CONGRATULATIONS CLASS OF 2011

"Regulations as the Congress shall make." This power of Congress has rarely been exercised, except to refine the procedures for obtaining Court review of lower court decisions; over the years the trend has been for Congress to allow the Court maximum discretion in deciding whether to accept or reject a case. Of course, the very concept of Congress "allowing" the Court such discretion only reinforces that phrase in Section 2: ". . . supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make." The Court is still beholden to Congress as to what cases it may hear, and under what set of regulations that elected body of representatives drafts and approves. The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution, is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body. If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred; or, in other words, the constitution ought to be preferred to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention of their agents. Nor does this conclusion by any means suppose a superiority of the judicial to the legislative power . It only supposes that the power of the people is superior to both; and that where the will of the legislature, declared in its statutes, stands in opposition to that of the people, declared in the Constitution, the judges ought to be governed by the latter rather than the former. They ought to regulate their decisions by the fundamental laws, rather than by those which are not fundamental. It can be of no weight to say that the courts, on the pretense of a repugnancy, may substitute their own pleasure to the constitutional intentions of the legislature . This might as well happen in the case of two contradictory statutes; or it might as well happen in every adjudication upon any single statute. The courts must declare the sense of the law; and if they should be disposed to exercise WILL instead of JUDGMENT, the consequence would equally be the substitution of their pleasure to that of the legislative body . The observation, if it prove any thing, would prove that there ought to be no judges distinct from that body.

§ 2344. Review of orders; time; notice; contents of petition; service

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                On the entry of a final order reviewable under this chapter, the agency shall promptly give notice thereof by service or publication in accordance with its rules. Any party aggrieved by the final order may, within 60 days after its entry, file a petition to review the order in the court of appeals wherein venue lies. The action shall be against the United States. The petition shall contain a concise statement of— (1) the nature of the proceedings as to which review is sought; (2) the facts on which venue is based; (3) the grounds on which relief is sought; and (4) the relief prayed.

 

SUPREME COURT PLURALITY DECISION (JUSTICE SCALIA) ON FEDERAL CLEAN WATER ACT JURISIDICTION

 

The jurisdictional standard is determined by the terms of the act. In SWANCC, the Supreme Court determined that the act was clear and should be read as written to avoid the constitutional questions raised by a broad interpretation of the act. As written -- If we look at 1251(a), Congress declares that its purpose is to protect the integrity of the Nation's waters. It used that term, Nation's waters. And then in -- in 1251(a)(1), it says it will accomplish this by eliminating the discharge of pollutants into the navigable waters, showing that it knows how to distinguish between all waters and navigable waters. And then in 1251(b), Congress says we will respect and defer to the States' primary responsibility to address local water pollution and to manage local land and water use. So the way that Congress intended to address this issue was to defer to the States to regulate pollutants upstream while Congress -- or while the Federal Government regulates downstream. That's a perfectly rational approach to this national problem. Congress determined that it would defer to the States instead of exercising any further power beyond its channels authority.

TROVERTROVER1TROVER2ORE RESERVE MAP

 

United States Tax Court Rules of
Practice and Procedure

The pages listed below represent the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure in their entirety with all additions and amendments. They are the official files released by the U.S. Tax Court.

Except for the introductory material which is in HTML format, all the other material is in PDF format.

Also at the bottom of this page is a search button to our search engine. From there you can search either the entire U.S. Tax Court section, or all of UncleFed's Tax*Board.

Introduction to the U.S. Tax Court - HTML

Frequently Asked Questions - HTML

Address & Hours of Operation - HTML

Fees & Charges for Filing Petitions - HTML

Search Opinions of the U.S. Tax Court

Download all the Rules in one file . 297 pages; (1.6 megs)


U.S. Tax Court Rules by Title

Title I: Scope of Rules; Rules 1-3
PDF format ; - 2 pages; (92k)
Construction; Effective Date; Definitions.
Rule 1: See New Rules .
Rule 2: Effective Date
Rule 3: Definitions

Title II: The Court. Rules 10-13
PDF format ; 3 pages; (28k)
Rule 10: Name, Office, and Sessions
Rule 11: Payments to Court
Rule 12: Court Records
Rule 13: Jurisdiction

Title III: Commencement of Case; Service and Filing of Papers: Form and Style of Papers; Appearance and Representation; Computation of Time. Rules 20-25
PDF format ; 9 pages; (48k)
Rule 20: Commencement of Case
Rule 21: Service of Papers
Rule 22: Filing
Rule 23: Form & Style of Papers
Rule 24: Appearance & Representation
Rule 25: Computation of Time

Title IV: Pleadings. Rules 30-41
PDF format ; 10 pages; (491k)
Rule 30: Pleadings Allowed
Rule 31: General Rules of Pleading
Rule 32: Form of Pleadings
Rule 33: Signing of Pleadings
Rule 34: Petition
Rule 35: Entry on Docket
Rule 36: Answer:
Rule 37: Reply
Rule 38: Joinder of Issue
Rule 39: Pleading Special Matters
Rule 40: Defenses and Objections Made by Pleading or Motion
Rule 41: Amended and Supplemental Pleadings

Title V: Motions. Rules 50-58
PDF format ; 10 pages; (48k)
Rule 50: General Requirements
Rule 51: Motion for More Definitive Statement
Rule 52: Motion to Strike
Rule 53: Motion to Dismiss
Rule 54: Timely Filing & Joinder of Motions
Rule 55: Motion to Restrain Assessment or Collection
Rule 56: Motion for Review of Jeopardy Assessment or Jeopardy Levy
Rule 57: Motion for Review of Proposed Sale of Seized Property
Rule 58: Miscellaneous

Title VI: Parties. Rules 60-63
PDF format ; 3 pages; (31k)
Rule 60: Proper Parties; Capacity
Rule 61: Permissive Joinder of Parties
Rule 62: Misjoinder of Parties
Rule 63: Substitution of Parties: Change or Correction in Name

Title VII: Discovery. Rules 70-76
PDF format ; 12 pages; (57k)
Rule 70: General Provisions
Rule 71: Interrogatories
Rule 72: Production of Documents and Things
Rule 73: Examination by Transferees
Rule 74: Depositions for Discovery Purposes - Upon Consent of Parties
Rule 75: Depositions for Discovery Purposes - Without Consent of Parties
              in Certain Cases
Rule 76: Deposition of Expert Witnesses

Title VIII: Depositions. Rules 80-85
PDF format ; 12 pages; (52k)
Rule 80: General Provisions
Rule 81: Depositions in Pending Case
Rule 82: Depositions Before Commencement of Case
Rule 83: Depositions After Commencement of Trial
Rule 84: Deposition Upon Written Questions
Rule 85: Objections, Errors, and Irregularities

Title IX: Admissions and Stipulations. Rules 90-92
PDF format ; 7 pages; (40k)
Rule 90: Requests for Admission
Rule 91: Stipulation for Trial
Rule 92: Cases Consolidated for Trial

Title X: General Provisions Governing Discovery, Depositions, and Requests for Admissions. Rules 100-104
PDF format ; 5 pages; (30k)
Rule 100: Applicability
Rule 101: Sequence, Timing, & Frequency
Rule 102: Supplementation of Responses
Rule 103: Protective Orders
Rule 104: Enforcement Actions & Sanctions

Title XI: Pretrial Conferences. Rule 110
PDF format ; 1 page; (19k)
Rule 110: Pretrial Conferences

Title XII: Decision Without Trial. Rules 120-124
PDF format ; 5 pages; (36k)
Rule 120: Judgment on the Pleadings
Rule 121: Summary Judgment
Rule 122: Submission Without Trial
Rule 123: Default & Dismissal
Rule 124: Voluntary Binding Arbitration

Title XIII: Calendars and Continuances. Rules 130-133
PDF format ; 2 pages; (23k)
Rule 130: Motions & Other Matters
Rule 131: Trial Calendars
Rule 132: Special or Other Calendars
Rule 133: Continuances

Title XIV: Trials. Rules 140-152
PDF format ; 12 pages; (53k)
Rule 140: Place of Trial
Rule 141: Consolidation; Separate Trials
Rule 142: Burden of Proof
Rule 143: Evidence
Rule 144: Exceptions Unnecessary
Rule 145: Exclusion of Proposed Witnesses
Rule 146: Determination of Foreign Law
Rule 147: Subpoenas
Rule 148: Fees and Mileage
Rule 149: Failure to Appear or to Adduce Evidence
Rule 150: Record of Proceedings
Rule 151: Briefs
Rule 152: Oral Findings of Fact or Opinion

Title XV: Decision. Rules 155-157
PDF format ; 2 pages; (23k)
Rule 155: Computation by Parties for Entry of Decision
Rule 156: Estate Tax Deduction Developing At or After Trial
Rule 157: Motion to Retain File in Estate Tax Case Involving Section 6166;
               Election

Title XVI: Post-Trial Proceedings. Rules 160-163
PDF format ; 1 pages; (18k)
Rule 160: Harmless Error
Rule 161: Motion for Reconsideration of Findings or Opinion
Rule 162: Motion to Vacate or Revise Decision
Rule 163: No Joinder of Motions Under Rules 161 & 162

Title XVII: Small Tax Cases. Rules 170-179
PDF format ; 3 pages; (31k)
Rule 170: General
Rule 171: Election of Small Tax Case Procedure
Rule 172: Representation
Rule 173: Pleadings - See Notice of Proposed Amendments
Rule 174: Trial
Rule 175: Number of Copies of Papers

Title XVIII: Special Trial Judges. Rules 180-183
PDF format ; 3 pages; (28k)
Rule 180: Assignment
Rule 181: Powers and Duties
Rule 182: Cases in Which the Special Trial Judge Is Authorized To Make
               the Decision - AMENDED: See New Rules .
Rule 183: Other Cases - AMENDED: See New Rules .

Title XIX: Appeals. Rules 190-193
PDF format ; 2 pages; (29k)
Rule 190: How Appeal Taken
Rule 191: Preparation of the Record on Appeal
Rule 192: Bond to Stay Assessment & Collection
Rule 193: Appeals from Interlocutory Orders

Title XX: Practice Before the Court. Rules 200-202
PDF format ; 6 pages; (425k)
Rule 200: AMENDED: See New Rules
Rule 201: Conduct of Practice Before the Court
Rule 202: AMENDED: See New Rules

Title XXI: Declaratory Judgements. Rules 210-218
PDF format ; 16 pages; (69k)
Rule 210: General
Rule 211: Commencement of Action for Declaratory Judgment
Rule 212: Designation of Place for Submission to the Court
Rule 213: Other Pleadings
Rule 214: Joinder of Issue in Action for Declaratory Judgment
Rule 215: Joinder of Parties
Rule 216: Intervention in Retirement Plan Actions
Rule 217: Disposition of Actions for Declaratory Judgment
Rule 218: Procedure in Actions Heard by a Special Trial Judge of the
               Court

Title XXII: Disclosure Actions. Rules 220-229A
PDF format ; 13 pages; (44k)
Rule 220: General
Rule 221: Commencement of Disclosure Action
Rule 222: Designation of Place of Hearing
Rule 223: Other Pleadings
Rule 224: Joinder of Issue
Rule 225: Intervention
Rule 226: Joinder of Parties
Rule 227: Anonymous Parties
Rule 228: Confidentiality
Rule 229: Burden of Proof
Rule 229A: Procedure in Actions Heard by a Special Trial Judge of the
               Court

Title XXIII: Claims for Litigation and Administrative Costs. Rules 230-233
PDF format ; 7 pages; (39k)
Rule 230: General
Rule 231: Claims for Litigation & Administrative Costs
Rule 232: Disposition of Claims for Litigation & Administrative Costs
Rule 233: Miscellaneous

Title XXIV: Partnership Actions. Rules 240-251
PDF format ; 16 pages; (51k)
Rule 240: General
Rule 241: Commencement of Partnership Action
Rule 242: Designation of Place of Trial
Rule 243: Other Pleadings
Rule 244: Joinder of Issue in Partnership Action
Rule 245: Intervention & participation
Rule 246: Service of Papers
Rule 247: Parties
Rule 248: Settlement Agreements
Rule 249: Action for Adjustment of Partnership Items Treated as Action for
               Readjustment of Partnership Items
Rule 250: Appointment & Removal of the Tax Matters Partner
Rule 251: Decisions

Title XXV: Supplemental Proceedings. Rules 260-262
PDF format ; 6 pages; (38k)
Rule 260: Proceeding to Enforce Overpayment
Rule 261: Proceeding to Redetermine Interest
Rule 262: Proceeding to Modify Decision in Estate Tax Case Involving
               Section 6166 Election

Title XXVI: Actions for Administrative Costs. Rules 270 - 274
PDF format ; 5 pages; (34k)
Rule 270: General
Rule 271: Commencement of Action for Administrative Costs
Rule 272: Other Pleadings
Rule 273: Joinder of Issue in Action for Administrative Costs
Rule 274: Applicable Small Case Rules

Title XXVII: Actions for Review of Failure to Abate Interest Rules 280 - 284
PDF format ; 5 pages; (27k)
Rule 280: General
Rule 281: Commencement of Action for Review of Failure to Abate Interest
Rule 282: Designation of Place of Trial
Rule 283: Other Pleadings
Rule 284: Joinder of Issue in Action for Review of Failure to Abate Interest

Title XXVIII: Actions for Redetermination of Employment Status Rules 290 - 294
PDF format ; 4 pages; (29k)
Rule 290: General
Rule 291: Commencement of Action for Redetermination of Employment
               Status
Rule 292: Designation of Place of Trial
Rule 293: Other Pleadings
Rule 294: Joinder of Issue in Actions for Redetermination of Employment
               Status

Title XXIX: Large Partnership Actions Rules 300 - 305
PDF format ; 6 pages; (38k)
Rule 300: General
Rule 301: Commencement of Large Partnership Action
Rule 302: Designation of Place of Trial
Rule 303: Other Pleadings
Rule 304: Joinder of Issue in Large Partnership Actions
Rule 305: Action for Adjustment of Partnership Items of Large Partnership
               Treated as Action for Readjustment of Partnership Items of
               Large Partnership

Title XXX: Actions for Declaratory Judgment Relating to Treatment of Items Other Than Partnership Items With Respect to an Oversheltered Return Rules 310 - 316
PDF format ; 4 pages; (30k)
Rule 310: General
Rule 311. Commencement of Action for Declaratory Judgment
               (Oversheltered Return)
Rule 312: Designation of Place of Trial
Rule 313: Other Pleadings
Rule 314: Joinder of Issue in Action for Declaratory Judgment
               (Oversheltered Return)
Rule 315: Disposition of Action for Declaratory Judgment (Oversheltered
               Return)
Rule 316: Action for Declaratory Judgment (Oversheltered Return) Treated
               as Deficiency Action

Title XXXI: Actions for Determination of Relief From Joint and Several Liability on a Joint Return Rules 320 - 325
PDF format ; 4 pages; (31k)
Rule 320: General
Rule 321: Commencement of Action for Determination of Relief From Joint
               and Several Liability on a Joint Return
Rule 322: Designation of Place of Trial
Rule 323: Other Pleadings
Rule 324: Joinder of Issue in Action for Determination of Relief From Joint
               and Several Liability on a Joint Return
Rule 325: Notice and Intervention

Title XXXII: Lien and Levy Actions Rules 330 - 334
PDF format ; 3 pages; (28k)
Rule 330: General
Rule 331: Commencement of Lien and Levy Action
Rule 332: Designation of Place of Trial
Rule 333: Other Pleadings
Rule 334: Joinder of Issue in Lien and Levy Actions

Appendix I: Forms:
PDF format ; 15 pages; (211k)
Petitions; Entry of Appearance; Substitution of Counsel;
Designation of Place of Trial; Subpoena; Application for Order
to Take Deposition; Certificate on Return; Notice of Appeal to
Court of Appeals; Certificate of Service; Notices of Elections;
Petition for Administrative Costs

Appendix II: Fees and Charges
PDF format ; 1 page; (17k)
(See Rules 148, !90(a),and 200(i))

Appendix III: Places of Trial
PDF format ; 2 page; (21k)
(See Rules 140 and 177)

Index to Tax Court Rules
PDF format ; 48 pages; (73k)
References are to the Rule Number.

NEW RULES - EFFECTIVE SEPTEMBER 20, 2005
PDF format ; 8 pages; (99k)
This file which has all the new rules: 1, 182, 183, 200, and 202.

Click Here to Search Opinions of the U.S. Tax Court

Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure (2010)

(incorporating the revisions that took effect Dec. 1, 2010)

Note: please see Interim Rules and Official Forms Implementing the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005

PART I. COMMENCEMENT OF CASE: PROCEEDINGS RELATING TO PETITION AND ORDER FOR RELIEF

PART II. OFFICERS AND ADMINISTRATION; NOTICES; MEETINGS; EXAMINATIONS; ELECTIONS; ATTORNEYS AND ACCOUNTANTS

PART III. CLAIMS AND DISTRIBUTION TO CREDITORS AND EQUITY INTEREST HOLDERS; PLANS

PART IV. THE DEBTOR: DUTIES AND BENEFITS

PART V. BANKRUPTCY COURTS AND CLERKS

PART VI. COLLECTION AND LIQUIDATION OF THE ESTATE

PART VII. ADVERSARY PROCEEDINGS

PART VIII. APPEALS TO DISTRICT COURT OR BANKRUPTCY APPELLATE PANEL

PART IX. GENERAL PROVISIONS

PART X. UNITED STATES TRUSTEES [ABROGATED]

PART I. COMMENCEMENT OF CASE: PROCEEDINGS RELATING TO PETITION AND ORDER FOR RELIEF

PART II. OFFICERS AND ADMINISTRATION; NOTICES; MEETINGS; EXAMINATIONS; ELECTIONS; ATTORNEYS AND ACCOUNTANTS

PART III. CLAIMS AND DISTRIBUTION TO CREDITORS AND EQUITY INTEREST HOLDERS; PLANS

PART IV. THE DEBTOR: DUTIES AND BENEFITS

PART V. BANKRUPTCY COURTS AND CLERKS

PART VI. COLLECTION AND LIQUIDATION OF THE ESTATE

PART VII. ADVERSARY PROCEEDINGS

PART VIII. APPEALS TO DISTRICT COURT OR BANKRUPTCY APPELLATE PANEL

PART IX. GENERAL PROVISIONS

PART X. UNITED STATES TRUSTEES [ABROGATED]

DC Personnel Regulations, Chapter 6, Part I

Rules and Regulations of the Office of Employee Appeals

Contents

Section No. Heading
600 General
601 Organizational Structure
602 Scope of Rules
603 Computation of Time
604 Jurisdiction
605 Notice of Appeal Rights
606 Arbitration
607 Mediation and Conciliation Program
608 Filing Requirements
609 Content of Petition for Appeal
610 Answer
611 Motions
612 Consolidation and Joinder
613 Representation
614 Intervention
615 Substitution
616 Summary Disposition
617 Interlocutory Appeals
618 Discovery
619 Subpoenas
620 Administrative Judges
621 Disqualification of Administrative Judge
622 Sanctions
623 Ex Parte Communications
624 Pre-Hearing Conferences
625 Evidentiary Hearings
626 Recording and Transcripts
627 Presentation of Evidence or Witnesses
628 Witnesses
629 Burden of Proof
630 Closing the Record
631 Reopening the Record; Termination of Jurisdiction
632 Initial Decision
633 Finality of Decision
634 Petitions for Review
635 Attorney Fees
636 Compliance and Enforcement

.

600 General

600.1 The Office of Employee Appeals (Office) is an independent administrative adjudicatory agency created by the District of Columbia Government Comprehensive Merit Personnel Act of 1978, D.C. Code § 1-606.1 et seq. The jurisdiction of the Office is set forth in Rule 604.

..

601 Organizational Structure

601.1 The Board of the Office (Board) is composed of five (5) members appointed by the Mayor and confirmed by the District of Columbia Council. Three (3) members of the Board shall constitute a quorum for the transaction of official business and the issuance of rules and regulations.

601.2 The Mayor designates a Chairperson of the Board to serve as the Chief Executive of the Office.

601.3 The Mayor designates a Vice Chairperson of the Board. In the absence or disability of the Chairperson, or when the position of Chairperson is vacant, the Vice Chairperson performs the functions vested in the Chairperson.

601.4 The Executive Director is the administrator of the Office and serves as its chief personnel officer.

601.5 The General Counsel, with the assistance of the Deputy General Counsel, provides legal advice to the Board and the Office staff, prepares opinions and orders as directed by the Board, assists in the enforcement of orders pursuant to law, and represents the Office before the Courts.

601.6 Administrative Judges, subject to the provisions of these rules, adjudicate appeals filed before the Office.

..

602 Scope of Rules

602.1 These rules govern the procedure for deciding cases filed before the Office. These rules shall be applied to promote justice, fairness, and economy.

602.2 These rules shall apply to all appeals filed on or after their effective date and to all appeals then pending final disposition in the Office.

602.3 The Board may revoke or amend a rule as it applies generally to all cases in accordance with applicable procedures of the District of Columbia Administrative Procedure Act. The Board or an Administrative Judge may waive a rule in an individual case for good cause shown, if application of the rule is not required by statute.

602.4 In the event of a conflict between these rules and a provision of a statute, the statutory provision shall govern. In the event of a conflict between these rules and rules or regulations adopted by another District agency, department, office or board, these rules shall govern.

..

603 Computation of Time

603.1 In the computation of time periods which involve business days, the first day counted shall be the next business day following the day the event occurs from which the time period begins to run. In the computation of time periods which involve calendar days, the first day counted shall be the next calendar day following the day the event occurs from which the time period begins to run. For calendar days, if the last day of the time period is a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday, the period shall be extended to the end of the next business day.

603.2 If a party has a right or duty to act or proceed within a prescribed period after service of a notice or other document upon him or her, three (3) calendar days shall be added to the prescribed period whenever the document or notice is served upon the party by mail.

..

604 Jurisdiction

604.1 Effective October 21, 1998, and except as otherwise provided in the District of Columbia Government Comprehensive Merit Personnel Act of 1978, D.C. Code § 1-601.1 et seq. or Rule 604.2 below, any District of Columbia government employee may appeal a final agency decision affecting:

(a) A performance rating which results in removal of the employee;

(b) An adverse action for cause that results in removal, reduction in grade, or suspension for ten (10) days or more; or

(c) A reduction-in-force.

604.2 An appeal filed pursuant to Rule 604.1 must be filed within thirty (30) days of the effective date of the appealed agency action.

604.3 The Office shall exercise jurisdiction over appeals filed with the Office before October 21, 1998 by an employee appealing a final agency decision that:

(a) Denies his or her appeal of a performance evaluation;

(b) Effects an adverse action against him or her;

(c) Releases him or her through reduction-in-force procedures;

(d) Resolves a grievance;

(e) Refuses to grant a waiver of the District's claim for an erroneous overpayment to an employee;

(f) Denies his or her appeal regarding records management and privacy of records; or

(g) Denies his or her classification appeal.

604.4 An appeal filed before October 21, 1998 must have been filed within fifteen (15) business days of the effective date of the appealed agency action.

604.5 Within forty-five (45) business days of the date the appeal is filed, an Administrative Judge shall determine whether the Office has jurisdiction to review it.

..

605 Notice of Appeal Rights

605.1 When an agency issues a final decision to an employee on a matter appealable to the Office, the agency shall at the same time provide the employee with:

(a) Notice of the Employee§s right to appeal to the Office;

(b) A copy of the rules of the Office;

(c) A copy of the appeal form of the Office;

(d) Notice of applicable rights to appeal under a negotiated review procedure; and

(e) Notice of the right to representation by a lawyer or other representative authorized by the rules.

..

606 Arbitration

606.1 Apart from any rights under a collective bargaining agreement, the parties may agree to arbitrate a dispute rather than have the Office adjudicate it.

606.2 An agreement to arbitrate must be reached within thirty (30) business days of the date that the employee files a petition for appeal with the Office. If the parties fail to reach an agreement to arbitrate within this period, the Office shall proceed to adjudicate the matter.

606.3 Within ten (10) business days of the date that the parties submit a written agreement to arbitrate their dispute, the Office shall dismiss the appeal and forward the matter to the American Arbitration Association pursuant to D.C. Code § 1-606.7.

..

607 Mediation and Conciliation Program

607.1 The Office shall exert every possible effort to resolve matters by mediation and conciliation, to the extent possible, rather than through litigation.

607.2 The Executive Director shall designate a Senior Administrative Judge to implement the mediation and conciliation program of the Office.

607.3 The Senior Administrative Judge responsible for mediation and conciliation shall review the appeals pending in the Office and assign cases where there is a reasonable likelihood of settlement to the mediation and conciliation docket.

607.4 Any party may file a request for mediation and conciliation with the Office which, upon the consent of all parties, shall place the matter on the mediation and conciliation docket.

607.5 The Senior Administrative Judge responsible for mediation and conciliation shall assign the matter to a mediator who shall promptly convene a conference for the purpose of attempting to reach a voluntary resolution of the appeal. The Administrative Judge assigned to an appeal may not serve as mediator on that appeal. A mediator may not be called as a witness in any proceeding concerning matters raised in a case to which he or she is assigned to attempt mediation or conciliation.

607.6 The employee and his or her representative shall attend the conference. A representative of the agency with authority to approve a settlement by the agency shall either attend the conference or be available by telephone at the time set for and throughout the conference. The parties shall engage in good-faith discussion to resolve the matter.

607.7 If the mediator finds that a party has failed to engage in settlement discussions in good faith (including a failure to have available a representative with authority to settle), the mediator shall submit such a finding to the Senior Administrative Judge supervising the mediation and conciliation docket, who may enter such sanctions against the party as may be appropriate to further the objectives of the mediation and conciliation program.

607.8 The discussions at the conference and the offers of the parties shall be confidential and may not be offered or received into evidence or otherwise disclosed in subsequent adjudication or litigation.

607.9 Upon the failure of the parties to reach settlement through mediation and conciliation, the Senior Administrative Judge shall refer the matter to the assigned Administrative Judge for adjudication.

607.10 If the parties reach settlement, the matter shall be dismissed in accordance with D.C. Code § 1-606.6(b).

..

608 Filing Requirements

608.1 An employee shall initiate an appeal by filing a petition for appeal with the Office.

608.2 The Office shall promptly send a copy of the petition for appeal to the agency, and the agency shall file an answer within thirty (30) calendar days of the service of the petition for appeal.

608.3 The date of filing shall be determined by the date of receipt by the Office.

608.4 Filing of a petition for appeal and a petition for review must be made by personal delivery at the Office between 9:00 A.M. and 4:30 P.M., Monday through Friday, or by mail addressed to the Office.

608.5 The employee must file with the Office one (1) original and two (2) copies of the petition for appeal (including the documents required by Rule 609).

608.6 Filing of pleadings and documents, other than a petition for appeal, or a petition for review filed pursuant to Rule 634, may be made as prescribed in Rule 608.4, or by facsimile transmission during normal business hours.

608.7 The parties shall serve on each other one copy of each document filed with the Office other than the petition for appeal. A party may effect such service by mailing or by personally delivering to each other party a copy of the document submitted to the Office. Each document must be accompanied by a certificate of service specifying how, when, and on whom service was made.

..

609 Content of Petition for Appeal

609.1 A petition for appeal may be filed on a form approved by the Office.

609.2 A petition for appeal made without use of the form of the Office shall be in writing and contain the following information:

(a) The name of the employee and the name of the agency which took the action;

(b) The type and the effective date of the action taken by the agency;

(c) The name, address, and telephone number of the employee's representative, if any;

(d) The employee's address and telephone number;

(e) A copy of the agency's notice of final decision;

(f) A statement as to whether the employee or anyone acting on his or her behalf has filed an appeal under any negotiated review procedure pursuant to a collective bargaining agreement, or has filed a complaint with any other agency regarding this matter;

(g) The identity of the collective bargaining unit (if any) of which employee is a member; and

(h) The signature of the employee and his or her representative, if any.

609.3 Along with the petition for appeal, the employee shall also submit the following information:

(a) A statement as to whether the employee requests an evidentiary hearing or oral argument;

(b) A concise statement of the facts giving rise to the appeal;

(c) An explanation as to why the employee believes the agency's action was unwarranted; and

(d) A statement of the specific relief the employee is requesting.

609.4 The Office shall not consider the filing of a petition for appeal complete until the employee provides all the information required under Rule 609.2 and 609.3.

609.5 An employee's failure to include a complete address, or to advise the Office of a change in address, shall constitute a waiver of any right to notice and service, and may result in the appeal being dismissed.

609.6 The Administrative Judge may allow an employee to amend the appeal unless the Administrative Judge determines that to do so would prejudice the rights of another party or unduly delay the proceedings.

..

610 Answer

610.1 An agency§s answer in which the allegations of a petition are contested shall contain the following:

(a) The name of the employee and the agency which took the action;

(b) The OEA matter number assigned to the appeal;

(c) A statement of the appealed action the agency took against the employee and the reason(s) therefor;

(d) A specific response to each allegation of the petition admitting, denying, or explaining each in whole or in part. The Administrative Judge may assume that the agency concedes as fact an allegation in employee§s petition that the agency does not specifically explain or deny in the answer;

(e) All documents contained in the agency record of the proceeding;

(f) A request for an evidentiary hearing or oral argument, if desired; and

(g) The designation of, and signature by, the authorized agency representative. If the agency fails to designate a representative, the Office shall regard the agency director as the representative.

610.2 If the agency elects not to contest the allegations of fact set forth in the petition, the answer shall consist of a statement that the agency admits all of the material allegations to be true. Such an answer shall constitute a waiver of the right to present evidence or testimony contradicting the admitted facts. However, the right to further participation in the proceedings shall continue and questions of law may be addressed.

610.3 Failure by the agency to file an answer within the time limit set forth in Rule 608.2 shall constitute a default, and the Administrative Judge may, without further notice, render an appropriate decision.

..

611 Motions

611.1 Except where the Administrative Judge permits an oral motion hearing, motions shall be written, filed with the Office, and served upon the parties in accordance with Rule 608.7.

611.2 Motions shall state the particular order, ruling, or action requested and the grounds and authority therefor.

611.3 No later than ten (10) calendar days after the service of a motion, or within such time as the Administrative Judge may direct for good cause shown, the opposing party may serve and file an answer to the motion. The moving party shall have no right to reply, except as permitted by the Administrative Judge. No oral argument will be heard on motions unless the Administrative Judge directs otherwise. Written briefs may be filed with motions and with answers thereto.

..

612 Consolidation and Joinder

612.1 If an employee has two or more appeals pending before the Office, the Administrative Judge may consolidate the appeals and adjudicate them as one action.

612.2 If two or more employees have appeals involving similar or identical issues pending before the Office, the Administrative Judge may join the appeals for adjudication as one action.

612.3 The Administrative Judge may consolidate or join appeals on his or her own motion, or on the motion of a party, if to do so would:

(a) Expedite processing of the cases; and

(b) Not adversely affect the interests of the parties.

612.4 At any time and on such terms as are just, the Administrative Judge may sever appeals consolidated or joined under these rules and proceed with each appeal separately.

..

613 Representation

613.1 In any proceeding before the Office, the employee may appear on his or her own behalf, through an attorney, through a union representative or through any other competent individual.

613.2 The agency may appear before the Office only through counsel or an individual acting in a representative capacity. If the agency fails to designate a representative, the Office shall regard the agency director as the representative.

613.3 Except where the agency director is the agency representative, no person may participate in a representative capacity before the Office until:

(a) The party submits a signed written statement authorizing such representation; and

(b) The representative submits a signed written statement which contains his or her name, address and telephone number, and which certifies that he or she is available and willing to represent the party's interest.

..

614 Intervention

614.1 Any person or District of Columbia government agency may seek to intervene in an appeal by filing a motion. The motion shall state why the person or agency believes intervention is warranted. After allowing the original parties a reasonable period of time in which to respond, the Administrative Judge may permit the movant to intervene if the movant has an interest that may be affected by the final disposition of the case and the movant§s:

(a) Interest will not be represented by the existing parties;

(b) Participation may reasonably be expected to assist in the development of a proper record; and

(c) Participation will not broaden the issues, resulting in prejudicial delay of the proceeding.

614.2 An intervener shall be considered a full party to the proceedings and shall have the same rights and duties as a party, except that the intervener:

(a) Shall not have an independent right to a hearing;

(b) May participate only on the issues affecting them as determined by the Administrative Judge; and

(c) Shall have no right to an award of attorney fees under Rule 635.

..

615 Substitution

615.1 If an employee dies while the appeal is pending before the Office, and the interest of the deceased employee has not terminated because of the death, the Administrative Judge, upon moti7on, may order substitution of the proper parties. A motion for substitution shall be made within ninety (90) calendar days after the death of the employee.

615.2 If an employee becomes incompetent by reason of mental or physical infirmity, the Administrative Judge, upon motion, may allow the appeal to be continued by the employee's representative.

615.3 When an agency's interest in the appeal is transferred to another District agency, the Administrative Judge may:

(a) Allow the appeal to continue against the original agency;

(b) Order the substitution of the successor agency; or

(c) Join the successor agency with the original agency.

..

616 Summary Disposition

616.1 If, upon examination of the record in an appeal, it appears to the Administrative Judge that there are no material and genuine issues of fact, that a party is entitled to a decision as a matter of law, or that the appeal fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, the Administrative Judge may, after notifying the parties and giving them an opportunity to submit additional evidence or legal argument, render a summary disposition of the matter without further proceedings.

616.2 An Administrative Judge may render a summary disposition either sua sponte, after notice under Rule 616.1, or upon motion of a party.

616.3 An order granting summary disposition shall conform to the requirements for initial decisions set forth in Rule 632.

..

617 Interlocutory Appeals

617.1 An interlocutory appeal is an appeal to the Board of a ruling made by an Administrative Judge during the course of a proceeding. The Administrative Judge may permit this appeal if he or she determines that the issue presented is of such importance to the proceeding that it requires immediate consideration by the Board. The Board shall make a decision on the issue and the Administrative Judge shall proceed in accordance with that decision.

617.2 A party seeking review by interlocutory appeal must file a motion for certification within five (5) business days of service of the Administrative Judge's determination. The motion shall include arguments in support of both the certification and the determination to be made by the Board.

617.3 The Administrative Judge shall grant or deny a motion for certification. If certification is granted, the record shall be referred to the Board.

617.4 At the discretion of the Administrative Judge, the proceeding may be stayed during the time an interlocutory appeal is pending. The Board may stay a proceeding during the time an interlocutory appeal is pending.

..

618 Discovery

618.1 Parties may obtain discovery by one (1) or more of the following methods:

(a) Depositions upon oral examination or written questions;

(b) Written interrogatories;

(c) Requests for production of documents or things for inspection and other purposes; and

(d) Requests for admission.

618.2 Unless the Administrative Judge orders otherwise, these methods may be used in any sequence and the fact that a party is conducting discovery, whether by deposition or otherwise, shall not operate to delay any other party's discovery.

618.3 Unless the Administrative Judge directs otherwise, the parties may obtain discovery regarding any matter not privileged which is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending appeal. Such information may include the existence, description, nature, custody, condition and location of books, documents, or other tangible things and the identity and location of persons having any knowledge of any discoverable matter. It is not grounds for objection that the information sought will be inadmissible at an evidentiary hearing if the information sought appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.

618.4 The Administrative Judge may limit the frequency or use of discovery if:

(a) The discovery sought is unreasonably cumulative or duplicative, or is obtainable from some other source that is more convenient, less burdensome, or less expensive;

(b) The party seeking discovery has had ample opportunity by discovery in the appeal to obtain the information sought; or

(c) The discovery is unduly burdensome or expensive, in light of the nature of the case, the relief sought, the limitations on the parties' resources, and the importance of the issues involved in the case.

618.5 The Administrative Judge may deny discovery or make any order which justice requires to protect a party or other person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense, or to prevent undue delay in the proceeding.

618.6 Discovery may be commenced after the Office notifies the agency that the employee has filed the petition. Unless the Administrative Judge directs otherwise, discovery shall be completed by the date of the pre-hearing conference.

618.7 Discovery matters before the Office are intended to be of a simplified nature. Discovery procedures shall be established by the Administrative Judge as appropriate under the circumstances. Further guidance, however, may be obtained by referring to the District of Columbia Superior Court Rules of Civil Procedure. Such rules should be interpreted as instructive rather than controlling.

..

619 Subpoenas

619.1 Application for issuance of a subpoena requiring a person to appear and testify at a specific place and time shall be made in writing to the Administrative Judge. All requests for subpoenas ad testificandum shall clearly identify the person subpoenaed and his or her address and shall be supported by a showing of the relevance and materiality of the testimony sought.

619.2 Application for issuance of a subpoena requiring a person to produce documents (including writings, drawings, graphs, charts, photographs, phone records and other recordings, and other data compilations from which information can be obtained) at a specific time and place shall be made in writing to the Administrative Judge. All requests for subpoenas duces tecum shall specify with reasonable particularity the information sought, the facts expected to be established thereby, and how these facts are relevant and material.

619.3 An applicant for a subpoena shall arrange for service; except for good cause shown, service shall be completed no later than 10 calendar days before the date of the requested testimony or production.

619.4 Personal service of a subpoena may be made by any person, not a party, who is at least eighteen (18) years of age. Service of the subpoena shall be attested to in an affidavit by the person making such service. The attesting affidavit shall state the date, time, and method of service.

619.5 Any motion by the subject of a subpoena to limit or quash the subpoena shall be filed within three (3) calendar days of the time for compliance therewith. Such motions shall set forth all assertions of privilege or other factual and legal objections to the subpoena, including all appropriate arguments, affidavits, and other supporting documentation.

619.6 In the case of contumacy or failure to obey a subpoena issued, the Office, pursuant to D.C. Code § 1-606.2(a)(4), may request enforcement of the subpoena in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia.

..

620 Administrative Judges

620.1 Proceedings shall be presided over by an Administrative Judge appointed by the Office.

620.2 Administrative Judges shall conduct hearing fairly and impartially, take all necessary action to avoid delay in the disposition of proceedings, and maintain order. They shall have all powers necessary to that end including, but not limited to, the power to:

(a) Administer oaths and affirmations;

(b) Issue subpoenas and protective orders;

(c) Rule upon motions;

(d) Compel discovery;

(e) Regulate the course of the proceeding, require an evidentiary hearing, if appropriate, fix the time and place of such evidentiary hearing, and exclude persons from such evidentiary hearings for contumacious conduct;

(f) Call and examine witnesses and admit to the record documentary or other evidence;

(g) Dismiss cases based on a settlement agreement reached by the parties; and

(h) Take other appropriate action authorized by statute, these rules, or the Board.

620.3 If a new Administrative Judge is substituted for the one originally assigned, a motion predicated upon such substitution shall be made no later than seven (7) calendar days after the Office notifies the parties of the reassignment. Failure to make such motion within this time period shall constitute a waiver of the right to object to the substitution.

..

621 Disqualification of Administrative Judge

621.1 If an Administrative Judge deems himself or herself disqualified to preside in a particular case, he or she shall withdraw therefrom by notice, on the record, and shall notify the Executive Director of such withdrawal.

621.2 At any time following the assignment of the appeal to an Administrative Judge, and before issuance of an initial decision in the matter under Rule 632, a party may request the Administrative Judge to disqualify himself or herself on the grounds of personal bias or other disqualification, by serving and filing a motion promptly upon the discovery of the alleged facts, with an affidavit setting forth, in detail, the matters alleged to constitute grounds for disqualification.

621.3 If, in the opinion of the Administrative Judge, the affidavit is sufficient on its face, the Administrative Judge shall disqualify and remove himself or herself from the case. If the Administrative Judge does not disqualify himself or herself, the Administrative Judge shall issue a written order to that effect stating the grounds for the ruling.

..

622 Sanctions

622.1 The Administrative Judge may impose sanctions upon the parties as necessary to serve the ends of justice, including, but not limited to, the instances set forth in this section.

622.2 If a party fails to comply with an order for taking a deposition, the production of evidence within the party's control, a request for admission, and/or production of witnesses, the Administrative Judge may, for example:

(a) Draw an inference adverse to the party who failed to comply;

(b) Prohibit the party failing to comply with such order from introducing evidence concerning, or otherwise relying upon evidence relating to, the information sought;

(c) Permit any party who has been prejudiced by the non-compliance to introduce secondary evidence concerning the information sought; and

(d) Strike any part of the pleadings or other submissions of the party failing to comply with such order.

622.3 If a party fails to take reasonable steps to prosecute or defend an appeal, the Administrative Judge, in the exercise of sound discretion, may dismiss the action or rule for the appellant. Failure of a party to prosecute or defend an appeal includes, but is not limited to, a failure to:

(a) Appear at a scheduled proceeding after receiving notice;

(b) Submit required documents after being provided with a deadline for such submission; or

(c) Inform this Office of a change of address which results in correspondence being returned.

622.4 The Administrative Judge may refuse to consider any motion or other action which is not filed in a timely fashion.

..

623 Ex Parte Communications

623.1 Ex parte communication is oral or written communication to decision-making personnel of the Office from a party to a proceeding who does not provide the other party or parties an opportunity to participate.

623.2 An ex parte communication which involves the merits of the case is prohibited.

623.3 In the event of a prohibited communication, the Administrative Judge shall describe that occurrence on the record with notice to the parties either by filing therein a memorandum, if the transaction was oral, or by filing any writing delivered to him or her.

623.4 When an Administrative Judge determines that a party has initiated a prohibited ex-parte communication, the Administrative Judge may impose such sanctions or remedial relief as may be appropriate under the circumstances.

..

624 Pre-Hearing Conferences

624.1 The Administrative Judge may convene a pre-hearing conference to consider:

(a) Simplification, clarification, compromise, or settlement of the issues;

(b) Necessity and desirability of amendments to the pleadings;

(c) Stipulations, admissions of fact, and the contents, admissibility, and authenticity of documents;

(d) Whether the Administrative Judge will order an evidentiary hearing to expedite the presentation of evidence, including, but not limited to, restricting the number of witnesses;

(e) A statement of the issues; and

(f) Such other matters as may aid in the orderly disposition of the proceeding, including disclosure of the names of witnesses and furnishing, for inspection or copying, non-privileged documents, papers, books, or other physical exhibits, which constitute or contain evidence relevant to the subject matter involved and which are in the possession, custody, or control of any party to the proceeding.

624.2 A pre-hearing conference, in the discretion of the Administrative Judge, may be recorded verbatim.

624.3 After such pre-hearing conference, the Administrative Judge may issue an order that identifies the legal and factual issues in the appeal. Unless modified, such order shall control the subsequent course of the proceeding.

624.4 Failure to appear at the pre-hearing conference without good cause and after adequate notice shall constitute, in addition to grounds for sanctions, a waiver by that party of any right to object to the characterization of the issues as set forth in the post pre-hearing order.

..

625 Evidentiary Hearings

625.1 A party may request the opportunity for an evidentiary hearing to adduce testimony to support or refute any fact alleged in a pleading.

625.2 If the Administrative Judge grants a request for an evidentiary hearing, or makes his or her own determination that one is necessary, the Administrative Judge will so advise the parties and, with appropriate notice, designate the time and place for such hearing and the issues to be addressed. The Administrative Judge shall give due regard to the availability of the parties or their authorized representative(s) in designating the time and place of the evidentiary hearing.

625.3 Postponement of an evidentiary hearing will be allowed only upon good cause shown or upon agreement of the parties, with the concurrence of the Administrative Judge. Except in extraordinary circumstances, a motion for a postponement shall not be considered unless it is served and filed at least seven (7) calendar days in advance of the date designated for the evidentiary hearing.

625.4 Failure of a party to appear for an evidentiary hearing, unless excused by the Administrative Judge for good cause shown, before or after the fact, may be deemed to be a waiver by that party of all rights to participate further in the proceeding, and may be grounds for dismissal of the case or the imposition of other sanctions.

625.5 Hearings shall be open to the public, except that the Administrative Judge may order a hearing or any part thereof closed, where a closed hearing would be in the best interest of the employee, a witness, the public, or other affected persons.

..

626 Recording and Transcripts

626.1 Evidentiary hearings shall be recorded verbatim under the supervision of the Administrative Judge and shall be the sole official record of the proceeding.

626.2 A transcript or, if the record was not transcribed, a copy of the recording may be obtained by the parties upon request.

626.3 The Office will provide one (1) copy of the transcript or recording to each party or, if the party is represented, to the representative at no cost. Any additional copies of the record shall be at the expense of the requesting party.

626.4 A party may request correction to the official transcript by written motion. A motion for correction shall be submitted within ten (10) calendar days of receipt of the transcript.

..

627 Presentation of Evidence or Witnesses

627.1 All material and relevant evidence or testimony shall be admissible, but may be excluded if it is unduly repetitious.

627.2 During an evidentiary hearing, a party shall be entitled to present his or her case or defense by oral, documentary or physical evidence, and to conduct reasonable cross-examination.

627.3 Objections to the admission of evidence, or to the conduct of the proceeding, may be made orally on the record where an evidentiary hearing has been provided, or by written motion. Argument thereon, or briefs or legal memoranda, if requested by the Administrative Judge, shall be included in the record. Rulings on objections shall be made at the time of the objection or prior to the receipt of further evidence, unless the Administrative Judge orders otherwise, and shall be a part of the record.

627.4 The parties may agree upon any facts or procedures relevant to the proceeding. Such stipulations shall be binding on the parties.

627.5 The Administrative Judge on his or her own motion or on motion of a party, may take official notice of matters of common knowledge or matters that can be verified. Official notice taken of any fact shall satisfy a party's burden of proving the fact noticed.

627.6 All exhibits offered into evidence shall be numbered and marked so as to identify the party offering the exhibit.

627.7 Whenever evidence is excluded by the Administrative Judge, the offering party may make an offer of proof of what the party expects the evidence to establish. In the case of an evidentiary hearing, if the offer of proof consists of an oral statement, it shall be included in the record. If the offer of proof consists of an exhibit or other documentary evidence, it shall be marked for identification and retained in the record so as to be available for consideration by any reviewing authority.

..

628 Witnesses

628.1 Every person shall be competent to be a witness as to any material matter unless the Administrative Judge finds that the proposed witness is incapable of:

(a) Expressing himself or herself concerning the matter so as to be understood by the Administrative Judge either directly or through interpretation by one who can understand the witness; or

(b) Understanding the duty of a witness to tell the truth.

628.2 Each District of Columbia government agency shall make its employees available to furnish sworn statements or affirmation or to appear as witnesses at depositions and hearings when requested by the Administrative Judge. When providing such statements or testimony, witnesses shall be on official duty status.

628.3 Witnesses not employed by the District of Columbia government may be required to appear by subpoena at the cost of the moving party.

628.4 Witnesses shall have the right to representation when testifying.

..

629 Burden of Proof

629.1 The burden of proof with regard to material issues of fact shall be by a preponderance of the evidence. (Preponderance of the evidence§ shall mean:

That degree of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind, considering the record as a whole, would accept as sufficient to find a contested fact more probably true than untrue.

629.2 The employee shall have the burden of proof as to issues of jurisdiction, including timeliness of filing.

629.3 For appeals filed on or after October 21, 1998, the agency shall have the burden of proof, except for issues of jurisdiction.

629.4 For appeals filed before October 21, 1998, the agency, except for issues of jurisdiction, shall have the burden of proof in appeals filed pursuant to D.C. Code § 1-617.1 (1992 repl.) and the employee shall have the burden of proof in all other appeals.

..

630 Closing the Record

630.1 When an evidentiary hearing has been provided, the record shall be closed at the conclusion of the hearing, unless the Administrative Judge directs otherwise. When no evidentiary hearing has been provided, the record shall be closed on the date set by the Administrative Judge as the final date for the receipt of submissions from the parties.

630.2 Once the record is closed, no additional evidence or argument shall be accepted into the record unless the Administrative Judge reopens the record pursuant to Rule 631.

..

631 Reopening the Record; Termination of Jurisdiction

631.1 The Administrative Judge may reopen the record to receive further evidence or argument at any time prior to the issuance of the initial decision.

631.2 The jurisdiction of an Administrative Judge terminates upon issuance of the initial decision. However, the Administrative Judge shall retain jurisdiction over the appeal to the limited extent necessary to correct the record or transcript, rule on a request by the employee for attorney fees, and process any petition for enforcement.

..

632 Initial Decision

632.1 The Administrative Judge shall issue an initial decision. Such decision shall be issued no later than 120 business days after the employee files a complete petition for appeal. However, the Administrative Judge may extend this period for a reasonable time under extraordinary circumstances.

632.2 The Administrative Judge may, at the conclusion of an evidentiary hearing, render an oral decision, in which case an initial decision in writing shall be issued within thirty (30) days.

632.3 Each initial decision shall contain:

(a) Findings of fact and conclusions of law, as well as the reasons or bases therefor, upon all the material issues of fact and law presented on the record;

(b) An order as to the final disposition of the case, including appropriate relief if granted;

(c) The date upon which the decision will become final; and

(d) A statement of the right to seek further administrative remedy, including the right to petition for review.

632.4 Notwithstanding any other provision of these rules, the Office shall not reverse an agency's action for error in the application of its rules, regulations, or policies if the agency can demonstrate that the error was harmless. (Harmless error§ shall mean:

Error in the application of the agency's procedures, which did not cause substantial harm or prejudice to the employee's rights and did not significantly affect the agency's final decision to take the action.

632.5 The Office shall serve a copy of the initial decision on each party to the proceeding.

..

633 Finality of Decision

633.1 The initial decision shall become final thirty-five (35) calendar days after issuance.

633.2 The initial decision shall not become final if any party files a petition for review or if the Board reopens the case on its own motion within thirty-five (35) calendar days after issuance of the initial decision.

633.3 If the Board denies all petitions for review, the initial decision shall become final five (5) business days after issuance of the last denial.

633.4 If the Board grants a petition for review or reopens a case, the subsequent decision of the Board shall be the final decision.

633.5 Administrative remedies shall be considered exhausted when a decision becomes final in accordance with this section.

..

634 Petitions for Review

634.1 Any party to the proceeding may serve and file a petition for review of an initial decision with the Board within thirty-five (35) calendar days of issuance of the initial decision.

634.2 Within thirty-five (35) calendar days after the filing of the petition for review, any party may file an answer.

634.3 The petition for review shall set forth objections to the initial decision supported by reference to the record. The Board may grant a petition for review when the petition establishes that:

(a) New and material evidence is available that, despite due diligence, was not available when the record closed;

(b) The decision of the Administrative Judge is based on an erroneous interpretation of statute, regulation or policy;

(c) The findings of the Administrative Judge are not based on substantial evidence; or

(d) The initial decision did not address all material issues of law and fact properly raised in the appeal.

634.4 Any objections or legal arguments which could have been raised before the Administrative Judge, but were not, may be considered waived by the Board.

634.5 The Board may review an initial decision on its own motion within thirty-five (35) days of issuance of the initial decision.

634.6 The Board may order oral argument on its own motion or on motion filed by any party.

634.7 The Board may affirm, reverse, remand, modify or vacate the initial decision, in whole or in part. Where appropriate, the Board shall issue a final decision and order a date for compliance.

634.8 The Board's decision on whether to grant or deny a petition for review shall be by public vote. However, the Board's final decision shall be the written opinion and order.

634.9 An employee or agency may appeal a final decision in accordance with the District of Columbia Government Comprehensive Merit Personnel Act of 1978, D.C. Code § 1-601.1 et seq.

..

635 Attorney Fees

635.1 An employee shall be entitled to an award of reasonable attorney fees if:

(a) He or she is a prevailing party; and

(b) The award is warranted in the interest of justice.

635.2 Unless the Administrative Judge directs otherwise, a request for attorney fees shall be made by written motion within thirty (30) calendar days of the date that the initial decision becomes final.

635.3 An employee shall submit reasonable evidence or documentation to support the number of hours expended by the attorney on the appeal.

635.4 The Board each year may approve standard hourly rates for fees for attorneys who practice before the Office.

635.5 An agency may file a written opposition to the employee§s motion for attorney fees within fifteen (15) business days of service of the motion or within such time as the Administrative Judge may direct. In its written opposition the agency must state its objection to the employee§s request for attorney fees with particularity and clarity.

635.6 A decision by an Administrative Judge on a request for attorney fees shall be considered an addendum to the initial decision.

..

636 Compliance and Enforcement

636.1 Unless the Office's final decision is appealed to the District of Columbia Superior Court, the District agency shall comply with the Office's final decision within thirty (30) calendar days from the date the decision becomes final.

636.2 If any District agency fails to comply with the final decision of the Office within the time period specified in Rule 636.1, the employee may file a motion to enforce the final decision. The motion shall be directed to the Administrative Judge who decided the appeal.

636.3 The agency shall have fifteen (15) business days to respond to the employee's motion.

636.4 The employee, with specificity, shall explain in the motion how the agency has failed to comply with the Office's decision. The agency shall include in its answer a statement which admits or denies each allegation in the employee's motion.

636.5 The parties shall serve the motion and answer on each other.

636.6 Failure by the agency to file an answer to the motion for enforcement shall be construed as an admission of the employee's allegations.

636.7 The Administrative Judge shall take all necessary action to determine whether the final decision is being complied with and shall issue a written opinion on the matter.

636.8 If the Administrative Judge determines that the agency has not complied with the final decision, the Administrative Judge shall certify the matter to the General Counsel. The General Counsel shall order the agency to comply with the Office's final decision in accordance with D.C. Code § 1-606.2.

636.9 If the agency fails to comply with the order, the General Counsel may take such actions as are necessary to secure compliance with the order, including forwarding the matter to the Office of the Mayor or other responsible official for direct enforcement.

..
.
.
Telephone Directory by Topic .Agencies .DC Council .Search .Elected Officials .Feedback .Accessibility .Privacy & Security .Terms & Conditions

United States Tax Court Rules of
Practice and Procedure

.The pages listed below represent the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure in their entirety with all additions and amendments. They are the official files released by the U.S. Tax Court.

Except for the introductory material which is in HTML format, all the other material is in PDF format.

Also at the bottom of this page is a search button to our search engine. From there you can search either the entire U.S. Tax Court section, or all of UncleFed's Tax*Board.

Introduction to the U.S. Tax Court - HTML

Frequently Asked Questions - HTML

Address & Hours of Operation - HTML

Fees & Charges for Filing Petitions - HTML

Search Opinions of the U.S. Tax Court

Download all the Rules in one file . 297 pages; (1.6 megs)

 

U.S. Tax Court Rules by Title

Title I: Scope of Rules; Rules 1-3
PDF format ; - 2 pages; (92k)
Construction; Effective Date; Definitions.
Rule 1: See New Rules .
Rule 2: Effective Date
Rule 3: Definitions

Title II: The Court. Rules 10-13
PDF format ; 3 pages; (28k)
Rule 10: Name, Office, and Sessions
Rule 11: Payments to Court
Rule 12: Court Records
Rule 13: Jurisdiction

Title III: Commencement of Case; Service and Filing of Papers: Form and Style of Papers; Appearance and Representation; Computation of Time. Rules 20-25
PDF format ; 9 pages; (48k)
Rule 20: Commencement of Case
Rule 21: Service of Papers
Rule 22: Filing
Rule 23: Form & Style of Papers
Rule 24: Appearance & Representation
Rule 25: Computation of Time

Title IV: Pleadings. Rules 30-41
PDF format ; 10 pages; (491k)
Rule 30: Pleadings Allowed
Rule 31: General Rules of Pleading
Rule 32: Form of Pleadings
Rule 33: Signing of Pleadings
Rule 34: Petition
Rule 35: Entry on Docket
Rule 36: Answer:
Rule 37: Reply
Rule 38: Joinder of Issue
Rule 39: Pleading Special Matters
Rule 40: Defenses and Objections Made by Pleading or Motion
Rule 41: Amended and Supplemental Pleadings

Title V: Motions. Rules 50-58
PDF format ; 10 pages; (48k)
Rule 50: General Requirements
Rule 51: Motion for More Definitive Statement
Rule 52: Motion to Strike
Rule 53: Motion to Dismiss
Rule 54: Timely Filing & Joinder of Motions
Rule 55: Motion to Restrain Assessment or Collection
Rule 56: Motion for Review of Jeopardy Assessment or Jeopardy Levy
Rule 57: Motion for Review of Proposed Sale of Seized Property
Rule 58: Miscellaneous

Title VI: Parties. Rules 60-63
PDF format ; 3 pages; (31k)
Rule 60: Proper Parties; Capacity
Rule 61: Permissive Joinder of Parties
Rule 62: Misjoinder of Parties
Rule 63: Substitution of Parties: Change or Correction in Name

Title VII: Discovery. Rules 70-76
PDF format ; 12 pages; (57k)
Rule 70: General Provisions
Rule 71: Interrogatories
Rule 72: Production of Documents and Things
Rule 73: Examination by Transferees
Rule 74: Depositions for Discovery Purposes - Upon Consent of Parties
Rule 75: Depositions for Discovery Purposes - Without Consent of Parties
             in Certain Cases
Rule 76: Deposition of Expert Witnesses

Title VIII: Depositions. Rules 80-85
PDF format ; 12 pages; (52k)
Rule 80: General Provisions
Rule 81: Depositions in Pending Case
Rule 82: Depositions Before Commencement of Case
Rule 83: Depositions After Commencement of Trial
Rule 84: Deposition Upon Written Questions
Rule 85: Objections, Errors, and Irregularities

Title IX: Admissions and Stipulations. Rules 90-92
PDF format ; 7 pages; (40k)
Rule 90: Requests for Admission
Rule 91: Stipulation for Trial
Rule 92: Cases Consolidated for Trial

Title X: General Provisions Governing Discovery, Depositions, and Requests for Admissions. Rules 100-104
PDF format ; 5 pages; (30k)
Rule 100: Applicability
Rule 101: Sequence, Timing, & Frequency
Rule 102: Supplementation of Responses
Rule 103: Protective Orders
Rule 104: Enforcement Actions & Sanctions

Title XI: Pretrial Conferences. Rule 110
PDF format ; 1 page; (19k)
Rule 110: Pretrial Conferences

Title XII: Decision Without Trial. Rules 120-124
PDF format ; 5 pages; (36k)
Rule 120: Judgment on the Pleadings
Rule 121: Summary Judgment
Rule 122: Submission Without Trial
Rule 123: Default & Dismissal
Rule 124: Voluntary Binding Arbitration

Title XIII: Calendars and Continuances. Rules 130-133
PDF format ; 2 pages; (23k)
Rule 130: Motions & Other Matters
Rule 131: Trial Calendars
Rule 132: Special or Other Calendars
Rule 133: Continuances

Title XIV: Trials. Rules 140-152
PDF format ; 12 pages; (53k)
Rule 140: Place of Trial
Rule 141: Consolidation; Separate Trials
Rule 142: Burden of Proof
Rule 143: Evidence
Rule 144: Exceptions Unnecessary
Rule 145: Exclusion of Proposed Witnesses
Rule 146: Determination of Foreign Law
Rule 147: Subpoenas
Rule 148: Fees and Mileage
Rule 149: Failure to Appear or to Adduce Evidence
Rule 150: Record of Proceedings
Rule 151: Briefs
Rule 152: Oral Findings of Fact or Opinion

Title XV: Decision. Rules 155-157
PDF format ; 2 pages; (23k)
Rule 155: Computation by Parties for Entry of Decision
Rule 156: Estate Tax Deduction Developing At or After Trial
Rule 157: Motion to Retain File in Estate Tax Case Involving Section 6166;
               Election

Title XVI: Post-Trial Proceedings. Rules 160-163
PDF format ; 1 pages; (18k)
Rule 160: Harmless Error
Rule 161: Motion for Reconsideration of Findings or Opinion
Rule 162: Motion to Vacate or Revise Decision
Rule 163: No Joinder of Motions Under Rules 161 & 162

Title XVII: Small Tax Cases. Rules 170-179
PDF format ; 3 pages; (31k)
Rule 170: General
Rule 171: Election of Small Tax Case Procedure
Rule 172: Representation
Rule 173: Pleadings - See Notice of Proposed Amendments
Rule 174: Trial
Rule 175: Number of Copies of Papers

Title XVIII: Special Trial Judges. Rules 180-183
PDF format ; 3 pages; (28k)
Rule 180: Assignment
Rule 181: Powers and Duties
Rule 182: Cases in Which the Special Trial Judge Is Authorized To Make
               the Decision - AMENDED: See New Rules .
Rule 183: Other Cases - AMENDED: See New Rules .

Title XIX: Appeals. Rules 190-193
PDF format ; 2 pages; (29k)
Rule 190: How Appeal Taken
Rule 191: Preparation of the Record on Appeal
Rule 192: Bond to Stay Assessment & Collection
Rule 193: Appeals from Interlocutory Orders

Title XX: Practice Before the Court. Rules 200-202
PDF format ; 6 pages; (425k)
Rule 200: AMENDED: See New Rules
Rule 201: Conduct of Practice Before the Court
Rule 202: AMENDED: See New Rules

Title XXI: Declaratory Judgements. Rules 210-218
PDF format ; 16 pages; (69k)
Rule 210: General
Rule 211: Commencement of Action for Declaratory Judgment
Rule 212: Designation of Place for Submission to the Court
Rule 213: Other Pleadings
Rule 214: Joinder of Issue in Action for Declaratory Judgment
Rule 215: Joinder of Parties
Rule 216: Intervention in Retirement Plan Actions
Rule 217: Disposition of Actions for Declaratory Judgment
Rule 218: Procedure in Actions Heard by a Special Trial Judge of the
               Court

Title XXII: Disclosure Actions. Rules 220-229A
PDF format ; 13 pages; (44k)
Rule 220: General
Rule 221: Commencement of Disclosure Action
Rule 222: Designation of Place of Hearing
Rule 223: Other Pleadings
Rule 224: Joinder of Issue
Rule 225: Intervention
Rule 226: Joinder of Parties
Rule 227: Anonymous Parties
Rule 228: Confidentiality
Rule 229: Burden of Proof
Rule 229A: Procedure in Actions Heard by a Special Trial Judge of the
               Court

Title XXIII: Claims for Litigation and Administrative Costs. Rules 230-233
PDF format ; 7 pages; (39k)
Rule 230: General
Rule 231: Claims for Litigation & Administrative Costs
Rule 232: Disposition of Claims for Litigation & Administrative Costs
Rule 233: Miscellaneous

Title XXIV: Partnership Actions. Rules 240-251
PDF format ; 16 pages; (51k)
Rule 240: General
Rule 241: Commencement of Partnership Action
Rule 242: Designation of Place of Trial
Rule 243: Other Pleadings
Rule 244: Joinder of Issue in Partnership Action
Rule 245: Intervention & participation
Rule 246: Service of Papers
Rule 247: Parties
Rule 248: Settlement Agreements
Rule 249: Action for Adjustment of Partnership Items Treated as Action for
               Readjustment of Partnership Items
Rule 250: Appointment & Removal of the Tax Matters Partner
Rule 251: Decisions

Title XXV: Supplemental Proceedings. Rules 260-262
PDF format ; 6 pages; (38k)
Rule 260: Proceeding to Enforce Overpayment
Rule 261: Proceeding to Redetermine Interest
Rule 262: Proceeding to Modify Decision in Estate Tax Case Involving
               Section 6166 Election

Title XXVI: Actions for Administrative Costs. Rules 270 - 274
PDF format ; 5 pages; (34k)
Rule 270: General
Rule 271: Commencement of Action for Administrative Costs
Rule 272: Other Pleadings
Rule 273: Joinder of Issue in Action for Administrative Costs
Rule 274: Applicable Small Case Rules

Title XXVII: Actions for Review of Failure to Abate Interest Rules 280 - 284
PDF format ; 5 pages; (27k)
Rule 280: General
Rule 281: Commencement of Action for Review of Failure to Abate Interest
Rule 282: Designation of Place of Trial
Rule 283: Other Pleadings
Rule 284: Joinder of Issue in Action for Review of Failure to Abate Interest

Title XXVIII: Actions for Redetermination of Employment Status Rules 290 - 294
PDF format ; 4 pages; (29k)
Rule 290: General
Rule 291: Commencement of Action for Redetermination of Employment
               Status
Rule 292: Designation of Place of Trial
Rule 293: Other Pleadings
Rule 294: Joinder of Issue in Actions for Redetermination of Employment
               Status

Title XXIX: Large Partnership Actions Rules 300 - 305
PDF format ; 6 pages; (38k)
Rule 300: General
Rule 301: Commencement of Large Partnership Action
Rule 302: Designation of Place of Trial
Rule 303: Other Pleadings
Rule 304: Joinder of Issue in Large Partnership Actions
Rule 305: Action for Adjustment of Partnership Items of Large Partnership
               Treated as Action for Readjustment of Partnership Items of
               Large Partnership

Title XXX: Actions for Declaratory Judgment Relating to Treatment of Items Other Than Partnership Items With Respect to an Oversheltered Return Rules 310 - 316
PDF format ; 4 pages; (30k)
Rule 310: General
Rule 311. Commencement of Action for Declaratory Judgment
               (Oversheltered Return)
Rule 312: Designation of Place of Trial
Rule 313: Other Pleadings
Rule 314: Joinder of Issue in Action for Declaratory Judgment
               (Oversheltered Return)
Rule 315: Disposition of Action for Declaratory Judgment (Oversheltered
               Return)
Rule 316: Action for Declaratory Judgment (Oversheltered Return) Treated
               as Deficiency Action

Title XXXI: Actions for Determination of Relief From Joint and Several Liability on a Joint Return Rules 320 - 325
PDF format ; 4 pages; (31k)
Rule 320: General
Rule 321: Commencement of Action for Determination of Relief From Joint
               and Several Liability on a Joint Return
Rule 322: Designation of Place of Trial
Rule 323: Other Pleadings
Rule 324: Joinder of Issue in Action for Determination of Relief From Joint
               and Several Liability on a Joint Return
Rule 325: Notice and Intervention

Title XXXII: Lien and Levy Actions Rules 330 - 334
PDF format ; 3 pages; (28k)
Rule 330: General
Rule 331: Commencement of Lien and Levy Action
Rule 332: Designation of Place of Trial
Rule 333: Other Pleadings
Rule 334: Joinder of Issue in Lien and Levy Actions

Appendix I: Forms:
PDF format ; 15 pages; (211k)
Petitions; Entry of Appearance; Substitution of Counsel;
Designation of Place of Trial; Subpoena; Application for Order
to Take Deposition; Certificate on Return; Notice of Appeal to
Court of Appeals; Certificate of Service; Notices of Elections;
Petition for Administrative Costs

Appendix II: Fees and Charges
PDF format ; 1 page; (17k)
(See Rules 148, !90(a),and 200(i))

Appendix III: Places of Trial
PDF format ; 2 page; (21k)
(See Rules 140 and 177)

Index to Tax Court Rules
PDF format ; 48 pages; (73k)
References are to the Rule Number.

NEW RULES - EFFECTIVE SEPTEMBER 20, 2005
PDF format ; 8 pages; (99k)
This file which has all the new rules: 1, 182, 183, 200, and 202.

Click Here to Search Opinions of the U.S. Tax Court

DC Personnel Regulations, Chapter 6, Part I

Rules and Regulations of the Office of Employee Appeals

Contents

Section No.

Heading

600

General

601

Organizational Structure

602

Scope of Rules

603

Computation of Time

604

Jurisdiction

605

Notice of Appeal Rights

606

Arbitration

607

Mediation and Conciliation Program

608

Filing Requirements

609

Content of Petition for Appeal

610

Answer

611

Motions

612

Consolidation and Joinder

613

Representation

614

Intervention

615

Substitution

616

Summary Disposition

617

Interlocutory Appeals

618

Discovery

619

Subpoenas

620

Administrative Judges

621

Disqualification of Administrative Judge

622

Sanctions

623

Ex Parte Communications

624

Pre-Hearing Conferences

625

Evidentiary Hearings

626

Recording and Transcripts

627

Presentation of Evidence or Witnesses

628

Witnesses

629

Burden of Proof

630

Closing the Record

631

Reopening the Record; Termination of Jurisdiction

632

Initial Decision

633

Finality of Decision

634

Petitions for Review

635

Attorney Fees

636

Compliance and Enforcement

.

600 General

600.1 The Office of Employee Appeals (Office) is an independent administrative adjudicatory agency created by the District of Columbia Government Comprehensive Merit Personnel Act of 1978, D.C. Code § 1-606.1 et seq. The jurisdiction of the Office is set forth in Rule 604.

..

601 Organizational Structure

601.1 The Board of the Office (Board) is composed of five (5) members appointed by the Mayor and confirmed by the District of Columbia Council. Three (3) members of the Board shall constitute a quorum for the transaction of official business and the issuance of rules and regulations.

601.2 The Mayor designates a Chairperson of the Board to serve as the Chief Executive of the Office.

601.3 The Mayor designates a Vice Chairperson of the Board. In the absence or disability of the Chairperson, or when the position of Chairperson is vacant, the Vice Chairperson performs the functions vested in the Chairperson.

601.4 The Executive Director is the administrator of the Office and serves as its chief personnel officer.

601.5 The General Counsel, with the assistance of the Deputy General Counsel, provides legal advice to the Board and the Office staff, prepares opinions and orders as directed by the Board, assists in the enforcement of orders pursuant to law, and represents the Office before the Courts.

601.6 Administrative Judges, subject to the provisions of these rules, adjudicate appeals filed before the Office.

..

602 Scope of Rules

602.1 These rules govern the procedure for deciding cases filed before the Office. These rules shall be applied to promote justice, fairness, and economy.

602.2 These rules shall apply to all appeals filed on or after their effective date and to all appeals then pending final disposition in the Office.

602.3 The Board may revoke or amend a rule as it applies generally to all cases in accordance with applicable procedures of the District of Columbia Administrative Procedure Act. The Board or an Administrative Judge may waive a rule in an individual case for good cause shown, if application of the rule is not required by statute.

602.4 In the event of a conflict between these rules and a provision of a statute, the statutory provision shall govern. In the event of a conflict between these rules and rules or regulations adopted by another District agency, department, office or board, these rules shall govern.

..

603 Computation of Time

603.1 In the computation of time periods which involve business days, the first day counted shall be the next business day following the day the event occurs from which the time period begins to run. In the computation of time periods which involve calendar days, the first day counted shall be the next calendar day following the day the event occurs from which the time period begins to run. For calendar days, if the last day of the time period is a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday, the period shall be extended to the end of the next business day.

603.2 If a party has a right or duty to act or proceed within a prescribed period after service of a notice or other document upon him or her, three (3) calendar days shall be added to the prescribed period whenever the document or notice is served upon the party by mail.

..

604 Jurisdiction

604.1 Effective October 21, 1998, and except as otherwise provided in the District of Columbia Government Comprehensive Merit Personnel Act of 1978, D.C. Code § 1-601.1 et seq. or Rule 604.2 below, any District of Columbia government employee may appeal a final agency decision affecting:

(a) A performance rating which results in removal of the employee;

(b) An adverse action for cause that results in removal, reduction in grade, or suspension for ten (10) days or more; or

(c) A reduction-in-force.

604.2 An appeal filed pursuant to Rule 604.1 must be filed within thirty (30) days of the effective date of the appealed agency action.

604.3 The Office shall exercise jurisdiction over appeals filed with the Office before October 21, 1998 by an employee appealing a final agency decision that:

(a) Denies his or her appeal of a performance evaluation;

(b) Effects an adverse action against him or her;

(c) Releases him or her through reduction-in-force procedures;

(d) Resolves a grievance;

(e) Refuses to grant a waiver of the District's claim for an erroneous overpayment to an employee;

(f) Denies his or her appeal regarding records management and privacy of records; or

(g) Denies his or her classification appeal.

604.4 An appeal filed before October 21, 1998 must have been filed within fifteen (15) business days of the effective date of the appealed agency action.

604.5 Within forty-five (45) business days of the date the appeal is filed, an Administrative Judge shall determine whether the Office has jurisdiction to review it.

..

605 Notice of Appeal Rights

605.1 When an agency issues a final decision to an employee on a matter appealable to the Office, the agency shall at the same time provide the employee with:

(a) Notice of the Employee§s right to appeal to the Office;

(b) A copy of the rules of the Office;

(c) A copy of the appeal form of the Office;

(d) Notice of applicable rights to appeal under a negotiated review procedure; and

(e) Notice of the right to representation by a lawyer or other representative authorized by the rules.

..

606 Arbitration

606.1 Apart from any rights under a collective bargaining agreement, the parties may agree to arbitrate a dispute rather than have the Office adjudicate it.

606.2 An agreement to arbitrate must be reached within thirty (30) business days of the date that the employee files a petition for appeal with the Office. If the parties fail to reach an agreement to arbitrate within this period, the Office shall proceed to adjudicate the matter.

606.3 Within ten (10) business days of the date that the parties submit a written agreement to arbitrate their dispute, the Office shall dismiss the appeal and forward the matter to the American Arbitration Association pursuant to D.C. Code § 1-606.7.

..

607 Mediation and Conciliation Program

607.1 The Office shall exert every possible effort to resolve matters by mediation and conciliation, to the extent possible, rather than through litigation.

607.2 The Executive Director shall designate a Senior Administrative Judge to implement the mediation and conciliation program of the Office.

607.3 The Senior Administrative Judge responsible for mediation and conciliation shall review the appeals pending in the Office and assign cases where there is a reasonable likelihood of settlement to the mediation and conciliation docket.

607.4 Any party may file a request for mediation and conciliation with the Office which, upon the consent of all parties, shall place the matter on the mediation and conciliation docket.

607.5 The Senior Administrative Judge responsible for mediation and conciliation shall assign the matter to a mediator who shall promptly convene a conference for the purpose of attempting to reach a voluntary resolution of the appeal. The Administrative Judge assigned to an appeal may not serve as mediator on that appeal. A mediator may not be called as a witness in any proceeding concerning matters raised in a case to which he or she is assigned to attempt mediation or conciliation.

607.6 The employee and his or her representative shall attend the conference. A representative of the agency with authority to approve a settlement by the agency shall either attend the conference or be available by telephone at the time set for and throughout the conference. The parties shall engage in good-faith discussion to resolve the matter.

607.7 If the mediator finds that a party has failed to engage in settlement discussions in good faith (including a failure to have available a representative with authority to settle), the mediator shall submit such a finding to the Senior Administrative Judge supervising the mediation and conciliation docket, who may enter such sanctions against the party as may be appropriate to further the objectives of the mediation and conciliation program.

607.8 The discussions at the conference and the offers of the parties shall be confidential and may not be offered or received into evidence or otherwise disclosed in subsequent adjudication or litigation.

607.9 Upon the failure of the parties to reach settlement through mediation and conciliation, the Senior Administrative Judge shall refer the matter to the assigned Administrative Judge for adjudication.

607.10 If the parties reach settlement, the matter shall be dismissed in accordance with D.C. Code § 1-606.6(b).

..

608 Filing Requirements

608.1 An employee shall initiate an appeal by filing a petition for appeal with the Office.

608.2 The Office shall promptly send a copy of the petition for appeal to the agency, and the agency shall file an answer within thirty (30) calendar days of the service of the petition for appeal.

608.3 The date of filing shall be determined by the date of receipt by the Office.

608.4 Filing of a petition for appeal and a petition for review must be made by personal delivery at the Office between 9:00 A.M. and 4:30 P.M., Monday through Friday, or by mail addressed to the Office.

608.5 The employee must file with the Office one (1) original and two (2) copies of the petition for appeal (including the documents required by Rule 609).

608.6 Filing of pleadings and documents, other than a petition for appeal, or a petition for review filed pursuant to Rule 634, may be made as prescribed in Rule 608.4, or by facsimile transmission during normal business hours.

608.7 The parties shall serve on each other one copy of each document filed with the Office other than the petition for appeal. A party may effect such service by mailing or by personally delivering to each other party a copy of the document submitted to the Office. Each document must be accompanied by a certificate of service specifying how, when, and on whom service was made.

..

609 Content of Petition for Appeal

609.1 A petition for appeal may be filed on a form approved by the Office.

609.2 A petition for appeal made without use of the form of the Office shall be in writing and contain the following information:

(a) The name of the employee and the name of the agency which took the action;

(b) The type and the effective date of the action taken by the agency;

(c) The name, address, and telephone number of the employee's representative, if any;

(d) The employee's address and telephone number;

(e) A copy of the agency's notice of final decision;

(f) A statement as to whether the employee or anyone acting on his or her behalf has filed an appeal under any negotiated review procedure pursuant to a collective bargaining agreement, or has filed a complaint with any other agency regarding this matter;

(g) The identity of the collective bargaining unit (if any) of which employee is a member; and

(h) The signature of the employee and his or her representative, if any.

609.3 Along with the petition for appeal, the employee shall also submit the following information:

(a) A statement as to whether the employee requests an evidentiary hearing or oral argument;

(b) A concise statement of the facts giving rise to the appeal;

(c) An explanation as to why the employee believes the agency's action was unwarranted; and

(d) A statement of the specific relief the employee is requesting.

609.4 The Office shall not consider the filing of a petition for appeal complete until the employee provides all the information required under Rule 609.2 and 609.3.

609.5 An employee's failure to include a complete address, or to advise the Office of a change in address, shall constitute a waiver of any right to notice and service, and may result in the appeal being dismissed.

609.6 The Administrative Judge may allow an employee to amend the appeal unless the Administrative Judge determines that to do so would prejudice the rights of another party or unduly delay the proceedings.

..

610 Answer

610.1 An agency§s answer in which the allegations of a petition are contested shall contain the following:

(a) The name of the employee and the agency which took the action;

(b) The OEA matter number assigned to the appeal;

(c) A statement of the appealed action the agency took against the employee and the reason(s) therefor;

(d) A specific response to each allegation of the petition admitting, denying, or explaining each in whole or in part. The Administrative Judge may assume that the agency concedes as fact an allegation in employee§s petition that the agency does not specifically explain or deny in the answer;

(e) All documents contained in the agency record of the proceeding;

(f) A request for an evidentiary hearing or oral argument, if desired; and

(g) The designation of, and signature by, the authorized agency representative. If the agency fails to designate a representative, the Office shall regard the agency director as the representative.

610.2 If the agency elects not to contest the allegations of fact set forth in the petition, the answer shall consist of a statement that the agency admits all of the material allegations to be true. Such an answer shall constitute a waiver of the right to present evidence or testimony contradicting the admitted facts. However, the right to further participation in the proceedings shall continue and questions of law may be addressed.

610.3 Failure by the agency to file an answer within the time limit set forth in Rule 608.2 shall constitute a default, and the Administrative Judge may, without further notice, render an appropriate decision.

..

611 Motions

611.1 Except where the Administrative Judge permits an oral motion hearing, motions shall be written, filed with the Office, and served upon the parties in accordance with Rule 608.7.

611.2 Motions shall state the particular order, ruling, or action requested and the grounds and authority therefor.

611.3 No later than ten (10) calendar days after the service of a motion, or within such time as the Administrative Judge may direct for good cause shown, the opposing party may serve and file an answer to the motion. The moving party shall have no right to reply, except as permitted by the Administrative Judge. No oral argument will be heard on motions unless the Administrative Judge directs otherwise. Written briefs may be filed with motions and with answers thereto.

..

612 Consolidation and Joinder

612.1 If an employee has two or more appeals pending before the Office, the Administrative Judge may consolidate the appeals and adjudicate them as one action.

612.2 If two or more employees have appeals involving similar or identical issues pending before the Office, the Administrative Judge may join the appeals for adjudication as one action.

612.3 The Administrative Judge may consolidate or join appeals on his or her own motion, or on the motion of a party, if to do so would:

(a) Expedite processing of the cases; and

(b) Not adversely affect the interests of the parties.

612.4 At any time and on such terms as are just, the Administrative Judge may sever appeals consolidated or joined under these rules and proceed with each appeal separately.

..

613 Representation

613.1 In any proceeding before the Office, the employee may appear on his or her own behalf, through an attorney, through a union representative or through any other competent individual.

613.2 The agency may appear before the Office only through counsel or an individual acting in a representative capacity. If the agency fails to designate a representative, the Office shall regard the agency director as the representative.

613.3 Except where the agency director is the agency representative, no person may participate in a representative capacity before the Office until:

(a) The party submits a signed written statement authorizing such representation; and

(b) The representative submits a signed written statement which contains his or her name, address and telephone number, and which certifies that he or she is available and willing to represent the party's interest.

..

614 Intervention

614.1 Any person or District of Columbia government agency may seek to intervene in an appeal by filing a motion. The motion shall state why the person or agency believes intervention is warranted. After allowing the original parties a reasonable period of time in which to respond, the Administrative Judge may permit the movant to intervene if the movant has an interest that may be affected by the final disposition of the case and the movant§s:

(a) Interest will not be represented by the existing parties;

(b) Participation may reasonably be expected to assist in the development of a proper record; and

(c) Participation will not broaden the issues, resulting in prejudicial delay of the proceeding.

614.2 An intervener shall be considered a full party to the proceedings and shall have the same rights and duties as a party, except that the intervener:

(a) Shall not have an independent right to a hearing;

(b) May participate only on the issues affecting them as determined by the Administrative Judge; and

(c) Shall have no right to an award of attorney fees under Rule 635.

..

615 Substitution

615.1 If an employee dies while the appeal is pending before the Office, and the interest of the deceased employee has not terminated because of the death, the Administrative Judge, upon moti7on, may order substitution of the proper parties. A motion for substitution shall be made within ninety (90) calendar days after the death of the employee.

615.2 If an employee becomes incompetent by reason of mental or physical infirmity, the Administrative Judge, upon motion, may allow the appeal to be continued by the employee's representative.

615.3 When an agency's interest in the appeal is transferred to another District agency, the Administrative Judge may:

(a) Allow the appeal to continue against the original agency;

(b) Order the substitution of the successor agency; or

(c) Join the successor agency with the original agency.

..

616 Summary Disposition

616.1 If, upon examination of the record in an appeal, it appears to the Administrative Judge that there are no material and genuine issues of fact, that a party is entitled to a decision as a matter of law, or that the appeal fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, the Administrative Judge may, after notifying the parties and giving them an opportunity to submit additional evidence or legal argument, render a summary disposition of the matter without further proceedings.

616.2 An Administrative Judge may render a summary disposition either sua sponte, after notice under Rule 616.1, or upon motion of a party.

616.3 An order granting summary disposition shall conform to the requirements for initial decisions set forth in Rule 632.

..

617 Interlocutory Appeals

617.1 An interlocutory appeal is an appeal to the Board of a ruling made by an Administrative Judge during the course of a proceeding. The Administrative Judge may permit this appeal if he or she determines that the issue presented is of such importance to the proceeding that it requires immediate consideration by the Board. The Board shall make a decision on the issue and the Administrative Judge shall proceed in accordance with that decision.

617.2 A party seeking review by interlocutory appeal must file a motion for certification within five (5) business days of service of the Administrative Judge's determination. The motion shall include arguments in support of both the certification and the determination to be made by the Board.

617.3 The Administrative Judge shall grant or deny a motion for certification. If certification is granted, the record shall be referred to the Board.

617.4 At the discretion of the Administrative Judge, the proceeding may be stayed during the time an interlocutory appeal is pending. The Board may stay a proceeding during the time an interlocutory appeal is pending.

..

618 Discovery

618.1 Parties may obtain discovery by one (1) or more of the following methods:

(a) Depositions upon oral examination or written questions;

(b) Written interrogatories;

(c) Requests for production of documents or things for inspection and other purposes; and

(d) Requests for admission.

618.2 Unless the Administrative Judge orders otherwise, these methods may be used in any sequence and the fact that a party is conducting discovery, whether by deposition or otherwise, shall not operate to delay any other party's discovery.

618.3 Unless the Administrative Judge directs otherwise, the parties may obtain discovery regarding any matter not privileged which is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending appeal. Such information may include the existence, description, nature, custody, condition and location of books, documents, or other tangible things and the identity and location of persons having any knowledge of any discoverable matter. It is not grounds for objection that the information sought will be inadmissible at an evidentiary hearing if the information sought appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.

618.4 The Administrative Judge may limit the frequency or use of discovery if:

(a) The discovery sought is unreasonably cumulative or duplicative, or is obtainable from some other source that is more convenient, less burdensome, or less expensive;

(b) The party seeking discovery has had ample opportunity by discovery in the appeal to obtain the information sought; or

(c) The discovery is unduly burdensome or expensive, in light of the nature of the case, the relief sought, the limitations on the parties' resources, and the importance of the issues involved in the case.

618.5 The Administrative Judge may deny discovery or make any order which justice requires to protect a party or other person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense, or to prevent undue delay in the proceeding.

618.6 Discovery may be commenced after the Office notifies the agency that the employee has filed the petition. Unless the Administrative Judge directs otherwise, discovery shall be completed by the date of the pre-hearing conference.

618.7 Discovery matters before the Office are intended to be of a simplified nature. Discovery procedures shall be established by the Administrative Judge as appropriate under the circumstances. Further guidance, however, may be obtained by referring to the District of Columbia Superior Court Rules of Civil Procedure. Such rules should be interpreted as instructive rather than controlling.

..

619 Subpoenas

619.1 Application for issuance of a subpoena requiring a person to appear and testify at a specific place and time shall be made in writing to the Administrative Judge. All requests for subpoenas ad testificandum shall clearly identify the person subpoenaed and his or her address and shall be supported by a showing of the relevance and materiality of the testimony sought.

619.2 Application for issuance of a subpoena requiring a person to produce documents (including writings, drawings, graphs, charts, photographs, phone records and other recordings, and other data compilations from which information can be obtained) at a specific time and place shall be made in writing to the Administrative Judge. All requests for subpoenas duces tecum shall specify with reasonable particularity the information sought, the facts expected to be established thereby, and how these facts are relevant and material.

619.3 An applicant for a subpoena shall arrange for service; except for good cause shown, service shall be completed no later than 10 calendar days before the date of the requested testimony or production.

619.4 Personal service of a subpoena may be made by any person, not a party, who is at least eighteen (18) years of age. Service of the subpoena shall be attested to in an affidavit by the person making such service. The attesting affidavit shall state the date, time, and method of service.

619.5 Any motion by the subject of a subpoena to limit or quash the subpoena shall be filed within three (3) calendar days of the time for compliance therewith. Such motions shall set forth all assertions of privilege or other factual and legal objections to the subpoena, including all appropriate arguments, affidavits, and other supporting documentation.

619.6 In the case of contumacy or failure to obey a subpoena issued, the Office, pursuant to D.C. Code § 1-606.2(a)(4), may request enforcement of the subpoena in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia .

..

620 Administrative Judges

620.1 Proceedings shall be presided over by an Administrative Judge appointed by the Office.

620.2 Administrative Judges shall conduct hearing fairly and impartially, take all necessary action to avoid delay in the disposition of proceedings, and maintain order. They shall have all powers necessary to that end including, but not limited to, the power to:

(a) Administer oaths and affirmations;

(b) Issue subpoenas and protective orders;

(c) Rule upon motions;

(d) Compel discovery;

(e) Regulate the course of the proceeding, require an evidentiary hearing, if appropriate, fix the time and place of such evidentiary hearing, and exclude persons from such evidentiary hearings for contumacious conduct;

(f) Call and examine witnesses and admit to the record documentary or other evidence;

(g) Dismiss cases based on a settlement agreement reached by the parties; and

(h) Take other appropriate action authorized by statute, these rules, or the Board.

620.3 If a new Administrative Judge is substituted for the one originally assigned, a motion predicated upon such substitution shall be made no later than seven (7) calendar days after the Office notifies the parties of the reassignment. Failure to make such motion within this time period shall constitute a waiver of the right to object to the substitution.

..

621 Disqualification of Administrative Judge

621.1 If an Administrative Judge deems himself or herself disqualified to preside in a particular case, he or she shall withdraw therefrom by notice, on the record, and shall notify the Executive Director of such withdrawal.

621.2 At any time following the assignment of the appeal to an Administrative Judge, and before issuance of an initial decision in the matter under Rule 632, a party may request the Administrative Judge to disqualify himself or herself on the grounds of personal bias or other disqualification, by serving and filing a motion promptly upon the discovery of the alleged facts, with an affidavit setting forth, in detail, the matters alleged to constitute grounds for disqualification.

621.3 If, in the opinion of the Administrative Judge, the affidavit is sufficient on its face, the Administrative Judge shall disqualify and remove himself or herself from the case. If the Administrative Judge does not disqualify himself or herself, the Administrative Judge shall issue a written order to that effect stating the grounds for the ruling.

..

622 Sanctions

622.1 The Administrative Judge may impose sanctions upon the parties as necessary to serve the ends of justice, including, but not limited to, the instances set forth in this section.

622.2 If a party fails to comply with an order for taking a deposition, the production of evidence within the party's control, a request for admission, and/or production of witnesses, the Administrative Judge may, for example:

(a) Draw an inference adverse to the party who failed to comply;

(b) Prohibit the party failing to comply with such order from introducing evidence concerning, or otherwise relying upon evidence relating to, the information sought;

(c) Permit any party who has been prejudiced by the non-compliance to introduce secondary evidence concerning the information sought; and

(d) Strike any part of the pleadings or other submissions of the party failing to comply with such order.

622.3 If a party fails to take reasonable steps to prosecute or defend an appeal, the Administrative Judge, in the exercise of sound discretion, may dismiss the action or rule for the appellant. Failure of a party to prosecute or defend an appeal includes, but is not limited to, a failure to:

(a) Appear at a scheduled proceeding after receiving notice;

(b) Submit required documents after being provided with a deadline for such submission; or

(c) Inform this Office of a change of address which results in correspondence being returned.

622.4 The Administrative Judge may refuse to consider any motion or other action which is not filed in a timely fashion.

..

623 Ex Parte Communications

623.1 Ex parte communication is oral or written communication to decision-making personnel of the Office from a party to a proceeding who does not provide the other party or parties an opportunity to participate.

623.2 An ex parte communication which involves the merits of the case is prohibited.

623.3 In the event of a prohibited communication, the Administrative Judge shall describe that occurrence on the record with notice to the parties either by filing therein a memorandum, if the transaction was oral, or by filing any writing delivered to him or her.

623.4 When an Administrative Judge determines that a party has initiated a prohibited ex-parte communication, the Administrative Judge may impose such sanctions or remedial relief as may be appropriate under the circumstances.

..

624 Pre-Hearing Conferences

624.1 The Administrative Judge may convene a pre-hearing conference to consider:

(a) Simplification, clarification, compromise, or settlement of the issues;

(b) Necessity and desirability of amendments to the pleadings;

(c) Stipulations, admissions of fact, and the contents, admissibility, and authenticity of documents;

(d) Whether the Administrative Judge will order an evidentiary hearing to expedite the presentation of evidence, including, but not limited to, restricting the number of witnesses;

(e) A statement of the issues; and

(f) Such other matters as may aid in the orderly disposition of the proceeding, including disclosure of the names of witnesses and furnishing, for inspection or copying, non-privileged documents, papers, books, or other physical exhibits, which constitute or contain evidence relevant to the subject matter involved and which are in the possession, custody, or control of any party to the proceeding.

624.2 A pre-hearing conference, in the discretion of the Administrative Judge, may be recorded verbatim.

624.3 After such pre-hearing conference, the Administrative Judge may issue an order that identifies the legal and factual issues in the appeal. Unless modified, such order shall control the subsequent course of the proceeding.

624.4 Failure to appear at the pre-hearing conference without good cause and after adequate notice shall constitute, in addition to grounds for sanctions, a waiver by that party of any right to object to the characterization of the issues as set forth in the post pre-hearing order.

..

625 Evidentiary Hearings

625.1 A party may request the opportunity for an evidentiary hearing to adduce testimony to support or refute any fact alleged in a pleading.

625.2 If the Administrative Judge grants a request for an evidentiary hearing, or makes his or her own determination that one is necessary, the Administrative Judge will so advise the parties and, with appropriate notice, designate the time and place for such hearing and the issues to be addressed. The Administrative Judge shall give due regard to the availability of the parties or their authorized representative(s) in designating the time and place of the evidentiary hearing.

625.3 Postponement of an evidentiary hearing will be allowed only upon good cause shown or upon agreement of the parties, with the concurrence of the Administrative Judge. Except in extraordinary circumstances, a motion for a postponement shall not be considered unless it is served and filed at least seven (7) calendar days in advance of the date designated for the evidentiary hearing.

625.4 Failure of a party to appear for an evidentiary hearing, unless excused by the Administrative Judge for good cause shown, before or after the fact, may be deemed to be a waiver by that party of all rights to participate further in the proceeding, and may be grounds for dismissal of the case or the imposition of other sanctions.

625.5 Hearings shall be open to the public, except that the Administrative Judge may order a hearing or any part thereof closed, where a closed hearing would be in the best interest of the employee, a witness, the public, or other affected persons.

..

626 Recording and Transcripts

626.1 Evidentiary hearings shall be recorded verbatim under the supervision of the Administrative Judge and shall be the sole official record of the proceeding.

626.2 A transcript or, if the record was not transcribed, a copy of the recording may be obtained by the parties upon request.

626.3 The Office will provide one (1) copy of the transcript or recording to each party or, if the party is represented, to the representative at no cost. Any additional copies of the record shall be at the expense of the requesting party.

626.4 A party may request correction to the official transcript by written motion. A motion for correction shall be submitted within ten (10) calendar days of receipt of the transcript.

..

627 Presentation of Evidence or Witnesses

627.1 All material and relevant evidence or testimony shall be admissible, but may be excluded if it is unduly repetitious.

627.2 During an evidentiary hearing, a party shall be entitled to present his or her case or defense by oral, documentary or physical evidence, and to conduct reasonable cross-examination.

627.3 Objections to the admission of evidence, or to the conduct of the proceeding, may be made orally on the record where an evidentiary hearing has been provided, or by written motion. Argument thereon, or briefs or legal memoranda, if requested by the Administrative Judge, shall be included in the record. Rulings on objections shall be made at the time of the objection or prior to the receipt of further evidence, unless the Administrative Judge orders otherwise, and shall be a part of the record.

627.4 The parties may agree upon any facts or procedures relevant to the proceeding. Such stipulations shall be binding on the parties.

627.5 The Administrative Judge on his or her own motion or on motion of a party, may take official notice of matters of common knowledge or matters that can be verified. Official notice taken of any fact shall satisfy a party's burden of proving the fact noticed.

627.6 All exhibits offered into evidence shall be numbered and marked so as to identify the party offering the exhibit.

627.7 Whenever evidence is excluded by the Administrative Judge, the offering party may make an offer of proof of what the party expects the evidence to establish. In the case of an evidentiary hearing, if the offer of proof consists of an oral statement, it shall be included in the record. If the offer of proof consists of an exhibit or other documentary evidence, it shall be marked for identification and retained in the record so as to be available for consideration by any reviewing authority.

..

628 Witnesses

628.1 Every person shall be competent to be a witness as to any material matter unless the Administrative Judge finds that the proposed witness is incapable of:

(a) Expressing himself or herself concerning the matter so as to be understood by the Administrative Judge either directly or through interpretation by one who can understand the witness; or

(b) Understanding the duty of a witness to tell the truth.

628.2 Each District of Columbia government agency shall make its employees available to furnish sworn statements or affirmation or to appear as witnesses at depositions and hearings when requested by the Administrative Judge. When providing such statements or testimony, witnesses shall be on official duty status.

628.3 Witnesses not employed by the District of Columbia government may be required to appear by subpoena at the cost of the moving party.

628.4 Witnesses shall have the right to representation when testifying.

..

629 Burden of Proof

629.1 The burden of proof with regard to material issues of fact shall be by a preponderance of the evidence. (Preponderance of the evidence§ shall mean:

That degree of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind, considering the record as a whole, would accept as sufficient to find a contested fact more probably true than untrue.

629.2 The employee shall have the burden of proof as to issues of jurisdiction, including timeliness of filing.

629.3 For appeals filed on or after October 21, 1998, the agency shall have the burden of proof, except for issues of jurisdiction.

629.4 For appeals filed before October 21, 1998, the agency, except for issues of jurisdiction, shall have the burden of proof in appeals filed pursuant to D.C. Code § 1-617.1 (1992 repl.) and the employee shall have the burden of proof in all other appeals.

..

630 Closing the Record

630.1 When an evidentiary hearing has been provided, the record shall be closed at the conclusion of the hearing, unless the Administrative Judge directs otherwise. When no evidentiary hearing has been provided, the record shall be closed on the date set by the Administrative Judge as the final date for the receipt of submissions from the parties.

630.2 Once the record is closed, no additional evidence or argument shall be accepted into the record unless the Administrative Judge reopens the record pursuant to Rule 631.

..

631 Reopening the Record; Termination of Jurisdiction

631.1 The Administrative Judge may reopen the record to receive further evidence or argument at any time prior to the issuance of the initial decision.

631.2 The jurisdiction of an Administrative Judge terminates upon issuance of the initial decision. However, the Administrative Judge shall retain jurisdiction over the appeal to the limited extent necessary to correct the record or transcript, rule on a request by the employee for attorney fees, and process any petition for enforcement.

..

632 Initial Decision

632.1 The Administrative Judge shall issue an initial decision. Such decision shall be issued no later than 120 business days after the employee files a complete petition for appeal. However, the Administrative Judge may extend this period for a reasonable time under extraordinary circumstances.

632.2 The Administrative Judge may, at the conclusion of an evidentiary hearing, render an oral decision, in which case an initial decision in writing shall be issued within thirty (30) days.

632.3 Each initial decision shall contain:

(a) Findings of fact and conclusions of law, as well as the reasons or bases therefor, upon all the material issues of fact and law presented on the record;

(b) An order as to the final disposition of the case, including appropriate relief if granted;

(c) The date upon which the decision will become final; and

(d) A statement of the right to seek further administrative remedy, including the right to petition for review.

632.4 Notwithstanding any other provision of these rules, the Office shall not reverse an agency's action for error in the application of its rules, regulations, or policies if the agency can demonstrate that the error was harmless. (Harmless error§ shall mean:

Error in the application of the agency's procedures, which did not cause substantial harm or prejudice to the employee's rights and did not significantly affect the agency's final decision to take the action.

632.5 The Office shall serve a copy of the initial decision on each party to the proceeding.

..

633 Finality of Decision

633.1 The initial decision shall become final thirty-five (35) calendar days after issuance.

633.2 The initial decision shall not become final if any party files a petition for review or if the Board reopens the case on its own motion within thirty-five (35) calendar days after issuance of the initial decision.

633.3 If the Board denies all petitions for review, the initial decision shall become final five (5) business days after issuance of the last denial.

633.4 If the Board grants a petition for review or reopens a case, the subsequent decision of the Board shall be the final decision.

633.5 Administrative remedies shall be considered exhausted when a decision becomes final in accordance with this section.

..

634 Petitions for Review

634.1 Any party to the proceeding may serve and file a petition for review of an initial decision with the Board within thirty-five (35) calendar days of issuance of the initial decision.

634.2 Within thirty-five (35) calendar days after the filing of the petition for review, any party may file an answer.

634.3 The petition for review shall set forth objections to the initial decision supported by reference to the record. The Board may grant a petition for review when the petition establishes that:

(a) New and material evidence is available that, despite due diligence, was not available when the record closed;

(b) The decision of the Administrative Judge is based on an erroneous interpretation of statute, regulation or policy;

(c) The findings of the Administrative Judge are not based on substantial evidence; or

(d) The initial decision did not address all material issues of law and fact properly raised in the appeal.

634.4 Any objections or legal arguments which could have been raised before the Administrative Judge, but were not, may be considered waived by the Board.

634.5 The Board may review an initial decision on its own motion within thirty-five (35) days of issuance of the initial decision.

634.6 The Board may order oral argument on its own motion or on motion filed by any party.

634.7 The Board may affirm, reverse, remand, modify or vacate the initial decision, in whole or in part. Where appropriate, the Board shall issue a final decision and order a date for compliance.

634.8 The Board's decision on whether to grant or deny a petition for review shall be by public vote. However, the Board's final decision shall be the written opinion and order.

634.9 An employee or agency may appeal a final decision in accordance with the District of Columbia Government Comprehensive Merit Personnel Act of 1978, D.C. Code § 1-601.1 et seq.

..

635 Attorney Fees

635.1 An employee shall be entitled to an award of reasonable attorney fees if:

(a) He or she is a prevailing party; and

(b) The award is warranted in the interest of justice.

635.2 Unless the Administrative Judge directs otherwise, a request for attorney fees shall be made by written motion within thirty (30) calendar days of the date that the initial decision becomes final.

635.3 An employee shall submit reasonable evidence or documentation to support the number of hours expended by the attorney on the appeal.

635.4 The Board each year may approve standard hourly rates for fees for attorneys who practice before the Office.

635.5 An agency may file a written opposition to the employee§s motion for attorney fees within fifteen (15) business days of service of the motion or within such time as the Administrative Judge may direct. In its written opposition the agency must state its objection to the employee§s request for attorney fees with particularity and clarity.

635.6 A decision by an Administrative Judge on a request for attorney fees shall be considered an addendum to the initial decision.

..

636 Compliance and Enforcement

636.1 Unless the Office's final decision is appealed to the District of Columbia Superior Court, the District agency shall comply with the Office's final decision within thirty (30) calendar days from the date the decision becomes final.

636.2 If any District agency fails to comply with the final decision of the Office within the time period specified in Rule 636.1, the employee may file a motion to enforce the final decision. The motion shall be directed to the Administrative Judge who decided the appeal.

636.3 The agency shall have fifteen (15) business days to respond to the employee's motion.

636.4 The employee, with specificity, shall explain in the motion how the agency has failed to comply with the Office's decision. The agency shall include in its answer a statement which admits or denies each allegation in the employee's motion.

636.5 The parties shall serve the motion and answer on each other.

636.6 Failure by the agency to file an answer to the motion for enforcement shall be construed as an admission of the employee's allegations.

636.7 The Administrative Judge shall take all necessary action to determine whether the final decision is being complied with and shall issue a written opinion on the matter.

636.8 If the Administrative Judge determines that the agency has not complied with the final decision, the Administrative Judge shall certify the matter to the General Counsel. The General Counsel shall order the agency to comply with the Office's final decision in accordance with D.C. Code § 1-606.2.

636.9 If the agency fails to comply with the order, the General Counsel may take such actions as are necessary to secure compliance with the order, including forwarding the matter to the Office of the Mayor or other responsible official for direct enforcement.

 

High court backs Superfund
Investor's Business Daily
The Supreme Court rejected GE's (GE) challenge to the federal toxic waste cleanup law, upholding a US appeals court ruling. GE had argued the Superfund provision letting the EPA issue unilateral orders violated constitutional due process rights. ...
See all stories on this topic »

Securities: The Supreme Court and
SEC Enforcement under Dodd-Frank

Wednesday, June 15, 2011

This high-level discussion will include the impact of SEC enforcement under Dodd-Frank, in depth discussion of recent Supreme Court decisions and new trends in derivative actions. Learn first-hand important securities issues and decisions that could impact your firm or your clients in this special Recorder Roundtable at this live, two-hour CLE program that includes networking time and audience Q&A.

Panelists
Tammy Albarrán, Covington & Burling LLP
Steven Kaufhold, Kaufhold Gaskin LLP
Jared Kopel, Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, P.C.
Mark Molumphy, Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy LLP

Moderator
Vitaly Gashpar, Substantive Law Editor, The Recorder

Register at www.therecorder.com/securities

Wednesday, June 15, 2011
8:30 - 9:00 am - Networking and continental breakfast
9:00 - 11:00 am - Program

S.F. COMMONWEALTH CLUB
595 Market Street (at Second)
San Francisco , CA 94104
(Montgomery St. BART/Muni Metro)

2.0 CLE credits

Only $119.00


Sponsored in part by:

Expanding the Conversation on Environmentalism and Working for Environmental Justice: We have begun a new era of outreach and protection for communities historically underrepresented in EPA decision-making.  We are building strong working relationships with tribes, communities of color, economically distressed cities and towns, young people and others, but this is just a start.  We must include environmental justice principles in all of our decisions.  This is an area that calls for innovation and bold thinking, and I am challenging all of our employees to bring vision and creativity to our programs.  The protection of vulnerable subpopulations is a top priority, especially with regard to children.  Our revitalized Children's Health Office is bringing a new energy to safeguarding children through all of our enforcement efforts.  We will ensure that children's health protection continues to guide the path forward.

Building Strong State and Tribal Partnerships : States and tribal nations bear important responsibilities for the day-to-day mission of environmental protection, but declining tax revenues and fiscal challenges are pressuring state agencies and tribal governments to do more with fewer resources.  Strong partnerships and accountability are more important than ever.  EPA must do its part to support state and tribal capacity and, through strengthened oversight, ensure that programs are consistently delivered nationwide.  Where appropriate, we will use our own expertise and capacity to bolster state and tribal efforts.

We will also focus on improving EPA's internal operations, from performance measures to agency processes. 

News & Announcements

6/7 - EPA Administrator Announces $76 Million to Clean Up Contaminated Sites and Revitalize Communities / EPA brownfields investments protect health and environment, create jobs and promote economic re-development nationwide

 

« Investing in Our Communities and Creating Jobs

Science Wednesday: The Future is Now

Posted on June 8th, 2011 - 10:30 AM EPA Testimony Statements

Legislative Hearings and Testimony

Congressional Hearings Held Before The House and Senate Committees for 2011 and 2012

First Session of the 112th Congress

 

First Session of the 112th Congress

Agency Witness EPA Program Office

Hearing Date

Congressional Committee Holding Hearing

Subject of Congressional Hearing

Richard Greene, Chief, Ecosystem Dynamics & Effects Branch, Gulf Ecology Division

6/01/2011 (PDF) (8 pp, 50K)

House Subcommittee on Energy & Environment

Harmful Algal Blooms & Hypoxia Research & Control Amendments Act of 2011 (PDF) (8 pp, 50K)

Lisa Jackson, Administrator, EPA

5/24/2011 (PDF) (2 pp, 23K)

House Committee on Oversight & Government Reform

Drilling Operations on OCS (PDF) (4 pp, 23K)

Dr. Paul Anasta, Assistant Administrator for Research & Development

5/11/2011 (PDF) (4 pp, 22K)

House Committee on Science, Space & Technology

Potential Impacts of Hydraulic Fracturing on Drinking Water Resources (PDF) (4 pp, 22K)

Mathy Stanislaus, Assistant Administrator, Office of Solid Waste & Emergency Response

4/14/2011 (PDF) (6 pp, 22K)

House Energy & Commerce, Subcommittee on the Environment & Economy

Coal Combustion Residuals & H.R.1391 (PDF) (6 pp, 22K)

Gina McCarthy, Assistant Administrator, Office of Air & Radiation

4/13/2011 (PDF) (6 pp, 70K)

Senate Environment & Public Works

Renewable Fuel Provisions of the Energy Independence & Security Act of 2007 (EISA) (PDF) (6 pp, 70K)

Lisa Jackson, Administrator

4/12/2011 (PDF) (6 pp, 39K)

Senate Environment & Public Works

Review of the Nuclear Emergency In Japan & Implications for the United States (PDF) (6 pp, 22K)

Bob Perciasepe, Deputy Administrator

4/12/2011 (PDF) (7 pp, 37K)

Senate Environment & Public Works, Subcommittee on Water & Wildlife

Safety of Natural Gas Production (PDF) (7 pp, 37K)

Gina McCarthy, Assistant Administrator, Office of Air and Radiation

3/24/2011 (PDF) (5 pp, 76K)

House Energy and Commerce Committee, Subcommittee on Energy and Power

Focus on Texas' Economy, Energy Prices and Jobs (PDF) (5 pp, 76K)

Lisa P. Jackson, Administrator

3/16/2011 (PDF) (6 pp, 36K)

Senate Appropriations Committee; Interior, Environment and Related Agencies Subcommittee

EPA Budget (PDF) (6 pp, 36K)

Bob Perciasepe, Deputy Administrator

3/16/2011 (PDF) (18 pp, 191K)

House Conservation, Energy & Forestry Subcommittee

Chesapeake Bay Watershed (PDF) (18 pp, 191K)

Lisa P. Jackson, Administrator

3/11/2011 (PDF) (7 pp, 115K)

House Energy and Commerce Committee, Subcommittees on Energy and Power, Energy and Environment (joint)

EPA Budget (PDF) (7 pp, 115K)

Paul Anastas, PhD, AA for Research & Development

3/10/2011 (PDF) (3 pp, 186K)

House Science & Technology

FY'2012 Budget for ORD (PDF) (3 pp, 186K)

Lisa Jackson, Administrator

3/10/2011 (PDF) (19 pp, 240K)

House Agriculture Committee

EPA's Mission to Protect Human Health & Interaction with the Agriculture Community (PDF) (19 pp, 240K)

Lisa Jackson, Administrator

3/03/2011 (PDF) (6 pp, 105K)

House Appropriations Committee; Interior, Environment and Related Agencies Subcommittee

EPA Budget (PDF) (6 pp, 105K)

Lisa Jackson, Administrator

3/02/2011 (PDF) (7 pp, 115K)

Senate Environment & Public Works Committee

Environmental Protection Agency's Proposed Budget (PDF) (7 pp, 115K)

Mathy Stanislaus, Assistant Administrator, Office of Solid Waste & Emergency Response

3/02/2011 (PDF) (8 pp, 42K)

House Transportation & Infrastructure, Subcommittee on Water Resources & Environment

EPA's proposed budget for Water & Solid Waste Programs (PDF) (8 pp, 42K)

Nancy Stoner, Acting Assistant Administrator, Office of Water

3/02/2011 (PDF) (5 pp, 27K)

House Transportation & Infrastructure, Subcommittee on Water Resources & Environment

EPA's proposed budget for Water & Solid Waste Programs (PDF) (5 pp, 27K)

Gina McCarthy, Assistant Administrator, office of Air and Radiation

3/01/2011 (PDF) (5 pp, 27K)

House Transportation & Infrastructure, Subcommittee on Water Resources & Environment

EPA's Greenhouse Gas Regulations and Their Effect on American Jobs (PDF) (5 pp, 83K)

Dr. Steven Bradbury, Director, office of Pesticide Programs

2/16/2011 (PDF) (10 pp, 34K)

Joint Public Hearing
Subcommittee on Nutrition and Horticulture, Committee on Agriculture and the subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

To Consider Reducing Burdens Posed by the Case National Cotton Council v. EPA (6th Cir. 2009) and to Review Draft Legislation (PDF) (10 pp, 34K)

Lisa P. Jackson, Administrator

2/09/2011 (PDF) (3 pp, 580K)

House Energy and Commerce Committee, Subcommittee on Energy and Power

The Energy Tax Prevention Act of 2011 (PDF) (3 pp, 580K)

Lisa P. Jackson, Administrator

2/09/2011 (PDF) (3 pp, 582K)

House Energy & Commerce, Subcommittee on Energy & Power

Draft Bill to Eliminate Portions of the CAA (PDF) (3 pp, 582K)

Steve Owens, Assistant Administrator, Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention

2/03/2011 (PDF) (8 pp, 68K)

Subcommittee on Superfund, Toxics and Environmental Health

Reform of Chemicals Management (PDF) (8 pp, 68K)

Lisa P. Jackson, Administrator

2/03/2011 (PDF) (8 pp, 40K)

Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works

Oversight Hearing on the Public Health and Drinking Water Issues (PDF) (8 pp, 40K)

General Information

EPA Testimony Statements For Past Congress:

Other Useful Links and Information:

About OCIR | Office of the Administrator
Thomas - Legislative Information [Exit EPA] | US State and Local Gateway [Exit EPA]

Local Navigation

http://www.epa.gov/ocir/hearings/index.htm

Print As-Is

Last updated on Monday, June 06, 2011

New veterans clinic lauded as boost to community

June 08, 2011 By Ryan McCarthy/Appeal-Democrat

The U.S. Army veteran lives in the foothills now, but he grew up across the street from the Yuba City site where a groundbreaking today marked the start of a new health service clinic for veterans.

"It's going to work for us guys a lot better," said Marvin Thrasher, 66, a 1963 graduate of Yuba City High School who served in Vietnam in 1967-68.

The Loma Rica resident said he faces a 50-mile trip when traveling to veterans clinics in Chico or the Sacramento area. The Yuba City Outpatient Clinic at the northeast corner of Plumas Boulevard and Franklin Avenue had been talked about for some time, he noted.

"We kept our heads up and hoped it would happen," Thrasher said after groundbreaking ceremonies.

Olivehurst resident Ray Caballero, 69, a Marine Corps veteran who served in Vietnam , schedules his trips to veterans health clinics outside this area during mid-day to avoid traffic, and said the Yuba City facility has been planned for years.

"They kept saying we would possibly get one," agreed Butte County resident Ernest Hunley, a Vietnam veteran who served in the Marine Corps from 1961-69. "But they've been saying that for years."

Dr. Bill Cahill, chief of staff for the Veterans Administration Northern California Health Care System, told the approximately 100 people gathered today at the site about the opportunity the clinic presents.

"We're starting with a clean sheet of paper here," he said. "We can design the whole process."

U.S. Rep. Wally Herger, R-Chico, said after speeches and the formal groundbreaking that the new facility is much needed. There are an estimated 13,000 veterans in the Yuba-Sutter area.

"This is such a blessing," Herger said.

Yuba City City Council members in April approved the development agreement for the clinic, an action that cleared the way for the sale of 1.7 acres of city property for $387,500 in connection with the federal project.

Darin Gale, economic development manager for Yuba City , said grading at the site will start Thursday and that work is expected to completed in about six months. The city redevelopment agency land is part of 22 acres the municipality bought from Del Monte in 1990, he said.

The transformation of the area includes a medical building constructed in 2002 after the city sold an acre of the old Del Monte property, Gale added.

Councilman John Buckland called the clinic "a fantastic service to our veterans" and Councilman Tej Maan said former military members deserve the facility, located close to transportation and restaurants .

Sutter County Supervisor Stan Cleveland said the building represents a doorway to new grants unavailable without such a facility.

Robert Pfenning, senior master sergeant with a reserve aerospace medicine squadron at Beale Air Force Base, cited the clinic's benefits to those serving at the base in Yuba County .

"When they retire or separate, this is going to be a resource," Pfenning said.

The contractor for the project is California Gold Development Corp. The clinic will occupy the first floor, which is planned to be about 11,000 square feet. The second floor, about 12,000 square feet, will be available for lease.

A company spokesman declined earlier to state the cost of the project.

CONTACT reporter Ryan McCarthy at 749-4780.

HIGH-SPEED RAIL

By Seth Nidever snidever@HanfordSentinel.com | Posted: Wednesday, June 8, 2011

In the second of two meetings on Tuesday, a California High-Speed Rail Authority official holding a public forum at the Kings Fairgrounds got more criticism from angry local residents who oppose the rail project's route through the county.

Many who attended the first meeting, held earlier by county supervisors, also showed up to the forum hosted by the authority.

The rail authority scheduled the meeting in response to criticism earlier this month after a meeting at Kit Carson Elementary School failed to provide residents a chance to speak publicly. The meeting had been slated to present the community with informal graphs, charts and displays.

Residents got their chance to speak this time, and they took full advantage of it. Person after person in an estimated crowd of 225 - many of them landowners who would be directly affected - lambasted the authority for everything from failing to notify residents along the route that they would be affected, for having an uncaring attitude about the local impact, to not having enough money to complete the system, which is intended to connect all the state's major urban areas from the Bay Area to San Diego.

"This is the most bass-ackwards plan I have seen in my 64 years," said Hanford resident Jerry Sojfer.

Only Hanford resident Veronica Felts spoke out in favor of the project.

"I am genuinely concerned about my future," she said, defending the high-speed rail line as necessary for economic development.

Boos and jeers were directed at Felts, but some yelled out, "Let her speak!"

After the meeting, Hanford resident Andrew Picard, who started a Facebook page last week called "Citizens Who Support High Speed Rail in the Central Valley ," defended the project in an interview.

"It's sad. There's no amount of money that can compensate people for the loss of their land," he said. "However, we have to think of the future of gas prices, our jobs. I think there's a large, unheard majority who do want high-speed rail, but they don't have skin in it. I think [high-speed rail] is going to hurt now and heal later."

" California 's high-speed rail system will link the Central Valley to the state's major metropolitan markets in a transformative way. Stations will provide economic opportunities and anchor sprawl in a way that will preserve our farmlands," said Rachel Wall, high-speed rail spokeswoman, in a statement emailed to The Sentinel before the meeting.

But it was farmer John Tos who spoke publicly for many at the meeting who are determined not to see high-speed trains slicing through Kings County cropland and dairies.

"We need to put these [high-speed rail] people out of business," he said.

The reporter can be reached at 583-2432.

‘Nat'l Dialogue on Access to Environmental Information' Category

I Know That Data Is Here Somewhere…

Friday, July 31st, 2009

I have to admit that after 15 years of working at EPA, I still have trouble finding environmental data. Web searches don't help that much so I rely on people like my friend Tim to email me data about hazardous waste. But I shouldn't have to know every database manager to get EPA's data.

It turns out that I'm not the only person with this problem. Last year EPA's Office of Environmental Information hosted the National Dialogue on Access to Environmental Information to learn about the information access needs of our major audiences. We held listening sessions throughout the country and encouraged people to comment using blogs and wikis. From the thousands of comments we received we developed EPA's Information Access Strategy , which describes key themes and a direction for EPA to address these needs. One of the common themes was: we need environmental data, but we don't know where to find it. In response to these comments we've built Data Finder , a single place to find EPA's data sources, so people can access and understand environmental information.

Data Finder points to data sources: EPA-hosted web sites where numerical data can be downloaded. You can find data sources by clicking on key words or by typing terms into a search box. One click brings you to the source itself. By making data EPA information easier to find, understand, and use, Data Finder complements the Obama Administration's commitment to a transparent and participatory government. It helps lay the foundation for more open conduct of Agency business and broader, more effective participation by the public.

I think Data Finder is a good first step for finding EPA's data, but I know it only contains a subset of the data that's out there. Please try Data Finder and tell us what information you'd like to see and how to make the site more useful. We'll post your comments and tell you how we're updating the site in response to your comments. And let's leave Tim out of this.

About the author: Ethan McMahon has worked at EPA since 1994. Most recently he helped develop the Agency's Information Access Strategy and the 40-page Report on the Environment: Highlights Document. Prior to working at EPA he evaluated alternative refrigerants and designed high efficiency heat pumps. Ethan believes that making information available can enable lots of people to find solutions to environmental problems.

Science Wednesday: Square Pegs, Round Holes, and Chemical Safety for Sustainability

Wednesday, April 27th, 2011

Each week we write about the science behind environmental protection. Previous Science Wednesdays.

By Jeff Morris, PhD

All our lives we have been cautioned against trying to fit square pegs into round holes. The metaphor itself is constructed to make such an effort seem foolish and just a bit unsavory: forcing the hard edges of a square into the smooth curves of a circle evokes a certain violence and violation of geometric propriety. And the message behind the saying is clear: don't try to join things that clearly don't belong together.

However, fitting square pegs into round holes is just what we are doing in EPA's Office of Research and Development: we are encouraging new collaborations between scientific disciplines to formulate innovative science questions to address chemical safety. We think this is a very good thing, but it does raise questions.

What, for instance, does cultural anthropology have to do with molecular design? Perhaps nothing; or perhaps quite a bit. A cultural anthropologist would be interested in how a society's institutions shape the tools it creates and how it uses those tools. A chemist or engineer designs a chemical or material object with some intention in mind. (Design implies intent: nobody creates something for no reason). Once designed, how will society use the new chemical or material? Importantly for EPA, will it be used in a way that minimizes impact on, or perhaps even improves, the environment and human well-being? Neither the chemist nor the anthropologist alone can answer these questions. But perhaps the two of them, together with environmental scientists, can. Maybe a fit can be found for a square peg within a round hole.

Finding flex in the square peg/round hole metaphor doesn't mean forcing fits that don't make sense. In EPA's Chemical Safety for Sustainability Research Program, sometimes we will need to just let chemists do their chemistry within their own disciplinary space. However, all the while we can be mindful that sometimes square edges can be rounded off and the walls of circles stretched, and bringing together very different scientific disciplines can lead to the shaping of innovative research questions that take science in new and rewarding directions. Since old ways of working within disciplinary boundaries have not always given us science and technology that has advanced environmental sustainability, perhaps it's time to not take as given old sayings and metaphors, and see if we can't fit a few square pegs into round holes.

About the author: Jeff Morris, PhD is the National Program Director for Nanotechnology in EPA's Office of Research and Development.

Editor's Note: The opinions expressed in Greenversations are those of the author. They do not reflect EPA policy, endorsement, or action, and EPA does not verify the accuracy or science of the contents of the blog.

 

 

TITLE 7

TITLE 7—AGRICULTURE

How Current is This?

Agency Program Links

U.S. Department of Defense

•  Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Installations and Environment (DUSD/I&E) – Office responsible for oversight and policy guidance for all Department of Defense Installations and Environmental Programs. This includes environmental, safety, and occupational health policies and programs; restoration at active and closing bases; compliance with environmental laws; conservation of natural and cultural resources; pollution prevention, environmental technology, fire protection, and explosives safety.

•  Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) Environmental Cleanup – Provides BRAC Cleanup Teams and associated personnel with information and the latest news on emerging policies and inactives on BRAC cleanup.

•  Defense Environment Network & Information Exchange (DENIX) – Provides information, communication and collaboration services to Department of Defense environmental personnel, State regulatory and educational environmental offices, the environmental international community, and the general public.

•  Defense Technical Information Center — Central facility for searching, displaying, or ordering scientific and technical reports and summaries from DoD.

•  Department of Defense Environmental Cleanup – Provides information from DoD's Cleanup Office and Defense Environmental Restoration Program (DERP), which are charged with reducing risks to human health and the environment at active, formerly used, and closing bases and former DoD properties.

•  Department of Defense Explosives Safety Board (DDESB) – Provides objective advice to the Secretary of Defense and Service Secretaries on matters concerning explosives safety and prevention of hazardous conditions to life and property on and off Department of Defense installations from the explosives and environmental effects of DoD titled munitions.

•  DoD Environmental Security Technology Certification Program – ESTCP's goal is to demonstrate and validate promising, innovative technologies that target the Department of Defense's most urgent environmental needs. These technologies provide a return on investment through cost savings and improved efficiency.

•  National Defense Center for Environmental Excellence (NDCEE) – Serves as a national leadership organization to address high priority environmental problems for the Department of Defense, other government organizations, and the industrial community.

back to top

U.S. Air Force

•  Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Air Force, Environment, Safety and Occupational Health – Office responsible for providing guidance, direction, and oversight on all matters pertaining to the formulation, review, and execution of Air Force plans, policies, programs, and budgets related to environment, safety, and occupational health.

•  Air Force Center for Engineering & the Environment – Provides Air Force leaders with the comprehensive expertise they need to protect, preserve, restore, develop and sustain our nation's environmental and installation resources

•  Edwards Air Force Base Environmental Management – As home of the Air Force Flight Test Center, focuses focuses on helping the flight testers maintain access to the unique physical environment the desert provides for flight testing and other operations, while not upsetting the delicate balance of the desert ecosystem.

back to top

U.S. Army

•  Army Environmental Center (AEC) – Provides central planning, management, coordination, oversight, and technical support to the Army's environmental programs. Develops, executes, and provides management oversight of Army environmental programs in support of ACSIM and Office of the Director Environmental Programs, including restoration of contaminated lands, pollution prevention, technology transfer, reporting and tracking of Army programs, conservation of natural and cultural resources, and compliance with environmental standards and criteria.

•  Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Headquarters – Provides information on USACE's mission, organizational units, and the environmental and other services USACE provides to the military and the public.

•  Engineer Research and Development Center (ERDC) Environmental Laboratory – Engages in research, development, special studies, and technology transfer to support the environmental missions of the Army and DoD.

•  Environmental Division – Cleans up sites contaminated with hazardous waste, radioactive waste, or ordnance and complies with Federal, State, and local environmental laws and regulations.

•  Environmental and Munitions Center of Expertise – Provides information and assistance on topics related to environmental remediation and environmental compliance, including innovative technologies, environmental risk assessment, ecological risk assessment, environmental engineering, cost recovery, and military munitions.

•  Innovative Technology Program – Provides synopses of applying innovative technologies at a variety of sites, and solving a wide range of contaminant problems. This web site includes the USACE points of contact and their telephone number for each featured site.

•  Wetlands Research and Technology Center – Facilitates and coordinates wetlands scientific and engineering work, wetlands training, and interagency coordination efforts and responds to wetlands-related questions from DoD, other Federal, and State agencies as well as from academia, industry, and the general public.

back to top

U.S. Navy

•  Naval Facilities Engineering Command (NAVFAC) – Provides timely and effective facilities engineering solutions and push the envelope for innovative, technology-leveraged strategies and alternatives in a variety of areas, including base realighnment and closure and environmental programs.

•  Naval Facilities Engineering Service Center (NFESC) – List of services through which the Navy provides customers with professional assitance in solving environmental cleanup, compliance, and pollution prevention problems.

•  Navy Environmental Leadership Program (NELP) – Identifies environmental issues affecting Navy and Marine Corps ships, commands or activities, demonstrates and validates innovative technologies and/or processes for addressing these issues, and disseminates Lessons Learned throughout the Naval and Marine Corps communities. NELP activities are carried out by Naval Air Station (NAS) North Island in Coronado , California and Naval Station Mayport, Florida .

•  Navy Technology Transfer Page – Highlights technology transfer efforts conducted by the Navy's environmental community and Navy efforts to increase the use of innovative technologies and approaches to reduce environmental cleanup costs.

back to top

U.S. Department of Energy

•  Office of Environmental Management (EM) – Office responsible for centralized management of DOE waste management operations, environmental restoration programs and activities, and related applied research and development. EM also provides direction, policy, and management oversight to the DOE Operations Offices at Idaho (ID), Ohio (OH), Rocky Flats (RF), Richland (RL), Savannah River (SR), and the Office of River Protection (ORP) at Richland .

•  Data Quality Objectives (DQO) – A systematic procedure for defining the criteria that a data collection design should satisfy, including when to collect samples, where to collect samples, the tolerable level of decision error for the study, and how many samples to collect, balancing risk and cost in an acceptable manner.

•  DOE Information Bridge – Provides an open source to full-text and bibliographic records of DOE research and development reports in physics, chemistry, materials, biology, environmental sciences, energy technologies, engineering, computer and information science, renewable energy, and other topics produced by the DOE National Laboratories and grantees since 1995.

•  EM Paths to Closure – Web page containing a site-by-site, project-by-project description of the projected technical scope, cost, and schedule required to complete the DOE's remaining cleanup sites in the United States.

•  Office of Engineering and Technology – Environmental Management (EM) Office of Engineering and Technology activities identify and advances technologies, processes, and technical practices that improve the performance of environmental management projects over their entire lifecycle, from planning to disposal. These efforts provide the highest level of interdisciplinary engineering consultation, guidance, expertise, and continuity in the organization. It provides DOE with development and implementation of engineering concepts, practices, programs and advance technologies for improvement of design, construction, and system/facilities management activities.

•  Office of Site Closure – The Office of Site Closure has consolidated management of all cleanup/operations for seven of the Department of Energy's Office of Environmental Management (EM) field offices. The Office has redirected its program to create a culture of closure with the sole focus of achieving cleanup and closing sites.

DOE National Laboratories

•  Ames Laboratory Environmental Technology Development Program – Technology information under development at Ames Lab for application at DOE sites.

•  Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory Environmental Restoration Division – Information on environmental projects from Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory.

•  Los Alamos Environmental Science and Technology – Information on innovative technologies from Los Alamos National Laboratory.

•  Pacific Northwest National Laboratory Environmental Technology Division – Environmental restoration project information from DOE's Hanford Reservation and Pacific Northwest National Laboratory.

•  Sandia National Laboratory – Environmental restoration project information from Sandia's environmental program.

back to top

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

•  Hazardous Waste Cleanup Information (CLU-IN) – World Wide Web site offering comprehensive information designed to assist hazardous waste cleanup professionals in finding the latest information on innovative hazardous waste treatment technologies, including information on programs, organizations, publications, and access to data bases and other tools for cleanups. CLU-IN users include EPA staff, other Federal and State personnel, consulting engineers, technology vendors, remediation contractors, researchers, community groups, and the public.

•  Brownfields Cleanup and Redevelopment – Information on efforts to cleanup and reuse abandoned, idled, or under-used industrial and commercial facilities, known as Brownfield sites, where redevelopment is complicated by real or perceived environmental contamination.

•  Dense Nonaqueous Phase Liquids (DNAPLs) – This website compiles available information related to the cleanup of dense nonaqueous-phase liquids (DNAPLs) at hazardous waste sites. The site addresses the most common DNAPL contaminants: chlorinated ethenes (e.g., tetrachloroethene and trichloroethene) and multi-component wastes (creosotes, coal tars, and heavy oils), with an emphasis on source zone cleanup. It provides information about available remediation technologies, such as bioremediation, in situ flushing and oxidation, and thermal processes. U.S. EPA's Office of Superfund Remediation and Technology Innovation plans to add new resources as they become available, and future expansion may include ethers, halogenated alkanes, polychlorinated biphenyls, and other chemicals that form DNAPLs.

•  Environmental Technology Verification Program (ETV) – Verifies the performance of innovative technical solutions to problems that threaten human health or the environment. Managed by EPA's Office of Research and Development, ETV was created to substantially accelerate the entrance of new environmental technologies into the domestic and international marketplace. ETV verifies commercial-ready, private sector technologies through 12 programs.

•  Federal Facilities Restoration & Reuse Office – Provides links to documents containing comprehensive information on existing and potential treatment technologies for remediation of hazardous waste at Federal facilities.

•  Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (OSWER) – Responsible for EPA programs to protecting public health and the environment through safely managing waste, preparing for, and preventing chemical and oil spills, accidents and emergencies cleaning up and reusing contaminated property.

•  Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation (SITE) Program – Established by EPA's Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response and the Office of Research and Development in response to the 1986 Superfund Amendment and Reauthorization Act, which recognized a need for an "Alternative or Innovative Treatment Technology Research and Demonstration Program."

•  Training Exchange – Provides a range of training information to EPA, other Federal agency, State, Tribal, and local staff involved in hazardous waste management and remediation.

•  Technology Transfer Highlights – Information on technology transfer projects and support from the Agency's National Risk Management Research Laboratory (NRMRL). The laboratory conducts research in a variety of areas, including protection of water quality in public water systems; remediation of contaminated soils, sediments and ground water; and restoration of ecosystems.

•  Vendor and Developer Support – Provides technology developers and vendors with tools to help advance technologies through all stages of product development from bench scale to full commercialization. The materials cover a broad range of topics that include business planning, marketing, financing, and technical issues and sources.

back to top

U.S. Department of Interior

•  U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Division of Environmental Quality – The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) is the main federal agency dedicated to protecting wildlife and their habitat from pollution's harmful effects, helping to create a healthy world for all living things.

•  U.S. Geological Survey Toxic Substances Hydrology Program – Provides objective scientific information to improve characterization and management of contaminated sites, to protect human and environmental health, and to reduce potential future contamination problems.

back to top

National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)

•  Environmental Management Division – Provides leadership, policy, oversight and coordination for NASA institutional and programmatic environmental issues, including those directed toward advancing environmental stewardship, and ensuring environmental statutory and regulatory compliance.

•  NASA Innovative Partnerships Program – Provides online access to a national network of programs, organizations and services sponsored by and affiliated with the IPP at NASA Headquarters and to access opportunities for technology transfer, development and collaboration with NASA.

back to top

Selected Technology-Related Research and Partnership Organizations

•  Federal Demonstration Partnership (FDP) – A cooperative initiative among Federal agencies and institutional recipients of Federal funds. It was established to increase research productivity by streamlining the administrative process and minimizing the administrative burden on principal investigators while maintaining effective stewardship of Federal funds. FDP members include academic and research institutions, Federal agencies, and professional organizations. Given the ever-increasing Federal regulatory environment and the strain on the relationship between academia and the Federal government, FDP provides a unique forum for dialogue, demonstration, and debate among all the key players.

•  Federal Integrated Biotreatment Consortium – Operates under the Strategic Environmental Research and Development Program (SERDP) to develop implementable, cost-effective bioremediation technologies for addressing explosives, high molecular weight polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), chlorinated solvents, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs).

•  Interstate Technology & Regulatory Council (ITRC) – A national coalition of State environmental regulatory agencies working with Federal agencies and other stakeholders to improve the acceptance and deployment of innovative environmental technologies. ITRC programs focus on building national/regional partnerships and establishing interstate verification standards and mechanisms that encourage regulators and regulated entities to explore innovative solutions to environmental protection, site restoration, and resource conservation problems.

•  National Research Council – The National Research Council (NRC) functions under the auspices of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), the National Academy of Engineering (NAE), and the Institute of Medicine (IOM). The NAS, NAE, IOM, and NRC are part of a private, nonprofit institution that provides science, technology and health policy advice.

•  Sediment Dredging at Superfund Megasites: Assessing the Effectiveness (2007) – This report was produced by the National Research Council (NRC) for the U.S. EPA and evaluates dredging as a cleanup technique. The report finds that, based on a review of available evidence, dredging's ability to decrease environmental and health risks is still an open question. Analysis of pre-dredging and post-dredging at about 20 sites found a wide range of outcomes in terms of surface sediment concentrations of contaminants: some sites showed increases, some no change, and some decreases in concentrations.

•  Strategic Environmental Research and Development Program (SERDP) – DoD's corporate environmental research and development program, planned and executed in full partnership with the DOE and U.S. EPA, with participation by numerous other Federal and non-Federal organizations. Within its broad areas of interest, the Program focuses on cleanup, compliance, conservation, and pollution prevention technologies. SERDP identifies, develops, and transitions environmental technologies that relate directly to defense mission accomplishment.

•  Superfund Basic Research Program (SBRP) – Focuses on acquiring new scientific and engineering knowledge that advances society's understanding of the human and ecological risks from hazardous substances and the development of new technologies for the cleanup of Superfund sites. Results of SBRP efforts serve as the basis for subsequent basic or applied research in these areas, but also provides a foundation for practical benefits such as lower cleanup costs on hazardous waste sites and improvements in human and ecological health risk assessment.

back to top

 

Home || What's New? || Technology Screening Matrix || Cost & Performance Case Studies
Decision Support Matrix || Environmental Cost Engineering || Remediation Optimization || FRTR Meetings
Current Publications || Agency Program Links || Abbreviations & Acronyms || Glossary || Archives
Site Map || Search || Comments

URL:  http://www.frtr.gov/resources.htm
Page last modified on: Wednesday, February 10, 2010


The Recorder, 1035 Market Street, Suite 500 , San Francisco , CA 94103

TITLE 49 > SUBTITLE V > PART A > CHAPTER 201 > SUBCHAPTER I > § 20114 Prev | Next

§ 20114. Judicial procedures

How Current is This? (a) Criminal Contempt.— In a trial for criminal contempt for violating an injunction or restraining order issued under this chapter, the violation of which is also a violation of this chapter, the defendant may demand a jury trial. The defendant shall be tried as provided in rule 42(b) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure (18 App. U.S.C.). (b) Subpenas For Witnesses.— A subpena for a witness required to attend a district court of the United States in an action brought under this chapter may be served in any judicial district. (c) Review of Agency Action.— Except as provided in section 20104 (c) of this title, a proceeding to review a final action of the Secretary of Transportation under this part or, as applicable to railroad safety, chapter 51 or 57 of this title shall be brought in the appropriate court of appeals as provided in chapter 158 of title 28 .

Transitional Sheltering Assistance for Displaced Individuals and Households
Type: Significant Policy Document File: dap_9443_2.pdf
Office / Directorate: DAD
Issuance Date: 2008-09-22     Revision Date: 2008-09-22

Critical Needs Assistance for Displaced Individuals and Households
Type: Significant Policy Document File: dap_9462_1_.pdf
Office / Directorate: DAD
Issuance Date: 2008-09-02     Revision Date: 2008-09-02

Individual and Households Program Interim Policy: Insurance - Real Property Losses
Type: Significant Policy Document File: ia_insurance.pdf
Office / Directorate: DAD
Issuance Date: 2005-09-25     Revision Date: 2005-09-25

Individual and Households Program - Funeral Assistance
Type: Significant Policy Document File: ia_funeral.pdf
Office / Directorate: DAD
Issuance Date: 2005-07-15     Revision Date: 2005-07-15

Temporary Housing Unit Donations
Type: Significant Policy Document File: ia_housing.pdf
Office / Directorate: DAD
Issuance Date: 2006-08-15     Revision Date: 2006-08-15

Disaster Housing Rent Collection
Type: Significant Policy Document File: ia_rent.pdf
Office / Directorate: DAD
Issuance Date: 2006-03-17     Revision Date: 2006-03-17

Rental Assistance Rate Increases
Type: Significant Policy Document File: ia_rental.pdf
Office / Directorate: DAD
Issuance Date: 2006-08-23     Revision Date: 2006-08-23

Replacement and Insurance
Type: Significant Policy Document File: replacement.pdf
Office / Directorate: DAD
Issuance Date: 2003-08-13     Revision Date: 2003-08-13

Disaster recovery Center Services and Providers
Type: Significant Policy Document File: drc_services.pdf
Office / Directorate: DAD
Issuance Date: 2008-10-01     Revision Date: 2008-10-01

Emergency Residential Roof Covering Installation
Type: Significant Policy Document File: ia_roof.pdf
Office / Directorate: DAD
Issuance Date: 2005-09-06     Revision Date: 2005-09-06

Disaster Assistance for Flood Damaged Basements
Type: Significant Policy Document File: ia_basement.pdf
Office / Directorate: DAD
Issuance Date: 2007-01-03     Revision Date: 2007-01-03

Establishment Criteria for Disaster Recovery Centers
Type: Significant Policy Document File: drc_criteria.pdf
Office / Directorate: DAD
Issuance Date: 2005-09-06     Revision Date: 2005-09-06

Individuals and Households Program (IHP) - Minimum Award(s)
Type: Significant Policy Document File: awards.pdf
Office / Directorate: DAD
Issuance Date: 2005-07-10     Revision Date: 2005-07-10

NIMS Credentialing
Type: Significant Policy Document File: NIMS_Credentialing.pdf
Office / Directorate: Preparedness Docket ID: FEMA-2008-0015
Issuance Date: 2008-12-22     Revision Date: 2008-12-22

http://www.wpi.edu/Pubs/E-project/Available/E-project-050411-112349/unrestricted/APPENDIX_region_9.pdf

Planning Guidance for Protection & Recovery following Radiological Dispersal Device (RDD) & Improvised Nuclear Device (IND) Incidents
Type: Significant Policy Document File: FedReg_8-1-08.pdf
Office / Directorate: NPPD, Office of Infrastructure Protection, DHS Docket ID: FEMA-2008-0011
Issuance Date: 2008-08-01     Revision Date: 2008-08-01

National Incident Management System (March 2004) (current)
Type: Significant Policy Document File: NIMS_Doc_March_2004l.pdf
Office / Directorate: NIC Docket ID: FEMA-2008-0011
Issuance Date: 2004-03-01     Revision Date: 2004-03-01

National Incident Management System (April 2008) (proposed)
Type: Significant Policy Document File: National_Incident_Mgmt_System__proposed__April_2008.pdf
Office / Directorate: NIC Docket ID: FEMA-2008-0008
Issuance Date: 2008-04-23     Revision Date: 2008-04-23

National Disaster Housing Strategy July 2008 (proposed)
Type: Significant Policy Document File: National_Disater_Housing_Strategy_7-08.pdf
Office / Directorate: DAD Docket ID: FEMA-2008-0009
Issuance Date: 2008-07-24     Revision Date: 2008-07-24

Snow Assistance Policy July 2008 (proposed policy)
Type: Significant Policy Document File: FR_notice_proposed_Snow_policy_7-24-08.pdf
Office / Directorate: DAD Docket ID: FEMA-2005-0005
Issuance Date: 2008-07-24     Revision Date: 2008-07-24

Snow Assistance Policy December 1999 (current policy)
Type: Significant Policy Document File: Snow_policy_12-28-99.pdf
Office / Directorate: DAD Docket ID: FEMA-2005-0005
Issuance Date: 1999-12-28     Revision Date: 1999-12-28

National Response Framework Core Document (view annexes at http://www.fema.gov/emergency/nrf/)
Type: Significant Policy Document File: nrf-core.pdf
Office / Directorate: Preparedness Docket ID: FEMA-2008-0011
Issuance Date: 2008-01-22     Revision Date: 2008-01-22

State and Urban Area Homeland Security Strategy: Guidance on Aligning Strategies with the National Preparedness Goal July 22, 2005
Type: Significant Policy Document File: IB_183__part_2__7-22-05.pdf
Office / Directorate: Preparedness Docket ID: FEMA-2008-0011
Issuance Date: 2005-07-22     Revision Date: 2005-07-22

Preparedness Directorate Information Bulletin: Nationwide Plan Review
Type: Significant Policy Document File: IB_197__11-23-05.pdf
Office / Directorate: Preparedness Docket ID: FEMA-2008-0011
Issuance Date: 2005-11-23     Revision Date: 2005-11-23

Fact Sheet: NIMS Implementation Activities for Hospitals and Healthcare Systems
Type: Significant Policy Document File: Fact_Sheet_-_NIMS_Imp_Activities_for_Hosp_and_Healthcare_Systems.pdf
Office / Directorate: NIC Docket ID: FEMA-2008-0011
Issuance Date: 2006-09-12     Revision Date: 2006-09-12

SLGCP Information Bulletin: Cooperative Training Outreach Program (CO-OP)
Type: Significant Policy Document File: ODP_Info_Bulletin_No_193_CO-OP.pdf
Office / Directorate: Preparedness Docket ID: FEMA-2008-0011
Issuance Date: 2005-10-20     Revision Date: 2005-10-20

 

Subject:

  Grants News: U.S. EPA awards $200,000 to clean up future site of 52 affordable homes in San Diego 's Diamond Neighborhoods

 

From:

"U.S. EPA" < usaepa@govdelivery.com >

To:

john@ironmountainmine.com

  For Immediate Release: June 7, 2011

Contact: Francisco Arcaute, (213) 244-1815, Cell (213) 798-1404 , arcaute.francisco@epa.gov

  U.S. EPA awards $200,000 to clean up future site of 52 affordable homes in San Diego 's Diamond Neighborhoods

Part of $3 million invested in revitalization efforts across state

WASHINGTON - The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has awarded the San Diego, Calif., based Jacobs Center for Neighborhood Innovation a $200,000 Brownfields cleanup grant which will be used to transform the pesticide and lead contaminated Trolley Residential site into the future home of 52 units of affordable housing at The Village at Market Creek.

“This funding will rid the soils of contamination at this site, the first step in the construction of green, affordable rental homes,” said Jared Blumenfeld, EPA's Regional Administrator for the Pacific Southwest. “We are pleased to collaborate with the Jacobs Center and the San Diego Redevelopment Agency in their efforts to revitalize the Diamond Neighborhoods. The results will prove that a cleaner environment can sustain a healthier community, bringing new opportunities and new jobs.”

Southeastern San Diego suffers from a severe lack of affordable housing. The 52 new homes will not only be constructed near public transportation lines but will meet LEED-Silver certification criteria including green building materials, water conservation utilities, solar power and drought resistant landscaping.

Last year, EPA awarded the nonprofit Jacobs Center for Neighborhood Innovation a $175,000 planning grant as one of the 23 nationwide Brownfields Area-Wide Planning Pilot Program recipients. This grant also supports The Village at Market Creek, a future sustainable community emerging in the Diamond Neighborhoods, an underserved, brownfields-impacted area in the center of an economi­cally distressed, highly diverse community of 84,300 residents located in southeastern San Diego .

Centered around a major transit hub, The Village will eventually transform over 60 acres of blighted land into productive use, replace substandard housing with approximately1,000 quality affordable homes, and restore nearly 5,500 linear feet of wetlands. Over 1.6 million square feet of new construction will bring more than $300 million in contracts to the community, attracting over 250 new businesses and creating 2,000 jobs.

Today's award is part of the nationwide funding of over $76 million in brownfields grants to communities in 40 states and 3 tribes. The funding will be used to investigate and clean up brownfields properties, including abandoned gas stations, old textile mills, closed smelters, and other abandoned industrial and commercial properties.

The brownfields program encourages redevelopment of America 's estimated 450,000 abandoned and contaminated waste sites. As of March 2011, EPA's brownfields assistance has leveraged more than $16.3 billion in cleanup and redevelopment funding, and 68,900 jobs in cleanup, construction, and redevelopment. These investments and jobs target local, under-served and economically disadvantaged neighborhoods – places where environmental cleanups and new jobs are most needed. Cleaning up our communities is one of EPA Administrator Lisa P. Jackson's priorities, which leads not only to health and environmental benefits but also economic development and prosperity.

Since the beginning of the brownfields program in 1995, EPA has awarded 1,895 assessment grants totaling $447.6 million, 279 revolving loan fund grants totaling more than $273.1 million, and 752 cleanup grants totaling $140.8 million.

The $3,000, 000 awarded to California will be distributed as follows: Brea Redevelopment Agency, $1,000,000; Los Angeles Community Redevelopment Agency, $200,000; Los Angeles , Communitywide Assessment, $400,000, Fresno Redevelopment Agency, $400,000, East Palo Alto Redevelopment Agency, $200,000; Mt. Shasta , Communitywide Assessment, $400,000.

More information on the FY 2011 grant recipients: http://www.epa.gov/brownfields/

More information on EPA's brownfields program: http://www.epa.gov/brownfields/

Brownfields success stories: http://www.epa.gov/brownfields/success/index.htm

View all Region 9 News Releases

Stormwater fees necessary to assure we have clean water
The Citizen.com
Along the way we have picked up a bunch of legal acronyms you may recognize such as CERCLA , RCRA and Superfund. Why then the regulation on stormwater? ...

EPA honors Placer County's forest debris system

Share
By Ed Fletcher
efletcher@sacbee.com Published: Wednesday, Jun. 8, 2011 - 12:00 am | Page 3B

Placer County was honored Tuesday by the Environmental Protection Agency for its work to create cleaner air.

The EPA Clean Air Excellence Award recognizes the work of the county's air pollution control district in diverting Lake Tahoe area forest debris from burn piles.

"By transporting this forest residue out and instead of burning it in burn piles we are reducing pollution put into the atmosphere," said Supervisor Jim Holmes, who is in Washington, D.C., to accept the award.

Removing the wood scraps from the forest floor also reduces the risk of a catastrophic wildfire. The biomass is transported out of the basin, but officials are considering building a 1- to 3-megawatt biomass plant to turn the slash into energy. Locating the plant has proved more controversial.

The EPA award is in its twelfth year.

"EPA's history is marked by innovations that have made our communities cleaner, healthier and more prosperous. This year's Clean Air Excellence Award winners are continuing that tradition," EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson said.

Among the 12 recipients were Pacific Gas and Electric Co. for innovations in electric vehicle charging stations and the Santa Monica-based California Cartage Company for its fleet of liquefied natural gas "green trucks" in use at port facilities.


Read more: http://www.sacbee.com/2011/06/08/3684520/fdsgffsdjfgdshfdsgfdh.html#ixzz1OhsKXcnK

  - EPW Blog    Wednesday, June 8, 2011

Today's subcommittee hearing is the third in a series of hearings designed to prop up the Obama 1 EPA's aggressive regulatory regime.  This hearing nominally focuses on air quality and children's health.  But there is no question that we all support clean air and that we all care for the well-being of children.

Taken at face value, one might assume the Obama EPA has only the public good in mind.  But the truth about Obama's regulatory agenda is inescapable: it's designed make the energy we use more expensive. But don't take my word for it.  The Energy Secretary Stephen Chu said in 2008, “[s]omehow we have to figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels in Europe ” and don't forget that the President himself stated that under his cap-and-trade plan “electricity prices would necessarily skyrocket.”

Advocates for this agenda hope that strict regulations can be used to choke off traditional, American energy so that prices will increase to the point that “green” energy is the only alternative.  But these green subsidies are undermining the economy and hurting working families.

Over the past two years, EPA has moved forward with an unprecedented number of rules that will have enormous consequences for families, businesses , and the nation's fiscal well-being.  Known as the “EPA train wreck,” this regulatory agenda is driving energy costs up, and hitting those who can least afford it-the working poor, the elderly, and veterans-the hardest.

Take for example, EPA's new greenhouse gas (GHG) cap and trade regulations.  EPA admits they will have no impact on global temperatures, yet they will come at an estimated cost of $300 to $400 billion annually.  The Agency's voluntary reconsideration of the national ambient air quality standards for ground-level ozone - a decision based on outdated data that could lead to significant economic constraints on the country - is another Agency action of dubious merit.  EPA projects the cost of this rule could rise to $90 billion.  Meanwhile, the agency is planning to tighten the standards again in just two years. 

The EPA is also aggressively moving forward with standards to reduce hazardous air emissions from industrial boilers, cement manufacturers and from electric power generators.  Now, reducing hazardous emissions is a goal that we all support.  But alarmingly, the benefits the EPA associates with the rules come almost entirely from reducing particulate matter (PM) - not the hazardous emissions.  So here we have the Agency justifying new mandates that will cost thousands of jobs on PM benefits - even though we already have a specific program designed to address PM directly, the national ambient air quality standard for PM.

Recently, I called for this Committee to fulfill its oversight responsibilities and hold hearings on EPA's “train wreck” regulations.  Yet, we are having a hearing next week whose title, ominously, resembles that of today's.  Chairwoman Boxer, in the coming weeks I look forward to working with you on additional oversight hearings where we can begin to take a detailed look at the Obama EPA's aggressive regulatory agenda.

No Second Guessing EPA: CERCLA Citizen Suit Cannot Interfere With Ongoing Cleanup

News & Announcements

6/7 - EPA Administrator Announces $76 Million to Clean Up Contaminated Sites and Revitalize Communities / EPA brownfields investments protect health and environment, create jobs and promote economic re-development nationwide

Blogroll

 

« Investing in Our Communities and Creating Jobs

Science Wednesday: The Future is Now

Posted on June 8th, 2011 - 10:30 AM

Each week we write about the science behind environmental protection. Previous Science Wednesdays.

By Aaron Ferster

When I was a kid one of my favorite shows was a cartoon about a space-age family that tooled around in a flying, spaceship-like car. Cool. “I hope we have that when I'm a dad,” I thought.

While my mode of transportation is earthbound, some of the show's futuristic gadgets have actually come to pass: I call home with a pocket-sized phone, video conferencing is here, and many of us spend our workdays surrounded by banks of computer screens—even if we don't make sprockets.

I recently got another glimpse of our emerging high-tech future when EPA joined its research partners from the National Institutes of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) National Toxicology Program, the National Institute of Health (NIH) Chemical Genomics Center , the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and others to unveil a high-speed robot screening system. The robots are set up to test chemicals for their potential to trigger health problems.

The system consists of robot arms that continually move rectangle “plates” through the toxicity testing process. Each plate contains 1536 small wells that can hold a dab of chemical solution and cells (human and non-human animal), and the arm precisely moves each plate though exposure testing and computer analysis. Take a look at this video to see it in action.

The robot system, housed at the National Institutes of Health Chemical Genomics Center (NCGC) in Rockville , Maryland , was purchased as part of the Tox21 collaboration between the EPA, NIEH's National Toxicology Program, NCGC, and FDA. Tox21 merges existing resources—research, funding and testing tools—to develop ways to more effectively predict how chemicals will affect human health and the environment.

Tox21 partners have already screened more than 2,500 chemicals for potential toxicity using robots and other innovative chemical screening technologies, such as ToxCast. EPA tapped such technologies to test oil dispersants for potential endocrine disrupting activity following the BP spill in the Gulf of Mexico last year.

The 10,000 chemicals the robot system will screen include those found in industrial and consumer products, food additives, and drugs. Testing results will provide information useful for evaluating if these chemicals have the potential to disrupt human body processes enough to lead to adverse health effects.

While I'm still looking forward to my first flying car, knowing the future should contain fewer potentially harmful chemicals is pretty exciting, too. Especially now that I'm a dad.

About the author: Aaron Ferster is the editor of Science Wednesday and a frequent contributor.

Tags: Chemical Genomics Center , chemicals , FDA , Food and Drug Administration , high tech future , National Institute of Health , National Institutes of Environmental Health Sciences , National Toxicology Program , NIH , Pollutants/Toxics , robots , Science Wednesday

Expanding the Conversation on Environmentalism and Working for Environmental Justice: We have begun a new era of outreach and protection for communities historically underrepresented in EPA decision-making.  We are building strong working relationships with tribes, communities of color, economically distressed cities and towns, young people and others, but this is just a start.  We must include environmental justice principles in all of our decisions.  This is an area that calls for innovation and bold thinking, and I am challenging all of our employees to bring vision and creativity to our programs.  The protection of vulnerable subpopulations is a top priority, especially with regard to children.  Our revitalized Children's Health Office is bringing a new energy to safeguarding children through all of our enforcement efforts.  We will ensure that children's health protection continues to guide the path forward.

Building Strong State and Tribal Partnerships : States and tribal nations bear important responsibilities for the day-to-day mission of environmental protection, but declining tax revenues and fiscal challenges are pressuring state agencies and tribal governments to do more with fewer resources.  Strong partnerships and accountability are more important than ever.  EPA must do its part to support state and tribal capacity and, through strengthened oversight, ensure that programs are consistently delivered nationwide.  Where appropriate, we will use our own expertise and capacity to bolster state and tribal efforts.

We will also focus on improving EPA's internal operations, from performance measures to agency processes. 

EPA praises Maricopa County's dust control guide

 

EPA Testimony Statements

Legislative Hearings and Testimony

Congressional Hearings Held Before The House and Senate Committees for 2011 and 2012

First Session of the 112th Congress

 

First Session of the 112th Congress

Agency Witness EPA Program Office

Hearing Date

Congressional Committee Holding Hearing

Subject of Congressional Hearing

Richard Greene, Chief, Ecosystem Dynamics & Effects Branch, Gulf Ecology Division

6/01/2011 (PDF) (8 pp, 50K)

House Subcommittee on Energy & Environment

Harmful Algal Blooms & Hypoxia Research & Control Amendments Act of 2011 (PDF) (8 pp, 50K)

Lisa Jackson, Administrator, EPA

5/24/2011 (PDF) (2 pp, 23K)

House Committee on Oversight & Government Reform

Drilling Operations on OCS (PDF) (4 pp, 23K)

Dr. Paul Anasta, Assistant Administrator for Research & Development

5/11/2011 (PDF) (4 pp, 22K)

House Committee on Science, Space & Technology

Potential Impacts of Hydraulic Fracturing on Drinking Water Resources (PDF) (4 pp, 22K)

Mathy Stanislaus, Assistant Administrator, Office of Solid Waste & Emergency Response

4/14/2011 (PDF) (6 pp, 22K)

House Energy & Commerce, Subcommittee on the Environment & Economy

Coal Combustion Residuals & H.R.1391 (PDF) (6 pp, 22K)

Gina McCarthy, Assistant Administrator, Office of Air & Radiation

4/13/2011 (PDF) (6 pp, 70K)

Senate Environment & Public Works

Renewable Fuel Provisions of the Energy Independence & Security Act of 2007 (EISA) (PDF) (6 pp, 70K)

Lisa Jackson, Administrator

4/12/2011 (PDF) (6 pp, 39K)

Senate Environment & Public Works

Review of the Nuclear Emergency In Japan & Implications for the United States (PDF) (6 pp, 22K)

Bob Perciasepe, Deputy Administrator

4/12/2011 (PDF) (7 pp, 37K)

Senate Environment & Public Works, Subcommittee on Water & Wildlife

Safety of Natural Gas Production (PDF) (7 pp, 37K)

Gina McCarthy, Assistant Administrator, Office of Air and Radiation

3/24/2011 (PDF) (5 pp, 76K)

House Energy and Commerce Committee, Subcommittee on Energy and Power

Focus on Texas' Economy, Energy Prices and Jobs (PDF) (5 pp, 76K)

Lisa P. Jackson, Administrator

3/16/2011 (PDF) (6 pp, 36K)

Senate Appropriations Committee; Interior, Environment and Related Agencies Subcommittee

EPA Budget (PDF) (6 pp, 36K)

Bob Perciasepe, Deputy Administrator

3/16/2011 (PDF) (18 pp, 191K)

House Conservation, Energy & Forestry Subcommittee

Chesapeake Bay Watershed (PDF) (18 pp, 191K)

Lisa P. Jackson, Administrator

3/11/2011 (PDF) (7 pp, 115K)

House Energy and Commerce Committee, Subcommittees on Energy and Power, Energy and Environment (joint)

EPA Budget (PDF) (7 pp, 115K)

Paul Anastas, PhD, AA for Research & Development

3/10/2011 (PDF) (3 pp, 186K)

House Science & Technology

FY'2012 Budget for ORD (PDF) (3 pp, 186K)

Lisa Jackson, Administrator

3/10/2011 (PDF) (19 pp, 240K)

House Agriculture Committee

EPA's Mission to Protect Human Health & Interaction with the Agriculture Community (PDF) (19 pp, 240K)

Lisa Jackson, Administrator

3/03/2011 (PDF) (6 pp, 105K)

House Appropriations Committee; Interior, Environment and Related Agencies Subcommittee

EPA Budget (PDF) (6 pp, 105K)

Lisa Jackson, Administrator

3/02/2011 (PDF) (7 pp, 115K)

Senate Environment & Public Works Committee

Environmental Protection Agency's Proposed Budget (PDF) (7 pp, 115K)

Mathy Stanislaus, Assistant Administrator, Office of Solid Waste & Emergency Response

3/02/2011 (PDF) (8 pp, 42K)

House Transportation & Infrastructure, Subcommittee on Water Resources & Environment

EPA's proposed budget for Water & Solid Waste Programs (PDF) (8 pp, 42K)

Nancy Stoner, Acting Assistant Administrator, Office of Water

3/02/2011 (PDF) (5 pp, 27K)

House Transportation & Infrastructure, Subcommittee on Water Resources & Environment

EPA's proposed budget for Water & Solid Waste Programs (PDF) (5 pp, 27K)

Gina McCarthy, Assistant Administrator, office of Air and Radiation

3/01/2011 (PDF) (5 pp, 27K)

House Transportation & Infrastructure, Subcommittee on Water Resources & Environment

EPA's Greenhouse Gas Regulations and Their Effect on American Jobs (PDF) (5 pp, 83K)

Dr. Steven Bradbury, Director, office of Pesticide Programs

2/16/2011 (PDF) (10 pp, 34K)

Joint Public Hearing
Subcommittee on Nutrition and Horticulture, Committee on Agriculture and the subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

To Consider Reducing Burdens Posed by the Case National Cotton Council v. EPA (6th Cir. 2009) and to Review Draft Legislation (PDF) (10 pp, 34K)

Lisa P. Jackson, Administrator

2/09/2011 (PDF) (3 pp, 580K)

House Energy and Commerce Committee, Subcommittee on Energy and Power

The Energy Tax Prevention Act of 2011 (PDF) (3 pp, 580K)

Lisa P. Jackson, Administrator

2/09/2011 (PDF) (3 pp, 582K)

House Energy & Commerce, Subcommittee on Energy & Power

Draft Bill to Eliminate Portions of the CAA (PDF) (3 pp, 582K)

Steve Owens, Assistant Administrator, Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention

2/03/2011 (PDF) (8 pp, 68K)

Subcommittee on Superfund, Toxics and Environmental Health

Reform of Chemicals Management (PDF) (8 pp, 68K)

Lisa P. Jackson, Administrator

2/03/2011 (PDF) (8 pp, 40K)

Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works

Oversight Hearing on the Public Health and Drinking Water Issues (PDF) (8 pp, 40K)

General Information

EPA Testimony Statements For Past Congress:

Other Useful Links and Information:

About OCIR | Office of the Administrator
Thomas - Legislative Information [Exit EPA] | US State and Local Gateway [Exit EPA]

Local Navigation

http://www.epa.gov/ocir/hearings/index.htm

Last updated on Monday, June 06, 2011

Paul Craffey (MA) paul.craffey@state.ma.us, 617-292-5591

 

Louis Maccarone (RI) louis.maccarone@dem.ri.gov, 401-222-2797

 

John Regan (NH) john.regan@des.nh.gov,603-271-3744

 

Molly Stark (NH) molly.stark@des.nh.gov,603-271-2890

 

Bill Ports (NY), Chairwfports@gw.dec.state.ny.us, 518-402-9662

 

Fred Mumford (NJ) fred.mumford@dep.state.nj.us, 609-292-9962

 

Susan Edwards (NY) sledwards@gw.dec.state.ny.us,518-402-9814

 

Colleen Kokas (NJ) colleen.kokas@dep.nj.us,609-633-1499

 

Frank Sorce (NJ) frank.sorce@dep.state.nj.us,609-530-2457

 

Sonal Iyer (VA) sonal.iyer@deq.virginia.gov, 804-698-4259

 

Todd Keyser (DE) todd.keyser@state.de.us, 301-395-2600

 

Wendy March (DE) wendy.march@state.de.us,302-395-2632

 

Ellen Malenfant (DE) ellen.malenfant@.state.de.us,303-739-9409

 

Meade Anderson (VA) J.Meade.Anderson@deq.virginia.gov,804-698-4179

 

Rick Galloway (DE) rick.galloway@state.de.us,302-395-2614

 

Wesley Turner (KY), Chair wesley.turner@ky.gov, 502-564-6716

 

Trey Hess (MS) trey_hess@deq.state.ms.us,601-961-5654

 

Jamie Foster (AL) jfoster@adem.state.al.us,334-270-5687

 

Kim Walker (FL) kim.walker@dep.fl.us, 850-245-8934

 

James Bateson (NC) james.bateson@ncdenr.gov,919-508-8449

 

John Robinson (WI) john.robinson@wisconsin.gov,715-365-8976

 

Stephanie Andrews (IN), Vice-Chair sandrews@idem.in.gov, 317-234-0358

 

Joshua Mosher (MI) mosherj@michigan.gov,517-241-7705

 

Bruce Everetts (IL), Vice-Chair bruce.everetts@illinois.gov,217-524-1663

 

Amy Yersavich (OH), Chair amy.yersavich@epa.state.oh.us,614-644-2285

 

Tom Crause (IL), Chair tom.crause@illinois.gov,217-524-1658

 

Dennis Datin (OK) dennis.datin@deq.ok.gov, 405-702-5125

 

Dana Bahar (NM) dana.bahar@state.nm.us,505-827-2908

 

Mary Pearson (AR) pearson@adeq.state.ar.us,501-682-0858

 

Omar Valdez (TX) ovaldez@tceq.state.tx.us,512-239-6858

 

Christine Whitney (TX) Christine.Whitney@tceq.texas.gov,512-239-0843

 

Melissa Cordell (TX) mcordell@tceq.state.tx.us,512-239-2473

 

Jean Underwood (KS) junderwood@kdheks.gov, 785-291-3255

 

Thomas Buell (NE) Thomas.buell@nebraska.gov,402-471-0803

 

Robert Stout (MO), Chair robert.stout@dnr.mo.gov,573-751-7402

 

Leo Henning (KS), Chair lhenning@kdheks.gov,785-296-5572

 

Rick Bean (KS) rbean@kdheks.gov, 785-296-1675

 

Randy Brown (KS) rbrown@kdheks.gov, 785-296-8065

 

David Bowers (MT) dbowers@mt.gov, 406-841-5063

 

Brent Everett (UT) beverett@utah.gov,801-536-4171

 

Denise Martin (MT) demartin@mt.gov,406-841-5060

 

Brad Johnson (UT) btjohnson@utah.gov, 801-536-4403

 

Barbara Nabors (CO), Vice-Chair barbara.nabors@state.co.us,303-692-3393

 

James Polisini (CA) jpolisin@dtsc.ca.gov, 818-717-6593

 

Roland Gutierrez (GU) chp452@gmail.com,671-475-1658 x59

 

Karen Toth (CA) ktoth@dtsc.ca.gov,510-540-3834

 

Amanda Stone (AZ) stone.amanda@azdeq.gov,602-771-4567

 

Rita Kamat (CA) rkamat@dtsc.ca.gov, 818-717-6538

 

Tom Gainer (OR) gainer.tom@deq.state.or.us, 503-229-5326

 

Bruce Wicherski (ID) bruce.wicherski@deq.idaho.gov,208-373-0246

 

Sandra Treccani (WA) satr461@ecy.wa.gov,509-329-3412

 

Aaron Scheff (ID) aaron.scheff@deq.idaho.gov,208-373-0420

 

Eric Traynor (ID) eric.traynor@deq.idaho.gov,208-373-0565

 

Upcoming Opportunities in the Pacific Southwest

Job Openings in EPA Region 9

Additional information about Careers in EPA's Pacific Southwest

You can also try a
broader job search on USAjobs

We appreciate your interest in employment opportunities at the Environmental Protection Agency. The EPA Region 9 Office, located in San Francisco , CA , is regularly seeking talented and skilled individuals to join our team to help protect human health and the environment.

The following table shows the possible upcoming employment opportunities that may be open to the general public on USAJobs.gov. The jobs are projected to open on the USAJobs.gov website on the dates listed. You will not be able to view the announcement on USAJobs until the opening date.

Click on the position title to view an informational flyer about the position. A position will not have a flyer until a projected Opening date is finalized.

The table below is only a projection. The following opportunities are subject to change without notice.

Please see the Current Openings or the table on the right for EPA Region 9 announcements currently open on USAJobs. Please visit the Applying to Opportunities page for more details on how to apply to employment opportunities at EPA Region 9. Join our Facebook and Twitter feeds to keep up to date on EPA Region 9 news and opportunities.

Upcoming Opportunities

Title

Program

Who May Apply

Opening Date

Interdisc. Life Scientist, Environmental Engineer, Environmental Scientist, (Site Assessment)

Superfund Division – Brownfields and Site Assessment

All U.S. Citizens

TBD

Environmental Scientist (Lab Chemist) (PDF)

Management and Technical Services Division - Laboratory Program

All U.S. Citizens

June 7, 2011

Interdisc. Life Scientist, Environmental Engineer, Environmental Scientist

Waste Management Division – RCRA Permits

All U.S. Citizens

TBD

Supervisory Environmental Protection Specialist (Tribal)

Communities and Ecosystems Division - Tribal Office

All U.S. Citizens

TBD

Environmental Protection Specialist (Tribal)

Communities and Ecosystems Division – Tribal Office

All U.S. Citizens

TBD

EPA is an Equal Employment Opportunity employer. All qualified applicants will receive consideration for employment without regard to race, color, religion,

Available Positions

On This Page:

Attorneys

There are no attorney positions currently available.

Recent Graduates - Honors Attorney Fellowship

The Office of Regional Counsel seeks applications from third-year law students for the Region 9 Honors Attorney Fellowship. This is a two-year Fellowship working in the San Francisco, California office, and the Fellow is expected to commit to the full term. The deadline to submit an application has been extended from October 1 to October 15, 2010.

The EPA Region 9 Honors Attorney Fellowship is designed for a recent law school graduate with excellent academic credentials and a strong interest in an environmental law career and the public sector. It provides an opportunity for entry-level attorneys to practice law in a leading governmental environmental organization, and to receive extensive training in and exposure to environmental law and policy work in the public sector. The Region offers new attorneys significant responsibility, the opportunity to handle a complex caseload that includes enforcement and counseling work, and extensive training and mentoring from dedicated colleagues with recognized expertise. The Region offers a diverse and supportive work environment.

Eligibility

The Honors Attorney Fellowship is available to recent law school graduates. Only applicants who graduate no later than Summer 2011 from an ABA accredited law school are eligible. Fellows must be bar members, or have membership pending or awaiting bar exam results.

The Fellowship will begin in the Fall of 2011.

Pay

Prior to admission to the bar, the salary will be at the GS-9 level (currently starting at $56,172). After admission to a bar of any State, U.S. territory, Puerto Rico or the District of Columbia, the salary will be at the GS-11 level (currently starting at $67,963 per year). Relocation expenses are not authorized.

Application Process

Please submit the following no later than October 1, 2010:

Selected applicants will be invited for interviews in San Francisco (at the candidate's expense) in November or early December 2010, or telephone interviews may be conducted when appropriate. A writing sample will be required of each selected candidate prior to the interview. Offers will be made by late November or early December 2010.

Applications for the Region 9 Honors Attorney Fellowship should be sent or e-mailed to:

John Lyons (lyons.john@epa.gov)
Fellowship Coordinator (ORC-3)
Office of Regional Counsel
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
75 Hawthorne Street
San Francisco, California 94105

Note: e-mail submissions should include "2011 Fellowship Application" in the subject line of the message. Documents may be attached in Word, WordPerfect, or PDF formats.

For questions, contact John Lyons, Assistant Regional Counsel at (415) 972-3889.

Honors Attorney Fellowships in Other EPA Offices

Other EPA Regional Counsel Offices and EPA Headquarter's Office of General Counsel have Honors Attorney Fellowship programs. See the information below for more information:

Law Clerks and Interns

Law Clerks

We operate a small summer law clerk program. For our summer 2011 program, we expect to invite up to four second year law students to participate in our 10-week program. Our summer law clerk program generally begins in late May or early June.

If our budget does not allow us to provide paid clerkships, we may ask students to come as volunteers, in which case they may wish to defray costs by seeking grants from their law schools. If the budget permits, paid clerkships will be offered at a rate of GS-9 Step 1 for law students entering their third year. (Visit Office of Personnel Management for the most current federal locality pay table for the San Jose/San Francisco area) .

Summer law clerk applications (cover letter, resume, legal writing sample and law school transcript, if available) should be submitted by October 15, 2010. Interviews will be conducted by telephone in November and it is expected that final decisions will be made in December 2010. A writing sample will be requested prior to all interviews.

If you have questions, please contact John Lyons (lyons.john@epa.gov) at (415) 972-3889.

Application Process

Law students should e-mail or send their resumes to:
John Lyons (lyons.john@epa.gov).

Applicants should mail their resumes to:

John Lyons
Law Clerk Coordinator (ORC-3)
Office of Regional Counsel
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
75 Hawthorne Street
San Francisco, California 94105

John Lyons (lyons.john@epa.gov)

Note: e-mail submissions should include "Summer Law Clerk Application" in the subject line of the message. Documents may be attached in Word, WordPerfect, or PDF formats.

Interns

During the school year, we accept law students as volunteer interns receiving credit in connection with a clinical program. If you have questions, please contact John Lyons (lyons.john@epa.gov), Assistant Regional Counsel at (415) 972-3889.

EPA is an equal opportunity employer. Selection for any position will be based solely on merit without regard to race, color, religion, age, gender, national origin, political affiliation, disability, sexual orientation, marital or family status or other differences.

EPA provides reasonable accommodations to applicants with disabilities. If you need a reasonable accommodation for any part of the application and hiring process, please notify the Agency. The decision on granting reasonable accommodation will be made on a case-by-case basis.

national origin, sex, sexual orientation, handicap, marital status or political affiliation. If you have any other inquiries regarding employment opportunities, please contact our HR Office at (415) 972-3817.

 

‘Water' Category

Subscribe to this category's feed

« Older Entries

Investing in Our Communities and Creating Jobs

Tuesday, June 7th, 2011

This post is cross-posted from The White House Blog

By Administrator Lisa P. Jackson

Ed. Note: Check out this slideshow of former abandoned waste sites that have been revitalized with EPA investments.

Every American wants their air and water to be clean and the land where they live, work, play and learn to be free of pollution. But President Obama knows that these cleaner, healthier communities are also better places to buy a home or start a business – boosting local economies and creating jobs often in areas where they're needed most. That's why this Administration is investing in clean, green, sustainable communities that will help us win the future.

Since EPA's brownfields program began less than a decade ago, it has spurred almost 70,000 American jobs. To build on this record of success, I'm in Lansing, Michigan today where I'm announcing $76 million in clean-up grants that will be used for projects throughout the nation.
With the help of local workers, we'll turn tainted factories, deserted gas stations, closed smelters and some of the more than 450,000 other abandoned or contaminated sites throughout America into vibrant residential and retail districts filled with opportunities for American workers.

I chose Lansing to make this announcement because of the progress they've seen thanks to EPA and local funding that has helped to revitalize a distressed community. In recent years, a troubled auto industry put many Lansing residents out of work, while leaving in its wake vacant and often contaminated lots. But the community rallied back, and with the help of a $2 million brownfields grant, they leveraged about $230 million in private investments. Today they're receiving additional funding to continue expanding their success.

We'll soon see stories like this one unfold throughout the nation with the help of the funding being awarded today. Like in Chicago, where 575 children will benefit from a new school being built in a disadvantaged neighborhood where a vacant industrial property now lies. Or like in Nassau County, New York, where a park, hotel, affordable housing, and restaurant and retail space will be built on top of unused waterfront property – creating more than 7,700 local jobs. Eight-hundred more jobs will be created in Milwaukee, where a modern business park will replace a contaminated site that's threatening the health of locals. And in Springfield, Missouri, a clean-up grant will transform a former rail yard into parks and leverage $6 million in private investments.

In reinvigorating these abandoned and often polluted sites – and hundreds of others across our country – we'll improve our health at the same time that we strengthen our economy. These cleaner, healthier and more prosperous communities will also be more resilient and sustainable for our future.

Find more information on EPA's brownfields program.

 

Vacancy Status

On this page you can check the status of vacancies which were previously advertised. The purpose of this listing is to assist applicants in determining the status of vacancies to which they have applied.

Status Key

Open: We are currently accepting applications.

In Evaluation Process: The Human Resources Office is in the process of reviewing applications to determine employment eligibility, level of qualification, and score/rating for applications submitted under the announcement.

Interviewing: The selecting official is still reviewing applications and conducting interviews prior to making a selection.

Filled: Selection has been made and applications are no longer being considered.

Canceled: Vacancy will not be filled and applications are no longer being considered.

 

Title

Program

Job Number

Status

Budget Analyst

Superfund Division,
Program Management Office

LV-R9-MP-2011-0016

Filled

Chemist

Management and Technical Services Division,
Laboratory Program

LV-R9-DE-2011-0026

Open

Chemist

Management and Technical Services Division,
Laboratory Program

LV-R9-MP-2011-0030

Open

Environmental Engineer

Water Division,
CWA Compliance Office

LV-R9-MP-2011-0031

Interviewing

Environmental Protection Specialist

Air Division,
Immediate Office

LV-R9-DE-2011-0013

Interviewing

Environmental Protection Specialist

Waste Management Division,
Pollution Prevention & Solid Waste Office

LV-R9-DE-2011-0014

In Evaluation Process

Environmental Protection Specialist

Waste Management Division,
Pollution Prevention & Solid Waste Office

LV-R9-MP-2011-0032

In Evaluation Process

Environmental Protection Specialist

Air Division,
Immediate Office

LV-R9-MP-2011-0038

Interviewing

Equal Employment Manager

Office of the Regional Administrator,
Office of Civil Rights

LV-R9-MP-2011-0020

Filled

Human Res. Spec. (Recruitment)

Management and Technical Services Division,
Human Resources Office

LV-R9-DE-2011-0002

Interviewing

Human Res. Spec. (Recruitment)

Management and Technical Services Division,
Human Resources Office

LV-R9-MP-2011-0013

Interviewing

Interdisciplinary Env Engineer / Env Scientist / Life Scientist (RPM)

Superfund Division,
Facilities & Site Cleanup Branch, Air Force & DOE Section

LV-R9-DE-2011-0009

In Evaluation Process

Interdisciplinary Env Engineer / Env Scientist / Life Scientist (RPM)

Superfund Division,
Various Branches, Various Sections

LV-R9-DE-2011-0020

In Evaluation Process

Interdisciplinary Env Engineer / Env Scientist / Life Scientist (RPM)

Superfund Division,
Various Branches, Various Sections

LV-R9-DE-2011-0024

In Evaluation Process

Interdisciplinary Env Engineer / Env Scientist / Life Scientist (RPM)

Superfund Division,
Various Branches, Various Sections

LV-R9-MP-2011-0029

In Evaluation Process

Interdisciplinary Env Engineer / Env Scientist / Life Scientist (RPM)

Superfund Division,
Various Branches, Various Sections

LV-R9-MP-2011-0041

In Evaluation Process

Interdisciplinary Environmenta/Life Scientist

Air Division,
Air Quality Analysis Office

LV-R9-MP-2011-0019

Filled

Interdis. Life Scientist, Environmental Engineer, Environmental Scientist (OSC)

Superfund Division,
Superfund Division, Emergency Response, Preparedness and Prevention Branch, Emergency Response Section

LV-R9-DE-2011-0022

Interviewing

Interdis. Life Scientist, Environmental Engineer, Environmental Scientist (OSC)

Superfund Division,
Superfund Division, Emergency Response, Preparedness and Prevention Branch, Emergency Response Section

LV-R9-MP-2011-0043

Interviewing

Investigator

Superfund Division,
Site Cleanup Branch, Case Development & Cost Recovery Section

LV-R9-DE-2011-0015

In Evaluation Process

Investigator

Superfund Division,
Site Cleanup Branch, Case Development & Cost Recovery Section

LV-R9-DE-2011-0017

In Evaluation Process

Investigator

Superfund Division,
Site Cleanup Branch, Case Development & Cost Recovery Section

LV-R9-MP-2011-0040

In Evaluation Process

Investigator (Temporary)

Superfund Division,
Site Cleanup Branch, Case Development & Cost Recovery Section

LV-R9-MP-2011-0039

In Evaluation Process

Project Officer (Contracts)

Superfund Division,
Program Management Office

LV-R9-MP-2011-0014

Filled

Secretary (OA)

Air Division,
Immediate Office

LV-R9-MP-2011-0027

Interviewing

Supervisory Environmental Protection Specialist

Superfund Division,
Emergency Response Preparedness & Prevention Branch, Enforcement & Removal Operations Section

LV-R9-MP-2011-0046

In Evaluation Process

Supv. Public Affairs Specialist

Office of Public Affairs,
Public Affairs and Liaison Office

LV-R9-DE-2011-0001

Interviewing

Supv. Public Affairs Specialist

Office of Public Affairs,
Public Affairs and Liaison Office

LV-R9-MP-2011-0005

Interviewing

Various Job Titles

Various,
Various

JOBS-05-31-2011

Open

(Interdisciplinary) Enviromental Engineer/Environmental Scientist

Air Division,
Air Quality Analysis Office

LV-R9-DE-2011-0003

Interviewing

(Interdisciplinary) Enviromental Engineer/Environmental Scientist

Air Division,
Air Quality Analysis Office

LV-R9-MP-2011-0021

Interviewing

(Interdisciplinary) Environmental Engineer / Environmental Scientist

Air Division,
Permits Office

LV-R9-DE-2011-0004

Interviewing

(Interdisciplinary) Environmental Engineer / Environmental Scientist

Air Division,
Permits Office

LV-R9-MP-2011-0023

Interviewing

(Interdisciplinary) Environmental Engineer/Environmental Scientist

Air Division,
Permits Office

LV-R9-DE-2011-0007

Interviewing

(Interdisciplinary) Environmental Engineer/Environmental Scientist

Air Division,
Permits Office

LV-R9-MP-2011-0028

Interviewing

 


The COURT shall attach to the petition, as exhibits, copies of the order, report, or decision of the agency. The clerk shall serve a true copy of the petition on the agency and on the Attorney General by registered mail, with request for a return receipt.

by:
Sedina L. Banks
Greenberg Glusker Fields Claman & Machtinger LLP - Los Angeles Office

 

June 6, 2011

Previously published on June 3, 2011

This week, the Ninth Circuit ruled that the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) does not give a federal district court jurisdiction to adjudicate claims for past noncompliance with an order issued by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The decision, Pakootas v. Teck Cominco Metals, Ltd ., affirms that CERCLA's citizen suit provision cannot be used to second guess an ongoing CERCLA cleanup action.

From 1905 to 1995, slag from defendant Teck Cominco Metals Limited's (Teck Cominco) smelter located in British Columbia was dumped into the Columbia River, ten miles north of the border with Washington . The pollution flowed downstream from Canada into the United States . In 1999, parties petitioned EPA to investigate the environmental contamination in the Columbia River and Lake Roosevelt . In 2003, EPA determined that the site was eligible for inclusion on CERCLA's so-called “Superfund List” as a top priority for cleanup.

Because no agreement was reached between EPA and Teck Cominco to cleanup the site, in December 2003, EPA issued a unilateral administrative order commanding Teck Cominco to conduct a remedial investigation and feasibility study to assess the site conditions and to implement a cleanup. Teck Cominco did not comply with the order and EPA took no action to enforce it. Various parties (Plaintiffs) brought a citizen suit under CERCLA seeking to enforce the order and for penalties for Teck Cominco's noncompliance with the order. While that action was pending, in June 2006, EPA and Teck Cominco reached a settlement in which Teck Cominco agreed to perform the cleanup in exchange for EPA agreeing not to sue Teck Cominco for penalties or injunctive relief for noncompliance with the unilateral administrative order. EPA withdrew the order and took no action to collect penalties against Teck Cominco for its two and half years of noncompliance with the order. The Plaintiffs amended their complaint to seek only penalties for Teck Cominco's past noncompliance with the order.

The Ninth Circuit affirmed the lower court's finding that CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. § 9613(h) barred the Plaintiffs' challenge. The court found that the statute strips the court of jurisdiction to review challenges to ongoing CERCLA cleanup actions because “Congress made a choice to protect the execution of a CERCLA plan during its pendency from lawsuits that might interfere with an expeditious cleanup effort.” The court rejected the Plaintiffs' contention that because they only sought past penalties, and not additional requirements for the cleanup, the action was not a challenge.

The court noted that EPA and Teck Cominco made a deal to accomplish the cleanup, which included EPA's agreement to not seek penalties for Teck Cominco's past noncompliance. EPA, and not the Plaintiffs, has the right to seek penalties if Teck Cominco does not comply with the settlement agreement. The court was also concerned that the imposition of penalties may interfere with Teck Cominco's ability to pay for the cleanup. In this respect, the action would pose a challenge to the ongoing cleanup effort.

This ruling helps bring more certainty to parties entering into agreements with EPA to cleanup contaminated properties. Had the Ninth Circuit allowed the challenge to proceed, parties would be faced with the possibility that even though they have settled with EPA for past violations in exchange for cleaning up the site, they still may be subject to penalties for past noncompliance. This certainty should help further encourage settlement with EPA.

 

 

 

The views expressed in this document are solely the views of the author and not Martindale-Hubbell. This document is intended for informational purposes only and is not legal advice or a substitute for consultation with a licensed legal professional in a particular case or circumstance.

 

View More Library Documents By...

 

Author

 

Sedina L. Banks

Practice Area

 

Administrative Law

Environmental Law

Litigation

 

 

Greenberg Glusker Fields Claman & Machtinger LLP Overview

CERCLA and Brownfields Research Center

Staff: Sam Puffenbarger, samp@astswmo.org, 202-624-5423Chair: Jennifer Roberts (AK), jennifer.roberts@alaska.gov, 907-269-7553

Region

Sediments

State Superfund

LTS

Removal Action

Brownfields

CERCLA Site Evaluation

 

 

 

Practice Area Resource Centers

Visit our Practice Area Resource Centers to view practice area specific content compiled from a variety of legal sources. Find related articles, podcasts, industry leader insights and much more. We currently offer the following Practice Areas: Litigation ; Intellectual Property ; Real Estate ; Corporate Law ; Criminal Law ; Bankruptcy ; Immigration ; Business Law ; Insurance ; Taxation ; Labor & Employment ; Commercial Law ; Medical Malpractice ; Trusts & Estates ; Securities ; International Law ; Health Care ; Environmental Law ; Construction Law ; Workers' Compensation

 

Sellers Distribute Shares of American International, Down 0.9% (AIG)

Posted on 06/08/11 at 11:10am by Chip Brian


1

(via COMTEX News Network)--

American International (NYSE: AIG ) is one of today's notable stocks in decline, down 0.9% to $27.17. The S&P is currently trading 0.4% lower to 1,280 and the Dow Jones Industrial Average is trading 0.2% lower to 12,046.

American International is in SmarTrend's Multi-Line Insurance industry and this industry is currently in a Downtrend according to our research. We are monitoring many other stocks on the move within this industry.

In the last five trading sessions, the 50-day MA has fallen 1.68% while the 200-day MA has remained constant.

In the past 52 weeks, shares of American International have traded between a low of $27.11 and a high of $52.67 and are now at $27.17, which is 0% above that low price .

SmarTrend currently has shares of American International in an Downtrend and issued the Downtrend alert on January 14, 2011 at $46.06. The stock has fallen 40.5% since the Downtrend alert was issued.

Write to Chip Brian at cbrian@mysmartrend.com


Read more: http://www.benzinga.com/press-releases/11/06/c1149918/sellers-distribute-shares-of-american-international-down-0-9-aig#ixzz1Oi1DeUvU

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/fedreg/2007/012507_good_guidance.pdf

EPA Gives Grant Money to Interpol

Posted June 8th, 2011 at 10:20am in Energy and Environment 0 Print This Post  Print This Post

epa-sign100223

It is hard to make sense of many grants the U.S. gives to nations from whom it is simultaneously borrowing. The federal government's profligate spending through grant programs is starting to get some notice—for example, on Fox News as well as The Foundry .

For example, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has provided a grant to the United Nations Environmental Program so it may help implement “Russia's National Plan of Action for Protection of the Arctic Marine Environment from Anthropogenic Pollution.” With yet another grant, EPA is helping Interpol (the International Criminal Police Organization) police carbon trading markets which, apparently, has not been going so well.

In January, European carbon trading “ ground to a halt ” after the computer-based theft of more than $70 million in allowances. Carbon trading is ostensibly designed to save humanity from catastrophic global warming. In truth, it is a way to impose a tax on energy without admitting it. Under the scheme, those who emit carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) have to buy allowances (permits) to do so from others. Government issues the permits and therefore controls the supply. The fewer it issues or the more it eventually withdraws from the “market,” they more they cost. The more the permits cost, the less people can afford to emit CO 2 .

CO 2 is the byproduct of producing energy from fossil fuels—oil, coal and natural gas. These energy sources are among the most affordable and reliable and therefore heavily used. Trading—really, taxing—CO 2 increases the price of these energy sources. Energy, which physicists define as “the capacity to do work,” is at the root of the economy. It powers machines used to gather food, fiber, and minerals and to convert these natural resources to usable goods. It fuels the Internet, over which orders for goods are placed, and the trains, planes, ships, and trucks that ferry them to end users. When you increase the amount of work you do—when you are more productive—you foster economic growth that creates jobs and prosperity. Doing this requires energy. When we tax energy, we make it more expensive to do anything productive and stifle economic growth. Euphemistically, the greens call this “sustainable development.” The reality is that “sustainable development” is code for less: less energy, less productivity, less economic growth, and fewer jobs.

This economic reality has blocked the left from legislatively imposing a carbon-trading regime here in the United States , even though its advocates were in a majority that controlled both houses of Congress with a sympathetic President. The President said he would make it so expensive for people to build new coal-fired power plants that it would bankrupt them. Heritage analysis found one carbon-trading legislative proposal would, for some years, lead to job losses exceeding 2.5 million. This kind of brutal economic impact forced the left to switch to plan B. The Administration is now attempting to limit CO 2 through Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulation under the Clean Air Act.

In its regulatory ramblings , EPA has hinted that it may have the ability to simply conjure up such a carbon-trading scheme here in the United States . And EPA may not be just rattling its carbon-trading saber at the American economy. According to a database of grants distributed by the agency, in October of last year EPA awarded a grant to Interpol. While modest, some $150,000, it is not the amount of the grant that is interesting but one of its curious purposes. EPA reports :

The major work to be accomplished will be the development of a program website, support of a climate change project which will ensure that markets operate properly, and that fraud is detected promptly with regard to carbon trading…

We are giving money to Interpol to police carbon trading? Do the embarrassments of the European scheme need to be cleaned up to pave the way? Are we so flush with cash that this makes any sense? Make no mistake, EPA is ever so serious about imposing its worldview upon the nation—and it is not despite the economic consequences, but because these costs are integral to its mantra of sustainable development. Perhaps we should rename this bureaucracy the Employment Prevention Agency.

Pollution from 1-5 farms targeted in lawsuit threat

Growers along I-5 have made progress in cleanup, but new ruling upsets fishers, environmentalists

By Mike Taugher
Contra Costa Times

Posted: 06/07/2011 04:20:52 PM PDT

Updated: 06/08/2011 06:16:00 AM PDT


Recalling one of the nation's worst wildlife disasters, a coalition of environmentalists and fishing groups said Tuesday it would sue to clean up toxic farm runoff that makes its way into San Francisco Bay .

The lawsuit threat affects about 100,000 acres of farmland along Interstate 5 that contain high levels of salt and selenium, an element that was blamed for widespread deformities and deaths among birds at the Kesterson National Wildlife Refuge in the early 1980s.

After that disaster, farmers who drained their runoff to the refuge could no longer do so and tests showed high selenium and salt levels in an area immediately to the north known as Grasslands.

It is the hundreds of farmers in the Grasslands area who could be affected by the threatened lawsuit.

Although they have dramatically reduced polluted discharges, the farmers in the fall were given another 10 years to meet water quality requirements put in place by state regulators more than a decade ago.

"They've done a lot, but what they've done is take the low-hanging fruit," said Bill Jennings, executive director of the California Sportfishing Protection Alliance. "Now, they're up against an incredibly difficult problem. We can't just look the other way and pretend the problem doesn't exist."

The notice is the latest in an escalating series of lawsuits, legislative maneuvers and public relations efforts in the battle over limited water supplies in the Delta.

addition to Jennings ' group, the threat to sue was filed by the environmental group Friends of the River and two associations that represent commercial fishers, the Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermens Associations and the San Francisco Crab Boat Owners Association.

Grasslands' farmers have reduced selenium pollution by 87 percent and salt pollution by 70 percent since the mid 1990s, said Joe McGahan, the drainage coordinator for the Grasslands Bypass Project.

Asked if a successful lawsuit could put farmers out of business, McGahan said, "Why would you do something like that to the most successful agricultural drainage project in California ?"

Farm runoff pollution was slashed by using far less water, which reduces the amount of selenium and salt that leaches out of the ground, and by reusing drain water to irrigate salt-tolerant grasses, McGahan said.

A $15 million pilot treatment plant should be built in the coming years to test the ability to clean up the rest of the drain water, McGahan said.

But Jennings said it is highly unlikely the drain water can be cleaned up at an acceptable price.

To the farmers' critics, some of the land in the San Joaquin Valley was never suitable for irrigated agriculture because of drainage problems caused by the area's geology and the presence of potentially toxic elements like selenium and arsenic, as well as high salt content.

The high water demand from the Delta and the return of polluted discharges affects not only wildlife, but commercial fishers, said Larry Collins, president of the San Francisco Crab Boat Owners Association.

"If you retired that land, you'd do two things: You'd lessen the amount of selenium and you'd have more water going into the bay," Collins said. "It's hard living downstream from those guys."

Commercial fishing representatives have been increasingly frustrated by San Joaquin Valley farmers' complaints that environmental regulations are preventing them from growing crops. The fishers say farmers' demand for water drove down salmon numbers and prevented commercial anglers from working in 2008, 2009 and most of 2010.

Because state regulators gave the Grasslands farmers another 10 years to meet water quality standards, the lawsuit seeks to shift oversight to federal regulators by filing the lawsuit under the federal Clean Water Act. That law generally exempts farm runoff, but the groups filing the threat say that Grasslands does not fit that exemption because it also discharges tainted groundwater.

GSA Awards Key Network Infrastructure Task Order for DHS Headquarters Consolidation Project at St. Elizabeths Campus

DHS Technology Integration Program moves agency closer to “One DHS” mission
to protect and serve the American people.


GSA# 10800

June 7, 2011
Sara Merriam, 202-525-8165
sara.merriam@gsa.gov

WASHINGTON – The U.S. General Services Administration, on behalf of the Department of Homeland Security, today awarded a seven-year task order to General Dynamics to develop an integrated network infrastructure for the consolidated Department of Homeland Security headquarters at the St. Elizabeths campus in Southeast Washington . The award helps ensure that DHS's Technology Integration Program, or TIP, is developed in concert with construction of the campus, which will bring together 22 DHS agencies in one central location.

“The DHS St. Elizabeths campus will be a showcase for the value of integrating technology, people, and processes in a consolidated environment that will truly help DHS achieve its critical mission to protect the nation's security," GSA Administrator Martha N. Johnson said. "All of GSA is partnering with DHS to create a model campus that is green, energy-efficient, and secure, with an integrated technology backbone that can accommodate IT, physical security, and smart building networks for the agency well into the future."

GSA's Federal Systems Integration and Management Center awarded the task order as part of the Alliant governmentwide acquisition contract. The task order has a ceiling of $867 million if all options are exercised. FEDSIM will continue to provide project, acquisition, and financial management support to DHS throughout the duration of the project.

“The work accomplished through the DHS TIP is critical to the success of the Department of Homeland Security and our consolidation efforts,” said Richard Spires, DHS Chief Information Officer. “The culture of trust and partnership with DHS, GSA, and General Dynamics will be vital to the alignment needed to support our critical information technology efforts.”

The project scope covers design, procurement, configuration, installation, testing, securing, and maintaining an integrated network infrastructure to transport all DHS voice, video, and data across the consolidated DHS headquarters campus.

“The DHS TIP project at St. Elizabeths is yet another DHS project that uses the acquisition and project management expertise that FEDSIM brings to the table on behalf of federal agencies,” said FAS Commissioner Steven J. Kempf. “For many years, FEDSIM has served as trusted adviser to DHS, using GSA's expertise to carry out mission-critical technology integration procurements. This is what the FEDSIM team does best, and our long-standing relationship with DHS is a testament to that.”

###

As the federal government's workplace solutions provider, the U.S. General Services Administration works to foster an effective, sustainable and transparent government for the American people. GSA's expertise in government workplace solutions include:
• Effective management of government assets including more than 9,600 government-owned or leased buildings and 215,000 vehicles in the federal fleet, and preservation of historic federal properties;
• Leveraging the government's buying power through responsible acquisition of products and services making up approximately 14 percent of the government's total procurement dollars;
• Providing innovative technology solutions to enhance government efficiency and increase citizen engagement; and,
• Promoting responsible use of federal resources through development of governmentwide policies ranging from federal travel to property and management practices.

June 8, 2011

Taking the EPA to Court

Filed under: Climate Politics —

On May 20, three briefs were filed with the Washington DC Circuit Court of Appeals laying out petitions to challenge the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) regulatory initiatives concerning greenhouse gas emissions (and how the initiatives came to be). Of the three petitions, two were from a conglomerate of states led by Texas and Virginia, and the other was by a 80-odd member grouping on non-state parties with a variety of interests in the EPA's regulations. A fourth brief from a collection of climate scientists followed week later.

By and large, most of the arguments laid out by these Petitioners echo previous arguments made directly to the EPA during the various public comment opportunities as the EPA was considering whether or not greenhouse gases endangered public health and welfare—a finding which would then require the EPA to develop regulations to restrict the emissions of greenhouse gases. Despite copious cogent arguments as to why the EPA should not find that greenhouse gases engager the public health and welfare, the EPA not only made such a finding, but subsequently denied all petitions to reconsider its findings that were submitted as revelations of scientific misconduct came to light with the release of the Climategate emails.

But, when dealing with the EPA, their decision in not necessary the final one. In fact, there is another avenue of redress—the courts.

The EPA must work under the directives given to it by Congress which are a matter of law. As such, the EPA's interpretations of those laws can be challenged in courts. In fact, the Clean Air Act (the authority under which EPA is acting to restrict greenhouse gas emissions) explicitly states that the Washington DC Court of Appeals has exclusive jurisdiction over final action taken by the EPA's Administrator.

Taking a federal agency involved in technical matters (as is EPA) to court isn't so easy. The principal of “Chevron Deference” established by the Supreme Court in 1984 states that the courts should be loathe to direct the applications of statutes by such agencies because, it is assumed, the agencies possess expertise that the courts do not. This is one reason why Massachusetts v. EPA , the 2007 Supreme Court case in which directed EPA to limit carbon dioxide emissions via the Clean Air Act (if they found and “endangerment”) was viewed as a breathtaking and bold reversal of established jurisprudence in the name of environmental micromanagement of a technical agency.

At any rate, after repeatedly falling on deaf ears at the EPA, and with Administrator Jackson issuing her final action on the matter, many of the challengers to greenhouse gas regulations have taken the EPA to court, with claims that the EPA did not properly and/or adequately justify either its Endangerment Finding, that it improperly denied petitions to reconsider that finding, and that its violated a host of procedures under which the Clean Air Act required the EPA to act when making such a finding (and when crafting regulations).

Browsing the Petitions, the case made against the EPA on each of the above considerations seems strong and the apparent EPA shenanigans are astounding. We encourage our readers to look through the various Petitions for more detail concerning the arguments forwarded. Below we provide links, and a few summaries from the various Petitions.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

OPENING BRIEF FOR STATE PETITIONERS TEXAS AND VIRGINIA ON DENIAL OF RECONSIDERATION OF THE ENDANGERMENT FINDING AND OF STATE PETITIONERS AND SUPPORTING STATE INTERVENORS ON ENDANGERMENT FINDING DELEGATION ISSUES
(full brief available here )

Outline of Argument

A. The [EPA] Administrator was obligated to grant reconsideration because Petitioners demonstrated that their timely objections were based on evidence of central relevance to the outcome of the endangerment finding

B. The Administrator erroneously applied the central relevance standard

C. The Administrator erred by making determinations without notice or comment

D. EPA impermissibly delegated its statutory authority to outside entities

E. EPA‘s reasons for relying on the IPCC were undermined by the Climategate data provided in the reconsideration petitions which data compel the conclusion that the Endangerment Finding fails to meet essential Information Quality standards such that reconsideration is required.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

BRIEF OF TEXAS FOR STATE PETITIONERS AND SUPPORTING INTERVENORS
(full brief available here )

EPA's Endangerment Finding suffers from numerous flaws, but State Petitioners will address only two of the most significant problems. First, the arbitrary-and-capricious standard requires an agency to “articulate a satisfactory explanation for its action,” see State Farm , 463 U.S. at 43, and the Endangerment Finding fails this test because EPA never bothered to define or apply standards or criteria for assessing when GHG emissions or climate change harm public health or welfare. In addition, the arbitrary-and-capricious test precludes agency actions that “entirely fail[] to consider an important aspect of the problem,” id., and EPA's Endangerment Finding refuses to consider voluntary (nonregulatory) adaptation to and mitigation of climate change, even as EPA acknowledges that these factors will reduce the negative impact of climate change. Each of these grounds warrants vacatur and remand.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

JOINT OPENING BRIEF OF NON-STATE PETITIONERS AND SUPPORTING INTERVENORS
(full brief available here )

The suite of rules challenged in these coordinated cases involves what is assuredly the most burdensome, costly, precedent-setting, and far-reaching set of regulations ever adopted by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. EPA's Endangerment Rule, challenged here, is the cornerstone of EPA's decision to regulate a new category of emissions under the Clean Air Act [CAA]. As demonstrated below, the Rule is the product of serious legal, evidentiary, and procedural errors. These errors can fairly be said to reflect EPA's rush to judgment and its decision to disregard statutory text, settled rules of construction, and the specific terms of the Supreme Court's decision and remand in Massachusetts v. EPA , 549 U.S. 497 (2007). The errors are further reflected in the Agency's remarkable and implausible contention that the Act must be read to compel a chain reaction of multiple rules leading to what it frankly concedes are “absurd” results, contrary to Congress's intent.

Many errors infecting EPA's final rule stem from a fundamental misreading and misapplication of CAA Section 202(a)(1). Section 202(a)(1) requires EPA, in addressing endangerment, to make a determination that informs and directly ties to the need for, and contours of, automobile emissions standards that address the risk identified. But after forty years of following that integrated approach, EPA now interprets the statute to require an abstract agency risk assessment divorced from the essential regulatory policy judgments its risk assessment entails. Premised on its new interpretation of Section 202(a)(1), EPA not only disavows any obligation, but concludes it lacks any discretion, to consider the regulatory consequences of its Endangerment Rule. This flouts the plain meaning of Section 202(a)(1) and basic tenets of reasoned decisionmaking.

Although EPA ostensibly exercised statutory authority to address perceived dangers to health and welfare caused by new automobile emissions, in fact it made no showing that the Endangerment Rule or any of its other greenhouse gas (“GHG”) rules will effectively remove dangers to health or welfare that might otherwise occur. EPA disclaimed any obligation or authority to define its ultimate regulatory objectives, its chosen means of achieving them, or its conception of successful regulation. Although EPA's regulatory actions are premised on assertions about “changes” to “climate” — including the claim that it is 90-99% certain that human-caused climate change threatens public health and welfare, 74 Fed. Reg. at 66,518 & n.22, nowhere does EPA say what constitutes a “safe climate,” acceptable global temperature ranges, “safe” levels of GHGs in the atmosphere, or even how its regulatory actions will have discernable effects that ameliorate actual dangers to the public. Without a showing of how its automobile regulations will ameliorate the abstract endangerment it posits, even after being in effect for many years, neither EPA, nor the public, nor this Court, can accurately judge whether EPA has achieved a congressionally defined goal.

Although Section 202(a)(1) unambiguously requires the Administrator to exercise independent judgment connecting her risk assessment to a reasoned regulatory response, she left the gathering and sifting of the evidence supporting the Endangerment Rule to an international non-governmental organization chartered to study human-caused climate change. But the conclusions the Administrator borrowed from this organization fall far short of the evidence and analysis necessary to justify EPA's asserted high confidence in its conclusions. Those conclusions rest primarily on modeling projections based on speculative assumptions and modeling results contradicted by real-world observations. Given the multiple, admitted uncertainties of the modeling EPA relied on, the Agency's professed high confidence in its endangerment assessment is unsupported and legally unjustified.

For all these reasons and others, the Endangerment Rule should be vacated and remanded to EPA.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

BRIEF OF AMICI CURIAE SCIENTISTS IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONERS SUPPORTING REVERSAL

[Note: The amici curiae brief from the climate scientists was not filed in accordance with the previous court orders and therefore a motion was made for acceptance. The court has not yet decided on whether to grant or deny this motion.]

(full brief available here. )

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT:

The data presented in this brief fatally undermine the EPA's finding that human-caused CO2 emissions have already led to, or can be expected to lead to, significant adverse changes in the Earth's climate system. The EPA failed to examine this “relevant data.” FCC v. Fox Television Stations, Inc ., 129 S.Ct. 1800, 1810 (2009) (quoting Motor Vehicles Mfrs. Ass'n of U.S., Inc. v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co ., 463 U.S. 29, 43 (1983)). These data, moreover, confirm that EPA's endangerment finding is not “rational” and therefore arbitrary and capricious. Fox, 129 S.Ct. at 1812.

Multiple sets of data show that the Earth's climate is not changing in an unusual or anomalous fashion. The EPA relied on instrumental data that were adjusted to exaggerate the increase in global temperatures. But other much more reliable data show that the Earth's temperature is not changing in an anomalous manner. Since 1979, when satellite data first became available, regional temperature trends have refuted the notion of global warming: the statistical trend shows no change in the tropics and a decrease in temperature in Antarctica.

These satellite data are confirmed by balloon and buoy data. The only regional temperature increase can be found north of 20º North latitude. But these recent temperatures are nothing compared to those in the 1930s, which produced most of the currently existing record temperatures and heat waves in the United States and high temperatures in the Arctic. Other empirical observations substantiate these temperature data: droughts are not becoming longer and more intense, floods are not increasing, hurricanes and tropical storms are not becoming stronger, and the rate of increase in sea levels has actually been declining. Some would expect the opposite if the Earth's temperatures were increasing. At any rate, the data show that the Earth's temperatures are not increasing in an unusual fashion.

Even if the Earth's climate were changing erratically—and it is not—multiple sets of data show that CO2 atmospheric concentration, at most, has only a minor effect on temperature. According to climate models relied on by the EPA, rising CO2 levels should have caused a “greenhouse gas fingerprint”—that is, in the tropics, the atmosphere four to ten miles above the Earth's surface should have been steadily warming at a faster rate than lower levels of the atmosphere. But balloon data (from the creators of the climate data and models relied on by the EPA) from 7.5 miles above the Earth's surface shows no change in temperature trend. Satellite data also confirms that the temperature trend in lower levels of the atmosphere is also flat. And two different sets of tropical ocean buoy data further confirm these findings. Thus, there is no empirically validated reason why further increasing CO2 levels will cause future harm.

Now that temperatures have actually been decreasing in recent years, some have begun to rely solely on climate models—instead of historical data—to argue that CO2 emissions will change the Earth's climate in the future. This assertion is belied by the data just mentioned, because (1) the Earth's climate is not changing in an anomalous fashion and (2) CO2 does not significantly affect the Earth's climate system. Moreover, these global climate models do not perform well in simulating the climate and forecasting the impact of increased levels of CO2. Kevin Trenberth, a lead author of a United Nations report in favor of CO2 regulation, admitted this many times, frankly stating: “The fact that we cannot account for what is happening in the climate system makes any consideration of geoengineering quite hopeless as we will never be able to tell if it is successful or not! It is a travesty!” Tellingly, these CO2 climate models did not forecast the recent decline in global temperatures.

In actuality, data establish that various other factors cause typical, short-term (multi-decadal or shorter) changes in the Earth's climate system. The sun, volcanic activity, and oscillations in ocean temperature behavior, for example, can all affect the Earth's temperature over relatively short and long time scales. The Earth's climate may be changing, as it always naturally has, but the data do not establish that any changes are caused by CO2 emissions.

In toto, all of these filings form a consistent package that would be hard to deny. But whatever decisions are rendered, it is likely that somewhere, somehow, global warming is going to bump its way back up to the Supremes. Expect the judicial system to be involved in global warming for the foreseeable (and probably the unforeseeable) future.

 

 Part III - Conversations With God...about Gold and Silver!

Bix Weir

The following conversation, Part III, is an audio transcript that was recorded over a brief 15 minute session and did not originate in a written format as before. It is for the most part unedited. It is also very different than past conversations but I believe that has to do with the relative closeness of the Global Monetary Collapse. Prepare accordingly!

First, here are the first two "Conversations"

PART I http://www.roadtoroota.com/public/254.cfm

PART II http://www.roadtoroota.com/public/255.cfm

So let us begin....

God: Hello Bix.

Bix: Who's that? Is that you God?!

God: Yes it is. You sound surprised.

Bix: I am! I thought I was supposed to ask you the questions. I've been thinking about writing another article about our "conversations" and thinking about when it was going to happen. The last two times it just kinda hit me but this time nothing has happened...even though I want it to.

God: Well, do you mind if I ask YOU some questions?

Bix: Uh..I guess. I think. I don't know.

God: I'd like to ask you some questions if that's ok.

Bix: Ok. Yes. Go ahead.

God: You seem like you are struggling...why?

Bix: I..I don't know. I see things happening that to me seem so clear and obvious and yet nobody else sees it. Nobody sees what's happening!

God: How does that make you feel?

Bix: I don't know...I feel like an outcast.

God: Do you feel like you are going crazy? Do you feel like you are wrong?

Bix: No I don't. I actually feel more sure than ever but...there's something in me that needs reassurance.

God: Interesting. Why do you think that is?

Bix: I don't know. I've been looking at this economy and this situation for so long from one angle, the end of the manipulation of gold and silver, that it seems like I am missing something BIG.

God: Well maybe you are! What else would you like to think about?

Bix: I don't know...I guess how the future will look. How will it all work out? I see what's happening now...and I see us hitting a point where the banks crash, the economy crashes, governments crash and paper and electronic money are destroyed throughout the world. I see massive chaos but when I try to understand what happens AFTER that...it's all so confusing. It's hard to get my head around what life will be like.

God: You do know, Bix, that you are creating this experience. You and everyone on Earth are in the process of creating your present and future. It is an EVOLVING CREATION with all the "things" and all the people working together. Your past has been set, your present is constantly being created and your future will unfold in front you based off what you create today.

Bix: Yes, I know that to some extent.

God: So what does "evolving" mean to you?

Bix: I guess it means we're constantly changing and, hopefully, getting better.

God: YES! If that is what you choose that is what will be!

Bix: Ok... but if things will be better what will they look like? If the system crashes and we are freed from the debt/slave society what will we do with our time? If we aren't forced to work in a job we don't like just to keep "the system" going what will we do?!

God: Does that make you feel afraid?

Bix: It does...kind of. I don't know what to think about it.

God: Well, let me help you. Let me steer you...a little. What is it that you've always wanted to do but never had the time...the money...the courage to do?

Bix: I guess I always wanted to be a (Insert your dream job here:-). That was always something I loved to do...for a long, long time.

God: Well, why did you stop?

Bix: Well, everything started to pile up. Bills and marriage and kids and a house and mortgage payments and food and responsibility and...EVERYTHING. It all snowballed and there became little time for my dreams as other things took over.

God: So if you did have the time to follow your true desire would you?

Bix: Truthfully...I don't know. I don't think I can break out of this mindset.

God: What mindset?

Bix: The mindset that tells me...uh, that shows me how my life is supposed to be. The feeling that sticks me in that little plan of what I am supposed to do and who I'm supposed to be.

God: So you think that you have to buy into someone else's plan. You don't think you can create a new plan for your life?

Bix: No. Not when you say it like that! But, I guess, I've never thought about it. I've never thought about what it would be like to do something that was in my soul and I didn't have to worry about making money or paying the bills. Yes. There are things I would want to do given that kind of freedom.

God: So you are standing at the Crossroads. Just like your world is at the Crossroads. Your economic system is on the brink of change. Your monetary system is about to change. Your Governing bodies will change. Everything is about to change and you will move on to something else - something more viable for your future - you are EVOLVING. It is natural to fear the unknown but you WILL figure it out. You will piggyback off the things that have worked in the past and will discard that which did not work. Your economic system going forward will evolve along with you into something that is more fair and more viable for the MANY and not just the FEW.

Bix: Well...I hear there's not enough natural resources to support the population of the Earth. Almost 7 billion people now and there are people starving all over the world.

God: What would you say if I told you that food scarcity is by your own creation? There could be plenty of food for everyone if you change the way you have decided to live.

Bix: What do you mean. We see starvation and shortages everyday. There are starving people all over the world...even within my own country which is supposed to be the most well off.

God: Ask yourself a question...can you go down to the local nursery and buy a packet of vegetable seeds?

Bix: Yes. There are huge racks of seeds for almost every kind of seed on earth.

God: Good. Do you have access to a patch of soil?

Bix: Yes.

God: Do you have a garden?

Bix: No. I buy all my vegetables at the stores. It's cheaper and easier and they taste better.

God: I see. Well, do you ever think that if you were to plant your own garden that you could feed yourself?

Bix: I guess I could.

God: If everyone who had the ability to do so grew their own food do you still think there would be a global food shortage?

Bix: Maybe not. Actually, there would probably be a massive oversupply of food! And that extra food could even be shipped around the world to those who can't grow their own.

God: If you think about it...you have the power to solve the global hunger problem by LEARNING TO FEED YOURSELF!

Bix: It can't be that easy.

God: It is that easy! You just need to change your way of approaching the problem.

Bix: But I can't change that much. Growing my own food is too time consuming and I'm too busy trying to eek out a living to support my family. A roof over our heads and food in the cupboard.

God: I understand that but I just told you that you can feed yourself, for the most part, from your own backyard. That checks off one of those big things you think you need to work and struggle for.

Bix: I guess it does but what if I'm no good at it?

God: There are fruits and vegetables you can plant that require absolutely NO SKILL to grow. Figure out a few you can successfully grow in your area and then grow enough to trade with others.

Bix: I suppose it can be done.

God: Let's cut to the chase. Working 10 hour days to put food on your table that you can grow in your back yard does not sound like a smart way to spend your precious time here on earth. Learn to feed yourself in order to help feed the entire world.

Bix: Wait...I thought we were going to talk about gold and silver in our conversations. What's with all this talk of "feeding myself to feed the world"?

God: Bix...You know more than most do about how gold, silver and food are all related.

Bix: I suppose I do. Gold and silver are not simply bits of metal but rather they hold intrinsic value as HARD MONEY. The illusions of our paper/electronic money are breaking down and we must soon return to using gold and silver as our money. The process will be a painful one with the breakdown of our systems of trade and commerce. Food is essential to our existence so it is wise to prepare for a transition period back to a Gold and Silver standard by learning how to fend for ourselves. Back to basics if you will.

God: Well, said Bix. I will assist in this transition by FORCING many to learn to feed and fend for themselves through changes in the planet. It is time for everyone to take responsibility for themselves. It won't be the easiest time for people on earth but these are lessons that must be learned to move forward in your EVOLUTION.

Bix: I think I understand God...and THANK YOU.

God: No. Thank You for having the courage to participate in the transition stage of the EVOLUTION of humanity.

Bix: Next time can we talk more about gold and silver?

God: Of course, although you might not be so concerned about it when we speak next.

Bix: What do you mean by that?

God: You will understand in due time. Farewell for now...and keep up the good spirits in the coming days. All will be well in the end.

Bix: Thank you God.

END

May the Road you chose be the Right Road .

Bix Weir www.RoadtoRoota.com

Again "Conversations" Parts I & II can be found here:

http://www.roadtoroota.com/public/254.cfm

 

 

CONTACT:
Dale Kemery (News Media Only)
kemery.dale@epa.gov
202-564-7839
202-564-4355

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

June 8, 2011



EPA Removes Confidentiality Claims for More Than 150 Chemicals

Part of continuing effort to protect Americans' health by increasing access to chemical information

WASHINGTON – In order to provide the public has as much information as possible about the health and the environmental impacts of chemicals, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has made public the identities of more than 150 chemicals contained in 104 health and safety studies that had been claimed confidential by industry. Today's announcement is another in a series of unprecedented actions that EPA is taking to provide the public with greater access to information on the chemicals that are manufactured and used in the United States.

For these 104 studies, the chemical identity will no longer be redacted, or kept from view. The chemicals involved are used in dispersant formulations and consumer products such as air fresheners, non-stick and stain resistant materials, fire resistant materials, nonylphenol compounds, perfluorinated compounds, and lead.

“This action to disclose the identity of more than 150 chemicals is an important step in EPA's commitment to give the American people access to critical information about chemicals that their children and families may be exposed to,” said Steve Owens, assistant administrator for EPA's Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention. “A health and safety study with the chemical name kept secret is completely useless to the public.”

In 2010, EPA challenged industry to voluntarily declassify unwarranted claims of confidential business information (CBI). The agency also issued new guidance outlining plans to deny confidentiality claims for chemical identity in health and safety studies under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). Based on this guidance, EPA notified a number of companies in February 2011 that the agency had determined that their CBI claim was not eligible for confidential treatment under TSCA and that EPA intended to make the information public.

The health and safety studies include some declassified by the agency and other voluntary declassifications by companies in response to EPA's challenge. EPA is committed to posting new declassified materials under TSCA on the agency website on a regular basis.

In addition to these actions, EPA over the past several months has taken a number of other steps to make chemical information more readily available. The agency has provided the public, for the first time ever, with free access to the consolidated TSCA Inventory on the EPA and Data.Gov websites. EPA also launched a new chemical data access tool that for the first time gives the public the ability to electronically search EPA's database of more than 10,000 health and safety documents on a wide range of chemicals that they may come in contact with every day. EPA will continue to take actions to increase the public's access to chemical information.

 

More information: http://www.epa.gov/oppt/existingchemicals/pubs/transparency.html

Note: If a link above doesn't work, please copy and paste the URL into a browser.

View all news releases related to pesticides and toxic chemicals

 

High court backs Superfund

 Posted 06/06/2011 06:20 PM ET

Featured Stocks

General Electric Co

* Top-Rated Company

The Supreme Court rejected GE's ( GE ) challenge to the federal toxic waste cleanup law, upholding a U.S. appeals court ruling. GE had argued the Superfund provision letting the EPA issue unilateral orders violated constitutional due process rights. The gov't said the law has sufficient safeguards. GE fell 1.9%.

Subject:

  Google Alert - corp of engineers

 

From:

Google Alerts < googlealerts-noreply@google.com >

To:

john@ironmountainmine.com

Web

1 new results for corp of engineers

 

Flood Information - Inundation Maps
US Army Corps of Engineers - Kansas City District.
www.nwk.usace.army.mil/Flood/InundationMaps.cfm

Governor Markell Proposes Partnership For Clean Water And Jobs
Public Works.com
At the Kent County Regional Wastewater Treatment Facility today, Governor Jack Markell proposed taking advantage of a partnership opportunity with the federal government to invest in clean water projects that create local jobs, provide long-term water ...

Posted at 05:19 PM ET, 06/07/2011

With Senate talks in flux, Webb crafts alternate Libya resolution

By Ben Pershing

The congressional pushback against President Obama's military operation in Libya entered a new phase Tuesday, as a Senate resolution supporting the White House appeared stalled and discussions on a separate, more critical, measure moved forward.

Lawmakers from both parties have grown increasingly restless since the Libya campaign began in mid-March. With the U.S. currently providing support for a NATO-led mission, members of both the House and Senate are divided over how hard to push the White House

Sens. James Webb (D-Va.) and Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) are working on a resolution that would chastise the administration for failing to consult with Congress. Though the details remain in flux, the measure could resemble one proposed by House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) that passed the House by a wide margin last week, with 45 Democrats joining most Republicans in support.

Boehner's bill , which would not have the force of law even if passed by the Senate, gave the White House 14 days to provide more information about the mission and prohibited the use of ground troops. Boehner's resolution was designed to be a compromise, as the House rejected a bill by Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) that called for the U.S. to pull out of the Libya operation.

The White House was dismissive of the Boehner bill, and Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.), the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, and John McCain (R-Ariz.) have proposed a separate resolution that would offer congressional support for the Libya campaign.

But a Foreign Relations hearing to consider the Kerry-McCain resolution that had been scheduled for Thursday has been postponed , amid questions over whether it had the votes to clear the committee.

Kerry spokesman Frederick Jones declined to comment on any efforts that might be underway to alter the measure. “Debate on the resolution will be taken up as soon as the business meeting is rescheduled,” he said.

Sen. Richard Lugar (Ind.), the top Republican on the Foreign Relations panel, wrote in a much-noticed Washington Post op-ed Monday that the White House should “understand the significance of [the House] vote, abandon its plans for a nonbinding resolution in the Senate and proceed to seek the requisite debate and authorization for the use of military force.”

A Lugar spokesman said Tuesday afternoon said the senator was waiting to see what alternative resolutions were offered before deciding what he would support.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) told reporters Tuesday he had spoken to both McCain and Kerry, “and I've told them that I am going to do my utmost, either through a bill that comes out of the Foreign Relations Committee or use some of the procedural avenues I have to bring something to the floor so we can have that debate.”

As for other measures, Reid said: “We're going to have lots of opportunities to vote on different things on how people feel about Libya . So I don't think it's -- I'll be happy to look at every different idea that people have, from [Sen.] Rand Paul [R-Ky.] to whoever else wants to bring something up.”

Webb, a former Navy secretary, has been outspoken in criticizing the administration's approach to Libya . At a hearing last month , Webb said he was troubled by Obama's use of the military in a situation where “we were not under attack, we were not under a threat of an attack, we were not implementing a treaty, we were not rescuing American citizens [and] we were not responding directly to an incident.”

Webb added that the decision “could set a very disturbing precedent for how decisions are made for the use of force.”

Budget Proposals Guts Clean Water Act

June 2, 2011 • rpurnell

As negotiations for fiscal year 2012 budgets continue in the U.S. House of Representatives, sportsmen-conservationists are criticizing a measure that would defund the administration's work on Clean Water Act guidance that is crucial to sustaining wetlands and waterways, the Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership announced today.

The House Appropriations Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development met this morning to deliberate and mark up the FY 2012 budget for the Army Corps of Engineers and other water development agencies, including the measure that would strip protections for clean water and habitat. “None of the funds made available by this Act or any subsequent Act making appropriations for Energy and Water Development may be used by the Corps of Engineers to develop, adopt, implement, administer or enforce a change or supplement to the rule … or guidance documents … pertaining to the definition of waters under the jurisdiction of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act,” it reads.

“While sportsmen understand the need for fiscal conservatism, this rash decision by Congress leaves vulnerable waters that provide critical habitat to fish and wildlife, flood control, drinking water and a range of other benefits,” said Steve Kline, director of the TRCP Center for Agricultural and Private Lands. “We urge House appropriators to reconsider this budgetary measure, which takes several steps backward in our efforts to restore Clean Water Act protections to the nation's streams and wetlands.”

The TRCP and its partners welcomed proposed guidance issued by the administration in April that would more clearly define which U.S. waters are subject to Clean Water Act protections, a move that would begin restoring long-standing protections to many of the nation's wetlands, streams, lakes and headwaters that have remained threatened in the wake of two ambiguous Supreme Court decisions and subsequent agency guidance.

“Americans support clean water, and we recognize that responsibly managing our headwaters and wetlands is essential to that goal,” said Jan Goldman-Carter, wetlands and water resources counsel for the National Wildlife Federation and co-chair of the TRCP Wetlands and Clean Water Working Group. “Conserving drinking water, protecting communities from flooding and sustaining fish and wildlife habitat and local economies are objectives of the administration's Clean Water Act guidance, and we are deeply disappointed that Congress would undertake any actions that undermine these goals.”

“It's ironic that this provision would bar the Corps from doing the one thing that almost everyone agrees should happen – revising its regulations to more clearly define ‘waters of the United States,'” said Scott Kovarovics, conservation director for the Izaak Walton League of America and working group member. “If this provision became law, it would lock in the status quo that threatens drinking water for 117 million Americans and the most productive duck habitat in the country.”

The TRCP and its partners on the TRCP's Wetlands and Clean Water Working Group , including Ducks Unlimited, the Izaak Walton League of America, the National Wildlife Federation and Trout Unlimited, have been promoting restoration of protections for the nation's wetlands and clean waters. Recent budget deliberations have repeatedly threatened the sportsmen's efforts to conserve these resources.

“Hunters and anglers are strongly opposed to this policy rider, and our vigorous opposition helped defeat a similarly ill-conceived rider when the House passed the FY 11 Continuing Resolution, or HR 1, earlier this year,” said Steve Moyer, vice president of government affairs for Trout Unlimited and WCWWG co-chair. “Sportsmen know the Clean Water Act is a vital safety net for fish and wildlife resources that is being partially repaired by the Corps-EPA guidance. The guidance is reasonable, science-based, consistent with the Clean Water Act and beneficial to fish, wildlife and the public; therefore, sportsmen will do everything in our power to stop the rider.”

The proposed Clean Water Act guidance would begin restoring protections for intermittent streams that sustain critical fisheries and feed the public drinking water systems for more than 117 million Americans and at least 20 million acres of the nation's wetlands, particularly prairie potholes and wetlands essential to waterfowl. The guidance is available for public comment and review until July 1.

UPDATE: CFTC To Hold Open Meeting On Dodd-Frank Effective Dates

(Adds details in first and second paragraphs; background in seventh-ninth paragraphs; and lawyer's comments on derivatives market in 10th-11th paragraphs)

WASHINGTON (Dow Jones)--The Commodity Futures Trading Commission said Tuesday that members will meet next week to consider a fix to allow the over-the-counter derivatives market to operate as usual until they finish new rules, answering industry concern about what will happen after regulators miss the July deadline set out in the Dodd-Frank law.

Regulators have proposed sweeping new rules for financial markets mandated by Dodd-Frank, but have ...

http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20110607-712517.html

Resource Record Details

Procedure Memorandum No. 62 - TSDN Submittal and FEDD File Review Protocol for Mapping Projects

Resource Record Cover Image Thumbnail - pl_memo62.jpgProcedure Memorandum No. 62 Amends the Guidelines and Standards for Flood Hazard Mapping Partners regarding Technical Support Data Notebook (TSDN) submittals and establishes Flood Elevation Determination Docket (FEDD) file review protocols for mapping projects. This memorandum emphasizes the importance of timely and complete submission of Flood Insurance Study support data and provides a revised timeline for those submissions. The memorandum further reiterates and clarifies mapping partner responsibilities to ensure that all TSDNs and FEDD Files are accurate and complete.


Document Details:

Media Type:

File

Availability:

Online

Language:

English

Description/Comment:

Procedure Memo No. 62

Add to My BookshelfAdd to My Bookshelf

Resource File:

View / Download / Print   (pdf 744K)

 

 

508 Accessible Format:

View / Download / Print   (txt 2K)

 

Media Type:

File

Availability:

Online

Language:

English

Description/Comment:

Procedure Memo No. 62 TSDN submittal and FEDD File Review Protocol for Mapping Projects

Add to My BookshelfAdd to My Bookshelf

Resource File:

View / Download / Print   (pdf 193K)

 

 

508 Accessible Format:

View / Download / Print   (txt 8K)

 

Media Type:

File

Availability:

Online

Language:

English

Description/Comment:

Flood Elevation Determination Docket (FEDD) Checklist

Add to My BookshelfAdd to My Bookshelf

Resource File:

View / Download / Print   (pdf 118K)

 

 

508 Accessible Format:

View / Download / Print   (txt 2K)

 

Media Type:

File

Availability:

Online

Language:

English

Description/Comment:

Technical Study Data Notebook (TSDN) Inventory Checklist

Add to My BookshelfAdd to My Bookshelf

Resource File:

View / Download / Print   (pdf 175K)

 

 

508 Accessible Format:

View / Download / Print   (txt 6K)

* The social media links provided are for reference only. FEMA does not endorse any non-government Web sites, companies or applications.

FEMA logo
Federal Emergency Management Agency
U.S. Department of Homeland Security
500 C Street SW , Washington , D.C. 20472
(202) 646-2500


DisasterAssistance.gov logo
(800) 621-FEMA / TTY (800) 462-7585
3 Step Guide for Assistance

READY.gov logo

Lubricious Medical Coatings From Bayer MaterialScience

Coatings

Baymedix CL 100 coatings' performance surpasses established standards, demonstrates durability under stress.

Manufacturing Group June 8, 2011

Bayer MaterialScience LLC announces new measurements that illustrate the durability of its Baymedix CL 100 lubricious coating technology. Catheters with Baymedix CL 100 coatings, subjected to demanding simulated-use tests, released far fewer wear particles than the levels defined by the United States Pharmacopeia (USP) 788 standard.

Medical devices used inside the body shed wear particles during use – a phenomenon known as particulation. To reduce risk to patients, manufacturers seek to minimize the release of these particles. Hydrophilic lubricious coatings, used on devices like cardiovascular catheters, are particularly susceptible to particulation: the water they absorb makes them slippery when wet and easier for physicians to use, but it also makes them weaker. The stress of being inserted into narrow tortuous blood vessels can break particles off the surface of a coated catheter.

The unique technology behind the Baymedix CL 100 lubricious coating product gives it an advantage in particulation resistance. Because the polymer coating is grown directly from a material surface, it is extensively bonded to the substrate through strong covalent linkages. This bonding, along with the polymer entanglement that strengthens the coating itself, helps create an especially durable coating resistant to particle generation.

To quantify particulation, device engineers often use the USP standard 788, “Particulate Matter in Injections.”  The data is sometimes used to support manufacturers' applications to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to market certain medical devices.

In the simulated-use test performed on a Baymedix CL 100-coated catheter, the coating performance far exceeded the established standards.  The number of generated particles greater than 10 microns in diameter was 59 percent below the limit defined by USP 788, and the number of particles greater than 25 microns was 78 percent below the limit.

The key to meaningful particulation testing is generating the particles using an appropriate test. Jeffrey Motley, R&D manager for the Bayer MaterialScience Medical Coatings Development Centre in the United Kingdom , explains: “FDA guidelines state that the generation of particulates should be performed to as closely as possible resemble the actual use of the device.”  Bayer used a coronary vascular model relevant to many of its customers' devices. 

Notably, Bayer was able to achieve its results with the demanding method of repeated insertion and removal of the device through a highly tortuous glass path. Said Motley, “We believe it represents a worst-case scenario in terms of usage.”

Paul Nowatzki, business development manager for Bayer MaterialScience LLC, offered some perspective. “These results support the conviction we have had for a long time – that Baymedix CL 100 coatings offer superior durability and particulation resistance.”

Bayer MaterialScience has a team of professionals exclusively dedicated to the development and commercialization of its Baymedix™ portfolio of materials for medical devices, which includes drug-eluting coatings and materials for wound care applications.

Bayer MaterialScience LLC is one of the leading producers of polymers and high-performance plastics in North America and is part of the global Bayer MaterialScience business with approximately 14,700 employees at 30 production sites around the world and 2010 sales of 10.2 billion euros. The company manufactures high-tech polymer materials and develops innovative solutions for products used in many areas of daily life. The main segments served are the automotive, electrical and electronics, construction, medical, and sports and leisure industries. Sustainability is central to Bayer MaterialScience LLC's business and is based around the key areas of innovation, product stewardship, excellence in corporate management, social responsibility and respect for the environment.

Benefit from putting NOAA in Interior Department

June 08, 2011 12:00 AM

A proposal to combine two federal departments could bring significant changes to the policies that control commercial fishing.

A bill filed in Washington two weeks ago by North Carolina Republican Sen. Richard Burr would combine the departments of Commerce and Labor into a new Department of Commerce and the Workforce.

"In his State of the Union address this year," Burr said, "the president proposed merging and consolidating federal agencies, and this bill advances that proposal. This common-sense approach reduces duplication by combining offices with similar functions within these two agencies and would streamline our approach to comprehensive economic policy."

Enactment would transfer the Small Business Administration into the new department, and, most importantly for the fishing industry, it would transfer the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to the Department of the Interior.

The "intangibles" of such a change could fill the hold of a Russian factory ship, but there is plenty of food for thought in the idea.

The Commerce Department, which today controls NOAA, is about to lose its leader, as Gary Locke was nominated by President Obama in March to be the next ambassador to China . Nominated to replace him is John Bryson.

Bryson is a co-founder of the Natural Resources Defense Council. This has pricked up the ears of fishing interests, who are wary, to say the least, of how badly things could go, considering how bad they already are.

Stifling regulations and capricious enforcement of the industry in the Northeast have idled the region's boats, putting fishermen and the businesses that support them under stress and, frequently, out of business.

And while Locke has recently admitted errors in enforcement, what it took to get that admission gives little hope for long-term improvement in the department's treatment of the industry.

Those looking at Bryson as the future of the Department of Commerce have tried to temper their skepticism of the co-founder of the NRDC, a group Reps. Barney Frank and John Tierney called one of "those environmental organizations that has reflexively attacked the fishing industry inaccurately and without any real environmental basis."

More charitable critics have noted that Bryson hasn't been with the group for 15 years. His attitude now remains to be seen.

Another of Bryson's credentials is that he is a senior adviser for Kohlberg Kravis Roberts & Co., which has been a partner since 2008 with the Environmental Defense Fund, a frequent antagonist for commercial fishing interests.

Working under the secretary is NOAA chief administrator Jane Lubchenco, who before being named by the president to run the agency was a board vice chairman for the Environmental Defense Fund.

Presumably, if NOAA were to move to the Department of the Interior, Lubchenco would go with it, but there are some characteristics of that department that are worth keeping in mind.

Interior Secretary Ken Salazar runs a department that overseas approximately one-fifth of the land in the U.S. It oversees the National Park Service and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

Environmental groups weren't pleased at the time of his nomination, because they worried he wouldn't properly balance their concerns and those of energy developers. The groups are not unaccustomed to expressing their outrage with Salazar's decisions on mining and energy exploration.

No one can say whether putting NOAA under Interior instead of Commerce would improve the lot of Northeast fishermen, but Interior's mission is more suited to the regulation of natural resources and has services already dealing with common issues.

If the regulatory process were to take a turn toward the fishing industry, the risk of overfishing exists, but we're confident the EDF and its allies will continue to be vocal. It would be good for the process if some other voices could be given an equal hearing for a change.

NOAA, Commerce still have more to repay

By Reidar Bendiksen

Reidar Bendiksen lives
in Dartmouth .

June 08, 2011 12:00 AM

For NOAA and the Department of Commerce to actually come out, apologize, and admit wrongdoings is a first, but to actually pay reparations to people who they put out of business at first glance looks like they are finally getting major egg on their faces.

In the case of Larry Yacubian, it was a very excessive penalty, indeed, and he rightfully deserves to get most of the fines down to a reasonable level. But the $400,000 that is being returned to him amounts to a Band-aid applied to a wound that requires at least a dozen stitches. What about the expenses to fight this case? What about his operators permit, his scalloping permit, and his boat, that at today's market would be worth $4 million to $5 million? And to top it off, the loss of opportunity to participate in the last 10 year's scalloping gold rush-like rewards?

The other side of the matter is he did break the rules, but so did many others at that time. Scalloping was a hard business. Boats were working at a thousand pounds a day or less, and outlook for the future was rather dim. A few years after the world court gave the northeast peak of Georges Bank to the Canadians, scallops showed up across the line in Canadian waters. This unleashed a flurry of poaching activity among a group of scallopers. Both the Canadian and U.S. Coast Guards were going nuts trying to keep them from violating boundary laws. Some boats even steamed into Canadian waters on Christmas Eve, figuring patrols take a break over Christmas.

This and the scallop meat count law created a cat and mouse game between fishermen, Coast Guard and enforcement. I suspect from these situations, closed area No. 1 was strategically placed there with dual purposes: to keep scallopers from poaching and to create a sanctuary for fish. When they finally caught someone doing something illegal, they often made an example out of them even if the punishment didn't fit the offense. As in the case with Yacubian, the judge at the head of that government kangaroo court absolutely ruined his fishing career.

Let us revisit the Catch Share Sector system that is responsible for evicting 50 percent of formerly active participants mainly because of lack of allocations. I read in The Standard-Times the Cape Cod Commercial Hookers Association received three times their historical landings in quota, plus special access to grounds closed to the trawler fleet. The CCCHA was able to sell 70 percent of its allocations to trawlers and still have enough for the year. No wonder they brag about the Catch Share system.

On the flip side, the region's small and medium-size trawlers' quota allotments amounted to only 20 percent of their historical landings. Sixty percent of the fleet was effectively driven out of business because there was not enough quota to go around. So, what laws did these people break to deserve such harsh treatment? Treatment resulting in losing their boats, houses, livelihood and even in some cases their family! Is NOAA and Commerce going to apologize to them? I think they should, because NOAA, NMFS, EDF, NEFMC still don't acknowledge that they ever existed. When you mention any of this to anyone from the above mentioned agencies you only get a blank stare in return, no comment.

It is one thing to evict people from their livelihoods for a just reason, a violation, breaking the rules and so on, but it is a completely different matter when innocent people get this treatment from the stroke of a pen, a council vote or because certain groups just don't want them around for whatever reason. The end result is the same. I cannot believe how the CCCHA could be rewarded three times allocations. It must be NOAA stole quota from the draggers' already sparse allocations to give to the Hookers Association so they were sure to have a very successful model sector.

This is supposed to be a country of freedom and justice. I remember my father once told me: "In this country, if someone has a chance to make personal gains from other people's demise and misfortunes, they consider them people smart over here." I can see what he meant. I cannot believe it also pertains to NOAA. I think apologies and reparations should also be handed out to innocent catch share victims, with even greater urgency than the lawbreakers, no matter how serious or minor their offences were. I think NOAA and the Department of Commerce ought to take a good look at who and how many people have gotten hurt because of their "playing God" schemes and do the right thing for a change. And perhaps we can save what is left of this very important industry.

The Global Debt Crisis, How We Got In It, and How to Get Out

Interest-Rates / Global Debt Crisis Jun 07, 2011 - 06:38 AM

By: Ellen_Brown

Interest-Rates

Diamond Rated - Best Financial Markets Analysis ArticleCountries everywhere are facing debt crises today, precipitated by the credit collapse of 2008.  Public services are being slashed and public assets are being sold off, in a futile attempt to balance budgets that can't be balanced because the money supply itself has shrunk.  Governments usually get the blame for excessive spending, but governments did not initiate the crisis.  The collapse was in the banking system, and in the credit that it is responsible for creating and sustaining.

 

1Contrary to popular belief, most of our money today is not created by governments.  It is created by private banks as loans.  The private system of money creation has grown so powerful over the centuries that it has come to dominate governments globally.  The system, however, contains the seeds of its own destruction.  The source of its power is also a fatal design flaw.

The flaw is that banks advance “bank credit” that must be paid back with interest, while having no obligation to spend the interest they collect so that borrowers can earn it again and again, as they must in order to retire the debt.  Instead, this money is invested in various casinos beyond the borrowers' reach. This leads to a continual systemic need for more new bank credit money, more debt with more interest attached, to prevent widespread defaults and deflationary collapse.

Today this problem is particularly evident in the EU.  The Euro is a fixed currency system that does not allow for expansion to meet the demands of the private lending casino.  The result is that EU member nations collectively are being crippled by debt. 

There are more sustainable ways to run a banking and credit system, as will be shown.

How Banks Create Money

The process by which banks create money was explained by the Chicago Federal Reserve in a booklet called “ Modern Money Mechanics .”  It states:

“The actual process of money creation takes place primarily in banks.” [p3]

“[Banks] do not really pay out loans from the money they receive as deposits.  If they did this, no additional money would be created.  What they do when they make loans is to accept promissory notes in exchange for credits to the borrowers' transaction accounts.  Loans (assets) and deposits (liabilities) both rise [by the same amount].” [p6]   

“With a uniform 10 percent reserve requirement, a $1 increase in reserves would support $10 of additional transaction accounts.”  [p49]

A $100 deposit supports a $90 loan, which becomes a $90 deposit in another bank, which supports an $81 loan, etc.

That's the conventional model, but banks actually create the loans FIRST.  (Picture how a credit card works.)  Banks need deposits to clear their outgoing checks, but they find the deposits later.  Banks create money as loans, which become checks, which go into other banks.  Then, if needed to clear the checks, they borrow the money back from the other banks.  In effect, they borrow back the money they just created, pocketing the spread between the interest rates as their profit.  The rate at which banks can borrow from each other in the U.S. today (the Fed funds rate) is an extremely low 0.2%.

How the System Evolved

The current system of privately-issued money is traced in “Modern Money Mechanics” to the 17th century goldsmiths.  People who left gold with the goldsmiths for safekeeping would be issued paper receipts for it called “banknotes.”  Other people who wanted to borrow money were also happy to accept paper banknotes in place of gold, since the notes were safer and more convenient to carry around.  The sleight of hand came in when the goldsmiths discovered that people would come for their gold only about 10% of the time.  That meant that up to ten times as many notes could be printed and lent as the goldsmiths had gold.  Ninety percent of the notes were basically counterfeited.

This system was called “fractional reserve” banking and was institutionalized when the Bank of England was founded in 1694.  The bank was allowed to lend its own banknotes to the government, forming the national money supply. Only the interest on the loans had to be paid. The debt was rolled over indefinitely.

That is still true today. The U.S. federal debt is never paid off but just continues to grow, forming the basis of the U.S. money supply.   

The Public Banking Alternative

There are other ways to create a banking system, ways that would eliminate its ponzi-scheme elements and make the system sustainable.  One solution is to make the loans interest-free; but for Western economies today, that transition could be difficult. 

Another alternative is for banks to be publicly-owned.  If the people collectively own the bank, the interest and profits go back to the government and the people, who benefit from decreased taxes, increased public services, and cheaper public infrastructure.  Cutting out interest has been shown to reduce the cost of public projects by 30-50%.

In the United States , this system of publicly-owned banks goes back to the American colonists.  The best of the colonial models was in Benjamin Franklin's colony of Pennsylvania , where the government operated a “land bank.”  Money was printed and lent into the community.  It recycled back to the government and could be lent and relent.  The system was mathematically sound because the interest and profits were returned to the government, which then spent the money back into the economy in place of taxes.  Private banks, by contrast, generally lend their profits back into the economy, or invest in private money-making ventures in which more is always expected back than was originally invested. 

During the period that the Pennsylvania system was in place, the colonists paid no taxes except excise taxes, prices did not inflate, and there was no government debt.

How Private Banknotes Became the National U.S. Currency

The Pennsylvania system was sustainable, but some early American colonial governments just printed and spent, inflating the money supply and devaluing the currency.  The British merchants complained, prompting King George II to forbid the colonists to issue their own money.  Taxes had to be paid to England in gold.  That meant going into debt to the English bankers.  The result was a massive depression.  The colonists finally rebelled and went back to issuing their own money, precipitating the American Revolution. 

In an international first, the colonists funded a war against a major power with mere paper receipts, and won.  But the British counterattacked by waging a currency war.  They massively counterfeited the colonists' paper money, at a time when this was easy to do.  By the end of the war, the paper scrip was virtually worthless.  After it lost its value, the colonists were so disillusioned with paper money that they left the power to issue it out of the U.S. Constitution.

Meanwhile, Alexander Hamilton, the first U.S. Treasury Secretary, was faced with huge war debts, and he had no money to pay them.  He therefore resorted to the ruse used in England known as fractional reserve banking.  In 1791, Hamilton set up the First U.S. Bank, a largely private bank that would print banknotes “backed” by gold and lend them to the government. 

The ruse worked: the paper banknotes expanded the money supply, the debts were paid, and the economy thrived.  But it was the beginning of a system of government funded by debt to private bankers, who lent banknotes only nominally backed by gold. 

During the American Civil War, President Lincoln avoided a crippling war debt by returning to the system of government-issued money of the American colonists.  He issued U.S. Notes from the Treasury called “Greenbacks” rather than borrowing at usurious interest rates.  But Lincoln was assassinated, and Greenback issuance was halted.

In 1913, the privately-owned Federal Reserve was authorized to issue its own Federal Reserve Notes as the national currency. These notes were then lent to the government, eliminating the government's own power to issue money (except for coins).  The Federal Reserve was set up to prevent bank runs, but twenty years later we had the Great Depression, the greatest bank run in history.  Robert H. Hemphill, Credit Manager of the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta , wrote in 1934:

“We are completely dependent on the commercial Banks.  Someone has to borrow every dollar we have in circulation, cash or credit.  If the Banks create ample synthetic money we are prosperous; if not, we starve.”

For the bankers, however, it was a good system.  It put them in control. 

Setting the Global Debt Trap

Prof. Carroll Quigley was an insider groomed by the international bankers.  He wrote in Tragedy and Hope in 1966:

“The powers of financial capitalism had another far reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole.  

“The apex of the system was to be the Bank for International Settlements [BIS] in Basle , Switzerland , a private bank owned and controlled by the world's central banks which were themselves private corporations.  Each central bank... sought to dominate its government by its ability to control Treasury loans…."   

The debt trap was set in stages.  In 1971, the dollar went off the gold standard internationally. Currencies were unpegged from gold and allowed to “float” in currency markets, competing with other currencies, making them vulnerable to speculation and manipulation.

In 1973, a secret agreement was entered into in which the OPEC countries would sell oil only in dollars, and the price of oil would be dramatically increased.  By 1974, oil prices had increased by 400% from 1971 levels.  Countries lacking oil had to borrow dollars from U.S. banks.

In 1981, the Fed funds rate was raised to 20%.  At 20% compound interest, debt doubles in under four years.  As a result, most of the world became crippled by debt.  By 2001, developing nations had repaid the principal originally owed on their debts six times over; but their total debt had quadrupled because of interest payments.

When debtor nations could not pay the banks, the International Monetary Fund stepped in with loans -- with strings attached.  The debtors had to agree to “austerity measures,” including:

Today, austerity measures are being imposed not just in developing countries but in the European Union and on U.S. States. 

The BIS: Apex of the Private Central Banking Pyramid

What Professor Quigley foretold about the Bank for International Settlements (BIS) has also come to pass.  The BIS now has 55 member nations and heads the global financial pyramid. 

The power of the BIS was seen in 1988, when it raised the capital requirement of its member banks from 6% to 8% in an accord called Basel I.  The result was to cripple the Japanese banks, which until then were the world's largest creditors. Japan entered a recession from which it has not yet recovered.

U.S. banks managed to escape by dodging the capital requirement.  They did this by moving loans off their books, bundling them up as “securities,” and selling them to investors.   

To persuade the investors to buy them, these mortgage-backed securities were protected against default with “derivatives,” which were basically just bets.  The “protection seller” collected a premium for agreeing to pay in the event of default.  The “protection buyer” bought the premium. Owning the asset was not required.  Like gamblers at a horse race, derivative players could bet without owning a horse. 

Derivatives became a very popular form of gambling.  The result was the mother of all bubbles, exceeding $500 trillion by the end of 2007. 

Because of securitization and derivatives, credit mushroomed.  Virtually anyone who walked in the door could get a loan. 

The tipping point came in August 2007, with the collapse of two hedge funds.  When the derivatives scheme was exposed, the market for derivative-protected securities suddenly dried up.  But the U.S. stock market did not collapse until November 2007, when new accounting rules were imposed.  The rules grew out of the Basel II Accords initiated by the BIS in 2004.  “Mark to market” accounting required banks to value their assets according to market demand that day.  Many U.S. banks, like those in Japan in the 1990s, suddenly had insufficient capital to make new loans. The result was a credit crisis from which the U.S. has not yet recovered.

The BIS has now become global regulator, just as Quigley foresaw.  In April 2009, the G20 nations agreed to be regulated by a Financial Stability Board based in the BIS, and to comply with “standards and codes” set by the Board.  The codes are only guidelines, but countries that fail to comply risk downgrades in their credit ratings, something so costly that the guidelines have effectively become laws. 

An article on the BIS website states that central banks in the Central Bank Governance Network should have as their single or primary objective “to preserve price stability.”  That means governments should not devalue the national currency by inflating the money supply; and that means not “printing money” or borrowing credit created by their own central banks.  Like the American colonies after King George took away their power to issue their own money, governments must fund their deficits by borrowing from private banks.  The bankers' global control over currency issuance has become virtually complete.

The effects of this policy are particularly evident in the European Union, where EU rules allow deficits of only 3% of government budgets and prevent member countries from either issuing their own money or borrowing credit advanced by their own central banks.  Member nations must borrow instead from the European Central Bank, private international banks, or the IMF.  The result has been forced austerity measures, as seen in Greece and Ireland .  The system is so unsustainable that commentators are predicting that the EU may break up.   

The Way Out: Return the Money Power to Public Control

To escape the debt trap of the global bankers, the power to create the national money supply needs to be restored to national governments.  Alternatives include:

      ·         Legal tender issued directly by national treasuries and spent on national budgets. 

Publicly-owned banks have been successfully established and operated in many countries, including Australia , New Zealand , Canada , Germany , Switzerland , India , China , Japan , Korea , and Malaysia .  

In the United States there is currently only one state-owned bank, the Bank of North Dakota.  The model, however, has proven to be highly successful.  North Dakota is the only U.S. state to have escaped the credit crisis unscathed.  In 2009, while other states floundered, North Dakota had its largest budget surplus ever.  In 2008, the Bank of North Dakota (BND) had a return on equity of 25%.  North Dakota has the lowest unemployment rate in the country and the lowest default rate on loans.  It also has the most local banks per capita.

North Dakota has had its own bank since 1919, when  farmers were losing their farms to the Wall Street bankers.  They organized, won an election, and passed legislation.  The state is required by law to deposit all its revenues in the BND.  Like with the sustainable model of the bank of colonial Pennsylvania , interest and profits are returned to the government and to the local economy.

A growing movement is afoot in the United States to copy this public banking model in other states.  Fourteen U.S. state legislatures have now initiated bills for state-owned banks.

The model could also be replicated in other countries.  In Ireland , for example, where the major banks are insolvent and are already nationalized or soon will be, the government could deposit its revenues in its own publicly-owned banks, add sufficient capital to meet capital requirements, and leverage these funds to create interest-free credit for its own local needs.  That is exactly what Alexander Hamilton did when faced with government debts that were impossible to repay: he put the government's existing funds in a bank, then borrowed the money back several times over, employing the accepted “fractional reserve” model. 

Japan 's solution is also a variant of what Alexander Hamilton proposed two centuries earlier.  Japan retains its status as the third largest economy in the world although it has a debt to GDP ratio of 226%.  Japan has “monetized” the national debt, turning it into the national money supply.  The government-owned Bank of Japan holds Japanese government debt equal to 100% of the nation's GDP; and because the government owns the bank, this loan is interest-free and can be rolled over indefinitely.  An interest-free loan rolled over indefinitely is the equivalent of issuing money. 

Ellen Brown developed her research skills as an attorney practicing civil litigation in Los Angeles . In Web of Debt, her latest book, she turns those skills to an analysis of the Federal Reserve and “the money trust.” She shows how this private cartel has usurped the power to create money from the people themselves, and how we the people can get it back. Her earlier books focused on the pharmaceutical cartel that gets its power from “the money trust.” Her eleven books include Forbidden Medicine, Nature's Pharmacy (co-authored with Dr. Lynne Walker), and The Key to Ultimate Health (co-authored with Dr. Richard Hansen). Her websites are www.webofdebt.com and www.ellenbrown.com .

Ellen Brown is a frequent contributor to Global Research.   Global Research Articles by Ellen Brown

© Copyright Ellen Brown , Global Research, 2011

Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Centre for Research on Globalization. The contents of this article are of sole responsibility of the author(s). The Centre for Research on Globalization will not be responsible or liable for any inaccurate or incorrect statements contained in this article.

History of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

Tuesday, June 14 2:00p to 3:00p

at Bay Model Visitor Center , Sausalito , CA

Join Ranger Bill to learn about the "When/Where/Why/What/How," the diverse, complex, many faceted missions, goals and objectives of the USACE's "Birth" in 1775 under President George Washington.

websiteEvent Website

Categories: Talks & Lectures , History

Creator:   Bay Model

CONGRATULATIONS CLASS OF 2011

Nurses Rally for Health Care Funding
New York Times (blog)
Senator Barbara Boxer , Democrat of California, also spoke. “The Republicans once had a 'Contract With America,'” Mrs. Boxer said, referring to the agenda the Republican Party used to capture the House in 1994. “I'm ready for a good contract, ...
See all stories on this topic »

 

EPA Wants to Take More Than One Year to Decide on a Clean Air Act Permit? How Absurd!

Posted on June 2, 2011 by Seth Jaffe

The uncertain and often lengthy time to get permitting decisions is always near the top of the list of industry complaints. Section 165 of the Clean Air Act provides some relief by requiring certain permit decisions to be made within one year. Last week, in Avenal Power Center v. EPA , District Judge Richard Leon, in what may comfortably be described as a strongly-worded opinion, held that EPA may not circumvent the one-year limit on permit decisions by carving out from the one-year period the time spent by the Environmental Appeals Board reviewing EPA's permit decision. 

In March 2008, Avenal Power filed an application for a PSD permit necessary to construct a new gas-fired power plant in the San Joaquin Valley in California. When EPA had not issued a decision within two years, Avenal sued. In February 2011, Gina McCarthy, head of EPA's air office, announced that EPA would issue a permit decision by May 27, 2011. However, Judge Leon found EPA's commitment to be “disingenuous,” because EPA's permit decision would be subject to EAB review, and EPA acknowledged that EAB review could take 6-18 months.

Judge Leon's analysis was, in keeping with the statutory language, quite simple. Section 165 requires permit decisions within one year. EPA's decision to provide appeals of permits to the EAB is a creature of regulation, not statute. The notion that EPA's regulatory process could trump the statutory requirements is, to Judge Leon, “absurd.”

It is axiomatic that an act of Congress that is patently clear and unambiguous - such as this requirement in the CAA - cannot be overridden by a regulatory process created for the convenience of an Administrator, no matter how much notice and comment preceded its creation. "The rulemaking power granted to an administrative agency charged with the administration of a federal statute is not the power to make law. Rather it is the power to adopt regulations to carry into effect the will of Congress as expressed by the statute."

EPA apparently tried to persuade the court that section 165 is sufficiently ambiguous to give EPA discretion regarding whether it must squeeze the EAB process into the one-year time frame. Judge Leon's response to what he called EPA's “self-serving misinterpretation of Congress's mandate”?

"Horsefeathers! "

One parochial note for my Massachusetts readers: Massachusetts DEP has recently announced that its permits – although labeled as “Final” – are not final until DEP's own internal adjudicatory hearing process has been completed. Massachusetts law has nothing comparable to Section 165 of the CAA, so MassDEP's interpretation adds the insult of delay inherent in adjudicatory proceedings to the injury caused by the length of the normal permit process..

Lawsuit over Central Valley water pollution planned

SACRAMENTO
June 7, 2011 11:21am

A federal lawsuit is to be filed to get water pollution control standards enforced and to restore the ecological health of the San Joaquin River and Bay-Delta estuary, says a group of fishing and conservation groups Tuesday.

The notice to sue is required under the Clean Water Act.

The planned lawsuit contends that irrigating crops on the west side of the San Joaquin Valley leaches selenium from the soil, eventually sending it to the San Joaquin River and from there into the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta and San Francisco Bay.

“For decades, state and federal officials have looked the other way and refused to enforce water pollution control standards that restrict the discharge of this toxic substance into the San Joaquin River and other tributaries of the Bay-Delta Estuary,” say the groups bringing the lawsuit, Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's Associations, California Sportfishing Protection Alliance, Friends of the River and San Francisco Crab Boat Owners Association.

The legal action was trigged by a March 17 announcement by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency that it would allow selenium discharges to continue another 10 years, “in direct violation of the Clean Water Act's mandate that the nation's waters be both swimmable and fishable,” the groups say.

“For decades, these west side irrigators have received a free pass to pollute,” says Bill Jennings of the California Sportfishing Protection Alliance. “It's time to enforce the law and make these polluters meet protective water quality standards.”

ARPA-E energy leader to meet with NanoMech

By: Business Wire Jun. 7, 2011

Arkansas-based NanoMech, Inc. will host Dr. Arun Majumdar, founding Director of the Department of Energy's Advanced Research Projects Agency (ARPA-E), at the company's Springdale manufacturing plant and laboratory at 10 a.m. Tuesday, June 7. Majumdar's visit was arranged by U.S. Rep. Steve Womack of Rogers after the Congressman visited NanoMech with U.S. Secretary of the Treasury, Mr. Timothy Geithner.

ARPA-E is the country's only agency devoted to transformational energy research and development, and Majumdar is the agency's first director. He also serves as Senior Advisor to U.S. Secretary of Energy Dr. Steven Chu, a Nobel Prize winner. Dr. Majumdar is a distinguished member of the National Academy of Engineering (NAE). Majumdar will be accompanied on his trip by Peder Maarbjerg, Assistant Director for External Coordination at ARPA-E, and Nick Cizek, an ARPA-E fellow.

During Majumdar's visit, NanoMech will reveal and share a new lubricant additive invention produced under its revolutionary NanoGlide ® technology platform. NanoGlide has been described as the world's first multi-component nanomanufactured lubricant. This radical innovation virtually eliminates friction and wear at “energy hungry” mating surfaces under the harshest frictional conditions, called boundary lubrication. This scientific and product innovation breakthrough originated from partial support by the Department of Energy (DOE), the Department of Defense (DOD) and the National Science Foundation (NSF) and will greatly reduce friction and wear for critical energy sectors using machinery in extreme pressure conditions. NanoGlide delivers a drop-in advanced material solution ready to plug into the $50 billion global grease and oil lubricant market. Near future developments for NanoGlide are in form factors such as oil additives which extend life of oil by 10-30 percent.

NanoMech Chief Executive Officer Jim Phillips said NanoMech plays a vital role in creating next generation energy-conserving solutions and performance advancements for a country dependent on foreign oil. By increasing the reliability and energy efficiency of vehicles, locomotives, wind turbines, diesel-powered trucks and other vital transport and machines, NanoMech directly solves the most critical challenges facing our country by dramatically increasing the use of renewable energy sources, reducing dependence on foreign energy sources and increasing productivity of U.S. industries.

As the Director of ARPA-E, Majumdar is responsible for finding and funding innovative energy technologies such as NanoGlide.

The breakthrough invention of NanoGlide was partially the result of a $1 million plus grant for innovation research from the Department of Energy through stimulus funding.

“DOE provided the funding, and we delivered results and simulated knowledge based job growth. And we did it in half the time expected for launch Gen 1.0 grease product,” said Dr. Ajay P. Malshe, NanoMech founder and Chief Technology Officer. Many other energy solutions are in various stages of development in NanoMech labs that would qualify for DOE grants.

“This radical improvement in technology is something we can do now. It can be dropped into existing products around the world for sustainable future,” said Malshe. He estimates NanoGlide can extend the life of oil by up to 30 percent.

Terry Noland, Vice President and General Manager for NanoMech's fast-growing NanoGlide division, described its impact on the lubrication industry: “A reduction in friction and wear of 5 percent is considered a paradigm shift. What we're introducing is a 25-percent reduction. We didn't create grease, we just made it better,” he said.

TRAIN Act Takes Aim at EPA

By Elizabeth McGowan at SolveClimate

Tue Jun 7, 2011 1:00pm EDT

The TRAIN Act would create a multi-million dollar committee to conduct cost-benefit analyses of 10 EPA regs aimed at curbing GHGs and other pollutants

By Elizabeth McGowan, SolveClimate News

WASHINGTON—Those perceiving the Clean Air Act as a lumbering locomotive intent on flattening U.S. jobs, economic competitiveness and energy reliability hope the "TRAIN Act" makes more than a whistle-stop tour through Capitol Hill.

Conservationists, however, have an opposite take.

For them, the wheels can't come off soon enough from House legislation that is saddled with a cumbersome name — Transparency in Regulatory Analysis of Impacts on the Nation Act of 2011 — to create a cutesy but memorable acronym that lends itself to ridicule.

Press Release

Contact: Vaughn Jennings 202.225.2211

1
TRAIN Act Clears Energy and Power Subcommittee with Bipartisan Support


Washington, May 24  -

Today, Congressman John Sullivan, Vice Chairman of the Energy and Power Subcommittee, issued the following statement after the panel passed H.R. 1705, the Transparency in Regulatory Analysis of Impacts on the Nation Act of 2011 (TRAIN Act).  The bipartisan Sullivan/Matheson legislation requires an interagency committee to analyze the cumulative and incremental impacts of certain significant rules issued by the EPA in an effort to better understand how these regulations are impacting America's global economic competitiveness, electricity and fuel prices, employment, and reliability of electricity supply. The study will also analyze cumulative cost and benefit impacts and discuss the cumulative effects of EPA's rules on consumers; small businesses; state, local and tribal governments; labor markets; and agriculture. 

“Today's bipartisan vote on the TRAIN Act sends a clear signal that there is support across the board for reining in the EPA's regulatory train wreck.  Regulations being pushed by the Obama Administration will cost our country billions of dollars, negatively impacting everything from energy reliability, jobs, manufacturing to the overall global competitiveness of the United States.  Simply put, the American people and this Congress deserve to know exactly how much these regulations are costing our economy, and the TRAIN Act will bring the full impact of the EPA's regulatory train wreck to light.  I applaud my colleagues for passing this legislation and taking an important step towards protecting families, businesses and states across the country from burdensome regulations that drive up the cost of energy and place American jobs in jeopardy.”

H.R. 1705 was passed by voice vote and now moves to the full Energy and Commerce committee for further consideration. 

Satellite Technology Feature Article

June 07, 2011

Tea Party in Space Supports Democratic Senators on Heavy Lift Rocket Competition

Press Release: TEA Party in Space Supports Senators Feinstein and Boxer Demand For Open Competition On SLS Contracts

News Release
 
Release No. 0230.11
Contact:
USDA Office of Communications (202) 720-4623

Printable version
Email this pageEmail this page
Agriculture Secretary Vilsack and Partners Urge Action to Feed More Hungry Children This Summer
USDA Kicks-off First-Ever National Summer Food Service Program Awareness Week

WASHINGTON, June 6, 2011 – Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack today kicked-off the first-ever National Summer Food Service Program Week: " Food That's In When School Is Out ," a week-long awareness campaign to promote USDA's Summer Food Service Program (SFSP) and other initiatives across the country to feed low-income children during summer when school is out. The SFSP, a federally funded program designed to alleviate hunger during the summer, operates through partnerships between USDA, state agencies and local organizations.

"When it comes to our children, we must do everything possible to provide them the nutrition needed to be healthy, active and ready to win the future," said Vilsack. "But we also recognize that government cannot address this challenge alone, which is why this week we join our valued partners to raise awareness about the nutrition gap low-income children face when school is out of session. Working together, government, non-profit and faith-based organizations, as well as the public, can make sure children have access to nutritious food year round."

Today, at least 17 million children in the United States face a higher risk for hunger during the summer. Although more than 20 million children nationwide receive free and reduced-priced meals through the National School Lunch Program during the regular school year, little more than 3 million kids are fed in summer meal programs.

This week, USDA and its partners will redouble efforts to highlight the important nutrition benefits provided by the SFSP and other healthy meal options available for low-income children across the country. This summer:

- Let's Move! Faith and Communities (part of First Lady Michelle Obama's Let's Move! initiative) will work with partners to host new feeding sites at congregations and neighborhood organizations;

- the Corporation for National and Community Service's 515 AmeriCorps VISTA Summer Associates will work at anti-hunger organizations across the country to feed more children in programs, including the SFSP;

- sponsors will benefit from new waivers to simplify existing regulations in the SFSP to streamline ways to feed low-income children when school is out;

- several states will test innovative enhancements to the SFSP, including the provision of food backpacks to provide assistance over weekends, and meal delivery to reach children in rural areas.

"Each summer, millions of families struggle to provide their children with nutritious meals when schools close," said Kevin Concannon, Under Secretary for Food, Nutrition, and Consumer Services. "SFSP fills this gap by marshalling resources to curb food insecurity and end hunger for our nation's children.

To find a summer feeding site in your community, call the National Hunger Hotline at 1-866-3-Hungry or 1-877-8-Hambre." To find more ways you can help, search for volunteer opportunities at www.serve.gov/endhunger .

Improving child nutrition is the focal point of the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act signed into law by President Obama in December 2010. The legislation reauthorized the Summer Food Service Program and USDA's other child nutrition programs. The Act allows USDA, for the first time in over 30 years, the chance to make real reforms to school meals and increase access to these critical programs. The Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act is also the legislative centerpiece of First Lady Michelle Obama's Let's Move! initiative to end childhood obesity in a generation.

USDA's Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) oversees the administration of 15 nutrition assistance programs, including the Summer Food Service Program and other child nutrition programs, that touch the lives of one in four Americans over the course of a year. These programs work in concert to form a national safety net against hunger. Visit www.fns.usda.gov for information about FNS and nutrition assistance programs and go to http://www.fns.usda.gov/ech/ to see how you can help end childhood hunger.

#

Climate Science Links

U.S. Government

International

Academic, Non-Governmental

AgilQuest CEO to Share Workplace Technology Vision on GSA Panel

June 7, 2011

Government and industry leaders discuss lessons learned from workplace living labs.

RICHMOND, VA, June 07, 2011 /24-7PressRelease/ -- The federal government is deploying telework rapidly and the General Services Administration (GSA) is sharing its plans in a panel discussion at CoreNet's Eastern Regional Symposium. Led by Chief Asset Officer Gavin Bloch and special advisor Naomi Stanford, the panel will discuss how the agency is developing best practices and testing their approach through "living lab" implementations inside GSA. AgilQuest's CEO, John Vivadelli, has been chosen to share the vision behind the telework technology and workplace methodology GSA is implementing.

GSA has been a leader in sustainable buildings and continues to make sustainability a platform for transformation and innovation. The agency is working to reach a zero environmental footprint and to support alternative work strategies, paralleling the private sector's efforts to drive down costs and move towards more mobility overall. GSA is leading the federal government by developing, testing and implementing approaches to support the new mobile and home-based workforce and decreasing the need for office space. Bloch's panel will discuss the latest phase of these efforts in a provocative dialog between the participants.

The panel will discuss the challenges GSA faced when deploying its new workplace strategy, the technology to support it, the training and change management needed, and their facility redesigns. In short, everything a large organization needs to maintain worker productivity while taking cost out of real estate. With fewer dollars spent on office space and energy consumption, more of the budget can be used towards each agency's mission. That makes getting people comfortable with the new paradigm and developing the blueprint for other agencies critical.

Real-time occupancy studies of their workspace found that employees were highly mobile. GSA has since set a goal of reducing its real estate footprint dramatically in support of President Obama's real estate reduction directives. Executives are leading the way by hoteling at GSA headquarters.

"It is genuinely exciting to see GSA take a leadership role within the federal government effort to enhance telework and aggressively pursue deficit reduction. I'm proud that AgilQuest's services expertise and technology platforms enable GSA to keep the government workforce productive while reducing the amount of office space required. It's rare to see government leading the way and business following, but GSA is doing exactly what every stockholder and Board member wants their CEO and CFO to do." says Vivadelli.

 

Commerce Department Hosts First Innovation Advisory Board Meeting

The Innovation Advisory Board held its first meeting today at the United States Patent and Trademark Office in Alexandria, Va.  Acting Deputy Commerce Secretary Rebecca Blank led the meeting and Secretary Gary Locke welcomed and thanked the new board members for their service. The 15-member board will guide a study of U.S. economic competitiveness and innovation to help inform national policies at the heart of U.S. job creation and global competitiveness. 

In the State of the Union, President Obama launched a commitment to winning the future by out innovating the rest of the world. The board will build upon the early work and findings of the President's Council on Jobs and Competitiveness and Startup America to advise the U.S. Department of Commerce as it produces a report by January 2012 assessing America's capacity for innovation and our global economic competitiveness. The study will analyze all facets of the economy impacted by national policy, including trade and exports, education, research and development, immigration, technology commercialization, intellectual property and tax policy.   

The Innovation Advisory Board was established by the America COMPETES Reauthorization Act of 2010, signed by President Obama in January of this year. See list of board members . See a statement on today's inaugural meeting from Acting Deputy Commerce Secretary Blank.


ConnectionOne IAB Meeting

A meeting for members of the Industry/University Cooperative Research Center (I/UCRC)

August 1, 2011 8:00 AM  to 
August 2, 2011 5:00 PM
Columbus, OH

This is a bi-annual meeting of the industry advisory board and center members to assess ongoing research and set priorities for new research directions. Visitors interested in membership are welcome if they are willing to sign a non-disclosure agreement.

Registration and hotel information is at the web site.

https://www.regonline.com/connectionone2011

Meeting Type
Partnership Meeting

Contacts
John L. Volakis, (614) 292-5846 volakis@ece.osu.edu

NSF Related Organizations
Industrial Innovation and Partnerships

Scientific and Technical Advisory Committee (STAC)

Jeffrey Mount, Ph.D.
Committee Chair
University of California, Davis
Davis, CA

Michele Adams, P.E.
Meliora Environmental Design, LLC
Phoenixville, PA

James Boyd, Ph.D.
Resources for the Future
Washington, DC

Norman Christensen, Ph.D.
Duke University
Durham, NC

Robert Glennon, Ph.D.
University of Arizona
Tucson, AZ

David Hart, Ph.D.
University of Maine
Orono, ME

Gene Helfman, Ph. D.
University of Georgia
Athens, GA

James G. MacBroom, P.E.
Milone and MacBroom
Cheshire, CT

Nathan Mantua, Ph.D.
University of Washington
Seattle, WA

David Marcus
Berkeley, CA

Judith L. Meyer, Ph.D .
University of Georgia
Athens, GA

David R. Montgomery, Ph.D.
University of Washington
Seattle, WA

Michael Moore, Ph.D.
University of Michigan
Ann Arbor, MI

Margaret Palmer, Ph.D.
University of Maryland
College Park, MD

Duncan Patten, Ph.D.
Montana State University
Bozeman, MT

LeRoy Poff, Ph.D .
Colorado State University
Fort Collins, CO

Sandra Postel, Ph.D.
Global Water Policy Project
Amherst, MA

Joan Rose, Ph.D.
Michigan State University
East Lansing, MI

Robert M. Roseen, Ph.D.
University of New Hampshire
Durham, NH

John Schmidt, Ph.D.
Utah State University
Logan, UT

Richard Sparks, Ph.D.
University of Illinois
Urbana, IL

The Constitution. Every issue, every time. No exceptions, no excuses. Is this email not displaying correctly?
View it in your browser .
 
Please read, comment, share ( click here ):  David vs Goliath. You vs Fedzilla. Tenth Amendment Center vs the establishment. The odds always seem pretty much stacked against the good guys. But, no matter how difficult things may seem, no matter how helpless it may feel, it's always essential for us to do what's right. And, for the TAC, doing what's right is pretty straightforward… The Constitution. Every issue, every time. No exceptions, no excuses. Standing on principle has become easy for us since the organization was founded in 2006. In the past five years we've been regularly called communists by neo-cons and racists by neo-libs. Both sides agree that strict adherence to the Constitution – as we relentlessly demand – is dangerous to their mission of centralized power. In just a short time, we've grown to be a force on the political scene. Five years ago, the word “nullification” was only something for history buffs. Today, it's becoming part of the national discussion. So much, in fact, that both Heritage Foundation on the right and the Southern Poverty Law Center on the left have both attacked our work. If you're not catching any flak, you're not over the target. And little TAC, with a few dozen dedicated volunteers and just two barely-paid staffers, Bryce Shonka and myself, is definitely catching flak.

CLICK HERE TO READ THE REST
http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2011/06/02/eight-hours-for-liberty/
**********

Take heart, tenthers. The journey will be long, but our cause is just! Michael Boldin Founder, Tenth Amendment Center 

q

Projects : NEHRP Consultants Joint Venture

Program Committee

JOINT VENTURE PROGRAM COMMITTEE
Bruneau photo Michael Constantinou
University at Buffalo-SUNY
Civil, Structural and Environmental Engineering
132 Ketter Hall, Amherst Campus
Buffalo, NY 14260-4300
tel.: 716-645-2114, ext: 2404
fax: 716-645-3733
email: constan1 [at] eng.buffalo.edu
1 C. B. Crouse
URS Corp
1501 4th Ave., Suite: 1400
Seattle, WA 98101-1616
tel.: 206-438-2700
fax: 206-438-2699
e-mail: cb_crouse [at] urscorp.com
Harris photo James Harris
J.R. Harris & Company
1776 Lincoln Street, Suite: 1100
Denver, CO 80203
tel.: 303-860-9021
fax: 303-860-9537
e-mail: Jim.Harris [at] JRHarrisAndCo.com
2 Jon A. Heintz , Program Manager
Applied Technology Council
201 Redwood Shores Parkway, Suite: 240
Redwood City, CA 94065
tel.: 650-595-1542
fax: 650-593-2320
e-mail: jheintz [at] atcouncil.org
Holmes photo William T. Holmes
Rutherford & Chekene Consulting Engineers
55 Second Street - Suite: 600
San Francisco, CA 94105
tel.: 415-568-4403
fax: 415-618-0684
e-mail: wholmes [at] ruthchek.com
Moehle photo Jack Moehle
University of California, Berkeley
775 Davis Hall
Berkeley, CA 94720-1710
tel.: 510-642-0697,
fax: 510-643-8928
e-mail: moehle [at] berkeley.edu
Whittaker photo Andrew Whittaker
University at Buffalo-SUNY
Civil, Structural and Environmental Eng.
230 Ketter Hall
Buffalo, NY 14260-4300
tel.: 716-645-2114, ext: 2418
fax: 716-465-3733
e-mail: awhittak [at] buffalo.edu

OVERNIGHT ENERGY: Reg-review battle reaches Capitol Hill

By Andrew Restuccia and Ben Geman - 06/02/11 07:13 PM ET

State of Play: Cass Sunstein, the White House's regulatory point man, will face House Republicans Friday for the first time since the administration outlined a sweeping plan to review a slew of agency rules last week.

Sunstein will appear before the House Energy and Commerce Committee's Oversight and Investigations panel, where he's certain to get peppered with questions about whether the administration's plan goes far enough to ensure that regulations are not overly burdensome.

Expect Sunstein — administrator of the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs — to get some tough questions from Republicans about the Environmental Protection Agency's review plan.

For a hint of what's to come tomorrow, here's full committee Chairman Fred Upton's (R-Mich.) take on the administration's regulatory review plan, from a statement provided to The Hill Thursday:

"Much more must be done to rein in the Obama administration's regulatory bonanza. We need a chainsaw, not a scalpel in [the] fight against the unnecessary bureaucratic red tape that is choking our economic recovery and sending jobs overseas."

Industry groups have taken aim at EPA's plan. The American Petroleum Institute, the country's most powerful oil-and-gas trade group, said Wednesday that EPA's plan doesn't go far enough .

The group said the plan doesn't address two regulations the industry is very concerned about: pending greenhouse gas regulations for stationary sources like power plants and refineries, and upcoming rules setting more stringent ozone standards.

EPA's review plan identifies 31 regulations that the agency will re-evaluate. The agency will take immediate steps to review 16 of the regulations. The other 15 reviews will take place over a longer period of time.

In the plan, EPA pledges to “harmonize” fuel-efficiency regulations and eliminate requirements for gas stations to have technology to capture air pollution vapor, among other things.

The committee will hear from stakeholder groups in a second panel tomorrow. Sure enough, U.S. Chamber of Commerce Senior Vice President William Kovacs will blast EPA's regulatory review plan.

“And in the case of EPA, its look-back does little to nothing in the way of addressing the bulk of rulemakings of significant concern to the Chamber and its members,” he will say, according to his written testimony.

James Gattuso, senior research fellow at the Heritage Foundation, and David Goldston, director of government affairs at the Natural Resources Defense Council, will also testify at Friday's hearing.

Here's more on the regulatory review plans.

Reg Watch

By The Hill Staff - 06/02/11 07:05 PM ET

The following proposed rule is undergoing a review by the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs. 

• The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has proposed a rule to significantly reduce air pollution from power plants in 31 states and the District of Columbia. The rule would focus on the reduction of sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide emissions to protect the ozone and human health and would guide states to meet specific agency-calculated state-by-state “allowance allocations.” Limited amounts of these allocations, under the EPA's preferred tactic, could be traded between power plants as long as all states met their “pollution control obligations.” The reduction requirements would be incremental, necessitating lower emissions in 2012 and then 2014 from the selected states. Even though the rule would cost approximately $2.8 billion annually, the agency estimates approximately $120 billion to $290 billion in annual health benefits in 2014 alone. The rule replaces the controversial Clean Air Interstate Rule, which a judge struck down in 2008. The EPA is allowed to keep CAIR in place until the new rule is in place.


Public comment periods are closing soon for the following proposed rules:


• The Food and Drug Administration is complying with the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 by proposing that calorie and other nutrition facts be disclosed on menus for restaurants with 20 or more locations. The restaurants would need to be serving similar menus and be listed under the same name to be subjected to the rule. The comment period ends June 6.


• The Bureau of Economic Analysis has proposed a rule that would eliminate several survey requirements regarding direct investments. The eliminated information regarding foreign direct investment into the U.S. seafood market and other data is no longer required because the same records are being collected in other surveys by the bureau. The comment period for the rule ends June 6.


• The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission has proposed a rule that would certify standard plant design for the Economic Simplified Boiling Water Reactor. Utility licensees aiming to build and operate their own power plant would be able to reference this already certified safe design in future applications if the rule passes. GE-Hitachi Nuclear Energy applied for full certification of this reactor, which lasts 15 years if granted. The commission is accepting comments until June 7.


• The Department of Health and Human Services is seeking comments about a proposed rule that would encourage the growth of Accountable Care Organizations under the Medicare Shared Savings Program. These health providers would sign a three-year contract with the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services to work with other hospitals, doctor's offices and long-term care facilities in hopes of providing the best care at the lowest cost for Medicare patients. The rule was created as part of the Affordable Care Act and would allow participating providers to receive additional payments beyond service fees if they meet or exceed quality standards. The comment period ends June 6.


NEWS BITES:

Whitfield eyes fast action on EPA air rules, Keystone pipeline bill : A top House Energy and Commerce Committee Republican said Thursday that he hopes to move bills through his subcommittee in mid-June that would delay two EPA air pollution rules.

Rep. Ed Whitfield (R-Ky.), who heads the Energy and Power subcommittee, said the bills would address hazardous air-pollution rules for cement plants and boilers. Republicans and industry groups call the rules overly burdensome and say they will kill jobs.

“We are going to go on and try to move our cement and boiler MACT legislation the week we get back,” Whitfield said, referring to EPA's “maximum achievable control technology” rules. The House is out next week but returns the week of June 13.

EPA has already put its boilers rules on hold while it reviews the controversial requirements.

Whitfield is also targeting the week that the House will return for introducing legislation to thwart EPA's proposed air-toxics rules for power plants, called the “utility MACT.” He suggested that bill would go beyond just delaying EPA's plan.

“There may be some aspects of the utility MACT that we may try to do a little bit more than that, because that regulation is pretty broad ... but we haven't completed the legislation yet,” Whitfield told reporters in the Capitol. “Hopefully we will get that introduced the first week back.”

He also said that he'd like the subcommittee to act “quickly” on legislation aimed at expediting the Obama administration's decision on whether to green-light TransCanada's proposed Keystone XL pipeline.

The committee's GOP leadership backs the project that would bring oil from Alberta's oil sands projects to Gulf Coast refineries.

Sanders to float bill forcing CFTC's hand on oil-position limits: Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) will introduce legislation next week to force the Commodity Futures Trading Commission to immediately impose new limits on investors in oil markets in an effort to curb “excessive” speculation.

Sanders and other Senate Democrats argue that such speculation is to blame for high oil-and-gas prices.

The legislation, known as the End Excessive Oil Speculation Now Act, would require the chairman of the CFTC to use emergency authority to impose position limits, or caps on the number of futures contracts that a market player can hold, for crude oil.

The bill — which is still a “work in progress,” according to a Sanders spokesman — would compel the CFTC to act within 48 hours.

The spokesman, Michael Briggs, said Sanders is shopping the proposal around to other senators in an effort to gather co-sponsors.

Sanders and six other Senate Democrats met with CFTC Chairman Gary Gensler last week to call on the agency to immediately implement the position limits.

But Gensler told the lawmakers that a proposal on the issue must undergo additional review before being finalized.

Sanders told reporters after the meeting that the CFTC needs to move more quickly, pointing to high gas prices.

“There is nothing that I heard from him which suggests any sense of urgency about the need to protect consumers or, in fact, to protect our economy,” he said. “I was disappointed by the tone of the meeting, the lack of urgency, the lack of specific ideas, and that's something we're just going to have to deal with.”

The CFTC proposed reworked limits in January based on provisions in the Dodd-Frank financial reform bill that required the commission to implement aggregate position limits on energy commodities. But the CFTC has yet to finalize the rules even though the law called for their completion within 180 days of enactment.

House Dems' report outlines plan for cutting oil dependence : A group of House Democrats joined with the Center for American Progress and the Association for Commuter Transportation Thursday in releasing a report calling for new transportation policies to lower the country's dependence on oil.

The report, titled “Freedom from Oil,” calls for increased fuel economy, investments in alternative vehicles and “pay-as-you-drive” insurance, among other things.

“Because our transportation system is almost entirely dependent on petroleum, policymakers can have the most — and most immediate — impact by focusing their efforts on providing and encouraging a range of transportation options,” the report says.

The report was unveiled Thursday by Reps. Earl Blumenauer (D-Ore.), Jim Moran (D-Va.), Lois Capps (D-Calif.) and Peter Welch (D-Vt.).


ON TAP FRIDAY:

Broad energy bill under the microscope: A House Energy and Commerce Committee panel will hear from a top Energy Department official and others Friday when it meets to review a sweeping energy bill sponsored by Rep. Devin Nunes (R-Calif.).

The bill, which has more than 70 co-sponsors, would open vast offshore areas to oil-and-gas drilling, and require permitting of scores of new nuclear reactors over 30 years.?? The bill also opens up the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) to oil drilling; steers substantial federal revenues from ANWR and offshore development into a trust fund for renewable power projects; and blocks EPA climate-change rules.

It seeks to boost development of oil shale in western states and requires the Defense Department to construct a plant to make transportation fuels from coal.

The legislation is largely a messaging vehicle because it's stuffed with provisions that have no chance of passing the Senate. Also, GOP leaders have adopted a strategy of moving more targeted energy bills rather than a single sweeping measure.

But the Energy and Power subcommittee hearing will nonetheless provide a venue for a broad debate on energy. Witnesses include David Sandalow, the Energy Department's assistant secretary for policy and international affairs, and representatives from Rand Corp., the Heritage Foundation, Hudson Clean Energy Partners and more.

House panel to survey critical minerals plans : A panel of the House Natural Resources Committee will review a pair of bills aimed at surveying U.S. supplies of rare-earth minerals and other strategic elements, and boosting domestic development.

The hearing comes amid concerns over reliance on China for materials that are vital to key defense and clean-energy technologies, as well as other applications. More on the hearing here .

The topic is generating a substantial amount of attention on Capitol Hill.

On Friday, Rep. Randy Hultgren (R-Ill.) will introduce a bill that would require the Energy and Interior Department's to team up to improve assessments “energy critical elements.”

The assessment would encompass potential resources, production and other matters. The bill also seeks to bolster research aimed at expanding availability of these elements.

 

EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0409

Dear [Decision Maker],

Join a River Cleanup

National River Cleanup™ provides a tangible way for you and your community to make a difference on your local river. Just a few hours outside can remove tons of trash from the rivers and streams that provide your drinking water.

Find a cleanup that's happening near you or organize your own
cleanup today!
Learn More

A BILL To amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to preserve the authority of each State to make determinations relating to the State's water quality standards, and for other purposes. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. This Act may be cited as the ``Clean Water Cooperative Federalism Act of 2011''. SEC. 2. STATE WATER QUALITY STANDARDS. (a) State Water Quality Standards.--Section 303(c)(4) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1313(c)(4)) is amended-- (1) by redesignating subparagraphs (A) and (B) as clauses (i) and (ii), respectively; (2) by striking ``(4)'' and inserting ``(4)(A)''; (3) by striking ``The Administrator shall promulgate'' and inserting the following: ``(B) The Administrator shall promulgate''; and (4) by adding at the end the following: ``(C) Notwithstanding subparagraph (A)(ii), the Administrator may not promulgate a revised or new standard for a pollutant in any case in which the State has submitted to the Administrator and the Administrator has approved a water quality standard for that pollutant, unless the State concurs with the Administrator's determination that the revised or new standard is necessary to meet the requirements of this Act.''. (b) Federal Licenses and Permits.--Section 401(a) of such Act (33 U.S.C. 1341(a)) is amended by adding at the end the following: ``(7) With respect to any discharge, if a State or interstate agency having jurisdiction over the navigable waters at the point where the discharge originates or will originate determines under paragraph (1) that the discharge will comply with the applicable provisions of sections 301, 302, 303, 306, and 307, the Administrator may not take any action to supersede the determination.''. (c) State NPDES Permit Programs.--Section 402(c) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 1342(c)) is amended by adding at the end the following: ``(5) Limitation on authority of administrator to withdraw approval of state programs.--The Administrator may not withdraw approval of a State program under paragraph (3) or (4), or limit Federal financial assistance for the State program, on the basis that the Administrator disagrees with the State regarding-- ``(A) the implementation of any water quality standard that has been adopted by the State and approved by the Administrator under section 303(c); or ``(B) the implementation of any Federal guidance that directs the interpretation of the State's water quality standards.''. (d) Limitation on Authority of Administrator To Object to Individual Permits.--Section 402(d) of such Act (33 U.S.C. 1342(d)) is amended by adding at the end the following: ``(5) The Administrator may not object under paragraph (2) to the issuance of a permit by a State on the basis of-- ``(A) the Administrator's interpretation of a water quality standard that has been adopted by the State and approved by the Administrator under section 303(c); or ``(B) the implementation of any Federal guidance that directs the interpretation of the State's water quality standards.''. SEC. 3. PERMITS FOR DREDGED OR FILL MATERIAL. (a) Authority of EPA Administrator.--Section 404(c) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1344(c)) is amended-- (1) by striking ``(c)'' and inserting ``(c)(1)''; and (2) by adding at the end the following: ``(2) Paragraph (1) shall not apply to any permit if the State in which the discharge originates or will originate does not concur with the Administrator's determination that the discharge will result in an unacceptable adverse effect as described in paragraph (1).''. (b) State Permit Programs.--The first sentence of section 404(g)(1) of such Act (33 U.S.C. 1344(g)(1)) is amended by striking ``The Governor of any State desiring to administer its own individual and general permit program for the discharge'' and inserting ``The Governor of any State desiring to administer its own individual and general permit program for some or all of the discharges''. SEC. 4. DEADLINES FOR AGENCY COMMENTS. Section 404 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1344) is amended-- (1) in subsection (m) by striking ``ninetieth day'' and inserting ``30th day (or the 60th day if additional time is requested)''; and (2) in subsection (q)-- (A) by striking ``(q)'' and inserting ``(q)(1)''; and (B) by adding at the end the following: ``(2) The Administrator and the head of a department or agency referred to in paragraph (1) shall each submit any comments with respect to an application for a permit under subsection (a) or (e) not later than the 30th day (or the 60th day if additional time is requested) after the date of receipt of an application for a permit under that subsection.''. <all> [Congressional Bills 112th Congress] [From the U.S. Government Printing Office] [H.R. 2018 Introduced in House (IH)] 112th CONGRESS 1st Session H. R. 2018 To amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to preserve the authority of each State to make determinations relating to the State's water quality standards, and for other purposes. _______________________________________________________________________

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES May 26, 2011 Mr. Mica (for himself, Mr. Rahall, Mr. Shuster, Mrs. Capito, Mr. Coble, Mr. Barletta, Mr. Landry, Mr. Duncan of Tennessee, Mr. Bucshon, Mr. Crawford, Mr. Graves of Missouri, Mr. Gibbs, Mr. Critz, Mr. Altmire, Mr. Holden, Mr. Hunter, Mr. Gary G. Miller of C, Mr. Young of Alaska, Mrs. Schmidt, and Mr. Rogers of Kentucky) introduced the bill; which was referred to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

Rahall, Capito Back Bill to Preserve States' Power Under Clean Water Act
Posted Friday, May 27, 2011 ; 01:54 PM | View Comments | Post Comment
Updated Friday, May 27, 2011; 02:43 PM

Bill would prevent the Environmental Protection Agency from undermining states' permitting programs.

By Pam Kasey
Email | Bio | Other Stories by Pam Kasey

From:
< john@ironmountainmine.com > To: "Ted Arman" < ted@ironmountainmine.com >, "Larry (ENRD) Corcoran" < Larry.Corcoran@usdoj.gov >, "FEMA (Federal Emergency" < fema@service.govdelivery.com >, "U.S. EPA" < usaepa@govdelivery.com >, "CGI Initiative for" < info@collaborativegov.org >, "George Goodridge" < George.goodridge@bayercropscience.com >, "Reed Hopper" < mrh@pacificlegal.org >, "ATR-SFO - Internet" < SanFran.ATR@usdoj.gov >, "Kathleen Salyer" < salyer.kathleen@epa.gov >, "Philiip Stevenson" < ps@ag-gel.com >, hvine@caed.uscourts.gov , copies@pagescopycenter.com
TITLE 50 > CHAPTER 40 Open Date Opportunity Title Agency Funding Number Attachment
04/18/2011   Research Interests of the Air Force Office of Scientific Research Air Force Office of Scientific Research   BAA-AFOSR-2011-01   1 BROAD AGENCY ANNOUNCEMENT (BAA) 1. Agency Name Air Force
03/01/2011   FY2011 – 2016 Basic Research for Combating Weapons of Mass Destruction (C-WMD) Broad Agency Announcement (BAA) Defense Threat Reduction Agency   HDTRA1-11-16-BRCWMD-BAA   DEFENSE THREAT REDUCTION AGENCY ,
11/30/2010   Energy for Sustainability National Science Foundation   PD-11-7644  
11/30/2010   Catalysis and Biocatalysis National Science Foundation   PD-11-1401  
07/14/2009   Chemical Catalysis National Science Foundation   PD-09-6884  
05/08/2009   NRL WIDE BROAD AGENCY ANNOUNCEMENT BAA-N00173-01 Naval Research Laboratory   BAA-N00173-01   NRL BAA Announcement #61-09-05 ,
02/12/2009   DTRA FY2009 – 2011 Basic Research for Combating Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) Broad Agency Announcement (BAA) Defense Threat Reduction Agency   HDTRA1-08-10-BRCWMD-BAA   2004 CBDIF BAA , BRCWMD , BRCWMD , DEFENSE THREAT REDUCTION AGENCY BROAD AGENCY ANNOUNCEMENT HDTRA1
11/25/2008   ARL/ARO Broad Agency Announcement-Revised Dept of the Army -- Materiel Command   W911NF-07-R-0001-03   ARMY RESEARCH LABORATORY AND THE ARMY RESEARCH OFFICE BROAD AGENCY ... ,
06/06/2008   ARO Broad Agency Announcement-Revised Dept of the Army -- Materiel Command   W911NF-07-R-0003-02   ARMY RESEARCH OFFICE BROAD AGENCY ANNOUNCEMENT FOR BASIC AND ... , ARMY

Federal Emergency Management Agency
U.S. Department of Homeland Security
500 C Street SW, Washington, D.C. 20472
(202) 646-2500


(800) 621-FEMA / TTY (800) 462-7585
3 Step Guide for Assistance EPA has primary responsibility for implementing Superfund, but because of the complexity of hazardous waste issues, the Agency has relied on the respective strengths of the following Federal partners to carry out its mission of protecting human health and the environment:
Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA) provides support to State, Tribal, and local governments and to the private sector for responding to releases of hazardous substances. Some of FEMA's activities include: distributing information; planning for emergencies; training for emergencies; membership and participation in the 13 Regional Response Teams; and the administration of $5 million each year to State governments and Tribes for hazardous materials (HAZMAT) training. http://www.fema.gov/pte/carep.htm

CHAPTER 40—DEFENSE AGAINST WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION

How Current is This?
  • § 2301 . Findings
  • § 2302 . Definitions
  • SUBCHAPTER I —DOMESTIC PREPAREDNESS (§§ 2311—2317)
  • SUBCHAPTER II —INTERDICTION OF WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION AND RELATED MATERIALS (§§ 2331—2334)
  • SUBCHAPTER III —CONTROL AND DISPOSITION OF WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION AND RELATED MATERIALS THREATENING THE UNITED STATES (§§ 2341—2345)
  • SUBCHAPTER IV —COORDINATION OF POLICY AND COUNTERMEASURES AGAINST PROLIFERATION OF WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION (§§ 2351—2354)
  • SUBCHAPTER IV-A —NONPROLIFERATION ASSISTANCE COORDINATION (§§ 2357—2357g)
  • SUBCHAPTER V —MISCELLANEOUS (§§ 2361—2371)
Subject: Iron Mountain Mine
From:
< john@ironmountainmine.com > To: rprugh@martenlaw.com
Dear Mr. Prugh,  We have reviewed your expertise and would like for you to prosecute our RCRA 7003 case against EPA. Best Regards, John Hutchens for Ted Arman and Iron Mountain Mine http://ironmountainmine.com /
925-878-9167

The Blog @ Homeland Security

Wednesday, April 27, 2011

A New Way of Doing Business

Today we are recognizing what may be the beginning of a whole new way of developing partnerships between the public and private sectors.

Despite its long name, the Science and Technology Directorate's (S&T) System Efficacy through Commercialization, Utilization, Relevance and Evaluation (SECURE) concept is simple: The government provides companies with detailed requirements of a needed technology, product, or service, along with a conservative estimate of the potential market. In exchange, companies use their own funds to perform research and development to meet those requirements. This saves money on both ends: the government doesn't spend money on research and development, while the company doesn't waste resources trying to figure out on their own what the government ultimately is going to need.

Once the technology, product or service is complete and verified through independent third-party testing and evaluation, the technology can be certified as having met the SECURE requirements. (See this article on SECURE in this week's Bloomberg Businessweek magazine.)

The first certified product, a blast-resistant video system designed by Visual Defence, Inc. that functions similarly to the “black box” found in airplanes was unveiled today by S&T at the Long Island Forum for Technology, located at the Morrelly Homeland Security Center in Bethpage, N.Y.

S&T issued detailed requirements for several needed technologies, including a video system that could be used in mass transit systems and survive an explosion and fire. Visual Defence Inc. produced a working prototype in just a few short months. The systems was tested against powerful improvised explosive devices , subjected to the intense heat of a diesel fuel fire and rapidly cooled with water, simulating a firefighter's hose, and then underwent a series of pilot tests in several municipal transit systems across the country.

The SECURE Program doesn't stop there. We are working to develop the products and services needed to accomplish the broad range of DHS missions, from protecting the nation's critical infrastructure to supporting first responders to enhancing aviation security to facilitating legitimate cross-border travel and trade, and many things in between.

The driving force behind the creation of the SECURE program was DHS's Chief Commercialization Officer, Tom Cellucci, who leads DHS S&T's outreach with both the private and public sectors. Cellucci was recently recognized for his efforts by Security magazine as one of the “ Most Influential People in Security ” who “positively impact the security industry, their organization, their colleagues and their peers.” We think that description sums up Tom's excellent work pretty well!

posted by Homeland Security Blog Team @ 4:15 PM Anonymous

5 Comments:

Post a Comment

Thank you for leaving a comment at the Blog @ Homeland Security. Submitted Comments will be reviewed before posting. See more about our Comment Policy .

Inundation Maps

This list will be updated as inundation map products are updated and additional products are released. Updated products are noted with a current as of (CAO) date.

News » Press Releases

Committee Leaders Introduce Bipartisan Bill to Rein In EPA

May 27, 2011

Washington, DC – Transportation and Infrastructure Committee leaders introduced a bipartisan bill to reverse the erosion of states' authority and partnership with the federal government under the Clean Water Act. This well-established and effective partnership has come under increasing attack by the Obama Administration's Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

H.R. 2018, the “Clean Water Cooperative Federalism Act of 2011 ,” was introduced by Transportation and Infrastructure Committee Chairman John L. Mica (R-FL) and the Committee's Ranking Member Nick Rahall (D-WV). Water Resources and Environment Subcommittee Chairman Bob Gibbs (R-OH) and U.S. Rep. Shelly Moore Capito (R-WV) were among the bill's original cosponsors.

The bill amends the Clean Water Act (CWA) to restore the long-standing balance between federal and state partners in regulating the nation's waters, and preserve the system of cooperative federalism established under the CWA in which the primary responsibilities for water pollution control are allocated to the states. The bill restricts EPA's ability to second-guess or delay a state's permitting and water quality certification decisions under the CWA once EPA has already approved a state's program.

“Under the Obama Administration, EPA continues to strangle economic growth in this country with its overreaching and arbitrary regulatory regime,” Mica said. “This bill will help ensure a common sense regulatory regime that does not unnecessarily harm our nation's farmers, miners and other businesses critical to our economy. We must restore and preserve the federal-state partnership that is the foundation of the Clean Water Act but which is being progressively undermined by EPA.”

“The long arm of the current EPA has reached into Appalachia and superimposed on our coal-producing States a water permitting regime that amounts to a confused hodgepodge of unwritten requirements and unexplainable goals,” said Rahall . “This legislation aims to instill greater certainty and fairness in the system. It intends to help prevent the EPA from steamrolling State permitting programs, ensuring that the States are truly partners with the Federal government in protecting water quality throughout the Nation.”

“As our U.S. economy struggles to get back on track, the EPA continues its assault on what could prove to be the most costly, burdensome, and expansive set of job-destroying regulations ever crafted,” Gibbs stated. “By preserving the state's role in this partnership, we can begin to reign in EPA's runaway regulations to save countless jobs and protect our economy from the tens of billions of dollars their backdoor energy policies would cost.”

“Intentionally delaying the permit approval process has led to a slow-bleed of jobs throughout Appalachia,” said Capito . “Our miners should be able to conduct their day-to-day business and make investments in the future without a veil of uncertainty hovering over the industry. This bill reinforces the state's role in the permit approval process and its original jurisdiction over land and water resources.”

Summary of the “Clean Water Cooperative Federalism Act of 2011”

State Water Quality Standards

H.R. 2018 provides common sense protections for states' EPA-approved water quality standards and permitting authority under the CWA. Without these protections, state regulation, as approved by EPA, can still be usurped by the agency at every turn, creating a climate for regulatory uncertainty and endless delays.

• State Water Quality Standards : Restricts EPA's ability to issue a revised or new water quality standard for a pollutant whenever a state has adopted – and EPA has already approved – a standard, unless the state concurs. In Florida, for example, EPA recently promulgated federal water quality standards over the state's objections.

• State Section 401 Water Quality Certification : Prohibits EPA from superseding a water quality certification (that a discharge will comply with applicable water quality requirements) granted by a state under CWA section 401.

• Approval of State NPDES Permit Program Authority : Prohibits EPA from withdrawing approval of a state water quality permitting program under CWA section 402 (National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System, or NPDES), or from limiting federal financial assistance for the state program, on the basis that EPA disagrees with the state regarding a (i) water quality standard that a state has adopted and EPA has approved, or (ii) the implementation of any federal guidance that directs a re-interpretation of the state's approved water quality standards.

• EPA Veto Authority over State NPDES Permitting Decisions : Prohibits EPA from objecting to a state's issuance of an NPDES permit on the basis of (i) EPA's differing interpretation of an approved state water quality standard, or (ii) the implementation of any federal guidance that directs a re-interpretation of the state's approved water quality standards.

Permits for Dredged or Fill Material

H.R. 2018 places limits on EPA's ability to veto dredge and fill permits issued by the Army Corps of Engineers and gives states more flexibility to administer these permitting programs.

• EPA Veto Authority over Corps Section 404 (Discharges of Dredged or Fill Material) Permitting Decisions : Restricts EPA's ability to veto a Corps 404 permitting decision unless the state concurs with the veto. In an unprecedented action, EPA recently revoked a section 404 permit it had previously approved, even though the permittee had not violated any permit conditions.

• State Permit Program for the Discharge of Dredged or Fill Material : Allows a state to assume and administer only parts of the 404 permit program; under current law, states are required to assume the entire program or none of it.

Deadlines for Agency Comments

H.R. 2018 establishes reasonable time limits for agency comments and helps reduce pointless bureaucratic delays in the section 404 permitting process.

• Deadlines for Fish and Wildlife Service Comments on Proposed Section 404 Permits : The deadline for the Fish and Wildlife Service to submit comments to the Corps on a proposed section 404 permit is shortened from 90 days to 30 days (or 60 days if additional time is requested).

• Deadlines for Other Agency Comments on Proposed Section 404 Permits : Clarifies that the deadline for EPA and other agencies to submit comments to the Corps on a proposed section 404 permit is 30 days (or 60 days if additional time is requested) after the date of receipt of the application for the 404 permit.

# # #

The Safe Drinking Water Act, as amended in 1996, established the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund program to make funds available to drinking water systems to finance infrastructure improvements. The program also emphasizes providing funds to small and disadvantaged communities and to programs that encourage pollution prevention as a tool for ensuring safe drinking water. The objectives of the 2009 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act include creating jobs and investing in environmental infrastructure.

For more information please visit: http://water.epa.gov/grants_funding/dwsrf/index.cfm (Denver, CO - May 16, 2011)

Inhofe Bill Advances Clean & Safe Water and Environmental Justice ...

File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - Quick View
“The Small Systems Safe Drinking Water Act of 2011 ” introduced today. ... Senator Inhofe's bill brings equity and fairness to small towns by requiring that ...
www.rural water .org/ inhofe %20 2011 .pdf

Inhofe Bill Advances Clean & Safe
Water and Environmental Justice in
Small and Rural Communities

Background:

Through his leadership position on the EPW Committee, Senator Inhofe has made unfunded mandates a top priority. Since the 108th Congress, he has co-authored and cosponsored legislation to provide additional resources to communities through the State Revolving Loan Funds. 

The Small Drinking Water Bill requires the federal government to live up to its obligations and require the EPA to use the tools it was given in the 1996 Safe Drinking Water Act amendments (SDWA). Currently EPA assumes that families can afford water rates of 2.5 percent of their annual median household income, or $1,000 per household.  For some families, paying $83 a month for water may not be a hardship but for so many more, it is nearly impossible. There must be some flexibility inserted into the calculation that factors in the ability of the truly disadvantaged to pay these costs.  Forcing systems to raise rates beyond what their ratepayers can afford only causes more damage than good.

The bill directs EPA to take additional factors into consideration when making this determination:  These include ensuring that the affordability criteria are not more costly on a per-capita basis to a small water system than to a large water system.  In EPA's most recent drinking water needs survey , Oklahoma identified a total of over $4.1 billion in drinking water needs over the next 20 years.  $2.4 billion of that need is for community water systems that serve fewer than 10,000 people.  The $4.1 billion does not include the total costs imposed on Oklahoma communities to meet federal clean water requirements, the new Groundwater rule, the DBP II rule or the Long Term 2 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule. Oklahoma continues to have municipalities struggling with the 2002 arsenic rule.  Many of our small systems are having difficulty with the Disinfection Byproducts (DBP) Stage I rule, and small systems who purchase water from other systems and did not have to test, treat or monitor their water must now comply with DBP II. EPA estimates that over the next 20 years, the entire country will need $52.0 billion dollars to come into compliance with existing, proposed or recently promulgated regulations.

The bill proposes a few simple steps to help systems comply with all these rules:

  1. Reauthorizes the technical assistance program in the Safe Drinking Water Act.  The DBP rules are very complex and involve a lot of monitoring and testing.  If we are going to impose complicated requirements on systems, we need to provide them with help to implement those requirements.
  2. The bill creates a pilot program to demonstrate new technologies and approaches for systems of all sizes to comply with these complicated rules.
  3. It requires the EPA to convene a working group to examine the science behind the rules in order to compare new developments since each rule's publication. Section 1412(b)(4)(E) of the SDWA Amendments of 1996 authorizes the use of point of entry treatment, point of use treatment and package plants to economically meet the requirements of the Act.  However, to date, these approaches are not widely used by small water systems.  The bill directs the EPA to convene a working group to identify barriers to the use of these approaches.  The EPA will then use the recommendations of the working group to draft a model guidance document that states can use to create their own programs. 

Most importantly this bill requires the federal government to pay for these unfunded mandates created by laws and regulations:  In 1995, Congress passed the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act to ensure that the Federal government pays the costs incurred by state and local governments in complying with Federal laws.  The bill is designed to ensure that EPA cannot take an enforcement action against a system serving less than 10,000 people, without first ensuring that it has sufficient funds to meet the requirements of the regulation.

Submission for OMB Review; Preventing Personal Conflicts of Interest for Contractor Employees Performing Acquisition Functions

A Notice by the Defense Department , the General Services Administration , and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration on 05/12/2011

PDF XML Print Publication Date: Thursday, May 12, 2011 Action: Notice Of Request For Public Comments Regarding A New Omb Information Clearance. Dates: Submit comments on or before June 13, 2011. Comments Close: 06/13/2011 Agencies: General Services Administration Department of Defense National Aeronautics and Space Administration Entry Type: Notice Page: 27648 (1 page) Document Citation: 76 FR 27648 Docket ID: OMB Control No. 9000-00XX Document Number: 2011-11609 Shorter URL: http://federalregister.gov/a/2011-11609

Summary

Under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. chapter 35), the Regulatory Secretariat (MVCB) will be submitting to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) a request to review and approve a new information collection requirement regarding Preventing Personal Conflicts of Interest for Contractor Employees Performing Acquisition Functions. Show citation box

Public comments are particularly invited on: Whether this collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of functions of the FAR, and whether it will have practical utility; whether our estimate of the public burden of this collection of information is accurate, and based on valid assumptions and methodology; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and ways in which we can minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, through the use of appropriate technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Show citation box

Table of Contents

DATES: Back to Top

Submit comments on or before June 13, 2011. Show citation box

ADDRESSES: Back to Top

Submit comments identified by Information Collection 9000-00XX, Preventing Personal Conflicts of Interest for Contractor Employees Performing Acquisition Functions by any of the following methods: Show citation box

Instructions: Please submit comments only and cite Information Collection 9000-00XX, Preventing Personal Conflicts of Interest for Contractor Employees Performing Acquisition Functions, in all correspondence related to this collection. All comments received will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov , including any personal and/or business confidential information provided. Show citation box

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Back to Top

Mr. Anthony Robinson, Procurement Analyst, Acquisition Policy Division, at telephone (202) 501-2658 or via e-mail to Anthony.robinson@gsa.gov . Show citation box

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Back to Top

A. Purpose Back to Top

This is a request for a new information collection requirement concerning the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Control Number 9000-00XX, FAR Case 2008-025, Preventing Personal Conflicts of Interest for Contractor Employees Performing Acquisition Functions, (Final Rule). Section 841(a) requires the Administrator for Federal Procurement Policy to develop and issue a standard policy to prevent personal conflicts of interest by contractor employees performing acquisition functions closely associated with inherently governmental functions, and an associated personal conflicts-of-interest clause or set of clauses. Show citation box

Under the final rule, contractors are required to notify contracting officers whenever they become aware of any personal conflict-of-interest violations by a covered employee. The objective of the notification requirement is to emphasize the critical importance of integrity in contracting and reduce the occurrence of personal conflict-of-interest violations by contractor employees performing acquisition-related functions. Show citation box

In addition, contractors have the opportunity, in exceptional circumstances, to request mitigation or waiver of the personal conflict-of-interest standards. The information is used by the Government to evaluate the requested mitigation/waiver. Show citation box

B. Annual Reporting Burden Back to Top

Respondents: 460. Show citation box

Responses per Respondent: 1. Show citation box

Hours per Response: 4. Show citation box

Total Burden Hours: 1,840. Show citation box

Obtaining Copies of Proposals: Requesters may obtain a copy of the information collection documents from the General Services Administration, Regulatory Secretariat Branch (MVCB), 1275 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20417, telephone (202) 501-4755. Please cite OMB Control No. 9000-00XX, Preventing Personal Conflicts of Interest for Contractor Employees Performing Acquisition Functions, in all correspondence. Show citation box

Dated: May 6, 2011.

Millisa Gary,

Acting Director, Office of Governmentwide Acquisition Policy.

[FR Doc. 2011-11609 Filed 5-11-11; 8:45 am]

Home

Sections

Browse

Policy

Learn

Public release date: 13-May-2011
[ Print | E-mail | Share Share ] [ Close Window ]

Contact: David Gilbert
degilbert@lbl.gov
925-296-5643
DOE/Joint Genome Institute

EPA Air-Pollution Rules to Cost Almost $18 Billion Yearly, Coal Group Says

By Jim Snyder - Jun 7, 2011 9:00 PM PT

Clean-air rules proposed by the Obama administration will cost utilities $17.8 billion annually and raise electricity rates 11.5 percent on average in 2016, according to an analysis paid for a coal-industry group.

The report, released today as part of a campaign to delay compliance deadlines in the pending rules, estimates that regulations cutting emissions of mercury, sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides would lead to the “premature” retirements of coal-fired power plants that can generate 47.8 gigawatts of electricity, about 15 percent of coal's U.S. production capacity.

The American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity, an Alexandria, Virginia-based group whose members include Southern Co. (SO) of Atlanta and St. Louis-based Peabody Energy Corp. (BTU) , paid National Economic Research Associates Inc. for the study.

The analysis by the New York-based company shows the pollution limits would be “some of the most expensive EPA rules ever imposed on coal-fueled power plants,” Steve Miller , chief executive of the coal group, said in an e-mail.

Representative Ed Whitfield, a Kentucky Republican and chairman of the energy subcommittee of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, has said he plans to introduce a bill to give utilities more time to comply with the rules.

New maximum levels for nitrogen oxides, a component of smog, and sulfur dioxide, which causes acid rain, are scheduled to take effect in 2012. The EPA is under a court order to produce a final mercury rule in November. Utilities would have as long as four years to meet the mercury standard.

The agency says its mercury rule, which also covers acid gases and arsenic emissions, would prevent as many as 17,000 premature deaths and 11,000 heart attacks a year, at an annual cost to industry of $10.9 billion in 2016.

Exposure to mercury can lead to developmental problems in children. Sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides can lead to respiratory illnesses.

-- Editors: Judy Pasternak, Larry Liebert

To contact the reporters on this story: Jim Snyder in Washington at jsnyder24@bloomberg.net

To contact the editor responsible for this story: Larry Liebert at lliebert@bloomberg.net

Event
OISE COV
1

July 12, 2011 8:00 AM  to 
July 14, 2011 5:00 PM
II 515

Covers 2008 - 2010

Meeting Type
Committee of visitors

Contacts
Bob Webber, 703 292-7569 rwebber
       Preferred Contact Method: Email

NSF Related Organizations
Office of International Science and Engineering

History of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

Tuesday, June 14 2:00p to 3:00p

at Bay Model Visitor Center , Sausalito , CA

Join Ranger Bill to learn about the "When/Where/Why/What/How," the diverse, complex, many faceted missions, goals and objectives of the USACE's "Birth" in 1775 under President George Washington.

websiteEvent Website

Categories: Talks & Lectures , History

Creator:   Bay Model

 

 

Same fungus, different strains

A comparative genomics approach for improved 'green' chemical production

Fungi play key roles in nature and are valued for their great importance in industry. Consider citric acid, a key additive in several foods and pharmaceuticals produced on a large-scale basis for decades with the help of the filamentous fungus Aspergillus niger . While A. niger is an integral player in the carbon cycle, it possesses an arsenal of enzymes that can be deployed in breaking down plant cell walls to free up sugars that can then be fermented and distilled into biofuel, a process being optimized by U.S. Department of Energy researchers.

Published online ahead of print May 4, 2011 in Genome Research , a team led by Scott Baker of the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory compared the genome sequences of two Aspergillus niger strains to, among other things, better harness its industrial potential in biofuels applications. As more than a million tons of citric acid are produced annually, the production process involving A. niger is a well understood fungal fermentation process that could inform the development of a biorefinery where organic compounds replace the chemical building blocks normally derived from petroleum. Learning more about the genetic bases of the behaviors and abilities of these two industrially relevant fungal strains, wrote senior author Baker and his colleagues in the paper, will allow researchers to exploit their genomes towards the more efficient production of organic acids and other compounds, including biofuels.

