text:
8-year-old killed in accident
By News-Argus Staff
Published in News on August 21, 2006 1:47 PM
An 8-year-old Wayne County boy was killed Saturday when he fell off a utility trailer and was run over by its wheels.
Dalton Darden of 102 Austin Drive was one of several people on the trailer when the accident happened about 5:20 p.m. on Austin Drive.
The trailer was being pulled by a vehicle driven by Danney Gene Allen of Princeton. According to a report filed by the state Highway Patrol, Dalton was seated just forward of the right trailer wheels when he became entangled in the wheels and was pulled beneath the trailer.
No charges were filed.
Other Local News
- Care in the sky: Members of the aeromedical evacuation crew fight to get injured troops back to their families


text:
Arianna Huffington To Keynote Ontario Digital Forum
The AOL Huffington Post topper is to address the International Women in Digital Media Summit in Stratford, Ontario in October.
TORONTO -- Arianna Huffington, head of AOL Huffington Post Media Group, is to keynote the International Women in Digital Media Summit.
Huffington will address the October 23 – 25, 2011 conference in Stratford, Ontario, in the middle of the province's growing silicon glen.
Huffington is best known for launching The Huffington Post in 2005, which has since expanded with a Canadian site, the first in a series of planned expansions abroad.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Planning Your Same-Sex Wedding Ceremony
Same-sex unions have evolved from commitment ceremonies to weddings and marriages; as a result, the ceremonies same-sex couples plan bring with them myriad questions and considerations for each individual couple. Are there houses of worship for spiritual gay and lesbian couples wishing to honor their beliefs along with their union? Who walks whom down the aisle? Will there even be an aisle? Can you adjust the roles of your attendants to suit your own needs? What if you are marrying the same partner for the second or third time, with each legal advancement?
Whew! It's a lot to take in, but the good news is that the "rules" for same-sex ceremonies are fluid, and your options are many.
Photo credit: Allison Rose Photography
Selecting a Venue for Your Same-Sex Wedding
As with many of the major wedding decisions, your ceremony specifications will impact the shape of your day, so you must address early in the process things like the size of your guest list, your preferred dates, and suitable venues if you'll be planning something other than a legal elopement. Also, the time of day traditionally dictates the formality of a wedding. Do you envision a casual morning exchange of vows with a fun and familiar backyard barbeque afterwards, or a black-tie evening affair with full formal reception to follow? Plan to align your ceremony start time with the appropriate time of day for your desired event.
Next, you will need to choose a venue for your ceremony. While the legacy of failure to embrace openly LGBT members has soured many gay and lesbian couples on formal religious affiliations, there are, in fact, religious institutions that are welcoming. These include Unitarian Universalism, Reform Judaism, some Presbyterian sects, as well as many Episcopal congregations. If a spiritual wedding is something you value, try contacting clergy in one of these places of worship in your town or wedding destination.
Alternatives to places of worship include City Hall in regions where marriage equality is legally recognized, historical sites, unique special event venues, and many scenic outdoor locations. There are extensive online resources, including GayWeddings.com, to help you with researching available wedding venues. Local vendors are often excellent sources of referrals to venues as well.
If you live in a state that does not recognize marriage equality, you may need to explore destination options for your same-sex wedding. You may plan an intimate legal elopement in a state or country that permits gay marriages, or an extravagant destination wedding. Be vigilant in your research, and talk to local providers to ensure that you choose a venue that is truly welcoming of LGBT couples. Pay special attention to any documentation that may be required for a destination wedding or elopement, and triple check that you have it with you before you travel.
Photo credit: Michele Lascon Photography
Minister, Rabbi, Justice of the Peace, or Close Friend – Who Officiates at Gay and Lesbian Weddings?
Once you have selected your wedding venue, you need to choose someone to officiate. This should be a person with whom you are both comfortable, and someone who is willing to make your wedding as spiritual or secular as you want it to be. You might consider a clergy member in a place of worship with which you are affiliated, or a civil commissioner or justice of the peace. Some couples ask a friend to preside over their ceremony, which is legal in many states. Check with the regional court in the location where you plan to wed to determine the requirements for this type of arrangement.
Traditions, Rituals, and Your Gay Wedding
The "traditional" rituals associated with wedding ceremonies may or may not fit your vision of your own day. Will either (or perhaps both) of you change your last name? Will someone give each of you away? Will you honor a cultural tradition and break a glass, bind your hands, or jump a broom? While you may include any of these in your wedding, you have the freedom to pick and choose your best matches as you customize your own same-sex ceremony.
If you are marrying in a place of worship, consult with your clergy person or officiant for your options. If you are writing your own ceremony, or working with a flexible officiant, add the customs that best fit your relationship. Discuss your values before you plan and be as inclusive as possible of the traditions you consider priorities, honoring your backgrounds, cultures, life experiences, family dynamics, and individual beliefs.
If you will have an altar, how will you walk to the altar? If your church or venue has three aisles, each of you could walk to the altar down a different aisle, then exit the ceremony together down the center. If your ceremony will be held outside or in a space that allows for various seating configurations, explore alternatives to the single, center aisle. Arrange your guests in arcs or concentric circles. If you are tied to the standard lone aisle, considering walking to the altar together or having a special person (or couple) escort each of you.
Photo credit: Mikki Vargas Photography
Music selection is also flexible. Choose from the old standard hymns, processionals, and recessionals, or include contemporary music that is meaningful to you. Many live musicians are willing to learn new music given enough notice, and there are DJs and sound technicians who specialize in providing tasteful, professional service for ceremonies.
Finally, when choosing attendants, surround yourselves with the people who truly support you. Don't feel restricted by titles like "Best Man" or "Maid of Honor." You can include honor attendants, bridesmen, or groomsmaids, or simply have a "wedding party" full of those you love.
Your wedding ceremony represents your relationship and your commitment to a new life, united with the person you love. Create an exchange that is true to your unique love story, and there is no way you can go wrong.


text:
Office of Financial Aid & Scholarships
Current Undergraduate Students
Step 3The Student Aid Report (SAR)
Every student who completes a FAFSA receives a Student Aid Report (SAR) from the federal processor.
If RIT is listed on your SAR, we have received the same information electronically. Please
review your SAR for accuracy. If you find that you need to make corrections, follow
the instructions and return it to the processor. Be sure you sign and make a copy for your
records before mailing it to the address indicated. As a result of sending corrections to the
processor, you will receive a revised SAR. These same corrections will also be sent to us electronically
so it is not necessary to mail us a copy of the corrected SAR.
|Go to Step 4New York State Tuition Assistance Program (TAP)


text:
Skip to Main Content
How Do I?
You Are Here:
Community and Economic Development
Regulations & Guidelines
Land Use Resolution
View archive
Land Use Resolution
The regulation which governs most land development in the unincorporated areas of Gunnison County. Gunnison County established zoning in the early 1960's, then abandoned zoning to adopt a "performance-based" (or "form-based") land use regulation in 1978, the
Gunnison County Land Use Resolution.
Gunnison County Land Use Resolution
evaluates applications on their ability to mitigate the impacts they create, based on locational, design, infrastructure, and resource protection standards.
Guidelines for Reviewing Land Use Change Permit Applications Within the Gunnison Three-Mile Area
Gunnison County and the City of Gunnison have adopted an
intergovernmental agreement
concerning land uses within the three-mile area outside the city limits of Gunnison.
The agreement required that the county's review of Land Use Change Permit applications proposed within that three-mile area include a defined review by the city. While the city does not have "veto power" over those applications, its review and recommendation carries significant weight in the county's review. The two planning commissions, in July, 2003, defined and agreed to a review process.
OWTS Regulations
Land Use Resolution
Slideshow Left Arrow
Slideshow Right Arrow


text:
Mindy Kaling Is Writing Another Book
Why Not Me?
Mindy Kaling is writing a new book, called Why Not Me? — a title that "has kind of been my subconscious motto my whole life," she told the Los Angeles Times. Why Not Me? will be a collection of personal essays, much like her last book, Is Everyone Hanging Out Without Me? (And Other Concerns), but focusing on things that have happened since 2011. "So much has happened between the time I published my first book and now: The show; my mother passed away; so many of my friends have gotten married. I'm a godmother now, and a homeowner." So, funny musings on general life stuff.


text:
General Arch. design of a Residential building for Low Wealth
Orçamento $10-50 USD
Intends to develop a small to medium sized residential building, consisting of a Ground + 2 floors, with main goals focused towards simplicity, maximum functionality, based on minimum space requirement, and cost effective design. The site area is 200+ sq yards (approx).
Deliverables expectation:
GF General Arch. Layout drawing (.dwg)
1F General Arch. Layout (.dwg)
GF plan must have:
-Space for motorcycle parking (up to 4).
-Underground water reservoir.
-Apartment with available space planned such a way that without partitioning walls, space can be transformed into a commercial space easily.
Maximum no. of 2BHK apartments, must check the possibility to maximize no. of apartments based on minimum space allowances, for instance, the possibility of having 2x 2bhk and 1x 1bhk flats (bhk stands for bedroom, hall, kitchen).
Typical 2 Bhk setup:
1 master bedroom with attached w/c & shower head.
1 bedroom
1 w/c common
1 living room
Attachments (2)
Site location & mark up.
Site dimensions in feets.
Concedido a:
Specialist Designer Relevant Skills and Experience 3D Design, Building Architecture Proposed Milestones $20 USD - 01 $15 USD - 02
24 freelancers estão ofertando em média $92 para esse trabalho
Dear Client. I am an Architect and have over 10 years experience in designing buildings and Interiors as well as any form of Graphic Designing Please note that I have all the knowledge and skill to take up and comple Mais
ONLINE PORTFOLIO LINK [login to view URL] Hello, Myself Pragya, I can assist your desired planning requirements. I am working as a professional architect and 3D modeller for last 3 years. Mais
Hello there, I have the required experience to accomplish the job on time with excellence
I am Puneet Kashyap, Architect & 3D Designer. My Speciclization in 3D Architectural. I offer you CAD Drafting and 3D Photorealstic rendering quality service. Relevant Skills and Experience I Have 5+ year exeperianc Mais
I am an architect with masters in project management in construction from manchester [login to view URL] as an associate professor in architectural college Relevant Skills and Experience I have worked on many buhglows,row hous Mais
Hi I am civil engineer with more than 2+ experience. I had a lot experieneca abt CAD softwares. I can help so easily in this project. Regards Relevant Skills and Experience Engineering,CAD softwares Proposed Milesto Mais
Hello... my name is mohammed ellouh (Civil engineer) Relevant Skills and Experience I am working in United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees (UNRWA) - Design Department and i worked in alot of o Mais
I am a civil engineer and new to this websites but done several projects like this. Relevant Skills and Experience My recent projects are 2 storied house, apartments, bungalow etc Proposed Milestones $35 USD - All th Mais
Hello, I have good experience in large projects now 4 years. Including 2D drafting (AutoCAD) and 3D design, modelling and rendering(ArchiCAD mostly). So because I'm a new freelance it doesn't mean that I'm not good at Mais
Thanks Relevant Skills and Experience I am aware of Autocad and staddpro


