text:
Legal Status
Proposed Rule
Document Details
Published Document
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
EPA is proposing to approve a draft revision to the State Implementation Plan (SIP), submitted by Kentucky's Energy and Environment Cabinet, through the Kentucky Division for Air Quality (KDAQ), to EPA on August 5, 2010, for parallel processing. The proposed SIP revision makes two changes impacting the Commonwealth of Kentucky's New Source Review (NSR) Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) program. First, the proposed revision provides the Commonwealth of Kentucky with authority to regulate greenhouse gas (GHG) under its PSD program. Second, the proposed SIP revision establishes appropriate emission thresholds for determining which new stationary sources and modification projects become subject to Kentucky's PSD permitting requirements for their GHG emissions. The first component of the proposed revision is necessary because the Commonwealth of Kentucky is required to apply its PSD program to GHG-emitting sources, and unless it does so (or unless EPA promulgates a Federal implementation plan (FIP) to do so), such sources will be unable to receive preconstruction permits and therefore may not be able to construct or modify. The second component is necessary because without it, on January 2, 2011, PSD requirements would apply at the 100 or 250 tons per year (tpy) levels provided under the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act), which would overwhelm Kentucky's permitting resources. EPA is proposing approval of the Commonwealth of Kentucky's August 5, 2010, SIP revision relating to PSD requirements for GHG-emitting sources because the Agency has made the preliminary determination that this SIP revision is in accordance with the CAA and EPA regulations regarding PSD permitting for GHGs.
Comments must be received on or before December 6, 2010.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R04-OAR-2010-0691, by one of the following methods:
1. http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
2. E-mail: firstname.lastname@example.com.
3. Fax: (404) 562-9019.
4. Mail: EPA-R04-OAR-2010-0691, Regulatory Development Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960.
5. Hand Delivery or Courier: Ms. Lynorae Benjamin, Chief, Regulatory Development Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Regional Office's normal hours of operation. The Regional Office's official hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30, excluding Federal holidays.
Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. "EPA-R04-OAR-2010-0691." EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change and may be made available online at http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit through http://www.regulations.gov or e-mail, information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected. The http://www.regulations.gov Web site is an "anonymous access" system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without going through http://www.regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. For additional information about EPA's public docket visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.
Docket: All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI 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 in http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Regulatory Development Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. EPA requests that if at all possible, you contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to schedule your inspection. The Regional Office's official hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30, excluding Federal holidays.Start Further Info
For information regarding the Kentucky SIP, contact Ms. Twunjala Bradley, Regulatory Development Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. Ms. Bradley's telephone number is (404) Start Printed Page 68273562-9352; e-mail address: firstname.lastname@example.com. For information regarding the Tailoring Rule, contact Ms. Heather Abrams, Air Permits Section, at the same address above. Ms. Abrams' telephone number is (404) 562-9185; e-mail address: firstname.lastname@example.com Further Info End Preamble Start Supplemental Information
Table of Contents
I. What action is EPA proposing in today's notice?
II. What is the background for the action proposed by EPA in today's notice?
III. What is the relationship between today's proposed action and EPA's proposed GHG SIP Call and GHG FIP?
IV. What is EPA's analysis of Kentucky's proposed SIP revision?
V. Proposed Action
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. What action is EPA proposing in today's notice?
On August 5, 2010,[1] KDAQ submitted a draft revision to EPA for approval into the Kentucky SIP to: (1) Provide the Commonwealth with the authority to regulate GHGs under its PSD program; and (2) establish appropriate emission thresholds for determining which new or modified stationary sources become subject to Kentucky's PSD permitting requirements for GHG emissions. Final approval of Kentucky's August 5, 2010, SIP revision will make Kentucky's SIP adequate with respect to PSD requirements for GHG-emitting sources, thereby negating the need for a GHG FIP. Furthermore, final approval of Kentucky's August 5, 2010, SIP revision will put in place the GHG emission thresholds for PSD applicability set forth in EPA's Tailoring Rule (75 FR 31514, June 3, 2010), ensuring that smaller GHG sources emitting less than these thresholds will not be subject to permitting requirements when these requirements begin applying to GHGs on January 2, 2011. Pursuant to section 110 of the CAA, EPA is proposing to approve this revision into the Kentucky SIP.
Because this draft SIP revision is not yet state-effective, Kentucky requested that EPA "parallel process" the SIP revision. Under this procedure, the EPA Regional Office works closely with the state while developing new or revised regulations. Generally, the state submits a copy of the proposed regulation or other revisions to EPA before conducting its public hearing. EPA reviews this proposed state action and prepares a notice of proposed rulemaking. EPA publishes this notice of proposed rulemaking in the Federal Register and solicits public comment in approximately the same time frame during which the state is holding its public hearing. The state and EPA thus provide for public comment periods on both the state and the Federal actions in parallel.
After Kentucky submits the formal state-effective SIP revision request (including a response to all public comments raised during the Commonwealth's public participation process), EPA will prepare a final rulemaking notice for the SIP revision. If changes are made to the SIP revision after EPA's notice of proposed rulemaking, such changes must be acknowledged in EPA's final rulemaking action. If the changes are significant, then EPA may be obliged to re-propose the action. In addition, if the changes render the SIP revision not approvable, EPA's re-proposal of the action would be a disapproval of the revision.
In addition to the above-described changes, Kentucky's August 5, 2010, proposed SIP revision included provisions (i.e., 401 KAR 51:001 Section 1(80)(b) and (c)) to incorporate changes pursuant to EPA's Fugitive Emissions Rule.[2] 73 FR 77882 (December 19, 2008). Also, Kentucky's submitted changes to exclude facilities that produce ethanol through a natural fermentation process from the definition of "chemical process plants" in the major NSR source permitting program (i.e., 401 KAR 51:001 Section 1 (118)). In today's proposed rulemaking, EPA is not proposing to take action on Kentucky's changes to its PSD regulations regarding the inclusion of fugitive emissions in NSR applicability determinations, nor is EPA taking any action on Kentucky's provisions to exclude facilities that produce ethanol through a natural fermentation process from the definition of "chemical process plants" in the major NSR permitting program.
II. What is the background for the action proposed by EPA in today's notice?
Today's proposed action on the Kentucky SIP relates to three Federal rulemaking actions. The first rulemaking is EPA's "Prevention of Significant Deterioration and Title V Greenhouse Gas Tailoring Rule," Final Rule (the Tailoring Rule). 75 FR 31514 (June 3, 2010). The second rulemaking is EPA's "Action to Ensure Authority to Issue Permits Under the Prevention of Significant Deterioration Program to Sources of Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Finding of Substantial Inadequacy and SIP Call," Proposed Rule (GHG SIP Call). 75 FR 53892 (September 2, 2010). The third rulemaking is EPA's "Action to Ensure Authority to Issue Permits Under the Prevention of Significant Deterioration Program to Sources of Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Federal Implementation Plan," Proposed Rule, 75 FR 53883 (September 2, 2010) (GHG FIP), which serves as a companion rulemaking to EPA's proposed GHG SIP Call. A summary of each of these rulemakings is described below.
In the first rulemaking, the Tailoring Rule, EPA established appropriate GHG emission thresholds for determining the applicability of PSD requirements to GHG-emitting sources. In the second rulemaking, the GHG SIP Call (which is not yet final), EPA proposed to find that the EPA-approved PSD programs in 13 States (including Kentucky) are substantially inadequate to meet CAA requirements because they do not appear to apply PSD requirements to GHG-emitting sources. For each of these States, EPA proposed to require the State (through a "SIP Call") to revise its SIP as necessary to correct such inadequacies. EPA proposed an expedited schedule for these States to submit their SIP revision, in light of the fact that as of January 2, 2011, certain GHG-emitting sources will become subject to the PSD requirements and may not be able to obtain a PSD permit in order to construct or modify. In the third rulemaking, the GHG FIP (which is not yet final), EPA proposed a FIP to apply in any state that is unable to submit, by its deadline, a SIP revision to ensure that the state has authority to issue PSD permits for GHG-emitting sources. Kentucky is now seeking to revise its SIP to make it adequate with respect to PSD requirements for GHG-emitting sources, thereby negating the need for a GHG FIP. Furthermore, Kentucky is seeking to revise its SIP to put in place the GHG emission thresholds for PSD applicability set forth in EPA's Tailoring Rule, thereby ensuring that smaller GHG sources emitting less than these thresholds will not be subject to permitting requirements when these requirements Start Printed Page 68274begin applying to GHGs on January 2, 2011.
Below is a brief overview of GHGs and GHG-emitting sources, the CAA PSD program, minimum SIP elements for a PSD program, and EPA's recent actions regarding GHG permitting. Following this section, EPA discusses, in sections III and IV, the relationship between the proposed Kentucky SIP revision and EPA's other national rulemakings as well as EPA's analysis of Kentucky's SIP revision.
A. What are GHGs and their sources?
A detailed explanation of GHGs, climate change and the impact on health, society, and the environment is included in EPA's technical support document for EPA's GHG endangerment finding final rule (Document ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0472-11292 at http://www.regulations.gov). The endangerment finding rulemaking is discussed later in this rulemaking. A summary of the nature and sources of GHGs is provided below.
GHGs trap the Earth's heat that would otherwise escape from the atmosphere into space and form the greenhouse effect that helps keep the Earth warm enough for life. GHGs are naturally present in the atmosphere and are also emitted by human activities. Human activities are intensifying the naturally occurring greenhouse effect by increasing the amount of GHGs in the atmosphere, which is changing the climate in a way that endangers human health, society, and the natural environment.
