Document ID: EPA-HQ-OAR-2001-0017-2810
Agency: epa
Document Type: Supporting & Related Material
Title: 
Posted Date: 2006-06-12T04:00Z

1
Meeting
Notes
for
the
Proposed
PM
NAAQS
Discussion
April
13,
2006
Seattle,
WA
Audience:
What
is
Environmental
Justice?

EPA:
Equal
environmental
protection
for
all.

Audience:
What
is
your
definition
of
trust
responsibility?

EPA:
Not
familiar
with
trust
responsibility.

Audience:
Decisions
should
be
made
in
best
interest
of
tribes.
You
have
a
legal
obligation.
PM10
revocation
affects
tribes
in
eastern
California.
The
Agency
did
not
act
in
the
best
interests
of
tribes.

EPA:
EPA
has
to
use
science
to
back
up
its
rule
making.

Audience:
Status
of
tribes
is
above
general
public.
EPA
failed
to
ask
themselves
about
how
tribes
would
be
affected.

Audience:
Did
EPA
use
all
science
available?
CASAC
said
no,
EPA
did
not.

EPA:
CASAC
sent
a
third
letter.
On
the
fine
PM
side,
35
ug/
m3
was
acceptable.
CASAC
disagreed
about
the
24­
hour
standard
which
is
proposed
at
15
ug/
m3.
They
wanted
13­
14
ug/
m3.
EPA
is
asking
for
comment
on
whether
this
number
should
change.
CASAC
said
more
monitoring
needs
to
be
done.

Audience:
Ignoring
rural
populations
is
ignoring
a
population
which
needs
protection
of
health
just
as
equally
as
urban
populations.

Audience:
This
is
not
consultation
with
tribes.

EPA:
Yes,
EPA
recognizes
that.
This
meeting
today
is
an
outreach
effort.

EPA:
EPA
would
like
to
see
comments
on
1)
Evidence
that
all
coarse
particles
are
bad
for
you;
2)
Effects
of
industrial
sources
in
rural
areas.

EPA:
EPA
did
look
at
chemical
composition
and
there
are
different
hazards.
Amount
of
pollutant
and
build­
up
is
difference.
Regarding
pesticides,
metals,
all
effects
come
from
urban
areas.
EPA
did
take
CASAC's
comments
into
consideration.
If
you
find
coarse
hazards
in
rural
areas,
you
should
regulate.
The
absence
of
studies
in
rural
areas
was
a
consideration.
2
Audience:
There
are
tribes
nearby
urban
areas
who
are
considered
rural
(
due
to
population).
Regardless,
PM
is
PM.
The
road
traffic
on
highways
such
as
Phoenix
(
I­
10)
through
the
Gila
River
is
very
similar
to
traffic
in
Phoenix.

EPA:
Recommend
that
commenters
explicitly
identify
tribes
in
those
situations
and
submit
them
to
the
docket.

Audience:
As
part
of
trust
responsibility,
need
to
locate
monitors
in
rural
areas.

EPA:
Most
of
the
225
monitors
will
be
in
MSAs.
EPA
is
planning
to
do
rural
monitoring
also.

Audience:
Monitors
need
to
be
in
Indian
Country
as
well.

Audience:
The
National
Tribal
Caucus
(
NTC)
met
with
Administrator
Johnson.
Administrator
Johnson
said
the
proposed
rule
is
based
on
science.
He
asked
for
evidence
in
rural
areas
if
it
exists.
The
NTC
is
hoping
EPA
has
some
of
these
studies.

EPA:
Even
anecdotal
evidence
will
help.

Audience:
The
Tribal
Authority
Rule
(
TAR)
was
developed
for
tribes
developing
air
quality
programs.
A
lot
of
tribes
monitor
for
PM.
It
is
not
easy
to
educate
tribes,
etc.
EPA
is
losing
credibility
with
tribes
if
the
rule
goes
through.
As
a
result
tribal
environmental
professionals
lose
credibility
with
their
tribal
councils.

Audience:
EPA
needs
to
look
at
the
AQS
and
other
databases
that
tribes
submit
their
data
to.
EPA
has
the
tribal
data.
If
PM10
rule
is
revoked,
we
need
to
find
solutions
to
seek
funding
to
continue.
Does
this
mean
converting
to
PM2.5?

Audience:
No
matter
what
the
media,
EPA
is
losing
credibility.

