Christ of the Freeminers Iron Mountain Mine

BLUEFIELD — During a meeting with the Bluefield Daily Telegraph editorial board on Thursday, Acting Governor Earl Ray Tomblin said he was “not pleased with the EPA,” and noted that his predecessor, now U.S. Senator Joe Manchin III, D-W.Va., filed a suit against the Environmental Protection Agency claiming that the agency “overstepped its bounds,” Tomblin said.

Earlier in the day on Thursday in Washington, D.C., the House Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment convened the first of a two-part hearing on the EPA's “regulatory guidance on surface mining” as well as the economic impact of the “increasingly heavy-handed regulatory approach in the Appalachian region,” according to a press release from the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee.

“Recently, EPA revoked a Section 404 ‘dredge and fill' permit for the Spruce No. 1 Mine in Logan, three years after the permit was issued by the Army Corps of Engineers — in full agreement with EPA,” according to the House committee's press release. “This action has raised serious questions about the extent of EPA's authority, considering that the project was well underway when the permit was revoked.”

According to the press release, the EPA's “unchecked actions will threaten one of every four coal mining jobs in the Appalachian region.” The committee's stated purpose in calling for the hearings is “to receive testimony from state regulators, the mining industry, impacted businesses, economists and EPA on surface mining guidance and the issues surrounding it.” Speakers in the first hearing included Michael Gardner, general counsel of Oxford Resources, Dr. Leonard Peters, secretary of the Kentucky Energy and Environment Cabinet, Teresa Marks, director Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality and Hal Quinn, president, National Mining Association.

“The deliberate and disruptive policies that have slowed and stopped coal mines from receiving permits to open or expand have consequences that reverberate throughout the region,” Quinn was quoted as stating in a NMA press release. “The consequences begin with the coal supply chain and spread to those that benefit from low-cost coal energy.”

According to Quinn's statement, in just two months, the backlog of permits had grown to 235 applications with a full 190 of them already having been considered complete by the Corps of Engineers. The NMA claimed that the EPA's policies prompted the Energy Information Administration to drop productivity projections in Central Appalachian surface mines by as much as 20 percent.

“This represents a substantial regulatory penalty that will erode companies' competitiveness and threaten more coal jobs,” according to Quinn's quote in the NMA press release. He added that coal miners deserve an answer to the question as to “why their own government at times seems to put so much effort into working against them rather than supporting them and what they do for the country.”

U.S. Rep. Nick Rahall, D-W.Va., the ranking Democrat on the committee was quoted in a press release as stating that coal miners are constantly concerned about their jobs. “The people of southern West Virginia love the natural beauty of our land,” Rahall was quoted as stating. “We want clean water and air. But we want jobs too. We do not condone coal companies failing to ensure the safety of their miners and the well-being of the communities in which they operate. That is simply wrong,” Rahall said.

“But it is also wrong for a federal agency to circumvent the law and treat guidance as binding policy, particularly when that policy targets only one industry in only one region of the country,” Rahall was quoted as stating.

Lisa Jackson, administrator of the EPA, Dr. David Sunding, University of California-Berkeley, Reed Hopper, Pacific Legal Foundation, Michael Carey, president of the Ohio Coal Association and Steve Roberts, president of the West Virginia Chamber of Commerce are scheduled to appear at the committee's next hearing on May 11.

— Contact Bill Archer at barcher@bdtonline.com

Senate Republicans Introduce Bill To Abolish The EPA

Senate Republicans have introduced legislation to abolish the Environmental Protection Agency, established 40 years ago by President Richard Nixon to give Americans clean air and water. The bill, introduced by Sen. Richard Burr (R-NC), would merge the EPA, which enforces environmental laws, with the Department of Energy, which manages nuclear energy and energy research, into one department.

Burr's statement announcing his bill to eliminate the EPA argues that “duplicative functions” can be eliminated, even though the two departments are completely different:

U.S. Senator Richard Burr (R-North Carolina) introduced a bill that would consolidate the Department of Energy and the Environmental Protection Agency into a single, new agency called the Department of Energy and Environment (DOEE). The bill would provide cost savings by combining duplicative functions while improving the administration of energy and environmental policies by ensuring a coordinated approach.

In January, former Republican House Speaker Newt Gingrich proposed abolishing the EPA, and several House Republicans have supported that goal, while making numerous attempts to hamstring limits on industrial polluters.

Burr's bill has fifteen co-sponsors, all of them global warming deniers : Jim DeMint (R-SC), Mike Enzi (R-WY), John Thune (R-SD), John McCain (R-AZ), Dan Coats (R-IN), Richard Shelby (R-AL), John Barrasso (R-WY), Roy Blunt (R-MO), John Boozman (R-AR), Thad Cochran (R-MS), Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX), David Vitter (R-LA), Orrin Hatch (R-UT), Ron Johnson (R-WI), Mike Lee (R-UT).

OPM Launches USAJOBSRecruit.gov

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.

To decide what to put on USAJOBSRecruit, OPM held focus groups of hiring managers and HR practitioners across the nation. The number one need expressed in the focus groups was for an online environment to discuss and share recruitment practices.

Our mission is to Recruit, Retain and Honor a World-Class Workforce to Serve the American People. OPM supports U.S. agencies with personnel services and policy leadership including staffing tools, guidance on labor-management relations and programs to improve work force performance.

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.

GSA Embarks on Comprehensive Reinvention of Leasing

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.

[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

Consumers win as Supreme Court upholds freedom of contract

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.

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.

Actual Innocence

Definition

Overview

Caselaw

The conference agreement provides $5,617,920,000 for research and related activities.

The conference agreement transfers $54,000,000 from NSF to the United States Coast Guard (USCG) for icebreaking services to cover all anticipated operation and maintenance costs for fiscal year 2010. The conferees expect that in future years all operation and maintenance budget authority for these USCG icebreakers will be requested by the Department of Homeland Security.

Within the funds provided, the conferees direct NSF to maintain funding at the levels requested for the following activities:

Climate change
Cyber-enabled discovery and innovation
Science and engineering beyond Moore's law
Adaptive systems technology
Dynamics of water processes in the environment
National Radio Astronomy Observatory

In addition, the conferees support House direction on high-risk, high-reward basic research; funding for research on ocean acidification; support for 2,000 graduate research fellowships across all of NSF; climate change education; and funding of EPSCoR. Beyond these requirements, the conferees expect NSF to accommodate the reduction from the request based on its judgment of where funding will be used most effectively.

The conferees support the direction in the Senate report with respect to VORTEX2.

The conferees direct NSF to transfer $100,000 to the National Academy of Sciences as directed by the House .

Hydrology, terrestrial ecosystems and soils.—The conferees see the need for an appropriate mechanism to bring together the hydrology research community and better integrate the different types of data and observing systems and enhance support of hydrology modeling, and to institutionalize this mechanism. The conferees also see the need for an appropriate mechanism to bring together the terrestrial ecology and soils research communities. NSF is directed to report its recommendations on the need for and establishment of mechanisms in these two areas with the budget request for fiscal year 2011.

Today's environmental tip: Proper maintenance reduces waste! Keep your appliances in good working order and follow the manufacturer's suggestions for operation and maintenance. Shop for products with high consumer satisfaction and fewer breakdowns. If kept in good working order, your appliances should last a long time and not end up as waste before their time.

en español: ¡El mantenimiento adecuado reduce los desechos! Mantenga sus enseres en buen funcionamiento y siga las sugerencias del fabricante sobre la operación y mantenimiento. Busque comprar productos con niveles de alta satisfacción del consumidor y que no tengan problemas de averías. Si mantiene los enseres en buen funcionamiento, deben durar mucho tiempo y no terminar como desechos con el tiempo.

Want more tips? Visit EPA's Earth Day site to learn more about Earth Day, the US Environmental Protection Agency, and what you can do to help protect human health and the environment. http://www.epa.gov/earthday/tips.htm

Partners in Sustainability

Last week I had the opportunity to meet with representatives from Seattle area businesses and discuss ways we can work together to strengthen our nations clean energy economy. With the General Service Administration's portfolio of nearly 10,000 federal buildings and influence over 400,000 federal vehicles we are uniquely positioned to move our government towards this goal. But we can't do this alone -- that's why GSA is working to facilitate conversations with private sector leaders that foster an exchange of ideas.

On my first stop in Seattle, I took part in a roundtable conversation with representatives from business, construction and design and academia to discuss the business case for green building. With GSA's 370 million square feet of facility space it is imperative for us to invest in innovative clean energy technologies that make our buildings more cost and energy efficient for the American taxpayer. Conversations like this roundtable allow GSA to work with the private sector and share best practices so we can make informed decisions on implementing innovative building technologies.

While in the Puget Sound area I also had the opportunity to speak to building managers, urban planners and local government officials at the Bellevue City Hall for a workshop on electric vehicle charging stations. I spoke with attendees who are leading remarkable initiatives to create and support infrastructure for plug-in vehicles. As part of our efforts to make the federal fleet more efficient, GSA will be launching an EV pilot program to purchase 100 plug-in electric vehicles. To make electric vehicles an integral part of our federal fleet we must take steps to ensure the necessary infrastructure exists, including charging stations. The workshop attendees I met with are ensuring we are on track to meet President Obama's goal of having one million electric vehicles on the road by 2015.

I'd like to thank my hosts in and around Seattle, and I look forward to continuing the conversation with our partners in sustainability.

National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI) Funding Opportunities at NSF in FY 2011

For fiscal year 2011, the National Science Foundation budget request for the National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI) is approximately $401 million. All participating research and education directorates and the Office of International Science and Engineering (OISE) accept proposals with an international component following a competitive selection process. The NSF contribution covers only expenses made by the U.S. universities for research and for international interactions such as workshops, visiting students and professors in U.S. and abroad.

The participating directorates are: Biological Sciences (BIO), Computer and Information Science & Engineering (CISE), Engineering (ENG), Geosciences (GEO), Mathematical and Physical Sciences (MPS), Social, Behavioral and Economic Sciences (SBE), and Education and Human Resources (EHR).

NSF supports nanoscale science and engineering in fiscal year 2011 in multiple ways:

• Competitive awards in existing (core) programs in the research and education directorates, i ncluding interdisciplinary team research proposals.

• The Small Business Innovative Research (SBIR) and Small Business Technology Transfer (STTR) programs: http://www.nsf.gov/eng/iip/sbir/

• Also, it is expected that most of the program solicitations competed in FY 2010 will continue in FY 2011. Such solicitations will be announced on this website at the time of publication.

• International supplements. Awards made in previous fiscal years for individual investigators, groups, centers, and user facilities can be supplemented by the programs.

The National Science Foundation's (NSF) fiscal year (FY) 2009 budget request to Congress identifies areas for NSF-wide investments. Strengthening capabilities in each of these areas will enhance the productivity and efficiency of the science and engineering enterprise while producing concrete economic and social benefits for the nation.

Examples of major crosscutting activities include ADVANCE: Increasing the Participation and Advancement of Women in Academic Science and Engineering Careers, Faculty Early Career Development (CAREER), Graduate Fellowships and Traineeships, Long-Term Ecological Research (LTER), Research Experiences for Teachers (RET), Research Experiences for Undergraduates (REU), Research in Undergraduate Institutions (RUI) and Science and Technology Centers (STCs).

George E. Brown, Jr. Network for Earthquake Engineering Simulation Research (NEESR)

The Division of Civil, Mechanical and Manufacturing Innovation (CMMI) in the Directorate for Engineering (ENG) of the National Science Foundation (NSF) invites proposals for research that uses the George E. Brown, Jr. Network for Earthquake Engineering Simulation (NEES) to advance knowledge, discovery, and innovation for (1) earthquake and tsunami loss reduction of our nation's civil infrastructure, and (2) new experimental simulation techniques and instrumentation for NEES. NEES comprises a network of 14 earthquake engineering experimental equipment sites available for experimentation on-site or in the field and through telepresence. NEES equipment sites include shake tables, geotechnical centrifuges, a tsunami wave basin, unique large-scale testing laboratory facilities, and mobile and permanently installed field equipment. The NEEShub cyberinfrastructure connects, via Internet2, the equipment sites as well as provides telepresence; a curated central data repository known as the NEES Project Warehouse; simulation tools; collaborative tools for facilitating on-line planning, execution, and post-processing of experiments; and the NEES Academy for education and outreach. Projects proposed and supported under this solicitation must require significant use of one or more of the NEES equipment sites listed at http://www.nees.org and the related cyberinfrastructure and/or require significant reuse of data curated and archived in the NEES Project Warehouse at http://nees.org/warehouse . Proposals that seek new scientific inquiry through reuse of data curated and archived in the NEES Project Warehouse, either alone or in combination with use of the NEES equipment site(s), will be considered. The data eligible for reuse from the NEES Project Warehouse must be data that are curated, archived, and publicly viewable and available at http://nees.org/warehouse .

Green Proving Ground program to test emerging technologies in federal buildings.

WASHINGTON – GSA announced today that it will test and evaluate 16 emerging sustainable building technologies and practices in select federal facilities under its Green Proving Ground Program. Testing will determine the most effective technologies that may then be replicated on a wider-scale basis throughout the GSA inventory, with the goal of transforming markets for these technologies.

“GSA is leading the way in sustainable design and construction operations,” GSA Administrator Martha N. Johnson said. “By using our real estate portfolio as a test bed for new technologies, we can then provide further innovation in energy-efficiency standards and implement best practices that will lead the market.”

The technologies selected were from a pool of approximately 140 projects across GSA's national portfolio that are currently implementing innovative or underutilized sustainable building technologies. The 16 technologies and practices were selected for evaluation because they have the greatest potential to meet GSA's sustainability goals. Examples of the technologies chosen include wireless temperature sensors, electrochromic windows, high R-value windows, integrated lighting systems, thin-film photovoltaic panels, solar water heating with integrated photovoltaic panels, chilled beams, and nonchemical water treatment systems.

With support from the Department of Energy's National Laboratories, the Green Proving Ground Program will perform enhanced testing, monitoring, and evaluation on these selected technologies. Notable findings from all of the projects will be used to support the development of performance specifications for GSA's real estate portfolio and other federal agencies. Additionally, testing these technologies will assist industry in deploying the technology and practices studied.

For more information on the 16 technologies to be evaluated under GSA's Green Proving Ground Program and on GSA's registry of sustainable building technologies, visit http://www.gsa.gov/GPG .

As the federal government's workplace solutions provider, the U.S. General Services Administration works to foster an effective, sustainable and transparent government for the American people. GSA's expertise in government workplace solutions include:
• Effective management of government assets including more than 9,600 government-owned or leased buildings and 215,000 vehicles in the federal fleet, and preservation of historic federal properties;
• Leveraging the government's buying power through responsible acquisition of products and services making up approximately 14 percent of the government's total procurement dollars;
• Providing innovative technology solutions to enhance government efficiency and increase citizen engagement; and,
• Promoting responsible use of federal resources through development of government wide policies ranging from federal travel to property and management practices.

GSA contract award services where Fedmarket handles all aspects of preparation, submission, and negotiation of the GSA Schedule proposal. The goal of the engagement is the award of your GSA Schedule contract.

( In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. In this context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the State to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority to disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a SIP submission, to use VCS in place of a SIP submission that otherwise satisfies the provisions of the Clean Air Act. Thus, the requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply.)

Major California Property Rights Victory for Landowners in Eminent Domain Abuse Fight
National City Violated Federal Constitution and State Laws
Published on Apr 23, 2011 - 5:41:49 AM

NATIONAL CITY, Calif. April 22, 2011 — A California gym that mentors at-risk kids scored a knockout legal blow against eminent domain abuse in California. Yesterday, April 21, Judge Steven R. Denton of the Superior Court of California ruled in favor of the Community Youth Athletic Center (CYAC) and against National City, Calif., in one of the most important property rights cases in the nation. Carlos Barragan, Jr., who along with his father created the CYAC as a means of keeping local at-risk kids out of gangs, will join with other CYAC leaders at the gym at 10:30 a.m. California time to discuss the ruling with the media. The gym is located at 1018 National City Blvd., National City, Calif.

The Court struck down National City's entire 692-property eminent domain zone in the first decision to apply the legal reforms that California enacted to counter the disastrous U.S. Supreme Court Kelo decision in 2005. This ruling, which found that National City lacked a legal basis for its blight declaration, reinforces vital protections for property owners across the state, and underscores why redevelopment agencies should be abolished.

The Court also ruled that National City violated the Due Process clause of the U.S. Constitution in failing to provide the CYAC with statutorily required information prior to an important public hearing.

Finally, in a holding with implications well beyond redevelopment law, the Court also held that when the government retains a private consultant to perform government functions—in this case, documenting the existence of alleged "blight" in National City—documents that the private consultant produces are public records subject to disclosure under the California Public Records Act. The Court also set a clear standard for what government agencies have to do in searching the records of their private consultants in response to a Public Records Act request.

"After Kelo, the California Legislature limited a city's ability to declare ‘blight' based on trivial things like ‘lack of parking' and required real evidence and documentation from redevelopment agencies," said Dana Berliner, a senior attorney with the Institute for Justice, which represented the CYAC for free. "National City completely ignored the new law when it decided to threaten the CYAC and nearly 700 other properties with eminent domain for private development. The Court's decision holds that the new law placed real restrictions on redevelopment agencies and that National City violated the law. This is the very first case interpreting the changes to the law that went into effect on January 1, 2007, in response to the Kelo decision."

Berliner said, "This decision will go a long way in protecting Californians throughout the state against eminent domain abuse."

Clemente Casillas, the CYAC President, said, "I hope National City does the right thing now and throws in the towel so we can get back to focusing all our attention on helping to grow the kids in our community. The city can have redevelopment, but that has to be done through private negotiation, not by government force."

IJ Senior Attorney Jeff Rowes said, "Redevelopment agencies always use private consultants to come up with blight studies. The Court ruled that the documents and data produced by those consultants are public records, just like government-produced documents. That ruling will help everyone trying to fight a blight designation of their neighborhood, and it will also help the media and anyone else trying to get more information about government projects. We've been saying for years that the city's blight study lacked any information the CYAC needed to do a meaningful review. The court agreed, saying it was mostly jargon and that the city should have given the CYAC more time and continued the public hearing when the CYAC requested it."

California Governor Jerry Brown has proposed eliminating local redevelopment agencies across the state. These agencies, which are run by the cities they reside in, have taken properties they didn't own only to hand that land over to those with more political power. They have driven city after city in California to the brink of bankruptcy, often for nothing more than private gain.

"National City has been labeling this area blighted since the 1960s," said Rowes. "This decision provides another example of a redevelopment agency that is out of control and should be abolished."

The CYAC got almost everything it asked for in this lawsuit. The Court invalidated the city's redevelopment plan amendment that authorized eminent domain, declared that the city violated the Public Records Act, declared that the city violated the CYAC's due process rights, and gave the CYAC nominal damages. The CYAC is finally free from the threat of eminent domain for the first time in nearly four years.

Richard M. Segal, Brian D. Martin and Nathan R. Smith from Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP in San Diego, acting as pro bono local counsel, put in extraordinary time and effort on the case.

Human rules may determine environmental 'tipping points'
Published Apr 16, 2011 - 7:53:58 AM
A new paper appearing in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) suggests that people, governments, and institutions that shape the way people interact may be just as important for determining environmental conditions as the environmental processes themselves.

Read More

Researchers create functioning synapse using carbon nanotubes
Published Apr 23, 2011 - 7:24:30 AM
Engineering researchers at USC Viterbi have made a significant breakthrough in the use of nanotechnologies for the construction of a synthetic brain. They have built a carbon nanotube synapse circuit whose behavior in tests reproduces the function of a neuron input, the synapse, the a building block of the brain.

Read More

Appendix 19
Terms & Acronyms
Acronym
Definition
AC
Advisory Committee
AC/GPA
Advisory Committee for GPRA Performance Assessment
AD
ARRA
NSF Assistant director
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009
BFA
Office of Budget, Finance and Award Management
BIO
Directorate for Biological Sciences
BIIS
NSF Budget Internet Information System
CAREER
Faculty Early Career Development Program
CGI
Continuing Grant Increments
CISE
Directorate for Computer and Information Science and Engineering
COV
Committee of Visitors
EAGER
EHR
Early-concept Grants for Exploratory Research
Directorate for Education and Human Resources
EIS
Enterprise Information System
ENG
Directorate for Engineering
EPSCoR
Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive Research
FTE
Full-Time Equivalent
FY
Fiscal Year
GEO
Directorate for Geosciences
GPRA
Government Performance and Results Act
IPAs
Temporary employees hired through Intergovernmental Personnel Act
IPAMM
Impact of Proposal & Award Management Mechanisms
IPS
Interactive Panel System
MPS
Directorate for Mathematical and Physical Sciences
NSB
National Science Board
NSF
National Science Foundation
OCI
Office of Cyberinfrastructure
OD
Office of the Director
ODS
Online Document System
OIA
Office of Integratative Activities
OIG
Office of Inspector General
OISE
Office of International Science & Engineering
OMB
Office of Management and Budget
OPP
Office of Polar Programs
PARS
Proposal, PI and Reviewer System
PART
Program Assessment Rating Tool
PI
Principal Investigator
RAPID
R&RA
Grants for Rapid Response Research
Research and Related Activities
SBE
Directorate for Social, Behavioral and Economic Sciences
SGER
Small Grants for Exploratory Research
VSEE
Visiting Scientists, Engineers and Educators

LHC sets world record beam intensity
Published Apr 22, 2011 - 8:15:10 AM
Around midnight this night CERN[1]'s Large Hadron Collider today set a new world record for beam intensity at a hadron collider when it collided beams with a luminosity of 4.67 x 1032cm-2s-1. This exceeds the previous world record of 4.024 x 1032cm-2s-1, which was set by the US Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory's Tevatron collider in 2010, and marks an important milestone in LHC commissioning.

Read More

Garamendi Calls on Lawmakers to Protect Critical Environmental Protection Laws under Attack
Published Apr 23, 2011 - 5:16:07 AM
Today is a special day for the billions of world citizens who treasure Earth, that bountiful yet fragile planet delicately balanced to let human civilization evolve and thrive. In our day-to-day lives, it's easy to forget how lucky we are to have inherited the habitats, waterways, and atmosphere that make our very existence possible.

Read More

GreenVu.com - Offers Gateway to Resources and Valuable Information for the Entire Green Community – From Educators to Environmentalists, Corporations to Communities

GreenVu.com will provide an immediate portal to valuable data including videos, sustainability reports, case studies and whitepapers, as well as accessibility to the actual innovators and visionaries who are leading the charge – from corporations to communities, environmentalists to engineers, academics to activists, individuals to innovators.

GreenVu.com plans to be the premier central clearinghouse where corporations, individuals and organizations can tell their green stories. “Everyone has a green story to tell,” says Bill Cocose, founder. “We wanted to provide a forum where you can engage with academic institutions, learn about research initiatives and corporate success stories, interact with individuals and communities, and share green successes and failures while collectively supporting each other.”

GreenVu, operated by a 501(c)(3) nonprofit, was founded on the principles of neutrality, transparency and universal access to valuable information, as well as the philosophy that by sharing stories of both success and failure, we can better prepare future generations and provide the tools and support for successful green initiatives. Formed by professionals with decades of expertise in sustainability, smart growth, environment, construction, development, finance and Brownfields, GreenVu's mission is to help connect the green community, and to promote the efficient collection, organization and dissemination of green stories, information and resources worldwide.

GreenVu will provide an immediate portal to valuable data including videos, sustainability reports, case studies and whitepapers, as well as accessibility to the actual innovators and visionaries who are leading the charge – from corporations to communities, environmentalists to engineers, academics to activists, individuals to innovators.

Says Cocose, “Everyone's got a green story to tell, from corporations reaching out to customers or investors, to a university wanting to talk about both green efforts in their facilities as well as their green curricula to attract students, to a community looking for solutions to sustainability problems and trying to attract new residents, to NGOs getting their very good stories told more broadly. Even our politicians wish to communicate their green stories. We want to be the place where everyone can conveniently, completely and reliably find this information. We don't want to compete with the excellent green web initiatives already in place, but rather view ourselves as a value-added benefit to all, by providing links, feature stories, partnerships and other ways to support individual efforts.

Cocose's transition from construction and development in Chicago to Brownfields nationwide opened his eyes to the value and importance of recycling land and buildings. “As parents of young fraternal twin boys,” says Cocose, “both my wife and I care deeply about conserving nature and the wildlife occupying our planet, and doing whatever we can to help show our youth that you can make a living and make a difference. We see the importance of turning future generations into proactive rather than reactive cultures when it comes to managing and respecting our precious resources.”

“Sharing information and helping to connect the very good dots already in place helps to educate us all, and if we can unite the green community, then the sum will vastly exceed the individual parts.”

A New Foundation for Energy and the Environment

"As we continue to tackle our environmental challenges, it's clear that change won't come from Washington alone. It will come from Americans across the country who take steps in their own homes and their own communities to make that change happen."

16 USC 1802 - Sec. 1802. Definitions -STATUTE-As used in this chapter, unless the context otherwise requires - (1) The term 'anadromous species' means species of fish which spawn in fresh or estuarine waters of the United States and which migrate to ocean waters. (2) The term 'bycatch' means fish which are harvested in a fishery, but which are not sold or...

TITLE 16--CONSERVATION CHAPTER 56A--PACIFIC SALMON FISHING Sec. 3640. Administrative matters (a) Compensation of Commissioners and Alternate Commissioners Commissioners and Alternate Commissioners who are not State or Federal employees shall receive compensation at the daily rate of GS-18 of the General Schedule when engaged in the actual performance of duties for the United States Section or for the Commission. (b) Compensation of Panel Members and Alternate Panel Members Panel Members and Alternate Panel Members who are not State or Federal employees shall receive compensation at the daily rate of GS-16 of the General Schedule when engaged in the actual performance of duties for the United States Section or for the Commission. (c) Travel; other expenses Travel and other necessary expenses shall be paid for all United States Commissioners, Alternate Commissioners, Panel Members, Alternate Panel Members, members of the Joint Technical Committee, and members of the Advisory Committee when engaged in the actual performance of duties for the United States Section or for the Commission. (d) Individuals not considered Federal employees Except for officials of the United States Government, such individuals shall not be considered to be Federal employees while engaged in the actual performance of duties for the United States Section or for the Commission, except for the purposes of injury compensation or tort claims liability as provided in chapter 81 of title 5 and chapter 71 \1\ of title 28. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ So in original. Probably should be chapter ``171''. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- (Pub. L. 99-5, Sec. 11, Mar. 15, 1985, 99 Stat. 14.) References in Other Laws to GS-16, 17, or 18 Pay Rates References in laws to the rates of pay for GS-16, 17, or 18, or to maximum rates of pay under the General Schedule, to be considered references to rates payable under specified sections of Title 5, Government Organization and Employees, see section 529 [title I, Sec. 101(c)(1)] of Pub. L. 101-509, set out in a note under section 5376 of Title 5.

The Science and Technology Centers (STC): Integrative Partnerships program supports innovative, potentially transformative, complex research and education projects that require large-scale, long-term awards. STCs conduct world-class research through partnerships among academic institutions, national laboratories, industrial organizations, and/or other public/private entities , and via international collaborations, as appropriate. They provide a means to undertake significant investigations at the interfaces of disciplines and/or fresh approaches within disciplines. STCs may involve any areas of science and engineering that NSF supports. STC investments support the NSF vision of advancing discovery, innovation and education beyond the frontiers of current knowledge, and empowering future generations in science and engineering.

Centers provide a rich environment for encouraging future scientists, engineers, and educators to take risks in pursuing discoveries and new knowledge. STCs foster excellence in education by integrating education and research, and by creating bonds between learning and inquiry so that discovery and creativity fully support the learning process.

NSF expects STCs to demonstrate leadership in the involvement of groups traditionally underrepresented in science and engineering at all levels (faculty, students, and postdoctoral researchers) within the Center. Centers use either proven or innovative mechanisms to address issues such as recruitment, retention and mentorship of participants from underrepresented groups.

Centers must undertake activities that facilitate knowledge transfer, i.e., the exchange of scientific and technical information with the objective of disseminating and utilizing knowledge broadly in multiple sectors. Examples of knowledge transfer include technology transfer with the intention of supporting innovation, providing key information to public policy makers, or dissemination of knowledge from one field of science to another.

THIS PROGRAM IS PART OF

Opportunities that Highlight International Collaboration

Wanted by EPA: Scientists for controversial climate mission

The Environmental Protection Agency is seeking experts to help unwrap a wonky but politically charged question: How to measure the carbon footprint of using biomass for energy.

EPA in January backed off applying greenhouse gas permitting rules to power plants and other facilities that use plant matter to make energy.

EPA said it would use the three-year delay to improve methods for accounting for the carbon footprint of using various types of forest and other plant materials. On Wednesday, the agency is slated to publish a request for nominations to serve on a panel of EPA's Science Advisory Board that will weigh the matter.

Accounting for the climate change impacts of biomass energy remains an emerging science, one that wades into whether a renewable energy source is always an environmentally friendly one too.

A key question is how to track carbon released from land-use changes related to harvesting plant matter.

So . . . the solicitation to be released Wednesday says the science advisors want experts who can address topics such as “Forestry, agriculture, and land-use change, specifically the effects of land management practices on the terrestrial biosphere,” and “Land use economics, ecological relationships between land use and climate change and/or estimates of biomass supply and demand.”

EPA's view is that biomass energy is green energy — if done right. Administrator Lisa Jackson, when announcing the permitting delay in January, said, “Renewable, homegrown power sources are essential to our energy future, and an important step to cutting the pollution responsible for climate change.”

But the agency also noted at the time that burning some types of biomass “may result in a net increase in CO2 emissions.”

EPA has come under heavy pressure from the forest industry and some Capitol Hill lawmakers fearful that applying emissions rules to biomass would stymie the market for the energy source.

FEMA Faulted: The Federal Emergency Management Agency needs to significantly improve its information technology programs. In a report issued in early April, the Inspector General's Office at the Department of Homeland Security said FEMA's "existing existing information technology systems do not support disaster response activities effectively."

While FEMA has a number of information technology modernization initiatives under way, the agency lacks a comprehensive information technology strategic plan, the report notes. In addition, FEMA has not completed its efforts to document the agency's enterprise architecture.

"Without these critical elements, the agency is challenged to establish an effective approach to modernize its information technology infrastructure and systems," said Frank Deffer, assistant inspector general at DHS. FEMA spent $391 million on IT in 2010.

Permitting process for Nanocenter site ‘crazy and absurd'

EDGE frustrated over need to find tenant before development starts

Ask local officials about the future of the Mohawk Valley, and they're likely to point to the Marcy NanoCenter at SUNYIT site as a sign of hope.

But the permitting process with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has delayed efforts to develop the site, and it continues to restrict Mohawk Valley EDGE's ability to market it to potential companies, said Steven DiMeo, president of the economic development organization.

The permitting efforts have been taking place since June 2006, and EDGE (Economic Development Growth Enterprises Corp.) has spent more than $800,000 on associated legal, engineering and planning costs, DiMeo said.

A new permit issued last week from the Army Corps' Buffalo District still won't allow EDGE to conduct development work on wetlands at the site until EDGE gets a company to commit to locating there.

DiMeo argued that it will be much more difficult to attract a company to the site without first completing the wetlands work.

The goal for the Marcy NanoCenter site is to attract a semiconductor manufacturing company that could transform the local economy by creating jobs and leading to supportive businesses opening.

A permit from the Army Corps last May included Special Condition No. 1, which prevents EDGE from doing work on wetlands on the site until an end user commits to development. EDGE objected to the special condition in July, and the Army Corps rescinded the permit in October, DiMeo said.

The new permit presented last week also restricts mitigation work and the moving of a power line that would have been allowed under the previous permit, DiMeo said.

Bruce Sanders, spokesman of the Army Corps' Buffalo District, said the organization “recognizes the current difficult economic climate and EDGE's interest in bringing new jobs to the Mohawk Valley region.”

“We are also aware of the benefit of having a signed permit in hand as a marketing tool,” Sanders said. “That is why we have exercised the maximum degree of flexibility allowed under federal regulations in twice proffering a permit to EDGE, even though they do not yet have an identified end-user tenant.”

Federal guidelines don't specifically say you have to have an end user before getting a permit to do work on wetlands, but the regulations do say that a need for the work has to be established, said Steven Metivier, chief of the Army Corps New York Applications Evaluation Section, Regulatory Branch.

If EDGE receives a permit but never gets a company to locate there, then you can't justify the necessity of the project, Metivier said.

“Without a tenant, there is no need to fill wetlands on that site,” he said.

The Marcy NanoCenter project would impact almost eight acres of wetlands, but it also would create about 13 acres of new wetlands, permanently preserve almost 24 acres of existing wetlands and involve additional environmental enhancements, according to EDGE.

