text:
Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw's Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you're ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Although 118 of the Clean Air Act obligates federal installations discharging air pollutants to join with nonfederal facilities in complying with state "requirements respecting control and abatement of air pollution," obtaining a permit from a State with a federally approved implementation plan is not among such requirements. There cannot be found in 118, either on its face or in relation to the Act as a whole, nor can there be derived from the legislative history of the Clean Air Amendments of 1970, any clear and unambiguous declaration by Congress that such federal installations may not operate without a state permit. Nor can congressional intention to submit federal activity to state control be implied from the claim that under the State's federally approved plan it is only through the permit system that compliance schedules and other requirements may be administratively enforced against federal installations. Pp. 178-199.
497 F.2d 1172, affirmed.
WHITE, J., delivered the opinion of the Court in which BURGER, C. J., and BRENNAN, MARSHALL, BLACKMUN, POWELL, and STEVENS, JJ., joined. STEWART and REHNQUIST, JJ., filed a dissenting statement, post, p. 199.
David D. Beals, Assistant Attorney General of Kentucky, argued the cause for petitioner. With him on the briefs were Ed W. Hancock, Attorney General, pro se, and David C. Short, Assistant Attorney General.
Deputy Solicitor General Friedman argued the cause for respondents. On the brief were Solicitor General Bork, Assistant Attorney General Johnson, Deputy Solicitor [426 U.S. 167, 168] General Randolph, Jacques B. Gelin, Robert L. Klarquist, Robert H. Marquis, Herbert S. Sanger, Jr., and Beauchamp E. Brogan. *
[ Footnote * ] Briefs of amici curiae urging reversal were filed by William J. Baxley, Attorney General, and Henry H. Caddell and Frederick S. Middleton III, Assistant Attorneys General, for the State of Alabama; by Louis J. Lefkowitz, Attorney General, Samuel A. Hirshowitz, First Assistant Attorney General, and Philip Weinberg and Richard G. Berger, Assistant Attorneys General for the State of New York; by John L. Hill, Attorney General, David M. Kendall, First Assistant Attorney General, and Philip K. Maxwell, Assistant Attorney General, for the State of Texas; by Andrew P. Miller, Attorney General, and J. Thomas Steger, Assistant Attorney General, for the Commonwealth of Virginia; and by Evelle J. Younger, Attorney General, Robert H. O'Brien and Carl Boronkay, Assistant Attorneys General, and Nicholas C. Yost, Roderick Walston, Daniel Taaffe, and C. Foster Knight, Deputy Attorneys General, for the State of California et al., joined by Arthur K. Bolton, Attorney General, and Robert E. Hall, Assistant Attorney General, for the State of Georgia.
MR. JUSTICE WHITE delivered the opinion of the Court.
The question for decision in this case is whether a State whose federally approved implementation plan forbids an air contaminant source to operate without a state permit may require existing federally owned or operated installations to secure such a permit. The case presents an issue of statutory construction requiring examination of the Clean Air Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 1857 et seq., and its legislative history in light of established constitutional principles governing the determination of whether and the extent to which federal installations have been subjected to state regulation. 1 The specific question is whether obtaining a permit to operate [426 U.S. 167, 169] is among those "requirements respecting control and abatement of air pollution" with which existing federal facilities must comply under 118 of the Clean Air Act. 2
Last Term in Train v. Natural Resources Defense Council, 421 U.S. 60 (1975), we reviewed the development of federal air pollution legislation through the Clean Air Amendments of 1970 (Amendments) 3 and observed that although the Amendments "sharply increased federal authority and responsibility in the continuing effort to combat air pollution," they "explicitly preserved the principle" that "`[e]ach State shall have the primary responsibility for assuring air quality within the entire geographic area comprising such State . . .,'" id., at 64, quoting from 107 (a) of the Clean Air Act, as added, 84 Stat. 1678, 42 U.S.C. 1857c-2 (a). Consistently with this principle, the Amendments required that within nine months after the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) promulgated the primary and secondary ambient air quality standards required by 109 (a) of the Clean Air Act, as added, 84 Stat. 1679, 42 U.S.C. 1857c-4 (a), 4 for certain air pollutants, 5 each State submit to the EPA a plan by which it would implement and maintain those standards within its territory. 110 (a) (1) of the Clean Air Act, as added, 84 Stat. 1680, 42 U.S.C. 1857c-5 (a) (1). See 40 CFR pt. 51 (1975). The EPA was required to approve each State's [426 U.S. 167, 170] implementation plan as long as it was adopted after public hearings and satisfied the conditions specified in 110 (a) (2).
For existing sources 6 the State must propose "emission limitations, schedules, and timetables for compliance with such limitations" necessary to meet the air quality standards. 110 (a) (2) (B). As we observed in Train, supra, at 78-79, given the EPA's nationwide air quality standards, the State is to adopt a plan setting
Experience with performance by federal sources of air pollution under this voluntary scheme 10 led the Congress to conclude that admonishing federal agencies to prevent and control air pollution was inadequate, because "[i]nstead of exercising leadership in controlling or eliminating air pollution" 11 "Federal agencies have been notoriously laggard in abating pollution." 12 Both to provide the leadership to private industry and to abate violations of air pollution standards by federal facilities, in 1970 Congress added 118 to the Clean Air Act. The first sentence of the section provides:
After enactment of 118 there is no longer any question whether federal installations must comply with established air pollution control and abatement measures. The question has become how their compliance is to be enforced.
In February 1972, Kentucky submitted its implementation plan to the EPA. On May 31, 1972, the plan was approved by the Administrator in relevant part. 14 Chapter 7 of the plan included Kentucky Air Pollution Control Commission (Commission) Regulation No. AP-1, 5 (1), which provides:
Soon after the implementation plan was approved, a Commission official wrote to numerous officials responsible for various Kentucky facilities of the United States Army, 21 of the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA), 22 and of the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) 23 requesting that they apply for and obtain permits as requested by the EPA-approved plan. The responses to these requests were to the effect that federally owned or operated facilities located in Kentucky were not required to secure an operating permit. Each response, however, either offered to or did supply the information and data requested on the standard permit application form. 24
The Commission continued to press the federal officials [426 U.S. 167, 175] to apply for operating permits. In October 1972, the Regional Administrator of the EPA sent a letter to the operators of all federal facilities in the region, including those to which the Kentucky officials had addressed their requests, and to the Commission. Setting forth EPA policy and the agency's interpretation of 118 of the Clean Air Act, 25 the Regional Administrator stated: "It is clear that Section 118 . . . requires Federal facilities to meet state air quality standards and emission limitations and to comply with deadlines established in the approved state air implementation plans." App. 57. To aid the States in accomplishing these objections, wrote the Administrator, each federal facility should develop a compliance schedule and should provide "reasonable and specific" data requested by the State. Id., at 58. On the question whether federal facilities must apply for state permits, the letter reiterated the EPA position that although "Federal agencies are [not] required to apply for state operating permits . . . [o]ur aim is to encourage Federal agencies to provide the states with all the information required to assess compliance of pollution sources with standards, emission and discharge limitations and the needs for additional abatement measures." 26 Ibid. [426 U.S. 167, 176]
Kentucky then brought this suit in the United States District Court for the Western District of Kentucky. 27 The complaint sought declaratory and injunctive relief requiring the Army, TVA, and AEC facilities to secure operating permits. Kentucky also named several EPA officials as defendants and asked the District Court to order them to commence appropriate actions under 113 of the Clean Air Act, directing the Army, the TVA, and the AEC facilities to comply with the provisions of Regulation AP-1, 5 (1). 28 On cross-motions for summary [426 U.S. 167, 177] judgment, the District Court ordered the complaint dismissed. Kentucky ex rel. Hancock v. Ruckelshaus, 362 F. Supp. 360 (1973).
