
8
at
the
entire
universe
of
anyone
who
could
possibly
be
9
a
DBE,
your
goal,
say,
from
12
percent
to
25
percent
10
because
you
are
looking
at
a
potentially
larger
11
universe,
which
may
not
be
realistic
on
what's
going
on
12
in
the
state.

13
Because
what's
real
may
be
a
smaller
category
14
of
a
WBE
and
MBE.
It
may
be
different.
We
recognize
15
that.
So
there
could
be
some
possible
changes
with
16
that
as
well.

17
MS.
BROWN:
Those
are
the
things
we
would
like
18
you
all
to
take
a
look
at
and
get
back
to
us.
If
we
19
were
to
decide
to
go
to
an
overall
DBE
goal,
that
rule
20
could
have
a
tremendous
impact
on
you
as
that
local
21
jurisdiction
if
you
are
talking
about
the
universe
of
22
all
potential
DBEs
versus
women­
owned
versus
minority­

23
owned.

24
MS.
BASHAM:
Adele
Basham
with
the
state
of
25
Nevada.
50
1
Currently
in
Nevada
we
don't
have
the
resources
2
to
do
the
data
collection
for
availability
analysis
for
3
each
of
the
programs,
so
we
have
pooled
the
clean
water,

4
the
drinking
water
SRF
programs
with
the
Department
of
5
Transportation,
and
we
all
rely
on
the
same
database
for
6
availability
analysis,
and,
ultimately,
that
would
feed
7
into
maybe
goals
in
the
future.

8
The
DOT
database
looks
solely
at
DBEs.
It's
9
not
broken
out
into
MBEs
and
WBEs.
So
if
there
was
a
10
requirement
from
EPA
that
was
additional
to
what
DOT
has
11
to
compile,
that
would
require
our
agencies
to
do
12
additional
work.

13
MS.
BROWN:
Right
now
currently
we
have
a
14
program
called
WBEs
and
MBEs,
so
that
is
what
we
are
15
looking
for
in
these
negotiations,
and
right
now,
and
16
that's
something
as
I
have
said
before,
it
does
skew
it,

17
and
it
changes
drastically
if
you
look
at
the
total
18
universe
of
DBEs.

19
But
right
now
currently
under
the
program
we
20
look
at
both.
So
any
negotiation,
data
or
information
21
that
you
use
should
be
considerate
of
both
of
those
two
22
entities.

23
MS.
PATRICK:
With
your
current
goals
in
the
24
state
of
Nevada,
what
are
they
based
on?
Right
now
we
25
are
dealing
with
only
MBEs
and
WBEs.
Is
that
based
on
51
1
information
that
the
state
of
Nevada
got
from
DOT?

2
MS.
BASHAM:
Well,
they
are
old,
and
they
are
3
based
on
old
information,
and
we
were
hoping,
we
have
4
been
working
on
this
on
this
collection
of
information
5
for
a
while,
and
we
were
hoping
to
be
able
to
pool
the
6
resources
for
all
of
these
different
state
agencies
and
7
have
one
goal
that
we
could
all
use,
and
that's
the
way
8
the
information
was
gathered.

9
So
to
go
out
and
distinguish
different
10
categories
within
the
DBE
would
require
additional
work.

11
I
think
we
have
the
information.
I'm
just
­­
12
MS.
BROWN:
It
very
well
may.
At
some
point,

13
and
if
you
did
it,
at
least
you
would
have
it,
and
that
14
would
be
a
starting
point
and
then
you
just
build
on
15
that.

16
But,
yeah,
it
may
require
you
to
go
out
and
do
17
some
additional
work
to
come
up
with
the
initial
18
scenario
in
terms
of
what
we
are
looking
at.

19
I
am
not
saying
that
you
won't
have
to,
but
20
that's
part
of
doing
business
with
EPA,
and
that's
in
21
our
current
environment.

22
MS.
FELETTO:
Nadine
Feletto.
Do
you
know
23
whether
the
US
census
statistics
would
enable,
could
be
24
relied
upon
similarly
to
what
we
have
done
with
the
25
existing
program
to
capture
a
DBE
profile
of
52
1
availability?

2
MS.
BROWN:
It
could
very
well
be
used.
One
3
of
the
things
that
we
did
was
run
a
new
census,
not
new
4
now,
but
when
it
came
out,
we
sent
out
a
letter
out
5
saying
there's
new
census
data
out
there.
You
need
to
6
take
a
look
at
that
and
make
a
determination
as
to
7
whether
or
not
it
impacts
what
your
numbers
are
based
on
8
our
negotiations.

9
Some
of
the
local
jurisdictions,
in
particular,

10
I
think
we
had
one
or
two
local
municipalities,
from
11
Region
9,
at
least
one
came
in,
and
our
goal
was
lowered
12
as
a
result
of
the
census
data
because
they
looked
at
it
13
and
the
new
census
data
supported
something
different.

14
If
you
recall,
we
did
tell
you
that
is
one
15
place
where
you
could
go,
a
while
back
when
we
first
16
started
doing
availability
analysis,
you
could
use
the
17
census
data.
18
So
that
information
is
readily
available.
It's
19
on
the
internet.
That's
another
resource
tool,
another
20
piece
of
information
you
can
use,
even
probably
in
the
21
state
of
Nevada,
to
take
a
look
at
what
your
numbers
22
would
be
closely
reflective
of
when
you
take
a
look
at
23
that.

24
We
already
know
in
this
region
that
it
was
done
25
and
they
decreased
their
goal
as
a
result
of
the
census
53
1
data.

2
MR.
INGRAM:
James
Ingram,
James
E.
Ingram
&

3
Company,
Inc.

4
You
have
created
some
confusion
for
me.
As
I
5
understand
it,
the
Adarand
opinion
decision
basically
6
said
the
program
was
to
be
race
neutral.
So
I
would
7
like
to
know
why
and
what
grounds
legally
do
you
stand
8
on
to
have
a
minority
and
women­
owned
program
and
a
DBE
9
program?

10
What
are
the
benefits
of
having
those
three
11
separate
programs?

12
Also,
in
California,
we
have
209,
which
did
13
away
with
it,
but
I
guess
federal
law
would
supersede
14
California
law,
but
still
you
are
creating
confusion,

15
and
why
not,
would
it
be
more
beneficial
to
the
small
16
businesses
for
you
to
have
just
a
DBE
program
so
that
17
you
don't
get
into
the
question
and
potential
suits
18
because
you
have
minority
and
women­
owned
programs.

19
I
have
several
questions
about
this
that
need
20
to
be
cleared
up.

21
MS.
PATRICK:
First,
on
the
legal
basis,
which
22
is
why
I
am
here,
the
Adarand
decision
did
not
create
a
23
situation
where
these
programs
have
to
be
race
neutral.
24
What
it
did
require
is
that
the
program,
for
25
example,
it's
based
on
disadvantaged
status.
54
1
We
are
allowed
to
look
and
say,
if
you
are
a
2
minority
in
certain
categories,
and
the
list
is
3
exhaustive,
a
decision
can
be
made
or
an
assumption
can
4
be
made
based
on
that
minority
status,
you
are
a
5
disadvantaged
individual.

6
However,
what
the
Adarand
decision
said,
you
7
can't
just
look
at
that
by
itself.
That's
a
factor
you
8
can
consider.

9
If
someone
can
submit
information
showing
that
10
they
have
suffered
economic
disadvantage,
economic
11
disadvantaged,
then
we
can
look
at
that
and
look
at
the
12
circumstances,
regardless
of
their
race,
okay,
you
are
13
still
a
DBE,
you
have
shown
that
you
suffered
some
14
economic
disadvantaged
status
in
this
country.

15
Now,
we
are
allowed
to
say,
if
someone
sends
an
16
application
to
us
and
they
say
that
they
are
a
minority,

17
let's
say
they
are
Latino,
we
can
look
at
that,
okay,

18
you
are
on
this
long
list
of
people
or
categories
that
19
are
considered
socioeconomically
disadvantaged.

20
Also,
someone
can
submit
an
application,
I
am
21
not
Latino,
here
is
all
of
my
information.
Adarand
22
says
we
have
to
consider
that
and
include
that
in
the
23
DBE.
It
does
not
say
completely
race
neutral.
So
we
24
cannot
rely
on
race
solely
as
a
deciding
factor.

25
MS.
BROWN:
We
have
seen,
and
this
was
back
in
55
1
D.
C.
in
late
April,
people
in
Appalachia,
who
are
2
Caucasian
are
justified
because
of
where
they
are
and
3
the
disparity
they
have
suffered,
they
fall
into
this
4
category
and
were
allowed
into
the
program.

5
We
need
to
be
broadened
and
we
need
to
consider
6
all
of
that.
It's
not
just
solely
based
on
race.
It's
7
not
solely
based
on
race.

8
MR.
O'CONNOR:
Kevin
O'Connor
again.
So
to
be
9
a
DBE,
if
you
are
minority
or
a
woman,
you
are
10
considered
disadvantaged?

11
MS.
PATRICK:
As
a
threshold,
yes.

12
MR.
O'CONNOR:
Cart
blanche?
What
about
the
13
Service
Disabled
Veteran?
I
mean,
they
are
­­

14
MS.
PATRICK:
That
is
also
a
category
for
our
15
regulations,
it's
included
in
that
as
well.
Not
just
16
minorities
and
women,
but
for
EPA
regulations,
we
also
17
include
disabled
veterans.

18
MR.
O'CONNOR:
As
DBEs?

19
MS.
PATRICK:
Yes.

20
MR.
O'CONNOR:
Well,
we
were
just
told
we
21
weren't.

22
MS.
BROWN:
Disabled
veterans
is
what
we
23
currently
include
in
our
­­

24
MS.
PATRICK:
Service
disabled
veterans.

25
MS.
BROWN:
Disabled
veterans.
56
1
MR.
O'CONNOR:
Well,
service
connected
2
disability
is
what
the
nuance
there
is,
whether
you
were
3
hurt
in
the
line
of
action
or
hurt
off
base
in
a
bar,

4
you
can
be
disabled
there
too,
but
service
disabled
5
veteran
is
the
one
that
they
are
talking
about
who
earns
6
the
right
to,
you
know,
to
fight
for
this
country,
and
7
what­
not.

8
MS.
BROWN:
Agreed.
9
MR.
O'CONNOR:
So
is
the
Service
Disabled
10
Veteran
presumed
to
be
a
disadvantaged
business?

11
MS.
BROWN:
Now
it
is.

12
MR.
O'CONNOR:
It
is,
okay,
because
at
13
CalTrans
we
are
still
fighting
this.

14
MS.
BROWN:
Now,
she
is
checking
with
my
15
summary.
We
say
disabled
American
owned
businesses,

16
which
is
different
from
Service
Disabled
Veterans.

17
We
need
to
take
a
look
at
those
distinctions;

18
but
given
the
new
changes
that
happened
two
weeks
before
19
Christmas,
and
we
were
still
on
the
road,
I
need
to
20
factor
that
in
as
well.

21
My
intuition
says
right
now,
as
I
am
speaking
22
now,
it
is
included.
Prior
to
that,
to
me
it
was
not,

23
possibly.

24
You
have
to
look
at
the
distinction
as
made
25
between
disabled
American
owned
and
service
disabled,
57
1
and
that's
what
we
have
to
go
back
and
take
a
look
at.

2
Service
disabled
veterans,
they
just
got
this
3
about
three
weeks,
a
month
ago,
right
before
Christmas.

4
So
I
need
to
factor
that
in
and
take
a
look
at
it.

5
MR.
O'CONNOR:
I
realize
the
regs
are
real
6
fresh.

7
MS.
BROWN:
Real
fresh.
It's
on
my
radar
8
screen.
It's
something
we
need
to
take
a
look
at.

9
As
we
have
gone
through
it
initially,
under
our
10
10
percent
statute,
if
I
am
not
mistaken,
it
included
11
disabled
American
owned
businesses.
There's
a
12
distinction.

13
Okay.
So
we
need
to
go
back
and
take
a
look
at
14
that
and
digest
what
all
of
this
means.
15
MR.
O'CONNOR:
We
appreciate
your
16
consideration.
They
are
taking
hits
every
day
for
us.

17
They
are
doing
it
for
us.

18
When
they
come
back,
we
should
welcome
them
19
regardless
of
sex
or
race
and
give
them
every
break
in
20
the
book
that
we
can.

21
MS.
BROWN:
I
agree,
sir.

22
MR.
CARATINI:
Jose
Caratini,
EPA
drinking
23
water.

24
I
was
going
to
comment
on
the
goal
25
negotiations.
You
kept
mentioning
that
you
could
go
to
58
1
the
census
and
other
sources.

2
How
do
states
and
grantees
figure
who
is
a
3
citizen
and
who
is
not
a
citizen;
and,
also,
how
do
we
4
find
out
whether
the
veterans
are
US
citizens
or
not,

5
too?
They
don't
have
to
be
a
citizen
to
be
in
the
armed
6
forces.

7
MS.
PATRICK:
Sorry.
Could
you
please
repeat
8
your
question?
I
didn't
get
it.

9
MR.
CARATINI:
How
do
they
determine
10
citizenship
out
of
the
US
census
and
also
out
of
the
11
veterans
program?

12
MS.
PATRICK:
That
is
a
good
question.
I
13
know
that
in
terms
of
the
veterans
program,
I
am
really
14
not
sure
how
that
is
going
to
work.

15
In
terms
of
how
SBA
will
handle
it,
because
of
16
SBA's
other
programs
do
require
US
citizenship.
So
if
17
we
accept
a
state's
certification
of
a
veteran­
owned
18
business,
then
we
will
rely
on
that
and
SBA's
legwork
in
19
terms
of
what
it
does
to
determine
citizenship.

20
Now
looking
at
census
data
in
terms
of
fair
21
share
goals,
that
is
something
at
the
recipient
level,

22
they
would
have
to
look
at
and
extract
from
that
data.

23
I
know
the
census
does
capture
citizenship
24
information.
So
that's
something
they
also
have
to
25
take
into
consideration
when
they
are
doing
availability
59
1
analysis,
and
how
they
do
that
will
pretty
much
be
up
to
2
the
process
they
take
in
doing
their
analysis,
so
I
am
3
not
sure.

4
MS.
GARCIA:
Cheryl
Garcia,
owner
B
&
C
5
Janitorial.
We
are
an
8(
a),
(
HUB)
Zone,
veteran­
owned
6
firm,
so
we
have
several
concerns
being
raised
here.