To help its argument, EDGE has found three examples of times when the Army Corps issued permits without having an end user in place for projects on land where wetlands would be impacted. Such permits were awarded in 1991 in Savannah, Ga., in 2006 in Redding, Calif., and in 2007 at the local Schuyler Business Park, DiMeo said.

The project in Georgia was developing the Crossroads Business Center on a 1,784-acre park, which had more than 1,300 acres of wetlands, according to EDGE.

When the Army Corps issued the permit in 1991, there was a news conference in Washington, D.C., to celebrate the achievement, said Andrew Ernst, a Georgia attorney who served as special counsel to the Savannah Economic Development Authority for the project.

The Crossroads Business Center went on to become a major success and is still thriving today, said Ernst, who has more than 30 years of experience in environmental law, land use, commercial real estate development and industrial development.

Ernst said he isn't familiar with the details of the Marcy NanoCenter project, and each Army Corps district office is different, but the project in Georgia shows that the Army Corps has issued permits for work involving wetlands without having an end user in place.

Bridget Brown, the Army Corps project manager for the Marcy NanoCenter site, said the other projects were different — they were business parks with a goal of multiple end users. Development work conducted at the other sites also was primarily focused on infrastructure construction, she said.

“After due diligence, we concluded that those projects are not comparable to the EDGE proposal,” Sanders said.

EDGE also has turned to local federal officials to ask for help on the issue, and the members of Congress say they're on the case.

U.S. Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., is trying to help forge a solution because of the impact the project could have on the Mohawk Valley economy, Schumer spokesman Matt House said.

“Sen. Schumer strongly believes that this project should be allowed to move forward as quickly as possible so that we can build a facility that will in turn attract a world-class nanotechnology tenant,” House said.

U.S. Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y., also will continue working with EDGE and the Army Corps to address each side's concerns, spokesman James Rahm said.

On April 4, U.S. Rep. Richard Hanna, R-Barneveld, sent a letter to the Army Corps arguing that past precedent shows that the Army Corps can issue the permit to EDGE without the special condition. On Thursday, Hanna said in a released statement that he would stay involved with the issue.

“I fully support the Mohawk Valley EDGE and their need for a clean permit, without special conditions, so that they can begin construction on the nanotechnology center on the SUNYIT campus,” Hanna said.

A meeting is being organized among EDGE, the Army Corps and the local federal officials, according to Schumer's office.

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION 48 CFR Parts 4, 8, 17, 37, and 52 [FAR Case 2010-010; Docket 2010-0010, Sequence 1] RIN 9000-AM06 Federal Acquisition Regulation; Service Contracts Reporting Requirements AGENCY: Department of Defense (DoD), General Services Administration (GSA), and National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). ACTION: Proposed rule. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: DoD, GSA, and NASA are proposing to amend the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) to implement section 743 of Division C of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2010. This proposed rule amends the FAR to require service contractors for executive agencies, except the Department of Defense (DoD), covered by the Federal Activities Inventory Reform (FAIR) Act of 1998, to submit information annually in support of agency-level inventories for service contracts.

If you would like to receive notifications of changes to the grant opportunity click send me change notification emails . The only thing you need to provide for this service is your email address. No other information is requested.

Any inconsistency between the original printed document and the disk or electronic document shall be resolved by giving precedence to the printed document.

Eligible Applicants

Additional Information on Eligibility:

Agency Name

Description

Link to Full Announcement

If you have difficulty accessing the full announcement electronically, please contact:

Synopsis Modification History

MSDSonline Launches New Hazardous Chemical Inventory Management...

April 22, 2011 -- Comprehensive Compliance Management Solution for EH&S Professionals View News Release

Green and Cost-Effective Solutions From Intelligent Decisions, Inc.,...

April 22, 2011 -- With the Federal Government Focusing More Than Ever on Green IT, Intelligent Decisions to Highlight Company's Energy-Efficient and Cost Reducing Solutions at AFCEA Energy and the Environment IT... View News Release

Catapult Technology Wins General Services Administration's Mentor...

April 22, 2011 -- Catapult Technology, Ltd. has won the Administrator's Award for Mentorship Excellence in recognition of Catapult's participation in the U.S. General Services Administration's (GSA)... View News Release

USOBA Announces Biggest-Ever EVOLUTION Debt Relief Conference

April 22, 2011 -- The United States Organizations for Bankruptcy Alternatives (USOBA) today announced Evolution2011, the largest and most significant conference of its kind in the history of the debt relief industry.... View News Release

Financial Services Lobbyist Mark Guimond to Speak at Debt Relief...

April 22, 2011 -- Mark Guimond, a leading lobbyist for financial services issues and trade associations, will be a featured speaker at the TASC "Mission Possible Part 2" Conference in Las Vegas on the subject... View News Release

Resource Record Details

FEMA-National Marine Fisheries Service Programmatic Biological Assessment

FEMA has prepared this Programmatic Biological Assessment (PBA) for the purpose of initiating a programmatic consultation with the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). This PBA describes the types of projects usually funded by FEMA and it evaluates typical recurring actions undertaken by FEMA within the State of California in preparation for and in the wake of disasters. This document will facilitate FEMA's compliance with the Endagered Species Act (ESA) by providing a framework to address affects to Federally listed species from projects typically funded in response to flood, earthquake, fire, and wind disasters, and to prevent future disasters resulting from these types of events. Through programmatic consultation, NMFS and FEMA intend to streamline the consultations process for these typically recurring actions in California.

The Notification and Federal Employee Anti-discrimination and Retaliation Act (No FEAR Act) Public Law 107-174

On May 15, 2002, President George W. Bush signed the Notification and Federal Employee Anti-discrimination and Retaliation Act or No FEAR Act. The Act increased accountability of Federal Departments and Agencies for acts of discrimination or reprisal against employees resulting from whistleblower complaints, and complaints before the Merit Systems Protection Board and Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

Under Title III of the Act, departments and agencies are required to post on their public web sites, summary statistical data relating to equal employment opportunity complaints filed against the department or agency.

Both the Department of Homeland Security and FEMA will post to the respective public web sites statistical information in accordance with the No FEAR Act. This data will be updated on a quarterly basis for the current fiscal year.

Equal Rights Officer Cadre

The Equal Rights Officer (ERO) cadre is a diverse group composed of persons with backgrounds in such fields as EEO, Civil Rights, human resources management, conflict resolution, and community organization. They serve on the direct staff of the Federal Coordinating Officer (FCO) at the Disaster Field Office (DFO). EROs receive both classroom instruction and mentoring in the field before deploying independently.

Civil Rights Resolution - Works proactively with Community Relations, Public Affairs, Human Services, and other DFO components to resolve individual or group Civil Rights issues; visits and speaks with key community leaders and organizations; assesses accessibility at Disaster Recovery Centers and distributes information about OER programs.

Technical Assistance and Training - Provides advice and guidance to the FCO on EEO and Civil Rights matters; presents training on sexual harassment prevention, cultural diversity, and the EEO process.

EEO Counseling - assists FEMA employees, employment applicants, and managers to resolve problems quickly; guides supervisors through downsizing to achieve the best possible outcome; processes all complaints that cannot be resolved informally.

The job of the ERO often is described as "providing mitigation for people." Just as FEMA works with individuals and communities to avoid or lessen the impact of natural hazards, so EROs work proactively to mitigate current and future people problems.

NIC

State of California

Overview

California is located on the west coast of the mainland United States, and borders the RIX states of Nevada and Arizona. The time zone in California is UTC/GMT-8, with Daylight Savings Time.

Recent disasters included severe storms, flooding, landslides, mudslides, debris flow, levee breaks, and wildfires that destroyed forests infested with bark beetles.

California is particularly susceptible to earthquakes . With 33 million people, California is the country's most populous state. Densely populated coastal cities located on faults are at special risk.

Sacramento, the state capital, is located in north central California. The FEMA Region IX office is located in Oakland. Semi-permanent Joint (FEMA-State-Tribal) Field Offices (JFOs) are located in Rancho Cordova near Sacramento, and in Pasadena, as needed.

Federal Environmental Requirements and Agencies

Compliance with the federal National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and other laws is required for obligation of FEMA funds. FEMA's Region 9 Environmental Office consults with the following agencies and others as needed:

State of California Environmental Requirements and Agencies

The State of California is responsible for compliance with State laws and regulations, including the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The following are links to helpful state agencies and resources for environmental compliance:

Environmental Issues

The US Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service share responsibility for implementing the Endangered Species Act .

The 307 federally-listed threatened and endangered species in California include: red-legged frog, garter snake, Baker's larkspur, clapper rail, condor, salt marsh harvest mouse, and showy Indian clover.

Salmon and steelhead, and habitat in many streams, are a priority for both services.

Historic and Cultural Preservation Issues

Programmatic Environmental Assessment (PEA) for California

Many Project Worksheets prepared in California disasters (under FEMA's Public Assistance Program) are of such scale and complexity that they would require preparation of an Environmental Assessment (EA). Most actions proposed for FEMA funding in California can be grouped by type of action or location, and evaluated in a Programmatic Environmental Assessment (PEA) without the need to develop a time-consuming, stand- alone EA for each project.

FEMA RIX has developed a PEA to facilitate FEMA's compliance with NEPA. The PEA provides a framework to address the impacts of projects funded in response to flood, earthquake, fires, rain and wind. The Programmatic approach helps expedite the environmental review and the receipt of federal funds.

Programmatic Section 7 Consultations for California

Programmatic Historic Preservation Agreement for California

The Programmatic Agreement between FEMA, the California State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), the California Governor's Office of Emergency Services, and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) helps expedite the review of projects proposed for FEMA funding that could affect historic properties, such as those involving the repair, restoration and replacement of public infrastructure.

Attachment A
When a change in reasonably anticipated future land use assumptions or a remedy occurs at any time after a Record of Decision (ROD) has been signed (including a change that occurs after construction has been completed) and there is an anticipated use of Fund money, Regions should consult with the Assessment and Remediation Division (ARD) in the Office of Superfund Remediation and Technology Innovation (OSRTI) and should be prepared to discuss the questions below and provide other information as appropriate. For Potentially Responsible Party (PRP) lead sites, Regions also should coordinate with the Office of Site Remediation Enforcement (OSRE) as to whether additional Agency costs can be recovered and other related enforcement issues. The Region should consider a number offactors in evaluating whether it would be appropriate to pursue a change in the land use or selected remedy. These include, but are not limited to:
1.
Is the potential change in the reasonably anticipated future land use consistent with the Region's analysis of the remedy selected in the ROD? For example, would the remedy remain protective of human health and the environment in light of the potential change in anticipated future land use? Is a new risk assessment needed to estimate potential risks to human health and the environment due to the proposed changes?
2.
Does the potential change in reasonably anticipated future land use appear reasonable and feasible? If the potential change occurs after the remedy is constructed, is the proposed use compatible with the existing remedy (including ICs), or is additional work needed? If so, who will be responsible for the additional costs?
3.
Does the potential change in anticipated future land use affect any of the nine NCP criteria used to evaluate alternatives? (e.g., long-term effectiveness may be improved by certain types ofreuse that help preserve the integrity of remedy).
4.
How have the affected communities (including environmental justice communities) and other stakeholders been involved in identifying the potential change in reasonably anticipated future land use? Are there conflicting views about the potential change in reasonably anticipated future land use?
5.
Does new, reliable, and up-to-date information support are-evaluation of the assumptions regarding reasonably anticipated future land use made by the Region previously in the ROD? Was the new proposed reasonably anticipated future land use identified and rejected previously in the CERCLA remedy selection process? Ifso, does new information or a change in circumstances justify a re-examination of the issue?
6.
What is the potential financial impact on the Agency's budget associated with modifying the remedial action based on the potential change in reasonably anticipated future land use? What is the estimated cost of revising already-prepared analys is and documents, modifying, terminating or re-implementing ICs? Does the potential change in land use present long·term savings through, for example, reduced Operation and Maintenance (O&M) requirements, fewer Ies that require monitoring, etc.?
7.
At a Fund-lead site, could any additional expense be characterized as a prohibited enhancement or betterment?
8.
At a PRP-Iead site, is the PRP or other private party (e.g., a bona fide prospective purchaser) willing to assume any additional cost that might be associated with modifying the selected remedy based on a new anticipated future land use assumption? Has the PRP or other private party provided sufficient, reasonably reliable financial assurance to ensure completion of any revised remedial action?
9.
Is the potential change in reasonably anticipated future land use designed primarily to position a site for more stringent cleanup or a less stringent cleanup?

ICs should be carefully evaluated, selected, and narrowly tailored to meet the cleanup objectives. J7 It is important that site managers involve the appropriate local government agencies in discussions on the types ofcontrols that are being considered as early in the remedial process as possible. Local government officials can offer valuable information on the land use controls available in their jurisdiction and may offer creative solutions that protect human health and the environment while also protecting other local stakeholder interests. Discussions with the local government and community give the Regions the opportunity to identify whether a particular stakeholder group may be affected as a result ofa proposed Ie or to determine if the community has special needs in regard to an IC. In addition, discussions with individuals living on or near a site may reveal information regarding the potential efficacy of an IC. It may also be possible to provide technical assistance to the community so they can obtain a technical expert to assist them in evaluating Ies and the overall remedy.
The site manager should ensure that there is a process that routinely and critically evaluates the lCs to determine: (1) whether the mechanism remains in place; and (2) whether the ICs are providing the protection required by the remedy. This is routinely carried out through Institutional Control Implementation Plans with monitoring schedules and through statutory Five-Year Reviews.
Regions should take into account reasonably anticipated future land uses when selecting ICs and drafting the specific IC requirements and evaluating which Ie instruments may be best to achieve the IC objectives. For example, putting in place ICs that require the prior approval of the state environmental agency in addition to the local government prior to any disturbance ofa remedy may help to limit the activities that may compromise the remedy and/or result in exposures to humans. The Ie may, however~ allow for other uses of the site that do not negatively affect remedy protectiveness (e.g., prohibit heavy machinery usage on or near the remedy, while allowing light recreational uses, such as soccer fields).
Depending on the type of IC, there are different recommendations on how to enforce them. For governmental controls (e.g., zoning, permitting, etc.), EPA may encourage the local government to enter into agreements with the responsible parties and other stakeholders to memorialize various Ie commitments, such as monitoring them periodically, correcting breaches, etc. For proprietary controls (e.g., restrictive covenants), EPA can refer violations to the Department ofJustice or to a State's environmental agency to take action in federal or state court. For enforcement tools (e.g., consent decrees), EPA can use CERCLA or other cleanup authority to enforce the restrictions defined in these documents. Finally, information devices (e.g., placement of warning signs, fishing restrictions, registries, etc.) are not easily enforced by the EPA, but some states can enforce the placement of notices and some states can require that allies be placed in the state registry.
17 "Institutional Controls: A Site Manager's Guide to Identifying, Evaluating and Selecting Institutional Controls at Superfund and RCRA Action Cleanups," EPA-540-F-OO-005, OSWER 9355.0-74FS-P, September 2000. Available at: http://epa.gov/supcrfundlpolicy/ic/guidelguide.pdf.
II

Program Information

Ex. Ord. No. 12962. Recreational Fisheries Ex. Ord. No. 12962, June 7, 1995, 60 F.R. 30769, provided: By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, and in furtherance of the purposes of the Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956 (16 U.S.C. 742a-d, and e-j), the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (16 U.S.C. 661-666c), the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), and the Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act (16 U.S.C. 1801-1882), and other pertinent statutes, and in order to conserve, restore, and enhance aquatic systems to provide for increased recreational fishing opportunities nationwide, it is ordered as follows: Section 1. Federal Agency Duties. Federal agencies shall, to the extent permitted by law and where practicable, and in cooperation with States and Tribes, improve the quantity, function, sustainable productivity, and distribution of U.S. aquatic resources for increased recreational fishing opportunities by: (a) developing and encouraging partnerships between governments and the private sector to advance aquatic resource conservation and enhance recreational fishing opportunities; (b) identifying recreational fishing opportunities that are limited by water quality and habitat degradation and promoting restoration to support viable, healthy, and, where feasible, self-sustaining recreational fisheries; (c) fostering sound aquatic conservation and restoration endeavors to benefit recreational fisheries; (d) providing access to and promoting awareness of opportunities for public participation and enjoyment of U.S. recreational fishery resources; (e) supporting outreach programs designed to stimulate angler participation in the conservation and restoration of aquatic systems; (f) implementing laws under their purview in a manner that will conserve, restore, and enhance aquatic systems that support recreational fisheries; (g) establishing cost-share programs, under existing authorities, that match or exceed Federal funds with nonfederal contributions; (h) evaluating the effects of Federally funded, permitted, or authorized actions on aquatic systems and recreational fisheries and document those effects relative to the purpose of this order; and (i) assisting private landowners to conserve and enhance aquatic resources on their lands. Sec. 2. National Recreational Fisheries Coordination Council. A National Recreational Fisheries Coordination Council (``Coordination Council'') is hereby established. The Coordination Council shall consist of seven members, one member designated by each of the following Secretaries--Interior, Commerce, Agriculture, Energy, Transportation, and Defense--and one by the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency. The Coordination Council shall: (a) ensure that the social and economic values of healthy aquatic systems that support recreational fisheries are considered by Federal agencies in the course of their actions; (b) reduce duplicative and cost-inefficient programs among Federal agencies involved in conserving or managing recreational fisheries; (c) share the latest resource information and management technologies to assist in the conservation and management of recreational fisheries; (d) assess the implementation of the Conservation Plan required under section 3 of this order; and (e) develop a biennial report of accomplishments of the Conservation Plan. The representatives designated by the Secretaries of Commerce and the Interior shall cochair the Coordination Council. Sec. 3. Recreational Fishery Resources Conservation Plan. (a) Within 12 months of the date of this order, the Coordination Council, in cooperation with Federal agencies, States, and Tribes, and after consulting with the Federally chartered Sport Fishing and Boating Partnership Council, shall develop a comprehensive Recreational Fishery Resources Conservation Plan (``Conservation Plan''). (b) The Conservation Plan will set forth a 5-year agenda for Federal agencies identified by the Coordination Council. In so doing, the Conservation Plan will establish, to the extent permitted by law and where practicable; (1) measurable objectives to conserve and restore aquatic systems that support viable and healthy recreational fishery resources, (2) actions to be taken by the identified Federal agencies, (3) a method of ensuring the accountability of such Federal agencies, and (4) a comprehensive mechanism to evaluate achievements. The Conservation Plan will, to the extent practicable, be integrated with existing plans and programs, reduce duplication, and will include recommended actions for cooperation with States, Tribes, conservation groups, and the recreational fisheries community. Sec. 4. Joint Policy for Administering the Endangered Species Act of 1973. All Federal agencies will aggressively work to identify and minimize conflicts between recreational fisheries and their respective responsibilities under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (``ESA'') (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). Within 6 months of the date of this order, the Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service will promote compatibility and reduce conflicts between the administration of the ESA and recreational fisheries by developing a joint agency policy that will; (1) ensure consistency in the administration of the ESA between and within the two agencies, (2) promote collaboration with other Federal, State, and Tribal fisheries managers, and (3) improve and increase efforts to inform nonfederal entities of the requirements of the ESA. Sec. 5. Sport Fishing and Boating Partnership Council. To assist in the implementation of this order, the Secretary of the Interior shall expand the role of the Sport Fishing and Boating Partnership Council to: (a) monitor specific Federal activities affecting aquatic systems and the recreational fisheries they support; (b) review and evaluate the relation of Federal policies and activities to the status and conditions of recreational fishery resources; and (c) prepare an annual report of its activities, findings, and recommendations for submission to the Coordination Council. Sec. 6. Judicial Review. This order is intended only to improve the internal management of the executive branch and it is not intended to create any right, benefit or trust responsibility, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or equity by a party against the United States, its agencies, its officers, or any other person. William J. Clinton.

VA farm family battles EPA attempt to seize control of their land

PLF in the Supreme Court

PLF has made its mark as the nation's leading freedom fighter by winning important legal precedents in state and federal courts. Because it chooses cases where constitutional rights are at risk, PLF has made repeat appearances before the United States Supreme Court—and won several major cases—a record of success unmatched by any other public interest legal organization.

Current Supreme Court Cases

Property Rights

Environmental Regulations

Individual Rights

Discrimination and Preference

Landmark Supreme Court Victories

National Litigation Center
3900 Lennane Drive, Suite 200
Sacramento, CA 95834
(916) 419-7111, (916) 419-7747 (fax)

© 2008-2011 Pacific Legal Foundation
All rights reserved.

Individual Rights Cases

Defending free enterprise and the right to earn a living

Freedom of Contract

Protecting Freedom of Speech and Association

Other PLF Battles

Property Rights Litigation

Defending the right to use and protect private property

Coastal Land Rights Project: defending property rights in the coastal zone

Protecting water rights

Government revenue raising must be lawful and constitutional

Washington State Growth Control

Upholding Equal Opportunity and Equal Treatment Under the Law

Operation End Bias—Enforcing California's Proposition 209

Superfund Community Involvement

Links

Community involvement is the process of engaging in dialogue and collaboration with community members.

The goal of Superfund community involvement is to advocate and strengthen early and meaningful community participation during Superfund cleanups. Superfund community involvement staffs at Headquarters and in the Regions strive to:

There are several steps involved in cleaning up a Superfund site. This section contains an interactive graphic of the Superfund cleanup process. You can click on each step in the graphic to learn more about that phase of the process.

This section provides information about a variety of technical assistance and training resources provided by EPA. These resources help communities fully participate in decisions at local Superfund sites. In addition, links to related are provided to EPA and other programs that also can be useful to communities with Superfund sites.

This section provides access to EPA policy directives and other documents that guide EPA's community involvement efforts.

This section contains EPA publications for community members at Superfund sites. These publications include information about how EPA determines the risk at a site, how to get detailed reports about the site in your area, and how EPA supports reuse of sites after they have been cleaned up.

Laws

Regulations

Regulations explain the technical, operational, and legal details necessary to implement laws.

Compliance

Helping government, business and the public meet federal environmental requirements.

Policy & Guidance

EPA maintains a list of significant guidance documents (SGD), as called for by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).

Environmental Justice

Environmental Justice is the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color, national origin, or income with respect to the development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies.

Frequent Questions

Rivers & Streams

There are over 3.5 million miles of rivers and streams in the U.S., covering an enormous and diverse landscape. Not surprisingly, the condition of the nation's streams and rivers varies widely. Cities and town, farmlands, mines, factories, sewage treatment facilities, dams, and many human activities on the land have significant impacts on the quality of our flowing waters. Understanding the condition of rivers and streams is critical if we are to develop effective plans to maintain, manage, and restore them.

Guidance on Assessing River and Stream Condition

U.S. Congressman Paul Gosar, DDS (AZ-01) and 170 Members of Congress sent a bipartisan letter to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Army Corps of Engineers to express their concerns that the agencies are circumventing proper procedure and pushing through a dramatic expansion of their powers by using the Clean Water Act.

In December 2010, EPA and the Corps sent draft “Clean Water Protection Guidance” to the Office of Management and Budget for regulatory review. By the agencies' own admission, this “Guidance” will substantively change federal policy with respect to which waters fall under the jurisdiction of the Clean Water Act (CWA) and significantly increase the scope of the federal government's power to regulate waters.

“This is just another example of the Environmental Protection Agency's attempt to circumvent Congress and develop rules and regulations that far exceed the authority granted to the agency under existing public law,” said Gosar. “In addition, these rules and regulations are being developed without transparency and with little consideration for the negative impacts they may impose on our local economies.”

CGI Initiative for Collaborative Government Launches New Executive Journal, Leadership

Inaugural issue focuses on “Government's Sustainability Moment,” with insights by senior government officials from GSA, NRC, NOAA, and DHS

The CGI Initiative for Collaborative Government , a joint public policy project of CGI with leading academic institutions, announces the launch of a new executive journal, Leadership , which gives voice to government executives who are creatively and effectively addressing the most critical issues facing government.

In observance of Earth Day, the inaugural issue on “Government's Sustainability Moment” examines how green government activities promote sustainability, reduce costs, and transform government operations. Senior government officials featured are:

Each Leadership issue will be led by a CGI Initiative Fellow and will include in-depth analysis and perspectives on a theme challenging leaders. Molly O'Neill, a CGI Initiative Fellow and former Assistant Administrator and Chief Information Officer at the Environmental Protection Agency, provides analysis in the inaugural issue which identifies opportunities for creating a new normal in government that is driven by the push to go green.

Together with Leadership's debut, the CGI Initiative re-launched its website, collaborativegov.org, with a new design that showcases the ideas and best practices of its Fellows, partners, and government officials. Each issue of Leadership will be available on the Initiative's website as well as in print.

“Zero environmental footprint is this generation's moon shot. It's a serious business. It's serious in terms of the economy; it's serious in terms of the environment; and GSA is in the middle of that.” -- Martha Johnson, Administrator, GSA

“We're putting ourselves out there as a green proving ground. We have this imperative to green our buildings, and one of the things we can bargain with is to use our money to be a green test ground for the private sector industry. We think we can test out things, like how well solar arrays work.” -- Robert Peck, Commissioner, Public Buildings Service, GSA

“Given the controversies over nuclear power, it's really incumbent upon us to be an open and transparent agency. That's a legacy that this agency has had for a long time, and it's certainly been something that's been important to me personally.” -- Gregory Jaczko, Chairman, NRC

“We're not a perfectly flat organization, but we try to operate with a flat mentality, with a lot of information sharing and no bureaucratic barriers.” -- William Borchardt, Executive Director of Operations, NRC

“Our mission is fabulous: saving lives and property, and really making sure these treasures of resources are able to be used today and into the future.” -- Mary Glackin, Deputy Under Secretary for Operations, NOAA

“The public counts on NOAA to deliver relevant, accurate and timely data.” -- Joseph Klimavicz, Chief Information Officer, NOAA

“We're trying to reduce both the number of data centers and take advantage of state of the art capabilities to reduce energy consumption.” -- Richard Spires, Chief Information Officer, DHS

Quotes Attributable to Molly O'Neill, CGI Initiative Fellow and former Assistant Administrator and Chief Information Officer, Environmental Protection Agency:

“Just as President Obama declared that the U.S. faces a ‘Sputnik moment,' the federal government faces a ‘sustainability moment'—a crossroad in how aggressively to move forward with green government initiatives.”

“Achieving environmental sustainability goals will transform the operations of government.”

Quote Attributable to Andrew McLauchlin, Executive Director, CGI Initiative for Collaborative Government:

“The CGI Initiative for Collaborative Government gathers and shares best practices and models that help agencies achieve mission results. Our new Leadership journal focuses on themes that challenge leaders in every organization, providing practical insights that are applicable across government, private, and nonprofit sectors.”

About the CGI Initiative for Collaborative Government
The CGI Initiative for Collaborative Government is a joint public policy project of CGI in partnership with leading academic institutions. Launched in January 2008, the initiative's mission is to analyze models of government's collaboration with the private and nonprofit sectors in order to identify best practices in using collaboration to achieve mission results.

Mara Sheldon
Director, U.S. Media Relations
(703) 267-8402
mara.sheldon(at)collaborativegov(dot)org

CGI Awarded Five-Year, $US46 Million BPA by U.S. General Services Administration

Multi-Vendor BPA Supports Core Component of President's Open Government Directive

The U.S. General Services Administration (GSA) Office of Government-wide Policy has awarded CGI Federal Inc. (CGI), a wholly-owned U.S. operating subsidiary of CGI Group Inc. (NYSE: GIB; TSX: GIB.A) a five-year blanket purchase agreement (BPA) with a ceiling of up to US$46 million to provide dataset hosting and other information technology services for the Data.gov Web site.

Developed by the Federal CIO Council as part of the Open Government Initiative, Data.gov increases the ability of the public to easily find, download, and use data published by Federal Government agencies. It serves as a central access point for citizens to view, conduct research and analyze federal government data from more than 272,000 datasets supplied by 135 federal agencies. The datasets include a wide range of collected information, including statistics related to public education, health, and geospatial mapping. Under the Data.gov Dataset Hosting Services BPA, CGI will provide hosting services for this important government information, as well as, technology tools for dataset analysis, and professional services.

“Data.gov is this Administration's flagship program for Open Government and provides unprecedented public access to government data,” said George Schindler, President of CGI Federal. “CGI has more than 30 years of experience assisting the U.S. government in harnessing the power of technology to serve our nation's citizens. We are proud to bring our government-wide expertise to advance our long-term partnership with GSA and their commitment to government transparency and collaboration.”

About CGI Federal Inc.
CGI Federal Inc. is a wholly-owned U.S. operating subsidiary of CGI Group Inc., dedicated to partnering with federal agencies to provide solutions for defense, civilian, and intelligence missions. Founded in 1976, CGI Group Inc. is one of the largest independent information technology and business process services firms in the world. CGI and its affiliated companies employ approximately 31,000 professionals. CGI provides end-to-end IT and business process services to clients worldwide from offices and centers of excellence in the United States, Canada, Europe and Asia Pacific. CGI's order backlog is approximately C$13.6 billion and its annualized revenue is approximately C$4.5 billion. CGI shares are listed on the NYSE (GIB) and the TSX (GIB.A) and are included in both, the Dow Jones Sustainability Index and the FTSE4Good Index. Website: http://www.cgi.com .

Forward- Looking Statements
All statements in this press release that do not directly and exclusively relate to historical facts constitute “forward-looking statements” within the meaning of that term in Section 27A of the United States Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and Section 21E of the United States Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and are “forward-looking information” within the meaning of Canadian securities laws. These statements and this information represent CGI's intentions, plans, expectations and beliefs, and are subject to risks, uncertainties and other factors, of which many are beyond the control of the Company. These factors could cause actual results to differ materially from such forward-looking statements or forward-looking information. These factors include but are not restricted to: the timing and size of new contracts; acquisitions and other corporate developments; the ability to attract and retain qualified members; market competition in the rapidly evolving IT industry; general economic and business conditions; foreign exchange and other risks identified in the press release, in CGI's Annual Report on Form 40-F filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (filed on EDGAR at http://www.sec.gov ), the Company's Annual Information Form filed with the Canadian securities authorities (filed on SEDAR at http://www.sedar.com ), as well as assumptions regarding the foregoing. The words “believe,” “estimate,” “expect,” “intend,” “anticipate,” “foresee,” “plan,” and similar expressions and variations thereof, identify certain of such forward-looking statements or forward-looking information, which speak only as of the date on which they are made. In particular, statements relating to future performance are forward-looking statements and forward-looking information. CGI disclaims any intention or obligation to publicly update or revise any forward-looking statements or forward-looking information, whether as a result of new information, future events or otherwise, except as required by applicable law. Readers are cautioned not to place undue reliance on these forward-looking statements or on this forward-looking information. You will find more information about the risks that could cause our actual results to differ significantly from our current expectations in the Risks and Uncertainties section.

Investors
Lorne Gorber
Vice-President, Global Communications and Investor Relations
lorne(dot)gorber(at)cgi(dot)com
514 841-3355

Media
Linda Odorisio
Vice-President, US Communications
linda(dot)odorisio(at)cgi(dot)com
703 267-8118

MSDSonline Launches New Hazardous Chemical Inventory Management...

April 22, 2011 -- Comprehensive Compliance Management Solution for EH&S Professionals View News Release

170 in Congress fight EPA water regulations

WASHINGTON (April 18, 2011) – A bipartisan group of 170 members of Congress, led by Bob Gibbs (R-Ohio) and Tim Holden (D-Pa.), issued a letter to Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Lisa Jackson and Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works (Corps) Jo-Ellen Darcy to express concern regarding an attempt by the agencies to expand their jurisdiction over U.S. waters. Specifically, EPA and the Corps sent a draft “guidance” document to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for regulatory review to identify waters subject to jurisdiction under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, more commonly known as the Clean Water Act (CWA). The members of Congress agree that the “guidance” goes beyond clarifying the scope of U.S. waters subject to Clean Water Act programs. National Cattlemen's Beef Association (NCBA) Deputy Environmental Counsel Ashley Lyon said EPA is continuing business as usual, but Congress is pushing back.

“We are grateful for the efforts of 170 members of the U.S. House of Representatives to hold these agencies accountable,” said Lyon. “If EPA has its way, government overreach will continue to financially devastate farmers and ranchers across the country. Giving EPA the go-ahead to regulate every little drop of water in the United States is absurd.”

After the Supreme Court limited jurisdiction of waters in the CWA in two court cases, the Clean Water Restoration Act (CWRA) was introduced in the House by former Congressman James Oberstar (D-Minn.) and in the Senate by former Senator Russ Feingold (D-Wis.). Those bills would have removed the word “navigable” from the definition of “waters of the United States,” which would have given EPA and the Corps virtually limitless jurisdiction over every kind of water whether it was a puddle, ditch, mudflat or otherwise, according to Lyon. She said EPA's best bet for greater control is a “guidance” document, but Congress is holding the agencies accountable to their statutory authority.