Some GHGs, such as carbon dioxide (CO2), are emitted to the atmosphere through natural processes as well as human activities. Other gases, such as fluorinated gases, are created and emitted solely through human activities. The well-mixed GHGs of concern directly emitted by human activities include CO2, methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2 O), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6), hereafter referred to collectively as "the six well-mixed GHG," or, simply, GHGs. Together these six well-mixed GHGs constitute the "air pollutant" upon which the GHG thresholds in EPA's Tailoring Rule are based. These six gases remain in the atmosphere for decades to centuries where they become well-mixed globally in the atmosphere. When they are emitted more quickly than natural processes can remove them from the atmosphere, their concentrations increase, thus increasing the greenhouse effect.
In the U.S., the combustion of fossil fuels (e.g., coal, oil, gas) is the largest source of CO2 emissions and accounts for 80 percent of the total GHG emissions by mass. Anthropogenic CO2 emissions released from a variety of sources, including through the use of fossil fuel combustion and cement production from geologically stored carbon (e.g., coal, oil, and natural gas) that is hundreds of millions of years old, as well as anthropogenic CO2 emissions from land-use changes such as deforestation, perturb the atmospheric concentration of CO2, and the distribution of carbon within different reservoirs readjusts. More than half of the energy-related emissions come from large stationary sources such as power plants, while about a third come from transportation. Of the six well-mixed GHGs, four (CO2, CH4, N2 O, and HFCs) are emitted by motor vehicles. In the U.S., industrial processes (such as the production of cement, steel, and aluminum), agriculture, forestry, other land use, and waste management are also important sources of GHGs.
Different GHGs have different heat-trapping capacities. The concept of Global Warming Potential (GWP) was developed to compare the heat-trapping capacity and atmospheric lifetime of one GHG to another. The definition of a GWP for a particular GHG is the ratio of heat trapped by one unit mass of the GHG to that of one unit mass of CO2 over a specified time period. When quantities of the different GHGs are multiplied by their GWPs, the different GHGs can be summed and compared on a carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2 e) basis. For example, CH4 has a GWP of 21, meaning each ton of CH4 emissions would have 21 times as much impact on global warming over a 100-year time horizon as 1 ton of CO2 emissions. Thus, on the basis of heat-trapping capability, 1 ton of CH4 would equal 21 tons of CO2 e. The GWPs of the non-CO2 GHG range from 21 (for CH4) up to 23,900 (for SF6). Aggregating all GHG on a CO2 e basis at the source level allows a facility to evaluate its total GHG emissions contribution based on a single metric.
B. What are the general requirements of the PSD program?
1. Overview of the PSD Program
The PSD program is a preconstruction review and permitting program applicable to new major stationary sources and major modifications at existing stationary sources. The PSD program applies in areas that are designated "attainment" or "unclassifiable" for a national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS). The PSD program is contained in part C of title I of the CAA. The "nonattainment NSR" program applies in areas not in attainment of a NAAQS or in the Ozone Transport Region, and it is implemented under the requirements of part D of title I of the CAA. Collectively, EPA commonly refers to these two programs as the major NSR program. The governing EPA rules are contained in 40 CFR 51.165, 51.166, 52.21, 52.24, and part 51, Appendices S and W. There is no NAAQS for CO2 or any of the other well-mixed GHGs, nor has EPA proposed any such NAAQS; therefore, unless and until EPA takes further such action, the nonattainment NSR program does not apply to GHGs.
The applicability of PSD to a particular source must be determined in advance of construction or modification and is pollutant-specific. The primary criterion in determining PSD applicability is whether the proposed project is sufficiently large (in terms of its emissions) to be a major stationary source or modification, both of which are described below. EPA has implemented these requirements in its regulations, which use somewhat different terminology than the CAA does, for determining PSD applicability.
a. Major Stationary Source
Under PSD, a "major stationary source" is any source belonging to a specified list of 28 source categories that emits or has the potential to emit 100 tpy or more of any air pollutant subject to regulation under the CAA, or any other source type that emits or has the potential to emit such pollutants in amounts equal to or greater than 250 tpy. See, e.g., 40 CFR 52.21(b)(1). We refer to these levels as the 100/250-tpy thresholds. A new source with a potential to emit (PTE) at or above the applicable "major stationary source threshold" is subject to major NSR. These limits originate from section 169 of the CAA, which applies PSD to any "major emitting facility" and defines the term to include any source that emits or has a PTE of 100 or 250 tpy, depending on the source category. Note that the major source definition incorporates the phrase "subject to regulation," which, as described later, will begin to include GHGs on January 2, 2011, under EPA's interpretation of that phrase as discussed in the recent memorandum entitled, " EPA's Interpretation of Regulations that Determine Pollutants Covered by Federal Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) Permit Program." 75 FR 17004 (April 2, 2010).
b. Major Modifications
PSD also applies to existing sources that undertake a "major modification," which occurs when: (1) There is a Start Printed Page 68275physical change in, or change in the method of operation of, a "major stationary source;" (2) the change results in a "significant" emissions increase of a pollutant subject to regulation (equal to or above the significance level that EPA has set for the pollutant in 40 CFR 52.21(b)(23)); and (3) there is a "significant net emissions increase" of a pollutant subject to regulation that is equal to or above the significance level (defined in 40 CFR 52.21(b)(23)). Significance levels, which EPA has promulgated for criteria pollutants and certain other pollutants, represent a de minimis contribution to air quality problems. When EPA has not set a significance level for a regulated NSR pollutant, PSD applies to an increase of the pollutant in any amount (that is, in effect, the significance level is treated as zero).
2. General Requirements for PSD
This section provides a very brief summary of the main requirements of the PSD program. One principal requirement is that a new major source or major modification must apply best available control technology (BACT), which is determined on a case-by-case basis taking into account, among other factors, the cost effectiveness of the control and energy and environmental impacts. EPA has developed a "top-down" approach for BACT review, which involves a decision process that includes identification of all available control technologies, elimination of technically infeasible options, ranking of remaining options by control and cost effectiveness, and then selection of BACT. Under PSD, once a source is determined to be major for any regulated NSR pollutant, a BACT review is performed for each attainment pollutant that exceeds its PSD significance level as part of new construction or for modification projects at the source, where there is a significant increase and a significant net emissions increase of such pollutant.[3]
In addition to performing BACT, the source must analyze impacts on ambient air quality to assure that sources do not cause or contribute to violation of any NAAQS or PSD increments and must analyze impacts on soil, vegetation, and visibility. In addition, sources or modifications that would impact Class I areas (e.g., national parks) may be subject to additional requirements to protect air quality related values (AQRVs) that have been identified for such areas. Under PSD, if a source's proposed project may impact a Class I area, the Federal Land Manager is notified and is responsible for evaluating a source's projected impact on the AQRVs and recommending either approval or disapproval of the source's permit application based on anticipated impacts. There are currently no NAAQS or PSD increments established for GHGs, and therefore these PSD requirements would not apply for GHGs, even when PSD is triggered for GHGs. However, if PSD is triggered for a GHG-emitting source, all regulated NSR pollutants that the new source emits in significant amounts would be subject to PSD requirements. Therefore, if a facility triggers NSR for non-GHG pollutants for which there are established NAAQS or increments, the air quality, additional impacts, and Class I requirements would apply to those pollutants.
Pursuant to existing PSD requirements, the permitting authority must provide notice of its preliminary decision on a source's application for a PSD permit and must provide an opportunity for comment by the public, industry, and other interested persons. After considering and responding to comments, the permitting authority must issue a final determination on the construction permit. Usually NSR permits are issued by a State or local air pollution control agency that has its own authority to issue PSD permits under a permit program that has been approved by EPA for inclusion in its SIP. In some areas, EPA has delegated its authority to issue PSD permits under Federal regulations to the State or local agency. In other areas, EPA issues the permits under its own authority.
C. What are the CAA requirements to include the PSD Program in the SIP?
The CAA contemplates that the PSD program be implemented in the first instance by the states and requires that states include PSD requirements in their SIPs. CAA section 110(a)(2)(C) requires that—
Each implementation plan * * * shall * * * include a program to provide for * * * regulation of the modification and construction of any stationary source within the areas covered by the plan as necessary to assure that national ambient air quality standards are achieved, including a permit program as required in part[ ] C * * * of this subchapter.
CAA section 110(a)(2)(J) requires that—
Each implementation plan * * * shall * * * meet the applicable requirements of * * * part C of this subchapter (relating to significant deterioration of air quality and visibility protection).
CAA section 161 provides that—
[E]ach applicable implementation plan shall contain emission limitations and such other measures as may be necessary, as determined under regulations promulgated under this part [C], to prevent significant deterioration of air quality in each region * * * designated * * * as attainment or unclassifiable.
These provisions, read in conjunction with the PSD applicability provisions as well as other provisions such as the BACT provision under CAA Section 165(a)(4), mandate that SIPs include PSD programs that are applicable to, among other things, any air pollutant that is subject to regulation. As discussed below, this includes GHGs on and after January 2, 2011.[4]
A number of states do not have PSD programs approved into their SIPs. In those states, EPA's regulations at 40 CFR 52.21 govern, and either EPA or the state as EPA's delegatee acts as the permitting authority. However, most states have PSD programs that have been approved into their SIPs, and these states implement their PSD programs and act as the permitting authority. Kentucky has a SIP-approved PSD program.