7
I
apologize
for
my
tardiness.
You
may
have
8
addressed
these
issues.

9
First
of
all,
I'll
ask
the
question
about
when
10
a
DBE
subcontractor
­­
what
about
when
a
DBE
prime
11
contractor,
when
a
DBE
subcontractor
fails
to
perform
12
adequately,
it
says
here,
that
the
prime
should
make
13
good
faith
efforts
to
find
another
subcontractor.
It
14
does
not
say
another
DBE
subcontractor.

15
So
I
would
strongly
encourage
that
that
be
16
included,
and
they
replace
that
one
with
a
DBE,
and
that
17
if
they
replace
that
one
DBE
with
a
non­
DBE,
they
are
18
not
meeting
their
goals.

19
Second
question
is
can
you
tell
us
what
EPA's
20
current
goals
are
for
8(
a)
firms,
and
are
they
meeting
21
that
goal?

22
MS.
BROWN:
Now,
that's
on
a
different
23
program,
but
I
can
tell
you
what
that
is.

24
I
believe
it
is
6.5
percent,
and
let
me
think,

25
in
FY
2003,
we
have
a
20
­­
help
me
out,
Joe
­­
23.5
60
1
percent
for
small
business,
and
then
the
subset
of
that,

2
five
percent
was
for
women­
owned.
I
think
it
was
6.9
3
percent
for
8(
a).

4
We
have
a
three
percent
goal
for
SDB,
which
is
5
inclusive
of
8(
a)
and,
which
is
inclusive
of
8(
a),
and
6
then
we
had
a
three
percent
goal
for
women­
owned,
three
7
percent
goal
for
(
HUB)
Zone,
and
three
percent
goal
for
8
service
disabled.

9
For
our
numbers
in
2004,
we
met
the
23
point
­­

10
we
met
our
small
business
goal.
We
met
our
8(
a)
goal.

11
We
did
not
meet
our
women­
owned,
nor
have
we
ever
met
12
our
women­
owned
business
goal.
We
have
not
met
our
13
(
HUB)
Zone
goal.
We
have
not
met
our
service
disabled
14
veteran
goal.

15
With
that
I
have
to
say
the
(
HUB)
Zone
program
16
is
somewhat
relatively
new,
although
it's
been
around
a
17
couple
years,
and
so
is
the
service
disabled
veterans
18
program.
One
of
the
impetus
for
the
Service
Disabled
19
Veteran
program
was
that
and
that's
why
we
have
that.

20
What
you
have
to
recognize
and
understand
is
21
with
the
8(
a)
program,
we
can
get
to
you
and
enter
into
22
contracts,
and
this
is
separate
and
distinct
from
the
23
rule.
But
since
you
asked,
I
will
give
you
that.

24
We
can
enter
into
contracts
directly
up
to
3
25
million
without
competing.
61
1
Up
until
this
time,
we
had
something
similar
2
with
the
(
HUB)
Zone;
if
you
are
the
only
one,
we
could
3
enter
into
that
with
you
or
contract
with
you.
If
we
4
went
out
and
we
couldn't
find
anybody
else,
we
had
a
5
justification.

6
Now
we
have
the
same
access
with
service
7
disabled
veterans.
We
don't
have
that
currently
with
8
women.

9
There
was
legislation
pending
before
the
prior
10
administration,
under
the
Clinton
administration,
there
11
was
a
review
being
done,
and
they
were
looking
at
12
establishing
a
goal
for
women.

13
But
that's
been
sent
back
to
the
drawing
board
14
by
this
administration
because
the
numbers
don't
add
up.

15
We
don't
have
a
mechanism
to
go
to
you
directly
16
with
a
program
set
aside
for
women­
owned
businesses.

17
MS.
GARCIA:
Thank
you.
Can
I
go
on
with
the
18
question?
There's
something
mentioned
about
the
19
number,
that
there
will
be
some
language
in
the
ruling
20
about
a
recipient
requiring
its
prime
contractors
to
pay
21
its
subs
in
a
specific
number
of
days.

22
In
light
of
the
difficulty
of
SBEs
receiving
23
prompt
payment
for
primes,
will
that
number
of
days
be
24
specified?

25
MS.
BROWN:
That's
the
next
­­
62
1
MS.
PATRICK:
Why
don't
we
get
into
the
2
contact
administration
provision
and
we
can
then
tell
3
you
all
about
that.
Short
answer,
yes,
there
will
be
a
4
specified
number
of
days
included
in
the
regulation.

5
Contract
administration
provisions,
page
four,

6
A
recipient
must
be
notified
in
writing
by
its
prime
7
prior
to
any
termination
of
a
DBE
subcontractor.

8
That
particular
provision
is
in
place
because
9
we
have
heard
lots
of
comments
and
complaints
about
the
10
agreed­
upon
sub
that
has
been
a
DBE
is
somehow
dropped
11
and
the
recipient
knows
nothing
about
it,
and
this
12
provision
will
help
sort
of
protect
against
that.
13
Prior
to
the
termination,
the
prime
contractor
14
has
to
notify
the
recipient
that
it
is
doing
that,
is
15
taking
that
kind
of
action.
If
you
put
them
on
notice
16
it's
happening.

17
Next,
when
a
DBE
subcontractor
fails
to
18
complete
its
work
under
the
subcontract
for
any
reason,

19
the
recipient
must
require
the
prime
contractor
to
make
20
good
faith
efforts
in
hiring
another
subcontractor.

21
That
is
in
place
to
make
sure,
even
if
a
prime
22
contractor
decides
to
no
longer
work
with
that
sub
and
23
wants
to
switch
to
another
sub,
go
through
the
same
good
24
faith
effort
to
find
the
another
subcontractor,
that
the
25
good
faith
efforts
don't
die
after
the
first
attempt.
63
1
MS.
BROWN:
Going
back
to
the
question
you
2
raised,
we
can't
say
you
have
to
hire
a
DBE
or
MBE.
We
3
have
to
let
the
process
work
for
itself,
and,
as
DBEs,

4
you
have
to
be
competitive.

5
If
they
go
out
and
see
they
went
through
the
6
good
faith
efforts,
so
be
it,
the
process
worked.

7
We
have
to
be
very
careful;
and
I
heard
you
­­

8
if
I
heard
correctly
­­
you
were
saying
replace
it
with
9
another
one,
quite
possibly,
did
I
understand
that?

10
We
are
saying
that
you
still
have
to
go
through
11
the
good
faith
efforts
in
order
to
replace
the
DBE
that
12
was
taken
off.

13
We
are
not
saying
you
have
to
replace
it
with
14
the
DBE,
but
you
went
through
that
process
and
it
lended
15
itself
to
that
and
whoever
won
won.

16
One
of
the
other
things
we
recognize
and
17
understand
is,
depending
upon
what
work
is
being
done,

18
we
have
heard
this
in
different
places
around
the
19
country,
it
may
be
difficult
possibly
because
if
you
are
20
doing
a
construction
job
and
something
happened
and
you
21
need
to
get
somebody
in
there.
All
of
this
needs
to
22
make
good
business
sense
is
what
I
am
really
boiling
23
down
to.

24
I
am
not
saying
they
have
to
hold
up
a
project
25
and
lose
money
because
we
have
to
find
a
DBE.
That
64
1
doesn't
make
good
business
sense.

2
The
key
for
all
of
you
grantees
in
this
3
audience
today
is
documentation
of
your
files.

4
What
did
you
do?
We
need
to
know
that.
We
5
need
to
see
that,
and
it
needs
to
be
clear
and
on
the
6
books,
and
it
needs
to
be
part
of
your
grant
folder
in
7
terms
of
what
it
is
you
did
in
this
process.

8
And
some
of
the
reviews
that
were
done
early
9
on,
the
documentation
is
just
not
there.
That's
across
10
the
board,
not
just
for
the
grantees,
but
for
others
as
11
well.
We
have
to
do
a
better
job
to
get
all
of
this
12
done.

13
The
key
to
all
of
this
is
documenting
the
file.

14
MS.
COLBERT:
Regina
Colbert,
Raibon
&

15
Colbert
Associates
again.

16
I
am
very
passionate
about
that
comment
about
17
the
documentation,
but,
as
a
subcontractor
entity,
they
18
really
won't
have
a
mechanism
for
complaining,
and
so
19
there's
not
a
means
to
have
that
story
put
forth.

20
A
great
deal
of
these
contractors
are
savvy,

21
and
I
have
been
through
this
process
with
other
entities
22
repeatedly,
and
I
know
our
experience
has
been
very
23
forthcoming
as
far
as
the
initial
paperwork
submittal,

24
but
when
you
are
dealing
with
a
replacement
process,
25
it's
a
hasty
schedule,
and
it's
very
convenient
to
65
1
replace
with
someone
other
than
a
DBE.

2
MS.
BROWN:
I
understand,
and
we
take
that
3
under
advisement.

4
MR.
INGRAM:
James
Ingram,
James
E.
Ingram
&

5
Company,
Inc.

6
I
would
like
to
go
back
to
number
one
and
make
7
a
recommendation
and
suggestion.

8
This
is
a
unilateral
process
that
you
have
9
given
here,
number
one,
that
the
prime
must
notify
the
10
sub
in
writing.
Their
needs
to
be,
some
specified
date
11
needs
to
be
put
in
there.
Give
30
or
60
days
notice.

12
There
needs
to
be
some
process
where
the
sub
that's
13
being
terminated
can
rebut
the
charges.

14
MS.
PATRICK:
That's
a
process
that
EPA
cannot
15
get
into.
You
are
talking
about
the
individual
16
procurement
process
of
the
recipient.
That
is
not
17
something
that
we
can
delve
too
deeply
into,
so
at
the
18
recipient,
at
the
state
level,
the
state
of
California
19
has
its
own
procurement
practices
set
up,
complaint
20
practice
set
up,
and
a
process
to
challenge
any
of
the
21
procurements
made.
That
is
something
EPA
cannot
assert
22
itself
into.

23
MR.
INGRAM:
But
if
you
have
given
a
24
unilateral
process,
if
you
can
give
the
prime
the
right
25
to
terminate
­­
66
1
MS.
PATRICK:
We
have
not
given
the
prime
the
2
right
to
terminate.

3
MR.
INGRAM:
Well,
you
have
said
recipient
­­
4
well,
here,
number
one,
a
recipient
must
be
notified
in
5
writing
by
its
prime
contractor
prior
to
termination
of
6
a
DBE.

7
MS.
PATRICK:
Well,
if
you
notice,
we
are
8
making
it
the
recipient
is
required.
We
are
telling
the
9
recipient
you
are
required
to
tell
your
prime
to
report
10
back
to
you,
not
that
the
prime
has
to
report
to
EPA.

11
It's
a
privity
type
of
thing
with
the
entire
12
process,
and
how
it
works,
because
EPA
is
not
dealing
13
with
the
prime
directly.
We
have
no
direct
business
14
with
you.
It's
that
recipient
that
does.

15
We
want
to
make
sure
the
recipient
is
aware,

16
and
when
the
recipient
is
documenting
its
files,
if
EPA
17
comes
out
and
does
a
review,
then
that's
when
we
become
18
aware
and
ask
different
questions
and
find
out
what's
19
happening.

20
MS.
BROWN:
Even
in
direct
procurement,
EPA
21
does
not
have
privy
to
subcontractors.
That's
between
22
the
prime
and
the
sub.
I
do
not
have
privy
to
go
down
23
to
subcontractor
level
­­
when
you
enter
into
a
contract
24
with
EPA
direct
­­
I
can
only
go
to
the
prime.
The
sub
25
issues
have
to
be
dealt
with
between
the
prime
and
the
67
1
sub,
and
that's
the
same
thing
here.

2
MS.
PATRICK:
Okay.
The
next
one
is
that
a
3
recipient
must
require
its
prime
contractor
to
make
good
4
faith
efforts
even
if
the
fair
share
objectives
are
met.

5
One
of
the
things
that
we
have
become
sort
of
6
aware,
that
sometimes
when
someone
has
reached
their
7
goal,
they
no
longer
feel
the
need
to
continue
to
strive
8
to
do
more.

9
What
we
are
saying
is,
even
after
a
recipient
10
has
reached
its
goal,
say
their
goal
is
10
percent,
it
11
does
not
stop
there.
As
long
as
you
continue
to
spend
12
EPA
money,
as
long
as
you
continue
to
procure
in
the
13
four
categories
using
our
grant
dollars,
you
have
to
14
continue
to
use
the
good
faith
efforts,
even
though
you
15
met
your
goal,
that
you
continue
in
that
vein.

16
The
next
is
a
recipient
must
require
its
prime
17
contractor
to
pay
its
subcontractor
for
satisfactory
18
performance
within
a
specific
number
of
days
from
the
19
prime
contractor's
receipt
of
payment
from
the
20
recipient.

21
One
again,
this
is
something
that
we
are
22
requiring
the
recipients
to
require.
Okay.
I
want
to
23
make
that
very,
very
clear.

24
The
comment
the
young
lady
made
putting
a
25
specific
number
of
days,
you
cannot
believe
the
volume
68
1
of
comments
we
have
received
that
are
echoing
the
same
2
thing.

3
We
have
heard
comments
from
as
little
as
three
4
days
to
as
many
as
45.

5
Most
of
the
comments
we
have
received
thus
far
6
suggested
7
to
10
days
to
make
sure
that
the
7
subcontractor
is
paid,
and
we
have
received
comments
8
saying
that
that's
a
reasonable
amount
of
time.

9
We
would
like
to
receive
more
comment
what
you
10
believe
to
be
a
good
number
of
days
to
put
in
that
part
11
of
the
rule.

12
MS.
BROWN:
In
this
area,
I
would
like
to
hear
13
comments
from
the
minority
and
women­
owned
business
14
community.
If
you
are
a
grant
recipient,
let
us
know
15
what
this
will
do
to
your
process,
if
we
require
16
something
looking
at
7
to
10,
even
15
days
for
payment.

17
That's
what
we
are
hearing
around
the
country,
and
so
we
18
will
stick
a
number
in.

19
MR.
DAYRIT:
Ignacio
Dayrit,
City
of
20
Emeryville.

21
The
way
we
have
our
contracts,
we
pay
30
to
45
22
days
after
we
receive
a
bill.
So
that
if
a
sub
submits
23
their
bill
so
many
days
before
that,
they
are
talking
24
about
40
to
60
days
before
they
get
paid.