text:
Large turnout at vigil for teen shot and killed protecting his sisterPosted: Updated:
PHOENIX -- There were dozens of burning candles at Marivue Park in Phoenix, to remember a teenager shot and killed Thursday.
Andrew Murphy, 16, died in the same park where the community is now celebrating his short life.
Murphy's father has already forgiven his son's killer.
"The suspect is not my enemy because of my choosing. But he can easily be viewed as my enemy because of his actions. I pray that his family understands his actions changed both families forever," said Dominic Murphy to the large crowd at his son's vigil Saturday.
Phoenix Police officers raced to the park on Osborn and 55th Avenue and found the teenager shot in the chest.
Police said Murphy was trying to protect his little sister from an armed robbery at the park.
That's when police said the robber turned his gun on Murphy, killing him.
Officers caught the suspect not too far away from the park.
Christopher Winston described Murphy as like a brother.
Winston told the large crowd at the vigil the two met one day when Winston wanted to take his own life.
"He was my best friend. I never really had one until him. I was pretty lonely," said Winston.
Friends and family described Murphy as a good kid who would do anything for his family.
"Andrew was always talking about if anyone did anything to his sisters, he was either going to get them to stop immediately or go down trying. He sure enough fulfilled that to a tee," said Winston.
Murphy was heavily involved with his church.
His family described him as living his life preparing for heaven.
"Andrew being who he was, that kid, there is no way, there is no way, in God's almighty name that he's not going to heaven," said Winston.
Murphy's funeral is September, 23 at Beacon Light SDA Church at 2602 N. 51st Ave., Phoenix, AZ 85035.
The viewing takes place from 9:30 a.m. to 10:30 a.m. and services start at 11:00 a.m.
Donations are being accepted at any Wells Fargo Bank under the Andrew Murphy Memorial Fund #9178395787.


text:
Sam Webb article re Deveon Smith
says right now it's a 50/50 battle between Michigan and Ohio.
says right now it's a 50/50 battle between Michigan and Ohio.
February 16th, 2012 at 1:21 PM ^
This is one of the first recruits to have a chance to evaluate pitches from both across the entire recruitment process. I'm thinking Mattison can do this, and if he does, it would be symbolic that Meyer can't get every guy he wants.
February 16th, 2012 at 1:25 PM ^
I understand what you're saying but I don't think Hoke has the white flag ready if we don't land him. I'm surprised Meyer's interested in him, he's not rated on Scout or Rivals.
February 16th, 2012 at 2:00 PM ^
I don't think picking up an in-state guy shows anything about Meyer. When going after Ohio kids, OSU already has an advantage, and many of them would go to Ohio State no matter the coach.
When we go up against OSU for kids from neither MI or OH, that will be telling. That will also happen only a couple times a year.
February 16th, 2012 at 7:41 PM ^
Given the jersey sales environment, it might only be a few short years before many of them would not go to Ohio State no matter the coach.
February 16th, 2012 at 1:17 PM ^
Nice article. My issue with the pro-style vs. spread offense debate (and it was one I had during the RR days) is the notion that it really affects how a kid can perform on the field, especially at a position like RB. Steve Slaton was a great college RB in the spread, as was Noel Devine. LeMichael James has had a great career in a spread offense, and Monte Ball set a rushing TD record last year in the most manball of offense. Guys who are good show it on the field, and going to the pros, those scouts are educated enough to look beyond a system as see if the kid can really play at the next level.
I still want Smith to go Blue, but the notion that there is an offense better suited for him to run the ball seems silly to me,
February 16th, 2012 at 1:31 PM ^
You make great points about both styles of offense being able to produce top notch running backs. Talent is the number one determinant of a player's ability to be successful. That said, Urban Meyer has not proven that he is capable of taking talented running backs to the next level. His version of the spread, or his coaching ability, or some combination (certainly not his ability to recruit talented backs) just hasn't showcased the halfback position in the past. So I think Mattison, Funk, Jackson, and Hoke can use Meyer to Michigan's advantage, not so much the spread vs. prostyle thing.
February 16th, 2012 at 1:30 PM ^
I agree that a good RB would be able to run in either offense if given the chance, and the NFL scouts would be more than able to see that. The issue I see is some coaches just don't give their RB's the opportunity to showcase their abilities.
RR did a good job of showing what his RB's could do when he was at WVU. Oregon has also let their RB loose. Some spread offenses do that and showcase a dominant RB. Urban Meyer, however, has never really showcased an elite runner in his systems of the past. He has had some good RB's, but while playing for him they didn't reallt show it.
I guess what I am saying is sometimes the playcalling and coaching, not the system, makes it difficult for the RB to show he can play in any offensive style.
edit...damn, took longer for me to put my thoughts into words than you...
February 16th, 2012 at 1:37 PM ^
It's still a good post even though I squeezed mine in just before yours. An upvote for a magnificent way of thinking is in order.
February 16th, 2012 at 1:46 PM ^
Great minds think alike I guess...or is it fools seldom differ? I'll go with the first and throw a +1 right back at ya!
February 16th, 2012 at 1:31 PM ^
The key variable you are overlooking here is the body type of each running back. Noel Devine, for example, is a prototypical spread guy. Bigger, slower more powerful guys (like this guy seems to be) are without question better suited to run the ball in Michigan's offense.
February 16th, 2012 at 1:50 PM ^
The issue is which offensive scheme better prepares a kid for the NFL? In a pro style attack, a RB learns about picking up blitzers from the shotgun and under center, learns about running from 3-4 yards behind a QB, doesn't focus on zone reads...
February 16th, 2012 at 1:52 PM ^
I'm not sure what your point is. You say that Slaton, Devine, and James all had good careers as spread running backs. And you said Ball had a good year in a more traditional I-form offense.
But there's no evidence (among those four players) that each could be successful in a different offense. Slaton has played in a zone running game in the NFL; Devine hasn't made it to the NFL; and James and Ball haven't entered the league yet, either.
Your hypothesis ("Good running backs are good") may be correct, but the evidence you offer seems somewhat irrelevant. If you come up with spread running backs who have done well in a pro-style offense, or if you find pro-style running backs who have done well in the spread, that might do more for your argument.
February 16th, 2012 at 3:46 PM ^
A guy like Chris Johnson would have been a better example.
I can't think of a guy going the other way; Lesean McCoy perhaps?
February 16th, 2012 at 5:01 PM ^
Worth noting that Meyer has NEVER had a 1000 yard rusher. Even with Jesus as his QB so not sure what, if any, points could be addressed in relation to his coaching career from this. I just dont see big backs as a need for him, unless, he is seriously changing his scheme.
February 16th, 2012 at 1:18 PM ^
I get that he's from Ohio where it's 24/7 Buckeyes, but it baffles me that any tailback would be 50/50 between these two teams right now. Look at the different situations. Michigan has an extremely favorable depth chart filled with scatbacks and guys without a whole lot of carries. Ohio just grabbed two more four stars to go with the other 3-4 they have on the roster. A Meyer RB has never run for over 1,000 yards, whereas Hoke and Borges have constantly publically stated they want a workhorse back to give 20-25 carries a game to.
I get that Meyer tells these guys things like, "I've never had a 1,000 yard rusher because I've never had anyone like you", but do recruits really not pay attention to these kinds of things?
February 16th, 2012 at 1:27 PM ^
He has to say 50/50 right now because if he indicates he's leaning toward Ohio and then doesn't commit he'll have to seek death threat advice from Kalis. I'm sure it's just a standard answer.
February 16th, 2012 at 1:25 PM ^
This is the biggest decision of his life, so he should consider everything. That said, how can a self-professed Michigan fan be split 50/50 between Michigan and Ohio State?
February 16th, 2012 at 2:19 PM ^
Strobel was a life long Ohio fan and said he had a hard time seeing why Michigan was so great at first. It is important for the athletes to try and take out any biases to try and find the school that is the best fit for them. Enter agruement about Ubran's O not being fit for him...Maybe Urban isn't completely lying to these kids about using bigger backs, which remains to be seen.
February 16th, 2012 at 1:45 PM ^
I want to start by saying this is in no way meant to be a personal judgement of Mr. Smith. I don't know anything about him or his upbringing and would love for him to come to UM and have a great career here.
Having said that, I just don't understand how someone that is a lifelong UM fan could possibly put UM and OSU 50/50. I mean, I know kids all having different interests and desires when it comes to what they are looking for in a university. I can understand when a kid who is a UM fan gets offered by USC and has thoughts about heading there because they offer somethings UM doesn't (climate etc).
What I will never understand is when a UM fan would look at their most hated rival and be able to even consider committing to them. I say this as a lifelong UM fan myself, knowing that I wouldn't care one iota if OSU ran the style offense I loved, offered the major I was looking at and offered me free tattoo's over every inch of my body I could never attend that university.
It would be different if UM didn't offer, but even then I would go somewhere other than OSU. I will freely admit though, one of the two things in my life more important to me than UM is my family so if that is what is driving him to OSU I guess I could maybe understand it somewhat....nope, sorry, I can't. Never OSU!
edit..Damn, late again. I am having trouble putting my thoughts into posts today I guess.
February 16th, 2012 at 2:32 PM ^
I wondered if that was the case with the TE who committed to Oklahoma when everyone thought he was going to M. He just might not have liked M having grown up in Ohio. I'm with you in that there is no way I would have ever considered Ohio State for football, shit, I would have gone to McGill and played canadian football before pledging to be a buckeye.*
*not sure there is a canadian football team at McGill
February 16th, 2012 at 3:49 PM ^
I'm not positive, but Kyle Kalis probably grew up an OSU fan or had parents who were very pro-OSU. His objective decision making helped us out in the end.
As a fan it is hard to comprehend, but there is so much more that goes into making a decision that will affect the rest of your life. Like the kid who picked another school because of the lack of chick-fil-as on campus.
February 16th, 2012 at 4:08 PM ^
You aren't positive, so you made something up about a recruit's/parent's opinion?
Kalis has only been living in Ohio for a few years, so he didn't grow up with an alligiance to OSU.
February 16th, 2012 at 7:01 PM ^
I've been thinking about going there ever since I was a kid, Kalis said. Once I got the offer, I couldn't think of anything negative coming out of committing early.
Everything about Ohio State I love, and I cannot wait to become a Buckeye.
TBT: Which college team are you a fan of, if any?
Kalis: I am a huge fan of Ohio State. Always was and always will be.
Just some quote pulled from Kalis' recruiting planet page.
February 16th, 2012 at 6:33 PM ^
If a kid is a die hard UofM fan they are not going to OSU. But maybe if they just like Michigan but aren't invested in the team it would not be hard to pick OSU.
February 16th, 2012 at 1:50 PM ^
Has he come up for a visit yet?
February 16th, 2012 at 1:53 PM ^
He visited for the Ohio State game.
February 16th, 2012 at 1:53 PM ^
this is like brionte dunn 2.0. a RB who probably wants to go to OSU but is a better fit for our offense.
February 16th, 2012 at 1:57 PM ^
how I feel. I would love to see the RB out of VA, that runs a 4.3, in a Michigan uniform.
February 16th, 2012 at 2:03 PM ^
Derrick Green? I doubt he runs a 4.3. If he claims it somewhere, I bet he's lying.
February 16th, 2012 at 3:37 PM ^
Rivals has him listed at 4.37: LINK
February 16th, 2012 at 2:10 PM ^
not to be critical, but how is this like Dunn? this kid grew up liking Michigan and is a better fit for our offense.
February 16th, 2012 at 2:11 PM ^
Dude is a beast. Plays around my area here so I've got to see him a few times. Really hope he goes blue!
February 16th, 2012 at 2:27 PM ^
Deveon Smith is one of my favorite running backs on our board, so this article was reassuring. I like our chances and I think he's an ideal back for our offense. He might not hae elite speed, but he's physical and does not go down easily.
February 16th, 2012 at 2:29 PM ^
But it seems OSU has no real need for a powerful bruising back since they just signed Dunn. How many "bruising" power backs do you have in a game at one time, and what are the chances Dunn not start or leave early. Seems like a no-brainer from a biased life long Michigan fan which school he should choose.
February 16th, 2012 at 3:53 PM ^
They also have the giant 6-3 230 in Rob Smith. Carlos Hyde is pretty big too at 6-0 240ish.
The guy coming in with Dunn is also a big RB. His rivals profile lists him as 6-2 200.
February 16th, 2012 at 2:33 PM ^
I'm not sure Ohio State will have room for him. I assume they'll take one running back.
They have:
Brionte Dunn
Warren Ball
Carlos Hyde
Rod Smith
I suppose Smith and Hyde could/would transfer if Dunn or Ball pass them, but that's 4 good backs (and Jordan Hall, who'll be a senior).
Derrick Green seems to be high on OSU and I'm sure there are other RB offers out there. If one of them commits first, I'm not sure there would be room for Smith.
February 16th, 2012 at 3:55 PM ^
I think Carlos Hyde lost it on twitter last year after he was passed up by some people. I think he was really entertaining the idea of transferring.
From what I heard Rob Smith has not really put it together and that he still has fumbleitis problems.
February 16th, 2012 at 2:38 PM ^
"I always had my Michigan on whenever we played Ohio State."
Commence subtext overanalysis...
February 16th, 2012 at 2:42 PM ^
Why do people take everything a recruit says when talking to media about their recruitment at face value? Not every kid has the desire to put their sincere thoughts out to the internets about their recruitment. Many play it right down the middle until they make their decision.
February 16th, 2012 at 3:18 PM ^
Just a note on him:
Both his brothers were Division 1 athletes. Maurice Smith was a monster who went to Michigan State before later finishing up at FCS Youngstown State. Lance Smith played at Wisconsin and seem to be the heir apparent to PJ Hill before finishing up at Memphis. Very talented family. Not sure if either brother had offers from OSU, but it is safe to say he and his family are familiar with Big Ten schools and recruiting.
Also- Howland which is my alma mater is a completely different school district than Warren Harding (Manningham, Antwan Molden, Boom Herron, Maurice Clarett, DJ Williamson, Davion Rogers). Both schools have produced a ton of Big 10 talent however.
February 16th, 2012 at 6:31 PM ^
down below, just wanted to give you a big FU since you're from howland. ;)
one more year with de'veon, then harding completely curb-stomps you in '13 and then i assume your AD will beg off the series...haha
edit to add: both schools have produced talent, yours usually comes from warren.
February 16th, 2012 at 7:30 PM ^
You're 100% right. All of Howland's talent does come from Warren. Funny how they start scheuduling Harding in sports other than soccer once they opened enrollment. . . .
February 16th, 2012 at 3:39 PM ^
Eh, I'd rather put our eggs in the Ty Isaac basket
February 16th, 2012 at 5:06 PM ^
I'd be incredibly happy if we got Isaac, but if we got Smith and Shallman, that'd make one helluva 1-2 combo. I'd be thrilled with that backfield.