The Court of Appeals affirmed, 497 F.2d 1172 (CA6 1974). Like the District Court, 362 F. Supp., at 363 n. 3, the Court of Appeals found it unnecessary to determine whether the federal installations were in compliance with Kentucky's emission limitations or had adopted adequate compliance schedules, for it was Kentucky's position that notwithstanding possible compliance "the Kentucky Plan is so formulated that the State cannot meet its primary responsibility under the Clean Air Act without the use of permits." 497 F.2d, at 1174-1175. After examining 118 and its purposes in relation to other provisions of the Clean Air Act, the court concluded:
It is a seminal principle of our law "that the constitution and the laws made in pursuance thereof are supreme; that they control the constitution and laws of the respective States, and cannot be controlled by them." M'Culloch v. Maryland, 4 Wheat. 316, 426 (1819). From this principle is deduced the corollary that
Neither the Supremacy Clause nor the Plenary Powers Clause bars all state regulation which may touch the activities of the Federal Government. See Penn Dairies [426 U.S. 167, 180] v. Pennsylvania Milk Control Comm'n, 318 U.S. 261 (1943); Alabama v. King & Boozer, 314 U.S. 1, 9 (1941), and cases cited. "Here, however, the State places a prohibition on the Federal Government." 39 The permit requirement is not intended simply to regulate the amount of pollutants which the federal installations may discharge. Without a permit, an air contaminant source is forbidden to operate even if it is in compliance with every other state measure respecting air pollution control and abatement. It is clear from the record that prohibiting operation of the air contaminant sources for which the State seeks to require permits, App. 14-17, is tantamount to prohibiting operation of the federal installations on which they are located. Id., at 89-93.
Kentucky, like the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in Alabama v. Seeber, 502 F.2d 1238, 1247-1248 (1974), finds in 118 a sufficient congressional authorization to the States, not only to establish the amount of pollutants a federal installation may discharge, but also to condition operation of federal installations on securing a state permit. We disagree because we are not convinced that Congress intended to subject federal agencies to state permits. We are unable to find in 118, on its face or in relation to the Clean Air Act as a whole, or to derive from the legislative history of the Amendments any clear and unambiguous declaration by the Congress that federal installations may not perform their activities unless a state official issues a permit. Nor can congressional intention to submit federal activity to state control be implied from the claim that under Kentucky's EPA-approved implementation plan it is only through the permit system that compliance schedules and other [426 U.S. 167, 181] requirements may be administratively enforced against federal installations.
The parties rightly agree that 118 obligates federal installations to conform to state air pollution standards or limitations and compliance schedules. 40 With the enactment of the Amendments in 1970 came the end of the era in which it was enough for federal facilities to volunteer their cooperation with federal and state officials. In Kentucky's view that era has been replaced by one in which federal installations are not only required to limit their air pollutant emissions to the same extent as their nonfederal neighbors, but also, subject only to case-by-case Presidential exemption, to submit themselves completely to the state regime by which the necessary information to promulgate emission limitations and compliance schedules is gathered and by which collection of that information and enforcement of the emission limitations and compliance schedules are accomplished. Respondents (hereafter sometimes EPA) take the position that the Congress has not gone so far. While federal and nonfederal installations are governed by the same emission standards, standards which the States have the primary responsibility to develop, the EPA maintains that the authority to compel federal installations to provide necessary information to the States and to conform to state standards necessary to carry out the federal policy to control and regulate air pollution has not been extended to the States. [426 U.S. 167, 182]
Analysis must begin with 118. 41 Although the language of this provision is notable for what it states in comparison with its predecessor, 42 it is also notable for what it does not state. It does not provide that federal installations "shall comply with all federal, state, interstate, and local requirements to the same extent as any other person." Nor does it state that federal installations "shall comply with all requirements of the applicable state implementation plan." Section 118 states only to what extent - the same as any person - federal installations must comply with applicable state requirements; it does not identify the applicable requirements. There is agreement that 118 obligates existing federal installations to join nonfederal sources in abating [426 U.S. 167, 183] air pollution, that comparable federal and nonfederal sources are expected to achieve the same levels of performance in abating air pollution, and that those levels of performance are set by the States. Given agreement that 118 makes it the duty of federal facilities to comply with state-established air quality and emission standards, the question is, as the Fifth Circuit put it in another case, "whether Congress intended that the enforcement mechanisms of federally approved state implementation plans, in this case permit systems, would be" available to the States to enforce that duty. Alabama v. Seeber, 502 F.2d, at 1247. In the case before us the Court of Appeals concluded that federal installations were obligated to comply with state substantive requirements, as opposed to state procedural requirements, 497 F.2d, at 1177, but Kentucky rejects the distinction between procedural and substantive requirements, saying that whatever is required by a state implementation plan is a "requirement" under 118.
The heart of the argument that the requirement that all air contaminant sources secure an operating permit is a "requirement respecting control and abatement of air pollution" is that Congress necessarily implied the power to enforce from the conceded authority to develop and set emission standards. Under Kentucky's EPA-approved implementation plan, the permit requirement "is the mechanism through which [it] is able to compel the production of data concerning air contaminant sources, including the ability to prescribe the monitoring techniques to be employed, and it is the only mechanism which allows [it] to develop and review a source's compliance schedule and insure that schedule is followed." 43 When a State is without administrative means of implementing and enforcing its standards [426 U.S. 167, 184] against federal sources, a duty to comply with those standards is said to be utterly meaningless. 44
The difficulty with this position is threefold. First, it assumes that only the States are empowered to enforce federal installations' compliance with the standards. Second, it assumes the Congress intended to grant the States such authority over the operation of federal installations. Third, it unduly disregards the substantial change in the responsibilities of federal air contaminant sources under 118 in comparison with 42 U.S.C. 1857f (a) (1964 ed., Supp. V), supra, at 171. Contrary to Kentucky's contention that Congress necessarily intended to subject federal facilities to the enforcement mechanisms of state implementation plans, our study of the Clean Air Act not only discloses no clear declaration or implication of congressional intention to submit federal installations to that degree of state regulation and control but also reveals significant indications that in preserving a State's "primary responsibility for assuring air quality within [its] entire geographic area" the Congress did not intend to extend that responsibility by subjecting federal installations to such authority.