25
MS.
PATRICK:
The
time
in
here
is
putting
a
69
1
date
in
there
by
which
the
sub
has
to
be
paid
once
the
2
prime
has
been
paid.

3
So
if
it
takes
you
guys
30
to
60
days
to
pay
4
your
prime,
what
we
are
saying
is
that's
when
this
5
provision
kicks
in.

6
Once
that
prime
has
the
dollars,
the
prime
has
7
X
number
of
days
to
pay
his
sub.

8
So
even
if
it
takes
you
90
days
to
pay
your
9
prime,
that's
between
you
and
your
prime.

10
Once
he
is
paid,
this
kicks
in,
and
you
have
to
11
pay
the
sub
in
a
certain
number
of
days.

12
MS.
CHRISTIAN:
My
name
is
Camille
Christian,

13
Christian
General
Services.

14
Having
and
doing
business
here
in
the
Bay
Area
15
and
knowing
the
amount
of
time,
like
he
mentioned,

16
sometimes
40
days,
45
days
they
get
paid
as
a
17
subcontractor,
you
have
waited
45,
90
days
for
them
to
18
get
their
money.
Then
they
want
you
to
wait
another
45
19
to
90
days
to
get
your
money,
and
you
are
going
broke.

20
Seven,
max
14
days
is
the
most
a
small
21
contractor
can
handle
because
it
just
breaks
you
in
22
half.
You
don't
have
any
room
to
do
anything
else.

23
MR.
BOONSTRA:
Eric
Boonstra,
Big
E
24
Construction.

25
I
just
have
a
comment
on
that,
kind
of
a
70
1
suggestion.
What
I
try
to
do
from
the
subcontract
level
2
on
federal
contracts,
they
have
the
front­
payment
3
clause,
put
in,
they
have
14
days.
Final
payment,
they
4
have
30
days.

5
What
I
have
been
trying
to
do
is
trying
to
just
6
make
sure
if
the
prime
contractor's
contract
has
that
7
clause
in
it,
I
have
tried
to
input
that
into
the
sub
8
contracts
that
are
given
and
written
to
me,
so
it
covers
9
me
as
well
as
they
are
being
covered
by
the
government.

10
MS.
PATRICK:
Thank
you.

11
MS.
HILL:
Tracy
Hill,
Out­
Source
Consulting
12
Services.

13
My
question
really
is
around
the
sub,
but
it
14
goes
to
the
recipients,
because
what
I
don't
understand
15
in
this
particular
issue
is
where
the
recipient
is
16
requiring
the
prime
to
pay
their
subcontractor
X
number
17
days
after
having
received
his
money.

18
How
does
that
affect
the
recipient
process?

19
Because,
to
me,
their
process,
they
are
going
to
pay
20
their
prime
within
their
terms.

21
I
am
not
clear
how
the
recipient
process
is
22
affected.
The
recipient's
process
is
not
really
23
affected
by
this
particular
provision
really
at
all,

24
other
than
they
have
to
tell
their
prime,
make
sure
you
25
pay
them
in
X
number
of
days.
71
1
MS.
BROWN:
You
are
right
on
the
money
there.
2
MS.
PATRICK:
Ready?
Okay.
The
next
thing
is
3
that
the
recipient
must
require
the
completion
of
a
few
4
new
forms
to
prevent
"
bait
and
switch"
tactics
at
the
5
subcontract
level
by
prime
contractors
which
could
6
circumvent
the
spirit
of
the
DBE
program.

7
Those
are
the
forms
we
were
talking
about
­­

8
sorry,
OMB
process.
Once
those
forms
are
out,
I
am
sure
9
they
will
have
to
go
out
for
comment
as
well,
which
is
10
the
process.

11
The
forms,
the
intent
of
them
is
to
make
sure
12
that
there's
a
record
kept
of
what
is
happening
at
the
13
subcontract
level.

14
Before
this,
there
was
no
mechanism
for
either
15
the
recipient
to
know,
really,
or
for
us
to
know
what's
16
happening
so
we
that
could
ask
some
questions
and
find
17
out
what's
going
on
out
there
at
the
subcontract
level.

18
These
forms
will
give
the
recipient
a
clear
19
snapshot
of
what's
happening.

20
To
the
extent
the
forms
are
required
to
be
21
included
in
the
grant
file,
EPA
will
have
access
to
22
knowing
what
is
going
on
as
well,
and
that's
what
the
23
forms
are
intended
to
do.

24
At
this
point
we
will
take
a
quick
break,
a
25
ten­
minute
break.
We
have
been
sitting
here
a
long
72
1
time,
and
when
we
convene,
we
will
go
on
with
the
rest
2
of
the
rule.

3
MS.
BROWN:
Thank
you.

4
(
Whereupon,
a
short
break
taken
at
11:
00
a.
m.)

5
MS.
BROWN:
Okay.
Any
other
questions
or
6
comments?

7
MS.
PATRICK:
Okay.
The
next
one
is
Submission
8
of
Fair
Share
Goals.
This
particular
section
is
of
9
particular
relevance
to
our
recipients
in
the
audience.

10
The
rule
would
require
a
recipient
to
submit
11
its
proposed
fair
share
objectives
and
supporting
12
documentation
to
the
Agency
no
later
than
90
days
after
13
the
acceptance
of
the
assistance
award.

14
A
recipient
would
not
be
able
to
spend
any
of
15
its
financial
assistance
award
for
procurement
until
the
16
fair
share
objective
negotiation
process
has
been
17
completed.

18
This
is
very,
very
important
to
the
recipient.

19
This
provision
is
new.

20
What
this
means
is
within
90
days
after
the
21
recipient
says,
yes,
EPA,
we
want
your
money,
you
have
22
to
negotiate
your
goal
with
us.

23
If
that
goal
is
not
negotiated,
you
will
not
be
24
able
to
spend
any
of
those
dollars
for
procurement
in
25
construction
services,
equipment,
or
supplies,
which
73
1
basically
means
you
cannot
buy
anything.

2
You
can
use
it
if
you
want
to
spend
it
on
3
salaries.
That's
perfectly
fine.
But
the
minute
you
go
4
out
and
procure
something
outside
of
where
you're
­­
you
5
go
outside
of
what
your
agency
has,
then
you
would
not
6
be
able
to
spend
unless
your
goals
have
been
negotiated.

7
Okay.
I
want
to
make
that
crystal
clear.

8
MS.
BROWN:
We
have
used
this
in
some
regions
9
and
it's
worked
if
they
didn't
stay
out
too
long
before
10
they
came
to
the
table
to
negotiate.

11
MS.
PATRICK:
We
also
have
found
out
that
the
12
cost
of
preparing
an
availability
analysis
or
disparity
13
study
may
be
grant
eligible
depending
on
the
specific
14
fact
situation.

15
Now,
you
would
not
be
able
to
apply
that
cost
16
to
one
grant.
You
can't
use
an
entire
grant
just
to
do
17
that,
but
you
may
be
able
to
spread
them
across
the
18
different
grants
that
a
state
may
receive.

19
Because,
actually,
the
analysis
will
go
to
20
benefit
possibly
many
different
parts
of
that
particular
21
state,
agencies
within
that
state,
if
you
are
buying
22
some
of
the
same
types
of
things,
okay,
if
you
use
the
23
same
relevant
geographic
area
for
your
purchasing.

24
It's
something
that
can
be
looked
at,
but
on
a
25
case­
by­
case
basis.
That's
the
decision
the
grant
74
1
office
will
have
to
make
if
the
cost
is
allowable
under
2
the
grant
or
if
you
can
spread
it
across
that
way.

3
MS.
BROWN:
I
can
assure
you
that
EPA
will
not
4
be
paying
for
disparity
studies.
It
costs
too
much,
and
5
it's
probably
more
than
what
your
grant
is
worth
in
a
6
lot
of
instances.

7
But
there
is
the
possibility
for
the
8
availability
analysis
or
a
portion
of
the
disparity
9
study,
but
not
the
whole
disparity
study.

10
We
are
hearing
disparity
studies
could
cost
11
millions
or
hundreds
of
thousands
of
dollars.

12
MR.
DE
PALMA:
300,000
to
a
million
dollars.

13
MS.
BROWN:
And
this
is
Jeanette
speaking,
and
14
I
think
I
can
speak
for
the
Agency,
we
won't
be
paying
15
for
the
disparity
studies.

16
The
availability
analysis,
we
can
take
a
look
17
at,
and,
again,
before
you
go
out
and
do
anything,
you
18
need
to
make
sure
that
you
clear
this
with
your
project
19
officer
and
get
their
okay,
because
when
this
is
done,
20
the
money
is
coming
from
the
grant,
and
there's
a
21
trade­
off
there;
or,
if
you
spread
it
across,
and
I
22
can't
tell
you
that
you
are
going
to
be
getting
more
23
money
to
get
your
grant
done,
the
work
under
your
grant.

24
But
this
may
be
an
administrative
cost
that
can
25
be
assessed
across
all
of
your
grants.
But
you
need
to
75
1
talk
to
your
project
officer,
your
project
manager
in
2
advance.
Don't
go
do
it
and
then
say,
Jeanette
said
3
you
are
going
to
pay
for
it.
That
won't
work.

4
MS.
PATRICK:
Okay.

5
MS.
BROWN:
He
has
a
question.

6
MR.
DAYRIT:
Ignacio
Dayrit.
Could
you
just
7
point
out
where
in
this
this
is
located?

8
MS.
PATRICK:
Where
this
is
located,
you
mean
9
the
part
about
the
cost,
whatever?

10
MR.
DAYRIT:
The
90
days.

11
MS.
PATRICK:
That's
going
to
be,
fair
share
12
goals
are
discussed
on
page
43849,
Subpart
D
­
Fair
13
Share
Objectives.

14
Moving
on.
Fair
share
goals,
once
they're
15
approved
would
remain
in
effect
for
three
fiscal
years.

16
If
significant
changes
occur
during
that
time
period
17
rendering
the
data
obsolete,
the
recipient
and
EPA
will
18
renegotiate
the
goals.

19
Some
of
the
things
that
can
render
the
previous
20
negotiated
goals
obsolete,
another
census
is
done
or
21
drastic
changes
in
demographics,
that
things
are
really
22
different,
a
state
can
come
to
EPA
and
say,
we
have
a
23
basis
to
renegotiate
the
goals,
and
that
is
the
24
background
for
renegotiating.
That's
always
possible.

25
But,
as
a
general
thing,
the
goals
are
in
place
76
1
for
three
fiscal
years.

2
MR.
CARATINI:
Jose
Caratini.

3
So
are
the
states
only
responsible
for
the
4
denominator?
Is
EPA
going
to
give
us
the
denominator
5
so
we
know
where
to
certify?

6
MS.
PATRICK:
In
terms
to
certify
in
terms
of
7
giving
their
availability
analysis?

8
MR.
CARATINI:
No,
to
negotiate
the
goal.

9
MS.
PATRICK:
Are
you
talking
about
in
the
10
federal
rule?

11
MR.
CARATINI:
I'm
talking
about
the
fair
12
share
goal.
In
the
negotiated
fair
share
goal,
there
13
are
two
numbers
to
come
up
with
a
goal.
EPA
knows
who
14
are
the
certified
entities
in
the
state.

15
MS.
PATRICK:
No.
That
is
up
to
the
16
recipient.
In
the
process
of
doing
the
availability
17
analysis,
that
type
of
information
is
going
to
come
18
through
and
when
they
sit
down
and
do
the
goal.

19
What
happens
is
a
recipient
has
an
availability
20
analysis
done.
They
take
that
information.
They
go
21
through
what
the
formula
is
within
here,
what
the
form
22
is
that
is
actually
in
the
rule
basing
the
goal.
Based
23
on
our
availability
analysis,
and
based
on
this
formula,

24
EPA,
this
is
what
we
think
our
goals
should
be.

25
They
present
that
to
EPA.
The
negotiation
77
1
process
begins.
EPA
looks
at
it.
We
look
at
the
2
availability
analysis
and
we
make
sure
the
availability
3
analysis
substantiates
what
you
say
your
goals
are,

4
should
be,
or,
hey,
we
have
questions
about
what
you
5
submitted,
or
your
basis.

6
And
that's
how
the
negotiation
takes
place,

7
back
and
forth,
to
determine
the
goal
that
is
acceptable
8
to
both
parties.

9
MR.
CARATINI:
I'm
just
trying
to
find
out,

10
what
is
the
accurate
goal?
If
the
state
doesn't
know
11
who
are
the
certified
­­

12
MS.
PATRICK:
You're
asking
­­

13
MS.
BROWN:
We
are
asking
the
recipient,
go
14
and
find
out
who
is
out
there
and
then
come
back
and
15
show
us
how
you
came
up
with
what
you
have
come
up
with.

16
MR.
CARATINI:
My
question
is,
how
are
the
17
states
going
to
know
who
are
the
certified
entities
by
18
the
EPA?

19
MS.
PATRICK:
To
know
who
is
certified
by
EPA,

20
there
will
be
the
database.
That
information
will
be
21
available
broadly
to
the
public
on
our
web
site
and
it's
22
information
they
can
pull
down.

23
We
know
when
the
program
first
starts
there
24
will
be
a
bit
of
a
lag
because
we
just
started
to
25
certify
entities.
78
1
So
to
the
extent
they
are
relying
on
certified
2
by
SBA
or
DOT,
given
the
way
it's
written,
the
3
citizenship
requirements,
that
may
change.
We
don't
4
know,
if
they
are
dealing
with
those
types
of
entities,

5
we
can
automatically
say,
they
are
certified
by
EPA,
you
6
can
use
the
universe.

7
But
there
will
be
a
bit
of
lag
time
in
the
8
middle
to
work
it
out
while
we
are
continuing
to
certify
9
once
we
get
started.

10
MS.
BROWN:
Currently
under
the
program,
we
11
don't
certify,
so
this
is
brand
new
for
us,
as
it
is
12
with
the
grant
recipients.

13
So
there's
going
to
be
a
process
where
we
have
14
to
build
and
start
doing,
and
we
don't
even
know
what
15
the
universal
certification
requirements
are
going
to
be
16
yet
because
that's
not
the
business
that
we
are
in.

17
MR.
BORRMANN:
Ralph
Borrmann.
Bay
Area
Air
18
Quality.

19
On
that
item
about
the
certification,
it's
very
20
complex.
I
mean,
the
whole
program
is
very
complex.
If
21
you
are
trying
to
read
CFR
40,
you
know,
it's
all
22
legalese,
so
understanding
the
complexities
here
is
23
difficult
for
somebody
who
is
almost
a
professional
at
24
it
who
is
looking
at
this
material
all
of
the
time.

