text:
Legal Status
Document Details
Published Document
Environmental Protection Agency.
Final rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is promulgating a source-specific Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) to regulate emissions from the Navajo Generating Station (NGS), a coal-fired power plant located on the Navajo Indian Reservation near Page, Arizona. EPA proposed the NGS FIP on September 12, 2006, to establish federally enforceable limitations for TSP, SO2, and opacity, and control measures for dust. The limits had previously been established in the Arizona SIP. EPA promulgated the Tribal Authority Rule in 1998, clarifying that state air quality regulations generally did not apply to facilities on Indian reservations and that EPA should fill the regulatory gap as necessary or appropriate. This action fills the regulatory gap for the NGS facility.
Effective Date: This rule is effective on April 5, 2010.
EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID No. R09-OAR-2006-0185. All documents in the docket are listed in the Federal eRulemaking portal index at http://www.regulations.gov and are available either electronically at http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California 94105. To inspect the hard copy materials, please schedule an appointment during normal business hours with the contact listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. A reasonable fee may be charged for copies.Start Further Info
Sarvy Mahdavi, EPA Region IX, (415) 972-3173, firstname.lastname@example.com Further Info End Preamble Start Supplemental Information
Throughout this document, "we," "us" and "our" refer to EPA.
Table of Contents
I. Background of the Final Rule
A. Summary of Final FIP Provisions
II. Analysis of Major Issues Raised by Commenters
A. Concerns About the Scope of the FIP
B. Comments on Emissions Limits
III. Administrative Requirements
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With
Indian Tribal Governments
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations
K. Congressional Review Act
L. Petitions for Judicial Review
I. Background of the Final Rule
NGS is a 2,250 megawatt coal-fired power plant located on the Navajo Indian Reservation near Page, Arizona. Salt River Project ("SRP") is the operating agent for NGS, which is jointly owned by SRP, the United States Bureau of Reclamation, the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power, the Arizona Public Service, the Nevada Power Company, and the Tucson Electric Power Company. Since 1974, NGS has been operating on real property held in trust by the federal government for the Navajo Nation. The facility consists of three 750 MW coal-fired electric utility steam generating units.
In 1999, EPA initially proposed to promulgate a FIP to regulate emissions from NGS. See 64 FR 48725 (September 8, 1999) (1999 proposed FIP). At that time, NGS was meeting certain emissions limits in the Arizona State Implementation Plan (SIP). However, because the Arizona SIP is not approved to apply on the Navajo Indian Reservation, and because the Navajo Nation did not have a federally applicable tribal implementation plan (TIP), EPA proposed to promulgate a FIP to remedy the existing regulatory gap. The 1999 proposed FIP, therefore, would have, in essence, federalized the requirements contained in the Arizona SIP which NGS had historically followed. In explaining the basis for its proposed action, EPA stated that given the magnitude of emissions from the Start Printed Page 10175plant, the Agency believed the proposed FIP provisions were necessary and appropriate to ensure the protection of air quality on the Reservation. See 64 FR at 48726.
When EPA proposed the 1999 FIP, NGS was also subject to emissions limits for sulfur dioxide (SO2) that EPA had promulgated in 1991 when we revised a visibility FIP for Arizona to include requirements for NGS. See 56 FR 50172 (Oct. 3, 1991), codified at 40 CFR 52.145(d). The requirements of EPA's 1991 revised visibility FIP are not being amended or changed by today's action, but 40 CFR 52.145(d) is being recodified to 40 CFR part 49.
EPA did not finalize the 1999 proposed FIP. Instead, EPA proposed a new FIP in September, 2006. See 71 FR 53639 (September 12, 2006) (2006 proposed FIP).
In the 2006 proposed FIP, EPA again explained that to remedy the regulatory gap that exists with regard to NGS because the Arizona SIP does not apply to sources located on the Navajo Indian Reservation, the Agency was proposing to issue a source-specific FIP establishing federally enforceable emission limits for SO2, particulate matter (PM), and opacity, and control measures for dust. The proposed limits were similar to those in the Arizona SIP which NGS has historically followed, but EPA proposed to include some additional requirements for reducing opacity and fugitive dust emissions from coal handling operations. Specifically, the 2006 proposed FIP lowered the opacity limit from 40% to 20% and included requirements to control emissions associated with coal and ash handling and storage.
EPA's objective at this time in promulgating this final FIP for NGS is to remedy the existing regulatory gap described in our 1999 and 2006 proposals. Today's action will make federally enforceable the emission limitations which NGS has historically followed and will ensure that NGS complies with the opacity limit of 20% and control measures for dust from coal and ash handling and storage operations. This final action will help to advance the goals of ensuring continued maintenance of the national ambient air quality standards and protecting visibility. Given the importance of these goals and the magnitude of emissions from the plant, EPA believes that making these limits federally enforceable is appropriate to protect air quality on the Reservation and is accordingly exercising its discretionary authority under sections 301(a) and 301(d)(4) of the Clean Air Act ("CAA") and 40 CFR 49.11(a) to promulgate a FIP containing provisions to achieve these ends.
As explained in our proposal in this action, the SO2 emissions limit in today's final rule is a short-term emissions limit, which will be enforceable in addition to the rolling 365 day average emission limit in the 1991 visibility FIP. For PM emissions, EPA is finalizing its proposal to federalize the emissions limits which NGS historically followed from the Arizona SIP. The Arizona SIP did not contain any nitrogen oxides (NOX) emissions limits for NGS, and today's final rule does not impose any limits on NOX. However, we note that NGS is subject to the Federal Acid Rain requirements under title IV of the Clean Air Act. NGS elected to comply early as a Phase I NOX facility which means NGS currently has a NOX limit of 0.40 lbs/MMbtu, per unit, on an annual basis. EPA will also address the emissions of NOx and PM separately through EPA's Regional Haze rule (codified at 40 CFR 51.308) to require best available retrofit technology for these pollutants, as discussed in more detail in our response to comments.
A. Summary of Final FIP Provisions
1. EPA is finalizing its proposal to limit particulate matter to 0.060 pounds per million british thermal units (lbs/MMbtu), and specifying at least three 60 minute sampling runs for each stack. Additionally, this final rule changes the averaging time for the particulate matter limit from the proposed 6 hour average to a three hour average based on three runs, each lasting approximately one hour. The particulate standard will be measured on a plant-wide basis and is also the way in which the State of Arizona has historically determined compliance at NGS.
2. EPA is finalizing its proposal that opacity from each unit is limited to 20% averaged over any normal 6 minute period, excluding condensed water vapour, and 40% opacity, averaged over 6 minutes, during absorber upset transition periods. The final opacity standard excludes uncombined water droplets. NGS has opacity monitors on each of its stacks; water droplets, which will be present in all stacks because of the SO2 scrubbers, cause inaccurate excess emission readings on the opacity monitors. Therefore, in the final rule excess opacity due to uncombined water droplets in the stack does not constitute an exceedance, but it will be reported on the quarterly excess emissions reports.
3. EPA is finalizing its proposal that SO2 emissions are limited to 1 lb/MMbtu averaged over a three-hour period, on a plant-wide basis. The emissions limit for SO2 was previously established in the Arizona SIP. The method of compliance determination has been changed from the proposal which based compliance on the sulfur content of coal. In the final rule, compliance is based on continuous emission monitoring (CEM). This change is being made because the Federal acid rain regulations require CEM monitoring, which is generally recognized as being more accurate and precise than monitoring the sulfur content of coal. NGS previously complied with the limit of 1 lb/MMbtu on a per-unit basis by using very low sulfur coal. Because NGS has now installed scrubbers to comply with the 1991 visibility FIP, however, NGS will be able to comply with its short-term limits by removing sulfur from the exhaust stream. This will allow NGS to purchase slightly higher sulfur coal; additionally, the plant-wide average allows one scrubber to be down for periodic maintenance (lasting usually 30 to 40 days) without requiring the purchase of specific low sulfur coal for use during the maintenance. In the final rule, as in the proposal, the actual SO2 emissions from NGS will remain 90% lower on an annual basis than they were before the scrubbers were installed to comply with the 1991 visibility FIP. To ensure that NGS continues to meet this limit, this rule will finalize the proposal to limit SO2 emissions to 1 lb/MMbtu on a 3 hour average limit. With the scrubbers in place, the plant-wide hourly emissions (tons per hour) will always be less than under the prior state limit, since at least one unit with its scrubber operating and removing SO2 will be needed to meet the plant-wide SO2 three hour limit.
4. EPA is finalizing its proposal that opacity is limited to 20 percent averaged over a six minute period for both the boiler stacks and for dust from emission associated with coal transfer and storage and other dust-generating activities. NGS is required to submit a description of the dust control measures.