text:
It's Jazz and Heritage Festival time in New Orleans. This is one of the few years we won't be there to enjoy THE biggest and bestest music festivals on earth. Music of all varieties that will make you break out of the genre rut you might be in and food that will knock your socks off.
Here's a cut from a couple of years ago by a New Orleans favorite and Jazz Fest perennial (and my favorite…OK, my son's band.)


text:
Park Qualifying went down today... Who do you think qualified?
Pro Dirt went down last night! Be sure to check out these highlights...
Spine Qualifiers managed to happen here at FISE! Check out the highlights and results.
Nike are looking for a BMX crews to send in videos for their new Nike Chosen project. Check out the trailer and more..
Check out Dyno in this Kisbikeco edit. This guy is good!
Please enter your email so we can keep you updated with news, features and the latest offers. If you are not interested you can unsubscribe at any time. We will never sell your data and you'll only get messages from us and our partners whose products and services we think you'll enjoy.
Read our full Privacy Policy as well as Terms & Conditions.
Cookies help us deliver our services. By using this website, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn MoreAccept


text:
Adapted by Stephen Briggs.
Directed by Liz Bragg.
July 5th – 14th 2013.
"People don't look for a woman in trousers, see? Men's clothes, short hair and a bit of a swagger is all it takes to be a man. Oh, and a second pair of socks."
It started as a sudden strange fancy: Polly Perks needed to join the army to find her lost brother. Except that in Borogravia, women aren't allowed to join the army, or do much of anything interesting, really. A haircut, a change of clothes, and an extra pair of socks later, Polly is now Private Oliver Perks, marching off to war as part of the finest army on the Discworld, joined by a (reformed) vampire with a coffee habit, a lieutenant who cuts himself on his sword hand during practice, and the most legendary sergeant in Borogravia. And the enemy are looking for them…
From the company that brought TERRY PRATCHETT'S MORT to last year's Fringe, comes another Pratchett favourite from the best-selling Discworld series.
TERRY PRATCHETT'S MONSTROUS REGIMENT is the second show of the 2012-13 Season: …now with magic! By permission of Methuen Drama.
"The success of this adaptation proves that the Collective clearly knows what they're doing."
"The cast was uniformly strong, but stand-out performances for me included:
Alex Dallas' the bluff Sergeant Jackrum;
the well-meaning but inexperienced and clumsy Lieutenant Blouse played by David Galvin Heppenstall;
the multiple, very different roles successfully interpreted by Justen Bennett and Basel Daoud, and
Sarah White as protagonist Polly Perks."
"For fans of smart, funny fantasy, Terry Pratchett's Monstrous Regiment is a must-see."
– Mooney on Theatre
Terry Pratchett's Monstrous Regiment (Socratic Theatre Collective) 2013 Toronto Fringe Review
By Randy McDonald
"NOW Rating: NNN."
– NOW Magazine
Terry Pratchett's Monstrous Regiment Review
By Christopher Hoile
Performances and Tickets
Performing at the 2013 Toronto Fringe Festival at Pauper's Pub, 539 Bloor Street West.
- July 5, 7:00PM (Friday)
- July 6, 7:00PM (Saturday)
- July 7, 2:00PM (Sunday)
- July 12, 7:00PM (Friday)
- July 13, 7:00PM (Saturday)
- July 14, 2:00PM (Sunday)
NOTE: You MUST arrive before the start of the show time. Latecomers will NOT be admitted as per policy of the Fringe Festival.
Tickets Available Now
Click here to buy tickets from Toronto Fringe's secure online ticketing and donation processing website.
- $11 in advance
- $10 at the door
Returning to the Toronto Fringe Festival with Terry Pratchett's Monstrous Regiment is a huge undertaking for the company. We are going to be bringing war, mayhem, and a large amount of cross-dressing to Toronto theatre. And you're going to help us because who doesn't want to bring all these things to Toronto? Click here to donate to our indiegogo campaign.
Cast & Crew
*appears courtesy of the Actors' Equity Association
Special Thanks
- Pauper's Pub
- Melissa Major and MAJORspace
- Andy Wang and Glad Day Bookshop
- Chris Warrilow