25
In
terms
of
figuring
out
the
DBE
goal,
for
79
1
instance,
there's
really
no
training
out
there
to
show
a
2
novice
how
to
do
it,
so
you
have
to
go
and
hire
3
somebody.
That
can
be
very
expensive.
I
have
had
4
quotes
up
to
$
9,000
to
figure
out
a
DBE
goal.

5
So
these
are
all
real
costs
that
aren't
really
6
considered
in
this.
There's
no
training,
and
7
contractors
who
are
out
there
to
do
the
goal
setting
are
8
quite
expensive
and
difficult
to
find.

9
You
won't
get
a
recommendation
from
CalTrans
or
10
the
state
on
contractors
who
will
calculate
the
goal
for
11
you
and
help
you.
So
this
is
on
the
spend
side.

12
There
are
a
lot
of
difficulties
there
which,

13
really,
you
are
not
addressing
today,
I
understand,
but
14
I
just
think
you
should
know
about
it.

15
MS.
BROWN:
Where
are
you
from
again?

16
MR.
BORRMANN:
Bay
Area
Air
Quality
Management
17
District.

18
MS.
BROWN:
This
is
all
new
to
us.
When
19
Adarand
hit
­­
let
me
take
you
back
a
couple
years
in
20
terms
of
a
general
picture
where
we
were.

21
Basically,
the
program
has
been
in
effect
for
a
22
number
of
years,
and
this
is
pretty
much
how
our
23
negotiations
went.

24
You
did
8
percent
last
year,
you
think
you
can
25
do
that
this
year.
The
grant
recipients
say
yes
or
no.
80
1
We
say,
okay.
They
say,
no.
We
say,
what
do
you
think
2
you
can
do?

3
For
those
of
you
who
have
been
around
prior,

4
that's
basically
how
we
did
it
for
the
most
part.

5
When
Adarand
hit,
it
changed
how
we
do
6
business,
and
we
got
into
the
business
of
looking
at
it
7
and
doing
availability
analysis.

8
We
brought
in,
and
have
been
working
with,
a
9
minority
group
here
out
of
Oakland,
Mason
Tillman
&

10
Associates
has
been
our
contractor,
who
put
together
a
11
cookbook
on
how
to
do
availability
analysis
we
can
make
12
available
to
you
if
you
missed
that.

13
We
have
brought
in
­­
some
of
our
meetings
­­

14
we
have
had
several
meetings
where
we
brought
in
our
15
state
and
local
recipients,
invited
them
in,
went
16
through
the
process
and
talked
to
them
about
how
that's
17
to
be
done.
And
so
we
have
done
some,
while
it
may
be
18
minimal,
we
have
done
some,
yes.

19
MR.
DE
PALMA:
If
you
are
looking
in
particular
20
areas,
I
know
there
are
resources,
especially
those
on
21
the
contract
compliance
side.
Within
East
Bay,
there's
22
the
East
Bay
Inter­
Agency
Alliance,
comprised
of
23
myself,
a
bunch
of
our
contractor
compliance
officers
24
for
the
various
jurisdictions
would
be
more
than
happy
25
to
assist
anybody
who
need
HRC
assistance,
with
the
81
1
Golden
Gate
Transit
Authority,
those
are
resources
as
2
well.

3
MS.
BROWN:
In
addition,
there
are
some
local
4
colleges
that
are
able
to
help
some
of
the
recipients
in
5
coming
up
with
what
the
availability
analysis
should
6
look
like.

7
So
there
is
information
out
there.

8
Do
you
have
to
do
your
homework
and
research?

9
Yes,
you
do.
But
once
that
is
done,
you
are
set,
you
10
have
done
the
groundwork
for
that,
and
then
build
on
it.

11
But
there
are
resources
out
there
that
are
12
readily
available,
and
it
may
be
worth
your
interest
to
13
take
a
look
at
some
of
those
that
we
mentioned.

14
MR.
DE
PALMA:
For
Alameda
County,
agencies
15
within
Alameda
County
should
be
aware
there
is
an
16
availability
study
underway.
It's
close
to
completion.

17
At
that
point
there
are
availability
numbers
right
18
there.

19
City
College
of
San
Francisco
also
has
a
fairly
20
accurate
take
on
what
the
availability
is
within
San
21
Francisco.

22
I
believe
there
are
some
other
sources
for
the
23
South
Bay
and
Peninsula
as
well.

24
MS.
FELETTO:
Nadine
Feletto,
California
25
Health
Services.
82
1
With
regard
to
the
relevant
geographic
area
for
2
establishing
the
fair
share
goals,
I
would
be
interested
3
to
hear
more
about
how
the
developers
have
thought
about
4
this,
because
in
a
state
like
California,
well,
it's
an
5
entirely
different
circumstance
than
in
an
area
where
6
states
are
smaller,
like
on
the
East
Coast.
You
have
7
counties
out
here
that
are
as
large
as
a
state.

8
Defining
the,
differentiating
whether
the
state
9
level
goals
are
appropriate
or
meaningful
to
carry
down
10
to
the
local
level
is
more
difficult
in
a
state
like
11
California.

12
The
availability
­­
in
fact,
if
you
looked
up
13
at
the
northwest
corner
of
the
state
it
would
be
very
14
different
than
the
southeast
corner.

15
That
being
said,
in
addition,
it
directs
to
the
16
general
relevance
of
such
a
great
investment
in
17
developing
fair
share
goals,
since
they
neither
relieve
18
nor
impose
a
standard
that
somewhat
seems
like
it
19
diverts
the
focus
from
actually
achieving
good
faith
20
effort
to
a
lot
of
full
employment
for
disparity
study
21
developers
or
availability
study
developers.

22
MS.
BROWN:
Well,
we
are
not
suggesting
that
23
this
is
a
basis
for
employment
for
those
kinds
of
24
contractors,
but
they
are
readily
available
to
you.

25
What
we
are
asking
you
to
do
is
to
look
at
what
83
1
your
current
market
base
is.
We
recognize,
and
2
understand,
we
are
not
trying
to
change
that.
We
need
3
you
to
tell
us,
where
do
you
go
to
get,
where
are
your
4
contractors
coming
from?

5
In
some
areas,
while
in
other
parts
of
the
6
country
on
the
East
Coast
may
be,
while
the
states
may
7
be
small,
their
geographic
area
may
be
inclusive
of
8
other
states,
if
you
have
people
coming
across
state
9
lines.

10
In
some
other
areas
of
the
country,
and
I
think
11
it's
New
Jersey,
in
particular,
they
have
an
upper
state
12
goal
and
a
lower
state
goal
because
of
how
the
current
13
market
area
is
defined.

14
We
are
asking
you,
as
the
grant
recipient,
to
15
tell
us,
because
you
already
have
this
information,
for
16
the
most
part,
where
are
your
bidders
coming
from.
Are
17
you
seeing
them,
what
kind
of
concentration
and
where?

18
That's
how
you
draw
the
line
to
determine
what
your
19
availability
analysis
should
be
inclusive
of.

20
MS.
DOUGHERTY:
Kathleen
Dougherty,
Arizona.

21
I
can
certainly
understand
what
you
are
saying.
But
22
from
the
procurement
perspective,
our
bidders
come
from
23
wherever
they
want
to
come
from,
and
so
it's
really
hard
24
to
put
geographical
boundaries
on
them.

25
People
said
they
would
like
to
do
business
in
84
1
this
geographical
region,
which
is
different
from
the
2
census
data,
which
are
the
people
that
hang
out
in
the
3
region,
and
so
I
think
that
is
kind
of
where
it
gets
4
difficult
to
balance
off.

5
When
you
are
doing
an
SRF
program,
your
6
underwriter
will
come
from
anywhere
in
the
country.

7
MS.
PATRICK:
Not
only
what
census
data
is
8
available,
not
only
the
universe
who
builds
your
9
contracts,
but
also
where
you
go
when
you
actually
buy
10
it.

11
So
it's
a
combination
of
all
three
of
those
12
things
to
help
determine
what
your
relevant
geographic
13
market
is.

14
MS.
DOUGHERTY:
One
of
the
points
is
if
we
can
15
have,
if
we
can
kind
of
develop,
learn
from
each
other
16
and
share
lessons
and
understandings.
But
we
are
all
17
kind
of
hacking
at
data
differently.

18
MS.
PATRICK:
One
of
the
provisions
in
the
19
rule
is
in
the
instance
where
there's
a
lead
agency
that
20
is
identified
in
a
state,
it's
possible
for
the
other
21
agencies
in
the
state
to
use
the
same
goal
that
has
been
22
identified,
as
long
as
that
goal
is
relevant
to
you.

23
And
I
know
a
state
as
large
as
California,
the
size
24
issue,
it's
possible
that
the
state
agency
in
Northern
25
California
could
have
nothing
to
do
in
terms
of
a
85
1
geographic
market
with
someplace
else
in
the
state.

2
MS.
DOUGHERTY:
Has
the
state
of
California
3
done
a
disparity
for
the
state,
a
state
that
large?

4
MR.
DE
PALMA:
They
have
done
availability.

5
They
don't
do
disparity.
In
lieu
of
209,
they
don't
do
6
disparity,
but
their
availability
is,
the
market
area
is
7
the
entire
state.

8
MS.
PATRICK:
So
using
that
availability
9
analysis,
in
that
analysis,
it
has
a
breakdown
of
10
smaller
places,
you
could
sort
of
redefine
within
that.

11
I
am
trying
to
help
you
use
data
that
is
out
12
there.

13
MS.
BROWN:
For
Arizona,
has
the
state
of
14
Arizona
done
available
analysis
or
disparity
study,
and
15
take
a
look
at
how
they
came
up
with
the
information.

16
When
you
talk
about
buying
supplies,
your
17
geographic
market
can
be
all
over
the
country,
if
you
18
use
Staples,
recognize,
we
understand
that;
but
if
19
that's
what
your
practice
is,
that's
what
you
need
to
20
consider.
21
I
am
not
trying
to
redefine
or
redraw
how
you
22
do
business.
I
am
asking
you
to
show
us
and
tell
us
23
what
that
is
and
how
inclusive
of
it,
how
inclusive
it
24
is
in
terms
of
minority
and
women­
owned
business.

25
I
know
that's
a
lot
­­
we've
been
doing
this,
86
1
you
have
been
with
us
for
a
while
­­
we
have
been
doing
2
this
for
at
least
five
years;
and,
basically,
what
we
3
have
said,
once
you
did
the
initial
one,
we
had
the
4
census
data,
we
said,
go
back
and
check.
Did
it
5
change?
If
it
did,
update.

6
Some
people
said,
no
effect.
Not
a
problem.

7
Okay.
I
am
not
trying
to
spend
all
of
my
time
8
or
all
of
our
time,
nor
you,
as
the
grant
recipients,

9
should
be
spending
all
of
your
time
on
the
availability
10
analysis.

11
But
the
key
to
all
of
this
is,
if
there
is
a
12
challenge,
what
are
the
names
based
on?
How
did
we
come
13
up
with
them?
Can
you
support
them
being
the
grant
14
recipient,
and
that's
how
we
based
our
numbers,
based
15
on
what
you
gave
us.

16
We
need
to
make
sure
that
we
understand,

17
especially
out
here,
west
of
­­
okay,
these
programs
are
18
being
challenged.
How
did
you
come
up
with
what
you
19
came
up
with?

20
So
that
if
there's
a
challenge,
you
can't
say
21
EPA
made
me
do
this
and
this
is
the
number
they
gave
me.

22
We
are
saying,
you
came
up
with
the
numbers.

23
How
did
you
come
up
with
them?
You
need
to
be
24
comfortable
with
those
in
determining
or
assessing
how
25
you
came
up
with
those
numbers
and
being
able
to
support
87
1
them.

2
And
this
money,
and
it's
a
choice
that
every
3
local
jurisdiction,
as
well
as
every
grantee
has
to
4
make.

5
When
you
sign
up
to
take
this
money,
it
comes
6
with
stipulations.
You
can't
just
take
the
money
and
7
walk
away
and
say,
I
will
do
whatever
I
want
to
do
with
8
it,
whether
at
the
state
or
local
level
or
not.
This
is
9
federal
funds.

10
MS.
PATRICK:
Okay.

11
MS.
BROWN:
We
can
go
back
­­
okay.

12
MS.
GARCIA:
Cheryl
Garcia,
C
&
G
Janitorial.

13
On
statistical
disparity,
how
are
the
statistical
14
disparities
and
the
ability
of
an
MBE
ability
to
get
15
funding?
Clearly
I
have
discussed
this
with
SBA
until
16
I
am
blue
in
the
face.

17
ProNet
is
clearly
not
indicative
of
our
18
ability,
our
financial
capacity.

19
There
is
nothing
there
that
says
I
have
a
20
million
dollars
sitting
in
the
bank.
There's
no
way
to
21
put
that
anywhere.

22
So
how
are
those
statistical
disparities
about
23
our
ability
to
get
funding
determined?

24
MS.
BROWN:
I
am
not
sure
if
I
understand,
I
25
mean
in
terms
of
getting
funding.
You
mean
in
terms
of
88
1
getting
contracts?

2
MS.
GARCIA:
Well,
it
says
in
terms
of
3
statistical
disparity,
in
F­
1,
the
last
phrase,
talks
4
about
disparity,
but
they
also
talk
about
statistical
5
disparity
and
the
ability
of
MBEs
and
WBEs
to
get
6
necessary
financing,
bonding
and
insurance.

7
How
does
anyone
know
about
my
company's
ability
8
to
get
funding?

9
MR.
DE
PALMA:
Actually,
it
isn't
looking
for
10
your
company's
financing.
It's
actually
calculating
11
the
utilization
availability,
which
when
you
look
at
the
12
availability
of
an
MBE/
WBE
business,
you
look
at
what
13
the
utilization
is.

14
Through
the
equation,
there's
what's
called
the
15
P
value.
Now
the
P
value
is
whether
you
determine
16
statistically
significant
disparity,
and
only
17
statistically
significant
disparity
can
you
have
an
MWBE
18
program.
That's
what
it
is
talking
about.