The Clean Air Act, as amended, does not expressly provide for a permit system as part of a State's implementation plan. 45 It is true that virtually every State [426 U.S. 167, 185] has adopted a form of permit system much like that adopted by Kentucky, see 40 CFR pt. 52 (1975), as a means of gathering information to determine what emission standards to set and compliance schedules to approve and of assuring compliance with them. Also, only an implementation plan enabling a State to meet these - and other - objectives can be approved by the EPA. 46 Nonetheless we find in the 1970 Amendments several firm indications that the Congress intended to treat emission standards and compliance schedules - those requirements which when met work the actual reduction of air pollutant discharge - differently from administrative and enforcement [426 U.S. 167, 186] methods and devices - those provisions by which the States were to establish and enforce emission standards, compliance schedules, and the like. This is so in spite of the absence of any definition of the word "requirements" or of the phrase "requirements respecting control and abatement of air pollution." 47 [426 U.S. 167, 187]
In 110 (e) (1) (A), for example, the EPA is authorized to extend for two years a State's three-year deadline for attaining a national primary air quality standard if, upon timely application, it is determined that an emission source is unable to meet "the requirements of such plan which implement such primary standard because the necessary technology" is unavailable. 42 U.S.C. 1857c-5 (e) (1) (A). Although compiling the information necessary for a permit may require familiarity with technology, it is plain that the "requirements" to which this section refers are those for which technologically adequate industrial processes might not be available. Section 110 (e) (2) (A) necessarily contemplates the same meaning of "requirements," that is, emission standards and compliance schedules, as does 110 (f) which provides for one-year postponement of the application of "requirements" to sources the continued operation of which is "essential to national security or to the public health." 42 U.S.C. 1857c-5 (f) (1) (D). See Train, 421 U.S., at 80 -84. 48
Stronger indications that the term "requirements" as used in 118 does not embrace every measure incorporated in a State's implementation limitations and compliance [426 U.S. 167, 188] schedules appear in the emergence of 118 from the House bill and Senate amendment from which it was derived.
The House bill provided that federal installations "shall comply with applicable Federal, State, interstate, and local emission standards." 49 The House Report stated that this "legislation directs Federal agencies in the executive, legislative, and judicial branches to comply with applicable Federal, State, interstate, and local emission standards." 50 The Senate amendment provided that federal agencies "shall provide leadership in carrying out the policy and purposes of this Act and shall comply with the requirements of this Act in the same manner as any person . . . ." 51 The Senate Report stated that this provision "requires that Federal facilities meet the emission standards necessary to achieve ambient air quality standards as well as those established in other sections of Title I." 52
Thus while the House bill spoke of "emission standards," the Senate amendment, like 118 as enacted, spoke of "requirements." In accommodating the different language in the two bills and formulating what is now 118, the Conference Committee simply combined the House and Senate provisions. If, as Kentucky argues, [426 U.S. 167, 189] the Conference Committee in taking the Senate language of "requirements" meant thereby to subject federal facilities to enforcement measures obviously not embraced in the language of the House bill, it is remarkable that it made no reference to its having reconciled this difference in favor of extending state regulation over federal installations. Given the interchangeable use of "emission standards" and "emission requirements" in the Senate amendment, see n. 52, supra, the predominance of the language of the Senate version in 118 as enacted, 53 and the absence of any mention of disagreement between the two bills, it is more probable that the Conference Committee intended only that federal installations comply with emission standards and compliance schedules than that its intention was to empower a State to require federal installations to comply with every measure in its implementation plan. See Alabama v. Seeber, 502 F.2d, at 1247.
The impression that Congress intended only that federal agencies comply with emission limitations and standards is strengthened by the Conference Report, which stated in full:
In drawing on the manner in which the Clean Air Act has divided the authority to regulate new sources of air pollutants 57 and the emission of hazardous air pollutants 58 in comparison with existing air pollutant sources, Kentucky makes two separate though related arguments. The first is that when Congress wanted to exempt federal facilities from compliance with a state requirement, it did so by express exclusionary language. Thus 111 (c) (1) authorizes the Administrator to delegate to a State "any authority he has under this Act to implement and enforce" new-source standards of performance - with which new sources owned or operated by the United States must comply ( 111 (b) (4)) - "except with respect to new sources owned or operated by the United States." 42 U.S.C. 1857c-6 (c) (1). Section 114 (b) (1) of the Clean Air Act, as added, 84 Stat. 1688, is to the same [426 U.S. 167, 192] effect respecting inspections, monitoring, and entry of an emission source. 42 U.S.C. 1857c-9 (b) (1). Similarly, 112 (d) (1) authorizes the Administrator, upon finding that a State's plan to enforce emission standards for hazardous pollutants is adequate to the task, to delegate to that State "any authority he has under this Act to implement and enforce such standards (except with respect to stationary sources owned or operated by the United States)." 42 U.S.C. 1857c-7 (d) (1). The argument that these specific exemptions of federal facilities from state enforcement and implementation methods are necessary only because 118 has, as a general matter, subjected federal installations to all state requirements fails on several counts. First, as we have demonstrated, by itself 118 does not have the effect petitioner claims. Second, the relevant portions of 111, 112, and 114 assume that the Administrator possesses the authority to enforce and implement the respective requirements against sources owned or operated by the United States. See 111 (c) (2), 112 (d) (2), and 114 (b) (2). Third, just as in providing for Presidential exemptions in 118 Congress separated the requirements of 111 and 112 from other requirements, Congress naturally treated the submission of federal installations to state regulation under 111, 112, and 114 separately from general provisions for meeting ambient air quality standards under 110 implementation plans devised by the States and approved by the EPA. A State must promulgate an implementation plan. 110 (a). The delegation provisions of 111, 112, and 114, on the other hand, are permissive, providing that "[e]ach State may develop and submit to the Administrator a procedure" to carry out the section. (Emphasis added.)
Kentucky's second argument is that the manner in which Congress differentiated treatment of new sources [426 U.S. 167, 193] and existing sources in 111 and 114 clearly implies that existing federal sources were to be subject to the enforcement provisions of a State's implementation plan. The implication is said to arise from the different nature of the control required for the two types of installations. The difference is explained as follows: For existing sources the first step for a State is to determine the general quality of air in the relevant air quality region and then to compute the amounts of pollution attributable to each source. Next, appropriate emission standards necessary to meet the national ambient air quality standards must be assigned to the various sources, followed by determining the compliance schedule by which each installation will achieve the assigned standards by the attainment date prescribed in the Act. To carry out this process of gathering information and coordinating control throughout the State, it is said to be necessary for the States to have ready administrative authority over all sources, federal and nonfederal. This administrative authority, concededly a major part of an implementation plan as to nonfederal sources, must therefore have been intended to extend to federal sources as well.