text:
Start Playing at the #1 Online Casino
We offer some of the hottest online casino games available with the most thrilling wins imaginable…
Games Played Now
Frankie Dettori: Sporting Legends™
Batman & the Joker Jewels
Batman & the Riddler Riches
Adventures Beyond Wonderland
Batman & Mr Freeze Fortune
Gaelic Luck
Tinderbox Treasures
Age of the Gods – Fate Sisters
European Roulette
Maji Wilds
NewAR Roulette
Multi Wheel Roulette
Multiplayer European Roulette
Dragon Jackpot Roulette
Xuan Pu Lian Huan
Biggest Payouts
Age of the Gods – Fate Sisters
French Roulette
European Roulette
3D Roulette Premium
Roulette Pro
Club Roulette
Multiplayer European Roulette
Dolphin Reef
Blackjack Peek Multihand 5
Progressive Blackjack Multihand 5
Progressive Games
Beach Life
Monty Python
Love Boat
Everybody Jackpot
Baccarat Prog
Blackjack Pro
Funky Fruits
Lotto Madness
Age of the Gods – Fate Sisters
A Night Out
Batman & Catwoman Cash
European Roulette
3D Roulette Premium
Roulette Pro
American Roulette
French Roulette
3D Roulette
Mini Roulette
Club Roulette
NewAR Roulette
Multi Wheel Roulette
Multiplayer European Roulette
Video Roulette
Welcome to Indio Casino- India's #1 Online Casino
Welcome to Indio Casino. We can't wait for you to join our family and we look forward to bringing you endless hours of online gambling entertainment! Our promise to you is personalized gaming, like you've never experienced before, from the day you sign up at Indio Casino. We offer over 200 state of the art casino games, exceptional customer support, a range of safe and secure payment options and regular daily and monthly promotions. Download our free casino software today and start experiencing the ultimate online gambling experience!
Welcome Bonus
To get you started, we offer all our players a striking
State of the Art Games
Indio is a Playtech licensed casino offering a range of the very best online table games and other online casino games. With over 200 state of the art games to choose from (like Roulette, Blackjack, Video Poker, progressive games, table games and many more) you will always find something you enjoy at Indio Casino.
A Variety of Payment Options
At Indio Casino you can choose from a range of safe & secure payment options to both fund your casino account and process your withdrawals. Our preferred options in India are Visa, Mastercard, Wire Transfer, Auto EFT's and Bank Transfers. We also offer several webwallets such as Neteller and Skrill (Moneybookers). You can also play in the currency that you prefer. Indio Casino allows players to fund their accounts and play in indian Rupees, United States Dollars and Euro. Once a withdrawal request has been processed, we will proceed to process the fund payout. This ensures that our payout times are always fair and efficient.


text:
I wonder if this is going to work. I just wrote a long post and lost it.
Looks like it's working so I'll try again. I was being so creative too. Darn. I don't think I can reproduce it as good as it was the first time.
It's been almost a year since I posted anything. A lot has happened in the past year but I'm not one to mull over the past.
In less than a week Stan and I will be taking off for Des Moines, Iowa for The 5150 Nat'l Championships on Sept. 2. We qualified last year by winning our respective Age Groups. It was a fun race and we are anxious to go back. We swim in a nice quiet lake, ride on wide roads with no traffic and finish the race in front of the state Capitol. Extremely well organized.
I doubt if I will do as well this year because I am looking at arthroscopic surgery on my right knee Sept 6. I will swim as fast as I can and ride my bike as fast as I can but the run will have to take care of itself. I'll probably be walking a lot. Of course we entered long before the knee issue but had so much fun last year we decided to go back anyway.
I have a new hobby now that will keep me occupied during recovery from the surgery.
I have taken up target shooting. I have a new .22 LR rifle. I'm just a beginner so I will be doing a lot of practice. I have taken one 2.5 hr. lesson, learned a lot and improved a lot. It's loads of fun and definitely challenging.This fall I'm taking an Appleseed rifleman training course. They teach the history of rifleman from the Revolutionary War. There are several locations throughout the country and I have found a couple near where I live and am going to attend one. I will learn marksmanshop in the four basic positions and after I have mastered shooting in the four positions I will be certified rifleman marksman. Cool! Somethng to shoot for! : ) They have women instructors as well as men and women are encouraged to come and learn.
Since I will have to start over again on my running maybe I can actually improve there too. Triathlon will always be a big part of my life. It's pretty addictive. I can't imagine not doing regular training or racing. I am more and more interested in getting back to my first interest.... swimming. I love open water swimming and will be looking for an open water swim or two next year. They are never in convenient places for me to travel. So I will have to see. Maybe I'll be the one to swim 103 miles from Cuba to Fl without a shark cage. HA!
Don't know why the font is diferent on the last paragraph. ???
I guess since it's been so long since I've done this I have to learn all over again.:(
Wednesday, August 22, 2012
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)


text:
Tadalafil and Dapoxetine
Shape and color of the pill may differ from the image.
* Any Erectile Dysfunction FREE bonus pills Learn More
*ED - Erectile Dysfunction: Sildenafil Citrate, Tadalafil, Vardenafil.
The offer is valid also for mixed orders of any ED drugs combination.
You can choose the Bonus from a variety of ED Bonus Pills in Shopping Cart page.
Tadalafil Super - Super Vidalista


text:
|Edito N°0
|The first issue of the IAC editorial is focused on the general theme of "Ceramic in architecture and public space". Its objective is to contribute to the development of the global cultural heritage of ceramic with new references and concrete approaches. Linked to the 47th Congress and General Assembly of the Academy, this inaugural edition invites you to discover a selection of ten illustrated articles.
Whether they came from age-old traditions or new technologies, the ceramic research and applications presented demonstrate a renewal in the architectural sector, through the experiments of those who work with the ceramic medium. This editorial is treated from the point of view of exemplary contributors, who each belong to specialized and complementary fields: makers, architects, industrialists and theorists. From this cross analysis, we would like to highlight experiences and meetings in the framework of various current trends and tendencies.
Jiang Guoxing, Wayne Higby, Ole Lislerud, Ray Meeker, their contribution in architectural production.(lire la suite...)
Wang Shu and Gramazio Kohler, an approach of the architecture through the ceramic medium(lire la suite...)
Telg Petersen, Jin Jin, Seyed Masoud Mousavizade & Farnoosh Daneshpanah, their experience as entrepreneurs(lire la suite...)
The IAC editorial has just been inaugured in 2016. It is a platform for the relevant issues concerning ceramics(lire la suite...)
The IAC Tribune is a space where specific ideas relating to the ceramic field are expressed freely.(lire la suite...)


text:
'India in talks to buy US anti-nuclear missile shields'
India is in preliminary talks to buy American missile shield systems to protect against a nuclear threat, a British newspaper reported quoting US officials.india Updated: Jan 08, 2009 20:15 IST
India is in preliminary talks to buy American missile shield systems to protect against a nuclear threat, a British newspaper reported quoting US officials in New Delhi.
Although India's need for greater protection against threats emanating from Pakistan and "other volatile countries in the region" was highlighted in the aftermath of the Mumbai terror attacks, the talks were reported to have taken place over the last two years.
Officials at the US embassy in New Delhi told the Financial Times that talks so far have been mainly at the technical level.
They said US defence officials had conducted computer simulations with their Indian counterparts to demonstrate the capabilities of such technology.
In addition, two live launches of missiles using the shield system had been watched by experts from the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO).
"India is a partner of ours, and we want to provide it with whatever it needs to protect itself," the FT quoted an unnamed US embassy official as saying.
"This fits into the overall strategic partnership we are building."
But, the paper said, India's politicians and defence planners have yet to take a final decision as they undertake what it called an expensive modernisation of the army, replacing ageing Soviet-era military hardware.
Another US official was quoted as saying: "I get the impression the scientists are quite interested, and that some in the strategic policy community… see this as a future tool in their kit bag. But India's political leadership and its strategic community need to decide what their interests and threats are."
A senior Pakistani official with detailed knowledge of the country's own nuclear programme told the FT that Pakistan "will have to take counter-measures to respond" to any agreement between the US and India over a missile defence system.
"For the past many years, we have been considering the possibility of such an outcome one day," the official said.
The British Broadcasting Corporation said the system, which was successfully tested in Alaska in December last year, involves radar and anti-missile missiles, or interceptors, which would destroy incoming ballistic missiles.
First Published: Jan 08, 2009 20:07 IST


text:
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Well, with this group, working on the cars is definitely secondary to socializing. Why don't you come down for the BBQ at least? You know you want to. Everyone is doing it...You won't get caught! :twisted:
I'll hit Checker to get some spring compressors so we can work in parallel if I decide to do this.quote]the compressor at checker SUCK, so i baught some good ones, i will bring them with me....+ a 12er of hefe weißen!
Suspension is Phaaat! T and I did 250mi on Sunday through RMNat.Park and had a blast. We both took our turns on the osheet handle. The GTG was great we had a blast! Thanks Win and everyone for helping out and Pat for those wicked apple desserts! We had a great time and are looking forward to the next one! I need to get that chip....APR's website again? Anybody know of media jobs available? I'm out looking for work as we speak...or type...


text:
This comprehensive documentary supplement contains selected international human rights instruments, including: ac United Nations Documents ac Other United Nations Instruments ac Regional Instruments ac U.S. Reservations, Declarations, and Understandings ac Selected U.S. Legislation This volume also contains a bibliography for research on international human rights law, including entries for: ac Human Rights Instruments (compilations of, status of, and legislative history of) ac Human Rights Case Law, Jurisprudence, Decisions, and Digests ac Research Guides on the Major Human Rights Instruments ac Refugee Law ac Economic Issues ac International Criminal Tribunals ac Research Guides and Bibliographies ac Book and Periodical Indexes ac Electronic Sources[Saskatoon, Canada: University of Saskatschewan Native Law Centre, 167 pp] Georgetown University Law Center, Research Guide: Human Rights, http://www.ll .georgetown.edu/intl/guides/HumanRightsLaw.cfm. Georgetown University Lawanbsp;...
|Selected International Human Rights Instruments and Bibliography for Research on International Human Rights Law
|David Weissbrodt, Joan Fitzpatrick, Frank C. Newman, Marci Hoffman, Mary Rumsey
|LexisNexis - 2009-08-14
You must register with us as either a Registered User before you can Download this Book. You'll be greeted by a simple sign-up page.
Once you have finished the sign-up process, you will be redirected to your download Book page.How it works:


text: Since its inception in 1991, the goal for the Richmond Ambulance Authority (RAA) has been to provide its community with clinical excellence, while ensuring response time reliability and fiscal responsibility. Although it has the highest call volume per capita in the United States, RAA has gained a national and international reputation as a premiere, high performing EMS system. RAA is one of only 20 systems in the United States that has received accreditation from both the National Commission on Accreditation of Ambulance Services (CAAS) and the National Academies of Emergency Dispatch (NAED). These accreditations are considered the "gold standard" for ambulance services, certifying distinction for quality patient care and ambulance operations.