Audience:
It
is
a
personal
insult
that
EPA
does
not
know
trust
responsibility.

EPA:
It
is
my
task
to
educate
my
colleagues
and
I
take
responsibility
for
not
talking
with
them
prior
to
this
meeting.

Audience:
Looking
at
map
of
eastern
California,
the
Great
Basin
Unified
District
testified
to
CASAC
and
informed
them
of
the
issues
they
face
with
the
Owens
Lake.
EPA
reaffirmed
environmental
justice.
They
stated
that
air
is
a
priority
including
decrease
asthma
attacks
and
reducing
exposure
to
air
toxics.

EPA:
Owens
Lake
is
a
unique
issue.

Audience:
District
5
is
a
poor
district
within
Inyo
County
(
where
Owens
Lake
is
located).
3
EPA:
California
also
has
its
own
standards.

Audience:
California
doesn't
have
trust
responsibility
duties
for
Indigenous
peoples.
A
national
standard
is
needed
for
Owens
Lake.
We
have
concerns
within
our
tribal
boundaries.
EPA
only
had
a
couple
of
hearings
in
areas
that
would
be
protected
by
the
proposed
rule.
The
hearings
should
have
been
in
areas
not
protected
as
well.

EPA:
It's
one
of
the
reasons
we
are
here
today.
We
are
trying
to
create
other
avenues.

Audience:
It's
EPA
policy,
Executive
Order
12898.
EPA
didn't
follow
through.

EPA:
Valid
point.

Audience:
Concerned
about
the
exemption
of
mining
and
agricultural
sources
including
the
Tar
Creek
Superfund
site.

Audience:
As
an
environmental
professional,
I
have
been
exposed
to
dust;
wood
dust
is
a
possible
carcinogen.
Large
particulate
is
a
problem.
Tribes
concerns
are
the
same
as
industries.
Some
sources
of
concern
are
mine
tailings,
agricultural
areas
(
including
plowing),
Hanford
nuclear
plant,
and
unpaved
roads.

Audience:
Concerned
with
mining
in
Nevada.
There
a
lot
of
loopholes.
New
regulations
in
state
will
increase
mining.
I­
80
freeway
traffic
is
increasing.
Live
nearby
a
city
that
is
the
third
fastest
growing
city
in
the
US.
Also,
EPA
is
using
2000
census,
this
rule
doesn't
take
into
consideration
that
town/
cities
are
growing
and
it
is
not
using
data
that
is
representative
of
current
conditions.

EPA:
By
the
time
the
coarse
particle
rule
goes
through,
it
might
be
better
to
use
2010
census
data.

Audience:
Did
EPA
conduct
cost
benefit
analysis
on
this
rule?
What
was
the
result?
Will
the
cost
benefit
analysis
impact
tribes?
Did
you
look
at
cost
impacts
of
re­
opening
the
PM
SIPs/
TIPs?

EPA:
EPA
conducted
preliminary
regulatory
impact
analysis
(
RIA)
looking
at
the
proposed
fine
particle
standards
only.
We
looked
at
the
net
benefits
and
costs
to
society
as
a
result
of
tighter
PM2.5
standards.
We
also
looked
at
expected
impacts
of
both
fine
and
coarse
monitoring
on
the
size
of
monitoring
networks.
In
the
interim,
we
will
continue
to
implement
PM10
in
some
situations
before
PM10­
2.5
is
in
place.
We
did
not
look
at
the
costs
of
re­
opening
the
PM
SIPs/
TIPs.

Audience:
What
about
money
to
rewrite
rules?

EPA:
May
not
have
to
rewrite
rules.
We
can't
rollback
regulations.
But
you
have
a
good
point.
4
EPA:
Some
states
can
implement
stricter
standards
than
EPA.

Audience:
Does
the
mining
industry
support
the
proposed
rule?

EPA:
They
don't
support
it
overall
but
they
are
happier
with
proposed
rule.

Audience:
Does
EPA
consider
the
American
Lung
Association
to
be
a
credible
entity?

EPA:
The
ALA
wants
tougher
standards.
They
also
want
uniform
standards
and
for
them
to
be
lower.