In contrast, controlling "new sources" is described as a straightforward task. This is because "standards of performance" for such sources, which are established in light of technologically feasible emission controls and not in relation to ambient air quality standards 59 are set by the EPA for various categories of sources and are uniform throughout the Nation. A comprehensive enforcement [426 U.S. 167, 194] mechanism to develop and coordinate application of these standards is unnecessary, especially because all new sources must be in compliance before operation begins, 111 (e). The Congress is said, therefore, to have exempted new federal installations from state enforcement of federally promulgated standards of performance because it was unnecessary to submit those installations to the same kind of coordinated control to which existing sources had been submitted.
The Act itself belies this contention. It recognizes that a "new source," even one in full compliance with applicable standards of performance, may hinder or prevent attainment or maintenance of air quality standards within the air quality region in which it is located, and requires a state implementation plan to include procedures for averting such problems. See 110 (a) (2) (D), (a) (4).
The arguments respecting the federal new-source exception in 114 also fail to bear the weight they must carry if Kentucky is to prevail. Section 114 provides for the establishment of various means by which to collect information
Finally, we reject the argument that 304 of the Clean Air Act, reveals congressional intention to grant the States authority to subject existing federal sources to the enforcement mechanisms of their enforcement plan. The section provides in part:
Section 302 (e) includes a "State" in the definition of a "person," 42 U.S.C. 1857h (e), and 304 (f) provides:
The argument is defective on another count. Even if, standing alone, 304 could be read to require federal facilities to comply with the matters within 304 (f), the assumption that the two sections independently impose duties on federal installations conflicts with the legislative history. Section 304 (a) was first extended to apply to federal sources of pollution in Conference, at the same point at which the express provision for enforcement authority over federal installations was removed from 118. 62 Given this relationship between [426 U.S. 167, 198] the two measures, we cannot credit the argument that 118 was intended to impose on federal installations any broader duty to comply with state implementation measures than specified in 304. The absence in 304 of any express provision for enforcing state permit requirements in federal court is therefore too substantial an indication that congressional understanding was that the "requirements" federal facilities are obliged to meet under 118 did not include permit requirements to be overcome by assertions to the contrary.
In view of the undoubted congressional awareness of the requirement of clear language to bind the United States, 63 our conclusion is that with respect to subjecting federal installations to state permit requirements, the Clean Air Act does not satisfy the traditional requirement that such intention be evinced with satisfactory clarity. Should this nevertheless be the desire of Congress, it need only amend the Act to make its intention manifest. 64 Absent such amendment, we can only conclude that to the extent it considered the matter in enacting 118 Congress has fashioned a compromise which, while requiring federal installations to abate their pollution to the same extent as any other air contaminant source and under standards which the States have prescribed, [426 U.S. 167, 199] stopped short of subjecting federal installations to state control.
This conclusion does not mean that we are persuaded that the States are as able to administer their implementation plans as they would be if they possessed the degree of authority over federal installations urged here, although, as Kentucky acknowledged at oral argument, the EPA, acting under the impetus of Executive Order No. 11752, 3 CFR 380 (1974), has promulgated guidelines for compliance by federal agencies with stationary source air pollution standards, 40 Fed. Reg. 20664 (1975), which will lead to federal agencies' entering "consent agreements which are exactly identical in every respect to what a compliance schedule would have been." 65
The judgment of the Court of Appeals is
[ Footnote 2 ] As renumbered and amended, 84 Stat. 1689, 42 U.S.C. 1857f.
[ Footnote 3 ] Pub. L. 91-604, 84 Stat. 1676.
[ Footnote 4 ] 36 Fed. Reg. 8186 (1971). See 40 CFR pt. 50 (1975). Title 40 CFR 50.1 (e) (1975) defines "ambient air" as "that portion of the atmosphere, external to buildings, to which the general public has access."
[ Footnote 5 ] The EPA is guided in compiling a list of air pollutants by 108 (a) of the Clean Air Act, as added, 84 Stat. 1678, 42 U.S.C. 1857c-3 (a).
[ Footnote 6 ] The range of a State's initiative in meeting its primary responsibility to assure air quality is somewhat greater for existing sources of air pollution, such as those involved in this case, than for "new sources." See infra, at 190-194.
[ Footnote 7 ] Train v. Natural Resources Defense Council, 421 U.S. 60, 64 (1975).
[ Footnote 8 ] Brief for Respondents 27.
[ Footnote 9 ] As amended, 81 Stat. 499, 42 U.S.C. 1857f (a) (1964 ed., Supp. V).
[ Footnote 10 ] Congress first called on federal agencies to cooperate with efforts to reduce air pollution in 1959, Pub. L. 86-365, 73 Stat. 646.
[ Footnote 11 ] H. R. Rep. No. 91-1146, p. 4 (1970), 2 Legislative History of the Clean Air Amendments of 1970 (Comm. Print compiled for the Senate Committee on Public Works by the Library of Congress), p. 894 (1974) (hereafter Leg. Hist.).
[ Footnote 12 ] S. Rep. No. 91-1196, p. 37 (1970), 1 Leg Hist. 437.
[ Footnote 13 ] The full text of 118 appears at n. 41, infra.
[ Footnote 14 ] 37 Fed. Reg. 10842, 10868-10869 (1972). Approval of the plan was later vacated because the EPA had not given interested persons an opportunity to participate in its consideration of the plan. Buckeye Power, Inc. v. EPA, 481 F.2d 162 (CA6 1973). After resubmission to the EPA and publication as a proposed rule-making, 39 Fed. Reg. 10277 (1974), the plan was approved with an exception not pertinent here. Id., at 29357.
[ Footnote 15 ] Pet. for Cert. 46a. Although 5 (1) does not explicitly apply to federal facilities, the definition of "person" in 2 (32) of the Regulation includes any "government agency . . . or other entity whatsoever." App. in No. 73-2099 (CA6), p. 111 (hereafter CA App.). The applicability of 5 (1) to federal facilities as a matter of Kentucky law has not been disputed.
[ Footnote 16 ] Reg. AP-1 5 (2) (a), (c), CA App. 120.
[ Footnote 17 ] See generally Reg. AP-10, CA App. 209-227.
[ Footnote 18 ] Reg. AP-1, 5 (2) (c), CA App. 120.
[ Footnote 19 ] Id., 5 (3) (a), CA App. 121.
[ Footnote 20 ] Id., 5 (4), CA App. 121.
[ Footnote 21 ] The Army facilities are the United States Army Armor Center and Fort Knox, Fort Campbell, and the Lexington and Blue Grass Activities, Lexington-Blue Grass Army Depot.
[ Footnote 22 ] Two TVA facilities are involved, the Shawnee and Paradise Power Plants.
[ Footnote 23 ] The AEC facility is the Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant for the production of enriched uranium, operated under contract by the Union Carbide Corp. Since the Commission initiated its efforts to secure a permit application from the AEC or its contractor, the Energy Research and Development Administration has succeeded to the AEC's responsibility for the Paducah plant. Pub. L. 93-438, 88 Stat. 1233; see 40 Fed. Reg. 3242, 3250 (1975).