text:
Legal Status
Document Details
Published Document
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule.
EPA is approving submittals from the State of New Mexico pursuant to the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) that address the infrastructure elements specified in the CAA section 110(a)(2), necessary to implement, maintain, and enforce the 1997 8-hour ozone and 1997 fine particulate matter (PM2.5) national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS or standards). We are determining that the current New Mexico State Implementation Plan (SIP) meets the following infrastructure elements which were subject to EPA's completeness findings pursuant to CAA section 110(k)(1) for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS dated March 27, 2008, and the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS dated October 22, 2008: 110(a)(2)(A), (B), (C), (D)(ii), (E), (F), (G), (H), (J), (K), (L), and (M). EPA is also approving a November 2, 2006, SIP revision to regulation 20.2.3 of the New Mexico Administrative Code (NMAC) (Ambient Air Quality Standards), to remove the state ambient air quality standards from being an applicable requirement under the State's Title V permitting program, found at 20.2.70 NMAC (Operating Permits). EPA is also converting our February 27, 1987, conditional approval of New Mexico's PSD program (52 FR 5964) to a full approval based on the November 2, 1988, approval of New Mexico's stack height regulations (53 FR 44191). Lastly, EPA is making a number of U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) codification technical corrections to amend the description of the approved New Mexico SIP. This action is being taken under section 110 and part C of the Act.
This rule is effective on August 15, 2011.
EPA established a docket for this action under Docket ID No. EPA-R06-OAR-2009-0647. All documents in the docket are listed at http://www.regulations.gov. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., Confidential Business Information or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically through http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Air Planning Section (6PD-L), Environmental Protection Agency, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 700, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733. The file will be made available by appointment for public inspection in the Region 6 Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) Review Room between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. weekdays except for legal holidays. Contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT paragraph below or Mr. Bill Deese at 214-665-7253 to make an appointment. Please make the appointment at least two working days in advance of your visit. There is a fee of 15 cents per page for making photocopies of documents. On the day of the visit, please check in at the EPA Region 6 reception area at 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 700, Dallas, Texas.Start Further Info
Ms. Dayana Medina, Air Planning Section (6PD-L), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 700, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733, telephone 214-665-7241; fax number 214-665-6762; e-mail address email@example.com Further Info End Preamble Start Supplemental Information
Throughout this document, "we," "us," and "our" means EPA.
Table of Contents
I. Background
II. Additional Background Information
III. What action is EPA taking?
IV. Final ActionStart Printed Page 41699
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. Background
The background for today's actions is discussed in detail in our May 2, 2011, proposal to approve submittals from the State of New Mexico pursuant to the CAA that address the infrastructure elements specified in the CAA section 110(a)(2), necessary to implement, maintain, and enforce the 1997 8-hour ozone and 1997 fine particulate matter (PM2.5) NAAQS (76 FR 24421). In it, we proposed to find that the current New Mexico SIP meets the provisions of the CAA sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) (i.e., 110(a)(2)(A)-(C), (D)(ii), (E)-(H), and (J)-(M)) for the 1997 ozone and 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. We also proposed to approve a revision to regulation 20.2.3 NMAC (Ambient Air Quality Standards) into the New Mexico SIP, to remove the state ambient air quality standards from being an applicable requirement under the State's Title V permitting program. EPA also proposed to correct an administrative oversight by converting our February 27, 1987, conditional approval of New Mexico's PSD program (52 FR 5964) to a full approval based on the November 2, 1988, approval of New Mexico's stack height regulations (53 FR 44191), at which point New Mexico fully met the condition in the conditional approval. Lastly, EPA proposed to make several CFR codification technical corrections to amend the description of the approved New Mexico SIP.
Our May 2, 2011, proposal provides a detailed description of the revisions and the rationale for EPA's proposed actions, together with a discussion of the opportunity to comment. The public comment period for these actions closed on June 1, 2011, and we did not receive any comments. For more information, please see our proposed rulemaking, at 76 FR 24421, the Technical Support Document, and other supporting documentation available in the electronic docket for this action at http://www.regulations.gov (Docket Identification No. EPA-R06-OAR-2009-0647).
II. Additional Background Information
EPA is currently acting upon SIPs that address the infrastructure requirements of CAA section 110(a)(1) and (2) for ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS for various states across the country. Commenters on EPA's recent proposals for some states raised concerns about EPA statements that it was not addressing certain substantive issues in the context of acting on the infrastructure SIP submissions.[1] The commenters specifically raised concerns involving provisions in existing SIPs and with EPA's statements that it would address two issues separately and not as part of actions on the infrastructure SIP submissions: (i) Existing provisions related to excess emissions during periods of start-up, shutdown, or malfunction at sources, that may be contrary to the CAA and EPA's policies addressing such excess emissions ("SSM"); and (ii) existing provisions related to "director's variance" or "director's discretion" that purport to permit revisions to SIP approved emissions limits with limited public process or without requiring further approval by EPA, that may be contrary to the CAA ("director's discretion"). EPA notes that there are two other substantive issues for which EPA likewise stated that it would address the issues separately: (i) existing provisions for minor source new source review programs that may be inconsistent with the requirements of the CAA and EPA's regulations that pertain to such programs ("minor source NSR"); and (ii) existing provisions for Prevention of Significant Deterioration programs that may be inconsistent with current requirements of EPA's "Final NSR Improvement Rule," 67 FR 80186 (December 31, 2002), as amended by 72 FR 32526 (June 13, 2007) ("NSR Reform"). In light of the comments, EPA now believes that its statements in various proposed actions on infrastructure SIPs with respect to these four individual issues should be explained in greater depth with respect to these issues. EPA notes that we did not receive comments on these issues in response to our New Mexico proposal (76 FR 24421), but because of the concern raised in the context of action on other state infrastructure SIP submissions, EPA feels it important to further clarify our proposal.
EPA intended the statements in the proposals concerning these four issues merely to be informational, and to provide general notice of the potential existence of provisions within the existing SIPs of some states that might require future corrective action. EPA did not want states, regulated entities, or members of the public to be under the misconception that the Agency's approval of the infrastructure SIP submission of a given state should be interpreted as a reapproval of certain types of provisions that might exist buried in the larger existing SIP for such state. Thus, for example, EPA explicitly noted that the Agency believes that some states may have existing SIP approved SSM provisions that are contrary to the CAA and EPA policy, but that "in this rulemaking, EPA is not proposing to approve or disapprove any existing State provisions with regard to excess emissions during SSM of operations at facilities." EPA further explained, for informational purposes, that "EPA plans to address such State regulations in the future." EPA made similar statements, for similar reasons, with respect to the director's discretion, minor source NSR, and NSR Reform issues. EPA's objective was to make clear that approval of an infrastructure SIP for these ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS should not be construed as explicit or implicit reapproval of any existing provisions that relate to these four substantive issues.
Unfortunately, the commenters and others evidently interpreted these statements to mean that EPA considered action upon the SSM provisions and the other three substantive issues to be integral parts of acting on an infrastructure SIP submission, and therefore that EPA was merely postponing taking final action on the issue in the context of the infrastructure SIPs. This was not EPA's intention. To the contrary, EPA only meant to convey its awareness of the potential for certain types of deficiencies in existing SIPs, and to prevent any misunderstanding that it was reapproving any such existing provisions. EPA's intention was to convey its position that the statute does not require that infrastructure SIPs address these specific substantive issues in existing SIPs and that these issues may be dealt with separately, outside the context of acting on the infrastructure SIP submission of a state. To be clear, EPA did not mean to imply that it was not taking a full final agency action on the infrastructure SIP submission with respect to any substantive issue that EPA considers to be a required part of acting on such submissions under section 110(k) or under section 110(c). Given the confusion evidently resulting from EPA's statements, however, we want to explain more fully the Agency's reasons for concluding that these four potential substantive issues in existing SIPs may be addressed separately.
The requirement for the SIP submissions at issue arises out of CAA section 110(a)(1). That provision Start Printed Page 41700requires that states must make a SIP submission "within 3 years (or such shorter period as the Administrator may prescribe) after the promulgation of a national primary ambient air quality standard (or any revision thereof)" and that these SIPS are to provide for the "implementation, maintenance, and enforcement" of such NAAQS. Section 110(a)(2) includes a list of specific elements that "[e]ach such plan" submission must meet. EPA has historically referred to these particular submissions that states must make after the promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS as "infrastructure SIPs." This specific term does not appear in the statute, but EPA uses the term to distinguish this particular type of SIP submission designed to address basic structural requirements of a SIP from other types of SIP submissions designed to address other different requirements, such as "nonattainment SIP" submissions required to address the nonattainment planning requirements of part D, "regional haze SIP" submissions required to address the visibility protection requirements of CAA section 169A, new source review permitting program submissions required to address the requirements of part D, and a host of other specific types of SIP submissions that address other specific matters.
Although section 110(a)(1) addresses the timing and general requirements for these infrastructure SIPs, and section 110(a)(2) provides more details concerning the required contents of these infrastructure SIPs, EPA believes that many of the specific statutory provisions are facially ambiguous. In particular, the list of required elements provided in section 110(a)(2) contains a wide variety of disparate provisions, some of which pertain to required legal authority, some of which pertain to required substantive provisions, and some of which pertain to requirements for both authority and substantive provisions.[2] Some of the elements of section 110(a)(2) are relatively straightforward, but others clearly require interpretation by EPA through rulemaking, or recommendations through guidance, in order to give specific meaning for a particular NAAQS.[3]
Notwithstanding that section 110(a)(2) states that "each" SIP submission must meet the list of requirements therein, EPA has long noted that this literal reading of the statute is internally inconsistent, insofar as section 110(a)(2)(I) pertains to nonattainment SIP requirements that could not be met on the schedule provided for these SIP submissions in section 110(a)(1).[4] This illustrates that EPA must determine which provisions of section 110(a)(2) may be applicable for a given infrastructure SIP submission. Similarly, EPA has previously decided that it could take action on different parts of the larger, general "infrastructure SIP" for a given NAAQS without concurrent action on all subsections, such as section 110(a)(2)(D)(i), because the Agency bifurcated the action on these latter "interstate transport" provisions within section 110(a)(2) and worked with states to address each of the four prongs of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) with substantive administrative actions proceeding on different tracks with different schedules.[5] This illustrates that EPA may conclude that subdividing the applicable requirements of section 110(a)(2) into separate SIP actions may sometimes be appropriate for a given NAAQS where a specific substantive action is necessitated, beyond a mere submission addressing basic structural aspects of the state's SIP. Finally, EPA notes that not every element of section 110(a)(2) would be relevant, or as relevant, or relevant in the same way, for each new or revised NAAQS and the attendant infrastructure SIP submission for that NAAQS. For example, the monitoring requirements that might be necessary for purposes of section 110(a)(2)(B) for one NAAQS could be very different than what might be necessary for a different pollutant. Thus, the content of an infrastructure SIP submission to meet this element from a state might be very different for an entirely new NAAQS, versus a minor revision to an existing NAAQS.[6]
Similarly, EPA notes that other types of SIP submissions required under the statute also must meet the requirements of section 110(a)(2), and this also demonstrates the need to identify the applicable elements for other SIP submissions. For example, nonattainment SIPs required by part D likewise have to meet the relevant subsections of section 110(a)(2) such as section 110(a)(2)(A) or (E). By contrast, it is clear that nonattainment SIPs would not need to meet the portion of section 110(a)(2)(C) that pertains to part C, i.e., the PSD requirement applicable in attainment areas. Nonattainment SIPs required by part D also would not need to address the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(G) with respect to emergency episodes, as such requirements would not be limited to nonattainment areas. As this example illustrates, each type of SIP submission may implicate some subsections of section 110(a)(2) and not others.
Given the potential for ambiguity of the statutory language of section 110(a)(1) and (2), EPA believes that it is appropriate for EPA to interpret that language in the context of acting on the infrastructure SIPs for a given NAAQS. Because of the inherent ambiguity of the list of requirements in section 110(a)(2), EPA has adopted an approach in which it reviews infrastructure SIPs against this list of elements "as applicable." In other words, EPA assumes that Congress could not have intended that each and every SIP submission, regardless of the purpose of the submission or the NAAQS in question, would meet each of the requirements, or meet each of them in the same way. EPA elected to use guidance to make recommendations for infrastructure SIPs for these NAAQS.
On October 2, 2007, EPA issued guidance making recommendations for the infrastructure SIP submissions for both the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS and the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS.[7] Within this Start Printed Page 41701guidance document, EPA described the duty of states to make these submissions to meet what the Agency characterized as the "infrastructure" elements for SIPs, which it further described as the "basic SIP requirements, including emissions inventories, monitoring, and modeling to assure attainment and maintenance of the standards." [8] As further identification of these basic structural SIP requirements, "attachment A" to the guidance document included a short description of the various elements of section 110(a)(2) and additional information about the types of issues that EPA considered germane in the context of such infrastructure SIPs. EPA emphasized that the description of the basic requirements listed on attachment A was not intended "to constitute an interpretation of " the requirements, and was merely a "brief description of the required elements." [9] EPA also stated its belief that with one exception, these requirements were "relatively self explanatory, and past experience with SIPs for other NAAQS should enable States to meet these requirements with assistance from EPA Regions." [10] For the one exception to that general assumption, however, i.e., how states should proceed with respect to the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(G) for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS, EPA gave much more specific recommendations. But for other infrastructure SIP submittals, and for certain elements of the submittals for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS, EPA assumed that each State would work with its corresponding EPA regional office to refine the scope of a State's submittal based on an assessment of how the requirements of section 110(a)(2) should reasonably apply to the basic structure of the State's SIP for the NAAQS in question.
Significantly, the 2007 Guidance did not explicitly refer to the SSM, director's discretion, minor source NSR, or NSR Reform issues as among specific substantive issues EPA expected states to address in the context of the infrastructure SIPs, nor did EPA give any more specific recommendations with respect to how states might address such issues even if they elected to do so. The SSM and director's discretion issues implicate section 110(a)(2)(A), and the minor source NSR and NSR Reform issues implicate section 110(a)(2)(C). In the 2007 Guidance, however, EPA did not indicate to states that it intended to interpret these provisions as requiring a substantive submission to address these specific issues in the context of the infrastructure SIPs for these NAAQS. Instead, EPA's 2007 Guidance merely indicated its belief that the states should make submissions in which they established that they have the basic SIP structure necessary to implement, maintain, and enforce the NAAQS. EPA believes that states can establish that they have the basic SIP structure, notwithstanding that there may be potential deficiencies within the existing SIP. Thus, EPA's proposals mentioned these issues not because the Agency considers them issues that must be addressed in the context of an infrastructure SIP as required by section 110(a)(1) and (2), but rather because EPA wanted to be clear that it considers these potential existing SIP problems as separate from the pending infrastructure SIP actions.
EPA believes that this approach to the infrastructure SIP requirement is reasonable, because it would not be feasible to read section 110(a)(1) and (2) to require a top to bottom, stem to stern, review of each and every provision of an existing SIP merely for purposes of assuring that the state in question has the basic structural elements for a functioning SIP for a new or revised NAAQS. Because SIPs have grown by accretion over the decades as statutory and regulatory requirements under the CAA have evolved, they may include some outmoded provisions and historical artifacts that, while not fully up to date, nevertheless may not pose a significant problem for the purposes of "implementation, maintenance, and enforcement" of a new or revised NAAQS when EPA considers the overall effectiveness of the SIP. To the contrary, EPA believes that a better approach is for EPA to determine which specific SIP elements from section 110(a)(2) are applicable to an infrastructure SIP for a given NAAQS, and to focus attention on those elements that are most likely to need a specific SIP revision in light of the new or revised NAAQS. Thus, for example, EPA's 2007 Guidance specifically directed states to focus on the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(G) for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS because of the absence of underlying EPA regulations for emergency episodes for this NAAQS and an anticipated absence of relevant provisions in existing SIPs.