Audience:
Concerning
the
issue
with
PM
standards,
if
you
don't
measure,
you
don't
know.
The
map
makes
the
tribes
look
smaller
and
the
reality
is
the
maps
do
not
represent
those
living
in
the
area.
Less
measurement
is
going
in
wrong
direction.
The
standards
are
set
too
high
with
impacts
to
human
health
and
ecology.
I
have
a
responsibility
to
my
tribe
to
protect
the
community.
The
standards
are
not
responsive
to
risks
due
to
short
exposure
time.
There
might
be
long­
term
impacts
we
don't
know
about.
PM
has
been
linked
to
asthma
triggers.
Tribal
programs
are
dealing
with
insufficient
resources
to
address
environmental
issues,
much
less
PM.
Current
monitoring
is
insufficient.
EPA
needs
to
provide
mechanisms
for
input.

Audience:
The
Quinault
tribe
submitted
comments.
I
am
making
comments
as
a
private
citizen.
The
western
Washington
tribes
(
Shoalwater,
Chehalis,
etc.)
are
surrounded
by
nearby
cities
which
fall
under
the
100,000
population.
There
are
several
sources
in
the
region
including
coal,
pulp
and
paper
mills,
and
title
V
sources.
I
hope
the
monitors
that
are
in
the
area
will
still
be
able
to
run.
Tribes
have
lived
in
the
area
for
10,000
years.
To
say
those
lands
won't
be
monitored
is
wrong.
The
rates
of
asthma
are
high
in
tribal
communities.
The
agricultural
and
mining
sources
exemptions
are
unreasonable.
Environmental
justice
is
crux
of
issue.
Ask
yourself
if
you
are
willing
to
live
up
to
the
trust
responsibility
to
tribes.
The
U.
S.
administration
changes
over
time,
nonetheless,
it
still
has
a
trust
responsibility
to
tribes.
Stop
the
rule,
reconsider.

EPA:
Regarding
the
smaller
communities
you
use
as
examples,
give
explicit
description
of
active
monitoring
and
increased
concentrations
and
please
submit.

Audience:
There
PM10
and
PM2.5
monitors
in
Lacy,
WA
and
Chehalis.
There
is
PM2.5
monitoring
occurring
near
a
power
plant.
Aberdeen,
WA
has
a
PM2.5
monitor.
The
Makah
tribe
has
found
baseline
assessment
necessary
to
look
at
increased
concentrations
from
Asia.
The
monitors
must
stay.

EPA:
Any
fine
particles?

Audience:
Need
more
monitors,
not
to
lose
them.

EPA:
You
need
to
justify
why
they're
there.
5
EPA:
Also
understand,
any
tribe
can
monitor
as
they
deem
necessary.
However,
unless
it's
in
a
nonattainment
area,
you
won't
be
able
to
compare
against
proposed
standards.

Audience:
The
problem
with
saying
"
show
us
the
monitoring
data"
is
that
it
already
exists
in
national
databases.

EPA:
We
did
look
at
the
data.
It
did
not
show
particular
issues/
areas
with
populations
under
100,000,
near
interstates,
etc.

Audience:
Funding
is
there
for
tribes
to
address
issues
sufficiently.
Tribes
can't
get
health
studies.
You
have
to
work
with
tribes
individually.
There
are
politics
with
tribal
councils/
governments;
all
comment
periods
should
stay
at
90
days
to
give
tribes
adequate
time
to
respond;
tribes
don't
want
to
be
excluded
from
monitoring;
regional
air
coordinators
will
stop
funding
where
there
isn't
a
standard
and
it
will
go
elsewhere.
PM
may
not
be
adequately
addressed
without
a
standard;
anecdotal
information
is
all
we
have
now;
the
trust
responsibility
of
the
Agency
is
ludicrous
and
it
puts
a
burden
on
the
tribes.

Audience:
The
Southern
Ute
Indian
Tribe
will
provide
their
own
official
comments.
As
a
member
of
the
Navajo
Nation,
I
would
like
to
make
comments.
The
tribe
has
surface
mining
issues
and
the
people
who
live
in
the
area
are
facing
health
risks.
With
the
proposed
rule,
protections
will
be
removed.
People
who
live
in
nearby
areas
need
to
be
protected.
(
The
following
comments
were
added
at
the
request
of
the
commenter:
I
do
not
believe
that
the
limited
studies
of
crustal
particulate
composition
accurately
characterize
the
coal
dust
particulate
emitted
from
the
surface
mines.
There
is
much
anecdotal
information
coming
from
these
communities
indicating
respiratory
complications
and
increasing
visits
to
the
hospitals
and
clinics
to
address
these
complaints.)