[ Footnote 24 ] Fort Campbell officials, for example, after asserting that "current Department of the Army regulations do not allow us to apply for such a permit," submitted "pertinent information on our heating plants which appear to be covered by your regulations" and asked to be "advise[d] if any further information is desired." App. 48. TVA officials likewise disclaimed any duty to apply for a permit but submitted "the same emission data and other information for [TVA] power plants which your permit application forms are designed to elicit from applicants who are required to secure permits in order to continue their operations." For the Commission's convenience, [426 U.S. 167, 175] the TVA supplied the information on the Commission's own permit forms. Id., at 52.
[ Footnote 25 ] In addition to 118, the letter referred to Executive Order No. 11507, 3 CFR 889 (1966-1970 Comp.), which antedates the Amendments, as a policy source. This Order, cited in the complaint, has been superseded by Executive Order No. 11752, 3 CFR 380 (1974). See infra, at 199.
[ Footnote 26 ] The letter explained to the federal officials that the EPA's "advice on this matter, at this time, is to provide the data specifically requested by the states so they may make a determination as to: (1) the facilities compliance with the approved state air implementation plans and (2) the abatement action facilities must take in order to meet implementation plan requirements.
[ Footnote 27 ] The suit was brought by the Attorney General without the concurrence of the Commission. The District Court's ruling that Kentucky law permitted the Attorney General to sue without a request from the Commission is not challenged here.
[ Footnote 28 ] Section 113, as added, 84 Stat. 1686, 42 U.S.C. 1857c-8, empowers the EPA Administrator, upon finding that any person is in violation of an applicable provision of an implementation plan or that violations of an applicable implementation plan are so widespread as to appear to result from ineffective state enforcement and upon giving notice, to commence appropriate action either by issuing an order to any person requiring compliance with the plan's requirements or by bringing a civil action under 113 (b) in district court. The District Court and the Court of Appeals both ruled that, even if federal facilities were obligated to secure operating permits, the Administrator's duty to proceed under 113 was discretionary. The decision not to commence actions [426 U.S. 167, 177] under 113 was therefore unreviewable. 5 U.S.C. 701 (a) (2); 304 (a) (2) of the Clean Air Act, as added, 84 Stat. 1706, 42 U.S.C. 1857h-2 (a) (2). Our disposition of the case makes it unnecessary to reach this alternative ground for judgment in favor of the EPA respondents.
[ Footnote 29 ] After the petition was filed, a divided panel of the Fifth Circuit concluded that 118 does require federal facilities to secure a state operating permit and to comply with state "enforcement mechanisms." [426 U.S. 167, 178] Alabama v. Seeber, 502 F.2d 1238 (1974), cert. pending, No. 74-851. See also California v. Stastny, 382 F. Supp. 222 (CD Cal. 1972).
[ Footnote 30 ] Art. VI, cl. 2.
[ Footnote 31 ] Art. I, 8, cl. 17:
[ Footnote 32 ] Mayo v. United States, 319 U.S. 441, 445 (1943) (footnote omitted).
[ Footnote 33 ] United States v. United Mine Workers, 330 U.S. 258, 272 (1947) (footnote omitted). See United States v. Herron, 20 Wall. 251, 263 (1874); United States v. Knight, 14 Pet. 301, 315 (1840).
[ Footnote 34 ] United States v. Wittek, 337 U.S. 346, 359 (1949) (footnote omitted).
[ Footnote 35 ] Mayo v. United States, supra, at 447, 448 (footnote omitted).
[ Footnote 36 ] Kern-Limerick, Inc. v. Scurlock, 347 U.S. 110, 122 (1954).
[ Footnote 37 ] Paul v. United States, 371 U.S. 245, 263 (1963).
[ Footnote 38 ] California ex rel. State Water Resources Control Board v. EPA, 511 F.2d 963, 968 (CA9 1975), rev'd on other grounds, post, p. 200.
[ Footnote 39 ] California Pub. Util. Comm'n v. United States, 355 U.S. 534, 544 (1958).
[ Footnote 40 ] Title 40 CFR 51.1 (p) (1975) defines "compliance schedule" as "the date or dates by which a source or category of sources is required to comply with specific emission limitations contained in an implementation plan and with any increments of progress toward such compliance." Basically a compliance schedule is a means by which a State phases in attainment with the ultimate emission limitations that must be achieved. See Train, 421 U.S., at 68 -69.
[ Footnote 41 ] "Each department, agency, and instrumentality of the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of the Federal Government (1) having jurisdiction over any property or facility, or (2) engaged in any activity resulting, or which may result, in the discharge of air pollutants, shall comply with Federal, State, interstate, and local requirements respecting control and abatement of air pollution to the same extent that any person is subject to such requirements. The President may exempt any emission source of any department, agency, or instrumentality in the executive branch from compliance with such a requirement if he determines it to be in the paramount interest of the United States to do so, except that no exemption may be granted from section 111, and an exemption from section 112 may be granted only in accordance with section 112 (c). No such exemption shall be granted due to lack of appropriation unless the President shall have specifically requested such appropriation as a part of the budgetary process and the Congress shall have failed to make available such requested appropriation. Any exemption shall be for a period not in excess of one year, but additional exemptions may be granted for periods of not to exceed one year upon the President's making a new determination. The President shall report each January to the Congress all exemptions from the requirements of this section granted during the preceding calendar year, together with his reason for granting each such exemption." 42 U.S.C. 1857f.
[ Footnote 42 ] See 42 U.S.C. 1857f (a) (1964 ed., Supp. V). supra, at 171.
[ Footnote 43 ] Brief for Petitioner 21 (emphasis added).
[ Footnote 44 ] Id., at 30. Several States which have filed briefs as amici curiae join Kentucky in recognizing that the issue is whether a State may enforce its emission limitations against a federal installation. See Brief for Alabama as Amicus Curiae 4, 5, 37-38; Brief for California as Amicus Curiae 9.
[ Footnote 45 ] Although use of permit system may have been "encouraged" by the EPA as its "preferred approach," see Train, 421 U.S., at 68 -69, the EPA has never made a permit system to control emissions from existing stationary sources a mandatory part of an implementation plan. The closest the EPA has come to this was a provision in a proposed rulemaking, 36 Fed. Reg. 6680, 6682 (1971), later eliminated, id., at 15486, that might have been interpreted to [426 U.S. 167, 185] mean that an implementation plan must include a system requiring permits for the construction and operation of modifications to existing sources that would be modified before the Administrator promulgated proposed standards of performance for new sources under 111 of the Clean Air Act. Compare 42 U.S.C. 1857c-6 (a) (2), (b), with 36 Fed. Reg. 6682 (1971), proposing 42 CFR 420.11 (a) (4).