" Aspergillus niger is an industrial workhouse for enzymes and small molecules such as organic acids," said Baker of the fungus selected for sequencing by the DOE JGI in 2005. "Most of the world's citric acid comes from A. niger . "We know that this single organism is used for production of organic acids and for enzymes, and it can degrade plant cell wall matter for sugar production," said Baker. "For biofuels it's a highly relevant organism since it's already been scaled up, shown to be safe, and used for enzyme production. That's why it was such an important organism to further characterize through DNA sequencing."

The DOE Joint Genome Institute (JGI) generated the 35-million base genome of A. niger ATCC 1015, the wild type strain that was used in research that led to the first patented citric acid process. The other A. niger strain used in the study was sequenced by a company in the Netherlands in 2007 and has undergone mutagenesis and selection for enzyme production.

By analyzing the genomes on several levels—DNA, chromosome, gene and protein—Baker and his colleagues found several hundred unique genes in each strain that are key to their predominant characteristics. For example, A. niger ATCC 1015 had a higher expression of traits involved in high citric acid yields. On the other hand, the induced mutant strain had more elements related to efficient enzyme production. The team also noted that the genes involved in boosting enzyme production in the induced mutant strain of A. niger may have come from another Aspergillus strain via horizontal gene transfer, which allows one organism to acquire and use genes from other organisms.

Of the 47 authors on this paper, 30 are from Europe. "This is an excellent example of international collaboration combining genome sequencing with functional genomics, transcriptomics and metabolomics, which led to a system level study and comparative analysis of two A. niger strains," said study co-author Igor Grigoriev, head of the DOE JGI Fungal Genomics Program. "Nearly a dozen additional Aspergillus strains that are used in industry are either being sequenced or in the queue to be at the DOE JGI. A better understanding of genomic content and organization and how rearrangements and mutations lead to desired traits should facilitate further optimization of these strains for different bio-products."

As of 2007, the global market for citric acid was estimated to be approximately $1.2 billion with more than 500,000 tons produced annually by fermentation. "Having the genetic blueprint for a citric acid-producing fungus will increase our understanding of the organism's metabolic pathways that can be fine-tuned to enhance productivity or alter its metabolism to generate other green chemicals and fuels from renewable and sustainable plant-derived sugars," said Randy Berka, Director, Novozymes, Inc., and one of the publication's authors.

"It was thought that if we understood what makes the citric acid process so productive, then we could start to understand how to make other organic acids that could be commodity chemicals," said Baker. "We now have the tools and the foundation of knowledge to be able to ask some additional important questions that we weren't equipped with the genomic resources to answer before."

###

Pacific Northwest National Laboratory is a Department of Energy Office of Science national laboratory where interdisciplinary teams advance science and technology and deliver solutions to America's most intractable problems in energy, national security and the environment. PNNL employs 4,900 staff, has an annual budget of nearly $1.1 billion, and has been managed by Ohio-based Battelle since the lab's inception in 1965. Follow PNNL on Facebook, LinkedIn and Twitter.

The U.S. Department of Energy Joint Genome Institute, supported by the DOE Office of Science, is committed to advancing genomics in support of DOE missions related to clean energy generation and environmental characterization and cleanup. DOE JGI, headquartered in Walnut Creek, Calif., provides integrated high-throughput sequencing and computational analysis that enable systems-based scientific approaches to these challenges. Follow DOE JGI on Twitter.

TITLE 5--GOVERNMENT ORGANIZATION AND EMPLOYEES PART III--EMPLOYEES Subpart D--Pay and Allowances CHAPTER 53--PAY RATES AND SYSTEMS SUBCHAPTER VII--MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS Sec. 5376. Pay for certain senior-level positions (a) This section applies to-- (1) positions that are classified above GS-15 pursuant to section 5108; and (2) scientific or professional positions established under section 3104; but does not apply to-- (A) any Senior Executive Service position under section 3132; or (B) any position in the Federal Bureau of Investigation and Drug Enforcement Administration Senior Executive Service under section 3151. (b)(1) Subject to such regulations as the Office of Personnel Management prescribes, the head of the agency concerned shall fix the rate of basic pay for any position within such agency to which this section applies. A rate fixed under this section shall be-- (A) not less than 120 percent of the minimum rate of basic pay payable for GS-15 of the General Schedule; and (B) not greater than the rate of basic pay payable for level IV of the Executive Schedule. The payment of a rate of basic pay under this section shall not be subject to the pay limitation of section 5306(e) or 5373. (2) Subject to paragraph (1), effective at the beginning of the first applicable pay period commencing on or after the first day of the month in which an adjustment takes effect under section 5303 in the rates of pay under the General Schedule, each rate of pay established under this section for positions within an agency shall be adjusted by such amount as the head of such agency considers appropriate. (Added Pub. L. 101-509, title V, Sec. 529 [title I, Sec. 102(a)(1)], Nov. 5, 1990, 104 Stat. 1427, 1443.) References in Text The General Schedule, referred to in subsec. (b), is set out under section 5332 of this title. Level IV of the Executive Schedule, referred to in subsec. (b)(1)(B), is set out in section 5315 of this title. Effective Date Section effective on such date as the President shall determine, but not earlier than 90 days, and not later than 180 days, after Nov. 5, 1990, see section 529 [title III, Sec. 305] of Pub. L. 101-509, set out as an Effective Date of 1990 Amendment note under section 5301 of this title. References in Other Laws to GS-16, 17, or 18 Pay Rates; Regulations Section 529 [title I, Sec. 101(c), (d)] of Pub. L. 101-509 provided that: ``(c) Other References.--Until otherwise provided by law-- ``(1) any reference in a provision of law (which is outside title 5, United States Code, and in effect immediately before this section takes effect [see Effective Date of 1990 Amendment note set out under section 5301 of this title], excluding any reference in a provision of law amended by this Act [see Short Title of 1990 Amendment note set out under section 5301 of this title])-- ``(A)(i) to the rate of pay for grade GS-18 of the General Schedule, or to the maximum rate of pay under the General Schedule, shall be considered a reference to the maximum rate payable under section 5376 of such title (as amended by section 102(a)); ``(ii) to the minimum rate of pay for grade GS-16 of the General Schedule shall be considered a reference to the minimum rate payable under section 5376 of such title (as amended by section 102(a)); and ``(iii) to a rate of pay for grade GS-16 or 17 of the General Schedule shall (except as provided in clause (ii)) be considered a reference to a rate of pay for a position classified above GS-15 pursuant to section 5108 of such title (as amended by section 102(b)(2)); and ``(B) to a rate of pay under the General Schedule shall not include any comparability payment payable under section 5304 of such title (as amended by this section) or any geographic adjustment payable under section 302 [section 529 [title III, Sec. 302] of Pub. L. 101-509, set out as a note under section 5304 of this title]; and ``(2) any authority granted by a provision of law (which is outside such title, and in effect immediately before this section takes effect) to fix pay in accordance with chapter 51 and subchapter III of chapter 53 of such title-- ``(A) shall not be considered to include any authority under section 5304 of such title (as amended by this section) or section 302; but ``(B) shall be considered to include authority under section 5376 of such title (as amended by section 102(a)), if applicable. ``(d) Regulations.--The Office of Personnel Management may prescribe regulations, consistent with subsection (c)(1)(B) and section 303 [section 529 [title III, Sec. 303] of Pub. L. 101-509, set out as a note under section 5301 of this title], governing the conversion or adjustment of rates of pay, where necessary because of the abolishment of grades GS-16, 17, and 18 of the General Schedule.'' Section Referred to in Other Sections This section is referred to in sections 3405, 4507a, 5304, 5307, 5331, 5382, 5595, 5948, 9509 of this title; title 7 section 7317; title 20 section 9578; title 33 sections 892c, 1123, 1128; title 42 sections 1863, 1864, 5612, 5651.

§ 903. —  Reorganization plans.

Share | From the U.S. Code Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [Laws in effect as of January 24, 2002] [Document not affected by Public Laws enacted between January 24, 2002 and December 19, 2002] [ CITE : 5USC903 ] TITLE 5--GOVERNMENT ORGANIZATION AND EMPLOYEES PART I--THE AGENCIES GENERALLY CHAPTER 9--EXECUTIVE REORGANIZATION Sec. 903. Reorganization plans (a) Whenever the President, after investigation, finds that changes in the organization of agencies are necessary to carry out any policy set forth in section 901(a) of this title, he shall prepare a reorganization plan specifying the reorganizations he finds are necessary. Any plan may provide for-- (1) the transfer of the whole or a part of an agency, or of the whole or a part of the functions thereof, to the jurisdiction and control of another agency; (2) the abolition of all or a part of the functions of an agency, except that no enforcement function or statutory program shall be abolished by the plan; (3) the consolidation or coordination of the whole or a part of an agency, or of the whole or a part of the functions thereof, with the whole or a part of another agency or the functions thereof; (4) the consolidation or coordination of part of an agency or the functions thereof with another part of the same agency or the functions thereof; (5) the authorization of an officer to delegate any of his functions; or (6) the abolition of the whole or a part of an agency which agency or part does not have, or on the taking effect of the reorganization plan will not have, any functions. The President shall transmit the plan (bearing an identification number) to the Congress together with a declaration that, with respect to each reorganization included in the plan, he has found that the reorganization is necessary to carry out any policy set forth in section 901(a) of this title. (b) The President shall have a reorganization plan delivered to both Houses on the same day and to each House while it is in session, except that no more than three plans may be pending before the Congress at one time. In his message transmitting a reorganization plan, the President shall specify with respect to each abolition of a function included in the plan the statutory authority for the exercise of the function. The message shall also estimate any reduction or increase in expenditures (itemized so far as practicable), and describe any improvements in management, delivery of Federal services, execution of the laws, and increases in efficiency of Government operations, which it is expected will be realized as a result of the reorganizations included in the plan. In addition, the President's message shall include an implementation section which shall (1) describe in detail (A) the actions necessary or planned to complete the reorganization, (B) the anticipated nature and substance of any orders, directives, and other administrative and operational actions which are expected to be required for completing or implementing the reorganization, and (C) any preliminary actions which have been taken in the implementation process, and (2) contain a projected timetable for completion of the implementation process. The President shall also submit such further background or other information as the Congress may require for its consideration of the plan. (c) Any time during the period of 60 calendar days of continuous session of Congress after the date on which the plan is transmitted to it, but before any resolution described in section 909 has been ordered reported in either House, the President may make amendments or modifications to the plan, consistent with sections 903-905 of this title, which modifications or revisions shall thereafter be treated as a part of the reorganization plan originally transmitted and shall not affect in any way the time limits otherwise provided for in this chapter. The President may withdraw the plan any time prior to the conclusion of 90 calendar days of continuous session of Congress following the date on which the plan is submitted to Congress. (Pub. L. 89-554, Sept. 6, 1966, 80 Stat. 394; Pub. L. 90-83, Sec. 1(99), Sept. 11, 1967, 81 Stat. 220; Pub. L. 92-179, Sec. 2, Dec. 10, 1971, 85 Stat. 574; Pub. L. 95-17, Sec. 2, Apr. 6, 1977, 91 Stat. 30; Pub. L. 98- 614, Secs. 3(b)(1), (2), 4, Nov. 8, 1984, 98 Stat. 3192, 3193.) Historical and Revision Notes 1966 Act ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Revised Statutes and Derivation U.S. Code Statutes at Large ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 5 U.S.C. 133z-1. June 20, 1949, ch. 226, Sec. 3, 63 Stat. 203. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ In subsection (a)(5), the words ``officer in the civil service or uniformed services'' are substituted for ``officer'' to conform to the definitions in sections 2101 and 2104. In subsection (b), the words ``The President shall have a reorganization plan delivered'' as substituted for ``The delivery . . . shall be''. Standard changes are made to conform with the definitions applicable and the style of this title as outlined in the preface to the report. 1967 Act Section 1(99) amends section 903(a)(5) of title 5, United States Code, to conform to the wording formerly appearing in the source statute (sec. 3(5) of the Reorganization Act of 1949). In this regard, the explanation appearing in section 1(98) of this bill is equally applicable to this section. Amendments 1984--Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 98-614, Sec. 4, inserted ``In addition, the President's message shall include an implementation section which shall (1) describe in detail (A) the actions necessary or planned to complete the reorganization, (B) the anticipated nature and substance of any orders, directives, and other administrative and operational actions which are expected to be required for completing or implementing the reorganization, and (C) any preliminary actions which have been taken in the implementation process, and (2) contain a projected timetable for completion of the implementation process. The President shall also submit such further background or other information as the Congress may require for its consideration of the plan.'' Subsec. (c). Pub. L. 98-614, Sec. 3(b)(1), (2), substituted ``60 calendar days'' for ``thirty calendar days'', and ``90 calendar days'' for ``sixty calendar days''. 1977--Subsec. (a)(2). Pub. L. 95-17 inserted provision that no enforcement function or statutory program shall be abolished by the plan. Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 95-17 substituted provisions limiting to three the number of plans that may be pending before Congress at any one time for provisions limiting to one the number of plans that may be transmitted to Congress within any period of thirty consecutive days and provisions requiring that the President estimate any increase in expenditures and describe any improvements in management, delivery of Federal services, execution of laws, and increases in efficiency of Government operations expected as a result of the reorganizations included in the plan. Subsec. (c). Pub. L. 95-17 added subsec. (c). 1971--Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 92-179, Sec. 2(a), restructured provisions covering requirements of findings of fact and certification by placing in a position preceding par. (1) provisions formerly set out following par. (6). Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 92-179, Sec. 2(b), inserted provisions limiting to one plan within any period of thirty consecutive days the allowable number of plans submitted. Effective Date of 1967 Amendment Amendment by Pub. L. 90-83 effective Sept. 6, 1966, for all purposes, see section 9(h) of Pub. L. 90-83, set out as a note under section 5102 of this title. Section Referred to in Other Sections This section is referred to in sections 902, 904, 905, 908, 909, 910 of this title.

1. FERC’s jurisdiction under this bill extends to distribution systems; the ERO’s does not: The definition of Critical Electric Infrastructure in proposed Section 224 extends to distribution systems. Section 215 does not provide NERC with that jurisdiction. Thus, existing NERC reliability standards and requirements cannot be as broad as FERC’s jurisdiction under the draft bill, and standards prepared by NERC at the direction of FERC similarly cannot be as broad as FERC’s direction if FERC directs an action to protect the distribution system action. If NERC is intended to have the same jurisdiction as FERC over the distribution system and assets, this needs to be clarified. Without such clarification, FERC could always find that an ERO-proposed reliability standard “fails to provide adequate protection of critical electric infrastructure from a cybersecurity vulnerability” and reject the ERO’s efforts under Section 224, effectively removing the ERO role from the vulnerabilities section.
2. Identification of vulnerability: No requirement exists in the legislation for FERC to identify any deficiency in existing reliability standards or the specific cybersecurity vulnerability for the ERO to address. Without some idea of the “target” that FERC would like the ERO to hit, it will be difficult for the ERO to produce an adequate set of requirements, assuming the jurisdiction issue above is addressed.
3. Enforceable tools in addition to standards: The discussion draft calls for the ERO to develop a reliability standard in response to a FERC order on vulnerabilities, but given the constantly changing nature of vulnerabilities, not all vulnerabilities can or should be addressed by a standard. Currently, NERC actions other than standards are not legally enforceable. Legislation that provides a means for both standards and other NERC directives to be legally enforceable would significantly enhance the cybersecurity of the grid. Such an approach would require the involvement of both the ERO and the Commission.
4. Due process: The discussion draft would authorize FERC to promulgate an interim final rule without consultation or any due process. In addition, unlike the 90-day sunset on DOE emergency orders, there is no such limitation on FERC interim final rules.
Conclusion
NERC works with multiple agencies, industry, consumers and government to support a coordinated comprehensive effort to address cybersecurity. As outlined today, NERC has many tools available including the ESCC and the ES-ISAC to address imminent and non-imminent threats and vulnerabilities through our Alerts and standards processes. These existing processes should be enhanced, not pre-empted, by cybersecurity grid legislation.
We appreciate this opportunity to discuss NERC’s activities on cybersecurity with the committee and to offer our views on legislation that would improve cybersecurity protection of the grid.
1. Reliability Standards
NERC has nine existing CIP standards that address the following areas:
• Standard CIP-001: Covers Sabotage Reporting.
• Standard CIP-002: Requires the identification and documentation of the Critical Cyber Assets associated with the Critical Assets that support the reliable operation of the Bulk Electric System.
• Standard CIP-003: Requires that Responsible Entities have minimum security management controls in place to protect Critical Cyber Assets.
• Standard CIP-004: Requires that personnel having authorized cyber or authorized unescorted physical access to Critical Cyber Assets, including contractors and service vendors, have an appropriate level of personnel risk assessment, training, and security awareness.
• Standard CIP-005: Requires the identification and protection of the Electronic Security Perimeter(s) inside which all Critical Cyber Assets reside, as well as all access points on the perimeter.
• Standard CIP-006: Intended to ensure the implementation of a physical security program for the protection of Critical Cyber Assets.
• Standard CIP-007: Requires Responsible Entities to define methods, processes, and procedures for securing those systems determined to be Critical Cyber Assets, as well as the other (non-critical) Cyber Assets within the Electronic Security Perimeter(s).
• Standard CIP-008: Ensures the identification, classification, response, and reporting of Cyber Security Incidents related to Critical Cyber Assets.

Subject: Water News Release (HQ): EPA to Host Public Listening Sessions during National Ocean Month
From:
"U.S. EPA" < usaepa@govdelivery.com > To: john@ironmountainmine.com

CONTACT:

EPA Press Office

press@epa.gov

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
June 2, 2011

EPA to Host Public Listening Sessions during National Ocean Month

WASHINGTON – The Obama Administration today announced the launch of a series of listening sessions to gather input from the communities that depend on and care for our ocean, coasts, and Great Lakes – continuing work to implement the nation's first comprehensive ocean policy. Feedback and comments gathered through these public engagement opportunities will assist the National Ocean Council as it continues implementing the new National Policy for the Stewardship of the Ocean, our Coasts, and the Great Lakes.

Starting next week, the National Ocean Council will host a series of 12 public listening sessions across the country. EPA will be coordinating efforts with other federal agencies and partners to host a listening session in the Gulf of Mexico region and co-host a listening session in the Great Lakes region alongside the U.S. Coast Guard. Following the executive order issued by President Obama last July that established the National Ocean Policy and the National Ocean Council, these public engagement sessions mark the latest milestone in implementing an ocean policy that addresses critical issues facing our oceans.

In addition, the National Ocean Council has launched a month-long public comment period for strategic action plan outlines. The outlines for the strategic action plans were drafted by federal interagency teams as a first step in implementing the president's National Ocean Policy. After the public comment period, the outlines will be used to develop strategic action plans that will propose attainable goals and specific, measureable actions the federal government can implement to address key challenges facing our ocean, coasts, and Great Lakes.

To participate in providing feedback for the strategic action plans outlines or to get more information on listening sessions: http://www.whitehouse.gov/oceans

To provide comment on the nine strategic action plans: http://www.whitehouse.gov/oceans

To find a National Ocean Council regional listening session near you: http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2011/05/26/share-your-ideas-national-ocean-council-listening-session-near-you

Subject: U.S. EPA Go Green! Monthly Consumer Newsletter - June 2011
From:
"U.S. EPA" < usaepa@govdelivery.com > To: john@ironmountainmine.com

GO GREEN!
EPA News You Can Use - June 2011
http://www.epa.gov/gogreen

IN THIS ISSUE:
Enviro-Tip of the Month
What You Can Do, What You Can Use
Upcoming Events and Opportunities
This Month in EPA@40
About This Newsletter

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

ENVIRO-TIP OF THE MONTH

Prepare for a hurricane before it strikes. June 1 marks the beginning of hurricane season in the US. Individuals, communities, and businesses can find out more about avoiding or minimizing disaster by planning ahead for shortages and storm cleanup.
http://www.epa.gov/naturaldisasters/hurricanes

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

WHAT YOU CAN DO, WHAT YOU CAN USE

Hot tips for a cool summer! Save energy in summer and fight climate change. Get tips to reduce energy bills and greenhouse gas emissions.
http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/names/hq_2009-5-12_Summer_Energy_Tips
-Even more tips:
http://www.epa.gov/epahome/hi-summer.htm

Don't Fry - Any Day! With the start of the summer season, remember to avoid overexposure to the sun's harmful "UV" rays. Put on sunscreen, wear a hat, sunglasses, and a t-shirt. Melanoma, the most serious form of skin cancer, is on the rise in America and is the most common cancer among young adults aged 25-29. Read more about how to protect yourself.
http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/names/hq_2011-5-23_dontfryday
-Check the UV Index where you live or get the web widget:
http://www.epa.gov/sunwise/uvindex

New Vehicle Label. Starting with model year 2013, an improved fuel economy label will be used on all new passenger cars and trucks. Learn more about how this label will let shoppers compare conventional gasoline-powered vehicles with "next generation" car types such as plug-in, hybrid, or electric.
http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/names/hq_2011-5-25_fueleconomylabel
-Watch the video about the label:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DMtdlZFucp4

Rachel Carson Contest, entry deadline June 10! Teams of two or more persons, a young person and an older person, can express their "Sense of Wonder" for the sea, the night sky, forests, birds, wildlife, and all that is beautiful to your eyes.
http://www.epa.gov/aging/resources/thesenseofwonder

Help Build Asthma Awareness. Learn what you can do to reduce indoor air asthma triggers in homes and schools. One out of every ten school-aged children is affected and approximately 13 million people have reported having an asthma attack in the past year.
http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/names/hq_2011-5-3_asthmaawarenessmonth

Check for drinking water violations. You can check whether the drinking water in your community has met standards required under the Safe Drinking Water Act, or for serious violations in drinking water quality.
http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/names/hq_2011-5-16_sdwaecho
-Search the data base:
http://www.epa-echo.gov/echo/compliance_report_sdwa.html

Photo Project. You can take a photo of the environment "as you see it" and submit it to the State of the Environment Photo Project. This photo project builds on Documerica, a collection of thousands of photos of the 1970s American environment. See the old collection, and find out how you can submit photos (through Flickr) to the new collection. Selected submitted photos will be used in a display during Earth Day 2012.
http://www.epa.gov/environmentphotoproject
-Try the "Locations" challenge!
http://www.epa.gov/environmentphotoproject/locations.html

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

UPCOMING EVENTS AND OPPORTUNITIES

JUNE

Month
American Rivers Month
Perennial Gardening Month

Week
Jun 26 - Jul 2 National Mosquito Control Awareness Week
http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/health/mosquitoes /

Day
5 World Environment Day (UNEP)
8 World Oceans Day

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

THIS MONTH IN EPA@40

In December 2010, EPA turned 40! Here are some key events and activities from years past that happened this month:

Jun 12, 2006 - EPA launches the WaterSense Program to promote water-efficient products that save water and money on water/sewer bills.
Jun 14, 1972 - EPA bans DDT and requires extensive review of all pesticides.
Jun 17, 1992 - EPA and DOE start ENERGY STAR to protect the environment and save money through energy-efficient products.
Jun 29, 1969 - The Cuyahoga River in Ohio catches on fire, spurring the Clean Water Act and other water pollution control legislation.
Jun 30, 1983 - EPA encourages homeowners to test for radon gas, the second leading cause of lung cancer in the U.S.
Jun 30, 1993 - EPA concludes that exposure to secondhand tobacco smoke is responsible for about 3,000 lung cancer deaths each year.
Jun 30, 1994 - EPA launches the Brownfields program to clean up abandoned, contaminated sites and return them to productive use.
Jun 30, 1994 - EPA issues new standards for chemical plants to reduce toxic air pollution by more than half a million tons each year.

More at http://www.epa.gov/40th

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

ABOUT THIS NEWSLETTER

America is shifting to a "green culture" where all 300 million citizens are embracing the fact that environmental responsibility is everyone's responsibility. "Go Green!" is a monthly newsletter from the US EPA with information about activities and events that everyone can use to make a difference in their homes, communities, and offices.

Want more news? Sign up to receive daily EPA news releases on topics that interest you.
http://www.epa.gov/newsroom/email_signups.htm  ;

Read Go Green! online

EPA Seal

You can view or update your subscriptions or e-mail address at any time on your Subscriber Preferences Page . All you will need is your e-mail address. If you have any questions or problems e-mail support@govdelivery.com for assistance. 

This service is provided to you at no charge by U.S. Environmental Protection Agency . 

Daily reading for 06/02/2011

Schlosser moving to OMB's E-Gov office
Federal News Radio 1500 AM
In her new role, Lisa Schlosser will work closely with federal CIO Vivek Kundra on oversight and implementation of the administration's initiatives.
read more share:  ShareShareShare
Cybersecurity Recommendations
Nextgov
The Center for a New American Security released a two-volume report today on cybersecurity containing a wide range of recommendations.
read more share:  ShareShareShare
The New Fiscal Nightmare: 2012 State Budgets Cuts
The Fiscal Times
After nearly three years of economic recovery, the crisis in state and local budgets continues to worsen.
read more share:  ShareShareShare
IT Reform at the U.S. Department of Commerce
CIO.gov
U.S. Department of Commerce CIO Simon Szykman describes recent efforts at Commerce to implement the Federal IT Reform plan.
read more share:  ShareShareShare
HHS IT Reform at the 6-Month Mark
CIO.gov
HHS CIO Mike Carleton highlights HHS efforts over past six months to improve investment management and streamline IT operations.
read more share:  ShareShareShare
IT Reform at the Department of Homeland Security
CIO.gov
Six months after OMB unveiled the 25 Point Implementation Plan to Reform Federal IT Management, CIO Richard Spires announces DHS progress in implementing key IT Reform actions outlined in the Plan.
read more share:  ShareShareShare
Chief Information Officers Council - Meet the CIO Council Accessibility Committee
cio.gov
A little over a year ago, the CIO Council established the Accessibility Committee in an effort to raise awareness and engage Federal CIOs to improve accessibility within both their agencies and the government as a whole. Disability advocates from outside government and many government insiders recommended the Federal government adopt a stronger overall federal approach to technology accessibilit
read more share:  ShareShareShare
SAIC Awarded $10 Million Contract By General Services Administration - PR Newswire - sacbee.com
sacbee.com
read more share:  ShareShareShare
Obama to name former utility executive as Commerce chief (5/31/11) -- GovExec.com
Government Executive
President Obama will nominate a noted utility executive, John Bryson, to be the next Commerce Secretary later Tuesday. If confirmed, Bryson would succeed Gary Locke, whom Obama has named as the next U.S. ambassador to China.
read more share:  ShareShareShare
Transportation Dept. Gets $100 Million For Wireless Apps -- InformationWeek
informationweek.com
The White House plans to invest $100 million to help the Department of Transportation (DOT) develop wireless applications to deliver emergency services, Internet access in remote locations, and other innovative services to its employees and users, according to the DOT.
read more share:  ShareShareShare
To take the next IT step, agencies have to get creative -- Government Computer News
gcn.com
Consolidation, virtualization, cloud ... they promise the moon: On demand IT services, scaled to meet specific computing requirements; faster services to end users and improved IT economies for management, legislators and taxpayers. But although government is a good candidate for these streamlining technologies, agencies may need to adopt some financial and management practices that are not typical of government if they are to realize these benefits.
read more share:  ShareShareShare

Tuesday, May 31, 2011

Green Infrastructure for Clean Water Act Introduced in Senate and House

On May 27, Senators Ben Cardin (D-MD), Tom Udall (D-NM) and Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) introduced the Green Infrastructure for Clean Water Act of 2011 .  The bill's sponsors say that the measure would address the nation's water quality challenges by encouraging the research, development and promotion of new technologies and designs that use natural processes to combat polluted stormwater runoff.  The bill calls for EPA to use a competitive grant program to establish Centers of Excellence for green infrastructure, each charged with conducting research on green infrastructure that is relevant to the geographic region in which the Center is located, and provide communities with training and technical assistance on how to implement green infrastructure best management practices.  The legislation would also provide incentive funding to help communities develop green infrastructure technologies, and would establish a green infrastructure program within the EPA's Office of Water to coordinate and promote the use of new stormwater technologies.

Companion legislation has been introduced in the House by Representatives Donna Edwards (D-MD-4) and Russ Carnahan (D-MO-3) (the House measure has 15 co-sponsors).   

Comparable Senate and House versions of the same legislation were introduced during the last session of Congress, but neither advanced out of their respective committees.

News Releases By Date

U.S. EPA Highlights 1st Ever National Wetlands Condition Assessment, Changing Federal Protections for California Wetlands

Release date: 06/02/2011

Contact Information: Mary Simms, simms.mary@epa.gov (415) 947-4270

Field sampling taking place in San Mateo, San Diego, Orange, Solano, Contra Costa, Ventura, Marin, Monterey, Humboldt, San Joaquin and additional counties throughout California, U.S

SAN FRANCISCO — The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is hosting a press availability today to highlight a national effort to assess the health of the nation's wetlands, and an opportunity to provide input on proposed changes to how the government protects wetlands. The media event is being held at the Stone Lakes National Wildlife Refuge in Elk Grove, California, where scientists will be simultaneously sampling nearby wetlands as part of the National Wetlands Condition Assessment (NWCA).

The NWCA is a collaboration between EPA and its state, tribal, and federal partners representing the first-ever national field survey on the health of the nation's wetlands. More than 1,000 sites across the country—including 43 in California—are being surveyed to assess indicators of wetland health, including water quality and flow, vegetation, and soils. NCWA sampling locations during the next two months will include wetlands in the following California counties: San Mateo, San Diego, Orange, Solano, Contra Costa, Ventura, Marin, Monterey, Humboldt, San Joaquin, Inyo, Merced, and Mendocino.

EPA officials will also be answering questions regarding recent draft guidance on federal wetlands protection. The draft Guidance, developed with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, aims to clarify which waters are subject to protection under the Clean Water Act, and is open to public input until July 1st. Formal regulations clarifying when the CWA applies may follow the guidance, a process which would again involve public input.

“Wetlands filter pollution, and protect communities from flooding while providing habitat for fish, fowl and flora,” said Alexis Strauss, EPA's water division director for the Pacific Southwest. “The draft Clean Water Act guidance will reaffirm our intent to protect these vital and vanishing resources to the fullest extent of the law, while providing greater clarity to the regulated public.”

Between 80 and 95 percent of California's original wetlands and stream-side (“riparian”) habitats have been destroyed or modified. For nearly 40 years, the Clean Water Act has been a cornerstone of EPA's effort to ensure that Americans have clean and healthy waters. The draft guidance, part of the Obama administration's national clean water framework, implements recent Supreme Courtdecisions addressing what types of waters could be subject to traditional CWA protections. The framework outlines a series of actions across federal agencies to ensure the integrity of the waters Americans rely on every day for drinking, swimming, and fishing, and that support farming, recreation, tourism and economic growth.

The National Wetland Condition Assessment (NWCA) survey was designed by EPA's Office of Research and Development and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. It will use a probability-based model to estimate the health of aquatic resources consistently nation-wide to ensure that the results can be compared across the country.

Used along with similar surveys on the nation's coastal waters, wadeable streams, rivers, and lakes, the NWCA results will help us to better protect, maintain, and restore our nation's water quality and vanishing aquatic habitat.

For additional details if you would like to attend today's press availability, please visit: http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/0/d4a2c80571f73050852578a10058f38c?OpenDocument

To view a list of the California locations that will be sampled as part of the assessment and for additional photos, please visit : http://www.epa.gov/region9/mediacenter/wetlands

To read the draft Waters of the United States" guidance and for information on how to submit a comment, please visit: http://www.water.epa.gov/lawsregs/guidance/wetlands/CWAwaters.cfm .

To learn more about the National Wetlands Conditions Assessment, please visit: http://water.epa.gov/type/wetlands/assessment/survey/index.cfm

###

News Releases By Date

Rio Rancho Receives $286,000 for Green Infrastructure

Release date: 06/01/2011

Contact Information: Dave Bary or Joe Hubbard at 214-665-2200 or r6press@epa.gov

(DALLAS – June 1, 2011) The City of Rio Rancho, New Mexico is constructing a new well water infrastructure, including two surge tanks, duplex model air compressors and controls that will alleviate problems with pipe failures due to surges from the existing equipment. The U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) awarded $286,000 for the work.

EPA encourages citizens to take action to protect the nation's waters. Americans drink more than one billion glasses of tap water per day and keeping water safe is a shared responsibility. Americans can do their part by staying informed, reusing containers, recycling and keeping pollutants away from the nation's waterways.

Additional information on EPA grants: http://www.epa.gov/region6/gandf/index.htm

More about activities in EPA Region 6: http://www.epa.gov/aboutepa/region6.html

EPA audio file is available at: http://www.epa.gov/region6/6xa/podcast/jun2011.html


# # #
Frequent Questions
Environmental Justice

Environmental Justice is the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color, national origin, or income with respect to the development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies.

EPA Enforcement Goals :

  1. Aggressively go after pollution problems in our communities
  2. Reset our relationship with states to deliver a healthy environment
  3. Improve transparency and public engagement
By Topic

More Topics...

By Business Sector

More Sectors...

Laws

Laws written by Congress provide the authority for EPA to write regulations.

More...

Regulations

Regulations explain the technical, operational, and legal details necessary to implement laws.

More...

Compliance

Helping government, business and the public meet federal environmental requirements.

More...

Enforcement

Holding people and companies legally accountable for violations of laws and regulations.

More...

Policy & Guidance

EPA maintains a list of significant guidance documents (SGD), as called for by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).

More...

Major Environmental Laws

Topics:

See also:

EPA conducts and supervises investigation and cleanup actions at a variety of sites where oil or hazardous chemicals have been released into the environment or when there is a threat of the release of these substances. Cleanup activities also may take place at active and abandoned waste sites, federal facilities and properties, and where above or underground storage tanks have leaked.

Major Environmental Laws

Read more basic information about cleanup .

Topics:

See also:

Aboveground Storage Tanks
Aboveground Storage Tanks (ASTs) that store petroleum or hazardous substances are subject to both federal regulations and state/local regulations. Most ASTs need to meet Spill, Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure (SPCC) requirements.

Brownfields
Brownfields are real property, the expansion, redevelopment or reuse of which may be complicated by the presence or potential presence of a hazardous substance, pollutant or contaminant.

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Corrective Action
When solid or hazardous waste is not properly managed and contamination results at RCRA-regulated facilities, the RCRA Corrective Action program monitors and regulates the cleanup of the contamination.

Superfund
The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980 , known as Superfund, was enacted to address abandoned hazardous waste sites in the U.S. The law has subsequently been amended, by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA), and the Small Business Liability Relief and Brownfields Revitalization Act of 2002.

The HRS Toolbox page provides current guidance documents that may be used to determine if a site is a candidate for inclusion on the National Priorities List.

PA Guidance
SI Guidance
HRS Guidance
HRS Rule, December 14, 1990 		Fact Sheets
HRS Scoring and Documentation Tools
NPL Listing Policy Documents

Water

EPA enforces federal clean water and safe drinking water laws, provides support for municipal wastewater treatment plants, and takes part in pollution prevention efforts aimed at protecting watersheds and sources of drinking water.

Major Environmental Laws

General Information

Topics:

 

Animal Feeding Operations
See: Cross-Cutting Issues – Animal Feeding Operations

Biosolids
Biosolids are the nutrient-rich organic materials resulting from the treatment of sewage sludge. Only biosolids that meet the most stringent standards spelled out in federal and state rules can be approved for use as a fertilizer.

Read more at Biosolids – includes guidance, publications, and answers to frequent questions.

Drinking Water
The Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) is the main federal law that ensures the quality of Americans' drinking water. Under SDWA, EPA sets standards for drinking water quality and oversees the states, localities, and water suppliers who implement those standards.

Read more at Regulatory Information: The Safe Drinking Water Act

 See also:

Ground Water
Many communities obtain their drinking water from aquifers. Unfortunately, the ground water can become contaminated by human activity. These chemicals can enter the soil and rock, polluting the aquifer and eventually the well.

Read more at Ground Water

Hydraulic Fracturing
Water is an integral component of the hydraulic fracturing process. EPA Office of Water regulates waste disposal of flowback and sometimes the injection of fracturing fluids as authorized by the Safe Drinking Water Act and Clean Water Act. 

Read more at Hydraulic Fracturing.

Impaired Waters
Under Section 303 D of the Clean Water Act , states, territories and authorized tribes are required to develop lists of impaired waters. These are waters that are too polluted or otherwise degraded to meet the water quality standards set by states, territories, or authorized tribes.

Mercury
See Mercury .

Mountaintop Mining
Mining operations are regulated under the Clean Water Act (CWA) , including discharges of pollutants to streams from valley fills ( CWA Section 402 ) and the valley fill itself where the rock and dirt is placed in streams and wetlands ( CWA Section 404 ).  Coal mining operations are also regulated under the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (SMCRA) .

Read more at Mid-Atlantic Mountaintop Mining.

Oceans and Coastal Waters

Stormwater
EPA controls storm water and sewer overflow discharges through its National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System . NPDES provides guidance to municipalities and state and federal permitting authorities on how to meet stormwater pollution control goals as flexibly and cost-effectively as possible.

Wastewater
EPA regulates the discharge and treatment of wastewater under the Clean Water Act . The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) issues permits to all wastewater dischargers and treatment facilities. These permits establish specific discharge limits, monitoring and reporting requirements and may also require these facilities to undertake special measures to protect the environment from harmful pollutants.

See also Animal Feeding Operations .

Watersheds

Wetlands

Top of Page

Frequent Questions

Ask a Question

Related Sectors
International/Tribal

Environmental Justice

Recent Additions | Contact Us Search: All EPA Compliance and Enforcement

Environmental Justice is the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color, national origin, or income with respect to the development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies. EPA has this goal for all communities and persons across this Nation. It will be achieved when everyone enjoys the same degree of protection from environmental and health hazards and equal access to the decision-making process to have a healthy environment in which to live, learn, and work.

1 2 3 Report environmental violations
Plan EJ 2014 Listening Sessions

EPA has scheduled 6 Listening Sessions seeking ways to better integrate environmental justice into the permits issued under environmental laws. Read more about how to participate .

 

Topics

National Environmental Justice Advisory Council (NEJAC)
A Federal committee providing recommendations to EPA on environmental justice matters
Meetings | Recommendations | Subcommittees

Plan EJ 2014
Plan EJ 2014 is EPA's road map for advancing environmental justice across the agency and federal government.

Environmental Justice Grants & Programs
Providing financial assistance to for projects to address local environmental concerns
Small Grants | Collaborative Problem Solving Cooperative Agreements

Federal Interagency Working Group on Environmental Justice (IWG)
Various Federal agencies and White House offices working to integrate environmental justice into its individual programs

Environmental Justice Achievement Awards
Recognizing the achievements of organizations that undertake environmental justice initiatives which make a positive impact in the community

Community Outreach Teleconferences
Provides information to participants about the Agency's EJ activities and maintain an open dialogue with EJ advocates


Environmental Justice
Information Resources
Compliance & Enforcement Popular Resources
Compliance & Enforcement Data Tools
Commitment to Cost-Benefit Analysis Filter by:

Inhofe Introduces Small System Safe Drinking Water Bill May 17, 2011
Contacts:

Matt Dempsey Matt_Dempsey@epw.senate.gov (202) 224-9797

Katie Brown  Katie_Brown@epw.senate.gov  (202) 224-2160  

Inhofe Introduces Small System Safe Drinking Water Bill

Link to Small System Safe Drinking Water Act

Washington, D.C.-Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.), Ranking Member on the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, together with Senators David Vitter (R-LA), Mike Crapo (R-ID), John Boozman (R-AR), Thad Cochran (R-MS), and Jim Risch (R-ID), yesterday introduced The Small System Safe Drinking Water Act of 2011 (S. 999)-a bill that helps small water systems comply with Federal drinking water standards by requiring that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) utilize all the affordability provisions provided under the 1996 Safe Drinking Water Act amendments (SDWA), which are designed to help water systems in smaller communities come into compliance.

"One of my top priorities through my leadership role on the EPW Committee is to ensure that small towns in Oklahoma and across the nation have safe, affordable drinking water and that the laws are fair to small and rural communities," Senator Inhofe said.  "Too often federal regulations come with a price tag that is unreasonable for small towns and cities with lower budgets. Forcing systems to raise rates beyond what their ratepayers can afford only causes more damage than good and can be especially harmful for low-income communities or areas facing economic challenges."

Support from Oklahomans for the Small System Safe Drinking Water Act

Steve Thompson, Executive Director of the Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality: "Federal requirements are overwhelming the financial capacity of small drinking water systems.  Almost every small system enforcement action taken by the Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality is related to the difficulty those communities have in accessing sufficient funds to carry out the projects. Many of the communities struggle even after significant increases in rates to their citizens.  I applaud Senator Inhofe's effort to insure that funding is available to meet the needs of our small communities and rural water districts."

Mark Mosley, City Manager, Wewoka: "As City Manager of Wewoka, I am encouraged by the legislation you are proposing that will provide funds for small towns under EPA and DEQ mandates. This would allow the City to use grants, funds and extra money to improve other infrastructure such as roads, bridges, parks and the overall quality of life of the small towns."

Martin Tucker, City Manager, Skiatook: "In these tough economic times, many Cities and Towns across the country are struggling to make ends meet.  Local governments are tasked with providing most, if not all, of the emergency services for their residents along with a myriad of fundamental, basic services. Unfunded mandates and directives translate directly into a reduced level of service for our citizens. Legislation to curtail the burden of these mandates would offer direct benefits to those we represent."

Details about The Small System Safe Drinking Water Act of 2011

Specifically, this bill requires EPA to update its affordability criteria, which it admitted in 2006 is unfair to small systems. Currently, EPA assumes that families can afford water rates of 2.5 percent of their annual median household income, or $1,000 per household.  For some families, paying $83 a month for water may not be a hardship but for so many more, it is nearly impossible. This bill guarantees that there is some flexibility inserted into the calculation that determines the ability of the truly disadvantaged to pay these costs-it will make sure small systems get the help they need to meet these requirements. 

It provides EPA with practical steps to take to help small systems cope with drinking water rules by reauthorizing the technical assistance program and identifying barriers to new technologies.  The bill creates a pilot program to demonstrate new technologies and approaches for systems of all sizes to comply with these complicated rules.

Most importantly this bill requires the federal government to pay for these unfunded mandates created by laws and regulations:   In 1995, Congress passed the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act to ensure that the Federal government pays the costs incurred by state and local governments in complying with Federal laws.  The bill ensures that EPA cannot take an enforcement action against a system serving less than 10,000 people, without first ensuring that it has sufficient funds to meet the requirements of the regulation.

Commitment to Rural Water Issues

Rural water issues are a top priority for Senator Inhofe.  Since the 108th Congress, he has co-authored and cosponsored legislation that addresses unfunded clean water mandates by providing additional resources for small communities through the State Revolving Loan Funds.  In addition to the Small Systems Safe Drinking Water Act, Senator Inhofe introduced the Small Water Systems Technical Assistance Bill in 2007, which reauthorizes the technical assistance provision originally provided in the 1996 Amendments to the Safe Drinking Water Act. This bill would give small communities without sufficient resources access to the technical tools they need to protect their waters.  Senator Inhofe also led the fight against the Clean Water Restoration Act-a bill that would have empowered the federal government to regulate practically every body of water in the country, no matter how small, and extended the scope and reach of federal water jurisdiction beyond anything that ever existed under the Clean Water Act. 

###





May 2011 Press Releases Browse by:
Majority Office
410 Dirksen Senate Office Bldg.Washington, DC 20510-6175
phone: 202-224-8832 Minority Office
456 Dirksen Senate Office Bldg.Washington, DC 20510-6175
phone: 202-224-6176 Members | Majority Press | Minority Press | Legislative Calendar | Hearings | Committee Schedule | Nominations | Committee Resources
Subcommittees | Search | Home | Contact | Site Map | EPW Multimedia | All Text Version | Privacy Policy
U.S. Senate Links: Senators | Senate Committees | Legislation | Reference Site

GO GREEN!
EPA News You Can Use - June 2011
http://www.epa.gov/gogreen

IN THIS ISSUE:
Enviro-Tip of the Month
What You Can Do, What You Can Use
Upcoming Events and Opportunities
This Month in EPA@40
About This Newsletter

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

ENVIRO-TIP OF THE MONTH

Prepare for a hurricane before it strikes. June 1 marks the beginning of hurricane season in the US. Individuals, communities, and businesses can find out more about avoiding or minimizing disaster by planning ahead for shortages and storm cleanup.
http://www.epa.gov/naturaldisasters/hurricanes

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

WHAT YOU CAN DO, WHAT YOU CAN USE

Hot tips for a cool summer! Save energy in summer and fight climate change. Get tips to reduce energy bills and greenhouse gas emissions.
http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/names/hq_2009-5-12_Summer_Energy_Tips
-Even more tips:
http://www.epa.gov/epahome/hi-summer.htm

Don't Fry - Any Day! With the start of the summer season, remember to avoid overexposure to the sun's harmful "UV" rays. Put on sunscreen, wear a hat, sunglasses, and a t-shirt. Melanoma, the most serious form of skin cancer, is on the rise in America and is the most common cancer among young adults aged 25-29. Read more about how to protect yourself.
http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/names/hq_2011-5-23_dontfryday
-Check the UV Index where you live or get the web widget:
http://www.epa.gov/sunwise/uvindex

New Vehicle Label. Starting with model year 2013, an improved fuel economy label will be used on all new passenger cars and trucks. Learn more about how this label will let shoppers compare conventional gasoline-powered vehicles with "next generation" car types such as plug-in, hybrid, or electric.
http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/names/hq_2011-5-25_fueleconomylabel
-Watch the video about the label:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DMtdlZFucp4

Rachel Carson Contest, entry deadline June 10! Teams of two or more persons, a young person and an older person, can express their "Sense of Wonder" for the sea, the night sky, forests, birds, wildlife, and all that is beautiful to your eyes.
http://www.epa.gov/aging/resources/thesenseofwonder

Help Build Asthma Awareness. Learn what you can do to reduce indoor air asthma triggers in homes and schools. One out of every ten school-aged children is affected and approximately 13 million people have reported having an asthma attack in the past year.
http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/names/hq_2011-5-3_asthmaawarenessmonth

Check for drinking water violations. You can check whether the drinking water in your community has met standards required under the Safe Drinking Water Act, or for serious violations in drinking water quality.
http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/names/hq_2011-5-16_sdwaecho
-Search the data base:
http://www.epa-echo.gov/echo/compliance_report_sdwa.html

Photo Project. You can take a photo of the environment "as you see it" and submit it to the State of the Environment Photo Project. This photo project builds on Documerica, a collection of thousands of photos of the 1970s American environment. See the old collection, and find out how you can submit photos (through Flickr) to the new collection. Selected submitted photos will be used in a display during Earth Day 2012.
http://www.epa.gov/environmentphotoproject
-Try the "Locations" challenge!
http://www.epa.gov/environmentphotoproject/locations.html

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

UPCOMING EVENTS AND OPPORTUNITIES

JUNE

Month
American Rivers Month
Perennial Gardening Month

Week
Jun 26 - Jul 2 National Mosquito Control Awareness Week
http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/health/mosquitoes /

Day
5 World Environment Day (UNEP)
8 World Oceans Day

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

THIS MONTH IN EPA@40

In December 2010, EPA turned 40! Here are some key events and activities from years past that happened this month:

Jun 12, 2006 - EPA launches the WaterSense Program to promote water-efficient products that save water and money on water/sewer bills.
Jun 14, 1972 - EPA bans DDT and requires extensive review of all pesticides.
Jun 17, 1992 - EPA and DOE start ENERGY STAR to protect the environment and save money through energy-efficient products.
Jun 29, 1969 - The Cuyahoga River in Ohio catches on fire, spurring the Clean Water Act and other water pollution control legislation.
Jun 30, 1983 - EPA encourages homeowners to test for radon gas, the second leading cause of lung cancer in the U.S.
Jun 30, 1993 - EPA concludes that exposure to secondhand tobacco smoke is responsible for about 3,000 lung cancer deaths each year.
Jun 30, 1994 - EPA launches the Brownfields program to clean up abandoned, contaminated sites and return them to productive use.
Jun 30, 1994 - EPA issues new standards for chemical plants to reduce toxic air pollution by more than half a million tons each year.

More at http://www.epa.gov/40th

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

ABOUT THIS NEWSLETTER

America is shifting to a "green culture" where all 300 million citizens are embracing the fact that environmental responsibility is everyone's responsibility. "Go Green!" is a monthly newsletter from the US EPA with information about activities and events that everyone can use to make a difference in their homes, communities, and offices.

Want more news? Sign up to receive daily EPA news releases on topics that interest you.
http://www.epa.gov/newsroom/email_signups.htm  ;

Read Go Green! online

 

You can view or update your subscriptions or e-mail address at any time on your Subscriber Preferences Page . All you will need is your e-mail address. If you have any questions or problems e-mail support@govdelivery.com for assistance. 

This service is provided to you at no charge by U.S. Environmental Protection Agency . 

Superfund Report - 05/30/2011

Assembly Member Roster

Member Name Party District Capitol Phone Room No. E-mail
Achadjian, Katcho Rep 33rd (916) 319-2033 Room 2016 comments
Alejo, Luis A. Dem 28th (916) 319-2028 Room 2137 [email]
Allen, Michael Dem 7th (916) 319-2007 Room 5158 [email]
Ammiano, Tom Dem 13th (916) 319-2013 Room 4005 [email]
Atkins, Toni Dem 76th (916) 319-2076 Room 4146 [email]
Beall, Jim Jr. Dem 24th (916) 319-2024 Room 5016 [email]
Berryhill, Bill Rep 26th (916) 319-2026 Room 3141 comments
Block, Marty Dem 78th (916) 319-2078 Room 3091 [email]
Blumenfield, Bob Dem 40th (916) 319-2040 Room 6026 [email]
Bonilla, Susan Dem 11th (916) 319-2011 Room 2188 comments
Bradford, Steven Dem 51st (916) 319-2051 Room 5136 [email]
Brownley, Julia Dem 41st (916) 319-2041 Room 2163 [email]
Buchanan, Joan Dem 15th (916) 319-2015 Room 2148 [email]
Butler, Betsy Dem 53rd (916) 319-2053 Room 3132 comments
Calderon, Charles M. Dem 58th (916) 319-2058 Room 319 [email]
Campos, Nora Dem 23rd (916) 319-2023 Room 2175 [email]
Carter, Wilmer Amina Dem 62nd (916) 319-2062 Room 2136 comments
Cedillo, Gilbert Dem 45th (916) 319-2045 Room 5119 [email]
Chesbro, Wesley Dem 1st (916) 319-2001 Room 2141 [email]
Conway, Connie Rep 34th (916) 319-2034 Room 3104 [email]
Cook, Paul Rep 65th (916) 319-2065 Room 5164 comments
Davis, Mike Dem 48th (916) 319-2048 Room 2160 [email]
Dickinson, Roger Dem 9th (916) 319-2009 Room 3126 comments
Donnelly, Tim Rep 59th (916) 319-2059 Room 2002 [email]
Eng, Mike Dem 49th (916) 319-2049 Room 4016 [email]
Feuer, Mike Dem 42nd (916) 319-2042 Room 2013 [email]
Fletcher, Nathan Rep 75th (916) 319-2075 Room 2130 [email]
Fong, Paul Dem 22nd (916) 319-2022 Room 5135 [email]
Fuentes, Felipe Dem 39th (916) 319-2039 Room 2114 [email]
Furutani, Warren T. Dem 55th (916) 319-2055 Room 6025 [email]
Gaines, Beth Rep 4th (916) 319-2004 Room 5126 comments
Galgiani, Cathleen Dem 17th (916) 319-2017 Room 5155 [email]
Garrick, Martin Rep 74th (916) 319-2074 Room 2158 [email]
Gatto, Mike Dem 43rd (916) 319-2043 Room 4140 [email]
Gordon, Richard S. Dem 21st (916) 319-2021 Room 5175 comments
Gorell, Jeff Rep 37th (916) 319-2037 Room 4208 [email]
Grove, Shannon L. Rep 32nd (916) 319-2032 Room 3098 comments
Hagman, Curt Rep 60th (916) 319-2060 Room 4130 [email]
Halderman, Linda Rep 29th (916) 319-2029 Room 4009 [email]
Hall, Isadore III Dem 52nd (916) 319-2052 Room 3123 [email]
Harkey, Diane L. Rep 73rd 916) 319-2073 Room 6027 [email]
Hayashi, Mary Dem 18th (916) 319-2018 Room 3013 [email]
Hernández, Roger Dem 57th (916) 319-2057 Room 5150 comments
Hill, Jerry Dem 19th (916) 319-2019 Room 3160 [email]
Huber, Alyson Dem 10th (916) 319-2010 Room 2117 [email]
Hueso, Ben Dem 79th (916) 319-2079 Room 5144 [email]
Huffman, Jared Dem 6th (916) 319-2006 Room 3120 [email]
Jeffries, Kevin Rep 66th (916) 319-2066 Room 5128 comments
Jones, Brian W. Rep 77th (916) 319-2077 Room 3147 comments
Knight, Steve Rep 36th (916) 319-2036 Room 4015 [email]
Lara, Ricardo Dem 50th (916) 319-2050 Room 2179 comments
Logue, Dan Rep 3rd (916) 319-2003 Room 4158 [email]
Lowenthal, Bonnie Dem 54th (916) 319-2054 Room 3152 [email]
Ma, Fiona Dem 12th (916) 319-2012 Room 3173 [email]
Mansoor, Allan R. Rep 68th (916) 319-2068 Room 4177 comments
Mendoza, Tony Dem 56th (916) 319-2056 Room 2196 [email]
Miller, Jeff Rep 71st (916) 319-2071 Room 4144 [email]
Mitchell, Holly J. Dem 47th (916) 319-2047 Room 2176 [email]
Monning, William W. Dem 27th (916) 319-2027 Room 6005 [email]
Morrell, Mike Rep 63rd (916) 319-2063 Room 4102 [email]
Nestande, Brian Rep 64th (916) 319-2064 Room 4139 [email]
Nielsen, Jim Rep 2nd (916) 319-2002 Room 6031 comments
Norby, Chris Rep 72nd (916) 319-2072 Room 4116 [email]
Olsen, Kristin Rep 25th (916) 319-2025 Room 2111 comments
Pan, Richard Dem 5th (916) 319-2005 Room 4164 comments
Perea, Henry T. Dem 31st (916) 319-2031 Room 4112 [email]
Pérez, John A. Dem 46th (916) 319-2046 Room 219 [email]
Pérez, V. Manuel Dem 80th (916) 319-2080 Room 4117 [email]
Portantino, Anthony J. Dem 44th (916) 319-2044 Room 2003 [email]
Silva, Jim Rep 67th (916) 319-2067 Room 2170 comments
Skinner, Nancy Dem 14th (916) 319-2014 Room 4126 [email]
Smyth, Cameron Rep 38th (916) 319-2038 Room 4098 comments
Solorio, Jose Dem 69th (916) 319-2069 Room 3146 [email]
Swanson, Sandré R. Dem 16th (916) 319-2016 Room 6012 [email]
Torres, Norma J. Dem 61st (916) 319-2061 Room 4167 [email]
Valadao, David G. Rep 30th (916) 319-2030 Room 2174 [email]
Wagner, Donald P. Rep 70th (916) 319-2070 Room 4153 [email]
Wieckowski, Bob Dem 20th (916) 319-2020 Room 4162 comments
Williams, Das Dem 35th (916) 319-2035 Room 6011 [email]
Yamada, Mariko Dem 8th (916) 319-2008 Room 5160 [email]
From:
< john@ironmountainmine.com > To: "Ted Arman" < ted@ironmountainmine.com >
http://www.lawandenvironment.com/uploads/file/Town%20of%20Alton%20v_%20Slade(1).pdf http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2011/nsf11057/nsf11057.jsp?WT.mc_id=USNSF_25&WT.mc_ev=click http://www.whitehouse.gov/21stcenturygov/actions/21st-century-regulatory-system http://www.environmentalleader.com/2011/06/01/epa-outlines-ideas-for-cutting-red-tape/ http://www.eenews.net/public/Greenwire/2011/05/24/4 http://www.eenews.net/assets/2011/05/31/document_gw_03.pdf http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=37277 http://www.maineplastics.com/about/stewardship/cercla?CPSESSID=7a1585564bfd9b8b8df4ea62c3aab394 http://www.epa.gov/superfund/policy/cercla.htm http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/0/D4A2C80571F73050852578A10058F38C http://www.epa.gov/superfund/action/process/spim09/pdfs/appa.pdf http://yubanet.com/california/EPA-Exempts-California-Power-Plant-From-Pollution-Laws.php http://www.pvsfish.org/ http://www.clu-in.org/issues/default.focus/sec/Mining_Sites/cat/Overview/ http://www.epa.gov/nrmrl/pubs/600r07092/600R07092.pdf http://www.itrcweb.org/miningwaste-guidance/ http://www.itrcweb.org/ http://www.clu-in.org/conf/itrc/pcc_022609/ http://www.itrcweb.org/Documents/APMR1.pdf http://cluin.org/live/archive/#itrc http://www.clu-in.org/conf/itrc/ecoreuse_051508/ http://www.epa.gov/superfund/programs/aml/tech/ http://www.clu-in.org/s.focus/c/pub/i/636/ http://www.epa.gov/superfund/community/index.htm http://www.epa.gov/superfund/accomp/news/state_tribe_cleanup.html http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2010/2010-20086.htm http://www.epa.gov/ictssw07/public/export/regionalReport/REGION9.HTM

09

CAD980498612 IRON MOUNTAIN MINE FINAL NO 5504.0 4595.0 909.0
http://www.epa.gov/wastes/wycd/tribal/pdftxt/biblio.pdf http://www.epa.gov/region9/water/tribal-CWA-workshop/SaveTheDateFlyer.pdf

09

CAD980498612 IRON MOUNTAIN MINE FINAL NO 5504.0 4595.0 909.0
http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/nplfs/fs0901755.pdf http://www.epa.gov/compliance/cleanup/superfund/index.html http://www.epa.gov/superfund/policy/cercla.htm http://www.epa.gov/superfund/community/index.htm http://www.epa.gov/superfund/community/ciconference/index.htm http://www.epa.gov/superfund/policy/index.htm http://www.epa.gov/superfund/policy/ic/gaoresponse.pdf http://www.blueridgenow.com/article/20110531/ARTICLES/105281008/1042/news?Title=New-funding-propels-Mud-Creek-Watershed-Project&tc=ar http://www.equipmentworld.com/clean-water-cooperative-federalism-act-of-2011-introduced-to-house/ http://kangenwater.waterforlifestore.com/clean-water-cooperative-federalism-act-of-2011-introduced-to-house/ http://www.library.unt.edu/gpo/acir/Reports/brief/B-7.pdf http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/0/D4A2C80571F73050852578A10058F38C http://www.pvsfish.org/ http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2011/nsf11057/nsf11057.jsp?WT.mc_id=USNSF_25&WT.mc_ev=click http://rpsec.usca.edu/seed/SEED11/2011SponsorshipPacket.pdf http://www.environmentalleader.com/2011/06/01/epa-outlines-ideas-for-cutting-red-tape/

http://www.acoel.org/articles/audit-privilege/

Upcoming CWA Training
(5/16/2011 - 5/20/2011): NPDES Permit Writers' Training Course
(6/2/2011): EPA Mining Training for Tribes
(6/3/2011): EPA Mining Training for Tribes
(6/21/2011 - 6/23/2011): Water and Wastewater Infrastructure Operation, Maintenance, and Management Training for Tribal Operators and Leaders
(7/26/2011 - 7/28/2011): Water and Wastewater Infrastructure Operation, Maintenance, and Management Training for Tribal Operators and Leaders

APPENDIX H: AGENCY CHECKLIST: REGULATORY IMPACT ANALYSIS
With this document, the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs is providing a checklist to assist agencies in producing regulatory impact analyses (RIAs), as required for economically significant rules by Executive Order 12866 and OMB Circular A-4.
Nothing herein alters, adds to, or reformulates existing requirements in any way. Moreover, this checklist is limited to the requirements of Executive Order 12866 (available at: http://www.reginfo.gov/public/jsp/Utilities/EO_12866.pdf ) and Circular A-4 (available at: http://www.whitehouse.gov/OMB/circulars/a004/a-4.pdf ); it does not address requirements imposed by other authorities, such as the National Environmental Policy Act, the Regulatory Flexibility Act, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act, the Paperwork Reduction Act, and various Executive Orders that require analysis. Executive Order 12866 and Circular A-4, as well as those other authorities, should be consulted for further information.
Checklist for Regulatory Impact Analysis:
? Does the RIA include a reasonably detailed description of the need for the regulatory action? 188,189
? Does the RIA include an explanation of how the regulatory action will meet that need?190
? Does the RIA use an appropriate baseline (i.e., best assessment of how the world would look in the absence of the proposed action)?191
? Is the information in the RIA based on the best reasonably obtainable scientific, technical, and economic information and is it presented in an accurate, clear, complete, and unbiased manner?192
188 Required under Executive Order 12866, Section 6(a)(3)(B)(i): ?The text of the draft regulatory action, together with a reasonably detailed description of the need for the regulatory action and an explanation of how the regulatory action will meet that need.?
189 Circular A-4 states: ?If the regulation is designed to correct a significant market failure, you should describe the failure both qualitatively and (where feasible) quantitatively.? (P. 4)
190 See note 1 above.
191 Circular A-4 states: ?You need to measure the benefits and costs of a rule against a baseline. This baseline should be the best assessment of the way the world would look absent the proposed action… In some cases, substantial portions of a rule may simply restate statutory requirements that would be self-implementing, even in the absence of the regulatory action. In these cases, you should use a pre-statute baseline.? (P. 15-16)
192 Circular A-4 states: ?Because of its influential nature and its special role in the rulemaking process, it is appropriate to set minimum quality standards for regulatory analysis. You should provide documentation that the analysis is based on the best reasonably obtainable scientific, technical, and economic information available… you should assure compliance with the Information Quality Guidelines for your agency and OMB‘s Guidelines for Ensuring and Maximizing the Quality, Objectivity, Utility, and Integrity of Information Disseminated by Federal Agencies...? (P. 17). The IQ Guidelines (paragraph V.3.a) define objectivity to include ?whether disseminated information is being presented in an accurate, clear, complete, and unbiased manner.? http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/assets/omb/fedreg/reproducible2.pdf
April 25, 2011
M-1l-19
MEMORANDUM FOR THE HEADS OF EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES
Cass R. Sunstein t' ~, y
Administrator FROM:
SUBJECT: Retrospective Analysis ofExisting Significant Regulations
On January 18,2011, the President issued Executive Order 13563, which requires retrospective review of significant rules: "Within 120 days ofthe date ofthis order [May 18], each agency shall develop and submit to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs a preliminary plan ... under which the agency will periodically review its existing significant regulations ...."
The purpose of this Memorandum is to offer guidance on the processes through which
preliminary plans will become finalized. Agencies are encouraged, to the extent feasible, to take
the following steps after the initial 120-day period:
•
Immediately after May 18. Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the value ofpublic participation in the rulemaking process. To promote public participation and transparency, agencies should make their preliminary plans available to the public within a reasonable period (not to exceed two weeks) after May 18. 1 For example, agencies may wish to publish their plans online on the agency's Open Government Webpage ( www.agency.gov/open ). Publication ofplans should be in an open format that enables the public to download, analyze, and visualize any information and data.2
•
Days 1 through 30 after releasing preliminary plans. Because members of the public are likely to have useful infOlmation and perspectives, agencies should promote public consultation about the plans. Agencies are encouraged to use the first thhiy days after releasing their plans to engage in such public consultation. Consultation may take the
I See Memorandum for the Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies, and of Independent Regulatory
Agencies, M-II-IO, "Executive Order 13563, 'Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review'" (February 2, 2011)
("Agencies are encouraged to consider providing a period of public comment after drafts of preliminary plans are
written and/or after such plans have been submitted to OIRA.")
2 See Memorandum for the Heads of Executive Depmtments and Agencies, M-1O-06, Open Government Directive
(Dec. 8,2009) (requiring each agency to create an "Iopen" webpage), available at
http://w' vvw.whitehouse.gov/omb/assets/memoranda 201 O/m I 0-06.pdf.
1
form of public meetings, Federal Register notices, social media, or other kinds of
outreach to the pUblic.3 To ensure that diverse views are considered, agencies are
particularly encouraged to reach out to stakeholders with an interest in the initial list of
rules in the preliminary plans. The list of rules for review should be reconsidered during
the period between the preliminary and final plans.
• Days 31 through 60 after releasing preliminary plans. After receiving public input,
agencies are encouraged to revise their plans in ways that are responsive to the public
input received.
• Days 61 through 80 after releasing preliminary plans. Agencies are encouraged to
finalize their plans no later than 80 days after releasing their preliminary plans. Agencies
are encouraged to make these final plans available to the public and, again, may wish to
publish their plans online on the agency's Open Government Webpage
( www.agency.gov/open ).
• Future retrospective reviews. With its emphasis on "periodic review of existing
significant regulations," Executive Order 13563 recognizes the importance of
maintaining a consistent culture of retrospective review and analysis throughout the
executive branch. To promote that culture, future regulations should be designed and
written in ways that facilitate evaluation of their consequences and thus promote
retrospective analyses. To the extent consistent with law, agencies should give careful
consideration to how best to promote empirical testing of the effects of rules both in
advance and retrospectively. Plans should also be periodically reviewed and updated.
3 Consistent with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), agencies may consider general efforts to obtain public
feedback, including town hall meetings and online equivalents, to be exempt from PRA requirements. For further
explanation of the scope of the Papenvork Reduction Act, please see Office ofInformation and Regulatory Affairs,
Memorandum for the Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies, and Independent Regulatory Agencies,
Information Collection under the Paperwork Reduction Act (April 7, 2010), available at
http://www. whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/inforegIPRAPrimer 0407201 O.pdf and Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs, Memorandum for the Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies, and
Independent Regulatory Agencies, Social Media, Web-Based Interactive Technologies, and the Paperwork
Reduction Act (April 7, 2010), available at
http://www . whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/inforegiSocialMediaGuidance 04072010 .pdf.
4 An emerging literature explores potential methods of evaluation, including randomized trials and quasiexperimental
methods. See Michael Greenstone, "Toward a Culture of Persistent Regulatory Experimentation and
Evaluation," in New Perspectives on Regulation, David Moss and John Cistemino (Eds.). Cambridge, MA: The
Tobin Project, Inc., 2009.

PART 3 NEIGHBORHOOD NOTES | "Community Engagement"—the new buzzwords | Twin Cities Daily Planet Community Engagement Initiative | Solid Waste and Emergency Response | US EPA Indiana State University: Journal of Community Engagement and Higher Education Division of Community Engagement Journal of Community Engagement and Scholarship Community Engagement - Otis College of Art and Design Blackboard Learn | Deliver a Rich Online Learning Experience with Community Engagement Community Engagement Office of Community Engagement — University of Louisville Clinical and Translational Science Awards: CTSA Committees & Activities (CEKFC) community engagement - Google Search community engagement - Google Search HENCE: Higher Education Network for Community Engagement Educators for Community Engagement - Home Community Engagement Center for Community Engagement | Amherst College Community Engagement | National Resource Center on Advancing Emergency Preparedness for Culturally Diverse Communities 10 Rules for Increasing Community Engagement Community Engagement Home Carnegie Classifications | Community Engagement Classification Community engagement - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Principles of Community Engagement community engagement - Google Search Congresswoman Donna Edwards : Community Engagement Events EPA hearing in Philly on coal plant pollution - Lebanon Daily News Web-Based Email :: Address Book Web-Based Email :: Compose Solar energy project receives $737mn conditional loan guarantee - POWER-GEN WorldWide Two natural gas-fired power plants receive licenses - POWER-GEN WorldWide NRC review of AP1000 nuclear reactor design could affect license reviews - POWER-GEN WorldWide GOP Congressman Wants to Close Department of Education & Department of Energy – Planetsave.com: climate change and environmental news Open Government|Government 2.0 Army sees DISA as 'clear choice' for secure cloud IT services - Nextgov Nextgov.com - Welcome IT reforms save taxpayers $3 billion in less than five months, fed CIO says - Nextgov The New Treasury.gov | The White House NASA Be A Martian - Home Saving Money Through Cloud Computing - Brookings Institution Download details: Server Infrastructure Optimization - Best Practices to Reduce IT Operational Costs Cloud government|Cloud computing in government Cloud government|Cloud computing in government FedMentors - brought to you by FedScoop OPM Director: Dramatic Progress in Hiring | FedScoop CDC Releases Much-Anticipated Zombie Apocalypse Preparedness Kit | FedScoop Web-Based Email :: Mail Index :: Inbox Workspace Login Workspace Login index.cfm (application/pdf Object) guide_gwr_stateimplementation_final.pdf (application/pdf Object) ‘ground water 11 rule' and published by the administrator on 12 november 8, 2006 (71 fed. reg. 65574) - Google Search Professional Practice Landing Page | asla.org Water and Stormwater | asla.org American Bar Association Section of Environment, Energy, and Resources Law group | LinkedIn Environmental Attorneys group | LinkedIn Comment on the effectiveness of EPCRA, CERCLA and SARA Title - JustAnswer Former EPA official von Schaumburg at Clark Hill - Forbes.com Welcome to Forbes Home AEP-PSO says EPA is overstepping its authority | Tulsa World Workspace Login CamNation - The best free webcam site! Always hot, always live TPI Corporation - Electric Heat | Industrial Fans & Lights | Process Heat Ovens | Thermostats & Controls Workspace Login


Home NASA Be A Martian is an open-source project written in Silverlight for Windows Phone 7. Hosted on  Windows Azure and Azure DataMarket , Be A Martian is a community for those who want to become Martian citizens, or are just interested in exploring the Red Planet. Be A Martian features numerous ways to explore and learn about Mars:

"View" area: here you can check out stunning Mars images, watch videos and animations of future Mars missions.
"Participate" area: this is where we utilize crowdsourcing to allow the public to add to worldwide understanding of Mars by tagging rover images and mapping craters from satellite pictures.
"Learn" area: features here include Mars related news, and a question-and-answer forum that was built using the free Microsoft Townhall framework. More info on Microsoft TownHall can be found at http://code.msdn.microsoft.com/TownHall .
"Explore" area: a deep-zoom enabled map of the Red Planet with interesting summaries of each different region of Mars.

Be a Martian was created under a Memorandum of Understanding between NASA/JPL-Caltech and Microsoft. The website can be found at beamartian.jpl.nasa.gov .

Community Engagement Initiative | Solid Waste and Emergency ...

Apr 5, 2011 ... The EPA Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (OSWER) Community Engagement Initiative (CEI) is designed to enhance OSWER and regional ...
www.epa.gov/oswer / engagement initiative/ index.htm - Cached
Solid Waste and Emergency Response

Community Engagement Initiative

Highlights
Related Links

Community Engagement Initiative Overview

The EPA Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (OSWER) Community Engagement Initiative (CEI) is designed to enhance OSWER and regional offices' engagement with local communities and stakeholders to help them meaningfully participate in government decisions on land cleanup, emergency preparedness and response, and the management of hazardous substances and waste. Learn more about CEI .

Public Review Requested

OSWER seeks and encourages feedback from communities, stakeholders, local governments, tribes and states on the CEI and all available documents and outcomes. OSWER is requesting stakeholder feedback through the end of July 2011 on:

Community Engagement Initiative Actions

EPA established 16 Actions under the Community Engagement Initiative. Each action links to a page that contains all materials and an Action update fact sheet that summarizes the progress and schedule. The actions EPA established for the CEI are:
Action 1 Decision-Making Processes and Guidance
EPA posted work plans proposing specific decision-making processes to evaluate and revise.
Action 2 Underground Storage Tank (UST) Programs
OUST developed a new Community Engagement website , including highlight of success stories.
Action 3 Best Community Engagement Practices for RCRA
Action 4 OSWER Regulation and Guidance Development
Action 5 Community Engagement Policies and Activities related to Enforcement
Action 6 CERCLA Enforcement Involving Federal Facilities
EPA has finalized the selection of two pilots: TVA-Kingston, TN (Region 4) and Ft. Ord, CA (Region 9)
Action 7 EPA Technical Assistance Processes
The Technical Assistance Workgroup developed a Draft Recommendations Report for review.
Action 8 Community Action for a Renewed Environment (CARE) Program
Action 9 Brownfields Area-Wide Planning Pilot Program
Action 10 Public Health Information on OSWER Projects
Action 11 Risk Communication Processes and Comprehensive Education Program
Action 12 Sampling and Testing Results
Action 13 Delivery of Information
The Delivery of Information Workgroups developed Draft Recommendations Reports for review.
Action 14 Community Engagement Training Program
The Training Workgroup developed a Draft Recommendations Report for review.
Action 15 Measures of Effectiveness and Annual Report
Action 16 Environmental Workforce Development and Job Training Program Visit the updated website to learn more about the Environmental Workforce Development and Job Training Program.

CEI Materials

All CEI documents and information are compiled on the CEI Materials page . http://www.epa.gov/oswer/engagementinitiative/index.htm

The Journal of Community Engagement and Higher Education

Introducing The Journal of Community Engagement and Higher Education : a new on-line, refereed journal examining perspectives, research, and practices of community engagement and community-based learning in higher education. The date for the first publication is projected for Spring 2009. The deadline to submit manuscripts for the inaugural issue has passed. However, papers for the second issue of the journal may be submitted at any time, as we are currently accepting manuscripts on an ongoing basis." The journal is published semi-annually by Indiana State University.

Call for Reviewers of Manuscripts

The Journal of Community Engagement and Higher Education is currently seeking qualified individuals to serve as reviewers of manuscripts.  Reviewers should be able to demonstrate background in and contributions to the fields of community based learning and higher education policy.  Interested individuals should submit an email of interest and an abbreviated copy of their vita to: Nancy Brattain Rogers
JCEHE Editor
Center for Community Engagement
Tirey Hall, room 134A
Indiana State University
Terre Haute, IN  47809
812-237-2334
nancy.rogers@indstate.edu The Journal of Community Engagement and Higher Education is edited and published by the Center for Community Engagement (CCE) at Indiana State University (ISU) in conjunction with Indiana Campus Compact .
Virginia Commonwealth University and its community partners collaborate to enhance the quality of life for all who work, live and study in the Richmond area and beyond. For its record of successful university-community partnerships, VCU received the Carnegie Foundation designation as a community engaged campus. The Caring to Act Calendar provides opportunities for the VCU community to participate in community service projects in the Richmond region in the spirit that through doing, we grow as contributing citizens. Click here to learn more about this exciting new program.

1Announcements

Welcome to JCES.

We value you as a reader, whether of the hardcopy journal, the e-journal, or the JCES website. If you don't find what you need here, email us at jces@ua.edu . March 4, 2011

JCES Conference Call Notes 2/23/2011

The meeting was opened by Dr. Pruitt, who expressed deep appreciation to the board members for their time and dedication. Dr. Simon also thanked the board for their work with the journal.

Dr. Oluwoye stated that he had taken his copy of JCES to conferences, and suggested that board members attending international conferences might take along copies of JCES to publicize the journal.

Dr. Fitzgerald said that his quote on our “Call for Manuscripts” flier conveyed his thoughts regarding JCES. He also described JCES as a “well-edited publication.”

Dr. Alter congratulated the editor and staff on getting JCES up and running, and said that he is impressed with the appearance and substance of the journal. Dr. Alter feels that JCES is invaluable to practitioners and includes interesting and insightful contributions. Furthermore, Dr. Alter has colleagues in Australia who might be interested in involvement with JCES.

Dr. Sanyal stated that JCES fills an important niche and motivates students.

Jay Lamar shared that Dr. Mullins' recent visit to the Auburn campus was inspirational for students and faculty and instrumental in establishing connections. Dr. Alter pointed out the necessity of holding ourselves and our contributors to the highest standards of scholarship. On that note, Dr. Jakes noted that our rejection rate demonstrated our commitment to engaged scholarship scholars. However, she expressed concern about the length of time between acceptance of a manuscript and its publication date.

Dr. Simon stated that we are willing to work with our authors because this is a new area of scholarship. As JCES has become more established, and the field of engagement scholarship more founded, we have seen an increase in the quality of submissions, requiring less time on the production end to bring the manuscripts up to the quality we are looking for.

Click here to read the whole article... February 15, 2011

Call For Manuscripts!!!

We are issuing a call for manuscripts for the next three issues. The closing dates are August 31, 2011, March 31, 2012, and December 1, 2012. The December issue will follow that year's National Outreach Scholarship Conference, which we will host. The theme for the conference will be “Partner. Inspire. Change,” and the special issue will draw heavily from conference presentations.

In just three years, JCES has helped to define the young field of engaged scholarship by taking a different approach: Manuscripts must be well written using language accessible to ordinary citizens, not just to trained scholars; presentations must measure up to the highest standards of visual design; and over time the content must move the field forward by appealing to laypeople and academics alike.

We are aware of no other peer-reviewed journal with these requirements. The journal features research from all disciplines using all methods. We have been fortunate to receive many manuscripts from the social sciences, education, and health; we need more from the arts, humanities, science, and engineering.
“Congratulations to you and your staff on the absolutely first rate issue of JCES. A nice standard to live up to.”
— Hiram E. (Hi) Fitzgerald, President, National Outreach Scholarship Conference, and Associate Provost, Outreach and Engagement, Michigan State University Click here to read the whole article... About JCES | News | Photo Galleries | Blog | Contact | Disclaimer Copyright © 2009 The University of Alabama | Tuscaloosa, AL 35487 | (205) 348-7392 1

Deliver the rich online experience users demand

Take a Look Inside
Community Engagement next previous Click on screenshots to view larger. In addition to the robust capabilities the Course Delivery module provides, clients across the world also leverage the Community Engagement module to build a vibrant online university or school ecosystem. Through the additional tools in Community Engagement, the Blackboard Learn solution goes well beyond online teaching and learning. It delivers a better, more customized user experience on every level.

WIth the Community Engagement module, you can help your institution:

Build vibrant online communities. Provide collaborative spaces. Deliver targeted information.

The Community Engagement module gives you a great deal of flexibility to manage your user community in a way that fits with your goals and priorities.

What is Community Engagement?

Learn More

For more information about the Community Engagement module, consult your Blackboard Learn Representative or contact Blackboard today .
KDE > Instructional Resources > Community Engagement

Community Engagement

Last Updated on Thursday, July 09, 2009 at 5:02 AM A community's engagement in schools is a way to focus public attention on the partnership necessary to bring every student to his or her fullest potential.  Within the Kentucky Department of Education several initiatives and programs focus on engaging communities in the educational success of students.  Among these are Community Education and 21 st Century Community Learning Centers.  Inherent in the success of these initiatives and programs is the involvement of communities and schools in partnerships.  According to Larry Decker, C.S. Mott Professor at Florida Atlantic University, in Engaging Families & Communities , "the emerging trend is for community engagement to be localized and personalized…" Community Education is one process that engages communities in creating successful education opportunities for all students, as well as opportunities to solve broader community issues.  Partnerships provide a unique collaboration between communities and their schools. Community Education
Community Education provides the necessary leadership to address learning opportunities for persons of all ages and needs, expand utilization of schools and other public facilities, engage citizens in planning and problem solving activities that address school/community concerns, and acquire more effective school/community/family partnerships. Community Education is an opportunity to rediscover community. ... More
Community Education Components
Community Education is a powerful concept that acknowledges learning is dynamic and changing, occurs in many forms, and is a lifelong requirement for human development. It is a way of thinking about and organizing public schools for individual and community development.
Kentucky's 21st Century Community Learning Centers
The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 recognizes that improved student achievement occurs when communities implement programs and strategies scientifically proven to be effective. The 21st Century Community Learning Centers (CCLC) program is an essential part of this initiative.  Many communities across the Commonwealth are working together with new energy ... More
For more information contact:

Shaun Murphy
500 Mero Street, 1st Floor CPT
Frankfort, KY 40601
Phone: 502-564-1473 x4818
shaun.murphy@education.ky.gov

About this Site  |  Feedback: webmaster@education.ky.gov  |  Contact Us Privacy  |  Disclaimer  |  Accessibility Statement Copyright © 1999-2011 Commonwealth of Kentucky The University of Louisville contributes to the community and society through teaching, research, and service.

Mission

The mission of the Office of Community Engagement is to facilitate the use of university resources to support existing partnerships and engage new partners to contribute to the educational, social, and economic progress of the community , region, and state. The office is responsible for facilitating, coordinating, and advancing university-wide  community engagement .  The unit contributes to and supports the diversity outreach initiatives of the university. The Office of Community Engagement builds effective relationships and partnerships with internal and external constituents to advance the mutual needs of the community and the University.  The office is responsible for developing a process to evaluate the effectiveness of existing and new university/ community partnerships.       Follow this link to find out more about the Vice President of Community Engagement .

Spotlight

Presidents Outreach Tour visits local schools UofL earns national recognition for community service programs Community engagement awards recognize UofL service efforts

Community Engagement Key Function Committee

Description:
The predominant mission of the Community Engagement Key Function Committee is to implement a successful broad plan of community and practice engagement among the CTSA sites by sharing knowledge, expertise and resources. The goal of the CTSA Community Engagement Key Function Committee is to effectively engage communities and practices in the translational research process via bidirectional dialogues. The main areas of focus include: community and practice outreach, access and dissemination of the translational research process via bidirectional dialogues. The specific milestones of the committee include developing a community engagement needs assessment ; generating a project registrar with the input of the NIH and other federal agencies , and community practices agencies and members; establishing partnerships for funding collaborative development of curricula and evaluation outcomes as well as metrics for community engaged research.
Accomplishments:
Researchers and Their Communities: The Challenge of Meaningful Community Engagement The CTSA Community Engagement KFC is pleased to announce the completion of the Best Practices in Community Engagement summary: Click to view . The report provides meeting proceedings from the CTSA Community Engagement KFC 2007-2008 regional and national workshops and conferences summarizing community engagement best practices and is now available for use and dissemination. For citations, please use the following: Clinical and Translational Science Awards Community Engagement Key Function Committee (2009). Researchers and Their Communities: The Challenge of Meaningful Community Engagement. http://www.ctsaweb.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=committee.viewCommittee&com_ID=3&abbr=CEKFC
Community Engagement Groups:
Operations Group
Administrative Supplements Taskforce
Best Practices in Community Engagement Taskforce
Principles of Community Engagement Taskforce
Translation Position Paper Taskforce
Networking Workgroup
Education, Scholarship and Engagement Workgroup
     - Promotion and Tenure Survey Subgroup
Resource Development Workgroup
Community Partners Integration Workgroup
     - Added Value of Community Partner Involvement in the CTSAs
Outcomes of Community Engagement Workgroup
     - Context Manuscript Writing Team
     - Metrics Grid Manuscript Writing Team
     - Taxonomy Manuscript Writing Team
     - Logic Model Manuscript Writing Team
     - Context Subcommittee

Community Engagement Participants:
Co-Chair(s) Sergio Aguilar-Gaxiola (UC Davis)
Lloyd Michener (Duke)
NIH Coordinator(s) Donna Jo McCloskey (NCRR)
PI Liaison(s) Philip Greenland (Northwestern)
Kelly Kelleher (Ohio State)
Project Manager(s) Heiser, Allison
Participation Click to view
Next Workshops
August 31, 2011
8:00 AM – 2:30 PM August 30, 2011
8:00 AM – 5:00 PM
Next Meetings May 27, 2011
12:00 PM – 1:00 PM

June 24, 2011
12:00 PM – 1:00 PM

July 22, 2011
12:00 PM – 1:00 PM

August 26, 2011
12:00 PM – 1:00 PM

September 23, 2011
12:00 PM – 1:00 PM

October 28, 2011
12:00 PM – 1:00 PM

November 25, 2011
12:00 PM – 1:00 PM

December 23, 2011
12:00 PM – 1:00 PM

Previous Workshops
May 14, 2010 May 13, 2010 May 11, 2010 May 15, 2009 May 14, 2009 May 9, 2008
Previous Meetings
(2011) 		April 22, 2011
March 25, 2011
February 25, 2011
January 28, 2011
Previous Meetings
(2010) 		December 17, 2010
November 19, 2010
October 22, 2010
September 24, 2010
August 27, 2010
July 23, 2010
June 25, 2010
May 12, 2010
April 23, 2010
March 26, 2010
February 26, 2010
January 22, 2010
Previous Meetings
(2009) 		December 18, 2009
November 20, 2009
October 23, 2009
September 25, 2009
August 28, 2009
July 24, 2009
June 26, 2009
May 22, 2009
March 27, 2009
February 27, 2009
January 23, 2009
Previous Meetings
(2008) 		December 19, 2008
November 21, 2008
October 24, 2008
September 26, 2008
July 25, 2008
July 7, 2008
June 27, 2008
May 23, 2008
April 25, 2008
March 28, 2008
February 29, 2008
January 25, 2008
Previous Meetings
(2007) 		December 14, 2007
November 16, 2007
October 26, 2007
September 28, 2007
August 24, 2007
July 27, 2007
June 22, 2007
May 25, 2007
April 27, 2007
March 30, 2007
February 27, 2007

For The Public

For Researchers

CTSA Institutions

Find CTSA Institutions by state:

For The Consortium

NEIGHBORHOOD NOTES | "Community Engagement"—the new buzzwords

Share Comment Email Print Reprint rights By Shirley Yeoman, Standish-Ericsson Neighborhood Association May 22, 2011 If you've followed SENA News over the past several months, you know that public funding sources for neighborhood organizations have changed significantly. One change is the creation of the city's Community Participation Program (CPP). The CPP “provides funding to encourage and support citizen participation through Minneapolis neighborhood organizations . . . for neighborhood-determined community engagement activities in the following key areas: (1) identifying and acting on neighborhood priorities; (2) influencing City decisions and priorities; and (3) increasing involvement.” The SENA Board of Directors submitted a funding request to the CPP and was awarded $58,291. These dollars will help the board to assess SENA's current community engagement practices, expand community engagement activities, and develop a three-year plan to secure future CPP funding.
A planning steering committee, under the direction of the board, is working on a preliminary plan to present to the community at SENA's annual meeting in October. One phase of the committee's activity is conducting a survey to collect neighborhood input. The survey is very brief (10 questions) and will take around 5 minutes to complete. The committee needs input from as many residents as possible. You can complete the survey online at http://svy.mK/KgzzGK or contact the SENA office (721-1601 or office@standish-ericsson.org ) for a paper copy. Please consider how you might be involved in helping to shape the “community engagement” of the Standish and Ericsson neighborhoods. Contact the SENA office if you'd like to volunteer your time. Copyright:  © 2011 Standish-Ericsson Neighborhood Association The Twin Cities Daily Planet is an edited news source produced by professional journalists working in collaboration with citizen

HENCE

The Higher Education Network for Community Engagement ( HENCE ) is a response to the growing need to deepen, consolidate, and advance the literature, research, practice, policy, and advocacy for community engagement as a core element of higher education's role in society. Increasingly, higher education institutions are intentionally connecting academic work to public purposes through extensive partnerships that involve faculty and students in active collaboration with communities. This idea of "community engagement" is renewing the civic mission of higher education and transforming academic culture in ways that are both exciting and challenging.

Planning an event?

Be sure to check the calendars at Campus Compact and the National Service-Learning Clearinghouse to avoid conflicting schedules.

Wingspread Report

Wingspread Journal 2007: Beyond the Ivory Tower (2.3MB pdf)
See also: Engagement in Higher Education: Building a Federation for Action

Participate!

See who is participating , and find out how to become involved with HENCE . journalists from the local community. We publish original reported news articles, articles republished from media partners, and some content (Free Speech Zone articles, reader-submitted blog entries, comments) that is moderated but not edited. Click here for a complete description of our editorial policies . Support people-powered non-profit journalism! Volunteer , contribute news , or become a member to keep the Daily Planet in orbit.
Highlights
The Emerging Engagement Scholars Workshop at the 2007 Outreach Scholarship Conference Levels of Commitment to Community Engagement . The HENCE Forums are now open.
 
 Home   Who We Are   National Gathering   Learning Circles   Articles    Learning Resources   Contact 


Educators for Community Engagement is the only national organization committed to democratizing classrooms and communities through learning circles, service-learning, and critical dialogue.

ECE brings together college and university students, faculty, staff, and local community organizations to develop and implement creative strategies for teaching, learning, and social justice.
Community Engagement - Portal Functionality Educators for Community Engagement explore current issues in service-learning and civic engagement through learning circles. Learning circles are based on a spirit of reciprocal and cooperative learning for self and social transformation which different people will implement with different styles and emphases. Learning circles as a tool for learning and social justice grow out of a great tradition of people's education , democratizing education, and community development.

For more information on our work, or to get involved, contact Laurel Hirt at LHirt@class.cla.umn.edu .
 ECE EVENTS 

Registration for the National Gathering at CSU Monterey Bay now open! Reflections on the Bay
The National Gathering 2007 at CSU Monterey Bay
June 7-9, 2007 ~ EXPLORE the Monterey Bay and Salinas Valley. ~ ENGAGE in critical discussion and reflection. ~ EXPERIENCE a service learning conference like no other! For more information contact Tania D. Mitchell at 831.582.3631 or by email at NG2007@csumb.edu Engagment Program Supported Projects Community Outreach  / Community Engagement

Community Engagement

The goal of the Michigan Institute for Clinical & Health Research's (MICHR)  Community Engagement Program is to involve the community's expertise and knowledge in improving the quality of U-M clinical health research and producing outcomes that measurably benefit the health of the local community. We aim to support research that is more relevant to people's needs and concerns, more reliable, and more likely to be used. Building capacity among our community leaders to ensure that community-based organizations can be full partners in the research enterprise is an essential step in addressing public trust and participation in research. Community-based approaches have become increasingly respected ways to conduct health research programs , both for observational studies and for intervention studies. Involving the community in the design and conduct of programs helps ensure that research participants understand intervention content and that research questions are reliable and valid. Researchers also often find that sharing research findings with members of the target population further illuminates those findings and also improves community partnerships. MICHR's Community Engagement Program will strengthen Community-University research partnerships by serving as a conduit to increase bi-directional communication, thus linking community priorities with appropriate study designs.

Aims

  1. To provide an academic home within U-M that allows identification of community partners and development of long-standing, collaborative, and equitable Community-University research partnerships. 
  2. To create educational, training, and career development opportunities that promote bi-directional knowledge flow between the public & investigator, and the provider & investigator communities, using a co-learning process that builds local capacity.
  3. To enhance infrastructure and tools to support Community-University research partnerships based on empowering and power-sharing processes.
  4. To create and test new innovative methods for community engagement and community-based participatory research, and catalyze innovative implementation science research and methodology development.
  5. To provide leadership/share knowledge that promotes bi-directional Community-University research partnerships.
Services 1.  Training/Education : MICHR is currently working to develop training opportunities via a co-learning process that emphasizes the essential role of the community in the clinical research process. Training will be available to faculty, staff, and community members. Past Training / Education Tribal Health Summit: The Community Engagement Program is committed to improving the health and wellness of all communities of Michigan through involving the community's expertise and knowledge in improving the quality of U-M clinical health research and producing outcomes that measurably benefit the health of local communities. As part of this mission, the CE Program co-sponsored, along with the Office of State Outreach within the Office of the Vice President for Government Relations at U-M and American Indian Health & Family Services of Southeastern Michigan (AIHFS), Inc. which is a non-profit agency dedicated to providing comprehensive health care to the Native American community of Southeastern Michigan, the first Tribal Health Summit held at the University of Michigan. The goal was for the University of Michigan and Tribal Communities throughout Michigan to work on establishing relationships to create/develop long-term sustainable partnerships to help meet the health care needs of tribal communities through health research and service by expanding the university's outreach initiatives. more >> 2.  Clinical Research Recruitment: To answer the need for a central electronic location for clinical research at the University of Michigan, the Michigan Institute for Clinical & Health Research (MICHR) developed Engage. The  UMClinicalStudies.org website began as a tool to help volunteers interested in participating in clinical research match to investigators and study teams in need of recruiting volunteers, and was designed to provide a single gateway for clinical research. The site consists of several pieces - study database, information on clinical research for the public, multicultural research pages, a public search tool, information for study teams, as well as a HIPAA and IRB Compliant Registry. The  UMClinicalStudies.org Registry  was released in January 2007, and consists of a database that allows patients or community members to sign up for a single study or the general registry. UMClinicalStudies.org Community Information & Education Sections contain a mini-tutorial about clinical research, as well as pages focused on diversity and multicultural research participation, and a health glossary containing links to specific health conditions or preventative health information . 3.  Consultation: The U-M Community Engagement Program is a university and community resource where agencies, organizations, residents, and faculty can receive training and consultation to better understand health research, obtain assistance in research design, better define their concerns, and be connected with partners to conduct effective Community-University research projects. Community and faculty members are invited to contact the Community Engagement Program for guidance and assistance in developing health research projects by e-mailing  ksehgal@umich.edu  or calling 734.763.8886. Funding Opportunities for Community-University Research Partnerships: The purpose of the MICHR Community-University Research Partnerships program is to support one-year pilot and/or feasibility research studies of innovative interventions and/or techniques designed to improve/benefit the health of the community. Through this mechanism, we aim to 1) build the capacity of communities and the University of Michigan to engage in authentic research partnerships, 2) combine the knowledge, wisdom, and experience in communities and at U-M to make a positive impact on local health challenges, and 3) enhance networks and infrastructure that will promote community research that not only takes place in the community, but involves the community. Community-University Research Partnerships Pilot Program Checklist Community Engagement Program Supported Projects Key Community Engagement Team Members Research Liaison :  The Research Liaison is available to ensure that investigators address key community issues, and also provides consultation, assistance and monitoring to research investigators. The Liaison maintains a strong working relationship with the IRB in order to provide monitoring and guidance to investigators, and maintains the ability to match researchers with community groups and their needs. Clinical Research Associates (CRAs ): CRAs are available in the Detroit, Flint, and Ypsilanti communities, where they engage in regular meetings with community leaders and social service agencies, and are able to provide deeper insight into the barriers that separate the scientific community from the public. They work to enhance Community-University partnerships to move health research forward that is responsive to community needs. Community Engagement Coordinating Council :  The CECC meets monthly to provide an ongoing forum for researchers and community members to discuss health research projects priorities. The council provides a forum for community-initiated research issues, which are then channeled to appropriate University of Michigan researchers who can work with the community to investigate the respective problem. The Council also works to mobilize CTSA resources that will best facilitate Community-University partnerships.  Coordinating Council Members CECC Partnerships / Council Members: Community Partners: U-M Partners: 

Contacts

OPIS/Community Engagement Leadership Robert Anderson, EdD Professor, Department of Medical Education boba@med.umich.edu David Gordon, MD Associate Dean for Diversity & Career Development, School of Medicine dgordon@med.umich.edu Carolyn Sampselle, PhD, RNC, FAAN Community Engagement Program Director Professor, School of Nursing csampsll@umich.edu Marita Titler, PhD, RN, FAAN Associate Director Associate Dean, Office of Practice & Clinical Scholarship School of Nursing Don Vereen, MD, MPH Prevention Research Center of Michigan dvereen@umich.edu Marc Zimmerman, PhD Community Engagement Program Co-Director  Professor, Health Behavior Health Education Director, Prevention Research Center of Michigan  marcz@umich.edu

OPIS / Community Engagement Contacts

Kanchan Lota Assistant Managing Director ksehgal@umich.edu Anita Johnson Outreach Coordinator anifrank@umich.edu Larisa Leader Network Research Specialist lleader@umich.edu Christina Loar Administrative Assistant cmloar@umich.edu Ashley Neuhaus Community Outreach Coordinator aneuhaus@umich.edu Tricia Piechowski-Whitney Community Engagement Research Liaison kwikwi@med.umich.edu Clinical Research Associates (CRAs) Lee Bell Flint CRA Flint Neighborhood Roundtable drleebell@hotmail.com Karen Calhoun Detroit CRA City Connect Detroit Karen@cityconnectdetroit.org Fran Talsma Policy CRA Ann Arbor YMCA ftalsma@umich.edu Marie Watkins Ann Arbor/Ypsilanti CRA Michigan Clinical Research Unit (MCRU) pmar@umich.edu Feedback on this page? E-mail Larisa Leader 1view counter



 

Industry Seeks Clearer EPA, OSHA Roles In Assessing Vapor Threat

Industry groups and the Department of Defense (DOD) are urging EPA to clarify the situations where its proposed vapor intrusion assessment guidance would apply and where jurisdiction for regulating indoor air would fall to the Occupational Health & Safety Administration (OSHA). 1090 words

Industry Hopes NAS' Study Defense Bolsters Bid To Soften EPA's TCE Limits

Chemical industry officials are pointing to a recently released National Academy of Sciences (NAS) letter defending its 2009 report on chemicals in drinking water at a North Carolina Marine Corps Base to bolster their efforts to soften EPA's draft risk assessment on the solvent trichloroethylene (TCE), one of the chemicals NAS studied. 1289 words

SAB Poised To Review Softened Report On EPA Dioxin Risk Assessment

EPA's Science Advisory Board (SAB) is slated to meet next month to debate an SAB subcommittee review of the agency's decades-old draft risk assessment of the ubiquitous contaminant dioxin, after the advisory subcommittee slightly softened an earlier version of the review that found "major deficiencies" in the agency's risk study. 632 words

Despite GOP Concerns, SAB Backing EPA Approach To Lead Dust Science

EPA's Science Advisory Board (SAB) is finalizing recommendations that generally back EPA's approach to determining lead dust risks in public and commercial buildings despite strong criticism from Republican senators who charge the agency lacks the data to establish a lead dust hazard level for those buildings. 539 words

Critics Fear Cancer Listing For Styrene Could Undermine Pollution Controls

Congressional and industry groups are urging Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Kathleen Sebelius to delay issuing a report on the carcinogenicity of styrene, arguing that it could jeopardize products used to prevent underground petroleum tank leaks, control power plant emissions and improve vehicles' fuel efficiency. 581 words

Industry Questions EPA Report's Links Between Chemicals, Kids' Diseases

Industry is charging that EPA's proposed update to its America's Children and the Environment report vilifies chemicals and does not present a holistic picture of children's health, citing as an example EPA's first-time proposal to use incidence of attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) as an indicator of children's health. 1254 words

NACEPT Weighs Technology Advice To Help EPA Prioritize Equity Research

EPA's National Advisory Council for Environmental Policy and Technology (NACEPT) is crafting recommendations to help agency officials prioritize their research on technologies that can be used to help address high-priority environmental justice and other concerns plaguing vulnerable populations. 930 words

EPA Declines Region's Call To Ensure Violations Underlie Equity Enforcement

EPA is declining calls from officials in Region I to provide explicit assurances that regulatory violations underlie high priority enforcement efforts aimed at addressing disadvantaged communities, a concern that industry officials are also urging the agency to address. 919 words

Industry Seeks To Stall Waste Rule Defining Air Toxics Limits For Combustion

Industry groups are asking EPA to delay a recently finalized rule defining when non-hazardous materials are considered "waste" subject to strict incineration air rules when combusted or "fuels" subject to less-stringent boiler emissions rules, a move that comes in the wake of EPA's decision to delay the corresponding air regulations. 1300 words

Wastewater Utilities Sue EPA Over Sewage Sludge Incineration Rule

The National Association of Clean Water Agencies (NACWA), which represents publicly owned wastewater treatment plants, has followed through on its threat to sue EPA over its air toxics rule for sewage sludge incinerators, arguing that the regulation has major scientific and legal flaws that mean the rule would impose massive costs on wastewater utilities. 514 words

Inhofe Cites Unspent EPA Funds In Effort To Counter Superfund Tax Push

Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK) is pointing to EPA's unused balance of more than $2 billion in the Superfund trust fund at the beginning of fiscal year 2011 to question the agency's push for renewing the Superfund taxes and the agency's FY12 budget request for an additional $1 billion in appropriations for the Superfund program. 512 words

States Cite DOE Legal Obligations In Bid For Full Nuclear Cleanup Funding

State environmental officials are urging key House and Senate appropriations panel members to fully fund the Department of Energy's (DOE) fiscal year 2012 request for $6.13 billion in nuclear cleanup, saying the funds are a "priority" to help the government meet legal cleanup obligations outlined in site-specific cleanup agreements. 733 words

Shareholders Using Resolutions To Push Packaging Product Stewardship

Activists are using the shareholder resolution process to urge major manufacturers to develop extended producer responsibility (EPR) programs for packaging in an effort to encourage recycling and reduce waste that ends up in landfills, the latest battleground for activists who believe companies should be responsible for their products through the entire life cycle. 777 words

EPA Weighing Distinction Between New And Old Underground Tank Leaks

EPA is considering changing its state reporting requirements for leaking underground storage tanks (LUSTs) to better distinguish between releases that have occurred since UST rules were in place and recently discovered leaks that occurred years ago, following a request from a state tank insurance fund. 389 words

EPA Floats Proposal To Amend Underground Storage Tank Regulations

The White House Office of Management & Budget (OMB) is reviewing a proposed EPA rule that is expected to require the use of secondary containment systems for underground storage tanks (USTs) in jurisdictions overseen directly by the agency, according to a source familiar with the issue. 355 words

Industry Says Water Office May Need New Cr6 Analysis Absent Data Review

The chemical industry and drinking water utilities are warning that unless EPA's research office considers upcoming industry-funded research in its pending risk assessment for chromium 6 (Cr6), the agency's water office will have to perform its own risk analysis that includes the industry data when it considers setting a drinking water standard for the metal. 1186 words

States, Utilities At Odds Over Cr6 Listing On Drinking Water Monitoring List

States and water utilities are at odds over whether EPA should include hexavalent chromium (Cr6) on the agency's forthcoming update to its unregulated contaminants monitoring rule (UCMR), with states joining environmentalists in calling for the chemical's listing while water utilities say monitoring should only be required if the agency can establish a human health risk. 962 words

EPA Highlights Broad Role Overseeing Fracking To DOE Advisory Panel

EPA is highlighting its broad roles and responsibilities in assessing, managing and mitigating risks associated with hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, to a panel of Energy Department (DOE) advisers crafting recommended best practices to limit the process' impacts, underscoring environmentalists' concerns that the advisers' recommendations may allow DOE to usurp EPA responsibilities. 1193 words

Multiple Fracking Studies Seen Hampering Bid For Regulatory Certainty

Multiple pending studies into the risks posed by hydraulic fracturing operations could provide inconsistent results -- undermining efforts by EPA and others to use the results to aid upcoming pollution reduction policies for the controversial drilling technique, and possibly even natural gas production, industry, state and other sources say. 1444 words

EPA Defends Novel SDWA Fracking Enforcement Order's Constitutionality

EPA is defending the constitutionality of its novel Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) emergency cleanup order against a Texas gas driller over alleged contamination of residential drinking water wells, rejecting the company's claims that the order violates the company's due process rights by depriving it of a protected property interest. 1002 words

EPA Weighs New Clean Water Regulations For Fracking Operations

EPA is weighing two new clean water discharge regulations that would address concerns about water pollution stemming from hydraulic fracturing, or "fracking," operations, including a measure to subject the facilities to effluent limits and a regulation setting discharge limits on chloride, a pollutant commonly produced by the extraction process. 1058 words

EPA Panel Narrows Fracking Study Advice But Retains Wastewater Focus

Science advisers reviewing EPA's plan to study the effects of hydraulic fracturing on drinking water are scaling back some controversial draft suggestions that the agency broaden its definition of what should be considered drinking water resources that require protection but are maintaining advice widely criticized by industry that the agency prioritize wastewater impacts of the practice in its analysis. 1099 words

Upcoming Species Pact Could Strengthen Scores Of EPA Regulations

EPA could eventually be forced to adopt more stringent pollution control requirements across a host of regulatory programs to protect imperiled species due to an upcoming agreement between environmentalists and the Department of Interior (DOI) that could require Endangered Species Act (ESA) protections for hundreds of additional species. 1295 words

EPA Plan For 'Cumulative' Review Of Rules' Costs Falls Short Of Pending Bill

EPA's just-released plan for reviewing the impact of agency regulations includes a proposal long sought by industry and GOP lawmakers to review the cumulative impact of its rules on individual industry sectors, though the agency proposal falls well short of pending legislation that would codify such reviews. 825 words

Industry, States Seek Vacatur Of EPA Mining Guidance On Eve Of Release

States and the mining industry are urging a federal district judge to vacate the interim version of EPA's imminent guidance setting Clean Water Act (CWA) permit requirements for mountaintop mining, arguing just days before the final guide's expected release that it violates the CWA, the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). 1149 words

Navajo Group Turns To International Panel After Court Loss On Mining

A Navajo organization in New Mexico has petitioned the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) in an attempt to halt a uranium mining project in the state and force remediation of past uranium mining contamination after setbacks in U.S. courts. 529 words

DOJ Defends Constitutionality Of Mine Reclamation Fee On Exported Coal

The Department of Justice (DOJ) is urging the Supreme Court to reject an industry challenge to a coal mining remediation fee, arguing that the fee in question applies to the extraction of coal and is not an unconstitutional tax when the coal is destined for export. 505 words

 

Oklahoma Republican Sen. James Inhofe wants U.S. EPA to give small drinking water systems, which have fewer customers over which to spread their costs, more of a helping hand in meeting federal requirements.
The Senate Environment and Public Works Committee ranking member introduced a bill yesterday along with Sens. David Vitter (R-La.), Mike Crapo (R-Idaho), John Boozman (R-Ark.), Thad Cochran (R-Miss.) and Jim Risch (R-Idaho) that would require EPA to update the criteria used to determine what waterworks fixes should be considered affordable -- criteria that the agency admitted in 2006 are sometimes unfair to small or low-income communities because of their smaller rate bases.
"Too often federal regulations come with a price tag that is unreasonable for small towns and cities with lower budgets," Inhofe said in a statement. "Forcing systems to raise rates beyond what their ratepayers can afford only causes more damage than good and can be especially harmful for low-income communities or areas facing economic challenges."
EPA currently determines whether meeting a new requirement is affordable for a small community by checking to ensure that the current cost of water in the community plus the estimated additional treatment cost to meet the new standard do not exceed a threshold of about $1,000 per year, or about $83 per month.
Inhofe contends $83 can be too much for many small communities. His bill, called the "Small System Safe Drinking Water Act of 2011," aims to bring more money and flexibility to those drinking water systems.
The legislation, a version of which Inhofe has introduced in every Congress since 2003, would ensure that EPA cannot take enforcement actions against a water system serving fewer than 10,000 people without ensuring the community has the money to pay for the required upgrades.
The bill would also amend the Safe Drinking Water Act to require that EPA check to ensure drinking water standards imposed are no more expensive to small communities, on a per-capita basis, than to large ones. It seeks to divert federally administered drinking water loans to small communities and allows those short on funds to obtain exemptions in cases where communities are "taking all practicable steps" to meet requirements.
The National Rural Water Association applauded the bill for bringing "equity and fairness to small towns," said analyst Mike Keegan, in an email.
"It corrects the status quo," Keegan said, "where thousands of small and rural communities are forced to spend limited public funds for federal regulatory compliance when there is not an identified health risk."

Cooperative Studies Of The Earth's Deep Interior (CSEDI)


Program Solicitation
NSF 11-548

Replaces Document(s):
NSF 06-578

 

National Science Foundation

Directorate for Geosciences
      Division of Earth Sciences

Full Proposal Target Date(s):

September 26, 2011

Fourth Monday in September, Annually Thereafter

IMPORTANT INFORMATION AND REVISION NOTES

A revised version of the NSF Proposal & Award Policies & Procedures Guide (PAPPG) , NSF 11-1 , was issued on October 1, 2010 and is effective for proposals submitted, or due, on or after January 18, 2011. Please be advised that the guidelines contained in NSF 11-1 apply to proposals submitted in response to this funding opportunity.

Cost Sharing: The PAPPG has been revised to implement the National Science Board's recommendations regarding cost sharing. Inclusion of voluntary committed cost sharing is prohibited. In order to assess the scope of the project, all organizational resources necessary for the project must be described in the Facilities, Equipment and Other Resources section of the proposal. The description should be narrative in nature and must not include any quantifiable financial information. Mandatory cost sharing will only be required when explicitly authorized by the NSF Director. See the PAPP Guide Part I: Grant Proposal Guide (GPG) Chapter II.C.2.g(xi) for further information about the implementation of these recommendations.

Data Management Plan: The PAPPG contains a clarification of NSF's long standing data policy. All proposals must describe plans for data management and sharing of the products of research, or assert the absence of the need for such plans. FastLane will not permit submission of a proposal that is missing a Data Management Plan. The Data Management Plan will be reviewed as part of the intellectual merit or broader impacts of the proposal, or both, as appropriate. Links to data management requirements and plans relevant to specific Directorates, Offices, Divisions, Programs, or other NSF units are available on the NSF website at: http://www.nsf.gov/bfa/dias/policy/dmp.jsp . See
Chapter II.C.2.j of the GPG for further information about the implementation of this requirement.

Postdoctoral Researcher Mentoring Plan: As a reminder, each proposal that requests funding to support postdoctoral researchers must include, as a supplementary document, a description of the mentoring activities that will be provided for such individuals. Please be advised that if required, FastLane will not permit submission of a proposal that is missing a Postdoctoral Researcher Mentoring Plan. See Chapter II.C.2.j of the GPG for further information about the implementation of this requirement.

Revision Summary

The deadline date has been changed to a Target Date.

SUMMARY OF PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS

General Information

Program Title:

Cooperative Studies Of The Earth's Deep Interior (CSEDI)

Synopsis of Program:

The Division of Earth Sciences (EAR) invites the submission of proposals for collaborative, interdisciplinary studies of the Earth's interior within the framework of the community-based initiative known as Cooperative Studies of the Earth's Deep Interior (CSEDI). Funding will support basic research on the character and dynamics of the Earth's mantle and core, their influence on the evolution of the Earth as a whole, and on processes operating within the deep interior that affect or are expressed on the Earth's surface.

Projects may employ any combination of field, laboratory, and computational studies with observational, theoretical, or experimental approaches. Support is available for research and research infrastructure through grants and cooperative agreements awarded in response to investigator-initiated proposals from U.S. universities and other eligible institutions. Multidisciplinary work is required. EAR will consider co-funding of projects with other agencies and supports international work and collaborations.

Cognizant Program Officer(s):

Please note that the following information is current at the time of publishing. See program website for any updates to the points of contact.

  • Robin Reichlin, Program Director, Geophysics, 785 S, telephone: (703) 292-8556, fax: (703) 292-9025, email: rreichli@nsf.gov

  • Sonia Esperanca, Program Director, Petrology and Geochemistry, 785 S, telephone: (703) 292-8554, email: sesperan@nsf.gov

Applicable Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) Number(s):

  • 47.050 --- Geosciences

Award Information

Anticipated Type of Award: Standard Grant or Continuing Grant or Cooperative Agreement

Estimated Number of Awards: 5 to 10 awards are expected, depending on award amounts

Anticipated Funding Amount: $2,000,000 per year, pending availability of funds

Eligibility Information

Organization Limit:

Proposals may only be submitted by the following:
  • Universities and Colleges - Universities and two- and four-year colleges (including community colleges) accredited in, and having a campus located in the US, acting on behalf of their faculty members. Such organizations also are referred to as academic institutions.
  • Non-profit, non-academic organizations: Independent museums, observatories, research labs, professional societies and similar organizations in the U.S. associated with educational or research activities

PI Limit:

None Specified

Limit on Number of Proposals per Organization:

None Specified

Limit on Number of Proposals per PI:

None Specified

Proposal Preparation and Submission Instructions

A. Proposal Preparation Instructions

  • Letters of Intent: Not Applicable
  • Preliminary Proposal Submission: Not Applicable
  • Full Proposals:
    • Full Proposals submitted via FastLane: NSF Proposal and Award Policies and Procedures Guide, Part I: Grant Proposal Guide (GPG) Guidelines apply. The complete text of the GPG is available electronically on the NSF website at: http://www.nsf.gov/publications/pub_summ.jsp?ods_key=gpg .
    • Full Proposals submitted via Grants.gov: NSF Grants.gov Application Guide: A Guide for the Preparation and Submission of NSF Applications via Grants.gov Guidelines apply (Note: The NSF Grants.gov Application Guide is available on the Grants.gov website and on the NSF website at: http://www.nsf.gov/publications/pub_summ.jsp?ods_key=grantsgovguide )

B. Budgetary Information

  • Cost Sharing Requirements: Inclusion of voluntary committed cost sharing is prohibited.
  • Indirect Cost (F&A) Limitations: Not Applicable
  • Other Budgetary Limitations: Other budgetary limitations apply. Please see the full text of this solicitation for further information.

C. Due Dates

  • Full Proposal Target Date(s):

    September 26, 2011

    Fourth Monday in September, Annually Thereafter

Proposal Review Information Criteria

Merit Review Criteria: National Science Board approved criteria. Additional merit review considerations apply. Please see the full text of this solicitation for further information.

Award Administration Information

Award Conditions: Standard NSF award conditions apply.

Reporting Requirements: Standard NSF reporting requirements apply.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Summary of Program Requirements

  1. Introduction

  2. Program Description

  3. Award Information

  4. Eligibility Information

  5. Proposal Preparation and Submission Instructions
    1. Proposal Preparation Instructions
    2. Budgetary Information
    3. Due Dates
    4. FastLane/Grants.gov Requirements

  6. NSF Proposal Processing and Review Procedures
    1. NSF Merit Review Criteria
    2. Review and Selection Process

  7. Award Administration Information
    1. Notification of the Award
    2. Award Conditions
    3. Reporting Requirements

  8. Agency Contacts

  9. Other Information

I. INTRODUCTION

CSEDI is a community initiative originally organized by members of the SEDI (Studies of the Earth's Deep Interior) committee of the IUGG (International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics) and the SEI (Studies of the Earth's Interior) committee of the American Geophysical Union. A science plan was developed, and later updated (2004), with broad community input and support and reflects the scientific objectives of the initiative. This initiative grew out of the realization that the most important problems related to the Earth's interior need a multi-disciplinary effort that brings to bear in a coherent way creative and imaginative thinking about the state and dynamics of the Earth's interior, along with the utilization of the most advanced computational, experimental, analytical, and observational techniques. Ultimately, the goal of such efforts is to determine as quantitatively as possible how the Earth's interior works, and how processes in the Earth's deep interior control the structure and evolution of the Earth as a whole.

Societally relevant applications of CSEDI's research are wide-ranging, and help improve our understanding of natural and anthropogenic hazards; global climate change; and water, mineral, and energy resources.

II. PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The opportunity for rapid progress in this research activity derives largely from the timely coincidence of advances in several disciplines. Global-scale seismic imaging of the Earth's deep interior provides insights into the convective and thermal patterns in the mantle and core. Advances in high pressure materials research allow for direct laboratory investigations of the pressure-temperature-composition and mechanical properties of the deep interior. Isotopic measurements of crustal and mantle-derivative rocks reveal chemical signatures that indicate recycling of the deep interior. Modeling of the Earth's dynamo has illuminated possible relations between convection in the Earth's core and structures in the lowermost mantle. Geodetic techniques have provided new probes of the deep interior. Advances in computational techniques allow complex simulations of flow and convection in the mantle and core. Individually these are all important advances, but the aim of this funding opportunity is to link these advances into coordinated and integrated studies that will allow significant new insights into an understanding of the processes operating in the deep interior and how they govern the evolution of the surface of the Earth.

The 2004 CSEDI Science Plan ( http://www.csedi.org ) outlines a framework for understanding 'Circulation in the Deep Earth' over the coming decade. New technologies available to the community, coupled with unprecedented amounts of observational data call for a bold approach to future CSEDI research. CSEDI can realistically aim for a broad understanding of Earth's inner dynamics, incorporating core evolution, mantle convection, the driving forces of plate tectonics, and the interaction between the interior, oceans and atmosphere. CSEDI provides a framework for capitalizing on the new observational, experimental and theoretical advances made possible by the current development of major seismological, experimental and computational facilities. Within the decade, the field is poised to make major advances in understanding:

  • Cycling of water and carbon through Earth's deep interior
  • Operation and evolution of the geomagnetic dynamo
  • Melting and other phase transitions in the deep mantle and core
  • Deep mantle structure, temperature and composition
  • Evolution, dynamics and rotation of the inner core
  • Chemical and heat exchange between the core and mantle, and between the mantle and the surface.

The 2004 CSEDI Science Plan organized these emerging research directions into three broad themes for advancing understanding of the Earth as a planet, and connecting Earth-interior processes to the surface. First, quantifying the deep water and carbon cycles would provide a crucial link in understanding how the oceans and atmosphere - and the biosphere they sustain - are linked to the interior, helping to clarify how Earth's surface environment has evolved over geological time. Second, characterizing the deep-Earth engine would provide insight into the forces driving geological processes, including mountain building, earthquakes, volcanoes and plate tectonics. Third, understanding the planetary evolution of the Earth, the path it took to the present state, offers unique insights into the ways by which planets in general - and our own in particular - originate and develop.

The above themes are intended to describe the exciting frontiers for deep earth research in a broad sense, and are not intended to be prescriptive in limiting CSEDI proposal topics.

III. AWARD INFORMATION

Anticipated Type of Award: Continuing Grant or Cooperative Agreement or Standard Grant

Estimated Number of Awards: 5 to 10 awards are expected, depending on award amounts

Anticipated Funding Amount: up to $2,000,000 per year, pending availability of funds

IV. ELIGIBILITY INFORMATION

Organization Limit:

Proposals may only be submitted by the following:
  • Universities and Colleges - Universities and two- and four-year colleges (including community colleges) accredited in, and having a campus located in the US, acting on behalf of their faculty members. Such organizations also are referred to as academic institutions.
  • Non-profit, non-academic organizations: Independent museums, observatories, research labs, professional societies and similar organizations in the U.S. associated with educational or research activities.

PI Limit:

None Specified

Limit on Number of Proposals per Organization:

None Specified

Limit on Number of Proposals per PI:

None Specified

Additional Eligibility Info:

Colleges and universities designated as Undergraduate or Predominately Undergraduate Institutions should consult the guidelines described in Research in Undergraduate Institutions .

Proposals that have been declined are not eligible for resubmission for one year and must be substantially revised to be considered.

Proposals must involve multidisciplinary groups of scientists at one institution or collaborative efforts of associated researchers from different institutions working on coordinated projects.

V. PROPOSAL PREPARATION AND SUBMISSION INSTRUCTIONS

A. Proposal Preparation Instructions

Full Proposal Preparation Instructions: Proposers may opt to submit proposals in response to this Program Solicitation via Grants.gov or via the NSF FastLane system.

  • Full proposals submitted via FastLane: Proposals submitted in response to this program solicitation should be prepared and submitted in accordance with the general guidelines contained in the NSF Grant Proposal Guide (GPG). The complete text of the GPG is available electronically on the NSF website at: http://www.nsf.gov/publications/pub_summ.jsp?ods_key=gpg . Paper copies of the GPG may be obtained from the NSF Publications Clearinghouse, telephone (703) 292-7827 or by e-mail from nsfpubs@nsf.gov . Proposers are reminded to identify this program solicitation number in the program solicitation block on the NSF Cover Sheet For Proposal to the National Science Foundation. Compliance with this requirement is critical to determining the relevant proposal processing guidelines. Failure to submit this information may delay processing.
  • Full proposals submitted via Grants.gov: Proposals submitted in response to this program solicitation via Grants.gov should be prepared and submitted in accordance with the NSF Grants.gov Application Guide: A Guide for the Preparation and Submission of NSF Applications via Grants.gov. The complete text of the NSF Grants.gov Application Guide is available on the Grants.gov website and on the NSF website at: ( http://www.nsf.gov/publications/pub_summ.jsp?ods_key=grantsgovguide ). To obtain copies of the Application Guide and Application Forms Package, click on the Apply tab on the Grants.gov site, then click on the Apply Step 1: Download a Grant Application Package and Application Instructions link and enter the funding opportunity number, (the program solicitation number without the NSF prefix) and press the Download Package button. Paper copies of the Grants.gov Application Guide also may be obtained from the NSF Publications Clearinghouse, telephone (703) 292-7827 or by e-mail from nsfpubs@nsf.gov .

In determining which method to utilize in the electronic preparation and submission of the proposal, please note the following:

Collaborative Proposals. All collaborative proposals submitted as separate submissions from multiple organizations must be submitted via the NSF FastLane system. Chapter II, Section D.4 of the Grant Proposal Guide provides additional information on collaborative proposals.

B. Budgetary Information

Cost Sharing: Inclusion of voluntary committed cost sharing is prohibited

Other Budgetary Limitations:

Requests for scientific instrumentation and equipment included in standard research proposals generally should not exceed $50,000. Requests in excess of this amount usually require a separate proposal directly to the Instrumentation and Facilities Program. Contact the Program Director for further details.

C. Due Dates

  • Full Proposal Target Date(s):

    September 26, 2011

    Fourth Monday in September, Annually Thereafter

Contact Program Directors for target date guidance.

D. FastLane/Grants.gov Requirements

  • For Proposals Submitted Via FastLane:

    Detailed technical instructions regarding the technical aspects of preparation and submission via FastLane are available at: https://www.fastlane.nsf.gov/a1/newstan.htm . For FastLane user support, call the FastLane Help Desk at 1-800-673-6188 or e-mail fastlane@nsf.gov . The FastLane Help Desk answers general technical questions related to the use of the FastLane system. Specific questions related to this program solicitation should be referred to the NSF program staff contact(s) listed in Section VIII of this funding opportunity.

    Submission of Electronically Signed Cover Sheets. The Authorized Organizational Representative (AOR) must electronically sign the proposal Cover Sheet to submit the required proposal certifications (see Chapter II, Section C of the Grant Proposal Guide for a listing of the certifications). The AOR must provide the required electronic certifications within five working days following the electronic submission of the proposal. Further instructions regarding this process are available on the FastLane Website at: https://www.fastlane.nsf.gov/fastlane.jsp .

  • For Proposals Submitted Via Grants.gov:

    • Before using Grants.gov for the first time, each organization must register to create an institutional profile. Once registered, the applicant's organization can then apply for any federal grant on the Grants.gov website. Comprehensive information about using Grants.gov is available on the Grants.gov Applicant Resources webpage: http://www07.grants.gov/applicants/app_help_reso.jsp . In addition, the NSF Grants.gov Application Guide provides additional technical guidance regarding preparation of proposals via Grants.gov. For Grants.gov user support, contact the Grants.gov Contact Center at 1-800-518-4726 or by email: support@grants.gov . The Grants.gov Contact Center answers general technical questions related to the use of Grants.gov. Specific questions related to this program solicitation should be referred to the NSF program staff contact(s) listed in Section VIII of this solicitation.

    Submitting the Proposal: Once all documents have been completed, the Authorized Organizational Representative (AOR) must submit the application to Grants.gov and verify the desired funding opportunity and agency to which the application is submitted. The AOR must then sign and submit the application to Grants.gov. The completed application will be transferred to the NSF FastLane system for further processing.

VI. NSF PROPOSAL PROCESSING AND REVIEW PROCEDURES

Proposals received by NSF are assigned to the appropriate NSF program where they will be reviewed if they meet NSF proposal preparation requirements. All proposals are carefully reviewed by a scientist, engineer, or educator serving as an NSF Program Officer, and usually by three to ten other persons outside NSF who are experts in the particular fields represented by the proposal. These reviewers are selected by Program Officers charged with the oversight of the review process. Proposers are invited to suggest names of persons they believe are especially well qualified to review the proposal and/or persons they would prefer not review the proposal. These suggestions may serve as one source in the reviewer selection process at the Program Officer's discretion. Submission of such names, however, is optional. Care is taken to ensure that reviewers have no conflicts of interest with the proposal.

A. NSF Merit Review Criteria

All NSF proposals are evaluated through use of the two National Science Board (NSB)-approved merit review criteria: intellectual merit and the broader impacts of the proposed effort. In some instances, however, NSF will employ additional criteria as required to highlight the specific objectives of certain programs and activities.

The two NSB-approved merit review criteria are listed below. The criteria include considerations that help define them. These considerations are suggestions and not all will apply to any given proposal. While proposers must address both merit review criteria, reviewers will be asked to address only those considerations that are relevant to the proposal being considered and for which the reviewer is qualified to make judgements.

What is the intellectual merit of the proposed activity?
How important is the proposed activity to advancing knowledge and understanding within its own field or across different fields? How well qualified is the proposer (individual or team) to conduct the project? (If appropriate, the reviewer will comment on the quality of the prior work.) To what extent does the proposed activity suggest and explore creative, original, or potentially transformative concepts? How well conceived and organized is the proposed activity? Is there sufficient access to resources?

What are the broader impacts of the proposed activity?
How well does the activity advance discovery and understanding while promoting teaching, training, and learning? How well does the proposed activity broaden the participation of underrepresented groups (e.g., gender, ethnicity, disability, geographic, etc.)? To what extent will it enhance the infrastructure for research and education, such as facilities, instrumentation, networks, and partnerships? Will the results be disseminated broadly to enhance scientific and technological understanding? What may be the benefits of the proposed activity to society?

Examples illustrating activities likely to demonstrate broader impacts are available electronically on the NSF website at: http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/gpg/broaderimpacts.pdf .

Mentoring activities provided to postdoctoral researchers supported on the project, as described in a one-page supplementary document, will be evaluated under the Broader Impacts criterion.

NSF staff also will give careful consideration to the following in making funding decisions:

Integration of Research and Education
One of the principal strategies in support of NSF's goals is to foster integration of research and education through the programs, projects, and activities it supports at academic and research institutions. These institutions provide abundant opportunities where individuals may concurrently assume responsibilities as researchers, educators, and students and where all can engage in joint efforts that infuse education with the excitement of discovery and enrich research through the diversity of learning perspectives.

Integrating Diversity into NSF Programs, Projects, and Activities
Broadening opportunities and enabling the participation of all citizens -- women and men, underrepresented minorities, and persons with disabilities -- is essential to the health and vitality of science and engineering. NSF is committed to this principle of diversity and deems it central to the programs, projects, and activities it considers and supports.

    Additional Review Criteria:

    Additional CSEDI review criteria:

    • demonstrated synergism among the various disciplinary components involved in the proposed research
    • likelihood of making accelerated progress on major questions related to understanding the Earth's deep interior.

B. Review and Selection Process

Proposals submitted in response to this program solicitation will be reviewed by Ad hoc Review and/or Panel Review.

Reviewers will be asked to formulate a recommendation to either support or decline each proposal. The Program Officer assigned to manage the proposal's review will consider the advice of reviewers and will formulate a recommendation.

After scientific, technical and programmatic review and consideration of appropriate factors, the NSF Program Officer recommends to the cognizant Division Director whether the proposal should be declined or recommended for award. NSF is striving to be able to tell applicants whether their proposals have been declined or recommended for funding within six months. The time interval begins on the deadline or target date, or receipt date, whichever is later. The interval ends when the Division Director accepts the Program Officer's recommendation.

A summary rating and accompanying narrative will be completed and submitted by each reviewer. In all cases, reviews are treated as confidential documents. Verbatim copies of reviews, excluding the names of the reviewers, are sent to the Principal Investigator/Project Director by the Program Officer. In addition, the proposer will receive an explanation of the decision to award or decline funding.

In all cases, after programmatic approval has been obtained, the proposals recommended for funding will be forwarded to the Division of Grants and Agreements for review of business, financial, and policy implications and the processing and issuance of a grant or other agreement. Proposers are cautioned that only a Grants and Agreements Officer may make commitments, obligations or awards on behalf of NSF or authorize the expenditure of funds. No commitment on the part of NSF should be inferred from technical or budgetary discussions with a NSF Program Officer. A Principal Investigator or organization that makes financial or personnel commitments in the absence of a grant or cooperative agreement signed by the NSF Grants and Agreements Officer does so at their own risk.

VII. AWARD ADMINISTRATION INFORMATION

A. Notification of the Award

Notification of the award is made to the submitting organization by a Grants Officer in the Division of Grants and Agreements. Organizations whose proposals are declined will be advised as promptly as possible by the cognizant NSF Program administering the program. Verbatim copies of reviews, not including the identity of the reviewer, will be provided automatically to the Principal Investigator. (See Section VI.B. for additional information on the review process.)

B. Award Conditions

An NSF award consists of: (1) the award letter, which includes any special provisions applicable to the award and any numbered amendments thereto; (2) the budget, which indicates the amounts, by categories of expense, on which NSF has based its support (or otherwise communicates any specific approvals or disapprovals of proposed expenditures); (3) the proposal referenced in the award letter; (4) the applicable award conditions, such as Grant General Conditions (GC-1); * or Research Terms and Conditions * and (5) any announcement or other NSF issuance that may be incorporated by reference in the award letter. Cooperative agreements also are administered in accordance with NSF Cooperative Agreement Financial and Administrative Terms and Conditions (CA-FATC) and the applicable Programmatic Terms and Conditions. NSF awards are electronically signed by an NSF Grants and Agreements Officer and transmitted electronically to the organization via e-mail.

*These documents may be accessed electronically on NSF's Website at http://www.nsf.gov/awards/managing/award_conditions.jsp?org=NSF . Paper copies may be obtained from the NSF Publications Clearinghouse, telephone (703) 292-7827 or by e-mail from nsfpubs@nsf.gov .

More comprehensive information on NSF Award Conditions and other important information on the administration of NSF awards is contained in the NSF Award & Administration Guide (AAG) Chapter II, available electronically on the NSF Website at http://www.nsf.gov/publications/pub_summ.jsp?ods_key=aag .

C. Reporting Requirements

For all multi-year grants (including both standard and continuing grants), the Principal Investigator must submit an annual project report to the cognizant Program Officer at least 90 days before the end of the current budget period. (Some programs or awards require more frequent project reports). Within 90 days after expiration of a grant, the PI also is required to submit a final project report, and a project outcomes report for the general public.

Failure to provide the required annual or final project reports, or the project outcomes report will delay NSF review and processing of any future funding increments as well as any pending proposals for that PI. PIs should examine the formats of the required reports in advance to assure availability of required data.

PIs are required to use NSF's electronic project-reporting system, available through FastLane, for preparation and submission of annual and final project reports. Such reports provide information on activities and findings, project participants (individual and organizational) publications; and, other specific products and contributions. PIs will not be required to re-enter information previously provided, either with a proposal or in earlier updates using the electronic system. Submission of the report via FastLane constitutes certification by the PI that the contents of the report are accurate and complete. The project outcomes report must be prepared and submitted using Research.gov. This report serves as a brief summary, prepared specifically for the public, of the nature and outcomes of the project. This report will be posted on the NSF website exactly as it is submitted by the PI.

VIII. AGENCY CONTACTS

Please note that the program contact information is current at the time of publishing. See program website for any updates to the points of contact.

General inquiries regarding this program should be made to:

  • Robin Reichlin, Program Director, Geophysics, 785 S, telephone: (703) 292-8556, fax: (703) 292-9025, email: rreichli@nsf.gov

  • Sonia Esperanca, Program Director, Petrology and Geochemistry, 785 S, telephone: (703) 292-8554, email: sesperan@nsf.gov

For questions related to the use of FastLane, contact:

For questions relating to Grants.gov contact:

  • Grants.gov Contact Center: If the Authorized Organizational Representatives (AOR) has not received a confirmation message from Grants.gov within 48 hours of submission of application, please contact via telephone: 1-800-518-4726; e-mail: support@grants.gov .

IX. OTHER INFORMATION

The NSF Website provides the most comprehensive source of information on NSF Directorates (including contact information), programs and funding opportunities. Use of this Website by potential proposers is strongly encouraged. In addition, National Science Foundation Update is a free e-mail subscription service designed to keep potential proposers and other interested parties apprised of new NSF funding opportunities and publications, important changes in proposal and award policies and procedures, and upcoming NSF Regional Grants Conferences. Subscribers are informed through e-mail when new publications are issued that match their identified interests. Users can subscribe to this service by clicking the "Get NSF Updates by Email" link on the NSF web site .

Grants.gov provides an additional electronic capability to search for Federal government-wide grant opportunities. NSF funding opportunities may be accessed via this new mechanism. Further information on Grants.gov may be obtained at http://www.grants.gov .

ABOUT THE NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION

The National Science Foundation (NSF) is an independent Federal agency created by the National Science Foundation Act of 1950, as amended (42 USC 1861-75). The Act states the purpose of the NSF is "to promote the progress of science; [and] to advance the national health, prosperity, and welfare by supporting research and education in all fields of science and engineering."

NSF funds research and education in most fields of science and engineering. It does this through grants and cooperative agreements to more than 2,000 colleges, universities, K-12 school systems, businesses, informal science organizations and other research organizations throughout the US. The Foundation accounts for about one-fourth of Federal support to academic institutions for basic research.

NSF receives approximately 40,000 proposals each year for research, education and training projects, of which approximately 11,000 are funded. In addition, the Foundation receives several thousand applications for graduate and postdoctoral fellowships. The agency operates no laboratories itself but does support National Research Centers, user facilities, certain oceanographic vessels and Antarctic research stations. The Foundation also supports cooperative research between universities and industry, US participation in international scientific and engineering efforts, and educational activities at every academic level.

Facilitation Awards for Scientists and Engineers with Disabilities provide funding for special assistance or equipment to enable persons with disabilities to work on NSF-supported projects. See Grant Proposal Guide Chapter II, Section D.2 for instructions regarding preparation of these types of proposals.

The National Science Foundation has Telephonic Device for the Deaf (TDD) and Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) capabilities that enable individuals with hearing impairments to communicate with the Foundation about NSF programs, employment or general information. TDD may be accessed at (703) 292-5090 and (800) 281-8749, FIRS at (800) 877-8339.

The National Science Foundation Information Center may be reached at (703) 292-5111.

The National Science Foundation promotes and advances scientific progress in the United States by competitively awarding grants and cooperative agreements for research and education in the sciences, mathematics, and engineering.

To get the latest information about program deadlines, to download copies of NSF publications, and to access abstracts of awards, visit the NSF Website at http://www.nsf.gov

  • Location:

4201 Wilson Blvd. Arlington, VA 22230

  • For General Information
    (NSF Information Center) :

(703) 292-5111

  • TDD (for the hearing-impaired):

(703) 292-5090

  • To Order Publications or Forms:

Send an e-mail to:

nsfpubs@nsf.gov

or telephone:

(703) 292-7827

  • To Locate NSF Employees:

(703) 292-5111


PRIVACY ACT AND PUBLIC BURDEN STATEMENTS

The information requested on proposal forms and project reports is solicited under the authority of the National Science Foundation Act of 1950, as amended. The information on proposal forms will be used in connection with the selection of qualified proposals; and project reports submitted by awardees will be used for program evaluation and reporting within the Executive Branch and to Congress. The information requested may be disclosed to qualified reviewers and staff assistants as part of the proposal review process; to proposer institutions/grantees to provide or obtain data regarding the proposal review process, award decisions, or the administration of awards; to government contractors, experts, volunteers and researchers and educators as necessary to complete assigned work; to other government agencies or other entities needing information regarding applicants or nominees as part of a joint application review process, or in order to coordinate programs or policy; and to another Federal agency, court, or party in a court or Federal administrative proceeding if the government is a party. Information about Principal Investigators may be added to the Reviewer file and used to select potential candidates to serve as peer reviewers or advisory committee members. See Systems of Records, NSF-50 , "Principal Investigator/Proposal File and Associated Records," 69 Federal Register 26410 (May 12, 2004), and NSF-51 , "Reviewer/Proposal File and Associated Records," 69 Federal Register 26410 (May 12, 2004). Submission of the information is voluntary. Failure to provide full and complete information, however, may reduce the possibility of receiving an award.

An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, an information collection unless it displays a valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number. The OMB control number for this collection is 3145-0058. Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 120 hours per response, including the time for reviewing instructions. Send comments regarding the burden estimate and any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to:

Suzanne H. Plimpton
Reports Clearance Officer
Division of Administrative Services
National Science Foundation
Arlington, VA 22230



NSF Logo
Policies and Important Links

|

Privacy | FOIA | Help | Contact NSF | Contact Web Master | SiteMap
11

 

The National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Virginia 22230, USA
Tel: (703) 292-5111, FIRS: (800) 877-8339 | TDD: (800) 281-8749

EPA Region 9 "Newsletters of the Pacific Southwest"

U.S. EPA Highlights 1st Ever National Wetlands Condition Assessment, Changing Federal Protections for California Wetlands

Release date: 06/02/2011

Contact Information: Mary Simms, simms.mary@epa.gov (415) 947-4270

‘Green Infrastructure for Clean Water Act of 2011' Introduced to House and Senate

Contacts:

Katherine Baer , 202-243-7053

May 27, 2011

Washington, DC - American Rivers, the nation's leading voice for clean water and healthy rivers, today applauded Senators Tom Udall (D-NM), Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) and Ben Cardin (D-MD) and Representatives Donna Edwards (D-MD) and Russ Carnahan (D-MO) for introducing the ‘Green Infrastructure for Clean Water Act of 2011' to the Senate and House, respectively.

This legislation is an important step forward in addressing polluted runoff by prioritizing smart stormwater management strategies that work with the natural landscape to infiltrate and reuse rainwater to protect our clean water supplies and reduce localized flooding. By providing opportunities and establishing mechanisms for communities to pursue green infrastructure solutions, this approach can become a new norm rather than just a best practice.

“Clean water is vital to our health, safety, and quality of life. This bill will help communities nationwide safeguard clean water and healthy rivers,” said Stacey Detwiler, Clean Water Associate at American Rivers.

Green infrastructure provides a 21st century approach to managing polluted runoff that threatens our clean water supplies and the health of our communities. By treating rainwater where it falls, green infrastructure practices filter out contaminants and reduce the volume of stormwater that overwhelms our water infrastructure and pollutes our streams and rivers. Many communities around the country including Toledo, Milwaukee, Philadelphia, New York City and Lenexa, Kansas use green infrastructure as a key component of their strategy to cost effectively achieve clean water.

From green roofs to permeable pavement to cisterns, green infrastructure approaches provide flexible solutions to protect our clean water and save communities money. For example, the city of Portland, Oregon spent $8 million to subsidize downspout disconnections for homeowners, saving the city $250 million in hard infrastructure fixes and keeping one billion gallons of stormwater out of the City's combined sewer system every year. Green infrastructure also provides multiple benefits to communities by saving energy, reducing air pollution and increasing property values.

“By increasing research and development of innovative green infrastructure techniques, promoting the consistent use of green infrastructure within the Environmental Protection Agency, and providing incentive funding to communities to plan, develop, and install green infrastructure technologies, this bill will help revitalize communities nationwide,” said Detwiler. “We applaud Representatives Edwards and Carnahan and Senators Udall, Whitehouse and Cardin for their leadership in protecting the nation's clean water and healthy rivers.”


###


American Rivers is the nation's leading voice fighting for clean water and healthy rivers. For almost 40 years we have protected and restored rivers, scoring victories for communities, fish and wildlife, and future generations.  American Rivers has offices in Washington, DC and nationwide, and more than 100,000 supporters and volunteers. Visit www.americanrivers.org , www.facebook.com/americanrivers and www.twitter.com/americanrivers .

Related Information

PRESS RELEASES

1

New Report Calls for Federal Action to Improve Flood Protection, Other Policies in Face of Climate Change (05/26/11)

Green River among America's Most Endangered Rivers (05/17/11)

More 1

In THE NEWS

Pressure to Improve Water Quality in Chicago River The New York Times (05/19/11)

Gold mining project in Oregon hits clean water snag The Seattle Times (AP) (04/20/11)

BLOG POSTS

1

Reaching Out for Clean Water in Philly (06/02/11)

Green Infrastructure Moves forward in Congress (05/27/11)

More 1

LIBRARY

1

The Value of Green Infrastructure (01/21/11)

Video: Blueways - Protecting Rivers, Connecting Communities (01/11/11)

More 1

 

SOLICITOR: The title of the chief law officer of a government body or department, such as a city, town, or Municipal Corporation .

In U.S. v. Rowe, 96 F.3d 1294 (9th Cir. 1996), a law firm launched an investigation after learning that one of its lawyers may have mishandled client funds by assigning two associates to investigate his conduct and report back their findings. Subsequently, a grand jury subpoenaed the associates, and the firm asserted the attorney-client privilege. Even though the associates were never told they were acting as the firm's attorneys, did not keep time records or bill the firm for their time, and were taking direction from a senior partner, Judge Kozinski found that they were, in effect, in-house counsel and that the privilege would attach to their confidential communications with the members of the firm. Id. at 1296-97. The Court of Appeals relied exclusively on federal law for this result.

Resource Record Details

Earthquake-Resistant Design Concepts: An Introduction to the NEHRP Recommended Seismic Provisions for New Buildings and Other Structures

1 One of the goals of the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program (NEHRP) is to encourage design and construction practices that address the earthquake hazard and minimize the resulting risk to life and property. The publication of FEMA P-749, a companion guide to the 2009 edition of the NEHRP Recommended Seismic Provisions for New Buildings and Other Structures (FEMA P-750), reaffirms FEMA's ongoing commitment to achieving this goal. Understanding the basis for the seismic regulations in the nation's building codes and standards is important to those outside the technical community including elected officials, decision-makers in the insurance and financial communities, and individual building or business owners and other concerned citizens. This document is intended to provide these interested individuals with a readily understandable explanation of the intent and requirements of seismic design in general and the Provisions in particular.


Document Details:

Discovery
Placing Landmarks on the Genome Map
Schematic diagram showing human chromosome 21 with a small region outlined in red.

Vishy Iyer and colleagues use supercomputers and next-generation gene sequences to explore DNA and heredity

May 31, 2011

Supercomputers and next-generation gene sequencers allow researchers to explore DNA and heredity.

We typically think of heredity--eye color, body type or susceptibility to a disease--as rooted in our genes. And it is. But as biologists sequence more genomes and analyze the results, they're finding that the non-coding regions of the genome outside the genes, formerly considered "junk," play an important role in our genetic make-up as well.

Since 2001, the cost of DNA sequencing a human genome has dropped from billions to tens of thousands of dollars, enabling more focused investigations of gene expression. This has greatly improved scientists' ability to understand biological systems and their relation to illness.

Many common diseases have a genetic component that predisposes one to become sick, but the connection is rarely simple. The combination of next-generation gene sequencers and high-performance computers are enabling biologists to ask novel questions about our DNA and to glean new insights about disease and heredity.

An important example involves the role of transcription factor proteins in gene regulation, which scientists are just beginning to explore. These proteins bind to landing pads on the genome and act as control dials for gene regulation--turning genes on or off, and determining the level of gene activity in a cell.

"If you're comparing normal cells to cancer cells, you want to know what happened in the cancer cell that makes it different," said Vishy Iyer, at the University of Texas at Austin. "The gene expression patterns change, and we want to know which genes are regulated up or down, and how that came about."

About 2,000 transcription factor proteins have been identified, and some have been linked to breast and other cancers, Rett syndrome, and autoimmune diseases. However, little is known about how they work.

Iyer, along with colleagues at Duke University, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, National Human Genome Research Institute and Wellcome Trust Genome Campus, are trying to change that. Published in the journal Science in 2010, their research was one of the first studies to use next-generation sequencing and supercomputers to explore the expression of genes related to a specific regulatory transcription factor (called CTCF). They determined that transcription factor binding is a heritable trait.

"We showed for the first time that some of the differences in DNA between individuals can affect the binding of transcription factors," said Iyer. "More importantly, that those differences could be inherited."

The group used a relatively new sequencing technology, called ChIP-Seq, to study only the regions of DNA to which the proteins of interest were bound. These base pairs were then sequenced to determine the order of nucleotides and to count how many molecules were bound to the protein.

Sounds simple enough, until you try to sequence millions of these regions to locate their exact position among the approximately three billion base pairs in the human genome.

"The genome is a vast area with many features," said Iyer. "You can think of the proteins as landmarks that we're trying to place on the genome map."

The National Science Foundation-funded Ranger supercomputer at the Texas Advanced Computing Center took the short sequence reads generated by ChIP-Seq and aligned them to the reference genome.

"It's like a text search. Though if you tried to run it in Microsoft Word, it would never finish," Iyer joked.

Using several thousand processors simultaneously on Ranger, the alignment took several hours for each of the data sets, and, in total, used the equivalent of 20 years on a single processor.

The single base resolution offered by next-generation sequencing enabled the researchers to look at individual, known differences in the DNA and to use those dissimilarities to examine how genes on each chromosome bind transcription factors.

"We could tell the difference in binding from the gene that you inherited from your father and mother--that was the big advance," said Iyer. "Now, we're applying this technology to cases where you know that the gene from one of your parents has a mutation that pre-disposes you to some disease."

These findings bring science one step closer to personalized medicine based on a detailed reading of an individual's genome, including the non-coding regions. Despite the tremendous complexity of the genome, Iyer is optimistic that the research will have an impact on human health.

"There are lots of diseases and for a subset, they're affecting gene expression by impacting transcription factors," he said. "If we pick the diseases and the factors smartly, I think we'll find them."

The research was also supported by the National Human Genome Research Institute.

-- Aaron Dubrow, Texas Advanced Computing Center, aarondubrow@tacc.utexas.edu

This Behind the Scenes article was provided to LiveScience in partnership with the National Science Foundation.

Investigators
Vishy Iyer
Ryan McDaniel
Bum-Kyu Lee
Lingyun Song
Zheng Liu
Alan Boyle
Michael Erdos
Laura Scott
Mario Morken
Katerina Kucera
Anna Battenhouse
Damian Keefe
Francis Collins
Huntington Willard
Jason Lieb
Terrence Furey
Gregory Crawford
Ewan Birney

Related Institutions/Organizations
University of Texas at Austin
Duke University
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
Wellcome Trust Genome Campus

Locations
Maryland
North Carolina
Texas
United Kingdom

Related Awards
#0622780 World-Class Science Through World Leadership in HPC

Related Agencies
National Human Genome Research Institute

Related Websites
LiveScience.com: Behind the Scenes: Placing Landmarks on the Genome Map: http://www.livescience.com/14259-computing-transcription-factors-genome-bts.html
Iyer Lab: http://microarray.icmb.utexas.edu/research.html
Heritable Individual-Specific and Allele-Specific Chromatin Signatures in Humans, Science, April 9, 2010: http://www.sciencemag.org/content/328/5975/235.short

Supply Chain Environmentalism & Customer-Driven Reporting Compliance Management

1

Marking the culmination of a full 20 years of planning and development, the Bureau of Land Management and its many partners this morning will dedicate the final leg of a trail running the full length of the eastern side of Keswick Reservoir. Open to all non-motorized users — horses, cyclists, trail runners, dog walkers — the single-track dirt trail runs from Keswick Dam Road north above the lake, connecting to an existing network that leads all the way to Shasta Dam. The final stretch isn't quite finished, but another week or so's work will link the trail to the stress-ribbon bridge on the Sacramento River Trail, just downstream from Keswick Dam. With multiple access points, loops, and side routes to waterfalls and overlooks, the Keswick-area trails can accommodate casual morning nature strolls and off-road ultramarathons alike. And they open to recreational users a beautiful stretch of the Sacramento River canyon that, until recently, demanded venturesome bushwhacking. It was in 1990 that the McConnell Foundation first doled out a grant to Shasta County to study converting the old railroad grade on the west side of Keswick Reservoir into a trail. Today that is the nearly fully paved Sacramento River Rail Trail, and the opportunities have grown rich on both sides of the river in what the BLM calls the “Interlakes Special Recreation Management Area.” There have been roadblocks along the way. Toxic old mine sites peppered the area beneath Iron Mountain Mine on Keswick's west shore. Post-Sept. 11, security concerns near Shasta Dam slowed development. And the route includes some private property, whose owners generously opened their land to easements. Through it all, the BLM, local governments and several private foundations toiled steadily toward scratching their vision into the hillsides. It's a tremendous accomplishment that local residents will enjoy for years. Everyone involved deserves our gratitude.

And the best way to thank them? Get out and use it.

Shotgun sequencing finds nanoorganisms

By Robert Sanders, Media Relations | 21 December 2006

BERKELEY – For 11 years, Jill Banfield at the University of California, Berkeley, has collected and studied the microbes that slime the floors of mines and convert iron to acid, a common source of stream pollution around the world.


Three enigmatic Archaea plucked from a pink scum, or biofilm, in California's Richmond Mine. Transmission electron micrograph (TEM) images like these show that most have protrusions (B), dark areas that probably are packed ribosomes (C) and unidentified dark inclusions (D). The 100 nanometer scale bar is approximately one-thousandth the width of a human hair. (Brett Barker/UC Berkeley)

Imagine her surprise, then, when research scientist Brett Baker discovered three new microbes living amidst the bacteria she thought she knew well. All three were so small - the size of large viruses - as to be virtually invisible under a microscope, and belonged to a totally new phylum of Archaea, microorganisms that have been around for billions of years.

What made Baker's find possible was shotgun sequencing, a technique developed and made famous by Celera Corp., which used it to sequence the human genome in record time.

"It was amazing," said Banfield, a professor of earth and planetary science and of environmental science, policy and management at UC Berkeley since 2001. "These were totally new and very small organisms we didn't know how to culture with standard techniques. This shows the great promise of shotgun sequencing to profile a community of organisms without making any assumptions about what is there."

Nearly three years ago, Banfield employed shotgun sequencing to pick out the half-dozen bacteria and Archaea in the mine slime. It was the first successful example of community genomic analysis to profile the organisms in a drop of water - scummy water.

But Baker's discovery makes clear that shotgun sequencing can also pick out rare organisms too small to see easily, and too novel to be plucked out by other genetic techniques.

"We were essentially looking for new stuff, and we found it in all the samples studied, though at low abundance," said Baker, who is with the campus's Department of Earth and Planetary Science. "Shotgun sequencing is a better way to identify organisms than using other methods, like culturing or PCR (polymerase chain reaction), which can miss quite a lot of organisms."

Banfield, Baker and their UC Berkeley and University of Queensland, Australia, colleagues report their findings in the Dec. 22 issue of Science .

Banfield noted that the bacteria and newfound Archaea living in the highly acidic mine drainage are archetypes of the kind of life that could exist on other planets, such as in the iron- and sulfur-rich soil of Mars.

"This community of microbes is relevant to probing potential strategies for life on other planets, especially the life likely to exist on Mars," she said.

The organisms in the mine drainage, which live in a pink slick on pools of acidic green water, obtain energy by oxidizing iron - that is, generating rust -- and in the process create sulfuric acid and dissolve pyrite (iron sulfide or fool's gold) to release more iron and sulfur. This self-sustaining process creates the acidic drainage that pollutes creeks and rivers, including those around the researchers' study site, the Richmond Mine at Iron Mountain, Calif. The mine is one of the largest Superfund sites in the country.

Banfield has been trying to understand how the extremophiles - microbes that live in extreme environments - live together and generate the acid drainage that makes such mines toxic hazards. The green runoff from the mine, captured and treated by the Environmental Protection Agency, is a hot 108 degrees Fahrenheit, as acidic as battery acid, and loaded with toxic metals - zinc, iron, copper and arsenic.

In 2004, Banfield collaborated with the Department of Energy's Joint Genome Institute to shotgun sequence a drop of the slime. This type of sequencing involves homogenizing the organisms in the sample, isolating the combined DNA and breaking it into lots of random strands. Each strand is then sequenced, and a powerful computer is used to find overlaps so that the pieces can be properly reordered.

This process identified five separate genomes that corresponded to five bacteria and Archaea - four of them uncultivated at that time, though closely related to known microbes.

Baker probed the gene fragments more thoroughly to turn up three Archaea from a totally unknown group, probably representing a new phylum among the several dozen known phyla of Archaea. They fall within a large class of microbes known as thermophiles, which are Archaea that live in warm and even scalding conditions. Many of these thermophiles have been recovered from hydrothermal vents in the deep mid-ocean ridges, where lava boils up between continental plates.

Once Baker had found gene segments (ribosomal RNA) from three Archaea, he was able to fish the microbes out of the slime soup and found that they were extremely small, around 200 nanometers in diameter, the size of large viruses. Bacteria average about five times this diameter.

These therefore could be the smallest organisms ever found, though Baker needs to culture them before confirming this. Because they're so small, however, they may not be free-living.

"We're not sure they can live independently, whether they have enough genes to fend for themselves, but instead are symbiotic with another organism or are feeding off another organism," Baker said.

Baker now is trying to find the right conditions for these Archaea to thrive in a culture dish. For now, he has dubbed them ARMAN-1, -2 and -3, for Archaeal Richmond Mine Acidophilic Nanoorganisms. Ted Arman is the owner of the mine.

Coauthors of the Science paper include Gene W. Tyson, Judith Flanagan, Philip Hugenholtz and Eric Allen, all current or former graduate students in the UC Berkeley Department of Environmental Science, Policy and Management; and Richard I. Webb of the Centre for Microscopy and Microanalysis at the University of Queensland in Brisbane.

The research was supported by the National Science Foundation's Biocomplexity Program, the Department of Energy and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration's Astrobiology Institute.

Comments or questions? Contact us
Copyright UC Regents

NEHRP Technical Briefs on Seismic Design Released

The NEHRP Consultants Joint Venture is pleased to announce the availability of two new Technical Briefs:

TITLE 5 > PART I > CHAPTER 5 > SUBCHAPTER II > § 552 Prev | Next

§ 552. Public information; agency rules, opinions, orders, records, and proceedings

Public Liaisons shall be responsible for assisting in reducing delays, increasing transparency and understanding of the status of requests,

and assisting in the resolution of disputes.

In December 2009, EPA's Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (OSWER) circulated for public comment a draft  Proposed Action Plan for its Community Engagement Initiative. EPA received and incorporated public comments on the  draft Plan and also developed the OSWER Community Engagement Initiative Iplementation Plan. The Implementation Plan  lays out specific actions and activities that EPA will undertake to achieve the goals and objectives of this Action Plan.

consent decree with statement of work and insurance policies.pdf FOIA request

."Eritis insuperabiles, si fueritis inseparabiles. Explosum est illud diverbium: Divide, & impera, cum radix & vertex imperii in obedientium consensus rata sunt." [You would be insuperable if you were inseparable. This proverb, Divide and rule, has been rejected, since the root and the summit of authority are confirmed by the consent of the subjects.

Ted & John

AMD&CSI and IMMI request DOJ appointment of Special Counsel

Petition for Leave to File

Interpleador and Counterclaim

Supporting Memorandum

Agreement to request for status conference

Ted's objections and agreement

Justice in Eyre! Open the Mint.

§ 2386. .. .certain organizations

Nonetheless the Rothschilds knew better than any other investors how to play safe. To a marked extent they did so by buying up vital minerals for which there was an assured market.

"Mercury, gold, copper, lead, diamonds and oil: by 1900 the Rothschilds occupied a remarkable position in the world market for non-ferrous metals, precious stones and petroleum" [Ferguson op cit]

After the "discovery:" of alluvial and diluvial diamonds in South Africa's Orange and Vaal rivers in 1867 - concentrated around the "rush" town (originally farm) of Kimberley - conflicts broke out over ownership of claims, and between the English and Boer mine-owners. The violence and discord threatened both access to, and supply of, what was undoubtedly the biggest single deposit of high class sparklers ever located. It mightily worried the London Rothschilds too. For they already had their agents in the field and had acquired the biggest single stake in the Anglo American Diamond Mining Company Ltd; using this (especially after 1882) as a vehicle for buying out smaller claim-holders in the area. [Wilson, op cit, page 303]

The two biggest operators had emerged as Barney Barnato and Cecil Rhodes; the latter being the archetypal nineteenth century imperialist with a proclaimed aim to create "a British dominion from the Cape to Cairo."

Rhodes approached the London Rothschilds in 1887 for investment backing, and they coughed up a million pound guarantee. Using this, Rhodes quickly swamped the opposition, purchasing the rival French Diamond Company) and establishing De Beers Consolidated Mines Ltd (with Lord Nathaniel Rothschild on the board). Until the dawn of the twenty first century De Beers was to supply of eighty per cent of the world's gem diamonds.

Rio Tinto and the Rothschilds had started connecting a hundred years earlier, when the Societe des Metaux, headed by the French banker Hyacinthe Secretan, began buying huge quantities of European copper, in order to fix the world price. Behind this rudimentary exercise in monopolisation were a number of European banks, including the London and Paris Rothschilds and their comradely British rival, Baring's [Charles E Harvey, "The Rio Tinto Company: An economic history of a leading international mining concern, 1973-1954", Alison Hodge, London, 1981, page 70.]. Rio Tinto was by then the most important copper miner in the Iberian peninsular (Spain and Portugal) - indeed the world. Whether or not the banks held key shares in the copper companies at this time is open to question. In any event, a proposal by investors to buy out the mining companies was abandoned. An attempt at a compromise was made in 1888, when Rio Tinto and the banks, including the Rothschilds, decided to establish a new joint venture copper marketing company in England. Rio Tinto's founder, Hugh Matheson, became the chair, while half the directors were appointed by the banks. This so-called "Secretan copper corner" also collapsed for reasons which are not clear [Harvey, op cit pages 72-73].

But the financial dependence of Rio Tinto on the Rothschilds was becoming obvious. According to RTZ historian, Charles Harvey, in his assiduous history of the mining company's formative years: "The Rothschilds would seem from their involvement in various financial schemes to have become substantial shareholders in the Rio Tinto Company in the aftermath of the Secretan copper corner [A Rio Tiinto company] entry of 9 November 1905 indicates that their holding at that date amounted to 30.8 per cent of the Company's issued share capital" [Harvey ibid, footnote 73, page 110].

The first world war had a damaging impact on Rio Tinto's profits as copper pyrites (and by-product sulphur) prices slumped . Demonstrating their financial clout over the company, in June 1920 the London and Paris Rothschilds met with the Rio Tinto board and insisted on a major reshuffle: the directors duly fell into line [Harvey, op cit, page 171}. "The extent to which…the Rothschilds directed Rio Tinto's development is difficult to determine" comments Harvey "…Nonetheless it seems certain that the directorate's outlook was considerably influenced through its association with these financiers" [Harvey, ibid, page 188]

The growing mutual dependence of Rio Tinto and the Rothshild's became more obvious when the mining company moved into central Africa during the 1920s. The Rothschilds encouraged their British confreres to buy a major - and strategically invaluable - stake in the Northern Rhodesian (Zimbabwean) copper belt. They viewed the investment not just as a source of revenue but, says Harvey, " as a vehicle for capital accumulation in its own right" [Harvey, ibid, page 221]. By 1932, three outfits - collectively known as "the Rio Tinto Group" - controlled the biggest stake in what was potentially the world's richest copper field,. One was Rio Tinto itself, the second a company partly owned by Rio Tinto - and third came the Rothschilds. [Harvey, op cit, page 231].


Pennies for the Guy

Just how much of Rio Tinto did the Rothschilds continue to own during the heady fifties, sixties and early seventies - a period of enormous neo-colonial expansion for the world's most powerful mining company? We can only speculate. Though firmly from the French branch of the family Guy de Rothschild sat on the board of the London-based miner, while amassing his own mining interests into IMETAL by a stupendous process of acquisition (see below).

In his 1985 autobiography, Guy claimed that, until the old Rio Tinto evolved into RTZ (Rio Tinto Zinc) in 1962, through its acquisition of Consolidated Zince in Australia, the Rothschilds held no less than half the shares of the British company. At an unspecified time, Anglo American (one of the Rothschild's partners in the Brinco confection) also acquired 10% of RTZ, through its London-based subsidiary, Charter Consolidated and a Rothschild sat on the Charter board.

Certainly RTZ and the French Rothschilds connived closely to form the notorious "uranium cartel" in the early 1970s, in order to outflank the United States, then the prime supplier of the deadly metal. During US Congressional investigation of the cartel in 1975, one Congressman McDonald lambasted the Rothschilds in no uncertain terms:

"As suggested by the fist clenching five arrows in the family crest, the Rothschilds of France and England have an interest in nearly every uranium mine in the world…The Rothschild presence is everything" [ US Congressional Record, Extension of Remarks, Washington DC 4/3/1975].`

It is fair to conclude that the Bank (certainly the French arm) is no longer "everything" in the manifold manoeuvres of what is now the world's second largest mining company. In its latest Annual Report, Rio Tinto plc lists its twenty largest shareholders; between them controlling 32.47% of the company's share capital. All are "nominees" (ie investing on behalf of unnamed investors which could include themselves), led by the Bank of New York (7.63%), followed closely by Chase (7.58%) and with HSBC coming third (2.06%).

Rio Tinto Ltd, the company's Australian arm, is 37.60% owned by Rio Tinto in London, with Chase Manhatten Nominees second (9.18%).
Neither of the dual-listed companies are officially the beneficiaries of any important Rothschild stake. [Rio Tinto 2001: Annual Report and financial stat ements (according to US General Accounting principles), London and Melbourne, 2002, page 131].

Nonetheless, during the 1980s and early 1990s Rothschild and Rio Tinto continued to do deals. The bank was associated with the mining company when Rio Tinto planned to purchase the huge Cerro Colorado copper project in Pinochset's Chile, through its subsidiary, Rio Algom. (The project was delayed and Rio Tinto late sold off Rio Algom ["Plunder!" page 137]). And Rio Tinto bought up 40% of the vast - and hugely rich - Neves Corvo copper mine in Portugal in 1984 from two IMETAL subsidiaries.

But the nineties yielded nothing of the type and scale of investment brokered between the partners over the previous century. Two mining projects have brought the company and bank together recently (Lihir and Richards Bay) but these are relatively minor, conventional plays (see appendix). Rio Tinto and Rothschild do not seem to be currently wheeling and dealing in Australia, where the bank is concentrating its attention on the minerals sector

It is certainly reasonable to suggest that Rothshild's newfound interest in the mining company Lepanto may be partly motivated by Rio Tinto's former hands-on involvement with the Philippine company in the same area (It would not be unreasonable to speculate that the two parties consulted beforehand). But this is probably less important than the fact that it is partly through their 120 year association with Rio Tinto that the Rothschilds have acquired an expertise in mine finance which is unrivalled.

La rennassiance (et echecs) des Rothschilds francaises:
The rise and fall of IMETAL

Forty years ago De Rothschild Freres changed its role from that of a merchant bank to a financial conglomerate, greedy for investments in oil, mining, shipping, and real estate. In 1967 the Bank merged its family concerns with that of their other major company, the Compagnie du Nord (railway) [Wilson, op cit page 401].

"If the 1960's really were 'swinging'" writes Derek Wilson, "no one swung with more vigour than the French Rothschilds. Not since the 1920s had they had so much disposable wealth. Not since the end of the last century had they wielded so much power". It was not only moneymaking which measurably advanced but also the Rothschilds political influence , especially with French prime minister Georges Pompidou.

But, within living memory, the story had been very different. Nor, after nationalisation in the 1980s, has the earlier euphoria been regained.

During the late 1930's the left-wing Popular Front government "robbed" the family of its extensive railway holdings. Adding insult to injury, in 1940 the anti-semitic, Nazi puppet Vichy government stripped the French Rothschilds of their citizenship, confiscated their fortunes and forcedthem into exile.

They returned home after the war to recover their assets and some of their pre-war status . After re-establishing their business they began "cleaning up" in nickel by forming the Societe Metallurgique le Nickel (SLN) to further exploit the vast deposits in French-colonised New Caledonia. The family also built Penarroya - through its mines in Spain and France - into the leading European source of lead and zinc. In 1971, the family added Mokta, the Gabonese uranium miner, to their clutch of interests and, three years later, tied the three companies up in the huge IMETAL conglomerate.

Six years later, IMETAL took over the steel products manufacturer Copperweld, marking an important Rothshild entrée into the USA; a Texas-based refinery followed [Roger Moody "The Gulliver File" op cit, page 425].

While the good times of the '70s lasted, they were extremely profitable for the Rothschilds. Ranked in 1980 as thirty-eighth largest multinational in terms of annual sales, IMETAL was raking in more profits from its overseas operations than virtually any other global company ["The Gullvier File" op cit, page 426].

But then the Mitterand government nationalised the Rothschild banking interests and IMETAL, along with SLN, began to slip out of the family's hands. A tortuous decade followed and, by 1990, the company had virtually withdrawn from mining.

Guy de Rothschild in his 1985 autobiography, "The Whims of Fortune" asked himself: "What was the final balance of those hectic twenty years?"

He answered: "Today I find it doubly sad to see Imetal, now government-controlled, staggering under the weight of the slump. All that remains for me is the remembrance of our efforts, our difficulties, our dreams" [Guy de Rothschild "The Whims of Fortune", Granada Publishing, Manchester, 1985]

And it seems likely that any Rothschild aspirations, to regain influence over the French mining industry, will remain exactly that - dreams.

Roger Moody, Nostromo Research, London, July 2003.

Copyright: Nostromo Research and Philippine Indigenous Peoples Links

[This paper can be quoted from, provided acknowledgment is given to sources used. It may not be reproduced in its entirety without permission from the copyright holders].

See also The Rothschild Files (3 August 2003)

(Jardine/ Matheson archive. Minutes of the New Jersey Metal Refining Works Ltd. Minutes of board, annual and extraordinary general meetings of the New Jersey Metal Refining Works Ltd. The minutes begin with the first board meeting held at 3 Lombard Street, London, on 31 December 1892, and conclude with the final meeting of shareholders at the same address on 29 October 1897. The company is referred to as the 'The New Jersey Extraction Works, Limited' on the spine, and the first set of minutes explain that the property of this company was transferred to its successor, the New Jersey Metal Refining Works Ltd. The volume is labelled on the front cover 'New Jersey Metal Refining Co. Minutes 1892-7. (An interest of Matheson & Co.) Probably incorporated in the Mountain Copper Co.'.)

(A) For the purposes of this section: “Attorney General” means the Attorney General of the United States; “Organization” means any group, club, league, society, committee, association, political party, or combination of individuals, whether incorporated or otherwise, but such term shall not include any corporation, association, community chest, fund, or foundation, organized and operated exclusively for religious, charitable, scientific, literary, or educational purposes; “Political activity” means any activity the purpose or aim of which, or one of the purposes or aims of which, is the control by force or overthrow of the Government of the United States or a political subdivision thereof, or any State or political subdivision thereof; An organization is engaged in “civilian military activity” if: (1) it gives instruction to, or prescribes instruction for, its members in the use of firearms or other weapons or any substitute therefor, or military or naval science; or (2) it receives from any other organization or from any individual instruction in military or naval science; or (3) it engages in any military or naval maneuvers or activities; or (4) it engages, either with or without arms, in drills or parades of a military or naval character; or (5) it engages in any other form of organized activity which in the opinion of the Attorney General constitutes preparation for military action; An organization is “subject to foreign control” if: (a) it solicits or accepts financial contributions, loans, or support of any kind, directly or indirectly, from, or is affiliated directly or indirectly with, a foreign government or a political subdivision thereof, or an agent, agency, or instrumentality of a foreign government or political subdivision thereof, or a political party in a foreign country, or an international political organization; or (b) its policies, or any of them, are determined by or at the suggestion of, or in collaboration with, a foreign government or political subdivision thereof, or an agent, agency, or instrumentality of a foreign government or a political subdivision thereof, or a political party in a foreign country, or an international political organization. (B) (1) The following organizations shall be required to register with the Attorney General: Every organization subject to foreign control which engages in political activity; Every organization which engages both in civilian military activity and in political activity; Every organization subject to foreign control which engages in civilian military activity; and Every organization, the purpose or aim of which, or one of the purposes or aims of which, is the establishment, control, conduct, seizure, or overthrow of a government or subdivision thereof by the use of force, violence, military measures, or threats of any one or more of the foregoing. Every such organization shall register by filing with the Attorney General, on such forms and in such detail as the Attorney General may by rules and regulations prescribe, a registration statement containing the information and documents prescribed in subsection (B)(3) and shall within thirty days after the expiration of each period of six months succeeding the filing of such registration statement, file with the Attorney General, on such forms and in such detail as the Attorney General may by rules and regulations prescribe, a supplemental statement containing such information and documents as may be necessary to make the information and documents previously filed under this section accurate and current with respect to such preceding six months' period. Every statement required to be filed by this section shall be subscribed, under oath, by all of the officers of the organization. (2) This section shall not require registration or the filing of any statement with the Attorney General by: (a) The armed forces of the United States; or (b) The organized militia or National Guard of any State, Territory, District, or possession of the United States; or (c) Any law-enforcement agency of the United States or of any Territory, District or possession thereof, or of any State or political subdivision of a State, or of any agency or instrumentality of one or more States; or (d) Any duly established diplomatic mission or consular office of a foreign government which is so recognized by the Department of State; or (e) Any nationally recognized organization of persons who are veterans of the armed forces of the United States, or affiliates of such organizations. (3) Every registration statement required to be filed by any organization shall contain the following information and documents: (a) The name and post-office address of the organization in the United States, and the names and addresses of all branches, chapters, and affiliates of such organization; (b) The name, address, and nationality of each officer, and of each person who performs the functions of an officer, of the organization, and of each branch, chapter, and affiliate of the organization; (c) The qualifications for membership in the organization; (d) The existing and proposed aims and purposes of the organization, and all the means by which these aims or purposes are being attained or are to be attained; (e) The address or addresses of meeting places of the organization, and of each branch, chapter, or affiliate of the organization, and the times of meetings; (f) The name and address of each person who has contributed any money, dues, property, or other thing of value to the organization or to any branch, chapter, or affiliate of the organization; (g) A detailed statement of the assets of the organization, and of each branch, chapter, and affiliate of the organization, the manner in which such assets were acquired, and a detailed statement of the liabilities and income of the organization and of each branch, chapter, and affiliate of the organization; (h) A detailed description of the activities of the organization, and of each chapter, branch, and affiliate of the organization; (i) A description of the uniforms, badges, insignia, or other means of identification prescribed by the organization, and worn or carried by its officers or members, or any of such officers or members; (j) A copy of each book, pamphlet, leaflet, or other publication or item of written, printed, or graphic matter issued or distributed directly or indirectly by the organization, or by any chapter, branch, or affiliate of the organization, or by any of the members of the organization under its authority or within its knowledge, together with the name of its author or authors and the name and address of the publisher; (k) A description of all firearms or other weapons owned by the organization, or by any chapter, branch, or affiliate of the organization, identified by the manufacturer's number thereon; (l) In case the organization is subject to foreign control, the manner in which it is so subject; (m) A copy of the charter, articles of association, constitution, bylaws, rules, regulations, agreements, resolutions, and all other instruments relating to the organization, powers, and purposes of the organization and to the powers of the officers of the organization and of each chapter, branch, and affiliate of the organization; and (n) Such other information and documents pertinent to the purposes of this section as the Attorney General may from time to time require. All statements filed under this section shall be public records and open to public examination and inspection at all reasonable hours under such rules and regulations as the Attorney General may prescribe. (C) The Attorney General is authorized at any time to make, amend, and rescind such rules and regulations as may be necessary to carry out this section, including rules and regulations governing the statements required to be filed. (D) Whoever violates any of the provisions of this section shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both. Whoever in a statement filed pursuant to this section willfully makes any false statement or willfully omits to state any fact which is required to be stated, or which is necessary to make the statements made not misleading, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.

Christ Statue and Spiritual Sanctuary

GREAT PAST AND BRIGHT FUTURE OF IRON MOUNTAIN MINE!

We are continuingly being injured and delayed by incompetent and misinformed agencies of the executive branch.

California journal of mines and geology, Volume 11

Report of State Mineralogist, 1892, Page 46

The Lost Confidence Mine is situated on Iron Mountain , near the summit of the range, 8 miles north of Shasta, at an elevation of 2,400 feet. The ore deposits occur in a body of porphyry of varying composition. A mile west of the mine slate replaces the porphyry, and extends west to the Gladstone Mine. An arm of the porphyry projects a little west of south, across the head of Whisky Creek, forming a V-shaped area.

The porphyry in the gulches about Iron Mountain is undecomposed, exhibiting quarters with crystalline faces. A half mile above the mine the porphyry has a fluted or columnar cleavage, resembling the columnar structure often seen in basalt. The ore lies in a very fine quartz porphyry, which changes at times into a chloritic felsite or petrosilex. The chlorite is present in large scales, probably representing crushed crystals.

A heavy iron gossan outcrops in great projecting masses just above the workings of the Lost Confidence Mine, on Slick Rock Creek, and extends up the mountain, forming its crest fully 1,000 feet above. This important mineralized belt extends about 10 miles northeasterly, across Spring and Boulder Creeks to Squaw Creek. A number of valuable silver mines are located on it. The Lost Confidence Mining Company owns about a mile of the deposit, beginning at Slick Rock Creek. One of the most interesting and valuable properties owned by this company is a body of pure hematite ore, covering about 40 acres. No development has yet been made, but every advantage exists for a great industry here. The iron is apparently inexhaustible, very pure, and with an inclined tramway built the Sacramento River could be cheaply place on the cars. The iron is separated from the silver vein by a dike of porphyry 300 feet wide. There are two ledges or deposits carrying silver, separated by a stratum of decomposed quartz porphyry 1 to 3 feet wide, and dipping to the northwest. The foot wall or silver vein is 10 to 30 feet thick. It consists of copper sulphurets, 80 to 150 ft. thick. It is worked for both gold and silver, containing them in the proportion of 10 silver to 1 gold. A large amount of native copper is saved every month by allowing the water which runs from the mine to pass through a flume several hundred feet long filled with scrap iron.

California journal of mines and geology, Volume 12-13

Report of State Mineralogist, 1894, Page 337

Iron Mountain Mine. – It is 8 miles N.E. of Shasta, on Iron Mountain , and comprises 1 mile square of ground, including three claims. The course of the mineral body is N.E. and S.W. and it can be traced for over 2 miles. It is apparently the iron head or gossan cause by bevy mineral springs permeating the fissure and surrounding rocks. The mass has been cross-cut in places over 500 ft. without reaching its boundaries. As depth is reached, the ferruginous and cupriferous oxidized mass changes to massive sulphides, sometimes of a steely nature and hardness. Tunnels have been run in, on what is taken for one of the walls, a distance of 500 ft., and a series of parallel cross-cuts made every 50 ft.; some of these are several hundred feet in length, all within the ore belt. The works from the upper tunnel have been entirely honey-combed and the ore sent into the mill. Near the surface the ore carries iron, copper, silver, and gold, said to yield in the mill 40 oz. silver and $1 gold. As depth is attained the percentage of gold increases. The reduction works include a fine 20 stamp dry-crushing mill and Bruckner furnace, furnace, 12 amalgamating pans, and 6 settlers, with a capacity of 75 tons per day. Has lately changed owners.

These injuries are a continuing negligent imminent hazard with felonious unlawful detainer and breach of warrantee for patent title from President Abraham Lincoln, May 1st, 1862; and breach of patent title from Governor Newton Booth, January 4th, 1875 .

The California Department of Fish and Game has made no claim against Iron Mountain Mines, Inc. for Damages to Fish Species.

THE WATER BOARD KNOWS

THE GEOLOGICAL SURVEY KNOWS

IRON MOUNTAIN MINE OFF HWY 299 9 MI NW OF REDDING , CA 96001 EPA Registry Id: 110009333140

 

Superfund Sites (sorted alphabetically)

1.

IRON MOUNTAIN MINE

EPA ID Number: CAD980498612

top

OFF HWY 299 9 MI NW OF
REDDING , CA 96001

Latitude Lat/long Description: 40° 40' 18" N
Longitude: 122° 31' 40" W

Status Lat/long Description: NPL Final (9/8/1983)

Hazard Ranking System (HRS) Score Lat/long Description: 56.16 (max. 100)

 

Alphabetical List of Contaminants Lat/long Description

Aluminum (fume or dust)

Antimony

Arsenic

Base neutral acids

Cadmium

Show All

Information about this site or state:

Lat/long Description

EPA Progress profile

Lat/long Description

EPA Contaminants list

Lat/long Description

CDC/ATSDR Public Health Assessments and Health Consultations

Current human exposures at this site are under control

WATER RECLAMATION PLAN

Purpose.

The State policies described in Water Code Sections 461 and 13510 are in the best interest of Iron Mountain Mine and the Township of Minnesota . The majority of jurisdictions in Shasta County have adopted measures to promote water reclamation. This chapter is necessary to protect the common water supply of the region which is vital to public health and safety, and to prevent endangerment of public and private property. Shasta County is highly dependent on limited domestic water for domestic, agricultural and industrial uses. The reliability of the supply of domestic water is uncertain. By developing and utilizing reclaimed water, the need for exportable water can be eliminated. In light of these circumstances, certain uses of potable water may be considered unreasonable or to constitute a nuisance where reclaimed water is available or production of reclaimed water is unduly impaired. Reclaimed water would be more readily available in seasons of drought when the supply of potable water for nonessential uses may be uncertain.

Water reclamation policy.

It is the policy of the Iron Mountain Mine and the Township of Minnesota that reclaimed water shall be used within the jurisdiction wherever its use is economically justified, financially and technically feasible, and consistent with legal requirements, preservation of public health, safety and welfare, and the environment.

Definitions.

The following terms are defined for purposes of this chapter:

A. “Agricultural purposes” include the growing of field and nursery crops, raw crops, trees, and vines and the feeding of fowl and livestock.

B. “Artificial lake” means a human-made lake, pond, lagoon, or other body of water that is used wholly or partly for landscape, scenic or non-contact recreational purposes.

C. “Commercial office building” means any building for office or commercial uses with water requirements which include, but are not limited to, landscape irrigation, toilets, urinals, and decorative fountains.

D. “Reclaimed water distribution system” means a piping system intended for the delivery of reclaimed water separate from and in addition to, the potable water distribution system.

E. A “greenbelt area” includes, but is not limited to, golf courses , cemeteries, parks and landscaping.

F. “Industrial process water” means water used by any industrial facility with process water requirements which include, but are not limited to, rinsing, washing, cooling and circulation, or construction.

G. “Off-site facilities” means water facilities from the source of supply to the point of connection with the on-site facilities, normally up to and including the water meter.

H. “On-site facilities” means water facilities under the control of the owner, normally downstream from the water meter.

I.  “Potable water” means water which conforms to the Federal, State and local standards for human consumption.

J. “Reclaimed water” means water which, as a result of treatment of wastewater, is suitable for a direct beneficial use or controlled use that would not otherwise occur (see Water Code Section 13050(n)).

K. “Water discharge” means water deposited, released, or discharged into a sewer system from any commercial, industrial, or residential source which contains levels of any substance or substance which may cause substantial harm to any water treatment or reclamation facility or which may prevent use of reclaimed water authorized by law.

Water reclamation master plan.

A. General. Upon adoption of this chapter, the Township shall prepare and adopt by resolution, a water reclamation master plan to define, encourage, and develop the use of reclaimed water within its boundaries. The master plan shall be updated not less often than every five years.

B. Contents of the Reclamation Master Plan. The master plan shall include, but not be limited to, the following:

1. Plants and Facilities. Evaluation of the location and size of present and future reclamation treatment plants, distribution pipelines, pump stations, reservoirs, and other related facilities, including cost estimates and potential financing methods;

2. Reclaimed Water Service Areas. A designation, based on the criteria set forth in this chapter, of the areas within the Township that can or may in the future use reclaimed water in lieu of potable water. Reclaimed water uses may include, but are not limited to, the irrigation of greenbelt and agricultural areas, filling of artificial lakes, and appropriate industrial and commercial uses;

3. Designate Tributary Areas. For each water reclamation facility identified in the master plan, designate proposed tributary areas. Within such areas, discharges to the sewage system shall be subject to permitting, monitoring and control measures to protect public health, safety and public and private property;

4. Quality of Water to be Reclaimed. For each water reclamation treatment facility, evaluate water quality with respect to the effect on anticipated uses of reclaimed water to be served by each treatment facility. Evaluate sources of waste discharge and sewer inflow that may, directly or cumulatively, substantially contribute to adverse water quality conditions (including but not limited to total dissolved solids , sodium, chloride and boron) in reclaimed water;

5. Tributary Protection Measures. Develop recommended control measures and management practices for each designated tributary area to maintain or improve the quality of reclaimed water. Such control measures may include capital improvements to the sewer collection system and waste discharge restrictions for industrial, commercial and residential discharges;

6. Mandatory Reclaimed Water Use. For each reclaimed water service area, evaluate whether greenbelt irrigation, agricultural irrigation, commercial office buildings, filling of artificial lakes, or industrial processes shall be limited to the use of reclaimed water. As appropriate, mandate construction of reclaimed water distribution systems or other facilities in new and existing developments for current or future reclaimed water use as a condition of any development approval or continued water service, if future reclamation facilities are proposed in the master plan that could adequately serve the development. Identify resources and adopt measures to assist water users in the financing of necessary conversions;

7. Rules and Regulations. Establish by resolution, general rules and regulations governing the use and distribution of reclaimed water;

8. Public Awareness Program. Establish a comprehensive water reclamation public awareness program;

9. Coordination Among Agencies. An examination of the potential for initiating a coordinated effort between the Township and other regional agencies to share in the production and utilization of reclaimed water.

Procedures.

A. Existing Potable Water Service.

1. Preliminary Determination. Based upon the master plan, upon the designation of each reclaimed water service area or the commencement of the design of new reclaimed water facilities, the Township shall make preliminary determinations as to which existing potable water customers shall be converted to the use of reclaimed water. Each water customer shall be notified of the basis for a determination that conversion to reclaimed water service will be required, as well as the proposed conditions and schedule for conversion.

2. Notice. The notice of the preliminary determination, including the proposed conditions and time schedule for compliance, and a reclaimed water permit application shall be sent to the water customer by certified mail.

3. Objections – Appeals. The water customer may file a notice of objection with the Township within 30 days after of any notice of determination to comply is delivered or mailed to the customer, and may request reconsideration of the determination or modification of the proposed conditions or schedule for conversion. The objection must be in writing and specify the reason for the objection. The preliminary determination shall be final if the customer does not file a timely objection. The Township Manager or his designee, shall review the objection with the objector, and shall confirm, modify or abandon the preliminary determination.

B. Development and Water Service Approvals.

1. Conditions. Upon application by a developer, owner or water customer (herein referred to as “applicant”) for a tentative map, subdivision map, land use permit, or other development project as defined by Government Code Section 65928 the Township staff shall review the master plan and make a preliminary determination whether the current or proposed use of the subject property is required to be served with reclaimed water or to include facilities designed to accommodate the use of reclaimed water in the future. Based upon such determination, use of reclaimed water and provision of reclaimed water distribution systems or other facilities for the use of reclaimed water, and application for a permit for such use may be required as a condition of approval of any such application, in addition to any other conditions of approval.

2. Alterations and Remodeling. On a case-by-case basis, upon application for a permit for the alteration or remodeling of multifamily, commercial or industrial structures (including, for example, hotels), the Township staff shall review the master plan and make a preliminary determination whether the subject property shall be required to be served with reclaimed water or to include facilities designed to accommodate the use of reclaimed water in the future. Based upon such determination, use of reclaimed water and provision of reclaimed water distribution systems or other facilities for the use of reclaimed water, and application for a permit for such use, may be required as a condition of approval of the application.

3. Notice of Determination. A notice of the basis for the preliminary determination, proposed conditions of approval and schedule for compliance shall be provided to the applicant prior to approval of the development application.

C. Reclaimed Water Permit Process. Upon a final determination by the Township Manager that a property shall be served with reclaimed water, or adoption of a condition of development approval requiring use or accommodation of the use of reclaimed water, the water customer, owner or applicant shall obtain a reclaimed water permit.

1. Permit Conditions. The permit shall specify the design and operational requirements for the applicant's water distribution facilities and schedule for compliance and shall require compliance with both the California Department of Health Services Wastewater Reclamation Criteria (see California Code of Administrative Regulations, Title 22), and requirements of the Regional Water Quality Control Board.

2. Plan Approval. Plans for the reclaimed and potable water distribution systems for the parcel shall be reviewed by the Township Manager or his designee and a field inspection conducted before the permit is granted.

3. Iron Mountain mine joint venturers to manufacture sodium sulfur (Nas) and zinc air batteries, Cadmium sulfide and telluride solar cells.

4 Iron Mountain mine joint venturers to construct superconducting supergrid.

5.Iron Mountain mine joint venturers to precast seismically engineered containment structures, schools, hospitals, and housing.

6. Permit Issuance. Upon approval of plans, the permit shall be issued. Reclaimed water shall not be supplied to a property until inspection by the Township Manager or his designee determines that the applicant is in compliance with the permit conditions.

D. Temporary Use of Potable Water. Upon the approval of the Township Manager or his designee, potable water may be made available temporarily. Before the applicant receives temporary potable water, a water reclamation permit must be obtained for new on-site distribution facilities. Prior to commencement of reclaimed water service, an inspection of the on-site facilities will be conducted to verify that the facilities have been maintained and are in compliance with the reclaimed water permit and current requirements for service. Upon verification of compliance, reclaimed water shall be served to the parcel for the intended use. If the facilities are not in compliance, the applicant shall be notified of the corrective actions necessary and shall have at least 30 days to take such actions.

E. Reclaimed Water Rate. The rate charged for reclaimed water shall be established by resolution of the Township.


"We really try to be good neighbors there," he said. "The problem is the general concept, perhaps."

Third Circuit Clarifies Availability of Cost Recovery Claims Under Section 107 of CERCLA TITLE 5 > PART III > Subpart A > CHAPTER 29 > SUBCHAPTER I > § 2902 May 26, 2010 In an April 12, 2010, opinion, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit clarified which claims are available to different classes of potentially responsible parties (PRPs) under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA). In Agere Systems Inc. v. Advanced Environmental Technology Corp ., No. 09-1814, 602 F.3d 204, 2010 WL 1427582 (3d Cir. Apr. 12, 2010),

Site Map A to Z Index Archive Accessibility FOIA No FEAR Act Information Quality Privacy Policy Legal Policies & Disclaimers For Employees Office of the Inspector General Government Resources USA.gov  
  RESOURCES
Forms Publications Case Highlights A-Z Index BRIEFING ROOM Justice News The Justice Blog Videos Photo Library 		CAREERS
Student Opportunities Internships CONTACT

Entrepreneurs Can Access Innovative Alternative Energy Technologies from ...
Newstar Media
By D Robert Curry According to the Department of Energy , Vice President Biden made a visit to the National Renewable Energy Laboratory in Golden, Colorado. The facility is set up to further research and development of clean alternate sources of energy ...
See all stories on this topic »

Small business loans available to area entrepreneurs
Times-Georgian
by Kelly Quimby/The Tallapoosa Journal The Haralson County Chamber of Commerce and Haralson County Development Authority announced recently that of the $99999 received from the United States Department of Agriculture and distributed by what was then ...
See all stories on this topic »

epa

ABOUT
The Attorney General DOJ Agencies Budget & Performance Strategic Plans BUSINESS & GRANTS Business Opportunities Grants 		   

OPM Director: Dramatic Progress in Hiring | FedScoop
fedscoop.com
U.S. Office of Personnel Management Director John Berry said the government has made dramatic progress in modernizing its hiring process over the past year.

Small System Safe Drinking Water Bill

Washington, D.C.-Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.), Ranking Member on the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, together with Senators David Vitter (R-LA), Mike Crapo (R-ID), John Boozman (R-AR), Thad Cochran (R-MS), and Jim Risch (R-ID), yesterday introduced The Small System Safe Drinking Water Act of 2011 (S. 999)-a bill that helps small water systems comply with Federal drinking water standards by requiring that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) utilize all the affordability provisions provided under the 1996 Safe Drinking Water Act amendments (SDWA), which are designed to help water systems in smaller communities come into compliance.

Details about The Small System Safe Drinking Water Act of 2011

Specifically, this bill requires EPA to update its affordability criteria, which it admitted in 2006 is unfair to small systems. Currently, EPA assumes that families can afford water rates of 2.5 percent of their annual median household income, or $1,000 per household.  For some families, paying $83 a month for water may not be a hardship but for so many more, it is nearly impossible. This bill guarantees that there is some flexibility inserted into the calculation that determines the ability of the truly disadvantaged to pay these costs-it will make sure small systems get the help they need to meet these requirements.

It provides EPA with practical steps to take to help small systems cope with drinking water rules by reauthorizing the technical assistance program and identifying barriers to new technologies.  The bill creates a pilot program to demonstrate new technologies and approaches for systems of all sizes to comply with these complicated rules.

Most importantly this bill requires the federal government to pay for these unfunded mandates created by laws and regulations:   In 1995, Congress passed the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act to ensure that the Federal government pays the costs incurred by state and local governments in complying with Federal laws.  The bill ensures that EPA cannot take an enforcement action against a system serving less than 10,000 people, without first ensuring that it has sufficient funds to meet the requirements of the regulation.

The Green Infrastructure for Clean Water Act would establish up to five regional Centers of Excellence for green infrastructure in the United States. The centers would be charged with conducting research on green infrastructure relevant to the geographic region where the center is located. Communities would receive training and technical assistance on how to implement the best green infrastructure management practices. Essentially, the bill uses centers to conduct research and empower communities to pursue green infrastructure practices using the natural environment for clean water, flood control, and storm water management.

Children are vulnerable especially to pollutant related diseases such as asthma, water born bacteria, and other respiratory illnesses. We are doing them a disservice now and in the future if we choose not to reduce our consumption of fossil fuels and invest in green technologies.

We need to emphasize the dangers climate change poses to public health, invest more in green technologies, green infrastructure and create a level playing field for our energy market. Right now, big oil companies receive $4 billion in tax breaks every year even though the industry earned $36 billion in profits in the first quarter of this year alone. This is unfair, unsustainable, and it greatly distorts our energy market. We need to ensure that economic development includes concerns for the environment. The two do not need to be mutually exclusive.

Rep. Donna Edwards

August 11, 2009

EPA Must Issue Financial Assurance Regulations Under Superfund, Court Holds; EPA Has Discretion On Timeline

By: Ashley S. Miller — Filed under: Bankruptcy , CERCLA/Superfund , Citizen Suits , Enforcement , Solid Waste —

Almost thirty years after Congress instructed EPA to require facility owners and operators to set aside funds for the cleanup of property that may be contaminated by hazardous substances, a federal court in California has held EPA may take additional time to draft and issue the regulations. The court held that while Congress required EPA to issue such regulations, it granted EPA some discretion in when to do so.EPA has stated that it intends to require financial assurance for hardrock miningfacilitiesfirst, and will also assess the need to regulatehazardous waste generators, hazardous waste recyclers, metal finishers, wood treatment facilities, and chemical manufacturers.

The regulations at issue are required under the federal Superfund law, the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (“CERCLA”),passed in 1980. The statute is commonly said to have been motivated by the notorious hazardous waste contamination discovered buried at Love Canal, NY. Section 108 of CERCLA requires EPA to issue financial assurance requirements for certain types of facilities, based on the risk of injury from hazardous substances in operations at those facilities. The regulations, once issued, would require the operator of a covered facility to set aside funds or otherwise make funds available for a possible future cleanup of hazardous substances at the property. Without such funds, costly cleanups may force potentially responsible parties into bankruptcy leavingtaxpayerswith the bill, or lengthylitigation may ensueover the allocation of costs. EPA was first required to publish a notice of those classes of facilities which presented the “highest level of risk of injury” by December 11, 1980.CERCLA §108(b)(1).

The December 1980 deadline passed, without EPA publishing the required notice. The statutory requirement languished, until in recent years it received renewed attention. EPA was sued in federal court in 2008, on the theory that EPA had failed to perform a non-discretionaryduty under CERCLA. The suit was brought under to CERCLA's citizen suit provision, which allows a private litigant to force non-discretionary agency action. In February 2009, the Northern District of California held in Sierra Club v. Johnson (N.D. Cal. No. C 08-01409) (“ Johnson “), that EPA had a mandatory duty to publish classes of facilities which presented the greatest risk of injury. In July, 2009, EPA published a notice these classes offacilities in the Federal Register, pursuant to the court's order. In its notice, the agencydeterminedthat it would promulgate the first financial assurance requirements for hardrock mining facilities, based on the extent of contamination from such facilities, and the high costs of cleanup.

EPA did not limit its inquiry to hardrock mining; the notice also stated that EPA will examine the need for financial assurance at the following types of facilities: “hazardous waste generators, hazardous waste recyclers, metal finishers, wood treatment facilities, and chemical manufacturers.” 74 Fed. Reg. 37,219. EPA states that it intends to publish a notice of this “second wave” of types offacilitiesby December, 2009. Id.

However, the Northern District of California held that EPA is under no date-certain deadline to issue the financial assurance requirements. Instead, the court held, “that although Section 108(b) requires EPA to promulgatefinancial responsibility regulations and incrementally impose such requirements, Section 108(b) provides EPA with discretion as to when to promulgate such regulations. Unlike the duty topublish notice of classes, Section 108(b) does not include a date-certain deadline for thepromulgation of financial responsibility regulations …” Johnson , Order , at 4-5 (Aug. 5, 2009). In so doing, the court rejected “a bright line rule that only duties withdate-certain deadlines are non-discretionary for the purpose of citizen suits under CERCLA,” and instead looked to legislative history to help determine whether EPA's duty to promulgate regulations by a particular date was non-discretionary. Id . at 5.

To maintain a claim that EPA has “unreasonably delayed” its duties under CERCLA, the court held that plaintiffs may continue to press their claims under another statute, the AdministrativeProcedureAct (APA), but must do so in another court. The court stated, “plaintiffs may bring an APA claim inthe Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit alleging EPA unreasonably delayed in promulgating thefinancial responsibility regulations required under Section 108(b).” Id . at 6. Unless and until such alitigationis brought and decided, the timeline for financial assurance requirements under CERCLA will remain unclear.

COMING TOGETHER! PRIOR RIGHTS! AFTER RAPANOS

Factors Leading to Failures in Predicting Post-Mine Water Quality and Acid Mine Drainage 

In the report comparing predicted and actual water

quality at hard rock mines (Kuipers et al. 2006), the

authors identified two types of characterization failures

that led to differences between predicted water quality as

speculated in EIS documents and the actual water quality

either during or after mining began. The two characterization

failure types were: 1) insufficient or inaccurate characterization

of the hydrology, and 2) insufficient or inaccurate geochemical

characterization of the proposed mine. Inaccurate pre-mining

characterization and interpretation can, therefore, result in a

failure to recognize or predict water quality impacts. The

authors reported primary causes of hydrologic characterization

failures as follows: overestimations of dilution, lack of hydrological

characterization, overestimations of discharge volumes, and

underestimations of storm size. The primary causes of

geochemical characterization failures were identified as:

lack of adequate geochemical characterization, in terms of sample

representativeness and sample adequacy.

In the 25 case study mines, the authors identified mitigation failures

with the following primary causes: mitigation measures were not

identified or they were inadequate, or not implemented; waste rock

mixing and segregation was not effective, liners leaked, tailings

were spilled, or embankments failed, and land application

discharge was not effective. The authors provided a table

summarizing these failures (Table 1) for the 25 case study mines.

Table 1. Water Quality Predictions Failure Modes, Root Causes

and Examples from Case Study Mines (Kuipers et.al, 2006).

Mining would benefit us all

By The Editorial Board
Published: May 22, 2011

Let the mining begin?

Troubled company to go back before regulators for permit

By Melissa Castro Herald Staff Writer

Article Last Updated: Saturday, May 21, 2011

 

TITLE 18 > PART I >

TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 1

CHAPTER 1—GENERAL PROVISIONS

How Current is This?

 

CHAPTER 13—CIVIL RIGHTS

How Current is This? TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 41

CHAPTER 41—EXTORTION AND THREATS

How Current is This?

CHAPTER 118 —WAR CRIMES (§§ 2441—2442)

CHAPTER 109 —SEARCHES AND SEIZURES (§§ 2231—2237)

CHAPTER 73 —OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE (§§ 1501—1521)

TITLE 18 > PART V > CHAPTER 601

CHAPTER 601—IMMUNITY OF WITNESSES

How Current is This?

Endangered Species and Map Revisions
New Procedures help ensure Protection of Species and Habitat
Effective October 1, 2010, FEMA began requiring that all applications for CLOMRs and
CLOMR-Fs (Conditional Letters of Map Revision and Conditional Letters of Map Revision
based on Fill) include documentation that the provisions of the Endangered Species Act have
been observed for the parcel of land in question. A guidance memo issued by FEMA in
August (Procedure Memorandum No. 64, dated August 18, 2010, available at
http://www.fema.gov/plan/prevent/fhm/gs_memos.shtm) provides details about the new rules for
processing CLOMRs and CLOMR-Fs.
When requested, FEMA can issue a CLOMR or CLOMR-F as the agency’s comments on
whether a proposed action in a floodplain (such as construction or landscape disturbance)
would meet the minimum National Flood
Insurance Program (NFIP) requirements and
also on how the proposed change would affect
the NFIP maps. Including documentation of
the ESA compliance within the CLOMR
procedure ensures that FEMA is meeting its
responsibility under the ESA. It also provides
a “double check” for communities—to be sure
that they have in fact checked for endangered
species or habitat on the site of the proposed
action. Local flood damage reduction
ordinances passed to meet the NFIP standards
at 44 CFR 60.3(a)2 already require that all
necessary authorizations have been received
before a floodplain development permit can be
issued, and this includes having cleared the
ESA review [see box].
In the next CRS Coordinator’s Manual, more
attention is likely to be given to natural
floodplain functions and resources, including
habitat for threatened and endangered species.
Therefore, even if your community doesn’t
anticipate requesting any CLOMRs soon, it
would be still be a good idea to get in touch
with the appropriate Fish & Wildlife Service
or Marine Fisheries Service office to see what
species, if any, inhabit your locale. FEMA’s
guidance memo gives links to several
resources on the ESA, including websites of
both Services.

What does the ESA Mean?
The purpose of the Endangered Species Act is
to conserve threatened and endangered plants and
animals and the ecosystems upon which they
depend. Congress passed the ESA in 1973 with
recognition that the natural heritage of the United
States was of “esthetic, ecological, educational,
recreational, and scientific value to our Nation and
its people.” Congress understood that, without
protection, many of our nation’s living resources
would become extinct. Species at risk of extinction
are considered “endangered,” whereas species
that are likely to become endangered in the
foreseeable future are considered “threatened.”
Today, about 1,900 species are listed as
threatened or endangered under the ESA. The
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National
Marine Fisheries Service share responsibility for
implementing the ESA.
Section 9 of the ESA prohibits anyone from
“taking” or “harming” endangered wildlife, and
similar protection is extended to threatened wildlife.
That means that the Act applies to ALL individuals,
groups, businesses, property owners, and others.
If an intended action might harm a threatened or
endangered species, authorization must be
obtained from one of the Services.
Further, Section 7 of the ESA requires that
each federal agency insure that any action it
authorizes, funds, or carries out is not likely to
jeopardize the continued existence of any listed
species or destroy or adversely modify critical
habitat.
See http://www.epa.gov/lawsregs/laws/esa.html.

Making the Program Faster, Fairer, and More Efficient (Continued)

Final 48 FR 40658, 09/08/1983 | National Priorities List (NPL) ... 03-24-2011 ... 09, CA, Iron Mountain Mine , Redding, R. ... 09, AZ, Mountain View Mobile Homes*,
Globe, R, E. ... 02, NJ, Ringwood Mines /Landfill, Ringwood Borough, D ... http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/npl/f830908.htm [PDF] HRS Documentation Record - ACM Smelter and Refinery ... 03-09-2011 ... http://www. epa . gov / superfund /sites/npl/hrsres/tools ... “ Mountains of Slag Dumped
into Missouri ... Cleanup Bureau's Abandoned Mine Lands Program ... http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/docrec/fdoc1821.pdf [PDF] HRS Documentation Record - Blue Ledge Mine (March 2011) 03-04-2011 ... available at http://www. epa . gov / superfund /sites/npl ... analyzed for cadmium,
copper, iron , manganese, mercury ... within the Condrey Mountain Schist in ... http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/docrec/pdoc1843.pdf [ More results from www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/docrec ] Iron Mountain Mine | FY 2008 New Construction Fact Sheets ... 02-28-2011 ... Iron Mountain Mine . ... Site Description. Iron Mountain Mine is an inactive copper,
zinc, silver, gold, and pyrite mine in Redding, Shasta County, CA. ... http://www.epa.gov/superfund/accomp/factsheets08/iron_mtn_mine.htm FY 2008 New Construction Fact Sheets | Superfund | US EPA 02-28-2011 ... Arsenic Trioxide ? Southeast, ND. Region 9 (CA, NV, AZ, HI). Iron Mountain
Mine ? Redding, CA. Region 10 (WA, OR, ID, AK). Top of page. ... http://www.epa.gov/superfund/accomp/factsheets08/ [ More results from www.epa.gov/superfund/accomp/factsheets08 ] Summitville Mine | Superfund | US EPA 02-28-2011 ... defined as a 1,231 acre mine site that ... portion of the San Juan Mountains , in
the ... dissolved metals include aluminum, copper, iron , manganese and ... http://www.epa.gov/superfund/accomp/factsheets04/summit.htm Summitville Mine | FY 2005 New Construction Fact Sheets ... 02-28-2011 ... of the San Juan Mountains , in the ... metals include aluminum, copper, iron ,
manganese and zinc ... contaminated leachate and acid mine drainage from ... http://www.epa.gov/superfund/accomp/factsheets05/summit.htm [PDF] FIVE YEAR REVIEW - BUNKER HILL MINING & ... 02-04-2011 ... of Engineers USBM US Bureau of Mines USEPA US ... Box is located in a steep
mountain valley in ... smelter emissions, fugitive dust, and mine waste. ... http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/fiveyear/f2011100003783.pdf [PDF] Five Year Review - SUMMITVILLE MINE (OU 00) - 09/30/2010 12-02-2010 ... meet effluent standards for copper, iron , manganese and ... Range of the Rocky
Mountains , approximately two ... steep face of South Mountain that was ... http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/fiveyear/f2010080003754.pdf [ More results from www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/fiveyear ] [PDF] Responses to National Remedy Review Board ... 12-14-2010 ... this was due to exposure of iron af background ... herbivorous mammals (mule
deer, Rocky Mountain Elk), the ... the use of contaminated mine lan& for ... http://www.epa.gov/superfund/programs/nrrb/pdfs/Molycorp_Questa_Mine_R...

http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/npl/f830908.htm

#: V = VOLUNTARY OR NEGOTIATED RESPONSE;
R = FEDERAL AND STATE RESPONSE;
E = FEDERAL AND STATE ENFORCEMENT;
D = ACTIONS TO BE DETERMINED.
* = STATES' DESIGNATED TOP PRIORITY SITES.


[FR Doc. 83-24538 Filed 9-7-83; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-C

Engineering Education and Centers
Engineering Research Centers (ERC): Partnerships in Transformational Research, Education and Technology - A Focused Call for Nanosystems ERCs (NERCs)
1

Available Formats: HTML | PDF | TXT
Document Type: Program Announcements & Information View Program Page
Document Number: nsf11537

Document History: Posted: April 8, 2011. Replaces: nsf09545 .

Engineering Research Centers  (ERC)
1

CONTACTS
1

Name Email Phone Room
Lynn  Preston lpreston@nsf.gov (703) 292-5358  585N  
Deborah  J. Jackson djackson@nsf.gov (703) 292-7499 
Barbara  H. Kenny bkenny@nsf.gov (703) 292-4667 
Daniel  DeKee ddekee@nsf.gov (703) 292-8769  585N  

For information on all aspects of the ERC construct, strategic planning and the solicitation in general, contact Lynn Preston ( lpreston@nsf.gov  or 703-292-5358), Deborah Jackson ( djackson@nsf.gov  or 703-292-7499), Daniel  De Kee ( ddekee@nsf.gov  or 703-292-8769), or Barbara Kenny ( bkenny@nsf.gov or 703-292-4667).

For pre-college education, Research Experiences for Teachers (RETs), contact Mary Poats ( mpoats@nsf.gov  or 703-292-5357) and for Research Experiences for Undergraduates (REUs) contact Esther Bolding ( ebolding@nsf.gov  or 703-292-5342).

PROGRAM GUIDELINES
1
Solicitation  11-537

DUE DATES

Letter of Intent Deadline Date:  July 15, 2011

Full Proposal Deadline Date:  September 16, 2011

LOIs and full proposals must be submitted by 5:00 p.m. proposer's local time on the relevant deadline or the proposal will be returned without review.

SYNOPSIS
1

The National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI), a federal interagency research and development venture, was launched in FY 2001. Over the last decade, there has been considerable investment in fundamental research - from nanostructured materials to devices and manufacturing processes - that has revealed new phenomena and resulted in a plethora of important advances.  At NSF the funding vehicles included individual grants (unsolicited and Nanoscale Exploratory Research - NERs), small teams (Nanoscale Interdisciplinary Research Teams - NIRTs), user networks such as National Nanotechnology Infrastructure Network (NNIN) and the Network for Computational Nanotechnology (NCN), and centers (Nanoscale Science and Engineering Centers - NSECs).  In addition, there were other NSF programs that supported research and education activities in nanotechnology.  More information can be found at http://www.nsf.gov/nano/ .

At this time, some discoveries are at the phase to explore their integration into nanosystems, thus leading to adoption in applications critical for their commercial use.  To enable this integration, the Engineering Research Centers (ERC) program is launching this new competition targeting the Transformational Nanotechnology of Engineered Systems Centers or NanoSystems ERCs (NERCs).  These new centers will adopt and follow all the features of Generation-3 (Gen-3) ERCs.

The goal of the Generation Three (Gen-3) Engineering Research Centers (ERC) Program is to create a culture in engineering research and education that links discovery to technological innovation through transformational fundamental and engineered systems research in order to advance technology and produce engineering graduates who will be creative U.S. innovators in a globally competitive economy. These ERCs will be at the forefront as the U.S. competes in the 21st century global economy where R&D resources and engineering talent are internationally distributed. Recognizing that optimizing efficiency and product quality are no longer sufficient for U.S. industry to remain competitive, these ERCs will optimize academic engineering research and education to stimulate increased U.S. innovation in a global context. They will develop this culture that joins discovery and innovation, i.e., an innovation ecosystem.  An innovation ecosystem includes the people, institutions, policies, and resources that promote the translation of new ideas into products and processes and services. The innovation ecosystem of Gen-3 ERCs is achieved through a symbiotic relationship between the ERC's researchers, small businesses, larger industrial and practitioner partners, and partner organizations devoted to stimulating entrepreneurship and innovation. In essence this solicitation requires that the efforts be devoted to creating, developing, and enhancing capacities in ERCs from transformational fundamental research to technology commercialization and creating a continuous pipeline in engineering education from middle school to graduate studies.

In order to achieve this, Gen-3 ERCs will:

  1. Advance discovery and build bridges from science-based discovery to technological innovation to realize transformational engineered systems;
  2. Develop a culture in academe that joins research, education, and innovation to create and sustain an innovation ecosystem to enable the ERC's vision;
  3. Provide international opportunities for research and education collaboration that will prepare U.S. engineering graduates for leadership in innovation in a global economy;
  4. Form teams of diverse and talented faculty who will prepare diverse and talented domestic and international graduates to function effectively in a global world where research, design and production efforts cross national borders;
  5. Function with transformational engineering education programs that rest on partnerships with pre-college institutions to attract students to engineering and university departments to strategically impart in engineering graduates the capacity to create and exploit knowledge for technological innovation; and
  6. Build and sustain a culture that links discovery to innovation, the ERC innovation ecosystem, which will include partnerships with members firms/practitioners to strengthen the ERC and streamline technology transfer; translational research partnerships with small firms to accelerate commercialization of high risk ERC advancements; and innovation partnerships with local level organizations to stimulate entrepreneurship and job creation and enable technological innovation.

RELATED URLS
1
Engineering Research Centers Association
1

THIS PROGRAM IS PART OF
1
Engineering Research Centers
1


What Has Been Funded (Recent Awards Made Through This Program, with Abstracts)

Map of Recent Awards Made Through This Program

News

Discoveries

May 5, 2011

USDA and DOE Award Biomass Research and Development Grants to Reduce America's Reliance on Imported Oil

Projects will help develop sustainable, renewable biofuels in the U.S.

Skip Main Navigation

OMB Home White House Website PDF Information
Search: 
About OMB President's Budget Management Information &
Regulatory Affairs Legislative Information Agency Information

Office of Federal Financial Management

Some of the documents on this page were created as PDFs
Click here for PDF assistance
For more information, please call (202) 395-3993
Mission: To promote and support first class financial management in the executive branch of the Federal Government.
History: The Office of Federal Financial Management (OFFM) was created within the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) by the Chief Financial Officers (CFO) Act of 1990 . OFFM, led by the OMB Controller under the direction of the Deputy Director for Management, is responsible for the financial management policy of the Federal Government. OFFM responsibilities include implementing the financial management improvement priorities of the President, establishing government-wide financial management policies of executive agencies, and carrying out the financial management functions of the CFO Act.
What's New:

M-08-24, Technical Amendments to OMB Bulletin No. 07-04 , Audit Requirements for Federal Financial Statements (August 25, 2008) (52 pages, 348 kb)

-- "As-Revised" Version of OMB Bulletin No. 07-04, Audit Requirements for Federal Financial Statements , as Amended (44 pages, 237 kb)

FY 08 Federal Real Property Council Data Reporting Instructions (June 23, 2008) (76 pages, 1.89 mb)

Circular A-136, Financial Reporting Requirements (June 3, 2008) (166 pages, 1.16 mb)

Branches: Financial Standards and Grants
Financial Analysis and Systems
Key Issues: Agency and Government-wide Financial Reporting
Federal Asset Management
Financial Management Systems
Grants Management
Improper Payments
Performance Measurement
President's Management Agenda
Single Audit
Travel and Purchase Cards
Organization Chart: OFFM Organization Chart (1 page, 18 kb)
Financial Standards and
Grants Branch 		Financial Analysis and
Systems Branch 		Other Guidance Testimony
Circulars Legislation Memoranda Resources From the Controller's Desk
1
Federal Register    |   Jobs at OMB   |   FOIA   |   No FEAR   |   OMB Locator   |  USA.gov   |   Accessibility    |   Privacy Policy    |   Site Search    |   Help Office of Management and Budget

Summary of the Emergency Planning & Community Right-to-Know Act

Quick Links
How do I...?

Find regulatory info:

Get involved with EPA regulations

Learn about:

42 U.S.C. §11001 et seq. (1986)

Authorized by Title III of the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA), the Emergency Planning & Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA) was enacted by Congress as the national legislation on community safety. This law is designed to help local communities protect public health, safety, and the environment from chemical hazards.

To implement EPCRA, Congress requires each state to appoint a State Emergency Response Commission (SERC). The SERCs are required to divide their states into Emergency Planning Districts and to name a Local Emergency Planning Committee (LEPC) for each district.

Broad representation by fire fighters, health officials, government and media representatives, community groups, industrial facilities, and emergency managers ensures that all necessary elements of the planning process are represented.

Treatment in the Same Manner as a State

Laws and Regulations

Several federal environmental laws authorize EPA to treat eligible federally-recognized Indian tribe in the same manner as a state for implementing and managing certain environmental programs.

Below is a list of the environmental statutes with tribal eligibility for regulatory program authorizations:

May 6, 2011

Congress holds EPA hearing

Committee says agency a threat to coal jobs, industry

By BILL ARCHER Bluefield Daily Telegraph The Bluefield Daily Telegraph Fri May 06, 2011, 05:00 AM EDT

BLUEFIELD — During a meeting with the Bluefield Daily Telegraph editorial board on Thursday, Acting Governor Earl Ray Tomblin said he was “not pleased with the EPA,” and noted that his predecessor, now U.S. Senator Joe Manchin III, D-W.Va., filed a suit against the Environmental Protection Agency claiming that the agency “overstepped its bounds,” Tomblin said.

Earlier in the day on Thursday in Washington, D.C., the House Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment convened the first of a two-part hearing on the EPA's “regulatory guidance on surface mining” as well as the economic impact of the “increasingly heavy-handed regulatory approach in the Appalachian region,” according to a press release from the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee.

“Recently, EPA revoked a Section 404 ‘dredge and fill' permit for the Spruce No. 1 Mine in Logan, three years after the permit was issued by the Army Corps of Engineers — in full agreement with EPA,” according to the House committee's press release. “This action has raised serious questions about the extent of EPA's authority, considering that the project was well underway when the permit was revoked.”

According to the press release, the EPA's “unchecked actions will threaten one of every four coal mining jobs in the Appalachian region.” The committee's stated purpose in calling for the hearings is “to receive testimony from state regulators, the mining industry, impacted businesses, economists and EPA on surface mining guidance and the issues surrounding it.” Speakers in the first hearing included Michael Gardner, general counsel of Oxford Resources, Dr. Leonard Peters, secretary of the Kentucky Energy and Environment Cabinet, Teresa Marks, director Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality and Hal Quinn, president, National Mining Association.

“The deliberate and disruptive policies that have slowed and stopped coal mines from receiving permits to open or expand have consequences that reverberate throughout the region,” Quinn was quoted as stating in a NMA press release. “The consequences begin with the coal supply chain and spread to those that benefit from low-cost coal energy.”

According to Quinn's statement, in just two months, the backlog of permits had grown to 235 applications with a full 190 of them already having been considered complete by the Corps of Engineers. The NMA claimed that the EPA's policies prompted the Energy Information Administration to drop productivity projections in Central Appalachian surface mines by as much as 20 percent.

“This represents a substantial regulatory penalty that will erode companies' competitiveness and threaten more coal jobs,” according to Quinn's quote in the NMA press release. He added that coal miners deserve an answer to the question as to “why their own government at times seems to put so much effort into working against them rather than supporting them and what they do for the country.”

U.S. Rep. Nick Rahall, D-W.Va., the ranking Democrat on the committee was quoted in a press release as stating that coal miners are constantly concerned about their jobs. “The people of southern West Virginia love the natural beauty of our land,” Rahall was quoted as stating. “We want clean water and air. But we want jobs too. We do not condone coal companies failing to ensure the safety of their miners and the well-being of the communities in which they operate. That is simply wrong,” Rahall said.

“But it is also wrong for a federal agency to circumvent the law and treat guidance as binding policy, particularly when that policy targets only one industry in only one region of the country,” Rahall was quoted as stating.

Lisa Jackson, administrator of the EPA, Dr. David Sunding, University of California-Berkeley, Reed Hopper, Pacific Legal Foundation, Michael Carey, president of the Ohio Coal Association and Steve Roberts, president of the West Virginia Chamber of Commerce are scheduled to appear at the committee's next hearing on May 11.

— Contact Bill Archer at barcher@bdtonline.com

Senate Republicans Introduce Bill To Abolish The EPA

Senate Republicans have introduced legislation to abolish the Environmental Protection Agency, established 40 years ago by President Richard Nixon to give Americans clean air and water. The bill, introduced by Sen. Richard Burr (R-NC), would merge the EPA, which enforces environmental laws, with the Department of Energy, which manages nuclear energy and energy research, into one department.

Burr's statement announcing his bill to eliminate the EPA argues that “duplicative functions” can be eliminated, even though the two departments are completely different:

U.S. Senator Richard Burr (R-North Carolina) introduced a bill that would consolidate the Department of Energy and the Environmental Protection Agency into a single, new agency called the Department of Energy and Environment (DOEE). The bill would provide cost savings by combining duplicative functions while improving the administration of energy and environmental policies by ensuring a coordinated approach.

In January, former Republican House Speaker Newt Gingrich proposed abolishing the EPA, and several House Republicans have supported that goal, while making numerous attempts to hamstring limits on industrial polluters.

Burr's bill has fifteen co-sponsors, all of them global warming deniers : Jim DeMint (R-SC), Mike Enzi (R-WY), John Thune (R-SD), John McCain (R-AZ), Dan Coats (R-IN), Richard Shelby (R-AL), John Barrasso (R-WY), Roy Blunt (R-MO), John Boozman (R-AR), Thad Cochran (R-MS), Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX), David Vitter (R-LA), Orrin Hatch (R-UT), Ron Johnson (R-WI), Mike Lee (R-UT).

How to Receive Your Grant Funds

Once a grant or cooperative agreement has been signed by an EPA award official and affirmed by the recipient organization, recipients are able to request funds.

There are two approved methods by which the recipient may receive funds: Electronic Fund Transfer (EFT) and Automated Standard Application for Payments (ASAP).

Instructions for Automated Standard Application for Payments (ASAP):

US Treasury Automated Standard Application for Payments (ASAP) - The ASAP system is the preferred method of payment for EPA grantees.  ASAP enrollment is highly encouraged for organizations that have multiple grants/cooperative agreements and for those with a frequent need to request funds.  If your organization uses multiple bank accounts for EPA grants/cooperative agreements, you must enroll in ASAP. If you are interested in requesting and receiving funds paperless and electronically via ASAP, please complete the ASAP Initiate Enrollment form and fax it to LVFC at 702-798-2423.

Federal Agencies and organizations receiving federal funds enroll one time to use ASAP. Federal Agencies establish and maintain accounts in ASAP to control the flow of funds to organizations. Federal Agencies enter spending authorizations into their ASAP accounts in accordance with their program needs and schedules. Payment Requestors at organizations initiate payment requests through ASAP to meet cash needs. This is done primarily through on-line connections that organizations have with ASAP. In a case where a financial institution is acting as an agent of the organization, a request for funds can be made via the Federal Reserve's FEDWIRE system. Approved requests for next day or future day (up to 32 calendar days from the date of the payment request) payments are paid via the Automated Clearing House (ACH) system or by FEDWIRE if same day payment is required.

The LVFC enters spending authorizations into the recipient's ASAP accounts in accordance with their program needs and schedules. The recipient can initiate payment requests through ASAP to meet immediate cash needs.  The payment process is designed to provide federal funds to a recipient organization within 48 hours for ASAP recipients.  Please refer to www.asap.gov for additional information.

Instructions for Electronic Fund Transfer (EFT):

As of October 2010, unless exempt under 2 CFR 25.110, all new grant/cooperative agreement recipients must register in the Central Contractor Registry (CCR). Your organization is also required to maintain and update the information at least annually after the initial registration, and more frequently if required by changes in your information or another award term.

Should you elect to have payments processed via EFT, LVFC has already obtained your organization's banking information in conjunction with your CCR registration. NOTE: If your banking information is not correct or changes at any time prior to the end of your agreement, please update your CCR registration and notify LVFC as soon as possible so the new banking information can be retrieved. This is vital to ensure proper and timely deposit of funds.

When funds are required by your organization, you will need to complete the EPA Payment Request Form EPA Form 190-F-04-001 Payment Request for Grants/Cooperative Agreements (PDF) (1 pg, 40K, about PDF )

Unique EPA programs, or those recipients permitted by LVFC (by exception only), may use SF270 or SF271 to request payment.

EFT recipients not required to register with the Central Contractor Registry (CCR):

The LVFC will review each request. When the request is approved for payment, EPA will electronically transfer the funds through the U.S. Department of Treasury and the Federal Reserve for credit to the recipient's account at their designated financial institution within 3 to 5 business days following receipt and approval of the request. If the entire request or a portion of the request is rejected, the recipient will be notified by the LVFC no later than 1 workday following receipt of the request.

Electronic Fund Transfer (EFT) is a safe and simple method of receiving grant payments.

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT
[Docket No. FR-5500-N-01]
Notice of HUD's Fiscal Year (FY) 2011 Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA)
Policy Requirements and General Section to
HUD's FY2011 NOFAs for Discretionary Programs
AGENCY: Office of the Secretary, HUD.
ACTION: Notice of HUD's FY2011 NOFA Policy Requirements and General Section to HUD's FY2011 NOFAs for Discretionary Programs (notice).
SUMMARY: This notice provides prospective applicants for HUD's competitive funding with the opportunity to become familiar with the General Section of HUD's FY2011 NOFAs, in advance of publication of any FY2011 NOFAs. It also describes HUD's policy priorities based on its Strategic Plan for FY2010-2015, as well as submission requirements for FY2011.
HUD's Policy Priorities
In FY2010, HUD published its Strategic Plan for FY2010-2015, which defined a new set of policy and organizational priorities for the Department. The plan provides the direction and focus of HUD in achieving its mission: create strong, sustainable, inclusive communities and quality, affordable homes for all. It proposes to accomplish this through five core goals, to:
1. Strengthen the Nation's Housing Market to Bolster the Economy and Protect Consumers
2. Meet the Need for Quality Affordable Rental Homes
3. Utilize Housing as a Platform for Improving Quality of Life
4. Build Inclusive and Sustainable Communities Free from Discrimination
5. Transform the Way HUD Does Business
For FY2011 HUD is retaining the same focus and policies for its NOFAs. More information on HUD's Strategic Plan for FY2010-2015 is provided in Section I.B. and C.
In FY2011 HUD is seeking grant applications for its competitive programs that will further the achievement of HUD's Strategic Plan goals and policy priorities. Below is the list of the cross-cutting policy priorities for FY2011. Each program NOFA will identify the policy priorities most applicable to the program. In selecting the policy priorities to be addressed, the program NOFA will also include the point value assigned to each policy priority listed.
HUD's FY2011 Policy Priorities are:

Submission Information
Applicants are advised to become familiar with the requirements of this General Section
and the following submission requirements:
The General Section and Program Sections comprise the NOFA instructions. Applicants
are also advised to provide copies of the General Section to all persons that will be
working on the application.
HUD requires that applicants apply electronically via Grants.gov, which requires advance
registration and annual updates. See Section IV. of this notice for more information.
However, please note that the Continuum of Care application is submitted through the
HUD eSNAPS system, not Grants.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information on HUD's FY2011
Policy Requirements and General Section, contact the Office of Departmental Grants
Management and Oversight, Office of Administration, Department of Housing and Urban
Development, 451 7th Street, SW, Room 3156, Washington, DC 20410-5000, telephone number
202-708-0667. This is not a toll-free number. Persons with hearing or speech impairments may
access this number via TTY by calling the Federal Information Relay Service at 800-877-8339.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: To help applicants with electronic application
registration and submission, HUD advises applicants to use the help features on the Dun and
Bradstreet (D&B), Central Contractor Registration (CCR) and Grants.gov sites. These sites all
have User Guides and Frequently Asked Questions which are updated on an ongoing basis.
HUD believes that early publication of the General Section is beneficial to prospective applicants
by providing advance notice of the Department's policy orientation for FY2011 including
strategic goals, policy priorities, threshold requirements and other requirements applicable to
almost every individual NOFA published by the Department. The General Section and Program
Sections together comprise the entirety of the NOFA instructions.
HUD hopes that the information in this General Section is helpful to you.
Executive Order 13279, “Equal Protection of the Laws for Faith-Based and Community Organizations.” HUD is committed to full implementation of Executive Order 13279. The Executive Order established fundamental principles and policymaking criteria to guide federal agencies in formulating and developing policies that have implications for faith-based and community organizations, to ensure the equal protection for these organizations in social service programs receiving federal financial assistance. Consistent with this order, HUD has reviewed all departmental policies and regulations that have implications for faith-based and community organizations and has established a policy to provide full and equal access to grassroots faith based and other community organizations in HUD program implementation. HUD revised its program regulations in 2003 and 2004 to remove the barriers to participation by faith-based organizations in HUD funding programs (68 FR 56396, September 30, 2003; 69 FR 41712, July 9, 2004; and 69 FR 62164, October 22, 2004).
h. Real Property Acquisition and Relocation. Except as otherwise provided by federal statute, HUD-assisted programs or projects are subject to the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, as amended (Uniform Act or URA) (42 U.S.C. 4601), and the governmentwide implementing regulations issued by the U.S. Department of Transportation at 49 CFR part 24. The Uniform Act's protections and assistance apply to acquisitions of real property and displacements resulting from the acquisition, rehabilitation, or demolition of real property for federal or federally assisted programs or projects. With certain limited exceptions, real property acquisitions for a HUD-assisted program or project must comply with 49 CFR part 24, subpart B. To be exempt from the URA's acquisition policies, real property acquisitions conducted without the threat or use of eminent domain, commonly referred to as ?voluntary acquisitions,? must satisfy the applicable requirements of 49 CFR 24.101(b)(1) through (5). Evidence of compliance with these requirements must be maintained by the recipient. The URA's relocation requirements remain applicable to any tenant who is displaced by an acquisition that meets the requirements of 49 CFR 24.101(b)(1) through (5).
The relocation requirements of the Uniform Act, and its implementing regulations at 49 CFR part 24, cover any person who moves permanently from real property or moves personal property from real property as a direct result of acquisition, rehabilitation, or demolition for a program or project receiving HUD assistance. While there are no statutory provisions for ?temporary relocation? under the URA, the URA regulations recognize that there are circumstances where a person will not be permanently displaced but may need to be moved from a project for a short period of time. Appendix A of the URA regulation (49 CFR 24.2(a)(9)(ii)(D)) explains that any tenant who has been temporarily relocated for a period beyond one year must be contacted by the displacing agency and offered URA relocation assistance. Some HUD program regulations provide additional protections for temporarily relocated tenants. For example, 24 CFR 583.310(f)(1) provides guidance on temporary relocation for the Supportive Housing Program for the homeless. Before planning their project, applicants should review the regulations for the programs for which they are applying. Generally, the URA does not apply to displacements resulting from the demolition or disposition of public housing covered by Section 18 of the United States Housing Act of 1937.
Additional information and resources pertaining to real property acquisition and relocation for HUD-funded programs and projects are available on HUD's Real Estate Acquisition and Relocation website at http://www.hud.gov/relocation. The website contains applicable laws and regulations, policy and guidance, publications, training resources, and a listing of HUD contacts to answer questions or otherwise provide assistance.
i. Conducting Business in Accordance with Core Values and Ethical Standards/Code of Conduct. Applicants subject to 24 CFR parts 84 or 85 (most nonprofit organizations and state, local, and Indian tribal governments or government agencies or instrumentalities that receive federal awards of financial assistance) are required to develop and maintain a written code of conduct (see 24 CFR 84.42 and 85.36(b)(3)). Consistent with regulations governing specific programs, your code of conduct must prohibit real and apparent conflicts of interest that may arise among officers, employees, or agents; prohibit the solicitation and acceptance of gifts or gratuities by your officers, employees, or agents for their personal benefit in excess of minimal value; and outline administrative and disciplinary actions available to remedy violations of such standards. Before entering into an agreement with HUD, an applicant awarded assistance under a HUD program NOFA issued in FY2011 will be required to submit a copy of its code of conduct and describe the methods it will use to ensure that all officers, employees, and agents of its organization are aware of its code of conduct. The code of conduct must be dated and signed by the Executive Director, or Chair of the governing body of the organization.
An applicant is prohibited from receiving an award of funds from HUD if it fails to meet this requirement for a code of conduct. An applicant that previously submitted an application and included a copy of its code of conduct will not be required to submit another copy if the applicant is listed on HUD's website at http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/HUD?src=/program_offices/administration/grants/conduct and if the information is still accurate. An applicant not listed on the website must submit a copy of its code of conduct with its FY2011 application for assistance. An applicant must also include a copy of its code of conduct if the information listed on the above website has changed (e.g., the person who submitted the previous application is no longer the authorized organization representative, the organization has changed its legal name or merged with another organization, or the address of the organization has changed, etc.). Any applicant that needs to submit its code of conduct to HUD via facsimile using the form HUD96011, ?Facsimile Transmittal? (?Third Party Documentation Facsimile Transmittal? on Grants.gov) may do so at the time of application submission. This form is available as part of your application package downloaded from Grants.gov. When using the facsimile transmittal form, please type the requested information. Use the form HUD96011 as the cover page for the submission and include the following header in the top line of the form under Name of Document Being Requested: ?Code of Conduct for (insert your organization's name, city, and state).? Fax the information to HUD's toll-free number at 800-HUD-1010. If you cannot access the 800 number or have problems, you may use 215-825-8798 (this is not a toll-free number). If you use the wrong fax number, your fax will not be entered as part of HUD's FY2011 competition database. HUD cannot match FY2011 faxes to FY2011 applications if the wrong fax number is used. If the wrong fax number is used, your application will be reviewed without faxed information. Continuum of Care applicants should follow the directions in the Continuum of Care program NOFA for submission of Codes of Conduct.

k. Procurement of Recovered Materials. State agencies and agencies of a political subdivision of a state that are using assistance under a HUD program NOFA for procurement, and any person contracting with such an agency with respect to work performed under an assisted contract, must comply with the requirements of Section 6002 of the Solid Waste Disposal Act, as amended by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act.
In accordance with Section 6002, these agencies and persons must procure items designated in guidelines of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) at 40 CFR part 247 that contain the highest percentage of recovered materials practicable, consistent with maintaining a satisfactory level of competition, where the purchase price of the item exceeds $10,000 or the value of the quantity acquired in the preceding fiscal year exceeded $10,000; must procure solid waste management services in a manner that maximizes energy and resource recovery; and must have established an affirmative procurement program for procurement of recovered materials identified in the EPA guidelines.
l. Participation in HUD-Sponsored Program Evaluation. As a condition of the receipt of financial assistance under a HUD program NOFA, all successful applicants will be required to cooperate with all HUD staff or contractors who perform HUD-funded research or evaluation studies.
m. Salary Limitation for Consultants. Unless otherwise provided in the program NOFA, FY2011 funds may not be used to pay or to provide reimbursement for payment of the salary of a consultant at a rate more than the equivalent of General Schedule 15, Step 10, base rate plus locality pay in accordance with Office of Personnel Management pay scales posted at http://www.opm.gov/oca/11tables/indexGS.asp
n. OMB Circulars and Governmentwide Regulations Applicable to Financial Assistance Programs. Certain OMB Circulars (2 CFR part 225) also apply to HUD program NOFAs. The policies, guidance, and requirements of OMB Circulars A-87 (Cost Principles Applicable to Grants, Contracts and Other Agreements with State and Local Governments), A-21 (Cost Principles for Education Institutions), A-122 (Cost Principles for Non-Profit Organizations), A-133 (Audits of States, Local Governments, and Non-Profit Organizations), and the regulations at 24 CFR part 84 (Grants and Agreements with Institutions of Higher Education, Hospitals, and other Non-Profit Organizations), and 24 CFR part 85 (Administrative Requirements for Grants and Cooperative Agreements to State, Local, and Federally Recognized Indian Tribal Governments) may apply to the award, acceptance, and use of assistance under the individual program NOFAs, and to the remedies for noncompliance, except when inconsistent with the provisions of applicable federal statutes or regulations, or the provisions of this notice. Compliance with additional OMB circulars or governmentwide regulations may be specified for a particular program in the applicable Program Section NOFA. Copies of the OMB circulars may be obtained from http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/circulars/index.html, or from the Executive Office of the President Publications, New Executive Office Building, Room 2200, Washington, DC 20503; telephone number 202-395-3080 (this is not a toll-free number). Individuals with speech or hearing impairments may access this number by dialing 800-877-8339 (toll-free TTY Federal Information Relay Service).

Use of funds for mass transit, railroad, airport, seaport, or highway projects, as well as utility projects which benefit or serve the general public (including energy-related, communication-related, water-related, and wastewater-related infrastructure), other structures designated for use by the general public or which have other common-carrier or public-utility functions that serve the general public and are subject to regulation and oversight by the government, and projects for the removal of an immediate threat to public health and safety or brownfields, as defined in the Small Business Liability Relief and Brownfields Revitalization Act (Pub. L. 107-118), shall be considered a public use for purposes of Section 409.

11. Natural Materials and Systems
Program Description: The goals of this multidisciplinary program are to study, use, mimic, or alter how living systems accomplish their natural functions. Nature has used evolution to build materials and sensors that outperform current sensors (for example, a spider's haircells can detect air flow at low levels even in a noisy background). This program not only wants to mimic existing natural sensory systems, but also add existing capabilities to these organisms for more precise control over their material production. The research will encompass four general areas: sensory mimics, natural materials, natural/synthetic interfaces, and physical mechanisms of natural systems under environmental distress.
Sensory mimetic research attempts to mimic novel sensors that organisms use in their daily lives, and to learn engineering processes and mechanisms for control of those systems. This program also focuses on natural chromophores and photoluminescent materials found in microbial and protein-based systems as well as the mimicking of sensor denial systems, such as active and passive camouflage developed in certain organisms addressing predator-prey issues.
Basic Research Objectives: The natural materials area is focused on synthesis of novel materials and nanostructures using organisms as material factories. The program also focuses on understanding the structure and properties of the synthetic materials. The use of extremophiles is added to address the development of materials not accessible due to environmental extremes. We are also interested in organisms that disrupt or deny a material's function or existence in some way.
The natural/synthetic interfaces area is focused on the fundamental science at the biotic and abiotic interface. The nanotechnology and mesotechnology sub-efforts are focused on surface structure and new architectures using nature's idea of directed assembly at the nanoscale to mesoscale to create desired effects, such as quantum electronic or three dimensional power structures. The use of these structures is in the design of patterned and templated surfaces, new catalysts, and natural materials based-optics/electronics (biophotonics).
The “physical mechanisms of natural systems under environmental distress” area is focused on discovering and understanding basic natural mechanisms used by organisms that could be used to either harden or repair soft material-based devices. This will enable the Air Force to employ biological systems with optimum performance and extended lifetimes. As protein and nucleic acid molecules are increasingly used as catalysts, sensors, and as materials, it will be necessary to understand how we can utilize these molecules in extreme environments, with the ability to regulate the desired function as conditions change, and to store the device for prolonged periods of time. Areas of interest include: the mechanisms for survival and protein stability in extremophilic archaea, fundamental studies of bacterial sporulation, and enzymatic engineering for faster catalysis in materials identification or degradation.
Dr. Hugh C. De Long AFOSR/RSL (703) 696-7722
DSN 426-7722 FAX (703) 696-7360
E-mail: hugh.delong@afosr.af.mil

12. Bioenergy
Program Description: This program aims to understand and improve the facility of photosynthetic microbes to produce biofuels (specifically, molecular hydrogen and algal lipids) for use in fuel cells and air breathing engines, and also to enhance the power density of enzymatic and microbial biofuel cells and the range of complex, impure or mixed natural substrates that the biofuel cells can oxidize and convert to electricity. The capacity to supply renewable hydrogen and high energy-dense hydrocarbons on a macro-scale using engineered photobiological systems will enable the military to power tanks, planes and ships on renewable energy, at a predictable cost basis and independent of foreign energy markets. On the other hand, microorganisms and enzymatic processes that can be bioengineered to produce electricity on a micro-scale using readily available complex or mixed biofuels could serve as portable compact power sources for such low-powered devices as remote sensors or future miniature unmanned air and land vehicles.
Basic Research Objectives: This program supports research that explores the biochemical and molecular processes found in certain oxygenic phototrophs, such as microaglae and cyanobacteria, which enable them to generate molecular hydrogen and lipid biofuels when supplied with only water, carbon dioxide and light. Knowledge of the physiological, biochemical and genetic factors involved in limiting and augmenting production of these biofuels will be used to bioengineer photosynthetic organisms whose generation of hydrogen and lipid biofuels will be both highly efficient and controllable. Basic research may include areas such as photosynthetic biochemistry, hydrogenase enzymology, genetic and metabolic engineering, systems biology, biocatalysis, microbial physiology and ecology, and lipid biosynthesis. In addition, some funds may be available to explore novel, fundamental biomimetic approaches in artificial photosynthesis for the generation specifically of high energy-dense solar fuels, such as straight- and branched-chain hydrocarbons. Progress in these areas is viewed as essential in developing the biotechnology needed to generate renewable, carbon-neutral supplies of lipid-derived jet fuels and fuel-cell hydrogen.
This program also supports research to enable the development of biofuel cells, both microbial and enzymatic, that can convert complex and impure fuel sources into electrical energy at sufficiently high power densities to be useful in portable devices. The idea is that biofuel cells will sustain their power by utilizing a wide range of fuel sources from the environment, such as ambient carbohydrates and macromolecules. Development of self-sustaining microbial or enzymatic biofuel cells will require understanding certain basic fundamental issues, including optimizing current production under variable conditions, biological mechanical energy storage, electron and proton transfer reactions and kinetics between enzymes/microbes and the electrode surface, theoretical modeling of mass transport in model biofuel cells, novel electrode designs, and enzyme engineering for faster catalysis.
Dr. Walter Kozumbo, AFOSR/RSL (703) 696-7720
DSN 426-7720 FAX (703) 696-7360
E-mail: walter.kozumbo@afosr.af.mil

Organization

The Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy's (EERE) programs conduct activities in partnership with the private sector, state and local government, DOE national laboratories, and universities.

EERE is organized around 10 energy programs:

EERE Offices

The offices support the cross-cutting and corporate-level activities within EERE. They include:

National Laboratories

Biological and Environmental Research (BER)

The Office of EERE works with several of the U.S. Department of Energy's national laboratories in order to support and further its mission. Learn more about all of the laboratories that support EERE.

Mission

BER advances world-class biological and environmental research programs and scientific user facilities to support DOE's energy, environment, and basic research missions.

Mission priorities:

Organizational Structure

Research Activities

Since initiating the Human Genome Project in 1986, BER has spearheaded the development of modern genomics-based systems biology and played a major role in seeding and fostering the contemporary biotechnology revolution, while at the same time supporting forefront research on the impacts of energy production and use on climate change. BER's research program, closely aligned with DOE mission goals, aims at understanding complex biological and environmental systems across many spatial and temporal scales, from the sub-micron to the global, from individual molecules to ecosystems, from nanoseconds to millennia, to develop predictive knowledge relevant to DOE mission challenges. Two areas vital to the Nation's energy security and environmental future lie at the core of the BER research agenda: developing cost-effective cellulosic biofuels and improving our ability to understand, predict, and mitigate the impacts of energy production and use on climate change.

Last modified: 4/4/2011 10:29:59 AM

Biological Systems Science Division (BSSD)

The Biological Systems Science Division manages a diverse portfolio of fundamental research and technology development to achieve a predictive, systems-level understanding of complex biological systems to advance DOE missions in energy, climate, and environment. The division was formed from the merger of the formerly separate Life Sciences Division and the Medical Sciences Division. Specific research areas include:

Genomic Science Research

Scientific User Facilities

For additional information about these specific programs, please contact an appropriate staff member . Last modified: 4/14/2011 1:54:01 PM

The mission of the JGI is to provide genome sequencing, genome data acquisition, and genome analysis in support of the DOE mission needs in bioenergy, carbon cycling and biosequestration, and environmental remediation and stabilization.

Program Description

The DOE-JGI was created in 1997 to carry out accurate, high throughput sequencing of human DNA in support of DOE's role in the Human Genome Project (HGP). With the completion of the HGP, the JGI sequencing capacity was refocused on the genomes of the microbes, microbial communities (metagenomes) and other organisms (fungi, plants) important to the DOE mission. Since 2000, the JGI has served as a Scientific User Facility, inviting and responding to requests from the external scientific community for sequencing of microbial, plant, and other (non-pathogen) targets. In all cases, the aim of the JGI is to provide to the national and international scientific community both the genome-derived "parts lists" as well as high quality computational analyses that support further discovery.

Solicitations

The DOE-JGI publishes an annual Community Sequencing Program solicitation for sequencing targets (see: http://www.jgi.doe.gov/CSP/index.html ). This program is presently open to letters of intent until March 15, 2010. NOTE: The JGI does NOT provide funding support for sequencing or other research efforts. The Community Sequencing Program (CSP) provides the scientific community at large with access to high-throughput sequencing of significant scale at the DOE-JGI for projects of relevance to DOE missions. Sequencing projects are chosen based on scientific merit--judged through independent peer review--and relevance to issues in global carbon cycling, energy production, biogeochemistry and low dose radiation responses. Criteria for participation in this program, the review process, and interactions between JGI and participants are outlined at: http://www.jgi.doe.gov/CSP/index.html ). Through this program, the Department of Energy aims to advance sequence-based scientific research from a broad range of disciplines. Three items to note:

  1. Proposals for bacterial and archaeal isolates, to be submitted as brief white papers will be accepted on a continuous basis, and will be reviewed every three months (typically early in February, May, August, and November of each year).
  2. Proposals that utilize JGI's expanding capacity for new technology sequencing are encouraged. This includes large-scale metagenome sequencing, transcript profiling, and resequencing of organisms for which reference genomes currently exist.
  3. Proposals requesting sequencing of eukaryotic genomes will be considered, but must include demonstration of genome size and polymorphism rate and should be supported by a significant user community.

Why the Program's Research is Important

The genome sequence of any organism, from a virus to an entire multi-species community, provides a catalogue of the component "working parts" The knowledge of that "parts list" is a fundamental starting point for a powerful array of biological investigations to describe and predict cellular function. Comparative genome and community genome (metagenome) studies also contribute towards understanding fundamental principles of the control circuits regulating gene expression and action, and how external signals (environmental, hormonal, chemical, etc.) influence gene activities.

Data Sharing Policy

The DOE-JGI data release policy is accessible at: http://my.jgi.doe.gov/general/datarelease.html

Sequencing of submitted projects by the program is contingent on adherence to this data sharing policy. It is also expected that organisms sequenced by the JGI will be deposited in public repositories to ensure public access to sequenced strains.

More Information about the Program and Its Accomplishments

DOE-JGI Web Site

Program Manager
Dan Drell, Ph.D.
Biological Systems Science Division, SC-23.2
U.S. Department of Energy, GTN Bldg.
1000 Independence Avenue, SW
Washington, DC 20585-1290
Phone: (301) 903-4742
Fax: (301) 903-0567
Email: daniel.drell@science.doe.gov

  •  Tools
     •  Success Stories
      •  Codes/Ordinances
      •  Articles/Publications
      •  Educational Materials
      •  Other Resources

 

######

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION

######

RESEARCH AND RELATED ACTIVITIES

(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

The conference agreement provides $5,617,920,000 for research and related activities.

The conference agreement transfers $54,000,000 from NSF to the United States Coast Guard (USCG) for icebreaking services to cover all anticipated operation and maintenance costs for fiscal year 2010. The conferees expect that in future years all operation and maintenance budget authority for these USCG icebreakers will be requested by the Department of Homeland Security.

Within the funds provided, the conferees direct NSF to maintain funding at the levels requested for the following activities:

Climate change
Cyber-enabled discovery and innovation
Science and engineering beyond Moore 's law
Adaptive systems technology
Dynamics of water processes in the environment
National Radio Astronomy Observatory

In addition, the conferees support House direction on high-risk, high-reward basic research; funding for research on ocean acidification; support for 2,000 graduate research fellowships across all of NSF; climate change education; and funding of EPSCoR. Beyond these requirements, the conferees expect NSF to accommodate the reduction from the request based on its judgment of where funding will be used most effectively.

The conferees support the direction in the Senate report with respect to VORTEX2.

The conferees direct NSF to transfer $100,000 to the National Academy of Sciences as directed by the House .

Hydrology, terrestrial ecosystems and soils.—The conferees see the need for an appropriate mechanism to bring together the hydrology research community and better integrate the different types of data and observing systems and enhance support of hydrology modeling, and to institutionalize this mechanism. The conferees also see the need for an appropriate mechanism to bring together the terrestrial ecology and soils research communities. NSF is directed to report its recommendations on the need for and establishment of mechanisms in these two areas with the budget request for fiscal year 2011.

######

  FY 2011 Request

Fundamental Nanoscale Phenomena and Processes

Nanomaterials

Nanoscale Devices & Systems

Instrumentation Research, Metrology, & Standards for Nanotech

Nanomanufacturing

Major Research Facilities and Instrumentation Acquisition

Societal Dimensions: Environment Health and Safety (EHS)

Societal Dimensions: Education (EDUC)

Societal Dimensions: Ethical, Legal & Other Soc Issues (ELSI)

 

Subject:

Earth Month Tip of the Day: Just bag it.

 

From:

"U.S. EPA" < usaepa@govdelivery.com >

To:

john@ironmountainmine.com

Today's environmental tip: Just bag it! Help protect the environment when you shop. Keep reusable bags on your car seat or near your door so they are easy to grab when you go. And you can even combine shopping bags - just tell the cashier that you don't need a bag, then put all your purchases together in one bag… just be sure to hang on to your receipts!

More information: http://www.epa.gov/osw/education/pubs/shopping.htm
Podcast: http://www.epa.gov/earthday/podcasts

en español: Ayude a proteger el medio ambiente cuando vaya de compras. Lleve bolsas reutilizables en su auto o cerca de la puerta de salida para que sean fáciles de llevar consigo. También puede combinar los artículos en una bolsa. Dígale a la cajera que no necesita varias bolsas y ponga los artículos comprados en una sola-ahora sí, debe conservar los recibos!

Más información: http://www.epa.gov/osw/education/pdfs/sp-shop.pdf
Podcast: http://www.epa.gov/earthday/espanol/podcasts.htm

Want more tips? Visit EPA's Earth Day site to learn more about Earth Day, the US Environmental Protection Agency, and what you can do to help protect human health and the environment.  http://www.epa.gov/earthday/tips.htm

Today's environmental tip: Proper maintenance reduces waste! Keep your appliances in good working order and follow the manufacturer's suggestions for operation and maintenance. Shop for products with high consumer satisfaction and fewer breakdowns. If kept in good working order, your appliances should last a long time and not end up as waste before their time.

More information: http://www.epa.gov/osw/wycd/catbook/tip4.htm
Podcast: http://www.epa.gov/earthday/podcasts

en español: ¡El mantenimiento adecuado reduce los desechos! Mantenga sus enseres en buen funcionamiento y siga las sugerencias del fabricante sobre la operación y mantenimiento. Busque comprar productos con niveles de alta satisfacción del consumidor y que no tengan problemas de averías. Si mantiene los enseres en buen funcionamiento, deben durar mucho tiempo y no terminar como desechos con el tiempo.

Más información: http://www.epa.gov/osw/wycd/funfacts/indexsp.htm
Podcast: http://www.epa.gov/earthday/espanol/podcasts.htm

Want more tips? Visit EPA's Earth Day site to learn more about Earth Day, the US Environmental Protection Agency, and what you can do to help protect human health and the environment.  http://www.epa.gov/earthday/tips.htm

Partners in Sustainability

Posted by Administrator Martha N. Johnson on April 25, 2011 at 11:22 AM EDT

Last week I had the opportunity to meet with representatives from Seattle area businesses and discuss ways we can work together to strengthen our nations clean energy economy.  With the General Service Administration's portfolio of nearly 10,000 federal buildings and influence over 400,000 federal vehicles we are uniquely positioned to move our government towards this goal.  But we can't do this alone -- that's why GSA is working to facilitate conversations with private sector leaders that foster an exchange of ideas.  

On my first stop in Seattle , I took part in a roundtable conversation with representatives from business, construction and design and academia to discuss the business case for green building. With GSA's 370 million square feet of facility space it is imperative for us to invest in innovative clean energy technologies that make our buildings more cost and energy efficient for the American taxpayer.  Conversations like this roundtable allow GSA to work with the private sector and share best practices so we can make informed decisions on implementing innovative building technologies.

While in the Puget Sound area I also had the opportunity to speak to building managers, urban planners and local government officials at the Bellevue City Hall for a workshop on electric vehicle charging stations.  I spoke with attendees who are leading remarkable initiatives to create and support infrastructure for plug-in vehicles. As part of our efforts to make the federal fleet more efficient, GSA will be launching an EV pilot program to purchase 100 plug-in electric vehicles. To make electric vehicles an integral part of our federal fleet we must take steps to ensure the necessary infrastructure exists, including charging stations.  The workshop attendees I met with are ensuring we are on track to meet President Obama's goal of having one million electric vehicles on the road by 2015.

I'd like to thank my hosts in and around Seattle , and I look forward to continuing the conversation with our partners in sustainability.   

Martha N. Johnson is the Administrator of the General Services Administration

National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI) Funding Opportunities at NSF in FY 2011

( www.nsf.gov/nano )

 

For fiscal year 2011, the National Science Foundation budget request for the National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI) is approximately $401 million. All participating research and education directorates and the Office of International Science and Engineering (OISE) accept proposals with an international component following a competitive selection process. The NSF contribution covers only expenses made by the U.S. universities for research and for international interactions such as workshops, visiting students and professors in U.S. and abroad.

 

The participating directorates are: Biological Sciences (BIO), Computer and Information Science & Engineering (CISE), Engineering (ENG), Geosciences (GEO), Mathematical and Physical Sciences (MPS), Social, Behavioral and Economic Sciences (SBE), and Education and Human Resources (EHR).

 

General information about NNI specific programs can be found on www.nsf.gov/nano , about NSF's core programs on http://www.nsf.gov/funding/research_edu_community.jsp , and about OISE programs on http://www.nsf.gov/div/index.jsp?div=OISE . The NSF award database including more than 5,000 awards contributing to nanoscale science and engineering can be accessed from www.nsf.gov/nano .

 

NSF supports nanoscale science and engineering in fiscal year 2011 in multiple ways:

 

•  Competitive awards in existing (core) programs in the research and education directorates, i ncluding interdisciplinary team research proposals.

 

•  The solicitation “Nanoelectronics for 2020 and Beyond" ( NEB ) (NSF 10-614): http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2010/nsf10614/nsf10614.htm?org=NSF

 

•  The Small Business Innovative Research (SBIR) and Small Business Technology Transfer (STTR) programs: http://www.nsf.gov/eng/iip/sbir/

 

•  Also, it is expected that most of the program solicitations competed in FY 2010 will continue in FY 2011. Such solicitations will be announced on this website at the time of publication.

 

•  International supplements. Awards made in previous fiscal years for individual investigators, groups, centers, and user facilities can be supplemented by the programs.

 

Research and education areas in nanoscale science and engineering are inherently interdisciplinary, and proposals for collaborative approaches are encouraged to address research and education themes with a synergistic blend of expertise as appropriate. Each successful proposal may be funded by either one or more

NSF-Wide Investments

The National Science Foundation's (NSF) fiscal year (FY) 2009 budget request to Congress identifies areas for NSF-wide investments. Strengthening capabilities in each of these areas will enhance the productivity and efficiency of the science and engineering enterprise while producing concrete economic and social benefits for the nation.

Examples of major crosscutting activities include ADVANCE: Increasing the Participation and Advancement of Women in Academic Science and Engineering Careers, Faculty Early Career Development (CAREER), Graduate Fellowships and Traineeships, Long-Term Ecological Research (LTER), Research Experiences for Teachers (RET), Research Experiences for Undergraduates (REU), Research in Undergraduate Institutions (RUI) and Science and Technology Centers (STCs).

George E. Brown, Jr. Network for Earthquake Engineering Simulation Research  (NEESR)
1

CONTACTS
1

Name

Email

Phone

Room

Joy  M. Pauschke

jpauschk@nsf.gov

(703) 292-7024 

545 S  

Cognizant Program Officer(s):

Richard J. Fragaszy, Program Director, Geotechnical Engineering Program, Directorate for Engineering, Division of Civil, Mechanical and Manufacturing Innovation, 545 S, telephone: (703) 292-7011, fax: (703) 292-9053, email: rfragasz@nsf.gov

Joy M. Pauschke, Program Director, George E. Brown, Jr. Network for Earthquake Engineering Simulation, Directorate for Engineering, Division of Civil, Mechanical and Manufacturing Innovation, 545 S, telephone: (703) 292-7024, fax: (703) 292-9053, email: jpauschk@nsf.gov

Dennis Wenger, Program Director, Infrastructure Management and Extreme Events Program, Directorate for Engineering, Division of Civil, Mechanical and Manufacturing Innovation, 545 S, telephone: (703) 292-8606, fax (703) 292-9053, email: dwenger@nsf.gov

PROGRAM GUIDELINES
1
Solicitation  11-512

SYNOPSIS
1

The Division of Civil, Mechanical and Manufacturing Innovation (CMMI) in the Directorate for Engineering (ENG) of the National Science Foundation (NSF) invites proposals for research that uses the George E. Brown, Jr. Network for Earthquake Engineering Simulation (NEES) to advance knowledge, discovery, and innovation for (1) earthquake and tsunami loss reduction of our nation's civil infrastructure, and (2) new experimental simulation techniques and instrumentation for NEES. NEES comprises a network of 14 earthquake engineering experimental equipment sites available for experimentation on-site or in the field and through telepresence. NEES equipment sites include shake tables, geotechnical centrifuges, a tsunami wave basin, unique large-scale testing laboratory facilities, and mobile and permanently installed field equipment. The NEEShub cyberinfrastructure connects, via Internet2, the equipment sites as well as provides telepresence; a curated central data repository known as the NEES Project Warehouse; simulation tools; collaborative tools for facilitating on-line planning, execution, and post-processing of experiments; and the NEES Academy for education and outreach.  Projects proposed and supported under this solicitation must require significant use of one or more of the NEES equipment sites listed at http://www.nees.org  and the related cyberinfrastructure and/or require significant reuse of data curated and archived in the NEES Project Warehouse at http://nees.org/warehouse .  Proposals that seek new scientific inquiry through reuse of data curated and archived in the NEES Project Warehouse, either alone or in combination with use of the NEES equipment site(s), will be considered.  The data eligible for reuse from the NEES Project Warehouse must be data that are curated, archived, and publicly viewable and available at http://nees.org/warehouse . 

RELATED URLS
1
NEES Operations at Purdue University
1

THIS PROGRAM IS PART OF
1
Opportunities that Highlight International Collaboration
1
Resilient and Sustainable Infrastructures
1

 

What Has Been Funded (Recent Awards Made Through This Program, with Abstracts)

Map of Recent Awards Made Through This Program

News

Discoveries

Events

 

GSA Testing Innovative Sustainable Technologies and Practices

Green Proving Ground program to test emerging technologies in federal buildings.

GSA # 10793

April 21, 2011
MaryAnne Beatty, 202-501-0768
maryanne.beatty@gsa.gov

WASHINGTON – GSA announced today that it will test and evaluate 16 emerging sustainable building technologies and practices in select federal facilities under its Green Proving Ground Program. Testing will determine the most effective technologies that may then be replicated on a wider-scale basis throughout the GSA inventory, with the goal of transforming markets for these technologies.

“GSA is leading the way in sustainable design and construction operations,” GSA Administrator Martha N. Johnson said. “By using our real estate portfolio as a test bed for new technologies, we can then provide further innovation in energy-efficiency standards and implement best practices that will lead the market.”

The technologies selected were from a pool of approximately 140 projects across GSA's national portfolio that are currently implementing innovative or underutilized sustainable building technologies. The 16 technologies and practices were selected for evaluation because they have the greatest potential to meet GSA's sustainability goals. Examples of the technologies chosen include wireless temperature sensors, electrochromic windows, high R-value windows, integrated lighting systems, thin-film photovoltaic panels, solar water heating with integrated photovoltaic panels, chilled beams, and nonchemical water treatment systems.

With support from the Department of Energy's National Laboratories, the Green Proving Ground Program will perform enhanced testing, monitoring, and evaluation on these selected technologies. Notable findings from all of the projects will be used to support the development of performance specifications for GSA's real estate portfolio and other federal agencies. Additionally, testing these technologies will assist industry in deploying the technology and practices studied.

For more information on the 16 technologies to be evaluated under GSA's Green Proving Ground Program and on GSA's registry of sustainable building technologies, visit http://www.gsa.gov/GPG .

As the federal government's workplace solutions provider, the U.S. General Services Administration works to foster an effective, sustainable and transparent government for the American people. GSA's expertise in government workplace solutions include:
• Effective management of government assets including more than 9,600 government-owned or leased buildings and 215,000 vehicles in the federal fleet, and preservation of historic federal properties;
• Leveraging the government's buying power through responsible acquisition of products and services making up approximately 14 percent of the government's total procurement dollars;
• Providing innovative technology solutions to enhance government efficiency and increase citizen engagement; and,
• Promoting responsible use of federal resources through development of government wide policies ranging from federal travel to property and management practices.

GSA contract award services where Fedmarket handles all aspects of preparation, submission, and negotiation of the GSA Schedule proposal. The goal of the engagement is the award of your GSA Schedule contract.

 

Public Release: 21-Apr-2011
1IEEE/NIH 2011 Life Science Systems and Applications Workshop
Researchers create functioning synapse using carbon nanotubes
Engineering researchers at the University of Southern California have made a significant breakthrough in the use of nanotechnologies for the construction of a synthetic brain. They have built a carbon nanotube synapse circuit whose behavior in tests reproduces the function of a neuron, the building block of the brain.
2National Science Foundation, Viterbi School of Engineering, USC Women in Science and Engineering Program

Contact: Eric Mankin
mankin@usc.edu
213-821-1887
University of Southern California

Labor Category

Hourly Rate

Senior Officer

$ 269.53

Officer

$ 172.49

Senior System Analyst

$ 134.78

Senior Database Developer

$ 118.59

Database Developer

$ 108.77

IT Research Analyst

$ 51.58

( In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. In this context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the State to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority to disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a SIP submission, to use VCS in place of a SIP submission that otherwise satisfies the provisions of the Clean Air Act. Thus, the requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply.)

Subject:

Earth Month Tip of the Day: Breathe easy.

 

From:

"U.S. EPA" < usaepa@govdelivery.com >

To:

john@ironmountainmine.com

Today's environmental tip: Breathe easy! On unhealthy air pollution "action alert" days, wait to mow your lawn until it's cooler in the evening or early the next morning. You help reduce air pollution for everyone near you if you run gas-powered equipment, like lawn mowers, when it's cooler. You also protect your health by avoiding ground-level ozone during the warmest part of the day.

More information: http://airnow.gov/index.cfm?action=airnow.actiondays
Podcast: http://www.epa.gov/earthday/podcasts

en español: ¡Respire fácilmente! En los días de aviso de contaminación del aire malsano, espere para usar la cortadora de césped hasta cuando refresque en la noche o temprano en la mañana siguiente. Puede contribuir a la reducción de la contaminación del aire para todos a su alrededor si usa el equipo que usa combustible como las cortadoras de césped cuando hace más fresco. También protege su salud al evitar el ozono a nivel terrestre durante las horas más calientes del día.

Más información: http://airnow.gov/index.cfm?action=airnow.actiondays
Podcast: http://www.epa.gov/earthday/espanol/podcasts.htm

Want more tips? Visit EPA's Earth Day site to learn more about Earth Day, the US Environmental Protection Agency, and what you can do to help protect human health and the environment.  http://www.epa.gov/earthday/tips.htm

Open Date Opportunity Title Agency Funding Number Attachment

 

04/18/2011  

Research Interests of the Air Force Office of Scientific Research

Air Force Office of Scientific Research  

BAA-AFOSR-2011-01  

1 BROAD AGENCY ANNOUNCEMENT (BAA) 1. Agency Name Air Force

03/01/2011  

FY2011 – 2016 Basic Research for Combating Weapons of Mass Destruction (C-WMD) Broad Agency Announcement (BAA)

Defense Threat Reduction Agency  

HDTRA1-11-16-BRCWMD-BAA  

DEFENSE THREAT REDUCTION AGENCY ,

11/30/2010  

Energy for Sustainability

National Science Foundation  

PD-11-7644  

 

11/30/2010  

Catalysis and Biocatalysis

National Science Foundation  

PD-11-1401  

 

07/14/2009  

Chemical Catalysis

National Science Foundation  

PD-09-6884  

 

05/08/2009  

NRL WIDE BROAD AGENCY ANNOUNCEMENT BAA-N00173-01

Naval Research Laboratory  

BAA-N00173-01  

NRL BAA Announcement #61-09-05 ,

02/12/2009  

DTRA FY2009 – 2011 Basic Research for Combating Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) Broad Agency Announcement (BAA)

Defense Threat Reduction Agency  

HDTRA1-08-10-BRCWMD-BAA  

2004 CBDIF BAA , BRCWMD , BRCWMD , DEFENSE THREAT REDUCTION AGENCY BROAD AGENCY ANNOUNCEMENT HDTRA1

11/25/2008  

ARL/ARO Broad Agency Announcement-Revised

Dept of the Army -- Materiel Command  

W911NF-07-R-0001-03  

ARMY RESEARCH LABORATORY AND THE ARMY RESEARCH OFFICE BROAD AGENCY ... ,

06/06/2008  

ARO Broad Agency Announcement-Revised

Dept of the Army -- Materiel Command  

W911NF-07-R-0003-02  

ARMY RESEARCH OFFICE BROAD AGENCY ANNOUNCEMENT FOR BASIC AND ... , ARMY

Major California Property Rights Victory for Landowners in Eminent Domain Abuse Fight
National City Violated Federal Constitution and State Laws
Published on Apr 23, 2011 - 5:41:49 AM

By: Institute for Justice

NATIONAL CITY , Calif. April 22, 2011 — A California gym that mentors at-risk kids scored a knockout legal blow against eminent domain abuse in California . Yesterday, April 21, Judge Steven R. Denton of the Superior Court of California ruled in favor of the Community Youth Athletic Center (CYAC) and against National City , Calif. , in one of the most important property rights cases in the nation. Carlos Barragan, Jr., who along with his father created the CYAC as a means of keeping local at-risk kids out of gangs, will join with other CYAC leaders at the gym at 10:30 a.m. California time to discuss the ruling with the media. The gym is located at 1018 National City Blvd., National City, Calif.

The Court struck down National City's entire 692-property eminent domain zone in the first decision to apply the legal reforms that California enacted to counter the disastrous U.S. Supreme Court Kelo decision in 2005. This ruling, which found that National City lacked a legal basis for its blight declaration, reinforces vital protections for property owners across the state, and underscores why redevelopment agencies should be abolished.

The Court also ruled that National City violated the Due Process clause of the U.S. Constitution in failing to provide the CYAC with statutorily required information prior to an important public hearing.

Finally, in a holding with implications well beyond redevelopment law, the Court also held that when the government retains a private consultant to perform government functions—in this case, documenting the existence of alleged "blight" in National City —documents that the private consultant produces are public records subject to disclosure under the California Public Records Act. The Court also set a clear standard for what government agencies have to do in searching the records of their private consultants in response to a Public Records Act request.

"After Kelo, the California Legislature limited a city's ability to declare ‘blight' based on trivial things like ‘lack of parking' and required real evidence and documentation from redevelopment agencies," said Dana Berliner, a senior attorney with the Institute for Justice, which represented the CYAC for free. " National City completely ignored the new law when it decided to threaten the CYAC and nearly 700 other properties with eminent domain for private development. The Court's decision holds that the new law placed real restrictions on redevelopment agencies and that National City violated the law. This is the very first case interpreting the changes to the law that went into effect on January 1, 2007, in response to the Kelo decision."

Berliner said, "This decision will go a long way in protecting Californians throughout the state against eminent domain abuse."

Clemente Casillas, the CYAC President, said, "I hope National City does the right thing now and throws in the towel so we can get back to focusing all our attention on helping to grow the kids in our community. The city can have redevelopment, but that has to be done through private negotiation, not by government force."

IJ Senior Attorney Jeff Rowes said, "Redevelopment agencies always use private consultants to come up with blight studies. The Court ruled that the documents and data produced by those consultants are public records, just like government-produced documents. That ruling will help everyone trying to fight a blight designation of their neighborhood, and it will also help the media and anyone else trying to get more information about government projects. We've been saying for years that the city's blight study lacked any information the CYAC needed to do a meaningful review. The court agreed, saying it was mostly jargon and that the city should have given the CYAC more time and continued the public hearing when the CYAC requested it."

California Governor Jerry Brown has proposed eliminating local redevelopment agencies across the state. These agencies, which are run by the cities they reside in, have taken properties they didn't own only to hand that land over to those with more political power. They have driven city after city in California to the brink of bankruptcy, often for nothing more than private gain.

" National City has been labeling this area blighted since the 1960s," said Rowes. "This decision provides another example of a redevelopment agency that is out of control and should be abolished."

The CYAC got almost everything it asked for in this lawsuit. The Court invalidated the city's redevelopment plan amendment that authorized eminent domain, declared that the city violated the Public Records Act, declared that the city violated the CYAC's due process rights, and gave the CYAC nominal damages. The CYAC is finally free from the threat of eminent domain for the first time in nearly four years.

Richard M. Segal, Brian D. Martin and Nathan R. Smith from Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP in San Diego , acting as pro bono local counsel, put in extraordinary time and effort on the case.

Human rules may determine environmental 'tipping points'
Published Apr 16, 2011 - 7:53:58 AM
A new paper appearing in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) suggests that people, governments, and institutions that shape the way people interact may be just as important for determining environmental conditions as the environmental processes themselves.

Read More

Researchers create functioning synapse using carbon nanotubes
Published Apr 23, 2011 - 7:24:30 AM
Engineering researchers at USC Viterbi have made a significant breakthrough in the use of nanotechnologies for the construction of a synthetic brain. They have built a carbon nanotube synapse circuit whose behavior in tests reproduces the function of a neuron input, the synapse, the a building block of the brain.

Read More

Appendix 19
Terms & Acronyms
Acronym
Definition
AC
Advisory Committee
AC/GPA
Advisory Committee for GPRA Performance Assessment
AD
ARRA
NSF Assistant director
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009
BFA
Office of Budget, Finance and Award Management
BIO
Directorate for Biological Sciences
BIIS
NSF Budget Internet Information System
CAREER
Faculty Early Career Development Program
CGI
Continuing Grant Increments
CISE
Directorate for Computer and Information Science and Engineering
COV
Committee of Visitors
EAGER
EHR
Early-concept Grants for Exploratory Research
Directorate for Education and Human Resources
EIS
Enterprise Information System
ENG
Directorate for Engineering
EPSCoR
Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive Research
FTE
Full-Time Equivalent
FY
Fiscal Year
GEO
Directorate for Geosciences
GPRA
Government Performance and Results Act
IPAs
Temporary employees hired through Intergovernmental Personnel Act
IPAMM
Impact of Proposal & Award Management Mechanisms
IPS
Interactive Panel System
MPS
Directorate for Mathematical and Physical Sciences
NSB
National Science Board
NSF
National Science Foundation
OCI
Office of Cyberinfrastructure
OD
Office of the Director
ODS
Online Document System
OIA
Office of Integratative Activities
OIG
Office of Inspector General
OISE
Office of International Science & Engineering
OMB
Office of Management and Budget
OPP
Office of Polar Programs
PARS
Proposal, PI and Reviewer System
PART
Program Assessment Rating Tool
PI
Principal Investigator
RAPID
R&RA
Grants for Rapid Response Research
Research and Related Activities
SBE
Directorate for Social, Behavioral and Economic Sciences
SGER
Small Grants for Exploratory Research
VSEE
Visiting Scientists, Engineers and Educators

1

Advisories

1

 

Special Instructions for Institutions and Businesses entering Primary Place of Performance (PPoP)

The FastLane Cover Sheet has been revised for consistency with the requirements of the Federal Funding & Accountability Act (FFATA) to replace the Performing/Research Organization information with Project/Performance Site Primary Location information. This change already has been made on a government-wide basis in the SF 424 family of forms. If the project will be performed at a location other than the awardee, additional geographic information must be provided (GPG, Chapter II.C.2.a).

To ensure compliance with the FFATA reporting requirements, and to improve the quality of data associated with NSF-funded awards, the GPG now specifies that a nine-digit zip code be entered in the applicable cover sheet field. The nine-digit zip code is validated against the US Postal Service?s (USPS) database, which ensures that the location can be accurately identified as well as aligning with the correct congressional district.

When entering the zip code for the Primary Place of Performance for locations within the United States , you may encounter the error message 'a valid zip code is required'. If you receive this error message, you must enter the correct zip code in order to submit your proposal. It is recommended that you look up the street address of the Project/Performance Site Primary Location on the USPS website http://usps.com and enter the zip code displayed there.

 


NASA And Partners Fund New Climate Impact Studies On Species And Ecosystems
Published Apr 22, 2011 - 11:35:46 AM
NASA is partnering with other federal agencies to fund new research and applications efforts that will bring the global view of climate from space down to Earth to benefit wildlife and key ecosystems.

Read More

2


LHC sets world record beam intensity
Published Apr 22, 2011 - 8:15:10 AM
Around midnight this night CERN[1]'s Large Hadron Collider today set a new world record for beam intensity at a hadron collider when it collided beams with a luminosity of 4.67 x 1032cm-2s-1. This exceeds the previous world record of 4.024 x 1032cm-2s-1, which was set by the US Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory's Tevatron collider in 2010, and marks an important milestone in LHC commissioning.

Read More

Garamendi Calls on Lawmakers to Protect Critical Environmental Protection Laws under Attack
Published Apr 23, 2011 - 5:16:07 AM
Today is a special day for the billions of world citizens who treasure Earth, that bountiful yet fragile planet delicately balanced to let human civilization evolve and thrive. In our day-to-day lives, it's easy to forget how lucky we are to have inherited the habitats, waterways, and atmosphere that make our very existence possible.

Read More

5


Public Meeting in Sacramento on Bay Delta Conservation Plan April 25
Published Apr 23, 2011 - 4:33:35 AM
California Secretary for Natural Resources and Deputy Secretary of the Interior will hold a public meeting to discuss the Bay Delta Conservation Plan (BDCP). Natural Resources Agency Deputy Secretary Dr. Jerry Meral will provide an update on the working draft of the plan, the process for resolution of key features, and important environmental analysis needed before a final plan can be approved. Stakeholder panels made up of Delta communities, water users and conservation organizations will provide their perspectives on the opportunities and challenges facing the BDCP. Senior administration officials will also talk one-on-one with meeting attendees to hear their individual thoughts on the BDCP process moving forward.

Read More

Progress Report 2010: Clean Land

Before the treatment plant was built, heavy metals precipitated into a sludge and fell to the bottom of the Spring Creek

Region 9 Newsroom Region 9 Programs Grants & Funding US-Mexico Border Media Center Careers About Region 9 A-Z Index

Despite the advances in federal government transparency, there are many promising innovations not yet pursued at the federal level. The success states have shown with their contracting websites proves that the federal government could implement such transparency while addressing agencies' and contractors' concerns.

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/emldscp2.htm http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/hep/index.htm

Planning, Environment, & Realty

05/16/2011: EPA Announces Next Step on Air Toxics Standards for ...
WASHINGTON – As previously announced, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA ) is seeking additional public feedback and gathering more information on ...
yosemite.epa.gov/.../8117E40C6C2537DA85257892005A7D...

Highway around Burlington, Vt., won't be built
BusinessWeek
However, on May 9, the state received a letter from the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) indicating they would veto any such approval," said a statement issued by Shumlin's office. The EPA cited likely harm to the wetlands that the road would pass ...
See all stories on this topic »

GSA Awards Contract for "The Military to Civilian Transition Guide"
PR Web (press release)
GSA awarded a contract to Competitive Edge Services, Inc. (dba Corporate Gray) for "The Military to Civilian Transition Guide", a career transition guide for Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, and Coast Guard personnel. This GSA contract makes it ...
See all stories on this topic »
Question
Will new funding be available? Answer
At this time, additional funding for demonstration projects is not budgeted. However, we will seek and encourage innovative funding to demonstrate the principles of the Memorandum. CALTRANS is partnering with a commercial seed source to find better establishment techniques of native plants. The Florida DOT with the help of the Florida Federated Garden Clubs is using research grant to plant native plant interpretative gardens at Welcome Centers to increase public awareness. Further partnerships with educational institutions, arboreta, commercial nurseries, botanic gardens and garden clubs are encouraged. These partnerships in themselves will improve public awareness. Question
Will "cultural landscapes" have to be replaced with environmentally and economically beneficial landscapes? Answer
No. Cultural or historical, or existing landscapes are not expected to be replaced. The Executive Memorandum applies only to landscape projects implemented after August 10, 1995, or realistically projects funded beginning October 1, 1995. Question
Will the Federal Highway Administration assist States in implementing the Memorandum? Answer
The FHWA will facilitate the implementation in every way possible. Further guidelines for the use of native plants in wildflower and treeways programs are in progress. State-by-State lists of what plants are native are also in progress. The FHWA is developing a training course/workshop mechanism to further share information about the Memorandum's approach. The FHWA will continue to share experiences and information for all States through the quarterly Greener Roadsides. Question
Can consistency among agencies be expected? Answer
We have been assured by the Federal Environmental Executive, who oversees the implementation of the Memorandum, that consistency will be the rule.   This page last modified on April 1, 2011

GUIDANCE FOR PRESIDENTIAL MEMORANDUM ON ENVIRONMENTALLY AND ECONOMICALLY BENEFICIAL LANDSCAPE PRACTICES ON FEDERAL LANDSCAPED GROUNDS
AGENCY: Office of the Federal Environmental Executive, EPA
ACTION: Notice
SUMMARY: This document announces guidance developed by the interagency workgroup under the direction of the Federal Environmental Executive to assist federal agencies in the implementation of environmentally and economically beneficial landscape practices. This guidance is in response to the requirements of the executive memorandum on Environmentally and Economically Beneficial Landscape Practices on Federal Landscaped Grounds.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION: Contact Debra Yap, (202) 260-9291.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
On April 26, 1994, the President issued a memorandum to Federal agencies addressing landscape management practices on federal landscaped grounds. In developing the implementing guidance, the Federal Environmental Executive sought public comment through a Federal Register "Notice, Review & Comment." This guidance, as written by the interagency taskforce, represents the culmination of discussions among interested parties, industry and government, and the responses to the Federal Register Notice.1
The principles identified here provide a framework for the use of environmentally and economically beneficial landscape practices on managed federal lands and federally-funded projects. They are meant to improve and expand upon current principles of landscape design, implementation and management. They are intended to assist in federal planning and decision-making and can be incorporated into federal agency guidance/policy for landscape management practices.

Manage Pesticides and Fertilizers: The improper use of pesticides and fertilizers contributes to the pollution of both surface and groundwater in the United States. Using effective landscape management practices, and appropriate application of pesticides and fertilizers, federal agencies may minimize that impact on water quality as well as to other aspects of the environment.
Further, federal agencies may better manage soil amendments and fertilizers by utilizing soil and plant tissue samples analyses which can indicate soil deficiencies and nutrient use. The recommended method of managing pests and pesticides is called Integrated Pest Management or IPM as described below. Use IPM: Through the use of appropriate control measures and proper application, IPM can result in a reduction in the use of chemicals contained in pesticides which may adversely impact human health and the environment. Integrated Pest Management is a decision-making process which considers cultural, mechanical, biological, and chemical controls of pests. Control mechanisms are selected as each situation warrants. Where chemical control is used, specific pest populations are targeted when they are most vulnerable rather than indiscriminate application of these chemicals.
Minimize Runoff: Uncontrolled runoff adversely impacts the environment: 1) as a major contributor to soil erosion; and 2) the primary vehicle for chemical pollutants to be introduced into the environment (particularly non-point source runoff). Federal agencies can ameliorate adverse impacts associated with run-off through a variety of preventative mechanisms: physical; vegetative, and operational. For example, grasses have been demonstrated to be a viable mechanism for minimizing run-off and controlling soil erosion. A viable method of managing the pollutants associated with the first flush of stormwater run-off is bioretention of the storm water in an appropriately landscaped area.
Recycle Landscape Trimmings: Federal agencies have the opportunity to effect both good landscape management practices and good waste management practices by recycling and using recycled landscape trimmings. A significant portion of what is treated as waste is comprised of leaves, grass clippings, plant trimmings, and woody material. These elements are a desirable resource for composted material, mulches, and landscape amendments. By using these products, federal agencies can effectively and economically enrich the soil, promote plant growth, preserve soil moisture, reduce erosion, and inhibit weed growth.
4. Implement Water and Energy Efficient Practices: Irrigating lawns and landscapes can account for a significant proportion of total water use, particularly during peak watering season. Reducing the inefficient irrigation of lawns and landscapes with potable water can reduce water cost, and the energy usage/cost associated with water pumping. In addition, water use efficiency can relieve the increasing demand being placed on water resources, distribution systems, and wastewater treatment systems.
Federal facilities can effectively reduce water use and conserve potable water through a number of practices. For example, water usage can be reduced through the use of mulches and careful selection and siting of plants. Plants adapted to local conditions can be selected so supplemental water will not be required after an initial establishment period of 3-5 years. Other water-efficient landscape practices include: determining the water requirements for discrete water-use zones; using and maintaining
http://www.doi.gov/greening/buildings/landscaping.pdf

WATERSHED ADMINISTRATIVE MANAGEMENT

The following issues were identified during the scoping process:

Many of these issues were also identified for and addressed in the Wildlife Mitigation Program EIS.

comprehensive - in terms of basin geography, political units, and water resources;
inclusive - created by all stakeholders and attentive to their environmental, social, regulatory and
economic goals; and,
integrated - taking stock of relationships between the quantity and quality of water, ground and
surface water interaction, as well as interactions of other natural resources and environmental
conditions.
Taking a comprehensive, inclusive, and integrated approach to water resource planning, allocation
and management is intended to produce a strategic action plan to better protect water quantity, water
quality and related resources for current and future needs. Greater cooperation leads to widespread
support for agreed upon management objectives and action plans, and reduced reliance on new
regulatory requirements and litigation.2 Solutions are more practical and acceptable, and thus, more
effective and lasting.

The Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) is a federal agency involved in community level
watershed planning and management activities. Their primary function is to provide natural resource
planning and management assistance to farmers, ranchers and forest landowners. The NRCS also
supports joint public/private watershed improvement projects with technical assistance and funding
through a number of cost-share programs intended to improve water quality, soil stability, forest
resources, flood plains, noxious weed management and wildlife habitat.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has championed the Watershed Protection
Approach (WPA) for many years. The WPA strategy is based on the concept that many water quality
and ecosystem problems are best solved at the watershed level, rather than the individual waterbody
or discharger level. The WPA is grounded in the Clean Water Act and Safe Drinking Water Act,
which contain provisions that promote aspects of watershed planning and management activities.

A New Foundation for Energy and the Environment

"As we continue to tackle our environmental challenges, it's clear that change won't come from Washington alone. It will come from Americans across the country who take steps in their own homes and their own communities to make that change happen."

16 USC 1802 - Sec. 1802. Definitions -STATUTE-As used in this chapter, unless the context otherwise requires - (1) The term 'anadromous species' means species of fish which spawn in fresh or estuarine waters of the United States and which migrate to ocean waters. (2) The term 'bycatch' means fish which are harvested in a fishery, but which are not sold or...


Read more: http://vlex.com/vid/context-requires-spawn-migrate-harvested-19237320#ixzz1KYrW1x78

TITLE 16--CONSERVATION CHAPTER 56A--PACIFIC SALMON FISHING Sec. 3640. Administrative matters (a) Compensation of Commissioners and Alternate Commissioners Commissioners and Alternate Commissioners who are not State or Federal employees shall receive compensation at the daily rate of GS-18 of the General Schedule when engaged in the actual performance of duties for the United States Section or for the Commission. (b) Compensation of Panel Members and Alternate Panel Members Panel Members and Alternate Panel Members who are not State or Federal employees shall receive compensation at the daily rate of GS-16 of the General Schedule when engaged in the actual performance of duties for the United States Section or for the Commission. (c) Travel; other expenses Travel and other necessary expenses shall be paid for all United States Commissioners, Alternate Commissioners, Panel Members, Alternate Panel Members, members of the Joint Technical Committee, and members of the Advisory Committee when engaged in the actual performance of duties for the United States Section or for the Commission. (d) Individuals not considered Federal employees Except for officials of the United States Government, such individuals shall not be considered to be Federal employees while engaged in the actual performance of duties for the United States Section or for the Commission, except for the purposes of injury compensation or tort claims liability as provided in chapter 81 of title 5 and chapter 71 \1\ of title 28. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ So in original. Probably should be chapter ``171''. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- (Pub. L. 99-5, Sec. 11, Mar. 15, 1985, 99 Stat. 14.) References in Other Laws to GS-16, 17, or 18 Pay Rates References in laws to the rates of pay for GS-16, 17, or 18, or to maximum rates of pay under the General Schedule, to be considered references to rates payable under specified sections of Title 5, Government Organization and Employees, see section 529 [title I, Sec. 101(c)(1)] of Pub. L. 101-509, set out in a note under section 5376 of Title 5.

The Science and Technology Centers (STC): Integrative Partnerships program supports innovative, potentially transformative, complex research and education projects that require large-scale, long-term awards. STCs conduct world-class research through partnerships among academic institutions, national laboratories, industrial organizations, and/or other public/private entities , and via international collaborations, as appropriate. They provide a means to undertake significant investigations at the interfaces of disciplines and/or fresh approaches within disciplines. STCs may involve any areas of science and engineering that NSF supports. STC investments support the NSF vision of advancing discovery, innovation and education beyond the frontiers of current knowledge, and empowering future generations in science and engineering.

Centers provide a rich environment for encouraging future scientists, engineers, and educators to take risks in pursuing discoveries and new knowledge. STCs foster excellence in education by integrating education and research, and by creating bonds between learning and inquiry so that discovery and creativity fully support the learning process.

NSF expects STCs to demonstrate leadership in the involvement of groups traditionally underrepresented in science and engineering at all levels (faculty, students, and postdoctoral researchers) within the Center.  Centers use either proven or innovative mechanisms to address issues such as recruitment, retention and mentorship of participants from underrepresented groups. 

Centers must undertake activities that facilitate knowledge transfer, i.e., the exchange of scientific and technical information with the objective of disseminating and utilizing knowledge broadly in multiple sectors.  Examples of knowledge transfer include technology transfer with the intention of supporting innovation, providing key information to public policy makers, or dissemination of knowledge from one field of science to another. 

RELATED URLS
1
Additional Resources (STC Map, Active Centers, Reports, and Items of Interest)
2
STC FAQs
3

THIS PROGRAM IS PART OF
4
Opportunities that Highlight International Collaboration

Wanted by EPA: Scientists for controversial climate mission

By Ben Geman - 04/26/11 09:34 AM ET

The Environmental Protection Agency is seeking experts to help unwrap a wonky but politically charged question: How to measure the carbon footprint of using biomass for energy.

EPA in January backed off applying greenhouse gas permitting rules to power plants and other facilities that use plant matter to make energy.

EPA said it would use the three-year delay to improve methods for accounting for the carbon footprint of using various types of forest and other plant materials. On Wednesday, the agency is slated to publish a request for nominations to serve on a panel of EPA's Science Advisory Board that will weigh the matter.

Accounting for the climate change impacts of biomass energy remains an emerging science, one that wades into whether a renewable energy source is always an environmentally friendly one too.

A key question is how to track carbon released from land-use changes related to harvesting plant matter.

So . . . the solicitation to be released Wednesday says the science advisors want experts who can address topics such as “Forestry, agriculture, and land-use change, specifically the effects of land management practices on the terrestrial biosphere,” and “Land use economics, ecological relationships between land use and climate change and/or estimates of biomass supply and demand.”

EPA's view is that biomass energy is green energy — if done right. Administrator Lisa Jackson, when announcing the permitting delay in January, said, “Renewable, homegrown power sources are essential to our energy future, and an important step to cutting the pollution responsible for climate change.”

But the agency also noted at the time that burning some types of biomass “may result in a net increase in CO2 emissions.”

EPA has come under heavy pressure from the forest industry and some Capitol Hill lawmakers fearful that applying emissions rules to biomass would stymie the market for the energy source.

FEMA Faulted: The Federal Emergency Management Agency needs to significantly improve its information technology programs. In a report issued in early April, the Inspector General's Office at the Department of Homeland Security said FEMA's "existing existing information technology systems do not support disaster response activities effectively."

While FEMA has a number of information technology modernization initiatives under way, the agency lacks a comprehensive information technology strategic plan, the report notes. In addition, FEMA has not completed its efforts to document the agency's enterprise architecture.

"Without these critical elements, the agency is challenged to establish an effective approach to modernize its information technology infrastructure and systems," said Frank Deffer, assistant inspector general at DHS. FEMA spent $391 million on IT in 2010.

Permitting process for Nanocenter site ‘crazy and absurd'

EDGE frustrated over need to find tenant before development starts

By BRYON ACKERMAN Observer-Dispatch Posted Apr 23, 2011 @ 02:10 PM

MARCY —

Ask local officials about the future of the Mohawk Valley, and they're likely to point to the Marcy NanoCenter at SUNYIT site as a sign of hope.

But the permitting process with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has delayed efforts to develop the site, and it continues to restrict Mohawk Valley EDGE's ability to market it to potential companies, said Steven DiMeo, president of the economic development organization.

The permitting efforts have been taking place since June 2006, and EDGE (Economic Development Growth Enterprises Corp.) has spent more than $800,000 on associated legal, engineering and planning costs, DiMeo said.

A new permit issued last week from the Army Corps' Buffalo District still won't allow EDGE to conduct development work on wetlands at the site until EDGE gets a company to commit to locating there.

DiMeo argued that it will be much more difficult to attract a company to the site without first completing the wetlands work.

“It's just crazy and absurd,” DiMeo said. “It defies common sense.”

The goal for the Marcy NanoCenter site is to attract a semiconductor manufacturing company that could transform the local economy by creating jobs and leading to supportive businesses opening.

‘No need'

A permit from the Army Corps last May included Special Condition No. 1, which prevents EDGE from doing work on wetlands on the site until an end user commits to development. EDGE objected to the special condition in July, and the Army Corps rescinded the permit in October, DiMeo said.

The new permit presented last week also restricts mitigation work and the moving of a power line that would have been allowed under the previous permit, DiMeo said.

Bruce Sanders, spokesman of the Army Corps' Buffalo District, said the organization “recognizes the current difficult economic climate and EDGE's interest in bringing new jobs to the Mohawk Valley region.”

“We are also aware of the benefit of having a signed permit in hand as a marketing tool,” Sanders said. “That is why we have exercised the maximum degree of flexibility allowed under federal regulations in twice proffering a permit to EDGE, even though they do not yet have an identified end-user tenant.”

Federal guidelines don't specifically say you have to have an end user before getting a permit to do work on wetlands, but the regulations do say that a need for the work has to be established, said Steven Metivier, chief of the Army Corps New York Applications Evaluation Section, Regulatory Branch.

If EDGE receives a permit but never gets a company to locate there, then you can't justify the necessity of the project, Metivier said.

“Without a tenant, there is no need to fill wetlands on that site,” he said.

The Marcy NanoCenter project would impact almost eight acres of wetlands, but it also would create about 13 acres of new wetlands, permanently preserve almost 24 acres of existing wetlands and involve additional environmental enhancements, according to EDGE.

‘Something similar'

To help its argument, EDGE has found three examples of times when the Army Corps issued permits without having an end user in place for projects on land where wetlands would be impacted. Such permits were awarded in 1991 in Savannah, Ga., in 2006 in Redding, Calif., and in 2007 at the local Schuyler Business Park, DiMeo said.

The project in Georgia was developing the Crossroads Business Center on a 1,784-acre park, which had more than 1,300 acres of wetlands, according to EDGE.

When the Army Corps issued the permit in 1991, there was a news conference in Washington, D.C., to celebrate the achievement, said Andrew Ernst, a Georgia attorney who served as special counsel to the Savannah Economic Development Authority for the project.

The Crossroads Business Center went on to become a major success and is still thriving today, said Ernst, who has more than 30 years of experience in environmental law, land use, commercial real estate development and industrial development.

Ernst said he isn't familiar with the details of the Marcy NanoCenter project, and each Army Corps district office is different, but the project in Georgia shows that the Army Corps has issued permits for work involving wetlands without having an end user in place.

Bridget Brown, the Army Corps project manager for the Marcy NanoCenter site, said the other projects were different — they were business parks with a goal of multiple end users. Development work conducted at the other sites also was primarily focused on infrastructure construction, she said.

“After due diligence, we concluded that those projects are not comparable to the EDGE proposal,” Sanders said.

‘Quickly as possible'

EDGE also has turned to local federal officials to ask for help on the issue, and the members of Congress say they're on the case.

U.S. Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., is trying to help forge a solution because of the impact the project could have on the Mohawk Valley economy, Schumer spokesman Matt House said.

“Sen. Schumer strongly believes that this project should be allowed to move forward as quickly as possible so that we can build a facility that will in turn attract a world-class nanotechnology tenant,” House said.

U.S. Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y., also will continue working with EDGE and the Army Corps to address each side's concerns, spokesman James Rahm said.

On April 4, U.S. Rep. Richard Hanna, R-Barneveld, sent a letter to the Army Corps arguing that past precedent shows that the Army Corps can issue the permit to EDGE without the special condition. On Thursday, Hanna said in a released statement that he would stay involved with the issue.

“I fully support the Mohawk Valley EDGE and their need for a clean permit, without special conditions, so that they can begin construction on the nanotechnology center on the SUNYIT campus,” Hanna said.

A meeting is being organized among EDGE, the Army Corps and the local federal officials, according to Schumer's office.

Copyright 2011 The Observer-Dispatch, Utica, New York. Some rights reserved

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION 48 CFR Parts 4, 8, 17, 37, and 52 [FAR Case 2010-010; Docket 2010-0010, Sequence 1] RIN 9000-AM06 Federal Acquisition Regulation; Service Contracts Reporting Requirements AGENCY: Department of Defense (DoD), General Services Administration (GSA), and National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). ACTION: Proposed rule. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: DoD, GSA, and NASA are proposing to amend the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) to implement section 743 of Division C of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2010. This proposed rule amends the FAR to require service contractors for executive agencies, except the Department of Defense (DoD), covered by the Federal Activities Inventory Reform (FAIR) Act of 1998, to submit information annually in support of agency-level inventories for service contracts.

Superfund Community Involvement

Links

Community Involvement Conference

Community Involvement Awards

Art Miles Mural Project

Helpful Contacts

Superfund Frequent Questions

Newsroom

Community involvement is the process of engaging in dialogue and collaboration with community members.

The goal of Superfund community involvement is to advocate and strengthen early and meaningful community participation during Superfund cleanups. Superfund community involvement staffs at Headquarters and in the Regions strive to:

The Superfund Process

There are several steps involved in cleaning up a Superfund site. This section contains an interactive graphic of the Superfund cleanup process. You can click on each step in the graphic to learn more about that phase of the process.

Community Resources

This section provides information about a variety of technical assistance and training resources provided by EPA. These resources help communities fully participate in decisions at local Superfund sites. In addition, links to related are provided to EPA and other programs that also can be useful to communities with Superfund sites.

Community Involvement Policies and Guidance

This section provides access to EPA policy directives and other documents that guide EPA's community involvement efforts.

Superfund Community Involvement Publications

This section contains EPA publications for community members at Superfund sites. These publications include information about how EPA determines the risk at a site, how to get detailed reports about the site in your area, and how EPA supports reuse of sites after they have been cleaned up.

Superfund Home | Superfund Community Involvement Home


Laws

Laws written by Congress provide the authority for EPA to write regulations.

Regulations

Regulations explain the technical, operational, and legal details necessary to implement laws.

Compliance

Helping government, business and the public meet federal environmental requirements.

Policy & Guidance

EPA maintains a list of significant guidance documents (SGD), as called for by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).

Environmental Justice

Environmental Justice is the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color, national origin, or income with respect to the development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies.

Frequent Questions
You are here:  Water WOur Waters ERivers & Streams

Rivers & Streams

There are over 3.5 million miles of rivers and streams in the U.S., covering an enormous and diverse landscape. Not surprisingly, the condition of the nation's streams and rivers varies widely. Cities and town, farmlands, mines, factories, sewage treatment facilities, dams, and many human activities on the land have significant impacts on the quality of our flowing waters. Understanding the condition of rivers and streams is critical if we are to develop effective plans to maintain, manage, and restore them.

National Aquatic Resource Surveys – Statistically-based surveys of the condition of the Nation's waters

Water Quality Conditions Reported by the States (ATTAINS database) – Search for stream quality information nationally, by state, by watershed, or by waterbody

National Water Quality Inventory Reports (under Section 305b of the Clean Water Act) – National summary reports on the quality of rivers and streams and other waters

Guidance on Assessing River and Stream Condition

Monitoring and Assessing Water Quality

U.S. Congressman Paul Gosar, DDS (AZ-01) and 170 Members of Congress sent a bipartisan letter to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Army Corps of Engineers to express their concerns that the agencies are circumventing proper procedure and pushing through a dramatic expansion of their powers by using the Clean Water Act.

In December 2010, EPA and the Corps sent draft “Clean Water Protection Guidance” to the Office of Management and Budget for regulatory review. By the agencies' own admission, this “Guidance” will substantively change federal policy with respect to which waters fall under the jurisdiction of the Clean Water Act (CWA) and significantly increase the scope of the federal government's power to regulate waters.

“This is just another example of the Environmental Protection Agency's attempt to circumvent Congress and develop rules and regulations that far exceed the authority granted to the agency under existing public law,” said Gosar. “In addition, these rules and regulations are being developed without transparency and with little consideration for the negative impacts they may impose on our local economies.”


Read more: http://www.thestatecolumn.com/state_politics/arizona/rep-paul-gosar-tells-the-epa-to-stop/#ixzz1KEXfqYbP

CGI Initiative for Collaborative Government Launches New Executive Journal, Leadership

Inaugural issue focuses on “Government's Sustainability Moment,” with insights by senior government officials from GSA, NRC, NOAA, and DHS

The CGI Initiative for Collaborative Government , a joint public policy project of CGI with leading academic institutions, announces the launch of a new executive journal, Leadership , which gives voice to government executives who are creatively and effectively addressing the most critical issues facing government.

In observance of Earth Day, the inaugural issue on “Government's Sustainability Moment” examines how green government activities promote sustainability, reduce costs, and transform government operations. Senior government officials featured are:

Each Leadership issue will be led by a CGI Initiative Fellow and will include in-depth analysis and perspectives on a theme challenging leaders. Molly O'Neill, a CGI Initiative Fellow and former Assistant Administrator and Chief Information Officer at the Environmental Protection Agency, provides analysis in the inaugural issue which identifies opportunities for creating a new normal in government that is driven by the push to go green.

Together with Leadership's debut, the CGI Initiative re-launched its website, collaborativegov.org, with a new design that showcases the ideas and best practices of its Fellows, partners, and government officials. Each issue of Leadership will be available on the Initiative's website as well as in print.

Government leader quotes from CGI Initiative's Leadership journal:

“Zero environmental footprint is this generation's moon shot. It's a serious business. It's serious in terms of the economy; it's serious in terms of the environment; and GSA is in the middle of that.” -- Martha Johnson, Administrator, GSA

“We're putting ourselves out there as a green proving ground. We have this imperative to green our buildings, and one of the things we can bargain with is to use our money to be a green test ground for the private sector industry. We think we can test out things, like how well solar arrays work.” -- Robert Peck, Commissioner, Public Buildings Service, GSA

“Given the controversies over nuclear power, it's really incumbent upon us to be an open and transparent agency. That's a legacy that this agency has had for a long time, and it's certainly been something that's been important to me personally.” -- Gregory Jaczko, Chairman, NRC

“We're not a perfectly flat organization, but we try to operate with a flat mentality, with a lot of information sharing and no bureaucratic barriers.” -- William Borchardt, Executive Director of Operations, NRC

“Our mission is fabulous: saving lives and property, and really making sure these treasures of resources are able to be used today and into the future.” -- Mary Glackin, Deputy Under Secretary for Operations, NOAA

“The public counts on NOAA to deliver relevant, accurate and timely data.” -- Joseph Klimavicz, Chief Information Officer, NOAA

“We're trying to reduce both the number of data centers and take advantage of state of the art capabilities to reduce energy consumption.” -- Richard Spires, Chief Information Officer, DHS

Quotes Attributable to Molly O'Neill, CGI Initiative Fellow and former Assistant Administrator and Chief Information Officer, Environmental Protection Agency:

“Just as President Obama declared that the U.S. faces a ‘Sputnik moment,' the federal government faces a ‘sustainability moment'—a crossroad in how aggressively to move forward with green government initiatives.”

“Achieving environmental sustainability goals will transform the operations of government.”

Quote Attributable to Andrew McLauchlin, Executive Director, CGI Initiative for Collaborative Government:

“The CGI Initiative for Collaborative Government gathers and shares best practices and models that help agencies achieve mission results. Our new Leadership journal focuses on themes that challenge leaders in every organization, providing practical insights that are applicable across government, private, and nonprofit sectors.”

Links:

Resources:

CGI Initiative for Collaborative Government logo:

Leadership name flag:

Leadership inaugural cover:

Molly O'Neill photo:

Andrew McLauchlin photo:

About the CGI Initiative for Collaborative Government
The CGI Initiative for Collaborative Government is a joint public policy project of CGI in partnership with leading academic institutions. Launched in January 2008, the initiative's mission is to analyze models of government's collaboration with the private and nonprofit sectors in order to identify best practices in using collaboration to achieve mission results.

For more information:

Susan Balding, Director, Communications
CGI Initiative for Collaborative Government
(703) 227-4253
susan(dot)balding(at)collaborativegov(dot)org

Mara Sheldon
Director, U.S. Media Relations
(703) 267-8402
mara.sheldon(at)collaborativegov(dot)org


CGI Awarded Five-Year, $US46 Million BPA by U.S. General Services Administration

Multi-Vendor BPA Supports Core Component of President's Open Government Directive

“Data.gov is this Administration's flagship program for Open Government and provides unprecedented public access to government data,” said George Schindler, President of CGI Federal. Fairfax, Virginia (Vocus) September 30, 2010

The U.S. General Services Administration (GSA) Office of Government-wide Policy has awarded CGI Federal Inc. (CGI), a wholly-owned U.S. operating subsidiary of CGI Group Inc. (NYSE: GIB; TSX: GIB.A) a five-year blanket purchase agreement (BPA) with a ceiling of up to US$46 million to provide dataset hosting and other information technology services for the Data.gov Web site.

Developed by the Federal CIO Council as part of the Open Government Initiative, Data.gov increases the ability of the public to easily find, download, and use data published by Federal Government agencies. It serves as a central access point for citizens to view, conduct research and analyze federal government data from more than 272,000 datasets supplied by 135 federal agencies. The datasets include a wide range of collected information, including statistics related to public education, health, and geospatial mapping. Under the Data.gov Dataset Hosting Services BPA, CGI will provide hosting services for this important government information, as well as, technology tools for dataset analysis, and professional services.

“Data.gov is this Administration's flagship program for Open Government and provides unprecedented public access to government data,” said George Schindler, President of CGI Federal. “CGI has more than 30 years of experience assisting the U.S. government in harnessing the power of technology to serve our nation's citizens. We are proud to bring our government-wide expertise to advance our long-term partnership with GSA and their commitment to government transparency and collaboration.”

About CGI Federal Inc.
CGI Federal Inc. is a wholly-owned U.S. operating subsidiary of CGI Group Inc., dedicated to partnering with federal agencies to provide solutions for defense, civilian, and intelligence missions. Founded in 1976, CGI Group Inc. is one of the largest independent information technology and business process services firms in the world. CGI and its affiliated companies employ approximately 31,000 professionals. CGI provides end-to-end IT and business process services to clients worldwide from offices and centers of excellence in the United States, Canada, Europe and Asia Pacific. CGI's order backlog is approximately C$13.6 billion and its annualized revenue is approximately C$4.5 billion. CGI shares are listed on the NYSE (GIB) and the TSX (GIB.A) and are included in both, the Dow Jones Sustainability Index and the FTSE4Good Index. Website: http://www.cgi.com .

Forward- Looking Statements
All statements in this press release that do not directly and exclusively relate to historical facts constitute “forward-looking statements” within the meaning of that term in Section 27A of the United States Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and Section 21E of the United States Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and are “forward-looking information” within the meaning of Canadian securities laws. These statements and this information represent CGI's intentions, plans, expectations and beliefs, and are subject to risks, uncertainties and other factors, of which many are beyond the control of the Company. These factors could cause actual results to differ materially from such forward-looking statements or forward-looking information. These factors include but are not restricted to: the timing and size of new contracts; acquisitions and other corporate developments; the ability to attract and retain qualified members; market competition in the rapidly evolving IT industry; general economic and business conditions; foreign exchange and other risks identified in the press release, in CGI's Annual Report on Form 40-F filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (filed on EDGAR at http://www.sec.gov ), the Company's Annual Information Form filed with the Canadian securities authorities (filed on SEDAR at http://www.sedar.com ), as well as assumptions regarding the foregoing. The words “believe,” “estimate,” “expect,” “intend,” “anticipate,” “foresee,” “plan,” and similar expressions and variations thereof, identify certain of such forward-looking statements or forward-looking information, which speak only as of the date on which they are made. In particular, statements relating to future performance are forward-looking statements and forward-looking information. CGI disclaims any intention or obligation to publicly update or revise any forward-looking statements or forward-looking information, whether as a result of new information, future events or otherwise, except as required by applicable law. Readers are cautioned not to place undue reliance on these forward-looking statements or on this forward-looking information. You will find more information about the risks that could cause our actual results to differ significantly from our current expectations in the Risks and Uncertainties section.

For more information:

Investors
Lorne Gorber
Vice-President, Global Communications and Investor Relations
lorne(dot)gorber(at)cgi(dot)com
514 841-3355

Media
Linda Odorisio
Vice-President, US Communications
linda(dot)odorisio(at)cgi(dot)com
703 267-8118

MSDSonline Launches New Hazardous Chemical Inventory Management...

April 22, 2011 -- Comprehensive Compliance Management Solution for EH&S Professionals View News Release

170 in Congress fight EPA water regulations

April 22, 2011

170 Members of Congress Attempt to Hold Agencies Accountable
By National Cattlemen's Beef Association

WASHINGTON (April 18, 2011) – A bipartisan group of 170 members of Congress, led by Bob Gibbs (R-Ohio) and Tim Holden (D-Pa.), issued a letter to Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Lisa Jackson and Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works (Corps) Jo-Ellen Darcy to express concern regarding an attempt by the agencies to expand their jurisdiction over U.S. waters. Specifically, EPA and the Corps sent a draft “guidance” document to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for regulatory review to identify waters subject to jurisdiction under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, more commonly known as the Clean Water Act (CWA). The members of Congress agree that the “guidance” goes beyond clarifying the scope of U.S. waters subject to Clean Water Act programs. National Cattlemen's Beef Association (NCBA) Deputy Environmental Counsel Ashley Lyon said EPA is continuing business as usual, but Congress is pushing back.

“We are grateful for the efforts of 170 members of the U.S. House of Representatives to hold these agencies accountable,” said Lyon. “If EPA has its way, government overreach will continue to financially devastate farmers and ranchers across the country. Giving EPA the go-ahead to regulate every little drop of water in the United States is absurd.”

After the Supreme Court limited jurisdiction of waters in the CWA in two court cases, the Clean Water Restoration Act (CWRA) was introduced in the House by former Congressman James Oberstar (D-Minn.) and in the Senate by former Senator Russ Feingold (D-Wis.). Those bills would have removed the word “navigable” from the definition of “waters of the United States,” which would have given EPA and the Corps virtually limitless jurisdiction over every kind of water whether it was a puddle, ditch, mudflat or otherwise, according to Lyon. She said EPA's best bet for greater control is a “guidance” document, but Congress is holding the agencies accountable to their statutory authority.

“The agencies cannot, through ‘guidance,' change the scope and meaning of the Clean Water Act or the statutes implementing regulations,” the members of Congress penned. “If the administration seeks statutory changes to the Clean Water Act, a proposal must be submitted to Congress for legislative action. If the administration seeks to make regulatory changes, a notice and comment rulemaking in required. We are very concerned by the action contemplated by the agencies…”

The Directorate for Engineering at the National Science Foundation has established the Office of Emerging Frontiers in Research and Innovation (EFRI) to serve a critical role in focusing on important emerging areas in a timely manner.  The EFRI Office is launching a new funding opportunity for interdisciplinary teams of researchers to embark on rapidly advancing frontiers of fundamental engineering research.  For this solicitation, we will consider proposals that aim to investigate emerging frontiers in the following two specific research areas: (1) Engineering New Technologies Based on Multicellular and Inter-kingdom Signaling (MIKS), and (2) Mind, Machines, and Motor Control (M3C).  This solicitation will be coordinated with NSF Directorates listed above.  EFRI seeks proposals with transformative ideas that represent an opportunity for a significant shift in fundamental engineering knowledge with a strong potential for long term impact on national needs or a grand challenge.  The proposals must also meet the detailed requirements delineated in this solicitation.

Subject: Grants.gov Opportunities Posting Update
From:
"notifier07@grants.gov" < notifier+john=ironmountainmine.com@bounces.grants.gov > To: john@ironmountainmine.com
The following grant opportunity postings were made on the Grants.gov Find Opportunities service:

NSF
National Science Foundation
Chemical Catalysis
Modification 9
http://www07.grants.gov/search/search.do?&mode=VIEW&oppId=48430

The synopsis for this grant opportunity is detailed below, following this paragraph. This synopsis contains all of the updates to this document that have been posted as of 07/14/2009 . If updates have been made to the opportunity synopsis, update information is provided below the synopsis.

If you would like to receive notifications of changes to the grant opportunity click send me change notification emails . The only thing you need to provide for this service is your email address. No other information is requested.

Any inconsistency between the original printed document and the disk or electronic document shall be resolved by giving precedence to the printed document.

Document Type: Modification to Previous  Grants Notice
Funding Opportunity Number: PD-09-6884
Opportunity Category: Discretionary
Posted Date: Jul 14, 2009
Creation Date: Apr 05, 2011
Original Closing Date for Applications: Nov 30, 2010    July 01, 2010 - August 02, 2010 CHE Submission Window November 01, 2010 - November 30, 2010 CHE Submission Window
Current Closing Date for Applications: Jul 31, 2011    Submission Window Date(s) (due by 5 p.m. proposer's local time): July 1 - July 31, Annually CHE Submission Window November 1 - November 30, Annually CHE Submission Window
Archive Date:
Funding Instrument Type: Grant
Category of Funding Activity: Science and Technology and other Research and Development
Category Explanation:
Expected Number of Awards: 50
Estimated Total Program Funding: $0
Award Ceiling:
Award Floor:
CFDA Number(s): 47.049  --  Mathematical and Physical Sciences
Cost Sharing or Matching Requirement: No

Eligible Applicants

Unrestricted (i.e., open to any type of entity above), subject to any clarification in text field entitled "Additional Information on Eligibility"

Additional Information on Eligibility:


Agency Name

National Science Foundation

Description

The Chemical Catalysis Program supports experimental and theoretical research directed towards the fundamental understanding of the chemistry of catalytic processes at the molecular level. The Program accepts proposals on catalytic approaches which facilitate, direct, and accelerate efficient chemical transformations. This includes the design and synthesis of catalytic and pre-catalytic species on the molecular, supramolecular, and nanometer scales; and studies of the dynamics of homogeneous and heterogeneous catalytic processes. Processes of interest include (but are not limited to) polymerization catalysis, single site catalysis, asymmetric catalysis, and biologically-inspired catalysis. Applications of modeling, theory, and simulation to catalytic processes are also relevant. Submissions that advance chemical catalysis and address national needs for sustainability are of particular interest. These include fundamental studies of energy-related catalytic processes, CO2 conversion, electrocatalysis (such as in water splitting and fuel cells), photocatalysis (such as in solar energy conversion), catalytic conversions of fossil fuels and biomass, and environmentally-friendly chemical processes.The Program does not support applied catalysis research that focuses on scale-up, processing, transport dynamics, long-term stability and other engineering aspects of catalysis. The Program also does not support biocatalysis research with purely biological enzymes and cellular systems.

Link to Full Announcement

NSF Program Desccription 09-6884

If you have difficulty accessing the full announcement electronically, please contact:

NSF grants.gov support
grantsgovsupport@nsf.gov
If you have any problems linking to this funding announcement, please contact

Synopsis Modification History

The following files represent the modifications to this synopsis with the changes noted within the documents. The list of files is arranged from newest to oldest with the newest file representing the current synopsis. Changed sections from the previous document are shown in a light grey background.

File Name Date
Modification #8 Apr 05, 2011
Modification #7 Aug 13, 2010
Modification #6 Jan 18, 2010
Modification #5 Jan 18, 2010
Modification #4 Jan 18, 2010
Modification #3 Nov 12, 2009
Modification #2 Nov 12, 2009
Modification #1 Nov 12, 2009
Original Synopsis Jul 14, 2009


S.186 -- Safe and Responsible Redeployment of United States Combat Forces from Afghanistan Act of 2011 (Introduced in Senate - IS)

S 186 IS

112th CONGRESS 1st Session

S. 186

To provide for the safe and responsible redeployment of United States combat forces from Afghanistan.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

January 25 (legislative day, January 5), 2011

Mrs. BOXER (for herself, Mr. DURBIN, Mrs. GILLIBRAND, and Mr. BROWN of Ohio) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations

A BILL

To provide for the safe and responsible redeployment of United States combat forces from Afghanistan.

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

SEC. 3. STATEMENT OF POLICY ON PHASED REDEPLOYMENT OF UNITED STATES COMBAT FORCES FROM AFGHANISTAN.

SEC. 4. PLAN FOR COMPLETION OF PHASED REDEPLOYMENT OF COMBAT FORCES.

Cuts Upfront Patent Licensing Costs and Challenges entrepreneurs to Commercialize Technologies from the National Laboratories

Boston, MA - As part of the Obama Administration's  Startup America Initiative , U.S. Energy Secretary Steven Chu today announced the "America's Next Top Energy Innovator" challenge, which will give start-up companies the opportunity to license groundbreaking technologies developed by the National Laboratories for $1,000 and build successful businesses.  As part of this effort, the Department is reducing both the cost and paperwork requirements for start-up companies to obtain an option agreement to license some of the 15,000 patents and patent applications held by our 17 National Laboratories.

"America's entrepreneurs and innovators are the best in the world," said Secretary Chu.  "Today, we're challenging them to create new businesses based on discoveries made by our world-leading national laboratories.  Because we've cut the upfront fees and reduced the paperwork, we'll make it easier for start-up companies to succeed and create the new jobs our economy needs.  Our goal is simple: unleash America's innovation machine and win the global race for the clean energy jobs of the future." 

Currently, only about 10 percent of federal patents have been licensed to be commercialized.  This initiative aims to double the number of startup companies coming out of the National Laboratories.

Specifically, as part of "America's Next Top Energy Innovator:"

On Monday, May 2, 2011, the Department will kick off the challenge by posting a streamlined template option agreement online for entrepreneurs to submit to Laboratories.  Entrepreneurs must identify the technology of interest and submit a business plan to be considered for the program.   Participants will have until December 15 to make their submission to the Laboratory.

Any of the 15,000 unlicensed patents and patent applications held by the National Laboratories will be available for licensing by startup companies

From May 2 to December 15, the Department will reduce the total upfront cost of licensing DOE patents in a specific technology to a $1,000 upfront fee for portfolios of up to three patents.  This represents a savings of $10,000 to $50,000 on average in upfront fees.