19
Yours
is
a
capacity
issue.
The
capacity
issue
20
is
judged
on
the
jurisdiction.

21
MS.
BROWN:
It's
a
case­
by­
case
basis.
While
22
you
may
not
have
capacity,
this
time
around,
you
may
the
23
next.

24
MR.
DE
PALMA:
The
calculation
for
the
P
25
value,
it
would
be
you
are
looking
at
what
the
89
1
jurisdiction's
contracts
are
both
at
the
formal
and
2
informal
level,
and
doing
that,
there's
certain
3
distinctions
that
the
law
allows
you
to
make.
A
company
4
of
a
certain
size
could
do
$
300,000
contract
because
all
5
of
these
companies
are
doing
it
in
that
jurisdiction.

6
MR.
INGRAM:
James
Ingram
with
James
E.
Ingram
7
&
Company,
Inc.

8
That
all
sounds
good
from
an
academic
9
standpoint,
but
I
really
think
the
point,
where
you
are
10
getting
your
statistics
from
in
terms
of
whether
or
not
11
companies
are
bonding
in
the
area,
insurance
companies
12
are
writing
the
necessary
liability
coverages
that
are
13
required,
so
where
are
those
figures
coming
from?

14
Are
you
interviewing
those
surety
companies
or
15
are
you
interviewing
those
insurance
companies
to
say
16
that
coverage
is,
bonding
is
available
in
this
area?

17
MS.
BROWN:
We
are
not
interviewing
anybody.

18
MR.
INGRAM:
Are
you
asking
your
recipients
­­

19
MS.
BROWN:
We
are
saying
that
these
are
things
20
they
need
to
consider
in
doing
their
availability
21
analysis.

22
MR.
INGRAM:
But
how
are
they
coming
up
­­

23
MR.
DE
PALMA:
Again,
on
that
aspect
we
are
24
not
looking
at
bonding
as
determining
whether
you
have
25
the
capacity
to
hold
on.
It's
not,
you
can't
get
90
1
bonded
does
not
mean
that
you
do
not
have
the
capacity.

2
It
means
there
is
a
separate
issue
that
3
jurisdiction
has
to
address
so
that
subcontractor
has
4
the
ability
to
go
out
and
work
with
a
prime
does
not
5
eliminate
you
as
being
part
of
that
availability.

6
Actually,
if
anything
else,
it's
part
of
the
7
qualitative
or
anecdotal
evidence
that
you
need
for
the
8
disparity
study
to
show
that,
say,
an
African
American
9
construction
contractor
that
there
is
disparity
within
10
that
group,
these
are
the
reasons
why,
and
this
is
why
11
we
need
that.

12
MR.
INGRAM:
James
Ingram.
I
don't
want
to
13
beat
it
to
death.

14
These
are
practical
issues
for
small
15
businesses,
practical
issues
whether
or
not
they
can
get
16
a
contract
based
on
whether
or
not
they
are
going
to
get
17
bonded.
18
This
is
an
area
where
EPA
really
needs
to
look
19
at.
You
are
talking
about
the
disparity
study,
but
20
there's
a
need
for
more
quantitative,
some
more
21
qualitative
information
in
this
particular
area,
and
I
22
don't
think
it's
there.

23
MR.
DE
PALMA:
I
think
what
Mr.
Ingram
is
24
talking
about
is
really
the
technical
assistance
side
of
25
contracting,
and
that
is
something
that
we
do
definitely
91
1
need
more
out
here
in
the
Bay
Area,
but
the
ability
to
2
go
out
there
and
get
bonding,
the
ability
to
go
out
and
3
write
proposals.

4
MR.
INGRAM:
No.
James
Ingram.
I
am
not
5
talking
about
technical
assistance.
I
am
talking
about
6
practical
issues.
I
am
talking
about
practical
issues.

7
How
do
you
bring
into
the
loop
the
bonding
companies,

8
the
surety
companies,
the
insurance
companies?

9
You
may
say,
well,
this
is
a
disparity
study.

10
If
you
are
not
talking
to
them,
if
you
are
not
including
11
them
in
your
surveys,
then
you
are
basically
missing
a
12
real
valid
point,
because
they
are
also
involved
in
13
getting
federal
dollars.

14
This
is
something
I
ask
EPA
to
take
a
look
at.

15
MS.
BROWN:
Point
taken.
Any
other
questions?

16
MS.
PATRICK:
Now,
Race
and
gender
conscious
17
efforts.
To
the
extent
good
faith
efforts
prove
to
be
18
inadequate
to
achieve
the
fair
share
goals
for
MBEs
and
19
WBEs,
encourage
a
recipient
or
prime
contractor
to
take
20
reasonable
race
and/
or
gender
conscious
action
to
the
21
extent
necessary
to
more
closely
achieve
the
fair
share
22
goals,
including
price
incentives
and
technical
23
evaluation
credits.
Prior
notification
of
the
24
contemplated
action
to
EPA
is
required.

25
MS.
BROWN:
Before
you
do
that
­­
92
1
MS.
PATRICK:
Before
you
do
it,
we
need
to
2
know
you
are
doing
it.

3
The
next
section
addresses
Exemptions.
Very,

4
very
clear
up
front
here.
There
are
some
things
in
the
5
world
that
won't
go
away,
like
death
and
taxes.
You're
6
sure
of
them,
right?

7
Well,
with
our
rule,
there
are
two
things
that
8
will
never
go
away:
the
reporting
requirements
cannot
9
be
exempted.
We
don't
have
the
power
to
give
you
one,

10
and
there's
no
basis
for
one.

11
The
second
thing,
which
are
the
good
faith
12
efforts,
they
will
never
go
away.

13
However,
we
do
have
a
category
of
exemptions
14
from
negotiations
with
EPA
of
a
fair
share
goal,
and
15
that
is
what
this
section
is
addressing.
Only
16
exemptions
from
negotiated
goal.
Nothing
on
good
faith
17
efforts
and
not
the
reporting.

18
MS.
BROWN:
And
the
reporting
requirements
19
currently
exist,
they
have
always
existed,
and
if
you
20
are
a
grant
recipient,
you
should
be
reporting.

21
The
good
faith
efforts
currently
exist
and
you
22
should
be
doing
those
as
well.

23
MS.
PATRICK:
Okay.
Exemptions.
EPA
is
24
proposing
to
exempt
recipients
of
an
EPA
financial
25
assistance
agreement
in
the
amount
of
$
250,000
or
less
93
1
for
any
single
assistance
agreement,
or
of
more
than
one
2
financial
assistance
agreement
with
a
combined
total
of
3
250,000
or
less
in
any
one
fiscal
year
combined
with
the
4
agreement
from
the
fair
share
negotiation
requirements.

5
What
that
means,
simply,
if
you
have
one
grant
6
that
is
over
$
250,000,
then
you
would
have
to
negotiate.

7
If
your
grant
totals
for
the
year
of
all
of
8
your
grants
add
up
to
over
$
250,000,
you
have
to
9
negotiate
a
goal.

10
But
if
your
totals
are
under
$
250,000,
you
will
11
be
exempt
from
the
negotiations
of
a
fair
share
goal.

12
MS.
BROWN:
Yes,
sir.

13
MR.
DAYRIT:
Ignacio
Dayrit,
City
of
14
Emeryville,
so
for
a
two­
year
grant
of
300,000,
you
15
would
still
have
to
do
it?

16
MS.
BROWN:
Yes.
You
would.

17
MS.
PATRICK:
Yes,
you
would.
The
statement
18
exemption
applies
to
our
Brownfields,
CWSRF,
DWSRF.

19
The
same
exemptions
apply
for
the
$
250,000
threshold
for
20
the
loan
amounts.

21
The
next
set
of
exemptions
only
apply
to
grants
22
to
tribes.
Grants
to
tribes
and
intertribal
consortia
23
that
are
eligible
to
be
included
in
Performance
24
Partnership
Grants
are
exempt
from
fair
share
25
negotiations.
94
1
What
that
means,
if
a
grant
is
PPG
eligible,

2
that
go
to
tribes
or
intertribal
consortia
that
are
3
eligible
to
be
rolled
into
a
PPG
will
be
exempt
from
4
negotiations.

5
That
would
effectively
exempt
17
grant
6
categories
from
negotiations
to
tribes
only.

7
There
is
a
reason
why
we
got
to
this
point.

8
When
we
first
put
the
rule
out
there,
all
tribes
were
9
going
to
negotiate,
period,
just
like
the
states.
10
However,
we
received
a
lot
of
feedback,
not
11
only
from
the
tribal
community,
but
also
internally
in
12
EPA,
hey,
do
you
understand
the
amount
of
administrative
13
time
and
what
the
burden
is
going
to
be
on
us?

14
Particularly,
Region
10
pushed
back.

15
Region
10
has
270
plus
indian
tribes.
That
16
would
mean
that
one
person,
who
is
MBE/
WBE
coordinator,

17
who
has
to
go
through
272
negotiations,
in
addition
to
18
the
state
recipients,
and
all
of
the
other
recipients
19
that
they
had,
and
so
the
question
was,
is
there
some
20
way
we
can
do
an
exemption
that
will
reduce
that
number
21
and
make
sense?

22
We
looked
at
this
particular
exemption.
We
did
23
sort
of
a
case
study
based
on
Region
10.

24
Once
we
backed
out
the
exemptions
for
the
250K,

25
and
then
we
backed
out
the
PPG
eligible
grants
and
also
95
1
the
TAG
grants
are
also
exempt,
the
number
went
from
272
2
down
to
25,
which
is
the
little
bit
more
realistic
view,

3
what
we
want
to
capture,
which
is
a
large
number
of
4
grantees,
particularly
with
tribal
grants.
So
that
is
5
why
this
particular
grant
in
place
for
tribes.

6
MS.
BROWN:
Again,
that's
only
for
7
negotiations.

8
One
of
the
other
things
we
mentioned
earlier,

9
we
have
asked
for
and
would
like
the
states
to
look
at
10
being,
or
identify
a
lead
agency
where
other
local
11
jurisdictions
and/
or
grant
recipients
could
use
the
goal
12
that
was
negotiated
by
the
lead
agency
for
that
state
13
provided,
and
the
key
to
all
of
this,
even
under
the
14
drinking
water
program,
SRF
program,
we
have
to
make
15
sure
we
are
still
looking
at
the
same
equivalent
16
geographical
area
in
a
semblance
there.
We
make
sure
we
17
are
comparing
apples
and
apples,
and
what
you
are
buying
18
is
similar
to
what
you
are
buying.
Those
kinds
of
19
things
need
to
be
taken
under
advisement.

20
So
that
opportunity
is
made
available
to
any
of
21
our
grant
recipients.

22
If
you
are
a
small,
local
jurisdiction,
and
23
this
does
not
­­
and
what
you
see,
you
see
a
semblance
24
of
what's
being
done
by
the
state
or
that
lead
agency,

25
if
one
has
been
identified,
you
can
adopt
that
goal.
96
1
So
that
may
be
something
that
some
of
your
2
smaller
jurisdictions
may
want
to
consider.
I
don't
3
know
if
it's
applicable,
but
that's
something
we
are
4
possibly
looking
into.

5
MS.
PATRICK:
The
negotiations
of
goals
with
6
the
tribes
is
something
brand
new.
The
tribes
never
had
7
to
negotiate
before
in
the
past.
We
recognized
we
have
8
instituted
a
three­
year
phase­
in
period
for
the
tribes
9
regarding
this
particular
provision
of
the
rule.
Some
10
of
the
things
are
already
in
effect
for
tribes,
although
11
tribes
supposed
to
have
been
reporting
all
along,
but
12
some
things
internally
in
the
agency
we
have
not
13
required.

14
MS.
BROWN:
Some
regions
required
it
and
15
others
did
not.
Our
regulation
was
not
consistent
in
16
how
we
carried
it
out.
Now
we
will
be
across
the
board.

17
MS.
PATRICK:
We
recognize
the
negotiations
18
part
is
brand
new,
three­
year
phase­
in
period
as
far
as
19
the
tribes
and
trust
areas.

20
Let's
see,
record
keeping
and
reporting,
next
21
page.
22
UNIDENTIFIED
PERSON:
Citizenship
requirement,

23
under
definitions,
is
that
going
to
be
an
issue?

24
Explain
why
citizenship
is
a
requirement?

25
MS.
PATRICK:
I
can
refer
you
to
that
97
1
particular
section.

2
UNIDENTIFIED
PERSON:
To
get
certified
you
3
need
to
be
a
citizen?

4
MS.
PATRICK:
If
you
turn
to
page
43829,
in
5
the
first
column,
the
first
full
paragraph
sort
of
6
midway
in
the
column,
there's
an
explanation
there
about
7
the
citizenship
requirement,
and
why
at
this
point
in
8
this
particular
draft
of
the
rule
we
have
decided
to
go
9
with
having
US
citizenship
as
a
requirement.

10
UNIDENTIFIED
PERSON:
It
does
not
explain
why
11
citizenship
makes
us
more
disadvantaged
than
a
non
12
citizen.

13
MS.
PATRICK:
It
doesn't
make
you
more
14
disadvantaged
at
all.
We
have
never
said
that
and
are
15
not
saying
that.

16
UNIDENTIFIED
PERSON:
Well,
you
are
eliminating
17
a
number
of
businesses
because
they
are
not
­­

18
MS.
PATRICK:
I
would
encourage
you
to
make
an
19
official
comment.
This
is
what
the
forum
is
about.
If
20
you
have
comments
or
suggestions
about
this
particular
21
provision,
we
want
to
hear
them.

22
UNIDENTIFIED
PERSON:
My
comment
is
we
need
to
23
explain
here
why
US
citizenship
makes
a
difference.

24
MS.
BROWN:
Well,
one
of
the
things
we
did
25
when
we
looked
at
the
programs
that
were
out
there,
we
98
1
used
SBA's
guidelines
in
terms
of
what
they
looked
for.

2
SBA,
in
order
to
be
certified
under
any
of
their
3
programs,
you
have
to
be
a
citizen.

4
Now,
I
recognize,
and
understand,
that
DOT
did
5
something
a
little
bit
different,
but
where
we
could
we
6
took
it
under
advisement
and,
working
with
DOT,
with
7
communication
with
SBA,
and
in
our
discussions
with
the
8
Department
of
Justice,
and
I
am
not
saying
they
told
us,

9
we
tried
to
be
as
uniform
as
possible
where
we
could.

10
We
used
SBA
guidance
here
when
we
look
at
11
citizenship.

12
SBA
requires
in
order
to
be
certified
as
an
13
8(
a),
as
a
DBE,
you
have
to
be
a
citizen,
and
that's
14
what
we
used,
and
that's
the
explanation,
sir.
That's
15
what
we
used.