“The agencies cannot, through ‘guidance,' change the scope and meaning of the Clean Water Act or the statutes implementing regulations,” the members of Congress penned. “If the administration seeks statutory changes to the Clean Water Act, a proposal must be submitted to Congress for legislative action. If the administration seeks to make regulatory changes, a notice and comment rulemaking in required. We are very concerned by the action contemplated by the agencies…”

The Directorate for Engineering at the National Science Foundation has established the Office of Emerging Frontiers in Research and Innovation (EFRI) to serve a critical role in focusing on important emerging areas in a timely manner. The EFRI Office is launching a new funding opportunity for interdisciplinary teams of researchers to embark on rapidly advancing frontiers of fundamental engineering research. For this solicitation, we will consider proposals that aim to investigate emerging frontiers in the following two specific research areas: (1) Engineering New Technologies Based on Multicellular and Inter-kingdom Signaling (MIKS), and (2) Mind, Machines, and Motor Control (M3C). This solicitation will be coordinated with NSF Directorates listed above. EFRI seeks proposals with transformative ideas that represent an opportunity for a significant shift in fundamental engineering knowledge with a strong potential for long term impact on national needs or a grand challenge. The proposals must also meet the detailed requirements delineated in this solicitation.

S.186 -- Safe and Responsible Redeployment of United States Combat Forces from Afghanistan Act of 2011 (Introduced in Senate - IS)

To provide for the safe and responsible redeployment of United States combat forces from Afghanistan.

January 25 (legislative day, January 5), 2011

Mrs. BOXER (for herself, Mr. DURBIN, Mrs. GILLIBRAND, and Mr. BROWN of Ohio) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations

To provide for the safe and responsible redeployment of United States combat forces from Afghanistan.

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

SEC. 3. STATEMENT OF POLICY ON PHASED REDEPLOYMENT OF UNITED STATES COMBAT FORCES FROM AFGHANISTAN.

SEC. 4. PLAN FOR COMPLETION OF PHASED REDEPLOYMENT OF COMBAT FORCES.

Cuts Upfront Patent Licensing Costs and Challenges entrepreneurs to Commercialize Technologies from the National Laboratories

Boston, MA - As part of the Obama Administration's Startup America Initiative , U.S. Energy Secretary Steven Chu today announced the "America's Next Top Energy Innovator" challenge, which will give start-up companies the opportunity to license groundbreaking technologies developed by the National Laboratories for $1,000 and build successful businesses. As part of this effort, the Department is reducing both the cost and paperwork requirements for start-up companies to obtain an option agreement to license some of the 15,000 patents and patent applications held by our 17 National Laboratories.

"America's entrepreneurs and innovators are the best in the world," said Secretary Chu. "Today, we're challenging them to create new businesses based on discoveries made by our world-leading national laboratories. Because we've cut the upfront fees and reduced the paperwork, we'll make it easier for start-up companies to succeed and create the new jobs our economy needs. Our goal is simple: unleash America's innovation machine and win the global race for the clean energy jobs of the future."

Currently, only about 10 percent of federal patents have been licensed to be commercialized. This initiative aims to double the number of startup companies coming out of the National Laboratories.

Specifically, as part of "America's Next Top Energy Innovator:"

On Monday, May 2, 2011, the Department will kick off the challenge by posting a streamlined template option agreement online for entrepreneurs to submit to Laboratories. Entrepreneurs must identify the technology of interest and submit a business plan to be considered for the program. Participants will have until December 15 to make their submission to the Laboratory.

Any of the 15,000 unlicensed patents and patent applications held by the National Laboratories will be available for licensing by startup companies

From May 2 to December 15, the Department will reduce the total upfront cost of licensing DOE patents in a specific technology to a $1,000 upfront fee for portfolios of up to three patents. This represents a savings of $10,000 to $50,000 on average in upfront fees.

Other license terms, such as equity and royalties, will be negotiated on a case by case basis and will typically be due once the company grows and achieves widescale commercial success. These fees help support the Department's continuing research activities to develop new technologies.

The Department will simplify the licensing process and establish a standard set of terms for start-ups, who generally lack the resources, time or expertise to negotiate individual licensing agreements. This will significantly reduce both the time and cost required to process the license, allowing faster access to the Department's patents and enabling the Department to process more licenses in a shorter amount of time.

In addition to these steps, the Department is making it easier for companies to use the world-leading facilities at our National Laboratories to conduct collaborative research and development activities. Previously, companies had to make an upfront payment covering the first 90 days of research work - a requirement that was often difficult for start-ups to meet. Today, the Department is lowering the advance payment requirement to 60 days. This change will benefit all companies - not just start-ups - but could be valuable for those participating in the "America's Next Top Energy Innovator" challenge.

Entrepreneurs interested in participating can already view the available technologies on the Department's Energy Innovation Portal .

Some of the promising innovations currently available for licensing and featured on the portal include:

Read some recent examples (pdf - 162 kb) of established companies and start-ups that have commercialized Department of Energy technologies.

CVJV Partners

Partners

CVJV Management Board Members

CVJV Ex-Officio Agency Representatives

1. H.R.242 : To clarify the implementation and enforcement of Subpart B of the Travel Management Rule (36 C.F.R. 212), relating to the designation of roads, trails, and areas for motor vehicle use, in administrative units of the National Forest System in California, and for other purposes.
Sponsor: Rep Herger, Wally [CA-2] (introduced 1/7/2011) Cosponsors (3)
Committees: House Natural Resources
Latest Major Action: 1/26/2011 Referred to House subcommittee. Status: Referred to the Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Public Lands.

2. H.R.397 : Reform Americans Can Afford Act of 2011
Sponsor: Rep Herger, Wally [CA-2] (introduced 1/24/2011) Cosponsors (16)
Committees: House Energy and Commerce; House Ways and Means; House Education and the Workforce; House Judiciary; House Administration; House Natural Resources; House Appropriations; House Rules
Latest Major Action: 2/9/2011 Referred to House subcommittee. Status: Referred to the Subcommittee on Health.

3. H.R.674 : To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal the imposition of 3 percent withholding on certain payments made to vendors by government entities.
Sponsor: Rep Herger, Wally [CA-2] (introduced 2/11/2011) Cosponsors (75)
Committees: House Ways and Means
Latest Major Action: 2/11/2011 Referred to House committee. Status: Referred to the House Committee on Ways and Means.

4. H.R.675 : Strengthening Medicare Anti-Fraud Measures Act of 2011
Sponsor: Rep Herger, Wally [CA-2] (introduced 2/11/2011) Cosponsors (25)
Committees: House Energy and Commerce; House Ways and Means; House Budget
Latest Major Action: 2/18/2011 Referred to House subcommittee. Status: Referred to the Subcommittee on Health.

5. H.R.817 : To amend the Antiquities Act of 1906 to place additional requirements on the establishment of national monuments under that Act, and for other purposes.
Sponsor: Rep Herger, Wally [CA-2] (introduced 2/18/2011) Cosponsors (9)
Committees: House Natural Resources
Latest Major Action: 2/24/2011 Referred to House subcommittee. Status: Referred to the Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Public Lands.

6. H.R.880 : Equity for Our Nation's Self-Employed Act of 2011
Sponsor: Rep Herger, Wally [CA-2] (introduced 3/2/2011) Cosponsors (12)
Committees: House Ways and Means
Latest Major Action: 3/2/2011 Referred to House committee. Status: Referred to the House Committee on Ways and Means.

7. H.R.1183 : Suzanne Gonzales Suicide Prevention Act of 2011
Sponsor: Rep Herger, Wally [CA-2] (introduced 3/17/2011) Cosponsors (2)
Committees: House Judiciary
Latest Major Action: 3/17/2011 Referred to House committee. Status: Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.

8. H.R.1237 : To provide for a land exchange with the Trinity Public Utilities District of Trinity County, California, involving the transfer of land to the Bureau of Land Management and the Six Rivers National Forest in exchange for National Forest System land in the Shasta-Trinity National Forest, and for other purposes.
Sponsor: Rep Herger, Wally [CA-2] (introduced 3/29/2011) Cosponsors (None)
Committees: House Natural Resources
Latest Major Action: 3/31/2011 Referred to House subcommittee. Status: Referred to the Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Public Lands.

9. H.R.1267 : To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to modify the application of the tonnage tax on certain vessels.
Sponsor: Rep Herger, Wally [CA-2] (introduced 3/30/2011) Cosponsors (3)
Committees: House Ways and Means
Latest Major Action: 3/30/2011 Referred to House committee. Status: Referred to the House Committee on Ways and Means.

10. H.R.1485 : Catastrophic Wildfire Community Protection Act
Sponsor: Rep Herger, Wally [CA-2] (introduced 4/12/2011) Cosponsors (10)
Committees: House Agriculture; House Natural Resources
Latest Major Action: 4/12/2011 Referred to House committee. Status: Referred to the Committee on Agriculture, and in addition to the Committee on Natural Resources, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.

San Francisco Bay-Delta Estuary: Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking for Water Quality Issues in the San Francisco Bay/Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Estuary

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is publishing an advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPR) to seek comments from interested parties on possible EPA actions to address water quality conditions affecting aquatic resources in the San Francisco Bay/Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Estuary (Bay Delta Estuary) in California. EPA is asking the public to consider broadly whether EPA should be taking new or different actions under its programs to address recent significant declines in multiple aquatic species in the Bay Delta Estuary. EPA is not limiting its request to actions that would require rulemaking. There may be a range of changes in EPA‘s activities in the Bay Delta Estuary that would be constructive, including enforcement, research, revisions to water quality standards, etc. EPA will consider all comments before deciding what changes, if any, should be pursued. After reviewing the comments and completing its evaluation, EPA will provide the results of its review and any proposed next steps to the public. This ANPR identifies specific issues on which EPA solicits comment, including potential site-specific water quality standards and site-specific changes to pesticide regulation. In addition to the specific issues on which EPA solicits comments, EPA is interested in comments on any other aspects of EPA‘s programs affecting Bay Delta Estuary aquatic resources.

This ANPR has no regulatory impact or effect. The ANPR contains descriptions of certain EPA programs relevant to the Bay Delta Estuary and poses questions about how these programs could better protect and improve water quality for the benefit of aquatic resources in the Bay Delta Estuary. This ANPR marks the beginning of a process to consider possible changes to EPA programs in the Bay Delta Estuary.

The continuing budget situation is a matter of obvious concern for everyone at the EPA and all of our colleagues in Federal government. My first priority is to provide you with as much information as possible to ensure you are fully aware of ongoing efforts, and fully informed on how any decisions may affect you, and our mission to protect the health and the environment of the American people.

Throughout the discussions about funding for the rest of the fiscal year, the President has made it clear that he wants to avoid a government shutdown. In the face of tough choices, the goal has always been to maintain core services and ensure that the important work done by the EPA and other Federal agencies continues uninterrupted. That is why the Administration has been working day and night to find a solution on which all sides can agree — work that continues today. Given the realities of the calendar, however, prudent management requires that we plan for an orderly shutdown should Congress be unable to pass a funding bill by Friday of this week.

The President and I know that the uncertainty of the current situation puts federal employees in a difficult position. We are very much aware that a shutdown would impose hardships on many employees as well as the groups and individuals our agency serves. I have pledged to keep you informed throughout this process, and as we approach the expiration of the current Continuing Resolution, we will provide you with updated information as soon as it becomes available. For now, I want to provide you with basic information on how the potential shutdown — should it occur — will impact Federal employees.

As soon as funding lapses, Federal departments and agencies will not be permitted to perform activities funded by annual appropriations, except those activities related to the orderly suspension of operations or performance of excepted activities. This means that some employees will be furloughed and unable to work, and our contingency planning for the potential funding lapse includes determining which agency functions are excepted from a furlough. Should it become necessary to implement contingency plans, you will receive formal notice from your manager no later than Friday April 8th about your furlough status.

The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) has created a document to address some of the questions that I know must be on your mind. The document can be accessed at http://www.opm.gov/furlough2011. OPM will provide additional information for federal employees as the week progresses, and we'll continue to do our best to provide clear information about the status of events as the week progresses.

It is through your hard work and dedication that the EPA is able to safeguard the health and the environment of millions of Americans. Your contributions touch people's lives in significant ways, and I am deeply appreciative of everything that you do. Thank you for your continued service to the EPA and the nation.

Hydropower Buzz Gains Momentum With Senate Bills, Administration Investments

By KATIE HOWELL of Greenwire

Published: April 6, 2011

An often-overlooked renewable energy source is gaining momentum as lawmakers on Capitol Hill struggle to find consensus in an increasingly partisan environment and the Obama administration is looking to decrease reliance on foreign oil.

A trio of hydropower measures is moving rapidly through the Senate, at least two federal agencies are taking a hard look at hydropower potential, and the Obama administration is beefing up its investment in hydropower technologies with the Interior and Energy departments yesterday announcing $26.6 million in funding for hydropower research and development projects.

"The time is ripe to expand the country's hydropower capacity," said Andrew Munro, president of the National Hydropower Association, during he industry's annual meeting this week in Washington, D.C.

Perhaps the biggest movement on the hydropower front in recent weeks is the rapid advancement in the Senate of several bipartisan hydropower measures. Just weeks after introduction, two bipartisan hydropower measures ( S. 629 (pdf) and S. 630 (pdf)) from Senate Energy and Natural Resources ranking member Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) may be some of the first legislation the committee takes up this year.

"I'm expecting that we will move quickly to report out these measures," Murkowski said yesterday during remarks at the hydropower conference.

The committee has already held a hearing on the two measures that would advance hydropower project deployment by requiring better interagency coordination, funding competitive grants for increased production and investing in more research and development, and promote development of marine and hydrokinetic energy resources by promoting research, testing and certification of the new technologies. The committee also heard testimony on the energy and water portions of the 2009 energy bill ( S. 1462 (pdf)) that was reported out of committee on a bipartisan vote.

And Chairman Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.) has indicated bipartisan measures, like the two Murkowski bills and the S. 1462 language, could be among the first measures the committee marks up in the next two weeks.

"We're anxious to find solutions to energy problems," Bingaman said last week. "I think we'll have good support for practical solutions, maybe not on everything but a lot of things."

Murkowski said she and Bingaman yesterday were slated to hash out a committee markup schedule for the next two months.

"My hope is that both of these measures make it through the process in this next month," she said.

Murkowski's measures already enjoy broad bipartisan support both on and off the committee, and it is little surprise as hydropower has a much broader regional distribution than other renewable energy sources.

A new Oak Ridge National Laboratory study released yesterday found that by adding power-generation equipment to existing dams, the United States could generate more than 12 gigawatts of electricity. A sizeable portion of that new generation capacity -- 3,000 megawatts -- could be sourced from 10 large dams in the South, Midwest and Rust Belt.

And an Interior Department study released last week showed that the agency could generate up to 1 million megawatt-hours of electricity each year by adding hydropower capacity to some of its existing structures, like dams, canals and divergent structures, in 14 Western states.

Hydropower has been criticized by conservationists for the heavy environmental footprint associated with dam construction and stream divergence. But hydropower proponents say increasing generation at existing structures would be a low-impact way to boost the nation's renewable energy portfolio.

"Adding hydropower capability at existing [Bureau of Reclamation] facilities is a cost-effective and environmentally sustainable way to build our clean energy economy," said Assistant Secretary for Water and Science Anne Castle. "We can increase our renewable hydropower output without building new dams" ( E&E Daily , April 1).

Indeed, the Oak Ridge study found that 3 percent of the nation's 80,000 dams currently generate electricity.

The Federal Government Found Liable Under CERCLA as a Result of its Oversight of Federal Mining Leases

AUTHORITY OVER PLACES PURCHASED “Places” This clause has been broadly construed to cover all structures necessary for carrying on the business of the National Government. 1621 It includes post offices, 1622 a hospital and a hotel located in a national park, 1623 and locks and dams for the improvement of navigation. 1624 But it does not cover lands acquired for forests, parks, ranges, wild life sanctuaries or flood control. 1625 Nevertheless, the Supreme Court has held that a State may convey, and the Congress may accept, either exclusive or qualified jurisdiction over property acquired within the geographical limits of a State, for purposes other than those enumerated in clause 17. 1626 After exclusive jurisdiction over lands within a State has been ceded to the United States, Congress alone has the power to punish crimes committed within the ceded territory. 1627 Private property located thereon is not subject to taxation by the State, 1628 nor can state statutes enacted subsequent to the transfer have any operation therein. 1629 But the local laws in force at the date of cession that are protective of private rights continue in force until abro [p.338] gated by Congress. 1630 Moreover, as long as there is no interference with the exclusive jurisdiction of the United States, an area subject thereto may be annexed by a municipality. 1631 Duration of Federal Jurisdiction A State may qualify its cession of territory by a condition that jurisdiction shall be retained by the United States only so long as the place is used for specified purposes. 1632 Such a provision operates prospectively and does not except from the grant that portion of a described tract which is then used as a railroad right of way. 1633 In 1892, the Court upheld the jurisdiction of the United States to try a person charged with murder on a military reservation, over the objection that the State had ceded jurisdiction only over such portions of the area as were used for military purposes and that the particular place on which the murder was committed was used solely for farming. The Court held that the character and purpose of the occupation having been officially established by the political department of the government, it was not open to the Court to inquire into the actual uses to which any portion of the area was temporarily put. 1634 A few years later, however, it ruled that the lease to a city, for use as a market, of a portion of an area which had been ceded to the United States for a particular purpose, suspended the exclusive jurisdiction of the United States. 1635 The question arose whether the United States retains jurisdiction over a place, which was ceded to it unconditionally, after it has abandoned the use of the property for governmental purposes and entered into a contract for the sale thereof to private persons. Minnesota asserted the right to tax the equitable interest of the purchaser in such land, and the Supreme Court upheld its right to do so. The majority assumed that “the Government's unrestricted transfer of property to nonfederal hands is a relinquishment of the exclusive legislative power.” 1636 In separate concurring opinions, [p.339] Chief Justice Stone and Justice Frankfurter reserved judgment on the question of territorial jurisdiction. 1637 Reservation of Jurisdiction by States For more than a century the Supreme Court kept alive, by repeated dicta, 1638 the doubt expressed by Justice Story “whether Congress are by the terms of the Constitution, at liberty to purchase lands for forts, dockyards, etc., with the consent of a State legislature, where such consent is so qualified that it will not justify the ‘exclusive legislation' of Congress there. It may well be doubted if such consent be not utterly void.” 1639 But when the issue was squarely presented in 1937, the Court ruled that where the United States purchases property within a State with the consent of the latter, it is valid for the State to convey, and for the United States to accept, “concurrent jurisdiction” over such land, the State reserving to itself the right to execute process “and such other jurisdiction and authority over the same as is not inconsistent with the jurisdiction ceded to the United States.” 1640 The holding logically renders the second half of clause 17 superfluous. In a companion case, the Court ruled further that even if a general state statute purports to cede exclusive jurisdiction, such jurisdiction does not pass unless the United States accepts it. 1641 Clause 18. The Congress shall have Power * * * To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by the Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: DISTRAINT OF PROPERTY
From: < john@ironmountainmine.com >
Date: Sun, March 27, 2011 3:54 pm
To: ted@ironmountainmine.com

SUSTAINABLE & COMPREHENSIVE INSTITUTIONAL CONTROLS
The General Services Administration's Dave McClure told an AFCEA crowd this week that GSA-led “tiger teams” are working to improve the cloud-computing security guidelines FedRAMP , short for Federal Risk and Authorization Management Program. But McClure said they aren't interested in reinventing the wheel. Speculation has swirled that creating FedRamp is essentially “blowing up [ the Federal Information Security Management Act ] and completely redesigning the security approach to the federal government,” McClure said. But that is only a myth. As Government Computer News reported , the cloud-security guidelines are instead focused on the “security accreditation process by using an approach that can be vetted and reused across the government,” McClure said. There have been a few hiccups. When GSA released a draft of the regulations, it garnered significant public comments — enough so that federal Chief Information Officer Vivek Kundra decided to extend the comment period and push back implementation, GCN reports. In the meantime, GSA has launched so-called “tiger teams,” made up of officials from across the government, McClure said, to address those concerns. Click here to read the full Government Computer News report along with the seven steps the tiger teams are taking to improve FedRAMP regulations.
COEFFICIENT OR ELASTIC CLAUSE Scope of Incidental Powers That this clause is an enlargement, not a constriction, of the powers expressly granted to Congress, that it enables the lawmakers to select any means reasonably adapted to effectuate those [p.340] powers, was established by Marshall's classic opinion in McCulloch v. Maryland. 1642 “Let the end be legitimate,” he wrote, “let it be within the scope of the Constitution, and all means which are appropriate, which are plainly adapted to that end, which are not prohibited, but consistent with the letter and spirit of the Constitution, are constitutional.” 1643 Moreover, the provision gives Congress a share in the responsibilities lodged in other departments, by virtue of its right to enact legislation necessary to carry into execution all powers vested in the National Government. Conversely, where necessary for the efficient execution of its own powers, Congress may delegate some measure of legislative power to other departments. 1644 Operation of Coefficient Clause Practically every power of the National Government has been expanded in some degree by the coefficient clause. Under its authority Congress has adopted measures requisite to discharge the treaty obligations of the nation; 1645 it has organized the federal judicial system and has enacted a large body of law defining and punishing crimes. Effective control of the national economy has been made possible by the authority to regulate the internal commerce of a State to the extent necessary to protect and promote interstate commerce. 1646 The right of Congress to utilize all known and appropriate means for collecting the revenue, including the distraint of property for federal taxes, 1647 and its power to acquire property needed for the operation of the Government by the exercise of the power of eminent domain, 1648 have greatly extended the range of national power. But the widest application of the necessary and proper clause has occurred in the field of monetary and fiscal controls. Inasmuch as the various specific powers granted by Article I, Sec. 8, do not add up to a general legislative power over such matters, the Court has relied heavily upon this clause in sustaining [p.341] the comprehensive control which Congress has asserted over this subject. 1649

DUE DATES

LONDON (AFP) – Anglo-Swedish pharmaceuticals giant AstraZeneca said Monday it had settled a tax dispute with US authorities by agreeing on a net payment of $ 1.1 billion (783 million euros).

AstraZeneca additionally raised its 2011 earnings target after also securing a lower tax rate and being able to free up some of the $ 2.3 billion it had set aside as tax provisions, it said in a group statement.

The company said it would release some of the excess provisions, resulting in a net gain to the company's first-quarter earnings of $ 500 million.

AstraZeneca added that it was now targeting full-year core earnings per share of up to $ 7.20 from a previous estimate of $ 6.75, according to the statement.

Resolution of the tax dispute came after British and US government fiscal authorities agreed to the terms of a pricing agreement for AstraZeneca's US business for a 13-year period from 2002 to the end of 2014.

AstraZeneca added that it had reached agreement with the US tax authorities on a related valuation matter arising on integration of its US businesses in 2000 after the 1999 merger of Swedish group Astra and British company Zeneca.

“Based on these agreements, AstraZeneca now expects to pay a net amount of $ 1.1 billion to resolve all US transfer pricing and related valuation matters for all periods from 2000 to the end of 2010,” the group said in its statement.

http://us.rd.yahoo.com/dailynews/rss/business/*http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20110328/bs_afp/britainuspharmaearningstaxcompanyastrazeneca

Because this action does not propose or impose any requirements and instead seeks comments and suggestions for the Agency to consider in possibly developing a subsequent proposed rule, the various statutes and Executive Orders that normally apply to rulemaking do not apply in this case. Should EPA subsequently determine to pursue a rulemaking, EPA will address the statutes and Executive Orders as applicable to that rulemaking. Dated: February 10, 2011. Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9. [FR Doc. 2011-3861 Filed 2-18-11; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P

On Thursday, the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans ruled that U.S. Environmental Protection Agency cannot require livestock operations to obtain Clean Water Act permits unless they are discharging manure into a waterway. It was a major victory for U.S. livestock and poultry producers.

American Farm Bureau Federation, National Pork Producers, United Egg Producers and several other ag groups sued EPA over its so-called CAFO rule. It's the second ruling against EPA since 2005 over essentially the same issue: EPA sought to require permits for operations that had a "potential" to discharge.

EPA's 2008 CAFO regulation set a zero-discharge standard. It required a Clean Water Act for all CAFOs that discharge or "propose" to discharge. The rule covered production areas and crop land on which manure is applied and imposed fines of up to $37,500 a day.

"The court recognized a clear limit on EPA's authority and required the agency to comply with the clean water law," said Doug Wolf, president of the National Pork Producers Council, and a pork producer from Lancaster, Wis.

The ag groups contended that the 2008 rule "constitutes a thinly veiled effort to impose the same duty to apply that was invalidated" by the 2nd Circuit in New York. The 5th Circuit Court agreed, noting that "there must be an actual discharge … to trigger the CWA's requirements and EPA's authority." It also struck down the CAFO rule's "failure to apply" provision, stating that its imposition is "outside the bounds of the CWA's mandate."

Environmental justice: An old idea with a new emphasis

Environmental justice is an old mandate getting a new life under Lisa Jackson, the first African-American head of the Environmental Protection Agency.

Environmental justice refers to the fair treatment of all communities when it comes to enforcing environmental laws and protecting them from health and environmental hazards. It was first made a federal priority with a 1994 executive order intended to right inequities in minority and low-income communities that were experiencing a disproportionate share of the nation's environmental hazards.

The order, signed by President Clinton, required all federal agencies to incorporate environmental justice into their decision-making processes.

A 2007 study by Sandra George O'Neil published in Environmental Health Perspectives, for example, concluded that inequities had not only persisted, but also escalated in the intervening years with fewer polluted sites in minority and low-income communities being designated for Superfund cleanup funds, compared with those in wealthier areas.

That study along with criticism of the Superfund program by the Government Accounting Office and the U.S. Office of the Inspector General galvanized a call to reform the approach to environmental justice among federal agencies.

Under the Obama Administration, the EPA along with other federal agencies has a strict new edict to take justice into account. Jackson has assumed a high-profile role in evangelizing for environmental justice. She is mid-stream in a well-publicized "Environmental Justice Tour" that is taking her around the country visiting communities beleaguered by toxic waste.

And that in turn has invigorated communities with a new enthusiasm that raising their voices will make a difference.

This document explains what happened in Japan and what we can do in the U.S. to increase our individual and community resilience from an earthquake and/or tsunami event. This also includes recommended FEMA publications and useful web links for additional resources.

Please SHARE this document with others! This document will also be available from the FEMA Library .

To view or download other NEHRP publications and products or to sign up for updates on earthquake risk mitigation publications, news, and events, visit Earthquake Publications and Tools .

The National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program (NEHRP), which was first authorized by Congress in 1977, seeks to mitigate earthquake losses in the United States through basic and directed research and implementation activities in the fields of earthquake science and engineering. As one of the four NEHRP federal agencies, FEMA is responsible for developing effective earthquake risk reduction tools and promoting their implementation, as well as supporting the development of disaster-resistant building codes and standards. FEMA's NEHRP activities are led by the FEMA Headquarters, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, Risk Reduction Division, Building Science Branch, in strong partnership and coordination with the FEMA Regions, the states, the four multi-state earthquake consortia, and other partners.

This report highlights a cross-section of successful FEMA NEHRP projects and programs in Fiscal Year (FY) 2010. Some of the more exciting activities and accomplishments include ROVER, a new IT-based data collection and evaluation tool developed with the Applied Technology Council; FEMA's QuakeSmart program to assist local businesses mitigate earthquake losses; continuing work on the Performance-Based Seismic Design project; and engineering field work in Chile after the 8.8 magnitude earthquake. The report also includes many successful state, local, and regional activities in earthquake training and awareness, seismic safety inspections, building codes adoption, the development of multi-state groups, and public outreach.

The accomplishments described in the FY 2010 report show how FEMA and its partners, working in collaboration, are continuing to make progress toward earthquake loss-reduction nationwide. Work completed in 2010 will have applications immediately or in the near term in reducing earthquake risk. Work advanced in 2010 also is creating a strong foundation for realizing similarly effective outcomes in future years.

EPA feels pushback on tough regulation Congress looking to cut agency's power Monday, March 21, 2011 By Daniel Malloy, Post-Gazette Washington Bureau

WASHINGTON -- The Environmental Protection Agency, says Jim Laurita, is standing in the way of a project that should be a no-brainer.

Mr. Laurita is CEO of Dana Mining Co., which reached an agreement in 2003 with Pennsylvania's Department of Environmental Protection to split costs with the state to pump water out of the abandoned Shannopin Mine in Greene County, run it through a treatment plant and dump it in Dunkard Creek, a Monongahela River tributary.

The state allowed Dana, through a nonprofit called AMDRI, to dump water with pollution levels higher than the typical standard into the stream, avoiding potential disaster in the area's waterways if the acidic mine water were to overflow. Dana benefits by preventing an underground flood in its own mine nearby.

But a permit renewal for the project has been held up because state regulators want stricter controls on pollutants in the water. Mr. Laurita said his company cannot afford the more expensive treatment required, and he sees the EPA at work behind the scenes pressuring the state.

"It's been a win-win, but EPA doesn't look at stuff like that," he said. "And that's the problem. There's no practical basis by which some of these federal agencies operate."

The EPA under President Barack Obama and Administrator Lisa P. Jackson has enforced clean air and clean water standards at a pace too aggressive for many industries' tastes.

Now Congress, led by the newly Republican-controlled House of Representatives, is seeking to curtail the agency's power and has made EPA a top target for criticisms of administration overreach.

A House committee last week passed a bill to block the EPA from regulating greenhouse gases, with the Senate likely to vote soon on a similar measure. A government funding bill recently passed by House Republicans would have slashed EPA's budget by a third. Ms. Jackson, by a Washington Post tally, has been called to testify before Congress this year more than any other federal agency director, and has been a frequent subject of tongue-lashings in high-ceilinged hearing rooms.

"I'm not happy with EPA on several different levels in the way they've been working in Pennsylvania recently," said Rep. Mark Critz, D-Johnstown, citing the Dana case in his district.

"My gut reaction because I'm so angry with them is to cut them from being able to do anything until they sit down and start acting more reasonably."

Still, Mr. Critz wouldn't commit to voting for the bill sponsored by Rep. Fred Upton, R-Mich., that would ban the agency from regulating greenhouse gas emissions, saying he was still studying the issue.

"We can't just knee-jerk react to things, and that's what I'm trying to protect against," he said.

In 2009 EPA found that the emissions cause global warming and thus pose a danger to human health, so the agency is in the midst of developing regulations to curb them under the Clean Air Act. The agency's foes say the pending rules are a way to enact through fiat what Congress could not do with legislation, as even with massive Democratic majorities it did not pass a climate bill in the last Congress.

"The American people aren't there," said Rep. Jason Altmire, D-McCandless, who supports the concept of the Upton bill but is still parsing the language before he commits his vote.

Mr. Altmire's vote won't be needed for the bill to clear the House, given the large Republican majority there, but the Senate climate is murkier. Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., proposed a bill similar to Mr. Upton's last week, but any consideration was bumped until after next week's recess.

A full ban on greenhouse gas regulations would likely fail, but a proposal by Sen. Jay Rockefeller, D-W.Va., to delay greenhouse gas regulations by two years stands a chance at passage, and might be voted on in place of Mr. McConnell's bill. Sen. Bob Casey, D-Pa., a closely watched swing vote on Mr. Rockefeller's bill, said last week that he will not commit to a vote before seeing what final proposal emerges.

But in letters to agency officials last year, Mr. Casey urged the EPA to take concerns of the coal and utility industries into account when drafting rules on the disposal of coal ash and emissions from boilers.

Rep. Mike Doyle, D-Forest Hills, said a toned-down discussion about regulations' effect on industries is more constructive than the effort to remove its ability to police heat-trapping gases.

Mr. Doyle, who voted against the greenhouse gas bill in committee, recalled the sooty air and slimy rivers of his youth in Pittsburgh and credited the region's environmental improvements to stiff federal regulation.

"Does it ever get to the point where sometimes they overregulate? Yeah it does, and we have to swing the pendulum back the other way," he said. "The answer isn't to tell the EPA it can't do its job, ignore a scientific finding and don't enforce it."

The greenhouse gas issue is only one in a litany of gripes area members of Congress have with the agency.

The EPA recently ticked off Rep. Tim Murphy, R-Upper St. Clair, by sending a letter, without warning, to the state DEP demanding more aggressive radiation testing and announcing it was going to inspect water treatment plants, following the Times' report on radiation and the Marcellus Shale.

"It is pervasive throughout EPA to ignore the states, to ignore Congress, to ignore the wishes of the people and just act as their own independent branch of government and impose actions and regulations," Mr. Murphy said.