Finally, EPA believes that its approach is a reasonable reading of section 110(a)(1) and (2) because the statute provides other avenues and mechanisms to address specific substantive deficiencies in existing SIPs. These other statutory tools allow the Agency to take appropriate tailored action, depending upon the nature and severity of the alleged SIP deficiency. Section 110(k)(5) authorizes EPA to issue a "SIP call" whenever the Agency determines that a state's SIP is substantially inadequate to attain or maintain the NAAQS, to mitigate interstate transport, or otherwise to comply with the CAA.[11] Section 110(k)(6) authorizes EPA to correct errors in past actions, such as past approvals of SIP submissions.[12] Significantly, EPA's determination that an action on the infrastructure SIP is not the appropriate time and place to address all potential existing SIP problems does not preclude the Agency's subsequent reliance on provisions in section 110(a)(2) as part of the basis for action at a later time. For example, although it may not be appropriate to require a state to eliminate all existing inappropriate director's discretion provisions in the course of acting on the infrastructure SIP, EPA believes that section 110(a)(2)(A) may be among the statutory bases that the Agency cites in the course of addressing the issue in a subsequent action.[13]Start Printed Page 41702
III. What action is EPA taking?
EPA is approving the New Mexico SIP submittals dated December 10, 2007, and March 3, 2008, that identify where and how the 14 basic infrastructure elements are in the EPA-approved SIP as specified in section 110(a)(2) of the Act. We are determining that the following section 110(a)(2) elements are contained in the current New Mexico SIP: emission limits and other control measures (section 110(a)(2)(A)); ambient air quality monitoring/data system (section 110(a)(2)(B)); program for enforcement of control measures (section 110(a)(2)(C)); international and interstate pollution abatement (section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii)); adequate resources (section 110(a)(2)(E)); stationary source monitoring system (section 110(a)(2)(F)); emergency power (section 110(a)(2)(G)); future SIP revisions (section 110(a)(2)(H)); consultation with government officials (section 110(a)(2)(J)); public notification (section 110(a)(2)(J)); PSD and visibility protection (section 110(a)(2)(J)); air quality modeling/data (section 110(a)(2)(K)); permitting fees (section 110(a)(2)(L)); and consultation/participation by affected local entities (section 110(a)(2)(M)).
In conjunction with our determination that the New Mexico SIP meets the section 110(a)(1) and (2) infrastructure SIP elements listed above, we are also approving a severable portion of a SIP revision submitted by NMED to EPA on November 2, 2006. This portion of the submittal contains a revision to 20.2.3 NMAC (Ambient Air Quality Standards), adding a new subpart 9 to 20.2.3 NMAC, including language to ensure that sources being issued a permit under the State's minor source permitting program, found at 20.2.72 NMAC (Construction Permits), are required to continue to address the State's ambient air quality standards in their application. The revision also includes language in 220.127.116.11 NMAC that removes the state ambient air quality standards from being an applicable requirement under the State's Title V permitting program, found at 20.2.70 NMAC (Operating Permits). Because New Mexico's Title V permitting program is outside the scope of the New Mexico SIP, and has not been approved by EPA into the New Mexico SIP, approval of the revision to 20.2.3 NMAC is appropriate and will not constitute a relaxation of the current New Mexico SIP. EPA is approving the portion of the November 2, 2006 submittal that revises 20.2.3 NMAC, as indicated above, because it clarifies the permitting requirements under the New Mexico SIP. The revision to 20.2.3 NMAC we are approving into the SIP is severable from the other portions of the November 2, 2006 SIP submittal. At this time, EPA is not taking action on other portions of the November 2, 2006 SIP revision submitted by NMED; EPA intends to act on the other revisions at a later time.
EPA is also correcting an administrative oversight by now converting our February 27, 1987, conditional approval of New Mexico's PSD program (52 FR 5964), to a full approval based on our November 2, 1988, approval of New Mexico's stack height regulations (53 FR 44191). Upon our approval of New Mexico's stack height regulations on November 2, 1988, New Mexico had fully met all the conditions of EPA's February 27, 1987, conditional approval of the State's PSD program. However, due to an administrative oversight, EPA failed to convert the conditional approval of New Mexico's PSD program into a full approval at that time. The fact that EPA had not formally converted the conditional approval to a full approval until now had no impact on the State's authority to implement the PSD program in the interim.
Lastly, EPA is making four CFR codification technical corrections to amend the following: (1) the table titled "EPA Approved New Mexico Regulations," found under 40 CFR 52.1620(c), by (i) deleting entries for part 70 (Operating Permits) and part 71 (Operating Permit Emission Fees) of 20.2 NMAC, and (ii) changing the EPA approval date for the recodification of New Mexico's air quality regulations in the SIP from the currently listed November 25, 1997 date to the correct date of September 26, 1997; (2) the table titled "EPA Approved Nonregulatory Provisions And Quasi-Regulatory Measures In The New Mexico SIP," found under 40 CFR 52.1620(e), by including an entry for New Mexico's Air Pollution Episode Contingency Plan approved by EPA into the SIP on August 21, 1990; (3) 40 CFR 52.1634(a), by amending the paragraph such that it identifies that New Mexico has fully met all conditions of our February 27, 1987 conditional approval of New Mexico's PSD program such that our conditional approval is converted to a full approval; and (4) 40 CFR 52.1640(c)(66)(i)(B), by amending the paragraph such that it correctly identifies the State regulations submitted by the State and approved by EPA into the New Mexico SIP. We are making the above CFR corrections to make clear which New Mexico air quality regulations are currently approved into the New Mexico SIP and the EPA approval date of these regulations into the SIP.
IV. Final Action
We are approving the submittals provided by the State of New Mexico to demonstrate that the New Mexico SIP meets the following requirements of Section 110(a)(1) and (2) of the Act:
Emission limits and other control measures (110(a)(2)(A) of the Act);
Ambient air quality monitoring/data system (110(a)(2)(B) of the Act);
Program for enforcement of control measures (110(a)(2)(C) of the Act);
Interstate Transport (110(a)(2)(D)(ii) of the Act);
Adequate resources (110(a)(2)(E) of the Act);
Stationary source monitoring system (110(a)(2)(F) of the Act);
Emergency power (110(a)(2)(G) of the Act);
Future SIP revisions (110(a)(2)(H) of the Act);
Consultation with government officials (110(a)(2)(J) of the Act);
Public notification (110(a)(2)(J) of the Act);
Prevention of significant deterioration and visibility protection (110(a)(2)(J) of the Act);
Air quality modeling data (110(a)(2)(K) of the Act);
Permitting fees (110(a)(2)(L) of the Act); and
Consultation/participation by affected local entities (110(a)(2)(M) of the Act).
EPA is also approving a severable revision to regulation 20.2.3 NMAC (Ambient Air Quality Standards), which was submitted by New Mexico on November 2, 2006. The revision to 20.2.3 NMAC removes the state ambient air quality standards from being an applicable requirement under the State's Title V permitting program, found at 20.2.70 NMAC (Operating Permits). The revision also adds language to ensure that sources being issued a permit under the State's minor source permitting program, found at 20.2.72 NMAC (Operating Permits), are required to continue to address the State's ambient air quality standards in their application.
EPA is also formally converting our February 27, 1987, conditional approval of New Mexico's PSD program (52 FR 5964), to a full approval based on the November 2, 1988, approval of New Mexico's stack height regulations (53 FR 44191), at which point New Mexico fully met the condition in the conditional approval.Start Printed Page 41703
Lastly, EPA is making CFR codification technical corrections to amend the following:
1. The table titled "EPA Approved New Mexico Regulations," found under 40 CFR 52.1620(c), by (i) deleting entries for part 70 (Operating Permits) and part 71 (Operating Permit Emission Fees) of 20.2 NMAC and (ii) changing the EPA approval date for the recodification of New Mexico's air quality regulations in the SIP from the currently listed November 25, 1997 date to the correct date of September 26, 1997.
2. The table titled "EPA Approved Nonregulatory Provisions And Quasi-Regulatory Measures In The New Mexico SIP," found under 40 CFR 52.1620(e), by including an entry for New Mexico's Air Pollution Episode Contingency Plan approved by EPA into the SIP on August 21, 1990.
3. 40 CFR 52.1634(a), by amending the paragraph such that it identifies that New Mexico has fully met all conditions of our February 27, 1987 conditional approval of New Mexico's PSD program such that our conditional approval is converted to a full approval.
4. 40 CFR 52.1640(c)(66)(i)(B), by amending the paragraph such that it correctly identifies the State regulations submitted by the State and approved by EPA into the New Mexico SIP.
EPA is approving these actions in accordance with section 110 of the Act and EPA's regulations and consistent with EPA guidance.
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:
- Is not a "significant regulatory action" subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
- Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
- Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
- Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
- Does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
- Is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
- Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
- Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the CAA; and
- Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in the state, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal Register. This action is not a "major rule" as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by September 13, 2011. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)Start List of Subjects
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
- Environmental protection
- Air pollution control
- Incorporation by reference
- Intergovernmental relations
- Nitrogen dioxides
- Ozone
- Particulate matter
- Reporting and recordkeeping requirements
- Volatile organic compounds
Dated: June 30, 2011.
Al Armendariz,
Regional Administrator, Region 6.
40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:Start Part
PART 52—[AMENDED]End Part Start Amendment Part
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:End Amendment Part
Subpart GG—New MexicoStart Amendment Part
2. Section 52.1620 is amended:End Amendment Part Start Amendment Part
a. In paragraph (c), under the first table entitled "New Mexico Administrative Code (NMAC) Title 20—Environmental Protection Chapter 2—Air Quality," by removing the entries for Part 70 and Part 71 and by revising the entries for Part 2, Part 3, Part 5, Part 8, Part 10, Part 11 through Part 22, Part 30 through Part 34, Part 40, Part 41, Part 60, Part 61, Part 72, Part 75, and Part 80;End Amendment Part Start Amendment Part
b. In paragraph (e), under the second table entitled "EPA Approved Nonregulatory Provisions and Quasi-Regulatory Measures In The New Mexico SIP," by adding to the end of the table a new entry for "Air Pollution Episode Contingency Plan for New Mexico" followed by a new entry for "Infrastructure for the 1997 Ozone and 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS".End Amendment Part
The amendments and additions read as follows:
(c) * * *Start Printed Page 41704
|State citation
|State approval/effective date
|EPA approval date
|New Mexico Administrative Code (NMAC) Title 20—Environmental Protection Chapter 2—Air Quality
|* * * * * * *
|Part 2
|Part 3
|Ambient Air Quality Standards
|7/15/11, [Insert FR page number where document begins]
|Part 5
|Source Surveillance
|* * * * * * *
|Part 8
|Emissions Leaving New Mexico
|Part 10
|Woodwaste Burners
|Part 11
|Asphalt Process Equipment
|Part 12
|Cement Kilns
|Part 13
|Gypsum Processing Plants
|Part 14
|Particulate Emissions From Coal Burning Equipment
|Part 15
|Pumice, Mica and Perlite Process Equipment
|Part 16
|Nonferrous Smelters (New and Existing)-Particulate Matter
|Part 17
|Nonferrous Smelters (Existing)-Particulate Matter
|Part 18
|Oil Burning Equipment-Particulate Matter
|Part 19
|Potash, Salt, or Sodium Sulfate Processing Equipment-Particulate Matter
|Part 20
|Lime Manufacturing Plants-Particulate Matter
|Part 21
|Fugitive Particulate Matter Emissions from Nonferrous Smelters
|Part 22
|Fugitive Particulate Matter Emissions from Roads within the Town of Hurley
|Part 30
|Kraft Mills
|Part 31
|Coal Burning Equipment-Sulfur Dioxide
|Part 32
|Coal Burning Equipment-Nitrogen Dioxide
|Part 33
|Gas Burning Equipment-Nitrogen Dioxide
|Part 34
|Oil Burning Equipment-Nitrogen Dioxide
|Part 40
|Sulfuric Acid Production Units-Sulfur Dioxide, Acid Mist and Visible Emissions
|Part 41
|Nonferrous Smelters-Sulfur
|Part 60
|Open Burning
|Part 61
|Smoke and Visible Emissions
|Part 72
|Construction Permits
|Subparts I, II, III, and V in SIP.
|* * * * * * *
|Part 75
|Construction Permit Fees
|* * * * * * *
|Part 80
|Stack Heights
|* * * * * * *
(e) * * *
|Name of SIP provision
|Applicable geographic or nonattainment area
|State submittal date/effective date
|EPA approval date
|* * * * * *
|Air Pollution Episode Contingency Plan for New Mexico
|Infrastructure for the 1997 Ozone and 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS
|12/10/2007 3/3/2008
|7/15/11, [Insert FR page number where document begins]
|Approval for 110(a)(2)(A), (B), (C), (D)(ii), (E), (F), (G), (H), (J), (K), (L), and (M).
3. Section 52.1634 is amended by revising paragraph (a) to read as follows:End Amendment Part
(a) The plan submitted by the Governor of New Mexico on February 21, 1984 (as adopted by the New Mexico Environmental Improvement Board (NMEIB) on January 13, 1984), August 19, 1988 (as revised and adopted by the NMEIB on July 8, 1988), and July 16, 1990 (as revised and adopted by the NMEID on March 9, 1990), Air Quality Control Regulation 707—Permits, Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) and its Supplemental document, is approved as meeting the requirements of part C, Clean Air Act for preventing significant deterioration of air quality. Additionally, on November 2, 1988, EPA approved New Mexico's stack height regulation into the SIP (53 FR 44191), thereby satisfying the conditions of EPA's conditional approval of the State's PSD program on February 27, 1987 (52 FR 5964). Therefore, the conditional approval was converted to a full approval on July 15, 2011.
4. Section 52.1640 is amended by revising paragraph (c)(66)(i)(B) to read as follows:End Amendment Part
(c) * * *
(66) * * *
(i) * * *
(B) New Mexico Administrative Code, Title 20, Chapter 2, Parts 3, 5, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 40, 41, 60, 61, 72 (Subparts I, II and III; Subpart V, Sections 501 and 502), 73, 75, 79, and 80; adopted by the New Mexico Environmental Improvement Board on October 20, 1995, and filed with the State Records and Archives Center on October 30, 1995.
1. See, Comments of Midwest Environmental Defense Center, dated May 31, 2011. Docket # EPA-R05-OAR-2007-1179 (adverse comments on proposals for three states in Region 5). EPA notes that these public comments on another proposal are not relevant to this rulemaking and do not have to be directly addressed in this rulemaking. EPA will respond to these comments in the appropriate rulemaking action to which they apply.Back to Citation
2. For example, section 110(a)(2)(E) provides that states must provide assurances that they have adequate legal authority under state and local law to carry out the SIP; section 110(a)(2)(C) provides that states must have a substantive program to address certain sources as required by part C of the CAA; section 110(a)(2)(G) provides that states must have both legal authority to address emergencies and substantive contingency plans in the event of such an emergency.Back to Citation
3. For example, section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) requires EPA to be sure that each state's SIP contains adequate provisions to prevent significant contribution to nonattainment of the NAAQS in other states. This provision contains numerous terms that require substantial rulemaking by EPA in order to determine such basic points as what constitutes significant contribution. See, e.g., "Rule To Reduce Interstate Transport of Fine Particulate Matter and Ozone (Clean Air Interstate Rule); Revisions to Acid Rain Program; Revisions to the NOX SIP Call; Final Rule," 70 FR 25162 (May 12, 2005) (defining, among other things, the phrase "contribute significantly to nonattainment").Back to Citation
4. See, e.g., Id., 70 FR 25162, at 63-65 (May 12, 2005) (explaining relationship between timing requirement of section 110(a)(2)(D) versus section 110(a)(2)(I)).Back to Citation
5. EPA issued separate guidance to states with respect to SIP submissions to meet section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 1997 ozone and 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. See, "Guidance for State Implementation Plan (SIP) Submissions to Meet Current Outstanding Obligations Under Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 8-Hour Ozone and PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standards," from William T. Harnett, Director Air Quality Policy Division OAQPS, to Regional Air Division Director, Regions I-X, dated August 15, 2006.Back to Citation
6. For example, implementation of the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS required the deployment of a system of new monitors to measure ambient levels of that new indicator species for the new NAAQS.Back to Citation
7. See, "Guidance on SIP Elements Required Under Section 110(a)(1) and (2) for the 1997 8-hour Ozone and PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standards," from William T. Harnett, Director Air Quality Policy Division, to Air Division Directors, Regions I-X, dated October 2, 2007 (the "2007 Guidance"). EPA issued comparable guidance for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS entitled "Guidance on SIP Elements Required Under Sections 110(a)(1) and (2) for the 2006 24-Hour Fine Particle (PM2.5) National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS)," from William T. Harnett, Director Air Quality Policy Division, to Regional Air Division Directors, Regions I-X, dated September 25, 2009 (the "2009 Guidance").Back to Citation
8. Id., at page 2.Back to Citation
9. Id., at attachment A, page 1.Back to Citation
10. Id., at page 4. In retrospect, the concerns raised by commenters with respect to EPA's approach to some substantive issues indicates that the statute is not so "self explanatory," and indeed is sufficiently ambiguous that EPA needs to interpret it in order to explain why these substantive issues do not need to be addressed in the context of infrastructure SIPs and may be addressed at other times and by other means.Back to Citation
11. EPA has recently issued a SIP call to rectify a specific SIP deficiency related to the SSM issue. See, "Finding of Substantial Inadequacy of Implementation Plan; Call for Utah State Implementation Plan Revision," 74 FR 21639 (April 18, 2011).Back to Citation
12. EPA has recently utilized this authority to correct errors in past actions on SIP submissions related to PSD programs. See, "Limitation of Approval of Prevention of Significant Deterioration Provisions Concerning Greenhouse Gas Emitting-Sources in State Implementation Plans; Final Rule," 75 FR 82536 (December 30, 2010). EPA has previously used its authority under CAA 110(k)(6) to remove numerous other SIP provisions that the Agency determined it had approved in error. See, e.g., 61 FR 38664 (July 25, 1996) and 62 FR 34641 (June 27, 1997) (corrections to American Samoa, Arizona, California, Hawaii, and Nevada SIPs); 69 FR 67062 (November 16, 2004) (corrections to California SIP); and 74 FR 57051 (November 3, 2009) (corrections to Arizona and Nevada SIPs).Back to Citation
13. EPA has recently disapproved a SIP submission from Colorado on the grounds that it would have included a director's discretion provision inconsistent with CAA requirements, including section 110(a)(2)(A). See, e.g., 75 FR 42342 at 42344 (July 21, 2010) (proposed disapproval of director's discretion provisions); 76 FR 4540 (January 26, 2011) (final disapproval of such provisions).Back to Citation
[FR Doc. 2011-17786 Filed 7-14-11; 8:45 am]