Other license terms, such as equity and royalties, will be negotiated on a case by case basis and will typically be due once the company grows and achieves widescale commercial success.  These fees help support the Department's continuing research activities to develop new technologies.

The Department will simplify the licensing process and establish a standard set of terms for start-ups, who generally lack the resources, time or expertise to negotiate individual licensing agreements.  This will significantly reduce both the time and cost required to process the license, allowing faster access to the Department's patents and enabling the Department to process more licenses in a shorter amount of time. 

  1. Entrepreneurs who complete the process and demonstrate progress toward executing their business plan and commercializing the technology will have the opportunity to be showcased at the 3rd Annual ARPA-E Energy Innovation Summit in 2012, which brings together leading technology startups and clean energy investors from around the country.

In addition to these steps, the Department is making it easier for companies to use the world-leading facilities at our National Laboratories to conduct collaborative research and development activities.  Previously, companies had to make an upfront payment covering the first 90 days of research work - a requirement that was often difficult for start-ups to meet.  Today, the Department is lowering the advance payment requirement to 60 days.  This change will benefit all companies - not just start-ups - but could be valuable for those participating in the "America's Next Top Energy Innovator" challenge.

Entrepreneurs interested in participating can already view the available technologies on the Department's  Energy Innovation Portal .

Some of the promising innovations currently available for licensing and featured on the portal include:

Read some  recent examples  (pdf - 162 kb) of established companies and start-ups that have commercialized Department of Energy technologies.

CVJV Partners

Partners

CVJV Management Board Members

First Name Last Name Organization Phone Email
Dan Taylor Audubon California 916-649-7600 dtaylor@audubon.org
Greg Yarris California Waterfowl Association 916-648-1406 greg_yarris@calwaterfowl.org
Kim Delfino Defenders of Wildlife 916-313-5800 x 109 kdelfino@defenders.org
Fritz Reid Ducks Unlimited 916-852-2000 freid@ducks.org
Ellie Cohen PRBO Conservation Science 415-868-1221 x 318 emcohen@prbo.org
John Carlon River Partners 530-894-5401 jcarlon@riverpartners.org
Sandi Matsumoto The Nature Conservancy 805-746-6664 smatsumoto@tnc.org
Erik Vink Trust for Public Land 916-557-1673 x 16 erik.vink@tpl.org

CVJV Ex-Officio Agency Representatives

First Name Last Name Organization Phone Email
Karen Buhr CA Assn. of Resource Conservation Districts 916-457-7904 karen-buhr@carcd.org
Brad Burkholder CA Department of Fish and Game 916-445-1829 bburkholder@dfg.ca.gov
Michael Perrone CA Department of Water Resources 916-376-9688 mperrone@water.ca.gov
TBA TBA CA Resources Agency 916-651-7587 TBA
Julia Cox CA State Parks 916-651-6915 jcox@parks.ca.gov
Chad Fien CA Wildlife Conservation Board 916-323-8979 cfien@dfg.ca.gov
Mike Best PG&E Company 209-932-2559 MBB8@pge.com
Mario Parker US Army Corps of Engineers 916-557-6701 Mario.G.Parker@usace.army.mil
Erin Dreyfuss US Bureau Of Land Management 916-978-4642 edreyfus@ca.blm.gov
Dan Strait US Bureau Of Reclamation 916-978-5250 dstrait@usbr.gov
Carolyn Yale US Environmental Protection Agency 415-972-3482 yale.carolyn@epa.gov
Marie Strassburger US Fish and Wildlife Service 916-414-6727 Marie_E_Strassburger@fws.gov
Dean Kwasny USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service 530-792-5648 dean.kwasny@ca.usda.gov
Steven Schwarzbach US Geological Survey 916-278-9485 steven_schwarzbach@usgs.gov

Items 1 through 12 of 12

1. H.R.242 : To clarify the implementation and enforcement of Subpart B of the Travel Management Rule (36 C.F.R. 212), relating to the designation of roads, trails, and areas for motor vehicle use, in administrative units of the National Forest System in California, and for other purposes.
Sponsor: Rep Herger, Wally [CA-2] (introduced 1/7/2011)       Cosponsors (3)
Committees: House Natural Resources
Latest Major Action: 1/26/2011 Referred to House subcommittee. Status: Referred to the Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Public Lands.

2. H.R.397 : Reform Americans Can Afford Act of 2011
Sponsor: Rep Herger, Wally [CA-2] (introduced 1/24/2011)       Cosponsors (16)
Committees: House Energy and Commerce; House Ways and Means; House Education and the Workforce; House Judiciary; House Administration; House Natural Resources; House Appropriations; House Rules
Latest Major Action: 2/9/2011 Referred to House subcommittee. Status: Referred to the Subcommittee on Health.

3. H.R.674 : To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal the imposition of 3 percent withholding on certain payments made to vendors by government entities.
Sponsor: Rep Herger, Wally [CA-2] (introduced 2/11/2011)       Cosponsors (75)
Committees: House Ways and Means
Latest Major Action: 2/11/2011 Referred to House committee. Status: Referred to the House Committee on Ways and Means.

4. H.R.675 : Strengthening Medicare Anti-Fraud Measures Act of 2011
Sponsor: Rep Herger, Wally [CA-2] (introduced 2/11/2011)       Cosponsors (25)
Committees: House Energy and Commerce; House Ways and Means; House Budget
Latest Major Action: 2/18/2011 Referred to House subcommittee. Status: Referred to the Subcommittee on Health.

5. H.R.817 : To amend the Antiquities Act of 1906 to place additional requirements on the establishment of national monuments under that Act, and for other purposes.
Sponsor: Rep Herger, Wally [CA-2] (introduced 2/18/2011)       Cosponsors (9)
Committees: House Natural Resources
Latest Major Action: 2/24/2011 Referred to House subcommittee. Status: Referred to the Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Public Lands.

6. H.R.880 : Equity for Our Nation's Self-Employed Act of 2011
Sponsor: Rep Herger, Wally [CA-2] (introduced 3/2/2011)       Cosponsors (12)
Committees: House Ways and Means
Latest Major Action: 3/2/2011 Referred to House committee. Status: Referred to the House Committee on Ways and Means.

7. H.R.1183 : Suzanne Gonzales Suicide Prevention Act of 2011
Sponsor: Rep Herger, Wally [CA-2] (introduced 3/17/2011)       Cosponsors (2)
Committees: House Judiciary
Latest Major Action: 3/17/2011 Referred to House committee. Status: Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.

8. H.R.1237 : To provide for a land exchange with the Trinity Public Utilities District of Trinity County, California, involving the transfer of land to the Bureau of Land Management and the Six Rivers National Forest in exchange for National Forest System land in the Shasta-Trinity National Forest, and for other purposes.
Sponsor: Rep Herger, Wally [CA-2] (introduced 3/29/2011)       Cosponsors (None)
Committees: House Natural Resources
Latest Major Action: 3/31/2011 Referred to House subcommittee. Status: Referred to the Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Public Lands.

9. H.R.1267 : To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to modify the application of the tonnage tax on certain vessels.
Sponsor: Rep Herger, Wally [CA-2] (introduced 3/30/2011)       Cosponsors (3)
Committees: House Ways and Means
Latest Major Action: 3/30/2011 Referred to House committee. Status: Referred to the House Committee on Ways and Means.

10. H.R.1485 : Catastrophic Wildfire Community Protection Act
Sponsor: Rep Herger, Wally [CA-2] (introduced 4/12/2011)       Cosponsors (10)
Committees: House Agriculture; House Natural Resources
Latest Major Action: 4/12/2011 Referred to House committee. Status: Referred to the Committee on Agriculture, and in addition to the Committee on Natural Resources, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.

San Francisco Bay-Delta Estuary: Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking for Water Quality Issues in the San Francisco Bay/Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Estuary

Larger version »

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is publishing an advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPR) to seek comments from interested parties on possible EPA actions to address water quality conditions affecting aquatic resources in the San Francisco Bay/Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Estuary (Bay Delta Estuary) in California. EPA is asking the public to consider broadly whether EPA should be taking new or different actions under its programs to address recent significant declines in multiple aquatic species in the Bay Delta Estuary. EPA is not limiting its request to actions that would require rulemaking. There may be a range of changes in EPA‘s activities in the Bay Delta Estuary that would be constructive, including enforcement, research, revisions to water quality standards, etc. EPA will consider all comments before deciding what changes, if any, should be pursued. After reviewing the comments and completing its evaluation, EPA will provide the results of its review and any proposed next steps to the public. This ANPR identifies specific issues on which EPA solicits comment, including potential site-specific water quality standards and site-specific changes to pesticide regulation. In addition to the specific issues on which EPA solicits comments, EPA is interested in comments on any other aspects of EPA‘s programs affecting Bay Delta Estuary aquatic resources.

This ANPR has no regulatory impact or effect. The ANPR contains descriptions of certain EPA programs relevant to the Bay Delta Estuary and poses questions about how these programs could better protect and improve water quality for the benefit of aquatic resources in the Bay Delta Estuary. This ANPR marks the beginning of a process to consider possible changes to EPA programs in the Bay Delta Estuary.

From: Message from the Administrator

To: All EPA Employees

Date: 04/06/2011 12:11 PM

Subject: A Message on the Budget

Dear Colleagues,

The continuing budget situation is a matter of obvious concern for everyone at the EPA and all of our colleagues in Federal government. My first priority is to provide you with as much information as possible to ensure you are fully aware of ongoing efforts, and fully informed on how any decisions may affect you, and our mission to protect the health and the environment of the American people.

Throughout the discussions about funding for the rest of the fiscal year, the President has made it clear that he wants to avoid a government shutdown. In the face of tough choices, the goal has always been to maintain core services and ensure that the important work done by the EPA and other Federal agencies continues uninterrupted. That is why the Administration has been working day and night to find a solution on which all sides can agree — work that continues today. Given the realities of the calendar, however, prudent management requires that we plan for an orderly shutdown should Congress be unable to pass a funding bill by Friday of this week.

The President and I know that the uncertainty of the current situation puts federal employees in a difficult position. We are very much aware that a shutdown would impose hardships on many employees as well as the groups and individuals our agency serves. I have pledged to keep you informed throughout this process, and as we approach the expiration of the current Continuing Resolution, we will provide you with updated information as soon as it becomes available. For now, I want to provide you with basic information on how the potential shutdown — should it occur — will impact Federal employees.

As soon as funding lapses, Federal departments and agencies will not be permitted to perform activities funded by annual appropriations, except those activities related to the orderly suspension of operations or performance of excepted activities. This means that some employees will be furloughed and unable to work, and our contingency planning for the potential funding lapse includes determining which agency functions are excepted from a furlough. Should it become necessary to implement contingency plans, you will receive formal notice from your manager no later than Friday April 8th about your furlough status.

The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) has created a document to address some of the questions that I know must be on your mind. The document can be accessed at http://www.opm.gov/furlough2011. OPM will provide additional information for federal employees as the week progresses, and we'll continue to do our best to provide clear information about the status of events as the week progresses.

It is through your hard work and dedication that the EPA is able to safeguard the health and the environment of millions of Americans. Your contributions touch people's lives in significant ways, and I am deeply appreciative of everything that you do. Thank you for your continued service to the EPA and the nation.

Sincerely,

Lisa P. Jackson


Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0411/52664.html#ixzz1ImfBHBCZ

Hydropower Buzz Gains Momentum With Senate Bills, Administration Investments

By KATIE HOWELL of Greenwire
Published: April 6, 2011

An often-overlooked renewable energy source is gaining momentum as lawmakers on Capitol Hill struggle to find consensus in an increasingly partisan environment and the Obama administration is looking to decrease reliance on foreign oil.

A trio of hydropower measures is moving rapidly through the Senate, at least two federal agencies are taking a hard look at hydropower potential, and the Obama administration is beefing up its investment in hydropower technologies with the Interior and Energy departments yesterday announcing $26.6 million in funding for hydropower research and development projects.

"The time is ripe to expand the country's hydropower capacity," said Andrew Munro, president of the National Hydropower Association, during he industry's annual meeting this week in Washington, D.C.

Perhaps the biggest movement on the hydropower front in recent weeks is the rapid advancement in the Senate of several bipartisan hydropower measures. Just weeks after introduction, two bipartisan hydropower measures ( S. 629 (pdf) and S. 630 (pdf)) from Senate Energy and Natural Resources ranking member Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) may be some of the first legislation the committee takes up this year.

"I'm expecting that we will move quickly to report out these measures," Murkowski said yesterday during remarks at the hydropower conference.

The committee has already held a hearing on the two measures that would advance hydropower project deployment by requiring better interagency coordination, funding competitive grants for increased production and investing in more research and development, and promote development of marine and hydrokinetic energy resources by promoting research, testing and certification of the new technologies. The committee also heard testimony on the energy and water portions of the 2009 energy bill ( S. 1462 (pdf)) that was reported out of committee on a bipartisan vote.

And Chairman Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.) has indicated bipartisan measures, like the two Murkowski bills and the S. 1462 language, could be among the first measures the committee marks up in the next two weeks.

"We're anxious to find solutions to energy problems," Bingaman said last week. "I think we'll have good support for practical solutions, maybe not on everything but a lot of things."

Murkowski said she and Bingaman yesterday were slated to hash out a committee markup schedule for the next two months.

"My hope is that both of these measures make it through the process in this next month," she said.

Murkowski's measures already enjoy broad bipartisan support both on and off the committee, and it is little surprise as hydropower has a much broader regional distribution than other renewable energy sources.

Utilizing existing dams

A new Oak Ridge National Laboratory study released yesterday found that by adding power-generation equipment to existing dams, the United States could generate more than 12 gigawatts of electricity. A sizeable portion of that new generation capacity -- 3,000 megawatts -- could be sourced from 10 large dams in the South, Midwest and Rust Belt.

And an Interior Department study released last week showed that the agency could generate up to 1 million megawatt-hours of electricity each year by adding hydropower capacity to some of its existing structures, like dams, canals and divergent structures, in 14 Western states.

Hydropower has been criticized by conservationists for the heavy environmental footprint associated with dam construction and stream divergence. But hydropower proponents say increasing generation at existing structures would be a low-impact way to boost the nation's renewable energy portfolio.

"Adding hydropower capability at existing [Bureau of Reclamation] facilities is a cost-effective and environmentally sustainable way to build our clean energy economy," said Assistant Secretary for Water and Science Anne Castle. "We can increase our renewable hydropower output without building new dams" ( E&E Daily , April 1).

Indeed, the Oak Ridge study found that 3 percent of the nation's 80,000 dams currently generate electricity.

Copyright 2011 E&E Publishing. All Rights Reserved.

The Federal Government Found Liable Under CERCLA as a Result of its Oversight of Federal Mining Leases

3.22.11 On March 4, 2011, in Nu-West Mining Inc. v. United States , the district court for the District of Idaho determined that the United States' oversight of waste disposal activities at historic mines on federal lands was sufficient to render it liable as an operator and arranger under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA). Owner liability was undisputed. The plaintiffs, Nu-West Mining Inc. and Nu-West Industries Inc. (Nu-West), are the current holders of the government leases under which four mines were operated from the 1960s to the 1990s. In the 1990s, after selenium contamination was discovered at the sites, Nu-West entered into consent orders with the United States to clean up the sites. To date, Nu-West claims to have spent $10 million to clean up the sites. The selenium contamination resulted from the use of middle waste shale—a layer of rock rich in selenium which lies between economically valuable (phosphate ore-bearing) strata—as a cover over waste rock piles. As part of its oversight of the commercial development of the federal mining leases, the United States allowed waste disposal activities on adjacent federal lands and required lessees to build waste rock piles with covers consisting of middle waste shale. In applying the Supreme Court's standard in Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. United States , the court focused on the United States' intent that the waste disposal activities occur. At the time of the disposal, neither the United States nor the lessees knew that the middle waste shale would leach selenium. Although the court did not address that fact, it was the use of middle waste shale as a cover for waste rock piles—required by the United States as a condition of mining approval—which ultimately resulted in the release of a hazardous substance. In this case, the court relied on the government's own documents, which established that the government was directly and extensively involved in the design and location of the waste rock piles and the fact that the government retained its ownership interest over all of its property rights in the mine sites except those conveyed in the mineral leases (i.e., the right to mine for phosphate, phosphate rock, and related minerals). The court flatly rejected the government's argument that it could not be liable under CERCLA for acting in what it characterized as a purely regulatory role. Because many projects on federal land will entail retained federal ownership of the land and similar oversight and control over waste disposal activities, the outcome of this case may be of great utility if the court allocates any significant portion of cleanup costs to the United States in subsequent proceedings. Neither the issue of the effectiveness of any defenses that may be asserted by the United States nor whether the action was properly brought under §107 (see Jason A. Flower, The Assault on §107 Cost Recovery Claims , Environmental Law 360, Sept. 24, 2010) were addressed in this partial summary judgment proceeding. It is unclear what defenses (other than the regulatory action defense rejected in this proceeding), if any, the government may raise. Statutory defenses such as act of God or act of war are not relevant and the third party act or omission defense would be precluded by the contractual relationship and the government's extensive involvement in designing waste rock pile structure and location. Other transactional defenses (secured creditor, innocent landowner, bona fide prospective purchaser, and contiguous property owner) also are inapplicable as the government owned the land and was involved in the waste disposal activities which caused the selenium releases. If equitable defenses are raised, they are more likely to be considered in apportioning costs. What This Means to You The potential importance of this case is not limited to mining operations. If you are under a federal cleanup order for waste disposal activities on federal land, you may be able to shift some of that expense back to the federal government. We will track this case to see how the court rules on any defenses raised by the government, whether any recovery may be had, and how it apportions costs. In addition, this case may also be important for other private parties who conducted activities on federal lands where those activities were subject to close federal oversight and approval as arranger liability can be premised on similar oversight. Contact Info If you would like to discuss potential remedies available in your situation, please contact  Coty Hopinks-Baul at 314.480.1883,  Charles Merrill at 314.480.1952, or any members of Husch Blackwell's  Environmental and Natural Resources practice group. Husch Blackwell LLP regularly publishes updates on industry trends and new developments in the law for our clients and friends. Please contact us if you would like to receive updates and newsletters, or request a printed copy. Husch Blackwell encourages you to reprint this material. Please include the statement, "Reprinted with permission from Husch Blackwell LLP, copyright 2011, www.huschblackwell.com " at the end of any reprints. Please also email info@huschblackwell.com to tell us of your reprint. This information is intended only to provide general information in summary form on legal and business topics of the day. The contents hereof do not constitute legal advice and should not be relied on as such. Specific legal advice should be sought in particular matters.

Article I -- Table of Contents Prev | Next

AUTHORITY OVER PLACES PURCHASED “Places” This clause has been broadly construed to cover all structures necessary for carrying on the business of the National Government. 1621 It includes post offices, 1622 a hospital and a hotel located in a national park, 1623 and locks and dams for the improvement of navigation. 1624 But it does not cover lands acquired for forests, parks, ranges, wild life sanctuaries or flood control. 1625 Nevertheless, the Supreme Court has held that a State may convey, and the Congress may accept, either exclusive or qualified jurisdiction over property acquired within the geographical limits of a State, for purposes other than those enumerated in clause 17. 1626 After exclusive jurisdiction over lands within a State has been ceded to the United States, Congress alone has the power to punish crimes committed within the ceded territory. 1627 Private property located thereon is not subject to taxation by the State, 1628 nor can state statutes enacted subsequent to the transfer have any operation therein. 1629 But the local laws in force at the date of cession that are protective of private rights continue in force until abro [p.338] gated by Congress. 1630 Moreover, as long as there is no interference with the exclusive jurisdiction of the United States, an area subject thereto may be annexed by a municipality. 1631 Duration of Federal Jurisdiction A State may qualify its cession of territory by a condition that jurisdiction shall be retained by the United States only so long as the place is used for specified purposes. 1632 Such a provision operates prospectively and does not except from the grant that portion of a described tract which is then used as a railroad right of way. 1633 In 1892, the Court upheld the jurisdiction of the United States to try a person charged with murder on a military reservation, over the objection that the State had ceded jurisdiction only over such portions of the area as were used for military purposes and that the particular place on which the murder was committed was used solely for farming. The Court held that the character and purpose of the occupation having been officially established by the political department of the government, it was not open to the Court to inquire into the actual uses to which any portion of the area was temporarily put. 1634 A few years later, however, it ruled that the lease to a city, for use as a market, of a portion of an area which had been ceded to the United States for a particular purpose, suspended the exclusive jurisdiction of the United States. 1635 The question arose whether the United States retains jurisdiction over a place, which was ceded to it unconditionally, after it has abandoned the use of the property for governmental purposes and entered into a contract for the sale thereof to private persons. Minnesota asserted the right to tax the equitable interest of the purchaser in such land, and the Supreme Court upheld its right to do so. The majority assumed that “the Government's unrestricted transfer of property to nonfederal hands is a relinquishment of the exclusive legislative power.” 1636 In separate concurring opinions, [p.339] Chief Justice Stone and Justice Frankfurter reserved judgment on the question of territorial jurisdiction. 1637 Reservation of Jurisdiction by States For more than a century the Supreme Court kept alive, by repeated dicta, 1638 the doubt expressed by Justice Story “whether Congress are by the terms of the Constitution, at liberty to purchase lands for forts, dockyards, etc., with the consent of a State legislature, where such consent is so qualified that it will not justify the ‘exclusive legislation' of Congress there. It may well be doubted if such consent be not utterly void.” 1639 But when the issue was squarely presented in 1937, the Court ruled that where the United States purchases property within a State with the consent of the latter, it is valid for the State to convey, and for the United States to accept, “concurrent jurisdiction” over such land, the State reserving to itself the right to execute process “and such other jurisdiction and authority over the same as is not inconsistent with the jurisdiction ceded to the United States.” 1640 The holding logically renders the second half of clause 17 superfluous. In a companion case, the Court ruled further that even if a general state statute purports to cede exclusive jurisdiction, such jurisdiction does not pass unless the United States accepts it. 1641 Clause 18. The Congress shall have Power * * * To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by the Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: DISTRAINT OF PROPERTY
From: < john@ironmountainmine.com >
Date: Sun, March 27, 2011 3:54 pm
To: ted@ironmountainmine.com

SUSTAINABLE & COMPREHENSIVE INSTITUTIONAL CONTROLS
The General Services Administration's Dave McClure told an AFCEA crowd this week that GSA-led “tiger teams” are working to improve the cloud-computing security guidelines FedRAMP , short for Federal Risk and Authorization Management Program. But McClure said they aren't interested in reinventing the wheel. Speculation has swirled that creating FedRamp is essentially “blowing up [ the Federal Information Security Management Act ] and completely redesigning the security approach to the federal government,” McClure said. But that is only a myth. As Government Computer News reported , the cloud-security guidelines are instead focused on the “security accreditation process by using an approach that can be vetted and reused across the government,” McClure said. There have been a few hiccups. When GSA released a draft of the regulations, it garnered significant public comments — enough so that federal Chief Information Officer Vivek Kundra decided to extend the comment period and push back implementation, GCN reports. In the meantime, GSA has launched so-called “tiger teams,” made up of officials from across the government, McClure said, to address those concerns. Click here to read the full Government Computer News report along with the seven steps the tiger teams are taking to improve FedRAMP regulations.
COEFFICIENT OR ELASTIC CLAUSE Scope of Incidental Powers That this clause is an enlargement, not a constriction, of the powers expressly granted to Congress, that it enables the lawmakers to select any means reasonably adapted to effectuate those [p.340] powers, was established by Marshall's classic opinion in McCulloch v. Maryland. 1642 “Let the end be legitimate,” he wrote, “let it be within the scope of the Constitution, and all means which are appropriate, which are plainly adapted to that end, which are not prohibited, but consistent with the letter and spirit of the Constitution, are constitutional.” 1643 Moreover, the provision gives Congress a share in the responsibilities lodged in other departments, by virtue of its right to enact legislation necessary to carry into execution all powers vested in the National Government. Conversely, where necessary for the efficient execution of its own powers, Congress may delegate some measure of legislative power to other departments. 1644 Operation of Coefficient Clause Practically every power of the National Government has been expanded in some degree by the coefficient clause. Under its authority Congress has adopted measures requisite to discharge the treaty obligations of the nation; 1645 it has organized the federal judicial system and has enacted a large body of law defining and punishing crimes. Effective control of the national economy has been made possible by the authority to regulate the internal commerce of a State to the extent necessary to protect and promote interstate commerce. 1646 The right of Congress to utilize all known and appropriate means for collecting the revenue, including the distraint of property for federal taxes, 1647 and its power to acquire property needed for the operation of the Government by the exercise of the power of eminent domain, 1648 have greatly extended the range of national power. But the widest application of the necessary and proper clause has occurred in the field of monetary and fiscal controls. Inasmuch as the various specific powers granted by Article I, Sec. 8, do not add up to a general legislative power over such matters, the Court has relied heavily upon this clause in sustaining [p.341] the comprehensive control which Congress has asserted over this subject. 1649

Solicitation  11-522

DUE DATES

Preliminary Proposal Deadline Date:  May 30, 2011

Full Proposal Deadline Date:  February 3, 2012

Full proposals are by invitation only.

SYNOPSIS
1

The Science and Technology Centers (STC): Integrative Partnerships program supports innovative, potentially transformative, complex research and education projects that require large-scale, long-term awards. STCs conduct world-class research through partnerships among academic institutions, national laboratories, industrial organizations, and/or other public/private entities , and via international collaborations, as appropriate. They provide a means to undertake significant investigations at the interfaces of disciplines and/or fresh approaches within disciplines. STCs may involve any areas of science and engineering that NSF supports. STC investments support the NSF vision of advancing discovery, innovation and education beyond the frontiers of current knowledge, and empowering future generations in science and engineering.

Centers provide a rich environment for encouraging future scientists, engineers, and educators to take risks in pursuing discoveries and new knowledge. STCs foster excellence in education by integrating education and research, and by creating bonds between learning and inquiry so that discovery and creativity fully support the learning process.

NSF expects STCs to demonstrate leadership in the involvement of groups traditionally underrepresented in science and engineering at all levels (faculty, students, and postdoctoral researchers) within the Center.  Centers use either proven or innovative mechanisms to address issues such as recruitment, retention and mentorship of participants from underrepresented groups. 

Centers must undertake activities that facilitate knowledge transfer, i.e., the exchange of scientific and technical information with the objective of disseminating and utilizing knowledge broadly in multiple sectors.  Examples of knowledge transfer include technology transfer with the intention of supporting innovation, providing key information to public policy makers, or dissemination of knowledge from one field of science to another. 

RELATED URLS
1
Additional Resources (STC Map, Active Centers, Reports, and Items of Interest)
1

AstraZeneca settles US tax dispute, raises earnings

LONDON (AFP) – Anglo-Swedish pharmaceuticals giant AstraZeneca said Monday it had settled a tax dispute with US authorities by agreeing on a net payment of $ 1.1 billion (783 million euros).

AstraZeneca additionally raised its 2011 earnings target after also securing a lower tax rate and being able to free up some of the $ 2.3 billion it had set aside as tax provisions, it said in a group statement.

The company said it would release some of the excess provisions, resulting in a net gain to the company's first-quarter earnings of $ 500 million.

AstraZeneca added that it was now targeting full-year core earnings per share of up to $ 7.20 from a previous estimate of $ 6.75, according to the statement.

Resolution of the tax dispute came after British and US government fiscal authorities agreed to the terms of a pricing agreement for AstraZeneca's US business for a 13-year period from 2002 to the end of 2014.

AstraZeneca added that it had reached agreement with the US tax authorities on a related valuation matter arising on integration of its US businesses in 2000 after the 1999 merger of Swedish group Astra and British company Zeneca.

“Based on these agreements, AstraZeneca now expects to pay a net amount of $ 1.1 billion to resolve all US transfer pricing and related valuation matters for all periods from 2000 to the end of 2010,” the group said in its statement.

http://us.rd.yahoo.com/dailynews/rss/business/*http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20110328/bs_afp/britainuspharmaearningstaxcompanyastrazeneca

MOTION TO PERPETUATE TESTIMONY

Because this action does not propose or impose any requirements and instead seeks comments and suggestions for the Agency to consider in possibly developing a subsequent proposed rule, the various statutes and Executive Orders that normally apply to rulemaking do not apply in this case. Should EPA subsequently determine to pursue a rulemaking, EPA will address the statutes and Executive Orders as applicable to that rulemaking. Dated: February 10, 2011. Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9. [FR Doc. 2011-3861 Filed 2-18-11; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P

EPA Exceeds Clean Water Authority!

On Thursday, the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans ruled that U.S. Environmental Protection Agency cannot require livestock operations to obtain Clean Water Act permits unless they are discharging manure into a waterway. It was a major victory for U.S. livestock and poultry producers.

American Farm Bureau Federation, National Pork Producers, United Egg Producers and several other ag groups sued EPA over its so-called CAFO rule. It's the second ruling against EPA since 2005 over essentially the same issue: EPA sought to require permits for operations that had a "potential" to discharge.

EPA's 2008 CAFO regulation set a zero-discharge standard. It required a Clean Water Act for all CAFOs that discharge or "propose" to discharge. The rule covered production areas and crop land on which manure is applied and imposed fines of up to $37,500 a day.

"The court recognized a clear limit on EPA's authority and required the agency to comply with the clean water law," said  Doug Wolf, president of the National Pork Producers Council, and a pork producer from Lancaster, Wis.

The ag groups contended that the 2008 rule "constitutes a thinly veiled effort to impose the same duty to apply that was invalidated" by the 2nd Circuit in New York. The 5th Circuit Court agreed, noting that "there must be an actual discharge … to trigger the CWA's requirements and EPA's authority." It also struck down the CAFO rule's "failure to apply" provision, stating that its imposition is "outside the bounds of the CWA's mandate."

Environmental justice: An old idea with a new emphasis

By CAROL SMITH
INVESTIGATEWEST

Environmental justice is an old mandate getting a new life under Lisa Jackson, the first African-American head of the Environmental Protection Agency.

Environmental justice refers to the fair treatment of all communities when it comes to enforcing environmental laws and protecting them from health and environmental hazards. It was first made a federal priority with a 1994 executive order intended to right inequities in minority and low-income communities that were experiencing a disproportionate share of the nation's environmental hazards.

The order, signed by President Clinton, required all federal agencies to incorporate environmental justice into their decision-making processes.

But the mission languished for the next several decades.

A 2007 study by Sandra George O'Neil published in Environmental Health Perspectives, for example, concluded that inequities had not only persisted, but also escalated in the intervening years with fewer polluted sites in minority and low-income communities being designated for Superfund cleanup funds, compared with those in wealthier areas.

That study along with criticism of the Superfund program by the Government Accounting Office and the U.S. Office of the Inspector General galvanized a call to reform the approach to environmental justice among federal agencies.

Under the Obama Administration, the EPA along with other federal agencies has a strict new edict to take justice into account. Jackson has assumed a high-profile role in evangelizing for environmental justice. She is mid-stream in a well-publicized "Environmental Justice Tour" that is taking her around the country visiting communities beleaguered by toxic waste.

And that in turn has invigorated communities with a new enthusiasm that raising their voices will make a difference.

Japan Earthquake & Tsunami and What They Mean for the U.S., written by Mr. Mike Mahoney (Geophysicist for FEMA NEHRP and Coordinating Committee Member for the National Tsunami Hazard Mitigation Program ).

This document explains what happened in Japan and what we can do in the U.S. to increase our individual and community resilience from an earthquake and/or tsunami event. This also includes recommended FEMA publications and useful web links for additional resources.

Please SHARE this document with others! This document will also be available from the FEMA Library .

To view or download other NEHRP publications and products or to sign up for updates on earthquake risk mitigation publications, news, and events, visit Earthquake Publications and Tools .

The Department of Homeland Security's Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) is pleased to announce the release of The National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program: FEMA Accomplishments in Fiscal Year 2010 .

The National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program (NEHRP), which was first authorized by Congress in 1977, seeks to mitigate earthquake losses in the United States through basic and directed research and implementation activities in the fields of earthquake science and engineering. As one of the four NEHRP federal agencies, FEMA is responsible for developing effective earthquake risk reduction tools and promoting their implementation, as well as supporting the development of disaster-resistant building codes and standards. FEMA's NEHRP activities are led by the FEMA Headquarters, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, Risk Reduction Division, Building Science Branch, in strong partnership and coordination with the FEMA Regions, the states, the four multi-state earthquake consortia, and other partners.

This report highlights a cross-section of successful FEMA NEHRP projects and programs in Fiscal Year (FY) 2010. Some of the more exciting activities and accomplishments include ROVER, a new IT-based data collection and evaluation tool developed with the Applied Technology Council; FEMA's QuakeSmart program to assist local businesses mitigate earthquake losses; continuing work on the Performance-Based Seismic Design project; and engineering field work in Chile after the 8.8 magnitude earthquake. The report also includes many successful state, local, and regional activities in earthquake training and awareness, seismic safety inspections, building codes adoption, the development of multi-state groups, and public outreach.

The accomplishments described in the FY 2010 report show how FEMA and its partners, working in collaboration, are continuing to make progress toward earthquake loss-reduction nationwide. Work completed in 2010 will have applications immediately or in the near term in reducing earthquake risk. Work advanced in 2010 also is creating a strong foundation for realizing similarly effective outcomes in future years.

EPA feels pushback on tough regulation Congress looking to cut agency's power Monday, March 21, 2011 By Daniel Malloy, Post-Gazette Washington Bureau

WASHINGTON -- The Environmental Protection Agency, says Jim Laurita, is standing in the way of a project that should be a no-brainer.

Mr. Laurita is CEO of Dana Mining Co., which reached an agreement in 2003 with Pennsylvania's Department of Environmental Protection to split costs with the state to pump water out of the abandoned Shannopin Mine in Greene County, run it through a treatment plant and dump it in Dunkard Creek, a Monongahela River tributary.

The state allowed Dana, through a nonprofit called AMDRI, to dump water with pollution levels higher than the typical standard into the stream, avoiding potential disaster in the area's waterways if the acidic mine water were to overflow. Dana benefits by preventing an underground flood in its own mine nearby.

But a permit renewal for the project has been held up because state regulators want stricter controls on pollutants in the water. Mr. Laurita said his company cannot afford the more expensive treatment required, and he sees the EPA at work behind the scenes pressuring the state.

"It's been a win-win, but EPA doesn't look at stuff like that," he said. "And that's the problem. There's no practical basis by which some of these federal agencies operate."

The EPA under President Barack Obama and Administrator Lisa P. Jackson has enforced clean air and clean water standards at a pace too aggressive for many industries' tastes.

Now Congress, led by the newly Republican-controlled House of Representatives, is seeking to curtail the agency's power and has made EPA a top target for criticisms of administration overreach.

A House committee last week passed a bill to block the EPA from regulating greenhouse gases, with the Senate likely to vote soon on a similar measure. A government funding bill recently passed by House Republicans would have slashed EPA's budget by a third. Ms. Jackson, by a Washington Post tally, has been called to testify before Congress this year more than any other federal agency director, and has been a frequent subject of tongue-lashings in high-ceilinged hearing rooms.

"I'm not happy with EPA on several different levels in the way they've been working in Pennsylvania recently," said Rep. Mark Critz, D-Johnstown, citing the Dana case in his district.

"My gut reaction because I'm so angry with them is to cut them from being able to do anything until they sit down and start acting more reasonably."

Still, Mr. Critz wouldn't commit to voting for the bill sponsored by Rep. Fred Upton, R-Mich., that would ban the agency from regulating greenhouse gas emissions, saying he was still studying the issue.

"We can't just knee-jerk react to things, and that's what I'm trying to protect against," he said.

In 2009 EPA found that the emissions cause global warming and thus pose a danger to human health, so the agency is in the midst of developing regulations to curb them under the Clean Air Act. The agency's foes say the pending rules are a way to enact through fiat what Congress could not do with legislation, as even with massive Democratic majorities it did not pass a climate bill in the last Congress.

"The American people aren't there," said Rep. Jason Altmire, D-McCandless, who supports the concept of the Upton bill but is still parsing the language before he commits his vote.

Mr. Altmire's vote won't be needed for the bill to clear the House, given the large Republican majority there, but the Senate climate is murkier. Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., proposed a bill similar to Mr. Upton's last week, but any consideration was bumped until after next week's recess.

A full ban on greenhouse gas regulations would likely fail, but a proposal by Sen. Jay Rockefeller, D-W.Va., to delay greenhouse gas regulations by two years stands a chance at passage, and might be voted on in place of Mr. McConnell's bill. Sen. Bob Casey, D-Pa., a closely watched swing vote on Mr. Rockefeller's bill, said last week that he will not commit to a vote before seeing what final proposal emerges.

But in letters to agency officials last year, Mr. Casey urged the EPA to take concerns of the coal and utility industries into account when drafting rules on the disposal of coal ash and emissions from boilers.

Rep. Mike Doyle, D-Forest Hills, said a toned-down discussion about regulations' effect on industries is more constructive than the effort to remove its ability to police heat-trapping gases.

Mr. Doyle, who voted against the greenhouse gas bill in committee, recalled the sooty air and slimy rivers of his youth in Pittsburgh and credited the region's environmental improvements to stiff federal regulation.

"Does it ever get to the point where sometimes they overregulate? Yeah it does, and we have to swing the pendulum back the other way," he said. "The answer isn't to tell the EPA it can't do its job, ignore a scientific finding and don't enforce it."

The greenhouse gas issue is only one in a litany of gripes area members of Congress have with the agency.

The EPA recently ticked off Rep. Tim Murphy, R-Upper St. Clair, by sending a letter, without warning, to the state DEP demanding more aggressive radiation testing and announcing it was going to inspect water treatment plants, following the Times' report on radiation and the Marcellus Shale.

"It is pervasive throughout EPA to ignore the states, to ignore Congress, to ignore the wishes of the people and just act as their own independent branch of government and impose actions and regulations," Mr. Murphy said.

In the face of the open scorn, EPA has not backed down from issuing new regulations, many of which are required by court rulings. Last week, for example, it issued the first-ever regulation of mercury from power plants, along with other toxic emissions. The proposed rule would reduce mercury emissions by 91 percent by going after the biggest pollution sources.

Industry leaders, estimating $100 billion in compliance costs, said the rule was too broad by reaching beyond mercury and said once again that the EPA was harming the economy.

EPA claimed 17,000 lives would be saved and 11,000 heart attacks averted by the improved air quality.

More thoroughly detailing benefits -- with analyses often questioned by industry groups -- has been a major shift for EPA, said Adam Garber, an organizer for PennEnvironment.

"From their perspective and our perspective, saving 17,000 lives is worth a lot of jobs," he said. "They're trying to get the argument out there that this is a life-saving measure for a big industry that can afford it. ... I think they are being more aggressive on those kinds of arguments, but on the actual regulations that are coming out, I don't think they are toning it down."


Reclaiming the Constitution (Part 6)
by Wes Riddle Mon, Mar 21, 2011, 02:48 PM

Perhaps the purest Tenth Amendment cases in constitutional law have to do with congressional enactments that "commandeer" instrumentalities of state government. The "commandeering" doctrine offers additional grounds for hoping that the Supreme Court will vindicate local authority and roll back federal overreach. In New York v. U.S. (1992) the Court struck down a federal law that required States to take title to nuclear waste. In Printz v. U.S. five years later, the Court struck down a part of the Brady Act that required States to conduct background checks on prospective gun purchasers.

These cases do not rely on enumerated powers constraints as a basis for decision. Thus, they did not address general federal authority to regulate either nuclear waste or gun purchases. What the federal government cannot do, under New York and Printz, is to order instrumentalities of state and local government to serve as instrumentalities of the federal government.

As Michael Greve notes in Real Federalism: Why It Matters, How It Could Happen (1999), "what the Supreme Court has done is to elevate the Tenth Amendment into an extratextual, judge-made principle of intergovernmental immunity." Greve argues that the "genius" of Justice Scalia's majority opinion in Printz is to locate that intergovernmental immunity in the "structure" of the Constitution: "First Justice Scalia explains that the Constitution establishes a system of 'dual sovereignty,' wherein the States and the national government occupy separate 'spheres.' The Tenth Amendment is only one of the indicia of federalism so understood.

"Second, Justice Scalia maintains that the congressional commandeering of state and local officers would undermine the federal executive: by dragooning state and local officers into federal law enforcement, Congress could subvert and circumvent the President's constitutional authority to ensure the faithful execution of the law.

"Third, Justice Scalia argues that Congress lacked the constitutional authority to enact the background check requirements under, of all things, the Necessary and Proper Clause of the Constitution, which empowers Congress to 'make all laws which be necessary and proper' to the enforcement of its delegated powers. A law that presses state and local officers into federal service, Justice Scalia maintains, cannot be 'proper.' Each of these three claims points beyond the seemingly limited holding in Printz. Each implies a notion of federalism, not as a mere protection of state immunity but as a direct constraint on the federal government."

Justice Scalia's opinion takes aim at the danger of requiring States to enforce federal laws, particularly the danger of diminishing political accountability: "By forcing state government to absorb the financial burden of implementing a federal regulatory program, Members of Congress can take credit for 'solving' problems without having to ask their constituents to pay for the solutions with higher federal taxes. And even when the States are not forced to absorb the costs of implementing a federal program, they are still put in the position of taking the blame for its burdensomeness and for its defects."

One promising area of Tenth Amendment jurisprudence is therefore what meaning can be attached to the word "proper" within the final clause of Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, which grants Congress the power "To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers." To follow Justice Scalia's opinion in Printz, a law that upsets the federalist structure of the Constitution by infringing on the "quasi-sovereign" status of States might not be "proper."

_____________________

Wesley Allen Riddle is a retired military officer with degrees and honors from West Point and Oxford. Widely published in the academic and opinion press, he ran for U.S. Congress (TX-District 31) in the 2004 Republican Primary and is currently Chairman of the Central Texas Tea Party. Article condensed from an essay by Ted Cruz and Mario Loyola (Texas Public Policy Foundation, Nov 2010). Email: \n Wes@WesRiddle.com.

Sunday, April 24, 2011 11:15:27 PM

Buffett's Berkshire Hathaway Assumes AIG's Asbestos Risk

A property and casualty unit of bailed-out insurer American International Group Inc. is transferring billions of dollars in potential asbestos liabilities to a subsidiary of Warren Buffett's Berkshire Hathaway Inc.

(April 24, 2011) -- Warren Buffett's Berkshire Hathaway will get $1.65 billion from Chartis , a property and casualty unit of bailed-out insurer American International Group (AIG), for assuming its risk of asbestos policies.

The agreement reflects AIG's aims to buy protection against asbestos-related claims, which have become increasingly high for insurers , in an effort to slash its liabilities.

AIG, which has been under state control since its near-bankruptcy in 2008, said the transaction would result in a gain before taxes of around $200 million in the second quarter. As part of the deal with the insurance giant, Berkshire Hathaway's National Indemnity will take on as much as $3.5 billion in potential claims related to asbestos exposure.

“We believe that this transaction is beneficial for Chartis, as it will reduce the risk of future adverse development of US asbestos exposures, including the risk associated with the recoverability of related reinsurance,” Peter Hancock, the recently named chief executive of Chartis, said in a statement.

The deal follows similar ones made by Buffett, who has been attracted to the long-term nature of insurance payouts. Last year, Buffett received $2 billion in premiums to cover the asbestos liabilities of the insurer CNA Financial Corp. In February, Buffett revealed that he was on the lookout for more big-time deals after Berkshire Hathaway posted its strongest profits since the start of the financial crisis.

Risk transfer deals have also been growing in popularity among UK pensions, which are transferring risk to insurance companies, driven by M&A activity, a growing number of closures and part-closures of defined benefit pension schemes, and concerns over longevity risk. The evidence of this comes from a March report by Hymans Robertson that showed UK pension buyouts, in which an entire scheme is passed to a specialist insurer, are becoming more and more prevalent.

Another example illustrating the growing popularity of risk transfer deals is the Pension Insurance Corporation's (PIC) February decision to reinsure $799 million of longevity risk to better manage risk and more effectively compete for new business. According to some forecasts, more than $24 billion worth of pension risks could be passed on to insurers this year. PIC has said its transactions indicate the insurer's desire to focus on risk management and on the efficient allocation of capital.

To contact the aiCIO editor of this story: Paula Vasan at pvasan@assetinternational.com ; 646-308-2742

AIG , Other Insurers Settle Long-Running Suit Over Bid-Rigging

By Erik Holm, Of DOW JONES NEWSWIRES

NEW YORK -(Dow Jones)- Insurers, including American International Group Inc. ( AIG ) and Travelers Cos. ( TRV ), agreed to settle a long-running legal battle tied to allegations of bid-rigging first leveled in 2004.

The settlement requires the group of seven insurers and two insurance brokers to pay a combined $36.8 million to clients that purchased business insurance from 1998 to 2004, according to a March 18 memorandum outlining the terms of the preliminary settlement agreement.

The putative class-action case had alleged that insurance brokers worked with insurers to manufacture fake bids to present to large insurance buyers alongside legitimate bids to make the process of finding coverage appear more robust than it actually was. The suit also alleged the plaintiffs had conspired to hide some commissions paid by the insurers to the brokers, and leveled other accusations about how insurers and brokers marketed and sold coverage.

The case, an amalgam of several that were consolidated in U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey in 2005, expanded on allegations raised in an investigation by New York's then-attorney general, Eliot Spitzer. The insurers and brokers had earlier settled with Spitzer and other attorneys general.

Some brokers agreed in their settlements with Spitzer to stop accepting some fees from insurers called "contingent commissions" that are based on the amount of business or profits the brokers generate for companies for a period of years. Spitzer's investigation of the insurance industry also resulted in other allegations concerning AIG accounting that caused AIG Chief Executive Hank Greenberg to step down in 2005.

The other insurers that agreed to settle the lawsuit last week are Liberty Mutual, XL Group PLC ( XL ), CNA Financial Corp. ( CNA ), Hartford Financial Services Group Inc. ( HIG ) and Crum & Forster. The settling brokers were Aon Corp. ( AON ) and Willis Group Holdings Plc ( WSH ).

The insurance industry had been fighting in court to get the case dismissed, and won a victory in the U.S. Court of Appeals last year that resulted in portions of the case being thrown out.

Under the terms of the prospective settlement, AIG , Travelers, Liberty Mutual and XL will each pay $6.75 million, plus some administrative fees. Aon, Willis, Crum & Forster, CNA and Hartford will pay a combined total of $9.75 million.

The settlement still must be approved by the judge who's overseen the case.

A spokesman for AIG said the insurer was "pleased to have reached an agreement to resolve this matter," and noted the settlement "brings an end to another long-standing lawsuit about events from many years ago."

The settlement amounts agreed to last week are substantially less than the sums paid by the companies that settled with the same defendants earlier. Zurich Financial Services AG (ZURN.VX), for example, agreed to pay $100 million about five years ago to settle.

Spokesmen and spokeswomen for Travelers, Liberty Mutual, XL , Aon, Willis, Crum & Forster, CNA and Hartford either had no immediate comment, couldn't immediately be reached or declined to comment beyond confirming their participation in the settlement agreement.

Some insurers named in the suit--including Ace Ltd. ( ACE ) and Chubb Corp. ( CB ) --have yet to agree to settle.

-By Erik Holm, Dow Jones Newswires; 212-416-2892; erik.holm@dowjones.com

--Serena Ng contributed to this story.

News

Secretary Chu Announces $130 Million for Advanced Research Projects

2 days ago

ARPA-E's 4th round of funding focuses on rare earth alternatives and breakthroughs in biofuels, thermal storage, grid controls, and solar power electronics

Washington, D.C. - U.S. Department of Energy Secretary Steven Chu announced today that up to $130 million from the Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy (ARPA-E) will be made available to develop five new program areas that could spark critical breakthrough technologies and secure America's energy future. Today's funding opportunity announcement comes two months after ARPA-E announced six of its projects have secured more than $100 million in outside private capital investment - indications that the business community is eager to invest in truly innovative solutions to the country's energy challenges.

"ARPA-E is unleashing American innovation to strengthen America's global competitiveness and win the clean energy race," said Secretary Chu. "In addition to creating new jobs, breakthroughs in clean energy technologies can reduce our country's dependence of foreign oil, decrease the cost of clean electricity, and build a sustainable infrastructure for future generations of Americans."

Today's announcement is ARPA-E's fourth round of funding opportunities. In its first year, ARPA-E awarded $363 million in Recovery Act funding to 121 groundbreaking energy projects based in 30 states, with approximately 39% of projects led by universities, 33% by small businesses, 20% by large businesses, 5% by national labs, and 3% by non-profits.

ARPA-E's fourth round of funding opportunities includes five technology areas detailed below:

  1. Plants Engineered To Replace Oil (PETRO). Technologies for low-cost production of advanced biofuels are limited by the small amount of available energy captured by photosynthesis and the inefficient processes used to convert plant matter to fuel. PETRO aims to create plants that capture more energy from sunlight and convert that energy directly into fuels. ARPA-E seeks to fund technologies that optimize the biochemical processes of energy capture and conversion to develop robust, farm-ready crops that deliver more energy per acre with less processing prior to the pump. If successful, PETRO will create biofuels for half their current cost, finally making them cost-competitive with fuels from oil. Up to $30 million will be made available for this program area.
  2. High Energy Advanced Thermal Storage (HEATS). More than 90% of energy technologies involve the transport and conversion of thermal energy. Therefore, advancements in thermal energy storage - both hot and cold - would dramatically improve performance for a variety of critical energy applications. ARPA-E seeks to develop revolutionary cost-effective thermal energy storage technologies in three focus areas: 1) high temperature storage systems to deliver solar electricity more efficiently around the clock and allow nuclear and fossil baseload resources the flexibility to meet peak demand, 2) fuel produced from the sun's heat, and 3) HVAC systems that use thermal storage to improve the driving range of electric vehicles by up to 40 percent. Up to $30 million will be made available for this program area.
  3. Rare Earth Alternatives in Critical Technologies (REACT). Rare earths are naturally-occurring minerals with unique magnetic properties that are used in many emerging energy technologies. As demand for these technologies continues to increase, rare earths are rapidly becoming more expensive due to limited global supply - prices of many have increased 300-700% in the past year. Rising rare earth prices have already escalated costs for some energy technologies and may jeopardize the widespread adoption of many critical energy solutions by U.S. manufacturers. ARPA-E seeks to fund early-stage technology alternatives that reduce or eliminate the dependence on rare earth materials by developing substitutes in two key areas: electric vehicle motors and wind generators. Up to $30 million will be made available for this program area.
  4. Green Electricity Network Integration (GENI). Recent advances in computation, networking, and grid monitoring have shed light on potential ways to deliver electricity more efficiently and reliably.Today, however, the equivalent of one out of every five electricity dollars is lost to power outages and 30 percent of the grid's hardware needs replacing. ARPA-E seeks to fund innovative control software and high-voltage hardware to reliably control the grid, specifically: 1) controls able to manage 10 times more sporadically available wind and solar electricity than currently on the grid, and 2) resilient power flow control hardware - or the energy equivalent of an internet router - to enable significantly more electricity through the existing network of transmission lines. Up to $30 million will be made available for this program area.
  5. Solar Agile Delivery of Electrical Power Technology (Solar ADEPT). The DOE SunShot Initiative leverages the unique strengths across DOE to reduce the total cost of utility-scale solar systems by 75 percent by the end of the decade. If successful, this collaboration would deliver solar electricity at roughly 6 cents a kilowatt hour - a cost competitive with electricity from fossil fuels. This would enable solar electricity to scale without subsidies and make the U.S. globally competitive in solar technology. ARPA-E's portion of the collaboration is the Solar ADEPT program, which focuses on integrating advanced power electronics into solar panels and solar farms to extract and deliver energy more efficiently. Specifically, ARPA-E aims to invest in key advances in magnetics, semiconductor switches, and charge storage, which could reduce power conversion costs by up to 50 percent for utilities and 80 percent for homeowners. Up to $10 million will be made available for this program area.

The five technology areas announced today will join ARPA-E's seven existing programs in power electronics (ADEPT), battery technologies (BEEST), building cooling (BEETIT), non-photosynthetic biofuels (Electrofuels), grid energy storage (GRIDS), carbon capture (IMPACCT), and its initial open solicitation.

Hydropower policy in the United States includes all of the laws , rules , and regulations that govern the domestic hydroelectric industry, as well as the programs and organizations that affects the technology's use.

The hydroelectric industry is affected by the regulations and interests of various agencies and organizations. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) is the main regulatory body for the industry. FERC is responsible for licensing, re-licensing, and oversight of ongoing project operations (such as dam safety inspections and environmental monitoring). Environmental concerns and implications are evaluated by both federal and state Natural Resource agencies, Indian tribes, and state water quality agencies. Examples of such federal agencies include, but are not limited to, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Department of Agriculture 's Forest Service, the Department of Commerce 's National Marine Fisheries Service, and the Department of the Interior . The National Hydropower Association is a hydropower trade organization which lobbies for policies which favor the industry.

Advancement of hydroelectric technology is accomplished through research and development programs, such as the Department of Energy's Hydropower Program. The use of hydroelectric technology is promoted by Renewable Portfolio Standards and various financial incentives. These financial incentives include: Renewable Energy Production Tax Credits (PTC), Loan Guarantees, Clean Renewable Energy Bond (CREB), and Qualified Energy Conservation Bonds (QECB).


Contents

[ hide ]

[ edit ] History

Legislation regarding hydropower in the United States did not appear until 1920 with the establishment of the Federal Power Act . It was further regulated with the establishment of the Tennessee Valley Authority following the Great Depression in the 1930s.

[ edit ] Federal Power Act Overview

The Federal Power Act was enacted in 1920 with the purpose of organizing hydroelectric projects. Hydropower is still a component of this Act, but additional legislation has been added since its creation. The Federal Power Act created the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) as the licensing authority for hydroelectric power. Over time, FERC's task list grew to include conservation and protection of natural waterways and the wildlife within them. The Federal Power Act was the first major regulatory legislation for hydropower. The Act also defined what waters FERC had jurisdiction over: "Streams or other bodies of water over which Congress has jurisdiction to regulate commerce among foreign nations and among the States." (16 U.S.C. 796) This basically meant that FERC had unlimited power to oversee activities on any water on US soil.

Subsequent amendments to the Act included some wildlife provisions and more recently, stipulations that called for studies looking into the feasibility of increasing US hydropower capacity using existing dams. This amendment, P.L. 102-486 (106 Stat. 3098), was approved in late 1992 and directs the Secretary of Energy to cooperate with the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of the Army and look for cheap ways to maximize power production at federally-owned dam facilities. Money for the studies was accounted for in the DOE budget. An amendment in 1995 officially let the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of the Army take charge of the studies authorized in the 1992 amendment. [ 1 ]

[ edit ] FERC's Responsibilities

FERC is responsible for licensing, relicensing, and oversight of ongoing project operations such as dam safety inspections and environmental monitoring. [ 2 ]

[ edit ] Licensing/Relicensing

As outlined on FERC's website, any hydroelectric project must apply for a license or an exemption from licensing if the project is or will be: 1.located on a navigable waterway of the U.S.;

2.occupying U.S. lands;

3.utilizing surplus water or water power from a U.S. government dam; or

4.located on a body of water over which Congress has Commerce Clause jurisdiction, project construction occurred on or after August 26, 1935, and the project affects the interests of interstate or foreign commerce [ 3 ]

Licenses are valid for a 30 to 50 year period. FERC has three processes by which an applicant can file a license: integrated, traditional, and alternative. [ 3 ]


[ edit ] Integrated Licensing Process

The integrated licensing process is the default licensing process. The integrated licensing process was created to provide a “predictable, efficient, and timely licensing process that continues to ensure adequate resource protections.” FERC says that the process is founded in the following three principles:

1.Early issue identification and resolution of studies needed to fill information gaps, avoiding studies post-filing;

2.Integration of other stakeholder permitting process needs; and

3.Established time frames to complete process steps for all stakeholders, including the Commission. [ 4 ]

If an applicant wishes to use the traditional or alternative process, he or she must receive permission from FERC. [ 5 ] The regulations for the integrated licensing process are contained in 18 CFR Part 5.

[ edit ] Traditional Licensing Process

The traditional licensing process consists of a three stage pre-filing process through 18 CFR 4.38 for new licenses and 18 CFR 16.8 for relicenses. In the first stage, the applicant issues a notice of intent and a request to use a traditional licensing process. After FERC approves the use of a traditional licensing process, joint agency and public meetings are conducted along with site visits and written comments are accepted. [ 6 ]

[ edit ] State Role in Federal Licensing

As decided by the U.S. Supreme Court case S.D. Warren Co. v. Maine Board of Environmental Protection , the states have the power to impose restrictions on federal licensing or relicensing of hydropower facilities. The Court decided that a state can impose restrictions through water quality certification under Section 401 of the Clean Water Act . The terms and conditions of a federal license will incorporate the terms and conditions of the state's certification. [ 7 ]

[ edit ] Exemptions from Licensing

FERC may issue two types of exemptions from licensing. While facilities that are granted these exemptions are not subject to the requirements of Part 1 of the Federal Power Act, they are still subject to any terms and conditions set by federal and state fish and wildlife agencies and FERC. [ 8 ] The two exemptions are the small hydropower project and conduit exemptions.

Small hydroelectric power projects with capacities of 5MW or less may be exempt from federal licensing. These projects must either:

1. utilize the pressure head at a damn “that is not is not owned or operated by the United States or by an instrumentality of the Federal Government, including the Tennessee Valley Authority” or

2. use “a natural water feature, such as a natural lake, waterfall, or the gradient of a natural stream, without the need for a dam or man-made impoundment and would not retain water behind any structure for the purpose of a storage and release operation.” [ 9 ]

Exemptions are available for small conduit hydroelectric facilities with 15MW or less installed generating capacity (or if it's a municipal facility, 40MW or less installed generating capacity). The components of the facility have to exclude the conduit, the associated transmission lines, cannot be “an integral part of a dam,” cannot use a damn to supply its hydrostatic head, and cannot be located on Federal lands. The hydroelectric potential to generate the electricity must be supplied by a conduit. The water discharged by the facility must go into a conduit or be directly used for agricultural, municipal, or industrial consumption. [ 10 ]

The term conduit in this context is defined as any tunnel, canal, pipeline, aqueduct, flume, ditch, or similar manmade water conveyance that is operated for the distribution of water for agricultural, municipal, or industrial consumption and not primarily for the generation of electricity. [ 10 ]

[ edit ] Dam and Safety Inspections

FERC has created a plan for monitoring dam construction and operation called the Dam Safety Surveillance Monitoring Plan (DSSMP). This plan, created with the aid of dam owners, consultants, the National Hydropower Association and the Hydraulic Power Committee, outlines how an owner will monitor the safety and performance of a dam with respect to rules and regulations that govern them. [ 11 ]

The plan includes sections on instrumentation, equipment maintenance, reading frequency and procedures, action levels, procedures should a failure occur and how reports sent to FERC must be formatted. The reports include photographs, diagrams and data taken at the dam. [ 12 ]

[ edit ] Safeguarding the Environment

In regards to the environment, FERC's objective is to ensure that damage resulting from hydropower projects is minimized. They require that all applicants communicate with all relevant stakeholders before submitting applications. These stakeholders include federal and state Natural Resource agencies, Indian tribes, and state water quality agencies. FERC has developed an Initial Consultation Contact List to facilitate communication. FERC issues draft Environmental Assessments or draft Environmental Impact Statements and invites the public to comment. Electronic copies of the drafts and final versions are publically available. In issuing licenses, FERC includes terms and conditions aimed to mitigate environmental impacts. [ 13 ]

[ edit ] Environmental Impact

The construction of the large dams necessary to harness the power of water starkly change the natural shape of the environment. They can lead to soil erosion, the spread of disease, the loss of species and even, as one scientist claims, a change in the Earth's rotation due to huge amounts of water being moved to reservoirs. [ 14 ] Also, the major amounts of concrete needed for these dams mean more CO 2 being discharged into the atmosphere and promote runoff that limits the recharging ability of underground aquifers that provide potable water. Some legislation that seeks to curb the negative environmental effects of dam-building can be found below.

[ edit ] The Endangered Species Act

One main hindrance in the licensing process is The Endangered Species Act ( 7 U.S.C. § 136 , 16 U.S.C. § 1531 et seq. , ESA ). Passed in 1973, this act sought to protect endangered species from the negative effects of anthropogenic actions. It distinguished between endangered and threatened species but applied the same protection to both. The reason it hinders the hydropower licensing and relicensing process is because it has priority over any government activity and therefore supersedes any construction project.

Section 7 of the Act requires that Federal agencies must insure that any action they condone is unlikely to affect the “existence of listed species or modify their critical habitat.” [ 15 ] The list alluded to is also found in the Act and shows exactly which species must be considered. The Supreme Court came to the conclusion that Congress sought "to halt and reverse the trend toward species extinction, whatever the cost." [ 16 ] The major consequences of the ESA and the Supreme Court's ruling in terms of hydropower proliferation are added costs, delays and site analyses that make dam construction much more difficult and less attractive to investors. [ 17 ]

Because of the incredibly high construction and maintenance costs of dams and generation equipment, outside investment is key to the hydropower industry. This means that the ESA is a hindrance to the industry's growth. The protected species are largely aquatic types whose migration patterns and feeding habits might be affected by the construction and subsequent operation of a dam. In the Pacific Northwest, the Columbia River alone has seen the construction of 75 dams between 1930 and 1990. It led to the depletion of salmon populations that have since been added to the Endangered Species Act's list. [ 18 ] The people of Washington, Oregon and Canada who benefit from the power generated using these dams feel that their livelihood holds greater importance than that of the aquatic wildlife and see no problem with the current state of the river.

Besides getting killed during the construction and operation of dams, salmon stocks are dwindling because harvesting them becomes much easier now that the dams limit movement and increase their density in any one area. [ 19 ] Thanks to the ESA, salmon populations have again swelled in the Columbia River and no new dams have been built since 1990.

[ edit ] Electric Consumers Protection Act

The Electric Consumers' Protection Act (ECPA, 16 U.S.C. § 797, 803) was an amendment to the Federal Power Act and became law in 1986. It contained wildlife provisions, and requires that FERC "give equal consideration to non-power generating values such as the environment, recreation, fish, and wildlife, as are given to power and development objectives when making hydroelectric project licensing decisions." A major consequence of this provision was a large increase in licensing fees since major studies now had to be undertaken before any project was authorized. Another provision stated that FERC must work with fish and wildlife agencies to mitigate the environmental impacts of existing dams. [ 20 ]

[ edit ] Promotion

Research and Development programs and financial incentives are used to promote hydropower. The financial incentives that exist are: Renewable Energy Production Tax Credits (PTC), Loan Guarantees, Clean Renewable Energy Bond (CREB), Qualified Energy Conservation Bonds (QECB) [ 21 ]

[ edit ] The Department of Energy's Hydropower Program

The U.S. DOE's Hydropower Program is a part of its Office of Wind and Hydropower Technologies. The Hydropower Program's mission is “to conduct research and development that will improve the technical, societal, and environmental benefits of hydropower and provide cost-competitive technologies that enable the development of new and incremental hydropower capacity.” The research is performed in conjunction with other federal agencies and groups involved with the industry. Progress and results are evaluated through the actions of a technical committee comprised of experts. The three National Laboratories involved with the program include Idaho National Laboratory, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, and Pacific Northwest National Laboratory. [ 22 ]

[ edit ] Tax Credit from Efficiency Improvements or Capacity Additions

Hydroelectric facilities placed into service after August 8, 2005 and before January 1, 2014 may apply for a tax credit for incremental production gains from efficiency improvements or capacity additions. This tax credit was created by Section 1301 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 , which amends Section 45 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986. [ 23 ] As outlined by EPAct 2005, the "incremental hydropower production for any taxable year shall be equal to the percentage of average annual hydropower production at the facility attributable to the efficiency improvements or additions of capacity" and shall be "determined by using the same water flow information used to determine an historic average annual hydropower production baseline." This percentage and baseline has to be certified by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

The determination of incremental hydropower production shall not be based on any operational changes at a facility not directly associated with the efficiency improvements or additions of capacity. [ 24 ] In Section 1301, “efficiency improvements” and “additions of capacity” are not defined. (It merely excludes “operational changes…not directly associated with the efficiency improvements or additions of capacity”). Therefore FERC interprets “efficiency improvements” as upgrades to generators or turbines that result in increased power generation. They interpret “additions of capacity” to be “any increase in generating capacity other than an addition resulting from an efficiency improvement or an addition resulting from an operational change. [ 23 ]

To acquire certification from FERC, a request must be submitted that includes (taken directly from the outline in [ 23 ] :

A. Historic Average Annual Hydropower Production (baseline):

1. A calculation of the historic average annual hydropower production baseline for the facility, along with the supporting water flow information and corresponding actual annual power production data for the period of record. Such calculations must be based on the units operating capacities as authorized under a Commission's license or exemption.

B. Percentage of Average Annual Hydropower Production Attributable to Efficiency Improvements or Additions of Capacity

1. Additions of Capacity: The additional installed capacity and the anticipated annual generation for the facility based on the same water flow information used to support the calculation of Historic Average Annual Hydropower Production baseline in item (A).

2. Efficiency improvements: The manufacturer's calculation of efficiency improvements to the upgraded generating equipment and the anticipated annual generation for the facility based on the same water flow data used to support the calculation of Historic Average Annual Hydropower Production baseline.

3. Calculations showing the percentage of average annual hydropower production attributable to the efficiency improvements or additions of capacity.

4. Proposed in-service date.

[ edit ] Loan Guarantees

The Energy Policy Act and The Recovery Act have created loan programs to support hydropower production and development of other clean energy. In both acts, the loan repayment is required over a period no greater than 30 years or 90% of the projected useful life of the asset being financed.

The innovative Loan Guarantee Program was created by the EPAct Title XVII to “support the deployment of the deployment of innovative, clean energy technologies that reduce, avoid or sequester carbon dioxide & other air emissions.” [ 25 ] The Federal government has authorized up to $42.5 billion in loan guarantees.

The Recovery Act allocated $6 billion to offset loan guarantee charges that are paid to the DOE as a risk premium for the guarantee. There is a September 30, 2011 commencement deadline for construction of temporary additions and projects under the loan program in the Recovery Act. [ 25 ]

[ edit ] CREB

Clean Renewable Energy Bonds are federal loans authorized by the Energy Policy Act of 2005 for the purpose of financing renewable energy projects [DSIRE]. CREBs are not limited to hydropower, and are qualified for use with all technologies listed in the federal renewable energy production tax credit. These interest free federal loans can be issued by electric cooperatives, government entities, and certain lenders. The bondholder receives tax credits as a way of compensating for no interest payments. The current maximum allowable issuance of Clean Renewable Energy Bonds is $2.4 billion. [ 26 ]

[ edit ] QECB

Qualified Energy Conservation Bonds are applied to a broader spectrum of projects than Clean Renewable Energy Bonds. These loans are available for building efficiency, renewable energy production, research and development applications, mass transit and public energy efficiency campaigns in addition to the projects that are eligible for CREBs. Unlike CREBs however, QECBs are not subject to U.S. Department of Treasury applications and approvals. The bonds are issued to states based on that state's percentage of the U.S. population. The state then distributes the QECBs among it's municipalities and counties with populations of 100,000 or greater. [ 25 ]

[ edit ] RPS overview for various states

Renewable Portfolio Standards are state policies that establish a minimum required percentage of renewable power for electricity generation. There are currently 24 states with RPS policies in place, all of which include hydroelectric power as an eligible technology. The established percentages are targets for full requirement set for a certain year, ranging from 2013 (Vermont and New York) to 2030 (California). Out of the states with RPS policies, Pennsylvania has the lowest required percentage of renewable generation (8%) and Maine has the highest (40%). [ 27 ]

[ edit ] National Hydropower Association Policy Priorities

The National Hydropower Association (NHA) currently has five policy priorities on their agenda. The first is a more efficient regulatory process. They say that an expediting 2-year licensing process for minimal impact projects would allow hydro to be on an “equal footing” with other renewable technologies. The second is a tax credit parity. Hydropower currently receives half of the rate per kWh under the Production Tax Credit, and the NHA thinks that it should be increased such that it is equal with other renewable technologies. The third priority calls for incentivizing renewable electricity production and manufacturing (manufacturing tax credits , Clean and Renewable Energy Bonds, Production and Investment Tax Credits should be extended). They also want a federal clean and renewable energy standard which promotes development. The last priority calls for continued investment in research and development for both conventional and non-conventional hydropower projects. [ 28 ]

[ edit ] Failed Legislation

[ edit ] The Hydropower Improvement Act of 2010

The Hydropower Improvement Act of 2010, sponsored by Senators Maria Cantwell and Patty Murray (both D-WA), sought to increase generating capacity from hydropower by 75,000 MW and also create jobs in the energy sector. It gave FERC permission to expedite the licensing and authorization process for new projects and also to conduct research into increasing hydropower capacity. The bill called for the establishment of a grants program for increased hydropower production and a plan for research, development, and demonstration to achieve the same end.

The legislation was introduced too late during the 111th Congressional session and thus never reached the floor. It has since been resurrected as The Hydropower Improvement Act of 2011, this time sponsored by Senator Lisa Murkowski (R-AK). [ 29 ]

[ edit ] The Hydropower Renewable Energy Development Act

The Hydropower Renewable Energy Development Act, sponsored by Senator Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), sought to catalyze investment in hydropower by broadening its definition so more types of it qualify for Production Tax Credits and other types of government funding. The bill also tried to redefine hydropower as a renewable energy source in the eyes of the federal government. This would have made hydropower projects eligible for more tax credits that are currently only available for traditional renewable energy sources like solar and wind. The Hydropower Renewable Energy Development Act was introduced too late during the 111th Congressional session and thus never reached the floor. [ 30 ] [ 31 ]

[ edit ] Energy and Water Integration Act of 2009

The Energy and Water Integration Act of 2009, sponsored by Senator Jeff Bingaman (D-NM), sought to make the Secretary of Energy cooperate with the National Academy of Sciences to conduct an analysis of how energy development affected water resources in the United States. The bill was introduced too late in the 111th Congressional session and thus never reached the floor. [ 32 ]

[ edit ] Current Legislation

[ edit ] The Hydropower Improvement Act of 2011

The Hydropower Improvement Act of 2011 is a resurrection of its 2010 counterpart never reached the floor because the 111th Congressional session terminated. According to its sponsor Senator Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), the bill seeks to "substantially increase the capacity and generation of renewable hydropower resources in the US." It could not have been introduced at a better time considering the waning interest in nuclear power brought about by the Japanese tsunami and subsequent nuclear reactor meltdowns. [ 33 ]

[ edit ] Bonneville Unit Clean Hydropower Facilitation Act

The Bonneville Unit Clean Hydropower Act, sponsored by Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT), seeks to promote hydropower development in the Diamond Fork System of the Central Utah Project. [ 34 ]

[ edit ] Small-Scale Hydropower Enhancement Act of 2011

The Small-Scale Hydropower Enhancement Act of 2011, sponsored by Representative Adrian Smith (R-NE), seeks to promote the installation of small-scale hydropower projects (<1.5 MW) by exempting them from some of the stricter Federal Power Act licensing terms. These exemptions make the construction process faster and much less expensive. Currently, this bill has been referred to the Subcommittee on Energy and Power. [ 35 ]


[ edit ] Notes

[ edit ] References

  1. ^ Digest of Federal Resource Laws of Interest to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, http://www.fws.gov/laws/lawsdigest/fedpowr.html
  2. ^ FERC. "Hydropower" . http://www.ferc.gov/industries/hydropower.asp . Retrieved April 20, 2011 .
  3. ^ a b FERC. "Applications for Original Licenses" . http://www.ferc.gov/industries/hydropower/gen-info/licensing/app-org.asp . Retrieved April 21, 2011 .
  4. ^ FERC. "Integrated Licensing Process (ILP)" . http://www.ferc.gov/industries/hydropower/gen-info/licensing/ilp.asp . Retrieved April 21, 2011 .
  5. ^ 18 CFR 5.1 (f)
  6. ^ FERC. "Licensing Processe" . http://www.ferc.gov/industries/hydropower/gen-info/licensing/licen-pro.asp . Retrieved April 18, 2011 .
  7. ^ Copeland, Claudia and Meltz, Robert. "The State Role in Federal Licensing of Hydropower Damns: S.D. Warren Co. v. Maine Board of Environmental Protection." CRS Report for Congress. Accessed via http://ncseonline.org/NLE/CRSreports/06Oct/RS22429.pdf
  8. ^ FERC. "Exemptions from Licensing" . http://www.ferc.gov/industries/hydropower/gen-info/licensing/exemptions.asp . Retrieved April 12, 2011 .
  9. ^ 18CFR 4.30 (b)(29)
  10. ^ a b 18CFR 4.30 (b)(28)
  11. ^ http://www.ferc.gov/industries/hydropower/safety/guidelines/eng-guide/monitor-plan.asp
  12. ^ Dam Safety and Surveillance Monitoring Plan, FERC 2007.
  13. ^ FERC. "Environment" . http://www.ferc.gov/industries/hydropower/enviro.asp . Retrieved April 20, 2011 .
  14. ^ Environmental Impacts of Dams. Lecture at McGill University. Accessed via http://www.arch.mcgill.ca/prof/sijpkes/arch374/winter2001/dbiggs/enviro.html
  15. ^ Digest of Federal Resource Laws of Interest to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. http://www.fws.gov/laws/lawsdigest/esact.html
  16. ^ HYDROPOWER LICENSING AND ENDANGERED SPECIES: A guide for Applicants, Contractors and Staff. FERC, Office of Energy Projects. Accessed via http://www.ferc.gov/industries/hydropower/gen-info/guidelines/esa_guide.pdf
  17. ^ Digest of Federal Resource Laws of Interest to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. http://www.fws.gov/laws/lawsdigest/esact.html
  18. ^ Volkmann & Mcconaha. Through a Glass, Darkly: Columbia River Salmon, the Endangered Species Act, and Adaptive Management. Journal of Environmental Law, vol. 23, 1993.
  19. ^ Volkmann & Mcconaha. Through a Glass, Darkly: Columbia River Salmon, the Endangered Species Act, and Adaptive Management. Journal of Environmental Law, vol. 23, 1993.
  20. ^ Electric Consumers Protection Act of 1986, United States, http://www.eoearth.org/article/Electric_Consumers_Protection_Act_of_1986,_United_States
  21. ^ Federal Incentives/Policies for Renewables and Efficiency. Accessed via http://www.dsireusa.org/incentives/index.cfm?state=us&re=1&EE=1
  22. ^ Idaho National Laboratory. "Hydropower" . http://hydropower.inel.gov/ . Retrieved April 21, 2011 .
  23. ^ a b c FERC (2011). "RENEWABLE ENERGY PRODUCTION TAX CREDIT: INSTRUCTIONS FOR REQUESTING CERTIFICATION OF INCREMENTAL HYDROPOWER PRODUCTION PURSUANT TO THE ENERGY POLICY ACT OF 2005." Office of Energy Projects. Accessed via http://www.ferc.gov/industries/hydropower/gen-info/comp-admin/credit-cert.pdf
  24. ^ Code section 45(c)(8)(B)(i) and (ii), as revised by EPAct 2005 section 1301(c)(3).
  25. ^ a b c DOE (2009). "EERE Wind and Hydropower Technologies Program: Overbiew of Related Incentives & Funding Opportunities." Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. Accessed via http://www1.eere.energy.gov/windandhydro/pdfs/wind-water_incentives_funding.pdf
  26. ^ http://www.energy.gov/additionaltaxbreaks.htm
  27. ^ EERE. "States with Renewable Portfolio Standards". DOE, 2009
  28. ^ National Hydropower Association. "Key Policies for Hydro" . http://hydro.org/tech-and-policy/policy-priorities/ . Retrieved April 21, 2011 .
  29. ^ S. 3570: Hydropower Improvement Act of 2010. Congressional Research Summary, accessed via http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s111-3570&tab=summary
  30. ^ Murkowski Introduces Bills to Increase Hydropower Generation, http://energy.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressReleases.Detail&PressRelease_Id=b51d349b-ea16-41f8-92bd-7378ddaae007
  31. ^ S. 3571: Hydropower Renewable Energy Development Act of 2010. Overview, accessed via http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s111-3571
  32. ^ S. 531: Energy and Water Integration Act of 2009. Overview, accessed via http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s111-531&tab=summary
  33. ^ Hydropower Improvement Act of 2011: First Congressional Reaction to Nuclear Doubts? http://www.treehugger.com/files/2011/03/hydropower-improvement-act-2011-reaction-nuclear-doubts.php
  34. ^ S. 499: Bonneville Unit Clean Hydropower Facilitation Act. Overview, accessed via http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s112-499
  35. ^ Small-Scale Hydropower Enhancement Act of 2011. Overview, accessed via http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h112-795

Science and policy can catalyze each other, EPA head says

In MIT visit, Lisa Jackson discusses how technology can affect government regulations. Jennifer Chu, MIT News Office

Technological innovations have the ability to change environmental policies just as much as those policies can affect innovation, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA ) Administrator Lisa P. Jackson said during a visit to MIT on Friday, Apr. 15. In delivering the annual Henry W. Kendall Memorial Lecture, Jackson urged students and faculty at the Institute to look for sustainable solutions to environmental problems.

Jackson , a chemical engineer, addressed the relationship between science and environmental policy, and spoke about the chicken-and-egg nature of her job. “How do we implement the laws we have, and try to make sure we don't stifle innovation … but also ultimately realize we need legislation to get there?” she said.

She noted that environmental policies often act as incentives for scientists to develop new technologies. At the same time, new inventions can spur changes in environmental laws. “We catalyze each other,” she said.

A symbiotic relationship between science and environmental policy is especially crucial for the issue of climate change, Jackson said. Earlier this month, members of Congress drafted measures that would have prevented the EPA from regulating carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act, a “fairly draconian move,” according to Jackson. The Senate failed to pass the measures, and President Barack Obama has said he would veto any similar bills in the future.

But the issue is likely not dead, Jackson said, and when it comes time for Congress to draft the federal budget for 2012, “we'll probably see this battle played out again.” In the meantime, provided the EPA's authority remains intact, the agency will start to set milestones for industries — the energy sector in particular — to curb greenhouse gas emissions, she said. Looking ahead, Jackson said she would like to see the conversation on climate change shift from politics to science, to focus on developing technologies to minimize greenhouse gas emissions. Such innovations, she hopes, could ultimately push climate change policy forward.

“I think we do have policy cobwebs all over the place right now,” Jackson said. “I will admit I have a bias that leads me to believe — partly as an engineer — that we have to not settle for standards that are not progressive enough.”

Dispelling doubts

Jackson said some elected officials and industry members cast the EPA as the bad guy when the agency attempts to revamp environmental regulations — a reaction that often reminds her of a scene in the 1980s cult classic “Ghostbusters,” in which an EPA official pays a visit to the Ghostbusters office and arrests the team for allegedly storing hazardous chemicals in their basement. The EPA orders the Ghostbusters to shut down operations, which inadvertently frees hundreds of ghosts to spread mayhem throughout New York City.

“Oftentimes in this country, any environmental or clean-energy idea or policy is met with one sort of knee-jerk reaction,” Jackson said, often of “doom and gloom” relating to cost; industries claim that meeting stricter environmental standards is exorbitantly expensive, she said.

Jackson said the antidote to such knee-jerk reactions may be technological innovation, and she called on scientists at MIT and other research institutions to develop sustainable and cost-effective solutions to help meet the country's environmental and clean-energy goals.

MIT President Susan Hockfield, who introduced Jackson, noted how the EPA administrator, just days before Hurricane Katrina hit, drove to New Orleans to transport her mother to safety.

"So she knows, in the most direct way, what we risk when we fail to manage our relationship with the forces of nature," Hockfield said.

Jackson's work addressing the country's environmental and energy issues mirrors work underway at MIT, Hockfield said, citing research by MIT faculty that provides cost-effective and sustainable solutions to climate change, including technology that prints solar cells on waterproof paper, an innovation that may significantly reduce the price of installation, a key cost of harvesting solar energy.

“I applaud MIT's commitment to making sure solutions don't cause one problem by fixing another,” Jackson said.

Early intervention

According to Jackson, another area in which scientists and policymakers can work together is in the arena of toxic chemical control. She said the EPA uses the country's Toxic Substances Control Act, established in 1976, to regulate the development of new chemicals, but described the act as “widely considered fairly toothless.”

“The laws in this country say, ‘I'll develop whatever chemistry you need,' and that's a good thing, we want more innovation,” Jackson said. “But it relies on government to oversee the end result … and it doesn't push innovation on the front end so it is greener from the beginning.”

Jackson said the country needs a new toxic chemicals law that encourages “green chemistry,” in which substances are specifically developed to be safe and sustainable from the start.

“Even though we don't face the same kind of bread-and-butter environmental problems with the air and water and land pollution we had 40 years ago, we have to think about solutions that are as transformative as the Clean Air Act or the Clean Water Act was for our country,” Jackson said. “The ideas will start with technology and will end up with public policy.”

The Kendall lecture, sponsored by the Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences and the Center for Global Change Science, honors the legacy of Henry W. Kendall, a MIT physics professor who received the Nobel Prize in 1990 for providing experimental evidence for quarks. Kendall founded the Union of Concerned Scientists in 1969 and throughout his life was deeply committed to finding scientific solutions to environmental problems.

EPA Activities

Planning Documents

Water Quality Impairments

Section 305(b) of the Clean Water Act requires states to assess and report on the water quality status of waters within the states. Section 303(d) requires states to list waters that are not attaining water quality standards. This is also known as the list of impaired waters. This information is reported to Congress on a nationwide basis.

Poor water quality in the Bay Delta Estuary and its tributaries affects terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems, drinking water, recreation, industry, agriculture, and the local and state economy. The State of California collects data on contaminants that degrade water quality to generate its Clean Water Act Section 303(d) list of water bodies with designated use impairments.

All of the waters within the Bay Delta Estuary are listed as impaired by at least one factor, either due to the presence of pollutants at unacceptable levels or the lack of maintaining certain conditions such as adequate levels of dissolved oxygen. Impairments in Bay Delta Estuary waters include:

Some pesticides and metals are legacy problems, such as the banned organochlorine pesticide DDT and mercury from abandoned mines. Most contaminants contributing to poor water quality in the Bay Delta Estuary are the result of current-use compounds from industrial, agricultural, urban, transportation, and natural sources. In addition, there is growing concern about new classes of contaminants, such as pyrethroid pesticides, pharmaceuticals and personal care products.

A 2010 list of water quality impairments in Bay Delta Estuary waterways and other California waterways is available at the California State Water Resources Control Board web site. Exiting EPA (disclaimer) And more information regarding EPA activities with impaired waters is available on EPA Region 9's Monitoring, Assessment, and TMDLs webpage.

Partners

Federal

State

Other

Aerial view of San Francisco Bay, courtesy of SF Bay Quakes Exiting EPA (disclaimer)

SF Bay Delta Team EPA Contacts

Erin Foresman (foresman.erin@epa.gov), Environmental Scientist & Policy Coordinator
(916) 557-5253

Bruce Herbold (Herbold.Bruce@epa.gov), Fisheries Biologist & Senior Scientist
(415) 972-3460

Carolyn Yale (Yale.Carolyn@epa.gov), San Joaquin River Basin Lead
(415) 972-3482

Luisa Valiela (Valiela.Luisa@epa.gov), San Francisco Bay Lead
(415) 972-3400

Sam Ziegler (Ziegler.Sam@epa.gov), Watersheds Office Manager
(415) 972-3399

Karen Schwinn (Schwinn.Karen@epa.gov), Associate Director,
Water Division and Bay Delta Team Manager
(415) 972-3472

CONTACT:
Dale Kemery (News Media Only)
kemery.dale@epa.gov
202-564-7839
202-564-4355

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
March 21, 2011


EPA Warns Online Shoppers about Illegal, Harmful Pesticide Sales

WASHINGTON – The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced today that it has warned more than 2,800 customers across the United States about risks associated with a banned pesticide in an ant-control product they purchased online through fastpestcontrol.com . The product, Fast Ant Bait, contained mirex, a pesticide that was banned in 1978 because it can cause liver, skin, reproductive and nerve damage.

“Illegal pesticides are often much more toxic than approved pesticides,” said Steve Owens, assistant administrator for EPA's Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention. “When EPA takes a pesticide off the market, it means that pesticide was not safe. Consumers should use only EPA-registered pesticides and always follow the label directions to ensure their safety.”

EPA became aware of the product after the Washington State Department of Health reported that a woman became ill after using it in her home. In response, EPA identified and warned three online companies, 2Checkout.com Inc., CCNow, Inc. and eBay Inc. to cease processing orders for the product that was produced and mailed from China. The three companies cooperated, immediately ceased processing orders and consumers can no longer purchase products from fastpestcontrol.com , the original site that offered the product for sale. The companies also worked with EPA to provide sales information, which allowed the agency to contact customers directly about the dangers posed by the pesticide and proper disposal methods.

The letter EPA sent to customers who bought the product provides detailed directions on how to safely clean up and dispose of the illegal product and what to do if they believe they were exposed or harmed. For more information on mirex or other pesticides, consumers can call the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry Information Center at 1-888-422-8737 or the National Pesticide Information Center (NPIC) at 1-800-858-7378.

To view a copy of the letter: http://www.epa.gov/region10/pdf/publications/notice_to_fastpestcontrol_customers_02_09_2011.pdf

Information on using pesticides safely: http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/health/safely.htm


Note: If a link above doesn't work, please copy and paste the URL into a browser.

View all news releases related to pesticides and toxic chemicals

Jonathan H. Adler • March 20, 2011 11:28 pm

Last week, the Environmental Protection Agency proposed new regulations governing emissions of mercury and other toxic air pollutants from power plants.  This rule has been a long time coming.  In the waning moments of the Clinton Administration, the EPA made a finding that would trigger mercury emission controls on power plants under the Clean Air Act.  The finding had been in the works for some time, but the Clinton EPA had been reluctant to pull the trigger until December 2000.   The Bush Administration did not appreciate the house-warming gift, and tried to undo the Clinton Administration's handiwork with an alternative approach.  They first tried legislation, but when Congress wouldn't bite they pushed through regulations.  The only problem was that the Bush EPA disregarded the Clean Air Act's plain text in the process, earning a well-deserved rebuke from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.  The new rules, once finalized, may well trigger litigation, but I doubt we'll see the same result.  From what I've looked at so far, this is a fairly traditional regulatory approach.

This  EPA fact sheet gives some background on the rule, stressing the anticipated reductions of mercury emissions.  What the fact sheet does not mention is that, the lack of meaningful federal mercury controls notwithstanding, mercury emissions have declined since 1990.  As the EPA's Report on the Environment shows between 1990–93 and 2005, mercury emissions declined by 58 percent.  Coal-burning facilities — which are covered by the new rule — represent the lion's share of the rest.

The emission trends are positive.  So, too, are trends in blood mercury levels.  As the same EPA report  shows blood mercury levels in women have declined, particularly among those at the 90th and 95th percentiles. From the EPA report: “during the 1999–2000 survey, 10 percent (i.e., 90th percentile value) of surveyed women age 16 to 49 had blood mercury levels of 4.9 µg/L or higher. In the 2007–2008 survey, however, the 90th percentile value had decreased to 2.7 µg/L.”  That's a significant drop for those with among the highest levels in the country.

These positive trends do not mean additional mercury controls are unnecessary, but it does put their urgency in perspective. It also suggests that the Bush Administration's approach, which would have utilized a more flexible cap-and-trade approach instead of facility-specific limits, may have been good policy after all, even if it was horribly bad law.

U.S. To Sign MOU With World Bank On Water Aid; Water For The World Act Reintroduced In Senate

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton on Tuesday will mark World Water Day by signing a memorandum of understanding (MOU) with the World Bank President Robert Zoellick aimed at "strengthen[ing] support to developing countries seeking a water secure future," RTTNews reports (3/21).

According to a State Department press release , "[b]efore the MOU signing ceremony, non-government organizations (NGO) will highlight new commitments by NGOs and the private sector to address water and sanitation challenges in developing countries." NOAA Administrator Jane Lubchenco, Under Secretary of State for Democracy and Global Affairs Maria Otero and USAID Deputy Administrator Donald Steinberg are expected to deliver remarks at the event, according to the release (3/18).

In related news, Sens. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) and Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) on Thursday introduced the Water for the World Act, according to a press release from Durbin's office. The bill "builds on the success of the Paul Simon Water for the Poor Act by placing clean water in the forefront of America's development priorities, seeking to reach 100 million people around the world with sustainable first-time access to clean water and sanitation within six years of enactment," according to the release.

"Durbin first introduced the Paul Simon Water for the World in March of 2009. That bill passed the Senate in the fall of 2010, but failed to pass the House of Representatives," the release notes and highlights several goals of the bill. The office released an accompanying factsheet (.pdf) on the bill (3/18).

Sen. Murkowski on America's Tremendous Resource Potential

Below is the full text of Sen. Murkowski's floor statement:

“Madam President, I've come to the floor to discuss America's tremendous natural resource potential, and to again highlight the fact that if we choose to, we can absolutely produce more of our energy to meet our own needs. I also want to address an argument that is often made in opposition to new domestic production, because I believe every member of this chamber needs to know the facts and the consequences of our current approach.

“Without a doubt, understanding how much energy we have is at the very foundation of energy policy. For resources like wind and solar, it's pretty easy – they're renewable, so we should never run out. But for conventional resources, which make up about 83 percent of the energy that America consumes, it's a different story. Oil and natural gas and coal aren't located on the surface of the Earth, so we don't always know exactly what we have and where we have it.

“Finding and quantifying our resources is a tough enough task. Adding to the complexity is the litany of technical terms that are used to describe them. There are proved reserves, probable reserves, possible reserves, unproved reserves, and our demonstrated reserve base. Then we move into resources, which are different from reserves. That list includes eight more categories, and every one of them means something different.

“I'd imagine that most people don't have a great understanding of these terms. By and large, that's perfectly fine – unless you're a member of the U.S. Senate. Because we're tasked with helping to formulate our nation's energy policy, we need to know the details and distinctions. Before we make critical decisions that affect the price and the source of our energy supply, it's our responsibility to know what our experts think we actually have.

Time to clean up the EPA

Farmers and ranchers are not happy with the Environmental Protection Agency. They see an agency that does not understand agriculture and imposes burdensome and confusing regulations. EPA may be the federal agency charged with enforcing the Clear Air and Clean Water acts but when it comes to agriculture, their policies are unclear and the process murky at best.

Responding to questions about the reason and need for some of their farm-related regulations, EPA says they are only doing what the courts tell them to do. The fact is that environmental activist groups often sue the EPA but the cases don't even reach the point of a judge's decision. Instead, there seems to be a pattern of an activist lawsuit, followed by an EPA settlement, resulting in new EPA regulations to comply with the settlement.

Environmental groups use the courts to twist laws against American farmers and agricultural production. This is resulting in policy decisions being made by activists, bureaucrats and lawyers without consideration of what's best for American agriculture. This pattern has been going on far too often and many times without adequate transparency.

This is no way to make policy.

This so-called “sue and settle” strategy keeps the process in the dark and often ignores producers until after the fact. Farmers and ranchers working and living on the land have a right to a seat at the table when policy decisions are made especially when the settlements frequently contain provisions critical to agriculture and rural communities.

EPA needs to reclaim a commitment to transparency and accountability. The process is seriously flawed and it is leading to damaging results out in the countryside. I challenged EPA's administrator, Lisa Jackson, at a recent hearing to answer some important questions about what's happening.

For instance, how does EPA decide what lawsuits they will settle and who will participate in settlement negotiations? How much taxpayer money is used to pay activists who sue the government? How frequently do these agreements with activist groups lead to new regulations? How closely does EPA follow the language in settlement agreements when proposing new rules? Does EPA consider the impact on farmers and ranchers when negotiating settlement agreements? And, how much does public comment factor into finalizing rules based on settlement agreements?

EPA's mission is to ensure that we have a clean environment but I wonder if their backdoor manner of making regulations is simply muddying the waters. I hope to get some answers.

Collin Peterson, DFL-7th District, is ranking minority member of the U.S. House Agriculture Committee.


FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

PRLog (Press Release) – Mar 21, 2011 – Phase 1 investigations, also known as environmental due diligence, is a common occurrence before many commercial property transactions occur.  The Phase 1 investigation is used by potential property buyers and lenders to determine if a property has any environmental contamination issues and to assess any potential liability from the contamination.

In 2005 the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued the All Appropriate Inquires (AAI) Rule – Environmental Site Assessments, Phase 1 Investigations.  It established the standards and requirements for conducting the necessary investigations to qualify for landowner liability protection under CERCLA.  

According to the EPA, “The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA), also known as “Superfund,” was established to address abandoned hazardous waste sites. Among other things, CERCLA establishes a liability scheme for determining who can be held accountable for releases of hazardous substances.”  The EPA's standards and practices are set force in regulations promulgated at 40 CFR Part 312.  They also recognize ASTM International Standards E1527-05 and E2247-08.

There has been a growing trend in the residential property market in the Mid-Atlantic region of conducting Phase 1 investigations before a property transaction.  Residential property owners and lenders are growing increasingly concerned about past land uses and Phase 1 investigations from SEHC provide the answers they need.  SEHC has decades of experience performing thorough environmental due diligence surveys.  

“Phase 1 environmental site assessments were traditionally conducted almost entirely for commercial property transactions,” stated Susan White, Ph.D., CMC, President of SEHC.    “In recent years we have witnessed an increase in the number of Phase 1 investigations being requested for residential property transactions in Delaware, Maryland and across the Mid-Atlantic.”

To learn more about Sussex Environmental Health Consultants' Phase 1 investigations or other health and safety services please visit http://www.sussexenvironmental.com , email susan.white@ mchsi.com or call (302) 947-1810.
# # #

About Sussex Environmental Health Consultants, LLC
SEHC is a certified woman owned business that provides environmental and health and safety consulting services. The company is located in the Mid-Atlantic and services clients nationwide. SEHC provides solutions to clients ranging from homeowners to international Fortune 500 corporations.

March 21, 2011 | Addressing a US House agriculture subcommittee last week , Virginia Secretary of Natural Resources Doug Domenech offered his audience a tale of two lattes.

“A venti twenty-ounce latte holds approximately one pound of nitrogen,” he said. “The cost to remove that much nitrogen can be six dollars – or it can be six thousand dollars – depending on if it is removed in a waste water system or an urban stormwater retrofit.”

Domenech's example is a perfect illustration of the complexities that regulators face in restoring the Chesapeake Bay watershed, which spans 64,000 square miles over five states and the District of Columbia. The nitrogen, phosphorus, and sediment pollution plaguing the Bay come from innumerable sources: urban storm-water runoff, fertilized croplands, sewage plants, and logged forests, among others.

Cleanup requires many strategies in many places, and one market-based strategy gaining popularity is the use of quantitative water quality standards as de-facto pollution caps in cap-and-trade water quality trading programs .

Both the State of Florida and the Chesapeake Bay region are in the process of developing programs that do just that, and both may very well serve as test models for new watershed protection efforts across the country.  The federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), however, is facing lawsuits in both states by groups rankled over the agency's efforts to step up restoration in impaired waterbodies.

The outcomes of these cases could have important ramifications for using water quality markets and other incentive-based mechanisms for cleanup. EPA's demands for greater accountability from states and local communities could catalyze market-based approaches – or stifle them, if implementation plans aiming for meticulousness forget about flexibility.

Chesapeake Bay

On January 12th, the Pennsylvania Farm Bureau, backed by the national American Farm Bureau, filed suit in a federal court in Harrisburg seeking to block the new Chesapeake Bay program , which aims to establish caps based on so-called “total maximum daily loads” (TMDLs), which are the amount of pollution or other changes that a water body can absorb without violating state water quality standards.  

In its lawsuit, the Farm Bureau makes a number of arguments, the most important being that the Clean Water Act (CWA) intended TMDLs to be informational tools only, and that the EPA overstepped its authority by taking charge of states' planning processes to implement a TMDL cap.

“How, when, and indeed whether a TMDL is ultimately achieved…is placed exclusively in the hands of each state,” says the official complaint. “EPA has no authority to cross the line between identifying total pollutant levels necessary to meet water quality standards and specifying implementation requirements.”

At the heart of the Farm Bureau's objections is a novel ‘accountability framework' for the Chesapeake TMDL, developed in response to Executive Order 13508, signed by President Obama in May of 2009, which directs federal agencies to redouble efforts to restore the Chesapeake Bay.

After decades of dangling carrots to encourage voluntary cleanup actions failed to halt the Bay's decay , EPA is now wielding some sticks: in addition to reviewing (and in some cases, initially rejecting ) states' Watershed Implementation Plans (WIPs), which set out strategies and timelines for cleanup, EPA is reserving the right to use ‘backstop measures' if WIPs aren't fully implemented. 

These include expanding the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) to cover non-point sources such as storm-water dischargers and animal feeding operations, which are not currently covered under the Clean Water Act. That particular threat has further infuriated the Farm Bureau, which sees it as another overreach of authority. EPA has also ordered states to set biennial milestones, with heavy consequences for those states that fail to meet them, including withholding funding and NPDES permit approval.

These actions, the Farm Bureau lawsuit claims, amount to an encroachment on states' rights. EPA counters that it has acted within its authority. At a January 10th conference , EPA's Jim Curtin conceded that the agency could not legally require WIPs in order to achieve a TMDL.

“We have in this TMDL tried very, very carefully to respect that dichotomy,” he said, suggesting instead that both are part of the larger restoration process. Curtin also noted that the Clean Water Act doesn't clearly spell out EPA's authority when it comes to regulation across a multi-state watershed, but that courts in the past have supported federal efforts to establish multistate pollution caps.

The Farm Bureau's complaint also takes issue with the models used to set the TMDL, questioning their “ scientific validity ”, and arguing that opportunities for public consultation on the TMDL were inadequate.

Florida

Meanwhile, in Florida, EPA has become the target of lawsuits over its 2010 Final Rule, which sets quantitative nutrient limits on the entire state's lakes, rivers, streams, and springs. Currently, nutrient criteria are simply ‘narrative,' requiring that “in no case shall nutrient concentrations of a body of water be altered so as to cause an imbalance in natural populations of aquatic flora or fauna.” Numeric limits are only introduced on a site-specific basis. The new statewide numeric ruling, which takes effect in 2012, is the product of a consent decree the EPA signed to settle a lawsuit filed by environmental groups in 2008.

Among the parties currently suing EPA over the new numeric standards: the State of Florida, the Florida Agricultural Commissioner, the Florida League of Cities, the Florida Stormwater Association, and numerous municipal and county groups, as well as members of the fertilizer and mining industries, at last count.

The complaints share a similar argument – and one that echoes debates up in the Chesapeake Bay. The Final Rule is a “ federal mandate ” and an intrusion into state regulatory affairs, which had received EPA's approval until the environmental group lawsuit, plaintiffs say.  Most also question the scientific basis of the EPA numbers and argue that implementing numeric nutrient limits for the entire state will inflict high costs on businesses, citizens, and the public sector.

Exactly how expensive the new rule will be is a fraught question; EPA estimates the new standards will cost between $135.5 and $206.1 million, or three to five dollars a month for the average Florida household.  A study commissioned by the Florida Stormwater Association puts costs in the billions.

EPA maintains that state-wide numeric nutrient criteria will actually help streamline watershed management planning; under the current approach, local planners have to spend time and money determining what quantitative targets meet the narrative criteria.

In the suit filed by the state, the EPA is also accused of initiating the Final Rule simply to resolve the environmental group lawsuit, and to preempt similar lawsuits in other states.

What's at Stake

A March 16th memo circulated to EPA regional administrators suggests that the agency will push all the states to develop numeric nutrient criteria, though EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson, speaking before a House panel on March 10th, insisted that EPA had no plans to impose them , as was done in Florida.

On the other hand, the Chesapeake TMDL is publicly expected to be a model for other multi-state restoration strategies, including in the Mississippi River Basin, the Gulf of Mexico, and the Great Lakes. Executive Order 13508 calls on the EPA to develop pollution-control strategies in the Chesapeake that “can be replicated in efforts to protect other bodies of water.”

In this sense, there's much more riding on the case than just the restoration of the Chesapeake Bay watershed, and the EPA and the Farm Bureau are keenly aware of this.

The Farm Bureau's strategy could very well backfire, says Brent Fewell, vice president of environmental compliance at United Water and former principal deputy assistant administrator at EPA's Office of Water.

“I think the Farm Bureau has legitimate concerns,” says Fewell. “But even if the lawsuit is successful, I think that the consequences of that will be the EPA making it even more difficult for states and local communities to decide how to achieve their overall load allocations. EPA is very creative and they're going to find other ways to get the same results. I think it would turn out to be more costly to agriculture in the long run.”

Making Non-Point Sources Part of the Solution

It seems clear that EPA intends to put more pressure on non-point sources, particularly animal feeding operations and stormwater dischargers. Traditionally, these polluters haven't fallen under EPA's purview because so-called “non-point sources” such as farms, septic systems and new development (whose pollution washes into a watershed over a diffuse area as opposed to from a single point) aren't regulated under the Clean Water Act's discharge permitting system.  As a result, they are responsible for an outsized share of water quality pollution in both the Chesapeake Bay area and in Florida.

But is requiring that states set very prescriptive loading allocations the best way to demand more of non-point sources?

During last week's House Agriculture subcommittee hearing, Pennsylvania Farm Bureau President Carl Shaffer called the TMDL a threat to agriculture and argued that incentives for more conservation-friendly agricultural practices are working .

“Use of crop inputs is declining,” he said. “No-till farming has reduced soil erosion and resulted in more carbon being stored in the soil. Nitrogen use efficiency has consistently improved.”

In February, the Natural Resources Conservation Service published a study assessing the impacts of conservation practices on cropland and found that a full 96 percent of cropland in the Chesapeake Bay watershed has implemented at least conservation tillage or erosion control structural practices (like buffers or terracing), though there is much room for improvement in nutrient management.

Beth McGee, a senior scientist for the Chesapeake Bay Fund, points to high participation in conservation practices as a sign that the TMDL's potential impacts on farmers have been greatly exaggerated by the Farm Bureau. Many farmers, she says, are already doing their part to protect water quality, and the TMDL wouldn't add to their obligations.

“The American Farm Bureau is seeding fear,” McGee says. “It's not quite clear yet to some Chesapeake farmers what they need to do to meet the pollution diet. Now they're hearing from their national leaders that this is going to put them out of business and EPA's going to be on their farm. It's a fallacy.

“You can have farms that are making a profit and are compatible with clean water.”

Agriculture's contribution to Bay cleanup could be huge: cutting pollutionAnd achieving pollution reductions from non-point sources can be is usually much cheaper than installing installing more end-of-pipe technology at point-sources mitigation technologies.

Achieving pollution reductions from non-point sources can be much cheaper than installing more end-of-pipe point-source mitigation technologies.

“The District of Columbia is expected by EPA to spend over three billion dollars to reduce stormwater discharges,” says Fewell.  “Three billion dollars for a jurisdiction that represents two percent of phosphorus and nitrogen contributions to the Bay. On the other hand, if the district was allowed to use a few hundred million dollars to offset somewhere else in the watershed, by paying for conservation practices on farmland, we'd see a heck of a lot more reduction in nutrients and improvements to the Bay.

“It makes no sense. When you've got EPA dictating to the District of Columbia to reduce stormwater discharges at two billion dollars, that's a lost opportunity.”

What This Means for Markets

A TMDL or state numeric nutrient criteria by themselves simply set water quality targets. Markets for nutrient credits usually rely on these targets to drive trade .  Markets, however, require regulatory flexibility about where and how mitigation happens. As the Chesapeake and Florida debates illustrate, the key in implementing water quality standards is finding that sweet spot between holding states and local communities accountable for their share of the cleanup effort and giving them the flexibility to find the most cost-effective way to cut pollution.  “It is important to emphasize that [Virginia's watershed implementation] plan is being developed during the worst economy in generations,” Domenech pointed out last week.  Market approaches like Maryland's payment for ecosystem services policy , or the nutrient credit exchanges in Virginia  and  Pennsylvania  can help identify the most economically efficient opportunities to achieve TMDL allocations.  “I think the biggest strategic mistake that EPA has made is micromanaging the states and how they achieve their load reductions,” says Newell. “EPA has every right to say, ‘In two years we expect you to achieve this amount of progress and if you don't, these are the consequences. But in the interim, states should figure out how to do it. And trading and other market-based approaches really are the most effective tool to help states do so.”

What's Next?

In both the Chesapeake Bay and Florida, the cases are expected to be tied up in the courts for a few years . In the meantime, restoration efforts roll on. State phase II WIPs, with detailed plans for allocating nutrient and sediment load reductions among sources, are due by June 1st of this year, and it remains to be seen how much scope exists for market mechanisms in these plans.  The Final Rule in Florida is expected to take effect in April 2012.

What appears clear is that restoration is moving forward in the Chesapeake and in Florida. The real question is how much it's going to cost, who gets to decide how it happens, and whether EPA's strategies will turn out to be workable models for cleanup efforts across the country.

Notice of Lodging of a Stipulated Order for Preliminary Relief Pursuant to the Clean Water Act

Mar 20, 2011 (FIND, Inc. via COMTEX) -- Notice is hereby given that a proposed Stipulated Order for Preliminary Relief was lodged on March 15, 2011, with the United States District Court for the Northern District of California in United States of America et al. v. City of Alameda, et al., Civ. No. C 09-05684 RS.

The United States of America and the People of the State of California ex rel. California State Water Resources Control Board and California Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Francisco Bay Region (together "Water Boards"), and Plaintiff-Intervenor San Francisco Baykeeper ("Baykeeper"), brought claims under Sections 301 and 402 of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 1251, et seq., against seven municipal defendants, including the City of Alameda, the City of Albany, the City of Berkeley, the City of Emeryville, the City of Oakland, the City of Piedmont and the Stege Sanitary District (together "Satellite Communities").

The United States, the Water Boards and Baykeeper allege that the Satellite Communities are in violation of the Clean Water Act and their National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System ("NPDES") Permits because they have unlawful sanitary sewer overflows ("SSOs") during wet weather. They also allege that the Satellite Communities are in violation of the operation and maintenance provisions of their NPDES Permits because they contribute excessive flow to treatment systems owned and operated by the East Bay Municipal Utilities District ("EBMUD"), which causes EBMUD to violate the Clean Water Act and its own NPDES permit.


The proposed Stipulated Order for Preliminary Relief complements a January 2009 interim settlement with EBMUD. Among other things, the EBMUD settlement requires EBMUD to study flow from the Satellite Communities and make recommendations to EPA and the Water Boards as to how that flow can be reduced to prevent discharges from three wet weather facilities ("WWFs").

This Stipulated Order for Preliminary Relief represents an interim solution that will move the parties toward a final resolution of the claims in the complaint. It will require the Satellite Communities to gather information that EBMUD will use to determine how to reduce flows to its system. It will also require the Satellite Communities to begin taking steps to reduce inflow and infiltration into their collection systems. This settlement, together with the earlier interim settlement with EBMUD, will provide EBMUD, EPA and the Water Boards with the information necessary to achieve a final settlement that will eliminate discharges from the WWFs.

The Department of Justice will receive for a period of thirty (30) days from the date of this publication comments relating to the proposed Stipulated Order for Preliminary Relief. Comments should be addressed to the Assistant Attorney General, Environment and Natural Resources Division, and either e- mailed to pubcomment-ees.enrd@usdoj.gov or mailed to P.O. Box 7611, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC 20044-7611, and should refer to United States et al. v. City of Alameda et al., DJ No. 90-5-1-1-09361/1.

The proposed Stipulated Order for Preliminary Relief may be examined at the Region 9 Office of the Environmental Protection Agency, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA, 94105. During the public comment period, the proposed Stipulated Order for Preliminary Relief may also be examined on the following Department of Justice Web site, http://www.usdoj.gov/enrd/Consent_Decrees.html . A copy of the Stipulated Order for Preliminary Relief may also be obtained by mail from the Consent Decree Library, P.O. Box 7611, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC 20044-7611, or by faxing or e-mailing a request to Tonia Fleetwood (tonia.fleetwood@usdoj.gov), fax no. (202) 514-0097, phone confirmation number (202) 514-1547. In requesting a copy from the Consent Decree Library, please enclose a check in the amount of $25.00 (25 cents per page reproduction cost) payable to the U.S. Treasury. The check should refer to United States et al. v. City of Alameda, et al., DJ No. 90-5-1-1-09361/1.

Henry Friedman, Assistant Section Chief, Environmental Enforcement Section, Environment and Natural Resources Division.

[FR Doc. 2011-6534 Filed 3-18-11; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410-15-P Vol. 76, No. 054 Notices

oxer calls for inspection of california nuclear plants

Senator Boxer Calls for Inspection of California Nuclear Plants   

Wednesday, March 16, 2011

Dear Friend:

Today I joined Senator Dianne Feinstein in writing to the Chairman of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), Dr. Gregory Jaczko, calling on the NRC to perform a thorough inspection of California's San Onofre and Diablo Canyon nuclear power plants – both of which are located near earthquake faults – in order to evaluate their safety and emergency preparedness.  We also asked the NRC to respond to questions about plant design and operations, type of reactor, and preparedness to withstand an earthquake or tsunami.

To read the text of our letter to the NRC, please click here .

Reconstructing the Iron Mountain Community

Funding

This research was funded by the U.S. Department of Energy Microbial Genomics Program and the National Science Foundation Biocomplexity Program.

GSA MOBIS#GS10F-0197R

KeyLogic's GSA Management, Organizational and Business Improvement Services (MOBIS) Schedule Contract No. GS10F-0197R offers a full range of management and consulting services that can improve federal agency performance and their endeavor in meeting mission goals.

Additional Details

MOBIS contractors possess the necessary expertise to facilitate how the federal government responds to a continuous stream of new mandates and evolutionary influences including the President's Management Agenda (PMA); Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA); Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act; OMB Circular A-76; Federal Activities Inventory Reform Act; government reinvention initiatives such as benchmarking and streamlining.

Here are just a few examples of how MOBIS can be used:

Pricing Terms & Conditions / Current Price List

Functional Areas Provided:

Contract Type:
ID/IQ

Ceiling:
Please see pricing terms & conditions.

Socio-Economic Status:
Other than small business

Customer Access:
All Federal Agencies

Ordering Process:
Per task order basis

Welcome to the MAX Federal Community!

Email: john@ironmountainmine.com

Organization

Position: SOLICITOR GENERAL, AGENT, FACTOR

Department: WARDEN OF THE ARBORETUM

Location: IRON MOUNTAIN MINE, SHASTA , CA .

If you require assistance please contact the MAX support team by e-mailing maxsupport@omb.eop.gov or calling 202-395-6860.

Thank you. The MAX Support Team

Office of Management and Budget

Home    |    Training    |    FAQ    |    Contact Us    |    MAX Administrators    |    Register Here    |    Password

WARNING: This system contains U.S. Government Data. Unauthorized use of this system is prohibited.

This computer system, including all related equipment, networks, and network devices (specifically including Internet access) are provided only for authorized U.S. Government use. U.S. Government computer systems may be monitored for all lawful purposes, including to ensure that their use is authorized, for management of the system, to facilitate protection against unauthorized access, and to verify security procedures, survivability, and operational security. Monitoring includes active attacks by authorized U.S. Government entities to test or verify the security of this system. During monitoring, information may be examined, recorded, copied and used for authorized purposes. All information, including personal information, placed or sent over this system may be monitored.

Use of this computer system, authorized or unauthorized, constitutes consent to monitoring of this system. Unauthorized use may subject you to criminal prosecution. Evidence of unauthorized use collected during monitoring may be used for administrative, criminal, or other adverse action. Use of this system constitutes consent to monitoring for these purposes.

Use of this system implies understanding of these terms and conditions.

Note - Per our personal privacy policy, no personal information will be collected on this site beyond that provided by you when you registered for a MAX User ID.

Home   |  Training   |  FAQ   |  Contact Us   |  Privacy Policy   |  Site Map   |  Register Here

Featured Links

General

Budget Formulation and Execution Line of Business

Learn More about MAX Capabilities

The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) has announced the five program areas that will benefit from the fourth round of Advanced Research Projects Agency – Energy (ARPA-E) funding. The five programs will receive up to $130 million in funding, which will help advance our nation's clean energy goals. The five program areas that are part of this funding round focus on the following technologies:

Projects in the REACT program will focus on finding rare earth substitutes for electric vehicle motors and wind generators. The DOE has committed up to $30 million for REAC projects. Learn more about the latest round of funding and the five new program areas by visiting the ARPA-E website .


Below you will find the MAX Community collaboration groups, Government-wide Communities, and MAX applications for which you are registered.

Collaboration Groups

·

FEMA OPPA Strategic Foresight Initiative (Nonfederal)

·

FEMA OPPA Strategic Foresight Initiative All

·

Nonfederal Domain Group

MAX Federal Community with NON-FEDERAL Partners

Welcome to the MAX Federal Community!

If you have difficulty navigating the site please contact us at info@max.gov

Welcome John Hutchens(NONFED)

Dept of Homeland Security-External

Emergency Management Strategic Foresight Initiative (SFI)

Restricted

•  maxEmergency Management Strategic Foresight Initiative (SFI)


Welcome to the Emergency Management Strategic Foresight Initiative (SFI). The purpose of SFI is to bring the emergency management community together to better understand how the world is changing and how those changes may affect the future environment in which emergency managers will operate.  This community-wide effort will help identify both strategic opportunities and challenges from which the community could significantly benefit.


This online community is intended to serve as a collaboration space for those who wish to participate in this initiative, and participants agree to abide by the User Agreement, available by clicking here .

To learn more about SFI, click here .To start contributing now, go to the "Forum" tab, or click here .

_This page has been viewed 3084times (315distinct users)._

•  Universal Access to and Use of Information commented by Alexis Giannoulis(NONFED) Feb 02

•  Technological Innovation and Dependency commented by Christine Willett(DHS) Jan 28

•  Critical Infrastructure commented by Emilio Lopez(DHS, Ctr) Jan 12

•  Global Interdependencies commented by Emilio Lopez(DHS, Ctr) Jan 12

•  Government_Budgets.v6.pdf attached by Emilio Lopez(DHS, Ctr) Jan 11

•  Climate Change commented by Emilio Lopez(DHS, Ctr) Dec 17

•  NOAA_county_snapshots_flooding.JPG attached by Emilio Lopez(DHS, Ctr) Dec 17

•  SFI - About the Initiative updated by Emilio Lopez(DHS, Ctr) Dec 09

•  SFI - Events updated by Emilio Lopez(DHS, Ctr) Dec 08

•  Technological Innovation and Dependency commented by Art Botterell(NONFED) Dec 02

•  Technological Innovation and Dependency commented by Art Botterell(NONFED) Dec 01

•  Technological Innovation and Dependency commented by Brad Kiesling(DHS, Ctr) Nov 30

•  Changing Role of the Individual commented by Art Botterell(NONFED) Nov 23

•  Changing Role of the Individual commented by Emilio Lopez(DHS, Ctr) Nov 22

•  Changing Role of the Individual commented by Art Botterell(NONFED)

The White House. President Barack Obama

Homeland Security Briefing Room

Issues

Civil Rights

1893 ENVIRONMENTAL MATTERS

PETITORY. That which demands or petitions that which has, the, quality of a prayer or petition; a right to demand.
     2. A petitory suit or action is understood to be one in which the mere title to property is to be enforced by means of a demand or petition, as distinguished from a possessory suit. 1 Kent, Com. 371.
     3. In the Scotch law, petitory actions are so called, not because something is sought to be awarded by the judge, for in that sense all actions must be petitory, but because some demand is made upon the defender, in consequence either of the right of property or credit in the pursuer. Thus, actions for restitution of movables, actions of pounding, of forthcoming, and indeed all personal actions upon contracts, or quasi contracts, which the Romans called condictiones, are petitory. Ersk. Inst. b. 4, t. 1, n. 47.

A legal proceeding by which the plaintiff seeks to establish and enforce his or her title to property, as distinguished from a possessory proceeding, where the plaintiff's right to possession is the issue. Such petitory actions must be based on a claim of legal title to the property, as opposed to a mere equitable interest in it.

In admiralty , suits to try title to property independent of questions concerning possession.

Judge Lindley says: "A mining claim perfected since the act of 1866 has the effect of a grant from the United States of the present and exclusive possession of the lands located. The owner of such a location is entitled to the exclusive possession and enjoyment, against every one, including the United States itself." Lindley on Mines, sec. 539

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution...are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." Amendment X. See infra, secs. 1262 et seq., 1323 et seq., public service.

Executive Order 12088—Federal Compliance with Pollution Control Standards
SOURCE: The provisions of Executive Order 12088 of October 13,1978, appear at 43 FR 47707, 3 CFR, 1978 Comp.,
p. 243, unless otherwise noted.

1-103. "Applicable pollution control standards" means the same substantive, procedural, and other
requirements that would apply to a private person.

1-2. Agency Coordination.
1-201. Each Executive agency shall cooperate with the Administrator of the Environmental Protection
Agency, hereinafter referred to as the Administrator, and State, interstate, and local agencies in the
prevention, control, and abatement of environmental pollution.
1-202. Each Executive agency shall consult with the Administrator and with State, interstate, and local
agencies concerning the best techniques and methods available for the prevention, control, and abatement of
environmental pollution.

1-3. Technical Advice and Oversight.
1-301. The Administrator shall provide technical advice and assistance to Executive agencies in order
to ensure their cost effective and timely compliance with applicable pollution control standards.
1-302. The administrator shall conduct such reviews and inspections as may be necessary to monitor
compliance with applicable pollution control standards by Federal facilities and activities.
1-4. Pollution Control Plan. [Note: Sec. 1.4 was revoked by Sec. 901, Executive Order 13148, 65 FR
24604, April 26, 2000, signed April 21, 2000 ]
1-401. Each Executive agency shall submit to the Director of the Office of Management and Budget,
through the Administrator, an annual plan for the control of environmental pollution. The plan shall provide
for any necessary improvement in the design, construction, management, operation, and maintenance of
Federal facilities and activities, and shall include annual cost estimates. The Administrator shall establish
guidelines for developing such plans.
1-402. In preparing its plan, each Executive agency shall ensure that the plan provides for compliance
with all applicable pollution control standards.
1-403. The plan shall be submitted in accordance with any other instructions that the Director of the
Office of Management and Budget may issue.

5. MATTERS NOT COVERED BY THE CONSENT DECREE.
5.1 Decisions relating to remedy selection.
5.1.1 Decisions regarding selection of future remedial actions. The Parties to
this MOU agree that with respect to any future investigation and remedy
selection regarding the IMM Site, the Parties will follow the process and
procedures set forth in CERCLA and the NCP. The Parties further
understand and agree that nothing in the MOU limits the State's rights
under Section 114 of CERCLA or any other applicable law, or the rights
and responsibilities of any Party under Section 121 of CERCLA or any
other applicable law.
5.1.2 Decisions regarding amending prior remedial actions. The Parties to
this MOU agree that with respect to adopting an ESD or amending the

remedial actions in place at the time of the entry of the Consent Decree or
remedies implemented after the entry of the Consent Decree, EPA and the
State will follow the process and procedures set forth in CERCLA and the
NCP. The Parties further understand and agree that nothing in this MOU
limits the State's rights under Section 114 of CERCLA or any other
applicable law, or the rights and responsibilities of any Party under
Section 121 of CERCLA or any other applicable law.
5.1.3 Waiver of ARARs for existing and future RODs. The Parties to this
MOU agree to consider the appropriateness of a permanent waiver of the
applicable or relevant and appropriate requirement ("ARAR") with respect
to the standard for receiving waters, including, but not limited to Spring
Creek, as to existing and future RODs for the IMM Site. If at some point
EPA determines that no further RODs will be issued for the IMM Site,
EPA will inform the State in writing at the earliest possible date and the
issue of the waiver of ARARs will be reviewed as soon as thereafter as
practicable.
5.1.4 Changes to CERCLA. If in the future CERCLA changes in a material
manner so as to impact the expectation of the Parties with respect to the
process arid procedure for amending remedies at a federal Superfund site,
the Parties will agree to meet and formulate a process for future remedy
selection that is consistent with applicable state and federal laws in force at
that time.

CERCLA explicitly states in several different sections that it
does not preempt state law. The general saving clause, § 152(d), provides in
part:
Nothing in this chapter shall affect or modify in any way the
obligations or liabilities of any person under other Federal or State
law, including common law, with respect to releases of hazardous
substances or other pollutants or contaminants.
42 U.S.C. § 9652(d). Section 107(j), the section of the Act that creates liability
for clean-up costs, provides in pertinent part:
Nothing in this paragraph shall affect or modify in any way the
obligations or liability of any person under any other provision of
State or Federal law, including common law, for damages, injury, or
loss resulting from a release of any hazardous substance or for
removal or remedial action or the costs of removal or remedial
action of such hazardous substance.
42 U.S.C. § 9607(j). The savings clause of CERCLA's express contribution
provision, § 113(f)(1), states in relevant part:
Nothing in this subsection shall diminish the right of any person to
bring an action for contribution in the absence of a civil action under
section 9606 of this title or section 9607 of this title.
42 U.S.C. § 9613(f)(1). And finally, § 114(a), the section of CERCLA that deals
with CERCLA's relationship to other laws, states:
Nothing in this chapter shall be construed or interpreted as
preempting any State from imposing any additional liability or
requirements with respect to the release of hazardous substances
within such State.
42 U.S.C. § 9614(a). The statute is therefore clear on its face that Congress did
not intend CERCLA to preempt state law.
It is also clear from case law that CERCLA and the SWDA co-exist as
regulatory regimes. See Cooper, 543 U.S. at 166–67 (holding that the portion of
§ 113(f)(1) cited above “rebuts any presumption that the express right of
contribution provided by the enabling clause is the exclusive cause of action for
contribution available to a [potentially responsible party]”); MSOF Corp. v.
Exxon Corp., 295 F.3d 485, 491 (5th Cir. 2002) (“This court and other courts have
construed the CERCLA saving clauses in accordance with their plain meanings
and have held that they preserve parties' rights arising under state law.”).

IMMI's STRATEGY FOR ACHIEVING THE SAFE WATERSHED REFORM-ACT (SWR)

EPA Should Revise Outdated or Inconsistent EPA-State Clean Water Act Memoranda of Agreement
What We Found
NPDES MOAs between EPA and States do not ensure Agency management control and effective oversight over a national program administered by States that is capable of providing equal protection to all Americans. EPA Headquarters does not hold EPA regional or State offices accountable for updating their MOAs when necessary and relies on other planning and management mechanisms to exercise control over State programs. However, MOAs are critical because they are the common denominator for State-authorized programs and should represent a common baseline. Outdated MOAs or MOAs that are not adhered to reduce EPA's ability to maintain a uniform program across States that meets the goals of CWA sections 101 and 402. An effective national program must maintain consistent management control and oversight of State programs.
What We Recommend
We recommend that EPA ensure that all NPDES MOAs contain essential elements for a nationally consistent enforcement program, including CWA, Code of Federal Regulations, and State Review Framework criteria. We recommend that EPA develop and provide a national template and/or guidance for a model MOA; direct EPA regions to revise outdated or inconsistent MOAs to meet the national template and standards; and establish a process for periodic review and revision of MOAs, including when the CWA or Code of Federal Regulations are revised or when State programs change. Finally, we recommend that EPA establish a national, public clearinghouse of all current MOAs so that EPA, States, and the public have access to these documents.
EPA generally agreed with our recommendations, saying it would coordinate assessment and revision of NPDES MOAs with implementation of the CWA Action Plan. Three recommendations are open and one recommendation is listed as undecided. In its final response to this report, EPA should provide estimated or actual completion dates for all recommendations

Water Resources Development Act of 1986

In discussing section 406 of this Act on the floor of the Senate, Chairman Stafford said:

"Until now, mitigation for land turned over to water development projects came about on a hit-or-miss basis . . . For the first time, mitigation will have to go forward with the project requiring the mitigation, not afterward. This bill requires that the Corps develop mitigation plans for each and every project, or tell the American people why such work is not justified. . . In addition, this section establishes a new continuing authority, funded at $30 million a year. This authority will allow the Corps to go back and repair the fish and wildlife damage that its existing projects have produced."

Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act

Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act (16 U.S.C. 1001-1009, Chapter 18; P.L. 566, August 4, 1954; 68 Stat. 666). As amended by:

Chapter 1018, August 7, 1956; 70 Stat. 1088; P.L. 85-624, August 12, 1958; 72 Stat. 567; P.L. 85-865, September 2, 1958; 72 Stat. 1605; P.L. 86-468, May 13, 1960; 74 Stat. 131; P.L. 86-545, June 29, 1960; 74 Stat. 254; P.L. 87-170, August 30, 1961; 75 Stat. 408; P.L. 87-639, September 5, 1962; 76 Stat. 438; P.L. 87-703, September 27, 1962; 76 Stat. 608; P.L. 89-337, November 8, 1965; 79 Stat. 1300; P.L. 90-361, June 27, 1968; 82 Stat. 250; P.L. 92-419, August 30, 1972; 86 Stat. 667; P.L. 95-113, September 29, 1977; 91 Stat. 1022; P.L. 97-98, December 22, 1981; 95 Stat. 1332; P.L. 99-662, November 17, 1986; 100 Stat. 4196;

Under this Act, the Soil Conservation Service at the Department of Agriculture provides planning assistance and construction funding for projects constructed by local sponsors, often in the form of flood control districts. Restrictions on projects include: the size of the watershed must be 250,000 acres or less; no single structure may provide more than 12,500 acre-feet of flood water retention; no single structure may provide more than 25,000 acre-feet of total capacity; and projects with costs greater than $5 million or with structures with total capacities greater than 25,000 acre-feet must be approved by Congress.

The original 1954 statute sought cooperation between the Federal Government and States and localities to prevent flood damages. The Secretary of Agriculture was authorized to construct flood protection measures below a certain acre-foot limit. Such initiatives were to be cost-shared and localities were required to contribute rights-of-way. The law also required that the Secretary of the Interior be consulted regarding plans which affect reclamation, irrigation or public lands under the Secretary of the Interior. Related views were to be submitted with project plans to the Congress.

Amendments enacted in 1956 imposed acre-foot ceilings on projects authorized to be undertaken by the Secretary of Agriculture without Congressional approval. Projects for which the Federal contribution was estimated to exceed $250,000 or which exceeded 2500 acre-feet were to be submitted to the Secretary of the Interior for review if they involved reclamation or irrigation lands, or public lands or wildlife under the Secretary's jurisdiction. The views of the Department of the Interior were required to accompany the report to Congress and regulations to coordinate activities of the Departments of Agriculture and Interior were mandated. In addition, loans to localities were authorized and the provisions of the Act were extended to apply to Hawaii, Alaska, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands.

Amendments to the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act in 1958 (P.L. 85-624) also amended this statute to require the Secretary of Agriculture to notify the Secretary of the Interior regarding projects in order that the Secretary of the Interior could prepare a fish and wildlife report to be incorporated in project plans. "Full consideration" was to be given to such reports by the Secretary of Agriculture; however, the Secretary of Agriculture retained the discretion to adopt fish and wildlife recommendations which are "technically and economically feasible." Costs for related surveys and reports are to be borne by the Secretary of the Interior. Amendments adopted later that year (P.L. 85-865) added fish and wildlife development as an aspect of flood control projects to be constructed.

Public Law 86-468, enacted in 1960, provided additional authority to the Secretary of Agriculture to make loans, and P.L. 86-532 further clarified the responsibility of localities to provide easements and rights-of-way for projects. Related joint surveys between the Secretary of Agriculture and the Secretary of the Army were authorized by P.L. 87-639 in 1962.

Additional amendments enacted in 1962 (P.L. 87-703) stipulated project cost-sharing for lands, easements and rights-of-way in instances for which localities agree to operate and maintain a reservoir or other area for fish and wildlife or recreational development. Similar to previous legislation, the views of the Secretary of the Interior were to be solicited and submitted to Congress for projects which include irrigation, reclamation, public lands or wildlife under the jurisdiction of the Secretary of the Interior.

Public Law 89-337 increased the acre-foot size capacity for projects authorized to be constructed by the Secretary of Agriculture. Technical amendments were enacted in 1968 (P.L. 90-361).

Major amendments were enacted in 1972 (P.L. 92-419). Conservation of water and preservation of the environment were added as general purposes for authorized projects. (Project purposes include: 1) flood prevention, 2) the conservation, utilization, development, and disposal of water, and 3) the conservation and proper utilization of land.) Ten-year agreements with local landowners for changes in cropping systems and land use were authorized to conserve waters, wildlife and recreation. In addition, this law reiterated provisions for notification of the Secretary of the Interior when public lands or wildlife would be affected and for incorporation of the Secretary's views in reports transmitted to Congress.

The cost ceiling for authorized projects was increased to $1 million in 1977 (P.L. 95-113) and to $5 million in 1981 (P.L. 97-98). The 1981 amendments added Indian tribes as an eligible entity and limited Federal cost sharing to 50/50 for land, easements or rights-of-way acquired by the local organization for mitigation of fish and wildlife habitat losses. This public law also stipulated that any related land acquisition would not be limited to the "confines of the watershed project boundaries."

The 1986 Water Resources Development Act (P.L. 99-662) also amended the Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act to stipulate that projects submitted to Congress for authorization after July 1, 1987, must contain benefits to agriculture that account for at least 20 percent of the total project benefits.

P.L. 101-624, approved November 28,1990, (104 Stat. 3616) added language to allow for completion of water quality improvement projects under this Act. It also added cost share assistance language making loans available for acquisition of perpetual wetland/floodplain easements for flood management and storage purposes, for the purposes of water quality/quantity improvement, and to provide fish & wildlife habitat. The cost share was set at 50 percent.

P.L. 104-127, approved April 4, 1996, (110 Stat. 1151) changed language regarding the terms of loans to local organizations and state/local governments for carrying out projects under this Act. Also, this amendment set a cap on the amount of any loan for a single project at $10M.

Salmon and Steelhead Conservation and Enhancement Act

This Act, Salmon and Steelhead Conservation and Enhancement Act -- Public Law 96-561, approved December 22, 1980 (94 Stat. 3299; 16 U.S.C. 3301-3371) established a salmon and steelhead enhancement program to be jointly administered by the Departments of Commerce and Interior, with appropriations authorized at $126,500,000.

The Act established a Washington State and Columbia River conservation area and directed the Secretary of Commerce to establish an advisory committee of representatives from Washington and Oregon, the Washington and Columbia River tribal bodies, the Pacific Fisheries Management Council, and the National Marine Fisheries Service. It also directed that a report be submitted to the Secretary of Commerce and Congress, and the Secretary of the Interior was authorized to establish a grant program for each conservation area.

Title II, entitled the "American Fisheries Promotion Act," authorized emergency assistance loans, accelerated fisheries research and development, extended the Federal fishing vessel obligation guarantee program under Title XI of the Merchant Marine Act, and redefined regulations governing foreign fishing in U.S. waters for steelhead and salmon.

Water Resources Planning Act

Water Resources Planning Act (42 U.S.C. 1962a - 1962(a)(4)(e); P.L. 89-80; July 22, 1965; 79 Stat. 245) as amended by:

P.L.94-112; October 16, 1975; 89 Stat. 575; P.L. 95-404; September 30, 1978; 92 Stat. 864; and P.L. 97-449; January 12, 1983; 96 Stat. 2441.

Title I of the 1965 Water Resources Planning Act established a Water Resources Council to be composed of Cabinet representatives, including the Secretary of the Interior. Title II established River Basin Commissions and stipulated their duties and authorities.

The Council was empowered to maintain a continuing assessment of the adequacy of water supplies in each region of the U.S. In addition, the Council was mandated to establish principles and standards for Federal participants in the preparation of river basin plans and in evaluating Federal water projects. Upon receipt of a river basin plan, the Council was required to review the plan with respect to agricultural, urban, energy, industrial, recreational and fish and wildlife needs.

Title III established a grant program to assist States in participating in the development of related comprehensive water and land use plans.

Amendments enacted in 1975 (P.L.94-112) added several Cabinet representatives to the Council, including the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, and authorized appropriations through FY 1978.

The 1978 amendments (P.L.95-404) authorized appropriations though fiscal year 1979 and stipulated the apportionment of Federal planning monies for certain specific tasks, including the Columbia River Estuary Special Study; the New England Port and Harbor Study; the Hudson River Basin Level B study; and the Connecticut River Basin.

Amendments enacted in 1983 as part of the Department of Transportation and Motor Carrier Safety Act (P.L. 97-449) required that the Council develop standards and criteria for economic evaluation of water resource projects, and defined what would constitute the primary direct navigation benefits of a water resource project.

Public Law 100-460, approved October 1, 1988, (102 Stat. 2262) stipulates that none of the funds appropriated through this or any other Act can be used to alter the method of computing normalized prices for agricultural commodities for use by Federal agencies in evaluating water resources development projects undertaken with Federal funds.

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) -- Public Law 94-580, October 21, 1976, (42 U.S.C. 6901-6992; 90 Stat. 2795), as amended by P.L. 95-609 (92 Stat. 3081), P.L. 96-463 (94 Stat. 2055), P.L. 96-482 (94 Stat. 2334), P.L. 98-616 (98 Stat. 3224), P.L. 99-339 (100 Stat. 654), P.L. 99-499 (100 Stat. 1696), P.L. 100-556 (102 Stat. 2779)

P.L. 100-582 (102 Stat. 2951), and P.L. 104-208 (110 Stat. 3009) regulates the treatment, transportation, storage, and disposal of solid and hazardous wastes. The Service is required to comply with standards for wastes generated at its facilities. The key provisions include:

Subtitle C. Identification and listing of hazardous waste and standards applicable to hazardous waste -- Requires reporting of hazardous waste, permitting for storage, transport, and disposal, and it includes provisions for oil recycling and Federal hazardous waste facilities inventories.

Subtitle D. Management for solid waste, including landfills.

Subtitle F. Applicability of Federal, State, and local laws to Federal agencies. Procurement (recycling) provisions.

Subtitle G. Citizen suits, judicial review, and enforcement authority.

Subtitle I. Management, replacement, and monitoring of underground storage tanks.

Federal Water Pollution Control Act (Clean Water Act)

Federal Water Pollution Control Act (Clean Water Act) ( 33 U.S.C. 1251 - 1376 ; Chapter 758; P.L. 845, June 30, 1948; 62 Stat. 1155). As amended by:

Chapter 928, P.L. 580, July 17, 1952; 66 Stat. 755; Chapter 518, P.L. 660, July 9, 1956; 70 Stat. 498; P.L. 86-70, June 25, 1959; 73 Stat. 148; P.L. 86-624, July 12, 1960; 74 Stat. 417; P.L. 87-88, July 20, 1961; 75 Stat. 204; P.L. 89-753, November 3, 1966; 80 Stat. 1246; P.L. 91-224, April 3, 1970; 84 Stat. 91; P.L. 92-50, July 9, 1971; 85 Stat. 124; P.L. 92-138, October 14, 1971; 85 Stat. 379; P.L. 92-240, March 1, 1972; 86 Stat. 47; P.L. 92-500, October 18, 1972; 86 Stat. 816; P.L. 93-207, December 28, 1973; 87 Stat. 906; P.L. 93-243, January 2, 1974; 87 Stat. 1069; P.L. 93-593, January 2, 1975; 88 Stat. 1924; P.L. 94-238, March 23, 1976; 90 Stat. 250; P.L. 94-369, July 22, 1976; 90 Stat. 1011; P.L. 94-558, October 19, 1976; 90 Stat. 2639; P.L. 95-217, December 27, 1977; 91 Stat. 1566; P.L. 95-576, November 2, 1978; 92 Stat. 2467; P.L. 96-483, October 21, 1980; 94 Stat. 2360; P.L. 97-357, October 19, 1982; 96 Stat. 1712; P.L. 97-440, January 8, 1983; 96 Stat. 2289; P.L. 100-4, February 4, 1987; 101 Stat. 7

The original 1948 statute (Ch. 758; P.L. 845), the Water Pollution Control Act, authorized the Surgeon General of the Public Health Service, in cooperation with other Federal, state and local entities, to prepare comprehensive programs for eliminating or reducing the pollution of interstate waters and tributaries and improving the sanitary condition of surface and underground waters. During the development of such plans, due regard was to be given to improvements necessary to conserve waters for public water supplies, propagation of fish and aquatic life, recreational purposes, and agricultural and industrial uses. The original statute also authorized the Federal Works Administrator to assist states, municipalities, and interstate agencies in constructing treatment plants to prevent discharges of inadequately treated sewage and other wastes into interstate waters or tributaries.

Since 1948, the original statute has been amended extensively either to authorize additional water quality programs, standards and procedures to govern allowable discharges, funding for construction grants or general program funding. Amendments in other years provided for continued authority to conduct program activities or administrative changes to related activities.

This latter set of amendments included:

Major amendments were enacted in 1961, 1966, 1970, 1972, 1977, and 1987. The Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1961 (P.L. 87-88) stipulated that Federal agencies consider during the planning for any reservoir, storage to regulate streamflow for the purpose of water quality control ( 33 U.S.C. 1252 ). Authority was provided to the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare to undertake research programs related to determining effects of pollutants and treatment methods and to assess water quality in the Great Lakes. Measures which could be taken by the Secretary, at the request of a State, to ward against pollution of interstate or navigable waters were also specified ( 33 U.S.C. 1254(f) ).

The 1966 amendments (P.L. 89-753), entitled the Clean Water Restoration Act of 1966, authorized the Secretary of Interior, in cooperation with the Secretary of Agriculture and the Water Resources Council, to conduct a comprehensive study of the effects of pollution, including sedimentation, in the estuaries and estuarine zones of the U.S. on fish and wildlife, sport and commercial fishing, recreation, water supply and power, and other specified uses ( 33 U.S.C. 466 ).

The study report, due to the Congress three years following enactment, was to contain: 1) an analysis of the importance to estuaries to the economic and social well-being of the U.S. and of the effects of pollution upon the use and enjoyment of the estuaries; 2) a discussion of the major economic, social, and ecological trends occurring in the estuarine zones of the nation; 3) recommendations for a comprehensive national program for the preservation, study, use and development of estuaries, and the respective responsibilities which should be assumed by Federal, State, and local governments and by public and private interests.

Procedures for abating domestic pollution which damages the health or welfare of citizens in a foreign country were also outlined ( 33 U.S.C. 466 ). In addition, the amendments prohibited individuals, except as permitted by regulations issued by the Secretary of Interior, from discharging oil into the navigable waters of the U.S.

The Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1970 (December 2, 1970) created the Environmental Protection Agency, abolished the Federal Water Quality Administration in the Department of Interior, and transferred to EPA all functions formerly assigned to the Secretary of Interior and the Department of Interior which had been administered through the Federal Water Quality Administration.

The 1970 amendments (P.L. 91-224), cited as the Water Quality Improvement Act of 1970, further amended the prohibitions on discharges of oil to allow such discharges only when consistent with regulations to be issued by the President and where permitted by Article IV of the 1954 International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution of the Sea by Oil ( 33 U.S.C. 1321 ). In issuing regulations, the President was authorized to determine quantities of oil which would be harmful to the public health or welfare of the U.S., including, but not limited to, fish, shellfish, and wildlife, as well as public and private property, shorelines and beaches.

The President was also authorized to publish a National Contingency Plan to provide for efficient and coordinated action to minimize damage from oil discharges, including containment, dispersal, and removal. Related duties were to be assigned to various Federal agencies. The 1970 amendments also mandated that the President develop regulations to define substances other than oil as hazardous substances.

In addition, the 1970 amendments required that performance standards be developed for marine sanitation devices ( 33 U.S.C. 1322 ), authorized demonstration projects to control acid or other mine water pollution ( 33 U.S.C. 1257a ) and to control water pollution within the watersheds of the Great Lakes ( 33 U.S.C. 1258 ). The amendments described the responsibility of Federal agencies to ensure that any Federal facilities are operated in compliance with applicable water quality standards ( 33 U.S.C. 1323 ).

Applicants for Federal permits or licenses for activities involving discharges into navigable waters are to provide a State certification that the proposed activity will not violate applicable water quality standards ( 33 U.S.C. 1341 ). Licenses and permits may not be granted if the State or interstate certification has been denied.

The Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972 (P.L. 92-500) stipulated broad national objectives to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation's waters ( 33 U.S.C. 1251 ). Provisions included a requirement that the Federal Power Commission not grant a license for a hydroelectric power project to regulate streamflow for the purpose of water quality unless certain conditions are satisfied ( 33 U.S.C. 1252 ).

In addition, the amendments significantly expanded provisions related to pollutant discharges. These included requirements that limitations be determined for point sources which are consistent with State water quality standards, procedures for State issuance of water quality standards, development of guidelines to identify and evaluate the extent of nonpoint source pollution, water quality inventory requirements, as well as development of toxic and pretreatment effluent standards ( 33 U.S.C. 1311 - 1313 and 33 U.S.C. 1315 - 1317 ).

Additional provisions further defined liability for discharges of oil and hazardous substances and the Federal role in clean-up operations ( 33 U.S.C. 1321 ) and established a Clean Lakes Program.

Section 402 of the 1972 amendments established the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) to authorize EPA issuance of discharge permits ( 33 U.S.C. 1342 ). Section 403 stipulated guidelines for EPA to issue permits for discharges into the territorial sea, the contiguous zone, and ocean waters further offshore ( 33 U.S.C. 1343 ).

Important provisions were contained in Section 404 of the amendments. This section authorized the Corps of Engineers to issue permits for the discharge of dredged or fill material into navigable waters at specified disposal sites ( 33 U.S.C. 1344 ). EPA was authorized to prohibit the use of a site as a disposal site based on a determination that discharges would have an unacceptable adverse effect on municipal water supplies, shellfish beds and fishery areas, wildlife, or recreational uses.

The 1977 amendments, the Clean Water Act of 1977 (P.L. 95-217), again extensively amended the Act. Of particular significance were the following provisions:

The Water Quality Act of 1987 (P.L. 100-4) provided the most recent series of amendments to the original statute. Provisions included:

Endangered Species Act of 1973

Endangered Species Act of 1973 ( 16 U.S.C. 1531-1544 , 87 Stat. 884), as amended -- Public Law 93-205, approved December 28, 1973, repealed the Endangered Species Conservation Act of December 5, 1969 (P.L. 91-135, 83 Stat. 275). The 1969 Act had amended the Endangered Species Preservation Act of October 15, 1966 (P.L. 89-669, 80 Stat. 926).

The 1973 Act implemented the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (T.I.A.S. 8249), signed by the United States on March 3, 1973, and the Convention on Nature Protection and Wildlife Preservation in the Western Hemisphere (50 Stat. 1354), signed by the United States on October 12, 1940.

Through federal action and by encouraging the establishment of state programs, the 1973 Endangered Species Act provided for the conservation of ecosystems upon which threatened and endangered species of fish, wildlife, and plants depend. The Act:

Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act requires Federal agencies to insure that any action authorized, funded or carried out by them is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of listed species or modify their critical habitat.

Public Law 94-325, approved June 30, 1976, (90 Stat. 724) extended and increased the authorization of appropriations in section 15 of the 1973 Act.

Public Law 94-359, approved July 12, 1976, (90 Stat. 911), exempted from the prohibitions in the Act and under certain conditions, whale parts and products lawfully held prior to December 28, 1973. It also provided other amendments to facilitate administrative processes in emergency situations, clarified enforcement procedures, allowed disposal of forfeited and abandoned property, and clarified the definition of "commercial activity."

The authorization of appropriations for Federal grants-in-aid to States was extended by P.L. 95-212, December 19, 1977 (91 Stat. 1493).

Public Law 95-632, signed by the President on November 10, 1978, (92 Stat. 375) extended through March 31, 1980, the appropriations authority under section 15 and made extensive revisions to the 1973 law. A Cabinet-level Endangered Species Committee was established as part of a two-tiered process whereby Federal agencies may obtain exemptions from the requirements of section 7. The Tellico Dam project in Tennessee and the Grayrocks project in Wyoming were to receive expedited consideration by the Committee.

The Secretary of Defense is authorized to specify exemptions from the Act for reasons of national security. The consultation process under section 7 was formalized and strengthened, and now includes the requirement that Federal agencies prepare biological assessments in cases where the Secretary of the Interior has advised that a listed species may be present.

The 1978 amendments also oblige the Secretary to consider the economic impact of designating critical habitat, and to review the list of endangered and threatened species every five years. Public notification and hearing requirements, prior to the listing of a species or its habitat, are specified.

Other changes made by the 1978 statute include: a provision for cooperative agreements with States for the conservation of endangered and threatened species of plants, exemptions from the Act's requirements for the progeny of legally held captive raptors and antique articles made before 1830, revision of the penalty provisions of the Act, and a change in the definition of "species" to limit the application of the term "population" to include vertebrates only.

Public Law 96-69 ( 40 U.S.C. 174(b)-l and 43 U.S.C. 377a ), the Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act for fiscal year 1980, approved September 25, 1979, (93 Stat. 437) exempted Tellico Dam in Tennessee from the Endangered Species Act and authorized completion of the project despite the threat to the endangered snail darter. Additional amendments were enacted in P.L. 96-246, May 23, 1980 (94 Stat. 348) and P.L. 97-79, November 16, 1981 (96 Stat. 1079).

Public Law 96-159 ( 16 U.S.C. 1533 , 93 Stat. 1255-1230), approved December 28, 1979, extended and increased the authorization of appropriations through September 30, 1982. It designated the Secretary of the Interior, acting through the Fish and Wildlife Service, as the Endangered Scientific Authority for implementation of CITES. It also created an International Convention Advisory Commission, and extended the scrimshaw amendments for three years.

Public Law 97-304, approved October 13, 1982, (96 Stat. 1411-1417, 1421, 1422, 1425) extended the annual authorizations under the Act through FY 1985 at the following levels: section 15 (general) -- $27 million; section 6 (grants-in-aid) -- $6 million; section 7 (Exemption Committee) -- $600,000. It also extended the Secretary's authority and overturned the "bobcat" decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.

Public Law 98-327, approved June 25, 1984, (98 Stat. 270) authorizes the Secretary to use money from fines and forfeitures collected under the Lacey Act and the Endangered Species Act to pay for the temporary care of animals and plants seized by our law enforcement agents.

Public Law 98-364, July 17, 1984, (98 Stat. 442), as amended, clarified provisions concerning marine mammals (see Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972) and provided for the translocation of California sea otters.

Public Law 99-625, approved November 7, 1986, (100 Stat. 3502) authorized the Secretary of the Interior to develop and implement a sea otter translocation plan, to be administered by the Fish and Wildlife Service, specifying statistics of sea otters to be translocated, manner of capture, relocation zone, and measures to contain the population. The 1986 amendments declared that a member of an experimental population shall be treated as "threatened" and provided that section 7 of the Endangered Species Act applies. The amendments also provided for non-defense agency actions in the translocation zone, and for incidental take in the management zone. (See Wetlands Loan Act.)

Although the funding authority for the Act lapsed for Fiscal Years 1986 through 1988, the Senate Appropriations Committee reports (S. Rept. 99-397 and S. Rept. 100-165) included language indicating that funding was to be provided and the provisions of the Act were to continue to be carried out.

Public Law 100-478, enacted October 7, 1988, (102 Stat 2306) included the following provisions:

Department of Interior -- $35,000,000 for FY88; $35,500,000 for FY89; $38,000,000 for FY90; $39,500,000 for FY91; $41,500,000 for FY92.

Department of Commerce -- $5,750,000 for FY88; $6,250,000 for each of FY89 and FY90; and $6,750,000 for each of FY91 and FY92.

Department of Agriculture -- $2,200,000 for FY88; $2,400,000 for each of FY89 and FY90; and $2,600,000 for each of FY91 and FY92.

To the Secretary to carry out functions under sections 7(e),(g),and (h) -- Not to exceed $600,000 for each Fiscal Year through 1992.

Western Hemisphere Convention implementation, not to exceed $400,000 for each of FY88, 89, and 90 and $500,000 for each of FY91 and 92.

In addition to amending the Endangered Species Act, P.L. 100-478 also included the African Elephant Conservation Act.

Public Law 102-251, Title III, 305, March 9, 1992 (106 Stat. 66) as amended by Public Law 104-208, div. A, Title I, 101 (a), September 30, 1996 (110 Stat. 3009) provided that "the special areas defined in 3(24) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act ( 16 U.S.C. 1802 (24) ) shall be considered places that are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States for the purposes of the Endangered Species Act of 1973." There is also a provision that requires all Federal agencies to minimize conflicts with recreational fisheries and listed species.

Public Law 105-18, Title II, 3003, June 12, 1997 (111 Stat. 176) provides guidance for consultation under Section 7 for emergency situations.

The National Defense Authorization Act of Fiscal Year 2004, Public Law 108-136, amended Section 4 of the Act by exempting military lands from critical habitat designation that are subject to an Integrated Natural Resources Managment Plan, if the Secretary determines in writing that such plan provides a benefit to the species for which critical habitat is proposed for designation. In addition, this law amended Section 4(b)(2) by requiring the Secretary to consider the impact to national security when designating critical habitat.

Citations for: Withdrawal of Proposed Rules; Discontinuing Rulemaking Efforts Listed in the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions

Explore citations and references

Citations

§ 666. —  Suits for adjudication of water rights.

Share | From the U.S. Code Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [Laws in effect as of January 24, 2002] [Document not affected by Public Laws enacted between January 24, 2002 and December 19, 2002] [ CITE : 43USC666 ] TITLE 43--PUBLIC LANDS CHAPTER 15--APPROPRIATION OF WATERS; RESERVOIR SITES Sec. 666. Suits for adjudication of water rights (a) Joinder of United States as defendant; costs Consent is given to join the United States as a defendant in any suit (1) for the adjudication of rights to the use of water of a river system or other source, or (2) for the administration of such rights, where it appears that the United States is the owner of or is in the process of acquiring water rights by appropriation under State law, by purchase, by exchange, or otherwise, and the United States is a necessary party to such suit. The United States, when a party to any such suit, shall (1) be deemed to have waived any right to plead that the State laws are inapplicable or that the United States is not amenable thereto by reason of its sovereignty, and (2) shall be subject to the judgments, orders, and decrees of the court having jurisdiction, and may obtain review thereof, in the same manner and to the same extent as a private individual under like circumstances: Provided, That no judgment for costs shall be entered against the United States in any such suit. (b) Service of summons Summons or other process in any such suit shall be served upon the Attorney General or his designated representative. (c) Joinder in suits involving use of interstate streams by State Nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing the joinder of the United States in any suit or controversy in the Supreme Court of the United States involving the right of States to the use of the water of any interstate stream. (July 10, 1952, ch. 651, title II, Sec. 208(a)-(c), 66 Stat. 560.) Codification Section is comprised of subsections (a) to (c) of section 208 of act July 10, 1952. Subsection (d) of section 208 is omitted as it referred to the limitation on the use of any appropriation in act July 10, 1952 to prepare or prosecute the suit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern Division of California, by the United States v. Fallbrook Public Utility Corporation. Section Referred to in Other Sections This section is referred to in title 16 sections 410aaa-76, 460ccc- 8, 460ddd, 460iii-5, 668dd; title 28 section 2409a.

TITLE 28 > PART VI > CHAPTER 161 > § 2409a Prev | Next

§ 2409a. Real property quiet title actions

How Current is This? (a) The United States may be named as a party defendant in a civil action under this section to adjudicate a disputed title to real property in which the United States claims an interest, other than a security interest or water rights. This section does not apply to trust or restricted Indian lands, nor does it apply to or affect actions which may be or could have been brought under sections 1346 , 1347 , 1491 , or 2410 of this title, sections 7424, 7425, or 7426 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended ( 26 U.S.C. 7424 , 7425 , and 7426 ), or section 208 of the Act of July 10, 1952 ( 43 U.S.C. 666 ). (b) The United States shall not be disturbed in possession or control of any real property involved in any action under this section pending a final judgment or decree, the conclusion of any appeal therefrom, and sixty days; and if the final determination shall be adverse to the United States, the United States nevertheless may retain such possession or control of the real property or of any part thereof as it may elect, upon payment to the person determined to be entitled thereto of an amount which upon such election the district court in the same action shall determine to be just compensation for such possession or control. (c) No preliminary injunction shall issue in any action brought under this section. (d) The complaint shall set forth with particularity the nature of the right, title, or interest which the plaintiff claims in the real property, the circumstances under which it was acquired, and the right, title, or interest claimed by the United States. (e) If the United States disclaims all interest in the real property or interest therein adverse to the plaintiff at any time prior to the actual commencement of the trial, which disclaimer is confirmed by order of the court, the jurisdiction of the district court shall cease unless it has jurisdiction of the civil action or suit on ground other than and independent of the authority conferred by section 1346 (f) of this title. (f) A civil action against the United States under this section shall be tried by the court without a jury. (g) Any civil action under this section, except for an action brought by a State, shall be barred unless it is commenced within twelve years of the date upon which it accrued. Such action shall be deemed to have accrued on the date the plaintiff or his predecessor in interest knew or should have known of the claim of the United States. (h) No civil action may be maintained under this section by a State with respect to defense facilities (including land) of the United States so long as the lands at issue are being used or required by the United States for national defense purposes as determined by the head of the Federal agency with jurisdiction over the lands involved, if it is determined that the State action was brought more than twelve years after the State knew or should have known of the claims of the United States. Upon cessation of such use or requirement, the State may dispute title to such lands pursuant to the provisions of this section. The decision of the head of the Federal agency is not subject to judicial review. (i) Any civil action brought by a State under this section with respect to lands, other than tide or submerged lands, on which the United States or its lessee or right-of-way or easement grantee has made substantial improvements or substantial investments or on which the United States has conducted substantial activities pursuant to a management plan such as range improvement, timber harvest, tree planting, mineral activities, farming, wildlife habitat improvement, or other similar activities, shall be barred unless the action is commenced within twelve years after the date the State received notice of the Federal claims to the lands. (j) If a final determination in an action brought by a State under this section involving submerged or tide lands on which the United States or its lessee or right-of-way or easement grantee has made substantial improvements or substantial investments is adverse to the United States and it is determined that the State's action was brought more than twelve years after the State received notice of the Federal claim to the lands, the State shall take title to the lands subject to any existing lease, easement, or right-of-way. Any compensation due with respect to such lease, easement, or right-of-way shall be determined under existing law. (k) Notice for the purposes of the accrual of an action brought by a State under this section shall be— (1) by public communications with respect to the claimed lands which are sufficiently specific as to be reasonably calculated to put the claimant on notice of the Federal claim to the lands, or (2) by the use, occupancy, or improvement of the claimed lands which, in the circumstances, is open and notorious. (l) For purposes of this section, the term “tide or submerged lands” means “lands beneath navigable waters” as defined in section 2 of the Submerged Lands Act ( 43 U.S.C. 1301 ). (m) Not less than one hundred and eighty days before bringing any action under this section, a State shall notify the head of the Federal agency with jurisdiction over the lands in question of the State's intention to file suit, the basis therefor, and a description of the lands included in the suit. (n) Nothing in this section shall be construed to permit suits against the United States based upon adverse possession.

Transfer of Certain Real Property for Wildlife Conservation Purposes Act

Transfer of Certain Real Property for Wildlife Conservation Purposes Act (16 U.S.C. 667b-667d) -- The Act of May 19, 1948, (62 Stat. 240) as amended by the Act of June 30, 1949, (63 Stat. 381), by Public Law 92-432, approved September 26, 1972, (86 Stat. 723), and by Public Law 104-66 (109 Stat. 730) approved December 21, 1995, provides that upon a determination by the Administrator of the General Services Administration, real property no longer needed by a Federal agency can be transferred without reimbursement to the Secretary of the Interior if the land has particular value for migratory birds, or to a State agency for other wildlife conservation purposes.

Subpart E--Procurement Standards of this part. Sec. 1274.902 Purpose (XXX 1995)

The purpose of this cooperative agreement is to conduct a shared resource project that will lead to REMINERALIZATION OF DEPLETED CROP LANDS .

This cooperative agreement will advance the technology developments and research which have been performed on IRON MOUNTAIN MINE . The specific objective is to OPTIMIZE AVAILABILITY OF MINERALS IN SOIL FOR CROPS .

This work will culminate in BETTER AND SAFER FOOD . Sec. 1274.903

Responsibilities (XXX 1995). (a) This cooperative agreement will include substantial [ EPA, DOJ, NOAA, NASA, DOE, DOI, FEMA, FWS, CALIFORNIA ] _____________participation during performance of the effort. _______ and the Recipient agree to the following Responsibilities, a statement of cooperative interactions to occur during the performance of this effort . ??? and the Recipient shall exert all reasonable efforts to fulfill the responsibilities stated below. (b) ??? Responsibilities. Since ??? contractors may obtain certain intellectual property rights arising from work for ??? in support of this agreement, ??? will inform Recipient whenever ??? intends to use ??? contractors to perform technical engineering services in support of this agreement. The following responsibilities are hereby set forth with anticipated start and ending dates, as appropriate: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Responsibility Start End ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------------------ (c) Recipient Responsibilities. The Recipient shall be responsible for particular aspects of project performance as set forth in the technical proposal dated ____________, attached hereto (or Statement of Work dated ____________, attached hereto.) The following responsibilities are hereby set forth with anticipated start and ending dates, as appropriate: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Responsibility Start End ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Sec. 1274.904 Resource Sharing Requirements (XXX 1995). (a) NASA and the Recipient will share in providing the resources necessary to perform the agreement. ??? funding and non-cash contributions (personnel, equipment, facilities, etc.) and the dollar value of the Recipient's cash and/or in-kind contribution will be on a ________ ( ??? ) - ________ (Recipient) basis.

CALIFORNIA - EPA DELISTING IRON MOUNTAIN MINE! PROCLAMATION TERMINATING THE NATIONAL EMERGENCY

"the revised PHG of 300 g/L is two orders of magnitude greater than the applicable numeric chemical-specific standards identified in ROD 5 for the protection of freshwater aquatic life." Rick Sugarek, EPA project manager for Iron Mountain Mine Superfund cleanup, 2008 5 year review. (How much is two orders of magnitude damages?)

COPPER, CADMIUM, AND ZINC; QAPP Information: QA Info Missing; Keswick dam to Cottonwood creek; Final Listing Decision: Delist from 303(d) list. JUNE 15, 2010;

EPA has not yet implemented ICs (Institutional Controls) as required at the IMM Superfund Site in the five signed RODs
(EPA, 1986; EPA, 1992; EPA, 1993; EPA, 1997; EPA, 2004 )

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
March 11, 2011

EPA Encourages Americans to Save Water During Fix a Leak Week

WASHINGTON – Across the country, household leaks waste more than 1 trillion gallons of water per year – enough to supply the water needs of Chicago, Miami, and Los Angeles combined. Easily corrected household leaks can increase homeowners' water bills by 12 percent. To help consumers find and repair easy-to-fix leaks, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is promoting the third annual Fix a Leak Week, March 14 through 20.

“When households have a leak, it's not just a waste of water, it's a waste of money,” EPA Administrator Lisa P. Jackson said. “But by fixing leaky pipes, buying WaterSense products and taking other simple steps, families can save on their water bills and conserve clean water for future generations to enjoy.”

Homeowners' water bills provide an easy and quick leak-checking measure; if wintertime water use for a family of four exceeds 12,000 gallons per month, their home may have a leak. Fixture replacement parts often pay for themselves quickly and can be installed by do-it-yourselfers, professional plumbers, or EPA's WaterSense irrigation partners .

EPA's Fix a Leak Week tips include:

§ Check for leaks. Silent toilet leaks can be found by putting a few drops of food coloring into the tank and seeing if color appears in the bowl before you flush. Don't forget to check irrigation systems and spigots, too.

§ Twist and tighten pipe connections. To save even more water without a noticeable difference in flow, twist on a WaterSense labeled faucet aerator or showerhead.

§ Replace the fixture if necessary. Look for the WaterSense label when replacing plumbing fixtures, which are independently certified to use 20 percent less water and perform as well as or better than standard models.

WaterSense, a partnership program sponsored by EPA, seeks to protect the future of our nation's water supply by offering people simple ways to use less water. Since the program's inception in 2006, WaterSense has helped consumers save a cumulative 46 billion gallons of water and $343 million in water and sewer bills.

More information on Fix a Leak Week: http://www.epa.gov/watersense/fixaleak

More information on WaterSense: http://www.epa.gov/watersense

Court of Appeals Docket #: 11-15383 Docketed: 02/16/2011
Nature of Suit: 1893 Environmental Matters
USA, et al v. Iron Mountain Mines, Inc., et al
Appeal From: U.S. District Court for Eastern California, Sacramento
Fee Status: Paid
Case Type Information:
     1) civil
     2) united states
     3) null
Originating Court Information:
District: 0972-2 : 2:91-cv-00768-JAM-JFM
Court Reporter: Kelly Ann O'Halloran
Trial Judge: John A. Mendez, District Judge
     Date Filed: 06/12/1991
     Date Order/Judgment:      Date Order/Judgment EOD:      Date NOA Filed:      Date Rec'd COA:
     12/16/2010      12/16/2010      02/14/2011      02/15/2011
District: 0972-2 : 2:91-cv-01167-DFL-JFM
     Date Filed: 08/21/1991
02/23/2011  3  Filed (ECF) Appellants T. W. Arman and Iron Mountain Mines, Inc. Mediation Questionnaire. Date of service: 02/23/2011. [7658006] (AG)
03/01/2011  4  Filed (ECF) notice of appearance of Joan M. Pepin for Appellee USA. Date of service: 03/01/2011. [7664084] (JMP)
03/01/2011  5  Added attorney Joan M. Pepin for USA, in case 11-15383. [7664123] (MT)
03/08/2011  6  Filed (ECF) notice of appearance of Russell B. Hildreth for Appellee State of California. Date of service: 03/08/2011. [7673306] (RBH)
03/09/2011  7  Filed (ECF) Appellees Bayer Cropscience Inc.'s and Rhone-Poulnec Basic Chemicals Company corporate disclosure statement. Date of service: 03/09/2011. [7673671] (MWP)
03/09/2011  8  Attorney Sara J. Russell in 11-15383 substituted by Attorney Russell B. Hildreth in 11-15383 [7673675] (MT)
03/09/2011  9  Filed (ECF) Appellees Bayer Cropscience Inc.'s and Rhone-Poulnec Basic Chemicals Company Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. Date of service: 03/09/2011. [7674036] (MWP)
03/09/2011  10  Filed (ECF) Appellees Bayer Cropscience Inc.'s and Rhone-Poulnec Basic Chemicals Company Motion for sanctions. Date of service: 03/09/2011. [7674081] (MWP)
03/09/2011  11  Filed (ECF) Appellees Bayer Cropscience Inc.'s and Rhone-Poulnec Basic Chemicals Company response opposing motion (,motion to withdraw as counsel). Date of service: 03/09/2011. [7674132] (MWP)
03/09/2011  12  Filed (ECF) Appellees Bayer Cropscience Inc.'s and Rhone-Poulnec Basic Chemicals Company Corrected Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. Date of service: 03/09/2011. [7674164] (MWP)

the Superfund stopped getting funded in 1995. President Clinton unsuccessfully tried to reinstate the tax on polluters that originally filled the fund's coffers, and the fund actually ran out of money in 2003. Since then the program has relied on appropriations whose amount and consistency shift according to the prevailing congressional winds.

The Center for Public Integrity critically investigated the Superfund program in 2007; one of their findings was that the EPA was unable to undertake cleanups because of their lack of funding.

In 2009, the agency drafted a rule that addresses this in part -- they want mining companies to provide evidence that they'll be able to stay in business not just when they're making money off a mine, but years after the fact, when a messy, expensive cleanup -- like the one in Libby, Mont. -- might be needed.

This new rule was spurred by a Sierra Club lawsuit alleging that the 63 hardrock mining sites on the National Priorities List have estimated cleanup costs of $7.8 billion, and $2.4 billion of those costs were going be footed by taxpayers.  Meanwhile, many more Western mining sites are being considered for Superfund listing, and the costs of cleaning up each site keep getting higher .

Notable opponents to the 2009 EPA rule include Alaska Senator Lisa Murkowski, a mining fan, and -- shocker -- the National Mining Association. (Read Murkowki's letter to the EPA [PDF])

Debate on Interior/EPA Spending Bill Indefinitely Postponed

September 16, 2010 by senatus

Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) — who “oversees the Appropriations panel's subcommittee overseeing Interior Department and Environmental Protection Agency spending — said debate on the appropriations bill in the committee is indefinitely postponed, in part over concerns about efforts to delay EPA climate regulations,” The Hill reports.

“It's off the calendar,” Feinstein told reporters Thursday. “A decision will have to be made about whether it goes back on or out.”

Administrator Jackson highlighted examples of EPA's environmental justice efforts:

· Plan EJ 2014 —A four-year roadmap to help EPA develop stronger community relationships and increase the agency's efforts to improve environmental and health conditions in overburdened communities. The plan includes three main sections: Cross-cutting Agency Strategies, Tools Development, and Program Initiatives.

· EJ in Rulemaking Guidance —The “Interim Guidance on Considering Environmental Justice During the Development of an Action” is a step-by-step guide that helps EPA staff consider environmental justice at key points in the rulemaking process.

· Sustainable Communities Partnership —A collaborative Department of Housing and Urban Development, Department of Transportation, and EPA partnership to improve access to affordable housing, more transportation options, and lower transportation costs while protecting the environment in communities nationwide.

The principles of environmental justice uphold the idea that all communities overburdened by pollution – particularly minority, low income and indigenous communities – deserve the same degree of protection from environmental and health hazards, equal access to the decision-making process and a healthy environment in which to live, learn, and work. EPA serves as the lead for environmental justice issues in the federal government.

More information on the Interagency Working Group on Environmental Justice:

http://www.epa.gov/environmentaljustice/interagency/index.html

View photos from the meeting:

http://blog.epa.gov/administrator/2010/09/22/epa-hosts-historic-meeting-on-environmental-justice/

Rule 44. Proving an Official Record

(a) Means of Proving.

(1) Domestic Record.

Each of the following evidences an official record — or an entry in it — that is otherwise admissible and is kept within the United States, any state, district, or commonwealth, or any territory subject to the administrative or judicial jurisdiction of the United States:

(A) an official publication of the record; or

(B) a copy attested by the officer with legal custody of the record — or by the officer's deputy — and accompanied by a certificate that the officer has custody. The certificate must be made under seal:

(i) by a judge of a court of record in the district or political subdivision where the record is kept; or

(ii) by any public officer with a seal of office and with official duties in the district or political subdivision where the record is kept.

(2) Foreign Record.

(A) In General. Each of the following evidences a foreign official record — or an entry in it — that is otherwise admissible:

(i) an official publication of the record; or

(ii) the record — or a copy — that is attested by an authorized person and is accompanied either by a final certification of genuineness or by a certification under a treaty or convention to which the United States and the country where the record is located are parties.

(B) Final Certification of Genuineness. A final certification must certify the genuineness of the signature and official position of the attester or of any foreign official whose certificate of genuineness relates to the attestation or is in a chain of certificates of genuineness relating to the attestation. A final certification may be made by a secretary of a United States embassy or legation; by a consul general, vice consul, or consular agent of the United States; or by a diplomatic or consular official of the foreign country assigned or accredited to the United States.

(C) Other Means of Proof. If all parties have had a reasonable opportunity to investigate a foreign record's authenticity and accuracy, the court may, for good cause, either:

(i) admit an attested copy without final certification; or

(ii) permit the record to be evidenced by an attested summary with or without a final certification.

(b) Lack of Record.

A written statement that a diligent search of designated records revealed no record or entry of a specified tenor is admissible as evidence that the records contain no such record or entry. For domestic records, the statement must be authenticated under Rule 44(a)(1). For foreign records, the statement must comply with (a)(2)(C)(ii).

(c) Other Proof.

A party may prove an official record — or an entry or lack of an entry in it — by any other method authorized by law.

Case: 11-15383 03/09/2011 Page: 4 of 9 ID: 7674081 DktEntry: 10-1

Footnote on page 3

8 See John Hutchens; T. W. Arman; et al v. United States District Court for the Eastern District of California (Sacramento), Respondent United States Environmental Protection Agency; Real Party in Interest, Appeal No. 90-71150; John F. Hutchens v. United States District Court for the Eastern District of California (Sacramento), Respondent, United States of America; et al; Real Parties in Interest, Appeal No. 90-70047.

Interlocutory appeal

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to: navigation , search

An interlocutory appeal (or interim appeal ), in the law of civil procedure , is an appeal of a ruling by a trial court that is made before the trial itself has concluded. Most jurisdictions generally prohibit such appeals, requiring parties to wait until the trial has concluded before they challenge any of the decisions made by the judge during that trial. However, many jurisdictions make an exception for decisions that are particularly prejudicial to the rights of one of the parties. For example, if a party is asserting some form of immunity from suit, or is claiming that the court completely lacks personal jurisdiction over them, then it is recognized that being forced to wait for the conclusion of the trial would violate their right not to be subjected to a trial at all.

The examples and perspective in this article deal primarily with the United States and do not represent a worldwide view of the subject . Please improve this article and discuss the issue on the talk page . (December 2010)

Federal courts

The Supreme Court of the United States delineated the test for the availability of interlocutory appeals, called the collateral order doctrine, for United States federal courts in the case of Lauro Lines s.r.l. v. Chasser , 490 U.S. 495 (1989), holding that under the relevant statute ( 28 U.S.C. § 1291 ) such an appeal would be permitted only if:

  1. the outcome of the case would be conclusively determined by the issue;
  2. the matter appealed was collateral to the merits ; and
  3. the matter was effectively unreviewable if immediate appeal were not allowed.

The Supreme Court created the test in the case Cohen v. Beneficial Industrial Loan Corp. , 337 U.S. 541 (1949), where it was applied to a requirement of bond to be posted in certain stockholders derivative actions by plaintiffs, in anticipation of being liable for defendant's attorney's fees. Since the substantial deterrent effect of the statute would be meaningless if not enforceable at the outset of litigation, but did not touch on the merits of plaintiff's claim, the Court allowed interlocutory appeal from the trial court's decision. 337 U.S. at 546-47. The doctrine was restricted in Digital Equipment Corp. v. Desktop Direct Inc. , 511 U.S. 863 (1994) , which added an explicit importance criterion to the test for interlocutory appeals, holding that relief on a claim of immunity from suit because of a previous settlement agreement could not come through interlocutory appeal. The Supreme Court stated that the only matters of sufficient importance to merit a collateral appeal were "those originating in the Constitution or statutes". 511 U.S. at 879.

Several U.S. statutes directly confer the right to interlocutory appeals, including appeals from orders denying arbitration , 9 U.S.C. § 16 , and some judicial actions against the debtor upon filing bankruptcy proceedings , 11 U.S.C. § 362 (a). There is a major split in the United States courts of appeals as to whether a stay of proceedings should issue in the district court while interlocutory appeals on the arbitrability of disputes are decided. Compare Bradford-Scott Data Corp., Inc. v. Physician Computer Network , 128 F.3d 504 (7th Cir. 1997), and Britton v. Co-op Banking Group , 916 F.2d 1405 (9th Cir. 1990). An interlocutory appeal under the collateral order doctrine usually merits a stay of proceedings while the appeal is being decided. Currently, the Second and Ninth Circuits have refused to stay proceedings in the district court while an arbitration issue is pending [See, Motorola Credit Corp. v. Uzan, 388, F.3d 39, 53-4 (2d Cir. 2004; Britton v. Co-Op Banking Group, 916 F.2d 1405, 1412 (9th Cir. 1990)]. The Seventh, Tenth and Eleventh Circuit courts conversely hold that a non-frivolous appeal warrants a stay of proceedings. See, Bradford-Scott Data Corp. v. Physician Computer Network, Inc., 128 F.3d, 504, 506 (7th Cir. 1997); Blinco v. Green Tree Servicing, LLC, 366 F.3d 1249, 1251-2 (11th Cir. 2004); McCauley et al. v. Halliburton Energy Services, Inc., 161 Fed. Appx. 760 (10th Cir. 2005).

An interlocutory appeal asks an appellate court to decide an issue which cannot be resolved on the facts in the case, but whose resolution is essential to a final decision in the case.

On September 26, 1989, the Arizona Supreme Court adopted a Special Procedural Order Providing for Interlocutory Appeals and Certifications . The purpose of the order was to establish a procedure for early review of substantial questions in the Gila River Adjudication. Any party could petition the Arizona Supreme Court to review by interlocutory appeal any ruling of the Superior Court, and the Superior Court could certify to the Supreme Court questions deemed substantial for review.

In February 1990, several parties in the Gila River Adjudication appealed various rulings of the Maricopa County Superior Court. On June 27, 1990, the Arizona Supreme Court consolidated the petitions for interlocutory review. On December 11, 1990 , the Court granted review on six issues. Each issue was argued and decided separately. The issues and their determinations are:

  1. Do the procedures for filing and service of pleadings adopted by the trial court in its Pretrial Order Number 1 comport with due process under the United States and Arizona Constitutions?

    In the Matter of the Rights to the Use of the Gila River (March 19, 1992) - court held that the procedures for filing and service of pleadings adopted in Pretrial Order Number 1 comport with due process under the United States and Arizona Constitutions. The opinion is reported in 171 Ariz. 230, 830 P.2d 442 (1992).

  2. Did the trial court err in adopting its 50%/90 day test for determining whether underground water is "appropriable" under Arizona Revised Statutes § 45-141?

    In re the General Adjudication of All Rights to Use Water in the Gila River System and Source (July 27, 1993) - court held that the 50%/90 day test for identifying wells presumed to be pumping subflow should not be used and remanded the matter to the Superior Court. The opinion is reported in 175 Ariz. 382, 857 P.2d 1236 (1993).

    In re the General Adjudication of All Rights to Use Water in the Gila River System and Source (September 22, 2000) - after the Superior Court held an evidentiary hearing and issued new criteria for determining subflow, court held that the subflow zone is defined as the saturated floodplain Holocene alluvium; all wells located within the lateral limits of the subflow zone, as determined by the Arizona Department of Water Resources (ADWR) are subject to the adjudication; all wells located outside the subflow zone that are pumping water from a stream or its subflow (as determined by ADWR's analysis of the well's cone of depression), are included in the adjudication; and, wells that, though pumping subflow, have a de minimis effect on the river system may be excluded from the adjudication based on rational guidelines for such an exclusion, as proposed by ADWR and adopted by the Superior Court. The opinion is reported in 198 Ariz. 330, 9 P.3d 1069 (2000), cert. denied sub nom. Phelps Dodge Corp. v. U.S., 533 U.S. 941 (2001) (reviewed in August-December 2000 and January-May 2001 Bulletin). On June 25, 2001, the U.S. Supreme Court denied a petition filed by Phelps Dodge Corporation and Arizona Public Service for a writ of certiorari (reviewed in June-August 2001 Bulletin).

  3. What is the appropriate standard to be applied in determining the amount of water reserved for federal lands?

    In re the General Adjudication of All Rights to Use Water in the Gila River System and Source (November 26, 2001) - court held that the purpose of a federal Indian reservation is to serve as a "permanent home and abiding place" to the people living there; the primary-secondary purpose test for quantifying a federal reserved right does not apply to Indian reservations; the practicably irrigable acreage standard is not the exclusive measure to quantify water rights on Indian lands; and, quantifying an Indian reserved right is a fact-intensive, reservation-specific inquiry that must address numerous factors, such as a tribe's master land use plans, history, culture, geography, topography, natural resources, economic base, past water use, present and projected future population, and any others deemed relevant, but proposed uses must be reasonably feasible, and the amount of water adjudicated must be tailored to the reservation's minimal need. The opinion is reported in 201 Ariz. 307, 35 P.3d 68 (2001) (reviewed in September-December 2001 Bulletin).

  4. Is non-appropriable groundwater subject to federal reserved rights?

    In re the General Adjudication of All Rights to Use Water in the Gila River System and Source (November 19, 1999) - court held that federal reserved rights extend to groundwater to the extent groundwater is necessary to accomplish the purpose of a reservation. The opinion is reported in 195 Ariz. 411, 989 P.2d 739 (1999), cert. denied sub nom. Phelps Dodge Corp. v. U.S. and Salt River Valley Water Users' Assn. v. U.S., 530 U.S. 1250 (2000) (reviewed in September-December 1999 , January-March 2000 , and April-July 2000 Bulletin).

  5. Do federal reserved rights holders enjoy greater protection from groundwater pumping than holders of state law rights?

    In re the General Adjudication of All Rights to Use Water in the Gila River System and Source (November 19, 1999) - court held that holders of federal reserved water rights enjoy greater protection from groundwater pumping than do holders of state law rights to the extent that greater protection may be necessary to maintain sufficient water to accomplish the purpose of a reservation. The opinion is reported in 195 Ariz. 411, 989 P.2d 739 (1999), cert. denied sub nom. Phelps Dodge Corp. v. U.S. and Salt River Valley Water Users' Assn. v. U.S., 530 U.S. 1250 (2000) (reviewed in September-December 1999 , January-March 2000 , and April-July 2000 Bulletin).

  6. Must claims of conflicting water use or interference with water rights be resolved as part of the general adjudication?

    On April 2, 2002, the Arizona Supreme Court vacated its order granting this appeal and vacated the portion of the Superior Court's order entered on August 1, 1989, relating to the appeal (reviewed in January-April 2002 Bulletin).


Interlocutory Appeals WC-02-0001-IR (United States)
WC-02-0002-IR (Gila River Indian Community)
WC-02-0003-IR (San Carlos Apache Tribe)
(Contested Cases Nos. W1-203 and W1-206)

The United States, Gila River Indian Community, and the San Carlos Apache Tribe petitioned for interlocutory review of portions of two rulings of the Superior Court related to the Globe Equity Decree of the Federal District Court of Arizona. Phelps Dodge Corporation and Salt River Project filed cross-petitions. On February 9, 2006, the Arizona Supreme Court affirmed and remanded the Superior Court's order. On May 3, 2006, the Court denied reconsideration. The opinion is reported in In re the General Adjudication of All Rights to Use Water in the Gila River System and Source, 212 Ariz. 64, 127 P.3d 882 (2006), rec'n denied, 212 Ariz. 470, 134 P.3d 375 (2006), cert. denied sub nom. San Carlos Apache Tribe v. Arizona and Phelps Dodge Corp. v. San Carlos Apache Tribe, 127 S.Ct. 928 (2007). The opinion concerned appeal WC-02-0003-IR. On July 13, 2010, the Court granted the motions of the United States and the Gila River Indian Community to voluntarily dismiss appeals WC-02-0001-IR and WC-02-0002-IR. The Salt River Project moved to voluntarily dismiss its cross-petition for interlocutory review. July 13, 2010
August 22, 2005
July 25, 2005
April 20, 2005
February 23, 2005 November 29, 2004
November 29, 2004
July 7, 2004
Interlocutory Appeal WC-05-0001-IR (Contested Case No. W1-103)

This appeal arose from several petitions seeking review of the Superior Court's order dated September 28, 2005 , concerning the Subflow Technical Report, San Pedro River Watershed, of the Arizona Department of Water Resources. On May 22, 2007 , without an opinion the Arizona Supreme Court denied all the petitions. Chief Judge A. John Pelander of the Arizona Court of Appeals, Division Two, participated by designation in place of Justice W. Scott Bales.

Interlocutory Appeals WC-07-0001-IR (Apache Tribes and Lower Gila Water Users)
WC-07-0003-IR (ASARCO LLC)
(Contested Case No. W1-207)

Three petitions sought review of the Superior Court's orders approving the Gila River Indian Community water rights settlement. On February 19, 2010, the Arizona Supreme Court affirmed the judgment and decree of the Superior Court. The Court held that the Superior Court complied with the Supreme Court's Special Order for approving Indian water rights settlements. The opinion is reported in In re the General Adjudication of All Rights to Use Water in the Gila River System and Source, 223 Ariz. 362, 224 P.3d 178 (2010).

March 18, 2010
October 8, 2009
October 7, 2009
September 24, 2009
September 24, 2009
September 23, 2009
September 23, 2009
January 29, 2009
December 15, 2008
December 15, 2008
December 15, 2008
October 9, 2008
October 9, 2008
September 25, 2008
September 25, 2008
September 25, 2008
August 15, 2008
August 15, 2008
June 23, 2008
June 10, 2008
June 10, 2008
June 3, 2008
June 3, 2008
January 11, 2008
October 22, 2007
May 22, 2007
April 26, 2007
April 26, 2007

Interlocutory Appeal WC-07-0002-IR (Contested Case No. W1-208)

The City of Tucson and Farmers Investment Company sought interlocutory review and approval of the Superior Court's judgment and decree entered on July 9, 2007 . Other parties were allowed to intervene. On November 30, 2007, the Arizona Supreme Court affirmed the judgment and decree of the Superior Court. The opinion is reported in In re the General Adjudication of All Rights to Use Water in the Gila River System and Source, 217 Ariz. 276, 173 P.3d 440 (2007).

November 30, 2007
November 30, 2007
November 13, 2007
October 22, 2007
October 22, 2007
October 22, 2007
September 17, 2007
August 28, 2007
August 8, 2007

Collateral order doctrine

Categories:

Definition

Doctrine allowing appeals from interlocutory rulings (i.e., preceding final judgment) so long as those rulings conclusively decide an issue separate from the merits of the case and would be effectively unreviewable after final judgment.  

Overview

The collateral order doctrine is a narrow exception to the final-judgment rule, which normally forces parties to wait for final judgment before appealing any rulings.  This doctrine emerged in Cohen v. Beneficial Industrial Loan Corp. , 337 U.S. 541 (1949).  In that case the Supreme Court held to be appealable those orders which "finally determine claims of right separable from, and collateral to, rights asserted in the action, too important to be denied review and too independent of the cause itself to require that appellate consideration be deferred until the whole case is adjudicated."   Id. , 337 U.S. at 546.

AIG's Greenberg Found Liable for Fraudulent Action

Daniel Wise New York Law Journal October 25, 2010

A New York state judge has held Maurice "Hank" Greenberg, the former head of American International Group Inc., liable for "spearhead[ing]" a fraudulent transaction to remove $200 million in losses from the giant insurer's books. Manhattan Supreme Court Justice Charles E. Ramos' ruling handed a victory to Attorney General Andrew Cuomo, who is pressing the suit against Greenberg and AIG's former chief financial officer, Howard Smith, to recover investor losses stemming from two allegedly sham transaction designed to hide the company's true financial condition.

Ramos's 83-page ruling in People v. Greenberg , 401720/05, granted the attorney general summary judgment on his claim that the two former AIG officials had fraudulently moved $200 million in losses off AIG's books to a Barbados-based corporation, the CAPCO Reinsurance Company. But the ruling denied the attorney general's motion for summary judgment on a second transaction involving a claim that the two defendants had ginned up its reserves by $500 million through a sham transaction with General Re Corp., a unit of Berkshire Hathaway Inc. The General Re transaction resulted in seven convictions , two of them by guilty pleas, of former AIG and General Re officials.

In granting summary judgment on the CAPCO deal, Ramos found the evidence "established that the defendants' stated objective in effectuating the … transaction was not to improve AIG's assets, but to conceal from investors underwriting losses." The judge will hold a separate hearing to determine the amount of damages stemming from the deal.

Ramos also denied motions from both Greenberg and Smith seeking summary judgment dismissing the case. Lawyers for both men were quoted by Reuters as saying that they would appeal the ruling holding their clients liable for the CAPCO deal.

ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE "Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 " "U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Title VI Regulations " "Executive Order 12,898, Environmental Justice" THE REGULATORY PROCESS "Administrative Procedure Act; Regulatory Flexibility Act " "Information Quality Act and OMB Guidelines " "Congressional Review Act " "Regulatory Planning and Review, Executive Order 12,866" REGULATION OF TOXIC SUBSTANCES "Toxic Substances Control Act " "Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act " "Safe Drinking Water Act " "Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act " "Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act (Proposition 65)" WASTE MANAGEMENT AND POLLUTION PREVENTION "Solid Waste Disposal Act (as Amended by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act) " "Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act " "Pollution Prevention Act" AIR POLLUTION CONTROL "Clean Air Act" WATER POLLUTION CONTROL "Federal Water Pollution Control Act (Clean Water Act) " "Oil Pollution Act" LAND USE REGULATION "Coastal Zone Management Act" ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT "National Environmental Policy Act " "NEPA Regulations" BIODIVERSITY PROTECTION "Endangered Species Act" PUBLIC LAND MANAGEMENT "Antiquities Act; Multiple Use Sustained Yield Act " "Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act " "Federal Land Policy and Management Act" CASE SUPPLEMENT "Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. United States " "United States v. Atlantic Research Corp. " "United Haulers Assn., Inc. v. Oneida-Herkimer Solid Waste Management Authority " "Environmental Defense v. Duke Energy Corp. " "Massachusetts v. EPA " "Rapanos v. United States " "S.D. Warren Co. v. Maine Board of Environmental Protection " "Entergy Corp. v. Riverkeeper, Inc. " "Exxon Shipping Co. v. Baker " "Coeur Alaska, Inc. v. Southeast Alaska Conservation Council " "Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council " "National Assn. of Homebuilders v. Defenders of Wildlife " "Summers v. Earth Island Institute"

E. Upon the Date of Final Approval of this Consent Decree, Atkemix
6 Thirty-Seven Inc. ("Atkemix Thirty-Seven") hereby grants to the United States, through the
7 United States Bureau of Land Management ("BLM"), an option (the "Option") to acquire
8 Atkemix Thirty-Seven's interest in certain parcels of land located in the area of Iron Mountain
9 under the authority and provisions of Section 107(f)(l) of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C.
10 Section 9607(f)(l), and Section 205 of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act,
11 43 U.S.C. Section 1715, and 43 C.F.R. Part 11. The parcels subject to the Option (the
12 "Land") encompass approximately 1,250 acres of land. The Land is generally depicted as the
13 shaded areas on the map attached to this Consent Decree as Appendix L; however, the parcel
14 boundaries and other notations appearing on Appendix L are not meant to constitute
15 controlling legal descriptions. The terms of the Option, and of the United States' exercise
16 thereof, are as follows:
17 (1) Transfer from Atkemix Thirty-Seven to the United States of
18 Atkemix Thirty-Seven's interest the Land, in its entirety or any parcel therein, shall be in
19 consideration of agreements contained in this Consent Decree and shall not require any further
20 consideration. Restoration efforts undertaken on any Land the United States acquires under
21 this Paragraph will be developed by the Natural Resource Trustees in accordance with Section
22 XXXIII of this Consent Decree and funded from allocations made pursuant to Paragraphs
23 6.A.(l)(a) and 7.D of this Consent Decree.
24 (2) The term of the Option (the "Option Term") shall be a period of
25 ; 24 months from the Date of Final Approval of this Consent Decree. The United States may
26 exercise its right to acquire Atkemix Thirty-Seven's interest in the Land or any parcel therein


9. Compliance With Applicable Law. The Site Operator shall comply with all
applicable federal and state laws as provided in the SOW. The activities conducted pursuant to
this Consent Decree, if approved by the Oversight Agency, shall be considered to be
consistent with the NCP.

Resource Record Details

Guidelines and Specifications for Flood Hazard Mapping Partners

EPA is often directed to provide funding to a specific entity for water infrastructure projects. These are not part of an established program and are limited to the special situations defined in EPA's annual Appropriations Act.

EPA does not, however, advocate or nominate entities for drinking water, wastewater, stormwater or other water infrastructure projects for directed funding. If, however, you are a community or other entity which has been identified in one of EPA's Appropriation Acts to receive funding for an eligible water infrastructure projects, the information which follows will be of interest to you if:

The following information explains how you apply for the funding, get paid, and what your responsibilities are after you have received the funding. It contains links for getting the forms which must be completed. The forms can be completed on screen and printed for mailing. All information can be read on screen or downloaded.

Each year EPA publishes guidelines for the award of Special Appropriation projects, which must be followed to award these grants. EPA may not award funds until the guidelines are published. So, if you received funds in the Fiscal Year (FY) 2010 Appropriation which runs from 10-1-2009 to 9/30/2010 usually EPA Headquarters would have published the guidelines by May 31, 2010. Below are links to past years guidelines.

EPA is required to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act and a series of cross cutting laws and regulations prior to awarding funds in most cases. This will require you to complete the suggested outline for the environmental information document (EID) and the EID checklist and provide it to your EPA Project Officer. Once received and accepted by EPA, we need to consult with numerous agencies and then publish our tenative decision. We then invite public comments and consider all comments received.

This on-line training course is designed to help you prepare an acceptable EID: Environmental Review Training for Special Appropriation Grants

Your EPA Project Officer will work with you to develop an acceptable work plan which contains measureable environmental results and whenever feasable incorporate recommended environmental best practices.

EPA-Recommended Environmental Best Practices for Federally-Funded Projects (PDF) (4 pp, 78k) (Green Grant Practices)

APPEAL FROM A JUDGMENT OR ORDER OF A DISTRICT COURT

Rule 3. Appeal as of Right—When Taken

(a) Filing the Notice of Appeal.

(1) An appeal permitted by law as of right from a district court to a court of appeals may be taken only by filing a notice of appeal with the district clerk within the time allowed by Rule 4. At the time of filing, the appellant must furnish the clerk with enough copies of the notice to enable the clerk to comply with Rule 3(d).

(2) An appellant's failure to take any step other than the timely filing of a notice of appeal does not affect the validity of the appeal, but is ground only for the court of appeals to act as it considers appropriate, including dismissing the appeal.

(3) An appeal from a judgment by a magistrate judge in a civil case is taken in the same way as an appeal from any other district court judgment.

(4) An appeal by permission under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) or an appeal in a bankruptcy case may be taken only in the manner prescribed by Rules 5 and 6, respectively.

(b) Joint or Consolidated Appeals.

(1) When two or more parties are entitled to appeal from a district-court judgment or order, and their interests make joinder practicable, they may file a joint notice of appeal. They may then proceed on appeal as a single appellant.

(2) When the parties have filed separate timely notices of appeal, the appeals may be joined or consolidated by the court of appeals.

(c) Contents of the Notice of Appeal.

(1) The notice of appeal must:

(A) specify the party or parties taking the appeal by naming each one in the caption or body of the notice, but an attorney representing more than one party may describe those parties with such terms as “all plaintiffs,” “the defendants,” “the plaintiffs A, B, et al.,” or “all defendants except X”;

(B) designate the judgment, order, or part thereof being appealed; and

(C) name the court to which the appeal is taken.

(2) A pro se notice of appeal is considered filed on behalf of the signer and the signer's spouse and minor children (if they are parties), unless the notice clearly indicates otherwise.

(3) In a class action, whether or not the class has been certified, the notice of appeal is sufficient if it names one person qualified to bring the appeal as representative of the class.

(4) An appeal must not be dismissed for informality of form or title of the notice of appeal, or for failure to name a party whose intent to appeal is otherwise clear from the notice.

(5) Form 1 in the Appendix of Forms is a suggested form of a notice of appeal.

(d) Serving the Notice of Appeal.

(1) The district clerk must serve notice of the filing of a notice of appeal by mailing a copy to each party's counsel of record—excluding the appellant's—or, if a party is proceeding pro se, to the party's last known address. When a defendant in a criminal case appeals, the clerk must also serve a copy of the notice of appeal on the defendant, either by personal service or by mail addressed to the defendant. The clerk must promptly send a copy of the notice of appeal and of the docket entries—and any later docket entries—to the clerk of the court of appeals named in the notice. The district clerk must note, on each copy, the date when the notice of appeal was filed.

(2) If an inmate confined in an institution files a notice of appeal in the manner provided by Rule 4(c), the district clerk must also note the date when the clerk docketed the notice.

(3) The district clerk's failure to serve notice does not affect the validity of the appeal. The clerk must note on the docket the names of the parties to whom the clerk mails copies, with the date of mailing. Service is sufficient despite the death of a party or the party's counsel.

(e) Payment of Fees.

Upon filing a notice of appeal, the appellant must pay the district clerk all required fees. The district clerk receives the appellate docket fee on behalf of the court of appeals.

Notes

[Rule 3.1. Appeal from a Judgment of a Magistrate Judge in a Civil Case] (Abrogated Apr. 24, 1998, eff. Dec. 1, 1998)

Notes

Rule 4. Appeal as of Right—When Taken

(a) Appeal in a Civil Case.

(1) Time for Filing a Notice of Appeal.

(A) In a civil case, except as provided in Rules 4(a)(1)(B), 4(a)(4), and 4(c), the notice of appeal required by Rule 3 must be filed with the district clerk within 30 days after the judgment or order appealed from is entered.

(B) When the United States or its officer or agency is a party, the notice of appeal may be filed by any party within 60 days after the judgment or order appealed from is entered.

(C) An appeal from an order granting or denying an application for a writ of error coram nobis is an appeal in a civil case for purposes of Rule 4(a).

(2) Filing Before Entry of Judgment.

A notice of appeal filed after the court announces a decision or order—but before the entry of the judgment or order—is treated as filed on the date of and after the entry.

(3) Multiple Appeals.

If one party timely files a notice of appeal, any other party may file a notice of appeal within 14 days after the date when the first notice was filed, or within the time otherwise prescribed by this Rule 4(a), whichever period ends later.

(4) Effect of a Motion on a Notice of Appeal.

(A) If a party timely files in the district court any of the following motions under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the time to file an appeal runs for all parties from the entry of the order disposing of the last such remaining motion:

(i) for judgment under Rule 50(b);

(ii) to amend or make additional factual findings under Rule 52(b), whether or not granting the motion would alter the judgment;

(iii) for attorney's fees under Rule 54 if the district court extends the time to appeal under Rule 58;

(iv) to alter or amend the judgment under Rule 59;

(v) for a new trial under Rule 59; or

(vi) for relief under Rule 60 if the motion is filed no later than 28 days after the judgment is entered.

(B)

(i) If a party files a notice of appeal after the court announces or enters a judgment—but before it disposes of any motion listed in Rule 4(a)(4)(A)—the notice becomes effective to appeal a judgment or order, in whole or in part, when the order disposing of the last such remaining motion is entered.

(ii) A party intending to challenge an order disposing of any motion listed in Rule 4(a)(4)(A), or a judgment's alteration or amendment upon such a motion, must file a notice of appeal, or an amended notice of appeal—in compliance with Rule 3(c)—within the time prescribed by this Rule measured from the entry of the order disposing of the last such remaining motion.

(iii) No additional fee is required to file an amended notice.

(5) Motion for Extension of Time.

(A) The district court may extend the time to file a notice of appeal if:

(i) a party so moves no later than 30 days after the time prescribed by this Rule 4(a) expires; and

(ii) regardless of whether its motion is filed before or during the 30 days after the time prescribed by this Rule 4(a) expires, that party shows excusable neglect or good cause.

(B) A motion filed before the expiration of the time prescribed in Rule 4(a)(1) or (3) may be ex parte unless the court requires otherwise. If the motion is filed after the expiration of the prescribed time, notice must be given to the other parties in accordance with local rules.

(C) No extension under this Rule 4(a)(5) may exceed 30 days after the prescribed time or 14 days after the date when the order granting the motion is entered, whichever is later.

(6) Reopening the Time to File an Appeal.

The district court may reopen the time to file an appeal for a period of 14 days after the date when its order to reopen is entered, but only if all the following conditions are satisfied:

(A) the court finds that the moving party did not receive notice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 77(d) of the entry of the judgment or order sought to be appealed within 21 days after entry;

(B) the motion is filed within 180 days after the judgment or order is entered or within 14 days after the moving party receives notice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 77(d) of the entry, whichever is earlier; and

(C) the court finds that no party would be prejudiced.

(7) Entry Defined.

(A) A judgment or order is entered for purposes of this Rule 4(a):

(i) if Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 58(a) does not require a separate document, when the judgment or order is entered in the civil docket under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 79(a); or

(ii) if Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 58(a) requires a separate document, when the judgment or order is entered in the civil docket under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 79(a) and when the earlier of these events occurs:

(B) A failure to set forth a judgment or order on a separate document when required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 58(a) does not affect the validity of an appeal from that judgment or order.

(b) Appeal in a Criminal Case.

(1) Time for Filing a Notice of Appeal.

(A) In a criminal case, a defendant's notice of appeal must be filed in the district court within 14 days after the later of:

(i) the entry of either the judgment or the order being appealed; or

(ii) the filing of the government's notice of appeal.

(B) When the government is entitled to appeal, its notice of appeal must be filed in the district court within 30 days after the later of:

(i) the entry of the judgment or order being appealed; or

(ii) the filing of a notice of appeal by any defendant.

(2) Filing Before Entry of Judgment.

A notice of appeal filed after the court announces a decision, sentence, or order—but before the entry of the judgment or order—is treated as filed on the date of and after the entry.

(3) Effect of a Motion on a Notice of Appeal.

(A) If a defendant timely makes any of the following motions under the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, the notice of appeal from a judgment of conviction must be filed within 14 days after the entry of the order disposing of the last such remaining motion, or within 14 days after the entry of the judgment of conviction, whichever period ends later. This provision applies to a timely motion:

(i) for judgment of acquittal under Rule 29;

(ii) for a new trial under Rule 33, but if based on newly discovered evidence, only if the motion is made no later than 14 days after the entry of the judgment; or

(iii) for arrest of judgment under Rule 34.

(B) A notice of appeal filed after the court announces a decision, sentence, or order—but before it disposes of any of the motions referred to in Rule 4(b)(3)(A)—becomes effective upon the later of the following:

(i) the entry of the order disposing of the last such remaining motion; or

(ii) the entry of the judgment of conviction.

(C) A valid notice of appeal is effective—without amendment—to appeal from an order disposing of any of the motions referred to in Rule 4(b)(3)(A).

(4) Motion for Extension of Time.

Upon a finding of excusable neglect or good cause, the district court may—before or after the time has expired, with or without motion and notice—extend the time to file a notice of appeal for a period not to exceed 30 days from the expiration of the time otherwise prescribed by this Rule 4(b).

(5) Jurisdiction.

The filing of a notice of appeal under this Rule 4(b) does not divest a district court of jurisdiction to correct a sentence under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 35(a), nor does the filing of a motion under 35(a) affect the validity of a notice of appeal filed before entry of the order disposing of the motion. The filing of a motion under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 35(a) does not suspend the time for filing a notice of appeal from a judgment of conviction.

(6) Entry Defined.

A judgment or order is entered for purposes of this Rule 4(b) when it is entered on the criminal docket.

Rule 5. Appeal by Permission

(a) Petition for Permission to Appeal.

(1) To request permission to appeal when an appeal is within the court of appeals' discretion, a party must file a petition for permission to appeal. The petition must be filed with the circuit clerk with proof of service on all other parties to the district-court action.

(2) The petition must be filed within the time specified by the statute or rule authorizing the appeal or, if no such time is specified, within the time provided by Rule 4(a) for filing a notice of appeal.

(3) If a party cannot petition for appeal unless the district court first enters an order granting permission to do so or stating that the necessary conditions are met, the district court may amend its order, either on its own or in response to a party's motion, to include the required permission or statement. In that event, the time to petition runs from entry of the amended order.

(b) Contents of the Petition; Answer or Cross-Petition; Oral Argument.

(1) The petition must include the following:

(A) the facts necessary to understand the question presented;

(B) the question itself;

(C) the relief sought;

(D) the reasons why the appeal should be allowed and is authorized by a statute or rule; and

(E) an attached copy of:

(i) the order, decree, or judgment complained of and any related opinion or memorandum, and

(ii) any order stating the district court's permission to appeal or finding that the necessary conditions are met.

(2) A party may file an answer in opposition or a cross-petition within 7 days after the petition is served.

(3) The petition and answer will be submitted without oral argument unless the court of appeals orders otherwise.

(c) Form of Papers; Number of Copies.

All papers must conform to Rule 32(c)(2). Except by the court's permission, a paper must not exceed 20 pages, exclusive of the disclosure statement, the proof of service, and the accompanying documents required by Rule 5(b)(1)(E). An original and 3 copies must be filed unless the court requires a different number by local rule or by order in a particular case.

(d) Grant of Permission; Fees; Cost Bond; Filing the Record.

(1) Within 10 days after the entry of the order granting permission to appeal, the appellant must:

(A) pay the district clerk all required fees; and

(B) file a cost bond if required under Rule 7.

(2) A notice of appeal need not be filed. The date when the order granting permission to appeal is entered serves as the date of the notice of appeal for calculating time under these rules.

(3) The district clerk must notify the circuit clerk once the petitioner has paid the fees. Upon receiving this notice, the circuit clerk must enter the appeal on the docket. The record must be forwarded and filed in accordance with Rules 11 and 12(c).

Notes

[Rule 5.1. Appeal by Leave under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(5)] (Abrogated Apr. 24, 1998, eff. Dec. 1, 1998)

Notes

Rule 6. Appeal in a Bankruptcy Case from a Final Judgment, Order, or Decree of a District Court or Bankruptcy Appellate Panel

(a) Appeal From a Judgment, Order, or Decree of a District Court Exercising Original Jurisdiction in a Bankruptcy Case.

An appeal to a court of appeals from a final judgment, order, or decree of a district court exercising jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1334 is taken as any other civil appeal under these rules.

(b) Appeal From a Judgment, Order, or Decree of a District Court or Bankruptcy Appellate Panel Exercising Appellate Jurisdiction in a Bankruptcy Case.

(1) Applicability of Other Rules.

These rules apply to an appeal to a court of appeals under 28 U.S.C. § 158(d) from a final judgment, order, or decree of a district court or bankruptcy appellate panel exercising appellate jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 158(a) or (b). But there are 3 exceptions:

(A) Rules 4(a)(4), 4(b), 9, 10, 11, 12(b), 13–20, 22–23, and 24(b) do not apply;

(B) the reference in Rule 3(c) to “Form 1 in the Appendix of Forms” must be read as a reference to Form 5; and

(C) when the appeal is from a bankruptcy appellate panel, the term “district court,” as used in any applicable rule, means “appellate panel.”

(2) Additional Rules.

In addition to the rules made applicable by Rule 6(b)(1), the following rules apply:

(A) Motion for rehearing.

(i) If a timely motion for rehearing under Bankruptcy Rule 8015 is filed, the time to appeal for all parties runs from the entry of the order disposing of the motion. A notice of appeal filed after the district court or bankruptcy appellate panel announces or enters a judgment, order, or decree—but before disposition of the motion for rehearing—becomes effective when the order disposing of the motion for rehearing is entered.

(ii) Appellate review of the order disposing of the motion requires the party, in compliance with Rules 3(c) and 6(b)(1)(B), to amend a previously filed notice of appeal. A party intending to challenge an altered or amended judgment, order, or decree must file a notice of appeal or amended notice of appeal within the time prescribed by Rule 4—excluding Rules 4(a)(4) and 4(b)— measured from the entry of the order disposing of the motion.

(iii) No additional fee is required to file an amended notice.

(B) The record on appeal.

(i) Within 14 days after filing the notice of appeal, the appellant must file with the clerk possessing the record assembled in accordance with Bankruptcy Rule 8006—and serve on the appellee—a statement of the issues to be presented on appeal and a designation of the record to be certified and sent to the circuit clerk.

(ii) An appellee who believes that other parts of the record are necessary must, within 14 days after being served with the appellant's designation, file with the clerk and serve on the appellant a designation of additional parts to be included.

(iii) The record on appeal consists of:

(C) Forwarding the record.

(i) When the record is complete, the district clerk or bankruptcy appellate panel clerk must number the documents constituting the record and send them promptly to the circuit clerk together with a list of the documents correspondingly numbered and reasonably identified. Unless directed to do so by a party or the circuit clerk, the clerk will not send to the court of appeals documents of unusual bulk or weight, physical exhibits other than documents, or other parts of the record designated for omission by local rule of the court of appeals. If the exhibits are unusually bulky or heavy, a party must arrange with the clerks in advance for their transportation and receipt.

(ii) All parties must do whatever else is necessary to enable the clerk to assemble and forward the record. The court of appeals may provide by rule or order that a certified copy of the docket entries be sent in place of the redesignated record, but any party may request at any time during the pendency of the appeal that the redesignated record be sent.

(D) Filing the record.

Upon receiving the recordor a certified copy of the docket entries sent in place of the redesignated recordthe circuit clerk must file it and immediately notify all parties of the filing date.

Notes

Rule 7. Bond for Costs on Appeal in a Civil Case

In a civil case, the district court may require an appellant to file a bond or provide other security in any form and amount necessary to ensure payment of costs on appeal. Rule 8(b) applies to a surety on a bond given under this rule.

Notes

Rule 8. Stay or Injunction Pending Appeal

(a) Motion for Stay.

(1) Initial Motion in the District Court.

A party must ordinarily move first in the district court for the following relief:

(A) a stay of the judgment or order of a district court pending appeal;

(B) approval of a supersedeas bond; or

(C) an order suspending, modifying, restoring, or granting an injunction while an appeal is pending.

(2) Motion in the Court of Appeals; Conditions on Relief.

A motion for the relief mentioned in Rule 8(a)(1) may be made to the court of appeals or to one of its judges.

(A) The motion must:

(i) show that moving first in the district court would be impracticable; or

(ii) state that, a motion having been made, the district court denied the motion or failed to afford the relief requested and state any reasons given by the district court for its action.

(B) The motion must also include:

(i) the reasons for granting the relief requested and the facts relied on;

(ii) originals or copies of affidavits or other sworn statements supporting facts subject to dispute; and

(iii) relevant parts of the record.

(C) The moving party must give reasonable notice of the motion to all parties.

(D) A motion under this Rule 8(a)(2) must be filed with the circuit clerk and normally will be considered by a panel of the court. But in an exceptional case in which time requirements make that procedure impracticable, the motion may be made to and considered by a single judge.

(E) The court may condition relief on a party's filing a bond or other appropriate security in the district court.

(b) Proceeding Against a Surety.

If a party gives security in the form of a bond or stipulation or other undertaking with one or more sureties, each surety submits to the jurisdiction of the district court and irrevocably appoints the district clerk as the surety's agent on whom any papers affecting the surety's liability on the bond or undertaking may be served. On motion, a surety's liability may be enforced in the district court without the necessity of an independent action. The motion and any notice that the district court prescribes may be served on the district clerk, who must promptly mail a copy to each surety whose address is known.

(c) Stay in a Criminal Case.

Rule 38 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure governs a stay in a criminal case.

Notes

Rule 10. The Record on Appeal

(a) Composition of the Record on Appeal.

The following items constitute the record on appeal:

(1) the original papers and exhibits filed in the district court;

(2) the transcript of proceedings, if any; and

(3) a certified copy of the docket entries prepared by the district clerk.

(b) The Transcript of Proceedings.

(1) Appellant's Duty to Order.

Within 14 days after filing the notice of appeal or entry of an order disposing of the last timely remaining motion of a type specified in Rule 4(a)(4)(A), whichever is later, the appellant must do either of the following:

(A) order from the reporter a transcript of such parts of the proceedings not already on file as the appellant considers necessary, subject to a local rule of the court of appeals and with the following qualifications:

(i) the order must be in writing;

(ii) if the cost of the transcript is to be paid by the United States under the Criminal Justice Act, the order must so state; and

(iii) the appellant must, within the same period, file a copy of the order with the district clerk; or

(B) file a certificate stating that no transcript will be ordered.

(2) Unsupported Finding or Conclusion.

If the appellant intends to urge on appeal that a finding or conclusion is unsupported by the evidence or is contrary to the evidence, the appellant must include in the record a transcript of all evidence relevant to that finding or conclusion.

(3) Partial Transcript.

Unless the entire transcript is ordered:

(A) the appellant mustwithin the 14 days provided in Rule 10(b)(1)file a statement of the issues that the appellant intends to present on the appeal and must serve on the appellee a copy of both the order or certificate and the statement;

(B) if the appellee considers it necessary to have a transcript of other parts of the proceedings, the appellee must, within 10 days after the service of the order or certificate and the statement of the issues, file and serve on the appellant a designation of additional parts to be ordered; and

(C) unless within 14 days after service of that designation the appellant has ordered all such parts, and has so notified the appellee, the appellee may within the following 14 days either order the parts or move in the district court for an order requiring the appellant to do so.

(4) Payment.

At the time of ordering, a party must make satisfactory arrangements with the reporter for paying the cost of the transcript.

(c) Statement of the Evidence When the Proceedings Were Not Recorded or When a Transcript Is Unavailable.

If the transcript of a hearing or trial is unavailable, the appellant may prepare a statement of the evidence or proceedings from the best available means, including the appellant's recollection. The statement must be served on the appellee, who may serve objections or proposed amendments within 14 days after being served. The statement and any objections or proposed amendments must then be submitted to the district court for settlement and approval. As settled and approved, the statement must be included by the district clerk in the record on appeal.

(d) Agreed Statement as the Record on Appeal.

In place of the record on appeal as defined in Rule 10(a), the parties may prepare, sign, and submit to the district court a statement of the case showing how the issues presented by the appeal arose and were decided in the district court. The statement must set forth only those facts averred and proved or sought to be proved that are essential to the courts resolution of the issues. If the statement is truthful, ittogether with any additions that the district court may consider necessary to a full presentation of the issues on appealmust be approved by the district court and must then be certified to the court of appeals as the record on appeal. The district clerk must then send it to the circuit clerk within the time provided by Rule 11. A copy of the agreed statement may be filed in place of the appendix required by Rule 30.

(e) Correction or Modification of the Record.

(1) If any difference arises about whether the record truly discloses what occurred in the district court, the difference must be submitted to and settled by that court and the record conformed accordingly.

(2) If anything material to either party is omitted from or misstated in the record by error or accident, the omission or misstatement may be corrected and a supplemental record may be certified and forwarded:

(A) on stipulation of the parties;

(B) by the district court before or after the record has been forwarded; or

(C) by the court of appeals.

(3) All other questions as to the form and content of the record must be presented to the court of appeals.

Notes

Rule 11. Forwarding the Record

(a) Appellant's Duty.

An appellant filing a notice of appeal must comply with Rule 10(b) and must do whatever else is necessary to enable the clerk to assemble and forward the record. If there are multiple appeals from a judgment or order, the clerk must forward a single record.

(b) Duties of Reporter and District Clerk.

(1) Reporter's Duty to Prepare and File a Transcript.

The reporter must prepare and file a transcript as follows:

(A) Upon receiving an order for a transcript, the reporter must enter at the foot of the order the date of its receipt and the expected completion date and send a copy, so endorsed, to the circuit clerk.

(B) If the transcript cannot be completed within 30 days of the reporters receipt of the order, the reporter may request the circuit clerk to grant additional time to complete it. The clerk must note on the docket the action taken and notify the parties.

(C) When a transcript is complete, the reporter must file it with the district clerk and notify the circuit clerk of the filing.

(D) If the reporter fails to file the transcript on time, the circuit clerk must notify the district judge and do whatever else the court of appeals directs.

(2) District Clerk's Duty to Forward.

When the record is complete, the district clerk must number the documents constituting the record and send them promptly to the circuit clerk together with a list of the documents correspondingly numbered and reasonably identified. Unless directed to do so by a party or the circuit clerk, the district clerk will not send to the court of appeals documents of unusual bulk or weight, physical exhibits other than documents, or other parts of the record designated for omission by local rule of the court of appeals. If the exhibits are unusually bulky or heavy, a party must arrange with the clerks in advance for their transportation and receipt.

(c) Retaining the Record Temporarily in the District Court for Use in Preparing the Appeal.

The parties may stipulate, or the district court on motion may order, that the district clerk retain the record temporarily for the parties to use in preparing the papers on appeal. In that event the district clerk must certify to the circuit clerk that the record on appeal is complete. Upon receipt of the appellee's brief, or earlier if the court orders or the parties agree, the appellant must request the district clerk to forward the record.

(d) [Abrogated.]

(e) Retaining the Record by Court Order.

(1) The court of appeals may, by order or local rule, provide that a certified copy of the docket entries be forwarded instead of the entire record. But a party may at any time during the appeal request that designated parts of the record be forwarded.

(2) The district court may order the record or some part of it retained if the court needs it while the appeal is pending, subject, however, to call by the court of appeals.

(3) If part or all of the record is ordered retained, the district clerk must send to the court of appeals a copy of the order and the docket entries together with the parts of the original record allowed by the district court and copies of any parts of the record designated by the parties.

(f) Retaining Parts of the Record in the District Court by Stipulation of the Parties.

The parties may agree by written stipulation filed in the district court that designated parts of the record be retained in the district court subject to call by the court of appeals or request by a party. The parts of the record so designated remain a part of the record on appeal.

(g) Record for a Preliminary Motion in the Court of Appeals.

If, before the record is forwarded, a party makes any of the following motions in the court of appeals:

the district clerk must send the court of appeals any parts of the record designated by any party.

Notes

Rule 12. Docketing the Appeal; Filing a Representation Statement; Filing the Record

(a) Docketing the Appeal.

Upon receiving the copy of the notice of appeal and the docket entries from the district clerk under Rule 3(d), the circuit clerk must docket the appeal under the title of the district-court action and must identify the appellant, adding the appellant's name if necessary.

(b) Filing a Representation Statement.

Unless the court of appeals designates another time, the attorney who filed the notice of appeal must, within 14 days after filing the notice, file a statement with the circuit clerk naming the parties that the attorney represents on appeal.

(c) Filing the Record, Partial Record, or Certificate.

Upon receiving the record, partial record, or district clerk's certificate as provided in Rule 11, the circuit clerk must file it and immediately notify all parties of the filing date.

Notes

Rule 12.1 Remand After an Indicative Ruling by the District Court on a Motion for Relief That Is Barred by a Pending Appeal

(a) Notice to the Court of Appeals.

If a timely motion is made in the district court for relief that it lacks authority to grant because of an appeal that has been docketed and is pending, the movant must promptly notify the circuit clerk if the district court states either that it would grant the motion or that the motion raises a substantial issue.

(b) Remand After an Indicative Ruling.

If the district court states that it would grant the motion or that the motion raises a substantial issue, the court of appeals may remand for further proceedings but retains jurisdiction unless it expressly dismisses the appeal. If the court of appeals remands but retains jurisdiction, the parties must promptly notify the circuit clerk when the district court has decided the motion on remand.

(As added Mar. 26, 2009, eff. Dec. 1, 2009.)

Notes

Rule 11. Signing Pleadings, Motions, and Other Papers; Representations to the Court; Sanctions

(a) Signature.

Every pleading, written motion, and other paper must be signed by at least one attorney of record in the attorney's name — or by a party personally if the party is unrepresented. The paper must state the signer's address, e-mail address, and telephone number. Unless a rule or statute specifically states otherwise, a pleading need not be verified or accompanied by an affidavit. The court must strike an unsigned paper unless the omission is promptly corrected after being called to the attorney's or party's attention.

(b) Representations to the Court.

By presenting to the court a pleading, written motion, or other paper — whether by signing, filing, submitting, or later advocating it — an attorney or unrepresented party certifies that to the best of the person's knowledge, information, and belief, formed after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances:

(1) it is not being presented for any improper purpose, such as to harass, cause unnecessary delay, or needlessly increase the cost of litigation;

(2) the claims, defenses, and other legal contentions are warranted by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for extending, modifying, or reversing existing law or for establishing new law;

(3) the factual contentions have evidentiary support or, if specifically so identified, will likely have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery; and

(4) the denials of factual contentions are warranted on the evidence or, if specifically so identified, are reasonably based on belief or a lack of information.

(c) Sanctions.

(1) In General.

If, after notice and a reasonable opportunity to respond, the court determines that Rule 11(b) has been violated, the court may impose an appropriate sanction on any attorney, law firm, or party that violated the rule or is responsible for the violation. Absent exceptional circumstances, a law firm must be held jointly responsible for a violation committed by its partner, associate, or employee.

(2) Motion for Sanctions.

A motion for sanctions must be made separately from any other motion and must describe the specific conduct that allegedly violates Rule 11(b). The motion must be served under Rule 5 , but it must not be filed or be presented to the court if the challenged paper, claim, defense, contention, or denial is withdrawn or appropriately corrected within 21 days after service or within another time the court sets. If warranted, the court may award to the prevailing party the reasonable expenses, including attorney's fees, incurred for the motion.

(3) On the Court's Initiative.

On its own, the court may order an attorney, law firm, or party to show cause why conduct specifically described in the order has not violated Rule 11(b).

(4) Nature of a Sanction.

A sanction imposed under this rule must be limited to what suffices to deter repetition of the conduct or comparable conduct by others similarly situated. The sanction may include nonmonetary directives; an order to pay a penalty into court; or, if imposed on motion and warranted for effective deterrence, an order directing payment to the movant of part or all of the reasonable attorney's fees and other expenses directly resulting from the violation.

(5) Limitations on Monetary Sanctions.

The court must not impose a monetary sanction:

(A) against a represented party for violating Rule 11(b)(2); or

(B) on its own, unless it issued the show-cause order under Rule 11(c)(3) before voluntary dismissal or settlement of the claims made by or against the party that is, or whose attorneys are, to be sanctioned.

(6) Requirements for an Order.

An order imposing a sanction must describe the sanctioned conduct and explain the basis for the sanction.

(d) Inapplicability to Discovery.

This rule does not apply to disclosures and discovery requests, responses, objections, and motions under Rules 26 through 37 .

Rule 45. Subpoena

(a) In General.

(1) Form and Contents.

(A) Requirements — In General . Every subpoena must:

(i) state the court from which it issued;

(ii) state the title of the action, the court in which it is pending, and its civil-action number;

(iii) command each person to whom it is directed to do the following at a specified time and place: attend and testify; produce designated documents, electronically stored information, or tangible things in that person's possession, custody, or control; or permit the inspection of premises; and

(iv) set out the text of Rule 45(c) and (d).

(B) Command to Attend a Deposition — Notice of the Recording Method . A subpoena commanding attendance at a deposition must state the method for recording the testimony.

(C) Combining or Separating a Command to Produce or to Permit Inspection; Specifying the Form for Electronically Stored Information . A command to produce documents, electronically stored information, or tangible things or to permit the inspection of premises may be included in a subpoena commanding attendance at a deposition, hearing, or trial, or may be set out in a separate subpoena. A subpoena may specify the form or forms in which electronically stored information is to be produced.

(D) Command to Produce; Included Obligations . A command in a subpoena to produce documents, electronically stored information, or tangible things requires the responding party to permit inspection, copying, testing, or sampling of the materials.

(2) Issued from Which Court.

A subpoena must issue as follows:

(A) for attendance at a hearing or trial, from the court for the district where the hearing or trial is to be held;

(B) for attendance at a deposition, from the court for the district where the deposition is to be taken; and

(C) for production or inspection, if separate from a subpoena commanding a person's attendance, from the court for the district where the production or inspection is to be made.

(3) Issued by Whom.

The clerk must issue a subpoena, signed but otherwise in blank, to a party who requests it. That party must complete it before service. An attorney also may issue and sign a subpoena as an officer of:

(A) a court in which the attorney is authorized to practice; or

(B) a court for a district where a deposition is to be taken or production is to be made, if the attorney is authorized to practice in the court where the action is pending.

(b) Service.

(1) By Whom; Tendering Fees; Serving a Copy of Certain Subpoenas.

Any person who is at least 18 years old and not a party may serve a subpoena. Serving a subpoena requires delivering a copy to the named person and, if the subpoena requires that person's attendance, tendering the fees for 1 day's attendance and the mileage allowed by law. Fees and mileage need not be tendered when the subpoena issues on behalf of the United States or any of its officers or agencies. If the subpoena commands the production of documents, electronically stored information, or tangible things or the inspection of premises before trial, then before it is served, a notice must be served on each party.

(2) Service in the United States.

Subject to Rule 45(c)(3)(A)(ii), a subpoena may be served at any place:

(A) within the district of the issuing court;

(B) outside that district but within 100 miles of the place specified for the deposition, hearing, trial, production, or inspection;

(C) within the state of the issuing court if a state statute or court rule allows service at that place of a subpoena issued by a state court of general jurisdiction sitting in the place specified for the deposition, hearing, trial, production, or inspection; or

(D) that the court authorizes on motion and for good cause, if a federal statute so provides.

(3) Service in a Foreign Country.

28 U.S.C. § 1783 governs issuing and serving a subpoena directed to a United States national or resident who is in a foreign country.

(4) Proof of Service.

Proving service, when necessary, requires filing with the issuing court a statement showing the date and manner of service and the names of the persons served. The statement must be certified by the server.

(c) Protecting a Person Subject to a Subpoena.

(1) Avoiding Undue Burden or Expense; Sanctions.

A party or attorney responsible for issuing and serving a subpoena must take reasonable steps to avoid imposing undue burden or expense on a person subject to the subpoena. The issuing court must enforce this duty and impose an appropriate sanction — which may include lost earnings and reasonable attorney's fees — on a party or attorney who fails to comply.

(2) Command to Produce Materials or Permit Inspection.

(A) Appearance Not Required . A person commanded to produce documents, electronically stored information, or tangible things, or to permit the inspection of premises, need not appear in person at the place of production or inspection unless also commanded to appear for a deposition, hearing, or trial.

(B) Objections . A person commanded to produce documents or tangible things or to permit inspection may serve on the party or attorney designated in the subpoena a written objection to inspecting, copying, testing or sampling any or all of the materials or to inspecting the premises — or to producing electronically stored information in the form or forms requested. The objection must be served before the earlier of the time specified for compliance or 14 days after the subpoena is served. If an objection is made, the following rules apply:

(i) At any time, on notice to the commanded person, the serving party may move the issuing court for an order compelling production or inspection.

(ii) These acts may be required only as directed in the order, and the order must protect a person who is neither a party nor a party's officer from significant expense resulting from compliance.

(3) Quashing or Modifying a Subpoena.

(A) When Required. On timely motion, the issuing court must quash or modify a subpoena that:

(i) fails to allow a reasonable time to comply;

(ii) requires a person who is neither a party nor a party's officer to travel more than 100 miles from where that person resides, is employed, or regularly transacts business in person — except that, subject to Rule 45(c)(3)(B)(iii), the person may be commanded to attend a trial by traveling from any such place within the state where the trial is held;

(iii) requires disclosure of privileged or other protected matter, if no exception or waiver applies; or

(iv) subjects a person to undue burden.

(B) When Permitted. To protect a person subject to or affected by a subpoena, the issuing court may, on motion, quash or modify the subpoena if it requires:

(i) disclosing a trade secret or other confidential research, development, or commercial information;

(ii) disclosing an unretained expert's opinion or information that does not describe specific occurrences in dispute and results from the expert's study that was not requested by a party; or

(iii) a person who is neither a party nor a party's officer to incur substantial expense to travel more than 100 miles to attend trial.

(C) Specifying Conditions as an Alternative. In the circumstances described in Rule 45(c)(3)(B), the court may, instead of quashing or modifying a subpoena, order appearance or production under specified conditions if the serving party:

(i) shows a substantial need for the testimony or material that cannot be otherwise met without undue hardship; and

(ii) ensures that the subpoenaed person will be reasonably compensated.

(d) Duties in Responding to Subpoena.

(1) Producing Documents or Electronically Stored Information.

These procedures apply to producing documents or electronically stored information:

(A) Documents . A person responding to a subpoena to produce documents must produce them as they are kept in the ordinary course of business or must organize and label them to correspond to the categories in the demand.

(B) Form for Producing Electronically Stored Information Not Specified . If a subpoena does not specify a form for producing electronically stored information, the person responding must produce it in a form or forms in which it is ordinarily maintained or in a reasonably usable form or forms.

(C) Electronically Stored Information Produced in Only One Form . The person responding need not produce the same electronically stored information in more than one form.

(D) Inaccessible Electronically Stored Information . The person responding need not provide discovery of electronically stored information from sources that the person identifies as not reasonably accessible because of undue burden or cost. On motion to compel discovery or for a protective order, the person responding must show that the information is not reasonably accessible because of undue burden or cost. If that showing is made, the court may nonetheless order discovery from such sources if the requesting party shows good cause, considering the limitations of Rule 26(b) (2)(C). The court may specify conditions for the discovery.

(2) Claiming Privilege or Protection.

(A) Information Withheld . A person withholding subpoenaed information under a claim that it is privileged or subject to protection as trial-preparation material must:

(i) expressly make the claim; and

(ii) describe the nature of the withheld documents, communications, or tangible things in a manner that, without revealing information itself privileged or protected, will enable the parties to assess the claim.

(B) Information Produced . If information produced in response to a subpoena is subject to a claim of privilege or of protection as trial-preparation material, the person making the claim may notify any party that received the information of the claim and the basis for it. After being notified, a party must promptly return, sequester, or destroy the specified information and any copies it has; must not use or disclose the information until the claim is resolved; must take reasonable steps to retrieve the information if the party disclosed it before being notified; and may promptly present the information to the court under seal for a determination of the claim. The person who produced the information must preserve the information until the claim is resolved.

(e) Contempt.

The issuing court may hold in contempt a person who, having been served, fails without adequate excuse to obey the subpoena. A nonparty's failure to obey must be excused if the subpoena purports to require the nonparty to attend or produce at a place outside the limits of Rule 45(c)(3)(A)(ii).

Rule 63. Judge's Inability to Proceed

If a judge conducting a hearing or trial is unable to proceed, any other judge may proceed upon certifying familiarity with the record and determining that the case may be completed without prejudice to the parties. In a hearing or a nonjury trial, the successor judge must, at a party's request, recall any witness whose testimony is material and disputed and who is available to testify again without undue burden. The successor judge may also recall any other witness.

Rule 77. Conducting Business; Clerk's Authority; Notice of an Order or Judgment

(a) When Court Is Open.

Every district court is considered always open for filing any paper, issuing and returning process, making a motion, or entering an order.

(b) Place for Trial and Other Proceedings.

Every trial on the merits must be conducted in open court and, so far as convenient, in a regular courtroom. Any other act or proceeding may be done or conducted by a judge in chambers, without the attendance of the clerk or other court official, and anywhere inside or outside the district. But no hearing — other than one ex parte — may be conducted outside the district unless all the affected parties consent.

(c) Clerk's Office Hours; Clerk's Orders.

(1) Hours.

The clerk's office — with a clerk or deputy on duty — must be open during business hours every day except Saturdays, Sundays, and legal holidays. But a court may, by local rule or order, require that the office be open for specified hours on Saturday or a particular legal holiday other than one listed in Rule 6(a) (4)(A).

(2) Orders.

Subject to the court's power to suspend, alter, or rescind the clerk's action for good cause, the clerk may:

(A) issue process;

(B) enter a default;

(C) enter a default judgment under Rule 55(b) (1); and

(D) act on any other matter that does not require the court's action.

(d) Serving Notice of an Order or Judgment.

(1) Service.

Immediately after entering an order or judgment, the clerk must serve notice of the entry, as provided in Rule 5(b) , on each party who is not in default for failing to appear. The clerk must record the service on the docket. A party also may serve notice of the entry as provided in Rule 5(b).

(2) Time to Appeal Not Affected by Lack of Notice.

Lack of notice of the entry does not affect the time for appeal or relieve — or authorize the court to relieve — a party for failing to appeal within the time allowed, except as allowed by Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure (4)(a).

Rule D. - Possessory, Petitory, and Partition Actions

In all actions for possession, partition, and to try title maintainable according to the course of the admiralty practice with respect to a vessel, in all actions so maintainable with respect to the possession of cargo or other maritime property, and in all actions by one or more part owners against the others to obtain security for the return of the vessel from any voyage undertaken without their consent, or by one or more part owners against the others to obtain possession of the vessel for any voyage on giving security for its safe return, the process shall be by a warrant of arrest of the vessel, cargo, or other property, and by notice in the manner provided by Rule B(2) to the adverse party or parties.

Rule F. - Limitation of Liability

(1) Time for Filing Complaint; Security.

Not later than six months after receipt of a claim in writing, any vessel owner may file a complaint in the appropriate district court, as provided in subdivision (9) of this rule, for limitation of liability pursuant to statute. The owner (a) shall deposit with the court, for the benefit of claimants, a sum equal to the amount or value of the owner's interest in the vessel and pending freight, or approved security therefor, and in addition such sums, or approved security therefor, as the court may from time to time fix as necessary to carry out the provisions of the statutes as amended; or (b) at the owner's option shall transfer to a trustee to be appointed by the court, for the benefit of claimants, the owner's interest in the vessel and pending freight, together with such sums, or approved security therefor, as the court may from time to time fix as necessary to carry out the provisions of the statutes as amended. The plaintiff shall also give security for costs and, if the plaintiff elects to give security, for interest at the rate of 6 percent per annum from the date of the security.

(2) Complaint.

The complaint shall set forth the facts on the basis of which the right to limit liability is asserted and all facts necessary to enable the court to determine the amount to which the owner's liability shall be limited. The complaint may demand exoneration from as well as limitation of liability. It shall state the voyage if any, on which the demands sought to be limited arose, with the date and place of its termination; the amount of all demands including all unsatisfied liens or claims of lien, in contract or in tort or otherwise, arising on that voyage, so far as known to the plaintiff, and what actions and proceedings, if any, are pending thereon; whether the vessel was damaged, lost, or abandoned, and, if so, when and where; the value of the vessel at the close of the voyage or, in case of wreck, the value of her wreckage, strippings, or proceeds, if any, and where and in whose possession they are; and the amount of any pending freight recovered or recoverable. If the plaintiff elects to transfer the plaintiff's interest in the vessel to a trustee, the complaint must further show any prior paramount liens thereon, and what voyages or trips, if any, she has made since the voyage or trip on which the claims sought to be limited arose, and any existing liens arising upon any such subsequent voyage or trip, with the amounts and causes thereof, and the names and addresses of the lienors, so far as known; and whether the vessel sustained any injury upon or by reason of such subsequent voyage or trip.

(3) Claims Against Owner; Injunction.

Upon compliance by the owner with the requirements of subdivision (1) of this rule all claims and proceedings against the owner or the owner's property with respect to the matter in question shall cease. On application of the plaintiff the court shall enjoin the further prosecution of any action or proceeding against the plaintiff or the plaintiff's property with respect to any claim subject to limitation in the action.

(4) Notice to Claimants.

Upon the owner's compliance with subdivision (1) of this rule the court shall issue a notice to all persons asserting claims with respect to which the complaint seeks limitation, admonishing them to file their respective claims with the clerk of the court and to serve on the attorneys for the plaintiff a copy thereof on or before a date to be named in the notice. The date so fixed shall not be less than 30 days after issuance of the notice. For cause shown, the court may enlarge the time within which claims may be filed. The notice shall be published in such newspaper or newspapers as the court may direct once a week for four successive weeks prior to the date fixed for the filing of claims. The plaintiff not later than the day of second publication shall also mail a copy of the notice to every person known to have made any claim against the vessel or the plaintiff arising out of the voyage or trip on which the claims sought to be limited arose. In cases involving death a copy of such notice shall be mailed to the decedent at the decedent's last known address, and also to any person who shall be known to have made any claim on account of such death.

(5) Claims and Answer.

Claims shall be filed and served on or before the date specified in the notice provided for in subdivision (4) of this rule. Each claim shall specify the facts upon which the claimant relies in support of the claim, the items thereof, and the dates on which the same accrued. If a claimant desires to contest either the right to exoneration from or the right to limitation of liability the claimant shall file and serve an answer to the complaint unless the claim has included an answer.

(6) Information To Be Given Claimants.

Within 30 days after the date specified in the notice for filing claims, or within such time as the court thereafter may allow, the plaintiff shall mail to the attorney for each claimant (or if the claimant has no attorney to the claimant) a list setting forth (a) the name of each claimant, (b) the name and address of the claimant's attorney (if the claimant is known to have one), (c) the nature of the claim, i.e., whether property loss, property damage, death, personal injury etc., and (d) the amount thereof.

(7) Insufficiency of Fund or Security.

Any claimant may by motion demand that the funds deposited in court or the security given by the plaintiff be increased on the ground that they are less than the value of the plaintiff's interest in the vessel and pending freight. Thereupon the court shall cause due appraisement to be made of the value of the plaintiff's interest in the vessel and pending freight; and if the court finds that the deposit or security is either insufficient or excessive it shall order its increase or reduction. In like manner any claimant may demand that the deposit or security be increased on the ground that it is insufficient to carry out the provisions of the statutes relating to claims in respect of loss of life or bodily injury; and, after notice and hearing, the court may similarly order that the deposit or security be increased or reduced.

(8) Objections to Claims: Distribution of Fund.

Any interested party may question or controvert any claim without filing an objection thereto. Upon determination of liability the fund deposited or secured, or the proceeds of the vessel and pending freight, shall be divided pro rata, subject to all relevant provisions of law, among the several claimants in proportion to the amounts of their respective claims, duly proved, saving, however, to all parties any priority to which they may be legally entitled.

(9) Venue; Transfer.

The complaint shall be filed in any district in which the vessel has been attached or arrested to answer for any claim with respect to which the plaintiff seeks to limit liability; or, if the vessel has not been attached or arrested, then in any district in which the owner has been sued with respect to any such claim. When the vessel has not been attached or arrested to answer the matters aforesaid, and suit has not been commenced against the owner, the proceedings may be had in the district in which the vessel may be, but if the vessel is not within any district and no suit has been commenced in any district, then the complaint may be filed in any district. For the convenience of parties and witnesses, in the interest of justice, the court may transfer the action to any district; if venue is wrongly laid the court shall dismiss or, if it be in the interest of justice, transfer the action to any district in which it could have been brought. If the vessel shall have been sold, the proceeds shall represent the vessel for the purposes of these rules.

Rule G. Forfeiture Actions In Rem

(1) Scope.

This rule governs a forfeiture action in rem arising from a federal statute. To the extent that this rule does not address an issue, Supplemental Rules C and E and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure also apply.

(2) Complaint. The complaint must:

(a) be verified;

(b) state the grounds for subject-matter jurisdiction, in rem jurisdiction over the defendant property, and venue;

(c) describe the property with reasonable particularity;

(d) if the property is tangible, state its location when any seizure occurred and — if different — its location when the action is filed;

(e) identify the statute under which the forfeiture action is brought; and

(f) state sufficiently detailed facts to support a reasonable belief that the government will be able to meet its burden of proof at trial.

(3) Judicial Authorization and Process.

(a) Real Property.

If the defendant is real property, the government must proceed under 18 U.S.C. § 985.

(b) Other Property; Arrest Warrant.

If the defendant is not real property:

(i) the clerk must issue a warrant to arrest the property if it is in the government's possession, custody, or control;

(ii) the court — on finding probable cause — must issue a warrant to arrest the property if it is not in the government's possession, custody, or control and is not subject to a judicial restraining order; and

(iii) a warrant is not necessary if the property is subject to a judicial restraining order.

(c) Execution of Process.

(i) The warrant and any supplemental process must be delivered to a person or organization authorized to execute it, who may be:

(A) a marshal or any other United States officer or employee;

(B) someone under contract with the United States; or (C) someone specially appointed by the court for that purpose.

(ii) The authorized person or organization must execute the warrant and any supplemental process on property in the United States as soon as practicable unless:

(A) the property is in the government's possession, custody, or control; or

(B) the court orders a different time when the complaint is under seal, the action is stayed before the warrant and supplemental process are executed, or the court finds other good cause.

(iii) The warrant and any supplemental process may be executed within the district or, when authorized by statute, outside the district.

(iv) If executing a warrant on property outside the United States is required, the warrant may be transmitted to an appropriate authority for serving process where the property is located.

(4) Notice.

(a) Notice by Publication.

(i) When Publication Is Required. A judgment of forfeiture may be entered only if the government has published notice of the action within a reasonable time after filing the complaint or at a time the court orders. But notice need not be published if:

(A) the defendant property is worth less than $1,000 and direct notice is sent under Rule G(4)(b) to every person the government can reasonably identify as a potential claimant; or

(B) the court finds that the cost of publication exceeds the property's value and that other means of notice would satisfy due process.

(ii) Content of the Notice. Unless the court orders otherwise, the notice must:

(A) describe the property with reasonable particularity;

(B) state the times under Rule G(5) to file a claim and to answer; and

(C) name the government attorney to be served with the claim and answer.

(iii) Frequency of Publication. Published notice must appear:

(A) once a week for three consecutive weeks; or

(B) only once if, before the action was filed, notice of nonjudicial forfeiture of the same property was published on an official internet government forfeiture site for at least 30 consecutive days, or in a newspaper of general circulation for three consecutive weeks in a district where publication is authorized under Rule G(4)(a)(iv).

(iv) Means of Publication. The government should select from the following options a means of publication reasonably calculated to notify potential claimants of the action:

(A) if the property is in the United States, publication in a newspaper generally circulated in the district where the action is filed, where the property was seized, or where property that was not seized is located;

(B) if the property is outside the United States, publication in a newspaper generally circulated in a district where the action is filed, in a newspaper generally circulated in the country where the property is located, or in legal notices published and generally circulated in the country where the property is located; or

(C) instead of (A) or (B), posting a notice on an official internet government forfeiture site for at least 30 consecutive days.

(b) Notice to Known Potential Claimants.

(i) Direct Notice Required. The government must send notice of the action and a copy of the complaint to any person who reasonably appears to be a potential claimant on the facts known to the government before the end of the time for filing a claim under Rule G(5)(a)(ii)(B).

(ii) Content of the Notice. The notice must state:

(A) the date when the notice is sent;

(B) a deadline for filing a claim, at least 35 days after the notice is sent;

(C) that an answer or a motion under Rule 12 must be filed no later than 21 days after filing the claim; and

(D) the name of the government attorney to be served with the claim and answer.

(iii) Sending Notice.

(A) The notice must be sent by means reasonably calculated to reach the potential claimant.

(B) Notice may be sent to the potential claimant or to the attorney representing the potential claimant with respect to the seizure of the property or in a related investigation, administrative forfeiture proceeding, or criminal case.

(C) Notice sent to a potential claimant who is incarcerated must be sent to the place of incarceration.

(D) Notice to a person arrested in connection with an offense giving rise to the forfeiture who is not incarcerated when notice is sent may be sent to the address that person last gave to the agency that arrested or released the person.

(E) Notice to a person from whom the property was seized who is not incarcerated when notice is sent may be sent to the last address that person gave to the agency that seized the property.

(iv) When Notice Is Sent. Notice by the following means is sent on the date when it is placed in the mail, delivered to a commercial carrier, or sent by electronic mail.

(v) Actual Notice. A potential claimant who had actual notice of a forfeiture action may not oppose or seek relief from forfeiture because of the government's failure to send the required notice.

(5) Responsive Pleadings.

(a) Filing a Claim.

(i) A person who asserts an interest in the defendant property may contest the forfeiture by filing a claim in the court where the action is pending. The claim must:

(A) identify the specific property claimed;

(B) identify the claimant and state the claimant's interest in the property;

(C) be signed by the claimant under penalty of perjury; and

(D) be served on the government attorney designated under Rule G(4)(a)(ii)(C) or (b)(ii)(D).

(ii) Unless the court for good cause sets a different time, the claim must be filed:

(A) by the time stated in a direct notice sent under Rule G(4)(b);

(B) if notice was published but direct notice was not sent to the claimant or the claimant's attorney, no later than 30 days after final publication of newspaper notice or legal notice under Rule G(4)(a) or no later than 60 days after the first day of publication on an official internet government forfeiture site; or

(C) if notice was not published and direct notice was not sent to the claimant or the claimant's attorney:

(1) if the property was in the government's possession, custody, or control when the complaint was filed, no later than 60 days after the filing, not counting any time when the complaint was under seal or when the action was stayed before execution of a warrant issued under Rule G(3)(b); or

(2) if the property was not in the government's possession, custody, or control when the complaint was filed, no later than 60 days after the government complied with 18 U.S.C. § 985(c) as to real property, or 60 days after process was executed on the property under Rule G(3).

(iii) A claim filed by a person asserting an interest as a bailee must identify the bailor, and if filed on the bailor's behalf must state the authority to do so.

(b) Answer. A claimant must serve and file an answer to the complaint or a motion under Rule 12 within 20 days after filing the claim. A claimant waives an objection to in rem jurisdiction or to venue if the objection is not made by motion or stated in the answer.

(6) Special Interrogatories.

(a) Time and Scope.

The government may serve special interrogatories limited to the claimant's identity and relationship to the defendant property without the court's leave at any time after the claim is filed and before discovery is closed. But if the claimant serves a motion to dismiss the action, the government must serve the interrogatories within 20 days after the motion is served.

(b) Answers or Objections.

Answers or objections to these interrogatories must be served within 21 days after the interrogatories are served.

(c) Government's Response Deferred.

The government need not respond to a claimant's motion to dismiss the action under Rule G(8)(b) until 21 days after the claimant has answered these interrogatories.

(7) Preserving, Preventing Criminal Use, and Disposing of Property; Sales.

(a) Preserving and Preventing Criminal Use of Property.

When the government does not have actual possession of the defendant property the court, on motion or on its own, may enter any order necessary to preserve the property, to prevent its removal or encumbrance, or to prevent its use in a criminal offense.

(b) Interlocutory Sale or Delivery.

(i) Order to Sell.

On motion by a party or a person having custody of the property, the court may order all or part of the property sold if:

(A) the property is perishable or at risk of deterioration, decay, or injury by being detained in custody pending the action;

(B) the expense of keeping the property is excessive or is disproportionate to its fair market value;

(C) the property is subject to a mortgage or to taxes on which the owner is in default; or

(D) the court finds other good cause.

(ii) Who Makes the Sale. A sale must be made by a United States agency that has authority to sell the property, by the agency's contractor, or by any person the court designates.

(iii) Sale Procedures. The sale is governed by 28 U.S.C. §§ 2001, 2002, and 2004, unless all parties, with the court's approval, agree to the sale, aspects of the sale, or different procedures.

(iv) Sale Proceeds. Sale proceeds are a substitute res subject to forfeiture in place of the property that was sold. The proceeds must be held in an interest-bearing account maintained by the United States pending the conclusion of the forfeiture action.

(v) Delivery on a Claimant's Motion. The court may order that the property be delivered to the claimant pending the conclusion of the action if the claimant shows circumstances that would permit sale under Rule G(7)(b)(i) and gives security under these rules.

(c) Disposing of Forfeited Property. Upon entry of a forfeiture judgment, the property or proceeds from selling the property must be disposed of as provided by law.

(8) Motions.

(a) Motion To Suppress Use of the Property as Evidence.

If the defendant property was seized, a party with standing to contest the lawfulness of the seizure may move to suppress use of the property as evidence. Suppression does not affect forfeiture of the property based on independently derived evidence.

(b) Motion To Dismiss the Action.

(i) A claimant who establishes standing to contest forfeiture may move to dismiss the action under Rule 12(b).

(ii) In an action governed by 18 U.S.C. § 983(a)(3)(D) the complaint may not be dismissed on the ground that the government did not have adequate evidence at the time the complaint was filed to establish the forfeitability of the property. The sufficiency of the complaint is governed by Rule G(2).

(c) Motion To Strike a Claim or Answer.

(i) At any time before trial, the government may move to strike a claim or answer:

(A) for failing to comply with Rule G(5) or (6), or

(B) because the claimant lacks standing.

(ii) The motion:

(A) must be decided before any motion by the claimant to dismiss the action; and

(B) may be presented as a motion for judgment on the pleadings or as a motion to determine after a hearing or by summary judgment whether the claimant can carry the burden of establishing standing by a preponderance of the evidence.

(d) Petition To Release Property.

(i) If a United States agency or an agency's contractor holds property for judicial or nonjudicial forfeiture under a statute governed by 18 U.S.C. § 983(f), a person who has filed a claim to the property may petition for its release under § 983(f).

(ii) If a petition for release is filed before a judicial forfeiture action is filed against the property, the petition may be filed either in the district where the property was seized or in the district where a warrant to seize the property issued. If a judicial forfeiture action against the property is later filed in another district — or if the government shows that the action will be filed in another district — the petition may be transferred to that district under 28 U.S.C. § 1404.

(e) Excessive Fines.

A claimant may seek to mitigate a forfeiture under the Excessive Fines Clause of the Eighth Amendment by motion for summary judgment or by motion made after entry of a forfeiture judgment if:

(i) the claimant has pleaded the defense under Rule 8; and

(ii) the parties have had the opportunity to conduct civil discovery on the defense.

(9) Trial.

Trial is to the court unless any party demands trial by jury under Rule 38 .

Rule G. Forfeiture Actions In Rem

(1) Scope.

This rule governs a forfeiture action in rem arising from a federal statute. To the extent that this rule does not address an issue, Supplemental Rules C and E and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure also apply.

(2) Complaint. The complaint must:

(a) be verified;

(b) state the grounds for subject-matter jurisdiction, in rem jurisdiction over the defendant property, and venue;

(c) describe the property with reasonable particularity;

(d) if the property is tangible, state its location when any seizure occurred and — if different — its location when the action is filed;

(e) identify the statute under which the forfeiture action is brought; and

(f) state sufficiently detailed facts to support a reasonable belief that the government will be able to meet its burden of proof at trial.

(3) Judicial Authorization and Process.

(a) Real Property.

If the defendant is real property, the government must proceed under 18 U.S.C. § 985 .

(b) Other Property; Arrest Warrant.

If the defendant is not real property:

(i) the clerk must issue a warrant to arrest the property if it is in the government's possession, custody, or control;

(ii) the court — on finding probable cause — must issue a warrant to arrest the property if it is not in the government's possession, custody, or control and is not subject to a judicial restraining order; and

(iii) a warrant is not necessary if the property is subject to a judicial restraining order.

(c) Execution of Process.

(i) The warrant and any supplemental process must be delivered to a person or organization authorized to execute it, who may be:

(A) a marshal or any other United States officer or employee;

(B) someone under contract with the United States; or (C) someone specially appointed by the court for that purpose.

(ii) The authorized person or organization must execute the warrant and any supplemental process on property in the United States as soon as practicable unless:

(A) the property is in the government's possession, custody, or control; or

(B) the court orders a different time when the complaint is under seal, the action is stayed before the warrant and supplemental process are executed, or the court finds other good cause.

(iii) The warrant and any supplemental process may be executed within the district or, when authorized by statute, outside the district.

(iv) If executing a warrant on property outside the United States is required, the warrant may be transmitted to an appropriate authority for serving process where the property is located.

(4) Notice.

(a) Notice by Publication.

(i) When Publication Is Required. A judgment of forfeiture may be entered only if the government has published notice of the action within a reasonable time after filing the complaint or at a time the court orders. But notice need not be published if:

(A) the defendant property is worth less than $1,000 and direct notice is sent under Rule G(4)(b) to every person the government can reasonably identify as a potential claimant; or

(B) the court finds that the cost of publication exceeds the property's value and that other means of notice would satisfy due process.

(ii) Content of the Notice. Unless the court orders otherwise, the notice must:

(A) describe the property with reasonable particularity;

(B) state the times under Rule G(5) to file a claim and to answer; and

(C) name the government attorney to be served with the claim and answer.

(iii) Frequency of Publication. Published notice must appear:

(A) once a week for three consecutive weeks; or

(B) only once if, before the action was filed, notice of nonjudicial forfeiture of the same property was published on an official internet government forfeiture site for at least 30 consecutive days, or in a newspaper of general circulation for three consecutive weeks in a district where publication is authorized under Rule G(4)(a)(iv).

(iv) Means of Publication. The government should select from the following options a means of publication reasonably calculated to notify potential claimants of the action:

(A) if the property is in the United States, publication in a newspaper generally circulated in the district where the action is filed, where the property was seized, or where property that was not seized is located;

(B) if the property is outside the United States, publication in a newspaper generally circulated in a district where the action is filed, in a newspaper generally circulated in the country where the property is located, or in legal notices published and generally circulated in the country where the property is located; or

(C) instead of (A) or (B), posting a notice on an official internet government forfeiture site for at least 30 consecutive days.

(b) Notice to Known Potential Claimants.

(i) Direct Notice Required. The government must send notice of the action and a copy of the complaint to any person who reasonably appears to be a potential claimant on the facts known to the government before the end of the time for filing a claim under Rule G(5)(a)(ii)(B).

(ii) Content of the Notice. The notice must state:

(A) the date when the notice is sent;

(B) a deadline for filing a claim, at least 35 days after the notice is sent;

(C) that an answer or a motion under Rule 12 must be filed no later than 21 days after filing the claim; and

(D) the name of the government attorney to be served with the claim and answer.

(iii) Sending Notice.

(A) The notice must be sent by means reasonably calculated to reach the potential claimant.

(B) Notice may be sent to the potential claimant or to the attorney representing the potential claimant with respect to the seizure of the property or in a related investigation, administrative forfeiture proceeding, or criminal case.

(C) Notice sent to a potential claimant who is incarcerated must be sent to the place of incarceration.

(D) Notice to a person arrested in connection with an offense giving rise to the forfeiture who is not incarcerated when notice is sent may be sent to the address that person last gave to the agency that arrested or released the person.

(E) Notice to a person from whom the property was seized who is not incarcerated when notice is sent may be sent to the last address that person gave to the agency that seized the property.

(iv) When Notice Is Sent. Notice by the following means is sent on the date when it is placed in the mail, delivered to a commercial carrier, or sent by electronic mail.

(v) Actual Notice. A potential claimant who had actual notice of a forfeiture action may not oppose or seek relief from forfeiture because of the government's failure to send the required notice.

(5) Responsive Pleadings.

(a) Filing a Claim.

(i) A person who asserts an interest in the defendant property may contest the forfeiture by filing a claim in the court where the action is pending. The claim must:

(A) identify the specific property claimed;

(B) identify the claimant and state the claimant's interest in the property;

(C) be signed by the claimant under penalty of perjury; and

(D) be served on the government attorney designated under Rule G(4)(a)(ii)(C) or (b)(ii)(D).

(ii) Unless the court for good cause sets a different time, the claim must be filed:

(A) by the time stated in a direct notice sent under Rule G(4)(b);

(B) if notice was published but direct notice was not sent to the claimant or the claimant's attorney, no later than 30 days after final publication of newspaper notice or legal notice under Rule G(4)(a) or no later than 60 days after the first day of publication on an official internet government forfeiture site; or

(C) if notice was not published and direct notice was not sent to the claimant or the claimant's attorney:

(1) if the property was in the government's possession, custody, or control when the complaint was filed, no later than 60 days after the filing, not counting any time when the complaint was under seal or when the action was stayed before execution of a warrant issued under Rule G(3)(b); or

(2) if the property was not in the government's possession, custody, or control when the complaint was filed, no later than 60 days after the government complied with 18 U.S.C. § 985(c) as to real property, or 60 days after process was executed on the property under Rule G(3).

(iii) A claim filed by a person asserting an interest as a bailee must identify the bailor, and if filed on the bailor's behalf must state the authority to do so.

(b) Answer. A claimant must serve and file an answer to the complaint or a motion under Rule 12 within 21 days after filing the claim. A claimant waives an objection to in rem jurisdiction or to venue if the objection is not made by motion or stated in the answer.

(6) Special Interrogatories.

(a) Time and Scope.

The government may serve special interrogatories limited to the claimant's identity and relationship to the defendant property without the court's leave at any time after the claim is filed and before discovery is closed. But if the claimant serves a motion to dismiss the action, the government must serve the interrogatories within 21 days after the motion is served.

(b) Answers or Objections.

Answers or objections to these interrogatories must be served within 21 days after the interrogatories are served.

(c) Government's Response Deferred.

The government need not respond to a claimant's motion to dismiss the action under Rule G(8)(b) until 21 days after the claimant has answered these interrogatories.

(7) Preserving, Preventing Criminal Use, and Disposing of Property; Sales.

(a) Preserving and Preventing Criminal Use of Property.

When the government does not have actual possession of the defendant property the court, on motion or on its own, may enter any order necessary to preserve the property, to prevent its removal or encumbrance, or to prevent its use in a criminal offense.

(b) Interlocutory Sale or Delivery.

(i) Order to Sell.

On motion by a party or a person having custody of the property, the court may order all or part of the property sold if:

(A) the property is perishable or at risk of deterioration, decay, or injury by being detained in custody pending the action;

(B) the expense of keeping the property is excessive or is disproportionate to its fair market value;

(C) the property is subject to a mortgage or to taxes on which the owner is in default; or

(D) the court finds other good cause.

(ii) Who Makes the Sale. A sale must be made by a United States agency that has authority to sell the property, by the agency's contractor, or by any person the court designates.

(iii) Sale Procedures. The sale is governed by 28 U.S.C. §§ 2001, 2002, and 2004, unless all parties, with the court's approval, agree to the sale, aspects of the sale, or different procedures.

(iv) Sale Proceeds. Sale proceeds are a substitute res subject to forfeiture in place of the property that was sold. The proceeds must be held in an interest-bearing account maintained by the United States pending the conclusion of the forfeiture action.

(v) Delivery on a Claimant's Motion. The court may order that the property be delivered to the claimant pending the conclusion of the action if the claimant shows circumstances that would permit sale under Rule G(7)(b)(i) and gives security under these rules.

(c) Disposing of Forfeited Property. Upon entry of a forfeiture judgment, the property or proceeds from selling the property must be disposed of as provided by law.

(8) Motions.

(a) Motion To Suppress Use of the Property as Evidence.

If the defendant property was seized, a party with standing to contest the lawfulness of the seizure may move to suppress use of the property as evidence. Suppression does not affect forfeiture of the property based on independently derived evidence.

(b) Motion To Dismiss the Action.

(i) A claimant who establishes standing to contest forfeiture may move to dismiss the action under Rule 12(b).

(ii) In an action governed by 18 U.S.C. § 983(a)(3)(D) the complaint may not be dismissed on the ground that the government did not have adequate evidence at the time the complaint was filed to establish the forfeitability of the property. The sufficiency of the complaint is governed by Rule G(2).

(c) Motion To Strike a Claim or Answer.

(i) At any time before trial, the government may move to strike a claim or answer:

(A) for failing to comply with Rule G(5) or (6), or

(B) because the claimant lacks standing.

(ii) The motion:

(A) must be decided before any motion by the claimant to dismiss the action; and

(B) may be presented as a motion for judgment on the pleadings or as a motion to determine after a hearing or by summary judgment whether the claimant can carry the burden of establishing standing by a preponderance of the evidence.

(d) Petition To Release Property.

(i) If a United States agency or an agency's contractor holds property for judicial or nonjudicial forfeiture under a statute governed by 18 U.S.C. § 983(f), a person who has filed a claim to the property may petition for its release under § 983(f).

(ii) If a petition for release is filed before a judicial forfeiture action is filed against the property, the petition may be filed either in the district where the property was seized or in the district where a warrant to seize the property issued. If a judicial forfeiture action against the property is later filed in another district — or if the government shows that the action will be filed in another district — the petition may be transferred to that district under 28 U.S.C. § 1404.

(e) Excessive Fines.

A claimant may seek to mitigate a forfeiture under the Excessive Fines Clause of the Eighth Amendment by motion for summary judgment or by motion made after entry of a forfeiture judgment if:

(i) the claimant has pleaded the defense under Rule 8; and

(ii) the parties have had the opportunity to conduct civil discovery on the defense.

(9) Trial.

Trial is to the court unless any party demands trial by jury under Rule 38.

(C) there is an unreasonable delay in securing release of the property.

(ii) In the circumstances described in Rule E(9)(b)(i), the court, on motion by a defendant or a person filing a statement of interest or right under Rule C(6) , may order that the property, rather than being sold, be delivered to the movant upon giving security under these rules.

(c) Sales, Proceeds.

All sales of property shall be made by the marshal or a deputy marshal, or by other person or organization having the warrant, or by any other person assigned by the court where the marshal or other person or organization having the warrant is a party in interest; and the proceeds of sale shall be forthwith paid into the registry of the court to be disposed of according to law.

(10) Preservation of Property.

When the owner or another person remains in possession of property attached or arrested under the provisions of Rule E(4)(b) that permit execution of process without taking actual possession, the court, on a party's motion or on its own, may enter any order necessary to preserve the property and prevent removal.>

Rule 44.1. Determining Foreign Law

A party who intends to raise an issue about a foreign country's law must give notice by a pleading or other writing. In determining foreign law, the court may consider any relevant material or source, including testimony, whether or not submitted by a party or admissible under the Federal Rules of Evidence. The court's determination must be treated as a ruling on a question of law.

Rule 38. Right to a Jury Trial; Demand

(a) Right Preserved.

The right of trial by jury as declared by the Seventh Amendment to the Constitution — or as provided by a federal statute — is preserved to the parties inviolate.

(b) Demand.

On any issue triable of right by a jury, a party may demand a jury trial by:

(1) serving the other parties with a written demand — which may be included in a pleading — no later than 14 days after the last pleading directed to the issue is served; and

(2) filing the demand in accordance with Rule 5(d) .

(c) Specifying Issues.

In its demand, a party may specify the issues that it wishes to have tried by a jury; otherwise, it is considered to have demanded a jury trial on all the issues so triable. If the party has demanded a jury trial on only some issues, any other party may — within 14 days after being served with the demand or within a shorter time ordered by the court — serve a demand for a jury trial on any other or all factual issues triable by jury.

(d) Waiver; Withdrawal.

A party waives a jury trial unless its demand is properly served and filed. A proper demand may be withdrawn only if the parties consent.

(e) Admiralty and Maritime Claims.

These rules do not create a right to a jury trial on issues in a claim that is an admiralty or maritime claim under Rule 9(h) .

Rule 22. Interpleader

(a) Grounds.

(1) By a Plaintiff.

Persons with claims that may expose a plaintiff to double or multiple liability may be joined as defendants and required to interplead. Joinder for interpleader is proper even though:

(A) the claims of the several claimants, or the titles on which their claims depend, lack a common origin or are adverse and independent rather than identical; or

(B) the plaintiff denies liability in whole or in part to any or all of the claimants.

(2) By a Defendant.

A defendant exposed to similar liability may seek interpleader through a crossclaim or counterclaim.

(b) Relation to Other Rules and Statutes.

This rule supplements — and does not limit — the joinder of parties allowed by Rule 20 . The remedy this rule provides is in addition to — and does not supersede or limit — the remedy provided by 28 U.S.C. §§ 1335 , 1397 , and 2361 . An action under those statutes must be conducted under these rules.

Rule 19. Required Joinder of Parties

(a) Persons Required to Be Joined if Feasible.

(1) Required Party.

A person who is subject to service of process and whose joinder will not deprive the court of subject-matter jurisdiction must be joined as a party if:

(A) in that person's absence, the court cannot accord complete relief among existing parties; or

(B) that person claims an interest relating to the subject of the action and is so situated that disposing of the action in the person's absence may:

(i) as a practical matter impair or impede the person's ability to protect the interest; or

(ii) leave an existing party subject to a substantial risk of incurring double, multiple, or otherwise inconsistent obligations because of the interest.

(2) Joinder by Court Order.

If a person has not been joined as required, the court must order that the person be made a party. A person who refuses to join as a plaintiff may be made either a defendant or, in a proper case, an involuntary plaintiff.

(3) Venue.

If a joined party objects to venue and the joinder would make venue improper, the court must dismiss that party.

(b) When Joinder Is Not Feasible.

If a person who is required to be joined if feasible cannot be joined, the court must determine whether, in equity and good conscience, the action should proceed among the existing parties or should be dismissed. The factors for the court to consider include:

(1) the extent to which a judgment rendered in the person's absence might prejudice that person or the existing parties;

(2) the extent to which any prejudice could be lessened or avoided by:

(A) protective provisions in the judgment;

(B) shaping the relief; or

(C) other measures;

(3) whether a judgment rendered in the person's absence would be adequate; and

(4) whether the plaintiff would have an adequate remedy if the action were dismissed for nonjoinder.

(c) Pleading the Reasons for Nonjoinder.

When asserting a claim for relief, a party must state:

(1) the name, if known, of any person who is required to be joined if feasible but is not joined; and

(2) the reasons for not joining that person.

(d) Exception for Class Actions.

This rule is subject to Rule 23 .

Rule 13. Counterclaim and Crossclaim

(a) Compulsory Counterclaim.

(1) In General.

A pleading must state as a counterclaim any claim that — at the time of its service — the pleader has against an opposing party if the claim:

(A) arises out of the transaction or occurrence that is the subject matter of the opposing party's claim; and

(B) does not require adding another party over whom the court cannot acquire jurisdiction.

(2) Exceptions.

The pleader need not state the claim if:

(A) when the action was commenced, the claim was the subject of another pending action; or

(B) the opposing party sued on its claim by attachment or other process that did not establish personal jurisdiction over the pleader on that claim, and the pleader does not assert any counterclaim under this rule.

(b) Permissive Counterclaims.

A pleading may state as a counterclaim against an opposing party any claim that is not compulsory.

(c) Relief Sought in a Counterclaim.

A counterclaim need not diminish or defeat the recovery sought by the opposing party. It may request relief that exceeds in amount or differs in kind from the relief sought by the opposing party.

(d) Counterclaim Against the United States.

These rules do not expand the right to assert a counterclaim — or to claim a credit — against the United States or a United States officer or agency.

(e) Counterclaim Maturing or Acquired After Pleading.

The court may permit a party to file a supplemental pleading asserting a counterclaim that matured or was acquired by the party after serving an earlier pleading.

(f) [Abrogated]

(g) Crossclaim Against a Coparty.

A pleading may state as a crossclaim any claim by one party against a coparty if the claim arises out of the transaction or occurrence that is the subject matter of the original action or of a counterclaim, or if the claim relates to any property that is the subject matter of the original action. The crossclaim may include a claim that the coparty is or may be liable to the crossclaimant for all or part of a claim asserted in the action against the crossclaimant.

(h) Joining Additional Parties.

Rules 19 and 20 govern the addition of a person as a party to a counterclaim or crossclaim.

(i) Separate Trials; Separate Judgments.

If the court orders separate trials under Rule 42(b) , it may enter judgment on a counterclaim or crossclaim under Rule 54(b) when it has jurisdiction to do so, even if the opposing party's claims have been dismissed or otherwise resolved.

Rule 23.2. Actions Relating to Unincorporated Associations
An action brought by or against the members of an unincorporated
association as a class by naming certain members as representative
parties may be maintained only if it appears that the
representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the interests
of the association and its members. In the conduct of the action
the court may make appropriate orders corresponding with
those described in Rule 23(d), and the procedure for dismissal or
compromise of the action shall correspond with that provided in
Rule 23(e).
(As added Feb. 28, 1966, eff. July 1, 1966.)
Rule 24. Intervention
(a) INTERVENTION OF RIGHT. Upon timely application anyone
shall be permitted to intervene in an action: (1) when a statute of
the United States confers an unconditional right to intervene; or
(2) when the applicant claims an interest relating to the property
or transaction which is the subject of the action and the applicant
is so situated that the disposition of the action may as a practical
matter impair or impede the applicant's ability to protect that interest,
unless the applicant's interest is adequately represented by
existing parties.
(b) PERMISSIVE INTERVENTION. Upon timely application anyone
may be permitted to intervene in an action: (1) when a statute of
the United States confers a conditional right to intervene; or (2)
when an applicant's claim or defense and the main action have a
question of law or fact in common. When a party to an action relies
for ground of claim or defense upon any statute or executive
order administered by a federal or state governmental officer or
agency or upon any regulation, order, requirement, or agreement
issued or made pursuant to the statute or executive order, the officer
or agency upon timely application may be permitted to intervene
in the action. In exercising its discretion the court shall
consider whether the intervention will unduly delay or prejudice
the adjudication of the rights of the original parties.
(c) PROCEDURE. A person desiring to intervene shall serve a motion
to intervene upon the parties as provided in Rule 5. The motion
shall state the grounds therefor and shall be accompanied by
a pleading setting forth the claim or defense for which intervention
is sought. The same procedure shall be followed when a statute
of the United States gives a right to intervene.
(As amended Dec. 27, 1946, eff. Mar. 19, 1948; Dec. 29, 1948, eff. Oct.
20, 1949; Jan. 21, 1963, eff. July 1, 1963; Feb. 28, 1966, eff. July 1, 1966;
Mar. 2, 1987, eff. Aug. 1, 1987; Apr. 30, 1991, eff. Dec. 1, 1991; Apr. 12,
2006, eff. Dec. 1, 2006.)

Rule 25. Substitution of Parties
(a) DEATH.
(1) If a party dies and the claim is not thereby extinguished,
the court may order substitution of the proper parties. The
motion for substitution may be made by any party or by the
successors or representatives of the deceased party and, together
with the notice of hearing, shall be served on the parties
as provided in Rule 5 and upon persons not parties in the
manner provided in Rule 4 for the service of a summons, and
may be served in any judicial district. Unless the motion for
substitution is made not later than 90 days after the death is
suggested upon the record by service of a statement of the fact
of the death as provided herein for the service of the motion,
the action shall be dismissed as to the deceased party.
(2) In the event of the death of one or more of the plaintiffs
or of one or more of the defendants in an action in which the
right sought to be enforced survives only to the surviving
plaintiffs or only against the surviving defendants, the action
does not abate. The death shall be suggested upon the record
and the action shall proceed in favor of or against the surviving
parties.
(b) INCOMPETENCY. If a party becomes incompetent, the court
upon motion served as provided in subdivision (a) of this rule may
allow the action to be continued by or against the party's representative.
(c) TRANSFER OF INTEREST. In case of any transfer of interest,
the action may be continued by or against the original party, unless
the court upon motion directs the person to whom the interest
is transferred to be substituted in the action or joined with the
original party. Service of the motion shall be made as provided in
subdivision (a) of this rule.
(d) PUBLIC OFFICERS; DEATH OR SEPARATION FROM OFFICE.
(1) When a public officer is a party to an action in his official
capacity and during its pendency dies, resigns, or otherwise
ceases to hold office, the action does not abate and the officer's
successor is automatically substituted as a party. Proceedings
following the substitution shall be in the name of the
substituted party, but any misnomer not affecting the substantial
rights of the parties shall be disregarded. An order of
substitution may be entered at any time, but the omission to
enter such an order shall not affect the substitution.
(2) A public officer who sues or is sued in an official capacity
may be described as a party by the officer's official title rather
than by name; but the court may require the officer's name
to be added.
(As amended Dec. 29, 1948, eff. Oct. 20, 1949; Apr. 17, 1961, eff. July
19, 1961; Jan. 21, 1963, eff. July 1, 1963; Mar. 2, 1987, eff. Aug. 1, 1987.)
V. DEPOSITIONS AND DISCOVERY
Rule 26. General Provisions Governing Discovery; Duty of Disclosure
(a) REQUIRED DISCLOSURES; METHODS TO DISCOVER ADDITIONAL
MATTER.

(1) Initial Disclosures. Except in categories of proceedings
specified in Rule 26(a)(1)(E), or to the extent otherwise stipulated
or directed by order, a party must, without awaiting a
discovery request, provide to other parties:
(A) the name and, if known, the address and telephone
number of each individual likely to have discoverable information
that the disclosing party may use to support its
claims or defenses, unless solely for impeachment, identifying
the subjects of the information;
(B) a copy of, or a description by category and location
of, all documents, electronically stored information, and
tangible things that are in the possession, custody, or control
of the party and that the disclosing party may use to
support its claims or defenses, unless solely for impeachment;
(C) a computation of any category of damages claimed
by the disclosing party, making available for inspection
and copying as under Rule 34 the documents or other evidentiary
material, not privileged or protected from disclosure,
on which such computation is based, including materials
bearing on the nature and extent of injuries suffered;
and
(D) for inspection and copying as under Rule 34 any insurance
agreement under which any person carrying on an
insurance business may be liable to satisfy part or all of
a judgment which may be entered in the action or to indemnify
or reimburse for payments made to satisfy the
judgment.
(E) The following categories of proceedings are exempt
from initial disclosure under Rule 26(a)(1):
(i) an action for review on an administrative record;
(ii) a forfeiture action in rem arising from a federal
statute;
(iii) a petition for habeas corpus or other proceeding
to challenge a criminal conviction or sentence;
(iv) an action brought without counsel by a person in
custody of the United States, a state, or a state subdivision;
(v) an action to enforce or quash an administrative
summons or subpoena;
(vi) an action by the United States to recover benefit
payments;
(vii) an action by the United States to collect on a
student loan guaranteed by the United States;
(viii) a proceeding ancillary to proceedings in other
courts; and
(ix) an action to enforce an arbitration award.
These disclosures must be made at or within 14 days after the
Rule 26(f) conference unless a different time is set by stipulation
or court order, or unless a party objects during the conference
that initial disclosures are not appropriate in the circumstances
of the action and states the objection in the Rule
26(f) discovery plan. In ruling on the objection, the court must
determine what disclosures—if any—are to be made, and set
the time for disclosure. Any party first served or otherwise

joined after the Rule 26(f) conference must make these disclosures
within 30 days after being served or joined unless a different
time is set by stipulation or court order. A party must
make its initial disclosures based on the information then reasonably
available to it and is not excused from making its disclosures
because it has not fully completed its investigation of
the case or because it challenges the sufficiency of another
party's disclosures or because another party has not made its
disclosures.
(2) Disclosure of Expert Testimony.
(A) In addition to the disclosures required by paragraph
(1), a party shall disclose to other parties the identity of
any person who may be used at trial to present evidence
under Rules 702, 703, or 705 of the Federal Rules of Evidence.
(B) Except as otherwise stipulated or directed by the
court, this disclosure shall, with respect to a witness who
is retained or specially employed to provide expert testimony
in the case or whose duties as an employee of the
party regularly involve giving expert testimony, be accompanied
by a written report prepared and signed by the witness.
The report shall contain a complete statement of all
opinions to be expressed and the basis and reasons therefor;
the data or other information considered by the witness
in forming the opinions; any exhibits to be used as a
summary of or support for the opinions; the qualifications
of the witness, including a list of all publications authored
by the witness within the preceding ten years; the compensation
to be paid for the study and testimony; and a
listing of any other cases in which the witness has testified
as an expert at trial or by deposition within the preceding
four years.
(C) These disclosures shall be made at the times and in
the sequence directed by the court. In the absence of other
directions from the court or stipulation by the parties, the
disclosures shall be made at least 90 days before the trial
date or the date the case is to be ready for trial or, if the
evidence is intended solely to contradict or rebut evidence
on the same subject matter identified by another party
under paragraph (2)(B), within 30 days after the disclosure
made by the other party. The parties shall supplement
these disclosures when required under subdivision (e)(1).
(3) Pretrial Disclosures. In addition to the disclosures required
by Rule 26(a)(1) and (2), a party must provide to other parties
and promptly file with the court the following information regarding
the evidence that it may present at trial other than
solely for impeachment:
(A) the name and, if not previously provided, the address
and telephone number of each witness, separately identifying
those whom the party expects to present and those
whom the party may call if the need arises;
(B) the designation of those witnesses whose testimony
is expected to be presented by means of a deposition and,
if not taken stenographically, a transcript of the pertinent
portions of the deposition testimony; and

(C) an appropriate identification of each document or
other exhibit, including summaries of other evidence, separately
identifying those which the party expects to offer
and those which the party may offer if the need arises.
Unless otherwise directed by the court, these disclosures must
be made at least 30 days before trial. Within 14 days thereafter,
unless a different time is specified by the court, a party
may serve and promptly file a list disclosing (i) any objections
to the use under Rule 32(a) of a deposition designated by another
party under Rule 26(a)(3)(B), and (ii) any objection, together
with the grounds therefor, that may be made to the admissibility
of materials identified under Rule 26(a)(3)(C). Objections
not so disclosed, other than objections under Rules
402 and 403 of the Federal Rules of Evidence, are waived unless
excused by the court for good cause.
(4) Form of Disclosures. Unless the court orders otherwise, all
disclosures under Rules 26(a)(1) through (3) must be made in
writing, signed, and served.
(5) Methods to Discover Additional Matter. Parties may obtain
discovery by one or more of the following methods: depositions
upon oral examination or written questions; written interrogatories;
production of documents or things or permission
to enter upon land or other property under Rule 34 or
45(a)(1)(C), for inspection and other purposes; physical and
mental examinations; and requests for admission.
(b) DISCOVERY SCOPE AND LIMITS. Unless otherwise limited by
order of the court in accordance with these rules, the scope of discovery
is as follows:
(1) In General. Parties may obtain discovery regarding any
matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the claim or defense
of any party, including the existence, description, nature, custody,
condition, and location of any books, documents, or
other tangible things and the identity and location of persons
having knowledge of any discoverable matter. For good cause,
the court may order discovery of any matter relevant to the
subject matter involved in the action. Relevant information
need not be admissible at the trial if the discovery appears
reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible
evidence. All discovery is subject to the limitations imposed
by Rule 26(b)(2)(i), (ii), and (iii).
(2) Limitations.
(A) By order, the court may alter the limits in these
rules on the number of depositions and interrogatories or
the length of depositions under Rule 30. By order or local
rule, the court may also limit the number of requests
under Rule 36.
(B) A party need not provide discovery of electronically
stored information from sources that the party identifies
as not reasonably accessible because of undue burden or
cost. On motion to compel discovery or for a protective
order, the party from whom discovery is sought must show
that the information is not reasonably accessible because
of undue burden or cost. If that showing is made, the court
may nonetheless order discovery from such sources if the

requesting party shows good cause, considering the limitations
of Rule 26(b)(2)(C). The court may specify conditions
for the discovery.
(C) The frequency or extent of use of the discovery methods
otherwise permitted under these rules and by any local
rule shall be limited by the court if it determines that: (i)
the discovery sought is unreasonably cumulative or duplicative,
or is obtainable from some other source that is
more convenient, less burdensome, or less expensive; (ii)
the party seeking discovery has had ample opportunity by
discovery in the action to obtain the information sought;
or (iii) the burden or expense of the proposed discovery
outweighs its likely benefit, taking into account the needs
of the case, the amount in controversy, the parties' resources,
the importance of the issues at stake in the litigation,
and the importance of the proposed discovery in resolving
the issues. The court may act upon its own initiative
after reasonable notice or pursuant to a motion under
Rule 26(c).
(3) Trial Preparation: Materials. Subject to the provisions of
subdivision (b)(4) of this rule, a party may obtain discovery of
documents and tangible things otherwise discoverable under
subdivision (b)(1) of this rule and prepared in anticipation of
litigation or for trial by or for another party or by or for that
other party's representative (including the other party's attorney,
consultant, surety, indemnitor, insurer, or agent) only
upon a showing that the party seeking discovery has substantial
need of the materials in the preparation of the party's
case and that the party is unable without undue hardship to
obtain the substantial equivalent of the materials by other
means. In ordering discovery of such materials when the required
showing has been made, the court shall protect against
disclosure of the mental impressions, conclusions, opinions, or
legal theories of an attorney or other representative of a party
concerning the litigation.
A party may obtain without the required showing a statement
concerning the action or its subject matter previously
made by that party. Upon request, a person not a party may
obtain without the required showing a statement concerning
the action or its subject matter previously made by that person.
If the request is refused, the person may move for a court
order. The provisions of Rule 37(a)(4) apply to the award of expenses
incurred in relation to the motion. For purposes of this
paragraph, a statement previously made is (A) a written statement
signed or otherwise adopted or approved by the person
making it, or (B) a stenographic, mechanical, electrical, or
other recording, or a transcription thereof, which is a substantially
verbatim recital of an oral statement by the person
making it and contemporaneously recorded.
(4) Trial Preparation: Experts.
(A) A party may depose any person who has been identified
as an expert whose opinions may be presented at trial.
If a report from the expert is required under subdivision
(a)(2)(B), the deposition shall not be conducted until after
the report is provided.(B) A party may, through interrogatories or by deposition,
discover facts known or opinions held by an expert
who has been retained or specially employed by another
party in anticipation of litigation or preparation for trial
and who is not expected to be called as a witness at trial
only as provided in Rule 35(b) or upon a showing of exceptional
circumstances under which it is impracticable for
the party seeking discovery to obtain facts or opinions on
the same subject by other means.
(C) Unless manifest injustice would result, (i) the court
shall require that the party seeking discovery pay the expert
a reasonable fee for time spent in responding to discovery
under this subdivision; and (ii) with respect to discovery
obtained under subdivision (b)(4)(B) of this rule the
court shall require the party seeking discovery to pay the
other party a fair portion of the fees and expenses reasonably
incurred by the latter party in obtaining facts and
opinions from the expert.
(5) Claims of Privilege or Protection of Trial-Preparation Materials.
(A) Information Withheld. When a party withholds information
otherwise discoverable under these rules by claiming
that it is privileged or subject to protection as trialpreparation
material, the party shall make the claim expressly
and shall describe the nature of the documents,
communications, or things not produced or disclosed in a
manner that, without revealing information itself privileged
or protected, will enable other parties to assess the
applicability of the privilege or protection.
(B) Information Produced. If information is produced in
discovery that is subject to a claim of privilege or of protection
as trial-preparation material, the party making
the claim may notify any party that received the information
of the claim and the basis for it. After being notified,
a party must promptly return, sequester, or destroy the
specified information and any copies it has and may not
use or disclose the information until the claim is resolved.
A receiving party may promptly present the information
to the court under seal for a determination of the claim.
If the receiving party disclosed the information before
being notified, it must take reasonable steps to retrieve it.
The producing party must preserve the information until
the claim is resolved.
(c) PROTECTIVE ORDERS. Upon motion by a party or by the person
from whom discovery is sought, accompanied by a certification
that the movant has in good faith conferred or attempted
to confer with other affected parties in an effort to resolve the dispute
without court action, and for good cause shown, the court in
which the action is pending or alternatively, on matters relating
to a deposition, the court in the district where the deposition is
to be taken may make any order which justice requires to protect
a party or person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or
undue burden or expense, including one or more of the following:
(1) that the disclosure or discovery not be had; (2) that the disclosure or discovery may be had only on specified
terms and conditions, including a designation of the time
or place;
(3) that the discovery may be had only by a method of discovery
other than that selected by the party seeking discovery;
(4) that certain matters not be inquired into, or that the
scope of the disclosure or discovery be limited to certain matters;
(5) that discovery be conducted with no one present except
persons designated by the court;
(6) that a deposition, after being sealed, be opened only by
order of the court;
(7) that a trade secret or other confidential research, development,
or commercial information not be revealed or be revealed
only in a designated way; and
(8) that the parties simultaneously file specified documents
or information enclosed in sealed envelopes to be opened as directed
by the court.
If the motion for a protective order is denied in whole or in part,
the court may, on such terms and conditions as are just, order
that any party or other person provide or permit discovery. The
provisions of Rule 37(a)(4) apply to the award of expenses incurred
in relation to the motion.
(d) TIMING AND SEQUENCE OF DISCOVERY. Except in categories of
proceedings exempted from initial disclosure under Rule
26(a)(1)(E), or when authorized under these rules or by order or
agreement of the parties, a party may not seek discovery from
any source before the parties have conferred as required by Rule
26(f). Unless the court upon motion, for the convenience of parties
and witnesses and in the interests of justice, orders otherwise,
methods of discovery may be used in any sequence, and the fact
that a party is conducting discovery, whether by deposition or
otherwise, does not operate to delay any other party's discovery.
(e) SUPPLEMENTATION OF DISCLOSURES AND RESPONSES. A party
who has made a disclosure under subdivision (a) or responded to
a request for discovery with a disclosure or response is under a
duty to supplement or correct the disclosure or response to include
information thereafter acquired if ordered by the court or in
the following circumstances:
(1) A party is under a duty to supplement at appropriate intervals
its disclosures under subdivision (a) if the party learns
that in some material respect the information disclosed is incomplete
or incorrect and if the additional or corrective information
has not otherwise been made known to the other parties
during the discovery process or in writing. With respect to
testimony of an expert from whom a report is required under
subdivision (a)(2)(B) the duty extends both to information contained
in the report and to information provided through a
deposition of the expert, and any additions or other changes to
this information shall be disclosed by the time the party's disclosures
under Rule 26(a)(3) are due.
(2) A party is under a duty seasonably to amend a prior response
to an interrogatory, request for production, or request
for admission if the party learns that the response is in some material respect incomplete or incorrect and if the additional
or corrective information has not otherwise been made known
to the other parties during the discovery process or in writing.
(f) CONFERENCE OF PARTIES; PLANNING FOR DISCOVERY. Except in
categories of proceedings exempted from initial disclosure under
Rule 26(a)(1)(E) or when otherwise ordered, the parties must, as
soon as practicable and in any event at least 21 days before a
scheduling conference is held or a scheduling order is due under
Rule 16(b), confer to consider the nature and basis of their claims
and defenses and the possibilities for a prompt settlement or resolution
of the case, to make or arrange for the disclosures required
by Rule 26(a)(1), to discuss any issues relating to preserving discoverable
information, and to develop a proposed discovery plan
that indicates the parties' views and proposals concerning:
(1) what changes should be made in the timing, form, or requirement
for disclosures under Rule 26(a), including a statement
as to when disclosures under Rule 26(a)(1) were made or
will be made;
(2) the subjects on which discovery may be needed, when discovery
should be completed, and whether discovery should be
conducted in phases or be limited to or focused upon particular
issues;
(3) any issues relating to disclosure or discovery of electronically
stored information, including the form or forms in which
it should be produced;
(4) any issues relating to claims of privilege or of protection
as trial-preparation material, including—if the parties agree
on a procedure to assert such claims after production—whether
to ask the court to include their agreement in an order;
(5) what changes should be made in the limitations on discovery
imposed under these rules or by local rule, and what
other limitations should be imposed; and
(6) any other orders that should be entered by the court
under Rule 26(c) or under Rule 16(b) and (c).
The attorneys of record and all unrepresented parties that have
appeared in the case are jointly responsible for arranging the conference,
for attempting in good faith to agree on the proposed discovery
plan, and for submitting to the court within 14 days after
the conference a written report outlining the plan. A court may
order that the parties or attorneys attend the conference in person.
If necessary to comply with its expedited schedule for Rule
16(b) conferences, a court may by local rule (i) require that the
conference between the parties occur fewer than 21 days before the
scheduling conference is held or a scheduling order is due under
Rule 16(b), and (ii) require that the written report outlining the
discovery plan be filed fewer than 14 days after the conference between
the parties, or excuse the parties from submitting a written
report and permit them to report orally on their discovery plan at
the Rule 16(b) conference.
(g) SIGNING OF DISCLOSURES, DISCOVERY REQUESTS, RESPONSES,
AND OBJECTIONS.
(1) Every disclosure made pursuant to subdivision (a)(1) or
subdivision (a)(3) shall be signed by at least one attorney of
record in the attorney's individual name, whose address shall
be stated. An unrepresented party shall sign the disclosure and

state the party's address. The signature of the attorney or
party constitutes a certification that to the best of the signer's
knowledge, information, and belief, formed after a reasonable
inquiry, the disclosure is complete and correct as of the
time it is made.
(2) Every discovery request, response, or objection made by
a party represented by an attorney shall be signed by at least
one attorney of record in the attorney's individual name,
whose address shall be stated. An unrepresented party shall
sign the request, response, or objection and state the party's
address. The signature of the attorney or party constitutes a
certification that to the best of the signer's knowledge, information,
and belief, formed after a reasonable inquiry, the request,
response, or objection is:
(A) consistent with these rules and warranted by existing
law or a good faith argument for the extension, modification,
or reversal of existing law;
(B) not interposed for any improper purpose, such as to
harass or to cause unnecessary delay or needless increase
in the cost of litigation; and
(C) not unreasonable or unduly burdensome or expensive,
given the needs of the case, the discovery already had in
the case, the amount in controversy, and the importance
of the issues at stake in the litigation.
If a request, response, or objection is not signed, it shall be
stricken unless it is signed promptly after the omission is
called to the attention of the party making the request, response,
or objection, and a party shall not be obligated to take
any action with respect to it until it is signed.
(3) If without substantial justification a certification is
made in violation of the rule, the court, upon motion or upon
its own initiative, shall impose upon the person who made the
certification, the party on whose behalf the disclosure, request,
response, or objection is made, or both, an appropriate
sanction, which may include an order to pay the amount of
the reasonable expenses incurred because of the violation, including
a reasonable attorney's fee.
(As amended Dec. 27, 1946, eff. Mar. 19, 1948; Jan. 21, 1963, eff. July
1, 1963; Feb. 28, 1966, eff. July 1, 1966; Mar. 30, 1970, eff. July 1, 1970;
Apr. 29, 1980, eff. Aug. 1, 1980; Apr. 28, 1983, eff. Aug. 1, 1983; Mar.
2, 1987, eff. Aug. 1, 1987; Apr. 22, 1993, eff. Dec. 1, 1993; Apr. 17, 2000,
eff. Dec. 1, 2000; Apr. 12, 2006, eff. Dec. 1, 2006.)

NOTES
1. The pleader may use the material in one of the three sets of brackets.
His choice will depend upon whether he desires to plead the document verbatim,
or by exhibit, or according to its legal effect.
2. Under the rules free joinder of claims is permitted. See Rules 8(e) and
18. Consequently the claims set forth in each and all of the following forms
may be joined with this complaint or with each other. Ordinarily each
claim should be stated in a separate division of the complaint, and the divisions
should be designated as counts successively numbered. In particular
the rules permit alternative and inconsistent pleading. See Form 10.
(As amended Jan. 21, 1963, eff. July 1, 1963.)

Water  

As Chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, Senator Boxer has led efforts to increase investment in water infrastructure to protect communities from flooding, provide safe drinking water for families and improve management of water supplies. Throughout her Senate career, Senator Boxer has worked to secure funding for flood control, habitat restoration and water supply projects across California. She has also worked with other California lawmakers to provide relief to communities in the Central Valley that are suffering from drought conditions.

Related Boxer Updates

03/09/2011

Senator Boxer: House Republican Budget Threatens Environment and Public Health

03/08/2011

Senator Boxer: Restoring Lake Tahoe

02/16/2011

Senator Boxer: California Leading the Way in Solar Energy

02/10/2011

Senator Boxer: Protecting Our Drinking Water

02/04/2011

Senator Boxer: Protecting Public Health and the Environment

Related Press Releases

03/02/2011

Boxer Joins Feinstein to Introduce Bill to Protect and Restore Lake Tahoe

02/11/2011

Boxer Supports Efforts to Move Forward on Kern County Clean Energy Projects

01/25/2011

West Coast Senators Introduce Bill to Protect Pacific Coast from New Offshore Oil Drilling

09/29/2010

Boxer, Feinstein Introduce Legislation to Establish Sacramento River National Recreation Area

08/05/2010

Boxer Introduces Legislation to Create Pinnacles National Park

Related Media

Videos

Photos

Water Transfers and Drought Relief

Water Resources Management  

Water Restoration Projects  

Flood Control  

Marine Conservation  

Protocol for Conducting Environmental Compliance Audits under the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act and CERCLA Section 103

U.S. EPA cannot overemphasize how important it is for the auditor to take under consideration the impact of state and local regulations on facility compliance. U.S. EPA has delegated various levels of authority to a majority of the states for most of the federal regulatory programs including enforcement. For example, most facilities regulated under RCRA, and/or CWA have been issued permits written by the states to ensure compliance with federal and state regulations. In turn, many states may have delegated various levels of authority to local jurisdictions. Similarly, local governments (e.g., counties, townships) may issue permits for air emissions from the facility. Therefore, auditors are advised to review local and state regulations in addition to the federal regulations in order to perform a comprehensive audit.

COMPLIANCE CATEGORY: EPCRA
REGULATORY REQUIREMENT OR MANAGEMENT PRACTICE
REVIEWER CHECKS
GENERAL EP.1
EP.1.1. The current status of any ongoing or unresolved Consent Orders, Compliance Agreements, Notices of Violation (NOVs), or equivalent state enforcement actions should be examined.
Determine if noncompliance issues have been resolved by reviewing a copy of the previous audit report, Consent Orders, Compliance Agreements, NOVs, or equivalent state enforcement actions. Determine and indicate, for open items, what corrective action is planned and milestones established to correct problems.
EP.1.2. Facilities are required to comply with all applicable federal regulatory requirements not contained in this checklist.
Determine if any new regulations have been issued since the finalization of this guide. If so, annotate checklist to include new standards. Determine if the facility has activities or facilities that are federally regulated, but not addressed in this checklist. Verify that the facility is in compliance with all applicable and newly issued regulations.
EP.1.3. Facilities are required to abide by state and local regulations concerning hazardous materials.
Verify that the facility is abiding by state and local requirements. Verify that the facility is operating according to permits issued by the state or local agencies. (NOTE: Issues typically regulated by state and local agencies include: - notification requirements - response plan requirements - spill response requirements.)


EP.10.1. Facilities with quantities of extremely hazardous substances equal to or greater than the threshold limitations are required to follow specific emergency planning procedures (40 CFR 355.30 and 355 Appendix A).
(NOTE: For purposes of this checklist item, an amount of any extremely hazardous substance means the total amount of an extremely hazardous substance present at any one time at a facility at concentrations greater than one percent by weight, regardless of location, number of containers, or method of storage.) Verify that the facility has notified the Commission (see definitions) that it is subject to the emergency planning requirements within 60 days after the facility first becomes subject to these requirements. Verify that the facility has a designated representative who participates in the local emergency planning process as a facility emergency response coordinator. Verify that the facility has notified the local emergency planning committee, or governor if there is no committee, of the facility representative within 30 days after establishment of a local emergency planning committee. Verify that the local emergency planning committee is informed of any changes occurring at the facility that may be relevant to emergency planning. Verify that, upon request of the local emergency planning committee, the facility promptly provides to the committee any information necessary for development or implementation of the local emergency plan. (NOTE: If a container or storage vessel holds a mixture or solution of an extremely hazardous substance, then the concentration of extremely hazardous substance, in weight percent (greater than 1 percent sign), shall be multiplied by the mass (in pounds) in the vessel to determine the actual quantity of extremely hazardous substance therein. Extremely hazardous substances that are solids are subject to either of two threshold planning quantities (i.e., 500/10,000 lb). The lower quantity applies only if the solid exists in powdered form and has a particle size less than 100 microns; or is handled in solution or in molten form; or meets the criteria for a NFPA rating of 2, 3, or 4 for reactivity. If the solid does not meet any of these criteria, it is subject to the upper (10,000 lb) TPQ. The 100-micron level may be determined by multiplying the weight percent of solid with a particle size less than 100 microns in a particular container by the quantity of solid in the container. The amount of solid in solution may be determined by multiplying the weight percent of solid in the solution in a particular container by the quantity of solution in the container. The amount of solid in molten form must be multiplied by 0.3 to determine whether the lower threshold planning quantity is met.)


EP.10.2. The contingency plan developed for the facility should be compared to the local emergency contingency plan (MP).
Verify that the facility contingency plan is compatible with the contingency plan developed by the local emergency planning committee. Verify that the facility contingency plan considers how local emergency response officials will likely respond to a chemical release.
COMPLIANCE CATEGORY: EPCRA
REGULATORY REQUIREMENT OR MANAGEMENT PRACTICE
REVIEWER CHECKS
RELEASE, NOTIFICATION, REPORTING EP.20
(NOTE: Emergency release notification requirements do not apply to: - any release that results in exposure to persons solely within the boundaries of the facility - any release that is a federally permitted release as defined in section 101 (10) of CERCLA - any release that is continuous and stable in quantity and rate under the definitions in 40 CFR 302.8(b) - any release of a pesticide product exempt from CERCLA section 103(a) reporting under section 103(e) of CERCLA - any release not meeting the definition of release under Section 101(22) of CERCLA, and therefore exempt from Section 103(a) reporting - any radionuclide release which occurs: - naturally in soil from land holdings such as parks, golf courses, or other large tracts of land - naturally from land disturbance activities, including farming, construction, and land disturbance incidental to extraction during mining activities, except that which occurs at uranium, phosphate, tin, zircon, hafnium, vanadium, monazite, and rare earth mines - from the dumping and transportation of coal and coal ash (including fly ash, bottom ash, and boiler slags), including the dumping and land spreading operations that occur during coal ash uses - from piles of coal and coal ash, including fly ash, bottom ash, and boiler slags.) (NOTE: Exemption from these emergency release notification requirements for continuous releases does not include exemption from requirements for: - initial notifications as defined in 40 CFR 302.8(d) and (e) - notification of a “statistically significant increase” - notification of a “new release” - notification of a change in the normal range of the release as required under 40 CFR 302.8(g)(2).)
EP.20.1 When there is a release of a reportable quantity (RQ) of any extremely hazardous substance or CERCLA hazardous substance emergency release notification is required (40 CFR 355.40 and 355 Appendices A and B)
Determine if there has been a release of an extremely hazardous substance or CERCLA hazardous substance in excess of the RQ. Verify that, if a release has occurred in excess of the reportable quantity, the following are immediately notified: - community emergency coordinator for the local emergency planning committee of any area likely to be affected by the release - state emergency response commission of any state likely to be affected by the release - local emergency response personnel if there is no local emergency planning committee.

COMPLIANCE CATEGORY: EPCRA
REGULATORY REQUIREMENT OR MANAGEMENT PRACTICE
REVIEWER CHECKS
Verify that the notice contains the following, to the extent known at the time of notice, so long as no delay in notice or emergency response results: - the chemical name or identity of any substance involved in the release - an indication of whether the substance is an extremely hazardous substance - an estimate of the quantity of any such substance that was released into the environment - the time and duration of the release - the medium or media into which the release occurred - any known or anticipated acute or chronic health risks associated with the emergency, and, where appropriate, advice regarding medial attention necessary for exposed individuals - proper precautions to take as a result of the release, including evacuation (unless such information is readily available to the community emergency coordination because of the local emergency plan) - the names and telephone numbers of the person or persons to be contacted for further information. Verify that, after the immediate verbal notification, a written follow-up emergency notification is produced which contains the same information detailed in the verbal notice (outlined above), plus: - actions taken to respond to and contain the release - any known or anticipated acute or chronic health risks associated with the release - advice regarding medical attention necessary for exposed individuals.
EP.20.2. Releases in excess of or equal to the RQ of listed and unlisted hazardous substances shall be reported to the NRC immediately (40 CFR 302.5 through 302.6)
Verify that a release (other than a federally permitted release or application of a pesticide) of a hazardous substance from a vessel, an offshore facility, or an onshore facility is reported to the NRC immediately after the release is identified. (NOTE: 40 CFR 302.4 lists hazardous substances (see definitions section of this document) and RQs subject to the notification requirements outlined in 40 CFR 302.6. These hazardous substances contained in the tables and Appendix B of 40 CFR 302.4 are referred to in these regulations as “listed hazardous substances”. See 40 CFR 302.5(a).) (NOTE: The RQ of an unlisted hazardous substance (see definitions) is 100 lb, except for those unlisted hazardous wastes that exhibit extraction procedure (EP) toxicity identified in 40 CFR 261.24. Unlisted hazardous wastes that exhibit EP toxicity have the RQs listed in the table in 40 CFR 302.4 for the contaminant on which the characteristic of EP toxicity is based. The RQ applies to the waste itself, not merely to the toxic contaminant. If an unlisted hazardous waste exhibits EP toxicity on the basis of more than one contaminant, the RQ for that waste shall be stockpiling; excavating, handling, transporting, and storing ores and other raw materials; and replacing materials in mined-out areas as long as such materials have not been beneficiated or processed and do not contain elevated radionuclide concentrations (greater than 7.6 pCi/g of Uranium-238, 6.8 pCi/g of Thorium-232, or 8.4 pCi/g of Radium-226) - releases of radionuclides from the dumping and transportation of coal and coal ash (including fly ash, bottom ash, and boiler slags), including the dumping and land spreading operations that occur during coal ash uses - releases of radionuclides from piles of coal and coal ash, including fly ash, bottom ash, and boiler slags.) (NOTE: Except for releases of radionuclides, notification of the release of an RQ of solid particles of antimony, arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, chromium, copper, lead, nickel, selenium, silver, thallium, or zinc is not required if the mean diameter of the particles released is larger than 100 micrometers (0.004 in.).
EP.20.3. Specific notifications are required for releases of hazardous substances that qualify for reduced reporting options (40 CFR 302.8)
Determine if there are any releases that are continuous and stable in quantity and rate. Verify that the following notifications have been given: - initial telephone notification - initial written notification within 30 days of the initial telephone notification - follow-up notification within 30 days of the first anniversary date of the initial written notification - notification of changes in: - the composition or source of the release - information submitted in the initial written notification - information submitted in the follow-up notification when there is an increase in the quantity of the hazardous substances in any 24-h period that represents a statistically significant increase. Verify that, prior to making an initial telephone notification of a continuous release, the person in charge of a facility or vessel establishes a sound basis for qualifying the release for reporting by one of the following: - using release data, engineering estimates, knowledge of operating procedures, or best professional judgment to establish the continuity and stability of the release - reporting the release to the NRC for a period sufficient to establish the continuity and stability of the release or when a basis has been established to qualify the release for reduced reporting, initial notification to the NRC is made by telephone. Verify that the notification is identified as an initial continuous release notification

IRON MOUNTAIN MINE INSTITUTE - BIOREFINERY - HYDROPOWER - RESOURCE & RECOVERY - ARMAN CONSERVATORY TRUSTS

Federal Emergency Management Agency
U.S. Department of Homeland Security
500 C Street SW, Washington, D.C. 20472
(202) 646-2500

ready
(800) 621-FEMA / TTY (800) 462-7585
3 Step Guide for Assistance

2011 Water Resources Development Act

Environment and Public Works Committee

REQUEST FORM

(Please fill out one sheet for each request)

MEMBER: IRON MOUNTAIN MINE INSTITUTE

Member Staff Contact Name: JOHN HUTCHENS

Phone Number: 925-878-9167

Email: john@ironmountainmine.com

Priority: of possession, prior rights

Project/Study/Activity Requests ARMAN HYDROPOWER , ARMAN BIOPOWER

(Complete this section if your request relates to a specific project)

Name of Project: IRON MOUNTAIN MINE INSTITUTE

Location (include city/county and state): MINNESOTA, REDDING/ SHASTA AND CALIFORNIA

Corps District(s):

Non-Federal Sponsor Contact Information (Name, Phone, and Email Address):

Corps Report: If the Request is for a construction authorization, does the project have a

completed Corps report? yes no

Project Modification: Does this request modify an existing authorization? yes no

If yes, please provide a reference for the existing authorization

IRON MOUNTAIN MINE EPA ID: CAD980498612 OU 01 REDDING , CA 10/03/1986

Project Cost: 1 BILLION

Policy/Programmatic/Other Language Requests

(Complete this section if your request is programmatic or policy-related)

Provision Title: SAFE WATERSHED REFORM-ACT

Affected (if applicable):

Description of Purpose and Need for Request: CERCLA 118, DRINKING WATER

(Complete this section for ALL requests. Attach additional pages if needed.)

Dear Mr. Hutchens:

Thank you for taking the time to write and share your views with me.  Your comments will help me continue to represent you and other Californians to the best of my ability.  Be assured that I will keep your views in mind as the Senate consider s legislation on this or similar issues.

If you would like additional information about my work in the U.S. Senate, I invite you to visit my website,  http://boxer.senate.gov .  From this site, you can access my statements and press releases about current events and pending legislation, request copies of legislation and government reports, and receive detailed information about the many services that I am privileged to provide for my constituents.  You may also wish to visit  http://thomas.loc.gov to track current and past federal legislation.

Again, thank you for sharing your thoughts with me.  I appreciate hearing from you.
Barbara Boxer

United States Senator

CONTACT:
EPA Press Office
press@epa.gov
202-564-6794

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
March 10, 2011

Administrator Lisa P. Jackson, Testimony Before the U.S. House Committee on Agriculture

As prepared for delivery.

Chairman Lucas, Ranking Member Peterson and Members of this committee, thank you for inviting me to testify. I'm pleased to be here today.

I have great respect for the oversight role of Congress and believe that this ongoing dialogue is central to the commitment I have made to the American people to conduct EPA's business transparently and with accountability.

I also believe an important part of that commitment is to dispel certain myths about EPA's work and its impact on agriculture. These mischaracterizations are more than simple distractions; they prevent real dialogue to address our greatest problems. And so, today, I would like to spend a few minutes addressing some of them directly.

Let me begin, though, with one simple fact that I proudly embrace: farmers and ranchers are an essential part of our economy. They give us food, fiber, and fuel. The innovators in American agriculture deserve great credit for the significant steps they've taken to protect the environment while feeding millions of people.

With that recognition in mind, my direction to EPA has been to establish a consistent dialogue with the agriculture community, which is crucial to our work.

This is why I would like to take a moment today to address some of the mischaracterizations that have been, at times, unaddressed, or that need to be addressed again. As I'm sure you would agree, Mr. Chairman, facts matter and we all have a responsibility to ensure that the American people have facts and the truth in front of them, particularly when fictions are pushed by special interests with an investment in the outcome.

Let me give you five examples:

One is the notion that EPA intends to regulate the emissions from cows – what is commonly referred to as a “Cow Tax.” This myth was started in 2008 by a lobbyist and –quickly de-bunked by the non-partisan, independent group fact-check.org – it still lives on. The truth is - EPA is proposing to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in a responsible, careful manner and we have even exempted agricultural sources from regulation.

Another mischaracterization is the claim that EPA is attempting to expand regulation of dust from farms. We have no plans to do so, but let me be clear, the Clean Air Act passed by Congress mandates that the Agency routinely review the science of various pollutants, including Particulate Matter, which is directly responsible for heart attacks and premature deaths. EPA's independent science panel is currently reviewing that science, and at my direction EPA staff is conducting meetings to engage with and listen to farmers and ranchers well before we even propose any rule.

Another example involves spray drift. While no one supports pesticides wafting into our schools and communities, EPA does not support a “no-spray drift policy.” EPA has been on the record numerous times saying this, but the incorrect belief that EPA desires to regulate all spray drift persists. We have reached out to National Association of State Departments of Agriculture and other key stakeholders. Working with them, we have been able to identify critical issues and we will continue our efforts to resolve them.

Yet another mischaracterization is the false notion that EPA is planning on mandating Federal numeric nutrient limits on various States. Again, let me be clear: EPA is not working on any federal numeric nutrient limits. We will soon be releasing a framework memo to our regional offices that makes it clear that addressing nitrogen and phosphorus pollution – which is a major problem - is best addressed by the States, through numerous tools, including proven conservation practices. The case of Florida is unique – the last Administration made a determination that federal numeric nutrient standards were necessary in Florida, requiring EPA to develop such standards.

And finally is the notion that EPA intends to treat spilled milk in the same way as spilled oil. This is simply incorrect. Rather, EPA has proposed, and is on the verge of finalizing an exemption for milk and dairy containers. This exemption needed to be finalized because the law passed by Congress was written broadly enough to cover milk containers. It was our work with the dairy industry that prompted EPA to develop an exemption and make sure the standards of the law are met in a commonsense way. All of EPA's actions have been to exempt these containers. And we expect this to become final very shortly.

Contrary to the myths is the reality I spoke of earlier. EPA is in close consultation with America's farmers and ranchers. We have listened to their concerns and made them a part of the work we do. Let me give just one example that is very important to this committee.

When EPA proposed higher renewable fuels production mandates under RFS 2, we heard – again through extensive public comments and direct conversations – the ethanol industry's concerns with the analysis of greenhouse gas impacts, which EPA was conducting under a requirement from Congress. We addressed their concerns, and we now have a rule that encourages vast innovation, respects the needs of agricultural communities, and is expected to create jobs and increase farmers' incomes by $13 billion annually by 2022.

Mr. Chairman, everyone in this room, has the same desire – to have safe water, air and land for our children – and to do so in a way that maintains our economic strengths. EPA will continue to work with this committee, as well as our partners in the States and the agricultural community to achieve the goals we have set together, and to serve the values we all share. Thank you.


FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
March 11, 2011


Administrator Lisa P. Jackson, Testimony Before the U.S. House Subcommittees on Energy and Power and Environment and Economy, As Prepared


As prepared for delivery.

Chairmen Whitfield and Shimkus, Ranking Members Rush and Green, and Members of the Subcommittees: Thank you for inviting me to testify about President Obama's budget request for the Environmental Protection Agency.

Congress enacted the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, and America's other bedrock environmental protection laws on a broadly bipartisan basis. It did so to protect American children and adults from pollution that otherwise would make their lives shorter, less healthy, and less prosperous. It did so to make the air and drinking water in America's communities clean enough to attract new employers. It did so to enable America's local governments to revitalize abandoned and polluted industrial sites. It did so to safeguard the pastime of America's forty million anglers. It did so to protect the farms whose irrigation makes up a third of America's surface freshwater withdrawals. And it did so to preserve the livelihoods of fishermen in American great waters such as the Great Lakes, the Chesapeake Bay, and the Gulf of Mexico.


Congress gave EPA the responsibility of implementing and enforcing those laws. Each year, Congress appropriates the money that makes EPA's implementation and enforcement work possible.

As head of the EPA, I am accountable for squeezing every last drop of public health protection out of every dollar we are given. So I support the tough cuts in the President's proposed budget. But, I am equally accountable for pointing out when cuts become detrimental to public health. Without adequate funding, EPA would be unable to implement or enforce the laws that protect Americans' health, livelihoods, and pastimes. Big polluters would flout legal restrictions on dumping contaminants into the air, into rivers, and onto the ground. Toxic plumes already underground would reach drinking water supplies, because ongoing work to contain them would stop. There would be no EPA grant money to fix or replace broken water treatment systems. And the standards EPA is set to establish for harmful air pollution from smokestacks and tailpipes would remain missing from a population of sources that is not static but growing.

So if Congress slashed EPA's funding, concentrations of harmful pollution would increase from current levels in the places Americans live, work, go to school, fish, hike, and hunt. The result would be more asthma attacks, more missed school and work days, more heart attacks, more cancer cases, more premature deaths, and more polluted waters.

Needless to say, then, I fervently request and deeply appreciate continued bipartisan support in Congress for funding the essential work that keeps American children and adults safe from uncontrolled amounts of harmful pollution being dumped into the water they drink and the air they breathe.

Decreasing federal spending is no longer just a prudent choice; it is now an unavoidable necessity. Accordingly, President Obama has proposed to cut EPA's annual budget nearly thirteen percent.

That cut goes beyond eliminating redundancies. We have made difficult, even painful, choices. We have done so, however, in a careful way that preserves EPA's ability to carry out its core responsibilities to protect the health and wellbeing of America's children, adults, and communities.

You have been reviewing the budget request for more than three weeks, so I will save the details for the question period. Before turning to your questions, I will address Chairman Upton's bill to eliminate portions of the Clean Air Act.

The most extreme parts of that bill remain unchanged since I testified about it a month ago. It still would presume to overrule the scientific community on the scientific finding that carbon pollution endangers Americans' health and wellbeing. Politicians overruling scientists on a scientific question – you might be remembered more for that than for anything else you do.

The bill still would block any Clean Air Act standards for greenhouse gas pollution from cars and trucks after 2016. Alone, the Department of Transportation's CAFÉ standards do not achieve nearly as much pollution reductions or oil savings as when they are backed up by the Clean Air Act's enforcement provisions. All told, nullifying this part of the Clean Air Act would forfeit many hundreds of millions of barrels of oil savings. At a time when gas prices are rising yet again, I cannot, for the life of me, understand why you would vote to massively increase America's oil dependence.

The Clean Air Act saves millions of American children and adults from the debilitating and expensive illnesses that occur when smokestacks and tailpipes dump unrestricted amounts of harmful pollution into the air we breathe. I respectfully ask this Committee to think twice before gutting that landmark law.

Thank you, Chairmen. I look forward to your questions.

EPA Summitville Mine Hydro-Power Project to Help Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions


INTERLAKES HABITAT

1

Next generation biofuels convert cellulose to isobutene

Ag Committee Holds Hearing on Reducing Regulations
03/09/2011

  The House Ag Committee held a hearing Wednesday to mark up H.R. 872, the Reducing Regulatory Burdens Act of 2011. Committee Chairman Collin Peterson says this legislation would relieve producers from a potentially costly regulatory burden that would do little, if anything, to protect the environment. In 2006 the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals overturned an EPA rule which specifically exempted permitting of certain pesticide applications under the Clean Water Act. The court's decision pre-empts the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act by the Clean Water Act. Peterson said this was not the intent of Congress.

The proposed legislation would restore congressional intent and address the court's ruling by amending both the Clean Water Act and FIFRA to prohibit permits for pesticide application when pesticides are applied consistent with FIFRA. Peterson said, - Clean Water Act permitting requirements would place a massive burden and responsibility on the states and the EPA. The last thing we need is more regulation coming from the EPA in this area.

According to Mr. Peterson, - for too long we've watched organizations use the courts to twist laws against American farmers and agricultural production. If we don't work together to find a solution, producers will likely continue being told how to operate by lawyers and judges who don't understand agriculture. The courts are not the place to decide agriculture policy. This legislation is a step in the right direction to address this problem.

House Subcommittee Moves To Block EPA Funding On Emissions

by Bill Chappell

A House subcommittee has voted to deny funds for the EPA to regulate greenhouse gases, in a Thursday session that pitted Republicans against Democrats in a heated debate.

"This bill would block the Environmental Protection Agency's costly global warming regulatory agenda," said the bill's Republican sponsor, House Energy and Commerce Committee chairman Rep. Fred Upton, in prepared remarks.

From The Wall Street Journal :

Republicans said the EPA has overstepped its bounds and created rules that would kill jobs and encourage U.S. companies to shift work to China and other countries. Democrats accused Republicans of denying scientific findings on global warming and of stripping the EPA from its ability to protect public health.

The bill "codifies science denial," said Rep. Henry Waxman (D., Calif.), the ranking Democrat on the House energy committee.

According to Politico's Robin Bravender , the vote is "part of a broader Republican push to blame the White House and congressional Democrats for gas price spikes."

A similar bill is in the Senate. The Journal reports, "A collection of business trade groups, including the oil industry's American Petroleum Institute and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, applauded the legislation and welcomed the vote."

The full House Energy and Commerce Committee will take up the bill on Tuesday.