II. Analysis of Major Issues Raised by Commenters
EPA held a public informational workshop and hearing on the proposed FIP for NGS at the same time as the workshop and hearing on a proposed FIP for the Four Corners Power Plant. The joint public hearing was held in Farmington, New Mexico, on October 5, 2006. Although EPA received only one comment letter directed specifically at the proposed FIP for NGS, we received 43 comments on the proposed FIP for the Four Corners Power Plant ("FCPP Start Printed Page 10176FIP"), many of which either explicitly or implicitly addressed both actions. For example, several comments objected in general terms to allowing operation of coal fired power plants. We responded to comments on the FCPP FIP in a Federal Register Notice on May 7, 2007 (72 FR 25698). Some of our responses to comments in this action are identical or very similar to the response to comments for the FCPP FIP because the comments were identical or similar. Commenters raised concerns which focused on general issues about air quality and health in the area, and more specific concerns about the emission limits and control requirements in the proposed FIP. The one comment letter received relating exclusively to NGS was from SRP and raised specific technical issues. Significant comments, including SRP's comments, are summarized below.
Our complete Response to Comments is contained in a separate document in the docket for this rulemaking. A summary of the significant comments and responses is provided below.
A. Concerns About the Scope of the FIP
Comment: The majority of commenters objecting to both the FCPP and NGS FIPs indicated that EPA should go beyond merely federalizing the emission limits which NGS has historically followed. Other commenters urged EPA to take regulatory action to regulate or to further reduce emissions of SO2, NOX, PM, mercury, and "toxic emissions." Commenters raised a variety of general concerns regarding impacts associated with coal fired power plants such as NGS, including public health and/or environmental impacts of fugitive dust from coal mining, mercury (Hg) and carbon dioxide (CO2, greenhouse gases). Another commenter argued that in issuing a FIP for NGS, EPA must comply not only with all of the requirements of section 301 of the CAA but also ensure through the FIP process that NGS is in compliance with all applicable federal and state ambient standards by complying with the requirements of section 110 of the CAA addressing State implementation plans.
Response: As stated above, EPA's authority to promulgate this source-specific FIP is based on CAA sections 301(a) and (d)(4) and the regulations implementing these provisions at 40 CFR Part 49. Today's action is not based on, nor is it subject to the requirements of, CAA section 110. CAA section 301(d)(4) provides EPA with broad discretion to promulgate regulations directly for sources located in Indian country. The Tribal Air Rule provides EPA with "discretion to determine what rulemaking is necessary or appropriate to protect air quality and requires the EPA to promulgate such rulemaking." Arizona Public Service Company v. USEPA, 562 F.3d 1116, 1125 (10th Cir. 2009).
EPA is exercising its discretion to promulgate emission limitations for NGS to close the regulatory gap that exists with respect to NGS. As explained above, at present there is no approved implementation plan covering NGS because the Arizona SIP does not apply to sources located on the Navajo Indian Reservation and the Navajo Nation has not promulgated an applicable Tribal Implementation Plan. EPA's exercise of authority in issuing this FIP is based on the Agency's conclusion that it is appropriate to protect air quality on the Reservation by remedying the lack of federally enforceable limits applicable to NGS. As such, our action is largely limited to making enforceable those emissions limits which NGS has historically followed and re-codifying the limitations applicable to NGS in the visibility FIP for Arizona. We have also finalized our proposal to lower the opacity limit and to add certain material handling measures to provide additional benefits to air quality and visibility, and to conform to revisions that have been approved into the Arizona SIP.
Today's action is an important step in protecting air quality on the Reservation. As noted in the proposal, this action will contribute towards ensuring continued maintenance of the NAAQS and towards protecting visibility. EPA acknowledges that additional regulatory actions by EPA may be necessary or appropriate in the future to further protect air quality on the Navajo Reservation, depending on, among other things, conditions on the Reservation and the decisions of the Navajo Nation to implement air quality programs. Our detailed response to comments on mercury, CO2 and other emissions is discussed further below and in our Response to Comments document.
B. Comments on Emissions Limits
Comment: Several commenters urged EPA to take regulatory action in addition to the proposed FIP to require reductions of NOX and PM emissions from NGS. In particular, several commenters urged EPA to undertake a determination of best available retrofit technology (BART) for NGS's NOX emissions. See 40 U.S.C. 7491(b)(2)(A). One commenter noted that NGS is the 8th largest NOX emitter in the U.S. and that the FIP was not addressing NOX or the environmental impact from the NOX emissions. The commenter also requested an explanation of when and at what levels BART limits would be applied to PM, mercury, VOC and other pollutants.
Response: EPA agrees that it may be necessary or appropriate in a future rulemaking to require NGS to reduce its NOX or PM emissions below those levels which were historically contained in the Arizona SIP (and are now contained in this FIP) or which are necessary to comply with the Acid Rain program. In the 1991 revision of the visibility FIP that created SO2 emission limits for NGS, EPA concluded that those limits achieved greater reasonable progress than would BART, but did not address emissions of NOX or PM from NGS. Today's rule does not address the requirements of EPA's nationally applicable Regional Haze rule, codified at 40 CFR 51.308, which contains specific implementation plan requirements regarding BART determinations.[1]
EPA recognizes, however, the importance of addressing emissions of NOX and PM from NGS for purposes of addressing NGS's contribution to visibility impairment. EPA has requested and SRP has submitted an analysis of the NOX and PM control options to address BART. This document and supplemental submittals are available on the docket EPA has prepared for the BART rulemaking available at: http://www.regulations.gov/fdmspublic/component/main?main=DocketDetail&d=EPA-R09-OAR-2008-0454.
EPA is reviewing the information provided, and consulting with the Federal Land Manager(s), States with Class I areas impacted by NGS, and tribes to determine the appropriate BART limits for NGS. On August 28, 2009, EPA issued an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking ("ANPR") concerning the anticipated visibility improvements and the cost effectiveness for different levels of air pollution controls as BART for NGS and for another coal-fired power plant located on the Navajo Nation, Four Corners Power Plant ("FCPP"). EPA issued the ANPR for the specific purpose of collecting additional information that EPA may consider in modeling the degree of anticipated visibility Start Printed Page 10177improvements in the Class I areas surrounding the two power plants and for determining whether BART controls are cost effective at this time. EPA also requested any additional information that commenters believe the agency should consider in promulgating a FIP establishing BART for the two power plants.
After considering the information received in response to the ANPR and other relevant information, EPA intends to publish separate FIPs proposing EPA's BART determinations for FCPP and NGS under the Regional Haze rules. After evaluating all comments on the proposed BART determination for NGS, EPA will take final action regarding the BART requirements at NGS.
Although it is unlikely that VOC emitted from NGS will be regulated for visibility protection under the Regional Haze rules, comments concerning the contribution of VOCs to visibility impairment are more appropriately considered during the regional haze rulemaking discussed above. Historically, VOC emissions from coal-fired electric generating units (EGUs) have not been considered a significant contributor to visibility impairment, and EPA knows of no states in the West that are considering setting limits on coal-fired EGU VOC emissions for regional haze. In the West, the quantity of emissions of VOC from EGUs is relatively insignificant compared to the quantity of VOC emissions from biogenic sources, fires, or mobile sources.
EPA is not considering setting a BART limit for mercury as there is no evidence that mercury contributes to visibility impairment. On October 28, 2009, pursuant to CAA section 113(g), EPA published in the Federal Register for comment a proposed Consent Decree that would require the Agency to propose CAA section 112(d) standards to control hazardous air pollutants, including mercury, from coal- and oil-fired electric utility steam generating units by March 16, 2011, and issue final section 112(d) standards by November 16, 2011. EPA will request public comment on that rulemaking and will consider any significant comments on this issue that are raised during our section 112(d) rulemaking.
Comment: SRP requested that the particulate matter limit in the proposed rule be revised for better clarity. The requested changes included that compliance would be determined from at least three test runs over a 60 minute duration at each stack.
Response: EPA agrees with SRP's proposed changes to the particulate matter limit and has made the appropriate revisions in the final rule which include specifying at least three 60 minute sampling runs for each stack. This also changes the averaging time for the particulate matter limit from the proposed 6 hour average to a three hour average based on three runs lasting approximately one hour each.
Comment: SRP requested the end of the startup limit for NGS be increased from 300 to 400 MW to maintain consistency with the end of the startup limit for FCPP.
Response: Other than noting that EPA allowed a startup termination limit of 400 MW for FCPP, SRP has not provided an explanation as to why a startup termination limit of 400 MW is more appropriate for NGS than 300 MW. The critical factor in the startup is that the hot side ESP reaches 400° so that it may be expected to operate properly. This temperature can be reached when the NGS units reach 300 MW. To allow the startup to extend beyond this operating level simply because EPA agreed to it for FCPP, which has completely different control technology with different operational limitations, is not reasonable. Given that the control technology at NGS is different from the control technology at FCPP, and that NGS provided no technical justification for making the change from 300 MW to 400 MW, EPA maintains the 300 MW startup termination limit for NGS along with the proposed 400° precipitator temperature.