text:
Month: August 2015
Understanding what the TILA-RESPA Integrated Disclosure Rule means to home buyersIn 39 days, the TILA/RESPA Integrated Disclosure Rule (TRID) will take effect. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's (CFPB) whole purpose is to ensure that consumers get the information they need to make the financial decisions they believe are best for themselves and their families. As a title agent, Rahmati Law Firm can get behind that. Our whole purpose is to get you the information you need about the title of the property you're considering buying – and protecting your in...By Rahmati Law on Aug 24 · Category Real Estate · · Continue reading →


text:
You have no items in your shopping cart.
These classic black and white gift boxes and sure to leave a lasting impression. They are available in a variety of different fillings and your logo is foil stamped in the front of the box. Each box is closed with an elegant matching white satin ribbon.
Availability: In stock
Fillings: English Butter Toffee, Gourmet Brownies, Chocolate Covered Almonds, and Cocoa Dusted TrufflesItem Dimensions: 6" x 2 1/4" x 4 7/8" Imprint Area: 3(w) x 1.5(h) Shelf Life: 5 months (2 weeks for brownies)Turnaround Time: 5 business days
Chocomize makes ordering custom items an easy process but we understand if you have questions about the products, turnaround time, and shipping. Simply fill out the contact form on this page and one of our amazing account specialists will reach out to you within 20 minutes during our regular business hours. You can discuss your artwork and ideas directly with them and get a free mockup of your custom item - no strings attached.
If you don't have any questions left and are ready to order, you can also place your order right through the website. We will reach out to you after you place your order to confirm that we have the right files, all necessary information and that we can get the products delivered within your desired timeframe.
Min order: 25 pieces | add in multiples
0f 1
For your convenience, we've created easy to use templates for all of the options. Please select the template that corresponds to the product you'd like customized. For any question, please contact us at email@example.com and one of our account managers will be happy to assist you.
Oreo Hangtag Template
Oreo Imprint Template
Request a FREE quote & discuss your project with us
Our team will be in touch
We guarantee 100% privacy. Your information will not be shared.
Get sweet news & new business gifting ideas delivered straight to your inbox!
Sign up for special offers, news & more
Enter your e-mail Address
Address:30-10 41Ave, Long Island City, NY 11101
We are here to help:Mon - Fri / 9:00AM - 8:00PM EST