16
UNIDENTIFIED
PERSON:
Our
grant
recipients
are
17
supposed
to
certify
that
they
do
not
discriminate
as
one
18
of
the
certifications
on
discrimination,
and
one
of
the
19
issues
is
place
of
origin.
So
how
can
our
recipients
do
20
bidding
that
are
excluding
all
of
the
other
21
bidders
who
are
supposed
to
be
participating
­­

22
MS.
PATRICK:
How
they
could,
I
don't
know.

23
We
are
not
asking
anyone
to
discriminate
on
any
basis.

24
We
are
requiring
you
be
eligible,
to
be
25
certified
as
a
DBE
under
our
program.
That
does
not
99
1
amount
to
EPA
dictating
discrimination
in
any
way.

2
In
terms
of
us
having
to
explain
in
the
context
3
of
our
rule
that
we
are
requiring
someone
to
4
discriminate,
that's
not
what
we
are
doing.
That
is
5
not
something
we
would
ever
say
or
suggest.

6
Is
there
an
actual
suggestion
you
would
like
to
7
make?
We
would
like
to
hear
it.

8
UNIDENTIFIED
PERSON:
I
would
like
that
our
9
database
with
all
of
the
lists
of
DBE
rules
not
be
10
published.

11
MS.
BROWN:
Say
it
again.
I
didn't
hear
it.

12
UNIDENTIFIED
PERSON:
I
recommend
the
database,

13
who
shows
who
are
the
DBEs
certified
business
not
be
14
available
to
the
public
because
people
will
use
that
15
list
only
and
not
include
all
of
the
other
businesses
16
that
could
be
used
in
the
process.

17
MS.
PATRICK:
What
do
you
want
on
your
bidders
18
list?
How
do
you
define
a
bidders
list?
Those
19
definitions
vary
from
place
to
place.

20
We
are
aware
that
we
have
to
be
more
specific
21
in
that
section.
We
realize
we
have
to
go
back
and
22
make
that
specific.

23
Actively,
we
are
asking
for
suggestions,
for
24
things
you
all,
as
a
recipient,
what
would
be
helpful
to
25
you
to
be
included
on
the
bidders
list.
100
1
MS.
BROWN:
How
do
you
define
as
a
bidders
2
list?
Is
it
who
came
in
or
what
­­
when
we
were
in
3
different
parts
of
the
country,
we
got
different
4
interpretations
of
what
a
bidders
list
is.
I
thought
it
5
was
something
different.

6
So
my
eyes
have
been
opened
to
different
7
interpretations.

8
So
we
are
looking
to
define
this
in
more
detail
9
and
to
give
you
specific
information,
but,
as
a
grantee,

10
it
would
be
good
to
know
what
you
consider
a
bidder's
11
mailing
list
on
and/
or
the
information
that
is
contained
12
in
it
that
you
deem
viable.
13
MS.
FELETTO:
Nadine
Feletto.

14
From
what
I
read
and
have
heard,
bidders
list
15
does
have
two
meanings,
or
I
have
read
two
meanings.

16
One
is
a
list
that
you
establish
in
advance
17
that
limits
and
defines
the
boundaries
of
who
is
18
notified
of
the
opportunity,
whereas
another
might
be
19
that
the
list
establishes
only
a
subcomponent
of
who
the
20
information
and
the
opportunity
is
broadcast
to,
which
21
appears
to
be
a
more
appropriate
mechanism.

22
The
other
aspect
of
bidders'
list
is
whether
23
it's
ProNet
or
the
DOT
program,
that
something
could
be
24
established
as
a
de
facto
bidders
list,
so
each
25
recipient
would
not
have
to
go
through
the
exercise
of
101
1
establishing
a
bidders
list
mechanism,
which
could
add
2
significant
cost
to
a
small
recipient,
recipient
of
a
3
relatively
small
loan.

4
MS.
BROWN:
While
we
recognize
and
understand
5
a
lot
of
these
databases
are
out
there,
ProNet
is
done
6
away
with
now.

7
Effective
as
of
October
of
last
year,
CCR,

8
which
is
where
everybody
has
to
go
who
wants
to
do
9
business
with
the
federal
government
has
to
be
10
registered.

11
Depending
on
some
of
your
local
jurisdictions,

12
everybody
may
not
be
registered
on
ProNet.

13
When
we
were
in
Billings,
Montana,
they
didn't
14
know
what
ProNet
was,
or
that
it
even
existed,
and
15
that's
obsolete.

16
So
in
establishing
a
de
facto
database,

17
everybody
still
may
not,
and
even
some
of
your
local,

18
depending
on
the
local
jurisdiction
that
you
are
dealing
19
with,
we
may
be
causing
some
problems
there
that
we
20
didn't
envision.

21
We
can
make
sure
that
people
know
where
to
go
22
to
look
for,
but
that
is
not
to
say
that
everybody
is
23
ready,
because
everybody
is
not.

24
That's
a
business
decision
that
people
have
to
25
make,
but
sometimes
people
can't
make
it
if
they
don't
102
1
know
it
exists.

2
And
when
we
go
to
some
of
these
places
in
these
3
remote
areas,
a
lot
of
people
don't
know
that
these
4
databases
and
that
these
resources
are
available
to
5
them.

6
So
we
are
in
kind
of
a
quandary
there
in
terms
7
of
how
to
define
and
what
to
use.

8
I
would
like
for
you
to
also
take
that
in
mind
9
because
we
are
not
just
talking
about
a
major
area
like
10
San
Francisco.
This
is
all
inclusive
of
the
United
11
States,
the
trust
territories,
and
the
tribes.

12
MS.
DOUGHERTY:
Kathleen
Dougherty,
Arizona
13
Department
of
Environmental
Quality.

14
There's
really
bidders
lists
on
two
different
15
levels,
and
I
got
really
upset
because
it
gets
into
16
where
you
are
going
into
the
bidding
process.
You
17
previously
stated
we
want
to
stay
out
of
the
law,

18
there's
enough
law
already.

19
Part
of
it,
what
you
are
saying
is
that,
what
I
20
think
what
you
really
want
is
a
list
that
was
solicited
21
for
this
procurement.
And
the
way
this
is
written
up
22
doesn't
get
to
that,
and
I
would
be
glad
to
send
you
23
something
if
you
would
like
to
take
a
shot
at
it.

24
I
think
there
are
two
objectives
in
here.
25
The
other
objective
is,
you
say
that
you
kind
103
1
of
commit
to
go
out
and
reach
out,
and
that's
why
maybe
2
that's
proactively
identifying,
this
is
our
plan
when
we
3
are
reaching
out,
we
are
going
to
reach
out
these
ways
4
for
our
jurisdiction.
These
are
the
ways
for
us
to
5
reach
out.

6
MS.
BROWN:
That
would
be
good
to
send
us
7
that.

8
MS.
PATRICK:
That's
the
spirit
of
the
entire
9
bidders
list.
Primarily
make
it
a
tool
you
can
use,

10
the
recipient
can
use,
in
terms
of
building
up
who
they
11
know
in
their
universe
of
people
who
are
available
to
do
12
the
work,
and
also
it
allows
us
to
come
and
check,
see
13
you
are
doing
your
good
faith
effort.

14
If
you
are
doing
your
good
faith
effort,
you
15
ought
to
have
somebody
on
the
list,
so
those
are
things
16
we
can
look
at
too.

17
MS.
BROWN:
Also
too
that
your
process
is
18
spelled
out
someplace.
You
are
not
making
this
stuff
up
19
as
you
go
along.
That
doesn't
happen
anywhere,
right?

20
You
would
be
surprised
what
we
have
seen.

21
So
we
need
to
make
sure
we
are
consistent.

22
It's
one
thing
to
say
you
can't
find
minority
and
23
women­
owned
businesses.
Another
thing
is
what
is
24
actually
out
there,
and
they
don't
know,
they
can't
25
participate
in,
if
you
have
not
opened
up
the
process,
104
1
and
that
is
basically
what
we
are
saying.

2
The
process
needs
to
be
opened
so
if
I,
as
a
3
small
business
owner,
would
want
to
participate
and
do
4
it,
I
can
do
it.
I
come
fully
equipped,
ready
and
able.
5
But
if
you
don't
make
that
information
6
available
and
share
that
knowledge,
I
can't
do
it.

7
MR.
DAYRIT:
Ignacio
Dayrit.
City
of
8
Emeryville.

9
I
think
whatever
program
is
to
make
it
open
to
10
the
good
old
boy
network,
I
think
there
are
other
ways
11
to
do
it
without
writing
a
whole
lot
of
regs,
which
12
makes
difficult.
You're
asking
each
and
every
13
recipient
to
go
through
a
whole
lot
of
hoops
to
do
14
something
that
you
know
the
information
is
the
same,

15
basically,
for
every
region
or
subregion
in
the
state.

16
It's
a
waste
of
money
for
each
and
every
recipient
to
do
17
it.

18
If
there
is
a
system
set
up
in
the
state
or
19
regional
level
where
all
of
the
contractors
have
access
20
to,
it
eliminates
­­

21
MS.
BROWN:
Here,
where
you
have
done
away
22
with,
was
it
prop
209,
and
a
lot
of
the
systems
that
you
23
had
in
place
to
do
this
no
longer
exist
or
have
not
been
24
maintained
as
a
result
of
that
legislation
passing.

25
Let
me
make
sure
I
understand
the
suggestion
105
1
you
are
making.
You
are
saying
EPA
should
do
this
for
2
the
state,
for
all
of
the
country,
or
are
you
saying
3
each
state
agency
should
be
a
­­

4
MR.
DAYRIT:
Maybe
it's
a
two­
part
thing.

5
Perhaps
the
EPA
should
have
their
own
list.
You
don't
6
publish
the
contractors
like
the
gentleman
is
7
suggesting,
but
the
list
is
open
to
MBEs
and
WBEs
and
8
DBEs,
so
that
when
there
is,
when
an
RFP
is
produced,
at
9
least
the
people
in
the
EPA
system
have
access
to
it
and
10
they
can
respond
to
an
RFP.
11
If
the
different
agencies,
federal
and
state
12
agencies,
want
to
tap
into
that,
that
would
be
better.

13
MS.
BROWN:
One
of
the
things
we
offer
through
14
our
web
site
is
access
to,
if
you
go
to
our
web
site,
we
15
have
a
link
to
ProNet,
we
have
a
link
to
the
Phoenix
16
database.

17
I
have
been
asking
for
a
number
of
years
for
18
the
states,
if
they
have
a
process
to
get
the
19
information
to
us
so
we
can
then
link
to
the
state
so
20
the
MBE
­­
is
that
right
­­
remember,
I
made
that
21
request?
No,
you
don't
remember.

22
MS.
DOUGHERTY:
I
can
get
it
for
you.

23
MS.
BROWN:
I
do
need
that.
We
want
something
24
similar.
Not
necessarily
maintaining
a
database,
but
25
if
you
go
into
our
web
site,
we
have
10
regions
across
106
1
the
country.

2
Go
to
Region
9,
it
will
identify
all
of
the
3
states
that
come
up
under
that
region.

4
What
I
am
looking
to
do
is,
the
vision
is
to
5
have
a
link
to
all
of
those,
at
least
the
major
state
6
agencies
that
are
grant
recipients
and
information
on
at
7
least
who
the
point
of
contact
is
and
any
other
8
information
pertinent
to
that
state
in
terms
of
where
9
listings
are,
etc.
We
can
make
that
easily
available.

10
That
part
I
agree.
I
am
not
maintaining
a
11
list.
I
am
providing
resources
in
terms
of
where
you
12
could
possibly
go
when
you
are
looking,
but
that's
not
13
all
inclusive
either.

14
One
of
the
things
we
have
to
be
careful
of
when
15
you
do
that
is
people
say,
well,
I
don't
have
to
look
at
16
more.
People
still
look
for
a
way
out,
because
new
17
businesses
are
up
and
coming
all
over
the
place,
and
18
they
may
not
know
where
to
go,
and
they
still
may
be
out
19
there.

20
So
they
could
possibly
find
out
about
an
21
opportunity
by
hearing
one
of
the
local
advertisements.

22
If
we
only
limit
or
restrict
to
this
database
and
you
23
don't
go
anywhere
else
and
you
don't
publish,
how
do
we
24
capture
the
universe
of
the
new
firms?
So
that
it
25
really
works
both
ways.
107
1
MR.
INGRAM:
James
Ingram,
James
E.
Ingram
&

2
Company,
Inc.

3
I
have
a
suggestion
that
I
would
like
for
the
4
EPA
to
consider.

5
One
is
that
the
recipient
be
required
to
6
maintain
a
directory
of
EPA
certified
DBEs,
WMBEs,
or
in
7
lieu
of
a
separate
directory,
that
they
could
use
the
8
particular
state
or
local
agencies
that
meet
the
9
requirements
to
be
EPA
certified,
i.
e.,
in
California
10
you
have
a
unit,
again,
referring
back
to
the
unified
11
certification
process,
which
is
statewide,
I
believe
12
it's
a
national
program.

13
If
I
am
certified
by
BART
here
in
the
Bay
Area,

14
it
also
means
I
am
certified
by
the
city
and
county
of
15
Los
Angeles,
or
they
can
use
the
similar
to
what
they
16
have
been,
the
WMBE
clearinghouse,
which
certifies
17
women/
minority­
owned
businesses.

18
So
it
wouldn't
necessarily
impose
an
additional
19
expense,
but
rather
getting
the
information
out
to
20
primes
or
the
bidders
that
they
can
go
to
these
lists
or
21
would
be
expected
to
go
to
these
particular
databases
to
22
seek
subcontractors
who
are
contractors,
who
are
MBEs
23
and
WBEs
and
DBEs.
Consider
that.

24
MS.
DOUGHERTY:
Kathleen
Dougherty.

25
Building
on
what
Mr.
Ingram
said,
again,
to
the
108
1
extent
that
we
have
differentiation
in
certification,
we
2
are
dispersing
rather
than
bringing
together
and
being
3
able
to
identify,
clearly
identifying
DBE
businesses.

4
So
the
more
that
there
are
differences
between
5
the
unified
or
the
DOT
or
SBA,
and
I
can
see
you
took
6
attempts
to
stay
with
those,
the
more
we
are
telling
7
people,
oh,
you,
but
not
you,
because
of
the
8
certification
differences,
because
they
might
not
have
9
gone
through
the
additional
certification
hoops
that
EPA
10
might
have.