D. What actions has EPA taken concerning PSD requirements for GHG-emitting sources?
1. What are the Endangerment Finding, the Light Duty Vehicle Rule, and the Johnson memo reconsideration?
By notice dated December 15, 2009, and pursuant to CAA section 202(a), EPA issued two findings regarding GHGs that are commonly referred to as the "Endangerment Finding" and the "Cause or Contribute Finding." "Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases Under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act," 74 FR 66496. In the Endangerment Finding, the Administrator found that six long-lived and directly emitted GHGs—CO2, CH4, N2 O, HFCs, PFCs, and SF6—may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health and welfare. In the Cause or Contribute Finding, the Administrator "defin[ed] the air pollutant as the aggregate group of the Start Printed Page 68276same six * * * greenhouse gases," 74 FR at 66536, and found that the combined emissions of this air pollutant from new motor vehicles and new motor vehicle engines contribute to the GHG air pollution that endangers public health and welfare.
By notice dated May 7, 2010, EPA published what is commonly referred to as the "Light-Duty Vehicle Rule" (LDVR), which for the first time established Federal controls on GHGs emitted from light-duty vehicles. "Light-Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emission Standards and Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards; Final Rule." 75 FR 25324. In its applicability provisions, the LDVR specifies that it "contains standards and other regulations applicable to the emission * * * of six greenhouse gases," including CO2, CH4, N2 O, HFCs, PFCs, and SF6. 75 FR at 25686 (40 CFR 86.1818-12(a)).
On December 18, 2008, EPA issued a memorandum, "EPA's Interpretation of Regulations that Determine Pollutants Covered by Federal Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) Permit Program" (known as the "Johnson Memo" or the "PSD Interpretive Memo," and referred to in this preamble as the "Interpretive Memo"), that set forth EPA's interpretation regarding which EPA and state actions, with respect to a previously unregulated pollutant, cause that pollutant to become "subject to regulation" under the Act. Whether a pollutant is "subject to regulation" is important for the purposes of determining whether it is covered under the Federal PSD permitting program. The Interpretive Memo established that a pollutant is "subject to regulation" only if it is subject to either a provision in the CAA or regulation adopted by EPA under the CAA that requires actual control of emissions of that pollutant (referred to as the "actual control interpretation"). On February 17, 2009, EPA granted a petition for reconsideration on the Interpretive Memo and announced its intent to conduct a rulemaking to allow for public comment on the issues raised in the memorandum and on related issues. EPA also clarified that the Interpretive Memo would remain in effect pending reconsideration.
On March 29, 2010, EPA signed a notice conveying its decision to continue applying (with one limited refinement) the Interpretive Memo's interpretation of "subject to regulation," "Interpretation of Regulations that Determine Pollutants Covered by Clean Air Act Permitting Programs." 75 FR 17004. EPA concluded that the "actual control interpretation" is the most appropriate interpretation to apply given the policy implications. However, EPA refined the Agency's interpretation in one respect: EPA established that PSD permitting requirements apply to a newly regulated pollutant at the time a regulatory requirement to control emissions of that pollutant "takes effect" (rather than upon promulgation or the legal effective date of the regulation containing such a requirement). In addition, based on the anticipated promulgation of the LDVR, EPA stated that the GHG requirements of the vehicle rule would take effect on January 2, 2011, because that is the earliest date that a 2012 model year vehicle may be introduced into commerce. In other words, the compliance obligation under the LDVR does not occur until a manufacturer may introduce into commerce vehicles that are required to comply with GHG standards, which will begin with model year 2012 and will not occur before January 2, 2011.
2. What is EPA's Tailoring Rule?
On June 3, 2010 (effective August 2, 2010), EPA promulgated a final rulemaking, the Tailoring Rule, for the purpose of relieving overwhelming permitting burdens that would, in the absence of the rule, fall on permitting authorities and sources. 75 FR 31514. EPA accomplished this by tailoring the applicability criteria that determine which GHG emission sources become subject to the PSD program [5] of the CAA. In particular, EPA established in the Tailoring Rule a phase-in approach for PSD applicability and established the first two steps of the phase-in for the largest GHG-emitters. Additionally, EPA committed to certain follow-up actions regarding future steps beyond the first two, discussed in more detail later in this notice.
For the first step of the Tailoring Rule, which will begin on January 2, 2011, PSD requirements will apply to major stationary source GHG emissions only if the sources are subject to PSD anyway due to their emissions of non-GHG pollutants. Therefore, in the first step, EPA will not require sources or modifications to evaluate whether they are subject to PSD requirements solely on account of their GHG emissions. Specifically, for PSD, Step 1 requires that as of January 2, 2011, the applicable requirements of PSD, most notably, the BACT requirement, will apply to projects that increase net GHG emissions by at least 75,000 tpy CO2 e, but only if the project also significantly increases emissions of at least one non-GHG pollutant.
The second step of the Tailoring Rule, beginning on July 1, 2011, will phase in additional large sources of GHG emissions. New sources that emit, or have the potential to emit, at least 100,000 tpy CO2 e will become subject to the PSD requirements. In addition, sources that emit or have the potential to emit at least 100,000 tpy CO2 e and that undertake a modification that increases net GHG emissions by at least 75,000 tpy CO2 e will also be subject to PSD requirements. For both steps, EPA notes that if sources or modifications exceed these CO2 e-adjusted GHG triggers, they are not covered by permitting requirements unless their GHG emissions also exceed the corresponding mass-based triggers in tpy.
EPA believes that the costs to the sources and the administrative burdens to the permitting authorities of PSD permitting will be manageable at the levels in these initial two steps and that it would be administratively infeasible to subject additional sources to PSD requirements at those times. However, EPA also intends to issue a supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking in 2011, in which the Agency will propose or solicit comment on a third step of the phase-in that would include more sources, beginning on July 1, 2013. In the Tailoring Rule, EPA established an enforceable commitment that the Agency will complete this rulemaking by July 1, 2012, which will allow for 1 year's notice before Step 3 would take effect.
In addition, EPA committed to explore streamlining techniques that may well make the permitting programs much more efficient to administer for GHG, and that therefore may allow their expansion to smaller sources. EPA expects that the initial streamlining techniques will take several years to develop and implement.
In the Tailoring Rule, EPA also included a provision, that no source with emissions below 50,000 tpy CO2 e, and no modification resulting in net GHG increases of less than 50,000 tpy CO2 e, will be subject to PSD permitting before at least 6 years (i.e., April 30, 2016). This is because EPA has concluded that at the present time, the administrative burdens that would accompany permitting sources below this level would be so great that even with the streamlining actions that EPA may be able to develop and implement in the next several years, and even with the increases in permitting resources that EPA can reasonably expect the Start Printed Page 68277permitting authorities to acquire, it would be impossible to administer the permit programs for these sources until at least 2016.
As EPA explained in the Tailoring Rule, the threshold limitations are necessary because without them, PSD would apply to all stationary sources that emit or have the potential to emit more than 100 or 250 tons of GHG per year beginning on January 2, 2011. This is the date when EPA's recently promulgated LDVR takes effect, imposing control requirements for the first time on CO2 and other GHGs. If this January 2, 2011, date were to pass without the Tailoring Rule being in effect, PSD requirements would apply to GHG emissions at the 100/250 tpy applicability levels provided under a literal reading of the CAA as of that date. From that point forward, a source owner proposing to construct any new major source that emits at or higher than the applicability levels (and which therefore may be referred to as a "major" source) or modify any existing major source in a way that would increase GHG emissions would need to obtain a permit under the PSD program that addresses these emissions before construction or modification could begin.
Under these circumstances, many small sources would be burdened by the costs of the individualized PSD control technology requirements and permit applications that the PSD provisions, absent streamlining, require. Additionally, state and local permitting authorities would be burdened by the extraordinary number of these permit applications, which are orders of magnitude greater than the current inventory of permits and would vastly exceed the current administrative resources of the permitting authorities. Permit gridlock would result since the permitting authorities would likely be able to issue only a tiny fraction of the permits requested.
In the Tailoring Rule, EPA adopted regulatory language codifying the phase-in approach. As explained in that rulemaking, many state, local and tribal area programs will likely be able to immediately implement the approach without rule or statutory changes by, for example, interpreting the term "subject to regulation" that is part of the applicability provisions for PSD permitting. EPA has requested permitting authorities to confirm that they will follow this implementation approach for their programs, and if they cannot, then EPA has requested that they notify the Agency so that we can take appropriate follow-up action to narrow Federal approval of their programs before GHGs become subject to PSD permitting on January 2, 2011.[6] On July 27, 2010, Kentucky provided a letter to EPA explaining that it cannot interpret its SIP-approved PSD program as applying to GHGs. Kentucky informed EPA that it would undertake a rulemaking to include GHGs in its PSD program and presented EPA with a projected rulemaking schedule. See the docket for this proposed rulemaking for a copy of Kentucky's letter.
The thresholds that EPA established in the Tailoring Rule are based on CO2 e for the aggregate sum of six GHGs that constitute the pollutant that will be subject to regulation, which we refer to as GHG.[7] These gases are: CO2, CH4, N2 O, HFCs, PFCs, and SF6. Thus, in EPA's Tailoring Rule, EPA provided that PSD applicability is based on the quantity that results when the mass emissions of each of these gases is multiplied by the GWP of that gas, and then summed for all six gases. However, EPA further provided that in order for a source's GHG emissions to trigger PSD requirements, the quantity of the GHG emissions must equal or exceed both the applicability thresholds established in the Tailoring Rule on a CO2 e basis and the statutory thresholds of 100 or 250 tpy on a mass basis.[8] Similarly, in order for a source to be subject to the PSD modification requirements, the source's net GHG emissions increase must exceed the applicable significance level on a CO2 e basis and must also result in a net mass increase of the constituent gases combined.