In the face of the open scorn, EPA has not backed down from issuing new regulations, many of which are required by court rulings. Last week, for example, it issued the first-ever regulation of mercury from power plants, along with other toxic emissions. The proposed rule would reduce mercury emissions by 91 percent by going after the biggest pollution sources.

Industry leaders, estimating $100 billion in compliance costs, said the rule was too broad by reaching beyond mercury and said once again that the EPA was harming the economy.

EPA claimed 17,000 lives would be saved and 11,000 heart attacks averted by the improved air quality.

More thoroughly detailing benefits -- with analyses often questioned by industry groups -- has been a major shift for EPA, said Adam Garber, an organizer for PennEnvironment.

"From their perspective and our perspective, saving 17,000 lives is worth a lot of jobs," he said. "They're trying to get the argument out there that this is a life-saving measure for a big industry that can afford it. ... I think they are being more aggressive on those kinds of arguments, but on the actual regulations that are coming out, I don't think they are toning it down."

Sunday, April 24, 2011 11:15:27 PM

Buffett's Berkshire Hathaway Assumes AIG's Asbestos Risk

(April 24, 2011) -- Warren Buffett's Berkshire Hathaway will get $1.65 billion from Chartis , a property and casualty unit of bailed-out insurer American International Group (AIG), for assuming its risk of asbestos policies.

The agreement reflects AIG's aims to buy protection against asbestos-related claims, which have become increasingly high for insurers , in an effort to slash its liabilities.

AIG, which has been under state control since its near-bankruptcy in 2008, said the transaction would result in a gain before taxes of around $200 million in the second quarter. As part of the deal with the insurance giant, Berkshire Hathaway's National Indemnity will take on as much as $3.5 billion in potential claims related to asbestos exposure.

“We believe that this transaction is beneficial for Chartis, as it will reduce the risk of future adverse development of US asbestos exposures, including the risk associated with the recoverability of related reinsurance,” Peter Hancock, the recently named chief executive of Chartis, said in a statement.

The deal follows similar ones made by Buffett, who has been attracted to the long-term nature of insurance payouts. Last year, Buffett received $2 billion in premiums to cover the asbestos liabilities of the insurer CNA Financial Corp. In February, Buffett revealed that he was on the lookout for more big-time deals after Berkshire Hathaway posted its strongest profits since the start of the financial crisis.

Risk transfer deals have also been growing in popularity among UK pensions, which are transferring risk to insurance companies, driven by M&A activity, a growing number of closures and part-closures of defined benefit pension schemes, and concerns over longevity risk. The evidence of this comes from a March report by Hymans Robertson that showed UK pension buyouts, in which an entire scheme is passed to a specialist insurer, are becoming more and more prevalent.

Another example illustrating the growing popularity of risk transfer deals is the Pension Insurance Corporation's (PIC) February decision to reinsure $799 million of longevity risk to better manage risk and more effectively compete for new business. According to some forecasts, more than $24 billion worth of pension risks could be passed on to insurers this year. PIC has said its transactions indicate the insurer's desire to focus on risk management and on the efficient allocation of capital.

AIG , Other Insurers Settle Long-Running Suit Over Bid-Rigging

NEW YORK -(Dow Jones)- Insurers, including American International Group Inc. ( AIG ) and Travelers Cos. ( TRV ), agreed to settle a long-running legal battle tied to allegations of bid-rigging first leveled in 2004.

The settlement requires the group of seven insurers and two insurance brokers to pay a combined $36.8 million to clients that purchased business insurance from 1998 to 2004, according to a March 18 memorandum outlining the terms of the preliminary settlement agreement.

The putative class-action case had alleged that insurance brokers worked with insurers to manufacture fake bids to present to large insurance buyers alongside legitimate bids to make the process of finding coverage appear more robust than it actually was. The suit also alleged the plaintiffs had conspired to hide some commissions paid by the insurers to the brokers, and leveled other accusations about how insurers and brokers marketed and sold coverage.

The case, an amalgam of several that were consolidated in U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey in 2005, expanded on allegations raised in an investigation by New York's then-attorney general, Eliot Spitzer. The insurers and brokers had earlier settled with Spitzer and other attorneys general.

Some brokers agreed in their settlements with Spitzer to stop accepting some fees from insurers called "contingent commissions" that are based on the amount of business or profits the brokers generate for companies for a period of years. Spitzer's investigation of the insurance industry also resulted in other allegations concerning AIG accounting that caused AIG Chief Executive Hank Greenberg to step down in 2005.

The other insurers that agreed to settle the lawsuit last week are Liberty Mutual, XL Group PLC ( XL ), CNA Financial Corp. ( CNA ), Hartford Financial Services Group Inc. ( HIG ) and Crum & Forster. The settling brokers were Aon Corp. ( AON ) and Willis Group Holdings Plc ( WSH ).

The insurance industry had been fighting in court to get the case dismissed, and won a victory in the U.S. Court of Appeals last year that resulted in portions of the case being thrown out.

Under the terms of the prospective settlement, AIG , Travelers, Liberty Mutual and XL will each pay $6.75 million, plus some administrative fees. Aon, Willis, Crum & Forster, CNA and Hartford will pay a combined total of $9.75 million.

A spokesman for AIG said the insurer was "pleased to have reached an agreement to resolve this matter," and noted the settlement "brings an end to another long-standing lawsuit about events from many years ago."

The settlement amounts agreed to last week are substantially less than the sums paid by the companies that settled with the same defendants earlier. Zurich Financial Services AG (ZURN.VX), for example, agreed to pay $100 million about five years ago to settle.

Spokesmen and spokeswomen for Travelers, Liberty Mutual, XL , Aon, Willis, Crum & Forster, CNA and Hartford either had no immediate comment, couldn't immediately be reached or declined to comment beyond confirming their participation in the settlement agreement.

Some insurers named in the suit--including Ace Ltd. ( ACE ) and Chubb Corp. ( CB ) --have yet to agree to settle.

News

Secretary Chu Announces $130 Million for Advanced Research Projects

ARPA-E's 4th round of funding focuses on rare earth alternatives and breakthroughs in biofuels, thermal storage, grid controls, and solar power electronics

Washington, D.C. - U.S. Department of Energy Secretary Steven Chu announced today that up to $130 million from the Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy (ARPA-E) will be made available to develop five new program areas that could spark critical breakthrough technologies and secure America's energy future. Today's funding opportunity announcement comes two months after ARPA-E announced six of its projects have secured more than $100 million in outside private capital investment - indications that the business community is eager to invest in truly innovative solutions to the country's energy challenges.

"ARPA-E is unleashing American innovation to strengthen America's global competitiveness and win the clean energy race," said Secretary Chu. "In addition to creating new jobs, breakthroughs in clean energy technologies can reduce our country's dependence of foreign oil, decrease the cost of clean electricity, and build a sustainable infrastructure for future generations of Americans."

Today's announcement is ARPA-E's fourth round of funding opportunities. In its first year, ARPA-E awarded $363 million in Recovery Act funding to 121 groundbreaking energy projects based in 30 states, with approximately 39% of projects led by universities, 33% by small businesses, 20% by large businesses, 5% by national labs, and 3% by non-profits.

ARPA-E's fourth round of funding opportunities includes five technology areas detailed below:

The five technology areas announced today will join ARPA-E's seven existing programs in power electronics (ADEPT), battery technologies (BEEST), building cooling (BEETIT), non-photosynthetic biofuels (Electrofuels), grid energy storage (GRIDS), carbon capture (IMPACCT), and its initial open solicitation.

Hydropower policy in the United States includes all of the laws , rules , and regulations that govern the domestic hydroelectric industry, as well as the programs and organizations that affects the technology's use.

The hydroelectric industry is affected by the regulations and interests of various agencies and organizations. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) is the main regulatory body for the industry. FERC is responsible for licensing, re-licensing, and oversight of ongoing project operations (such as dam safety inspections and environmental monitoring). Environmental concerns and implications are evaluated by both federal and state Natural Resource agencies, Indian tribes, and state water quality agencies. Examples of such federal agencies include, but are not limited to, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Department of Agriculture 's Forest Service, the Department of Commerce 's National Marine Fisheries Service, and the Department of the Interior . The National Hydropower Association is a hydropower trade organization which lobbies for policies which favor the industry.

Advancement of hydroelectric technology is accomplished through research and development programs, such as the Department of Energy's Hydropower Program. The use of hydroelectric technology is promoted by Renewable Portfolio Standards and various financial incentives. These financial incentives include: Renewable Energy Production Tax Credits (PTC), Loan Guarantees, Clean Renewable Energy Bond (CREB), and Qualified Energy Conservation Bonds (QECB).

[ edit ] History

Legislation regarding hydropower in the United States did not appear until 1920 with the establishment of the Federal Power Act . It was further regulated with the establishment of the Tennessee Valley Authority following the Great Depression in the 1930s.

[ edit ] Federal Power Act Overview

The Federal Power Act was enacted in 1920 with the purpose of organizing hydroelectric projects. Hydropower is still a component of this Act, but additional legislation has been added since its creation. The Federal Power Act created the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) as the licensing authority for hydroelectric power. Over time, FERC's task list grew to include conservation and protection of natural waterways and the wildlife within them. The Federal Power Act was the first major regulatory legislation for hydropower. The Act also defined what waters FERC had jurisdiction over: "Streams or other bodies of water over which Congress has jurisdiction to regulate commerce among foreign nations and among the States." (16 U.S.C. 796) This basically meant that FERC had unlimited power to oversee activities on any water on US soil.

Subsequent amendments to the Act included some wildlife provisions and more recently, stipulations that called for studies looking into the feasibility of increasing US hydropower capacity using existing dams. This amendment, P.L. 102-486 (106 Stat. 3098), was approved in late 1992 and directs the Secretary of Energy to cooperate with the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of the Army and look for cheap ways to maximize power production at federally-owned dam facilities. Money for the studies was accounted for in the DOE budget. An amendment in 1995 officially let the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of the Army take charge of the studies authorized in the 1992 amendment. [ 1 ]

[ edit ] FERC's Responsibilities

FERC is responsible for licensing, relicensing, and oversight of ongoing project operations such as dam safety inspections and environmental monitoring. [ 2 ]

[ edit ] Licensing/Relicensing

As outlined on FERC's website, any hydroelectric project must apply for a license or an exemption from licensing if the project is or will be: 1.located on a navigable waterway of the U.S.;

4.located on a body of water over which Congress has Commerce Clause jurisdiction, project construction occurred on or after August 26, 1935, and the project affects the interests of interstate or foreign commerce [ 3 ]

Licenses are valid for a 30 to 50 year period. FERC has three processes by which an applicant can file a license: integrated, traditional, and alternative. [ 3 ]

[ edit ] Integrated Licensing Process

The integrated licensing process is the default licensing process. The integrated licensing process was created to provide a “predictable, efficient, and timely licensing process that continues to ensure adequate resource protections.” FERC says that the process is founded in the following three principles:

1.Early issue identification and resolution of studies needed to fill information gaps, avoiding studies post-filing;

3.Established time frames to complete process steps for all stakeholders, including the Commission. [ 4 ]

If an applicant wishes to use the traditional or alternative process, he or she must receive permission from FERC. [ 5 ] The regulations for the integrated licensing process are contained in 18 CFR Part 5.

[ edit ] Traditional Licensing Process

The traditional licensing process consists of a three stage pre-filing process through 18 CFR 4.38 for new licenses and 18 CFR 16.8 for relicenses. In the first stage, the applicant issues a notice of intent and a request to use a traditional licensing process. After FERC approves the use of a traditional licensing process, joint agency and public meetings are conducted along with site visits and written comments are accepted. [ 6 ]

[ edit ] State Role in Federal Licensing

As decided by the U.S. Supreme Court case S.D. Warren Co. v. Maine Board of Environmental Protection , the states have the power to impose restrictions on federal licensing or relicensing of hydropower facilities. The Court decided that a state can impose restrictions through water quality certification under Section 401 of the Clean Water Act . The terms and conditions of a federal license will incorporate the terms and conditions of the state's certification. [ 7 ]

[ edit ] Exemptions from Licensing

FERC may issue two types of exemptions from licensing. While facilities that are granted these exemptions are not subject to the requirements of Part 1 of the Federal Power Act, they are still subject to any terms and conditions set by federal and state fish and wildlife agencies and FERC. [ 8 ] The two exemptions are the small hydropower project and conduit exemptions.

Small hydroelectric power projects with capacities of 5MW or less may be exempt from federal licensing. These projects must either:

1. utilize the pressure head at a damn “that is not is not owned or operated by the United States or by an instrumentality of the Federal Government, including the Tennessee Valley Authority” or

2. use “a natural water feature, such as a natural lake, waterfall, or the gradient of a natural stream, without the need for a dam or man-made impoundment and would not retain water behind any structure for the purpose of a storage and release operation.” [ 9 ]

Exemptions are available for small conduit hydroelectric facilities with 15MW or less installed generating capacity (or if it's a municipal facility, 40MW or less installed generating capacity). The components of the facility have to exclude the conduit, the associated transmission lines, cannot be “an integral part of a dam,” cannot use a damn to supply its hydrostatic head, and cannot be located on Federal lands. The hydroelectric potential to generate the electricity must be supplied by a conduit. The water discharged by the facility must go into a conduit or be directly used for agricultural, municipal, or industrial consumption. [ 10 ]

The term conduit in this context is defined as any tunnel, canal, pipeline, aqueduct, flume, ditch, or similar manmade water conveyance that is operated for the distribution of water for agricultural, municipal, or industrial consumption and not primarily for the generation of electricity. [ 10 ]

[ edit ] Dam and Safety Inspections

FERC has created a plan for monitoring dam construction and operation called the Dam Safety Surveillance Monitoring Plan (DSSMP). This plan, created with the aid of dam owners, consultants, the National Hydropower Association and the Hydraulic Power Committee, outlines how an owner will monitor the safety and performance of a dam with respect to rules and regulations that govern them. [ 11 ]

The plan includes sections on instrumentation, equipment maintenance, reading frequency and procedures, action levels, procedures should a failure occur and how reports sent to FERC must be formatted. The reports include photographs, diagrams and data taken at the dam. [ 12 ]

[ edit ] Safeguarding the Environment

In regards to the environment, FERC's objective is to ensure that damage resulting from hydropower projects is minimized. They require that all applicants communicate with all relevant stakeholders before submitting applications. These stakeholders include federal and state Natural Resource agencies, Indian tribes, and state water quality agencies. FERC has developed an Initial Consultation Contact List to facilitate communication. FERC issues draft Environmental Assessments or draft Environmental Impact Statements and invites the public to comment. Electronic copies of the drafts and final versions are publically available. In issuing licenses, FERC includes terms and conditions aimed to mitigate environmental impacts. [ 13 ]

[ edit ] Environmental Impact

The construction of the large dams necessary to harness the power of water starkly change the natural shape of the environment. They can lead to soil erosion, the spread of disease, the loss of species and even, as one scientist claims, a change in the Earth's rotation due to huge amounts of water being moved to reservoirs. [ 14 ] Also, the major amounts of concrete needed for these dams mean more CO 2 being discharged into the atmosphere and promote runoff that limits the recharging ability of underground aquifers that provide potable water. Some legislation that seeks to curb the negative environmental effects of dam-building can be found below.

[ edit ] The Endangered Species Act

One main hindrance in the licensing process is The Endangered Species Act ( 7 U.S.C. § 136 , 16 U.S.C. § 1531 et seq. , ESA ). Passed in 1973, this act sought to protect endangered species from the negative effects of anthropogenic actions. It distinguished between endangered and threatened species but applied the same protection to both. The reason it hinders the hydropower licensing and relicensing process is because it has priority over any government activity and therefore supersedes any construction project.

Section 7 of the Act requires that Federal agencies must insure that any action they condone is unlikely to affect the “existence of listed species or modify their critical habitat.” [ 15 ] The list alluded to is also found in the Act and shows exactly which species must be considered. The Supreme Court came to the conclusion that Congress sought "to halt and reverse the trend toward species extinction, whatever the cost." [ 16 ] The major consequences of the ESA and the Supreme Court's ruling in terms of hydropower proliferation are added costs, delays and site analyses that make dam construction much more difficult and less attractive to investors. [ 17 ]

Because of the incredibly high construction and maintenance costs of dams and generation equipment, outside investment is key to the hydropower industry. This means that the ESA is a hindrance to the industry's growth. The protected species are largely aquatic types whose migration patterns and feeding habits might be affected by the construction and subsequent operation of a dam. In the Pacific Northwest, the Columbia River alone has seen the construction of 75 dams between 1930 and 1990. It led to the depletion of salmon populations that have since been added to the Endangered Species Act's list. [ 18 ] The people of Washington, Oregon and Canada who benefit from the power generated using these dams feel that their livelihood holds greater importance than that of the aquatic wildlife and see no problem with the current state of the river.

Besides getting killed during the construction and operation of dams, salmon stocks are dwindling because harvesting them becomes much easier now that the dams limit movement and increase their density in any one area. [ 19 ] Thanks to the ESA, salmon populations have again swelled in the Columbia River and no new dams have been built since 1990.

[ edit ] Electric Consumers Protection Act

The Electric Consumers' Protection Act (ECPA, 16 U.S.C. § 797, 803) was an amendment to the Federal Power Act and became law in 1986. It contained wildlife provisions, and requires that FERC "give equal consideration to non-power generating values such as the environment, recreation, fish, and wildlife, as are given to power and development objectives when making hydroelectric project licensing decisions." A major consequence of this provision was a large increase in licensing fees since major studies now had to be undertaken before any project was authorized. Another provision stated that FERC must work with fish and wildlife agencies to mitigate the environmental impacts of existing dams. [ 20 ]

[ edit ] Promotion

Research and Development programs and financial incentives are used to promote hydropower. The financial incentives that exist are: Renewable Energy Production Tax Credits (PTC), Loan Guarantees, Clean Renewable Energy Bond (CREB), Qualified Energy Conservation Bonds (QECB) [ 21 ]

[ edit ] The Department of Energy's Hydropower Program

The U.S. DOE's Hydropower Program is a part of its Office of Wind and Hydropower Technologies. The Hydropower Program's mission is “to conduct research and development that will improve the technical, societal, and environmental benefits of hydropower and provide cost-competitive technologies that enable the development of new and incremental hydropower capacity.” The research is performed in conjunction with other federal agencies and groups involved with the industry. Progress and results are evaluated through the actions of a technical committee comprised of experts. The three National Laboratories involved with the program include Idaho National Laboratory, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, and Pacific Northwest National Laboratory. [ 22 ]

[ edit ] Tax Credit from Efficiency Improvements or Capacity Additions

Hydroelectric facilities placed into service after August 8, 2005 and before January 1, 2014 may apply for a tax credit for incremental production gains from efficiency improvements or capacity additions. This tax credit was created by Section 1301 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 , which amends Section 45 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986. [ 23 ] As outlined by EPAct 2005, the "incremental hydropower production for any taxable year shall be equal to the percentage of average annual hydropower production at the facility attributable to the efficiency improvements or additions of capacity" and shall be "determined by using the same water flow information used to determine an historic average annual hydropower production baseline." This percentage and baseline has to be certified by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

The determination of incremental hydropower production shall not be based on any operational changes at a facility not directly associated with the efficiency improvements or additions of capacity. [ 24 ] In Section 1301, “efficiency improvements” and “additions of capacity” are not defined. (It merely excludes “operational changes…not directly associated with the efficiency improvements or additions of capacity”). Therefore FERC interprets “efficiency improvements” as upgrades to generators or turbines that result in increased power generation. They interpret “additions of capacity” to be “any increase in generating capacity other than an addition resulting from an efficiency improvement or an addition resulting from an operational change. [ 23 ]

To acquire certification from FERC, a request must be submitted that includes (taken directly from the outline in [ 23 ] :

1. A calculation of the historic average annual hydropower production baseline for the facility, along with the supporting water flow information and corresponding actual annual power production data for the period of record. Such calculations must be based on the units operating capacities as authorized under a Commission's license or exemption.

B. Percentage of Average Annual Hydropower Production Attributable to Efficiency Improvements or Additions of Capacity

1. Additions of Capacity: The additional installed capacity and the anticipated annual generation for the facility based on the same water flow information used to support the calculation of Historic Average Annual Hydropower Production baseline in item (A).

2. Efficiency improvements: The manufacturer's calculation of efficiency improvements to the upgraded generating equipment and the anticipated annual generation for the facility based on the same water flow data used to support the calculation of Historic Average Annual Hydropower Production baseline.

3. Calculations showing the percentage of average annual hydropower production attributable to the efficiency improvements or additions of capacity.

[ edit ] Loan Guarantees

The Energy Policy Act and The Recovery Act have created loan programs to support hydropower production and development of other clean energy. In both acts, the loan repayment is required over a period no greater than 30 years or 90% of the projected useful life of the asset being financed.

The innovative Loan Guarantee Program was created by the EPAct Title XVII to “support the deployment of the deployment of innovative, clean energy technologies that reduce, avoid or sequester carbon dioxide & other air emissions.” [ 25 ] The Federal government has authorized up to $42.5 billion in loan guarantees.

The Recovery Act allocated $6 billion to offset loan guarantee charges that are paid to the DOE as a risk premium for the guarantee. There is a September 30, 2011 commencement deadline for construction of temporary additions and projects under the loan program in the Recovery Act. [ 25 ]

[ edit ] CREB

Clean Renewable Energy Bonds are federal loans authorized by the Energy Policy Act of 2005 for the purpose of financing renewable energy projects [DSIRE]. CREBs are not limited to hydropower, and are qualified for use with all technologies listed in the federal renewable energy production tax credit. These interest free federal loans can be issued by electric cooperatives, government entities, and certain lenders. The bondholder receives tax credits as a way of compensating for no interest payments. The current maximum allowable issuance of Clean Renewable Energy Bonds is $2.4 billion. [ 26 ]

[ edit ] QECB

Qualified Energy Conservation Bonds are applied to a broader spectrum of projects than Clean Renewable Energy Bonds. These loans are available for building efficiency, renewable energy production, research and development applications, mass transit and public energy efficiency campaigns in addition to the projects that are eligible for CREBs. Unlike CREBs however, QECBs are not subject to U.S. Department of Treasury applications and approvals. The bonds are issued to states based on that state's percentage of the U.S. population. The state then distributes the QECBs among it's municipalities and counties with populations of 100,000 or greater. [ 25 ]

[ edit ] RPS overview for various states

Renewable Portfolio Standards are state policies that establish a minimum required percentage of renewable power for electricity generation. There are currently 24 states with RPS policies in place, all of which include hydroelectric power as an eligible technology. The established percentages are targets for full requirement set for a certain year, ranging from 2013 (Vermont and New York) to 2030 (California). Out of the states with RPS policies, Pennsylvania has the lowest required percentage of renewable generation (8%) and Maine has the highest (40%). [ 27 ]

[ edit ] National Hydropower Association Policy Priorities

The National Hydropower Association (NHA) currently has five policy priorities on their agenda. The first is a more efficient regulatory process. They say that an expediting 2-year licensing process for minimal impact projects would allow hydro to be on an “equal footing” with other renewable technologies. The second is a tax credit parity. Hydropower currently receives half of the rate per kWh under the Production Tax Credit, and the NHA thinks that it should be increased such that it is equal with other renewable technologies. The third priority calls for incentivizing renewable electricity production and manufacturing (manufacturing tax credits , Clean and Renewable Energy Bonds, Production and Investment Tax Credits should be extended). They also want a federal clean and renewable energy standard which promotes development. The last priority calls for continued investment in research and development for both conventional and non-conventional hydropower projects. [ 28 ]

[ edit ] Failed Legislation

[ edit ] The Hydropower Improvement Act of 2010

The Hydropower Improvement Act of 2010, sponsored by Senators Maria Cantwell and Patty Murray (both D-WA), sought to increase generating capacity from hydropower by 75,000 MW and also create jobs in the energy sector. It gave FERC permission to expedite the licensing and authorization process for new projects and also to conduct research into increasing hydropower capacity. The bill called for the establishment of a grants program for increased hydropower production and a plan for research, development, and demonstration to achieve the same end.

The legislation was introduced too late during the 111th Congressional session and thus never reached the floor. It has since been resurrected as The Hydropower Improvement Act of 2011, this time sponsored by Senator Lisa Murkowski (R-AK). [ 29 ]

[ edit ] The Hydropower Renewable Energy Development Act

The Hydropower Renewable Energy Development Act, sponsored by Senator Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), sought to catalyze investment in hydropower by broadening its definition so more types of it qualify for Production Tax Credits and other types of government funding. The bill also tried to redefine hydropower as a renewable energy source in the eyes of the federal government. This would have made hydropower projects eligible for more tax credits that are currently only available for traditional renewable energy sources like solar and wind. The Hydropower Renewable Energy Development Act was introduced too late during the 111th Congressional session and thus never reached the floor. [ 30 ] [ 31 ]

[ edit ] Energy and Water Integration Act of 2009

The Energy and Water Integration Act of 2009, sponsored by Senator Jeff Bingaman (D-NM), sought to make the Secretary of Energy cooperate with the National Academy of Sciences to conduct an analysis of how energy development affected water resources in the United States. The bill was introduced too late in the 111th Congressional session and thus never reached the floor. [ 32 ]

[ edit ] Current Legislation

[ edit ] The Hydropower Improvement Act of 2011

The Hydropower Improvement Act of 2011 is a resurrection of its 2010 counterpart never reached the floor because the 111th Congressional session terminated. According to its sponsor Senator Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), the bill seeks to "substantially increase the capacity and generation of renewable hydropower resources in the US." It could not have been introduced at a better time considering the waning interest in nuclear power brought about by the Japanese tsunami and subsequent nuclear reactor meltdowns. [ 33 ]

[ edit ] Bonneville Unit Clean Hydropower Facilitation Act

The Bonneville Unit Clean Hydropower Act, sponsored by Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT), seeks to promote hydropower development in the Diamond Fork System of the Central Utah Project. [ 34 ]

[ edit ] Small-Scale Hydropower Enhancement Act of 2011

The Small-Scale Hydropower Enhancement Act of 2011, sponsored by Representative Adrian Smith (R-NE), seeks to promote the installation of small-scale hydropower projects (<1.5 MW) by exempting them from some of the stricter Federal Power Act licensing terms. These exemptions make the construction process faster and much less expensive. Currently, this bill has been referred to the Subcommittee on Energy and Power. [ 35 ]

[ edit ] Notes

[ edit ] References

Science and policy can catalyze each other, EPA head says

In MIT visit, Lisa Jackson discusses how technology can affect government regulations. Jennifer Chu, MIT News Office

Technological innovations have the ability to change environmental policies just as much as those policies can affect innovation, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA ) Administrator Lisa P. Jackson said during a visit to MIT on Friday, Apr. 15. In delivering the annual Henry W. Kendall Memorial Lecture, Jackson urged students and faculty at the Institute to look for sustainable solutions to environmental problems.

Jackson , a chemical engineer, addressed the relationship between science and environmental policy, and spoke about the chicken-and-egg nature of her job. “How do we implement the laws we have, and try to make sure we don't stifle innovation … but also ultimately realize we need legislation to get there?” she said.

She noted that environmental policies often act as incentives for scientists to develop new technologies. At the same time, new inventions can spur changes in environmental laws. “We catalyze each other,” she said.

A symbiotic relationship between science and environmental policy is especially crucial for the issue of climate change, Jackson said. Earlier this month, members of Congress drafted measures that would have prevented the EPA from regulating carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act, a “fairly draconian move,” according to Jackson. The Senate failed to pass the measures, and President Barack Obama has said he would veto any similar bills in the future.

But the issue is likely not dead, Jackson said, and when it comes time for Congress to draft the federal budget for 2012, “we'll probably see this battle played out again.” In the meantime, provided the EPA's authority remains intact, the agency will start to set milestones for industries — the energy sector in particular — to curb greenhouse gas emissions, she said. Looking ahead, Jackson said she would like to see the conversation on climate change shift from politics to science, to focus on developing technologies to minimize greenhouse gas emissions. Such innovations, she hopes, could ultimately push climate change policy forward.

“I think we do have policy cobwebs all over the place right now,” Jackson said. “I will admit I have a bias that leads me to believe — partly as an engineer — that we have to not settle for standards that are not progressive enough.”

Dispelling doubts

Jackson said some elected officials and industry members cast the EPA as the bad guy when the agency attempts to revamp environmental regulations — a reaction that often reminds her of a scene in the 1980s cult classic “Ghostbusters,” in which an EPA official pays a visit to the Ghostbusters office and arrests the team for allegedly storing hazardous chemicals in their basement. The EPA orders the Ghostbusters to shut down operations, which inadvertently frees hundreds of ghosts to spread mayhem throughout New York City.

“Oftentimes in this country, any environmental or clean-energy idea or policy is met with one sort of knee-jerk reaction,” Jackson said, often of “doom and gloom” relating to cost; industries claim that meeting stricter environmental standards is exorbitantly expensive, she said.

Jackson said the antidote to such knee-jerk reactions may be technological innovation, and she called on scientists at MIT and other research institutions to develop sustainable and cost-effective solutions to help meet the country's environmental and clean-energy goals.

MIT President Susan Hockfield, who introduced Jackson, noted how the EPA administrator, just days before Hurricane Katrina hit, drove to New Orleans to transport her mother to safety.

"So she knows, in the most direct way, what we risk when we fail to manage our relationship with the forces of nature," Hockfield said.

Jackson's work addressing the country's environmental and energy issues mirrors work underway at MIT, Hockfield said, citing research by MIT faculty that provides cost-effective and sustainable solutions to climate change, including technology that prints solar cells on waterproof paper, an innovation that may significantly reduce the price of installation, a key cost of harvesting solar energy.

“I applaud MIT's commitment to making sure solutions don't cause one problem by fixing another,” Jackson said.

Early intervention

According to Jackson, another area in which scientists and policymakers can work together is in the arena of toxic chemical control. She said the EPA uses the country's Toxic Substances Control Act, established in 1976, to regulate the development of new chemicals, but described the act as “widely considered fairly toothless.”

“The laws in this country say, ‘I'll develop whatever chemistry you need,' and that's a good thing, we want more innovation,” Jackson said. “But it relies on government to oversee the end result … and it doesn't push innovation on the front end so it is greener from the beginning.”

Jackson said the country needs a new toxic chemicals law that encourages “green chemistry,” in which substances are specifically developed to be safe and sustainable from the start.

“Even though we don't face the same kind of bread-and-butter environmental problems with the air and water and land pollution we had 40 years ago, we have to think about solutions that are as transformative as the Clean Air Act or the Clean Water Act was for our country,” Jackson said. “The ideas will start with technology and will end up with public policy.”

The Kendall lecture, sponsored by the Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences and the Center for Global Change Science, honors the legacy of Henry W. Kendall, a MIT physics professor who received the Nobel Prize in 1990 for providing experimental evidence for quarks. Kendall founded the Union of Concerned Scientists in 1969 and throughout his life was deeply committed to finding scientific solutions to environmental problems.

Regulators, Recyclers and Retailers Build 'Urban Mining' Industry

Two state agencies oversee the e-waste law: CalRecycle, which is in charge of the fee and payment system, and the state Department of Toxic Substances Control, which visits recycling plants to monitor the storage of toxic materials.

Other states with e-waste laws take "producer responsibility" approaches, which seek to shift the burden of recycling costs from the taxpayers back to the manufacturers. Manufacturers are pushed to make products that can be easily recycled or made from recyclable materials. The catch is, they have to pay for it themselves.

The laws and regulations help the e-recycling industry thrive. ERI alone has seven recycling plants nationwide and processes more than 120 million pounds of e-waste a year.

But despite e-recycling's growth, most old electronics in the United States still end up in the trash. U.S. EPA estimates that in 2009, more than 82 percent of discarded electronics went to landfills and incinerators. The Electronics TakeBack Coalition, which promotes responsible e-recycling, says 50 to 80 percent of electronics recycled in the United States are shipped overseas. Shegerian said that estimate may even be conservative.

The TakeBack Coalition and many others, including major companies like Dell and Samsung, are backing legislation that would ban shipping e-waste to Third World countries. In September, Reps. Gene Green (D-Texas) and Mike Thompson (D-Calif.) introduced the "Responsible Electronics Recycling Act," which would have made such practices illegal. Because it was introduced late in the session, the bill didn't get any hearings and quickly died. It will likely be reintroduced this session, Kyle said.

In the meantime, e-recyclers can volunteer for certifications like e-Stewards, a program developed to prevent misuse of toxics in the electronics, especially in Third World countries. More than 50 recyclers are certified or in the process of doing so. ERI is one of them.

Another issue lies in the fact that most, if not all, of the smelting of precious metals happens outside of the United States. ERI is partners with LS-Nikko Copper, a large, South Korea-based copper smelter. Shegerian mentions LS-Nikko's small ownership stake of ERI as a sign of transparency.