UPDATED: Energy Department Announces New Advance in Biofuel Technology

Highlights Opportunity to Reduce America's Oil Dependence and Create Jobs in Rural America

U.S. Energy Secretary Steven Chu today congratulated a team of researchers at the Department's BioEnergy Science Center who have achieved yet another advance in the drive toward next generation biofuels: using bacteria to convert plant matter directly into isobutanol, which can be burned in regular car engines with a heat value higher than ethanol and similar to gasoline.  This research is part of a broad portfolio of work the Department is doing to reduce America's dependence on foreign oil and create new economic opportunities for rural America.

"Today's announcement is yet another sign of the rapid progress we are making in developing the next generation of biofuels that can help reduce our oil dependence," said Secretary Chu.  "This is a perfect example of the promising opportunity we have to create a major new industry - one based on bio-material such as wheat and rice straw, corn stover, lumber wastes, and plants specifically developed for bio-fuel production that require far less fertilizer and other energy inputs.  But we must continue with an aggressive research and development effort."

Secretary Chu added that:  "America's oil dependence -- which leaves hardworking families at the mercy of global oil markets - won't be solved overnight.  But the remarkable advance of science and biotechnology in the past decade puts us on the precipice of a revolution in biofuels.  In fact, biotechnologies, and the biological sciences that provide the underlying foundation, are some of the most rapidly developing areas in science and technology today - and the United States is leading the way.  In the coming years, we can expect dramatic breakthroughs that will allow us to produce the clean energy we need right here at home.  We need to act aggressively to seize this opportunity and win the future."

BACKGROUND ON THE SCIENTIFIC ADVANCE ANNOUNCED TODAY

The work was conducted by researchers at the Department of Energy's BioEnergy Science Center (BESC), led by Oak Ridge National Laboratory.  Using consolidated bioprocessing, a research team led by James Liao of the University of California at Los Angeles for the first time produced isobutanol directly from cellulose. The team's work, published online in Applied and Environmental Microbiology, represents across-the-board savings in processing costs and time, plus isobutanol is a higher grade of alcohol than ethanol.

"Unlike ethanol, isobutanol can be blended at any ratio with gasoline and should eliminate the need for dedicated infrastructure in tanks or vehicles," said Liao, chancellor's professor and vice chair of Chemical and Biomolecular Engineering at the UCLA Henry Samueli School of Engineering and Applied Science and a partner in BESC. "Plus, it may be possible to use isobutanol directly in current engines without modification."

More details are available in the Oak Ridge National Laboratory press release .

Media contact(s):

(202) 586-4940

Earthquake Safety & Mitigation for Schools
A one-hour webinar for school officials, teachers, facility managers, and other local
stakeholders interested in learning how to reduce earthquake risks and take actions to
ensure school safety and continued operations. Information is based on FEMA 395:
Incremental Seismic Rehabilitation of School Buildings (K-12): Providing Protection to
People and Buildings, which is available for download at
http://www.fema.gov/library/viewRecord.do?id=1980
GENERAL INFORMATION:
Numerous school buildings located in multiple States and U.S. territories are vulnerable to
earthquake damage and losses. This includes potential:
? Death and injury of students, teachers, and staff
? Damage to or collapse of buildings
? Damage and loss of furnishings, equipment, and building contents
? Disruption of educational programs and school operations
? And inability of the community to use schools as temporary shelters
At this webinar, you will learn the following:
? How to assess and analyze your earthquake risks
? How to develop an actionable plan to reduce and manage earthquake risks
? How to initiate an earthquake risk reduction plan for existing school buildings that were
not designed and constructed to meet modern building codes
? How to secure “non-structural” elements of the school facility
? How to apply “incremental seismic rehabilitation” to protect buildings and ensure occupant
safety
? Why “incremental seismic rehabilitation” is an affordable alternative for school safety
WHEN:
Thursday, January 20, 2011 at 3:00 pm EST
Thursday, February 17, 2011 at 3:00 pm EST
Thursday, March 17, 2011 at 3:00 pm EST
WHERE:
Online webinar via FEMA Adobe Connect & Conference Line. Information will be shared upon
successful registration.
REGISTRATION:
Registration is free. Please send your preferred date to participate, name, organization, address,
phone number and email address by fax at 650-593-2320, by email at atc@atcouncil.org, or by
visiting http://www.atcouncil.org/events.html.
SYSTEM REQUIREMENTS:
Email: Please add atcouncil.org to your safe list
Audio: Touch-tone telephone
Browser: Internet Explorer 6 or later, Firefox, Chrome, Safari, with JavaScript enabled
Internet: 56K or faster (high-speed recommended)
Audio/Video Streaming: Adobe Flash plug-in version 9 or higher

March 09, 2011 Fed Issues Draft EIS for Solar Power

A significant milestone in the development of sources of solar energy on public land was reached with the publication of a draft solar programmatic environmental impact statement (PEIS) by the Department of the Interior (DOI) and Department of Energy (DOE).

DOE's role in the development of solar projects is to assist in advancement of cost-competitive technologies that encourage utility-scale solar generation.

The 90-day public comment period for the PEIS will commence once EPA publishes its notice of availability in the Federal Register .

BLM and DOE will also hold 14 public meetings on the PEIS beginning in Washington, D.C. on February 2, 2011.

The DOI/DOE solar energy development draft PEIS is available at http://solareis.anl.gov/documents/dpeis/index.cfm#vol1 .

pv
Tools & Technology

Innovative technologies hold the key to cost-effective timely solutions that minimize adverse environmental effects. Many EPA programs and activities foster the development and use of innovative technologies.

Did You Know? 

The Health and Environmental Research Online (HERO) database provides an easy way to view the scientific literature behind EPA science assessments. The database includes more than 300,000 scientific articles from the peer-reviewed literature used by EPA to develop its Integrated Science Assessments (ISA) that feed into the NAAQS review. It also includes references and data from the Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS), a database that supports critical agency policymaking for chemical regulation.

Top Questions

...More Questions

Laboratories
Featured Resource

Science Matters Newsletter - January/February, 2011 edition, featuring Great Environmental Moments in Science

Scientific Integrity
Science Notebook

A scientist's notebook is a career staple. Home to ideas, questions, drawings and data, it's a treasure trove of information about the scientific process. EPA's Science Notebook offers a similar view into science at EPA, featuring stories, scientist interviews and more.

...Read the Current Issue

Research

EPA relies on sound science to safeguard both human health and the environment. The Agency conducts research on ways to prevent pollution, protect human health, and reduce risk.

Laws

Laws written by Congress provide the authority for EPA to write regulations.

...More

Frequent Questions & Tasks

...More Questions

Environmental Justice

Environmental Justice is the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color, national origin, or income with respect to the development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies.

Private Landowners Granted Right to Challenge EPA's Clean Water Act “Impaired Waters” Listing Decisions

By Meline MacCurdy March 3, 2011

In a case of first impression, the Ninth Circuit recently held that a “perceived” decrease in value of private property following EPA's approval of a state's “impaired waters” listing under Section 303 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) is sufficient to establish the standing of a private plaintiff to challenge the agency's decision. The case, Barnum Timber Co. v. EPA , [1] gives private property owners adjacent to creeks, rivers and other waterbodies in the West a seat at the table in CWA listing decisions, a step that often occurs long before affirmative obligations are imposed on uses of the private properties through the total maximum daily load (TMDL) program.

Statutory Background to the CWA TMDL Program

CWA § 303(d) requires states to identify so-called “impaired waters,” where technology-based effluent limits and other pollution control requirements “are not stringent enough to implement any water quality standard.” [2] For these waters on the § 303(d) “list,” states must prepare TMDLs, which are calculations of the maximum “load” of a pollutant that a waterbody can receive from all sources, including point, nonpoint, and background sources, without exceeding the water quality standards for the pollutant. A “wasteload allocation” is the share of the loading capacity for a particular pollutant that comes from existing and future “point” sources that are subject to a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit under CWA § 402. [3] A “load allocation” is the share of the loading capacity attributable to nonpoint sources, such as runoff. Generally, the load and wasteload allocations comprise the TMDL. [4]

States must submit impaired waters listings and draft TMDLs to EPA for approval, and then incorporate the TMDLs into their continuing planning processes and water quality management plans. [5] If EPA approves the listing and the TMDLs, the state must incorporate the TMDLs into the current plan for the state's waters under § 303(e). If EPA disapproves the listing and the TMDL, EPA must, within 30 days of disapproval, identify impaired waters and establish loads for those waters as necessary to implement the applicable water quality standards, which the state must incorporate into the § 303(e) plans. Neither the CWA nor EPA's implementing regulations prescribe the method whereby a state must allocate an impaired water body's loading capacity between existing or future sources. EPA regulations allow tradeoffs between point and nonpoint sources, where implementation of best management practices or nonpoint source controls can reduce the load allocation and allow for a larger wasteload allocation for point sources. [6]

Factual and Procedural Background to Barnum v. EPA

The plaintiff in Barnum v. EPA , Barnum Timber Company (Barnum), owns and operates nonindustrial timberlands and rangelands in the Redwood Creek watershed near Eureka, California. In 1992, California listed Redwood Creek as impaired by sediment on California's list of CWA § 303(d) impaired waters. When California reevaluated its impaired waters list in 2002, as required under CWA § 303(d)(2), California retained Redwood Creek as an impaired water due to sediment, but also due to temperature impairments. California later retained Redwood Creek as impaired by both sediment and temperature in 2006. EPA approved California's updated § 303(d) list in 2006.

Barnum thereafter sued EPA, alleging that EPA's decision to retain Redwood Creek on the § 303(d) list of impaired water bodies was arbitrary and capricious under the federal Administrative Procedure Act, because the decision was not supported by substantial evidence of the impairment. Barnum alleged that it suffered an “injury” because (1) it had “suffered extra costs to satisfy land use restrictions” triggered by the listing and (2) its “property values decrease[d].” [7] Barnum sought a declaration of the erroneous listing and injunctive relief.

EPA moved to dismiss the complaint for lack of standing under Article III of the U.S. Constitution. The district court evaluated Barnum's alleged standing under the Supreme Court's well-established three-step test:

(1) the plaintiff must have suffered an “injury in fact” – an invasion of a legally protected interest which is (a) concrete and particularized, and (b) actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical; (2) there must be a causal connection between the injury and the conduct complained of; and (3) it must be “likely,” as opposed to merely “speculative,” that the injury will be redressed by a favorable decision. [8]

In September 2008, the district court granted EPA's motion to dismiss without prejudice, finding that complaint “offered only conclusory and non-specific claims of injury” regarding the allegedly decreased property values and failed to establish that the alleged injuries were “caused by or are in any way connected to the EPA's 2006 approval of California's listing of Redwood Creek.” [9] According to the district court, the alleged injury was caused by the restrictions California placed on the use of the property. These restrictions were not directly traceable to EPA's approval of the § 303(d) listing, according to the district court, because a TMDL had yet to be developed for Redwood Creek and the regulations bore no discernible relationship to EPA's challenged action. The district court also found that Barnum failed to support its argument that the reduction of property values stemmed from the listing itself.

Barnum thereafter moved to amend its complaint by including declarations of California forestry experts explaining that the property value of Barnum's land had decreased because of the Redwood Creek listing. These experts opined that the financial impact of the listing could not be quantified, but that “the Section 303(d) listing of a water body reduces the value of nearby properties because the public perceives that onerous regulations will be forthcoming.” [10] The district court denied Barnum's motion to amend, holding that “the proposed amendment would not cure the standing problem,” and dismissed Barnum's complaint. [11]

The Ninth Circuit's Majority Decision

In a 2-1 decision, the Ninth Circuit reversed the district court's dismissal of Barnum's complaint finding that the amended complaint adequately alleged all three elements of standing. Although EPA did not dispute Barnum's allegation that it suffered an injury in fact, the court determined that Barnum satisfied this element at the pleading stage by presenting the declarations of forestry experts testifying to the property value reductions.

Under the second “causal connection” prong, the court held that Barnum's reduced property values were causally connected to EPA's retention of Redwood Creek as an impaired water body, because the listing “fe[d] the public's and the market's perception that Barnum's timber operations are restricted by the listing.” [12] The expert declarations supported this finding, according to the court, because the public has access to impaired waters lists and perceives that a listed water will be subject to additional and onerous regulation, even where such regulation has not actually occurred. These allegations of “specific facts plausibly explaining causality and supported by competent declarations,” in the court's view, were more than sufficient to meet Barnum's “burden to demonstrate the causal connection element of Article III standing at the pleading stage.” [13] The court declined to evaluate Barnum's argument that its alleged injury was causally connected to the application of state forestry practice rules that were themselves triggered by EPA's approval of the listing.

The court also held that the alleged injury could be redressed by the current action, because, if Barnum succeeds on the merits of showing that EPA's listing of Redwood Creek was arbitrary and capricious, the district court could grant relief by removing the waterbody from the § 303(d) list. This removal, according to the court, would directly remedy the alleged diminution in Barnum's property values. The court distinguished a 1996 Ninth Circuit standing decision that the district court relied on in rejecting Barnum's claim, San Diego County Gun Rights Committee v. Reno , [14] which held that the plaintiffs lacked standing to challenge a federal gun control law based on the assertion that the law caused the price of certain guns to increase. In that case, the plaintiffs' alleged injury – higher gun prices – related to an allegedly increased price across the entire market and was not directly connected to federal – as opposed to state – gun control laws. Here, according to the court, Barnum properly pled a specific injury to its property – as opposed to a market as a whole – that was sufficiently explicit to ensure that relief would not be merely speculative. Moreover, the court rejected the argument that Barnum's alleged injury was caused solely by a third party – California – because EPA's action will lead to regulatory restrictions on Redwood Creek, Barnum's property values will allegedly decrease based on these restrictions, and a successful challenge to EPA's action could reduce or eliminate those restrictions. The court vacated the district court's judgment and remanded.

Dissent

In a lengthy dissent, Judge Gwin opined that Barnum's claimed injuries were conjectural and hypothetical, with no causal connection between EPA's acts and the speculative injuries claimed, and that even a successful action against EPA would not necessarily redress this speculative injury. The dissenting opinion focused on the dual role of EPA and the states in the TMDL program specifically, but also with respect to point and nonpoint source control generally under the CWA. According to Judge Gwin, the states – and not EPA – are charged with carrying out nonpoint source controls, and are under no compulsion to develop or enforce such controls through the TMDL program or otherwise. As a result, in Judge Gwin's view, “nonpoint loading limitations are only enforced under state law,” and the “majority opinion incorrectly suggests that the EPA, and not California, controls nonpoint water standards.” [15]

With this perception of the CWA's structure as a backdrop, the dissent rejected all three elements of the standing analysis in this case. Barnum's alleged injury is “highly speculative,” according to the dissent, “and would depend upon the occurrence of a long chain of future events,” such as Redwood Creek remaining on the impaired waters listing, California developing a temperature and sediment TMDL that affects timber, and California adopting and enforcing a plan for Redwood Creek in a way that actually impacts Barnum. [16] Because Barnum's alleged injury is predicated on all of these contingent events occurring, the dissent continued, general assertions of public perception are too speculative and uncertain to satisfy an injury in fact. For many of the same reasons, the dissent disputed that Barnum's alleged property value reduction was necessarily caused by EPA: EPA's approval of the listing did not coerce California to design and enforce a TMDL or other methods to control sediment and temperature loadings to the creek that would impact Barnum's property. Although California elected to tie its forestry practice regulations to § 303(d) listings, Judge Gwin opined, California's decision regarding how best to regulate nonpoint source discharges to the waterbody are California's alone – and any alleged injury to Barnum's property values are caused not by EPA's past actions, but by California's potential future actions. Finally, according to the dissent, removal of Redwood Creek from the § 303(d) list would not redress Barnum's claimed injury, because it would not dictate how or whether California would require Barnum to implement measures to improve water quality in the watershed.

For more information on this case or Marten Law's Water Quality practice, please contact Meline MacCurdy .

Resolution of the state law defense issue left open by Textron
The CAFC also resolved a jurisdictional question left open by the Supreme Court in Textron Lycoming Reciprocating Engine Div., AVCO Corp. v. Auto. Workers , 523 U.S. 653 (1998): "whether federal courts have jurisdiction over a declaratory judgment action where there is a federal cause of action but only a state law defense."  Slip Op. at 9. While a longstanding rule holds that subject matter jurisdiction exists over declaratory judgment actions that are based on a claim of patent infringement, Cooper contended that it did not apply because the only defense raised by ABB in the district court was its state law license defense.  Although discussed in Justice Breyer's concurrence, the Supreme Court explicitly left the issue open in Textron , and it remained unresolved by subsequent courts of appeals.  

Addressing the issue as one of first impression, the CAFC reached the same conclusion as Justice Breyer:

[W]e conclude that federal question jurisdiction exists here. The general rule, articulated repeatedly by the Supreme Court, is that declaratory judgment jurisdiction exists where the defendant's coercive action arises under federal law. See Franchise Tax Bd. , 463 U.S. at 16, 19; Wycoff , 344 U.S. at 248; see also Speedco , 853 F.2d at 912. We see no reason to depart from that general principle where the defense is non-federal in nature.

Slip Op. at 11-12.  In short, the subject matter inquiry for a declaratory judgment action focuses on the defendant's hypothetical well-pleaded Complaint, and thus the defenses raised by the declaratory judgment plaintiff are irrelevant to the inquiry:

According to Franchise Tax Board , then, federal jurisdiction in this type of case depends on the federal character of the hypothetical infringement suit and not the federal character of the invalidity defense. Indeed, “it now seems settled that [a party threatened with an infringement suit] can sue for a declaratory judgment of invalidity or noninfringement [because] the federal nature of the claims appears on the complaint . . . and the precise issue could have been litigated in federal court in a coercive action brought by [the patentee].” 10B Wright, Miller & Kane, Federal Practice and Procedure § 2767, at 650–51 (3d ed. 1998) (emphasis added)).

Slip Op. at 12.

How Are Sites Removed From the NPL? EPA may delete sites from the NPL where no further response is appropriate under Superfund, as explained in the NCP at 40 CFR 300.425(e). This section also provides that EPA shall consult with states on proposed deletions and shall consider whether any of the following criteria have been met: (i) Responsible parties or other persons have implemented all appropriate response actions required; (ii) All appropriate Superfund-financed response has been implemented and no further response action is required; or (iii) The remedial investigation has shown the release poses no significant threat to public health or the environment, and taking of remedial measures is not appropriate.

H. May EPA Delete Portions of Sites From the NPL as They Are Cleaned Up? In November 1995, EPA initiated a new policy to delete portions of NPL sites where cleanup is complete (60 FR 55465, November 1, 1995). Total site cleanup may take many years, while portions of the site may have been cleaned up and made available for productive use. I. What Is the Construction Completion List (CCL)? EPA also has developed an NPL construction completion list (“CCL”) to simplify its system of categorizing sites and to better communicate the successful completion of cleanup activities (58 FR 12142, March 2, 1993). Inclusion of a site on the CCL has no legal significance.
Sites qualify for the CCL when: (1) any necessary physical construction is complete, whether or not final cleanup levels or other requirements have been achieved; (2) EPA has determined that the response action should be limited to measures that do not involve construction (e.g., institutional controls); or (3) the site qualifies for deletion from the NPL. For the most up-to-date information on the CCL, see EPA's Internet site at http://www.epa.gov/superfund/cleanup/ccl.htm. J. What Is the Sitewide Ready for Anticipated Use Measure?
The Sitewide Ready for Anticipated Use measure represents important Superfund accomplishments and the measure reflects the high priority EPA places on considering anticipated future land use as part of our remedy selection process. See Guidance for Implementing the Sitewide Ready-for-Reuse Measure, May 24, 2006, OSWER 9365.0-36. This measure applies to final and deleted sites where construction is complete, all cleanup goals have been achieved, and all institutional or other controls are in place. EPA has been successful on many occasions in carrying out remedial actions that ensure protectiveness of human health and the environment for current and future land users, in a manner that allows contaminated properties to be restored to environmental and economic vitality. For further information, please go to http://www.epa.gov/superfund/programs/recycle/tools/index.html.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 300 Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Chemicals, Hazardous substances, Hazardous waste, Intergovernmental relations, Natural resources, Oil pollution, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Superfund, Water pollution control, Water supply. Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1321(c)(2); 42 U.S.C. 9601-9657; E.O. 12777, 56 FR 54757, 3 CFR, 1991 Comp., p. 351; E.O. 12580, 52 FR 2923, 3 CFR, 1987 Comp., p. 193.
BILLING CODE: 6560-50-P

Many federal employees can now earn substantially more than judges.

Judicial salaries should be increased significantly, and there is precedent to do so.

The Volcker Commission declared that "Judicial salaries are the most egregious example of the failure of federal compensation policies."

Low federal judicial salaries threaten the independence of the Third Branch.

Chief Justice Roberts has stated that:

Good, experienced judges are leaving the bench.

The Judicial Conference supports increases in compensation for senior officials in all three branches of government.

The Necessity Of Rulemaking In CWA Jurisdiction

REBELLION IN AMERICA

Utah to Washington: This land is my land!

Resolution suggests D.C. cede 35,000 square miles of state

Posted: March 05, 2011
10:15 pm Eastern

By Bob Unruh
© 2011 WorldNetDaily

The BigThink website documents that the federal government controls more of Utah – on a percentage basis – than 47 other states, putting its brand on some 35,000 square miles of land there.

Now in what could be described as a Sagebrush Rebellion on steroids, a resolution advancing quickly in the state Legislature asks the feds to relinquish their control over that land.

Get "Taking America Back," Joseph Farah's manifesto for sovereignty, self-reliance and moral renewal

"Be it resolved, that the Legislature of the state of Utah calls on the United States, through their agent, Congress, to relinquish to the state of Utah all right, title, and jurisdiction in those lands that were committed to the purposes of this state by terms of its Enabling act compact with them and that now reside within the state as public lands managed by the Bureau of Land Management that were reserved by Congress after the date of Utah statehood," says the State Jurisdiction of Federally Managed Lands Joint Resolution.

Its chief sponsor is Rep. Roger Barrus, and it already has been approved in the House and advanced to the Senate.

It continues, "Be it further resolved, that a copy of this resolution be sent to the Secretary of the United States Department of Interior, to the United States Director of the Federal Bureau of Land Management, to the Majority Leader of the United States Senate, to the Speaker of the United States House of Representatives, and to the members of Utah's Congressional Delegation."

While a resolution does not have the force of law, it was through resolutions that many of the articles through which states are in rebellion against their federal government today got started.

Those issues include firearms freedom acts, rejection of REAL ID, rejection of federal marijuana laws and a refusal to apply interstate commerce limits to intrastate commerce.

Some states now are proposing to set up state commissions that would evaluate federal mandates for their constitutionality .

It is in the West where most of the federal government's 650 million acres of land is located. Some 22 million is in Utah.

According to BigThink, the lands are used as military bases, parks, reservations and are leased for forestry and mining operations. In Nevada, the federal government controls 84 percent of the land, in Alaska, 69 percent, and in Utah 57 percent. Other states are Oregon, 53 percent; Idaho, 50 percent; Arizona, 48 percent; California , 45 percent; Wyoming, 42 percent, New Mexico, 41 percent and Colorado, 36 percent.

Agencies with say-so over the acreage include the BLM, Forest Service, Fish and Wildlife Service, National Park Service, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Department of Defense, Corps of Engineers and Bureau of Reclamation.

Barrus told the Salt Lake Tribune, "We call on Congress to revisit how public lands are being managed by the BLM."

House endorsement came on a 61-9 vote.


The resolution cites the Constitutional Convention's aims that "state governments would clearly retain all the rights of sovereignty and independence which they before had and which were not exclusively delegated to the United States Congress."

It explains that "the federal trust respecting public lands obligates the United States, through their agent, Congress, to extinguish both their governmental jurisdiction and their title on the public lands that are held in trust by the United States for the states in which they are located."

If that is not done, the resolution said, "the state is denied the same complete and independent sovereignty and jurisdiction that was expressly retained by the original states, and its citizens are denied the political right to establish or administer their own republican self-governance as is their right under the Equal Footing Clause."

The resolution explains that use of the more than 22 million acres at issue "has been eroded by an oppressive and over-reaching federal management agenda that has adversely impacted the sovereignty and the economies of the state of Utah and local governments."

Now, suddenly, it explains, the Department of Interior has "arbitrarily created a new category of lands, denominated 'Wild Lands,' and has superimposed these mandatory protective management provisions upon BLM operations and planning decisions in violation of the provisions of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act, the provisions of the Administrative Procedures Act, and Presidential Executive Order 13563 concerning openness in policymaking."

The result is Utah officials feel the state is better off running land inside its borders itself than having bureaucrats in Washington making those decisions.

The Sagebrush Rebellion developed on a small scale during the 1970s when federal bureaucrats imposed a large number of new rules and regulations on lands throughout the West, interrupting business and other uses of the lands that had been going on for years.

The current general antipathy toward Washington probably is expressed most strongly in legislation under development in Tennessee , Arizona and Montana.

Generally, the state proposals would establish a commission for the review of "all federal laws and regulations for constitutionality." State officials then would decide whether they qualify and could be in effect in the state.

The plan has been promoted by The Patriots Union, a Wyoming-based organization that is taking on the battle against what it considers an overreaching federal government.

WND also has reported that a large number of states are battling Washington over specific issues state lawmakers and governments believe they should decide.

Attorney Stephen Pidgeon, a spokesman for the Patriots Union, said states are starting to assert their rights under the Constitution.

He said the idea is as old as the administration of Jimmy Carter. At that time it was called the "Sagebrush Rebellion," when Western states fought back against Washington's control of land inside their borders, especially oil-rich and coal-filled land resources.

"There is no constitutional right for the federal government to hold natural resources, federal parks," he said. "For states such as Utah, which has been fighting with the federal government to regain ownership of its own lands, [this nullification plan] offers a strong argument to chase the government off its property."

The issue is being forced into the headlines by President Obama's law that effectively nationalizes the decision-making process for health care.

But states also have raised the issues of currency, the REAL ID Act, marijuana laws, guns, health care regulation and others.

"Under the Constitution states are required to use coinage of gold and silver," Pidgeon said. "But the federal government has inflicted on the states the fraud of a debased fiat currency.

"This is the best mechanism that has been developed to date to put the beast back in the cage," he said.

Officials with the Patriots Union say dozens of states are working on the idea of a nullification plan.

Major components of the proposal are:

The legislative proposal is a huge leap beyond what has developed in the states where officials are telling Washington to back off.

Priest Lake couple takes EPA challenge to high court

Posted: Sunday, March 6, 2011 10:00 am

Priest Lake couple takes EPA challenge to high court By KEITH KINNAIRD News editor Bonner County Daily Bee

SANDPOINT — A determined Bonner County couple who contends the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is unfairly interfering with their right to develop a homesite at Priest Lake is taking their fight to the nation's high court.

Counsel for Mike and Chantelle Sackett petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court last week to consider a series of lower court rulings concerning an EPA determination that federally regulated wetlands are present on their half-acre parcel in a Priest Lake subdivision.

The Sacketts sued EPA over the wetlands determination in U.S. District Court, but a federal judge dismissed the action in 2008 and entered a judgment in favor of EPA. The couple sought redress through the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals last year, but a three-judge panel ruled judicial review is not available.

A petition for the entire bench of the 9th Circuit to hear the request was also declined.

The Sacketts petitioned the high court to take their case and rule that they have the right to challenge EPA's wetlands determination.

“The issue in this case is simple, but critically important to all property owners and everyone who values fair play and due process,” said Damien Schiff of the Pacific Legal Foundation, which is representing the Sacketts pro bono. “When bureaucrats try to impose their will on private property, shouldn't the owners be permitted their day in court to challenge the government's claim of control?”

The PLF, which bills itself as a watchdog group that litigates for property rights and a balanced approach to environmental regulations, is petitioning the higher court to a review lower court's judgment for reversible error.

The group contends the 9th Circuit ruling foists an intolerable choice on landowners — spend hundreds of thousands of dollars applying for a permit of questionable need or risk an equally costly enforcement action with fines and penalties.

The PLF also argues the 9th Circuit's ruling conflicts with an 11th Circuit ruling regarding review procedures for federal compliance orders.

The Sacketts have insisted on a hearing to test EPA's jurisdiction of their property.

McConnell: EPA overstepping its bounds and must be stopped

By Josiah Ryan - 03/06/11 12:36 PM ET The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is operating outside the authority of law in regards to its regulation of coal mining permits and must be curbed, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) asserted on the Senate floor Friday.
“The EPA has turned the permitting process into a back-door means of shutting down coal mines by sitting on permits indefinitely," said McConnell. “What they're doing is outside the scope of their authority and the law.”

The White House

Office of the Press Secretary

For Immediate Release January 18, 2011

Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review - Executive Order

    By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, and in order to improve regulation and regulatory review, it is hereby ordered as follows:

Section 1 .  General Principles of Regulation .  (a)  Our regulatory system must protect public health, welfare, safety, and our environment while promoting economic growth, innovation, competitiveness, and job creation.  It must be based on the best available science.  It must allow for public participation and an open exchange of ideas.  It must promote predictability and reduce uncertainty.  It must identify and use the best, most innovative, and least burdensome tools for achieving regulatory ends.  It must take into account benefits and costs, both quantitative and qualitative.  It must ensure that regulations are accessible, consistent, written in plain language, and easy to understand.  It must measure, and seek to improve, the actual results of regulatory requirements.

    (b)  This order is supplemental to and reaffirms the principles, structures, and definitions governing contemporary regulatory review that were established in Executive Order 12866 of September 30, 1993.  As stated in that Executive Order and to the extent permitted by law, each agency must, among other things:  (1) propose or adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned determination that its benefits justify its costs (recognizing that some benefits and costs are difficult to quantify); (2) tailor its regulations to impose the least burden on society, consistent with obtaining regulatory objectives, taking into account, among other things, and to the extent practicable, the costs of cumulative regulations; (3) select, in choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, those approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety, and other advantages; distributive impacts; and equity); (4) to the extent feasible, specify performance objectives, rather than specifying the behavior or manner of compliance that regulated entities must adopt; and (5) identify and assess available alternatives to direct regulation, including providing economic incentives to encourage the desired behavior, such as user fees or marketable permits, or providing information upon which choices can be made by the public.

    (c)  In applying these principles, each agency is directed to use the best available techniques to quantify anticipated present and future benefits and costs as accurately as possible.  Where appropriate and permitted by law, each agency may consider (and discuss qualitatively) values that are difficult or impossible to quantify, including equity, human dignity, fairness, and distributive impacts.

Sec. 2 .  Public Participation .  (a)  Regulations shall be adopted through a process that involves public participation.  To that end, regulations shall be based, to the extent feasible and consistent with law, on the open exchange of information and perspectives among State, local, and tribal officials, experts in relevant disciplines, affected stakeholders in the private sector, and the public as a whole.

    (b)  To promote that open exchange, each agency, consistent with Executive Order 12866 and other applicable legal requirements, shall endeavor to provide the public with an opportunity to participate in the regulatory process.  To the extent feasible and permitted by law, each agency shall afford the public a meaningful opportunity to comment through the Internet on any proposed regulation, with a comment period that should generally be at least 60 days.  To the extent feasible and permitted by law, each agency shall also provide, for both proposed and final rules, timely online access to the rulemaking docket on regulations.gov, including relevant scientific and technical findings, in an open format that can be easily searched and downloaded.  For proposed rules, such access shall include, to the extent feasible and permitted by law, an opportunity for public comment on all pertinent parts of the rulemaking docket, including relevant scientific and technical findings.

    (c)  Before issuing a notice of proposed rulemaking, each agency, where feasible and appropriate, shall seek the views of those who are likely to be affected, including those who are likely to benefit from and those who are potentially subject to such rulemaking.

Sec. 3 .  Integration and Innovation .  Some sectors and industries face a significant number of regulatory requirements, some of which may be redundant, inconsistent, or overlapping.  Greater coordination across agencies could reduce these requirements, thus reducing costs and simplifying and harmonizing rules.  In developing regulatory actions and identifying appropriate approaches, each agency shall attempt to promote such coordination, simplification, and harmonization.  Each agency shall also seek to identify, as appropriate, means to achieve regulatory goals that are designed to promote innovation.

Sec. 4 .  Flexible Approaches .  Where relevant, feasible, and consistent with regulatory objectives, and to the extent permitted by law, each agency shall identify and consider regulatory approaches that reduce burdens and maintain flexibility and freedom of choice for the public.  These approaches include warnings, appropriate default rules, and disclosure requirements as well as provision of information to the public in a form that is clear and intelligible.

Sec. 5 .  Science .  Consistent with the President's Memorandum for the Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies,

"Scientific Integrity" (March 9, 2009), and its implementing guidance, each agency shall ensure the objectivity of any scientific and technological information and processes used to support the agency's regulatory actions.

Sec. 6 .  Retrospective Analyses of Existing Rules .  (a)  To facilitate the periodic review of existing significant regulations, agencies shall consider how best to promote retrospective analysis of rules that may be outmoded, ineffective, insufficient, or excessively burdensome, and to modify, streamline, expand, or repeal them in accordance with what has been learned.  Such retrospective analyses, including supporting data, should be released online whenever possible.

    (b)  Within 120 days of the date of this order, each agency shall develop and submit to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs a preliminary plan, consistent with law and its resources and regulatory priorities, under which the agency will periodically review its existing significant regulations to determine whether any such regulations should be modified, streamlined, expanded, or repealed so as to make the agency's regulatory program more effective or less burdensome in achieving the regulatory objectives.

Sec. 7 .  General Provisions .  (a)  For purposes of this order, "agency" shall have the meaning set forth in section 3(b) of Executive Order 12866.

    (b)  Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:

    (i) authority granted by law to a department or agency, or the head thereof; or

    (ii) functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.

    (c)  This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.

    (d)  This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.

BARACK OBAMA

THE WHITE HOUSE,
January 18, 2011.

The White House

Office of the Press Secretary

For Immediate Release December 14, 2010

Executive Order--White House Council for Community Solutions

- - - - - - -
WHITE HOUSE COUNCIL FOR COMMUNITY SOLUTIONS

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, and in order to encourage the growth and maximize the impact of innovative community solutions and civic participation by all Americans, it is hereby ordered as follows:

Section 1 .  Establishment .  There is established the White House Council for Community Solutions (Council) within the Corporation for National and Community Service (CNCS) to support the social innovation and civic participation agenda of the Domestic Policy Council.

Sec . 2 .  Mission and Functions of the Council .  The Council shall support the nationwide "Call To Service" campaign authorized in the Serve America Act (Public Law 111 13) by:

(a)  identifying the key attributes of effective community developed solutions to our national problems;

(b)  identifying specific policy areas in which the Federal Government is investing significant resources that lend themselves to cross-sector collaboration and providing recommendations for such collaborations;

(c)  highlighting examples of best practices, tools, and models that are making a demonstrable positive impact in communities and fostering increased cross-sector collaboration and civic participation;

(d)  making recommendations to the President on how to engage individuals, State and local governments, institutions of higher education, non profit and philanthropic organizations, community groups, and businesses to support innovative community-developed solutions that have a significant impact in solving our Nation's most serious problems; and

(e)  honoring and highlighting the work of leaders in service and social innovation who are making a significant impact in their communities.

Sec. 3 .  Membership .  (a)  The Council shall be composed of not more than 30 members from outside the Federal Government appointed by the President.  The Chair of the Board of Directors of the CNCS shall also serve on the Council.  Appointed members of the Council may include individuals with relevant experience or subject matter expertise that the President deems appropriate, as well as individuals who may serve as representatives of a variety of sectors, including, among others, State and local governments, institutions of higher education, non profit and philanthropic organizations, community groups, and businesses.

(b)  The President shall designate one of the members of the Council to serve as Chair.  The Chair shall convene and preside at meetings of the Council.

(c)  The term of office of members appointed by the President shall be 2 years, and members shall be eligible for reappointment.  Members may continue to serve after the expiration of their terms until the President appoints a successor.  A member appointed to fill a vacancy shall serve only for the unexpired term of such vacancy.

Sec. 4. Administration.   (a)  The CNCS shall provide funding and administrative support for the Council to the extent permitted by law and within existing appropriations.

(b)  The heads of executive departments and agencies shall assist and provide information to the Council, consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations, as may be necessary to carry out the functions of the Council.

(c)  The members of the Council shall serve without compensation for their work on the Council.  Members of the Council may, however, receive travel expenses, including per diem in lieu of subsistence, as authorized by law for persons serving intermittently in Government service (5 U.S.C. 5701 5707).

(d)  Insofar as the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.) (the "Act"), may apply to the administration of the Council, any functions of the President under the Act, except that of reporting to the Congress, shall be performed by the Chief Executive Officer of the CNCS in accordance with the guidelines issued by the Administrator of General Services.

Sec. 5. Termination.   The Council shall terminate 2 years from the date of this order, unless renewed by the President.

Sec. 6. General Provisions.   (a)  Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:

(i)   authority granted by law to an executive department, agency, or the head thereof; or

(ii)  functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.

(b)  This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.

          BARACK OBAMA

THE WHITE HOUSE,
December 14, 2010.

The White House

Office of the Press Secretary

For Immediate Release November 17, 2010

Executive Order -- Fundamental Principles and Policymaking Criteria for Partnerships with Faith-Based and Other Neighborhood Organizations


By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, and in order to guide Federal agencies in formulating and developing policies with implications for faith-based and other neighborhood organizations, to promote compliance with constitutional and other applicable legal principles, and to strengthen the capacity of faith-based and other neighborhood organizations to deliver services effectively to those in need, it is hereby ordered:

Section 1.  Amendments to Executive Order 13279 .  Executive Order 13279 of December 12, 2002 (Equal Protection of the Laws for Faith-Based and Community Organizations), as amended, is hereby further amended:

(a) in section 1, by striking subsection (e), and inserting in lieu thereof the following: "(e) 'Specified agency heads' means:

(i) the Attorney General;

(ii) the Secretary of Agriculture;

(iii) the Secretary of Commerce;

(iv) the Secretary of Labor;

(v) the Secretary of Health and Human Services;

(vi) the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development;

(vii) the Secretary of Education;

(viii) the Secretary of Veterans Affairs;

(ix) the Secretary of Homeland Security;

(x) the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency;

(xi) the Administrator of the Small Business Administration;

(xii) the Administrator of the United States Agency for International Development; and

(xiii) the Chief Executive Officer of the Corporation for National and Community Service."

(b) by striking section 2, and inserting in lieu thereof the following:

" Sec. 2.  Fundamental Principles .  In formulating and implementing policies that have implications for faith-based and other neighborhood organizations, agencies that administer social service programs or that support (including through prime awards or sub-awards) social service programs with Federal financial assistance shall, to the extent permitted by law, be guided by the following fundamental principles:
(a)  Federal financial assistance for social service programs should be distributed in the most effective and efficient manner possible.
(b)  The Nation's social service capacity will benefit if all eligible organizations, including faith-based and other neighborhood organizations, are able to compete on an equal footing for Federal financial assistance used to support social service programs.
(c)  No organization should be discriminated against on the basis of religion or religious belief in the administration or distribution of Federal financial assistance under social service programs.

(d)  All organizations that receive Federal financial assistance under social service programs should be prohibited from discriminating against beneficiaries or prospective beneficiaries of the social service programs on the basis of religion or religious belief.  Accordingly, organizations, in providing services supported in whole or in part with Federal financial assistance, and in their outreach activities related to such services, should not be allowed to discriminate against current or prospective program beneficiaries on the basis of religion, a religious belief, a refusal to hold a religious belief, or a refusal to attend or participate in a religious practice.

(e)  The Federal Government must implement Federal programs in accordance with the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, as well as other applicable law, and must monitor and enforce standards regarding the relationship between religion and government in ways that avoid excessive entanglement between religious bodies and governmental entities.

(f)  Organizations that engage in explicitly religious activities (including activities that involve overt religious content such as worship, religious instruction, or proselytization) must perform such activities and offer such services outside of programs that are supported with direct Federal financial assistance (including through prime awards or sub-awards), separately in time or location from any such programs or services supported with direct Federal financial assistance, and participation in any such explicitly religious activities must be voluntary for the beneficiaries of the social service program supported with such Federal financial assistance.

(g)  Faith-based organizations should be eligible to compete for Federal financial assistance used to support social service programs and to participate fully in the social service programs supported with Federal financial assistance without impairing their independence, autonomy, expression outside the programs in question, or religious character.  Accordingly, a faith-based organization that applies for, or participates in, a social service program supported with Federal financial assistance may retain its independence and may continue to carry out its mission, including the definition, development, practice, and expression of its religious beliefs, provided that it does not use direct Federal financial assistance that it receives (including through a prime award or sub-award) to support or engage in any explicitly religious activities (including activities that involve overt religious content such as worship, religious instruction, or proselytization), or in any other manner prohibited by law.  Among other things, faith-based organizations that receive Federal financial assistance may use their facilities to provide social services supported with Federal financial assistance, without removing or altering religious art, icons, scriptures, or other symbols from these facilities.  In addition, a faith-based organization that applies for, or participates in, a social service program supported with Federal financial assistance may retain religious terms in its name, select its board members on a religious basis, and include religious references in its organization's mission statements and other chartering or governing documents.

(h)  Each agency responsible for administering or awarding Federal financial assistance for social service programs shall offer protections for beneficiaries of such programs pursuant to the following principles:

(i) Referral to an Alternative Provider. If a beneficiary or prospective beneficiary of a social service program supported by Federal financial assistance objects to the religious character of an organization that provides services under the program, that organization shall, within a reasonable time after the date of the objection, refer the beneficiary to an alternative provider.

(ii) Agency Responsibilities. Each agency responsible for administering a social service program or supporting a social service program with Federal financial assistance shall establish policies and procedures designed to ensure that (1) appropriate and timely referrals are made to an alternative provider; (2) all referrals are made in a manner consistent with all applicable privacy laws and regulations; (3) the organization subject to subsection (h)(i) notifies the agency of any referral; (4) such organization has established a process for determining whether the beneficiary has contacted the alternative provider; and (5) each beneficiary of a social service program receives written notice of the protections set forth in this subsection prior to enrolling in or receiving services from such program.

(i)  To promote transparency and accountability, agencies that provide Federal financial assistance for social service programs shall post online, in an easily accessible manner, regulations, guidance documents, and policies that reflect or elaborate upon the fundamental principles described in this section.  Agencies shall also post online a list of entities that receive Federal financial assistance for provision of social service programs, consistent with law and pursuant to guidance set forth in paragraph (c) of section 3 of this order.

(j)  Decisions about awards of Federal financial assistance must be free from political interference or even the appearance of such interference and must be made on the basis of merit, not on the basis of the religious affiliation of a recipient organization or lack thereof.";

(c)  by striking section 3, and inserting in lieu thereof the following:

" Sec. 3.  Ensuring Uniform Implementation Across the Federal Government.

In order to promote uniformity in agencies' policies that have implications for faith-based and other neighborhood organizations and in related guidance, and to ensure that those policies and guidance are consistent with the fundamental principles set forth in section 2 of this order, there is established an Interagency Working Group on Faith-Based and Other Neighborhood Partnerships (Working Group).

(a)  Mission and Function of the Working Group .  The Working Group shall meet periodically to review and evaluate existing agency regulations, guidance documents, and policies that have implications for faith-based and other neighborhood organizations.  Where appropriate, specified agency heads shall, to the extent permitted by law, amend all such existing policies of their respective agencies to ensure that they are consistent with the fundamental principles set forth in section 2 of this order.

(b)  Uniform Agency Implementation .  Within 120 days of the date of this order, the Working Group shall submit a report to the President on amendments, changes, or additions that are necessary to ensure that regulations and guidance documents associated with the distribution of Federal financial assistance for social service programs are consistent with the fundamental principles set forth in section 2 of this order.  The Working Group's report should include, but not be limited to, a model set of regulations and guidance documents for agencies to adopt in the following areas:

(i) prohibited uses of direct Federal financial assistance and separation requirements; (ii) protections for religious identity; (iii) the distinction between "direct" and "indirect"  Federal financial assistance; (iv) protections for beneficiaries of social service programs; (v) transparency requirements, consistent with and in furtherance of existing open government initiatives; (vi) obligations of nongovernmental and governmental intermediaries; (vii) instructions for peer reviewers and those who recruit peer reviewers; and (viii) training on these matters for government employees and for Federal, State, and local governmental and nongovernmental organizations that receive Federal financial assistance under social service programs.  In developing this report and in reviewing agency regulations and guidance for consistency with section 2 of this order, the Working Group shall consult the March 2010 report and recommendations prepared by the President's Advisory Council on Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships on the topic of reforming the Office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships.

(c)  Guidance .  The Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), following receipt of a copy of the report of the Working Group, and in coordination with the Department of Justice, shall issue guidance to agencies on the implementation of this order, including in particular subsections 2(h)-(j).

(d)  Membership of the Working Group .  The Director of the Office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships and a senior official from the OMB designated by the Director of the OMB shall serve as the Co-Chairs of the Working Group.  The Co Chairs shall convene regular meetings of the Working Group, determine its agenda, and direct its work.  In addition to the Co-Chairs, the Working Group shall consist of a senior official with knowledge of policies that have implications for faith-based and other neighborhood organizations from the following agencies and offices:

(i)    the Department of State;
(ii)    the Department of Justice;
(iii)    the Department of the Interior;
(iv)    the Department of Agriculture;
(v)    the Department of Commerce;
(vi)    the Department of Labor;
(vii)    the Department of Health and Human Services;
(viii)    the Department of Housing and Urban Development;
(ix)    the Department of Education;
(x)    the Department of Veterans Affairs;
(xi)    the Department of Homeland Security;
(xii)    the Environmental Protection Agency;
(xiii)    the Small Business Administration;
(xiv)    the United States Agency for International Development;
(xv)    the Corporation for National and Community Service; and
(xvi)    other agencies and offices as the President, from time to time, may designate.

(e)  Administration of the Initiative .  The Department of Health and Human Services shall provide funding and administrative support for the Working Group to the extent permitted by law and within existing appropriations."; and

(d)  by striking in the title, preamble, and section 1(c), "community" and inserting in lieu thereof "other neighborhood".
Sec. 2.  General Provisions.
(a)  This order amends the requirements contained in Executive Order 13279.  This order supplements, but does not supersede, the requirements contained in Executive Orders 13198 and 13199 of January 29, 2001, and Executive Order 13498 of February 5, 2009.
(b)  Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:

(i)   authority granted by law to an executive department, agency, or the head thereof; or
(ii)  functions of the Director of the OMB relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.


(c)  This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.
(d)  This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.

                               BARACK OBAMA

THE WHITE HOUSE,
November 17, 2010.

The White House

Office of the Press Secretary

For Immediate Release August 18, 2010

Executive Order--Classified National Security Information Programs for State, Local, Tribal, and Private Sector Entities

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, in order to ensure the proper safeguarding of information shared with State, local, tribal, and private sector entities, it is hereby ordered as follows:

Section 1.  Establishment and Policy.

Sec. 1.1.  There is established a Classified National Security Information Program (Program) designed to safeguard and govern access to classified national security information shared by the Federal Government with State, local, tribal, and private sector (SLTPS) entities.

Sec.  1.2.  The purpose of this order is to ensure that security standards governing access to and safeguarding of classified material are applied in accordance with Executive Order 13526 of December 29, 2009 ("Classified National Security Information"), Executive Order 12968 of August 2, 1995, as amended ("Access to Classified Information"), Executive Order 13467 of June 30, 2008 ("Reforming Processes Related to Suitability for Government Employment, Fitness for Contractor Employees, and Eligibility for Access to Classified National Security Information"), and Executive Order 12829 of January 6, 1993, as amended ("National Industrial Security Program").  Procedures for uniform implementation of these standards by SLTPS entities shall be set forth in an implementing directive to be issued by the Secretary of Homeland Security within 180 days of the date of this order, in consultation with affected executive departments and agencies (agencies), and with the concurrence of the Secretary of Defense, the Attorney General, the Director of National Intelligence, and the Director of the Information Security Oversight Office.

Sec. 1.3.  Additional policy provisions for access to and safeguarding of classified information shared with SLTPS personnel include the following:

(a)  Eligibility for access to classified information by SLTPS personnel shall be determined by a sponsoring agency.  The level of access granted shall not exceed the Secret level, unless the sponsoring agency determines on a case by case basis that the applicant has a demonstrated and foreseeable need for access to Top Secret, Special Access Program, or Sensitive Compartmented Information.

(b)  Upon the execution of a non disclosure agreement prescribed by the Information Security Oversight Office or the Director of National Intelligence, and absent disqualifying conduct as determined by the clearance granting official, a duly elected or appointed Governor of a State or territory, or an official who has succeeded to that office under applicable law, may be granted access to classified information without a background investigation in accordance with the implementing directive for this order.  This authorization of access may not be further delegated by the Governor to any other person.

(c)  All clearances granted to SLTPS personnel, as well as accreditations granted to SLTPS facilities without a waiver, shall be accepted reciprocally by all agencies and SLTPS entities.

(d)  Physical custody of classified information by State, local, and tribal (SLT) entities shall be limited to Secret information unless the location housing the information is under the full time management, control, and operation of the Department of Homeland Security or another agency.  A standard security agreement, established by the Department of Homeland Security in consultation with the SLTPS Advisory Committee, shall be executed between the head of the SLT entity and the U.S. Government for those locations where the SLT entity will maintain physical custody of classified information.

(e)  State, local, and tribal facilities where classified information is or will be used or stored shall be inspected, accredited, and monitored for compliance with established standards, in accordance with Executive Order 13526 and the implementing directive for this order, by the Department of Homeland Security or another agency that has entered into an agreement with the Department of Homeland Security to perform such inspection, accreditation, and monitoring.

(f)  Private sector facilities where classified information is or will be used or stored shall be inspected, accredited, and monitored for compliance with standards established pursuant to Executive Order 12829, as amended, by the Department of Defense or the cognizant security agency under Executive Order 12829, as amended.

(g)  Access to information systems that store, process, or transmit classified information shall be enforced by the rules established by the agency that controls the system and consistent with approved dissemination and handling markings applied by originators, separate from and in addition to criteria for determining eligibility for access to classified information.  Access to information within restricted portals shall be based on criteria applied by the agency that controls the portal and consistent with approved dissemination and handling markings applied by originators.

(h)  The National Industrial Security Program established in Executive Order 12829, as amended, shall govern the access to and safeguarding of classified information that is released to contractors, licensees, and grantees of SLT entities.

(i)  All access eligibility determinations and facility security accreditations granted prior to the date of this order that do not meet the standards set forth in this order or its implementing directive shall be reconciled with those standards within a reasonable period.

(j)  Pursuant to section 4.1(i)(3) of Executive Order 13526, documents created prior to the effective date of Executive Order 13526 shall not be re disseminated to other entities without the consent of the originating agency.  An agency head or senior agency official may waive this requirement for specific information that originated within that agency.

Sec. 2.  Policy Direction.  With policy guidance from the National Security Advisor and in consultation with the Director of the Information Security Oversight Office, the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, and the heads of affected agencies, the Secretary of Homeland Security shall serve as the Executive Agent for the Program.  This order does not displace any authorities provided by law or Executive Order and the Executive Agent shall, to the extent practicable, make use of existing structures and authorities to preclude duplication and to ensure efficiency.

Sec. 3.  SLTPS Policy Advisory Committee.  (a)  There is established an SLTPS Policy Advisory Committee (Committee) to discuss Program related policy issues in dispute in order to facilitate their resolution and to otherwise recommend changes to policies and procedures that are designed to remove undue impediments to the sharing of information under the Program.  The Director of the Information Security Oversight Office shall serve as Chair of the Committee.  An official designated by the Secretary of Homeland Security and a representative of SLTPS entities shall serve as Vice Chairs of the Committee.  Members of the Committee shall include designees of the heads of the Departments of State, Defense, Justice, Transportation, and Energy, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, the Central Intelligence Agency, and the Federal Bureau of Investigation.  Members shall also include employees of other agencies and representatives of SLTPS entities, as nominated by any Committee member and approved by the Chair.

(b)  Members of the Committee shall serve without compensation for their work on the Committee, except that any representatives of SLTPS entities may be allowed travel expenses, including per diem in lieu of subsistence, as authorized by law for persons serving intermittently in the Government service (5 U.S.C. 5701-5707).

(c)  The Information Security Oversight Office shall provide staff support to the Committee.

(d)  Insofar as the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 App. U.S.C.)(the "Act") may apply to this order, any functions of the President under that Act, except that of reporting to the Congress, which are applicable to the Committee, shall be performed by the Administrator of General Services in accordance with guidelines and procedures established by the General Services Administration.

Sec. 4.  Operations and Oversight.  (a)  The Executive Agent for the Program shall perform the following responsibilities:

(1)  overall program management and oversight;

(2)  accreditation, periodic inspection, and monitoring of all facilities owned or operated by SLT entities that have access to classified information, except when another agency has entered into an agreement with the Department of Homeland Security to perform some or all of these functions;

(3)  processing of security clearance applications by SLTPS personnel, when requested by a sponsoring agency, on a reimbursable basis unless otherwise determined by the Department of Homeland Security and the sponsoring agency;

(4)  documenting and tracking the final status of security clearances for all SLTPS personnel in consultation with the Office of Personnel Management, the Department of Defense, and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence;

(5)  developing and maintaining a security profile of SLT facilities that have access to classified information; and 

(6)  developing training, in consultation with the Committee, for all SLTPS personnel who have been determined eligible for access to classified information, which shall cover the proper safeguarding of classified information and sanctions for unauthorized disclosure of classified information.

(b)  The Secretary of Defense, or the cognizant security agency under Executive Order 12829, as amended, shall provide program management, oversight, inspection, accreditation, and monitoring of all private sector facilities that have access to classified information.

(c)  The Director of National Intelligence may inspect and monitor SLTPS programs and facilities that involve access to information regarding intelligence sources, methods, and activities.

(d)  Heads of agencies that sponsor SLTPS personnel and facilities for access to and storage of classified information under section 1.3(a) of this order shall:

(1)  ensure on a periodic basis that there is a demonstrated, foreseeable need for such access; and

(2)  provide the Secretary of Homeland Security with information, as requested by the Secretary, about SLTPS personnel sponsored for security clearances and SLT facilities approved for use of classified information prior to and after the date of this order, except when the disclosure of the association of a 

specific individual with an intelligence or law enforcement agency must be protected in the interest of national security, as determined by the intelligence or law enforcement agency.

Sec. 5.  Definitions.  For purposes of this order:

(a)  "Access" means the ability or opportunity to gain knowledge of classified information.

(b)  "Agency" means any "Executive agency" as defined in 5 U.S.C. 105; any military department as defined in 5 U.S.C. 102; and any other entity within the executive branch that comes into possession of classified information.

(c)  "Classified National Security Information" or "classified information" means information that has been determined pursuant to Executive Order 13526, or any predecessor or successor order, to require protection against unauthorized disclosure, and is marked to indicate its classified status when in documentary form.

(d)  "Information" means any knowledge that can be communicated or documentary material, regardless of its physical form or characteristics, that is owned by, produced by or for, or is under the control of the United States Government.

(e)  "Intelligence activities" means all activities that elements of the Intelligence Community are authorized to conduct pursuant to law or Executive Order 12333, as amended, or a successor order.

(f)  "Local" entities refers to "(A) a county, municipality, city, town, township, local public authority, school district, special district, intrastate district, council of governments (regardless of whether the council of governments is incorporated as a nonprofit corporation under State law), regional or interstate government entity, or agency or instrumentality of a local government; and (B) a rural community, unincorporated town or village, or other public entity" as defined in section 2 of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 101(11)).

(g)  "Private sector" means persons outside government who are critically involved in ensuring that public and private preparedness and response efforts are integrated as part of the Nation's Critical Infrastructure or Key Resources (CIKR), including:

(1)  corporate owners and operators determined by the Secretary of Homeland Security to be part of the CIKR;

(2)  subject matter experts selected to assist the Federal or State CIKR;

(3)  personnel serving in specific leadership positions of CIKR coordination, operations, and oversight;

(4)  employees of corporate entities relating to the protection of CIKR; or

(5)  other persons not otherwise eligible for the granting of a personnel security clearance pursuant to Executive Order 12829, as amended, who are determined by the Secretary of Homeland Security to require a personnel security clearance.

(h)  "Restricted portal" means a protected community of interest or similar area housed within an information system and to which access is controlled by a host agency different from the agency that controls the information system.

(i)  "Sponsoring Agency" means an agency that recommends access to or possession of classified information by SLTPS personnel.

(j)  "State" means any State of the United States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, the Commonwealth

of the Northern Mariana Islands, and any possession of the United States, as defined in section 2 of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 101(15)).

(k)  "State, local, and tribal personnel" means any of the following persons:

(1)  Governors, mayors, tribal leaders, and other elected or appointed officials of a State, local government, or tribe;

(2)  State, local, and tribal law enforcement personnel and firefighters;

(3)  public health, radiological health, and medical professionals of a State, local government, or tribe; and 

(4)  regional, State, local, and tribal emergency management agency personnel, including State Adjutants General and other appropriate public safety personnel and those personnel providing support to a Federal CIKR mission.

(l)  "Tribe" means any Indian or Alaska Native tribe, band, nation, pueblo, village, or community that the Secretary of the Interior acknowledges to exist as an Indian tribe as defined in the Federally Recognized Tribe List Act of 1994 (25 U.S.C. 479a(2)).

(m)  "United States" when used in a geographic sense, means any State of the United States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, any possession of the United States and any waters within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States.

Sec. 6.  General Provisions.  (a)  This order does not change the requirements of Executive Orders 13526, 12968, 13467, or 12829, as amended, and their successor orders and directives.

(b)  Nothing in this order shall be construed to supersede or change the authorities of the Secretary of Energy or the Nuclear Regulatory Commission under the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2011 et seq.); the Secretary of Defense under Executive Order 12829, as amended; the Director of the Information Security Oversight Office under Executive Order 13526 and Executive Order 12829, as amended; the Attorney General under title 18, United States Code, and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (50 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.); the Secretary of State under title 22, United States Code, and the Omnibus Diplomatic Security and Antiterrorism Act of 1986; or the Director of National Intelligence under the National Security Act of 1947, as amended, Executive Order 12333, as amended, Executive Order 12968, as amended, Executive Order 13467, and Executive Order 13526.

(c)  Nothing in this order shall limit the authority of an agency head, or the agency head's designee, to authorize in an emergency and when necessary to respond to an imminent threat to life or in defense of the homeland, in accordance with section 4.2(b) of Executive Order 13526, the disclosure of classified information to an individual or individuals who are otherwise not eligible for access in accordance with the provisions of Executive Order 12968.

(d)  Consistent with section 892(a)(4) of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 482(a)(4)), nothing in this order shall be interpreted as changing the requirements and authorities to protect sources and methods.

(e)  Nothing in this order shall supersede measures established under the authority of law or Executive Order to protect the security and integrity of specific activities and associations that are in direct support of intelligence operations.

(f)  Pursuant to section 892(e) of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 482(e)), all information provided to an SLTPS entity from an agency shall remain under the control of the Federal Government.  Any State or local law authorizing or requiring disclosure shall not apply to such information.

(g)  Nothing in this order limits the protection afforded any classified information by other provisions of law.  This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.

(h)  Nothing in this order shall be construed to obligate action or otherwise affect functions by the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.

(i)  This order shall be implemented subject to the availability of appropriations and consistent with procedures approved by the Attorney General pursuant to Executive Order 12333, as amended.

Sec. 7.  Effective Date.  This order is effective 180 days from the date of this order with the exception of section 3, which is effective immediately.

BARACK OBAMA

THE WHITE HOUSE,
     August 18, 2010.

The White House

Office of the Press Secretary

For Immediate Release April 21, 2010

Executive Order -- President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, and in order to establish an advisory council on science,
technology, and innovation, it is hereby ordered as follows:

Section 1 . Establishment . The President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST) is hereby established. The PCAST shall be composed of not more than 21 members, one of whom shall be the Assistant to the President for Science and Technology (the "Science Advisor"), and 20 of whom shall include distinguished individuals and representatives from sectors outside of the Federal Government appointed by the President. These nonfederal members shall have diverse perspectives and expertise in science, technology, and innovation. The Science Advisor shall serve as a Co-Chair of the PCAST. The President shall also designate at least one, but not more than two, of the nonfederal members to serve as a Co-Chair of the PCAST with the Science Advisor.

Sec. 2 . Functions . (a) The PCAST shall advise the President, directly at its meetings with the President and also through the Science Advisor, on matters involving science, technology, and innovation policy. This advice shall include, but not be limited to, policy that affects science, technology, and innovation, as well as scientific and technical information that is needed to inform public policy relating to the economy, energy, environment, public health, national and homeland security, and other topics. The PCAST shall meet regularly and shall:

(i) respond to requests from the President or the Science Advisor for information, analysis, evaluation, or advice;

(ii) solicit information and ideas from the broad range of stakeholders, including but not limited to the research community, the private sector, universities, national laboratories, State and local governments, foundations, and nonprofit organizations;

(iii) serve as the advisory committee identified in subsections 101(b) and 103(b) of the High-Performance Computing Act of 1991 (Public Law 102-194), as amended (15 U.S.C. 5511(b) and 5513(b)). In performing the functions of such advisory committee, the PCAST shall be known as the President's Innovation and Technology Advisory Committee; and

(iv) serve as the advisory panel identified in section 4 of the 21st Century Nanotechnology Research and Development Act (15 U.S.C. 7503) (21st Century
Act). In performing the functions of such advisory committee, the PCAST shall be known as the National Nanotechnology Advisory Panel. Nothing in this
order shall be construed to require the National Nanotechnology Advisory Panel to comply with any requirement from which it is exempted by section 4(f)
of the 21st Century Act.

(b) The PCAST shall provide advice from the nonfederal sector to the National Science and Technology Council (NSTC) in response to requests from the NSTC.

Sec. 3 . Administration . (a) The heads of executive departments and agencies shall, to the extent permitted by law, provide the PCAST with information concerning scientific and technological matters when requested by the PCAST Co-Chairs and as required for the purpose of carrying out the PCAST's functions.

(b) In consultation with the Science Advisor, the PCAST is authorized to create standing subcommittees and ad hoc groups, including, but not limited to, technical advisory groups to assist the PCAST and provide preliminary information directly to the PCAST.

(c) So that the PCAST may provide advice and analysis regarding classified matters, the Science Advisor may request that members of the PCAST, its standing subcommittees, or ad hoc groups who do not hold a current clearance for access to classified information, receive security clearance and access determinations pursuant to Executive Order 12968 of August 2, 1995, as amended, or any successor order.

(d) The Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) shall provide such funding and administrative and technical support as the PCAST may require.

(e) Members of the PCAST shall serve without any compensation for their work on the PCAST, but may receive travel expenses, including per diem in lieu of subsistence, as authorized by law for persons serving intermittently in the government service (5 U.S.C. 5701-5707).

Sec. 4 . Termination . The PCAST shall terminate 2 years from the date of this order unless extended by the President.

Sec. 5 . General Provisions . (a) Insofar as the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.) (FACA) may apply to the PCAST, any functions of the President under the FACA, except that of reporting to the Congress, shall be performed by the Director of the OSTP in accordance with the guidelines and procedures established by the Administrator of General Services.

(b) Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:

(i) authority granted by law to a department or agency, or the head thereof; or

(ii) functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.

(c) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.

(d) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.

Sec. 6 . Revocation . Executive Order 13226 of September 30, 2001, as amended, is hereby revoked.

BARACK OBAMA

THE WHITE HOUSE,
April 21, 2010.

Joint CFTC-SEC Advisory Committee Recommends Transformative Market Changes in the Wake of May 6th Flash Crash March 2, 2011

By Andre E. Owens , Cherie Weldon , Elena Schwieger

On February 18, 2011, the Joint CFTC-SEC Advisory Committee on Emerging Regulatory Issues (the "Committee") issued a report entitled Recommendations Regarding Regulatory Responses to the Market Events of May 6, 2010 ("Report"), setting forth its recommendations for regulatory action by the Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission ("CFTC") (collectively, "the Commissions") in the wake of the so-called "flash crash" of May 6th. 1 The Committee recommends substantial changes to certain widespread market practices, as well as more incremental changes to certain of the Commissions' current market regulatory initiatives. Taken together, implementation of the Committee's recommendations would have a significant, transformative effect on the operation of the U.S. markets and their participants.

I. Recommendations for Significant Regulatory Changes

The Report makes various recommendations that, if adopted, would have substantial, far-reaching effects on the current operation of the U.S. markets:

II. Recommendations for Enhancements to Current Regulatory Initiatives

The Committee also supports certain existing regulatory initiatives by the SEC and the CFTC in the wake of May 6th, and recommends further enhancements or refinements to these initiatives:

1  Recommendations Regarding Regulatory Responses to the Market Events of May 6, 2010: Summary Report of the Joint CFTC-SEC Advisory Committee on Emerging Regulatory Issues (Feb. 18, 2011), available at www.sec.gov/spotlight/sec-cftcjointcommittee/021811-report.pdf . See also Preliminary Findings Regarding the Market Events of May 6, 2010: Report of the Staffs of the CFTC and SEC to the Joint Advisory Committee on Emerging Regulatory Issues (May 18, 2010), available at www.sec.gov/sec-cftc-prelimreport.pdf ; Findings Regarding the Market Events of May 6, 2010: Report of the Staffs of the CFTC and SEC to the Joint Advisory Committee on Emerging Regulatory Issues (Sept. 30, 2010), available at www.cftc.gov/ucm/groups/public/@otherif/documents/ifdocs/staff-findings050610.pdf .

2  The Committee states that the percentages of order flow executed in this manner has sharply risen and is believed to account for over 20% of the share volume in listed equity securities. Report at 11.

3 See Risk Management Controls for Brokers or Dealers with Market Access, Exchange Act Release No. 61379, 75 Fed. Reg. 4007 (Jan. 10, 2010); SEC Proposes Broad Changes for Broker-Dealers with Direct Access to ATSs and Exchanges, WilmerHale Client Alert (Feb. 3, 2010), available at www.wilmerhale.com/publications/whPubsDetail.aspxpublication=9392 . See also Risk Management Controls for Brokers or Dealers with Market Access, Exchange Act Release No. 63241, 75 Fed. Reg. 69792 (Nov. 15, 2010); A Return to Modesty - The SEC Clothes Naked Access: Adoption of Risk Management Controls for Broker-Dealers with Market Access, WilmerHale Client Alert (Nov. 11, 2010), available at www.wilmerhale.com/publications/whPubsDetail.aspx?publication=9646 .

4 See Antidisruptive Practices Authority Contained in the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, 75 Fed. Reg. 67301 (Nov. 2, 2010).

5  Consolidated Audit Trail, Exchange Act Release No. 62174, 75 Fed. Reg. 32556 (Jun. 8, 2010); SEC Proposes Consolidated Audit Trail, WilmerHale Client Alert (June 9, 2010), available at www.wilmerhale.com/files/upload/Securities_Alert_6_9_10.pdf .

“I bring reason to your ears, and, in language as plain as ABC, hold up truth to your eyes.” Thomas Paine, December 23, 1776

Congress, DOE's loan guarantee program, and America's Clean Energy Future

March 4, 2011

The Department of Energy's loan guarantee program leverages federal dollars by allowing the DOE to guarantee the debt of privately owned clean energy developers and manufacturing companies instead of investing directly into these companies through grants or tax subsidies.

Richard W. Caperton, in a CAP cross-post on what the House GOP's proposal to slash the program would mean for clean energy.

The United States stands at a crossroads between two energy futures.

The Moment of Truth: Report of the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform

RECOMMENDATION 1.10: ADOPT IMMEDIATE REFORMS TO REDUCE SPENDING AND MAKE THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT MORE EFFICIENT.

In addition to these proposals, the Commission advises that through executive action, congressional rule, and legislation, a number of steps be taken immediately to show Washington can lead by example. The collected recommendations that follow would reduce spending on both the security and non-security sides of the discretionary budget. Together, they will save more than $50 billion in 2015 alone:

1.10.6 Sell excess federal real property. The federal government is the largest real property owner in the country, with an inventory of more than 1.2 million buildings, structures, and land parcels. Holding this unneeded property carries maintenance costs and forgoes the opportunity to sell potentially valuable property. We propose directing the GSA to loosen agency restrictions associated with selling unused buildings and land. This proposal will save at least $100 million in 2015.

Protect the disadvantaged. About 20 percent of mandatory spending is devoted to income support programs for the most disadvantaged. These include programs such as unemployment compensation, food stamps, and Supplemental Security Income (SSI). These programs provide vital means of support for the disadvantaged, and this report does not recommend any fundamental policy changes to these programs.

End wasteful spending. The first place to look for savings must be wasteful spending, including subsidies that are poorly targeted or create perverse incentives, and improper payments that can be eliminated through program integrity efforts.

Look to the private sector. Some mandatory programs, like federal civilian and military retirement systems, are similar to programs in the private sector. When appropriate, we should apply innovations and cost-saving techniques from the private sector.

RECOMMENDATION 4.5: ELIMINATE PAYMENTS TO STATES FOR ABANDONED MINES.

The Abandoned Mine Land program at the Department of the Interior operates a fund for the reclamation of abandoned coal mines across the United States . The program is financed by a fee paid by the coal industry. In 2006, Congress authorized payments from the Abandoned Mine Land fund to states and tribes certified as having completed the reclamation of their abandoned coal mines – though payments can be used for any purpose. The Commission recommends eliminating these payments because they no longer serve their stated purpose -- contributing to reclaiming abandoned coal mines. Instead, they are paid to states and tribes whose mines have already been reclaimed.

EXECUTIVE ORDER

FEDERAL LEADERSHIP IN ENVIRONMENTAL, ENERGY,

AND ECONOMIC PERFORMANCE

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, and to establish an integrated strategy towards sustainability in the Federal Government and to make reduction of greenhouse gas emissions a priority for Federal agencies, it is hereby ordered as follows:

Section 1. Policy. In order to create a clean energy economy that will increase our Nation's prosperity, promote energy security, protect the interests of taxpayers, and safeguard the health of our environment, the Federal Government must lead by example. It is therefore the policy of the United States that Federal agencies shall increase energy efficiency; measure, report, and reduce their greenhouse gas emissions from direct and indirect activities; conserve and protect water resources through efficiency, reuse, and storm water management; eliminate waste, recycle, and prevent pollution; leverage agency acquisitions to foster markets for sustainable technologies and environmentally preferable materials, products, and services; design, construct, maintain, and operate high-performance sustainable buildings in sustainable locations; strengthen the vitality and livability of the communities in which Federal facilities are located; and inform Federal employees about and involve them in the achievement of these goals.

It is further the policy of the United States that to achieve these goals and support their respective missions, agencies shall prioritize actions based on a full accounting of both economic and social benefits and costs and shall drive continuous improvement by annually evaluating performance, extending or expanding projects that have net benefits, and reassessing or discontinuing under-performing projects.

Finally, it is also the policy of the United States that agencies' efforts and outcomes in implementing this order shall be transparent and that agencies shall therefore disclose results associated with the actions taken pursuant to this order on publicly available Federal websites.

Sec. 2. Goals for Agencies. In implementing the policy set forth in section 1 of this order, and preparing and implementing the Strategic Sustainability Performance Plan called for inspection 8 of this order, the head of each agency shall:

(a) within 90 days of the date of this order, establish and report to the Chair of the Council on Environmental Quality (Catchier) and the Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB Director) a percentage reduction target for agency-wide reductions of scope 1 and 2 greenhouse gas emissions in absolute terms by fiscal year 2020, relative to a fiscal year 2008baseline of the agency's scope 1 and 2 greenhouse gas emissions. Where appropriate, the target shall exclude direct emissions from excluded vehicles and equipment and from electric power produced and sold commercially to other parties in the course of regular business. This target shall be subject to review and approval by the CEQ Chair in consultation with the OMB Director under section 5 of this order. In establishing the target, the agency head shall consider reductions associated with: (i) reducing energy intensity in agency buildings; (ii) increasing agency use of renewable energy and implementing renewable energy generation projects on agency property; and (iii) reducing the use of fossil fuels by: (A) using low greenhouse gas emitting vehicles including alternative fuel vehicles; (B) optimizing the number of vehicles in the agency fleet; and (C) reducing, if the agency operates a fleet of at least 20 motor vehicles, the agency fleet's total consumption of petroleum products by a minimum of2 percent annually through the end of fiscal year2020, relative to a baseline of fiscal year 2005; (b) within 240 days of the date of this order and concurrent with submission of the Strategic Sustainability Performance Plan as described in section 8 of this order, establish and report to the CEQ Chair and the OMB Director a percentage reduction target for reducing agency-wide scope 3greenhouse gas emissions in absolute terms by fiscal year 2020,relative to a fiscal year 2008 baseline of agency scope 3emissions. This target shall be subject to review and approval by the CEQ Chair in consultation with the OMB Director under section 5 of this order. In establishing the target, the agency head shall consider reductions associated with: (i) pursuing opportunities with vendors and contractors to address and incorporate incentives to reduce greenhouse gas emissions(such as changes to manufacturing, utility or delivery services, modes of transportation used, or other changes in supply chain activities); (ii) implementing strategies and accommodations for transit, travel, training, and conferencing that actively support lower-carbon commuting and travel by agency staff; (iii) greenhouse gas emission reductions associated with pursuing other relevant goals in this section; and (iv) developing and implementing innovative policies and practices to address scope 3 greenhouse gas emissions unique to agency operations; (c) establish and report to the CEQ Chair and OMB Director a comprehensive inventory of absolute greenhouse gas emissions, including scope 1, scope 2, and specified scope 3 emissions(i) within 15 months of the date of this order for fiscal year 2010, and (ii) thereafter, annually at the end of January, for the preceding fiscal year. (d) improve water use efficiency and management by: (i) reducing potable water consumption intensity by2 percent annually through fiscal year 2020, or26 percent by the end of fiscal year 2020,relative to a baseline of the agency's water consumption in fiscal year 2007, by implementing water management strategies including water-efficient and low-flow fixtures and efficient cooling towers; (ii) reducing agency industrial, landscaping, and agricultural water consumption by 2 percent annually or 20 percent by the end of fiscal year 2020 relative to a baseline of the agency's industrial, landscaping, and agricultural water consumption in fiscal year2010; (iii) consistent with State law, identifying, promoting, and implementing water reuse strategies that reduce potable water consumption; and (iv) implementing and achieving the objectives identified in the storm water management guidance referenced in section 14 of this order; (e) promote pollution prevention and eliminate waste by: (i) minimizing the generation of waste and pollutants through source reduction; (ii) diverting at least 50 percent of non-hazardous solid waste, excluding construction and demolition debris, by the end of fiscal year2015; (iii) diverting at least 50 percent of construction and demolition materials and debris by the end of fiscal year 2015; (iv) reducing printing paper use and acquiring uncoated printing and writing paper containing at least 30 percent post consumer fiber; (v) reducing and minimizing the quantity of toxicant hazardous chemicals and materials acquired, used, or disposed of; (vi) increasing diversion of compostable and organic material from the waste stream; (vii) implementing integrated pest management and other appropriate landscape management practices; (viii) increasing agency use of acceptable alternative chemicals and processes in keeping with the agency's procurement policies; (ix) decreasing agency use of chemicals where such decrease will assist the agency in achieving greenhouse gas emission reduction targets under section 2(a) and (b) of this order; and (x) reporting in accordance with the requirements of sections 301 through 313 of the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act of1986 (42 U.S.C. 11001 et seq.); (f) advance regional and local integrated planning by: (i) participating in regional transportation planning and recognizing existing community transportation infrastructure; (ii) aligning Federal policies to increase the effectiveness of local planning for energy choices such as locally generated renewable energy; (iii) ensuring that planning for new Federal facilities or new leases includes consideration of sites that are pedestrian friendly, near existing employment centers, and accessible to public transit, and emphasizes existing central cities and, in rural communities, existing or planned town centers; (iv) identifying and analyzing impacts from energy usage and alternative energy sources in all Environmental Impact Statements and Environmental Assessments for proposals for new or expanded Federal facilities under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.); and (v) coordinating with regional programs for Federal, State, tribal, and local ecosystem, watershed, and environmental management; (g) implement high performance sustainable Federal building design, construction, operation and management, maintenance, and deconstruction including by: (i) beginning in 2020 and thereafter, ensuring that all new Federal buildings that enter the planning process are designed to achieve zero-net-energy by 2030; (ii) ensuring that all new construction, major renovation, or repair and alteration of Federal buildings complies with the Guiding Principles for Federal Leadership in High Performance and Sustainable Buildings (Guiding Principles); (iii) ensuring that at least 15 percent of the agency's existing buildings (above 5,000 gross square feet) and building leases (above 5,000 gross square feet) meet the Guiding Principles by fiscal year 2015 and that the agency makes annual progress toward 100-percent conformance with the Guiding Principles for its building inventory; (iv) pursuing cost-effective, innovative strategies, such as highly reflective and vegetated roofs, to minimize consumption of energy, water, and materials; (v) managing existing building systems to reduce the consumption of energy, water, and materials, and identifying alternatives to renovation that reduce existing assets' deferred maintenance costs; (vi) when adding assets to the agency's real property inventory, identifying opportunities to consolidate and dispose of existing assets, optimize the performance of the agency's real-property portfolio, and reduce associated environmental impacts; and (vii) ensuring that rehabilitation of federally owned historic buildings utilizes best practices and technologies in retrofitting to promote long-term viability of the buildings; (h) advance sustainable acquisition to ensure that95 percent of new contract actions including task and delivery orders, for products and services with the exception of acquisition of weapon systems, are energy-efficient (Energy Star or Federal Energy Management Program (FEMP) designated), water-efficient, biobased, environmentally preferable (e.g., Electronic Product Environmental Assessment Tool (EPEAT) certified), non-ozone depleting, contain recycled content, or are non-toxic or less-toxic alternatives, where such products and services meet agency performance requirements; (i) promote electronics stewardship, in particular by: (i) ensuring procurement preference for EPEAT-registered electronic products; (ii) establishing and implementing policies to enable power management, duplex printing, and other energy-efficient or environmentally preferable features on all eligible agency electronic products; (iii) employing environmentally sound practices with respect to the agency's disposition of all agency excess or surplus electronic products; (iv) ensuring the procurement of Energy Star and FEMP designated electronic equipment; (v) implementing best management practices for energy-efficient management of servers and Federal data centers; and (j) sustain environmental management, including by: (i) continuing implementation of formal environmental management systems at all appropriate organizational levels; and (ii) ensuring these formal systems are appropriately implemented and maintained to achieve the performance necessary to meet the goals of this order. Sec. 3. Steering Committee on Federal Sustainability. The OMB Director and the CEQ Chair shall: (a) establish an interagency Steering Committee (Steering Committee) on Federal Sustainability composed of the Federal Environmental Executive, designated under section 6 of Executive Order 13423 of January 24, 2007, and Agency Senior Sustainability Officers, designated under section 7 of this order, and that shall: (i) serve in the dual capacity of the Steering Committee on Strengthening Federal Environmental, Energy, and Transportation Management designated by the CEQ Chair pursuant to section 4 of Executive Order 13423; (ii) advise the OMB Director and the CEQ Chair on implementation of this order; (iii) facilitate the implementation of each agency's Strategic Sustainability Performance Plan; and (iv) share information and promote progress towards the goals of this order; (b) enlist the support of other organizations within the Federal Government to assist the Steering Committee in addressing the goals of this order; (c) establish and disband, as appropriate, interagency subcommittees of the Steering Committee, to assist the Steering Committee in carrying out its responsibilities; (d) determine appropriate Federal actions to achieve the policy of section 1 and the goals of section 2 of this order; (e) ensure that Federal agencies are held accountable for conformance with the requirements of this order; and (f) in coordination with the Department of Energy's Federal Energy Management Program and the Office of the Federal Environmental Executive designated under section 6 of Executive Order 13423, provide guidance and assistance to facilitate the development of agency targets for greenhouse gas emission reductions required under subsections 2(a) and (b) of this order. Sec. 4. Additional Duties of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget. In addition to the duties of the OMB Director specified elsewhere in this order, the OMB Director shall Sec. 6. Duties of the Federal Environmental Executive. The Federal Environmental Executive designated by the President to head the Office of the Federal Environmental Executive, pursuant to section 6 of Executive Order 13423, shall: (a) identify strategies and tools to assist Federal implementation efforts under this order, including through the sharing of best practices from successful Federal sustainability efforts; and (b) monitor and advise the CEQ Chair and the OMB Director on the agencies' implementation of this order and their progressing achieving the order=s policies and goals. Sec. 7. Agency Senior Sustainability Officers. (a) Within 30 days of the date of this order, the head of each agency shall designate from among the agency's senior management officials a Senior Sustainability Officer who shall be accountable for agency conformance with the requirements of this order; and shall report such designation to the OMB Director and the CEQ Chair. (b) The Senior Sustainability Officer for each agency shall perform the functions of the senior agency official designated by the head of each agency pursuant to section 3(d)(i) of Executive Order 13423 and shall be responsible for: (i) preparing the targets for agency-wide reductions and the inventory of greenhouse gas emissions required under subsections 2(a), (b), and (c) of this order; (ii) within 240 days of the date of this order, and annually thereafter, preparing and submitting to the CEQ Chair and the OMB Director, for their review and approval, a multi-year Strategic Sustainability Performance Plan (Sustainability Plan or Plan) as described in section 8 of this order; (iii) preparing and implementing the approved Plan in coordination with appropriate offices and organizations within the agency including the General Counsel, Chief Information Officer, Chief Acquisition Officer, Chief Financial Officer, and Senior Real Property Officers, and in coordination with other agency plans, policies, and activities; (iv) monitoring the agency's performance and progressing implementing the Plan, and reporting the performance and progress to the CEQ Chair and the OMB Director, on such schedule and in such format as the Chair and the Director may require; and (v) reporting annually to the head of the agency on the adequacy and effectiveness of the agency's Plan in implementing this order. Sec. 8. Agency Strategic Sustainability Performance Plan. Each agency shall develop, implement, and annually update an integrated Strategic Sustainability Performance Plan that will prioritize agency actions based on lifecycle return on investment. Each agency Plan and update shall be subject to approval by the OMB Director under section 4 of this order. With respect to the period beginning in fiscal year 2011 and continuing through the end of fiscal year 2021, each agency Plans hall:

(a)

include a policy statement committing the agency to compliance with environmental and energy statutes, regulations, and Executive Orders;

(b)

achieve the sustainability goals and targets, including greenhouse gas reduction targets, established under section 2 of this order;

(c)

be integrated into the agency's strategic planning and budget process, including the agency's strategic plan under section 3 of the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993,as amended (5 U.S.C. 306);

(d)

identify agency activities, policies, plans, procedures, and practices that are relevant to the agency's implementation of this order, and where necessary, provide for development and implementation of new or revised policies, plans, procedures, and practices;

(e)

identify specific agency goals, a schedule, milestones, and approaches for achieving results, and quantifiable metrics for agency implementation of this order;

(f)

take into consideration environmental measures as well as economic and social benefits and costs in evaluating projects and activities based on lifecycle return on investment;

(g)

outline planned actions to provide information about agency progress and performance with respect to achieving the goals of this order on a publicly available Federal website;

(h)

incorporate actions for achieving progress metrics identified by the OMB Director and the CEQ Chair;

(i)

evaluate agency climate-change risks and vulnerabilities to manage the effects of climate change on the agency's operations and mission in both the short and long term; and

(j)

identify in annual updates opportunities for improvement and evaluation of past performance in order to extend or expand projects that have net lifecycle benefits, and reassess or discontinue under-performing projects.

Sec. 9. Recommendations for Greenhouse Gas Accounting and Reporting. The Department of Energy, through its Federal Energy Management Program, and in coordination with the Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of Defense, the General Services Administration, the Department of the Interior, the Department of Commerce, and other agencies as appropriate, shall:

(a)

within 180 days of the date of this order develop and provide to the CEQ Chair recommended Federal greenhouse gas reporting and accounting procedures for agencies to use in carrying out their obligations under subsections 2(a), (b), and

(c)

of this order, including procedures that will ensure that agencies :

(i) accurately and consistently quantify and account

for greenhouse gas emissions from all scope 1,

2, and 3 sources, using accepted greenhouse gas

accounting and reporting principles, and

identify appropriate opportunities to revise the

fiscal year 2008 baseline to address significant

changes in factors affecting agency emissions

such as reorganization and improvements in

accuracy of data collection and estimation

procedures or other major changes that would

otherwise render the initial baseline

information unsuitable;

(ii) consider past Federal agency efforts to reduce

greenhouse gas emissions; and

(iii) consider and account for sequestration and

emissions of greenhouse gases resulting from

Federal land management practices;

(b) within 1 year of the date of this order, to ensure

consistent and accurate reporting under this section, provide

electronic accounting and reporting capability for the Federal

greenhouse gas reporting procedures developed under

subsection (a) of this section, and to the extent practicable,

ensure compatibility between this capability and existing Federal

agency reporting systems; and

(c) every 3 years from the date of the CEQ Chair's

issuance of the initial version of the reporting guidance, and

as otherwise necessary, develop and provide recommendations to

the CEQ Chair for revised Federal greenhouse gas reporting

procedures for agencies to use in implementing subsections 2(a),

(b), and (c) of this order.

Sec. 10. Recommendations for Sustainable Locations for

Federal Facilities. Within 180 days of the date of this order,

the Department of Transportation, in accordance with its

Sustainable Partnership Agreement with the Department of Housing

and Urban Development and the Environmental Protection Agency,

and in coordination with the General Services Administration, the

Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Defense, and

other agencies as appropriate, shall:

(a) review existing policies and practices associated with

site selection for Federal facilities; and

(b) provide recommendations to the CEQ Chair regarding

sustainable location strategies for consideration in

Sustainability Plans. The recommendations shall be consistent

with principles of sustainable development including prioritizing

central business district and rural town center locations,

prioritizing sites well served by transit, including site design

elements that ensure safe and convenient pedestrian access,

consideration of transit access and proximity to housing

affordable to a wide range of Federal employees, adaptive reuse

or renovation of buildings, avoidance of development of sensitive

land resources, and evaluation of parking management strategies.

Sec. 11. Recommendations for Federal Local Transportation

Logistics. Within 180 days of the date of this order, the

General Services Administration, in coordination with the

Department of Transportation, the Department of the Treasury,

the Department of Energy, the Office of Personnel Management,

Sec. 15. Regional Coordination. Within 180 days of the

date of this order, the Federal Environmental Executive shall

develop and implement a regional implementation plan to support

the goals of this order taking into account energy and

environmental priorities of particular regions of the

United States .

Sec. 16. Agency Roles in Support of Federal Adaptation

Strategy. In addition to other roles and responsibilities of

agencies with respect to environmental leadership as specified

in this order, the agencies shall participate actively in the

interagency Climate Change Adaptation Task Force, which is

already engaged in developing the domestic and international

dimensions of a U.S. strategy for adaptation to climate change,

and shall develop approaches through which the policies and

practices of the agencies can be made compatible with and

reinforce that strategy. Within 1 year of the date of this

order the CEQ Chair shall provide to the President, following

consultation with the agencies and the Climate Change Adaptation

Task Force, as appropriate, a progress report on agency actions

in support of the national adaptation strategy and

recommendations for any further such measures as the CEQ Chair

may deem necessary.

Sec. 17. Limitations. (a) This order shall apply to

an agency with respect to the activities, personnel, resources,

and facilities of the agency that are located within the

United States . The head of an agency may provide that this order

shall apply in whole or in part with respect to the activities,

personnel, resources, and facilities of the agency that are not

located within the United States , if the head of the agency

determines that such application is in the interest of the

United States .

(b) The head of an agency shall manage activities,

personnel, resources, and facilities of the agency that are

not located within the United States , and with respect to which

the head of the agency has not made a determination under

subsection (a) of this section, in a manner consistent with the

policy set forth in section 1 of this order to the extent the

head of the agency determines practicable.

Sec. 18. Exemption Authority.

(a) The Director of National Intelligence may exempt

an intelligence activity of the United States , and related

personnel, resources, and facilities, from the provisions of this

order, other than this subsection and section 20, to the extent

the Director determines necessary to protect intelligence sources

and methods from unauthorized disclosure.

(b) The head of an agency may exempt law enforcement

activities of that agency, and related personnel, resources, and

facilities, from the provisions of this order, other than this

subsection and section 20, to the extent the head of an agency

determines necessary to protect undercover operations from

unauthorized disclosure.

(c) (i) The head of an agency may exempt law enforcement,

protective, emergency response, or military

tactical vehicle fleets of that agency from the

provisions of this order, other than this

subsection and section 20. (ii) Heads of agencies shall manage fleets to which

paragraph (i) of this subsection refers in a

manner consistent with the policy set forth in

section 1 of this order to the extent they

determine practicable.

(d) The head of an agency may exempt particular agency

activities and facilities from the provisions of this order,

other than this subsection and section 20, where it is in the

interest of national security. If the head of an agency issues

an exemption under this section, the agency must notify the CEQ

Chair in writing within 30 days of issuance of the exemption

under this subsection. To the maximum extent practicable, and

without compromising national security, each agency shall strive

to comply with the purposes, goals, and implementation steps in

this order.

(e) The head of an agency may submit to the President,

through the CEQ Chair, a request for an exemption of an agency

activity, and related personnel, resources, and facilities, from

this order.

Sec. 19. Definitions. As used in this order:

(a) "absolute greenhouse gas emissions" means total

greenhouse gas emissions without normalization for activity

levels and includes any allowable consideration of sequestration;

(b) "agency" means an executive agency as defined in

section 105 of title 5, United States Code, excluding the

Government Accountability Office;

(c) "alternative fuel vehicle" means vehicles defined

by section 301 of the Energy Policy Act of 1992, as amended

(42 U.S.C. 13211), and otherwise includes electric fueled

vehicles, hybrid electric vehicles, plug-in hybrid electric

vehicles, dedicated alternative fuel vehicles, dual fueled

alternative fuel vehicles, qualified fuel cell motor vehicles,

advanced lean burn technology motor vehicles, self-propelled

vehicles such as bicycles and any other alternative fuel vehicles

that are defined by statute;

(d) "construction and demolition materials and debris"

means materials and debris generated during construction,

renovation, demolition, or dismantling of all structures and

buildings and associated infrastructure;

(e) "divert" and "diverting" means redirecting materials

that might otherwise be placed in the waste stream to recycling

or recovery, excluding diversion to waste-to-energy facilities;

(f) "energy intensity" means energy consumption per square

foot of building space, including industrial or laboratory

facilities;

(g) "environmental" means environmental aspects of internal

agency operations and activities, including those aspects related

to energy and transportation functions;

(h) "excluded vehicles and equipment" means any vehicle,

vessel, aircraft, or non-road equipment owned or operated by an

agency of the Federal Government that is used in: (i) combat support, combat service support, tactical or relief operations, or training for such operations; (ii) Federal law enforcement (including protective service and investigation); (iii) emergency response (including fire and rescue);or (iv) spaceflight vehicles (including associated ground-support equipment); (i) "greenhouse gases" means carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, hydro fluorocarbons, per fluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride; (j) "renewable energy" means energy produced by solar, wind, biomass, landfill gas, ocean (including tidal, wave, current, and thermal), geothermal, municipal solid waste, or new hydroelectric generation capacity achieved from increased efficiency or additions of new capacity at an existing hydroelectric project; (k) "scope 1, 2, and 3" mean; (i) scope 1: direct greenhouse gas emissions from sources that are owned or controlled by the Federal agency; (ii) scope 2: direct greenhouse gas emissions resulting from the generation of electricity, heat, or steam purchased by a Federal agency; and (iii) scope 3: greenhouse gas emissions from sources not owned or directly controlled by a Federal agency but related to agency activities such as vendor supply chains, delivery services, and employee travel and commuting; (l) "sustainability" and "sustainable" mean to create and maintain conditions, under which humans and nature can exist in productive harmony, that permit fulfilling the social, economic, and other requirements of present and future generations; (m) "United States" means the fifty States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa, the United States Virgin Islands, and the Northern Mariana Islands, and associated territorial waters and airspace; (n) "water consumption intensity" means water consumption per square foot of building space; and (o) "zero-net-energy building" means a building that is designed, constructed, and operated to require a greatly reduced quantity of energy to operate, meet the balance of energy needs from sources of energy that do not produce greenhouse gases, and therefore result in no net emissions of greenhouse gases and be economically viable. Sec. 20. General Provisions. (a) This order shall be implemented in a manner consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations. (b)

Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect the functions of the OMB Director relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.

(c)

This order is intended only to improve the internal management of the Federal Government and is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.

BARACK OBAMA

THE WHITE HOUSE, October 5, 2009.

Sunday, May 22, 2011 2:35:56 PM

Goldman Still at the Heart of Crisis Investigations

(May 22, 2011) -- Goldman Sachs may receive subpoenas from US prosecutors looking for more information about the firm's mortgage-related business.

According to the Wall Street Journal , Goldman officials expect the Justice Department to demand additional background information within days. The subpoenas would follow a 639-page report on the financial crisis released last month by the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, which alleged that Goldman executives misled clients in order to reap profits, and then proceeded to lie to Congress when questioned about its actions. The lengthy report was completed after a two-year probe of the mortgage business that led to financial collapse. It concluded that Goldman mismanaged conflicts of interest , putting its interests above all others.

Already, the banking giant has released hundreds of millions of pages of information to the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations and to the Federal Crisis Inquiry Commission, the WSJ reported. "Goldman is a high-octane, high-profile target," Dick Beckler, a partner in Bracewell & Giuliani's white-collar defence practice, told Reuters.

Earlier this month in a 10Q filing, Goldman Sachs disclosed that it is facing fraud charges over whether it improperly used investment accounts to conduct trades. According to the filing, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) will recommend that the federal regulatory agency bring fraud charges against the banking giant over the firm's role as clearing broker for an unnamed SEC-registered broker dealer. The CFTC has alleged that Goldman either "knew or should have known" that the broker-dealer's sub-accounts at Goldman belonged to the dealer's customers and weren't the broker-dealer's own accounts.

Goldman may now face "aiding and abetting, civil fraud and supervision-related charges." In its quarterly regulatory filing, Goldman noted that the CFTC investigation will focus on Goldman Sachs Execution & Clearing (GSEC), which provides clearing and trade execution services for Goldman clients that include hedge funds, companies, mutual funds and central banks.

The string of inquiries into Goldman Sachs's behavior comes as the federal government is working with attorneys general around the country to reach a settlement with the biggest banks in the US over accusations of illegal foreclosures and fraudulent mortgage practices.

To contact the aiCIO editor of this story: Paula Vasan at pvasan@assetinternational.com ; 646-308-2742.
Follow on Twitter at @paulavasan

 

Tribal Colleges and Universities Program

Synopsis Full Announcement Application

The synopsis for this grant opportunity is detailed below, following this paragraph. This synopsis contains all of the updates to this document that have been posted as of 04/22/2011 . If updates have been made to the opportunity synopsis, update information is provided below the synopsis.

If you would like to receive notifications of changes to the grant opportunity click send me change notification emails . The only thing you need to provide for this service is your email address. No other information is requested.

Any inconsistency between the original printed document and the disk or electronic document shall be resolved by giving precedence to the printed document.

Document Type: Grants Notice
Funding Opportunity Number: 11-538
Opportunity Category: Discretionary
Posted Date: Apr 22, 2011
Creation Date: Apr 22, 2011
Original Closing Date for Applications: Jul 21, 2011    07/21/2011 Initiation Project 08/04/2011 Targeted STEM Infusion Project 08/04/2011 Proposals for Research Initiation Awards Proposals Accepted Anytime Planning Grants; Broadening Participation Research in STEM Education Proposals
Current Closing Date for Applications: Jul 21, 2011    07/21/2011 Initiation Project 08/04/2011 Targeted STEM Infusion Project 08/04/2011 Proposals for Research Initiation Awards Proposals Accepted Anytime Planning Grants; Broadening Participation Research in STEM Education Proposals
Archive Date:
Funding Instrument Type: Grant
Category of Funding Activity: Science and Technology and other Research and Development
Category Explanation:
Expected Number of Awards: 23
Estimated Total Program Funding: $7,000,000
Award Ceiling: $2,500,000
Award Floor: $50,000
CFDA Number(s): 47.076  --  Education and Human Resources
Cost Sharing or Matching Requirement: No

Eligible Applicants

Others (see text field entitled "Additional Information on Eligibility" for clarification)

Additional Information on Eligibility:

*Organization Limit: Proposals may only be submitted by the following: -Tribal Colleges and Universities, Alaska Native-serving institutions and Native Hawaiian-serving institutions as defined in Section IV of this solicitation.????Priority for TSIP??awards will be given to TCUP-eligible institutions that have not previously received Implementation-level support. *PI Limit:For the Planning Grant and Initiation Project award tracks, the??Principal Investigator (PI) is expected to be the chief academic officer of the institution, or another senior academic officer responsible for oversight and management of curriculum and instructional policies for the institution.?? All full time faculty members??at TCUP-eligible institutions are eligible to serve as PI on Broadening Participation Research in STEM Education. Typically, the PI for??Targeted STEM Infusion Projects and Research Initiation Award??proposals would be a member of the STEM faculty. Prospective PIs are encouraged to consult TCUP program staff.

Agency Name

National Science Foundation

Description

The Tribal Colleges and Universities Program (TCUP) provides awards to Tribal Colleges and Universities, Alaska Native-serving institutions, and Native Hawaiian-serving institutions to promote high quality science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) education, research, and outreach. TCUP-eligible institutions are predominantly two-year and community colleges. Support is available to TCUP-eligible institutions (see the Additional Eligibility subsection of Section IV of this solicitation) for Planning Grants, Initiation Projects, Broadening Participation Research in STEM Education??(BPR) Projects,??Targeted STEM Infusion Projects (TSIP), and Research Initiation Awards (RIA). Through these mechanisms, along with collaborations with other National Science Foundation (NSF) units and its work with other organizations,??TCUP??aims to??increase Native individuals' participation in STEM careers and the quality of STEM programs at??TCUP-eligible institutions. TCUP strongly encourages the inclusion of activities that will benefit veterans. Planning Grants provide support to undertake self-analysis of the TCUP-eligible institution's undergraduate STEM programs to identify components that need improvement or enhancement in order to ensure a high-quality??undergraduate STEM education.?? Initiation??Projects provide support to design, implement??and assess comprehensive institutional efforts to increase the numbers of STEM students and the quality of their preparation by strengthening STEM education and research. Initiation??Projects create and/or adapt and assess innovative models and materials for teaching and learning in STEM, embody knowledge about how students learn most effectively in STEM teaching and learning activities, and bring STEM disciplinary advances into the undergraduate experience. Broadening Participation Research in STEM Education (BPR) provides support for research projects that seek to create and study new models and innovations in STEM teaching and learning, enhance the understanding of the participation of diverse groups in STEM education and inform education practices and interventions.?? BPR projects add new research-based strategies and models to broadening participation in STEM and increase the capacity of scholars in TCUP-eligible institutions to conduct this type of research. Targeted STEM Infusion Projects (TSIP) provide support toward achieving a short-term, well-defined goal that promises to improve the quality of undergraduate STEM education at an eligible institution.?? Targeted STEM Infusion Projects could, for example, enhance academic infrastructure by systematically adding traditional knowledge to the scope or content of a STEM course, updating curriculum, modernizing laboratory research equipment, or improving the computational network array for research and education. Research Initiation Awards (RIA) provide support for??faculty members in STEM areas at??TCUP-eligible institutions to pursue research at an NSF-funded Center, at a research-intensive institution, or at a national laboratory. Awards are intended to help further the faculty member's research capability and effectiveness, to improve research and teaching at his or her home institution, and to involve undergraduate students in research experiences. These awards are particularly appropriate??as a means of recruiting and retaining??highly qualified scientists and engineers at TCUP-eligible institutions.Other funding opportunities include: Conferences, Symposia, and Workshops; EArly-concept Grants for Exploratory Research (EAGER) and Grants for Rapid Response Research (RAPID) grants; and Grant Supplements for existing awards. PIs are invited to seek supplemental support from NSF for their participating students and faculty who are accepted as participants in one of four Department of Energy??initiatives: Science Undergraduate Laboratory Internships (SULI), Faculty-Student Teams (FaST), Community College Institutes (CCI),and Pre-Service Teacher (PST) Internships. The Dear Colleague Letter is found here. The initiatives are intended to support the research opportunities in DoE national laboratories during the summer.

Link to Full Announcement

NSF Publication 11-538

If you have difficulty accessing the full announcement electronically, please contact:

NSF grants.gov support
grantsgovsupport@nsf.gov
If you have any problems linking to this funding announcement, please contact

Synopsis Modification History

There are currently no modifications for this opportunity.

Subject: Awards and Recognition News Release (Region 9): U.S. EPA launches "Federal Green Challenge" in the Pacific Southwest
From:
"U.S. EPA" < usaepa@govdelivery.com > To: john@ironmountainmine.com

U.S. EPA launches "Federal Green Challenge " in the Pacific Southwest

Federal participants pledge to cut federal waste, reduce "carbon footprints" and save money

SAN FRANCISCO -- The United States Environmental Protection Agency's Pacific Southwest Region has launched the West Coast Federal Green Challenge. The campaign kicks off during Earth Week and celebrates the commitment of 34 federal agencies, representing more than 150,000 federal employees doing their part to reduce their environmental impact. Under this new initiative, federal government facilities pledge to reduce their carbon emissions by 5% or more per year in at least two of six areas: waste, water, energy, transportation, electronics, and purchasing.

“As the nation's largest purchaser of goods and services, spending $425 billion a year, the federal government should leverage its collective purchasing power to protect human health and the environment,” said Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator of EPA's Pacific Southwest Region. Federal agencies have responded enthusiastically to our call to reduce environmental footprints.”

Environmentally preferable purchasing helps the environment when agencies buy less, or choose “green” products. Blumenfeld also noted that the federal government is the largest buyer of energy in the U.S., and accounts for 7% of the world's information technology purchases. The federal government also controls a real estate portfolio of more than 1.2 million assets including 550,000 buildings.

Joining the West Coast Green Challenge are:

All California

· Navy Region Southwest (predominantly San Diego Area)

· US Forest Service (Region 5)

· Rural Development (California)

San Francisco Bay Area

· US Environmental Protection Agency (Pacific Southwest Region)

· NASA (Ames Research Center)

· United States Postal Service (San Francisco District)

· Center for Medicare and Medicaid

· Office of Labor-Management Standards

· Health and Human Services (Office of Assistant Secretary for Health)

· San Francisco Federal Executive Board

· Employee Benefits Security Administration

· Division of Federal Workers' Compensation

· Department of Labor (Office of Assistant Secretary for Administration & Management)

· Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry

· US Treasury (San Francisco Financial Center)

· Social Security Administration (Richmond)

· Golden Gate National Recreation Area

· Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory

· Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory

· General Services Administration (San Francisco Office)

· Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation

· US Department of Veterans Affairs (Northern California Health Care System)

· Small Business Administration (Region 9)

Los Angeles

· Greater Los Angeles Federal Executive Board

· Drug Enforcement Administration (Los Angeles)

· US Department of Housing and Urban Development (Los Angeles Office)

· US Citizen and Immigration Services (Western Region)

· US Attorney's Office (Central District of CA)

Sacramento

· Bureau of Indian Affairs (Sacramento)

· Fish & Wildlife Service (Pacific Southwest Region)

Arizona

· Grand Canyon National Park

Nevada

· Navy Region Southwest (1 base)

· Lake Mead National Recreation Area

Hawaii

· Hawai'i Volcanoes National Park

The Federal Green Challenge was originally launched in 2008 in EPA's Pacific Northwest Region. This new effort will expand the Federal Green Challenge to the entire West Coast. Last year, the Federal Green Challenge in the Pacific Northwest Region reduced the carbon footprint of its partners by 380 million pounds of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) and saved over $1 million for the government.

In addition to the Pacific Southwest Region's new partners, six new partners are also joining the Pacific Northwest's 23 existing partners: Census Bureau (Seattle Regional Office), Dept. of Commerce Office of Inspector General (Seattle Regional Office), Federal Emergency Management Agency (Region 10, Bothell Federal Regional Center), National Archives & Records Administration (Pacific Alaska Region), Seattle Federal Executive Board, Small Business Administration (Seattle District Office), and U.S. Attorney's Office (Western District of Washington).

For more information on the West Coast Federal G reen Challenge please visit,

http://www.epa.gov/region9/fedfac/green/index.html

Media Contact: Margot Perez-Sullivan, perezsullivan.margot@epa.gov

Subject: Earth Month Tip of the Day: Proper maintenance reduces waste.
From:
"U.S. EPA" < usaepa@govdelivery.com > To: john@ironmountainmine.com

MSDSonline Launches New Hazardous Chemical Inventory Management...

April 22, 2011 -- Comprehensive Compliance Management Solution for EH&S Professionals View News Release

Green and Cost-Effective Solutions From Intelligent Decisions, Inc.,...

April 22, 2011 -- With the Federal Government Focusing More Than Ever on Green IT, Intelligent Decisions to Highlight Company's Energy-Efficient and Cost Reducing Solutions at AFCEA Energy and the Environment IT... View News Release

Catapult Technology Wins General Services Administration's Mentor...

April 22, 2011 -- Catapult Technology, Ltd. has won the Administrator's Award for Mentorship Excellence in recognition of Catapult's participation in the U.S. General Services Administration's (GSA)... View News Release

USOBA Announces Biggest-Ever EVOLUTION Debt Relief Conference

April 22, 2011 -- The United States Organizations for Bankruptcy Alternatives (USOBA) today announced Evolution2011, the largest and most significant conference of its kind in the history of the debt relief industry.... View News Release

Financial Services Lobbyist Mark Guimond to Speak at Debt Relief...

April 22, 2011 -- Mark Guimond, a leading lobbyist for financial services issues and trade associations, will be a featured speaker at the TASC "Mission Possible Part 2" Conference in Las Vegas on the subject... View News Release

Resource Record Details

FEMA-National Marine Fisheries Service Programmatic Biological Assessment

FEMA has prepared this Programmatic Biological Assessment (PBA) for the purpose of initiating a programmatic consultation with the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). This PBA describes the types of projects usually funded by FEMA and it evaluates typical recurring actions undertaken by FEMA within the State of California in preparation for and in the wake of disasters. This document will facilitate FEMA's compliance with the Endagered Species Act (ESA) by providing a framework to address affects to Federally listed species from projects typically funded in response to flood, earthquake, fire, and wind disasters, and to prevent future disasters resulting from these types of events. Through programmatic consultation, NMFS and FEMA intend to streamline the consultations process for these typically recurring actions in California.


Document Details:
Resource Type: Document / Report
Audience Categories: Volunteers
Businesses / Professionals
Educational Institutes and Professionals
Floodplain Managers
General Public / Households
Design and Construction Industry
Scientific and Research Organizations / Institutions
Hazard Mitigation Officers
State, Local and Tribal Representatives
Emergency Personnel and Managers
Children / Kids
Lenders and Brokers
Pet / Livestock Owners
Federal Agencies
News Media
Trade Associations
Insurance Industry
Realtors
Planners
FEMA Regions
Historic Preservation / Environmental
Private Not-for-Profits
Contractors and Vendors
Mapping Professionals
Hazard Types: Tsunami
Tornado
Mudslide/Landslide
Technological
Terrorism
Industry Hardship
Hurricane/Tropical Storm
Chemical/Biological
Extreme Temperatures
Flooding
Virus Threat
Drought
Dam/Levee Break
Wildfire
Earthquake
Severe Storm
Coastal Storm
Typhoon
Winter Storm
Fire
Volcano
Nuclear
Subjects: Documents for Public Review and Comment
Sustainable Development and Environmental Considerations
Last Update Date: 09/21/2007 12:02 AM 
Media Type: File
Availability: Online
Custom CD/DVD
Language: English
new Draggable('2783', {revert:true});
Resource File: View / Download / Print   (pdf 445K)
508 Accessible Format: View / Download / Print   (txt 137K)
Risk MAP FY 2011 Report to Congress
“FEMA's Risk Mapping, Assessment, and Planning (Risk MAP) Fiscal Year 2011 Report to Congress,” dated March 15, 2011, provides an update on FEMA's strategic approach, program budget and measures, and implementation for Risk MAP. FEMA encourages feedback from National Flood Insurance Program and other Risk MAP stakeholders on the strategic approach and implementation outlined in this document. Interested parties with questions pertaining to specific Risk MAP projects, including flood mapping updates, are encouraged to contact their local and State officials, who are working with their local FEMA Regional Office. Comments or questions regarding the Report to Congress can be e-mailed to FEMA-RiskMaps@dhs.gov. FEMA will not provide individual replies to comments, but all feedback will be considered in FEMA's implementation of Risk MAP.
Resource Type: Document / Report

The Notification and Federal Employee Anti-discrimination and Retaliation Act (No FEAR Act) Public Law 107-174

On May 15, 2002, President George W. Bush signed the Notification and Federal Employee Anti-discrimination and Retaliation Act or No FEAR Act. The Act increased accountability of Federal Departments and Agencies for acts of discrimination or reprisal against employees resulting from whistleblower complaints, and complaints before the Merit Systems Protection Board and Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

Under Title III of the Act, departments and agencies are required to post on their public web sites, summary statistical data relating to equal employment opportunity complaints filed against the department or agency.

Both the Department of Homeland Security and FEMA will post to the respective public web sites statistical information in accordance with the No FEAR Act. This data will be updated on a quarterly basis for the current fiscal year.

For further information, please contact the Office of Equal Rights.

Equal Rights Officer Cadre

The Equal Rights Officer (ERO) cadre is a diverse group composed of persons with backgrounds in such fields as EEO, Civil Rights, human resources management, conflict resolution, and community organization. They serve on the direct staff of the Federal Coordinating Officer (FCO) at the Disaster Field Office (DFO). EROs receive both classroom instruction and mentoring in the field before deploying independently.

The ERO cadre offers the following services:

Civil Rights Resolution - Works proactively with Community Relations, Public Affairs, Human Services, and other DFO components to resolve individual or group Civil Rights issues; visits and speaks with key community leaders and organizations; assesses accessibility at Disaster Recovery Centers and distributes information about OER programs.

Technical Assistance and Training - Provides advice and guidance to the FCO on EEO and Civil Rights matters; presents training on sexual harassment prevention, cultural diversity, and the EEO process.

EEO Counseling - assists FEMA employees, employment applicants, and managers to resolve problems quickly; guides supervisors through downsizing to achieve the best possible outcome; processes all complaints that cannot be resolved informally.

The job of the ERO often is described as "providing mitigation for people." Just as FEMA works with individuals and communities to avoid or lessen the impact of natural hazards, so EROs work proactively to mitigate current and future people problems.

For more information on the ERO Cadre, please view the document below.

Equal Rights Officer Cadre ( PDF 12KB)

NIC

Sort By: Title Issuance Date Revision Date
Total Documents: 8 Page 1 of 1
National Incident Management System (March 2004) (current)
Type: Significant Policy Document File: NIMS_Doc_March_2004l.pdf
Office / Directorate: NIC Docket ID: FEMA-2008-0011
Issuance Date: 2004-03-01     Revision Date: 2004-03-01

National Incident Management System (April 2008) (proposed)
Type: Significant Policy Document File: National_Incident_Mgmt_System__proposed__April_2008.pdf
Office / Directorate: NIC Docket ID: FEMA-2008-0008
Issuance Date: 2008-04-23     Revision Date: 2008-04-23

Fact Sheet: NIMS Implementation Activities for Hospitals and Healthcare Systems
Type: Significant Policy Document File: Fact_Sheet_-_NIMS_Imp_Activities_for_Hosp_and_Healthcare_Systems.pdf
Office / Directorate: NIC Docket ID: FEMA-2008-0011
Issuance Date: 2006-09-12     Revision Date: 2006-09-12

NIMS Implementation Activities for Hospital and Healthcare Systems
Type: Significant Policy Document File: NIMS_Implementation_Activities_for_Hosp_and_Healthcare_Systems.pdf
Office / Directorate: NIC Docket ID: FEMA-2008-0011
Issuance Date: 2006-09-12     Revision Date: 2006-09-12

NIMS Implementation Matrix for Tribal and Local Jurisdictions (10/1/06 to 9/30/07)
Type: Significant Policy Document File: NIMS_Implementation_Matrix_for_Tribal_and_Local_Juris_Oct_06_-_Sept_07.pdf
Office / Directorate: NIC Docket ID: FEMA-2008-0011
Issuance Date: 2007-12-07     Revision Date: 2007-12-07

NIMS Implementation Matrix for State and Territories (10/1/06 to 9/30/07)
Type: Significant Policy Document File: NIMS_Implementation_Matrix_for_States_and_Territories_Oct_06_-_Sept_07.pdf
Office / Directorate: NIC Docket ID: FEMA-2008-0011
Issuance Date: 2007-12-07     Revision Date: 2007-12-07

FY 2007 NIMS Compliance Metrics Guide for States and Territories
Type: Significant Policy Document File: fy07_comp_guide_st.pdf
Office / Directorate: NIC Docket ID: FEMA-2008-0011
Issuance Date: 2007-04-07     Revision Date: 2007-04-07

FY 2007 NIMS Compliance Metrics Guide for Tribal Nations and Local Governments
Type: Significant Policy Document File: fy07_comp_guide_tl.pdf
Office / Directorate: NIC Docket ID: FEMA-2008-0011
Issuance Date: 2007-04-07     Revision Date: 2007-04-07

State of California

Overview

California is located on the west coast of the mainland United States, and borders the RIX states of Nevada and Arizona. The time zone in California is UTC/GMT-8, with Daylight Savings Time.

Recent disasters included severe storms, flooding, landslides, mudslides, debris flow, levee breaks, and wildfires that destroyed forests infested with bark beetles.  

California is particularly susceptible to earthquakes . With 33 million people, California is the country's most populous state. Densely populated coastal cities located on faults are at special risk. 

Sacramento, the state capital, is located in north central California. The FEMA Region IX office is located in Oakland. Semi-permanent Joint (FEMA-State-Tribal) Field Offices (JFOs) are located in Rancho Cordova near Sacramento, and in Pasadena, as needed. 

Back To Top

Federal Environmental Requirements and Agencies

Compliance with the federal National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and other laws is required for obligation of FEMA funds. FEMA's Region 9 Environmental Office consults with the following agencies and others as needed:

Back To Top

State of California Environmental Requirements and Agencies

The State of California is responsible for compliance with State laws and regulations, including the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The following are links to helpful state agencies and resources for environmental compliance:

Back To Top

Environmental Issues

The US Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service share responsibility for implementing the Endangered Species Act .

The 307 federally-listed threatened and endangered species in California include: red-legged frog, garter snake, Baker's larkspur, clapper rail, condor, salt marsh harvest mouse, and showy Indian clover.

Salmon and steelhead, and habitat in many streams, are a priority for both services. 

Back To Top

Historic and Cultural Preservation Issues

There are more federally recognized Native American tribes in California than in any other State. 

Every county and nearly every town in California has sites listed on or eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places .

Back To Top

Programmatic Environmental Assessment (PEA) for California

Many Project Worksheets prepared in California disasters (under FEMA's Public Assistance Program) are of such scale and complexity that they would require preparation of an Environmental Assessment (EA). Most actions proposed for FEMA funding in California can be grouped by type of action or location, and evaluated in a Programmatic Environmental Assessment (PEA) without the need to develop a time-consuming, stand- alone EA for each project.

FEMA RIX has developed a PEA to facilitate FEMA's compliance with NEPA. The PEA provides a framework to address the impacts of projects funded in response to flood, earthquake, fires, rain and wind. The Programmatic approach helps expedite the environmental review and the receipt of federal funds.

Back To Top

Programmatic Section 7 Consultations for California

FEMA RIX has negotiated Programmatic Biological Assessments  to streamline coordination with the federal wildlife agencies (NMFS and USFWS).

Back To Top

Programmatic Historic Preservation Agreement for California

The Programmatic Agreement between FEMA, the California State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), the California Governor's Office of Emergency Services, and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) helps expedite the review of projects proposed for FEMA funding that could affect historic properties, such as those involving the repair, restoration and replacement of public infrastructure.  

Attachment A
When a change in reasonably anticipated future land use assumptions or a remedy occurs at any time after a Record of Decision (ROD) has been signed (including a change that occurs after construction has been completed) and there is an anticipated use of Fund money, Regions should consult with the Assessment and Remediation Division (ARD) in the Office of Superfund Remediation and Technology Innovation (OSRTI) and should be prepared to discuss the questions below and provide other information as appropriate. For Potentially Responsible Party (PRP) lead sites, Regions also should coordinate with the Office of Site Remediation Enforcement (OSRE) as to whether additional Agency costs can be recovered and other related enforcement issues. The Region should consider a number offactors in evaluating whether it would be appropriate to pursue a change in the land use or selected remedy. These include, but are not limited to:
1.
Is the potential change in the reasonably anticipated future land use consistent with the Region's analysis of the remedy selected in the ROD? For example, would the remedy remain protective of human health and the environment in light of the potential change in anticipated future land use? Is a new risk assessment needed to estimate potential risks to human health and the environment due to the proposed changes?
2.
Does the potential change in reasonably anticipated future land use appear reasonable and feasible? If the potential change occurs after the remedy is constructed, is the proposed use compatible with the existing remedy (including ICs), or is additional work needed? If so, who will be responsible for the additional costs?
3.
Does the potential change in anticipated future land use affect any of the nine NCP criteria used to evaluate alternatives? (e.g., long-term effectiveness may be improved by certain types ofreuse that help preserve the integrity of remedy).
4.
How have the affected communities (including environmental justice communities) and other stakeholders been involved in identifying the potential change in reasonably anticipated future land use? Are there conflicting views about the potential change in reasonably anticipated future land use?
5.
Does new, reliable, and up-to-date information support are-evaluation of the assumptions regarding reasonably anticipated future land use made by the Region previously in the ROD? Was the new proposed reasonably anticipated future land use identified and rejected previously in the CERCLA remedy selection process? Ifso, does new information or a change in circumstances justify a re-examination of the issue?
6.
What is the potential financial impact on the Agency's budget associated with modifying the remedial action based on the potential change in reasonably anticipated future land use? What is the estimated cost of revising already-prepared analys is and documents, modifying, terminating or re-implementing ICs? Does the potential change in land use present long·term savings through, for example, reduced Operation and Maintenance (O&M) requirements, fewer Ies that require monitoring, etc.?
7.
At a Fund-lead site, could any additional expense be characterized as a prohibited enhancement or betterment?
8.
At a PRP-Iead site, is the PRP or other private party (e.g., a bona fide prospective purchaser) willing to assume any additional cost that might be associated with modifying the selected remedy based on a new anticipated future land use assumption? Has the PRP or other private party provided sufficient, reasonably reliable financial assurance to ensure completion of any revised remedial action?
9.
Is the potential change in reasonably anticipated future land use designed primarily to position a site for more stringent cleanup or a less stringent cleanup?

ICs should be carefully evaluated, selected, and narrowly tailored to meet the cleanup objectives. J7 It is important that site managers involve the appropriate local government agencies in discussions on the types ofcontrols that are being considered as early in the remedial process as possible. Local government officials can offer valuable information on the land use controls available in their jurisdiction and may offer creative solutions that protect human health and the environment while also protecting other local stakeholder interests. Discussions with the local government and community give the Regions the opportunity to identify whether a particular stakeholder group may be affected as a result ofa proposed Ie or to determine if the community has special needs in regard to an IC. In addition, discussions with individuals living on or near a site may reveal information regarding the potential efficacy of an IC. It may also be possible to provide technical assistance to the community so they can obtain a technical expert to assist them in evaluating Ies and the overall remedy.
The site manager should ensure that there is a process that routinely and critically evaluates the lCs to determine: (1) whether the mechanism remains in place; and (2) whether the ICs are providing the protection required by the remedy. This is routinely carried out through Institutional Control Implementation Plans with monitoring schedules and through statutory Five-Year Reviews.
Regions should take into account reasonably anticipated future land uses when selecting ICs and drafting the specific IC requirements and evaluating which Ie instruments may be best to achieve the IC objectives. For example, putting in place ICs that require the prior approval of the state environmental agency in addition to the local government prior to any disturbance ofa remedy may help to limit the activities that may compromise the remedy and/or result in exposures to humans. The Ie may, however~ allow for other uses of the site that do not negatively affect remedy protectiveness (e.g., prohibit heavy machinery usage on or near the remedy, while allowing light recreational uses, such as soccer fields).
Depending on the type of IC, there are different recommendations on how to enforce them. For governmental controls (e.g., zoning, permitting, etc.), EPA may encourage the local government to enter into agreements with the responsible parties and other stakeholders to memorialize various Ie commitments, such as monitoring them periodically, correcting breaches, etc. For proprietary controls (e.g., restrictive covenants), EPA can refer violations to the Department ofJustice or to a State's environmental agency to take action in federal or state court. For enforcement tools (e.g., consent decrees), EPA can use CERCLA or other cleanup authority to enforce the restrictions defined in these documents. Finally, information devices (e.g., placement of warning signs, fishing restrictions, registries, etc.) are not easily enforced by the EPA, but some states can enforce the placement of notices and some states can require that allies be placed in the state registry.
17 "Institutional Controls: A Site Manager's Guide to Identifying, Evaluating and Selecting Institutional Controls at Superfund and RCRA Action Cleanups," EPA-540-F-OO-005, OSWER 9355.0-74FS-P, September 2000. Available at: http://epa.gov/supcrfundlpolicy/ic/guidelguide.pdf.
II

47.079  --  International Science and Engineering (OISE)

Crosscutting/NSF-wide

Water Sustainability and Climate  (WSC) 11
1

CONTACTS
Crosscutting Programs

Name Dir/Div Name Dir/Div
Enriqueta  C. Barrera GEO/EAR Paul  Bishop ENG/CBET
Cheryl  Eavey SBE/SES Bruce  Hamilton ENG/EFRI
Robert  O'Connor SBE/SES Thomas  Torgersen GEO/EAR
Saran  Twombly BIO/DEB Kathleen  Weathers

PROGRAM GUIDELINES
1
Solicitation  10-524

SYNOPSIS

One of the most urgent challenges facing the world today is ensuring an adequate supply and quality of water in light of both burgeoning human needs and climate variability and change. Despite its importance to life on Earth, there are major gaps in our basic understanding of water availability, quality and dynamics, and the impact of both a changing and variable climate, and human activity, on the water system.  The goal of the Water Sustainability and Climate (WSC) solicitation is to understand and predict the interactions between the water system and climate change, land use, the built environment, and ecosystem function and services through place-based research and integrative models. Studies of the water system using observations at specific sites in combination with models that allow for spatial and temporal extrapolation to other regions, as well as integration across the different processes in that system are encouraged, especially to the extent that they advance the development of theoretical frameworks and predictive understanding. Specific topics of interest include:

  • Determining the inputs, outputs, and potential changes in water budgets in response to both climate variability and change, and human activity, and the effect of these changes on biogeochemical cycles, water quality, long-term chemical transport and transformation, terrestrial, aquatic and coastal ecosystems, landscape evolution and human settlements and behavior.
  • Developing theoretical frameworks and models that incorporate the linkages and feedbacks among atmospheric, terrestrial, aquatic, oceanic, and social processes that can be used to predict the potential impact of climate variability and change, land use and human activity on water systems on decadal to centennial scales in order to provide a basis for adaptive management of water resources.
  • Determining how our built water systems and our governance systems can be made more reliable, resilient and sustainable to meet diverse and often conflicting needs, such as minimizing consumption of water for energy generation, industrial and agricultural production and built environment requirements, reuse for both potable and non-potable needs, ecosystem protection, and flood control and storm water management.

Proposals may establish new observational sites or utilize existing sites and facilities already supported by NSF or other federal and state agencies (e.g. USEPA, USGS). 

Proposals that do not broadly integrate across the biological sciences, engineering, geosciences, and social sciences may be returned without review.  Successful proposals are expected to study water systems in their entirety and to enable a new interdisciplinary paradigm in water research.


Program Information 

Program Number/Title (010): 15.648 Central Valley Project Improvement (CVPI) Anadromous Fish Restoration Program (AFRP) Popular Name (020): (CVPI, AFRP) Federal Agency (030): Fish and Wildlife Service, Department of the Interior Authorization (040): Central Valley Project Improvement Act, Title 34, Public Law 102-575; Federal Grant and Cooperative Agreement Act, Public Law 97-258, 31 U.S.C. 6301-6308. Objectives (050): (a) To protect, restore, and enhance fish, wildlife, and associated habitats in the Central Valley and Trinity River basins of California; (b) To address impacts of the Central Valley Project on fish, wildlife and associated habitats; (c) To improve the operational flexibility of the Central Valley Project; (d) To increase water-related benefits provided by the Central Valley Project to the State of California through expanded use of voluntary water transfers and improved water conservation; (e) To contribute to the State of California's interim and long-term efforts to protect the San Francisco Bay/Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Estuary; (f) To achieve a reasonable balance among competing demands for use of Central Valley Project water, including the requirements of fish and wildlife, agricultural, municipal and industrial and power contractors. Types of Assistance (060): PROJECT GRANTS Uses and Use Restrictions (070): Funds may be used for research to improve management and increase Anadromous fish resources; spawning area improvement; installation of fish passages; construction of fish protection devices, and data collection. Eligibility Requirements (080) Applicant Eligibility (081): Applicants may be State, local governments, Native American Organizations, other public nonprofit institutions/organizations, private nonprofit/organization. No other Federal agency may apply. Beneficiary Eligibility (082): General public. Credentials/Documentation (083): No Credentials or documentation are required. OMB Circular No. A-87 applies to this program. Application and Award Process (090) Preapplication Coordination (091): Preapplication coordination is not applicable. Environmental impact information is not required for this program. This program is excluded from coverage under E.O. 12372. Application Procedures (092): OMB Circular No. A-102 applies to this program. OMB Circular No. A-110 applies to this program. The application should include the project proposal and be submitted through Grants.gov. The proposal contains the narrative description and budgetary information of the project. Only information that is pertinent to the project should be included. The project proposal should also indicate whether partial funding of the project is practicable, and, if so, what specific portion(s) of the project could be implemented with what level of funding. A project proposal that is part of a longer term initiative will be considered, however, the proposed project's objectives, benefits, and tasks must stand on their own, as there are no assurances that additional funding would be awarded in subsequent years for associated or complementary projects. An incomplete proposal will not be considered for funding. Award Procedure (093): The successful applicant will be notified after selection and confirmation of available funding. An applicant should not initiate a project in expectation of USFWS funding, nor should they purchase materials or begin work until such time as they receive the final award document signed by an authorized Service official. Deadlines (094): Contact the headquarters or regional office, as appropriate, for application deadlines. Range of Approval/Disapproval Time (095): Awards are anticipated within 90 days or less. Appeals (096): Contact the headquarters or regional office. Renewals (097): Contact the headquarters or regional office. Assistance Consideration (100) Formula and Matching Requirements (101): Statutory formulas are not applicable to this program.
Matching Requirements: The matching requirement is based on the project. For specific information see the Central Valley Project Improvement Act, Section 3406 Fish, Wildlife and Habitat Restoration.
MOE requirements are not applicable to this program. Length and Time Phasing of Assistance (102): Project awards are generally from one to five years, depending on the complexity of the project and availability of funds. The five year restriction on the length of time is due to the Period of Availability of Funds limited to the five (5) year rule. See the following for information on how assistance is awarded/released: Contact the headquarters or regional office. Post Assistance Requirements (110) Reports (111): Program reports are not applicable. Cash reports are not applicable. Progress reports are not applicable. “Recipients may be required to complete and submit a Federal Financial Report (SF-425).”. Performance monitoring is not applicable. Audits (112): In accordance with the provisions of OMB Circular No. A-133 (Revised, June 27, 2003), "Audits of States, Local Governments, and Non-Profit Organizations," nonfederal entities that expend financial assistance of $500,000 or more in Federal awards will have a single or a program-specific audit conducted for that year. Nonfederal entities that expend less than $500,000 a year in Federal awards are exempt from Federal audit requirements for that year, except as noted in Circular No. A-133. Records (113): Records are required to be maintained for three years following submission of the final expenditure report. Financial Information (120) Account Identification (121): 14-1611-0-1-302. Obligations (122): (Project Grants) FY 09 $8,800,000; FY 10 $9,000,000; FY 11 $9,000,000 Range and Average of Financial Assistance (123): No Data Available. Program Accomplishments (130): Fiscal Year 2010: No Current Data Available Fiscal Year 2011: anticipated: No Update. Fiscal Year 2012: No Current Data Available Regulations, Guidelines, and Literature (140): None. Information Contacts (150) Regional or Local Office (151) : See Regional Agency Offices. Potential applicants may contact the local office at: Anadromous Fish Restoration Program Stockton Fish and Wildlife Service Office 4001 N. Wilson Way, Stockton, California 95205. Telephone: (209) 946-6400, Fax (209) 946-6355. Headquarters Office (152): Ren Lohoefner, 2800 Cottage Way, Suite W2606, Sacramento, California 95825 Phone: (916) 414-6464 Fax: (916) 414-6464. Website Address (153): http://www.delta.dfg.ca.gov/afrp/title34.asp#top . Related Programs (160): Not Applicable. Examples of Funded Projects (170): Fiscal Year 2010: No Current Data Available Fiscal Year 2011: anticipated. Fiscal Year 2012: No Current Data Available Criteria for Selecting Proposals (180): Proposals will be reviewed by a team of Federal staff based on the following criteria: Addresses high priority need as described in the Request for Proposal (RFP) "Purposes and Funding Priorities"; Clearly stated goals, objectives, hypotheses, and relevance of idea; Approach is valid and technically sound; Primary Investigators and/or subcontractors record of performance and expertise; Budget is reasonable and provides good value for funds requested; and Cost sharing or in-kind contributions.
General Docket
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Court of Appeals Docket #: 11-15383 Docketed: 02/16/2011
Nature of Suit: 1893 Environmental Matters
USA, et al v. Iron Mountain Mines, Inc., et al
Appeal From: U.S. District Court for Eastern California, Sacramento
Fee Status: Paid
Case Type Information:
     1) civil
     2) united states
     3) null
Originating Court Information:
District: 0972-2 : 2:91-cv-00768-JAM-JFM
Court Reporter: Kelly Ann O'Halloran
Trial Judge: John A. Mendez, District Judge
     Date Filed: 06/12/1991
     Date Order/Judgment:      Date Order/Judgment EOD:      Date NOA Filed:      Date Rec'd COA:
     12/16/2010      12/16/2010      02/14/2011      02/15/2011
District: 0972-2 : 2:91-cv-01167-DFL-JFM
     Date Filed: 08/21/1991

14

03/09/2011  9  Filed (ECF) Appellees Bayer Cropscience Inc.'s and Rhone-Poulnec Basic Chemicals Company Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. Date of service: 03/09/2011. [7674036] (MWP)
03/09/2011  10  Filed (ECF) Appellees Bayer Cropscience Inc.'s and Rhone-Poulnec Basic Chemicals Company Motion for sanctions. Date of service: 03/09/2011. [7674081] (MWP)
03/09/2011  11  Filed (ECF) Appellees Bayer Cropscience Inc.'s and Rhone-Poulnec Basic Chemicals Company response opposing motion (,motion to withdraw as counsel). Date of service: 03/09/2011. [7674132] (MWP)
03/09/2011  12  Filed (ECF) Appellees Bayer Cropscience Inc.'s and Rhone-Poulnec Basic Chemicals Company Corrected Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. Date of service: 03/09/2011. [7674164] (MWP)
03/21/2011  13  Filed (ECF) Appellees State of California and USA response supporting motion (,motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction). Date of service: 03/21/2011. [7688265] (JMP)
03/31/2011  14  Filed (ECF) Appellees Bayer Cropscience Inc.'s and Rhone-Poulnec Basic Chemicals Company Stipulated Motion for miscellaneous relief [Stipulated Motion and Proposed Order Amending Notice of Appeal ]. Date of service: 03/31/2011. [7700600] (MWP)
03/31/2011  15  Filed (ECF) Appellees Bayer Cropscience Inc.'s and Rhone-Poulnec Basic Chemicals Company Correspondence: Letter re Stipulated Motion and Proposed Order. Date of service: 03/31/2011 [7700607] (MWP)
04/15/2011  16  Filed order (Appellate Commissioner) The stipulated motion to amend the notice of appeal filed on February 14, 2011 (the “Stipulated Motion”) is granted. The reference to “the orders made December 8, 2000, relating to the consent decree, including the order dismissing defendants' cross-claims” is deleted from the notice of appeal. Pursuant to the Stipulated Motion, appellee Bayer Cropscience Inc.'s (“Bayer”) motion to dismiss, motion for sanctions, and opposition to appellants' motion to withdraw as counsel, and the joint response in support of Bayer's motion to dismiss filed by appellees State of California and the United States are deemed withdrawn. The motion of appellants' retained counsel, William A. Logan, Esq. and Logan and Giles LLP, to withdraw as retained counsel of record is granted. The Clerk shall amend the docket to reflect the following address for appellants T.W. Arman and Iron Mountain Mines, Inc.: P. O. Box 992867, Redding, CA 96099, (530) 275-4550. A corporation must be represented by counsel. See In re Highley, 459 F.2d 554, 555 (9th Cir. 1972). Within 28 days after the date of this order, appellants Iron Mountain Mines, Inc.'s new counsel shall file a notice of appearance with the court. A new briefing schedule shall be established upon compliance with this order. Failure to comply with this order shall result in the automatic dismissal of the appeal by Iron Mountain Mines, Inc. by the Clerk for failure to prosecute. See 9th Cir. R. 42-1. (MOATT) [7718808] (DEV)
04/15/2011  17  Terminated William A. Logan Jr. for Iron Mountain Mines, Inc. and T. W. Arman in 11-15383, Anthony Giles for Iron Mountain Mines, Inc. and T. W. Arman in 11-15383 [7718868] (DEV)
04/20/2011  18  Received notice regarding From Logan & Giles proof of service to former client of the 4/15/11 order.. [7724171] (MT)
Damien M. Schiff
Attorney
Pacific Legal Foundation
dms@pacificlegal.org
(916) 419-7111

Ex. Ord. No. 12962. Recreational Fisheries Ex. Ord. No. 12962, June 7, 1995, 60 F.R. 30769, provided: By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, and in furtherance of the purposes of the Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956 (16 U.S.C. 742a-d, and e-j), the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (16 U.S.C. 661-666c), the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), and the Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act (16 U.S.C. 1801-1882), and other pertinent statutes, and in order to conserve, restore, and enhance aquatic systems to provide for increased recreational fishing opportunities nationwide, it is ordered as follows: Section 1. Federal Agency Duties. Federal agencies shall, to the extent permitted by law and where practicable, and in cooperation with States and Tribes, improve the quantity, function, sustainable productivity, and distribution of U.S. aquatic resources for increased recreational fishing opportunities by: (a) developing and encouraging partnerships between governments and the private sector to advance aquatic resource conservation and enhance recreational fishing opportunities; (b) identifying recreational fishing opportunities that are limited by water quality and habitat degradation and promoting restoration to support viable, healthy, and, where feasible, self-sustaining recreational fisheries; (c) fostering sound aquatic conservation and restoration endeavors to benefit recreational fisheries; (d) providing access to and promoting awareness of opportunities for public participation and enjoyment of U.S. recreational fishery resources; (e) supporting outreach programs designed to stimulate angler participation in the conservation and restoration of aquatic systems; (f) implementing laws under their purview in a manner that will conserve, restore, and enhance aquatic systems that support recreational fisheries; (g) establishing cost-share programs, under existing authorities, that match or exceed Federal funds with nonfederal contributions; (h) evaluating the effects of Federally funded, permitted, or authorized actions on aquatic systems and recreational fisheries and document those effects relative to the purpose of this order; and (i) assisting private landowners to conserve and enhance aquatic resources on their lands. Sec. 2. National Recreational Fisheries Coordination Council. A National Recreational Fisheries Coordination Council (``Coordination Council'') is hereby established. The Coordination Council shall consist of seven members, one member designated by each of the following Secretaries--Interior, Commerce, Agriculture, Energy, Transportation, and Defense--and one by the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency. The Coordination Council shall: (a) ensure that the social and economic values of healthy aquatic systems that support recreational fisheries are considered by Federal agencies in the course of their actions; (b) reduce duplicative and cost-inefficient programs among Federal agencies involved in conserving or managing recreational fisheries; (c) share the latest resource information and management technologies to assist in the conservation and management of recreational fisheries; (d) assess the implementation of the Conservation Plan required under section 3 of this order; and (e) develop a biennial report of accomplishments of the Conservation Plan. The representatives designated by the Secretaries of Commerce and the Interior shall cochair the Coordination Council. Sec. 3. Recreational Fishery Resources Conservation Plan. (a) Within 12 months of the date of this order, the Coordination Council, in cooperation with Federal agencies, States, and Tribes, and after consulting with the Federally chartered Sport Fishing and Boating Partnership Council, shall develop a comprehensive Recreational Fishery Resources Conservation Plan (``Conservation Plan''). (b) The Conservation Plan will set forth a 5-year agenda for Federal agencies identified by the Coordination Council. In so doing, the Conservation Plan will establish, to the extent permitted by law and where practicable; (1) measurable objectives to conserve and restore aquatic systems that support viable and healthy recreational fishery resources, (2) actions to be taken by the identified Federal agencies, (3) a method of ensuring the accountability of such Federal agencies, and (4) a comprehensive mechanism to evaluate achievements. The Conservation Plan will, to the extent practicable, be integrated with existing plans and programs, reduce duplication, and will include recommended actions for cooperation with States, Tribes, conservation groups, and the recreational fisheries community. Sec. 4. Joint Policy for Administering the Endangered Species Act of 1973. All Federal agencies will aggressively work to identify and minimize conflicts between recreational fisheries and their respective responsibilities under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (``ESA'') (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). Within 6 months of the date of this order, the Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service will promote compatibility and reduce conflicts between the administration of the ESA and recreational fisheries by developing a joint agency policy that will; (1) ensure consistency in the administration of the ESA between and within the two agencies, (2) promote collaboration with other Federal, State, and Tribal fisheries managers, and (3) improve and increase efforts to inform nonfederal entities of the requirements of the ESA. Sec. 5. Sport Fishing and Boating Partnership Council. To assist in the implementation of this order, the Secretary of the Interior shall expand the role of the Sport Fishing and Boating Partnership Council to: (a) monitor specific Federal activities affecting aquatic systems and the recreational fisheries they support; (b) review and evaluate the relation of Federal policies and activities to the status and conditions of recreational fishery resources; and (c) prepare an annual report of its activities, findings, and recommendations for submission to the Coordination Council. Sec. 6. Judicial Review. This order is intended only to improve the internal management of the executive branch and it is not intended to create any right, benefit or trust responsibility, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or equity by a party against the United States, its agencies, its officers, or any other person. William J. Clinton.

Local Policy Networks and Agricultural Watershed Management

  1. Mark Lubell

+ Author Affiliations

  1. University of California, Davis
  2. UC Cooperative Extension
  1. Allan Fulton

+ Author Affiliations

  1. UC Cooperative Extension
  1. Address correspondence to the author at mnlubell@ucdavis.edu .

Abstract

This article emphasizes the critical role of local policy networks for the implementation of agricultural watershed management and the adoption of environmental best management practices. Local networks facilitate diffusion of innovations, the development of social capital, and cultural change. All of these elements are essential for the ability of watershed management programs to successfully solve the water quality collective action problems caused by agricultural nonpoint source pollution. Analyses of survey data from 408 orchard growers in California's Sacramento River watershed demonstrate that exposure to policy networks substantially increases the probability of adopting environmental practices. These findings have important implications for public administration and policies where implementation depends on widespread cooperation and the development of networks with public agencies.

The Watershed Agricultural Program
Manager works as a member of an interdisciplinary and multi-agency team responsible for the
administration and implementation of the Watershed Agricultural Program (WAP). The WAP
Manager is primarily responsible for inter-agency compliance with the Best Management
Practice (BMP) Procurement Procedure and the direct supervision of assigned Soil and Water
Conservation District (SWCD) staff. Work shall include coordinating with the SWCD Executive
Director, the Data and Budget Specialist, Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS)
Engineers and cooperating agency supervisors. The Program Manager shall report directly to,
and receive direction from the SWCD Executive Director. Does related work as required.

 

EPA/SWER RIN: 2050-AG40 Publication ID: Fall 2010 
Title: Emergency Planning and Community Right-To-Know Act: Amendments and Streamlining Rule 
Abstract: This supplemental proposal will address reporting thresholds for rock salt, sand, gravel, and other chemicals that pose minimal risk. The proposed rule was published on June 8, 1998 (63 FR 31268). This supplemental rule, when finalized, will minimize burden for those facilities that are currently reporting chemicals that pose minimal risk under sections 311 and 312 of the Emergency Planning and Community Right-To-Know Act. This rule, when finalized, may also reduce the number of facilities subject to these reporting requirements. The reporting requirements under sections 311 and 312 are intended to enhance communities' and emergency response officials' awareness of chemical hazards; to facilitate the development of State and local emergency response plans; and to aid communities and emergency response officials in preparing for and responding to emergencies safely and effectively. By proposing to provide relief from routine reporting of substances with minimal hazards and minimal risk, State and local officials can focus on chemicals that may pose more significant hazard or may present greater risks to the community. 
Agency: Environmental Protection Agency(EPA)  Priority: Other Significant 
RIN Status: Previously published in the Unified Agenda Agenda Stage of Rulemaking: Long-Term Actions 
Major: No  Unfunded Mandates: No 
CFR Citation: 40 CFR 370
Legal Authority: 42 USC 11002 ; 42 USC 11004 ; 42 USC 11048 ; 42 USC 11021 ; 42 USC 11022
Legal Deadline:  None
Timetable: Action Date FR Cite
Supplemental NPRM  To Be Determined 
Additional Information: Split from RIN 2050-AE17.
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No  Government Levels Affected: Federal, Local, State, Tribal 
Small Entities Affected: No  Federalism: No 
Included in the Regulatory Plan: No 
RIN Data Printed in the FR: No 
Agency Contact:
Sicy Jacob
Environmental Protection Agency
Solid Waste and Emergency Response
5104A,
Washington, DC 20460
Phone:202 564-8019
Fax:202 564-2625
Email: jacob.sicy@epa.gov
EPA/SWER RIN: 2050-AE23 Publication ID: Fall 2010 
Title: Revisions to the Comprehensive Guideline for Procurement of Products Containing Recovered Materials 
Abstract: EPA is required to prepare procurement guidelines that designate items that are or can be made with recovered materials and to issue recommendations for government procurement of these items. Once designated, procuring agencies are required to purchase these items with the highest percentage of recovered materials practicable. Government procurement of EPA-designated items containing recovered materials fosters markets for recovered materials and, thereby, closes the recycling loop. To date, EPA has designated 61 items under five Comprehensive Procurement Guidelines (CPGs). EPA has also issued a Recovered Materials Advisory Notice (RMAN) with each CPG that provides recommendations on buying the designated items. EPA also reviews existing CPG product designations for effectiveness, obsolescence, and consistency with the biobased products designation program, environmentally preferable purchasing program, and Energy Star and energy efficient products program. A CPG for Nylon Carpet was originally proposed in 2001. A Notice of Data Availability was issued asking for additional information. EPA is evaluating the comments and considering how to proceed with the CPG for Nylon Carpet. 
Agency: Environmental Protection Agency(EPA)  Priority: Substantive, Nonsignificant 
RIN Status: Previously published in the Unified Agenda Agenda Stage of Rulemaking: Long-Term Actions 
Major: No  Unfunded Mandates: No 
CFR Citation: 40 CFR 247
Legal Authority: 42 USC 6912(a)

United States Religious Leaders Honor the Moral Ascendancy of the Environmental Protection Agency


Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/g/a/2011/05/20/prweb8454200.DTL#ixzz1MvqFKdG6

Washington, DC (PRWEB) May 20, 2011

United States religious leaders, attending the annual meeting of the National Religious Coalition on Creation Care in Washington, D.C., applauded the work of the EPA and its administrator Lisa P. Jackson. In a May event at the historic Willard Hotel, the NRCCC recognized Jackson with its "Steward of Creation Award," for clean water and clean air initiatives and for having forcefully moved forward under the Clean Air Act to help regulate the atmospheric pollution of CO2 emissions and mitigate the impact of climate change.

Rabbi Warren Stone, NRCCC co-chair stated: "The EPA under Lisa P. Jackson's strong moral leadership is the most significant voice in our country acting in our interest to mitigate the devastation the atmospheric pollution of climate change and its impact on public health upon the families of our country and our world as well as all creation. We have been hit of late with so-called 'Black Swan' disasters - so described because of their magnitude but also because of our surprise when they occur. These recent unanticipated 'Black Swan" disasters include the tsunami and related nuclear devastation and harmful radiation released from the disaster at Japan's Fukushima nuclear plants rivaling Chernobyl to the major massive tornadoes destroying 1000's of homes in Alabama and throughout the Southeast as well as the current historic flooding of the Mississippi impacting and uprooting tens of 1000's of families. But with the onset of climate change, the severity and increased frequency of at least some of these events is predictable unlike the so-called 'Black Swan' devastation and in all cases, the environmental fallout is certain. These events point to our common future, a future in which climate challenges creating devastating food and water shortages will most likely challenge the public health and wellbeing of our all our country and throughout our global community."

Against this backdrop, the EPA has adopted regulations under the Clean Air Act to put limits on greenhouse-gas emissions. Jackson has said that she and President Obama would have preferred that the limits come through legislation. But efforts to pass such a bill fell apart in the Senate last year several months after the House passed cap-and-trade legislation: "So now we're left with the Clean Air Act. It's not the ideal tool, but it is a tool, and according to the Supreme Court it is a tool," Jackson said, referring to a landmark 2007 Supreme Court decision holding that the EPA can regulate greenhouse-gas emissions under the Clean Air Act upon a finding that the emissions endanger public health and welfare (theHill.com, 4/26/11).

Jackson's moves have come under sharp attack in Congress, with the coal industry particularly up in arms. In April, the House of Representatives passed a measure trying to prevent the EPA from using the Clean Air Act to regulate the atmospheric pollution of climate change. The same bill failed in the Senate in a 50-50 vote. Aides to President Obama said they would recommend he veto the legislation if it passes. (theHill.com 4/26/11).

The EPA sees faith and neighborhood communities as key to these objectives, announcing in April: "In the history of this nation, faith communities and neighborhood groups have been instrumental in efforts to open new opportunities and improve the world we live in. We are initiating today an effort to connect the talent, energy and enthusiasm we see in faith groups and communities across the nation with the work we are doing at EPA." At its May meeting and in related meetings with Congressional staffers, the NRCCC welcomed Jackson's outreach to their communities and heralded her courage and vision.


Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/g/a/2011/05/20/prweb8454200.DTL#ixzz1MuPujnC4

MOU gives city jurisdiction in local BLM lands

By Sharon Rice
Editor, The Friday Flyer

It's been years in the works, but an agreement was finally reached between the City of Canyon Lake and the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) that allows the City to enforce laws, regulations and ordinances in 800 acres of BLM land adjacent to Canyon Lake for the purposes of public safety and resource protection.
Just in time for Memorial Day weekend, the City Council passed an Urgency Ordinance during a special meeting Tuesday detailing the agreement. The Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) defines the parameters under which law enforcement protection shall be implemented and provides for mutual aid opportunities.
According to City Attorney Elizabeth Martyn, the MOA is based on the understanding that local jurisdictions can enforce laws, regulations and ordinances on BLM administered public lands so long as they do not conflict with BLM management of those lands. “Through our continued coordinated efforts, we have and will assure that no conflicts will occur,” says City Manager Lori Moss. Because the BLM doesn't have sufficient enforcement resources to prevent health and safety issues its lands, Canyon Lake's Special Enforcement team has for years, to a limited degree, patrolled the area and asked people to abide by the rules. Relatively quiet during the winter months, the area has been compared to the Colorado River in summer.
Last summer, while Pat Colleary was the City's Special Enforcement manager, he and his team made a point of patrolling the area on bike as well as boat. Pat points out that, while they didn't have authority to enforce the rules outside the City limits at that time, people in the BLM areas usually responded to personal contact by the officers in uniform, which helped discourage some of the illegal activity.
Now, with a formal agreement and fine schedule in place, there is the ability to enforce laws, regulations and ordinances regarding vehicle use, dumping, littering, fires, shooting, overnight camping, barbecues, crimes against persons, human sanitation issues and uncontrolled boating.
Along with the City's Special Enforcement team, agencies involved in enforcement will include a BLM ranger (when in the area), park ranger (Kabian Park in Quail Valley, a Riverside County Regional Park) and police and fire personnel. Enforcement expense is already proposed in the City's FY 11-12 budget.
Although Councilman Randy Bonner expressed concern about the lack of notice to the public regarding the Urgency Ordinance, Mayor Pro Tem Nancy Horton explained it's necessary to have enforcement capability in place prior to the start of the summer season so that people using the area will know what to expect.
According to Special Enforcement Officers Dennis Bickers and Ivan Henery, the team already has been making contact with those using the Back Bay area in recent weeks to let them know the rules will be enforced and fines issued beginning Memorial Day weekend.
A major advantage of having the MOU in place is the agreement among jurisdictions that boats and personal watercraft no longer will be allowed to launch from BLM property in the Back Bay; those who do launch illegally will face fines.
Finally, the City is able to support the POA's Quagga Mussel Boat Inspection Program, says Nancy. Until now, a big concern has been that boats and personal watercraft launched in the Back Bay could be brought from mussel-infected bodies of water like the Colorado River. Now, no boats will be allowed in the waters connected to Canyon Lake without being declared quagga-free at the gates.
The City and BLM will meet to discuss the effectiveness of the agreement on a regular basis and make modifications accordingly, according to Lori. Council members unanimously approved the Urgency Ordinance; however, it was part of the motion by Councilman Bonner that the Council will review public comments and information for Special Enforcement at the August 3 meeting. 

EPA Launches Awards as ‘Climate Leaders Legacy'

The Environmental Protection Agency, Climate Registry, Pew Center on Global Climate Change and Association of Climate Change Officers have announced a new national awards program for climate leadership, to serve as a legacy for the EPA's now-defunct Climate Leaders program.

The awards program is designed to recognize exemplary corporate, organizational and individual leadership in response to climate change. The first awards ceremony will be held in early 2012.

Climate Leaders was an EPA partnership with industry, started in 2002, and designed to help companies develop comprehensive climate change strategies. Firms committed to aggressive reduction goals and reported their annual progress to the EPA. Last September the EPA announced that the program would phase down its services over 2011.

In response to an EPA request for proposals in February 2011, the agency identified the consortium of three non-profits with which it will co-sponsor the new awards program.

The awards will also replace ACCO's Climate Leadership Awards, which were set up to recognize exemplary leadership by organizations in industry, government, academia and the non-profit community.

Specific categories in the new awards will include:

The organizations will publish additional information on the award categories and nomination process in the next few weeks. The EPA is also considering another joint-recognition program and said it will make an announcement once the details have been confirmed.

“Corporate leadership is essential to advancing climate and energy solutions,” said Eileen Claussen, president of the Pew Center on Global Climate Change. “In growing numbers, companies and their employees are working tirelessly in pursuit of cost-effective solutions that reduce carbon and benefit consumers. Recognizing these great accomplishments serves to motivate and accelerate efforts throughout the business community toward a cleaner, more efficient energy future.”

A public comment period is an opportunity for people to weigh in and provide ideas about what is right or wrong about a proposal—whether it is a project, a rule or guidance.   At the end of April, the Obama Administration issued “Draft Guidance on Waters Protected by the Clean Water Act.” http://water.epa.gov/lawsregs/guidance/wetlands/upload/
wous_guidance_4-2011.pdf. The public has until July 1, 2011 to review the guidance and make recommendations.

Public comment periods are taken seriously by the government.  The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency fully expect 100,000 on the draft Clean Water Act guidance.  They are required to review and weigh these comments and make appropriate changes to the guidance.  They are also required to explain why they adopted some changes and declined to incorporate others.

One thing they cannot do is add new ideas of their own.  Any changes that occur as a result of a public comment period must be based on ideas and recommendations submitted by the public.

If the comments submitted follow previous patterns, the great majority of the comments will be from write-in campaigns that support or oppose the guidance.  These are duly tabulated and they do serve to provide useful information about public opinion, but they generally do not provide the agencies with concrete suggestions on specific changes that are needed.  Nor are they backed up with citations to scientific research or other.  There will also be comments that do make specific recommendations and cite supporting documentation.  These will be analyzed for their content and it is from these comments that any changes will be derived.

What comments are most likely to be useful?

First, it is important to read and understand the guidance before developing comments.  This may sound like common sense, but it is no easy task to wade through a long document and understand it perfectly.  Comments recommending changes that do not reflect what is in the guidance, will have little weight.

The draft Clean Water Act jurisdiction guidance contains an introduction, eight sections, and an appendix.  One strategy for developing comments is to take a look at each part and considerthe following.

Does the reviewer agree with the section?

The agencies have undertaken extensive reviews of available information, which are documented in the appendix and endnotes.  Much of what is available to the agencies is in peer-reviewed publications.  Practitioners in the field also work extensively with what is called “grey literature” including procedures and studies used in administering wetland or stream programs, conducting field investigations, etc.  Submission of grey literature and other information that was not used in developing the guidance can further inform the agencies.

Sections 4, 6 and 7 of the guidance are likely to receive a great deal of attention.  Section 4 covers tributaries and discusses how the agencies will identify tributaries including physical characteristics, flow characteristics and consideration of ditches, manmade features and other relevant information.  Many states have been working independently to create methodologies for identifying streams that may be useful to describe.  Some streams run throughout the year (perennial).  Others flow only part of the year.  Stream identification methods, documentation of upstream/downstream connections, economic considerations and other related information could be submitted on this section. 

Section 6 covers ‘Other Waters' which is largely isolated waters.  It is divided into two categories.  The first is nonwetlands which are close to jurisdictional waters, for example oxbow lakes.  These are subject to the same analysis as adjacent wetlands in Section 5.   

However, isolated waters (those not close to jurisdictional waters such as streams and rivers) are treated differently from all other waters described in the guidance and it will be much harder to assert jurisdiction for isolated wetlands such as playa lakes and prairie potholes.  

This is because for all other waters the guidance allows the agencies to declare similar waters in a watershed jurisdictional if they collectively meet the significant nexus test.  However this approach cannot be used for isolated wetlands.  Isolated wetland must be considered individually and must meet the significant nexus test on a case-by-case basis. 

These waters, (an estimated 20 million acres of wetlands) have not been identified as subject to Clean Water Act jurisdiction since the SWANCC Supreme Court decision in 2001, which eliminated the “migratory bird rule” that allowed the U.S. Army Corps to assert jurisdiction if a water was used by migratory birds.  Documentation of contributions isolated waters make to jurisdictional waters such as biological connections, flood retention or other functions could be submitted on this section.  This information is still useful.

Section 7 addresses waters that are generally not jurisdictional.  This is a list of waters that are not and have never been subject to Clean Water Act jurisdiction including artificial and man-made ponds and ditches, sewer systems and erosional features such as gullies and rills.  Sometimes it is not easy to determine which waters should fall into this category.  Information on what waters should not be jurisdictional as well as the information that can be used to identify them could be submitted for this section.

The federal agencies spent considerable time developing the draft guidance.  But there may be important information that was not identified and considered.  Now there is an important opportunity to improve the guidance by identifying where the agencies got it right and why, where they did not and why, and how to fix it.

On May 2, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner said that the Treasury would stop issuing special securities that help state and local governments pay for their debt.   This was to be the first in a series of "extraordinary measures" taken by the Treasury to avoid default in the event that Congress failed to raise the debt ceiling on May 16.   On May 13, the Secretary said these extraordinary measures had been set in motion.

The Federal Reserve, too, has declared that it cannot help the states with their budget problems --   although those problems were created by the profligate banks under the Fed's purview.   The Fed advanced $12.3 trillion in liquidity and short-term loans to bail out the financial sector from the 2008 banking collapse, 64 times the $191 billion required to balance the budgets of all 50 states.   But Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke declared in January that the Fed could not make the same cheap credit lines available to state and local governments -- not because the Fed couldn't find the money, but because it was not in the Fed's legislative mandate.  

DO JUST ONE THING FOR A YEAR… AND IT ADDS UP

If one person drinks tap water instead of one liter of bottled water each day, it would save the energy equivalent 1.6 Kilowatt- hours per day, 46 gallons of gas per year, or 0.41 metric tons of CO2. If all 49 million people in the Pacific Southwest Region did the same, it would save the equivalent of 2.3 billion gallons of gas per year—the amount used by 3.8 million cars, or 20 million metric tons of CO2. If everyone in the USA did the same, it would save the equivalent of 14.2 billion gallons of gas per year—the amount used by 24.1 million cars, or 126 million metric tons of CO2.*

*This is an estimate of the greenhouse gas savings for bottled water produced and used locally. For bottled water from distant locations, the carbon footprint may double! The calculation assumes that the water is bottled using electricity with the U.S. average carbon emissions.
[Sources: Gleick & Cooley, "Energy Implications of Bottled Water," Pacific Institute, Oakland, Calif., 2009; U.S. EPA, Greenhouse Gas Equivalencies Calculator ]

EPA's mission is to protect human health and the environment. To honor the 40th anniversary of Earth Day, we invite you to join us by taking individual action—here are 40 things we can each do to reduce greenhouse gases and help save the planet:

At Home
At School
On the Road
At Work
Everywhere
1.

Stop junk mail (opt out)

9.

Perform an energy audit of school buildings

17.

Drive a more fuel efficient car, or join a car share

25.

Print less, use 100% recycled paper and print double sided

33.

Get involved—exercise your rights to promote sustainable choices

2.

Replace incandescent bulbs with compact fluorescent lights—and turn them off when not in use

10.

Teach students how to make eco-friendly choices

18.

Walk, bike, carpool or take transit as much as possible

26.

Reduce and green your vehicle fleet, increase use of public transit

34.

Switch to reusable items, such as bags and lunch containers

3.

Buy local, sustainably produced food

11.

Start a recycled materials art program

19.

Reduce your air travel and use e-tickets instead of paper

27.

Use environment-friendly cleaning supplies (e.g. Green Seal approved)

35.

Turn off lights, appliances and electronics when not in use

4.

Adjust your thermostat—up in summer, down in winter

12.

Create a compost bin for food scraps—and recycle cans, bottles and paper

20.

Go easy on the accelerator, use cruise control, and keep your car tuned up and tires well inflated

28.

Buy EPEAT certified computers and monitors

36.

Bring your own reusable mug when you go out for coffee or tea

5.

Install water saving fixtures in bath and kitchen

13.

Create an organic vegetable garden

21.

Make sure your mechanic recycles used automotive oil and coolant

29.

Use video and telephone conferences to reduce travel

37. Buy recycled and recyclable products, eliminate plastic and styrofoam
6.

Buy Energy Star certified appliances

14.

Reduce or recycle toxic chemicals in school laboratories

22.

Choose a green hotel, eco-tours and other earth-friendly travel choices

30.

Green your meetings—replace paper handouts with e-documents, recycle waste

38.

Compost your food/organic waste

7.

Install solar panels or switch to renewable energy sources

15.

Help students volunteer for local habitat restoration projects

23.

Ask hotel staff not to replace your towels and sheets every day

31.

Start a composting program and set a goal of zero waste

39.

Recycle paper, glass, plastics, electronics

8.

Shop at thrift stores and buy used or refurbished products

16.

Rent college textbooks instead of buying them

24.

Bring a reusable water bottle

32.

Organize co-workers to carpool or bike to work

40.

Keep reusable shopping bags handy and use everywhere you shop

Another Damaging Power Grab by the Obama Administration

by Of Thee I Sing 1776

Earlier this year, under the title “Who Needs Congress:  Legislation by Regulatory Fiat,” we expressed concern that the Obama Administration was moving to checkmate the 2010 Republican electoral sweep by getting its acolytes and bureaucrats in the regulatory agencies, which the Administration controls, to do its legislative work for them.  We cited our fears that the agency bureaucrats, most of whom aren't even confirmed by Congress, would use their almost unlimited power to write regulations and make legal interpretations of, ambiguous at best, legislative language to determine the “will” of Congress in passing legislation it never even read.  The common thread, we feared, was to transfer more and more control over the private sector to the Federal government.

Back in January, the fear was that the very controversial health care legislation would be expanded to incorporate provisions on which even Congress gagged.  And as it came to pass with Medicare issued regulations no one in Congress anticipated, including what Sarah Palin referred to as the “death panels” but with the more sanitized name of “end-of-life counseling”.

We expressed other fears earlier this year, none of which have abated . . . and in some cases have increased. . . an FCC power grab over the largely unregulated . . . and therefore hugely successful internet, in the form of so-called “net neutrality” rules; and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission proposal of a proposed rule to take away from the states the right to regulate retail electricity service.

And what we then referred to as the “granddaddy” of them all — the power grab of the EPA which determined that carbon emissions were  a pollutant. EPA has also moved to strip states of authority to issue permits for large power and industrial projects and grab that authority for themselves.

Yet we have underestimated the aggressiveness of the Administration in its encroaching muscularity.   The White House and its regulatory toadies are now making a serious, and we think dangerously transformative, effort to decide where in the country private companies can build manufacturing (and by extension of this incredible grab) any other facilities.

On April 20, the National Labor Relations Board filed a complaint against Boeing alleging that its decision to build a second assembly plant in South Carolina instead of the state of Washington was illegal because it amounted to a retaliatory action against the International Association of Machinists.  The NLRB seeks as a remedy for this phony cause of action a judicial order forcing Boeing to shift production of its long delayed Dreamliner commercial jet from South Carolina back to its main facility in the Seattle area,  Can anyone see presidential politics here in trying to force one of America's main competitive manufacturing companies from a red state to a blue state or are we just being cynical?  Does this have anything to do with labor's inability to force its reviled card check law through Congress?  If this action of the NLRB were to stand, card check would be small potatoes.

A little summary digression into labor law history is in order here.  In 1947 Congress passed what is known as the Taft Hartley law, which amended the National Labor Relations Act of 1935 (the “Wagner Act”).  Pre Taft Hartley employers were forbidden from engaging in certain practices, which would interfere with the rights of employees to organize and bargain collectively.  The Wagner Act permitted unions to have closed or union shops.  This shifted economic power in labor relations heavily to labor.  Thus, in 1947 the Wagner Act was amended to add among other features, a list of prohibited labor union practices such as secondary boycotts and sympathy strikes to force an employer, other than one's own, to recognize a previously unrecognized union.  Closed shops were also outlawed.  Hysterical unions feared workers would be working for slave labor.  Historian R. Alton Lee in his book on Taft-Hartley stated that . . :

urgency for amending Taft-Hartley waned during the 1950s because it did not become the slave labor law union leaders predicted.  Continued prosperity calmed fears that the law would adversely affect wages, hours, and working conditions, and labor-management relations steadily improved in most parts of the nation.

In light of Taft-Hartley provisions which made certain actions by unions illegal, a several states have enacted “right to work” laws which declare that “denial of right to work [because of] . . . non membership in a labor union [is] against public policy.  South Carolina law (Title 1, Chapter 7 states:

“It is unlawful for an employer to require an employee, as a condition of employment to join a union, or of continuance of employment to:

Be or become or remain a member or affiliate   of a labor organization or agency;

Abstain or refrain from membership in a labor organization; or

Pay any fees, dues, assessments, or other   charges or sums of money to a person or  organization.”

However, in the history of this law or any law governing labor relations never has the union movement sought, nor the NLRB backed, any regulation which would require a company to build any facility in a state demanded by labor unions.

But unions want to force union membership on workers who demonstrably do not want to belong, pay dues to overpaid union bosses or make political contributions to candidates they have not freely chosen.  Private sector union membership has fallen in recent years from 36 percent of the work force to 12%.  According to the  Washington Examiner's April 22 edition:

“Americans are leaving states with heavy union influence and choosing to live in ‘right-to-work' states with higher job growth where they cannot be forced to join a union as a condition of employment. With the 2010 census, nine congressional seats will move to right-to-work states from forced unionization states. And Americans elected a substantial majority of Republicans to the House of Representatives in the 112th Congress.  People will be safe in 2011-12 from the Employee Free Choice Act, a union-supported bill that would take away workers' rights to a secret ballot in union elections and impose mandatory contracts between newly unionized firms and workers.  But the Obama-controlled National Labor Relations Board isn't listening. It wants to do everything in its power to tilt the playing field toward unionization, even if it means lost jobs … Despite a national unemployment rate  [in excess of 9 percent] and Americans' unequivocal preferences for jobs, the board is taking matters into its own hands to expand union power.”

So what was the NLRB's rationale for this unprecedented power grab?  The general counsel of the Board claimed that a Boeing executive, by citing the numerous strikes against Boeing at its Puget Sound facility, had shown anti-union animus, thereby violating federal law.  Never mind that numerous companies have, over the last 50 years, moved their facilities or built new ones in right to work states.  Job growth in the last 25 years in right to work states has increased while decreasing in non-right to work states.

Of course, we all know that President Obama is focused on jobs, jobs, jobs.  Unemployment rose again last month to 9 percent, which is higher than when the president took office in 2009.  His anti-business labor policy sounds more like the marines who after being forced through a punitive workout are required to shout, “May I have another sir?”

In short there are countless precedents of businesses relocating to right to work states.  No doubt, in this global economy that has kept millions of jobs in America, notwithstanding our non-competitive corporate tax rates.  To tell Boeing, perhaps the world's leading aircraft manufacturer and one of the dwindling number of major American manufacturers who have not yet outsourced most manufacturing to less expensive locales, where it can and cannot build its production facilities, is not only an illegal and unprecedented expansion of regulatory authority, but it is both a stupid and venal decision.  Boeing has, even with the planned Dreamliner shift to South Carolina, actually significantly increased the number of its employees in the state of Washington.

One would expect forced labor location decisions in Russia, or China during the Cultural Revolution.  This latest Obama administration outrage eclipses almost all of this president's and his administration's other power grabs.  Hopefully the courts will slap him down and the electorate will remember in 2012 this attempt by the Administration as a serious attempt to override the clear cut law of the land.  If not, don't expect too much investment by business in America when they clearly have other choices.  If this power grab stands, our downward economic trajectory will continue and steepen for years to come.

Hal Gershowitz

CERCLA / SARA
The CERCLA , commonly known as Superfund, was enacted by Congress on December 11, 1980. This law created a tax on the chemical and petroleum industries and ...
www.dsei.com/.../compensation-and-liability-act-cercla-superf...
CERCLA Notifications: Emergency Response Notification System (ERNS ...
vvEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response Publication 9360.0-23FS April 1992 CERCLA Notifications ...
nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPURL.cgi?Dockey=9100UHMA.txt
Bona Fide Prospective Purchaser Defense Under CERCLA : Post-Closing ...
Bona Fide Prospective Purchaser Defense Under CERCLA : Post-Closing Concerns And Tenant Issues Update. - Find Mondaq Business Briefing articles.
business.highbeam.com/.../bona-fide-prospective-purchaser-de...
Perkins Coie - Legal Experience- Settlement of CERCLA and Natural ...
Settlement of CERCLA and Natural Resource Damage Claims for Weyerhaeuser ... Representing former owner of Michigan paper mill in settlement of CERCLA and ...
www.perkinscoie.com/settlement-of-cercla-and-natural-resour...

EPA blocking innovation in insect repellent, S.C. Johnson charges

Firm objects to rules for tests with human subjects

By Rick Romell of the Journal Sentinel

May 21, 2011

Saying innovation is being stifled and research costs are being unnecessarily increased, S.C. Johnson & Son Inc. wants the Environmental Protection Agency to ease its rules on protecting human subjects in pesticide research.

The Racine firm's bid to relax the 5-year-old regulations comes as the EPA is proposing to stiffen them.

But with the agency opening its rule book as part of a lawsuit settlement, S.C. Johnson is making a case for dialing down requirements for an extra layer of review of pesticide studies that use human subjects.

The company has a lot at stake: "Pesticides" in this sense includes insect repellents and insecticides, and S.C. Johnson, maker of Off and Raid, is by far the U.S. market leader in the category. No one else comes close.

The firm's annual U.S. sales in the broad consumer pest-control category total hundreds of millions of dollars, data from SymphonyIRI Group, a Chicago-based market research firm, show.

In comments filed with the EPA , S.C. Johnson says it strongly supports measures to protect participants in pesticide testing.

But the current EPA rules are too broad and have "imposed unnecessary, time-consuming procedures and inordinate costs on industry with no corresponding increase in the safety of human subjects," the company said.

Research that once took months now takes years, S.C. Johnson said. And it said the "massive increased burdens" are weighing particularly on insect repellents.

New products using already familiar ingredients take more than two years to get through the EPA, "even though these are well characterized active ingredients with complete and fully understood toxicological profiles, decades of consumer use and very low incidence of adverse effects," the company said.

Meanwhile, S.C. Johnson said, the rules are impeding development of innovative bug-fighting ingredients.

"We understand that no new insect repellent active ingredients have gone through the ... review process since the implementation of the 2006 rule," the firm said.

The rules "have discouraged if not stopped" development of products that protect people from Lyme disease, West Nile virus and other insect-borne illnesses, S.C. Johnson said.

To bolster the point, company spokesman Christopher Beard noted via email that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has recognized repellents as "an important tool" to protect against diseases carried by insects.

Review board's activities

Chiefly at issue is the way the EPA has used its Human Studies Review Board, created in 2006 to advise the agency on the ethical and scientific aspects of pesticide experimentation on people.

The board is independent. Eleven of its 13 members are current or retired university professors in such fields as bioethics, medical humanities, toxicology and statistics.

Congress required establishment of the panel, but S.C. Johnson says the EPA has exceeded the bounds of the lawmakers' directive.

The company argues that the board is supposed to review only studies that intentionally expose people to a pesticide to determine its toxic effects.

But, the firm says, the EPA has the board reviewing all research involving intentional exposure to humans, including tests of insect-repellents' effectiveness.

S.C. Johnson notes that the ethics of such research have long been - and continue to be - reviewed by entirely separate panels under what is known as the Common Rule.

That process has proved itself efficient and adequate to the task of protecting human test subjects, the company says. No agency besides the EPA requires an additional ethics review, Beard said.

Further, S.C. Johnson says, the proceedings and minutes of the Human Studies Review Board are public, potentially exposing trade secrets.

"Because proposed testing protocols are discussed in open session, manufacturers are essentially forced to disclose confidential business information," Beard said.

Asked about S.C. Johnson's arguments, the EPA largely dismissed them.

"While we acknowledge that the review process requires some additional time and expense, we do not agree that the requirements have stifled innovation or that the process cannot accommodate proprietary business information," an agency spokesman said via email.

He said the EPA and its review board "have established a good track record of promptly reviewing and approving many protocols and completed studies in recent years."

Comments supported

While the agency stood its ground, a key figure in the lawsuit that led to the proposed regulatory revisions said the EPA should carefully weigh what S.C. Johnson is saying.

"I actually thought they were quite interesting," Jennifer Sass said of the company's comments.

Sass is a senior scientist with the Natural Resources Defense Council. The group led a court battle challenging the EPA's 2006 rules on protecting subjects in human research, arguing that the regulations fell short on key points.

The revisions incorporate changes agreed upon in the lawsuit settlement and, according to Sass' comments , reduce the chances of the agency relying on unethical research.

In an interview, she said the EPA should take seriously S.C. Johnson's contention that the current regulations have thrown up roadblocks to innovation and extensively delayed research.

At the same time, it's not clear why the Human Studies Review Board would be thwarting the company's research, Sass said.

"It's only new protocols that have to go through (the board)," she said. "Why would there be so many new protocols for testing mosquito repellents?"

The board's chairman, Sean Philpott, a bioethics professor at Union Graduate College in Schenectady, N.Y., said via email that the panel works hard to provide sound advice in timely fashion.

Several sponsors of studies the board has reviewed have told members that the panel's comments and recommendations have helped improve their research ethically and scientifically, Philpott said.

The EPA has yet to issue final revisions to its human-subjects regulations. The public comment period closed last month.

Not filing comments was another Wisconsin firm that makes insect repellents and insecticides, Madison's Spectrum Brands Inc. With such products as Cutter, Repel and Hot Shot, Spectrum ranks a distant second to S.C. Johnson in the SymphonyIRI sales data.

The research firm tracks sales at U.S. supermarkets, drugstores and mass-market retailers excluding Walmart. Even without Walmart, which carries Off and Raid, S.C. Johnson's domestic pest-control sales topped $240 million for 52 weeks ending in mid-April, according to SymphonyIRI. Spectrum Brand sales in the category tracked by the research firm totaled about $52 million.

 

Iron Mountain    During the 1890s when Mountain Copper Company owned Iron Mountain Mine, a company town named Iron Mountain was located on the mountain.  It was perched on the mountainside near the mine shafts and included a one-story, 7-room cottage with two large brick fireplaces and a wide porch all around for the manager, three superintendent houses containing four or five bedrooms, a two-story, 16-room staff quarters' building a large mess and entertainment hall complete with dining room and kitchen, canteen, billiard room and music room, a hospital, approximately 25 family cottages, and two 16-room bunkhouses for the single men employees.  Also on the property was a tennis court, a football field, and the Iron Mountain Post Office.  In 1897, a fire destroyed many of the buildings.  In 1922, the mine was abandoned but continued to operate intermittently until as late as 1963 when all mining operations ceased.

Matheson   Matheson was established as a direct result of Iron Mountain Mine and served as the railroad terminus for the mine.  A Southern Pacific Railroad siding operated at Matheson until 1951.  Ore was hauled from the mine to this siding.  In 1921, the rail line was replaced by the Iron Mountain Tramway (aerial).  In 1953, the tramway was extended one additional mile from Matheson to Keswick.  It operated intermittently into the 1970s.  Remnants of it still exist.

The Matheson Post Office was established in 1922 and operated until 1962.  Matheson Road exists off of Iron Mountain Road and is near the Chappie-Shasta OHV area.

The following excerpts are taken from the Iron Mountain Mine entry out of the book titled The Dictionary of Early Shasta County History by Dottie Smith

"...Originally worked as a gold mine, later silver, until the true wealth of the mine was discovered to be copper, iron, and sulphur...Discovered in the early 1860s by Charles Camden and William Magee. James Sallee became a 3rd partner when he discovered a silver vein. In 1884, Camden, Magee, and Sallee leased the mine to a Honolulu company who soon returned the property and equipment back to them. Camden, Magee, and Sallee again operated until 1894 when they sold to Mountain Copper Co. Ltd. who built (the next year) a smelter at Keswick and the Iron Mountain Railway, a 3-ft. gauge mountain mining railroad which connected the mine with the Keswick smelter and Southern Pacific tracks at Keswick. In 1898, 221,895 tons of ore were extracted from the mine. The smelter contained two blast furnaces and 80 open-roasting stalls where ore was heap roasted or burned in the open air to reduce the sulphur content, sometimes burning 350,000 tons at a time. Prior to the arrival of electricity, the smelter furnaces and train engines were fueled with wood supplied by a 75-man woodcutting crew who cut down almost all the trees between Keswick and Copley and with 20,000 cords floated downriver from the Flatwoods area by Buick & Wengler. Hydroelectric power arrived in 1901 via the Volta Powerhouse owned by Keswick Electric Power Company to operate the smelter furnaces. Water was pumped 4500 ft. from the Sacramento River through a 16" pipe near the mouth of Spring Creek with the help of a Corliss-Hamilton engine and a cornish plunger pump. The smelter became a major health and environmental hazard because it released huge volumes of poisonous sulphurous dioxide gasses into the air killing most of the vegetation it came in contact with. The company made little attempts to prevent the spread of the poisonous gasses resulting in Superior Court lawsuits which closed the smelter by court order in 1907. The company built a new smelter at Martinez, and in 1920, a 2½ mile ore-hauling aerial tramway from the Hornet Mine to another railroad siding at Matheson and began shipping ore via the railroad to the Martinez smelter for processing. A company town was perched on the hillside near the mine shafts and included a one-story, 7-room cottage with two large brick fireplaces and wide porch all around for the manager, three superintendent's houses containing 4 or 5 rooms, a 2-story, 16-room staff quarters' building, a large mess and entertainment hall which included a dining room and kitchen, canteen, billiard room, and music room, about 25 family cottages, and two 16-room bunkhouses for men. Also on the property was a tennis court and football field. In 1897 a fire destroyed the silver mill, a sawmill, all the stores, the office, the assay department, hospital, the mess and entertainment hall, plus a number of small buildings. But mining resumed and buildings were reconstructed. In 1922 the mine was abandoned. Reopened periodically until 1927. Gossan was extensively mined for gold from 1931 until 1941. Reforestation attempted after World War II when 2.6 million seedlings were planted but the acidic soil and slope instability rendered the project a failure. Underground mining ceased in 1956 and open-pit mining was undertaken at Brick Flat. All mining operations ceased in 1963. Sold to Stauffer Chemical Co. in 1967 who sold to Iron Mountains Inc. in 1976. Placed on the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) National Priority List and/or the Top 10 Hazardous Site List in 1983 making it eligible as a Superfund cleanup site. Mine holdings include the Complex, Hornet, Lost Confidence, Mattie, No. 8, Old Mine, Brick Flat, and Richmond Mines (Brick Flat, Hornet and Richmond Mines were pyrite mines). The mine was responsible for the creation of the communities of Iron Mountain, Keswick, Matheson, and Taylor. Total copper output was +342,000,000 lbs. making it largest Shasta County producer. Major modifications and changes currently underway to make the mine environmentally safe. Mine was important to Shasta County's economy for 70 years."

Ore Reserves

Using the results of assays and information developed during drilling, drifting and mining of the various segments of the Iron Mountain ore body, geological ore reserves were developed for both the massive sulfide and disseminated ores by Mountain Copper Company. Reserves of the gossan ore were developed through the cooperation between engineers of Mountain Copper Company and Stauffer Chemical Company. Subsequent checks of these reserve figures have been made by Southwestern Engineering Company and Iron Mountain Mines, Inc. In addition, various Mountain Copper Company internal checks are evident. The result of the calculations and checks is the general agreement that there presently exists at Iron Mountain Mine roughly 12,000,000 tons of proven sulfide ore with minimum average grades of 1% copper, 2% zinc, 0.02 gold and 1.5 oz. silver. Probable gossan ore is estimated at 3,000,000 tons. The combined proven geological reserves amount to 15,050,000 tons of proven sulfide and gossan ore contained within an area of roughly 300 acres. These reserves represent tonnages presently remaining in the Hornet, Mattil, Richmond Extension and the unmined Brick Flat ore bodies. No recent reserve figures have been developed for the three magnetite bodies. Remaining in place tonnages for the Old Mine, Number 8, Confidence-Complex, Camden , busy Bee, Lone Star and Okosh massive sulfide bodies are listed in various data and reports received from Iron Mountain Mines. However, no reserve calculations for these deposits are available as backup. Limited backup assay data are available for the Camden and Okosh bodies. According to this information average copper grades for the Camden and Okosh are 1.01 percent and 3.43 percent respectively. No overall averages are readily available for the Old Mine, Number 8 and Confidence-Complex but general extension of adjacent data indicates average grades may approach one percent.

Tons of proven sulfide ore in place: 14,183,000; probable reserves 1,050,000

Tons of proven gossan in place 3,050,000; probable reserves 3,795,000

Grand Total in place 17,233,000; probable reserves 4,845,000

During 1950 and 1951, a 1,798 exploration drill hole was put down by the U.S.G.S. in the vicinity of a syncline on the southeast side of the Iron Mountain mine. Located at the approximate mine coordinates 2900 north, 3650 east passed through numerous rhyolite intervals of Balaklala formation throughout its entire length. Intermittent, broad to narrow bands of disseminated sulfides were present throughout the drill hole with some intervals containing slightly greater than one percent copper. Kaiser Engineers, 1981

Balance of Trade:

The proposal forecasts the elimination of imports of at least 50,000 tons of metals annually, resulting in a net adjustment to the current trade deficit of over $150 million dollars annually.

Current market and employment impact

The proposal is estimated to create approx. 1200 direct jobs and 800 indirect jobs.

Cautionary Disclosure: This is "forward-looking information about prospective results of operations, financial position or cash flows that is based on assumptions about future economic conditions and courses of action and that is not presented in the format of a historical balance sheet, income statement or cash flow statement ." Examples of financial outlooks include expected revenues, net income, earnings per share and R&D spending. Material facts have not been verified. Actual results may vary. These results are highly speculative. Readers should establish their own reasonable basis for these assumptions. Verbum Sap .

About Us | Contact Us |

©2011 Iron Mountain Mines, Inc - Essential Solutions Inc.

Artesian Mineral Development & Consolidated Sludge, Inc.

The HU/MOUNTAIN joint venture .


2009 nehrp recommended seismic provisions for new buildings and PDF

Submitted on 2011/05/21 5:58:15 PM. Page 0 of your PDF/Ebooks search 2009 nehrp recommended seismic provisions for new buildings and. Find then download PDF/Ebooks 2009 nehrp recommended seismic provisions for new buildings and from pdfcast.net - where pdf broadcast search and get yours pdf file here.

Download 2009 NEHRP RECOMMENDED SEISMIC PROVISIONS FOR NEW BUILDINGS AND ...

101 2009 NEHRP RECOMMENDED SEISMIC PROVISIONS FOR NEW BUILDINGS AND OTHER STRUCTURES PART 2, COMMENTARY TO ASCESEI 7-05 This part of the 2009 NEHRP Recommended ... 2009 NEHRP RECOMMENDED SEISMIC PROVISIONS FOR NEW BUILDINGS AND ...

Download NEHRP Recommended Seismic Provisions

for New Buildings and Other Structures FEMA P-750 2009 Edition NEHRP Recommended Seismic Provisions

Download TS-8 List for Research Needs for the Next NEHRP Provisions

research needs identified during development of the 2009 nehrp recommended seismic provisions for new buildings and other structures ts-8 list for research needs for the ... TS-8 List for Research Needs for the Next NEHRP Provisions

Download Evolution of Building Code Seismic Performance Standards for New ...

EERI Annual Meeting Salt Lake City-2009 Holmes 2 Background of Building Codes •1666 London fire resulted in first comprehensive building code and set precedent for ... Evolution of Building Code Seismic Performance Standards for New ...

Download SCOPE Introduction to Part 1 of 2009 Provisions

Proposal 2-9 2009 2 nd Member Organization Ballot April, 2008 Page 1 of 6 PROPOSAL 2-9 2009 SCOPE Introduction to Part 1 of 2009 Provisions PROPOSAL FOR CHANGE Adopt ... SCOPE Introduction to Part 1 of 2009 Provisions

Download The Role of FEMA In the NEHRP

2 NEHRP Program Management ? NEHRP authorized by Congress in 1978. ? Overall Purpose "…to reduce the risks of life and property from future earthquakes in the United ... The Role of FEMA In the NEHRP

Download NIST NEHRP Research

national earthquake hazards reduction program Statutory NEHRP RD Responsibilities • Perform RD to improve building codes and standards practices. NIST NEHRP Research

Download NEHRP Advisory Committee on Earthquake Hazards Reduction - FEMA Update

NEHRP AECHR Meeting, March 15, 2010 24 FEMA NEHRP Activity ? For the past several years, FEMA has been working on a hazard mitigation demonstration project to ... NEHRP Advisory Committee on Earthquake Hazards Reduction - FEMA Update

Download United States Department of the Interior

United States Department of the Interior U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Geologic Hazards Team PO Box 25046, MS 966, Denver, Colorado 80225 Description of U.S. Seismic Design Maps Web ... United States Department of the Interior

Download Fundamentals of Seismic Design

Save time and money Inquire about our on-site courses. Call 800-462-0876 today Enroll online today httpepd.engr. wisc.eduwebK024 Course outline inside… Fundamentals of Seismic Design

Download National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program

national earthquake hazards reduction program Seismic Performance of Buildings in the Central and Eastern U.S. • 2011 new start • Work currently being performed in-house • ... National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program

Download From Prescriptive to Predictive Milestones on the Road Toward ...

Seismic Waves How the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program Is Advancing Earthquake Safety March 2011 rescriptive building codes and standards, which specify types of ... From Prescriptive to Predictive Milestones on the Road Toward ...

Download National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program

national earthquake hazards reduction program Quick Update • House and Senate are currently drafting new reauthorization legislation, to be effective in FY 2010. ... National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program

Download OVERVIEW OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING STANDARDS

FEMA 451B Topic 8b Notes Overview of Standards 8B -1 Overview of Standards 8b -1 Instructional Material Complementing FEMA 451, Design Examples OVERVIEW OF STRUCTURAL ... OVERVIEW OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING STANDARDS

Download Earthquake -Resistant Design Concepts

An Introduction to the NEHRP Recommended Seismic Provisions for New Buildings and Other Structures Earthquake -Resistant Design Concepts

Download National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program

national earthquake hazards reduction program n hrp National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program …a research and implementation partnership FEMA Program Update for the ... National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program

Download Research Required to

The policy of the National Institute of Standards and Technology is to use the International System of Units metric units in all of its publications. Research Required to

Download Simplified Seismic Design Procedures

Development of Simplified Seismic Design Procedures Framework Report, September 2010 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This report covers the efforts of Building ... Simplified Seismic Design Procedures

Download Rebuilding for Resilience How Science and Engineering Can Inform ...

Disaster Mitigation International Building Code * IBC Chapter 16 minimum wind loads and seismic loads to be used in the design of buildings, based upon the use group , ... Rebuilding for Resilience How Science and Engineering Can Inform ...

Download Understanding and Influencing the Evolution of Today's Building ...

S3 PCI Journal Special Supplement Understanding and influencing the evolution of today's building code S. K. Ghosh This white paper discusses the recent history of building ... Understanding and Influencing the Evolution of Today#039;s Building ...

Rural Community Facilities Program is a lifeline

By Kevin Johnson , USA TODAY

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Department of Agriculture , known for its drought and disaster assistance to farmers, is providing hundreds of millions of dollars to cash-strapped towns and public safety agencies to buy police patrol cars, equip fire stations and renovate courthouses.

Testimony
Before the Committee on Energy and Natural
Resources, U.S. Senate
United States General Accounting Office
GAO
For Release on Delivery
Expected at 9:30 a.m., EST
Thursday,
December 6, 2001

Iron Mountain Mine Re-Working Group Community Engagement Initiative –Action Plan

Guiding Principles 
The purpose of this Action Plan is to present guiding principles, goals, and actions to enhance  relationships  with communities as we carry out our mission to protect human health and the envionment.

Submitting Environmental Impact Statements

Amended EIS Filing System Guidelines (January 2011)

EPA amended the EIS Filing System Guidelines on January 11, 2011. Highlights include:

Top of Page

Where to Submit (or “File”) an EIS

Deliveries by US Postal Service (incl. USPS Express Mail)

US Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Federal Activities
EIS Filing Section
Mail Code 2252-A
Ariel Rios Building (South Oval Lobby)
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20460

Deliveries in-person or by commercial express mail services (incl. Federal Express or UPS)

If the documents are to be delivered in-person, you will need to ask the security guards to phone our office at (202) 564-5400 so we can escort you to the Filing Section.

US Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Federal Activities
EIS Filing Section
Ariel Rios Building (South Oval Lobby), Room 7220
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20004

Telephone inquiries can also be made to:

Top of Page

Filing an EIS--Draft, Final and Supplemental

Federal agencies are required to prepare EISs in accordance with Section 1502 of the Regulations (40 CFR 1502) and to file the EISs with EPA as specified in 1506.9. The EISs must be filed no earlier than they are transmitted to commenting agencies and made available to the public.

If an EIS is hand-carried to EPA, the person delivering the document must complete a form stating that transmittal to all agencies is being made simultaneously with the filing with EPA. This will assure that the EIS is received by all interested parties by the time the EPA Notice of Availability appears in the Federal Register , and therefore allows for the full minimum review periods prescribed in 1506.10.

Federal agencies file an EIS by providing EPA with four (4) copies, including appendices. In addition to the four copies of the EIS that are filed with EPA Headquarters, agencies should provide a copy of the EIS directly to the appropriate EPA Regional Office(s) for review and comment. Material which is incorporated into the EIS by reference is not required to be filed with EPA. The agency filing the EIS (usually the lead agency if more than one is involved) should prepare a letter of transmittal to accompany the four copies of the EIS. The letter should identify the name and telephone number of the official responsible for both the distribution and contents of the EIS, should state that the transmittal has been completed.

EPA encourages Federal agencies to make their EISs available on the internet.  Agencies that do publish EISs to the internet should send EPA a copy of the web address (i.e., URL) for the document.  The appropriate information should be e-mailed to:  EIS-Filing@epa.gov concurrent with filing the EIS as required above.  

Once received by EPA, each EIS is stamped with an official filing date and checked for completeness and compliance with 1502.10 of the CEQ Regulations. If the EIS is not “complete” (i.e., if the documents do not contain those elements outlined in 1502.10 of the CEQ Regulations), EPA will contact the lead agency to obtain the omitted information or to resolve any problems prior to publication of the Notice of Availability in the Federal Register .

Agencies often publish (either in their EISs or individual notices to the public) a date by which all comments on an EIS are to be received. Agencies should ensure that the date they use is based on the date of publication of the Notice of Availability in the Federal Register . If the published date gives reviewers less than the minimum review time computed by EPA, then EPA will send the agency contact a letter explaining how the review period is calculated and the correct date by which comments are due back to the lead agency. This letter also encourages agencies to notify all reviewers and interested parties of the corrected review periods.

Top of Page

EIS Filing Procedure for Continuity of Operations Plan (COOP) Events

In order to ensure official filing of EISs in the event of a COOP event, when EISs cannot be physically delivered to EPA, Federal agencies will need to send EPA a copy of the EIS cover sheet to the e-mail address identified above.  In turn, EPA will use the cover sheet information to publish the weekly EIS NOA in the Federal Register .    

During the COOP event, filing agencies should not submit the four copies of the EIS to the EPA.  However, once the COOP event is over, filing agencies will have 14 days to submit the four copies of all EISs filed during the event to the EPA's Filing Section.  If EPA does not receive the four copies of the EIS filed during the COOP event within 14 days, it will publish a notice in the Federal Register retracting the NOA for that EIS.

Top of Page

Notice in the Federal Register

EPA will prepare a weekly report of all EISs filed during the preceding week for publication each Friday under a Notice of Availability in the Federal Register . At the time EPA sends its weekly report for publication in the Federal Register , the report will also be sent to the CEQ. Information included in the report for each EIS is the same as the data entered in EPA's computerized data file. This includes an EIS Accession number (created by EPA), EIS status (draft, final, supplemental), date filed with EPA, the agency or bureau that filed the EIS, the state and county of the action that prompted the EIS, the title of the EIS, the date comments are due and the agency contact.

Top of Page

Time Periods

The minimum time periods set forth 1506.10(b),(c), and (d) are calculated from the date EPA publishes the Notice of Availability in the Federal Register . Review periods for draft EISs, draft supplements, and revised draft EISs shall extend 45 calendar days unless the lead agency extends the prescribed period or a reduction of the period has been granted. The review periods for final EISs and final supplements shall extend for 30 calendar days unless the lead agency extends the period or a reduction or extension in the period has been granted. If a calculated time period would end on a non-working day, the assigned time period will be the next working day (i.e., time periods will not end on weekends or Federal holidays).

Top of Page

Presidential Policy Directive 8 - National Preparedness

By Homeland Security Blog Team

On March 30, 2011, President Obama signed Presidential Policy Directive (PPD) 8 on National Preparedness . This directive instructs the federal government to take action to strengthen our nation's security and resilience against a variety of hazards, including terrorism, pandemics, and catastrophic natural disasters. It reflects this administration's belief that the entire emergency management team –all levels of government, the private and non-profits sectors, and individual citizens – plays a key role in keeping our communities safe and secure, meeting the needs of survivors when disaster strikes, and preventing the loss of life and property. Specifically, the directive will help us continue to strengthen this entire emergency management team by directing the government to develop a new national preparedness goal, national preparedness system, comprehensive campaign to build and sustain national preparedness, and national preparedness report based on this new goal.

So how will the PPD get implemented?

We look forward to working extensively with stakeholders at all levels of government, the private and non-profit sectors, and the public to develop the PPD implementation plan and to carry it out once it is finalized. The White House National Security Staff is currently coordinating this process.

All of us can contribute to national preparedness. This administration is dedicated to working with all members of our emergency management team to build a stronger national preparedness system that leverages all elements of our society – federal, state and local governments, the private sector, non-governmental organizations, faith-based and community partnerships, and individuals – to meet the security, preparedness and resilience needs of our communities.

World Bank calls for reforms in mining sector

By John Ofikhenua

How far can the Nigerian mining sector fare in view of government's attitude to it? This is one of the posers raised by the World Bank Country Director for Nigeria Mr. Onno Ruhl

Having had an overview of the sector in the last six years, he noted that although the government has put in place a mining law, mining cadastre office and outstanding geological data, it cannot sustain the this feat without a reliable funding base.

To this end, the World Bank Country Director for Nigeria put it succinctly that progress will be made "on the operationalization of the access to the Sustainable Minerals Fund as well as the Natural Resource Development Fund."

He was only to appear at the commissioning of the Mining Cadastre Office in Abuja, but Ruhl took the opportunity to advise the Federal Government that the Ministry of Mines and Steel Development needs a reliable budget to embark on capital projects. He said: "the ministry needs a reliable budget not just a recurrent budget but a capital budget especially."

A critical look at the 2011 Appropriation Bill lends credence to his advice. In the bill, the main ministry and the six agencies are scheduled to regulate the sector with N13, 754,925,050. Of this budget, the capital expenditure from which government could embark on capital projects is simply N2,242,287,981.

Hitherto, the only substantial funding the sector looks forward to is the N9b NEXIM planned to release to the sector by 2015 even as the minister Architect Musa Sada is worried that the target is for the mines to be operational in the next five years.

For instance, the World Bank Sustainable Management of Minerals Resources Project (SMMRP) has been the fulcrum of mining development in the country since 2005. With its assistance, the ministry established the Nigerian Institute of Mining and Geosciences (NIMG) in Jos last year.

Besides, various Artisanal and Small Miners across the country have received the SMMRP grant via different cooperative societies. In the same vein, the World Bank in April this year awarded the NIMG a grant of $5000 for its research and minerals development projects.

The Hidden Tax of Corporate Environmentalism

by John Loudon

The unsightly film on our “clean” dishes had become a source of great frustration in our household.  Dish washing was the job of my daughter and she was evidently was really slacking off.  We worked with her on critical strategies like pre-washing, proper loading technique and the importance of rinse aids.  Still, we found that the dishes usually had to be washed at least twice and with increasing amounts of detergent.  In this lousy economy and runaway food and fuel inflation, I was using 50% more Cascade detergent and running twice as many loads.  This deal worked out great for the the water and electric utilities, and especially for P&G (Proctor and Gamble) but not so well for us.

As a conservative, I believe there is a right way and a wrong way to do just about anything from how to install toilet paper to what ingredients are key to a product.  That makes me a consummate label reader. So one day I noticed that Cascade was “phosphate free”.  That struck me as really odd because I dutifully inject that naturally occurring element into the ecosystem every time I use my Miracle Grow “Bloom-booster” plant food.  So how could something that is good for plants be evil for the environment?

I asked my friend Kat, who is a full time environmental activist and I challenged her. I am now using at least twice as much water and electricity, not to mention time as I spent before on clean dishes.  She toed the party line, that too much phosphates in sewer systems somehow creates too much algae which disrupts ecosystems.

So I explained my situation and the fact that a huge corporation about which she should be suspicious of before me, was making out like bandits. I asked her, “Do you realize you are working for the man?”  “What?” She asked. The irony was quite amusing.

It would be funny were it not so outrageous.  The whole thing reminds me of the two-flush toilets the Government mandated ostensibly as a way to conserve water and the new light bulbs that GE (Government Electric) has convinced the dim bulb Congress to force us to buy.

The phosphate free detergent is so egregious because this one is too unsupportable for even the Congress to enact it. Most of the environmental phosphates come from poop! So the lobbyists turn to the states and successfully obtained phosphate bans in the 17 silliest state lawmaking bodies. Playing both sides, P&G still sells it because it is the only solution that really eliminates the white film.

As a former lawmaker, the question I have is who was paying the lobbyists in favor and who was paying the lobbyists against.  Were there any against?  Did P&G send in an army of lobbyists to fight this at every turn?  Did they take out full page ads in the New York Times and warn America that they would be wasting twice as much detergent, water and electricity?  If they did, they capitulated early because now that 17 states have banned phosphates in dish washing detergent, the folks at P&G have now embraced the ban.

My friend Kat had a suggestion.  She said I could find this really great eco-friendly detergent at, of all places, Whole Foods.  Sure, it costs more, but it works.  There is no way I will be making any special trips to that company. We tried to support it with a BUYcott after it's CEO opposed Obamacare. Instead, the company forced out the CEO for his political sin.  Instead, I found a much better solution.

Thank you Walgreens for carrying “Sun Sations” for three bucks, on sale for $1.99.  You are right, my dishes really are once again “virtually spotless”.  Moreover, it is made in the USA, in red state Utah. Salt Lake City, no less.  God bless America!  Go jump in a lake, P&G!

Media Gift: Republicans, Pickens' New Subsidy and the ‘Circular Firing Squad'

by Christopher C. Horner

The Wall Street Journal has a long piece about the prospect of using the state to move part of the U.S. transportation fleet from oil-derived fuels to natural gas. It gives prominent voice to the massive public affairs campaign of T. Boone Pickens, undertaken in the apparent quest for a legacy, locking in subsidized billions for his natural gas fortune as a swansong to a prosperous career.

This campaign takes the form of a bill embraced by ostensible fiscal hawks , causing an uproar and enabling the media to describe the Republicans ‘circular firing squad', of a base taking umbrage at Members abandoning their pledges of fiscal sobriety at the drop of a billionaire's phone call. Well played, gentlemen.

The vehicle was not Pickens' first choice. His first choice was a windmill mandate, transparently pushed by a handful of gas interests, including Chesapeake Energy's Aubrey McClendon, to put a green hat on their efforts to use the state to displace coal's market (one of McClendon's group's first television ads stated up front, “more wind means more gas”: windmills don't work that often, so they need ‘backup' to run wastefully all the time, cycling up and down, and for various reasons inevitably this means gas-fired electricity).

Coal was difficult to budge, what with centuries of it domestically, so some gas folks have been helping the greens' war against coal for about two decades. This is their latest foray.

And, astroturfers, please hold the mail. I happened to be in the room in 1997 with the American Gas Association, BP, and Enron as they worked with green pressure groups, as radical as the Union of Concerned Scientists as well as more mainstream, anti-coal activists like NRDC, to get a global warming treaty and a domestic cap-and-trade scheme. I couldn't believe my ears and said so, which in a matter of weeks led to us parting ways.

When Pickens was pitching his Plan A in a particular off-the-record meting a few years ago, I congratulated him on discovering my old boss Ken Lay's business plan: he had some gas interests, bought a bunch of windmills on the cheap because they aren't economic investments, then set about to use his lobbying muscle to make them — not economic, but as President Obama says over and over — “the profitable kind of energy”.

The windmill mandate belly flopped. So Pickens unloaded his windmills and reached up another sleeve. It entails keeping his conservative friends close, and the left-wing pressure groups even closer. All of which is fine, except the nominal conservatives going along with it.

Now, the argument goes, we have lots of natural gas domestically so, with oil at a high price we should move transportation onto natural gas; although this cannot happen without robbing taxpayer Peter to pay gassy Paul, according to anyone cited in the WSJ article.

Of course, we also have vast quantities of oil , likely all of it recoverable at a per-barrel price around half of where it stands today. So that's not really much of an argument for such wrenching, expensive, uneconomic intervention, now is it?

But this is the sort of advocacy that bad ideas are forced to employ. As my CEI colleague Myron Ebell wrote :

Why are billions of dollars of taxpayer-funded subsidies needed?  According to T. Boone Pickens's web site, it's because natural gas vehicles are cheaper to operate than gasoline or diesel vehicles:  “Even with higher initial costs (which will disappear as manufacturing ramps up) the life-cycle costs of NGVs [natural gas vehicles] are significantly lower.  Fuel costs are at least 15 percent less using natural gas rather than gasoline or diesel.”

So people need to be paid in order to make them want to buy vehicles that will save them money.  Yes, that makes sense: I always prefer the more expensive product unless there is a government rebate for the cheaper one.

Given all of this, we have three takeaways from today's Journal piece.

First, here is the chart of countries this idea seeks to have us be more like.

Message: be more like Third-World countries. But for Italy, which has long directed nearby North African gas into its economy, no other OECD country is big into this old idea. I know that history of saying “look at Spain” didn't work out to well about the windmills, but countries without oil, like, say, über-green Germany, aren't on the list. Why?

Second, the article acknowledges these countries have been doing this for a long time. And they all still operate as a government program because it is not economic.

Yet the pull-quote gives us the $5-$9 Billion Quote of the Day: “T. Boone Pickens on subsidies for natural-gas truckers: The government should provide five years of subsidies, ‘and then get the hell out of it.  It flies by then, or it's a bad idea.'”

Yeah. Once you build a subsidy, and the constituencies dependent upon it, even if it doesn't work Washington is pretty good about letting it expire. It hasn't worked anywhere with decades of support. A clever man, Mr. Pickens.

Finally, the story admits that this very scheme was one of the 'stimulus' schemes. Mr. Pickens is calling for the 'stimulus' to continue, for his investments in the uneconomic, for 5 more years.

Stimulus. Subsidy. Can't say it too many times. That's what this is. Republicans, wise up.

The Unraveling of a Ponzi Scheme

by Wayne Allyn Root

The news media in this country are in a stupor. Either out of ignorance, or complete leftist bias and fraud to protect their socialist hero Barack Obama, the mainstream media has turned a blind eye toward the enormous disaster facing our economy. The greatest Ponzi scheme in world history is coming to an end, leaving America on the precipice of economic Armageddon. Here are the facts the mainstream media does not want you to see- hiding in plain site just like Osama bin Laden was.

Bill Gross is the world's biggest bond trader. He runs the PIMCO bond fund with over $250 billion under management. He recently disclosed through financial filings that PIMCO has sold every single U.S. bond in its portfolio. Local, state, federal bonds- all sold off. Gross knows bonds are about to default in record numbers. And most importantly, he knows that the last resort of the Federal Reserve buying our own government's bonds at auction is a certain sign of Armageddon. When no one is left to buy your own debt but you, you have reached the end of a Ponzi Scheme.

Then there is legendary Wall Street investor Stanley Druckenmiller. He, too, is calling the Fed's bond purchases a fraud and a Ponzi scheme. Druckenmiller says, “There is a phony buyer of $19 billion per week of Treasury Bonds.” The phony buyer he refers to is the U.S. government. Druckenmiller knows that when a country resorts to buying its own debt, we are seeing the last days of the Roman Empire.

Another Wall Street legend, Jim Rogers, spoke out at a business conference last week. He said he plans to short sell (bet against) U.S. bonds with both hands. Rogers added, “If any of you have bonds, I would urge you to go home and sell them. If any of you are bond portfolio managers, I would get another job…if I were you, I would think about becoming a farmer.”

Day 60

Today is the 60th day, and Obama must get Congressional approval to continue the war in Libya. The war he consulted no one about, the war he did not go to Congress on, the tyrant's war. Remember the hoops Bush jumped through for a year to get congressional and UN approval, and still they raked him over the coals.

What spin will the emperor put on this? Does he dare ignore the Constitution? He makes a habit of it. Nothing new there. This is the most criminal administration ever foisted upon America.

Lawmakers largely silent on war powers authority in Libya The Hill (hat tip Van)

U.S. operations in Libya hit the 60-day mark Friday, but Congress has grown largely silent on the administration's unilateral intervention into the war-torn North African nation.

The 1973 War Powers Act (WPA) — the statute President Obama invoked when he launched forces in March — requires presidents to secure congressional approval for military operations within 60 days, or withdraw forces within the next 30.

The Post American Presidency: The Obama Administration's War on America

“The Most Sordid Scheme in the History of Finance”

Theodore Butler, writing on SilverSeek.com on September 2, reported that there was more than just central bank collusion going on behind the scenes. He tracked an unprecedented wall of short selling of gold and silver – massive "borrowing" of stock, selling it into the market and forcing down the price, then "covering" by buying the stock back at the lower price. Butler wrote:

“In gold, no more than 3 U.S. banks sold short in one month more than 10% of world annual mine production. This was the largest short position in gold and silver ever recorded by U.S. banks . After the massive and concentrated silver and gold short position was established by these U.S. banks, the [gold and silver] markets experienced a historic decline in price. It all took place during the first widespread retail silver shortage in history. It is completely at odds [with] how the law of supply and demand works .”

Butler called it the most sordid scheme in the history of finance. “It makes a mockery of financial regulation and the rule of law,” he wrote. “It allows a large financial entity, or entities, to rip off the investing public and gouge them for obscene profits. It is cronyism, back-room dealing, market fixing and inside information at its worst.” 7

While gold and silver were being shorted to oblivion, the SEC imposed a ban on the short selling of 19 select financial stocks, including Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. It was blatant favoritism for the privileged few, but Coxe said it was necessary to make financial stock look attractive to potential buyers (particularly sovereign wealth funds), in order to allow the banks to sell their stock and raise the capital necessary to start lending again.

At the same time, Treasury Secretary Paulson sought and was granted an unlimited credit line to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac directly from the U.S. Treasury, as well as the authority to buy the mortgage giants' stock. Fannie and Freddie were put into a form of bankruptcy called a conservatorship; but unlike in the ordinary bankruptcy, in which creditors divide up the debtors' available assets without government help, in this case the claims of the lenders were guaranteed by the Treasury. Foreign lenders were bailed out while the shareholders were wiped out – including banks, pension funds, and other institutions holding the savings of millions of Americans. In the long run, the “bailout” created more problems than it solved; but according to Coxe, it was a necessary sacrifice to keep the mortgage market functional for the near term.

How near? The Presidential election is now only weeks away. Markets have an uncanny way of looking good before elections. 

Rob Kirby, writing in LeMetropoleCafe on September 9, observed that there are laws and stiff penalties against market collusion. The U.S. antitrust laws impose fines of up to $10 million and jail terms of up to 3 years for unfair practices that inhibit competition or monopolize markets in restraint of trade. “I admire [Coxe's] candor,” said Kirby, “but my take on this is that all the perpetrators should face a firing squad, or worse, for treason.” 8

That probably won't happen, however, because the “perpetrators” can claim governmental immunity. The Plunge Protection Team, officially called the President's Working Group on Financial Markets, was formed by President Reagan in response to a stock market crash in 1987 for the express purpose of “maintaining investor confidence” by manipulating markets with public funds. The PPT includes the President, the Secretary of the Treasury, the Chairman of the Federal Reserve, the Chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), and the Chairman of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC). 9 Calling the shots is no doubt Secretary Paulson, who now has a $700 billion fund to use for the purpose, after Congress passed his massive bank rescue plan on October 3.

“Socialism for the Rich”

Nouriel Roubini, Professor of Economics at New York University, wrote on his popular blog Global EconoMonitor :

“Socialism is indeed alive and well in America; but this is socialism for the rich, the well connected and Wall Street. A socialism where profits are privatized and losses are socialized with the US tax-payer being charged the bill . . . .” 10

Investment guru Jim Rogers told “Squawk Box Europe”:

“America is more communist than China is right now. You can see that this is welfare of the rich, it is socialism for the rich. . . it's just bailing out financial institutions. . . .

“This is madness, this is insanity, they have more than doubled the American national debt in one weekend for a bunch of crooks and incompetents. I'm not quite sure why I or anybody else should be paying for this.” 11

If we are going socialist, we should own up to it and have some transparency in what's going on. We the people need to know how to plan and to invest for an uncertain future. If we're nationalizing the banks, let's nationalize them all the way, with the profits going back to the people along with the losses and risks. Better yet, let's nationalize the Federal Reserve, so it can issue “the full faith and credit of the United States” directly, without having to back this credit with a multi-trillion dollar federal debt that will never get paid back but just continues to grow. It would actually be less inflationary for the government to print dollars directly than for it to print bonds that are swapped for dollars created on a printing press by a privately-owned central bank, because in the latter case both the bonds and the dollars remain in circulation. U.S. bonds not only serve as money around the world, but they count as the “reserves” for banks to create many times their face value in loans. These bonds never get paid off but just get rolled over from year to year, inflating the money supply just as if dollars were printed directly; but the bonds carry the added burden of perpetual debt and interest payments.

The costly bank bailouts and blatant market manipulations going on today are justified as being necessary to save a private banking system that we think we need to get the credit that keeps the economy running. But we don't actually need private banks to get credit. Many authorities have attested that, contrary to popular belief, banks don't lend their own money or their depositors' money. Every dollar lent by a bank is money created out of thin air on a computer screen. It's just “credit.” The bank “monetizes” the borrower's own promise to repay. The government could issue its own credit in the same way. There are a number of successful historical precedents for this, including the publicly-owned central banks of Australia and New Zealand, which saved those countries from the devastating effects of the Great Depression in the 1930s; and the publicly-owned bank of the colony of Pennsylvania, which funded the Pennsylvania provincial government without taxes or debt in the first half of the eighteenth century. (See Ellen Brown, “How Banks Secretly Create Money,” www.webofdebt.com/articles , July 3, 2007; and “It's the Derivatives, Stupid!”, ibid ., September 18, 2008.)

Today's bankrupt banks dug their own black hole when they loaded up their books with lucrative but highly risky derivative bets that are now backfiring on them. Instead of trying to clean up the banks' books by throwing taxpayer money at this impossible-to-fill black hole, we would be better off simply letting the banks go bankrupt, as President Reagan did with the savings and loan industry in the 1980s. The banks' bad debts could then be discharged in bankruptcy, and their assets could be absorbed into a public credit system with a new, untarnished set of books that would serve the interests of the people and return the profits to the people.

So What Is an Investor to Do?

That still leaves the question of how to negotiate today's very unpredictable markets. The Friday before the white-knuckle October 24 ride, investors were being encouraged to get back into the market. Commentators cheerily announced the best market week in 5-1/2 years, after the Dow climbed from a low of 7,774 on October 10 to a high of 9,924 on October 14. But the week still ended below 9,000, and the market was coming off the most historic plunge since the Great Depression, down from a high of 10,845 on October 3 to below 8,000 a week later. By October 24, the Dow was again hovering near 8,000.

“Frankly, I'm sick of this,” said CNBC market watcher Erin Burnett as she tracked the Dow's wild gyrations on October 23. “Up and down, up and down. It doesn't seem to mean anything or be linked to anything.”

I'm hanging onto my gold and silver stocks out of sheer doggedness; but other beleaguered investors might well decide it's time to pull their money out of a stock market that is looking more and more like a rigged and risky Las Vegas casino and put it somewhere else. As one talk show commentator quipped recently, “I'm fully diversified. I've got some under the mattress, some under the floor boards, some in the backyard.”    

Ellen Brown, J.D., developed her research skills as an attorney practicing civil litigation in Los Angeles. In Web of Debt, her latest book, she turns those skills to an analysis of the Federal Reserve and “the money trust.” She shows how this private cartel has usurped the power to create money from the people themselves, and how we the people can get it back. Her eleven books include the bestselling Nature's Pharmacy , co-authored with Dr. Lynne Walker, and Forbidden Medicine . Her websites are www.webofdebt.com and www.ellenbrown.com .


1 Sean Brodrick, “Yes, We Have No Silver,” Money and Markets (October 22, 2008).

2 Bill Murphy, “Is Martial Law in America Right Around the Corner?”, Le Metropole Café (October 16, 2008).

3 Don Coxe Weekly Webcast (September 5, 2008).

4 John Heinzl, “From the Coxe Files: The Real Reason Commodities Are Tumbling,” TorontoGlobe and Mail (September 10, 2008).

5 Timothy Homan, “U.S., Europe, Japan Devised Plan to Prop Up Dollar,” Nikkei Says,” Bloomberg (August 27, 2008).

6 Bill Murpthy, “Midas,” Le Metropole Cafe (October 21, 2008).

7 Theodore Butler, “Fact Versus Speculation,” Silver Seek (September 2, 2008) (emphasis added).

8 Rob Kirby, “The Stars Are Aligning – But for What?”, Le Metropole Cafe (September 9, 2008).

9 Executive Order 12631 of March 18, 1988, 53 FR, 3 CFR, 1988 Comp., page 559.

10 Nouriel Roubini, “Comrades Bush, Paulson and Bernanke Welcome You to the USSRA (United Socialist State Republic of America),” Global EconoMonitor (September 9, 2008).

11 “US Is ‘More Communist than China': Jim Rogers,” CNBC (September 8, 2008).

May 20, 2011 Australian company to build plant in Institute

CHARLESTON, W.Va. (AP) - A company based in Sydney, Australia has announced plans to build a factory in Institute that will manufacture activated carbon used to lower mercury emissions at coal-fired power plants.

The $29 million is expected to create about 40 full-time jobs.

According to media reports, Carbonxt Inc. has been operating a pilot plant to produce smaller amounts of activated carbon for about two years in Dunbar.

Carbonxt plans to start construction this fall and complete the project at the Bayer CropScience Institute plant about a year later.

The West Virginia Economic Development Authority on Thursday unanimously gave preliminary approval for a $13 million low-interest loan that will fund part of the project.

Lawsuits fail to stem flow of antipsychotic pills to kids
Palm Beach Post
Last year, AstraZeneca paid $520 million to settle allegations that it illegally marketed Seroquel for use in children and in prisons, among other claims. In two years ending in mid 2008, DJJ bought jailed children 217563 tablets of Seroquel in various ...
See all stories on this topic »

Rumor: AstraZeneca could be weighing Cubist buyout - FierceBiotech
By Ryan McBride
The Telegraph reported on some fresh takeover rumors last night, noting new gossip that British drugmaker AstraZeneca ($AZN) is considering a buyout of Lexington, MA-based Cubist Pharmaceuticals ( Read more...
Biotech News - http://www.fiercebiotech.com/news

Treatability Studies Under CERCLA
The fact sheet, "Treatability Studies under CERCLA : an Overview", provides a summary of information presented in the guidance document (Overview of ...
nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPURL.cgi?Dockey=9100UHQF.txt
- 1 - IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN ...
CERCLA for response costs incurred or to be incurred by Plaintiff to ... Venue in this Court is proper pursuant to Section 113(b) of CERCLA , 42 U.S.C. ? ...
www.courthousenews.com/2011/05/16/eXXON.pdf
NASA CERCLA Program at JPL
Search documents and information pertaining to the CERCLA project. NASA CERCLA Program at JPL. + Home. + Program Contacts. + Info Repository Database ...
cercla.jpl.nasa.gov/NMOWeb/default.aspx?id=photo.monkhill
Streamlining the RI/FS for CERCLA Municipal Landfill Sites
Landfill Site Characteristics For the purpose of this fact sheet, CERCLA municipal landfills are those facilities where a combination of princi- pally ...
nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPURL.cgi?Dockey=9100UHJC.txt


COMPACT OF FREE ASSOCIATION

Health, Safety, and Environment

The Attack on Regulatory Safeguards

Certain industry lobbyists and their allies in Congress are waging war against regulations, attempting to undermine the protections that keep our environment clean, our products and workplaces safe, and our economy prosperous. The legislative centerpiece of their campaign is H.R. 10, the REINS Act , which would require congressional approval for new rules. Find out more about what's going on in Congress.

Read More >>

Articles & Analysis

EPA Suspends Chemical Reporting

On May 11, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) suspended the next submission period for the Toxic Substances Control Act's (TSCA) Inventory Update Reporting (IUR). The IUR is an inventory of chemical substances in commerce in the United States. The suspension came a month after the agency received complaints from House Republicans and the chemical industry about difficulties complying with new reporting requirements.

Read More >>

More than 100 Organizations Make Environmental Right-to-Know Recommendations to Obama Administration

On May 10, on behalf of more than 100 public interest organizations, OMB Watch presented a set of detailed environmental right-to-know recommendations to the Obama administration. Collaboratively drafted and endorsed by advocates from across the country, the recommendations aim to expand access to environmental information, equip citizens with data about their environmental health, and empower Americans to protect themselves, their families, and their communities from toxic pollution.

Read More >>

New Policy Recommendations Aim to Empower Americans and Strengthen Environmental Right to Know

WASHINGTON, May 10, 2011—112 organizations have endorsed a 102-page set of environmental right-to-know recommendations, which OMB Watch presented to the Obama administration on the groups' behalf. The recommendations, collaboratively drafted by advocates from across the country, aim to expand access to environmental information, equip citizens with data about their environmental health, and empower Americans to protect themselves, their families, and their communities from toxic pollution.

Read More >>

Transparency at Risk in Budget Debate

Penny-pinching fever has engulfed Washington, with both parties eager to root out perceived wasteful spending. Several proposals look for savings in the government's information dissemination programs. While some of the proposals are carefully targeted reductions, others would slash funding indiscriminately with damaging consequences to some innovative transparency projects and programs.

Read More >>

Corporate Money Fuels Attack on Public Protections

An ongoing attack on the nation's regulatory safety net is being led by lawmakers with deep financial ties to the corporations and lobbying groups that often complain about federal standards, campaign finance data show.

Read More >>

Food Safety Bill Starts, Stalls in First Week of Lame-Duck Session

The U.S. Senate, hampered by politics and process, recently failed yet again to pass food safety reform legislation. The Senate is in the process of considering both related and unrelated amendments to the bill during the lame-duck session.

Read More >>

Advocates Meet to Invigorate Environmental Right-to-Know Policies

Nearly 100 public interest advocates from around the country recently convened in Washington, DC, to build an agenda for improving the public's right to know about environmental and public health threats. Advocates for public health, safety, and the environment met to develop federal policy proposals that would enhance government engagement with communities and improve access to information crucial to protecting the public. The emerging agenda seeks to capitalize on recent openness initiatives by the federal government and the Obama administration's efforts to improve government transparency, participation, and collaboration.

Read More >>

National Mining Association Sues EPA over Limits on Mountaintop Mining

The National Mining Association (NMA) filed a lawsuit on July 20 against the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) claiming that new enforcement guidelines issued by EPA in April unlawfully obstruct permitting of coal mining operations. NMA claims the new guidelines effectively prohibit certain types of surface mining and that EPA denied NMA the opportunity to review and comment on the guidelines before they became final.

Read More >>

Environmental, Health, and Safety Agencies Set Rulemaking Agendas

On April 26, federal agencies published their updated rulemaking agendas outlining past, present, and future regulations. The agendas provide insight into the Obama administration's plans and expectations in the coming months.




Read More >>

What's Next for Coal Mine Safety?

In the wake of the latest coal mining disaster that killed 29 miners at the Upper Big Branch Mine in West Virginia, calls for safety reforms and enhanced regulatory powers echo once again. While mine safety has improved since the recent high death toll of 2006, it remains to be seen if this incident will result in significant changes or if deaths and injuries will continue to be perceived as a cost of doing business.

Read More >>

EPA Plan Seeks to Instill Transparency into Agency DNA

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has released its plan for improving the agency's transparency as part of the Obama administration's Open Government Directive (OGD). The EPA was an early proponent of the new openness agenda, with EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson calling for the agency to operate " as if it were in a fishbowl ." The agency's new Open Government Plan documents numerous ongoing and future actions that should continue the agency's advance toward transparency and accountability.

Read More >>

Creating a 21st Century Environmental Right-to-Know Agenda

Political developments in recent years forced environmental right-to-know advocates into a constant state of defense. Despite these challenges, citizens have repeatedly exercised their right to know and achieved numerous successes, proving that access to environmental information and public engagement are vital democratic tools.

Read More >>

EPA to Limit Mountaintop Mining

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced new guidance April 1 that should limit the impacts of mountaintop coal mining in Appalachia. The agency issued the guidance to clarify EPA's expectations regarding legal and scientific interpretations when issuing permits for the destructive surface mining practice.

Read More >>

EPA's New HERO Defends the Public's Right to Know

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) recently launched a new online database that provides access to the scientific studies used in making key regulatory decisions. The EPA released the Health and Environmental Research Online (HERO) database on March 24. According to the agency, this action "is part of the [Obama administration's] open government directive to conduct business with transparency, participation, and collaboration."

Read More >>

New Vehicle Standards Take Aim at Climate-Altering Emissions

The Obama administration recently announced new standards that will improve fuel efficiency in new vehicles starting in 2012. The standards mark the first time in U.S. history that the federal government has crafted regulations aimed specifically at reducing greenhouse gas emissions and stemming the impact of global climate change.

Read More >>

OSHA Proposal Cuts Workers' Right to Know about Chemical Risks

A recent proposal by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) would endanger workers by reducing the amount of information on chemical hazards provided to them, according to several public interest groups. OSHA's proposal is part of its effort to make its Hazard Communication Standard conform to a United Nations system for classifying chemicals. The effort has been criticized by several public interest groups who view portions of it as an unnecessary contraction of workers' right to know and as contrary to the rhetoric of transparency and movement toward greater disclosure seen elsewhere in the Obama administration.

Read More >>

Modernizing the Occupational Safety and Health Act

On March 16, a House subcommittee held a hearing on proposed legislation to modernize the Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSH Act). The House bill, the Protecting America's Workers Act (PAWA), would update civil and criminal penalties and provide enhanced protection to workers who report unsafe working conditions.

Read More >>

Scientists Recommend Ways to Restore Scientific Integrity to Government

On March 3, the Project on Scientific Knowledge and Public Policy (SKAPP) released the results of a two-year research effort to explore the working environment of federal scientists in the public health and environmental fields. The results showed that not only is there political interference in their work, but that scientists also faced a series of obstacles that delay the study and dissemination of scientific information that affects the public every day.

Read More >>

Regulatory Lapses Inflate Health Care Costs, Reports Find

A new report has found that foodborne illnesses take a $152 billion toll on the American economy each year. Other hazards that regulators keep tabs on, such as air pollution, can increase medical costs if the public is not adequately protected.

Read More >>

White House Seeks More Transparent Environmental Reviews

The Obama administration has proposed new guidance intended to increase transparency and public involvement in the implementation of one of the nation's oldest and most important environmental laws. The 40-year-old National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) creates a process where federal agencies must review the environmental impacts of their actions and evaluate alternatives while working to include public participation in the process.

Read More >>

SEC Guidance Addresses Disclosure of Climate Change Impacts

The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) took a significant step last month toward expanding the scope and quality of corporate disclosures as they pertain to the environment. On Jan. 27, the SEC voted to provide guidance "clarify[ing] what publicly-traded companies need to disclose to investors in terms of climate-related 'material' effects on business operations, whether from new emissions management policies, the physical impacts of changing weather or business opportunities associated with the growing clean energy economy."

Read More >>

Public Speaks on Ideas to Open Up Environmental Agencies

Agencies, including those dealing with environmental and public health issues, are seeking ideas on how to improve transparency, public participation, collaboration, and innovation, and the agencies are receiving numerous suggestions. The challenge for individual agencies is to shape the diverse ideas into the strategies and goals that will comprise their Open Government Plans.

Read More >>

OMB Role in EPA Chemical Program Questioned

The White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has repeatedly inserted itself in the development of a U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) program designed to study the effects of chemicals on human and animal endocrine systems.

Read More >>

U.S. Waters Still Toxic Dump Sites

 

A new report from Environment America uncovers a dirty truth in publicly available government databases about the country's waterways – widespread toxic pollution dumped by industrial facilities. More than 230 million pounds of toxics were discharged into 1,900 waterways across all 50 states in 2007, including chemicals known to cause cancer and birth defects.

Read More >>

EPA Inspector General Targets Water and Air Enforcement

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Office of Inspector General (OIG) recently provided two assessments of EPA's weaknesses in enforcing water and air programs. The OIG cited management problems at the federal and regional levels that largely indict the Bush administration's lax approach to environmental enforcement.

Read More >>

Metal Mining Proposal Marks Online Forum Trend at EPA

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) launched an online forum on the agency's blog to collect comments on a potential change to the way metal mining companies report their pollution. Controversial court decisions in recent years have reduced the amount of information on the industry's pollution. This online forum marks at least the third time the Obama administration's EPA has used a "Web 2.0" tool to engage the public on matters of proposed agency policies.

Read More >>

EPA Plans to Listen to Scientists Again

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) recently announced it will increase the influence of scientists and the level of transparency in setting standards for common air pollutants, a reversal of a Bush administration policy that politicized scientific analyses. Clean air advocates are welcoming the policy reversal as a restoration of the role of science in crafting policies that impact environmental and public health.

Read More >>

OIRA Nominee Sunstein Promises Law and Pragmatism Will Guide Decisions

During his May 12 confirmation hearing, President Barack Obama's choice for regulatory czar, Cass Sunstein, portrayed himself as a pragmatist, one who will not use economic analysis as a straitjacket for regulations. In pledging to look to the law first for regulatory guidance, Sunstein tried to distance himself from past regulatory czars who strongly supported economic analysis to judge the adequacy of health, safety, and environmental rules.

Read More >>

EPA Back in the "Fishbowl"

In a recent memorandum to employees, the head of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) outlined broad principles of transparency that will govern the agency's interactions with the public. By promising to operate EPA as if it were "in a fishbowl," Administrator Lisa Jackson reinstated a principle many considered ignored by the previous administration. Jackson also announced measures to promote transparency in EPA's economic stimulus activities.

Read More >>

OMB Watch Unveils Redesigned, Expanded Environmental Right-to-Know Website

 

WASHINGTON, May 5, 2009—OMB Watch today launched a redesigned and expanded website for the Right-to-Know Network (RTK NET) at www.rtknet.org . The website serves as a source for information about environmental and public health threats and opportunities for public engagement with environmental policy, and it offers news, data, and analysis of environmental right-to-know issues.

Read More >>

EPA Moves to Require Greenhouse Gas Reporting

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has taken the first crucial step toward creating a transparent and accountable climate change program by proposing a greenhouse gas registry. The registry would require thousands of facilities from a broad range of industries to record and report their annual emissions of greenhouse gases. A comprehensive registry is a prerequisite for any future efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Read More >>

EPA Moving on Climate Change

 

In the first major move by the federal government to address climate change, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has declared heat-trapping greenhouse gas emissions a threat to public health and welfare, setting the stage for potentially major regulations.

Read More >>

New Energy on TRI at National Conference

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking steps toward improving public access to pollution information and is seeking ideas from the public for improving the Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) program. During a national conference on TRI the week of March 30, the EPA presented several new tools for accessing and analyzing pollution data that will soon be available to the public. The TRI, a bedrock right-to-know program, has not been expanded since 2000, and EPA has been heavily criticized for its management of the program in recent years.

Read More >>

High Court Rebuffs Environmentalists, Permits Cost-Benefit Analysis

The U.S. Supreme Court recently ruled 6-3 that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) can weigh costs against benefits under parts of the Clean Water Act. The court said EPA was not required to impose the most environmentally protective requirements on power plants that inadvertently kill millions of fish.

Read More >>

Failures in OSHA Program Linked to Workplace Fatalities

A new Department of Labor report is highly critical of a Bush administration program designed to improve workplace safety. The report links poor enforcement to the deaths of workers at high-risk facilities – the specific targets of the special program. Poor quality data and inadequate training, inspections, and enforcement plagued the program.

Read More >>

The Toxics Release Inventory is Back

On March 11, President Barack Obama signed into law a restoration of the Toxics Release Inventory (TRI), reversing changes made by the Bush administration that had weakened the program. The measure was included deep within the Omnibus Appropriations Act of 2009 and restored the rules that existed before the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) weakened them in December 2006.

Read More >>

Hundreds Call on EPA to Restore Public Access to Toxic Pollution Information

WASHINGTON, March 3, 2009—Hundreds of national, state, and local groups and individual signers today called on EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson to reverse a 2006 Environmental Protection Agency rule that limits public access to information about toxic chemical releases. The rule, finalized in December 2006, allows industries to withhold information on the quantities and locations of toxic chemical releases previously reported to the Toxics Release Inventory (TRI).

Read More >>

EPA Inspector General Rips Program on Chemical Risks in Communities

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is in need of significant improvements in the implementation of the agency's Risk Management Program, according to a new report from the EPA Office of Inspector General (OIG). The OIG report highlights the need for greater accountability for the Clean Air Act program. However, EPA has refused to provide program data online, reducing the public's ability to ensure the safety of vulnerable communities.

Read More >>

Nada Known about Nano – Reporting Requirement Inches Forward

As the nanotechnology industry continues to grow, government policies are slowly being developed to gather basic information on potential threats to the environment and public health. For years, the federal government has promoted the nanotech industry, even though little has been known about the environmental and public health impacts of the materials. Recent actions by California, Canada, and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) will require companies to report data on potential threats from the use of nanotechnology.

Read More >>

USDA Announces Changes to Food Labeling Rule

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Secretary Tom Vilsack announced Feb. 20 that a food labeling rule finalized in the last days of the Bush administration will go into effect as scheduled. The rule has been under review at USDA in accordance with a Jan. 20 memo from White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, which placed a moratorium on all final rules not in effect at the time President Barack Obama took office. However, Vilsack is asking food producers to follow additional voluntary country-of-origin labeling practices that could close loopholes left by the Bush rule.

Read More >>

EPA Preparing to Battle Climate Change on Multiple Fronts

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), led by new administrator Lisa Jackson, is taking its first steps toward tackling global climate change. Jackson has announced her intent to review several Bush-era policies that limited the agency's ability to curb greenhouse gas emissions through regulation.

Read More >>

OMB Watch Executive Director Contributes to Book on Sustainability

The Environmental Law Institute has released the Agenda for a Sustainable America , a comprehensive assessment of U.S. progress toward sustainable development and a roadmap of necessary next steps toward achieving a sustainable America. OMB Watch Executive Director Gary D. Bass contributed to the book, in a chapter titled "Public Access to Information, Participation, and Justice: Forward and Backward Steps Toward an Informed and Engaged Citizenry."


Order Agenda for a Sustainable America

Read More >>

Fish and Wildlife Service Announces Work Plan to Restore Biological Priorities and Certainty to Endangered Species Listing Process

The Ugly Truth BY BEVERLY FORD NEW ENGLAND CENTER FOR INVESTIGATIVE REPORTING Sunday, May 22, 2011 3:44 AM EDT

Many state Superfund sites still toxic after 30 years, over$1B In all his years as an attorney, Jan Schlichtmann has had few lawsuits so profoundly affect him as a 1982 case involving eight Woburn families and a public water supply contaminated by toxic chemicals.

Profiled in numerous newspaper, TV and radio accounts, along with the movie "A Civil Action" starring John Travolta, the lawsuit became a watershed event in environmental politics for Massachusetts and the nation.

Yet today, almost 30 years after that landmark court case, the wells that supplied both toxic drinking water and a legacy of cancer to Woburn remain contaminated despite a $21 million cleanup effort.

And no one, not even the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency which monitors the site as part of the federal Superfund program, knows whether humans are still being exposed to its witch's brew of chemicals, federal records show.

"Woburn made people see the profound health effects that can occur from contaminated sites," said Schlichtmann, who settled the 1982 case for $8 million. "The ugly truth is that the damage we do today will take a long time to fix." Woburn isn't alone when it comes to facing "the ugly truth" hidden in its soil and water. Twenty-five other Bay State communities, all home to Superfund sites, still live with a toxic legacy, despite millions of dollars spent to clean them up.

From Cape Cod to the Berkshires and beyond, few communities are left untouched by the contamination. With 3,000 to 5,000 polluted sites currently listed with the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection and 40,000 others already cleaned up by that agency since 1985, the state remains a patchwork of toxicity.

"They're everywhere," Eugene Benson, legal counsel and program director for Alternatives for Community and Environment, said of the many contaminated sites that dot the Massachusetts landscape. "They range from sites that aren't serious to sites that are very serious.

"Some of the worst and most extensive sites are on the Superfund list," he notes. "But there still are some very bad sites, as far as contamination and the toxins, that are not on the Superfund list, too."

Benson, whose organization works to achieve environmental justice for low-income communities and communities of color, said DEP's website offers a way for residents to check out toxic waste sites in their own community.

The worst of those sites, the ones that pose an imminent health risk, rise to federal Superfund status, however. In Massachusetts, 31 sites have attained that ranking.

According to EPA records, at least one-third of those sites may pose a health risk to people living and working nearby. At five of those locations, the risk of human exposure is noted in EPA cleanup impact profiles, all compiled since 2010.

At some sites like New Bedford Harbor, where PCB-contaminated seafood is a concern, the exposure risk is listed as "not under control," meaning that human contact with pollutants is possible.

At other sites, such as the Industri-Plex site in Woburn, where cleanup is estimated to run up to $13.6 million, contaminated groundwater continues to migrate to other areas, according to those same reports.

At six other state hot spots, there is insufficient data to determine the status of groundwater migration or human exposure to toxins, the EPA cleanup impact profiles found.

Avoiding exposure is even more difficult at some toxic properties because there are no signs posted to warn of the contamination. Others, like Iron Horse Park in Billerica, are still open for business, even though the EPA lists that location as one where human exposure is not yet under control.

In towns like Wilmington, where toxic waste discovered in 1980 still hasn't been fully cleaned up, residents worry that a spike in cancer clusters is caused by the poisonous brew found in the wells they were drinking from until the town closed them in 2002. The EPA, which added the 53-acre former chemical plant in Wilmington to its Superfund list in 2006, is only now conducting studies.

Even parcels that have been on the list the longest, like the Baird and McGuire chemical plant in Holbrook - ranked as the 14th worst site in the nation when it was added to the Superfund roster in 1982 - continue to be tainted.

Despite a cleanup effort estimated by the EPA to top more than $220 million, a groundwater study conducted last year under that federal agency's authorization found metals such as arsenic still remain in high concentrations on that site 30 years later.

Yet, it's not just chemical companies that are running up the toxic tab. In a state where cleanup costs for commercial sites are estimated by the EPA to stretch beyond $1 billion, the biggest polluter may very well be the federal government.

With six military facilities on the Superfund list, the federal government also is linked to at least six other contaminated sites in Palmer, Lowell, Attleboro, Concord, Tyngsborough, and Bridgewater, according to confidential EPA records of the top 100 "potentially responsible parties" obtained by the Center for Public Integrity.

W.R. Grace ranks second with ties to seven sites in Woburn, Dartmouth, Acton, Lowell, Billerica, Bridgewater, and Tyngsborough, those same records show.

The cost of cleaning up all those toxic minefields remains unclear. EPA says the "potential responsible parties" who often pay for the cleanup are not required to release cost figures. Neither the EPA nor Department of Defense officials were able to produce cleanup figures for any of the six military facilities in Massachusetts.

As toxic waste continues to percolate in groundwater and remediation costs soar into the stratosphere, it all seems like bad news to enviro-conscious activists like Taryn Hallweaver, the Eastern Massachusetts community organizer for the Toxics Action Center, a New England-based advocacy group.

"We've got an industrial legacy like nowhere else in the country," she says of the state's toxic history, which stretches back to the 1800s and the Industrial Revolution. "It's become a serious issue for Massachusetts. These sites just aren't getting cleaned up."

A generation has already passed since the Woburn site and three others in Massachusetts landed on the EPA's list of the 114 most contaminated spots in America. Created in 1980 in response to health concerns over toxic waste in neighborhoods like New York's Love Canal, Superfund - formally known as the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act - is today comprised of more than 1,300 toxic hot spots nationally.

In Massachusetts, the four sites that made it onto the nation's first Superfund list are still on it. Sixteen others, all added during the 1980s, remain on that list, as well, despite more than $500 million already invested in their cleanup. A quarter of those 20 locations - New Bedford Harbor, Fort Devens, Iron Horse Park in Billerica and Woburn's Industri-Plex site - still show signs of contamination nearly three decades after first being identified.

In Western Massachusetts, where PCS Resources, a waste oil refinery and solvent recovery plant in Palmer earned Superfund designation in 1983, contaminated soils have been removed and cleanup levels achieved.

But in 2010, an EPA study of the site found that 1,4-dioxane, a contaminant not previously assessed, may be present on that property.

Part of the reason behind the snail's pace of cleanup is due to the lack of technology to quickly remove toxins from soil and groundwater.

Cleaning up ground and water contamination is an arduous and cumbersome task that may take decades to complete, officials maintain.

Site owners also force lengthy delays, challenging EPA decisions and balking at the cost of cleanup, creating a lull that can sometimes last for years. Yet, despite all the wrangling, EPA says it routinely collects 70 percent of all cleanup costs from the businesses that caused the contamination.

In 2002, however, the agency faced perhaps its biggest challenge of all when Congress slashed the Superfund's primary income source - a tax targeting industrial polluters that once generated about $1 billion annually. By the end of Fiscal 2003, the fund's balance was zero, down from a peak of $3.8 billion in 1996.

Today, appropriations are made by Congress, which last month proposed slashing $23 million from the Superfund budget in a cutback that would reduce it from $1.31 billion to $1.28 billion for the rest of the fiscal year.

Enforcement actions by the EPA supplement that budget, with responsible businesses paying for cleanup costs often under court-ordered agreements, EPA officials say.

Still, the budget cuts have taken a toll.

A precipitous scale-down of cleanup activity has cut mitigation by more than 50 percent, notes Ed Hopkins, the director of environmental quality for the Washington, D.C.-based Sierra Club.

"During the Clinton administration, roughly 80 sites were getting cleaned up every year," he says. "In the last eight or nine years, that rate has fallen by half. And, more recently, it's been even lower."

Yet despite that decline, state and federal officials - and even some environmentalists - are optimistic about our toxic fate.

Toughened federal regulations and more public vigilance have helped curtail the creation of new Superfund sites, says Robert Cianciarulo, chief of the Massachusetts Superfund Section for EPA. He notes that the last time a site was added to the Bay State's Superfund list was in 2006.

Only three sites have made that list in the last 10 years, he adds.

"Our practices have really changed, in that we're not creating new Superfund sites the way we have historically," said Jo Anne Shatkin, CEO of CLF Ventures, the non-profit consulting arm of the Conservation Law Foundation. "Despite the fact that we have so many sites here and so many sites that still need to be cleaned up, we have made progress."

Still, some worry that further budget cuts could take the sting out of the state and federal agencies that serve as environmental watchdogs, slowing down mitigation efforts even further.

"If EPA doesn't have the resources to investigate problems and enforce the law, it takes away the incentive for industries to clean up their own problems," Hopkins said. "We need to have a dedicated source of funding to get this job done in a timely way."

Even Schlichtman agrees with that.

"We don't have another 50 years to clean up the messes we are creating now," he said. "We have to take action to prevent this large scale pollution, or we're not going to be around at the end of the century."

Mining firm atones for ‘desecrating' mountain

By Tito Fiel
Inquirer Mindanao 12:55 am | Monday, May 23rd, 2011 0 Share New

SIOCON, Zamboanga del Norte—Canadian mining firm TVI Resources has finally agreed to take penance for violating the rights of the Subanen people and pay fines the tribal way.

TVI's compensation for its “faults” came nearly 15 years after it started operating here.

“This is our way of penance for desecrating the sacred Mt. Canatuan. It's an atonement for our sins,” said Joel Alasco, manager of the company's community relations and development office.

At the start of the seven-day “boklug,” the Subanen's way of atonement for sins, on Tuesday, TVI officials publicly acknowledged the authority and leadership of Timuay Jose “Boy” Anoy.

A meeting with elders had earlier been called. It was hosted by the council of chieftains of the Seven Rivers.

 

Remote Monitoring & Remediation


Stand-alone | Multi-site | Exercise-wide Configurations
Ideal System Solutions, Inc. (ISSI) Managed Services is a flat-rate service that helps prevent potential issues and problems before they occur.  We do this by utilizing system tools to monitor your critical devices and provide visibility into your IT environment.  Our IdealCareTM certified technicians actively monitor your systems and alert you of any problems, before they occur.  That means an immediate response in minutes - instead of hours. Our sophisticated system tools and seamless procedures will make sure that your systems are reliable, your data is protected, and your employees are productive.  This response will quickly diminish your need for computer related maintenance services.
Remote System Management Services:

Minimize network and device downtime that causes lost productivity  One Call, One Provider, One-Up On The Competition To learn more about our Remote System Management Services please contact us or call 763-255-1777


GAO report The environmental impacts of OHV use, both direct and indirect, have been studied and documented over the past several decades. In fact, in 2004, the Forest Service Chief identified unmanaged motorized recreation as one of the top four threats to national forests, estimating that there were more than 14,000 miles of user-created trails, which can lead to longlasting damage. Potential environmental impacts associated with OHV use include damage to soil, vegetation, riparian areas or wetlands, water quality, and air quality, as well as noise, wildlife habitat fragmentation, and the spread of invasive species. For example, studies on the impacts of OHV use indicate that soil damage can increase erosion and runoff, as well as decrease the soil's ability to support vegetation. Additionally, research has shown that habitat fragmentation from OHV use alters the distribution of wildlife species across the landscape and affects many behaviors such as feeding, courtship, breeding, and migration; habitat fragmentation can also negatively affect wildlife beyond the actual amount of surface area disturbed by roads. In 2007, the U.S. Geological Survey reported that as a result of OHV use, the size and abundance of native plants may be reduced, which in turn may permit invasive or nonnative plants to spread and dominate the plant community, thus diminishing overall biodiversity. Another potential impact of OHV use is damage to cultural resources, including archaeologically significant sites such as Native American grave sites, historic battlefields, fossilized remains, and ruins of ancient civilizations. OHV use on federal lands generally increased from fiscal year 2004 through fiscal year 2008, according to a majority of field unit officials from the Forest Service, BLM, and Park Service. Most field unit officials reported that environmental impacts associated with OHV use occurred on less than 20 percent of the lands they manage, although a few field unit officials reported that 80 percent or more of their lands are affected. Most field unit officials also indicated that social and safety impacts occasionally occurred on their lands. Most field unit officials from all three agencies indicated that environmental impacts of OHV use occur on less than 20 percent of the lands they manage; a few field unit officials, however, reported that 80 percent or more of their lands are affected by OHV-related environmental impacts.7 Forest Service and BLM field unit officials were more likely to report greater percentages of land with environmental impacts than Park Service field unit officials. The OHV-related environmental impacts that field unit officials identified as most widespread were soil erosion, damage to vegetation, wildlife habitat fragmentation, and the spread of invasive species. For example, officials from the Tonto National Forest in Arizona noted that the main impact associated with OHV use in the forest has been soil erosion, particularly in areas with highly erodible soils (see fig. 4). Additionally, officials from BLM's Phoenix District in Arizona noted that OHV use has fragmented desert tortoise habitat because the tortoise can be disturbed by OHV noise. Other reported environmental impacts included damage to riparian zones and harm to threatened or endangered species. Specifically, 31 field unit officials (7 percent of units that reported having OHV use) indicated that at least one environmental impact of OHV use affected more than 80 percent of their lands. The severity of certain OHV-related environmental impacts, such as soil damage, may also depend on the ecosystem in which OHV use occurs (see fig. 5). For example, BLM officials from the El Centro Field Office in southern California explained that the Imperial Sand Dunes are dynamic and soil damage from OHV use tends to be minimal, since most tracks are quickly erased by the wind. In contrast, certain desert ecosystems, including those in Arches National Park , have sensitive soils, and recovery from OHV-related disturbance to soils and plant life can be very slow. Additionally, Forest Service officials from the Manti-LaSal National Forest in central Utah stated that soil erosion is a major environmental impact associated with OHV use on their forest. Damage to the forest's soils often occurs from OHV use in the late fall (after the first snow), when the ground is wet but not frozen. While officials at the Manti-LaSal National Forest said that these damaged areas could recover in about a year with rehabilitation efforts, the areas often take 4 to 5 years to recover because the forest lacks staff to rehabilitate the lands more quickly. Similarly, Park Service officials in Big Cypress National Preserve said that the environmental impacts primarily associated with OHV use include disturbance to soils and vegetation, as well as disruption to the hydrology of the wetland ecosystem. These officials further stated that while plant life regenerates fast, ruts from OHV use can persist for more than a decade. Social and safety impacts related to OHV use occasionally or rarely occur on federal lands; although, an annual average of about 110 OHV-related fatalities occurred nationwide from fiscal year 2004 through fiscal year 2008 according to data provided by field unit officials. Forest Service and BLM field unit officials reported a higher frequency of OHV-related social and safety impacts than did Park Service field unit officials. The most often reported of these social and safety impacts were conflicts between OHV and nonmotorized users, displacement of nonmotorized users, conflicts with private landowners, and irresponsible OHV operation. For example, Forest Service officials at the Manti-LaSal National Forest said that motorized recreationists have taken over trails managed for nonmotorized use, resulting in conflicts between motorized and nonmotorized users. Additionally, BLM officials at the Prineville District in central Oregon noted that private landowners adjacent to federal lands, frustrated with OHV users driving on their lands, have taken enforcement into their own hands by placing cables and rocks across trails to prevent unauthorized OHV use. BLM officials at the El Centro Field Office also said that many OHV-related violations are due to irresponsible behavior, such as failing to have a safety flag on an OHV or driving an OHV while under the influence of alcohol. Nearly all reported OHV-related fatalities occurred on Forest Service and BLM lands. Although a majority of field unit officials from all three agencies reported having no OHV-related fatalities from fiscal year 2004 through fiscal year 2008, some field unit officials did report fatalities—a maximum total of about 570 during that time frame at 117 field units. Specifically, Forest Service field unit officials reported about 250 fatalities at 68 field units, BLM about 320 fatalities at 45 field units, and Park Service 5 fatalities at 4 field units. While most field units that had OHV-related fatalities reported 5 or less, a few field unit officials reported between 10 and 75 fatalities. At a national level, the Forest Service's and BLM's management of OHVs is broadly guided by department-level strategic plans, as well as by morespecific agency-level plans. These plans, however, are missing some key elements of strategic planning—such as results-oriented goals, strategies to achieve the goals, time frames for implementing strategies, or performance measures to monitor incremental progress—that could improve OHV management. The Park Service has no extensive planning or guidance for managing OHV use, but this absence seems reasonable given that Park Service regulations limit OHV use to only a few units and that OHV use is not a predominant recreational activity on Park Service lands. The Department of Agriculture's strategic plan includes a goal to protect forests and grasslands. Within the context of this goal, the plan specifically mentions OHV management, identifying unmanaged motorized recreation as one of four key threats to national forests. The plan also identifies a performance measure to develop travel plans—which designate roads, trails, and areas that will be open to motorized travel—for all national forests, with a target of completing these plans by 2010. In addition to this department-level plan, the Forest Service has an agency-level strategic plan that identifies a goal of sustaining and enhancing outdoor recreation opportunities and, in particular, improving the management of OHV use. The Forest Service's strategic plan also reiterates the performance measure identified by the department-level plan—to develop travel management plans for all forests that designate OHV roads, trails, and areas. While the agency plan includes a goal—improving the management of OHV use—and one strategy to achieve the goal—designating motorized roads, trails, and areas—the plan does not identify strategies to address— or time frames to implement—other important aspects of OHV management as identified in the executive orders, such as implementing motorized-travel designations on the ground, communicating with the public, monitoring OHV trail systems, or enforcing OHV regulations. Given that the Forest Service has identified unmanaged motorized recreation as one of the top four threats to national forests, the agency's strategic plan provides insufficient direction on this management challenge. Similar to the Forest Service, BLM's management of OHV use is guided by departmental planning. The Department of the Interior's strategic plan identifies a broad goal of improving recreation opportunities for America , and BLM has two plans expanding on this goal for OHV-related activities. BLM's first plan, the “National Management Strategy for Motorized Off- Highway Vehicle Use on Public Lands,” was published in 2001 as a first step in developing a proactive approach to on-the-ground management of OHVs. The second plan, BLM's “Priorities for Recreation and Visitor Services,” was developed in 2003 and reconfirmed in 2007 as the agency's plan for recreation management, including OHV management. This recreation plan identifies numerous goals for OHV management, as well as strategies the agency can use to achieve each goal. For example, the plan identifies a goal of improving on-the-ground travel management and identifies three strategies to achieve that goal—conducting trails surveys to determine maintenance needs; implementing best management practices such as signs, maps, and the presence of agency staff in the field; and monitoring social outcomes and environmental conditions along trails. Despite identifying numerous goals and strategies to achieve the goals, BLM's recreation plan does not identify any time frames for implementing the strategies or any performance measures for monitoring incremental progress.8 For example, while the agency identifies a strategy of implementing best management practices, the agency identifies neither performance measures that could track the use of best management practices—such as the percentage of routes with signs or the number of field offices with up-to-date maps—nor time frames by which some of these best management practices should be implemented. Without performance measures and time frames, BLM cannot ensure that it is making progress on achieving its goals in a timely manner. Actions that agencies' field units reported taking to manage OHV use include supplementing federal funds with authorized outside resources (such as state grants), communicating with and educating the public, enforcing OHV regulations, and engineering and monitoring OHV trail systems. Additional efforts could improve communication with the public about OHV trails and areas and enforcement of OHV regulations. In addition, a majority of field unit officials reported that they cannot sustainably manage existing OHV areas; sustainable management would include having the necessary human and financial resources available to ensure compliance with regulations, educate users, maintain OHV use areas, and evaluate the existing OHV program. A limited number of staff for OHV management was identified as a great challenge for a majority of Forest Service field unit officials, most BLM field unit officials, and some Park Service officials. Field staff who work on OHV issues work in various capacities, such as managing volunteers, creating route systems, maintaining routes, educating users, and writing state grant applications, but most units do not have such staff. For example, at BLM's Phoenix District Office, OHV management staff maintain an ambassador program, which coordinates volunteers to educate users and promote safe, sustainable OHV use in the area. Managing this program requires one full-time manager plus 10 to 20 percent of the time of two additional staff. Officials from four field units we visited stated that although volunteers and partnerships can enhance OHV management, taking advantage of their labor requires a significant Conclusions Over the past 5 years, OHV use has increased on federal lands and has emerged as a national issue. Federal land management agencies have only recently begun to respond to this trend by revising their plans and how they manage OHV use, but they are having to do so in an environment of constrained budgetary and staff resources and other competing management priorities. Although they reported taking a variety of actions to manage OHV use in this environment, agency field unit officials reported that they cannot sustainably manage their OHV route systems. The likelihood that the Forest Service and BLM, in particular, will succeed in their efforts to enhance management of OHV use could be increased by improving the agencies' planning to include key strategic planning elements. Such enhancements could also help the agencies to more effectively address and manage some of the challenges that their field unit officials reported in managing OHV use on their lands, such as insufficient staffing levels and financial resources. In addition, developing more userfriendly maps and signs for their route systems and seeking more appropriate fines to deter violations of OHV regulations could provide all federal land users, including OHV users, a more enjoyable, quality experience while also potentially lessening environmental, social, and safety impacts resulting from OHV use. The GAO report states: In addition, a majority of officials reported they cannot sustainably manage their existing OHV use areas; sustainable management would include having the necessary human and financial resources to ensure compliance with regulations, educate users, maintain OHV use areas, and evaluate the OHV program. CRS Report for Congress July 11, 2006 Order Code RL33525gh th Recreation on Federal Lands Critics of OHVs raise environmental concerns, including the potential for damage to land and water ecosystems and wildlife habitat; noise, air, and water pollution; and a diminished experience for recreationists seeking quiet and solitude. Two executive orders define and generally guide administering OHV use on federal lands. The first (E.O. 11644, Feb. 8, 1972) defines an off-road vehicle, now commonly referred to as an off-highway vehicle, as “any motorized vehicle designed for or capable of cross country travel on or immediately over land, water, sand, snow, ice, marsh, swampland, or other natural terrain,” with exceptions for any registered motorboat or authorized or emergency vehicles. It was issued to “establish policies and provide for procedures that will ensure that the use of off-road vehicles on public lands will be controlled and directed so as to protect the resources of those lands, to promote the safety of all users of those lands, and to minimize conflicts among the various uses of those lands.” The order directed each agency to develop and issue regulations to carry out this purpose and to provide for the designation of areas and trails on which OHVs may be permitted, and areas in which such vehicles would not be permitted. Agencies were to monitor the effects of OHV use and amend or rescind area designations or other actions taken pursuant to the order as needed to further the policy of the executive order. A subsequent executive order (E.O. 11989, May 24, 1977) amended the 1972 order to exclude military, emergency, and law enforcement vehicles from the definition of off-road vehicles (to which restrictions would apply). It provided authority to immediately close areas or trails if OHVs were causing or would cause considerable damage on the soil, vegetation, wildlife, wildlife habitat, or cultural or historic resources of particular areas or trails. Areas could remain closed until the manager determined that “the adverse effects have been eliminated and that measures have been implemented to prevent future recurrence.” Also, each agency was authorized to adopt the policy that areas could be closed to OHV use except for those areas or trails that are specifically designated as open to such use. This meant that only open areas would have to be marked, a lesser burden on the agencies. BLM and FS managers formulate guidance on the nature and extent of land uses, including OHV use, through regulations, national policies, land and resource management plans, and area-specific decisions. In 2004, the NPS conducted an internal survey of current OHV use, authorized and unauthorized, and the extent of OHV damage (if any) at NPS units to respond to concerns raised by Bluewater Network.2 Currently, NPS is developing regulatory guidance and planning documents for individual park units, and considering what elements of OHV management may best fit under a national OHV management strategy. Meanwhile, on November 29, 2005, Bluewater Network and two other conservation groups sued DOI and NPS over alleged OHV damage to park resources. On October 19, 2005, the NPS also released draft Management Policies for public review through February 18, 2006,3 part of ongoing efforts to review and revise policies guiding management throughout the National Park System, including changing recreational uses and evolving technologies.4 One much discussed proposed change would require “balance” between conservation and enjoyment of park resources, whereas current policy states that “conservation is to be predominant” in conservation/enjoyment conflicts (§ 1.4.3). The extent to which this and other changes represented a shift in emphasis for management of motorized and other recreation is unclear. However, NPS subsequently made extensive changes to its draft policies based on analysis of over 45,000 comments. On June 19, 2006, NPS released a revised draft 2006 Management Policies that largely restores current policy language and its emphasis on conservation (§ 1.4.3).5 The 109th Congress is considering legislation and conducting oversight on issues pertaining to recreation on federal lands. Several major issues are covered in this report, particularly motorized recreation on BLM and FS lands; use of personal watercraft and snowmobiles in certain National Park System units; overflights of national park units; and expansion of the National Trails System. Other issues addressed cover recreation within the National Wildlife Refuge System; recreation at federal (Corps and Bureau) water sites; recreation fees; and Colorado River management within Grand Canyon National Park . While this report focuses on recreation issues on federal lands, it does not cover additional issues affecting these lands comprehensively. For background on federal land management generally, see CRS Report RL32393, Federal Land Management Agencies: Background on Land and Resources Management, coordinated by Carol Hardy Vincent. Overview information on numerous natural resource use and protection issues is provided in CRS Report RL32699, Natural Resources: Selected Issues for the 109th Congress, coordinated by Nicole Carter and Carol Hardy Vincent. For information on NPS issues, see CRS Report RL33484, National Park Management, coordinated by Carol Hardy Vincent. Information on BLM and Forest Service lands is contained in CRS Issue Brief IB10076, Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Lands and National Forests, coordinated by Ross W. Gorte and Carol Hardy Vincent. For information on appropriations for federal land management agencies, see CRS Report RL33399, Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2007 Appropriations, coordinated by Carol Hardy Vincent and Susan Boren. Current Issues Motorized Recreation on BLM Land (by Carol Hardy Vincent) Background. The growing and diverse nature of recreation on BLM lands has increased the challenge of managing recreation and other land uses, and managing different types of recreation. Access to BLM lands for a variety of recreational purposes is viewed as important for fostering public health, public support for land management, and a stable economic base for communities that depend on recreation and tourism. It also has enhanced interest in protecting the ecological integrity of federal lands from environmental harm as a result of recreational use. Motorized OHV use, including use of dirt bikes and all-terrain vehicles, is a major recreational use of BLM lands that has been controversial. While motorized user groups often have opposed restrictions on OHV use, many environmentalists have been concerned about harm to natural and cultural resources. In some areas, OHV use may conflict with other types of recreation, such as hiking, that seek quiet and solitude on agency lands. There are also differing views on how effectively OHV authorities are being enforced. While BLM employs a variety of means of enforcement, including monitoring, law enforcement, signing and mapping, and emergency closures of routes, enforcement may be impeded in some locations due to their remoteness, insufficient signs, inadequate staff and resources, and other factors. Administrative Actions. Guidance on OHV use on BLM lands is provided in law, executive orders, and agency regulations and policies. Under agency regulations (43 C.F.R. § 8340), BLM has been designating public lands as open, limited, or closed to OHV use. As of October 31, 2005, the following designations had been made: open, where OHV use is permitted anywhere, 81.1 million acres; limited, where OHV use is in some way restricted, 126.7 million acres; and closed, where OHV use is prohibited, 11.6 million acres. The remaining 42.1 million acres of BLM land (mostly in Alaska ) are not currently designated. Other regulations govern OHV use in particular areas. For instance, on August 18, 2005, BLM issued final supplementary rules for its lands in Oregon and Washington , which include guidance on OHV use. The FY2007 BLM budget justification describes BLM's “most pressing challenge” as “comprehensively managing travel, off highway vehicles (OHVs), and public access in the West” (p. III-128). In FY2007, BLM plans to develop approximately 67 travel management plans, which will identify and designate roads and trails for motorized travel, and to begin implementation when the plans are CRS-5 6 The BLM Strategy and related documents are available at [http://www.blm.gov/ohv/]. 7 Available at [http://www.blm.gov/mountain_biking/]. 8 Available at [http://www.id.blm.gov/publications/data/recvisit.pdf]. 9 Available at [http://www.id.blm.gov/publications/data/recvisit.pdf]. 10 Available at [http://resourcescommittee.house.gov/archives/109/nprpl/071305.htm]. completed. The agency requested $63.8 million for recreation management generally for FY2007, a 2% reduction from the FY2006 level of $65.1 million. In passing H.R. 5386, the House approved $67.0 million for recreation management in FY2007, a 3% increase over FY2006 and a 5% increase over the Administration's request. BLM has issued two national strategies dealing with transportation on its lands. The National Management Strategy for Motorized Off-Highway Vehicle Use on Public Lands6 has multiple purposes, including to guide land managers in resolving OHV issues; to promote consistency of OHV decision- making; to highlight needed staff and funding for OHV management; to reduce conflicts among land users; to promote responsible OHV use and reduce habitat degradation; and to lead to an update of OHV regulations (which has not occurred to date). The National Mountain Bicycling Strategic Action Plan7 addresses mountain bicycling and other musclepowered mechanical transport. Further, to guide BLM managers in taking actions affecting recreation during FY2003-FY2007, in May 2003 BLM issued The BLM's Priorities for Recreation and Visitor Services.8 BLM revised its land use planning handbook in 2005 regarding motorized and non-motorized recreation.9 The agency makes OHV designations during the planning process, on an area-by-area basis, and such designations often have been contentious and complex. Although the agency is in the midst of a multi-year effort to develop and update land use plans, many plans do not currently address OHV use and other relatively recent issues. In some cases, the BLM and FS jointly address OHV use on their lands. For instance, an interagency plan governs OHV use on lands in Montana , North Dakota , and South Dakota . Joint management approaches, where federal lands are intermingled, can promote consistency and public understanding of OHV guidance. However, BLM and FS lands are different, and they are governed by separate authorities, making complete consistency on vehicular travel management difficult to achieve. Legislative Activity. A July 13, 2005, House Resources joint subcommittee hearing examined motorized recreational use on federal lands.10 Agency representatives discussed the increased popularity of OHV use on federal lands, development and implementation of travel management plans, and challenges of managing OHVs. Other witnesses testified on availability of federal lands for OHV use, and the effects of OHV use on human health, the economy, the environment, and other forms of recreation. Some pending measures affect OHV use in particular areas. For instance, H.R. 3603 contains provisions related to OHV use in central Idaho . They include conveying BLM land to the State of Idaho to establish a motorized recreation park, CRS-6 11 Off-Highway Vehicle Recreation in the United States , Regions and States (USDA-FS Southern Research Station, June 2005). Available via the FS website at [http://www. treesearch.fs.fed.us/pubs/21307]. 12 70 Fed. Reg. 1023, Jan. 5, 2005. Also available via the FS website at [http://www.fs. fed.us/emc/nfma/includes/rule%20.pdf]. 13 Detailed information and documents concerning the 2005 final rule are available via the FS website at [http://www.fs.fed.us/emc/nfma/index2.html]. 14 70 Fed. Reg. 68264-68291, Nov. 9, 2005. establishing a special management area on certain BLM and FS lands to provide opportunities for motorized and other recreation, and authorizing up to $1.0 million for the Secretary of Agriculture to grant to the State of Idaho for the off-road motor vehicle program. Motorized Recreation in the National Forests (by Ross W. Gorte) Background. The national forests are managed by the USDA Forest Service (FS) for a variety of uses, including many types of recreation — sightseeing, OHV use, backpacking, etc. — while preserving the productivity of the lands. Recreation use continues to grow, with OHV use among the fastest growing uses.11 The various uses and values of the national forests sometimes conflict with one another. For example, timber harvesting and OHV use may affect birdwatching and sightseeing, and can degrade water quality in certain settings. Decisions about what uses are allowed, and when and where, are made in comprehensive land and resource management plans prepared for each unit of the National Forest System, and at the project level. Because of multiple efforts to modify the planning regulations, many plan revisions were delayed. New planning regulations have recently been finalized,12 and plan revisions are now expected to proceed.13 Administrative Actions. Federal guidance on OHV use in E.O. 11644 and E.O. 11989 was incorporated into FS regulations, at 36 C.F.R. Part 295. Despite this guidance, not all forest plans have identified areas as open or closed to OHVs, and local practices as to OHV use vary. In 2004, the FS Chief identified unmanaged recreation — “increasing use of the national forests for outdoor activities ... , including the use of off-highway vehicles” — as a threat to the nation's forests and grasslands. In particular, OHV use has created many unauthorized roads and trails, which can be unsafe and harmful to other resources. In response, the FS has finalized new regulations to require forest plans to identify a system of roads, trails, and areas for motorized vehicle use and prohibit the use of OHVs and other motorized vehicles outside the designated system.14 Implementing directives are expected to be published for public comment during 2006, and decisions governing motorized uses are then to be made in forest planning (with public involvement) over the next four years. Opinions are divided over the importance and impact of the regulations. Some assert that the regulations do not go far enough, preferring that all OHV uses be prohibited in the national forests, because OHVs can (and sometimes do) damage CRS-7 15 65 Fed. Reg. 15077, effective April 20, 2000. national forest lands and resources. Others counter that the regulations penalize the majority of OHV users that obey the current rules and restrict off-highway uses at a time when other landowners and other federal and state agencies are reducing recreational access to their lands. The FY2007 FS budget proposes cutting recreation funds. Recreation management would be funded at $250.9 million, a $7.9 million (3%) reduction from the FY2006 level of $258.8 million. Trails funding would be $60.3 million, a $13.9 million (19%) reduction from the FY2006 level of $74.2 million, with a greater reduction (in dollars and percentage) in trails construction than in maintenance. Legislative Activity. The House-passed FY2007 Interior appropriations bill, H.R. 5386, restored or increased FS recreation and trails funding, compared to the request. Recreation management was approved at $262.0 million, $3.2 million (1%) above FY2006 and $11.1 million (4%) above the request. Trails funding was approved at $73.4 million, $0.8 million (1%) below FY2006 (all in construction) and $13.1 million (22%) above the request (increasing both construction and maintenance). On July 13, 2005, two subcommittees of House Resources held a joint hearing to examine motorized recreation use on federal lands. (See “Legislative Activity” under BLM, above.) To date, no comprehensive legislation addressing OHV use in national forests generally has been introduced in the 109th Congress. Hazard Mitigation Assistance (HMA) The Fiscal Year 2011 (FY11) Hazard Mitigation Assistance (HMA) application period opened on June 1, 2010 and the FY11 Hazard Mitigation Assistance Unified Guidance is now available. The  FY11 Hazard Mitigation Assistance Unified Guidance is available in the FEMA Library. The  FY10 Hazard Mitigation Assistance Unified Guidance is still available in the FEMA Library but does not apply to the FY11 HMA application cycle.

The Cartel

Lawyers and Their Nine Magic Tricks

EVAN WHITT0N

1 - The Cartel

Let [the laity] once clearly perceive that [the common law's] grand principle is to make business for itself at their expense, and surely they will cease to grumble.  - Charles Dickens, 1852 A cartel is a syndicate formed to prevent competition and to maximise benefits, including profits, via a monopoly. In a sense, the legal cartel may be seen as a giant bureaucracy in which the needs of the members - power, status, money, winning - may supersede the ostensible mission of the organisation, justice. "The one great principle of the English law," Charles Dickens wrote in Bleak House , "is to make business for itself. There is no other principle distinctly, certainly, and consistently maintained through all its narrow turnings. Viewed by this light it becomes a coherent scheme, and not the monstrous maze the laity are apt to think it. Let them once clearly perceive that its grand principle is to make business for itself at their expense, and surely they will cease to grumble. " The Rules of the Game . Dr Edward de Bono* says: in Europe a certain [company] division shared a lawyer with another division. In the USA the equivalent division had 50 full-time lawyers ... if you can get more profit out of a lawsuit than out of industrial production then that is the way the rules of the game are written". [* Sources mentioned in the text are listed at the end of the book]. Judge Richard Posner has been Chief Judge of the US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit (Illinois, Wisconsin, Indiana) since 1981. He is also an economist, and is thus inclined to subject the law to useful economic analysis. He says the "law" to which the title of his book, Overcoming Law , refers "is a professional totem signifying all that is pretentious, uninformed, prejudiced, and spurious in the legal tradition". Self-interest . "The history of the legal profession," Judge Posner says, "is to a great extent, and despite noisy and incessant protestation and apologetics, the history of efforts by all branches of the profession, including the professoriat and the judiciary, to secure a lustrous place in the financial and social-status sun." And: " Self-interest has played as big a role in legal thought as in medical thought ... the [legal] profession was an intricately and ingeniously reticulated though imperfect cartel" until competition began to weaken it [at least in the US] about 1960. Power . I note in chapter 41, How the Cartel Obstructs Reform, that a Sydney lawyer, Kerrie Henderson, reported the Australian High Court as stating in 1988 that "there is a paramount interest in the administration of justice which requires that cases be tried by courts on the relevant and admissible evidence". Henderson commented: "The call to 'the interests of justice' asserts the primacy of the legal system as a social institution - the High Court's 'paramount interest in the administration of justice' and in so doing also reinforces the standing of the courts and the judiciary as the organs through which that paramount interest is expressed. Such powerful tools are rarely voluntarily weakened ... " Origins of the Cartel . The legal cartel seems to have first been formed by some two dozen lawyers and judges in Westminster Hall, London, early in the 13th century. A contemporary, Judge Henry de Bracton (d. 1268), says some of the judges of this period were ignorant and corrupt. Truth . Euroscepticism, if not provincial narcissism, was a factor in the English psyche then as now. One of the cartel's first decisions was perhaps its most significant: it declined to follow European courts in their new method of making a judge responsible for finding the truth. (see chapter 2: The Unimportance of Truth.) In discounting the importance of truth, the cartel left the way open for defence lawyers to invent a series of truth-defeating devices in the 18th, 19th and 20th centuries. An Inner Cartel . What may be termed an inner cartel, equivalent to modern senior barristers and appellate judges, was formed about the middle of the 13th century. This was the lucrative order of Serjeants-at-law. Theodore Plucknett says: "The Serjeant's emoluments ... must have been enormous ... The creation of a Serjeant obliged him to provide a feast comparable to a king's coronation, to distribute liveries and gold rings in profusion, and to maintain the proceedings for seven days." The Serjeants had a monopoly of inventing the common law. In a remarkable statistic, J.H. Baker says: "[The] refinement [of the common law] as a body of rational principles in the 13th and 14th centuries was chiefly the accomplishment of the elite body of judges and advocates who belonged to the order of Serjeants-at-Law; a body which, in over six centuries of history, numbered less than 1000 members." Depending on death rates, the inner cartel may thus at times have consisted of as few as a dozen or twenty lawyers and judges. Isolation . Legal academics were not admitted to the outer cartel for five centuries. Baker says: "The strength and unity of this profession explain how the reasoning of a small group of men in Westminster Hall grew into one of the world's two greatest systems of law. For this peculiarly English professional structure was wholly independent of the university law faculties, where only Canon law and Roman Civil law were taught, and this factor as much as any other ensures the autonomous character of English law and its isolation from the influence of continental jurisprudence. " In short, the cartel protected the common law from the notion that truth is important to justice; to this day, many lawyers and judges are blissfully ignorant of continental jurisprudence. Intimacy . There is no cartel in Europe; European lawyers and judges appear to understand that lawyering is lawyering and judging is judging, but common law legal academics don't seem to be troubled by the "intimate" relationship between common lawyers and judges. Theodore Plucknett says the 13th century "saw the rise of a group of practitioners before the King's courts ... In such a state of affairs there must arise the question of the relations between bench and bar. Not only is there the purely formal relationship to be settled, but there is the even more fundamental psychological attitude of bench and bar to be considered. When the same half-dozen judges are constantly being addressed by the same score or so of practitioners, these two small groups cannot help influencing each other ... In the middle ages ... the Serjeants during term time lived together in their inns and discussed their cases informally together simply as Serjeants, without distinction between those on the bench and those at the bar ... In the course of the 14th century the Serjeants [became] a close guild in complete control of the legal profession ... By the close of the 14th century the judges are all members of the order of Serjeants, and Serjeants alone can be heard in the principal court, that of Common Pleas" (civil cases). They kept that monopoly until 1846. Complexity . Plucknett says common lawyers were the "dominant interest" in Parliament by the 14th century. He says: "Bench, bar and Parliament, therefore, were alike under the influence of the conservative, professionalised lawyer to whom the complexities and technicalities of the law were a peculiar and valuable learning." Indeed it was. In ambiguity lies power. And money. The more complex and technical the law could be made, the greater the fee the lawyer-priest could charge to interpret it. The roots of modern lawyers' fees and the high cost of law go deep, back to the self-interested cartel in the 13th century. Opposition to Reform . Plucknett continues: "What is more, these very men also acquired control of legal education as well. The inevitable result was the disappearance of a liberal outlook upon law, and the loss of contact with other systems ... instead of this broad learning they turned to the narrow and tangled studies of procedure and pleading. "It was the common lawyers who were mainly instrumental in making parliamentary supremacy a fact, but, as Maitland has said, 'the supremacy of Parliament may have been worth the price paid for it; nonetheless, the price was high'. The price consisted in the extreme centralisation of justice, the decline of old local institutions, the subjection of custom to the common law, the growth of immense quantities of technicality, opposition to reform, and the rejection of the broader and more liberal attitude towards law that showed so clearly in Bracton." Elements of the cartel thus controlled the law and Parliament. They achieved another quantum leap in technicality in the 18th century, when defence lawyers invented the extreme adversary system and five rules for concealing evidence. How the cartel continues to obstruct reform is examined in the final chapter. Tyler and Cade . Lawyers' technicalities and perhaps the activities of a few psychopaths may partly explain why, historically, lawyers have never enjoyed great public acclaim. Resentment against lawyers is said to have been a cause of Wat Tyler's revolt of the peasants in 1381, and a breakdown in the administration of justice was a cause of Jack Cade's rebellion in 1450. Shakespeare (c. 1592) has Cade saying he had once signed a document and "was never mine own man since", and agreeing that the first thing to do is "kill all the lawyers ". Royal Courts . The royal courts, which operated from the late 15th century, used the European inquisitorial method rather than the English accusatorial method. They thus represented a threat to the common law courts in power and method and also in money: the common law judges got a share of the fines they levied. The cartel thus sought supremacy over the royal courts as well as over the monarch. It won the battle in the 17th century; Parliament arranged to axe the royal courts in 1641 and the king himself in 1649. Exporting the Law . Except for accidents of geography and history, the oddities of the common law would be no more than mildly quaint tourist attractions in a small island off the coast of Europe. England's isolation, instrumental in the stand against truth in the 13th century, enabled it to look beyond Europe in the 17th; 1607 saw the start of a maritime empire; the common law was exported to its colonies. Godbolt and the Witchfinder-General . The quality of legal thinking in the 17th century may perhaps be gauged by a resumption of trial by ordeal in the period between the cartel's triumph over the royal courts and the killing of the king. In 1645-6 a judicial commission under a lawyer-MP, John Godbolt, "swam" and hanged scores of alleged witches. Godbolt's Witchfinder-General, Matthew Hopkins, had such a nose for witches that he was suspected of being one himself. He was tried by cold water in 1647, floated, and was hanged, but the cartel looked after Godbolt: Parliament appointed him judge of common pleas in 1647. Hale . Sir Matthew Hale (1609-76) was a flexible type of lawyer. He had no difficulty in accommodating himself to the republic when Charles I was executed, nor to the monarchy on its restoration. He contrived to be an MP, Serjeant-at-law, and a Justice of the Common Pleas in the one year, 1654. Magnus Magnusson says he was "a believer in witchcraft", and the Concise Dictionary of National Biography (CDNB) notes that he presided at the conviction of two witches in 1662. He became Chief Justice of the King's Bench in 1671. Highway Thieves in the Inner Cartel . The diarist, Sir John Evelyn (1620-1706), was a Serjeant and, from 1685 to 1687, a commissioner of the Privy Seal. In a speech on legal ethics in August 1997, Nicholas Cowdery QC, Director of Public Prosecutions in NSW, (pop. March 1997 6,260,900), from 1994, quoted Evelyn's entry for 26 November 1686. It apparently concerns civil rather than criminal matters. Thus: "I din'ed at my L.Chancelors , where being 3 other Serjants at Law, after dinner being cherefull and free, they told their severall stories, how long they had detained their clients in tedious processes, by their tricks, as if so many highway thieves should have met and discovered the severall purses they had taken: This they made but a jeast of: but God is not mocked:" Cowdery commented drily: "It would seem, however, that God has been a little slow to address the problem and the community has run ahead of him or her." But Evelyn's sinister document goes rather further than mockery, or lack of it, of an inscrutable deity. The Lord Chancellor was (and is) the highest judicial functionary in England; his apparent acceptance of theft from clients by members of the inner cartel suggests that their criminal behaviour was known and condoned at the highest level of the cartel late in the 17th century. Within a century, judges had allowed these "highway thieves" to take over control of criminal and civil trials. More Tricks . Six years later, in 1692, Parliament legislated to curtail the activities of actual highway thieves. This had extraordinary consequences; it enabled defence lawyers to invent a grossly excessive version of the adversary system and to invent magic tricks 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9. The Legislature . The cartel retained its power in legislatures. In the US being a lawyer is almost a condition of entry into politics. In England, the Lord Chief Justice was a politician for several centuries. The last, and typical of the genre, was Tom Inskip, Viscount Caldecote (1876-1947). He was a Conservative MP 1919, Solicitor-General 1922-28 and 1931-32, Attorney-General 1928-29 and 1932-36, Minister for Defence Co-ordination 1936-39, Secretary of State for Dominions 1939-40, Lord Chancellor 1939-40, and Lord Chief Justice 1940-46. The CDNB notes that when [the sexually depraved] Lord Goddard succeeded him as Lord Chief Justice in 1946, he was the "first non-political holder of the office". David Rose noted in 1996 that "there are more than a hundred barrister MPs" among some 600 members of the House of Commons. He said "the influential Tory Chairman of the Commons Select Committee on Home Affairs, Ivan Lawrence QC MP ... believes English criminal justice is 'democracy at work', and thus 'streets ahead of any other system'." The Inner Cartel . The inner cartel today approximates to appellate judges and senior lawyers, e.g. constitutional lawyers and Queen's Counsel in former English colonies. I of course write as an honorary member of the inner cartel, appointed thereto as "Whitton QC' in 1983 by the then Premier of NSW, the Hon Neville Kenneth Wran QC, for sterling work in reporting every trivial, irrelevant and footling detail of a Royal Commission in which he was embarrassingly accused, falsely as it happily turned out, of colluding with a corrupt magistrate to fix a case for a sporting identity. Advocates and Judges . Plucknett says the system of choosing judges "from among the Serjeants" has persisted with little modification in common law countries, and that "its great characteristic is the intimate connection between bench and bar ... This co-operation ... is of the utmost importance for the working of the common law system". Not to mention the cartel. (Emphasis added.) As noted, the trouble is that lawyering and judging are fundamentally different. Advocates are partisan; judges are supposed to be detached, disinterested, impartial. The advocate seeks to win. Socrates (469-399 BC) said casuistry (intellectual dishonesty) is a knack; Judge Posner says bright law students pick it up very quickly. In civil law countries, aspiring professional judges are trained from the beginning in the judicial function, separately from lawyers. Common law judges are amateurs; as advocates elevated, they have no training to speak of. Sir Garfield Barwick (1903-97, Chief Justice of the High Court of Australia 1964-81), was the quintessential advocate. After his death, Clyde Cameron, who became Barwick's friend after he left the court, said: "I'd never known anyone who is able to so easily explain in a way that is so uncontroversial that a piece of white paper is jet black and a piece of black paper is snow white." Barwick appeared to continue his advocacy of tax avoidance when he became Chief Justice; his decisions cost the revenue and people not in a position to avoid tax hundreds of millions. Dismantling the Cartel . Michael Mansfield QC, who represented five of the Birmingham Six at their successful appeal, apparently believes the inner cartel should be dismantled. He said in 1993: "I would like to see a system in which judges are not culled almost exclusively from the ranks of the Bar but come from all walks of life. Being a judge should be a normal career structure like any other which you decide on when you leave school. It should be no different to deciding to become an engineer, a doctor or a social worker and judges should be open to public scrutiny and accountable, subjected to the control of a Ministry of Justice. Of course, that is precisely what many of the Law Lords want to avoid because there will be no guarantee that they are the ones who finish up with the power and the jobs. However, we shouldn't have to wait for even more miscarriages before these people begin to feel the wind of change on the back of their necks ... Such a proposition as mine is neither outrageous nor unique. In France a similar system already operates and it operates well." Mansfield noted that French advertising hoardings carry an invitation: "WHY NOT BE A JUDGE?" The Australian Law Reform Commission effectively recommended in July 1997 that, after eight centuries, the cartel be dismantled, i.e. law students planning careers as judges should be trained separately from advocates. However, Justice Murray Gleeson, Chief Justice of NSW, appears to believe that judges should continue to be appointed from the Bar and that senior judges should control whatever training they may then get. Speaking of judicial education in October 1997, he said: " ... this is a relatively new area of activity for judges and administrators and its implications are still being worked out. In England, where there is a Judicial Studies Board, there has been debate about the possibility of both formal training and performance review, and the implications that may have for judicial independence which entails, amongst other things, the independence of judges from one another. Both in England and in New South Wales the issue of independence has been handled by an insistence that the senior judiciary should control judicial training and education ... The judiciary should insist upon maintaining control of judicial training, but it should be prepared to state its case, publicly, for financial support [from the executive government]." There are a number of problems with Justice Gleeson's view that senior judges should have a monopoly of training judges. Senior judges are themselves untrained in judging and are probably largely ignorant of the origins of the common law. And what would they teach? That the common law is the best system? As noted in chapter 4, Justice Gleeson's colleague on the NSW Court of Appeal, Justice Michael Kirby, said in April 1994: "People tend to forget that criminal trials do not involve a search for the truth." But a month later, as noted in chapter 5, Justice Gleeson said the administration of justice does involve a "search for the truth". Justice Kirby was right, but Justice Gleeson was the senior judge. The argument from independence also appears to have no legs: as members of the inner cartel, judges have never been independent of lawyers. Training them in judicial training schools separately from lawyers would give them that independence.

http://www.frtr.gov/resources.htm http://www.ertsupport.org / http://www.rtdf.org / http://www.epa.gov/tio/tsp / http://www.itrcweb.org / http://www.nwer.sandia.gov/itrd / http://www.clu-in.org/products/newsltrs/ttrend/view.cfm?issue=tt0901.htm http://www1.eere.energy.gov/solar/financial_opportunities.html http://water.epa.gov/scitech/swguidance/standards/Laws-and-Regulations.cfm http://www.executivegov.com/2011/05/gsa-issues-request-for-cloud-services-quote / http://www.environmentalleader.com/2011/05/10/environmental-policy-regulatory-briefing-may-10-2011 / http://www.epa.gov/oecaerth/nepa/submiteis/index.html http://www.energy.ca.gov / http://www.energy.ca.gov/renewables / https://energycenter.org/index.php/public-affairs/regional-energy-planning http://sustainca.org/blog/energy_efficiency/california%E2%80%99s_revised_energy_planning_guide_local_governments http://explore.data.gov/Science-and-Technology/DOE-Green-Energy-R-D-Results-Data-Service/cqfc-97vq http://www.osti.gov/greenenergy/rdresults http://www.osti.gov/greenenergy/rddetail?osti_id=896873 http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/03/11/presidential-memorandum-government-reform-competitiveness-and-innovation http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/05/09/presidential-proclamation-national-building-safety-month http://www.waterworld.com/index/display/news_display/1411942506.html http://www.earthtechling.com/2011/05/epa-promotes-green-infrastructure-strategy / http://www.hawaii247.com/2011/05/06/governor-signs-bill-to-protect-homeowners / http://water.worldbank.org/water/events/pump-storage-hydropower-enabling-new-renewables-and-mitigating-climate-change http://naturalresources.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=239639 http://ashlandcurrent.com/article/11/05/06/sierra-club-will-oppose-mining-permit-legislation http://pr-usa.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=716633&Itemid=29 http://www.nanotech-now.com/columns/?article=531 http://www.biofuels-news.com/industry_news.php?item_id=3556 http://www.newenergyworldnetwork.com/renewable-energy-news/by-technology/energy-efficiency/epa-proposes-tightening-air-toxicity-standards-for-metal-recycling.html

2008_12_15_watersecurity_pubs_plan_security_watersectorspecificplan_2008annualupdate.pdf (application/pdf Object) DHS | Homeland Security Presidential Directive 7: Critical Infrastructure Identification, Prioritization, and Protection Legislation and Directives | Legislation & Directives | US EPA FedCenter - EO 13514 Laws & Executive Orders | Laws & Executive Orders | US EPA Watersheds | Watersheds | US EPA Wastewater Management | Office of Wastewater Management | US EPA EPA Watershed Funding Programs | Watershed Funding | US EPA Targeted Watersheds Grant Program | Targeted Watersheds Grants Program | US EPA Performance Partnership Grants for State and Tribal Environmental Program: Revised Interim Guidance | PPG Performance Partnership Grants | US EPA Our Waters | Our Waters | US EPA Wind energy project gains $260mn in financing, EPC contractor - POWER-GEN WorldWide ENTSO-E plans major study on 2050 zero carbon grid - POWER-GEN WorldWide State Supreme Court Wants Arguments For Taking Up Union Law - Politics News Story - WISC Madison Little Chicago Review - Senator Barrasso blasts EPA power grab over U S water GSA's McClure says new pre-RFP collaborative platform is coming soon -- Federal Computer Week v4c21a02_cwp2009.pdf (application/pdf Object) v4c21a01_cwp2009.pdf (application/pdf Object) v4c16a01_cwp2009.pdf (application/pdf Object) v4c15a03_cwp2009.pdf (application/pdf Object) v4c04a13_cwp2009.pdf (application/pdf Object) v4c01a07_cwp2009.pdf (application/pdf Object) v3_sacramentoriver_cwp2009.pdf (application/pdf Object) Update 2009 - Integrated Water Management Statewide Water Analysis Network (SWAN) Update 2009 - Integrated Water Management cwp_fan_info.pdf (application/pdf Object) appendix a_svpa.pdf (application/pdf Object) ca-westernstates.pdf (application/pdf Object) 07 climate change report.pdf (application/pdf Object) water needs and strategies-finalrev.pdf (application/pdf Object) WSWC - Publications Western States Water Council WSWC - WestFAST Western States Water Council westfastsummary.pdf (application/pdf Object) federalwateravailabilitystudies.pdf (application/pdf Object) westfastfactsheet.pdf (application/pdf Object) EurekAlert! Public News List nsf.gov - National Science Foundation (NSF) News - Meetings of the National Science Board Begin on May 9 at NSF Headquarters - US National Science Foundation (NSF) CFG 0202: Federal Acquisition Regulations and - Learn More at GovWin Business Development, Capture & Proposal - Learn More at GovWin New DOD CIO Says Budget Crisis Will Force - Learn More at GovWin Gansler to Contracting Commission: Reward - Learn More at GovWin Learn More at GovWin.com - The Network for Government Contractors DoD SBIR/STTR Program DoD SBIR/STTR Program SBIR - Small Business Innovation Research California Courts: Forms court form - Google Search fl 762 - Google Search Grants.gov - Find Grant Opportunities - Opportunity Synopsis 2011

 

California's Revised Energy Planning Guide for Local Governments

What is it?

The California Energy Commission has recently released the 2011 Energy Aware Planning Guide , an update to a 1993 version . The guide is geared towards local governments and planning organizations including cities, counties, and regional transportation districts or any other local entity that influences energy usage in buildings, land use, transportation, water delivery and waste processing. The guide's goal is to provide technical information to local governments seeking to improve energy efficiency, reduce energy use and greenhouse gas emissions, and enhance renewable sources of energy.

Why is it Important?

Recent California legislation – the Global Warming Solutions Act and the Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act 375 – are starting to impact energy usage in California and local governments play a big role in influencing energy demand. Examples include local government's influence on building code enforcement, land use planning, public transit and sometimes local governments run an electric and/or gas utility. This is in addition to the local governments own energy usage. The Guide provides processes, tools and templates to help local government's make strategic energy plans and implement them.

How is it Helpful?

The Guide starts with a systematic process for creating an Energy Action Plan to inventory sources and uses of energy and identify opportunities for improvement. The Guide then presents many strategies to reduce energy use. Ideas include parking supply management, ridesharing, planting shade trees, implementing solar energy and water reuse and recycling.  The Guide then ends with metrics and guidelines for quantifying the impact of the recommended strategies. All of these ideas and examples can save a local government time and effort – generally in short supply during this era of budget deficits - in reducing energy usage for its own operations and its residents and businesses. 

New Federal Agreement to Support Water Resources Management To address the nation's growing water challenges and guide critical water management decisions, NOAA, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and U.S. Geological Survey are forming a federal partnership to unify and leverage each agency's resources including science, information, programs and capabilities. Following brief remarks, speakers will address questions.

What: Signing ceremony for interagency Memorandum of Understanding enhancing water management information and flood forecasting
When: Wednesday, May 11; 2:00 p.m. ET
Where: Georgetown Waterfront Park, Washington, D.C. (northwest corner of the park, along Water St. and northwest of 33rd St.; metered parking is an option along Water St.)
Who:
  • Jane Lubchenco, Ph.D.,under secretary of commerce for oceans and atmosphere and NOAA administrator
  • Marcia McNutt, Ph.D., director, U.S. Geological Survey
  • The Honorable Jo-Ellen Darcy, assistant secretary of the Army for Civil Works

FEMA Dam Safety Publications FEMA P-679DVD and FEMA P-730CD New Releases! The Department of Homeland Security's Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) is pleased to announce that the following FEMA National Dam Safety Program (NDSP) publications are now available, at no cost, from the Publications Warehouse.  

One of the goals of the NDSP is to encourage design and construction practices that reduce the risks to life and property from dam failure in the United States. FEMA's publication of these two important technical documents for dam design and construction professionals, inspectors, and operation and maintenance personnel is a major ongoing commitment to achieving this goal.   To order your copy of FEMA P-679DVD or FEMA P-730CD from the Publications Warehouse, call 1 (800) 480-2520 or fax your request to (240) 699-0525.  Both FEMA P-679 and FEMA P-730 will be available online by the fall 2011. To view or download other FEMA publications, please visit the FEMA Library, http://www.fema.gov/library/ . To view or download other NDSP publications and products or to sign up for updates on dam safety publications, news, and events, visit Dam Safety Publications and Resources, http://www.fema.gov/plan/prevent/damfailure/publications.shtm

5-county agreement allows deputies to enforce law beyond normal jurisdiction

By Leslie Slape / The Daily News | Posted: Tuesday, May 17, 2011 ther side of the lower Columbia River will have freedom to enforce the law on the opposite side, thanks to a historic interlocal agreement that five county sheriffs will sign at 11:30 a.m. Wednesday at the Cowlitz County Hall of Justice.

The document allows a deputy from Cowlitz, Wahkiakum, Pacific, Columbia or Clatsop counties to enforce the law in any of those counties until a local officer arrives to take charge of the scene.

Finding Gold in Going Green Story By Kimberly Craft

May 17, 2011
A new collaboration between environmental experts and industry is showing Tucson businesses that going green doesn't mean going broke.

Comment on Division Cases

Employment Opportunities

File an NCRPA Notification

Report Anticompetitive Conduct After a Natural Disaster

Report Antitrust Violations

Request a Business Review

Request Public Documents

Website Comments and Suggestions

In the 34 years since the mechanism for states to assume the so-called “404 program” of federal wetlands permitting was created in 1977, many other states have considered it, but only two, Michigan and New Jersey, have completed the process.

State assumption allows a state to regulate wetlands and waterbodies and to issue, condition or deny permits for work in those natural resources. At first blush, state takeover would seem like low-hanging fruit in states' efforts to eliminate multiple regulatory review layers. However, a 2008 EPA study  found that although numerous states have evaluated assumption -- and several have moved significantly down the path -- most abandoned the effort for a number of reasons:

Also impacting states' decisions regarding assumption of the 404 program is the continuing uncertainty surrounding the scope of the Corps' jurisdiction following the Supreme Court's decisions in SWANCC and Rapanos . EPA and the Corps have attempted to address this issue in various guidance documents. See e.g., “Joint Memorandum” (January 15, 2003)(68 Fed. Reg. 1991) and “Clean Water Act Jurisdiction Following the U.S. Supreme Court's Decision in Rapanos v. United States & Carabell v. United States ” (12/2/08).

An April 2011 joint Corps/EPA proposed superseding guidance , notes that “Corps Districts will utilize this guidance to implement Clean Water Act section 404, 33 U.S.C. 1344.” While there is no mention in the guidance of its applicability to state-assumed programs, it is likely that EPA (and the Corps) will require that such guidance, once finalized, be adhered to in any EPA-approved state assumption of the CWA 404 program. Given recent reports  that the April 2011 proposed guidance will dramatically expand the scope of federal jurisdiction over wetlands and waterbodies, states will undoubtedly continue to struggle to identify the benefits in assuming the CWA 404 program.

Criminal Enforcement

International Program

Merger Enforcement

Home > Water > CWA § 404 - To Assume or Not To Assume ...

CWA § 404 - To Assume or Not To Assume ...

Antitrust Sites Worldwide

Competition and Real Estate

Compliance Assistance for Business

Division Manual

EAG Papers

Economic Recovery

Guidelines and Policy Statements

Victims' Rights

As part of newly-elected Republican Governor Paul Page's overall regulatory reform initiative, the Maine Department of Environmental Protection is planning to seek authority (pursuant to 33 U.S.C. §§ 1344(g) and (h)) to implement the dredge and fill program in lieu of the Army Corps. In the 34 years since the mechanism for states to assume the so-called “404 program” of federal wetlands permitting was created in 1977, many other states have considered it, but only two, Michigan and New Jersey, have completed the process.

If you or your staff have any questions regarding this report, please contact John Hutchens,

EMERGENCY COMMAND OFFICER - PRINCIPALS' INSPECTOR GENERAL; 925-878-9167 or john@ironmountainmine.com

22. [PDF] Career Technical Education Standards - Standards and Framework G8.3 Understand the definition of a watershed and how it is used to measure water quality. G8.4 Understand effective water management and conservation ... http://www.cde.ca.gov/re/pn/fd/documents/careertechstnd.pdf#search=watershed&view=FitH&pagemode=none 23. [MS Word] History-Social Science Framework Draft Chapter 4 - Curriculum ... The Civil War should be treated as a watershed event in American history. It resolved a challenge to the very existence of the nation, demolished the ... http://www.cde.ca.gov/ci/hs/cf/documents/chapter4.doc 24. [PDF] Roundtable Report - Facilities Another watershed moment,. Other/Multiple: Proposition 13 in 1978, further increased the state's fiscal role, and thus, its influence on design. ... http://www.cde.ca.gov/ls/fa/sf/documents/roundtablereport.pdf#search=watershed&view=FitH&pagemode=none 25. [PDF] History-Social Science Framework - Curriculum Frameworks and ... California's wild rivers and watersheds and the long-term consequences of ...... The Civil War should be treated as a watershed in American history. It ... http://www.cde.ca.gov/re/pn/fd/documents/hist-social-sci-frame.pdf#search=watershed&view=FitH&pagemode=none 26. [PDF] Science Framework for California Public Schools - Curriculum ... lected in watershed districts, pumping of groundwater, import of water ... the disturbance or development of land in a watershed area, runoff of water from ... http://www.cde.ca.gov/ci/cr/cf/documents/scienceframework.pdf#search=watershed&view=FitH&pagemode=none 27. [MS Word] California Career Technical Standards - Curriculum Frameworks G8.3 Understand the definition of a watershed and how it is used to measure water quality. G8.4 Understand effective water management and conservation ... http://www.cde.ca.gov/be/st/ss/documents/ctestandards.doc

Current Update on EEI

Education & the Environment Initiative (EEI) Units Approved!

The California State Board of Education unanimously approved the adoption of the Education and the Environment Initiative Curriculum on Wednesday, January 6, 2010. The goal of EEI is to increase environmental literacy for California K-12 students by teaching Science and History-Social Science academic content standards to mastery within an environmental context. EEI is a unique opportunity to formally include environment-based education into California's classrooms. PDF versions of all 85 units are available to download at:
http://www.calepa.ca.gov/education/eei/curriculum/

Division of Molecular and Cellular Biosciences: Investigator-initiated research projects (MCB)


Program Solicitation
NSF 11-545

Replaces Document(s):
PD 11-1144, PD 11-1112, PD 11-7081

 

National Science Foundation

Directorate for Biological Sciences
Division of Molecular and Cellular Biosciences

Full Proposal Deadline(s) (due by 5 p.m. proposer's local time):

September 06, 2011

May 21, 2012

January 28, 2013

Delays on additions to Forest Service's firefighting fleet unacceptable, Sen. Dianne Feinstein says

In a bluntly worded letter, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) criticizes delays in adding night-flying aircraft. Using helicopters after nightfall might have stopped the spread of 2009's Station fire during its first day.

Clean Water Act Jurisdiction

Twice in the last ten years, the U.S. Supreme Court has issued rulings resulting in confusion over the scope of the federal Clean Water Act. In the wake of SWANCC v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (2001) and Rapanos v. United States (2006), landowners, environmental advocates, and regulators have faced uncertainty about whether many types of wetlands, small and intermittent streams, and other waters are subject to federal jurisdiction. This has resulted in an increase in regulatory delay and expense and undercut federal enforcement. Members of Congress have introduced new legislation to restore jurisdiction over many of the waters whose protection was eliminated or cast into doubt by these rulings; and the Environmental Protection Agency and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (the federal regulatory agencies) have issued multiple joint guidance documents to assist their respective staffs. Today, the lower federal courts continue to grapple with how to interpret and apply the Rapanos ruling.

Priority Areas of Expertise and Resources:

Other Key Documents and Resources (non-ELI)

Related ELI Project Areas: Ocean ; Water Resource Management ; Wetlands ; International Water

Freshwater & Ocean Publications

Freshwater & Ocean Workshops & Seminars

Contact the Freshwater & Ocean Program

The Environmental Law Institute (ELI) makes law work for people, places, and the planet.

Vision Statement

ELI's Vision calls for “a healthy environment, prosperous economies, and vibrant communities founded on the rule of law.” What ELI does to help guide society toward that vision is described in its mission statement:

Mission Statement

ELI fosters innovative, just, and practical law and policy solutions to enable leaders across borders and sectors to make environmental, economic, and social progress. ELI:

More About Us

Since 1969, ELI has played a pivotal role in shaping the fields of environmental law, policy, and management, domestically and abroad. Today, we enter our fifth decade as an internationally recognized, non-partisan research and education center working to strengthen environmental protection by improving law and governance worldwide.

We deliver insightful and impartial analysis to opinion makers, including government officials, environmental and business leaders, academics, members of the environmental bar, and journalists. ELI is a clearinghouse and a town hall, providing common ground for debate on important environmental issues.

The Institute advances innovative and practical solutions to environmental challenges through its Publications and Associates group. We publish the Environmental Law Reporter ®, The Environmental Forum® , the National Wetlands Newsletter , and books on environmental law and policy. We educate and build bridges among the various environmental stakeholders through ELI's membership program, which convenes environmental professionals from all sectors and offers seminars on timely topics presented by leading experts and practitioners.

The Institute's Research and Policy group produces research reports and policy recommendations on critical areas of environmental governance. Our work is primarily focused on protecting water resources, land, and biodiversity; safeguarding the global commons (earth's climate and oceans); and improving environmental law and its implementation in the U.S. and internationally. Education and training programs for public officials, judges, citizens, and factory managers are a large part of ELI's agenda.

The Institute is governed by a board of directors who present a diverse mix of leaders within the environmental profession and others who support strengthening environmental law and policy. Support for the Institute comes from individuals, foundations, government, corporations, law firms, and other sources.

The Environmental Law Institute (ELI) makes law work for people, places, and the planet.

Vision Statement

ELI's Vision calls for “a healthy environment, prosperous economies, and vibrant communities founded on the rule of law.” What ELI does to help guide society toward that vision is described in its mission statement:

Mission Statement

ELI fosters innovative, just, and practical law and policy solutions to enable leaders across borders and sectors to make environmental, economic, and social progress. ELI:

More About Us

Since 1969, ELI has played a pivotal role in shaping the fields of environmental law, policy, and management, domestically and abroad. Today, we enter our fifth decade as an internationally recognized, non-partisan research and education center working to strengthen environmental protection by improving law and governance worldwide.

We deliver insightful and impartial analysis to opinion makers, including government officials, environmental and business leaders, academics, members of the environmental bar, and journalists. ELI is a clearinghouse and a town hall, providing common ground for debate on important environmental issues.

The Institute advances innovative and practical solutions to environmental challenges through its Publications and Associates group. We publish the Environmental Law Reporter ®, The Environmental Forum® , the National Wetlands Newsletter , and books on environmental law and policy. We educate and build bridges among the various environmental stakeholders through ELI's membership program, which convenes environmental professionals from all sectors and offers seminars on timely topics presented by leading experts and practitioners.

The Institute's Research and Policy group produces research reports and policy recommendations on critical areas of environmental governance. Our work is primarily focused on protecting water resources, land, and biodiversity; safeguarding the global commons (earth's climate and oceans); and improving environmental law and its implementation in the U.S. and internationally. Education and training programs for public officials, judges, citizens, and factory managers are a large part of ELI's agenda.

The Institute is governed by a board of directors who present a diverse mix of leaders within the environmental profession and others who support strengthening environmental law and policy. Support for the Institute comes from individuals, foundations, government, corporations, law firms, and other sources.

More about ELI:

It is absurd to suppose that in 1970, years before the advent of the global warming scare, Congress, when it enacted Clean Air Act, also authorized EPA to regulate greenhouse gases. Determining climate policy is not EPA's job. Deciding when and how greenhouse gases should be regulated is above EPA's pay grade.

Fred Upton , Greenwire , H.R. 910 Energy Tax Prevention act of 2011 , Jeanne Chemnick , Matt Howes , Natural Resources Defense Council Action Fund

Learning Objectives Aligned to State Standards in EEI
Final List of Learning Objectives for EEI

Copy of the EP&Cs - Click below to download the EP&Cs to share
Environmental Principles and Concepts

1

Master Naturalist Programs

Up until 2008 we knew of a few Master Naturalist or Master Watershed Steward Programs that were connected both with volunteer monitoring and with Extension. Those were listed along with other volunteer monitoring programs on our website . Then in 2008, we learned of many more Master Naturalist programs across the United States - many with Extension and volunteer monitoring connections. So, we developed a listing of these programs to provide easy access to them and link them with the Extension Volunteer Monitoring Network. Please let us know if you know of a program not listed here. Also visit the Alliance of Natural Resource Outreach and Service Programs (ANROSP) website to learn more about these programs.

Great Delta Toilet Bowl

Each day up to one billion gallons of partially treated sewage is flushed into the Delta. MORE

Sac Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant

The Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board voted unanimously to require Sacramento to upgrade its wastewater treatment facility to reduce harmful discharges. MORE

if the estuary is to be restored. MORE

Striped Bass

A federal court approved the settlement between the Coalition and the Department of Fish and Game related to the management of striped bass in the Delta. MORE

Science Watch

While hundreds of millions of dollars have been spent on Delta research, the science underlying key water policy and management decisions in the estuary are fraught with uncertainty and lack a solid foundation in peer-reviewed science. MORE

California salmon season to be fully restored for 2011

Reports throughout the state have shown a resurgence for 2011 salmon runs. MORE

Major Policy Reports

Major Delta policy reports continue to point to a number of factors which must be addressed if the health of the estuary is to be restored. MORE

BREAKING NEWS

National Research Council Releases BDCP Review

Judge Wanger Issues Final Judgment in Delta Smelt Case

PPIC: "Managing California's Water: From Conflict to Reconciliation"

California  

UC Master Naturalist
Julie Fetherston
890 N. Bush St.
Ukiah CA 95482
(707) 463-4495
jcfetherston@ucdavis.edu


Delta Plan First Draft Available

U.S. EPA Launches Investigation into Toxins and Stressors Impacting Fish in the Bay Delta

Quick Links

Managing Wet Weather with Green Infrastructure

Green infrastructure is an approach to wet weather management that is cost-effective, sustainable, and environmentally friendly. Green Infrastructure management approaches and technologies infiltrate, evapotranspire, capture and reuse stormwater to maintain or restore natural hydrologies. See examples of green infrastructure and design approaches .

At the largest scale, the preservation and restoration of natural landscape features (such as forests, floodplains and wetlands) are critical components of green stormwater infrastructure. By protecting these ecologically sensitive areas, communities can improve water quality while providing wildlife habitat and opportunities for outdoor recreation.

On a smaller scale, green infrastructure practices include rain gardens, porous pavements, green roofs, infiltration planters, trees and tree boxes, and rainwater harvesting for non-potable uses such as toilet flushing and landscape irrigation.

Strategic Agenda To Protect Waters and Build More Livable Communities Through Green Infrastructure

On April 29, 2011 Deputy Administrator Perciasepe announced the release of EPA's new Strategic Agenda to Protect Waters and Build More Livable Communities through Green Infrastructure (PDF) (5 pp, 349K) , which outlines the activities that the Agency will undertake to help communities implement green infrastructure approaches. EPA's strategy focuses on clarifying how green infrastructure can and should be used within the regulatory and enforcement contexts, outreach and information exchange, financing, and tool development and capacity building. Deputy Administrator Perciasepe also announced EPA's green infrastructure community partnership effort by introducing the first 10 communities (PDF) (1 pp, 131K) that will work with the Agency on green infrastructure implementation issues. Concurrent with the release of the Strategic Agenda, EPA's Office of Water and Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance issued a joint memorandum (PDF) (5 pp, 343K) encouraging communities to use green infrastructure to manage wet weather and meet Clean Water Act Requirements.

More Water News

Coming Together for Clean Water - Read about and participate in the discussion on EPA's planning process for our clean water programs

Watershed U.

Watershed U. - A Watershed-Specific Training Program for Better Watershed Management

Unlike these other watershed training programs, Watershed U. focuses on specific, local watersheds. Our programs cover the basics of hydrology and ecology, water supply and flood management, water quality protection, and stakeholder processes. We develop the course with input from local stakeholders, to make sure it fits your needs. We generate understanding of how these elements work in the specific watershed.

In conducting watershed management, organizations must cross boundaries. They may have competing interests, little knowledge of each other's concerns, and limited communication skills. They often lack a common language. Watershed U. helps stakeholders create that language.

What can Watershed U. do for you?

For more on past Watershed U. successes and impacts, click here.

Previous Watershed U.'s
Watershed U.  - Ventura River

Watershed U. - Compton Creek

Watershed U. - Santa Clara River

Contact Us

If you are interested in bringing Watershed U. to your southern California community, contact Sabrina Drill, Natural Resources Advisor, at sldrill@ucdavis.edu , 323-260-3404.

Watershed Stewards Academy

The Watershed Stewards Academy is an initiative of the San Joaquin River Stewardship Program to train community leaders called Master Watershed Stewards.  The role of the Master  Watershed Stewards is to engage and educate citizens, schools, businesses, farmers and organizations about the San Joaquin River and California Water Resources.  They will plan and implement a wide variety of projects including education and outreach programs, natural resource restoration, river clean up, Clean Water Team activities, invasive plant removal, NatureMapping and clean storm water programs.  The goal is to increase awareness of the many beneficial effects of the restoration of the San Joaquin River and the importance of water resources for the the future of the Central Valley, promote dialogue among community members and encourage informed involvement and responsible stewardship.

Master Watershed Stewards will participate in an intensive training program.  6 courses and the completion of a successful action project will be required for certification.

Classes include:

  1. California Water Resources
  2. Urban and Agricultural Water Resources
  3. San Joaquin River Restoration
  4. Natural Resource Guidelines for Citizen Monitors
  5. Community Outreach and Empowerment
  6. Planning Natural Resource Projects and Activities

Actions projects may include:

  1. Clean Storm Water
  2. Natural Resource Restoration
  3. Community Outreach
  4. School Outreach
  5. Clean Water Team
  6. Invasive Species Removal
  7. NatureMapping
  8. River Cleanup
  9. Salmonids in the Classroom

2011 Dates:

September
13, 15, 20, 22, 27, 29

Location:

Center for Advanced Research & Technology (CART)
2555 Clovis Ave.
Clovis, CA 93612

Master Watershed Stewards will be supported by:

Natural Resource and California Water Resource Professionals: Providing instruction and technical expertise in natural resource management and water resource management

Agricultural Community Leaders: Providing instruction and technical expertise in the beneficial use of California Water Resources and California Agriculture Best Management Practices

Tool Box for Sustaining Action: How-to-Guides, Resources Library, Tools & Equipment, Inventory of Contacts for Technical Assistance, Web Page

Academy Leadership Team :  Composed of Stewardship Program staff and Agriculture and Natural Resource professionals to provide guidance and connect Master Watershed Stewards with the San Joaquin River Restoration Program

If you want to assume an active role in the restoration of the San Joaquin River and are willing to make a commitment to become a Master Watershed Steward contact the San Joaquin River Stewardship Program:  (559) 289-8874, sastarcher@gmail.com.

 

Watershed-Related Training Courses

The Watershed Academy teaches several courses, and also provides contact information on many watershed courses taught by others.

Publications

The Watershed Academy houses several types of watershed-related publications.

Information Transfer Series documents are technical references that supplement our live and internet based training courses.


WATERS (Watershed Assessment, Tracking & Environmental ResultS) unites water quality information that was previously available only from several independent and unconnected databases.

EPA gathers water quality information to address public concerns such as:
  • How healthy is my watershed?
  • Can I drink the water?
  • Can I eat the fish?
  • Is it safe to swim in the water?

To answer these questions EPA must examine data from several different databases. WATERS has the power to connect these databases and display the information by generating maps and reports.

About WATERS     |     Tools     |     Data     |     Documents     |     Reporting

Legal

FEMA National flood insurance Program

The Coalition for a Sustainable Delta has filed a lawsuit in federal district court against the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) for violating the federal Endangered Species Act (ESA) through its National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP), which encourages development of flood plain habitats that may affect listed species without consulting with federal wildlife agencies.

Legal Papers

INVASIVE SPECIES

The Coalition for a Sustainable Delta has settled a lawsuit in federal district court against the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) for violating the federal Endangered Species Act (ESA) through its enforcement of State sport fishing regulations that protect the non-native striped bass at the expense of several native endangered and threatened species, including the delta smelt.

Legal Papers

BIOLOGICAL OPINIONS

The Coalition has joined other water users in filing lawsuits against federal agencies challenging regulatory restrictions placed on the water pumping operations of the State Water Project and Central Valley Project. The severe water supply restrictions imposed under Biological Opinions issued under the Endangered Species Act are designed to protect the delta smelt and various species of salmon, which are federally protected species that reside in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. The restrictions, which fail to comply with the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act and the Endangered Species Act and are not based on the best available science, have greatly reduced water supplies for 25 million Californians and millions of acres of productive San Joaquin Valley farmland.

Legal Papers

Wanger decision results in increased pumping through June
On May 25, 2010, Judge Wanger issued an order barring the National Marine Fisheries Service from implementing two actions that restrict water exports from the Central Valley Project and State Water Project pumping plants in the south Delta. The Court repeatedly criticized the federal government?s biological opinion and actions included in the reasonable and prudent alternative, characterizing portions of those documents as "unsupported by reasonable explanation," "simply indefensible," "inexplicable," and "not rational nor scientifically justified." It is estimated that the order will result in the delivery or an additional 50,000 acre-feet of water in the next three weeks.

In another victory for water users, on May 27, 2010, Judge Wanger issued an order declaring unlawful several portions of the biological opinion and reasonable and prudent alternative prepared by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service to protect delta smelt. The Court held that the federal government should have considered impacts on the human environment when implementing the pumping restrictions and that the specific restrictions imposed by the federal government were not "adequately justified by generally recognized scientific principles." In addition, Judge Wanger held that the federal government failed to use the best available science in analyzing and addressing take of delta smelt at the project pumps, which in the Court's view "raises the spectre of bad faith" on the part of the federal wildlife agency. The parties, including the Coalition, have agreed to work together to develop a temporary plan with regard to short-term Delta water operations. If an agreement cannot be reached, another hearing before Judge Wanger will take place to decide how the water projects will be operated as a result of the Court's decision.

WATER QUALITY

The Coalition has filed a lawsuit against the City of Stockton and San Joaquin County for discharging toxic chemicals and other pollutants into the Delta. The legal action, under the federal Clean Water Act and Endangered Species Act, targets the municipal storm sewer system operated by the City and County, which has discharged pollutants in violation of applicable permits limits resulting in degraded water quality in the Delta and adverse impacts on fish species that reside in the Delta, including delta smelt and salmon.