3. What is the GHG SIP Call?
By Federal Register notice dated September 2, 2010, EPA proposed the GHG SIP Call. In that action, along with the companion GHG FIP rulemaking published at the same time, EPA took steps to ensure that in the 13 States that do not appear to have authority to issue PSD permits to GHG-emitting sources at present, either the state or EPA will have the authority to issue such permits by January 2, 2011. EPA explained that although for most states, either the State or EPA is already authorized to issue PSD permits for GHG-emitting sources as of that date, our preliminary information shows that these 13 States have EPA-approved PSD programs that do not appear to include GHG-emitting sources and therefore do not appear to authorize these States to issue PSD permits to such sources. Therefore, EPA proposed to find that these 13 States' SIPs are substantially inadequate to comply with CAA requirements and, accordingly, proposed to issue a SIP Call to require a SIP revision that applies their SIP PSD programs to GHG-emitting sources. In the companion GHG FIP rulemaking, EPA proposed a FIP that would give EPA authority to apply EPA's PSD program to GHG-emitting sources in any State that is unable to submit a corrective SIP revision by its deadline. The Commonwealth of Kentucky is included in the list of areas for which EPA proposed a SIP Call.
III. What is the relationship between today's proposed action and EPA's proposed GHG SIP Call and GHG FIP?
As noted above, by notice dated September 2, 2010, EPA proposed the GHG SIP Call. At the same time, EPA proposed a FIP to apply in any state that is unable to submit, by its deadline, a SIP revision to ensure that the state has authority to issue PSD permits to GHG-emitting sources.[9] As discussed in section IV of this rulemaking, Kentucky does not interpret its current PSD regulations as providing it with the authority to regulate GHGs, and as such, Kentucky is included on the list of areas for the proposed SIP call. Kentucky's August 5, 2010, proposed SIP revision (the subject of this rulemaking) addresses this authority. EPA will not take final action on the GHG SIP Call for Kentucky if the Commonwealth submits its final SIP revision to EPA prior to the final rulemaking for the GHG SIP Call. Additionally, Kentucky would not be subject to the FIP if EPA finalizes Start Printed Page 68278today's proposed approval of the Commonwealth's SIP revision.
IV. What is EPA's analysis of Kentucky's proposed SIP revision?
On August 5, 2010, KDAQ provided a revision to Kentucky's SIP to EPA for parallel processing and eventual approval. This revision to Kentucky's SIP is necessary because without it: (1) The Commonwealth would not have authority to issue PSD permits to GHG-emitting sources, and as a result, absent further action, those sources may not be able to construct or undertake modifications beginning January 2, 2011; and (2) assuming that the Commonwealth attains authority to issue PSD permits to GHG-emitting sources, PSD requirements would apply, as of January 2, 2011, at the 100- or 250-tpy levels provided under the CAA. This would greatly increase the number of required permits, imposing undue costs on small sources; which would overwhelm Kentucky's permitting resources and severely impair the function of the program.
The Commonwealth's August 5, 2010, proposed SIP revision: (1) Provides the Commonwealth with the authority to regulate GHG under the PSD program of the CAA, and (2) establishes thresholds for determining which stationary sources and modification projects become subject to permitting requirements for GHG emissions under Kentucky's PSD program. Specifically, Kentucky's August 5, 2010, proposed SIP revision includes changes to Kentucky's Air Quality Regulations, 401 KAR 51:001—Definitions for 401 KAR Chapter 51,[10] revising Kentucky's regulations by updating the "subject to regulation" provision to provide authority for the Commonwealth to regulate GHG and addressing the thresholds for GHG permitting applicability.
The Commonwealth of Kentucky is currently a SIP-approved state for the PSD program, and has incorporated the EPA's 2002 NSR reform revisions for PSD into its SIP. However, Kentucky does not interpret its current rules, which are generally consistent with the Federal rules, to be automatically updating to include newly designated regulated air pollutants such as GHG.[11] In a letter provided to EPA on July 27, 2010, Kentucky notified EPA that the Commonwealth does not currently have the authority to regulate GHG and thus is in the process of revising its regulation (the subject of this proposed action) to provide this authority. To provide this authority, Kentucky is updating the definitions for "regulated NSR pollutant" and "subject to regulation" to explicitly include GHG as a regulated NSR pollutant under the CAA. Specifically, while Kentucky revises its SIP provisions in its August 5, 2010, submittal by establishing its own regulatory language, it adopts relevant GHG definitions as "defined in 40 CFR 51.166 or 52.21" as amended by the Tailoring Rule promulgated on June 3, 2010. EPA has preliminarily determined that this change to Kentucky's regulation is consistent with the CAA and its implementing regulations regarding GHG.
The changes included in Kentucky's PSD program are substantively the same as EPA's Tailoring Rule. The Kentucky rules have been formatted to conform to Kentucky's rule drafting standards for 401 KAR 51:001—Definitions for 401 KAR Chapter 51, but in substantive content the rules that address the Tailoring Rule provisions are the same as the Federal rules. As part of its review of the Kentucky submittal, EPA performed a line-by-line review of Kentucky's proposed changes to its regulations and has preliminarily determined that they are consistent with the Tailoring Rule. Furthermore, EPA preliminarily determined that this revision to Kentucky's SIP is consistent with section 110 of the CAA. See, e.g., Tailoring Rule, 75 FR at 31561.
V. Proposed Action
EPA is proposing to approve the Commonwealth of Kentucky's August 5, 2010, SIP revision, relating to PSD requirements for GHG-emitting sources. Specifically, Kentucky's August 5, 2010, proposed SIP revision: (1) Provides the Commonwealth with the authority to regulate GHGs under its PSD program, and (2) establishes appropriate emissions thresholds for determining PSD applicability with respect to new and modified GHG-emitting sources in accordance with EPA's Tailoring Rule. EPA has made the preliminary determination that this SIP revision is approvable because it is in accordance with the CAA and EPA regulations regarding PSD permitting for GHGs.
VI. 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 proposed action merely approves the Commonwealth's law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by the Commonwealth's law. For that reason, this proposed 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 proposed 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 Commonwealth, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial Start Printed Page 68279direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.Start List of Subjects
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
- Environmental protection
- Air pollution control
- Incorporation by reference
- Intergovernmental relations
- and Reporting and recordkeeping requirements
Dated: October 25, 2010.
A. Stanley Meiburg,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4.
1. While the transmittal letter for Kentucky's submission (the subject of this action) is dated July 15, 2010, EPA did not officially receive Kentucky's request for parallel processing until August 5, 2010.Back to Citation
2. On March 31, 2010, EPA stayed the Fugitive Emissions Rule (73 FR 77882) for 18 months to October 3, 2011, to allow the Agency time to propose, take comment and issue a final action regarding the inclusion of fugitive emissions in NSR applicability determinations. Therefore, the 40 CFR Part 51 and Part 52 administrative regulations that were amended for the Fugitive Emissions Rule are stayed through October 3, 2011.Back to Citation
3. EPA notes that the PSD program has historically operated in this fashion for all pollutants—when new sources or modifications are "major," PSD applies to all pollutants that are emitted in significant quantities from the source or project. This rule does not alter that for sources or modifications that are major due to their GHG emissions.Back to Citation
4. In the Tailoring Rule, EPA noted that commenters argued, with some variations, that the PSD provisions applied only to NAAQS pollutants, and not GHG, and EPA responded that the PSD provisions apply to all pollutants subject to regulation, including GHG. See 75 FR 31560-62 (June 3, 2010). EPA maintains its position that the PSD provisions apply to all pollutants subject to regulation, and the Agency incorporates by reference the discussion of this issue in the Tailoring Rule.Back to Citation
5. The Tailoring Rule also applies to the title V program, which requires operating permits for existing sources. However, today's action does not affect Kentucky's title V program.Back to Citation
6. Narrowing EPA's approval will ensure that for Federal purposes, sources with GHG emissions that are less than the Tailoring Rule's emission thresholds will not be obligated under Federal law to obtain PSD permits during the gap between when GHG PSD requirements go into effect on January 2, 2011 and when either (1) EPA approves a SIP revision adopting EPA's tailoring approach, or (2) if a state opts to regulate smaller GHG-emitting sources, the state demonstrates to EPA that it has adequate resources to handle permitting for such sources. EPA expects to finalize the narrowing action prior to the January 2, 2011 deadline with respect to those States for which EPA will not have approved the Tailoring Rule thresholds in their SIPs by that time.Back to Citation
7. The term "greenhouse gases" is commonly used to refer generally to gases that have heat-trapping properties. However, in this notice, unless noted otherwise, we use it to refer specifically to the pollutant regulated in the LDVR.Back to Citation
8. The relevant thresholds are 100 tpy for title V, and 250 tpy for PSD, except for 28 categories listed in EPA regulations for which the PSD threshold is 100 tpy.Back to Citation
9. As explained in the proposed GHG SIP Call (75 FR 53892, 53896), EPA intends to finalize its finding of substantial inadequacy and the SIP call for the 13 listed states by December 1, 2010. EPA requested that the states for which EPA is proposing a SIP call identify the deadline—between 3 weeks and 12 months from the date of signature of the final SIP Call—that they would accept for submitting their corrective SIP revision.Back to Citation
10. Kentucky's submittal also revises definitions for 401 KAR 52:001—Definitions for 401 KAR Chapter 52; however, these definitions relate to title V and are not included in the SIP. As such, EPA is not proposing to take action to approve Kentucky's update to these definitions in this rulemaking.Back to Citation
11. On July 23, 2010, Lynorae Benjamin, Region 4 EPA Chief of the Regulatory Development Section, confirmed with John Lyons, the Director of KDAQ, that it is the Commonwealth of Kentucky's interpretation that Kentucky does not have the authority to regulate GHG without the revision that is the subject of today's proposed rulemaking.Back to Citation
[FR Doc. 2010-28017 Filed 11-4-10; 8:45 am]