text:
Are you one of the 100 million people in the USA that own either a dog or a cat? If you flip through your digital camera - what do you see pictures of the most? Your kids...and your pets! If you have ever wondered how to take pictures of an all black animal or how to get your pup to sit still during a family holiday picture, this book is for you. With love only a pet owner can have and humor that only animals can bring to us, this author shows how to take pictures that celebrate the furry creatures in our lives. Packed with techniques including lighting and postproduction and even info on getting those pictures up online, you'll be taking pictures of your pets that you'll be proud of.can also make manual focus and burst-mode photos in quick succession of a moving subject (like a jumping cat) much easier. Thediopter adjustment dial onthe Canon EOS-5D Mark II DSLR (circledin red) is similarto the diopteradjustmentanbsp;...
|Pet Photography 101
|Andrew Darlow
|Taylor & Francis - 2012-08-21
You must register with us as either a Registered User before you can Download this Book. You'll be greeted by a simple sign-up page.
Once you have finished the sign-up process, you will be redirected to your download Book page.How it works:


text:
|Message view
|« Date » · « Thread »
|« Date » · « Thread »
|Wendall Cada <wenda...@apache.org>
|Re: The BigCouch merge, CouchDB 2.0, 3.0 and later
|Mon, 01 Apr 2013 23:40:02 GMT
One item missing from this is support of existing versions. I'm not sure if a timeline exists for this, but it should be well understood what the support window will look like for old versions. Wendall On 03/30/2013 12:29 PM, Jan Lehnardt wrote: > Hi all, > > It is time to think about how to square the upcoming changes to CouchDB and the next releases. > > Robert Newson and I hashed out this plan: > > 1. Compile a list of API changes between now and after the BigCouch merge (https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/COUCHDB-1756). > 2. Ship CouchDB 1.4.0 with a `X-CouchDB-Deprecated: true` header for features that will go away. > 3. Ship CouchDB 2.0.0 with the API changes done, so it is API compatible with the BigCouch merge. > 4. Merge BigCouch and ship that as 3.0.0. > > Spread over our new quarterly release schedule: > > Early April: 1.3.0. > Early July: 1.4.0. With API deprecation warnings. > Early October: 2.0.0. With API changes. > Early January: 3.0.0. With BigCouch. > > Alternatively, we can ship 1.4.0 and 2.0.0 concurrently, so the BigCouch merge work doesn't get a chance to get stale: > > Early April: 1.3.0. > Early July: 1.4.0. With API deprecation warnings. > Early July: 2.0.0. With API changes. > Early October: 3.0.0. With BigCouch. > > Monthly minor- and patch-level-versions will continue as usual. > > If we want to ship new features before BigCouch but after 1.4.0, we can roll 1.5.0 / 2.1.0 before 3.0.0. > > Anything up to the BigCouch merge should be trivial, so we can be confident we get that right (modulo forgetting to deprecate something). If the actual technical issues to get BigCouch merged aren't done by October in the way we are satisfied with shipping, we can wait to ship 3.0.0 until we think it is ready. > > In an ideal world, if 2.0.0 and BigCouch merge are API compatible, we *could* ship BigCouch in say, 2.5.0 or something, but I think the underlying things change enough to warrant a full major version increase. > > The only open question I'd have is how to square that against the ongoing work on bringing rcouch in. I hope Benoit can comment on this. > > Bikeshed away! :) > > Jan > -- >
|View raw message