Legal Papers

POWER PLANTS

The Coalition entered into a settlement agreement with Mirant Delta LLC related to its operation of two power plants in the Delta. These power plants utilize water from the Delta to condense steam used to rotate turbines that generate electricity; the process, known as once-through cooling, involves intake structures that can inadvertently harm fish when water is pumped into the plants. The settlement provides for increased monitoring of the aquatic impacts of power plant operations and a specified timeframe to complete consultation with the federal wildlife agencies regarding the impacts of power plant operations on endangered and threatened fish, including the delta smelt.

Legal Papers

Information About Climate Action Team (CAT) and Greenhouse Gas Reduction

CA Climate Change Agencies

Key Federal Agencies, Academic & Nonprofit Groups

Regulations

Title 27: Unified Program . Title 27, Division 1, General Functions and Responsibilities, Subdivision 4, Sate Delegation, Chapter 1, Unified Hazardous Waste and Hazardous Materials Management Regulatory Program (Effective May 14, 1999).

Policy Documents

Cal/EPA Draft Fuels Guidance Document (PDF)

Compendium of Cal/EPA Unified Enforcement Policies

Fact Sheets . On this page you will find 1995 and 1997 fact sheets.

Quality Improvement Team Handbooks . Information about Senate Bill 1082 (Calderon, Chapter 418, Statutes of 1993) directed Cal/EPA to improve the quality, efficiency, and cost effectiveness of our programs while simultaneously increasing the level of environmental protection.

Publications Sites for Cal/EPA Agencies

The Education and the Environment Initiative (EEI) Curriculum

Famed naturalist John Muir captured the vital importance of education about the environment when he said, "Tug on anything at all and you'll find it connected to everything else in the universe." Imagine the possibilities if that understanding began, for students, as early as Kindergarten and continued through high school. With the Education and the Environment Initiative (EEI) Curriculum, that vision is well on the way to becoming a reality.

Field-tested in Kindergarten to 12th grade classrooms from San Diego to California's North Coast, the 85 EEI Curriculum units cover selected academic content standards in both Science and History-Social Science. Each EEI Curriculum unit is designed to teach one or more standards to mastery.

The State Board of Education (SBE) unanimously approved all 85 EEI Curriculum units. With SBE's stamp of approval, the 85 EEI  curriculum units are now available for use in California's classrooms.

EEI Curriculum Units

Kindergarten | 1st Grade | 2nd Grade | 3rd Grade | 4th Grade | 5th Grade | 6th Grade | 7th Grade | 8th Grade | 10th Grade | 11th Grade | 12th Grade | Biology | Earth Science

Background Information

Highlights of the EEI Curriculum

Learning Objectives for the 85 EEI Curriculum Units

Please review the final list of Learning Objectives for all 85 California EEI Curriculum units (PDF) that will be used in EEI Units.

Model Curriculum Plan

The Model Curriculum Plan (PDF, 1 MB) outlines the proposed methodology, scope, and sequence for the EEI Curriculum pursuant to the law's requirements.

During the development of the Model Curriculum Plan, input was solicited from state agencies, education organizations, business groups, universities, and environmental organizations.

In addition, an Educator Needs Assessment was sent to 10,000 teachers and numerous focus group meetings and discussion sessions were conducted to gather information regarding design elements for the EEI Curriculum. Design alternatives were developed as a result of these meetings.

The results of the Educator Needs Assessment indicated that teachers would require the EEI Curriculum to address grade and discipline-specific standards. In response, the Model Curriculum was designed to fit with teachers' existing lesson plans without increasing instructional content. Each lesson may stand alone or be used in combination with other units. It provides a scope and sequence for teaching the EP&Cs through a learning continuum from kindergarten through 12th grade.

The Model Curriculum Plan was reviewed by State of California environmental organizations, Curriculum and Supplemental Materials Commission liaison, EEI Education Partnership, and educational entities. 

Curriculum Home | Education and the Environment Initiative Home


. . . . . . . . .

Bringing the Environment into Classrooms in a Meaningful Way!

The NOAA California Bay Watershed Education and Training (B-WET) Program provides funds to support environment-based education throughout the watersheds of San Francisco Bay, Monterey Bay, and Santa Barbara Channel.

Funded projects provide " meaningful " (pdf) watershed educational experiences to students, teachers, and communities.

Recognizing that an educated community is the key to understanding and sustaining the Nation's ocean and coastal environments, NOAA has developed B-WET into a national program .

Funding Opportunities

For more information contact:
Seaberry Nachbar
CA B-WET Program Manager
299 Foam Street
Monterey, CA 93940
(831) 647-4204
seaberry.nachbar@noaa.gov

. . . . . . . . .

California B-WET Funded Projects

5/22/2011 - 5/26/2011
1
2011 World Environmental and Water Resources Congress
1
Location:   Palm Springs, CA
1

SPONSOR
American Society of Civil Engineers' Environmental & Water Resources Institute

LOCATION
Palm Springs Convention Center
Palm Springs, CA

DETAILS
The World Environmental & Water Resources Congress is an important opportunity for professionals in the environmental and water fields to convene and focus on topics of the day. This year's technical program focuses on “Bearing Knowledge for Sustainability”. It is important that the environmental and engineering community integrate sustainability, in dealing with today's issues whether they be technical, economic, social, environmental or political. To that end a number of symposia are being offered including:

* Arid Lands Symposium
* Climate Change Symposium
* Sustainability Symposium
* 6th World Water Forum Symposium: North American Regional Event (tentative)

The congress will also feature our traditional technical tracks such as urban water resources, dam safety, watershed management, systems engineering, water and wastewater engineering, international issues and projects, and a strong local program focused on southwest environmental water issues such as the restoration of the Salton Sea, the Bay Delta Program, and state of the art infrastructure projects.

REGISTRATION
1
http://content.asce.org/conferences/ewri2011/

Click here for trainings on this date.

 

E-Update on Federal Land Management

5/16/11 Media Advisory: Herger to Hold Press Conference Introducing Legislation to Combat Wildfire Threat

Combating the Wildfire Threat with Commonsense Solutions

Given your interest in federal land management, I want to tell you about an event I held regarding the Catastrophic Wildfire Community Protection Act , legislation I have introduced to combat the wildfire threat to communities in our area and across America.  Living in Northern California, you know all too well the danger wildfires pose to our lives and property.  For too long, frivolous lawsuits from fringe environmental activists have prevented the necessary thinning of our forests.  It is essential that we liberate local fire prevention efforts by providing the people living in at-risk communities a greater role in protecting themselves.  The Catastrophic Wildfire Community Protection Act would do exactly that by allowing critical forest thinning projects to go forward in a timely manner, and authorizing at-risk communities to implement the emergency action plans that they developed to reduce the threat of catastrophic fire.  Click  here to get more in-depth information on my legislation.  

 

The event was held on the property of Moak family, who instead of evacuating during the 2008 fires, remained behind to defend their property.  The surrounding area of Concow was decimated by those fires with over 100 residences lost, serving as a tragic example of the need for significant change in forest management policy.  Fortunately, the Moaks were successful in protecting their property.  Sadly, however, the 2008 fires took the lives of 12 individuals in Northern California and burned more than a million acres.  You can read the full text of my prepared remarks below:

First off, I would like to thank Pete Moak for hosting us here today.  As you can see around you, Pete was in quite a fight a few years ago to protect his home and property.  Fortunately he was successful in defending his property but the sad part is that the fire that threatened this community and Pete's home could have been significantly lessened in the first place.

The 2008 fire season saw more than a million acres of our forests burned, the tragic loss of several wildland firefighters, the evacuation of thousands and the loss of hundreds of homes and businesses.  Sadly, nearly three years later, the forest management situation has yet to improve, leaving the threat of another devastating wildfire season just around the next corner.

We cannot control the weather, lightning strikes, or an unfortunate human-induced spark, but we can control the overstocked and unhealthy forests that fuel these fires.  Despite the enactment of numerous legislative and administrative actions to address this fuel, our forests and communities remain at-risk to the next lightning storm or stray spark.

Which brings us here today.  In response to these conditions and the inability of previous efforts to reduce this dangerous fuels build-up.  I have introduced the Catastrophic Wildfire Community Protection Act.  This legislation builds on and expands existing authorities – such as those authorized by the Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003 – to achieve fuels treatments in our at-risk communities to reduce the risk of wildfire through implementation of collaboratively developed fuels reduction and forest thinning projects.  This bill also establishes an emergency process to expedite these projects should the county, in concurrence with the state, declare an emergency due to the threat of wildfire.

Most North State residents fully understand the reality facing the forests in their backyard.  Unfortunately, balanced forest management continues to be opposed by people residing in cities far away from both the forests they supposedly aim to “protect” and the danger facing these communities  Under current law, these fringe groups are allowed to –for the cost of a postage stamp – file lawsuits against any forest management project on federal land that they happen to spot in the Federal Register.  These actions occur notwithstanding the input and collaboration from professional foresters and other similarly-trained experts, thus allowing these minority views to displace the science-based efforts of the many individuals who hold a vested interest in sound forest management and reducing the dangerous fuel load around their communities.

It is my hope that this legislation can cut through this stalemate and help reduce the immediate risk affecting our forest communities.  I will work with my colleagues in the House to move this legislation as quickly as possible.  President Obama has spoke about ‘restoring science to its rightful place.'  I hope that President Obama and the Senate will join me in allowing commonsense forest management and science to prevail in response to the risk of catastrophic wildfire. 

Agriculture and Natural Resources, University of California

WoodyBiomass: San Joaquin Valley, CA. Akeida Capital Management own Merced Power (El Nido) & Chowchilla Biomass after big EPA fines for original owner.
Posted 8 days ago

WoodyBiomass: USDA FSA announce first BCAP Project Area where growers will be eligible to receive funding for producing energy crops. http://j.mp/mt8TZb
Posted 11 days ago

WoodyBiomass: Visalia, CA. EdeniQ & Logos Technologies to build pilot scale cellulosic biorefinery. http://j.mp/iHfwvS (Business Journal)
Posted 11 days ago

CPA Annual Conference 2011

Related Content

California
California Naturalist Program

 

Welcome to Woody Biomass Utilization

Woody biomass in forests is a huge potential resource in California.  Many forests are at great risk of wildfire or disease due to interruptions in the natural fire cycle.  Ecological restoration and fuels reduction projects create large volumes of woody biomass.  This material is often burnt in piles in the forest when it could be used to make products or energy.  Woody biomass utilization offers land managers an opportunity to dispose of material in a cost effective manner and reduce emissions while creating local economic development.

The Woody Biomass Utilization Group at UC Berkeley works in 3 main areas:

Other research projects have focused on Hardwood Utilization

 

 

Woody Biomass Spotlight

The UC Woody Biomass Utilization Group has worked with many applicants to the Forest Service Woody Biomass Utilization grant program.  Between 2007 and 2010 we helped 15 small businesses, non-profits and tribes to secure over $4.4m though this program.  Equipment purchased included woody biomass harvesting and processing equipment.  The result is an increased infrastructure in California to process and add value to woody biomass from National Forest System lands.  Check out our Grants pages for information on this and other programs.

View All

WoodyBiomass: San Joaquin Valley, CA. Akeida Capital Management own Merced Power (El Nido) & Chowchilla Biomass after big EPA fines for original owner.
Posted 8 days ago

WoodyBiomass: USDA FSA announce first BCAP Project Area where growers will be eligible to receive funding for producing energy crops. http://j.mp/mt8TZb
Posted 11 days ago

WoodyBiomass: Visalia, CA. EdeniQ & Logos Technologies to build pilot scale cellulosic biorefinery. http://j.mp/iHfwvS (Business Journal)
Posted 11 days ago

Grants

There are a number of grants available that are relevant to woody biomass utilization projects.  This section explains and identifies relevant programs.  Although there are many woody biomass to energy grant and secured loan programs from the Department of Energy and USDA there are actually very few programs that can benefit smaller and non energy projects.

Grant programs are constantly changing and we aim to keep you up to date with the latest developments in the most relevant programs.

USDA Forest Service TMU Woody Biomass Utilization Grant Program
This is a national program that has run on an annual basis since 2005.  It is managed by the State and Private Forestry Technology Marketing Unit located at the Forest Products Laboratory in Madison,  WI. 
For more information on this grant click here also check the TMU homepage .  We have compiled maps that show the locations of successful projects for the grant in 2007 , 2008 , 2009 and 2010 .

The program changed radically in 2011 to only fund engineering studies of wood to energy projects.

Woody Biomass Utilization Grant

USDA Farm Service Agency Biomass Crop Assistance Program (BCAP)
BCAP provides financial assistance to producers or entities that deliver eligible biomass material to designated biomass conversion facilities for use as heat, power, biobased products or biofuels. Initial assistance will be for the Collection, Harvest, Storage and Transportation (CHST) costs associated with the delivery of eligible materials.

Farm Services BCAP homepage
FSA Biomass Crop Assistance Program

California Association of Resource Conservation and Development Councils (CARC&DC) Biomass Technical Assistance Grant
This grant was aimed at biomass conversion technologies which utilize large amounts of wood fuel from national forests and other areas to reduce wild fire hazzards, especially in the wildland urban interface. The program ended in December 2010.

CARC&DC Technical Assistance Grant

California's RREA program takes an integrated approach to educational outreach. Outreach groups include range and forest landowners, government agencies, interest groups, and policy makers. The most critical environmental issues targeted by this program include:

• Conservation and enhancement of wetlands/riparian resources
• Endangered species/biodiversity
• Atmospheric pollution/global climate change
• Erosion/nonpoint source pollution
• Water quality/quantity

These issues require integrative approaches from diverse perspectives and innovative solutions.

Through the limited federal funds allocated to RREA, we leverage the research results using our Cooperative Extension delivery network.

Cooperative Extension, the principal outreach arm of the Division of Agriculture and Natural Resources, includes more than 250 specialists on the Berkeley, Davis and Riverside campuses, as well as 200 county academic appointees, or advisors, in the state's communities.

The results of this delivery system, featured on this Web site in the stories of California's landowners, demonstrate the continued success of the original vision for the public university system “on behalf of the people.”

California   Watershed   Assessment   Manual (Volumes I and II )

The Region 9 Water Quality program is a partnership linking the Land Grant Institutions of American Samoa , Arizona , California, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands , the Federated States of Micronesia, Guam , Hawaii, Republic of the Marshall Islands , Navajo Nation, Nevada and the Republic of Palau .

Focus on Region 9

Regional releases
Water Issues are a High Priority - RWQ001 [ PDF ]
Government Activity in Water & Environmental Issues - RWQ002 [ PDF ]
Safe Drinking Water - A Common Concern for. . . - RWQ003 [ PDF ]
Reclaiming Wasterwater for Benificial Uses - RWQ004 [ PDF ]
Small Scale Animal Waste Management - RWQ005 [ PDF ]
Detecting Leptospira in Water: Preliminary Results from a Regional
Collaboration, University of Hawaii and University of Nevada [ PDF ]
Southwest States releases
Nitrate Index Tool Available For Growers - SWWQ001 [ PDF ]
Do Pet Recreation Areas Affect Water Quality? - SWWQ002 [ PDF ]
Catch the Rain! Rainwater Harvesting Activities 4-H2O: A Guide for 4-H Leaders and Teachers. [Order Online here ]


Drinking Water & Human Health
Households that maintain their own water supply system, such as a well or a rainwater collection system, do not fall under the jurisdiction of the Safe Drinking Water Act. These predominantly rural households are responsible for the safety of their own drinking water supply. Accordingly, their informational need is significantly greater than their counterparts served by public water systems. Cooperators from the Land Grant universities and colleges that make up the Region 9 Water Program address informational needs at the consumer level by providing unbiased research-based information to the consumer through publication and outreach education.
[ More >> ]

Water Conservation & Agricultural Water Management
Agricultural water management entails making decisions on irrigation and, if necessary, drainage practices on farms. In this context, water conservation means irrigating in a manner that results in low surface runoff from the field, and only the amount of water necessary to leach excessive salts moving below the crop root zone. Water management decisions include choices of irrigation systems (i.e. furrow, sprinkler, drip, etc.) and programming the time and amount of irrigation. Region 9 is engaged in research and provides science-based educational materials directed toward achieving optimal agricultural water management. The information is also useful for irrigation management in urban settings.
[ More >> ]

Watershed Management
Watershed management recognizes that the water quality of our streams, lakes, and estuaries results from the interaction of upstream features. Activities of all land uses within watersheds impact the water quality of down gradient water bodies. Point and nonpoint sources of pollution in a watershed contribute nutrients, bacteria, and chemical contaminants to U.S. waterways. Watershed management encompasses all the activities aimed at identifying sources and minimizing contaminants to a water body from its watershed.
[ More >> ]

Welcome to CREEC Network Region 2!

Connecting Quality Environmental Education in the North State!


American Camp Association, Northern CA
Mission Statement: The mission of the American Camp Association is enriching the lives of children, youth and adults through the camp experience... more »
Contact: Danielle Pinney, 916-333-5344, executive@acanorcal.org

AmeriCorps USA Watershed Stewards Project
Mission Statement: The AmeriCorps Watershed Stewards Project mission is to conserve, restore, and sustain anadromous watersheds for future generations through education and high quality scientific practices.... more »
Programs/Resources: Watershed Education
Contact: Education Team Leader, 707-725-8601, wsp.etl@ccc.ca.gov

Barry R. Kirshner Wildlife Foundation
Mission Statement: The Barry R. Kirshner Wildlife Foundation was founded in 1994. It is conveniently located just minutes south of Chico in Durham; it is the only organization of its kind in California, north of Sacramento. The mission of the found... more »
Programs/Resources: Endangered Animals-Wildlife Education
Contact: Roberta Kirshner, Executive Director, 530.345.1700, admin@kirshner.org

Big Chico Creek Ecological Reserve
Mission Statement: The mission of the CSU, Chico Research Foundation's Ecological Reserve System and especially the Big Chico Creek Ecological Reserve is to preserve critical habitat and to provide a natural area for environmental research and educa... more »
Programs/Resources: Ecological Research, Nature Observation Hike
Contact: Jeff Mott, Director, 530.898.5010, jmott@csuchico.edu

Big Chico Creek Watershed Alliance
Mission Statement: The mission of the Big Chico Creek Watershed Alliance is to protect and enhance the ecological integrity and economic vitality of the Big Chico Creek watershed through cooperative efforts. In partnership with landowners, interest... more »
Programs/Resources: Youth Stream Team
Contact: Susan Mason, 530.892.2196, coordinator@bigchicocreek.org

Butte Environmental Council
Mission Statement: We encourage the preservation, conservation, and restoration of the Earth's natural resources in northern California through education, advocacy, and referral services. ... more »
Programs/Resources: Natural Resource Advocacy & Education Programs for Butte County
Contact: Mary Muchowski, Education & Outreach Coordinator, 530-891-6424, marym@becnet.org

California Conservation Corps - Coastal Fishery Restoration Program , Northern Service District
Mission Statement: The California Conservation Corps engages young men and women in meaningful work, public service and educational activities that assist them in becoming more responsible citizens, while protecting and enhancing California's enviro... more »
Programs/Resources: Watershed Stewards Project
Contact: Robert Frechou, Conservation Supervisor, 707-728-5106, bob.frechou@ccc.ca.gov

Central Modoc River Center
Mission Statement: The mission of the River Center is to foster natural resource stewardship and promote the sustainability of the local community.... more »
Programs/Resources: Central Modoc River Center Education Program
Contact: Valerie Lantz, 530-233-5085, the.river.center@frontiernet.net

Chico Creek Nature Center
Mission Statement: Our mission is to enhance the quality of all life by promoting understanding, awareness, appreciation, and knowledge of our environment through environmental education in Bidwell Park. It is the philosophy of the Chico Creek Natur... more »
Programs/Resources: Environmental Education Program
Contact: Tom Haithcock, Executive Director, 530-891-4671, info@bidwellpark.org

Coleman National Fish Hatchery - U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Mission Statement: The Coleman National Fish Hatchery was established in 1942 to mitigate the loss of natural salmon to historic spawning areas. The hatchery spawns Chinook salmon and steelhead which migrate up the Sacramento River from the Pacific... more »
Programs/Resources: Coleman Fish Hatchery Happenings
Contact: Sharon Gower, 530.365.8622, sharon_gower@fws.gov

Coloma Outdoor Discovery School
Mission Statement: Coloma Outdoor Discovery School celebrates the culture, music, and folklore of the California Gold Rush using lessons of the past to awaken students' interest and sense of responsibility for the environment. Coloma Outdoor Disco... more »
Programs/Resources: Coloma Gold Rush/Living History Program, Coloma Outdoor Discovery School, Coloma Outdoor Discovery School Science Program, Coloma Outdoor Discovery School Team Discovery Ropes Challenge
Contact: Kindra Garcia, 530-621-2298, kindra@cods.org

CREEC 2
Mission Statement: CREEC 2 supports environmental education networking for the nine northeastern counties in California. We sponsor curriculum workshops, disseminate environmental education information regarding exemplary curricula, grant opportun... more »
Contact: Cassandra Simons, 530.225.0111, csimons@shastacoe.org

Feather River Nature Center

Programs/Resources: Natural & Local History Tours - Oroville
Contact: Rex Burress (for tours) or Margaret Fowler, 530-533-5936 or 530-532-9777, kandmfowler@comcast.net

French Creek Outdoor School
Mission Statement: French Creek Outdoor School is located at the JH Guest Ranch in the beautiful Scott Valley, on the eastern slopes of the Russian Wilderness area. The hiking trails and meadows give panoramic views of the high peaks in the Russian ... more »
Contact: Jason Singleton, 530.842.8400, jsing@sisnet.ssku.k12.ca.us

GLOBE Program
Mission Statement: GLOBE (Global Learning and Observations to Benefit the Environment) is a worldwide hands-on, primary and secondary school-based science and education program. GLOBE's vision promotes and supports students, teachers and scientists ... more »
Programs/Resources: Elementary Globe, Fresno GLOBE Program Teacher Training, GLOBE - NASA Ames Research Center, GLOBE - Sonoma County Office of Education, GLOBE - University of California at Santa Cruz, GLOBE - University of Redlands, GLOBE Educational Services, GLOBE for Los Angeles
Contact: Nan McClurg, GLOBE North America Regional Desk Office, 800-858-9947 (8 AM - 5 PM, Mountain Time), united-states@globe.gov

Gray Lodge Wildlife Area -Department of Fish and Game
Mission Statement: To manage California's diverse fish, wildlife and plant resources and the habitats upon which they depend for their ecological values and for their use and enjoyment by the public. Located approximately 60 miles north of Sacrament... more »
Programs/Resources: Exploring The Wetlands, The Nature Bowl, Wetland Discovery Nature Trail, Wildlife Observation Hikes
Contact: Lori Dieter, 530-846-7505, ldieter@dfg.ca.gov

Hat Creek Radio Observatory
Mission Statement: The Hat Creek Radio Observatory (HCRO) is located in Hat Creek, California and is home of the Allen Telescope Array (ATA).The ATA is a joint project between the SETI Institute and the Radio Astronomy Lab. The ATA is currently unde... more »
Programs/Resources: Radio Astronomy
Contact: Rick Forester, 530.335.2364, rick@hcro.berkeley.edu

Klamath Basin National Wildlife Refuges Complex
Mission Statement: The mission of the (National Wildlife Refuge) System is to administer a national network of land and waters for the conservation, management, and where appropriate, restoration of fish, wildlife, and plant resources and their habi... more »
Contact: Michele Nuss, (530)-667-2231, michele_nuss@fws.gov

Lake Oroville State Recreation Area
Mission Statement: Through interpretive and educational programs, the public gains appreciation and insight into California's natural and cultural riches. Through leadership and example, the Department will mentor practices to sustain these riches ... more »
Programs/Resources: Environmental & Cultural Education Outreach Program
Contact: Michael Hubbartt, (530) 538-2219, mhubbartt@parks.ca.gov

Lassen County Office of Education - Outdoor Education
Mission Statement: The mission of the Lassen County Office of Education is to provide essential and necessary resources, services, support, and leadership to all public schools in Lassen County that will assist in the improvement of programs and dev... more »
Programs/Resources: 5th Grade Day in the Forest, 6th Grade Outdoor School
Contact: Gwen Pacheco, 530-257-2196 x3039, gpacheco@lassencoe.org

Lassen Volcanic National Park
Mission Statement: The National Park Service preserves unimpaired the natural and cultural resources and values of the national park system for the enjoyment, education, and inspiration of this and future generations. The Park Service cooperates wit... more »
Programs/Resources: Earth & Plant Science Curriculum Materials, Ranger Led Education Programs
Contact: Steve Zachary, 530-595-4444, steve_zachary@nps.gov

Lava Beds National Monument
Mission Statement: The National Park Service preserves unimpaired the natural and cultural resources and values of the national park system for the enjoyment, education, and inspiration of this and future generations. The Park Service cooperates wit... more »
Programs/Resources: Geology & History Programs
Contact: Angela Buckley, Education Coordinator, (530) 667-8119, Angela_Buckley@nps.gov

McLaughlin Reserve
Mission Statement: The mission of the Natural Reserve System (the McLaughlin Reserve being on of the NRS reserves) is to contribute to the understanding and wise management of the Earth and its natural systems by supporting university-level teaching... more »
Programs/Resources: Science and Stewardship Programs at the McLaughlin Reserve
Contact: Cathy Koehler, 707-995 9005, mclaughlin@ucdavis.edu

Modoc National Wildlife Refuge
Mission Statement: Modoc is one of over 500 refuges in the National Wildlife Refuge System - a network of lands set aside specifically to conserve fish, wildlife and plants. Managed by the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, the System is a living heritag... more »
Programs/Resources: Modoc National Wildlife Refuge Education Programs
Contact: Steve Clay, 530-233-3572, Steve_Clay@fws.gov

Nawa Academy
Mission Statement: Nawa Academy is a non-traditional boarding school that prepares students with diverse learning needs to meet the challenges and complexities of the future. Through an experiential approach to learning, a creative and caring facult... more »
Contact: David Hulll, Executive Director, 800-358-NAWA or 530-359-2215, info@nawa-academy.com

Northcoast Regional Land Trust
Mission Statement: The Northcoast Regional Land Trust is dedicated to the protection and enhancement of farms, forests, rangelands, and wild areas in perpetuity. Our vision is to create a sustainable community with a vibrant economy and landscape. ... more »
Programs/Resources: Canoe the Slough, Cows & Cattails, Interpretive Hikes, Marsh Monitoring
Contact: Lindsay Magnuson, (707) 822-2242, l.magnuson@ncrlt.org

Northern California Natural History Museum
Mission Statement: The mission of the Northern California Natural History Museum is to create a life-long learning environment that enables people to explore, interpret, and celebrate the magnificent natural heritage of our region through science, r... more »
Contact: Greg Liggett, Executive Director, 530-898-4121, gliggett@ncnhm.org

Pacific Gas and Electric Company's Energenius® Program
Mission Statement: To help young energy users to become "Energeniuses" which are people who use energy efficiently and safely.... more »
Programs/Resources: Energenius® Bill Buster Program, Energenius® E Program, Energenius® Habits Program, Energenius® Kindergarten Program, Energenius® Programs
Contact: Pam Murray, 415-972-5416, PMW2@pge.com

RARE- The Recycle and Rubbish Exhibit , Associated Students - CSU-Chico
Mission Statement: The Recycling And Rubbish Exhibit (R.A.R.E.) is a two part program that offers Butte County residents of all ages a chance to learn about the dynamics of trash, recycling, composting, and American society's attitudes toward waste ... more »
Programs/Resources: RARE - The Recycle and Rubbish Exhibit
Contact: Mandi McKay, 530-898-3368, rare@csuchico.edu

Redding Electric Utililty - School Program
Mission Statement: Redding Electric Utility (REU) offers free safety and conservation classes for 4th and 5th grade students in our service area. We also offer conservation and life skills classes for High School Students. Our Goal is very straight... more »
Programs/Resources: Electrical Safety and Conservation
Contact: Adrian Mallery, (530) 339-7300, amallery@reupower.com


River Partners
Mission Statement: The mission of River Partners is to create wildlife habitat for the benefit of people and the environment. River Partners protects the environment by implementing large scale restoration along streams and rivers. We work on the ma... more »
Programs/Resources: River Partners Watershed Education
Contact: Mona Cross, 530-894-5401, info@riverpartners.org

Sacramento National Wildlife Refuge
Mission Statement: Welcome to the Sacramento National Wildlife Refuge Complex, located approximately 90 miles north of the city of Sacramento. The Complex consists of five national wildlife refuges (NWR) and three wildlife management areas (WMA) tha... more »
Programs/Resources: Discover Wetlands - Environmental Education Activities, Junior Duck Stamp Receiving Site, Marsh Madness & California Waterfowl Association (CWA), Wild About Wetland Study Kits
Contact: Jennifer Stockton, 530-934-2801, Jennifer_Stockton@fws.gov

Sacramento River Discovery Center
Mission Statement: The Sacramento River Discovery Center will use educational displays, exhibits, hands-on instructional programs, watershed rehabilitation opportunities and other means to enhance the public's understanding, appreciation, wise use, ... more »
Programs/Resources: SRDC Educational Programs, SRDC Teacher & InternTraining
Contact: Carlene Cramer, 530-527-1196, srdc@tehama.k12.ca.us

Sacramento Zoo
Mission Statement: To inspire appreciation, understanding and respect for all living things through stimulating education, wholesome recreation and innovative species management.... more »
Programs/Resources: Operation Adaptation Wildlife Show at the Sac Zoo, Sacramento Zoo E-Feature, Sacramento Zoo Field Trips, Sacramento Zoo Loan Kits, Sacramento Zoo Outreach Program: Hip Habitats, Cool Critters, Sacramento Zoo Safari of the Senses, Sacramento Zoo Teacher Workshops, Teen Volunteer Program, ZooMobile Outreach, Sacramento
Contact: Education Department, 916-264-8814, ageiger@cityofsacramento.org

Schreder Planetarium
Mission Statement: Astronomy Education - Jet Fuel for the Imagination!... more »
Programs/Resources: Future Is Wild
Contact: David Ewart, 530-225-0267, dewart@shastacoe.org

Science Works Hands-On Museum
Mission Statement: Southern Oregon's world class science museum features innovative exhibits, science shows and exploration for all ages. Our Mission: To inspire wonder and stimulate creative exploration through fun interactive science and the art... more »
Programs/Resources: Chemistry Matters, Discovery Labs
Contact: Skoshi Wise, Director of Education, 541-482-6767 ext 26, skoshi@scienceworksmuseum.org

Sequoia Park Zoo
Mission Statement: To inspire wonder, understanding and respect for the natural world by providing fun, rewarding educational experiences that encourage meaningful connections between animals, humans and our environment.... more »
Programs/Resources: Forest Ed-ventures at Sequoia Park Zoo, School Field Trip
Contact: Amber Neilson, 707-441-4217, education@sequoiaparkzoo.net

Shady Creek Outdoor School
Mission Statement: Mission: To facilitate a learning environment that inspires an enthusiasm for learning and fosters community and environmental stewardship. Since 1969, Shady Creek Outdoor School (Formerly Woodleaf Outdoor School) has provided w... more »
Programs/Resources: Outdoor Education - Residental School
Contact: George Stratman, Director, 530-822-2948, georges@sutter.k12.ca.us

Sierra Nature Notes
Mission Statement: Sierra Nature Notes is a web publication sponsored by the non-profit Yosemite Association. Written by researchers, our articles are first-person accounts of current environmental studies being done in the Sierra. Our emphasis is o... more »
Contact: George Durkee, 209-586-1652, edit@SierraNatureNotes.com

Siskiyou County Office of Education-Science & Watershed Education
Mission Statement: The Siskiyou County Office of Education provides services and specialized resources to schools on a countywide basis. The French Creek Outdoor School & Day Camps, Aquarium Incubator Project and Larry Wehmeyer Pond Project are pro... more »
Programs/Resources: Science & Watershed Program
Contact: Jason Singleton, 530-842-8402, jsing@sisnet.ssku.k12.ca.us

Sisson Museum & Mt. Shasta Trout Hatchery
Mission Statement: Mount Shasta City was known as the town of Sisson until it was renamed in 1924. The museum building was erected in 1906 and served as the main hatchery building of the California Department of Fish and Game Mount Shasta Fish Hatch... more »
Programs/Resources: Fish Hatchery Tour
Contact: Wanda Welbourn, 530-926-5508, sissonmuseum@sbcglobal.net

Spring Rivers Foundation
Mission Statement: Spring Rivers Foundation was established with two broad goals in mind: (1) to improve stewardship for the diverse native aquatic wildlife species in the Intermountain area of Northeastern California, and (2) to nurture the connec... more »
Programs/Resources: Our Watershed-A Living Classroom
Contact: Jeff Cook, 530.335.5446, jeff@springrivers.com

The Chico Museum - Far West Heritage Association
Mission Statement: The mission of the Chico Museum is to preserve, exhibit, and interpret the history and culture of Chico, Butte County and northern California. Through fascinating exhibits on endless topics of local history and interest, and thro... more »
Programs/Resources: Chico: A Place in Time 1830-2000, Chinese Taoist Temple, Maidu Artifacts
Contact: Jim Lynch, 530-892-1525, jimlynch@farwestheritage.org

The Shasta Conservation Fund
Mission Statement: The Shasta Conservation Fund is a non-profit organization fostering the conservation and wise use of natural resources for the residents of Shasta County.... more »
Contact: Leslie Bryan, 530-365-7332 x 215, leslie@westernshastarcd.org

The Siskiyou Environmental Education Center (SEEC)
Mission Statement: The mission of the Siskiyou Environmental Education Center is twofold. We provide diverse opportunities for EE Master's students to develop teaching and communication skills related to a career in environmental education. We also ... more »
Programs/Resources: Natural Science Study Kits
Contact: Susan Koralek, 541-552-6876, seec@sou.edu

Trinity County Resource Conservation District
Mission Statement: To assist people in protecting, managing, conserving, and restoring the natural resources of Trinity County through information, education, technical assistance, and project implementation programs. ... more »
Programs/Resources: AmeriCorps Watershed Stewards Project Site, Environthon, Range Camp, RCD Speakoff Contest
Contact: Pat Frost, District Manager, 530.623.6004, pfrost@tcrcd.net

Turtle Bay Exploration Park
Mission Statement: Turtle Bay Exploration Park educates visitors of all ages with entertaining and stimulating exhibitions and programs that interpret the complex relationships between people and their environments. Using the unique cultural, histo... more »
Programs/Resources: Turtle Bay Education Programs
Contact: Jan DeHate, 530-242.3108, jdehate@turtlebay.org

United States Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region
Mission Statement: Multiple use on public lands managed by the United States Forest Service.... more »
Programs/Resources: Klamath National Forest, Lassen National Forest, Mendocino National Forest, Modoc National Forest, Plumas National Forest, Shasta Trinity National Forest
Contact: Brenda Kendrix, Community Relations, 707-562-9011, brenda_kendrix@fs.fed.us

Upper Sacramento River Exchange
Mission Statement: Promoting healthy watersheds through stewardship, education, restoration and community involvement.... more »
Programs/Resources: Science and Watershed Education Program
Contact: Vince Cloward, 530-235-2012, info@riverexchange.org

Western Shasta Resource Conservation District
Mission Statement: The mission of the Western Shasta Resource Conservation District is to collaborate with willing landowners, government agencies, and other organizations to facilitate the conservation or restoration of Western Shasta County's natu... more »
Programs/Resources: Conservation Planning Workshops, Watershed Education Lending Library, Watershed Educational Programs
Contact: Leslie Bryan, 530-365-7332 x 215, leslie@westernshastarcd.org

Whiskeytown Environmental School
Mission Statement: To provide a quality environmental education program which develops increased awareness and appreciation of our natural environment, fosters social responsibility for effectively managing and preserving our natural resources, and ... more »
Programs/Resources: Clear Creek Field Experiences, WES/Residental Outdoor Science School
Contact: Cassandra Simons, 530-225-0111, csimons@shastacoe.org

Whiskeytown National Recreation Area - National Park Service
Mission Statement: Located 8 miles west of Redding, Whiskeytown National Recreation Area is located at the juncture of the Klamath Mountain range and the northern edge of the Sacramento Valley, making it home to a special collection of animal and pl... more »
Programs/Resources: Gold Rush - Camden House & Gold Panning, Kayak Tours
Contact: Clinton Kane, Interpretation, (530) 242-3451, clinton_k_kane@nps.gov

CA Environmental Ed. Interagency Network (CEEIN)

Information on California state departments, boards, and commissions with oversight responsibility to protect California's environment.

About CEEIN

The California Environmental Education Interagency Network (CEEIN) is a state government consortium of environmental educators representing departments, boards, and commissions of the California Department of Education (CDE), California Environmental Protection Agency (Cal/EPA), The Resources Agency of California (RA), and the Department of Food and Agriculture (DFA). CEEIN fosters broad understanding of the State's environmental and cultural resources while affirming that education is essential to the development of understanding and respect for the environment. The CEEIN partnership provides a forum for its members to share resources, programs, and materials with California's public schools and students in kindergarten through university. This partnership is solidified by a memorandum of understanding, which has been signed by the state Superintendent of Public Instruction and the secretaries of Cal/EPA, RA, and DFA. CDE hosts the CEEIN Web site as one of its responsibilities on the partnership. The site was previously hosted by CalEPA through 2009.

The primary goals of CEEIN are to develop a unified response to the environmental education needs of California's educators and local governments, and to assist with statewide educational reform movements. Additionally, a "leadership by consensus" approach was devised to maintain the spirit of an open forum whereby the responsibility for meetings and projects are shared by all CEEIN agencies. The lead agency is designated every two years.

CEEIN subcommittees include Administration and Organization; Communications and Outreach; Diversity, Leadership, and Legislation; and Public and Private Partnerships.

CEEIN accomplishments include the Curricula and Compendia Project, supporting the California Regional Environmental Education Community (CREEC) network, establishing an outreach program that includes development and distribution of the CEEIN brochure, conducting workshops designed specifically for educators, and staffing exhibits booths at environmental conferences and fairs.

Resources

Environmental Education Curriculum Resources
Resources from CEEIN members and others for integrating environmental concepts into lesson plans.

Events
A listing of events that may be of interest to educators who would like to integrate environmental education into their teaching.

CEEIN Members

The following departments, boards, and commissions are members of CEEIN .

California Department of Education (CDE)

Resources within CDE:

California Environmental Protection Agency (Cal/EPA) (Outside Source)

Department of Food and Agriculture (Outside Source)

California Natural Resources Agency (Outside Source)

Meeting Schedule 2011

CEEIN members meet monthly to discuss and share information about national and statewide environmental education efforts. These monthly meetings allow participants to network with their counterparts at the other boards, departments, and commissions on a regular basis. Discussions enable the various participants to rapidly exchange information and increase the breadth of information dissemination. This communication enables members to maximize their efforts and minimize redundancy.

Handbook

CEEIN Procedural Handbook (DOC; 177KB; 12pp.)

Archived Meeting Minutes

Environmental Education Curriculum Resources

Information on California state departments, boards, and commissions with oversight responsibility to protect California's environment.

Curriculum Guides

Education and the Environment Initiative (Outside Source)
The mission of the Education and Environment Initiative is to develop a unified strategy to bring education about the environment into school districts using the Model Curriculum Plan and California's Environmental Principles and Concepts.

A Child's Place in the Environment (ACPE) (Outside Source)
ACPE is a series of six environmental education curriculum guides for elementary school teachers that integrates science, English-language arts, and selected children's literature and culminates with student projects, which enhance their environment and provide experiences in service learning. Guides correlate to California's content standards in science and English-language arts. Sample assessment questions for ACPE (Outside Source) are available for review.

The California Endangered Species Resource Guide identifies rare, threatened, and endangered species in all 58 counties of California. It is available through CDE Press by calling 800-995-4099 and ordering publication number 009779.

Resources from CEEIN Members

The following is a list of resources available from CEEIN members.

California Department of Education

Environmental Education Program
Mathematics and Science Leadership Office
1430 N Street
Sacramento, CA 95814
Phone: 916-327-4408
Fax: 916-323-2833
Web site: California Department of Education

Resources:

California Environmental Protection Agency

1001 I Street
P.O. Box 2815
Sacramento, CA
95812-2815
Education Web site: California Environmental Protection Agency (Outside Source)

Resources:

California Air Resources Board

Office of the Ombudsman
1001 I Street
Sacramento, CA 95814
Phone: 916-322-6925 or 916-323-6791 (Office of the Ombudsman)
Fax: 916-322-4737
Web site: California Air Resources Board (Outside Source)

Resources:

Department of Pesticide Regulation

1001 I Street
Sacramento, CA 95814
Phone: 916-324-4100
Fax: 916-324-4088
Web site: Department of Pesticide Regulation (Outside Source)

Resources:

Department of Toxic Substances Control

Education Unit
P.O. Box 806 (FLR 22-1)
Sacramento, CA 95812-0806
Phone: 916-323-9482
Fax: 916-327-0978
Web site: Department of Toxic Substances Control (Outside Source)

Resources:

Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment

1001 I Street
Sacramento, CA 95814 or
P.O. Box 4010
Sacramento, CA 95812-4010
Phone: 916-324-7572
Fax: 916-322-9705
Web site: Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (Outside Source)

Resources:

California Water Boards

Public Affairs Office
1001 I Street, Sacramento, CA 95814
Phone: 916-341-5254
Fax: 916-341-5252
Web site: California Water Boards (Outside Source)

Resources:

California Coastal Commission

45 Fremont Street, Suite 2000
San Francisco, CA 94105
Phone: 800-COAST-4U
Fax: 415-904-5400
Email: coast4u@coastal.ca.gov (Outside Source)
Web site: California Coastal Commission (Outside Source)

Resources:

California Conservation Corps

1719 24th Street
Sacramento, CA 95816
Phone: 916-341-3100, 800-952-5627
Fax: 916-323-4989
Web site: California Conservation Corps (Outside Source)

Resources:

California Energy Commission

1516 Ninth Street MS-29
Sacramento, CA 95814
Phone: 916-654-4989
Fax: 916-653-5590 and #8211; Attention: Media and Communications Office
Web site: California Energy Commission (Outside Source)

Resources:

Department of Boating and Waterways

2000 Evergreen Street, Suite 100
Sacramento, CA 95815-3888
Phone: (888) 326-2822
Fax: 916-263-0357
Web site: Department of Boating and Waterways (Outside Source)

Resources:

Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle)

Public Affairs Office
801 K Street, MS 17-15
Sacramento, CA 95814-3533
Phone: 916-341-6300
E-mail: opa@calrecycle.ca.gov
Web site: Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (Outside Source)

Resources:

Department of Fish and Game

1416 Ninth Street, Room 117
Sacramento, CA 95814
Phone: General Information 916-653-6420; Aquatic WILD (888) 945-3334 or 916-653-6132
Fax: 916-653-1856
Web site: Department of Fish and Game (Outside Source)

Resources:

Department of Forestry and Fire Protection

P.O. Box 944246
Sacramento, CA 94244-2460
Phone: Project Learning Tree 916-653-7958
Fire Prevention 916-653-9952
Fax: 916-653-6378
Web site: Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (Outside Source)

Resources:

Department of Parks and Recreation

P.O. Box 942896
Sacramento, CA 94296-0001
Phone: State Park Store 916-653-4000 General Information 916-653-6995
Fax: 916-654-6374
Education Web Site (Outside Source)
Web site: Department of Parks and Recreation (Outside Source)

Resources:

Department of Water Resources

P.O. Box 942836
Sacramento, CA 94236-0001
Phone: Publications Office 916-653-1097
Public Affairs Office, Education Program 916-653-9892
Fax: 916-653-4684
Education Web Site (Outside Source)
Web site: Department of Water Resources (Outside Source)

Resources:

California Department of Food and Agriculture

1220 N Street
Sacramento, CA 95814
Phone: Invasive Species Campaign 916-654-0768 Public Affairs 916-654-0462
Fax: 916-657-4240
Web site: California Department of Food and Agriculture (Outside Source)

Email: Invasive Species Campaign: Steve Schoenig at sschoenig@cdfa.ca.gov ; Public Affairs: Steve Lyle at Slyle@cdfa.ca.gov

Resources:

Curriculum Resources

Environmental Education Compendia Series

Topical compilations containing descriptive evaluations of high quality, supplemental, environmental education curricula for kindergarten through grade twelve.

Communities: A review of curricula on natural and built environments
Available for free through the Department of Water Resources water education form (Outside Source)

Compendium for Energy Resources (PDF; Outside Source)
This compendium is an easy-to-use guide to environmental education materials focusing on energy resources.

Integrated Waste Management and Used Oil
Information on quality instructional materials, which have been teacher-evaluated.
(Call CDE Press at 1-800-995-4099 and ask for publication number 009721)

Water Resources
Available for free through the Department of Water Resources water education form (Outside Source)

 

The DeLoitte Consulting LLP final report, " Evaluation of the EPA Office of Civil Rights ," [EPA Report # EP10HOO2058, March 21, 2011] includes the following findings:

  1. The Office of Civil Rights (OCR) has not adequately adjudicated Title VI complaints - those addressing allegations of discrimination against communities of citizens affected by environmental rules promulgated by the EPA.  Only 6% of the 247 Title VI complaints have been accepted or dismissed within the Agency 20-day time limit. OCR's backlog of Title VI cases stretches back to 2001. At the time of the report's publication, there were numerous cases that have been awaiting action for up to four years. Two cases have been in the queue for more than eight years.
  2. OCR has struggled to track, investigate, and resolve Title VII cases - those addressing Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) violations inside the Agency - in a timely or effective manner.  OCR's Title VII function is know for poor inestigative quality and a lack of responsiveness.  It has not been able to perform its most fundamental Title VI administrative tasks related to filing mandatory reports and process complaints and writing final agency decisions. 
  3. OCR has not completed compliance checks of EPA grantees, in a timely or effective manner, to ensure that grantees are not engaging in discrimination in their work. 
  4. OCR has not consistently filed its statutory affirmative employment reports over the past five years, although the 2010 MD-715 was submitted on time.  In the area of Affirmative Employment and Diversity, OCR did not even complete its annual Management Directive 715 (MD-715) EEO report (a basic administrative task required of all Federal agencies) for 2006, 2007, and 2008. 
According to the report: "This situaton has exposed EPA's Civil Rights programs to significant consequences [that] have damaged its reputation internally and externally.  Much of this owes to OCR's challenges at the leadership levels over a period of years."

Report recommendations include:
  1. Complete efforts to fill OCR's leadership positions expeditiously with qualified, experienced, and motivated civil rights professionals. A competent leadership team will enable OCR to implement all of the other needed changes, while building credibility. 
  2. Reevaluate all staff job roles and formally document required skills, competencies and experiences for each role.  With well-defined job roles, OCR can evaluate its current workforce against the requirement and identify gaps. 
  3. Develop and execute a workforce plan that includes creation of well-defined career paths, employee performance management processes, new training programs and employee recruiting and selection processes.
The report concludes: "Building a more capable workforce from top to bottom will enable EPA and OCR to address its significant day-to-day operating issues and implement the other more strategic changes that are required."

The DeLoitte Report was commissioned by EPA.

DOJ Home » Antitrust Division » Contact Information » Antitrust Sites Worldwide

  Printer Friendly

FEDS PROPOSE TO NULLIFY THE GENERAL MINING LAW!

[Federal Register: April 26, 2011 (Volume 76, Number 80)] [Proposed Rules] [Page 23230-23236] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr26ap11-21] [[Page 23230]] ======================================================================= ----------------------------------------------------------------------- DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Bureau of Land Management 43 CFR Parts 2090 and 2800 [WO 300-1430-PQ] RIN 1004-AE19 Segregation of Lands--Renewable Energy AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, Interior. ACTION: Proposed Rule. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is proposing this rule to amend the BLM's regulations found in 43 CFR parts 2090 and 2800 by adding provisions allowing the BLM to temporarily segregate from the operation of the public land laws, by publication of a Federal Register notice, public lands included in a pending or future wind or solar energy generation right-of-way (ROW) application, or public lands identified by the BLM for a potential future wind or solar energy generation ROW authorization under the BLM's ROW regulations, in order to promote the orderly administration of the public lands. If segregated under this rule, such lands would not be subject to appropriation under the public land laws, including location under the Mining Law of 1872 (Mining Law), but not the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (Mineral Leasing Act) or the Materials Act of 1947 (Materials Act), subject to valid existing rights, for a period of up to 2 years. The BLM is also publishing in today's Federal Register an interim temporary final rule (Interim Rule) that is substantively similar to this proposed rule. The Interim Rule is effective immediately upon publication in the Federal Register for a period not to exceed 2 years after publication, or the completion of the notice and comment rulemaking process for this proposed rule whichever occurs first. DATES: You should submit your comments on the proposed rule on or before June 27, 2011. The BLM need not consider, or include in the administrative record for the final rule, comments that the BLM receives after the close of the comment period or comments delivered to an address other than those listed below (see ADDRESSES). ADDRESSES: Mail: Director (630) Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Department of the Interior, Mail Stop 2143LM, 1849 C St., NW., Washington, DC 20240, Attention: 1004-AE19. Personal or messenger delivery: U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, 20 M Street, SE., Room 2134LM, Attention: Regulatory Affairs, Washington, DC 20003. Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// www.regulations.gov . Follow the instructions at this Web site. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ray Brady at (202) 912-7312 or the Division of Lands, Realty, and Cadastral Survey at (202) 912-7350 for information relating to the BLM's renewable energy program or the substance of the proposed rule, or Ian Senio at (202) 912-7440 for information relating to the rulemaking process generally. Persons who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339, 24 hours a day, seven days a week to contact the above individuals. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Public Comment Procedures II. Background III. Section-by-Section Analysis IV. Procedural Matters I. Public Comment Procedures If you wish to comment, you may submit your comments by one of several methods: You may mail comments to Director (630) Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Department of the Interior, Mail Stop 2143LM, 1849 C St., NW., Washington, DC 20240, Attention: 1004-AE19. You may deliver comments to U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, 20 M Street, SE., Room 2134LM, Attention: Regulatory Affairs, Washington, DC 20003; or You may access and comment on the proposed rule at the Federal eRulemaking Portal by following the instructions at that site (see ADDRESSES). Written comments on the proposed rule should be specific, should be confined to issues pertinent to the proposed rule, and should explain the reason for any recommended change. Where possible, comments should reference the specific section or paragraph of the proposed rule that the comment is addressing. The BLM need not consider or include in the Administrative Record for the proposed rule comments that we receive after the close of the comment period (see DATES) or comments delivered to an address other than those listed above (see ADDRESSES). Comments, including names and street addresses of respondents, will be available for public review at the U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, 20 M Street, SE., Room 2134LM, Washington, DC 20003 during regular hours (7:45 a.m. to 4:15 p.m.) Monday through Friday, except holidays. They will also be available at the Federal eRulemaking Portal http:// www.regulations.gov . Follow the instructions at this Web site. Before including your address, telephone number, e-mail address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, be advised that your entire comment--including your personal identifying information-- may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask in your comment for the BLM to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. II. Background Congress has directed the Department of the Interior (Department) to facilitate the development of renewable energy resources. Promoting renewable energy is one of this Administration's and this Department's highest priorities. In Section 211 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (119 Stat. 660, Aug. 8, 2005) (EPAct), Congress declared that before 2015 the Secretary of the Interior should seek to have approved non- hydropower renewable energy projects (solar, wind, and geothermal) on public lands with a generation capacity of at least 10,000 megawatts (MW) of electricity. Even before the EPAct was enacted by Congress, President Bush issued Executive Order 13212, ``Actions to Expedite Energy-Related Projects'' (May 18, 2001), which requires Federal agencies to expedite the production, transmission, or conservation of energy. After passage of the EPAct, the Secretary of the Interior issued several orders emphasizing the importance of renewable energy development on public lands. On January 16, 2009, Secretary Kempthorne issued Secretarial Order 3283, ``Enhancing Renewable Energy Development on the Public Lands,'' which states that its purpose is to ``facilitate[ ] the Department's efforts to achieve the goal Congress established in Section 211 of the * * * [EPAct] to approve non- hydropower renewable energy projects on the public lands with a generation capacity of at least 10,000 megawatts of electricity by 2015.'' The order also declared that ``the development of renewable energy resources on the public lands will increase domestic energy production, provide alternatives to traditional energy resources, and enhance the energy security of the United States.'' Approximately 1 year later, Secretary Salazar issued Secretarial Order 3285A1, ``Renewable Energy Development by the Department of the Interior'' (Feb. 22, 2010), which reemphasized the development of [[Page 23231]] renewable energy as a priority for the Department. The order states: ``Encouraging the production, development, and delivery of renewable energy is one of the Department's highest priorities. Agencies and bureaus within the Department will work collaboratively with each other, and with other Federal agencies, departments, states, local communities, and private landowners to encourage the timely and responsible development of renewable energy and associated transmission while protecting and enhancing the Nation's water, wildlife, and other natural resources.'' As a result of these and other initiatives, the interest in renewable energy development on public lands has increased significantly. In addition to these specific directives, the BLM is charged generally with managing the public lands for multiple uses under the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA), 43 U.S.C. 1701, et seq., including for mining and energy development. In some instances, different uses may present conflicts. For example, a mining claim located within a proposed ROW for a utility-scale solar energy generation facility could impede the BLM's ability to process the ROW application because the Federal government's use of the surface cannot endanger or materially interfere with a properly located mining claim. In order to help avoid such conflicts while carrying out the Congressional and Executive mandates and direction to prioritize the development of renewable energy, the BLM is proposing this rule. This rule will help promote the orderly administration of the public lands by giving the BLM a tool to minimize potential resource conflicts between ROWs for proposed solar and wind energy generation facilities and other uses of the public lands. Under existing regulations, lands within a solar or wind energy generation ROW application or within an area identified by the BLM for such ROWs, unlike lands proposed for exchange or sale, remain open to appropriation under the public land laws, including location and entry under the Mining Law, while BLM is considering the ROW. Over the past 5 years, the BLM has processed 24 solar and wind energy development ROW applications. New mining claims were located on the public lands described in two of these proposed ROWs during the BLM's consideration of the applications. Many of the mining claims in the two proposed ROWs were not located until after the existence of the wind or solar ROW application or the identification of an area by the BLM for such ROWs became publicly known. In addition, over the past 2 years, 437 new mining claims were located within wind energy ROW application areas in Arizona, California, Idaho, Nevada, Oregon, Utah, and Wyoming and 216 new mining claims were located within solar energy ROW application areas. In the BLM's experience, some of these claims are likely to be valid, but others are likely to be speculative and not located for true mining purposes. As such, the latter are likely filed for no other purpose than to provide a means for the mining claimant to compel some kind of payment from the ROW applicant to relinquish the mining claim. The potential for such a situation exists because, while it is relatively easy and inexpensive to file a mining claim, it can be difficult, time-consuming, and costly to prove that the mining claim was not properly filed or does not contain a valid discovery. Regardless of the merits of a particular claim, the location of a mining claim in an area covered by a ROW application (or identified for such an application) creates uncertainty that interferes with the orderly administration of the public lands. This uncertainty makes it difficult for the BLM, energy project developers, and institutions that finance such development to proceed with such projects because a subsequently located mining claim potentially precludes final issuance of the ROW and increases project costs, jeopardizing the planned energy development. For example, the location of a new mining claim during the pendency of the BLM's review process for a ROW application could preclude the applicant from providing a concrete proposal for their use and occupancy of the public lands. This is because under the Mining Law, a ROW cannot materially interfere with a previously located mining claim. Since all properly located claims are treated as valid until proven otherwise, the filing of any mining claim can substantially delay the processing of a ROW application. As a result, a ROW applicant could either wait for the BLM to determine the validity of a claim, or the applicant could choose to modify or relocate its proposed surface use to avoid conflicts with the newly located mining claim, leading to additional expense, which could jeopardize the renewable energy project.\1\ The BLM's processing time for the ROW application could be significantly increased if any changes necessitated by the newly located mining claim require the BLM to undertake any additional analyses, such as those required by the National Environmental Policy Act, 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. (NEPA). Under these circumstances, the BLM's ability to administer the public lands in an orderly manner is impeded. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ This uncertainty may also discourage banks from financing such projects. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- This proposed rule is needed to provide the BLM with the necessary authority to ensure the orderly administration of the public lands and to prevent conflicts between competing uses of those lands. By allowing for temporary segregation, it would enable the BLM to prevent new resource conflicts from arising as a result of new mining claims that may be located within land covered by any pending or future wind or solar energy generation facility ROW applications, or public lands identified by the BLM for potential future wind or solar energy generation ROWs pursuant to its ROW regulations. Temporary segregation is generally sufficient because once a ROW has been authorized, subsequently located mining claims would be subject to the previously authorized use, and any future mining claimant would have notice of such use. The proposed rule would supplement the authority contained in 43 CFR subpart 2091 to allow the BLM to segregate from appropriation under the public land laws, including location under the Mining Law, but not the Mineral Leasing Act or the Materials Act, public lands included in a pending or future wind or solar energy generation ROW application or public lands identified by the BLM for a wind or solar energy generation ROW authorization under 43 CFR subpart 2804, subject to valid existing rights.\2\ This proposed rule would not affect valid existing rights in mining claims located before any segregation made pursuant to the final rule. The proposed rule also would not affect ROW applications for uses other than wind or solar energy generation facilities. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \2\ The existing regulations define segregation as ``the removal for a limited period, subject to valid existing rights, of a specified area of the public lands from the operation of some or all of the public land laws, including the mineral laws, pursuant to the exercise by the Secretary of regulatory authority for the orderly administration of the public lands.'' 43 CFR 2091.0-5(b). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Segregations under the proposed rule would be accomplished by publishing a notice in the Federal Register and would be effective upon the date of publication. The BLM considered a rule that would allow for segregation through notation to the public land records, but it rejected this approach because it would not provide the public [[Page 23232]] with the same level of notice that a Federal Register notice would accomplish. The proposed rule would provide for segregation periods of up to 2 years, with the option, if deemed necessary by the appropriate BLM State Director, to extend the segregation of the lands for up to an additional 2 years. The proposed rule would not authorize the BLM to continue the segregation after a final decision on a ROW has been made. Finally, not all wind or solar ROW applications would lead to a segregation, as the BLM may reject some applications and others may not require segregation because conflicts with mining claims are not anticipated. Segregation rules, like this proposed rule, have been held to be ``reasonably related'' to the BLM's broad authority to issue rules related to ``the orderly administration of the public land laws,'' \3\ because they allow the BLM to protect an applicant for an interest in such lands from ``the assertion by others of rights to the lands while the applicant is prevented from taking any steps to protect'' its interests because it has to wait for the BLM to act on its application.\4\ It is for this purpose that existing regulations at 43 CFR subpart 2091 provide the BLM with the discretion to segregate lands that are proposed for various types of land disposals, such as land sales, land exchanges, and transfers of public land to local governments and other entities under the Recreation and Public Purposes Act of 1926. These regulatory provisions allowing segregations were put in place over the years to prevent resource conflicts, including conflicts arising from the location of new mining claims, which could create encumbrances on the title of the public lands identified for transfer out of Federal ownership under the applicable authorities. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \3\ See Bryon v. United States, 259 F. 371, 376 (9th Cir. 1919); Hopkins v. United States, 414 F.2d 464, 472 (9th Cir. 1969). \4\ See, e.g., Marian Q. Kaiser, 65 I.D. 485 (Nov. 25, 1958). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Such a situation occurred in Nevada, and the proposed land purchaser chose to pay the mining claimant to relinquish his claims in order to enable the sale to go forward. In fact, in the land sales context, the segregative period was increased from 270 days to a maximum term of 4 years, as it was found that the original segregative period was insufficient and that conflicting mining claims were being located before sales could be completed. This proposed rule would provide the BLM the same flexibility it currently has for land disposals by allowing the BLM to temporarily segregate lands that are included in pending or future applications for solar and wind facility ROWs or on lands identified by the BLM for such ROWs. This would allow for the orderly administration of the public lands by eliminating the potential for conflicts with mining claims located after the BLM publishes a Federal Register notice of such ROW applications or areas. As noted above, the development of renewable energy is a high priority for the Department of the Interior and the BLM. The location of mining claims, however, under certain circumstances, may impede the BLM's ability to administer the public lands in an orderly manner and to carry out its Congressional and Executive mandate to facilitate renewable energy development on those lands because the BLM currently lacks the ability to maintain the status quo on such lands while it is processing a ROW application for a wind or solar energy generation facility. This proposed rule would help the BLM maintain the status quo and prevent potential resource use conflicts by allowing the BLM to temporarily segregate lands being considered for a wind or solar energy generation facility. III. Section-by-Section Analysis This proposed rule would revise 43 CFR sections 2091.3-1 and 2804.25 by adding language that would allow the BLM to segregate lands, if the BLM determines it to be necessary for the orderly administration of the public lands. This authority to segregate lands would be limited to lands included in a pending or future wind or solar energy ROW application, or public lands identified by the BLM for a wind or solar energy generation ROW authorization under the BLM's ROW regulations. If segregated under this rule, such lands, during the limited segregation period, would not be subject to appropriation under the public land laws, including location under the Mining Law, but not the Mineral Leasing Act or the Materials Act, subject to valid existing rights. The new language also specifies that the segregative effect terminates and the lands would automatically reopen to appropriation under the public land laws, including the mining laws: (1) Upon the BLM's issuance of a decision regarding whether to issue a ROW authorization for the solar or wind energy generation proposal; (2) Upon publication of a Federal Register notice of termination of the segregation; or (3) Without further administrative action at the end of the segregation period provided for in the Federal Register notice initiating the segregation, whichever occurs first. The segregation would be effective for a period of up to 2 years; however, the rule provides that the segregation may be extended for an additional 2 years if the appropriate BLM State Director determines and documents in writing, prior to the expiration of the segregation, that an extension of the segregation is necessary for the orderly administration of the public lands. The BLM would publish an extension notice in the Federal Register, if it determines that an extension of the segregation is necessary. The extension of the segregation would not be for more than 2 years. The maximum total segregation period would not exceed 4 years. IV. Procedural Matters Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review This proposed rule is not a significant regulatory action \5\ and is not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866. The proposed rule would provide the BLM with regulatory authority to segregate public lands included within a pending or future wind or solar energy generation ROW application, or public lands identified by the BLM for a potential future wind or solar energy generation ROW authorization, from appropriation under the public land laws, including location under the Mining Law, but not the Mineral Leasing Act or the Materials Act, if the BLM determines that segregation is necessary for the orderly administration of the public lands. To assess the potential economic impacts, the BLM must first make some assumptions concerning when and how often this segregation authority may be exercised. The purpose of any segregation would be to allow for the orderly administration of the public lands to facilitate the development of renewable energy resources by avoiding conflicts between renewable energy development and the location of mining claims. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \5\ ``Significant regulatory action'' means any regulatory action that is likely to result in a rule that may: (1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or adversely effect in a material way the economy * * *; (2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency; (3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs * * * or (4) Raise novel legal and policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or * * * this Executive Order.'' Exec. Order No. 12866, 58 FR 51738 (Oct. 4, 1993). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Wind--Wind energy ROW site testing and development applications are widely scattered in many western states. Most of the public lands with pending [[Page 23233]] wind energy ROW applications are currently managed for multiple resource use, including being open to mineral entry under the mining laws. Over the past 2 fiscal years, 437 new mining claims were located within wind energy ROW application areas in Arizona, California, Idaho, Nevada, Oregon, Utah, and Wyoming. Based on the BLM's recent experience processing wind energy ROW applications, it is anticipated that approximately 25 percent of the lands with current wind energy ROW applications will reach the processing stage where a Notice of Intent (NOI) is issued. Without trying to identify specific locations of new mining claims located within those application areas, we assume a quarter of those new mining claims, or 109 new mining claims, would be located within wind application areas that would be segregated under this new regulation. The actual number of claimants affected will likely be less than this estimate since a single claimant typically files and holds multiple mining claims. Of the 437 new mining claims filed within the wind energy ROW application areas in fiscal year (FY) 2009 and 2010, there was an average of about eight mining claims per claimant. Assuming that there was nothing unique about the number of claims and distribution of claims per claimant for FY 2009 and 2010, we estimate that 14 entities would be potentially precluded from filing new mining claims on lands that would be segregated within the identified wind energy ROW application areas under this rule. For these entities, the economic impacts of the segregation are the delay in when they could locate their mining claims and a potential delay in the development of such claims because such development would be subject to any approved ROW issued during the segregative period. However, a meaningful estimate of the value of such delays is hard to quantify given the available data because it depends on the validity and commercial viability of any individual claim, and the fact that the location of a mining claim is an early step in a long process that may eventually result in revenue generating activity for the claimant. The other situation where entities might be affected by the segregation provision is if a new Plan of Operations or Notice is filed with the BLM during the 2-year segregation period. In such a situation, the BLM has the discretion under the Surface Management Regulations (43 CFR subpart 3809) to require the preparation of a mineral examination report to determine if the mining claims were valid before the lands were segregated before it processes the Plan of Operations or accepts the filed Notice. If required, the operator is responsible to pay the cost of the examination and report. Within the past 2-year period, five Plans of Operations and two Notices were filed with the BLM within wind ROW application areas. Assuming (1) A quarter of those filings would be on lands segregated under this rule, (2) the number of Plan and Notice filings received in the past 2 years is somewhat reflective of what might occur within a 2- year segregation period, and (3) the BLM would require mineral examination reports to determine claim validity on all Plans and Notices filed within the segregation period, we estimate two entities might be affected by this rule change.\6\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \6\ With respect to any particular Plan of Operation or Notice that might be filed in areas segregated under the rule, the BLM would separately determine, on a case-by-case basis and consistent with the requirements of 43 CFR 3809.100(a), whether to require a validity determination for such Plan or Notice. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Should the BLM require the preparation of mineral examination reports to determine claim validity, the entity filing the Plan or Notice would be responsible for the cost of making that validity determination. Understanding that every mineral examination report is unique and the costs vary accordingly, we assume an average cost of $100,000 to conduct the examination and prepare the report. Based on the number of Plans and Notices filed within the wind energy right-of- way application areas in FY 2009 and 2010, we estimate the total cost of this provision could be about $200,000 over the 2-year period. Solar--As noted above, the primary purpose of any segregation under this proposed rule would be to allow for the orderly administration of the public lands to facilitate the development of valuable renewable resources and to avoid conflicts between renewable energy generation and mining claim location. The main resource conflict of concern involves mining claims that are located after the first public announcement that the BLM is evaluating a ROW application, and prior to when the BLM issues a final decision on the ROW application. Most of the public lands with pending solar energy ROW applications are currently managed for multiple resource use, including mineral entry under the mining laws. Where the BLM segregates lands from mineral entry, claimants would not be allowed to locate any new mining claims during the 2-year segregation period. Over the past 2 years, 216 new mining claims were located within solar energy ROW application areas. Based on the BLM's recent experience processing solar energy ROW applications, it is anticipated that approximately 25 percent of the lands with current solar energy ROW applications would reach the processing stage where a NOI is issued. Without trying to identify which ROWs would be granted or the specific locations of new mining claims within those application areas, we assume a quarter of those new mining claims, or 54 new mining claims, would be located within solar ROW application areas that would be segregated under this rule. The actual number of claimants affected will likely be less than this estimate since a single claimant typically locates and holds multiple mining claims. Of the 216 new mining claims located within solar energy ROW application areas in the past 2 years, there was an average of about eight mining claims per claimant. Assuming that there was nothing unique about the number and distribution of claims per claimant for the past 2 years, we estimate seven entities would potentially be precluded from locating new mining claims on lands segregated within the identified solar energy ROW application areas under the rule change. For these entities the economic impacts of the segregation would be the delay in when they can locate their mining claim and a potential delay in the development of such claim because such development would be subject to any approved ROW issued during the segregative period. However, a meaningful estimate of the value of such delays is hard to quantify given the available data because it depends on the validity and commercial viability of any individual claim, and the fact that the location of a mining claim is an early step in a long process that may eventually result in revenue generating activity for the claimant. The other situation where entities might be affected by the proposed segregation provisions is where a new Plan of Operations or Notice is filed with the BLM during the 2-year segregation period. In such a situation, the BLM has the discretion under the Surface Management Regulations (43 CFR subpart 3809) to require a mineral examination to determine if the mining claims were valid before the lands were segregated before it approves the Plan of Operations or accepts the filed Notice. If required, the operator is responsible to pay the cost of the examination and report. Within the past 2-year period, two Plans of Operations and two Notices were filed with the BLM within solar [[Page 23234]] ROW application areas. Assuming (1) a quarter of those filings would be on lands segregated under this rule, (2) the number of Plan and Notice filings received in the past 2 years is reflective of what might occur within a 2-year segregation period, and (3) the BLM would require mineral examination reports to determine claim validity on all Plans and Notices filed within the segregation period, we estimate one entity might be affected by this rule change.\7\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \7\ With respect to any particular Plan of Operation or Notice that might be filed in areas segregated under the rule, the BLM would separately determine, on a case-by-case basis and consistent with the requirements of 43 CFR 3809.100(a), whether to require a validity determination for such Plan or Notice. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Should the BLM require a mineral examination to determine claim validity, the entity filing the Plan or Notice would be responsible for the cost of making that validity determination. Understanding that every mineral examination report is unique and the costs would vary accordingly, we assume an average cost of $100,000 to conduct the examination and prepare the report. Based on the number of Plans and Notices filed within the solar energy ROW application areas in the past 2 years, we estimate the total cost of this provision could be about $100,000 over the 2-year period. It is not possible to estimate the number of future rights-of-way for wind or solar energy developments that could be filed on areas identified as having potential for either of these sources of energy. This is because there are many variables that could have an impact on such filings. Such variables include: the quantity and sustainability of wind at any one site, the intensity and quantity of available sunlight, the capability of obtaining financing for either wind or solar energy projects, the proximity of transmission facilities that could be used to carry the power generated from a specific wind or solar energy right-of-way project, and the topography of the property involved. The number of mining claims would also be based on speculation as to the mineral potential of an area, access to markets, potential for profitability, and a host of other geologic factors, such as type of mineral, depth of the mineral beneath the surface, quantity and quality of the mineral, and other such considerations. Based on this analysis, the BLM concludes that this proposed rule would not have an annual effect of $100 million or more on the economy. It would not adversely affect in a material way the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or Tribal governments or communities. This proposed rule would not create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency. This proposed rule would not alter the budgetary effects of entitlements, grants, user fees or loan programs or the rights or obligations of their recipients; nor would it raise novel legal or policy issues. The full economic analysis is available at the office listed under the ADDRESSES section of this preamble. Clarity of the Regulation Executive Order 12866 requires each agency to write regulations that are simple and easy to understand. The BLM invites your comments on how to make this proposed rule easier to understand, including answers to questions such as the following: 1. Are the requirements in the proposed rule clearly stated? 2. Does the proposed rule contain technical language or jargon that interferes with its clarity? 3. Does the format of the proposed rule (grouping and order of sections, use of headings, paragraphing, etc.) aid or reduce its clarity? 4. Would the regulations be easier to understand if they were divided into more (but shorter) sections? 5. Is the description of the proposed rule in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this preamble helpful in understanding the proposed rule? How could this description be more helpful in making the proposed rule easier to understand? Please send any comments you have on the clarity of the regulations to the address specified in the ADDRESSES section. National Environmental Policy Act The BLM has determined that this proposed rule is administrative in nature and involves only procedural changes addressing segregation requirements. This proposed rule would result in no new surface disturbing activities and therefore would have no effect on ecological or cultural resources. Potential effects from associated wind and/or solar ROWs would be analyzed as part of the site-specific NEPA analysis for those activities. In promulgating this rule, the government is conducting routine and continuing government business of an administrative nature having limited context and intensity. Therefore, it is categorically excluded from environmental review under section 102(2)(C) of NEPA, pursuant to 43 CFR 46.205. The proposed rule does not meet any of the extraordinary circumstances criteria for categorical exclusions listed at 43 CFR 46.215. Pursuant to Council on Environmental Quality regulation (40 CFR 1508.4) and the environmental policies and procedures of the Department, the term ``categorical exclusion'' means a category of actions which do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment and which have been found to have no such effect on procedures adopted by a Federal agency and for which, therefore, neither an environmental assessment nor an environmental impact statement is required. Regulatory Flexibility Act The Congress enacted the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) of 1980, as amended, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, to ensure that Government regulations do not unnecessarily or disproportionately burden small entities. The RFA requires a regulatory flexibility analysis if a rule would have a significant economic impact, either detrimental or beneficial, on a substantial number of small entities. The RFA requires agencies to analyze the economic impact of regulations to determine the extent to which there is anticipated to be a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. We anticipate that the proposed rule could potentially affect a few entities that might otherwise have located new mining claims on public lands covered by a wind or solar energy facility ROW application currently pending or filed in the future. We further anticipate that most of these entities would be small entities as defined by the Small Business Administration; however, we do not expect the potential impact to be significant. Therefore, the BLM has determined under the RFA that this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. A copy of the analysis that supports this determination is available at the office listed under the ADDRESSES section of this preamble. Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act For the same reasons as discussed under the Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review section of this preamble, this proposed rule is not a ``major rule'' as defined at 5 U.S.C. 804(2). That is, it would not have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more; it would not result in major cost or price increases for consumers, industries, government agencies, or regions; and it would not [[Page 23235]] have significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or the ability of U.S.-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises. A copy of the analysis that supports this determination is available at the office listed under the ADDRESSES section of this preamble. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act This proposed rule would not impose an unfunded mandate on State, local, or Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the private sector of $100 million or more per year; nor would it have a significant or unique effect on State, local, or Tribal governments. The rule would impose no requirements on any of these entities. Therefore, the BLM does not need to prepare a statement containing the information required by the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference With Constitutionally Protected Property Rights (Takings) This proposed rule is not a government action that interferes with constitutionally protected property rights. This proposed rule would set out a process, by publication of a notice in the Federal Register, that could be used to segregate public lands included within a pending or future solar or wind energy generation ROW application, or public lands identified by the BLM for a potential future wind or solar energy generation ROW authorization. This segregation would remove public lands from the operation of the public land laws, including the location of new mining claims under the Mining Law, but not the Mineral Leasing Act or the Materials Act for a period of up to 2 years, with the authority to extend the segregation for up to an additional 2-year period, in order to promote the orderly administration of the public lands. Because any segregation under this proposed rule would be subject to valid existing rights, it does not interfere with constitutionally protected property rights. Therefore, the Department has determined that this proposed rule does not have significant takings implications and does not require further discussion of takings implications under this Executive Order. Executive Order 13132, Federalism The proposed rule would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, or the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the levels of government. It would not apply to States or local governments or State or local government entities. Therefore, in accordance with Executive Order 13132, the BLM has determined that this proposed rule does not have sufficient Federalism implications to warrant preparation of a Federalism Assessment. Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform Under Executive Order 12988, the BLM has determined that this proposed rule would not unduly burden the judicial system and that it meets the requirements of sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of the Order. Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments In accordance with Executive Order 13175, the BLM has found that this proposed rule does not include policies that have Tribal implications. This rule would apply exclusively to lands administered by the BLM. It would not be applicable to and would have no bearing on trust or Indian lands or resources, or on lands for which title is held in fee status by Indian Tribes, or on U.S. Government-owned lands managed by the Bureau of Indian Affairs. Information Quality Act In developing this proposed rule, the BLM did not conduct or use a study, experiment, or survey requiring peer review under the Information Quality Act (Section 515 of Pub. L. 106-554). Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use In accordance with Executive Order 13211, the BLM has determined that this proposed rule is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on energy supply, distribution, or use, including a shortfall in supply, price increase, or increased use of foreign supplies. The BLM's authority to segregate lands under this rule would be of a temporary nature for the purpose of encouraging the orderly administration of public lands, including the generation of electricity from wind and solar resources on the public lands. Any increase in energy production as a result of this rule from wind or solar sources is not easily quantified, but the proposed rule is expected to relieve obstacles and hindrances to energy development on public lands. Executive Order 13352--Facilitation of Cooperative Conservation In accordance with Executive Order 13352, the BLM has determined that this proposed rule would not impede the facilitation of cooperative conservation. The rule takes appropriate account of and respects the interests of persons with ownership or other legally recognized interests in land or other natural resources; properly accommodates local participation in the Federal decision-making process; and provides that the programs, projects, and activities are consistent with protecting public health and safety. Paperwork Reduction Act The proposed rule does not contain information collection requirements that the Office of Management and Budget must approve under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. Author The principal author of this rule is Jeff Holdren, Realty Specialist, Division of Lands and Realty, assisted by the Division of Regulatory Affairs, Washington Office, Bureau of Land Management, Department of the Interior. List of Subjects 43 CFR Part 2090 Airports; Alaska; Coal; Grazing lands; Indian lands; Public lands; Public lands--classification; Public lands--mineral resources; Public lands--withdrawal; Seashores. 43 CFR Part 2800 Communications; Electric power; Highways and roads; Penalties; Pipelines; Public lands--rights-of-way; Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. For the reasons stated in the preamble and under the authorities stated below, the BLM proposes to amend 43 CFR parts 2090 and 2800 as follows: Subchapter B--Land Resource Management (2000) PART 2090--SPECIAL LAWS AND RULES 1. The authority citation for part 2090 continues to read as follows: Authority: 43 U.S.C. 1740. Subpart 2091--Segregation and Opening of Lands 2. Amend Sec. 2091.3-1 by adding a new paragraph (e) to read as follows: Sec. 2091.3-1 Segregation * * * * * [[Page 23236]] (e)(1) The Bureau of Land Management may segregate, if it finds it to be necessary for the orderly administration of the public lands, lands included in a right-of-way application for the generation of electrical energy under 43 CFR subpart 2804 from wind or solar sources. In addition, the Bureau of Land Management may also segregate public lands that it identifies for potential rights-of-way for electricity generation from wind or solar sources. Upon segregation, such lands will not be subject to appropriation under the public lands laws, including location under the General Mining Law, but not the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (30 U.S.C. 181 et seq.) or the Materials Act of 1947 (30 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). The Bureau of Land Management will effect such segregation by publishing a Federal Register notice that includes a description of the lands covered by the segregation. The Bureau of Land Management may impose a segregation in this way on both pending and new right-of-way applications. (2) The effective date of segregation is the date of publication of the notice in the Federal Register and the date of termination of the segregation is the date that is the earliest of the following: (i) Upon issuance of a decision by the authorized officer granting, granting with modifications, or denying the application for a right-of- way; (ii) Automatically at the end of the segregation period provided for in the Federal Register notice initiating the segregation, without further action by the authorized officer; or (iii) Upon publication of a Federal Register notice of termination of the segregation. (3) The segregation period may not exceed 2 years from the date of publication of the Federal Register notice initiating the segregation unless, on a case-by-case basis, the Bureau of Land Management State Director determines and documents in writing, prior to the expiration of the segregation period, that an extension is necessary for the orderly administration of the public lands. If an extension is determined to be necessary, the Bureau of Land Management will publish a notice in the Federal Register, prior to expiration of the initial segregation period that the segregation is being extended for up to 2 years. Only one extension may be authorized; the total segregation period therefore cannot exceed 4 years. PART 2800--RIGHTS-OF-WAY UNDER THE FEDERAL LAND POLICY AND MANAGEMENT ACT 3. The authority citation for part 2800 continues to read as follows: Authority: 43 U.S.C. 1733, 1740, 1763, and 1764. Subpart 2804--Applying for FLPMA Grants 4. Amend Sec. 2804.25 by adding a new paragraph (e) to read as follows: Sec. 2804.25 How will BLM process my application? * * * * * (e)(1) The BLM may segregate, if it finds it to be necessary for the orderly administration of the public lands, lands included within a right-of-way application under 43 CFR subpart 2804 for the generation of electricity from wind or solar sources. In addition, the BLM may segregate public lands that it identifies for potential rights-of-way for electricity generation from wind or solar sources under the BLM's right-of-way regulations. Upon segregation, such lands will not be subject to appropriation under the public land laws, including location under the General Mining Law, but not from the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (30 U.S.C. 181 et seq.) or the Materials Act of 1947 (30 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). The BLM will effect such segregation by publishing a Federal Register notice that includes a description of the lands covered by the segregation. The Bureau of Land Management may impose a segregation in this way on both pending and new right-of-way applications. (2) The segregative effect of the Federal Register notice terminates on the date that is the earliest of the following: (i) Upon issuance of a decision by the authorized officer granting, granting with modifications, or denying the application for a right-of- way; (ii) Automatically at the end of the segregation period provided for in the Federal Register notice initiating the segregation, without further action by the authorized officer; or (iii) Upon publication of a Federal Register notice of termination of the segregation. (3) The segregation period may not exceed 2 years from the date of publication of the Federal Register notice initiating the segregation unless, on a case by case basis, the BLM State Director determines and documents in writing, prior to the expiration of the segregation period, that an extension is necessary for the orderly administration of the public lands. If an extension is determined to be necessary, the BLM will publish a notice in the Federal Register, prior to expiration of the initial segregation period that the segregation is being extended for up to 2 years. Only one extension may be authorized; the total segregation period therefore cannot exceed 4 years. Dated: April 6, 2011. Wilma A. Lewis, Assistant Secretary of the Interior, Land and Minerals Management. [FR Doc. 2011-10017 Filed 4-25-11; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-84-P

The Township of Minnesota community site (that burned up on day five in the Motion wildfires 2 years ago) is located at the Crown Point lode mining claim in Section 1, 32 N, 6W of Mount Diablo meridian. This land is servient heritage to the Camden and Magee Agricultural College land patent of 360 acres in Section 34, 33N, 6W, purchased with Bounty Warrants for land from the United States Army as payment to soldiers for service to the nation, which patent was signed May 1, 1862 by President Abraham Lincoln. This patent is also the apex of the Flat Creek Mining District, originally the "Lost Confidence Mine", as recorded April 8, 1880.

Consumers win as Supreme Court upholds freedom of contract

Author : Deborah J. La Fetra

The United States Supreme Court today ensured that consumers will continue to be able to enter into contracts with companies to arbitrate any future disputes that will arise.  Individual consumer arbitration speedily resolves disputes in an informal forum, providing benefits to consumers and businesses alike.  Today's decision ensures that these consumers and businesses cannot be forced into inefficient, expensive, and time-consuming class action procedures when they agreed to proceed on an individual basis.

Continue reading "Consumers win as Supreme Court upholds freedom of contract" »

You are here: DOE Home > News > Press Releases > April - June

May 16, 2011

DOE Announces Funding for U.S.-India Joint Clean Energy Research and Development Center

1

EPA Delays Life-Saving Rule, Cites White House Order

In response to pressure from industry, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is backing off of new clean air standards for industrial boilers. The standards, as finalized in February, would prevent “2,600 premature deaths, 4,100 heart attacks, and 42,000 asthma attacks” if implemented, according to EPA.

Instead, EPA is delaying the effective date of the standards. “The stay will remain in place until the proceedings for judicial review of these rules are completed or EPA completes its reconsideration of the standards, whichever is earlier,” EPA says .

As part of its rationale for the delay, the agency cited a January Executive Order signed by President Obama outlining his principles for government regulation. EPA said in a statement, “This process of careful consideration of public comments, and close attention to both costs and benefits, is consistent with the president's directives with respect to regulation, as set out in executive order 13563, issued on January 18.”

Considering the significance of the standards' benefits to public health, it is safe to assume that EPA is enacting a delay to gather more complaints about the potential compliance costs of the rule. Industry lobbyists and their allies in Congress have been complaining incessantly about the boiler standards – saying that new environmental protections will hurt the economy.

EPA's announcement is exactly the kind of news we feared when Obama issued the order in January. While the order did not result in a significant shift in policy, the announcement reinforced conservative rhetoric on regulation. In turn, the order hung agencies out to dry by giving special interests an opening into the rulemaking process. The order also gave agencies cover to bend to industry wishes when the pressure got to be too much to handle in the absence of White House support – cover the EPA is taking advantage of in this instance.

This week, agencies are taking another step consistent with Obama's executive order. Regulatory agencies must submit to the White House their plans for the ongoing review of rules on the books. Read more here .

( Matthew Madia 05/17/11)

05/13/11

05/12/11

05/11/11

05/10/11

05/02/11

04/29/11

04/27/11

04/25/11

 

Fiscal Stewardship

Articles & Analysis

The Trouble with the "Pass-the-Hat" Funding Model for Government Technology Projects

Federal information technology (IT) spending is approaching $80 billion per year, and debate is swirling about who will pay for new government technology projects and how they will do so. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) recently examined one of the ways new projects are paid for: the “pass-the-hat” model, in which federal agencies contribute some of their funds to help support projects.

Read More >>

Agency Performance Modernization Points toward Increased Government Efficiency

In January, President Obama signed the Government Performance and Results Modernization Act of 2010 (GPRA Modernization Act), updating a nearly 20-year-old law in an effort to increase government efficiency through funding choices. In April, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) issued its first directives to federal agencies on how to implement the new legislation, and Congress has begun to conduct oversight related to the measure.

Read More >>

 

Subject: Earth Month Tip of the Day: Everyone can make a difference.
From:
"U.S. EPA" < usaepa@govdelivery.com > To: john@ironmountainmine.com

Today's environmental tip: Everyone can make a difference! High school students can study links between everyday actions at their high school, greenhouse gas emissions, and climate change. Become a "climate ambassador" leader in your school or neighborhood and motivate friends, schools, and community leaders. Talk to you friends - help spread the word!

More information: http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/wycd/school.html
Podcast: http://www.epa.gov/earthday/podcasts

en español: ¡Todos pueden hacer una diferencia! Los estudiantes de escuela superior pueden estudiar los vínculos entre las acciones cotidianas en sus colegios, las emisiones con efecto de gas invernadero y el cambio climático. Conviértase en un embajador climático en su colegio o vecindario. Motive a sus amigos, colegios, y líderes comunitarios. ¡Dígale a sus amigos que ayuden a correr la voz!

Más información: http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/wycd/school.html
Podcast: http://www.epa.gov/earthday/espanol/podcasts.htm

Want more tips? Visit EPA's Earth Day site to learn more about Earth Day, the US Environmental Protection Agency, and what you can do to help protect human health and the environment.  http://www.epa.gov/earthday/tips2.htm

Subject: Water News Release (HQ): Obama Administration Affirms Comprehensive Commitment to Clean Water
From:
"U.S. EPA" < usaepa@govdelivery.com > To: john@ironmountainmine.com

CONTACTS:

(CEQ) Taryn Tuss, 202-456-6998

(EPA) 202-564-6794; press@epa.gov

(USDA) 202-720-4623

(DOI) Kendra Barkoff, 202-208-6416

(DOA)    Moira Kelley, 703-614-3992

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

April 27, 2011

Obama Administration Affirms Comprehensive Commitment to Clean Water

WASHINGTON – Recognizing the importance of clean water and healthy watersheds to our economy, environment and communities, the Obama administration released a national clean water framework today that showcases its comprehensive commitment to protecting the health of America's waters. The framework emphasizes the importance of partnerships and coordination with states, local communities, stakeholders and the public to protect public health and water quality, and promote the nation's energy and economic security.

For nearly 40 years, the Clean Water Act, along with other important federal measures, has been a cornerstone of our effort to ensure that Americans have clean and healthy waters. The administration's framework outlines a series of actions underway and planned across federal agencies to ensure the integrity of the waters Americans rely on every day for drinking, swimming, and fishing, and that support farming, recreation, tourism and economic growth. It includes draft federal guidance to clarify which waters are protected by the Clean Water Act nationwide; innovative partnerships and programs to improve water quality and water efficiency; and initiatives to revitalize communities and economies by restoring rivers and critical watersheds.

“Clean water and healthy waterways are vital to the health and vibrancy of our communities and the strength of our economy,” said Nancy Sutley, chair of the White House Council on Environmental Quality. “Working with our partners across communities, governments and sectors, we are taking comprehensive action to ensure Americans have the clean and healthy waters they need and deserve.”

”The steps we're outlining today will be instrumental to protecting the waters of the United States, and ensuring that the vital natural resources our communities depend on for their health and their economy are safeguarded for generations to come,” said EPA Administrator Lisa P. Jackson. “After four decades of progress on clean water, there is still work to be done to address unfinished business and tackle new threats to our waters. American families and businesses are counting on us to maintain and improve the rivers, lakes, streams and other waters that support thousands of communities and millions of jobs across the country.”

"Healthy rivers and clean waters are fundamental to our economy, our health, and our way of life," said Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar. "With growing pressures on our natural systems, we must work to secure cleaner, safer, and more reliable water supplies for our communities."

“As our nation's foremost conservationists, farmers, ranchers and forest owners have a values system rooted in rural America that recognizes we cannot continue to take from the land without giving something back,” said Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack. “At USDA, we are working with farmers, ranchers and forest owners to conserve land, plant stream buffers for cleaner water, and install other conservation practices. We also will continue to invest in rural water and community facility projects that help small towns ensure their citizens have access to safe and reliable drinking water. The draft Clean Water Act guidance released today reflects USDA's work with our federal partners by maintaining existing exemptions for ongoing agricultural and forestry activities, thereby providing farmers, ranchers and forest landowners with certainty that current agricultural and forestry activities can continue.”

"The Army is very proud of our ecosystem restoration efforts across the nation,” said Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works Jo-Ellen Darcy. “The proposed joint EPA and Army guidance will clarify Clean Water Act jurisdiction and help the Corps and its partner agencies protect important aquatic resources and watersheds that communities rely on for their quality of life and essential services."

Clean water provides critical health, economic and livability benefits to American communities. Since 1972, the Clean Water Act has kept billions of pounds of pollution out of American waters, doubling the number of waters that meet safety standards for swimming and fishing. Despite the dramatic progress in restoring the health of the nation's waters, an estimated one-third of American waters still do not meet the swimmable and fishable standards of the Clean Water Act. Additionally, new pollution and development challenges threaten to erode our gains, and demand innovative and strong action in partnership with federal agencies, states, and the public to ensure clean and healthy water for American families, businesses, and communities.

The Obama administration is safeguarding clean water by:

Promoting Innovative Partnerships

Federal agencies are partnering with states, tribes, local governments and diverse stakeholders on innovative approaches to restore urban waters, promote sustainable water supplies, and develop new incentives for farmers to protect clean water.

Enhancing Communities and Economies by Restoring Important Water Bodies

The Obama administration is dedicating unprecedented attention to restoring iconic places like the Chesapeake Bay, California Bay-Delta, Great Lakes, Gulf of Mexico and Everglades, investing in action and helping states, local governments and stakeholders find pollution control solutions that are tailored to their specific needs.

Innovating for More Water Efficient Communities

The administration is working with policymakers, consumers, farmers and businesses to save water – and save money – through 21 st century water management policies and technology.

Ensuring Clean Water to Protect Public Health

The Obama administration is aggressively pursuing new ways to protect public health by reducing contaminants in Americans' drinking water. We are updating drinking water standards, protecting drinking water sources, modernizing the tools available to communities to meet their clean water requirements, and providing affordable clean water services in rural communities.

Enhancing Use and Enjoyment of our Waters

The administration is promoting stewardship of America's waters through innovative programs and partnerships. These efforts include expanding access to waterways for recreation, protecting rural landscapes, and promoting public access to private lands for hunting, fishing and other recreational activities.

Updating the Nation's Water Policies

The administration is strengthening protection of America's waters and American communities. We are modernizing water resources guidelines, and updating federal guidance on where the Clean Water Act applies nationwide. The draft guidance will protect waters that many communities depend upon for drinking, swimming, and fishing, and provide clearer, more predictable guidelines for determining which water bodies are protected from pollution under the Clean Water Act. The guidance is open for 60 days of public comment to all allow all stakeholders to provide input and feedback before it is finalized.

Supporting Science to Solve Water Problems

The administration is using the latest science and research to improve water policies and programs and identify and address emerging pollution challenges.

More information and to read the Obama administration's clean water framework:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/administration/eop/ceq/initiatives/clean-water

Two accounts in the Treasury may be available to GSA: the Land and Water Conservation Fund, 16 U.S.C. sect. 460 l -5(a), or the Federal Buildings Fund, Transportation, Treasury, Independent Agencies, and General Government Appropriations Act, 2005, Pub. L. No. 108-447, div. H, sect. 412, 118 Stat. 2809, 3199, 3259 (Dec. 8, 2004).

Neither GSA nor BLM has authority to use the sales proceeds of surplus federal property to purchase public lands. BLM augmented its appropriation when it improperly used the proceeds of sales of surplus federal real property to fund the acquisition of land in the Dixon transactions. To rectify this situation, BLM should adjust its accounts by transferring funds from a BLM account available to acquire lands in the Dixon transactions to the appropriate account in the Treasury designated by GSA. GSA should designate the fund in the Treasury that should have received the proceeds of the land sales, since the sales were under GSA's authority. If BLM finds that it lacks sufficient budget authority to cover the adjustment, it should report a violation of the Antideficiency Act in accordance with 31 U.S.C. sect. 1351. [25]

BLM's expansive interpretation of its authority would give it wide latitude to carry out land sales and purchases without adhering to the proper safeguards that Congress specified in BLM's authorizing statutes. These safeguards help ensure not only that the government receives fair value when public lands are sold, but also that the public lands are managed in a manner that protects the public interest. BLM argues that an "exchange" transaction may span over ten years and include routine payments of cash between the government and private parties, while featuring individual transactions that BLM itself described as being a "purchase" or a "sale." In some "purchases," as BLM itself called the transactions, BLM stated that it paid amounts "as full consideration for the purchase of the subject property."

BLM's interpretation of its authority stretches the meaning of its authorizing statutes and of common words such as "exchange" beyond plausible boundaries. BLM has entered into complex multiphase, multiparty land transactions that rely on a legal interpretation of its exchange authority that is fundamentally flawed. BLM has statutory authority to purchase land and to sell land while following specific procedures. BLM cannot avoid these procedures by simply labeling a series of purchases and sales as being an "exchange." BLM's actions circumvent the carefully crafted statutory framework governing the sale, purchase, and exchange of public land—a framework designed to protect the public interest—while also violating longstanding statutes that Congress enacted to protect its constitutional power of the purse.

EPA does not have an Agency-wide plan that defines the roles and responsibilities of the EPA program offices and regions. EPA also lacks internal controls that hold these offices accountable for providing consistent solid waste management.

The lack of a single, Agency-wide plan results in poor coordination and limited oversight, and may lead to an ineffective use of resources. As a result, EPA cannot (1) ensure that consistent solid waste management assistance is provided, (2) accurately determine the risks of open dumps, or
(3) determine whether efforts are effective nationwide.

We recommend that the EPA Deputy Administrator develop an Agency-wide plan to implement consistent and effective tribal solid waste management capacity assistance. We recommend that this single plan outlines the roles and responsibilities of EPA program offices and regions, and identifies the Agency resources required for these activities. The plan should also implement output and outcome measures that track how consistently and effectively EPA activities are provided for tribes. Further, this plan should include (1) internal controls to ensure consistent data collection, (2) a process to ensure coordination between EPA program offices and regions, and (3) a timeline specifying when the activities and outcomes outlined in the plan are expected to be accomplished. OIG, March 21, 2011.

Daily reading for 05/05/2011

GSA launches the Business Breakthrough Regional workshops

Solicitation Number: 2011-06-01 Agency: General Services Administration
Office: Office of Small Business Utilization
Location: Office of Small Business Utilization-NCR

Contracting Office Address : 301 7 Street, SW
Washington, District of Columbia 20407
United States
Place of Performance : GSA Regional cities

United States
Primary Point of Contact. : Shaunta P. Johnson, Business Breakthrough Program Manager shaunta.johnson@gsa.gov

Secondary Point of Contact : Malissa Jones malissa.jones@gsa.gov

OPM Launches USAJOBSRecruit.gov

New Website Promotes Agency Collaboration on Governmentwide Recruiting Efforts

Washington, DC - The U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM) launched USAJOBSRecruit.gov, a one-stop gateway to recruitment resources throughout the Federal Government. President Obama's Hiring Reform Initiative highlights the importance of recruiting and hiring top talent to better serve the American people. USAJOBSRecruit provides tools and guidance, and encourages collaborative development of best practices within the Federal recruiting community in a web-based platform. This new website will help ensure that HR professionals, recruiters, and hiring managers receive accurate and consistent information on recruiting and hiring in the Federal Government.

"USAJOBSRecruit will spur collaboration and innovation, developing and elevating the best strategies for recruiting the best and brightest Americans into government service," said OPM Director John Berry.  "This new web-based tool is a cost-effective, sustainable way for agencies to continually improve their recruiting for years to come."

The forums and blogs will serve as an online community where Federal employees with recruiting responsibilities can discuss recruiting challenges and solutions.

USAJOBSRecruit also features:

To decide what to put on USAJOBSRecruit, OPM held focus groups of hiring managers and HR practitioners across the nation. The number one need expressed in the focus groups was for an online environment to discuss and share recruitment practices.

Our mission is to Recruit, Retain and Honor a World-Class Workforce to Serve the American People. OPM supports U.S. agencies with personnel services and policy leadership including staffing tools, guidance on labor-management relations and programs to improve work force performance.

Phone: (202) 606-2402
FAX: (202) 606-2264

More News Releases | What's New on Our Site | News & Events

Subject: a bill
From:
< john@ironmountainmine.com > To: "Ted Arman" < ted@ironmountainmine.com >

Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
Sec. 2. Purpose.
Sec. 3. Definitions.
Sec. 4. Establishment of Civilian Property Realignment Board.
Sec. 5. Board Meetings.
Sec. 6. Board Duties and OMB Review Process.
Sec. 7. Co-location among Postal Service Properties.
Sec. 8. Realignment of Real Property owned or managed by the Bureau of Overseas Building
Operations.
Sec. 9. Congressional Consideration of Board Recommendations.
Sec. 10. Implementation of Board Recommendations by Executive Agencies.
Sec. 11. Authorization of Appropriation and Funding.
Sec. 12. Pay and Travel Expenses.
Sec. 13. Executive Director.
Sec. 14. Staff.
Sec. 15. Contracting Authority.
Sec. 16. Termination.
Sec. 17. Preclusion of Judicial Review.
Sec. 18. Report by the Board to OMB within Two Years.
SEC. 2. PURPOSE.
PURPOSE. The purpose of this Act is to expedite the disposal of unneeded Federal civilian property and realize savings by taking steps to:
(a) create a fair process that will result in the timely disposal and realignment of Federal civilian real property;

TERMINATION: WATER AND WASTEWATER TREATMENT PROJECTS
Corps of Engineers
Water and wastewater treatment projects, often referred to as "environmental infrastructure" projects,
are outside the Corps of Engineers' main mission areas of commercial navigation, flood and storm damage
reduction, and significant aquatic ecosystem restoration. Therefore, as in past years the Budget does not
include funding for these projects, but rather redirects these resources to other, higher-performing projects
that are within the Corps' main missions.
Funding Summary
(In millions of dollars)
. 2010 Enacted 2012 Request 2012 Change from 2010
Budget Authority........................................................................................................................................ 129 0 -129
Justification
In 2010, the Congress directed funding to water and wastewater treatment projects in the Corps' budget
even though these projects are outside of the Corps' main mission areas. Since 1992, the Congress has
authorized approximately 450 sewage and wastewater treatment projects and has directed hundreds of
millions of dollars toward them. The Corps does not assess the economic and environmental costs and
benefits of these water and wastewater treatment projects and, therefore, has no basis to determine the
value of these projects to the Nation. Providing funding in the Corps of Engineers' budget for environmental
infrastructure projects is not cost effective and duplicates funding for these types of projects in other Federal
agencies, including the Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Agriculture. Congressional
funding for these projects through the Corps bypasses those agencies' processes for setting funding priorities.
The Budget continues to propose no funding for these types of projects for the Corps.

TERMINATION: WATER RESOURCES RESEARCH ACT PROGRAM
Department of the Interior
The Administration proposes to eliminate Geological Survey (USGS) grants to 54 Water Resources Research
Institutes, as there is not a Federal need or a clear Federal responsibility for this research.
Funding Summary
(In millions of dollars)
. 2010 Enacted 2012 Request 2012 Change from 2010
Budget Authority........................................................................................................................................ 7 0 -7
Justification
Each State, as well as the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands and Guam, operates
a Water Resources Research Institute at their land grant institute to conduct applied research on water
quality and availability, as well as drought and flood hazards at the local scale. This research, however, is
not a high priority for USGS, which is responsible for studying water issues across the Nation. As a Federal
science bureau, USGS monitors surface water through the nationwide network of stream gages, assesses
water quality through the National Water Quality Assessment, and studies and models groundwater quality
and availability. These programs at the regional and national scales are used by stakeholders across the
country and take precedent over grants that do not address national needs.

TERMINATION: WATERSHED AND FLOOD PREVENTION PROGRAM
Department of Agriculture
The Administration proposes to terminate the Watershed and Flood Prevention Operations program.
The Congress has provided funding entirely to specific projects without any merit-based criteria, such as
cost-effectiveness.
Funding Summary
(In millions of dollars)
. 2010 Enacted 2012 Request 2012 Change from 2010
Budget Authority........................................................................................................................................ 30 0 -30
Justification
This program was first implemented under the authorities of the Watershed Protection and Flood
Prevention Act of 1954 (Public Law 83-566) and the Flood Control Act of 1944 (Public Law 78-534). In 2010,
almost 75 percent of the program was directed to specific projects, eliminating the Natural Resource
Conservation Service's (NRCS's) ability to use project evaluations as a basis for prioritizing funding. In
addition, a 2003 Office of Management and Budget analysis showed that this NRCS program has a lower
economic return than other Federal flood prevention programs (such as those in the Army Corps of Engineers
or the Federal Emergency Management Agency).1
Citations
1 Army Corps of Engineers, 2003 Budget, pp. 294-295.

TERMINATION: WATERSHED REHABILITATION PROGRAM
Department of Agriculture
The Administration proposes to eliminate funding for the Department of Agriculture (USDA) Natural
Resources Conservation Service's (NRCS's) Watershed Rehabilitation program as the program's mission is
inconsistent with underlying Federal role in local dam rehabilitation.
Funding Summary
(In millions of dollars)
. 2010 Enacted 2012 Request 2012 Change from 2010
Budget Authority........................................................................................................................................ 40 0 -40
Justification
Since 2000, the Watershed Rehabilitation program has funded rehabilitation activities for flood control
dams originally constructed with Federal support as dams reach the end of their 50-year design life. Flood
control dams were originally constructed with the understanding that local sponsors would be responsible
for continuing operations and maintenance. Furthermore, local communities have increased the financial risk
of dam failure by allowing residential and commercial development in vulnerable floodplain areas around
dams. The localized benefits of dam rehabilitation should be funded through local sources.

REDUCTION: CLEAN WATER AND DRINKING WATER STATE REVOLVING FUNDS
Environmental Protection Agency
The Administration proposes to reduce funding by $947 million total for the Clean Water and Drinking
Water State Revolving Funds (SRFs). The Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) SRFs provide grants
to States to capitalize their State-run revolving funds, which provide loans to support improvements in
municipal wastewater and drinking water systems. The Administration proposes $1.55 billion for the Clean
Water SRF and $990 million for the Drinking Water SRF. This is a reduction from the historically high
funding levels provided in 2010, but a total of $1 billion more than provided in regular appropriations in
2009.
Funding Summary
(In millions of dollars)
. 2010 Enacted 2012 Request 2012 Change from 2010
Budget Authority........................................................................................................................................ 3,487 2,540 -947
Justification
The Administration continues robust support for SRFs and is focusing on working with States and
municipalities to enhance their technical, managerial and financial capacity. Future budgets for SRFs
gradually adjust through 2016 with the goal of providing, on average, about five percent of water
infrastructure spending annually. In 2010, SRFs made available $8.8 billion in financing to local communities
(this does not include American Recovery and Reinvestment Act funding).
Federal funding provided through the SRFs will act as a catalyst for efficient system-wide planning and
ongoing management of sustainable water infrastructure as EPA works with States and municipalities to
implement its Sustainable Water Infrastructure Policy. As part of this policy, the Budget requires that
States use at least 20 percent of their Clean Water SRF capitalization grant and 10 percent of their Drinking
Water capitalization grant for green infrastructure projects. The Administration also recognizes a need,
particularly in disadvantaged communities, for additional Federal assistance in supporting water and
wastewater infrastructure.
The Administration's proposal of $2.5 billion total for SRFs maintains the President's commitment to
helping provide clean and safe water and represents a four-year investment (2009 to 2012) totaling almost
$17 billion. REDUCTION: NONPOINT SOURCE GRANTS
Environmental Protection Agency
The Budget proposes $165 million for Section 319 Nonpoint Source Grants, a $36 million reduction from
2010. This decrease reflects the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) shift in emphasis to its core
programs, as well as the fact that the number of nonpoint source sectors has decreased as EPA has brought
formerly nonpoint source sectors such as concentrated animal feeding operations and stormwater under
regulation as point sources.
Funding Summary
(In millions of dollars)
. 2010 Enacted 2012 Request 2012 Change from 2010
Budget Authority........................................................................................................................................ 201 165 -36
Justification
Section 319 Nonpoint Source Grants help States implement their own nonpoint source management
programs. Through these grants, States fund nonpoint source staff, watershed planning, and project
implementation to address water pollution runoff from urban, agricultural, and other sources.
In 2012, EPA is emphasizing its core permitting programs that address point source pollution. Additionally,
the number of nonpoint source sectors has declined over time as EPA has brought formerly nonpoint source
sectors such as concentrated animal feeding operations and stormwater under regulation as point
sources. Some of this program's work also is duplicative with the Department of Agriculture conservation
programs.

PROGRAM INTEGRITY OVERVIEW
Government-wide
The Administration supports initiatives related to ensuring that Federal agencies are responsible stewards
of taxpayer resources. In fact, improving Federal financial management and eliminating waste are two
key areas of the Administration's Accountable Government Initiative to improve the operation and
effectiveness of Federal agencies.
Unfortunately, the Federal Government wastes billions of American taxpayers' dollars each year, including
billions of dollars paid improperly to individuals, organizations, and contractors, as well as billions of dollars
in debt owed to the Government. In 2010 alone, the Federal Government made an estimated $125 billion
in improper payments. In order to improve Government efficiency and prevent and recapture improper
payments, the President has issued three directives to agencies to prevent and recapture improper payments,
and signed into law new improper payments legislation, since November 2009. To help further drive
Government performance, the President has also set a goal of reducing improper payments by $50 billion
and recapturing at least $2 billion by the end of 2012. The Administration has taken important steps toward
achieving these goals, which have yielded early results. In 2010, the Government-wide improper payment
rate declined to 5.49 percent, a decrease from the 5.65 percent reported in 2009. Agencies also reported that
they recaptured $687 million in improper payments in 2010 -- the highest recapture amount to date. However,
despite these early successful results, the Administration has identified additional tools included in the
Budget that will help drive further progress in reducing and recapturing improper payments.
While agencies sometimes make improper payments, they also have trouble collecting money that is owed
to Federal agencies. In 2007, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) estimated that approximately
60,000 Federal contractors were delinquent on over $7 billion in Federal taxes. In 2008, GAO found that
over 27,000 Medicare providers owed more than $2 billion in tax debt. Through the Federal Payment Levy
Program, the Treasury currently deducts (levies) only up to 15 percent of a payment to Federal contractors
and Medicare providers with delinquent tax debt.
The 2012 Budget includes a number of legislative and administrative reforms on improper payments and
debt collection, which collectively comprise our program integrity efforts. Many of these proposals will
provide savings for the Federal Government (the savings for these proposals are shown in the table on the
following page) and support government-wide efforts to improve the management and oversight of Federal
resources. Collectively, these proposals will result in $167 billion in savings to the Federal Government
over ten years if enacted. In addition, other administrative proposals, while not resulting in direct Federal
savings, will also improve the operation and efficiency of important Federal programs.
The Administration's program integrity proposals are included on the following pages. These include
provisions previously proposed -- such as discretionary allocation adjustments for the Department of Health
and Human Services, the Social Security Administration, the Internal Revenue Service, and the Department
of Labor -- and new proposals for expanded debt collection authorities and to support Federal fraud-detection
technologies. If implemented, all of these proposals could help further improve stewardship of Federal
resources.

PARTNERSHIP
FUND FOR PROGRAM INTEGRITY INNOVATION
Executive Office of the President
The Partnership Fund for Program Integrity Innovation, which is managed by the Office of Management
and Budget in consultation with Federal, State, local, and other stakeholders, provides funding for Federal,
State, and local agencies to pilot and evaluate innovations to improve service delivery, payment accuracy,
and administrative efficiency across Federal assistance programs. The Partnership Fund targets pilots that
bridge program and agency silos to promote consistent and judicious use of resources, including staff,
information, systems, and processes. In addition to funding pilots that implement and test administrative
changes, the Partnership Fund allows for pilot projects that simulate the effects of more efficient, accurate
methods of service delivery that would require changes to existing regulatory or statutory authorities. These
simulations can inform both the Administration and the Congress about whether changes in authority may
be warranted. As pilots are selected, funding is transferred to the applicable Federal agencies to administer
the pilots in conjunction with Federal agencies, States or localities. The Administration proposes $20 million
in a discretionary allocation adjustment in 2012 to fund pilots, which will improve integrity of program
administration across multiple Federal assistance programs. The 2010 Consolidated Appropriations Act
(P.L. 111-117) included $37.5 million authorized through 2012 for the Partnership Fund. Justification
The Partnership Fund builds alliances among Federal, State, and local agencies to identify, pilot, and
evaluate new ideas that boost efficiency and prevent improper payments. The Partnership Fund prioritizes
pilots that target programs with high error rates and that also demonstrate high return on investment in
order to yield the greatest savings and efficiencies for taxpayers. For example, a recently funded pilot
simulation to reduce error in the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) program offers potential savings of over
$100 million annually for a pilot investment of $2 million. This pilot, managed by the Department of the
Treasury, will identify both current and new authorities required to take the pilot to scale. Statute requires
that, in the aggregate, Partnership Fund pilots save at least as much as they cost. Based on projections in
early pilots and pilots under development, the Partnership Fund will be able to use the additional funding

of $20 million to prioritize new projects that, like the EITC pilot, promise a significant return on investment.

Subject: From the Whitehouse
From:
< john@ironmountainmine.com > To: "Ted Arman" < ted@ironmountainmine.com >

112th Congress 1st Session
____________ ____
A BILL
____________ ____
To expedite disposal of unneeded civilian properties and realize savings.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States
of America in Congress assembled, Justification
Before considering more significant investments in transitional job models, the Administration seeks to
integrate evidence from recent evaluations and the current demonstration. Three recent random-assignment
evaluations of transitional job programs for ex-offenders and Temporary Assistance for Needy Family
program recipients provide mixed results about the effectiveness of these programs.1,2 The current
demonstration will test enhanced transitional jobs models, designed to provide more substantive subsidized
jobs and better services to help participants succeed in unsubsidized employment. The Administration
hopes to explore whether modifications to the program -- for example, more of a focus on the transition from
the subsidized job -- would improve employment outcomes. While the demonstration is underway, some
funds from the proposed Workforce Innovation Fund could support additional targeted testing of transitional
jobs.
Citations
1 Dan Bloom, Transitional Jobs: Background, Program Models, and Evaluation Evidence, 2010.
2 Cindy Redcross et al, Work After Prison: One Year Findings from the Transitional Jobs Reentry Demonstration,
2010. SEC.10. IMPLEMENTATION OF BOARD RECOMMENDATIONS BY EXECUTIVE AGENCIES.
(a) Subject to section 9 of this Act, the agencies shall prepare and carry out each recommendation of the Board transmitted to the Congress by the Director pursuant to section 6(g) of this Act. Preparations to implement recommendations shall begin immediately. The agencies shall commence physical implementation of all such recommendations no later than two years after the date on which the Director transmits a report to the Congress pursuant to (9) An agency shall convey property under this sub-section utilizing the same disposal authorities as in section 10(c)(1) of this Act.
(g) Environmental Considerations.
(1) (A) When implementing the recommended actions for properties that have been identified in the Board's report, as specified in section 6(f), and subject to paragraph (2) of this subsection and in compliance with the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (42 U.S.C. 9601 et seq), including section 120(h) thereof (42 U.S.C. 9620(h)), Federal agencies may enter into an agreement to transfer by deed real property with any person.
(B) The head of the disposing agency may require any additional terms and conditions in connection with an agreement authorized by subparagraph (A) as the head of the disposing agency considers appropriate to protect the interests of the United States. Such additional terms and conditions shall not affect or diminish any rights or obligations of the federal agencies under CERCLA section 120(h) (including, without limitation, the requirements of CERCLA section 120(h)(3)(A) and section CERCLA 120(h)(3)(C)(iv)).
(2) A transfer of real property or facilities may be made under paragraph (1) only if the head of the disposing agency certifies to the Board and Congress that:  (A) the costs of all environmental restoration, waste management, and environmental compliance activities otherwise to be paid by the disposing agency with respect to the property or facilities are equal to or greater than the fair market value of the property or facilities to be transferred, as determined by the head of the disposing agency; or
(B) if such costs are lower than the fair market value of the property or facilities, the recipient of the property or facilities agrees to pay the difference between the fair market value and such costs.
(3) In the case of property covered by a certification under paragraph 2(A), the disposing agency may pay the recipient of such property or facilities an amount equal to the lesser of:
(A) the amount by which the costs incurred by the recipient of such property or facilities for all environmental restoration, waste management, and environmental compliance activities with respect to such property or facilities exceed the fair market value of such property or facilities as specified in such certification; or
(B) the amount by which the costs (as determined by the head of the disposing agency) that would otherwise have been incurred by the Secretary for such restoration, waste management, and environmental compliance activities with respect to such property or facilities exceed the fair market value of such property or facilities as so specified.
(4) As part of an agreement under section (g) paragraph (1) of this Act, the head of the disposing agency shall, in accordance with applicable law, disclose to the person to whom the property or facilities will be transferred information possessed by the Agency regarding the environmental restoration, waste management, and environmental compliance activities described in section (1) that relate to the property or facilities. The Agency shall provide such information before entering into the agreement.
(5) For the purposes of granting time extensions under section 10(a), the Director shall give the need for significant environmental remediation to a piece of property more weight than any other factor in determining whether to grant a two-year extension to implement a Board recommendation.
(6) Nothing in this Act shall be construed to modify, alter, or amend the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (42 U.S.C. 9601 et seq.), the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, or the Solid Waste Disposal Act (42 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). (h) No provision of law shall be construed as restricting the use of funds for disposing or realigning Federal civilian real property in accordance with an approved recommendation that gains legal force under section 9, except in the case of a provision of law which specifically refers to a particular asset of Federal civilian real property and expressly states that such restriction shall apply to such asset notwithstanding this Act. section 6(g) of this Act containing the recommendations and complete all such recommendations no later than the end of the six-year period beginning on the date on which the Director transmits a report to the Congress pursuant to section 6(g) of this Act containing the recommendations. For recommendations that will take longer than the six-year period due to extenuating circumstances, agencies shall notify OMB as soon as the circumstance presents itself with an estimated time to complete the recommendation. In such cases, the Director may extend the period for completion of the recommendation for a period of up to an additional two years.
(b) In carrying out any recommendations under this part, the agencies may:
(1) acquire such land, construct such replacement facilities, and conduct such advance planning and design as may be required to transfer functions from one location to another;
(2) provide outplacement assistance to civilian employees employed by the agency at a location subject to a recommendation;
(3) carry out activities for the purposes of environmental restoration and mitigation at any such installation; and
(4) reimburse other Federal agencies for actions performed at the request of the Board with respect to any such recommendation.
(c) Specific Authorities.
(1) Notwithstanding any other provisions of the laws that govern the disposal authorities of the Federal agencies, all disposals implemented as a result of a Board recommendation shall be implemented in accordance with sections 2, 3, 6, 9, 10, 11, and 12 of this Act. Where the currently existing disposal authority for an agency is inconsistent with this Act, this Act's provisions control the implementation of a disposal recommended by the Board. To the extent that the disposal authorities are otherwise consistent with this Act, an agency shall implement a recommendation in the Board's report to dispose a property by utilizing its existing disposal authorities, whether it has been delegated disposal authority by the Administrator of the General Services Administration, pursuant to the Federal Property Act, it has an independent disposal authority, or it must work in partnership with the General Services Administration.
(2) In accordance with section 10 of this Act, when implementing a recommendation to consolidate, reconfigure, co-locate, or realign a real property asset, all agencies are authorized to take such action as is necessary to implement the approved recommended actions of the Board. Consistent with sections 6 and 9 of this Act, the Board's report may instruct a Federal agency to utilize the expertise of the General Services Administration in carrying out a recommended consolidation, reconfiguration, co-location, or realignment. Any Federal agency, at its discretion, is also authorized, consistent with existing law and funding, to contract with the General Services Administration for assistance or consultation on implementing a recommendation to consolidate, reconfigure, co-locate, or realign a real property asset.
(3) The identification of any Federal civilian real property as an asset to be disposed, consolidated, reconfigured, or otherwise realigned in a report published by the Board temporarily freezes any transaction with respect to that property that would prevent a recommendation from being carried out within the end of the statutory deadline for Congress to consider the Board's report, whether exercised by the agency maintaining custody or control of the property, or an agency acting on behalf of that custodial agency. All such transactions shall remain frozen until the recommended action on the identified property is disapproved by Congress pursuant to section 9(e) of this Act, is withheld from transmission to Congress by the OMB Director, or is not disapproved by Congress pursuant to section 9(e) of this Act. In the event of disapproval or withholding, all such transactions are unfrozen and the agency maintaining custody or control over the property may resume its management of the property unrestricted. Otherwise, consistent with sections 9 and 10 of this Act, an agency shall implement the recommended action.
(d) For any transaction identified, recommended or commenced as a result of this Act, the Board shall determine whether and to what extent an agency shall implement the transaction notwithstanding any legal priorities or requirements to enter into a transaction to convey a Federal civilian real property for less than fair market value or in a transaction that mandates the exclusion of other market participants.
(e) Any recommendation or commencement of a disposal, consolidation, reconfiguration, co-location, or realignment of civilian real property shall not be subject to-
(1) section 545(b)(8) of title 40, United States Code;
(2) sections 550, 554, and 553 of title 40, United States Code;
(3) section 501 of the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 11411);
(4) any section of An Act Authorizing the Transfer of Certain Real Property
for Wildlife, or other Purposes (16 U.S.C. 667b);
(5) section 47151 of title 49, United State Code;
(6) sections 107 and 317 of title 23, United States Code;
(7) section 1304(b) of title 40, United States Code;
(8)  (9) any other provision of law authorizing the conveyance of real property owned by the Federal Government for no consideration; and
(10) any congressional notification requirement other than that in section 545 of title 40, United States Code.
(f) Public Benefit.
(1) Consistent with section 6(f) of this Act, the Board shall submit to the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development (Secretary of HUD), on the same day it submits its report to the Director of the OMB, all known information on the buildings or properties that are listed in the separate list of properties intended for conveyance under a public benefit conveyance program authorized by a provision of law enumerated in section 10(e) of this Act. Within 60 calendar days the Secretary of HUD must report to the Board on the suitability of all the properties on this list for use as a property benefitting the mission of assistance to the homeless.
(2) Within 90 calendar days of the Board's first submission of its report to the Director of the OMB, any representatives of the homeless proposing interest in the use of property that the Board has determined should be conveyed under any of the public benefits authorized by a provision of law enumerated in section 10(e) of this Act, may submit a notice of interest containing the following to the Board and to the Secretary of HUD:
a. a description of the homeless assistance program that the representative proposes to carry out at the installation;
b. an assessment of the need for the program;
c. a description of the extent to which the program is or will be coordinated in the communities in the vicinity of the property with the local Continuum of Care, as defined by Section 1301 of the Helping Families Save Their Homes Act of 2009;
d. a description of grants currently funded through the McKinney-Vento homeless assistance programs;
e. a description of the buildings and property that are necessary in order to carry out the program;
f. a description of the financial plan, the organization, and the organizational capacity of the representative to carry out the program;
g. an assessment of the time required in order to commence carrying out the program; and
15
h. The ability of the provider to financially and clinically support a homeless use.
(3) The Secretary of HUD shall review and certify submissions from
representatives of the homeless and submit to the Board an assessment of the validity and merits of the notice of interest within 120 calendar days from the date the Board submits its report to the OMB Director. In the case where more than one notice of interest is entered for a property, the Secretary shall indicate to the Board which planned use of the property for the homeless has more merit.
(4) Within 90 calendar days of the Board's submission to the Director of the OMB and public release of the Board's report, any parties proposing interest, for a use that is not homeless assistance, in the property that the Board has listed pursuant to section 6(f)(2) of this Act, may submit a notice of interest to the Board and to the Federal agency that is otherwise tasked by law to review applications for the statutory public benefit conveyance program under which the party is applying. The notice of interest must contain the information otherwise required in an application under the law creating the conveyance program and must be for a program authorized by a provision of law listed in section 10(e) of this Act.
(5) Federal agencies tasked with reviewing applications for public benefit conveyance programs, that receive notices of interest with information pertaining to the certification of the validity of a proposed public benefit conveyance that is not for homeless assistance and is authorized by a provision of law enumerated in section 10(e) of this Act, shall review and certify submissions from parties proposing such future use for the property and submit to the Board an assessment of the validity and merits of the information contained in the notice of interest within 120 calendar days from the date the Board submits its report to the OMB Director. In the case where more than one notice of interest is entered for a property, the head of the reviewing agency shall indicate to the Board which planned use of the property has more merit.
(6) To give disposing agencies instruction as to the final disposition of the properties in its inventory that have been recommended for a public benefit conveyance program, subject to section 9 of this Act, the Board shall compile all assessments resulting from submitted notices of interest, for any of the public benefit conveyance programs authorized by a provision of law enumerated in section 10(e) of this Act, that have been submitted to it on the list of properties that the Board deemed suitable for conveyance under a public benefit program, and shall forward them to the agencies that maintain custody and control over the civilian real properties to be conveyed.
(7) In the event a property reviewed by HUD is found to be fit for use by the homeless and HUD has identified a representative of the homeless whose notice of interest is certified, or, in the event of more than one notice of interest on the
16
property, whose notice of interest is deemed to have the most merit by HUD, the agency maintaining custody or control of the property, in accordance with section 10 of this Act, shall commence conveyance of the property to that representative of the homeless, subject to section 9 of this Act. In the event a reviewed property is found to be unfit for use by the homeless, or there is no identified notice of interest on the property by a representative of the homeless, the disposing agency maintaining custody or control shall then look to whether there are any parties that have expressed interest in the property for one of those uses authorized by a provision of law enumerated in section 10(e) of this Act that are not homeless assistance and whether any Federal reviewing agency has certified one of those uses. If so, the disposing agency maintaining custody or control of the property shall commence conveyance of the property to that party that proposed the certified use, subject to section 9 of this Act. In the event that there is more than one party that has expressed interest in the property in this manner, the disposing agency maintaining custody or control shall have the discretion to choose among them, but shall look to where the property will be used for its highest and best use.
(8) In the event a property does not qualify for, or there is no interest in a property reviewed for, one of those uses authorized by a provision of law enumerated in section 10(e) of this Act, the disposing agency maintaining custody or control shall have the discretion to choose among any other remaining ways to implement a disposition of the property, subject to section 9 of this Act.
(9) An agency shall convey property under this sub-section utilizing the same disposal authorities as in section 10(c)(1) of this Act.
(g) Environmental Considerations.
(1) (A) When implementing the recommended actions for properties that have been identified in the Board's report, as specified in section 6(f), and subject to paragraph (2) of this subsection and in compliance with the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (42 U.S.C. 9601 et seq), including section 120(h) thereof (42 U.S.C. 9620(h)), Federal agencies may enter into an agreement to transfer by deed real property with any person.
(B) The head of the disposing agency may require any additional terms and conditions in connection with an agreement authorized by subparagraph (A) as the head of the disposing agency considers appropriate to protect the interests of the United States. Such additional terms and conditions shall not affect or diminish any rights or obligations of the federal agencies under CERCLA section 120(h) (including, without limitation, the requirements of CERCLA section 120(h)(3)(A) and section CERCLA 120(h)(3)(C)(iv)).
(2) A transfer of real property or facilities may be made under paragraph (1) only if the head of the disposing agency certifies to the Board and Congress that:
17
(A) the costs of all environmental restoration, waste management, and environmental compliance activities otherwise to be paid by the disposing agency with respect to the property or facilities are equal to or greater than the fair market value of the property or facilities to be transferred, as determined by the head of the disposing agency; or
(B) if such costs are lower than the fair market value of the property or facilities, the recipient of the property or facilities agrees to pay the difference between the fair market value and such costs.
(3) In the case of property covered by a certification under paragraph 2(A), the disposing agency may pay the recipient of such property or facilities an amount equal to the lesser of:
(A) the amount by which the costs incurred by the recipient of such property or facilities for all environmental restoration, waste management, and environmental compliance activities with respect to such property or facilities exceed the fair market value of such property or facilities as specified in such certification; or
(B) the amount by which the costs (as determined by the head of the disposing agency) that would otherwise have been incurred by the Secretary for such restoration, waste management, and environmental compliance activities with respect to such property or facilities exceed the fair market value of such property or facilities as so specified.
(4) As part of an agreement under section (g) paragraph (1) of this Act, the head of the disposing agency shall, in accordance with applicable law, disclose to the person to whom the property or facilities will be transferred information possessed by the Agency regarding the environmental restoration, waste management, and environmental compliance activities described in section (1) that relate to the property or facilities. The Agency shall provide such information before entering into the agreement.
(5) For the purposes of granting time extensions under section 10(a), the Director shall give the need for significant environmental remediation to a piece of property more weight than any other factor in determining whether to grant a two-year extension to implement a Board recommendation.
(6) Nothing in this Act shall be construed to modify, alter, or amend the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (42 U.S.C. 9601 et seq.), the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, or the Solid Waste Disposal Act (42 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). (h) No provision of law shall be construed as restricting the use of funds for disposing or realigning Federal civilian real property in accordance with an approved recommendation that gains legal force under section 9, except in the case of a provision of law which specifically refers to a particular asset of Federal civilian real property and expressly states that such restriction shall apply to such asset notwithstanding this Act. transfer, from the gross proceeds to an executive agency, amounts to cover the necessary costs associated with the disposal of property.
(3) Net proceeds (which are gross proceeds received from the disposal of any civilian real property pursuant to a recommendation of the Board, less the amounts transferred from this account under section 11(b)(2)(A) and (c)(2) of this Act), shall be divided between the General Fund of the Treasury, Federal executive agencies (for the purpose of real property management reinvestment), and the Asset Proceeds and Space Management Fund. On an annual basis, the OMB Director shall determine how the net proceeds shall be distributed, through transfer, between the General Fund, Federal agencies, and the Asset Proceeds and Space Management Fund, but in no case shall the General Fund receive less than sixty percent of the net proceeds. In support of these duties, the Board, with the consent of the OMB Director, may transfer, from the Space Management Fund, to a Federal agency or the U.S. Postal Service, amounts:
(A) to cover the necessary costs associated with-
(i) consolidation, co-location, and reconfiguration actions;
(ii) other actions taken to otherwise realize operational efficiencies, including but not limited to such actions as environmental restoration; and
(B) for outplacement assistance to Federal employees who work at a Federal property that is affected by actions taken under this section, and whose employment would be terminated as a result of such disposal, consolidation, or other realignment.
(4) The amounts transferred pursuant to section 11(c)(3)(A)-(B) under this sub-section must be obligated by the recipient agency within three years of the transfer. Any amounts that are not obligated within three years shall be transferred back to the Asset Proceeds and Space Management Fund. SEC.13. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
(a) The Board shall appoint an Executive Director.
(b) For the purposes of this Act, the Board may appoint an Executive Director without regard to the provisions of title 5, United States Code, governing appointments in the competitive service.
(c) Consistent with 5 U.S.C. 3132(a)(2), the Executive Director shall be paid at the rate of basic pay payable for level IV of the Executive Schedule under section 5315 of title 5, United States Code, except that an individual so appointed may not receive pay outside of the pay range of the Senior Executive Service. SEC.14. STAFF
(a) Subject to paragraph (b), the Executive Director, with the approval of the
Board, may appoint and fix the pay of additional personnel.
(b) The Executive Director may make such appointments without regard to the
provisions of title 5, United States Code, governing appointments in the competitive service, and any personnel so appointed may be paid without regard to the provisions of chapter 51 and subchapter III of chapter 53 of that title relating to classification and General Schedule pay rates, except that an individual so appointed may not receive pay in excess of the maximum rate of basic pay for GS-15 under section 5332 of title 5, United States Code.
(c) Upon request of the Executive Director, the head of any Federal department or
agency may detail any of the personnel of that department or agency to the Board to assist the Board in carrying out its duties under this part. The Executive Director, with the approval of the Board, is authorized to request both reimbursable and non-reimbursable detailees.
SEC.15. CONTRACTING AUTHORITY. (a) The Board may procure by contract, to the extent funds are available, the temporary
or intermittent services of experts or consultants pursuant to section 3109 of title 5, United
States Code.
(b) The Board may lease space and acquire personal property. SEC.16. TERMINATION.
The Board shall cease operations and terminate 12 years from the date of the enactment of this Act. This Act shall expire 180 calendar days after that date.
SEC. 17. PRECLUSION OF JUDICIAL REVIEW.
The following actions shall not be subject to judicial review:
(a) Actions of the Board under Section 6 of this Act.
(b) Actions of the Director of OMB under Section 6(g) of this Act.
(c) Actions of the Board, the Secretary of HUD, and Federal agencies under Section 10(f) of this Act.

Cross-environmental Media Grants

Grants and Funding
About CFDA

Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) - the on-line database of all Federal programs available. Each grant is assigned a specific CFDA program code and listed after each EPA grant program. Use the program code to search the database to find further information.

Federated States of
Micronesia

Compact of Free Association As Amended (2003)

FSM Joint Committee on Compact Economic Negotiations

PIR ARTICLES

Urusemal Sees Compact As Boon For FSM - December 29, 2003

Kosrae Loses U.S. Power Subsidy - December 24, 2003

FSM States Pan New Compact Revenue Sharing - November 6, 2003

FSM To Increase Compact Funding To States - November 3, 2003

FSM President Calls Meeting On Compact - October 17, 2003

U.S. Navy Withdraws FSM Program - September 19, 2003

Testimony Of The Honorable Sebastian Anafel - July 18, 2003

FSM Compact Program Discussed In Pohnpei - July 9, 2003

Kosrae Proposes Slim $9.4 Million Operating Budget - July 2, 2003

Chuuk: Compact Not Enough, Must Lay Off Teachers- June 30, 2003

U.S., Federated States Sign 20-Year Compact - May 14, 2003

FSM Declares Support For Bush On Iraq - February 24, 2003

Faichuk Leaders Want Out Of Chuuk, FSM - January 31, 2003

FSM Seeks Palau Support Against U.S. Entry Limits - January 23, 2003

U.S. Delegates Discuss Compact, Security In FSM - December 27, 2002

US, FSM Sign 20-Year Funding Agreement - November 6, 2002

Joint Communiqué On The Initialing Of Economic Provisions Of The Compact Free Association Between The Federated States Of Micronesia And The United States Of America - November 6, 2002

Executives Deliberate On FSM's Investment Developments - October 28, 2002

FSM Economic Planners Adopt Resolutions - October 28, 2002

FSM Leaders Converge For Weeklong Meetings In Palikir - October 16, 2002

FSM Holds Symposium To Reassess Nation's Revenue - October 15, 2002

FSM President Holds Talks With U.S. Secretary Powell - October 14, 2002

FSM President Holds Talks With U.S. Officials In Washington - October 2, 2002

REMARKS: United States-Federated States of Micronesia Compact Negotiations, Sixth Round, Albert V. Short, U.S. Negotiator - September 5, 2002

JOINT COMMUNIQUÉ: Sixth Round of Compact Negotiations between the Federated States of Micronesia and the United States of America, August 28, 2002

Ex-Ambassador To FSM Watson Visits Pohnpei As U.S. Congresswoman From California, Considers Compact - August 19, 2002

STATEMENT By The Honorable Peter Christian, Chief Negotiator Joint Committee on Compact Economic Negotiations, Government of the Federated States of Micronesia Before the Committee on Resources United States House of Representatives Washington, D.C. - July 17, 2002

Essential Information for Citizens of the Federated States of Micronesia Traveling to the United States of America - July 12, 2002

Better Management Of FSM Compact Funds Discussed - June 13, 2002

COMMUNIQUÉ: United States and Federated States of Micronesia Compact of Free Association Negotiation, San Francisco, California - May 24, 2002

FSM And U.S. Meet In Compact Technical Working Session - April 19, 2002

Miles Dinger, New U.S. Ambassador To Federated States Of Micronesia, Presents Credentials- February 4, 2002

FSM Gets Inputs From Micronesians On Saipan - February 5, 2002

United States And Federated States Of Micronesia Compact Of Free Association Negotiation - Joint Communiqué - December 14, 2001 <

FSM Aiming To Preserve U.S. Financial Assistance, Eligibility In Federal Programs - July 31, 2001

FSM President Falcam Upbeat On New Compact With U.S. - June 26, 2001

Latest U.S.-FSM Compact Meeting ‘Very Helpful': Stayman - July 26, 2000

FSM Urged To Put Increased Compact Cash In Trust Fund To Improve Negotiating Position With U.S. - March 10, 2000

First U.S.-FSM Compact Renewal Negotiating Round Concludes In Honolulu - November 8, 1999

Status of FSM Compact Renegotiation Preparations - December 14, 1999.

FSM Establishes US Compact Renegotiation Committee - November 18, 1997.

FSM NEGOTIATING TEAM STATEMENTS

REMARKS: Sixth Round of Compact Negotiations between the Federated States of Micronesia and the United States of America, Peter Christian, Chief Negotiator for the Joint Committee on Compact Economic Negotiations, Federated States of Micronesia - September 4, 2002

Opening Remarks by The Honorable Peter Christian: Fourth Round Of Negotiations On The Expiring Provisions Of The Compact Of Free Association Between The Federated States Of Micronesia And The United States - December 13, 2001.

STATEMENT: Honorable Peter Christian Chief Negotiator for the Joint Committee on Compact Economic Negotiations (JCN) of the Federated States of Micronesia Before The Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources December 6, 2001.

Statement By The Honorable Asterio R. Takesy Executive Director, Joint Committee On Compact Economic Negotiations Government Of The Federated States Of Micronesia Before The Committee On Resources United States House Of Representatives - October 1, 1998.

FSM PROPOSAL AND REPORTS

Proposal by the Government of the Federated States of Micronesia for Future Economic Assistance by the United States Under the Compact of Free Association, November 2000 . 

Technical Note: The US Compact Counter Proposal, FSM Economic Management Policy Advisory Team's (EMPAT), February 2001 .

Setting Aside the FY02 and FY03 Compact "Bump-Up" Funds, FSM Economic Management Policy Advisory Team's (EMPAT), July 2001 .

OTHER INFORMATION

Feast and Famine: US Assistance for the Next Two Years and the Compact Funding Outlook , by Francis X. Hezel, S.J, June 2001 .

EPA SEEKS TO OVERTURN SUPREME COURT DECISIONS LIMITING WATER ACT ...
Corps of Engineers, 531 U.S. 159 (2001), and Rapanos v . United States, 547 U.S. 715. (2006). The Guidance will dictate which waters are subject to the Clean ...
www.wlf.org/.../5-20-11Mannina_LegalBackgrounder.pdf

 

General Docket
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Court of Appeals Docket #: 11-15383 Docketed: 02/16/2011
Nature of Suit: 1893 Environmental Matters
USA, et al v. Iron Mountain Mines, Inc., et al
Appeal From: U.S. District Court for Eastern California, Sacramento
Fee Status: Paid
Case Type Information:
     1) civil
     2) united states
     3) null
Originating Court Information:
District: 0972-2 : 2:91-cv-00768-JAM-JFM
Court Reporter: Kelly Ann O'Halloran
Trial Judge: John A. Mendez, District Judge
     Date Filed: 06/12/1991
     Date Order/Judgment:      Date Order/Judgment EOD:      Date NOA Filed:      Date Rec'd COA:
     12/16/2010      12/16/2010      02/14/2011      02/15/2011
District: 0972-2 : 2:91-cv-01167-DFL-JFM
     Date Filed: 08/21/1991
03/09/2011  11  Filed (ECF) Appellees Bayer Cropscience Inc.'s and Rhone-Poulnec Basic Chemicals Company response opposing motion (,motion to withdraw as counsel). Date of service: 03/09/2011. [7674132] (MWP)
03/09/2011  12  Filed (ECF) Appellees Bayer Cropscience Inc.'s and Rhone-Poulnec Basic Chemicals Company Corrected Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. Date of service: 03/09/2011. [7674164] (MWP)
03/21/2011  13  Filed (ECF) Appellees State of California and USA response supporting motion (,motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction). Date of service: 03/21/2011. [7688265] (JMP)
03/31/2011  14  Filed (ECF) Appellees Bayer Cropscience Inc.'s and Rhone-Poulnec Basic Chemicals Company Stipulated Motion for miscellaneous relief [Stipulated Motion and Proposed Order Amending Notice of Appeal ]. Date of service: 03/31/2011. [7700600] (MWP)
03/31/2011  15  Filed (ECF) Appellees Bayer Cropscience Inc.'s and Rhone-Poulnec Basic Chemicals Company Correspondence: Letter re Stipulated Motion and Proposed Order. Date of service: 03/31/2011 [7700607] (MWP)
04/15/2011  16  Filed order (Appellate Commissioner) The stipulated motion to amend the notice of appeal filed on February 14, 2011 (the “Stipulated Motion”) is granted. The reference to “the orders made December 8, 2000, relating to the consent decree, including the order dismissing defendants' cross-claims” is deleted from the notice of appeal. Pursuant to the Stipulated Motion, appellee Bayer Cropscience Inc.'s (“Bayer”) motion to dismiss, motion for sanctions, and opposition to appellants' motion to withdraw as counsel, and the joint response in support of Bayer's motion to dismiss filed by appellees State of California and the United States are deemed withdrawn. The motion of appellants' retained counsel, William A. Logan, Esq. and Logan and Giles LLP, to withdraw as retained counsel of record is granted. The Clerk shall amend the docket to reflect the following address for appellants T.W. Arman and Iron Mountain Mines, Inc.: P. O. Box 992867, Redding, CA 96099, (530) 275-4550. A corporation must be represented by counsel. See In re Highley, 459 F.2d 554, 555 (9th Cir. 1972). Within 28 days after the date of this order, appellants Iron Mountain Mines, Inc.'s new counsel shall file a notice of appearance with the court. A new briefing schedule shall be established upon compliance with this order. Failure to comply with this order shall result in the automatic dismissal of the appeal by Iron Mountain Mines, Inc. by the Clerk for failure to prosecute. See 9th Cir. R. 42-1. (MOATT) [7718808] (DEV)
04/15/2011  17  Terminated William A. Logan Jr. for Iron Mountain Mines, Inc. and T. W. Arman in 11-15383, Anthony Giles for Iron Mountain Mines, Inc. and T. W. Arman in 11-15383 [7718868] (DEV)
04/20/2011  18  Received notice regarding From Logan & Giles proof of service to former client of the 4/15/11 order.. [7724171] (MT)
05/17/2011  19  Received Appellant T. W. Arman letter dated 05/13/2011 re: regarding legal representation. [7755543] (MT)
05/20/2011  20  Filed order MOATT: (MT) The court is in receipt of appellant Iron Mountain Mines, Inc.'s (“Iron Mountain”) correspondence dated May 13, 2011. Iron Mountain's request for a 30-day extension of time, contained therein, to comply with the court's April 15, 2011 order is granted. Iron Mountain's new counsel shall file a notice of appearance with the court on or before June 13, 2011. A new briefing schedule shall be established upon compliance with this order. Failure to comply with this order shall result in the automatic dismissal of the appeal by Iron Mountain by the Clerk for failure to prosecute. See 9th Cir. R. 42-1. [7760065] (KD)

Conservation

 


1

  • There is one game warden for every 200,000 constituents

Game Wardens work hard to educate those they encounter in the outdoors, as well as school children in the classroom, about the importance of resource conservation, pollution prevention, and the importance of a healthy natural environment. These men and women dedicate their lives to ensuring our resources are here for future generations. You do not have to be an outdoor enthusiast to help, just someone who cares about protecting California's wildlife populations and conserving the habitats in which they live.


Educational

Internships, Training, Workshops and Fellowships for the Office of Air and Radiation
(CFDA: 66.037)

Purpose: To support, Internships, Training, Workshops and Fellowships, and Technical Monitoring in support of the Clean Air Act. These activities will support: (1). The development of career-oriented personnel qualified to work in occupations involving environmental protection and air pollution abatement and control; (2). Provides technical training for State, local, territorial, Indian Tribal environmental control agencies; (3). Enhances the capability of state and local agencies responsible for environmental pollution control or other agencies with similar pollution control responsibilities; (4). provides educational renewal for career oriented personnel to achieve additional knowledge through academic professional training; (5). supports students pursuing courses of study in fields relevant to the study and control of mobile source air pollution and traineeship; and, (6). Brings new people into the environmental control field.

Contact : Office of Air and Radiation

Protection of Children and Older Adults (Elderly) from Environmental Health Risks
(CFDA: 66.609)

Purpose: Supports efforts by government organizations and educational institutions to establish or enhance their ability to take actions that will reduce environmental risks to the health of children or elderly population.

Contact: Office of Children's Health Protection at (202) 564-2188

Top of page


Enforcement and Compliance

Compliance Assistance Support for Services to the Regulated Community and Other Assistance Providers
(CFDA: 66.305)

Purpose : To provide financial assistance to private nonprofit institutions, universities, and public agencies to develop projects to improve environmental compliance within an identified industrial/government sector. The funds are to be used to create compliance assistance tools utilizing industry and commercial communication channels to deliver the assistance tools.

Contact : Regional Compliance Assistance Coordinators

Capacity Building Grants and Cooperative Agreements for Compliance Assurance and Enforcement Activities in Indian country and Other Tribal Areas
(CFDA: 66.310)

Purpose : Providing financial resources to build and improve the compliance assurance and enforcement capacity of federally-recognized Indian tribal governments (tribes), inter-tribal consortia, or tribal organizations by providing financial resources and to improve compliance with environmental laws. As required by statute, such capacity building efforts may include economic, social science, statistical research, development, studies, surveys, demonstrations, investigations, public education, training, and fellowships to the extent authorized under the federal environmental laws listed above. This Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) number covers EPA's Environmental Program Management (EPM) resources targeted for compliance assurance and enforcement in Indian country and other tribal areas, including those in Alaska.

Contact : Regional Compliance and Enforcement Tribal Contacts

Top of page


Environmental Multimedia

Performance Partnership Grants
(CFDA: 66.605)

Purpose: Provide tribes and states with greater flexibility to address their highest environmental priorities, improve environmental performance, achieve administrative savings, and strengthen partnerships between EPA and the states or tribes. PPGs are an alternative assistance delivery mechanism and do not represent funding in addition to grants provided under individual authorities. Recipients can conduct activities in multiple areas and combine two or more of twenty different EPA grants, including GAP resources.

Contact: Regional Tribal Contacts

Environmental Information Exchange Network Grant Program
(CFDA: 66.608)

Purpose: Facilitates electronic exchange of environmental, health, and geographic data to make it easier for EPA and its partners on the Exchange Network to obtain the timely and accurate information needed to make better decisions.

Contact: The Exchange Network Help Desk is available for technical support, between the hours of 8:00 am and 6:00 pm (EST) at 888-890-1995.

Community Action for a Renewed Environment (CARE)
(CFDA: 66.035)

Purpose: The CARE program is a competitive grant program that offers an innovative way for communities to take action to reduce toxic pollution.

Contact: Call toll free at 1-877-CARE 909

Environmental Policy and Innovation Grants
(CFDA: 66.611)

Purpose: Supports activities that reduce pollutants generated and increase conservation of natural resources, improve economic information and analytic methods to support projects on the benefits, costs and impacts of environmental programs and on incentive-based and voluntary environmental management strategies and mechanisms.

Contact: Office of Policy, Economics and Innovation at (202) 564-4332

Healthy Communities Grant Program
(CFDA:  66.110)

Purpose :  Grants are awarded to support projects that meet two criteria: 1) They must be located in and directly benefit one or more Target Investment Areas(Environmental Justice Areas of Potential Concern, Places with High Risks from Toxic Air Pollution, Sensitive Populations, and/or Urban Areas); and 2) They must achieve measurable environmental and public health results in one or more of the Target Program Areas (defined in the annual funding announcement). Funds for all projects should support activities to restore or revitalize the environment, provide education, outreach, training, organize, or conduct community planning activities in the Target Program Areas (defined in the annual funding announcement).

Contact :  Urban Environmental Program (UEP) team  at (888) EPA-REG1 (toll-free phone) 

Congressionally Mandated Projects
(CFDA:  66.202)

Purpose :  These assistance agreements involve Congressionally directed projects/programs for specific purposes in EPA's annual Appropriations Act or annual Appropriations Conference Report. These assistance agreements support surveys, studies and investigations, research and demonstrations, and special purpose assistance for specific purposes and/or designated organizations. The projects are assistance agreements which are associated with: (1) various environmental requirements (e.g. wastewater treatment); (2) identifying, developing, and/or demonstrating necessary pollution control techniques to prevent, reduce, and eliminate pollution; and/or (3) evaluating the economic and social consequences of alternative strategies and mechanisms for use by those in economic, social, governmental, and environmental management positions.

Contact Your EPA Regional Tribal Contact based on your location .

International Financial Assistance Projects Sponsored by the Office of International Affairs
(CFDA:  66.931)

Purpose :  To provide technical assistance, training, information exchange and other forms of cooperation to enhance the capabilities of governments and other stakeholders to protect human health and the environment regionally and globally.

Contact :  Call the Office of International Affairs (OIA) at 202-564-6613

Top of page


Place-Based Programs

Great Lakes Program
(CFDA: 66.469)

Purpose: To restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Great Lakes Basin Ecosystem. The Great Lakes National Program Office (GLNPO), in concert with USEPA Regions 2, 3, and 5, leads a consortium of programs, agencies, and public and private institutions in attaining specific objectives and actions that will reduce contaminants, restore habitat, and protect the living resources of the basin. Great Lakes Strategy 2002, developed by EPA in conjunction with other Federal, State, and Tribal agencies and accessible at http://www.epa.gov/glnpo/gls/index.html, guides the activities of these organizations towards the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement goal of restoring the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the waters of the Great Lakes Basin Ecosystem.

Contact: Great Lakes National Program Office at (312) 353-2117


Gulf of Mexico Program
(CFDA: 66.475)

Purpose:

  1. To assist States, Indian Tribes, interstate agencies, and other public or nonprofit organizations in developing, implementing, and demonstrating innovative approaches relating to the causes, effects, extent, prevention, reduction, and elimination of water pollution;
  2. To expand and strengthen cooperative efforts to restore and protect the health and productivity of the Gulf of Mexico in ways consistent with the economic well-being of the region and to achieve the goals and priorities recommended by the Gulf of Mexico Program Policy Review Board (a Federal Advisory Committee) and the funding priorities of the Gulf of Mexico Program Office (GMPO).

Contact: Gulf of Mexico Program Office   (228) 688-3726


Regional Environmental Priority Projects
(CFDA: 66.111)

Purpose: To support investigations, experiments, training, demonstrations, surveys, studies, and special purpose assistance to protect public health and prevent, reduce, and eliminate pollution in Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, and Nebraska. Projects may be single media or multimedia which support the regional environmental priorities. Single media grants support pollution prevention efforts for individual environmental law statutes. Multimedia grants are assistance agreements that are awarded citing two or more environmental law statutes, appropriation legislation, or applicable legislative history as the statutory authority.

Contact: EPA Region 7 Drinking Water/Groundwater Management Branch at (913) 551-7667

Top of page


Research and Science

Regional Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program (REMAP) Research Projects
(CFDA: 66.512)

Purpose : Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program (EMAP) is a long-term research program designed to statistically monitor the conditions of our Nation's ecological resources. REMAP, which is a component of EMAP, is a partnership between the Office of Research and Development, EPA's Regional Offices, other federal agencies, states, local governments, and U.S. Tribal nations. It was developed to test the applicability of EMAP's probabilistic approach to answer questions about ecological conditions at regional and local levels. The primary objectives of the solicited research are to assist states and tribes in incorporating statistically valid ecological monitoring data into their environmental decision-making process.

Contact : Please direct questions about the REMAP to the REMAP Coordinator or one of the Regional Coordinators .

Science To Achieve Results (STAR) Research Program
(CFDA: 66.509)

Purpose: Supports research on environmental and human health effects of air quality, drinking water, water quality, hazardous waste, toxic substances, and pesticides. Supports research to explore and develop strategies and mechanisms for those in the economic, social, governmental, and environmental systems to use in environmental management decisions.

Contact: Submit comments to NCER

Or mail to:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Ariel Rios Building
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, D.C. 20460

Office of Research and Development Consolidated Research/Training
(CFDA: 66.511)

Purpose: Supports surveys, studies and investigations and special purpose assistance to determine the environmental effects of air quality, drinking water, water quality, hazardous waste, toxic substances, and pesticides; and identify, develop, and demonstrate effective pollution control techniques; and perform risk assessments to characterize the potential adverse health effects of human exposures to environmental hazards.

Contact: Office of Research and Development at (202) 564-6680

Surveys, Studies, Investigations and Special Purpose Grants within the Office of Research and Development
(CFDA: 66.510)

Purpose: Supports research on environmental effects of air quality, drinking water, water quality, hazardous waste, toxic substances and pesticides; to identify, develop and demonstrate necessary and effective pollution control techniques; and to explore and develop strategies and mechanisms for those in the economic, social, governmental and environmental systems to use in environmental management decisions.

Contact: Office of Research and Development at (202) 564-6680

Surveys, Studies, Investigations and Special Purpose Grants within the Office of the Administrator
(CFDA: 66.610)

Purpose: Support surveys, studies and investigations, and special purpose assistance associated with air quality, acid deposition, drinking water, water quality, hazardous waste, toxic substances, and pesticides.

Contact: Office of Children's Health Protection at (202) 564-2188

GSA Embarks on Comprehensive Reinvention of Leasing

Results Could Signal Major Beneficial Changes for Landlords By Mark Heschmeyer May 4, 2011


The report links these issues with a lack of response from the open market, and limited offerings translate into higher rates, the GSA has said.

The reforms are important to the market given the amount of space the GSA leases across the country. At the end of FY 2010, the GSA lease inventory rose to 191.4 million rentable square feet consisting of 9,285 leases in 8,094 buildings.

The largest share of the inventory by lease count - 82% - is vested in smaller leases, up to $500,000 net annual rent (total rent less operating expense rent). These leases account for only 30.2% of total square footage and 24.4% of rent.

Conversely, leases in excess of $1 million net annual rent represent 9% of the lease count but 56% of the square footage and 61% of total annual rent.

GSA's reinvention seeks to "streamline, standardize, and simplify" the process for both large and small leases, and thus the results could signal major beneficial changes for all concerned.

"The final report and the associated Leasing Desk Guide provide the details on the much-anticipated GSA leasing process overhaul that has been underway for the past 18 months or so," said Darian A. LeBlanc, senior managing director, Government Services Group of Cassidy Turley in Washington, DC. "My initial impressions are that the changes are more than superficial and provide some much-needed streamlining to the federal leasing process. The modified process and lease forms will be comfortable and 'user friendly' to those familiar with past GSA practices.

GSA will gradually pilot their new process to the real estate industry over the coming months to identify possible improvements and troubleshoot potential problems.

"The older process will still be used, in parallel, for most lease procurements during this period. Eventually the new process will become the standard," LeBlanc added. "There will be a learning curve, but otherwise I don't see many negatives to the new process. It certainly can't be any worse than the current process."

The GSA hopes to have some of the changes in effect soon. Others, such as those requiring statutory changes, will take longer.

GSA's includes many aspects that are GSA-internal, such as establishing teams and sub-teams for different aspects of review and follow-up, but many of the aspects are directly related to how the private sector will compete for GSA leases. Some of the more interesting proposals include the following.


Adjusting lease terms is also up for major changes. GSA has traditionally negotiated a 10-year lease term with five years firm, providing the government with termination rights any time after the fifth full year of occupancy. The rest of the market, typically signs 3- to 5-year leases with the right to renew for additional periods at the end.

Under the new plan, GSA is examining the cost impact of termination rights. Among other options the GSA will consider is allowing for longer firm terms beyond five years (6, 7, 8, 9, or 10-plus years, not to exceed 20 years firm). These options would enable lessors to arrange better cash flow for financing, GSA to better manage project workload, and customers to lease space according to true need. If the Simplified Lease Model is used, the standard default for leases with terms of five years or less will be firm, with no termination rights.

The Obama administration announced that it will impose stricter pollution controls on millions of acres of wetlands and tens of thousands of streams.

"The Obama Administration is committed to developing innovative approaches and partnerships with state, tribal and local governments and stakeholders that can deliver effective water pollution controls. These partnerships are especially important for protecting large, iconic ecosystems that face the most significant water management problems. At the same time, the Federal government must do its part to update its water policies, make active use of the latest scientific findings, and support local communities in ensuring that people are able to use and enjoy the Nation's heritage of water resources."

1. Federal Financial Report, SF425. A final SF425 (see website for the form and
instructions) report must be submitted within 90 days after the budget period end date.
The report must be prepared in accordance with the instructions and forwarded to:
Las Vegas Finance Center
PO Box 98515
Las Vegas, NV 89193-8515
or faxed to 702-798-2423
Generally applicable reporting requirements may be found in the Code of Federal Regulations, for example:
State/Local Governments and Indian Tribes, see 40 CFR Part 31.
Recipients other than State/Local Governments, such as Universities, etc., see 40
CFR Part 30. Cooperative Agreements for Superfund State Contracts for
Superfund Response Action, see 40 CFR Part 35 Subpart O.
In addition, recipients should consult the terms and conditions of their assistance
agreements for additional reporting requirements.

Environment and health   The Congress finds with respect to the environment and health, that-- (1) although land is too valuable a national resource to be needlessly polluted by discarded materials, most solid waste is disposed of on land in open dumps and sanitary landfills; (2) disposal of solid waste and hazardous waste in or on the land without careful planning and management can present a danger to human health and the environment; (3) as a result of the Clean Air Act [42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.], the Water Pollution Control Act [33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.], and other Federal and State laws respecting public health and the environment, greater amounts of solid waste (in the form of sludge and other pollution treatment residues) have been created. Similarly, inadequate and environmentally unsound practices for the disposal or use of solid waste have created greater amounts of air and water pollution and other problems for the environment and for health; (4) open dumping is particularly harmful to health, contaminates drinking water from underground and surface supplies, and pollutes the air and the land; (5) the placement of inadequate controls on hazardous waste management will result in substantial risks to human health and the environment; (6) if hazardous waste management is improperly performed in the first instance, corrective action is likely to be expensive, complex, and time consuming; (7) certain classes of land disposal facilities are not capable of assuring long-term containment of certain hazardous wastes, and to avoid substantial risk to human health and the environment, reliance on land disposal should be minimized or eliminated, and land disposal, particularly landfill and surface impoundment, should be the least favored method for managing hazardous wastes; and (8) alternatives to existing methods of land disposal must be developed since many of the cities in the United States will be running out of suitable solid waste disposal sites within five years unless immediate action is taken.   (c) Materials   The Congress finds with respect to materials, that-- (1) millions of tons of recoverable material which could be used are needlessly buried each year; (2) methods are available to separate usable materials from solid waste; and (3) the recovery and conservation of such materials can reduce the dependence of the United States on foreign resources and reduce the deficit in its balance of payments.   (d) Energy   The Congress finds with respect to energy, that-- (1) solid waste represents a potential source of solid fuel, oil, or gas that can be converted into energy; (2) the need exists to develop alternative energy sources for public and private consumption in order to reduce our dependence on such sources as petroleum products, natural gas, nuclear and hydroelectric generation; and (3) technology exists to produce usable energy from solid waste.   Since the EPA is administering the cleanup of the Acid Mine Drainage under the provisions of CERCLA, it is therefore a federal activity, as described in your Executive Order No. 13352.   “Sec. 3. Federal Activities. To carry out the purpose of this order, the Secretaries of the Interior, Agriculture, Commerce, and Defense and the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency shall, to the extent permitted by law and subject to the availability of appropriations and in coordination with each other as appropriate: (a) carry out the programs, projects, and activities of the agency that they respectively head that implement laws relating to the environment and natural resources in a manner that: (i) facilitates cooperative conservation; (ii) takes appropriate account of and respects the interests of persons with ownership or other legally recognized interests in land and other natural resources; (iii) properly accommodates local participation in Federal decisionmaking; and (iv) provides that the programs, projects, and activities are consistent with protecting public health and safety; (b) report annually to the Chairman of the Council on Environmental Quality on actions taken to implement this order; and (c) provide funding to the Office of Environmental Quality Management Fund (42 U.S.C. 4375) for the Conference for which section 4 of this order

GAO REPORTS AND TESTIMONY 

Foreign Assistance: Effectiveness and Accountability Problems Common in U.S. Programs to Assist Two Micronesian Nations (GAO-02-70, Jan. 22, 2002)

Negotiations Should Address Aid Effectiveness and Accountability and Migrants' Impact on U.S. Areas . Testimony before the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee. (GAO-02-270T, Dec. 6, 2001)

Foreign Relations: Migration From Micronesian Nations Has Had Significant Impact on Guam, Hawaii, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (GAO-02-40, Oct. 5, 2001)

Foreign Assistance: Lessons Learned From Donors' Experiences in the Pacific Region (GAO-01-808, Aug. 17, 2001)

Foreign Assistance: U.S. Funds to Two Micronesian Nations Had Little Impact on Economic Development (GAO/NSIAD-00-216, Sept. 21, 2000)

Foreign Assistance: U.S. Funds to Two Micronesian Nations Had Little Impact on Economic Development and Accountability Over Funds Was Limited . Testimony before the Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific, House Committee on International Relations. (GAO/T-NSIAD/RCED-00-227, June 28, 2000)

Foreign Relations: Better Accountability Needed Over U.S. Assistance to Micronesia and the Marshall Islands (GAO/RCED-00-67, May 31, 2000)

 

EMERGENCY COMMAND OFFICER - PRINCIPALS' INSPECTOR GENERAL; 925-878-9167 or john@ironmountainmine.com

 

The DeLoitte Consulting LLP final report, " Evaluation of the EPA Office of Civil Rights ," [EPA Report # EP10HOO2058, March 21, 2011] includes the following findings:

  1. The Office of Civil Rights (OCR) has not adequately adjudicated Title VI complaints - those addressing allegations of discrimination against communities of citizens affected by environmental rules promulgated by the EPA.  Only 6% of the 247 Title VI complaints have been accepted or dismissed within the Agency 20-day time limit. OCR's backlog of Title VI cases stretches back to 2001. At the time of the report's publication, there were numerous cases that have been awaiting action for up to four years. Two cases have been in the queue for more than eight years.
  2. OCR has struggled to track, investigate, and resolve Title VII cases - those addressing Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) violations inside the Agency - in a timely or effective manner.  OCR's Title VII function is know for poor inestigative quality and a lack of responsiveness.  It has not been able to perform its most fundamental Title VI administrative tasks related to filing mandatory reports and process complaints and writing final agency decisions. 
  3. OCR has not completed compliance checks of EPA grantees, in a timely or effective manner, to ensure that grantees are not engaging in discrimination in their work. 
  4. OCR has not consistently filed its statutory affirmative employment reports over the past five years, although the 2010 MD-715 was submitted on time.  In the area of Affirmative Employment and Diversity, OCR did not even complete its annual Management Directive 715 (MD-715) EEO report (a basic administrative task required of all Federal agencies) for 2006, 2007, and 2008. 
According to the report: "This situaton has exposed EPA's Civil Rights programs to significant consequences [that] have damaged its reputation internally and externally.  Much of this owes to OCR's challenges at the leadership levels over a period of years."

Report recommendations include:
  1. Complete efforts to fill OCR's leadership positions expeditiously with qualified, experienced, and motivated civil rights professionals. A competent leadership team will enable OCR to implement all of the other needed changes, while building credibility. 
  2. Reevaluate all staff job roles and formally document required skills, competencies and experiences for each role.  With well-defined job roles, OCR can evaluate its current workforce against the requirement and identify gaps. 
  3. Develop and execute a workforce plan that includes creation of well-defined career paths, employee performance management processes, new training programs and employee recruiting and selection processes.
The report concludes: "Building a more capable workforce from top to bottom will enable EPA and OCR to address its significant day-to-day opeating issues and implement the other more strategic changes that are required."

The DeLoitte Report was commissioned by EPA.

 

Forthcoming in the March 2009 issue of the European Competition Journal

Sanctioning Cartel Activity:
Let the Punishment Fit the Crime

Gregory J. Werden (*)

This essay explains how economic analysis and enforcement experience support the conclusion that cartel activity should be viewed as a serious crime and punished with serious sanctions on both business enterprises and individuals. My subtitle provides part of the argument: "Let the punishment fit the crime." As many before me, I borrow William Schwenck Gilbert's memorable line from The Mikado , a contemporary of the earliest criminal statutes relating to cartel activity. (1) For historic background and current context, I initially review the evolution of sanctions for cartel activity in the United States.

Sanctions for Cartel Activity in the United States

With the enactment of the Sherman Act in 1890, cartel activity in the United States became a misdemeanor punishable by up to a year in prison, (2) but during the first seventy years of enforcement, prison sentences were very rarely imposed in cases involving ordinary cartel activity. (3) Rare exceptions occurred in 1921 and 1959. (4) A 1967 law review article reflected the general consensus in stating that cartel activities were "not crimes of moral turpitude" and thus were "classified as malum prohibitum crimes rather than mala in se crimes." (5)

In the early 1970s, individuals were incarcerated after eight percent of successful cartel prosecutions, and imprisoned individuals served an average of 44 days. (6) Congress amended the Sherman Act in 1974 to increase penalties and make cartel activity a felony. (7) The maximum prison sentence was increased from one to three years. The change applied only to offenses committed after 1 January 1975, and during 1975­80 slightly more than half of Sherman Act defendants were sentenced under the original misdemeanor statute. During this period, prison sentences were imposed nearly three times as often under the felony statute as under the misdemeanor statute. In addition, the average term for individuals sentenced to prison under the felony statute was more than three times that for individuals sentenced under the misdemeanor statute. (8) Sentencing judges responded to the new direction Congress gave them by making cartel activity a felony.

In late 1976 and early 1977, the Assistant Attorney General in charge of the Antitrust Division of the U.S. Department of Justice pushed for an increase in the sentences imposed on those convicted of engaging in cartel activity. He gave a major speech arguing that cartel activity was a serious crime requiring serious sanctions. He outlined forthcoming sentencing guidelines, consisting of base sentences along with aggravating and mitigating factors. (9) A few months later, the guidelines were promulgated within the Antitrust Division and made public. (10) The guidelines proposed a base prison sentence for individuals of eighteen months. That term was the midpoint of the range provided by statute and was selected with the understanding that the parole system then in effect would reduce the time actually served by more than half. (11)

The Assistant Attorney General's efforts were not met with immediate success. About a week after the guidelines were promulgated, one of the most important sentencing decisions of the era was rendered. (12) In the interest of deterrence, the Antitrust Division had argued that 48 individuals found guilty of bid rigging should be imprisoned, but the court was not convinced. The court took the view that imprisonment was justified for "a crime that is malum in se in that it offends some deep-seated and historical morality" and that antitrust violations were not "by definition" such crimes, although they might be "performed in such a manner as would cause them to be malum in se ." (13) The court sentenced the 48 individuals to a total of 75 days in jail. (14)

In the early 1980s, individuals were incarcerated after 29 percent of successful cartel prosecutions, and the imprisoned individuals served an average of 120 days. (15) In 1984 Congress created the United States Sentencing Commission to revamp federal criminal sentencing. The Commission's initial guidelines took effect on 1 November 1987. (16) Sentences in the guidelines were designed to achieve deterrence, (17) and the antitrust guideline provided significantly greater sanctions for cartel activity than had been the norm. (18) The impact was substantial. In the early 1990s, the average term of incarceration was 247 days, and in the late 1990s, fines of over $100 million began to be imposed on large business enterprises. (19)

Maximum penalties were most recently increased by a 2004 amendment to the Sherman Act. Individuals convicted of violating the Act now may be imprisoned for up to ten years. (20) Sanctions actually imposed have continued to increase. During 2005­07, the average term of incarceration for all crimes prosecuted by the Antitrust Division was 703 days. (21) During this period, 76 percent of convicted individuals were sentenced to terms of incarceration. (22)

What Constitutes "Cartel Activity"

Cartel activity is a type of cooperation among competitors identified both by what the competitors do and what they don't do. (23) With cartel activity, the competitors enter into an agreement as to the material terms on which they compete, e.g., the prices they charge, or as to whether they compete at all in particular places or for particular customers. (24) And with cartel activity, the agreement on the terms of competition or on whether to compete is not part of a larger cooperative venture in which the competitors integrate their activities in a manner reasonably expected to generate efficiencies or otherwise benefit consumers. (25)

Rigging bids and allocating customers are typical examples of cartel activity. An agreement between competitors to merge could be construed as an agreement as to whether they compete and might be anticompetitive, but unlike cartel activity, the merger produces a potentially efficiency enhancing integration. The agreement among competitors to pool complementary resources in ways that create new products or serve additional customers normally is procompetitive and has little resemblance to cartel activity.

A key distinction between cartel activity and other types of competitor cooperation that also could offend competition law is that cartel activity entails cooperation on business decisions, such as the choice of prices, outputs, or which customers to serve, and not also cooperation on business functions such as research or distribution. (26) Competitors engaged in legitimate cooperation might use it as a cover for cartel activity, but the existence of the legitimate cooperation is irrelevant if the suspect cooperation is not reasonably necessary to the accomplishment of the procompetitive objectives of legitimate cooperation. (27)

Cartel Activity Should Be Viewed and Treated as a Crime

Cartel activity is properly viewed as a property crime, like burglary or larceny, although cartel activity inflicts far greater economic harm. Cartel activity robs consumers and other market participants of the tangible blessings of competition. Cartel activity is never efficient or otherwise socially desirable; cartel participants can never gain more than the public loses. Cartel activity, therefore, is not like tortious conduct, which is redressed with a liability rule focusing on the harm to victims and providing the incentive to take due care. (28) Like other property crimes, cartel activity should be prohibited rather than merely taxed. (29) As Judge Richard Posner explained of criminal sanctions generally, they "are not really prices designed to ration the activity; the purpose so far as possible is to extirpate it." (30)

Cartel activity materially differs from other property crimes only with respect to the purpose of sanctions. Rehabilitation and incapacitation are important purposes for most criminal sanctions, but deterrence is the only significant function of sanctions for cartel activity, and the specific deterrence of convicted offenders clearly is secondary to the general deterrence of potential offenders. (31)

The analytic basis for treating cartel activity as a serious crime is clear, but more than analysis is required before a society treats cartel activity as a serious crime. (32) When he was the member of the European Commission with responsibility for competition, Mario Monti spoke of developing a "competition culture." (33) This can be a slow process, as it was in the United States. (34) Only after long experience with the Sherman Act did the Supreme Court of the United States declare that the Act established "a regime of competition as the fundamental principle governing commerce in this country." (35) Cartel activity is a frontal assault on this principle and thus can now be seen as a major breach of social norms. (36)

In the United States, nearly a century was required for the competition culture to evolve to the point that it was natural to view cartel activity as a serious crime meriting incarceration for individual offenders. In Canada a competition culture has not evolved nearly to the same point, although Canada has had a criminal anti-cartel law longer than the United States. (37) The competition cultures of some countries have evolved much faster than in the United States and even further than in Canada. Ireland criminalized cartel activity in 1996, (38) and current law authorizes prison sentences of up to five years. (39) The sentencing judge in a recent case delivered a judgment favoring custodial sentences, although he suspended the 12 month sentence he imposed. (40) Israel criminalized cartel activity in 1988 and authorized prison sentence of up to three years. (41) The first executives were imprisoned in 2002. (42) The United Kingdom criminalized cartel activity in 2002 and authorized prison sentences for individuals of up to five years. (43) The first criminal convictions of individuals resulted in serious sanctions. On 11 June 2008 the Southwark Crown Court sentenced two executives to 36 month terms of imprisonment and a third to a term of 30 months. (44)

Cartel Activity Is Unique in Competition Law

Cartel activity differs in important ways from other conduct addressed by competition law. First, cartel activity is almost invariably covert, and participants often engage in affirmative acts of concealment. Because cartel participants conduct themselves in the same furtive manner as other criminal conspirators, U.S. judges and juries tend to be comfortable with treating cartel participants as criminals. (45)

Second, cartel activity is categorically condemned, whereas nearly all other conduct addressed by competition law is appropriately evaluated case-by-case and found unlawful only if that evaluation concludes that the conduct's effects make it unlawful under the governing legal test (e.g., the effect of the conduct on competition or consumer welfare). The relevant effects of conduct are often subtle, so this evaluation can be difficult, and errors are unavoidable. Such conduct should be treated essentially as a tort in order to avoid deterring the procompetitive conduct that could be erroneously found unlawful in a faulty evaluation of effects. In addition, competition law violations other than cartel activity typically do not exhibit the mens rea (or guilty state of mind) normally required for a criminal conviction. (46)

Third, the label of "cartel activity" cannot be applied by mistake to conduct that could be procompetitive. Thus, imposing serious sanctions on cartel activity does not chill any legitimate, procompetitive conduct that could be mistaken for cartel activity; there is no risk of over deterrence. In contrast, other types of conduct often pose a problem of characterization, and errors are inevitable. (47) This is a particularly serious problem for single-competitor exclusionary conduct because lawful aggressive competition on the merits looks much like anticompetitive exclusionary conduct. (48) Only cartel activity merits serious sanctions designed strictly to deter. (49)

Cartel Activity Does Substantial Harm

A good indication of the direct and immediate social harm caused by cartel activity is its effect on prices. (50) An attempt was made recently to compile every published estimate of the price effect of cartel activity any where in the world, any time in history. In total, 770 estimates of the average price effect of particular cartels were identified from court decisions, economic literature, and historical accounts. Their median was 25 percent. (51)

No quality screening was done in compiling these estimates, and many surely were not produced using reliable measurement techniques. In addition, very little of the cartel activity was subject to serious sanctions. The most interesting estimates are the relatively few made by applying the tools of modern economics to data relating to cartel activity prosecuted in the United States under the felony statute enacted in 1974. Considering just these estimates vastly reduces the amount of evidence but does not greatly change the picture. Cartel activity risking serious sanctions has been consistently found to have inflicted substantial harm.

In the 1980s and early 1990s, much of the cartel activity prosecuted in the United States involved bid rigging, especially in public procurement. Bid rigging on frozen fish raised prices paid an estimated 23­30 percent. (52) Bid rigging in highway construction raised prices paid an estimated 18 percent in one state and 6.5 percent in another. (53) Bid rigging in the procurement of milk by schools raised prices paid an estimated 6.5 percent in one state (54) and at least 14 percent in two others. (55) Bid rigging also has occurred in selling auctions, with cartel activity involving buyers. Bid rigging on used police cars reduced prices paid an estimated 17­28 percent. (56) Bid rigging in real estate auctions reduced prices paid an estimated 32 percent on average. (57) Evidence on the effects of recent international price fixing conspiracies is sparser, but price fixing increased lysine prices an estimated 17 percent, citric acid prices an estimated 11­24 percent, and prices of various vitamins an estimated 25­28 percent on average. (58)

Deterring Cartel Activity Requires Serious Sanctions

To deter cartel activity, the sanctions imposed on cartel participants must produce sufficient disutility to outweigh what the participants expect to gain from the cartel activity. Moreover, the disutility of the sanctions must outweigh the expected gain by enough to account for the fact that the sanctions may not be imposed at all and would be imposed, if at all, after the gains had been realized. Consequently, extraordinary large fines could be required to deter cartel activity.

In view of the empirical evidence just reviewed, a conservative assumption is that cartel activity increases prices by ten percent. The average duration of cartel activity was six years in forty relatively recent cases brought by the Antitrust Division or the European Commission. (59) So suppose that participants expect their cartel activity to increase prices by ten percent for six years. Suppose also that participants expect their cartel activity to be detected and sanctioned only one time out of four and that any sanctions would be imposed two years after the cartel activity ceased. Accounting for the effect on profits from selling less at the higher price, (60) the probability that the sanctions would not be imposed at all, and the time value of money, (61) the expected fine necessary to deter the cartel activity would be a bit more than twice the participants' annual turnover within the relevant market. (62)

The foregoing illustration is built on many assumptions, only one of which lacks empirical support. There is little evidence on the probability with which cartel activity is detected. However, the fact that major international cartels continue to be uncovered despite the significant fines imposed by multiple jurisdictions, and prison sentences imposed in the United States, indicates that cartel participants reckoned the probability of detection to be rather low, quite plausibly less than the assumed 25 percent.

Monetary sanctions imposed on cartel participants are vastly higher than a generation ago but appear to fall well short of twice the participants' annual turnover within the relevant market. That is an implication of a study of monetary sanctions in 56 recent international cartel cases. The total median monetary sanction, including fines imposed by Canada, the European Commission, and United States as well as the civil damages in the United States, amounted to roughly 32 percent of the annual turnover affected by the cartel activity. (63)

Enterprise Liquidity and Individual Sanctions

Economic analyses of criminal law generally conclude that monetary sanctions are more efficient than non-monetary sanctions, particularly imprisonment. (64) The analyses begin by observing that prisons are expensive and that imprisoning people deprives society of their productivity. The analyses then assert that any desired level of deterrence could be achieved without incurring either cost because a fine would be costless and a sufficiently large fine generally could achieve the same level of deterrence as any prison sentence. (65) The analyses conclude that imprisonment is efficient only to the extent that liability limits for business enterprises and wealth constraints for individuals prevent monetary sanctions alone from achieving the desired level of deterrence. (66)

The assumption that monetary sanctions on business enterprises are costless is close to the truth when they are small in relation to the assets of those businesses. But fines at such a low level are unlikely to achieve the desired level of deterrence for cartel activity, which is apt to be highly profitable yet is not easily detected. The calculation above suggests that the necessary fine could be twice the annual turnover within the relevant market of the defendant business enterprises.

Collecting a fine of that magnitude generally would be far from costless because most businesses would not have sufficient liquid assets to cover the fine. (67) For a business with operations concentrated in the relevant market, even total liquidation commonly would not raise sufficient funds to pay a fine twice its annual turnover. The net worth of U.S. corporations is just slightly more than their annual turnover. (68) Consequently, trying to collect a fine twice a business's annual turnover in the relevant market could create major disruptions, and possibly force liquidation, even for business enterprises with substantial diversification outside the market of the cartel activity.

Fines cease being nearly costless as soon as payment requires business enterprises to take disruptive actions, such as selling off assets, and liquidation is particularly costly. Moreover, the costs of fines are not borne entirely by culpable executives and shareholders who reaped the gains from the cartel activity, but also by innocent employees, suppliers, distributors, and communities. (69) Further, the goals of competition policy actually can be frustrated by attempting to collect massive fines because the result could be to eliminate or weaken competitors in markets already less competitive than desired. Consequently, the stated policies of both the European Commission and the United States are to account for ability to pay in imposing fines for cartel activity. (70)

Because fining business enterprises could not deter cartel activity by large business enterprises, or could do so only at a high cost, economic analysis concludes that non-monetary sanctions on individuals are appropriate. (71) In addition, "[e]xperience supports the conclusion that businessmen view prison as uniquely unpleasant and therefore incarceration is a uniquely effective deterrent." (72) In 2006, the Assistant Attorney General in charge of the Antitrust Division observed: "Our investigators have found that nothing in our enforcement arsenal has as great an effect as the threat of substantial incarceration in a United States prison--nothing is a greater deterrent . . . ." (73)

Imposing large fines on small business enterprises might not be as costly to society as imposing large fines on large business enterprises, but it would be fruitless. Small business enterprises typically would be unable to pay fines in excess of annual turnover. Forcing them into liquidation is apt to yield little because the profits, including ill-gotten gains from the cartel activity, have been paid out the owners who are also the executives. Deterring cartel activity by small business enterprises clearly requires the use of prison sentences for the executives, who typically would be owners. (74)

Enterprise Organization and Individual Sanctions

Economic analyses of crime and deterrence generally have treated large business enterprises as black boxes, ignoring issues relating to internal organization. Large business enterprises, however, are characterized by a separation of ownership and control that gives rise to internal organizational issues and a potential divergence between the interests of the enterprise or its shareholders and the interests of its executives. This divergence is central to two rationales for custodial sanctions on individuals.

The first rationale, cited by prosecutors, (75) is that imprisoning the executives of business enterprises prevents them from engaging in cartel activity that would be a profit-maximizing strategy for the enterprise. (76) Merely fining the executives would have no effect because (at least in the United States) the enterprises could pay the fines imposed on their executives. (77) In this rationale, imposing prison sentences on individuals enhances deterrence by making it impossible for business enterprises to create a system of incentives that can cause their executives to engage in profitable criminal activity. This rationale presupposes that fines on business enterprises are insufficient to make criminal activity unprofitable, which certainly appears to be true with the level of fines imposed today. (78)

The second rationale, cited by economists, (79) is that executives facing no personal sanctions may find it in their interest to engage in criminal activity that is unprofitable to the business enterprises that employ them. (80) This can occur as a result of defects in the design of compensation schemes, especially if the executives have short time horizons or are more willing than business enterprises to take risks. (81) Consequently, business enterprises can incur substantial costs in monitoring their executives and complying with the law. (82) In this rationale, imposing criminal sanctions on individuals enhances deterrence and reduces compliance costs by helping business enterprises create the proper incentives for their executives. This rationale applies even if sanctions on business enterprises are sufficient to make criminal activity unprofitable.

A final rationale for imposing sanctions on individuals goes back to English common law which held that business enterprises were legally incapable of committing a crime because they could not have the guilty state of mind necessary for criminality. (83) In the United States, this notion was long ago rejected as a matter of law. (84) Some modern scholars, however, find appeal in the old English rule, reasoning that monetary sanctions can be imposed as civil fines or tort damages, so the only good reason to criminalize business conduct is to impose the sanction of imprisonment on culpable executives. (85)

Detecting Cartels Requires Serious Sanctions

Detecting cartel activity is a difficult problem for competition agencies because participants have a strong interest in concealment, especially if they are risking significant sanctions. Moreover, criminalizing cartel activity entails not only adding more serious sanctions, but also adopting the procedural safeguards used by the criminal justice system to protect the innocent. Consequently, proving the crime of cartel activity can be especially challenging.

A tool that has proved valuable in prosecuting criminal activity is inducing one conspirator to turn on the others, which works if cooperating offers the prospect of escaping serious sanctions. In this regard, law enforcement against cartel activity is much like that against many other crimes. The Assistant Attorney General in charge of the Antitrust Division observed a few years ago that investigators had found that nothing creates a "greater incentive" than the prospect of incarceration in inducing an individual who participated in cartel activity "to cooperate in the investigation of his co-conspirators." (86) Serious sanctions for individuals can be critical in building the evidentiary record necessary to establish guilt in a criminal case.

A major development in cartel enforcement over the past quarter century was the advent of leniency programs under which a business participating in cartel activity is granted leniency or amnesty in return for coming forward and cooperating in the investigation and prosecution of its cartel activity. Since 1993 the United States has automatically granted amnesty from prosecution to a business enterprise that meets certain conditions, including that it is the first to come forward and cooperates completely in the investigation. (87) The prospect of amnesty from criminal prosecution for just the first participant in cartel activity to come forward can have a major destabilizing effect on cartel activity. (88)

A grant of amnesty to a business enterprise carries over to its executives, provided they also cooperate completely with the investigation. The destabilizing effect is enhanced if executives face serious individual sanctions. (89) Individual sanctions on executives can be used to induce them to cooperate even when their employers elect not to do so. (90) Thus, in 1994 the U.S. program was extended to individuals. (91) The widespread use of prison sentences for cartel activity gives the leniency program in the United States a powerful destabilizing effect than most other programs lack.

Determination of Sanctions in Particular Cases

Appropriate sanctions for cartel activity in any particular case depend on variety of factors, the most important of which is the severity of the offense. Participants should face greater sanctions the broader the scope of their cartel activity and the longer it has gone on. (92) Since the purpose of the sanction is to deter the offense, the ideal measure of offense severity arguably is the gain to the defendants from the unlawful cartel activity. (93) Also arguably relevant, and closely related to the defendants' gain, is harm to the victims. But basing sanctions on gain or harm would require costly efforts to estimate such effects. Such efforts, however, should be avoided because they would seriously undermine the efficiency of the legal system. (94) Moreover, basing sanctions on estimates of gain or harm would provide an opportunity for those engaging in cartel activity to escape serious sanctions simply as a consequence of difficulties in the estimation. The deterrent effect of sanctions could be greatly undermined as a result.

The base sentence for both business enterprises and individuals convicted of cartel activity should be keyed to a proxy for offense severity that can be used in a criminal justice system with minimal difficulty. The best choice appears to be the turnover of each defendant for the products covered by the cartel activity over the period it occurred. This "affected turnover" is used in the United States for calculating base sentences. (95) The U.S. Sentencing Guidelines also specifically account for additional factors affecting the appropriate sentence, and judges may depart from the Guidelines in the interests of justice. (96)

Conclusion

The premise of competition law is "that the unrestrained interaction of competitive forces will yield the best allocation of our economic resources, the lowest prices, the highest quality and the greatest material progress." (97) Cartel activity is the antithesis of "unrestrained interaction of competitive forces," so banning cartel activity is a cornerstone of competition law. But merely banning cartel activity is only symbolic if the ban is not backed up with serious sanctions. Deterring cartel activity, which is likely to be highly profitable, requires both substantial fines on the business enterprises found to have engaged in cartel activity and prison sentences for the culpable executives. Let the punishment fit the crime.

FOOTNOTES

*. Senior Economic Counsel, Antitrust Division, U.S. Department of Justice. The views expressed herein do not necessarily reflect those of the U.S. Department of Justice. This essay was prepared for the 22 November 2008 seminar on sanctions for cartels organized by the Irish Competition Authority.

1. The Mikado opened in London on 14 March 1885 and in Chicago 6 July 1885. The longest surviving criminal anti-cartel law is that of the United States, the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1, which became law on 2 July 1890. The Sherman Act, however, was not the first criminal anti-cartel law. Thirteen of the states already had enacted similar laws. See H. Seager & C. Gulick, Jr., Trust and Corporation Problems 342 & n.1 (1929). The first national criminal anti-cartel law was that of Canada, enacted on 2 May 1889. See J. Ball, Canadian Anti-Trust Legislation 7­12 (1934); S. Scott, Criminal Enforcement of Antitrust Laws: The U.S. Model--A Canadian Perspective, in B. Hawk, ed., 2006 Fordham Competition Law Institute 57, 58­60 (2007). In six states criminal anti-cartel laws went into effect in the months just before the Canadian law was enacted: Maine (7 March), Kansas (9 March), North Carolina (11 March), Nebraska (29 March), Texas (30 March), and Tennessee (6 April).

2. The Sherman Act prohibits not just cartel activity. Section 1 of the Act prohibits all unreasonable restraints on competition effected through concerted conduct. See State Oil Co. v. Khan , 522 U.S. 3, 10 (1997). Section 2 of the Act prohibits certain single-competitor exclusionary conduct. See Verizon Communications Inc. v. Law Offices of Curtis V. Trinko, LLP , 540 U.S. 398, 407 (2004); Spectrum Sports, Inc. v. McQuillan , 506 U.S. 447, 456 (1993).

3. Prison sentences were more commonly imposed when violence or labor union activity was involved. See P. Hadlick, Criminal Prosecutions under the Sherman Anti-Trust Act 63­117 (1939) (discussing labor and business racketeering cases). During World War I, eight individuals were sentenced to one-year prison terms under the Sherman Act for conspiracies to interfere with munitions shipments. See The Federal Antitrust Laws with Summaries of Cases Instituted by the United States 1890­1951, at 109­10 (Commerce Clearing House, 1952).

4. In 1921 individuals first reported to prison for having engaged in cartel activity. The case was United States v. Alexander & Reid Co. , 280 Fed. 924, 927 (S.D.N.Y. 1922) (describing bid rigging by the building contractors). The sentencing of four individuals to a total 10 months was reported by New York Times , 24 November 1921, at 4. Some sources incorrectly report that prison sentences for cartel activity were not until 1959. The latter case was United States v. McDonough Co. , 1960 Trade Cases (CCH) ¶ 69,695 (S.D. Ohio, 9 December 1959) (order upholding sentences). Four individuals were each sentenced to 90 days for fixing the prices of hand tools such as shovels and rakes, but one died before reporting to prison.

5. J. Flynn, Criminal Sanctions under State and Federal Antitrust Laws, 45 Texas Law Review 1301, 1315 (1967).

6. See J. Gallo, J. Craycraft & S. Bush, Guess Who Came to Dinner: An Empirical Study of Federal Antitrust Enforcement for the Period 1963­1984, 2 Review of Industrial Organization 106, 122­23 (1985). Full details of all Sherman Act sentences during 1955­80 can be found in 1 J. Clabault & M. Block, Sherman Act Indictments: 1955­1980 (1981).

7. Antitrust Penalties and Procedures Act, Public Law 93-528, § 3, 88 Stat. 1708.

8. See M. Cohen, The Role of Criminal Sanctions in Antitrust Enforcement, Contemporary Policy Issues, October 1989, at 36, 41. This increase in the average term of prison sentences did not result simply from relieving the constraint of the one-year statutory maximum, as that sentence had been imposed on less than one percent of individuals. See J. Gallo, et al., Criminal Penalties under the Sherman Act: A Study in Law and Economics, in R. Zerbe, Jr., ed., 16 Research in Law and Economics 25, 56 (1994).

9. D. Baker, To Make the Penalty Fit the Crime: How to Sentence Antitrust Felons, remarks before the Tenth New England Antitrust Conference (20 November 1976), reprinted in 2 J. Clabault & M. Block, Sherman Act Indictments: 1955­1980, at 529 (1981). AAG Donald I. Baker argued that: "Antitrust price fixing is a serious crime. . . . It is a felony which should be discouraged by the certain imposition of substantial criminal sanctions." Id. at 537.

10. Guidelines for Sentencing: Recommendations in Felony Cases under the Sherman Act (24 February 1977), reprinted in Clabault & Block, supra note 9, at 549 (1981).

11. Id. at 554­56. The parole system then in effect was abolished in the 1980s as part of the reforms associated with the Sentencing Guidelines, discussed infra at notes 16­18.

12. United States v. Alton Box Board Co. , 1977-1 Trade Cases (CCH) ¶ 61,336 (N.D. Ill. 1977). The case was governed by the original misdemeanor statute.

13. Id. at 71,166­67.

14. Id. at 71,184­85.

15. See Gallo et al., supra note 6, at 124­25.

16. United States Sentencing Commission, Sentencing Guidelines and Policy Statements (13 April 1987), reprinted at 52 Federal Register 18,046 (1987).

17. See J. Parker, Criminal Sentencing Policy for Organizations: The Unifying Approach of Optimal Penalties, 26 American Criminal Law Review 513 (1989).

18. On the development and evolution of the sentencing guideline for antitrust, see A.M. Herron, The Antitrust Sentencing Guidelines: Deterring Crime by Clarifying the Volume of Commerce Muddle, 51 Emory Law Journal 929, 931­43 (2002).

19. At the time, the Sherman Act provided for a maximum corporate fine of $10 million. Higher fines were possible under a 1984 law applicable to all federal crimes providing that "[i]f any person derives pecuniary gain from the offense, or if the offense results in pecuniary loss to a person other than the defendant, the defendant may be fined not more than the greater of twice the gross gain or twice the gross loss, unless imposition of a fine under this subsection would unduly complicate or prolong the sentencing process." 18 U.S.C. § 3571(d). A current list of the largest Sherman Act fines on business enterprises is available on the Antitrust Division's website at http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/public/criminal/225540.htm.

20. 15 U.S.C. § 1, as amended by Public Law 108-237, Title II, § 215(a), 118 Stat. 668. The maximum fine on an individual was increased to $1 million, and the maximum fine on a corporation was increased to $100 million. Fines can exceed this statutory maximum, however, under the provisions of 18 U.S.C. § 3571(d), set out in note 19.

21. The Antitrust Division prosecutes non-antitrust criminal offenses such as bribery, wire fraud, and obstruction of justice that are uncovered in investigations of cartel activity.

22. Judge Posner has questioned the deterrent effect of the prison sentence for cartel activity on the basis that it had been "imposed so rarely." R. Posner, Antitrust Law 270­71 (2d ed. 2001). The latest statistics, however, greatly undermine the basis of his argument.

23. What I refer to as "cartel activity" is often termed "hard-core cartel conduct." See International Competition Network, Building Blocks for Effective Anti-Cartel Regimes, Defining Hard Core Cartel Conduct--Effective Institutions--Effective Penalties 9­12 (2005); Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development (OECD), Recommendation of the Council Concerning Effective Action Against Hard Core Cartels (adopted 25 March 1998), reprinted in OECD, Hard Core Cartels 57­60 (2000).

24. On the definition and proof of such an agreement, G. Werden, Economic Evidence on the Existence of Collusion: Reconciling Antitrust Law with Oligopoly Theory, 71 Antitrust Law Journal 719 (2004).

25. See G. Werden, Antitrust Analysis of Joint Ventures: An Overview, 66 Antitrust Law Journal 701, 712­15 (1998).

26. See id. at 714.

27. See G. Werden, The Ancillary Restraints Doctrine after Dagher , 8 Sedona Conference Journal 17 (2007).

28. See G. Calabresi & A.D. Melamed, Property Rules, Liability Rules, and Inalienability: One View of the Cathedral, 85 Harvard Law Review 1089, 1124­27 (1972).

29. On the differing treatments of crimes and torts, and the distinction between optimal sanctions and optimal taxes, see J. Coffee, Jr., Paradigms Lost: The Blurring of the Criminal and Civil Law Models--And What Can Be Done About It, 101 Yale Law Journal 1875, 1876­77, 1882­87 (1992); R. Cooter, Prices and Sanctions, 84 Columbia Law Review 1523 (1984); S. Shavell, The Optimal Use of Nonmonetary Sanctions as a Deterrent, 77 American Economic Review 584, 590 (1987).

30. See R. Posner, An Economic Theory of Criminal Law, 85 Columbia Law Review 1193, 1215 (1985). This approach is advocated in the context of competition law by W. Wils, Optimal Antitrust Fines: Theory and Practice, 29 World Competition 183, 191­92 (2006). However, Wils relies on doubtful rationale for the approach--that the goal of competition policy is "to prevent wealth transfers from consumers to producers," and he goes too far by advocating this approach for more than cartel activity.

31. See, e.g., D. Baker & B. Reeves, The Paper Label Sentences: Critiques, 86 Yale Law Journal 619, 619­21 (1977); C. Renfrew, The Paper Label Sentence: An Evaluation, 86 Yale Law Journal 590, 592­93 (1977). See generally B. Fisse, Reconstructing Corporate Criminal Law: Deterrence, Retribution, Fault, and Sanctions, 56 Southern California Law Review 1141 (1983) (arguing in general that deterrence and retribution are the goals of criminal sanctions on business enterprises).

32. See A. Klevorick, Legal Theory and Economic Analysis of Torts and Crimes, 85 Columbia Law Review 905, 909 (1985) (arguing that "a coherent explanation of the criminal category necessitates answers to noneconomic questions about political legitimacy and authority, about the rights of individuals and the power of the state, about the political, moral, and legal constraints on the exercise of rights and powers").

33. See M. Monti, The New Shape of European Competition Policy (20 Nov. 2003), available at http://www.jftc.go.jp/cprc/sympo/2003sympo/agenda25.pdf; Opening Speech at First OECD Global Forum on Competition (17 Oct. 2001), available at http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/0/49/2434501.pdf.

34. See D. Baker, The Use of Criminal Law Remedies to Deter and Punish Cartels and Bid-Rigging, 69 George Washington Law Review 693, 694 (2001) ("the United States did not arrive at the point it has--with potential criminal liability and jail time as serious deterrents--quickly or easily").

35. City of Lafayette, Louisiana v. Louisiana Power & Light Co. , 435 U.S. 389, 398 (1978). See also Northern Pacific Railway Co. v. United States , 356 U.S. 1, 4 (1958) ("The Sherman Act was designed to be a comprehensive charter of economic liberty aimed at preserving free and unfettered competition as the rule of trade.").

36. A European commentator recently observed that cartel activity "aims to undermine and destroy a fundamental economic and political philosophy of Western democracies, i.e. free market capitalism, and thus arguably violates prevailing mores." See P. Whelan, A Principled Argument for Personal Criminal Sanctions as Punishment under EC Cartel Law, 4 Competition Law Review 7, 29 (2007). The sociologist who coined the term "white collar crime" argued more than a half century ago that: "The Sherman Antitrust Law . . . represents a settled tradition in favor of competition and free enterprise. . . . A violation of the antitrust laws is a violation of strongly entrenched moral sentiments." E. Sutherland, White Collar Crime 45 (1949).

37. See Scott, supra note 1, at 69­73, 76­77. Canadian law currently authorizes prison sentences for individuals of up to five years. Competition Act of 1985, §§ 45, 47, available at http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/ShowFullDoc/cs/C-34///en.

38. Competition (Amendment) Act, No. 19/1996, § 3, available at http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1996/en/act/pub/0019/index.html.

39. Competition Act, No. 14/2002, §§ 4, 6 & 8, available at http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2002/en/act/pub/0014/index.html.

40. See Competition Authority (Ireland), Annual Report 2007, at 7­9 (2008), available at http://www.tca.ie/controls/getimage.ashx?image_id=2041; see also M. Curtis & J. McNally, The Classic Cartel--Hatchback Sentence?, 4 Competition Law Review 41 (2007). The case was DPP v. Manning , and involved an agreement among Ford dealers to fix the selling prices of their cars.

41. Restrictive Trade Practices Act 5748 - 1988, §§ 2, 4 & 47 , available at http://www.antitrust.gov.il/Antitrust/en-S/LawandRegulations/RestrictiveTradePracticesLaw.htm.

42. See OECD, Hard Core Cartels: Third Report on the Implementation of the 1998 Council Recommendation 10 (2005), available at http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/58/1/35863307.pdf.

43. Enterprise Act, §§ 188­90, available at http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2002/ukpga_20020040_en_1. See generally Office of Fair Trading, The Cartel Offense (OFT 513, April 2003), available at http://www.oft.gov.uk/shared_oft/business_leaflets/enterprise_act/oft513.pdf.

44. The three individuals had pleaded guilty in a U.S. court, agreeing to be sentenced to prison terms of 30, 24, and 20 months, but the U.S. court deferred the imposition of sentence pending prosecution in the UK. On appeal in the UK, the sentences were reduced to those imposed in the U.S.

45. See T. Barnett, Criminal Enforcement of the Antitrust Laws: The U.S. Model, in B. Hawk, ed., 2006 Fordham Competition Law Institute 1, 3 (2007).

46. Under the Sherman Act, "the perpetrator's knowledge of the anticipated consequences [of cartel activity] is a sufficient predicate for a finding of [the requisite] criminal intent." See United States v. United States Gypsum Co. , 438 U.S. 422, 446 (1977).

47. See M. Block & J.G. Sidak, The Cost of Antitrust Deterrence: Why Not Hang a Price Fixer Now and Then, 68 Georgetown Law Review 1131, 1136­38 (1980) (ostensibly discussing sanctions for cartel activity but pointing to the potential for error only with respect to conduct other than cartel activity).

48. See F. Easterbrook, When Is it Worthwhile to Use Courts to Search for Exclusionary Conduct?, 2003 Columbia Business Law Review 345, 345 ("Aggressive, competitive conduct by any firm, even one with market power, is beneficial to consumers. Courts should prize and encourage it. Aggressive, exclusionary conduct is deleterious to consumers, and courts should condemn it. The big problem lies in this: competitive and exclusionary conduct look alike.").

49. See W. Wils, Is Criminalization of EU Competition Law the Answer?, in K. Cseres, M.P. Schinkel & F. Vogelaar, eds., Criminalization of Competition Law Enforcement 60, 85 (2006) ("imprisonment is desirable" for cartel activity; for other violations of competition law, the risk of over deterrence "is much more substantial"). A significant possibility of over deterrence significantly alters the socially optimal sanctions under criminal law. See M. Block, Optimal Penalties, Criminal Law and the Control of Corporate Behavior, 71 Boston University Law Review 395 (1991); W. Schwartz, An Overview of the Economics of Antitrust Enforcement, 68 Georgetown Law Review 1075, 1079­83 (1980).

50. Price effects are good indicators of harm, but not necessarily good measures of harm. The principle shortcoming of price effects as measures of harm is that they ignore effects on quantities associated with effects on prices. If cartel activity increases prices by twenty percent, it likely reduces output by at least ten percent. The harm inflicted on customers includes the value they had derived from the purchases they longer make.

51. See J. Connor, Price-Fixing Overcharges: Legal and Economic Evidence, in J. Kirkwood, ed., 22 Research in Law and Economics 59 (2007).

52. See L. Froeb, R. Koyak & G. Werden, What is the Effect of Bid-Rigging on Prices?, 42 Economics Letters 419 (1993).

53. See L. Brannman & J.D. Klein, The Effectiveness and Stability of Highway Bid-Rigging, in D. Audretsch & J. Siegfried, eds., Empirical Studies in Industrial Organization: Essays in Honor of Leonard W. Weiss 61 (1992).

54. See R. Porter & J.D. Zona, Ohio School Milk Markets: An Analysis of Bidding, 30 RAND Journal of Economics 263 (1999).

55. See R. Lanzillotti, The Great School Milk Conspiracies of the 1980s, 11 Review of Industrial Organization 413 (1996); I. Lee, Non-Cooperative Tacit Collusion, Complementary Bidding and Incumbency Premium, 15 Review of Industrial Organization 115 (1999); M. Pesendorfer, A Study of Collusion in First-Price Auctions, 67 Review of Economic Studies 381 (2000).

56. See J. Nelson, Comparative Antitrust Damages in Bid-Rigging Cases: Some Findings from a Used Vehicle Auction, 38 Antitrust Bulletin 369 (1993).

57. See J. Kwoka, The Price Effect of Bidding Conspiracies: Evidence from Real Estate "Knockouts," 42 Antitrust Bulletin 503 (1997).

58. See J. Connor, Global Price Fixing: Our Customers are the Enemies 157­58, 264, 336 (2001).

59. See S. Evenett, M. Levenstein & V. Suslow, International Cartel Enforcement: Lessons from the 1990s, 24 The World Economy 1221, 1226 (2001). See also G. Werden & M. Simon, Why Price Fixers Should Go to Prison, 32 Antitrust Bulletin 917, 925 (1987) (average duration of cartel activity alleged in indictments handed down in the U.S. during 1975­80 was just over six years).

60. For this purpose, I use the formula provided by M. Motta, On Cartel Deterrence and Fines in the European Union, 2008 European Competition Law Review 209, 219. I assume the price but for the cartel price reflects a 100 percent mark up over marginal cost and the elasticity of demand is 0.7. Under these assumptions, the increase in profit from the cartel activity is 57 percent of the "overcharge," which is ten percent of turnover, given the assumed price increase. These assumptions, and the others I make, are more conservative that those made by Motta.

61. I assume an interest rate of six percent compounded continuously. An income stream of x for six years, plus two additional years of interest, in the end, is worth 9.2 x .

62. Leniency programs, discussed below, can significantly reduce the fine necessary to deter. See P. Buccirossi & G. Spagnolo, Optimal Fines in the Era of Whistleblowers: Should Price Fixers Still Go to Prison, in V. Ghosal & J. Stennek, The Political Economy of Antitrust 81 (2007).

63. The study found that the average duration of cartel activity was 6.6 years and that median monetary sanctions was 4.9 percent the total turnover affected by the cartel activity over its lifetime. See Y. Bolotova & J. Connor, Cartel Sanctions: An Empirical Analysis (unpublished paper, 3 April 2008), available at http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1116421. The study also estimated the median price increase from the cartel activity to have been 27.0 percent, which suggests that the fine necessary for deterrence is far more than twice annual turnover.

64. See, e.g., R. Posner, Economic Analysis of Law 223­24 (7th ed. 2007); G. Becker, Crime and Punishment: An Economic Approach, 76 Journal of Political Economy 169 (1969); K. Elzinga & W. Breit, Antitrust Penalties and Attitudes Toward Risk: An Economic Analysis, 86 Harvard Law Review 693 (1973); R. Posner, Optimal Sentences for White-Collar Criminals, 17 American Criminal Law Review 409 (1980).

65. Significant technical objections to this assertion are based attitudes toward risk. See M. Block & R. Lind, An Economic Analysis of Crimes Punishable by Imprisonment, 4 Journal of Legal Studies 479 (1975); M. Block & R. Lind, Crime and Punishment Reconsidered, 4 Journal of Legal Studies 241 (1975); J. Coffee, Corporate Crime and Punishment: A Non-Chicago View of the Economics of Criminal Sanctions, 17 American Criminal Law Review 419, 423­26 (1980).

66. See R. Posner, An Economic Theory of Criminal Law, 85 Columbia Law Review 1193, 1201­08 (1985); S. Shavell, Criminal Law and the Optimal Use of Nonmonetary Sanctions as a Deterrent, 85 Columbia Law Review 1232 (1985).

67. A study focusing on U.S. criminal antitrust cases during 1955­93 found that only 18 percent of the enterprise defendants had sufficient cash and short-term investments to pay an "optimal fine" calculated much as the figure in the previous section. C. Craycraft, J. Craycraft & J. Gallo, Antitrust Sanctions and a Firm's Ability to Pay, 12 Review of Industrial Organization 171 (1997). The percentage would have been lower had the study not omitted all defendants for which financial data were not readily available.

68. The total turnover for all U.S. corporations filing tax returns for the 2005 was $21.8 trillion, while their net worth was $23.5 trillion and their cash was $2.8 trillion. These data are from the Statistics of Income annually released by the U.S. Internal Revenue Service and made available through its website at http://www.irs.gov/taxstats/.

69. See J. Coffee, Jr., "No Soul to Damn: No Body to Kick": An Unscandalized Inquiry into the Problem of Corporate Punishment, 79 Michigan Law Review 386, 389­93, 401­02 (1981); R. Kraakman, Corporate Liability Strategies and the Costs of Legal Controls, 93 Yale Law Journal 857, 882­83 (1984); Wils, supra note 30, at 1970.

70. See Guidelines on the method of setting fines imposed pursuant to Article 23(2)(a) of Regulation No. 1/2003, O.J. C 210/2, para. 35 (1 Sept. 2006) (allowing fines to be reduced on the basis of "inability to pay" if the fine otherwise "would irretrievably jeopardize the economic viability of the undertaking concerned"); United States Sentencing Commission, Federal Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 8C3.3 (2007) (allowing fines to be reduced on the basis of ability to pay but "not be more than necessary to avoid substantially jeopardizing the continued viability of the organization.")

71. Long before the first published economic analysis of crime, President Woodrow Wilson, who had taught economics at Princeton University, argued in a statement to Congress on competition law that "penalties and punishments should fall not upon business itself, to its confusion and interruption, but upon the individuals who use the instrumentalities of business to do things which public policy and sound business practice condemn." 51 Congressional Record 1963 (1914).

72. Baker & Reeves, supra note 31, at 621­22 (citing experience from cartel cases in the United States). See A. Linman, The Paper Label Sentences: A Critique, 86 Yale Law Journal 630, 630­31 (1977) ("To the businessman . . . prison is the inferno, and conventional risk-reward analysis breaks down when the risk is jail.").

73. T. Barnett, Seven Steps to Better Cartel Enforcement, speech at the 11th annual Competition Law & Policy Workshop, European Union Institute (2 June 2006), available at http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/public/speeches/216453.pdf.

74. An empirical analysis of criminal cases brought by the Antitrust Division found that criminal antitrust violations tend to be "perpetrated by individuals who gain personally from committing them" because they "have ownership interests" in their firms, which "are likely to be small and have limited assets." J. Joyce, The Effect of Firm Organizational Structure on Price-Fixing Deterrence, Contemporary Policy Issues, October 1989, at 19, 34. Since this study, however, the focus of criminal antitrust enforcement in the United States has shifted to major international cartels.

75. See S. Hammond, Charting New Waters in International Cartel Prosecutions, speech at the 20th annual National Institute on White Collar Crime (2 March 2006) ("We have first-hand accounts from cartel members of how the presence or absence of individual sanctions has directly resulted in actual deterrence and continued competition in the U.S. market and failed deterrence, collusion, and great financial harm in foreign markets."), available at http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/public/speeches/214861.htm.

76. See, e.g., OECD, supra note 42, at 26 ("Individual sanctions can strengthen the incentive of directors and employees to resist corporate pressure to engage in unlawful activity, and thus enhance the level of deterrence."); R. Blair, A Suggestion for Improved Antitrust Enforcement, 30 Antitrust Bulletin 433, 436­38 (1985).

77. See, e.g., P. Bucy, Indemnification of Corporate Executives Who Have Been Convicted of Crimes: An Assessment and Proposal, 24 Indiana Law Review 279 (1991).

78. See OECD, supra note 42, at 26 ("It is widely believed that corporate sanctions in the form of fines are almost never sufficiently high to be an optimal deterrent, and that the threat of individual sanctions can be an important complement to corporate, financial sanctions."); Bolotova & Connor, supra note 63.

79. See P. Buccirossi & G. Spagnolo, Corporate Governance and Collusive Behavior, in 2 ABA Section of Antitrust Law, Issues in Competition Law and Policy 1219 (W.D. Collins ed., 2008); A.M. Polinsky & S. Shavell, Should Employees Be Subject to Fines and Imprisonment Given the Existence of Corporate Liability, 13 International Journal of Law and Economics 239 (1993). President Woodrow Wilson, who had taught economics at Princeton University, argued in a statement to Congress on competition law: "Every act of business is done at the command or upon the initiative of some ascertainable person or group of persons. These should be held individually responsible and the punishment should fall upon them, not upon the business organization of which they make illegal use." 51 Congressional Record 1963 (1914).

80. See Coffee, supra note 69, at 393­400. See also C. Alexander & M. Cohen, Why Do Corporations Become Criminals? Ownership, Hidden Actions, and Crime as an Agency Cost, 5 Journal of Corporate Finance 1 (1999) (empirical evidence interpreted as supporting this explanation for corporate crime).

81. Enormous salaries for executives in large business enterprises helps deter criminal activity by making the termination of employment as a consequence of such activity into a more significant sanction. See S. Shavell, The Optimal Level of Corporate Liability Given the Limited Ability of Corporations to Penalize their Employees, 17 International Journal of Law and Economics 203 (1977).

82. See B. Kobayashi, Antitrust, Agency, and Amnesty: An Economic Analysis of the Criminal Enforcement of the Antitrust Laws, 69 George Washington Law Review 715, 735­39 (2001).

83. See 1 W. Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England 476 (1771) ("A corporation cannot commit treason or felony, or other crime, in it's corporate capacity: though it's members may, in their distinct individual capacities.").

84. See New York Central and Hudson River Railroad Co. v. United States , 212 U.S. 481, 492­94 (1909); H. Edgerton, Corporate Criminal Responsibility, 36 Yale Law Journal 827 (1927).

85. See D. Fischel & A. Sykes, Corporate Crime, 25 Journal of Legal Studies 319 (1996).

86. Barnett, supra note 73. See also Baker, supra note 34, at 709 (individuals not subject to sanctions "have little incentive to work hard to recall awkward facts about meetings and understandings"). In the United States, substantial assistance to authorities in investigating or prosecuting another person is an explicit basis for a downward departure from the guideline sentence. See United States Sentencing Commission, Federal Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 5K1.1 (2007).

87. Antitrust Division, U.S. Department of Justice, Corporate Leniency Policy (10 August 1993), available at http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/public/guidelines/0091.pfd.

88. The effects of these programs are detailed in nontechnical terms by G. Spagnolo, Leniency and Whistleblowers in Antitrust, in P. Buccirossi, ed., Handbook of Antitrust Economics 259 (2008); C. Leslie, Antitrust Amnesty, Game Theory, and Cartel Stability, 31 Journal of Corporation Law 453 (2006). A technical treatment is provided by J. Harrington, Optimal Corporate Leniency Programs, 56 Journal of Industrial Economics 215 (2008).

89. See P. Massey, Criminalization and Leniency: Will the Combination Favourably Affect Cartel Stability?, in K. Cseres, M.P. Schinkel & F. Vogelaar, eds., Criminalization of Competition Law Enforcement 176, 189 (2006) ("Unless the risk of imprisonment is perceived to be real, criminal sanctions are unlikely to enhance the effectiveness of leniency programmes."); S. Hammond, Cornerstones of an Effective Leniency Program, speech at the ICN Workshop on Leniency Programs (November 2004), available at http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/public/speeches/206611.pdf ("Individuals stand the most to lose and so avoiding jail sentences is the greatest incentive for seeking amnesty.").

90. See OECD, supra note 42, at 26 ("sanctions against individuals also can increase the effectiveness of leniency programmes as they are a powerful incentive for individuals to reveal information about existing cartels and to cooperate in investigations")

91. Antitrust Division, U.S. Department of Justice, Individual Leniency Policy (10 August 1994), available at http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/public/guidelines/0092.pfd.

92. Making sanctions proportionate to severity is essential to maintain a deterrent effect at the margin. See G. Stigler, The Optimum Enforcement of Laws, 78 Journal of Political Economy 526, 527­28 (1970).

93. See Whelan, supra note 36, at 12.

94. See generally W. Schwartz & G. Tullock, The Costs of a Legal System, 4 Journal of Legal Studies 75 (1975).

95. See United States Sentencing Commission, Federal Sentencing Guidelines Manual part R (2007). The Guidelines provide that the base fine for a business enterprise is 20 percent of its affected turnover. The minimum fine is then calculated by multiplying the base fine by a number between 0.75 and 2, which is derived from a "culpability score." Id. §§ 2R1.1(d), 8C2.5, 8C2.6. The maximum fine is twice the minimum fine. Base prison sentences for individuals are based on specified ranges of affected turnover. Id. § 2R1.1(b), ch. 5.

96. The freedom of judges to depart from the Sentencing Guidelines is a recent development resulting from decisions of the Supreme Court, especially United States v. Booker , 543 U.S. 220 (2005).

97. Northern Pacific Railway Co. v. United States , 356 U.S. 1, 4 (1958).

Disposing of excess properties with 'little or no value' can save billions
Federal Times
Many federal properties will be demolished or given to states and localities to save on maintenance and upkeep costs.

read more share: 
Rainy day funds explained: How much money should states have in the bank?
Stateline
In the many states that have emptied or nearly emptied their reserve funds — or never placed much money in them to begin with — serious discussion is taking place over how and when to begin saving for the rainy days of the future

Actual Innocence

Categories:

Definition

An absence of facts required for conviction under a criminal statute.  For example, a defendant accused of robbery who never illegally took anyone's property is actually innocent of the charge.  

Overview

Defendants often claim actual innocence when appealing criminal convictions.  To prove actual innocence, the defendant must submit additional evidence that undermines the court's confidence in the verdict reached by the trier of fact.   Appellate rules normally require that this evidence must not have been available to the defendant at the time of the trial.

Caselaw

"A finding of actual innocence, as that term has come to be used in federal habeas corpus jurisprudence, is not the equivalent of a finding of not guilty by a jury or by a court in a bench trial.” Lambert v. Blackwell, 134 F.3d 506, 509 (3d Cir. 1997). House v. Bell 311 F.3d 767; 2002 U.S. App. LEXIS 23930; 2002 FED App. 0406P (6th Cir.)

See also

Ocean Salmon Fishing Season to Open April 2

April 1, 2011 by CA DFG News Leave a Comment

Contacts:
James Phillips, Ocean Salmon Project, (707) 576-2375
Andrew Hughan, DFG Office of Communications, (916) 322-8944

For recreational fishing enthusiasts, springtime is in the air — and this year, in the water as well. Saturday, April 2 is opening day for salmon fishing in ocean waters off most of California and for the first time in many years the forecast suggests anglers may have many a tight line to look forward to.

Both the California Fish and Game Commission (FGC) and the Pacific Fishery Management Council (PFMC) approved the April 2 opening date based on scientific information suggesting that the Sacramento River Fall Chinook ocean population size is more than 700,000 fish — almost triple last year's forecast.

“We are cautiously optimistic that Sacramento River salmon stocks have recovered to the point that fisheries this year — our California sport and commercial ocean fisheries as well as river fisheries — can be sustained while still being confident that enough fish will return to natural spawning grounds and hatcheries to reproduce next fall,” said the Department of Fish and Game's (DFG) Marija Vojkovich, who represents the state of California on the Pacific Fishery Management Council.

The April 2 opening date applies to waters south of Horse Mountain (near Cape Mendocino) southward to the U.S.-Mexico border. For waters north of Horse Mountain to the California-Oregon border, the opening date will be determined in mid-April, but is anticipated to be a date in May.

When the 2011 recreational season is open off California, salmon fishing is allowed seven days per week, the minimum size limit is 24-inches total length, and the bag and possession limit is two fish per person. The retention of coho salmon and steelhead remains prohibited in all ocean fisheries.

Sacramento River fall chinook generally comprise 80 to 90 percent of the salmon catch in ocean waters off California. Therefore, the forecast for this stock plays a crucial role in determining when and where fishing opportunities can be provided. In 2008 and 2009, virtually no fishing was allowed because of low abundance forecasts and poor returns of fish to the Sacramento River Basin. Fishing in 2010 was also constrained for the same reasons.

Approximately 125,300 adult fall Chinook returned to the Sacramento River Basin in the fall of 2010, exceeding the minimum goal of 122,000 adult fish. In 2009, the return of adult Sacramento River Fall Chinook salmon was an all-time low of approximately 39,500 fish. The 2010 return is the highest observed since 2006.

Most charter boat operators no longer carry one-day licenses for purchase. DFG reminds anglers to purchase their license ahead of time at one of approximately 1,500 license agent locations or online at www.dfg.ca.gov/licensing/ .

For complete regulations as well as additional information on the 2011 fishing season, visit www.dfg.ca.gov/marine/oceansalmon.asp .

Drought's over – but don't lose the spirit

By Union-Tribune Editorial Board

Friday, April 1, 2011 at midnight

A decidedly wet year has led Gov. Jerry Brown to proclaim an end to California's drought. Yea!

It will take time for the effect of new regulations and rules to reach the San Diego County Water Authority and the two dozen retail agencies in our county.

For agricultural customers on alternative pricing systems with mandatory reductions, Brown's declaration may mean a greater supply and bigger crops.

For consumers, it may mean less guilt in sprinkling the lawn or washing the car. But with the wholesale price of treated water here up 70 percent the last five years, such indulgences have a cost.

County residents should take pride in reducing water use 38 percent over four years. But we must keep on in this vein.

“In arid Southern California,” said Dennis Cushman of the county water authority, “we're always just one year away from the next one-year drought or the first year of a multiyear drought.”

He's right – so don't stop conserving.

16 U.S.C. § 1861a : US Code - Section 1861A: Transition to sustainable fisheries

16 U.S.C. § 1861b : US Code - Section 1861B: Fisheries enforcement plans and reporting

16 U.S.C. § 1862 : US Code - Section 1862: North Pacific fisheries conservation

16 U.S.C. § 1863 : US Code - Section 1863: Northwest Atlantic Ocean Fisheries Reinvestment Program

Court finds California salmon protections wanting

By JEFF BARNARD AP Environmental Writer Posted: 04/25/2011 GRANTS PASS, Ore.—A judge has ruled that the California Department of Fish and Game's deal allowing ranchers to continue drawing water from two Klamath Basin tributaries in return for habitat improvements does not do enough to protect threatened coho salmon.

The ruling from Judge Ernest H. Goldsmith of the Superior Court of California in San Francisco tells the department to figure out how many salmon are actually killed by water withdrawals from the Scott and Shasta rivers in Northern California, come up with some effective steps to improve salmon survival in those rivers, and give the public a chance to comment on it all.

"Despite (the department's) good faith efforts and potential hardship to water users, the Court must uphold the legislature's mandate to preserve listed species and conduct environmental review of all foreseeable consequences," Goldsmith wrote.

The department is reviewing the ruling and considering its options for moving forward, said spokeswoman Jordan Traverso.

The ruling issued April 20 came in a lawsuit brought by groups representing salmon fishermen, an Indian tribe, and conservation groups challenging the legality of the Shasta Valley and Scott River Watershed-Wide Permitting Programs. The department approved the programs in 2010 to bring about 100 farms and ranches into compliance with the state Endangered Species Act in an area that had seen fierce pockets of resistance.

"This ruling does not put water back in the river or fish back in the river," said Klamath Riverkeeper Erica Terence, one of the plaintiffs in the cases. "It just keeps at bay a program that quite possibly would have done more harm than good."

Federal threatened species protection for Klamath Basin coho led to the shut-off of irrigation water to more than 1,000 farms and ranches on a federal irrigation project straddling the Oregon-California border in 2002, but did not affect irrigation on private lands in the Scott and Shasta valleys. California protected coho in 2005.

Historically, the Scott and Shasta rivers offered important habitat for coho salmon in the Klamath Basin, but have seen numbers falling to dangerously low levels in recent years. Last year the Scott—which regularly runs dry from irrigation withdrawals, requiring thousands of young fish to be rescued—saw only 881 adult coho return, according to the department. The Shasta saw only 49. Two out of three years, no fish return to the Shasta.

 

ENVIRONMENT, ENERGY & RESOURCES:

On Fri., April 22, the Department of Environmental Protection filed a petition (.pdf) asking the EPA to withdraw its January 2009 determination that numeric nutrient criteria are necessary in Florida. In a cover letter (.pdf) to EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson, Department of Environmental Protection head Herschel Vinyard wrote that the state of Florida remains “committed to addressing excess nutrients pollution” and requests that the EPA restore the responsibility of nutrient management back to the state. #

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION (EPA)

 

NEWLY PUBLISHED REGULATIONS

 

Approvals and promulgations of state implementation plans, state of Colorado, interstate transport of pollution revisions for the 1997 8-hour ozone and 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS: “interference with visibility” requirement: Final rule, published April 20, 2011, effective May 20, 2011

[TEXT]   

The Environmental Protection Agency partially approves the Colorado Interstate Transport State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision, submitted o March 31, 2010 ,

addressing the requirements of Clean Air Act (CAA) Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) for the 1997 ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), and the requirements of CAA Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) and (II) for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS.

Specifically, the EPA fully approves those parts of the Colorado March 31, 2010 submission that address the Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) requirement prohibiting a state's emissions from interfering with any other state's required measures to protect visibility for the 1997 ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS.

 

 

Data requirements for antimicrobial pesticides, notification to Secretaries of Agriculture and Health and Human Services: Notification to the Secretaries of Agriculture and Health and Human Services, published April 20, 2011

[TEXT]   

The Environmental Protection Agency notifies the public that the Administrator of the

EPA has forwarded to the Secretary of Agriculture and the Secretary of Health and Human Services a draft final rule under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act. The EPA codifies a separate listing of data requirements in the Code of Federal Regulations for the registration of antimicrobial pesticide products. These data requirements reflect current scientific knowledge and current EPA regulatory practices.

 

 

Pesticide tolerances, fluopicolide: Final rule, published April 20, 2011 , effective April 20, 2011 , objections and requests for hearings by June 20, 2011

[TEXT]   

The Environmental Protection Agency establishes tolerances for residues of the fungicide, fluopicolide [2,6-dichloro-N-[[3-chloro-5-(trifluoromethyl)-2-pyridinyl]methyl]benzamide], including its metabolites and degradates. Compliance with the tolerance levels specified is to be determined by measuring only fluopicolide in or on the commodity. The fluopicolide metabolite, 2,6-dichlorobenzamide (BAM), is regulated with its own set of tolerances. This regulation establishes tolerances for

residues of fluopicolide and its metabolites in or on multiple commodities. A tolerance is the amount of a toxin legally allowed on produce.

 

 

South Coast part of the California State Implementation Plan, Revisions, CPV Sentinel Energy Project AB 1318 Tracking System: Final rule, published April 20, 2011 , effective May 20, 2011 , index to the docket for this action available electronically at http://www.regulations.gov and in hard copy at EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street , San Francisco , California

[TEXT]   

The Environmental Protection Agency takes final action to approve a source-specific State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision for the South Coast Air Quality Management District part of the California SIP. This source-specific SIP revision is known as the CPV Sentinel Energy Project AB 1318 Tracking System. The

SIP revision consists of enabling language and the AB 1318 Tracking System to revise the District's SIP approved New Source Review program. The SIP revision allows the District to transfer offsetting emission reductions for particulate matter less than 10 microns in diameter (PM10) and one of its precursors, sulfur oxides , to the CPV Sentinel Energy Project, which will be a natural gas fired power plant.

 

 

PROPOSED REGULATIONS

 

National pollutant discharge elimination system, requirements for cooling water intake structures at existing facilities and Phase I facilities: Proposed rule, published April 20, 2011 , comments by July 19, 2011

[TEXT]    [PDF]

The Environmental Protection Agency proposes a rule that would establish requirements under Section 316(b) of the Clean Water Act for all existing power generating facilities and existing manufacturing and industrial facilities that withdraw more than 2 million gallons per day of water from waters of the U.S. and use at least twenty-five (25) percent of the water they withdraw exclusively for cooling purposes. The proposed national requirements, which would be implemented through National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permits, would establish national requirements applicable to the location, design, construction, and capacity of cooling water intake structures at these facilities by setting requirements that reflect the best technology available for minimizing adverse environmental impact. The proposed rule constitutes the EPA's response to the remand of the Phase II existing facility rule and the remand of the existing facilities part of the Phase III rule. In addition, the EPA also responds to the decision in Riverkeeper I and proposes to remove from the Phase I new facility rule the restoration-based compliance alternative and the associated monitoring and demonstration requirements. The EPA expects this proposed regulation would minimize adverse environmental impacts, including substantially reducing the harmful effects of impingement and entrainment. As a result, the EPA anticipates this proposed rule would help protect ecosystems affected by cooling water intake structures and preserve aquatic organisms and the ecosystems they inhabit in waters used by cooling water intake structures at existing facilities.

 

 

Pesticide petitions filed for residues of pesticide chemicals in or on various commodities: Notice of filing of petitions and request for comment, published April 20, 2011 , comments by May 20, 2011

[TEXT]   

The Environmental Protection Agency announces its receipt of several initial filings of pesticide petitions requesting the establishment or modification of regulations for residues of pesticide chemicals in or on various commodities.

Subject: Earth Month Tip of the Day: Everyone can make a difference.
From:
"U.S. EPA" < usaepa@govdelivery.com > To: john@ironmountainmine.com

Today's environmental tip: Everyone can make a difference! High school students can study links between everyday actions at their high school, greenhouse gas emissions, and climate change. Become a "climate ambassador" leader in your school or neighborhood and motivate friends, schools, and community leaders. Talk to you friends - help spread the word!

More information: http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/wycd/school.html
Podcast: http://www.epa.gov/earthday/podcasts

en español: ¡Todos pueden hacer una diferencia! Los estudiantes de escuela superior pueden estudiar los vínculos entre las acciones cotidianas en sus colegios, las emisiones con efecto de gas invernadero y el cambio climático. Conviértase en un embajador climático en su colegio o vecindario. Motive a sus amigos, colegios, y líderes comunitarios. ¡Dígale a sus amigos que ayuden a correr la voz!

Más información: http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/wycd/school.html
Podcast: http://www.epa.gov/earthday/espanol/podcasts.htm

Want more tips? Visit EPA's Earth Day site to learn more about Earth Day, the US Environmental Protection Agency, and what you can do to help protect human health and the environment.  http://www.epa.gov/earthday/tips2.htm

FEMA Dam Safety Publications

FEMA P-679DVD and FEMA P-730CD

New Releases!

The Department of Homeland Security's Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) is pleased to announce that the following FEMA National Dam Safety Program (NDSP) publications are now available, at no cost, from the Publications Warehouse.  

One of the goals of the NDSP is to encourage design and construction practices that reduce the risks to life and property from dam failure in the United States. FEMA's publication of these two important technical documents for dam design and construction professionals, inspectors, and operation and maintenance personnel is a major ongoing commitment to achieving this goal.  

To order your copy of FEMA P-679DVD or FEMA P-730CD from the Publications Warehouse, call 1 (800) 480-2520 or fax your request to (240) 699-0525. 

Both FEMA P-679 and FEMA P-730 will be available online by the fall 2011. To view or download other FEMA publications, please visit the FEMA Library, http://www.fema.gov/library/ .

To view or download other NDSP publications and products or to sign up for updates on dam safety publications, news, and events, visit Dam Safety Publications and Resources, http://www.fema.gov/plan/prevent/damfailure/publications.shtm

 

Subject: Earth Month Tip of the Day: Wait for the storm to pass.
From:
"U.S. EPA" < usaepa@govdelivery.com > To: john@ironmountainmine.com

Today's environmental tip: Wait for the storm to pass! Don't fertilize before a rain storm. Your fertilizer - along with your money - can just wash off your lawn and down the storm drain. Fertilizer runoff can pollute rivers, lakes, and bays, and cause problems in recreational areas or fishing grounds. Check the weather forecast before you head out, and wait for the storm to pass.

More information: http://www.epa.gov/epawaste/conserve/rrr/greenscapes/owners.htm
Podcast: http://www.epa.gov/earthday/podcasts

en español: ¡Deje que pase la tormenta! No abone antes de una lluvia fuerte. Su fertilizante y su dinero se escurrirán con la lluvia y se irán por el alcantarillado. Las escorrentías de fertilizantes contaminan ríos, lagos, y bahías y ocasionan problemas en áreas de recreo y áreas de pesca. Verifique el pronóstico del tiempo antes de salir y deje que pase la tormenta.

Más información: http://www.epa.gov/epawaste/conserve/rrr/greenscapes/pubs/owner-sp.pdf
Podcast: http://www.epa.gov/earthday/espanol/podcasts.htm

Want more tips? Visit EPA's Earth Day site to learn more about Earth Day, the US Environmental Protection Agency, and what you can do to help protect human health and the environment.  http://www.epa.gov/earthday/tips.htm

GOVERNMENT:

  applications for posttrial  [1] relief made by individuals convicted of criminal offenses and of prisoner petitions challenging conditions of confinement.

So in original. Probably should be “post-trial”.

May 19, 2011

Corporate Water-Energy Footprint: Critical Work for Risk Management

Robert Vos, Ph.D.
Research Director
CLEAN Agency

University researchers have recently produced a number of studies and tools that may help companies better understand their water footprint, including the relationship of water consumption and energy use. Recent studies allow for more complete benchmarking of water consumption in various forms of energy, and energy consumption for various forms of process water. Water footprints, including benchmarks for exposure to risk in the water energy nexus, can now be created at the scale of facilities or for the wider supply chain.

The life cycle assessment community has also tackled the issue by measuring the impact of water consumption in the total lifecycle of products.   Careful distinctions have been drawn between various water sources, as well as water consumption, water degradation, and water that is simply passed through a process and returned to nature. A working group under the UNEP/SETAC Life Cycle Initiative has also given attention to defining appropriate impact end points for water consumption, including sufficiency of water for contemporary humans and existing ecosystems, as well as resource scarcity measures (especially relevant to groundwater aquifers).

Recent water footprint models for products in lifecycle assessment also incorporate methods to make the local aspect of water consumption evident even if the consumption of water is distant from the consumer. In these models, the impact of consumption in arid regions is weighted more heavily given the likely pressures on humans, ecosystems, and the potential for long-term depletion of groundwater aquifers.

Providing data for tracking water flows by process, facility and location for water footprint models is of course an on-going challenge. However, companies that work internally and with suppliers to develop this data will benefit from a first-mover advantage in gaining insight into sustainability risks in water footprints.

There is manifest value for companies in better tracking of water footprints with attention to the water-energy nexus.  In the context of increasing water scarcity, a likely government and market response will be to raise the price of water to reflect the prospect of shortages.  Companies that have figured out how to save both energy and water will reap cost-saving benefits. With appropriate assessment, companies can identify hot spots for water-energy consumption internally and throughout their value chains.

With a deeper understanding of these hot spots, companies can articulate and act on strategies to save costs and bolster sustainability reputations. For example, companies can develop a set of priorities for facilities or agricultural operations in which to make water conserving or water recycling investments. Also, new technologies and materials can be reviewed for water-energy related risks. For example, certain kinds of both bio-fuels and bio-based materials are likely to consume many times more water than their conventional counterparts. Some of the very technologies and materials that we view as “green” may in fact carry significant water-energy related risks.

Several welcome developments herald a time of closer attention to water footprints and related energy risks in the corporate world. One positive step is the initiation and inaugural report of 175 companies in the CDP's water disclosure program. Another significant step is the 2011 publication of a water footprint assessment manual by the water footprint network following extensive stakeholder consultation. Companies worldwide should seize the day with respect to engaging in water footprints and deepening their understanding of the water-energy nexus in their value chains.

Dr. Vos has more than 15 years of research experience in sustainability science and policy. As Research Director for CLEAN Agency, Dr. Vos deploys industrial ecology tools to achieve transformative sustainability strategies for leading brands, including Fortune 500 companies. He holds a continuing appointment as Adjunct Professor of Research in the Spatial Sciences Institute at the University of Southern California (USC), and teaches Industrial Ecology in USC's Department of Industrial and Systems Engineering. He holds an interdisciplinary B.A. in urban environments with a M.A. and Ph.D. from USC in political science. He is a member of the International Society of Industrial Ecology. For more information about Dr. Vos, visit www.cleanagency.com .

White Papers [ see all ]

Supply Chain Environmentalism: Using Environmental ERP to Manage Environmental Impact for Competitive Advantage and Profit

Verified! Meeting the Increased Demands of Customer-Driven Reporting

The Value of Public Perception: Transforming Environmental Efforts From Compliance Driven to Risk Management

Environmental ERP: Reaching Your Peak in the Cloud

Keep up with Today's Complex and Evolving Global Regulatory Landscape

Debunking 6 Myths About The Materials In Your Company's Dumpster

Information Strategies for Manufacturing Sustainability

Resource Intensity - The Metric That Links Operational and Sustainability Goals

Environmental Leader's 2011 Insider Knowledge Report: Lessons Learned from Corporate Environmental, Sustainability and Energy Decision-Makers

Beyond Equipment Management by Spreadsheets

Facilities & Maintenance Management Best Practices

Making the Most of the Carbon Disclosure Project

5 Steps to Accelerate Sustainability Efforts: Best Practice Guide

Organizational Change Management: Getting All Parties to "Go" for System Adoption

Eco-Competitiveness: Safeguarding Profitability and the World's Natural Resources

What's On Your Sustainability Dashboard?

9 Ways to Reduce Energy Costs

 

No Coverage for Defense Costs Incurred in Response to CERCLA Demand

From: Sedgwick LLP

Summary: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

In Industrial Enterprises, Inc. v. Penn America Ins. Co., ___ F.3d ___, 2011 WL 925451 (4th Cir. (Md.) March 18, 2011), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit ruled that a commercial general liability (CGL) policy providing coverage for “sums which the insured shall become legally obligated to pay as damages because of "property damage” did not cover an insured's defense costs incurred in response to the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) demand under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) to remediate the presence of hazardous substances on the insured's land. The court ruled that the insured's defense costs did not constitute “property damage” under the CGL policy because the insured's potential liability under CERCLA arose from the EPA's regulatory authority rather than the federal government's rights as a property owner.

The court ruled that the EPA’s demand under CERCLA did not amount to an attempt to vindicate the government’s rights as a property owner, but rather arose from the government’s duty to regulate and remediate hazardous substances deposited on private property. Thus, the court held that the EPA’s demand created only potential regulatory liability, but did not subject the insured to potential liability for damage to federal property. In addition, the court noted that its interpretation of the term “property damage” as applying to risks of tort damage, and not to costs arising from governmental regulation, was reasonable in light of the indeterminate nature of liability under CERCLA, which can often greatly exceed the value of the property to be cleaned.

The budget deal worked out between the White House and Congress for the 2011 fiscal year will directly impact the federal e-government program. The spending agreement will put a severe crimp in a program that bolsters government transparency efforts, as well as initiatives designed to modernize IT management, according to supporters of the e-government initiative.

The program is administered by the Office of E-Government and Information Technology within the Office of Management and Budget .

The E-Government Office "develops and provides direction in the use of Internet-based technologies to make it easier for citizens and businesses to interact with the federal government, save taxpayer dollars, and streamline citizen participation," according to its mission statement.

The program supports USA.gov , the major Web portal for citizen contact with federal agencies; data.gov , a federal website portal providing access to a broad base of federal data and statistics, and the IT Dashboard , a site that reports on the effectiveness of federal IT programs. The day-to-day operations of the e-government program are conducted by the General Services Administration .

The budget agreement slashes US$26 million from the e-government initiative, reducing it from $34 million in 2010 to just $8 million in 2011.

"The cuts made to online transparency programs are deep and debilitating. Compared to other programs, the cuts are disproportionately deep," said Daniel Schuman, policy counsel at the Sunlight Foundation , an open government advocacy group.

In addition to their effect on specific government Web portals, the e-government cuts may also have a domino effect on the management of government IT resources, Schuman told the E-Commerce Times. The budget deal would reduce spending by an estimated $10 million on OMB efforts directed toward the adoption of cloud computing, including the nascent Apps.gov program, data center consolidation, and promotion of mobile media.

Another $9.5 million in cuts would affect the USA.gov portal, the IT Dashboard posting, and the development of a program for measuring IT performance. Funding for the implementation of the OMB 25-point plan for improving federal IT management and procurement would be cut by about $1.5 million.

Congressional Concern

The cuts have not gone unnoticed in Congress.

"I worry that the decision to cut funding for the E-Gov program may well prove to be penny-wise and pound-foolish," Sen. Thomas Carper, D-Del., says in a letter to Federal Chief Information Officer Vivek Kundra.

"I remain concerned with how the new lower funding level for the E-Gov Fund might not only impede the progress made thus far to make government more open and transparent, but also harm efforts to cut wasteful and duplicative spending in the federal government," Carper says.

Carper, who chairs a Senate Homeland Security and Government Affairs subcommittee dealing with federal information technology, asked Kundra to provide additional information to the committee on the impact of the cuts and tell him "how our subcommittee can be of help."

Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., reportedly is concerned about the cuts and has suggested that possibly through budget "reprogramming," the funding could be at least partially restored, according to the Sunlight Foundation, which cited a Federal News Radio report.

The foundation has distributed a letter about the e-government cuts to Congress.

"Overall, the response from members and congressional staff has been surprise that these programs were on the chopping block in the first place," said Schuman. "Nearly everyone realizes their importance, but not everyone knew the details on how they were funded. Our letter has helped raise awareness of the role the e-government fund plays, and prompted expressions of support for many of these programs."

Home

Sections

Browse

Policy

Learn

 

Programs and Funding Opportunities

Key: Crosscutting Crosscutting  |  bullet NSF-wide

bullet
Chemical, Biochemical, and Biotechnology Systems
bullet Catalysis and Biocatalysis
bullet Chemical and Biological Separations  (CBS)
bullet Process and Reaction Engineering
bullet
Biomedical Engineering and Engineering Healthcare
bullet Biomedical Engineering  (BME)
bullet Biophotonics
bullet Biosensing
bullet Biotechnology, Biochemical, and Biomass Engineering  (BBBE)
bullet General & Age-Related Disabilities Engineering (GARDE)
bullet
Environmental Engineering and Sustainability
bullet Energy for Sustainability
bullet Environmental Engineering
bullet Environmental Health and Safety of Nanotechnology
bullet Environmental Sustainability
bullet
Transport and Thermal Fluids Phenomena
NSF Wide Flag Combustion, Fire, and Plasma Systems
1 Fluid Dynamics
2 Interfacial Processes and Thermodynamics
3 Particulate and Multiphase Processes
4 Thermal Transport Processes
5
Broadening Participation Research Initiation Grants in Engineering (BRIGE)
6
Dear Colleague Letter: Supplemental Opportunity for Translational Research in the Academic Community (TRAC) (NSF 10-044)
7
NSF/DOE Partnership in Basic Plasma Science and Engineering

Copyright (c) 2007 The Harvard Law Review Association
Harvard Law Review

COMMENTARY: TWENTY-FIVE YEARS OF RICHARD POSNER, THE JUDGE: PARTNER, SHMARTNER! EEOC V. SIDLEY AUSTIN BROWN & WOOD

March, 2007

120 Harv. L. Rev. 1264

Author

David B. Wilkins *

Excerpt



What's in a name? For partners in today's mega law firms, apparently not much. Or at least that is what Judge Richard Posner held in a 2002 decision that continues to send shock waves through the plush corridors of America's elite law firms. 1 With characteristic rigor and wit, Judge Posner's opinion in EEOC v. Sidley Austin Brown & Wood 2 skewers one of the legal profession's most sacred cows: that law firm partners are Athenian democrats who enjoy all of the rights and privileges associated with ruling and being ruled. Refusing to rely on either formal titles or state partnership law, Judge Posner challenged law firms to prove that those who wear the partner label actually continue to function as such. In so doing, Judge Posner deftly exposed the biggest challenge facing the elite corporate bar: how to operate like a business without actually turning into one.

For the reasons set out below, firms that fail to untie this Gordian knot risk far more than simply having to defend themselves against a flood of discrimination lawsuits filed by aging baby boomers refusing to go gently into that good night of early retirement as soon as their billings fall below expectations. Instead, they risk nothing short of fulfilling Judge Posner's prediction - expressed almost a decade before his opinion in Sidley Austin - that law will soon become "largely an unregulated service like business management or retail selling" with the concomitant death of "the legal profession's flattering self-conception ...

Sanctions for Cartel Activity in the United States

With the enactment of the Sherman Act in 1890, cartel activity in the United States became a misdemeanor punishable by up to a year in prison, (2) but during the first seventy years of enforcement, prison sentences were very rarely imposed in cases involving ordinary cartel activity. (3) Rare exceptions occurred in 1921 and 1959. (4) A 1967 law review article reflected the general consensus in stating that cartel activities were "not crimes of moral turpitude" and thus were "classified as malum prohibitum crimes rather than mala in se crimes." (5)

In the early 1970s, individuals were incarcerated after eight percent of successful cartel prosecutions, and imprisoned individuals served an average of 44 days. (6) Congress amended the Sherman Act in 1974 to increase penalties and make cartel activity a felony. (7) The maximum prison sentence was increased from one to three years. The change applied only to offenses committed after 1 January 1975, and during 1975­80 slightly more than half of Sherman Act defendants were sentenced under the original misdemeanor statute. During this period, prison sentences were imposed nearly three times as often under the felony statute as under the misdemeanor statute. In addition, the average term for individuals sentenced to prison under the felony statute was more than three times that for individuals sentenced under the misdemeanor statute. (8) Sentencing judges responded to the new direction Congress gave them by making cartel activity a felony.

In late 1976 and early 1977, the Assistant Attorney General in charge of the Antitrust Division of the U.S. Department of Justice pushed for an increase in the sentences imposed on those convicted of engaging in cartel activity. He gave a major speech arguing that cartel activity was a serious crime requiring serious sanctions. He outlined forthcoming sentencing guidelines, consisting of base sentences along with aggravating and mitigating factors. (9) A few months later, the guidelines were promulgated within the Antitrust Division and made public. (10) The guidelines proposed a base prison sentence for individuals of eighteen months. That term was the midpoint of the range provided by statute and was selected with the understanding that the parole system then in effect would reduce the time actually served by more than half. (11)

The Assistant Attorney General's efforts were not met with immediate success. About a week after the guidelines were promulgated, one of the most important sentencing decisions of the era was rendered. (12) In the interest of deterrence, the Antitrust Division had argued that 48 individuals found guilty of bid rigging should be imprisoned, but the court was not convinced. The court took the view that imprisonment was justified for "a crime that is malum in se in that it offends some deep-seated and historical morality" and that antitrust violations were not "by definition" such crimes, although they might be "performed in such a manner as would cause them to be malum in se ." (13) The court sentenced the 48 individuals to a total of 75 days in jail. (14)

In the early 1980s, individuals were incarcerated after 29 percent of successful cartel prosecutions, and the imprisoned individuals served an average of 120 days. (15) In 1984 Congress created the United States Sentencing Commission to revamp federal criminal sentencing. The Commission's initial guidelines took effect on 1 November 1987. (16) Sentences in the guidelines were designed to achieve deterrence, (17) and the antitrust guideline provided significantly greater sanctions for cartel activity than had been the norm. (18) The impact was substantial. In the early 1990s, the average term of incarceration was 247 days, and in the late 1990s, fines of over $100 million began to be imposed on large business enterprises. (19)

Maximum penalties were most recently increased by a 2004 amendment to the Sherman Act. Individuals convicted of violating the Act now may be imprisoned for up to ten years. (20) Sanctions actually imposed have continued to increase. During 2005­07, the average term of incarceration for all crimes prosecuted by the Antitrust Division was 703 days. (21) During this period, 76 percent of convicted individuals were sentenced to terms of incarceration. (22)

What Constitutes "Cartel Activity"

Cartel activity is a type of cooperation among competitors identified both by what the competitors do and what they don't do. (23) With cartel activity, the competitors enter into an agreement as to the material terms on which they compete, e.g., the prices they charge, or as to whether they compete at all in particular places or for particular customers. (24) And with cartel activity, the agreement on the terms of competition or on whether to compete is not part of a larger cooperative venture in which the competitors integrate their activities in a manner reasonably expected to generate efficiencies or otherwise benefit consumers. (25)

Rigging bids and allocating customers are typical examples of cartel activity. An agreement between competitors to merge could be construed as an agreement as to whether they compete and might be anticompetitive, but unlike cartel activity, the merger produces a potentially efficiency enhancing integration. The agreement among competitors to pool complementary resources in ways that create new products or serve additional customers normally is procompetitive and has little resemblance to cartel activity.

A key distinction between cartel activity and other types of competitor cooperation that also could offend competition law is that cartel activity entails cooperation on business decisions, such as the choice of prices, outputs, or which customers to serve, and not also cooperation on business functions such as research or distribution. (26) Competitors engaged in legitimate cooperation might use it as a cover for cartel activity, but the existence of the legitimate cooperation is irrelevant if the suspect cooperation is not reasonably necessary to the accomplishment of the procompetitive objectives of legitimate cooperation. (27)

Cartel Activity Should Be Viewed and Treated as a Crime

Cartel activity is properly viewed as a property crime, like burglary or larceny, although cartel activity inflicts far greater economic harm. Cartel activity robs consumers and other market participants of the tangible blessings of competition. Cartel activity is never efficient or otherwise socially desirable; cartel participants can never gain more than the public loses. Cartel activity, therefore, is not like tortious conduct, which is redressed with a liability rule focusing on the harm to victims and providing the incentive to take due care. (28) Like other property crimes, cartel activity should be prohibited rather than merely taxed. (29) As Judge Richard Posner explained of criminal sanctions generally, they "are not really prices designed to ration the activity; the purpose so far as possible is to extirpate it." (30)

Cartel activity materially differs from other property crimes only with respect to the purpose of sanctions. Rehabilitation and incapacitation are important purposes for most criminal sanctions, but deterrence is the only significant function of sanctions for cartel activity, and the specific deterrence of convicted offenders clearly is secondary to the general deterrence of potential offenders. (31)

The analytic basis for treating cartel activity as a serious crime is clear, but more than analysis is required before a society treats cartel activity as a serious crime. (32) When he was the member of the European Commission with responsibility for competition, Mario Monti spoke of developing a "competition culture." (33) This can be a slow process, as it was in the United States. (34) Only after long experience with the Sherman Act did the Supreme Court of the United States declare that the Act established "a regime of competition as the fundamental principle governing commerce in this country." (35) Cartel activity is a frontal assault on this principle and thus can now be seen as a major breach of social norms. (36)

In the United States, nearly a century was required for the competition culture to evolve to the point that it was natural to view cartel activity as a serious crime meriting incarceration for individual offenders. In Canada a competition culture has not evolved nearly to the same point, although Canada has had a criminal anti-cartel law longer than the United States. (37) The competition cultures of some countries have evolved much faster than in the United States and even further than in Canada. Ireland criminalized cartel activity in 1996, (38) and current law authorizes prison sentences of up to five years. (39) The sentencing judge in a recent case delivered a judgment favoring custodial sentences, although he suspended the 12 month sentence he imposed. (40) Israel criminalized cartel activity in 1988 and authorized prison sentence of up to three years. (41) The first executives were imprisoned in 2002. (42) The United Kingdom criminalized cartel activity in 2002 and authorized prison sentences for individuals of up to five years. (43) The first criminal convictions of individuals resulted in serious sanctions. On 11 June 2008 the Southwark Crown Court sentenced two executives to 36 month terms of imprisonment and a third to a term of 30 months. (44)

Cartel Activity Is Unique in Competition Law

Cartel activity differs in important ways from other conduct addressed by competition law. First, cartel activity is almost invariably covert, and participants often engage in affirmative acts of concealment. Because cartel participants conduct themselves in the same furtive manner as other criminal conspirators, U.S. judges and juries tend to be comfortable with treating cartel participants as criminals. (45)

Second, cartel activity is categorically condemned, whereas nearly all other conduct addressed by competition law is appropriately evaluated case-by-case and found unlawful only if that evaluation concludes that the conduct's effects make it unlawful under the governing legal test (e.g., the effect of the conduct on competition or consumer welfare). The relevant effects of conduct are often subtle, so this evaluation can be difficult, and errors are unavoidable. Such conduct should be treated essentially as a tort in order to avoid deterring the procompetitive conduct that could be erroneously found unlawful in a faulty evaluation of effects. In addition, competition law violations other than cartel activity typically do not exhibit the mens rea (or guilty state of mind) normally required for a criminal conviction. (46)

Third, the label of "cartel activity" cannot be applied by mistake to conduct that could be procompetitive. Thus, imposing serious sanctions on cartel activity does not chill any legitimate, procompetitive conduct that could be mistaken for cartel activity; there is no risk of over deterrence. In contrast, other types of conduct often pose a problem of characterization, and errors are inevitable. (47) This is a particularly serious problem for single-competitor exclusionary conduct because lawful aggressive competition on the merits looks much like anticompetitive exclusionary conduct. (48) Only cartel activity merits serious sanctions designed strictly to deter. (49)

Cartel Activity Does Substantial Harm

A good indication of the direct and immediate social harm caused by cartel activity is its effect on prices. (50) An attempt was made recently to compile every published estimate of the price effect of cartel activity any where in the world, any time in history. In total, 770 estimates of the average price effect of particular cartels were identified from court decisions, economic literature, and historical accounts. Their median was 25 percent. (51)

No quality screening was done in compiling these estimates, and many surely were not produced using reliable measurement techniques. In addition, very little of the cartel activity was subject to serious sanctions. The most interesting estimates are the relatively few made by applying the tools of modern economics to data relating to cartel activity prosecuted in the United States under the felony statute enacted in 1974. Considering just these estimates vastly reduces the amount of evidence but does not greatly change the picture. Cartel activity risking serious sanctions has been consistently found to have inflicted substantial harm.

In the 1980s and early 1990s, much of the cartel activity prosecuted in the United States involved bid rigging, especially in public procurement. Bid rigging on frozen fish raised prices paid an estimated 23­30 percent. (52) Bid rigging in highway construction raised prices paid an estimated 18 percent in one state and 6.5 percent in another. (53) Bid rigging in the procurement of milk by schools raised prices paid an estimated 6.5 percent in one state (54) and at least 14 percent in two others. (55) Bid rigging also has occurred in selling auctions, with cartel activity involving buyers. Bid rigging on used police cars reduced prices paid an estimated 17­28 percent. (56) Bid rigging in real estate auctions reduced prices paid an estimated 32 percent on average. (57) Evidence on the effects of recent international price fixing conspiracies is sparser, but price fixing increased lysine prices an estimated 17 percent, citric acid prices an estimated 11­24 percent, and prices of various vitamins an estimated 25­28 percent on average. (58)

Deterring Cartel Activity Requires Serious Sanctions

To deter cartel activity, the sanctions imposed on cartel participants must produce sufficient disutility to outweigh what the participants expect to gain from the cartel activity. Moreover, the disutility of the sanctions must outweigh the expected gain by enough to account for the fact that the sanctions may not be imposed at all and would be imposed, if at all, after the gains had been realized. Consequently, extraordinary large fines could be required to deter cartel activity.

In view of the empirical evidence just reviewed, a conservative assumption is that cartel activity increases prices by ten percent. The average duration of cartel activity was six years in forty relatively recent cases brought by the Antitrust Division or the European Commission. (59) So suppose that participants expect their cartel activity to increase prices by ten percent for six years. Suppose also that participants expect their cartel activity to be detected and sanctioned only one time out of four and that any sanctions would be imposed two years after the cartel activity ceased. Accounting for the effect on profits from selling less at the higher price, (60) the probability that the sanctions would not be imposed at all, and the time value of money, (61) the expected fine necessary to deter the cartel activity would be a bit more than twice the participants' annual turnover within the relevant market. (62)

The foregoing illustration is built on many assumptions, only one of which lacks empirical support. There is little evidence on the probability with which cartel activity is detected. However, the fact that major international cartels continue to be uncovered despite the significant fines imposed by multiple jurisdictions, and prison sentences imposed in the United States, indicates that cartel participants reckoned the probability of detection to be rather low, quite plausibly less than the assumed 25 percent.

Monetary sanctions imposed on cartel participants are vastly higher than a generation ago but appear to fall well short of twice the participants' annual turnover within the relevant market. That is an implication of a study of monetary sanctions in 56 recent international cartel cases. The total median monetary sanction, including fines imposed by Canada, the European Commission, and United States as well as the civil damages in the United States, amounted to roughly 32 percent of the annual turnover affected by the cartel activity. (63)

Enterprise Liquidity and Individual Sanctions

Economic analyses of criminal law generally conclude that monetary sanctions are more efficient than non-monetary sanctions, particularly imprisonment. (64) The analyses begin by observing that prisons are expensive and that imprisoning people deprives society of their productivity. The analyses then assert that any desired level of deterrence could be achieved without incurring either cost because a fine would be costless and a sufficiently large fine generally could achieve the same level of deterrence as any prison sentence. (65) The analyses conclude that imprisonment is efficient only to the extent that liability limits for business enterprises and wealth constraints for individuals prevent monetary sanctions alone from achieving the desired level of deterrence. (66)

The assumption that monetary sanctions on business enterprises are costless is close to the truth when they are small in relation to the assets of those businesses. But fines at such a low level are unlikely to achieve the desired level of deterrence for cartel activity, which is apt to be highly profitable yet is not easily detected. The calculation above suggests that the necessary fine could be twice the annual turnover within the relevant market of the defendant business enterprises.

Collecting a fine of that magnitude generally would be far from costless because most businesses would not have sufficient liquid assets to cover the fine. (67) For a business with operations concentrated in the relevant market, even total liquidation commonly would not raise sufficient funds to pay a fine twice its annual turnover. The net worth of U.S. corporations is just slightly more than their annual turnover. (68) Consequently, trying to collect a fine twice a business's annual turnover in the relevant market could create major disruptions, and possibly force liquidation, even for business enterprises with substantial diversification outside the market of the cartel activity.

Fines cease being nearly costless as soon as payment requires business enterprises to take disruptive actions, such as selling off assets, and liquidation is particularly costly. Moreover, the costs of fines are not borne entirely by culpable executives and shareholders who reaped the gains from the cartel activity, but also by innocent employees, suppliers, distributors, and communities. (69) Further, the goals of competition policy actually can be frustrated by attempting to collect massive fines because the result could be to eliminate or weaken competitors in markets already less competitive than desired. Consequently, the stated policies of both the European Commission and the United States are to account for ability to pay in imposing fines for cartel activity. (70)

Because fining business enterprises could not deter cartel activity by large business enterprises, or could do so only at a high cost, economic analysis concludes that non-monetary sanctions on individuals are appropriate. (71) In addition, "[e]xperience supports the conclusion that businessmen view prison as uniquely unpleasant and therefore incarceration is a uniquely effective deterrent." (72) In 2006, the Assistant Attorney General in charge of the Antitrust Division observed: "Our investigators have found that nothing in our enforcement arsenal has as great an effect as the threat of substantial incarceration in a United States prison--nothing is a greater deterrent . . . ." (73)

Imposing large fines on small business enterprises might not be as costly to society as imposing large fines on large business enterprises, but it would be fruitless. Small business enterprises typically would be unable to pay fines in excess of annual turnover. Forcing them into liquidation is apt to yield little because the profits, including ill-gotten gains from the cartel activity, have been paid out the owners who are also the executives. Deterring cartel activity by small business enterprises clearly requires the use of prison sentences for the executives, who typically would be owners. (74)

Enterprise Organization and Individual Sanctions

Economic analyses of crime and deterrence generally have treated large business enterprises as black boxes, ignoring issues relating to internal organization. Large business enterprises, however, are characterized by a separation of ownership and control that gives rise to internal organizational issues and a potential divergence between the interests of the enterprise or its shareholders and the interests of its executives. This divergence is central to two rationales for custodial sanctions on individuals.

The first rationale, cited by prosecutors, (75) is that imprisoning the executives of business enterprises prevents them from engaging in cartel activity that would be a profit-maximizing strategy for the enterprise. (76) Merely fining the executives would have no effect because (at least in the United States) the enterprises could pay the fines imposed on their executives. (77) In this rationale, imposing prison sentences on individuals enhances deterrence by making it impossible for business enterprises to create a system of incentives that can cause their executives to engage in profitable criminal activity. This rationale presupposes that fines on business enterprises are insufficient to make criminal activity unprofitable, which certainly appears to be true with the level of fines imposed today. (78)

The second rationale, cited by economists, (79) is that executives facing no personal sanctions may find it in their interest to engage in criminal activity that is unprofitable to the business enterprises that employ them. (80) This can occur as a result of defects in the design of compensation schemes, especially if the executives have short time horizons or are more willing than business enterprises to take risks. (81) Consequently, business enterprises can incur substantial costs in monitoring their executives and complying with the law. (82) In this rationale, imposing criminal sanctions on individuals enhances deterrence and reduces compliance costs by helping business enterprises create the proper incentives for their executives. This rationale applies even if sanctions on business enterprises are sufficient to make criminal activity unprofitable.

A final rationale for imposing sanctions on individuals goes back to English common law which held that business enterprises were legally incapable of committing a crime because they could not have the guilty state of mind necessary for criminality. (83) In the United States, this notion was long ago rejected as a matter of law. (84) Some modern scholars, however, find appeal in the old English rule, reasoning that monetary sanctions can be imposed as civil fines or tort damages, so the only good reason to criminalize business conduct is to impose the sanction of imprisonment on culpable executives. (85)

Detecting Cartels Requires Serious Sanctions

Detecting cartel activity is a difficult problem for competition agencies because participants have a strong interest in concealment, especially if they are risking significant sanctions. Moreover, criminalizing cartel activity entails not only adding more serious sanctions, but also adopting the procedural safeguards used by the criminal justice system to protect the innocent. Consequently, proving the crime of cartel activity can be especially challenging.

A tool that has proved valuable in prosecuting criminal activity is inducing one conspirator to turn on the others, which works if cooperating offers the prospect of escaping serious sanctions. In this regard, law enforcement against cartel activity is much like that against many other crimes. The Assistant Attorney General in charge of the Antitrust Division observed a few years ago that investigators had found that nothing creates a "greater incentive" than the prospect of incarceration in inducing an individual who participated in cartel activity "to cooperate in the investigation of his co-conspirators." (86) Serious sanctions for individuals can be critical in building the evidentiary record necessary to establish guilt in a criminal case.

A major development in cartel enforcement over the past quarter century was the advent of leniency programs under which a business participating in cartel activity is granted leniency or amnesty in return for coming forward and cooperating in the investigation and prosecution of its cartel activity. Since 1993 the United States has automatically granted amnesty from prosecution to a business enterprise that meets certain conditions, including that it is the first to come forward and cooperates completely in the investigation. (87) The prospect of amnesty from criminal prosecution for just the first participant in cartel activity to come forward can have a major destabilizing effect on cartel activity. (88)

A grant of amnesty to a business enterprise carries over to its executives, provided they also cooperate completely with the investigation. The destabilizing effect is enhanced if executives face serious individual sanctions. (89) Individual sanctions on executives can be used to induce them to cooperate even when their employers elect not to do so. (90) Thus, in 1994 the U.S. program was extended to individuals. (91) The widespread use of prison sentences for cartel activity gives the leniency program in the United States a powerful destabilizing effect than most other programs lack.

Determination of Sanctions in Particular Cases

Appropriate sanctions for cartel activity in any particular case depend on variety of factors, the most important of which is the severity of the offense. Participants should face greater sanctions the broader the scope of their cartel activity and the longer it has gone on. (92) Since the purpose of the sanction is to deter the offense, the ideal measure of offense severity arguably is the gain to the defendants from the unlawful cartel activity. (93) Also arguably relevant, and closely related to the defendants' gain, is harm to the victims. But basing sanctions on gain or harm would require costly efforts to estimate such effects. Such efforts, however, should be avoided because they would seriously undermine the efficiency of the legal system. (94) Moreover, basing sanctions on estimates of gain or harm would provide an opportunity for those engaging in cartel activity to escape serious sanctions simply as a consequence of difficulties in the estimation. The deterrent effect of sanctions could be greatly undermined as a result.

The base sentence for both business enterprises and individuals convicted of cartel activity should be keyed to a proxy for offense severity that can be used in a criminal justice system with minimal difficulty. The best choice appears to be the turnover of each defendant for the products covered by the cartel activity over the period it occurred. This "affected turnover" is used in the United States for calculating base sentences. (95) The U.S. Sentencing Guidelines also specifically account for additional factors affecting the appropriate sentence, and judges may depart from the Guidelines in the interests of justice. (96)

Conclusion

The premise of competition law is "that the unrestrained interaction of competitive forces will yield the best allocation of our economic resources, the lowest prices, the highest quality and the greatest material progress." (97) Cartel activity is the antithesis of "unrestrained interaction of competitive forces," so banning cartel activity is a cornerstone of competition law. But merely banning cartel activity is only symbolic if the ban is not backed up with serious sanctions. Deterring cartel activity, which is likely to be highly profitable, requires both substantial fines on the business enterprises found to have engaged in cartel activity and prison sentences for the culpable executives. Let the punishment fit the crime.

FOOTNOTES

*. Senior Economic Counsel, Antitrust Division, U.S. Department of Justice. The views expressed herein do not necessarily reflect those of the U.S. Department of Justice. This essay was prepared for the 22 November 2008 seminar on sanctions for cartels organized by the Irish Competition Authority.

1. The Mikado opened in London on 14 March 1885 and in Chicago 6 July 1885. The longest surviving criminal anti-cartel law is that of the United States, the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1, which became law on 2 July 1890. The Sherman Act, however, was not the first criminal anti-cartel law. Thirteen of the states already had enacted similar laws. See H. Seager & C. Gulick, Jr., Trust and Corporation Problems 342 & n.1 (1929). The first national criminal anti-cartel law was that of Canada, enacted on 2 May 1889. See J. Ball, Canadian Anti-Trust Legislation 7­12 (1934); S. Scott, Criminal Enforcement of Antitrust Laws: The U.S. Model--A Canadian Perspective, in B. Hawk, ed., 2006 Fordham Competition Law Institute 57, 58­60 (2007). In six states criminal anti-cartel laws went into effect in the months just before the Canadian law was enacted: Maine (7 March), Kansas (9 March), North Carolina (11 March), Nebraska (29 March), Texas (30 March), and Tennessee (6 April).

2. The Sherman Act prohibits not just cartel activity. Section 1 of the Act prohibits all unreasonable restraints on competition effected through concerted conduct. See State Oil Co. v. Khan , 522 U.S. 3, 10 (1997). Section 2 of the Act prohibits certain single-competitor exclusionary conduct. See Verizon Communications Inc. v. Law Offices of Curtis V. Trinko, LLP , 540 U.S. 398, 407 (2004); Spectrum Sports, Inc. v. McQuillan , 506 U.S. 447, 456 (1993).

3. Prison sentences were more commonly imposed when violence or labor union activity was involved. See P. Hadlick, Criminal Prosecutions under the Sherman Anti-Trust Act 63­117 (1939) (discussing labor and business racketeering cases). During World War I, eight individuals were sentenced to one-year prison terms under the Sherman Act for conspiracies to interfere with munitions shipments. See The Federal Antitrust Laws with Summaries of Cases Instituted by the United States 1890­1951, at 109­10 (Commerce Clearing House, 1952).

4. In 1921 individuals first reported to prison for having engaged in cartel activity. The case was United States v. Alexander & Reid Co. , 280 Fed. 924, 927 (S.D.N.Y. 1922) (describing bid rigging by the building contractors). The sentencing of four individuals to a total 10 months was reported by New York Times , 24 November 1921, at 4. Some sources incorrectly report that prison sentences for cartel activity were not until 1959. The latter case was United States v. McDonough Co. , 1960 Trade Cases (CCH) ¶ 69,695 (S.D. Ohio, 9 December 1959) (order upholding sentences). Four individuals were each sentenced to 90 days for fixing the prices of hand tools such as shovels and rakes, but one died before reporting to prison.

5. J. Flynn, Criminal Sanctions under State and Federal Antitrust Laws, 45 Texas Law Review 1301, 1315 (1967).

6. See J. Gallo, J. Craycraft & S. Bush, Guess Who Came to Dinner: An Empirical Study of Federal Antitrust Enforcement for the Period 1963­1984, 2 Review of Industrial Organization 106, 122­23 (1985). Full details of all Sherman Act sentences during 1955­80 can be found in 1 J. Clabault & M. Block, Sherman Act Indictments: 1955­1980 (1981).

7. Antitrust Penalties and Procedures Act, Public Law 93-528, § 3, 88 Stat. 1708.

8. See M. Cohen, The Role of Criminal Sanctions in Antitrust Enforcement, Contemporary Policy Issues, October 1989, at 36, 41. This increase in the average term of prison sentences did not result simply from relieving the constraint of the one-year statutory maximum, as that sentence had been imposed on less than one percent of individuals. See J. Gallo, et al., Criminal Penalties under the Sherman Act: A Study in Law and Economics, in R. Zerbe, Jr., ed., 16 Research in Law and Economics 25, 56 (1994).

9. D. Baker, To Make the Penalty Fit the Crime: How to Sentence Antitrust Felons, remarks before the Tenth New England Antitrust Conference (20 November 1976), reprinted in 2 J. Clabault & M. Block, Sherman Act Indictments: 1955­1980, at 529 (1981). AAG Donald I. Baker argued that: "Antitrust price fixing is a serious crime. . . . It is a felony which should be discouraged by the certain imposition of substantial criminal sanctions." Id. at 537.

10. Guidelines for Sentencing: Recommendations in Felony Cases under the Sherman Act (24 February 1977), reprinted in Clabault & Block, supra note 9, at 549 (1981).

11. Id. at 554­56. The parole system then in effect was abolished in the 1980s as part of the reforms associated with the Sentencing Guidelines, discussed infra at notes 16­18.

12. United States v. Alton Box Board Co. , 1977-1 Trade Cases (CCH) ¶ 61,336 (N.D. Ill. 1977). The case was governed by the original misdemeanor statute.

13. Id. at 71,166­67.

14. Id. at 71,184­85.

15. See Gallo et al., supra note 6, at 124­25.

16. United States Sentencing Commission, Sentencing Guidelines and Policy Statements (13 April 1987), reprinted at 52 Federal Register 18,046 (1987).

17. See J. Parker, Criminal Sentencing Policy for Organizations: The Unifying Approach of Optimal Penalties, 26 American Criminal Law Review 513 (1989).

18. On the development and evolution of the sentencing guideline for antitrust, see A.M. Herron, The Antitrust Sentencing Guidelines: Deterring Crime by Clarifying the Volume of Commerce Muddle, 51 Emory Law Journal 929, 931­43 (2002).

19. At the time, the Sherman Act provided for a maximum corporate fine of $10 million. Higher fines were possible under a 1984 law applicable to all federal crimes providing that "[i]f any person derives pecuniary gain from the offense, or if the offense results in pecuniary loss to a person other than the defendant, the defendant may be fined not more than the greater of twice the gross gain or twice the gross loss, unless imposition of a fine under this subsection would unduly complicate or prolong the sentencing process." 18 U.S.C. § 3571(d). A current list of the largest Sherman Act fines on business enterprises is available on the Antitrust Division's website at http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/public/criminal/225540.htm.

20. 15 U.S.C. § 1, as amended by Public Law 108-237, Title II, § 215(a), 118 Stat. 668. The maximum fine on an individual was increased to $1 million, and the maximum fine on a corporation was increased to $100 million. Fines can exceed this statutory maximum, however, under the provisions of 18 U.S.C. § 3571(d), set out in note 19.

21. The Antitrust Division prosecutes non-antitrust criminal offenses such as bribery, wire fraud, and obstruction of justice that are uncovered in investigations of cartel activity.

22. Judge Posner has questioned the deterrent effect of the prison sentence for cartel activity on the basis that it had been "imposed so rarely." R. Posner, Antitrust Law 270­71 (2d ed. 2001). The latest statistics, however, greatly undermine the basis of his argument.

23. What I refer to as "cartel activity" is often termed "hard-core cartel conduct." See International Competition Network, Building Blocks for Effective Anti-Cartel Regimes, Defining Hard Core Cartel Conduct--Effective Institutions--Effective Penalties 9­12 (2005); Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development (OECD), Recommendation of the Council Concerning Effective Action Against Hard Core Cartels (adopted 25 March 1998), reprinted in OECD, Hard Core Cartels 57­60 (2000).

24. On the definition and proof of such an agreement, G. Werden, Economic Evidence on the Existence of Collusion: Reconciling Antitrust Law with Oligopoly Theory, 71 Antitrust Law Journal 719 (2004).

25. See G. Werden, Antitrust Analysis of Joint Ventures: An Overview, 66 Antitrust Law Journal 701, 712­15 (1998).

26. See id. at 714.

27. See G. Werden, The Ancillary Restraints Doctrine after Dagher , 8 Sedona Conference Journal 17 (2007).

28. See G. Calabresi & A.D. Melamed, Property Rules, Liability Rules, and Inalienability: One View of the Cathedral, 85 Harvard Law Review 1089, 1124­27 (1972).

29. On the differing treatments of crimes and torts, and the distinction between optimal sanctions and optimal taxes, see J. Coffee, Jr., Paradigms Lost: The Blurring of the Criminal and Civil Law Models--And What Can Be Done About It, 101 Yale Law Journal 1875, 1876­77, 1882­87 (1992); R. Cooter, Prices and Sanctions, 84 Columbia Law Review 1523 (1984); S. Shavell, The Optimal Use of Nonmonetary Sanctions as a Deterrent, 77 American Economic Review 584, 590 (1987).

30. See R. Posner, An Economic Theory of Criminal Law, 85 Columbia Law Review 1193, 1215 (1985). This approach is advocated in the context of competition law by W. Wils, Optimal Antitrust Fines: Theory and Practice, 29 World Competition 183, 191­92 (2006). However, Wils relies on doubtful rationale for the approach--that the goal of competition policy is "to prevent wealth transfers from consumers to producers," and he goes too far by advocating this approach for more than cartel activity.

31. See, e.g., D. Baker & B. Reeves, The Paper Label Sentences: Critiques, 86 Yale Law Journal 619, 619­21 (1977); C. Renfrew, The Paper Label Sentence: An Evaluation, 86 Yale Law Journal 590, 592­93 (1977). See generally B. Fisse, Reconstructing Corporate Criminal Law: Deterrence, Retribution, Fault, and Sanctions, 56 Southern California Law Review 1141 (1983) (arguing in general that deterrence and retribution are the goals of criminal sanctions on business enterprises).

32. See A. Klevorick, Legal Theory and Economic Analysis of Torts and Crimes, 85 Columbia Law Review 905, 909 (1985) (arguing that "a coherent explanation of the criminal category necessitates answers to noneconomic questions about political legitimacy and authority, about the rights of individuals and the power of the state, about the political, moral, and legal constraints on the exercise of rights and powers").

33. See M. Monti, The New Shape of European Competition Policy (20 Nov. 2003), available at http://www.jftc.go.jp/cprc/sympo/2003sympo/agenda25.pdf; Opening Speech at First OECD Global Forum on Competition (17 Oct. 2001), available at http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/0/49/2434501.pdf.

34. See D. Baker, The Use of Criminal Law Remedies to Deter and Punish Cartels and Bid-Rigging, 69 George Washington Law Review 693, 694 (2001) ("the United States did not arrive at the point it has--with potential criminal liability and jail time as serious deterrents--quickly or easily").

35. City of Lafayette, Louisiana v. Louisiana Power & Light Co. , 435 U.S. 389, 398 (1978). See also Northern Pacific Railway Co. v. United States , 356 U.S. 1, 4 (1958) ("The Sherman Act was designed to be a comprehensive charter of economic liberty aimed at preserving free and unfettered competition as the rule of trade.").

36. A European commentator recently observed that cartel activity "aims to undermine and destroy a fundamental economic and political philosophy of Western democracies, i.e. free market capitalism, and thus arguably violates prevailing mores." See P. Whelan, A Principled Argument for Personal Criminal Sanctions as Punishment under EC Cartel Law, 4 Competition Law Review 7, 29 (2007). The sociologist who coined the term "white collar crime" argued more than a half century ago that: "The Sherman Antitrust Law . . . represents a settled tradition in favor of competition and free enterprise. . . . A violation of the antitrust laws is a violation of strongly entrenched moral sentiments." E. Sutherland, White Collar Crime 45 (1949).

37. See Scott, supra note 1, at 69­73, 76­77. Canadian law currently authorizes prison sentences for individuals of up to five years. Competition Act of 1985, §§ 45, 47, available at http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/ShowFullDoc/cs/C-34///en.

38. Competition (Amendment) Act, No. 19/1996, § 3, available at http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1996/en/act/pub/0019/index.html.

39. Competition Act, No. 14/2002, §§ 4, 6 & 8, available at http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2002/en/act/pub/0014/index.html.

40. See Competition Authority (Ireland), Annual Report 2007, at 7­9 (2008), available at http://www.tca.ie/controls/getimage.ashx?image_id=2041; see also M. Curtis & J. McNally, The Classic Cartel--Hatchback Sentence?, 4 Competition Law Review 41 (2007). The case was DPP v. Manning , and involved an agreement among Ford dealers to fix the selling prices of their cars.

41. Restrictive Trade Practices Act 5748 - 1988, §§ 2, 4 & 47 , available at http://www.antitrust.gov.il/Antitrust/en-S/LawandRegulations/RestrictiveTradePracticesLaw.htm.

42. See OECD, Hard Core Cartels: Third Report on the Implementation of the 1998 Council Recommendation 10 (2005), available at http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/58/1/35863307.pdf.

43. Enterprise Act, §§ 188­90, available at http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2002/ukpga_20020040_en_1. See generally Office of Fair Trading, The Cartel Offense (OFT 513, April 2003), available at http://www.oft.gov.uk/shared_oft/business_leaflets/enterprise_act/oft513.pdf.

44. The three individuals had pleaded guilty in a U.S. court, agreeing to be sentenced to prison terms of 30, 24, and 20 months, but the U.S. court deferred the imposition of sentence pending prosecution in the UK. On appeal in the UK, the sentences were reduced to those imposed in the U.S.

45. See T. Barnett, Criminal Enforcement of the Antitrust Laws: The U.S. Model, in B. Hawk, ed., 2006 Fordham Competition Law Institute 1, 3 (2007).

46. Under the Sherman Act, "the perpetrator's knowledge of the anticipated consequences [of cartel activity] is a sufficient predicate for a finding of [the requisite] criminal intent." See United States v. United States Gypsum Co. , 438 U.S. 422, 446 (1977).

47. See M. Block & J.G. Sidak, The Cost of Antitrust Deterrence: Why Not Hang a Price Fixer Now and Then, 68 Georgetown Law Review 1131, 1136­38 (1980) (ostensibly discussing sanctions for cartel activity but pointing to the potential for error only with respect to conduct other than cartel activity).

48. See F. Easterbrook, When Is it Worthwhile to Use Courts to Search for Exclusionary Conduct?, 2003 Columbia Business Law Review 345, 345 ("Aggressive, competitive conduct by any firm, even one with market power, is beneficial to consumers. Courts should prize and encourage it. Aggressive, exclusionary conduct is deleterious to consumers, and courts should condemn it. The big problem lies in this: competitive and exclusionary conduct look alike.").

49. See W. Wils, Is Criminalization of EU Competition Law the Answer?, in K. Cseres, M.P. Schinkel & F. Vogelaar, eds., Criminalization of Competition Law Enforcement 60, 85 (2006) ("imprisonment is desirable" for cartel activity; for other violations of competition law, the risk of over deterrence "is much more substantial"). A significant possibility of over deterrence significantly alters the socially optimal sanctions under criminal law. See M. Block, Optimal Penalties, Criminal Law and the Control of Corporate Behavior, 71 Boston University Law Review 395 (1991); W. Schwartz, An Overview of the Economics of Antitrust Enforcement, 68 Georgetown Law Review 1075, 1079­83 (1980).

50. Price effects are good indicators of harm, but not necessarily good measures of harm. The principle shortcoming of price effects as measures of harm is that they ignore effects on quantities associated with effects on prices. If cartel activity increases prices by twenty percent, it likely reduces output by at least ten percent. The harm inflicted on customers includes the value they had derived from the purchases they longer make.

51. See J. Connor, Price-Fixing Overcharges: Legal and Economic Evidence, in J. Kirkwood, ed., 22 Research in Law and Economics 59 (2007).

52. See L. Froeb, R. Koyak & G. Werden, What is the Effect of Bid-Rigging on Prices?, 42 Economics Letters 419 (1993).

53. See L. Brannman & J.D. Klein, The Effectiveness and Stability of Highway Bid-Rigging, in D. Audretsch & J. Siegfried, eds., Empirical Studies in Industrial Organization: Essays in Honor of Leonard W. Weiss 61 (1992).

54. See R. Porter & J.D. Zona, Ohio School Milk Markets: An Analysis of Bidding, 30 RAND Journal of Economics 263 (1999).

55. See R. Lanzillotti, The Great School Milk Conspiracies of the 1980s, 11 Review of Industrial Organization 413 (1996); I. Lee, Non-Cooperative Tacit Collusion, Complementary Bidding and Incumbency Premium, 15 Review of Industrial Organization 115 (1999); M. Pesendorfer, A Study of Collusion in First-Price Auctions, 67 Review of Economic Studies 381 (2000).

56. See J. Nelson, Comparative Antitrust Damages in Bid-Rigging Cases: Some Findings from a Used Vehicle Auction, 38 Antitrust Bulletin 369 (1993).

57. See J. Kwoka, The Price Effect of Bidding Conspiracies: Evidence from Real Estate "Knockouts," 42 Antitrust Bulletin 503 (1997).

58. See J. Connor, Global Price Fixing: Our Customers are the Enemies 157­58, 264, 336 (2001).

59. See S. Evenett, M. Levenstein & V. Suslow, International Cartel Enforcement: Lessons from the 1990s, 24 The World Economy 1221, 1226 (2001). See also G. Werden & M. Simon, Why Price Fixers Should Go to Prison, 32 Antitrust Bulletin 917, 925 (1987) (average duration of cartel activity alleged in indictments handed down in the U.S. during 1975­80 was just over six years).

60. For this purpose, I use the formula provided by M. Motta, On Cartel Deterrence and Fines in the European Union, 2008 European Competition Law Review 209, 219. I assume the price but for the cartel price reflects a 100 percent mark up over marginal cost and the elasticity of demand is 0.7. Under these assumptions, the increase in profit from the cartel activity is 57 percent of the "overcharge," which is ten percent of turnover, given the assumed price increase. These assumptions, and the others I make, are more conservative that those made by Motta.

61. I assume an interest rate of six percent compounded continuously. An income stream of x for six years, plus two additional years of interest, in the end, is worth 9.2 x .

62. Leniency programs, discussed below, can significantly reduce the fine necessary to deter. See P. Buccirossi & G. Spagnolo, Optimal Fines in the Era of Whistleblowers: Should Price Fixers Still Go to Prison, in V. Ghosal & J. Stennek, The Political Economy of Antitrust 81 (2007).

63. The study found that the average duration of cartel activity was 6.6 years and that median monetary sanctions was 4.9 percent the total turnover affected by the cartel activity over its lifetime. See Y. Bolotova & J. Connor, Cartel Sanctions: An Empirical Analysis (unpublished paper, 3 April 2008), available at http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1116421. The study also estimated the median price increase from the cartel activity to have been 27.0 percent, which suggests that the fine necessary for deterrence is far more than twice annual turnover.

64. See, e.g., R. Posner, Economic Analysis of Law 223­24 (7th ed. 2007); G. Becker, Crime and Punishment: An Economic Approach, 76 Journal of Political Economy 169 (1969); K. Elzinga & W. Breit, Antitrust Penalties and Attitudes Toward Risk: An Economic Analysis, 86 Harvard Law Review 693 (1973); R. Posner, Optimal Sentences for White-Collar Criminals, 17 American Criminal Law Review 409 (1980).

65. Significant technical objections to this assertion are based attitudes toward risk. See M. Block & R. Lind, An Economic Analysis of Crimes Punishable by Imprisonment, 4 Journal of Legal Studies 479 (1975); M. Block & R. Lind, Crime and Punishment Reconsidered, 4 Journal of Legal Studies 241 (1975); J. Coffee, Corporate Crime and Punishment: A Non-Chicago View of the Economics of Criminal Sanctions, 17 American Criminal Law Review 419, 423­26 (1980).

66. See R. Posner, An Economic Theory of Criminal Law, 85 Columbia Law Review 1193, 1201­08 (1985); S. Shavell, Criminal Law and the Optimal Use of Nonmonetary Sanctions as a Deterrent, 85 Columbia Law Review 1232 (1985).

67. A study focusing on U.S. criminal antitrust cases during 1955­93 found that only 18 percent of the enterprise defendants had sufficient cash and short-term investments to pay an "optimal fine" calculated much as the figure in the previous section. C. Craycraft, J. Craycraft & J. Gallo, Antitrust Sanctions and a Firm's Ability to Pay, 12 Review of Industrial Organization 171 (1997). The percentage would have been lower had the study not omitted all defendants for which financial data were not readily available.

68. The total turnover for all U.S. corporations filing tax returns for the 2005 was $21.8 trillion, while their net worth was $23.5 trillion and their cash was $2.8 trillion. These data are from the Statistics of Income annually released by the U.S. Internal Revenue Service and made available through its website at http://www.irs.gov/taxstats/.

69. See J. Coffee, Jr., "No Soul to Damn: No Body to Kick": An Unscandalized Inquiry into the Problem of Corporate Punishment, 79 Michigan Law Review 386, 389­93, 401­02 (1981); R. Kraakman, Corporate Liability Strategies and the Costs of Legal Controls, 93 Yale Law Journal 857, 882­83 (1984); Wils, supra note 30, at 1970.

70. See Guidelines on the method of setting fines imposed pursuant to Article 23(2)(a) of Regulation No. 1/2003, O.J. C 210/2, para. 35 (1 Sept. 2006) (allowing fines to be reduced on the basis of "inability to pay" if the fine otherwise "would irretrievably jeopardize the economic viability of the undertaking concerned"); United States Sentencing Commission, Federal Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 8C3.3 (2007) (allowing fines to be reduced on the basis of ability to pay but "not be more than necessary to avoid substantially jeopardizing the continued viability of the organization.")

71. Long before the first published economic analysis of crime, President Woodrow Wilson, who had taught economics at Princeton University, argued in a statement to Congress on competition law that "penalties and punishments should fall not upon business itself, to its confusion and interruption, but upon the individuals who use the instrumentalities of business to do things which public policy and sound business practice condemn." 51 Congressional Record 1963 (1914).

72. Baker & Reeves, supra note 31, at 621­22 (citing experience from cartel cases in the United States). See A. Linman, The Paper Label Sentences: A Critique, 86 Yale Law Journal 630, 630­31 (1977) ("To the businessman . . . prison is the inferno, and conventional risk-reward analysis breaks down when the risk is jail.").

73. T. Barnett, Seven Steps to Better Cartel Enforcement, speech at the 11th annual Competition Law & Policy Workshop, European Union Institute (2 June 2006), available at http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/public/speeches/216453.pdf.

74. An empirical analysis of criminal cases brought by the Antitrust Division found that criminal antitrust violations tend to be "perpetrated by individuals who gain personally from committing them" because they "have ownership interests" in their firms, which "are likely to be small and have limited assets." J. Joyce, The Effect of Firm Organizational Structure on Price-Fixing Deterrence, Contemporary Policy Issues, October 1989, at 19, 34. Since this study, however, the focus of criminal antitrust enforcement in the United States has shifted to major international cartels.

75. See S. Hammond, Charting New Waters in International Cartel Prosecutions, speech at the 20th annual National Institute on White Collar Crime (2 March 2006) ("We have first-hand accounts from cartel members of how the presence or absence of individual sanctions has directly resulted in actual deterrence and continued competition in the U.S. market and failed deterrence, collusion, and great financial harm in foreign markets."), available at http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/public/speeches/214861.htm.

76. See, e.g., OECD, supra note 42, at 26 ("Individual sanctions can strengthen the incentive of directors and employees to resist corporate pressure to engage in unlawful activity, and thus enhance the level of deterrence."); R. Blair, A Suggestion for Improved Antitrust Enforcement, 30 Antitrust Bulletin 433, 436­38 (1985).

77. See, e.g., P. Bucy, Indemnification of Corporate Executives Who Have Been Convicted of Crimes: An Assessment and Proposal, 24 Indiana Law Review 279 (1991).

78. See OECD, supra note 42, at 26 ("It is widely believed that corporate sanctions in the form of fines are almost never sufficiently high to be an optimal deterrent, and that the threat of individual sanctions can be an important complement to corporate, financial sanctions."); Bolotova & Connor, supra note 63.

79. See P. Buccirossi & G. Spagnolo, Corporate Governance and Collusive Behavior, in 2 ABA Section of Antitrust Law, Issues in Competition Law and Policy 1219 (W.D. Collins ed., 2008); A.M. Polinsky & S. Shavell, Should Employees Be Subject to Fines and Imprisonment Given the Existence of Corporate Liability, 13 International Journal of Law and Economics 239 (1993). President Woodrow Wilson, who had taught economics at Princeton University, argued in a statement to Congress on competition law: "Every act of business is done at the command or upon the initiative of some ascertainable person or group of persons. These should be held individually responsible and the punishment should fall upon them, not upon the business organization of which they make illegal use." 51 Congressional Record 1963 (1914).

80. See Coffee, supra note 69, at 393­400. See also C. Alexander & M. Cohen, Why Do Corporations Become Criminals? Ownership, Hidden Actions, and Crime as an Agency Cost, 5 Journal of Corporate Finance 1 (1999) (empirical evidence interpreted as supporting this explanation for corporate crime).

81. Enormous salaries for executives in large business enterprises helps deter criminal activity by making the termination of employment as a consequence of such activity into a more significant sanction. See S. Shavell, The Optimal Level of Corporate Liability Given the Limited Ability of Corporations to Penalize their Employees, 17 International Journal of Law and Economics 203 (1977).

82. See B. Kobayashi, Antitrust, Agency, and Amnesty: An Economic Analysis of the Criminal Enforcement of the Antitrust Laws, 69 George Washington Law Review 715, 735­39 (2001).

83. See 1 W. Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England 476 (1771) ("A corporation cannot commit treason or felony, or other crime, in it's corporate capacity: though it's members may, in their distinct individual capacities.").

84. See New York Central and Hudson River Railroad Co. v. United States , 212 U.S. 481, 492­94 (1909); H. Edgerton, Corporate Criminal Responsibility, 36 Yale Law Journal 827 (1927).

85. See D. Fischel & A. Sykes, Corporate Crime, 25 Journal of Legal Studies 319 (1996).

86. Barnett, supra note 73. See also Baker, supra note 34, at 709 (individuals not subject to sanctions "have little incentive to work hard to recall awkward facts about meetings and understandings"). In the United States, substantial assistance to authorities in investigating or prosecuting another person is an explicit basis for a downward departure from the guideline sentence. See United States Sentencing Commission, Federal Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 5K1.1 (2007).

87. Antitrust Division, U.S. Department of Justice, Corporate Leniency Policy (10 August 1993), available at http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/public/guidelines/0091.pfd.

88. The effects of these programs are detailed in nontechnical terms by G. Spagnolo, Leniency and Whistleblowers in Antitrust, in P. Buccirossi, ed., Handbook of Antitrust Economics 259 (2008); C. Leslie, Antitrust Amnesty, Game Theory, and Cartel Stability, 31 Journal of Corporation Law 453 (2006). A technical treatment is provided by J. Harrington, Optimal Corporate Leniency Programs, 56 Journal of Industrial Economics 215 (2008).

89. See P. Massey, Criminalization and Leniency: Will the Combination Favourably Affect Cartel Stability?, in K. Cseres, M.P. Schinkel & F. Vogelaar, eds., Criminalization of Competition Law Enforcement 176, 189 (2006) ("Unless the risk of imprisonment is perceived to be real, criminal sanctions are unlikely to enhance the effectiveness of leniency programmes."); S. Hammond, Cornerstones of an Effective Leniency Program, speech at the ICN Workshop on Leniency Programs (November 2004), available at http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/public/speeches/206611.pdf ("Individuals stand the most to lose and so avoiding jail sentences is the greatest incentive for seeking amnesty.").

90. See OECD, supra note 42, at 26 ("sanctions against individuals also can increase the effectiveness of leniency programmes as they are a powerful incentive for individuals to reveal information about existing cartels and to cooperate in investigations")

91. Antitrust Division, U.S. Department of Justice, Individual Leniency Policy (10 August 1994), available at http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/public/guidelines/0092.pfd.

92. Making sanctions proportionate to severity is essential to maintain a deterrent effect at the margin. See G. Stigler, The Optimum Enforcement of Laws, 78 Journal of Political Economy 526, 527­28 (1970).

93. See Whelan, supra note 36, at 12.

94. See generally W. Schwartz & G. Tullock, The Costs of a Legal System, 4 Journal of Legal Studies 75 (1975).

95. See United States Sentencing Commission, Federal Sentencing Guidelines Manual part R (2007). The Guidelines provide that the base fine for a business enterprise is 20 percent of its affected turnover. The minimum fine is then calculated by multiplying the base fine by a number between 0.75 and 2, which is derived from a "culpability score." Id. §§ 2R1.1(d), 8C2.5, 8C2.6. The maximum fine is twice the minimum fine. Base prison sentences for individuals are based on specified ranges of affected turnover. Id. § 2R1.1(b), ch. 5.

96. The freedom of judges to depart from the Sentencing Guidelines is a recent development resulting from decisions of the Supreme Court, especially United States v. Booker , 543 U.S. 220 (2005).

97. Northern Pacific Railway Co. v. United States , 356 U.S. 1, 4 (1958).

 

A famous example is that OJ was tried twice, once on a criminal action for murder where he was acquitted, and once for a wrongful death suit, which he was found liable for.

Answer

Civil law pertains to non criminal charges such as a person owes someone a debt and hasn't paid, a landlord taking a tenant to court to get any rent due, etc. Criminal law deals with criminal activities such as D.W.I.'s, robberies, assaults, etc.wih criminal laws you have to prove beyond reasonable doubt and with civil you have to prove preponderance of evidence.

Answer

criminal laws are laws that seek to prevent people frok deliberately or recklessly harming each other or each other's property civil laws seek to prevent disputes between individuals, organizations, or governments, in which no criminal laws have been broken

Answer
In criminal law the burden of proof is that guilt must be shown beyond all reasonable doubt . Whiles in civil law the burden of proof is that liability must be shown on the balance of probabilities.