[ Footnote 46 ] Among the eight conditions, 110 (a) (2) (A)-(H), each implementation plan must meet are:
[ Footnote 47 ] The phrase "requirement respecting control or abatement of air pollution" also appears in 116 of the Clean Air Act, as added, 84 Stat. 1689, 42 U.S.C. 1857d-1. That section provides that, with certain exceptions pre-empting state regulation of moving sources,
It is suggested by an amicus that it is logical to read 116 to mean that a "`standard or limitation respecting emissions of air pollutants' is a subcategory of the broader class of `requirement[s] respecting control or abatement of air pollution.'" Brief for Alabama as Amicus Curiae 20. To the contrary, from 116 it appears more logical to conclude that "standards" and "requirements" are separate categories which, together, compose all measures which a State is not denied the right to adopt or enforce.
Unlike Kentucky and the Fifth Circuit, Alabama v. Seeber, supra, at 1245-1246, which conclude that use of the phrase in 116 elucidates its scope and meaning in 118, we are unable [426 U.S. 167, 187] to draw from 116 any support for the position that Congress affirmatively declared that federal installations must secure state permits. To reaffirm, as does 116, a State's inherent right as a general matter to employ permits in the exercise of its police power in the area of air pollution control may mean that the Federal Government has not pre-empted the area from state regulation, but does not constitute the kind of clear and unambiguous authorization necessary to subject federal installations and activities to state enforcement.
[ Footnote 48 ] Provision in 118 for Presidential exemption on a case-by-case basis and in the "paramount interest of the United States" from compliance with emission standards or compliance schedules does not clearly imply that federal installations are otherwise subject to the enforcement mechanisms of a state implementation plan.
[ Footnote 49 ] H. R. 17255, 91st Cong., 2d Sess., 10 ( 111) (1970), 2 Leg. Hist. 938 (emphasis added).
[ Footnote 50 ] H. R. Rep. No. 91-1146, supra, n. 11, at 4, 2 Leg. Hist. 894 (emphasis added).
[ Footnote 51 ] S. 4358, 91st Cong., 2d Sess., 7 ( 118 (a)) (1970), 1 Leg. Hist. 573 (emphasis added).
[ Footnote 52 ] S. Rep. No. 91-1196, supra, n. 12, at 23, 1 Leg. Hist. 423 (emphasis added). Throughout the Senate amendment and in the Report the terms "requirements," "emission requirements," and "emission standards" were used interchangeably. Compare proposed 118 (a) ("requirements") and the Report ("emission standards") with proposed 111 (a) (2) (D) ("emission requirements"), 1 Leg. Hist. 545.
[ Footnote 53 ] For example, only the Senate amendment equated the federal installation's duty to comply with "requirements" to any person's duty, a feature of 118 as enacted. Similarly, only the Senate amendment, in 118 (b) (1 Leg. Hist. 574), provided that a State might sue in federal court to enforce the provisions of 118 (a). H. R. Conf. Rep. No. 91-1783, supra, at 55, 1 Leg. Hist. 205. That provision was incorporated in the Amendments in 304 (a), through the definition of "person" retained in 302 (e), as added, 77 Stat, 400, 42 U.S.C. 1857h (e).
[ Footnote 54 ] H. R. Conf. Rep. 91-1783, supra, at 48, 1 Leg. Hist. 198. We are not persuaded by the argument that reference to the President's replacing the EPA Administrator as the one "responsible for assuring compliance by Federal agencies" only implicates the President's power to "exempt any emission source of any department, agency, or instrumentality in the executive branch from compliance with . . . a requirement." 42 U.S.C. 1857f. Both the House and Senate Reports referred quite plainly to the power to exempt and to make exceptions when referring to the President's (or the Administrator's) power to act in the paramount interest of the United States on a case-by-case basis. S. Rep. No. 91-1196, supra, at 23, 1 Leg. Hist. 423; H. R. Rep. No. 91-1146, supra, at 15, 2 Leg. Hist. 905. Thus, reference in the Conference Report to the President's authority to assure compliance merely expresses what is implied by the very grant of authority to exempt some federal sources - the authority, as to those installations subject to Presidential control, to enforce in the first instance the new regimen of federal compliance with primarily state formulated and administered implementation plans rests in the Federal Government, not in the States.
[ Footnote 55 ] Brief for Petitioner 33, quoting Alabama v. Seeber, 502 F.2d, at 1244.
[ Footnote 56 ] Ibid.
[ Footnote 57 ] Regulation of "new sources" of air pollutants, by EPA-promulgated "standards of performance" (see infra, n. 59), is provided for in 111 of the Clean Air Act, as added, 84 Stat. 1683, 42 U.S.C. 1857c-6.
[ Footnote 58 ] Regulation of "hazardous air pollutants" is provided for in 112 of the Clean Air Act, as added, 84 Stat. 1685, 42 U.S.C. 1857c-7.
[ Footnote 59 ] Section 111 (a) (1) defines a "standard of performance" to be "a standard for emissions of air pollutants which reflects the degree of emission limitation achievable through the application of the best system of emission reduction which (taking into account the cost of achieving such reduction) the Administrator determines has been adequately demonstrated." 42 U.S.C. 1857c-6 (a) (1).
[ Footnote 60 ] S. 4358, 7 ( 118 (b)), 1 Leg. Hist. 574. See n. 53, supra.
[ Footnote 61 ] Reply Brief for Petitioner 15-16.
[ Footnote 62 ] The House bill included no provision for suit in federal court. H. R. Conf. Rep. No. 91-1783, supra, at 55, 1 Leg. Hist. 205. The Senate amendment did provide for suit in district court "to require the enforcement of, the provisions of this Act including any applicable schedule or timetable of compliance, emission requirement, standard of performance, emission standard, or prohibition established pursuant to this Act . . . against any person, including, but not limited to, a governmental instrumentality or agency . . . ." S. 4358, 9 ( 304 (a) (1)), 1 Leg. Hist. 704. Because the [426 U.S. 167, 198] Senate amendment retained previously enacted 302 (e) of the Clean Air Act, see n. 53, supra, defining "person" as "an individual, corporation, partnership, association, State, municipality, and political subdivision of a State," it is clear, as the Senate Report confirms, that in the Senate amendment it was only by virtue of 118 that a State could sue a federal facility for enforcement in district court under 304. S. Rep. No. 91-1196, supra, at 37, 1 Leg. Hist. 437.
[ Footnote 63 ] See United States v. United Mine Workers, 330 U.S., at 273 .
[ Footnote 64 ] The Senate Committee on Public Works has recently reported such legislation. See S. Rep. No. 94-717 (1976).
[ Footnote 65 ] Tr. of Oral Arg. 22.
MR. JUSTICE STEWART and MR. JUSTICE REHNQUIST dissent. They agree substantially with the reasoning of the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in Alabama v. Seeber, 502 F.2d 1238, and they would reverse the judgment before us on the grounds set out in that opinion. [426 U.S. 167, 200]
Was this helpful?
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw's Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you're ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)


text:
1936 Ford Custom Coupe - Lil' Red
Gail Fairchild's '36 Ford Custom Coupe
Related Video
One of the fascinating things about hot rodding is that once a car is built it continues to evolve over time. Many cars change hands, get tweaked, or receive a full facelift to complement a new owner's vision of what they believe it should be. Sometimes the search for one's personal Holy Grail leads you to a finished car, which seems perfect, till you get it home and start thinking about how you would have done it if you had the chance to have built it from scratch.