text:
Mill Street Brewery: Sound Effect
Published on Jul 28, 2016
Editor's Pick
No description available
Rate this Ad
You must be registered to rate this ad.
Please Login or Register Now
- Date
- Jul 28, 2016
- Client:
- Mill Street Brewery
Need a credit fix? Contact the Creativity Editors

subset: commoncrawl


text:
The Rooftop Cultivation Association
Superstructure Name:The Rooftop Cultivation Association
User Name:mrjudkins
Superstructure Description:Feeding ourselves, one apartment block at a time.
Superstructure Idea:
The aim is to create a scheme whereby food-producing rooftop gardens will be installed on any apartment in a city that has space and structural support for one, combined with residents who are willing to contribute to the cost and maintain it.
Superstructure Needs:
Social Marketing Specialists
Apartment Dwellers
Apartment Building Owners & Managers
City Councils - esp Building Services and Parks & Gardens Departments
Structural Engineers
Landscapers / Gardeners
Superstructure Memembership:
Simply click join below, and feel free to get into the discussions. We're looking for more ideas on how to make this happen, and stories of people who are working to do so!


text:
Photobook Talk – Daniel Boetker-Smith
Bachelor of Photography lecturer Daniel Boetker-Smith will be talking at the Centre for Contemporary Photography Melbourne this Thursday evening.
International publisher and distributor Perimeter Books will be showcasing the amazing catalogue of British photographic publisher MACK Books. PSC's Daniel will be in discussion with Perimeter's Dan Rule about the significant impact MACK has had on the international photographic landscape.
Free event – www.facebook.com/events/1506465209584071
Image: Roe Etheridge, from Le Luxe – http://www.mackbooks.co.uk/pages/leluxe/


text:
Rendelsham community to farewell 'a good champion of the South East'
As the community farewells Ian 'Rocky' Smith, lifelong friend Bob Foster shares his memories of the man fondly remembered as the unofficial mayor of Rendelsham.
- Print page
- Email this
- Permalink
A funeral service has been held at Rendelsham Hall today for Ian 'Rocky' Smith, affectionately known as the mayor of Rendelsham as well as a farmer, a husband, a father, great grandfather and a war veteran.
A stalwart at Anzac Day memorial services and parades, it's believed Flying Officer Smith was one of the last surviving war veterans to have enlisted at Rendelsham.
Mr Smith was also a friend to ABC South East SA, serving as a news correspondent for a long time.
Rocky lived in his beloved home town for almost nine decades, until his passing last week.
His family presence in the South East stretches almost 170 years, with the arrival of Rocky's great-grandparents at Rivoli Bay South in 1846. The family would later settle in Rendelsham.
In an archived interview, Mr Smith described life as child in Rendelsham during the depression years to Mornings presenter Stan Thomson.
"Went to school where many of the kids that went to Rendelsham School never had shoes, couldn't afford shoes, barefooted.
"I was a little bit more fortunate, I did have shoes, but we all had little money and we never went much further than Millicent but I daresay we were all very happy.
"Really I did have a very happy childhood...rabbiting, fishing down at Southend or in the local drains for yabbies...we never had wireless, we never had television of course.
"There were no telephones, only one at the local post office but everybody seemed to be happy."
Lifelong friend remembers 'Rocky'
"Rocky was the best man at my wedding, went to school together, grew up together," Bob Foster told Breakfast.
"The school days, he became very ill and he was a very sick boy. The doctors could not locate anything wrong until one of the kids in the town had the guts to come up and say that they'd had a fight with stones and it had hit him on the head with a stone."
"He survived that all right! But there was a time it was a doubt if he was even going to survive that but this kid came clean and save Rocky's life actually."
Born as Ian, Bob Foster said his friend took the name of 'Rocky' from his father - a name handed down.
After growing up together, the two men would go their separate ways for a time before reuniting in later years.
"He was in the air force and a farmer. I went to Adelaide and worked for a while in my younger days and then I returned here.
"So we've been, more or less, in contact our entire lives."
Describing Rocky as 'full of beans' in his younger years, Bob also noted his friend's passion for politics later on - which once found Rocky hosting a visit from former prime minister, Malcolm Fraser.
In more recent times, Rocky and Mr Foster both found themselves in hospital at the same time.
"He (Rocky) wasn't expected to see the night out, well he tricked them all! He's lasted for another 12 months."
"We were both put there for the same reason but both of us survived."
"He was the kingpin of Rendelsham, now I don't know what to do, we haven't got Rocky. He sort of took a lead and was always there, a great supporter of the town."
"He always said 'this is where I'll be buried' and, well, he'll get his wish."
"He's done a lot for the district, he's been a good champion for the South East."
Hear more from Bob Foster and Stan Thomson's interview with Ian 'Rocky' Smith by selecting the audio to the right.


text:
The SUNY Oneonta College Observatory is located at College Camp on the northeastern side of campus in Oneonta, New York. The Observatory has several large computer-controlled telescopes and numerous other smaller portable telescopes. Currently the observatory is used in the upper-level astronomy series taught by the Department of Physics & Astronomy--in particular, Astronomy 270 (Our Solar System), Astronomy 271 (Stars and Galaxies), and Astronomy 360 (Observational Methods). The facilities are also available for independent research projects by upper-level astronomy students. We also host observing nights that are open to the public, where people can view astronomical objects such as planets, star clusters, planetary nebulae and galaxies through the eyepieces.
The Observatory is home to the largest optical telescope in the state of New York, a computerized f/4 Newtonian reflector with a 1-meter (40-inch) primary mirror. The telescope, designated the NTT-40, was constructed by JMI Telescopes of Lakewood, Colorado; technical information can be found at the JMI NTT-40 webpage. In addition we have two observatory domes housing 16-inch and 14-inch Schmidt-Cassegrain telescopes, several smaller Schmidt-Cassegrain telescopes, and seven sheds housing 4-inch refractor telescopes. The observatory is equipped with a variety of eyepieces, several electronic CCD cameras, an adaptive optics unit and a spectrograph. Among the collection of SBIG CCD cameras there is a research-grade SBIG CCD camera equipped with a filter wheel. Available filter sets include the RGBCL set used for amateur astrophotography as well as the Johnson-Cousins UBVRI and SDSS ugriz standard filter sets. Narrow-band H-alpha and O III filters are also available.
Visit the webpage for the astronomy program at SUNY Oneonta for more information about our courses, our facilities, and the images taken at the observatory.
Public Access and Outreach
Public Observing Nights at SUNY Oneonta College Observatory
Please see the calendar for the schedule of public observing nights. Please bear in mind that due to the frequent cloudy or inclement weather in upstate New York, many observing nights will inevitably be cancelled.
We have created a mailing list through which you can receive updates about the status of upcoming public observatory nights. To add your name to this list, simply send an email to firstname.lastname@example.com with the words "sub PUBLIC-OBSERV" in the main body of the email. You will then receive an email asking you to confirm your request, and once you have confirmed this then you will be added. Email updates will be sent out roughly one day in advance of the event and then again the evening of the event.
If you need any other information, please contact the campus astronomer, or Sheila Birkett (Sheila.Birkett -at- oneonta.edu)
Calendar for Public Observing Nights
Group Visits to the Observatory
College Camp Driving Directions


text:
Building Your List with Articles
How to trade Bitcoin at 100X leverage or margin
Can You Make Good Money With BITMEX?
100×Leverage!! Cryptocurrency FX Account Set Up
You can build your list simply by writing articles, whether you have thought of it or not.
Design an email newsletter for Viral Marketing
The term 'viral marketing' was originally referenced in Greek Athenian histories, to be finally coined in the late 1990s by venture capitalist Steve Jurvetson. The term 'viral marketing' is commonly defined as network-enhanced word
Creating the Web 2.0 Buzz – Beyond Search Engine Optimization
We live in an interesting world, filled with fast-changing trends and public fads. If you know the basics of how to create a Buzz with our modern Web 2.0 tools, you can create a conversation and draw in people to buy your product. This article lays out th
Internet marketing predictions for 2006
Internet marketing has been making some pretty dramatic changes over the last few years, like the growth and evolution of the...
Stop Committing These 10 Common Viral Marketing Mistakes
Viral marketing could be such an arduous task, especially for the newbies in this field. To avoid getting into so much trouble, it would be helpful to learn about these 10 common viral marketing mistakes.
The 3 MOST Powerful Forms Of 'Viral Marketing' That Will PUT Your 'Opt-In' List Building Efforts On… Auto-Pilot!
This article outlines 3 of the most Powerful methods used to put build your Opt-In list building on 'Auto-Pilot'.
RSS… and WHY Its Being Considered The Newest Player In The VIRAL Marketing Game
This article explains how RSS is the newsest player in the VIRAL marketing game how you can take advantage of it Starting Today!


text:
Over 23,000 job opportunities will be offered during the 108th Charter Day anniversary job fair on Sept. 16, 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. at the Baguio Convention Center.
Public Employment Services Office (PESO) designate and Executive Assistant Jose Atanacio of the City Mayor's Office said more than 20,000 vacancies were posted by 16 overseas job placement agencies which will participate in the fair.
These were led by Placewell Int'l Services Corp. which will post 5,399 jobs and United Philippine Lines Inc. with 5,210 vacancies; Magsaysay Maritime Corporation with 2,200; and Y HMD Int'l. Services Inc. with 2,051 jobs.
Most of the vacancies are for hospital or medical, cruise ship, and food service personnel. Others are for skilled workers.
Twenty-two local companies will offer a total of 2,588 job openings led by IQOR with 800 jobs and 51 Talk with 500.
Twenty local firms will also join the activities topbilled by Convergys with 500 openings, Texas Instruments with 267, and Sitel Philippines Corp. with 200 slots.
Other local companies with job tenders are: Max's Group Inc. with 21 slots; Sutherland, 100; Wellform Trading Corp., 15; Tree Top Adventure, 17; Pines International Academy, 29; SM Supervalue/Supermarket, 80; Metrobank, 114; City Light, 16; John Hay Management Corp., 199; The Mano, 12; Hedcor Aboitiz, 2; Toyota, 12; Utalk Tutorial, 21; Baguio Country Club, 67; FC Laranang, 95; Tiongsan, 74; and Sunshine/McDonalds/Hotel Veniz, 105.
The Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency posted 189 vacancies while the Philippine National Police Cordillera will recruit 74.
The fair will also include one-stop services by PhilHealth, Social Security System and the Pag-IBIG as well as free haircut, massage, and international calls.
Applicants are advised to bring resume with 2 x 2 ID pictures, authenticated birth certificate, high school or college diploma, transcript of records, NBI, police and barangay clearance, SSS number, taxpayer's identification number, medical certificate, marriage contract (if married), training certificates, professional licenses, and certificates of employment (if formerly employed).


