| 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.
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*, http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/npl/f830908.htm
BILLING CODE 6560-50-C
Engineering Education and Centers Engineering Research Centers (ERC) CONTACTS
PROGRAM GUIDELINES DUE DATESLetter 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 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:
RELATED URLS THIS PROGRAM IS PART OF What Has Been Funded (Recent Awards Made Through This Program, with Abstracts) Map of Recent Awards Made Through This Program May 5, 2011 USDA and DOE Award Biomass Research and Development Grants to Reduce America's Reliance on Imported OilProjects will help develop sustainable, renewable biofuels in the U.S.Summary of the Emergency Planning & Community Right-to-Know ActQuick 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 StateLaws 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
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 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).
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.
- end -
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
Combating Improper Payments
In FY 2010, improper payments for Federal government programs totaled more than $125 billion, despite a decrease in the government-wide improper payment rate from the previous year. To reverse this unacceptable growth, we need innovative approaches that significantly boost payment accuracy across government programs.
|
|||||||||
Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents. TERMINATION: WATER AND WASTEWATER TREATMENT PROJECTS TERMINATION: WATER RESOURCES RESEARCH ACT PROGRAM TERMINATION: WATERSHED AND FLOOD PREVENTION PROGRAM TERMINATION: WATERSHED REHABILITATION PROGRAM REDUCTION: CLEAN WATER AND DRINKING WATER STATE REVOLVING FUNDS PROGRAM INTEGRITY OVERVIEW PARTNERSHIP of $20 million to prioritize new projects that, like the EITC pilot, promise a significant return on investment. |
|
|||||||||
112th Congress 1st Session Cross-environmental Media GrantsGrants and Funding
About CFDACatalog 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.
|
The Obama administration announced that it will impose stricter pollution controls on millions of acres of wetlands and tens of thousands of streams.
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.
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
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" »
|
|||||||||
| 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 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 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 |
|
|||||||||
| 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.
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
Disposing of excess properties with 'little or no value' can save billions| read more share: |
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 .
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
|
|||||||||
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 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 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
|
|||||||||
| 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 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 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”.
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.
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."
These final guidance documents are being issued in accordance with the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Bulletin on Agency Good Guidance Practices (GGPs) (January 25, 2007, 72 FR 3432 -3440). The purpose of GGPs is to ensure that program guidance documents are developed with adequate public participation, are readily available to the public, and are not applied as binding requirements. Final guidance represents the NOP's current thinking on these topics. It does not create or confer any rights for, or on, any person and does not operate to bind the NOP or the public. Guidance documents are intended to provide a uniform method for operations to comply that can reduce the burden of developing their own methods and simplify audits and inspections. Alternative approaches that can demonstrate compliance with the Organic Foods Production Act (OFPA), as amended ( 7 U.S.C. 6501 -6522), and its implementing regulations are also acceptable. As with any alternative compliance approach, the NOP strongly encourages industry to discuss alternative approaches with the NOP before implementing them to avoid unnecessary or wasteful expenditures of resources and to ensure the proposed alternative approach complies with the Act and its implementing regulations. Show citation box
Persons with access to Internet may obtain a copy of final guidance in the “Program Handbook” along with the “NOP Notice 11-7” at NOP's Web site at http://www.ams.usda.gov/nop . Show citation box
Dated: May 2, 2011.
Rayne Pegg,
Administrator, Agricultural Marketing Service.
[FR Doc. 2011-11115 Filed 5-5-11; 8:45 am]
Programs and Funding Opportunities
Key: 
Crosscutting | 
NSF-wide
 |
|
| Chemical, Biochemical, and Biotechnology Systems | |
 |
Catalysis and Biocatalysis |
|
Chemical and Biological Separations (CBS) |
|
Process and Reaction Engineering |
|
|
| Biomedical Engineering and Engineering Healthcare | |
|
Biomedical Engineering (BME) |
|
Biophotonics |
|
Biosensing |
|
Biotechnology, Biochemical, and Biomass Engineering (BBBE) |
|
General & Age-Related Disabilities Engineering (GARDE) |
|
|
| Environmental Engineering and Sustainability | |
|
Energy for Sustainability |
|
Environmental Engineering |
|
Environmental Health and Safety of Nanotechnology |
|
Environmental Sustainability |
|
|
| Transport and Thermal Fluids Phenomena | |
|
Combustion, Fire, and Plasma Systems |
|
Fluid Dynamics |
|
Interfacial Processes and Thermodynamics |
|
Particulate and Multiphase Processes |
|
Thermal Transport Processes |
|
|
| Broadening Participation Research Initiation Grants in Engineering (BRIGE) | |
|
|
| Dear Colleague Letter: Supplemental Opportunity for Translational Research in the Academic Community (TRAC) (NSF 10-044) | |
|
|
| NSF/DOE Partnership in Basic Plasma Science and Engineering | |
TITLE 28 > PART IV > CHAPTER 83 > § 1291 Prev | Next
How Current is This? The courts of appeals (other than the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit) shall have jurisdiction of appeals from all final decisions of the district courts of the United States, the United States District Court for the District of the Canal Zone, the District Court of Guam, and the District Court of the Virgin Islands, except where a direct review may be had in the Supreme Court. The jurisdiction of the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit shall be limited to the jurisdiction described in sections 1292 (c) and (d) and 1295 of this title.