Agency Rule List - Fall 2010

Environmental Protection Agency

EPA/ROSANFRAN Final Rule Stage Regulation To Establish No Discharge Zone in California State Waters Under CWA 312(f)(4)(A) 2009-AA04
EPA/OGC Proposed Rule Stage Revision of Procedural Rules for Hearings on Cancellations, Suspensions, Changes in Classifications, and Denials of Pesticide Registrations 2015-AA00
EPA/OGC Final Rule Stage Supplemental Standards of Ethical Conduct for Employees of the Environmental Protection Agency 2015-AA01
EPA/OECA Proposed Rule Stage NPDES Electronic Reporting Rule 2020-AA47
EPA/OECA Long-Term Actions Technical Corrections to Title 40 To Conform to the Civil Monetary Penalty Inflation Adjustment Rule 2020-AA49
EPA/OEI Proposed Rule Stage TRI; Response to Petition To Delete Acetonitrile From the Toxics Release Inventory List of Toxic Chemicals 2025-AA19
EPA/OEI Proposed Rule Stage Clarify TRI Reporting Obligations Under EPCRA Section 313 for Metal Mining Activities 2025-AA11
EPA/OEI Final Rule Stage TRI: Intent to Consider Lifting Administrative Stay Regarding Hydrogen Sulfide Reporting Requirements; Opportunity for Public Comment 2025-AA27
EPA/OEI Final Rule Stage Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) Articles Exemption Clarification Rule 2025-AA24
EPA/OEI Long-Term Actions TRI; Response to Petition To Delete Chromium, Antimony, Titanate From the Metal Compound Categories Listed on the Toxics Release Inventory 2025-AA16
EPA/OEI Long-Term Actions TRI; Response to Petition To Add Diisononyl Phthalate to the Toxics Release Inventory List of Toxic Chemicals 2025-AA17
EPA/OEI Completed Actions Toxics Release Inventory; Addition of National Toxicology Program Carcinogens 2025-AA28
EPA/WATER Prerule Stage Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Centralized Waste Treatment Industry 2040-AF18
EPA/WATER Prerule Stage National Primary Drinking Water Regulations; Arsenic and Clarifications to Compliance and New Source Contaminants Monitoring 2040-AF24
EPA/WATER Proposed Rule Stage Stormwater Regulations Revision To Address Discharges From Developed Sites 2040-AF13
EPA/WATER Proposed Rule Stage Water Quality Standards Regulatory Clarifications 2040-AF16
EPA/WATER Proposed Rule Stage National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Application and Program Updates Rule 2040-AF25
EPA/WATER Proposed Rule Stage Criteria and Standards for Cooling Water Intake Structures 2040-AE95
EPA/WATER Proposed Rule Stage NPDES Permit Requirements for Municipal Sanitary and Combined Sewer Collection Systems, Municipal Satellite Collection Systems, Sanitary Sewer Overflows, and Peak Excess Flow Treatment Facilities 2040-AD02
EPA/WATER Proposed Rule Stage Amendment to Effluent Guidelines for Primary Aluminum Smelting Subcategory of the Nonferrous Metals Manufacturing Point Source Category 2040-AF12
EPA/WATER Proposed Rule Stage Regulations for Gray and Black Water Discharges From Cruise Ships Operating in Certain Alaskan Waters 2040-AD89
EPA/WATER Proposed Rule Stage National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit Regulations for New Dischargers and the Appropriate Use of Offsets With Regard to Water Quality Permitting 2040-AF17
EPA/WATER Proposed Rule Stage Water Quality Standards for the State of Florida's Estuaries and Coastal Waters 2040-AF21
EPA/WATER Proposed Rule Stage Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFO) Information Collection Request Rule 2040-AF22
EPA/WATER Proposed Rule Stage Withdrawal of Certain Federal Aquatic Life Water Quality Criteria Applicable to Wisconsin 2040-AF23
EPA/WATER Proposed Rule Stage Revisions to the Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Regulation (UCMR 3) for Public Water Systems 2040-AF10
EPA/WATER Final Rule Stage Water Quality Standards (Numeric Nutrient Criteria) for Florida's Lakes and Flowing Waters 2040-AF11
EPA/WATER Final Rule Stage Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for Airport Deicing Operations 2040-AE69
EPA/WATER Final Rule Stage Guidelines Establishing Test Procedures for the Analysis of Pollutants Under the Clean Water Act; Analysis and Sampling Procedures 2040-AF09
EPA/WATER Final Rule Stage National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Use of Sufficiently Sensitive Test Methods for Permit Applications and Reporting 2040-AC84
EPA/WATER Final Rule Stage 2010 Effluent Guidelines Program Plan 2040-AF06
EPA/WATER Final Rule Stage Federal Requirements Under the Underground Injection Control (UIC) Program for Carbon Dioxide (CO2) Geologic Sequestration (GS) Wells 2040-AE98
EPA/WATER Long-Term Actions Development of Best Management Practices for Recreational Boats Under Section 312(o) of the Clean Water Act 2040-AF03
EPA/WATER Long-Term Actions Oil and Gas Construction Stormwater Rule 2040-AF05
EPA/WATER Long-Term Actions Test Procedures for the Analysis of Co-Planar and Mono-Ortho-Substituted Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) Under the Clean Water Act 2040-AD09
EPA/WATER Long-Term Actions Uniform National Discharge Standards for Vessels of the Armed Forces—Phase II 2040-AD39
EPA/WATER Long-Term Actions Statement of Policy -- NPDES Permit Requirements for Peak Wet Weather Discharges From Publicly Owned Treatment Work Treatment Plants Serving Sanitary Sewer Collection Systems 2040-AD87
EPA/WATER Long-Term Actions Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for Chlorine and Chlorinated Hydrocarbon Manufacturing Process 2040-AE82
EPA/WATER Long-Term Actions Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Generating Point Source Category 2040-AF14
EPA/WATER Long-Term Actions Revised Regulations for Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs) in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed 2040-AF20
EPA/WATER Long-Term Actions National Primary Drinking Water Regulations for Lead and Copper: Regulatory Revisions 2040-AF15
EPA/WATER Long-Term Actions National Primary Drinking Water Regulations: Radon 2040-AA94
EPA/WATER Long-Term Actions National Primary Drinking Water Regulations: Aldicarb 2040-AC13
EPA/WATER Long-Term Actions Underground Injection Control: Update of State Programs 2040-AD40
EPA/WATER Long-Term Actions National Secondary Drinking Water Regulations (NSDWR): Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether (MTBE) and Technical Corrections to the NSDWR 2040-AD54
EPA/WATER Long-Term Actions National Primary Drinking Water Regulations: Revisions to the Total Coliform Rule 2040-AD94
EPA/WATER Long-Term Actions Perchlorate Regulatory Determination 2040-AF08
EPA/WATER Long-Term Actions Shore Protection Act, Section 4103(b) Regulations 2040-AB85
EPA/WATER Completed Actions Guidance for Implementing the Methylmercury Water Quality Criterion 2040-AE87
EPA/WATER Completed Actions National Primary Drinking Water Regulations: Radionuclides 2040-AF19
EPA/SWER Proposed Rule Stage Financial Responsibility Requirements Under CERCLA Section 108(b) for Facilities in the Chemical, Petroleum and Electric Power Industries 2050-AG56
EPA/SWER Proposed Rule Stage Financial Responsibility Requirements Under CERCLA Section 108(b) for Classes of Facilities in the Hard Rock Mining Industry 2050-AG61
EPA/SWER Proposed Rule Stage National Priorities List for Uncontrolled Hazardous Waste Sites: Proposed and Final Rules 2050-AD75
EPA/SWER Proposed Rule Stage Emergency Planning and Community Right-To-Know Act: Modification to the Threshold Planning Quantity Methodology for the Extremely Hazardous Substances That Are Solids in Solution 2050-AF08
EPA/SWER Proposed Rule Stage Hazardous Chemical Reporting; Community Right-To-Know: Revisions to the Emergency and Hazardous Chemical Inventory Forms (Tier I and Tier II) 2050-AG64
EPA/SWER Proposed Rule Stage Hazardous Waste Management Systems: Identification and Listing of Hazardous Waste: Carbon Dioxide (CO2) Injectate in Geological Sequestration Activities 2050-AG60
EPA/SWER Proposed Rule Stage Revising Underground Storage Tank Regulations--Revisions to Existing Requirements and Additions To Incorporate the Provisions of the Energy Policy Act 2050-AG46
EPA/SWER Final Rule Stage Oil Pollution Prevention: Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure Rule Requirements--Amendments for Milk Containers 2050-AG50
EPA/SWER Final Rule Stage Identification of Non-Hazardous Secondary Materials That Are Solid Wastes 2050-AG44
EPA/SWER Final Rule Stage Hazardous Waste Management System; Identification and Listing of Hazardous Waste; Removing Saccharin and Its Salts From the Lists of Hazardous Constituents, Hazardous Wastes, and Hazardous Substances 2050-AG55
EPA/SWER Final Rule Stage Hazardous Waste Technical Corrections and Clarifications Rule 2050-AG52
EPA/SWER Long-Term Actions Revisions to the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan; Subpart J Product Schedule Listing Requirements 2050-AE87
EPA/SWER Long-Term Actions Correction of Errors and Adjustment of CERCLA Reportable Quantities 2050-AF03
EPA/SWER Long-Term Actions National Contingency Plan Revisions To Align With the National Response Plan 2050-AG22
EPA/SWER Long-Term Actions Emergency Planning and Community Right-To-Know Act: Amendments and Streamlining Rule 2050-AG40
EPA/SWER Long-Term Actions Standards for the Management of Coal Combustion Residuals Generated by Commercial Electric Power Producers 2050-AE81
EPA/SWER Long-Term Actions Episodic Generation Rulemaking 2050-AG51
EPA/SWER Long-Term Actions Revisions to the Comprehensive Guideline for Procurement of Products Containing Recovered Materials 2050-AE23
EPA/SWER Long-Term Actions Management of Cement Kiln Dust (CKD) 2050-AE34
EPA/SWER Long-Term Actions Standards for the Safe and Environmentally Protective Placement of Coal Combustion Residuals as Minefill in Coal Mines Not Regulated Under the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act 2050-AG45
EPA/SWER Long-Term Actions Hazardous Waste Manifest Revisions—Standards and Procedures for Electronic Manifests 2050-AG20
EPA/SWER Long-Term Actions Amendment to the Universal Waste Rule: Addition of Pharmaceuticals 2050-AG39
EPA/SWER Long-Term Actions Modifications to RCRA Rules Associated With Solvent-Contaminated Industrial Wipes 2050-AE51
EPA/SWER Long-Term Actions Revisions to Land Disposal Restrictions Treatment Standards and Amendments to Recycling Requirements for Spent Petroleum Refining Hydrotreating and Hydrorefining Catalysts 2050-AG34
EPA/SWER Long-Term Actions RCRA Smarter Waste Reporting 2050-AF01
EPA/SWER Long-Term Actions RCRA Subtitle C Financial Test Criteria Regulatory Determination 2050-AC71
EPA/SWER Completed Actions Temporary Suspension of Certain Oil Spill Response Time Requirements to Support Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill of National Significance (SONS) Response 2050-AG63
EPA/SWER Completed Actions Accidental Release Prevention Requirements: Risk Management Programs Under the Clean Air Act; Availability of Information to the Public; Technical Amendment 2050-AE95
EPA/SWER Completed Actions SPCC Compliance Date Extension 2050-AG59
EPA/SWER Completed Actions Revise: Cooperative Agreements and Superfund State Contracts for Superfund Response Actions 2050-AG58
EPA/SWER Completed Actions Withdrawal of Expansion of RCRA Comparable Fuels Exclusion 2050-AG57
EPA/SWER Completed Actions Identifying the Universe of Government Research in Laboratories and Determining Student Involvement in Generating Laboratory Hazardous Waste 2050-AG54
EPA/AR Prerule Stage New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) Review Under CAA Section 111(b)(1)(B) 2060-AO60
EPA/AR Proposed Rule Stage Revision to Definition of Volatile Organic Compounds—Exclusion of Methyl Iodide 2060-AP22
EPA/AR Proposed Rule Stage Review of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Carbon Monoxide 2060-AI43
EPA/AR Proposed Rule Stage Review of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Particulate Matter 2060-AO47
EPA/AR Proposed Rule Stage Review of the Secondary National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Oxides of Nitrogen and Oxides of Sulfur 2060-AO72
EPA/AR Proposed Rule Stage Proposal to Revise the Interpollutant Trading Policy for PM2.5 Offsets 2060-AP72
EPA/AR Proposed Rule Stage New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) Review for Petroleum Refineries (Subpart J)—Response to Reconsideration—Other Issues 2060-AQ28
EPA/AR Proposed Rule Stage NESHAP Subpart W: Standards for Radon Emissions From Operating Uranium Mill Tailings: Review 2060-AP26
EPA/AR Proposed Rule Stage National VOC Emission Standards for Consumer Products; Amendments 2060-AI62
EPA/AR Proposed Rule Stage Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: Amending Requirements To Import Ozone-Depleting Substances for Destruction in the U.S. 2060-AN48
EPA/AR Proposed Rule Stage Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: Amendments to the Section 608 Leak Repair Regulations 2060-AM09
EPA/AR Proposed Rule Stage Measurement of PM 2.5 and PM 10 Emissions by Dilution Sampling 2060-AO50
EPA/AR Proposed Rule Stage NESHAP: Polyvinyl Chloride and Copolymers Production, Amendments 2060-AN33
EPA/AR Proposed Rule Stage Performance-Based Measurement System For Fuels: Criteria For Self-Qualifying Alternative Test Methods; Description of Optional Statistical Quality Control Measures 2060-AK03
EPA/AR Proposed Rule Stage NESHAP: Defense Land Systems and Miscellaneous Equipment 2060-AM84
EPA/AR Proposed Rule Stage Implementing Periodic Monitoring in Federal and State Operating Permit Programs 2060-AN00
EPA/AR Proposed Rule Stage Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources and Emission Guidelines for Existing Sources: Small Municipal Waste Combustors: Remand Response and Amendments 2060-AN17
EPA/AR Proposed Rule Stage NESHAP: Mercury Cell Chlor-Alkali Plants—Amendments 2060-AN99
EPA/AR Proposed Rule Stage National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Shipbuilding and Ship Repair (Surface Coating) Operations—Amendment 2060-AO03
EPA/AR Proposed Rule Stage Revision to Definition of Volatile Organic Compounds—Exclusion of Family of Four Hydrofluoropolyethers (HFPEs) and HFE-347pc-f 2060-AO17
EPA/AR Proposed Rule Stage Response to Request for Reconsideration of Final Air Emission MACT Rules for Large Municipal Waste Combustors (MWCs). 2060-AO18
EPA/AR Proposed Rule Stage Plywood and Composite Wood Products (PCWP) NESHAP—Proposed & Final Amendments to Address "No Emission Reduction" MACT Floors 2060-AO66
EPA/AR Proposed Rule Stage Adoption of International NOx Standard for Aircraft Engines 2060-AO70
EPA/AR Proposed Rule Stage NESHAP: Reinforced Plastic Composites Production Rule Amendments 2060-AP05
EPA/AR Proposed Rule Stage New Source Performance Standards for Grain Elevators—Amendments 2060-AP06
EPA/AR Proposed Rule Stage Regulation of Fuel and Fuel Additives: Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Test Methods (Alternative Test Method for Olefins in Gasoline) 2060-AP17
EPA/AR Proposed Rule Stage Implementation of the 2010 National Ambient Air Quality Standard for Ozone, Waiver of Stage II Vapor Recovery Requirements and Anti-Backsliding Requirements for the Section 185 Fee Program 2060-AP24
EPA/AR Proposed Rule Stage NSPS Equipment Leaks (Subpart VV SOCMI and GGG Petroleum Refineries); Amendments 2060-AP34
EPA/AR Proposed Rule Stage In-Use Emissions Testing for Nonroad Diesel Engines and Amendments to General Compliance Provisions for Nonroad Engines 2060-AP41
EPA/AR Proposed Rule Stage National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Coal- and Oil-Fired Electric Utility Steam Generating Units 2060-AP52
EPA/AR Proposed Rule Stage Control of Greenhouse Gas Emissions From Medium and Heavy-Duty Vehicles 2060-AP61
EPA/AR Proposed Rule Stage Emissions Factors Program Improvements 2060-AP63
EPA/AR Proposed Rule Stage Alternative Work Practices for Leak Detection and Repair, Amendments 2060-AP66
EPA/AR Proposed Rule Stage Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) and Nonattainment New Source Review (NSR): Reasonable Possibility in Recordkeeping; Reconsideration 2060-AP71
EPA/AR Proposed Rule Stage Oil and Natural Gas Sector—New Source Performance Standards, National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants, and Control Techniques Guidelines 2060-AP76
EPA/AR Proposed Rule Stage NESHAP Standard Standards for Petroleum Refineries—Heat Exchangers 2060-AP84
EPA/AR Proposed Rule Stage Federal Reference Method for Lead in Total Suspended Particulate Matter 2060-AP89
EPA/AR Proposed Rule Stage Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: The 2011 Critical Use Exemption From the Phaseout of Methyl Bromide 2060-AP92
EPA/AR Proposed Rule Stage Revision of New Source Performance Standards for New Residential Wood Heaters 2060-AP93
EPA/AR Proposed Rule Stage National VOC Emission Standards for Architectural Coatings; Amendments 2060-AP94
EPA/AR Proposed Rule Stage Malfunction Amendments to Part 63 Standards 2060-AP96
EPA/AR Proposed Rule Stage National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Elemental Phosphorous Production 2060-AP97
EPA/AR Proposed Rule Stage Revisions to Test Methods and Testing Regulations 2060-AQ01
EPA/AR Proposed Rule Stage Determination of Confidential Business Information Collected Under the GHG Mandatory Reporting Program 2060-AQ04
EPA/AR Proposed Rule Stage Revisions to In-Use Testing for Heavy-Duty Diesel Engines and Vehicles; Emissions Measurement and Instrumentation; Not-to-Exceed Emission Standards; and Technical Amendments for Off-Highway Engines 2060-AQ05
EPA/AR Proposed Rule Stage RACT Issues for Implementation of the 1997 PM2.5 and Ozone NAAQS 2060-AQ07
EPA/AR Proposed Rule Stage Review of New Source Performance Standards for Nitric Acid Plants—Subpart G 2060-AQ10
EPA/AR Proposed Rule Stage Regulation to Prevent the Misfueling of Vehicles and Engines With Gasoline Containing Greater Than Ten Volume Percent Ethanol and Modifications to the Reformulated and Conventional Gasoline Programs 2060-AQ17
EPA/AR Proposed Rule Stage Stationary Combustion Turbine NSPS Amendments to Address UARG Reconsideration Petition 2060-AQ29
EPA/AR Proposed Rule Stage New Source Performance Standards for Electric Utility and Industrial-Commercial-Institutional Steam Generating Units 2060-AQ37
EPA/AR Proposed Rule Stage Revision to Definition of Volatile Organic Compounds—Exclusion of trans 1,3,3,3-tetrafluoropropene and 2,3,3,3-tertrafluoropropene 2060-AQ38
EPA/AR Proposed Rule Stage Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: Extension of Global Laboratory and Analytical Use Exemption for Essential Class I Ozone Depleting Substances 2060-AQ39
EPA/AR Proposed Rule Stage NESHAP Risk and Technology Review for Pulp and Paper Industry and Chemical Recovery Combustion Sources, and NSPS Review for Kraft Pulp Mills 2060-AQ41
EPA/AR Proposed Rule Stage Risk and Technology Review NESHAP for Shipbuilding and Ship Repair (Surface Coating) and Wood Furniture Manufacturing 2060-AQ42
EPA/AR Proposed Rule Stage Residual Risk and Technology Review: Primary Lead Smelting 2060-AQ43
EPA/AR Proposed Rule Stage Review of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Lead 2060-AQ44
EPA/AR Proposed Rule Stage Direct Final Amending Monitoring Requirements of the New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) for Steam Generating Units 2060-AQ46
EPA/AR Proposed Rule Stage Revision to the Clean Air Fine Particle Implementation Rule 2060-AQ48
EPA/AR Proposed Rule Stage Technical Change to Dose Methodology 2060-AH90
EPA/AR Proposed Rule Stage Reconsideration of the Inclusion of Fugitive Emissions in the Prevention of Significant Deterioration and Nonattainment New Source Review 2060-AQ47
EPA/AR Final Rule Stage Waste Energy Recovery Registry 2060-AP14
EPA/AR Final Rule Stage Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources and Emissions Guidelines for Existing Sources: Hospital/Medical/Infectious Waste Incinerators; Amendments 2060-AQ24
EPA/AR Final Rule Stage Revision of Certain Provisions of the Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gases Rule 2060-AQ33
EPA/AR Final Rule Stage Air Quality Designations and Classifications for the 2008 Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards 2060-AP37
EPA/AR Final Rule Stage Review of New Sources and Modifications in Indian Country 2060-AH37
EPA/AR Final Rule Stage Implementation of the New Source Review Program for Particulate Matter Less Than 2.5 Micrometers--Repeal of Grandfathering Provision and End Early the PM10 Surrogate Policy 2060-AP75
EPA/AR Final Rule Stage Quality Assurance Requirements for Continuous Opacity Monitoring Systems 2060-AH23
EPA/AR Final Rule Stage NESHAP: General Provisions; Amendments for Pollution Prevention Alternative Compliance Requirements 2060-AK54
EPA/AR Final Rule Stage Amendment of Definitions for National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Pollutants for Radionuclides, Subparts H and I 2060-AO31
EPA/AR Final Rule Stage Modification of the Anti-Dumping Baseline Date Cut-Off Limit for Data Used in Development of an Individual Baseline 2060-AJ82
EPA/AR Final Rule Stage Component Durability Procedures for New Light Duty Vehicles, Light Duty Trucks & Heavy Duty Vehicles 2060-AN01
EPA/AR Final Rule Stage Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: Listing of Substitutes for Ozone-Depleting Substances: N-Propyl Bromide 2060-AK26
EPA/AR Final Rule Stage Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: Listing of Substitutes in the Motor Vehicle Air Conditioning Sector Under the Significant New Alternatives Policy (SNAP) Program 2060-AM54
EPA/AR Final Rule Stage Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: New Substitute in the Motor Vehicle Air Conditioning Sector Under the Significant New Alternatives Policy (SNAP) Program 2060-AP11
EPA/AR Final Rule Stage Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: Listing of Substitutes for Ozone-Depleting Substances-Hydrocarbon Refrigerants 2060-AP54
EPA/AR Final Rule Stage Addition of Method 208, Protocol for the Source Testing, Analysis, and Reporting of VOC Emissions From Hot Mix Asphalt Plant Dryers 2060-AO51
EPA/AR Final Rule Stage Revisions to Test Method for Determining Stack Gas Velocity Taking Into Account Velocity Decay Near the Stack Walls 2060-AP08
EPA/AR Final Rule Stage National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Appendix A—Test Methods; Amendments to Method 301 2060-AO53
EPA/AR Final Rule Stage Inspection/Maintenance Program Requirements for Federal Facilities; Amendment to the Final Rule 2060-AI97
EPA/AR Final Rule Stage Anti-Dumping Baseline Recalculation for Downstream Oxygenate Addition 2060-AK69
EPA/AR Final Rule Stage National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Area Sources: Industrial, Commercial, and Institutional Boilers 2060-AM44
EPA/AR Final Rule Stage Commercial and Industrial Solid Waste Incineration Units; Response to Remand of New Source Performance Standards and Emission Guidelines 2060-AO12
EPA/AR Final Rule Stage Methods for Measurement of Filterable PM10 and PM2.5 and Measurement of Condensable Particulate Matter Emissions From Stationary Sources 2060-AO58
EPA/AR Final Rule Stage NESHAP: Chromium Electroplating and Chromium Anodizing Tanks; Group I Polymers and Resins; Marine Tank Vessel Loading Operations; Pharmaceuticals Production; Printing and Publishing; and Steel Picklin 2060-AO91
EPA/AR Final Rule Stage Implementation of the 1997 8-Hr Ozone NAAQS: Classification of Subpart 1 Areas and Revision to Anti-Backsliding Provisions; Deletion of Obsolete 1-Hr Ozone Standard Provisions. 2060-AO96
EPA/AR Final Rule Stage Ambient Ozone Monitoring Regulations: Revisions to Network Design Requirements 2060-AP15
EPA/AR Final Rule Stage NESHAP: Gasoline Distribution; Amendments—Area Source Standard 2060-AP16
EPA/AR Final Rule Stage Restructuring of the Stationary Source Audit Program 2060-AP23
EPA/AR Final Rule Stage Implementation of the 1997 8-Hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard: NSR Anti-Backsliding 2060-AP30
EPA/AR Final Rule Stage National Emissions Standard for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Gold Mine Ore Processing 2060-AP48
EPA/AR Final Rule Stage Transport Rule (CAIR Replacement Rule) 2060-AP50
EPA/AR Final Rule Stage Transportation Conformity Rule Restructuring Amendments 2060-AP57
EPA/AR Final Rule Stage Clean Alternative Fuel Vehicle and Engine Conversions 2060-AP64
EPA/AR Final Rule Stage Compression Ignition Engine NSPS—Amendments 2060-AP67
EPA/AR Final Rule Stage Revision to Pb Ambient Air Monitoring Requirements 2060-AP77
EPA/AR Final Rule Stage Reconsideration of the Prevention of Significant Deterioration and Nonattainment New Source Review NSR: Aggregation 2060-AP80
EPA/AR Final Rule Stage Carbon Dioxide Injection and Geologic Sequestration Reporting Rule 2060-AP88
EPA/AR Final Rule Stage NSPS/Emission Guidelines (EG) for Sewage Sludge Incinerators 2060-AP90
EPA/AR Final Rule Stage Reconsideration of the 2008 Ozone Primary and Secondary National Ambient Air Quality Standards 2060-AP98
EPA/AR Final Rule Stage Petroleum and Natural Gas Systems Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule 2060-AP99
EPA/AR Final Rule Stage Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule for Additional Sources of Fluorinated GHGs 2060-AQ00
EPA/AR Final Rule Stage Corporate Parent and NAICS Code in the Greenhouse Gas Mandatory Reporting Rule Requirements 2060-AQ02
EPA/AR Final Rule Stage Amendments to the Protocol Gas Verification Program, and Minimum Competency Requirements for Air Emission Testing 2060-AQ06
EPA/AR Final Rule Stage Action to Ensure Authority to Issue Permits Under the Prevention of Significant Deterioration Program to Sources of Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Finding of Substantial Inadequacy and SIP Call 2060-AQ08
EPA/AR Final Rule Stage Revisions to Motor Vehicle Fuel Economy Label 2060-AQ09
EPA/AR Final Rule Stage 2011 Renewable Fuel Volume Standards as Required by Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA) 2060-AQ16
EPA/AR Final Rule Stage National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Major Sources: Industrial, Commercial, and Institutional Boilers and Process Heaters 2060-AQ25
EPA/AR Final Rule Stage Remaining Air Quality Designations for the 2006 24-Hour Fine Particle National Ambient Air Quality Standards 2060-AQ30
EPA/AR Final Rule Stage Regulation of Fuels and Fuel Additives: Modifications to Renewable Fuel Standard Program 2060-AQ31
EPA/AR Final Rule Stage Technical Corrections, Clarifying and Other Amendments to Certain Provisions of the Mandatory Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule 2060-AQ34
EPA/AR Final Rule Stage Supplemental Determinations for Renewable Fuels Produced Under the Final RFS2 Program From Palm Oil 2060-AQ36
EPA/AR Final Rule Stage Action to Ensure Authority to Issue Permits Under the "Prevention of Significant Deterioration Program to Sources of Greenhouse Gas Emissions" Federal Implementation Plan 2060-AQ45
EPA/AR Final Rule Stage Supplemental Determination for Renewable Fuels Produced Under the Final RFS2 Program From Pulpwood 2060-AQ49
EPA/AR Final Rule Stage Performance Specification 4C—Specifications and Test Procedures for Low-Level Carbon Monoxide Continuous Emission Monitoring Systems in Stationary Sources 2060-AQ51
EPA/AR Final Rule Stage Technical Corrections, Clarifying and Other Amendments to Certain Provisions of the Mandatory Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule 2060-AQ53
EPA/AR Final Rule Stage Revision of Hearing—Protector Regulations 2060-AO25
EPA/AR Long-Term Actions NESHAP: Group I and IV Polymers and Resins: Amendments 2060-AP25
EPA/AR Long-Term Actions Requirements for Reformulated Gasoline (RFG) Under the 8-Hour Ozone Standard for Bump-Up Areas Designated Attainment for the 1-Hour Ozone Standard Prior to Revocation 2060-AN63
EPA/AR Long-Term Actions Review of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Ozone 2060-AP38
EPA/AR Long-Term Actions Federal Plan Requirements for Other Solid Waste Incineration Units Constructed on or Before December 9, 2004 2060-AN43
EPA/AR Long-Term Actions Petroleum Refineries—New Source Performance Standards (NSPS)—Subparts J and Ja 2060-AN72
EPA/AR Long-Term Actions National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Stationary Combustion Turbines—Petition To Delist 2060-AK73
EPA/AR Long-Term Actions Petition to Delist Hazardous Air Pollutant: 4,4'-Methylene Diphenyl Diisocyanate 2060-AK84
EPA/AR Long-Term Actions Petition to Delist a Hazardous Air Pollutant From Section 112 of the Clean Air Act: Methyl Isobutyl Ketone (MIBK) 2060-AM20
EPA/AR Long-Term Actions Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: Process for Exempting Emergency Uses of Methyl Bromide 2060-AL94
EPA/AR Long-Term Actions Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: Certification of Recovery and Recovery/Recycling Equipment Intended for Use With Substitute Refrigerants 2060-AM49
EPA/AR Long-Term Actions Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: Modifications to the Technician Certification Requirements Under Section 608 of the Clean Air Act 2060-AM55
EPA/AR Long-Term Actions Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: Labeling of Products Using HCFCs 2060-AO68
EPA/AR Long-Term Actions Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: Revision to Listing of Carbon Dioxide Total Flooding Fire Extinguishing Systems Restricting Use to Only Unoccupied Areas 2060-AN30
EPA/AR Long-Term Actions NSPS: SOCMI--Wastewater and Amendments 2060-AE94
EPA/AR Long-Term Actions Performance Specifications for Continuous Parameter Monitoring Systems 2060-AJ86
EPA/AR Long-Term Actions Lifting the Stay of the Eight-Hour Portion of the Findings of Significant Contribution and Rulemaking for Purposes of Reducing Interstate Ozone Transport ("NOx SIP Call") 2060-AL84
EPA/AR Long-Term Actions NSPS for Municipal Solid Waste Landfills 2060-AM08
EPA/AR Long-Term Actions NESHAP: General Provisions (Once In Always In)—Amendments 2060-AM75
EPA/AR Long-Term Actions NESHAP: Taconite Iron Ore Processing; Amendments 2060-AM87
EPA/AR Long-Term Actions NESHAP: Site Remediation Amendments—Response to Litigation 2060-AN36
EPA/AR Long-Term Actions Improving Implementation of the Operating Permit Rules in Response to CAAA Committee Recommendations 2060-AN93
EPA/AR Long-Term Actions NESHAP: Miscellaneous Organic Chemical Manufacturing—Amendments 2060-AO07
EPA/AR Long-Term Actions Petroleum Refinery Residual Risk Standards 2060-AO55
EPA/AR Long-Term Actions Protection of the Stratospheric Ozone: Motor Vehicle Air Conditioning System Servicing 2060-AO75
EPA/AR Long-Term Actions Risk and Technology Review Phase II Group 3 2060-AO97
EPA/AR Long-Term Actions Prevention of Air Pollution Emergency Episodes 2060-AP00
EPA/AR Long-Term Actions Remand of Halogenated Solvent Cleaning Final Residual Risk Rule 2060-AP07
EPA/AR Long-Term Actions Response to Section 126 Petition From Warrick County, Indiana and the Town of Newburgh, Indiana 2060-AP21
EPA/AR Long-Term Actions Response to Section 126 Petition From North Carolina 2060-AP51
EPA/AR Long-Term Actions Response to Section 126 Petition From Delaware 2060-AP60
EPA/AR Long-Term Actions Implementing the 1997 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS: Section 185 Penalty Fee Provisions 2060-AP68
EPA/AR Long-Term Actions NESHAP: Brick and Structural Clay Products and Clay Products 2060-AP69
EPA/AR Long-Term Actions Lead Emissions From Piston-Engine Aircraft Using Leaded Aviation Gasoline 2060-AP79
EPA/AR Long-Term Actions Risk and Technology Review for Ferroalloys Production 2060-AQ11
EPA/AR Long-Term Actions Residual Risk and Technology Review Amendments to the Phosphoric Acid and Phosphate Fertilizer Production NESHAPs 2060-AQ20
EPA/AR Long-Term Actions Method 16C for the Determination of Total Reduced Sulfur Emissions From Stationary Sources 2060-AQ23
EPA/AR Long-Term Actions Residual Risk and Technology Review Amendments to the Secondary Aluminum Production NESHAP 2060-AQ40
EPA/AR Long-Term Actions Revision: Health and Environmental Protection Standards for Uranium and Thorium Mill Tailings and Uranium In Situ Leaching Processing Facilities 2060-AP43
EPA/AR Completed Actions Review of the Primary National Ambient Air Quality Standard for Sulfur Dioxide 2060-AO48
EPA/AR Completed Actions NESHAP: Portland Cement Notice of Reconsideration and NSPS for Portland Cement 2060-AO15
EPA/AR Completed Actions National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Area Source Standards for Paints and Allied Products Manufacturing; Direct Final 2060-AQ14
EPA/AR Completed Actions National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Area Source Standards for Prepared Feeds Manufacturing–Amendment 2060-AQ26
EPA/AR Completed Actions Revisions to the General Conformity Regulations 2060-AH93
EPA/AR Completed Actions Evaluation of Updated Test Procedures for the Certification of Gasoline Deposit Control Additives 2060-AJ61
EPA/AR Completed Actions Control of Emissions From New Marine Compression—Ignition Engines At or Above 30 Liters per Cylinder 2060-AO38
EPA/AR Completed Actions Review of New Source Performance Standards—Portland Cement 2060-AO42
EPA/AR Completed Actions Control of Air Pollution From New Motor Vehicles and New Motor Vehicle Engines: SAFETEA-LU HOV Facilities Rule 2060-AN68
EPA/AR Completed Actions Prevention of Significant Deterioration for PM2.5—Increments, Significant Impact Levels, and Significant Monitoring Concentrations 2060-AO24
EPA/AR Completed Actions Regulation of Fuels and Fuel Additives: Alternative Affirmative Defense Requirements for Ultra-Low Sulfur Diesel and Gasoline Benzene Technical Amendment 2060-AO71
EPA/AR Completed Actions National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Chromium Electroplating, Chromium Anodizing, and Steel Pickling Residual Risk and Technology Review 2060-AO92
EPA/AR Completed Actions Transportation Conformity PM2.5 and PM10 Amendments 2060-AP29
EPA/AR Completed Actions EPA/NHTSA Joint Rulemaking to Establish Light-Duty Greenhouse Gas Emission Standards and Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards 2060-AP58
EPA/AR Completed Actions Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: Allocation of Essential Use Allowances for Calendar Year 2010 2060-AP59
EPA/AR Completed Actions Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: The 2010 Critical Use Exemption From the Phaseout of Methyl Bromide 2060-AP62
EPA/AR Completed Actions Air Quality Designations for the 2008 Lead National Ambient Air Quality Standards 2060-AP78
EPA/AR Completed Actions Prevention of Significant Deterioration/Title V Greenhouse Gas Tailoring Rule 2060-AP86
EPA/AR Completed Actions Requirements for Control Technology Determinations for Major Sources in Accordance With Clean Air Act Sections, Sections 112(g) and 112(j) 2060-AP91
EPA/AR Completed Actions National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutant Emissions: Group I Polymers and Resins 2060-AP95
EPA/AR Completed Actions Regulation To Establish Mandatory Reporting of GHGs From Industrial Landfills, Wastewater, Underground Coal Mines, and Magnesium Production 2060-AQ03
EPA/AR Completed Actions Tier II Light-Duty Vehicle and Light-Duty Truck Emission Standards and Gasoline Sulfur Standards 2060-AQ12
EPA/AR Completed Actions National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines—Existing Stationary Spark Ignition (Gas-Fired) 2060-AQ13
EPA/AR Completed Actions Minor Harmonizing Changes to General Provisions of the GHG Mandatory Reporting Rule 2060-AQ15
EPA/AR Completed Actions Technical Amendments for Marine Spark-Ignition Engines and Vessels 2060-AQ18
EPA/AR Completed Actions Implementation of the New Source Review Program for Particulate Matter (PM) Less Than 2.5 Micrometers—Final Rule to End NSR Transition Period for Condensable PM 2060-AQ21
EPA/AR Completed Actions Supplemental Determination for Renewable Fuels Produced Under the Final RFS2 Program From Canola Oil 2060-AQ35
EPA/AR Completed Actions Reconsideration of the 2008 Secondary National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Ozone 2060-AQ50
EPA/AR Completed Actions Extension of Deadline for Action on Section 126 Petition From New Jersey 2060-AQ52
EPA/OCSPP Proposed Rule Stage Pesticides; Data Requirements for Plant-Incorporated Protectants (PIPs) and Certain Exemptions for PIPs 2070-AJ27
EPA/OCSPP Proposed Rule Stage Pesticides; Satisfaction of Data Requirements; Minor Revisions to the Procedures to Ensure Protection of Data Submitters' Rights 2070-AJ58
EPA/OCSPP Proposed Rule Stage Pesticides; Regulation to Clarify Labeling of Pesticides for Export 2070-AJ53
EPA/OCSPP Proposed Rule Stage Pesticides; Clarifying Changes to Labeling 2070-AJ61
EPA/OCSPP Proposed Rule Stage Regulations To Facilitate Compliance With the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act by Producers of Plant-Incorporated Protectants (PIPs) 2070-AJ32
EPA/OCSPP Proposed Rule Stage Synchronizing the Expiration Dates of EPA Pesticide Applicator Certificates With the Underlying State or Tribal Applicator Certificate 2070-AJ77
EPA/OCSPP Proposed Rule Stage Prions; Amendment of EPA's Regulatory Definition of Pests to Include Prion 2070-AJ26
EPA/OCSPP Proposed Rule Stage Pesticides; Reconsideration of Exemptions for Insect Repellents 2070-AJ45
EPA/OCSPP Proposed Rule Stage Pesticides; Revisions to Minimum Risk Exemptions 2070-AJ79
EPA/OCSPP Proposed Rule Stage Revisions to EPA's Rule on Protections for Subjects in Human Research Involving Pesticides 2070-AJ76
EPA/OCSPP Proposed Rule Stage Pesticides; Clarifications for Microbial Pesticide Definitions and Applicability 2070-AJ80
EPA/OCSPP Proposed Rule Stage Electronic Reporting of Chemical Import Data in the Automated Commercial Environment (ACE) 2070-AJ50
EPA/OCSPP Proposed Rule Stage TSCA Chemicals of Concern List Under Section 5(b)(4) of the Toxic Substances Control Act 2070-AJ70
EPA/OCSPP Proposed Rule Stage Short-Chained Chlorinated Paraffins (SCCPs); Significant New Use Rule (SNUR) 2070-AJ81
EPA/OCSPP Proposed Rule Stage Certain Polybrominated Diphenyl Ethers (PBDEs); Test Rule and Significant New Use Rule (SNUR) 2070-AJ08
EPA/OCSPP Proposed Rule Stage Electronic Reporting for Health and Safety Data Under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) 2070-AJ75
EPA/OCSPP Proposed Rule Stage Significant New Use Rule (SNUR); Benzidine-Based Dyes 2070-AJ78
EPA/OCSPP Proposed Rule Stage High Production Volume Chemicals; 4th Group of Chemicals; Test Rule and Significant New Use Rule 2070-AJ66
EPA/OCSPP Proposed Rule Stage TSCA Inventory Nomenclature for Enzymes and Proteins 2070-AJ04
EPA/OCSPP Proposed Rule Stage TSCA Inventory; Clarification for Chemical Identification Describing Statutory Mixtures, Including Ceramic Materials, Cements, and Frits for TSCA Inventory Purposes 2070-AJ68
EPA/OCSPP Proposed Rule Stage Mercury; Regulation of Use in Certain Products 2070-AJ46
EPA/OCSPP Proposed Rule Stage Mercury; Incorporation of Revised ASTM Standards Into EPA Regulations That Provide Flexibility in the Use of Alternatives to Mercury-Containing Thermometers 2070-AJ51
EPA/OCSPP Proposed Rule Stage Mercury; Significant New Use Rule; Elemental Mercury Used in Barometers, Manometers, and Hygrometers/Psychrometers 2070-AJ71
EPA/OCSPP Proposed Rule Stage Nanoscale Materials; Test Rule for Certain Nanoscale Materials 2070-AJ47
EPA/OCSPP Proposed Rule Stage Nanoscale Materials; Reporting Under TSCA Section 8(a) 2070-AJ54
EPA/OCSPP Proposed Rule Stage Nanoscale Materials; Significant New Use Rule (SNUR) 2070-AJ67
EPA/OCSPP Proposed Rule Stage Significant New Use Rule (SNUR); Di-n-pentyl Phthalate (DnPP) 2070-AJ73
EPA/OCSPP Proposed Rule Stage Significant New Use Rule for Glymes 2070-AJ52
EPA/OCSPP Proposed Rule Stage General Exemptions From Reporting Requirements for Microorganisms; Revisions of Recipient Organisms Eligible for Tier I and Tier II Exemptions 2070-AJ65
EPA/OCSPP Proposed Rule Stage TSCA Reporting Requirements; Minor Revisions 2070-AJ63
EPA/OCSPP Final Rule Stage Revision to Compliance Date for Pesticide Container/Containment Rule 2070-AJ74
EPA/OCSPP Final Rule Stage Pesticides; Data Requirements for Antimicrobials 2070-AD30
EPA/OCSPP Final Rule Stage Pesticides; Expansion of Crop Grouping Program 2070-AJ28
EPA/OCSPP Final Rule Stage Plant Incorporated Protectants (PIPs); Exemption for Those Derived Through Genetic Engineering From Sexually Compatible Plants 2070-AD55
EPA/OCSPP Final Rule Stage Plant Incorporated Protectants (PIPs); Exemption for PIPs That Act by Primarily Affecting the Plant 2070-AD56
EPA/OCSPP Final Rule Stage Groundwater and Pesticide Management Plan Rule 2070-AC46
EPA/OCSPP Final Rule Stage TSCA Inventory Update Reporting Modifications 2070-AJ43
EPA/OCSPP Final Rule Stage Lead; Clearance and Clearance Testing Requirements for the Renovation, Repair, and Painting Program 2070-AJ57
EPA/OCSPP Final Rule Stage Mercury Export Ban Act (MEBA); Essential Use Exemption Instructions 2070-AJ60
EPA/OCSPP Final Rule Stage Follow-Up Rules on Existing Chemicals 2070-AA58
EPA/OCSPP Final Rule Stage Significant New Use Rules (SNURs); Follow-Up Rules on Non-5(e) New Chemical Substances 2070-AA59
EPA/OCSPP Final Rule Stage Significant New Use Rule (SNUR); Chemical-Specific SNURs To Extend Provisions of Section 5(e) Orders 2070-AB27
EPA/OCSPP Final Rule Stage High Production Volume (HPV) Chemicals; Testing of Certain Chemicals 2070-AD16
EPA/OCSPP Long-Term Actions Pesticides; Data Requirements for Product Performance 2070-AJ49
EPA/OCSPP Long-Term Actions Pesticides; Tolerance Processing Fees 2070-AJ23
EPA/OCSPP Long-Term Actions Pesticides; Public Availability of Identities of Inert Ingredients in Pesticides 2070-AJ62
EPA/OCSPP Long-Term Actions Plant Incorporated Protectants (PIPs); Exemption for those Based on Viral Coat Protein Genes 2070-AD49
EPA/OCSPP Long-Term Actions Pesticides; Certification of Pesticide Applicators 2070-AJ20
EPA/OCSPP Long-Term Actions Pesticides; Agricultural Worker Protection Standard Revisions 2070-AJ22
EPA/OCSPP Long-Term Actions Pesticides; Registration Requirements for Antimicrobial Pesticide Products 2070-AD14
EPA/OCSPP Long-Term Actions Asbestos Model Accreditation Plan Revisions 2070-AC51
EPA/OCSPP Long-Term Actions Long-Chain Perfluorinated Chemicals (LCPFCs); Regulation(s) Under TSCA 2070-AJ72
EPA/OCSPP Long-Term Actions Short-Chained Chlorinated Paraffins (SCCPs); Regulation(s) Under TSCA 2070-AJ69
EPA/OCSPP Long-Term Actions Significant New Use Rule (SNUR); Refractory Ceramic Fibers (RCFs) 2070-AC37
EPA/OCSPP Long-Term Actions Lead Fishing Sinkers; Manufacturing, Processing, and Distribution in Commerce 2070-AC21
EPA/OCSPP Long-Term Actions Lead-Based Paint Activities; Bridges and Structures; Training, Accreditation, and Certification Rule and Model State Plan Rule 2070-AC64
EPA/OCSPP Long-Term Actions Lead; Renovation, Repair, and Painting Program for Public and Commercial Buildings 2070-AJ56
EPA/OCSPP Long-Term Actions Lead Wheel Weights; Regulatory Investigation 2070-AJ64
EPA/OCSPP Long-Term Actions Lead; Residential Lead Dust Hazard Standards 2070-AJ82
EPA/OCSPP Long-Term Actions Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs); Reassessment of Use Authorizations 2070-AJ38
EPA/OCSPP Long-Term Actions Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs); Placeholder for Petitions Seeking a Manufacturing (Import) Exemption for Use 2070-AJ39
EPA/OCSPP Long-Term Actions Formaldehyde Emissions From Pressed Wood Products 2070-AJ44
EPA/OCSPP Long-Term Actions Significant New Use Rule for Chloranil 2070-AJ31
EPA/OCSPP Long-Term Actions Lead-Based Paint; Amendments to the Requirements for Disclosure of Known Lead-Based Paint or Lead-Based Paint Hazards in Target Housing 2070-AD64
EPA/OCSPP Long-Term Actions TSCA Section 8(a) Preliminary Assessment Information Rules 2070-AB08
EPA/OCSPP Long-Term Actions TSCA Section 8(d) Health and Safety Data Reporting Rules 2070-AB11
EPA/OCSPP Long-Term Actions Testing of Existing Chemicals (Overview Entry for Future Needs) 2070-AB94
EPA/OCSPP Long-Term Actions Test Rule; Multiple Substance Rule for the Testing of Developmental and Reproductive Toxicity 2070-AD44
EPA/OCSPP Long-Term Actions Testing Agreement for Aryl Phosphates (ITC List 2) 2070-AJ07
EPA/OCSPP Long-Term Actions Test Rule; Nonylphenol (NP) and its Ethoxylates (NPE) 2070-AJ34
EPA/OCSPP Completed Actions Pesticide Agricultural Container Recycling Program 2070-AJ29
EPA/OCSPP Completed Actions Lead; Amendment to the Opt-Out and Recordkeeping Provisions in the Renovation, Repair, and Painting Program 2070-AJ55
EPA/OCSPP Completed Actions Mercury; Significant New Use Rule for Elemental Mercury in Flow Meters, Manometers, and Pyrometers 2070-AJ36
EPA/OCSPP Completed Actions TSCA Policy Statement on Oversight of Transgenic Organisms (Including Plants) 2070-AD53
EPA/OCSPP Completed Actions Effects of Transfers of Ownership on Obligations Under Section 5 of TSCA 2070-AJ15
EPA/OCSPP Completed Actions Test Rule; Certain Chemicals on the ATSDR Priority List of Hazardous Substances 2070-AB79
EPA/OCSPP Completed Actions Testing of Certain Hazardous Air Pollutants (HAPs) 2070-AC76
EPA/OCSPP Completed Actions Amendments to the Procedural Rules for Enforceable Consent Agreements (ECAs) 2070-AJ59
EPA/AdmO Completed Actions Age Discrimination Regulations—EPA-Assisted Programs—Age Discrimination Act of 1975 2090-AA37
About Us Vertical SpacerSpacerRelated Resources Vertical SpacerSpacerDisclosure Vertical SpacerSpacerAccessibility Vertical SpacerSpacerPrivacy Policy Vertical SpacerSpacerContact Us

 

 

 


Volume 10, No. 4 - May 2000
More in this Issue...

THE OUTRAGEOUS PRAGMATISM
OF JUDGE RICHARD POSNER

BY JAMES RYERSON

with updates by the author

In October 1997, Judge Richard Posner gave the prestigious Oliver Wendell Holmes lectures at Harvard Law School. He used the occasion to launch a bruising attack on the members of his audience and their pretensions to virtue. "Academic moralists," he tartly proclaimed, "pick from an à la carte menu the moral principles that coincide with the preferences of their social set." With considerable aplomb, he proceeded to accuse the nation's leading moral and legal philosophers of hypocrisy and worse: "They have the intellectual agility to weave an inconsistent heap of policies into a superficially coherent unity and the psychological agility to honor their chosen principles only to the extent compatible with their personal happiness and professional advancement."

 


Lawyer Fees Too High?
The Case for Repealing Unauthorized Practice of Law Statutes

by George C. Leef

Solicitations

The DOE-JGI publishes an annual Community Sequencing Program solicitation for sequencing targets (see: http://www.jgi.doe.gov/CSP/index.html ). This program is presently open to letters of intent until March 15, 2010. NOTE: The JGI does NOT provide funding support for sequencing or other research efforts. The Community Sequencing Program (CSP) provides the scientific community at large with access to high-throughput sequencing of significant scale at the DOE-JGI for projects of relevance to DOE missions. Sequencing projects are chosen based on scientific merit--judged through independent peer review--and relevance to issues in global carbon cycling, energy production, biogeochemistry and low dose radiation responses. Criteria for participation in this program, the review process, and interactions between JGI and participants are outlined at: http://www.jgi.doe.gov/CSP/index.html ). Through this program, the Department of Energy aims to advance sequence-based scientific research from a broad range of disciplines. Three items to note:

  1. Proposals for bacterial and archaeal isolates, to be submitted as brief white papers will be accepted on a continuous basis, and will be reviewed every three months (typically early in February, May, August, and November of each year).
  2. Proposals that utilize JGI's expanding capacity for new technology sequencing are encouraged. This includes large-scale metagenome sequencing, transcript profiling, and resequencing of organisms for which reference genomes currently exist.
  3. Proposals requesting sequencing of eukaryotic genomes will be considered, but must include demonstration of genome size and polymorphism rate and should be supported by a significant user community.

Why the Program's Research is Important

The genome sequence of any organism, from a virus to an entire multi-species community, provides a catalogue of the component "working parts" The knowledge of that "parts list" is a fundamental starting point for a powerful array of biological investigations to describe and predict cellular function. Comparative genome and community genome (metagenome) studies also contribute towards understanding fundamental principles of the control circuits regulating gene expression and action, and how external signals (environmental, hormonal, chemical, etc.) influence gene activities.

Data Sharing Policy

The DOE-JGI data release policy is accessible at: http://my.jgi.doe.gov/general/datarelease.html

Sequencing of submitted projects by the program is contingent on adherence to this data sharing policy. It is also expected that organisms sequenced by the JGI will be deposited in public repositories to ensure public access to sequenced strains.

More Information about the Program and Its Accomplishments

DOE-JGI Web Site

Program Manager
Dan Drell, Ph.D.
Biological Systems Science Division, SC-23.2
U.S. Department of Energy, GTN Bldg.
1000 Independence Avenue, SW
Washington, DC 20585-1290
Phone: (301) 903-4742
Fax: (301) 903-0567
Email: daniel.drell@science.doe.gov

Sequencing the Smallest Known Life

1
In the depths
of a former copper
mine in
Northern
California dwell
what may be the
smallest, most
stripped-down
forms of life ever
discovered. As reported in the April 26,
2010 issue of Proceedings of the National
Academy of Sciences, the microbes, members
of the domain of one-celled creatures
called Archaea, are smaller than all other
known microorganisms. The only potential
exception is a microbe that can survive
solely as a parasite attached to the outside
of other cells.
The copper mine microbes are about as
large as the largest viruses, which can
replicate only in living organisms but are
not considered to be living. Their genomes,
sequenced at the DOE JGI, are among the
smallest ever reported at only a million
base pairs. Researchers led by DOE JGI
collaborator Jill Banfield named them
ARMAN for archaeal Richmond Mine acidophilic
nanoorganisms.
“ARMAN are among the smallest
microbes we know of that, if not free-living,
are at least not permanently obliged to be
a parasite or symbiont,” noted co-author
Luis R. Comolli, a microscopist at Lawrence
Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL).
Banfield's group first described the ARMAN
microbes four years ago, after identifying
the organisms in acidic pools in the
Richmond Mine in Iron Mountain, Calif.
The team's continued analysis has
revealed amazing organization within the
mine drainage biofilm communities that
grow on solutions with the acidity of battery
acid. The new data will help the researchers
further explore the community of organisms
in the mine and determine how they are
able to live in such harsh conditions

Hide details for National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Program National Integrated Water Quality Program
Hide details for Department of CommerceHide details for National Marine Fisheries Service National Marine Fisheries Service 2
2
2 Department of Commerce
2
22 National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Program 2
2
EPA's fiscal 2005 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification document stated that the Agency coordinates with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration on efforts to ensure that National Pollutant ... more 2
2Show details for National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Show details for National Integrated Water Quality Program
111
1 Participant in the Joint Subcommittee on Aquaculture
11 Participant in the Underground Injection Control Program 1
1
1 Partners for Fish and Wildlife
11 Phase II Storm Water Regulations (5)

Regulatory Enforcement Program 1
1
1 Public Works and Development Facilities Program
11 Rangeland Management 1
1
1 Riparian Management
11 Rural Utilities Service - Water and Waste Disposal Systems for Rural Communities 1
1
1 Safe Drinking Water Program
11 Soil, Water, Air Management 1
1
1 Stormwater Management Program
11 Surveillance for Waterborne - Disease Outbreaks 1
1
1 The Center for Coastal Monitoring and Assessment
1Show details for Wetland Reserve Program Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) Program Show details for Watershed Research Program
Show details for Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention
Show details for Water Quality/Research, Development, Information (5,6) Uranium Recovery Program
Show details for Water Quality Program/Education, Technical, and Financial AssistanceShow details for Water Quality and Management U.S. Geological Survey Show details for U.S. Geological Survey
Show details for Uranium Recovery Program
Show details for Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) Program Water Quality and Management
Show details for The Center for Coastal Monitoring and AssessmentShow details for Surveillance for Waterborne - Disease Outbreaks Water Quality Program/Education, Technical, and Financial Assistance Show details for Stormwater Management Program
Show details for Soil, Water, Air Management
Show details for Safe Drinking Water Program Water Quality/Research, Development, Information (5,6)
Show details for Rural Utilities Service - Water and Waste Disposal Systems for Rural CommunitiesShow details for Riparian Management Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Show details for Rangeland Management
Show details for Public Works and Development Facilities Program
Show details for Phase II Storm Water Regulations (5) Watershed Research Program
Show details for Partners for Fish and WildlifeShow details for Participant in the Underground Injection Control Program Wetland Reserve Program Show details for Participant in the Joint Subcommittee on Aquaculture
Hide details for Water Infrastructure: Clean Water State Revolving Fund (CWSRF) Phase II Storm Water Regulations (5)

Regulatory Enforcement Program
Hide details for General Services AdministrationHide details for Stormwater Management Program Public Works and Development Facilities Program 1
1
1 Rangeland Management
11 Riparian Management 1
1
1 Rural Utilities Service - Water and Waste Disposal Systems for Rural Communities
11 Safe Drinking Water Program 1
1
1 Soil, Water, Air Management
11 Stormwater Management Program 1
Show details for Soil, Water, Air Management
Show details for Safe Drinking Water Program General Services Administration
Show details for Rural Utilities Service - Water and Waste Disposal Systems for Rural Communities
Show details for Riparian ManagementShow details for Rangeland Management Water Infrastructure: Clean Water State Revolving Fund (CWSRF) Show details for Public Works and Development Facilities Program
Show details for Phase II Storm Water Regulations (5)
The objective of this initiative is to import a basic understanding of the causes of stormwater pollution and the types of activities that require stormwater permits, as well as to provide an invaluable reference tool fo... more

Defense-Energy Team Leads National Effort

By Lisa Daniel
American Forces Press Service

WASHINGTON, April 26, 2011 – A partnership the Defense and Energy departments formed last year to conserve energy in the military is the perfect union to lead the nation in conservation, Deputy Defense Secretary William J. Lynn III said at the White House Energy Security Forum today.

“The key to this partnership is focusing [the Energy Department's] unique knowledge on meeting defense requirements,” Lynn said. “By taking technologies from labs to the battlefield, the Department of Energy can enroll its scientific ingenuity in the service of our nation's most important national mission: national security.”

Additionally, Lynn said, the departments' collaboration can improve the operational effectiveness of the armed forces and serve as a catalyst for the civilian world. “By serving as a sophisticated first user and early customer for innovative energy technologies,” he said, “the military can jump-start their broader commercial adoption, just as we have done with jet engines, high-performance computing and the Internet.”

Deputy Energy Secretary Daniel B. Poneman agreed.

“Through our national laboratory system, the [Energy] department brings tremendous scientific expertise to bear across a whole portfolio of national energy and scientific priorities,” he said. “Coupled with the scale of the Defense Department's operations and its potential to act as a test bed for innovative technologies, this partnership is a crucial vehicle to strengthen our national security and to build a clean energy economy for America.”

Forum speakers noted the importance President Barack Obama has placed on energy conservation, but added that the issue goes back at least as far as the administration of President Richard M. Nixon, who acknowledged that American reliance on foreign oil raises national security risks. NATO's ongoing military operations in Libya and the spike of oil prices due to political unrest in the Middle East is just the latest example of the problem, Poneman said.

Under the departments' agreement, a committee of Defense and Energy leaders will steer investments into conservation-related technologies for U.S.-based installations and battlefield operations, Lynn said. Dorothy Robyn, deputy undersecretary of defense for installations and environment, and Sharon E. Burke, assistant secretary of defense for operational energy plans and programs, are leading those efforts and took part in the forum.

Highlights

Copper is a naturally occurring element.

The Food and Nutrition Board of the Institute of Medicine has developed recommended dietary allowances (RDAs) of 340 micrograms (µg) of copper per day for children aged 1-3 years, 440 µg/day for children aged 4-8 years, 700 µg/day for children aged 9-13 years, 890 µg/day for children aged 14-18 years, and 900 µg/day for adults. This provides enough copper to maintain health. Copper has been found in at least 906 of the 1,647 current or former NPL sites.

Zinc is a naturally occurring element. Zinc has been found in at least 985 of the 1,662 current or former NPL sites.

Zinc is one of the most common elements in the earth's crust. It is found in air, soil, and water, and is present in all foods. Pure zinc is a bluish-white shiny metal.

Zinc has many commercial uses as coatings to prevent rust, in dry cell batteries, and mixed with other metals to make alloys like brass, and bronze. A zinc and copper alloy is used to make pennies in the United States.

Zinc combines with other elements to form zinc compounds. Common zinc compounds include zinc chloride, zinc oxide, zinc sulfate, and zinc sulfide. Zinc compounds are widely used in industry to make paint, rubber, dyes, wood preservatives, and ointments.

Zinc is also a trace mineral nutrient and as such, small amounts of zinc are needed in all animals.

The National Academy of Sciences (NAS) estimates an RDA for zinc of 11 mg/day (men). Eleven mg/day is the same as 0.16 mg per kilogram (kg) of body weight per day for an average adult male (70 kg). An RDA of 8 mg/day, or 0.13 mg per kg of body weight for an average adult female (60 kg), was established for women because they usually weigh less than men. Lower zinc intake was recommended for infants (2-3 mg/day) and children (5-9 mg/day) because of their lower average body weights. The RDA provides a level of adequate nutritional status for most of the population. Extra dietary levels of zinc are recommended for women during pregnancy and lactation. An RDA of 11-12 mg/day was set for pregnant women. Women who nurse their babies need 12-13 mg/day.

TITLE 28 > PART VI > CHAPTER 158 > § 2344 Prev | Next

§ 2344. Review of orders; time; notice; contents of petition; service

How Current is This? On the entry of a final order reviewable under this chapter, the agency shall promptly give notice thereof by service or publication in accordance with its rules. Any party aggrieved by the final order may, within 60 days after its entry, file a petition to review the order in the court of appeals wherein venue lies. The action shall be against the United States. The petition shall contain a concise statement of— (1) the nature of the proceedings as to which review is sought; (2) the facts on which venue is based; (3) the grounds on which relief is sought; and (4) the relief prayed. The petitioner shall attach to the petition, as exhibits, copies of the order, report, or decision of the agency. The clerk shall serve a true copy of the petition on the agency and on the Attorney General by registered mail, with request for a return receipt.

 

Legal Issues: Practice Area Definitions

Below is a reference guide to personal and business legal issues.

Access to Justice

The State Bar's commitment to expanding, supporting and improving the delivery of legal services to low- and moderate-income Californians is carried out by the Office of Legal Services (OLS). OLS has two components, the Center on Access to Justice and the Legal Services Trust Fund Program.

The Center on Access to Justice works to increase access to justice through:

The Legal Services Trust Fund Program is the grant-making arm of the Office of Legal Services.
In accordance with legal requirements and the State Bar Rules, the Trust Fund Program administers revenue from the following sources that help fund civil legal services programs serving indigent Californians:

Program staff works with the Legal Services Trust Fund Commission , comprised of 21 voting members and three nonvoting judges, who are responsible for determining applicant eligibility, monitoring recipient compliance and maximizing revenue. In addition to monitoring grantee compliance, the program is responsible for bank and attorney compliance with IOLTA requirements

Access to Justice Commission Publications:

Listed below are links to areas of the State Bar's Web site pertaining to ethics research and information:

PROFESSIONAL COMPETENCE

The Office of Professional Competence is responsible for administering programs that set and maintain high standards of attorney professional responsibility. Prevention of lawyer misconduct is a primary goal, and the programs are intended to support the State Bar's goals of public protection and the effective administration of justice.  A variety of programs and activities are administered by this office:

Contact Us:

Angela Marlaud
Office of Professional Competence, Planning and Development
State Bar of California
180 Howard Street
San Francisco, CA 94105-1639
(415) 538-2116
(415) 538-2171 (Fax)
angela.marlaud@calbar.ca.gov

ATTORNEY SURROGACY

The State Bar Attorney Surrogacy program provides a model agreement for the designation of an attorney to administer a lawyer's law practice in the event that the lawyer becomes disabled or incapacitated.  The agreement details the typical responsibilities of the lawyers involved in an "Agreement to Close Law Practice in the Future" and is intended to facilitate compliance with Business and Professions Code Section 6185 and relevant provisions of the Probate Code.

Committees

PLF - Rescuing Liberty From Coast to Coast | Pacific Legal Foundation

Pacific Legal Foundation is the oldest public interest legal organization that litigates for property rights, limited government, and free enterprise.
www.pacificlegal.org/ -

College of Public Interest Law


Pacific Legal Foundation introduced its College of Public Interest Law in 1979, offering fellowships to outstanding law school graduates who desired hands-on experience in public interest litigation. Since that time, 73 young attorneys have passed through the program on their way to private practice, public agency law, or a permanent position with Pacific Legal Foundation. While matriculation in the program has varied over time, PLF recently committed to a long-term policy of offering three Fellowships each Fall.

Each Fellow is paired with an experienced attorney mentor, who assists the Fellow as he or she participates in hands-on litigation, including lead attorney responsibilities in both trial level and appellate cases. Fellows also prepare a law review article of publishable quality, as a means to increase their own in-depth expertise of the legal issues which they litigate, as well as adding to the legal scholarship frequently relied on by judges. Fellows also receive on-site training in both substantive legal doctrine and the practice of law for MCLE credit.

Starting salary is $55,000, plus benefits. Fellows also are entitled to defer payment of principal and interest on subsidized student loans and to defer payment of principal on unsubsidized student loans.

Recruitment

PLF begins the recruitment process 13 months before the September start date for new Fellows. Fellowship announcements are posted on the career development office websites of all accredited law schools nationwide. For those schools that lack interactive websites, PLF mails or faxes the announcements. PLF also e-mails announcements to the leaders of all Federalist Society student chapters nationwide and sends open letters to the chambers of judges whose clerks might be good matches for a fellowship. Finally, PLF avails itself of the resources of our sister organizations, sending job announcements through the Institute for Justice's Human Action Network, the Heritage Foundation Job Bank, and the Institute for Humane Studies Liberty Guide/ Job Board. The announcements are re-posted and re-sent as necessary though the Fall and Winter.

Hiring Process

Applicants are required to submit a resume and a personal statement explaining why they are interested in PLF in general, and in a postgraduate fellowship in the College of Public Interest Law in particular. The applicants also must describe what distinguishes themselves from a typical or average student at their school. Once received, applicant materials are forwarded to the hiring committee. Members of the committee review the resumes and personal statements and contact the most promising applicants with a request for a writing sample and references. Applicants who demonstrate outstanding research and writing skills are invited to interview. The interviews last a full day and include individual discussions with members of senior management, staff attorneys, current Fellows, and human resources. The hiring committee then meets and decides which applicants will be extended an offer. This is an ongoing process until all three slots are filled.

Environmental Regulation Cases

Endangered Species Act Reform

Clean Water Act Cases – Including Wetlands

Ensuring Responsible Management of Public Lands and Natural Resources

Protecting Freedom from Environmental Extremism

Property Rights Litigation

Defending the right to use and protect private property

Coastal Land Rights Project: defending property rights in the coastal zone


Protecting water rights

Government revenue raising must be lawful and constitutional

Washington State Growth Control

Individual Rights Cases

Defending free enterprise and the right to earn a living

Freedom of Contract

Protecting Freedom of Speech and Association

Other PLF Battles

PLF in the Supreme Court

PLF has made its mark as the nation's leading freedom fighter by winning important legal precedents in state and federal courts. Because it chooses cases where constitutional rights are at risk, PLF has made repeat appearances before the United States Supreme Court—and won several major cases—a record of success unmatched by any other public interest legal organization.

Current Supreme Court Cases


Property Rights

Environmental Regulations

Individual Rights

Discrimination and Preference

Landmark Supreme Court Victories

Nollan v. California Coastal Commission (1987) One of the most important property rights decisions in the Supreme Court's history, Nollan outlawed an egregious form of “shakedown” by land-use regulators; specifically, it said government may not condition the granting of a building permit on the landowner making some payment or surrender of property that has no connection to the impact of the proposed building project.

Keller v. State Bar of California (1990) A First Amendment case holding that a trade or professional organization to which professionals are legally bound to belong may not use their mandatory dues to fund ideologically based lobbying.

Suitum v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (1997) This ruling stopped regulators from demanding that an elderly, wheelchair-bound widow sell her minuscule transferable development rights in a nonexistent market before being able to seek judicial relief for denial of her right to build a home.

Palazzolo v. Rhode Island (2001) This ruling held that government is not relieved from its Fifth Amendment obligation to provide compensation for excessive regulations on private property merely because the property has changed hands since the regulations first took effect. PLF defended landowner Anthony Palazzolo who challenged the Rhode Island Coastal Resources Management Council.

Rapanos v. United States (2006) This decision narrowed the scope of federal Clean Water Act jurisdiction, so that landowners who are not close to “navigable waters” may not be subjected to federal micro managing of their property.

Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District and Meredith v. Jefferson County Board of Education (2007) Held that school districts that voluntarily adopt student assignment plans that rely on race to determine which schools certain children may attend, violate the Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution. As amicus, PLF attorneys participated as second chair at oral argument assisting Meredith's attorney.

« California ranks last...again | Main

VA farm family battles EPA attempt to seize control of their land


Chesapeake, VA; April 11, 2011 :  James Boyd and his family have owned the Smith Family Farm in Chesapeake for more than two decades, but the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is trying to claim that it, not the Boyds, has effective control over their private property.

Today, the Boyds filed an appeal with the U.S. Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, asking the court to overturn the EPA's claim that the Boyds' land is “wetlands” covered by the federal Clean Water Act and is therefore subject to command and control oversight by federal bureaucrats.

After having paid dearly, out of pocket, for eleven years to defend themselves against the EPA, the Boyd family is now represented, free of charge, by attorneys with Pacific Legal Foundation.  Donor-supported PLF is a legal watchdog that litigates, pro bono, for limited government, property rights, and a balanced approach to environmental regulations, in courts nationwide.

“By its high-handed treatment of the Boyd family and their property rights, the EPA is once again demonstrating that it is a bureaucracy that's out of control,” said PLF attorney Damien Schiff.

"Defending against the EPA's enforcement action has cost our family many hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal and expert witness fees."

-- James Boyd “EPA claims that it can dictate what kind of land use and farming practices the Boyds engage in, because the property is supposedly ‘wetlands' subject to federal jurisdiction,” said Schiff.  “But the agency has not met the legal requirements to show that the Boyds' property in fact falls under federal jurisdiction.

“As the Supreme Court has clearly ruled, private property isn't covered by the federal Clean Water Act without a significant connection between water on the property and some ‘navigable' water, such as a river, lake, or ocean,” Schiff continued.  “Despite repeated visits to the Boyds' farm, at taxpayers expense, to collect data in support of its allegations, the EPA hasn't shown any such connection between the Boyds' farm and any navigable water.  In fact, the farm is half a mile away from the nearest navigable water – a tributary of the James River.

“So the EPA is breaking the law by issuing orders to the Boyds about their own private property,” said Schiff.

Flouting the Supreme Court, EPA acts like a national zoning board
EPA is violating the U.S. Supreme Court's 2006 landmark ruling in Rapanos v. United States – a case brought by PLF attorneys.  Rapanos overruled federal attempts to use the Clean Water Act as an excuse to assert control over private property wherever water was found.  Although the ruling articulated two tests for federal jurisdiction, the majority reaffirmed that the Clean Water Act covers only navigable waters and property with significant connections to them.

“The Supreme Court has clearly said that federal officials don't have a license to micromanage private property wherever they might find water,” said Schiff.  “But, as the Boyds have found out, the EPA doesn't like that restriction.  The agency is still trying to act as a national zoning board that can issue orders to property owners virtually anywhere.  We're asking the Fourth Circuit to put a stop to this lawlessness and force EPA to let the Boyds alone.”

EPA targets traditional farming practices on Smith Farm
Farming families from early American times have been cutting down trees on their land to create paths and clearings.  But as part of its illegal claim of control of the Boyds' farm, EPA is trying to punish them for taking down trees without an EPA permit.  It has also accused them of discharging a “pollutant” because rain caused silt to collect in the bottom of ditches on their land.

“Because the Boyds' property doesn't have a significant connection to navigable waters, EPA has no business telling them what to do in the first place,” said Damien Schiff.  “But even if it had jurisdiction over their land, the orders it is issuing are outrageous.  Essentially, EPA is trying to criminalize land use practices that have been standard for farmers in Virginia and throughout America, for centuries.

“EPA is also punishing a family that went the extra mile to avoid any environmental problems and satisfy any possible regulatory concerns,” said Schiff.

The Boyds have owned the 300-acre Smith Farm since 1987, and the property was farmed for at least half a century before that.  The troubles with the EPA started after the Boyds made some reasonable efforts to keep their farm viable after a series of events caused seasonal water buildup.

First, in the early 1990s, construction of I-664 had a damming effect on the adjacent land.  Later, a large tract of nearby land was clear-cut, allowing rain water to sheet across the Boyds' land.  These conditions created seasonal water buildup, hampering the historical uses of Smith Farm.

EPA punishes the Boyds even after they went the extra mile to be environmentally sensitive


Damien M. Schiff
PLF Attorney
To remove excess water, the Boyds' proposed digging some drainage ditches (called “Tulloch” ditches for the court case that held they are a permissible form of drainage).  This was before the Rapanos decision had come down, affirming that the Clean Water Act applies only to properties with a clear connection to navigable waters.  So, the Boyds took extra precautions to make sure they would not run afoul of any federal concerns.  They hired a consultant who had worked for the Army Corps of Engineers for eight years.  He produced a letter from the Corps that outlined the procedures to dig such ditches without the need of a special federal “dredge and fill” permit.

Before the Boyds started any land clearing in order to build paths to get to the sites of the ditches, the Boyds met with the Corps and showed the Corps the designs for what they proposed to do.  They were advised that they did not need any permits for their project.  The Boyds went a step further and asked Corps officials to inspect the site, specifically to ensure that all of their work was in compliance with the law.  Pursuant to the Boyds' request, the Corps inspected the site on five separate occasions throughout the ditch excavation project.  Despite the Boyds' specific request that the Corps advise them if the inspector observed any problems with the project – and the Boyds offer to cease work if any problems arose – the Corps raised no objections to the work being done, at any time during the project.

However, when the project was completed, the EPA suddenly, without notice, informed the Boyds that it was assuming jurisdiction of the project as a federally controlled “wetland.”  EPA officials chose to inspect the site two days after Hurricane Dennis had inundated the area, in 2005.  Nine months later, EPA issued a notice alleging multiple violations of the Clean Water Act, including filling wetlands without a permit (i.e., distributing wood chips on the site) and discharging a pollutant when rain caused silt to collect in the bottom of the ditches.

During the hearings that followed, the Boyds learned, for the first time, that the EPA and the Corps had been discussing their ditching project the entire time it was under way.  Yet despite the Corps knowing that the Boyds were relying upon their inspections to ensure their full compliance with the law, neither the Corps nor the EPA advised the Boyds of the peril awaiting them.

Fighting EPA's power play has cost the Boyds hundreds of thousands of dollars
When no reconciliation with EPA could be reached, the case was brought before an EPA administrative law judge who held a lenghty trial-like hearing.  Then, the EPA's court reporter was unable to provide a transcript of the hearing, so the judge ordered a retrial of the case.  These hearings, as well as a third hearing, in each instance lasting six days, along with the appeals and the ensuing litigation, have cost the Boyds dearly.  The Boyds have  repeatedly tried to settle the case, at one point even offering to fund the building of an entire oyster reef in the nearby Elizabeth River, an offer that would have had substantial benefit to local water quality.  

Although the maximum penalty that could be assessed against the farm was $105,000, EPA has steadfastly refused to settle the case. The administrative law judge ultimately ruled against the Boyds, and the EPA Appeals Board upheld that ruling.   "Defending against the EPA's enforcement action has cost our family many hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal and expert witness fees, which we can ill afford and which have threatened us with the loss of our property, not to mention the tremendous waste of taxpayers' dollars by the EPA in pursuing this action" said James Boyd.

Now the Boyds are represented, free of charge, by PLF attorneys , who are appealing to the U.S. Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals.

Statement by James Boyd:  The rule of law is at stake
James Boyd issued this statement:  “Defending against the EPA's allegations has required my family to endure the financial and emotional hardships of three separate hearings, each of six days duration, and two separate hearings before the EPA's Appeals Board at its headquarters in Washington, D.C.  The legal wrangling has already spanned over eleven years and has required the research, drafting, preparation, and filing of over 240 motions, counter motions and briefs.

“For all of this effort and expense, the end result of this litigation has been to have my family found in violation of the Clean Water Act for having scattered wood chips on our property!  Those wood chips were generated when debris from indigenous vegetation was chipped up as a necessary part of clearing very limited areas in the woods on our farm to gain access to excavate ditches.  The excavation of those ditches was entirely legal. “This case is about freedom, property rights, and the rule of law,” Boyd continued.  “It is fundamental that everyone, citizens and the government alike, follow the rule of law.  Our family followed the rule of law.  The excavation of our Tulloch ditches was entirely legal.  We fully complied with the rules and regulations governing that activity.  It is ironic and very disturbing that it is the EPA that has violated the law.

“In our case, the EPA has twisted regulatory definitions to regulate that which is clearly legal,” Boyd noted.  “On behalf of everyone's liberty and property rights, we felt we had no choice but to fight back.  But it has been a grueling and expensive experience which we can ill afford, nor to which any law-abiding citizen should be subjected.  When a private citizen fails to obey the rule of law, that's bad for society. When a federal agency like the EPA, with all of its power and resources, fails to obey the rule of law, that's dangerous. Such abuse undermines the whole system under which our society operates. We are so very grateful to the PLF attorneys, and PLF's donors, for  coming along side us to stand up to EPA's oppression.”

Said PLF attorney Damien Schiff:  “EPA is branding scattered wood chips, and silt, as ‘pollution,' as if we were talking about factory runoff or nuclear waste.  This is outrageous.  But even more fundamentally, EPA has no business dictating to the Boyds on their property in the first place.

“EPA was set up to protect us from real pollution threats, not to harass Americans from America's farmers and to antagonize law abiding citizens,” Schiff continued.  “The EPA has mutated into a toxic danger to property owners and constitutional rights – and the courts must call a halt to the abuses by this rogue agency.”

About Pacific Legal Foundation
Donor-supported Pacific Legal Foundation is the nation's leading legal watchdog organization that litigates, pro bono, for limited government, property rights, free enterprise, and a balanced approach to environmental regulations. View a brief video about PLF's history and mission, including comments by former U.S. Attorney General Edwin J. Meese III, at:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HnBSlRQwxKU.

May 06, 2011

California's secret government

Author: Timothy Sandefur

Steven Greenhut, author of the outstanding book Abuse of Power , has an important article in the City Journal about California's secret government: the behind-the-scenes manipulations of the state's Redevelopment Agencies.

In theory, RDAs spearhead blight removal. In fact, they divert billions of dollars from traditional services, such as schools, parks, and firefighting; use eminent domain to seize property for favored developers; and run up California's debt to pay those developers to construct projects of dubious public value, such as stadiums and big-box stores. Most Californians have long been unaware that these agencies exist. As the activist group Municipal Officials for Redevelopment Reform puts it, RDAs constitute an “unknown government” that “consumes 12 percent of all property taxes statewide,” is “supported by a powerful Sacramento lobby,” and is “backed by an army of lawyers, consultants, bond brokers and land developers.”

...Redevelopment project areas are supposed to expire eventually, but like most government programs, they rarely do. The agencies repeatedly extend the life of the areas and continue floating debt, managing development decisions, and spending tens of millions of dollars to pay the planners, consultants, developers, and attorneys who specialize in the redevelopment process and are an effective lobby to ensure that it never dies. The redevelopment machine has also steadily expanded its footprint. “During the early years of California's redevelopment law, few communities established project areas and project areas typically were small—usually 10 to 100 acres,” the state's Legislative Analyst's Office recently reported. “Over the last 35 years, however, most cities and many counties have created project areas and the size of project areas has grown—several cover more than 20,000 acres each. . . . In some counties, local agencies have created so many project areas that more than 25 percent of all property tax revenue collected in the county [is] allocated to a redevelopment agency, not the schools, community colleges, or other local governments.”

I n Sacramento, Governor Jerry Brown is planning to close California's $26.6 billion structural deficit through spending cuts and tax extensions. Opposition has been spirited but less contentious than expected, probably because of the size of the budget hole. But one item of Brown's plan—something that would save about $1.7 billion annually—has generated heated debates between local officials and the new administration. The governor has proposed eliminating California's approximately 400 redevelopment agencies (RDAs).

In theory, RDAs spearhead blight removal. In fact, they divert billions of dollars from traditional services, such as schools, parks, and firefighting; use eminent domain to seize property for favored developers; and run up California's debt to pay those developers to construct projects of dubious public value, such as stadiums and big-box stores. Most Californians have long been unaware that these agencies exist. As the activist group Municipal Officials for Redevelopment Reform puts it, RDAs constitute an “unknown government” that “consumes 12 percent of all property taxes statewide,” is “supported by a powerful Sacramento lobby,” and is “backed by an army of lawyers, consultants, bond brokers and land developers.”

As of late March, the outcome of Brown's battle against the RDAs was in question, with the state legislature lacking the votes to approve it. Too bad. It's high time that the agencies were shut down.

California's redevelopment agencies got their start in 1945, when the state legislature authorized their creation to combat urban decay. At the time, politicians nationwide touted urban-renewal projects as a way to jump-start development in impoverished inner cities. Today, many urbanists recall these projects as a national travesty, a failed experiment in top-heavy government and liberal social engineering that obliterated neighborhoods, eroded property rights, gave developers downtown land on the cheap, uprooted city dwellers, and exacerbated urban problems.

The California law lets a city establish a redevelopment agency, governed by a board appointed by the city council—though in almost every case, the board members and the council members are one and the same. (A county, too, can create an RDA, through its board of supervisors.) The agency's first task is to find urban blight. As a state senate committee explains it, “Before redevelopment officials can wield their extraordinary powers . . . they must determine if an area is blighted.” But the definition of blight is very broad: it can include not just unsafe buildings but also “incompatible land uses,” stagnant property values, either excessive urbanization or insufficient urbanization, and lack of modern infrastructure. So if a redevelopment agency wants to redevelop a particular area, it will find a definition that suits that area; and once it issues a blight finding, the courts will rarely rebuke it.

After blight is found, the agency can start using those “extraordinary powers.” For instance, Michael Dardia explained in a 1998 report for the Public Policy Institute of California, RDAs “can assemble property for sale to private parties and can use eminent domain if necessary to acquire private property that they want to sell, often at a discount, to a private developer.” They can also offer incentives to that developer, subsidizing the construction of stadiums, hotels, auto malls, and retail stores, to take some common examples.

To pay for these subsidies, an RDA employs a novel mechanism called “tax-increment financing.” First, the agency issues debt—unlike city governments, it isn't required to hold a public vote first—and bestows the borrowed money on the developers of its choice, who proceed to build within the designated “project area.” As property-tax revenues in the area rise, state law gives the RDA the entire increase in revenues; the agency deserves it, the thinking goes, for making the stagnant area revive. The agency uses that tax increase, called the “increment,” to pay off its debt. This arrangement allowed RDAs to amass nearly $30 billion in debt by the end of the 2008–09 fiscal year, according to the state controller's latest numbers.

But what happens to the public schools, which depend on property taxes to survive? By law, the state government must use its general fund to compensate the schools for the money that the RDA has diverted. That comes to a lot of money: again, RDAs consume about 12 percent of all statewide property taxes, and over half of that take would otherwise have gone to the schools. What this boils down to is that—at a time when the state must save billions—taxpayers throughout California are subsidizing the agencies, which in turn are subsidizing developers.

Redevelopment project areas are supposed to expire eventually, but like most government programs, they rarely do. The agencies repeatedly extend the life of the areas and continue floating debt, managing development decisions, and spending tens of millions of dollars to pay the planners, consultants, developers, and attorneys who specialize in the redevelopment process and are an effective lobby to ensure that it never dies. The redevelopment machine has also steadily expanded its footprint. “During the early years of California's redevelopment law, few communities established project areas and project areas typically were small—usually 10 to 100 acres,” the state's Legislative Analyst's Office recently reported. “Over the last 35 years, however, most cities and many counties have created project areas and the size of project areas has grown—several cover more than 20,000 acres each. . . . In some counties, local agencies have created so many project areas that more than 25 percent of all property tax revenue collected in the county [is] allocated to a redevelopment agency, not the schools, community colleges, or other local governments.”

I s there that much blight in California, or is something else going on here? History provides a clue. If blight removal were really the agencies' mission, then you'd expect California's redevelopment expansion to have taken place between the 1940s and the 1960s, when there was more real blight. Instead, more than half of the state's RDAs were formed after 1978, when Proposition 13, by capping property-tax increases, threatened to impose spending limits on cities. “Since the property tax constraints imposed by Proposition 13 in 1978, local governments have been searching for new sources of revenue,” Dardia wrote. Redevelopment agencies were a windfall—not a way to revamp run-down areas but a way to divert money from the state.

The redevelopment industry keeps using the old urban-uplift rhetoric to justify its powers and budgets. “The abandoned gas station, dilapidated housing project, and a vacant strip mall that is continually vandalized are all examples of deteriorated and blighted areas,” says the California Redevelopment Association (CRA), the lobby that represents the RDAs. “Revitalization of these areas does not happen on its own. . . . Redevelopment serves as a catalyst for private investment by providing the initial plan and seed money that ultimately breathes new life into areas in need of economic development and new opportunity.” (The CRA, by the way, is funded mainly by member agencies, meaning that it amounts to a taxpayer-financed lobby.)

More and more, though, RDAs are dispensing with the pretense of fixing blight. Many are focusing less on tougher, older areas and instead are trying to lure new businesses to “greenfields”—lots on the outskirts of town. Some officials have placed their entire cities in redevelopment areas. And agencies explicitly advance various goals beyond blight removal, claiming to boost economic development, provide affordable housing, reenergize downtowns, and create hundreds of thousands of jobs in the process.

D o these lofty growth claims hold water? Redevelopment officials arrive at them by taking credit for every new job and every new economic activity in a redevelopment area. But that isn't a plausible boast. Crunching the numbers, Dardia found that after correcting for local real-estate trends, “redevelopment projects do not increase property values by enough to account for the tax increment revenues they receive. Overall, the agencies stimulated enough growth to cover just above half of those tax revenues. The rest resulted from local trends.”

Further, RDAs typically engage in “growth capture,” waiting until an area is on the upswing and then swooping down and grabbing properties on behalf of developers. This tactic helps the agencies, which receive a bonanza from the area's already-rising property taxes, but it does nothing to improve downtrodden urban cores. Old Town Pasadena, which has become lovely, would no doubt have revived without redevelopment cash.

Redevelopment is also based heavily on the mistaken premise that big, often tourist-oriented projects—stadiums, theme parks, Costcos—are the key to the economic growth of cities. In 1997, the Brookings Institution's Roger Noll and Andrew Zimbalist debunked the idea that stadiums in particular draw much revenue to a region, concluding that “a new sports facility has an extremely small (perhaps even negative) effect on overall economic activity and employment. No recent facility appears to have earned anything approaching a reasonable return on investment.” Nevertheless, in Sacramento, where basketball's Sacramento Kings are planning a move to Anaheim, officials are reviving talks of a new arena to lure another team—a plan that may include redevelopment and tax subsidies.

Though the RDAs' claims are inflated, it's certainly true that they can increase economic activity in the areas they target. But even that isn't necessarily a good thing because they're sucking most of that growth away from other places in California. As Brown explained in his budget proposal, “There is little evidence that redevelopment projects attract business to the state. Studies indicated most of the business development is simply shifted from elsewhere in the state.”

Southern California residents don't care whether they buy their Hondas in the Cerritos Auto Mall or up the 605 freeway in El Monte. California's cities care, though, and for good reason: they keep one cent of every dollar spent within their borders. That's a powerful incentive for them to want retail centers rather than, say, factories. And so cities offer rich incentives to entice and satisfy such companies, which in turn often play the cities for fools. In 1999, Costco demanded that the city of Lancaster condemn a nearby competitor, the 99 Cents Only Store, or else Costco would move to neighboring Palmdale. The 99 Cents Only Store and the Costco were in the same shopping complex; both were in the same condition. Nevertheless, Lancaster's redevelopment agency proceeded to condemn the 99 Cents Only Store, whose owner fought the condemnation and won—a rare victory over an RDA in court. Eventually, the city gave Costco land in a public park.

T he biggest problem with the entire redevelopment model is that central planners—whether they're working in European bureaucracies or in stucco-clad government buildings in Southern California—can rarely predict consumer demand with accuracy. Consider some of the absurd projects that the RDAs have embraced. When I covered Orange County politics in 2005, redevelopment officials in the older, working-class city of Garden Grove had decided that their city needed to be a world-class resort, like nearby Anaheim. So they were trying to condemn an entire neighborhood of well-kept 1960s-era suburban houses and market the land to a yet-to-be-determined theme-park developer. The city council eventually halted the plan after residents protested at City Hall.

That project went away, but the local RDA retained the power to pursue equally bad ideas. “Even in a city that has entertained the most improbable of dreams, the latest plan to woo tourists and big bucks to Garden Grove is off the charts,” the Los Angeles Times reported in 2007. “An Indian tribe has formally proposed building a Las Vegas–style casino complex just up the road from Disneyland in the latest and far and away most lavish plan for making Garden Grove a tourist destination. The Gabrielino-Tongva Tribe's proposal calls for two opulent casinos housing 7,500 slot machines, two upscale hotels, a 10,000-seat stadium and—the topper—a promise of a college scholarship for every high school graduate in Garden Grove.” Other plans were sillier still: “One developer proposed a Latino theme park, another pitched a replica of the London Bridge across a fake river, and Middle Eastern investors wanted to build a museum dedicated to the late King Hussein of Jordan.”

Even in the projects that redevelopment supporters like to highlight, it's hard to see the benefits. Sacramento mayor Kevin Johnson wrote in the Sacramento Bee that “redevelopment has also helped strengthen the core of our city, the downtown. For example, K Street is now attracting a wide range of entertainment and restaurant choices to boost the economy.” My office is a block from K Street, which has long been the city's prime redevelopment focus, so I can testify that it remains a symbol of downtown blight, riddled with vagrants and vacant storefronts. As the Sacramento Press reported in 2009, “With a 45 percent ground floor vacancy rate, K Street's health is currently struggling. In an effort to help the street improve the blocks between 7th and 13th streets, the city has been pumping millions upon millions of dollars into projects to then watch little to no improvements in foot traffic, empty store fronts and public safety. The list of subsidized projects is getting longer every year.”

T he RDAs' diverted funds and failed promises are reason enough to get rid of them, but their abuses of property rights are the last straw. After the U.S. Supreme Court's controversial 2005 Kelo decision allowed the use of eminent domain for economic-development purposes, most states followed the court's additional advice and reformed their eminent-domain rules to make it harder for redevelopment agencies to drive property owners off their land. California failed to pass serious reform, however, and its RDAs continue to confiscate private property. In 2002, for example, the city of Cypress's RDA invoked eminent domain to seize property owned by the Cottonwood Christian Center and transfer it to retail stores. City officials pointed out that churches, unlike stores, don't pay many taxes. After years of legal wrangling, the city and church cut a deal that allowed both retail development and a church.

Such proceedings are manifestly unfair, of course. But they also wreak economic damage by diminishing property rights and confusing expectations. I once interviewed a developer who owned a strip mall in Southern California. He wanted to rebuild it, but it was in a redevelopment area, so he had no secure property rights. Sure, he could invest a few million dollars in the project, but because he feared that the city would take the property away, he sat on it. I remember another area that was being threatened by eminent domain. Activity stopped in the neighborhood—until the day after the local RDA's plan was halted, when owners went back to work improving their properties and expanding their businesses.

I f cities want to spur economic growth, they have a far more effective approach at their disposal—one pioneered by Anaheim. In the 1970s, the city's redevelopment agency bulldozed part of the seedy but historic downtown, planning to create a new downtown district by luring new companies that would build high-rises and other attractions. But it's easier to demolish old buildings than it is to find investors to put up new ones, so the result was parking lots and vacant land. The downtown remains largely a ghost town more than three decades later.

But starting in 2002, under the leadership of former mayor Curt Pringle and current mayor Tom Tait, the city embraced a freedom-friendly approach to land use. Their target was an area called the Platinum Triangle, a collection of one-story warehouses that they wanted to become a new downtown with high-rise condos, hotels, restaurants, and shopping. Instead of taking the redevelopment approach—creating a project area and then forcing businesses to leave—the city “upzoned” the Triangle, allowing far more uses for the land. This was a great stroke of luck for the area's businesses: they could stay if they chose (the city outlawed eminent domain for economic development), but most sold out to developers, who paid handsome sums for land that was now zoned for more valuable residential and office uses. Then the city encouraged the developers to bring their plans to City Hall. The area boomed with high-rises constructed in a couple of years (though it did hit hard times after the real-estate bubble burst).

The lesson: deregulation and private enterprise work better than central planning. Developers don't need subsidies and eminent domain to build in older cities; they need the relaxation of burdensome government rules and a reduction in taxes, which tend to be higher in urban cores. And they need the freedom to develop their own plans, rather than blueprints from city-hall planners.

P rior to Governor Brown's proposal, state legislators had made many efforts to grab some of the RDAs' funds. Brown, far more radically, would dissolve the agencies entirely and create successor agencies to pay off the existing bond debt. It's a welcome idea, though Brown has also proposed making it easier for localities to hike taxes and borrow by lowering the voter-approval threshold from a two-thirds majority to 55 percent. The last thing California cities need, given their propensity to spend money on outsize pay and pension packages for public employees, is increased authority to raise taxes.

The agencies haven't taken Brown's proposal lying down. Mere days after the governor announced it, the Los Angeles Times reported, “Los Angeles' redevelopment agency board hastily voted Friday to commit $930 million of agency money to the city to carry out redevelopment projects for years to come—presumably moving the money out of the state's reach. The move, which would have to be approved by the Los Angeles City Council, would tie up the money the agency expects to take in via property taxes through 2016 and keep the funds from reverting to counties and [the] school district as called for in the governor's plan.” Similarly, news reports across the state depicted RDAs spending feverishly on half-baked projects—including those that council members had previously shown little interest in funding—simply to tie up money. The projects included the funding of fast-food restaurants, shopping malls, and a skating rink. Whether the state's legislature or courts will intervene remains to be seen.

What also remains to be seen is whether the California State Assembly, which didn't approve Brown's proposal in March, will ever see reason. Perhaps the assembly should remember the words of Johnson, the Sacramento mayor, who has praised redevelopment projects as “magical things.” He speaks more truly than he knows. Emblematic of the magical thinking that has smothered California's finances, RDAs are unfair, uneconomical, and ineffective. Brown is right to try to eliminate them.

Steven Greenhut is director of the Pacific Research Institute's Journalism Center in Sacramento.

 

Skip Main Navigation

 
OMB Home White House Website PDF Information
Search: 
About OMB President's Budget Management Information &
Regulatory Affairs Legislative Information Agency Information

Office of Federal Financial Management

Some of the documents on this page were created as PDFs
Click here for PDF assistance
For more information, please call (202) 395-3993
Mission: To promote and support first class financial management in the executive branch of the Federal Government.
History: The Office of Federal Financial Management (OFFM) was created within the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) by the Chief Financial Officers (CFO) Act of 1990 . OFFM, led by the OMB Controller under the direction of the Deputy Director for Management, is responsible for the financial management policy of the Federal Government. OFFM responsibilities include implementing the financial management improvement priorities of the President, establishing government-wide financial management policies of executive agencies, and carrying out the financial management functions of the CFO Act.
What's New:

M-08-24, Technical Amendments to OMB Bulletin No. 07-04 , Audit Requirements for Federal Financial Statements (August 25, 2008) (52 pages, 348 kb)

-- "As-Revised" Version of OMB Bulletin No. 07-04, Audit Requirements for Federal Financial Statements , as Amended (44 pages, 237 kb)

FY 08 Federal Real Property Council Data Reporting Instructions (June 23, 2008) (76 pages, 1.89 mb)

Circular A-136, Financial Reporting Requirements (June 3, 2008) (166 pages, 1.16 mb)

Branches: Financial Standards and Grants
Financial Analysis and Systems
Key Issues: Agency and Government-wide Financial Reporting
Federal Asset Management
Financial Management Systems
Grants Management
Improper Payments
Performance Measurement
President's Management Agenda
Single Audit
Travel and Purchase Cards
Organization Chart: OFFM Organization Chart (1 page, 18 kb)
Financial Standards and
Grants Branch 		Financial Analysis and
Systems Branch 		Other Guidance Testimony
Circulars Legislation Memoranda Resources From the Controller's Desk
1
Federal Register    |   Jobs at OMB   |   FOIA   |   No FEAR   |   OMB Locator   |  USA.gov   |   Accessibility    |   Privacy Policy    |   Site Search    |   Help Office of Management and Budget

Restoring Freedom

Whatever the purposes of UPL statutes, their principal effect is to limit the freedom of individuals to engage in voluntary transactions. UPL statutes restrict free exchange against the will of those who would sell legal services without bar certification and the customers who would purchase those services.

The nineteenth century French political and economic thinker Frederic Bastiat proposed this test for bad laws: "See if the law benefits one citizen at the expense of another by doing what the citizen himself cannot do without committing a crime." UPL statutes certainly fall into this category.

Consumers are better-off if they can shop for the goods and services they want in a free market. By imposing a very high and costly barrier to entry, the state makes consumers worse off. The case for repealing UPL statutes was summarized well by W. Clark Durant, former chairman of the Legal Services Corporation, in a speech before the ABA in 1987:

We should encourage at every turn the ability of entrepreneurs, para-professionals and lay people to be a part of the delivery of legal services to the poor and for all people. I've met many eligible clients around the country who can quite capably be advocates in resolving disputes if barriers to practice did not exist. How can doors be opened to others to participate in this profession? In serving others, a private sector deregulated legal profession can deliver a good quality product in much the same way that a good commercial enterprise does. . . . We let the free competitive energies of creative and energetic people in the private sector provide and deliver for us. . . . Such people exist for the delivery of legal services but are blocked by UPL statutes and aggressive bar efforts to halt them.

UPL statutes are inconsistent with the optimal price of legal services, and they are inconsistent with the freedom of individuals to peacefully interact. For those compelling reasons, all UPL statutes should be repealed.

George C. Leef is president of Patrick Henry Associates and an adjunct scholar with the Mackinac Center for Public Policy. He earned a J.D. from Duke University in 1977.

American capitalism is built on the ideal of free trade and competition. The US has laws preventing companies from monopolizing and working together to take unfair advantage of consumers through price gouging and collusion. Unfortunately, too often companies care more about their profits than they do the laws of the United States, and innocent consumers and small business owners are unfairly taken advantage of.

A class-action lawsuit may be the best way for you and other people who have suffered as the result of illegal colluding to fight for the compensation you deserve. As a consumer or business owner, it is your right to speak up against unfair practices such as:

California congressional delegation asks Obama for disaster assistance
Written by Lake County News reports
Friday, 06 May 2011
NORTHERN CALIFORNIA – Congressman Mike Thompson (D-CA) and Congressman Wally Herger (R-CA) on Thursday led the writing of a bipartisan letter to President Obama urging him to provide federal disaster assistance for California communities battered by the recent March storms.


Between March 15 and 27, a series of storms swept across Northern California, causing significant damage in 17 counties statewide, including Del Norte, Humboldt and Mendocino counties on the North Coast.


The letter stated that damages are estimated to be more than $44.5 million statewide.


“The March storms brought a lot of devastation to communities across California,” Thompson said. “Heavy rain, snow, wind, and flooding battered local homes and infrastructure, causing significant and costly damage. I urge the President to quickly approve federal disaster assistance for our state to help give local communities the resources they need to get back on their feet.”


In total, 25 California Delegation Members who represent communities affected by the March storms signed on to Congressman Thompson's letter, including: Wally Herger (R-CA), Lois Capps (D-CA), Sam Farr (D-CA), Laura Richardson (D-CA), Dan Lungren (D-CA), Jeff Denham (R-CA), David Dreier (R-CA), Barbara Lee (D-CA), George Miller (D-CA), Jerry McNerney (D-CA), Dennis Cardoza (D-CA), Jerry Lewis (R-CA), Linda Sánchez (D-CA), John Garamendi (D-CA), Lucille Roybal-Allard (D-CA), Grace Napolitano (D-CA), Lynn Woolsey (D-CA), Mike Honda (D-CA), Brian Bilbray (D-CA), Gary Miller (D-CA), Adam Schiff (D-CA), Zoe Lofgren (D-CA), Anna Eshoo (D-CA), Bob Filner (D-CA), Susan Davis (D-CA), and Pete Stark (D-CA).


“Many of us have had the opportunity to view the damage in our districts first-hand, and it is clear that a major disaster declaration is critical to helping our state recover from these devastating storms,” the letter stated.

Boxer/Feinstein bill moves forward
Written by George Gale
Friday, 06 May 2011 09:30

(Earthquake preparedness bill moves forward)…The Bill was authored by Senators Barbara Boxer and Diane Feinstein, and it was submitted in March.

 This week the Bill, S 646, unanimously passed the Senate Commerce Committee. The bill will reportedly help improve preparedness and monitoring of earthquakes and windstorms, including investing in research into advance warning systems, improved building codes and other efforts to reduce risks and damage from natural disasters. The bill is called the National Hazards Risk Reduction Act of 2011. The bill reauthorizes the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program originally authorized in 1977.

Consumers win as Supreme Court upholds freedom of contract

Author : Deborah J. La Fetra

The United States Supreme Court today ensured that consumers will continue to be able to enter into contracts with companies to arbitrate any future disputes that will arise.  Individual consumer arbitration speedily resolves disputes in an informal forum, providing benefits to consumers and businesses alike.  Today's decision ensures that these consumers and businesses cannot be forced into inefficient, expensive, and time-consuming class action procedures when they agreed to proceed on an individual basis.

Continue reading "Consumers win as Supreme Court upholds freedom of contract" »

Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Information System
Quality Assurance Project Plan
Version 1.0
April 10, 2009

Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA) Requirements


Quickfinder

Reporting Options for Sections 311 and 312 and Interpretations

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) provided draft guidance in the preamble to the June 8, 1998 proposed rule (63 FR 31268) to streamline the reporting requirements for facilities under sections 311 and 312 of the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act of 1986 (EPCRA). The Agency did not propose any regulatory changes, but sought comments on the reporting options. EPA is now providing guidance on the reporting options. The objective for this guidance is also to provide state and local agencies with flexibility in implementing sections 311 and 312 of EPCRA.

Fact Sheet: Emergency Planning And Community Right-To-Know Act - Guidance on Reporting Options for Sections 311 and 312 and Some Interpretations (PDF) (2 pp, 37K, About PDF )

FR Notice: Guidance on Reporting Options for Sections 311 and 312 and Interpretations (PDF) (8 pp, 204K, About PDF )


The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is announcing a final rule to provide an administrative reporting exemption for releases to the air from animal waste at farms of any hazardous substance at or above the reportable quantity for those hazardous substances. EPA is saying that these reports are unnecessary because there is no reasonable expectation that a Federal response would be made as a result of such reports. The final rule reduces the burden of complying with Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) and to a limited extent, the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA) reporting requirements on the regulated community.

Fact Sheet: CERCLA/EPCRA Administrative Reporting Exemption for Air Releases of Hazardous Substances from Animal Waste at Farms - Information on the Final Rule (PDF) (2 pp, 57K, About PDF )

Regulation: CERCLA/EPCRA Administrative Reporting Exemption for Air Releases of Hazardous Substances from Animal Waste at Farms

This rule is effective January 20, 2009.


Final Amendments to EPCRA Regulations

EPA finalized several changes to the Emergency Planning (Section 302), Emergency Release Notification (Section 304) and Hazardous Chemical Reporting (Sections 311 and 312) regulations that were proposed on June 8, 1998 (63 FR 31268). These changes include clarification on how to report hazardous chemicals in mixtures, and changes to Tier I and Tier II forms. Additionally, the rules now use a question and answer format. Facilities subject to EPCRA reporting, State Emergency Response Commissions (SERCs), Local Emergency Planning Committees (LEPCs) and fire departments should become familiar with the new regulation.

Factsheet: Amendments to Emergency Planning and Notification; Emergency Release Notification and Hazardous Chemical Reporting. 40 CFR Parts 355 and 370 (PDF) (1 pp, 31K, About PDF )

Regulation: Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act; Amendments to Emergency Planning and Notification; Emergency Release Notification and Hazardous Chemical Reporting, Final Rule

This final rule is effective on December 3, 2008.

On March 26, 2009 , EPA corrected a technical error that appeared in the November 3, 2008 final rule published on Tier II inventory information. HTML | PDF (2 pp, 75 KB, About PDF )

This final rule is effective on March 26, 2009.

The Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA) was created to help communities plan for emergencies involving hazardous substances.   EPCRA has four major provisions: one deals with emergency planning and three deal with chemical reporting.

Local Emergency Planning Requirements

EPCRA local emergency planning requirements (Sections 301 to 303) stipulate that every community in the United States must be part of a comprehensive emergency response plan. Facilities are required to participate in the planning process.

Chemical Reporting Requirements

According to the EPCRA chemical reporting requirements, facilities must report the storage, use, and release of certain hazardous chemicals.

For More Information


Current Regulatory Plan
and
the Unified Agenda of Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions


The Regulatory Information Service Center (RISC) was created in June 1981. The Center undertakes projects that will facilitate development of and access to information about Federal regulatory and deregulatory activities. It accomplishes this by gathering and publishing information on Federal regulations and their effects on society. The Center provides this information to the President, Congress, agency officials, and the general public to help them better understand and manage the regulatory process. The Center's principal publication is the Unified Agenda, which is published in the spring and fall of each year. Since 1978, Federal agencies have been required by Executive orders to publish agendas of regulatory and deregulatory activities. The Regulatory Plan, which is published as part of the fall edition of the Agenda, identifies regulatory priorities and contains additional detail about the most important significant regulatory actions that agencies expect to take in the coming year.

Currently, RegInfo.gov maintains the spring and fall editions of the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions beginning with fall 1995. Later this year, all prior editions beginning with spring 1983 will be made available on this site.

About the Unified Agenda
How To Use the Unified Agenda
Abbreviations
Obtaining Printed Copies
Current Agenda Agency Preambles

The Regulatory Plan - OIRA Introduction to the Fall 2010 Regulatory Plan
The Regulatory Plan - Current Agency Statements of Regulatory Priorities

Introduction to the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions

Current Agenda Agency Regulatory Entries

AGENCY: DOE-EE RIN: 1904-AC41
TITLE: Federal Building Standards Update Rulemaking
STAGE: Final Rule ECONOMICALLY SIGNIFICANT: No
RECEIVED DATE: 04/13/2011 LEGAL DEADLINE: Statutory  

Department of the Treasury

AGENCY: TREAS-DO RIN: 1505-AC05
TITLE: Emergency Economic Stabilization Act; Conflicts of Interest
STAGE: Final Rule ECONOMICALLY SIGNIFICANT: No
RECEIVED DATE: 04/21/2011 LEGAL DEADLINE: None  


AGENCY: TREAS-FINCEN RIN: 1506-AA97
TITLE: Amendment to the Bank Secrecy Act Regulations--Definitions and Other Regulations Relating to Money Services Businesses
STAGE: Final Rule ECONOMICALLY SIGNIFICANT: No
RECEIVED DATE: 04/25/2011 LEGAL DEADLINE: None  


AGENCY: TREAS-FINCEN RIN: 1506-AB07
TITLE: Amendment to the Bank Secrecy Act Regulations--Definitions and Other Regulations Relating to Prepaid Access
STAGE: Final Rule ECONOMICALLY SIGNIFICANT: No
RECEIVED DATE: 04/25/2011 LEGAL DEADLINE: Statutory  

AGENCY: EPA-OCSPP RIN: 2070-AJ43
TITLE: TSCA Inventory Update Reporting Modifications
STAGE: Final Rule ECONOMICALLY SIGNIFICANT: No
RECEIVED DATE: 01/20/2011 LEGAL DEADLINE: None  


AGENCY: EPA-OCSPP RIN: 2070-AJ57
TITLE: Lead; Clearance and Clearance Testing Requirements for the Renovation, Repair, and Painting Program
STAGE: Final Rule ECONOMICALLY SIGNIFICANT: No
RECEIVED DATE: 04/18/2011 LEGAL DEADLINE: Judicial  


AGENCY: EPA-OCSPP RIN: 2070-ZA11
TITLE: Pesticide Products Containing Nanoscale Materials
STAGE: Notice ECONOMICALLY SIGNIFICANT: No
RECEIVED DATE: 07/30/2010 LEGAL DEADLINE: None  
REVIEW EXTENDED


AGENCY: EPA-OCSPP RIN: 2070-AJ52
TITLE: Significant New Use Rule for Glymes
STAGE: Proposed Rule ECONOMICALLY SIGNIFICANT: No
RECEIVED DATE: 11/15/2010 LEGAL DEADLINE: None  


AGENCY: EPA-OCSPP RIN: 2070-AJ54
TITLE: Nanoscale Materials; Reporting Under TSCA Section 8(a)
STAGE: Proposed Rule ECONOMICALLY SIGNIFICANT: No
RECEIVED DATE: 11/22/2010 LEGAL DEADLINE: None  


AGENCY: EPA-OCSPP RIN: 2070-AJ08
TITLE: Certain Polybrominated Diphenyl Ethers (PBDEs); Test Rule and Significant New Use Rule (SNUR)
STAGE: Proposed Rule ECONOMICALLY SIGNIFICANT: No
RECEIVED DATE: 12/17/2010 LEGAL DEADLINE: None  


AGENCY: EPA-OCSPP RIN: 2070-AJ83
TITLE: Testing of Bisphenol A (BPA)
STAGE: Prerule ECONOMICALLY SIGNIFICANT: No
RECEIVED DATE: 12/21/2010 LEGAL DEADLINE: None  
REVIEW EXTENDED


AGENCY: EPA-OEI RIN: 2025-AA11
TITLE: Modification of Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) Reporting Requirements Primarily Associated With Metal Mining
STAGE: Proposed Rule ECONOMICALLY SIGNIFICANT: No
RECEIVED DATE: 05/13/2011 LEGAL DEADLINE: None  


AGENCY: EPA-OEI RIN: 2025-AA27
TITLE: TRI: Intent to Consider Lifting Administrative Stay Regarding Hydrogen Sulfide Reporting Requirements; Opportunity for Public Comment.
STAGE: Notice ECONOMICALLY SIGNIFICANT: No
RECEIVED DATE: 10/28/2010 LEGAL DEADLINE: None  
REVIEW EXTENDED


AGENCY: EPA-OEI RIN: 2025-AA24
TITLE: Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) Articles Exemption Clarification Rule
STAGE: Final Rule ECONOMICALLY SIGNIFICANT: No
RECEIVED DATE: 11/15/2010 LEGAL DEADLINE: None  
REVIEW EXTENDED


AGENCY: EPA-OPPTS RIN: 2070-AJ70
TITLE: Chemicals of Concern List
STAGE: Proposed Rule ECONOMICALLY SIGNIFICANT: No
RECEIVED DATE: 05/12/2010 LEGAL DEADLINE: None  
REVIEW EXTENDED


AGENCY: EPA-RD RIN: 2080-ZA00
TITLE: Microbial Risk Assessment Guideline: Pathogenic Microorganisms in Food and Water
STAGE: Notice ECONOMICALLY SIGNIFICANT: No
RECEIVED DATE: 12/27/2010 LEGAL DEADLINE: None  


AGENCY: EPA-SWER RIN: 2050-AG60
TITLE: Hazardous Waste Management Systems: Identification and Listing of Hazardous Waste: Carbon Dioxide (CO2) Injectate in Geological Sequestration Activities
STAGE: Proposed Rule ECONOMICALLY SIGNIFICANT: No
RECEIVED DATE: 03/22/2011 LEGAL DEADLINE: None  


AGENCY: EPA-SWER RIN: 2050-AG62
TITLE: Rulemaking on the Definition of Solid Waste
STAGE: Proposed Rule ECONOMICALLY SIGNIFICANT: No
RECEIVED DATE: 03/22/2011 LEGAL DEADLINE: Judicial  


AGENCY: EPA-SWER RIN: 2050-AG46
TITLE: Revising Underground Storage Tank Regulations--Revisions to Existing Requirements and New Requirements for Secondary Containment and Operator Training
STAGE: Proposed Rule ECONOMICALLY SIGNIFICANT: Yes
RECEIVED DATE: 05/13/2011 LEGAL DEADLINE: None  


AGENCY: EPA-SWER RIN: 2050-ZA05
TITLE: OSWER Guidance on Developing an Interim Preliminary Remediation Goal for Dioxin in Residential Soil at CERCLA and RCRA Sites
STAGE: Notice ECONOMICALLY SIGNIFICANT: No
RECEIVED DATE: 08/10/2010 LEGAL DEADLINE: None  
REVIEW EXTENDED


AGENCY: EPA-WATER RIN: 2040-AF06
TITLE: 2010 Effluent Guidelines Program Plan
STAGE: Notice ECONOMICALLY SIGNIFICANT: No
RECEIVED DATE: 01/24/2011 LEGAL DEADLINE: Statutory  
REVIEW EXTENDED


AGENCY: EPA-WATER RIN: 2040-ZA12
TITLE: Improving EPA Review of Appalachian Surface Coal Mining Operations Under the Clean Water Act, National Environmental Policy Act, and the Environmental Justice Executive Order
STAGE: Notice ECONOMICALLY SIGNIFICANT: No
RECEIVED DATE: 04/13/2011 LEGAL DEADLINE: None  


AGENCY: EPA-WATER RIN: 2040-AF27
TITLE: Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Industry - Revision
STAGE: Proposed Rule ECONOMICALLY SIGNIFICANT: No
RECEIVED DATE: 12/21/2010 LEGAL DEADLINE: None  
REVIEW EXTENDED

DOD/GSA/NASA (FAR)

AGENCY: FAR RIN: 9000-AL65
TITLE: FAR Case 2009-041, Sudan Waiver Process
STAGE: Final Rule ECONOMICALLY SIGNIFICANT: No
RECEIVED DATE: 04/08/2011 LEGAL DEADLINE: None  


AGENCY: FAR RIN: 9000-AL71
TITLE: FAR Case 2010-012, Certification Requirement and Procurement Prohibition Relating to Iran Sanctions
STAGE: Final Rule ECONOMICALLY SIGNIFICANT: No
RECEIVED DATE: 04/14/2011 LEGAL DEADLINE: None  


AGENCY: FAR RIN: 9000-AL91
TITLE: FAR Case 2010-018, Representation Regarding Export of Sensitive Technology of Iran
STAGE: Interim Final Rule ECONOMICALLY SIGNIFICANT: No
RECEIVED DATE: 04/14/2011 LEGAL DEADLINE: None  


AGENCY: FAR RIN: 9000-AM03
TITLE: FAR Case 2010-004, Biobased Procurements
STAGE: Proposed Rule ECONOMICALLY SIGNIFICANT: No
RECEIVED DATE: 04/28/2011 LEGAL DEADLINE: None  


AGENCY: FAR RIN: 9000-AM05
TITLE: FAR Case 2009-016, Constitutionality of Federal Contracting Programs for Minority-Owned and Other Small Businesses
STAGE: Interim Final Rule ECONOMICALLY SIGNIFICANT: No
RECEIVED DATE: 05/05/2011 LEGAL DEADLINE: None  


AGENCY: FAR RIN: 9000-AL46
TITLE: FAR Case 2008-025, Preventing Personal Conflicts of Interest for Contractor Employees Performing Acquisition Functions
STAGE: Final Rule ECONOMICALLY SIGNIFICANT: No
RECEIVED DATE: 05/09/2011 LEGAL DEADLINE: None  


AGENCY: FAR RIN: 9000-AL39
TITLE: FAR Case 2009-006, Labor Relations Costs
STAGE: Final Rule ECONOMICALLY SIGNIFICANT: No
RECEIVED DATE: 05/12/2011 LEGAL DEADLINE: None  


AGENCY: FAR RIN: 9000-AM01
TITLE: FAR Case 2011-003, Payment on T&M/LH Contracts
STAGE: Proposed Rule ECONOMICALLY SIGNIFICANT: No
RECEIVED DATE: 05/17/2011 LEGAL DEADLINE: None  




General Services Administration
AGENCY: GSA RIN: 3090-AJ15
TITLE: GSAR Case 2011-G503, Implementation of Information Technology Security Provision
STAGE: Interim Final Rule ECONOMICALLY SIGNIFICANT: No
RECEIVED DATE: 05/05/2011 LEGAL DEADLINE: None  




Office of Government Ethics
AGENCY: OGE RIN: 3209-AA04
TITLE: Standards of Ethical Conduct for Employees of the Executive Branch
STAGE: Proposed Rule ECONOMICALLY SIGNIFICANT: No
RECEIVED DATE: 05/04/2011 LEGAL DEADLINE: None  




Office of Personnel Management
AGENCY: OPM RIN: 3206-AL15
TITLE: Qualification Requirements (General)
STAGE: Proposed Rule ECONOMICALLY SIGNIFICANT: No
RECEIVED DATE: 03/28/2011 LEGAL DEADLINE: None  


AGENCY: OPM RIN: 3206-AM39
TITLE: Federal Employees Health Benefits Program; Community-Rated Health Plans
STAGE: Interim Final Rule ECONOMICALLY SIGNIFICANT: No
RECEIVED DATE: 04/01/2011 LEGAL DEADLINE: None  


AGENCY: OPM RIN: 3206-AL36
TITLE: Agency Use of Appropriated Funds for Child Care Costs for Lower Income Employees
STAGE: Proposed Rule ECONOMICALLY SIGNIFICANT: No
RECEIVED DATE: 04/06/2011 LEGAL DEADLINE: None  


AGENCY: OPM RIN: 3206-AM31
TITLE: Change in Definitions; Evacuation Pay and the Separate Maintenance Allowance at Johnston Island
STAGE: Proposed Rule ECONOMICALLY SIGNIFICANT: No
RECEIVED DATE: 04/06/2011 LEGAL DEADLINE: None  


AGENCY: OPM RIN: 3206-AL69
TITLE: Retirement Eligibility for Customs and Border Protection Officers Under CSRS and FERS
STAGE: Final Rule ECONOMICALLY SIGNIFICANT: No
RECEIVED DATE: 04/20/2011 LEGAL DEADLINE: None  


AGENCY: OPM RIN: 3206-AM35
TITLE: Noncompetitive Appointment of Certain Former Overseas Employees
STAGE: Proposed Rule ECONOMICALLY SIGNIFICANT: No
RECEIVED DATE: 04/20/2011 LEGAL DEADLINE: None  


AGENCY: OPM RIN: 3206-AL98
TITLE: Personnel Management in Agencies
STAGE: Proposed Rule ECONOMICALLY SIGNIFICANT: No
** RECEIVED DATE: 05/19/2011 LEGAL DEADLINE: None  


AGENCY: OPM RIN: 3206-AM25
TITLE: General Schedule Locality Pay Areas
STAGE: Final Rule ECONOMICALLY SIGNIFICANT: No
** RECEIVED DATE: 05/19/2011 LEGAL DEADLINE: None  


Americorps Watershed Stewards Project

Watershed and Salmonid Teaching Resources

Submit your own watershed related lesson plan or activity using this FORM .

 

Salmonid Life Cycle & Habitat PP#1 (50 slides & Script)

Salmonid Life Cycle & Habitat PP #2

Lifecycle PowerPoint (10 great slides)

Farmed Salmon PP

Restoration PP

Habitat PowerPoint

Macroinvertebrate PowerPoint

Northern California Plants PP

Watershed Basics (shortened version of Wonders of Water)

Wonders of Water

Mapping, Watersheds & Topos

Energy Flow Through an Ecosystem (from Mary Poarch)

Salmon Jeopardy!

Video Clip: Weaver Creek Spawning

Video Clip: Coho Spawning

 

CCC HIRING VETERANS FOR NATIONAL FORESTS
Two new veterans crews are in the works for this summer. The CCC is hiring recently returned veterans from Iraq and Afghanistan for corpsmember positions in San Diego (nonresidential) and Lake Tahoe (residential). Veterans must be between the ages of 18 and 25, have an honorable discharge and not be on probation or parole. Women are encouraged to apply.  [ Read More ]

 

The young women and men of the Corps work hard protecting and restoring California's environment and responding to disasters, becoming stronger workers, citizens and individuals through their service.

Climate Change and the Department of Fish and Game

Public Meeting on Salmon and Steelhead Held on May 18

Environmental Review & Permitting

See also, License Branch -- Special Permits

California's fish and wildlife resources depend upon the quality and quantity of habitat including lands, waters, and other environmental factors necessary for survival.

The Environmental Review and Permitting Programs are responsible to fulfill the mission of the State to encourage the preservation, conservation and maintenance of wildlife resources under the jurisdiction and influence of the State, including the conservation, protection and management of fish, wildlife, native plants, and habitat necessary for biologically sustainable populations of those species.

California Endangered Species Act Permitting (CESA)
The California Endangered Species Act (CESA) allows the Department to authorize project proponents to take state- listed threatened, endangered, or candidate species if certain conditions are met.  The permitting program administers the incidental take provisions of CESA to ensure regulatory compliance and statewide consistency.

California Environmental Quality Act Review (CEQA)
The Department consults with lead and responsible agencies and provides the requisite biological expertise to review and comment upon environmental documents and impacts arising from project activities under the California Environmental Quality Act.

Lake and Steambed Alteration Program (LSA)
The Lake and Streambed Alteration Program determines whether an agreement is needed for an activity that will substantually modify a river, steam or lake.  If DFG determines that the activity may substantially adversely affect fish and wildlife resources, a Lake or Streambed Alteration Agreement will be prepared. The Agreement includes reasonable conditions necessary to protect those resources and must comply with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

Timberland Conservation Program
Timber harvesting in California is overseen by multiple state agencies to address the variety of potential impacts logging has on the environment.  The Department may issue permits for road construction across streams and incidental lake permits when endangered species habitat is involved.

 

Media Contacts:
Kim Howlett, DFG Fisheries Branch, (916) 445-3935
Dana Michaels, DFG Communications, (916) 322-2420

The Department of Fish and Game (DFG) will hold a meeting of the California Advisory Committee on Salmon and Steelhead in Sacramento on Wednesday, May 18. This meeting, hosted by the Fisheries Restoration Grant Program, is open to the public.

The Committee will discuss the Fisheries Restoration Grants Program, pending legislation regarding salmon and steelhead, AmeriCorps Watershed Stewards, and the status of the species in the Klamath, Shasta and Scott rivers.

An update on the Sacramento River System and Delta will include the Central Valley Steelhead Monitoring and Implementation Plan, the Draft Delta Plan III and the Trinity River watershed.

The public will have an opportunity to speak before the vote on each action item.

ANROSP: A national network of diverse environmental outreach and service programs creating greater natural resource conservation & education. Many different types of programs fulfill our mission including: Master Naturalist, Certified Citizen Naturalist Volunteer, Master Watershed Steward Coverts, Master Conservationist, and many more nationwide.

MISSION

ANROSP promotes awareness and citizen stewardship of natural resources through science-based education and service programs.

VISION

ANROSP envisions healthy ecosystems and communities through citizens who learn- teach- and practice natural resource stewardship.

GOALS

RELATED ORGANIZATIONS

Association of Fish & Wildlife Agencies
National Association for Interpretation
National Wildlife Federation
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Teaming With Wildlife Coalition

ADDITIONAL LINKS:

Open Access journals and newsletters: links to over 75 online natural resource and conservation-oriented publications

Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom (1786)

Thomas Jefferson

Jefferson drafted the following measure, but it was Madison who secured its adoption by the Virginia legislature in 1786. It is still part of modern Virginia's constitution, and it has not only been copied by other states but was also the basis for the Religion Clauses in the Constitution's Bill of Rights. Both men considered this bill one of the great achievements of their lives, and Jefferson directed that on his tombstone he should not be remembered as president of the United States or for any of the other high offices he held, but as the author of the Declaration of Independence and the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom, and as the founder of the University of Virginia.

Whereas Almighty God hath created the mind free; that all attempts to influence it by temporal punishments or burthens, or by civil incapacitations, tend only to beget habits of hypocrisy and meanness, and are a departure from the plan of the Holy author of our religion, who being Lord both of body and mind, yet chose not to propagate it by coercions on either, as it was in his Almighty power to do; that the impious presumption of legislators and rulers, civil as well as ecclesiastical, who being themselves but fallible and uninspired men, have assumed dominion over the faith of others, setting up their own opinions and modes of thinking as the only true and infallible, and as such endeavouring to impose them on others, hath established and maintained false religions over the greatest part of the world, and through all time; that to compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves, is sinful and tyrannical; that even the forcing him to support this or that teacher of his own religious persuasion, is depriving him of the comfortable liberty of giving his contributions to the particular pastor, whose morals he would make his pattern, and whose powers he feels most persuasive to righteousness, and is withdrawing from the ministry those temporary rewards, which proceeding from an approbation of their personal conduct, are an additional incitement to earnest and unremitting labours for the instruction of mankind; that our civil rights have no dependence on our religious opinions, any more than our opinions in physics or geometry; that therefore the proscribing any citizen as unworthy the public confidence by laying upon him an incapacity of being called to offices of trust and emolument, unless he profess or renounce this or that religious opinion, is depriving him injuriously of those privileges and advantages to which in common with his fellow-citizens he has a natural right; that it tends only to corrupt the principles of that religion it is meant to encourage, by bribing with a monopoly of worldly honours and emoluments, those who will externally profess and conform to it; that though indeed these are criminal who do not withstand such temptation, yet neither are those innocent who lay the bait in their way; that to suffer the civil magistrate to intrude his powers into the field of opinion, and to restrain the profession or propagation of principles on supposition of their ill tendency, is a dangerous fallacy, which at once destroys all religious liberty, because he being of course judge of that tendency will make his opinions the rule of judgment, and approve or condemn the sentiments of others only as they shall square with or differ from his own; that it is time enough for the rightful purposes of civil government, for its officers to interfere when principles break out into overt acts against peace and good order; and finally, that truth is great and will prevail if left to herself, that she is the proper and sufficient antagonist to error, and has nothing to fear from the conflict, unless by human interposition disarmed of her natural weapons, free argument and debate, errors ceasing to be dangerous when it is permitted freely to contradict them:

Be it enacted by the General Assembly , That no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinion in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish enlarge, or affect their civil capacities.

And though we well know that this assembly elected by the people for the ordinary purposes of legislation only, have no power to restrain the acts of succeeding assemblies, constituted with powers equal to our own, and that therefore to declare this act to be irrevocable would be of no effect in law; yet we are free to declare, and do declare, that the rights hereby asserted are of the natural rights of mankind, and that if any act shall be hereafter passed to repeal the present, or to narrow its operation, such act shall be an infringement of natural right.

Source: W.W. Hening, ed., Statutes at Large of Virginia , vol. 12 (1823): 84-86.

For further reading: William Lee Miller, The First Liberty: Religion and the American Republic (1985); Leonard W. Levy, The Establishment Clause and the First Amendment (1986); Merrill D. Peterson and Robert C. Vaughn, eds., The Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom: Its Evolution and Consequences in American History (1988).

Senator Boxer Begins Work on Water Resources Development Act


Written by   James Alfano
March 8, 2011
The FundBook, a free monthly publication that empowers cities and counties to pursue an increasing array of federal funding opportunities to meet their capital needs. You can read more about funding opportunities here.

Last month, Senator Barbara Boxer, Chairman of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, announced that her Committee will soon begin assembling their version of the next Water Resources Development Act (WRDA). This legislation, which is supposed to be reauthorized every two years, authorizes the Army Corps of Engineers to construct critical flood protection, navigation, and ecosystem restoration projects nationwide.

In a bipartisan letter to their Senate colleagues , Boxer and Senator Inhofe, the Ranking Committee Member, asked that each office submit their highest priority water infrastructure projects to the Committee for consideration no later than March 28th. The Senators' letter indicates that the Committee is serious about moving a bill out of committee and to the whole Senate for consideration sometime this spring.

WRDA is a unique piece of authorization legislation because Congress uses it to provide line-item authorizations for individual projects instead of authorizing a lump sum that enables the Corps to invest wherever it chooses. Once authorized, lawmakers can then appropriate funds for these activities in annual Energy and Water Development Appropriations spending bills. Depending on an authorized project's purpose, it is typically subject to cost-sharing requirements that range from 20 percent to 100 percent non-federal share.

It should be noted that not all water resources projects are eligible for inclusion in WRDA.  Projects typically included in WRDA are those with completed Chief of Engineers reports, modifications to existing Corps of Engineers' projects, study authorizations for new projects, and miscellaneous projects consistent with the Corps' program and demonstrating a federal interest.

Interest in authorizing new studies and projects has likely prompted consideration of a new WRDA bill in the 112 th Congress, as the legislation provides much-needed momentum to help state and local governments commit funds to major water system restoration and flood control projects across the nation. Congress last passed that the last Water Resources Development Act in 2007 with overwhelming bipartisan support, overriding President Bush's veto.  But lawmakers have been unable to a reauthorization since then.

Because it's difficult to assess when Congress will pass the next authorization bill, many cities and states have taken issues into their own hands instead of waiting for federal support, funding repairs and expansions through state and local bond referendums or with the support of innovative new public-private partnerships.

Boxer and Inhofe sent their joint letter last month despite the fact that the House and Senate agreed to a two-year earmark moratorium and President Barack Obama vowed to veto any bill with funding for the parochial projects.  The letter, which doesn't mention the word earmark, states that: "Congress has a constitutional role to play in determining spending priorities for the Army Corps of Engineers Civil Works program. Without congressional input, the administration would be the sole voice in setting water resources priorities."

In a separate effort that could affect whether WRDA is successful moving forward, Inhofe teamed up with Senator John McCain this week to introduce a proposal that would exempt from an earmark ban those projects specifically authorized by Senate committees, that meet "funding eligibility criteria" established by the relevant committees, or that are created through a competitive-bidding and formula-based process. Under the proposal, earmarks could also be enacted with the support of 75 senators.

If you would like to submit a project request for WRDA, now is the time to get in contact with your two Senators' offices to express such an interest and acquire an application.  While each Senate office utilizes its own form to gauge and rank project submissions, the following template is what each Member will have to submit to the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works at the end of the month.

 

Rule 60. Relief from Judgment or Order

(a) Corrections Based on Clerical Mistakes; Oversights and Omissions.

The court may correct a clerical mistake or a mistake arising from oversight or omission whenever one is found in a judgment, order, or other part of the record. The court may do so on motion or on its own, with or without notice. But after an appeal has been docketed in the appellate court and while it is pending, such a mistake may be corrected only with the appellate court's leave.

(b) Grounds for Relief from a Final Judgment, Order, or Proceeding.

On motion and just terms, the court may relieve a party or its legal representative from a final judgment, order, or proceeding for the following reasons:

(1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect;

(2) newly discovered evidence that, with reasonable diligence, could not have been discovered in time to move for a new trial under Rule 59(b) ;

(3) fraud (whether previously called intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation, or misconduct by an opposing party;

(4) the judgment is void;

(5) the judgment has been satisfied, released, or discharged; it is based on an earlier judgment that has been reversed or vacated; or applying it prospectively is no longer equitable; or

(6) any other reason that justifies relief.

(c) Timing and Effect of the Motion.

(1) Timing.

A motion under Rule 60(b) must be made within a reasonable time — and for reasons (1), (2), and (3) no more than a year after the entry of the judgment or order or the date of the proceeding.

(2) Effect on Finality.

The motion does not affect the judgment's finality or suspend its operation.

(d) Other Powers to Grant Relief.

This rule does not limit a court's power to:

(1) entertain an independent action to relieve a party from a judgment, order, or proceeding;

(2) grant relief under 28 U.S.C. § 1655 to a defendant who was not personally notified of the action; or

(3) set aside a judgment for fraud on the court.

(e) Bills and Writs Abolished.

The following are abolished: bills of review, bills in the nature of bills of review, and writs of coram nobis, coram vobis, and audita querela.

Karen Jurist, Region 9 (AZ, CA, HI, NV, AS, GU, MP), U.S. EPA, 75 Hawthorne Street, Mailcode SFD-9-1, San Francisco, CA 94105; 415/972-3219.

 

Rule 71.1 Condemning Real or Personal Property

(a) Applicability of Other Rules

These rules govern proceedings to condemn real and personal property by eminent domain, except as this rule provides otherwise.

(b) Joinder of Properties

The plaintiff may join separate pieces of property in a single action, no matter whether they are owned by the same persons or sought for the same use.

(c) Complaint.

(1) Caption.

The complaint must contain a caption as provided in Rule 10(a) . The plaintiff must, however, name as defendants both the property — designated generally by kind, quantity, and location — and at least one owner of some part of or interest in the property.

(2) Contents.

The complaint must contain a short and plain statement of the following:

(A) the authority for the taking;

(B) the uses for which the property is to be taken;

(C) a description sufficient to identify the property;

(D) the interests to be acquired; and

(E) for each piece of property, a designation of each defendant who has been joined as an owner or owner of an interest in it.

(3) Parties.

When the action commences, the plaintiff need join as defendants only those persons who have or claim an interest in the property and whose names are then known. But before any hearing on compensation, the plaintiff must add as defendants all those persons who have or claim an interest and whose names have become known or can be found by a reasonably diligent search of the records, considering both the property's character and value and the interests to be acquired. All others may be made defendants under the designation “Unknown Owners.”

(4) Procedure.

Notice must be served on all defendants as provided in Rule 71.1(d), whether they were named as defendants when the action commenced or were added later. A defendant may answer as provided in Rule 71.1(e). The court, meanwhile, may order any distribution of a deposit that the facts warrant.

(5) Filing; Additional Copies.

In addition to filing the complaint, the plaintiff must give the clerk at least one copy for the defendants' use and additional copies at the request of the clerk or a defendant.

(d) Process.

(1) Delivering Notice to the Clerk.

On filing a complaint, the plaintiff must promptly deliver to the clerk joint or several notices directed to the named defendants. When adding defendants, the plaintiff must deliver to the clerk additional notices directed to the new defendants.

(2) Contents of the Notice.

(A) Main Contents . Each notice must name the court, the title of the action, and the defendant to whom it is directed. It must describe the property sufficiently to identify it, but need not describe any property other than that to be taken from the named defendant. The notice must also state:

(i) that the action is to condemn property;

(ii) the interest to be taken;

(iii) the authority for the taking;

(iv) the uses for which the property is to be taken;

(v) that the defendant may serve an answer on the plaintiff's attorney within 21 days after being served with the notice;

(vi) that the failure to so serve an answer constitutes consent to the taking and to the court's authority to proceed with the action and fix the compensation; and

(vii) that a defendant who does not serve an answer may file a notice of appearance.

(B) Conclusion . The notice must conclude with the name, telephone number, and e-mail address of the plaintiff's attorney and an address within the district in which the action is brought where the attorney may be served.

(3) Serving the Notice.

(A) Personal Service . When a defendant whose address is known resides within the United States or a territory subject to the administrative or judicial jurisdiction of the United States, personal service of the notice (without a copy of the complaint) must be made in accordance with Rule 4 .

(B) Service by Publication .

(i) A defendant may be served by publication only when the plaintiff's attorney files a certificate stating that the attorney believes the defendant cannot be personally served, because after diligent inquiry within the state where the complaint is filed, the defendant's place of residence is still unknown or, if known, that it is beyond the territorial limits of personal service. Service is then made by publishing the notice — once a week for at least 3 successive weeks — in a newspaper published in the county where the property is located or, if there is no such newspaper, in a newspaper with general circulation where the property is located. Before the last publication, a copy of the notice must also be mailed to every defendant who cannot be personally served but whose place of residence is then known. Unknown owners may be served by publication in the same manner by a notice addressed to “Unknown Owners.”

(ii) Service by publication is complete on the date of the last publication. The plaintiff's attorney must prove publication and mailing by a certificate, attach a printed copy of the published notice, and mark on the copy the newspaper's name and the dates of publication.

(4) Effect of Delivery and Service.

Delivering the notice to the clerk and serving it have the same effect as serving a summons under Rule 4 .

(5) Amending the Notice; Proof of Service and Amending the Proof.

Rule 4(a) (2) governs amending the notice. Rule 4(l) governs proof of service and amending it.

(e) Appearance or Answer.

(1) Notice of Appearance.

A defendant that has no objection or defense to the taking of its property may serve a notice of appearance designating the property in which it claims an interest. The defendant must then be given notice of all later proceedings affecting the defendant.

(2) Answer.

A defendant that has an objection or defense to the taking must serve an answer within 21 days after being served with the notice. The answer must:

(A) identify the property in which the defendant claims an interest;

(B) state the nature and extent of the interest; and

(C) state all the defendant's objections and defenses to the taking.

(3) Waiver of Other Objections and Defenses; Evidence on Compensation.

A defendant waives all objections and defenses not stated in its answer. No other pleading or motion asserting an additional objection or defense is allowed. But at the trial on compensation, a defendant — whether or not it has previously appeared or answered — may present evidence on the amount of compensation to be paid and may share in the award.

(f) Amending Pleadings.

Without leave of court, the plaintiff may — as often as it wants — amend the complaint at any time before the trial on compensation. But no amendment may be made if it would result in a dismissal inconsistent with Rule 71.1(i)(1) or (2). The plaintiff need not serve a copy of an amendment, but must serve notice of the filing, as provided in Rule 5(b) , on every affected party who has appeared and, as provided in Rule 71.1(d), on every affected party who has not appeared. In addition, the plaintiff must give the clerk at least one copy of each amendment for the defendants' use, and additional copies at the request of the clerk or a defendant. A defendant may appear or answer in the time and manner and with the same effect as provided in Rule 71.1(e).

(g) Substituting Parties.

If a defendant dies, becomes incompetent, or transfers an interest after being joined, the court may, on motion and notice of hearing, order that the proper party be substituted. Service of the motion and notice on a nonparty must be made as provided in Rule 71.1(d)(3).

(h) Trial of the Issues.

(1) Issues Other Than Compensation; Compensation.

In an action involving eminent domain under federal law, the court tries all issues, including compensation, except when compensation must be determined:

(A) by any tribunal specially constituted by a federal statute to determine compensation; or

(B) if there is no such tribunal, by a jury when a party demands one within the time to answer or within any additional time the court sets, unless the court appoints a commission.

(2) Appointing a Commission; Commission's Powers and Report.

(A) Reasons for Appointing. If a party has demanded a jury, the court may instead appoint a three-person commission to determine compensation because of the character, location, or quantity of the property to be condemned or for other just reasons.

(B) Alternate Commissioners. The court may appoint up to two additional persons to serve as alternate commissioners to hear the case and replace commissioners who, before a decision is filed, the court finds unable or disqualified to perform their duties. Once the commission renders its final decision, the court must discharge any alternate who has not replaced a commissioner.

(C) Examining the Prospective Commissioners. Before making its appointments, the court must advise the parties of the identity and qualifications of each prospective commissioner and alternate, and may permit the parties to examine them. The parties may not suggest appointees, but for good cause may object to a prospective commissioner or alternate.

(D) Commission's Powers and Report. A commission has the powers of a master under Rule 53(c) . Its action and report are determined by a majority. Rule 53(d) , (e) , and (f) apply to its action and report.

(i) Dismissal of the Action or a Defendant.

(1) Dismissing the Action.

(A) By the Plaintiff . If no compensation hearing on a piece of property has begun, and if the plaintiff has not acquired title or a lesser interest or taken possession, the plaintiff may, without a court order, dismiss the action as to that property by filing a notice of dismissal briefly describing the property.

(B) By Stipulation . Before a judgment is entered vesting the plaintiff with title or a lesser interest in or possession of property, the plaintiff and affected defendants may, without a court order, dismiss the action in whole or in part by filing a stipulation of dismissal. And if the parties so stipulate, the court may vacate a judgment already entered.

(C) By Court Order . At any time before compensation has been determined and paid, the court may, after a motion and hearing, dismiss the action as to a piece of property. But if the plaintiff has already taken title, a lesser interest, or possession as to any part of it, the court must award compensation for the title, lesser interest, or possession taken.

(2) Dismissing a Defendant.

The court may at any time dismiss a defendant who was unnecessarily or improperly joined.

(3) Effect.

A dismissal is without prejudice unless otherwise stated in the notice, stipulation, or court order.

(j) Deposit and Its Distribution.

(1) Deposit.

The plaintiff must deposit with the court any money required by law as a condition to the exercise of eminent domain and may make a deposit when allowed by statute.

(2) Distribution; Adjusting Distribution.

After a deposit, the court and attorneys must expedite the proceedings so as to distribute the deposit and to determine and pay compensation. If the compensation finally awarded to a defendant exceeds the amount distributed to that defendant, the court must enter judgment against the plaintiff for the deficiency. If the compensation awarded to a defendant is less than the amount distributed to that defendant, the court must enter judgment against that defendant for the overpayment.

(k) Condemnation Under a State's Power of Eminent Domain.

This rule governs an action involving eminent domain under state law. But if state law provides for trying an issue by jury — or for trying the issue of compensation by jury or commission or both — that law governs.

(l) Costs.

Costs are not subject to Rule 54(d) .

Subject: a bill
From:
< john@ironmountainmine.com > To: "Ted Arman" < ted@ironmountainmine.com >

Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
Sec. 2. Purpose.
Sec. 3. Definitions.
Sec. 4. Establishment of Civilian Property Realignment Board.
Sec. 5. Board Meetings.
Sec. 6. Board Duties and OMB Review Process.
Sec. 7. Co-location among Postal Service Properties.
Sec. 8. Realignment of Real Property owned or managed by the Bureau of Overseas Building
Operations.
Sec. 9. Congressional Consideration of Board Recommendations.
Sec. 10. Implementation of Board Recommendations by Executive Agencies.
Sec. 11. Authorization of Appropriation and Funding.
Sec. 12. Pay and Travel Expenses.
Sec. 13. Executive Director.
Sec. 14. Staff.
Sec. 15. Contracting Authority.
Sec. 16. Termination.
Sec. 17. Preclusion of Judicial Review.
Sec. 18. Report by the Board to OMB within Two Years.
SEC. 2. PURPOSE.
PURPOSE. The purpose of this Act is to expedite the disposal of unneeded Federal civilian property and realize savings by taking steps to:
(a) create a fair process that will result in the timely disposal and realignment of Federal civilian real property;

TERMINATION: WATER AND WASTEWATER TREATMENT PROJECTS
Corps of Engineers
Water and wastewater treatment projects, often referred to as "environmental infrastructure" projects,
are outside the Corps of Engineers' main mission areas of commercial navigation, flood and storm damage
reduction, and significant aquatic ecosystem restoration. Therefore, as in past years the Budget does not
include funding for these projects, but rather redirects these resources to other, higher-performing projects
that are within the Corps' main missions.
Funding Summary
(In millions of dollars)
. 2010 Enacted 2012 Request 2012 Change from 2010
Budget Authority........................................................................................................................................ 129 0 -129
Justification
In 2010, the Congress directed funding to water and wastewater treatment projects in the Corps' budget
even though these projects are outside of the Corps' main mission areas. Since 1992, the Congress has
authorized approximately 450 sewage and wastewater treatment projects and has directed hundreds of
millions of dollars toward them. The Corps does not assess the economic and environmental costs and
benefits of these water and wastewater treatment projects and, therefore, has no basis to determine the
value of these projects to the Nation. Providing funding in the Corps of Engineers' budget for environmental
infrastructure projects is not cost effective and duplicates funding for these types of projects in other Federal
agencies, including the Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Agriculture. Congressional
funding for these projects through the Corps bypasses those agencies' processes for setting funding priorities.
The Budget continues to propose no funding for these types of projects for the Corps.

TERMINATION: WATER RESOURCES RESEARCH ACT PROGRAM
Department of the Interior
The Administration proposes to eliminate Geological Survey (USGS) grants to 54 Water Resources Research
Institutes, as there is not a Federal need or a clear Federal responsibility for this research.
Funding Summary
(In millions of dollars)
. 2010 Enacted 2012 Request 2012 Change from 2010
Budget Authority........................................................................................................................................ 7 0 -7
Justification
Each State, as well as the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands and Guam, operates
a Water Resources Research Institute at their land grant institute to conduct applied research on water
quality and availability, as well as drought and flood hazards at the local scale. This research, however, is
not a high priority for USGS, which is responsible for studying water issues across the Nation. As a Federal
science bureau, USGS monitors surface water through the nationwide network of stream gages, assesses
water quality through the National Water Quality Assessment, and studies and models groundwater quality
and availability. These programs at the regional and national scales are used by stakeholders across the
country and take precedent over grants that do not address national needs.

TERMINATION: WATERSHED AND FLOOD PREVENTION PROGRAM
Department of Agriculture
The Administration proposes to terminate the Watershed and Flood Prevention Operations program.
The Congress has provided funding entirely to specific projects without any merit-based criteria, such as
cost-effectiveness.
Funding Summary
(In millions of dollars)
. 2010 Enacted 2012 Request 2012 Change from 2010
Budget Authority........................................................................................................................................ 30 0 -30
Justification
This program was first implemented under the authorities of the Watershed Protection and Flood
Prevention Act of 1954 (Public Law 83-566) and the Flood Control Act of 1944 (Public Law 78-534). In 2010,
almost 75 percent of the program was directed to specific projects, eliminating the Natural Resource
Conservation Service's (NRCS's) ability to use project evaluations as a basis for prioritizing funding. In
addition, a 2003 Office of Management and Budget analysis showed that this NRCS program has a lower
economic return than other Federal flood prevention programs (such as those in the Army Corps of Engineers
or the Federal Emergency Management Agency).1
Citations
1 Army Corps of Engineers, 2003 Budget, pp. 294-295.

TERMINATION: WATERSHED REHABILITATION PROGRAM
Department of Agriculture
The Administration proposes to eliminate funding for the Department of Agriculture (USDA) Natural
Resources Conservation Service's (NRCS's) Watershed Rehabilitation program as the program's mission is
inconsistent with underlying Federal role in local dam rehabilitation.
Funding Summary
(In millions of dollars)
. 2010 Enacted 2012 Request 2012 Change from 2010
Budget Authority........................................................................................................................................ 40 0 -40
Justification
Since 2000, the Watershed Rehabilitation program has funded rehabilitation activities for flood control
dams originally constructed with Federal support as dams reach the end of their 50-year design life. Flood
control dams were originally constructed with the understanding that local sponsors would be responsible
for continuing operations and maintenance. Furthermore, local communities have increased the financial risk
of dam failure by allowing residential and commercial development in vulnerable floodplain areas around
dams. The localized benefits of dam rehabilitation should be funded through local sources.

REDUCTION: CLEAN WATER AND DRINKING WATER STATE REVOLVING FUNDS
Environmental Protection Agency
The Administration proposes to reduce funding by $947 million total for the Clean Water and Drinking
Water State Revolving Funds (SRFs). The Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) SRFs provide grants
to States to capitalize their State-run revolving funds, which provide loans to support improvements in
municipal wastewater and drinking water systems. The Administration proposes $1.55 billion for the Clean
Water SRF and $990 million for the Drinking Water SRF. This is a reduction from the historically high
funding levels provided in 2010, but a total of $1 billion more than provided in regular appropriations in
2009.
Funding Summary
(In millions of dollars)
. 2010 Enacted 2012 Request 2012 Change from 2010
Budget Authority........................................................................................................................................ 3,487 2,540 -947
Justification
The Administration continues robust support for SRFs and is focusing on working with States and
municipalities to enhance their technical, managerial and financial capacity. Future budgets for SRFs
gradually adjust through 2016 with the goal of providing, on average, about five percent of water
infrastructure spending annually. In 2010, SRFs made available $8.8 billion in financing to local communities
(this does not include American Recovery and Reinvestment Act funding).
Federal funding provided through the SRFs will act as a catalyst for efficient system-wide planning and
ongoing management of sustainable water infrastructure as EPA works with States and municipalities to
implement its Sustainable Water Infrastructure Policy. As part of this policy, the Budget requires that
States use at least 20 percent of their Clean Water SRF capitalization grant and 10 percent of their Drinking
Water capitalization grant for green infrastructure projects. The Administration also recognizes a need,
particularly in disadvantaged communities, for additional Federal assistance in supporting water and
wastewater infrastructure.
The Administration's proposal of $2.5 billion total for SRFs maintains the President's commitment to
helping provide clean and safe water and represents a four-year investment (2009 to 2012) totaling almost
$17 billion. REDUCTION: NONPOINT SOURCE GRANTS
Environmental Protection Agency
The Budget proposes $165 million for Section 319 Nonpoint Source Grants, a $36 million reduction from
2010. This decrease reflects the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) shift in emphasis to its core
programs, as well as the fact that the number of nonpoint source sectors has decreased as EPA has brought
formerly nonpoint source sectors such as concentrated animal feeding operations and stormwater under
regulation as point sources.
Funding Summary
(In millions of dollars)
. 2010 Enacted 2012 Request 2012 Change from 2010
Budget Authority........................................................................................................................................ 201 165 -36
Justification
Section 319 Nonpoint Source Grants help States implement their own nonpoint source management
programs. Through these grants, States fund nonpoint source staff, watershed planning, and project
implementation to address water pollution runoff from urban, agricultural, and other sources.
In 2012, EPA is emphasizing its core permitting programs that address point source pollution. Additionally,
the number of nonpoint source sectors has declined over time as EPA has brought formerly nonpoint source
sectors such as concentrated animal feeding operations and stormwater under regulation as point
sources. Some of this program's work also is duplicative with the Department of Agriculture conservation
programs.

PROGRAM INTEGRITY OVERVIEW
Government-wide
The Administration supports initiatives related to ensuring that Federal agencies are responsible stewards
of taxpayer resources. In fact, improving Federal financial management and eliminating waste are two
key areas of the Administration's Accountable Government Initiative to improve the operation and
effectiveness of Federal agencies.
Unfortunately, the Federal Government wastes billions of American taxpayers' dollars each year, including
billions of dollars paid improperly to individuals, organizations, and contractors, as well as billions of dollars
in debt owed to the Government. In 2010 alone, the Federal Government made an estimated $125 billion
in improper payments. In order to improve Government efficiency and prevent and recapture improper
payments, the President has issued three directives to agencies to prevent and recapture improper payments,
and signed into law new improper payments legislation, since November 2009. To help further drive
Government performance, the President has also set a goal of reducing improper payments by $50 billion
and recapturing at least $2 billion by the end of 2012. The Administration has taken important steps toward
achieving these goals, which have yielded early results. In 2010, the Government-wide improper payment
rate declined to 5.49 percent, a decrease from the 5.65 percent reported in 2009. Agencies also reported that
they recaptured $687 million in improper payments in 2010 -- the highest recapture amount to date. However,
despite these early successful results, the Administration has identified additional tools included in the
Budget that will help drive further progress in reducing and recapturing improper payments.
While agencies sometimes make improper payments, they also have trouble collecting money that is owed
to Federal agencies. In 2007, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) estimated that approximately
60,000 Federal contractors were delinquent on over $7 billion in Federal taxes. In 2008, GAO found that
over 27,000 Medicare providers owed more than $2 billion in tax debt. Through the Federal Payment Levy
Program, the Treasury currently deducts (levies) only up to 15 percent of a payment to Federal contractors
and Medicare providers with delinquent tax debt.
The 2012 Budget includes a number of legislative and administrative reforms on improper payments and
debt collection, which collectively comprise our program integrity efforts. Many of these proposals will
provide savings for the Federal Government (the savings for these proposals are shown in the table on the
following page) and support government-wide efforts to improve the management and oversight of Federal
resources. Collectively, these proposals will result in $167 billion in savings to the Federal Government
over ten years if enacted. In addition, other administrative proposals, while not resulting in direct Federal
savings, will also improve the operation and efficiency of important Federal programs.
The Administration's program integrity proposals are included on the following pages. These include
provisions previously proposed -- such as discretionary allocation adjustments for the Department of Health
and Human Services, the Social Security Administration, the Internal Revenue Service, and the Department
of Labor -- and new proposals for expanded debt collection authorities and to support Federal fraud-detection
technologies. If implemented, all of these proposals could help further improve stewardship of Federal
resources.

PARTNERSHIP
FUND FOR PROGRAM INTEGRITY INNOVATION
Executive Office of the President
The Partnership Fund for Program Integrity Innovation, which is managed by the Office of Management
and Budget in consultation with Federal, State, local, and other stakeholders, provides funding for Federal,
State, and local agencies to pilot and evaluate innovations to improve service delivery, payment accuracy,
and administrative efficiency across Federal assistance programs. The Partnership Fund targets pilots that
bridge program and agency silos to promote consistent and judicious use of resources, including staff,
information, systems, and processes. In addition to funding pilots that implement and test administrative
changes, the Partnership Fund allows for pilot projects that simulate the effects of more efficient, accurate
methods of service delivery that would require changes to existing regulatory or statutory authorities. These
simulations can inform both the Administration and the Congress about whether changes in authority may
be warranted. As pilots are selected, funding is transferred to the applicable Federal agencies to administer
the pilots in conjunction with Federal agencies, States or localities. The Administration proposes $20 million
in a discretionary allocation adjustment in 2012 to fund pilots, which will improve integrity of program
administration across multiple Federal assistance programs. The 2010 Consolidated Appropriations Act
(P.L. 111-117) included $37.5 million authorized through 2012 for the Partnership Fund. Justification
The Partnership Fund builds alliances among Federal, State, and local agencies to identify, pilot, and
evaluate new ideas that boost efficiency and prevent improper payments. The Partnership Fund prioritizes
pilots that target programs with high error rates and that also demonstrate high return on investment in
order to yield the greatest savings and efficiencies for taxpayers. For example, a recently funded pilot
simulation to reduce error in the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) program offers potential savings of over
$100 million annually for a pilot investment of $2 million. This pilot, managed by the Department of the
Treasury, will identify both current and new authorities required to take the pilot to scale. Statute requires
that, in the aggregate, Partnership Fund pilots save at least as much as they cost. Based on projections in
early pilots and pilots under development, the Partnership Fund will be able to use the additional funding

of $20 million to prioritize new projects that, like the EITC pilot, promise a significant return on investment.

Subject: From the Whitehouse
From:
< john@ironmountainmine.com > To: "Ted Arman" < ted@ironmountainmine.com >

112th Congress 1st Session
____________ ____
A BILL
____________ ____
To expedite disposal of unneeded civilian properties and realize savings.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States
of America in Congress assembled, Justification
Before considering more significant investments in transitional job models, the Administration seeks to
integrate evidence from recent evaluations and the current demonstration. Three recent random-assignment
evaluations of transitional job programs for ex-offenders and Temporary Assistance for Needy Family
program recipients provide mixed results about the effectiveness of these programs.1,2 The current
demonstration will test enhanced transitional jobs models, designed to provide more substantive subsidized
jobs and better services to help participants succeed in unsubsidized employment. The Administration
hopes to explore whether modifications to the program -- for example, more of a focus on the transition from
the subsidized job -- would improve employment outcomes. While the demonstration is underway, some
funds from the proposed Workforce Innovation Fund could support additional targeted testing of transitional
jobs.
Citations
1 Dan Bloom, Transitional Jobs: Background, Program Models, and Evaluation Evidence, 2010.
2 Cindy Redcross et al, Work After Prison: One Year Findings from the Transitional Jobs Reentry Demonstration,
2010. SEC.10. IMPLEMENTATION OF BOARD RECOMMENDATIONS BY EXECUTIVE AGENCIES.
(a) Subject to section 9 of this Act, the agencies shall prepare and carry out each recommendation of the Board transmitted to the Congress by the Director pursuant to section 6(g) of this Act. Preparations to implement recommendations shall begin immediately. The agencies shall commence physical implementation of all such recommendations no later than two years after the date on which the Director transmits a report to the Congress pursuant to (9) An agency shall convey property under this sub-section utilizing the same disposal authorities as in section 10(c)(1) of this Act.
(g) Environmental Considerations.
(1) (A) When implementing the recommended actions for properties that have been identified in the Board's report, as specified in section 6(f), and subject to paragraph (2) of this subsection and in compliance with the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (42 U.S.C. 9601 et seq), including section 120(h) thereof (42 U.S.C. 9620(h)), Federal agencies may enter into an agreement to transfer by deed real property with any person.
(B) The head of the disposing agency may require any additional terms and conditions in connection with an agreement authorized by subparagraph (A) as the head of the disposing agency considers appropriate to protect the interests of the United States. Such additional terms and conditions shall not affect or diminish any rights or obligations of the federal agencies under CERCLA section 120(h) (including, without limitation, the requirements of CERCLA section 120(h)(3)(A) and section CERCLA 120(h)(3)(C)(iv)).
(2) A transfer of real property or facilities may be made under paragraph (1) only if the head of the disposing agency certifies to the Board and Congress that:  (A) the costs of all environmental restoration, waste management, and environmental compliance activities otherwise to be paid by the disposing agency with respect to the property or facilities are equal to or greater than the fair market value of the property or facilities to be transferred, as determined by the head of the disposing agency; or
(B) if such costs are lower than the fair market value of the property or facilities, the recipient of the property or facilities agrees to pay the difference between the fair market value and such costs.
(3) In the case of property covered by a certification under paragraph 2(A), the disposing agency may pay the recipient of such property or facilities an amount equal to the lesser of:
(A) the amount by which the costs incurred by the recipient of such property or facilities for all environmental restoration, waste management, and environmental compliance activities with respect to such property or facilities exceed the fair market value of such property or facilities as specified in such certification; or
(B) the amount by which the costs (as determined by the head of the disposing agency) that would otherwise have been incurred by the Secretary for such restoration, waste management, and environmental compliance activities with respect to such property or facilities exceed the fair market value of such property or facilities as so specified.
(4) As part of an agreement under section (g) paragraph (1) of this Act, the head of the disposing agency shall, in accordance with applicable law, disclose to the person to whom the property or facilities will be transferred information possessed by the Agency regarding the environmental restoration, waste management, and environmental compliance activities described in section (1) that relate to the property or facilities. The Agency shall provide such information before entering into the agreement.
(5) For the purposes of granting time extensions under section 10(a), the Director shall give the need for significant environmental remediation to a piece of property more weight than any other factor in determining whether to grant a two-year extension to implement a Board recommendation.
(6) Nothing in this Act shall be construed to modify, alter, or amend the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (42 U.S.C. 9601 et seq.), the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, or the Solid Waste Disposal Act (42 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). (h) No provision of law shall be construed as restricting the use of funds for disposing or realigning Federal civilian real property in accordance with an approved recommendation that gains legal force under section 9, except in the case of a provision of law which specifically refers to a particular asset of Federal civilian real property and expressly states that such restriction shall apply to such asset notwithstanding this Act. section 6(g) of this Act containing the recommendations and complete all such recommendations no later than the end of the six-year period beginning on the date on which the Director transmits a report to the Congress pursuant to section 6(g) of this Act containing the recommendations. For recommendations that will take longer than the six-year period due to extenuating circumstances, agencies shall notify OMB as soon as the circumstance presents itself with an estimated time to complete the recommendation. In such cases, the Director may extend the period for completion of the recommendation for a period of up to an additional two years.
(b) In carrying out any recommendations under this part, the agencies may:
(1) acquire such land, construct such replacement facilities, and conduct such advance planning and design as may be required to transfer functions from one location to another;
(2) provide outplacement assistance to civilian employees employed by the agency at a location subject to a recommendation;
(3) carry out activities for the purposes of environmental restoration and mitigation at any such installation; and
(4) reimburse other Federal agencies for actions performed at the request of the Board with respect to any such recommendation.
(c) Specific Authorities.
(1) Notwithstanding any other provisions of the laws that govern the disposal authorities of the Federal agencies, all disposals implemented as a result of a Board recommendation shall be implemented in accordance with sections 2, 3, 6, 9, 10, 11, and 12 of this Act. Where the currently existing disposal authority for an agency is inconsistent with this Act, this Act's provisions control the implementation of a disposal recommended by the Board. To the extent that the disposal authorities are otherwise consistent with this Act, an agency shall implement a recommendation in the Board's report to dispose a property by utilizing its existing disposal authorities, whether it has been delegated disposal authority by the Administrator of the General Services Administration, pursuant to the Federal Property Act, it has an independent disposal authority, or it must work in partnership with the General Services Administration.
(2) In accordance with section 10 of this Act, when implementing a recommendation to consolidate, reconfigure, co-locate, or realign a real property asset, all agencies are authorized to take such action as is necessary to implement the approved recommended actions of the Board. Consistent with sections 6 and 9 of this Act, the Board's report may instruct a Federal agency to utilize the expertise of the General Services Administration in carrying out a recommended consolidation, reconfiguration, co-location, or realignment. Any Federal agency, at its discretion, is also authorized, consistent with existing law and funding, to contract with the General Services Administration for assistance or consultation on implementing a recommendation to consolidate, reconfigure, co-locate, or realign a real property asset.
(3) The identification of any Federal civilian real property as an asset to be disposed, consolidated, reconfigured, or otherwise realigned in a report published by the Board temporarily freezes any transaction with respect to that property that would prevent a recommendation from being carried out within the end of the statutory deadline for Congress to consider the Board's report, whether exercised by the agency maintaining custody or control of the property, or an agency acting on behalf of that custodial agency. All such transactions shall remain frozen until the recommended action on the identified property is disapproved by Congress pursuant to section 9(e) of this Act, is withheld from transmission to Congress by the OMB Director, or is not disapproved by Congress pursuant to section 9(e) of this Act. In the event of disapproval or withholding, all such transactions are unfrozen and the agency maintaining custody or control over the property may resume its management of the property unrestricted. Otherwise, consistent with sections 9 and 10 of this Act, an agency shall implement the recommended action.
(d) For any transaction identified, recommended or commenced as a result of this Act, the Board shall determine whether and to what extent an agency shall implement the transaction notwithstanding any legal priorities or requirements to enter into a transaction to convey a Federal civilian real property for less than fair market value or in a transaction that mandates the exclusion of other market participants.
(e) Any recommendation or commencement of a disposal, consolidation, reconfiguration, co-location, or realignment of civilian real property shall not be subject to-
(1) section 545(b)(8) of title 40, United States Code;
(2) sections 550, 554, and 553 of title 40, United States Code;
(3) section 501 of the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 11411);
(4) any section of An Act Authorizing the Transfer of Certain Real Property
for Wildlife, or other Purposes (16 U.S.C. 667b);
(5) section 47151 of title 49, United State Code;
(6) sections 107 and 317 of title 23, United States Code;
(7) section 1304(b) of title 40, United States Code;
(8)  (9) any other provision of law authorizing the conveyance of real property owned by the Federal Government for no consideration; and
(10) any congressional notification requirement other than that in section 545 of title 40, United States Code.
(f) Public Benefit.
(1) Consistent with section 6(f) of this Act, the Board shall submit to the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development (Secretary of HUD), on the same day it submits its report to the Director of the OMB, all known information on the buildings or properties that are listed in the separate list of properties intended for conveyance under a public benefit conveyance program authorized by a provision of law enumerated in section 10(e) of this Act. Within 60 calendar days the Secretary of HUD must report to the Board on the suitability of all the properties on this list for use as a property benefitting the mission of assistance to the homeless.
(2) Within 90 calendar days of the Board's first submission of its report to the Director of the OMB, any representatives of the homeless proposing interest in the use of property that the Board has determined should be conveyed under any of the public benefits authorized by a provision of law enumerated in section 10(e) of this Act, may submit a notice of interest containing the following to the Board and to the Secretary of HUD:
a. a description of the homeless assistance program that the representative proposes to carry out at the installation;
b. an assessment of the need for the program;
c. a description of the extent to which the program is or will be coordinated in the communities in the vicinity of the property with the local Continuum of Care, as defined by Section 1301 of the Helping Families Save Their Homes Act of 2009;
d. a description of grants currently funded through the McKinney-Vento homeless assistance programs;
e. a description of the buildings and property that are necessary in order to carry out the program;
f. a description of the financial plan, the organization, and the organizational capacity of the representative to carry out the program;
g. an assessment of the time required in order to commence carrying out the program; and
15
h. The ability of the provider to financially and clinically support a homeless use.
(3) The Secretary of HUD shall review and certify submissions from
representatives of the homeless and submit to the Board an assessment of the validity and merits of the notice of interest within 120 calendar days from the date the Board submits its report to the OMB Director. In the case where more than one notice of interest is entered for a property, the Secretary shall indicate to the Board which planned use of the property for the homeless has more merit.
(4) Within 90 calendar days of the Board's submission to the Director of the OMB and public release of the Board's report, any parties proposing interest, for a use that is not homeless assistance, in the property that the Board has listed pursuant to section 6(f)(2) of this Act, may submit a notice of interest to the Board and to the Federal agency that is otherwise tasked by law to review applications for the statutory public benefit conveyance program under which the party is applying. The notice of interest must contain the information otherwise required in an application under the law creating the conveyance program and must be for a program authorized by a provision of law listed in section 10(e) of this Act.
(5) Federal agencies tasked with reviewing applications for public benefit conveyance programs, that receive notices of interest with information pertaining to the certification of the validity of a proposed public benefit conveyance that is not for homeless assistance and is authorized by a provision of law enumerated in section 10(e) of this Act, shall review and certify submissions from parties proposing such future use for the property and submit to the Board an assessment of the validity and merits of the information contained in the notice of interest within 120 calendar days from the date the Board submits its report to the OMB Director. In the case where more than one notice of interest is entered for a property, the head of the reviewing agency shall indicate to the Board which planned use of the property has more merit.
(6) To give disposing agencies instruction as to the final disposition of the properties in its inventory that have been recommended for a public benefit conveyance program, subject to section 9 of this Act, the Board shall compile all assessments resulting from submitted notices of interest, for any of the public benefit conveyance programs authorized by a provision of law enumerated in section 10(e) of this Act, that have been submitted to it on the list of properties that the Board deemed suitable for conveyance under a public benefit program, and shall forward them to the agencies that maintain custody and control over the civilian real properties to be conveyed.
(7) In the event a property reviewed by HUD is found to be fit for use by the homeless and HUD has identified a representative of the homeless whose notice of interest is certified, or, in the event of more than one notice of interest on the
16
property, whose notice of interest is deemed to have the most merit by HUD, the agency maintaining custody or control of the property, in accordance with section 10 of this Act, shall commence conveyance of the property to that representative of the homeless, subject to section 9 of this Act. In the event a reviewed property is found to be unfit for use by the homeless, or there is no identified notice of interest on the property by a representative of the homeless, the disposing agency maintaining custody or control shall then look to whether there are any parties that have expressed interest in the property for one of those uses authorized by a provision of law enumerated in section 10(e) of this Act that are not homeless assistance and whether any Federal reviewing agency has certified one of those uses. If so, the disposing agency maintaining custody or control of the property shall commence conveyance of the property to that party that proposed the certified use, subject to section 9 of this Act. In the event that there is more than one party that has expressed interest in the property in this manner, the disposing agency maintaining custody or control shall have the discretion to choose among them, but shall look to where the property will be used for its highest and best use.
(8) In the event a property does not qualify for, or there is no interest in a property reviewed for, one of those uses authorized by a provision of law enumerated in section 10(e) of this Act, the disposing agency maintaining custody or control shall have the discretion to choose among any other remaining ways to implement a disposition of the property, subject to section 9 of this Act.
(9) An agency shall convey property under this sub-section utilizing the same disposal authorities as in section 10(c)(1) of this Act.
(g) Environmental Considerations.
(1) (A) When implementing the recommended actions for properties that have been identified in the Board's report, as specified in section 6(f), and subject to paragraph (2) of this subsection and in compliance with the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (42 U.S.C. 9601 et seq), including section 120(h) thereof (42 U.S.C. 9620(h)), Federal agencies may enter into an agreement to transfer by deed real property with any person.
(B) The head of the disposing agency may require any additional terms and conditions in connection with an agreement authorized by subparagraph (A) as the head of the disposing agency considers appropriate to protect the interests of the United States. Such additional terms and conditions shall not affect or diminish any rights or obligations of the federal agencies under CERCLA section 120(h) (including, without limitation, the requirements of CERCLA section 120(h)(3)(A) and section CERCLA 120(h)(3)(C)(iv)).
(2) A transfer of real property or facilities may be made under paragraph (1) only if the head of the disposing agency certifies to the Board and Congress that:
17
(A) the costs of all environmental restoration, waste management, and environmental compliance activities otherwise to be paid by the disposing agency with respect to the property or facilities are equal to or greater than the fair market value of the property or facilities to be transferred, as determined by the head of the disposing agency; or
(B) if such costs are lower than the fair market value of the property or facilities, the recipient of the property or facilities agrees to pay the difference between the fair market value and such costs.
(3) In the case of property covered by a certification under paragraph 2(A), the disposing agency may pay the recipient of such property or facilities an amount equal to the lesser of:
(A) the amount by which the costs incurred by the recipient of such property or facilities for all environmental restoration, waste management, and environmental compliance activities with respect to such property or facilities exceed the fair market value of such property or facilities as specified in such certification; or
(B) the amount by which the costs (as determined by the head of the disposing agency) that would otherwise have been incurred by the Secretary for such restoration, waste management, and environmental compliance activities with respect to such property or facilities exceed the fair market value of such property or facilities as so specified.
(4) As part of an agreement under section (g) paragraph (1) of this Act, the head of the disposing agency shall, in accordance with applicable law, disclose to the person to whom the property or facilities will be transferred information possessed by the Agency regarding the environmental restoration, waste management, and environmental compliance activities described in section (1) that relate to the property or facilities. The Agency shall provide such information before entering into the agreement.
(5) For the purposes of granting time extensions under section 10(a), the Director shall give the need for significant environmental remediation to a piece of property more weight than any other factor in determining whether to grant a two-year extension to implement a Board recommendation.
(6) Nothing in this Act shall be construed to modify, alter, or amend the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (42 U.S.C. 9601 et seq.), the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, or the Solid Waste Disposal Act (42 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). (h) No provision of law shall be construed as restricting the use of funds for disposing or realigning Federal civilian real property in accordance with an approved recommendation that gains legal force under section 9, except in the case of a provision of law which specifically refers to a particular asset of Federal civilian real property and expressly states that such restriction shall apply to such asset notwithstanding this Act. transfer, from the gross proceeds to an executive agency, amounts to cover the necessary costs associated with the disposal of property.
(3) Net proceeds (which are gross proceeds received from the disposal of any civilian real property pursuant to a recommendation of the Board, less the amounts transferred from this account under section 11(b)(2)(A) and (c)(2) of this Act), shall be divided between the General Fund of the Treasury, Federal executive agencies (for the purpose of real property management reinvestment), and the Asset Proceeds and Space Management Fund. On an annual basis, the OMB Director shall determine how the net proceeds shall be distributed, through transfer, between the General Fund, Federal agencies, and the Asset Proceeds and Space Management Fund, but in no case shall the General Fund receive less than sixty percent of the net proceeds. In support of these duties, the Board, with the consent of the OMB Director, may transfer, from the Space Management Fund, to a Federal agency or the U.S. Postal Service, amounts:
(A) to cover the necessary costs associated with-
(i) consolidation, co-location, and reconfiguration actions;
(ii) other actions taken to otherwise realize operational efficiencies, including but not limited to such actions as environmental restoration; and
(B) for outplacement assistance to Federal employees who work at a Federal property that is affected by actions taken under this section, and whose employment would be terminated as a result of such disposal, consolidation, or other realignment.
(4) The amounts transferred pursuant to section 11(c)(3)(A)-(B) under this sub-section must be obligated by the recipient agency within three years of the transfer. Any amounts that are not obligated within three years shall be transferred back to the Asset Proceeds and Space Management Fund. SEC.13. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
(a) The Board shall appoint an Executive Director.
(b) For the purposes of this Act, the Board may appoint an Executive Director without regard to the provisions of title 5, United States Code, governing appointments in the competitive service.
(c) Consistent with 5 U.S.C. 3132(a)(2), the Executive Director shall be paid at the rate of basic pay payable for level IV of the Executive Schedule under section 5315 of title 5, United States Code, except that an individual so appointed may not receive pay outside of the pay range of the Senior Executive Service. SEC.14. STAFF
(a) Subject to paragraph (b), the Executive Director, with the approval of the
Board, may appoint and fix the pay of additional personnel.
(b) The Executive Director may make such appointments without regard to the
provisions of title 5, United States Code, governing appointments in the competitive service, and any personnel so appointed may be paid without regard to the provisions of chapter 51 and subchapter III of chapter 53 of that title relating to classification and General Schedule pay rates, except that an individual so appointed may not receive pay in excess of the maximum rate of basic pay for GS-15 under section 5332 of title 5, United States Code.
(c) Upon request of the Executive Director, the head of any Federal department or
agency may detail any of the personnel of that department or agency to the Board to assist the Board in carrying out its duties under this part. The Executive Director, with the approval of the Board, is authorized to request both reimbursable and non-reimbursable detailees.
SEC.15. CONTRACTING AUTHORITY. (a) The Board may procure by contract, to the extent funds are available, the temporary
or intermittent services of experts or consultants pursuant to section 3109 of title 5, United
States Code.
(b) The Board may lease space and acquire personal property. SEC.16. TERMINATION.
The Board shall cease operations and terminate 12 years from the date of the enactment of this Act. This Act shall expire 180 calendar days after that date.
SEC. 17. PRECLUSION OF JUDICIAL REVIEW.
The following actions shall not be subject to judicial review:
(a) Actions of the Board under Section 6 of this Act.
(b) Actions of the Director of OMB under Section 6(g) of this Act.
(c) Actions of the Board, the Secretary of HUD, and Federal agencies under Section 10(f) of this Act.

Cross-environmental Media Grants

Grants and Funding
About CFDA

Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) - the on-line database of all Federal programs available. Each grant is assigned a specific CFDA program code and listed after each EPA grant program. Use the program code to search the database to find further information.



Educational

Internships, Training, Workshops and Fellowships for the Office of Air and Radiation
(CFDA: 66.037)

Purpose: To support, Internships, Training, Workshops and Fellowships, and Technical Monitoring in support of the Clean Air Act. These activities will support: (1). The development of career-oriented personnel qualified to work in occupations involving environmental protection and air pollution abatement and control; (2). Provides technical training for State, local, territorial, Indian Tribal environmental control agencies; (3). Enhances the capability of state and local agencies responsible for environmental pollution control or other agencies with similar pollution control responsibilities; (4). provides educational renewal for career oriented personnel to achieve additional knowledge through academic professional training; (5). supports students pursuing courses of study in fields relevant to the study and control of mobile source air pollution and traineeship; and, (6). Brings new people into the environmental control field.

Contact : Office of Air and Radiation

Protection of Children and Older Adults (Elderly) from Environmental Health Risks
(CFDA: 66.609)

Purpose: Supports efforts by government organizations and educational institutions to establish or enhance their ability to take actions that will reduce environmental risks to the health of children or elderly population.

Contact: Office of Children's Health Protection at (202) 564-2188

Top of page


Enforcement and Compliance

Compliance Assistance Support for Services to the Regulated Community and Other Assistance Providers
(CFDA: 66.305)

Purpose : To provide financial assistance to private nonprofit institutions, universities, and public agencies to develop projects to improve environmental compliance within an identified industrial/government sector. The funds are to be used to create compliance assistance tools utilizing industry and commercial communication channels to deliver the assistance tools.

Contact : Regional Compliance Assistance Coordinators

Capacity Building Grants and Cooperative Agreements for Compliance Assurance and Enforcement Activities in Indian country and Other Tribal Areas
(CFDA: 66.310)

Purpose : Providing financial resources to build and improve the compliance assurance and enforcement capacity of federally-recognized Indian tribal governments (tribes), inter-tribal consortia, or tribal organizations by providing financial resources and to improve compliance with environmental laws. As required by statute, such capacity building efforts may include economic, social science, statistical research, development, studies, surveys, demonstrations, investigations, public education, training, and fellowships to the extent authorized under the federal environmental laws listed above. This Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) number covers EPA's Environmental Program Management (EPM) resources targeted for compliance assurance and enforcement in Indian country and other tribal areas, including those in Alaska.

Contact : Regional Compliance and Enforcement Tribal Contacts

Top of page


Environmental Multimedia

Performance Partnership Grants
(CFDA: 66.605)

Purpose: Provide tribes and states with greater flexibility to address their highest environmental priorities, improve environmental performance, achieve administrative savings, and strengthen partnerships between EPA and the states or tribes. PPGs are an alternative assistance delivery mechanism and do not represent funding in addition to grants provided under individual authorities. Recipients can conduct activities in multiple areas and combine two or more of twenty different EPA grants, including GAP resources.

Contact: Regional Tribal Contacts

Environmental Information Exchange Network Grant Program
(CFDA: 66.608)

Purpose: Facilitates electronic exchange of environmental, health, and geographic data to make it easier for EPA and its partners on the Exchange Network to obtain the timely and accurate information needed to make better decisions.

Contact: The Exchange Network Help Desk is available for technical support, between the hours of 8:00 am and 6:00 pm (EST) at 888-890-1995.

Community Action for a Renewed Environment (CARE)
(CFDA: 66.035)

Purpose: The CARE program is a competitive grant program that offers an innovative way for communities to take action to reduce toxic pollution.

Contact: Call toll free at 1-877-CARE 909

Environmental Policy and Innovation Grants
(CFDA: 66.611)

Purpose: Supports activities that reduce pollutants generated and increase conservation of natural resources, improve economic information and analytic methods to support projects on the benefits, costs and impacts of environmental programs and on incentive-based and voluntary environmental management strategies and mechanisms.

Contact: Office of Policy, Economics and Innovation at (202) 564-4332

Healthy Communities Grant Program
(CFDA:  66.110)

Purpose :  Grants are awarded to support projects that meet two criteria: 1) They must be located in and directly benefit one or more Target Investment Areas(Environmental Justice Areas of Potential Concern, Places with High Risks from Toxic Air Pollution, Sensitive Populations, and/or Urban Areas); and 2) They must achieve measurable environmental and public health results in one or more of the Target Program Areas (defined in the annual funding announcement). Funds for all projects should support activities to restore or revitalize the environment, provide education, outreach, training, organize, or conduct community planning activities in the Target Program Areas (defined in the annual funding announcement).

Contact :  Urban Environmental Program (UEP) team  at (888) EPA-REG1 (toll-free phone) 

Congressionally Mandated Projects
(CFDA:  66.202)

Purpose :  These assistance agreements involve Congressionally directed projects/programs for specific purposes in EPA's annual Appropriations Act or annual Appropriations Conference Report. These assistance agreements support surveys, studies and investigations, research and demonstrations, and special purpose assistance for specific purposes and/or designated organizations. The projects are assistance agreements which are associated with: (1) various environmental requirements (e.g. wastewater treatment); (2) identifying, developing, and/or demonstrating necessary pollution control techniques to prevent, reduce, and eliminate pollution; and/or (3) evaluating the economic and social consequences of alternative strategies and mechanisms for use by those in economic, social, governmental, and environmental management positions.

Contact Your EPA Regional Tribal Contact based on your location .

International Financial Assistance Projects Sponsored by the Office of International Affairs
(CFDA:  66.931)

Purpose :  To provide technical assistance, training, information exchange and other forms of cooperation to enhance the capabilities of governments and other stakeholders to protect human health and the environment regionally and globally.

Contact :  Call the Office of International Affairs (OIA) at 202-564-6613

Top of page


Place-Based Programs

Great Lakes Program
(CFDA: 66.469)

Purpose: To restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Great Lakes Basin Ecosystem. The Great Lakes National Program Office (GLNPO), in concert with USEPA Regions 2, 3, and 5, leads a consortium of programs, agencies, and public and private institutions in attaining specific objectives and actions that will reduce contaminants, restore habitat, and protect the living resources of the basin. Great Lakes Strategy 2002, developed by EPA in conjunction with other Federal, State, and Tribal agencies and accessible at http://www.epa.gov/glnpo/gls/index.html, guides the activities of these organizations towards the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement goal of restoring the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the waters of the Great Lakes Basin Ecosystem.

Contact: Great Lakes National Program Office at (312) 353-2117


Gulf of Mexico Program
(CFDA: 66.475)

Purpose:

  1. To assist States, Indian Tribes, interstate agencies, and other public or nonprofit organizations in developing, implementing, and demonstrating innovative approaches relating to the causes, effects, extent, prevention, reduction, and elimination of water pollution;
  2. To expand and strengthen cooperative efforts to restore and protect the health and productivity of the Gulf of Mexico in ways consistent with the economic well-being of the region and to achieve the goals and priorities recommended by the Gulf of Mexico Program Policy Review Board (a Federal Advisory Committee) and the funding priorities of the Gulf of Mexico Program Office (GMPO).

Contact: Gulf of Mexico Program Office   (228) 688-3726


Regional Environmental Priority Projects
(CFDA: 66.111)

Purpose: To support investigations, experiments, training, demonstrations, surveys, studies, and special purpose assistance to protect public health and prevent, reduce, and eliminate pollution in Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, and Nebraska. Projects may be single media or multimedia which support the regional environmental priorities. Single media grants support pollution prevention efforts for individual environmental law statutes. Multimedia grants are assistance agreements that are awarded citing two or more environmental law statutes, appropriation legislation, or applicable legislative history as the statutory authority.

Contact: EPA Region 7 Drinking Water/Groundwater Management Branch at (913) 551-7667

Top of page


Research and Science

Regional Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program (REMAP) Research Projects
(CFDA: 66.512)

Purpose : Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program (EMAP) is a long-term research program designed to statistically monitor the conditions of our Nation's ecological resources. REMAP, which is a component of EMAP, is a partnership between the Office of Research and Development, EPA's Regional Offices, other federal agencies, states, local governments, and U.S. Tribal nations. It was developed to test the applicability of EMAP's probabilistic approach to answer questions about ecological conditions at regional and local levels. The primary objectives of the solicited research are to assist states and tribes in incorporating statistically valid ecological monitoring data into their environmental decision-making process.

Contact : Please direct questions about the REMAP to the REMAP Coordinator or one of the Regional Coordinators .

Science To Achieve Results (STAR) Research Program
(CFDA: 66.509)

Purpose: Supports research on environmental and human health effects of air quality, drinking water, water quality, hazardous waste, toxic substances, and pesticides. Supports research to explore and develop strategies and mechanisms for those in the economic, social, governmental, and environmental systems to use in environmental management decisions.

Contact: Submit comments to NCER

Or mail to:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Ariel Rios Building
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, D.C. 20460

Office of Research and Development Consolidated Research/Training
(CFDA: 66.511)

Purpose: Supports surveys, studies and investigations and special purpose assistance to determine the environmental effects of air quality, drinking water, water quality, hazardous waste, toxic substances, and pesticides; and identify, develop, and demonstrate effective pollution control techniques; and perform risk assessments to characterize the potential adverse health effects of human exposures to environmental hazards.

Contact: Office of Research and Development at (202) 564-6680

Surveys, Studies, Investigations and Special Purpose Grants within the Office of Research and Development
(CFDA: 66.510)

Purpose: Supports research on environmental effects of air quality, drinking water, water quality, hazardous waste, toxic substances and pesticides; to identify, develop and demonstrate necessary and effective pollution control techniques; and to explore and develop strategies and mechanisms for those in the economic, social, governmental and environmental systems to use in environmental management decisions.

Contact: Office of Research and Development at (202) 564-6680

Surveys, Studies, Investigations and Special Purpose Grants within the Office of the Administrator
(CFDA: 66.610)

Purpose: Support surveys, studies and investigations, and special purpose assistance associated with air quality, acid deposition, drinking water, water quality, hazardous waste, toxic substances, and pesticides.

Contact: Office of Children's Health Protection at (202) 564-2188

 

"The EPA routinely usurps enumerated powers and cloaks this maneuver in the act of enforcing existing law." - Senator John Barasso

Caring for God's Creation

Why American People of Faith Are Supporting the EPA

 

CERCLA Liability and Local Government Acquisitions and Other Activities

What are the requirements for the third party defense or innocent landowner defense?
CERCLA § 107(b)(3) provides a “third party” affirmative defense to CERCLA liability for any owner that can prove, by the preponderance of the evidence, that the contamination was caused solely by the act or omission of a third party whose act or omission did not occur “in connection with a contractual relationship.” Moreover, an entity asserting the CERCLA § 107(b)(3) defense must show that: a) it exercised due care with respect to the contamination; and b) it took precautions against foreseeable acts or omissions, and the consequences thereof by the third party that caused the contamination.

Entering onto Land, for Inspection and Other Purposes

Rule 34.

Producing Documents, Electronically Stored Information, and Tangible Things, or Entering onto Land, for Inspection and Other Purposes

(a) In General.

A party may serve on any other party a request within the scope of Rule 26(b) :

(1) to produce and permit the requesting party or its representative to inspect, copy, test, or sample the following items in the responding party's possession, custody, or control:

(A) any designated documents or electronically stored information — including writings, drawings, graphs, charts, photographs, sound recordings, images, and other data or data compilations — stored in any medium from which information can be obtained either directly or, if necessary, after translation by the responding party into a reasonably usable form; or

(B) any designated tangible things; or

(2) to permit entry onto designated land or other property possessed or controlled by the responding party, so that the requesting party may inspect, measure, survey, photograph, test, or sample the property or any designated object or operation on it.

(b) Procedure.

(1) Contents of the Request.

The request:

(A) must describe with reasonable particularity each item or category of items to be inspected;

(B) must specify a reasonable time, place, and manner for the inspection and for performing the related acts; and

(C) may specify the form or forms in which electronically stored information is to be produced.

(2) Responses and Objections.

(A) Time to Respond . The party to whom the request is directed must respond in writing within 30 days after being served. A shorter or longer time may be stipulated to under Rule 29 or be ordered by the court.

(B) Responding to Each Item . For each item or category, the response must either state that inspection and related activities will be permitted as requested or state an objection to the request, including the reasons.

(C) Objections . An objection to part of a request must specify the part and permit inspection of the rest.

(D) Responding to a Request for Production of Electronically Stored Information . The response may state an objection to a requested form for producing electronically stored information. If the responding party objects to a requested form — or if no form was specified in the request — the party must state the form or forms it intends to use.

(E) Producing the Documents or Electronically Stored Information . Unless otherwise stipulated or ordered by the court, these procedures apply to producing documents or electronically stored information:

(i) A party must produce documents as they are kept in the usual course of business or must organize and label them to correspond to the categories in the request;

(ii) If a request does not specify a form for producing electronically stored information, a party must produce it in a form or forms in which it is ordinarily maintained or in a reasonably usable form or forms; and

(iii) A party need not produce the same electronically stored information in more than one form.

(c) Nonparties.

As provided in Rule 45 , a nonparty may be compelled to produce documents and tangible things or to permit an inspection.

Rule 64. Seizing a Person or Property

(a) Remedies Under State Law — In General.

At the commencement of and throughout an action, every remedy is available that, under the law of the state where the court is located, provides for seizing a person or property to secure satisfaction of the potential judgment. But a federal statute governs to the extent it applies.

(b) Specific Kinds of Remedies.

The remedies available under this rule include the following — however designated and regardless of whether state procedure requires an independent action:

Rule 70. Enforcing a Judgment for a Specific Act

(a) Party's Failure to Act; Ordering Another to Act.

If a judgment requires a party to convey land, to deliver a deed or other document, or to perform any other specific act and the party fails to comply within the time specified, the court may order the act to be done — at the disobedient party's expense — by another person appointed by the court. When done, the act has the same effect as if done by the party.

(b) Vesting Title.

If the real or personal property is within the district, the court — instead of ordering a conveyance — may enter a judgment divesting any party's title and vesting it in others. That judgment has the effect of a legally executed conveyance.

(c) Obtaining a Writ of Attachment or Sequestration.

On application by a party entitled to performance of an act, the clerk must issue a writ of attachment or sequestration against the disobedient party's property to compel obedience.

(d) Obtaining a Writ of Execution or Assistance.

On application by a party who obtains a judgment or order for possession, the clerk must issue a writ of execution or assistance.

(e) Holding in Contempt.

The court may also hold the disobedient party in contempt.

Rule 72. Magistrate Judges: Pretrial Order

(a) Nondispositive Matters.

When a pretrial matter not dispositive of a party's claim or defense is referred to a magistrate judge to hear and decide, the magistrate judge must promptly conduct the required proceedings and, when appropriate, issue a written order stating the decision. A party may serve and file objections to the order within 14 days after being served with a copy. A party may not assign as error a defect in the order not timely objected to. The district judge in the case must consider timely objections and modify or set aside any part of the order that is clearly erroneous or is contrary to law.

(b) Dispositive Motions and Prisoner Petitions.

(1) Findings and Recommendations.

A magistrate judge must promptly conduct the required proceedings when assigned, without the parties' consent, to hear a pretrial matter dispositive of a claim or defense or a prisoner petition challenging the conditions of confinement. A record must be made of all evidentiary proceedings and may, at the magistrate judge's discretion, be made of any other proceedings. The magistrate judge must enter a recommended disposition, including, if appropriate, proposed findings of fact. The clerk must promptly mail a copy to each party.

(2) Objections.

Within 14 days after being served with a copy of the recommended disposition, a party may serve and file specific written objections to the proposed findings and recommendations. A party may respond to another party's objections within 14 days after being served with a copy. Unless the district judge orders otherwise, the objecting party must promptly arrange for transcribing the record, or whatever portions of it the parties agree to or the magistrate judge considers sufficient.

(3) Resolving Objections.

The district judge must determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge's disposition that has been properly objected to. The district judge may accept, reject, or modify the recommended disposition; receive further evidence; or return the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions.

Rule 73. Magistrate Judges: Trial by Consent; Appeal

(a) Trial by Consent.

When authorized under 28 U.S.C. § 636 (c), a magistrate judge may, if all parties consent, conduct a civil action or proceeding, including a jury or nonjury trial. A record must be made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(5).

(b) Consent Procedure.

(1) In General.

When a magistrate judge has been designated to conduct civil actions or proceedings, the clerk must give the parties written notice of their opportunity to consent under 28 U.S.C. § 636 (c) . To signify their consent, the parties must jointly or separately file a statement consenting to the referral. A district judge or magistrate judge may be informed of a party's response to the clerk's notice only if all parties have consented to the referral.

(2) Reminding the Parties About Consenting.

A district judge, magistrate judge, or other court official may remind the parties of the magistrate judge's availability, but must also advise them that they are free to withhold consent without adverse substantive consequences.

(3) Vacating a Referral.

On its own for good cause — or when a party shows extraordinary circumstances — the district judge may vacate a referral to a magistrate judge under this rule.

(c) Appealing a Judgment.

In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636 (c)(3), an appeal from a judgment entered at a magistrate judge's direction may be taken to the court of appeals as would any other appeal from a district-court judgment.

Rule 23. Class Actions

(a) Prerequisites.

One or more members of a class may sue or be sued as representative parties on behalf of all members only if:

(1) the class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable,

(2) there are questions of law or fact common to the class,

(3) the claims or defenses of the representative parties are typical of the claims or defenses of the class; and

(4) the representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class.

(b) Types of Class Actions.

A class action may be maintained if Rule 23(a) is satisfied and if:

(1) prosecuting separate actions by or against individual class members would create a risk of:

(A) inconsistent or varying adjudications with respect to individual class members that would establish incompatible standards of conduct for the party opposing the class; or

(B) adjudications with respect to individual class members that, as a practical matter, would be dispositive of the interests of the other members not parties to the individual adjudications or would substantially impair or impede their ability to protect their interests;

(2) the party opposing the class has acted or refused to act on grounds that apply generally to the class, so that final injunctive relief or corresponding declaratory relief is appropriate respecting the class as a whole; or

(3) the court finds that the questions of law or fact common to class members predominate over any questions affecting only individual members, and that a class action is superior to other available methods for fairly and efficiently adjudicating the controversy. The matters pertinent to these findings include:

(A) the class members' interests in individually controlling the prosecution or defense of separate actions;

(B) the extent and nature of any litigation concerning the controversy already begun by or against class members;

(C) the desirability or undesirability of concentrating the litigation of the claims in the particular forum; and

(D) the likely difficulties in managing a class action.

(c) Certification Order; Notice to Class Members; Judgment; Issues Classes; Subclasses.

(1) Certification Order.

(A) Time to Issue . At an early practicable time after a person sues or is sued as a class representative, the court must determine by order whether to certify the action as a class action.

(B) Defining the Class; Appointing Class Counsel . An order that certifies a class action must define the class and the class claims, issues, or defenses, and must appoint class counsel under Rule 23(g).

(C) Altering or Amending the Order . An order that grants or denies class certification may be altered or amended before final judgment.

(2) Notice.

(A) For (b)(1) or (b)(2) Classes . For any class certified under Rule 23(b)(1) or (b)(2), the court may direct appropriate notice to the class.

(B) For (b)(3) Classes . For any class certified under Rule 23(b)(3), the court must direct to class members the best notice that is practicable under the circumstances, including individual notice to all members who can be identified through reasonable effort. The notice must clearly and concisely state in plain, easily understood language:

(i) the nature of the action;

(ii) the definition of the class certified;

(iii) the class claims, issues, or defenses;

(iv) that a class member may enter an appearance through an attorney if the member so desires;

(v) that the court will exclude from the class any member who requests exclusion;

(vi) the time and manner for requesting exclusion; and

(vii) the binding effect of a class judgment on members under Rule 23(c)(3).

(3) Judgment.

Whether or not favorable to the class, the judgment in a class action must:

(A) for any class certified under Rule 23(b)(1) or (b)(2), include and describe those whom the court finds to be class members; and

(B) for any class certified under Rule 23(b)(3), include and specify or describe those to whom the Rule 23(c)(2) notice was directed, who have not requested exclusion, and whom the court finds to be class members.

(4) Particular Issues.

When appropriate, an action may be brought or maintained as a class action with respect to particular issues.

(5) Subclasses.

When appropriate, a class may be divided into subclasses that are each treated as a class under this rule.

(d) Conducting the Action.

(1) In General.

In conducting an action under this rule, the court may issue orders that:

(A) determine the course of proceedings or prescribe measures to prevent undue repetition or complication in presenting evidence or argument;

(B) require — to protect class members and fairly conduct the action — giving appropriate notice to some or all class members of:

(i) any step in the action;

(ii) the proposed extent of the judgment; or

(iii) the members' opportunity to signify whether they consider the representation fair and adequate, to intervene and present claims or defenses, or to otherwise come into the action;

(C) impose conditions on the representative parties or on intervenors;

(D) require that the pleadings be amended to eliminate allegations about representation of absent persons and that the action proceed accordingly; or

(E) deal with similar procedural matters.

(2) Combining and Amending Orders.

An order under Rule 23(d)(1) may be altered or amended from time to time and may be combined with an order under Rule 16 .

(e) Settlement, Voluntary Dismissal, or Compromise.

The claims, issues, or defenses of a certified class may be settled, voluntarily dismissed, or compromised only with the court's approval. The following procedures apply to a proposed settlement, voluntary dismissal, or compromise:

(1) The court must direct notice in a reasonable manner to all class members who would be bound by the proposal.

(2) If the proposal would bind class members, the court may approve it only after a hearing and on finding that it is fair, reasonable, and adequate.

(3) The parties seeking approval must file a statement identifying any agreement made in connection with the proposal.

(4) If the class action was previously certified under Rule 23(b)(3), the court may refuse to approve a settlement unless it affords a new opportunity to request exclusion to individual class members who had an earlier opportunity to request exclusion but did not do so.

(5) Any class member may object to the proposal if it requires court approval under this subdivision (e); the objection may be withdrawn only with the court's approval.

(f) Appeals.

A court of appeals may permit an appeal from an order granting or denying class-action certification under this rule if a petition for permission to appeal is filed with the circuit clerk within 14 days after the order is entered. An appeal does not stay proceedings in the district court unless the district judge or the court of appeals so orders.

(g) Class Counsel.

(1) Appointing Class Counsel.

Unless a statute provides otherwise, a court that certifies a class must appoint class counsel. In appointing class counsel, the court:

(A) must consider:

(i) the work counsel has done in identifying or investigating potential claims in the action;

(ii) counsel's experience in handling class actions, other complex litigation, and the types of claims asserted in the action;

(iii) counsel's knowledge of the applicable law; and

(iv) the resources that counsel will commit to representing the class;

(B) may consider any other matter pertinent to counsel's ability to fairly and adequately represent the interests of the class;

(C) may order potential class counsel to provide information on any subject pertinent to the appointment and to propose terms for attorney's fees and nontaxable costs;

(D) may include in the appointing order provisions about the award of attorney's fees or nontaxable costs under Rule 23(h); and

(E) may make further orders in connection with the appointment.

(2) Standard for Appointing Class Counsel.

When one applicant seeks appointment as class counsel, the court may appoint that applicant only if the applicant is adequate under Rule 23(g)(1) and (4). If more than one adequate applicant seeks appointment, the court must appoint the applicant best able to represent the interests of the class.

(3) Interim Counsel.

The court may designate interim counsel to act on behalf of a putative class before determining whether to certify the action as a class action.

(4) Duty of Class Counsel.

Class counsel must fairly and adequately represent the interests of the class.

(h) Attorney's Fees and Nontaxable Costs.

In a certified class action, the court may award reasonable attorney's fees and nontaxable costs that are authorized by law or by the parties' agreement. The following procedures apply:

(1) A claim for an award must be made by motion under Rule 54(d) (2), subject to the provisions of this subdivision (h), at a time the court sets. Notice of the motion must be served on all parties and, for motions by class counsel, directed to class members in a reasonable manner.

(2) A class member, or a party from whom payment is sought, may object to the motion.

(3) The court may hold a hearing and must find the facts and state its legal conclusions under Rule 52(a) .

(4) The court may refer issues related to the amount of the award to a special master or a magistrate judge, as provided in Rule 54(d) (2)(D).

Rule 24. Intervention

(a) Intervention of Right.

On timely motion, the court must permit anyone to intervene who:

(1) is given an unconditional right to intervene by a federal statute; or

(2) claims an interest relating to the property or transaction that is the subject of the action, and is so situated that disposing of the action may as a practical matter impair or impede the movant's ability to protect its interest, unless existing parties adequately represent that interest.

(b) Permissive Intervention.

(1) In General.

On timely motion, the court may permit anyone to intervene who:

(A) is given a conditional right to intervene by a federal statute; or

(B) has a claim or defense that shares with the main action a common question of law or fact.

(2) By a Government Officer or Agency.

On timely motion, the court may permit a federal or state governmental officer or agency to intervene if a party's claim or defense is based on:

(A) a statute or executive order administered by the officer or agency; or

(B) any regulation, order, requirement, or agreement issued or made under the statute or executive order.

(3) Delay or Prejudice.

In exercising its discretion, the court must consider whether the intervention will unduly delay or prejudice the adjudication of the original parties' rights.

(c) Notice and Pleading Required.

A motion to intervene must be served on the parties as provided in Rule 5 . The motion must state the grounds for intervention and be accompanied by a pleading that sets out the claim or defense for which intervention is sought.

As of Wednesday May 4, 2011, a member of Congressman
Herger's staff will be providing office hours in Colusa on the
first Wednesday of each month from 11:00AM to 12:00 PM at
the Colusa County Board of Supervisors offices, located at 547
Market Street. Congressman Herger's staff will be able to assist
constituents in working with federal agencies or simply
communicating thoughts and concerns to the Congressman
regarding matters before the House of Representatives. Meetings
will be on a first-come, first-served basis. Please contact
Congressman Herger's Chico office at (530) 893-8363 with any
questions.

CERCLIS EPA ID: SITE NAME: STREET ADDRESS: FACILITY INFORMATION CITY NAME: STATE ABBR: FEDERAL FACILITY: ZIP CODE: NPL STATUS: COUNTY NAME: CORPORATE
LINK: RECORD OF DECISION (ROD) INFO: LATITUDE: EPA REGIONAL
LINK: LONGITUDE: MAPPING INFO: SITE SMSA:
CAD980498612 IRON MOUNTAIN MINE
OFF HWY 299 9 MI NW OF View facility information
REDDING
CA N
96001 Currently on the Final NPL
SHASTA
No No
40.67166 No
-122.5278 MAP
6690

Enforcement and Cleanup Actions

Action Action ID Actual Start Date Actual End Date Responsibility Planned Outcome Urgency
FIVE-YEAR REVIEW 004 12/16/2007 07/14/2008 EPA Fund-Financed

REMEDIAL DESIGN 009 01/21/2005 09/27/2007 EPA Fund-Financed

PFP/RAU EVALUATION CHECKLIST 001
09/25/2007 EPA In-House

PFP/RAU EVALUATION CHECKLIST 002
09/25/2007 EPA In-House

FF REMOVAL 001 06/26/2002 12/15/2005 Federal Facilities
Time Critical
RECORD OF DECISION 005
09/30/2004 EPA Fund-Financed

COMBINED RI/FS 005 09/18/1996 09/30/2004 EPA Fund-Financed

REMEDIAL ACTION 005 09/27/2000 09/24/2004 EPA Fund-Financed Interim RA Report
FIVE-YEAR REVIEW 003 07/29/2003 09/30/2003 EPA Fund-Financed

REMEDIAL DESIGN 008 09/27/2000 07/30/2001 EPA Fund-Financed

CONSENT DECREE 001 10/04/2000 12/08/2000 Federal Enforcement

REMEDIAL DESIGN 006 09/21/1992 09/30/2000 EPA Fund-Financed

PRP RD 003
09/29/2000 Responsible Party

PRP RA 004 09/29/2000 09/29/2000 Responsible Party

PRP RA 002 09/30/1999 09/29/2000 Responsible Party
Long Term Action
REMEDIAL ACTION 004 08/23/1994 09/29/2000 EPA Fund-Financed

PRP RD 002 09/21/1994 09/30/1999 Responsible Party

PRP RD 001 01/27/1993 09/30/1999 Responsible Party

FIVE-YEAR REVIEW 002
10/08/1998 EPA Fund-Financed

REMOVAL 002 08/01/1997 03/15/1998 EPA Fund-Financed Stabilized Time Critical
RECORD OF DECISION 004
09/30/1997 EPA Fund-Financed

UNILATERAL ADMIN ORDER 007
09/30/1997 Federal Enforcement

RD/RA NEGOTIATIONS 005 09/30/1997 09/30/1997 Federal Enforcement

COMBINED RI/FS 004 04/21/1994 09/30/1997 EPA Fund-Financed

TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE GRANT 001 09/30/1993 03/31/1997 EPA Fund-Financed

REMEDIAL DESIGN 007 09/30/1993 05/22/1996 EPA Fund-Financed

PRP REMOVAL 001 09/30/1989 09/15/1994 Responsible Party Stabilized Time Critical
UNILATERAL ADMIN ORDER 006
04/19/1994 Federal Enforcement

RD/RA NEGOTIATIONS 004 04/19/1994 04/19/1994 Federal Enforcement

FIVE-YEAR REVIEW 001
09/30/1993 EPA Fund-Financed

RECORD OF DECISION 003
09/24/1993 EPA Fund-Financed

COMBINED RI/FS 003 08/06/1992 09/24/1993 EPA Fund-Financed

UNILATERAL ADMIN ORDER 005
11/03/1992 Federal Enforcement

RD/RA NEGOTIATIONS 003 11/03/1992 11/03/1992 Federal Enforcement

RECORD OF DECISION 002
09/30/1992 EPA Fund-Financed

COMBINED RI/FS 002 03/28/1987 09/30/1992 EPA Fund-Financed

UNILATERAL ADMIN ORDER 004
09/02/1992 Federal Enforcement

REMOVAL ASSESSMENT 002 12/13/1991 12/13/1991 EPA Fund-Financed

TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE 001 06/20/1991 12/13/1991 EPA Fund-Financed

PRP RA 001 03/29/1990 01/30/1991 Responsible Party

COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT 001 08/19/1983 01/30/1991 EPA Fund-Financed

UNILATERAL ADMIN ORDER 003
01/02/1991 Federal Enforcement

ADMINISTRATIVE RECORDS 002 11/15/1990 11/15/1990 EPA Fund-Financed Admin Record Compiled for a Removal Event
REMOVAL ASSESSMENT 001 09/06/1990 09/06/1990 EPA Fund-Financed

NPL RP SEARCH 001
07/20/1990 Federal Enforcement

PREPARATION OF COST DOCM PKGE 001 02/01/1990 07/13/1990 Federal Enforcement

REMEDIAL DESIGN 002 09/05/1987 05/11/1990 EPA Fund-Financed

UNILATERAL ADMIN ORDER 002
03/29/1990 Federal Enforcement

RD/RA NEGOTIATIONS 001 01/15/1990 03/29/1990 Federal Enforcement

REMEDIAL ACTION 001 09/15/1989 03/29/1990 EPA Fund-Financed

REMEDIAL DESIGN 004 09/25/1987 03/29/1990 EPA Fund-Financed

REMEDIAL ACTION 003 03/29/1989 01/30/1990 EPA Fund-Financed

REMEDIAL ACTION 002 06/06/1988 09/26/1989 EPA Fund-Financed

UNILATERAL ADMIN ORDER 001
08/15/1989 Federal Enforcement

REMEDIAL DESIGN 003 09/25/1987 06/01/1989 EPA Fund-Financed

REMOVAL 001 09/07/1988 03/03/1989 EPA Fund-Financed Stabilized Time Critical
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION 001
08/29/1988 Federal Enforcement

REMEDIAL DESIGN 001 03/25/1987 05/04/1988 EPA Fund-Financed

RD/RA NEGOTIATIONS 002 11/15/1986 04/30/1987 Federal Enforcement

RECORD OF DECISION 001
10/03/1986 EPA Fund-Financed

COMBINED RI/FS 001 08/19/1983 10/03/1986 EPA Fund-Financed

FINAL LISTING ON NPL 001
09/08/1983 EPA Fund-Financed

SITE INSPECTION 001 09/01/1983 09/01/1983 EPA Fund-Financed Higher priority for further assessment
RI/FS WORKPLAN APPROVAL BY HQ 001
08/08/1983 EPA Fund-Financed

PROPOSAL TO NPL 001
12/30/1982 EPA Fund-Financed

HRS PACKAGE 001
12/01/1982 EPA Fund-Financed

PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT 001
09/01/1981 EPA Fund-Financed Low priority for further assessment
DISCOVERY 001
06/01/1981 EPA Fund-Financed

Environmental Interests

Information System Information System ID Environmental Interest Type Data Source Last Updated Date Supplemental Environmental Interests:
COMPREHENSIVE ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSE, COMPENSATION AND LIABILITY INFORMATION SYSTEM
CAD980498612 SUPERFUND NPL CERCLIS

INTEGRATED COMPLIANCE INFORMATION SYSTEM 38045 FORMAL ENFORCEMENT ACTION ICIS 09/13/2002 ICIS -09-2002-0078
FORMAL ENFORCEMENT ACTION
ICIS -09-1987-0013
FORMAL ENFORCEMENT ACTION
ICIS -09-1990-0018
FORMAL ENFORCEMENT ACTION
ICIS -09-1997-0008
FORMAL ENFORCEMENT ACTION
ICIS -09-1997-0157
FORMAL ENFORCEMENT ACTION

Additional EPA Reports:  

No Additional EPA Reports returned.

Standard Industrial Classification Codes (SIC)

Data Source SIC Code Description Primary
ICIS
1031
LEAD AND ZINC ORES

ICIS
1011
IRON ORES

ICIS
1021
COPPER ORES

Facility Codes and Flags

EPA Region: 09
Duns Number:
Congressional District Number: 02
Legislative District Number:
HUC Code/Watershed: 18020112 / SACRAMENTO-UPPER CLEAR
US Mexico Border Indicator: NO
Federal Facility: NO
Tribal Land: NO

Alternative Names

Alternative Name Source of Data
I M M CERCLIS

Organizations

No Organizations returned.

National Industry Classification System Codes (NAICS)

Data Source NAICS Code Description Primary
FRS 212210 IRON ORE MINING.
FRS 212231 LEAD ORE AND ZINC ORE MINING.
FRS 212234 COPPER ORE AND NICKEL ORE MINING.

Facility Mailing Addresses

Affiliation Type Delivery Point City Name State Postal Code Information System
COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT COORDINATOR 75 HAWTHORNE STREET SAN FRANCISCO CA 94105 CERCLIS

Contacts

Affiliation Type Full Name Office Phone Information System Mailing Address
COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT COORDINATOR
EUGENE RAINWATER
4159723217
CERCLIS
View

Query executed on: MAY-08-2011

IRON MOUNTAIN MINE OFF HWY 299 9 MI NW OF REDDING , CA 96001 EPA Registry Id: 110009333140

 

Superfund Sites (sorted alphabetically)

1.

IRON MOUNTAIN MINE

EPA ID Number: CAD980498612

top

OFF HWY 299 9 MI NW OF
REDDING , CA 96001

Latitude Lat/long Description: 40° 40' 18" N
Longitude: 122° 31' 40" W

Status 1: NPL Final (9/8/1983)

Hazard Ranking System (HRS) Score 1: 56.16 (max. 100)

 

Alphabetical List of Contaminants 1

Aluminum (fume or dust)

Antimony

Arsenic

Base neutral acids

Cadmium

Show All

Information about this site or state:

1

EPA Progress profile

1

EPA Contaminants list

1

CDC/ATSDR Public Health Assessments and Health Consultations

TOXMAP Chemical Page

IRON MOUNTAIN MINE
EPA ID: CAD980498612

CERCLIS Contaminants:
Aluminum (fume or dust)
Antimony
Arsenic
Base neutral acids
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Inorganics
Iron
Lead
Mercury
Metals
Nickel
Silver
Sulfuric acid
Thallium
Tin
Zinc

EPA Contaminants list
close


US National Library of Medicine , National Institutes of Health
Department of Health & Human Services

Current human exposures at this site are under control

PRIVACY ACT AND PUBLIC BURDEN STATEMENTS

The information requested on proposal forms and project reports is solicited under the authority of the National Science Foundation Act of 1950, as amended. The information on proposal forms will be used in connection with the selection of qualified proposals; and project reports submitted by awardees will be used for program evaluation and reporting within the Executive Branch and to Congress. The information requested may be disclosed to qualified reviewers and staff assistants as part of the proposal review process; to proposer institutions/grantees to provide or obtain data regarding the proposal review process, award decisions, or the administration of awards; to government contractors, experts, volunteers and researchers and educators as necessary to complete assigned work; to other government agencies or other entities needing information regarding applicants or nominees as part of a joint application review process, or in order to coordinate programs or policy; and to another Federal agency, court, or party in a court or Federal administrative proceeding if the government is a party. Information about Principal Investigators may be added to the Reviewer file and used to select potential candidates to serve as peer reviewers or advisory committee members. See Systems of Records, NSF-50, "Principal Investigator/Proposal File and Associated Records," 69 Federal Register 26410 (May 12, 2004), and NSF-51, "Reviewer/Proposal File and Associated Records," 69 Federal Register 26410 (May 12, 2004). Submission of the information is voluntary. Failure to provide full and complete information, however, may reduce the possibility of receiving an award.

An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, an information collection unless it displays a valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number. The OMB control number for this collection is 3145-0058. Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 120 hours per response, including the time for reviewing instructions. Send comments regarding the burden estimate and any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to:

Suzanne H. Plimpton
Reports Clearance Officer
Division of Administrative Services
National Science Foundation
Arlington, VA 22230

 

Water

Section 1475(a) would block implementation of protections under the Endangered Species Act for fish in the San Francisco Bay-Delta ecosystem, including winter run Chinook salmon, spring run Chinook salmon, steelhead, green sturgeon and delta smelt.  This measure is designed to increase the delivery of water subsidized by federal taxpayers, at the expense of California cities, other farmers, the health of the San Francisco Bay-Delta, and especially the California salmon fishing industry.

Section 1475(b) would block the restoration of California's San Joaquin River . 

Section 1747 would halt EPA's determination of which waters remain protected by the Clean Water Act in the wake of Rapanos.  

An amendment offered by Rep. Griffith (R-VA) , and passed 235-185 , would block EPA and other agencies from conducting meaningful oversight of mountaintop removal coal mining operations.

An amendment offered by Rep. Goodlatte (R-VA) , and passed 230-195 , would block EPA from implementing a plan to clean up the Chesapeake Bay.

An amendment offered by Rep. Johnson (R-OH) , and passed 239-186 , would block the Department of the Interior from issuing new regulations to limit stream damage from surface coal mining.

An amendment offered by Rep. Jones (R-NC), and passed 259 – 159 , would prohibit the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) from developing or approving new catch share programs to limit overfishing.  

An amendment offered by Rep. McKinley (R-WV) , and passed 240-182 , would effectively strip EPA of its authority under the Clean Water Act to prohibit or restrict certain discharges that would have an “unacceptable adverse effect” on water, fish or wildlife. 

An amendment offered by Rep. McKinley (R-WV) , and passed 239-183 , would prevent EPA from establishing minimum standards for the disposal and handling of coal ash as a hazardous waste.  Coal ash is a well-documented threat to human health and the environment, and due to largely unregulated dumping, poses a threat to our waterways and drinking water.

An amendment offered by Rep. Rooney (R-FL) , and passed 237-189 , would block a plan to clean up waterways in Florida.

 

Air/ Climate

Section 1746 would prevent the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) from proposing, implementing or enforcing any regulations on stationary sources of greenhouse gas emissions because of concerns about climate change.

An amendment offered by Rep. Carter (R-TX ), and passed 250-177 , would prevent EPA from limiting toxic emissions from cement plants. The amendment would block the EPA's efforts to keep 16,000 pounds of mercury a year out of the air.

An amendment offered by Rep. Noem (R-SD), and passed 255-168 , would block EPA from updating limits on the emission of particulates -- basically, soot .

An amendment offered by Rep. Poe (R-TX) , and passed 249-177 , would block EPA from limiting emissions of greenhouse gases from any stationary source for any reason.

An amendment offered by Rep. Young (R-AK), and passed 243-185 , would block EPA from fully applying the Clean Air Act to oil drilling activities in Alaska. The EPA's Environmental Appeals Board recently ruled that a permit issued for Shell Oil to drill in the Arctic did not comply with the Clean Air Act.  This amendment would prevent the Board from taking any similar actions for the rest of the fiscal year.

 

Wildlife/ Lands

Section 1713 would direct the Secretary of the Interior to reinstate a 2009 rule delisting wolves under the Endangered Species Act within portions of the northern Rockies within 60 days of the bill's enactment and insulates the action from judicial review.  This provision would overturn a federal court decision and establish a dangerous precedent of legislatively delisting a species.  

Section 1778 would block the reinstatement of a policy that allows the Department of the Interior to protect the wilderness qualities of lands pending a Congressional wilderness designation.

An amendment offered by Rep. Herger (R-CA), and passed 227 - 197 , would stop implementation of the Forest Service's Travel Management Rule, to develop a more efficient, more manageable system of roads through our national forests.

Environmental Justice

An amendment offered by Rep. Lummis (R- WY), and passed 232- 197, would make it harder to sue the government to enforce environmental laws. The amendment would block the government from paying the legal fees of individuals or citizen groups that successfully sue it. Since the amendment does not change the underlying law, it basically would require the government to default on its obligation to pay the fees.

CONTACT:
Cathy Milbourn
Milbourn.cathy@epa.gov
202-564-7859
202-564-4355

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
March 8, 2011


EPA Updates Database on Health and Environmental Impacts of Electricity Generation

User friendly web tool allows Americans to search for power providers by zip code

WASHINGTON -- The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency updated its database that helps Americans understand the health and environmental impacts of electricity generation. EPA's Emissions and Generation Integrated Resource Database (eGRID) and Power Profiler now include data from 2007, an update from 2005.

eGRID is a comprehensive database of emissions from almost all electric power generated in the United States. The data are widely used to show the impacts of electricity generation as well as the benefits from reduced electricity demand. eGRID contains emissions information for nitrogen oxides (NO x ) and sulfur dioxide (SO 2 ) which contribute to unhealthy air quality and acid rain in many parts of the country. eGRID also contains emissions information for carbon dioxide (CO 2 ), methane (CH 4 ), and nitrous oxide (N 2 O), which are greenhouse gases that contribute to climate change.

Power Profiler is a user friendly online application that uses eGRID data to show air emissions information and the type of electricity generation, such as coal or nuclear, in various regions of the country. By simply entering a zip code and selecting a utility, users can learn more about where their electricity comes from and what impact it has on air quality and the environment.

More information about eGRID: http://www.epa.gov/egrid

More information about Power Profiler: http://www.epa.gov/powerprofiler

R077

Note: If a link above doesn't work, please copy and paste the URL into a browser.  View all news releases related to air issues

Reid says Senate Republicans blocking vote on their own budget plan

By Josiah Ryan - 03/08/11 11:36 AM ET

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said Senate Republicans have violated their agreement to hold a test-vote on the House GOP's 2011 budget plan that would slash $57.5 billion in government spending. 

“They don't want to live up to the agreement that was made,” Reid said in comments on the Senate floor. “We agreed, I repeat, to hold a vote on H.R. 1, the Republican plan that they moved to the Senate floor themselves.”

Reid said GOP leaders, including Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) agreed to the vote during a meeting last week with Reid, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), and Vice President Biden. The parties also agreed to vote on the Democratic spending proposal that would cut just $6.5 billion in spending. 

“There is no question that that was the agreement made,” said Reid. “No question that that was the deal. But now the Republicans are reneging on that deal. They don't want to vote on their own plan.”

A GOP aide said he expected votes on the spending measures to take place Tuesday evening or Wednesday. The aide said Reid is making accusations to distract people from criticism that Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) leveled at Democratic leaders earlier in the morning for not taking a more aggressive approach to reducing spending. 

Reid insisted in his comments that he would force a vote on the legislation, whether Republicans liked it or not. 

“Well they are going to have a chance to vote on H.R. 1,” Reid said. “I may have to jump through all the procedural hoops to do it in spite of the fact that they made a deal. We are going to do that. The Republicans over here are going to have to vote on that terrible bill. They are going to have to vote on it."

 

Superfund: Information on the Nature and Costs of Cleanup Activities at Three Landfills in the Gulf Coast Region

GAO-11-287R, February 18, 2011

Full Report  (PDF, 23 pages)   Accessible Text

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) estimates that one in four Americans lives within 3 miles of a contaminated site, many of which pose serious risks to human health and the environment. The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA) provided the federal government with authority to respond to releases or threatened releases of hazardous substances and created a trust fund to provide for certain cleanup activities. Under CERCLA, EPA established the Superfund program to address the threats that contaminated sites pose. Although EPA has paid for the cleanup of many of these sites through the Superfund program, funding for these cleanups has diminished in recent years. In 2010, we reported that EPA's estimated costs to clean up existing contaminated sites exceed the Superfund program's current funding levels and that some sites have not received sufficient funding for cleanup to proceed in the most cost-efficient manner. Additionally, in July 2009, we reported that EPA does not collect sufficient information on the cost of cleanup activities at Superfund sites and recommended, among other things, that EPA assess and improve the data it collects on the status and cost of cleanups. EPA coordinates the cleanup of Superfund sites by identifying sites potentially requiring cleanup action and placing eligible sites on its National Priorities List (NPL). EPA may compel the parties responsible for contaminating these sites to clean them up, or the agency may, using resources from the trust fund established by CERCLA, conduct cleanups itself and seek reimbursement from responsible parties. In some cases, EPA may not be able to obtain reimbursement because the agency cannot identify a responsible party or the responsible party or parties may be insolvent or may no longer exist. One category of contaminated sites--landfills and other waste disposal facilities--made up more than one-third of the 1,397 sites EPA placed on the NPL from 1983 through 2007, and EPA's expenditures at these 511 sites totaled about $3.6 billion through fiscal year 2007. According to EPA, landfill sites on the NPL generally share similar characteristics and present similar threats to the environment. For example, these sites generally exhibit contamination in various media, such as soil, surface water, or groundwater, and many landfills at Superfund sites contain hazardous waste that may contaminate nearby soil or water. Further, some have argued that landfills used for the disposal of debris created by disasters may also contain hazardous waste that could have long-term, negative environmental impacts. Consequently, concerns have been raised by various studies and environmental groups about the potential for such landfills to become Superfund sites. For instance, in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, a Louisiana emergency order authorized some potentially hazardous materials to be disposed of in landfills permitted to receive construction and demolition debris rather than in landfills with liners approved for such waste. Studies by a Louisiana State University research institute and an environmental engineering firm found that these categories of waste can introduce hazardous materials into landfills, increasing the likelihood of pollution. In this context, Congress asked us to review issues related to the cost to clean up the Agriculture Street Landfill Superfund site, which received debris from Hurricane Betsy in 1965, and other Superfund sites involving landfills in the Gulf Coast region where cleanup has been completed. Our objectives were to determine (1) what is known about the nature and costs of the cleanup activities at Superfund landfill sites and (2) the costs to clean up the Agriculture Street Landfill site and two additional selected Superfund landfill sites in the Gulf Coast region, and the key factors that influenced these costs.

While cleanup activities at Superfund landfills depend largely on the nature and extent of the contamination at each site, these activities generally include extraction, treatment, and containment. Extraction is the removal of contaminated substances from a site. At landfill sites, extraction may involve excavating contaminated soil and other landfill contents from the site and disposing of these materials at an off-site facility that is permitted to receive such products. According to EPA, extraction is the most expensive cleanup approach used at Superfund landfill sites. Treatment is the reduction of contaminated substances at a site and involves processing contaminated media, either on- or off-site, to reduce the toxicity, mobility, or volume of contamination. For example, EPA and responsible parties may remove groundwater from a Superfund site and chemically process it to remove contaminants at an off-site facility, or they may install a system at the site to treat the contaminated water in place. While treatment is a lower-cost alternative to extraction, it is a high-cost cleanup approach. Finally, containment involves leaving contaminated media on-site and installing measures to prevent human exposure to hazardous substances. For instance, containment at a Superfund landfill site may include installing a cover over landfill contents and establishing institutional controls, such as legal access restrictions, to limit exposure to the contaminated material. Containment is generally the least expensive method of addressing Superfund landfills. Limited data are available on the actual costs of cleanup activities conducted at Superfund landfill sites for two main reasons. First, EPA does not maintain a central tracking system for the costs of such cleanup activities. While EPA tracks its expenditures at Superfund sites, this information does not include the cost associated with each cleanup activity conducted at a site. Rather, EPA's Superfund cost information focuses on the total cost of each contract under which multiple cleanup activities may have been conducted. Second, cost data are limited because no requirements exist for responsible parties--including private companies, states, and local governments--to maintain or disclose their cleanup costs at Superfund sites. Private companies generally consider their cleanup costs as information that they have a right to keep confidential. While state and local governments are generally required to collect cleanup cost data under public accounting standards, these standards generally do not address maintenance of the data. While only limited cleanup cost data are available, we estimated that the costs to clean up three Superfund landfill sites in the Gulf Coast region--the Agriculture Street, Beulah, and Taylor Road landfill sites--ranged from about $13 million to about $55 million. This range is largely the result of differences among the sites in such factors as site geology and proximity to residential areas.

Full Report  (PDF, 23 pages)   Accessible Text

Last Friday the CFTC released their monthly Bank Participation Report (BPR) which revealed a startling statistic. After 3 months of desperately trying to cover their gigantic short position the US Banks that control the price of silver decided to go back to their reckless shorting routine...BY A HUGE AMOUNT! Here's the numbers and the link to the CFTC BPR postings:

http://www.cftc.gov/MarketReports/BankParticipationReports/index.htm

11/2/10 = 30,760

12/7/10 = 26,332

1/4/11 = 22,658

2/1/11 = 19,706

Over the last 3 months it really looked like they were trying to close out their gigantic short position before the Position Limit Rule goes into effect on March 28, 2011. That was until the latest BPR was posted. Just look at the increase in the US Bank silver short position...

3/1/11 = 25,586

IT GREW BY 5,880 CONTRACTS OR CLOSE TO 30M OUNCES!

That is a STUNNING amount of new shorts added during the month of February when the price of silver actually managed to RISE 25%. It is important to understand that IF these new shorts were not placed on COMEX silver then THE PRICE WOULD HAVE EXPLODED TO OVER $50 OR EVEN $100 PER OUNCE!

 

 

Novartis was created in 1996 from the merger of Ciba-Geigy and Sandoz Laboratories , both Swiss companies with long histories. Ciba-Geigy was formed in 1970 by the merger of J. R. Geigy Ltd (founded in Basel in 1758) and CIBA (founded in Basel in 1859). Combining the histories of the merger partners, the company's effective history spans 250 years. [ 14 ]

Ciba-Geigy

Johann Rudolf Geigy-Gemuseus (1733–1793) began trading in 1758 in "materials, chemicals, dyes and drugs of all kinds" [ 15 ] in Basel , Switzerland . Johann Rudolf Geigy-Merian (1830–1917) and Johann Muller-Pack acquired a site in Basel in 1857, where they built a dyewood mill and a dye extraction plant. Two years later, they began the production of synthetic fuchsine . In 1901, they formed the public limited company Geigy and the name of the company was changed to J. R. Geigy Ltd in 1914.

In 1859, Alexander Clavel (1805  – 1873) took up the production of fuchsine in his factory for silk -dyeing works in Basel. In 1864, a new site for the production of synthetic dyes was constructed, and in 1873, Clavel sold his dye factory to the new company Bindschedler and Busch . In 1884, Bindschedler and Busch was transformed into a joint-stock company with the name "Gesellschaft für Chemische Industrie Basel" (Company for Chemical Industry Basel). The acronym , CIBA , was adopted as the company's name in 1945.

In 1925, J. R. Geigy Ltd. began producing textile auxiliaries, [ clarification needed ] an activity which Ciba took up in 1928.

In 1939, Geigy chemist Paul Hermann Müller discovered that DDT was effective against malaria-bearing insects. He received the 1948 Nobel Prize in Medicine for this work.

CIBA and Geigy merged in 1971 to form Ciba-Geigy Ltd. . This company merged with Sandoz in 1996, with the pharmaceutical divisions of both staying together to form Novartis. Other Ciba-Geigy businesses being spun off as independent companies.

Sandoz

The Chemiefirma Kern und Sandoz ("Kern and Sandoz Chemistry Firm") was founded in 1886 by Alfred Kern (1850–1893) and Edouard Sandoz (1853–1928). The first dyes manufactured by them were alizarine blue and auramine . After Kern's death, the partnership became the corporation Chemische Fabrik vormals Sandoz in 1895. The company began producing the fever-reducing drug antipyrin in the same year. In 1899, the company began producing the sugar substitute, saccharin . Further pharmaceutical research began in 1917 under Arthur Stoll (1887–1971), who is the founder of Sandoz's pharmaceutical department in 1917 . In 1918, Arthur Stoll isolates ergotamine from ergot; the substance is eventually used to treat migraine and headeaches and is introduced under the trade name Gynergen in 1921.

Between the World Wars, Gynergen (1921) and Calcium-Sandoz (1929) were brought to market. Sandoz also produced chemicals for textiles , paper , and leather , beginning in 1929. In 1939, the company began producing agricultural chemicals.

The psychedelic effects of lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD) were discovered at the Sandoz laboratories in 1943 by Arthur Stoll and Albert Hofmann ( patent by Stoll and Hofmann in USA on Mar. 23, 1948 ). Sandoz began clinical trials and marketed the substance, from 1947 through the mid 1960s, under the name Delysid as a psychiatric drug, thought useful for treating a wide variety of mental ailments , ranging from alcoholism to sexual deviancy . Sandoz suggested in its marketing literature that psychiatrists take LSD themselves, [ 16 ] to gain a better subjective understanding of the schizophrenic experience, and many did exactly that and so did other scientific researchers. For several years, the psychedelic drugs also were called " psychotomimetic " because they were thought to mimic psychosis . Later research caused this term to be abandoned, as neuroscientists gained a better understanding of psychoses, including schizophrenia. Research on LSD peaked in the 1950s and early 1960s. Sandoz withdrew the drug from the market in the mid-1960s. The drug became a cultural novelty of the 1960s after psychologist Timothy Leary at Harvard University began to promulgate its use for recreational and spiritual experiences among the general public.

Sandoz opened its first foreign offices in 1964.

In 1967, Sandoz merged with Wander AG (known for Ovomaltine and Isostar ). Sandoz acquired the companies Delmark , Wasabröd (a Swedish manufacturer of crisp bread ), and Gerber Products Company (a baby food company).

On 1 November 1986, a fire broke out in a production plant storage room, which led to Sandoz chemical spill and a large amount of pesticide being released into the upper Rhine river. This exposure killed many fish and other aquatic life.

In 1995, Sandoz spun off its specialty chemicals business to form Clariant . Subsequently, in 1997, Clariant merged with the specialty chemicals business that was spun off from Hoechst AG in Germany .

In 2005, Sandoz expanded significantly though the acquisition of Hexal , one of Germany's leading generic drug companies, and Eon Labs , a fast-growing United States generic pharmaceutical company.

"Sandoz" continues to be used as a Novartis generic drug brand (see below for details) .

After the merger

After the merger, Novartis reorganized its operating units and spun out its chemical activities as Ciba Specialty Chemicals (now a part of BASF ).

In 1998, the company made headlines with its biotechnology licensing agreement with the University of California at Berkeley Department of Plant and Microbial Biology . Critics of the agreement expressed concern over prospects that the agreement would diminish academic objectivity, or lead to the commercialization of genetically modified plants. The agreement expired in 2003.

Novartis combined its agricultural division with that of AstraZeneca to create, Syngenta , in November 2000.

In 2003, Novartis created a subsidiary that bundles its generic drug production, reusing the predecessor brand name of Sandoz. [ 17 ]

In 2005, Novartis introduced Certican ( Everolimus ), an immunosuppressant, and in October 2006 began marketing Telbivudine , a new antiviral drug for hepatitis B .

On 20 April 2006, Novartis acquired the California-based Chiron Corporation . Chiron formerly was divided into three units: Chiron Vaccines, Chiron Blood Testing, and Chiron BioPharmaceuticals, to be integrated into Novartis Pharmaceuticals. Chiron Vaccines and Chiron Blood Testing now are combined to form Novartis Vaccines and Diagnostics.

The ongoing Basel Campus Project has the aim to transform the St. Johann site - Novartis headquarters in Basel - "from an industrial complex to a place of innovation, knowledge, and encounter". [ 18 ]

On 12 October 2009, Novartis has entered into an agreement for exclusive US and Canadian rights to Fanapt(iloperidone), a new oral medication that is approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for the acute treatment of adults with schizophrenia. [ 19 ]

On 6 November 2009, Novartis reached an agreement to acquire an 85% stake in the Chinese vaccines company Zhejiang Tianyuan Bio-Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. as part of a strategic initiative to build a vaccines industry leader in this country and expand the Group's limited presence in this fast-growing market segment. This proposed acquisition will require government and regulatory approvals in China. [ 20 ]

On 4 January 2010, Novartis offered to pay US $39.3 billion to fully acquire Alcon , the world's largest eye-care company, including a majority stake held by Nestlé . Novartis had bought 25% of Alcon in 2008. [ 21 ]

On 11 March 2010, Novartis settled their patent suit in the US District Court for the District of New Jersey with IntelliPharmaCeutics International, Ltd. , a Canada-based specialty pharmaceutical company, and its licensee Par Pharmaceutical Inc. over a generic version of the attention deficit hyperactivity disorder drug Focalin XR (dexmethylphenidate hydrochloride). [ 22 ]

 

Bayer CropScience has products in crop protection and non-agricultural pest control. It also has activities in seeds and plant traits. [ 1 ]

In 2002 Bayer AG acquired Aventis CropScience and fused it with their own agrochemicals division (Bayer Pflanzenschutz or "Crop Protection") to form Bayer CropScience. The company is now one of the world's leading innovative crop science companies in the areas of crop protection (i.e. pesticides ), non- agricultural pest control, seeds and plant biotechnology . In addition to conventional agrochemical business it is involved in genetic engineering of food . The Belgian biotech company Plant Genetic Systems , became part of the company by the acquisition of Aventis CropScience.

Also in 2002, Bayer AG acquired the Dutch seed company Nunhems .

Bayer CropScience is involved in a joint project with Archer Daniels Midland Company and Daimler AG to develop jatropha as a biofuel . [ 9 ]

 

FROM THE OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL:

EPA does not enforce a coherent program of position management to assure the efficient and effective use of its workforce. While some organizational elements have independently established programs to control their resources, there is no Agency-wide effort to ensure that personnel are put to the best use. Prior to April 2010, EPA had the Position Management and Control Manual, which required an Agency-wide program. However this manual was not enforced and in April 2010 it was cancelled without replacement. According to the cancellation memorandum, the manual was eliminated because Office of Administration and Resources Management (OARM) officials believed EPA had other mechanisms in place to appropriately manage and control its positions. However, the other mechanisms do not provide similar effects, controls, or documentation. Without an Agency-wide position management program, EPA leadership lacks reasonable assurance that it is using personnel in an effective and efficient manner to achieve mission results.

Related Internal Control Requirements
Besides the requirements specific to position management that were in the 3150 Manual, EPA must comply with a variety of more general requirements about internal controls. These include:
1. Federal Managers’ Financial Integrity Act (FMFIA) requires agencies to establish internal accounting and administrative controls that comply with standards established by the Comptroller General. It also requires an annual evaluation (and related statement) on whether the agency’s internal controls comply with specified standards and, if not, requires the agency to identify material weaknesses and plans to correct them.
2. Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-123, Management’s Responsibility for Internal Control, implements FMFIA. OMB Circular A-123 states that the internal control activities developed and maintained by management must comply with standards related to control environment, risk assessment, control activities, information and communication, and monitoring. Additionally, it specifies requirements for conducting assessments of internal controls.
3. EPA Records Management Policy (CIO 2155.1) implements the Federal Records Act of 1950, which requires all federal agencies to make and preserve records that document their organization, function, policies, decisions, procedures, and essential transactions. These records are public property and must be managed according to applicable laws and regulations. Thus, among other things, EPA must create, receive, and maintain official records providing adequate and proper evidence of Agency activities. Such records would include documentation of position management program activities.

EPA Cancelled Its Position Management Directive
On April 2, 2010, EPA cancelled the 3150 Manual, its written procedure on managing the workforce to accomplish the assigned mission as effectively and economically as possible. OARM staff believed position management was adequately addressed by other activities. However, the basis for that belief is undocumented.
On December 2, 2009, the Acting Deputy Director, OHR, stated that the FTE allocation process, workforce planning, and classification are the three parts of position management. However, EPA’s cancellation order, signed by the Acting Director, OHR, stated that OHR staff believed budgeting, strategic workforce planning, and strategic succession planning mechanisms allow it to appropriately manage and control positions. Further, OARM did not provide analysis or documentation of how these mechanisms allow it to appropriately manage and control positions. As described below, alternate activities do not provide similar effects, controls, or documentation as those provided by the process required by the 3150 Manual, or provide assurance that the workforce is being used efficiently and effectively.

Conclusion
EPA lacks reasonable assurance that program and regional offices are employing their staff resources effectively and efficiently. Effective resource management is essential to accomplish EPA’s mission to protect human health and the environment. EPA lacks an Agency-level program for effectively managing positions to assist in accomplishing its strategic goals and initiatives. Managing positions in a coherent and consistent program would provide EPA leadership with the tools it needs to make informed decisions about staff resources. Such a program would also assure Agency management that the workforce was used efficiently and effectively.

Action Required
In accordance with EPA Manual 2750, you are required to provide a written response to this report within 90 calendar days. Please consider our response to your comments and provide a final response, with milestone dates as appropriate. Your response will be posted on the IMMI public website, along with our memorandum commenting on your response. Your response should be provided as an Adobe PDF file that complies with the accessibility requirements of section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended. The final response should not contain data that you do not want to be released to the public; if your response contains such data, you should identify the data for redaction or removal. We have no objections to the further release of this report to the public. We will post this report to our website at http://www.ironmountainmine.com/
If you or your staff have any questions regarding this report, please contact John Hutchens,

EMERGENCY COMMAND OFFICER - PRINCIPALS' INSPECTOR GENERAL; 925-878-9167 or john@ironmountainmine.com

Failure to Make Disclosures or to Cooperate in Discovery; Sanctions

(b) Failure to Comply with a Court Order.

(d) Party's Failure to Attend Its Own Deposition, Serve Answers to Interrogatories, or Respond to a Request for Inspection.

 

(e) Failure to Provide Electronically Stored Information.

Absent exceptional circumstances, a court may not impose sanctions under these rules on a party for failing to provide electronically stored information lost as a result of the routine, good-faith operation of an electronic information system.

(f) Failure to Participate in Framing a Discovery Plan.

If a party or its attorney fails to participate in good faith in developing and submitting a proposed discovery plan as required by Rule 26(f) , the court may, after giving an opportunity to be heard, require that party or attorney to pay to any other party the reasonable expenses, including attorney's fees, caused by the failure.

Depositions to Perpetuate Testimony

(a) Before an Action Is Filed.

(1) Petition.

A person who wants to perpetuate testimony about any matter cognizable in a United States court may file a verified petition in the district court for the district where any expected adverse party resides. The petition must ask for an order authorizing the petitioner to depose the named persons in order to perpetuate their testimony. The petition must be titled in the petitioner's name and must show:

(A) that the petitioner expects to be a party to an action cognizable in a United States court but cannot presently bring it or cause it to be brought;

(B) the subject matter of the expected action and the petitioner's interest;

(C) the facts that the petitioner wants to establish by the proposed testimony and the reasons to perpetuate it;

(D) the names or a description of the persons whom the petitioner expects to be adverse parties and their addresses, so far as known; and

(E) the name, address, and expected substance of the testimony of each deponent.

(2) Notice and Service.

At least 21 days before the hearing date, the petitioner must serve each expected adverse party with a copy of the petition and a notice stating the time and place of the hearing. The notice may be served either inside or outside the district or state in the manner provided in Rule 4 . If that service cannot be made with reasonable diligence on an expected adverse party, the court may order service by publication or otherwise. The court must appoint an attorney to represent persons not served in the manner provided in Rule 4 and to cross-examine the deponent if an unserved person is not otherwise represented. If any expected adverse party is a minor or is incompetent, Rule 17(c) applies.

(3) Order and Examination.

If satisfied that perpetuating the testimony may prevent a failure or delay of justice, the court must issue an order that designates or describes the persons whose depositions may be taken, specifies the subject matter of the examinations, and states whether the depositions will be taken orally or by written interrogatories. The depositions may then be taken under these rules, and the court may issue orders like those authorized by Rules 34 and 35 . A reference in these rules to the court where an action is pending means, for purposes of this rule, the court where the petition for the deposition was filed.

(4) Using the Deposition.

A deposition to perpetuate testimony may be used under Rule 32(a) in any later-filed district-court action involving the same subject matter if the deposition either was taken under these rules or, although not so taken, would be admissible in evidence in the courts of the state where it was taken.

(b) Pending Appeal.

(1) In General.

The court where a judgment has been rendered may, if an appeal has been taken or may still be taken, permit a party to depose witnesses to perpetuate their testimony for use in the event of further proceedings in that court.

(2) Motion.

The party who wants to perpetuate testimony may move for leave to take the depositions, on the same notice and service as if the action were pending in the district court. The motion must show:

(A) the name, address, and expected substance of the testimony of each deponent; and

(B) the reasons for perpetuating the testimony.

(3) Court Order.

If the court finds that perpetuating the testimony may prevent a failure or delay of justice, the court may permit the depositions to be taken and may issue orders like those authorized by Rules 34 and 35 . The depositions may be taken and used as any other deposition taken in a pending district-court action.

(c) Perpetuation by an Action.

This rule does not limit a court's power to entertain an action to perpetuate testimony.

TITLE 28 > PART III > CHAPTER 43 > § 636 Prev | Next

§ 636. Jurisdiction, powers, and temporary assignment

How Current is This? (a) Each United States magistrate judge serving under this chapter shall have within the district in which sessions are held by the court that appointed the magistrate judge, at other places where that court may function, and elsewhere as authorized by law— (1) all powers and duties conferred or imposed upon United States commissioners by law or by the Rules of Criminal Procedure for the United States District Courts; (2) the power to administer oaths and affirmations, issue orders pursuant to section 3142 of title 18 concerning release or detention of persons pending trial, and take acknowledgements, affidavits, and depositions; (3) the power to conduct trials under section 3401 , title 18 , United States Code, in conformity with and subject to the limitations of that section; (4) the power to enter a sentence for a petty offense; and (5) the power to enter a sentence for a class A misdemeanor in a case in which the parties have consented. (b) (1) Notwithstanding any provision of law to the contrary— (A) a judge may designate a magistrate judge to hear and determine any pretrial matter pending before the court, except a motion for injunctive relief, for judgment on the pleadings, for summary judgment, to dismiss or quash an indictment or information made by the defendant, to suppress evidence in a criminal case, to dismiss or to permit maintenance of a class action, to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, and to involuntarily dismiss an action. A judge of the court may reconsider any pretrial matter under this subparagraph (A) where it has been shown that the magistrate judge's order is clearly erroneous or contrary to law. (B) a judge may also designate a magistrate judge to conduct hearings, including evidentiary hearings, and to submit to a judge of the court proposed findings of fact and recommendations for the disposition, by a judge of the court, of any motion excepted in subparagraph (A), of applications for posttrial  [1] relief made by individuals convicted of criminal offenses and of prisoner petitions challenging conditions of confinement. (C) the magistrate judge shall file his proposed findings and recommendations under subparagraph (B) with the court and a copy shall forthwith be mailed to all parties. Within fourteen days after being served with a copy, any party may serve and file written objections to such proposed findings and recommendations as provided by rules of court. A judge of the court shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made. A judge of the court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge. The judge may also receive further evidence or recommit the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions. (2) A judge may designate a magistrate judge to serve as a special master pursuant to the applicable provisions of this title and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for the United States district courts. A judge may designate a magistrate judge to serve as a special master in any civil case, upon consent of the parties, without regard to the provisions of rule 53(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for the United States district courts. (3) A magistrate judge may be assigned such additional duties as are not inconsistent with the Constitution and laws of the United States. (4) Each district court shall establish rules pursuant to which the magistrate judges shall discharge their duties. (c) Notwithstanding any provision of law to the contrary— (1) Upon the consent of the parties, a full-time United States magistrate judge or a part-time United States magistrate judge who serves as a full-time judicial officer may conduct any or all proceedings in a jury or nonjury civil matter and order the entry of judgment in the case, when specially designated to exercise such jurisdiction by the district court or courts he serves. Upon the consent of the parties, pursuant to their specific written request, any other part-time magistrate judge may exercise such jurisdiction, if such magistrate judge meets the bar membership requirements set forth in section 631 (b)(1) and the chief judge of the district court certifies that a full-time magistrate judge is not reasonably available in accordance with guidelines established by the judicial council of the circuit. When there is more than one judge of a district court, designation under this paragraph shall be by the concurrence of a majority of all the judges of such district court, and when there is no such concurrence, then by the chief judge. (2) If a magistrate judge is designated to exercise civil jurisdiction under paragraph (1) of this subsection, the clerk of court shall, at the time the action is filed, notify the parties of the availability of a magistrate judge to exercise such jurisdiction. The decision of the parties shall be communicated to the clerk of court. Thereafter, either the district court judge or the magistrate judge may again advise the parties of the availability of the magistrate judge, but in so doing, shall also advise the parties that they are free to withhold consent without adverse substantive consequences. Rules of court for the reference of civil matters to magistrate judges shall include procedures to protect the voluntariness of the parties' consent. (3) Upon entry of judgment in any case referred under paragraph (1) of this subsection, an aggrieved party may appeal directly to the appropriate United States court of appeals from the judgment of the magistrate judge in the same manner as an appeal from any other judgment of a district court. The consent of the parties allows a magistrate judge designated to exercise civil jurisdiction under paragraph (1) of this subsection to direct the entry of a judgment of the district court in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Nothing in this paragraph shall be construed as a limitation of any party's right to seek review by the Supreme Court of the United States. (4) The court may, for good cause shown on its own motion, or under extraordinary circumstances shown by any party, vacate a reference of a civil matter to a magistrate judge under this subsection. (5) The magistrate judge shall, subject to guidelines of the Judicial Conference, determine whether the record taken pursuant to this section shall be taken by electronic sound recording, by a court reporter, or by other means. (d) The practice and procedure for the trial of cases before officers serving under this chapter shall conform to rules promulgated by the Supreme Court pursuant to section 2072 of this title. (e) Contempt Authority.— (1) In general.— A United States magistrate judge serving under this chapter shall have within the territorial jurisdiction prescribed by the appointment of such magistrate judge the power to exercise contempt authority as set forth in this subsection. (2) Summary criminal contempt authority.— A magistrate judge shall have the power to punish summarily by fine or imprisonment, or both, such contempt of the authority of such magistrate judge constituting misbehavior of any person in the magistrate judge's presence so as to obstruct the administration of justice. The order of contempt shall be issued under the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. (3) Additional criminal contempt authority in civil consent and misdemeanor cases.— In any case in which a United States magistrate judge presides with the consent of the parties under subsection (c) of this section, and in any misdemeanor case proceeding before a magistrate judge under section 3401 of title 18 , the magistrate judge shall have the power to punish, by fine or imprisonment, or both, criminal contempt constituting disobedience or resistance to the magistrate judge's lawful writ, process, order, rule, decree, or command. Disposition of such contempt shall be conducted upon notice and hearing under the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. (4) Civil contempt authority in civil consent and misdemeanor cases.— In any case in which a United States magistrate judge presides with the consent of the parties under subsection (c) of this section, and in any misdemeanor case proceeding before a magistrate judge under section 3401 of title 18 , the magistrate judge may exercise the civil contempt authority of the district court. This paragraph shall not be construed to limit the authority of a magistrate judge to order sanctions under any other statute, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, or the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. (5) Criminal contempt penalties.— The sentence imposed by a magistrate judge for any criminal contempt provided for in paragraphs (2) and (3) shall not exceed the penalties for a Class C misdemeanor as set forth in sections 3581 (b)(8) and 3571 (b)(6) of title 18 . (6) Certification of other contempts to the district court.— Upon the commission of any such act— (A) in any case in which a United States magistrate judge presides with the consent of the parties under subsection (c) of this section, or in any misdemeanor case proceeding before a magistrate judge under section 3401 of title 18 , that may, in the opinion of the magistrate judge, constitute a serious criminal contempt punishable by penalties exceeding those set forth in paragraph (5) of this subsection, or (B) in any other case or proceeding under subsection (a) or (b) of this section, or any other statute, where— (i) the act committed in the magistrate judge's presence may, in the opinion of the magistrate judge, constitute a serious criminal contempt punishable by penalties exceeding those set forth in paragraph (5) of this subsection, (ii) the act that constitutes a criminal contempt occurs outside the presence of the magistrate judge, or (iii) the act constitutes a civil contempt, the magistrate judge shall forthwith certify the facts to a district judge and may serve or cause to be served, upon any person whose behavior is brought into question under this paragraph, an order requiring such person to appear before a district judge upon a day certain to show cause why that person should not be adjudged in contempt by reason of the facts so certified. The district judge shall thereupon hear the evidence as to the act or conduct complained of and, if it is such as to warrant punishment, punish such person in the same manner and to the same extent as for a contempt committed before a district judge. (7) Appeals of magistrate judge contempt orders.— The appeal of an order of contempt under this subsection shall be made to the court of appeals in cases proceeding under subsection (c) of this section. The appeal of any other order of contempt issued under this section shall be made to the district court. (f) In an emergency and upon the concurrence of the chief judges of the districts involved, a United States magistrate judge may be temporarily assigned to perform any of the duties specified in subsection (a), (b), or (c) of this section in a judicial district other than the judicial district for which he has been appointed. No magistrate judge shall perform any of such duties in a district to which he has been temporarily assigned until an order has been issued by the chief judge of such district specifying (1) the emergency by reason of which he has been transferred, (2) the duration of his assignment, and (3) the duties which he is authorized to perform. A magistrate judge so assigned shall not be entitled to additional compensation but shall be reimbursed for actual and necessary expenses incurred in the performance of his duties in accordance with section 635 . (g) A United States magistrate judge may perform the verification function required by section 4107 of title 18 , United States Code. A magistrate judge may be assigned by a judge of any United States district court to perform the verification required by section 4108 and the appointment of counsel authorized by section 4109 of title 18 , United States Code, and may perform such functions beyond the territorial limits of the United States. A magistrate judge assigned such functions shall have no authority to perform any other function within the territory of a foreign country. (h) A United States magistrate judge who has retired may, upon the consent of the chief judge of the district involved, be recalled to serve as a magistrate judge in any judicial district by the judicial council of the circuit within which such district is located. Upon recall, a magistrate judge may receive a salary for such service in accordance with regulations promulgated by the Judicial Conference, subject to the restrictions on the payment of an annuity set forth in section 377 of this title or in subchapter III of chapter 83, and chapter 84, of title 5 which are applicable to such magistrate judge. The requirements set forth in subsections (a), (b)(3), and (d) of section 631 , and paragraph (1) of subsection (b) of such section to the extent such paragraph requires membership of the bar of the location in which an individual is to serve as a magistrate judge, shall not apply to the recall of a retired magistrate judge under this subsection or section 375 of this title. Any other requirement set forth in section 631 (b) shall apply to the recall of a retired magistrate judge under this subsection or section 375 of this title unless such retired magistrate judge met such requirement upon appointment or reappointment as a magistrate judge under section 631 .

 

 

 

PROJECT MANAGER'S SECRETARY

Local Government Issue CERCLA Provision Relevant EPA Documents or Guidance (if any)
Involuntary Acquisition
§ 101(20)(D)
• Policy on Interpreting CERCLA Provisions Addressing Lenders and Involuntary Acquisitions by Government Entities (EPA/OSRE, 6/30/1997)
• Policy on CERCLA Enforcement Against Lenders and Government Entities that Acquire Property Involuntarily (EPA/DOJ, 9/22/2005)
• Municipal Immunity from CERCLA Liability for Property Acquired through Involuntary State Action (EPA/OSRE/OSWER, 10/20/1995)
• Fact Sheet: The Effect of Superfund on Involuntary Acquisitions of Contaminated Property by Government Entities (EPA/OSRE, 12/31/1995)
Third Party and Innocent Landowner Defenses
§§ 107(b)(3), 101(35)(A)(ii)
• Policy on Interpreting CERCLA Provisions Addressing Lenders and Involuntary Acquisitions by Government Entities (EPA/OSRE, 6/30/1997) • Interim Guidance Regarding Criteria Landowners Must Meet in Order to Qualify for Bona Fide Prospective Purchasers, Contiguous Property Owner, or Innocent Landowner Limitations on CERCLA Liability ("Common Elements") (EPA/OSRE, 3/6/2003)
Bona Fide Prospective Purchaser
§ 101(40) and § 107(r)
• Interim Guidance Regarding Criteria Landowners Must Meet in Order to Qualify for Bona Fide Prospective Purchasers, Contiguous Property Owner, or Innocent Landowner Limitations on CERCLA Liability ("Common Elements") (EPA/OSRE, 3/6/2003)
• Issuance of CERCLA Model Agreement and Order on Consent for Removal Action by a Bona Fide Prospective Purchaser (OSRE/USDOJ 11/27/2006)
• Enforcement Discretion Guidance Regarding the Applicability of the Bona Fide Prospective Purchaser Definition in CERCLA § 101(40) to Tenants (OSRE/OSWER 1/19/2009)
• Enforcement Discretion Guidance Regarding the Applicability of the Bona Fide Prospective Purchaser Definition in CERCLA Section 101(40) to Tenants: Frequently Asked Questions (OSRE 11/1/2009)
Windfall Liens
§ 107(r)
• Interim Enforcement Discretion Policy concerning Windfall Liens Under Section 107(r) of CERCLA (EPA/DOJ 7/16/2003)
• Windfall Lien Guidance: Frequently Asked Questions (OSRE 4/1/2008)
• Windfall Lien Administrative Procedures (OSRE 1/8/2008)

Local Government Issue

CERCLA Provision

Relevant EPA Documents or Guidance (if any)

Brownfield § 104(k)(4)

• Brownfields Assessment Pilot/Grants at

Grants


and (6)
http://epa.gov/brownfields/assessment_grants.htm
• Revolving Loan Fund Pilot/Grants at http://epa.gov/brownfields/rlflst.htm
• Cleanup Grants at http://epa.gov/brownfields/cleanup_grants.htm
• Area-Wide Planning Pilot Program at
http://www.epa.gov/brownfields/areawide_grants.htm
• Brownfield Grant Guidelines Frequently Asked Questions at
http://www.epa.gov/brownfields/proposal_guides/faqpguid.htm
Institutional §§ 101(40)(F), • Institutional Controls: A Citizen's Guide to Understanding Institutional Controls 107(q)(A)(V), Controls at Superfund, Brownfields, Federal Facilities, Underground 101(35)(A) Storage Tank, and Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Cleanups (EPA/OSWER 2/2005)
• Institutional Controls: A Guide to Implementing, Monitoring, and Enforcing Institutional Controls at Superfund, Brownfields, Federal Facility, UST and RCRA Corrective Action Cleanups (EPA Draft 2/2003)
• Institutional Controls: A Site Manager's Guide to Identifying, Evaluating and Selecting Institutional Controls at Superfund and RCRA Corrective Action Cleanups (EPA/OSWER 9/2000)
State §§ 101(41), • To see state-specific voluntary cleanup programs Memoranda of Voluntary 128 Agreement, please see Cleanups and http://www.epa.gov/brownfields/state_tribal/moa_mou.htm Memoranda of Agreement

Contact Information
If you have any questions about this fact sheet, please contact Cecilia De Robertis of EPA’s
Office of Site Remediation Enforcement at 202-564-5132 or derobertis.cecilia@epa.gov.
Disclaimer: This document is provided solely as general information to highlight certain aspects of a more comprehensive program. It does not provide legal advice, have any legally binding effect, or expressly or implicitly create, expand, or limit any legal rights, obligations, responsibilities, expectations, or benefits for any person. This document is not intended as a substitute for reading the statute or the guidance documents described in this document. It is the
local government’s sole responsibility to ensure that it obtains and retains liability protections.
EPA does not offer any guarantees or warranties for or related to acquisition of a contaminated
property or formerly contaminated property. It is also the local government’s sole responsibility
to maintain liability protection status as a contiguous property owner, bona fide prospective purchaser, or innocent land owner.

New Energy Department office seeks ideas for energy solutions on tribal lands

It's been a humble beginning for the Energy Department's new Office of Indian Energy Policy and Programs.

The creation of the office was announced in mid-December at President Obama's second tribal nation's gathering in Washington, D.C.

"We know that tribal lands hold a great capacity for solar, wind and geothermal projects, and we are committed to helping you unlock that potential," said Interior Secretary Ken Salazar at the gathering.

The office "will leverage the department's resources to promote tribal energy development," he said.

Almost three months later, the office is getting off the ground.

Its one Internet page [http://www.energy.gov/indianenergy/] can be found at www.energy.gov/indianenergy. Last week, you couldn't get there from the Energy Department's main page, but that will change soon, a spokeswoman said.

The office's history is confusing.

In 2007, the Bush Administration issued a statement [http://www.energy.gov/news/archives/5493.htm] saying it established the Office of Indian Energy Policy and Programs, leading to questions about what happened during that first effort.

Given such a past, it's easy to wonder about the office's future. Is the Obama Administration committed to it? How long it will be around? What will it accomplish?

On Friday, The Arctic Sounder interviewed the new director, Tracey LeBeau, an enrolled member of the Cheyenne River Sioux tribe from South Dakota.

Starting March 16 in Reno, Nev., the office will host a nationwide series of meetings to understand energy needs in Indian Country. The information gathered at those nine meetings will help create marching orders for the new effort.

The meeting in Alaska - home to outrageous rural energy prices and more than one-third of the nation's tribes - will be held last, on April 14. It will be an all-day meeting, rather than the half-day meetings planned in the Lower 48.

Question: The Office of Indian Energy was ... launched at the tribal nation's gathering Obama held a few months ago. But (it was apparently launched in 2007 too, with Steve Morello named as director). So are there two such offices? Or did this one in 2007 go defunct? How can we have a new office now and a new office then with the same name?

I knew Steve Morello, and vaguely how it was going back then. It's my understanding he was brought in and he was placed under Congressional and Intergovernmental Affairs. There was no office formally created to house either this office or him as an employee. So up until January of this year, I guess you could say the Office of Indian Energy Policy and Programs was around, but it wasn't stood up as a formal office. And it had no budget or programmatic, administrative support until this was formally created last month.

I should clarify, it had appropriations when the Obama Administration came in. The office was appropriated for 2009 and 2010, so there was the beginning of some support in that regard. But the office was not formally stood up until last month.

I understand that President Obama has provided a much different feel toward Indian tribes than we've gotten perhaps from any other president ever, in terms of his support for Indian tribes. But I have to ask, in light of this office appearing and disappearing in 2007, is this the real deal, or are you going to disappear in a couple months?

I would say the department has put forward budget requests for this office consistently, since Secretary Chu has been on.

So far in 2012, this office was separately identified and a budget request was made, so to the degree Congress continues to support those budget requests, like any other office, we'll continue to be here.

And I'm in the process of trying to put together a staffing plan not just for this year, but a longer-term staffing plan for the Office of Indian Energy. I do have a deputy director that has come on recently and we're starting to put together a staffing plan for the longer term.

How many people will you have on your staff?

We are in the process of thinking through our staffing plan. I'm only a little hesitant about saying how many people we'll have in our office because I'm so new into this, and this is a brand new office. So before we start announcing the building-out of programs and that sort of thing, which will drive some of our decisions about how to staff, we need to get out into Indian Country and talk to Indian Country and get a solid consensus with Indian Country.

...

If we go out in Indian Country and it's very clear to us that we hear loud and clear, we want a specific and large initiative, say, on electricity transmission, or electrification, that will drive a very different staffing scenario, than if they say let's just focus on a residential solar initiative.

What's the annual budget?

The annual requested budget has been $1.5 million. ... We are trying to narrow it down to exactly how much appropriated funds we do have available to this office and to Indian Country.

Why was this office created?

It was created in the Energy Policy Act of 2005. The language is fairly broad, but it was created to encourage and coordinate and manage programs for tribes related to energy development and energy capacity building and reduce energy costs in Indian Country and to look at electrification of Indian lands and homes.

And so it's pretty broad. I think that was the right approach and right way to do it, because there's so much need out there. But our shorter-term strategy is to get out and talk to tribes directly and help us narrow it down, because we don't want to establish an office that is spread out too thin. We'd rather make sure we're hitting Indian Country's needs and priorities and focus in on them in the short-term.

As director, do you have some personal goals?

I've been in the energy development arena my entire career. I've never worked for the federal government before. But on occasion I was fortunate enough to work on some tribal energy projects, so I have that perspective of where I think there are things that government can do better to facilitate energy development in Indian Country.

So one thing I could say - I guess it's a personal goal and it's definitely one of the issues we have heard just in our short time being here, directly from tribal leaders - has been a high degree of interest and I think opportunity for the Department of Energy to take a lead role in working across the different federal agencies that are also involved in some sort of role in energy development in Indian Country.

There's a lot of focus with the Administration in clean energy development, and there's a lot of agencies doing things in this sphere, and some of the feedback we're getting from tribes pretty consistently has been, 'Wow, there's so many people doing things in this area. It'll be helpful to understand how these programs can work together, and how we can leverage programs and resources to get projects that the tribes are wanting to see happen.'

So one of the first things we started doing is meeting and starting to discuss ways to collaborate and work more closely with agencies. For example, the U.S. Department of Agriculture has got a lot of programs and interests and Secretary Vilsack has been pretty outspoken about wanting to see clean energy programs in Indian Country and so much of Indian Country is in rural America, so that definitely falls in his wheelhouse. So working with USDA, Environmental Protection Agency, with the Department of Interior, which we're talking actively with right now to identify areas and programs where we can collaborate.

In (rural) Alaska, we've got really high energy costs. I don't know if it will get even worse with the higher price of oil that's been recently spiking. Do you have any ideas yet how Alaska can not only tap into this program, but reduce its energy costs?

We are very, very interested. We are going to be there April 14, including me. Everywhere else we're going to be doing half-day roundtable discussions, but in Anchorage we want to do a whole day, because we know the need is so serious and so great. And we know folks will be coming from a long ways, so we're going to do a whole day. We haven't found the venue yet, but we'll update the Web site as we find the venue.

We want to hear from people directly. We realize it's a special, very unique place, and it's an area where we want to pay some special attention to in terms of perhaps new approaches on a small, community scale or innovative technology level.

I'm not certain what you mean by new approaches on community scale or smaller scale development. Can you tell me more about that?

In general, a lot of the federal agencies have paid a lot of attention and focused funds on the big, commercial scale projects in Indian Country. And that makes sense, because a lot of tribes in the Lower 48 are looking at some really large build-out projects. That can work in Alaska in some cases, but there are also some more practical, driving needs in Alaska, just basic residential energy cost issues. So residential applications, community-scale applications, like distributed-energy projects. That's something we'll pay special attention to, and try to work with the communities up there to see how we can get some of these projects up and running.

How should tribes get in touch with you or your staff to learn more?

There's a couple ways. We will be having a link on that Web page, identifying numbers and emails and that sort of thing. But we also have a dedicated email address set up. It's listed on the letter, tribalconsultation@hq.doe.gov. So any comments they have about the conference or the upcoming summit, that's where we're asking them asking them to send those questions or comments to.

 

EPA's ‘Analysis' of Clean Air Act Casts Doubt on Regulatory Review

Posted by: Carter Wood under Energy , Global Warming , Regulations on March 7, 2011 @ 9:24 am

In President Obama's Executive Order, “ Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review ,” he instructed executive branch agencies to begin retrospective analyses of their existing regulations. The goal is to determine whether rules “may be outmoded, ineffective, insufficient, or excessively burdensome, and to modify, streamline, expand, or repeal them in accordance with what has been learned.”

For that process to have any value, agencies must undertake it in good faith and engage in serious self-scrutiny. Unfortunately, bureaucracies are usually more interested in justifying their existence and activities, and the regulatory review is likely to be misused for that purpose.

The Environmental Protection Agency recent “analysis” of the benefits of the Clean Air Act provides a clear case in point. Last week the agency issued a news release, “ EPA Report Underscores Clean Air Act's Successful Public Health Protections/Landmark law saved 160,000 lives in 2010 alone “:

WASHINGTON – A report released today by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) estimates that the benefits of reducing fine particle and ground level ozone pollution under the 1990 Clean Air Act amendments will reach approximately $2 trillion in 2020 while saving 230,000 people from early death in that year alone. The report studied the effects of the Clean Air Act updates on the economy, public health and the environment between 1990 and 2020.

Diane Katz at the Heritage Foundation delves into the flawed assumptions, methodological gimmicks, and general spinning in a Webmemo, “ Coming Clean on Regulatory Costs and Benefits “:

The report is astonishing for a variety of reasons—not the least of which is the enormous discrepancy between the Obama Administration's numbers and those of a similar previous study by the Clinton Administration EPA, which pegged the economic benefits of the act to be $170 billion (or 91 percent less than the Obama EPA's estimates). This magnitude of difference is explained by the unreliable assumptions underlying the Obama EPA's wildly inflated claims.

Nevertheless, newspaper headlines across the country—and throughout the blogosphere—trumpeted the new cost–benefit calculation as proving regulation to be unquestionably beneficial. The media's lack of scrutiny is particularly troublesome because, in this instance, the EPA is evaluating itself. Indeed, for every step beyond the agency's press release, the questionable methodology and leaps of logic are painfully obvious.

As Katz summarizes: “The benefit estimates in the report range from $250 million to $5.7 trillion—a vast difference that indicates vast uncertainty about the EPA's claims.” This from an Administration that has pledged itself to “sound science.”

Today's  Washington Examiner reports that Chairman Fred Upton (R-MI) and leaders of the House Energy and Commerce Committee are holding the EPA to account, working to stop the agency from exceeding its authority and misusing the Clean Air Act to establish a national regime of greenhouse gas regulation. The committee's Energy and Power Subcommittee holds two hearings this week that offer an opportunity to examine the EPA's activities, including ginned-up analyses: Tuesday on Climate Science and EPA's Greenhouse Gas Regulations , and Friday on the EPA's budget .

 

 

CERCLA's Unrecoverable Natural Resource Damages: Injuries to Cultural Resources and Services

Sarah Peterman *

[ Click Here to Comment ]
[ download PDF ]

Introduction

Confusion over what damages are recoverable as natural resource damages (NRD) under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA) and other federal statutes abounds, giving credence to the oft-repeated phrase that “CERCLA is not a model of legislative clarity.” [1] Among other things, confusion appears in discussions among the Department of the Interior , legislators, and courts regarding the recoverability of cultural resource damages as NRD under CERCLA. But the statute and caselaw are clear. As demonstrated here, CERCLA establishes that injuries to cultural resources, [2] no matter how they are described, are not recoverable as NRD.

Background on NRD

CERCLA imposes liability for cleanup and response costs on owners and operators of facilities where hazardous substances were released or disposed of . The two primary purposes of CERCLA are “to ensure the prompt and effective cleanup of waste disposal sites, and to assure that parties responsible for hazardous substances [bear] the cost of remedying the conditions they created.” [3] In addition to these cleanup and response costs, CERCLA may also impose liability for NRD—damages based on injuries to natural resources . In fact, several federal statutes provide for the recovery of NRD, including the Clean Water Act (CWA), [4] the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA), [5] the National Marine Sanctuaries Act (NMSA), [6] the Park System Resources Protection Act (PSRPA), [7] and CERCLA, which is the focus of this Article. [8]

Natural resources within the meaning of CERCLA invoke geological and biological entities—“land, fish, wildlife, biota, air, water, ground water, drinking water supplies, and other such resources” that belong to, are managed by, are held in trust by, or pertain to or are controlled by the United States, state or local governments, or Indian tribes . [9] NRD claims arise from injuries to such resources from releases and threatened releases of hazardous substances. Under CERCLA's NRD scheme, owners, operators, arrangers , and transporters can be liable for “damages for injury to, destruction of, or loss of natural resources, including the reasonable costs of assessing such injury, destruction, or loss resulting from [a release of hazardous substances].” [10] That is, NRD are calculated by adding the cost of restoring the injured resource, compensation for the interim loss of use of the resource from injury to restoration, and the cost of assessing the damages. [11]

Private parties may not bring suit for NRD recovery. CERCLA does not allow private parties to recover damages for injuries to natural resources held in trust by federal, state, or tribal governments, nor does it allow federal, state, or tribal trustees to recover damages for injuries to private property or private interests. [12] “[D]amage to private property—absent any government involvement, management or control—is not covered by the natural resource damage provisions of [CERCLA].” [13] Instead, NRD liability flows to the trustees of the natural resources: the United States, and the individual states, “for natural resources within the State or belonging to, managed by, controlled by, or appertaining to such State,” and Indian tribes “for natural resources belonging to, managed by, controlled by, or appertaining to such tribe.” [14] A government or tribe's ownership, management, control, or trusteeship over the resource is a question of fact and law . [15]

Are Injuries to Cultural Resources Recoverable?

One question that arises is whether injuries to cultural resources are compensable as NRD under CERCLA. At the very least, it is clear that unlike some of the federal statutes that include NRD recovery schemes, CERCLA's definition of “natural resources” does not specifically reference cultural resources. That is, of the five federal statutes that provide for the recovery of NRD—the CWA, OPA, NMSA, the PSRPA, and CERCLA—both the NMSA and the PSRPA provide for recovery for injuries to natural resources that specifically include “non-living,” or “cultural” resources. [16] CERCLA, OPA, and the CWA do not.

In light of the broad resource definitions in the NMSA and the PSRPA, the exclusion of reference to “non-living” or “cultural” resources in CERCLA's resource definition suggests that injuries to cultural resources, however characterized, are not recoverable under CERCLA. The OPA and CWA define “natural resources” as does CERCLA only in the context of water, air, geological, and biological resources, and without any reference to “cultural resources.” [17] By comparison, the NMSA defines protected marine resources as including any “nonliving” resource that “contributes to the conservation, recreational, ecological, historical, educational, cultural , archeological, scientific, or aesthetic value of a sanctuary.” [18] Similarly, the PSRPA broadly defines protected resources in the National Park system as any “living or non-living resource,” the latter of which has been interpreted to include cultural resources. [19] Given that only five federal statutes provide for NRD recovery, that the NMSA's resource definition includes reference to “nonliving” resources and “cultural” values, and that the PSRPA's resource definition likewise includes reference to “non-living” resources, which have been interpreted to include cultural resources, the fact that CERCLA's resource definition excludes reference to “non-living” or “cultural” resources suggests that CERCLA does not establish recovery for injuries to cultural resources, regardless of how such injuries are characterized.

The Department of the Interior (Department or DOI) appears to have confirmed this fact. But in so doing, the Department has generated confusion by attempting to distinguish between cultural resources and cultural services , which seems to be a distinction without a practical difference. In 1994, the Department promulgated regulations for assessing NRD under the CWA and CERCLA. [20] In the “comment” and “response to comment” section of the preamble to its final regulations, the DOI sowed confusion regarding whether injuries to cultural resources are recoverable as injuries to natural resources under CERCLA.

First, the Department stated that “ archaeological ” and “ cultural ” resources are not “land, fish, wildlife, biota , air, ground water, drinking water supplies, or other such resources” such that archaeological and cultural resources “do not constitute ‘natural' resources under CERCLA.” [21] Unfortunately, the Department did not stop there. The DOI went on to instruct that although archaeological and cultural resources are not “natural resources” under CERCLA, federal, state, and tribal trustees may “include the loss of archaeological and other cultural services provided by a natural resource in a natural resource damage assessment.” [22] The DOI then tried to provide an example of a scenario in which the loss of an archaeological or cultural service provided by a natural resource might be recoverable as NRD:

For example, if land constituting a CERCLA-defined natural resource contains archaeological artifacts, then that land might provide the service of supporting archaeological research. If an injury to the land causes a reduction in the level of service (archaeological research) that could be performed, trustee officials could recover damages for the lost service. [23]

This example has done little to clarify or explain how recovery for “the loss of archaeological and other cultural services” (which DOI suggests is provided for under CERCLA's NRD scheme) is different than recovery for injuries to archaeological and cultural resources (which DOI acknowledges that CERCLA does not allow).

Since the 1994 regulations, the Department has continued to publish conflicting information about the recoverability of cultural resource damages as NRD under CERCLA. For example, in 2003 the National Park Service , one of DOI's eight bureaus, published its Damage Assessment and Restoration Handbook (Handbook) to provide guidance for damages assessment within the National Park Service. [24] The Handbook largely addresses NRD assessments under the PSRPA, and the National Park Service confirms therein that resources protected by the PSRPA include both natural resources and, specifically, “cultural resources.” [25] The Handbook contains a comparison of recoverable NRD under the PSRPA, CERCLA, and OPA. According to the National Park Service, while CERCLA and OPA only protect natural resources and associated services, the PSRPA “ extends to cultural resources (e.g., historic sites , structures, objects, and landscapes) and physical facilities (e.g., signage, buildings, docks, and roads), and their associated services.” [26] Thus, as stated the Handbook, the NPS and DOI frankly acknowledge that the PSRPA “covers a broader range of resources” than CERCLA and OPA, which “do not necessarily address injuries to cultural resources and park facilities.” [27]

The DOI's confusing distinction appears to have had little success in convincing lawmakers and practitioners that there is a meaningful difference between the two theories of recovery. In 1996, various “Industry Petitioners” challenged the 1994 DOI regulations for NRD assessments before the D.C. Circuit in Kennecott Utah Copper Corp. v. U.S. Department of the Interior . [29] There, the industry petitioners challenged DOI's instructions in the preamble that an NRD assessment may include the archaeological and cultural services provided by a natural resource, pointing out that archaeological and cultural resources are conspicuously absent from CERCLA's definition of “natural resources.” [30] Unfortunately, the court held that the issue was not ripe for review. However, in so holding, the court characterized DOI's instructions as allowing for “recovery for injury to non-natural resources” and not, as DOI would have it, as allowing for recovery for injury to archaeological or cultural services provided by a natural resource. [31]

Furthermore, in Coeur D'Alene Tribe v. Asarco, Inc. , the District Court for the District of Idaho determined that “cultural uses of water and soil by [the plaintiff Indian tribe] are not recoverable as NRD.” [32] That is, the court held that cultural services supported by the water and soil resources at issue were not recoverable as NRD. Also, in its analysis of whether various plaintiffs were “trustees” of the resources sufficient to have standing to pursue NRD claims, the court was likewise not persuaded by the tribe's argument that the natural resources “appertain[ed] to” it. [33] The court noted that,

While the Tribe may use certain natural resources in the exercise of their cultural activities, such use does not rise to the level of making a natural resource “belong or be connected as a rightful part or attribute” for purposes of trusteeship analysis. [34]

Legislative history also suggests that Congress did not intend for CERCLA to provide for recovery for injury to cultural resources. In 1995, U.S. Representative Elizabeth Furse (D-Ore.), during a hearing of the Commerce, Trade, and Hazardous Materials Subcommittee , introduced an amendment to add to CERCLA a provision that would allow for the “recovery of NRD for so-called non-use values .” [35] In language similar to DOI's sometimes-used guidance that NRD assessments may include losses of archeological or cultural services provided by a resource, the amendment was described as providing for compensation under CERCLA's NRD provisions for the “intangible . . . aesthetic, cultural and religious values attached to natural resources that have been destroyed or damaged by toxic contamination.” [36] Representative Furse further explained that without the amendment she proposed, CERCLA would not allow for recovery of damages accounting for the cultural importance of an injured natural resource. [37] By way of example, she described Indian tribes that rely on salmon from the Columbia River for important tribal ceremonies . As explained by Representative Furse, the amendment was necessary to allow for compensation to Indian tribes for loss of that cultural ceremony stemming from injury to the salmon or the salmon's habitat . [38]

The DOI's confusing distinction appears to have had little success in convincing lawmakers and practitioners that there is a meaningful difference between the two theories of recovery. In 1996, various “Industry Petitioners” challenged the 1994 DOI regulations for NRD assessments before the D.C. Circuit in Kennecott Utah Copper Corp. v. U.S. Department of the Interior . [29] There, the industry petitioners challenged DOI's instructions in the preamble that an NRD assessment may include the archaeological and cultural services provided by a natural resource, pointing out that archaeological and cultural resources are conspicuously absent from CERCLA's definition of “natural resources.” [30] Unfortunately, the court held that the issue was not ripe for review. However, in so holding, the court characterized DOI's instructions as allowing for “recovery for injury to non-natural resources” and not, as DOI would have it, as allowing for recovery for injury to archaeological or cultural services provided by a natural resource. [31]

Furthermore, in Coeur D'Alene Tribe v. Asarco, Inc. , the District Court for the District of Idaho determined that “cultural uses of water and soil by [the plaintiff Indian tribe] are not recoverable as NRD.” [32] That is, the court held that cultural services supported by the water and soil resources at issue were not recoverable as NRD. Also, in its analysis of whether various plaintiffs were “trustees” of the resources sufficient to have standing to pursue NRD claims, the court was likewise not persuaded by the tribe's argument that the natural resources “appertain[ed] to” it. [33] The court noted that,

While the Tribe may use certain natural resources in the exercise of their cultural activities, such use does not rise to the level of making a natural resource “belong or be connected as a rightful part or attribute” for purposes of trusteeship analysis. [34]

Legislative history also suggests that Congress did not intend for CERCLA to provide for recovery for injury to cultural resources. In 1995, U.S. Representative Elizabeth Furse (D-Ore.), during a hearing of the Commerce, Trade, and Hazardous Materials Subcommittee , introduced an amendment to add to CERCLA a provision that would allow for the “recovery of NRD for so-called non-use values .” [35] In language similar to DOI's sometimes-used guidance that NRD assessments may include losses of archeological or cultural services provided by a resource, the amendment was described as providing for compensation under CERCLA's NRD provisions for the “intangible . . . aesthetic, cultural and religious values attached to natural resources that have been destroyed or damaged by toxic contamination.” [36] Representative Furse further explained that without the amendment she proposed, CERCLA would not allow for recovery of damages accounting for the cultural importance of an injured natural resource. [37] By way of example, she described Indian tribes that rely on salmon from the Columbia River for important tribal ceremonies . As explained by Representative Furse, the amendment was necessary to allow for compensation to Indian tribes for loss of that cultural ceremony stemming from injury to the salmon or the salmon's habitat . [38]

As has often been repeated, CERCLA's primary purposes are to ensure timely and effective cleanup of waste disposal sites, and to ensure that the parties responsible for such waste bear the costs of restoration and remediation. [43] In fact, the Department's 2008 amendments to the NRD assessment regulations were designed to emphasize restoration of resources over monetary damages. [44] CERCLA notably excludes “cultural resources” from its definition of natural resources. Therefore, cultural resource damages cannot be recovered as NRD, regardless of whether couched as losses of cultural services provided by a natural resource. These losses are the same, and until and unless Congress amends CERCLA, cultural resource damages are not recoverable.

As has often been repeated, CERCLA's primary purposes are to ensure timely and effective cleanup of waste disposal sites, and to ensure that the parties responsible for such waste bear the costs of restoration and remediation. [43] In fact, the Department's 2008 amendments to the NRD assessment regulations were designed to emphasize restoration of resources over monetary damages. [44] CERCLA notably excludes “cultural resources” from its definition of natural resources. Therefore, cultural resource damages cannot be recovered as NRD, regardless of whether couched as losses of cultural services provided by a natural resource. These losses are the same, and until and unless Congress amends CERCLA, cultural resource damages are not recoverable.

* Sarah Peterman is a senior associate in the Environmental Law Department at Farella Braun + Martel LLP . Her practice is focused on environmental and natural resources litigation and counseling.

[1] Coeur D'Alene Tribe v. Asarco, Inc. , 280 F. Supp. 2d 1094, 1108 (D. Idaho 2003).

[2] The analysis and arguments presented herein likely also establish that injuries to archaeological resources and services are not recoverable under CERCLA; however, that is the topic for another article, as this Article focuses on whether injuries to cultural resources and services are recoverable as NRD under CERCLA.

[3] Mardan Corp. v. C.G.C. Music, Ltd. , 804 F.2d 1454, 1455 (9th Cir. 1986).

[4] 33 U.S.C. § 1321(f)(4) (2006).

[5] 33 U.S.C. § 2702(a), (b)(2) (2006).

[6] 16 U.S.C. § 1443(a)(1) (2006).

[7] 16 U.S.C. § 19jj (2006).

[8] 42 U.S.C. § 9607 (2006). CWA, OPA, NMSA, PSRPA, and CERCLA are not to be confused with the National Historic Preservation Act , 16 U.S.C. §§ 470–470X-6 (2006), which does not provide for recovery of NRD. Some states have separate laws authorizing recovery of NRD as well. See, e.g. , New Mexico v. Gen. Elec. Co., 467 F.3d 1223, 1245 n.31 (10th Cir. 2006); Legal Authority , N.M Off. Nat. Resources Tr. (Sept. 1, 2009); Natural Resource Damages , Dep't Envtl. Conservation  (last visited Feb. 4, 2011); Natural Resource Restoration , Dep't Envtl. Prot. (Nov. 29, 2005).

[9] 42 U.S.C. § 9601(16) (2006).

[10] 42 U.S.C. § 9607(a), (a)(4)(C) (2006).

[11] Note that CERCLA NRD assessments may include recovery for “non-use” values as well. 43 C.F.R. § 11.83(c)(1) (2010) (“The compensable value can include the economic value of lost services provided by the injured resource, including both public use and nonuse values.”); Notification and Coordination with Natural Resource Trustees , U.S. Envtl. Prot. Agency (Oct. 1, 2010).

[12] Coeur D'Alene Tribe v. Asarco, Inc., 280 F. Supp. 2d 1094, 1115 (D. Idaho 2003).

[13] Ohio v. U.S. Dep't of the Interior, 880 F.2d 432, 460 (D.C. Cir. 1989) .

[14] 42 U.S.C. § 9607(f)(1) (2006); see 42 U.S.C. § 9607(f)(2)(B) (authorizing state governors to designate state officials, including local municipalities, to act as trustees for the purpose of recovering NRD).

[15] Coeur D'Alene , 280 F. Supp. 2d at 1115.

[16] The author is not taking a position on whether injuries to cultural resources are compensable under NMSA and PSRPA.

[17] 33 U.S.C. § 2701(16) (2006); 43 C.F.R. § 11.14(z) (2010).

[18] 16 U.S.C. § 1432(8) (2006) (emphasis added).

[19] 16 U.S.C. § 19jj(d) (2006).

[20] See 43 C.F.R. §§ 11.10–11.93 (2010); Natural Resource Damage Assessments, 59 Fed. Reg. 14,262, 14,262 (Mar. 25, 1994) (to be codified at 43 C.F.R. pt. 11).

[21] Natural Resource Damage Assessments, 59 Fed. Reg. at 14,262.

[22] Id. at 14,269.

[23] Id.

[24] See, generally , National Park Service , Damage Assessment and Restoration Handbook (2003) .

[25] Id. at 1.

[26] Id. at 6 (emphasis added).

[27] Id. at 7.

[28] Natural Resource Damages for Hazardous Substances, 73 Fed. Reg. 57,259, 57,264 (Oct. 2, 2008).

[29] Kennecott Utah Copper Corp. v. U.S. Dep't of the Interior, 88 F.3d 1191 (D.C. Cir. 1996) .

[30] Id. at 1222.

[31] Id.

[32] Coeur D'Alene Tribe v. Asarco Inc., 280 F. Supp. 2d 1094, 1107 (D. Idaho 2003).

[33] Id. at 1117.

[34] Id. (citing Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary 54 (1979)).

[35] Superfund Legislation: Hearing of the Commerce, Trade and Hazardous Materials Subcomm. of the H. Commerce Comm. , 104th Cong. (1995).

[36] Id.

[37] Id.

[38] Id.

[39] Id.

[40] Id.

[41] Id.

[42] The author additionally located no federal or state cases awarding NRD under CERCLA for cultural uses, cultural losses, or cultural values.

[43] Mardan Corp. v. C.G.C. Music, Ltd., 804 F.2d 1454, 1455 (9th Cir. 1986).

[44] Natural Resource Damages for Hazardous Substances, 73 Fed. Reg. 57,259, 57,260 (Oct. 2, 2008).

Copyright 2011 Sarah Peterman. All rights reserved.

Corps of Engineers Issues Permit for Reylas Surface Mine in West Virginia

Saturday, March 5, 2011 - 18:38 Special to HuntingtonNews.Net

HUNTINGTON, W.Va.... The Huntington District, U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers has issued a Department of the Army Permit to Highland Mining
Company to allow the discharge of fill material into 13,743 linear feet of
waters of the United States in conjunction with the Reylas Surface Mine in
Logan County, West Virginia.

The permit authorizes one valley fill, one sediment pond and several
mine-through areas. The permit, as authorized, represents the least
environmentally damaging practicable alternative while meeting the projects
stated purpose and need.

As a result of the Corps' permitting process, the applicant reduced
impacts to 400 linear feet of perennial stream while eliminating the future
extraction of approximately 2.5 million tons of coal. To mitigate for impacts
to waters of the United States, the applicant is required to restore 1,154
linear feet of stream channel and create 28,960 linear feet of stream channel
on-site.

After mining and reclamation, the site will have a post-mine land use of
emergency FEMA housing and associated infrastructure in accordance with the
West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection Surface Mining Control
and Reclamation Act Permit.

 

EPA Requests Extension on Clean Water Act Permit Requirement for Pesticide Discharges Today, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is requesting an extension to allow more time for pesticide operators to obtain permits for pesticide discharges into U.S. waters. EPA is requesting that the deadline be extended from April 9, 2011 to October 31, 2011. During the period while the court is considering the extension request, permits for pesticide applications will not be required under the Clean Water Act. EPA is developing a pesticide general permit in response to the 6th Circuit Court?s 2009 decision, which found that discharges from pesticides into U.S. waters were pollutants, and, therefore, will require a permit under the Clean Water Act as of April 9, 2011. The final permit will reduce discharges of pesticides to aquatic ecosystems, thus helping to protect the nation?s waters and public health. The extension request is important to allow sufficient time for EPA to engage in Endangered Species Act consultation and complete the development of an electronic database to streamline requests for coverage under the Agency?s general permit. It also allows time for authorized states to finish developing their state permits and for permitting authorities to provide additional outreach to stakeholders on pesticide permit requirements. EPA?s general permit will be available to cover pesticide discharges to waters of the U.S. in MA, NH, NM, ID, OK, AK, DC, most U.S. territories and Indian country lands, and many federal facilities. For more information: http://www.epa.gov/npdes/pesticides *********************************************** EPA distributes its Pesticide Program Updates to external stakeholders and citizens who have expressed an interest in pesticide activities and decisions. This update service is part of EPA's continuing effort to improve public access to Federal pesticide information. For general questions on pesticides and pesticide poisoning prevention, contact the National Pesticide Information Center (NPIC), toll free, at: 1-800-858-7378, by E-mail at npic@ace.orst.edu, or by visiting their website at: http://npic.orst.edu/ To report an environmental violation, visit EPA's website at http://www.epa.gov/compliance/complaints/index.html For information about EPA's pesticide program, visit our homepage at: http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/

TITLE 28 > PART VI > CHAPTER 158 > § 2342 Prev | Next

§ 2342. Jurisdiction of court of appeals

How Current is This? The court of appeals (other than the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit) has exclusive jurisdiction to enjoin, set aside, suspend (in whole or in part), or to determine the validity of— (1) all final orders of the Federal Communication Commission made reviewable by section 402 (a) of title 47 ; (2) all final orders of the Secretary of Agriculture made under chapters 9 and 20A of title 7 , except orders issued under sections 210 (e) , 217a , and 499g (a) of title 7 ; (3) all rules, regulations, or final orders of— (A) the Secretary of Transportation issued pursuant to section 50501 , 50502 , 56101–56104, or 57109 of title 46 or pursuant to part B or C of subtitle IV, subchapter III of chapter 311, chapter 313, or chapter 315 of title 49 ; and (B) the Federal Maritime Commission issued pursuant to section 305, 41304, 41308, or 41309 or chapter 421section 305, 41304, 41308, or 41309 or chapter 421 or 441 of title 46; (4) all final orders of the Atomic Energy Commission made reviewable by section 2239 of title 42 ; (5) all rules, regulations, or final orders of the Surface Transportation Board made reviewable by section 2321 of this title; (6) all final orders under section 812 of the Fair Housing Act; and (7) all final agency actions described in section 20114 (c) of title 49 . Jurisdiction is invoked by filing a petition as provided by section 2344 of this title.

TITLE 28 > PART VI > CHAPTER 158 > § 2350 Prev | Next

§ 2350. Review in Supreme Court on certiorari or certification

How Current is This? (a) An order granting or denying an interlocutory injunction under section 2349 (b) of this title and a final judgment of the court of appeals in a proceeding to review under this chapter are subject to review by the Supreme Court on a writ of certiorari as provided by section 1254 (1) of this title. Application for the writ shall be made within 45 days after entry of the order and within 90 days after entry of the judgment, as the case may be. The United States, the agency, or an aggrieved party may file a petition for a writ of certiorari. (b) The provisions of section 1254 (2) of this title, regarding certification, and of section 2101 (f) of this title, regarding stays, also apply to proceedings under this chapter.

TITLE 28 > PART VI > CHAPTER 158 > § 2349 Prev | Next

§ 2349. Jurisdiction of the proceeding

How Current is This? (a) The court of appeals has jurisdiction of the proceeding on the filing and service of a petition to review. The court of appeals in which the record on review is filed, on the filing, has jurisdiction to vacate stay orders or interlocutory injunctions previously granted by any court, and has exclusive jurisdiction to make and enter, on the petition, evidence, and proceedings set forth in the record on review, a judgment determining the validity of, and enjoining, setting aside, or suspending, in whole or in part, the order of the agency. (b) The filing of the petition to review does not of itself stay or suspend the operation of the order of the agency, but the court of appeals in its discretion may restrain or suspend, in whole or in part, the operation of the order pending the final hearing and determination of the petition. When the petitioner makes application for an interlocutory injunction restraining or suspending the enforcement, operation, or execution of, or setting aside, in whole or in part, any order reviewable under this chapter, at least 5 days' notice of the hearing thereon shall be given to the agency and to the Attorney General. In a case in which irreparable damage would otherwise result to the petitioner, the court of appeals may, on hearing, after reasonable notice to the agency and to the Attorney General, order a temporary stay or suspension, in whole or in part, of the operation of the order of the agency for not more than 60 days from the date of the order pending the hearing on the application for the interlocutory injunction, in which case the order of the court of appeals shall contain a specific finding, based on evidence submitted to the court of appeals, and identified by reference thereto, that irreparable damage would result to the petitioner and specifying the nature of the damage. The court of appeals, at the time of hearing the application for an interlocutory injunction, on a like finding, may continue the temporary stay or suspension, in whole or in part, until decision on the application.

 

TITLE 28 > PART VI > CHAPTER 158 > § 2344 Prev | Next

§ 2344. Review of orders; time; notice; contents of petition; service

How Current is This? On the entry of a final order reviewable under this chapter, the agency shall promptly give notice thereof by service or publication in accordance with its rules. Any party aggrieved by the final order may, within 60 days after its entry, file a petition to review the order in the court of appeals wherein venue lies. The action shall be against the United States. The petition shall contain a concise statement of— (1) the nature of the proceedings as to which review is sought; (2) the facts on which venue is based; (3) the grounds on which relief is sought; and (4) the relief prayed. The petitioner shall attach to the petition, as exhibits, copies of the order, report, or decision of the agency. The clerk shall serve a true copy of the petition on the agency and on the Attorney General by registered mail, with request for a return receipt.


TITLE 49 > SUBTITLE V > PART A > CHAPTER 201 > SUBCHAPTER I > § 20114 Prev | Next

§ 20114. Judicial procedures

How Current is This? (a) Criminal Contempt.— In a trial for criminal contempt for violating an injunction or restraining order issued under this chapter, the violation of which is also a violation of this chapter, the defendant may demand a jury trial. The defendant shall be tried as provided in rule 42(b) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure (18 App. U.S.C.). (b) Subpenas For Witnesses.— A subpena for a witness required to attend a district court of the United States in an action brought under this chapter may be served in any judicial district. (c) Review of Agency Action.— Except as provided in section 20104 (c) of this title, a proceeding to review a final action of the Secretary of Transportation under this part or, as applicable to railroad safety, chapter 51 or 57 of this title shall be brought in the appropriate court of appeals as provided in chapter 158 of title 28 .

TITLE 7 > CHAPTER 9 > SUBCHAPTER III > § 210 Prev | Next

§ 210. Proceedings before Secretary for violations

(f) Enforcement of orders If the defendant does not comply with an order for the payment of money within the time limit in such order, the complainant, or any person for whose benefit such order was made, may within one year of the date of the order file in the district court of the United States for the district in which he resides or in which is located the principal place of business of the defendant or in any State court having general jurisdiction of the parties, a petition setting forth briefly the causes for which he claims damages, and the order of the Secretary in the premises. Such suit in the district court shall proceed in all respects like other civil suits for damages except that the findings and orders of the Secretary shall be prima facie evidence of the facts therein stated, and the petitioner shall not be liable for costs in the district court nor for costs at any subsequent stage of the proceedings unless they accrue upon his appeal. If the petitioner finally prevails, he shall be allowed a reasonable attorney's fee to be taxed and collected as a part of the costs of the suit.

TITLE 7 > CHAPTER 20A > § 499g Prev | Next

§ 499g. Reparation order

How Current is This? (a) Determination by Secretary of Agriculture of amount of damages; order for payment If after a hearing on a complaint made by any person under section 499f of this title, or without hearing as provided in subsections (c) and (d) of section 499f of this title, or upon failure of the party complained against to answer a complaint duly served within the time prescribed, or to appear at a hearing after being duly notified, the Secretary determines that the commission merchant, dealer, or broker has violated any provision of section 499b of this title, he shall, unless the offender has already made reparation to the person complaining, determine the amount of damage, if any, to which such person is entitled as a result of such violation and shall make an order directing the offender to pay to such person complaining such amount on or before the date fixed in the order. The Secretary shall order any commission merchant, dealer, or broker who is the losing party to pay the prevailing party, as reparation or additional reparation, reasonable fees and expenses incurred in connection with any such hearing. If, after the respondent has filed his answer to the complaint, it appears therein that the respondent has admitted liability for a portion of the amount claimed in the complaint as damages, the Secretary under such rules and regulations as he shall prescribe, unless the respondent has already made reparation to the person complaining, may issue an order directing the respondent to pay to the complainant the undisputed amount on or before the date fixed in the order, leaving the respondent's liability for the disputed amount for subsequent determination. The remaining disputed amount shall be determined in the same manner and under the same procedure as it would have been determined if no order had been issued by the Secretary with respect to the undisputed sum. (b) Failure to comply with order of Secretary; suit to enforce liability; order as evidence; costs and fees If any commission merchant, dealer, or broker does not pay the reparation award within the time specified in the Secretary's order, the complainant, or any person for whose benefit such order was made, may within three years of the date of the order file in the district court of the United States for the district in which he resides or in which is located the principal place of business of the commission merchant, dealer, or broker, or in any State court having general jurisdiction of the parties, a petition setting forth briefly the causes for which he claims damages and the order of the Secretary in the premises. The orders, writs, and processes of the district courts may in these cases run, be served, and be returnable anywhere in the United States. Such suit in the district court shall proceed in all respects like other civil suits for damages, except that the findings and orders of the Secretary shall be prima-facie evidence of the facts therein stated, and the petitioner shall not be liable for costs in the district court, nor for costs at any subsequent state of the proceedings, unless they accrue upon his appeal. If the petitioner finally prevails, he shall be allowed a reasonable attorney's fee, to be taxed and collected as a part of the costs of the suit. (c) Appeal from reparation order; proceedings Either party adversely affected by the entry of a reparation order by the Secretary may, within thirty days from and after the date of such order, appeal therefrom to the district court of the United States for the district in which said hearing was held: Provided, That in cases handled without a hearing in accordance with subsections (c) and (d) of section 499f of this title or in which a hearing has been waived by agreement of the parties, appeal shall be to the district court of the United States for the district in which the party complained against is located. Such appeal shall be perfected by the filing with the clerk of said court a notice of appeal, together with a petition in duplicate which shall recite prior proceedings before the Secretary and shall state the grounds upon which the petitioner relies to defeat the right of the adverse party to recover the damages claimed, with proof of service thereof upon the adverse party. Such appeal shall not be effective unless within thirty days from and after the date of the reparation order the appellant also files with the clerk a bond in double the amount of the reparation awarded against the appellant conditioned upon the payment of the judgment entered by the court, plus interest and costs, including a reasonable attorney's fee for the appellee, if the appellee shall prevail. Such bond shall be in the form of cash, negotiable securities having a market value at least equivalent to the amount of bond prescribed, or the undertaking of a surety company on the approved list of sureties issued by the Treasury Department of the United States. The clerk of court shall immediately forward a copy thereof to the Secretary of Agriculture, who shall forthwith prepare, certify, and file in said court a true copy of the Secretary's decision, findings of fact, conclusions, and order in said case, together with copies of the pleadings upon which the case was heard and submitted to the Secretary. Such suit in the district court shall be a trial de novo and shall proceed in all respects like other civil suits for damages, except that the findings of fact and order or orders of the Secretary shall be prima-facie evidence of the facts therein stated. Appellee shall not be liable for costs in said court and if appellee prevails he shall be allowed a reasonable attorney's fee to be taxed and collected as a part of his costs. Such petition and pleadings certified by the Secretary upon which decision was made by him shall upon filing in the district court constitute the pleadings upon which said trial de novo shall proceed subject to any amendment allowed in that court. (d) Suspension of license for failure to obey reparation order or appeal Unless the licensee against whom a reparation order has been issued shows to the satisfaction of the Secretary within five days from the expiration of the period allowed for compliance with such order that he has either taken an appeal as herein authorized or has made payment in full as required by such order his license shall be suspended automatically at the expiration of such five-day period until he shows to the satisfaction of the Secretary that he has paid the amount therein specified with interest thereon to date of payment: Provided, That if on appeal the appellee prevails or if the appeal is dismissed the automatic suspension of license shall become effective at the expiration of thirty days from the date of the judgment on the appeal, but if the judgment is stayed by a court of competent jurisdiction the suspension shall become effective ten days after the expiration of such stay, unless prior thereto the judgment of the court has been satisfied.

 

Standing for Bringing RCRA Citizen Suit Determined at Time Case is Filed

By Russell Prugh February 17, 2010

In American International Specialty Lines Insurance Co. v. 7-Eleven , [1] the Northern District of Texas held that a showing of imminent and substantial endangerment to human health or the environment at the time litigation is commenced is sufficient to sustain a claim under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (“RCRA”). [2] 42 U.S.C. § 6972(a)(1)(B). Under the ruling, a defendant may not rely on subsequent clean up efforts as a means of avoiding suit.

Background

American International arose out of a dispute over environmental contamination at two former gas stations. American International Specialty Lines Insurance Company (“AISLIC”) insured the owners of a former Diamond Shamrock gas station located at 500 Boyd Road in Azle, Texas (the “500 Property”). The defendant, 7-Eleven, Inc. (“7-Eleven”), operated a gas station on adjacent property.

In 2004, AISLIC began remediation of the 500 Property under the direction of the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (“TCEQ”). AISLIC's investigation revealed that some of the contamination at the 500 Property had migrated through the groundwater from 7-Eleven's parcel. [3] Armed with this information, AISLIC brought a RCRA claim against 7-Eleven, seeking injunctive relief to force 7-Eleven to remediate the contamination, as well as recovery of its attorneys' fees and costs. AISLIC also sought recovery of its response costs under the Texas Sold Waste Disposal Act (“TSWDA”). [4]

More than a year later, AISLIC moved for summary judgment on its RCRA claim. In response, 7-Eleven filed a cross-motion for summary judgment, disputing that an imminent and substantial endangerment continued to exist at the site. 7-Eleven pointed to a report from AISLIC's own consultant, Titan Engineering, which suggested that no imminent and substantial endangerment currently existed. The Titan report stated that any remaining contamination at the site would “not affect groundwater quality, would not likely pose a risk to human health, and would have little future impact on the immediate environment.” [5] Based on the report, TCEQ approved the cleanup process advocated by Titan in the report. Pointing to TCEQ's decision, 7-Eleven argued that that there was no imminent and substantial threat to human health or the environment at the 500 Property and that AISLIC's RCRA claim must therefore be dismissed based on the lack of a current imminent and substantial threat.

AISLIC responded that the site conditions which existed after it filed its lawsuit were irrelevant; maintaining that the court should look to the environmental conditions at the time the suit was filed to determine whether an imminent and substantial endangerment existed. AISLIC also argued that 7-Eleven should not benefit from remediation actions undertaken by AISLIC and that any improved site conditions at the 500 Property were due to its cleanup efforts, not those of 7-Eleven. AISLIC pointed to groundwater sampling showing benzene and MTBE [6] concentrations above state cleanup levels near the time it filed suit as support for its contention that an imminent and substantial endangerment existed at the time suit was filed. [7]

Analysis

RCRA's citizen-suit provision provides a mechanism for private enforcement and recovery of attorneys' fees to a prevailing party under the statute. [8] To prevail under § 6972(a)(1)(B), the plaintiff must show three things: (1) that the defendant is a “person” as defined by the statute; (2) that the defendant has contributed to or is contributing to the handling, storage, treatment, transportation, or disposal of any solid or hazardous waste; and (3) that the waste poses an imminent and substantial endangerment to human health or the environment. [9]

In American International , the court held that AISLIC had satisfied the first and second elements, but that there was a genuine issue of material fact with respect to the existence of an imminent and substantial threat. 7-Eleven had admitted it owned and operated underground petroleum-storage tanks at the 7-Eleven Property [10] and 7-Eleven's releases of petroleum products contributed to the hazardous wastes found at both the 7-Eleven and 500 Properties. [11] As a result, the only remaining issue was whether an ongoing “imminent and substantial” threat was necessary in order for AISLIC to maintain its action, or whether it could rely on the existence of such a threat at the time it initiated the litigation.

In reviewing this question, the court noted that § 6972(a)(1)(B) provides for injunctive relief based on either past or present conduct. The court rejected 7-Eleven's argument regarding the lack of a continued presence of waste at the site, explaining that it considered the relevant inquiry to be “whether the condition at the 500 Property posed a substantial danger on May 12, 2008, when this suit was filed.” [12] The court disagreed with 7-Eleven's attempt to point to only the subsequent levels of contamination, stating, “Defendant misses the mark by citing almost exclusively to contamination levels in early 2009.” [13]

The court pointed out that contamination at the 500 Property exceeded the Texas state cleanup levels shortly before the suit was filed and that that petroleum soil contamination at 7-Eleven's Property might continue to impact the 500 Property by means of groundwater migration. From this evidence, the court concluded that “it appears that there were elevated levels of potentially hazardous contaminants at the 500 Property at the time of suit.” [14]

Notwithstanding these conclusions and its rejection of 7-Eleven's position, the court declined to grant summary judgment for AISLIC. The court held that issues of material fact precluded entry of summary judgment regarding whether contamination at the 500 Property actually constituted an imminent and substantial threat to human health and the environment at the time AISLIC filed suit. In reaching its decision, the court relied on precedent holding that contamination in excess of state limits was sufficient, by itself, to create a genuine issue of material fact as to the imminent threat element. [15]

Conclusion

Under American International , a defendant faced with a RCRA imminent and substantial endangerment citizen suit may not avoid liability by relying on environmental clean up undertaken after a plaintiff files the suit. The ruling may make it easier for plaintiffs to demonstrate an imminent and substantial endangerment at sites where clean up is ongoing.

For more information regarding American International , please contact Russell Prugh or any member of Marten Law's Waste Cleanup practice.

CERCLA Case Law Developments

Finding the test for motions to intervene to be the same under CERCLA and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the court began by examining the central issue of whether the potential contribution rights of Vertellus and CBS qualified as “significantly protectable interests in the outcome of the [consent decree action].”  Id . at 2.  Noting that the 4th Circuit had not previously decided this question, the district court reviewed the growing number of divergent rulings on the issue and, though acknowledging that some other district courts and the 3rd Circuit had found the contribution right to be too speculative and contingent, ultimately agreed with the 10th Circuit's decision in United States v. Albert Inv. Co .., 585 F.3d 1386 (10th Cir. 2009), that the CERCLA contribution right is a legally sufficient interest to justify intervention as of right in a consent decree action. Referencing the 4th Circuit's “policy of ‘liberal' intervention,” the court concluded that “the right of contribution held by CBS and Vertellus, although not certain, is a valuable interest that each would lose should the Court enter the proposed consent decree without providing them an opportunity to be heard.” Id . at 12-13.

Finally, the court found that the other requirements for intervention as of right had been met.  Although EPA argued that CBS's request was untimely, the court concluded that neither the government nor Exxon would be prejudiced if CBS were allowed to intervene, reasoning that allowing CBS to intervene would not create significant additional delay; the court has an interest in determining the fairness and reasonableness of a proposed decree and the arguments of CBS and Vertellus would assist in that determination; and the government intends to proceed with the remediation even if there is a delay in the expected flow of funds from Exxon pursuant to the consent decree.
CERCLA/RCRA Regulatory Developments RCRA Case Law Developments Toxic Tort Case Law Developments

 

Federal Court Shifts $700 Million Cleanup Costs of Nation's Largest Superfund Site to NCR

March 03, 2011 | Business Wire, Inc.

SAN FRANCISCO --(BUSINESS WIRE)-- In a lawsuit involving the nation's largest Superfund site, a federal court in Green Bay, Wisconsin on Monday granted a motion for summary judgment filed by Menasha Corporation and other defendants. The ruling shifts responsibility for an estimated $700 million in cleanup costs for polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) contaminating Lower Fox River and Green Bay to NCR Corp. and related entities under the Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA).

“We are pleased that the court holds responsible those who actually contaminated the river with PCBs, rather than forcing paper recyclers like Menasha Corporation to pay hundreds of millions of dollars in cleanup costs,” said Menasha's attorney, Philip Hunsucker of Hunsucker Goodstein & Nelson PC . “The court's decision is the next logical step toward a final resolution of the parties' liability for this massive Superfund site.”

NCR manufactured carbonless copy paper at the site using PCBs from the 1950s to the 1970s. The lawsuit, NCR Corp. v. George A. Whiting Paper Company , was filed in 2008. In December 2009 , the court held NCR could not recover from the defendants on its contribution claims. Monday's decision grants summary judgment on Menasha Corporation's claim for declaratory relief.

The court held that NCR and others, “…were responsible for creating the hazardous condition; they knew there was a risk of environmental damage; and they profited from the very condition (PCBs) that made their product hazardous, in contrast to the defendants, whose discharges of PCBs were almost entirely unknowing and whose profits in no way turned on the presence of PCBs in the broke they processed.”

As a result, the court ordered NCR and related entities to reimburse Menasha and other defendants for all environmental response costs the government requires them to pay to clean up PCB contamination in the Lower Fox River downstream of Little Lake Butte des Morts.

The court did not resolve whether NCR must reimburse the defendants for costs they incurred to remediate PCB contamination in Little Lake Butte des Morts. Also unaffected are claims brought by the United States and State of Wisconsin .

Philip Hunsucker and David Rabbino of Hunsucker Goodstein & Nelson PC represented Menasha Corporation in the lawsuit. The law firm, which has offices in California , Indiana and Washington DC , focuses on environmental litigation, insurance coverage/bad faith, and investor securities disputes.

Wildlife

An amendment to the Continuing Resolution offered by Rep. Lummis (R- WY), and passed 232- 197 , could make it harder to sue the government to enforce laws like the Endangered Species Act. The amendment would block the government from paying the legal fees of individuals or citizen groups that successfully sue it. Since the amendment does not change the underlying law, it basically would require the government to default on its obligation to pay the fees. In addition, a rider to the bill would overturn a court decision that protects endangered wolves in the northern Rockies.

Water

The Continuing Resolution includes a provision that would block the EPA from clarifying what U.S. waters are covered by the protections in the Clean Water Act in the wake of two court decisions. It also includes a rider to block implementation of Endangered Species Act protections in two critical California watersheds, the San Francisco Bay-Delta ecosystem and the San Joaquin River. Several other approved amendments also would further prevent the EPA from protecting waters from pollution:

Lands

The Continuing Resolution would eliminate 90 percent of the budget for the Land and Water Conservation Fund, which is financed with royalties from oil drilling on federal lands, and used by the federal government and the states to acquire lands for conservation and recreation. The bill also would reduce enrollment in the Wetland Reserve Program by 50,000 acres. This program allows farmers and landowners the opportunity to restore, maintain and protect wetlands on their property, leading to improved habitat for wildlife. The bill also contains a rider that would block the Department of Interior from taking steps to protect areas with wilderness characteristics.

On 2/19, the House or Representatives passed a Continuing Resolution ( H.R. 1 ) to keep the government funded through the remainder of this fiscal year, which ends 9/30. The bill would make deep cuts in environmental programs, targets climate-related programs and includes numerous legislative provisions to block the Environmental Protection Agency from issuing regulations to protect health and the environment. The bill passed 235-189, with all Democrats opposing the measure, and all Republicans supporting it except for three conservatives. President Obama has said he will veto the bill if it reaches his desk. The Senate plans to work this week on a bill without legislative provisions to keep the government open for another month to allow time for negotiations on a longer-term measure. (The current Continuing Resolution expires on 3/4.) Some of the key environmental provisions of the House-passed bill are described below.

Budget

The bill would cut the Environmental Protection Agency budget by about 30 percent from fiscal 2010 levels. Since the current fiscal year is almost half over, that represents a cut of almost 60 percent for spending in the remainder of fiscal 2011. The deepest cuts -- about $2 billion -- would be to the funds that provide money to states and localities to build and repair sewage and drinking water systems. The bill also would cut by 50 percent funding for the restoration of "America's Great Waters" such as the Chesapeake Bay, Puget Sound, Long Island Sound, the Great Lakes and Lake Champlain.

The bill also would cut by almost a quarter the budgets of a number of Department of Energy programs that promote clean energy. The bill would reduce funding for the DOE Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Program (- $775M), the DOE Office of Science (- $886M), the DOE Loan Guarantee Program (-$25B for all technologies except for "nuclear power facilities and front-end nuclear facilities") and the Energy Star program (-$10M). Additionally, the bill would rescind all funds provided to the programs by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009.

The bill also would remove all funding for high-speed rail and Federal Highway Administration surface transportation priorities. The bill would cut Amtrak's budget by $151 million.

Air & Climate

The bill contains many riders -- legislative provisions that would not change the amount of spending in the bill, but carve out exceptions to current law. One rider would block the EPA from issuing or implementing any limits on emissions of carbon dioxide or other greenhouse gases from power plants or factories. An even broader provision, blocking the EPA from limiting emissions of greenhouse gases from any source for any reason -- including limiting damage to the ozone layer -- was offered by Rep. Poe (R-TX) , and approved by a vote of 249-177. Other air- and climate-related riders include:

GO GREEN!

CONTACT:
Richard Yost
yost.richard@epa.gov
202-564-7827
202-564-4355

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
March 3, 2011

EPA Submits for Public Comment the Next Round of Safe Drinking Water Act Contaminant Monitoring

WASHINGTON – As part of its commitment to implement sensible protections of drinking water for communities across the country, and as required by the Safe Drinking Water Act, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing 30 currently unregulated contaminants for monitoring in water systems, and submitting this proposal for public comment. The comment period will allow the public and other stakeholders to provide input on the selection of new contaminants for monitoring , and will help determine the best path forward as the EPA seeks to collect data that will inform future decisions about how best to protect drinking water.

“Ensuring clean and safe drinking water for all Americans is a top priority for EPA,” said Nancy Stoner, acting assistant administrator for EPA's Office of Water. “In keeping with the Safe Drinking Water Act, we are submitting for public comment and input our proposed next round of currently unregulated contaminants for monitoring. Learning more about the prevalence of these contaminants will allow EPA to better protect people's health.”

Under the authority of the Safe Drinking Water Act, EPA currently regulates more than 90 contaminants in drinking water. To keep drinking water standards up-to-date with emerging science, the Safe Drinking Water Act requires that EPA identify up to 30 unregulated contaminants for monitoring every five years. This current proposal is the third Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Regulation and includes requirements to monitor for two viruses and 28 chemical contaminants that could be present in drinking water and do not currently have health-based standards.

EPA is requesting public comment on the proposed list of 30 contaminants until May 2, 2011. Following the public comment period, EPA will consider this important input before the list is scheduled to be finalized in 2012, with sampling to be conducted from 2013 to 2015. Sampling will take place at all systems serving more than 10,000 people and at a representative sampling of systems serving less than 10,000 people.

More information about the proposed list of contaminants:
http://water.epa.gov/lawsregs/rulesregs/sdwa/ucmr/ucmr3/index.cfm .

America is shifting to a "green culture" where over 300 million citizens are embracing the fact that environmental responsibility is everyone's responsibility. To help, you can sign up to receive EPA's new consumer newsletter, GO GREEN!

EPA launched this monthly email newsletter to provide "what you can do" information about activities and events that we can use in our homes, communities, and offices.


EPA News You Can Use - March 2011
http://www.epa.gov/gogreen

IN THIS ISSUE:
Enviro-Tip of the Month
What You Can Do, What You Can Use
Upcoming Events and Opportunities
This Month in EPA@40
About This Newsletter

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

ENVIRO-TIP OF THE MONTH

Protect children from accidental poisoning by household substances. Lock up household pesticides and chemicals in a high cabinet out of the reach of children. March 20-26 is National Poison Prevention Week.
http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/health/poisonprevention.htm

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

WHAT YOU CAN DO, WHAT YOU CAN USE

Reviewing Regulations. EPA is inviting the public to provide input to our retrospective review of regulations. You can comment regarding the design of the plan, and EPA will also provide opportunities for input through a public meetings:
-in Washington, D.C. on March 14;
-at listening sessions in other parts of the country TBD.
http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/names/hq_2011-2-18_Regulation_review

Go Greenscaping! Despite a very snowy winter, March is when we typically begin to think of yards and lawns and being outdoors again. Start with ideas and useful tips for greenscaping - environmentally friendly practices to improve the health and appearance of your lawn and garden.
http://www.epa.gov/epawaste/conserve/rrr/greenscapes/owners.htm

It's My Environment! video. Submit your IME video - a short clip of someone doing something for the environment, then reading and passing along a sign that says "It's My Environment." Read more about how to prepare the video and send us yours today!
http://www.epa.gov/earthday/video/

March Sneak Peeks:

Women in Science. Join us during March as we observe women scientists and engineers who are devoting their careers to help the Agency meet its mission to protect human health and the environment. You can share in the discussion on daily blog posts, some with companion video interviews of EPA officials or staff scientists. March is Women's History Month.
http://www.epa.gov/womeninscience
  -Read EPA Administrator Lisa P. Jacksons's kick-off blog post:
http://blog.epa.gov/blog/2011/03/01/women-in-science-administrator-lisa-p-jackson/

Fix a Leak! Being handy around the house doesn't have to be difficult. Leaky toilet flappers, faucets, and other valves waste millions of gallons of water but are easy to fix.
March 14-20 is "Fix a Leak" week.
http://www.epa.gov/watersense/water_efficiency/fix_a_leak.html

Groundwater awareness. More than 90 percent of all U.S. public drinking water systems use ground water. Learn more about your drinking water and what you can do to help protect your community's ground water.
National Groundwater Awareness Week is March 6-12.
http://water.epa.gov/type/groundwater/awarenessweek.cfm

Delaware River Basin Forum. On March 10, you can participate in a free one-day, basin-wide event about water resource sustainability for the more than 15 million people who rely on the waters of the Delaware River. Open to anyone in the Delaware Basin or interested in river issues where you live - you can participate in the forum in person or online. For more information about the forum and how to register:
http://www.delawarebasindrinkingwater.org/   Exit EPA Disclaimer

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

UPCOMING EVENTS AND OPPORTUNITIES

March

Month
Women's History Month: Women in Science

Week
National Groundwater Awareness Week, 6-12
Fix-a-Leak Week, 14-20
National Poison Prevention Week, 20-26

Day
First day of spring (vernal equinox), Mar 20

Welcome to ARPA-e

Dear Colleagues,

Let me first thank you for your interest in ARPA-E. I want to use this opportunity to explain and elaborate on ARPA-E's vision and report on where we are now.

We are living in challenging times, but are surrounded by opportunities. The widespread use of fossil fuels has long driven the engine of economic growth, and yet our dependence on these fuels severely threatens our national and environmental security due to our growing foreign energy dependence as well as climate change. Business as usual is not an option, as the outcome will be devastating. This is true not only for the US, but also for all nations in this interconnected world. The nation that successfully grows its economy with more efficient energy use, a clean domestic energy supply, and a smart energy infrastructure will lead the global economy of the 21st century. In many cases, we are lagging behind. We as a nation need to change course with fierce urgency.

Let us try to comprehend the scale of this challenge with the following question: What were those innovations of the 20th century that changed the course of humankind's history? Perhaps the most important one was the Haber-Bosch process of creating artificial fertilizers by fixing atmospheric nitrogen to form ammonia. It touched humanity like none other because it led to massive increase in food production and an almost four-fold increase in global population in 100 years. But there were plenty of other game-changers: creating semi-dwarf, high-yield strains of wheat that introduced the green revolution; antibiotics; polio vaccination; the transistor and integrated circuits; electrification; the airplane; nuclear energy; optical and wireless communication; the internet; and so on. Now imagine all of these innovations happening in a span of just 10-20 years: That is the scale and pace of game-changing innovations that we now need to address the energy and climate change challenge of our and future generations.

ARPA-E was created to be a catalyst for such a transformation, and to do so with fierce urgency. Our nation's history is replete with examples of pioneers and entrepreneurs who took risks. These innovators often failed initially, but quickly learned from those failures, competed against each other, and innovated in both technology and business to create the largest industrial base the world has ever seen. ARPA-E's goal is to tap into this truly American ethos, and to identify and support the pioneers of the future. With the best R&D infrastructure in the world, a thriving innovation ecosystem in business and entrepreneurship, and a generation of youth that is willing to engage with fearless intensity, we have all the ingredients necessary for future success. The goal of ARPA-E is to harness them and make a full-court press to address our technological gaps and leapfrog over current approaches. In this respect, ARPA-E has made a great start and it is worth reflecting on its 8 months of incubation and delivery.

The first Funding Opportunity Announcement (FOA) was made in May 2009, and it received an unprecedented response from the R&D community: 3,700 concept papers, 334 full proposals, and eventually 37 selected for funding. All this happened in a span of 6 months. We are now in the process of finalizing the award agreements, and we plan to award 80 percent of them by the end of 2009. This is a record setting pace and is being done by an immensely dedicated staff.

As the numbers suggest, only one percent of proposals were selected for funding. By all measures, this is very low. To some extent, this depended on the level of funding. ARPA-E could have easily broken it down into small funding levels and made many more awards. But the decision was made – and I concur - that ARPA-E ought to be selective and fund the most game-changing ideas with significant levels of financial support that will enable the recipients to accelerate technical progress so that after the projects are completed, the technologies are ready to be adopted by the other stakeholders.

I am quite sure that there were many excellent proposals that were not funded. We urge you to return to ARPA-E with your ideas for future workshops and to help us create new programs. We also plan to organize an annual event where we not only want to highlight the technologies that we support, but also invite teams that did not get funded, so that we can connect them to other offices within DOE as well as other funding agencies and organizations. In short, we know that we cannot financially support everyone, but we also realize that we need to build a large community beyond ARPA-E for our nation to change course with fierce urgency.

If we are to foster rapid technological innovations, we also need to innovate in creating a system and a process that enables them to thrive. We are now creating that “DNA” of ARPA-E. First and foremost, we are recruiting a team of some of the best and brightest program directors who have one foot in science, with the other in technology and business, and who are willing to serve the nation at this critical juncture in our history. These will be term appointments for three - four years. In addition, we are also forming a technology outreach team, whose responsibility will be to identify pathways for ARPA-E funded technologies to create business opportunities and be adopted in the market, and explain to the public and all stakeholders how these innovations could be beneficial to society. Finally, we have an operations team that is streamlining the transactions and interactions between ARPA-E and the awardees. The value of an ARPA-E award will be much more than just money. Awardees will have the opportunity to draw on the expertise of three ARPA-E teams: technical program, technology outreach, and operations.

It is very important that we get our DNA right, especially in these early stages. I thank you for taking interest in and working with ARPA-E. I would be delighted to receive feedback from you about how we are doing, and how we could serve you better.

We are now launching our second round of FOAs for a total of $100M. In contrast to the first FOA, which was open to all topics related to energy, these FOAs are more focused. The topics resulted from several workshops that we had over the last three months, where we received input from the technical community. A few of the workshop participants included those who did not get funded in the first round, but who returned to educate ARPA-E about specific technical barriers and potential game changing ideas. We urge you to continue informing and educating us through such forums, and also through one-on-one interactions with the program directors. In short, ARPA-E is looking for the best ideas and we are coming to the table with an open mind.

On behalf of the ARPA-E team, thank you again.

Sincerely,

Arun Majumdar
Director, ARPA-E

Shasta County jobless rate slows; unemployed figures rise to 16.8 percent

ARMAN HYDROPOWER

United States: Possible Funding Opportunities Related To Tribal Energy Development

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the U.S. Department of Commerce (DOC), the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), and the Department of Transportation (DOT) have announced more than $228 million in funding opportunities for state, local, and tribal governments. Some of these grants can be used to support energy related initiatives. Specific opportunities are listed on the TEEIC Web site at http://teeic.anl.gov/news/ .

In addition, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), Tribal Energy Program, periodically distributes information about possible funding opportunities related to energy development, some of which are specific to tribes. These announcements are compiled by Laurie Brown at the Washington State University Extension Energy Program. See http://teeic.anl.gov/news/ for the latest announcement of the Funding Opportunities.

About the TEEIC

The TEEIC Web site (http://teeic.anl.gov) provides information about the environmental effects of energy development on tribal lands.

The site includes information about energy resource development and associated environmental impacts and mitigation measures; guidance for conducting site-specific environmental assessments and developing monitoring programs; information about applicable federal laws and regulations; and federal and tribal points of contact.

The U.S. Department of the Interior is funding the development of the TEEIC through the Assistant Secretary of Indian Affairs' Office of Indian Energy and Economic Development.

DFG to Hold Public Meetings on Suction Dredge Permitting Program
Public Comment Now Being Accepted on Related Environmental Documents

February 28, 2011 - The Department of Fish and Game (DFG) has completed the first round of environmental review documents related to California's currently suspended Suction Dredge Permitting Program. The Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) is now available for public review and comment.

The Draft SEIR addresses the potential environmental effects of the permitting program, which was suspended in 2009 pending completion of this review, and proposes amendments to the regulations that existed prior to the current moratorium.

In addition to proposing the revised program, the document also evaluates the potential impacts of four alternatives: a No Program Alternative (continuation of the existing moratorium), a 1994 Regulations Alternative (continuation of previous regulations in effect prior to the 2008 moratorium), a Water Quality Alternative (which would include additional program restrictions for water bodies listed as impaired for sediment and mercury pursuant to the Clean Water Act, section 303(d)), and a Reduced Intensity Alternative (which would include greater restrictions on permit issuance and methods of operation to reduce the intensity of environmental effects).

The Draft SEIR and supporting documents are now available on the DFG website at www.dfg.ca.gov/suctiondredge, and can be provided upon request by calling (530) 225-2275. Copies of the Draft SEIR are also available for review at DFG regional offices including:

Region 1 601 Locust St., Redding
Region 2 1701 Nimbus Road, Suite A, Rancho Cordova
Region 3 7329 Silverado Trail, Napa
Region 4 1234 E. Shaw Ave., Fresno
Region 5 4949 Viewridge Ave., San Diego
Region 6 3602 Inland Empire Blvd., Suite C-220, Ontario
Region 6 4665 Lampson Avenue, Suite J, Los Alamitos (second location)
Region 7 20 Lower Ragsdale Drive, Suite 100, Monterey
HQ 1807 13th St., Suite 104, Sacramento

Five public meetings will be held in late March. All interested persons are encouraged to attend to present written and/or verbal comments. The meetings will be held at the following locations and times:

Santa Clarita:
Wednesday, March 23 at 5 p.m.
Residence Inn by Marriott
25320 The Old Road
Santa Clarita, CA 91381

Fresno:
Thursday, March 24 at 5 p.m.
California Retired Teachers Association
3930 East Saginaw Way
Fresno, CA 93726

Sacramento:
Tuesday, March 29 at 5 p.m.
Cal EPA Headquarters Building
Byron Sher Auditorium
1001 I St.
Sacramento

Yreka:
Wednesday, March 30 at 5 p.m.
Yreka Community Center
810 N. Oregon St.
Yreka, CA 96097

Redding:
Thursday, March 31 at 5 p.m.
Shasta Senior Nutrition Program
100 Mercy Oaks Drive
Redding, CA 96003

Written comments will also be accepted from Feb. 28 through April 29, 2011 at 5 p.m. Comments may be submitted by e-mail to dfgsuctiondredge@dfg.ca.gov or by regular mail to:

Mark Stopher
California Department of Fish and Game
601 Locust St.
Redding, CA 96001

Comments received by the due date will be included in the final SEIR that will be prepared for the California Fish and Game Commission.

For more information about the public meetings or the suction dredge program, please visit www.dfg.ca.gov/suctiondredge/ . If you require reasonable accommodation to attend a meeting or require this notice or the Draft SEIR in an alternate format, please contact the Suction Dredge Program at (530) 225-2275, or the California Relay (Telephone) Service for the deaf or hearing-impaired from TDD phones at 1-800-735-2929 or 711.

Based on input from key stakeholders including the public, industry and the public health communities, today's announcement represents a dramatic cut in the cost of implementation, while maintaining maximum public health benefits.

House Appropriations Committee Chairman Hal Rodgers (R-Ky.) has introduced a continuing resolution that would cut $100 billion from government operations through Sept. 30. Tea Party activists, who have very astutely maintained pressure on the GOP majority, have good reason to be pleased. The legislation cuts the EPA's budget by $3 billion, which is nearly 30 percent the 2010 level of $10.3 billion. It would also withhold funding for any current and future EPA greenhouse gas regulations on stationary sources. That's a nice step forward for the cause of limited government.

House Republicans have also proposed cuts to the EPA aimed its Global Change Program, which measures the potential fallout from climate change. The bill would chop $7 million from the $21 million the program received in 2010. The EPA's Energy Star program would be also be reduced by about $10 million from where it was in 2010.

President Obama has said he will veto any legislation that strips EPA of its authority to regulate greenhouse gases. But the Republicans are pressing ahead. Most recently, Rep. Tim Walberg (R-Mich.) introduced a version of Sen. John Barrasso's (R-WY) bill to pre-empt permanently all regulation of greenhouse gas emissions using any existing legal authority. Walberg's bill, H.R. 750, has been referred to the Energy and Commerce Committee. Over on the Senate side,  Barrasso's S. 228 has 16 co-sponsors.

112TH CONGRESS
1ST SESSION S. 299
To amend chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, to provide that major
rules of the executive branch shall have no force or effect unless a
joint resolution of approval is enacted into law.
IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES
FEBRUARY 7, 2011
Mr. PAUL (for himself, Mr. DEMINT, Mr. ENSIGN, Mr. GRASSLEY, Mr.
COBURN, Mr. BLUNT, Mr. THUNE, Mr. ENZI, Mr. CORNYN, Mr. HATCH,
Mr. CHAMBLISS, Mr. JOHNSON of Wisconsin, Mr. ISAKSON, Mr.
BARRASSO, Mr. WICKER, Ms. AYOTTE, Mr. SESSIONS, Mr. PORTMAN,
Mr. JOHANNS, Mr. BOOZMAN, Mr. VITTER, Mr. LEE, Mr. INHOFE, Mrs.
HUTCHISON, and Mr. RUBIO) introduced the following bill; which was
read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and
Governmental Affairs
A BILL
To amend chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, to provide
that major rules of the executive branch shall have no
force or effect unless a joint resolution of approval is
enacted into law.

John Locke , an English philosopher admired by Jefferson and many other Founders, succinctly explained what later came to be called the non-delegation doctrine :

The legislative cannot transfer the power of making laws to any other hands, for it being but a delegated power from the people, they who have it cannot pass it on to others.

Similarly, the Supreme Court, in the 1892 case of Field v. Clark , declared:

That Congress cannot delegate legislative power to the President is a principle universally recognized as vital to the integrity and maintenance of a system of government ordained by the Constitution.

Battle Creek's revival is cause

The price tag — $80 million — is daunting.

And it's hard not to run the numbers and figure that the restored spawning runs on Battle Creek, which scientists estimate will produce just under 10,000 fish a year, will be extraordinarily expensive — more than 8,000 bucks per expected new salmon and steelhead. (Not counting $360 million at Iron Mountain Mine?)

The Endangered Species Act can put up costly hurdles in front of development or even, these days, basic activities like irrigating a crop.

Environment - USA

Vapour intrusion pathway may be added to Superfund ranking system

February 28 2011


For more than two decades, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has considered four exposure pathways in determining whether to list contaminated sites on the Superfund National Priorities List: groundwater, surface water, soil and air. In a Federal Register notice published on January 31 2011, the EPA solicited public comment on the potential addition of a fifth pathway: soil vapour intrusion.

The migration of vapours from sub-surface contamination into overlying buildings, known as vapour intrusion, is a growing concern for federal and state environmental regulators. Vapour intrusion is most common at sites with elevated levels of volatile organic compounds – including chlorinated solvents and sometimes gasoline – which enter indoor air through openings around sewer lines, cracks in a building's foundation or basement, or other preferential pathways.

Under the federal Superfund law, the EPA screens contaminated sites for listing on the National Priorities List through its Hazard Ranking System, assigning each site a score based on its perceived threat to human health and the environment. The risk of vapour intrusion, however, does not currently factor into this determination. A May 2010 Government Accountability Office report found that, given the EPA's inability to designate National Priorities List sites on the basis of vapour intrusion, "[s]tates may be left to remediate those sites without federal assistance, and given states' constrained budgets, some states may not have the ability to clean up these sites on their own".

Until April 16 2011, the EPA will now be collecting public comment on the potential revision of the Hazard Ranking System to account for vapour intrusion. It plans to hold three public listening sessions on the topic. While it has not proposed specific regulatory changes at this point, the EPA "will consider the information gathered from this Notice, listening sessions, and other sources before making a decision to issue a proposed rulemaking to add subsurface contaminant intrusion" to the Hazard Ranking System.

The EPA is also in the process of revising its draft guidance for the evaluation of vapour intrusion risks, which was initially released in 2002 but has yet to be finalised. The EPA outlined a number of likely changes to that document last October and plans to issue updated guidance by November 2012.

Finally, the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation is continuing to re-evaluate vapour intrusion pathways and has reopened several sites that had already been remediated and delisted to require additional monitoring or mitigation measures.

For further information on this topic please contact Christine Leas , Jeffrey Gracer or Michael Bogin at Sive Paget & Riesel PC by telephone (+1 212 421 2150), fax (+1 212 421 2035) or email ( cleas@sprlaw.com , jgracer@sprlaw.com or mbogin@sprlaw.com ).

Court of Appeals Docket #: 11-15383 Docketed: 02/16/2011
Nature of Suit: 1893 Environmental Matters
USA, et al v. Iron Mountain Mines, Inc., et al
Appeal From: U.S. District Court for Eastern California, Sacramento
Fee Status: Paid
Case Type Information:
     1) civil
     2) united states
     3) null
Originating Court Information:
District: 0972-2 : 2:91-cv-00768-JAM-JFM
Court Reporter: Kelly Ann O'Halloran
Trial Judge: John A. Mendez, District Judge
     Date Filed: 06/12/1991
     Date Order/Judgment:      Date Order/Judgment EOD:      Date NOA Filed:      Date Rec'd COA:
     12/16/2010      12/16/2010      02/14/2011      02/15/2011
District: 0972-2 : 2:91-cv-01167-DFL-JFM
     Date Filed: 08/21/1991
02/16/2011  1  DOCKETED CAUSE AND ENTERED APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL. SEND MQ: Yes. The schedule is set as follows: Mediation Questionnaire due on 02/23/2011. Transcript ordered by 03/16/2011. Transcript due 04/15/2011. Appellant T. W. Arman and Appellant Iron Mountain Mines, Inc. opening brief due 05/25/2011. Appellee Bayer Cropscience Inc.'s, Appellee Rhone-Poulnec Basic Chemicals Company, Appellee State of California and Appellee United States of America answering brief due 06/24/2011. Appellant's optional reply brief is due 14 days after service of the answering brief. [7650693] (RT)
02/17/2011  2  Filed (ECF) Appellants T. W. Arman and Iron Mountain Mines, Inc. Motion to withdraw as counsel. Date of service: 02/17/2011. [7653545] (WAL)
02/23/2011  3  Filed (ECF) Appellants T. W. Arman and Iron Mountain Mines, Inc. Mediation Questionnaire. Date of service: 02/23/2011. [7658006] (AG)

Briefly describe the procedural history, the result below, and the main issues on appeal.
Describe any proceedings remaining below or any related proceedings in other tribunals.
(Please continue to next page.)
Procedural History:
Plaintiffs US and State of California moved for partial summary judgment on the issue of liability, contending that
Defendants were jointly and severally liable for defense costs. Defendants opposed the motion.
2002: Partial Summary Judgment in favor of plaintiffs - the court denied what was termed the Defendants
"divisibility of harm" defense, saying that "distinct harms" would be difficult to identify.
12/18/2009: Defendants filed a Motion to reconsider, based on the Supreme Court's decision in Northern and Santa
Fe Ry. Co. v. U.S., 129 S.Ct. 1870, 173 L.Ed.2d. 812 (2009) ("Burlington Northern")
5/2/2010: The court denied Defendants motion for reconsideration.
Result: On December 16, 2010, Final Judgment was entered in favor of Plaintiffs.
Main Issue on Appeal:
whether the district court erred in rejecting defendants' divisibility of harm defense (see Northern and Santa Fe Ry.
Co. v. U.S., 129 S.Ct. 1870, 173 L.Ed.2d. 812 (2009) ("Burlington Northern") and further erred in rejecting
defendants' set off defense based on plaintiffs' $800 Million settlement with Rhone-Poulenc in December 2000.
Counsel for defendants T. W. Arman and Iron Mountain Mines, Inc., William A. Logan, Jr. and Logan & Giles LLP
(collectively "LOGAN") intend to file a motion for leave to withdraw. See LOGAN's previously filed Motion for
Leave to Withdraw in ninth circuit case no. 09-17411. The court's order, entered February 22, 2011, denied the
motion "but without prejudice to renewal of the withdrawal motion in the appeal of the final judgment."