text:
Have an account?
Need an account?Create an account
This document demonstrates the use of the advanced-balance cookie content rule function. Advanced-balance cookie allows the Content Services Switch (CSS) to make its load balancing decision based on a cookie sent by a real server. If you know in advance what type of information the cookie contains, however, you can use this information to tell the CSS how to perform its loadbalancing decision.
Note: The CSS cannot learn the cookie from the server, and stick every request that would include this cookie to the same server.
For more information on document conventions, see the Cisco Technical Tips Conventions.
There are no specific prerequisites for this document.
The information in this document is based on all Cisco CSS 11000 and 11500 Series CSSs running Cisco WebNS Software Release 3.0 and later.
The information presented in this document was created from devices in a specific lab environment. All the devices used in this document started with a cleared (default) configuration. If you are working in a live network, ensure that you understand the potential impact of any command before using it.
In this section, you are presented with the information to configure the features described in this document.
When configuring the CSS 11000 and 11500, determine first if you need a server cookie string. If the string operation under the content rule is match-service-cookie, which is the default setting, this parameter must be configured. In this case the service cookie string is matched against the cookie contained in the HTTP header for load balancing decision.
If the string operation under the content rule is set to the hash method, this parameter is not needed. In order to select one of the available servers, the cookie contained in the HTTP header is mathematically processed using a hashing algorithm. If available, the hash algorithm assigna the connection carrying a certain cookie to the same server. This example focuses on the match-service-cookie case.
Note: Cookies are case sensitive.
training4(config># service server_g training4(config-service[server_g])# string LV2KJK (the server cookie text) training4(config># service server_h training4(config-service[server_h])# string AARIKA
Note: Cookies require a Layer 5 rule. You can create a Layer 5 rule by adding a URL. For example, <url"/*">. A Layer 4 rule can be promoted to a Layer 5 rule by issuing the advanced-balance cookies command.
Choose the advanced-balance method.
training4(config-owner-content[cookie-layer5])# advanced-balance cookies
Configure the string operation.
training4(config-owner-content[cookie-layer5])# string operation ? match-service-cookie (DEFAULT) hash-crc32 hash-xor hash-a
Define the starting/ending bytes.
training4(config-owner-content[cookie-layer5])# string range 1 to 200 Start byte position of cookie/url after header (Range:1-600)
Specify the prefix located in the string range.
training4(config-owner-content[cookie-layer5])# string prefix "ASPSESSION" <quoted text>"Quoted textual information"(Len: 0-32)
Indicate how many bytes to skip after the starting prefix.
training4(config-owner-content[cookie-layer5])# string skip-length 9 <quoted text>"Quoted textual information"(Len: 0-32)
Indicate how many bytes after the prefix/skip-length make-up the string.
training4(config-owner-content[cookie-layer5])# string process-length 6 <integer>Integer value(Range: 0-64)
If no string process length is configured, search after end of string character.
training4(config-owner-content[cookie-layer5])# string eos-char "&" <quoted text>"Quoted textual information"(Len: 0-5)
Specify the failover in the event that a server goes down or is suspended.
training4(config-owner-content[cookie-layer5])# sticky-serverdown-failoversticky-srcip sticky-srcip-dstport sticky-srcip balance (Default) redirect reject
Below is an example of a cookie string, and how some of the parameters work.
ASPSESSIONJJKKJJKK=LV2KJK44444444 !--- The string prefix = ASPSESSION. !--- The string skip-length = 9. Skip !--- nine characters after the prefix. !--- The string process-length = 6, which would make !--- the string LV2KJK matching service server_g. ASPSESSIONSQPMMJHK=AARIKAMDESLD !--- Matches service server_h.
Below is a sample configuration for the cookie strings.
!************************** SERVICE ************************** service server_g ip address 172.17.63.240 string LV2KJK active service server_h ip address 172.17.63.241 string AARIKA active !*************************** OWNER *************************** owner braden content server-cookie protocol tcp vip address 172.17.63.199 port 80 advanced-balance cookies string range 1 to 200 string prefix "ASPSESSION" string skip-length 9 string process-length 6 add service server_g add service server_h active
There is currently no verification procedure available for this configuration.
There is currently no specific troubleshooting information available for this configuration.


text:
SOURCE: Cornerstone Total Return Fund, Inc.
December 02, 2013 09:25 ET
NEW YORK, NY--(Marketwired - Dec 2, 2013) - Cornerstone Total Return Fund, Inc. (the "Fund") (NYSE MKT: CRF) is pleased to announce the completion of its one-for-three rights offering which expired Friday, November 29, 2013 (the "Offering"). The offering was over-subscribed. Under the terms of the Offering, record date stockholders were entitled to purchase one newly-issued share of common stock of the Fund for every three rights held. The subscription price for each newly-issued share was determined to be $5.34 which, under the terms of the prospectus, was equal to the greater of (i) 107% of net asset value per share as calculated at the close of trading on the date of expiration of the Offering and (ii) 90% of the market price per share at such time.
Based on preliminary results provided by the Fund's subscription agent, the Fund received requests for approximately $49.7 million of its shares.
The subscription price is lower than the original estimated subscription price of $6.03. Under the prospectus, any excess payment received from a stockholder will, unless otherwise indicated on the subscription certificate received from such stockholder, be applied towards the purchase of unsubscribed shares. It is anticipated that shares will be issued on or about Friday, December 6, 2013. Stockholders are encouraged to contact their broker regarding the specifics of their account. Newly-issued shares will be entitled to the Fund's distribution to stockholders for the month of December.
Cornerstone Total Return Fund, Inc. is a closed-end, diversified management investment company and is registered with the Securities & Exchange Commission under the Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended.
Cornerstone Total Return Fund, Inc. is traded on the NYSE MKT LLC under the trading symbol "CRF". Cornerstone Advisors, Inc., the Fund's Advisor, also serves as investment adviser to two other closed-end funds, Cornerstone Progressive Return Fund (NYSE MKT: CFP) and Cornerstone Strategic Value Fund, Inc. (NYSE MKT: CLM). For more information regarding each Fund please visit www.cornerstonestrategicvaluefund.com, www.cornerstonetotalreturnfund.com and www.cornerstoneprogressivereturnfund.com.
See all RSS Newsfeeds