Comment: SRP requested a change to the shutdown definition, because they claimed that the first sentence, which referred to cessation of coal burning, was incorrect.
Response: EPA agrees and dropped the first sentence of the definition referring to cessation of coal burning, since coal may still be combusted when a unit load reaches 300 MW or less and the intention is to remove the unit from service.
Comment: SRP requested that NGS be exempt from opacity monitoring requirements, consistent with 40 CFR 75.14(b) which exempts units equipped with a wet flue pollution control system for SO2 or particulates from the monitoring requirements of part 75, if the source "can demonstrate that condensed water is present in the exhaust flue gas stream and would impede the accuracy of opacity measurements."
Response: EPA agrees with SRP's comments that when the stack is saturated and has uncombined water droplets, the Continuous Opacity Monitoring Systems (COMs) cannot correctly read the opacity due to particulate matter and has updated the final rule to reflect this change; however, NGS will continue to have a requirement to operate COMs on each stack since the COMs do operate properly during start-up and at other times when the SO2 scrubbers are bypassed for maintenance purposes. SRP has operated the monitors for a number of years and EPA does not find that an exemption allowed in part 75 is appropriate in this rule.
III. Administrative Requirements
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review
This action is not "significant regulatory action" under the terms of "Executive Order (EO) 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and is therefore not subject to review under the EO. This action will finalize a source-specific FIP for the Navajo Generating Station on the Navajo Nation.
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
This action does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act, a "collection of information" is defined as a requirement for "answers to * * * identical reporting or recordkeeping requirements imposed on ten or more persons * * *." 44 U.S.C. 3502(3)(A). Because the FIP applies to a single facility, NGS, the Paperwork Reduction Act does not apply. See 5 CFR 1320(c).
Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9.
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency to prepare Start Printed Page 10178a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act or any other statute unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses, small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions.
For purposes of assessing the impacts of today's rule on small entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business as defined by the Small Business Administration's (SBA) regulations at 13 CFR 121.201; (2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a city, county, town, school district or special district with a population of less than 50,000; and (3) a small organization that is any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field.
After considering the economic impacts of this final action on small entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The FIP for NGS being finalized today does not impose any new requirements on small entities. See Mid-Tex Electric Cooperative, Inc. v. FERC, 773 F.2d 327 (D.C. Cir. 1985)
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
This action contains no Federal mandates under the provisions of Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538 for State, local, or tribal governments or the private sector. The action imposes no enforceable duty on any State, local or tribal governments or the private sector. Therefore, this action is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 or 205 of the UMRA. This action is also not subject to the requirements of section 203 of UMRA because it contains no regulatory requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small governments. This action will make emissions limits from a single source federally enforceable.
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
Under section 6(b) of Executive Order 13132, EPA may not issue an action that has federalism implications, that imposes substantial direct compliance costs, and that is not required by statute, unless the Federal government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance costs incurred by State and local governments, or EPA consults with State and local officials early in the process of developing the proposed action. In addition, under section 6(c) of Executive Order 13132, EPA may not issue an action that has federalism implications and that preempts State law, unless the Agency consults with State and local officials early in the process of developing the proposed action.
EPA has concluded that this action may have federalism implications because it makes emissions limits from a specific source federally enforceable. However, it will not impose substantial direct compliance costs on State or local governments, nor will it preempt State law. Thus, the requirements of sections 6(b) and 6(c) of the Executive Order do not apply to this action.
Consistent with EPA policy, EPA nonetheless consulted with representatives of State and local governments [2] early in the process of developing the proposed action to permit them to have meaningful and timely input into its development.
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments
Executive Order 13175, entitled "Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments" (65 FR 67249, Nov. 9, 2000), requires EPA to develop "an accountable process to ensure meaningful and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory policies that have tribal implications." Under Executive Order 13175, to the extent practicable and permitted by law, EPA may not issue a regulation that has tribal implications, that imposes substantial direct compliance costs on Indian tribal governments, and that is not required by statute, unless the Federal government provides the funds necessary to pay direct compliance costs incurred by tribal governments, or EPA consults with tribal officials early in the process of developing the proposed regulation and develops a tribal summary impact statement. In addition, to the extent practicable and permitted by law, EPA may not issue a regulation that has tribal implications and pre-empts tribal law unless EPA consults with tribal officials early in the process of developing the proposed regulation and prepares a tribal summary impact statement.
EPA has concluded that this final rule may have tribal implications because it will impose federally enforceable emissions limitations on a major stationary source located and operating on the Navajo reservation. However, this final rule will neither impose substantial direct compliance costs on tribal governments nor pre-empt Tribal law because the final FIP imposes obligations only on the owner or operator of NGS.
EPA has also consulted extensively with officials of the Navajo Nation in the process of developing this regulation. EPA had discussions with Tribal representatives during proposal of the FIP in 1999. We also consulted prior to the 2006 FIP proposal and Tribal officials attended the public information workshop and public hearing on the proposed FIP in 2006. Therefore, EPA has allowed the Navajo Nation to provide meaningful and timely input into the development of this rule.
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), applies to any rule that: (1) Is determined to be economically significant as defined under Executive Order 12866, and (2) concerns an environmental health or safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may have a disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets both criteria, the Agency must evaluate the environmental health or safety effects of the planned rule on children, and explain why the planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and reasonably feasible alternatives considered by the Agency.
This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it only makes previously applicable emissions standards federally enforceable. Because this action federalizes existing requirements, it is not economically significant as defined under Executive Order 12866, and does not have a disproportionate effect on children.
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001)), because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.
I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law No. 104-113, 12 (10) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs EPA to use voluntary consensus Start Printed Page 10179standards (VCS) in its regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. VCS are technical standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling procedures and business practices) that are developed or adopted by the VCS bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA to provide Congress, through annual reports to OMB, with explanations when the Agency decides not to use available and applicable VCS.
Consistent with the NTTAA, the Agency conducted a search to identify potentially applicable VCS. For the measurements listed below, there are a number of VCS that appear to have possible use in lieu of the EPA test methods and performance specifications (40 CFR part 60, appendices A and B) noted next to the measurement requirements. It would not be practical to specify these standards in the current rulemaking due to a lack of sufficient data on equivalency and validation and because some are still under development. However, EPA's Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards is in the process of reviewing all available VCS for incorporation by reference into the test methods and performance specifications of 40 CFR part 60, appendices A and B. Any VCS so incorporated in a specified test method or performance specification would then be available for use in determining the emissions from this facility. This will be an ongoing process designed to incorporate suitable VCS as they become available.
Particulate Matter Emissions—EPA Methods 1 though 5.
Opacity—EPA Method 9 and Performance Specification Test 1 for Opacity Monitoring.
SO2—EPA Method 6C and Performance Specification 2 for Continuous SO2 Monitoring.
J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994), establishes federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision directs Federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income populations in the United States.
EPA has determined that this final rule will not have disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority or low-income populations because it increases the level of environmental protection for all affected populations without having any disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on any population, including any minority or low-income population. This final rule requires emissions reductions and makes emissions limitations federally enforceable for a major stationary source.
K. Congressional Review Act
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. section 801 et seq., as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal Register. This action is not a "major rule" as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). This rule will be effective April 5, 2010.
L. Petitions for Judicial Review
Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by May 4, 2010. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See CAA section 307(b) (2).)Start List of Subjects
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 49
- Environmental protection
- Administrative practice and procedure
- Air pollution control
- Indians
- Intergovernmental relations
- Reporting and recordkeeping requirements
Dated: February 25, 2010.
Lisa P. Jackson,
Chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:End Amendment Part Start Part
PART 49—[AMENDED]End Part Start Amendment Part
1. The authority citation for part 49 continues to read as follows:End Amendment Part
Subpart A—[Amended]Start Amendment Part
2. Section 49.24 is added to subpart A to read as follows:End Amendment Part
(a) Applicability. The provisions of this section shall apply to each owner or operator of the fossil fuel-fired, steam-generating equipment designated as Units 1, 2, and 3, equipment associated with coal and ash handling, and the two auxiliary steam boilers at the Navajo Generating Station (NGS) on the Navajo Nation located in the Northern Arizona Intrastate Air Quality Control Region (see 40 CFR 81.270).
(b) Compliance Dates. Compliance with the requirements of this section is required upon the effective date of this section.
(c) Definitions. For the purposes of this section:
(1) Absorber upset transition period means the 24-hour period following an upset of an SO2 absorber module which resulted in the absorber being taken out of service.
(2) Affirmative defense means, in the context of an enforcement proceeding, a response or defense put forward by a defendant, regarding which the defendant has the burden of proof, and the merits of which are independently and objectively evaluated in a judicial or administrative proceeding. This rule provides an affirmative defense to actions for penalties brought for excess emissions that arise during certain malfunction episodes.