11
So
that
is
one
of
the
things
that
I
would
12
encourage,
the
more
we
can
use
unified
databases.

13
We
have
a
statewide
basis.
You
can
put
your
14
certification
in
and
you
are
available
to
all
state
15
agencies.
Now
we
are
doing
cooperative
agreements
with
16
the
political
subs,
they
are
starting
to
sign
up,
that's
17
the
type
of
action.

18
But
to
the
extent
there
are
consistent
19
certifications
we
are
building
successes.

20
MS.
BROWN:
That's
good.
One
of
the
things
we
21
said
early
on,
when
we
did
a
cursory
review,
was
to
take
22
a
look
at
what
states
met
our
criteria
and
what
ones
23
didn't.
That
was
cursory.
And
we
just
did
that
as
a
24
preliminary
in
building
on
this.

25
I
think
one
of
the
things
we
could
do
is
go
109
1
back
and
take
a
look
and
identify
those
states
early
on,
2
right
before
the
rule
is
final,
or
as
the
rule
is
final,

3
of
those
states
that
we
have
identified
that
has
4
criteria
that
matches
or
exceed
EPA's.

5
Then,
if
you
are
certified,
possibly
by
those
6
state
entities,
then
we
have
gone
as
far
as
to
say
if
7
you
are
certified
by
SBA,
we
will
accept
it.
We
have
8
also
said
if
you
are
certified
by
DOT,
the
way
the
9
language
is,
now
except
for
citizenship,
we
will
accept
10
it.

11
We
are
linking
those
where
we
are
seeing
those.

12
I
didn't
know
about
the
unified,
but
we
will
go
back
and
13
take
a
look
at
that.

14
But,
again,
from
state
to
state,
it
varies,
but
15
we
have
said,
and
we
can
identify,
I
would
think
easily
16
and
make
a
determination
as
we
do
this
analysis
very
17
early
on
for
the
states
that
meet
our
requirements,

18
fine.

19
Those
other
states
that
don't
have
them
or
20
don't,
or
that
would
be
an
issue
in
terms
of
where
else
21
can
I
go
to
get
certified,
and
am
I
understanding
it
22
right?
No.

23
MS.
DOUGHERTY:
Kathleen
Dougherty.

24
I
think
that
really
the
issue
is
to
look
at
25
what,
where
do
we
really
need
differences
in
the
110
1
certifications,
and
when
I
read
what
it
said
about
2
criteria,
it
said,
differences.
It
didn't
say
exceed.

3
So
if
their
requirements
exceeded
that
is
the
4
wording
suggested
change
from
not
that
they
are
5
different,
that
they
are
more,
either
more
stringent
­­

6
MS.
PATRICK:
If
they
are
more
stringent,

7
fine.
If
less,
there's
a
problem.
8
MR.
INGRAM:
James
Ingram,
James
E.
Ingram
&

9
Company,
Inc.

10
I
don't
mean
to
beat
it
to
death.
Really,
for
11
me,
and
for
small
businesses,
we
are
talking
about
the
12
practicality
of
the
whole
issue.

13
Our
job,
and
the
end
result
for
us
is
to
get
14
business,
to
be
able
to
have
access
to
getting
business,

15
and
also
I
think
for
many
of
the
grant
recipients
and
16
prime
contractors,
they
also
want
to
do
business.

17
And
so
when
I
refer
to
making
a
directory
18
available,
it's
talking
about
putting
the
information
19
out
there
so
the
parties
can
meet,
the
grant
recipients
20
can
say,
here's
where
you
can
go.
The
primes
say,

21
here's
where
I
can
go.
The
subcontractors
say,
I
am
22
listed.
Here's
where
I
can
go.

23
So
somehow
I
know
we
need
to
talk
about
it
from
24
a
legal,
technical,
academic
standpoint,
but
I
have
to
25
talk
about
it
practically.
How
will
I
get
dollars
into
111
1
my
business?
And
you
need
to
have
this
linked
up
so
2
that
this
information
is
available.

3
I
see
it
here.
But,
to
me,
it's
sort
of
a
4
dichotomy
in
terms
of
the
technical,
legal
and
5
practical.
They
need
to
be
linked
up.

6
MS.
BROWN:
Thank
you.

7
MR.
BOONSTRA:
Eric
Boonstra.
Just
to
8
comment
on
it,
kind
of
what
you
are
talking
about,

9
Mr.
Ingram,
looking
for
link
on
fedbusops,
that
web
site
10
covers
­­
how
that
works
to
get
you
a
link
to
certified
11
companies,
to
the
uncertified
companies,
to
just
12
basically
everything
that
the
company
has
within
its
13
organization,
meaning
ProNet.
14
That's
kind
of
what
you
are
looking
for.
And
15
so
fedbusops
where
the
project
is
being
solicited,
it
16
gives
you
the
link
to
go
right
to
the
ProNet
site.

17
If
you
are
not
registered,
you
can
go
ahead
and
18
register
right
there
and
become
available
for
that
19
solicitation.

20
MS.
BROWN:
Fedbusop
is
at
the
federal
level.

21
A
lot
of
state
organizations
don't
use
it.
That
is
on
22
the
direct
procurement
side.

23
Here
we
are
talking
about
monies
that
we
give
24
out
to
the
states
and
local
jurisdictions
and
they
have
25
their
own
processes
and
procedures
in
place
that
varies
112
1
within
a
state.

2
MS.
DOUGHERTY:
What
you
are
saying
in
terms
3
of
something
like
a
ProNet,
it
could
still
be
used
as
a
4
resource.

5
MS.
BROWN:
Right,
and
we
have
said
that
all
6
along.

7
Recognize
ProNet
is
not
out
there
like
it
was.

8
CCR
is
now
what
is
required.

9
We
were
in
Billings,
Montana.
People
didn't
10
know
what
ProNet
was.
So
when
I
am
talking
about,
all
11
over
the
USA,
we
have
to
find
something
that
is
going
to
12
fit
everybody
from
a
national
standpoint,
not
just
for
13
people
in
places
like
California
and
Chicago
and
big
14
major
metropolitan
areas.

15
It
has
to
be
all
inclusive,
and
each
16
jurisdiction,
trust
me,
is
different.

17
Even
within
a
state,
I
am
looking
at
and
18
talking
to
the
lady
from
LA,
their
program
is
a
lot
more
19
than
some
of
these
other
places
here
within
the
state
of
20
California.

21
So
it
does
vary,
and
we
cannot
­­
I
cannot
say
22
this
is
the
process,
and
everybody,
this
is
it,
you
have
23
to
follow
it.
We
don't
have
that
kind
of
money
to
make
24
people
change
across
the
entire
United
States,
inclusive
25
of
the
trust
territories,
the
Commonwealth
of
Puerto
113
1
Rico,
and
all
of
the
tribes.

2
So
I
have
to
work
within
the
existing
3
framework,
as
helter­
skelter
as
it
may
be,
to
bring
4
something
together
for
benefit.

5
I
think
we
can
make
directories
and
bring
it
6
together
as
a
resource
tool.
I
don't
want
it
to
be
7
limiting
either
because
everybody
is
not
registered
8
there.

9
New
businesses
may
not
even
know
where
to
go
10
until
they
see
a
notification
or
advertisement
from
a
11
local
jurisdiction.

12
MS.
GARCIA:
Cheryl
Garcia,
B
&
C
Janitorial
13
Service
again.

14
I
whole­
heartedly
agree
with
your
understanding
15
about
these
state
agencies
that
do,
in
fact,
meet
the
16
EPA
criteria
for
certification.

17
I
have
to
say
that
as
a
small
business
we
were
18
totally
ignorant
for
several
years
about
how
to
get
19
certified.
But
I
think
it
behooves
the
small
business
20
to
find
out
how
to
be
in
business.

21
If
you
want
to
be
in
business,
you
have
to
find
22
out
how
to
get
business.
So
we
paid
for
our
ignorance
23
for
a
couple
of
years.

24
But
I
think
if
the
EPA
tells
the
SBA
they
need
25
to
put
the
word
out
that
there
are
these
certification
114
1
programs
available.
The
San
Francisco
district
office
2
of
the
SBA
is
active
in
doing
that.
But
that's
on
the
3
federal
level.

4
I
also
agree
with
Mr.
Ingram
about
the
number
5
of
available
databases
out
there.
I
shutter
to
talk
6
about
bidder
lists.
And
if
you
are
not
one
of
the
good
7
old
boys,
you
are
not
going
on
the
list.
I
don't
care
8
how
good
your
company
is.

9
This
whole
concept
of
bidders
lists,
I
shudder
10
to
think
about
it.

11
I
did
want
to
address
the
issue
about
the
12
fedbusop.
There
are
bid
notifications
subscription
13
services
that
a
company
can
buy
that
notifies
them
of
14
contract
opportunities.

15
Usually
they
are
on
the
federal,
and
16
occasionally
some
state
levels,
but
my
experience
with
17
the
Bay
Area
has
been
that
these
local
governments
that
18
are
receiving
these
funds
are
not
publicly
advertising
19
these
opportunities.

20
So
they
are
not
on
their
city
web
sites.
I
21
have
gone
crazy
trying
to
find
contract
opportunities.

22
Rather
than
suggest
a
bidders
list,
my
23
suggestion
would
be
that
the
EPA
mandate
that
the
24
recipient
of
their
funds
publicly
announce
on
a
web
25
site,
newspaper,
I
don't
care
where,
but
make
some
115
1
public
announcement
of
these
opportunities,
and
also
2
instead
of
getting
a
bidders
list,
they
go
to
an
3
applicable
directory
in
their
area,
those
that
EPA
has
4
identified
as
being
similar
to
EPA's
registration.

5
MS.
BROWN:
Thank
you.
When
you
go
through
6
the
good
faith
efforts,
that's
one
of
the
things
that
we
7
agree
­­

8
MS.
PATRICK:
One
of
the
things
we
require.

9
MS.
BROWN:
­­
require
them
to
do
is
to
10
publicly
advertise.
I
mean,
that's
already
on
the
11
books.
That's
on
the
books.
That's
in
the
documents.

12
MR.
SMITH:
Clifton
Smith,
Eagle
Environmental
13
Construction,
and
I
wanted
to
join
in
what
she
is
14
saying.

15
EPA
has
all
of
these
requirements
for
the
16
primes.
In
the
event
there
were
or
there
is
a
list
of
17
certified
subcontractors
available,
what
authority
18
forces
that
prime
to
look
at
that
list
and
to
select
or
19
to
use
these
businesses?

20
MS.
PATRICK:
There's
no
requirement
that
21
forces
them
to
select
or
contract
with
them,
but
there's
22
a
requirement
they
must
go
out
and
it's
included
in
23
their
process
for
selecting
that
sub.

24
What
we
can
impose,
what
we
can
legally
impose,

25
you
have
to
at
least
look,
include
them
in
the
universe,
116
1
bring
them
in,
make
them
part
of
the
process.

2
We
can't
tell
you
who
to
pick,
but
we
can
tell
3
you
you
have
to
include
them
in
the
process.

4
MR.
SMITH:
What
is
your
quality
assurance
5
procedure
for
making
sure
that
they
have
done
this?

6
MS.
PATRICK:
Reporting.
One
of
the
things,

7
I
don't
know
if
you
were
in
here
at
that
point
when
we
8
talked
about
the
reporting.
It's
like
death
and
taxes.

9
You
will
always
report
back
to
EPA
on
what
your
10
activities
are.

11
One,
the
prime
has
to
report
back
to
us
on
the
12
activity
of
the
prime;
then
the
form
5700­
52­
A,
they
13
have
to
report
back
to
us.
One
of
the
things
they
have
14
to
report
back
on
is
the
activities
of
their
prime.

15
In
turn,
their
prime
information
about
the
sub
16
activity
reports
back
and
it
comes
to
EPA.

17
Our
mechanism
is
to
make
sure
that
is
18
happening,
is
making
sure
the
reporting
is
done.

19
MS.
BROWN:
This
is
the
report
form
that
is
20
currently
underway
that
the
grantee
is
supposed
to
use
21
and
report
to
us.
We
have
different
periods
in
terms
22
of
when
they
have
to
do
that.

23
Again,
this
is
to
count
towards
their
goal
that
24
was
negotiated
with
EPA.
They
have
to
report
back
in
25
the
actual
MBE/
WBE
procurement
accomplishment
reporting
117
1
period,
by
loan
recipients,
sub
recipients,
prime
2
contractors,
also
report
the
­­
actually,
WME/
WBE
3
accomplished
this
reporting
period
for
the
various
4
programs,
and
this
is
the
form,
and
it
goes
into
more
5
detail
on
the
back
in
terms
of
listing
who
they
were
and
6
what
they
got,
name
and
address,
type
of
product,
the
7
type
of
businesses
they
were
in,
etc.

8
So
from
this
report
we
can
find
out,
and
I
can
9
assure
you
sometimes
the
numbers
don't
add
up,
and
we
10
have
to
go
back
and
say,
what
did
you
do
here?
We've
11
got
questions
and
it
raises
some
attention
to
it.

12
MR.
SMITH:
The
reason
I
ask,
I
know
the
Navy
13
has
begun
a
new
program
where
they
are
requiring
these
14
primes
when
they
submit
their
proposals
for
the
work
15
that
needs
to
be
done,
they
are
requiring
them
to
list
16
those
businesses,
minority
or
subcontract
businesses,

17
that
they
contacted
with
their
submission.
18
MS.
PATRICK:
That's
a
very
good
thing.
You
19
are
talking
about
the
Navy
doing
direct
contracting
with
20
its
primes.

21
This
program
is
very
different.
We
are
not
22
talking
about
direct
contracting
with
EPA.

23
We
are
talking
contracting
that
occurs
with
24
recipients
that
occurs
with
EPA
grant
dollars.

25
That
would
mean
if
the
state
of
California
did
118
1
a
two
million
dollar
grant
from
EPA
to
put
in
a
water
2
treatment
facility,
they
go
out
and
in
turn
get
a
3
contractor
to
do
that.
That
contract
is
between
that
4
prime
and
the
recipient.

5
We
are
asking
the
recipient
to
report
back
to
6
us
their
activities
with
their
prime,
so
forth.
So
it's
7
a
very
different
kind
of
program.