text:
Why Old School Gaming Needs New Players
Earlier this week I was asked what type of new old school adventure modules would interest me enough to part with what little money I have that doesn't go to basic survival or paying off the huge cancer bills. I looked at the boxes of modules from TSR, Judges Guild, Mayfair Games, etc. I have from the 1970s and 1980s -- that's probably 300 or 400 modules -- (plus modules from old Dragon, old White Dwarf, and old Dungeon magazines) and realized that I would be unlikely to pay the high per page (and shipping) costs associated with old school modules today unless the module was something I knew in advance that I would love as much as Tegel Manor, Keep on the Borderlands, the City-State of the Invincible Overlord, etc. And there aren't many modules likely to do that.
About all I buy these days are PDF copies of magazines like Knockspell and Fight On! (as I can be pretty sure that there will be something in each issue that will be worth the money even if Sturgeon's Law applies to the issue as a whole -- which it hasn't yet) and PDF copies of rules that look interesting. I'd rather have hardcopies, but shipping them is too expensive for me.
Let's face it. I'm a horrible target for publishers. I prefer to homebrew my settings and adventures, I already have more published adventures I can could ever use even if I never created another homebrew adventure, and I have very little money to spend on new material just to support it. While most old school gamers aren't unlucky enough to be in my financial condition, I suspect the majority of us homebrew and already own more published adventures than we could ever use.
This means that as long as we are around, the hobby of playing old school style games isn't going to die even if no new old school material is ever created by the RPG industry. However, if a part of RPG industry is going to survive on publishing old school material, this means they probably need to really concentrate on getting more old school players into the the hobby.
To be honest, I get the impression that a lot of the success of old school publishers thus far has depended on a (relatively) small group of long time old school players buying material they don't really need because they want to support the publication of old school material. I know if I wasn't spending all my disposable income on cancer bills, I'd be doing just that. While this may be great for jump-starting things, it can only go on for a limited time before people burn out on doing this -- especially as more and more companies create old school material and try to sell it. If an old-school RPG industry is going to survive, let alone thrive, they are going to have to find a way to attract a good number of new players to old school play. New players will not already possess 10 or 20 modules (let alone a few hundred as I do), copies of every major rule system out there, etc. and would therefore be a much better market for new old school products than old grognards like me.
Note that I said the RPG industry needs to to that, not the old school hobby. The old school hobby can easily thrive with a slow trickle of new players, it's the industry who need a steady and larger stream of new players, therefore most of the work of getting those players is going to have to fall on the industry. I've recruited seven new old school players over the last year. That fills up my game, so I doubt I will recruit nearly that many this year. I don't need more, but the industry does if it is to have a real chance of thriving.
February 25, 2010 at 5:51 PM
I guess there's also the question of whether the hobby is big enough and lucrative enough to support an industry though.
A lot of the stuff that TSR did in the 80s and other game companies have continued to do since then is the stuff that they did to build out from gaming being something for hobbyists to being something large enough and profitable enough to support an industry. But old-school gaming is somewhat a reaction against the actions those companies took and a look back to what the hobby was like before they took those moves.
Maybe I'm completely off-base, but it seems part of the appeal of the whole old-school idea is that it is a lot more DIY than modern RPGs tend to be. And most of the successful RPG companies have moved away from DIY and towards "here's a steady stream of rules for you to buy". It seems like a company looking to sell old school RPGs needs to find a different business model than that to be successful. Maybe it can be done, but it's going to take some creative thinking to come up with a way to generate enough paying customers with a hobbyist/DIY attitude to maintain a company.
(Of course Palladium has a fairly old school game and they use the "here's a steady stream of rules for you to buy" business model and it seems to work for them. But then, they're selling to a fanbase that they've carefully cultivated and kept for a couple of decades now, so they may be an exception just by virtue of their longevity. Someone starting a new company isn't going to have that kind of base to work with.)
February 25, 2010 at 6:31 PM
I posted something related to this on my blog yesterday...
And I'm shocked SHOCKED that I'm not listed on the right... :)
February 25, 2010 at 6:54 PM
Tekumel has had several different rules sets and the fanbase is always slowly (very slowly) increasing, and it is still very much alive.
--I think the key is to create compelling, high-calibre works of a detailed and intricate nature that can be mined for decades, not endless knock-offs and repetitive dungeon crawls which seem to appeal primarily to neo-grognards, whereas the true Old Guard players have played in their hombrewed campaign settings for so long that new players find them as 'opaque' and 'daunting' as Tekumel.
If the industry wishes to find new players, it must adapt the material to expand into new sorts of scenarios while still retaining the Old School ethos which has already attracted those players dissatisfied with 3.x+ game engines.
--Adaptable micro-settings in system-neutral statting write-ups built around new vistas for adventure, leaving behind the staid and well-trod clichés of pseudo-mediaeval dungeons, cities, and wildernesses.
It may even require looking at smaller, episodic (read: low-attention-span) challenge-scenarios, that in and of themselves can be fropped into a group's play schedule for one session, but ingrained with enough flavour and hinted-at macro-fluff that if linked, they do more than imply a setting, yet one generic enough that any given part of the whole can be used by virtually any GM and gaming group.
Just some ideas I've had recently. ;D
February 25, 2010 at 6:58 PM
Well, to be honest, Joe, neither am I, but I'm still new to the scene. :)
In Like Flynn
And thanks, Randall, for a thought-provoking post.
With Regards,
February 25, 2010 at 7:58 PM
I've balked at the "Old School" label a few times (I never played Kung-Fu Psychic Cowboys back in the 80s), but I think DIY is a very good way of describing the approach to RPGs we all seem to share.
I find all of you guys ("The Community") much more important than "The Industry" for my own enjoyment of my personal gaming hobby. :)
Daddy Grognard
February 26, 2010 at 5:07 AM
Randall, you and I must have some of telepathic link. As I commented on Joe's post the other day ,this is totally where I'm coming from. I also homebrew for reasons of cost and to avoid the Forgotten Realms syndrome, where one of your players is always going to know more about the setting that you and everyone is going to have an opinion about it. I've got heaps of modules as well, so I'm sorted for product.
While it is easy(ish) to woo players from other editions and even bring back those who have played and gone dormant, the real target for the OSR is those people who have never played but wonder what it is all about. I'm not dissing 4e but we need to give them a choice and show that there are multiple iterations of D&D (whatever it's called now) out there.
If only 10% of Old School players went out and brought someone new into the hobby, the effect would be amazing. Apart from the fact that it would counteract natural shrinkage of the hobby's membership, new players means new thinking and a wake-up call for some Old Schoolers who might have regarded the OSR as some cosy little club where we can have things just so while we reminisce about the good old days.
I wish you well on your efforts on this one; it's something that more people need to get behind.
February 26, 2010 at 5:12 PM
Most old school gamers include the time TSR had D&D in the "big time" (circa 1979-1985) in their definition of "old school gaming." The "golden age" of D&D had come and gone by the time TSR started making lots of changes to the game that started to turn old school players off. D&D was extremely popular and mainstream (with huge print runs being normal) relatively early in its existence. Old school tries to recapture what D&D was in the early years before AND while it was very popular.
The business model back then was to sell mainly to DMs (AD&D1e players needed -- at most -- a copy of the Players Handbook) and to concentrate on bringing new players into the game to generate cash. The model today seems to be to come out with new editions to sell to the same players that you've sold to before -- and to aim at players instead of DMs because in a static market (numbers wise) there is more money to be made from getting players to have to buy lots of stuff. I suppose this is a okay model for this quarter's profits, but it's obviously an epic fail model over the long term.
February 26, 2010 at 5:17 PM
The hobby has always been far more important to me than the industry. In the first place, if the industry disappeared tomorrow, it wouldn't affect my part of the hobby at all. Of course, if the industry completely disappeared tomorrow, all that would happen is a bunch of new, smaller companies would spring up over the next few years. Thanks to software, the Internet, PDFs, and Print-on-demand publishers, the cost of entry into the tabletop RPG industry is very low.
February 26, 2010 at 5:19 PM
Finally, apologies to everyone who should be on my Old School Blog list and isn't. I really need to update it, but am so far behind in so many things that I just never seem to get around to it.
February 27, 2010 at 10:21 PM
The business model back then was to sell mainly to DMs (AD&D1e players needed -- at most -- a copy of the Players Handbook) and to concentrate on bringing new players into the game to generate cash.
Sure. The game was novel and growing from nothing, so this was a great business tactic to take for the industry. If you can get this model back then it's a huge victory. It's part of what I think Wizards was trying to recapture when they had their big push for third edition D&D back in 2000, mixed with the post-mid-80s trend of marketing to players instead of DMs because the player pool is larger than the DM pool and so there's more money there to tap into.
And that's why TSR and others had the shift from DMs to players in the first place. The market reached its saturation point and so they started figuring out ways to profit from a stable market instead of a growth one. The only real major expansions of the RPG market after the mid-80s were when White Wolf tapped into an entirely new market of customers that had never thought about RPGs before, and then again when 3rd edition D&D hit and Wizards managed to draw back a huge audience of folks who had drifted away from tabletop gaming altogether over the years (which wasn't so much an expansion as it was a re-expansion after years of contraction, I suppose).
Again I'm not saying that it can't be done. But I don't think it's going to be an easy thing to do. And while adding more players will help, it's not going to help as much as it would for the "modern" RPG market. Because the old-school style lends itself to products aimed at more at DMs than at players, so you not only have to recruit more players, you have to turn them into DMs. And then convince them to buy stuff instead of just making their own. When doing it for yourself is one of the huge draws of doing old school stuff in the first place. It's a tough nut to crack, I think.
February 27, 2010 at 10:46 PM
Don't hassle me, I'm working on it, damnit.


text:
Observation Post #6
Los Angeles, California, United States
Scientific Survey Site
Northbound gray whales pass Los Angeles from February through May, on their return from Mexico after migrating south from December through February. The main pulse of northbound whales usually comes the second and third week of March. These are mostly adults and juveniles. A second pulse comes about 6 weeks later. These are the cow/calf pairs. Volunteers count migrating gray whales daily from Dec. 1 through May 15 from this site on Palos Verdes Peninsula in southern California, about 8 miles north of the Los Angeles Harbor. Thanks to The Gray Whale Census and Behavior Project by the the American Cetacean Society/Los Angeles Chapter (ACS/LA), Journey North shares the numbers and notes from Director Alisa Schulman-Janiger. Most gray whales travel farther offshore here. Sea conditions, wind, fog, and rain can keep observers from spotting the whales too. The result can be wide annual fluctuations in counts. Biologists don't make estimated population counts from the data, but they do see migration trends. The trends from this post closely mirror those seen from other gray whale census stations in California, even though observers can see only a small part of all the passing whales.
Back to Route Map
© Journey North. All rights reserved.
© Journey North. All rights reserved.


text:
Platform closure
22 Apr 2018
Dear Customers,
We inform you that starting from 1st of May 2018, our platform will be closed. Operations stopped back on 1st of February but you still could stock your bitcoins on our platform.
Please withdraw all your balances before the 1st of May.
Kind regards,
BTCxChange Team


text:
Spurs 2-0 Reading U18s - report from the Training Centre
05 February 2014|Tottenham Hotspur
First half goals from Nathan Oduwa and Shayon Harrison saw our Under-18s keep Reading at arm's length on Wednesday afternoon.
The Royals were restricted to the occasional opening, as we overcame a fierce wind and driving rain to register a 2-0 victory in the Barclays Under-18 Premier League.
An early free-kick from Will Miller caused Reading goalkeeper Lewis Ward a few problems, before we seized an 11th minute advantage. After some fine build-up play from Joe Pritchard and Emmanuel Sonupe on the right, Josh Onomah cut into the box and clipped the ball out to the unmarked Oduwa who finished well.
Seven minutes later Reading striker Harry Cardwell turned away from Connor Ogilvie and struck the far post from an acute angle. Germaine Ofori stretched to try and tuck home the rebound but a courageous diving challenge from Kane Vincent-Young kept our goal intact. The full-back, however, got injured in the process of clearing the ball and was substituted after a lengthy stoppage.
Visiting captain Rob Dickie saw his diving header from Noor Husin's in-swinger fly wide, while Ogilvie tested keeper Ward with a 35-yard rising drive at the other end. The defender's shot was too hot to handle, but an early linesman's flag meant Harrison's effort from the rebound didn't count.
There was no denying Harrison in the 36th minute though, the striker clipping the ball over the committed Ward and into the net after being sprung in behind the Royals' defence by Miller.
Oduwa had the ball in the net for what he thought was a third goal three minutes before the interval but again the linesman's flag denied him, while the same player pulled a shot across the face of goal shortly afterwards.
The second half yielded few chances with the swirling wind making attacking football difficult to produce. Conor Shaughnessy shot wide early on, while Ogilvie got to the byline at the other end – only for his cross to be smothered at the near post by the Reading defence.
Onomah skewed a shot over the top just after the hour mark, while Oduwa missed the target after he and Harrison went through with only the keeper to beat.
A low shot-on-the-turn from substitute Anthony Georgiou was comfortable for Ward while Shaughnessy blasted a free-kick just wide for Reading after Cy Goddard impeded Ofori. Ogilvie then made a fine last-ditch tackle to prevent Ofori from going clean through in the box.
In the last few minutes, Harrison couldn't quite connect at the near post after a barnstorming right-sided run from Sonupe led to a cross, while another Sonupe ball in saw Ward gather under pressure from Georgiou.
Spurs: Voss, Pritchard, Vincent-Young (Campbell-Young 23), Lesniak, Walkes, Ogilvie, Sonupe, Onomah (Goddard 69), Harrison, Miller, Oduwa (Georgiou 66). Subs (not used): Winks, McGee (GK).