(3) Malfunction means any sudden and unavoidable failure of air pollution control equipment or process equipment or of a process to operate in a normal or usual manner. Failures that are caused entirely or in part by poor maintenance, careless operation, or any other preventable upset condition or preventable equipment breakdown shall not be considered malfunctions. An affirmative defense is not available if during the period of excess emissions, there was an exceedance of the relevant ambient air quality standard that could be attributed to the emitting source.Start Printed Page 10180
(4) Owner or Operator means any person who owns, leases, operates, controls or supervises the NGS, any of the fossil fuel-fired, steam-generating equipment at the NGS, or the auxiliary steam boilers at the NGS.
(5) Plant-wide means a weighted average of particulate matter and SO2 emissions for Units 1, 2, and 3 based on the heat input to each unit as determined by 40 CFR part 75.
(6) Point source means any crusher, any conveyor belt transfer point, any pneumatic material transferring, any baghouse or other control devices used to capture dust emissions from loading and unloading, and any other stationary point of dust that may be observed in conformance with Method 9 of Appendix A-4 of 40 CFR Part 60 (excluding stockpiles).
(7) Regional Administrator means the Regional Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency Region 9 or his/her authorized representative.
(8) Startup shall mean the period from start of fires in the boiler with fuel oil, to the time when the electrostatic precipitator is sufficiently heated such that the temperature of the air preheater inlet reaches 400 degrees Fahrenheit and when a unit reaches 300 MW net load. Proper startup procedures shall include energizing the electrostatic precipitator prior to the combustion of coal in the boiler. This rule provides an affirmative defense to actions for penalties brought for excess emissions that arise during startup episodes. An affirmative defense is not available if during the period of excess emissions, there was an exceedance of the relevant ambient air quality standard that could be attributed to the emitting source.
(9) Shutdown shall begin when the unit drops below 300 MW net load with the intent to remove the unit from service. The precipitator shall be maintained in service until boiler fans are disengaged. This rule provides an affirmative defense to actions for penalties brought for excess emissions that arise during shutdown episodes. An affirmative defense is not available if during the period of excess emissions, there was an exceedance of the relevant ambient air quality standard that could be attributed to the emitting source.
(10) Oxides of nitrogen (NOX) means the sum of nitrogen oxide (NO) and nitrogen dioxide (NO2) in the flue gas, expressed as nitrogen dioxide.
(d) Emissions Limitations and Control Measures—(1) Sulfur Oxides. No owner or operator shall discharge or cause the discharge of sulfur oxides into the atmosphere from Units 1, 2, or 3 in excess of 1.0 pound per million British thermal units (lb/MMBtu) averaged over any three (3) hour period, on a plant-wide basis.
(2) Particulate Matter. No owner or operator shall discharge or cause the discharge of particulate matter into the atmosphere in excess of 0.060 lb/MMBtu, on a plant-wide basis, as averaged from at least three sampling runs per stack, each at a minimum of 60 minutes in duration, each collecting a minimum sample of 30 dry standard cubic feet.
(3) Dust. Each owner or operator shall operate and maintain the existing dust suppression methods for controlling dust from the coal handling and storage facilities. Within ninety (90) days after promulgation of these regulations the owner or operator shall submit to the Regional Administrator a description of the dust suppression methods for controlling dust from the coal handling and storage facilities, fly ash handling and storage, and road sweeping activities. Each owner or operator shall not emit dust with an opacity greater than 20% from any crusher, grinding mill, screening operation, belt conveyor, truck loading or unloading operation, or railcar unloading station, as determined using 40 CFR Part 60, Appendix A-4 Method 9.
(4) Opacity. No owner or operator shall discharge or cause the discharge of emissions from the stacks of Units 1, 2, or 3 into the atmosphere exhibiting greater than 20% opacity, excluding condensed uncombined water droplets, averaged over any six (6) minute period and 40% opacity, averaged over six (6) minutes, during absorber upset transition periods.
(e) Testing and Monitoring. (1) On and after the effective date of this regulation, the owner or operator shall maintain and operate Continuous Emissions Monitoring Systems (CEMS) for NOx and SO2 and Continuous Opacity Monitoring Systems (COMS) on Units 1, 2, and 3 in accordance with 40 CFR 60.8 and 60.13(e), (f), and (h), and Appendix B of Part 60. The owner or operator shall comply with the quality assurance procedures for CEMS and COMS found in 40 CFR part 75.
(2) The owner or operator shall conduct annual mass emissions tests for particulate matter on Units 1, 2, and 3, operating at rated capacity, using coal that is representative of that normally used. The tests shall be conducted using the appropriate test methods in 40 CFR Part 60, Appendix A.
(3) During any calendar year in which an auxiliary boiler is operated for 720 hours or more, and at other times as requested by the Administrator, the owner or operator shall conduct mass emissions tests for sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides and particulate matter on the auxiliary steam boilers, operating at rated capacity, using oil that is representative of that normally used. The tests shall be conducted using the appropriate test methods in 40 CFR Part 60, Appendix A. For particulate matter, testing shall consist of three test runs. Each test run shall be at least sixty (60) minutes in duration and shall collect a minimum volume of thirty (30) dry standard cubic feet.
(4) The owner or operator shall maintain two sets of opacity filters for each type of COMS, one set to be used as calibration standards and one set to be used as audit standards. At least one set of filters shall be on site at all times.
(5) All emissions testing and monitor evaluation required pursuant to this section shall be conducted in accordance with the appropriate method found in 40 CFR Part 60, Appendices A and B.
(6) The owner or operator shall install, maintain and operate ambient monitors at Glen Canyon Dam for particulate matter (PM2.5 and PM10), nitrogen dioxide, sulfur dioxide, and ozone. Operation, calibration and maintenance of the monitors shall be performed in accordance with 40 CFR Part 58, manufacturer's specification, and "Quality Assurance Handbook for Air Pollution Measurements Systems", Volume II, U.S. EPA as applicable to single station monitors. Data obtained from the monitors shall be reported annually to the Regional Administrator. All particulate matter samplers shall operate at least once every six days, coinciding with the national particulate sampling schedule.
(7) Nothing herein shall limit EPA's ability to ask for a test at any time under section 114 of the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. 7413, and enforce against any violation of the Clean Air Act or this section.
(8) A certified EPA Reference Method 9 of Appendix A-4 of 40 CFR Part 60 observer shall conduct a weekly visible emission observation for the equipment and activities described under Section 49.24(d)(3). If visible emissions are present at any of the equipment and/or activities, a 6-minute EPA Reference Method 9 observation shall be conducted. The name of the observer, date, and time of observation, results of the observations, and any corrective actions taken shall be noted in a log.
(f) Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements. Unless otherwise stated all requests, reports, submittals, notifications and other communications to the Regional Administrator required by this section shall be submitted to the Start Printed Page 10181Director, Navajo Environmental Protection Agency, P.O. Box 339, Window Rock, Arizona 86515, (928) 871 -7692, (928) 871-7996 (facsimile), and to the Director, Air Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX, to the attention of Mail Code: AIR-5, at 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California 94105, (415) 972-3990, (415) 947-3579 (facsimile). For each unit subject to the emissions limitations in this section the owner or operator shall:
(1) Comply with the notification and recordkeeping requirements for testing found in 40 CFR 60.7. All data/reports of testing results shall be submitted to the Regional Administrator and postmarked within 60 days of testing.
(2) For excess emissions, notify the Navajo Environmental Protection Agency Director and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Regional Administrator by telephone or in writing within one business day. This notification should be sent to the Director, Navajo Environmental Protection Agency, by mail to: P.O. Box 339, Window Rock, Arizona 86515, or by facsimile to: (928) 871-7996 (facsimile), and to the Regional Administrator, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 9, by mail to the attention of Mail Code: AIR-5, at 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California 94105, by facsimile to: (415) 947-3579 (facsimile), or by e-mail to: firstname.lastname@example.com. A complete written report of the incident shall be submitted to the Regional Administrator within ten (10) working days after the event. This notification shall include the following information:
(i) The identity of the stack and/or other emissions points where excess emissions occurred;
(ii) The magnitude of the excess emissions expressed in the units of the applicable emissions limitation and the operating data and calculations used in determining the magnitude of the excess emissions;
(iii) The time and duration or expected duration of the excess emissions;
(iv) The identity of the equipment causing the excess emissions;
(v) The nature and cause of such excess emissions;
(vi) If the excess emissions were the result of a malfunction, the steps taken to remedy the malfunction and the steps taken or planned to prevent the recurrence of such malfunction; and
(vii) The steps that were taken or are being taken to limit excess emissions.