Audience:
Alaskan
tribes
are
behind
the
lower
48
tribes
in
dealing
with
environmental
issues.
Alaska
may
have
clean
air
now
but
if
EPA
eliminates
the
PM10
standard,
Alaska
will
be
eliminated
as
potential
recipients
of
funding.
They
have
air
issues
such
as
black
mold
in
HUD
homes.
They
are
trying
to
work
with
Darrel
(
Harmon)
to
get
issues
addressed.
We
realize
that
EPA
is
trying
to
increase
funding
for
Alaska
villages
but
this
rule
could
hurt
that.

Audience:
Villages
are
upset
and
surprised
at
the
mining
exemption.

Audience:
The
Confederated
Salish
&
Kootenai
tribe
is
submitting
a
letter.
Quoting
excerpts
from
the
letter
the
tribe
submitted:
"
Executive
Order
13175
entitled
"
Consultation
and
Coordination
with
Indian
Tribal
Governments''
requires
EPA
to
develop
an
accountable
process
to
ensure
``
meaningful
and
timely
input
by
tribal
officials
in
the
development
of
regulatory
policies
that
have
tribal
implications.''
Comments
on
the
proposed
rules
at
this
point
in
time
are
the
first
window
of
opportunity
to
provide
comment
allowing
no
input
into
the
development
of
the
proposed
rules
beforehand
by
Indian
Tribal
Governments.
6
Without
an
adequate
data
set
of
rural
exposure
health
effects
the
proposed
rule
changes
should
be
limited
to
only
urban
areas.
In
absence
of
such
rules
for
rural
areas,
it
may
be
left
to
assume
that
there
are
no
unsafe
levels
of
PM
in
such
areas.
Within
a
properly
framed
context,
the
question
and
evidence
presents
a
more
strident
argument
for
diversity
in
monitoring
urban
versus
urban
environments
rather
than
urban
versus
rural.
The
standard
as
proposed
would
expressly
not
apply
to
PM10­
2.5
which
originates
from
windblown
dust
such
as
from
agriculture
and
mining
sources.
With
regard
to
the
need
to
regulate
mining
sources,
we
refer
EPA
to
the
public
health
catastrophe
that
is
the
rural
community
of
Libby,
Montana."

Audience:
Regarding
rural
community
notification.
There
was
nothing
in
the
rural
newspapers.
Who
was
tasked
with
notification
in
rural
areas?
They
dropped
the
ball.
There
was
no
public
discussion
on
news
(
CNN,
Fox,
etc.),
even
Seattle
paper.

EPA:
EPA
has
a
communications
office
and
Press
office
for
briefings,
packages,
etc.
Each
regional
office
has
a
press
corp.
Every
week
this
information
is
shared
and
regions
are
responsible
for
getting
the
word
out.
Good
point.

EPA:
Legitimate
concern.
"
Offer
outreach
and
opportunities
for
comment
in
Spanish"
was
another
comment.
We
will
pass
it
on.

Audience:
EPA
needs
to
learn
from
experience
and
consult
with
tribes
in
development
of
future
rules
(
example:
ozone
NAAQS)
from
ground
up.
Not
at
comment
period.

Audience:
Asking
tribes
to
respond
to
fatally
flawed
process.
EPA
is
not
addressing
pollution
concerns.
EPA
sent
a
letter
commending
the
Passamaquoddy
for
attainment
of
PM2.5
but
there
aren't
any
monitors
in
a
200­
mile
radius.
The
levels
of
toxics
are
flawed.
Precautionary
principle
needs
to
be
used.
Industry
needs
to
prove
it's
in
compliance,
which
is
the
case
for
other
countries.
But
the
U.
S.
is
not
like
that.
Principle
in
U.
S.
needs
to
be
flip­
flopped.

Audience:
How
does
EPA
plan
to
keep
and
monitor
health
and
attainment
in
Class
II,
II
and
III
areas?
How
to
protect
air
sheds?

EPA:
If
standards
are
revoked.
EPA
has
maintenance
obligations
but
no
responsibility
otherwise.
For
PM
coarse,
boundaries
will
change.
Need
comment
on
this.
Areas
will
probably
be
smaller
to
focus
on
urban
areas.