8
In
the
situation
you
just
talked
about,
yes,

9
the
Navy,
yes,
the
prime
you
are
doing
business
for
me
10
and
tell
me
everything.
I
want
the
X,
Y,
Z.
I
want
it
11
given
directly
to
me.

12
EPA
cannot
require
that.
We
can
require
the
13
recipient
to
get
the
information
from
their
prime
for
14
their
purposes.
It's
like
a
veil
we
can't
pierce.
We
15
can't
go,
we
can't
circumvent
the
recipient
and
go
16
directly
to
their
prime
and
say,
demand
all
of
this
17
stuff.
There's
no
privity
of
contract
there.

18
We
can
have
the
recipient
require
certain
19
things
of
their
prime.

20
MR.
SMITH:
If
you
require
the
recipient
to
21
require
certain
things,
such
as
provide
this
22
information.

23
MS.
BROWN:
That's
what
we
ask
is.
24
MS.
BASHAM:
Adele
Basham.

25
Kind
of
back
to
this
database
idea,
what
we
119
1
have
been
working
on
for
several
years
is
between
DOT
2
and
the
Clean
Water
and
Drinking
Water
SRF
programs.

3
As
I
described
earlier,
the
DBE
program,
and
4
DOT
is
really
on
that.
They
maintain
a
web
site
where
5
all
of
the
DBEs
are
listed,
but
we
use
their
listing
6
when
we
are
referring
our
contractors
to
a
list.

7
DOT
does
not
require
US
citizenship,
so
in
our
8
good
faith
efforts
to
provide,
you
know,
a
list
of
DBE
9
contractors,
we
are
using
a
list
that
includes
both
10
citizens
and
non­
citizens.
Is
that
acceptable?

11
MS.
PATRICK:
At
this
point,
given
the
way
the
12
rule
is
currently
is
written,
knowing
that
it's
subject
13
to
changes
and
different
types
before
it's
final,
at
14
this
point
with
what
this
draft
is
that
would
make
your
15
goals
skewed
in
terms
of
EPA
or
the
database
would
be
a
16
little
different
in
terms
of
how
it
would
be
used
for
17
your
EPA,
for
the
monies
you
used
for
the
company
from
18
the
EPA
for
your
contract.
We
require
citizenship.

19
MS.
BROWN:
But
for
the
goals
­­

20
MS.
PATRICK:
It
would
affect
that
too.

21
MS.
BASHAM:
We
have
spent
several
years.
Part
22
of
the
effort,
outreach
effort
is
to
get
all
of
the
23
disadvantaged
businesses,
just
being
how
you
qualify,

24
how
you
get
on
the
list,
and
that's
been
going
on
for
a
25
few
years
in
this
state.
And
so
a
lot
of
effort
has
120
1
gone
into
building
this
list.

2
MS.
PATRICK:
I
understand
that.
Thank
you.
3
MR.
CARATINI:
Jose
Caratini,
EPA.
My
point
is
4
that
all
of
these
businesses
are
not
going
to
get
the
5
outreach
that
they
were
getting
before,
meaning
that
I
6
don't
know
how
the
state
of
Nevada
can
certify
they
met
7
their
certification
in
nondiscrimination
because
they
8
are
discriminating
if
they
are
­­

9
MS.
PATRICK:
That's
your
interpretation
that
10
it
would
be
discrimination.
There
would
be
others
that
11
are
not.
Point
well
taken.
Thank
you.

12
MS.
FELETTO:
Is
it
possible
that
you
will
be
13
re­
proposing
and
re­
publishing
before
you
finalize,
or
14
is
the
bulk
of
comment
such
that
you
might
consider
15
phasing
the
revolving
fund
program
in
later,
something
16
that
would
give
more
timeline
to
adjust
the
program
to
17
the
needs
of
the
loan
recipients
as
well
as
the
DBE
18
community?

19
MS.
PATRICK:
What
the
process
would
entail
20
is,
after
we
are
done,
the
comment
period
closes
for
21
this
rule.

22
We
are
extending
the
comment
period.
Normally
23
it
would
close
today.
So
we
are
thinking
of
closing
24
maybe
45
days
from
now.

25
It
would
be
no
earlier
than
February
28th.
If
121
1
the
Federal
Register
requires,
then
it
would
be
45
days
2
from
now,
which
would
put
us
into
the
very
first
week
of
3
March.

4
After
that,
internally
we
have
to
gather
all
of
5
the
comments
we
have
received,
and
we
have
to
create
6
what
our
disposition
was
on
the
comments
and
how
we
7
addressed
them
and
what
our
response
is.

8
We
go
through
another
process.
Out
of
that
9
process
we
may
very
well
change
a
number
of
provisions
10
that
are
in
here.

11
The
internal
EPA
process
needs
concurrence
from
12
everybody
and
their
brother
in
the
agency,
and
once
it
13
goes
through
that,
it
will
be
in
a
final
form.

14
At
that
point,
that
would
be
pretty
much
it.

15
So
there
would
not
be
another
round
of
public
16
hearing
on
this,
which
is
why
we
are
making
such
a
17
whole­
scale
effort
to
go
across
the
country
and
generate
18
as
much
public
comment
as
possible.

19
I
need
to
point
out,
again,
your
comments
are
20
not
taken
lightly.
From
our
first
draft
to
where
we
21
are
now,
this
document
is
completely
different
in
so
22
many
ways,
and
a
lot
of
that
is
a
direct
result
from
23
comments
we
received
from
the
public
about
things
they
24
felt
we
needed
to
change,
and
we
listened
and
changes
25
are
in
here.
122
1
Even
if
your
comments
are
on
citizenship,
or
on
2
other
parts
of
the
database,
we
need
to
hear
it
and
let
3
us
know.

4
So
we
are
going
through
the
process
of
5
re­
looking
at
all
of
this,
redrafting
this
rule
and
6
getting
it
to
the
final
point.

7
We
can't
just
say,
we
decide
to
do
this
and
8
not
provide
a
reason.

9
It
is
like
the
availability
analysis.
You
10
can't
give
us
a
goal
with
no
backup
for
it.

11
We
can't
come
up
with
a
final
product,
without
12
saying
everyone
is
requiring
us
to
say
what
we
did
with
13
the
comments
we
received,
and
so
to
that
extent,
that
14
is,
this
is
your
opportunity
to
be
a
part
of
that
part
15
of
the
process.

16
MS.
BROWN:
Now,
I
will
say,
though,
again,
as
17
we
said
earlier,
this
has
been
almost
a
five­
year
18
process.
This
is
not
the
first
time
we
have
convened,

19
met
with
the
states,
met
with
grant
recipients,
with
the
20
business
sector.

21
We
have
been
here
before
in
this
room
and
have
22
had
several
meetings
about
availability
analysis,
what
23
it
means,
what
you
should
be
looking
for,
or
at,
how
to
24
do
those
from
a
grant
recipient
standpoint,
working
with
25
a
lot
of
the
­­
at
least
two
other
meetings
in
different
123
1
places
around
the
country,
where
the
states
and
grant
2
recipients
were
invited
to
come,
bringing
and
3
introducing
the
availability
analysis.
This
is
not
new.

4
As
a
matter
of
fact,
we
imposed
the
5
availability
analysis
even
before
the
rule
is
final
6
because
we
had
to.

7
So
this
is
not
something
that
has
cropped
up.

8
It's
been
around.
Its
been
in
at
least
two
rounds
of
9
negotiations
that
should
have
been
completed
by
now
in
10
this
scenario,
at
least
two,
and
so
the
learning
curve
11
should
be
getting
better,
I
would
think.

12
MS.
PATRICK:
I
also
want
to
point
out
that
13
until
the
rule
does
become
final,
we
will
continue
to
14
operate
the
program
as
it
currently
is.

15
So
a
lot
of
people
ask
and
are
confused,
do
I
16
start
this
now?
You
do
not
starting,
you
are
not
doing
17
anything
that's
in
here
now
until
the
rule
becomes
18
final.

19
Once
it
becomes
final,
then
there's
the
final
20
document
as
it
will
be
will
be
the
way
we
will
conduct
21
business.

22
Up
until
that
very
point,
you
are
who
you
say
23
you
are.
If
you
say
you
are
Donald
Duck,
we
believe
24
you.

25
Your
process
in
the
negotiation
of
the
goals
124
1
MBE,
WBE
goals
remain
the
same.
All
of
those
other
2
things,
the
reporting
is
still
the
same,
the
six
good
3
faith
efforts
are
still
the
same.

4
You
operate
as
if
you
don't
even
know
about
5
this
for
right
now
until
this
becomes
final.

6
We
have
talked
about
the
bidders
list
7
exhaustively.

8
The
last
thing
which
is
Waivers.
We
have
9
built
into
the
rule
the
authority
for
the
director,
the
10
office
of
the
director
to
be
able
to
grant
waivers
to
11
provisions
of
the
rule
that
are
not
instituted
by
12
statute
or
by
Executive
Order.

13
We
don't
have
the
authority
to
go
against
the
14
statute
or
Executive
Order,
but
there
are
provisions
in
15
the
rule
where
the
director
can
grant
a
waiver.

16
To
give
you
an
example
of
things
you
cannot
17
grant
a
waiver
from
­­
everybody's
got
two
guesses.

18
MR.
BOONSTRA:
Reporting
and
good
faith.

19
MS.
PATRICK:
The
reporting,
and
the
good
20
faith
efforts.
There
will
be
no
waivers.

21
MS.
BROWN:
I
can't
do
it
and
nobody
else
in
22
the
Agency
can.

23
MS.
PATRICK:
I
want
to
make
it
really
clear.

24
We've
already
talked
about
the
next
step
is
extending
25
the
comment
period,
and
what
the
process
will
be.
125
1
My
ambitious
hope
is
that
by
2005,
by
late
2
2005,
probably
2006,
the
way
this
is
going,
this
rule
3
hopefully
will
become
final.
So
we
are
looking
at
a
4
year,
year­
and­
a­
half
to
get
this
thing
final.

5
There
you
have
it.
Any
other
comments,

6
questions?

7
MS.
BROWN:
We
are
taking
these
proceeds
from
8
the
hearing
back
and
will
look
at
and
make
sure
we
9
incorporate
and
consider
what
we
have
heard.

10
We
really
would
like
and
need
to
hear
from
you.

11
If
you
could
go
to
where
we
identify
where
you
can
make
12
your
comment
in
the
record
in
terms
of
how
to
access
the
13
Federal
Register
documenting
that
chronically,
where
you
14
can
also
put
your
information
on
the
Docket.
That's
15
critical
and
very
important.
So
we
would
advise
you
16
also
to
do
that
as
well.

17
MS.
PATRICK:
I
would
point
out
that
the
18
transcript
will
also
be
on
the
Docket
as
well.

19
We
also
encourage
you
to
make
your
written
20
comments.
You
may
later
on,
after
reading
this,
it's
so
21
exciting,
so
you
may
say,
I
have
to
write
a
comment.

22
If
you
are
online,
you
think,
I've
got
a
comment,
go
to
23
the
Docket,
put
it
in
there,
move
on.

24
We
want
to
make
sure
we
get
your
comments
any
25
way
possible.
126
1
Turn
to
page
43825
of
the
actual
rule,
looking
2
under
the
first
column,
How
and
to
whom
do
I
submit
3
comment?
This
tells
you
where
you
can
go
to
put
your
4
comments
in
writing,
fax,
email,
web
site.
They
are
5
all
right
here.
I
want
to
draw
your
attention
to
that.

6
MR.
DE
PALMA:
In
the
bigger
form,
if
you
look
7
on
Responses
to
Commonly
Asked
Questions
Regarding
8
Proposed
DBE
Rule,
there's
a
little
larger
font
there.

9
MS.
BROWN:
Helps
the
eyes.

10
MS.
FELETTO:
Nadine
Feletto.

11
With
regard
to
the
forms
you
said
you
have
12
under
review
by
OMB,
will
those
be
on
the
docket
as
soon
13
as
they
approved?

14
MS.
PATRICK:
As
soon
as
OMB
is
done
with
15
whatever
they
do
to
them,
we
will
make
them
available
on
16
the
Docket,
as
well
as
on
our
web
site.

17
MR.
CARATINO:
Jose
Caratino.

18
Does
the
rule
have
economic
impact
analysis?

19
MS.
PATRICK:
That's
also
under
review
with
20
OMB,
along
with
the
whole
package.

21
MR.
INGRAM:
James
Ingram,
James
E.
Ingram
&

22
Company,
Inc.

23
Can
a
business
or
other
than
a
public
entity
be
24
a
recipient?

25
MS.
BROWN:
Of
a
grant?
127
1
MR.
INGRAM:
Yes.

2
MS.
BROWN:
You
have
to
be
a
non­
profit.
Not
3
for
profit.
It
can
be
a
business,
okay,
for
grant.

4
Now
contract
is
something
different.

5
Because
of
the
time,
I
think,
do
we
have
any
6
other
comments
or
questions
on
the
proposed
rule
as
is
7
stated
and
presented?

8
If
not,
I
think
we
can
end
this,
and
if
you
9
want
to
find
out
a
little
bit
more
about
doing
business
10
specifically,
directly
with
EPA,
I
can
talk
to
you
about
11
that.
Okay.

12
Any
other
comments,
questions
or
concerns?
13
Now
is
the
time
to
speak
out.

14
Okay.
This
ends
the
hearing
on
the
rule.

15
(
Whereupon,
Hearing
concluded
at
12:
50
p.
m.)

16
//

17
//

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
128
1
STATE
OF
CALIFORNIA
)
:
ss
2
COUNTY
OF
MARIN
)

3
I,
the
undersigned,
a
Certified
Shorthand
4
Reporter
of
the
State
of
Michigan,
do
hereby
certify:

5
That
the
foregoing
proceedings
were
taken
6
before
me
at
the
time
and
place
herein
set
forth;
that
a
7
verbatim
record
of
the
proceedings
was
made
by
me
using
8
machine
shorthand,
which
was
thereafter
transcribed
9
under
my
direction;
further,
that
to
the
best
of
my
10
ability
the
foregoing
is
an
accurate
transcription
11
thereof.

12
I
further
certify
that
I
am
neither
financially
13
interested
in
the
action
nor
a
relative
or
employee
of
14
any
attorney
of
any
of
the
parties.

15
IN
WITNESS
WHEREOF,
I
have
this
date
subscribed
16
my
name.

17
18
Dated:
__________________________
19
20
__________________________________________
21
Diane
M.
Gallagher
CSR
No.
(
Mich)
2141
22
23
24
25
129