(3) Notify the Regional Administrator verbally within one business day of determination that an exceedance of the NAAQS has been measured by a monitor operated in accordance with this regulation. The notification to the Regional Administrator shall include the time, date, and location of the exceedance, and the pollutant and concentration of the exceedance. Compliance with this paragraph (f)(3)(v) shall not excuse or otherwise constitute a defense to any violations of this section or of any law or regulation which such excess emissions or malfunction may cause. The verbal notification shall be followed within fifteen (15) days by a letter containing the following information:
(i) The time, date, and location of the exceedance;
(ii) The pollutant and concentration of the exceedance;
(iii) The meteorological conditions existing 24 hours prior to and during the exceedance;
(iv) For a particulate matter exceedance, the 6-minute average opacity monitoring data greater than 20% for the 24 hours prior to and during the exceedance; and
(v) Proposed plant changes such as operation or maintenance, if any, to prevent future exceedances.
(4) Submit quarterly excess emissions reports for sulfur dioxide and opacity as recorded by CEMS and COMS together with a CEMS data assessment report to the Regional Administrator no later than 30 days after each calendar quarter. The owner or operator shall complete the excess emissions reports according to the procedures in 40 CFR 60.7(c) and (d) and include the Cylinder Gas Audit. Excess opacity due to condensed water vapor in the stack does not constitute a reportable exceedance; however, the length of time during which water vapor interfered with COMs readings should be summarized in the 40 CFR 60.7 (c) report.
(g) Compliance Certifications. Notwithstanding any other provision in this implementation plan, the owner or operator may use any credible evidence or information relevant to whether a source would have been in compliance with applicable requirements if the appropriate performance or compliance test had been performed, for the purpose of submitting compliance certifications.
(h) Equipment Operations. The owner or operator shall operate all equipment or systems needed to comply with this section in accordance with 40 CFR 60.11(d) and consistent with good engineering practices to keep emissions at or below the emissions limitations in this section, and following outages of any control equipment or systems the control equipment or system will be returned to full operation as expeditiously as practicable.
(i) Enforcement. (1) Notwithstanding any other provision in this implementation plan, any credible evidence or information relevant to whether a source would have been in compliance with applicable requirements if the appropriate performance or compliance test had been performed, can be used to establish whether or not a person has violated or is in violation of any standard in the plan.
(2) During periods of start-up and shutdown the otherwise applicable emission limits or requirements for opacity and particulate matter shall not apply provided that: (i) At all times the facility is operated in a manner consistent with good practice for minimizing emissions, and the owner or operator uses best efforts regarding planning, design, and operating procedures to meet the otherwise applicable emission limit;
(ii) The frequency and duration of operation in start-up or shutdown mode are minimized to the maximum extent practicable; and
(iii) The owner or operator's actions during start-up and shutdown periods are documented by properly signed, contemporaneous operating logs, or other relevant evidence.
(3) Emissions in excess of the level of the applicable emission limit or requirement that occur due to a malfunction shall constitute a violation of the applicable emission limit. However, it shall be an affirmative defense in an enforcement action seeking penalties if the owner or operator has met with all of the following conditions:
(i) The malfunction was the result of a sudden and unavoidable failure of process or air pollution control equipment and did not result from inadequate design or construction of the process or air pollution control equipment;
(ii) The malfunction did not result from operator error or neglect, or from improper operation or maintenance procedures;
(iii) The excess emissions were not part of a recurring pattern indicative of inadequate design, operation, or maintenance;
(iv) Steps were immediately taken to correct conditions leading to the malfunction, and the amount and duration of the excess emissions caused by the malfunction were minimized to the maximum extent practicable;
(v) All possible steps were taken to minimize the impact of the excess emissions on ambient air quality;Start Printed Page 10182
(vi) All emissions monitoring systems were kept in operation if at all possible; and
(vii) The owner or operator's actions in response to the excess emissions were documented by properly signed, contemporaneous operating logs, or other relevant evidence.
1. Such implementation plans were not required from the States until December 17, 2007. Tribes are not subject to any mandatory deadlines to submit regional haze implementation plans. See 40 CFR 49.4; 64 FR at 35758 ("For example, unlike States, tribes are not required by the TAR to adopt and implement CAA plans or programs, thus tribes are not subject to mandatory deadlines for submittal of implementation plans."); see also Arizona Public Service Company v. USEPA, 562 F.3d at 1119).Back to Citation
2. "Representatives of State and local governments" include non-elected officials of State and local governments and any representative national organizations not listed in footnote 3.Back to Citation
[FR Doc. 2010-4542 Filed 3-4-10; 8:45 am]


text: Contact UsCharlotte Dumpster Rental Services Please fill out the form below and click "submit."NameAddressPhoneEmailHow Did You Hear About Us?---GoogleYahoo!Other Search EngineOnline Yellow PagesReferralOtherMethod of Contact Phone EmailServices Interested InComments/QuestionsPrivacy StatementThe information which you give in completing this form will be forwarded to the designated party for its use and will not be used by Charlotte Dumpster Service for any other purpose or provided by us to any other parties. If you wish information concerning the privacy policy or the designated recipient, you should contact them directly.Submit

subset: commoncrawl


text: 162: Inherited Defects in Growth Hormone Synthesis and Action Joy D. Cogan; John A. Phillips, III DOI: 10.1036/ommbid.194 View Full Chapter Figures Only Tables Only Videos Only Print Share Email Twitter Facebook Linkedin Reddit Get Citation Citation AMA Citation Cogan JD, Phillips JA, III. Cogan J.D., Phillips J.A., III Cogan, Joy D., and John A. Phillips, III.Inherited Defects in Growth Hormone Synthesis and Action. In: Valle D, Beaudet AL, Vogelstein B, Kinzler KW, Antonarakis SE, Ballabio A, Gibson K, Mitchell G. Valle D, Beaudet A.L., Vogelstein B, Kinzler K.W., Antonarakis S.E., Ballabio A, Gibson K, Mitchell G Eds. David Valle, et al.eds. The Online Metabolic and Molecular Bases of Inherited Disease New York, NY: McGraw-Hill; 2014. http://ommbid.mhmedical.com/content.aspx?bookid=971§ionid=62648691. Accessed September 20, 2018. MLA Citation Cogan JD, Phillips JA, III. Cogan J.D., Phillips J.A., III Cogan, Joy D., and John A. Phillips, III.. "Inherited Defects in Growth Hormone Synthesis and Action." The Online Metabolic and Molecular Bases of Inherited Disease Valle D, Beaudet AL, Vogelstein B, Kinzler KW, Antonarakis SE, Ballabio A, Gibson K, Mitchell G. Valle D, Beaudet A.L., Vogelstein B, Kinzler K.W., Antonarakis S.E., Ballabio A, Gibson K, Mitchell G Eds. David Valle, et al. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill, 2014, http://ommbid.mhmedical.com/content.aspx?bookid=971§ionid=62648691. Download citation file: RIS (Zotero) EndNote BibTex Medlars ProCite RefWorks Reference Manager Mendeley © Copyright Tools Search Book Top Return Clip Autosuggest Results Abstract Abstract Human growth hormone (hGH, or somatotropin) is essential for normal postnatal growth. It is a 191-amino acid protein that is released from the anterior pituitary gland on stimulation by growth hormone-releasing hormone (GHRH, or somatocrinin), a factor produced by the hypothalamic region of the brain. Like other pituitary hormones, hGH acts on target tissues, in this case primarily the liver, to cause synthesis and release of a second hormone mediator, insulin-like growth factor (IGF) I, also called somatomedin C, into the systemic circulation. IGF-I is a growth-accelerating peptide that acts directly on cartilage to promote bone growth. Deficiency of human growth hormone (hGH) production causes metabolic alterations and growth failure. While most cases of hGH deficiency are idiopathic, 17 known single gene disorders as well as a variety of other genetic disorders and syndromes are associated with deficiency of hGH or defective action. These genetic disorders are caused by alterations in the hGH gene, alterations of distant loci (such as Pit-1, Prop-1, or GHRHR) that cause hGH deficiency through epistatic effects, or alterations of genes (such as the growth hormone receptor gene (GHR)) that affect the response to hGH. Deficiency of hGH was treated in the past by replacement with exogenous hGH isolated from cadaver pituitaries. Because of the accompanying danger of transmission of infectious neurodegenerative disease (Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease; MIM 123400), alternative methods of treatment are now used. These include replacement with biosynthetic hGH or, in some cases, treatment with GHRH. The potential for hGH gene therapy has been demonstrated in animals. Human chorionic somatomammotropin (hCS, or human placental lactogen) has similar biologic activities, but it is much less potent than hGH. During pregnancy, maternal hCS levels are very high and approximately 300 times greater than fetal levels. While human chorionic somatomammotropin (hCS) is thought to be important in maternal carbohydrate and fat metabolism, normal fetal growth occurs in pregnancies in which it is absent. Two genetic disorders of the hCS loci have been described. While these alterations lead to deficiency or absent hCS production, affected individuals are thought to be asymptomatic. GET ACCESS TO THIS RESOURCE Sign In Username or Email Please enter User Name Password Please enter Password Forgot Username? Forgot Password? Sign in via OpenAthens Sign in via Shibboleth Get Free Access Through Your Institution Contact your institution's library to ask if they subscribe to McGraw-Hill Medical Products. What is MyAccess? Create a FREE MyAccess profile to: Use this site remotely Bookmark your favorite content Track your self-assessment progress and more! GET ACCESS TO THIS RESOURCE Subscription Options Pay Per View Timed Access to all of OMMBID 24 Hour $34.95 (USD) Buy Now 48 Hour $54.95 (USD) Buy Now Best Value OMMBID Full Site: One-Year Individual Subscription $295 USD Buy Now View All Subscription Options


text:
Site Policy
In running this blog I will strive as always to be as ethically clear as I can. That is why I have drafted this page in an effort to make it clear exactly where you and I stand. I wish to be as transparent as possible with all such issues and though I am human I am going to try my best.