Audience:
How
will
EPA
keep
attainment?

EPA:
No
standards
for
rural
areas,
which
could
have
detrimental
effects.

EPA:
PM2.5
standards
might
help
at
new
lower
standards
since
PM2.5
is
going
to
be
a
little
tighter.
7
EPA:
Do
we
expect
any
spillover
(
coarse
particle
reductions
due
to
controls
instituted
for
PM2.5
nonattainment)?

EPA:
Not
a
lot.
Tighter
PM2.5
standard
may
not
drive
rural
dust
control.
Unlike
eastern
U.
S.,
the
west
does
not
have
high
regional
background.
This
rule
will
attack
bigger
sources.

Audience:
Looking
at
one
of
your
fact
sheets
regarding
PM10
standards,
proposed
standards
don't
cover
specific
sources
such
as
agricultural
sources,
but
yet
the
handout
talks
about
increased
health
risks
and
increased
dollars
for
medical
issues
related
to
PM.
Rural
areas
will
not
be
taken
seriously.

Audience:
Question
regarding
national
strategic
plan
goals.
EPA
recognizes
tribal
air
quality
programs
and
wants
to
increase
by
thirty
more.
This
move
(
rule)
is
not
helping
to
attain
EPA's
own
goal.
It
undermines
the
tribal
program
plan
goals
and
further
undermines
funding.

Audience:
Regarding
your
map,
why
aren't
all
states
included?
Why
only
the
lower
48?
The
courts
say
it's
not
acceptable
to
have
overlap.
Courts
also
say
not
acceptable
to
mistreatment
of
tribes.
EPA
can't
even
deal
with
visibility
as
it
is.

EPA:
PM2.5
is
a
health
standard.
It
may
get
at
regional
haze.

Audience:
A
secondary
standard
exists.
The
eastern
California
region
is
surrounded
by
national
parks,
national
forests,
and
wilderness
areas.
EPA
doesn't
uphold
secondary
standards.
Owens
Valley
is
a
poor
area.
The
economic
impacts
are
ignored.
District
5
is
an
area
that
needs
a
stronger
PM
standard.
Tourism
is
the
primary
revenue
source
and
EPA
won't
uphold
secondary
standards.
People
won't
want
to
come
because
of
particulate
issues.

EPA:
Secondary
standard
doesn't
even
address
audience
member's
comments.

Audience:
Have
you
read
EPA's
commitment
to
environmental
justice
memo?

EPA:
No,
I
have
not.

Audience:
Not
surprised.
It
was
directed
to
upper­
management
folks
in
EPA.
Why
the
Administrator
Johnson's
memo
is
not
followed
is
baffling.
There
is
a
citation
within
the
memo
regarding
EPA's
strategic
plan
for
fiscal
years
2006­
2011,
"#
2,
identify
the
means
and
strategies
to
achieve
the
commitments
and
measure
outcomes
to
help
ensure
that
Agency
resources
reach
disproportionately
burdened
communities,
including
disproportionately
burdened
minority
and/
or
low­
income
communities."
This
has
not
happened.
The
memo
compels
everyone
within
EPA
to
support
the
goals
listed.

EPA:
I
take
responsibility
for
not
getting
the
word
out.
We
are
working
on
trying
to
improve
EJ
issues.
8
Audience:
What
steps
did
EPA
take
to
ensure
the
following
environmental
justice
act
for
the
PM
rule?
Again
the
Administrator's
memo
says
it's
everyone's
responsibility.
Goal
Four
specifically
states,
"
Improving
Research
and
data
collection
for
Agency
programs
relating
to
the
health
and
environment
of
all
people,
including
minority
and/
or
low
income
populations."
Congress
made
it
clear
that
all
Americans
have
a
safe
place
to
live.
Barry
E.
Hill,
Office
of
Environmental
Justice,
has
not
responded
to
inquiries
from
the
Lone
Pine
Paiute
Tribe.
I
would
like
the
Environmental
Appeals
Board's
contact
information.

EPA:
We
will
find
a
contact
for
Appeals
Board.
OAQPS
is
trying
to
improve
EJ.
The
rule
writers
did
look
at
EJ
analysis.
The
Agency
is
coming
out
with
a
new
tool
to
help
rule
writers
where
EJ
is
a
concern.
The
tool
takes
into
account
age,
race,
and
other
demographics
and
will
be
available
to
use
soon.
We
are
trying
to
stop
the
late
hits
such
as
this
proposed
PM
rule.