Shegerian, who takes credit for coining the "urban mining" term, started promoting urban mining in the mid-2000s shortly after he took over ERI. At first, people looked at him "a little bit sideways" whenever he would bring it up in speeches, but he eventually bought the domain names for two websites to spread his business plan.

One, urbanmining.org, is an online urban mining encyclopedia of sorts that details all its benefits. The other, 1-800-Recycling.com, offers personal recycling tips intended to make the process as convenient as possible.

As the e-recycling trend gained ground, electronic manufacturers and retailers picked up on it. Two years ago, Best Buy began a recycling program that allows anyone to bring in used electronics, which get shipped off to one of the four recycling companies it's partnered with. Although the list of acceptable electronics is long, most people bring in one or two things.

"Eighty percent of the weight we take in is old tube TVs or old computer monitors," said Chris Boik, Best Buy's director of recycling and integration. "They have incredible amount of glass, aluminum and copper in them."

At the program's start, Best Buy set a goal to take in 1 billion pounds of e-waste, which it's still far from realizing. In the program's first year, Best Buy took in 75 million pounds. That number jumped slightly to 80 million pounds in the second year.

But the retail giant makes the process simple, allowing anyone to bring in electronics regardless of where they were bought. Sometimes it costs money. In most states, the store charges customers $10 for monitors and TVs and gives out a $10 Best Buy gift card in exchange. That's $10 per item that Best Buy fronts by giving out the gift card, which all goes back to Shegerian's mantra.

"Recycling costs money," he said. "Services aren't free. Recycling is a service."

EPA Activities

Planning Documents

Water Quality Impairments

Section 305(b) of the Clean Water Act requires states to assess and report on the water quality status of waters within the states. Section 303(d) requires states to list waters that are not attaining water quality standards. This is also known as the list of impaired waters. This information is reported to Congress on a nationwide basis.

Poor water quality in the Bay Delta Estuary and its tributaries affects terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems, drinking water, recreation, industry, agriculture, and the local and state economy. The State of California collects data on contaminants that degrade water quality to generate its Clean Water Act Section 303(d) list of water bodies with designated use impairments.

All of the waters within the Bay Delta Estuary are listed as impaired by at least one factor, either due to the presence of pollutants at unacceptable levels or the lack of maintaining certain conditions such as adequate levels of dissolved oxygen. Impairments in Bay Delta Estuary waters include:

Some pesticides and metals are legacy problems, such as the banned organochlorine pesticide DDT and mercury from abandoned mines. Most contaminants contributing to poor water quality in the Bay Delta Estuary are the result of current-use compounds from industrial, agricultural, urban, transportation, and natural sources. In addition, there is growing concern about new classes of contaminants, such as pyrethroid pesticides, pharmaceuticals and personal care products.

A 2010 list of water quality impairments in Bay Delta Estuary waterways and other California waterways is available at the California State Water Resources Control Board web site.

And more information regarding EPA activities with impaired waters is available on EPA Region 9's Monitoring, Assessment, and TMDLs webpage.

Partners

Federal

State

Other

SF Bay Delta Team EPA Contacts

Erin Foresman (foresman.erin@epa.gov), Environmental Scientist & Policy Coordinator
(916) 557-5253

Bruce Herbold (Herbold.Bruce@epa.gov), Fisheries Biologist & Senior Scientist
(415) 972-3460

Carolyn Yale (Yale.Carolyn@epa.gov), San Joaquin River Basin Lead
(415) 972-3482

Karen Schwinn (Schwinn.Karen@epa.gov), Associate Director,
Water Division and Bay Delta Team Manager
(415) 972-3472

CONTACT:
Dale Kemery (News Media Only)
kemery.dale@epa.gov
202-564-7839
202-564-4355

WASHINGTON – The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced today that it has warned more than 2,800 customers across the United States about risks associated with a banned pesticide in an ant-control product they purchased online through fastpestcontrol.com . The product, Fast Ant Bait, contained mirex, a pesticide that was banned in 1978 because it can cause liver, skin, reproductive and nerve damage.

“Illegal pesticides are often much more toxic than approved pesticides,” said Steve Owens, assistant administrator for EPA's Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention. “When EPA takes a pesticide off the market, it means that pesticide was not safe. Consumers should use only EPA-registered pesticides and always follow the label directions to ensure their safety.”

EPA became aware of the product after the Washington State Department of Health reported that a woman became ill after using it in her home. In response, EPA identified and warned three online companies, 2Checkout.com Inc., CCNow, Inc. and eBay Inc. to cease processing orders for the product that was produced and mailed from China. The three companies cooperated, immediately ceased processing orders and consumers can no longer purchase products from fastpestcontrol.com , the original site that offered the product for sale. The companies also worked with EPA to provide sales information, which allowed the agency to contact customers directly about the dangers posed by the pesticide and proper disposal methods.

The letter EPA sent to customers who bought the product provides detailed directions on how to safely clean up and dispose of the illegal product and what to do if they believe they were exposed or harmed. For more information on mirex or other pesticides, consumers can call the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry Information Center at 1-888-422-8737 or the National Pesticide Information Center (NPIC) at 1-800-858-7378.

Note: If a link above doesn't work, please copy and paste the URL into a browser.

Last week, the Environmental Protection Agency proposed new regulations governing emissions of mercury and other toxic air pollutants from power plants. This rule has been a long time coming. In the waning moments of the Clinton Administration, the EPA made a finding that would trigger mercury emission controls on power plants under the Clean Air Act. The finding had been in the works for some time, but the Clinton EPA had been reluctant to pull the trigger until December 2000. The Bush Administration did not appreciate the house-warming gift, and tried to undo the Clinton Administration's handiwork with an alternative approach. They first tried legislation, but when Congress wouldn't bite they pushed through regulations. The only problem was that the Bush EPA disregarded the Clean Air Act's plain text in the process, earning a well-deserved rebuke from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. The new rules, once finalized, may well trigger litigation, but I doubt we'll see the same result. From what I've looked at so far, this is a fairly traditional regulatory approach.

This EPA fact sheet gives some background on the rule, stressing the anticipated reductions of mercury emissions. What the fact sheet does not mention is that, the lack of meaningful federal mercury controls notwithstanding, mercury emissions have declined since 1990. As the EPA's Report on the Environment shows between 1990–93 and 2005, mercury emissions declined by 58 percent. Coal-burning facilities — which are covered by the new rule — represent the lion's share of the rest.

The emission trends are positive. So, too, are trends in blood mercury levels. As the same EPA report shows blood mercury levels in women have declined, particularly among those at the 90th and 95th percentiles. From the EPA report: “during the 1999–2000 survey, 10 percent (i.e., 90th percentile value) of surveyed women age 16 to 49 had blood mercury levels of 4.9 µg/L or higher. In the 2007–2008 survey, however, the 90th percentile value had decreased to 2.7 µg/L.” That's a significant drop for those with among the highest levels in the country.

These positive trends do not mean additional mercury controls are unnecessary, but it does put their urgency in perspective. It also suggests that the Bush Administration's approach, which would have utilized a more flexible cap-and-trade approach instead of facility-specific limits, may have been good policy after all, even if it was horribly bad law.

U.S. To Sign MOU With World Bank On Water Aid; Water For The World Act Reintroduced In Senate

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton on Tuesday will mark World Water Day by signing a memorandum of understanding (MOU) with the World Bank President Robert Zoellick aimed at "strengthen[ing] support to developing countries seeking a water secure future," RTTNews reports (3/21).

According to a State Department press release , "[b]efore the MOU signing ceremony, non-government organizations (NGO) will highlight new commitments by NGOs and the private sector to address water and sanitation challenges in developing countries." NOAA Administrator Jane Lubchenco, Under Secretary of State for Democracy and Global Affairs Maria Otero and USAID Deputy Administrator Donald Steinberg are expected to deliver remarks at the event, according to the release (3/18).

In related news, Sens. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) and Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) on Thursday introduced the Water for the World Act, according to a press release from Durbin's office. The bill "builds on the success of the Paul Simon Water for the Poor Act by placing clean water in the forefront of America's development priorities, seeking to reach 100 million people around the world with sustainable first-time access to clean water and sanitation within six years of enactment," according to the release.

"Durbin first introduced the Paul Simon Water for the World in March of 2009. That bill passed the Senate in the fall of 2010, but failed to pass the House of Representatives," the release notes and highlights several goals of the bill. The office released an accompanying factsheet (.pdf) on the bill (3/18).

Sen. Murkowski on America's Tremendous Resource Potential

“Madam President, I've come to the floor to discuss America's tremendous natural resource potential, and to again highlight the fact that if we choose to, we can absolutely produce more of our energy to meet our own needs. I also want to address an argument that is often made in opposition to new domestic production, because I believe every member of this chamber needs to know the facts and the consequences of our current approach.

“Without a doubt, understanding how much energy we have is at the very foundation of energy policy. For resources like wind and solar, it's pretty easy – they're renewable, so we should never run out. But for conventional resources, which make up about 83 percent of the energy that America consumes, it's a different story. Oil and natural gas and coal aren't located on the surface of the Earth, so we don't always know exactly what we have and where we have it.

“Finding and quantifying our resources is a tough enough task. Adding to the complexity is the litany of technical terms that are used to describe them. There are proved reserves, probable reserves, possible reserves, unproved reserves, and our demonstrated reserve base. Then we move into resources, which are different from reserves. That list includes eight more categories, and every one of them means something different.

“I'd imagine that most people don't have a great understanding of these terms. By and large, that's perfectly fine – unless you're a member of the U.S. Senate. Because we're tasked with helping to formulate our nation's energy policy, we need to know the details and distinctions. Before we make critical decisions that affect the price and the source of our energy supply, it's our responsibility to know what our experts think we actually have.

Time to clean up the EPA

Farmers and ranchers are not happy with the Environmental Protection Agency. They see an agency that does not understand agriculture and imposes burdensome and confusing regulations. EPA may be the federal agency charged with enforcing the Clear Air and Clean Water acts but when it comes to agriculture, their policies are unclear and the process murky at best.

Responding to questions about the reason and need for some of their farm-related regulations, EPA says they are only doing what the courts tell them to do. The fact is that environmental activist groups often sue the EPA but the cases don't even reach the point of a judge's decision. Instead, there seems to be a pattern of an activist lawsuit, followed by an EPA settlement, resulting in new EPA regulations to comply with the settlement.

Environmental groups use the courts to twist laws against American farmers and agricultural production. This is resulting in policy decisions being made by activists, bureaucrats and lawyers without consideration of what's best for American agriculture. This pattern has been going on far too often and many times without adequate transparency.

This so-called “sue and settle” strategy keeps the process in the dark and often ignores producers until after the fact. Farmers and ranchers working and living on the land have a right to a seat at the table when policy decisions are made especially when the settlements frequently contain provisions critical to agriculture and rural communities.

EPA needs to reclaim a commitment to transparency and accountability. The process is seriously flawed and it is leading to damaging results out in the countryside. I challenged EPA's administrator, Lisa Jackson, at a recent hearing to answer some important questions about what's happening.

For instance, how does EPA decide what lawsuits they will settle and who will participate in settlement negotiations? How much taxpayer money is used to pay activists who sue the government? How frequently do these agreements with activist groups lead to new regulations? How closely does EPA follow the language in settlement agreements when proposing new rules? Does EPA consider the impact on farmers and ranchers when negotiating settlement agreements? And, how much does public comment factor into finalizing rules based on settlement agreements?

EPA's mission is to ensure that we have a clean environment but I wonder if their backdoor manner of making regulations is simply muddying the waters. I hope to get some answers.

Collin Peterson, DFL-7th District, is ranking minority member of the U.S. House Agriculture Committee.

PRLog (Press Release) – Mar 21, 2011 – Phase 1 investigations, also known as environmental due diligence, is a common occurrence before many commercial property transactions occur. The Phase 1 investigation is used by potential property buyers and lenders to determine if a property has any environmental contamination issues and to assess any potential liability from the contamination.

In 2005 the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued the All Appropriate Inquires (AAI) Rule – Environmental Site Assessments, Phase 1 Investigations. It established the standards and requirements for conducting the necessary investigations to qualify for landowner liability protection under CERCLA.

According to the EPA, “The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA), also known as “Superfund,” was established to address abandoned hazardous waste sites. Among other things, CERCLA establishes a liability scheme for determining who can be held accountable for releases of hazardous substances.” The EPA's standards and practices are set force in regulations promulgated at 40 CFR Part 312. They also recognize ASTM International Standards E1527-05 and E2247-08.

There has been a growing trend in the residential property market in the Mid-Atlantic region of conducting Phase 1 investigations before a property transaction. Residential property owners and lenders are growing increasingly concerned about past land uses and Phase 1 investigations from SEHC provide the answers they need. SEHC has decades of experience performing thorough environmental due diligence surveys.

“Phase 1 environmental site assessments were traditionally conducted almost entirely for commercial property transactions,” stated Susan White, Ph.D., CMC, President of SEHC. “In recent years we have witnessed an increase in the number of Phase 1 investigations being requested for residential property transactions in Delaware, Maryland and across the Mid-Atlantic.”

To learn more about Sussex Environmental Health Consultants' Phase 1 investigations or other health and safety services please visit http://www.sussexenvironmental.com , email susan.white@ mchsi.com or call (302) 947-1810.
# # #

About Sussex Environmental Health Consultants, LLC
SEHC is a certified woman owned business that provides environmental and health and safety consulting services. The company is located in the Mid-Atlantic and services clients nationwide. SEHC provides solutions to clients ranging from homeowners to international Fortune 500 corporations.

March 21, 2011 | Addressing a US House agriculture subcommittee last week , Virginia Secretary of Natural Resources Doug Domenech offered his audience a tale of two lattes.

“A venti twenty-ounce latte holds approximately one pound of nitrogen,” he said. “The cost to remove that much nitrogen can be six dollars – or it can be six thousand dollars – depending on if it is removed in a waste water system or an urban stormwater retrofit.”

Domenech's example is a perfect illustration of the complexities that regulators face in restoring the Chesapeake Bay watershed, which spans 64,000 square miles over five states and the District of Columbia. The nitrogen, phosphorus, and sediment pollution plaguing the Bay come from innumerable sources: urban storm-water runoff, fertilized croplands, sewage plants, and logged forests, among others.

Cleanup requires many strategies in many places, and one market-based strategy gaining popularity is the use of quantitative water quality standards as de-facto pollution caps in cap-and-trade water quality trading programs .

Both the State of Florida and the Chesapeake Bay region are in the process of developing programs that do just that, and both may very well serve as test models for new watershed protection efforts across the country. The federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), however, is facing lawsuits in both states by groups rankled over the agency's efforts to step up restoration in impaired waterbodies.

The outcomes of these cases could have important ramifications for using water quality markets and other incentive-based mechanisms for cleanup. EPA's demands for greater accountability from states and local communities could catalyze market-based approaches – or stifle them, if implementation plans aiming for meticulousness forget about flexibility.

Chesapeake Bay

Florida

What's at Stake

Making Non-Point Sources Part of the Solution

What This Means for Markets

What's Next?

Notice of Lodging of a Stipulated Order for Preliminary Relief Pursuant to the Clean Water Act

The United States of America and the People of the State of California ex rel. California State Water Resources Control Board and California Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Francisco Bay Region (together "Water Boards"), and Plaintiff-Intervenor San Francisco Baykeeper ("Baykeeper"), brought claims under Sections 301 and 402 of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 1251, et seq., against seven municipal defendants, including the City of Alameda, the City of Albany, the City of Berkeley, the City of Emeryville, the City of Oakland, the City of Piedmont and the Stege Sanitary District (together "Satellite Communities").

The United States, the Water Boards and Baykeeper allege that the Satellite Communities are in violation of the Clean Water Act and their National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System ("NPDES") Permits because they have unlawful sanitary sewer overflows ("SSOs") during wet weather. They also allege that the Satellite Communities are in violation of the operation and maintenance provisions of their NPDES Permits because they contribute excessive flow to treatment systems owned and operated by the East Bay Municipal Utilities District ("EBMUD"), which causes EBMUD to violate the Clean Water Act and its own NPDES permit.

The proposed Stipulated Order for Preliminary Relief complements a January 2009 interim settlement with EBMUD. Among other things, the EBMUD settlement requires EBMUD to study flow from the Satellite Communities and make recommendations to EPA and the Water Boards as to how that flow can be reduced to prevent discharges from three wet weather facilities ("WWFs").

This Stipulated Order for Preliminary Relief represents an interim solution that will move the parties toward a final resolution of the claims in the complaint. It will require the Satellite Communities to gather information that EBMUD will use to determine how to reduce flows to its system. It will also require the Satellite Communities to begin taking steps to reduce inflow and infiltration into their collection systems. This settlement, together with the earlier interim settlement with EBMUD, will provide EBMUD, EPA and the Water Boards with the information necessary to achieve a final settlement that will eliminate discharges from the WWFs.

The Department of Justice will receive for a period of thirty (30) days from the date of this publication comments relating to the proposed Stipulated Order for Preliminary Relief. Comments should be addressed to the Assistant Attorney General, Environment and Natural Resources Division, and either e- mailed to pubcomment-ees.enrd@usdoj.gov or mailed to P.O. Box 7611, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC 20044-7611, and should refer to United States et al. v. City of Alameda et al., DJ No. 90-5-1-1-09361/1.

The proposed Stipulated Order for Preliminary Relief may be examined at the Region 9 Office of the Environmental Protection Agency, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA, 94105. During the public comment period, the proposed Stipulated Order for Preliminary Relief may also be examined on the following Department of Justice Web site, http://www.usdoj.gov/enrd/Consent_Decrees.html . A copy of the Stipulated Order for Preliminary Relief may also be obtained by mail from the Consent Decree Library, P.O. Box 7611, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC 20044-7611, or by faxing or e-mailing a request to Tonia Fleetwood (tonia.fleetwood@usdoj.gov), fax no. (202) 514-0097, phone confirmation number (202) 514-1547. In requesting a copy from the Consent Decree Library, please enclose a check in the amount of $25.00 (25 cents per page reproduction cost) payable to the U.S. Treasury. The check should refer to United States et al. v. City of Alameda, et al., DJ No. 90-5-1-1-09361/1.

Henry Friedman, Assistant Section Chief, Environmental Enforcement Section, Environment and Natural Resources Division.

[FR Doc. 2011-6534 Filed 3-18-11; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410-15-P Vol. 76, No. 054 Notices

Senator Boxer Calls for Inspection of California Nuclear Plants

Today I joined Senator Dianne Feinstein in writing to the Chairman of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), Dr. Gregory Jaczko, calling on the NRC to perform a thorough inspection of California's San Onofre and Diablo Canyon nuclear power plants – both of which are located near earthquake faults – in order to evaluate their safety and emergency preparedness. We also asked the NRC to respond to questions about plant design and operations, type of reactor, and preparedness to withstand an earthquake or tsunami.

Reconstructing the Iron Mountain Community

Funding

This research was funded by the U.S. Department of Energy Microbial Genomics Program and the National Science Foundation Biocomplexity Program.

GSA MOBIS#GS10F-0197R

KeyLogic's GSA Management, Organizational and Business Improvement Services (MOBIS) Schedule Contract No. GS10F-0197R offers a full range of management and consulting services that can improve federal agency performance and their endeavor in meeting mission goals.

Additional Details

MOBIS contractors possess the necessary expertise to facilitate how the federal government responds to a continuous stream of new mandates and evolutionary influences including the President's Management Agenda (PMA); Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA); Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act; OMB Circular A-76; Federal Activities Inventory Reform Act; government reinvention initiatives such as benchmarking and streamlining.

Socio-Economic Status:
Other than small business

Customer Access:
All Federal Agencies

Ordering Process:
Per task order basis

Welcome to the MAX Federal Community!

Organization

If you require assistance please contact the MAX support team by e-mailing maxsupport@omb.eop.gov or calling 202-395-6860.

WARNING: This system contains U.S. Government Data. Unauthorized use of this system is prohibited.

This computer system, including all related equipment, networks, and network devices (specifically including Internet access) are provided only for authorized U.S. Government use. U.S. Government computer systems may be monitored for all lawful purposes, including to ensure that their use is authorized, for management of the system, to facilitate protection against unauthorized access, and to verify security procedures, survivability, and operational security. Monitoring includes active attacks by authorized U.S. Government entities to test or verify the security of this system. During monitoring, information may be examined, recorded, copied and used for authorized purposes. All information, including personal information, placed or sent over this system may be monitored.

Use of this computer system, authorized or unauthorized, constitutes consent to monitoring of this system. Unauthorized use may subject you to criminal prosecution. Evidence of unauthorized use collected during monitoring may be used for administrative, criminal, or other adverse action. Use of this system constitutes consent to monitoring for these purposes.

Note - Per our personal privacy policy, no personal information will be collected on this site beyond that provided by you when you registered for a MAX User ID.

The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) has announced the five program areas that will benefit from the fourth round of Advanced Research Projects Agency – Energy (ARPA-E) funding. The five programs will receive up to $130 million in funding, which will help advance our nation's clean energy goals. The five program areas that are part of this funding round focus on the following technologies:

Below you will find the MAX Community collaboration groups, Government-wide Communities, and MAX applications for which you are registered.

Welcome to the MAX Federal Community!

Dept of Homeland Security-External

Emergency Management Strategic Foresight Initiative (SFI)

Homeland Security Briefing Room

Issues

PETITORY. That which demands or petitions that which has, the, quality of a prayer or petition; a right to demand.
2. A petitory suit or action is understood to be one in which the mere title to property is to be enforced by means of a demand or petition, as distinguished from a possessory suit. 1 Kent, Com. 371.
3. In the Scotch law, petitory actions are so called, not because something is sought to be awarded by the judge, for in that sense all actions must be petitory, but because some demand is made upon the defender, in consequence either of the right of property or credit in the pursuer. Thus, actions for restitution of movables, actions of pounding, of forthcoming, and indeed all personal actions upon contracts, or quasi contracts, which the Romans called condictiones, are petitory. Ersk. Inst. b. 4, t. 1, n. 47.

A legal proceeding by which the plaintiff seeks to establish and enforce his or her title to property, as distinguished from a possessory proceeding, where the plaintiff's right to possession is the issue. Such petitory actions must be based on a claim of legal title to the property, as opposed to a mere equitable interest in it.

In admiralty , suits to try title to property independent of questions concerning possession.

Judge Lindley says: "A mining claim perfected since the act of 1866 has the effect of a grant from the United States of the present and exclusive possession of the lands located. The owner of such a location is entitled to the exclusive possession and enjoyment, against every one, including the United States itself." Lindley on Mines, sec. 539

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution...are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." Amendment X. See infra, secs. 1262 et seq., 1323 et seq., public service.

Executive Order 12088—Federal Compliance with Pollution Control Standards
SOURCE: The provisions of Executive Order 12088 of October 13,1978, appear at 43 FR 47707, 3 CFR, 1978 Comp.,
p. 243, unless otherwise noted.

1-103. "Applicable pollution control standards" means the same substantive, procedural, and other
requirements that would apply to a private person.

1-2. Agency Coordination.
1-201. Each Executive agency shall cooperate with the Administrator of the Environmental Protection
Agency, hereinafter referred to as the Administrator, and State, interstate, and local agencies in the
prevention, control, and abatement of environmental pollution.
1-202. Each Executive agency shall consult with the Administrator and with State, interstate, and local
agencies concerning the best techniques and methods available for the prevention, control, and abatement of
environmental pollution.

1-3. Technical Advice and Oversight.
1-301. The Administrator shall provide technical advice and assistance to Executive agencies in order
to ensure their cost effective and timely compliance with applicable pollution control standards.
1-302. The administrator shall conduct such reviews and inspections as may be necessary to monitor
compliance with applicable pollution control standards by Federal facilities and activities.
1-4. Pollution Control Plan. [Note: Sec. 1.4 was revoked by Sec. 901, Executive Order 13148, 65 FR
24604, April 26, 2000, signed April 21, 2000 ]
1-401. Each Executive agency shall submit to the Director of the Office of Management and Budget,
through the Administrator, an annual plan for the control of environmental pollution. The plan shall provide
for any necessary improvement in the design, construction, management, operation, and maintenance of
Federal facilities and activities, and shall include annual cost estimates. The Administrator shall establish
guidelines for developing such plans.
1-402. In preparing its plan, each Executive agency shall ensure that the plan provides for compliance
with all applicable pollution control standards.
1-403. The plan shall be submitted in accordance with any other instructions that the Director of the
Office of Management and Budget may issue.

5. MATTERS NOT COVERED BY THE CONSENT DECREE.
5.1 Decisions relating to remedy selection.
5.1.1 Decisions regarding selection of future remedial actions. The Parties to
this MOU agree that with respect to any future investigation and remedy
selection regarding the IMM Site, the Parties will follow the process and
procedures set forth in CERCLA and the NCP. The Parties further
understand and agree that nothing in the MOU limits the State's rights
under Section 114 of CERCLA or any other applicable law, or the rights
and responsibilities of any Party under Section 121 of CERCLA or any
other applicable law.
5.1.2 Decisions regarding amending prior remedial actions. The Parties to
this MOU agree that with respect to adopting an ESD or amending the

remedial actions in place at the time of the entry of the Consent Decree or
remedies implemented after the entry of the Consent Decree, EPA and the
State will follow the process and procedures set forth in CERCLA and the
NCP. The Parties further understand and agree that nothing in this MOU
limits the State's rights under Section 114 of CERCLA or any other
applicable law, or the rights and responsibilities of any Party under
Section 121 of CERCLA or any other applicable law.
5.1.3 Waiver of ARARs for existing and future RODs. The Parties to this
MOU agree to consider the appropriateness of a permanent waiver of the
applicable or relevant and appropriate requirement ("ARAR") with respect
to the standard for receiving waters, including, but not limited to Spring
Creek, as to existing and future RODs for the IMM Site. If at some point
EPA determines that no further RODs will be issued for the IMM Site,
EPA will inform the State in writing at the earliest possible date and the
issue of the waiver of ARARs will be reviewed as soon as thereafter as
practicable.
5.1.4 Changes to CERCLA. If in the future CERCLA changes in a material
manner so as to impact the expectation of the Parties with respect to the
process arid procedure for amending remedies at a federal Superfund site,
the Parties will agree to meet and formulate a process for future remedy
selection that is consistent with applicable state and federal laws in force at
that time.

CERCLA explicitly states in several different sections that it
does not preempt state law. The general saving clause, § 152(d), provides in
part:
Nothing in this chapter shall affect or modify in any way the
obligations or liabilities of any person under other Federal or State
law, including common law, with respect to releases of hazardous
substances or other pollutants or contaminants.
42 U.S.C. § 9652(d). Section 107(j), the section of the Act that creates liability
for clean-up costs, provides in pertinent part:
Nothing in this paragraph shall affect or modify in any way the
obligations or liability of any person under any other provision of
State or Federal law, including common law, for damages, injury, or
loss resulting from a release of any hazardous substance or for
removal or remedial action or the costs of removal or remedial
action of such hazardous substance.
42 U.S.C. § 9607(j). The savings clause of CERCLA’s express contribution
provision, § 113(f)(1), states in relevant part:
Nothing in this subsection shall diminish the right of any person to
bring an action for contribution in the absence of a civil action under
section 9606 of this title or section 9607 of this title.
42 U.S.C. § 9613(f)(1). And finally, § 114(a), the section of CERCLA that deals
with CERCLA’s relationship to other laws, states:
Nothing in this chapter shall be construed or interpreted as
preempting any State from imposing any additional liability or
requirements with respect to the release of hazardous substances
within such State.
42 U.S.C. § 9614(a). The statute is therefore clear on its face that Congress did
not intend CERCLA to preempt state law.
It is also clear from case law that CERCLA and the SWDA co-exist as
regulatory regimes. See Cooper, 543 U.S. at 166–67 (holding that the portion of
§ 113(f)(1) cited above “rebuts any presumption that the express right of
contribution provided by the enabling clause is the exclusive cause of action for
contribution available to a [potentially responsible party]”); MSOF Corp. v.
Exxon Corp., 295 F.3d 485, 491 (5th Cir. 2002) (“This court and other courts have
construed the CERCLA saving clauses in accordance with their plain meanings
and have held that they preserve parties’ rights arising under state law.”).

EPA Should Revise Outdated or Inconsistent EPA-State Clean Water Act Memoranda of Agreement
What We Found
NPDES MOAs between EPA and States do not ensure Agency management control and effective oversight over a national program administered by States that is capable of providing equal protection to all Americans. EPA Headquarters does not hold EPA regional or State offices accountable for updating their MOAs when necessary and relies on other planning and management mechanisms to exercise control over State programs. However, MOAs are critical because they are the common denominator for State-authorized programs and should represent a common baseline. Outdated MOAs or MOAs that are not adhered to reduce EPA's ability to maintain a uniform program across States that meets the goals of CWA sections 101 and 402. An effective national program must maintain consistent management control and oversight of State programs.
What We Recommend
We recommend that EPA ensure that all NPDES MOAs contain essential elements for a nationally consistent enforcement program, including CWA, Code of Federal Regulations, and State Review Framework criteria. We recommend that EPA develop and provide a national template and/or guidance for a model MOA; direct EPA regions to revise outdated or inconsistent MOAs to meet the national template and standards; and establish a process for periodic review and revision of MOAs, including when the CWA or Code of Federal Regulations are revised or when State programs change. Finally, we recommend that EPA establish a national, public clearinghouse of all current MOAs so that EPA, States, and the public have access to these documents.
EPA generally agreed with our recommendations, saying it would coordinate assessment and revision of NPDES MOAs with implementation of the CWA Action Plan. Three recommendations are open and one recommendation is listed as undecided. In its final response to this report, EPA should provide estimated or actual completion dates for all recommendations

Water Resources Development Act of 1986

In discussing section 406 of this Act on the floor of the Senate, Chairman Stafford said:

"Until now, mitigation for land turned over to water development projects came about on a hit-or-miss basis . . . For the first time, mitigation will have to go forward with the project requiring the mitigation, not afterward. This bill requires that the Corps develop mitigation plans for each and every project, or tell the American people why such work is not justified. . . In addition, this section establishes a new continuing authority, funded at $30 million a year. This authority will allow the Corps to go back and repair the fish and wildlife damage that its existing projects have produced."

Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act

Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act (16 U.S.C. 1001-1009, Chapter 18; P.L. 566, August 4, 1954; 68 Stat. 666). As amended by:

Chapter 1018, August 7, 1956; 70 Stat. 1088; P.L. 85-624, August 12, 1958; 72 Stat. 567; P.L. 85-865, September 2, 1958; 72 Stat. 1605; P.L. 86-468, May 13, 1960; 74 Stat. 131; P.L. 86-545, June 29, 1960; 74 Stat. 254; P.L. 87-170, August 30, 1961; 75 Stat. 408; P.L. 87-639, September 5, 1962; 76 Stat. 438; P.L. 87-703, September 27, 1962; 76 Stat. 608; P.L. 89-337, November 8, 1965; 79 Stat. 1300; P.L. 90-361, June 27, 1968; 82 Stat. 250; P.L. 92-419, August 30, 1972; 86 Stat. 667; P.L. 95-113, September 29, 1977; 91 Stat. 1022; P.L. 97-98, December 22, 1981; 95 Stat. 1332; P.L. 99-662, November 17, 1986; 100 Stat. 4196;

Under this Act, the Soil Conservation Service at the Department of Agriculture provides planning assistance and construction funding for projects constructed by local sponsors, often in the form of flood control districts. Restrictions on projects include: the size of the watershed must be 250,000 acres or less; no single structure may provide more than 12,500 acre-feet of flood water retention; no single structure may provide more than 25,000 acre-feet of total capacity; and projects with costs greater than $5 million or with structures with total capacities greater than 25,000 acre-feet must be approved by Congress.

The original 1954 statute sought cooperation between the Federal Government and States and localities to prevent flood damages. The Secretary of Agriculture was authorized to construct flood protection measures below a certain acre-foot limit. Such initiatives were to be cost-shared and localities were required to contribute rights-of-way. The law also required that the Secretary of the Interior be consulted regarding plans which affect reclamation, irrigation or public lands under the Secretary of the Interior. Related views were to be submitted with project plans to the Congress.

Amendments enacted in 1956 imposed acre-foot ceilings on projects authorized to be undertaken by the Secretary of Agriculture without Congressional approval. Projects for which the Federal contribution was estimated to exceed $250,000 or which exceeded 2500 acre-feet were to be submitted to the Secretary of the Interior for review if they involved reclamation or irrigation lands, or public lands or wildlife under the Secretary's jurisdiction. The views of the Department of the Interior were required to accompany the report to Congress and regulations to coordinate activities of the Departments of Agriculture and Interior were mandated. In addition, loans to localities were authorized and the provisions of the Act were extended to apply to Hawaii, Alaska, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands.