If this entire policy could be summed up in just a few word those words would be: "Don't be an idiot".
If the above short version is not quite enough below is a lot more text spelling it out for you. I'm going to assume you have read it. If I know you I might let you get away with bending the odd rule but if you are a complete stranger... Thanks for your understanding.
- Please link back to your homepage, blog, Twitter, Facebook profile or something. If I especially liked what you had to say I might want to chat further, thank you or even give you a free gift (I do that sometimes).
- Please try to keep it clean
- You may disagree with me, at length if you wish to. However, expect me to reply if your comment was well argued and respectful but expect me to mangle it if you get rude, insulting, threatening or in any other way abuse my hospitality.
- If you comment and leave a URL (link) then that URL (as long as it goes in the URL box) will be followed by search engines and will contribute towards your site's SEO effort (YMMV). This page and this one may provide more information on that topic.
- If you have a lot to say try to get to the point quickly and leave a line (or two ideally) between blocks of text because it is easier to read.
- If you have a huge amount to say blog it with a link back to me - that's the magic of blogs. (An alternative is just to offer me a guest post (even if you disagree with me))
- You are the author of your comment if in making the comment you break the law I may hand over your details. The exception is if I feel the law is being used unreasonably against free speech and democracy in which case I'll take advice.
- The same goes for disagreeing with each other. Go for it - have a huge debate but be civil. Abusive guests will not be allowed to remain in the party.
- No HTML please.
- IF the spam bot eats your comment message me on facebook or twitter and I will unlock it from the depths.
- At most one link in the body of the text please.
- If you want to share a link just paste in the URL. there are URL shortening services to keep things tidy but the system will make the link a decent size.
- I have a personal comment, contact and feedback form please use it to ask me questions unrelated to the post.
- Please try to stay largely on topic.
- If your comment looks or smells spammy it will have a short life expectancy.
- Submitting lots of good comments over a period of time (not all at once) is a good way to get my attention and have me want to link to you.
- Keywords: A search term is not a name. Asked you for your name, handle, nickname, alias or similar "Kitchen Sinks", "SEO Expert" or "New York Decorators" is not a name, it is spam.
- Only posting "nice site" sucks.
- "Signing off" with a link (comment signature) is spammy and I don't like it.
- I reserve the right to delete comments if I feel I should. After all it is the "my blog". I work hard to make a good blog and I plan on becoming mildly famous (or at least a little infamous) and don't see why that should be abused.
Privacy and Data Protection
Whatever you do when you use the Internet, your computer blasts vast numbers of facts about you to the site you visit. This is a simple fact of life. These facts are not on a scale with the government's loss of data towards the end of 2007 and tend to be things like the numeric address of the computer (IP address) which is needed to get the web page back to you.
If you act like an idiot this data can be used to trace you back to your ISP and if enough complaints are made you could find yourself with no Internet connection. I do not make a habit of recording vast amounts of data about people but the server will log enough to solve any problems. This data is very very boring to go through so for the love of life don't make me read it, please.
In the event that we collect any data from you, it will be stored on the server (now in the UK). I plan to never share any data (on other people) with anyone else without being made to do so by a pile of court orders and a team of fierce looking law enforcers to back them up. Submitting any data will be taken as an indication that you understand this.
Guest Posting
Writing for Thanet Star is positively encouraged. When you write for us, you retain full copyright to your work but grant to us a worldwide, non-revokable, non-exclusive, royalty-free, perpetual, license to display the article. This license shall extend to all reasonable forms of display and storage as needed to run this site, including but not limited to XML feeds, HTML, and database storage, and distribution. We reserve the right to make edits in line with any current or future editorial policy. Additionally, you grant us a minimum of six months exclusive use of the submitted material from the date of publication. No part of this agreement forms a contract of employment or any formal relationship. You retain the right to be recognised as the author of the work and retain all other moral rights not covered by the grant of license. Submission of any article for publication shall be taken as agreement to these terms.
Reviews and Recommendations
I do have other business interests offline and on and may well recommend products in which I have a vested interest. This might influence the neutrality of my point of view and I will generally try to point out if this might be the case. I do not plan to do reviews or posts that have been "sponsored" or subsidised in any way but if ever I do I will disclose this to you in the article.
I plan to earn a little from this blog and to that end will be selecting advertising partners to help cover costs and even get into the profit zone. This might mean that what I advertise and what I want to write about might be at odds. I will try to keep things simple on that front.
I may choose to use affiliate programs to select products to recommend. I trust you are able to notice when I do this and make up your own mind about the products. For this reason, I'm not going to make a big fuss about such links should I use them.
All articles given are opinion only and do not constitute formal advice. In all cases, a professional in the field should be consulted before significant action is taken. We refuse all responsibility for your actions, as a thinking human being, based on what you read here. We hope, however, that what we say is helpful.
Links to third-party sites do not constitute an endorsement.
Party Political
In 2011 Matt (lead blogger) joined a political party. The views expressed here are his own and not necessarily those of the party or its members. Matt will try not to let his affiliation cause undue bias in reporting but you are welcome to point out if it might look that way to you.
Company and coverage
The views expressed here by any author are the author's at the time of publishing; they are not the opinion of anyone else that might in any way somehow (to your mind) be connected with Thanet Star or the author. As time passes they might stop being the author's views too depending on what they learn in the future.