Counsel for defendants T. W. Arman and Iron Mountain Mines, Inc., William A. Logan, Jr. and Logan & Giles LLP
(collectively "LOGAN") intend to file a motion for leave to withdraw. See LOGAN's previously filed Motion for
Leave to Withdraw in ninth circuit case no. 09-17411. The court's order, entered February 22, 2011, denied the
motion "but without prejudice to renewal of the withdrawal motion in the appeal of the final judgment."

General Docket
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Court of Appeals Docket #: 09-70047 Docketed: 01/07/2009
Termed: 02/18/2009
John Hutchens v. USDC-CES
Appeal From: U.S. District Court for Eastern California, Sacramento
Fee Status: IFP Pending In COA
Case Type Information:
     1) original proceeding
     2) mandamus/prohibition
     3) null
Originating Court Information:
District: 0972-2 : 2:91-cv-00768-JAM-JFM
Trial Judge: John A. Mendez, District Judge
     Date Filed:
     Date Rec'd COA:
     12/29/2008

 

02/09/2009  5  Filed Petitioner John F. Hutchens motion for adjudication and judgement on the merits, motion for appointment of project manager according to the statement of work. Served on 02/07/2009. (NEW)
02/13/2009  6  Filed Petitioner John F. Hutchens motion for injunctive relief. Served on 02/12/2009. (NEW)
02/18/2009  7  Order filed (DIARMUID F. O'SCANNLAIN, BARRY G. SILVERMAN and JAY S. BYBEE) Petitioner has not demonstrated that this case warrants the intervention of this court by means of the extraordinary remedy of mandamus. See Bauman v. United States Dist. Court, 557 F.2d 650 (9th Cir. 1977). Accordingly, the petition is denied. All pending motions denied as moot. (WL)
02/18/2009  8  Filed Petitioner John F. Hutchens motion for IFP, injunctive releif, and misc. releif. Served on 02/18/2009. (NEW)
02/23/2009  9  Filed Petitioner John F. Hutchens motion to reconsider order of the Court Served on 02/20/2009. (NEW)
02/25/2009  10  Filed Petitioner John F. Hutchens writ of cert. (NEW)
03/11/2009  11  Received Petitioner John F. Hutchens motion to writ of cert served on 03/09/2009 (NEW)
03/16/2009  12  Filed UNDER SEAL Petitioner John F. Hutchens motion for writ of preemptory mandamus. Served on 03/16/2009. (NEW)
03/20/2009  13  Received copy of Petitioner John F. Hutchens' motion to the Supreme Court ; served on 03/18/2009 (NEW)
03/23/2009  14  Filed order (DIARMUID F. O'SCANNLAIN, BARRY G. SILVERMAN and JAY S. BYBEE) The motion for reconsideration is denied. See 9th Cir. R. 27-10. All other pending motions are denied as moot. No further filings shall be accepted in this closed case. (WL)
Court of Appeals Docket #: 09-71150 Docketed: 04/20/2009
Termed: 07/28/2009
John Hutchens, et al v. USDC-CES
Appeal From: U.S. District Court for Eastern California, Sacramento
Fee Status: IFP Pending In COA
Case Type Information:
     1) original proceeding
     2) mandamus/prohibition
     3) null
Originating Court Information:
District: 0972-2 : 2:91-cv-00768-JAM-JFM
Trial Judge: John A. Mendez, District Judge
     Date Filed:
     Date Rec'd COA:
     04/16/2009
04/30/2009  2  Filed Petitioner John F. Hutchens motion for injunction pending appeal. Served on 04/28/2009. (NEW)
05/08/2009  3  Received Petitioner John F. Hutchens addendum to motion for injunction pending appeal served on 05/07/2009 (NEW)
05/22/2009  4  Received Petitioner John F. Hutchens' objection to delay and request for status conference, served on 05/21/2009 (EL)
06/05/2009  5  ENTRY UPDATED. Received Petitioner John F. Hutchens constitutional challenge of state and federally sponsored religion; served on 06/04/2009 (NEW)
06/08/2009  6  Received Petitioner John F. Hutchens motion for injunction pending appeal; served on 06/05/2009 (NEW)
06/11/2009  7  Filed Petitioner John F. Hutchens motion to proceed In Forma Pauperis. Served on 06/10/2009. (NEW)
06/22/2009  8  Filed Petitioner John F. Hutchens motion for injunction pending appeal (motion for IFP). Served on 06/19/2009. [6968144] (NEW)
07/15/2009  9  Filed Petitioner John F. Hutchens motion for injunction pending appeal. Served on 07/12/2009. [6993226] (NEW)
07/28/2009  10  Order filed (WILLIAM C. CANBY, SIDNEY R. THOMAS and SANDRA S. IKUTA) Petitioners have not demonstrated that this case warrants the intervention of this court by means of the extraordinary remedy of mandamus. See Bauman v. United States Dist. Court, 557 F.2d 650 (9th Cir. 1977). Accordingly, the petition is denied. The motion to proceed in forma pauperis is denied as moot. All other pending motions are denied as moot. No motions for reconsideration, rehearing, clarification, or any other submissions shall be filed or entertained in this closed docket. [7007054] (WL)
02/11/2010  12  Received Petitioner John F. Hutchens pleading "certiorarified mandamus, administrative mandamus, adverse claims...."NO FILE - NAN ( 1.5 inch bound, unindexed pleading has not been scanned) . [7230421] (CW)

Full docket text for document 13:
ORDER denying [7] Motion for Preliminary Injunction Plaintiff shall file a Second Amended Complaint by 6/15/2009. Defendant shall file its Answer by 7/6/2009.[THE COURT SHALL ACCEPT FOR FILING NO PLEADINGS OTHER THAN WHAT IS DIRECTED IN PARAGRAPH 3] Signed by Judge Christine O.C. Miller. (bre, )

Full docket text for document 24:
ORDER 1. The Clerk of the Court shall accept no other filings of any type from plaintiffs until the court has resolved defendant's pending Motion to Strike. 2. The time which defendant shall respond to plaintiffs' "Motion for a Name Clearing Hearing is STAYED pending further order of the court. Signed by Judge Christine O.C. Miller. (bre, )

Full docket text for document 26:
ORDER RETURNING UNFILED: Ex Parte : Officer's Oath by Clerk's Notice Adverse Claims, and Application for Ex Parte Writ of Possession Executed Under Oath received 9/11/2009. Signed by Judge Christine O.C. Miller. (bre, )

Full docket text for document 27:
PUBLISHED OPINION denying plaintiffs' motion filed August 31, 2009, granting defendant's [15] Motion to Strike insofar as plaintiff Iron Mountain Mines, Inc. is stricken from the second amended complaint, and the Clerk is directed to dismiss the second amended complaint including plaintiffs'August 20, 2009 "petition" without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Signed by Judge Christine O.C. Miller. (lld)

1:09-cv-00207-CCM HUTCHENS et al v. USA
Christine O.C. Miller, presiding
Date filed: 04/06/2009
Date terminated: 10/13/2009
Date of last filing: 10/13/2009

History

Doc.
No. Dates Description
28
Filed & Entered:   10/13/2009
Docket Text Judgment
27
Filed: 10/06/2009
Entered: 10/13/2009
Docket Text Order on Motion to Strike
25
Filed & Entered:   09/29/2009
Terminated: 10/13/2009
Docket Text Motion for Miscellaneous Relief
26
Filed & Entered:   09/29/2009
Docket Text Order Returning Document Unfiled
24
Filed & Entered:   09/10/2009
Docket Text Order
23
Filed & Entered:   09/08/2009
Docket Text Response to Motion
22
Filed: 08/27/2009
Entered: 09/01/2009
Terminated: 10/13/2009
Docket Text Motion for Hearing
21
Filed: 08/20/2009
Entered: 08/25/2009
Terminated: 10/13/2009
Docket Text Motion for Leave to File
20
Filed: 08/14/2009
Entered: 08/18/2009
Docket Text Reply to Response to Motion
19
Filed & Entered:   07/16/2009
Docket Text Order
18
Filed & Entered:   07/15/2009
Docket Text Order
16
Filed: 07/13/2009
Entered: 07/14/2009
Docket Text Response to Motion [Dispositive]
17
Filed: 07/13/2009
Entered: 07/14/2009
Docket Text Order on Motion to Strike
15
Filed: 07/06/2009
Entered: 07/07/2009
Terminated: 10/06/2009
Docket Text Motion to Strike
14
Filed: 06/11/2009
Entered: 06/12/2009
Docket Text Amended Complaint
13
Filed & Entered:   05/27/2009
Docket Text Order on Motion for Preliminary Injunction
Filed & Entered:   05/26/2009
Docket Text Status Conference
12
Filed: 05/26/2009
Entered: 05/27/2009
Docket Text Response
11
Filed: 05/22/2009
Entered: 05/26/2009
Docket Text Response to Motion [Dispositive]
10
Filed & Entered:   05/21/2009
Docket Text Order on Motion for Status Conference
8
Filed & Entered:   05/15/2009
Docket Text Order on Motion for Preliminary Injunction
9
Filed: 05/15/2009
Entered: 05/19/2009
Terminated: 05/21/2009
Docket Text Motion for Status Conference
5
Filed & Entered:   05/12/2009
Docket Text Notice of Appearance
7
Filed: 05/11/2009
Entered: 05/13/2009
Terminated: 05/27/2009
Docket Text Motion for Preliminary Injunction
6
Filed: 05/07/2009
Entered: 05/13/2009
Docket Text Amended Complaint
4
Filed: 04/08/2009
Entered: 04/09/2009
Docket Text Order on Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis
1
Filed: 04/06/2009
Entered: 04/08/2009
Docket Text Complaint
2
Filed: 04/06/2009
Entered: 04/08/2009
Terminated: 04/08/2009
Docket Text Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis
3
Filed: 04/06/2009
Entered: 04/08/2009
Docket Text Notice of Assignment

Remedy Review pursuant to 121 (c) CERCLA,

Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study and

Restoration Plan Proposal for Modifications to Remedial Design and Remedial Action

And proposal for new Statement of Work (SOW) schedule, and budget (CERCLIS)

Concerning:

Iron Mountain Mine

To: The United States of America , National Resource Trustees,

U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, National Marine Fisheries Service of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, U.S. Bureau of Land Management,

State of California, California Environmental Protection Agency, California Department of Toxic Substances Control, California Hazardous Substances Account, California Hazardous Substances Cleanup Fund, California Toxic Substances Control Account, Regional Water Quality Control Board for the Central Valley Region, California State Water Resources Control Board, California Department of Fish and Game, California state Lands Commission, IT, ITX, IT Iron Mountain Operations LLC, IT Administrative Services LLC, Trust I, Trust II, the Trustee, AISLIC, and any and all successors, and the Oversight Agency, and the Ecosystem Restoration Program.

CALFED Bay-Delta Program

Rebecca Fris , CALFED Ecosystem Restoration Program, Sacramento , CA

California Department of Fish and Game

Habitat Conservation Program, Region 1, Redding , CA

Mark Stopher, Environmental Program Manager, DFG, Redding , CA

John Spitzley, Geologic Engineer, CH2MHILL, Redding , CA

Bureau of Land Management

Redding Field Office, BLM, Redding , CA

Bureau of Reclamation

Kerry Rae, Special Assistant to the Deputy Regional Director, Sacramento , CA

United States Environmental Protection Agency

Rick Sugarek, Remedial Project Manager, EPA Superfund , San Francisco , CA

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

Jim Bybee, Supervisor, Habitat Conservation Division, National Marine Fisheries Service, NOAA, Santa Rosa , CA

David Chapman, West Coast Damage Assessment Coordinator, NOAA,

Elizabeth Jones, Damage Assessment and Restoration Program, NOAA,

Ramona Schreiber , NEPA Coordination, Office of Policy & Strategic Planning ,

Gary Stern, Fisheries Biologist, National Marine Fisheries Service, NOAA ,

U.S. Department of the Interior

Clementine Berger, Acting Regional Solicitor, Sacramento , CA

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Dan Castleberry, USFWS, Sacramento , CA

Mike Thabault, USFWS, Sacramento , CA

Tom Suchanek, NRDA Branch Chief, USFWS, Sacramento , CA

The Iron Mountain Mine Trustee Council.

! Laura Allen, USBR, Trustee, Primary

! Natalie Cosentino-Manning, NOAA, Technical

! Dr. Russell Bellmer, NOAA, Technical

! LCDR Michael Devany, NOAA, Trustee, Primary

! Richard Forester, BLM, Trustee, Primary

! Charlene Hall, USFWS, Technical

! Nick Iadanza, NOAA, Technical

! Paul Meyer, BLM, Trustee, Alternate

! Harry Rectenwald, DFG, Trustee, Alternate

! Steve Schwarzbach, USFWS, Trustee, Primary

! Gail Siani, NOAA, Legal

! Robert Taylor, NOAA, Legal, Trustee Alternate

! Triscilla Taylor, DOI, Legal

! Steve Turek, DFG, Trustee, Primary

! Daniel Welsh, USFWS, Trustee, Alternate

! Diane Wisniewski, USBR, Trustee, Alternate

Pursuant to:

Consent decree of Dec. 8 th , 2000

Paragraphs 85 and 86:

85. The United States and the State agencies acknowledge and agree, and by entering this Consent Decree this Court finds, that the payments to be made by the Settling Parties pursuant to this Consent Decree represent a good faith settlement and compromise of disputed claims, that the Work to be performed under this Consent Decree and the SOW by the Site Operator represents a valuable benefit to the United States and the State agencies, and that the settlement represents a fair, reasonable, and equitable resolution of the matters addressed in this Consent Decree. The Parties further agree, and by entering this Consent Decree this Court finds, that the Released Parties, the Site Operator, the IT Parties, Trust I, Trust II, and the Trustee are entitled, as of the Effective Date of this Consent Decree, to protection from costs, damages, actions, or other claims (whether seeking contribution, indemnification, or however denominated) for matters addressed in this Consent Decree, as provided by (1) CERCLA Section 113(f)(2), 42 U.S.C.§ 9613 (f)(2), and (2) all other applicable provisions of federal or state statutes or of common law that may limit or extinguish their potential liability to persons not a party to this Consent Decree, including without limitations Sections 877 and 877.6 of the California Code of Civil Procedure.

86. The “matters addressed” in this settlement are all response actions taken or to be taken, all response costs incurred or to be incurred, and all Natural Resource Damages incurred or to be incurred, by the United States, the State agencies, or any other person with respect to the Site, and specifically include without limitation the Work to be performed by the Site Operator, all claims, counterclaims, and cross-claims filed by and against the parties in the above captioned cases, and those matters governed by the covenants contained in Sections XXI and XXII of this Consent Decree.

 

42 U.S.C.§§ 6901: (a)4: that while the collection and disposal of solid wastes should continue to be primarily the function of State, regional, and local agencies, the problems of waste disposal as set forth above have become a matter national in scope and in concern and necessitate Federal action through financial and technical assistance and leadership in the development, demonstration, and application of new and improved methods and processes to reduce the amount of waste and unsalvage­able materials and to provide for proper and economical solid waste disposal practices. ; (b)6: if hazardous waste management is improperly performed in the first instance, corrective action is likely to be expensive, complex, and time consuming; (c)1,2,3;(d)1: millions of tons of recoverable material which could be used are needlessly buried each year ; 2: methods are available to separate usable materials from solid waste; 3: the recovery and conservation of such materials can reduce the dependence of the United States on foreign resources and reduce the deficit in its balance of payments. ; 6907(g), 6913: The Administrator shall provide teams of personnel, including Federal, State, and local employees or contractors (hereinafter referred to as “Resource Conservation and Recovery Panels”) to provide Federal agencies, States and local governments upon request with technical assistance on solid waste management, resource recovery, and resource conservation. Such teams shall include technical, marketing, financial, and institutional specialists, and the services of such teams shall be provided without charge to States or local governments.

 

9607(b), 9613(b), 9619

28 U.S.C.§§ 1331, 1345, 1651

And Claims Pursuant to paragraph 71, 77(c), 103, 107(d) and 109 and according to the Final Judgment (119) of the Consent Decree of Dec. 8, 2000

In 1872, Congress enacted the General Mining Law, allowing miners to enter onto federal land, locate valuable mineral deposits, and develop those minerals. Once a miner's claim was staked, it was inviolate against all other claims, except those asserted by the federal government itself, which could challenge the validity of a miner's claim at any time.

Miners were required to perform annual assessment work, or else the land was open to relocation by rival claimants as if no prior claim existed. If the original claimant resumed work before such relocation, the claim was preserved. Often called the “resumption doctrine,” this is the “statutory right to resume work.”

Regulatory Investigations and Remediation

Several investigations and regulatory actions at Iron Mountain have been initiated by California State agencies over the last few decades. These are too lengthy to summarize here. Since the original listing of Iron Mountain on the National Priorities List in 1983, the EPA has authorized four Records of Decision (RODs) and has considered numerous options for remediation. A condensed version of the main remedial alternatives is as follows:

The EPA and the potentially responsible parties remain in legal contention over the appropriate final remediation approaches to be used at Iron Mountain Mine and the costs. Both the U.S. Government and the potentially responsible parties have funded a considerable number of investigations, remediation efforts, legal fees, and oversight management. The loads of copper, zinc, and cadmium into the Sacramento River have been reduced by 80-90%, and further remediation is in progress or being planned. The main challenge that remains is how to find a permanent (and passive) treatment solution in light of the fact that the mine drainage will continue for approximately 3,000 years unless the sulfide ore is mined out.

http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/96/7/3455

 

2.2.1 Scope of Work

 

The remedial action undertaken at Iron Mountain Mine has effectively reduced the Acid Mine Discharge into the Sacramento River as required by the Record of Decision and Consent Decree. However, the method used, (lime neutralization), has resulted in the accumulation of some 400,000 tons of solid waste. The present on-site storage facility will be filled in another 20 years, and the proposed expansion of that site according to the current Scope of Work will be exhausted within 50 years after that. By that time the current process will have created an equivalent volume of sludge to the Great Pyramid of Egypt, and since the anticipated need for mitigation of the Acid Mine Drainage is expected to continue for another 3,000 years, clearly a better solution is needed.

The Proposed Remedial Project Manager hereby proposes to implement modifications to the existing Scope of Work to abate the accumulation of solid waste and improve upon the current mitigation of water pollution (presently about 90%) according to the following general plan.

•  Pre-treat the AMD at the mine portal discharge and in transport to the holding tanks with a hydrogen sulphide/ carbonation / melamine/ tmt / ammonia treatment to raise the ph to about 4, with an initial precipitation of much of the tri-valent iron, cadmium, lead, copper, zinc, and other metals, followed by filtering through porous iron to remove any latent arsenic.

•  Divert a portion of the pre-processed AMD for a coal/ humic acid processing facility, which humic acids will be processed with urea and ammonia, to chelate a significant portion of the remaining metals in solution for use in agricultural fertilizers.

•  Divert a portion of the pre-processed AMD for a coal gasification plant, which plant will supply ammonia and related products and hydrocarbons, and provide power for the facility.

•  Divert a portion of the pre-processed AMD to a processing facility to recover and recycle the high density sludge (HDS) that has been disposed upon the property. This re-processing of the HDS will separate the suspended minerals for processing and marketing, manufacture ammonia sulphate for fertilizer marketing, produce precipitated calcium carbonate for processing and marketing, and produce enough lime, (calcium hydroxide), of very high purity for reuse in the lime neutralization plant, thereby reducing or eliminating the need to bring additional lime to the site.

•  Reduce by 99% the discharge of AMD into the Sacramento River .

•  Maintain the existing system for periods of elevated flow conditions.

•  Provide Environmental Enhancements to fulfill the Consent Decree.

 

Work Assignment (WA's) not applicable

 

Inter-Agency agreements (IAG's) not applicable

 

Cooperative agreements (CA's) not applicable

 

Consent Decrees (CD) and Unilateral Administrative Orders (UAO)

 

2.2.2 Project Funding, Budget, and Cost

 

All costs to be funded by the existing trusts.

 

2.2.3 RD/ RA Schedule

 

Immediately, (posting of bond).

 

3.2 Project Management Plan

 

Private development plan with property owner

 

Definition of project objectives

 

Eliminate remaining water pollution and remedy solid waste issues

 

Organizational Structure: American, Native

Lead Management: John Hutchens - IMMI

Joint Venture with Iron Mountain Mine, Inc. / Ted Arman, President

IRON MOUNTAIN MINE INSTITUTE, COLLEGE OF THE HUMMINGBIRD

FEMA, SHASTA COUNTY, & the Iron Mountain Mine Trustee Council

CALFED Bay-Delta Program, California Department of Fish and Game

BLM, DEPT. OF INTERIOR, MINING BUREAU FEDERATION,

ESSENTIAL PRODUCTS ADMINISTRATION, AUDITOR INSPECTOR GENERAL

Communications Structure

Iron Mountain website: ironmountainmine.com

Project Constraints

Schedule, Fast-Track

Scope, entire site

Budget, pursuant to Consent Decree, Trustees, National Resources Trust

RD/RA contracting strategy Identifying opportunities to accelerate the schedule

Phasing, Fast-tracking, Pre-placed and pre-qualified contracts,Design approach

Detailed design specifications and drawings

Performance based specifications and drawings

Cost plus reimbursement

Time and Materials

Indefinite delivery orders

Non-competitive procurement

Schedule development

Immediate

Budget preparation

Independent government cost estimates (IGCE's): not applicable

Superfund State Contract (SSC) timing: not applicable

Property access issues: not applicable

Community relations

Project will provide hundreds of job opportunities.

Army Corp of Engineers assistance (USACE): Requested

12. Unresolved Issues:

12. Operation and Maintenance Issues: Pending 5 year review

3.7.3 Record of Decision Changes

Minor applicable

Significant (CERCLA 117(c): applicable

Fundamental (CFR section 300, 435 (c)(2): applicable

OSWER 9355.3-02/FS Post ROD changes (SSC): applicable

3.8 Scheduling the RD/RA

Baseline schedule: plans and permits

Work Breakdown schedule (WBS)

Gantt chart Method

Critical Path Method

 

3.9 RD/RA budget

3.10 Contracting Strategy (non-EPA funds)

Competitive bidding

3.10.1 Schedule Acceleration

Phasing

Existing Information

Types of Waste

Funding Availability

Fast Tracking

Expedited RD

Optimized RD

Fast tracking RA

 

 

3.10.2 RD/RA Design Approach

Detailed Design Specifications

Performance Based Specifications

RA Contracts

Fixed Price Contracts

Cost Reimbursement Contracts

Time and Materials Contracts

Time and Materials Contracts

RA contractor bond

 

3.11 Coordinating with the State

State Memorandum of Agreement (SMOA)

 

3.12 Community Relations

 

4.2 EPA and USACE assistance to RPM

 

4.3 Developing the Statement of Work (SOW)

Remedial Investigation (RI)

Feasibility Study (FS)

 

•  Remedial Design statement of Work

•  Preliminary Remedial Design Schedule

•  Independent Government Cost Estimate: not applicable

 

•  Tasking the Remedial Design

RPM as Work Assignment Manager (WAM)

RD WA package

Work Assignment Form (WAF)

Statement of Work (SOW)

RD WA Amendments and Technical Directives

•  Progress of Remedial Design

 

 

•  Habitat Enhancement

Comprehensive site improvements, public facilities, landscaping, trails, resort, chalets, restaurants, shops, and monument.

ESTIMATE OF LONGEVITY OF POLLUTION FROM THE RICHMOND MINE AT IRON MOUNTAIN , CALIFORNIA

Environment and Sustainability, Newcastle University, 3rd Floor Devonshire Building, Devonshire Terrace, Newcastle Upon Tyne, NE1 7RU, United Kingdom, natalie.kruse@ncl.ac.uk

KRUSE, Natalie A.S. and YOUNGER, Paul L., Instit Environment and Sustainability, Newcastle University, 3rd Floor Devonshire Building, Devonshire Terrace, Newcastle Upon Tyne, NE1 7RU, United Kingdom, natalie.kruse@ncl.ac.uk.

The Pollutant Loadings Above average Pyrite Influenced Geochemistry Pollutant Sources and Sinks in Underground Mines (PLAYING POSSUM) model, developed at Newcastle University utilizes object-oriented programming techniques and geochemical algorithms to simulate hydro-geochemical changes in mine water. PLAYING POSSUM may be applied to abandoned coal and metal mines in order to confirm the governing geochemical processes in the system and to predict the longevity of polluting drainages. The model solves for hydro-geochemical changes based on mineral weathering of a suite of 28 minerals, mineral precipitation, reversible sorption, dissolution and precipitation of acid generating salts and addition of pollutants from dispersed inflows. PLAYING POSSUM has been used to simulate the discharge from Richmond Mine at Iron Mountain , Shasta County , California , in an attempt create a process-based estimate of the longevity of the polluting drainage. In contrast to the U.S. Geological Survey steady-state estimate of 3200 years until the ore body is exhausted, the simulation solution created by PLAYING POSSUM estimates that the mine water chemistry will decrease to asymptotic levels after approximately 3500 years. Although these results seem compatible, the asymptotic pollution levels are only approximately 10% of the initial levels and, therefore, the discharge is still highly polluting. During the 5000 year simulation period, only 40% of the remaining ore body weathers. The estimate of pollution longevity produced by PLAYING POSSUM shows the need for non steady-state estimates based on geochemical controls acting in abandoned mine systems.

2007 GSA Denver Annual Meeting (28–31 October 2007)

Purpose

This scoping document has been prepared for Iron Mountain Mines, Inc. and for the Iron Mountain Mine Remediation Project which entails development of the Iron Mountain ore bodies of the existing Iron Mountain Mine in northwestern California . Scoping is one of the first steps in the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process. Scoping serves to inform interested parties about the proposed project, issues,

and alternatives, and to seek input on the project and issues of concern. This input will be used

in developing a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) for the Iron Mountain Mine

Remediation Project. This scoping document provides a description of the existing Iron Mountain

Mine and proposed Iron Mountain Project, lists significant issues, and identifies how and by when

to submit comments.

Introduction

Background

The Iron Mountain Mine is located in northwestern California , approximately 9 miles north of

Redding. The mine is on private land owned by Iron Mountain Mines, Inc. The previous removal actions are operated by AIG Consultants under a insurance policy issued pursuant to a partial settlement and Consent Decree between the responsible parties and the EPA and DOJ of Dec, 2000.

The proposed Iron Mountain Project encompasses the activities required for Iron Mountain mine to develop the Iron Mountain Deposits and reclaim the site with a hydropower pump storage project.

The Iron Mountain Mine consists of an open pit zinc-sulfur mine, mill sites for processing ore, tailings

Impoundments, and support facilities.

After mine development, in 1978, Iron Mountain Mines, Inc. submitted an application for a Clean

Water Act (CWA) Section 402 National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)

permit to discharge treated wastewater from the mine through an outfall to the Sacramento river . The

surface water discharge was a new source in accordance with 40 CFR Part 122.2.

Iron Mountain Mine

Site

This Notice of Intent (NOI) is prepared by Iron Mountain Mines, Inc. and AMD&CSI as an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) on the potential environmental impacts of the proposed operation in compliance with the Council on Environmental Quality NEPA regulations

at 40 CFR Part 1500 and 40 CFR Part 6, EPA's NEPA implementing regulations. EPA and BLM

issued an EIS in 1989. EPA issued the first NPDES permit in 1978.

The original NPDES permit for the mine site was superceded by ROD 1 issued in 1986. Since that time EPA has obtained interim waivers for compliance with numerical limits on pollution discharge. Prior to each permit action, EPA has not complied with NEPA by preparing an environmental assessment (EA) that evaluated the potential impacts of its actions.

On May 4, 2008, Iron Mountain Mines, Inc. submitted a request for resumption of mining for the Iron Mountain Project. The 1989 EIS did not evaluate potential impacts from developing the Iron Mountain Deposit.

Therefore, an SEIS is necessary in order to fully evaluate impacts from the Iron Mountain Project and support Iron Mountain Mine future NPDES permitting actions associated with the

Iron Mountain Project. The SEIS is also intended to support permitting of the Iron Mountain Project by the

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) under CWA Section 404. Both federal actions, the

NPDES permit and the 404 permit require compliance with NEPA.

The Iron Mountain SEIS will evaluate impacts associated with the extension of operations resulting

from developing the Iron Mountain Deposit. The SEIS will describe current site conditions and

impacts projected in the 1989 EIS. As applicable, the SEIS will discuss whether significant

impacts or changes occur Iron Mountain that were not anticipated in the 1984 EIS.

To support preparation of the Iron Mountain SEIS, Iron Mountain Mines, Inc. has prepared for Iron Mountain an environmental information document (EID) that details the proposed Iron Mountain Project, presents baseline data, and describes the impacts of the project. The EID can be obtained from the project website at

www.ironmountainmine.com .

Agency Involvement

Shasta County will be the lead agency for the SEIS process, and will issue a record of decision

(ROD) documenting the SEIS conclusions and Shasta County 's decision regarding modification of the

facility's NPDES permit. As one of the cooperating agencies, the DTSC and RSWQCB will issue their own ROD to document its permitting decision regarding fill activities in waters of the U.S. , including

jurisdictional wetlands under the CWA Section 404 permit.

In addition the California Department of Natural Resources (ADNR), and the department of fish and game

will participate closely in the SEIS process as cooperating agencies.

Shasta County will coordinate all of the State's permitting activities. The NPS's involvement relates to

potential effects on the Sacramento river . While none of these entities has an

independent requirement to comply with NEPA, they each provide special expertise to the

project and the information in the SEIS may benefit their decisions regarding the project. The

roles and responsibilities of the lead and cooperating agencies are described in a Memorandum

of Understanding (MOU) between the agencies.

On May 17, 2008, EPA was given notice to enter with Iron Mountain Mines, Inc. into a MOU that sets out the terms of cooperation in the development of the SEIS for a jointly owned hazardous waste repository on private property. The proposed MOU also outlines the terms under which the Iron Mountain Mines, Inc. will prepare the SEIS using a third-party contractor.

Permitting Requirements

The proposed Iron Mountain Project will require no new permits or modification of existing permits

before development can proceed. The major permits or authorizations that may be required eventually by Iron Mountain are listed below.

Federal Authorities

U.S Environmental Protection Agency:

?? CWA Section 402 NPDES permit for wastewater discharges into waters of the U.S.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers:

?? CWA Section 404 wetlands permit for the discharge of Iron Mountain or fill material into

waters of the U.S. , including jurisdictional wetlands

?? FERC Section 401 hydropower permit.

State Authorities

California Department of Natural Resources:

?? Reclamation Plan approval

?? Closure/Post-closure Financial Assurance approval

?? Fish habitat permits for diversions and water withdrawals

?? State Water Rights permits for water withdrawals

?? Certificate of Approval to Construct Iron Mountain Tailings Dam and Back Dam

?? Certificate of Approval to Operate Iron Mountain Tailings Dam and Back Dam

?? Coastal zone consistency determination under the Coastal Zone Management Act and

the California Coastal Management Program Act of 1977

California Department of Environmental Conservation:

?? Air Quality Permit to Operate (Title V) No. 290TVP014

?? Waste Management Permit covering disposal of mine tailings, waste rock, overburden,

and solid waste, management of open pits and ground water, storage and containment of

hazardous chemicals, facility reclamation, and facility closure

?? Financial Assurance (in conjunction with ADNR requirements)

?? CWA Section 401 certifications of reasonable assurance for NPDES/Section 402 and

COE/Section 404 permits

Local Authorities

?? Title 9 zoning permits

?? Master Plan or Revised Master Plan

Purpose of Scoping

Scoping is a process intended to reach out to all interested parties to assist Iron Mountain Mine and the cooperating agencies in identifying areas and issues of concern associated with the proposed

Iron Mountain Project. The process is designed to help ensure that all significant issues are fully

addressed during the course of the SEIS process. The main objectives of the scoping process are to:

?? Provide the public, regional stakeholders, and regulatory agencies with a basic

understanding of the existing Iron Mountain Mine and proposed Iron Mountain Project;

?? Provide a framework for the public to ask questions, raise concerns, and identify

specific issues; and recommend options other than those currently proposed; and

?? Explain where to find additional information about the project.

To assist in reaching these objectives, this scoping document:

?? Presents a schedule for the scoping process;

?? Describes the scoping open houses and public meetings to be held in October 2009;

?? Presents a brief summary of the existing Iron Mountain operations and the proposed Iron Mountain

Project;

?? Identifies where additional information about the proposed project can be obtained;

?? Describes how the public can participate in the SEIS process after scoping; and

?? Presents a tentative SEIS schedule.

 

Scoping Schedule

The scoping process will begin when EPA publishes the Notice of Intent (NOI) to prepare an SEIS in the Federal Register. This scoping document will be distributed for public and agency review and comment at the same time. The scoping comment period will end in 90 days . EPA will then review all comments, identify the issues, and distribute a scoping responsiveness summary to the public and to the State and Federal agencies and Tribal governments. The scoping responsiveness summary will summarize comments received during the scoping period and describe how EPA intends to respond to them during the SEIS process.

Scoping Meetings

EPA will host four Iron Mountain Project scoping open houses/public meetings.

Each scoping meeting will include an informal open house held from 3:30 to 5:30 PM. This will

be followed by a public meeting from 6:30 to 9:00 PM that will include: (1) a presentation of the

project by EPA and the cooperating agencies; (2) a time for questions and answers; and (3) a

time for formal public testimony.

The scoping meetings will serve two important purposes. One is to listen to and record the

public's comments about the Iron Mountain Project as described in this scoping document. The second

is to respond to the public's requests for background information that they might need to fully

understand the project description and proposed scope of the SEIS analysis before commenting.

EPA, the cooperating agencies, and staff from Tetra Tech will be available to answer questions

and explain methodologies for interested members of the public. Scoping comments from the

public will be welcomed during the scoping meetings, or they may be submitted to EPA in

writing.

Information Sources

Copies of the scoping document, 1989 EIS, past EAs, and current NPDES may be viewed at the

following locations:

Environmental Protection Agency

Redding library

How to Comment

Comments may be submitted at the open houses (in writing or recorded verbally), or they may be

submitted to EPA in writing, by e-mail, or by fax, until the comment period deadline.

Activities after Scoping

Following the scoping process and identification of issues, EPA will prepare the SEIS under Iron Mountain Mines, Inc. direction. The steps involved in SEIS preparation and public

and agency review of the document are shown in Figure 2. The public is welcome to participate

throughout the SEIS process, and there are specific points at which public input is specifically

sought. These are listed below, along with their tentative dates, though schedule changes will

likely occur.

Public participation process:

?? Distribution of Draft SEIS for public/agency review

?? Draft SEIS open houses and public hearings

?? Close of public/agency Draft SEIS review period

?? Distribution of Final SEIS

?? EPA Record of Decision and NPDES permit decision

Figure 2: Iron Mountain Mine Remediation Project - SEIS Process and Schedule

Applicant's Proposed Project

The Iron Mountain Project includes the activities required for Iron Mountain Mines, Inc. to develop the Iron Mountain Deposit using solution mining technologies to manage and mitigate the migration of minerals from the Iron Mountain Mines site. As such, the project is considered by Iron Mountain Mines, Inc.an

extension of the existing Iron Mountain Mine superfund remediation. The following sections summarize the existing operations at the Iron Mountain Mine and the Applicant's current proposal for developing the Iron Mountain Deposit.

Overview

Development History of the Iron Mountain Mine

Initial development and construction of the Iron Mountain Mine Project began in 1896, and production

started in November 1887.

Water Management

Current Water Management, Iron Mountain Development

Other Facilities

The Iron Mountain Mine includes various additional infrastructure facilities that are summarized in

Table 2. These are generally unaffected by the Iron Mountain Project.

Table 2: Other Facilities at the Iron Mountain Mine

Facility Description

Water Treatment reats raw acid mine water from the mine with lime

Facility Description

Employment

The mine will provide direct employment for approximately 360 people

 

Reclamation and Closure

20 years

Alternatives

Preliminary Issues of Concern

EPA and the cooperating agencies have identified the following preliminary issues of concern associated with the proposed Iron Mountain Project.

?? Maintaining or improving the quality and quantity of water

?? Maintaining the quality and quantity of fishery habitat, and minimizing disruption of fish movements

?? Maintaining the quality and quantity of wildlife habitat, and minimizing impacts on wildlife

?? Protecting subsistence resources and their use

?? Minimizing potentially negative and maximizing potentially positive health impacts to residents

?? Minimizing impacts on vegetation at the site and along the road.

?? Minimizing the social, cultural, and economic impacts on residents of the region.

?? Evaluating operational and post-closure water balance.

?? Maintaining the integrity of the tailings impoundment and associated dams

?? Determining appropriate cleanup levels and sampling protocols for metals contamination on NPS lands.

?? Mitigating possible cross-boundary impacts to NPS units from the mining operation and ancillary facilities including, but not limited to, vehicle and equipment air emissions, dust, night lighting, and noise.

?? Minimizing fugitive dust from all sources and maintaining air quality.

?? Minimizing long-term environmental risks.

?? Assuring that closure and post-closure costs are accurately estimated and that there is adequate financial assurance to cover costs.

?? Minimizing long-term economic risks to the land owner and the State of California

EPA is seeking public input to identify other significant concerns. All substantive issues identified by the public will be consideIron Mountain by EPA in formulating the scope of analysis for the SEIS. Following scoping, EPA will prepare a scoping responsiveness summary that will describe how the above issues and additional issues raised by the public will be responded to in the SEIS process.

Public Solicitation of Input for Actions in the Iron Mountain Project Area

NEPA requires that EISs include an assessment of cumulative impacts. Specifically, 40 CFR

Part 1508.7 defines cumulative impacts and directs federal agencies to assess, “the impact on

the environment which results from the incremental impact of the action when added to other

past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency (Federal or

non-Federal) or person undertakes such other actions. Cumulative impacts can result from

individually minor but collectively significant actions taking place over a period of time.”

All federal and state agencies, Tribal governments, local governments, private companies,

organizations, and individuals are asked to notify EPA of any past, present, or future actions

they are aware of near the Iron Mountain Project. EPA respectfully requests this information to

ensure that the SEIS adequately addresses the cumulative impact that may occur to the

environment if the Iron Mountain Project were to be developed. If you are aware of another agency

or entity that has, is, or likely will take action near the Iron Mountain Project area, please contact

John F. Hutchens by the close of the scoping process comment period (see previous section for

contact information).

Sustainable Science at EPA

Air Date: Week of February 25, 2011

Dr. Paul Anastas pioneered the field of green chemistry, which he calls “the molecular basis of sustainability.” (Yale University Green Chemistry Center)

The Environmental Protection Agency's top scientist says today's environmental problems require a “seismic shift” in the way EPA works. Living on Earth's Jeff Young profiles Paul Anastas (uh NAS tus). The green chemistry pioneer wants to put the principles of sustainability at the center of EPA science.

GELLERMAN: It's Living on Earth, I'm Bruce Gellerman. The Environmental Protection Agency recently turned 40, and like a lot of 40 year olds, the agency is taking a midlife look in the mirror - metaphorically speaking, anyway - and planning some big changes.
The EPA is undertaking what some call a "seismic shift" in the way it works: making "sustainability" its central goal. To do that, the agency is counting on Paul Anastas. The EPA's top scientist has a long track record of putting sustainability to work. Living on Earth's Jeff Young has this profile.

YOUNG: The Environmental Protection Agency started in 1970, a time when smokestacks belched pollution and rivers occasionally caught fire. The problems were big and plain to see. EPA assistant administrator Paul Anastas says today's problems are big, but a bit murkier.

ANASTAS: When we start looking at complex problems like climate change, subtle problems such as endocrine disrupting chemicals - they are more complex, they are more subtle, and they're going to need a new approach, a new thinking. There's a great quote from Albert Einstein - he said, 'problems can't be solved at the same level of awareness that created them.'

And so when we look at our current state of the environment, one of the things that we're trying to do is say, "What's our new level of awareness?" That's what we're trying to do at the EPA today.

YOUNG: Anastas leads EPA's office of research and development. He's also the agency's science advisor - in effect its top scientist. EPA's science has long rested on narrowly focused specialists deciding how much harm people and nature can tolerate. Anastas wants his scientists to think more broadly about systems and sustainability.

ANASTAS: Systems thinking means that we're going to be asking questions about how not only can we make things less bad - how do we make things better, more sustainable, more healthful. Sustainability is our true north.

YOUNG: So how might this approach that you're talking about make you better able to address a challenge like climate change?

ANASTAS: Well climate change is a key issue. Climate is inextricably linked to energy, energy inextricably linked to water, water to agriculture, agriculture to health, and we could go on and on. If we start saying that the entirety of our approach to sustainability is simply to reduce our carbon footprint or to look at any one aspect, then we will not be getting the power and the potential of the synergies of looking from a systems approach.

YOUNG: Now, forgive me if this is an unfair stereotype, but it's my impression that the agency generally goes about its business by - well, you have an expert who does water, and you have experts who do air. How do you get those different experts to all think horizontally as well as up and down?

ANASTAS: Well, you ask precisely the right question. It's not just bringing together a couple scientists. It's bringing together physical scientists, life scientists, economists, communication specialists, social and behavioral scientists - the broadest spectrum of perspectives. So, we need to understand the underlying nature of our materials and our energy.

Are they depleting, are they degrading of our natural ecosystems, are they benign to humans and the environment or are they inherently hazardous, are they resilient, or are they vulnerable? These kinds of questions are not easy questions. They just happen to be the questions that we must ask and answer if we're going to address these challenges systemically.

YOUNG: Anastas says the EPA is beginning to work this way in its assessment of toxic chemicals. That's the area where Anastas is best known. Terry Collins directs the Institute for Green Science in the Department of Chemistry at Carnegie Mellon University. He first met Anastas in the early 90's during his first stint at EPA.

COLLINS: He was a young chief of toxics at EPA, in his late 20's I think, and he'd been looking at the way the EPA functioned, which is really saying, 'No, you can't do that' or trying to say, 'No, you can't do that.' And he felt that the organization would be so much better off if it was instead encouraging industry to develop products and processes that weren't toxic in the first place. And he coined the name 'green chemistry,' and I really regard him as the father of green chemistry.

YOUNG: Anastas wrote many of green chemistry's most influential books and won the prestigious Heinz award for his vision of chemistry that eliminates toxic risks. He was director of Yale's Center for Green Chemistry and Green Engineering when President Obama tapped him for a return to service at EPA. A talk with Anastas makes clear that the sustainability effort at EPA owes a great deal to green chemistry.

ANASTAS: Green chemistry is the molecular basis of sustainability - recognizing that all we have in this world is energy and matter, energy and material, and how you redesign the material basis of our society and our economy so that they are sustainable and benign.

YOUNG: This does not sound like a tinkering-around-the-edges kind of change. You're talking about real, kind of, fundamental change about the way you guys go about business here.

ANASTAS: Yeah, this is a seismic shift. While I know that the public often doesn't think about the words 'EPA' and 'innovation' in the same sentence, this is not your grandfather's EPA.

YOUNG: Anastas knows the change he's after won't come quickly or easily. EPA has asked the National Academy of Sciences for help. Nearly thirty years ago the Academy helped shape EPA science with a publication called the Red Book.

It was a how-to guide on putting the principles of risk management to work at EPA. Now the Academy is considering a similar guide on how to incorporate the principles of sustainability. The academy's report, expected this summer, is already being called the 'Green Book.' For Living on Earth, I'm Jeff Young.

 

No. 11-15383
Companion Appeal: No. 09-17411
(D.C. Nos. 2:91-cv-00768-JAM/JFM and 2:91-cv-01167-DFL/JFM)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE BY MAIL
On February 23, 2011, I mailed the foregoing document(s) by First-Class
Mail, postage prepaid to the following non-CM/ECF participants:
Larry Corcoran, Esquire, Assistant U.S. Attorney
DOJ - U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Environmental Enforcement Section
P.O. Box 7611, Ben Franklin Station
Washington, DC 20044-7611
T. W. Arman
P. O. Box 992867
Redding, CA 96099
Ted Arman
Iron Mountain Mines, Inc.
P. O. Box 992867
Redding, CA 96099
Signature: s/ Marilyn T. Kilian

Case: 11-15383 02/23/2011 Page: 1 of 1 ID: 7658006 DktEntry: 3-2

Watershed Priorities

 

Ninth Circuit allows landowner to challenge impaired water listing

An odd judicial couple, conservative Jay Bybee (of torture memo fame ) and liberal Stephen Reinhardt, have combined to issue an even odder Clean Water Act standing decision. In Barnum Timber v. EPA they ruled, over the dissent of District Judge James Gwin, sitting by designation, that a landowner had standing to challenge EPA's approval of California's impaired waters list.

In general, I'm a fan of broad readings of standing to challenge agency action, because I think judicial review is essential to holding agencies accountable for carrying out their statutory obligations. But EPA shouldn't have to be accountable for injury that, even assuming it's real, is entirely caused by California.

The Clean Water Act requires that states periodically submit to EPA lists of waters that are “impaired” by pollution, meaning that they are not meeting the state's water quality standards. EPA reviews the lists and approves or disapproves them. The Clean Water Act also requires that states produce Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs, essentially pollution budgets) for listed waters. But it does not require that states take any action to reduce non-point-source pollution to impaired waters. Those choices are left entirely to the states.

Here's what we know about Barnum Timber's injury from the opinion: The company owns land “in the Redwood Creek watershed.” In 2006, California submitted a list of impaired waters to EPA, including Redwood Creek, which is impaired by sediment and temperature. EPA approved the list. The listing was not new; Redwood Creek has been on the impaired list since 1992. At this late date, Barnum Timber decided to sue EPA, rather than California. It alleged that it had been injured by land use restrictions due to the listing and that its property values had decreased. It submitted affidavits from two professional foresters in support of the reduced value claim. The foresters asserted that the market value had fallen because of a public perception, correct or not, that onerous regulation would follow from the listing.

The trial judge dismissed the complaint for lack of standing, finding the claims of injury conclusory and not connected to the challenged action. The majority of the Ninth Circuit panel disagreed. Writing for himself and Judge Reinhardt, Judge Bybee concluded that Barnum Timber had met the Article III standards, showing injury in fact, causation, and redressability.

Injury in fact, according to Judge Bybee, was sufficiently established at this pleading stage by the foresters' declarations. Never mind that they had no property valuation expertise and cited no basis for their claims about public perception. Judge Gwin, dissenting, described this claimed injury as too “speculative and uncertain” to support standing, pointing out that Barnum had not identified any action that could plausibly be tied to property value reductions. This aspect of the majority decision may be wrong, but it's not particularly problematic. At the pleading stage, it's appropriate to accept plausible assertions. This one is at the outer boundaries of plausibility, but Barnum will be required to back its claims up in order to proceed.

More problematic are the majority's conclusions on causation and redressability, and the misunderstanding of the Clean Water Act they reveal (in almost his only reference to the actual terms of the Clean Water Act, Judge Bybee flubs it badly, confusing water quality standards with restrictions on discharges that violate those standards). With very little analysis, Judge Bybee endorses Barnum's claim that EPA is responsible for the alleged reduction in market value due to public perception that listing has regulatory consequences. Judge Bybee does not even ask whether the alleged public perception has any basis in reality. But surely that is relevant. EPA is not the legal cause of irrational drops in market value; public irrationality or misunderstanding is. In fact, as the dissent explains in some detail, listing as an impaired water does not, by itself, carry any regulatory consequence relevant to this land or Barnum's activities. California alone decides what timber harvest regulations to apply. The Clean Water Act imposes no limitations on timber harvest, whether or not the water is impaired. There is no conceivable scenario in which EPA will (or even could) send enforcement agents out or file suit to restrict Barnum's logging.

Beyond that, EPA didn't even decide that Redwood Creek was impaired; California did when it submitted its 1992 list. And EPA didn't decide what it would mean for Redwood Creek to be impaired; California did when it set water quality standards. Although EPA does review both state impaired water lists and state water quality standards, it does so from a floor rather than a ceiling perspective. As far as the Clean Water Act is concerned, states are free to over-regulate, but not to under-regulate. So EPA occasionally disapproves lists because they leave polluted waters out, but it would be quite odd for EPA to aggressively police whether states have included too many waters.

The redressability analysis is much the same. It's a slam dunk for the majority once it has incorrectly concluded that the impaired listing causes injury to go on to say that a court order invalidating the listing will fix the problem. Again Judge Bybee wastes no time looking at the Clean Water Act. But because the Act is a floor rather than a ceiling, whether or not Redwood Creek is impaired for Clean Water Act purposes is irrelevant for whether or not California chooses to protect it from careless logging practices. Judge Bybee says, correctly, that Barnum does not have to show that EPA is the only cause of its problem, or that the judgment it seeks will completely fix the problem.

When the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) was launched in 1970 , its stated mission was to “conduct environmental research, provide assistance…[in] combating environmental pollution, and assist the Council on Environmental Quality in developing and recommending…new policies for environmental protection…to the President.” From these things, it's clear that President Richard Nixon's goal in creating the EPA was to put an agency in place that would fill a research and advisory role for both himself and future presidents. There was no indication that he intended an ideologically driven juggernaut that not only researched but actually took unto itself the power to mandate the most stringent of eco-centered, blatantly anti-capitalist environmental guidelines and regulations imaginable.

In fact, the EPA is so far from its original purposes that in just the past few years officials from that agency have addressed everything from regulating to livestock emissions (cow flatulence) to regulating America's water supply to putting their own Cap and Trade regulations in place. The latter truly reveals just how much power the EPA has taken unto itself, insofar as members of that agency are trying to put Cap and Trade in place although the American people and the U.S. Senate have already rejected it on face value. (Cap and Trade would be a boon to the already burgeoned EPA in that it would not only allow them to write guidelines and flood manufacturers with new regulations, but it would also put them in the catbird seat as the ones who would enforce and oversee the implementation of the regulations they write.)

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has initiated a national rulemaking process to establish a new program to reduce stormwater discharges from new development and as well as redevelopment. During this process, the EPA is expected to evaluate green infrastructure design techniques that mimic natural water processes, including approaches that infiltrate and recharge, evapotranspire, and harvest and reuse precipitation. Landscape architects are currently working with many communities to employ green infrastructure design techniques that address stormwater management and other water quality issues. To show the EPA how green infrastructure works, submit case studies about successful stormwater management projects . Demonstrate to the EPA that green infrastructure is a highly-effective and cost-efficient approach to improving the quality of the water supply.

Specifically, EPA's new rulemaking process seeks to establish requirements to control stormwater discharges from new development and redevelopment; develop a single set of consistent stormwater requirements for all Municipal Separate Sanitary Sewer Systems (MS4s); require MS4s to address stormwater discharges in areas of existing development through retrofitting the sewer system or drainage area with improved stormwater control measures; and explore specific stormwater provisions to protect sensitive areas.

In 2006, EPA requested the National Research Council (NRC) to conduct a review of its stormwater program. In October 2008, NRC released its report Urban Stormwater Management in the United States (The National Academies Press, 2009), which found, among other things, that “the rapid conversion of land to urban and suburban areas has profoundly altered how water flows during and following storm events, putting higher volumes of water and more pollutants into the nation's rivers, lakes, and estuaries. These changes have degraded water quality and habitat in virtually every urban stream system.”  The report recommends a number of actions, including conserving natural areas, reducing hard surface cover (e.g., roads, parking lots, impervious surfaces), and retrofitting urban areas with features that hold and treat stormwater. 

Throughout 2010, the EPA held a number of listening sessions across the country to hear views, ideas and input from various stakeholders. The EPA has also issued “Information Collection Requests” and other data collection questionnaires to gather information and assess what revisions are needed to its stormwater requirements. After reviewing and analyzing the data, EPA intends to issue a draft rule in September of 2011 and a final stormwater rule sometime in 2012.

Submit your green infrastructure case studies by March 31, 2011.

 

Bill seeks to speed up EPA action on mine permits


US House Republicans criticize DOE fiscal 2012 budget priorities

Washington (Platts)--3Mar2011/545 pm EST/2245 GMT

Opposition to the US Department of Energy's fiscal 2012 budget request grew louder Thursday, with Republicans on the House of Representatives committee that oversees DOE research spending Thursday blasting the Obama administration's fiscal 2012 budget request for wasting money at a time of economic turmoil.

"While I strongly support an 'all-of-the-above' approach to energy security, I'm concerned that this plan entails spending we can't afford and taxes and regulations that would raise the cost of energy and harm our economy," said Ralph Hall, a Texas Republican and the chairman of the House Science, Space and Technology Committee.

Energy Secretary Steven Chu defended his agency's fiscal 2012 budget request to the committee, which included steep hikes to the department's Office of Science, as well the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy.

"To lead in the global clean-energy economy, we must mobilize American's innovation machine in order to bring technologies from the laboratory to the marketplace," Chu said. DOE "is on the front lines of this effort."

Despite cuts to most other federal agencies, President Barack Obama requested $29.5 billion for the agency in fiscal 2012, 12% above the $26.4 billion it received in fiscal 2010. President Barack Obama's federal budget request also included the elimination of billions of dollars in tax breaks for the petroleum industry.

But Democrats on the committee backed DOE's spending strategy.

"Our economic woes weren't caused by too much science," the senior Democrat on the committee, Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson, said. "At a time like this wee need to make the critical investments to bolster our research infrastructure and our future workforce, advancing our technological capabilities now, while sowing the seeds for the industries of the future.

Obama's budget increases for DOE is unlikely to be an easy sell in Congress, where Republicans and Democrats are currently battling over a stopgap spending measure for the rest of fiscal 2011 that would cut billions from DOE's current spending.

The cuts would mostly target the department's science, energy efficiency and renewable energy programs. In addition, Republicans on the House committee that oversees DOE's budget have said it is unlikely the department will see any increases.

Republicans swept into a majority in the House this year, but Democrats still contol the Senate.

While Democrats in the Senate Energy and Water Committee have supported the DOE request, Republicans on that panel have warned they would oppose increases, and senior Republicans on the Senate Budget Committee also have attacked DOE's strategy.

--Derek Sands, derek_sands@platts.com

Senate Hearing to Examine the Effectiveness of the Toxic Substances Control Act

Released: 2/1/2011 4:35 PM EST
Source: George Washington University

MEDIA ADVISORY

U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works

Subcommittee on Superfund, Toxics, and Environmental Health

“Assessing the Effectiveness of U.S. Chemical Safety Laws”

BACKGROUND: Senator Frank R. Lautenberg (D-NJ), Chairman of the Subcommittee on Superfund, Toxics, and Environmental Health, will hold a hearing to examine the effectiveness of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). GW School of Public Health and Health Services Dean Lynn Goldman will testify at the hearing.

WHEN: Thursday, February 2, 2011, 10 a.m.

LOCATION: EPW Hearing Room
406 Dirksen Senate Office Building
Washington, DC

WEBCAST: Webcast will be available at http://epw.senate.gov starting at 10:00 a.m.

WITNESSES: (Order subject to change)

Panel I:

• The Honorable Steve Owens, Assistant Administrator, Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention, Environmental Protection Agency

Panel II:

• Ms. Kelly M. Semrau, Senior Vice President for Global Corporate Affairs, Communication, and Sustainability, SC Johnson
• Mr. Steve Goldberg, Vice President and Associate General Counsel, BASF
• Ms. Frances Beinecke, President, Natural Resources Defense Council
• Mr. Cal Dooley, President, American Chemistry Council
• Dean Lynn Goldman, MD, MPH, Dean, George Washington University School of Public Health and Health Services

Just a reminder: If you would like us to save a seat for you, please let your Senate Press Gallery know, and drop Nathan McCray at Nathan_mccray@epw.senate.gov a note to let us know you're coming. Please note that media are required to display current Senate press credentials. In order to guarantee that a seat can be saved, please plan to arrive promptly, prior to the scheduled start time of the hearing. Television producers should contact the Senate Radio and TV Gallery in advance if possible to ensure that we're ready to accommodate you.

About The George Washington University Medical Center
The George Washington University Medical Center is an internationally recognized interdisciplinary academic health center that has consistently provided high-quality medical care in the Washington, D.C. metropolitan area since 1824. The Medical Center comprises the School of Medicine and Health Sciences, the 11th oldest medical school in the country; the School of Public Health and Health Services, the only such school in the nation's capital; GW School of Nursing; GW Hospital, and The GW Medical Faculty Associates. For more information on GWUMC, visit www.gwumc.edu .

CONTACT:
EPA Press Office
press@epa.gov
202-564-6794

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
February 1, 2011


EPA Administrator to Testify on Public Health and Drinking Water Issues

WASHINGTON – U.S. EPA Administrator Lisa P. Jackson will testify before the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works tomorrow on EPA's role in addressing public health concerns related to drinking water issues. She will be joined by Linda Birnbaum, Ph.D., D.A.B.T., A.T.S., director of the National Institutes of Environmental Health Sciences.

Hearing details:

WHO: EPA Administrator Lisa P. Jackson

WHAT: Testifying before the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works

WHEN: 10:00 a.m., Wednesday, February 2, 2011

WHERE: 406 Dirken Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.

CA Codes (ccp:259) CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE SECTION 259

259. Subject to the supervision of the court, every court commissioner shall have power to do all of the following: (a) Hear and determine ex parte motions for orders and alternative writs and writs of habeas corpus in the superior court for which the court commissioner is appointed. (b) Take proof and make and report findings thereon as to any matter of fact upon which information is required by the court. Any party to any contested proceeding may except to the report and the subsequent order of the court made thereon within five days after written notice of the court's action. A copy of the exceptions shall be filed and served upon opposing party or counsel within the five days. The party may argue any exceptions before the court on giving notice of motion for that purpose within 10 days from entry thereof. After a hearing before the court on the exceptions, the court may sustain, or set aside, or modify its order. (c) Take and approve any bonds and undertakings in actions or proceedings, and determine objections to the bonds and undertakings. (d) Act as temporary judge when otherwise qualified so to act and when appointed for that purpose, on stipulation of the parties litigant. While acting as temporary judge the commissioner shall receive no compensation therefor other than compensation as commissioner. (e) Hear and report findings and conclusions to the court for approval, rejection, or change, all preliminary matters including motions or petitions for the custody and support of children, the allowance of temporary spousal support, costs and attorneys' fees, and issues of fact in contempt proceedings in proceedings for support, dissolution of marriage, nullity of marriage, or legal separation. (f) Hear actions to establish paternity and to establish or enforce child and spousal support pursuant to subdivision (a) of Section 4251 of the Family Code. (g) Hear, report on, and determine all uncontested actions and proceedings subject to the requirements of subdivision (d).

Did I miss "summary judgment" somewhere?

KOI POND BY ROSS HUTCHENS

First Prize: "KOI POND" by Ross Hutchens

Washington, D.C., January 14, 2011 — The Competitive Enterprise Institute today sharply criticized the Environmental Protection Agency for its decision to revoke a Clean Water Act permit of an existing surface coal mine in Logan County, West Virginia as an abuse of power that will drive away investment in future energy projects and destroy jobs. “The EPA's rationale for revoking the Clean Water Act permit for the Spruce Fork Mine is to protect an insect that lives for a day, and which isn't even an endangered species ,” explained William Yeatman , a CEI energy policy expert . Yeatman has written extensively about the Obama Administration's attacks on surface coal mining in Appalachia . (See, e. g., “ Pests Over People ,” The Washington Times , May 2010.) “In this difficult economy,” Yeatman continued, “it is outrageous that the EPA would trade jobs for bugs, just so it can appease the President's environmental base. “Worse still, the EPA's ill-conceived bug protections threaten virtually all economic development. In order to crack down on the Spruce Fork Mine, the EPA had to manufacture a new “pollutant”—salinity,” said Yeatman. “The problem is that any surface disturbance can increase salinity in nearby streams. As a result, environmental pressure groups and NIMBY activists have a powerful new weapon with which they can stifle job creation.” “EPA's revocation of an already-granted permit for an operating mine is only the latest outrageous step in the Obama administration's campaign to scare away investment and destroy jobs in America's energy industries ,” said Myron Ebell , director of CEI's Center for Energy and Environment . “Who is going to invest in a new energy project if a permit can be yanked after the project is fully permitted and the investments have been made?” > See “ EPA Blasted as It Revokes Mine's Permit ” in today's Wall Street Journal and " Agency Revokes Permit for Major Coal Mining Project ," New York Times > Read more on energy policy at Globalwarming.org .

Business News

AIG pays Federal Reserve $47 billion

Published: Jan. 15, 2011 at 12:41 PM
Read more: http://www.upi.com/Business_News/2011/01/15/AIG-pays-Federal-Reserve-47-billion/UPI-74911295113275/#ixzz1BBICiHDf

NEW YORK, Jan. 15 (UPI) -- American International Group Inc. has paid off the Federal Reserve Bank of New York but U.S. taxpayers are still on the hook for $94 billion, officials said.

The New York Fed received $47 billion from AIG Friday and terminated the credit line it provided the insurance giant in its September 2008 bailout, The Wall Street Journal reported. Of that amount, $20 billion came from the U.S. Treasury Department, which separately exchanged $49 billion in preferred shares in AIG for common shares representing a 92.1 percent ownership stake it intends to sell down the road.

Treasury will reap a profit if it can sell its AIG shares above $28.70, the Journal said. The stock was at $54 Friday.

The current bailout total outstanding is down from $120 billion earlier, the Journal said.

The repayment by AIG "concludes an important effort by the Federal Reserve to stabilize the financial system in order to protect the U.S. economy," said New York Fed President William Dudley.

The government is "optimistic that taxpayers will get back every dollar of their investment in AIG," said Timothy Geithner, secretary of the Treasury.

Of the money AIG repaid Friday, $27 billion came from proceeds of its recent asset sales.

"Today truly marks a new beginning," AIG Chief Executive Officer Robert Benmosche said. "We recognize that we have to stand on our own and meet the expectations of the marketplace."

AIG is still a large and diversified insurance company after selling most of its overseas life insurance businesses to repay taxpayers, Benmosche said.

"Our performance has improved, we've pulled out of the crisis, and you will see AIG continue to grow as it did before," Benmosche said.

 

U.S. Supreme Court Denies Paint Companies' Due Process Appeal

WASHINGTON, D.C. - The U.S. Supreme Court on Jan. 10 denied certiorari to paint companies that formerly made lead-based paint, which had contended that the California Supreme Court erred when it allowed contingency fee agreements between a group of California municipalities and private plaintiffs' counsel. The agreements had been used to cover the costs of suing the paint companies for allegedly creating a public nuisance (Atlantic Richfield Company, et al. v. County of Santa Clara, et al., No. 10-546, U.S. Sup.; See December 2010, Page 4). Full story on lexis.com

EPA's revocation of Spruce mine Clean Water Act permit has ‘staggering implications'

For the first time EPA has revoked a previously issued, valid Clean Water Act Section 404 permit for a U.S. mining project, an action officials say jeopardizes far more than mining.

Author: Dorothy Kosich
Posted:  Friday , 14 Jan 2011

RENO, NV  - 

The EPA has made good on its threat to revoke Clean Water Section 404 permits for coal mining operations in Appalachia, announcing Thursday it would use its authority to revoke the permit allowing disposal of mining waste at the Mingo-Logan Coal Company's Spruce No. 1 coal mine in West Virginia.

The agency has now officially revoked a permit granted by the Bush Administration in 2007 to the coal mining project being developed by parent company Arch Coal of St. Louis.

The decision resulted in protests from the National Mining Association and the Foundation for American Coal Energy, whose West Virginia executive director called it an assault on the U.S. Economy.

"Today's unprecedented action by the EPA offers more proof that this administration and the EPA are paying lip service to the employment and economic challenges this state and our country are facing," said Bryan Brown, West Virginia executive director of FACES of Coal. "Every road project, construction project or mine site that has received valid CWA 404 permits in the past is now in jeopardy of having that permit vetoed or revoked."

"It's absurd," Brown declared, vowing the organization will look to Congress for a remedy.

National Mining Association CEO Hal Quinn said, "EPA's veto of an existing, valid permit for the Spruce No. 1 mine threatens the certainty of all Section 404 permits. ...The Spruce permit was issued after a robust 10-year review, including an exhaustive Environmental Impact Statement."

"EPA participated fully in the comprehensive permitting process, and the project has abided by every permit requirement," Quinn noted. "NMA urges the administration to step back from this unwarranted action and restore trust in the sanctity of lawfully granted and abided by permits and the jobs and economic activity they support."

In a news release issued Thursday, EPA Assistant Administrator for Water Peter S. Silva said. "The proposed Spruce No. 1 Mine would use destructive and unsustainable mining practices that jeopardize the health of Appalachian communities and clean water on which they depend."

"Coal and coal mining are part of our nation's energy future and EPA has worked with companies to design mining operations that adequately protect our nation's waters," he added. "We have a responsibility under the law to protect water quality and safeguard the people who rely on clean water."

EPA said its decision came after discussions with the coal company "failed to produce an agreement that would lead to a significant decrease in impacts to the environment and Appalachian communities. ...Despite EPA's willingness to consider alternatives, Mingo Logan did not offer any new proposed mining configurations in response to EPA's Recommendation."

The agency said Spruce No. 1 would have buried more than "35,000 feet of high-quality streams under mining waste, which will eliminate all fish, small invertebrates, salamanders, and other wildlife that live in them."

In addition, EPA claimed Spruce No. 1 would have buried "more than six miles of high-quality streams in Logan County, West Virginia with millions of tons of mining waste from the dynamiting of more than 2,200 acres of mountains and forestlands."

Kim Link, Arch Coal's spokeswoman, told the New York Times "We remain shocked and dismayed at EPA's continued onslaught with respect to this validly issued permit."

"Furthermore, we believe this decision will have a chilling effect on future U.S. investment because every business possessing or requiring a permit under Section 4-4 of the Clean Water Act will fear similar overreaching by the EPA," she added. "It's a risk many businesses cannot afford to take."

In a letter to the chairwoman of the White House Council of Environmental Quality, a group of regulated industries said "every similarly valid permit held by any entity-business, public works agencies and individual citizens-will be in increased regulatory limbo and potential subject to the same unilateral, after-the-fact revocation."

"The implications could be staggering, reaching all areas of the U.S. economy including but not limited to the agriculture, home building, mining, transportation and energy sectors," they added.

Newly elected U.S. Sen. Joe Manchin, the former governor of West Virginia, declared," While the EPA decision hurts West Virginia today, it has negative ramifications for every state in our nation, and I strongly urge every Senator and every Member of Congress to voice their opposition."

"According to the EPA, it doesn't matter if you did everything right, if you follow all of the rules. ...They just change the rules," Manchin said. "But what the EPA doesn't seem to understand is that this decision has ramifications that reach far beyond coal mining in West Virginia."

He accused to the agency of "essentially sending a message to every business and industry that the federal government has no intention of honoring past promises and that no investment is safe."

However, environmental groups praised the EPA's decision. Jim Hecker, a lawyer at the Public Justice, said, "This veto is fully justified by the enormous harm that the mine would inflict and is the culmination of a legal battle that began in 1999 when the Corps made the outrageous decision that this huge mine burying over 10 miles of streams would have only ‘minimal' effects."

Earthjustice Senior Legislative Counsel Joan Mulhern said "we hope this veto will be the beginning of the end of the devastating practice of mountaintop mining by bringing the fundamental legal protection of the Clean Water Act to the whole Appalachian region, once and for all."

The Federalist, No. 45

"The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce;... The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State."

01/14/2011 Chilling Effect' MetroNews Talkline Washington, D.C.

 Congressman Nick Rahall: Spruce Mine Permit

"The EPA has crossed the line."

Rep. Griffith blasts EPA over revoked mining permit

Freshman U.S. Rep. Morgan Griffith, R-Va., joined a growing furor over a decision by the Environmental Protection Agency to revoke a surface mining permit in West Virginia.

The Spruce No. 1 Mine in southern West Virginia was approved four years ago. The EPA announced Thursday it was pulling the permit.

“Yesterday we witnessed another attempt by the EPA to scrap valuable American jobs in the coalfields for no reason,” Griffith, newly elected to represent Virginia's 9th District, said Friday. “In a time of troubling unemployment rates, I'm outraged that the EPA's Washington bureaucrats think it's a good idea to take away good-paying local jobs.”

Griffith said the Spruce No. 1 incident “marks the first time the EPA has ever vetoed a project that was previously granted a permit. This sets a dangerous precedent. If the EPA can grant a permit and then take it away, small businesses and working families are assured of the one thing they don't need more of — uncertainty.”

Read the expanded version of this report in the print edition or the enhanced electronic version of the Kingsport Times-News.

 

The Fed Has Spoken: No Bailout for Main Street

Friday 14 January 2011

by: Ellen Brown, t r u t h o u t | News Analysis

The Federal Reserve was set up by bankers, for bankers, and it has served them well. Out of the blue, the Fed came up with $12.3 trillion in nearly interest-free credit to bail the banks out of a credit crunch they created. That same credit crisis has plunged state and local governments into insolvency, but the Fed has now delivered its ultimatum: there will be no "quantitative easing" for municipal governments.

On January 7, according to The Wall Street Journal , Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke announced that the Fed had ruled out a central bank bailout of state and local governments. "We have no expectation or intention to get involved in state and local finance," he said in testimony before the Senate Budget Committee. The states "should not expect loans from the Fed."

So much for the proposal of President Barack Obama, reported in Reuters a year ago, to have the Fed buy municipal bonds to cut the heavy borrowing costs of cash-strapped cities and states.

The credit woes of state and municipal governments are a direct result of Wall Street's malfeasance. Their borrowing costs first shot up in 2008, when the "monoline" bond insurers lost their own credit ratings after gambling in derivatives. The Fed's low-interest facilities could have been used to restore local government credit, just as they were used to restore the credit of the banks. But Bernanke has now vetoed that plan.

Why? It can hardly be argued that the Fed doesn't have the money. The collective budget deficit of the states for 2011 is projected at $140 billion, a mere drop in the bucket compared to the sums the Fed managed to come up with to bail out the banks. According to data recently released, the central bank provided roughly $3.3 trillion in liquidity and $9 trillion in short-term loans and other financial arrangements to banks, multinational corporations and foreign financial institutions following the credit crisis of 2008.

The argument may be that continuing the Fed's controversial "quantitative easing" program (easing credit conditions by creating money with accounting entries) will drive the economy into hyperinflation. But creating $12.3 trillion for the banks - nearly 100 times the sum needed by state governments - did not have that dire effect. Rather, the money supply is shrinking   - by some estimates, at the fastest rate since the Great Depression. Creating another $140 billion would hardly affect the money supply at all.

Why didn't the $12.3 trillion drive the economy into hyperinflation? Because, contrary to popular belief, when the Fed engages in "quantitative easing," it is not simply printing money and giving it away. It is merely extending CREDIT, creating an overdraft on the account of the borrower to be paid back in due course. The Fed is simply replacing expensive credit from private banks (which also create the loan money on their books) with cheap credit from the central bank.

So why isn't the Fed open to advancing this cheap credit to the states? According to Bernanke, its hands are tied. He says the Fed is limited by statute to buying municipal government debt with maturities of six months or less that is directly backed by tax or other assured revenue, a form of debt that makes up less than 2 percent of the overall municipal market. Congress imposed that restriction, and only Congress can change it, said Bernanke.

That statement may sound like he is passing the buck, but he is probably right. Bailing out state and local governments IS outside the Fed's mandate. The Federal Reserve Act was drafted by bankers to create a bankers' bank that would serve their interests. No others need apply. The Federal Reserve is the bankers' own private club, and its legal structure keeps all non-members out.

Earlier Central Bank Ventures Into Commercial Lending

That is how the Fed is structured today, but it hasn't always been that way. In 1934, Section 13(b) was added to the Federal Reserve Act, authorizing the Fed to "make credit available for the purpose of supplying working capital to established industrial and commercial businesses." This long-forgotten section was implemented and remained in effect for 24 years. In a 2002 article called "Lender of More Than Last Resort," posted on the Minneapolis Fed's website, David Fettig summarized its provisions as follows:

Today, that venture into commercial banking sounds like a radical departure from the Fed's given role, but at the time it evidently seemed like a reasonable alternative. Fettig notes that "the Fed was still less than 20 years old and many likely remembered the arguments put forth during the System's founding, when some advocated that the discount window should be open to all comers, not just member banks." In Australia and other countries, the central bank was then assuming commercial as well as central bank functions.

Section 13(b) was repealed in 1958, but one state has kept its memory alive. In North Dakota, the publicly owned Bank of North Dakota (BND) acts as a "mini-Fed" for the state. Like the Federal Reserve of the 1930s and 1940s, the BND makes loans to local businesses and participates in loans made by local banks.

The BND has helped North Dakota escape the credit crisis. In 2009, when other states were teetering on bankruptcy, North Dakota sported the largest surplus it had ever had. Other states, whose own budget crises prompted them to explore alternatives, are now looking to North Dakota for inspiration.

The "Unusual and Exigent Circumstances" Exception

Click here to sign up for Truthout's FREE daily email updates.

Although Section 13(b) was repealed, the Federal Reserve Act retained enough vestiges of it in 2008 to allow the Fed to intervene to save a variety of non-bank entities from bankruptcy. The problem was that the tool was applied selectively. The recipients were major corporate players, not local businesses or local governments. Fettig writes:

Section 13(b) may be a memory ... but Section 13 paragraph 3 ... is alive and well in the Federal Reserve Act.... [T]his amendment allows, "in unusual and exigent circumstances," a Reserve bank to advance credit to individuals, partnerships and corporations that are not depository institutions.

In 2008, the Fed bailed out investment company Bear Stearns and insurer American International Group (AIG), neither of which was a bank. John Nichols reports in The Nation that Bear Stearns got almost $1 trillion in short-term loans, with interest rates as low as 0.5 percent. The Fed also made loans to other corporations, including General Electric (GE), McDonald's and Verizon.

In 2010, Section 13(3) was modified by the Dodd-Frank bill, which replaced the phrase "individuals, partnerships and corporations" with the vaguer phrase "any program or facility with broad-based eligibility." As explained in the notes to the bill:

Only Broad-Based Facilities Permitted. Section 13(3) is modified to remove the authority to extend credit to specific individuals, partnerships and corporations. Instead, the Board may authorize credit under section 13(3) only under a program or facility with "broad-based eligibility."

What programs have "broad-based eligibility" isn't clear from a reading of the Section, but long-term municipal bonds are evidently excluded. Bernanke said that if municipal defaults became a problem, it would be in Congress's hands, not his.

Congress could change the law, just as it did in 1934, 1958 and 2010. It could change the law to allow the Fed to help Main Street just as it helped Wall Street. But, as Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Illinois) blurted out on a radio program in April 2009, Congress is owned by the banks. Changes in the law today are more likely to go the other way. Mike Whitney, writing for Global Research in December 2010, noted :

So far, not one CEO or CFO of a major investment bank or financial institution has been charged, arrested, prosecuted, or convicted in what amounts to the largest incident of securities fraud in history. In the much-smaller Savings and Loan investigation, more than 1,000 people were charged and convicted.... [T]he system is broken and the old rules no longer apply.

The old rules no longer apply because they have been changed to suit the moneyed interests that hold Congress and the Fed captive. The law has been changed not only to keep the guilty out of jail, but to preserve their exorbitant profits and bonuses at the expense of their victims.

To do this, the Federal Reserve had to take "extraordinary measures." They were extraordinary, but not illegal, because the Fed's congressional mandate made them legal. Nobody's permission even had to be sought. Section 13(3) of the Federal Reserve Act allows the Fed to do what it needs to do in "unusual and exigent circumstances" to save its constituents.

If you're a bank, it seems, anything goes. If you're not a bank, you're on your own.

So Who Will Save the States?

Highlighting the immediacy of the local government budget crisis, The Wall Street Journal quoted Meredith Whitney, a banking analyst who recently turned to analyzing state and local finances. She said on a recent broadcast of CBS's "60 Minutes" that, in 2011, the US could see "50 to 100 sizable defaults" amounting to "hundreds of billions of dollars" among its local governments.

If the Fed could so easily come up with $12.3 trillion to save the banks, why can't it find a few hundred billion under the mattress to save the states? Obviously, it could, if Congress were inclined to put non-bank lending back into the Fed's job description. Then why isn't that being done? The cynical view is that the states are purposely being kept on the edge of bankruptcy because the banks that hold Congress hostage want the interest income and the control.

Whatever the reason, Congress is standing down while the nation is sinking. Congress must summon the courage to take needed action, and that action is not to impose "austerity" by cutting services at a time when an already squeezed populace most needs them. Rather, Congress must create the jobs that will generate real productivity. To do this, it would not even have to go through the Federal Reserve. It could issue its own debt-free money and spend it on repairing and modernizing our decaying infrastructure, among other needed works. Congress's task will become easier if the people stand with them in demanding action, but Congress is now so gridlocked that change may still be long in coming.

In the meantime, the states could take matters into their own hands and set up their own state-owned banks based on the BND's model. They could then have their own very low-interest credit lines, just as the Wall Street banks do. Rather than spending or selling off valuable public assets or hoarding them in massive rainy day funds made necessary by the lack of ready credit, states could leverage their assets into a very strong and abundant local credit system, following the accepted business practices of the Wall Street banks themselves.

On January 13, the Public Banking Institute is being launched to explore that alternative.

Building Strong

Lt. Gen. Robert L. Van Antwerp fortifies USACE for the future.

Ask Lt. Gen. Robert L. Van Antwerp what he's most proud of as his tenure as USACE chief of engineers and commanding general nears its conclusion and he'll tell you over and over, “It's our people.”

From day one on the job, Gen. “Van” has sought to improve the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) by strengthening its greatest asset – the dedicated Soldiers and civilians who execute the command's vital missions around the world. Armed with a strategy now known Corps-wide as the “Campaign Plan,” Van Antwerp has made the development and recruitment of human capital a priority. In parallel, he has encouraged USACE personnel to cultivate a culture of innovation from the division and district levels right down to the individual.

Appeals court upholds Utah Superfund listing

THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

WASHINGTON -- A federal appeals court has upheld the Environmental Protection Agency's addition of an U.S. Magnesium site in Utah to the Superfund list.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit dismissed the company's challenge on Friday.

The 4,525-acre site about 40 miles west of Salt Lake City has been used for magnesium production since 1972.

EPA officials say the site is heavily contaminated. Company officials have said the EPA overstated any hazards. But the appeals court says the agency's decision was not "arbitrary or capricious."

Superfund listings are only for the most contaminated places. It makes cleanup a national priority and allow the EPA and state officials to oversee the work.

Energy.gov Gets a Facelift for the Short Term

Nancy Scola | January 10, 2011 - 4:09pm | Email This!

 

136th ANNIVERSARY OF THE LOST CALIFORNIA FOREST

ARMAN CONSERVATORY COLLEGE OF THE HUMMINGBIRD

RANCHO DE LOS PERDIDO CABECERA DEL RIO BUENAVENTURA

IRON MOUNTAIN MINES INSTITUTE - MR. T.W. ARMAN

CALIFORNIA AGRICULTURAL COLLEGE LAND GRANT IN LIEU OF LAND IN THE RANCH BUENAVENTURA

...there's no instance where we have recorded levels of heavy metal above the drinking water standard. EPA project manager Tom Mix - 1985;

EPA PUBLIC HEARING - IRON MOUNTAIN MINES

CHRIST OF THE MINERS ON IRON MOUNTAIN

HOME | RELIEF

MANUFACTURED JURISDICTION: "the circumstances relied upon to establish federal jurisdiction over the offenses charged were artificially created by the Government in an attempt to exceed the proper scope of federal law enforcement." 501 F.Supp. at 1205. The revised PHG of 300 g/L is two orders of magnitude greater than the applicable numeric chemical-specific standards identified in ROD 5 for the protection of freshwater. COPPER, CADMIUM, AND ZINC; QAPP Information: QA Info Missing; Keswick dam to Cottonwood creek; Final Listing Decision: Delist from 303(d) list. JUNE 15, 2010;

TITLE 28 > PART VI > CHAPTER 158 > § 2348 Prev | Next

§ 2348. Representation in proceeding; intervention

How Current is This? The Attorney General is responsible for and has control of the interests of the Government in all court proceedings under this chapter. The agency, and any party in interest in the proceeding before the agency whose interests will be affected if an order of the agency is or is not enjoined, set aside, or suspended, may appear as parties thereto of their own motion and as of right, and be represented by counsel in any proceeding to review the order. Communities, associations, corporations, firms, and individuals, whose interests are affected by the order of the agency, may intervene in any proceeding to review the order. The Attorney General may not dispose of or discontinue the proceeding to review over the objection of any party or intervenor, but any intervenor may prosecute, defend, or continue the proceeding unaffected by the action or inaction of the Attorney General.

TITLE 28 > PART VI > CHAPTER 158 > § 2343 Prev | Next

§ 2343. Venue

How Current is This? The venue of a proceeding under this chapter is in the judicial circuit in which the petitioner resides or has its principal office, or in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.


TITLE 28 > PART VI > CHAPTER 158 > § 2351 Prev | Next

§ 2351. Enforcement of orders by district courts

How Current is This? The several district courts have jurisdiction specifically to enforce, and to enjoin and restrain any person from violating any order issued under section 193 of title 7 .

TITLE 7 > CHAPTER 9 > SUBCHAPTER II > Part A > § 193 Prev | Next

§ 193. Procedure before Secretary for violations

How Current is This? (a) Complaint; hearing; intervention Whenever the Secretary has reason to believe that any packer or swine contractor has violated or is violating any provision of this subchapter, he shall cause a complaint in writing to be served upon the packer or swine contractor, stating his charges in that respect, and requiring the packer or swine contractor to attend and testify at a hearing at a time and place designated therein, at least thirty days after the service of such complaint; and at such time and place there shall be afforded the packer or swine contractor a reasonable opportunity to be informed as to the evidence introduced against him (including the right of cross-examination), and to be heard in person or by counsel and through witnesses, under such regulations as the Secretary may prescribe. Any person for good cause shown may on application be allowed by the Secretary to intervene in such proceeding, and appear in person or by counsel. At any time prior to the close of the hearing the Secretary may amend the complaint; but in case of any amendment adding new charges the hearing shall, on the request of the packer or swine contractor, be adjourned for a period not exceeding fifteen days. (b) Report and order; penalty If, after such hearing, the Secretary finds that the packer or swine contractor has violated or is violating any provisions of this subchapter covered by the charges, he shall make a report in writing in which he shall state his findings as to the facts, and shall issue and cause to be served on the packer or swine contractor an order requiring such packer or swine contractor to cease and desist from continuing such violation. The testimony taken at the hearing shall be reduced to writing and filed in the records of the Department of Agriculture. The Secretary may also assess a civil penalty of not more than $10,000 for each such violation. In determining the amount of the civil penalty to be assessed under this section, the Secretary shall consider the gravity of the offense, the size of the business involved, and the effect of the penalty on the person's ability to continue in business. If, after the lapse of the period allowed for appeal or after the affirmance of such penalty, the person against whom the civil penalty is assessed fails to pay such penalty, the Secretary may refer the matter to the Attorney General who may recover such penalty by an action in the appropriate district court of the United States. (c) Amendment of report or order Until the record in such hearing has been filed in a court of appeals of the United States, as provided in section 194 of this title, the Secretary at any time, upon such notice and in such manner as he deems proper, but only after reasonable opportunity to the packer or swine contractor to be heard, may amend or set aside the report or order, in whole or in part. (d) Service of process Complaints, orders, and other processes of the Secretary under this section may be served in the same manner as provided in section 45 of title 15 .

TITLE 28 > PART VI > CHAPTER 158 > § 2347 Prev | Next

TITLE 5 > PART I

PART I—THE AGENCIES GENERALLY

How Current is This?

TITLE 5 > PART I > CHAPTER 5 > SUBCHAPTER II

SUBCHAPTER II—ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE

How Current is This?

 

TITLE 5 > PART I > CHAPTER 5 > SUBCHAPTER II > § 553 Prev | Next

§ 553. Rule making

How Current is This? (a) This section applies, according to the provisions thereof, except to the extent that there is involved— (1) a military or foreign affairs function of the United States; or (2) a matter relating to agency management or personnel or to public property, loans, grants, benefits, or contracts. (b) General notice of proposed rule making shall be published in the Federal Register, unless persons subject thereto are named and either personally served or otherwise have actual notice thereof in accordance with law. The notice shall include— (1) a statement of the time, place, and nature of public rule making proceedings; (2) reference to the legal authority under which the rule is proposed; and (3) either the terms or substance of the proposed rule or a description of the subjects and issues involved. Except when notice or hearing is required by statute, this subsection does not apply— (A) to interpretative rules, general statements of policy, or rules of agency organization, procedure, or practice; or (B) when the agency for good cause finds (and incorporates the finding and a brief statement of reasons therefor in the rules issued) that notice and public procedure thereon are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest. (c) After notice required by this section, the agency shall give interested persons an opportunity to participate in the rule making through submission of written data, views, or arguments with or without opportunity for oral presentation. After consideration of the relevant matter presented, the agency shall incorporate in the rules adopted a concise general statement of their basis and purpose. When rules are required by statute to be made on the record after opportunity for an agency hearing, sections 556 and 557 of this title apply instead of this subsection. (d) The required publication or service of a substantive rule shall be made not less than 30 days before its effective date, except— (1) a substantive rule which grants or recognizes an exemption or relieves a restriction; (2) interpretative rules and statements of policy; or (3) as otherwise provided by the agency for good cause found and published with the rule. (e) Each agency shall give an interested person the right to petition for the issuance, amendment, or repeal of a rule.

 

§ 2347. Petitions to review; proceedings

How Current is This? (a) Unless determined on a motion to dismiss, petitions to review orders reviewable under this chapter are heard in the court of appeals on the record of the pleadings, evidence adduced, and proceedings before the agency, when the agency has held a hearing whether or not required to do so by law. (b) When the agency has not held a hearing before taking the action of which review is sought by the petition, the court of appeals shall determine whether a hearing is required by law. After that determination, the court shall— (1) remand the proceedings to the agency to hold a hearing, when a hearing is required by law; (2) pass on the issues presented, when a hearing is not required by law and it appears from the pleadings and affidavits filed by the parties that no genuine issue of material fact is presented; or (3) transfer the proceedings to a district court for the district in which the petitioner resides or has its principal office for a hearing and determination as if the proceedings were originally initiated in the district court, when a hearing is not required by law and a genuine issue of material fact is presented. The procedure in these cases in the district court is governed by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (c) If a party to a proceeding to review applies to the court of appeals in which the proceeding is pending for leave to adduce additional evidence and shows to the satisfaction of the court that— (1) the additional evidence is material; and (2) there were reasonable grounds for failure to adduce the evidence before the agency; the court may order the additional evidence and any counterevidence the opposite party desires to offer to be taken by the agency. The agency may modify its findings of fact, or make new findings, by reason of the additional evidence so taken, and may modify or set aside its order, and shall file in the court the additional evidence, the modified findings or new findings, and the modified order or the order setting aside the original order.

 

 

The only remedial action found (CA-10) to be fully protective of human health and the environment is the complete removal of the source. (i.e. finish the mining.) EPA 1985

Nothing Comes From Nothing

 

expanding private sector partnerships.

(Rules of the road? Stay out of ditch, AVOID IMPACT!)

 a diriment impediment

Vetitum tempus clausum, conditio servilis, vis et metus

 

SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE

 

 

 

CONTACT:
EPA Press Office
press@epa.gov

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
January 14, 2011


EPA Administrator to Participate in Martin Luther King, Jr. Day of Service Events

WASHINGTON – On Monday, Jan. 17, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lisa P. Jackson will commemorate Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Day during two events. First, she will join U.S. Department of Education Secretary Arne Duncan, Reverend Al Sharpton, and a number of elected officials, at a breakfast hosted by the National Action Network, where she will give remarks. The breakfast is titled “Concrete Progress toward King's Dream” and will focus on the advancements made toward equality in the U.S.

Later, Jackson will speak to participants during Kid Power Inc.'s community service event at Tubman Elementary and tour the school's citizen farm. The event will highlight the importance of access to healthy foods in urban environments and the roles of youth and schools in environmental protection and education.

Both events are open to the press.

Monday, January 17, 2011

9:15 a.m. Administrator Jackson Joins U.S. Department of Education Secretary Arne
Duncan, Reverend Al Sharpton, and others at National Action Network Breakfast

The Madison Hotel (Dolly Madison Ballroom)
1177 15th St. NW
Washington, DC

*Note: Reporters wishing to attend this event must RSVP to press@epa.gov

11:00 a.m. Administrator Jackson Kicks Off Kid Power Inc.'s community service event

Tubman Elementary School
3101 13th St. NW
Washington, DC

*Note: Reporters wishing to attend this event must RSVP to press@epa.gov

R016

Note: If a link above doesn't work, please copy and paste the URL into a browser.

View all news releases related to miscellaneous topics

EPA: Water administrator resigns



Greenwire
January 14, 2011

Paul Quinlan, E&E reporter

U.S. EPA's top water official, Pete Silva, announced his resignation today.

Silva, whom President Obama appointed the assistant administrator for water in July 2009, plans to return to his home and family in California, EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson said in a memo to staff.

The announcement of Silva's departure comes a day after his office made a controversial decision to revoke the permit of one of the largest mountaintop mines ever proposed in Appalachia (Greenwire, Jan. 13).

The decision on the West Virginia mine came as EPA's water office worked on regulations of ash from coal-burning plants and pollution limits for stormwater discharges. The office is also working on clarifying which waterways and wetlands it regulates under the Clean Water Act.

"During his tenure, Pete has led a wide range of important actions to help protect the water we drink and safeguard the health of millions of Americans," Jackson wrote. "We have greatly valued his service, and we offer him our deepest thanks as he prepares to embrace new opportunities. We are beginning the search for his successor."

Nancy Stoner, who came from the Natural Resources Defense Council to become the deputy assistant administrator for the water office, will serve as acting assistant administrator in Silva's absence. Silva leaves Feb. 12.

"Nancy is exceptionally talented and knowledgeable, and I am confident that she will continue to contribute significantly to the office's excellent work in this role," Jackson wrote.

Jackson also announced the appointment of Bicky Corman as deputy associate administrator for the Office of Policy and Joel Beauvais as senior adviser in the Office of General Counsel.

Blunt blasts EPA for Ameren lawsuit

Republican Sen. Roy Blunt blasted the Environmental Protection Agency for a lawsuit filed earlier in the week against Ameren Missouri for alleged Clean Air Act violations at the utility's Rush Island power plant.

In a letter sent Friday to EPA Adminsitrator Lisa Jackson, and obtained by the Post-Dispatch , Blunt said Ameren is being punished for making improvements at the Rush Island power plant that were "clearly aimed at reducing emissions."

"It would not be difficult to draw the conclusion that this recent lawsuit is another backdoor method used by the EPA to broadly penalize the use of coal in the United States," Blunt wrote. "To the extent that the EPA's efforts to deter the use of coal through executive fiat are furthered through the lawsuit against Ameren and its modification program at the Rush Island plant, I intend to closely examine the motives behind this legal action."

 

 

EPA ENFORCEMENT | AUDIT NOTICE | RISKS

NEPA is supposed to be about good decision-making — not endless documentation.

...there's no instance where we have recorded levels of heavy metal above the drinking water standard. EPA project manager Tom Mix - 1985;

EPA PUBLIC HEARING - IRON MOUNTAIN MINES

Dear Mr. Hutchens

  This is in follow up to Mr. Arman's January 29, 2008 letter of introduction. As Mr. Arman has requested in his letter, EPA will transmit copies of all future "correspondence concerning the high density sludge or the acid mine drainage or matters relater thereto" to you as well as Mr. Arman.

  Mr. Arman provided the following address and contact information:

  Mr. John Hutchens

P.O. Box 182

Canyon , CA 94516

  Phone: 925-878-9167

  If this information is correct, there is no need to reply to this email.

  Sincerely,

  Rick Sugarek

2/25/2008

 

The Colbert Report Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c
The Word - Priceless
www.colbertnation.com
Colbert Report Full Episodes Political Humor & Satire Blog</a> Video Archive
 

" Eritis insuperabiles, si fueritis inseparabiles. Explosum est illud diverbium: Divide, & impera, cum radix & vertex imperii in obedientium consensus rata sunt. " [You would be insuperable if you were inseparable. This proverb, Divide and rule, has been rejected, since the root and the summit of authority are confirmed by the consent of the subjects.] Lord Coke

The Constitution in One Sentence

In a certain sense, the Tenth Amendment—the last of the 10 amendments that make up the Bill of Rights—is but a truism that adds nothing to the original Constitution. Since the federal government only possesses those powers which are delegated to it (Article I, Section 1), this amendment merely restates that all powers not delegated are in fact reserved to the States or to the sovereign people. In this sense, the Tenth Amendment concisely articulates the very idea and structure of a government of limited powers. The Tenth Amendment reinforces the federal system created by the Constitution and acts as a bulwark against federal intrusion on state authority and individual liberty. While the Supreme Court has countenanced a far-reaching expansion of federal power since the New Deal, Congress, as a co-equal branch of government, is not bound by these precedents and should uphold the concept of federalism embodied in this amendment. This essay is adapted from The Heritage Guide to the Constitution for a new series providing constitutional guidance for lawmakers.

“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

— Amendment 10

Call for Justice at Superfund Sites

EPA staff forced to ignore science

EPA Signs Agreement for State Voluntary Cleanup Program

EPA Said to Have Suppressed, Misclassified Records

Internal Audit Suggests EPA Complicit in Environmental Racism

Why the Environmental Protection Agency must be abolished

The Colbert Report Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c
Colbert Report: 07007 Pt. 2
www.colbertnation.com
Colbert Report Full Episodes Political Humor & Satire Blog</a> Video Archive

The Fertilizer Institute: Water Works

For The Fertilizer Institute and its members, water issues will take center stage in 2011.

Getting a handle on the legislative outlook for 2011 requires first a look to the recent past. After the wild 2010 mid-term election, the dust is still settling in Washington, DC. In November, voters gave the Republicans a majority in the U.S. House of Representatives and allowed the Democrats to hold onto the majority by a slim margin in the Senate. In the House, Republicans won more than 60 seats.

As in past elections, being an incumbent was not much of a safety net. Three senior Democratic Committee Chairmen — Rep. John M. Spratt, Jr. (SC), the chairman of the House Budget Committee, Rep. Ike Skelton (MO), chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, and Rep. James L. Oberstar, chairman of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, were all defeated.

In the Senate, Blanche Lincoln (D-AR), Chairman of the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry was defeated by Rep. John Boozman (R-AR). Republicans also gained seats in Florida, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Kentucky, Wisconsin, North Dakota and Alaska.

An 11th-hour effort was underway in the “lame duck” session of Congress to include S.1816 The Chesapeake Clean Water and Ecosystem Restora­tion Act, and in the potential Lands, Waters and Wildlife omnibus legislation. The fertilizer industry and the agriculture community should be aware that S.1816 would pose significant negative changes to the Clean Water Act.

Advocates of the bill are claiming that the tough measures found in S.1816 are justified based upon the results of the draft USDA “Assessment of the Effects of Conservation Practices on Cultivated Cropland in the Chesa­peake Bay Region” showing the contributions of agriculture to the Bay. In order to address false claims such as these, The Fertilizer Institute ( TFI ), the Agricultural Retailers Association ( ARA ) and other members of the Ag­ricultural Nutrient Policy Council ( ANPC ) recently asked LimnoTech , one of the nation's leading water sciences and environmental engineering consulting firms, to compare the assumptions and numbers found in the USDA study and EPA 's Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL). The comparison revealed astounding differences between USDA and EPA data concerning pollutant loadings for the Chesapeake Bay. The technical conclusions reached by LimnoTech about the implications of the very different data used by USDA and EPA call into serious question the validity of EPA's scientific conclusions regarding the role of agriculture as a source of pollutants and the need for the overly aggressive measures now called for by EPA.

Water, Water Everywhere

Another water-related issue is coming from Washington — but this time from EPA. Partially in response to an environmental litigant's lawsuit, EPA has taken over the development of numeric nutrient criteria (NNC) for the state of Florida. The first of these were issued in November. Wisconsin, responding to pressures from EPA and the environmental community, is now adopting NNC for phosphorous. Kansas may very well be the next battleground for this issue and TFI currently estimates that approximately 44 states have NNC under development in one form or another. Most states' NNC work is in a holding pattern as states are all watching to see what EPA does with the NNC for Florida, under the reasonable assumption that the approaches/levels used there will be what EPA will accept from other states.

What are NNC and why do they matter? Nutrient criteria are part of the internal, technical workings of the Clean Water Act (CWA), within the general grouping of the CWA technical program called “Water Quality Standards” (WQS). The WQS program and the water quality criteria within it are the “guts” of Clean Water Act implementation.

Regulators use water quality criteria as one of the direct guides to allowable pollutant quantities in a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES), permit holder's discharge and to determine what is considered acceptable in discharges from non-point sources. Additionally, water quality criteria are used by regulators to judge if a water body contains too much of a specified pollutant and if it is unable to meet its “designated use,” thereby classifying it is as “impaired” under the CWA.

Once a water body is identified as “impaired” under the CWA, the TMDL program is triggered with its cascading requirements and issues, as is now unfolding in the Chesapeake Bay.

Nutrient criteria within the WQS can be classified as either narrative or numeric. An example of a narrative nutrient criteria might be “No phosphorous will be allowed in this stream at levels that will prevent desired levels of aquatic flora and fauna.”

Fighting Back

In early December, TFI filed a legal challenge to EPA's rule. The lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida Pensacola Division. In the complaint, the lawsuit contends that:
¦ EPA's Final Rule is unlawful and should be vacated because it establishes water quality criteria that ignore causation, regulate water bodies that are achieving their designated use and restrict nutrients that do not cause impairment.
¦ By using simple and overly broad statistical principles EPA's rule will classify a certain percentage of water bodies as impaired when they in fact are not.
¦ EPA's new criteria usurp Florida's statutory authority to develop standards and are fundamentally in conflict with Florida's existing efforts to implement narrative water quality standard for nutrients.
¦ EPA unlawfully ignored the requirements that water quality criteria be based on true biological impairment and instead established numeric criteria for nitrogen and phosphorus in water bodies where they would not actually cause such an imbalance.
¦ EPA's shortcut numeric criteria are not based on sound scientific rationale or scientifically defensible methods because they would unlawfully restrict nitrogen and phosphorus in lakes, streams and springs that are not impaired. In other instances, where the lakes, streams or springs are impaired, EPA's standards will unlawfully regulate nutrients that are not causing the impairment.
¦ EPA's regulation wrongly assumes that nitrogen and phosphorus levels above EPA's numeric criteria will cause algal growth and thus impairment.
¦ EPA has ignored its own Science Advisory Board and set nitrogen standards when in fact nitrogen is not limiting (and thus not responsible) for impairment in fresh water bodies.

A New Climate For Climate Change

The significant change in the makeup of the new Congress most likely mean that “cap-and-trade” style climate legislation is off the table — at least in the short term. As is the case with water issues, we are faced with a very active (and activist) EPA that is moving forward with several rules to control greenhouse gas emissions. In total, at least six separate rule-makings that could impact the fertilizer industry. While several of these rules are the subject of legal challenges from other potentially regulated industries, EPA has made it clear that it believes it has the authority to move forward and is doing so.

About the author:

Mathers is director, public affairs for The Fertilizer Institute, Washington, DC.

Karen Ross Appointed Secretary

Iron Mountain Mine congratulates Karen Ross on her appointment by Governor Brown as the next Secretary of the California Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA). Her appointment comes at a critical time in terms of preparing to support California agriculture in addressing a changing climate. At CalCAN, we are looking forward to working with the new Secretary on this issue.

Karen Ross has a long tenure of promoting the economic and environmental sustainability of California agriculture. Ms. Ross served for many years as the President of the California Association of Winegrape Growers and a member of the State Food and Agriculture Board. She currently serves at the Chief of Staff for USDA Secretary Tom Vilsack.

According to Rich Rominger, “Governor Brown selected the best person for California Department of Food and Agriculture. Karen Ross is the leader we need to address the critical issues of agriculture, water, clean energy development and climate change.” Rominger was CDFA Secretary under then-Governor Brown from 1977 to 1982 and Deputy Secretary of USDA from 1993 to 2001.

California agriculture is $35 billion industry, covering a quarter of the state's land mass and providing nearly half of the country's fresh fruits, nuts and vegetables. Climate change scenarios suggest that in the coming years the industry will struggle with climate-related impacts such as water scarcity, extreme weather events, more intense and frequent floods and droughts, and rising temperatures. Resources, such as research, technical assistance for growers and financial incentives for on-farm conservation practices, are needed to support California agriculture in coping with a changing climate.

California agriculture is $35 billion industry, covering a quarter of the state's land mass and providing nearly half of the country's fresh fruits, nuts and vegetables.

OVERSIGHT, FORESIGHT, AND BACKSIGHT INITIATIVE

PUBLIC MEETING | TRUST

ORDERS TO VACATE PREMISESORDERS TO VACATE PREMISES

T.W. ARMAN, A SEAMAN'S WIDOW, THREE PRIVATES AND A TEAMSTER, TWO MINERS AND 360 ACRES OF LAND, &e

CONGRESS

 

 

View
Image

Patentee Name

State

County

Issue
Date

Land Office

Doc.
Nr.

Accession/
Serial Nr.

1

CAMDEN, CHARLES  

CA 

Shasta 

5/1/1862 

Marysville 

85827 

MW-0152-028 

2

CAMDEN, CHARLES  

CA 

Shasta 

5/1/1862 

Marysville 

87600 

MW-0152-031 

3

CAMDEN, CHARLES  

CA 

Shasta 

5/1/1862 

Marysville 

93686 

MW-0152-032 

4

CAMDEN, CHARLES  

CA 

Shasta 

5/1/1862 

Marysville 

96592 

MW-0152-029 

5

CAMDEN, CHARLES  

CA 

Shasta 

5/1/1862 

Marysville 

99111 

MW-0152-030 

6. A certified copy of a judgment or an abstract thereof, recorded April 15, 1994 as Book 3157,
Page 517 of Official Records.
Court: Superior Court of the State of California, County of Shasta
Case No.: 104079
Debtor: Iron Mountain Mines, Inc., a California corporation, and Does 1-
20
Creditor: People of the State of California, ex rel. California Regional
Water Quality Control Board, Central Valley Region
Amount: $250,000.00, and any other amounts due thereunder.
The lien of the judgment has been extended as evidenced by the document recorded
March 31, 2004 as Instrument No. 2004-0017790 of Official Records.
7. The terms and provisions contained in the document entitled Notice of Lien Under
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation & Liability Act of 1980, as Amended, 42
U.S.C. 9607(1) recorded May 11, 2000 as Instrument No. 2000-0016716 of Official Records.
8. A certified copy of a judgment or an abstract thereof, recorded August 08, 2000 as Instrument
No. 2000-0028302 of Official Records.
Court: Sacramento Superior Court
Case No.: 99AM06040
Debtor: Iron Mountain Mines, Inc., a California corporation
Creditor: RMC Lonestar, a California general partnership
Amount: $10,915.42, and any other amounts due thereunder.
9. The terms and provisions contained in the document entitled Memorandum of Joint Venture
Development and Operating Agreement recorded January 28, 2009 as Instrument No. 2009-
0002640 of Official Records.
10. Rights of parties in possession.
11. Additional matters, if any, following review by the Company’s Waterways and Boundaries
Underwriters.

F. WITH RESPECT TO A TRUST:
a. A certification pursuant to Section 18500.5 of the California Probate Code in a
form satisfactory to the Company.
b. Copies of those excerpts from the original trust documents and amendments
thereto which designate the trustee and confer upon the trustee the power to act
in the pending transaction.
c. Other requirements which the Company may impose following its review of the
material require herein and other information which the Company may require.
G. WITH RESPECT TO INDIVIDUALS:
a. A statement of information.


REMISSION

The year 2010 marked the 160th anniversary of Shasta County, the 30 th anniversary of Superfund, and the 18 th anniversary of the National Law Journal's work that found inequitable enforcement of environmental laws by race and income.

Expected outcomes:

Land Use Planning; Public Participation in Decision Making; EJ in Indian Country; EJ in Mining Territory

Policies on Key Issues (and measures taken to address them), such as but not limited to:

DISCOVERIES! Geißler, L. & Seifert, Th. (2010): The son of Mother Lode? State and perspectives of the gold deposit research in the French Gulch-Deadwood district, Klamath Mountains, USA. – International Forum-Competition of Young Researchers “Topical Issues of Subsoil Usages”, 21.-23. April 2010, St. Petersburg State Mining Institute. LOCATION

A Constitutional Convention Can Rein in Washington

BY JAMES M. LEMUNYON - THE WALL STREET JOURNAL - OPINION

The U.S. Congress is in a state of serious disrepair and cannot fix itself. It has reached this point over the course of many years—in fact over many decades. Regardless of the party in power, Congress has demonstrated a growing inability to effectively address the major issues of our time, including soaring federal debt and the extension of federal authority to states and localities.

The only effective remedy is constitutional reform to rein in congressional excesses and abuses. But Congress can't be expected to propose amendments to fix itself, as it has an inherent conflict of interest.

The remedy is in Article V of the Constitution, which permits a convention to be called for the purpose of proposing constitutional amendments. Any proposed amendment then would have to be ratified by both houses of 38 state legislatures (three-fourths of the states). This entails 76 separate votes in the affirmative by two houses of the 38 state legislatures. (Nebraska, with its unicameral legislature, would be an exception.)

Interest in calling a first-ever Article V convention is growing at the state level. A petition for such a convention passed the Florida Senate last month, to propose amendments requiring a balanced budget and to restrain the growth of the national government. If approved by the House, Florida would be the 20th state with an active call to do so. In the Virginia House of Delegates, I introduced a resolution (H.J. 183) calling for a constitutional convention to restrain the national government as well. Requests by two-thirds or 34 states are required for a convention to be called.

Under the U.S. Constitution, Congress has the power to make criminal only four types of conduct: treason, counterfeiting, piracies and felonies on the high seas, and offenses against the laws of nations.

The U.S. Declaration of Independence states that "when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty , to throw off such Government"

"When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty". - Thomas Jefferson

“I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies.  Already they have raised up a moneyed aristocracy that has set the government at defiance. The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs.”   – Thomas Jefferson 

“WHEN ALL GOVERNMENT, DOMESTIC AND FOREIGN, IN LITTLE AS IN GREAT THINGS, SHALL BE DRAWN TO WASHINGTON AS THE CENTER OF POWER, IT WILL RENDER POWERLESS THE CHECKS PROVIDED OF ONE GOVERNMENT ON ANOTHER AND WILL BECOME AS VENAL AND OPPRESSIVE AS THE GOVERNMENT FROM WHICH WE SEPARATED.” – Thomas Jefferson

Congress has the right to make any law that is ‘necessary and proper' for the execution of its enumerated powers (Art. I, Sec. 8, Cl. 18).     

CERCLA is a coercive intolerable act, "impolitic, unjust, and cruel,"

We are entitled to life, liberty, and property, and we have never ceded to any sovereign power whatever, a right to dispose of either without our consent.

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

You have obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing your Assent to the constitutional limitations of Federal Judiciary Powers.

You have erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our People, and eat out our substance.

You have kept among us, in times of peace, a Standing Army without our Consent.

You have combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving your Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:

You have abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of your Protection and waging War against us.

For depriving us of the benefits of Trial by Jury:

You have plundered our Trusts, ravaged our Lands, burnt our Township, and destroyed the lives of our people.

In every stage of these Oppressions we have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Judge, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the Judge of a free people.

The sole excuse for 30 years of piracy, extortion, despotism, tyranny, and oppression against Mr. T.W. Arman is the cost of dilution water from Shasta dam during droughts for the protection of the juvenile fish hatched and propogated in the artificial (i.e. manmade) Keswick lake.

Rather than allow the naturally occuring minerals to dissolve in stormwater runoff as it has for hundreds of thousands of years, the EPA chose to make an acutely toxic sludge and dispose it in a shoddily constructed disposal pit on top of the old brick flat open pit mine at Iron Mountain. The disposal pit has failed and the drainage is no longer recovered for treatment. It is unknown exactly where it drains to now.

Iron Mountain has accumulated over a billion pounds of this sludge. Despite constant efforts to initiate a recycling and reclamation plan, the EPA has defied every effort to implement an appropriate common sense approach to a remedy for this problem.

Congress trusts that the executive agencies will be good stewards of every taxpayer dollar. Clearly Administrator Jackson is not," Blackburn said.

Thomas A. Bloomfield - EPA Region 9
As the assistant regional counsel for Region 9 of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Thomas A. Bloomfield brokered a $1 billion settlement with the former owner of Iron Mountain Mine near Redding. The settlement is one of the largest in the history of both federal and California environmental protection programs and was made possible by an innovative insurance-based financing program.

In 1983 the EPA placed Iron Mountain on its Superfund list of the nation's most dangerous toxic sites. Litigation was brought by state and federal officials against the owner of the mine, formerly Rhone-Poulenc, now Aventis CropSciences USA, a chemical, pharmaceutical, and biotechnology company, for past and future cleanup costs.

The final settlement negotiated by Bloomfield sets up a finance program to fund a treatment plant that will process the contaminated runoff. The key piece of the deal is an insurance policy that will be purchased by the former owner of the mine and will pay out an estimated $200 million over 30 years for cleanup costs and will cover an additional $100 million if necessary, along with additional payouts to the EPA and state and federal trustee agencies. In 2030 the policy will pay a lump sum of $514 million to the state and federal government to continue the cleanup.

Michael Hingerty, deputy branch chief for Region 9, worked on the case from 1987 until turning it over to Bloomfield in 1996. Tim Gallagher of Gallagher & Gallagher in Los Angeles also contributed significantly to the settlement.

Superfund at 30 - toxic waste cleanups drag on

Monopoly

Section 2 of the Act forbade monopoly . In Section 2 cases, the court has, again on its own initiative, drawn a distinction between coercive and innocent monopoly. The act is not meant to punish businesses that come to dominate their market passively or on their own merit, only those that intentionally dominate the market through misconduct, which generally consists of conspiratorial conduct of the kind forbidden by Section 1 of the Sherman Act, or Section 3 of the Clayton Act.

CFTC Postpones Derivatives Vote

Commodities Futures Trading Commission

U.S. regulators have postponed a vote on new governance rules for derivatives clearinghouses and trading platforms, The Wall Street Journal reports. The rules were scheduled for a vote by the Commodities Futures Trading Commission on January 13.

The CFTC had released a proposal in October to curb the ownership stakes that banks and other swaps dealers can hold in clearinghouses, exchanges and swap-execution facilities. CFTC Chairman Gary Gensler had pulled a vote on draft rules to restrict speculation in commodities markets on December 16.

Click here for the story from The Wall Street Journal.

Click here for additional coverage from Bloomberg

Commodity Speculation Divides CFTC as Deadline Looms

January 13, 2011 By Asjylyn Loder

(Adds CFTC vote in fifth paragraph, statement from CFTC's Chilton in 11th paragraph, Dunn in 18th, Sommers in 20th.)

Jan. 13 (Bloomberg) -- Curbing speculation in raw materials including oil, gold and wheat has touched off a battle at the top U.S. commodities regulator with a legal deadline to rein in traders just four days away.

The Commodity Futures Trading Commission is divided over how to meet the requirements of the Dodd-Frank financial overhaul that became law last year. A lack of data on the $583 trillion global over-the-counter derivatives market has complicated the agency's efforts to limit speculation this month, as directed by the law.

Commissioner Scott O'Malia said today fellow commissioners are attempting a “Trojan horse” move that would impose limits without proper debate. Chairman Gary Gensler last month directed the agency's staff to gather data from firms that exceed certain thresholds, while Commissioner Bart Chilton advocated “position points” beyond which the agency might push traders to reduce or freeze their holdings.

“Much of the pressure to immediately implement position limits/'position points' comes from those who advocate the need for price controls,” O'Malia, a Republican, said in a statement. “It is not the role of the commission to control prices.”

The CFTC today voted 4-1 to propose rules that would limit the number of contracts a single firm can hold. The public has 60 days to critique the caps. O'Malia said he's “very skeptical” about the proposal, though he voted to put it out for comment. No date is for a final vote on the rules.

Legal Directive

The Dodd-Frank Act gave the CFTC until Jan. 17 to curb speculation in the energy and metals markets and until April in agricultural commodities. Last month, Gensler, a Democrat, said the commission wouldn't meet the deadline because it doesn't yet have sufficient data. The commission delayed a vote on the proposal at a Dec. 16 public meeting.

Today he responded to O'Malia's statement, disputing the notion that he and Chilton, also a Democrat, were trying to regulate prices.

“The CFTC does not set or regulate prices,” Gensler said in a statement. “Rather, the commission is directed to ensure that commodity markets are fair and orderly to protect the American public.”

More Data

He said gathering additional information will help the commission understand the role of large traders in the market and how proposed limits may affect them. “These levels, or points, are the positions at which CFTC staff will brief the commission under its existing authority,” he said.

The plan under discussion would limit traders to 25 percent of deliverable supply in the contract nearest to expiration, followed by an all-month ceiling of 10 percent of open interest up to the first 25,000 contracts and 2.5 percent thereafter.

Chilton said the commission “should have proposed much earlier in a way that would have implemented the provision as Congress intended. That's not happening.”

Regulators and lawmakers are attempting to rein in commodity speculation amid concern that investors contributed to oil reaching the record high of $147.27 a barrel in 2008. The CFTC received hundreds of public comments on position limits and held at least 75 meetings on the subject since July, according to its website.

“I do not believe that the absence of position limits has had any impact on prices in the past,” O'Malia said. “And I do not believe that setting them now will be effective in preventing a barrel of oil from going over $100 per barrel.”

CFTC Oversight

The financial overhaul expanded the CFTC's authority to the over-the-counter derivatives market for the first time since swaps were introduced 30 years ago. Before the law passed, traders could buy futures on regulated exchanges or they could privately negotiate for unregulated, look-alike contracts.

The commission in October proposed a rule to gather information on the previously unregulated swaps. The 60-day public comment period closed in December, and the agency hasn't approved the rule.

Without that data, the agency can't impose or enforce aggregate position limits across exchange-traded futures and economically equivalent derivatives, Gensler said last month.

The CFTC limits would impose a uniform set of rules across exchanges and the over-the-counter market, replacing a patchwork of inconsistent restrictions for different venues and commodities. Trading in some agricultural contracts is already capped, while there are few controls on speculation in energy and precious metals.

Dunn Skepticism

“To date, CFTC staff has been unable to find any reliable economic analysis to support either the contention that excessive speculation is affecting the markets we regulate, or that position limits will prevent excessive speculation,” said Commissioner Michael Dunn.

At the Dec. 16 meeting, Gensler directed commission staff to gather information on the derivatives positions of any trader that exceeded 10 percent of open interest in exchange-traded futures or similarly regulated contracts up to 25,000 contracts, and 2.5 percent thereafter.

Commissioner Jill Sommers, who cast the only vote against publishing the proposal, said the commission should wait for a complete analysis of the swaps market before moving ahead on limits.

Chilton Plan

Chilton's proposal is similar to accountability levels now policed by regulated exchanges like the New York Mercantile Exchange and the Chicago Board of Trade. Traders that exceed those levels may come under increased scrutiny, and be asked to freeze or reduce their bets. The exchanges also impose restrictions in the last few days before a contract expires.

O'Malia said those actions will create uncertainty about limits, chase traders off of the transparent exchanges and open the CFTC up to legal challenge because the public wasn't given proper notice or opportunity to comment.

The financial overhaul, named for its primary authors, Democratic former Senator Christopher Dodd of Connecticut and Congressman Barney Frank of Massachusetts, aims to stem systemic risk by requiring most interest-rate, credit-default and other swaps be processed by clearinghouses after being traded on exchanges or swap-execution facilities.

--With assistance from Silla Brush in Washington. Editors: Dan Stets, Charlotte Porter

To contact the reporter on this story: Asjylyn Loder in New York at aloder@bloomberg.net.

To contact the editor responsible for this story: Dan Stets at dstets@bloomberg.net.

 

Internal Audit Suggests EPA Complicit in Environmental Racism

by Catherine Komp

Environmentalists, civil rights advocates and even federal auditors say the US government is ignoring its duty to protect low-income people and people of color from harmful pollution in their communities.

Last month, the Environmental Protection Agency's Office of the Inspector General found the Agency does not know if its policies and programs are negatively affecting poor people because it has not conducted proper "environmental justice" reviews.

"The term of ‘environmental justice' is kind of a cleaned-up term," said Felicia Eaves, campaign organizer with the grassroots group Women's Voices for the Earth. "[The term] actually started out as ‘environmental racism.'"

BRC Commends 112th Congress for Addressing TMR Related Closures

by Jon Crowley on 13/01/11 at 12:36 pm

WASHINGTON DC (January 7)–A national trail-based recreation group commends legislation that was introduced today to clarify the implementation and enforcement of Travel Management in California. This bill was introduced by Congressman Wally Herger and is cosponsored by Congressmen Tom McClintock, Kevin McCarthy, and Dan Lungren.

This bill will restrict funds for Forest Service implementation of Subpart B of its Travel Management Rule (TMR) until the agency has performed the project-level review under the Rule. The bill also addresses the very contentious issue of the Forest Service banning OHV use on dirt-covered and roughly graded logging roads in rural sections of the state.

Don Amador, Western Representative for the BlueRibbon Coalition, states, “I feel this legislation has been proposed in direct response to complaints from his constituents who have been locked out of federal timber lands by the misapplication of the Travel Management Rule by government agents.”

“This is the type of legislation that outdoor voters asked for in the last election. Congress has a duty to defend the public's right to access federal lands in a responsible manner,” Amador concludes.
Link to Congressman Herger TMR Bill:
http://www.sharetrails.org/uploads/Herger_TMR_Bill_jan.7.11.pdf

Facilities Across the Southeast Ordered to Stop Discharging and Comply with Clean Water Act

Due Diligence, All Appropriate Inquiry, Environmental Site Assessment, and Brownsfield Site Information

Contact Information: Davina Marraccini, (404) 562-8293, marraccini.davina@epa.gov **

(ATLANTA - Jan. 13, 2011) The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued Administrative Orders (AOs) against seven entities in North Carolina, Tennessee, Kentucky and South Carolina during the last quarter of 2010 for violations of the Clean Water Act (CWA).

“Controlling water pollution sources is key to protecting waterways across the Southeast and the health of all people who depend on them,” said Gwendolyn Keyes Fleming, EPA Region 4 Regional Administrator.

Three entities were cited for alleged stormwater-related violations of the CWA. Polluted stormwater runoff is a leading cause of impairment to the nearly 40 percent of surveyed U.S. water bodies which do not meet water quality standards. Over land or via storm sewer systems, polluted runoff is discharged, often untreated, directly into local water bodies. The entities cited and their associated violations include:

. YDV, Inc., for violations at the Compass Pointe Phases 2, 3 and 11 sites in Leland, N.C.;
. Marion Retail Investments, LLC, for violations at its Grandview Station construction site in Marion, N.C.;
. Shelby County Schools, for violations at the Shelby County Administration Building in Arlington, Tenn.

EPA issued AOs requiring the violators to conduct a variety of remediation activities, including revising and implementing their Construction Pollution Prevention Plans and Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plans; installing and maintaining Best Management Practices; conducting adequate self-inspections; ceasing sediment discharges; and addressing areas where sediment had been discharged.

The City of Oak Ridge, Tenn., was cited for unauthorized discharges of sewage from the wastewater collection and transmission system. Sanitary sewer overflows (SSOs) like these pose a significant threat to public health and the environment, and remain a leading cause of water quality impairment. SSOs contain raw sewage and have high concentrations of bacteria from fecal contamination, as well as disease-causing pathogens and viruses. Besides being illegal under the CWA, the SSOs also constitute a failure to comply with the requirements of the utility's National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit. EPA issued an AO requiring the utility to address wet weather capacity-related issues in the sewer system. In addition, the order requires the development of management, operation and maintenance programs.

Licking River Resources, Inc. and Clintwood Elkhorn Mining Company were each cited for unauthorized discharges of wastewater associated with their surface mining and/or coal processing and preparation plants in West Liberty and Phyllis, Ky., respectively. The Mullins Branch Preparation Plant in West Liberty discharges wastewater into Mullins Branch, while the Miller's Creek Mine Plant in Phyllis discharges wastewater into Miller's Creek. Under the CWA, such discharges require a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System, and EPA has ordered each facility to cease all unpermitted discharges into waters of the United States.

EPA issued an AO for violations of the Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations requirements of the CWA at a dairy operation known as Lee Mayer #1 in Newberry, S.C. The order requires the owner, Mayer Farms, Inc., to cease the discharge of pollutants from the facility and come into compliance with the land-application requirements in accordance with its Waste Management Plan and permit. The AO also requires Mayer Farms to provide quarterly sampling reports for its waste, and for its crops and harvest plants to determine nutrient levels.

Congress enacted the Clean Water Act (CWA) in 1972 to protect the nation's rivers, lakes and stream, as well as some of the more fragile and vital wetland habitats. The entities cited violated the CWA by failing to meet the requirements of their National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits, and subsequently causing point source discharges. Pollutants of concern include nutrients, sediment, oil and grease, chemicals and metals. When left uncontrolled, water pollution can deplete needed oxygen and/or otherwise result in the destruction of aquatic habitats, as well as the fish and wildlife that depend on them. Water pollution can also contaminate food, drinking water supplies and recreational waterways, and thereby pose a threat to public health.

You are subscribed to Region 4: Water News Releases for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. This information has recently been updated, and is now available [ http://service.govdelivery.com/service/view.html?code=USAEPA_235 ].

Tempers Flare at Environmental Justice Conference
Fair Use Statement Source: ENS

Tempers Flare at Environmental Justice Conference, By Brian Hansen

ARLINGTON, Virginia, December 12, 2000 (ENS) - Members of a federal government advisory panel today lambasted President Bill Clinton, Vice President Al Gore and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for failing to aggressively combat the scourge of "environmental racism" that they maintain is afflicting many poor communities and communities of color.

District Court Finds Non-Settling PRP Can Intervene in CERCLA Consent Decree
On January 15, 2010, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia held that a PRP's right to contribution under CERCLA is a significantly protectable interest permitting a non-settling PRP to intervene as of right to challenge a
consent decree between the federal government and a settling PRP.
United States v. Exxon Mobil Corp., No. 08-124

District Court Allows PRP to Amend Claim 2 Years after Atlantic Research

On January 20, 2010, the United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois granted a CERCLA PRP's motion for leave to file an amended pleading seeking cost recovery under CERCLA § 107(a),

Second Circuit Affirms CERCLA Veil-Piercing to Impose Liability on Former Parent
In an unpublished opinion issued on December 10, 2009, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed a plaintiff corporation's recovery of CERCLA response costs from a company whose predecessor had once been the plaintiff's parent. Rochester Gas and Elec. Corp. v. GPU, Inc., No. 09-0482-cv, 2009 WL 4673916 (2d Cir. Dec. 10, 2009).

Tenth Circuit Upholds Remand of Class Action Involving “CERCLA Quality Cleanup”
On September 4, 2009, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirmed a lower court's remand to state court of a state law class action involving injuries allegedly arising out of contamination at a state-remediated site, holding that neither the Class Action Fairness Act (“CAFA”) nor CERCLA provided a basis for federal jurisdiction. Coffey v. Freeport McMoran Copper & Gold, 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 19996 (10th Cir. Sep. 4, 2009).

Natural Resource Damage Claims Insufficient for Federal
Jurisdiction
On August 21, 2009, the U.S. District Court for the District of the Virgin Islands held that a territory's common law claims for natural recourse damages against manufacturers of dry cleaning chemicals for a site on the National Priorities List are not subject to federal jurisdiction. Mathes v. Vulcan Materials Co., 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 74736 (D.V.I. Aug. 21, 2009).

Destruction of Samples Leads to Preclusion of Contamination Evidence
On May 21, 2009, the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut held that when a consulting firm hired by a CERCLA plaintiff to take soil samples did not preserve the samples or the analytical data, and the property was remediated before other parties could sample, plaintiff is precluded from offering any evidence based on the destroyed samples. Innis Arden Golf Club v. Pitney Bowes, Inc., 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 43588 (D. Conn. May 21, 2009).

“Where a court failed to observe safeguards, it amounts to denial of due process of law, court is deprived of juris.” Merritt v. Hunter, C.A. Kansas 170 F2d 739.

 

“Once jurisdiction is challenged, the court cannot proceed when it clearly appears that the court lacks jurisdiction, the court has no authority to reach merits, but, rather, should dismiss the action.” Melo v. US, 505 F2d 1026.

Excercising your constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime or have sanctions levered against it: The state cannot diminish rights of the people. [Hertado v. California, 100 US 516.]

Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them. [Miranda v. Arizona, 384 US 436, 491.]

There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of this exercise of constitutional rights. [Sherer v. Cullen, 481 F 946.]

"judges of courts of limited jurisdiction are entitled to absolute immunity for their judicial acts unless they act in the clear absence of all jurisdiction." King v. Love, 766 F.2d 962, 966 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 971, 106 S.Ct. 351, 88 L.Ed.2d 320 (1985).

Thus, for example, a criminal court judge would be immune from liability for convicting a defendant of a nonexistent crime, an act taken in excess of his jurisdiction, whereas a probate court judge would not be immune from liability if he tried a criminal case because he clearly lacked all subject matter jurisdiction. Id. (citing Bradley, 80 U.S. (13 Wall.) at 352).

Excerpt from page 974 F.2d 1329, 1992 WL 214444 (1st Cir.(Mass.)) Federal courts "have proceeded on the assumption that common-law principles of legislative and judicial immunity were incorporated into our judicial system and that they should not be abrogated absent clear legislative intent to do so." Pulliam v. Allen, 466 U.S. 522, 529 (1984). Under the common law, judges are generally immune from civil liability for judicial acts, subject to the conditions described above, but they do not enjoy immunity from criminal liability. See O'Shea v. Littleton, 414 U.S. 488, 503 (1974).

In the following cases, courts have found that the judges acted outside of their judicial capacity and were not entitled to immunity: Forrester v. White, 484 U.S. 219, 108 S.Ct. 538, 98 L.Ed.2d 555 (1988)(state court judge did not have absolute immunity from damages suit under S 1983 for his decision to demote and dismiss a probation officer); Morrison v. Lipscomb, 877 F.2d 463 (6th Cir.1989)(state court judge was not entitled to judicial immunity in connection with order declaring moratorium on issuance of writs of restitution from December 15 through January 2, as judge was acting in administrative and not judicial capacity); King v. Love, 766 F.2d 962, 968 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 971, 106 S.Ct. 351, 88 L.Ed.2d 320 (1985)(although setting bond on an arrest warrant is a judicial act, the act of deliberately misleading the police officer who was to execute the warrant about the identity of the person sought was nonjudicial); Sevier v. Turner, 742 F.2d 262 (6th Cir.1984)(juvenile court judge's initiation of criminal prosecution and civil contempt proceeding against father for child support in arrears constituted nonjudicial acts); New Alaska Development Corporation v. Guetschow, 869 F.2d 1298 (9th Cir.1988)(receiver appointed by state court to manage business assets of an estate was entitled to absolute derivative judicial immunity, but receiver was not absolutely immune from allegations that he stole assets or slandered parties, as such alleged acts were not judicial); Harper v. Merckle, 638 F.2d 848 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 816, 102 S.Ct. 93, 70 L.Ed.2d 85 (1981)(holding a contempt proceeding and ordering plaintiff incarcerated were not judicial acts where controversy that led to incarceration did not center around any matter pending before the judge, but around domestic problems of plaintiff former wife who worked at the courthouse); Harris v. Harvey, 605 F.2d 330 (7th Cir.1979), cert. denied, 445 U.S. 938, 100 S.Ct. 1331, 63 L.Ed.2d 772 (1980)(allegedly repeated communications to the press and city officials which were critical of police lieutenant, and the improper instigation of criminal proceedings against the lieutenant by judge as part of a racial campaign to discredit lieutenant were not judicial acts).

State Capacity Building

Objective - To fulfill the mandated objectives of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA) and the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA) of 1986, as amended, in coordination with Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR), by assisting public health agencies to build capacity to conduct (1) Health consultations, (2) public health assessments, (3) exposure investigations, (4) community involvement, (5) health education, and (6) public health studies.

Agency: Department of Health and Human Services

Office: Not applicable.

Authorization

Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) of 1980, Sections 104(i)(1)(E), (4), (6), (7), (9), (14) and (15), as amended; Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986, 42 U.S.C. 9604; Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, Section 3109(b) and (c), as amended; Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984, 42 U.S.C. 6939 (b) and (c).

Uses and Use Restrictions

The uses are to strengthen State health agency environmental health programs.

Services include public health assessments, consultations, exposure investigations, health education, and follow-up health investigations/studies.

Funds may be expended for reasonable program purposes, such as personnel, travel, supplies and services.

Funds for contractual services may be requested.

However, the awardee, as the direct and primary recipient of PHS grant funds, must perform a substantive role in carrying out project activities and not merely serve as a conduit for an award to another party or provide funds to an ineligible party.

Equipment may be purchased with cooperative agreement funds; however, the equipment must meet applicable Federal requirements.

These funds may not be used by the recipient to conduct activities at any Federal site where the State is a party to litigation at the site.

Eligibility Requirements

Applicant Eligibility

Eligible applicants are the official public health agencies of States or their bona fide agents or instrumentalities, to include the District of Columbia, American Samoa, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, the Federated States of Micronesia, Guam, the Northern Marina Islands, the Republic of the Marshall Islands, and the Republic of Palau, and the Federally- recognized Indian tribal governments.

Beneficiary Eligibility

Beneficiaries are individuals and/or families living in communities near or in proximity of Superfund sites.

Credentials/Documentation

Costs will be determined in accordance with OMB Circular No. A-87 for State and local governments.

Aplication and Award Process

Preapplication Coordination

No preapplication is required.

This program is eligible for coverage under E.O.

12372, &quot;Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs&quot;.

An applicant should contact the office or Official designated as the single point of contact in his or her State for more information on the process the State requires to be followed in applying for assistance, if the State has selected the program for review.

Application Procedures

Applicants must use application Form PHS 5161-1. Application packets are available from: Grants Management Branch, Procurement and Grants Office, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2920 Brandywine Rd,. Room 3000, Mailstop K-75, Atlanta, GA 30341. By formal agreement, the CDC Procurement and Grants Office will act for and on behalf of ATSDR on this matter.

Award Procedures

The Assistant Administrator, ATSDR, determines applications to be approved and the priorities for funding. When an application is approved for funding, the Grants Management Officer, CDC, acting as the agent for ATSDR, will prepare a Notice of Award.

Deadlines

Contact the Headquarters Office identified below for application deadlines.

Range of Approval/Disapproval Time

Approximately 60 to 90 days.

Appeals

None.

Renewals

Awards are made for project periods from one to five years. Renewal awards cannot be made beyond the project period without competition.

Assistance Considerations

Formula and Matching Requirements

This program has no statutory formula.

Length and Time Phasing of Assistance

The annual awards are for a 12 month budget period within a three to five year project period. Noncompetitive continuation awards within the project period are made on the basis of satisfactory progress and availability of funds.

Post Assistance Requirements

Reports

Annual progress and financial status reports are required no later than 90 days after the end of each budget period.

An original and two copies of the final financial status and performance reports are due no later than 90 days after the end of the project period.

Audits

In accordance with the provisions of OMB Circular No. A- 133 (Revised, June 27, 2003), &quot;Audits of States, Local Governments, and Nonprofit Organizations,&quot; nonfederal entities that expend financial assistance of $500,000 or more in Federal awards will have a single or a program-specific audit conducted for that year. Nonfederal entities that expend less than $500,000 a year in Federal awards are exempt from Federal audit requirements for that year, except as noted in Circular No. A-133.

Records

Detailed and accurate records of travel expenditures, personnel hours and all other costs will be retained for at least 10 years in accordance with EPS's &quot;Superfund Financial Management and Recordkeeping Guidance for Federal Agencies&quot;. Such documents may be required to provide the basis of cost recovery actions or other litigation. Additionally, this documentation must be available for audit or verification upon request of the office of Inspector General.

Financial Information

Account Identification

75-8252-0-1-551.

Obigations

(Grants) FY 07 $10,894,064; FY 08 $12,681,515; and FY 09 est $11,500,000.

Range and Average of Financial Assistance

$150,627 to $700,000; $350,000.

Program Accomplishments

In fiscal year 2003, there were a total of 33 new competitive awards. It is anticipated that there will be 33 noncompetitive continuation awards in fiscal year 2004 and 2005.

Regulations, Guidelines, and Literature

Regulations governing this program are set forth in 45 CFR 92 and 40 CFR 35, Subpart O. Guidelines are available in the application kits. PHS Grants Policy Statement (Revised, April 1, 1994).

Information Contacts

Regional or Local Office

Not applicable.

Headquarters Office

Ms. Joan Flesner, Public Health Analyst, Division of Health Assessment and Consultation, Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, 1600 Clifton Road, NE., Mailstop F-59, Atlanta, Georgia 30333. Telephone: (770) 488-0739 Fax: (770) 488-1544. E-mail address: JFlesner@cdc.gov. Grants Management Contact: Mildred Garner, Grants Management Officer, Procurement and Grants Office, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2920 Brandywine Road, Room 3000, Atlanta, GA 30341. Telephone: (770) 488-2745. Fax: (770) 488-2777.

Website Address

http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov.

Related Programs

None.

Examples of Funded Projects

States conduct public health evaluations on National Priorities List (NPL) sites, sites that ATSDR have been petitioned to assess, Superfund Accelerated Cleanup Model (SACM) sites, and other Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Information System (CERCLIS) sites.

Criteria for Selecting Proposals

Applications for core activities only were reviewed and evaluated based on the following criteria: (1) Proposed Program: (a) Merit scientific and technical merit of the proposed project to perform public health assessments, consultations, exposure investigations, health education and public health studies consistent with ATSDR guidance and in a timely manner. Applicant's ability to evaluate the public health impact of hazardous waste sites using health, environmental, and demographic data, and health-related concerns from the local community. (b) Requirements Applicant's understanding of the requirements, objectives, and complexities of the interactions required for a successful program. c) Collaboration Applicant's plan to collaborate with political and private subdivisions of Federal, State, and local health and environmental agencies and community groups to obtain information needed for evaluating the public health impact of hazardous waste sites, disseminate results of findings, and prevent exposure if identified. (2) Program Personnel: The principal investigator or project director and his/her ability to devote time and effort to provide effective leadership, and the qualifications of the support staff. (3) Applicant Capability: Adequacy and commitment of institutional resources, facilities, space, and equipment necessary for conducting the project are available and sufficient. (4) Program Budget: Extent to which the budget is reasonable, clearly justified, and consistent with intended use of funds. The priority order for funding cooperative agreements was as follows: (a) Number of proposed and/or listed National Priority List (NPL) sites (Federal and nonfederal) based on the most current EPA list, (b) number of Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Information System (CERCLIS) sites (Federal and nonfederal) based on the most current EPA list; (c) applicants who applied for both Core Activities and optional Activities; and (d) geographic distribution across the United States. (5) Human Subjects: Applicant's plan for adequate protection of human subjects. Applications for conducting Core Plus Optional Activities were reviewed and evaluated based on the following criteria: Proposed Program: In addition to the criteria outlined above for Core Activities, the applicant had to indicate an understanding of and capability for conducting human health studies as contained in the proposed site-specific protocol which had to include: (a) The approach, feasibility, adequacy, and rationale for the proposed study design, (b) the technical merit of the proposed study, (c) the proposed timeline, including measurable objectives, (d) proposed method for disseminating the results of the study.

 

 
Active Grants
for this program

ATSDR?s Partnership to Promote Localized Efforts to Reduce Environmental Exposure (APPLETREE) Program

Eligible applicants that can apply for this funding opportunity are listed below:
? Federally recognized or state-recognized American Indian/Alaska Native tribal governments
? State health departments or their Bona Fide Agents (this includes the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, the Commonwealth of the Northern Marianna Islands, American Samoa, Guam, the Federated States of Micronesia, the Republic of the Marshall Islands, and the Republic of Palau)

A Bona Fide Agent is an agency/organization identified by the state as eligible to submit an application under the state eligibility in lieu of a state application.

If applying as a bona fide agent of a state or local government, a letter from the state or local government as documentation of the status is required.

Attach with ?Other Attachment Forms? when submitting via www.grants.gov.


ATSDR?s regulatory authority cited by the CERCLA limits the eligible applicants that can apply for this funding opportunity.


Full Opportunity Web Address:


Contact:
Carolyn Wilburn Procurement and Grants Office Phone 770-488-2700

Agency Email Description:
PGOTIM@cdc.gov

Agency Email:
PGOTIM@cdc.gov

Date Posted:
2010-10-22

Application Due Date:
2010-12-22

Archive Date:
2011-01-21

More Federal Government Grant and Assistance Programs


Social Security_Retirement Insurance  |  Cancer Treatment Research  |  Invitational Grants for Military-Connected Schools  |  National Wetland Program Development Grants and Five-Star Restoration Training Grant  |  Landowner Incentive Program  |  U.S. Ambassadors Fund for Cultural Preservation  |  Projects for Assistance in Transition from Homelessness (PATH)  |  National Geological and Geophysical Data Preservation Program  |  Space Operations  |  Laura Bush 21st Century Librarian Program  |  Purchase Care Program  |  Homeless Education Disaster Assistance Program  |  Aviation Education  |  Institute for International Public Policy  |  Southern Nevada Public Land Management  |  | Grant Education | More Resources | Site Resources | Grants.gov | Grants | Grants News | Sitemap | Privacy Policy

 

EPA encourages regular testing

Moral hazard occurs when a party insulated from risk behaves differently than it would behave if it were fully exposed to the risk.

Moral hazard arises because an individual or institution does not take the full consequences and responsibilities of its actions, and therefore has a tendency to act less carefully than it otherwise would, leaving another party to hold some responsibility for the consequences of those actions. For example, a person with insurance against automobile theft may be less cautious about locking his or her car, because the negative consequences of vehicle theft are (partially) the responsibility of the insurance company.

Economists explain moral hazard as a special case of information asymmetry , a situation in which one party in a transaction has more information than another. In particular, moral hazard may occur if a party that is insulated from risk has more information about its actions and intentions than the party paying for the negative consequences of the risk. More broadly, moral hazard occurs when the party with more information about its actions or intentions has a tendency or incentive to behave inappropriately from the perspective of the party with less information.

Moral hazard also arises in a principal-agent problem , where one party, called an agent, acts on behalf of another party, called the principal. The agent usually has more information about his or her actions or intentions than the principal does, because the principal usually cannot completely monitor the agent. The agent may have an incentive to act inappropriately (from the viewpoint of the principal) if the interests of the agent and the principal are not aligned.

such statutes are to be construed broadly "to effectuate the regulatory purpose."
United States v. Baytank (Houston), Inc., 934 F.2d 599 (5th Cir. 1991)

Superfund site in San Francisco proves toxic for Navy, neighbors

By  Monica Jensen SF Public Press/Newsdesk.org  — Jan 10 2011 - 2:52pm

In December, activists met with officials from the federal Environmental Protection Agency to tour the shipyard and adjacent public facilities built on or near land contaminated with PCBs and other toxins, such as a school basketball court downwind from an excavation of soil laden with naturally occurring asbestos.

Activists also said that the Navy's unilateral dissolution of the Restoration Advisory Board in December 2009 enabled it to “fast track” major decisions while disregarding community concerns. The biggest decision was the approval of the environmental impact report for the second phase of a redevelopment plan for the neighborhood that will ultimately bring 10,500 homes to the area.

 

A year after the dissolution of the Restoration Advisory Board for Hunters Point Shipyard, the Navy says it will introduce a new community involvement plan that it says emphasizes diversity.

The announcement follows the White House's reconvened interagency effort on environmental justice, which held its first meeting under the Obama administration in September . The group is creating a four-year road map to develop “stronger community relationships” and targets “overburdened communities.” The next meeting is set for April.

Community involvement

Navy records described the advisory board as “unproductive,” and an EPA spokesman said the Navy's new “community involvement plan,” due to be released sometime in the next two months, will reboot community engagement.

Western Governors Association Conference

States' leaders say Endangered Species Act 'nonsensical,' hurts business and farming

The Endangered Species Act is a “nonsensical” policy that hurts businesses, property owners and farmers to protect animals and plants that may not be at risk , a panel of Democratic and Republican governors from throughout the West said Wednesday.

The governors complained of having their hands tied by federal policy as animal populations described as thriving but listed as endangered ravage private ranches, state parks and golf courses. Wildlife advocates say species that have thrived under the law's protection might again be threatened if taken off the list.

“The frustration level is reaching the breaking point in many levels because of this act,” said Utah Gov. Gary R. Herbert. “It's nonsensical.”

The Republican governor griped about swarms of endangered prairie dogs digging into golf courses. “They have become so domesticated, they are just a pain,” he said.

The discussion about overhauling the Endangered Species Act came on the second day of a two-day conference of the Western Governors Association. State executives from 19 states, plus the U.S. territories of Guam, American Samoa and the Northern Mariana Islands, were invited to attend.

Federal environmental officials acknowledged the law's challenges and slow-paced evolution, but largely aimed to rebut complaints and praise a conservation policy that seeks to protect nearly 2,000 species of birds, insects, fish, mammals, flowers and trees.

“Does the act always work perfectly? No,” said Eileen Sobeck, deputy assistant secretary of Fish, Wildlife and Parks. “Do the successes under the act outnumber the problems? I think they do.”

With its plentiful plains and rich wildlife, endangered species protections remain a testy issue in the West.

Hunters and ranchers, a powerful constituency in the Mountain West, have called for delisting recovering populations of certain species such as gray wolves and grizzlies. They contend that the federal policy affects the value and sovereignty of their land and threatens livestock. Western governors insist states, not federal regulators, should have authority over native species that affect local habitats and create business hurdles.

“We are pretty good at managing our wildlife,” Gov. Brian Schweitzer of Montana said.

Montana, Wyoming and Idaho have been in negotiations with the federal Interior Department to remove gray wolves from the endangered species in recent weeks, but talks have since stalled.

The region's 1,700 wolves lost their endangered status in Montana and Idaho in 2009, but were returned to the endangered list this year after a lawsuit brought by environmentalists.

Schweitzer, a Democrat, said that the gray wolf population in the West has fully recovered and should not be on the list, but federal regulators have been reluctant to reconsider the endangered designation.

“The Endangered Species Act is the Hotel California,” he told The Associated Press. “You can check in, but you can never leave.”

Schweitzer said rural states do not have enough clout in Congress to successfully lobby for the delisting of wolves under the Endangered Species Act, and he blasted federal officials for making the process so bureaucratic.

Idaho Gov. C. L. “Butch” Otter said the law has pitted business owners against government enforcers. The Republican suggested the federal government instead encourage land owners to protect endangered species on private land through financial rewards.

“The Endangered Species Act is broken, it's bankrupt, it's a fraud now,” he said.

The authorities have unanimously recommended this arrangement for those seeking to establish a good government.

From Charles –Louis de Secondat, the Baron de Montesquieu:

When the legislative and executive powers are united in the same person, or in the same body of magistrates, there can be no liberty; because apprehensions may arise, lest the same monarch or senate should enact tyrannical laws, to execute them in a tyrannical manner.

Again, there is no liberty, if the judiciary power be not separated from the legislative and executive. Were it joined with the legislative, the life and liberty of the subject would be exposed to arbitrary control; for the judge would be then the legislator. Were it joined to the executive power, the judge might behave with violence and oppression.

From the Greek historian, Polybius:

Lycurgus…did not make his constitution simple and uniform, but united in it all the good and distinctive features of the best governments, so that none of the principles should grow unduly and be perverted into its allied evil, but that the force of being neutralized by the that of the others, neither of them should prevail and outbalance another, but that the constitution should remain for long in a state of equilibrium like a well-trimmed boat….

And finally, from the father of our own constitution, James Madison:

In order to lay a due foundation for that separate and distinct exercise of the different powers of government, which to a certain extent, is admitted on all hands to be essential to the preservation of liberty, it is evident that each department should have a will of its own; and consequently should be so constituted, hat the members of each should have as little agency as possible in the appointment of the members of the others.

Next, we turn to the heart chord, that is, the essential oil that is added to the head chord as the next step in creating the most pleasing government. That element is  federalism . Again, we turn to the leading lights of political science.

Once again, from Montesquieu:

This form of government is a convention by which several petty states agree to become members of a larger one, which they intend to establish. It is a kind of assemblage of societies, that constitute a new one, capable of increasing by means of further associations, till they arrive at such a degree of power as to be able to provide for the security of the whole body,

and:

A republic of this kind, able to withstand an external force, may support itself without any internal corruption. The form of this society prevents all manner of inconveniencies.

Scottish Enlightenment philosopher David Hume agrees with the notion that a federal system would prevent the public interest from being attacked by factions united by “intrigue, prejudice or passion.” States, the smaller republics, would retain most power while granting to the central authority only those limited and specific powers necessary to protect the whole of society.

In the  Federalist Papers , Alexander Hamilton supports the American expression of this timeless principle:

The proposed Constitution, so far from implying an abolition of the State Governments, makes them constituent parts of the national sovereignty by allowing them a direct representation in the Senate, and leaves in their possession certain exclusive and very important portions of sovereign power. This fully corresponds, in every rational import of the terms, with the idea of a Federal Government.

And his Federalist Papers collaborator, James Madison, cogently crystallized the point this way:

The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite.

Finally, if the perfume is to be long-lasting and memorable, the base chord must be added to the blend. Without this final ingredient, the scent would quickly dissipate and linger on only in memory.

The foundational additive in the enduring fragrance of American liberty is  popular sovereignty . We, the people, are the ultimate and natural authority in our republic and it is only through our voluntary accession that government has any power whatsoever.

John Locke, whose powerful influence was felt by many of our own Founding Fathers and the documents they crafted to create our government, wrote in his  Two Treatises on Government :

Every Man being, as has been shewed,  naturally free, and nothing being able to put him into subjection to any Earthly Power, but only his own Consent…. (emphasis in the original)

Again, from the illustrious Scot, David Hume:

When we consider how nearly equal all men are in their bodily force, and even in their mental powers and faculties, till cultivated by education, we must necessarily allow that nothing but their own consent could at first associate them together and subject them to any authority. The people, if we trace government to its first origin in the woods and deserts, are the source of all power and jurisdiction, and voluntarily, for the sake of peace and order, abandoned their native liberty and received laws from their equal and companion.

And, appropriately, the last word on the fundamental nature of the principle of popular sovereignty is from James Madison:

We may define a republic to be, or at least may bestow that name on, a government which derives all its powers directly or indirectly from the great body of the people;

and finally,

As the people are the only legitimate fountain of power, and it is from them that the constitutional charter, under which the several branches of government hold their power, is derived…

EXTORTION: The obtaining of property from another, with his consent, induced by wrongful use of actual or threatened force, violence, or fear, or under color of official right. 18 U.S.C. § 1951(b)(2).

In Dalliba v. Riggs, 7 Ida. 779, 82 Pac. 107, it was laid down that while a court of equity can appoint a receiver to perfect and preserve mining property, it “ has no authority to place its receiver in charge of such property and operate the same, carrying on a general mining business, and while it turns out to be at a loss, as is likely to be the result in such cases, charge the same up as a preferred claim and lien against the property, to the prejudice and loss of the holders of prior recorded liens on the same property” (82 Pac. At pp. 108-109). In that case the receiver appeared to have carried on the mining operations without any order of court directing him to do so and with reckless extravagance, and in addition was shown not only not to have kept accurate accounts but also to have made in the account filed “many charges against the estate where no charge whatever should have been made and none in fact existed.” The court accordingly denied the receiver any allowance for his own time or services and any allowance for attorney's fees. - JUSTICE BRANNON

GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY PROJECT

Washington Post: Ex-Park Police Chief Could Get Old Job Back
Today

Summary : Yesterday, the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) ordered the National Park Service to reinstate whistleblower Teresa Chambers as Chief of the U.S. Park Police. Chambers' case garnered national attention when she was removed by the Bush administration in 2004 after telling the Washington Post that "traffic accidents had increased along the Baltimore-Washington Parkway because two, rather than the recommended four, officers were on patrol," as well as that more officers were needed to safeguard the country's national parks. Whistleblowers and members of the public from across the country responded by voicing their support for Chambers.

Throughout her ordeal, Chief Chambers' representation has been led by Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER) and its Senior Counsel Paula Dinerstein. GAP Senior Counsel Richard Condit and attorney Mick Harrison have also been part of Chief Chambers' legal team throughout her efforts to challenge her unlawful termination. The fifty-three page ruling by the MSPB is a tremendous victory for federal employee whistleblowers. Chambers is now due over six years of back pay, as well as reimbursements for costs and legal fees.

Related Articles : CNN , WTOP

Fair Warning: Who Killed Whistleblower Bill? Hunt Is on for Mystery Senator
Today

Summary : This article highlights GAP and On The Media's effort to find out which senator used a secret hold to kill the Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act just before Congress adjourned in December.

So far, 23 senators have stated that they did not place the secret hold. Help us continue to narrow it down by calling or emailing your senators .

The New York Times: Labor Board Overturns Vote by Sandwich Shop Workers
January 11, 2011

Summary : An October vote that resulted in the defeat of a unionization effort of a Jimmy John's sandwich shop franchise in Minneapolis has been overturned. Charges of intimidation tactics (that were made against the owner) led to an investigation by the National Labor Relations Board, which approved a settlement Monday that allows for another unionization vote.

GAP Fellow Sarah Damian blogs about the renewed effort and its impact on food integrity.

NPR: In Oil Drilling Reform, A Call For Science And Safety
Today

Summary : The final report by the White House oil spill commission, released yesterday, recommends reforms in both the oil industry and government agencies. The report calls attention to the need for better scientific research and safety measures, including a new industry-funded safety institute, that, "among other things, would figure out better ways to respond to spills."

Malaysia Star: Informers Have Faith in Whistleblower Protection Act
January 11, 2011

Summary : Since the new Whistleblower Protection Act took effect this past December in Malaysia, at least 100 people have come forward with complaints of corruption or misconduct. The majority of the whistleblowers reported wrongdoings of coworkers, suggesting that they trust the new legislation to protect them from retaliation.

The Hill: Issa Promotes Whistleblower Website
January 11, 2011

Summary : In an attempt to use technology to improve government efficiency, Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA) – the new chair of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform – is using a website to accept tips on occurrences of fraud and abuse in government agencies.

Rep. Issa asserts personal information will be kept “in strict confidence.”

Los Angeles Times: Charles Schwab Settles SEC Allegations That It Misled Investors About Risks of Bond Fund
Today

Summary : Brokerage firm Charles Schwab Corp. will pay $119 million to settle allegations, brought by the SEC, that the company deceived investors. The SEC has charged Charles Schwab with misleading clients about mutual fund risks, and breaking federal laws by investing too much money in a single sector.

Los Angeles Times: Egg Producers Accused of Price-fixing
January 11, 2011

Summary : A lawsuit filed against the United Egg Producers trade group – whose members control about 95 percent of U.S. egg-laying hens – and leading egg companies accuses them of manipulating the market to increase egg prices.

The complaint claims they collectively shrunk the supply "by killing off hens under the guise of treating the remaining animals more humanely by giving them more cage room."

On The Media (NPR): Blow the Whistle
January 8, 2011

Summary : This OTM segment features a follow-up interview with GAP Legal Director Tom Devine on the death of the Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act (S. 372) in the lame duck session of Congress. The legislation was killed at the last minute (despite passing in the Senate just weeks before) due to one anonymous senator's decision to place a secret hold on the bill.

GAP and On The Media are working together to identify the senator who placed the secret hold. On The Media is asking its listeners, and GAP is asking our supporters to contact their respective senator's offices and ask them if they were the party who wrongfully killed this paramount legislation. Then, however senators may answer, you can report your correspondence to On The Media at blowthewhistle@wnyc.org and their site will post the information.

Please help us identify the culpable senator !

Los Angeles Times: Who Killed the Whistleblower Bill?
Today

Summary : This op-ed by GAP Legal Director Tom Devine explains how the whistleblower reform bill was killed last minute in Congress through one senator's “secret hold,” despite overwhelming support for the bill. Devine argues for congressional reform of the “secret hold” process, which he deems “an open invitation to corruption.”

St. Louis Beacon: Analysis - Law Treats Whistleblowers and Journalists Differently
January 8, 2011

Summary : This article by a professor of journalism at Southern Illinois University at Carbondale discusses how the recent indictment of Jeffrey Sterling -- the ex-CIA official charged with revealing classified information to the press -- raises questions over the methods used to criminally prosecute whistleblowers and the growing frequency of such prosecutions.

Key Quote : But Jesselyn Radack of the Government Accountability Project sees Sterling as an authentic whistleblower and goes on to criticize the Obama administration for the record number of criminal cases it has brought against government officials leaking to the press.

…

Radack, whose Government Accountability Project protects government whistleblowers and favors government openness, remarked sarcastically in her blog that the prosecution of Sterling under the "famously ambiguous Espionage Act... gives Obama, the 'transparency' president, the dubious distinction of bringing the most 'leak prosecutions' of any administration, ever."

Federal Times: Agencies Need a Plan for GOP's Hard Charge
January 9, 2011

This op-ed by Steven L. Katz -- the former counsel for the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee -- advises government agencies to prepare for the increased oversight promised by Rep. Darrell Issa, the new leader of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee.

Katz suggests that agencies create a plan that includes “addressing relationships and responsiveness to GAO, inspectors general and even whistleblowers.”

New Orleans Times-Picayune: Fired Library Accountant Says Inquiries into Finances Were Halted
January 7, 2011

A former internal accountant for the New Orleans Public Library has filed a civil service complaint alleging that she was fired for exposing financial abnormalities, including $5,000 in copy machine revenue that was not properly accounted for.

GAP's mission is to promote corporate and government accountability by protecting whistleblowers, advancing occupational free speech, and empowering citizen activists. GAP has been the nation's leading whistleblower protection and advocacy organization since 1977.

The Government Accountability Project
1612 K Street NW, Washington DC 20006

Copyright (C) 2010 Government Accountability Project. All rights reserved.

State permit for Sacramento-area sewage challenged on two fronts

#scsharelink { background: url(http://media.sacbee.com/static/sacconnect/images/share-icon.png) no-repeat left center; padding-left: 20px; } Share
By Matt Weiser
mweiser@sacbee.com Published: Wednesday, Jan. 12, 2011 - 12:00 am | Page 1B

A strict new state permit governing Sacramento's sewage is being challenged both for going too far and for not going far enough.

The Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board, a state agency, on Dec. 9 imposed a new discharge permit on Sacramento's regional sewage treatment plant. It limits pollution entering the Sacramento River in the region's wastewater.

Monday was the deadline to appeal the permit to the State Water Resources Control Board.

The Sacramento Regional County Sanitation District, which operates the treatment plant near Elk Grove, was one of those who appealed. It said the evidence of environmental harm is too skimpy to justify the new pollution controls.

Also appealing was the Stockton-based California Sportfishing Protection Alliance, which argues the rules aren't strict enough to protect fish and water quality.

The widely diverging views reflect the controversial and complex nature of the permit, which governs the largest urban wastewater source in the West Coast's largest estuary.

Some local politicians and business leaders are protesting the potentially high cost of compliance.

"We understand there are some improvements that need to be made," said Michael Ault, executive director of the Sacramento Downtown Partnership, who raised the issue at the group's annual State of the Downtown breakfast Tuesday. "But we've got enough barriers against us in this economy to not pile on another obstacle for development."

The regional treatment plant handles sewage from 1.3 million people in the capital metro area, from Folsom to West Sacramento. It is the Delta's largest source of ammonia, a pollutant suspected of altering the food chain.

The district has 10 years to remove ammonia and reduce other pollutants. In a preliminary calculation, the district estimates that upgrading the 1982 plant to so-called "tertiary" treatment will cost $2 billion. Monthly sewer rates may have to triple, to $60 a month. Connection fees for new homes and businesses may also jump significantly.

The sanitation district asserts that the regional board lacked sufficient evidence of environmental harm to require virtual elimination of ammonia.

It also asks the state board to overturn controls on giardia and cryptosporidium. The district estimates it will cost $1.2 billion to filter out these pathogens – the single biggest expense.

The district cites a wastewater expert who testified at the Dec. 9 hearing that existing treatment removes enough of the pathogens to meet federal health standards.

It claims the regional board ignored this evidence and, instead, imposed a stricter standard on advice from the state Department of Public Health.

"There is the need to make sure we are protective of the environment," said Stan Dean, the district engineer. "And there is the need to make sure we are responsible stewards of the money this region pays toward that. We don't think an appropriate balance has been struck."

The discharge permit must be updated every five years, in accordance with the federal Clean Water Act, to reflect updated pollution science. Sacramento's has not been updated since 2000, in part because the battle over new pollution limits has been hard-fought.

In the meantime, numerous Delta fish species have plunged toward extinction. Sacramento's ammonia is seen as a potential contributor. Recent research suggests the volume – 14 tons a day – halts phytoplankton blooms at the base of the food chain.

The California Sportfishing Protection Alliance supports the ammonia controls. But its appeal argues that other pollutants got insufficient attention.

Among them are copper and cyanide, both common in wastewater and toxic to fish.

The pollution limit for copper was set too high, the alliance argues, and those for cyanide and several other chemicals were relaxed compared to the last permit. It also argues that too much latitude was allowed for temperature increases in the river from the warmer effluent.

"Everybody was focused on the ammonia problem," said Bill Jennings, executive director of the Stockton-based alliance. "But then they bent over backward and ignored the rest of the regulations. And basically the permit is not protective of species in the Sacramento River."

The State Water Resources Control Board staff will determine if the appeals are valid. It then has 270 days to reject them or recommend a solution to the appointed board for a vote.

If rejected, the parties have the option to file suit against the regional board.

 

Court Defines “Current Owner” for Purposes of CERCLA Liability

 

New Law

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with the District Court and determined that measuring ownership from the time of cleanup best aligns with the purposes for which CERCLA was enacted ¿ for three reasons.  First, that the statute of limitations on a CERCLA action starts to run once remedial action has begun suggests that Congress intended the “owner” to be the owner at the time of cleanup.  Second, CERCLA encourages responsible parties to remediate without delay and, if a landowner could avoid liability by transferring its property before a lawsuit is filed, then that landowner would have every incentive to delay cleanup until it found a buyer.  Third, CERCLA was also enacted to encourage settlement and early voluntary cleanup of contaminated properties, and Hearthside's proposed rule would require that a lawsuit be filed as a prerequisite to recovery in every case. 

“appropriate and consistent with requirements of applicable law and other resource considerations consistent with this Order or necessary for the exercise of valid existing rights.”

EPA Region 9 is soliciting proposals to carry out the Food Quality Protection Act and to support efforts by the agricultural community to “transition” away from high-risk pesticides to lower risk pesticides and sustainable practices in food production. The statutory authority for this program is Section 20 of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (“FIFRA”), 7 U.S.C. §136r. The program supports grants for education, extension and demonstration projects for FQPA transition and reduced risk practices for pest management in agriculture. Proposals for demonstration projects must demonstrate applications, technologies, methods or approaches that are new, innovative or experimental.

A Watershed Moment for the Clean Water Act

(1)   Looking 20 years ahead, what systemic risks will the emergency management community face?

(2)   What transformational events could shape emergency management's future?

(3)   What should the emergency management community be doing now to have the right future capacity and capabilities to serve those who depend on us?

 

revival is cause for celebration

FIESTA PARTY

powered by salsa

Red Tape Rising:

Published on October 26, 2010 by James Gattuso , Diane Katz and Stephen Keen

Abstract: The burden of regulation on Americans increased at an alarming rate in fiscal year 2010. Based on data from the Government Accountability Office, an unprecedented 43 major new regulations were imposed by Washington. And based on reports from government regulators themselves, the total cost of these rules topped $26.5 billion, far more than any other year for which records are available. These costs will affect Americans in many ways, raising the price of the cars they buy and the food they eat, while destroying an untold number of jobs. With the enactment of new health care laws, financial regulations, and plans for rulemaking in other areas, the regulatory burden on Americans is set to increase even further in the coming year.

The Hidden Tax

The cost of regulation has often been called a hidden tax. Although the total does not appear anywhere in the federal budget, the multitude of rules, restrictions, and mandates imposes a heavy burden on Americans and the U.S. economy. According to a report recently released by the Small Business Administration, total regulatory costs amount to about $1.75 trillion annually, [1] nearly twice as much as all individual income taxes collected last year. [2]

Not all regulations are unwarranted, of course. Most Americans would agree on the need for protections against terrorism, although the extent of such rules is certainly subject to debate. Moreover, regulations are not necessarily inconsistent with free-market principles. Some, such as anti-fraud measures, protect the rights of consumers. But there is always a cost. And, for the same reasons that federal spending is reported, so, too, should regulatory costs.

Record Increases

This regulatory burden has been increasing for some time. During the presidency of George W. Bush, which many mistakenly consider as a period of deregulation, the regulatory burden increased by more than $70 billion, according to agency regulatory impact reports. In FY 2009, which spanned the Bush and Obama Administrations, rulemaking proceeded at a nearly unprecedented rate, with the addition of 23 major rules imposing $13 billion in new costs. [3]

But the available evidence indicates that regulatory costs increased last year at a far greater pace. According to data from the Government Accountability Office, federal agencies promulgated 43 rules during the fiscal year ending September 30, 2010, [4] that impose significant burdens on the private sector. The total costs for these rules were estimated by the regulators themselves at some $28 billion, the highest level since at least 1981, the earliest date for which figures are available. [5] Fifteen of the 43 major rules issued last during the fiscal year involved financial regulation. Another five stem from the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act adopted by Congress in early 2010. Ten others come from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), including the first mandatory reporting of “greenhouse gas” emissions and $10.8 billion in new automotive fuel economy standards (adopted jointly with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA)). Overall, counting the fuel standards, the EPA is responsible for the lion's share of the reported regulatory costs—some $23.2 billion.

Among the most costly of the FY 2010 crop are:

Regulatory Reductions Missing in Action

Measures to reduce regulatory burdens, by contrast, were few and far between in FY 2010. Only five significant rulemakings adopted last year reduced burdens. Of these, cost reductions were quantified for only two, for reported savings of $1.5 billion. This leaves a net increase in the regulatory burden of $26.5 billion.

Moreover, one of the five measures—though technically deregulatory in nature—relates to an unparalleled expansion of EPA powers. Due to its determination last year that greenhouse gases are pollutants, the agency is moving to set emissions limits for such gases. To follow the standards in the Clean Air Act would corral millions of currently unregulated “facilities,” including offices and apartment buildings, shopping malls, restaurants, hotels, hospitals, schools, houses of worship, theaters, and sports arenas into the EPA regulatory regime. In hopes of quieting political outrage over so sweeping a dictate, the EPA's “Tailoring Rule” [10] set a minimum threshold level for regulation. Therefore, fewer facilities would be subject to permit requirements, making imposition of the emissions limits more feasible. Rather than reduce overall burdens, this action actually facilitated increased burdens. [11]

Actual Costs Likely Higher

The actual cost of regulations adopted in FY 2010 is almost certainly much higher than $26.5 billion. As a first matter, the cost of non-economically significant rules—rules deemed not likely to have an annual impact of $100 million or more—is not calculated (although such rules are believed to constitute only a small portion of total regulatory costs). Moreover, costs were not quantified for 12 of the economically significant rules adopted in FY 2010.

Many of the rules lacking quantified costs involve financial regulation. The Federal Reserve Board, for instance, did not quantify any costs for its new “Truth in Lending” [12] regulations—which impose fee and disclosure requirements for credit card accounts—although the new rules are generally expected to be costly. Similarly, costs were not calculated for new Federal Reserve Board regulations on prepaid electronic gift cards. [13]

It should also be noted that reported costs are likely minimized by allowing agencies to make the initial calculations, thereby casting their proposals in the best light. This could have a substantial impact: Overall, there is evidence that agencies systematically understate regulatory costs. In its 2005 report to Congress, the OMB's Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs conducted ex ante analyses of regulations to test the accuracy of cost-benefit estimates. The study determined that regulators overestimated benefits 40 percent of the time and underestimated costs 34 percent of the time. [14]

Even a finding that costs exceed benefits does not necessarily stop a new rule from going into effect. For instance, in evaluating new regulations for train-control systems, the Department of Transportation identified costs of $477.4 million, and benefits of a mere $22 million. Nevertheless, due to a statutory mandate, the regulations were adopted.

The EPA is prohibited by law from considering costs in devising regulations under the Clean Air Act and other major environmental statutes. Thus, the agency recently set new, more stringent standards on emissions of nitrogen dioxide without formally considering the economic or technical feasibility of compliance. [15] While the EPA did prepare a cost-benefit analysis—concluding that the costs exceed the benefits—agency officials conceded they had no way of determining the number of localities that would be out of compliance under the new rule.

Lastly, it should be noted that annual compliance costs constitute only part of the economic burden of regulation. New rules also entail start-up costs for new equipment, conversions of industrial processes, and devising data collection and reporting procedures. These “first-year” costs exceed $3.1 billion for the 43 new FY 2010 regulations. For example, new restrictions on “short sales” [16] imposed by the Securities and Exchange Commission will require initial costs of more than $1 billion [17] for modifications to computer systems and surveillance mechanisms, and for information-gathering, management, and recordkeeping systems. Likewise, the EPA estimates one-time implementation costs of nearly $745 million for new limits on emissions from diesel engines used in energy production. [18]

More Rules on the Way

Many, many more regulations are in the pipeline. According to one estimate, financial regulation legislation recently adopted by Congress, known as the Dodd–Frank bill, will require 243 new formal rule-makings by 11 different federal agencies. [19] So wide-ranging are regulators' new powers, in fact, that the Department of Health and Human Services has failed to meet one-third of the deadlines mandated by the new federal health care law, according to a report by the Congressional Research Service. [20]

Meanwhile, the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau created under the Dodd–Frank measure will wield vaguely defined powers to regulate financial products and services, including mortgages, credit cards, even student loans. And, the Federal Communications Commission is mulling new regulations to limit how Internet service providers manage their networks. Such “net neutrality” rules, if enacted, would undermine investment incentives, thereby robbing the nation of much-needed broadband upgrades. [21]

Taken together, these initiatives embody a stunningly full regulatory agenda—indicating that this year's record for regulatory increases will not stand for long.

Conclusion

The regulatory burden increased at an unprecedented rate during FY 2010, as measured by both the number of new major rules as well as their reported costs. Even more are on the way in 2011.

A number of steps have been proposed to stem this growth, ranging from automatic sunsetting of rules [22] to requiring congressional approval of all new major rules. [23]

Mere procedural reforms will not be enough to stem this regulatory tide. Regulatory costs will rise until policymakers appreciate the burdens that regulations are imposing on Americans and the economy, and exercise the political will necessary to limit—and reduce—those burdens.

— James L. Gattuso is Senior Research Fellow in Regulatory Policy, Diane Katz is Research Fellow in Regulatory Policy, and Stephen A. Keen is a Research Assistant, in the Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies at The Heritage Foundation.

Appendix

Major Rulemaking Proceedings that Increased Regulatory Burdens, October 2009–September 2010

October 2009

October 30, 2009, Environmental Protection Agency, “Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gases”: $94.9 million annually; $140.7 million start-up.

November 2009

November 17, 2009, Federal Reserve System, “Electronic Fund Transfers”: $10.9 million annually.

December 2009

December 1, 2009, Environmental Protection Agency, “Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Point Source Category”: $810.8 million annually.

December 4, 2009, Securities and Exchange Commission, “Amendments to Rules for Nationally Recognized Statistical Rating Organizations”: $34.9 million annually; $16.2 million start-up.

December 4, 2009, Department of Transportation, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, “Pipeline Safety: Integrity Management Program for Gas Distribution Pipelines”: $101.1 million annually; $130.1 million start-up.

December 23, 2009, Securities and Exchange Commission, “Proxy Disclosure Enhancements”: $66.5 million annually.

January 2010

January 8, 2010, Department of Energy, “Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for Certain Consumer Products (Dishwashers, Dehumidifiers, Microwave Ovens, and Electric and Gas Kitchen Ranges and Ovens) and for Certain Commercial and Industrial Equipment (Commercial Clothes Washers)”: $23.4 million annually.

January 11, 2010, Securities and Exchange Commission, “Custody of Funds or Securities of Clients by Investment Advisers”: $125.1 million annually; $1.2 million start-up.

January 15, 2010, Federal Reserve System and Federal Trade Commission, “Fair Credit Reporting Risk-Based Pricing Regulations”: $252.1 million annually.

January 15, 2010, Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration, “Positive Train Control Systems”: $477.4 million annually.

January 28, 2010, Department of the Treasury, Office of the Comptroller of the Currency; Federal Reserve System; Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation; Department of the Treasury, Office of Thrift Supervision, “Risk-Based Capital Guidelines; Capital Adequacy Guidelines; Capital Maintenance: Regulatory Capital; Impact of Modifications to Generally Accepted Accounting Principles; Consolidation of Asset-Backed Commercial Paper Programs; and Other Related Issues”: cost not quantified.

February 2010

February 9, 2010, Environmental Protection Agency, “Primary National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Nitrogen Dioxide”: cost not quantified.

February 17, 2010, Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Marketing Service, “National Organic Program; Access to Pasture (Livestock)”: cost not quantified.

February 22, 2010, Federal Reserve System, “Truth in Lending”: cost not quantified.

March 2010

March 3, 2010, Environmental Protection Agency, “National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines”: $373.4 million annually; $744.7 million start-up.

March 4, 2010, Securities and Exchange Commission, “Money Market Fund Reform”: $60.2 million annually; $86.9 million start-up.

March 9, 2010, Department of Energy, “Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for Small Electric Motors”: $263.9 million annually.

March 10, 2010, Securities and Exchange Commission, “Amendments to Regulation SHO”: $1.2 billion annually; $1.1 billion start-up.

March 19, 2010, Department of Health and Human Services, Food and Drug Administration, “Regulations Restricting the Sale and Distribution of Cigarettes and Smokeless Tobacco to Protect Children and Adolescents”: cost not quantified.

March 26, 2010, Environmental Protection Agency, “Regulation of Fuels and Fuel Additives: Changes to Renewable Fuel Standard Program”: $7.8 billion annually.

April 2010

April 1, 2010, Federal Reserve System, “Electronic Fund Transfers”: cost not quantified.

April 5, 2010, Department of Transportation, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, “Electronic On-Board Recorders for Hours-of-Service Compliance”: $139 million annually.

April 14, 2010, Department of Health and Human Services, Food and Drug Administration, “Use of Ozone-Depleting Substances; Removal of Essential-Use Designation (Flunisolide, etc.)”: $181.9 million annually.

April 16, 2010, Department of Energy: Energy Conservation Program, “Energy Conservation Standards for Residential Water Heaters, Direct Heating Equipment, and Pool Heaters”: $1.3 billion annually.

May 2010

May 6, 2010, Environmental Protection Agency, “Lead; Amendment to the Opt-Out and Recordkeeping Provisions in the Renovation, Repair, and Painting Program”: $419.5 million annually; $552 million start-up.

May 7, 2010, Environmental Protection Agency and Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, “Light-Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emission Standards and Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards; Final Rule”: $10.8 billion annually (2012–2016).

May 13, 2010, Department of the Treasury, Internal Revenue Service; Department of Labor, Employee Benefits Security Administration; Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the Secretary, “Interim Final Rules for Group Health Plans and Health Insurance Issuers Relating to Dependent Coverage of Children to Age 26 Under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act”: $11 million annually.

May 28, 2010, Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, “Automatic Dependent Surveillance—Broadcast (ADS-B) Out Performance Requirements to Support Air Traffic Control (ATC) Service”: $100 million annually.

June 2010

June 4, 2010, Federal Reserve System, “Electronic Fund Transfers”: cost not quantified.

June 17, 2010, Department of the Treasury, Internal Revenue Service; Department of Labor, Employee Benefits Security Administration; Department of Health and Human Services, “Interim Final Rules for Group Health Plans and Health Insurance Coverage Relating to Status as a Grandfathered Health Plan Under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act”: $25.2 million annually; $30.2 million start-up.

June 22, 2010, Environmental Protection Agency, “Primary National Ambient Air Quality Standard for Sulfur Dioxide”: $1.6 billion annually.

June 28, 2010, Department of the Treasury, Internal Revenue Service; Department of Labor, Employee Benefits Security Administration; and Department of Health and Human Services, “Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act: Preexisting Condition Exclusions, Lifetime and Annual Limits, Rescissions, and Patient Protections”: $4.8 million annually.

June 29, 2010, Federal Reserve System, “Truth in Lending”: cost not quantified.

July 2010

July 14, 2010, Securities and Exchange Commission, “Political Contributions by Certain Investment Advisers”: $85.1 million annually; $22.6 million start-up.

July 16, 2010, Department of Labor, Employee Benefits Security Administration, “Reasonable Contract or Arrangement Under Section 408(b)(2)—Fee Disclosure ”: $57.7 million annually.

July 19, 2010, Department of the Treasury, Internal Revenue Service; Department of Labor, Employee Benefits Security Administration; and Department of Health and Human Services, “Interim Final Rules for Group Health Plans and Health Insurance Issuers Relating to Coverage of Preventive Services Under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act”: cost not quantified.

July 23, 2010, Department of the Treasury, Internal Revenue Service; Department of Labor, Employee Benefits Security Administration; and Department of Health and Human Services, “Interim Final Rules for Group Health Plans and Health Insurance Issuers Relating to Internal Claims and Appeals and External Review Processes Under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act”: $75.1 million annually.

July 28, 2010, Department of the Treasury, Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, “Registration of Mortgage Loan Originators”: $123.9 million annually; $283.3 million start-up.

August 2010

August 9, 2010, Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, “Cranes and Derricks in Construction”: $151.6 million annually.

August 12, 2010, Securities and Exchange Commission: “Amendments to Form ADV”: $20.5 million annually; $56.4 million start-up.

August 20, 2010, Environmental Protection Agency, “National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines”: $253 million annually.

September 2010

September 9, 2010, Environmental Protection Agency, “National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants from the Portland Cement Manufacturing Industry and Standards of Performance for Portland Cement Plants”: $1 billion in 2013.

September 16, 2010, Securities and Exchange Commission, “Facilitating Shareholder Director Nominations”: $8 million annually.

Major Rulemaking Proceedings that Decreased Regulatory Burdens, October 2009–September 2010

October 19, 2009, Securities and Exchange Commission, “Internal Control Over Financial Reporting in Exchange Act Periodic Reports of Non-Accelerated Filers”: savings not quantified.

November 2, 2009, Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, “Medical Examination of Aliens—Removal of Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) Infection from Definition of Communicable Disease of Public Health Significance”: savings not quantified.

November 13, 2009, Environmental Protection Agency, “Oil Pollution Prevention; Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure (SPCC) Rule—Amendments”: $98.6 million.

March 31, 2010, Department of Justice, Drug Enforcement Administration, “Electronic Prescriptions for Controlled Substances”: $1.4 billion.

June 3, 2010, Environmental Protection Agency, “Prevention of Significant Deterioration and Title V Greenhouse Gas Tailoring Rule”: savings not quantified.

 

where landowners fence or post "no trespassing" signs on their property or otherwise indicate
unmistakably that entry is not allowed, their "expectation that their privacy rights will be
respected and that they will be free from unwanted intrusions is reasonable".

Authority:   42 U.S.C. 1857 et seq.

Source:   38 FR 12784, May 15, 1973, unless otherwise noted.

§ 40.100   Purpose of regulation.

top

These provisions establish and codify policies and procedures governing the award of research and demonstration grants by the Environmental Protection Agency.

§ 40.105   Applicability and scope.

top

This part establishes mandatory policies and procedures for all EPA research and demonstration grants. The provisions of this part supplement the EPA general grant regulations and procedures (40 CFR part 30). Accordingly, all EPA research and demonstration grants are awarded subject to the EPA interim general grant regulations and procedures (40 CFR part 30) and to the applicable provisions of this part 40.

§ 40.110   Authority.

top

EPA research and demonstration grants are authorized under the following statutes:

(1) Section 103 (42 U.S.C. 1857b) authorizes grants for research and demonstration projects relating to the causes, effects, extent, prevention, and control of air pollution.

(2) Section 104 (42 U.S.C. 1857b–1) authorizes grants for research and development of new and improved methods for the prevention and control of air pollution resulting from the combustion of fuels.

(b) The Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended, Public Law 92–500.

(1) Section 104(b) (33 U.S.C. 1254(b)) authorizes grants for research and demonstration projects relating to the causes, effects, extent, prevention, reduction, and elimination of water pollution.

(4) Section 104(r) (33 U.S.C. 1254(r)) authorized grants for the conduct of basic research into the structure and function of freshwater aquatic ecosystems, and to improve understanding of the ecological characteristics necessary to the maintenance of the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of freshwater aquatic ecosystems.

(5) Section 104(s) (33 U.S.C. (s)) authorizes grants to conduct and report on interdisciplinary studies on river systems, including hydrology, biology, ecology, economics, the relationship between river uses and land uses, and the effects of development within river basins on river systems and on the value of water resources and water-related activities.

(6) Section 105(a) (33 U.S.C. 1255(a)) authorizes grants for research and demonstration of new or improved methods for preventing, reducing, and eliminating the discharge into any waters of pollutants from sewers which carry storm water or both storm water and pollutants; and for the demonstration of advanced waste treatment and water purification methods (including the temporary use of new or improved chemical additives which provide substantial immediate improvement to existing treatment processes), or new or improved methods of joint treatment systems for municipal and industrial wastes.

(7) Section 105(b) (33 U.S.C. 1255(b)) authorizes grants for demonstrating, in river basins or portions thereof, advanced treatment and environmental enhancement techniques to control pollution from all sources, within such basin or portions thereof, including nonpoint sources, together with in-stream water quality improvement techniques.

(8) Section 105(c) (33 U.S.C. 1255(c)) authorizes grants for research and demonstration projects for prevention of pollution of any waters by industry including, but not limited to, the prevention, reduction, and elimination of the discharge of pollutants.

(9) Section 105(e)(1) (33 U.S.C. 1255(e)(1)) authorizes grants for research and demonstration projects with respect to new and improved methods of preventing, reducing, and eliminating pollution from agriculture.

11) Section 107 (33 U.S.C. 1257) authorizes grants for projects to demonstrate comprehensive approaches to the elimination or control of acid or other mine water pollution resulting from active or abandoned mining operations and other environmental pollution affecting water quality within all or part of a watershed or river basin, including siltation from surface mining.

(d) The Solid Waste Disposal Act, as amended, by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (42 U.S.C. 6901 et seq. ).

(1) Section 8001 (42 U.S.C. 6981) authorizes grants for research and demonstration projects relating to solid waste.

(2) Section 8004 (42 U.S.C. 6984) authorizes grants for demonstration of new or improved technologies for resource recovery.

(3) Section 8005 (42 U.S.C. 6985) authorizes grants to conduct special studies and demonstration projects on recovery of useful energy and materials.

(4) Section 8006 (42 U.S.C. 6986) authorizes grants for the demonstration of resource recovery system or for the construction of new or improved solid waste disposal facilities.

§ 40.115-1   Construction.

top

May include the preliminary planning to determine the economic and engineering feasibility of a facility, the engineering, architectural, legal, fiscal, and economic investigations and studies, surveys, designs, plans, working drawings, specifications, procedures, and other action necessary to the construction of a facility, the erection, acquisition, alteration, remodeling, improvement, or extension of a facility, and the inspection and supervision of the construction of a facility.

§ 40.115-5   Person.

top

(a) Under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, an individual, corporation, partnership, association, State, municipality, commission, or political subdivision of a State, or any interstate body.

(b) Under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, an individual, trust, firm, joint stock company, corporation (including a government corporation), partnership, association, State, municipality, commission, political subdivision of a State, or any interstate body.

[38 FR 12784, May 15, 1973, as amended at 42 FR 56057, Oct. 20, 1977]

§ 40.120   Publication of EPA research objectives.

top

The Office of Research and Development of EPA publishes a statement of research objectives and priorities annually in a document entitled “Office of Research and Development—Program Guide.” This document may be obtained from either the Office of Research and Development, RD–674, or the Grants Administration Division, PM–216, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC 20460.

[42 FR 56057, Oct. 20, 1977]

§ 40.125   Grant limitations.

top

§ 40.125-1   Limitations on duration.

top

(a) [Reserved]

(b) No research or demonstration grant shall be approved for a project period in excess of 5 years.

(c) The grant award official may extend the budget and project periods for up to an additional 12 months without additional grant funds, when such extensions are in the best interest of the Government.

[42 FR 56057, Oct. 20, 1977, as amended at 72 FR 52010, Sept. 12, 2007]

§ 40.125-2   Limitations on assistance.

top

In addition to the cost-sharing requirements pursuant to 40 CFR 30.720, research and demonstration grants shall be governed by the specific assistance limitations listed below:

(a) Federal Water Pollution Control Act. (1) Section 104(s)—no grant in any fiscal year may exceed $1 million.

(2) Sections 105 (a), (c) and 108—no grant may exceed 75 percent of the allowable actual project costs.

(b) Clean Air Act. (1) Section 104—no grant may exceed $1,500,000.

(2) [Reserved]

(c) Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. (1) Sections 8001, 8004, and 8005. The maximum practicable cost sharing is required.

(2) Section 8006. The Federal share for any grant for the demonstration of resource recovery systems shall not exceed 75 percent and is subject to the conditions contained in section 8006(b) of the Act. The Federal share for any grant for the construction of new or improved solid waste disposal facilities shall not exceed 50 percent in the case of a project serving an area which includes only one municipality and 75 percent in any other case, and is subject to the limitations contained in section 8006(c) of the Act. Not more than 15 percent of the total funds authorized to be appropriated for any fiscal year to carry out this section shall be awarded for projects in any one State.

[38 FR 12784, May 15, 1973, as amended at 42 FR 20083, May 8, 1977; 42 FR 56057, Oct. 20, 1977]

§ 40.130   Eligibility.

top

Except as otherwise provided below, grants for research and demonstration projects may be awarded to any responsible applicant in accordance with 40 CFR 30.340:

(a) The Clean Air Act, as amended—public or nonprofit private agencies, institutions, organizations, and to individuals.

(b) Resource Conservation and Recovery Act.

(1) Section 8001, public authorities, agencies, and institutions; private agencies and institutions; and individuals.

(2) Sections 8004 and 8005, public agencies and authorities or private persons.

(3) Section 8006, State, municipal, interstate or intermunicipal agencies.

(4) No grant may be made under this Act to any private profit-making organization.

(c) The Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, as amended—other Federal agencies, universities, or others as may be necessary to carry out the purposes of the act.

(d) The Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended:

(1) Section 104(b)—State water pollution control agencies, interstate agencies, other public or nonprofit private agencies, institutions, organizations, and to individuals.

(2) Sections 104 (h) and (i)—public or private agencies and organizations and to individuals.

(3) Section 104(r)—colleges and universities.

(4) Section 104(s)—institutions of higher education.

(5) Sections 105 (a), (e)(2), and 107—State, municipal, interstate, and intermunicipal agencies.

(6) Section 195(b)—State or States or interstate agency.

(7) Sections 105 (c) and (e)(1)—persons.

(8) Section 108—State, political subdivision, interstate agency, or other public agency, or combination thereof.

(9) Section 113—only to the State of Alaska .

(e) The Public Health Service Act, as amended—only to nonprofit agencies, institutions, organizations, and to individuals.

[38 FR 12784, May 15, 1973, as amended at 40 FR 20083, May 8, 1975; 42 FR 56057, Oct. 20, 1977]

§ 40.135   Application.

top

§ 40.135-1   Preapplication coordination.

top

(a) All applicants. (1) Applicants for research and demonstration grants are encouraged to contact EPA for further information and assistance prior to submitting a formal application. The EPA regional office or the laboratory nearest the applicant will be able to provide such assistance or to refer the applicant to an appropriate EPA representative.

(2) Applicants shall prepare an environmental assessment of the proposed project where applicable, outlining the anticipated impact on the environment pursuant to 40 CFR part 6.

(b) Applications for grants for demonstration projects funded by the Office of Solid Waste will be solicited through the Department of Commerce Business Daily, and selections will be made on a competitive basis.

[38 FR 12784, May 15, 1973, as amended at 41 FR 20659, May 20, 1976; 42 FR 56057, Oct. 20, 1977; 48 FR 29302, June 24, 1983]

§ 40.135-2   Application requirements.

top

All applications for research and demonstration grants shall be submitted in an original and 8 copies to the Environmental Protection Agency, Grants Administration Division, Washington, DC 20460, in accordance with §§30.315 through 30.315–3.

(a) Applications involving human subjects. (1) Safeguarding the rights and welfare of human subjects involved in projects supported by EPA grants is the responsibility of the institution which receives or is accountable to EPA for the funds awarded for the support of the project.

(2) Institutions must submit to EPA, for review, approval, and official acceptance, a written assurance of its compliance with guidelines established by Department of Health, Education, and Welfare concerning protection of human subjects. However, institutions which have submitted and have had accepted, general assurance to DHEW under these guidelines will be considered as being in compliance with this requirement. These guidelines are provided in DHEW Publication No. (NIH) 72–102, the “Institutional Guide to DHEW Policy on Protection of Human Subjects.” Copies of this publication are available from the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington , DC 20420 .

(3) Applicants must provide with each proposal involving human subjects a certification that it has been or will be reviewed in accordance with the institution's assurance. This certification must be renewed annually on the basis of continuing review of the supported project.

(b) Applications involving laboratory animals. Each application for a project involving the use of warmblooded animals shall include a written assurance that the applicant has registered with the Department of Agriculture and is in compliance with the rules, regulations, and standards enunciated in the Animal Welfare Act, Public Law 89–554, as amended.

(c) Notice of research project ( NRP ). Each application for research must include a summary (NRP) of proposed work (200 words or less) incorporating objectives, approach and current plans and/or progress. Upon approval of an application, summaries are forwarded to the Smithsonian Science Information Exchange. Summaries of work in progress are exchanged with government and private agencies supporting research and are forwarded to investigators who request such information.

(d) Federal Water Pollution Control Act. (1) All applications for grants under section 105(a) must have been approved by the appropriate State water pollution control agency or agencies.

(2) All applications for grants under section 107, where the proposed project will be located in the Appalachian region, shall have been coordinated with the Appalachian Regional Commission for determination that such demonstration project is consistent with the objectives of the Appalachian Regional Development Act of 1965, as amended.

(e) Intergovernmental review. EPA will not award funds under this subpart without review and consultation, if applicable, in accordance with the requirements of Executive Order 12372, as implemented in 40 CFR part 29 of this chapter.

[38 FR 12784, May 15, 1973, as amended at 40 FR 20083, May 8, 1975; 42 FR 56057, Oct. 20, 1977; 48 FR 29302, June 24, 1983]

§ 40.140   Criteria for award.

top

In determining the desirability and extent of funding for a project and the relative merit of an application, consideration will be given to the following criteria:

§ 40.140-1   All applications.

top

(a) The relevancy of the proposed project to the objectives of the EPA research and demonstration program;

(b) The availability of funds within EPA;

(c) The technical feasibility of the project;

(d) The seriousness, extent, and urgency of the environmental problems toward which the project is directed;

(e) The anticipated public benefits to be derived from the project in relation to the costs of the project;

(f) The competency of the applicant's staff and the adequacy of the applicant's facilities and available resources;

(g) The degree to which the project can be expected to produce results that will have general application to pollution control problems nationwide;

(h) Whether the project is consistent with existing plans or ongoing planning for the project area at the State, regional, and local levels;

(i) The existence and extent of local public support for the project;

(j) Whether the proposed project is environmentally sound;

(k) Proposed cost sharing.

§ 40.140-2   [Reserved]

top

§ 40.140-3   Federal Water Pollution Control Act.

top

(a) All applications for grants under section 105(c) must provide evidence that the proposed project will contribute to the development or demonstration of a new or improved method of treating industrial wastes or otherwise preventing pollution by industry, which method shall have industrywide application;

(b) All applications for grants under section 113 must include provisions for community safe water supply systems, toilets, bathing and laundry facilities, sewage disposal facilities and programs relating to health and hygiene. Such projects must also be for the further purpose of developing preliminary plans for providing such safe water and such elimination or control of water pollution for all native villages in the State of Alaska .

§ 40.145   Supplemental grant conditions.

top

In addition to the EPA general grant conditions (40 CFR part 30, subpart C), all grants are awarded subject to the following requirements:

(a) The project will be conducted in an environmentally sound manner.

(b) In addition to the notification of project changes required pursuant to 40 CFR 30.900, prior written approval by the grants officer is required for project changes which may (1) alter the approved scope of the project, (2) substantially alter the design of the project, or (3) increase the amount of Federal funds needed to complete the project. No approval or disapproval of a project change pursuant to 40 CFR 30.900 or this section shall commit or obligate the United States to an increase in the amount of the grant or payments thereunder, but shall not preclude submission or consideration of a request for a grant amendment pursuant to 40 CFR 30.900–1.

[38 FR 12784, May 15, 1973, as amended at 40 FR 20083, May 8, 1975]

§ 40.145-1   Resource Conservation and Recovery Act.

top

Programs for which a Federal grant is awarded by the Environmental Protection Agency to a State, municipal, interstate or intermunicipal agency, or to any public authority, agency or institution, under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, shall be the subject of public participation consistent with part 249 of this chapter.

[42 FR 56057, Oct. 20, 1977]

§ 40.145-2   Federal Water Pollution Control Act.

top

(a) No person in the United States shall on the ground of sex be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving assistance under the Act.

(b) Grants under section 107 are awarded subject to the conditions—

(1) That the State shall acquire any land or interests therein necessary for such project to assure the elimination or control of acid or other mine water pollution; and

(2) That the State shall provide legal and practical protection to the project area to insure against any activities which will cause future acid or other mine water pollution.

§ 40.145-3   Projects involving construction.

top

Research and demonstration grants for projects involving construction shall be subject to the following conditions:

(a) The applicant will demonstrate to the satisfaction of the grants officer that he has or will have a fee simple or such other estate or interest in the site of the project, and rights of access, as the grants officer finds sufficient to assure undisturbed use and possession for the purpose of construction and operation for the estimated life of the project; and in the case of projects serving more than one municipality, that the participating communities have such interests or rights as the grants officer finds sufficient to assure their undisturbed utilization of the project for the estimated life of the project.

(b) Invitations for bids or requests for proposals shall be based upon a clear and accurate description of the technical requirements for the material, product, or service to be procured. Such description shall not, in competitive procurements, contain features which unduly restrict competition. “Brand name or equal” description may be used as a means to define the performance or other salient requirements of a procurement, and when so used the specific features of the named brand which must be met by offerors should be clearly specified.

(c) Positive efforts shall be made by the grantees to utilize small business and minority-owned business sources of supplies and services.

(d) Subagreements for construction work may be negotiated when advertising for competitive bids is not feasible; however, the grantee must adequately demonstrate its need to contract with a single or sole source. All such subagreements are subject to prior approval by the grants officer.

(e) Construction work will be performed by the fixed-price (lump sum) or fixed-rate (unit price) method, or a combination of these two methods, unless the grants officer gives advance written approval to use some other method of contracting. The cost-plus-a-percentage-of-cost method of contracting shall not be used. Adequate methods of advertising for and obtaining competitive sealed bids will be employed prior to award of the construction contract. The award of the contract will be made to the responsible bidder submitting the lowest responsive bid, which shall be determined without regard to State or local law whereby preference is given on factors other than the specification requirements and the amount of bid. The grantee must promptly transmit to the grants officer copies of bid protests, decisions on such protests, and related correspondence. The grants officer will cause appropriate review of grantee procurement methods to be made.

(f) On construction contracts exceeding $100,000, each bidder must furnish a bid guarantee equivalent to 5 percent of the bid price. In addition, the contractor awarded the contract must furnish performance and payment bonds, each of which shall be in an amount not less than 100 percent of the contract price. Construction contracts less than $100,000 shall follow the State or local requirements relating to bid guarantees, performance bonds, and payment bonds.

(g) The construction of the project, including the letting of contracts in connection therewith, shall conform to the applicable requirements of State, territorial, and local laws and ordinances to the extent that such requirements do not conflict with Federal laws.

(h) The grantee will provide and maintain competent and adequate engineering supervision and inspection for the project to insure that the construction conforms with the approved plans and specifications.

(i) Any construction contract must provide that representatives of the Environmental Protection Agency and the State, as appropriate, will have access to the work whenever it is in preparation or progress and that the contractor will provide proper facilities for such access and inspection. The contract must also provide that the grants officer, the Comptroller General of the United States , or any authorized representative shall have access to any books, documents, papers, and records of the contractor which are pertinent to the project for the purpose of making audit, examination, excerpts, and transcriptions thereof.

(j) The grantee agrees to construct the project or cause it to be constructed in accordance with the application, plans and specifications, and subagreements approved by EPA in the grant agreement or amendments.

(k) In addition to the notification of project changes pursuant to 40 CFR 30.900, a copy of any construction contract or modifications thereof, and of revisions to plans and specifications must be submitted to the grants officer.

[38 FR 12784, May 15, 1973, as amended at 40 FR 20083, May 8, 1975]

§ 40.150   Evaluation of applications.

top

Every application for a research or demonstration grant will be evaluated by appropriate EPA staff in terms of relevancy and the applicable criteria set forth in §40.140. Only applications considered relevant to EPA research and demonstration objectives will receive further consideration and be subjected to additional review. Relevancy will be measured by program needs and priorities as defined in the Agency's current planned objectives. Relevancy, coupled with the results of technical review, will provide the basis for funding recommendations.

(a) New applications. Applications considered relevant to EPA research and demonstration objectives will be reviewed for technical merit by at least one reviewer within EPA and at least two reviewers outside EPA. Review by a National Advisory Council is statutorily required for radiation grants.

(b) Continuation applications. Continuation applications will be reviewed by appropriate EPA staff only. Recommendations for continuation of funding will be based on progress toward the accomplishment of the goals set forth for the project and continued Agency needs and priorities.

§ 40.155   Availability of information.

top

(a) The availability to the public of information provided to, or otherwise obtained by, the Administrator under this part shall be governed by part 2 of this chapter.

(b) An assertion of entitlement to confidential treatment of part or all of the information in an application may be made using the procedure described in §30.235(b). See also §§2.203 and 2.204 of this chapter.

(c) All information and data contained in the grant application will be subject to external review unless deviation is approved for good cause pursuant to 40 CFR 30.1000.

[38 FR 12784, May 15, 1973, as amended at 40 FR 20083, May 8, 1975; 41 FR 36918, Sept. 1, 1976]

§ 40.160   Reports.

top

§ 40.160-1   Progress reports.

top

The grant agreement will normally require the submission of a brief progress report after the end of each quarter of the budget period. A monthly progress report may be required for some demonstration projects, if set forth in the grant agreement. Progress reports should fully describe in chart or narrative format the progress achieved in relation to the approved schedule and project milestones. Special problems or delays encountered must be explained. A summary progress report covering all work on the project to date is required to be included with applications for continuation grants (see §40.165b). This report may be submitted one quarter prior to the end of the budget period.

§ 40.160-2   Financial status report.

top

A financial status report must be prepared and submitted within 90 days after completion of the budget and project periods in accordance with §30.635–3.

[42 FR 56057, Oct. 20, 1977]

§ 40.160-3   Reporting of inventions.

top

As provided in appendix B of 40 CFR part 30, immediate and full reporting of all inventions to the Environmental Protection Agency is required. In addition:

(a) An annual invention statement is required with each continuation application.

(b) A final invention report is required within 90 days after completion of the project period.

(c) When a principal investigator changes institutions or ceases to direct a project, an invention statement must be promptly submitted with a listing of all inventions during his administration of the grant.

[38 FR 12784, May 15, 1973, as amended at 40 FR 20083, May 8, 1975]

§ 40.160-4   Equipment report.

top

At the completion or termination of a project, the grantee will submit a listing of all items of equipment acquired with grant funds with an acquisition cost of $300 or more and having a useful life of more than 1 year.

§ 40.160-5   Final report.

top

The grantee shall submit a draft of the final report for review no later than 90 days prior to the end of the approved project period. The report shall document project activities over the entire period of grant support and shall describe the grantee's achievements with respect to stated project purposes and objectives. The report shall set forth in complete detail all technical aspects of the projects, both negative and positive, grantee's findings, conclusions, and results, including, as applicable, an evaluation of the technical effectiveness and economic feasibility of the methods or techniques investigated or demonstrated. The final report shall include EPA comment when required by the grants officer. Prior to the end of the project period, one reproducible copy suitable for printing and such other copies as may be stipulated in the grant agreement shall be transmitted to the grants officer.

§ 40.165   Continuation grants.

top

To be eligible for a continuation grant within the approved project period, the grantee must:

(a) Have demonstrated satisfactory performance during all previous budget periods; and

(b) Submit no later than 90 days prior to the end of the budget period a continuation application which includes a detailed summary progress report, an estimated financial statement for the current budget period, a budget for the new budget period; and an updated work plan revised to account for actual progress accomplished during the current budget period.

 

Report Faults EPA Oversight

The report recommends that agency officials ensure that accurate standards are used to assess conditions at the site and that laboratories use the correct analytic methods.

In related news, the start of the 112th Congress also featured the official closure of the Select Committee for Energy Independence and Global Warming, the only Congressional committee dedicated to tackling climate change.

Administrative - EPA Order 3120.1b Scientific misconduct, fabrication or knowing falsification of
data, research procedures, or data analysis is an offense which can result in immediate removal/ Suspension
and Debarment / Civil Sanctions / Fines / Local AUSA Must Decide If Fraud Meets Criminal
Prosecution Threshold / Culpability / Harm
Laboratory Fraud, Title 18 United States Criminal Code; Is It Criminal or Civil?
Fraud - 18 USC 1341 - 1343 , PROCEDURAL FRAUD, MEASUREMENT FRAUD
False Statements - 18 USC 1001
Conspiracy - 18 USC 371
Concealment of a felony - 18 USC 4 (misprision)
False Claims - 18 USC 287
Obstruction of Justice - 18 USC 1505
Penalties up to 20 years imprisonment for destroying, concealing or falsifying records with intent to
obstruct or impede a legal investigation
"Government is not reason; it is not eloquence; it is force. Like fire; it is a dangerous servant and a
fearful master." - George Washington

CLIMATE CHANGE PRIOR RIGHTS

 logos

CLIMATE CHANGE PRIOR RIGHTS 2

FIRST PRIZE TO ROSS HUTCHENS

blue fish in a blue sky

Freedom at Risk: Reflections on Politics, Liberty, and the State

A book event

James L. Buckley may be the only American alive who has held high office in each branch of the federal government – as U.S. Senator from New York, an Under Secretary of State under President Ronald Reagan, and a Judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. His comprehensive understanding of how Washington works equips him to address authoritatively the intrusive growth of the federal government and illuminate such diverse issues as judicial activism, environmental regulation, the place of religion in public life, energy policies, campaign financing, and women's rights. On the international front, he explains the dangers of abandoning foreign commitments and the difficulties posed by political corruption in the United Nations. Many of these essays and speeches are from the Seventies, but problems identified then have grown exponentially in the decades since, and the author's insights are even more relevant today than they were when he first entered the Senate.

In Freedom at Risk , Buckley's collected essays, musings, and speeches tell why government is incapable of managing an economy, and why the transformation of the federal government into a centrally administered welfare state is undermining the most critical safeguard the Founders had written into the Constitution, namely the principle of federalism. Here, in a perceptive analysis spanning a lifetime in Washington, lies an outline of the steps that must be taken to save constitutional government, if that is still possible.

An Entrepreneurship and Development Symposium

 

Cosponsored by George Mason University and The Heritage Foundation

~ AGENDA ~

8:30 a.m.
Registration and Continental Breakfast

9:00 a.m.
Welcome and Opening Remarks

Ambassador Terry Miller
Director, Center for International Trade and Economics, The Heritage Foundation

9:20 a.m.
Panel 1 – Entrepreneurship: The KILLER APP for Sustainable Development

Erkko Autio, Ph.D.
Director, Doctoral Program, Imperial College London Business School

Steven Pearlstein
Business Columnist, The Washington Post

John Haltiwanger, Ph.D.
Professor of Economics, University of Maryland

William Beach
Director, Center for Data Analysis, The Heritage Foundation

10:45 a.m.
Panel 2 – Measuring the KILLER APP

Leora Klapper
Senior Financial Economist, The World Bank

Steve Crabtree
Contributing Writer, Gallup Corporation

Laszlo Szerb
Associate Professor of Business and Economics, University of Pécs, Hungary

Anthony Kim
Policy Analyst, Center for International Trade and Economics, The Heritage Foundation



12:00 p.m.
Lunch – The Global Entrepreneurial and Development Index

Zoltan J. Acs, Ph.D.
Director, Center for Entrepreneurship and Economics, George Mason University
on “GEDI: A Tool for the 21 st Century”



1:15 p.m.
Keynote Address

Roger Stough
Vice President for Research and Economic Development, George Mason University



1:45 p.m.
Panel 3 – Public Policy: Channeling the KILLER APP for Global Development

Zoltan J. Acs, Ph.D.
Director, Center for Entrepreneurship and Economics, George Mason University

Samee Desai
Assistant Professor, Entrepreneurship and Innovation, Indiana University

David Audretsch
Director, Institute for Development Strategies, Indiana University

Jim Blasingame
Host, The Small Business Advocate (Moderator)



3:00 p.m.
Conference Wrap-Up

Jack Goldstone
Director, Center for Global Policy, George Mason University
on “Getting to 2050: Population, Cities and Entrepreneurship”

 

No Retreat for Veteran EPA Whistleblower

United States v. Tarkowski, [2000] 50 Envt Rep. Cas. (BNA) 1121, 2000 WL 12442 (N.D. Ill. 2000).

In a subsequent order, the court nevertheless denied the government=s motion for
access, finding that there was no reasonable basis to believe that releases or threatened
releases of hazardous substances had occurred or might occur, except for the possible
presence of pesticides and metals in some soil areas. But, even as for the latter, U.S. EPA
had failed to follow its own established methods for determining whether a response action
was necessary. The court also denied a second motion for access filed by the government,
to conduct investigation and sampling (encompassing surface and well water as well as soil,
sediment and containers), including subsurface areas, finding that the second motion went
Avastly beyond@ the basis of the court=s holding regarding the first motion, and far beyond
as well the investigation of releases for which the government had any reasonable basis to
believe had occurred or might be threatened. Furthermore, the government had failed to
establish that defendant had refused access to the property for the purposes sought in the
second motion. 2000 WL 696740 (N.D. Ill. May 30, 2000).
On appeal, the Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court=s order, sharply rebuking the
government for taking Athe extreme position that, provided it has probable cause to believe
that there is even a thimbleful of a hazardous substance spilled . . . or even a drop, it has an
absolute right to an access order regardless of the action it proposes to take, [even]
rendering the property wholly useless to the owner@. It found that the government=s
position did not serve a public purpose, strike a reasonable balance between property and
community rights, rationally advance the agency=s mission, nor comport with
constitutional limitations upon federal regulation of purely local activities and upon
searches and seizures, noting that A[a]ccess orders are orders to seize as well as search
because of the control the agency exerts over the property. It acknowledged that EPA
would have been entitled to an order to enter the property for the limited purpose of
conducting tests, and later to a second access order to execute a remediation order (which
would not be directly reviewable) should the testing demonstrate a need therefor.
However, the blanket authority in Section 113(h) of CERCLA precluding direct review of
EPA=s removal and remedial actions cannot not act to deprive the courts of the power to
review whether access orders sought to effectuate such actions are arbitrary or capricious,
regardless of the magnitude of the impact upon the property owner or the minimal threat
of contamination posed to the environment. 248 F.3d 596 (7th Cir. 2001). In subsequent
orders, the district court found that the government=s position in the matter had not been
justified, 53 Env=t Rep. Cas. (BNA) 1958 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 26, 2001), and awarded a total of
approximately $95,000 to defendant in attorneys fees and expenses under the Equal Access
to Justice Act, 2002 WL 460831 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 26, 2002).

Laws and Regulations
�� Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA) (43 U.S.C. 1701, et seq.).
Section 302(b) authorizes the Secretary of the Interior, through the BLM, to take actions that
prevent unnecessary or undue degradation of public lands.
�� National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP) (40 CFR 300).
The NCP “provide[s] the organizational structure and procedures for preparing for and
responding to discharges of oil and releases of hazardous substances, pollutants, and
contaminants” (40 CFR 300.1).
�� Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) (42
U.S.C. 9601). CERCLA was enacted to address risks to public health and the environment
resulting from actual or potential releases of hazardous substances and to recover costs spent for
cleanups from responsible parties. Executive Orders (EO) 12580 (Superfund Implementation)
and 13016 (Amendment to E.O. 12580) delegate CERCLA authority and responsibility to the
DOI to respond to actual or potential releases of hazardous substances on or affecting public
lands administered, by the BLM and initiate cost recovery from responsible parties. These
actions should comply with the requirements of the NCP.
�� Watershed Restoration and Enhancement Agreements (“Wyden Amendment”) (Public
Law (PL)-104-208, Sec. 124, PL 10-5-277, Sec. 136 of the 1999 Interior Appropriations Act
of 1998). The Wyden Amendment authorizes the BLM to conduct watershed-based
environmental reclamation, through partnerships with States, at abandoned mines, impacted by
contamination originating from non-Federal lands, to improve the viability of and otherwise
benefit the fish, wildlife, and other biotic resources on public land in the watershed.
In addition to the preceding primary authorities, the BLM also relies on the following secondary
authorities applicable to the evaluation and cleanup of abandoned mine lands. These authorities
present standards and requirements that must be observed in the course of AML cleanup and
reclamation.
�� National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321, et seq.). In the absence of the
application of CERCLA processes, AML projects require compliance with NEPA. NEPA
establishes a process to review the environmental impacts of a proposed major Federal action that
could significantly affect the quality of the environment, as well as the environmental impacts of
possible alternatives to the proposed action. Proposed Federal activities that potentially could
result in environmental impacts at abandoned mines include non-CERCLA environmental
reclamation and physical safety risk mitigation efforts.
�� Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act (SMCRA) (30 U.S.C. 1201, et seq.). After
meeting coal clean-up responsibilities, SMCRA allows States and Tribes with approved SMCRA
AML programs to fund clean-up of non-coal sites. For abandoned mine purposes, the law also
allows reclamation resources to be used for clean-up of non-coal mines that, if not addressed,
would substantially degrade the quality of the environment, prevent or damage the beneficial use
of land or water resources, or endanger the health or safety of the public.

This facilitates the BLM’s partnership opportunities with States, such as cooperative agreements and fund leveraging.

�� Surface Resources Act of 1955 (PL-167) (30 U.S.C. 611-614). This statute authorizes the
BLM to manage the vegetative and surface resources on mining claims located after 1955. The
Act also provides for restriction on the use of unpatented mining claims.
�� Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (RCRA) (42 U.S.C. 6921-6924). RCRA is
the primary Federal authority for managing hazardous wastes from cradle to grave. Subtitle C of
RCRA regulates the generation, collection, transportation, treatment, storage, and disposal of
hazardous wastes. In 1980, Congress amended RCRA to include the Bevill Amendment
(Section 3001(b) (3) (A) (ii) and 40 CFR 261.4(b)(7)), which effectively exempted wastes from
the extraction and beneficiation of ores and minerals from RCRA subtitle C, regardless of their
chemical composition. A limited set of mining wastes may be eligible under RCRA—if the
abandoned mine (or associated operations) held a subtitle C treatment, storage, or disposal
facility permit or if the abandoned mine generated non-Bevill excluded waste. From a practical
point of view, the Bevill Amendment exempts most tailings and waste rock from RCRA
standards, thus many on-site repository solutions can be utilized for stabilization of mine wastes.
(See Section 9.4.7.2 for more information on repositories).
�� Clean Water Act of 1972 (CWA) (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). The BLM can use the provisions of
the CWA to promote cooperative clean-up efforts at abandoned mine sites impacting water
quality.
�� Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA) (16 U.S.C. 1531). Where abandoned mines may
impact endangered or threatened species (e.g., bats or fish), the BLM uses ESA authority to
ensure environmental risks are addressed through ecologically protective reclamation efforts.
�� National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (NHPA), as amended (16 U.S.C. 470). Where
abandoned mines may impact historic or cultural resources, the BLM uses NHPA authority to
ensure protection of historic and archaeological properties. (See Section 9.3.3.1 for application).
�� Mining Law of 1872, as amended (30 U.S.C. 21, et seq.). This statute allows the location, use,
and patenting of mining claims on public lands.

The EPA's Discontents

— By Kate Sheppard

| Thu Jan. 13, 2011 12:13 PM PST

Enviros and local activists are cheering the Environmental Protection Agency's decision to veto a permit for the Spruce mine in West Virginia, but the coal industry—and a number of coal-friendly legislators—aren't pleased.

National Mining Association president Hal Quinn released this statement :

EPA has taken this unprecedented action—never before contemplated in the nearly 40 years since the enactment of the Clean Water Act—at a time of great economic uncertainty. NMA urges the administration to step back from this unwarranted action and restore trust in the sanctity of lawfully granted and abided by permits and the jobs and economic activity they support.

The EPA's action is unprecedented, that much is true. This marks the first time since the Clean Water Act was enacted in 1972 that a permit was rescinded following the agency's review. But the agency pretty clearly outlined the reasons it is pulling the permit. The agency was also careful to note that it made attempts to work with the coal company, Mingo Logan, to find an alternative dumping plan.

Members of West Virginia's congressional delegation are particularly aggrieved by the EPA's decision. Senior senator, Jay Rockefeller (D) sent a letter to President Obama expressing his "outrage" over the decision ( via E2 Wire ). "This action not only affects this specific permit, but needlessly throws other permits into a sea of uncertainty at a time of great economic distress," wrote Rockefeller. He expressed his hope, however, that the decision would be overturned in court in the future.

The state's new senator, Joe Manchin (D), called the decision "irresponsible and unprecedented."

"It goes without saying, such an irresponsible regulatory step is not only a shocking display of overreach, it will have a chilling effect on investments and our economic recovery," he said. "I plan to do everything in my power to fight this decision."

The state's Democratic House member, Nick Rahall, was also displeased. From his statement :

This veto reaches well beyond one coal mine; it threatens the economic security of every business that relies upon these Clean Water Act permits and that depends upon a fair and consistent permitting process. While this Administration claims that it will not take similar action on any other permit, there is nothing to prevent it, or any future EPA, from reaching back to veto a previously granted permit now that this line has been crossed.

 

ATSDR

Copper

CAS ID #: 7440-50-8

Affected Organ Systems: Gastrointestinal (Digestive), Hematological (Blood Forming), Hepatic (Liver)

Cancer Effects: None

Chemical Classification: Inorganic substances

Summary: Copper is a metal that occurs naturally throughout the environment, in rocks, soil, water, and air. Copper is an essential element in plants and animals (including humans), which means it is necessary for us to live. Therefore, plants and animals must absorb some copper from eating, drinking, and breathing. Copper is used to make many different kinds of products like wire, plumbing pipes, and sheet metal. U.S. pennies made before 1982 are made of copper, while those made after 1982 are only coated with copper. Copper is also combined with other metals to make brass and bronze pipes and faucets. Copper compounds are commonly used in agriculture to treat plant diseases like mildew, for water treatment and, as preservatives for wood, leather, and fabrics.

 

Community Members 

· ToxFAQs™

Fact sheet that answers the most frequently asked questions about a contaminant and its health effects.

· Public Health Statement

Addresses the most frequently asked questions about exposure to hazardous substances and the effects of exposure on human health.

Toxicological and Health Professionals 

· Toxicological Profile

Succinctly characterizes the toxicologic and adverse health effects information for a hazardous substance.

· CERCLA Priority List of Hazardous Substances

Prioritization of substances based on a combination of their frequency, toxicity, and potential for human exposure at National Priorities List (NPL) sites.

· Minimal Risk Level (MRL)

The MRL is an estimate of the daily human exposure to a hazardous substance that is likely to be without appreciable risk of adverse, non-cancer health effects over a specified duration of exposure. The information in this MRL serves as a screening tool to help public health professionals decide where to look more closely to evaluate possible risk of adverse health effects from human exposure.

· Interaction Profiles

Succinctly characterizes the toxicologic and adverse health effects information for mixtures of hazardous substances.

Zinc

CAS ID #: 7440-66-6

Affected Organ Systems: Gastrointestinal (Digestive), Hematological (Blood Forming), Respiratory (From the Nose to the Lungs)

Cancer Effects: None

Chemical Classification: Inorganic substances

Summary: Zinc is one of the most common elements in the earth's crust. It is found in air, soil, and water, and is present in all foods. Pure zinc is a bluish-white shiny metal. Zinc has many commercial uses as coatings to prevent rust, in dry cell batteries, and mixed with other metals to make alloys like brass, and bronze. A zinc and copper alloy is used to make pennies in the United States . Zinc combines with other elements to form zinc compounds. Common zinc compounds found at hazardous waste sites include zinc chloride, zinc oxide, zinc sulfate, and zinc sulfide. Zinc compounds are widely used in industry to make paint, rubber, dyes, wood preservatives, and ointments.

 

Community Members 

· ToxFAQs™

Fact sheet that answers the most frequently asked questions about a contaminant and its health effects.

· Public Health Statement

Addresses the most frequently asked questions about exposure to hazardous substances and the effects of exposure on human health.

Toxicological and Health Professionals 

· Toxicological Profile

Succinctly characterizes the toxicologic and adverse health effects information for a hazardous substance.

· CERCLA Priority List of Hazardous Substances

Prioritization of substances based on a combination of their frequency, toxicity, and potential for human exposure at National Priorities List (NPL) sites.

· Minimal Risk Levels (MRL)

The MRL is an estimate of the daily human exposure to a hazardous substance that is likely to be without appreciable risk of adverse, non-cancer health effects over a specified duration of exposure. The information in this MRL serves as a screening tool to help public health professionals decide where to look more closely to evaluate possible risk of adverse health effects from human exposure.

· Interaction Profiles

Succinctly characterizes the toxicologic and adverse health effects information for mixtures of hazardous substances.

Community Members


This section provides information about how hazardous substances can affect your health.


Resources for Community Members


How do I contact ATSDR?

Further information can be obtained by contacting the ATSDR Information Center at:

Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
Division of Toxicology and Environmental Medicine
1600 Clifton Road NE, Mailstop F-32
Atlanta, GA 30333
Phone: 1-800-CDC-INFO 888-232-6348 (TTY)
Email: cdcinfo@cdc.gov

 

www.klamathbasincrisis.org   -  The Klamath Basin Water Crisis

Tulelake voters slam KBRA nearly 8-2 , here .  Abraham Lincoln said, "You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can not fool all of the people all of the time."

U.S Congressman Wally Herger: Department of Interior's “Christmas Present” to the American Public: Lockup More Federal Land, posted to KBC 1/7/11. "...as the Obama Administration continues to claim that it has no plans to designate national monuments in response to a leaked  memo  describing potential monument sites (including two within our Northern California Congressional District), this latest action further undermines their credibility.  Instead, these statements simply reinforce the Administration's “lock it up” agenda with respect to multiple-use of federal lands."

 

Dodd-Frank Act Creates Important Rights for Whistleblowers
The Dodd-Frank Act gives whistleblowers with independent knowledge of a financial fraud by any company required to report to the SEC the potential of a big pay-out - up to 30% of any amount recovered over $1 million.  

January 07, 2011 /24-7PressRelease/ -- Each year, corporate fraud costs the US government millions of dollars. In many cases, the fraud would never be discovered if it were not for the courageous acts of employees and others who come forward and report the fraud to the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC).

In recognition of the importance of whistleblowers, a recent law passed by Congress includes key provisions to encourage more whistleblowers to report fraud by offering financial incentives to do so. Under the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, those with independent knowledge of a financial fraud committed by a business required to report to the SEC or the US Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) may be entitled to a percentage, or "bounty," of the money recovered. The Act sets the bounty at 10 to 30 percent of any amount over $1 million recovered in a judicial or administrative action against the wrongdoer.

To be eligible for the bounty, the whistleblower must:
- Report the information to the SEC or CFTC
- The information must be derived from the independent knowledge or analysis of the whistleblower
- The government cannot have known about the fraud from any other source

The final amount awarded to a whistleblower under the Dodd-Frank Act is discretionary; the SEC or CFTC is given the authority to give a bounty according to the "significance" of the information provided and the level of assistance given by the whistleblower.

The Act also includes a provision protecting the whistleblower's identity. Under the law, the whistleblower can maintain anonymity by filing a claim through his or her lawyer. The whistleblower is not required to reveal his or her identity until it is known whether the information he or she provided will lead to a recovery and, subsequently, a bounty.

Act Expands on False Claims Act Qui Tam Actions

The Dodd-Frank Act was modeled after another important law for whistleblowers - the False Claims Act. Under the False Claims Act, whistleblowers who have independent knowledge of a financial fraud perpetuated against the government can bring a special type of lawsuit known as a "qui tam" action. In a qui tam action, the whistleblower is known as a "relator" and brings the lawsuit on behalf of the federal government. Whistleblowers who bring successful qui tam actions are entitled to a percentage of the amount recovered, which is typically 15 to 25 percent.

An important difference between the Dodd-Frank Act and False Claims Act is the scope of the law. The False Claims Act only applies to financial fraud committed against the government. The Dodd-Frank Act, on the other hand, is much broader and applies to any type of financial fraud committed by a company that falls within the jurisdiction of the SEC or CFTC.

The Dodd-Frank Act also broadly defines who is eligible to bring a whistleblower claim. As the law is written, nearly anyone who has ever had dealings with the company may qualify, including current and former employees, customers, suppliers and even board members. The SEC, however, has proposed a rule to limit the right of certain actors to bring claims, including those who received the information as a result of their duties to respond to the wrongdoing.

Wall Street, Other Businesses Worried

Not surprisingly, companies are not very excited about the Dodd-Frank Act. The biggest complaint against the law is that it undermines all of the money, time and resources companies expended creating internal compliance and complaint procedures for reporting fraud and abuse, as required under Sarbanes-Oxley. Companies fear that the potentially large financial incentives provided under the Act will encourage employees to file their complaints directly with their own attorneys or the SEC and not internally.

And, at least initially, it appears they are right: according to a Wall Street Journal report, the number of whistleblower suits filed after the passage of Dodd-Frank increased ten-fold. There also have been huge bounties paid out recently to whistleblowers who filed qui tam actions under the False Claims Act. For example, Cheryl Eckard, the whistleblower in the GlaxoSmithKline fraud case, is set to receive a $96 million payout for her qui tam action against the company. In the 2009 settlement between the government and Pfizer, the whistleblower received $80 million of the proceeds. In therecently settled Allergan case for the drug maker's aggressive off-label marketing campaign for Botox, the whistleblowers received $37 million.

Big business was hoping that the SEC would issue a rule requiring whistleblowers to first file an internal complaint before filing a claim with the SEC. However, the most the SEC was willing to do was propose a rule "encouraging" whistleblowers to first use the company's internal complaint procedure.

The SEC also proposed a rule that if an employee reports information to an internal compliance department first, then the information still will be considered "original" so long as the employee files a claim with the SEC within 90 days. In the past, if a whistleblower gave the information to an internal compliance department first, then the information was no longer considered original and the whistleblower would be ineligible for any cash rewards under the False Claims Act.

Filing a Whistleblower Action

The SEC is still in the rule-making process for implementing the provisions of the Dodd-Frank Act. The last day for public comments on the proposed rule was December 17 and the agency has stated that it expects the final rules to be in effect by the beginning of 2011.

Until these rules are finalized, it is not yet clear what process whistleblowers will have to follow in order to file a claim under the Act. In the meantime, those with independent knowledge of a fraud committed against the government have the option for filing a qui tam action.

Qui tam actions are filed in federal district court. In addition to filing the claim, claimants also are required to include a statement disclosing all of the information the claimant has of the fraud. Once the claim is filed, it is placed under seal for 60 days while the Department of Justice investigates the claim to determine if the government will join the action. The DOJ also may attempt to settle the claim, or in the alternative, also may seek to have it dismissed. The federal government does not have to join the claim for the qui tam action to proceed; however, having the government join the claim can make it stronger.

In general, to be eligible to file a qui tam claim, the information of the fraud cannot have been obtained from a public source or otherwise known to the government. If the information is from a public source, then the claimant still may be able to bring the qui tam action so long as he or she is an "original source" of the information. This means that the claimant has "direct and independent" knowledge of the information and the claimant provided the information to the government before filing the qui tam action.

Some of the most common types of fraud that may form the basis of a whistleblower claim include:
- Mischarging for goods or services not produced or delivered
- Off-label marketing of pharmaceuticals
- False negotiation
- Defective pricing
- Product and service substitution
- False certification of entitlement to government benefits

Current and former employees are the most common people to bring whistleblower claims, but they also may be brought by subcontractors, state and local governments, public interest groups and even corporations.

Conclusion

Those who are considering filing a whistleblower action under the False Claims Act or Dodd-Frank Act should contact an experienced attorney first. A lawyer knowledgeable in bringing these types of claims can help guide the individual through the claims process and explain their rights and obligations as a whistleblower.

For more information on qui tam actions, contact an experienced whistleblower attorney today.

Article provided by Watkins, Lourie, Roll & Chance, PC
Visit us at www.wlrlawfirm.com

A year after the dissolution of the Restoration Advisory Board for Hunters Point Shipyard, the Navy says it will introduce a new community involvement plan that it says emphasizes diversity.

The announcement follows the White House's reconvened interagency effort on environmental justice, which held its first meeting under the Obama administration in September . The group is creating a four-year road map to develop “stronger community relationships” and targets “overburdened communities.” The next meeting is set for April.

Contact: Lynn Yarris
lcyarris@lbl.gov
510-486-5375
DOE/Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory

New glass tops steel in strength and toughness

Wednesday, January 12, 2011

Crumbling Infrastructure Threatens Nation's Water Supply

 

DOE ends Fed preemption of water rules

Jan 5, 2011 10:39 AM, BY ROBERT P. MADER Of CONTRACTOR's staff

Historic Reading of Constitution on House Floor

 In one of the first major actions in the new 112th Congress, the House passed a rule this week reaffirming the commitment to limit the Chamber's actions to only those explicitly authorized by the U.S. Constitution.  This rule requires that every introduced bill cite a specific provision in the Constitution that authorizes Congress to take the proposed action. In addition, House Republicans reasserted the essential role of the Constitution by reading it in its entirety on the House floor for the first time in history.  Too often, Congress spends its time legislating on matters that it has no authority over and in certain cases, as with ObamaCare's individual health care mandate, passing laws that are simply unconstitutional. I believe we could avoid a great deal of unnecessary bureaucracy and intrusive regulation simply by returning to the constitutional concept of limited federal powers and upholding the 10th amendment, which declares, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” Millions of Americans are clearly fed up with Congress exceeding its constitutional authority.  I believe a renewed focus on the Constitution is long overdue and will help the House better represent the will of the people. - Congressman Wally Herger

Rep. Mike Simpson (R-Idaho) is chairman of the Interior, Environment and Related Agencies subcommittee of the full Appropriations Committee. He was the ranking GOP member of the panel in the last Congress.

Simpson's office, in a statement, said he will be “tasked with reducing spending levels that have grown out of control in recent years under Democrat control,” and that Simpson has his “eyes set on EPA” in particular.

“The EPA is the scariest agency in the federal government, an agency run amok,” Simpson said in a statement Friday.

New Guidance on CWA Jurisdiction Will Be Out for Public Review

     “In the absence of updated regulations, courts will have
     to make ad hoc determinations that run the risk of
     transforming scientific questions into matters of law.
     That is not the system Congress intended.”

          —Justice Breyer dissenting in Carabell/Rapanos

see PACIFIC LEGAL FOUNDATION

PLF has made its mark as the nation's leading freedom fighter by winning important legal precedents in state and federal courts. Because it chooses cases where constitutional rights are at risk, PLF has made repeat appearances before the United States Supreme Court—and won several major cases—a record of success unmatched by any other public interest legal organization.

Current Supreme Court Cases


Property Rights

Environmental Regulations

Individual Rights

Discrimination and Preference

Landmark Supreme Court Victories

Nollan v. California Coastal Commission (1987) One of the most important property rights decisions in the Supreme Court's history, Nollan outlawed an egregious form of “shakedown” by land-use regulators; specifically, it said government may not condition the granting of a building permit on the landowner making some payment or surrender of property that has no connection to the impact of the proposed building project.

Keller v. State Bar of California (1990) A First Amendment case holding that a trade or professional organization to which professionals are legally bound to belong may not use their mandatory dues to fund ideologically based lobbying.

Suitum v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (1997) This ruling stopped regulators from demanding that an elderly, wheelchair-bound widow sell her minuscule transferable development rights in a nonexistent market before being able to seek judicial relief for denial of her right to build a home.

Palazzolo v. Rhode Island (2001) This ruling held that government is not relieved from its Fifth Amendment obligation to provide compensation for excessive regulations on private property merely because the property has changed hands since the regulations first took effect. PLF defended landowner Anthony Palazzolo who challenged the Rhode Island Coastal Resources Management Council.

Rapanos v. United States (2006) This decision narrowed the scope of federal Clean Water Act jurisdiction, so that landowners who are not close to “navigable waters” may not be subjected to federal micro managing of their property.

Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District and Meredith v. Jefferson County Board of Education (2007) Held that school districts that voluntarily adopt student assignment plans that rely on race to determine which schools certain children may attend, violate the Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution. As amicus, PLF attorneys participated as second chair at oral argument assisting Meredith's attorney.

Over the holidays a notice was posted on the Office of Management and Budget's reginfo.com website that Clean Water Protection Guidance had been received.  This means that EPA has forwarded guidance to OMB for interagency review. EPA is apparently proposing guidance to assist field staff in identifying waters that are jurisdictional under the Clean Water Act.
http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/eAgendaMain?operation=OPERATION_GET_AGENCY_RULE_LIST¤tPub=true&agency
Cd=2000&Image58.x=36&Image58.y=23&Image58=Submit

To recap briefly: In the spring of 2006 the Supreme Court Carabell/Rapanos decision created a great deal of uncertainty over which waters were subject to the Clean Water Act.  It was a 4-1-4 decision.  This split was unique in the history of Supreme Court decisions because the ‘1' (Justice Kennedy) sided with the plurality (Justice Scalia) in returning the case to the lower courts, but with the dissent (Justice Stevens) on many other points while describing his independent framework for a “significant nexus” test to use in  determining jurisdiction.  After  analysis of  this very divided opinion the U.S. Department of Justice's determined that a water body falls under the Clean Water Act if it meets either the plurality (Scalia) or Kennedy tests for jurisdiction. See ASWM Analysis of Supreme Court Decision in Carabell/Rapanos http://www.aswm.org/fwp/aswm_paper.pdf

In June of 2007 EPA and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers issued guidance to help field staff determine which waters were jurisdictional.  Following a public comment period they made some minor adjustments late in 2008.  http://www.epa.gov/owow_keep/wetlands/guidance/CWAwaters.html This is the guidance currently in place.  The guidance recently sent to OMB would also address jurisdiction:  whether it would expand on the existing guidance or replace it is unknown and will remain so until the anticipated opportunity for public review and comment occurs and the guidance is finalized—sometime in the coming months.

The existing guidance is useful in identifying some broad considerations that should be included in making jurisdictional determinations that incorporate the constraints on jurisdiction created by Carabell/Rapanos.  However, it provides little scientific or technical direction that would create certainty and specificity.  The existing guidance requires the application of a great deal of best professional judgment on a case by case basis.  This means there has and will continue to be variability and in what waters are identified as jurisdictional around the country. 

What guidance can do is limited by law.   Guidance cannot alter regulations.  In this case it can only further define existing regulations that describe waters regulated under the Clean Water Act as constrained by the Carabell/Rapanos and  (earlier) SWANCC decisions.  Guidance is a good first step, but rulemaking will be required for any truly substantial effort to clarify and simplify criteria for identifying waters of the U.S. under the Clean Water Act.  In a recent letter to the Council on Environmental Quality Chair Nancy Sutley a group of leading sportsmen and conservation organizations urged the Administration to pursue rulemaking to provide a revised definition of “waters of the U.S.” that is consistent with both law and science.  They are not alone.  In the Carabell/Rapanos decisions both Justice Roberts and Justice Breyer called for rulemaking.  Their request was echoed by many industry groups including the National Association of Homebuilders and the National Stone, Sand and Gravel Association.  

Endangered Species Act Reform

Clean Water Act Cases – Including Wetlands

Ensuring Responsible Management of Public Lands and Natural Resources

Protecting Freedom from Environmental Extremism

Wide Scope of Stauffer Chemical Co.'s Operations Shown in SEC Application

Chem. Eng. News , 1953 , 31 (36), pp 3632–3642 DOI: 10.1021/cen-v031n036.p3632 Publication Date: September 1953 Copyright © 1953 AMERICAN CHEMICAL SOCIETY

FOR the first time in its 68-year history, Stauffer Chemical Co., is publicly financing through the issuance of $15 million deb-entures and 325,000 shares of common stock with a par value of $10. The securities will be offered by a banking syndicate in New York headed by Morgan Stanley and Co. (details on page 3694).

In its prospectus accompanying the stock offer, Stauffer throws a good deal of light on its chemical operations which heretofore have not been known. Since 1946, for example, it has added $41.8 million to plants and equipment through a program of construction and acquisition. It is a basic producer of carbon disulfide, sulfuric acid, carbon tetrachloride, caustic soda, chlorine, and agricultural chemicals.

Substantial amounts of these basic items are used by Stauffer in processing a diversiiied list of other chemicals, and the remainder are sold to the chemical, rayon, cellophane, rubber, petroleum, glass, soap, paper, textile, drug, food, and mining ...

2000 November 13: On November 13, 2000 Novartis and AstraZeneca merged their agribusinesses to form Syngenta, the first global group focusing exclusively on agribusiness.
1999 Astra AB of Sweden and Zeneca Group PCL of UK merge, becoming AstraZeneca.
1998 Novartis announces the formation of NADI, the Novartis Agricultural Discovery Institute, one of the largest single research endeavours dedicated to agricultural genomics research and development.
1997 Zeneca attains the rights to chlorothalonil from ISK.

Zeneca acquires Mogen, a Netherlands-based plant Biotechnology Company.

Novartis attains the crop protection division of Merck & Co, adding the insecticide abamectin to its list of products.
1996 Zeneca offers the first GM tomato puree to customers. Tomatoes were enhanced to stay ripe in the field longer, resulting in better processing.

Zeneca Seeds and Cosun/ Royal VanderHave Group form the joint venture company Advanta.

Zeneca's strobilurin fungicide Amistar® achieves registration.

Sandoz and Ciba merge to form Novartis in one of the largest corporate mergers in history.
1994 Zeneca is established after ICI demerges three of its businesses (Pharmaceuticals, Agrochemicals and Specialties) beginning in '93.
1990 Ciba-Geigy AG acquires Maag Group.
1987 ICI acquires Stauffer Chemical Company.
1985 ICI launches its insecticide Karate®.
1983 ICI Seeds is formed to add seed-breeding capability to the business.
1980 Ciba establishes a special biotechnology unit.

Sandoz acquired the Zaadunie group of Holland. Sluis & Groot (S&G)was one of the prominent marketing companies of Zaadunie. S&G is one of the three brandnames within Syngenta Seeds.
1978 Introduction of systemic fungicide Ridomil by Ciba-Geigy.
1976 Sandoz attains Northrup King.
1975 Sandoz acquires Rogers Seed Company, moving into the seed market.
1974 Ciba expands into the seeds business with the acquisition of the US-based Funk Seeds International.
1973 PPL becomes fully independent from ICI agricultural division.
1970 ICI establishes ICI Americas Inc.

Ciba and Geigy merge to form Ciba-Geigy.
1964 PPL becomes apart of ICI's Agriculture Division.
1956 Geigy introduces triazine-based herbicides (Simazine, Atrazine) allowing farmers to control weeds for the first time.
1954 A group of chemicals originally discovered in 1947 were re-evaluated by ICI, leading to the discovery and development of diquat and paraquat.
1953 PPL becomes wholly owned by ICI.
1940 Dr. Bill Templeman of ICI, at Jealott's Hill, discovers the selective properties of alphanapthylacetic acid, leading to the synthesis of the herbicides MCPA AND 2,4-D.
1939 Paul Müller, a Geigy researcher, discovers the insecticidal efficacy of DDT.
1937 Plant Production Limited (PPL) is formed as a fifty-fifty joint company between ICI and Cooper McDougall & Robertson Ltd.
1935 Geigy production of insecticides.
1928 ICI begins work on the Agricultural Research Station at Jealott's Hill in the UK.
1926 Imperial Chemical Industries is formed with merger of Brunner Mond Ltd, Nobel Industries, British Dyestuffs Coronation Ltd, and United Alkali Co. Ltd.
1884 Ciba is established.
1876 Sandoz is founded.
1758 Geigy is founded.

The Colbert Report Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c
The Word - Ownership Society
www.colbertnation.com
Colbert Report Full Episodes Political Humor & Satire Blog</a> Video Archive

When All Appropriate Inquiry Isn't Enough:

Court Highlights the Significance of Other Factors in the Bone Fide Prospective Purchaser Defense

Contributor: Bryan Cave

SUMMARY: Anyone who has been involved in a real estate transaction relating to commercial or industrial property has likely dealt with conducting “All Appropriate Inquiry” into the site, which generally includes the preparation of a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment and may include Phase II sampling work. All Appropriate Inquiry (“AAI”) is one necessary component of the “bona fide prospective purchaser” (“BFPP”) defense established under the 2002 Brownfields amendments to Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (“CERCLA”). The BFPP defense is intended to protect property owners from liability for contamination that clearly occurred prior to their period of ownership. However, conducting AAI is not the only prerequisite to establishing a BFPP defense. The BFPP requirements beyond AAI are highlighted in , Ashley II of Charleston, LLC v. PCS Nitrogen, et al., 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 104772 (D.S.C. Sep. 30, 2010), one of the first cases to address in detail the BFPP defense.

In this case, Ashley purchased property that had a long history of industrial use. In conjunction with that purchase, Ashley's environmental consultant performed Phase I and Phase II work. After the purchase, Ashley demolished many of the above-ground improvements on the property. When liability for contamination at the property was addressed, a significant battle between several potentially responsible parties arose. Ashley sought to take advantage of the BFPP defense to avoid liability. The elements of the BFPP defense are, in summary: (a) disposal of hazardous substance occurred prior to acquisition; (b) the purchaser conducted AAI; (c) the purchaser provided all required notices with respect to the discovery or release of any hazardous substance; (d) the purchaser exercises appropriate care with respect to hazardous substances found; (e) the purchaser cooperates with agencies; (f) the purchaser complies with institutional controls; (g) the purchaser complies with information requests or administrative subpoena; (h) the purchaser is not affiliated with a potentially responsible party. In the end, the court closely scrutinized each element of the test and determined that Ashley was not a BFPP.

Chesebrough-Pond's USA, Inc. represents such cornerstone household items as Vaseline Petroleum Jelly, Pond's beauty creams, Q-Tips swabs, and Ragú spaghetti sauce. With roots dating back to the turn of the century, the company had experienced constant growth and profitability, until it was destabilized by its acquisition of the Stauffer Chemical Company, which in turn led to its takeover by Unilever N.V. in 1986.

Chesebrough made a surprising $1.25 billion bid for Stauffer Chemical Company in 1985. Makers of weed killers, pesticides, and flame retardants, Stauffer had been suffering from a lackluster performance at the time.

Lucas announces new House Ag Committee

Chairman-elect Frank Lucas (R-OK) named six members to serve as subcommittee chairmen of the House Agriculture Committee Dec. 21. He also released a complete list of the Republican roster for the 112th Congress and named Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R-VA) as vice chairman of the full committee.

"Our subcommittee chairmen have demonstrated a commitment to ensuring the success of American agriculture and rural economies. They are ready to join me in addressing the challenges that farmers, ranchers, and small businesses face across rural America. The next year will be an exercise in educating our freshmen members on both sides of the aisle, providing oversight of the administration and building a strong working relationship as we prepare to reauthorize the farm bill in 2012," said Lucas.

Lucas designated the following Subcommittee Chairmen and their jurisdictions (listed alphabetically by subcommittee name):

--Rep. Glenn "GT" Thompson (PA-5), Conservation, Energy, and Forestry.

Jurisdiction: Soil, water, and resource conservation, small watershed program, energy and bio-based energy production, rural electrification, forestry in general and forest reserves other than those created from the public domain.

--Rep. Jeff Fortenberry (NE-1), Department Operations, Oversight, and Credit.

Jurisdiction: Agency oversight, review and analysis, special investigations, and agricultural credit.

--Rep. K. Michael Conaway, (TX-11), General Farm Commodities and Risk Management.

Jurisdiction: Program and markets related to cotton, cottonseed, wheat, feed grains, soybeans, oilseeds, rice, dry beans, peas, lentils, the Commodity Credit Corporation, risk management, including crop insurance, commodity exchanges, and specialty crops.

--Rep. Tom Rooney (FL-16), Livestock, Dairy, and Poultry.

Jurisdiction: Livestock, dairy, poultry, meat, seafood and seafood products, inspection, marketing, and promotion of such commodities, aquaculture, animal welfare, and grazing.

--Rep. Jean Schmidt (OH-2), Nutrition and Horticulture.

Jurisdiction: Food stamps, nutrition and consumer programs, fruits and vegetables, honey and bees, marketing and promotion orders, plant pesticides, quarantine, adulteration of seeds and insect pests, and organic agriculture.

--Rep. Timothy V. Johnson (IL-15), Rural Development, Research, Biotechnology, and Foreign Agriculture.

Jurisdiction: Rural Development, farm security and family farming matters, biotechnology, foreign agriculture assistance, and trade promotion programs, generally.

Republican members of the agriculture committee are Chairman-elect Frank D. Lucas (OK), Vice Chairman-elect Bob Goodlatte (VA), Timothy V. Johnson (IL), Steve King (IA), Randy Neugebauer (TX), K. Michael Conaway (TX), Jeff Fortenberry (NE), Jean Schmidt (OH), Glenn Thompson (PA), and Tom Rooney (FL). New members include Rick Crawford (AR), Scott DesJarlais (TN), Renee Elmers (NC), Stephen Fincher (TN), Bob Gibbs (OH), Chris Gibson (NY), Vicky Hartzler (MO), Tim Huelskamp (KS), Randy Hultgren (IL), Reid Ribble (WI), Martha Roby (AL), Bobby Schilling (IL), Austin Scott (GA), Steve Southerland (FL), Marlin Stutzman (IN), and Scott Tipton (CO).

 

EPA lets tribes talk

The Colbert Report Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c
Native American Overlords
www.colbertnation.com
Colbert Report Full Episodes Political Humor & Satire Blog</a> March to Keep Fear Alive
Safeguarding environment and heritage

Tools to Address Tenant Liability Concerns

The Colbert Report Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c
Gold Faithful
www.colbertnation.com
Colbert Report Full Episodes Political Humor & Satire Blog</a> March to Keep Fear Alive

NPL Deletion

•NCP states that a site may be deleted from the NPL where no further response is appropriate
•EPA interprets this criteria to mean that a site may be deleted when all removals and remedial actions are completed
–all cleanup goals have been achieved, and
–all institutional controls are in place
•Note that Operation &Maintenance (O&M) is not defined as a response by the NCP; therefore. a site with continuing O&M can be deleted.

•EPA must determine, in consultation with the State, that oneof the following criteria has been met:
��Responsible or other parties have implemented all response actions required;
��All appropriate Fund-financed response under CERCLA has been implemented, and no further response action by responsible parties is appropriate; or
��The remedial investigation has shown that the release(s) poses no significant threat to public health or environment, and therefore, taking of remedial measures is not appropriate.

•The Deletion process may begin once a site has achieved the site construction completion milestone
•Regional staff prepare a deletion docket containing all of the pertinent information supporting the deletion recommendation including the letter of concurrence from the State. A site can not be deleted if the state does not concur
•Deletion dockets should be available to the public at the EPA Regional office and a local repository. Docket information should also be electronically available or referenced in the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS)
•Regions publish the Notice of Intent to Delete (NOID) in the Federal Register (FR). The NOID informs the public of EPA’s intention to delete a site from the NPL. The NOID provides for a 30 day public comment period

•Sites can be deleted using a direct final notice procedure
•This procedure is to publish both a NOID and NOD in the same FR Notice, and declare that the NOD will become effective unless EPA receives adverse or critical comments during the public comment period
–Eliminates second round of reviews, thereby reducing the amount of internal time needed to finalize the deletion process
–If adverse or critical comments are not received, the deletion becomes effective without any further EPA action
•If adverse comments are received, the Region must issue a notice in the FR withdrawing the deletion. The withdrawal notice must be published in the FR within 60 days of the original notice

•Sites can be deleted using a direct final notice procedure
•This procedure is to publish both a NOID and NOD in the same FR Notice, and declare that the NOD will become effective unless EPA receives adverse or critical comments during the public comment period
–Eliminates second round of reviews, thereby reducing the amount of internal time needed to finalize the deletion process
–If adverse or critical comments are not received, the deletion becomes effective without any further EPA action
•If adverse comments are received, the Region must issue a notice in the FR withdrawing the deletion. The withdrawal notice must be published in the FR within 60 days of the original notice

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Federal Facilities Restoration & Reuse Office
Website:http://www.epa.gov/fedfac
Office of Superfund Remediation & Technology Innovation
Website:http://www.epa.gov/superfund
Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance
Federal Facilities Enforcement Office
Website: http://www.epa.gov/compliance/federalfacilities
Federal Facilities Environmental Stewardship and Compliance Assistance Center
Website: http://www.fedcenter.gov

Wednesday, January 5, 2011

Water Infrastructure Financing: History of EPA Appropriations


Claudia Copeland
Specialist in Resources and Environmental Policy

The principal federal program to aid municipal wastewater treatment plant construction is authorized in the Clean Water Act (CWA). Established as a grant program in 1972, it now capitalizes state loan programs. Authorizations since 1972 have totaled $65 billion, while appropriations have totaled $85 billion. It has represented 25-30% of total funds appropriated to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in recent years.

In appropriations legislation, funding for EPA wastewater assistance is contained in the measure providing funds for the Department of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies, which includes EPA. Within the portion of that bill which funds EPA, wastewater treatment assistance is specified in an account now called State and Tribal Assistance Grants (STAG). Three trends in the funding of this account are most prominent: inclusion of non-infrastructure environmental grants to states, beginning in FY1993; increasing number and amount of special purpose grants since FY1989; and the addition of grant assistance for drinking water treatment projects in FY1997. This report summarizes, in chronological order, congressional activity to fund items in this account since 1987.

Prior to the 1987 amendments, wastewater treatment assistance was provided in the form of grants made to municipalities. The federal share of project costs was generally 55%; state and local governments were responsible for the remaining 45%. The 1987 amendments altered this arrangement by replacing the traditional grant program with one that provides federal grants to capitalize state clean water loan programs, or state revolving funds (SRFs). Appropriations for the clean water SRF program through FY2010 have totaled $33 billion. As a general matter, states and cities support the program changes made by the 1987 amendments and the shift to a loan program that was intended to provide long-term funding for water quality and wastewater construction activities. However, the change means that local communities now are responsible for 100% of projects costs, rather than 45%, because they are required to repay loans to states. The greater financial burden of the act's loan program on some cities has caused some to seek continued grant funding.

This has been particularly evident in the appropriations process where, in recent years, Congress has reserved as much as 30% of funds in the STAG account for special purpose grants directed to specified communities. Since FY2000, appropriators have awarded earmarks to a larger total number of projects, resulting in more communities receiving such grants, but at the same time receiving smaller amounts of funds, on average. Most of the funded projects are not authorized in the Clean Water Act or the Safe Drinking Water Act. State water quality officials, state infrastructure financing officials, and EPA have objected to this practice, since it reduces the amount of funding for state SRF programs. Since FY1997, the STAG account also has been used to fund a drinking water SRF grant program established by Congress in 1996. Appropriations for the drinking water SRF program through FY2010 have totaled $14.5 billion.


The statutory protections found at CERCLA § 107(r)(1) and §101(40) are self-implementing, and EPA generally will not be involved with facility-specific transactions or determinations of BFPP status. There may be instances on a site-specific basis, however, where EPA determines that it would be necessary and appropriate to address a tenant’s liability concerns through an existing tool or policy (e.g., a comfort/status letter or a prospective lessee agreement).7 In addition, EPA may use such tools on a case-by-case basis where it is appropriate to address liability concerns of tenants not covered by this guidance.

Title 40: Protection of Environment
PART 27—PROGRAM FRAUD CIVIL REMEDIES

§ 27.1   Basis and purpose.

(a) Basis. This part implements the Program Fraud Civil Remedies Act of 1986, Public Law No. 99–509, sections 6101–6104, 100 Stat. 1874 (October 21, 1986), to be codified at 31 U.S.C. 3801–3812. 31 U.S.C. 3809 of the statute requires each authority head to promulgate regulations necessary to implement the provisions of the statute.

(b) Purpose. This part (1) establishes administrative procedures for imposing civil penalties and assessments against persons who make, submit, or present, or cause to be made, submitted, or presented, false, fictitious, or fraudulent claims or written statements to the Environmental Protection Agency, and (2) specifies the hearing and appeal rights of persons subject to allegations of liability for such penalties and assessments.

1 Section 120(b) of the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 (P.L. 99–499) provides:
(b) LIMITED GRANDFATHER.—Section 120 of CERCLA shall not apply to any response action or remedial action for which a plan is under development by the Department of Energy on the date of enactment of this Act [October 17, 1986] with respect to facilities—
(1) owned or operated by the United States and subject to the jurisdiction of such Department;

(3) published in the National Priorities List.
In preparing such plans, the Secretary of Energy shall consult with the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency.

Effective Date Section 121(b) of Pub. L. 99-499 provided that: ``With respect to section 121 of CERCLA [this section], as added by this section-- ``(1) The requirements of section 121 of CERCLA shall not apply to any remedial action for which the Record of Decision (hereinafter in this section referred to as the `ROD') was signed, or the consent decree was lodged, before date of enactment [Oct. 17, 1986]. ``(2) If the ROD was signed, or the consent decree lodged, within the 30-day period immediately following enactment of the Act [Oct. 17, 1986], the Administrator shall certify in writing that the portion of the remedial action covered by the ROD or consent decree complies to the maximum extent practicable with section 121 of CERCLA. Any ROD signed before enactment of this Act [Oct. 17, 1986] and reopened after enactment of this Act to modify or supplement the selection of remedy shall be subject to the requirements of section 121 of CERCLA.''

In Levins Metal Corp. v. Parr-Richmond Terminal Co., 817 F.2d 1448 (9th Cir.1987), where the court applied California state law in determining successor liability under CERCLA. There, the court explained that when the issue deals with the "capacity to be sued" rather than the "imposition of liability," state law applies.

We have recognized two other exceptions to the general rule: (1) when review is necessary to prevent miscarriage of justice or to preserve the integrity of the judicial process, and (2) when a new issue arises during a pending appeal because of a change in the law. See Bolker, 760 F.2d at 1042.

 

PRESIDENTIAL DOCUMENTS

 

EXECUTIVE ORDERS

Testimony in Courts of the United States . An act to perpetuate testimony in the courts of the United States . May 9, 1872, ch. 146.

CHAP. CXLVI. – An Act to perpetuate Testimony in the Courts of the United States .

 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled. That hereafter all depositions taken de benne esse, to be used in any civil cause depending in any court in any district of the United States , for the causes and before the officers mentioned in section thirty of the “Act to establish the judicial courts of the United States .” Approved September twenty-fourth, seventeen hundred and eighty-nine, shall be taken upon reasonable notice, to be given in writing by the party or his attorney proposing to take such deposition, to the opposite party or his attorney of record, which notice shall state the name of the witness and the time and place of the taking of his deposition; and in cases in rem, the person having the agency or possession of the property at the time of seizure shall be deemed the adverse party, until a claim shall have been put in, and whenever, by reason of the absence from the district and want of an attorney of record or other reason, the giving of the notice herein required shall be impracticable it shall be lawful to take such depositions as there shall be urgent necessity for taking, upon such notice as any judge authorized to hold courts in such circuit of district shall think reasonable and direct. But this act shall not be construed to affect the power of any such court to cause testimony to be taken under commission, according to the course of the common law, to be used therein. APPROVED, May 9, 1872

 

Mining Resources. An act to promote the development of the mining resources of the United States . May 10, 1872, ch. 152.

 

Commissioners of Claims may take Testimony. An act to authorize the commissioners of claims to appoint special commissioners to take testimony, and for other purposes. May 11, 1872, ch 156.

 

Irrigation of the San Joaquin, Sacramento and Tulare Valleys.

An act to provide for a board of commissioners to report a system of irrigation for the San Joaquin, Sacramento, and Tulare, in California. March 3, 1873, ch. 317

NSF-wide

Catalyzing New International Collaborations

CNIC Supports New Collaborations Worldwide
NSF Wide Programs

Proposals should describe U.S. participation in  new international collaborations via activities including, but not limited to: planning visits, small workshops, initial data gathering activities, and the development of research coordination networks.  The community is invited to propose innovative mechanisms and strategies for catalyzing new international collaborations to the stage that competitive research and education proposals can be submitted to relevant NSF programs for on-going support of the project. Any well-justified activity that fulfills the goals of the program will be considered. Creative use of technology in promoting international collaboration is encouraged. Funding levels for catalytic activities can typically range from as little as $10,000 to as much as $100,000, depending on the activities proposed.

Proposals may be submitted for consideration after the target dates, but must be discussed with the appropriate OISE geographic  region/country Program Officer before submission.

Earth Sciences: Instrumentation and Facilities  (EAR/IF)
1

CONTACTS
1

Name Email Phone Room
Russell  C. Kelz rkelz@nsf.gov (703) 292-4747  790  
David  D. Lambert dlambert@nsf.gov (703) 292-8558  790  

PROGRAM GUIDELINES
1
Solicitation  11-544

DUE DATES

Full Proposal Accepted Anytime

Proposals for the Development of New Instrumentation, Analytical Techniques or Software, Support of National or Regional Multi-User Facilities and Support for Early Career Investigators will be accepted at any time henceforth.

SYNOPSIS
1

The Instrumentation and Facilities Program in the Division of Earth Sciences (EAR/IF) supports meritorious requests for infrastructure that promotes research and education in areas supported by the Division (see http://www.nsf.gov/div/index.jsp?div=EAR ). EAR/IF will consider proposals for:

1) Acquisition or Upgrade of Research Equipment that will advance laboratory and field investigations, and student research training opportunities in the Earth sciences.  The maximum request is $1,000,000. The maximum request for upgrade of research group computing facilities is $75,000;

2) Development of New Instrumentation, Analytical Techniques or Software that will extend current research and research training capabilities in the Earth sciences.  The maximum request is $1,000,000;

3) Support of National or Regional Multi-User Facilities that will make complex and expensive instruments or systems of instruments broadly available to the Earth sciences research and student communities;

4) Support for Early Career Investigators to facilitate expedient operation of new research infrastructure proposed by the next generation of leaders in the Earth Sciences.  This opportunity allows for submission of a proposal for Acquisition or Upgrade of Research Equipment that includes budget line items associated with support of a new full-time technician who will be dedicated to manage the instrument(s) being requested.  Any request for technical support under this opportunity is limited to three years duration. The maximum request is $1,000,000.

Planned research uses of requested instruments, software, and facilities must include basic research on Earth processes SUPPORTED BY THE DIVISION OF EARTH SCIENCES.

Support is available through grants or cooperative agreements awarded in response to investigator-initiated proposals.

Human resource development and education are expected to be an integral part of all proposals submitted to EAR/IF. 

Efforts to support participation of underrepresented groups in laboratory and/or field instrument use and training are encouraged. 

All proposers to EAR/IF are invited to consider Support of Outreach and/or Broadening Participation Activities. Proposals submitted to the EAR/IF Program may request up to $20,000 for such activities (please refer to Sections V.A Proposal Preparation Instructions and V.B Budgetary Information).

Proposals requesting equipment, infrastructure or personnel that will also serve disciplines outside the Earth sciences may be jointly reviewed with other programs within the Foundation. EAR/IF will consider co-funding of projects with other NSF programs and other agencies.

RELATED PROGRAMS
1
Continental Dynamics
1
EAR Education and Human Resources
1
Earth Sciences: Instrumentation and Facilities
1
Earthscope
1
Geobiology and Low-Temperature Geochemistry
1
Geomorphology and Land Use Dynamics
1
Geophysics
1
Hydrologic Sciences
1
Petrology and Geochemistry
1
Sedimentary Geology and Paleobiology
1
Tectonics
1
Major Research Instrumentation Program
1

RELATED URLS
1
Additional Program Information for Instrumentation and Facilities
1

THIS PROGRAM IS PART OF
1
Deep Earth Processes Section
1


What Has Been Funded (Recent Awards Made Through This Program, with Abstracts)

Map of Recent Awards Made Through This Program

News

Discoveries

1 1
1 1 1 1

 

 

NSF Educational Opportunities by Audience

For Undergraduate Students
1
For Graduate Students
2
For Postdoctoral Fellows
3
For K-12 Educators

Upcoming Due Dates 4 See All
5

Integrative Graduate Education and Research Traineeship Program
(NSF  11-533) Letter of Intent: May 2, 2011

Research Coordination Networks
(NSF  11-531) Full Proposal: May 24, 2011, RCN SEES Track

Science and Technology Centers: Integrative Partnerships
(NSF  11-522) Preliminary Proposal: May 30, 2011

Research Experiences for Undergraduates
(NSF  09-598) Full Proposal: June 3, 2011, Deadline for REU Site proposals requiring access to Antarctica. All other REU Site proposals must be submitted to the August REU deadline.

Research Coordination Networks
(NSF  11-531) Full Proposal: June 15, 2011, RCN UBE and UBE Incubator Track

Capacity Center News

March 23, 2011
GK-12: When You Train Grad Students to Teach, You Get Better Communicators and Better Classes

March 21, 2011
Vanderbilt University -- 4th Annual Conference on Understanding Interventions that Broaden Participation in Research Careers, May 26-28

March 18, 2011
A new blog, STEM.edu, is now available at AAAS MemberCentral; with 5 blogs posted to date. Readers are encouraged to review the offerings and comment. Those interested in writing a guest blog should contact Daryl Chubin, dchubin@aaas.org.

March 14, 2011
Broadening Participation - A Program Greater than the Sum of Its Parts: The BPC Alliances

March 4, 2011
Registration and Abstract Submission for the 4TH UNDERSTANDING INTERVENTIONS CONFERENCE is now open. Check out www.understandinginterventions.org for more details.

March 1, 2011
AAAS Report: National Science Foundation Centers Support Transformative Research, Provide Compelling S&T Education

 

Beyond Standing our Ground

Overview

The American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) is leading a law and diversity project, with participation by the Association of American Universities (AAU), which has been funded by the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation and the National Science Foundation. This project will provide in-depth legal resource materials for General Counsels in the AAU (and, we hope, eventually to universities across the country) on effective and legally sustainable approaches to build greater diversity in the faculty, as well as graduate and undergraduate student bodies.

Click here to view the full project overview and details of the intial workshop that took place on April 28-29, 2009


Navigating a Complex Landscape to Foster Greater Faculty and Student Diversity in Higher Education

A first-of-its-kind handbook from the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) and the Association of American Universities (AAU) offers in-depth, cross-referenced legal resources to help promote effective diversity programs for science faculty and students. Set for release on April 28, 2010, the handbook outlines legally sustainable ways to expand diversity on campuses, particularly within science, technology, engineering, and mathematics fields. For more information and to download a copy of the handbook, visit the Navigating a Complex Landscape page.

Media Coverage

Resources

 

Presidential Documents

Federal Register
Vol. 47, No. 137
Friday, July 16, 1982

Title 3 -- Executive Order 12372 of July 14, 1982

The President Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America, including Section 401(a) of the Intergovernmental Cooperation Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 4231(a)) and Section 301 of Title 3 of the United States Code, and in order to foster an intergovernmental partnership and a strengthened federalism by relying on State and local government coordination and review of proposed Federal financial assistance and direct Federal development, it is hereby ordered as follows:

Section 1. Federal agencies shall provide opportunities for consultation by elected officials of those State and local governments that would provide the non-Federal funds for, or that would be directly affected by, proposed Federal financial assistance or direct Federal development.

Sec. 2. To the extent the States, in consultation with local general purpose governments, and local special purpose governments they consider appropriate, develop their own processes or refine existing processes for State and local elected officials to review and coordinate proposed Federal financial assistance and direct Federal development, the Federal agencies shall, to the extent permitted by law:

(a) Utilize State processes to determine official views of State and local officials.

(b) Communicate with State and local elected officials as early in the program planning cycle as is reasonably feasible to explain specific plans and actions.

(c) Make efforts to accommodate State and local elected officials' concerns with proposed Federal financial assistance and direct Federal development that are communicated through the designated State process. For those cases where the concerns cannot be accommodated, Federal officials shall explain the bases for their decision in a timely manner.

(d) Allow the States to simplify and consolidate existing Federally required State plan submissions. Where State planning and budgeting systems are sufficient, and where permitted by law, the substitution of State plans for Federally required State plans shall be encouraged by the agencies.

(e) Seek the coordination of views of affected State and local elected officials in one State with those of another State when proposed Federal financial assistance or direct Federal development has an impact on interstate metropolitan urban centers or other interstate areas. Existing interstate mechanisms that are redesignated as part of the State process may be used for this purpose.

(f) Support State and local governments by discouraging the reauthorization or creation of any planning organization which is Federally-funded, which has a Federally-prescribed membership, which is established for a limited purpose, and which is not adequately representative of, or accountable to, State or local elected officials.

Sec. 3. (a) The State process referred to in Section 2 shall include those where States delegate, in specific instances, to local elected officials the review, coordination, and communication with Federal agencies.

(b) At the discretion of the State and local elected officials, the State process may exclude certain Federal programs from review and comment.

Sec. 4. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) shall maintain a list of official State entities designated by the States to review and coordinate proposed Federal financial assistance and direct Federal development. The Office of Management and Budget shall disseminate such lists to the Federal agencies.

Sec. 5. (a) Agencies shall propose rules and regulations governing the formulation, evaluation, and review of proposed Federal financial assistance and direct Federal development pursuant to this Order, to be submitted to the Office of Management and Budget for approval.

(b) The rules and regulations which result from the process indicated in Section 5(a) above shall replace any current rules and regulations and become effective April 30, 1983.

Sec. 6. The Director of the Office of Management and Budget is authorized to prescribe such rules and regulations, if any, as he deems appropriate for the effective implementation and administration of this Order and the Intergovernmental Cooperation Act of 1968. The Director is also authorized to exercise the authority vested in the President by Section 401(a) of that Act (42 U.S.C. 4231(a)), in a manner consistent with this order.

Sec. 7. The Memorandum of November 8, 1968, is terminated (33 Fed. Reg. 16487, November 13, 1968). The Director of the Office of Management and Budget shall revoke OMB Circular A-95, which was issued pursuant to that Memorandum. However, Federal agencies shall continue to comply with the rules and regulations issued pursuant to that Memorandum, including those issued by the Office of Management and Budget, until new rules and regulations have been issued in accord with this Order.

Sec. 8. The Director of the Office of Management and Budget shall report to the President within two years on Federal agency compliance with this Order. The views of State and local elected officials on their experience with these policies, along with any suggestions for improvement, shall be included in the Director's report.

THE WHITE HOUSE
July 14, 1982

 

1 Section 121(b) of the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 (P.L. 99–499) provides:
(b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—With respect to section 121 of CERCLA, as added by this section—
(1) The requirements of section 121 of CERCLA shall not apply to any remedial action for which the Record of Decision (hereinafter in this section referred to as the ‘‘ROD’’) was signed, or the consent decree was lodged, before date of enactment [October 17, 1986].
(2) If the ROD was signed, or the consent decree lodged, within the 30-day period immediately following enactment of the Act, the Administrator shall certify in writing that the
portion of the remedial action covered by the ROD or consent decree complies to the maximum extent practicable with section 121 of CERCLA.
Any ROD signed before enactment of this Act and reopened after enactment of this Act to modify or supplement the selection of remedy shall be subject to the requirements of section 121 of CERCLA.
IRON MOUNTAIN MINE EPA ID: CAD980498612 OU 01 REDDING, CA 10/03/1986

DECLARATIONS:
CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSE, COMPENSATION, AND LIABILITY ACT OF 1980 (CERCLA) AND THE NATIONAL OIL AND HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES POLLUTION CONTINGENCY PLAN (NCP) 40 CFR PART 300 ET.SEQ., I HAVE DETERMINED THAT THE OPERABLE UNIT REMEDY PREVIOUSLY IDENTIFIED IS A COMPONENT OF WHAT WILL BE THE APPROPRIATE FUND-FINANCED ACTION FOR THIS SITE IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 300.68 (J) OF THE NCP. THESE ARE COMPONENTS OF A FINAL EPA REMEDY THAT WILL PROVIDE ADEQUATE PROTECTION OF THE PUBLIC HEALTH AND WELFARE AND THE ENVIRONMENT

Disputing Jurisdiction When You Are Sued for Debt

By Kenneth Gibert

When you're being sued for debt, one of your first questions should be whether or not the court has "jurisdiction" (the right and power to decide the case against you). There are two kinds of jurisdiction you should consider: "personal" jurisdiction and "subject matter" jurisdiction. Although the two aren't always so neatly differentiated, the type of jurisdiction you're considering can make a lot of difference.

Personal Jurisdiction

Personal jurisdiction (in legalese this is often called " in personam jurisdiction") is the court's right to consider cases involving you personally. In general, in order for a court to have personal jurisdiction, you must have received adequate notice of the suit and must have sufficient links to the jurisdiction.

Adequate Notice

In consumer cases, "adequate notice" almost always means "service" of the summons upon you personally. That means a process server, often a deputy with the local government, but maybe just as often a private individual (normally cannot be a party to the suit or their lawyer), must hand you, or offer to hand you, the summons. If the process server does hand you or offer the summons, you have been served, and you normally have adequate notice at that point. A process server can also leave the summons with an adult member of your household at your residence.

Sufficient Connection to the Jurisdiction

For a court to assert jurisdiction over you, you must also have an adequate connection to the jurisdiction for it to be "fair" to haul you into court there. In many cases involving contracts, the contract will specify (as is allowed) that a certain court will have jurisdiction. In cases involving debt collectors, however, the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) specifies that if you are a consumer, you can be sued on a debt in only two places: where you actually signed the contract; or where you currently reside . Or, if it involves real property, only in the jurisdiction of the property. 16 U.S.C. Section 1692i(a).

Because the FDCPA is a statute (written law), whereas the requirements of personal jurisdiction are constitutional, it is conceivable (but unlikely) that it could be unfair to bring suit where you signed the contract.

Subject Matter Jurisdiction

Subject matter jurisdiction involves the power of the court to hear cases like yours. Federal cases, for example, must have some federal basis for jurisdiction. In cases involving debt, this is quite unlikely, so you will not likely be sued in federal court. The FDCPA, on the other hand, does provide for federal jurisdiction, so you could bring a suit in any federal or state court on a claim under that Act.

A Gray Area

Sometimes personal jurisdiction can be the same as subject matter jurisdiction. For example, as I noted above, the FDCPA requires that claims against consumers by debt collectors be brought in specified jurisdictions. That's personal to you, of course, but does it also deprive the court of subject matter jurisdiction? It might, but you'd be better off considering it personal for purposes of contesting it.

Contesting or Disputing Jurisdiction

The main rule to keep in mind is that if you answer the petition without contesting jurisdiction from the very beginning, you will have "waived" your objections to personal jurisdiction . You must assert your defense to personal jurisdiction either separately in a "limited entry of appearance" for the purpose of hearing your motion to dismiss (some jurisdictions have eliminated the "limited entry" and just allow you to file a motion to dismiss). Or you can simply not respond to the suit and attack a judgment if it is entered against you in a court that does have jurisdiction. I see this as risky, but it might be necessary if you are being sued in a distant jurisdiction.

Notice that I said you could waive your objection to personal jurisdiction. That's because it applies to you. Subject matter jurisdiction, on the other hand, cannot be waived, and you can attack that at any time.

A Hint

The Rules of Civil Procedure for your jurisdiction will specify what other kinds of motions can be filed and need to be filed before answering the petition. A good place to start is by looking under "motions to dismiss" in your Rules.

If you are being harassed or sued for debt, you can get a lot of help, much of it free, from my website at: http://yourlegallegup.com .

Or please take a look at a brief video presentation: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WcxsiR5vedU .

Kenneth H. Gibert.

I Received a J.D. from Washington University Law School in 1989 and practiced law in St. Louis city and county (federal, state and local courts) for almost fifteen years, the last several of which were focused almost exclusively on debt litigation. My mission is to protect ordinary people from being taken advantage of by the debt collectors. Sign up for a free report and more help for people struggling with debt.

Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Kenneth_Gibert

FACILITIES MANAGEMENT RESOURCES
BEST PRACTICES

Disposal/Reuse

Integrated Early Transfer Disposal
Department of the Army, 2002

The process to determine if a site’s
groundwater may naturally be of poor
quality is remarkably simple. It appears
difficult because the procedures are
scattered throughout the regulations
and are often misinterpreted. All that is
required is to determine if groundwater
from a background location contains
“naturally occurring contaminants” in
excess of their respective GCTL. It is
not necessary to reclassifr the aquifer.
The applicable regulations are found
in Chapter 62-780.200(5) F.A.C.,
Chapter 62-780.200(35) F.A.C. and
Chapter 62-780.680(2) (c) (1) F.A.C.

Currently, a GCTL of 0.3 mg/L is
being used to determine if groundwater
must be remediated through actions
like pump and treat. This GCTL is not
health based and ignores the possibility
that the groundwater at the site is
unacceptable for consumption because
of the presence of “naturally occurring
contaminants.”

Iron is an essential nutrient for humans
as it is a constituent of hemoglobin, and
a number of enzymes. The adequate
intake of iron for infants from birth to
6 months is estimated to be 0.27
milligram per day (mg/day). This
value was based upon the average
iron concentration in human milk of
0.35 mg/LA The iron recommended
daily allowance (RDA) ranges from
a low of 7 mg/day for children age
1 through 3 years to a high of 27
mg/day for pregnant w5omen. The
RDA range is the reason that overthe-
counter multimineral supplements
(e.g., Advanced Formula Centrum®)
show that each tablet has 18 mg of iron
and note that this value represents 100
percent of the “Daily Value.” The iron
concentration in the empty human adult
stomach after taking one multimineral
tablet with one 8-ounce glass of water is
therefore 75 mgIL. This concentration
is 250 times the GCTL in Chapter
62-777 F.A.C. of 0.3 mg/L.
Clearly the iron GCTL of 0.3 mg/L is
not health based and does not consider
the fact that this compound is an
essential nutrient. A more appropriate
approach, for essential nutrients, is
to develop GCTLs that take into
consideration the “risk of inadequacy”
and the “risk of adverse effects.”
Unfortunately, the equations used
in Chapter 62-777 F.A.C. are not
appropriate if the compound is an
essential nutrient; therefore, an alternate
approach is needed.
There is a problem when a GCTL must
be developed for an essential nutrient
like iron. Simply put, the conventional
approach used to develop the GCTL
does not consider the adverse health
effects of being exposed to too small an
amount of an essential nutrient. The
conventional equations used to generate
GCTLs do address the “risk of adverse
effects,” but do not address what is
known as the “risk of inadequacy.”
This matter is a current concern to the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) and new guidance was released
last y6ear.

Exhibit 2-4
Summary of Region IV LUCAP
Requirements
1. A LUC implementation plan, the objectives for
the area, and the particular controls or
mechanisms to be implemented.
2. The program and point-of-contact responsible for
monitoring, maintenance, and enforcement.
3. A commitment by the facility to request funds for
maintaining LUCs.
4. Quarterly onsite monitoring unless another
monitoring frequency is approved.
5. Notification when a major change in land use is
anticipated.
6. Annual field inspections.
7. Certification of continued compliance in an
annual report.
8. Notification upon discovery of unauthorized
“major change in land use.”

Exhibit 2-6
Summary of Region X
Facility-Wide IC Requirements
A. Develop a comprehensive facility-wide approach
for establishing, implementing, enforcing, and
monitoring ICs at the facility. This approach will
frequently include a Base Master Plan or a facilitywide
land use plan, installation maps, a
comprehensive permitting system, and other
installation policies and orders.
B. Submit to EPA and the state a monitoring report
on the status of the ICs within six months of
signature on the decision document with an
updated monitoring report submitted annually
thereafter.
C. Notify EPA and the state immediately upon
discovery of any activity that is inconsistent with
the operable unit-specific institutional control
objectives for the site, or of any change in the
land use or land use designation of a site
addressed under item (A).
D. Identify a point of contact for implementing,
maintaining, and monitoring institutional controls.
E. Request and obtain funding to institute and
maintain institutional controls. (This requirement
can be dropped if the facility can demonstrate a
duplicate or similar requirement in a Federal
Facility Agreement or similar document.)
F. Notify EPA and the state at least six months prior
to any transfer, sale, or lease of any property
subject to institutional controls required by an
EPA decision document.
G. Restrict the deletion or termination of any
institutional control unless EPA and the state
have concurred in the deletion or termination.

EPA’s Federal Facilities Restoration and Reuse Office

EPA has statutory obligations related to the cleanup and property transfer of installations on the NPL
–CERCLA Section 120

•Privatization is expected to be used more frequently for environmental cleanup
–DoD believes privatization is a better way of doing business(e.g., NTC Orlando = Baldwin Park, a 2006 Phoenix Award winner)
–To date, early transfer with privatization has onlybeen done at non-NPL facilities
–NPL sites differ significantly from non-NPL sites because:
•EPA must approve the early transfer
•NPL sites generally will have a Federal Facility Agreement (FFA)in place
•Certain provisions of CERCLA specifically apply to NPL sites, such as EPA and DoD joint selection of cleanup remedy
•NPL sites may have greater contamination

Exhibit 2-7
Relevant DOE Orders
DOE Order # Title Objective
5400.1 General Env. Protection Prog. To establish environmental protection program
requirements, authorities, and responsibilities for DOE
operations for assuring compliance with applicable
federal, state, and local environmental protection laws
and regulations, executive orders, and internal
Department policies.
5400.5 Rad. Protect. of the Public & Env. To operate DOE facilities and conduct its activities so
that radiation exposures to members of the public are
maintained within the limits established in this Order and
to control radioactive contamination through the
management of real and personal property. It is also a
DOE objective that potential exposures to members of
the public be as far below the limits as is reasonably
achievable (ALARA) and that DOE facilities have the
capabilities, consistent with the types of operations
conducted, to monitor routine and non-routine releases
and to assess doses to members of the public.
4300.1C Real Property Management To establish Department-wide policies and procedures for the
acquisition, use inventory, and disposal of real property or
interests therein.
435.1 Radioactive Waste Mgmt. To establish policies, guidelines, and minimum
requirements by which DOE manages its radioactive and
mixed waste, and contaminated facilities. This Order
replaced Order 5820.2A.
430.1A Life Cycle Asset Management To plan, acquire, operate, maintain, and dispose of
physical assets as valuable national resources.
Stewardship of these assets shall be accomplished in a
safe and cost-effective manner to meet the DOE mission,
and to ensure protection of workers, the public, and the
environment.
4320.1B Site Development Planning Identifies the analyses that must be conducted in order for DOE
property to be considered excess and available for transfer to

State Regulations
Many state agencies have policies or regulations on the use of institutional controls in remedies
conducted in their state. At the time that this document was developed, 42 states referenced the
use of institutional controls in the state’s environmental regulations.14 These regulations may be more
restrictive or specific than the federal regulations that apply at the facility. Before selecting any remedy
that will include the use of institutional controls, facility personnel should consult and coordinate with
state environmental regulators, local redevelopment authorities, and state real estate attorneys to
determine the state’s position on the use of institutional controls. For example, Tennessee has
developed a policy on the use of “perpetual institutional controls.”15 This policy outlines the state’s
requirements for RODs that will rely on perpetual institutional controls. This policy originally applied to
the remediation of a uranium burial ground at the Oak Ridge Reservation, but was made applicable to
all onsite areas through a state policy on “Natural Attenuation and ARAR Waivers for Oak Ridge

14 Based on a search of the ENFLEX database of state and federal regulations; February, 1999. The list of
42 states includes : Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana,
Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska,
Nevada, New York, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Dakota, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania,
Puerto Rico, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia,
and Wyoming.
15 State of Tennessee, Guidance Policy on Perpetual Institutional Controls, September 1, 1997.

Ninth Circuit Defines “Current Ownership” for Purposes of CERCLA Liability

Posted by Michael Einhorn, Esq. in CERCLA , Environmental Legislation and Regulation on August 5, 2010

In Dept. of Toxic Substances Control v. Hearthside Residential Corp. , No. 09-55389 (9 th Cir. July 22, 2010), the Ninth Circuit has clarified the issue of whether “owner and operator” status under CERCLA is defined at the time cleanup costs are incurred or instead at the time that a recovery lawsuit seeking reimbursement is filed, a question of first impression.  The Ninth Circuit held that current ownership is measured at the time of cleanup, and therefore “the owner of the property at the time cleanup costs are incurred is the current owner for purposes of determining CERCLA liability.”  

The litigation relates to undeveloped wetlands known as the Fieldstone Property, and certain adjacent residential parcels (“Residential Site”).  The defendant, Hearthside Residential Corporation (“Hearthside”), purchased the Fieldstone Property in 1999 knowing that the property was contaminated with polychlorinated biphenyls (“PCBs”).  In 2002, Hearthside entered into a consent order with the State of California, Department of Toxic Substances Control (“DTSC”), in which Hearthside agreed to remediate the PCB contamination on the Fieldstone Property.  DTSC further alleged that the PCBs from the Fieldstone Property had migrated onto the adjacent Residential Site.  Hearthside disputed DTSC's allegation, and remediated only the Fieldstone Property.  DTSC certified Hearthside's completion of the Fieldstone Property on December 1, 2005, and Hearthside sold that property later that month.  Meanwhile, DTSC contracted to remediate the Residential Site and incurred cleanup expenses between July 2002 and October 2003, while Hearthside still owned the Fieldstone property.  In October, 2006, DTSC filed a complaint against Hearthside seeking reimbursement for the Residential Site cleanup, among other relief.  Thus, Hearthside owned the Fieldstone Property at the time of DTSC's cleanup, but not when DTSC filed its complaint.

DTSC's complaint was based, in relevant part, on (1) DTSC's allegation that the Fieldstone Property was the source of the contamination on the Residential Site, and (2) the fact that Hearthside owned the Fieldstone Property at the time the Residential Site was cleaned.  CERCLA imposes strict liability for environmental contamination upon four classes of potentially responsible parties, one of which is the “owner and operator of a vessel or a facility.”  42 U.S.C. § 9607(a)(1).  Other courts have defined this category of responsible parties to refer to “current” owners or operators.  Hearthside , citing Carson Harbor Vill., Ltd. v. Unocal Corp ., 270 F.3d 863, 881 (9th Cir. 2001) (en banc); accord , e.g. , United States v. Capital Tax Corp. , 545 F.3d 525, 530 (7th Cir. 2008); ITT Indus., Inc. v. BorgWarner, Inc. , 506 F.3d 452, 456 (6th Cir. 2007).  However, CERCLA does not define the date from which to measure ownership.  The district court granted partial summary judgment in favor of DTSC, finding that “owner” status is determined at the time a response-recovery claim accrues (when the cleanup occurs), not at the time the lawsuit is initiated.  The parties jointly requested immediate certification of the issue for appeal, which the trial court granted.  The 9 th Circuit accepted the appeal of this question of law.

The 9 th Circuit noted that CERCLA is silent on the issue of the date from which ownership is measured, and therefore looked to the statutory context and CERCLA's purposes to deduce Congress's intent.  Regarding Congress's intent, the court reasoned that because the applicable statute of limitations is triggered at the time of cleanup, this suggests Congress's intent was to make the owner at the time of cleanup the “current owner.”  

Regarding CERCLA's purposes, the Court reasoned that CERCLA encourages early settlements rather than litigation.  However, by attaching “current owner” status to a potentially responsible party only at the time of the filing of a lawsuit could cause many premature suits to be filed, contrary to CERCLA's the goal of encouraging early settlements.  In addition, settlement requires the responsible party's agreement to remediate the property; the owner at the time of cleanup can select from alternative remedial plans, and therefore that owner should be responsible for the cost of the cleanup.  The Court also reasoned that CERCLA discourages delay of remediation, and attaching “current owner” status at the time of remediation would not encourage delay, stating:

 “[A] landowner that knows it will ultimately be responsible for the cleanup costs has no incentive to delay the completion of that process once it has begun.  Conversely, . . . a landowner seeking to avoid liability by transferring the property before a lawsuit is filed has every incentive to delay completing the cleanup process until it has found a buyer; the recovery suit is likely to be filed once cleanup is complete and the total cost is known.”

The decision does not address the second category of “owner” liability under CERCLA, namely “any person who at the time of disposal of any hazardous substance owned or operated any facility at which such hazardous substances were disposed of…”  42 U.S.C. § 9607(a)(2).  Any former property owner evaluating its potential liability under CERCLA must consider the possible applicability of both categories of “owner” liability, along with the timing of any remedial actions taken on that property or adjoining properties pursuant to this decision.

•EPA Administrator (and Governor of the State) required to approve the covenant deferral request for all NPL early transfers
–Service may retain cleanup responsibility
–Transferee may take cleanup responsibility
•Use of Public Sale in disposing of contaminated property
–Has never been done at a NPL facility
–Regulators role where multiple bidders agree to take on cleanup responsibility?

•It’s not easy!
•Negotiating the cost of remaining work to be done can be time consuming for DoD and transferee; negotiations may be time consuming for state and EPA also
•Changes in reuse plans can disrupt the path forward
•All parties involved will need to give and take to make the deal work
•Privatized cleanups need to recognize the need for community involvement
–CERCLA Section 117 requirements will still apply

EXPLANATION OF SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE - CERCLA 117(c)

SEC. 118. HIGH PRIORITY FOR DRINKING WATER SUPPLIES.
For purposes of taking action under section 104 or 106 and listing facilities on the National Priorities List, the President shall give a high priority to facilities where the release of hazardous substances or pollutants or contaminants has resulted in the closing of drinking water wells or has contaminated a principal drinking water supply. [42 U.S.C. 9618]

E-Update on Land Management - Department of Interior's “Christmas Present” to the American Public: Lockup More Federal Land Congressman Herger

During the “lame duck” session of the 111 th Congress, Democratic members of the U.S. Senate had their sights set on passing yet another omnibus public lands bill to designate thousands of acres of wilderness and enact other restrictions on federal land-use.  Thankfully, this effort was met with strong resistance by Senate conservatives and was quickly dropped before Congress adjourned on December 22 nd .  However, in what appears to be a consolation prize to the environmental activist community and its supporters, upon Congress' adjournment Department of the Interior Secretary Salazar released Secretarial Order #3310 , which instructs the federal Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to identify and designate BLM lands with wilderness characteristics as “Wild Lands.”

By designating “Wild Lands” through land-use planning, this order represents a deliberate end-run around the authority of Congress to designate lands as wilderness.  While I have long opposed wilderness designations under any circumstances due to their extreme restrictions on beneficial and economic use of our federal lands, as well as the management restrictions that inhibit local efforts to address the growing threat of wildfires, I also believe that those decisions are best made through open debate and a vote by the Congress instead of through a backdoor process that is solely at the discretion of a federal agency.  Moreover, as the Obama Administration continues to claim that it has no plans to designate national monuments in response to a leaked  memo  describing potential monument sites (including two within our Northern California Congressional District), this latest action further undermines their credibility.  Instead, these statements simply reinforce the Administration's “lock it up” agenda with respect to multiple-use of federal lands.  As the 112 th Congress convenes with an emboldened conservative majority, I will pursue whatever means possible to prevent this Secretarial Order or any other policy from further restricting recreation, forest management, mining, grazing, and other valuable uses of our public lands in Northern California.

H.R.1885
Latest Title: Private Property Rights Protection Act of 2009
Sponsor: Rep Waters, Maxine [CA-35] (introduced 4/2/2009)       Cosponsors (26)
Latest Major Action: 5/26/2009 Referred to House subcommittee. Status: Referred to the Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties.

All Information (except text) Text of Legislation CRS Summary Major Congressional Actions

All Congressional Actions

All Congressional Actions with Amendments
With links to Congressional Record pages, votes,reports
Titles Cosponsors (26) Committees
Related Bills Amendments Related Committee Documents
CBO Cost Estimates Subjects

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

September 17, 2009

Mr. BROUN of Georgia (for himself, Mr. BARTLETT, Mr. BISHOP of Utah, Mr. SCALISE, Mr. SMITH of Texas, Mrs. BACHMANN, Mr. MARCHANT, Mr. GINGREY of Georgia, Mr. MANZULLO, Mr. SHADEGG, Mr. GOHMERT, Mr. CULBERSON, Mr. HERGER, Mr. MILLER of Florida, Mr. KINGSTON, Mr. WESTMORELAND, Mr. DEAL of Georgia, Mr. HALL of Texas, Mr. KING of Iowa, Mr. AKIN, Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey, Mr. BROWN of South Carolina, Mr. FRANKS of Arizona, Mr. PENCE, Mr. HENSARLING, Mr. FORBES, Mr. BOOZMAN, Mr. HARPER, Mr. ROE of Tennessee, Mr. LINDER, Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin, Mr. HELLER, Mr. WILSON of South Carolina, Mr. KLINE of Minnesota, Mr. CONAWAY, Mr. BURTON of Indiana, and Mr. PRICE of Georgia) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

RESOLUTION

Recognizing the importance of the property rights granted by the United States Constitution; affirming the duty of each Member of this body to support and defend such rights; and asserting that no public body should unlawfully obtain the property of any citizen of the United States for the benefit of another private citizen or corporation.

Whereas there is no greater expression of freedom and liberty than the defense of the God-given right of an individual to hold, possess, and use private property;

Whereas John Locke, the great political philosopher lauded by so many of the Founders of this Nation, stated, `the preservation of property [is the reason] for which men enter into society' and that `no [government] hath a right to take their [property], or any part of it, without their own consent, for this would be in effect to leave them no property at all.';

Whereas William Blackstone, whose lectures shaped and helped inspire the Declaration of Independence, Constitution, and primal laws of America, wrote: `So great moreover is the regard of the law for private property, that it will not authorize the least violation of it; no, not even for the general good of the whole community.';

Whereas Samuel Adams, the political writer, statesman, and signer of the Declaration of Independence, declared that our rights included: `First, a right to life; Secondly, to liberty; Thirdly, to property; together with the right to support and defend them.';

Whereas John Adams, diplomat, signer of the Declaration of Independence, and President of the United States, firmly proclaimed: `The moment the idea is admitted into society, that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence.' and that `Property is surely a right of mankind as real as liberty.';

Whereas John Adams also affirmed: `Property must be secured or liberty cannot exist.';

Whereas James Madison, author of the Constitution, and President of the United States, announced: `Government is instituted to protect property. . . . This being the end of government, that alone is a just government, which impartially secures to every man, whatever is his own.';

Whereas John Dickinson, signer of the Constitution, stated: `Let these truths be indelibly impressed on our minds: (1) that we cannot be happy without being free; (2) that we cannot be free, without being secure in our property; (3) that we cannot be secure in our property, if, without our consent, others may, as by right, take it away.';

Whereas Thomas Jefferson, the mind behind the Declaration of Independence, and President of the United States, wrote: `The true foundation of republican government is the equal right of every citizen in his person and property and in their management.' and `The first foundations of the social compact would be broken up were we definitely to refuse to its members the protection of their persons and property while in their lawful pursuits.';

Whereas Thomas Jefferson also affirmed: `Charged with the care of the general interest of the nation, and among these with the preservation of their lands from intrusion, I exercised, on their behalf, a right given by nature to all men, individual or associated, that of rescuing their own property wrongfully taken.';

Whereas Noah Webster, the `Father of American Scholarship and Education', stated: `It is admitted that all men have an equal right to the enjoyment of their life, property and personal security; and it is the duty as it is the object, of government to protect every man in this enjoyment.';

Whereas John Jay opined: `No power on earth has a right to take our property from us without our consent.'; and

Whereas Fisher Ames, framer of the Bill of Rights and Massachusetts Representative to the first four Congresses, said: `The chief duty and care of all governments is to protect the rights of property.': Now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That--

(1) these ideals did motivate and continue to justify the drafting of article 1, section 8 of the United States Constitution, which states that it is the responsibility of Congress `to promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries', and the writing of the 5th amendment to our Constitution, which clearly states: `No person shall be . . . deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.';

(2) since every Member of this body has sworn or affirmed to both support and defend the entire Constitution and `to bear true faith and allegiance to the same', any act not in accordance with that oath is both a betrayal of the United States Constitution and a violation of Federal law; and

(3) in the constant pursuit of a more perfect union, all citizens of the United States should remain secure in the possession of private property, and no court, legislature, or executive shall, by predatory law or tyrannical force, obtain the property of any citizen of the United States for the benefit of another private citizen or corporation.

The term ‘‘Indian tribe’’ means any Indian tribe, band, nation, or other organized group or community. 1 The words ‘‘or the Indian tribe’’ were inserted after the words ‘‘State Government’’ in the previous version of this sentence, but the same law also removed the sentence containing those words and replaced it with this new sentence which does not contain the words ‘‘State Government’’. See sections 107(d)(2) and 207(c)(2)(D) of the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986.

in accordance with section 553 of title 5, United States Code, the President shall by rule promulgate amendments to the hazard ranking system in effect on September 1, 1984. Such amendments shall assure, to the maximum extent feasible, that the hazard ranking system accurately assesses the relative degree of risk to human health and the environment posed by sites and facilities subject to review.

$1 Billion Settlement Reached at Iron Mountain Mine Site

When EPA, in conjunction with the State, has determined that all appropriate response actions have been implemented and no further remedial measures are necessary, a Notice of Final Action to Delete is published in the Federal Register. If EPA receives no significant adverse or critical comments from the public within the 30- day comment period, the site is deleted from the NPL. Reform of the program is ongoing. The reforms are being refined and improved – and their impact is becoming broader. EPA is
consistently addressing stakeholders’ criticisms and developing new ways to make Superfund work faster, fairer, and more efficiently. EPA believes that communities must have meaningful opportunities for involvement early in the cleanup process and should stay involved throughout site cleanup. Some of the ways that this is done is through Community Advisory Groups (CAGs) and Technical Assistance Grants (TAGs).
A CAG is a committee of citizens affected by a hazardous waste site. CAGs are made up of representatives with diverse community interests and provide a public forum for community members to present and discuss their needs and concerns regarding decision-making at a site. Many Superfund sites present communities with complex issues
often requiring expertise in chemistry, engineering, geology, toxicology, and law. A TAG is a grant of up to $50,000 for community groups to hire the technical advisers needed to help.

Developing Partnerships
To achieve success and promote public participation, EPA works with communities, local businesses, large corporations, and State, local, and Tribal governments in the form of partnerships. EPA, through its State and Tribal Enhanced Role Initiative, developed a comprehensive plan to implement equitable sharing of Superfund program responsibilities with interested and capable States and Tribes, resulting in quicker cleanup of more sites. In Mississippi, EPA has entered into a pilot program partnering with a band of Choctaw Native Americans. The pilot supports Tribal efforts in building a greater Superfund capacity with respect to emergency preparedness and response. Through the pilot, the Tribe will learn how to effectively respond to oil and hazardous substance spills and perform environmental assessments at potential waste sites on Tribal lands.

Implementing Technological Innovations
SARA established a preference for treatment of hazardous wastes and created a demand for alternatives to land disposal.
New innovative treatment technologies grew from this demand to provide more permanent, less costly solutions, for dealing with contaminated materials.
The Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation (SITE) Program was established to meet this increased demand for alternative technologies.
The SITE Program has provided demonstrations of new technologies at particular sites, resulting in average cost savings of over 70 percent per site. The total cost savings for innovative treatment as opposed to conventional treatment is estimated at $2.1 billion.

EPA also promotes the research and development of innovative technologies by sharing the risk with PRPs who select remedies employing low-cost, high performance technologies. EPA will “underwrite” these innovative approaches by agreeing to reimburse up to 50 percent of the cost if the innovative remedy fails and a subsequent remedy is required.

EPA has taken significant steps to reduce litigation, promote earlier settlements, and optimize fairness concerns. By streamlining the enforcement process, EPA is able to reach settlement more quickly on terms that are considered more fair to the responsible parties. This streamlined process allows both EPA and the PRPs to move quickly to clean up sites, and to increase the pace at which contaminated properties are returned to productive use. Since 1992, responsible parties have performed over 70 percent of the new cleanup work at Superfund sites. And over the life of the Superfund program, EPA has reached settlements with private parties valued at over $18 billion.

Removing Legal Barriers and Encouraging Economic Redevelopment

‘‘Audit Policy.’’ The purpose of this Policy is to enhance protection of human health and the environment by encouraging regulated entities to voluntarily discover, promptly disclose and expeditiously correct violations of Federal environmental requirements. The revised Policy was developed in close consultation with the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), States, public interest groups and the regulated community.

The Policy includes important safeguards to deter violations and protect public health and the environment. For example, the Policy requires entities to act to prevent recurrence of violations and to remedy any environmental harm that may have occurred. Repeat violations, those that result in actual harm to the environment, and those that may present an imminent and substantial endangerment are not eligible for relief under this Policy. Companies will not be allowed to gain an economic advantage over their competitors by delaying their investment in compliance. And entities remain criminally liable for violations that result from conscious disregard of or willful blindness to their obligations under the law, and individuals remain liable for their criminal misconduct.
When EPA issued the 1995 Audit Policy, the Agency committed to evaluate the Policy after three years. The Agency initiated this evaluation in the Spring of 1998 and published its preliminary results in the Federal Register on May 17, 1999 (64 FR 26745). The evaluation consisted of the following components:
1 An internal survey of EPA staff who process disclosures and handle enforcement cases under the 1995 Audit Policy;
2 A survey of regulated entities that used the 1995 Policy to disclose violations;
3 A series of meetings and conference calls with representatives from industry, environmental organizations, and States;
4 Focused stakeholder discussions on the Audit Policy at two public conferences co-sponsored by EPA’s Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance (OECA) and the Vice President’s National Partnership for Reinventing Government, entitled ‘‘Protecting Public Health and the Environment through Innovative Approaches to Compliance’’;

40658 - 40673 Federal Register / Vol. 48, No. 175 / Thursday, September 8, 1983 / Rules and Regulations List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 300

Air pollution control, Chemicals, Hazardous materials, Intergovernmental relations, Natural resources, Oil pollution, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Super fund, Waste treatment and disposal, Water pollution control, Water supply.

PART 300 - [AMENDED] Part 300, Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is hereby amended by adding a new Appendix B, to read as follows:

BILLING CODE 6560-50-M

Appendix B - National Priorities List, Group 2 09 CA Iron Mountain Mine Redding R = FEDERAL AND STATE RESPONSE; Last updated on October 01, 2010

Voluntary or Negotiated Response

Sites are included in this category if private parties are taking response actions pursuant to a consent order or agreement to which EPA is a party. Voluntary or negotiated cleanup may include actions taken pursuant to consent orders reached after EPA has commenced an enforcement action. This category of response may include remedial investigations, feasibility studies, and other preliminary work, as well as actual cleanup.

Several commenters were concerned that this category did not adequately reflect voluntary response efforts undertaken without formal agreements with EPA. However, EPA studies have shown that many of the response actions undertaken by private parties outside the sanction of EPA consent agreements have not been successful. Furthermore, some private parties have represented routine maintenance or waste management activities as response actions, thereby leading to the conclusion that only after a thorough technical review can the Agency describe actions by private parties as "responses". Thus, EPA believes that to describe actions taken outside consent orders as "response" would in many instances be misleading to the public as EPA cannot assure the public that the actions are appropriate, adequate, consistent with the NCP, and are being fully implemented. Therefore, the Agency encourages any responsible parties who are undertaking voluntary response actions at NPL sites to contact the Agency to negotiate consent agreements.

This is not intended to preclude responsible parties from taking voluntary response actions outside of a consent agreement. However, in order for the site to be deleted or to be noted in the voluntary or negotiated response category, EPA must still sanction the completed cleanup. If the remedial action is not fully implemented or is not consistent with the NCP, the responsible party may be subject to an enforcement action. Therefore, most responsible parties may find it in their best interest to negotiate a consent agreement.

Federal and State Response

The Federal and State Response category includes sites at which EPA or State agencies have commenced or completed removal or remedial actions under CERCLA, including, remedial investigations and feasibility studies (see NCP, § 300.68 (f)-(i), 47 FR 31217, July 16, 1982). For purposes of this categorization, EPA considers the response action to have commenced when EPA has obligated funds. For some of the sites in this category EPA may follow remedial investigations and feasibility studies with enforcement actions, at which time the site status would change to "Federal or State Enforcement."

Federal or State Enforcement

This category includes sites where the United States or the State has filed a civil complaint or issued an administrative order. It also includes sites at which a Federal or State court has mandated some form of non-consensual response action following a judicial proceeding. It may not, however, include all sites at which preliminary enforcement activities are underway. A number of sites on the NPL are the subject of enforcement investigation or have been formally referred to the Department of Justice for enforcement action. EPA's policy is not to release information concerning a possible enforcement action until a lawsuit has been filed. Accordingly, these sites have not been included in the enforcement category. [FR Doc. 83-24538 Filed 9-7-83; 8:45 am]

Federal Environmental Executive to Speak

Meeting attendees will also hear Joe Cascio, U.S. Federal Environmental Executive, illustrate the dramatic impact of the federal government's consumption of goods and services and how that purchasing power can be harnessed to create positive environmental change. For example, the government:


“Champions of Environmental Leadership and Green Government”

Participating Federal Green Challenge agencies, entities and facilities include: the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; General Services Administration, U.S Army Corps. of Engineers; the National Park Service; Bureau of Land Management; the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, the Federal Aviation Administration; Social Security Administration; National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S. Coast Guard; U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service; U.S. Department of Agriculture (Forest Service, National Resource Conservation Service, Rural Development); U.S. Department of Transportation (Federal Transit Administration) and the U.S. Geological Survey, the Bonneville Power Administration and the U.S. Army (Fort Lewis, WA).

Institutional Controls and Transfer of Real Property under CERCLA Section 120(h)(3)(A), (B) or (C)

PDF Version (9 pp, 64K, About PDF )

On this page

  1. Summary
  2. 1.0 Background of the Guidance
  3. 2.0 Purpose and Scope of the Guidance
  4. 3.0 Applicability of the Guidance
  5. 4.0 General Guidelines for Institutional Controls
  6. 5.0 Specific Guidelines for Institutional Controls
  7. 6.0 Documentation of Institutional Controls
  8. 7.0 "Operating Properly and Successfully Demonstrations"
  9. 8.0 Coordination with State, Local, and Tribal Governments
  10. 9.0 Executive Order 13132, "Federalism"
  11. 10.0 Conclusion

Summary

This document provides guidance to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on the exercise of EPA's discretion under CERCLA section 120(h)(3)(A),(B), or (C) when EPA is called upon to evaluate institutional controls as part of a remedial action. also informs the public and the regulated community on how EPA intends to exercise its discretion in this context. designed to implement the President's policy of promoting, encouraging, and facilitating the redevelopment and reuse of closing military bases while continuing to protect human health and the environment. ay change this guidance in the future, as appropriate.

EPA's evaluation of federal property transfers is contingent on the receipt of information establishing that the institutional controls will be effective in preventing human or environmental exposure to hazardous substances that remain on site above levels which allow unrestricted use. guidance requires that the transferring federal agency demonstrate prior to transfer that certain procedures are in place, or will be put in place, that will provide EPA with sufficient basis for determining that the institutional controls will perform as expected in the future. Such procedures, which are listed in Section 5.0 below, include the means for:

Top of page

1.0 Background of the Guidance

What are institutional controls?

Institutional controls are nonengineering measures designed to prevent or limit exposure to hazardous substances left in place at a site, or assure effectiveness of the chosen remedy. Institutional controls are usually, but not always, legal controls, such as easements, restrictive covenants, and zoning ordinances.

What is the historical basis for this guidance?

The Department of Defense's (DoD) base closure program and the Department of Energy's reuse and reindustrialization of surplus facilities are just two examples of programs where federal properties with hazardous substances remaining on site are being transferred outside of federal control. These property transfers will often require the implementation of institutional controls to ensure that human health and the environment are protected. Such property transfers highlight the need to ensure that institutional controls are clearly defined, oversight and monitoring roles are understood, and appropriate enforcement mechanisms are in place to ensure that human health and the environment are protected.

What is the statutory basis for this guidance?

Section 120(h)(3)(A) of CERCLA requires that a federal agency transferring real property (hereafter, transferring federal agency - by "transferring federal agency" EPA means the federal agency responsible for cleanup) to a nonfederal entity include a covenant in the deed of transfer warranting that all remedial action necessary to protect human health and the environment has been taken prior to the date of transfer with respect to any hazardous substances remaining on the property. In addition, CERCLA section 120(h)(3)(B) requires, under certain circumstances, that a federal agency demonstrate to the EPA Administrator that a remedy is "operating properly and successfully" before the federal agency can provide the "all remedial action has been taken" covenant. Under CERCLA section 120(h)(3)(C), the covenant can be deferred so that property may be transferred before all necessary remedial actions have been taken if regulators agree that the property is suitable for the intended use and the intended use is consistent with protection of human health and the environment.

Top of page

2.0 Purpose and Scope of the Guidance

What is the purpose of this guidance?

This guidance establishes criteria for EPA to evaluate the effectiveness of institutional controls that are part of a remedy or are a sole remedy for property to be transferred subject to CERCLA section 120(h)(3)(A),(B), or (C). Accordingly, this institutional control guidance provides guidelines applicable to property transfers in general and, more specifically, to support "operating properly and successfully determinations" under CERCLA section 120(h)(3)(B).

This guidance does not substitute for EPA regulations, nor is it a regulation itself. Thus, it cannot impose legally binding requirements on EPA, states, or the regulated community, and may not apply to a particular situation based upon the circumstances.

What does the guidance not address?

This guidance does not address the issue of whether an institutional control is appropriate for a particular site. That decision is made as part of the remedy selection process. If, however, it becomes clear that the criteria set forth in this guidance cannot be met, the scope, effectiveness, or even the use of an institutional control should be reconsidered. This guidance does not change EPA's preference for active and permanent remedies as stated in CERCLA section 121 (See also 55 FR, page 8706 [March 8, 1990]), or any of the requirements for selecting remedies in CERCLA or the NCP (See CERCLA section 121 and 40 CFR 300.430).

Top of page

3.0 Applicability of the Guidance

Under what circumstances does the guidance apply?

The guidance applies in the following situations:

Top of page

4.0 General Guidelines for Institutional Controls

Who is responsible for implementing institutional controls?

The decision to clean up a site to less than unrestricted use or to otherwise restrict the use of the site must be balanced by the assurance that a system will be in place to monitor and enforce any required institutional controls. This assurance is necessary to ensure the long term effectiveness and permanence of the remedy (For more information, see 55 FR section 300.430 (e)(9) (iii)(C)(2)). In EPA's view, the transferring federal agency is responsible for ensuring that the institutional controls are implemented. Even if implementation of the institutional controls is delegated in the transfer documents, the ultimate responsibility for monitoring, maintaining, and enforcing the institutional controls remains with the federal agency responsible for cleanup.

The transferring agency should clearly identify and define the institutional controls and set forth their purpose and method of implementation in a Record of Decision (ROD) or other decision document. Generally referring to or identifying an institutional control in a ROD is only one step in achieving the objective of an institutional control. An institutional control must be implemented in much the same way as an engineered remedy described in a ROD is designed and constructed.

Top of page

5.0 Specific Guidelines for Institutional Controls

What information does EPA need?

EPA's review of federal property transfers requiring institutional controls should focus on whether the institutional controls, when in place, will be reliable and will remain in place after initiation of operation and maintenance. The information should document that the transferring federal agency will ensure that appropriate actions will be taken if a remedy is compromised. EPA should work with the transferring agency to obtain and evaluate the information described below as a precondition for EPA's support of federal property transfers under 120 (h)(3)(A),(B) or (C). At a minimum, EPA should expect to obtain the following information from the transferring federal agency:

  1. A legal description of the real property or other geographical information sufficient to clearly identify the property where the institutional controls will be implemented.

  2. A description of the anticipated future use(s) for the parcel.

  3. Identification of the residual hazard or risk present on the parcel requiring the institutional control. In addition, the specific activities that are prohibited on the parcel should be identified, including prohibitions against certain land use activities that might affect the integrity of the remedy, such as well drilling and construction.

  4. The specific institutional control language in substantially the same form as it will appear in the transfer document and a description of the legal authority for the implementation of these controls, such as state statutes, regulations, ordinances or other legal authority including case law.

  5. A statement from the transferring federal agency that, in their best professional judgement, the institutional controls conform or will conform with the legal requirements of the applicable state and/or local jurisdiction. This statement should also explain how the institutional controls will be enforceable against future transferees and successors. Compliance with the institutional control should be enforceable against whoever might have ownership or control of the property. For Base Realignment and Closure properties, the majority of the transfers which EPA reviews, this statement could be included in a memorandum transmitting the final institutional control language for the deed of transfer from a DoD component attorney to the Commanding Officer. The memorandum could state that, based upon a review of the particular state's real estate laws, the component attorney believes that the institutional control is binding in perpetuity and enforceable in state court, and if it is not, he/she will revisit the institutional control or the entire remedy decision. This memorandum could be included in DoD's "operating properly and successfully demonstration" letter to EPA (This is consistent with DoD's own requirement in their guidance Responsibility for Additional Environmental Cleanup after Transfer of Real Property, which states "The DoD component disposal agent will also ensure that appropriate institutional controls and other implementation and enforcement mechanisms, appropriate to the jurisdiction where the property is located, are either in place prior to the transfer or will be put in place by the transferee.").

  6. A description of who will be responsible for monitoring the integrity and effectiveness of the institutional controls and the frequency of monitoring. If this is a party other than the transferring federal agency, the transferring federal agency should provide documentation that the party accepts or will accept the responsibility. The transferring agency should also describe which specific party or office will be responsible for overseeing the institutional controls. The transferring agency might, for example, provide details of the types of assistance that other government agencies will provide in preventing the drilling of drinking water wells as well as the frequency of monitoring to ensure that drilling is not occurring.

  7. A description of the procedure that will be used to report violations or failures of the institutional controls to the appropriate EPA and/or state regulator, local or tribal government, and the designated party or entity responsible for reporting.

  8. A description of the procedure that will be used to enforce against violations of an institutional control, an identification of the party or parties that will be responsible for such enforcement, and a description of the legal authority for this enforcement procedure, such as state statutes, regulations, ordinances, or other legal authority including case law.

  9. Assurance that the transferring federal agency will verify maintenance of the institutional control on a periodic basis unless other arrangements have been made. In the latter case, where another party is performing the monitoring function, that party should provide such assurances. In addition, the transferring federal agency must commit to verify the reports on a regular basis in this case.

  10. A description of the recording requirements in the jurisdiction where the site is located. The transferring agency also must describe the methods it will use to provide notice of the institutional controls at the site to subsequent owners or lessees.

Top of page

6.0 Documentation of Institutional Controls

What remedy selection documentation should EPA expect from the transferring federal agency?

EPA may base its evaluation of the institutional control on information found in the following remedy selection, remedy design, or other documents:

What if existing documents do not provide sufficient information on institutional controls?

If none of the documents mentioned above provide sufficient detail on the implementation of the institutional control, the transferring federal agency should develop an "Institutional Control Implementation Plan" (ICIP) to assist EPA in evaluating the effectiveness of the institutional control. The ICIP should adhere to the following conditions:

Top of page

7.0 "Operating Properly and Successfully Demonstrations"

How does this guidance apply to demonstrations that remedial actions are "operating properly and successfully"?

In August 1996, EPA issued guidance to EPA's Regional Federal Facility programs describing the approach EPA should use in evaluating a federal agency's demonstration that a remedial action is "operating properly and successfully" as a precondition to the deed transfer of federally-owned property, as required in CERCLA section 120(h)(3)(B). In that guidance, entitled Guidance for Evaluation of Federal Agency Demonstrations that Remedial Actions are Operating Properly and Successfully under CERCLA Section 120(h)(3), EPA directed Regional decision-makers to consider a number of factors in evaluating an "operating properly and successfully demonstration" of ongoing remedial actions, including institutional controls. With respect to institutional controls, EPA stated generally that:

"If the integrity of the remedial action depends on institutional controls (e.g., deed restrictions, well drilling prohibitions) these controls should be clearly identified and agreed upon."

Additionally, under the more specific criteria that must be demonstrated for groundwater remedies, the 1996 guidance included "appropriate institutional controls are in place" as a criterion, but did not describe how federal agencies should meet this requirement. For ongoing remedial actions involving institutional controls and for which EPA must evaluate a transferring federal agency's demonstration that a remedial action is operating properly and successfully, the information listed in Section 5.0 of this guidance should be submitted as part of the data requirements for the remedial action.

What documentation does EPA need to evaluate "operating properly and successfully demonstrations"?

The following documentation is needed for all "operating properly and successfully demonstrations":

Generally, where institutional controls are a component of a remedy, EPA should not consider "operating properly and successfully demonstrations" that are not consistent with the requirements described above in Sections 5.0 and 6.0 .

When should information for "operating properly and successfully" demonstrations be provided?

EPA should encourage federal agencies preparing "operating properly and successfully demonstrations" to work closely with EPA in planning the scope and presentation of the documentation. A minimum of 45 days is needed for EPA to review all "operating properly and successfully demonstrations."

Top of page

8.0 Coordination with State, Local, and Tribal Governments

What organizations should be involved in the development of institutional controls?

Successful management of institutional controls is critical to protecting the human health and environment of the communities where federal properties are located. For this reason, EPA encourages early communication and cooperation among federal, state, local, and tribal governments in the development of institutional controls and implementation plans. Where the viability of the institutional control is contingent on state property law or where state institutional control-related laws may apply (e.g., documentation of institutional controls in a state registry), it is particularly important to coordinate with the state. As a matter of policy, therefore, EPA will forward all institutional control information received for federal property transfers to the appropriate state, local, and tribal governments. EPA also will solicit comments from these organizations as appropriate.

Top of page

9.0 Executive Order 13132, "Federalism"

Does this Guidance have Federalism Implications?

Executive Order 13132, entitled "Federalism" (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure "meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications." "Policies that have federalism implications" is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations and regulatory policies that have "substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

This guidance does not have federalism implications. This guidance aids EPA in implementing its responsibilities under CERCLA section 120(h)(3)(A), (B) or (C). This guidance also encourages Federal agencies to coordinate the development and implementation of institutional controls with state, local and tribal governments. Neither such coordination, nor any other aspect of this guidance, however, will have substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132. Thus, the requirements of the Executive Order do not apply to this guidance.

Top of page

10.0 Conclusion

How will EPA evaluate institutional controls?

EPA prefers to work with federal agencies early in the remedy selection process to assure full and consistent consideration of the long term effectiveness of the institutional controls. For this reason, it is imperative that these discussions begin prior to remedy selection. Although the federal government has had less experience designing and implementing institutional controls than engineered remedies, EPA will use its professional judgement in evaluating institutional control plans, as it does in evaluating other aspects of remedies and operations and maintenance. The basis for that judgment may vary depending on the site characteristics. EPA understands the importance of rapid reuse to the surrounding communities and is committed to supporting this effort while maintaining the Agency's primary goal of protecting human health and the environment.

EPA crackdown on mountaintop removal named among environmental issues to watch in 2011

THE WARNING

 

Freedom is not something that anybody can be given ; Freedom is something that people take and people are as free as they want to be. -James Baldwin

US CFTC needs "Plan B" for costly swaps rules-INTERVIEW-UPDATE 1

FINANCIAL-REGULATION/OMALIA (INTERVIEW)(UPDATE 1)

* CFTC needs plan in case it doesn't get new funding

* Reforms will cost more, take longer than imagined

* Could outsource some tasks to private regulators

* Should restructure to focus on data, add technology

* "Further negotiations" needed on position limits (Adds additional information and background starting in 16th paragraph)

By Roberta Rampton

WASHINGTON, Jan 3 (Reuters) - The U.S. futures regulator needs to consider a "Plan B" on how it will police the $600 trillion swaps market if Congress fails to deliver a 50 percent increase in its budget, one of its top officials said on Monday.

The Commodity Futures Trading Commission has been counting on getting a $92 million budget hike for 2011 -- and even more in 2012 -- to take on new responsibilities to oversee the over-the-counter market in the bank reform law, but may come up short as lawmakers look to slash government spending.

"We may not get more dollars, so what are we going to do next? What's our Plan B?" said Scott O'Malia, a Republican commissioner on the CFTC, in an interview with Reuters.

His comments were among the most frank acknowledgments from top CFTC officials that the agency faces an uphill battle implementing reforms without new funding.

O'Malia said he didn't have the answers, but said CFTC staff were beginning to think about options, including asking private industry regulators like the National Futures Association to shoulder more responsibilities.

It's an idea that has been raised by other CFTC commissioners as one way to help the chronically underfunded agency cope with the dramatic overhaul of its role under the Dodd-Frank financial law.

Republican lawmakers, who now control the House of Representatives and increased their numbers in the Senate, have said they want to review regulatory expansion plans and slow reforms passed by Democrats last year.

REFORMS "MORE EXPENSIVE THAN WE IMAGINE"

Agency staff have been working nights and weekends to meet the July deadlines to finalize CFTC rules that were set out in the Dodd-Frank law, O'Malia said.