text:
|900 sq ft
|Property type
Decorated in a 420 fashion! We offer a place that allows your true hippie soul to relax and partake in ganja if you so desire. A destination spot in SoCo, come enjoy our beautiful country. The house sleeps 4, has a lot of ways to have fun; air hockey table, large flat screen TV for gaming, satellite TV, evening fire pit and large private yard with 2 hammocks, outside dart game and horse shoe pit. Fully equipped kitchen and a washer and dryer. Ask about our smoking kit rental for anyone 21 and over (includes pipe, bong, dabs, papers, etc... and ganja gift). We are pet friendly. This house is located at a train intersection so the train lets off its whistle as it travels thru. You can sit on the front porch and wave at the conductors as they pass by.
Pets are welcome but there is a pet fee of $25.00 and a maxium of 2 animals. There is also a pet addendum that needs to be signed. Please contact me to let me know that you have pets with you. Please be courteous and do not let your pets on any of the furniture.
Loved Walsenburg after the first time we visited. Loved the scenic beauty, the people and the Colorado 4 seasons!
Just what we wanted. House matched our personalities. Great lakes near by for fishing. Plan on coming back in summer.
Had someone try to break in Dirty bigs in fridge horrible experience
On the day of arrival there was a snowstorm yet Kristy had home ready first thing in morning for check-in. What a lifesaver! From that moment on the home did not disappoint. If you grew up in the 60's or 70's you will have a blast checking out all the art and relaxing Colorado style. As for the train...I wouldn't want it any other way. The blowing of the whistle is a hoot and if it bothers you at nite just use earplugs...they work! If you're looking for comfy, no frills yet so so cozy look no further this is the real deal. From the penny nails in the posters to the lil mosaic monkey quirky is the perfect description. Don't forget to leave a lil of your artistic self on the bedroom wall. We Will Be Back!
Had a great time! What a fun home, enjoyed the decor and loved the train! Beds were comfy and enjoyed the fire pit and horseshoes!
This was a nice themed cabin and the train wasn't a bother but when we arrived none of the lights worked and we had to fix it ourselves by messing with the breaker box and the place was filthy dirty dishes dirt on floors and expired food left in the fridge
The home is right next to the train and the train comes through at night 2 to 4 times and blows its whistle each time starting at 11pm and ending at 4pm. The owner offered us ear plugs but you could hear the loud roar and feel rhe home shake! The owner also told us that the dryer was not working the day before our arrival. I choose this place so we could wash our dirty hiking clothes. We were able to get a temporary fix on the dryer but it kept stopping and had to cool down. What a pain in trying to get our clothes dried all evening. There were new smoke alarns but they were not installed. My husband read the informatuion and installed the smike alarns. The kitchen is lacking in some basic items. The owner did bring us a hand mixer and muffin pan. I could have also used a cookie sheet. On our first day the cable was out. The owner did stop by the next morning and she called Dish for a service call. We had cable by the second evening. This is a comfortable home with a great back yard but if you are a light skeeper thus home may not be the pkace for you!!
Water Park
Blue Lake
Sand Dunes
Alligator farm
Ludlow Monument and Mining musem
Live music cucharacountrymusicfest
Art in the park spanishpeaksarts
Celtic Music festival celticmusicfest
Wolf sanctuary
Bishops castle
|Rental Period
|Minimum Price
|Additional Nights
|Weekend Night
|Event Price
My Standard Rate
1 night minimum stay
for 1 night
|Notes: Rates are based on 3 guests; add £9 per night, per additional guest
|Pet Fee
|Property Damage Protection
Please note: The "damage deposit" fee of $75.00 is refundable after check out (this fee is for any excessive cleaning that would be needed if the guest prefers not to clean up when they leave). Upon check out please make sure all the trash is picked up throughout the house and taken to garbage cans, the dishes washed, dried and put back. If any furniture has been moved to different rooms please place back to original rooms.


text:
Wisconsin Zip Lines
Menominee River Zip Line Tour
$49.95 weekday/$55.95 weekend
Dates: April - October
Trip Duration: 1-2 hours
Trip Times: Daily
Restrictions: Participants must weigh between 55lbs and 300lbs. Participants should not participate in zip lines if they are pregnant or have back issues.
Trip Includes: Helmet, harness, gloves
Things to Bring: Long shorts or light pants are reccommended, closed toe shoes are required, sunscreen, pony tail holder (for those with long hair)
Release Waiver: Download Now
Trip Description PDF: Download Now
Wildman Resort's Newest Adventure!
Menominee River Outpost
N22200 Bomber Road
Niagara, WI 54151
"My boyfriend and I went zip lining last weekend at Wildman. My second time zip lining and his first. We had a great time and he thought it was awesome and can't wait to go again!"
Renee B. - Green Bay, WI
Unleash your inner aerial daredevil as you soar through the trees along the Menominee River on this Wisconsin zip line tour. One small step off the platform and you're flying. You will experience five zip lines for over 1900 feet of adrenaline pumping action. Zip along the Menominee River and experience expansive views of both Wisconsin and Michigan. Land in a towering pine as you move your way past the middle of the course. One more zip and then it's on to the last one of the day. The final 500 foot zip will bring you back to the beginning of the course where you will finally be back to the ground. When it comes to zip lines in Wisconsin or zip lines in Michigan, this is your place!


text:
Status: Closed
Know more about this business than we do? Cool! Please submit any corrections or missing details you may have.Help us make it right
Shop for designer jeans, men's and women's clothing and more at the official Lucky Brand online store. FREE SHIPPING EVERYDAY!
Lucky Brand began crafting great-fitting, vintage-inspired jeans in Los Angeles in 1990, quickly earning the title of "America's favorite." Lucky also produces unique apparel, shoes, accessories and jewelry for men, women and children, in addition to plus-size and big & tall styles.
Be the first NJ.com user to add photos or videos of Lucky Brand
Lucky Brand is located at 599 Broad St, Shrewsbury, NJ. This business specializes in Clothing.


text:
WinBook W160 - Page 2
January 02, 2004
The WinBook comes with 512MB of DDR memory (a 1GB model is $300 more) and a 60GB, 4,200-rpm Fujitsu hard disk; for those who can't shake the 1.44MB habit, an external USB floppy drive is $99.
At 6 pounds (the AC adapter adds just under a pound) and 10.2 by 13.6 by 1.2 inches, the W160 is a comfortable if not feather-light or forget-you're-carrying-it lap or briefcase companion -- though, like other wide-screen notebooks, it's too long for some briefcases' notebook compartments.
In addition to the backlit blue power button above the keyboard, there's a tiny chrome power button on the front edge -- along with tiny, invisibly marked volume, play/pause, and previous/next track buttons -- for using the closed system as an audio CD player. Line-in, line-out, and microphone jacks are also up front; the Matsushita UJ-811 DVD-RW drive -- which couples slow 1X DVD burning with 8X DVD playback and 16/10/24X CD-RW functionality -- is at the left.
The right side offers an infrared port and single PC Card slot, while the rear edge reveals parallel, VGA, S-Video out, modem, Ethernet, IEEE 1394 FireWire, and three USB 2.0 ports. The cooling fan comes on occasionally -- more, we suspect, when the graphics accelerator is working hard than the Pentium M processor is straining -- but is reasonably quiet.
The ivory keyboard looks classy and has an exemplary layout with dedicated cursor-control keys, but has a thin and flimsy feel -- when pressing the keys along the right edge, it felt as if the whole keyboard was flexing, if not liable to pop out. The touchpad and its two good-sized mouse buttons work smoothly, though scrolling is handled by the Synaptics driver instead of a hardware wheel. Nor are there any launch buttons for favorite applications, though pressing Fn-F1 toggles power to the WiFi adapter when you want to save some battery life.
Speaking of which, the W160 is no endurance-record-setter, but a quite respectable runner when away from AC power: The 9-cell lithium-ion battery gave us two hours and 40 minutes' use in our toughest multimedia and disk-thrashing sessions, and three hours and five minutes in one stint that started with WinBook's built-in system/software reformat/recovery and finished with some sedate word processing. A spare pack is $229.
Our test system came with Windows XP Professional and a 90-day trial of Norton AntiVirus 2004 preinstalled, plus CDs for InterVideo's WinDVD 4 and B's Recorder Gold 5. WinBook charges $269 and $349 for the Microsoft Office 2003 Small Business and Professional editions, respectively.
There seem to be three classes of notebook PCs nowadays -- only-nominally-portable desktop replacements with hot-rod (and hot-running) CPUs and graphics; economy models with neither the latest technology nor lightest design, but big screens and bargain prices; and a range of systems, from subnotebooks to middleweights, for actual mobile workers and business travelers. The WinBook W160 fits in the center of the last pack -- it's a good all-around performer and a not-too-heavy way to get wide-screen window arranging or DVD viewing.
Reprinted from HardwareCentral.


text: We're Sorry. We Could Not Find the Page You Were Looking For (404 Error). The page you were looking for is not available on this web site. Please check any of our most popular resources (below), or use "Search" at the top of the window or the "Resources" menu above to look again.