$375.00 /hour - Subject Matter Expert V
Author: Timothy Sandefur
I was on Northern California's Armstrong & Getty show again this morning to talk about Jerry Brown's attempt to rein in the state's 400+ redevelopment agencies—the government agencies whose job it is to steal your property through eminent domain and give it to private developers. You can listen here and you can learn more about that plan and how you can help at the Castle Coalition and at City Watch.
Author: Luke A. Wake
Pacific Legal Foundation will soon file a petition for certiorari asking the Supreme Court to review a Federal Circuit decision which flies in the face of long-standing Supreme Court precedent. The case involves EPA's decision to cut off access to and from the navigable waters of the San Joaquin River for a Stockton marina owner, Ryan Voorhees. In 2006 EPA installed a log boom in the Old Mormon Slough, making it impossible for Voorhees to access navigable waters from most of his marina, and scuttling his marine-oriented development plans. Ryan Voorhees, President of CRV Enterprises, says that--in taking away his access rights--EPA has violated the Fifth Amendment because the agency has refused to pay him a dime.
In CRV Enterprises Inc. et al. v. United States , the Federal Circuit recognized that Voorhees, as a waterfront landowner in California, has a right to access navigable waters from every inch of his shoreline; however, the court refused to recognize a compensable taking when EPA destroyed that right by physically obstructing CRV's access to the river. In a jarring departure from existing precedent, the decision held that the Supreme Court's physical takings doctrine does not apply in water rights cases where government has refrained from invading the boundaries of a claimant's private property, unless the government actually depletes or diverts a waterway.
Continue reading "Access denied: PLF asks Supreme Court to review EPA's obstruction immunity" »
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.
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
Catalyzing New International Collaborations
CNIC Supports New Collaborations Worldwide
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)
CONTACTS
| Name | Phone | Room | |
| Russell C. Kelz | rkelz@nsf.gov | (703) 292-4747 | 790 |
| David D. Lambert | dlambert@nsf.gov | (703) 292-8558 | 790 |
PROGRAM GUIDELINES
Solicitation 11-544
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
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 RELATED URLS THIS PROGRAM IS PART OF What Has Been Funded (Recent Awards Made Through This Program, with Abstracts) |
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|
||
NSF Educational Opportunities by Audience
For Undergraduate Students
For Graduate Students
For Postdoctoral Fellows
For K-12 Educators
| Upcoming Due Dates | |
See All | ||
|
||||
Integrative Graduate Education and Research Traineeship Program Research Coordination Networks Science and Technology Centers: Integrative Partnerships Research Experiences for Undergraduates Research Coordination Networks
|
||||
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
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
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.
: An overview of EERE's programs and activities. The offices support the cross-cutting and corporate-level activities within EERE. They include:
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.
BER advances world-class biological and environmental research programs and scientific user facilities to support DOE's energy, environment, and basic research missions.
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 AMThe 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
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:
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
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
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
|
|||||||
|
 |
||||||
|
|||||||
|
|
|
|||||
| 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 | |
||||||
|
|||||||
|
||||||
|
|
|||||
|
||||||
|
|
|||||
|
||||||
|
|
|||||
|
||||||
|
|
|||||
|
||||||
|
|
|||||
|
||||||
|
|
|||||
|
||||||
|
|
|||||
|
||||||
|
|
|||||
|
||||||
|
|
|||||
|
||||||
|
|
|||||
|
||||||
|
||||||
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||
|
|||||||
|
|
|
|||||
| 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 | |||||||
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.
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
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.
The new California law mandating 33% renewable energy by 2020 from all California utilities has troubling, if not downright bizarre aspects, some of which will definitely raise the cost of electricity substantially. Yet, this doesn't need to happen.
One of the most reliable and inexpensive forms of renewable energy, large hydropower, does not qualify as renewable under the law. In 2009 , 11.6% of California power came from renewable sources, while 9.2% came from large hydropower. Yet for inexplicable reasons, large hydro does not count as renewable energy in California (even as small hydro does!). California, in its laudable and admirable attempt to switch to renewable energy, has somehow managed to decree that its biggest supplier of renewable energy does not qualify as being renewable.