Amendments to the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act in 1958 (P.L. 85-624) also amended this statute to require the Secretary of Agriculture to notify the Secretary of the Interior regarding projects in order that the Secretary of the Interior could prepare a fish and wildlife report to be incorporated in project plans. "Full consideration" was to be given to such reports by the Secretary of Agriculture; however, the Secretary of Agriculture retained the discretion to adopt fish and wildlife recommendations which are "technically and economically feasible." Costs for related surveys and reports are to be borne by the Secretary of the Interior. Amendments adopted later that year (P.L. 85-865) added fish and wildlife development as an aspect of flood control projects to be constructed.

Public Law 86-468, enacted in 1960, provided additional authority to the Secretary of Agriculture to make loans, and P.L. 86-532 further clarified the responsibility of localities to provide easements and rights-of-way for projects. Related joint surveys between the Secretary of Agriculture and the Secretary of the Army were authorized by P.L. 87-639 in 1962.

Additional amendments enacted in 1962 (P.L. 87-703) stipulated project cost-sharing for lands, easements and rights-of-way in instances for which localities agree to operate and maintain a reservoir or other area for fish and wildlife or recreational development. Similar to previous legislation, the views of the Secretary of the Interior were to be solicited and submitted to Congress for projects which include irrigation, reclamation, public lands or wildlife under the jurisdiction of the Secretary of the Interior.

Public Law 89-337 increased the acre-foot size capacity for projects authorized to be constructed by the Secretary of Agriculture. Technical amendments were enacted in 1968 (P.L. 90-361).

Major amendments were enacted in 1972 (P.L. 92-419). Conservation of water and preservation of the environment were added as general purposes for authorized projects. (Project purposes include: 1) flood prevention, 2) the conservation, utilization, development, and disposal of water, and 3) the conservation and proper utilization of land.) Ten-year agreements with local landowners for changes in cropping systems and land use were authorized to conserve waters, wildlife and recreation. In addition, this law reiterated provisions for notification of the Secretary of the Interior when public lands or wildlife would be affected and for incorporation of the Secretary's views in reports transmitted to Congress.

The cost ceiling for authorized projects was increased to $1 million in 1977 (P.L. 95-113) and to $5 million in 1981 (P.L. 97-98). The 1981 amendments added Indian tribes as an eligible entity and limited Federal cost sharing to 50/50 for land, easements or rights-of-way acquired by the local organization for mitigation of fish and wildlife habitat losses. This public law also stipulated that any related land acquisition would not be limited to the "confines of the watershed project boundaries."

The 1986 Water Resources Development Act (P.L. 99-662) also amended the Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act to stipulate that projects submitted to Congress for authorization after July 1, 1987, must contain benefits to agriculture that account for at least 20 percent of the total project benefits.

P.L. 101-624, approved November 28,1990, (104 Stat. 3616) added language to allow for completion of water quality improvement projects under this Act. It also added cost share assistance language making loans available for acquisition of perpetual wetland/floodplain easements for flood management and storage purposes, for the purposes of water quality/quantity improvement, and to provide fish & wildlife habitat. The cost share was set at 50 percent.

P.L. 104-127, approved April 4, 1996, (110 Stat. 1151) changed language regarding the terms of loans to local organizations and state/local governments for carrying out projects under this Act. Also, this amendment set a cap on the amount of any loan for a single project at $10M.

Salmon and Steelhead Conservation and Enhancement Act

The Act established a Washington State and Columbia River conservation area and directed the Secretary of Commerce to establish an advisory committee of representatives from Washington and Oregon, the Washington and Columbia River tribal bodies, the Pacific Fisheries Management Council, and the National Marine Fisheries Service. It also directed that a report be submitted to the Secretary of Commerce and Congress, and the Secretary of the Interior was authorized to establish a grant program for each conservation area.

Title II, entitled the "American Fisheries Promotion Act," authorized emergency assistance loans, accelerated fisheries research and development, extended the Federal fishing vessel obligation guarantee program under Title XI of the Merchant Marine Act, and redefined regulations governing foreign fishing in U.S. waters for steelhead and salmon.

Water Resources Planning Act

Water Resources Planning Act (42 U.S.C. 1962a - 1962(a)(4)(e); P.L. 89-80; July 22, 1965; 79 Stat. 245) as amended by:

P.L.94-112; October 16, 1975; 89 Stat. 575; P.L. 95-404; September 30, 1978; 92 Stat. 864; and P.L. 97-449; January 12, 1983; 96 Stat. 2441.

Title I of the 1965 Water Resources Planning Act established a Water Resources Council to be composed of Cabinet representatives, including the Secretary of the Interior. Title II established River Basin Commissions and stipulated their duties and authorities.

The Council was empowered to maintain a continuing assessment of the adequacy of water supplies in each region of the U.S. In addition, the Council was mandated to establish principles and standards for Federal participants in the preparation of river basin plans and in evaluating Federal water projects. Upon receipt of a river basin plan, the Council was required to review the plan with respect to agricultural, urban, energy, industrial, recreational and fish and wildlife needs.

Title III established a grant program to assist States in participating in the development of related comprehensive water and land use plans.

Amendments enacted in 1975 (P.L.94-112) added several Cabinet representatives to the Council, including the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, and authorized appropriations through FY 1978.

The 1978 amendments (P.L.95-404) authorized appropriations though fiscal year 1979 and stipulated the apportionment of Federal planning monies for certain specific tasks, including the Columbia River Estuary Special Study; the New England Port and Harbor Study; the Hudson River Basin Level B study; and the Connecticut River Basin.

Amendments enacted in 1983 as part of the Department of Transportation and Motor Carrier Safety Act (P.L. 97-449) required that the Council develop standards and criteria for economic evaluation of water resource projects, and defined what would constitute the primary direct navigation benefits of a water resource project.

Public Law 100-460, approved October 1, 1988, (102 Stat. 2262) stipulates that none of the funds appropriated through this or any other Act can be used to alter the method of computing normalized prices for agricultural commodities for use by Federal agencies in evaluating water resources development projects undertaken with Federal funds.

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act

P.L. 100-582 (102 Stat. 2951), and P.L. 104-208 (110 Stat. 3009) regulates the treatment, transportation, storage, and disposal of solid and hazardous wastes. The Service is required to comply with standards for wastes generated at its facilities. The key provisions include:

Subtitle C. Identification and listing of hazardous waste and standards applicable to hazardous waste -- Requires reporting of hazardous waste, permitting for storage, transport, and disposal, and it includes provisions for oil recycling and Federal hazardous waste facilities inventories.

Subtitle F. Applicability of Federal, State, and local laws to Federal agencies. Procurement (recycling) provisions.

Subtitle I. Management, replacement, and monitoring of underground storage tanks.

Federal Water Pollution Control Act (Clean Water Act)

Chapter 928, P.L. 580, July 17, 1952; 66 Stat. 755; Chapter 518, P.L. 660, July 9, 1956; 70 Stat. 498; P.L. 86-70, June 25, 1959; 73 Stat. 148; P.L. 86-624, July 12, 1960; 74 Stat. 417; P.L. 87-88, July 20, 1961; 75 Stat. 204; P.L. 89-753, November 3, 1966; 80 Stat. 1246; P.L. 91-224, April 3, 1970; 84 Stat. 91; P.L. 92-50, July 9, 1971; 85 Stat. 124; P.L. 92-138, October 14, 1971; 85 Stat. 379; P.L. 92-240, March 1, 1972; 86 Stat. 47; P.L. 92-500, October 18, 1972; 86 Stat. 816; P.L. 93-207, December 28, 1973; 87 Stat. 906; P.L. 93-243, January 2, 1974; 87 Stat. 1069; P.L. 93-593, January 2, 1975; 88 Stat. 1924; P.L. 94-238, March 23, 1976; 90 Stat. 250; P.L. 94-369, July 22, 1976; 90 Stat. 1011; P.L. 94-558, October 19, 1976; 90 Stat. 2639; P.L. 95-217, December 27, 1977; 91 Stat. 1566; P.L. 95-576, November 2, 1978; 92 Stat. 2467; P.L. 96-483, October 21, 1980; 94 Stat. 2360; P.L. 97-357, October 19, 1982; 96 Stat. 1712; P.L. 97-440, January 8, 1983; 96 Stat. 2289; P.L. 100-4, February 4, 1987; 101 Stat. 7

The original 1948 statute (Ch. 758; P.L. 845), the Water Pollution Control Act, authorized the Surgeon General of the Public Health Service, in cooperation with other Federal, state and local entities, to prepare comprehensive programs for eliminating or reducing the pollution of interstate waters and tributaries and improving the sanitary condition of surface and underground waters. During the development of such plans, due regard was to be given to improvements necessary to conserve waters for public water supplies, propagation of fish and aquatic life, recreational purposes, and agricultural and industrial uses. The original statute also authorized the Federal Works Administrator to assist states, municipalities, and interstate agencies in constructing treatment plants to prevent discharges of inadequately treated sewage and other wastes into interstate waters or tributaries.

Since 1948, the original statute has been amended extensively either to authorize additional water quality programs, standards and procedures to govern allowable discharges, funding for construction grants or general program funding. Amendments in other years provided for continued authority to conduct program activities or administrative changes to related activities.

Major amendments were enacted in 1961, 1966, 1970, 1972, 1977, and 1987. The Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1961 (P.L. 87-88) stipulated that Federal agencies consider during the planning for any reservoir, storage to regulate streamflow for the purpose of water quality control ( 33 U.S.C. 1252 ). Authority was provided to the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare to undertake research programs related to determining effects of pollutants and treatment methods and to assess water quality in the Great Lakes. Measures which could be taken by the Secretary, at the request of a State, to ward against pollution of interstate or navigable waters were also specified ( 33 U.S.C. 1254(f) ).

The 1966 amendments (P.L. 89-753), entitled the Clean Water Restoration Act of 1966, authorized the Secretary of Interior, in cooperation with the Secretary of Agriculture and the Water Resources Council, to conduct a comprehensive study of the effects of pollution, including sedimentation, in the estuaries and estuarine zones of the U.S. on fish and wildlife, sport and commercial fishing, recreation, water supply and power, and other specified uses ( 33 U.S.C. 466 ).

The study report, due to the Congress three years following enactment, was to contain: 1) an analysis of the importance to estuaries to the economic and social well-being of the U.S. and of the effects of pollution upon the use and enjoyment of the estuaries; 2) a discussion of the major economic, social, and ecological trends occurring in the estuarine zones of the nation; 3) recommendations for a comprehensive national program for the preservation, study, use and development of estuaries, and the respective responsibilities which should be assumed by Federal, State, and local governments and by public and private interests.

Procedures for abating domestic pollution which damages the health or welfare of citizens in a foreign country were also outlined ( 33 U.S.C. 466 ). In addition, the amendments prohibited individuals, except as permitted by regulations issued by the Secretary of Interior, from discharging oil into the navigable waters of the U.S.

The Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1970 (December 2, 1970) created the Environmental Protection Agency, abolished the Federal Water Quality Administration in the Department of Interior, and transferred to EPA all functions formerly assigned to the Secretary of Interior and the Department of Interior which had been administered through the Federal Water Quality Administration.

The 1970 amendments (P.L. 91-224), cited as the Water Quality Improvement Act of 1970, further amended the prohibitions on discharges of oil to allow such discharges only when consistent with regulations to be issued by the President and where permitted by Article IV of the 1954 International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution of the Sea by Oil ( 33 U.S.C. 1321 ). In issuing regulations, the President was authorized to determine quantities of oil which would be harmful to the public health or welfare of the U.S., including, but not limited to, fish, shellfish, and wildlife, as well as public and private property, shorelines and beaches.

The President was also authorized to publish a National Contingency Plan to provide for efficient and coordinated action to minimize damage from oil discharges, including containment, dispersal, and removal. Related duties were to be assigned to various Federal agencies. The 1970 amendments also mandated that the President develop regulations to define substances other than oil as hazardous substances.

In addition, the 1970 amendments required that performance standards be developed for marine sanitation devices ( 33 U.S.C. 1322 ), authorized demonstration projects to control acid or other mine water pollution ( 33 U.S.C. 1257a ) and to control water pollution within the watersheds of the Great Lakes ( 33 U.S.C. 1258 ). The amendments described the responsibility of Federal agencies to ensure that any Federal facilities are operated in compliance with applicable water quality standards ( 33 U.S.C. 1323 ).

Applicants for Federal permits or licenses for activities involving discharges into navigable waters are to provide a State certification that the proposed activity will not violate applicable water quality standards ( 33 U.S.C. 1341 ). Licenses and permits may not be granted if the State or interstate certification has been denied.

The Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972 (P.L. 92-500) stipulated broad national objectives to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation's waters ( 33 U.S.C. 1251 ). Provisions included a requirement that the Federal Power Commission not grant a license for a hydroelectric power project to regulate streamflow for the purpose of water quality unless certain conditions are satisfied ( 33 U.S.C. 1252 ).

In addition, the amendments significantly expanded provisions related to pollutant discharges. These included requirements that limitations be determined for point sources which are consistent with State water quality standards, procedures for State issuance of water quality standards, development of guidelines to identify and evaluate the extent of nonpoint source pollution, water quality inventory requirements, as well as development of toxic and pretreatment effluent standards ( 33 U.S.C. 1311 - 1313 and 33 U.S.C. 1315 - 1317 ).

Additional provisions further defined liability for discharges of oil and hazardous substances and the Federal role in clean-up operations ( 33 U.S.C. 1321 ) and established a Clean Lakes Program.

Section 402 of the 1972 amendments established the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) to authorize EPA issuance of discharge permits ( 33 U.S.C. 1342 ). Section 403 stipulated guidelines for EPA to issue permits for discharges into the territorial sea, the contiguous zone, and ocean waters further offshore ( 33 U.S.C. 1343 ).

Important provisions were contained in Section 404 of the amendments. This section authorized the Corps of Engineers to issue permits for the discharge of dredged or fill material into navigable waters at specified disposal sites ( 33 U.S.C. 1344 ). EPA was authorized to prohibit the use of a site as a disposal site based on a determination that discharges would have an unacceptable adverse effect on municipal water supplies, shellfish beds and fishery areas, wildlife, or recreational uses.

The 1977 amendments, the Clean Water Act of 1977 (P.L. 95-217), again extensively amended the Act. Of particular significance were the following provisions:

The Water Quality Act of 1987 (P.L. 100-4) provided the most recent series of amendments to the original statute. Provisions included:

Endangered Species Act of 1973

The 1973 Act implemented the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (T.I.A.S. 8249), signed by the United States on March 3, 1973, and the Convention on Nature Protection and Wildlife Preservation in the Western Hemisphere (50 Stat. 1354), signed by the United States on October 12, 1940.

Through federal action and by encouraging the establishment of state programs, the 1973 Endangered Species Act provided for the conservation of ecosystems upon which threatened and endangered species of fish, wildlife, and plants depend. The Act:

Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act requires Federal agencies to insure that any action authorized, funded or carried out by them is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of listed species or modify their critical habitat.

Public Law 94-325, approved June 30, 1976, (90 Stat. 724) extended and increased the authorization of appropriations in section 15 of the 1973 Act.

Public Law 94-359, approved July 12, 1976, (90 Stat. 911), exempted from the prohibitions in the Act and under certain conditions, whale parts and products lawfully held prior to December 28, 1973. It also provided other amendments to facilitate administrative processes in emergency situations, clarified enforcement procedures, allowed disposal of forfeited and abandoned property, and clarified the definition of "commercial activity."

The authorization of appropriations for Federal grants-in-aid to States was extended by P.L. 95-212, December 19, 1977 (91 Stat. 1493).

Public Law 95-632, signed by the President on November 10, 1978, (92 Stat. 375) extended through March 31, 1980, the appropriations authority under section 15 and made extensive revisions to the 1973 law. A Cabinet-level Endangered Species Committee was established as part of a two-tiered process whereby Federal agencies may obtain exemptions from the requirements of section 7. The Tellico Dam project in Tennessee and the Grayrocks project in Wyoming were to receive expedited consideration by the Committee.

The Secretary of Defense is authorized to specify exemptions from the Act for reasons of national security. The consultation process under section 7 was formalized and strengthened, and now includes the requirement that Federal agencies prepare biological assessments in cases where the Secretary of the Interior has advised that a listed species may be present.

The 1978 amendments also oblige the Secretary to consider the economic impact of designating critical habitat, and to review the list of endangered and threatened species every five years. Public notification and hearing requirements, prior to the listing of a species or its habitat, are specified.

Other changes made by the 1978 statute include: a provision for cooperative agreements with States for the conservation of endangered and threatened species of plants, exemptions from the Act's requirements for the progeny of legally held captive raptors and antique articles made before 1830, revision of the penalty provisions of the Act, and a change in the definition of "species" to limit the application of the term "population" to include vertebrates only.

Public Law 96-69 ( 40 U.S.C. 174(b)-l and 43 U.S.C. 377a ), the Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act for fiscal year 1980, approved September 25, 1979, (93 Stat. 437) exempted Tellico Dam in Tennessee from the Endangered Species Act and authorized completion of the project despite the threat to the endangered snail darter. Additional amendments were enacted in P.L. 96-246, May 23, 1980 (94 Stat. 348) and P.L. 97-79, November 16, 1981 (96 Stat. 1079).

Public Law 96-159 ( 16 U.S.C. 1533 , 93 Stat. 1255-1230), approved December 28, 1979, extended and increased the authorization of appropriations through September 30, 1982. It designated the Secretary of the Interior, acting through the Fish and Wildlife Service, as the Endangered Scientific Authority for implementation of CITES. It also created an International Convention Advisory Commission, and extended the scrimshaw amendments for three years.

Public Law 97-304, approved October 13, 1982, (96 Stat. 1411-1417, 1421, 1422, 1425) extended the annual authorizations under the Act through FY 1985 at the following levels: section 15 (general) -- $27 million; section 6 (grants-in-aid) -- $6 million; section 7 (Exemption Committee) -- $600,000. It also extended the Secretary's authority and overturned the "bobcat" decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.

Public Law 98-327, approved June 25, 1984, (98 Stat. 270) authorizes the Secretary to use money from fines and forfeitures collected under the Lacey Act and the Endangered Species Act to pay for the temporary care of animals and plants seized by our law enforcement agents.

Public Law 98-364, July 17, 1984, (98 Stat. 442), as amended, clarified provisions concerning marine mammals (see Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972) and provided for the translocation of California sea otters.

Public Law 99-625, approved November 7, 1986, (100 Stat. 3502) authorized the Secretary of the Interior to develop and implement a sea otter translocation plan, to be administered by the Fish and Wildlife Service, specifying statistics of sea otters to be translocated, manner of capture, relocation zone, and measures to contain the population. The 1986 amendments declared that a member of an experimental population shall be treated as "threatened" and provided that section 7 of the Endangered Species Act applies. The amendments also provided for non-defense agency actions in the translocation zone, and for incidental take in the management zone. (See Wetlands Loan Act.)

Although the funding authority for the Act lapsed for Fiscal Years 1986 through 1988, the Senate Appropriations Committee reports (S. Rept. 99-397 and S. Rept. 100-165) included language indicating that funding was to be provided and the provisions of the Act were to continue to be carried out.

Public Law 100-478, enacted October 7, 1988, (102 Stat 2306) included the following provisions:

Department of Interior -- $35,000,000 for FY88; $35,500,000 for FY89; $38,000,000 for FY90; $39,500,000 for FY91; $41,500,000 for FY92.

Department of Commerce -- $5,750,000 for FY88; $6,250,000 for each of FY89 and FY90; and $6,750,000 for each of FY91 and FY92.

Department of Agriculture -- $2,200,000 for FY88; $2,400,000 for each of FY89 and FY90; and $2,600,000 for each of FY91 and FY92.

To the Secretary to carry out functions under sections 7(e),(g),and (h) -- Not to exceed $600,000 for each Fiscal Year through 1992.

Western Hemisphere Convention implementation, not to exceed $400,000 for each of FY88, 89, and 90 and $500,000 for each of FY91 and 92.

In addition to amending the Endangered Species Act, P.L. 100-478 also included the African Elephant Conservation Act.

Public Law 102-251, Title III, 305, March 9, 1992 (106 Stat. 66) as amended by Public Law 104-208, div. A, Title I, 101 (a), September 30, 1996 (110 Stat. 3009) provided that "the special areas defined in 3(24) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act ( 16 U.S.C. 1802 (24) ) shall be considered places that are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States for the purposes of the Endangered Species Act of 1973." There is also a provision that requires all Federal agencies to minimize conflicts with recreational fisheries and listed species.

Public Law 105-18, Title II, 3003, June 12, 1997 (111 Stat. 176) provides guidance for consultation under Section 7 for emergency situations.

The National Defense Authorization Act of Fiscal Year 2004, Public Law 108-136, amended Section 4 of the Act by exempting military lands from critical habitat designation that are subject to an Integrated Natural Resources Managment Plan, if the Secretary determines in writing that such plan provides a benefit to the species for which critical habitat is proposed for designation. In addition, this law amended Section 4(b)(2) by requiring the Secretary to consider the impact to national security when designating critical habitat.

Explore citations and references

Citations

§ 666. — Suits for adjudication of water rights.

Share | From the U.S. Code Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [Laws in effect as of January 24, 2002] [Document not affected by Public Laws enacted between January 24, 2002 and December 19, 2002] [ CITE : 43USC666 ] TITLE 43--PUBLIC LANDS CHAPTER 15--APPROPRIATION OF WATERS; RESERVOIR SITES Sec. 666. Suits for adjudication of water rights (a) Joinder of United States as defendant; costs Consent is given to join the United States as a defendant in any suit (1) for the adjudication of rights to the use of water of a river system or other source, or (2) for the administration of such rights, where it appears that the United States is the owner of or is in the process of acquiring water rights by appropriation under State law, by purchase, by exchange, or otherwise, and the United States is a necessary party to such suit. The United States, when a party to any such suit, shall (1) be deemed to have waived any right to plead that the State laws are inapplicable or that the United States is not amenable thereto by reason of its sovereignty, and (2) shall be subject to the judgments, orders, and decrees of the court having jurisdiction, and may obtain review thereof, in the same manner and to the same extent as a private individual under like circumstances: Provided, That no judgment for costs shall be entered against the United States in any such suit. (b) Service of summons Summons or other process in any such suit shall be served upon the Attorney General or his designated representative. (c) Joinder in suits involving use of interstate streams by State Nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing the joinder of the United States in any suit or controversy in the Supreme Court of the United States involving the right of States to the use of the water of any interstate stream. (July 10, 1952, ch. 651, title II, Sec. 208(a)-(c), 66 Stat. 560.) Codification Section is comprised of subsections (a) to (c) of section 208 of act July 10, 1952. Subsection (d) of section 208 is omitted as it referred to the limitation on the use of any appropriation in act July 10, 1952 to prepare or prosecute the suit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern Division of California, by the United States v. Fallbrook Public Utility Corporation. Section Referred to in Other Sections This section is referred to in title 16 sections 410aaa-76, 460ccc- 8, 460ddd, 460iii-5, 668dd; title 28 section 2409a.

§ 2409a. Real property quiet title actions

Transfer of Certain Real Property for Wildlife Conservation Purposes Act

Transfer of Certain Real Property for Wildlife Conservation Purposes Act (16 U.S.C. 667b-667d) -- The Act of May 19, 1948, (62 Stat. 240) as amended by the Act of June 30, 1949, (63 Stat. 381), by Public Law 92-432, approved September 26, 1972, (86 Stat. 723), and by Public Law 104-66 (109 Stat. 730) approved December 21, 1995, provides that upon a determination by the Administrator of the General Services Administration, real property no longer needed by a Federal agency can be transferred without reimbursement to the Secretary of the Interior if the land has particular value for migratory birds, or to a State agency for other wildlife conservation purposes.

The purpose of this cooperative agreement is to conduct a shared resource project that will lead to REMINERALIZATION OF DEPLETED CROP LANDS .

This cooperative agreement will advance the technology developments and research which have been performed on IRON MOUNTAIN MINE . The specific objective is to OPTIMIZE AVAILABILITY OF MINERALS IN SOIL FOR CROPS .

Responsibilities (XXX 1995). (a) This cooperative agreement will include substantial [ EPA, DOJ, NOAA, NASA, DOE, DOI, FEMA, FWS, CALIFORNIA ] _____________participation during performance of the effort. _______ and the Recipient agree to the following Responsibilities, a statement of cooperative interactions to occur during the performance of this effort . ??? and the Recipient shall exert all reasonable efforts to fulfill the responsibilities stated below. (b) ??? Responsibilities. Since ??? contractors may obtain certain intellectual property rights arising from work for ??? in support of this agreement, ??? will inform Recipient whenever ??? intends to use ??? contractors to perform technical engineering services in support of this agreement. The following responsibilities are hereby set forth with anticipated start and ending dates, as appropriate: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Responsibility Start End ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------------------ (c) Recipient Responsibilities. The Recipient shall be responsible for particular aspects of project performance as set forth in the technical proposal dated ____________, attached hereto (or Statement of Work dated ____________, attached hereto.) The following responsibilities are hereby set forth with anticipated start and ending dates, as appropriate: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Responsibility Start End ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Sec. 1274.904 Resource Sharing Requirements (XXX 1995). (a) NASA and the Recipient will share in providing the resources necessary to perform the agreement. ??? funding and non-cash contributions (personnel, equipment, facilities, etc.) and the dollar value of the Recipient's cash and/or in-kind contribution will be on a ________ ( ??? ) - ________ (Recipient) basis.

COPPER, CADMIUM, AND ZINC; QAPP Information: QA Info Missing; Keswick dam to Cottonwood creek; Final Listing Decision: Delist from 303(d) list. JUNE 15, 2010;

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
March 11, 2011

EPA Encourages Americans to Save Water During Fix a Leak Week

WASHINGTON – Across the country, household leaks waste more than 1 trillion gallons of water per year – enough to supply the water needs of Chicago, Miami, and Los Angeles combined. Easily corrected household leaks can increase homeowners' water bills by 12 percent. To help consumers find and repair easy-to-fix leaks, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is promoting the third annual Fix a Leak Week, March 14 through 20.

“When households have a leak, it's not just a waste of water, it's a waste of money,” EPA Administrator Lisa P. Jackson said. “But by fixing leaky pipes, buying WaterSense products and taking other simple steps, families can save on their water bills and conserve clean water for future generations to enjoy.”

Homeowners' water bills provide an easy and quick leak-checking measure; if wintertime water use for a family of four exceeds 12,000 gallons per month, their home may have a leak. Fixture replacement parts often pay for themselves quickly and can be installed by do-it-yourselfers, professional plumbers, or EPA's WaterSense irrigation partners .

EPA's Fix a Leak Week tips include:

§ Check for leaks. Silent toilet leaks can be found by putting a few drops of food coloring into the tank and seeing if color appears in the bowl before you flush. Don't forget to check irrigation systems and spigots, too.

§ Twist and tighten pipe connections. To save even more water without a noticeable difference in flow, twist on a WaterSense labeled faucet aerator or showerhead.

§ Replace the fixture if necessary. Look for the WaterSense label when replacing plumbing fixtures, which are independently certified to use 20 percent less water and perform as well as or better than standard models.

WaterSense, a partnership program sponsored by EPA, seeks to protect the future of our nation's water supply by offering people simple ways to use less water. Since the program's inception in 2006, WaterSense has helped consumers save a cumulative 46 billion gallons of water and $343 million in water and sewer bills.

More information on Fix a Leak Week: http://www.epa.gov/watersense/fixaleak

More information on WaterSense: http://www.epa.gov/watersense

the Superfund stopped getting funded in 1995. President Clinton unsuccessfully tried to reinstate the tax on polluters that originally filled the fund's coffers, and the fund actually ran out of money in 2003. Since then the program has relied on appropriations whose amount and consistency shift according to the prevailing congressional winds.

In 2009, the agency drafted a rule that addresses this in part -- they want mining companies to provide evidence that they'll be able to stay in business not just when they're making money off a mine, but years after the fact, when a messy, expensive cleanup -- like the one in Libby, Mont. -- might be needed.

This new rule was spurred by a Sierra Club lawsuit alleging that the 63 hardrock mining sites on the National Priorities List have estimated cleanup costs of $7.8 billion, and $2.4 billion of those costs were going be footed by taxpayers. Meanwhile, many more Western mining sites are being considered for Superfund listing, and the costs of cleaning up each site keep getting higher .

Notable opponents to the 2009 EPA rule include Alaska Senator Lisa Murkowski, a mining fan, and -- shocker -- the National Mining Association. (Read Murkowki's letter to the EPA [PDF])

Debate on Interior/EPA Spending Bill Indefinitely Postponed

Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) — who “oversees the Appropriations panel's subcommittee overseeing Interior Department and Environmental Protection Agency spending — said debate on the appropriations bill in the committee is indefinitely postponed, in part over concerns about efforts to delay EPA climate regulations,” The Hill reports.

“It's off the calendar,” Feinstein told reporters Thursday. “A decision will have to be made about whether it goes back on or out.”

Administrator Jackson highlighted examples of EPA's environmental justice efforts:

· Plan EJ 2014 —A four-year roadmap to help EPA develop stronger community relationships and increase the agency's efforts to improve environmental and health conditions in overburdened communities. The plan includes three main sections: Cross-cutting Agency Strategies, Tools Development, and Program Initiatives.

· EJ in Rulemaking Guidance —The “Interim Guidance on Considering Environmental Justice During the Development of an Action” is a step-by-step guide that helps EPA staff consider environmental justice at key points in the rulemaking process.

· Sustainable Communities Partnership —A collaborative Department of Housing and Urban Development, Department of Transportation, and EPA partnership to improve access to affordable housing, more transportation options, and lower transportation costs while protecting the environment in communities nationwide.

The principles of environmental justice uphold the idea that all communities overburdened by pollution – particularly minority, low income and indigenous communities – deserve the same degree of protection from environmental and health hazards, equal access to the decision-making process and a healthy environment in which to live, learn, and work. EPA serves as the lead for environmental justice issues in the federal government.

Rule 44. Proving an Official Record

(a) Means of Proving.

Each of the following evidences an official record — or an entry in it — that is otherwise admissible and is kept within the United States, any state, district, or commonwealth, or any territory subject to the administrative or judicial jurisdiction of the United States:

(B) a copy attested by the officer with legal custody of the record — or by the officer's deputy — and accompanied by a certificate that the officer has custody. The certificate must be made under seal:

(i) by a judge of a court of record in the district or political subdivision where the record is kept; or

(ii) by any public officer with a seal of office and with official duties in the district or political subdivision where the record is kept.

(A) In General. Each of the following evidences a foreign official record — or an entry in it — that is otherwise admissible:

(ii) the record — or a copy — that is attested by an authorized person and is accompanied either by a final certification of genuineness or by a certification under a treaty or convention to which the United States and the country where the record is located are parties.

(B) Final Certification of Genuineness. A final certification must certify the genuineness of the signature and official position of the attester or of any foreign official whose certificate of genuineness relates to the attestation or is in a chain of certificates of genuineness relating to the attestation. A final certification may be made by a secretary of a United States embassy or legation; by a consul general, vice consul, or consular agent of the United States; or by a diplomatic or consular official of the foreign country assigned or accredited to the United States.

(C) Other Means of Proof. If all parties have had a reasonable opportunity to investigate a foreign record's authenticity and accuracy, the court may, for good cause, either:

(ii) permit the record to be evidenced by an attested summary with or without a final certification.

(b) Lack of Record.

A written statement that a diligent search of designated records revealed no record or entry of a specified tenor is admissible as evidence that the records contain no such record or entry. For domestic records, the statement must be authenticated under Rule 44(a)(1). For foreign records, the statement must comply with (a)(2)(C)(ii).

A party may prove an official record — or an entry or lack of an entry in it — by any other method authorized by law.

8 See John Hutchens; T. W. Arman; et al v. United States District Court for the Eastern District of California (Sacramento), Respondent United States Environmental Protection Agency; Real Party in Interest, Appeal No. 90-71150; John F. Hutchens v. United States District Court for the Eastern District of California (Sacramento), Respondent, United States of America; et al; Real Parties in Interest, Appeal No. 90-70047.

Interlocutory appeal

An interlocutory appeal (or interim appeal ), in the law of civil procedure , is an appeal of a ruling by a trial court that is made before the trial itself has concluded. Most jurisdictions generally prohibit such appeals, requiring parties to wait until the trial has concluded before they challenge any of the decisions made by the judge during that trial. However, many jurisdictions make an exception for decisions that are particularly prejudicial to the rights of one of the parties. For example, if a party is asserting some form of immunity from suit, or is claiming that the court completely lacks personal jurisdiction over them, then it is recognized that being forced to wait for the conclusion of the trial would violate their right not to be subjected to a trial at all.