text:
383 OCT 2014 CHURCHE CHALLENGE ... THE FAITHFUL.docx
Open with
AMERICAN BYZANTINE CATHOLIC RESEARCH CENTER 1334 RAMONA DRIVE, MOUNT SHASTA CA 96067 #383 OCT 2014 CHURCH UNITY CHALLENGE ... THE FAITHFUL CHURCH UNITY CHALLENGE ... THE FAITHFUL The Body of the Church is the Faithful; and, we are composed of every possibility; the learned, the poor, the true followers, the pious, the do-gooders, the innocent, the sinners, etc., you name them. Now, the One Church must guide each and every one of them. It might be said that the One Church has tried to reach out to every one of them. But, we have only truly reached 17.5% and we have decreased to that percentage during the past 50 years. Naturally, there are many action-items such as an oversupply of priests, sisters, vocations, and active participating faithful. We are far-short in priests, sisters, and vocations and our Church Leaders are firmly captivated in their present growth limitations. The faithful may be the only solution. We are reminded that the faithful have an immeasurable quantity of qualified. The problem to energize them is that they also must provide resources to raise a family and the Church resources are controlled by the celibate priesthood who are most desirous of continuing their present activities. There is no immediate viable solution therein. The approach may be best to start by determining the route of successfully engaging the appropriate faithful in the opportune duty. The route of "education" appears to be at the forefront. Educating our children first would be of high priority and our Catholic School system requires double payment, first to the public schools and then to the governing parish. That would have to change. The public schools are institutionalized and appear unmovable. However, a movement to allow time for religious education therein could succeed if all religions were included but separately. This approach would require a miracle and may be possible only after Church Unity. Public voting on "school vouchers" may succeed in largely religious cities and that is worthy of investigation. The one approach that may be most successful is increasing the "quality and availability" of Catholic school systems. Our first ingredient that may lead to success is a qualified oversupply priests and sisters. Presently, with our celibate priest shortage that route is decreasing. Married priests will solve the priest shortage and they will have a second source of income other than the parishes with their limitations. We have tried the celibate priest teachers and their shortage eliminates all approaches. I remember my father's Slovakia story where they had five priests in their hometown but only one parish priest position to finance a married priest with family. The town was quite poor and farming was the primary financial source for four of the priests, all married. Catholic school teachers could satisfy the additional basic financial needs today. Most importantly, there must be a way to finance a married priesthood to support an oversupply and attain the highest of educational levels. Teaching is high on the list and in compliance with Our Lord's instructions "to go forth and to teach all." There are many areas of investigation to finance teaching priests. The married priesthood would result in an increase of the attendance of the faithful and that could be a financial source. The problem with this is that our bishops are celibate and bent on building the best of church buildings. I remember Cardinal McIntyre of Los Angeles who purchased land in undeveloped outlying cities-to-be and then required the schools to be built first and to include a larger school gymnasium that would serve as the church site until paid off and then a magnificent church building could be built based on the success of the school to attract students in need of a high quality of religious education. There are ways to go forth and the first in priority is an oversupply of priests and sisters. Most every solution to Catholic growth begins with an oversupply of qualified married priests as it was in our beginning. Roman bishops are stifled by man made decisions. Although the Church is decreasing in percentage of the population there is a major increase in faithful who, unfortunately, also leave the faith in large numbers. The USA had 43,851,538 faithful in 1963 and 69,436,660 faithful in 2013 with a forecast to 89,483,811 faithful in 2050. We had 56,540 priests in 1963 and 40,788 priests in 2010 but the (latest) forecast is 20,620 priests in 2050. Sisters numbered 177,154 in 1963 and 58,724 in 2010 and decreasing. Our USA problem is our Church Leadership who are fixated on a celibate priesthood despite Our Lord selecting married Apostles and the early centuries comprised of a married priesthood and even with married Popes well into the middle of the first millennium. There appears to be two interpretations for the Holy Bible, one for the faithful and one for celibate priests. There is no way our present Church Leaders, our bishops and celibate priests are going to change their man made mandate on celibacy even on parish priests; however, the departure of the USA faithful (20,000,000 in accordance with a recent Pew study) and the low attendance in many parish churches will turn a financial eye brow of two. That is no way to manage the Apostolic Church. The key factor will be Church Unity with the Apostolic Particular Orthodox Churches who have an oversupply of married priests and a celibate hierarchy. It will also be the Orthodox faithful who have observed the persecution of their brother Eastern Catholic faithful and need explanations and clarifications by the Roman Catholic bishops. There are no satisfactory explanations except brotherly love and respect for each other. Considerable weight rests on the ten Postulators for the Pontifical Council for Church Unity and their knowledge of the Eastern Churches, past and present, to create an initial Church Unity Agreement with the Orthodox that will survive the post-agreement document with the faithful, East and West. Church Unity with the Orthodox will require miracles. GOD IS WITH US GO WITH GOD Joseph P. Bonchonsky


text:
Steel works
C006/6687 Rights Managed
530 pixels on longest edge, unwatermarked
Request/Download high-res file
Uncompressed file size: 25.1MB
Downloadable file size: 1.7MB
Please login to use the price calculator
Credit: ERIC HERCHAFT/REPORTERS/SCIENCE PHOTO LIBRARY
Release details: Model release not available. Property release not required.
Keywords: adult, factory, fire, furnace, heat, hot, human, industry, people, person, protective clothing, silhouette, silhouetted, steel production, steel works, worker
Licence fees: A licence fee will be charged for any media (low or high resolution) used in your project.


text:
DR K live
– Channel: DR K
– keyword Google search: DR K live
– Description: DR K is a Danish television channel from DR dedicated to culture and history.
Originally conceived as a channel dedicated to history, the channel was first presented in 2005 in the run up to DR's new settlement with the Danish state.[2] It would draw on DR's vast archives of Danish material. The effort would be combined with digitalizing DR's archives and launching interactive services. There would also be special channels for children, the youth and drama.
When the media settlement was presented in June 2006, the plans were to launch a combined channel with children's programmes in the daytime and history programmes in the evening.
– Home: http://www.dr.dk/
– Stream : http://www.dr.dk/TV/live/dr-k
– Country: Denmark
– Language: Danish
– Category: Culture and History


text:
- Pappy8
- 4 years ago
- Wedding: January 2013
Hey guys. Hubby and I are starting to think of baby names… something we've always done and enjoyed together is travelling (he's filipino and I'm canadian). We've travelled to Thailand, Mexico, Costa Rica, and throughout the US and Canada. W have plenty more places we would love to travel on our list… such as the Philippines, italy, Germany etc.
We were thinking of travel or adventure themed names. We like the name Mya for a girl and we like it because we got married in the Riviera Maya Mexico. They dont obvously need to be literal names like London or Georgia… but maybe a version of something travel/adventure/freedom inspired.
any ideas or advice?
Thanks Bees


text: In his provocative new book, historian James Livingston—author of the classic Origins of the Federal Reserve System—breaks from the consensus to argue that underconsumption caused the current crisis and will prolong it. By viewing the Great Recession through the prism of the Great Depression, Livingston proves that private investment is not the engine of growth we assume it to be. Tax cuts for business are therefore a recipe for disaster. If our goal is to reproduce the economic growth of the postwar era, we need a redistribution of income that reduces corporate profits, raises wages, and promotes consumer spending.


text:
Two further pictures today from Ralph Cousins's excellent booklet entitled A History of Leigh Park and the Hamlet of Leigh.
In the picture above we see some of the earliest shops in Park Parade in the 1950s.
The author's 14hp Wolseley car is on the left.
Below, we see the long-gone branch of Lloyds Bank and Corbins shoe shop.
The booklet costs £3 and can be bought direct from Ralph by calling him on (023) 9248 4024.
And the final picture is rather a strange sight, a three-masted schooner berthed on Canoe Lake, Southsea.
This smaller version of the real thing must have been around in the early part of the last century but if anyone knows anything about itplease let me know.


text:
When you upload your video content to a streaming site, you're not in control of it anymore. If that site decides to change their system, their video links format, their revenue sharing or change how much advertising they put on each video, it'll affect you. Even if their streaming-speed slows down, your video will suffer.
Keeping all your video contents under your own control ensures that it'll always be displayed and used the way that you want it to.
Sometimes if you are not following certain requirements then your video content will be shrunk to fit the specifications and this can really hurt the overall visibility of your video. It can be very frustrating and time consuming process to deal with.
Another problem is that all the revenues from original & creative videos, created by amazing content creators on their own, are in the hands of the platforms. The platforms will decide the most profitable revenue sharing model by sacrificing the fair distribution of profits.
For the sake of fighting spam content, YouTube will no longer allow creators to make money until their channel reach 10,000 views. Many people argue that this is not a really fair solution since there are many original & unique contents created everyday by creative authors. Platform should not control how they make money since it's their own content.
Video sharing websites like Youtube or Vimeo filled with lots of videos and not all of them may be contents you want to watch. On the actual models the options are paying for a subscription to watch a lot of media you may not be interested in, to spend a ridiculous amount of money on the videos that you really love, or to watch advertisement in exchange for content, which leaves producers with almost no return on their investment.
As an Advertiser, authentic connection with the audience is the most important thing. Advertiser needs to get their content to the larger audience. The key is to act aggressively and stop hoping that people will share your content, for free. Advertisers need ways to encourage sharing on social network.
Flixxo introducing a community based distribution platform and an ecosystem that will give users an opportunity to enjoy quality content unavailable from conventional distribution channels, that places 90% of revenues directly into the hands of the content creators.
On Flixxo all users share any content they have on their device with the rest of the community. So, instead of an expensive centralized server, the information is distributed and shared through the network using Bittorrent protocol.
The platform is aimed to improve on several factors such as lower bandwidth usage, keeping internet speeds higher for all users, improved video quality & better engagements.
Torrent is still the most used protocol to download illegal contents on the internet. The problem lies not in the technology itself but the reason why people use it. Based on LaunchLeap research, people are willing to pay high monthly fees for a legal service that would allow them to use all the legal video streaming platforms:
The main reason people use Torrent protocol is because they can not find what they are looking for on the legal streaming services. Instead of avoiding the technology, Flixxo sees it as the most effective way to autoscale the platform. To serve all audiences no matter where servers or viewers may be to build a truly global platform, providing the capacity to accommodate increasingly large, unpredictable audiences, in a legal way.
Flixxo developed peer-to-peer cryptocurrency payments to be used within the platform, called Flixx. Through this token, users can earn incentives for seeding legal content and get a channel for connecting directly with media producers. It is a two-way system, in which producers pay users for improving the network, and users can give authors a recognition for their work.
Flixx token also prevents piracy and spam content, as authors have to time-block tokens in a smart contract (set as a warranty) in order to upload content. This contract will also handle and block their earnings for a certain period of time, so that in the case of a dispute the unfair-uploader may lose those tokens.
Everyone will have equal opportunity to be rewarded in the ecosystem by providing four ways to receive Flixx token:
- Get Flixx token for producing content
- Get Flixx token for sharing content
- Get Flixx token for some seconds of your attention watching sponsored content.
- Get Flixx token by buying it or getting it from friends
Flixxo Token Allocation Event (ICO) will be held on October 24th, 2017. The primary purpose of the event is to make sure that everyone has a fair opportunity to contribute.