It's difficult to find any solid information on why this decision was made. Some opine that hydropower is variable because water is sometimes scarce; hence it doesn't count as renewable. But the same can be said for solar and wind power too. Those of us with suspicious minds might wonder if lobbyists for solar and wind had more than a little say in the writing of the law and if there is a hidden agenda against big hydro. This decision is beyond curious as it clearly benefits the solar and wind power industries to the exclusion of others. And that's detrimental to California, to taxpayers, and to everyone who pays a power bill.
What's even more disappointing is that California's push to utilize renewable energy will be accomplished in major part by importing renewable energy from other states. While the law was touted as a job creation machine for California, it's difficult to see how many jobs will be created by using clean energy produced elsewhere. This seems more of the smoke and mirrors that Sacramento watchers are all too used to.
It gets worse, and much more convoluted. California's refusal to rightfully categorized large hydro as renewable energy will have severely unpleasant ramifications as the cost of electricity will unquestionably rise more than it needed to. For example, California gets power from the Bonneville Power Administration in the Pacific Northwest, which is federal and doesn't have to comply with state laws. Bonneville has both hydro and wind power and due to the immense snowpack, has told wind farms they will have to shut down periodically this year to allow hydropower to use up some of that water. But this means California cannot use Bonneville power when it is hydro only, and thus must find non-hydro renewable energy elsewhere, presumably at a higher cost.
It is a given that wind and solar developers will be aware of California's self-imposed predicament and will price their power accordingly. The simplest, most obvious, and greenest solution to this is for California to immediately re-classify large hydro as renewable energy, something which hydropower clearly already is.
The Environmental Protection Agency has released its final Policy Assessment for the Review of the Particulate Matter National Ambient Air Quality Standards.
In the assessment, agency staffers determined that EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson would be justified in either keeping the current standard or tightening it to a level that would be essentially twice as stringent for much of rural America. The final policy assessment states the two standards are essentially equivalent in terms of health protection.
According to Tamara Thies, chief environmental counsel for the National Cattlemen's Beef Association, the good news is the policy assessment includes options rather than a stand-alone recommendation. The bad news is EPA can still choose to regulate dust in a way that would put a stranglehold on rural America. Thies says finalizing a rule that would result in heavy fines for creating dust by simply driving down a dirt road or herding cattle is unacceptable.
"Dust is a part of life in rural America. Cattle ranchers work hard to provide safe and nutritious food for this country and abroad," Thies said. "Finalizing a rule that would result in heavy fines for creating dust by simply driving down a dirt road or herding cattle is unacceptable. If EPA Administrator Jackson is serious when she says EPA is not working against agriculture, she needs to prove it. We urge EPA Administrator Jackson to keep the current standard."
Administrator Jackson has complained recently about so-called 'myths and misconceptions' about her intentions regarding this issue. NCBA urges her to put minds at ease by declaring unequivocally that EPA's actions will not result in a more restrictive regulation of dust in rural America. Also, Thies says this is the administrator's opportunity to reduce the mounting pile of burdensome and unnecessary regulations on agriculture.
U.S. Representative Kristi Noem, R-S.D., introduced, with bipartisan support, the Farm Dust Regulation Prevention Act of 2011 that would block dust regulation by EPA in rural areas where state dust laws are in effect.
"We support Congresswoman Noem and the other members of Congress who have risen in support of farmers and ranchers against burdensome and scientifically unfounded regulations," said Thies.
EPA is expected to issue a proposed rule to regulate dust in August 2011.
EPA releases its Strategic Sustainability Performance Plan in accordance with Executive Order 13514.
The Guiding Principles for Federal Leadership in High Performance and Sustainable Buildings ( Guiding Principles ), which incorporate requirements from EISA, require agencies to employ design and construction strategies that reduce stormwater runoff, polluted site water runoff, and the use of potable water for irrigation. They promote the use of decentralized stormwater management design strategies to maintain or restore site hydrology to pre-development conditions and promote water-efficient landscaping and irrigation strategies.
The Guiding Principles , last revised on December 1, 2008, contain two sets of principles: one for new construction and major renovation of buildings, the other for existing buildings. The new building principles focus primarily on design and construction, while the existing building principles emphasize sustainable operations, maintenance, and management.
Guiding Principle III, Protect and Conserve Water, is present in both the new construction and major renovations set of Guiding Principles and the existing buildings set of Guiding Principles , and in both sets it contains the following language regarding stormwater management:
"Employ design and construction strategies that reduce storm water runoff and discharges of polluted water offsite. Per EISA Section 438, to the maximum extent technically feasible, maintain or restore the predevelopment hydrology of the site with regard to temperature, rate, volume, and duration of flow using site planning, design, construction, and maintenance strategies."
Smart Communities Network
Site Index