Federal courts

The Supreme Court created the test in the case Cohen v. Beneficial Industrial Loan Corp. , 337 U.S. 541 (1949), where it was applied to a requirement of bond to be posted in certain stockholders derivative actions by plaintiffs, in anticipation of being liable for defendant's attorney's fees. Since the substantial deterrent effect of the statute would be meaningless if not enforceable at the outset of litigation, but did not touch on the merits of plaintiff's claim, the Court allowed interlocutory appeal from the trial court's decision. 337 U.S. at 546-47. The doctrine was restricted in Digital Equipment Corp. v. Desktop Direct Inc. , 511 U.S. 863 (1994) , which added an explicit importance criterion to the test for interlocutory appeals, holding that relief on a claim of immunity from suit because of a previous settlement agreement could not come through interlocutory appeal. The Supreme Court stated that the only matters of sufficient importance to merit a collateral appeal were "those originating in the Constitution or statutes". 511 U.S. at 879.

Several U.S. statutes directly confer the right to interlocutory appeals, including appeals from orders denying arbitration , 9 U.S.C. § 16 , and some judicial actions against the debtor upon filing bankruptcy proceedings , 11 U.S.C. § 362 (a). There is a major split in the United States courts of appeals as to whether a stay of proceedings should issue in the district court while interlocutory appeals on the arbitrability of disputes are decided. Compare Bradford-Scott Data Corp., Inc. v. Physician Computer Network , 128 F.3d 504 (7th Cir. 1997), and Britton v. Co-op Banking Group , 916 F.2d 1405 (9th Cir. 1990). An interlocutory appeal under the collateral order doctrine usually merits a stay of proceedings while the appeal is being decided. Currently, the Second and Ninth Circuits have refused to stay proceedings in the district court while an arbitration issue is pending [See, Motorola Credit Corp. v. Uzan, 388, F.3d 39, 53-4 (2d Cir. 2004; Britton v. Co-Op Banking Group, 916 F.2d 1405, 1412 (9th Cir. 1990)]. The Seventh, Tenth and Eleventh Circuit courts conversely hold that a non-frivolous appeal warrants a stay of proceedings. See, Bradford-Scott Data Corp. v. Physician Computer Network, Inc., 128 F.3d, 504, 506 (7th Cir. 1997); Blinco v. Green Tree Servicing, LLC, 366 F.3d 1249, 1251-2 (11th Cir. 2004); McCauley et al. v. Halliburton Energy Services, Inc., 161 Fed. Appx. 760 (10th Cir. 2005).

An interlocutory appeal asks an appellate court to decide an issue which cannot be resolved on the facts in the case, but whose resolution is essential to a final decision in the case.

On September 26, 1989, the Arizona Supreme Court adopted a Special Procedural Order Providing for Interlocutory Appeals and Certifications . The purpose of the order was to establish a procedure for early review of substantial questions in the Gila River Adjudication. Any party could petition the Arizona Supreme Court to review by interlocutory appeal any ruling of the Superior Court, and the Superior Court could certify to the Supreme Court questions deemed substantial for review.

In February 1990, several parties in the Gila River Adjudication appealed various rulings of the Maricopa County Superior Court. On June 27, 1990, the Arizona Supreme Court consolidated the petitions for interlocutory review. On December 11, 1990 , the Court granted review on six issues. Each issue was argued and decided separately. The issues and their determinations are:

This appeal arose from several petitions seeking review of the Superior Court's order dated September 28, 2005 , concerning the Subflow Technical Report, San Pedro River Watershed, of the Arizona Department of Water Resources. On May 22, 2007 , without an opinion the Arizona Supreme Court denied all the petitions. Chief Judge A. John Pelander of the Arizona Court of Appeals, Division Two, participated by designation in place of Justice W. Scott Bales.

Three petitions sought review of the Superior Court's orders approving the Gila River Indian Community water rights settlement. On February 19, 2010, the Arizona Supreme Court affirmed the judgment and decree of the Superior Court. The Court held that the Superior Court complied with the Supreme Court's Special Order for approving Indian water rights settlements. The opinion is reported in In re the General Adjudication of All Rights to Use Water in the Gila River System and Source, 223 Ariz. 362, 224 P.3d 178 (2010).

The City of Tucson and Farmers Investment Company sought interlocutory review and approval of the Superior Court's judgment and decree entered on July 9, 2007 . Other parties were allowed to intervene. On November 30, 2007, the Arizona Supreme Court affirmed the judgment and decree of the Superior Court. The opinion is reported in In re the General Adjudication of All Rights to Use Water in the Gila River System and Source, 217 Ariz. 276, 173 P.3d 440 (2007).

Collateral order doctrine

Definition

Doctrine allowing appeals from interlocutory rulings (i.e., preceding final judgment) so long as those rulings conclusively decide an issue separate from the merits of the case and would be effectively unreviewable after final judgment.

Overview

The collateral order doctrine is a narrow exception to the final-judgment rule, which normally forces parties to wait for final judgment before appealing any rulings. This doctrine emerged in Cohen v. Beneficial Industrial Loan Corp. , 337 U.S. 541 (1949). In that case the Supreme Court held to be appealable those orders which "finally determine claims of right separable from, and collateral to, rights asserted in the action, too important to be denied review and too independent of the cause itself to require that appellate consideration be deferred until the whole case is adjudicated." Id. , 337 U.S. at 546.

7. How many hardrock mining and beneficiation plans of operation has your agency approved since 1990?

B. How many of those sites placed on the CERCLA NPL involve(d) a responsible party that pays (paid) for the cost of short-term removals or long-term remediation, either in part or in whole? What is the aggregate dollar amount spent by these responsible parties? What is the aggregate dollar amount spent by the federal (or state) government?

Continental congress assembles U.S. army Corps of Engineers, March 11, 1779

AIG Goes For Re-Broke, Offers To Repurchase Toxic Subprime Portfolio From Fed For $15.7 Billion

The Press Mostly Misses the Inspector General's HAMP Report

The special inspector general of the TARP, Neil Barofsky, released a blistering report yesterday, including pointed criticism of Treasury's AIG doings and the Obama administration's failed mortgage-modification plan called HAMP. So how did the press cover it? Not very well.

The New York Times has a story on the AIG angle, but it doesn't have anything about the HAMP angle. Weirdly enough, it even has a story on the status of the mortgage-modification program, but it's based on Treasury Department numbers. There's no mention of Barofsky, though there is a quote from a top Fed official slamming the program.

The Wall Street Journal has an even bigger hole in its coverage today: There is none. It somehow completely missed the SIGTARP's report. Oops.

CNNMoney does a good job , though. It hits both the AIG and HAMP angles. Here it is on HAMP:

Treasury has said several times that its mortgage modification program has “helped” more than 1.3 million homeowners by reducing their monthly mortgage payments, calling each of these a “success,” the report said.

However, Barofsky's team took issue with the level of success, saying more than 700,000 of the modifications ultimately failed and another 173,000 remained in limbo.

“They say for example that they've helped more than 1.3 million people through mortgage modifications, but more than half of those have failed,” Barofsky said. “Then, they go and say, ' Well, each one of those had a significant benefit for the homeowner.' And that's just not true.”

But for the most part, to learn about this story, we turn to the blogs, as we so often have to do these days. Yves Smith of Naked Capitalism and Arthur Delaney and Shahien Nasiripour of The Huffington Post do a better job reporting on this than anything I've seen in the mainstream press. Smith pulls an anecdote from page 172 of Barofsky's report on one of Tim Geithner's “successes”:

“Perhaps worst of all,” it continues, “even in circumstances where they never missed a payment, they may face back payments, penalties, and even late fees that suddenly become due on their ‘modified' mortgages and that they are unable to pay, thus resulting in the very loss of their homes that HAMP is meant to prevent.”

And GOP bulldog Darrell Issa gets to the core of what's wrong with the administration's program and with its assurances that it's working:

Through the first nine months of this year, “when HAMP has been at its apex,” according to SIGTARP, nearly 2.7 million homes have been subject to foreclosure notices, the report notes, citing data from research firm RealtyTrac.

“At that pace, foreclosure notices will have been sent to more than 3.5 million homes by the end of the year, an increase of 26 percent over the 2.8 million homes in 2009 and nearly five times the comparable 2006 number,” SIGTARP said.

AIG's Greenberg Found Liable for Fraudulent Action

A New York state judge has held Maurice "Hank" Greenberg, the former head of American International Group Inc., liable for "spearhead[ing]" a fraudulent transaction to remove $200 million in losses from the giant insurer's books. Manhattan Supreme Court Justice Charles E. Ramos' ruling handed a victory to Attorney General Andrew Cuomo, who is pressing the suit against Greenberg and AIG's former chief financial officer, Howard Smith, to recover investor losses stemming from two allegedly sham transaction designed to hide the company's true financial condition.

Ramos's 83-page ruling in People v. Greenberg , 401720/05, granted the attorney general summary judgment on his claim that the two former AIG officials had fraudulently moved $200 million in losses off AIG's books to a Barbados-based corporation, the CAPCO Reinsurance Company. But the ruling denied the attorney general's motion for summary judgment on a second transaction involving a claim that the two defendants had ginned up its reserves by $500 million through a sham transaction with General Re Corp., a unit of Berkshire Hathaway Inc. The General Re transaction resulted in seven convictions , two of them by guilty pleas, of former AIG and General Re officials.

In granting summary judgment on the CAPCO deal, Ramos found the evidence "established that the defendants' stated objective in effectuating the … transaction was not to improve AIG's assets, but to conceal from investors underwriting losses." The judge will hold a separate hearing to determine the amount of damages stemming from the deal.

Ramos also denied motions from both Greenberg and Smith seeking summary judgment dismissing the case. Lawyers for both men were quoted by Reuters as saying that they would appeal the ruling holding their clients liable for the CAPCO deal.

ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE "Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 " "U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Title VI Regulations " "Executive Order 12,898, Environmental Justice" THE REGULATORY PROCESS "Administrative Procedure Act; Regulatory Flexibility Act " "Information Quality Act and OMB Guidelines " "Congressional Review Act " "Regulatory Planning and Review, Executive Order 12,866" REGULATION OF TOXIC SUBSTANCES "Toxic Substances Control Act " "Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act " "Safe Drinking Water Act " "Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act " "Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act (Proposition 65)" WASTE MANAGEMENT AND POLLUTION PREVENTION "Solid Waste Disposal Act (as Amended by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act) " "Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act " "Pollution Prevention Act" AIR POLLUTION CONTROL "Clean Air Act" WATER POLLUTION CONTROL "Federal Water Pollution Control Act (Clean Water Act) " "Oil Pollution Act" LAND USE REGULATION "Coastal Zone Management Act" ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT "National Environmental Policy Act " "NEPA Regulations" BIODIVERSITY PROTECTION "Endangered Species Act" PUBLIC LAND MANAGEMENT "Antiquities Act; Multiple Use Sustained Yield Act " "Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act " "Federal Land Policy and Management Act" CASE SUPPLEMENT "Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. United States " "United States v. Atlantic Research Corp. " "United Haulers Assn., Inc. v. Oneida-Herkimer Solid Waste Management Authority " "Environmental Defense v. Duke Energy Corp. " "Massachusetts v. EPA " "Rapanos v. United States " "S.D. Warren Co. v. Maine Board of Environmental Protection " "Entergy Corp. v. Riverkeeper, Inc. " "Exxon Shipping Co. v. Baker " "Coeur Alaska, Inc. v. Southeast Alaska Conservation Council " "Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council " "National Assn. of Homebuilders v. Defenders of Wildlife " "Summers v. Earth Island Institute"

E. Upon the Date of Final Approval of this Consent Decree, Atkemix
6 Thirty-Seven Inc. ("Atkemix Thirty-Seven") hereby grants to the United States, through the
7 United States Bureau of Land Management ("BLM"), an option (the "Option") to acquire
8 Atkemix Thirty-Seven's interest in certain parcels of land located in the area of Iron Mountain
9 under the authority and provisions of Section 107(f)(l) of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C.
10 Section 9607(f)(l), and Section 205 of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act,
11 43 U.S.C. Section 1715, and 43 C.F.R. Part 11. The parcels subject to the Option (the
12 "Land") encompass approximately 1,250 acres of land. The Land is generally depicted as the
13 shaded areas on the map attached to this Consent Decree as Appendix L; however, the parcel
14 boundaries and other notations appearing on Appendix L are not meant to constitute
15 controlling legal descriptions. The terms of the Option, and of the United States' exercise
16 thereof, are as follows:
17 (1) Transfer from Atkemix Thirty-Seven to the United States of
18 Atkemix Thirty-Seven's interest the Land, in its entirety or any parcel therein, shall be in
19 consideration of agreements contained in this Consent Decree and shall not require any further
20 consideration. Restoration efforts undertaken on any Land the United States acquires under
21 this Paragraph will be developed by the Natural Resource Trustees in accordance with Section
22 XXXIII of this Consent Decree and funded from allocations made pursuant to Paragraphs
23 6.A.(l)(a) and 7.D of this Consent Decree.
24 (2) The term of the Option (the "Option Term") shall be a period of
25 ; 24 months from the Date of Final Approval of this Consent Decree. The United States may
26 exercise its right to acquire Atkemix Thirty-Seven's interest in the Land or any parcel therein

9. Compliance With Applicable Law. The Site Operator shall comply with all
applicable federal and state laws as provided in the SOW. The activities conducted pursuant to
this Consent Decree, if approved by the Oversight Agency, shall be considered to be
consistent with the NCP.

Resource Record Details

Guidelines and Specifications for Flood Hazard Mapping Partners

EPA is often directed to provide funding to a specific entity for water infrastructure projects. These are not part of an established program and are limited to the special situations defined in EPA's annual Appropriations Act.

EPA does not, however, advocate or nominate entities for drinking water, wastewater, stormwater or other water infrastructure projects for directed funding. If, however, you are a community or other entity which has been identified in one of EPA's Appropriation Acts to receive funding for an eligible water infrastructure projects, the information which follows will be of interest to you if:

The following information explains how you apply for the funding, get paid, and what your responsibilities are after you have received the funding. It contains links for getting the forms which must be completed. The forms can be completed on screen and printed for mailing. All information can be read on screen or downloaded.

Each year EPA publishes guidelines for the award of Special Appropriation projects, which must be followed to award these grants. EPA may not award funds until the guidelines are published. So, if you received funds in the Fiscal Year (FY) 2010 Appropriation which runs from 10-1-2009 to 9/30/2010 usually EPA Headquarters would have published the guidelines by May 31, 2010. Below are links to past years guidelines.

EPA is required to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act and a series of cross cutting laws and regulations prior to awarding funds in most cases. This will require you to complete the suggested outline for the environmental information document (EID) and the EID checklist and provide it to your EPA Project Officer. Once received and accepted by EPA, we need to consult with numerous agencies and then publish our tenative decision. We then invite public comments and consider all comments received.

Your EPA Project Officer will work with you to develop an acceptable work plan which contains measureable environmental results and whenever feasable incorporate recommended environmental best practices.

APPEAL FROM A JUDGMENT OR ORDER OF A DISTRICT COURT

Rule 3. Appeal as of Right—When Taken

(a) Filing the Notice of Appeal.

(1) An appeal permitted by law as of right from a district court to a court of appeals may be taken only by filing a notice of appeal with the district clerk within the time allowed by Rule 4. At the time of filing, the appellant must furnish the clerk with enough copies of the notice to enable the clerk to comply with Rule 3(d).

(2) An appellant's failure to take any step other than the timely filing of a notice of appeal does not affect the validity of the appeal, but is ground only for the court of appeals to act as it considers appropriate, including dismissing the appeal.

(3) An appeal from a judgment by a magistrate judge in a civil case is taken in the same way as an appeal from any other district court judgment.

(4) An appeal by permission under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) or an appeal in a bankruptcy case may be taken only in the manner prescribed by Rules 5 and 6, respectively.

(b) Joint or Consolidated Appeals.

(1) When two or more parties are entitled to appeal from a district-court judgment or order, and their interests make joinder practicable, they may file a joint notice of appeal. They may then proceed on appeal as a single appellant.

(2) When the parties have filed separate timely notices of appeal, the appeals may be joined or consolidated by the court of appeals.

(A) specify the party or parties taking the appeal by naming each one in the caption or body of the notice, but an attorney representing more than one party may describe those parties with such terms as “all plaintiffs,” “the defendants,” “the plaintiffs A, B, et al.,” or “all defendants except X”;

(2) A pro se notice of appeal is considered filed on behalf of the signer and the signer's spouse and minor children (if they are parties), unless the notice clearly indicates otherwise.

(3) In a class action, whether or not the class has been certified, the notice of appeal is sufficient if it names one person qualified to bring the appeal as representative of the class.

(4) An appeal must not be dismissed for informality of form or title of the notice of appeal, or for failure to name a party whose intent to appeal is otherwise clear from the notice.

(d) Serving the Notice of Appeal.

(1) The district clerk must serve notice of the filing of a notice of appeal by mailing a copy to each party's counsel of record—excluding the appellant's—or, if a party is proceeding pro se, to the party's last known address. When a defendant in a criminal case appeals, the clerk must also serve a copy of the notice of appeal on the defendant, either by personal service or by mail addressed to the defendant. The clerk must promptly send a copy of the notice of appeal and of the docket entries—and any later docket entries—to the clerk of the court of appeals named in the notice. The district clerk must note, on each copy, the date when the notice of appeal was filed.

(2) If an inmate confined in an institution files a notice of appeal in the manner provided by Rule 4(c), the district clerk must also note the date when the clerk docketed the notice.

(3) The district clerk's failure to serve notice does not affect the validity of the appeal. The clerk must note on the docket the names of the parties to whom the clerk mails copies, with the date of mailing. Service is sufficient despite the death of a party or the party's counsel.

(e) Payment of Fees.

Upon filing a notice of appeal, the appellant must pay the district clerk all required fees. The district clerk receives the appellate docket fee on behalf of the court of appeals.

[Rule 3.1. Appeal from a Judgment of a Magistrate Judge in a Civil Case] (Abrogated Apr. 24, 1998, eff. Dec. 1, 1998)

Rule 4. Appeal as of Right—When Taken

(a) Appeal in a Civil Case.

(A) In a civil case, except as provided in Rules 4(a)(1)(B), 4(a)(4), and 4(c), the notice of appeal required by Rule 3 must be filed with the district clerk within 30 days after the judgment or order appealed from is entered.

(B) When the United States or its officer or agency is a party, the notice of appeal may be filed by any party within 60 days after the judgment or order appealed from is entered.

(C) An appeal from an order granting or denying an application for a writ of error coram nobis is an appeal in a civil case for purposes of Rule 4(a).

A notice of appeal filed after the court announces a decision or order—but before the entry of the judgment or order—is treated as filed on the date of and after the entry.

If one party timely files a notice of appeal, any other party may file a notice of appeal within 14 days after the date when the first notice was filed, or within the time otherwise prescribed by this Rule 4(a), whichever period ends later.

(A) If a party timely files in the district court any of the following motions under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the time to file an appeal runs for all parties from the entry of the order disposing of the last such remaining motion:

(ii) to amend or make additional factual findings under Rule 52(b), whether or not granting the motion would alter the judgment;

(iii) for attorney's fees under Rule 54 if the district court extends the time to appeal under Rule 58;

(vi) for relief under Rule 60 if the motion is filed no later than 28 days after the judgment is entered.

(i) If a party files a notice of appeal after the court announces or enters a judgment—but before it disposes of any motion listed in Rule 4(a)(4)(A)—the notice becomes effective to appeal a judgment or order, in whole or in part, when the order disposing of the last such remaining motion is entered.

(ii) A party intending to challenge an order disposing of any motion listed in Rule 4(a)(4)(A), or a judgment's alteration or amendment upon such a motion, must file a notice of appeal, or an amended notice of appeal—in compliance with Rule 3(c)—within the time prescribed by this Rule measured from the entry of the order disposing of the last such remaining motion.

(i) a party so moves no later than 30 days after the time prescribed by this Rule 4(a) expires; and

(ii) regardless of whether its motion is filed before or during the 30 days after the time prescribed by this Rule 4(a) expires, that party shows excusable neglect or good cause.

(B) A motion filed before the expiration of the time prescribed in Rule 4(a)(1) or (3) may be ex parte unless the court requires otherwise. If the motion is filed after the expiration of the prescribed time, notice must be given to the other parties in accordance with local rules.

(C) No extension under this Rule 4(a)(5) may exceed 30 days after the prescribed time or 14 days after the date when the order granting the motion is entered, whichever is later.

The district court may reopen the time to file an appeal for a period of 14 days after the date when its order to reopen is entered, but only if all the following conditions are satisfied:

(A) the court finds that the moving party did not receive notice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 77(d) of the entry of the judgment or order sought to be appealed within 21 days after entry;

(B) the motion is filed within 180 days after the judgment or order is entered or within 14 days after the moving party receives notice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 77(d) of the entry, whichever is earlier; and

(i) if Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 58(a) does not require a separate document, when the judgment or order is entered in the civil docket under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 79(a); or

(ii) if Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 58(a) requires a separate document, when the judgment or order is entered in the civil docket under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 79(a) and when the earlier of these events occurs:

(B) A failure to set forth a judgment or order on a separate document when required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 58(a) does not affect the validity of an appeal from that judgment or order.

(b) Appeal in a Criminal Case.

(A) In a criminal case, a defendant's notice of appeal must be filed in the district court within 14 days after the later of:

(B) When the government is entitled to appeal, its notice of appeal must be filed in the district court within 30 days after the later of:

A notice of appeal filed after the court announces a decision, sentence, or order—but before the entry of the judgment or order—is treated as filed on the date of and after the entry.

(A) If a defendant timely makes any of the following motions under the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, the notice of appeal from a judgment of conviction must be filed within 14 days after the entry of the order disposing of the last such remaining motion, or within 14 days after the entry of the judgment of conviction, whichever period ends later. This provision applies to a timely motion:

(ii) for a new trial under Rule 33, but if based on newly discovered evidence, only if the motion is made no later than 14 days after the entry of the judgment; or

(B) A notice of appeal filed after the court announces a decision, sentence, or order—but before it disposes of any of the motions referred to in Rule 4(b)(3)(A)—becomes effective upon the later of the following:

(C) A valid notice of appeal is effective—without amendment—to appeal from an order disposing of any of the motions referred to in Rule 4(b)(3)(A).

Upon a finding of excusable neglect or good cause, the district court may—before or after the time has expired, with or without motion and notice—extend the time to file a notice of appeal for a period not to exceed 30 days from the expiration of the time otherwise prescribed by this Rule 4(b).

The filing of a notice of appeal under this Rule 4(b) does not divest a district court of jurisdiction to correct a sentence under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 35(a), nor does the filing of a motion under 35(a) affect the validity of a notice of appeal filed before entry of the order disposing of the motion. The filing of a motion under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 35(a) does not suspend the time for filing a notice of appeal from a judgment of conviction.

A judgment or order is entered for purposes of this Rule 4(b) when it is entered on the criminal docket.

(1) If an inmate confined in an institution files a notice of appeal in either a civil or a criminal case, the notice is timely if it is deposited in the institution's internal mail system on or before the last day for filing. If an institution has a system designed for legal mail, the inmate must use that system to receive the benefit of this rule. Timely filing may be shown by a declaration in compliance with 28 U.S.C. § 1746 or by a notarized statement, either of which must set forth the date of deposit and state that first-class postage has been prepaid.

(2) If an inmate files the first notice of appeal in a civil case under this Rule 4(c), the 14-day period provided in Rule 4(a)(3) for another party to file a notice of appeal runs from the date when the district court dockets the first notice.

(3) When a defendant in a criminal case files a notice of appeal under this Rule 4(c), the 30-day period for the government to file its notice of appeal runs from the entry of the judgment or order appealed from or from the district court's docketing of the defendant's notice of appeal, whichever is later.

(d) Mistaken Filing in the Court of Appeals.

If a notice of appeal in either a civil or a criminal case is mistakenly filed in the court of appeals, the clerk of that court must note on the notice the date when it was received and send it to the district clerk. The notice is then considered filed in the district court on the date so noted.

Rule 5. Appeal by Permission

(a) Petition for Permission to Appeal.

(1) To request permission to appeal when an appeal is within the court of appeals' discretion, a party must file a petition for permission to appeal. The petition must be filed with the circuit clerk with proof of service on all other parties to the district-court action.

(2) The petition must be filed within the time specified by the statute or rule authorizing the appeal or, if no such time is specified, within the time provided by Rule 4(a) for filing a notice of appeal.

(3) If a party cannot petition for appeal unless the district court first enters an order granting permission to do so or stating that the necessary conditions are met, the district court may amend its order, either on its own or in response to a party's motion, to include the required permission or statement. In that event, the time to petition runs from entry of the amended order.

(b) Contents of the Petition; Answer or Cross-Petition; Oral Argument.

(D) the reasons why the appeal should be allowed and is authorized by a statute or rule; and

(i) the order, decree, or judgment complained of and any related opinion or memorandum, and

(ii) any order stating the district court's permission to appeal or finding that the necessary conditions are met.

(2) A party may file an answer in opposition or a cross-petition within 7 days after the petition is served.

(3) The petition and answer will be submitted without oral argument unless the court of appeals orders otherwise.

All papers must conform to Rule 32(c)(2). Except by the court's permission, a paper must not exceed 20 pages, exclusive of the disclosure statement, the proof of service, and the accompanying documents required by Rule 5(b)(1)(E). An original and 3 copies must be filed unless the court requires a different number by local rule or by order in a particular case.

(d) Grant of Permission; Fees; Cost Bond; Filing the Record.

(1) Within 10 days after the entry of the order granting permission to appeal, the appellant must:

(2) A notice of appeal need not be filed. The date when the order granting permission to appeal is entered serves as the date of the notice of appeal for calculating time under these rules.

(3) The district clerk must notify the circuit clerk once the petitioner has paid the fees. Upon receiving this notice, the circuit clerk must enter the appeal on the docket. The record must be forwarded and filed in accordance with Rules 11 and 12(c).

[Rule 5.1. Appeal by Leave under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(5)] (Abrogated Apr. 24, 1998, eff. Dec. 1, 1998)

Rule 6. Appeal in a Bankruptcy Case from a Final Judgment, Order, or Decree of a District Court or Bankruptcy Appellate Panel

(a) Appeal From a Judgment, Order, or Decree of a District Court Exercising Original Jurisdiction in a Bankruptcy Case.

An appeal to a court of appeals from a final judgment, order, or decree of a district court exercising jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1334 is taken as any other civil appeal under these rules.

(b) Appeal From a Judgment, Order, or Decree of a District Court or Bankruptcy Appellate Panel Exercising Appellate Jurisdiction in a Bankruptcy Case.

These rules apply to an appeal to a court of appeals under 28 U.S.C. § 158(d) from a final judgment, order, or decree of a district court or bankruptcy appellate panel exercising appellate jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 158(a) or (b). But there are 3 exceptions:

(A) Rules 4(a)(4), 4(b), 9, 10, 11, 12(b), 13–20, 22–23, and 24(b) do not apply;

(B) the reference in Rule 3(c) to “Form 1 in the Appendix of Forms” must be read as a reference to Form 5; and

(C) when the appeal is from a bankruptcy appellate panel, the term “district court,” as used in any applicable rule, means “appellate panel.”

In addition to the rules made applicable by Rule 6(b)(1), the following rules apply:

(i) If a timely motion for rehearing under Bankruptcy Rule 8015 is filed, the time to appeal for all parties runs from the entry of the order disposing of the motion. A notice of appeal filed after the district court or bankruptcy appellate panel announces or enters a judgment, order, or decree—but before disposition of the motion for rehearing—becomes effective when the order disposing of the motion for rehearing is entered.

(ii) Appellate review of the order disposing of the motion requires the party, in compliance with Rules 3(c) and 6(b)(1)(B), to amend a previously filed notice of appeal. A party intending to challenge an altered or amended judgment, order, or decree must file a notice of appeal or amended notice of appeal within the time prescribed by Rule 4—excluding Rules 4(a)(4) and 4(b)— measured from the entry of the order disposing of the motion.

(i) Within 14 days after filing the notice of appeal, the appellant must file with the clerk possessing the record assembled in accordance with Bankruptcy Rule 8006—and serve on the appellee—a statement of the issues to be presented on appeal and a designation of the record to be certified and sent to the circuit clerk.

(ii) An appellee who believes that other parts of the record are necessary must, within 14 days after being served with the appellant's designation, file with the clerk and serve on the appellant a designation of additional parts to be included.

(i) When the record is complete, the district clerk or bankruptcy appellate panel clerk must number the documents constituting the record and send them promptly to the circuit clerk together with a list of the documents correspondingly numbered and reasonably identified. Unless directed to do so by a party or the circuit clerk, the clerk will not send to the court of appeals documents of unusual bulk or weight, physical exhibits other than documents, or other parts of the record designated for omission by local rule of the court of appeals. If the exhibits are unusually bulky or heavy, a party must arrange with the clerks in advance for their transportation and receipt.

(ii) All parties must do whatever else is necessary to enable the clerk to assemble and forward the record. The court of appeals may provide by rule or order that a certified copy of the docket entries be sent in place of the redesignated record, but any party may request at any time during the pendency of the appeal that the redesignated record be sent.

Upon receiving the recordor a certified copy of the docket entries sent in place of the redesignated recordthe circuit clerk must file it and immediately notify all parties of the filing date.

Rule 7. Bond for Costs on Appeal in a Civil Case

In a civil case, the district court may require an appellant to file a bond or provide other security in any form and amount necessary to ensure payment of costs on appeal. Rule 8(b) applies to a surety on a bond given under this rule.

Rule 8. Stay or Injunction Pending Appeal

(a) Motion for Stay.

A party must ordinarily move first in the district court for the following relief:

A motion for the relief mentioned in Rule 8(a)(1) may be made to the court of appeals or to one of its judges.

(ii) state that, a motion having been made, the district court denied the motion or failed to afford the relief requested and state any reasons given by the district court for its action.

(ii) originals or copies of affidavits or other sworn statements supporting facts subject to dispute; and

(D) A motion under this Rule 8(a)(2) must be filed with the circuit clerk and normally will be considered by a panel of the court. But in an exceptional case in which time requirements make that procedure impracticable, the motion may be made to and considered by a single judge.

(E) The court may condition relief on a party's filing a bond or other appropriate security in the district court.

(b) Proceeding Against a Surety.

If a party gives security in the form of a bond or stipulation or other undertaking with one or more sureties, each surety submits to the jurisdiction of the district court and irrevocably appoints the district clerk as the surety's agent on whom any papers affecting the surety's liability on the bond or undertaking may be served. On motion, a surety's liability may be enforced in the district court without the necessity of an independent action. The motion and any notice that the district court prescribes may be served on the district clerk, who must promptly mail a copy to each surety whose address is known.

Rule 38 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure governs a stay in a criminal case.

Rule 9. Release in a Criminal Case

(a) Release Before Judgment of Conviction.

(1) The district court must state in writing, or orally on the record, the reasons for an order regarding the release or detention of a defendant in a criminal case. A party appealing from the order must file with the court of appeals a copy of the district court's order and the court's statement of reasons as soon as practicable after filing the notice of appeal. An appellant who questions the factual basis for the district court's order must file a transcript of the release proceedings or an explanation of why a transcript was not obtained.

(2) After reasonable notice to the appellee, the court of appeals must promptly determine the appeal on the basis of the papers, affidavits, and parts of the record that the parties present or the court requires. Unless the court so orders, briefs need not be filed.

(3) The court of appeals or one of its judges may order the defendant's release pending the disposition of the appeal.

(b) Release After Judgment of Conviction.

A party entitled to do so may obtain review of a district-court order regarding release after a judgment of conviction by filing a notice of appeal from that order in the district court, or by filing a motion in the court of appeals if the party has already filed a notice of appeal from the judgment of conviction. Both the order and the review are subject to Rule 9(a). The papers filed by the party seeking review must include a copy of the judgment of conviction.

The court must make its decision regarding release in accordance with the applicable provisions of 18 U.S.C. §§ 3142, 3143, and 3145(c).

Rule 10. The Record on Appeal

(a) Composition of the Record on Appeal.

(b) The Transcript of Proceedings.

Within 14 days after filing the notice of appeal or entry of an order disposing of the last timely remaining motion of a type specified in Rule 4(a)(4)(A), whichever is later, the appellant must do either of the following:

(A) order from the reporter a transcript of such parts of the proceedings not already on file as the appellant considers necessary, subject to a local rule of the court of appeals and with the following qualifications:

(ii) if the cost of the transcript is to be paid by the United States under the Criminal Justice Act, the order must so state; and

(iii) the appellant must, within the same period, file a copy of the order with the district clerk; or

If the appellant intends to urge on appeal that a finding or conclusion is unsupported by the evidence or is contrary to the evidence, the appellant must include in the record a transcript of all evidence relevant to that finding or conclusion.