EPA:
Regarding
the
change
in
strategic
goals,
they
trickle
down
in
vague
descriptions.
We
are
trying
to
make
them
measurable.
We're
trying
to
demonstrate
that
they
won't
go
to
the
back
burner.

Audience:
If
the
federal
government
followed
through,
this
probably
wouldn't
be
an
EJ
issue.
Advanced
notice
was
given,
but
tribes
weren't
notified.
EPA:
EPA
did
send
out
letters
to
tribal
leaders
and
we
had
several
conference
calls
with
tribal
environmental
professionals.
We
obviously
missed
some
tribes.

Audience:
The
burden
is
heavy
on
tribes
to
keep
apprised.
Tribes
lack
the
capacity
and
EPA
did
not
consider
this.

EPA:
Help
us
make
this
better
so
we
don't
miss
the
critical
masses.

Audience:
The
federal
government
didn't
want
us
here.
They
wanted
our
lands
and
resources.
Fort
Independence
troops
moved
into
the
California
region.
There
were
only
a
few
survivors
from
the
various
tribes
in
the
area
and
we
met
secretly
and
figured
out
how
to
survive.
The
government
put
tribes
on
small
tracts
of
lands.
The
Chinese
Exclusion
Act
was
finally
repealed
in
1943!
Tribes
have
a
history
of
assimilation,
termination,
etc.
The
government
is
stripping
away
our
lands,
culture,
resources,
still
to
this
day.
Think
of
the
history
and
the
current
reality
of
tribal
people
in
your
rule
making.
Due
process
is
a
must.

Audience:
Thank
you
for
the
opportunity
to
comment.
While
discussing
the
rule
process,
I
would
like
to
say
that
putting
Communities
and
Tribes
into
one
group
(
at
OAQPS)
is
an
example
of
EPA's
lack
of
recognizing
trust
responsibility.
It
is
a
slap
in
the
face
to
put
the
two
in
one
group.
(
Commenter
is
referring
to
the
recent
reorganization
at
the
EPA
Office
of
Air
Quality
Planning
&
Standards
in
Research
Triangle
Park,
NC.)

EPA:
The
reasons
are
very
bureaucratic.
Steve
(
Page)
and
Greg
(
Green)
are
aware
of
EPA's
responsibility
to
work
with
tribes.
They
felt
the
two
groups
shared
a
similar
skill
9
mix
and
the
tools
for
air
quality
planning
and
characteristics,
etc.
are
similar.
The
staff
is
dedicated
to
the
tribal
program
as
well
as
to
EJ.
We
wanted
to
maximize
staff
and
resources.
The
staff
has
increased
now
and
we
are
going
to
work
across
divisions
as
well
as
the
other
items
we
discussed
earlier
in
our
presentation.

Audience:
Regarding
the
reorganization,
I
would
like
to
see
better
access
to
information
and
more
communication
with
tribes.
(
Commenter
is
referring
to
the
recent
reorganization
at
the
EPA
Office
of
Air
Quality
Planning
&
Standards
in
Research
Triangle
Park,
NC.)

EPA:
There
are
other
pollutants
of
concern.
Some
pollutants
are
covered
by
other
programs.

Audience:
Are
mercury
emissions
attached
to
particles?

EPA:
Most
mercury
is
elemental
but
yes,
some
are
attached
to
particles.

EPA:
EPA
is
also
requesting
comment
on
what
constitutes
a
mining
source?
We
are
interested
in
distinct
comments.

EPA:
Tailings
piles 

EPA:
Grain
elevators,
how
is
this
addressed?
Distinct
comments
would
help.

Audience:
The
legal
and
statutory
precedence
still
stands
regardless
of
pollutant.
This
rule
sets
a
precedent.
I
hope
it
doesn't
occur
again
with
ozone.
Tribes
want
to
engage
early
and
often.

EPA:
Point
taken
and
we
will
take
it
to
Steve
(
Page)
and
Greg
(
Green)
at
OAQPS.

EPA:
EPA
is
not
closed
for
the
Easter
holiday
so
please
submit
your
comments
by
April
17,
2006.

Meeting
adjourned
at
3:
46
pm
(
PDT)