The beauty of Flixxo is as the network grows, so does its bandwidth and its storage space, making it more efficient and able to handle more users. The more content is being shared, the better bandwidth it will have for being distributed and streamed. Unlike other streaming services like Netflix and Hulu, as they expand to new markets they must worry about performance and all the annoying things when the network bogs down and videos start stuttering.
With Flixxo, Content Creators can benefit from the surge in P2P video distribution, while Advertisers can capitalize on advanced product placements and Users can earn credits for watching high quality content


text:
Logo Design
Budget ₹600-1500 INR
I need a freelancer to help me with Logo Design , my budget is around ₹ 600 - 1500 INR and I need this project to be done within 3 days
13 freelancers are bidding on average ₹2214 for this job
Hello there, Thank you for taking the time to review my bid! I am really eager to work on your project. I believe in ORIGINAL and QUALITY work since Work is my solo identity. I am a highly motivated logo designer so More
Hi, Many thanks for spending your valuable time to review my bid. i assure you with great designs and fast turnaround. Multiple options and unlimited revisions will be provided to you. let me share the best deal w More
Hi, CIAO!!! Please check our logo portfolio here, [login to view URL] PLEASE CONTACT US TO DISCUSS FURTHER ON THE JOB REGARDING OFFERS AND TIME-FRAME. Relevant Skills and Experience Logo Des More
Dear Sir, I can complete your job successfully. Check my works here. [login to view URL] Looking forward to you. Thank you, Harunar Rashid Relevant Skills an More
Thanks for the wonderful opportunity Relevant Skills and Experience I am a Website developer and designer and have more than 6 years experiences in Wordpress, HTML, CSS, Java Script, Photoshop. Proposed Milestones ₹7 More
Hello, I can definitly help you out with that budget, in three days, I would like to show you my dribbble, see you around! [login to view URL] Best Regards. Relevant Skills and Experience Please check m More
I will create multiple designs and tweak the one design you settle for until you feel it's completed. I will design the logo in a sleek and eye catching way. Relevant Skills and Experience I work with graphic design a More


text:
The well-funded dance between alcohol sponsorships and the sports world is an elaborate shuffle. Franchises, leagues and federations around the world seek out lucrative ad revenue from the realm of spirits, wine and beer, leaving fans who care wondering how athletic competition can support and celebrate a potential vice that proves unhealthy if overindulged. In other words, booze can enhance the enjoyment of competition, but never the execution of it – particularly when it comes to driving. So, should its makers sponsor sports?
The question sweats the most under the lights of automobile racing. With drunk driving remaining a deadly, yet wholly avoidable plague on the world's roads, alcoholic beverage makers still sponsor international racing at the highest levels. Cars and alcohol don't mix in practice, but they mingle in sports, sending the confusing and potentially dangerous message: enjoy a drink with your friends before and during this car race – just stop before you get into your own vehicle.
Beyond the brew ads of NASCAR and INDYCAR, the racing world can offer no more passion, spectacle – and advertising fortunes – anywhere in the world than in Monza for the Formula One Italian Grand Prix. The 13th of 20 races on the F1 schedule, the 53 lap run at Autodromo Nazionale Monza annually produces passion and spectacle rarely found anywhere else in the sports world.
This year, more than 113,000 fans flooded into the Autodromo over two days of time trials and lower circuit races before watching Mercedes-Benz drivers Lewis Hamilton and Valtteri Bottas take first and second respectively. That podium gave the German fans of Mercedes and the British supporters of Lewis Hamilton plenty of motivation to get their flags waving.
Surrounding the track, hanging above it and marking its entrance and exit points, the green flags and signs of Heineken greeted happy fans at every turn. The hordes of Italian saints the locals believe look down on the town and the racetrack didn't let the devoted Italian fans head home empty handed as Sebastian Vettel drove his red Ferrari to third place. It was "first and second be damned" as Ferrari lovers flooded the track after the race to plumes of red smoke and streamers launched in the colors of the red, white and green Italian flag.
With all of that pomp and circumstance on the track, well-oiled fans in the stands surrounding the park and big money corporate guests peering down from their perches, a larger message marked with a red star shouted out to everyone in attendance. The largest brewer in Europe was taking on the dichotomy of beer and cars. Race and F1 sponsor Heineken brought their "When You Drive Never Drink" campaign to every grandstand and multiple sign posts along the raceway.
As he is for every F1 race, Sir Jackie Stewart was holding court with fans, drivers and race crews as he made his rounds from pit to pit. An official brand ambassador for Heineken, the three-time Formula One champion (1969, 1971 and 1973) and 27 F1 race winner, Stewart watched the sport evolve over the last couple of decades into a multi-billion dollar business. Still, it's not the money that rains down on F1 that Stewart sees as the biggest evolution in the sport.
"The biggest change I've seen in Formula One Racing isn't the drivers or the cars. It's not the technology or the crowds. It's television. It's that power of television that pushed the sport to the incredible heights it's experiencing now."
No stranger to the world of TV, Stewart has behind him an 18-year career as a sports commentator for ABC and its Wide World of Sports franchise. His enthusiastic, precise color commentary at the Indianapolis 500 was as much a part of the 1970s as disco and polyester.
"When I was competing, there were more print journalists covering the races. Now, television is everywhere. That reach of TV not only helps to publicize the sport, but it gives the sport and its sponsors a tremendous platform to promote causes. Without the growth and the power of television, I don't think the sport draws in a company like Heineken as a major sponsor. More importantly, I don't think Heineken gets the opportunity to get a positive message like the 'When Your Drive Never Drink' campaign out to such a big audience."
On the days just prior to the Italian Grand Prix, Heineken brought in five UEFA Champions League Legends to take on five F1 drivers in support of "When You Drive, Never Drink." At stake on the custom-made go kart track was €25,000 for an Italian road safety charity.
The Champions of the Grid 2017 F1 team included David Coulthard, Daniel Ricciardo, Max Verstappen, Sergio Perez and Esteban Ocon. The UEFA Champions League squad invited Fransesco Toldo, Dida, Michel Salgado, Louis Saha and Christian Karembeu.
The Champions of the Grid go kart race was a rematch for Heineken's 2016 Champions of the Grid football match, which saw UEFA Champions League Legends kick around F1 drivers in a five-on-five football match during the Italian GP weekend. The soccers stars dribbled away with a 22-10 victory.
This year F1 Stars (coached by Sir Jackie) predictably captured the 2017 Champions of the Grid title, defeating the UEFA Champions League legends 3-1.
Gianluca Di Tondo, Senior Director Global Heineken Brand, was in attendance for the Champions of the Grid event and the Italian Grand Prix. He took the chance to talk up the positive impact he believes the brewer's anti-drunk driving push can make.
"Heineken is proud to sponsor both Formula One and the UEFA Champions League," he said. "We brought these two global sporting platforms together to support 'When You Drive Never Drink' program because we are committed to inspiring positive change around responsible alcohol consumption. For this event, we are also proud to raise money for charity to help improve road safety in Italy."
How this plays to the eye speaks to the nature of the viewer. Wanting to dodge charges of hypocrisy from drunk driving advocacy groups, Heineken and F1 promote beer and racing while warning the public off sampling that same relationship in practice. Heineken stands to make significant gains from this, both in terms of profit and reputation as a socially responsible company. But it is also true that their massive advertising platform is being used to spread an important message of public safety.
Back at Monza, the multi-million dollar cars of the racers were loaded up on their way to Singapore and the next F1 tour stop. Racing fans still milled about the raceway before heading home. They would have had to be blind to miss Heineken's message – the hope is that they drove out onto highways safer and more sober than they might have done otherwise.


text:
It seems that after bankrupt radio voice Tom Martino insisted that his non-profit Make It Right Foundation company is not a charity, the Colorado secretary of state's office says it is a charitable organization after all.
The organization Martino incorporated in 2009 raises money, he says, to help people in need of assistance, many of them affected by the companies he does battle with on his show. As Martino puts it: "We simply want a vehicle for collecting and distributing money to the needy."
That's a good thing.
But Martino's non-profit corporation – not the 501(c)3 Make It Right Foundation that actor Brad Pitt founded in order to help rebuild New Orleans following the devastation of Hurricane Katrina in 2005 – does not file non-profit tax forms, known as 990s, as other more-common charities do and which are by law available for public inspection. The Denver Post's Season to Share is another example.
Nor does it file the Form 990PF, which is for private foundations.
That's because MIRF doesn't have to. It falls in the tiny space of non-profit companies that are not tax-exempt groups, are not foundations by the IRS definition, and whose contributions are not deductible, either.
"I chose to simply have a private non-profit corporation to have complete freedom with how we use the money," Martino said. "If I wanted to help someone who was ripped off one day, and then help someone who simply was 'down on their luck' the other day, I could do this without worrying about violating any principals."
Read more…