Gail Fairchild, of Greentown, Indiana, is no stranger to cool cars, having owned a number of street rides over the last 20 years, including a pair of late-'40s Chevy haulers, a '49 Ford, and a '52 Olds Holiday coupe. Never one to let any of them sit idle, her philosophy has always been to drive 'em and enjoy them. Having been a fan of '36 Ford coupes for as long as she can remember, she set out on a pilgrimage a few years ago to find the car of her dreams. While attending the Goodguys Hot Rod Nationals at Indy in 2007, she came across a vibrant red five-window coupe that possessed a lot of the style she was looking for. A deal was made, she drove the car home, and continued to enjoy it for a year until her mind started to wander. Having stacks of vintage "little books" to fuel the fire, she traveled through them and accumulated ideas for the perfect redesign of her coupe.
Being married to a devout hot rodder (Butch) who has carved up old iron since the early '60s, she received plenty of support. The pair sat down and mapped out a rebirth for the coupe, which included a tear down to its bare essentials followed by a complete '50s-era styling added to its new life. Enthusiastic to break ground on the project, Gail and Butch met with Doug Dorn of Dorn's Autocraft in New Castle, Indiana, to review their concepts. After disassembling the car, the team at Dorn's addressed the existing chassis, giving it a much-needed freshening up. In order to retain a nostalgic feel, the original spine was stripped and boxed, yielding added structural strength. Creating a perfect stance, '68 Mustang parallel leafs matched up with an antiroll bar and tube shocks from NAPA help suspend a Ford 9-inch rearend filled with 3.32:1 cogs. To give the car plenty of road-holding capabilities, a Ford Mustang II IFS with stock spindles, lowered springs, NAPA tube shocks, and an antiroll bar helped dial it all in. Fluid pushed through a '68 Mustang master cylinder to 11-inch Ford front discs and '68 Mustang rear drums bring everything safely to a stop. Rolling on classic Wheel Vintiques steelies topped with Diamond Back rubber and a set of '50s-era-inspired flipper caps add just enough dazzle to the mix.
There's nothing like the rumble of a vintage Ford V-8 coming from a traditional Ford hot rod and since the mill in Gail's coupe had seen better days, she contacted Steve Davis of Knightstown, Indiana, to give it a new lease on life. Davis gave the '68 289ci engine a stock rebuild accented by an Edelbrock 500-cfm carb to catch its breath, while headers from Summit Racing linked to Brockman mufflers dump the spent gases. Shifts are effortless as they move through a stock C4 transmission linked to a driveshaft by Pete Gretz to spin the rear tires.
With the rolling chassis and drivetrain completed, the team at Dorn's focused on stripping the coupe's body down to bare metal to assess any needed repairs and outline many of the cool custom touches planned. Once the body was ironed smooth, the team worked their craft by filling the cowl vent, removing and filling the horn grilles, rounding the door tops, shaving the rumble seat handle, and tucking the spare tire mount closer to the body. It's the subtle modifications that forever change the way a car will look once it hits the streets. Knowing this, Butch fabricated a pair of sultry rear fender skirts as well as some curvaceous lake pipes to bring the final bit of dazzle to the party. After the bodywork was completed with every panel massaged to perfection, the coupe was rolled into the spray booth where Doug Dorn filled his spray gun with plenty of PPG Performance Red to lay down a glistening vibe. Gail knew she wanted a period-correct interior to wrap up the deal so she contacted Bob Burns of Eaton, Indiana, to cover a Wise Guy's seat and door panels with yards of perfectly pleated Adobe White Naugahyde accented by just enough red piping. To keep tabs on the vitals during long hauls, a set of Auto Meter gauges do the trick while a Lecarra Mark 10 steering wheel helps Gail navigate the course. A lot of great friends helped her pull the project together, including Doug, Brad, and Stewart Dorn; Ken Jasper; Scott Reasoner; and especially her husband, Butch. All we know is that this is one '36 Ford that will never gather dust from lack of use 'cuz Gail likes her hot rod ready to roll with a full tank of fuel. We couldn't agree more.
|Gail Fairchild
|Greentown, Indiana
|1936 Ford custom coupe
|Frame / Manufacturer
|stock / Ford
|boxed 'rails
|Chassis plumbing
|Rearend / Ratio
|9" Ford / 3.23:1
|Rear suspension
|'68 Mustang parallel leaf springs
|with NAPA tube shocks and antiroll
|Rear brakes
|'68 Mustang drum
|Front suspension
|Ford Mustang II IFS with Mustang
|spindles and lowered springs, NAPA
|tube shocks, and antiroll bar
|Front brakes
|Ford 11" disc
|Master cylinder
|'68 Mustang
|Steering box
|Ford power rack-and-pinion
|Wheel covers
|Flipper caps
|Front wheel make, size
|Wheel Vintiques (Fresno, CA)
|steelies, 15x5
|Rear wheel make, size
|Wheel Vintiques steelies, 15x6
|Front tire make, size
|Diamond Back (Conway, SC),
|Rear tire make, size
|Diamond Back, P215/70R15
|Gas tank
|Bob Drake (Grants Pass, OR) 18
|'68 Ford V-8
|289 ci
|Machining / Assembly
|Steve Davis (Knightstown, IN) / Steve
|Walker (Memphis, TN)
|Powermaster Motorsports (West
|Chicago, IL)
|Valve covers
|Late-model Ford SUV adapted to
|289ci V-8
|Manifold / Induction
|stock / Edelbrock Performer 500 cfm
|Ignition / Wires
|PerTronix (San Dimas, CA) / PerTronix
|Summit Racing (Akron, OH)
|Exhaust / Mufflers
|Tom Cherry Mufflers (Muncie, IN) /
|Brockman (Hagerstown, IN)
|Ford C4
|Lokar (Knoxville, TN)
|Custom by Pete Gretz (Marion, IN)
|Body style / Material
|five-window coupe / steel
|Body manufacturer
|Body mods
|cowl vent, horn grilles, and crank
|hole filled, door tops rounded,
|rumble seat handle shaved all by
|Dorn's Autocraft (New Castle, IN),
|fender skirts and lake pipes by Butch
|Custom by Dorn's Autocraft
|Doug Dorn at Dorn's Autocraft
|Paint type / Color
|PPG / Performance Red
|Doug Dorn at Dorn's Autocraft
|Rich Mickelson (Kokomo, IN)
|Headlights / Taillights
|stock / stock
|Outside mirror
|Bob Drake (Grants Pass, OR) swan
|Other body items
|custom checkerboard firewall by
|Dorn's Autocraft, New Port
|Engineering (Washington, MO)
|Auto Meter (Sycamore, IL)
|Stereo / Speakers
|Secretaudio (Fullerton, CA) SST /
|Custom Autosound (Fullerton, CA)
|Dynamat (Hamilton, OH)
|EZ Wiring
|Steering wheel
|Lecarra (Oneida, TN) Mark 10
|Steering column
|ididit (Tecumseh, MI)
|Wise Guys (Elkhart, IN)
|Bob Burns (Eaton, IN)
|Material / Color
|Naugahyde / Adobe White with red
|black pile
|Juliano's (Ellington, CT)
MotorTrend Recommended Stories
Trending Pages
2022 Rivian R1T Launch Edition Yearlong Review Verdict: The End of Something Remarkable
Hey, Haters: Hyundai Just Announced a Sweet New Perk For EV Buyers
Lexus LM First Drive Review: It's Best if You Don't Drive This Sci-Fi Luxury Minivan
See Tesla Cybertruck Go Full Robocop as Police Truck
UAW-Detroit Automaker Strike Expands to More GM, Stellantis Plants: What You Need to Know

subset: commoncrawl


text: These are what make the potatoes we grow in the United States of America so special. Our potatoes are the product of generations of sustainable farming knowledge. From the day they are planted to the day they reach the table of food lovers around the world, potatoes from the United States reflect the care and experience of growers like ourselves. Because we grow our potatoes for our own families as well as yours, we are dedicated to growing the best potatoes possible.