"If Congress wants to change that (deadline), I'm sure everybody would breathe somewhat of a sigh of relief, and it certainly would allow us to take a little slower approach to this," he said.

There has been no total price tag put on the CFTC's share of Dodd-Frank reforms, which will require most types of over-the-counter derivatives to trade on exchanges or new swap execution facilities, pass through clearinghouses, and be recorded in new swap data repositories, O'Malia said.

"I think it's more expensive than we imagine, not only to the commission but to the industry, and it's going to take a lot longer than we expect," O'Malia said.

The agency's technology advisory committee, which O'Malia chairs, will discuss the costs and needs of the new market structure required to report on and track swaps trades from inception through conclusion at a Jan. 27 meeting, he said.

O'Malia is pushing the CFTC to restructure to create a new "Office of Market Data Collection and Analysis," which he said could require more spending on technology even while lawmakers push to rein in staff expansion plans.

"I think the mortgage for technology is a cheaper bill to pay than if we were going to hire many more people," he said.

"I think we need to be very careful about our hiring and where we're spending money right now," O'Malia said.

CFTC ROUNDS THE CORNER IN RULE-MAKING

The CFTC had aimed to unveil the first draft of all its rules by the end of the year, a self-imposed deadline it met for all but a handful of rules, including capital and margin requirements for swap dealers and major swap participants.

Also in the wings are its controversial curbs on speculative trades in commodity markets. The CFTC proposed a rule on Dec. 16, but commissioners have not yet agreed on whether to issue the plan for public comment.

"I think there needs to be some further negotiations and discussion among the commissioners," O'Malia said, declining to comment further on the position limit rule.

The agency aims to finalize its first major rule for the swaps market -- ownership caps and governance rules for clearinghouses, exchanges and swap execution facilities -- at its first hearing of the year, slated for Jan. 13, he said.

DISRUPTIVE TRADING A TOUGH NUT

The CFTC also needs to work on giving traders clearer guidance on three trading practices banned in the Dodd-Frank law as "disruptive," O'Malia said.

The banned practices include "banging the close" -- acquiring a big position and then offsetting it before trading ends -- and "spoofing" -- when a trader makes bids or offers but cancels them before execution.

"Providing the certainty and nailing what is inappropriate behavior is going to be very difficult," he said, adding he doubted it was even possible.

"I think we're going to be, unfortunately, too vague."

The CFTC is also looking at whether to rein in high-frequency traders using computer-driven algorithms.

That task took on more profile after the May 6 "flash crash," when markets briefly plunged before recovering. Some analysts argue algorithms contributed to the volatility, although a government review did not blame high-frequency traders for the crash.

A panel of experts examining the flash crash is slated to make recommendations to the CFTC and Securities and Exchange Commission on Jan. 26, O'Malia said.

He said he thought the CFTC should focus on recommending "best practices" to preventing high-frequency errors and runaway algorithms rather than trying to ban more types of trades.

"We're having a hard enough time defining the current (disruptive) practices. Expanding that would not help the market," O'Malia said. (Editing by Walter Bagley)

(c) Copyright Thomson Reuters 2011. Click For Restrictions. http://about.reuters.com/fulllegal.asp

 

The Community Guide to Early Transfer

Sustaining the health and welfare of local communities is the starting place for sustaining the health and welfare of the world. Here and everywhere we are all dependent upon a quality environment and availability of needed resources to preserve our quality of life — for all citizens

 

New Report: The Construction Nanomaterials Revolution

Impact: Nanotechnology    July 30, 2010

Of the many ongoing technology developments, it's arguable that nanotechnology will have the most immediate, visible, and continuing impact. Nano-this and nano-that have already sprung up in the English vocabulary like mushrooms after rain and marketing-speak has long since incorporated the benefits of NEW: With Nano-whatever. Barely a week goes by without an announcement of some advancement in nanotechnology and the majority of these announcements are couched in their relationship to a practical application. So it should not be surprising even to people with only passing knowledge of nanotechnology that one of the areas about to be changed (if not revolutionized) is the construction industry – in particular the enhancement of construction materials by the incorporation of manufactured nanomaterials (MNMs).

Whether you're following the development or just interested in the possible impact of nanotechnology, a new report published by the American Chemical Society (ACS) in the journal ACS Nano , titled Nanomaterials in the Construction Industry: A Review of Their Applications and Environmental Health and Safety Considerations is a comprehensive look at the future of nanotechnology in the materials used by the construction industry AND their potential impact on health and the environment. A lengthy abstract is available at the above URL; the full text of the report requires subscription or purchase.

The report was prepared by scientists at Rice University (Texas, USA) and the University of California Los Angeles (USA). Its combination of a review of applications with a realistic approach to potential problems makes this report a standout. While the language is at times technical (the target audience is for people familiar with the field), it's easy to understand the overall picture:

Nanomaterials will be extensively incorporated in construction materials. Nanomaterials will make them stronger, lighter, more flexible, and endow some materials with unusual or even extraordinary properties. Overall the application of nanomaterials provides a major opportunity for more energy conserving and environmentally friendly materials – as long as that is made a top priority.

Examples of uses for manufactured nanomaterials (MNMs)
[Taken from Table 1 of Nanomaterials in the Construction Industry ]

Carbon Nanotubes
Concrete Mechanical durability, crack prevention
Ceramics Enhanced mechanical and thermal properties
MEMS Real-time structural health monitoring
Solar Cell Effective electron mediation
Silicon Dioxide Nanoparticles
Concrete Reinforcement in mechanical strength
Ceramics Coolant, light transmission, fire resistance
Windows Flame proofing, anti-reflection
Titanium Dioxide Nanoparticles
Cement Rapid hydration, increased degree of hydration, self-cleaning
Windows Superhydrophilicity, anti-fogging, fouling-resistance
Solar Cell Non-utility electricity generation
Iron Oxide Nanoparticles
Concrete Increased compressive strength, abrasion resistance
Copper Nanoparticles
Steel Weldability, corrosion resistance, formability
Silver Nanoparticles
Coating/Paints Biocidal activity

Source: American Chemical Society

On the other hand, nanomaterials either in raw form or in the combination with traditional construction materials will become prevalent world-wide. Insofar as these materials have toxic or environmentally damaging properties – and we already know that some of them do – this new exposure at massive scale will probably create dangerous situations (or worse).

Some MNMs could be considered as potential emerging pollutants because their environmental release is currently not regulated despite growing concerns about the associated risks to public and environmental health. Once in the environment, MNMs may undergo diverse physical, chemical, and biological transformations that change their properties, impact, and fate. Thus, a holistic MNM lifecycle exposure profiling is essential to evaluate potential impacts to human and ecosystem health, as well as to mitigate unnecessary risks.

The report stresses the importance of understanding the health and environmental impact of using nanomaterials in construction from all points in the ‘life cycle' of the materials:

- Creation and transport of the raw (nano)components
- The manufacturing process
- Distribution and application in the construction industry
- Long-term degradation
- Final demolition and disposal.

Without taking into to account the dangers present at each point along the cycle (and they will vary considerably among the different materials), we will not have a profile accurate enough to provide guidance for regulation, prevention, troubleshooting and emergency procedures.

 

Reusing Superfund Sites

The Superfund Redevelopment Initiative (SRI) was announced in 1999, but the effort to return Superfund sites to productive use has been in place for a number of years. Building on the Superfund Reforms and the Brownfields Initiative, EPA has put in place a coordinated national program to make certain that communities have the tools and information needed to realize the potential of reusing Superfund sites.

Fulfilling the Promise of Earth Day

“We all have a stake in the quality of our water,” said EPA Regional Administrator Richard E. Greene. “Ensuring the sustainability of our nation's waters is not just an EPA challenge -- it is everyone's challenge.

Personal Sustainability Project Challenge, which coincides with Hispanic Heritage Month and encourages people to select an action they are willing to commit to improve their efforts towards sustainability.

Section 427 of Public Law 106–74 (113 Stat. 1095) added the phrase ‘‘through seizure or otherwise in connection with law enforcement activity’’ before ‘‘involuntary’’ the first place it appears. It was inserted after ‘‘involuntarily’’ as the probable intent of Congress.

Sec. 427. Law Enforcement Agencies Not Included as Owner or Operator. Section 101(20)(D) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (42 U.S.C. 9601(20)(D)) is amended by inserting ``through seizure

(D) The term ``owner or operator'' does not include a unit of State or local government which acquired ownership or control involuntarily through bankruptcy, tax delinquency, abandonment, or other circumstances in which the government involuntarily acquires title by virtue of its function as sovereign. The exclusion provided under this paragraph shall not apply to any State or local government which has caused or contributed to the release or threatened release of a hazardous substance from the facility, and such a State or local government shall be subject to the provisions of this chapter in the same manner and to the same extent, both procedurally and substantively, as any nongovernmental entity, including liability under section 9607 of this title.

Sec. 431. Promulgation <<NOTE: Reports.>> of Stormwater Regulations. (a) Stormwater Regulations.--The Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency shall not promulgate the Phase II stormwater regulations until the Administrator submits to the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate and the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives a report containing-- (1) an in-depth impact analysis on the effect the final regulations will have on urban, suburban, and rural local governments subject to the regulations, including an estimate of-- (A) the costs of complying with the six minimum control measures described in the regulations; and (B) the costs resulting from the lowering of the construction threshold from 5 acres to 1 acre; (2) an explanation of the rationale of the Administrator for lowering the construction site threshold from 5 acres to 1 acre, including-- (A) an explanation, in light of recent court decisions, of why a 1-acre measure is any less arbitrarily determined than a 5-acre measure; and (B) all qualitative information used in determining an acre threshold for a construction site; (3) documentation demonstrating that stormwater runoff is generally a problem in communities with populations of 50,000 to 100,000 (including an explanation of why the coverage of the regulation is based on a census-determined population instead of a water quality threshold); and (4) information that supports the position of the Administrator that the Phase II stormwater program should be administered as part of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System under section 402 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1342). (b) Phase <<NOTE: Deadline. Reports.>> I Regulations.--No later than 120 days after the enactment of this Act, the Environmental Protection Agency shall submit to the Environment and Public Works Committee of the Senate and the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives a report containing a detailed explanation of the impact, if any, that the Phase I program has had in improving water quality in the United States (including [[Page 113 STAT. 1097]] a description of specific measures that have been successful and those that have been unsuccessful). (c) Federal Register.--The reports described in subsections (a) and (b) shall be published in the Federal Register for public comment. Sec. 432. Pesticide Tolerance Fees. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available by this Act shall be used to promulgate a final regulation to implement changes in the payment of pesticide tolerance processing fees as proposed at 64 Fed. Reg. 31040, or any similar proposals. The Environmental Protection Agency may proceed with the development of such a rule.


TITLE 42 > CHAPTER 103 > SUBCHAPTER I > § 9601 NOTES:


Source ( Pub. L. 96–510 , title I, § 101, Dec. 11, 1980, 94 Stat. 2767 ; Pub. L. 96–561 , title II, § 238(b), Dec. 22, 1980, 94 Stat. 3300 ; Pub. L. 99–499 , title I, §§ 101, 114 (b) , 127 (a), title V, § 517(c)(2), Oct. 17, 1986, 100 Stat. 1615 , 1652, 1692, 1774; Pub. L. 100–707 , title I, § 109(v), Nov. 23, 1988, 102 Stat. 4710 ; Pub. L. 103–429 , § 7(e)(1), Oct. 31, 1994, 108 Stat. 4390 ; Pub. L. 104–208 , div. A, title I, § 101(a) [title II, § 211(b)], title II, § 2502(b), Sept. 30, 1996, 110 Stat. 3009 , 3009–41, 3009–464; Pub. L. 104–287 , § 6(j)(1), Oct. 11, 1996, 110 Stat. 3399 ; Pub. L. 106–74 , title IV, § 427, Oct. 20, 1999, 113 Stat. 1095 ; Pub. L. 107–118 , title II, §§ 211(a), 222 (a) , 223 , 231 (a) , Jan. 11, 2002, 115 Stat. 2360 , 2370, 2372, 2375.) References in Text
This chapter, referred to in pars. (5), (13), (20)(D), (G), (35)(C), (D), (39)(B)(iii), and (40)(G), was in the original “this Act”, meaning Pub. L. 96–510 , Dec. 11, 1980, 94 Stat. 2767 , as amended, known as the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title note below and Tables. The Safe Drinking Water Act, referred to in pars. (7), (10), and (39)(B)(iv), is title XIV of act July 1, 1944, as added Dec. 16, 1974, Pub. L. 93–523 , § 2(a), 88 Stat. 1660, as amended, which is classified generally to subchapter XII (§ 300f et seq.) of chapter 6A of this title. Part C of the Safe Drinking Water Act is classified generally to part C (§ 300h et seq.) of subchapter XII of chapter 6A of this title. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title note set out under section 201 of this title and Tables. The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, referred to in pars. (8) and (16), is Pub. L. 94–265 , Apr. 13, 1976, 90 Stat. 331 , as amended, which is classified principally to chapter 38 (§ 1801 et seq.) of Title 16, Conservation. The fishery conservation zone established by this Act, referred to in par. (16), was established by section 101 of this Act ( 16 U.S.C. 1811 ), which as amended generally by Pub. L. 99–659 , title I, § 101(b), Nov. 14, 1986, 100 Stat. 3706 , relates to United States sovereign rights and fishery management authority over fish within the exclusive economic zone as defined in section 1802 of Title 16 . For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title note set out under section 1801 of Title 16 and Tables. The Clean Air Act, referred to in par. (10), is act July 14, 1955, ch. 360, as amended generally by Pub. L. 88–206 , Dec. 17, 1963, 77 Stat. 392 , and later by Pub. L. 95–95 , Aug. 7, 1977, 91 Stat. 685 . The Clean Air Act was originally classified to chapter 15B (§ 1857 et seq.) of this title. On enactment of Pub. L. 95–95 , the Act was reclassified to chapter 85 (§ 7401 et seq.) of this title. Parts C and D of title I of the Clean Air Act are classified generally to parts C (§ 7470 et seq.) and D (§ 7501 et seq.), respectively, of subchapter I of chapter 85 of this title. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title note set out under section 7401 of this title and Tables. The Atomic Energy Act of 1954, referred to in pars. (10) and (22), is act Aug. 1, 1946, ch. 724, as added by act Aug. 30, 1954, ch. 1073, § 1, 68 Stat. 921 , and amended, which is classified generally to chapter 23 (§ 2011 et seq.) of this title. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title note set out under section 2011 of this title and Tables. The Solid Waste Disposal Act, referred to in pars. (14), (39)(B)(iv), (vi)(I), (ix), and (41)(B)(i), is title II of Pub. L. 89–272 , Oct. 20, 1965, 79 Stat. 997 , as amended generally by Pub. L. 94–580 , § 2, Oct. 21, 1976, 90 Stat. 2795 , which is classified generally to chapter 82 (§ 6901 et seq.) of this title. Subtitles C and I of the Act are classified generally to subchapters III (§ 6921 et seq.) and IX (§ 6991 et seq.), respectively, of chapter 82 of this title. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title note set out under section 6901 of this title and Tables. The Farm Credit Act of 1971, referred to in par. (20)(G)(iv)(III), is Pub. L. 92–181 , Dec. 10, 1971, 85 Stat. 583 , as amended, which is classified generally to chapter 23 (§ 2001 et seq.) of Title 12, Banks and Banking. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title note set out under section 2001 of Title 12 and Tables. The Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, referred to in par. (23), is Pub. L. 93–288 , May 22, 1974, 88 Stat. 143 , as amended, known as the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, which is classified principally to chapter 68 (§ 5121 et seq.) of this title. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title note set out under section 5121 of this title and Tables. The Federal Water Pollution Control Act, referred to in par. (39)(B)(iv), is act June 30, 1948, ch. 758, as amended generally by Pub. L. 92–500 , § 2, Oct. 18, 1972, 86 Stat. 816 , also known as the Clean Water Act, which is classified generally to chapter 26 (§ 1251 et seq.) of Title 33, Navigation and Navigable Waters. Section 311(c) of the Act was amended generally by Pub. L. 101–380 , title IV, § 4201(a), Aug. 18, 1990, 104 Stat. 523 , and no longer contains provisions directing the publishing of a National Contingency Plan. However, such provisions are contained in section 1321 (d) of Title 33 . For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title note set out under section 1251 of Title 33 and Tables. The Toxic Substances Control Act, referred to in par. (39)(B)(iv), (viii)(II), is Pub. L. 94–469 , Oct. 11, 1976, 90 Stat. 2003 , as amended, which is classified generally to chapter 53 (§ 2601 et seq.) of Title 15, Commerce and Trade. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title note set out under section 2601 of Title 15 and Tables. Amendments
2002—Par. (35)(A). Pub. L. 107–118 , § 223(1), in introductory provisions substituted “deeds, easements, leases, or” for “deeds or” and in concluding provisions substituted “the defendant has satisfied” for “he has satisfied” and inserted before period at end “, provides full cooperation, assistance, and facility access to the persons that are authorized to conduct response actions at the facility (including the cooperation and access necessary for the installation, integrity, operation, and maintenance of any complete or partial response action at the facility), is in compliance with any land use restrictions established or relied on in connection with the response action at a facility, and does not impede the effectiveness or integrity of any institutional control employed at the facility in connection with a response action”. Par. (35)(B). Pub. L. 107–118 , § 223(2), added subpar. (B) and struck out former subpar. (B) which read as follows: “To establish that the defendant had no reason to know, as provided in clause (i) of subparagraph (A) of this paragraph, the defendant must have undertaken, at the time of acquisition, all appropriate inquiry into the previous ownership and uses of the property consistent with good commercial or customary practice in an effort to minimize liability. For purposes of the preceding sentence the court shall take into account any specialized knowledge or experience on the part of the defendant, the relationship of the purchase price to the value of the property if uncontaminated, commonly known or reasonably ascertainable information about the property, the obviousness of the presence or likely presence of contamination at the property, and the ability to detect such contamination by appropriate inspection.” Par. (39). Pub. L. 107–118 , § 211(a), added par. (39). Par. (40). Pub. L. 107–118 , § 222(a), added par. (40). Par. (41). Pub. L. 107–118 , § 231(a), added par. (41). 1999—Par. (20)(D). Pub. L. 106–74 , which directed the amendment of subpar. (D) by inserting “through seizure or otherwise in connection with law enforcement activity” before “involuntary” the first place it appears, could not be executed because the word “involuntary” does not appear in subpar. (D). 1996—Pars. (8), (16). Pub. L. 104–208 , § 101(a) [title II, § 211(b)], substituted “Magnuson-Stevens Fishery” for “Magnuson Fishery”. Par. (20)(E) to (G). Pub. L. 104–208 , § 2502(b), added subpars. (E) to (G). Par. (26). Pub. L. 104–287 substituted “section 60101 (a) of title 49 ” for “the Pipeline Safety Act”. 1994—Par. (26). Pub. L. 103–429 substituted “a hazardous liquid pipeline facility” for “pipeline”. 1988—Par. (23). Pub. L. 100–707 substituted “Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act” for “Disaster Relief Act of 1974”. 1986— Pub. L. 99–499 , § 101(f), struck out “, the term” after “subchapter” in introductory text. Pars. (1) to (10). Pub. L. 99–499 , § 101(f), inserted “The term” and substituted a period for the semicolon at end. Par. (11). Pub. L. 99–499 , § 517(c)(2), amended par. (11) generally. Prior to amendment, par. (11) read as follows: “The term ‘Fund' or ‘Trust Fund' means the Hazardous Substance Response Fund established by section 9631 of this title or, in the case of a hazardous waste disposal facility for which liability has been transferred under section 9607 (k) of this title, the Post-closure Liability Fund established by section 9641 of this title.” Pub. L. 99–499 , § 101(f), inserted “The term” and substituted a period for the semicolon at end. Pars. (12) to (15). Pub. L. 99–499 , § 101(f), inserted “The term” and substituted a period for the semicolon at end. Par. (16). Pub. L. 99–499 , § 101(a), (f), inserted “The term”, struck out “or” after “local government,” inserted “, any Indian tribe, or, if such resources are subject to a trust restriction on alienation, any member of an Indian tribe”, and substituted a period for the semicolon at end. Pars. (17) to (19). Pub. L. 99–499 , § 101(f), inserted “The term” and substituted a period for the semicolon at end. Par. (20)(A). Pub. L. 99–499 , § 101(f), inserted “The term”. Pub. L. 99–499 , § 101(b)(2), amended cl. (iii) generally. Prior to amendment, cl. (iii) read as follows: “in the case of any abandoned facility, any person who owned, operated, or otherwise controlled activities at such facility immediately prior to such abandonment.” Pub. L. 99–499 , § 101(b)(3), in provisions following subcl. (iii), substituted a period for the semicolon at end. Par. (20)(B), (C). Pub. L. 99–499 , § 101(b)(3), substituted “In the case” for “in the case” and a period for the semicolon at end. Par. (20)(D). Pub. L. 99–499 , § 101(b)(1), (f), added subpar. (D). The part of § 101(f) of Pub. L. 99–499 which directed the amendment of par. (20) by changing the semicolon at end to a period could not be executed in view of the prior amendment of par. (20) by § 101(b)(1) of Pub. L. 99–499 which added subpar. (D) ending in a period. Par. (21). Pub. L. 99–499 , § 101(f), inserted “The term” and substituted a period for the semicolon at end. Par. (22). Pub. L. 99–499 , § 101(c), (f), inserted “The term” and “(including the abandonment or discarding of barrels, containers, and other closed receptacles containing any hazardous substance or pollutant or contaminant)”, substituted a period for the semicolon at end. Par. (23). Pub. L. 99–499 , § 101(f), inserted “The terms” and substituted a period for the semicolon at end. Par. (24). Pub. L. 99–499 , § 101(d), (f), inserted “The terms” and substituted “and associated contaminated materials” for “or contaminated materials” and “welfare; the term includes offsite transport and offsite storage, treatment, destruction, or secure disposition of hazardous substances and associated contaminated materials.” for “welfare. The term does not include offsite transport of hazardous substances, or the storage, treatment, destruction, or secure disposition offsite of such hazardous substances or contaminated materials unless the President determines that such actions (A) are more cost-effective than other remedial actions, (B) will create new capacity to manage, in compliance with subtitle C of the Solid Waste Disposal Act [ 42 U.S.C. 6921 et seq.], hazardous substances in addition to those located at the affected facility, or (C) are necessary to protect public health or welfare or the environment from a present or potential risk which may be created by further exposure to the continued presence of such substances or materials;”. The part of § 101(f) of Pub. L. 99–499 which directed amendment of par. (24) by changing the semicolon at end to a period could not be executed in view of prior amendment of par. (24) by § 101(d) of Pub. L. 99–499 which substituted language at end of par. (24) ending in a period for former language ending in a semicolon. Par. (25). Pub. L. 99–499 , § 101(e), (f), inserted “The terms” and “, all such terms (including the terms ‘removal' and ‘remedial action') include enforcement activities related thereto.” The part of § 101(f) of Pub. L. 99–499 which directed amendment of par. (25) by changing the semicolon at end to a period could not be executed in view of prior amendment of par. (25) by § 101(e) of Pub. L. 99–499 inserting language and a period at end of par. (25). Pars. (26), (27). Pub. L. 99–499 , § 101(f), inserted “The terms” and substituted a period for the semicolon at end. Par. (28). Pub. L. 99–499 , § 101(f), inserted “The term” and substituted a period for the semicolon at end. Par. (29). Pub. L. 99–499 , § 101(f), inserted “The terms” and substituted a period for the semicolon at end. Par. (30). Pub. L. 99–499 , § 101(f), inserted “The terms”. Par. (31). Pub. L. 99–499 , § 101(f), inserted “The term” and substituted a period for “; and”. Par. (32). Pub. L. 99–499 , § 101(f), inserted “The terms”. Pars. (33) to (36). Pub. L. 99–499 , § 101(f), added pars. (33) to (36). Par. (37). Pub. L. 99–499 , § 114(b), added par. (37). Par. (38). Pub. L. 99–499 , § 127(a), added par. (38). 1980—Pars. (8), (16). Pub. L. 96–561 substituted “Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act” for “Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976”. Effective Date of 1996 Amendment
Section 101 (a) [title II, § 211(b)] of div. A of Pub. L. 104–208 provided that the amendment made by that section is effective 15 days after Oct. 11, 1996. Amendment by section 2502(b) of Pub. L. 104–208 applicable with respect to any claim that has not been finally adjudicated as of Sept. 30, 1996, see section 2505 of Pub. L. 104–208 , set out as a note under section 6991b of this title. Effective Date of 1986 Amendment
Section 4 of Pub. L. 99–499 provided that: “Except as otherwise specified in section 121(b) of this Act [set out as an Effective Date note under section 9621 of this title] or in any other provision of titles I, II, III, and IV of this Act [see Tables for classification], the amendments made by titles I through IV of this Act [enacting subchapter IV of this chapter and sections 9616 to 9626 , 9658 to 9660 , and 9661 of this title and sections 2701 to 2707 and 2810 of Title 10 , Armed Forces, amending sections 6926 , 6928 , 6991 to 6991d , 6991g , 9601 to 9609 , 9611 to 9614 , 9631 , 9651 , 9656 , and 9657 of this title and section 1416 of Title 33 , Navigation and Navigable Waters, and renumbering former section 2701 of Title 10 as section 2721 of Title 10 ] shall take effect on the enactment of this Act [Oct. 17, 1986].” Amendment by section 517(c)(2) of Pub. L. 99–499 effective Jan. 1, 1987, see section 517(e) of Pub. L. 99–499 , set out as an Effective Date note under section 9507 of Title 26 , Internal Revenue Code. Effective Date of 1980 Amendment
Section 238(b) of Pub. L. 96–561 provided that the amendment made by that section is effective 15 days after Dec. 22, 1980. Short Title of 2002 Amendments
Pub. L. 107–118 , § 1, Jan. 11, 2002, 115 Stat. 2356 , provided that: “This Act [enacting section 9628 of this title, amending this section and sections 9604 , 9605 , 9607 , and 9622 of this title, and enacting provisions set out as notes under this section and section 9607 of this title] may be cited as the ‘Small Business Liability Relief and Brownfields Revitalization Act'.” Pub. L. 107–118 , title I, § 101, Jan. 11, 2002, 115 Stat. 2356 , provided that: “This title [amending sections 9607 and 9622 of this title and enacting provisions set out as a note under section 9607 of this title] may be cited as the ‘Small Business Liability Protection Act'.” Pub. L. 107–118 , title II, § 201, Jan. 11, 2002, 115 Stat. 2360 , provided that: “This title [enacting section 9628 of this title and amending this section and sections 9604 , 9605 , and 9607 of this title] may be cited as the ‘Brownfields Revitalization and Environmental Restoration Act of 2001'.” Short Title of 1996 Amendment
Section 2501 of div. A of Pub. L. 104–208 provided that: “This subtitle [subtitle E (§§ 2501–2505) of title II of div. A of Pub. L. 104–208 , amending this section and sections 6991b and 9607 of this title and enacting provisions set out as a note under section 6991b of this title] may be cited as the ‘Asset Conservation, Lender Liability, and Deposit Insurance Protection Act of 1996'.” Short Title of 1992 Amendment
Pub. L. 102–426 , § 1, Oct. 19, 1992, 106 Stat. 2174 , provided that: “This Act [amending section 9620 of this title and enacting provisions set out as a note under section 9620 of this title] may be cited as the ‘Community Environmental Response Facilitation Act'.” Short Title of 1986 Amendment
Section 1 of Pub. L. 99–499 provided that: “This Act [enacting subchapter IV of this chapter and sections 9616 to 9626 , 9658 to 9662 , 11001 to 11005 , 11021 to 11023 , and 11041 to 11050 of this title, sections 2701 to 2707 and 2810 of Title 10 , Armed Forces, and sections 59A , 4671 , 4672 , 9507 , and 9508 of Title 26 , Internal Revenue Code, amending this section, sections 6926 , 6928 , 6991 to 6991d , 6991g , 9602 to 9609 , 9611 to 9614 , 9631 , 9651 , 9656 , and 9657 of this title, sections 26 , 164 , 275 , 936 , 1561 , 4041 , 4042 , 4081 , 4221 , 4611 , 4612 , 4661 , 4662 , 6154 , 6416 , 6420 , 6421 , 6425 , 6427 , 6655 , 9502 , 9503 , and 9506 of Title 26 , and section 1416 of Title 33 , Navigation and Navigable Waters, renumbering former section 2701 of Title 10 as section 2721 of Title 10 , repealing sections 9631 to 9633 , 9641 , and 9653 of this title and sections 4681 and 4682 of Title 26 , and enacting provisions set out as notes under this section, sections 6921 , 6991b , 7401 , 9620 , 9621 , 9658 , 9660 , 9661 , and 11001 of this title, section 2703 of Title 10 , sections 1, 26, 4041, 4611, 4661, 4671, 4681 , 9507, and 9508 of Title 26, and section 655 of Title 29 , Labor] may be cited as the ‘Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986'.” Short Title
Section 1 of Pub. L. 96–510 provided: “That this Act [enacting this chapter, section 6911a of this title, and sections 4611 , 4612 , 4661 , 4662 , 4681 , and 4682 of Title 26 , Internal Revenue Code, amending section 6911 of this title, section 1364 of Title 33 , Navigation and Navigable Waters, and section 11901 of Title 49 , Transportation, and enacting provisions set out as notes under section 6911 of this title and sections 1 and 4611 of Title 26 ] may be cited as the ‘Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980'.” Transfer of Functions
For transfer of certain functions from Nuclear Regulatory Commission to Chairman thereof, see Reorg. Plan No. 1 of 1980, 45 F.R. 40561 , 94 Stat. 3585 , set out as a note under section 5841 of this title. Territorial Sea and Contiguous Zone of United States
For extension of territorial sea and contiguous zone of United States, see Proc. No. 5928 and Proc. No. 7219, respectively, set out as notes under section 1331 of Title 43 , Public Lands. Definitions
Section 2 of Pub. L. 99–499 provided that: “As used in this Act [see Short Title of 1986 Amendment note above]— “(1) CERCLA.—The term ‘CERCLA' means the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 ( 42 U.S.C. 9601 et seq.). “(2) Administrator.—The term ‘Administrator' means the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency.”

Cooperation

Under Section D(9), the regulated entity must cooperate as required by EPA and provide the Agency with the information it needs to determine Policy applicability. The entity must not hide, destroy or tamper with possible evidence following discovery of potential environmental violations. In order for the Agency to apply the Policy fairly, it must have sufficient information to determine whether its conditions are satisfied in each individual case. In general, EPA requests audit reports to determine the applicability of this Policy only where the information contained in the audit report is not readily available elsewhere and where EPA decides that the information is necessary to determine whether the terms and conditions of the Policy have been met. In the rare instance where an EPA Regional office seeks to obtain an audit report because it is otherwise unable to determine whether Policy conditions have been met, the Regional office will notify the Office of Regulatory Enforcement at EPA headquarters.

Entities that disclose potential criminal violations may expect a more thorough review by the Agency. In criminal cases, entities will be expected to provide, at a minimum, the following: access to all requested documents; access to all employees of the disclosing entity; assistance in investigating the violation, any noncompliance problems related to the disclosure, and any environmental consequences related to the violations; access to all information relevant to the violations disclosed, including that portion of the environmental audit report or documentation from the compliance management system that revealed the violation; and access to the individuals who conducted the audit or review.

F. Opposition to Audit Privilege and Immunity

The Agency believes that the Audit Policy provides effective incentives for self-policing without impairing law enforcement, putting the environment at risk or hiding environmental compliance information from the public. Although EPA encourages environmental auditing, it must do so without compromising the integrity and enforceability of environmental laws. It is important to distinguish between EPA's Audit Policy and the audit privilege and immunity laws that exist in some States. The Agency remains firmly opposed to statutory and regulatory audit privileges and immunity. Privilege laws shield evidence of wrongdoing and prevent States from investigating even the most serious environmental violations. Immunity laws prevent States from obtaining penalties that are appropriate to the seriousness of the violation, as they are required to do under Federal law. Audit privilege and immunity laws are unnecessary, undermine law enforcement, impair protection of human health and the environment, and interfere with the public's right to know of potential and existing environmental hazards.

Statutory audit privilege and immunity run counter to encouraging the kind of openness that builds trust between regulators, the regulated community and the public. For example, privileged information on compliance contained in an audit report may include information on the cause of violations, the extent of environmental harm, and what is necessary to correct the violations and prevent their recurrence. Privileged information is unavailable to law enforcers and to members of the public who have suffered harm as a result of environmental violations. The Agency opposes statutory immunity because it diminishes law enforcement's ability to discourage wrongful behavior and interferes with a regulator's ability to punish individuals who disregard the law and place others in danger. The Agency believes that its Audit Policy provides adequate incentives for self-policing but without secrecy and without abdicating its discretion to act in cases of serious environmental violations.

Privilege, by definition, invites secrecy, instead of the openness needed to build public trust in industry's ability to self-police. American law reflects the high value that the public places on fair access to the facts. The Supreme Court, for example, has said of privileges that, ‘‘ [w]hatever their origins, these exceptions to the demand for every man's evidence are not lightly created nor expansively construed, for they are in derogation of the search for truth.'' United States v. Nixon , 418 U.S. 683, 710 (1974). Federal courts have unanimously refused to recognize a privilege for environmental audits in the context of government investigations. See, e.g., United States v. Dexter Corp., 132 F.R.D. 8, 10 (D.Conn. 1990) (application of a privilege ‘‘would effectively impede [EPA's] ability to enforce the Clean Water Act, and would be contrary to stated public policy.'') Cf. In re Grand Jury Proceedings, 861 F. Supp. 386 (D. Md. 1994) (company must comply with a subpoena under Food, Drug and Cosmetics Act for self-evaluative documents).

Applicability

(1) This Policy applies to settlement of claims for civil penalties for any violations under all of the Federal environmental statutes that EPA administers, and supersedes any inconsistent provisions in media-specific penalty or enforcement policies and EPA's 1995 Policy on ‘‘Incentives for Self-Policing: Discovery, Disclosure, Correction and Prevention of Violations.''

(2) To the extent that existing EPA enforcement policies are not inconsistent, they will continue to apply in conjunction with this Policy. However, a regulated entity that has received penalty mitigation for satisfying specific conditions under this Policy may not receive additional penalty mitigation for satisfying the same or similar conditions under other policies for the same violation, nor will this Policy apply to any violation that has received penalty mitigation under other policies. Where an entity has failed to meet any of conditions D(2) through D(9) and is therefore not eligible for penalty relief under this Policy, it may still be eligible for penalty.

 

Relief under other EPA media-specific enforcement policies in recognition of good faith efforts, even where, for example, the violation may have presented an imminent and substantial endangerment or resulted in serious actual harm.

(3) This Policy sets forth factors for consideration that will guide the Agency in the exercise of its enforcement discretion. It states the Agency's views as to the proper allocation of its enforcement resources. The Policy is not final agency action and is intended as guidance. This Policy is not intended, nor can it be relied upon, to create any rights enforceable by any party in litigation with the United States . As with the 1995 Audit Policy, EPA may decide to follow guidance provided in this document or to act at variance with it based on its analysis of the specific facts presented. This Policy may be revised without public notice to reflect changes in EPA's approach to providing incentives for self-policing by regulated entities, or to clarify and update text.

(4) This Policy should be used whenever applicable in settlement negotiations for both administrative and civil judicial enforcement actions. It is not intended for use in pleading, at hearing or at trial. The Policy may be applied at EPA's discretion to the settlement of administrative and judicial enforcement actions instituted prior to, but not yet resolved, as of the effective date of this Policy.

(5) For purposes of this Policy, violations discovered pursuant to an environmental audit or compliance management system may be considered voluntary even if required under an Agency ‘‘partnership'' program in which the entity participates, such as regulatory flexibility pilot projects like Project XL. EPA will consider application of the Audit Policy to such partnership program projects on a project-by-project basis.

(6) EPA has issued interpretive guidance addressing several applicability issues pertaining to the Audit Policy. Entities considering whether to take advantage of the Audit Policy should review that guidance to see if it addresses any relevant questions. The guidance can be found on the Internet at www.epa.gov/oeca/ ore/apolguid.html.

H. Public Accountability

EPA will make publicly available the terms and conditions of any compliance agreement reached under this Policy, including the nature of the violation, the remedy, and the schedule for returning to compliance.

I. Effective Date

in Kellev v. EPA,4 the Circuit 'Courtof Appeals for. the District of Columbia vacated the Rule on the ground that 'EPA lacked authority to issue'the Rule as a binding regulation.
Nevertheless, the Kpllev decision did not preclude.EPAand DOJ from following the provisions of the Rule as enforcement policy, and the agencies have generally done so.

This revised Policy is effective May 11, 2000.

Dated: March 30, 2000.

Steven A. Herman,

Assistant Administrator for Enforcement and Compliance Assurance.

[FR Doc. 00–8954 Filed 4–10–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

DOE ends Fed preemption of water rules

Jan 5, 2011 10:39 AM, BY ROBERT P. MADER Of CONTRACTOR's staff

 

Woolpert Selected for $30 Million Sacramento District,

US Army Corps of Engineers Contract

 
GIS News - Business
Written by Woolpert
05 January 2011

 

DAYTON, Ohio (January 5, 2011)… Woolpert announced it was recently selected by the Sacramento District, United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) for a five-year, $30 million indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) contract to provide master planning and geographic information system (GIS) services for military and civil works projects worldwide.

Unique aspects of this IDIQ include both its volume and worldwide capacity, meaning Woolpert may be tasked directly with the Sacramento District, or in coordination with other USACE districts, to provide services across the Department of Defense (DoD) and other federal agencies, as well as municipalities, counties, state or other local agencies. Possible services for the contract include developing Army Real Property Master plans or acquiring aerial photography and developing geospatial data. This contract also supports the ongoing efforts of Headquarters Air Combat Command (HQ ACC) to establish sustainability baselines and LEED-focused installation design and development guides under its Sustainable Installations program.

“We're pleased to have been selected by the Sacramento District for this contract,” said David Ziegman, Woolpert vice president and practice leader for military design services. “We've had the opportunity to serve the Sacramento District for the past several years, providing master planning and geospatial services. Our team looks forward to continuing this support over the next several years working directly with the Sacramento District and its customers, or USACE customers worldwide.” 

About Woolpert

Woolpert, ranked by Engineering News-Record as a top national design firm, provides professional engineering, architecture, planning, enterprise information management, water management, surveying, and photogrammetry and remote sensing services to clients in the public and private sectors. Founded in 1911, Woolpert's innovative design approach and commitment to the creative application of technology have grown the firm into a leader in the consulting industry. With nearly 650 professionals in 22 offices located throughout the U.S., Woolpert's collaborative, multidisciplinary approach is driven by great people, great clients and great projects.

Next >

 

 

NPL DEFERRAL.—
(1) DEFERRAL TO STATE VOLUNTARY CLEANUPS.—At the request of a State and subject to paragraphs (2) and (3), the President generally shall defer final listing of an eligible response site on the National Priorities List if the President determines that—
(A) the State, or another party under an agreement with or order from the State, is conducting a response action at the eligible response site—
(i) in compliance with a State program that specifically governs response actions for the protection of public health and the environment; and
(ii) that will provide long-term protection of human health and the environment; or
(B) the State is actively pursuing an agreement to perform a response action described in subparagraph (A) at the site with a person that the State has reason to believe
is capable of conducting a response action that meets the requirements of subparagraph (A).
(2) PROGRESS TOWARD CLEANUP.—If, after the last day of the 1-year period beginning on the date on which the President proposes to list an eligible response site on the National Priorities List, the President determines that the State or other party is not making reasonable progress toward completing a response action at the eligible response site, the President may list the eligible response site on the National Priorities List.
(3) CLEANUP AGREEMENTS.—With respect to an eligible response site under paragraph (1)(B), if, after the last day of the 1-year period beginning on the date on which the President proposes to list the eligible response site on the National Priorities List, an agreement described in paragraph (1)(B) has not been reached, the President may defer the listing of the eligible response site on the National Priorities List for an additional period of not to exceed 180 days if the President determines deferring the listing would be appropriate based on—
(A) the complexity of the site;
(B) substantial progress made in negotiations; and
(C) other appropriate factors, as determined by the President.

* The social media links provided are for reference only. FEMA does not endorse any non-government Web sites, companies or applications.
Federal Emergency Management Agency
U.S. Department of Homeland Security
500 C Street SW, Washington, D.C. 20472
(202) 646-2500

ready
(800) 621-FEMA / TTY (800) 462-7585
3 Step Guide for Assistance

EPA has primary responsibility for implementing Superfund, but because of the complexity of hazardous waste issues, the Agency has relied on the respective strengths of the following Federal partners to carry out its mission of protecting human health and the environment:


Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA) provides support to State, Tribal, and local governments and to the private sector for responding to releases of hazardous substances. Some of FEMA’s activities include: distributing information; planning for emergencies; training for emergencies; membership and participation in the 13 Regional Response Teams; and the administration of $5 million each year to State governments and Tribes for hazardous materials (HAZMAT) training. http://www.fema.gov/pte/carep.htm


National Institute for Environmental Health Sciences
(NIEHS) sponsors two major Superfund programs: the Hazardous Substances Basic Research and Training Program and the Worker Education and Training Program. These two programs have successfully trained over 800,000 workers across the country by providing nearly 42,000 classroom and hands-on training courses that account for over 12 million contact hours of training. http://www.niehs.nih.gov


National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
(NOAA) acts on behalf of the Secretary of Commerce as a natural resource trustee. NOAA trust resources include coastal and marine fisheries, marine mammals, resources of National Marine Sanctuaries and Estuarine Research Reserves, tidal wetlands, and other coastal habitats. Through the Coastal Protection and Restoration Program, NOAA has worked with EPA, PRPs, and other Federal, State, and Tribal trustees to initiate cleanup and restoration activities at over 500 sites, ensuring more environmentally protective
remedies and cleaner, healthier coastal habitats. http:/ /www.noaa.gov


United States Coast Guard

(USCG) continuously maintains facilities for the surveillance of oil discharges and hazardous substance releases that occur in the coastal zone. USCG administers the National Response Center (NRC) which provides a centralized means for coordinating national response logistics for responding to releases. NRC also maintains a database of
critical hazardous substance information that can quickly be provided to responders in order to help identify a substance and thereby correctly choose an appropriate response action. http://www.uscg.mil


Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
(ATSDR) contributes to the understanding of the negative health effects associated with exposure to hazardous substances, identifies parties at risk of exposure, and intervenes to protect communities from exposure. Since ATSDR was established, it has conducted assessments or consultations at more than 3,000 hazardous waste sites. http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov
Army Corps of Engineers

(USACE) provides specialized equipment and personnel to assist with the design and construction of large scale remedial actions at Superfund sites. In addition, USACE’s Center of Expertise and its Rapid Response Program provide nationwide support to Superfund. USACE has received nearly 5,000 assignments over the last 18 years. http://hq.environmental. usace.army.mil


Department of Agriculture

(USDA) is responsible for preventing releases at USDA facilities as well as the efficient management and cleanup of hazardous materials when releases occur. USDA
has inventoried and characterized over 2,000 sites and completed over 300 removal actions and other responses. http://www.usda.gov


Department of Defense

(DoD) responds to releases and threatened releases at military facilities. The Defense Environmental Restoration Program (DERP) has responded at 95 percent of the nearly
28,000 potentially contaminated DoD sites – and cleaned up 62 percent of these sites. http://www.denix.osd.mil
Department of Energy

(DOE) ensures cleanup of radioactive, chemical, and hazardous wastes that were left after 50 years of nuclear weapons production, and associated research and development
activities. By the end of 1999, a total of 6,810 releases had been identified – of which 4,053 were in the assessment phase, 876 were in the cleanup phase, and 1,881 had been completed. Three DOE sites have been cleaned up and deleted from the NPL. http:/ /www.em.doe.gov
Department of the Interior

(DOI) operates programs in support of EPA and the U.S. Coast Guard for preparedness and response actions, and performs natural resource damage assessment and
restoration functions during an oil discharge or a release of hazardous materials. DOI is designated as a Natural Resource Trustee and is also responsible for developing the regulations to determine the extent of harm to a natural resource. http://www.doi.gov/ indexj.html


Department of Justice

(DOJ) represents EPA and other Federal agencies in judicial actions in Federal Court to enforce the provisions of CERCLA that require PRPs to perform or pay for site
cleanup. DOJ has worked with EPA to transform the Superfund program by prompting responsible parties to enter into settlements or voluntarily comply with administrative orders, rather than litigating with the government. DOJ also represents the Federal trustees when there is a need to recover damages resulting from injuries to natural resources. http://www.usdoj.gov/enrd


Thanking Our Federal Partners
For Further Information . . . on the Superfund program, please consult www.epa.gov/superfund or contact William O. Ross at (703) 603-8798 or ross.william@epa.gov.

Department of Toxic Substances Control v. Interstate Non-Ferrous Corp., 99 F. Supp.2d 1123 (E.D. Cal. 2000).
The Court held that SREA applies to non-federal CERCLA enforcement actions pending at the time of its enactment. Therefore, the SREA exemption applies to a state environmental agency's CERCLA Sections 107(a) and 113(g) actions against several scrap metal recyclers. In enacting SREA, Congress did not explicitly mention every class of pending case to which Section 127 liability exemption applies. Nevertheless, SREA’s structure, express language, purpose, and legislative history militate in favor of retrospectivity as to all pending actions brought by any party except the United States.
The Court held that Congressional intent that SREA apply retrospectively to pending cases initiated by parties other than the United States could be gleaned from: [1] the headings used in SREA indicating that Congress intended to clarify, not change, the law; [2] SREA’s stated purpose, which was to exempt eligible recyclers from liability; [3] language throughout SREA, which fixes different requirements based on when the transaction occurred; [4] and, inter alia, the statement of Senator Lott, a chief co-sponsor of SREA, which was not “legislative history,” but was to be accorded substantial weight. The Court, however, did not find SREA to be retroactive, meaning that it did not find that SREA attaches new legal consequences to prior acts, because: [1] no new liability was created, and the State of California’s “rights” were not impaired (it would have cleaned up the site whether or not it thought it could recover costs from the parties it sued); and because [2] SREA clarified existing law, it did not change it.
Nevertheless, the retrospective application of the exemption to pending actions does not result in an automatic exemption because any party seeking to avoid liability under Section 127 must prove by a preponderance of the evidence all of the exemption requirements. In addition, the exemption does not apply retroactively to actions resolved before the passage of SREA.

DTSC

RWQCB

Releases of Mining Wastes

Some commenters presented the view that CERCLA does not authorize EPA to respond to releases of mining wastes, and that sites involving mining wastes should not be included on the NPL. This view is based on the interpretation that mining wastes are not considered hazardous substances under CERCLA. CERCLA includes in its definition of hazardous substances materials that constitute hazardous wastes under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). In the 1980 amendments to RCRA, the regulation of mining wastes under Subtitle C of RCRA was temporarily suspended and that suspension is presently in effect. For that reason, the commenters believe that mining wastes should not be considered hazardous substances under CERCLA.

EPA disagrees with the commenters' interpretation. The Agency believes that mining wastes can be considered hazardous substances under CERCLA if it meets any of the other statutory criteria (e.g., if the material is also a hazardous air pollutant listed under section 112 of the Clean Air Act). More importantly, however, EPA's authority to respond to mining waste releases, and the Agency's ability to list mining waste sites on the NPL, does not depend on whether mining wastes are hazardous substances. Section 104(a)(l) of CERCLA authorizes EPA to respond to releases of not only "hazardous substances," but also "any pollutant or contaminant." "Pollutant or contaminant" is defined very broadly in section 104(a)(2) to include essentially any substance that may cause an adverse effect on human health. EPA is convinced that mining wastes can satisfy these minimal criteria, that the Agency therefore has the authority to respond to releases of mining wastes, and that listing of mining waste sites on the NPL is appropriate.

Sec. 9604. Response authorities (3) Limitations on Response.--The President shall not provide for a removal or remedial action under this section in response to a release or threat of release-- (A) of a naturally occurring substance in its unaltered form, or altered solely through naturally occurring processes or phenomena, from a location where it is naturally found;

As described above, however, the response authorities of CERCLA are very broad. As long as EPA has the authority to respond, and no other Federal statute provides authority comparable to CERCLA, the Agency has the obligation at least to evaluate the precise extent of the risk and the possible response actions at all sites that upon preliminary investigation appear to present a significant risk. EPA should also remain free at least to consider all types of response actions at all sites in order to determine which is the most appropriate and cost-effective, and should not limit itself to considering only removal actions at a particular class of facilities. Inclusion of the NPL is appropriate in order to begin the process of determining how to address such sites. Since inclusion on the NPL does not determine whether response actions will be taken or what response is appropriate, EPA is free to develop an approach for responding to mining waste sites that takes into account any unique features of such sites.

Comments also presented the view that the HRS is not an appropriate tool to estimate the risk to health and the environment presented by mining waste sites.

They pointed out that the HRS does not consider concentration levels at the point of impact, but rather the mere presence of the substance in the environment. As explained in Part VII below, however, the purpose of scoring for an observed release without taking level of concentration into account is simply to reflect the likelihood that the subject substances will migrate into the environment, which in the case of an observed release is 100 percent. Future releases, or even current releases for which concentration data do not exist, may raise the level of concentration to the point that it presents a greater risk than the release first observed. While releases from mining waste sites may be somewhat less likely than releases of man-made chemical substances to ever reach extremely high concentrations, harmful concentrations can occur from mining waste sites and the distinction is not sufficient to invalidate the HRS as an appropriate model for scoring mining waste sites.

Another comment was that the locations of mining waste sites are generally rural, so that the only sizable target population are far downstream. The comment alleged that these populations are considered in the HRS scoring but in reality may never be affected. This assumption, however, is false. The HRS considers only those persons living within a three mile radius of the site as constituting the target population. If a mining waste site has a high score for this factor, it indicates that despite the fact that the locations of such sites typically are rural, this particular site has a significant number of people within three miles.

Federal Register Notice

48184 - 48189 Federal Register / Vol. 54, No. 223 / Tuesday, November 21, 1989 / Rules and Regulations

48184 - 48189 Federal Register / Vol. 54, No. 223 / Tuesday, November 21, 1989 / Rules and Regulations

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 300
[FRL 3681-4]

National Priorities List for Uncontrolled Hazardous Waste Sites

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.
ACTION:  Final rule.

SUMMARY:

The Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA") is amending the National Priorities List ("NPL"). The NPL is appendix B of the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan ("NCP"), 40 CFR Part 300. The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA) requires that the NCP include a list of national priorities among the known releases or threatened releases of hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants throughout the United States, and that the list be revised at least annually. The NPL, initially promulgated on September 8, 1983 (48 FR 40658), constitutes this list and is being revised today in the following way:

  1. The addition of Radium Chemical Co. Inc., in Woodside, New York, New York, and Forest Glen Mobile Home Subdivision, in Niagara Falls, New York;

  2. the addition of 27 Federal facility sites; and

  3. the expansion of the definition of a previously listed Federal facility site.

After carefully reviewing public comments on these sites, EPA has determined that they meet the eligibility requirements of the NPL and are consistent with the Agency's listing policies. Information supporting these actions is contained in the Superfund Public Dockets.

EFFECTIVE DATE:

The effective date for this amendment to the NCP shall be December 21, 1989. CERCLA section 305 provides for a legislative veto of regulations promulgated under CERCLA. Although INS v. Chadha, 462 U.S. 919, 103 S. Ct. 2764 (1983), cast the validity of the legislative veto into question, EPA has transmitted a copy of this regulation to the Secretary of the Senate and the Clerk of the House of Representatives. If any action by Congress calls the effective date of this regulation into question, the Agency will publish a notice of clarification in the Federal Register .

[Return to Table of Contents]

ADDRESSES:

Addresses for the Headquarters and Regional dockets follow. For further details on what these dockets contain, see Section I of the " SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION " portion of this preamble.

Tina Maragousis
Headquarters, U.S. EPA CERCLA Docket Office, OS-245
Waterside Mall
401 M Street, SW.
Washington, DC 20460
202/382-3046

Evo Cunha
Region 1, U.S. EPA Waste Management Records Center, HES-CAN 6
J.F. Kennedy Federal Building
Boston, MA 02203
617/565-3300

U.S. EPA Region 2
Document Control Center, Superfund Docket
26 Federal Plaza, 7th Floor, Room 740
New York, NY 10278
Latchmin Serrano, 212/264-5540
Ophelia Brown, 212/264-1154

Gayle Alston
Region 4, U.S. EPA Library, Room G-6
345 Courtland Street, NE.
Atlanta, GA 30365
404/347-4216

Cathy Freeman
Region 5, U.S. EPA, 5 HS-12
230 South Dearborn Street
Chicago, IL 60604
312/886-6214

Dolores Eddy
Region 8, U.S. EPA Library
999 18th Street, Suite 500
Denver, CO 80202-2405
303/293-1444

Lisa Nelson
Region 9, U.S. EPA Library, 6th Floor
215 Fremont Street
San Francisco, CA 94105
415/768-1377

David Bennett
Region 10, U.S. EPA, 9th Floor
1200 6th Avenue, Mail Stop HW-093
Seattle, WA 98101
206/442-2103

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Martha Otto
Hazardous Site Evaluation Division
Office of Superfund Remediation Technology Innovation (0S-230)
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, SW.
Washington, DC 20460
or the Superfund Hotline, Phone (800) 424-9346 or (382-3000 in the Washington, DC, metropolitan area).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Introduction
II. Purpose and Implementation of the NPL
III. NPL Update Process
IV. Contents of This NPL Update
V. Response to Comments
VI. Regulatory Impact Analysis
VII. Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis

Institutional Controls in CERCLA Remedies
The procedures for evaluating and selecting remedies conducted under CERCLA authority were
promulgated in a regulation known as the National Contingency Plan (NCP), and codified in 40 CFR
Part 300. In the NCP, EPA stated that institutional controls should be used primarily to supplement
engineering controls, but did not forbid the use of institutional controls as the sole remedy. Specifically,
the following language on the use of institutional controls is provided in 40 CFR Part 300.430:
Institutional controls may be used during the conduct of the remedial
investigation/feasibility study (RI/FS) and implementation of the remedial action and,
where necessary, as a component of the completed remedy. The use of institutional
controls shall not substitute for active response measures (e.g., treatment and/or
containment of source material, restoration of ground waters to their beneficial uses) as
the sole remedy unless such active measures are determined not to be practicable,
based on the balancing of trade-offs among alternatives that is conducted during the
selection of [the] remedy. [40 CFR 300.430 (a) (iii) (D)]
CERCLA Remedy Selection Criteria
The EPA has established nine decision criteria that are to be used for balancing trade-offs, evaluating,
and selecting remedies. These nine criteria are grouped into three categories:
Threshold criteria that must be met to be considered eligible for selection;
• Overall protection of human health and the environment;
• Compliance with applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements (ARARs);
Primary balancing criteria;
• Long-term effectiveness and permanence;
• Reductions of toxicity, mobility, or volume through treatment;
• Short-term effectiveness;
• Implementability;
• Cost;
Modifying criteria;
• State acceptance; and

• Community acceptance.
When selecting institutional controls as part of a remedy or as the sole remedy, the NCP prescribes that
permanent solutions should be used to the maximum extent practicable and considers the preference for
treatment as a principal element of a remedy (40 CFR 300.430 (f)). As with all other remedies,
institutional controls need to be evaluated in terms of the nine CERCLA criteria.
EPA Guidance
Although the NCP regulation specifies the conditions under which institutional controls can be
incorporated into a remedy, it does not provide specific guidance on how to incorporate them into the
remedy selection process. To clarify EPA’s intent and address reasonable assumptions in the remedy
selection process, EPA issued a directive entitled “Land Use in the CERCLA Remedy Selection
Process.”4 This directive primarily addresses the role of land use in remedy selection, but also provides
insight into EPA’s position on the use of institutional controls. In this document, EPA specifies that
institutional controls should be evaluated and implemented with the same degree of care as is given to
other elements of the remedy. The directive states that in evaluating a remedy that includes an
institutional control, EPA should determine:
• The type of institutional control to be used;
• The existence of the authority to implement the institutional control; and
• The appropriate entities’ resolve and ability to implement the institutional control.
CERCLA also requires that federal agencies transferring remediated property to non-federal agencies
include a covenant in the deed that states “all action necessary to protect human health and the
environment has been taken with respect to any hazardous substances remaining on the property.”5
CERCLA requires federal agencies to demonstrate to EPA that a remedy is “operating properly and
successfully” before the federal agency can provide the covenant required in the deed.6 If remedial
action is necessary after the property has been transferred, the federal government retains the
responsibility for any contamination that occurred before the property transfer. Exhibit 2-1 provides
more detail on CERCLA “operating properly and successfully” determinations.

EPA has developed additional guidance
on the use of institutional controls for
federal facilities being transferred under
CERCLA 120 (h) (3).7 This guidance
establishes the criteria that a federal
facility must demonstrate to EPA in order
for EPA to make the determination that a
remedy is “operating properly and
successfully.” This guidance applies to all
federal facilities where institutional
controls are part of the selected remedy
and the federal agency is planning on
transferring that property to a non-federal
entity. It does not address whether or
not an institutional control is an
appropriate remedy or remedy
component for a particular site; however,
it does state that if the institutional control
can not meet the criteria set forth in the
guidance, then the use of institutional
controls should be reconsidered. The
criteria set forth in the guidance are
summarized in Exhibit 2-2.

Exhibit 2-1
CERCLA “Operating Properly and Successfully”
Determinations
CERCLA states that, for purposes of the covenant, all
necessary remedial action has been taken if (a) the
construction and installation of the approved remedial design
has been completed and (b) the federal agency demonstrated
to EPA that the remedy was “operating properly and
successfully.”
A remedy is operating “properly” if it is operating as
designed. A remedy is operating “successfully” if its
operation will achieve the cleanup goals specified in the
record of decision and it will be protective of human health
and the environment.*
In certain circumstances, CERCLA allows the federal agency
to transfer property before all necessary remedial action has
been taken. This early transfer can take place if the EPA or
state governor (depending on the site’s NPL status) makes
the following findings:
• the property is suitable for transfer based on the
intended use;
• the deed provides for necessary use restrictions and
response and remedial actions;
• the public has been informed of the early transfer
request; and
• the transfer will not substantially delay response
action at the site. **
* US EPA, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response,
Guidance for Evaluation of Federal Agency Demonstrations
that Remedial Actions are Operating Properly and
Successfully Under CERCLA Section 120(h)(3), August
1996 (interim draft).

Exhibit 2-2
Criteria for Institutional Controls
at Federal Facilities Being Transferred
Under CERCLA 120 (h)
• A legal description of the real property.
• A description of the anticipated future use(s) for the
site.
• Identification of the residual hazard or risk.
• The specific institutional control language in
substantially the same form as it will appear in the
transfer document and a description of the institutional
controls and the legal authority for the implementation
of these controls.
• A statement explaining, in the professional opinion of
the transferring agency, that the institutional controls
have been or will be established in conformance with
the legal requirements and how they will be enforceable
against future transferees and successors.
• A description of who will be responsible for monitoring
and the frequency of monitoring.
• A description of the procedure that will be used to
report violations or failures of institutional controls.
• A description of the procedure that will be used to
enforce against violations.
• Assurance that the transferring federal agency will
verify maintenance of the institutional control on a
periodic basis.

Federal Land Use Laws
Regardless of which regulatory framework results in institutional controls being selected as part of a
remedy, federal land use laws will affect the use of institutional controls if the land is going to be re-used
by some organization or agency other than DOE, or if the land will be leased, sold, or granted to other
parties.
The DOE can allow re-use of land under the AEA, the DOE Organization Act, or the Hall Amendment
(an amendment to the DOE Organization Act) but each of these three vehicles imposes certain
restrictions. If the area or site that will require institutional controls is being considered for re-use by
any organization other than DOE, the DOE-certified realty specialist should be contacted to determine
the site’s legal status and to clarify how the use of institutional controls may be affected. An in depth
discussion of the impacts of each of these land-transfer vehicles is available in “Resourceful Reuse: A
Guide to Planning Future Land Uses of Department of Energy Sites.”
When DOE does sell or grant land, it retains “ultimate responsibility for monitoring, maintaining and
enforcing the institutional controls” associated with the land.17 This on-going liability for the
effectiveness of institutional controls makes it imperative for ERPMs to fully understand the institutional
controls available to them and the responsibilities inherent in their use if property will be transferred.

Legal Status of Land

The methods available to DOE for re-using land depend on how DOE initially obtained use of the land.
Almost all of the land used by DOE can be categorized by its legal status as either acquired or
withdrawn land. Acquired land was land originally purchased by DOE from private owners.
Withdrawn land is land that is held in the public domain but reserved by the Department of the Interior
(DOI) for a federal agency such as DOE.
Under the Federal Land Policy and Management Act, withdrawn land that is excess to DOE is
relinquished to the DOI to be returned to the public domain. Withdrawn land that is temporarily not
needed by DOE can be leased with DOI approval.
When acquired land is excess to DOE, the Department reports that land use status to the General
Services Administration (GSA) for GSA disposition of the land. The procedure for reporting excess
acquired land is spelled out in the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act and its
accompanying legislation. However, DOE can also dispose of the land under the authority of its
enabling legislation. The Department can also lease acquired land if it is temporarily not needed.

16 “In the event radioactive decay cannot result in acceptable risk levels within a reasonable and
acceptable period of time, then either an alternative action must be chosen that will accomplish that risk reduction, or
the ROD must include arrangements for long-term institutional controls” as per the Tennessee Guidance Policy on
Perpetual Institutional Controls. State of Tennessee, January 21, 1998, Tennessee Guidance Policy on Natural
Attenuation and ARAR Waivers for Oak Ridge Reservation CERCLA Decisions.
17 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Institutional Controls and Transfer of Real Property under
CERCLA Section 120 (h)(3)(A), (B), or (C), February 2000

I. Introduction

Background

In 1980, Congress enacted the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, 42 U.S.C. 9601-9657 ("CERCLA" or "the Act") in response to the dangers of uncontrolled or abandoned hazardous waste sites. CERCLA was amended on October 17, 1986, by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act ("SARA"), Public Law No. 99-499, stat. 1613 et seq . To implement CERCLA, the Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA" or "the Agency") promulgated the revised National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan ("NCP"), 40 CFR part 300, on July 16, 1982 (47 FR 31180), pursuant to CERCLA section 105 and Executive Order 12316 (46 FR 42237, August 20, 1981). The NCP further revised by EPA on September l6, 1985 (50 FR 37624) and November 20, 1985 (50 FR 47912), sets forth the guidelines and procedures needed to respond under CERCLA to releases and threatened releases of hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants. On December 21, 1988 (53 FR 51394), EPA proposed revisions to the NCP in response to SARA.

Section 105(a)(8)(A) of CERCLA, as amended by SARA, requires that the NCP include "criteria for determining priorities among releases or threatened releases throughout the United States for the purpose of taking remedial action and, to the extent practicable, taking into account the potential urgency of such action, for the purpose of taking removal action." The discussion below may refer to "releases or threatened releases" simply as "releases," "facilities," or "sites." Removal action involves cleanup or other measures that are taken in response to emergency conditions or on a short-term or temporary basis (CERCLA section 101(23)). Remedial action tends to be long-term in nature and involves response actions that are consistent with a permanent remedy for a release (CERCLA section 101(24)). Criteria for determining priorities for possible remedial actions financed by the Trust Fund established under CERCLA are included in the Hazard Ranking System ("HRS"), which EPA promulgated as Appendix A of the NCP (47 FR 31219, July 16, 1982). On December 23, 1988 (53 FR 51962), EPA proposed revisions to the HRS in response to CERCLA section 105(c), added by SARA.

In addition to the application of the HRS, there are two other mechanisms for listing sites on the NPL. Under CERCLA section 105(a)(8)(B), each State may designate a single site as its top priority, regardless of the HRS score. According to 40 CFR 300.66(b)(4) of the NCP, the Agency also may list sites if the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) recommends dissociation of individuals from the release; if EPA determines that the release poses a significant public health threat; and if EPA anticipates that it would be more cost-effective to use remedial rather than removal authorities for cleanup. The three mechanisms are described in more detail in section III of this preamble.

Based in large part on the HRS listing mechanism and pursuant to section 105(a)(8)(B) of CERCLA, as amended by SARA, EPA prepared a list of national priorities among the known releases or threatened releases of hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants throughout the United States. The list, which is Appendix B of the NCP, is the National Priorities List ("NPL"). CERCLA section 105(a)(8)(B) also requires that the NPL be revised at least annually. A site can undergo CERCLA-financed remedial action only after it is placed on the final NPL, as provided in the NCP at 40 CFR 300.66(c)(2) and 300.68(a).

An original NPL of 406 sites was promulgated on September 8, 1983 (48 FR 40658). The NPL has been expanded since then, most recently on October 4, 1989 (54 FR 41000/41015). The Agency also has published a number of proposed rulemakings to add sites to the NPL, most recently October 26, 1989 (54 FR 43778).

EPA may delete sites from the NPL where no further response is appropriate, as explained in the NCP at 40 CFR 300.66(c)(7). To date, the Agency has deleted 28 sites from the final NPL, most recently on September 22, 1989 (54 FR 38994) when Cecil Lindsey, Newport, Arkansas, was deleted.

This rule adds two sites and 27 Federal facility sites to the NPL, and expands the definition of 1 previously listed Federal facility site. The two non-Federal sites were proposed to the NPL pursuant to § 300.66(b)(4) of the NCP (August 16, 1989, 54 FR 33846). The comment period for that rule ended on September 15, 1989. The 27 Federal facilities were proposed to the NPL, on the basis of their HRS scores, on July 14, 1989 (54 FR 29820), as was the expansion of the definition of 1 listed Federal facility site. The comment period for that rule ended on September 12, 1989. The other Federal facility sites in the July 1989 proposed rule will be addressed in future final rules.

EPA read all comments received on the sites in today's final rule, including late comments. In past rules, EPA responded even to late comments. However, because of the need to make final decisions on all currently proposed sites prior to the date that the revised HRS takes effect, EPA was not able to respond to all late comments received for sites in this rule. (EPA had previously indicated that it may no longer be able to consider late comments (53 FR 23990, June 24, 1988 and 54 FR 19527, May 5, 1989).) In section V of this preamble, EPA addresses those comments received no later than October 11, 1989 for all sites included in this final rule. Although EPA has not responded to all late comments, it has read all late comments. The Agency has determined that none of the late comments received to date on the sites in today's final rule have brought to EPA's attention a fundamental error in the scoring of a site.

This rule results in a final NPL of 1,010 sites, 79 of them in the Federal section. In addition, 209 sites are currently in proposed status, 38 of them in the Federal section. With these changes, final and proposed sites now total 1,219.

EPA may include on the NPL sites at which there are or have been releases or threatened releases of hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants.

Information Available to the Public

The Headquarters and Regional public dockets for the NPL contain documents relating to the listing of these sites (see Addresses portion of this notice). Appointments should be made to view these dockets. The hours of operation for the Headquarters docket are from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday excluding Federal holidays. The hours of operation for the Regional dockets are generally from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday through Friday excluding Federal holidays.

The Headquarters docket for the Federal facility sites added by this rule include the following documents: HRS score sheets; a Documentation Record describing the information used to compute the score; a list of documents referenced in the Documentation Record; and public comments received. The Headquarters docket for the two non-Federal sites contains the same documents in addition to, for each site, a Public Health Advisory issued by ATSDR, and an EPA memorandum addressing for each site, whether the release poses a significant threat to public health and whether it would be more cost-effective to use remedial rather than removal authorities at the sites.

The Regional docket includes all information available in the Headquarters docket, as well as the reference documents, which contain the data EPA relied upon in calculating or evaluating the HRS scores for these sites.

Copies of documents contained in the Headquarters or Regional dockets may be obtained by informal written request addressed to the appropriate docket contact as specified in the Addresses section of this preamble.

II. Purpose and Implementation of the NPL

Purpose

The primary purpose of the NPL is stated in the legislative history of CERCLA (Report of the Committee on Environment and Public Works, Senate Report No. 96-848, 96th Cong., 2d Sess. 60 (1980)):

The priority lists serve primarily informational purposes, identifying for the States and the public those facilities and sites or other releases which appear to warrant remedial actions. Inclusion of a facility or site on the list does not in itself reflect a judgment of the activities of its owner or operator, it does not require those persons to undertake any action, nor does it assign liability to any person. Subsequent government actions in the form of remedial actions or enforcement actions will be necessary in order to do so, and these actions will be attended by all appropriate procedural safeguards.

The purpose of the NPL, therefore, is primarily to serve as an informational and management tool. The identification of a site for the NPL assists EPA in determining which sites warrant further investigation to assess the nature and extent of the public health and environmental risks associated with the site and to determine what CERCLA- financed remedial action(s), if any, may be appropriate. The NPL also serves to notify the public of sites that EPA believes warrant further investigation.

Implementation

As outlined in the NCP at 40 CFR 300.66(c)(2) and 300.68(a), Trust Fund monies can be spent for remedial actions only at sites that have been placed on the final NPL. However, EPA may take enforcement actions under CERCLA or other applicable statutes against responsible parties regardless of whether the site is on the NPL, although, as a practical matter, the focus of EPA's CERCLA enforcement actions has been and will continue to be on NPL sites. Similarly, in the case of CERCLA removal actions, EPA has the authority to act at any site, whether listed or not, that meets the criteria of the NCP at 40 CFR 300.65-300.67.

EPA's policy is to pursue cleanup of NPL sites using the appropriate response and/or enforcement actions available to the Agency, including authorities other than CERCLA. Listing a site will serve as notice to any potentially responsible party that the Agency may initiate CERCLA-financed remedial action. The Agency will decide on a site-by-site basis whether to take enforcement or other action under CERCLA or other authorities, proceed directly with CERCLA-financed response actions and seek to recover response costs after cleanup, or do both. To the extent feasible, once sites are on the NPL, EPA will determine high-priority candidates for Superfund-financed response action and/or enforcement action through both State and Federal initiatives. These determinations will take into account which approach is more likely to most expeditiously accomplish cleanup of the site while using CERCLA's limited resources as efficiently as possible.

Remedial response actions will not necessarily be funded in the same order as a site's ranking on the NPL. Most sites are listed in the order of their HRS scores, and the Agency has recognized that the information collected to develop HRS scores is not sufficient in itself to determine either the extent of contamination or the appropriate response for a particular site. EPA relies on further, more detailed studies in the remedial investigation/feasibility study (RI/FS) to address these concerns.

The RI/FS determines the nature and extent of the threat presented by the contamination (40 CFR 300.68(d)). Specifically, it evaluates the amount of contaminants in the environment, the risk to affected populations and environment, the cost to correct problems at the site, and the response actions that have been taken by potentially responsible parties or others. Decisions on the type and extent of action to be taken at these sites are made in accordance with the criteria contained in subpart F of the NCP. After conducting these additional studies, EPA may conclude that it is not desirable to initiate a CERCLA remedial action at some sites on the NPL because of more pressing needs at other sites, or because a private party cleanup is already underway pursuant to an enforcement action. Given the limited resources available in the Trust Fund, the Agency must carefully balance the relative needs for response at the numerous sites it has studied. It also is possible that EPA will conclude, after further analysis, that the site does not warrant remedial action. Federal facility sites are eligible for the NPL pursuant to the NCP at 40 CFR 300.66(c)(2). However, section 111(e)(3) of CERCLA, as amended by SARA, limits the expenditure of CERCLA monies at Federally-owned facilities. Federal facility sites also are subject to the requirements of CERCLA section 120, added by SARA.

III. NPL Update Process

There are three mechanisms for placing sites on the NPL. The principal mechanism is the application of the HRS. The HRS serves as an objective screening device to evaluate the relative potential of uncontrolled hazardous substances to cause human health or safety problems, or ecological or environmental damage. The HRS score represents an estimate of the relative "probability and magnitude of harm to the human population or sensitive environment from exposure to hazardous substances as a result of the contamination of ground water, surface water, or air" (47 FR 31180, July 16, 1982). Sites that score 28.50 or greater on the HRS are eligible for the NPL.

Under the second mechanism for adding sites to the NPL, each State may designate a single site as its top priority, regardless of the HRS score. This mechanism is provided by section 105(a)(8)(B) of CERCLA, as amended by SARA, which requires that, to the extent practicable, the NPL include within the 100 highest priorities, one facility designated by each State representing the greatest danger to public health, welfare, or the environment among known facilities in the State.

The third mechanism for listing, included in the NCP at 40 CFR 300.66(b)(4) (50 FR 37624-28, September 16, 1985), allows certain sites with HRS scores below 28.50 to be eligible for the NPL if all of the following occur:

The third mechanism was added to the NCP by rulemaking, during which the Agency explained that the HRS may not fully reflect the risk at certain types of sites. For example, direct contact is not included in calculating the total HRS score. Thus, some sites involving direct contact to residents may pose a serious threat but not receive a sufficiently high score to qualify for the NPL. Similarly, where a small number of people are exposed to a hazardous substance, the site may fail to qualify for listing due to the low targets score.

States have the primary responsibility for identifying non-Federal sites, computing HRS scores, and submitting candidate sites to the EPA Regional Offices. EPA Regional Offices conduct a quality control review of the States candidate sites, and may assist in investigating, sampling, monitoring, and scoring sites. Regional Offices also may consider candidate sites in addition to those submitted by States.

Federal agencies have the primary responsibility under CERCLA section 120(C) for identifying Federal facility sites. In conjunction with EPA Regional offices, the Federal agencies perform investigations, sampling, monitoring, and scoring of sites. Regional offices then conduct a quality control review of the candidate sites. EPA Headquarters conducts further quality assurance audits to ensure accuracy and consistency among the various EPA and State offices participating in the scoring. The Agency then proposes the sites that meet one of the three criteria for listing (and EPA's listing policies) and solicits public comment on the proposal. Based on these comments and further review by EPA, the Agency determines final HRS scores and places those sites that still qualify on the final NPL.

IV. Contents Of This Final Rule

This rule adds to the final NPL Radium Chemical Co. Inc., in Woodside, Queens Borough, New York City, New York, and the Forest Glen Mobile Home Subdivision in Niagara Falls, New York. Both were proposed to the NPL on August 16, 1989 (54 FR 33846) based upon § 300.66(b)(4) of the NCP (54 FR 33846). The comment period for these sites ended on September 15, 1989. EPA addresses two comments received regarding one of these sites in Section V of this preamble. A description of these two sites was included in the proposed rule (54 FR 33846, August 16, 1989).

This rule also adds 27 Federal facility sites to the NPL, and finalizes the expansion of the definition of another previously listed Federal facility site. The comment period for these sites ended on September 12, 1989. EPA addresses comments received by October 11, 1989, on these Federal facility sites in section V of this preamble. A brief discussion of the Federal facility expansion is provided below. Table 1 lists sites added to the NPL by this rule. Other Federal facility sites proposed in July 1989 will be addressed in future final rules.

Mather Air Force Base

The Mather Air Force Base (AC&W Disposal Area) located in Sacramento, California, was proposed to the NPL on October 15, 1984 (49 FR 40320) and was listed on July 22, 1987 (52 FR 27620). On July 14, 1989 (54 FR 29822), the Agency proposed to expand the site definition at this facility because it believed that additional areas of the facility were contributing to contamination of the aquifer, and possibly to off-site contamination. At this time, the site is being expanded and renamed "Mather Air Force Base."

Summary of Interim Policy

Having proven our ability to successfully restore contaminated property at many Superfund sites, generally, EPA's preference is to address the risks posed by the contamination by using well-designed methods of cleanup which allow people to remain safely in their homes and businesses.

Table 1
National Priorities List, Federal Facility Sites, New Final (by Group), November 1989

Site Name City/county
NPL Gr 1 ST
2
3
4
4
5
5
5
6
7
7
8
8
10
11
11
12
13
13
14
14
16
16
16
16
17
18
18 		OH
WA
ID
TN
CA
AK
SC
MA
GA
CO
FL
MA
NY
AZ
CA
UT
WA
OH
RI
CA
RI
FL
FL
CA
MN
NY
CA 		Feed Materials Prod Cent (USDOE)
Bonneville Power Adm Ross (USDOE)
Idaho National Engin Lab (USDOE)
Oak Ridge Reservation (USDOE)
Treasure Island Nav Sta-Hun Pt An.
Eielson Air Force Base
Savannah River Site (USDOE)
Otis Air Nat Guard/Camp Edwards
Marine Corps Logistics Base
Air Force Plant PJKS
Pensacola Naval Air Station
Fort Devens
Brookhaven National Lab (USDOE)
Williams Air Force Base
Barstow Marine Corps Logist Base
Monticello Mill Tailings (USDOE)
Ft. Lewis Logistics Center
Mound Plant (USDOE)
Davisville Naval Constr Batt Center
Camp Pendleton Marine Corps Base
Newport Naval Educat/Training Center
Jacksonville Naval Air Station
Cecil Field Naval Air Station
March Air Force Base
Naval Industrial Reserve Ordnance
Plattsburgh Air Force Base
Travis Air Force Base 		Fernald
Vancouver
Idaho Falls
Oak Ridge
San Francisco
Fairbanks N Star Bor
Aiken
Falmouth
Albany
Waterton
Pensacola
Fort Devens
Upton
Chandler
Barstow
Monticello
Tillicum
Miamisburg
North Kingstown
San Diego County
Newport
Jacksonville
Jacksonville
Riverside
Fridley
Plattsburgh
Solano County
Number of New Final Federal Facility Sites: 27. 1 Sites are placed in groups (Gr) corresponding to groups of 50 on the final NPL.

Table 2
National Priorities List, New Final Sites (by Rank), November 1989

State
NPL Gr 1 NPL Rank Site Name City/County
19
19 		930
931 		NY
NY 		Forest Glen Mobile Home Subdivision
Radium Chemical Co., Inc 		Niagra Falls
New York City
Number of New Final Sites: 2. 1 Sites are placed in groups (Gr) corresponding to groups of 50 on the final NPL.

The NPL, which is Appendix B of the NCP, and which appears after this preamble, is arranged by HRS scores and is presented in groups of 50 to emphasize that minor differences in scores do not necessarily represent significantly different levels of risk. The two sites listed pursuant to § 300.66(b)(4) of the NCP have HRS scores below 28.50 and are included in the last group on the NPL.

V. Response to Comments

EPA received two comments in favor of listing Radium Chemical Co., Inc. These comments resulted in no change in the HRS score for the site or the Agency's determination that the criteria given at § 300.66(b)(4) of the NCP have been met. No comments were received for the Forest Glen Mobile Home Subdivision.

With respect to the 28 Federal facility sites addressed by this rule, EPA received several comments in support of the listing of Otis Air National Guard Base/Camp Edwards in Falmouth, Massachusetts, Barstow Marine Corps Logistic Base in Barstow, California, and Idaho National Engineering Laboratory in Idaho Falls, Idaho. Some of these comments also included suggestions for cleanup or enforcement strategies. While the Agency appreciates these comments, they are not germane to listing these sites, and so will not be addressed at this time. No timely comments were received regarding the other Federal facility sites in today's final rule.

VI. Regulatory Impact Analysis

The costs of cleanup that may be taken at sites are not directly attributable to listing on the NPL, as explained below. Therefore, the Agency has determined that this rulemaking is not a "major" regulation under Executive Order 12291. EPA has conducted a preliminary analysis of the economic implications of today's final rule to add two new non-Federal sites and 27 Federal facility sites to the NPL, and finds that the kinds of economic effects associated with this revision are generally similar to those identified in the regulatory impact analysis (RIA) prepared in 1982 for revisions to the NCP pursuant to section 105 of CERCLA (47 FR 31180, July 16, 1982) and the economic analysis prepared when amendments to the NCP were proposed (50 FR 5882, February 12, 1985). This rule was submitted to the Office of Management and Budget for review as required by Executive Order 12291.

Costs

EPA has determined that this rulemaking is not a "major" regulation under Executive Order 12291 because inclusion of a site on the NPL does not itself impose any costs. It does not establish that EPA necessarily will undertake remedial action, nor does it require any action by a private party or determine its liability for site response costs. Costs that arise out of site responses result from site-by-site decisions about what actions to take, not directly from the act of listing itself. Nonetheless, it is useful to consider the costs associated with responding to the sites included in this rulemaking.

The major events that follow the listing of a site on the NPL include a search for potentially responsible parties and a remedial investigation/feasibility study (RI/FS) to determine if remedial actions will be undertaken at a site. Design and construction of the selected remedial alternatives follow completion of the RI/FS, and operation and maintenance (O&M) activities may continue after construction has been completed.

EPA initially bears the costs associated with responsible party searches. Responsible parties may bear some or all of the costs of the RI/FS, remedial design and construction, and O&M, or EPA and the States may share costs.

The State cost share for site cleanup activities has been amended by section 104 of SARA. For privately-owned sites as well as for publicly-owned but not publicly-operated sites, EPA will pay for 100% of the costs of the RI/FS and remedial planning, and 90% of the costs associated with remedial action. The State will be responsible for 10% of the remedial action. For publicly-operated sites, the State will pay for at least 50% of all response costs at the site, including the RI/FS and remedial design and construction of the remedial action selected. After the remedy is implemented, costs fall into two categories:

In previous NPL rulemakings, the Agency estimated the costs associated with these activities (RI/FS, remedial design, remedial action, and O&M) on an average total cost per site basis. EPA will continue with this approach, using the most recent cost estimates available (1988). These estimates are presented below. However, there is wide variation in costs for individual sites, depending on the amount, type, and extent of contamination. Additionally, EPA is unable to predict what portions of the total costs responsible parties will bear since the distribution of costs depends on the extent of voluntary and negotiated response and the success of any cost-recovery actions.


Cost category Average total cost per site 1
RI/FS 1,100,000
Remedial Design 750,000
Remedial Action 13,500,000 2
Net present value of O&M 3 3,770,000 2
Source: Office of Program Management, Office of Superfund Remediation Technology Innovation, U.S. EPA. 1 1988 U.S. Dollars.
2 Includes State cost-share.
3 Assumes cost of O&M over 30 years, $400,000 for the first year and 10% discount rate.

Costs to States associated with today's rule arise from the required State cost-share of:

  1. 10% of remedial actions and 10% of first-year O&M costs at privately-owned sites and sites that are publicly-owned but not publicly operated; and

  2. at least 50% of the remedial planning (RI/FS and remedial design), remedial action, and first-year O&M costs at publicly-operated sites.

The State will assume the costs generated by O&M, following EPA's period of participation. The Radium Chemical Company Site and the Forest Glen Mobile Home Subdivision Site are both privately-owned. Therefore, using the budget projections presented above, State costs arising from Federal remedial planning and action, excluding O&M costs, can be expected to reach approximately $2.5 million. State O&M costs cannot be accurately determined because EPA, as noted above, will share O&M costs for up to 10 years for restoration of ground water and surface water, and it is not known if these sites will require this treatment and for how long. However, based on past experience, EPA believes a reasonable estimate is that it will share startup costs for up to 10 years at 25% of sites.

Placing a hazardous waste site on the NPL does not itself cause firms responsible for the site to bear cleanup costs. Nonetheless, a listing may induce firms to clean up the sites voluntarily, or it may act as a potential trigger for subsequent enforcement or cost recovery actions. Such actions may impose costs on firms, but the decision to take such actions are discretionary and made solely on a case-by-case basis. Consequently, precise estimates of these effects cannot be made. EPA does not believe that every site will be cleaned up by a responsible party. EPA cannot project at this time which firms or industry sectors will bear specific portions of the response costs, but the Agency considers: the volume and nature of the waste at the site; the strength of the evidence linking the wastes at the site to the parties; the parties' ability to pay; and other factors when deciding whether and how to proceed against the parties.

Economy-wide effects of this amendment to the NCP are aggregations of effects on firms and State and local governments. Although effects could be felt by some individual firms and States, the total impact of this final rule on output, prices, and employment is expected to be negligible at the national level, as was the case in the 1982 RIA.

Benefits

The benefits associated with adding two sites and 27 Federal facility sites to the NPL are increased health and environmental protection as a result of increased public awareness of potential hazards. In addition to the potential for more Federally-financed remedial actions, expansion of the NPL can accelerate privately-financed, voluntary cleanup efforts. Identifying sites as national priority targets also may give States increased support for funding responses at particular sites.

As a result of additional CERCLA remedies, there will be lower human exposure to high-risk chemicals, and higher-quality surface water, ground water, soil, and air. These benefits are expected to be significant, although difficult to estimate in advance of completing the RI/FS at these sites.

VII. Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 requires EPA to review the impacts of this action on small entities, or certify that the action will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. By small entities, the Act refers to small businesses, small government jurisdictions, and nonprofit organizations.

While these modifications to the NPL are considered revisions to the NCP, they are not typical regulatory changes since the revisions do not automatically impose costs. Placing sites on the NPL does not in itself require any action by any private party, nor does it determine the liability of any party for the cost of cleanup at the site. Further, no identifiable groups are affected as a whole. As a consequence, it is hard to predict impacts on any group. A site's inclusion on the NPL could increase the likelihood that adverse impacts to responsible parties (in the form of cleanup costs) will occur, but EPA cannot identify the potentially affected business at this time nor estimate the number of small businesses that might be affected.

The Agency does expect that certain industries and firms within industries that have caused a proportionately high percentage of waste site problems could be significantly affected by CERCLA actions. However, EPA does not expect the impacts from the listing of these sites to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small businesses.

In any case, economic impacts would only occur through enforcement and cost-recovery actions, which are taken at EPA's discretion on a site-by-site basis. EPA considers many factors when determining what enforcement actions to take, including not only the firm's contribution to the problem, but also the firm's ability to pay.

The impacts (from cost recovery) on small governments and nonprofit organizations will be determined on similar case-by-case basis.


List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 300

Air pollution control, Chemicals, Hazardous materials, Intergovernmental relations, Natural resources, Oil pollution, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Superfund, Waste treatment and disposal, Water pollution control, Water supply.

Dated: November 14, 1989.

M. A. Gade,
Acting Assistant Administrator, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response.

PART 300 - [AMENDED]

40 CFR part 300 is amended as follows:

1. The authority citation for part 300 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 9605; 42 U.S.C. 9620; 33 U.S.C. 1321(c)(2); E.O. 11735 (38 FR 21243); E.O. 12580 (52 FR 2923).

[FR Doc. 89-27209 Filed 11-20-89; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-M

A dynamic page generation error occurred
on the EPA's Web Server.

Also include the Internet address of the page from which you are linking. Please confirm the Internet address. This information will aid in expediting your request.

Thank you for your interest in the Environmental Protection Agency.

IRON MOUNTAIN MINE (EPA ID: CAD980498612)

Current human exposures at this site are under control

Activities Underway
Activity Leading
Organization 		Area of Site
Addressed (OU) 		Start Date
  REMEDIAL ACTION
( see glossary ) 		EPA Fund-Financed SEDIMENTS (05) 08/28/2008
  POTENTIALLY RESPONSIBLE PARTY LONG-TERM RESPONSE ACTION
( see glossary ) 		Responsible Party SLICKROCK CREEK AREA SOURCE (04) 09/24/2004
  COMBINED REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION/FEASIBILITY STUDY
( see glossary ) 		EPA Fund-Financed BOULDER CREEK AREA SOURCE (06) 09/29/1996
OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE
( see glossary ) 		Responsible Party OLD/NO. 8 MINE SEEP (03) 09/15/1994
OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE
( see glossary ) 		Responsible Party SOURCE CONTROL (02) 09/15/1994
OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE
( see glossary ) 		Responsible Party WATER MANAGEMENT (01) 01/02/1991
GPRA Measures at
IRON MOUNTAIN MINE (EPA ID: CAD980498612)

The data and content on this page were last updated on Tuesday, January 04, 2011.

The Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) is an EPA reform initiative that was passed in 1993 to hold federal agencies accountable for using resources wisely and achieving program results. GPRA requires agencies to develop plans for what they intend to accomplish, measure how well they are doing, make appropriate decisions based on the information they have gathered, and communicate information about their performance to Congress and to the public. EPA is required to report on the following Superfund measures under GPRA:

The chemical substances (i.e., hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants) listed below were identified as contaminants of concern (COC) for the site. COCs are the chemical substances found at the site that the EPA has determined pose an unacceptable risk to human health or the environment. These are the substances that are addressed by cleanup actions at the site. Identifying COCs is a process where the EPA identifies people and ecological resources that could be exposed to contamination found at the site, determines the amount and type of contaminants present, and identifies the possible negative human health or ecological effects that could result from contact with the contaminants.

The contaminants of concern at this site are sorted below by contaminant name. You may also sort this list by the area of the site on which it is found, called operable units (OUs) , or sort this list according to the media in which they were found (e.g. soil or ground water) .

see the glossary for definitions of contaminated media and operable units (OUs) >>
CAS # Contaminant Name Contaminated
Media 		Area of Site
Found (OU) 		More Information
7429-90-5 ALUMINUM (FUME OR DUST) Surface Water OLD/NO. 8 MINE SEEP (03) ATSDR Profile
7429-90-5 ALUMINUM (FUME OR DUST) Surface Water SLICKROCK CREEK AREA SOURCE (04) ATSDR Profile
7440-36-0 ANTIMONY Sediment SOURCE CONTROL (02) ATSDR Profile
7440-38-2 ARSENIC Sediment SOURCE CONTROL (02) ATSDR Profile
7440-38-2 ARSENIC Sediment SEDIMENTS (05) ATSDR Profile
7440-38-2 ARSENIC Surface Water SOURCE CONTROL (02) ATSDR Profile
7440-38-2 ARSENIC Surface Water OLD/NO. 8 MINE SEEP (03) ATSDR Profile
7440-38-2 ARSENIC Surface Water SLICKROCK CREEK AREA SOURCE (04) ATSDR Profile
TBD-00000002 BASE NEUTRAL ACIDS Soil SOURCE CONTROL (02)
TBD-00000002 BASE NEUTRAL ACIDS Solid Waste SOURCE CONTROL (02)
39638-32-9 CADMIUM Sediment SOURCE CONTROL (02)
39638-32-9 CADMIUM Sediment SEDIMENTS (05)
39638-32-9 CADMIUM Surface Water SOURCE CONTROL (02)
39638-32-9 CADMIUM Surface Water OLD/NO. 8 MINE SEEP (03)
39638-32-9 CADMIUM Surface Water SLICKROCK CREEK AREA SOURCE (04)
7440-43-9 CADMIUM Surface Water WATER MANAGEMENT (01) ATSDR Profile
7440-50-8 COPPER Sediment SOURCE CONTROL (02) ATSDR Profile
7440-50-8 COPPER Sediment SEDIMENTS (05) ATSDR Profile
7440-50-8 COPPER Surface Water WATER MANAGEMENT (01) ATSDR Profile
7440-50-8 COPPER Surface Water SOURCE CONTROL (02) ATSDR Profile
7440-50-8 COPPER Surface Water OLD/NO. 8 MINE SEEP (03) ATSDR Profile
7440-50-8 COPPER Surface Water SLICKROCK CREEK AREA SOURCE (04) ATSDR Profile
7439-89-6 IRON Sediment SEDIMENTS (05)
7439-92-1 LEAD Surface Water SOURCE CONTROL (02) ATSDR Profile
7439-92-1 LEAD, INORGANIC Sediment SOURCE CONTROL (02) ATSDR Profile
7439-92-1 LEAD, INORGANIC Surface Water SOURCE CONTROL (02) ATSDR Profile
7439-97-6 MERCURY Sediment SOURCE CONTROL (02) ATSDR Profile
7439-97-6 MERCURY Surface Water SOURCE CONTROL (02) ATSDR Profile
7440-02-0 NICKEL Sediment SEDIMENTS (05) ATSDR Profile
7440-22-4 SILVER Sediment SOURCE CONTROL (02) ATSDR Profile
7440-22-4 SILVER Surface Water SOURCE CONTROL (02) ATSDR Profile
7440-28-0 THALLIUM Sediment SOURCE CONTROL (02) ATSDR Profile
7440-28-0 THALLIUM Surface Water SOURCE CONTROL (02) ATSDR Profile
7440-31-5 TIN Surface Water SOURCE CONTROL (02) ATSDR Profile
7440-66-6 ZINC Sediment SOURCE CONTROL (02) ATSDR Profile
7440-66-6 ZINC Sediment SEDIMENTS (05) ATSDR Profile
7440-66-6 ZINC Surface Water WATER MANAGEMENT (01) ATSDR Profile
7440-66-6 ZINC Surface Water SOURCE CONTROL (02) ATSDR Profile
7440-66-6 ZINC Surface Water OLD/NO. 8 MINE SEEP (03) ATSDR Profile
7440-66-6 ZINC Surface Water SLICKROCK CREEK AREA SOURCE (04) ATSDR Profile

motion to compel complete discovery under Rule 37

 Final Site Assessment Decision

Yes (12/30/1982)

  Human Exposure Under Control

Under current conditions at this site, potential or actual human exposures are under control.

  Contaminated Ground Water Migration Under Control

EPA is working to ensure that contaminated ground water migration is under control.

  Construction Complete

No

  Site-Wide Ready for Anticipated Use

No

Purpose and Implementation of the NPL

Purpose

The primary purpose of the NPL is stated in the legislative history of CERCLA (Report of the Committee on Environment and Public Works, Senate Report No. 96-848, 96th Cong., 2d Sess. 60 (1980)):

The priority lists serve primarily informational purposes, identifying for the States and the public those facilities and sites or other releases which appear to warrant remedial actions. Inclusion of a facility or site on the list does not in itself reflect a judgment of the activities of its owner or operator, it does not require those persons to undertake any action, nor does it assign liability to any person. Subsequent government actions in the form of remedial actions or enforcement actions will be necessary in order to do so, and these actions will be attended by all appropriate procedural safeguards.

Implementation

As outlined in the NCP at 40 CFR 300.66(c)(2) and 300.68(a), Trust Fund monies can be spent for remedial actions only at sites that have been placed on the final NPL. However, EPA may take enforcement actions under CERCLA or other applicable statutes against responsible parties regardless of whether the site is on the NPL, although, as a practical matter, the focus of EPA's CERCLA enforcement actions has been and will continue to be on NPL sites. Similarly, in the case of CERCLA removal actions, EPA has the authority to act at any site, whether listed or not, that meets the criteria of the NCP at 40 CFR 300.65-300.67.

NPL listing is not a general requirement under the NCP. We see the NPL as a limitation on remedial, or long-term, actions--as opposed to removal, or short-term, actions--particularly federally funded remedial actions. The provisions requiring the establishment of NPL criteria and listing appear to limit their own application to remedial actions. Section 9605(8)(A) requires EPA to include in the NCP "criteria for determining priorities among releases or threatened releases ... for the purpose of taking remedial action and, to the extent practicable taking into account the potential urgency of such action, for the purpose of taking removal action." And section 9605(8)(B), which requires EPA to draw up the NPL, refers to "priorities for remedial action." Accord 126 Cong.Rec. 30,933 (statement of Sen. Randolph), reprinted in 1 CERCLA Legislative History, supra, at 689; 40 C.F.R. Sec. 300.68(a) (1984). And section 9604, which authorizes and governs federal response actions, reveals the special role of the NPL for federally sponsored remedial actions. Section 9604(c)(3) states that federal remedial actions can be taken only if "the State in which the release occurs first enters into a contract or cooperative agreement" with the federal government, thus setting up a joint federal-state cost-sharing and cleanup effort. At the same time, section 9604(d)(1) states that such joint efforts must be taken "in accordance with criteria and priorities established pursuant to section 9605(8)"--the NPL provision. If the NPL criteria and listing were a general requirement for action "consistent with" the NCP, this language would be surplusage. See supra text accompanying note 18.

34

CERCLA's legislative history also supports our conclusion. Congress did not intend listing on the NPL to be a requisite to all response actions. Neither the earlier House nor Senate version included the NPL in the NCP, see S.1480, 96th Cong., 2d Sess. Secs. 3(c)(5), 6(a)(2)(B), 126 Cong.Rec. 30,908, 30,913, reprinted in 1 CERCLA Legislative History, supra, at 482-84, 529-30; H.R.7020, 96th Cong., 2d Sess. Secs. 3032(b), 3042, 126 Cong.Rec. 26,775, 26,777, reprinted in 2 CERCLA Legislative History, supra, at 404, 420-23, although the Senate version limited joint federal-state responses to sites on the NPL, see S.1480, 96th Cong., 2d Sess. Sec. 6(a)(2)(B), 126 Cong.Rec. 30,913, reprinted in 1 CERCLA Legislative History, supra, at 529-30; see also Senate Report, supra, at 60 ("To receive reimbursement from the Fund, [joint federal-state] response actions may be undertaken only at facilities or sites which are in accordance with the national priority list...."), reprinted in 1 CERCLA Legislative History, supra, at 367. It is also instructive to note that the Senate Report described the NPL as serving "primarily informational purposes, identifying for the States and the public those facilities and sites or other releases which appear to warrant remedial actions." Id. (emphasis added). In reviewing the changes made by the compromise, no one mentioned that NPL listing would be a requirement for removal action or even a general requirement under the NCP.

35

Moreover, limiting the scope of NPL listing as a requirement for response action is consistent with the purpose of CERCLA. The NPL is a relatively short list when compared with the huge number of hazardous waste facilities Congress sought to clean up. See 126 Cong.Rec. 30,931 (statement of Sen. Randolph), reprinted in 1 CERCLA Legislative History, supra, at 683-84; id. at 31,964 (statement of Rep. Florio), reprinted in 1 CERCLA Legislative History, supra, at 776. And it makes sense for the federal government to limit only those long-term--remedial--efforts that are federally funded. We hold that Congress intended that, while federally funded remedial efforts be focused solely on those sites on the NPL, states have more flexibility when acting on their own. See Pinole Point Properties, Inc. v. Bethlehem Steel Corp., 596 F.Supp. 283, 290 (N.D.Cal.1984).

EPA is authorized to take remedial or removal actions only if they are consistent with the NCP, Pub. L. No. 96-510, 5 104(a), 94 Stat. 2767, 2774, to be codified at 42 U.S.C. 5 9604(a). It can secure reimbursement of expenditures for remedial actions only if they are consistent with the NCP under 5 107(a) of Superfund. EPA's enforcement of Superfund is impliedly to be consistent with the NCP. See note 4, supra.
"Immediate removal, planned removal, and remedial actions are authorized for descending levels of imminence of hazard. Since there are differing restrictions on EPA's authority to act under each of these various levels, wrongful classification of imminence could result in unauthorized government action. See Pub. L. No. 96-510, 5 104,94 Stat. 2767,2774-79, to be codified at 42 U.S.C. 5 9604, and 40 C.F.R. 5G300.64 to .68,47 Fed. Reg. 31214-17 (July 16, 1982). "See note 15, supra and 40 C.F.R. 5 300.68(g)-(j), 47 Fed. Reg. 31217 (July 16, 1982).See 40 C.F.R. 4 300.69, 48 Fed. Reg. 31217-18 (July 16, 1982). 1°78 F.R.D. 214 (E.D. Wisc. 1978).
"See Portland Cement Ass'n v. Ruckelshaus, 486 F.2d 375, 369 (D.C. Cir. 1973). "See Amoco Oil Co. v. EPA, 502 F.2d 722, 743 (D.C. Cir. 1974)."United States v. Pennsylvania Engineering Chemical Corp., 411 U.S. 655 (1973), and United States v. Martin, 517 F. Supp. 21 1 (D.S.C. 1981). I4United States v. Cargill, Inc., 508 F. Supp. 734 (D. Del. 1981). "See Dept . of Justice, Principles of Federal Prosecution, pp. 1 1-12 (1980). I6Menzel v. County Utilities Corp., 501 F. Supp. 354 (E.D. Va. 1979).
"United States v. ITT Rayonier, Inc., 627 F.2d 997 (9th Cir. 1980). "See note 24, supra.

Federal Facilities Streamlined Oversight Directive

PDF Version (12 pp, 327K, About PDF )

On this page

November 29, 1996

OSWER Directive No. 9230.0-75

MEMORANDUM

SUBJECT: Federal Facilities Streamlined Oversight Directive FROM: Jim Woolford, Director
Federal Facilities Restoration and Reuse Office, OSWER

Craig Hooks, Acting Director
Federal Facilities Enforcement Office, OECA TO: Director, Office of Site Remediation and Restoration, EPA - New England
Director, Emergency and Remedial Response Division, Region II
Director, Hazardous Waste Management Division, Regions III, IX
Director, Waste Management Division, Region IV
Director, Superfund Division, Regions V, VI, VII
Assistant Regional Administrator, Office of Ecosystems Protection and Remediation, Region VIII
Director, Environmental Cleanup Office, Region X
Regional Counsels, Regions I - X

Purpose

On October 2, 1995, Administrator Browner announced several Superfund Reforms including one to reduce oversight activities at sites where there are cooperative private parties that are performing quality work. Consistent with this Reform, for federal facilities on the Superfund National Priorities List (NPL), we are pursuing a similar initiative to streamline our oversight activities.

EPA is responsible for overseeing the Superfund remedial activities at NPL federal facility sites. EPA's oversight is shaped by a variety of factors including statutory requirements, regulations, guidance, Federal Facility Agreements (FFA), Site Management Plans (SMP), and common practice. EPA's oversight activities of federal facilities include ensuring that, generally,work conducted by federal facilities is equivalent to work that EPA would conduct if that site were EPA-lead.

This Directive focuses on streamlining the regulatory oversight processes at federal facilities in a systematic, planned manner based on site-specific factors and general streamlining techniques. The intent of streamlining the oversight is to improve the efficiency and overall effectiveness of the oversight for the regulators and the federal facilities, while ensuring protection of human health and the environment. Additionally, a streamlined process may facilitate more effective community participation and involvement in the cleanup process by making the process more accessible to the public.

EPA Regions are already implementing components of streamlined oversight at several federal facilities. As such, the concepts described below are not new. What is required is a more systematic approach to ensure that EPA, federal agencies, states, and citizens impacted by contamination at federal facilities and associated activities secure benefits of a streamlined oversight approach. It is important to realize that the streamlined approach may not be applicable at each site or facility, but each facility should be evaluated for opportunities to streamline the oversight process.

Background

There are currently estimated to be more than 61,000 contaminated sites at over 2,000 federal facilities in the United States. As of June 1, 1996, there are 160 proposed and final federal facilities on the NPL. The Department of Defense (DoD) currently is responsible for about 82% of the federal facilities on the NPL. The Department of Energy (DOE) has 11%, but far more releases/sites on each of its facilities than does the military or other federal agencies (e.g., DOI, USDA, NASA). According to EPA's CERCLIS information system, there are currently over 450 ongoing Remedial Investigation/ Feasibility Studies (RI/FSs), over 100 Remedial Designs (RDs) and over 100 ongoing Remedial Actions (RAs). In parallel, there are also several time-critical and non time-critical removal actions ongoing. Regional programs may or may not be overseeing these removal actions.

Relative to federal facilities, the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980, (CERCLA) as amended by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA), provides the framework for Superfund federal facilities cleanup. Section 120(a) requires that federal facilities comply with CERCLA requirements to the same extent as private facilities. Section 120(d) sets forth requirements for facility site assessment, evaluation and NPL listing. Section 120(e) establishes remedial cleanup and cleanup agreement requirements.

Section 120(e) of CERCLA requires the federal facility to enter into a negotiated Interagency Agreement (IAG) with EPA within 180 days of EPA's review of the RI/FS. (As a matter of policy and where resources permit, EPA tries to negotiate the IAG after final listing on the NPL. In this context, the IAG is also known as a Federal Facility Agreement, and will be referred to as FFA in the text that follows.) Under CERCLA Section 120 and the FFA, EPA oversees all of the phases of remedial activity (RI/FS, RD, RA, operation and maintenance) to be undertaken at a federal facility NPL site. States are usually signatories to the FFA. The FFA provides the technical, legal, and management framework to conduct the federal facility activities. The FFA is an enforceable document and contains, among other things, a description of the remedy selection alternatives, procedures for submission and review of documents, schedules of cleanup activities, and provisions for dispute resolution.

In addition to EPA, the states and Indian tribes, as regulators, also may have an oversight role. The particulars of these roles are established in the FFA at each facility.

In 1988, after agreement from DoD and DOE, EPA issued model provisions for FFAs for DoD and DOE (Attachment) to guide the oversight relationship between the federal facilities and EPA. The model FFA identifies primary documents and secondary documents. In addition, a specific consultation process is outlined both with regard to EPA comments and federal facility response to comments on primary and secondary documents, as well as other aspects of the cleanup process.

Oversight activities traditionally involve the production of a document by a federal agency or their contractor, delivery of the document, EPA review and written comments, revision of the document, another round of review and comment, ultimately ending with Agency concurrence on the document. At times there are multiple rounds of comments and revisions to these documents. Specific time frames for review, comment and response to comment are usually laid out in the FFA. Analysis has revealed that more than half of the time spent on the RI/FS process may be involved in this comment and review process.

EPA's oversight at federal facilities consists of ensuring that the federal facilities comply with CERCLA, the National Contingency Plan (NCP), the signed FFA and other agreements; and other statutes, as appropriate (e.g., RCRA); assisting in the determination of cleanup remedies or potentially selecting the remedies; concurring that there is consistency with all relevant guidances and policies determined by EPA to be appropriate for the facility; and determining that decisions protect human health and the environment and are technically sound.

Additional EPA activities include promoting community involvement through the community advisory boards, providing Technical Assistance Grants (TAGs), providing technical advice and assistance (e.g., assisting in identifying and implementing the sampling strategies and analytical requirements), identifying cleanup actions that are not justified based on risk, reviewing design documents and federal agency pollution abatement plans, and resolving disputes regarding noncompliance.

There are several EPA and other agency initiatives that are designed to improve (i.e., modify, streamline, etc.) how cleanup and oversight of cleanup is performed at NPL sites. This Directive incorporates aspects of several of these initiatives, especially Superfund Accelerated Cleanup Model (SACM), Data Quality Objectives (DQO) Process, Reduced Federal Oversight at Superfund Sites with Cooperative and Capable Parties, Variable Oversight (a DoD pilot), Streamlined Approach for Environmental Restoration (SAFER, a DOE pilot). All of these initiatives address the interaction between regulators and federal facilities, with partnership and/or cooperation emphasized in the Reduced Oversight, Variable Oversight, and SAFER models. The SACM, DQO Approach, Variable Oversight, and SAFER initiatives in particular stress upfront planning and scoping to optimize remediation and data collection. This Directive builds on the Variable Oversight model with the emphasis on partnership, upfront scoping and planning, and streamlined document review but also includes principles from other initiatives.

Proposal

This guidance applies to all federal facilities on the NPL. It requires that EPA Regions evaluate opportunities for streamlining oversight of the remedial process for NPL federal facility sites and discusses key areas for process implementation. Where all parties agree on streamlining activities that will affect requirements and/or milestones in an existing FFA, changes to the FFA and/or the Site Management Plan (SMP) should be implemented, as appropriate.

Streamlining regulatory oversight will tailor requirements in a systematic, planned manner based on site-specific factors and streamlining approaches. These site-specific factors include the relationship among the federal facility, the regulators, and community; the complexity of the site cleanup; the current status of the cleanup; and the rate of progress that has been made. The streamlined process should improve the efficiency of both the oversight and the site cleanup actions, enhance public involvement by highlighting issues of greatest interest to the public, and ensure that these issues are not obscured by excessive paper and discussions of methodologies.

Problems with Current Process

For CERCLA cleanup activities, a framework of extensive government regulation and guidance (federal and/or state) outlines the cleanup process and the associated requirements. Although the regulations and guidance provide flexibility, it is not clear that full advantage is taken of the flexibility. The traditional oversight system tends to place heavy emphasis on end-of-process activities such as inspection, review, and comment of documents and deliverables, and not as much on early planning and collaborating. Many documents repeat the same information (e.g., site descriptions) that regulators will comment on time and time again. Significant time and money may be spent on generating more data and documents than necessary.

In addition, the large number and size of documents inhibits public participation as the general non-technical public is overwhelmed by the documents. One outcome of a streamlined process could be more effective public participation in the federal facility cleanup process. Many members of restoration advisory boards and site-specific advisory boards have indicated that streamlined documents are very desirable and will facilitate their participation.

Identifying Sites for Streamlining Oversight

This guidance applies to all NPL federal facility sites requiring EPA oversight. Effective immediately, the Regions should use the criteria below to identify those facilities or, as appropriate, sites on the facility, where the oversight can be streamlined without reducing the level of protection at the site. This evaluation should be done at every site where the federal facility is performing the RI/FS, the RD/RA, or the engineering evaluation/cost analysis (EE/CA) and response action for non-time critical removals. If a facility (or site) does not currently meet the criteria, the facility may be reconsidered at an appropriate later date for application of streamlined oversight.

The regulated federal agencies may propose possible sites as candidates for streamlined oversight. The Regions should work with the federal agencies to identify appropriate sites.

Criteria for Evaluating Federal Facility Sites

Cooperativeness/Compliance (Federal Facility/Agency Relationship)

Technical Capability (Based on Site Complexity)

Site-Based Criteria

Implementation

EPA believes that at sites that may be amenable to streamlining oversight after applying the criteria above, Regions should work with the federal facilities, states, local governments, and communities, as appropriate, to develop an effective partnership in implementing this reform. The FFA and/or the SMP may also need to be revised to implement this reform but opportunities should be examined that will not require formal renegotiation. Streamlining the oversight activities should be implemented as soon as possible. This streamlining of monitoring activities should lead to a reduction in oversight costs and also decrease the time needed to complete that phase of the response action.

Opportunities for Streamlining Oversight

The following is a list of some activities that can be instituted, modified or streamlined, as appropriate, to facilitate streamlining the oversight and cleanup process. They are dependent on each other in that success in one area will increase the chances for success in the other areas. In particular, an effective working partnership lays the groundwork and fosters cooperation that leads to progress in the other areas. The activities can be separated into four broad categories although there is overlap between the categories. Activities that may be implemented include, but are not limited to:

Partnering

Early and Substantial Regulator Involvement

Defining Each Regulator's Role

Streamlining Documentation and Review

The FFA/SMP should incorporate the above activities to the extent practical depending on the site. These elements are not necessarily enforceable portions of the FFA.

Some of these activities are described below.

Partnership

One key to streamlining oversight is creating and then maintaining a framework for partnership between EPA, the federal facility, state, tribes and the community. The history of federal facilities cleanup has been one marked with considerable distrust between the communities, the regulators, and the federal facility. One outcome of this distrust was a need for extensive regulator and community oversight of cleanup activities. At some facilities, the atmosphere of distrust has changed or is being changed. At other facilities, much needs to be done and, in some cases, this section may not be appropriate for these facilities.

Creating and maintaining an effective working relationship often requires extensive interaction at both a site (RPM) level and at a Regional (supervisory) level. Additionally, training to support effective partnering is often required. Where this approach has been successfully implemented, the result has been to dramatically improve the cleanup process. Communication is key among partners. In addition to planned meetings, the use of informal and technology-assisted communication (e.g., telephone, e-mail, fax) is encouraged.

One goal of the partnership is to establish a long-term working relationship in which the parties can commit to up-front agreements designed to produce savings in terms of time and resources needed for cleanup. The participants work together to define the site problems and develop potential options for addressing the problems. The direction of investigation and cleanup work by a working partnership allows parties to focus on key issues that are critical and provides a means to resolve substantive issues prior to action. The partnership approach recognizes that there may be significant initial differences of opinion concerning decisions affecting site cleanup. The partnership should acknowledge that each individual is responsible for representing their agency. The ground rules require that the team agree on the goal, such as site remediation, and that consensus must be reached to achieve the agreed upon goal. The partnership promotes the building of trust and the confidence that important issues are addressed and resolved at appropriate times.

An effective partnership requires working relationship at all levels of the decision chain and a clear understanding of individual roles, scopes of authority, and responsibilities within each organization. Participants in partnerships must: communicate the workings of their organization, the decision-making process within their organization, and the boundaries of their authority; understand and respect each other's expectations and constraints; be empowered to make decisions within the scope of their authority, bring others to the table when necessary, and be supported by their organization; and be sufficiently trained and experienced to exercise professional judgment as appropriate to the needs of the site.

Early and Substantial Regulator Involvement

Develop Common "Vision" with Goals, Objectives and Priorities

Even without "partnering", it is generally productive to develop a common vision for the near-term to long-term future for the facility and related cleanup objectives, activities, and priorities. The vision may include concrete goals and objectives that direct the remediation efforts. The vision should be integral to the scoping and planning efforts for the site. It should be verified on a recurring basis that the scoping and planning and the progress at the site are consistent with the vision.

As part of developing this vision, EPA and other stakeholders need to continue to participate in the application and evaluation of the outcomes of DoD's and DOE's "relative risk" evaluation models. The results of these models are being used as the point of departure for establishing site cleanup priorities but other factors must be considered. EPA participation is critical to ensuring that our mission to protect human health and the environment is part of the prioritization process.

Budget Formulation and Execution Process

Consistent with the consensus principles and recommendations of the April 1996 Final Report of the Federal Facilities Environmental Restoration Dialogue Committee, EPA Regions should be actively engaged in the budget formulation and execution process surrounding DoD and DOE site cleanup activities. Such involvement facilitates EPA's understanding of how and why funding decisions are made and affords EPA the opportunity to influence these decisions. EPA's participation on the budget could include an annual review of federal facility cleanup progress on a basewide level in relation to the current and planned budget, in sufficient time to be able to influence the process and decisions. In addition, meetings/phone contacts should include a frequent (i.e., monthly) discussion on the current status of site budget issues. Discussions could include what projects have been put out to bid, what projects have been awarded, the potential for end-of-year funding and forward funding projects, and the results from prioritization dialogues.

Improve Project Scoping and Planning

The purpose of project scoping and planning is to reach cleanup decisions and actions in the most efficient manner. By effectively tying data collection to a specific decision, scoping and planning activities streamlines the oversight process. The time and expense of planning, producing, and reviewing excess data and additional superfluous material, (e.g., site descriptions repeated in each deliverable) can be minimized through efficient project definition.

The streamlined process should focus on upfront scoping and identification of what is actually needed at a particular site to make a particular decision. Various alternatives to focus project planning are commonly used, such as the Data Quality Objectives (DQO) process, the Streamlined Approach for Environmental Restoration (SAFER), Expedited Site Characterization, the Observational Approach, Superfund Accelerated Cleanup Model (SACM), etc. The DQO and SAFER processes emphasize teamwork and consensus building whereas the Expedited Site Characterization and the Observational Approach do not necessarily stress communication. However, all the various approaches develop answers to the same basic questions and can contribute to streamlining activities:

  1. What questions do you want to answer?
  2. What data are necessary to answer the question?
  3. What degree of uncertainty is acceptable?
  4. What is the strategy to gather information?

Focusing on the definition of the problem and the decision that will be made is critical to support an environmental action and to frame the necessary degree and specific mechanism of the oversight role.

Data collection is typically planned during scoping and conducted as part of the RI. Defining the review requirements (i.e., parameters, limits, quality assurance, etc.) upfront and focusing on data elements that will affect decisions (e.g., contaminants of concern at or above action limits) saves time and resources for all parties. The review process should concentrate on the data that will be used in decision-making at the site. For example, exhaustive review of detection limit level contaminants two to three orders of magnitude below or above an action level uses valuable resources but does not add value or contribute to the decision-making process. In this case, the relatively high uncertainty will not change the decision. However, questionable presence or high uncertainty at an action level should trigger rigorous evaluation.

As part of the planning process, the participants need to consider alternative investigative approaches, such as the use of on-site analytical measurements with or without field labs, and innovative sampling methods and well installation techniques. Additionally, the RPMs need to participate and be available in field decisions to accommodate changes in the sampling plan.

The last step of the scoping phase is to ensure that all participants understand and reach a consensus on the planning process. Consensus building may be a time-consuming and taxing process. However, the investment upfront at the scoping stage of a project will generally provide significant savings later in terms of shorter review and revision cycles, and a final product that addresses participants' concerns.

Optimizing the Data Review Process

Current interagency efforts to develop required data sets and an electronic transmission standard offer significant opportunities to improve quality and efficiency of the review processes. Standardization allows efficient sharing of site information and automation of the review process through the use of software developed by EPA for Superfund analytical data. This data review software has been adapted by DOE (and potentially by DoD) to meet broader program needs (e.g., radionuclides and RCRA compliance).

Defining Each Regulator's Role

The role of EPA and state in terms of oversight responsibilities should be clearly defined, including establishing a lead regulator, wherever possible. Having a lead regulator conserves regulator resources, and minimizes duplicative requirements and conflict between the regulators. However, EPA is still responsible for ensuring that the remedy is protective of human health and the environment and that, ultimately, the site can be deleted from the NPL. Therefore, effective communication between regulators is especially important in implementing the lead regulator concept.

The EPA RPM should assume the responsibility to serve as liaison between RCRA and CERCLA and assure that CERCLA actions will satisfy RCRA concerns and that fundamental RCRA requirements are integrated into the FFA process and schedules and visa versa. In non-authorized states, the RPM can be granted RCRA corrective action and decision-making authority.

Streamlining Documentation and Review

Standard Operating Procedures and Document Formats

In addition to reaching up-front agreements, developing Standard Operating Procedures once that will cover all cleanup activities for the federal facility will streamline the oversight process. These may include: a Health and Safety Plan; Quality Assurance Plan; Field Sampling and Analysis Plan; Investigation Derived Waste Plan; ARARs list; and a stand alone background document describing the environmental setting of the facility, as well as the history. In addition, for the sake of consistency, document formats can be developed for: RI/FS work plans and reports; Risk Assessment Reports; RD/RA work plans and reports; and RODs. These will ensure that all the required components of each document will be included the first time around.

Eliminating Interim Deliverables or Milestones

A large number of documents are typically generated on a site-specific (or operable unit specific) basis to describe and support site-specific decisions. Regions should evaluate opportunities to eliminate interim deliverables and to generate more focused documents that answer specific questions. In some cases, drafts may be eliminated, or an entire deliverable may be eliminated, depending on the site-specific project needs. Attached is the Model FFA list of primary and secondary documents. There may be situations where some of these deliverables can be eliminated, such as when a presumptive remedy is being utilized.

Top of page

Conclusion

Streamlined oversight can enhance cooperation among the stakeholders; expedite the cleanup of federal facilities; and avoid the unnecessarily high cost of the current oversight process with no decrease in protection to human health and the environment.

The major statutes and regulations that implement cleanup requirements at NPL sites establish the involvement of numerous institutions and individuals in that process. The roles of EPA, the states, the tribes, the federal facility, and community groups and other external stakeholders are carefully prescribed. Guidance and regulations establish the framework in which cleanup is to be carried out. Nonetheless, there is a wide range of flexibility in the details of the cleanup action and how individual responsibilities are carried out. It is up to all the participants in the federal facility remediation process to use the flexibility to conserve resources while ensuring adequate environmental protection.

NOTICE: This Directive is primarily for the use of U.S. EPA personnel. EPA reserves the right to change this Directive at any time, without prior notice, or to act at variance to this Directive. This Directive does not create any rights, duties, or obligations, implied or otherwise, in any third parties.

Attachment

cc: Elliott Laws
Tim Fields
Steve Luftig
Barry Breen
Federal Facilities Leadership Council, Regions I-X

Attachment: Model FFA List of Primary and Secondary Documents

(This list may be modified based on individual partnership needs.)

Primary Documents

  1. RI/FS Scope of Work
  2. RI/FS Work Plan - including Sampling and Analysis Plan and QAPP
  3. Risk Assessment
  4. RI Report
  5. Initial Screening of Alternative
  6. FS Report
  7. Proposed Plan
  8. Record of Decision
  9. Remedial Design
  10. Remedial Action Work Plan

Secondary Documents

  1. Initial Remedial Action/Data Quality Objectives
  2. Site Characterization Summary
  3. Detailed Analysis of Alternatives
  4. Post-screening Investigation Work Plans
  5. Treatability Studies
  6. Sampling and Data Results

Generally, secondary documents are seen as "feeder" documents and are not subject to dispute resolution as are primary documents.

CERCLA EARLY TRANSFER

Office of Real Property Disposal

How does CERCLA affect the Federal
Real Property Disposal process?
CERCLA §120(h) imposes several requirements on all
transfers of federal real property "owned by the
United States" to non-federal entities.
With regard to the Federal Property Real Disposal
Process, CERCLA requires the Federal Government to:
• give notice of hazardous substance activity to the
grantee,
• include a covenant in the deed that "all remedial
action necessary to protect human health and the
environment with respect to any such substance
remaining on the property has been taken before
the date of such transfer,"
• include a deed covenant that the United States
will return and perform any additional response
action that may be required in the future, and
• retain a perpetual right of access necessary to
do such additional response actions.
As noted above, these requirements only apply to fee
conveyances of real property out of federal ownership.
They do not apply to interagency federal real
property transfers or to leases, licenses, or easements
granted for the use of federal land. CERCLA
§120(h) also does not apply to personal property
disposals.

What CERCLA-related information must
landholding agencies provide GSA with
the Report of Excess?
GSA requires that landholding agencies complete
GSA’s "Hazardous Substance Activity Certification,"
which is located in GSA’s Excess Real Property
Checklist. Completion of this form enables GSA
either to include the required notice and covenants
in the deed for a "Timely Transfer" or to work with
the landholding agency to pursue one of CERCLA’s
other transfer mechanisms, described at the end
of this document. The Standard Form 118 in GSA’s
Excess Real Property Checklist can be found on the
Resource Center Web site at:
http://rc.gsa.gov/ResourceCenter/
There are two components of the Hazardous
Substance Activity Certification:
1. The landholding agency must provide notice of
any hazardous substance activity, based upon a
complete search of agency files.
The landholding agency must assert either that
(a) there is no evidence of hazardous substance
activity, or (b) there is evidence of hazardous
substance activity that occurred on the property.
If (b), the landholding agency has a "due diligence"
obligation to provide detailed, accurate
information on all "reportable quantities" of hazardous
substances stored, released, or disposed
of on property that it reports to GSA for disposal.
The specific substances that must be reported
under CERCLA and their reporting limits are
described in 40 CFR §302.4 and 40 CFR §373.
2. If the landholding agency discloses that (b) hazardous
substance activity took place on the
property, then it must assert whether or not all
remedial action necessary to protect human
health and the environment has been taken
with respect to those hazardous substances.

What does "all remedial action
necessary" mean?
The term "all remedial action necessary to protect
human health and the environment" is not defined
in CERCLA. However, it is reasonable to interpret
these words to include "removal actions" and thus,
all forms of "response action" taken to address potential
releases of hazardous substances into the
environment. GSA thus includes the CERLA §120(h)
(3) covenant even if no remedial action was ever
necessary. For example, the deed covenant is included
if a CERCLA preliminary assessment or site
inspection has verified that no discernible release
has occurred from a past activity or when it has
been determined that any onsite contamination is
below the "action levels" required for remediation.
EPA has developed specific cleanup standards for
individual contaminants. These standards can
vary depending on the proposed use of the property.
Cleanup standards for commercial or industrial
use are in most instances less stringent than
those for residential use.
Landholding agencies must report any remedial
actions previously completed on the property. If
residual contamination remains at levels that can
be addressed with land-use controls (LUCs), the
landholding agency should describe these LUCs
that are required to run with the land to protect
cleanup remedies and to prevent exposure to
these contaminants.

What are "land-use controls" (LUCs),
and how do they relate to CERCLA
cleanup remedies and residual
contamination?
LUCs consist of institutional controls (e.g., restrictive
covenants) and engineering controls (e.g.,
fences and landfill caps) designed to prevent exposure
to residual contamination and to protect
cleanup remedies. LUCs can apply to a portion of
surplus property or to the entire site. They can
apply to proposed remedial actions to be completed
by the landholding agency or the property’s
purchaser. Post-transfer LUC management responsibilities
vary from state to state and even from
one project to another, depending on state statutes
and regulators’ decisions. Assignment of
these LUC responsibilities should be clarified with
the landholding agency, the proposed grantee, and
with regulators, as necessary. LUCs should be
described in the conveyance documents.
How much due diligence information
should landholding agencies provide to
GSA with their Reports of Excess?
This depends on the condition of the property.
For all excess parcels, landholding agencies should
summarize the results of their records searches
and any preliminary assessments, site inspections,
remedial investigations, or Environmental Site
Assessments they performed. Sites with ongoing
or completed response actions should include
maps delineating the cleanup areas, evidence of
regulators’ concurrence, and a summary of the
cleanup process.

What are the different mechanisms in
CERCLA §120(h) for conveying real
property out of federal ownership?
GSA uses the terms "Timely Transfer," "Early Transfer,"
and "Clean Transfer" to describe the different
authorities contained within CERCLA §120(h) for
conveying federal real property out of federal ownership.
CERCLA §120(h)(3) provides for the different
Timely Transfers as well as the specific provision
in CERCLA §120(h)(3)(C) for Early Transfer.
CERCLA §120(h)(4) also includes a provision for
the seldom-used Clean Transfer.
These six different ways that the Federal Government
may comply with CERCLA §120(h) in real
property disposal are described below.
1. Timely Transfer
This mechanism applies where (a) there is no
record of hazardous substance activity, (b) contamination
is below actions levels with no restrictions
on use, or (c) contamination is above action
levels but controlled through LUCs, including deed
restrictions.
2. Timely Transfer - Operating Properly
and Successfully (OPS)
This mechanism can take place when the remedy is
not yet complete but EPA has determined that it is
"operating properly and successfully" (e.g., an
ongoing "pump and treat" groundwater cleanup
system).
3. Timely Transfer - Petroleum
This mechanism may occur when the only actionable
release is petroleum, which is not a CERCLA
hazardous substance according to CERCLA §101(14)
(unless the petroleum is contaminated with
hazardous substances and, thus, would be
actionable under CERCLA).

4. Timely Transfer – Potentially
Responsible Party (PRP)
This mechanism pertains to those transactions
when the grantee is also a "potentially responsible
party" under CERCLA with respect to the property.
CERCLA specifically excludes transfers to PRPs from
the requirement that the United States provide the
CERCLA §120(h)(3)(A)(ii) deed covenants.
5. Early Transfer under CERCLA §120(h)(3)(C)
This mechanism allows federal property to be
transferred prior to remedy completion via deferral
of the covenant that "all remedial action necessary…
has been taken" until post-conveyance. This
"Early Transfer Authority" (ETA) requires the concurrence
of the State’s Governor [and the U.S. EPA
for those sites listed on the National Priorities List
(NPL)], and regulatory approval of the cleanup
schedule. For more information, see GSA’s
Fact Sheet on Early Transfer Authority.
6. Clean Transfer under CERCLA §120(h)(4)
This mechanism allows for property transfer when
no release of any hazardous substances or petroleum
products has occurred. GSA does not use
this authority, as the procedures that need to be
followed to qualify for a Clean Transfer are more
onerous than the requirements for a Timely
Transfer. Grantees can obtain the same level of
protection from the Government through a
CERCLA §120(h)(3) Timely Transfer, which,
typically, is available for use in most cases that
might otherwise appear to be eligible for transfer
under the Clean Transfer provisions.

Fact Sheet: CERCLA §120(h)

EPA's early transfer guidance applies
to any federal entity selling or
transferring contaminated federal
property at NPL sites to non-federal
parties. These parties may include
developers, local redevelopment
authorities, or state or local
governments. EPA's guidance covers
all "early transfers" by deed under
Superfund, including Department of
Defense (DoD) installations selected
for closure or realignment. The
guidance does not apply to
uncontaminated property or transfers
to federal entities.
The guidance can be used, however,
as a model for transferring property
for "public benefit"—when a
sponsoring federal agency acts as a
conduit through which title will
ultimately pass from the United
States to a public benefit recipient.
A Memorandum of Understanding
signed by DoD and the federal
agencies that sponsor public benefit
transfers (dated April 21, 1997)
exists for Base Realignment and
Closure (BRAC) property.

To be considered for early transfer,
the agency or department
transferring the property must
demonstrate the following:
• The new owner will use the
property in a manner suitable for
the site, and the new land use
will not pose an unacceptable
risk to human health or
the environment.
• The deed or agreement contains
certain assurances with regard to
response actions.
• The federal agency provides
public notice on the proposed
transfer, allowing the public to
provide comments.
• Early transfer will not
substantially delay any cleanup
actions on the property.

For an NPL site, both EPA and the
state governor must concur on the
early transfer approval. EPA regional
offices will work closely with state
officials to review the
early transfer request
and determine whether
the criteria have been
met to merit an early
transfer. Early transfer
cannot occur until the
CERCLA guarantee
(covenant) is explicitly
deferred by EPA and the state,
through the early transfer approval
process. An Interagency Agreement
(IAG) between EPA and the
landholding federal agency is not
required but will significantly help
EPA make the covenant deferral
decision. Once the transfer has
occurred and the
proposed remedy for the
contaminated site is
"operating properly and
successfully," the
transferring agency or
department shall provide
the new owner with a
written guarantee that all
necessary response actions have been
taken, regardless of whether the
cleanup was conducted by the federal
government or the new owner.

For more information about Early
Transfer Guidance, visit:
http://www.epa.gov/swerffrr
/doc/hkcover.htm
To learn more about federal facility
cleanup and reuse, visit:
http://www.epa.gov/swerffrr
Or contact:
U.S. EPA/FFRRO
401 M Street, SW. (5101)
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: 202 260-2856
E-mail: kelly.sheila@epa.gov
For guidance issued by DoD on the early
transfer of non-NPL sites, visit the BRAC
Environmental Cleanup Web Page:
http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/

 

6.2 Early Transfer Authority
CERCLA was recently amended to include the authority to defer the CERCLA § 120(h)(3)(A)(ii) covenant that
all remedial actions necessary to protect human health and the environment have been taken, and to transfer
property by deed, subject to certain additional statutory requirements. DoD intends to use this “Early
Transfer Authority” (ETA) to assist communities in expediting reuse of former defense facilities. By enabling
an LRA and other stakeholders to obtain full ownership of property earlier, those parties gain greater control
over the future of their community. One major benefit of ETA is that it allows for the productive reuse of
property right away rather than delaying final implementation of a reuse plan until cleanup is completed.
The ETA is a deferral, not a waiver, of the CERCLA covenant requirement. DoD (or any other Federal agency)
is still required to issue the warranty required under CERCLA, when all response actions necessary to protect
human health and the environment have been taken, or when there has been a demonstration to EPA that the
approved remedy is “operating properly and successfully.” The timing of this warranty will depend on the
selected remedy and can only occur when one of these two conditions can be met. At that time, the
transferring Federal Agency shall execute and deliver to the transferee an appropriate document containing
the warranty that all remedial action has been taken.
The ETA is self-implementing and can be used right now. Although no additional authority or regulations are
required, the DoD, EPA, and the states have guidance to implement the process. The EPA guidance only
addresses property on the NPL, while the DoD guidance extends to property not on the NPL.
Successful implementation of this authority requires that the DoD, the purchaser, the community, and the
regulatory agencies work very closely together. Not only is this partnership in the spirit of the BRAC process,
but it is mandated by statute. The Governor and EPA Administrator have approval authority to determine if
the protections and response action assurances required by statute are in place to allow the property transfer
to go forward.

Deferral of the CERCLA covenant is based on a finding that:

I. The property is suitable for transfer for the use intended by the transferee, and the intended use is consistent with protection of human health and the environment;

II. The deed or other agreement proposed to govern the transfer between the U.S. and the transferee of the property contains the assurances set forth in clause (ii);

III. The Federal agency requesting deferral has provided notice, by publication in a newspaper of general circulation in the vicinity of the property, of the proposed transfer and of the opportunity for the public to submit, within a period of not less than 30 days after the date of the notice, written comments on the suitability of the property for the transfer; and

IV. The deferral and the transfer of the property will not substantially delay any necessary response action at the property.

Component must provide the following response action assurances:

I. Any necessary restrictions on the use of the property to ensure the protection of human health and the environment;

II. There will be restrictions on the use necessary to ensure that required remedial investigations, response action, and oversight activities will not be disrupted;

III. All necessary response action will be taken and identify the schedules for investigation and completion of all necessary response action as approved by the appropriate regulatory agency; and

IV. The Federal agency responsible for the property subject to transfer will submit a budget request to the Director of the Office of Management and Budget that adequately addresses schedules for investigation and completion of all necessary response action, subject to congressional authorizations and appropriations.

Section 120 (h)(3)(C) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
(CERCLA)* allows Federal agencies to transfer property before all necessary cleanup actions have been
taken. This provision, known as early transfer authority (ETA), authorizes the deferral of the CERCLA
covenant requiring all remedial actions to be completed before Federal property is transferred when the
fi ndings required by the statute can be made and the response action assurances required by the statute
are given. The Governor of the state where the property is located must concur with the deferral request
for property not listed on the National Priorities List (NPL). For NPL property, the deferral must be provided
by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) with the concurrence of the Governor. ETA is not an actual
conveyance mechanism. An existing transfer authority, such as the economic development conveyance, will
have to be used to transfer the property.

BCT BRAC Cleanup Team
BRAC Base Realignment and Closure
CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
DoD Department of Defense
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
ETA Early Transfer Authority
FOSET Finding of Suitability for Early Transfer
LRA Local Redevelopment Authorities
LUCs Land Use Controls
NPL National Priorities List
ODUSD(I&E)EM Offi ce of the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense (Installations and Environment)
Environmental Management
RAB Restoration Advisory Board

26.7 - Exhibit 12

42 U.S.C. 9620(h) REQUIREMENTS FOR CONVEYANCE OR TRANSFER OF FEDERAL REAL PROPERTY

Timely Transfer under 120(h) (3) .

Pursuant to 42 USC 9620(h) (1), the contract for sale or other transfer of real property on which any hazardous substance was stored for one year or more, known to have been released, or was disposed of, shall include a notice of the type and quantity of such hazardous substance and notice of the time at which such storage, release, or disposal took place, to the extent such information is available on the basis of a complete search of agency files.

Pursuant to 42 USC 9620(h)(3)(A)(i), each deed entered into for the transfer of such property by the United States to any other person or entity shall contain, to the extent such information is available on the basis of a complete search of agency files:


Pursuant to 42 USC 9620(h) (3) (A) (ii), except in cases where the person or entity to whom the real property is transferred is a potentially responsible party with respect to such property [42 USC 9620(h) (3) (B)], or in cases where a deferral is granted pursuant to 42 USC 9620(h) (3) (C), the deed shall also contain a covenant warranting that:


Additionally, pursuant to 42 USC 9620(h)(3)(A)(iii), the deed shall also include a clause granting the United States access to the property i n any case in which response or corrective action is found to be necessary after the date of such transfer .


26.7 - Exhibit 12--Continued

Pursuant to CERCLA Section 104, as delegated by Executive Order 12580, the Forest Service generally has the lead agency authority with respect to the cleanup of hazardous substances on National Forest System (NFS) lands.  Under CERCLA and the National Contingency Plan (NCP), 40 C.F.R. Part 300, the role of the State with respect to a Forest Service lead response action on NFS lands is to identify the State's applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements (ARARs).  The State has no authority to oversee a Forest Service lead CERCLA response action on NFS lands, require the Forest Service to enter into an agreement under the State's Voluntary Cleanup Program (VCP), or require the Forest Service to pay the State's oversight costs.  However, there may be unique circumstances where a State's role may go beyond responding to the Forest Service's request to identify State ARARs.  For example, depending on the facts of a particular site, the State may attempt to assert its authority with respect to “hazardous waste” under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA).  Consult with OGC PCT concerning sites where a State environmental enforcement agency is seeking to assert its RCRA authority, e.g., through issuing a Notice of Violation (NOV) or administrative order.

CERCLA Section 120(h)(3)(A)(ii)(I) requires a deed covenant that all response actions necessary to protect human health and the environment have been taken before the transfer .  Pursuant to CERCLA and the NCP, the Forest Service is responsible for making that determination at Forest Service lead sites on NFS lands.  In addition, pursuant to Section 120(h)(3)(A)(ii)(II), the Forest Service must covenant that any additional response action found to be necessary after the transfer , with respect to hazardous substances on the property before the transfer , will be conducted by the United States.  There may be situations where the transferee may request a “no further action”  determination by a State, as a condition of the negotiated property transfer agreement.  Such a provision in the transfer agreement is not recommended because the State may then seek to assert an “oversight”  role in the cleanup.  In most cases, the determination that no further response actions are necessary will be made solely by the Forest Service and the Forest Service will then be able to give the Section 120(h)(3)(A)(ii)(I) & (II) “no further action” and “comeback”  covenants.  Generally, these covenants should be sufficient to market the property and the “comeback” covenant, in particular, should be more than sufficient assurance to the transferee that the United States stands behind the environmental condition of the property.

Section 120(h)(3)(B) provides that, for purposes of the 120(h)(3)(A)(ii)(I) “no further action”  covenant, the agency can covenant that all necessary response action has been taken before the date of the transfer if construction and installation of the approved remedy has been completed and has been demonstrated to Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) that the remedy is “operating properly and successfully” (OPS).  Carrying out long-term pumping and treating or operations and maintenance requirements will no preclude an OPS determination.  Pursuant to Section 120 (h)(3)(B), the OPS determination is made by EPA, not the State.


26.7 - Exhibit 12--Continued

Early Transfer under Section 120(h)(3)(C), Covenant Deferral Request (CDR) .

An alternative that may be available is for the Forest Service to proceed with an “ Early Transfer ”  under a CERCLA Section 120(h)(3)(C) Covenant Deferral, which allows the transfer of contaminated property by deferring the Section 120(h)(3)(A)(ii)(I) covenant that all necessary response action has been taken until after the transfer , provided that certain requirements are met, including obtaining concurrence from the Governor of the State (for non-NPL site), or the Administrator of the EPA (for NPL sites), that the property is “suitable” for early transfer .  The suitability determination must be based on a finding that: (1) the property is suitable for the intended use by the transferee, and the intended use is consistent with protection of human health and the environment; (2) the deed contains “response action assurances”, including provisions for any necessary use restrictions on the property to ensure protection of human health and the environment and any necessary use restriction so that the cleanup will not be disrupted; (3) the agency has provided notice in the Federal Register and a 30-day opportunity for public comment on the suitability of the property; and (4) the early transfer will not substantially delay any necessary response action.  A considerable amount of coordination must be done with the proposed transferee to “privatize” the cleanup, i.e., where the transferee agrees to conduct the cleanup.  Such an agreement with the transferee can satisfy the “response action assurances” requirement of the suitability determination.  Under an “ Early Transfer ” where the cleanup is “privatized”, the transferee will then bear the responsibility of interaction with the State concerning satisfying State requirements.  At a non-NPL site, the State will have to agree with this arrangement in its concurrence to the suitability determination.

Pursuant to 42 USC 9620(h)(3)(C)(ii), in cases where the Administrator, with the concurrence of the Governor of the State in which the facility is located (in the case of real property at a Federal facility that is listed on the National Priorities List), or the Governor of the State in which the facility is located (in the case of real property at a Federal facility not listed on the National Priorities List) grants a deferral under 42 USC 9620(h)(3)(C), concerning the requirement to undertake all response action necessary to protect human health and the environment before the date of the transfer , the deed shall contain assurances that—



26.7 - Exhibit 12--Continued


In the case where a deferral under 42 USC 9620(h)(3)(C) has been granted, once all response action necessary to protect human health and the environment with respect to any hazardous substance remaining on the property on the date of transfer has been taken 1 , the United States shall execute and deliver to the transferee, pursuant to 42 USC 9620(h)(3)(C)(iii), an appropriate document containing a warranty that all such response action has been taken.

Clean Transfers under Section 120(h)(4).

“Clean Transfers” are authorized under Section 120(h)(4), which was added to CERCLA Section 120(h) as part of the Community Environmental Response Facilitation Act, primarily to expedite the transfer of “clean” portions of military bases that were being closed under the base closure laws.  In addition to properties being transferred under the base closure laws, Section 120(h)(4) authorizes the transfer of “uncontaminated” property “on which the United States plans to terminate Federal Government operations” (TFGO).  “Uncontaminated” for purposes of Section120(h)(4) means that “no hazardous substances and no petroleum products or their derivatives were known to have been released or disposed of” on the property.  The investigation required under Section 120(h)(4) is different from, and more complex than, the “complete search of agency files” required under Section 120(h)(1) - (3).  With respect to properties located within NPL sites, EPA is responsible for concurrence with the finding that the property is “uncontaminated.” For properties not on the NPL, the State DEQ or equivalent agency is responsible for concurrence with findings that properties are “uncontaminated” by hazardous substances under Section 120(h)(4).

Because of the vague and potentially complex requirements to qualify a parcel for a “Clean Transfer ”  under Section 120(h)(4), the United States General Services Administration (GSA) has indicated that the Section 120(h)(4) authority has rarely been used and recommends that the authority be avoided.  GSA and OGC PCT have opined that Federal agencies have the discretion to use Section 120(h)(3) “Timely Transfer ” procedures, instead of Section 120(h)(4) “Clean Transfer ,” whenever Section 120(h)(3) is otherwise applicable.  Therefore, for properties where


26.7 - Exhibit 12--Continued

there is no record of hazardous substance activity, or no evidence of releases of hazardous substances that require a response action, the Forest Service should assert that “all necessary

response actions” have been taken and assert the Section 120(h)(3)(A)(i) “Timely Transfer ”  deed covenants.

In the event that the Forest Service, in its discretion, determines that it is in the interest of the Forest Service to use the Section 120(h)(4) “Clean Transfer ”  authority, the Forest Service should consult with OGC PCT concerning coordination with the State.  Transaction screening worksheets and/or Phase I/II reports must be submitted for DEQ review no less than 6 months in advance of expected termination of Forest Service operations on the property.  Concurrence is deemed obtained if the State does not respond within 90 days.  Because of the Constitutional principle of Supremacy of the Federal Government, a State's non-concurrence cannot prevent a Federal agency from transferring the property.  In many cases the State will provide comments or a letter stating that no further action is needed.  Although State approval is not required, the authorized officer should make every effort to address any comments or concerns offered by the State prior to conveyance (See EM-2160-2, Forest Service Guide to Land Transactions, for additional information related to TFGO).  Consult with the OGC Pollution Control Team concerning issues relating to obtaining State concurrences under CERCLA Section 120(h)(4).

Under 42 USC 9620(h)(4), the term “Termination of Federal Government Operations” refers to the termination of discrete activities or functions by an agency (e.g., administrative sites and work centers where there is a federal workforce present) at the subject property upon which the property will be conveyed.  TFGO does not include operations by permittees or concessionaires. Pursuant to 42 USC 9620(h)(4), when a property will be transferred upon Termination of Federal Government Operations, a detailed investigation of the real property shall be completed at least 6 months before the termination of operations to determine or discover the obviousness of the presence or likely presence of a release or threatened release of any hazardous substance or any petroleum product or its derivatives, including aviation fuel and motor oil , on the real property.

The results of the investigation shall be provided immediately to the Administrator and State and local government officials, and made available to the public [provide public notice].  The primary purpose of this investigation is to speed the transfer and beneficial reuse of the property by enabling the segregation of “uncontaminated” and “contaminated” parcels, since 42 USC 9620(h)(4) enables the transfer of the “uncontaminated”  parcels while the cleanup of the “contaminated” parcels is completed.

The investigation is deemed to be complete when, in the case of real property that is part of a facility on the National Priorities List, the Administrator of the EPA [or his designated official] concurs with the results of the investigation, or, in the case of real property that is not part of a facility on the National Priorities List, the appropriate State official concurs.  In the case when


26.7 - Exhibit 12--Continued

concurrence is required from a State official, the concurrence is deemed to be obtained if, within 90 days after receiving a request for the concurrence, the State official has not acted (by either concurring or declining to concur) on the request for concurrence. Because of constitutional principles relating to supremacy of the Federal Government, a State's refusal to concur cannot prevent the transfer .  However, the agency should document in its files the reasons why it disagrees with the State's rationale for declining to concur.

Pursuant to 42 USC 9620(h)(4)(D), the deed entered into for the sale or transfer of any “uncontaminated”  parcel of such property by the United States to any other person or entity shall contain—

    1. a covenant warranting that any response action or corrective action found to be necessary after the date of such sale or transfer shall be conducted by the United States; and

    1. a clause granting the United States access to the property in any case in which a response action or corrective action is found to be necessary after such date at such property, or such access is necessary to carry out a response action or corrective action on adjoining property.

 

Transmittal of "EPA Guidance on the Transfer of Federal Property by Deed Before All Necessary Remedial Action Has Been Taken Pursuant to CERCLA Section 120(h)(3)"

MEMORANDUM

SUBJECT: Transmittal of "EPA Guidance on the Transfer of Federal Property by Deed Before All Necessary Remedial Action Has Been Taken Pursuant to CERCLA Section 120(h)(3)" FROM: Timothy Fields, Jr. (SIGNED)
Acting Assistant Administrator TO: Superfund National Program Managers, Regions I-X
Office of Regional Counsel, Regions I-X DATE: June 16, 1998

This memorandum transmits the "EPA Guidance on the Transfer of Federal Property by Deed Before All Necessary Remedial Action Has Been Taken Pursuant to CERCLA Section 120(h)(3)," otherwise known as the Early Transfer Guidance. This guidance is for the EPA Regions to use when reviewing requests from federal departments and agencies that are transferring property to defer the CERCLA Section 120(h)(3) covenant that all necessary remedial actions have been taken.

EPA is fully supportive of the early transfer process. When a transferee agrees to conduct the response action, this new authority provides other federal departments and agencies with an opportunity to secure cleanup by having other non-federal parties conduct cleanup. This could yield significant benefits to human health and the environment and savings to the taxpayer. In all instances, however, the landholding federal agency remains responsible for cleanup.

The Early Transfer Guidance benefits from the input of an interagency workgroup composed of EPA, the Department of Defense, the Department of Energy, and the General Services Administration. The interagency workgroup discussed several issues related to early transfer that are covered in this policy. Earlier versions of the guidance were also shared with ASTSWMO. This is, however, an EPA policy, not an interagency product.

The guidance establishes a process by which an EPA regional office should review an early transfer request. This process begins with the transferring federal agency submitting information of a sufficient quality and quantity to EPA which will support its request for a deferral and provide a basis for EPA to make its determination. This information should be submitted to EPA in the form of a Covenant Deferral Request (CDR). At base closure sites where an early transfer is being sought, EPA anticipates that the Base Closure Team, including the EPA representative, will work together in drafting the CDR to expedite the transfer.

Finally it is important to note that states play an important role in this process regardless of whether the parcel under review is on the National Priority List Federal Facility or not. States must also concur on the early transfer.

I believe this Early Transfer Guidance provides useful information to the Regions to assist federal departments and agencies in expediting the early transfer of property. If you have any questions regarding this guidance, please contact the Federal Facilities Restoration and Reuse Office at (202) 260-9924.

Attachment

cc: Craig Hooks, Federal Facilities Enforcement Office
Lisa Friedman, Office of General Counsel
Kathy Gorospe, American Indian Environmental Office
Federal Facility Leadership Council
Defense Environmental Restoration Task Force
Sherri W. Goodman, Department of Defense
Raymond Fatz, Department of Army
Ellsie Munsell, Department of Navy
Thomas McCall, Jr., Department of Air Force
Al Lowas, Air Force Base Conversion Agency
James Owendoff, Department of Energy
Jim Fiori, Department of Energy
Robert DeGrasse, Department of Energy
Brian Polly, General Services Administration
Willie Taylor, Department of Interior
Tom Kennedy, Association of State and Territorial Solid Waste Management Officials
Stan Phillipe, Association of State and Territorial Solid Waste Management Officials
Jerry Pardilla, National Tribal Environmental Council

 

The once and future king

Despite mounting pressure from environmentalists and regulators, the coal industry is betting big that its low cost and abundance will fuel future growth.

WRIGHT, WYO . • Every minute, a machine at Peabody Energy Corp.'s North Antelope Rochelle mine scrapes an 80-foot wall of coal with a giant steel claw. With each swipe, the beast pivots and deposits a heap of black rock into a waiting truck.

From a distance, the yellow CAT looks like a Tonka toy. But it stands two stories tall, with 12-foot tires. On its side, a display resembling a basketball shot clock records the weight of each load.

This one reads 398 tons — enough to power a typical American household for 60 years.

That a single machine can extract decades' worth of energy underscores the scale of mining here in Powder River Basin, the source for 40 percent of the nation's coal and the fuel for 80 percent of Missouri's electricity. "We move in a day what some of the mines in the Midwest move in a month, or small Appalachian mines move in a year," boasts Jeane Hull, a Peabody group vice president who oversees the company's Western U.S. operations.

The breathtaking scope translates directly into the low costs that drive America's continuing addiction to coal-fired power — despite dire climate-change warnings and the growing chorus calling for clean fuels. At today's prices, it would take $60 in natural gas to produce the same energy as a $14 ton of Powder River Basin coal. Coal costs more to ship to market, but even if you tripled its price to account for rail transport to far-flung plants, it's still cheaper than raw natural gas — without adding in pipeline costs, said Steven F. Leer, chief executive of Creve Coeur-based Arch Coal Inc., the second-largest producer in the basin after St. Louis-based Peabody.

Arch and Peabody executives say that's not likely to change over the next decade, despite rising coal production costs, falling natural gas prices, the push for wind and solar power, and an alphabet soup of new environmental and safety restrictions.

Big Coal's expansion plans have prompted the Sierra Club and other environmentalists to use the courts and everything else in their power to stop them. They believe pollution rules and declining costs for alternatives will combine to erode coal's historic price edge. Bruce Nilles, chief of the Sierra Club's Beyond Coal campaign, confidently pronounces the "old days" of cheap coal "long gone."

The coal industry begs to differ. Indeed, companies such as Arch and Peabody are pushing more chips into the pot, betting big that demand for coal — particularly the premium variety mined here in the Powder River Basin — will continue to grow. That growth may come at the expense of other coal producing regions, especially Central Appalachia. And utility executives concede that sweeping climate change legislation, if it ever passes, could make coal-fired energy prices spike.

But the industry has a backup plan that could create a whole new battlefield with environmentalists: exporting Wyoming's rich reserves to power-hungry countries such as China, where economists see the demand curve trending higher for years, if not decades, as billions of people seek to claw their way into the modern world.

The other fundamental question the opponents of coal struggle to answer: If not coal, what? No alternative energy source — or combination of sources — can yet provide enough power to fire the factories and cool the homes of a nation spoiled for decades by cheap electricity.

Robert Clayton, chairman of the five-member Missouri Public Service Commission, said coal will remain the workhorse fuel in the state for years to come.

"At the end of the day, the consumers want the lights on when they turn them on," he said. "And it's up to us to make sure the utilities have the power to do that."

DIGGING IN

Altogether, coal companies work a dozen mines in the Powder River Basin, clustered together in a narrow north-south strip near Gillette, Wyo., the self-proclaimed "Energy Capital of America." Peabody and Arch own five of them, including the two largest. Together, the two companies control more than 4 billion tons of basin reserves and last year accounted for more than half of the coal mined here.

Peabody, the world's largest private-sector coal miner, has a permit to dig into a new 800 million-ton block of coal just north of its flagship North Antelope Rochelle mine, which will produce more than 100 million tons of coal this year.

The new School Creek mine could be tapped as soon as next year. The company has said it will produce up to 35 million tons a year.

To outsiders, coal is coal. But School Creek represents the coal qualities sought by utilities — high energy content and low sulfur. Vic Svec, a Peabody senior vice president, discusses it with the reverence that a wine collector speaks about a prized vintage.

"This is a fantastic reserve block that will be developed," Svec said. "It's just a matter of timing."

Creve Coeur-based Arch is growing in other ways. A year ago, it paid rival Rio Tinto Plc $761 million for Jacobs Ranch, a sprawling mine that shares a border with its giant Black Thunder operation. The combination yielded the world's largest mining complex, producing a staggering 4 tons of coal per second.

CLIMATE FOR COAL

Big Coal executives have little doubt that the Powder River Basin output will continue to grow. But they can extract only what their customers — power producers, such Ameren Corp. in St. Louis — will buy. And the optimism in the coal fields stands in stark contrast to how some others, particularly regulators and environmentalists, view its future. The industry faces political threats on two fronts: a slew of new rules to curb pollution by existing plants and the longer-term prospect of climate change legislation.

The white-hot politics of climate change remain a wild card. Many climate scientists warn that nothing short of a drastic reduction in emissions of carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping gases will prevent the worst effects of global warming. And no single source puts off as much CO2 as coal-burning power plants.

Congressional Democrats failed to pass climate legislation last year, and the chance for such a measure dimmed considerably when Republicans grabbed control of the House last month. But the Obama administration is pursuing another avenue. Spurred by a landmark Supreme Court decision in 2007, the EPA has declared greenhouse gases a health threat. New EPA restrictions on new sources of CO2 will take effect Jan. 2 — making it nearly impossible to build or expand a coal-fired power plant. The agency on Wednesday said new rules affecting existing power plants could be issued in 2015 or 2016.

"I think it's safe to say that getting a coal plant built is going to be a high hurdle going forward," said Shawn Schukar, who oversees environmental compliance strategy at Ameren, one of the nation's most coal-heavy utilities.

POLLUTION CONTROL

While the carbon regulations only will affect the industry's ability to expand, the nation's 500 existing power plants must soon grapple with separate regulatory pressures on their bottom line: Air- and water-quality regulations expected to be phased in over the next several years. The EPA is developing new rules that would force power plant operators to curb all sorts of pollution — nitrogen oxides, ozone, sulfur dioxide, particulates, mercury. The agency is also considering regulating disposal of toxic coal ash, in the wake of the 2008 disaster in Tennessee, where a disposal pond wall collapsed, coating 300 acres with wet coal ash and polluting two rivers.

The Brattle Group of Cambridge, Mass., estimates new federal environmental regulations could shut down almost one in every five coal-fired power plants nationwide, reducing coal use by 15 percent in the next decade.

The coal industry believes such threats are overblown. Arch recently performed an internal analysis, examining the fate of every coal-fired boiler in the country. (The 500 or so plants collectively include about 1,000 boilers.) The company concluded that more than 400 of the least efficient — some of which date back to the 1940s — would likely be retired under new EPA regulations.

Even if all of those boilers shut down over the next decade — unlikely, says Arch's Leer — it would only reduce annual coal burn by 118 million tons, or about 11 percent. That's because most of these inefficient plants often sat idle even in a good economy.

U.S. coal plants that escape the regulatory ax would, however, face costly retrofits, said Metin Celebi, a co-author of the Brattle report. The firm predicts that power producers might ultimately have to spend up to $180 billion on new pollution controls.

With the timing and severity of climate change legislation unclear, utility executives face a dilemma: Do they spend hundreds of millions of dollars to retrofit a coal-fired power plant when future political action could render it a white elephant? "If you make an investment and then slap on a high carbon tax," Schukar said, "it may make that investment look bad."

Of course, the EPA has already delayed some of the new rules. Many will be litigated for years. And the coal industry is spending millions of dollars lobbying Congress to fight every change. Peabody, for instance, sued the EPA, challenging its finding that greenhouse gases are a health threat. The company fought efforts in Colorado to switch four coal-burning power plants to natural gas. Peabody ultimately lost both challenges, but showed the will to tie up regulatory efforts in extended and expensive battles.

THE CAPACITY GAP

For all of the heat on King Coal, every other energy source faces its own vexing challenges. Wind, solar, natural gas and nuclear each face a different set of issues involving supply, capital investment, price or politics. Last year, coal-fired power accounted for nearly half of all electricity used in America; none of its opponents has yet offered any comprehensive plan to make up that gap, even with aggressive energy efficiency goals.

Renewable energy use is growing fast, propelled by state mandates and taxpayer-financed federal incentives. And while wind and the sun are free, turbines and solar farms remain expensive to build, especially compared to a coal-fired power plant that's already paid for, analysts say.

What's more, solar and wind farms can't generate power 24 hours a day, seven days a week, producing so-called baseload electricity. Wind farms in northwest Missouri, for instance, are available only about 25 percent of the time.

Nuclear power remains cheap to produce, but new plants could cost $10 billion or more, and Wall Street has so far been unwilling to make that bet — to say nothing of safety issues involving radioactive waste disposal that remain a political third rail.

The biggest threat to coal is cleaner-burning natural gas, specifically gas produced from shale rock. The Energy Information Administration, an arm of the U.S. Energy Department, this month more than doubled its estimate of technically recoverable natural gas reserves from shale. The flood of new supply and a weak U.S. economy has helped push down natural gas prices to $4.08 per thousand cubic feet from a high of $14 in mid-2008.

Energy consultants Black & Veatch estimate natural gas, which will be used to power 21 percent of electricity in 2011, will see its market share grow to 40 percent by 2035 while coal's shrinks from 48 percent to 21 percent.

But the new gas boom faces environmental problems, too. The technique for pulling gas out of shale rock with high-pressuring water — called hydraulic fracturing, or fracking — has sparked a public backlash over contamination of groundwater and drinking water in nearby neighborhoods.

And some question the wisdom of making a long-term bet on natural gas — a fuel that Duke Energy Corp. CEO Jim Rogers referred to as the "crack cocaine" of the power industry. Utilities in the past have gotten hooked on cheap gas and made huge investments, only to see prices spike and plants idled.

Gas won't be stealing much market share from coal anytime soon, said Bill O'Grady, a longtime energy analyst and chief market strategist at Confluence Investment Management LLC.

"I'm skeptical that these gas companies can pull this stuff out of the ground as cheaply as the current market price says they can," he said.

Like it or not, analysts say, the nation's energy future will rely heavily on sprawling strip mines like North Antelope Rochelle — dusty moonscapes where supersized machines and explosives scoop, shovel and blast away 24 hours a day to keep the lights on hundreds of miles away.

Even if coal executives are overestimating U.S. demand, they know that customers in a larger, faster-growing energy market — Asia — will take up the slack.

Peabody and Arch are both studying opportunities to ship millions of tons to places such as China, Taiwan, South Korea and perhaps India. Such plans could simultaneously pave the way for growth in the Powder River Basin and further galvanize environmental opposition.

"Exporting coal is a line in the sand to us," said Sierra Club's Nilles. "Why on God's green Earth would we ever enable that?"

Copyright 2010 www.STLtoday.com. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

Monday, January 3, 2011

Obama NOAA chief refuses to fire employees involved in misconduct, transfers prosecutor named in abuse to high level post in New Bedford, Mass.

.
1/2/2011, " NOAA's transfer of 'investigator' draws fire ," Gloucester Times

" A National Oceanic and Atmospheric "criminal investigator " tied to the NOAA law enforcement's notorious push against the Gloucester Seafood Display Auction

And that city's mayor is outraged, calling the move "ill-advised," "uninformed," "insensitive" and "retaliatory."

Mayor Scott Lang's remarks, made to the Standard-Times of New Bedford and reported through the industry news site SavingsSeafood.com, come on the heels of reports last week that

Williams played a role in an infamous prosecution of the Gloucester Auction, which, at one point, included an authorized entry by NOAA agents into the auction as documented by Gloucester police,

damning report from the Department of Commerce's Inspector General's office.

The IG's probe found widespread prosecutorial abuse and

And late last year, in a sworn deposition in the Gloucester auction case, special agent Michael R. Henry testified that higher-ups at NOAA,

However, repeated decisions now to transfer rather than fire employees involved in the abuses — including ousted NOAA police chief Dale Jones and formerly Gloucester-based NOAA prosecutor Charles Juliand — have caused the fishing industry to doubt Lubchenco's and other Obama administration officials' commitment in reforming the agency, and has raised the wrath of both Republican and Democratic members of Congress who represent coastal communities from Maine to North Carolina.

which pushes for further consolidation of the New England groundfish fleet into the hands of the largest and wealthiest vessel owners, causing unemployment, and wreaking economic havoc in the two cities.

" We're apprehensive about anyone who was involved in the abuses that were documented in the inspector general's report now being transferred to New Bedford, " Mayor Lang told the Standard-Times.

" The individuals who work out of New Bedford, by and large, are highly respected by the fishing community," Lang said. "To bring someone into the mix

"She should be monitoring freshwater pike in the Great Lakes," Lang said, not assigned to the No. 1 value fishing port in the nation, he said."

####

8/23/10, " The longtime federal fisheries police chief, Dale Jones was put on paid administrative leave in April following the first report by Inspector General Todd Zinser,

9/24/10, " Feds find abuse of power in prosecuting fishermen , " Newsday by Mark Harrington released the latest in a series of reports finding fisheries lawyers and enforcement officers abused their power in prosecuting fishermen and dealers like (Warren) Kremin, who lives in Rockland County. Among the most recent charges were 7/13/10, " Lawyer cites ethics issues with NOAA Counsel funds, " Gloucester Times, Richard Gaines

NOAA built a $49 million slush fund obtained by pressuring fishermen which the federal employees used for their own enjoyment, travel, personal vehicles. This is on top of their $5 billion budget.
Obama's NOAA chief Lubchenco will not allow it. ####
7/13/10, Gloucester Times: " The letter also openly challenges Schiffer's written plan not to look back at any miscarriages of justice by NOAA lawyers and agents. Due to Internet transmission problems, Schiffer's office could not be presented with questions about today's story until nearly deadline, so no responses were available....

These distinctions between rules of repose of statutes of limitations are
particularly significant in the context of Section 9658. Rules of repose create substantive
rights, which would be abrogated if Section 9658 were held to affect state rules of repose
— a significantly more ambitious legislative objective than tolling the statute of
limitations. And because the concepts of tolling and accrual are (under state law)
inapplicable to rules of repose, it seems counter-intuitive to toll a rule of repose by means
of a federally-imposed accrual date

Preemption laws are construed narrowly, and it is
generally presumed that Congress does not preempt state law by statute unless it clearly
expresses the intent to do so. See, e.g., New York State Dept. of Social Servs. v.
Dublino, 413 U.S. 405 (1973) (“If Congress is authorized to act in a field, it should
manifest its intention clearly. It will not be presumed that a federal statute was intended
to supersede the exercise of the power of the state unless there is a clear manifestation of
intention to do so. The exercise of federal supremacy is not lightly to be presumed.”).
Requiring that Section 9658 apply only to statutes of limitation (which are
unambiguously referenced in the text of the statute) is consistent with this principle of
narrow construction.
A construction of CERCLA not encompassing rules of repose would also allow
courts to avoid potentially difficult constitutional questions in the application of Section
9658. If the FRCD were held to affect the rule of repose in a case where the repose
period had ended prior to the 1986 enactment of the SARA Amendments, Section 9658
could have the effect of “reviving” a cause of action that is substantively extinct (as
opposed to being only procedurally barred by a statute of limitations). Along the same
lines, it would extinguish the repose rights of potential defendants, arguably violating
their due process rights. See Alfred R. Light, New Federalism, Old Due Process, and
Retroactive Revival: Constitutional Problems with CERCLA’s Amendment of State Law,
40 U. Kan. L. Rev. 365, 392-95 (1992).

Conclusion
Even as the states reach consensus on the recognition of a “discovery rule” for
toxic tort type claims, the application of CERCLA Section 9658 to state statutes of
limitations remains important to litigants, particularly in situations where there is no
underlying CERCLA cleanup involved. The battle lines, however, are also clearly being
drawn in response to the increased number of cases where plaintiffs seek to invoke
CERCLA as a means to circumvent the application of state rules of repose. Despite the
passage of two decades since the enactment of the provision, courts that have addressed
this issue to date are divided on whether Congress intended that Section 9658 should
apply in this context. Until courts achieve clarity on the issue, toxic tort litigants are
well-advised to consider carefully the complexities of CERCLA’s potential application to
state rules of repose, as well as statutes of limitation.

The distinction appears to be recognized in certain other federal laws, as well. 28 U.S.C. § 1658(b)(2), for
example, creates a five-year statute of repose for private actions involving securities fraud. This period
(which is not specifically denoted a “repose” period) is not tolled by fraud and is not (unlike the general
statute of limitations for federal claims set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 1658(a)) dependent on the date on which the
action accrues.

AIG Didn't Report $18.7 Billion of Company Guarantees

December 29, 2010, 3:03 PM EST

By Andrew Frye and Hugh Son

(Updates with consumer advocate in the fourth paragraph, AIG spokesman in the sixth.)

Dec. 29 (Bloomberg) -- American International Group Inc., the bailed-out U.S. insurer, failed to report $18.7 billion of policyholder guarantees at two property-casualty subsidiaries in 2008, a Pennsylvania regulator said.

National Union Fire Insurance Co. of Pittsburgh and American Home Assurance Co., which issued the guarantees to bolster other AIG units, had contingent liabilities tied to the promises of $157 billion on Dec. 31, 2008, compared with the $138.3 billion disclosed at the time, Robert Pratter, the state's acting insurance commissioner, said today in a report.

AIG was instructed by the regulator to limit or end its intra-group guarantees, according to the report. It doesn't face financial penalties, Rosanne Placey, a spokeswoman for the Pennsylvania regulator, said in an e-mail. The New York-based insurer, once the world's largest, was brought to the brink of collapse in September 2008 when the company was unable to meet its obligations without a cash injection from the government.

Failing to report contingent liabilities may be “a serious problem because of the systemic risk for the whole enterprise,” said Robert Hunter, a former Texas insurance commissioner who is now insurance director at the Washington-based Consumer Federation of America.

Insurance companies are required to disclose their subsidiaries' guarantees to state regulators. They aren't bound to recognize the obligations as liabilities on balance sheets.

Remediation Plan

“We have adopted a remediation plan to ensure that our disclosures are more accurate going forward,” Mark Herr, an AIG spokesman, said in an e-mailed statement. “We are not required to establish a liability for these guarantees in which the likelihood of payment is remote.”

AIG came under investigation in Pennsylvania as rivals including Chubb Corp. and Liberty Mutual Holding Co. complained that the company's government backstop was allowing the insurer to sell policies below competitive rates.

Pennsylvania said in the report that AIG's pricing and underwriting were “not out of line” with competitors. The Government Accountability Office, the investigative arm of the U.S. Congress, said in a March 2009 report it found no evidence of under-pricing by AIG.

AIG agrees with Pennsylvania's findings, Robert Schimek, chief financial officer of Chartis, the company's property- casualty business, said in a Dec. 7 letter to the regulator. AIG's units “have the appropriate controls to ensure more accurate disclosures,” Schimek said in the letter, which was attached to the report.

--With assistance from Noah Buhayar in New York. Editors: Dan Reichl, Rick Green.

To contact the reporters on this story: Andrew Frye in New York at afrye@bloomberg.net; Hugh Son in New York at hson1@bloomberg.net

To contact the editors responsible for this story: Dan Kraut at dkraut2@bloomberg.net; David Scheer at dscheer@bloomberg.net.

 

AIG chief invokes Ayn Rand while defending his bailout

Robert Benmosche, chief executive of American International Group (AIG), feels so vindicated by his company's turnaround from bailout-recipient to a company with actual value that he told the Wall Street Journal he was wondering whether he was going to get phone calls saying he was right:

"I was wondering if I might get a call from someone saying maybe 'you were right,' because we look better than we did last May and we can see the finish line from here, and it comes with a profit for the taxpayers," Mr. Benmosche said in an email. "But as I learned in [Ayn Rand's book] 'Atlas Shrugged,' find your Thank Yous from within."

When did Benmosche read "Atlas Shrugged"? After his company received a $182.3 billion bailout from taxpayers, where Uncle Sam became chief shareholder, owning 92 percent of his company? I can't seem to recall the part of the book where Rand said that your company should follow the Federal Reserve in lockstep and not disclose important information to taxpayers regarding what you're doing with their money:

AIG said in a draft of a regulatory filing that the insurer paid banks, which included Goldman Sachs Group Inc. and Societe Generale SA, 100 cents on the dollar for credit-default swaps they bought from the firm. The New York Fed crossed out the reference, according to the e-mails, and AIG excluded the language when the filing was made public on Dec. 24, 2008. The e-mails were obtained by Representative Darrell Issa, ranking member of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee.

The New York Fed took over negotiations between AIG and the banks in November 2008 as losses on the swaps, which were contracts tied to subprime home loans, threatened to swamp the insurer weeks after its taxpayer-funded rescue. The regulator decided that Goldman Sachs and more than a dozen banks would be fully repaid for $62.1 billion of the swaps, prompting lawmakers to call the AIG rescue a "backdoor bailout" of financial firms.

Yes, Mr. Benmosche, you're a regular John Galt. I'll be sure to call you and tell you just that.

There are two mandates of the Federal Reserve Bank. Those are to promote stable prices and to maximum employment. Very soon they will be shown to completely fail on both accounts. The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) after DECADES of rigging the unemployment numbers lower with insane adjustments and flat out lies will REVERSE their biased slant and start reporting realistic numbers as of January 1, 2011 in order to help demolish the Federal Reserve Banking system in the United States. US Changes How IT Reports Long-Term Unemployment 
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2010-12-28-1Ajobless28_ST_N.htm This is NOT an accident or a false flag to steer us away from the truth....THIS IS PART OF THE TAKE DOWN OF THE FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM! Part 2 will be a hyper-inflationary price hikes in all commodities (gold and silver especially!) starting in early January.
Part 3 will be Ron Paul cracking open the secret files of the Fed to expose the fraud, manipulation and VAST secret monetary creation. the finally the the Fed will DIE. As in Dead. Kaput. Over. 2011 will be the turning point for the rebirth of our great nation.

area Development Homepage >> Asset Management >>

Government Funding Sweetens Site Redevelopment With grants and incentives available from the federal to the local levels, brownfields are attracting businesses seeking well-positioned sites.

Concordia res parvae crescent - Work together to accomplish more

Moylan slams EPA for joining lawsuit

By Steven H. Foskett Jr. TELEGRAM & GAZETTE STAFF
sfoskett@telegram.com

Read more: http://www.telegram.com/article/20110105/NEWS/101050435/1003/NEWS03#ixzz1AD03oceG WORCESTER  —  In a blisteringly worded memo, Department of Public Works and Parks Commissioner Robert L. Moylan Jr. called for national reform of how the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency deals with pollution controls imposed on cities and towns.

Mr. Moylan's letter was a response to recent news that the EPA had decided to join a lawsuit filed by the Conservation Law Foundation against the Boston Water and Sewer Commission.

The ramifications of the Boston case, which alleges the city has failed to effectively control storm-water pollution into the Charles, Mystic and Neponset rivers, could affect how Worcester's own storm-water runoff efforts are viewed by the EPA.

Mr. Moylan wrote that the EPA's decision to join the CLF suit is cause for concern, because Worcester holds the same EPA-issued storm-water permit. And also like Boston, the city's current permit has expired and a new permit is awaited. Mr. Moylan has said new orders the EPA has discussed for permit renewal could cost the city $1.2 billion.

“While this legal case does not directly involve Worcester, the actions by the EPA are both disturbing and telling and should cause every municipality great concern,” Mr. Moylan wrote.

The EPA does not seem to be taking into account budgetary struggles of cities such as Worcester, Mr. Moylan wrote. And Mr. Moylan wrote that he was puzzled why the EPA, with “practically unlimited” authority to act against permit violators, even joined the suit.

Mr. Moylan called the CLF an activist group with an extremist viewpoint.

“Worcester needs to be very concerned because like Boston, Worcester does not operate in a perfect world,” he wrote.

Read more: http://www.telegram.com/article/20110105/NEWS/101050435/1003/NEWS03#ixzz1ACzn4Gor

Haven of Vermont: Thinking Local to Be Global-ized??

Submitted by Simha Bode on Wed, 12/29/2010 - 12:45pm.

It has been proven to me, we live in a world where White can mean Black and 2+2 can equal 5. Think Global act Local... Sounds positive. Is it?

Who is ICLEI? International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives   What do they do? They are an NGO that specializes in regional "sustainable development" helping local governments and town councils implement Agenda 21. If you don't know what The Agenda for the 21st Century is, I would advise you to look into it. It is an all-encompassing UN Action Plan (1992). The other part of this big plan is in the Global Biodiversity Assessment Report.  (resource links bellow)

I am not getting into all that this action plan does, it is basically a Global plan implemented on a Local level by "Non Government" fronts, who implement UN Policies that take control of our representative government and put it into the hands of regional, non-elected boards. You can guess who these boards are working for and what their goals are. If you don't think they could pull this off, open your eyes, A. 21 already has deep roots in all aspects of our society across the country.

Our educational system has been deeply infiltrated, from grammar school to high school the children are being taught to "think Global", Universities are spitting out "sustainable Development" activists. Some 550 communities across the US are ICLEI member and pay dues to them and are required to follow the ICLEI charter. The Obama admin. just pushed to make Millions of undeveloped acreage into protected fed. lands (which is the beginning of the "wild-lands" of Agenda 21). Senate Bill 787 the Clean Water Act puts our water under fed. control. Canada just passed Bill C 36, which is compared to our patriots act. Don't think it is in VT?

Think again... we have three community members of ICLEI; Burlington, S. Burlington and Brattleboro. Look at the title of Vermont's Law School's Initiative for the Environment, RECALIBRATING THE LAW OF HUMANS WITH THE LAWS OF NATURE....Sounds harmless enough? When you realize the implications of giving Nature superior rights over humans, you wont think so.

Agenda 21's "smart growth communities" and "wildlands" plan, separates man from nature so he wont endanger it; i.e Nature has rights over man. Sounds ludicrous I know.

(*added) This just posted on Vt Digger: 46 municipalities to receive $417,660 for planning as part of Vermont's "smart growth strategy." Smart Growth Vermont has a nice web site and it all "sounds" great. Is it just coincidence they use the same terminology as the UN's A.21 plan, have the same principals and are located in a ICLEI member community? If they are following A.21 Smart Growth why is there no reference on the web site?

Are we selling our sovereignty because our federal reserve notes have been stolen, and this is the remedy the thieves have offered? 

I AM ALL FOR LOCAL, ORGANIC, CONSERVATION, ECOLOGY AND ALL THAT JAZZ! Don't get me wrong... It is just the fact that 2+2=5. Some towns have had enough of ICLEI and are taking action. Spokane, WA is one of them, they drafted a municipal code to be able to sever ties with ICLEI and an amendment to the city charter. I will quote one section of the code,

"WHEREAS, the people of the City of Spokane wish to see the Constitution and its Republican form of government upheld, along with the natural rights of each and every American to the unencumbered fruits of their labor, it is necessary to sever all ties with ICLEI, the United Nations, or any other entity that wishes to work against the Constitution and natural rights of the people of the United States of America."

A big goal of A.21 is to abolish private property, remember they use a slow phased programming so it will be excepted with little objection!... Do some research, figure it out for yourself and then take action, we need all hands on deck! Any group claiming "local action" is to be examined, we need to understand their origins, ties, the plans they are following and specifically the MONEY trail! Now is the perfect time for ICLEI to come in...(*guess I spoke to soon) Do you think our towns and elected officials are looking for funding during the recession? ICLEI will come into help, they aren't the only NGO's doing this either. They start with the lowest levels of governance, this is their cloak. Remember this is a Word-Smithing Game, It all sound so great; sustainable, green, bio-diversity, local, etc etc etc. Put on your goggles of humility, don't assume 2+2=4. Spread the word.

In Solidarity, Simha

I did a lot of reading of the original documents for this piece, which I recommend. I will leave you with just two links on the same site. their home page that is the best data base, with relevant documents and information (+Videos), that I could find, and their ICLEI Primer page.... Maybe I will post some more later. (copy and paste)

http://www.freedomadvocates.org 

 

We conclude that failure to obtain written consent and in the absence of harm or injury and without QA or QAPP is arbitrary and capricious and is punishable for FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TYRANNY, EXTORTION, FRAUD AND DERELICTION OF DUTIES damages and civil penalties under THE MORRILL ACT, SHERMAN ACT, AND CLAYTON ACT FOR RETRIBUTION of $450,000 per day ESTABLISHMENT OF RELIGION AND SLAVERY SINCE JANUARY 1, 1983.

TITLE 33 > CHAPTER 26 > SUBCHAPTER V > § 1371. Authority under other laws and regulations

Expansion of surface mining operations after January 1, 1976 may be recognized as a vested nonconforming use under the doctrine of "diminishing assets” as set forth in Hansen Brothers Enterprises, Inc. v. Board of Supervisors (1996) 12 Cal.4th 533.Authority: Sections 2755, 2776 and 2775, Public Resources Code; Hansen Brothers Enterprises, Inc. v. Board of Supervisors (1996) 12 Cal.4th 533.) Reference: Calvert v. County of Yuba, (2007) 145 Cal. App. 4th 613. Encourage the production.

In these and the like Cases, when the Government is dissolved, the People are at liberty to provide for themselves, by erecting a new Legislative, differing from the other, by the change of Persons, or Form, or both as they shall find it most for their safety and good. For the Society can never, by the fault of another, lose the Native and Original Right it has to preserve it self, which can only be done by a settled Legislative, and a fair and impartial execution of the Laws made by it. But the state of Mankind is not so miserable that they are not capable of using this Remedy, till it be too late to look for any. To tell People they may provide for themselves, by erecting a new Legislative, when by Oppression, Artifice, or being delivered over to a Foreign Power, their old one is gone, is only to tell them they may expect Relief, when it is too late, and the evil is past Cure. This is in effect no more than to bid them first be Slaves, and then to take care of their Liberty; and when their Chains are on, tell them, they may act like Freemen. This, if barely so, is rather Mockery than Relief; and Men can never be secure from Tyranny, if there be no means to escape it, till they are perfectly under it: And therefore it is, that they have not only a Right to get out of it, but to prevent it. - Locke

“Whenever the Federal Government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unaithoritative, void, and of no force.” Thomas Jefferson

Securing the Republic

Thomas Jefferson, Preamble to a Bill for the More General Diffusion of Knowledge

Fall 1778 Papers 2:526--27

Whereas it appeareth that however certain forms of government are better calculated than others to protect individuals in the free exercise of their natural rights, and are at the same time themselves better guarded against degeneracy, yet experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms, those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny; and it is believed that the most effectual means of preventing this would be, to illuminate, as far as practicable, the minds of the people at large, and more especially to give them knowledge of those facts, which history exhibiteth, that, possessed thereby of the experience of other ages and countries, they may be enabled to know ambition under all its shapes, and prompt to exert their natural powers to defeat its purposes; And whereas it is generally true that that people will be happiest whose laws are best, and are best administered, and that laws will be wisely formed, and honestly administered, in proportion as those who form and administer them are wise and honest; whence it becomes expedient for promoting the publick happiness that those persons, whom nature hath endowed with genius and virtue, should be rendered by liberal education worthy to receive, and able to guard the sacred deposit of the rights and liberties of their fellow citizens, and that they should be called to that charge without regard to wealth, birth or other accidental condition or circumstance; but the indigence of the greater number disabling them from so educating, at their own expence, those of their children whom nature hath fitly formed and disposed to become useful instruments for the public, it is better that such should be sought for and educated at the common expence of all, than that the happiness of all should be confided to the weak or wicked: . . .
The Founders' Constitution
Volume 1, Chapter 18, Document 11
http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch18s11.html
The University of Chicago Press

The Papers of Thomas Jefferson . Edited by Julian P. Boyd et al. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1950--.

MANUFACTURED JURISDICTION: "the circumstances relied upon to establish federal jurisdiction over the offenses charged were artificially created by the Government in an attempt to exceed the proper scope of federal law enforcement." 501 F.Supp. at 1205. The revised PHG of 300 g/L is two orders of magnitude greater than the applicable numeric chemical-specific standards identified in ROD 5 for the protection of freshwater. COPPER, CADMIUM, AND ZINC; QAPP Information: QA Info Missing; Keswick dam to Cottonwood creek; Final Listing Decision: Delist from 303(d) list. JUNE 15, 2010;

Water: Initiation of Risk Assessments for Chemicals in Drinking Water [07/09/10]

Comparison of MCLs and PHGs for Regulated Contaminants in Drinking Water

Last Update:  July 24, 2010 This page compares maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) and public health goals (PHGs). 

Draft Clean Water Strategy is released

Posted by the EPA on August 20th, 2010 - 11:58 AM

Regional Screening Levels (Formerly PRGs)

Regional Screening Level Resources

What's New

Frequently Asked Questions

Screening Level Calculator

User's Guide

Online Screen Level Calculator

PRG (RSL) Contact Information

Region 9-Specific Information

NOTE: The 2004 version of the Region 9 PRG Table will remain at this web site in case users need to reference this historical document. However, the 2004 Table should no longer be used for contaminant screening of environmental media because it has been replaced with the more current Table above.

Information at this link provided for reference purposes onlyRegion 9 PRGs 2004 Table (PDF) (16pp, 962 K)

Information at this link provided for reference purposes onlyUser's Guide/Technical Background Document (PDF) (29pp, 284 K)

WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD, CA - JOINT & SEVERAL TRESSPASSERS

Stimulus Funds Awarded: $25,592,671.40 - LIQUIDATED DAMAGES; DUNS: 808321913 SEIZURE & EJECTMENT

Wednesday, December 29, 2010

Water Quality Bills in the Remainder of the 111th Congress


Claudia Copeland
Specialist in Resources and Environmental Policy

The Senate and House could consider a number of water quality bills some time during the remaining days of the 111 th Congress. Recent press reports have indicated that legislators, especially in the Senate, are seeking to gather support for several bills, possibly packaged with others dealing with public lands and wildlife protection. This report describes 10 water quality bills pending in the Senate that could be candidates for consideration during the lame duck session of the 111 th Congress.

All of the water quality issues discussed below have been highlighted in recent press reports for inclusion in a package. All but one would amend the Clean Water Act (CWA), and all were approved by the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee in recent weeks. Similar House bills have been introduced for all but one of the Senate measures discussed in this report, and the House has passed two of them. With the exception of a bill on Chesapeake Bay, the individual bills are not likely to be considered controversial. Most of the individual bills would either reauthorize existing CWA provisions that address water quality concerns in specified geographic areas, or would establish similar provisions for other regions or watersheds. These water quality issues and related 111 th Congress bills are:

The descriptions in this report are based on bills as reported by the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, although if any of the bills were to receive further consideration, provisions could differ from the reported version or amendments offered. Further, if the Senate or House were to consider a group of water quality bills, the package might include more or fewer than those discussed here. Also, whether sufficient time remains for necessary action by both the Senate and House is highly uncertain. 

 

AIG Insurance policy - AISLIC

$336,706,450 + $93,590,773 = $430,297,223 PAYABLE TO BEGIN SUPERFUND REMEDIATION

* 9 = $3,872,675,007 NONUPLED DAMAGES

TRUST 1

 

TITLE 28 > PART V > CHAPTER 125 > § 1964 Prev | Next

§ 1964. Constructive notice of pending actions

How Current is This? Where the law of a State requires a notice of an action concerning real property pending in a court of the State to be registered, recorded, docketed, or indexed in a particular manner, or in a certain office or county or parish in order to give constructive notice of the action as it relates to the real property, and such law authorizes a notice of an action concerning real property pending in a United States district court to be registered, recorded, docketed, or indexed in the same manner, or in the same place, those requirements of the State law must be complied with in order to give constructive notice of such an action pending in a United States district court as it relates to real property in such State.

TITLE 28 > PART VI > CHAPTER 151 > § 2201 Prev | Next

§ 2201. Creation of remedy

How Current is This?

(a) In a case of actual controversy within its jurisdiction, except with respect to Federal taxes other than actions brought under section 7428 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, a proceeding under section 505 or 1146 of title 11 , or in any civil action involving an antidumping or countervailing duty proceeding regarding a class or kind of merchandise of a free trade area country (as defined in section 516A(f)(10) of the Tariff Act of 1930), as determined by the administering authority, any court of the United States, upon the filing of an appropriate pleading, may declare the rights and other legal relations of any interested party seeking such declaration, whether or not further relief is or could be sought. Any such declaration shall have the force and effect of a final judgment or decree and shall be reviewable as such. (b) For limitations on actions brought with respect to drug patents see section 505 or 512 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.

TITLE 28 > PART VI > CHAPTER 151 > § 2202 Prev | Next

§ 2202. Further relief

How Current is This? Further necessary or proper relief based on a declaratory judgment or decree may be granted, after reasonable notice and hearing, against any adverse party whose rights have been determined by such judgment.

TITLE 28 > PART VI

PART VI—PARTICULAR PROCEEDINGS

How Current is This?

TITLE 28 > PART IV > CHAPTER 91 > § 1503 Prev | Next

§ 1503. Set-offs

How Current is This? The United States Court of Federal Claims shall have jurisdiction to render judgment upon any set-off or demand by the United States against any plaintiff in such court.

SET-OFF

Defalcation; a demand which a defendant makes against the plaintiff in the suit for the purpose of liquidating the whole or a part of his claim.

A set-off was unknown to the common law, according to which mutual debts were distinct and inextinguishable except by actual payment or release.

The statute 2 Geo. II., which has been generally adopted in the United States with some modifications however, allowed, in cases of mutual debts, the defendant to set his debt against the other, either by pleading it in bar, or giving it in evidence, when proper notice had been given of such intention, under the general issue. The statute being made for the benefit of the defendant, is not compulsory the defendant may Waive his right, and bring a cross action against the plaintiff.

It seems, however, that in some cases of intestate estates, and of insolvent estates, perhaps owing to the peculiar wording of the law, the statute has been held to operate on the rights of the parties before action brought, or an act done by either of them.

Set-off takes place only in actions on contracts for the payment of money, as assumpsit, debt and covenant. A set-off is not allowed in actions arising ex delicto, as, upon the case, trespass, replevin or detinue.

The matters which may be set off, may be mutual liquidated debts or damages, but unliquidated damages cannot be set off. The statutes refer only to mutual unconnected debts; for at common law, when the nature of the employment, transaction or dealings necessarily constitute an account consisting of receipts and payments, debts and credits, the balance only is considered to be the debt, and therefore in an action, it is not necessary in such cases either to plead or give notice of set-off.

In general, when the government is plaintiff, no set-off will be allowed. But when an act of congress authorizes such set-off, it may be made.

Judgments in the same rights may be set off against each other at the discretion of the court.

TITLE 28 > PART IV > CHAPTER 91 > § 1505 Prev | Next

§ 1505. Indian claims

How Current is This? The United States Court of Federal Claims shall have jurisdiction of any claim against the United States accruing after August 13, 1946, in favor of any tribe, band, or other identifiable group of American Indians residing within the territorial limits of the United States or Alaska whenever such claim is one arising under the Constitution, laws or treaties of the United States, or Executive orders of the President, or is one which otherwise would be cognizable in the Court of Federal Claims if the claimant were not an Indian tribe, band or group.

TITLE 28 > PART IV > CHAPTER 91 > § 1498 Prev | Next

§ 1498. Patent and copyright cases

How Current is This?

(a) Whenever an invention described in and covered by a patent of the United States is used or manufactured by or for the United States without license of the owner thereof or lawful right to use or manufacture the same, the owner's remedy shall be by action against the United States in the United States Court of Federal Claims for the recovery of his reasonable and entire compensation for such use and manufacture. Reasonable and entire compensation shall include the owner's reasonable costs, including reasonable fees for expert witnesses and attorneys, in pursuing the action if the owner is an independent inventor, a nonprofit organization, or an entity that had no more than 500 employees at any time during the 5-year period preceding the use or manufacture of the patented invention by or for the United States. Nothwithstanding  [1] the preceding sentences, unless the action has been pending for more than 10 years from the time of filing to the time that the owner applies for such costs and fees, reasonable and entire compensation shall not include such costs and fees if the court finds that the position of the United States was substantially justified or that special circumstances make an award unjust. For the purposes of this section, the use or manufacture of an invention described in and covered by a patent of the United States by a contractor, a subcontractor, or any person, firm, or corporation for the Government and with the authorization or consent of the Government, shall be construed as use or manufacture for the United States. The court shall not award compensation under this section if the claim is based on the use or manufacture by or for the United States of any article owned, leased, used by, or in the possession of the United States prior to July 1, 1918. A Government employee shall have the right to bring suit against the Government under this section except where he was in a position to order, influence, or induce use of the invention by the Government. This section shall not confer a right of action on any patentee or any assignee of such patentee with respect to any invention discovered or invented by a person while in the employment or service of the United States, where the invention was related to the official functions of the employee, in cases in which such functions included research and development, or in the making of which Government time, materials or facilities were used. (b) Hereafter, whenever the copyright in any work protected under the copyright laws of the United States shall be infringed by the United States, by a corporation owned or controlled by the United States, or by a contractor, subcontractor, or any person, firm, or corporation acting for the Government and with the authorization or consent of the Government, the exclusive action which may be brought for such infringement shall be an action by the copyright owner against the United States in the Court of Federal Claims for the recovery of his reasonable and entire compensation as damages for such infringement, including the minimum statutory damages as set forth in section 504 (c) of title 17 , United States Code: Provided, That a Government employee shall have a right of action against the Government under this subsection except where he was in a position to order, influence, or induce use of the copyrighted work by the Government: Provided, however, That this subsection shall not confer a right of action on any copyright owner or any assignee of such owner with respect to any copyrighted work prepared by a person while in the employment or service of the United States, where the copyrighted work was prepared as a part of the official functions of the employee, or in the preparation of which Government time, material, or facilities were used: And provided further, That before such action against the United States has been instituted the appropriate corporation owned or controlled by the United States or the head of the appropriate department or agency of the Government, as the case may be, is authorized to enter into an agreement with the copyright owner in full settlement and compromise for the damages accruing to him by reason of such infringement and to settle the claim administratively out of available appropriations. Except as otherwise provided by law, no recovery shall be had for any infringement of a copyright covered by this subsection committed more than three years prior to the filing of the complaint or counterclaim for infringement in the action, except that the period between the date of receipt of a written claim for compensation by the Department or agency of the Government or corporation owned or controlled by the United States, as the case may be, having authority to settle such claim and the date of mailing by the Government of a notice to the claimant that his claim has been denied shall not be counted as a part of the three years, unless suit is brought before the last-mentioned date. (c) The provisions of this section shall not apply to any claim arising in a foreign country. (d) Hereafter, whenever a plant variety protected by a certificate of plant variety protection under the laws of the United States shall be infringed by the United States, by a corporation owned or controlled by the United States, or by a contractor, subcontractor, or any person, firm, or corporation acting for the Government, and with the authorization and consent of the Government, the exclusive remedy of the owner of such certificate shall be by action against the United States in the Court of Federal Claims for the recovery of his reasonable and entire compensation as damages for such infringement: Provided, That a Government employee shall have a right of action against the Government under this subsection except where he was in a position to order, influence, or induce use of the protected plant variety by the Government: Provided, however, That this subsection shall not confer a right of action on any certificate owner or any assignee of such owner with respect to any protected plant variety made by a person while in the employment or service of the United States, where such variety was prepared as a part of the official functions of the employee, or in the preparation of which Government time, material, or facilities were used: And provided further, That before such action against the United States has been instituted, the appropriate corporation owned or controlled by the United States or the head of the appropriate agency of the Government, as the case may be, is authorized to enter into an agreement with the certificate owner in full settlement and compromise, for the damages accrued to him by reason of such infringement and to settle the claim administratively out of available appropriations. (e) Subsections (b) and (c) of this section apply to exclusive rights in mask works under chapter 9 of title 17 , and to exclusive rights in designs under chapter 13 of title 17 , to the same extent as such subsections apply to copyrights.

 

TITLE 28 > PART V > CHAPTER 115 > § 1738C Prev | Next

§ 1738C. Certain acts, records, and proceedings and the effect thereof

How Current is This? No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such relationship.

TITLE 28 > PART V > CHAPTER 121 > § 1861 Prev | Next

§ 1861. Declaration of policy

How Current is This? It is the policy of the United States that all litigants in Federal courts entitled to trial by jury shall have the right to grand and petit juries selected at random from a fair cross section of the community in the district or division wherein the court convenes. It is further the policy of the United States that all citizens shall have the opportunity to be considered for service on grand and petit juries in the district courts of the United States, and shall have an obligation to serve as jurors when summoned for that purpose.

TITLE 28 > PART V > CHAPTER 121 > § 1872 Prev | Next

§ 1872. Issues of fact in Supreme Court

How Current is This? In all original actions at law in the Supreme Court against citizens of the United States, issues of fact shall be tried by a jury.

TITLE 28 > PART V > CHAPTER 121 > § 1873 Prev | Next

§ 1873. Admiralty and maritime cases

How Current is This? In any case of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction relating to any matter of contract or tort arising upon or concerning any vessel of twenty tons or upward, enrolled and licensed for the coasting trade, and employed in the business of commerce and navigation between places in different states upon the lakes and navigable waters connecting said lakes, the trial of all issues of fact shall be by jury if either party demands it.

TITLE 28 > PART V > CHAPTER 127 > § 2007 Prev | Next

§ 2007. Imprisonment for debt

How Current is This?

(a) A person shall not be imprisoned for debt on a writ of execution or other process issued from a court of the United States in any State wherein imprisonment for debt has been abolished. All modifications, conditions, and restrictions upon such imprisonment provided by State law shall apply to any writ of execution or process issued from a court of the United States in accordance with the procedure applicable in such State. (b) Any person arrested or imprisoned in any State on a writ of execution or other process issued from any court of the United States in a civil action shall have the same jail privileges and be governed by the same regulations as persons confined in like cases on process issued from the courts of such State. The same requirements governing discharge as are applicable in such State shall apply. Any proceedings for discharge shall be conducted before a United States magistrate judge for the judicial district wherein the defendant is held.

DECLARATION OF MR. T.W. ARMAN - DEMAND FOR ANSWER

INTERVENTION IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
EASTERN DISTRICT COURT OF CALIFORNIA

TWO MINERS & 360, 2744, 4400, 8000,
52,000, 88,000, 103 million ACRES of LAND
T.W. ARMAN and IRON MOUNTAIN
MINES, INC. et al, OWNER & OPERATOR
and on behalf of all others similarly situated
CITIZENS and STATESMEN in loco parentis,
parens patriae, supersedeas, qui tam, intervention.
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
STATE OF CALIFORNIA v.
BAYER CROP SCIENCE FKA AVENTIS
FRAUDULENT DELECTUS PERSONAE
ABSOLUTE SUPERSEDEAS OF RIGHT
WRIT DE EJECTIONE FIRMAE; WASTE
PETITION FOR ADVERSE CLAIMS WRITS
OF POSSESSION & EJECTMENT; FRAUD &
DECLARED DETRIMENT & NEGLECT &
FAILURE; DECEIT: NONUPLED DAMAGES
JOINT AND SEVERAL TRESPASSERS,
SURRENDER & EJECTMENT & TRUSTS

Civ. 2:91-cv-00768- USCA No. 09−17411,
in re: USCA No. 09-70047, USCA No 09-71150
USCFC No. 09-207 L
FILED UNDER THE GREAT SEAL
INTERVENTION OF RIGHT, VOID & VACATE
ABSOLUTE ORDER FOR INSPECTION
PETITION FOR EMERGENCY REVIEW
ORDER FOR REINSTATMENT OF CLAIMS
ORDER FOR CONSOLIDATION OF COURTS
CLOSE AND HOLD OF THE MORMAER –
WRONGFUL TAKING, FALSE PRETENSES, &c.
ABSENCE OF DELECTUS PERSONAE, QUI TAM
INTERVENTION IN CAMERA STELLATA, TRUSTS
AND ILLEGAL COMBINATIONS, DEMAND FOR
SECURITY AND COLLATERAL. CLAYTON ACT
MR. T.W. ARMAN Annuit Coeptis; persona Insidiae;
Qui tam; in camera stellata: audacibus annue coeptis;
APPLICATION OF THE MONROE DOCTRINE
WITH VERIFICATION BY AFFIDAVIT, DANGER
TO OUR PEACE AND SAFETY,
FRAUD UPON THE COURT;
AUTHORITIES OF JUSTICES JAY, BRANDEIS,
TANEY, MENDOZA, BRANNON, & MARSHALL
GIVE US OUR LIBERTY! EVACUATE.
APEX LAW ACTION, REMISSION, REVERSION,
DETINUE SUR BAILMENT
LIEN & FORECLOSURE ON PIRACY

CONSPIRACY; EVIL UPON THE PUBLIC TRUST; APEX LAW AGGRAVATED
LARCENY OF MINING COMPANY SECURITY & COLLATERAL LR10-20762
INNOCENT PRISONERS OF THE EPA - DOJ SINCE 1983
FREE MR. T.W. ARMAN & IRON MOUNTAIN MINES, INC.
Administrative - EPA Order 3120.1b Scientific misconduct, fabrication or knowing falsification of
data, research procedures, or data analysis is an offense which can result in immediate removal/ Suspension
and Debarment / Civil Sanctions / Fines / Local AUSA Must Decide If Fraud Meets Criminal
Prosecution Threshold / Culpability / Harm
Laboratory Fraud, Title 18 United States Criminal Code; Is It Criminal or Civil?
Fraud - 18 USC 1341 - 1343 , PROCEDURAL FRAUD, MEASUREMENT FRAUD
False Statements - 18 USC 1001
Conspiracy - 18 USC 371
Concealment of a felony - 18 USC 4 (misprision)
False Claims - 18 USC 287
Obstruction of Justice - 18 USC 1505
Penalties up to 20 years imprisonment for destroying, concealing or falsifying records with intent to
obstruct or impede a legal investigation
"Government is not reason; it is not eloquence; it is force. Like fire; it is a dangerous servant and a
fearful master." - George Washington

INTERVENTION OF RIGHT, REINSTATEMENT AND CONSOLIDATION
We consider a question that has split the federal courts: May a non-settling PRP intervene in litigation
to oppose a consent decree incorporating a settlement that, if approved, would bar contribution from
the settling PRP? We join the Eighth and Tenth Circuits in holding that the answer is “yes.”
in looking at the substance of the matter, they can see that it "is a clear, unmistakable infringement
of rights secured by the fundamental law." Booth v. Illinois , 184 U.S. 425 , 429 .
ABSENCE OF DELECTUS PERSONAE
I have received copies by fax of motions and orders from your court and most recent correspondence
from John Hutchens such as the following. Your court is a manifest injustice in error coram vobis.
TO THE CLERK OF THE COURT MR. HARRY VINE AND JUDGE JOHN MENDEZ
ERROR AND MISTAKE OF IDENTITY, FATAL DEFECT OF SERVICE, FRAUD JUDGE
Dear Mr. Harry Vine,
I received an envelope at P.O. box 182, Canyon, Ca. 94516, but apparently addressed to Mr. T.W.
Arman. As you know, Mr. Arman has been the subject of litigation in your Court since 1991, so you
should be able to address correspondence to him without my assistance.
As this is not the first time I have informed you of this matter, I assume no responsibility for your
failure to effect service upon Mr. T.W. Arman in these matters.
That said, I would like to take this opportunity to inform you of some other corrections that need to
be made to your court that you should be aware of.
First, there appears to be some confusion in your court concerning ARMAN. Your court continues to
oppress Mr. T.W. Arman regarding certain mine drainage at Iron Mountain Mine, which is actually
the result of the actions of ARMAN, “archaeal Richmond Mine acidophilic nanoorganisms”, so
named by Dr. Jillian Banfield of the University of California at Berkeley, and if you would have addressed
your summary judgment to ARMAN at this address, would probably have been correct.
As the curator for the College of the Hummingbird and the Hummingbird Institute, and at the behest
of Mr. T.W. Arman, the Arman Mines Institute, the Arman Mines Ministry of Natural Resources, the
Arman Mines Hazard and Remediation Directorate and Disaster Assistance Directorate, it is my duty
as resident expert to convey to you the facts concerning allegations of ‘hazardous’ substances.

 

Since there are no "hazardous" materials at Iron Mountain Mines we wish you would stop demonizing,
libeling and slandering the good name of Iron Mountain Mine and Mr. T.W. Arman, as these damages
continue to mount against the United States of America State of California and your court.
Furthermore, since Mr. T.W. Arman has been trying for years to supply his minerals to farmers, gardeners,
landscapers, horticulturalists, and others who work in agricultural enterprises that provide our
food and sustain our environment, and it is well documented that minerals are necessary, for instance:
“Minerals in the soil control the metabolism of plants, animals and man.
All of life will be either healthy or unhealthy according to the fertility of the soil.” This was a
statement made by Dr Alexus Carrel, Nobel Prize Winner, in 1912. Almost a hundred years
later, agriculturist and writer, Graham Harvey, wrote in The Daily Telegraph , 18 February
2006: “Britain's once fertile soil has been systematically stripped of its crucial minerals by industrial
farming, leaving our fruit and vegetables tasteless and a nation in chronic ill health.”
William Albrecht (1896-1974 Illinois), referred to as the Father of Soil Research for his pioneering
studies of the effects of infertile soil on plants and animals, warned in 1930s that if the
land was not remineralised, there would be a massive increase in human degenerative diseases.
Therefore, we are of the opinion that your actions are an act of aggression and war crime of attrition
on us. Please void and vacate, grant us intervention, remission, reversion, & detinue sur bailment.
In fact our minerals were naturally distributed by the cycles of the seasons and the annual flooding
that for half a million years fertilized the great valleys of California. In 1943 the United States of
America State of California constructed the Shasta dam forever destroying this process, at the same
time killing all the native anadramous (invasive and migratory species) such as Chinook Salmon of
the McCloud river that were propagated around the world by the United States Baird Hatchery.
Now this court has apparently tried to blame Mr. T.W. Arman for these fisheries demise.
We really must take exception to the federal government perpetration such a heinous deception.
That you and your court aid and abet the perpetrators of this villainy is despotic and alarming.

"There is no crueler tyranny than that which is exercised under cover of law, and with the colors
of justice" - U.S. v. Jannotti, 673 F.2d 578, 614 (3d Cir. 1982)

TITLE 15 > CHAPTER 1 > § 1
§ 1. Trusts, etc., in restraint of trade illegal; penalty
Every contract, combination in the form of trust or otherwise, or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or
commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, is declared to be illegal. Every person
who shall make any contract or engage in any combination or conspiracy hereby declared to be illegal
shall be deemed guilty of a felony, and, on conviction thereof, shall be punished by fine not exceeding
$100,000,000 if a corporation, or, if any other person, $1,000,000, or by imprisonment not
exceeding 10 years, or by both said punishments, in the discretion of the court.
TITLE 15 > CHAPTER 1 > § 2
§ 2. Monopolizing trade a felony; penalty
Every person who shall monopolize, or attempt to monopolize, or combine or conspire with any
other person or persons, to monopolize any part of the trade or commerce among the several States,
or with foreign nations, shall be deemed guilty of a felony, and, on conviction thereof, shall be punished
by fine not exceeding $100,000,000 if a corporation, or, if any other person, $1,000,000, or by
imprisonment not exceeding 10 years, or by both said punishments, in the discretion of the court.
TITLE 15 > CHAPTER 1 > § 3
§ 3. Trusts in Territories or District of Columbia illegal; combination a felony
(a) Every contract, combination in form of trust or otherwise, or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or
commerce in any Territory of the United States or of the District of Columbia, or in restraint of trade

TITLE 15 > CHAPTER 1 > § 1
§ 1. Trusts, etc., in restraint of trade illegal; penalty
Every contract, combination in the form of trust or otherwise, or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or
commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, is declared to be illegal. Every person
who shall make any contract or engage in any combination or conspiracy hereby declared to be illegal
shall be deemed guilty of a felony, and, on conviction thereof, shall be punished by fine not exceeding
$100,000,000 if a corporation, or, if any other person, $1,000,000, or by imprisonment not
exceeding 10 years, or by both said punishments, in the discretion of the court.
TITLE 15 > CHAPTER 1 > § 2
§ 2. Monopolizing trade a felony; penalty
Every person who shall monopolize, or attempt to monopolize, or combine or conspire with any
other person or persons, to monopolize any part of the trade or commerce among the several States,
or with foreign nations, shall be deemed guilty of a felony, and, on conviction thereof, shall be punished
by fine not exceeding $100,000,000 if a corporation, or, if any other person, $1,000,000, or by
imprisonment not exceeding 10 years, or by both said punishments, in the discretion of the court.
TITLE 15 > CHAPTER 1 > § 3
§ 3. Trusts in Territories or District of Columbia illegal; combination a felony
(a) Every contract, combination in form of trust or otherwise, or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or
commerce in any Territory of the United States or of the District of Columbia, or in restraint of trade

TITLE 15 > CHAPTER 1 > § 1
§ 1. Trusts, etc., in restraint of trade illegal; penalty
Every contract, combination in the form of trust or otherwise, or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or
commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, is declared to be illegal. Every person
who shall make any contract or engage in any combination or conspiracy hereby declared to be illegal
shall be deemed guilty of a felony, and, on conviction thereof, shall be punished by fine not exceeding
$100,000,000 if a corporation, or, if any other person, $1,000,000, or by imprisonment not
exceeding 10 years, or by both said punishments, in the discretion of the court.
TITLE 15 > CHAPTER 1 > § 2
§ 2. Monopolizing trade a felony; penalty
Every person who shall monopolize, or attempt to monopolize, or combine or conspire with any
other person or persons, to monopolize any part of the trade or commerce among the several States,
or with foreign nations, shall be deemed guilty of a felony, and, on conviction thereof, shall be punished
by fine not exceeding $100,000,000 if a corporation, or, if any other person, $1,000,000, or by
imprisonment not exceeding 10 years, or by both said punishments, in the discretion of the court.
TITLE 15 > CHAPTER 1 > § 3
§ 3. Trusts in Territories or District of Columbia illegal; combination a felony
(a) Every contract, combination in form of trust or otherwise, or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or
commerce in any Territory of the United States or of the District of Columbia, or in restraint of trade

TITLE 15 > CHAPTER 1 > § 1
§ 1. Trusts, etc., in restraint of trade illegal; penalty
Every contract, combination in the form of trust or otherwise, or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or
commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, is declared to be illegal. Every person
who shall make any contract or engage in any combination or conspiracy hereby declared to be illegal
shall be deemed guilty of a felony, and, on conviction thereof, shall be punished by fine not exceeding
$100,000,000 if a corporation, or, if any other person, $1,000,000, or by imprisonment not
exceeding 10 years, or by both said punishments, in the discretion of the court.
TITLE 15 > CHAPTER 1 > § 2
§ 2. Monopolizing trade a felony; penalty
Every person who shall monopolize, or attempt to monopolize, or combine or conspire with any
other person or persons, to monopolize any part of the trade or commerce among the several States,
or with foreign nations, shall be deemed guilty of a felony, and, on conviction thereof, shall be punished
by fine not exceeding $100,000,000 if a corporation, or, if any other person, $1,000,000, or by
imprisonment not exceeding 10 years, or by both said punishments, in the discretion of the court.
TITLE 15 > CHAPTER 1 > § 3
§ 3. Trusts in Territories or District of Columbia illegal; combination a felony
(a) Every contract, combination in form of trust or otherwise, or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or
commerce in any Territory of the United States or of the District of Columbia, or in restraint of trade

such manufacturing technologies to United States industries. (c) Reports The Council, through the
Director of the National Nanotechnology Coordination Office, shall submit to the Senate Committee
on Commerce, Science, and Transportation and the House of Representatives Committee on Science—
(1) within 6 months after December 3, 2003, a report identifying which agency shall be the
lead agency and which other agencies, if any, will be responsible for establishing the Centers described
in this section; and (2) within 18 months after December 3, 2003, a report describing how the
Centers described in this section have been established.
TITLE 15 > CHAPTER 1 > § 21
§ 21. Enforcement provisions
(a) Commission, Board, or Secretary authorized to enforce compliance Authority to enforce compliance
with sections 13 , 14 , 18 , and 19 of this title by the persons respectively subject thereto is
vested in the Surface Transportation Board where applicable to common carriers subject to jurisdiction
under subtitle IV of title 49 ; in the Federal Communications Commission where applicable to
common carriers engaged in wire or radio communication or radio transmission of energy; in the
Secretary of Transportation where applicable to air carriers and foreign air carriers subject to part A
of subtitle VII of title 49 ; in the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System where applicable
to banks, banking associations, and trust companies; and in the Federal Trade Commission where
applicable to all other character of commerce to be exercised as follows: (b) Issuance of complaints
for violations; hearing; intervention; filing of testimony; report; cease and desist orders; reopening
and alteration of reports or orders Whenever the Commission, Board, or Secretary vested with jurisdiction
thereof shall have reason to believe that any person is violating or has violated any of the
provisions of sections 13 , 14 , 18 , and 19 of this title, it shall issue and serve upon such person and
the Attorney General a complaint stating its charges in that respect, and containing a notice of a hearing
upon a day and at a place therein fixed at least thirty days after the service of said complaint. The
person so complained of shall have the right to appear at the place and time so fixed and show cause
why an order should not be entered by the Commission, Board, or Secretary requiring such person to
cease and desist from the violation of the law so charged in said complaint. The Attorney General
shall have the right to intervene and appear in said proceeding and any person may make application,

and upon good cause shown may be allowed by the Commission, Board, or Secretary, to intervene
and appear in said proceeding by counsel or in person. The testimony in any such proceeding shall be
reduced to writing and filed in the office of the Commission, Board, or Secretary. If upon such hearing
the Commission, Board, or Secretary, as the case may be, shall be of the opinion that any of the
provisions of said sections have been or are being violated, it shall make a report in writing, in which
it shall state its findings as to the facts, and shall issue and cause to be served on such person an order
requiring such person to cease and desist from such violations, and divest itself of the stock, or other
share capital, or assets, held or rid itself of the directors chosen contrary to the provisions of sections
18 and 19 of this title, if any there be, in the manner and within the time fixed by said order. Until the
expiration of the time allowed for filing a petition for review, if no such petition has been duly filed
within such time, or, if a petition for review has been filed within such time then until the record in
the proceeding has been filed in a court of appeals of the United States, as hereinafter provided, the
Commission, Board, or Secretary may at any time, upon such notice and in such manner as it shall
deem proper, modify or set aside, in whole or in part, any report or any order made or issued by it
under this section. After the expiration of the time allowed for filing a petition for review, if no such
petition has been duly filed within such time, the Commission, Board, or Secretary may at any time,
after notice and opportunity for hearing, reopen and alter, modify, or set aside, in whole or in part,
any report or order made or issued by it under this section, whenever in the opinion of the Commission,
Board, or Secretary conditions of fact or of law have so changed as to require such action or if
the public interest shall so require: Provided, however, That the said person may, within sixty days
after service upon him or it of said report or order entered after such a reopening, obtain a review
thereof in the appropriate court of appeals of the United States, in the manner provided in subsection
(c) of this section. (c) Review of orders; jurisdiction; filing of petition and record of proceeding; conclusiveness
of findings; additional evidence; modification of findings; finality of judgment and decree
Any person required by such order of the commission, board, or Secretary to cease and desist
from any such violation may obtain a review of such order in the court of appeals of the United
States for any circuit within which such violation occurred or within which such person resides or
carries on business, by filing in the court, within sixty days after the date of the service of such order,

a written petition praying that the order of the commission, board, or Secretary be set aside. A copy
of such petition shall be forthwith transmitted by the clerk of the court to the commission, board, or
Secretary, and thereupon the commission, board, or Secretary shall file in the court the record in the
proceeding, as provided in section 2112 of title 28 . Upon such filing of the petition the court shall
have jurisdiction of the proceeding and of the question determined therein concurrently with the
commission, board, or Secretary until the filing of the record, and shall have power to make and enter
a decree affirming, modifying, or setting aside the order of the commission, board, or Secretary, and
enforcing the same to the extent that such order is affirmed, and to issue such writs as are ancillary to
its jurisdiction or are necessary in its judgment to prevent injury to the public or to competitors
pendente lite. The findings of the commission, board, or Secretary as to the facts, if supported by
substantial evidence, shall be conclusive. To the extent that the order of the commission, board, or
Secretary is affirmed, the court shall issue its own order commanding obedience to the terms of such
order of the commission, board, or Secretary. If either party shall apply to the court for leave to adduce
additional evidence, and shall show to the satisfaction of the court that such additional evidence
is material and that there were reasonable grounds for the failure to adduce such evidence in the proceeding
before the commission, board, or Secretary, the court may order such additional evidence to
be taken before the commission, board, or Secretary, and to be adduced upon the hearing in such
manner and upon such terms and conditions as to the court may seem proper. The commission,
board, or Secretary may modify its findings as to the facts, or make new findings, by reason of the
additional evidence so taken, and shall file such modified or new findings, which if supported by
substantial evidence, shall be conclusive, and its recommendation, if any, for the modification or setting
aside of its original order, with the return of such additional evidence. The judgment and decree
of the court shall be final, except that the same shall be subject to review by the Supreme Court upon
certiorari, as provided in section 1254 of title 28 . (d) Exclusive jurisdiction of Court of Appeals
Upon the filing of the record with its jurisdiction of the court of appeals to affirm, enforce, modify, or
set aside orders of the commission, board, or Secretary shall be exclusive. (e) Liability under antitrust
laws No order of the commission, board, or Secretary or judgment of the court to enforce the same
shall in anywise relieve or absolve any person from any liability under the antitrust laws. (f) Service

of complaints, orders and other processes Complaints, orders, and other processes of the commission,
board, or Secretary under this section may be serviced by anyone duly authorized by the commission,
board, or Secretary, either (1) by delivering a copy thereof to the person to be served, or to a member
of the partnership to be served, or to the president, secretary, or other executive officer or a director
of the corporation to be served; or (2) by leaving a copy thereof at the residence or the principal office
or place of business of such person; or (3) by mailing by registered or certified mail a copy
thereof addressed to such person at his or its residence or principal office or place of business. The
verified return by the person so serving said complaint, order, or other process setting forth the manner
of said service shall be proof of the same, and the return post office receipt for said complaint,
order, or other process mailed by registered or certified mail as aforesaid shall be proof of the service
of the same. (g) Finality of orders generally Any order issued under subsection (b) of this section
shall become final— (1) upon the expiration of the time allowed for filing a petition for review, if no
such petition has been duly filed within such time; but the commission, board, or Secretary may
thereafter modify or set aside its order to the extent provided in the last sentence of subsection (b) of
this section; or (2) upon the expiration of the time allowed for filing a petition for certiorari, if the
order of the commission, board, or Secretary has been affirmed, or the petition for review has been
dismissed by the court of appeals, and no petition for certiorari has been duly filed; or (3) upon the
denial of a petition for certiorari, if the order of the commission, board, or Secretary has been affirmed
or the petition for review has been dismissed by the court of appeals; or (4) upon the expiration
of thirty days from the date of issuance of the mandate of the Supreme Court, if such Court directs
that the order of the commission, board, or Secretary be affirmed or the petition for review be
dismissed. (h) Finality of orders modified by Supreme Court If the Supreme Court directs that the
order of the commission, board, or Secretary be modified or set aside, the order of the commission,
board, or Secretary rendered in accordance with the mandate of the Supreme Court shall become final
upon the expiration of thirty days from the time it was rendered, unless within such thirty days
either party has instituted proceedings to have such order corrected to accord with the mandate, in
which event the order of the commission, board, or Secretary shall become final when so corrected.
(i) Finality of orders modified by Court of Appeals If the order of the commission, board, or Secre

tary is modified or set aside by the court of appeals, and if (1) the time allowed for filing a petition
for certiorari has expired and no such petition has been duly filed, or (2) the petition for certiorari has
been denied, or (3) the decision of the court has been affirmed by the Supreme Court then the order
of the commission, board, or Secretary rendered in accordance with the mandate of the court of appeals
shall become final on the expiration of thirty days from the time such order of the commission,
board, or Secretary was rendered, unless within such thirty days either party has instituted proceedings
to have such order corrected so that it will accord with the mandate, in which event the order of
the commission, board, or Secretary shall become final when so corrected. (j) Finality of orders issued
on rehearing ordered by Court of Appeals or Supreme Court If the Supreme Court orders a rehearing;
or if the case is remanded by the court of appeals to the commission, board, or Secretary for
a rehearing, and if (1) the time allowed for filing a petition for certiorari has expired, and no such petition
has been duly filed, or (2) the petition for certiorari has been denied, or (3) the decision of the
court has been affirmed by the Supreme Court, then the order of the commission, board, or Secretary
rendered upon such rehearing shall become final in the same manner as though no prior order of the
commission, board, or Secretary had been rendered. (k) “Mandate” defined As used in this section
the term “mandate”, in case a mandate has been recalled prior to the expiration of thirty days from
the date of issuance thereof, means the final mandate. (l) Penalties Any person who violates any order
issued by the commission, board, or Secretary under subsection (b) of this section after such order
has become final, and while such order is in effect, shall forfeit and pay to the United States a
civil penalty of not more than $5,000 for each violation, which shall accrue to the United States and
may be recovered in a civil action brought by the United States. Each separate violation of any such
order shall be a separate offense, except that in the case of a violation through continuing failure or
neglect to obey a final order of the commission, board, or Secretary each day of continuance of such
failure or neglect shall be deemed a separate offense.

STRIKE THE CONSENT DECREE, VOID AND VACATE, REMISSION, REVERSION,
DETINUE SUR BAILMENT. QUANTUM DAMNIFICATUS REMEDY DEMANDED
CONDEMNATION OF THE CHAPPIE-SHASTA OHVA, ON MERITS - ADVERSE CLAIMS
All premises having been duly considered, Relator now moves this honorable Court, on behalf of the
United States of America State of California as private attorneys general and Inspector General:
QUANTUM DAMNIFICATUS QUARE IMPEDIT
The name of a writ directed by the king to the sheriff, by which he is required to command certain
persons by name to permit him, the king, to present a fit person to a certain church, which is void, and
which belongs to his gift, and of which the said defendants hinder the king, as it is said, and unless,
etc. then to summon, etc. the defendants so that they be and appear, etc. GRANT US OUR PEACE.
Congress has the right to make any law that is ‘necessary and proper’ for the execution of its enumerated
powers (Art. I, Sec. 8, Cl. 18). LIQUIDATE AIG, CLAWBACK TARP, OPEN THE MINT.
Commission of the Hazard And Remediation Directorate::_______________________________
/s/ T.W. Arman, owner of Iron Mountain and Arman Mines Ministry Arboretum, Gales & Stannaries
I, T.W. Arman, hereby state that the same is true of my own knowledge, except as to matters which are
herein stated on my own information or belief, and as to those matters, I believe them to be true.
Date:_July 27, 2010_ Signature:_________________________________
Verified affidavit: /s/ T.W. Arman, Mayor of the Armanshire, Prime Minister of Natural Resources
Grantee, Patentee, Locator, Senior Directorate of the Ministry of Mining & Principles of Pigments.
Owner of ‘ARMAN’, “archaeal Richmond Mine acidophilic nanoorganisms”, SENIOR DIRECTOR
OF THE ARMAN MINES MINISTRY OF NATURE ARBORETUM, GALES, AND STANNARIES
PRIVATE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF THE IRON MOUNTAIN MINE SUPERFUND SITE

INSPECTOR

triangles

nano gold

Nature's Own Nano Gold Found

Larry O'Hanlon, Discovery News

July 17, 2008 -- Miniscule triangular and hexagonal plates of gold less than 20 nanometers thin and identical to those manufactured by humans have been found occurring naturally in salty groundwaters of Western Australia.

The Aussie nano gold in the water gets as thin as six nanometers and previously escaped detection by electron microscopes, say Australian researchers. Nano gold is being developed for use in for drug delivery , optics, superconductors and catalysts, but until now, it was thought to be entirely manmade.

"It's very, very similar to the colloidal gold people have been growing in laboratories," said Robert Hough of the Mining and Exploration branch of Australian government's research agency, CSIRO . He is the lead author of a paper describing the nano gold in the July issue of Geology .

The gold nano particles had appeared as ghostly grey shapes in scanning electron microscope (SEM) images. By applying what's called "high-resolution secondary electron imaging in a field emission SEM," Hough and his team were able to look directly at the ultra thin gold particles.

"I am surprised," said Pablo Jadzinsky who uses nanogold in organic chemistry research at Stanford University.

Nano gold is currently a hot topic for research and development, Jadzinsky said, and getting hotter.

At the moment, labs make their own nano gold by dissolving larger pieces of gold and growing the nano crystals. But they have suffered from some of the same difficulties as the geologists looking for natural nano gold: being sure they know just what sort of nano gold particle they are dealing with.

Whether natural nano gold will be of any use to labs is unclear, said Jadzinsky, because it depends on how hard it would be to purify the salty ground waters and isolate just the sort of nano gold that is desired.

Geologists aren't worried about laboratory applications, however. Instead they are looking at how the nano gold could lead to large, extractable deposits of the precious metal.

"It has big implications for exploration," said Hough. "It's really a fundamental of how gold moves around."

And now that they know how to look for the nano gold, there is a way to look for signs of gold deposits anywhere there is salty groundwater, said Hough.

"Previously we didn't have the tools to look at (nano) gold directly," said Hough.

Now they know: Thars gold in them thar ground waters.

 

Nemo me impune lacessit ( Latin for "No one provokes me with impunity "

Letters patent (pl. letters patent) are so named from the Latin verb pateo , to lie open, exposed, accessible, [ 1 ] being called in full letterae patentes . They are a type of legal instrument in the form of an open letter issued by a monarch or government , granting an office, right, monopoly , title, or status to a person or to some entity such as a corporation . They are thus a form of open or public proclamation. The opposite of letters patent are letters close ( Latin : litterae clausae ), which are personal in nature and sealed so that only the recipient can read their contents. Letters patent can be used for the creation of corporations or government offices, or for the granting of city status or a coats of arms . A particular form of letters patent has evolved into the modern patent granting exclusive rights in an invention .

In the United Kingdom and countries formerly under that country's influence, letters patent are issued under the prerogative powers of the head of state (" royal prerogative "). They constitute a rare, if significant, form of legislation without the consent of the parliament . Letters patent may also be used to grant assent to legislation.

In the United States , the forgery of letters patent granted by the President is a crime subject to fine and/or imprisonment up to ten years ( 18 U.S.C. § 497 ). Without letters patent, a person is unable to assume an appointed office. Such an issue prompted the Marbury v. Madison suit, where William Marbury and three others petitioned the United States Supreme Court to order James Madison to deliver their letters for appointments made under the previous administration.

Thistle Lode Mining PatentHARDING PATENT


“A patent to land, issued by the United States under authority of law, is the highest evidence of title, something upon which its holder can rely for peace and security in his possession. It is conclusive evidence of title against the United States and all the world. ..” 2 The American Law of Mining, § 1.29 at 357. Nichols v. Rysavy, (S.D. 1985) 610 F. Supp. 1245.
"Congress has the sole power to declare the dignity and effect of titles emanating from the United States … and [Congress] [D]eclares the patent the superior and conclusive evidence of legal title." Langdon v. Sherwood, 124 U.S. 74 (1888).
The “general rule” at least is, “that while property may be regulated to a certain extent, if regulation goes too far it will be recognized as a taking.” [Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. Mahon , 260 U.S. 393, 415, 67 L. Ed. 322, 43 S. Ct. 158 (1922).]
The Court stated, “Takings jurisprudence balances the competing goals of compensating landowners on whom a significant burden of regulation falls and avoiding prohibitory costs to needed government regulation. Citing Dolan v. City of Tigard , 512 U.S. 374, 384 (1994), “TheTakings Clause assures that the government may not force 'some people alone to bear public burdens which, in all fairness and justice, should be borne by the public as a whole.'"
In the history of the United States , no Land Patent has ever lost an appellate review in the courts. In Summa Corp. v. California ex rel. State Lands Comm'n 466 US 198, the United States Supreme Court ruled that the Land Patent would always win over any other form of title. In that case, the land in question was tidewater land and California 's claim was based on California 's constitutional right to all tidewater lands. The patent stood supreme even against California 's Constitution, to wit:
[The patent] “[P]assing whatever interest the United States has in the premises and thereby settling any question of sovereign ownership….” Pueblo of Santa Ana v. Baca (CA10 NM) 844 F2d 708; Whaley v. Wotring ( Fla App D1) 225 So 2d 177; Dugas v. Powell, 228 La 748, 84 So 2d 177. [quote at 28 Am. Jur. 2D, F. 2 § 49].
With the title passes away all authority or control of the executive department over the land and over the title which it has conveyed. Moore v. Robbins, 96 U.S. 530, 533, 24 L. Ed. 848.
There is no license from the United States or the state of California to miners to enter upon private lands of individuals for the purpose or extracting the minerals in the soil. (Biddle Boggs v Merced Min. Co.) 14 Cal. 279.)

The United States , like any other PRIVATE PROPRIETOR, with the exception of exemption from state taxation, having no municipal sovereignty or right of eminent domain within the limits of the state-cannot, in derogation of the rights of the local sovereign to govern the relations of the citizens of the state, and to prescribe the rules of property, and its mode of disposition, and its tenure, enter upon, or authorize an entry upon, private property, for the purpose of extracting minerals. The United States , like any other proprietor, can only exercise their rights to the mineral in private property, in subordination to such rules and regulations as the local sovereign may prescribe. Until such rules and regulations are established, the landed proprietor may successfully resist, in the courts of the state, all attempts at invasion of his property, whether by the direct action of the United States or by virtue of any pretended license under their authority. (Biddle Boggs v Merced Min. Co,,) 14 Cal. 279.)
“A valid and subsisting location of mineral lands, made and kept in accordance with the provisions of the statutes of the United States , has the effect of a grant by the United States of the right of present and exclusive possession of the lands located.”
U.S. Supreme Court, 1884
With the title passes away all authority or control of the executive department over the land and over the title which it has conveyed. It would be as reasonable to hold that any private owner who has conveyed it to another can, of his own volition, recall, cancel or annul the instrument which he has made and delivered. If fraud, mistake, error, or wrong has been done, the courts of justice present the only remedy. These courts are as open to the United States to sue for the cancellation of the deed or reconveyance of the land as to individuals, and if the government is the party injured this is the proper course”.
Moore v. Robbins, 96 U.S. 530, 533, 24 L. Ed. 848.
That whenever the question in any court, state or federal, is whether a title to land which has once been the property of the United States has passed, that question must be resolved by the laws of the United States; but that whenever, according to those laws, the title shall have passed, then that property, like all other property in the state, is subject to state legislation, so far as that legislation is consistent with the admission that the title passed and vested according to the laws of the United States”.
Wilcox v. McConnell, 13 Pet. ( U.S. ) 498, 517, 10 L. Ed. 264.
“Title by patent from the United States to a tract of ground, theretofore public, prima facie carries ownership of all beneath the surface, and possession under such patent of the surface is presumptively possession of all beneath the surface.
Lawson v. United States Min. Co. 207 U.S. 1, 8, 28 Sup. Ct. 15, 17, 52, L. Ed. 65.
Grub-stake contracts will be enforced by the courts, but only as other contracts; that is to say, it is not enough for parties to assert that they have rights, in order to secure legal protection, but they must be able to prove in each case a clear and definite contract, and that by the terms and conditions of such contract, and compliance therewith on their part, rights have become vested.
Cisna v. Mallory (C.C.) 84 Fed. 851, 854.
The common-law rule is that the lessee of real property may work already opened mines, but cannot open new ones. But the lease may expressly, or by implication from express powers, give the right to take the minerals, the instrument is a genuine lease.

Oshoon v. Bayaud 123 N.Y. 298. 25 N.E. 376
On the other hand, if an attempt is made by the instrument to pass title to the minerals in place, there is really a sale of the mineral.
Plummer v. Hillside Coal & Iron Co. 104 Fed. 208, 43 C.C. A. 490
Whatever the form of the instrument of conveyance, and even though the parties speak of it in its terms as a lease, if its fair construction shows that the title to the minerals in place is to pass upon the delivery of the instrument, while the surface is retained, or vice versa, and, of course, for all time, if the fee is granted, except that the fee to the space occupied by the minerals seems to terminate when the mine is exhausted.
McConnell v. Pierce, 210 Ill. 627, 71 N.E. 622., Moore v. Indian Camp Coal Co.,493, 0 N.E. 6.
The relationship among joint venturers was eloquently described by United States Supreme Court Justice Cardozo in the seminal 1928 case of Meinhard v. Salmon - “joint adventurers, like copartners, owe to one another, while the enterprise continues, the duty of the finest loyalty. Many forms of conduct permissible in a workaday world for those acting at arm's length, are forbidden to those bound by fiduciary ties. Not honesty alone, but the punctilio of an honor the most sensitive, is then the standard of behavior. As to this there has developed a tradition that is unbending and inveterate. Uncompromising rigidity has been the attitude of courts of equity when petitioned to undermine the rule of undivided loyalty by the ‘disintegrating erosion' of particular exceptions. Only thus has the level of conduct for fiduciaries been kept at a level higher than that trodden by the crowd.”)

 

Science Wednesday: From Policeman to Risk Assessor to Innovator: Sustainability at EPA

Wednesday, December 29th, 2010 at 6:32 pm

 

On November 30, 2010 EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson announced that on the occasion of EPA's 40th anniversary the Agency was asking the National Research Council to conduct a study on how to make the concept of sustainability operational at EPA.

The Administrator's briefing was an historic event aimed at laying the groundwork for a new approach to environmental management aimed at better addressing problems of the 21st century.

Listening to the Administrator's announcement, I thought of EPA's history and how its role has evolved from policeman, to risk assessor and potentially now to environmental innovator.

After EPA was first created in 1970 it quickly became the federal government's chief watchdog against environmental pollution. In those early days the nation's major environmental challenges – largely related to poor industrial practices and inadequate occupational safety – were highly visible and often not difficult to understand. Federal legislation addressed obvious causes of pollution and water contamination , enacting specific laws to achieve cleaner land, air and water.

Complementing and moving beyond its role as a watchdog, EPA soon began to use risk assessment and risk management as an overall framework for Agency decisions.    The value of risk assessment and management was given a big boost in 1983 when the National Research Council published Risk Assessment in the Federal Government: Managing the Process. The report helped advance risk assessment and management in EPA programs.

Today however, the scientific and environmental communities are recognizing that risk assessment and risk management must be complemented by an emphasis on sustainable approaches and solutions to environmental problems.

Sustainability science takes into account that no problem the Agency faces narrowly affects only air or water or land. It tells us that we need a far more integrated approach using new tools and metrics to implement EPA actions and to achieve our mission. It also underlines that we must attract a new generation of scientists and scholars who can be innovative in addressing complex problems.

Administrator Jackson is mandating each of us to address, under new conditions, the challenge that former Administrator Bill Reilly clearly articulated in 1995: “The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is at its best when it views its role as not just custodial but as cutting-edge, providing leadership and prescribing answers to key environmental problems.”

Sustainability science can help us and the Agency be at our best.

About the Author: Dr. Alan D. Hecht is Director for Sustainable Development in EPA's Office of Research and Development.

Editor's Note: The opinions expressed in Greenversations are those of the author. They do not reflect EPA policy, endorsement, or action, and EPA does not verify the accuracy or science of the contents of the blog.

New wild lands policy

Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar issued a secretarial order Dec. 23 directing the Bureau of Land Management to designate areas with wilderness characteristics under its jurisdiction as “wild lands” and to manage them to protect their wilderness values.

“Americans love the wild places where they hunt, fish, hike and get away from it all, and they expect these lands to be protected wisely on their behalf,” Salazar said in a statement.

BLM Director Bob Abbey said the new “policy affirms the BLM's authorities under the law — and our responsibility to the American people — to protect the wilderness characteristics of the lands we oversee as part of our multiple use mission.”

Interior said input from the public and from local communities would be accepted on the designation through BLM's existing land management planning process.

BLM has not had a comprehensive national wilderness policy since 2003 when wilderness management guidance in BLM's handbook was revoked as part of what Interior described as “a controversial out-of-court settlement between then-Secretary of the Interior Gale Norton, the State of Utah, and other parties.”

Concerns from congressional delegation

Alaska's congressman, Republican Don Young, expressed outrage at Interior's actions in a Dec. 23 statement, calling it “yet another example of overreaching by the Federal Government and of the Administration detouring around Congress to get what they want.”

He called the action “disgraceful,” and said that as a member of the incoming Republican majority in the House, and the senior Republican on the Committee on Natural Resources in the present Congress, he would do everything in his power “to stop this overreaching by the Administration.”

“The new designation raises concerns about whether the Interior Department is trying to do an end run around Congress, which has sole authority to designate new wilderness areas,” said Robert Dillon, a spokesman for U.S. Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska. “Further wilderness in Alaska without congressional approval is prohibited under the terms of ANILCA and Sen. Murkowski expects the federal government to live up to its end of that agreement.”

In background on the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act, Dillon said in an e-mail to Petroleum News that the promise written into the law is that there would be “no more” presidential wilderness designations in Alaska of more than 5,000 acres, including use of the Antiquities Act, without express approval of Congress. ANILCA even prohibits study of lands for possible wilderness designation unless authorized by Congress.

State already concerned

Alaska Gov. Sean Parnell said Dec. 29: “The ‘wild land' designation for multiple-use Bureau of Land Management land is an undisguised end-run on ANILCA's ‘no more' provisions, an effort to create a de facto wilderness without Congressional oversight. It ignores ANILCA's hard-fought provisions that protect both access for traditional activities and resources that are the bedrock of Alaska's economy. We intend to bring our concerns to the Interior Department and the Congress and will also look to see what legal remedies may be available.”

Parnell had written to Salazar in November, objecting to “how certain agencies within the Department of the Interior are interpreting the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act.”

He told Salazar that ANILCA, signed into law by President Carter in 1980, achieved a balance of interests, with “more than 100 million acres of federal land in Alaska” designated as new or expanded conservation system units, while also seeking to protect the state's “fledgling economy and infrastructure” and “lending finality to the issue of the State's conservation designations.”

The governor said BLM “appears to be weighing whether to add wilderness reviews” to its resource management plans in Alaska, and noted that since the passage of ANILCA, nearly all secretaries of the Interior have asked for concurrence from Alaska's governor before conducting wilderness reviews on BLM lands in Alaska.”lands in Alaska.”

NPR-A

BLM Director Bob Abbey told a Resource Development Council for Alaska audience in early December that lands within the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska “will be assessed (and) … lands with wilderness character will be identified,” as part of the new planning effort under way for NPR-A.

When Abbey was asked at his RCA talk why, with the ANILCA compromise in place, BLM was thinking of designating lands in NPR-A as wilderness, he said he was “well aware of differences of opinion relative to what the law requires.”

Information provided by Interior related to the new wild lands policy said there has never been a statewide wilderness inventory in Alaska. The department said ANILCA “specifically recognizes the Secretary may ‘identify areas in Alaska which he determines are suitable as wilderness,'” and may make recommendations to Congress for designation of those lands as wilderness.

“Mindful of the balance struck in ANILCA, the Order permits Wild Lands to be designated in Alaska only through the BLM's comprehensive land use planning processes, which proves for robust public comment and involvement,” Interior said.

BLM “must inventory the lands in NPR-A and may designate Wild Lands in NPR-A as part of its integrated activity planning for the area,” the department said, but also said it “will continue to conduct an expeditious program of competitive oil and gas leasing in the Reserve.”

Interior said the new order provides a mechanism for the secretary of Interior “to accept the invitation extended by Congress in section 1320 of ANILCA to ‘identify areas in Alaska which he determines are suitable as wilderness and … from time to time, make recommendations to the Congress for inclusion of any such areas in the National Wilderness Preservation System, pursuant to the provisions of the Wilderness Act.'”

Designation can be modified

Interior said a wild lands designation can be made and later modified through a public administrative process, distinguishing wild lands from wilderness areas which are designated by Congress and can only be modified by legislation, and wilderness study areas, which BLM typically must manage to protect wilderness characteristics until Congress determines whether to permanently protect them as wilderness areas or modify their management.

The secretarial order states that BLM will maintain a current inventory of land under its jurisdiction and identify lands that are not designated wilderness or wilderness study areas but have wilderness characteristics.

That information will be shared with the public and integrated into BLM's land management decisions.

In the order BLM is directed to develop policy guidance within 60 days of the order, defining and clarifying how public lands with wilderness characteristics will be inventoried, described and managed.

BLM is directed to maintain a national wilderness database accessible to the public and updated annually, describing all public lands identified by BLM has having wilderness characteristics and how those lands are being managed.

And BLM is to ensure that project-level decisions and land-use planning efforts take wilderness characteristics into consideration and “include appropriate measures to protect the area's wilderness characteristics” where those lands have been identified as wild lands.

Where there are lands not previously inventoried as wild lands, but where “BLM determines that the land appears to have wilderness characteristics … BLM shall preserve its discretion to protect wildness characteristics” in land-use planning, unless BLM determines, based on a National Environmental Protection Act analysis, that a project which impairs wilderness characteristics is “appropriate and consistent with requirements of applicable law and other resource considerations consistent with this Order or necessary for the exercise of valid existing rights.”

New bioactive nanomaterial enables humans to grow new cartilage

By Tannith Cattermole

20:08 February 14, 2010

Sport is tough on the body, and one of the major health risks from being active is permanent damage to cartilage around the joints. Humans are unable to regenerate cartilage once they are adults and often have to live with painful joints or osteoarthritis, but researchers at Northwestern University are the first to design a bio-active nanomaterial that promotes the growth of new cartilage in vivo and without the use of expensive growth factors. Good new sports fans...

The economic and social impact from damaged cartilage is unknown, but the economic impact of osteoarthritis is estimated to be almost $65 billion in the United States alone. Type II collagen is the major protein in articular cartilage, and comprises the smooth, white connective tissue that covers the ends of bones where they come together to form joints. Until now surgery to regenerate cartilage has involved a procedure called 'microfracture' but this tends to produce a cartilage having predominantly Type I collagen which is more like scar tissue.

In this new minimally-invasive procedure, a bio-active material of nanoscopic fibers stimulates stem cells present in bone marrow to produce cartilage containing type II collagen and repair the damaged joint. The gel is injected to the damaged area of joint where it forms a cohesive solid mimicking what cells normally see and effecting a molecular bind which is essential to the repair and regeneration.

In early trials on animals with cartilage defects, the animals were treated with microfracture, where tiny holes made in the bone beneath the damaged area allow a new blood supply to stimulate new cartilage growth. Implants trialled microfracture alone; microfracture and the nanofiber gel with growth factor added; and microfracture and the nanofiber gel without growth factor added.

Researchers found their technique produced much better results than the microfracture procedure alone, and significantly that addition of expensive growth factor was not required to get the best results. Instead growth factor present in the body appeared to be sufficient to regenerate cartilage because of the molecular design of the gel material. The gel matrix only needs to be present for a month, after which it begins to biodegrade into nutrients and is replaced by natural cartilage.

For the thousands of amateur athletics, professional sportspeople, and elderly people who suffer with joint pain in knees, elbows and shoulders this could be a boon. Used in conjunction with current minimally invasive surgical techniques it could accelerate rehabilitation, and delay or even halt the progression of cartilage lesions into painful degeneration and arthritis. The nanomaterial is being evaluated in a larger preclinical study after which it is hoped the procedure will move to clinical trials.

The Paper "Supramolecular Design of Self-assembling Nanofibers for Cartilage Regeneration" was published by the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS).

Top Food Safety Stories of 2010: No. 2

by Dan Flynn | Dec 31, 2010 The number 2 food safety story of the year concerned USDA's regulatory bottleneck:

Abe Lincoln saw the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) created with his signature in 1862 as "the people's department" with no need for its executive officer to be in the President's cabinet.
The new department would operate like the Agricultural Division of the Patent Office that preceded it, without a role in politics or policy.  
In the words of the law creating it, USDA would "acquire and to diffuse among the people of the United States useful information on subjects connected with agriculture in the most general and comprehensive sense of that word, and to procure, propagate, and distribute among the people new and valuable seeds and plants."
Lincoln's USDA--which did not do food safety--lasted about 27 years before the USDA Commissioner was elevated to be the Secretary of Agriculture and became a cabinet member.  Today,121 years later, the 30th Secretary of Agriculture is Tom Vilsack and his USDA does just about everything.
Vilsack's duties now extend so far beyond handing out "useful information" and "new and valuable seeds and plants" that it is difficult for most people to get their heads around everything he oversees.  America is not the agrarian state that it was when Lincoln created USDA, but that has not stopped Congress from piling ever more responsibilities onto the Secretary of Agriculture.
Early on, that included the Bureau of Animal Industry, an attempt to prevent diseased animals from getting into the food supply.  It was the predecessor to the Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS).  Foreign restrictions on U.S. food exports later led to the 1890 Food Inspection Act.
Then Upton Sinclair's 1905 book, "The Jungle," resulted in the Food and Drug Act and the Meat Inspection Act a year later.  USDA's Bureau of Chemistry evolved into the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA).
More was added to USDA during the New Deal and Great Society years, all of which makes the Ag Secretary one of the federal government's major policy makers.   And what's on Vilsack's agenda is the second biggest food safety story of 2010.   Here are some examples:

Congress Passes Stormwater Funding Bill

Posted on December 30, 2010 | Filed Under: Clean Water , Greening Water Infrastructure , Small Streams & Wetlands

Katherine Baer
Senior Director, Clean Water Program

Just when you thought it was all over… Right before Christmas, Congress passed legislation (S.3481) amending the Clean Water Act and clarifying that the federal government must pay stormwater utility fees to local governments . This may sound kind of mundane, but local stormwater utility fees are an increasingly important way to fund local effort to reduce polluted stormwater runoff.

Here's how it works: a city will set a fee based on a parcel's impervious surface (e.g. rooftops, parking lots, etc.) that generate polluted stormwater runoff and use that money to fund stormwater improvement projects for cleaner water. Stormwater utilities exist throughout the country in places like Minneapolis , Orlando , Bend, Oregon and Philadelphia just to name a few. Most of these fees can be reduced by decreasing the pollution impact of a site by treating and cleaning water on-site, often using green infrastructure techniques. In Milwaukee , for instance, American Rivers staffer Sean Foltz is working to promote the green infrastructure credit as part of the City's stormwater utility fee – a ten acre business parcel stands to save over $15,000 a year by installing green infrastructure practices such as green roofs. Stormwater utility fees also provide an important and steady stream of funding that can allow communities to qualify for additional federal funding  – in Philadelphia, the stormwater funds helped secure the city a $30 million loan for green infrastructure from federal clean water infrastructure funds because there was a payback mechanism associated with the City's Greenworks plan.

Unfortunately, the federal government, in Washington DC and around the country, has claimed that it did not have to pay these fees to local governments  based on claims of sovereign immunity. In DC this amounts to millions of dollars, but also affects communities across the country : Seattle is owed over a million dollars by several federal agencies, Aurora Colorado is owed almost $150,000 from an Air Force Base, and a metro Atlanta County is due $160,000. 

The new legislation will remedy this problem and ensure that the federal government pays it's fair share for the pollution it creates. A good start for 2011 and while not binding on similar disputes at the state and local level , hopefully this new policy will make clear that a small fee on a pollution source can go a long way for clean water.

For more about stormwater utilities click here .

California Region

In California we are spearheading some of the most innovative water supply solutions seen anywhere in the country. Whether it is restoring meadows in the Sierra, that provides water for 65% of Californians, removing barriers to salmon migration, or improving dam operations on the Yuba and Bear rivers, our staff is proving that it is possible to get communities the water they need while keeping our rivers healthy. We are also leading efforts to remove some of the state's outdated dams. Our skillful negotiations recently resulted in an agreement to remove four dams on the Klamath River – the biggest dam removal and river restoration project the world has ever seen. With global warming shrinking mountain snowpack and bringing more intense floods and droughts, our work to protect California's rivers and fresh water is more important than ever.

Protecting Rivers

2009 America's Most Endangered Rivers: Sacramento-San Joaquin River System, CA

2010 America's Most Endangered Rivers: Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta

25 Years of Success

America's Most Endagered Rivers: Progress and Success

America's Most Endangered Rivers: 2009 Edition

America's Most Endangered Rivers™ Reports: 1986-1995

America's Most Endangered Rivers™: 2010 Edition

American Rivers Blue Trails

Deer Creek Tribute Trail

Restoring Rivers

Mattole River, CA

Klamath River, OR and CA

Horse Creek Dam, Horse Creek, CA

58 Dams Slated For Removal Across the Country in 2009

Water Supply

Agricultural Efficiency in the San Gregorio Watershed

Connecting Water Conservation Efforts and Instream Flow Protections in the Colorado River Basin

Deer Creek Floodplain Restoration

Mountain Meadow Restoration

Sierra Water Trust

About the Office

Meet our California Staff

History and Accomplishments

California Offices

Nevada City Office
432 Broad Street
Nevada City, CA 95959
Phone: 530-478-0206
Fax: 530-478-5849

Berkeley Office
2150 Allston Way, Suite 320
Berkeley, CA 94704
Phone: 510-807-8010

 

White House acts unilaterally on climate

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Obama administration took separate actions last week to protect clean air and federal wilderness areas, reaffirming the White House can pursue its goals without depending on help from an increasingly combative Congress.

In the coming two years, that might become a more popular approach.

In a statement posted on its website late Thursday, the Environmental Protection Agency announced it is moving unilaterally to clamp down on power plant and oil refinery greenhouse emissions, announcing plans for developing new standards over the next year.

EPA administrator Lisa Jackson said the aim was to better cope with pollution contributing to climate change.

“We are following through on our commitment to proceed in a measured and careful way to reduce GHG pollution that threatens the health and welfare of Americans,” Jackson said in a statement. She said emissions from power plants and oil refineries constitute about 40 percent of the greenhouse gas pollution in this country.

President Barack Obama had said two days after the midterm elections he was disappointed Congress hadn't acted on legislation achieving the same end, signaling other options were under consideration.

Jackson's announcement came on the same day the administration showed a go-it-alone approach on federal wilderness protection — another major environmental issue. Interior Secretary Ken Salazar said his agency was repealing the Bush era's policy limiting wilderness protection, which was adopted under former Interior Secretary Gale Norton.

On climate change, legislation in Congress putting a limit on heat-trapping greenhouse gases and allowing companies to buy and sell pollution permits under that ceiling — a system known as “cap and trade” — stalled in the Senate earlier this year after narrowly clearing the House. Republicans assailed it as “cap and tax,” arguing it would raise energy prices.

But the Senate in late June rejected by a 53-47 vote a challenge brought by Alaska Republican Lisa Murkowski that would have denied the EPA the authority to move ahead with the rules.

Jackson noted in Thursday's statement by her agency that several state and local governments and environmental groups had sued the EPA over the agency's failure to update or publish new standards for fossil fuel plants and petroleum refineries.

The announcement Thursday came in connection with a settlement of the suit the states brought against the EPA.

The EPA also announced Thursday it was taking the unprecedented step of directly issuing air permits to industries in Texas, citing the state's unwillingness to comply with greenhouse gas regulations going into effect next Sunday. EPA officials said they reluctantly were taking over Clean Air Act permits for greenhouse gas emissions because “officials in Texas have made clear ... they have no intention of implementing this portion of the federal air permitting program.”

Two days after the midterm elections, Obama served notice that he would look for ways to control global warming pollution other than Congress placing a ceiling on it.

“Cap-and-trade was just one way of skinning the cat; it was not the only way,” he said. “I'm going to be looking for other means to address this problem.”

Copyright 2010 All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed. This article was published on page A6 of the Sunday, December 26, 2010 edition of The Columbia Daily Tribune.

Substances Generally Recognized as Safe; Reopening of the Comment Period

 

Summary: ?

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is reopening the comment period for the proposed rule published in the Federal Register of April 17, 1997 (the 1997 proposed rule). The 1997 proposed rule would replace the voluntary petition process to affirm the generally recognized as safe (GRAS) status of a substance intended for use in food for humans or animals with a voluntary notification procedure. FDA is reopening the comment period to update comments. The proposed rule would also clarify the criteria for exempting the use of a substance as GRAS.

Table of Contents

Addresses: ?

You may submit comments, including comments regarding the proposed collection of information, identified by Docket No. FDA-1997-N-0020, by any of the following methods:

Electronic Submissions ?

Submit electronic comments in the following way:

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov . Follow the instructions for submitting comments.

Written Submissions ?

Submit written submissions in the following ways:

• FAX: 301-827-6870.

• Mail/Hand delivery/Courier (for paper, disk, or CD-ROM submissions): Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.

Instructions: All submissions received must include the Agency name and Docket No. FDA-1997-N-0020, for this rulemaking. All comments received may be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov , including any personal information provided. For additional information on submitting comments, see the “Comments” heading of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.

Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or comments received, go to http://www.regulations.gov and insert the docket number, found in brackets in the heading of this document, into the “Search” box and follow the prompts and/or go to the Division of Dockets Management, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.

For further information contact: ?

With regard to substances that would be used in human food: Paulette M. Gaynor, Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition (HFS-255), Food and Drug Administration, 5100 Paint Branch Pkwy., College Park, MD 20740, 301-436-1192.

With regard to substances that would be used in food for animals: Geoffrey K. Wong, Center for Veterinary Medicine (HFV-224), Food and Drug Administration, 7519 Standish Pl., Rockville, MD 20855, 240-453-6879.

With regard to the information collection: Denver Presley Jr., Office of Information Management, Food and Drug Administration, 1350 Piccard Dr., PI50-400B, Rockville, MD 20850, 301-796-3793.

Supplementary information: ?

I. Background ?

In the 1997 proposed rule, FDA proposed to replace the voluntary GRAS affirmation petition process in §§ 170.35(c) and 570.35(c) ( 21 CFR 170.35 (c) and 570.35(c)) with a voluntary notification procedure whereby any person may notify us of a determination that a particular use of a substance in human food (proposed § 170.36) or in food for animals (proposed § 570.36) is GRAS. [1] We also proposed to clarify the criteria in §§ 170.30 ( 21 CFR 170.30 ) and 570.30 ( 21 CFR 570.30 ) whereby the use of a substance is not subject to the premarket approval requirements of the FD&C Act because it is GRAS. To simplify the discussion in this document, in general,we refer to provisions of the 1997 proposed rule and issues for further comment from the perspective of the regulations that would be established in part 170 (21 CFR part 170). Unless we say otherwise, however, the issues discussed also apply to the corresponding provisions for part 570.

Under the proposed notification procedure, a GRAS notice would include: (1) A “GRAS exemption claim” in which a notifier would take responsibility for a GRAS determination; (2) information about the identity of the notified substance, including information about the method of manufacture (excluding any trade secrets); (3) information about any self-limiting levels of use; and (4) a comprehensive discussion of the basis for the GRAS determination. We would evaluate whether the notice provides a sufficient basis for a GRAS determination and would respond to the notifier in writing. We would immediately make available to the public the notice's “GRAS exemption claim” and our response to the notice, and disclose other releasable information in a notice in accordance with our regulations, in part 20 (21 CFR part 20), implementing the Freedom of Information Act.

We invited interested persons who determine that a use of a substance is GRAS to notify us of those determinations, under the framework of the 1997 proposed rule, during the interim between the proposed and final rules ( 62 FR 18938 at 18954). We said that we would determine whether our experience in administering such notices suggested that modifications to the proposed notification procedure were necessary ( 62 FR 18938 at 18954). During the period from February 1, 1999, through December 31, 2009 (the interim period), our Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition (CFSAN) received approximately 26 GRAS notices per year about substances intended for use in human food. The Center for Veterinary Medicine (CVM) established a pilot notification program only recently. ( See the Federal Register of June 4, 2010; 75 FR 31800 .)

The memorandum in reference 1 of this document describes CFSAN's experience (through December 31, 2009). In the remainder of this document, we refer to this memorandum as the “experience document.” Because CVM's pilot program began relatively recently, the experience document does not describe any experience under CVM's pilot notification program.

Also, from 2008 to 2010, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) conducted a study related to food ingredients determined to be GRAS and, in 2010, issued a report (Ref. 2, the GAO report) that included a number of recommendations for FDA's food ingredient program. FDA responded to the GAO's recommendations, and that response is also included in the GAO report.

II. Request for Comments ?

Because of the length of time that has elapsed since publication of the 1997 proposed rule, we are interested in updating comments before issuing a final rule. In addition, based on CFSAN's experience with GRAS notices during the interim period, comments we received on the proposed rule, and GAO's recommendations, we have identified a number of issues within the scope of the proposed rule that may require further clarification. Specifically, these issues relate to the proposed revisions to § 170.30 (Issue 1), the proposed establishment of a notification procedure (Issues 2 through 16), and the effect of the proposed notification procedure on existing GRAS petitions (Issue 17). [2] Accordingly, we are requesting comments on the entire 1997 proposed rule as well as on the specific issues identified in this document.

Comments previously submitted to the Division of Dockets Management (previously the Dockets Management Branch), including comments submitted to the Division of Dockets Management after the comment period closed on July 16, 1997, but before December 28, 2010, do not need to be resubmitted in response to this notice because all such comments will be considered in any final rule based on the 1997 proposed rule and this document. [3]

A. Issue 1. Description of Common Knowledge Element and Related Definition of “Scientific Procedures” ?

In the 1997 proposed rule, we proposed to revise § 170.30 to broaden the description of the common knowledge element to clarify the types of technical evidence of safety that would form the basis of a GRAS determination, and to clarify the role of publication in satisfying the common knowledge element. Specifically, we proposed revising § 170.30(b) from “* * * ordinarily be based upon published studies which may be corroborated by unpublished studies and other data and information.” to “based upon generally available and accepted scientific data, information, methods, or principles, which ordinarily are published and may be corroborated by unpublished scientific data, information, or methods.” We also proposed a companion change to the definition of scientific procedures (§ 170.3(h)) from “Scientific procedures include those human, animal, analytical, and other scientific studies, whether published or unpublished, appropriate to establish the safety of a substance.” to “Scientific procedures include scientific data (such as human, animal, analytical, or other scientific studies), information, methods, and principles, whether published or unpublished, appropriate to establish the safety of a substance.”

Most of the comments addressing these proposed amendments supported the amendments. In general, these comments expressed the opinion that the proposed amendments would more accurately reflect the state of contemporary science than the provisions they would replace. One comment objected to the proposed amendment to § 170.30(b). This comment asserted that the proposed amendment would de-emphasize or eliminate the existing criterion for peer-reviewed studies. One comment objected to the proposed amendment to § 170.3(h) because, under the proposed amendment, an “unpublished principle” could inappropriately be considered a sufficient scientific procedure for demonstrating the safety of a food substance.

In light of these comments, we reviewed our proposed inclusion of scientific “principles” in the proposed amendments to §§ 170.3(h) and 170.30(b). “Principle” can be defined asa fundamental cause or basis of something; a primary element, force, or law determining a particular result; or a fundamental truth or proposition on which others depend (Shorter Oxford English Dictionary, 5th Edition, 2002). Thus, a principle is a different genre than data, information, and methods and is, by its very nature, generally available and accepted. An “unpublished principle” is a non-sequitur. Therefore, the adjectives “published” and “unpublished” should not modify scientific “principles.”

We also reviewed our use of the term “study” in the proposed companion change to the definition of scientific procedures. A procedure can be defined as a particular mode or course of action (Shorter Oxford English Dictionary, 5th Edition, 2002); a “study” can be defined as the devotion of time and attention to acquiring information or knowledge or as applying the mind to acquiring knowledge, especially devoting time and effort to this end (Id.). The terms “procedure” and “study” each carry the connotation of an action. However, “data and information” would be the outcome of a study or procedure and do not carry the connotation of an action. To be a “procedure,” data, information, methods or principles would need to be acquired or applied.

We are seeking comment on the use of those terms. For example, we are considering whether to revise the second sentence of § 170.30(b) to require that general recognition of safety through scientific procedures be based upon the application of generally available and accepted scientific data, information, or methods, which ordinarily are published, as well as the application of scientific principles, and may be corroborated by the application of unpublished scientific data, information, or methods. We also are considering whether to revise the definition of scientific procedures to include the application of scientific data (including, as appropriate, data from human, animal, analytical, and other scientific studies), information, and methods, whether published or unpublished, as well as the application of scientific principles, appropriate to establish the safety of a substance.

B. Issue 2. Terms ?

In the 1997 proposed rule, we used the terms “determine” and “determination” to describe the action of a person who informs us that the use of a food substance is GRAS under the proposed notification procedure. However, as discussed in the experience document, during the interim period CFSAN responded to approximately 5 percent of submitted GRAS notices with a letter informing the notifier that the notice did not provide a basis for a “GRAS determination” (Ref. 1). Clearly, in these cases it was CFSAN's view that the notifier had not “determined” GRAS status. To clarify that the submission of a GRAS notice reflects the view of the notifier and may not necessarily provide an adequate basis for a GRAS determination, we have tentatively concluded that the terms “conclude” and “conclusion” in lieu of “determine” and “determination” would be more appropriate, and therefore in this document we use the terms “conclude” and “conclusion.” We seek comment on these terms.

C. Issue 3. Definitions ?

In the 1997 proposed rule, we did not propose definitions of terms that would be associated with the GRAS notification procedure. However, it would be consistent with the Plain Language Initiative for a final rule to include definitions of terms used in the rule. While the meanings of some terms (such as “notified substance”) were implicit in the discussion of the proposed notification procedure, to ensure the opportunity to comment on these definitions, we include them here. In addition, some terms not used in the 1997 proposed rule may be useful in light of comments already received. We seek comment on the definitions described in the following paragraphs.

(Issue 3a). “Amendment” and “supplement.” Several comments asked FDA to allow a notifier to address questions FDA had about a GRAS notice by submitting an amendment to the notice. As discussed in the experience document (Ref. 1), during the interim period several notifiers submitted one or more amendments to their GRAS notices. We would define “amendment” to mean any data or other information that you submit regarding a filed GRAS notice before we respond to the notice.

As discussed in the experience document (Ref. 1), during the interim period several notifiers submitted information to a GRAS notice after CFSAN responded to the notice. We would define “supplement” to mean any data or other information that you submit regarding a filed GRAS notice after we respond to the notice.

(Issue 3b) “Notified substance,” “notifier,” and “qualified expert.” We would define “notified substance” to mean the substance that is the subject of your GRAS notice. We would define “notifier” to mean the person who is responsible for the GRAS notice, even if another person (such as an attorney, agent, or qualified expert) prepares or submits the notice or provides an opinion about the basis for a conclusion of GRAS status. Consistent with section 201(s) of the FD&C Act ( 21 U.S.C. 321 (s)), we would define “qualified expert” to mean an individual who is qualified by scientific training and experience to evaluate the safety of substances added to food.

D. Issue 4. Incorporation by Reference ?

One comment requested that a notifier be permitted to reference a previously submitted GRAS notice to support a view that an additional use of the applicable substance is GRAS. In the comment's view, this process, known as “incorporation by reference,” would be administratively efficient. As discussed in the experience document (Ref. 1), during the interim period CFSAN encouraged notifiers to use a process such as that recommended in the comment.

We are therefore seeking comment on whether to include a provision in the final rule to expressly permit the notifier to incorporate by reference either data and information that were previously submitted by the notifier, or public data and information submitted by another party, when such data and information remain in our files, such as data and information contained in a previous GRAS notice, a food additive petition, or a food master file.

While the data and information in a previously submitted GRAS notice are generally publicly available, other data and information that have been submitted to us may be confidential. We do not anticipate that a notifier would have access to another party's confidential data or information.

We note that, regardless of whether a notifier incorporates by reference data or information, we may consider taking into account other relevant data or information that we have from other sources. As discussed in the experience document (Ref. 1), during the interim period CFSAN did review information that was available in its files but not available to the applicable notifier.

E. Issue 5. Request That FDA Cease To Evaluate a GRAS Notice ?

Several comments requested that the notification procedure provide for a notifier to withdraw a notice in light of our questions about the notice. These comments considered such a provision would provide the notifier with an opportunity to resubmit a notice addressing our questions.

Under § 20.29, no person may withdraw records submitted to FDA. While a notifier cannot withdraw a GRAS notice submitted to FDA, whenwe issued the proposed rule, we considered a request that FDA cease to evaluate a GRAS notice to be an implicit prerogative not needing explicit authorization in the rule. For GRAS notices that FDA has ceased to evaluate at the request of the notifier, the GRAS notices remain in our files and, thus, are available for public disclosure, subject to procedures established in part 20.

As discussed in the experience document (Ref. 1), at the request of the notifier, CFSAN ceased to evaluate approximately 16 percent of GRAS notices that came to closure by December 31, 2009. Persons who rely only on the provisions of proposed § 170.36, without referring to our letters responding to GRAS notices, may not be aware of the implicit prerogative to request that FDA cease to evaluate a GRAS notice.

Therefore, we are seeking comment on whether the rule should explicitly state that you may request in writing that we cease to evaluate your GRAS notice at any time during our evaluation of your GRAS notice.

F. Issue 6. Notifier's Responsibility for a GRAS Conclusion ?

(Issue 6a) Under proposed § 170.36(c)(1), the GRAS notice would be dated and signed by the notifier or by the notifier's attorney or agent or (if the notifier is a corporation) by an authorized official. As discussed in the experience document (Ref. 1), during the interim period CFSAN received some GRAS notices in which the combination of an illegible signature and the lack of a typed or printed name to accompany the signature made it impossible to identify the person who was signing the document. Therefore, we are seeking comment on how to best ensure that the identity and authority of the person who is signing the GRAS notice is made clear. For example, we are considering requiring that the GRAS notice state the name and the position or title of the person who signs it.

(Issue 6b) Under the GRAS affirmation petition process, a petitioner is required to submit a petition for GRAS affirmation under 21 CFR part 10 (§ 170.35(c)(1)(v)). As part of this petition, a petitioner is required to submit a statement that, “to the best of his knowledge, it [the GRAS affirmation petition] is a representative and balanced submission that includes unfavorable information, as well as favorable information, known to him and pertinent to the evaluation of the safety of the substance.” (§ 170.35(c)(1)(v)). We implicitly proposed this provision under proposed § 170.36(c)(4), which proposed to require, among other things, that a GRAS notice include a comprehensive discussion of any reports of investigations or other information that may appear to be inconsistent with the conclusion of GRAS status. We are seeking comment on whether the GRAS notification procedure should be as explicit on this point as the GRAS affirmation petition process it would replace.

We also are seeking comment on whether to require a notifier to certify to this statement, which would be consistent with the certification in item E. Certification in § 10.30(b). Such certification also would be consistent with the procedures established for another notification program in CFSAN, the premarket notification program for food contact substances. ( See § 171.101(e) and FDA Form No. 3480 (Ref. 4).)

G. Issue 7. Appropriately Descriptive Term for the Notified Substance ?

In the 1997 proposed rule, we proposed to require that the GRAS notice include the common or usual name of the notified substance (proposed § 170.36(c)(1)(ii)). We also advised that notifiers with questions concerning the common or usual name for a substance consult with CFSAN's Office of Food Labeling (now the Office of Nutrition, Labeling and Dietary Supplements) (for a substance that would be used in human food) or with CVM's Division of Animal Feeds (for a substance that would be used in animal food). [4] As discussed in the experience document (Ref. 1), in 2004, CFSAN began to routinely advise notifiers that its use of a particular term to identify the notified substance in a letter responding to a GRAS notice should not be considered an endorsement or recommendation of that term as an appropriate common or usual name for the purpose of complying with the labeling provisions of the FD&C Act.

A GRAS notice addresses sections 201(s) and 409 of the FD&C Act and does not address the labeling provisions of the FD&C Act or FDA's corresponding regulations. We are seeking comment on whether to revise proposed § 170.36(c)(1)(ii) to make this more clear. For example, instead of requiring that the GRAS notice include the common or usual name of the notified substance, we are considering requiring that the GRAS notice include the name of the notified substance, using an appropriately descriptive term. We note that this may be the same as the term which you may believe would be the common or usual name of the substance under 21 CFR parts 102 (human food) and 502 (animal food).

H. Issue 8. Public Disclosure ?

Under proposed § 170.36(f)(1), the elements listed in proposed § 170.36(c)(1)) would be immediately available for public disclosure on the date the notice is received. As a practical consequence of this proposed provision, the fact that we had received a GRAS notice ( i.e., the existence of the GRAS notice) would be immediately available to the public. As discussed in the experience document (Ref. 1), we have made this information readily accessible to the public. CFSAN currently is making a “GRAS Notice Inventory” available on its Internet site. CFSAN presents notice-specific information (such as the name and address of the notifier, the name of the notified substance, and the intended conditions of use) extracted from the information submitted under proposed § 170.36(c)(1). CFSAN expects that the ways by which we make this information readily accessible to the public will evolve over time.

Because, under proposed § 170.36(f)(1), the information submitted under proposed § 170.36(c)(1) would be immediately available for public disclosure, it is implicit in this provision that a person submitting information under proposed § 170.36(c)(1) should not include in this portion any non-public information such as trade secret information, confidential commercial or financial information, and personal privacy information. Based on our experience, notifiers did not identify any information in the information submitted under proposed § 170.36(c)(1) as being confidential. We are seeking comment on whether the final rule should explicitly require that the information submitted under proposed § 170.36(c)(1) exclude non-public information.

I. Issue 9. Including Confidential Information in a GRAS Notice ?

We proposed that the method of manufacture in a GRAS notice exclude any trade secrets (proposed § 170.36(c)(2)). However, we stated that a notifier who considers that certain information in a submission should not be available for public disclosure should identify as confidential the relevant portions of the submission for our consideration ( 62 FR 18938 at 18952). We further stated we would review the identified information, determinewhether that information is exempt from public disclosure under part 20 and release or protect the information in accordance with our determination. We advised that, in most cases, we would be likely to determine all information in a GRAS notice is available for public disclosure, because a conclusion of GRAS status must be based on generally available data and information.

We received several comments about whether confidential information should be included in a GRAS notice. In essence, these comments suggested that we both provide for the submission of trade secrets or other confidential information in a GRAS notice and protect the trade secrets or other confidential information from public disclosure, just as we would in the case of submissions such as food additive petitions.

As discussed in the experience document (Ref. 1), during the interim period CFSAN did accept some GRAS notices that included information identified by the notifier as confidential. When a GRAS notice included such information, in no case did CFSAN disclose the identified information. In some cases, including confidential information in a GRAS notice did not present a problem because it was corroborative information. However, in other cases CFSAN questioned whether there could be a basis for a conclusion of GRAS status if qualified experts generally did not have access to the confidential information.

In light of both the comments and CFSAN's experience, we are seeking comments relevant to including confidential information in a GRAS notice. We note that, while the decision to submit a GRAS notice would be voluntary, the provisions governing the GRAS notification procedure, including the information to be submitted, would be mandatory.

(Issue 9a) We are seeking comment on whether proposed § 170.36(c)(2) should stipulate that the method of manufacture exclude any trade secrets, as it was proposed.

(Issue 9b) We are seeking comment on whether to require that a notifier who identifies one or more trade secret(s), as defined in § 20.61(a), in the GRAS notice explain why it is trade secret information and how qualified experts could conclude that the intended use of the notified substance is GRAS without access to the trade secret(s).

(Issue 9c) We are seeking comment on whether to require that a notifier who identifies confidential commercial or financial information, as defined in § 20.61(b), in the GRAS notice explain why it is confidential commercial or financial information and how qualified experts could conclude that the intended use of the notified substance is GRAS without access to such information.

J. Issue 10. Describing the Identity of a Notified Substance ?

Under proposed § 170.36(c)(2), a GRAS notice would include “Detailed information about the identity of the notified substance, including, as applicable, its chemical name, Chemical Abstracts Service Registry Number, Enzyme Commission number, empirical formula, structural formula, quantitative composition, method of manufacture (excluding any trade secrets and including, for substances of natural biological origin, source information such as genus and species), characteristic properties, any content of potential human toxicants, and specifications for food-grade material.”

(Issue 10a) Based on our experience, we have found that when the source of a notified substance is a biological material ( e.g., a plant, animal, or microorganism), taxonomic information about genus and species may be insufficient to identify a biological source. The experience document (Ref. 1) provides examples of GRAS notices including information such as genus, species, variety, strain, part of a plant source (such as fruit, seeds or seed husks, expressed oil, flowers, roots, leaves, pulp, wood, or bark), and part of an animal source (such as fluid, muscle mass, egg, shells, or extracted oil). We note that some GRAS substances are derived from animal organs ( e.g., the enzyme preparation “catalase” is manufactured from cow's liver ( 21 CFR 184.1034 )) or tissue ( e.g., the enzyme preparation “animal lipase” is manufactured from edible forestomach tissue or from animal pancreatic tissue ( 21 CFR 184.1415 )). We request comment on what scientific information would be sufficient to identify the biological source.

(Issue 10b) Based on our experience, we have found that information about substances known to be toxicants is relevant regardless of the state of the science regarding the specific toxicity of the substance to humans. For example, during the interim period CFSAN evaluated a GRAS notice about a substance derived from a biological source that is known to contain mutagenic substances (Ref. 1). Therefore, we are seeking comment on whether to require that information about the identity of the notified substance specify any known toxicants that could be in the source.

(Issue 10c) Substances that have a small particle size often have chemical, physical, or biological properties that are different from those of their larger counterparts (Ref. 5) and, thus, particle size and associated chemical and physical properties may be relevant to the identity of the notified substance. GAO's recent recommendations also encouraged us to obtain more information about the use of engineered nanomaterials (Ref. 2). Therefore, we are seeking comment on whether the final rule should address, as part of identity, particle size and other chemical and physical properties that may be used to characterize engineered materials.

K. Issue 11. Dietary Exposure ?

We proposed to require that a notice regarding a conclusion of GRAS status through scientific procedures include a comprehensive discussion of, and citations to, generally available and accepted scientific data, information, methods, or principles that the notifier relies on to establish safety, including a consideration of the “probable consumption of the substance and the probable consumption of any substance formed in or on food because of its use and the cumulative effect of the substance in the diet, taking into account any chemically or pharmacologically related substances in such diet” (proposed § 170.36(c)(4)(i)(A)). This proposed provision restated the statutory language of section 409(c)(5) of the FD&C Act regarding dietary exposure.

We proposed to require that a notice regarding a conclusion of GRAS status through experience based on common use in food include a comprehensive discussion of, and citations to, generally available data and information that the notifier relies on to establish safety, including evidence of a substantial history of consumption of the substance by a significant number of consumers [5] (proposed § 170.36(c)(4)(ii)(A)). This proposed provision was silent on the probable consumption of the substance by present-day consumers.

We are seeking comment on issues related to the proposed provisions for information about dietary exposure to a notified substance.

(Issue 11a) We are seeking comment on whether proposed § 170.36(c)(4)(i)(A) should continue to restate the statutory language of section 409(c)(5) of the FD&C Act or whether this provision should be stated more clearly, for example, by requiring information aboutdietary exposure ( i.e., the amount of the notified substance that consumers are likely to eat or drink as part of a total diet).

(Issue 11b) Over 50 years have passed since passage of the 1958 Food Additives Amendment establishing the requirements for food additives and the corresponding provisions for GRAS substances in food. In evaluating whether use of a substance is GRAS through experience based on common use in food, we rely on information documenting that the “common use in food” of a substance satisfies the definition in § 170.3(f) such that adverse health effects, if they occurred, could be noted. In other words, a substance is not eligible for GRAS status merely because it was used in food before January 1, 1958, if such use were not sufficiently widespread ( 62 FR 18938 at 18949). Therefore, we are seeking comment on whether a GRAS notice should be required to include information about dietary exposure to contemporary consumers regardless of whether the determination of GRAS status is through scientific procedures or through experience based on common use in food.

(Issue 11c) Some substances are administered to certain animal species through their drinking water. Section 201(f) of the FD&C Act defines food as “articles used for food or drink for man or other animals.” In the proposed rule, we utilized the terms, “foods” and “diet,” when addressing the intended use and safety evaluation of notified substances. We are seeking comment on whether it is necessary to clarify that the GRAS notification procedure is applicable to substances used in both food and drinking water of animals and, if so, whether it would be necessary to clarify this in the provisions of proposed § 570.36.

(Issue 11d) Under proposed § 570.36(c)(1)(iii), notifiers would submit information about the applicable conditions of use of the notified substance, including a description of the population expected to consume the substance. For substances added to animal food, the applicable population is the specific animal species intended to consume the substance. Animal species differ in their physical characteristics, digestive physiology, and metabolic pathways. Therefore, a substance that is safe for use in one animal species may not be safe for use in other species, and FDA would need to know the intended species in order to properly evaluate the notifier's safety assessment of the intended use of the substance. We are seeking comment on whether it is necessary to clarify proposed § 570.36(c)(1)(iii) to explicitly require submission of information about the animal species expected to consume the substance.

(Issue 11e) Proposed § 570.36(c)(2) would require that notifiers submit detailed information about the notified substance, including any content of potential human or animal toxicants. Additionally, proposed §§ 570.36(c)(4)(i)(A) and (c)(4)(ii)(A) would require that notifiers submit a comprehensive discussion of, and citations to, the information that the notifier relies on to establish safety. Where a substance is intended for use in the food of an animal used to produce human food, these sections of the proposed rule would require that the notifier include citations to information about both target animal ( i.e., the specific animal species that are fed the notified substance) and human safety. The information provided would need to be sufficient to show that the use of the substance is generally recognized among qualified experts to be safe for animals consuming food containing the substance as well as for humans consuming food derived from such animals ( i.e., under its intended conditions of use). A GRAS notice for a substance intended for use in the food of an animal used to produce human food submitted without such information would likely receive a response from FDA stating that FDA has identified questions regarding whether the intended use of the substance is GRAS. ( See the proposed rule ( 62 FR 18938 at 18950).) Therefore, we are seeking comment on whether it is necessary to clarify applicable sections of the proposed rule to explicitly require, for substances intended for use in the food of an animal used to produce human food, the submission of information about both target animal and human safety.

L. Issue 12. Filing Decision ?

Some comments to the 1997 proposed rule recommended that we conduct a preliminary review of a submission, before we file it as a GRAS notice, to determine whether it appears, on its face, to meet the format requirements. Some comments suggested that we “decline to file” a notice that appears to be inadequate, e.g., because it lacks critical data or information. These comments considered that a preliminary review that resulted in a “filing decision” would be analogous to the current procedure whereby we review a GRAS affirmation petition to determine whether it appears, on its face, to meet the format requirements for the GRAS affirmation petition process.

As discussed in the experience document (Ref. 1), CFSAN routinely conducted such a preliminary review of each submitted GRAS notice. Based on our experience, it was the complete evaluation process that identified those data or information that are critical to establish GRAS status. Therefore, a decision on our part to file a submission as a GRAS notice has not reflected our judgment as to whether the notice addressed all issues or discussed all critical data or information.

We are seeking comment on whether we should make explicit the process by which FDA makes such a filing decision, including the factors we should use to determine whether to file a submission as a GRAS notice. Some potential factors could be the following:

• Whether your submission includes all required sections;

• Whether you provided all required copies;

• Where information provided is identified as being confidential, whether you explain the basis for your conclusion of GRAS status;

• Whether we still retain as a record any data or information that you ask us to incorporate by reference; and

• Whether the subject of your submission is: (1) Already authorized for use under our regulations or (2) a mixture of substances that are already authorized for use under our regulations. For example, if we receive a submission about a mixture of substances, each of which is affirmed as GRAS under 21 CFR part 184 for use as an antimicrobial in human food, and the intended use of the mixture is as an antimicrobial, we may treat the submission as general correspondence and inform the notifier that we do not devote resources to evaluating the use of such mixtures under the GRAS notification procedure.

M. Issue 13. Substances Intended for Use in Products Subject to Regulation by the U.S. Department of Agriculture ?

Subsequent to the 1997 proposal, we issued a final rule amending the GRAS affirmation petition process to provide for simultaneous review of a GRAS notice by FDA and the U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA's) Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) when the intended use of the notified substance includes use in products subject to regulation by FSIS ( 65 FR 51758 , August 25, 2000). Under § 170.35(c)(3)(i), we forward a copy of a GRAS affirmation petition to FSIS for simultaneous review under the Poultry Products Inspection Act (PPIA) ( 21 U.S.C 451 et seq. ) or the Federal Meat Inspection Act (FMIA) ( 21 U.S.C. 601 et seq. ). Under§ 170.35(c)(3)(ii), we ask USDA to advise whether the proposed uses comply with the FMIA or PPIA or, if not, whether use of the substance would be permitted in products under USDA jurisdiction under specified conditions or restrictions. The provisions of this review process reflect interagency coordination to ease the burden on regulated industries and consumers.

In addition, as discussed in the experience document (Ref. 1), during the interim period CFSAN developed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with USDA's FSIS ( 65 FR 33330 , May 23, 2000), which provides for the same coordinated review process for GRAS notices when the intended use of the notified substance includes use in products subject to regulation by FSIS. Under the terms of the MOU, CFSAN forwards a copy of an applicable GRAS notice to FSIS. CFSAN then simultaneously evaluates the basis for GRAS status while FSIS evaluates whether the intended use of the notified substance in meat or poultry products complies with the FMIA or PPIA or, if not, whether use of the substance would be permitted in products under FSIS jurisdiction under specified conditions or restrictions. In addition, during the interim period responsibility to administer the Egg Products Inspection Act (EPIA) ( 21 U.S.C. 1031 et seq. ) was transferred from the Agricultural Marketing Service of USDA to FSIS ( 69 FR 1647 ; January 12, 2004). In light of this transfer of responsibility, FSIS provided its review of the use of a notified substance in egg products when a GRAS notice that CFSAN sent to USDA for its review under the PPIA or the FMIA also described a use in egg products (Ref. 1).

As discussed in the experience document (Ref. 1), more than 25 percent of GRAS notices filed during the interim period included the use of the notified substance in products subject to regulation by FSIS under the FMIA or the PPIA, and FDA obtained FSIS review for these substances.

We are seeking comment on whether to make our coordinated review process with FSIS explicit in the final rule. We also are seeking comment on whether such a procedure should provide that a notifier who submits a GRAS notice for the use of a notified substance in products subject to regulation by FSIS provide an additional paper copy or an electronic copy of the GRAS notice that we could send to FSIS. This would improve the efficiency of a simultaneous review process. We note that FSIS, under statutes it administers, does not review the use of substances intended for use in food for animals and therefore there would be no need for a counterpart provision in proposed § 570.36 for substances intended for use in food for animals.

O. Issue 14. Timeframe for FDA's Evaluation of a GRAS Notice ?

Section 170.35 does not specify a timeframe for FDA to complete the rulemaking associated with a GRAS affirmation petition. However, we proposed to respond to a GRAS notice within 90 days to reflect both a commitment to operational efficiency and a belief that our evaluation of whether a notice provides a sufficient basis for a conclusion of GRAS status could likely be accomplished in such a period. We also considered whether the timeframe for our response should be longer than 90 days, and specifically requested comment on whether the proposed 90-day timeframe for an Agency response should be lengthened, e.g., to 120 days or 150 days. In addition, we noted that comments on the proposal may justify a longer timeframe for notifications concerning substances used in animal food.

Several comments favored a 90-day timeframe because a 90-day timeframe would provide an incentive for manufacturers to submit GRAS notices. Other comments questioned whether the proposed 90-day timeframe would allow sufficient time for us to adequately evaluate a GRAS notice and urged us to establish a realistic timeframe that we would hold ourselves accountable to.

As shown in the experience document (Ref. 1), during the interim period CFSAN responded to approximately 12 percent of GRAS notices within 90 days, and required more than 180 days to respond to more than 31 percent of GRAS notices. As discussed in the experience document (Ref. 1), the scientific challenges associated with the safety assessment conducted by the notifier were a factor in the time CFSAN needed to respond to a GRAS notice. We request comment on whether we should retain a set timeframe for us to respond to a GRAS notice, and, if so, whether it should be 90 days or another timeframe.

O. Issue 15. Conflict of Interest ?

In the GAO report (Ref. 2), GAO noted that we have not issued any conflict of interest guidance that companies can use to help ensure that the members of their expert panels are independent. Further, GAO recommended that FDA develop a strategy to minimize the potential for conflicts of interest, including taking steps such as issuing guidance for companies on conflict of interest and requiring information in GRAS notices regarding expert panelists' independence. As discussed in the GAO report (Ref. 2), we consider that the use of an expert panel is one way to demonstrate consensus ( i.e., the common knowledge element of safety) and we do not consider the view of an expert panel alone to be determinative for establishing safety. We seek comment on whether companies would find it useful to have guidance on potential conflicts of interest of GRAS expert panelists. If such guidance would be useful, we seek comment on what companies currently do to mitigate such a conflict. We also seek comment on whether to require that GRAS notices include information regarding expert panelists' independence.

P. Issue 16. Additional Guidance on Documenting GRAS Conclusions ?

The GAO report recommended that FDA issue guidance on how to document GRAS conclusions (Ref. 2). In our response to GAO, we noted the guidance in the preamble to the GRAS proposal and the guidance on our Web site that answers common questions about the food ingredients classified as GRAS in the form of frequently asked questions (Ref. 6). We seek comment whether there is a need to clarify that this guidance also applies to a GRAS conclusion that is not submitted to FDA under the proposed notification procedure and whether there is a need for FDA to develop further guidance on documenting such a GRAS conclusion.

Q. Issue 17. Pending GRAS Affirmation Petitions ?

In the 1997 proposed rule, we proposed to presumptively convert any filed, GRAS affirmation petition that is pending on the effective date of the rule (hereinafter referred to as a “pending petition”) to a GRAS notice. The conversion would take place on the effective date of the final rule. Any person (hereinafter referred to as an “affected petitioner”) who had submitted a GRAS affirmation petition could amend the converted petition by submitting the dated and signed document that would be required under proposed § 170.36(c)(1). In essence, we would waive the requirement for an affected petitioner who submitted such a document to agree to provide us with access to applicable data and information upon request if the affected petitioner informed us that the complete record that supports the conclusion of GRAS status had been submitted in the applicable GRAS petition. The proposed procedures for our review and administration of a converted petition would be similar to those for a newlysubmitted GRAS notice. However, by 90 days after the effective date of the final rule, [6] we would inform any affected petitioner who had not submitted a certification that the converted petition was inadequate as a notice.

A few comments stated that the 1997 proposed rule did not discuss the fate of a pending petition if the petitioner elected not to submit a conversion amendment. These comments did not understand the implications of the proposed provisions which, in essence, would consider that the affected petitioner had not provided a basis for a conclusion of GRAS status.

Many comments objected to the proposed provisions regarding pending petitions. In general, these comments expressed the opinion that our proposal was fundamentally unfair to an affected petitioner because an affected petitioner had invested considerable time and resources in the petition process. Some comments suggested that we “grandfather” a pending petition ( i.e., complete the rulemaking that began under the petition process), as a matter of course, in those circumstances where we had completed our scientific review and had no outstanding scientific questions. Other comments suggested that such a “grandfather” provision be an option available to an affected petitioner rather than a matter of course. One comment recommended that the final rule provide a petitioner with a period of 180, rather than 90, days to submit the dated and signed document providing information in proposed § 170.36(c)(1). This comment argued that many of these petitions had been pending for years, that the subjects of the petitions had been marketed during those years, and that there would therefore be no urgency in closing the applicable files.

In light of the view of the comments that our proposed disposition of pending petitions was unfair, in this document we are seeking comments regarding pending petitions. Specifically, we seek comment on how to reduce the impact on affected petitioners while retaining the principle that we will not devote resources to pending petitions. We seek comment on whether an outcome of “withdrawal without prejudice” instead of “insufficient basis” would be more appropriate when an affected petitioner simply chooses not to have the pending petition considered under the GRAS notification procedure. We are seeking comment on whether an affected petitioner could request that we incorporate by reference a withdrawn GRAS affirmation petition into a GRAS notice, and if so, if any requirements of the GRAS notification procedure should be waived.

We also note that, as discussed in the experience document (Ref. 1), during the interim period we processed a pending petition as a food additive petition and issued a food additive regulation for the petitioned substance ( 21 CFR 172.780 ; 70 FR 8032 , February 17, 2005). We note that CVM has no pending GRAS petitions and thus, this discussion is not applicable to GRAS affirmation petitions for food for animals.

III. Costs and Benefits ?

FDA requests comments on how the issues discussed in this document could affect the costs and benefits estimated in the 1997 proposed rule, e.g., whether these issues would result in costs or benefits that would be either greater than, or less than, those estimated in the 1997 proposed rule ( 62 FR 18938 at 18958).

IV. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 ?

The 1997 proposed rule contains information collection provisions that are subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 ( 44 U.S.C. 3501 -3520). Interested persons are requested to send comments regarding information collection to FDA ( see DATES and ADDRESSES ).

V. Comments ?

Interested persons may submit to the Division of Dockets Management ( see ADDRESSES ) either electronic or written comments regarding this document. It is only necessary to send one set of comments. It is no longer necessary to send two copies of mailed comments. Identify comments with the docket number found in brackets in the heading of this document. Received comments may be seen in the Division of Dockets Management between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.

VI. References ?

We have placed the following references on display in the Division of Dockets Management ( see ADDRESSES ). You may see them between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday. (FDA has verified the Web site addresses, but FDA is not responsible for any subsequent changes to Web sites after this document publishes in the Federal Register. )

1. Experience With GRAS Notices Under the 1997 Proposed Rule, Memorandum Dated November 4, 2010, from Linda S. Kahl of FDA to Docket No. FDA-1997-N-0020.

2. United States Government Accountability Office, Report to Congressional Requestors on Food Safety: FDA Should Strengthen Its Oversight of Food Ingredients Determined To Be Generally Recognized as Safe (GRAS), Report No. GAO-10-246, February 2010, Accessible at http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d10246.pdf , Accessed and printed on May 3, 2010.

3. Memorandum for the Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies, Dated June 1, 1998, Signed by President William J. Clinton, Accessible at http://www.plainlanguage.gov/whatisPL/govmandates/memo.cfm , Accessed and printed on July 14, 2008.

4. FDA Form No. 3480, Notification for New Use of a Food Contact Substance, Accessible at http://www.fda.gov/downloads/AboutFDA/ReportsManualsForms/Forms/ucm076880.pdf , Accessed and printed on October 13, 2010.

5. FDA, 2007, Nanotechnology Task Force Report 2007, Accessible at http://www.fda.gov/ScienceResearch/SpecialTopics/Nanotechnology/NanotechnologyTaskForceReport2007/default.htm , Accessed and printed on October 13, 2010.

6. Guidance for Industry: Frequently Asked Questions About GRAS, Accessible at http://www.fda.gov/Food/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/GuidanceDocuments/FoodIngredientsandPackaging/ucm061846.htm , Accessed and printed on October 13, 2010.

Dated: December 17, 2010. Leslie Kux,

Acting Assistant Commissioner for Policy.

Footnotes ?

1 . As an error, the authority citation we listed for the proposed amendments to part 570 (21 CFR part 570) did not include an existing authority citation, i.e., section 408 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the FD&C Act) ( 21 U.S.C. 346 a). Nothing in the 1997 proposed rule would alter the citation to section 408. Therefore, the authority citation for part 570 will continue to include section 408.

2 . With regard to GAO's recommendations, we are requesting comment on the recommendations that FDA obtain more information about the use of engineered nanomaterials (Issue 10(c)), that FDA strive to minimize the potential for conflict of interest (Issue 15), and that FDA issue guidance on how to document GRAS determinations (Issue 16). GAO also recommended that FDA develop a strategy to finalize the proposal to establish a notification program for GRAS ingredients, and this notice reopening the comment period is the first step of such a strategy. FDA is not seeking comment on the remaining GAO recommendations, that FDA request that any company conducting a GRAS determination provide the Agency with basic information about that determination, and that FDA develop a strategy to reconsider the safety of certain GRAS substances. We consider those recommendations, and any comments on them, to be beyond the scope of this comment request because they raise issues about matters other than how a notification program should be run.

3 . After we issued the 1997 proposed rule, a Presidential Memorandum dated June 1, 1998 (the Plain Language Memorandum) (Ref. 3) prescribed a government-wide initiative (the Plain Language Initiative, or “PLI”) to write regulations using “Plain Language.” As outlined in that memorandum, documents written in plain language use “you” and other pronouns. Any final rule based on the 1997 proposed rule and this document would use such pronouns.

4 . For example, a notifier may have a question about the common or usual name where it is not established by regulation.

5 . In this document, references to “consumers” for the purposes of part 170 are references to “animals” for the purposes of part 570.

6 . Proposed § 170.36(g)(3)(iii) stated that we would inform a petitioner who did not submit a conversion amendment that the notice was inadequate within 90 days of publication of the final rule, rather than within 90 days of the effective date of the final rule. This was an error.

References

EarthTalk: Is the Toxic Substances act going to be updated?

By E/THE ENVIRONMENTAL MAGAZINE

Emagazine.com

Dear EarthTalk: What is happening to update and reform the Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976, which I understand is considerably outdated and actually permits the use of thousands of chemicals that have never been adequately tested for safety?

- Henry Huse, Norwalk, Conn.

According to the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), a leading environmental research and advocacy organization, upwards of 80,000 chemicals commonly used in the United States have never been fully assessed for toxic impacts on human health and the environment. "Under the current law, it is almost impossible for the EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency) to take regulatory action against dangerous chemicals, even those that are known to cause cancer or other serious health effects," reports the group.

1976's Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) was intended to protect people and the environment from exposure to dangerous chemicals. But the standards at that time dictated that only those chemicals deemed an "unreasonable risk" were subject to testing and regulation. When the law went into effect, some 62,000 chemicals escaped testing and most have remained on the market ever since. In the interim, however, we have learned that many of them have been linked to hormonal, reproductive and immune problems, cancer, and a plethora of environmental problems.

And since 1976, an additional 22,000 chemicals have been introduced without any testing for public or environmental safety. Some of the potentially worst offenders can be found in cleaning and personal care products, furniture, building materials, electronics, food and drink containers, and even kids' toys.

"The law is widely considered to be a failure and, most recently, the Environmental Protection Agency's own Inspector General found it inadequate to ensure that new chemicals are safe," reports NRDC, which is not the only group concerned about beefing up TSCA. The Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families Coalition includes more than 200 nonprofits - including Physicians for Social Responsibility, the U.S. Public Interest Research Group (USPIRG), the Environmental Defense Fund and the Lung Cancer Alliance, among many others - representing a collective membership of more than 11 million individual parents, health professionals, advocates for people with learning and developmental disabilities, reproductive health advocates, environmentalists and businesspersons from across the country.

By banding together, coalition leaders hope to convince Congress to fix the problem by finally updating TSCA and creating the "foundation for a sound and comprehensive chemicals policy that protects public health and the environment, while restoring the luster of safety to U.S. goods in the world market."

Specifically, the coalition is lobbying Congress to revamp TSCA so that the most dangerous chemicals are phased out or banned outright and that others are tested and regulated accordingly, all the while ensuring the public's right-to-know about the safety and use of chemicals in everyday products. Also, the coalition is calling for federal funding to expand research into greener alternative chemicals to replace those with known health hazards.

CONTACTS: NRDC, www.nrdc.org, EPA Summary of TSCA, www.epa.gov/lawsregs/laws/tsca.html; Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families Coalition, www.saferchemicals.org.



Read more: http://www.miamiherald.com/2011/01/03/1998201/earthtalk-is-the-toxic-substances.html#ixzz19zjjzdzv

 

Press Release 11-110
While Hominid Males Stayed Home, Females Roamed
1

New research gives clues to social organization of ancient hominids


Sandi Copeland, adjunct professor in Anthropology at the University of Colorado Boulder.
Credit and Larger Version

June 2, 2011

The males of two bipedal hominid species that roamed the South African savannah more than a million years ago preferred to stay at home, but their female counterparts wandered the landscape, says a new study led by the University of Colorado Boulder.

Researchers studied teeth from two adjacent cave systems in South Africa that were home to two groups of extinct hominids, Australopithecus africanus and Paranthropus robustus . They found more than half of the female teeth were from outside the local area, whereas only about 10 percent of the male teeth were from elsewhere, suggesting the males likely grew up and died in the same area while the females roamed the countryside.

"One of our goals was to try to find something out about early hominid landscape use," said CU-Boulder adjunct professor and lead study author Sandi Copeland. "Here we have the first direct glimpse of the geographic movements of early hominids, and it appears the females preferentially moved away from their residential groups."

The science journal Nature published a paper on the study today in its June 2 issue.

"This is exciting research," said Physical Anthropology Program Officer Kaye Reed of the National Science Foundation, which in part funded the research. "The research gives us clues to social organization that has been unavailable. We knew that these species are sexually dimorphic, and now we know that the females left their natal groups, leaving the males in place as close kin."

Reed said the study suggests that the males co-operated in some way like primate species today, chimps for example. "You just can't know this from morphology alone."

"It is difficult enough to work out relations between the sexes today, so the challenges in investigating the ways that male and female hominids used the landscape and formed social groups over a million years ago are considerable to say the least," said CU-Boulder anthropology Professor Matt Sponheimer.

"Disembodied skulls and teeth are notoriously poor communicators, so the real difficulty with a study like this is finding new ways to make these old bones speak."

The team used a high-tech analysis known as laser ablation, zapping the hominid teeth with lasers to help them measure isotope ratios of strontium found in tooth enamel in order to identify specific areas of landscape use. A naturally occurring element, strontium is found in rocks and soils and is absorbed by plants and animals.

Since unique strontium signals are tied to specific geological substrates--like granite, basalt, quartzite, sandstone and others--they can be used to reveal landscape conditions where ancient hominids grew up.

"The strontium isotope ratios are a direct reflection of the foods these hominids ate, which in turn are a reflection of the local geology" said Copeland.

"The research suggests that the ancestral condition of modern humans, if A. africanus is an ancient ancestor, is one where females of the group disperse outside of their family group--similar to chimpanzees today," said Reed. "Thus, for Homo sapiens , those cultural groups in which the males disperse outside the family group suggests a differentiation from the ancestral condition."

"This study gets us closer to understanding the social structure of ancient hominids since we now have a better idea about the dispersal patterns," said Copeland.

The new study results were somewhat surprising, she added. "We assumed more of the hominids would be from non-local areas since it is generally thought the evolution of bipedalism was due in part to allow individuals to range longer distances," she said. "Such small home ranges could imply that bipedalism evolved for other reasons."

Sponheimer said the study could be taken as support for the position that bipedalism arose for reasons other than improved locomotion; the data might also indicate that many hominids simply preferred to live on dolomite substrates where caves would have been abundant.

"I've never thought of these early male hominids as the quintessential cavemen," he said. "But the potential use of caves at this early time period is something worth considering."

Additional co-authors for the study include Darryl de Ruiter from Texas A&M University, Julia Lee Thorp from the University of Oxford, Daryl Codron from the University of Zurich, Petrus le Roux from the University of Cape Town, Vaughan Grimes of Memorial University-St. John's campus in Newfoundland and Michael Richards of the University of British Columbia in Vancouver.

The Max Planck Society, a University of Colorado Leadership Education for Advancement and Promotion program Associate Professor Growth Grant and the University of Colorado Dean's Fund for Excellence also provided funding for the research.

More about the study can be found on the University of Colorado website .

-NSF-

1

Media Contacts
Bobbie Mixon, NSF (703) 292-8070 bmixon@nsf.gov
Jim Scott, University of Colorado Boulder (303) 492-3114 Jim.Scott@colorado.edu

Program Contacts
Kaye Reed, NSF (703) 292-7850 kreed@nsf.gov

Principal Investigators
Sandi Copeland, University of Colorado Boulder (501) 454-1177 sandicopeland@gmail.com

Co-Investigators
Matt Sponheimer, University of Colorado Boulder (303) 492-2065 Matt.Sponheimer@gmail.com

1

The National Science Foundation (NSF) is an independent federal agency that supports fundamental research and education across all fields of science and engineering. In fiscal year (FY) 2010, its budget is about $6.9 billion. NSF funds reach all 50 states through grants to nearly 2,000 universities and institutions. Each year, NSF receives over 45,000 competitive requests for funding, and makes over 11,500 new funding awards. NSF also awards over $400 million in professional and service contracts yearly.

Photo of Sandi Copeland, adjunct professor in Anthropology at the University of Colorado Boulder.Get News Updates by Email 

Useful NSF Web Sites:
NSF Home Page: http://www.nsf.gov
NSF News: http://www.nsf.gov/news/
For the News Media: http://www.nsf.gov/news/newsroom.jsp
Science and Engineering Statistics: http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/
Awards Searches: http://www.nsf.gov/awardsearch/



Read more: The Federalist No. 35 | Lake Minnetonka Liberty

Just how did we get to where we are when Justice Horace Gray even goes as far as to contradict himself when, after he quotes passages from the debates to support his position, he writes that "[T]he debates in Congress are not admissible as evidence to control the meaning of those words. But the statements above quoted are valuable as contemporaneous opinions of jurists and statesmen upon the legal meaning of the words themselves" .

So let us first take a look at what other members of Congress said in regards to what "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" meant.

Senator Jacob Howard was pretty clear
This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. This has long been a great desideratum in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country.
-Congressional Globe, Senate, 39th Congress, 1st Session Page 2890 As was Senator Lyman Trumbull
The provision is, that "all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens." That means "subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof."... What do we mean by "complete jurisdiction thereof?" Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means.
-Congressional Globe, Senate, 39th Congress, 1st Session Page 2893 Senator Howard later agreed with Senator Trumbull's definition of the word.
I concur entirely with the honorable Senator from Illinois, in holding that the word "jurisdiction," as here employed, ought to be construed so as to imply a full and complete jurisdiction on the part of the United States, whether exercised by Congress, by the executive, or by the judicial department; that is to say, the same jurisdiction in extent and quality as applies to every citizen of the United States now.
-Congressional Globe, Senate, 39th Congress, 1st Session Page 2895 To further support the contention that Justice Gray got it wrong, Congress, on April 9, 1866, passed a law which established "That all persons born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States;" (39th Congress, Session 1, Chapter 31) which later became Section 1992 of the US Revised Statutes in 1873. Now you argue that by choosing different language for the 14th Amendment, Congress changed it's mind but remember, this law was passed only a month after the amendment was proposed and Representative John Bingham, who co-wrote the citizenship clause said this regarding chapter 31 in the debate.
I find no fault with the introductory clause, which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.
-Congressional Globe, House of Representatives, 39th Congress, 1st Session Page 1291 So we have here the Congressional record that clarifies "subject to the jurisdiction thereof", now can we find any other reference by the government as to what it means? Well in 1873 the US Attorney General George Henry Williams issued this opinion concerning the 14th Amendment which according to the current DOJ website, "Under the Judiciary Act of 1789, the Attorney General was authorized to render opinions on questions of law when requested by the President and the heads of Executive Branch departments."
"The word 'jurisdiction' must be understood to mean absolute and complete jurisdiction, such as the United States had over its citizens before the adoption of this amendment. Aliens, among whom are persons born here and naturalized abroad, dwelling or being in this country, are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States only to a limited extent. Political and military rights and duties do not pertain to them."
-14 U.S. Attorney General Opinions 300 Interestingly enough Justice Gray uses the previous opinions of Attorney Generals to support his opinion while omitting one that came just a year before Elk v. Wilkins where he himself also wrote similar words in the majority opinion,
The persons declared to be citizens are "all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof." The evident meaning of these last words is not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction and owing them direct and immediate allegiance. And the words relate to the time of birth in the one case, as they do to the time of naturalization in the other. Persons not thus subject to the jurisdiction of the United States at the time of birth cannot become so afterwards except by being naturalized, either individually, as by proceedings under the naturalization acts, or collectively, as by the force of a treaty by which foreign territory is acquired. With the history lesson being over on what the intent of just what was meant by "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" you have to ask yourself, how did Justice Gray arrive at this opinion in US v Wong Kim Ark just 14 years later, and especially after citing Elk?
The foregoing considerations and authorities irresistibly lead us to these conclusions: the Fourteenth Amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory, in the allegiance and under the protection of the country, including all children here born of resident aliens, with the exceptions or qualifications (as old as the rule itself) of children of foreign sovereigns or their ministers, or born on foreign public ships, or of enemies within and during a hostile occupation of part of our territory, and with the single additional exception of children of members of the Indian tribes owing direct allegiance to their several tribes. The Amendment, in clear words and in manifest intent, includes the children born, within the territory of the United States, of all other persons, of whatever race or color, domiciled within the United States. Every citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the United States. His allegiance to the United States is direct and immediate , and, although but local and temporary, continuing only so long as he remains within our territory... It can hardly be denied that an alien is completely subject to the political jurisdiction of the country in which he resides. What is presented as the opinion in Kim Ark is a pretty ironclad case for birthright citizenship regardless of the legal status of the parents. This is further cemented by a little nugget from Justice William Brennan in Plyler v Doe and makes it impossible to get around without an amendment or a SCOTUS ruling that settles the question once and for all.
"[B]y principles of sovereignty and allegiance, no plausible distinction with respect to Fourteenth Amendment "jurisdiction" can be drawn between resident aliens whose entry into the United States was lawful, and resident aliens whose entry was unlawful."

“Operation Broken Trust” Moves Forward Even As Feds Lose Case in Florida

Dec. 26 2010 - 9:15 pm

I, like others, have cited that the feds lose cases only rarely.  Some sources estimate a fed conviction rate of over 95%.  Well lightening struck in a Florida federal court last week and the home team lost one.  In a trial that lasted six (6) days, real estate developer Glenn Straub and his company Palm Polo Holdings, Inc, were found not guilty on violations of the Clean Water Act.

It seems Mr. Straub had engaged a contractor to remove Melaleuca trees and Brazilian Pepper trees from two of his properties under development.  While the State of Florida recognizes these plants as invasive and having a negative impact on wetlands, the feds saw it as a violation of the Clean Water Act, 33 USC 1319.  The case was brought in the Southern District of Florida (guess there must be a shortage of white-collar crime and drug cases in the Miami area these days).  Had Straub been found guilty, the violation could have resulted in both fines and imprisonment.

What is rare is that the government lost a case, which is why I bring it to the attention of Forbes readers.  What is worth noting also is that this loss is NOT worth noting at all.  When are we going to see more prosecution of those individuals responsible for the losses at our financial institutions over the past 3 years.  Operation Broken Trust, announced by U.S. attorney general Eric Holder earlier this month, was supposed to be part of a larger crackdown on white-collar crime.  However, criticism about the lack of big names in that offensive has been noted throughout the media.  This week, Andrew Cuomo New York's attorney general, even took on Ernst & Young for its role in the downfall of Lehman Brothers.  I did not see Richard Fuld's (former Lehman Chairman & CEO) name on any indictment, federal or state.

On another note, the feds did win one in New York last week.  Former Army Captain Bryant Williams was found guilty of an Honest Services fraud ( see Jeff Skilling appeal ) for taking bribes in his role as a procurement officer for the 101 st Airborne while stationed in Iraq.  Let's hope this one holds up.

 

INVESTIGATION OF EPA-DOJ MALICE, FRAUD, AND DECEIT

FIRST INTERVENTION 1 , 2 , 3 , FILED MARCH 20, 2008

We consider a question that has split the federal courts:
May a non-settling PRP intervene in litigation to oppose a consent decree incorporating a settlement that, if approved, would bar contribution from the settling PRP?

We join the Eighth and Tenth Circuits in holding that the answer is “yes.”

in looking at the substance of the matter, they can see that it "is a clear, unmistakable infringement of rights secured by the fundamental law." Booth v. Illinois , 184 U.S. 425 , 429 .

States may make whatever laws they wish (consistent with their State Constitutions) except as prohibited by the US Constitution. Only Laws made by Congress, which are pursuant to the Constitution, qualify as part of the General Government Law of the Land.

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof … shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State  to the Contrary notwithstanding. [emphasis added]

Federal sovereign immunity

"Though this was the intent of the Congress [to waive sovereign immunity] in passing the 1972 Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments, the Supreme Court, encouraged by Federal agencies, has misconstrued the original intent." S. Rep. No. 370, 95th Cong., 1st Sess. 67 (1977), reprinted in 1977 U.S.C.C.A.N. 4326, 4392. See Clean Air Act Amendments of 1977, Pub. L. No. 95-95, [section] 116, 91 Stat. 711 (1977); see also Clean Water Act Amendments of 1977, Pub. L. 217, [subsection] 60, 61(a), 91 Stat. 1597, 1598 (1977).

The people are the only legitimate fountain of power, and it is from them that the constitutional charter, under which the several branches of government hold their power, is derived.
James Madison

Parents wonder why the streams are bitter, when they themselves have poisoned the fountain.
John Locke

From such a gentle thing, from such a fountain of all delight, my every pain is born.
Michelangelo

Look within. Within is the fountain of good, and it will ever bubble up, if thou wilt ever dig.

Words that everyone once used are now obsolete, and so are the men whose names were once on everyone's lips: Camillus, Caeso, Volesus, Dentatus, and to a lesser degree Scipio and Cato, and yes, even Augustus, Hadrian, and Antoninus are less spoken of now than they were in their own days. For all things fade away, become the stuff of legend, and are soon buried in oblivion. Mind you, this is true only for those who blazed once like bright stars in the firmament, but for the rest, as soon as a few clods of earth cover their corpses, they are 'out of sight, out of mind.' In the end, what would you gain from everlasting remembrance? Absolutely nothing. So what is left worth living for? This alone: justice in thought, goodness in action, speech that cannot deceive, and a disposition glad of whatever comes, welcoming it as necessary, as familiar, as flowing from the same source and fountain as yourself. (IV. 33, trans. Scot and David Hicks) - Marcus Aurelius

 

GLORIA DEI EST CELARE VERBUM. AMEN. - Proverbs 25:2 - It is the glory of God to conceal a thing: (but the honour of kings is to search out a matter.)

Bill Text
111th Congress (2009-2010)
S.787.RS

S.787

Clean Water Restoration Act (Reported in Senate - RS)

SEC. 7. REGULATIONS.

(a) Promulgation- Not later than 18 months after the date of enactment of this Act, the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency and the Secretary of the Army shall promulgate such regulations as are necessary to implement this Act and the amendments made by this Act.

(b) Rules of Construction- Subject to the exclusions in paragraph (25)(B) of section 502 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1362) (as amended by section 4), the term `waters of the United States' shall be construed consistently with--

(1) the scope of Federal jurisdiction under that Act, as interpreted and applied by the Environmental Protection Agency and the Corps of Engineers prior to January 9, 2001 (including pursuant to the final rules and preambles published at 53 Fed. Reg. 20764 (June 6, 1988) and 51 Fed. Reg. 41206 (November 13, 1986)); and

(2) the legislative authority of Congress under the Constitution.

Calendar No. 685

111th CONGRESS 2d Session

S. 787

[Report No. 111-361]

A BILL

To amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to clarify the jurisdiction of the United States over waters of the United States.

December 10, 2010

Reported with an amendment

 

DOE ends Fed preemption of water rules

Jan 5, 2011 10:39 AM, BY ROBERT P. MADER Of CONTRACTOR's staff

 

 

The following are Tenth Amendment Center model bills and resolutions which are intended to reaffirm the proper role of government under the Constitution. Activists, we encourage you to send them to your state senators and representatives – and ask them to introduce the legislation in your state.

More model legislation is forthcoming…Please don't hesitate to Contact Us with questions or suggestions.

10th Amendment Resolution
WHEREAS, the people of the State of __________ are not united with the People of the other forty-nine states that comprise the United States of America on a principle of unlimited submission to their federal government

Federal Health Care Nullification Act
An Act to render null and void certain unconstitutional laws enacted by the Congress of the United States, taking control over the health insurance industry and mandating that individuals purchase health insurance under threat of penalty.

Defend the Guard
For the purpose of requiring the Governor to withhold or withdraw approval of the transfer of this State's National Guard to federal control in the absence of an explicit authorization adopted by the Federal Government in pursuance of the powers delegated to the Federal Government in Article I, Section 8, Clause 15 of the U.S. Constitution.

Freedom from Registration Act
To make findings of the General Assembly in regard to a person's right to keep and bear arms, to provide that no federal official or agent may require registration of purchasers of firearms or ammunition within the boundaries of the state, and to provide penalties for violation of this act which is a felony.

Intrastate Commerce Act
Provides that all goods manufactured or made in (STATE) and all services performed in (STATE), when such goods or services are held, maintained, or retained in (STATE), shall not be subject to the authority of the Congress of the United States under its constitutional power to regulate commerce.

10th Amendment Commission
coming soon!

Hemp Freedom Act
To authorize the production of industrial hemp; to amend (SUBSECTION AND CODE) of the (STATE) Code, relating to the definition of noxious weed seeds; and to nullify certain acts of the Federal Government of the United States purporting to be laws and regulations resulting in the prohibition of industrial hemp farming in the state of (STATE).

Environmental Preservation Act
Any federal law, rule, order, or other act by the federal government violating the provisions of this act is hereby declared to be invalid in this state, is not recognized by and is specifically rejected by this state, and is considered as null and void and of no effect in this state.

Constitutional Tender Act
The General Assembly finds and declares that sound, constitutionally based money is essential to the livelihood of the people of this state and to the stability and growth of the economy of this state and region and vitally affects the public interest. The General Assembly further finds that Article I, Section 10 of the United States Constitution provides that no state shall make any thing but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts.

Controlled Substances Nullification Act
An Act to render null and void certain unconstitutional laws enacted by the Congress of the United States, prohibiting the sale, production, possession and consumption of certain products and substances under threat of penalty.

Uniform Enumerated Powers Act
A Bill to require the federal government to specify the source of authority under the United States Constitution for the enactment of laws, and for other purposes.

 

Matthew 7

1 Judge not, that ye be not judged.

2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.

3 And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?

4 Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye?

5 Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.

6 Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you.

7 Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you:

8 For every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened.

9 Or what man is there of you, whom if his son ask bread, will he give him a stone?

10 Or if he ask a fish, will he give him a serpent?

11 If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children, how much more shall your Father which is in heaven give good things to them that ask him?

12 Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets.

13 Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat:

14 Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.

15 Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.

16 Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?

17 Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.

18 A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.

19 Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.

20 Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.

21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.

22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?

23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

24 Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock:

25 And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell not: for it was founded upon a rock.

26 And every one that heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them not, shall be likened unto a foolish man, which built his house upon the sand:

27 And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell: and great was the fall of it.

28 And it came to pass, when Jesus had ended these sayings, the people were astonished at his doctrine:

29 For he taught them as one having authority, and not as the scribes.

confidential secretary

Donna nobis pacem - Grant us peace : Fide, non armis - By faith, not arms

home

 

This is the truth, as old as the hills, that life and experience teach, the poor man suffers the keenest of ills, an impediment in his reach.

The Bottom Line

 

FULL PAGE