(A) the appellant mustwithin the 14 days provided in Rule 10(b)(1)file a statement of the issues that the appellant intends to present on the appeal and must serve on the appellee a copy of both the order or certificate and the statement;

(B) if the appellee considers it necessary to have a transcript of other parts of the proceedings, the appellee must, within 10 days after the service of the order or certificate and the statement of the issues, file and serve on the appellant a designation of additional parts to be ordered; and

(C) unless within 14 days after service of that designation the appellant has ordered all such parts, and has so notified the appellee, the appellee may within the following 14 days either order the parts or move in the district court for an order requiring the appellant to do so.

At the time of ordering, a party must make satisfactory arrangements with the reporter for paying the cost of the transcript.

If the transcript of a hearing or trial is unavailable, the appellant may prepare a statement of the evidence or proceedings from the best available means, including the appellant's recollection. The statement must be served on the appellee, who may serve objections or proposed amendments within 14 days after being served. The statement and any objections or proposed amendments must then be submitted to the district court for settlement and approval. As settled and approved, the statement must be included by the district clerk in the record on appeal.

(d) Agreed Statement as the Record on Appeal.

In place of the record on appeal as defined in Rule 10(a), the parties may prepare, sign, and submit to the district court a statement of the case showing how the issues presented by the appeal arose and were decided in the district court. The statement must set forth only those facts averred and proved or sought to be proved that are essential to the courts resolution of the issues. If the statement is truthful, ittogether with any additions that the district court may consider necessary to a full presentation of the issues on appealmust be approved by the district court and must then be certified to the court of appeals as the record on appeal. The district clerk must then send it to the circuit clerk within the time provided by Rule 11. A copy of the agreed statement may be filed in place of the appendix required by Rule 30.

(e) Correction or Modification of the Record.

(1) If any difference arises about whether the record truly discloses what occurred in the district court, the difference must be submitted to and settled by that court and the record conformed accordingly.

(2) If anything material to either party is omitted from or misstated in the record by error or accident, the omission or misstatement may be corrected and a supplemental record may be certified and forwarded:

(3) All other questions as to the form and content of the record must be presented to the court of appeals.

Rule 11. Forwarding the Record

(a) Appellant's Duty.

An appellant filing a notice of appeal must comply with Rule 10(b) and must do whatever else is necessary to enable the clerk to assemble and forward the record. If there are multiple appeals from a judgment or order, the clerk must forward a single record.

(b) Duties of Reporter and District Clerk.

(A) Upon receiving an order for a transcript, the reporter must enter at the foot of the order the date of its receipt and the expected completion date and send a copy, so endorsed, to the circuit clerk.

(B) If the transcript cannot be completed within 30 days of the reporters receipt of the order, the reporter may request the circuit clerk to grant additional time to complete it. The clerk must note on the docket the action taken and notify the parties.

(C) When a transcript is complete, the reporter must file it with the district clerk and notify the circuit clerk of the filing.

(D) If the reporter fails to file the transcript on time, the circuit clerk must notify the district judge and do whatever else the court of appeals directs.

When the record is complete, the district clerk must number the documents constituting the record and send them promptly to the circuit clerk together with a list of the documents correspondingly numbered and reasonably identified. Unless directed to do so by a party or the circuit clerk, the district clerk will not send to the court of appeals documents of unusual bulk or weight, physical exhibits other than documents, or other parts of the record designated for omission by local rule of the court of appeals. If the exhibits are unusually bulky or heavy, a party must arrange with the clerks in advance for their transportation and receipt.

The parties may stipulate, or the district court on motion may order, that the district clerk retain the record temporarily for the parties to use in preparing the papers on appeal. In that event the district clerk must certify to the circuit clerk that the record on appeal is complete. Upon receipt of the appellee's brief, or earlier if the court orders or the parties agree, the appellant must request the district clerk to forward the record.

(d) [Abrogated.]

(e) Retaining the Record by Court Order.

(1) The court of appeals may, by order or local rule, provide that a certified copy of the docket entries be forwarded instead of the entire record. But a party may at any time during the appeal request that designated parts of the record be forwarded.

(2) The district court may order the record or some part of it retained if the court needs it while the appeal is pending, subject, however, to call by the court of appeals.

(3) If part or all of the record is ordered retained, the district clerk must send to the court of appeals a copy of the order and the docket entries together with the parts of the original record allowed by the district court and copies of any parts of the record designated by the parties.

(f) Retaining Parts of the Record in the District Court by Stipulation of the Parties.

The parties may agree by written stipulation filed in the district court that designated parts of the record be retained in the district court subject to call by the court of appeals or request by a party. The parts of the record so designated remain a part of the record on appeal.

(g) Record for a Preliminary Motion in the Court of Appeals.

If, before the record is forwarded, a party makes any of the following motions in the court of appeals:

the district clerk must send the court of appeals any parts of the record designated by any party.

Rule 12. Docketing the Appeal; Filing a Representation Statement; Filing the Record

(a) Docketing the Appeal.

Upon receiving the copy of the notice of appeal and the docket entries from the district clerk under Rule 3(d), the circuit clerk must docket the appeal under the title of the district-court action and must identify the appellant, adding the appellant's name if necessary.

(b) Filing a Representation Statement.

Unless the court of appeals designates another time, the attorney who filed the notice of appeal must, within 14 days after filing the notice, file a statement with the circuit clerk naming the parties that the attorney represents on appeal.

Upon receiving the record, partial record, or district clerk's certificate as provided in Rule 11, the circuit clerk must file it and immediately notify all parties of the filing date.

Rule 12.1 Remand After an Indicative Ruling by the District Court on a Motion for Relief That Is Barred by a Pending Appeal

(a) Notice to the Court of Appeals.

If a timely motion is made in the district court for relief that it lacks authority to grant because of an appeal that has been docketed and is pending, the movant must promptly notify the circuit clerk if the district court states either that it would grant the motion or that the motion raises a substantial issue.

(b) Remand After an Indicative Ruling.

If the district court states that it would grant the motion or that the motion raises a substantial issue, the court of appeals may remand for further proceedings but retains jurisdiction unless it expressly dismisses the appeal. If the court of appeals remands but retains jurisdiction, the parties must promptly notify the circuit clerk when the district court has decided the motion on remand.

Rule 11. Signing Pleadings, Motions, and Other Papers; Representations to the Court; Sanctions

(a) Signature.

Every pleading, written motion, and other paper must be signed by at least one attorney of record in the attorney's name — or by a party personally if the party is unrepresented. The paper must state the signer's address, e-mail address, and telephone number. Unless a rule or statute specifically states otherwise, a pleading need not be verified or accompanied by an affidavit. The court must strike an unsigned paper unless the omission is promptly corrected after being called to the attorney's or party's attention.

(b) Representations to the Court.

By presenting to the court a pleading, written motion, or other paper — whether by signing, filing, submitting, or later advocating it — an attorney or unrepresented party certifies that to the best of the person's knowledge, information, and belief, formed after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances:

(1) it is not being presented for any improper purpose, such as to harass, cause unnecessary delay, or needlessly increase the cost of litigation;

(2) the claims, defenses, and other legal contentions are warranted by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for extending, modifying, or reversing existing law or for establishing new law;

(3) the factual contentions have evidentiary support or, if specifically so identified, will likely have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery; and

(4) the denials of factual contentions are warranted on the evidence or, if specifically so identified, are reasonably based on belief or a lack of information.

If, after notice and a reasonable opportunity to respond, the court determines that Rule 11(b) has been violated, the court may impose an appropriate sanction on any attorney, law firm, or party that violated the rule or is responsible for the violation. Absent exceptional circumstances, a law firm must be held jointly responsible for a violation committed by its partner, associate, or employee.

A motion for sanctions must be made separately from any other motion and must describe the specific conduct that allegedly violates Rule 11(b). The motion must be served under Rule 5 , but it must not be filed or be presented to the court if the challenged paper, claim, defense, contention, or denial is withdrawn or appropriately corrected within 21 days after service or within another time the court sets. If warranted, the court may award to the prevailing party the reasonable expenses, including attorney's fees, incurred for the motion.

On its own, the court may order an attorney, law firm, or party to show cause why conduct specifically described in the order has not violated Rule 11(b).

A sanction imposed under this rule must be limited to what suffices to deter repetition of the conduct or comparable conduct by others similarly situated. The sanction may include nonmonetary directives; an order to pay a penalty into court; or, if imposed on motion and warranted for effective deterrence, an order directing payment to the movant of part or all of the reasonable attorney's fees and other expenses directly resulting from the violation.

(B) on its own, unless it issued the show-cause order under Rule 11(c)(3) before voluntary dismissal or settlement of the claims made by or against the party that is, or whose attorneys are, to be sanctioned.

An order imposing a sanction must describe the sanctioned conduct and explain the basis for the sanction.

(d) Inapplicability to Discovery.

This rule does not apply to disclosures and discovery requests, responses, objections, and motions under Rules 26 through 37 .

Rule 45. Subpoena

(a) In General.

(ii) state the title of the action, the court in which it is pending, and its civil-action number;

(iii) command each person to whom it is directed to do the following at a specified time and place: attend and testify; produce designated documents, electronically stored information, or tangible things in that person's possession, custody, or control; or permit the inspection of premises; and

(B) Command to Attend a Deposition — Notice of the Recording Method . A subpoena commanding attendance at a deposition must state the method for recording the testimony.

(C) Combining or Separating a Command to Produce or to Permit Inspection; Specifying the Form for Electronically Stored Information . A command to produce documents, electronically stored information, or tangible things or to permit the inspection of premises may be included in a subpoena commanding attendance at a deposition, hearing, or trial, or may be set out in a separate subpoena. A subpoena may specify the form or forms in which electronically stored information is to be produced.

(D) Command to Produce; Included Obligations . A command in a subpoena to produce documents, electronically stored information, or tangible things requires the responding party to permit inspection, copying, testing, or sampling of the materials.

(A) for attendance at a hearing or trial, from the court for the district where the hearing or trial is to be held;

(B) for attendance at a deposition, from the court for the district where the deposition is to be taken; and

(C) for production or inspection, if separate from a subpoena commanding a person's attendance, from the court for the district where the production or inspection is to be made.

The clerk must issue a subpoena, signed but otherwise in blank, to a party who requests it. That party must complete it before service. An attorney also may issue and sign a subpoena as an officer of:

(B) a court for a district where a deposition is to be taken or production is to be made, if the attorney is authorized to practice in the court where the action is pending.

(b) Service.

Any person who is at least 18 years old and not a party may serve a subpoena. Serving a subpoena requires delivering a copy to the named person and, if the subpoena requires that person's attendance, tendering the fees for 1 day's attendance and the mileage allowed by law. Fees and mileage need not be tendered when the subpoena issues on behalf of the United States or any of its officers or agencies. If the subpoena commands the production of documents, electronically stored information, or tangible things or the inspection of premises before trial, then before it is served, a notice must be served on each party.

(B) outside that district but within 100 miles of the place specified for the deposition, hearing, trial, production, or inspection;

(C) within the state of the issuing court if a state statute or court rule allows service at that place of a subpoena issued by a state court of general jurisdiction sitting in the place specified for the deposition, hearing, trial, production, or inspection; or

(D) that the court authorizes on motion and for good cause, if a federal statute so provides.

28 U.S.C. § 1783 governs issuing and serving a subpoena directed to a United States national or resident who is in a foreign country.

Proving service, when necessary, requires filing with the issuing court a statement showing the date and manner of service and the names of the persons served. The statement must be certified by the server.

A party or attorney responsible for issuing and serving a subpoena must take reasonable steps to avoid imposing undue burden or expense on a person subject to the subpoena. The issuing court must enforce this duty and impose an appropriate sanction — which may include lost earnings and reasonable attorney's fees — on a party or attorney who fails to comply.

(A) Appearance Not Required . A person commanded to produce documents, electronically stored information, or tangible things, or to permit the inspection of premises, need not appear in person at the place of production or inspection unless also commanded to appear for a deposition, hearing, or trial.

(B) Objections . A person commanded to produce documents or tangible things or to permit inspection may serve on the party or attorney designated in the subpoena a written objection to inspecting, copying, testing or sampling any or all of the materials or to inspecting the premises — or to producing electronically stored information in the form or forms requested. The objection must be served before the earlier of the time specified for compliance or 14 days after the subpoena is served. If an objection is made, the following rules apply:

(i) At any time, on notice to the commanded person, the serving party may move the issuing court for an order compelling production or inspection.

(ii) These acts may be required only as directed in the order, and the order must protect a person who is neither a party nor a party's officer from significant expense resulting from compliance.

(A) When Required. On timely motion, the issuing court must quash or modify a subpoena that:

(ii) requires a person who is neither a party nor a party's officer to travel more than 100 miles from where that person resides, is employed, or regularly transacts business in person — except that, subject to Rule 45(c)(3)(B)(iii), the person may be commanded to attend a trial by traveling from any such place within the state where the trial is held;

(iii) requires disclosure of privileged or other protected matter, if no exception or waiver applies; or

(B) When Permitted. To protect a person subject to or affected by a subpoena, the issuing court may, on motion, quash or modify the subpoena if it requires:

(i) disclosing a trade secret or other confidential research, development, or commercial information;

(ii) disclosing an unretained expert's opinion or information that does not describe specific occurrences in dispute and results from the expert's study that was not requested by a party; or

(iii) a person who is neither a party nor a party's officer to incur substantial expense to travel more than 100 miles to attend trial.

(C) Specifying Conditions as an Alternative. In the circumstances described in Rule 45(c)(3)(B), the court may, instead of quashing or modifying a subpoena, order appearance or production under specified conditions if the serving party:

(i) shows a substantial need for the testimony or material that cannot be otherwise met without undue hardship; and

(d) Duties in Responding to Subpoena.

These procedures apply to producing documents or electronically stored information:

(A) Documents . A person responding to a subpoena to produce documents must produce them as they are kept in the ordinary course of business or must organize and label them to correspond to the categories in the demand.

(B) Form for Producing Electronically Stored Information Not Specified . If a subpoena does not specify a form for producing electronically stored information, the person responding must produce it in a form or forms in which it is ordinarily maintained or in a reasonably usable form or forms.

(C) Electronically Stored Information Produced in Only One Form . The person responding need not produce the same electronically stored information in more than one form.

(D) Inaccessible Electronically Stored Information . The person responding need not provide discovery of electronically stored information from sources that the person identifies as not reasonably accessible because of undue burden or cost. On motion to compel discovery or for a protective order, the person responding must show that the information is not reasonably accessible because of undue burden or cost. If that showing is made, the court may nonetheless order discovery from such sources if the requesting party shows good cause, considering the limitations of Rule 26(b) (2)(C). The court may specify conditions for the discovery.

(A) Information Withheld . A person withholding subpoenaed information under a claim that it is privileged or subject to protection as trial-preparation material must:

(ii) describe the nature of the withheld documents, communications, or tangible things in a manner that, without revealing information itself privileged or protected, will enable the parties to assess the claim.

(B) Information Produced . If information produced in response to a subpoena is subject to a claim of privilege or of protection as trial-preparation material, the person making the claim may notify any party that received the information of the claim and the basis for it. After being notified, a party must promptly return, sequester, or destroy the specified information and any copies it has; must not use or disclose the information until the claim is resolved; must take reasonable steps to retrieve the information if the party disclosed it before being notified; and may promptly present the information to the court under seal for a determination of the claim. The person who produced the information must preserve the information until the claim is resolved.

(e) Contempt.

The issuing court may hold in contempt a person who, having been served, fails without adequate excuse to obey the subpoena. A nonparty's failure to obey must be excused if the subpoena purports to require the nonparty to attend or produce at a place outside the limits of Rule 45(c)(3)(A)(ii).

Rule 63. Judge's Inability to Proceed

If a judge conducting a hearing or trial is unable to proceed, any other judge may proceed upon certifying familiarity with the record and determining that the case may be completed without prejudice to the parties. In a hearing or a nonjury trial, the successor judge must, at a party's request, recall any witness whose testimony is material and disputed and who is available to testify again without undue burden. The successor judge may also recall any other witness.

Rule 77. Conducting Business; Clerk's Authority; Notice of an Order or Judgment

(a) When Court Is Open.

Every district court is considered always open for filing any paper, issuing and returning process, making a motion, or entering an order.

(b) Place for Trial and Other Proceedings.

Every trial on the merits must be conducted in open court and, so far as convenient, in a regular courtroom. Any other act or proceeding may be done or conducted by a judge in chambers, without the attendance of the clerk or other court official, and anywhere inside or outside the district. But no hearing — other than one ex parte — may be conducted outside the district unless all the affected parties consent.

The clerk's office — with a clerk or deputy on duty — must be open during business hours every day except Saturdays, Sundays, and legal holidays. But a court may, by local rule or order, require that the office be open for specified hours on Saturday or a particular legal holiday other than one listed in Rule 6(a) (4)(A).

Subject to the court's power to suspend, alter, or rescind the clerk's action for good cause, the clerk may:

(d) Serving Notice of an Order or Judgment.

Immediately after entering an order or judgment, the clerk must serve notice of the entry, as provided in Rule 5(b) , on each party who is not in default for failing to appear. The clerk must record the service on the docket. A party also may serve notice of the entry as provided in Rule 5(b).

Lack of notice of the entry does not affect the time for appeal or relieve — or authorize the court to relieve — a party for failing to appeal within the time allowed, except as allowed by Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure (4)(a).

Rule D. - Possessory, Petitory, and Partition Actions

In all actions for possession, partition, and to try title maintainable according to the course of the admiralty practice with respect to a vessel, in all actions so maintainable with respect to the possession of cargo or other maritime property, and in all actions by one or more part owners against the others to obtain security for the return of the vessel from any voyage undertaken without their consent, or by one or more part owners against the others to obtain possession of the vessel for any voyage on giving security for its safe return, the process shall be by a warrant of arrest of the vessel, cargo, or other property, and by notice in the manner provided by Rule B(2) to the adverse party or parties.

Rule F. - Limitation of Liability

(1) Time for Filing Complaint; Security.

Not later than six months after receipt of a claim in writing, any vessel owner may file a complaint in the appropriate district court, as provided in subdivision (9) of this rule, for limitation of liability pursuant to statute. The owner (a) shall deposit with the court, for the benefit of claimants, a sum equal to the amount or value of the owner's interest in the vessel and pending freight, or approved security therefor, and in addition such sums, or approved security therefor, as the court may from time to time fix as necessary to carry out the provisions of the statutes as amended; or (b) at the owner's option shall transfer to a trustee to be appointed by the court, for the benefit of claimants, the owner's interest in the vessel and pending freight, together with such sums, or approved security therefor, as the court may from time to time fix as necessary to carry out the provisions of the statutes as amended. The plaintiff shall also give security for costs and, if the plaintiff elects to give security, for interest at the rate of 6 percent per annum from the date of the security.

(2) Complaint.

The complaint shall set forth the facts on the basis of which the right to limit liability is asserted and all facts necessary to enable the court to determine the amount to which the owner's liability shall be limited. The complaint may demand exoneration from as well as limitation of liability. It shall state the voyage if any, on which the demands sought to be limited arose, with the date and place of its termination; the amount of all demands including all unsatisfied liens or claims of lien, in contract or in tort or otherwise, arising on that voyage, so far as known to the plaintiff, and what actions and proceedings, if any, are pending thereon; whether the vessel was damaged, lost, or abandoned, and, if so, when and where; the value of the vessel at the close of the voyage or, in case of wreck, the value of her wreckage, strippings, or proceeds, if any, and where and in whose possession they are; and the amount of any pending freight recovered or recoverable. If the plaintiff elects to transfer the plaintiff's interest in the vessel to a trustee, the complaint must further show any prior paramount liens thereon, and what voyages or trips, if any, she has made since the voyage or trip on which the claims sought to be limited arose, and any existing liens arising upon any such subsequent voyage or trip, with the amounts and causes thereof, and the names and addresses of the lienors, so far as known; and whether the vessel sustained any injury upon or by reason of such subsequent voyage or trip.

(3) Claims Against Owner; Injunction.

Upon compliance by the owner with the requirements of subdivision (1) of this rule all claims and proceedings against the owner or the owner's property with respect to the matter in question shall cease. On application of the plaintiff the court shall enjoin the further prosecution of any action or proceeding against the plaintiff or the plaintiff's property with respect to any claim subject to limitation in the action.

(4) Notice to Claimants.

Upon the owner's compliance with subdivision (1) of this rule the court shall issue a notice to all persons asserting claims with respect to which the complaint seeks limitation, admonishing them to file their respective claims with the clerk of the court and to serve on the attorneys for the plaintiff a copy thereof on or before a date to be named in the notice. The date so fixed shall not be less than 30 days after issuance of the notice. For cause shown, the court may enlarge the time within which claims may be filed. The notice shall be published in such newspaper or newspapers as the court may direct once a week for four successive weeks prior to the date fixed for the filing of claims. The plaintiff not later than the day of second publication shall also mail a copy of the notice to every person known to have made any claim against the vessel or the plaintiff arising out of the voyage or trip on which the claims sought to be limited arose. In cases involving death a copy of such notice shall be mailed to the decedent at the decedent's last known address, and also to any person who shall be known to have made any claim on account of such death.

(5) Claims and Answer.

Claims shall be filed and served on or before the date specified in the notice provided for in subdivision (4) of this rule. Each claim shall specify the facts upon which the claimant relies in support of the claim, the items thereof, and the dates on which the same accrued. If a claimant desires to contest either the right to exoneration from or the right to limitation of liability the claimant shall file and serve an answer to the complaint unless the claim has included an answer.

(6) Information To Be Given Claimants.

Within 30 days after the date specified in the notice for filing claims, or within such time as the court thereafter may allow, the plaintiff shall mail to the attorney for each claimant (or if the claimant has no attorney to the claimant) a list setting forth (a) the name of each claimant, (b) the name and address of the claimant's attorney (if the claimant is known to have one), (c) the nature of the claim, i.e., whether property loss, property damage, death, personal injury etc., and (d) the amount thereof.

(7) Insufficiency of Fund or Security.

Any claimant may by motion demand that the funds deposited in court or the security given by the plaintiff be increased on the ground that they are less than the value of the plaintiff's interest in the vessel and pending freight. Thereupon the court shall cause due appraisement to be made of the value of the plaintiff's interest in the vessel and pending freight; and if the court finds that the deposit or security is either insufficient or excessive it shall order its increase or reduction. In like manner any claimant may demand that the deposit or security be increased on the ground that it is insufficient to carry out the provisions of the statutes relating to claims in respect of loss of life or bodily injury; and, after notice and hearing, the court may similarly order that the deposit or security be increased or reduced.

(8) Objections to Claims: Distribution of Fund.

Any interested party may question or controvert any claim without filing an objection thereto. Upon determination of liability the fund deposited or secured, or the proceeds of the vessel and pending freight, shall be divided pro rata, subject to all relevant provisions of law, among the several claimants in proportion to the amounts of their respective claims, duly proved, saving, however, to all parties any priority to which they may be legally entitled.

(9) Venue; Transfer.

The complaint shall be filed in any district in which the vessel has been attached or arrested to answer for any claim with respect to which the plaintiff seeks to limit liability; or, if the vessel has not been attached or arrested, then in any district in which the owner has been sued with respect to any such claim. When the vessel has not been attached or arrested to answer the matters aforesaid, and suit has not been commenced against the owner, the proceedings may be had in the district in which the vessel may be, but if the vessel is not within any district and no suit has been commenced in any district, then the complaint may be filed in any district. For the convenience of parties and witnesses, in the interest of justice, the court may transfer the action to any district; if venue is wrongly laid the court shall dismiss or, if it be in the interest of justice, transfer the action to any district in which it could have been brought. If the vessel shall have been sold, the proceeds shall represent the vessel for the purposes of these rules.

Rule G. Forfeiture Actions In Rem

(1) Scope.

This rule governs a forfeiture action in rem arising from a federal statute. To the extent that this rule does not address an issue, Supplemental Rules C and E and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure also apply.

(2) Complaint. The complaint must:

(b) state the grounds for subject-matter jurisdiction, in rem jurisdiction over the defendant property, and venue;

(d) if the property is tangible, state its location when any seizure occurred and — if different — its location when the action is filed;

(f) state sufficiently detailed facts to support a reasonable belief that the government will be able to meet its burden of proof at trial.

(3) Judicial Authorization and Process.

If the defendant is real property, the government must proceed under 18 U.S.C. § 985.

(i) the clerk must issue a warrant to arrest the property if it is in the government's possession, custody, or control;

(ii) the court — on finding probable cause — must issue a warrant to arrest the property if it is not in the government's possession, custody, or control and is not subject to a judicial restraining order; and

(iii) a warrant is not necessary if the property is subject to a judicial restraining order.

(i) The warrant and any supplemental process must be delivered to a person or organization authorized to execute it, who may be:

(B) someone under contract with the United States; or (C) someone specially appointed by the court for that purpose.

(ii) The authorized person or organization must execute the warrant and any supplemental process on property in the United States as soon as practicable unless:

(B) the court orders a different time when the complaint is under seal, the action is stayed before the warrant and supplemental process are executed, or the court finds other good cause.

(iii) The warrant and any supplemental process may be executed within the district or, when authorized by statute, outside the district.

(iv) If executing a warrant on property outside the United States is required, the warrant may be transmitted to an appropriate authority for serving process where the property is located.

(4) Notice.

(i) When Publication Is Required. A judgment of forfeiture may be entered only if the government has published notice of the action within a reasonable time after filing the complaint or at a time the court orders. But notice need not be published if:

(A) the defendant property is worth less than $1,000 and direct notice is sent under Rule G(4)(b) to every person the government can reasonably identify as a potential claimant; or

(B) the court finds that the cost of publication exceeds the property's value and that other means of notice would satisfy due process.

(B) only once if, before the action was filed, notice of nonjudicial forfeiture of the same property was published on an official internet government forfeiture site for at least 30 consecutive days, or in a newspaper of general circulation for three consecutive weeks in a district where publication is authorized under Rule G(4)(a)(iv).

(iv) Means of Publication. The government should select from the following options a means of publication reasonably calculated to notify potential claimants of the action:

(A) if the property is in the United States, publication in a newspaper generally circulated in the district where the action is filed, where the property was seized, or where property that was not seized is located;

(B) if the property is outside the United States, publication in a newspaper generally circulated in a district where the action is filed, in a newspaper generally circulated in the country where the property is located, or in legal notices published and generally circulated in the country where the property is located; or

(C) instead of (A) or (B), posting a notice on an official internet government forfeiture site for at least 30 consecutive days.

(i) Direct Notice Required. The government must send notice of the action and a copy of the complaint to any person who reasonably appears to be a potential claimant on the facts known to the government before the end of the time for filing a claim under Rule G(5)(a)(ii)(B).

(A) The notice must be sent by means reasonably calculated to reach the potential claimant.

(B) Notice may be sent to the potential claimant or to the attorney representing the potential claimant with respect to the seizure of the property or in a related investigation, administrative forfeiture proceeding, or criminal case.

(D) Notice to a person arrested in connection with an offense giving rise to the forfeiture who is not incarcerated when notice is sent may be sent to the address that person last gave to the agency that arrested or released the person.

(E) Notice to a person from whom the property was seized who is not incarcerated when notice is sent may be sent to the last address that person gave to the agency that seized the property.

(iv) When Notice Is Sent. Notice by the following means is sent on the date when it is placed in the mail, delivered to a commercial carrier, or sent by electronic mail.

(v) Actual Notice. A potential claimant who had actual notice of a forfeiture action may not oppose or seek relief from forfeiture because of the government's failure to send the required notice.

(5) Responsive Pleadings.

(i) A person who asserts an interest in the defendant property may contest the forfeiture by filing a claim in the court where the action is pending. The claim must:

(D) be served on the government attorney designated under Rule G(4)(a)(ii)(C) or (b)(ii)(D).

(ii) Unless the court for good cause sets a different time, the claim must be filed:

(B) if notice was published but direct notice was not sent to the claimant or the claimant's attorney, no later than 30 days after final publication of newspaper notice or legal notice under Rule G(4)(a) or no later than 60 days after the first day of publication on an official internet government forfeiture site; or

(1) if the property was in the government's possession, custody, or control when the complaint was filed, no later than 60 days after the filing, not counting any time when the complaint was under seal or when the action was stayed before execution of a warrant issued under Rule G(3)(b); or

(2) if the property was not in the government's possession, custody, or control when the complaint was filed, no later than 60 days after the government complied with 18 U.S.C. § 985(c) as to real property, or 60 days after process was executed on the property under Rule G(3).

(iii) A claim filed by a person asserting an interest as a bailee must identify the bailor, and if filed on the bailor's behalf must state the authority to do so.

(b) Answer. A claimant must serve and file an answer to the complaint or a motion under Rule 12 within 20 days after filing the claim. A claimant waives an objection to in rem jurisdiction or to venue if the objection is not made by motion or stated in the answer.

(6) Special Interrogatories.

The government may serve special interrogatories limited to the claimant's identity and relationship to the defendant property without the court's leave at any time after the claim is filed and before discovery is closed. But if the claimant serves a motion to dismiss the action, the government must serve the interrogatories within 20 days after the motion is served.

Answers or objections to these interrogatories must be served within 21 days after the interrogatories are served.

The government need not respond to a claimant's motion to dismiss the action under Rule G(8)(b) until 21 days after the claimant has answered these interrogatories.

(7) Preserving, Preventing Criminal Use, and Disposing of Property; Sales.

When the government does not have actual possession of the defendant property the court, on motion or on its own, may enter any order necessary to preserve the property, to prevent its removal or encumbrance, or to prevent its use in a criminal offense.

On motion by a party or a person having custody of the property, the court may order all or part of the property sold if:

(A) the property is perishable or at risk of deterioration, decay, or injury by being detained in custody pending the action;

(B) the expense of keeping the property is excessive or is disproportionate to its fair market value;

(ii) Who Makes the Sale. A sale must be made by a United States agency that has authority to sell the property, by the agency's contractor, or by any person the court designates.

(iii) Sale Procedures. The sale is governed by 28 U.S.C. §§ 2001, 2002, and 2004, unless all parties, with the court's approval, agree to the sale, aspects of the sale, or different procedures.

(iv) Sale Proceeds. Sale proceeds are a substitute res subject to forfeiture in place of the property that was sold. The proceeds must be held in an interest-bearing account maintained by the United States pending the conclusion of the forfeiture action.

(v) Delivery on a Claimant's Motion. The court may order that the property be delivered to the claimant pending the conclusion of the action if the claimant shows circumstances that would permit sale under Rule G(7)(b)(i) and gives security under these rules.

(c) Disposing of Forfeited Property. Upon entry of a forfeiture judgment, the property or proceeds from selling the property must be disposed of as provided by law.

(8) Motions.

If the defendant property was seized, a party with standing to contest the lawfulness of the seizure may move to suppress use of the property as evidence. Suppression does not affect forfeiture of the property based on independently derived evidence.

(i) A claimant who establishes standing to contest forfeiture may move to dismiss the action under Rule 12(b).

(ii) In an action governed by 18 U.S.C. § 983(a)(3)(D) the complaint may not be dismissed on the ground that the government did not have adequate evidence at the time the complaint was filed to establish the forfeitability of the property. The sufficiency of the complaint is governed by Rule G(2).

(i) At any time before trial, the government may move to strike a claim or answer:

(A) must be decided before any motion by the claimant to dismiss the action; and

(B) may be presented as a motion for judgment on the pleadings or as a motion to determine after a hearing or by summary judgment whether the claimant can carry the burden of establishing standing by a preponderance of the evidence.

(i) If a United States agency or an agency's contractor holds property for judicial or nonjudicial forfeiture under a statute governed by 18 U.S.C. § 983(f), a person who has filed a claim to the property may petition for its release under § 983(f).

(ii) If a petition for release is filed before a judicial forfeiture action is filed against the property, the petition may be filed either in the district where the property was seized or in the district where a warrant to seize the property issued. If a judicial forfeiture action against the property is later filed in another district — or if the government shows that the action will be filed in another district — the petition may be transferred to that district under 28 U.S.C. § 1404.

A claimant may seek to mitigate a forfeiture under the Excessive Fines Clause of the Eighth Amendment by motion for summary judgment or by motion made after entry of a forfeiture judgment if:

(ii) the parties have had the opportunity to conduct civil discovery on the defense.

(9) Trial.

Rule G. Forfeiture Actions In Rem

(b) state the grounds for subject-matter jurisdiction, in rem jurisdiction over the defendant property, and venue;

(d) if the property is tangible, state its location when any seizure occurred and — if different — its location when the action is filed;

(f) state sufficiently detailed facts to support a reasonable belief that the government will be able to meet its burden of proof at trial.

If the defendant is real property, the government must proceed under 18 U.S.C. § 985 .