text:
A new series of shorts premiered in June this year on the Disney Channel and one of them is all scooter. It's called "Croissant de Triomphe" and the heroic scooter makes the most adorable noises I've ever heard come out of any bike . . . animated or real.
Let's hope that there are more French Mickey Mouse shorts and scooter toys are not far behind.
To check out the background story on the shorts here .
And watch "Croissant de Triomphe" here .


text:
Part 1: Sprite Fundamentals
I've always loved web games; they're just fun to make, easy to code (mostly), and there's something really nice about how accessible a game is when the user just has to click a link to start playing.
Ajax and moving dom elements around made for some fun, but limited in what kind of experience you could create. For game developers, things are changing, and quickly. HTML5 is introducing a bunch of new options for game development purely in the browser, and the browser vendors are competing hard to be the best platform for the new standards.
So the tools are becoming usable, the browsers capable, and the vendors are listening, we can just go make awesome games right? Well, mostly.
HTML5/Javascript game development is still early, and there's pitfalls to avoid, as well as choices to make on which technology to deploy.
In this article I'll run through some of the choices to be made developing 2D games, and hopefully give you some ideas for developing your own games using HTML5.
The Basics
First question you'll have to answer is whether to use the HTML5 Canvas tag for drawing images (a scene-graph), or by manipulating DOM elements.
To do 2D games using the DOM, you basically adjust element styles dynamically in order to move it around the page. Whilst there are some cases where DOM manipulation is good, I'm going to focus on using the HTML5 canvas for graphics since it's the most flexible for games in a modern browser.
If you're worried about compatible for older browsers and canvas check out excanvas (http://excanvas.sourceforge.net/).
Page Setup
To get going you'll need to create an HTML page that contains the canvas tag:
<!doctype html> <html> <head> <title></title> </head> <body style='position: absolute; padding:0; margin:0; height: 100%; width:100%'> <canvas id="gameCanvas"></canvas> </body> </html>
If you load this up, you'll be rewarded with, well, nothing much. That's because whilst we have a canvas tag, we haven't drawn anything on it. Let's add some simple canvas calls to draw some boxes.
<head> <title></title> <script type='text/javascript'> var canvas = null; function onload() { canvas = document.getElementById('gameCanvas'); var ctx = canvas.getContext("2d"); ctx.fillStyle = '#000000'; ctx.fillRect(0, 0, canvas.width, canvas.height); ctx.fillStyle = '#333333'; ctx.fillRect(canvas.width / 3, canvas.height / 3, canvas.width / 3, canvas.height / 3); } </script> </head> <body onload='onload()' ...
In this example I've added an onload event binding to the body tag, and then implemented the function to grab the canvas element and draw some boxes. Simple enough so far.
The boxes are nice, but you'll notice the canvas doesn't take up the complete area of the browser window. To accommodate that we can set it's size by adding a width and height style to the canvas tag. I prefer to keep things dynamic by adjusting the size based on the size of the document element the canvas is contained within.
var canvas = null; function onload() { canvas = document.getElementById('gameCanvas'); canvas.width = canvas.parentNode.clientWidth; canvas.height = canvas.parentNode.clientHeight; ...
Reload and you'll see the canvas taking up the entire screen. Sweet.
Taking things a little further, let's handle resizing of the canvas if the browser window is resized by the user.
var canvas = null; function onload() { canvas = document.getElementById('gameCanvas'); resize(); } function resize() { canvas.width = canvas.parentNode.clientWidth; canvas.height = canvas.parentNode.clientHeight; var ctx = canvas.getContext("2d"); ctx.fillStyle = '#000000'; ctx.fillRect(0, 0, canvas.width, canvas.height); ctx.fillStyle = '#333333'; ctx.fillRect(canvas.width/3, canvas.height/3, canvas.width/3, canvas.height/3); }
And add the onresize call to the body tag.
<body onresize='resize()' ...
Now if you resize the browser the rectangles will follow along nicely.
Loading Graphics
Most games are going to need animated sprites, so let's add some graphics.
First up you'll need get to an image resource. Since we're going to be drawing it from within javascript, I find it makes sense to declare the image there and then set its src attribute to be the url of the image you want to load. Please download this image file, which is adapted from SpriteLib GPL: simba.png
var img = null; function onload() { ... img = new Image(); img.src = 'simba.png'; }
You can then draw the image by adding this to the resize method:
ctx.drawImage(img, canvas.width/2 - (img.width/2), canvas.height/2 - (img.height/2));
If you then reload the page, in most cases, you'll see an image appear. I say most cases, because it depends on how fast your machine is, and whether the browser has cached the image already. That's because the resize method is being called in between when you've started loading the image (setting its src attribute) and when the browser has it ready to go. With one or two images you might get away with it, but as soon as your game expands you'll need to wait till all the images are loaded before taking action. To wait, add a notification listener to the image so you'll get a callback when the image is ready. I've had to rearrange things a little to make it all work, so here's the complete updated code:
var canvas = null; var img = null; var ctx = null; var imageReady = false; function onload() { canvas = document.getElementById('gameCanvas'); ctx = canvas.getContext("2d"); img = new Image(); img.src = 'images/simba.png'; img.onload = loaded(); resize(); } function loaded() { imageReady = true; redraw(); } function resize() { canvas.width = canvas.parentNode.clientWidth; canvas.height = canvas.parentNode.clientHeight; redraw(); } function redraw() { ctx.fillStyle = '#000000'; ctx.fillRect(0, 0, canvas.width, canvas.height); if (imageReady) ctx.drawImage(img, canvas.width/2 - (img.width/2), canvas.height/2 - (img.height/2)); }
And the results should be:
This image shows 6 running frames of a little vampire kitty (well, that's what I think it looks like). To animate the sprite we need to draw each of the frames one at a time.
Sprite Animation
You can draw a single frame using the source parameters of the drawImage call. In effect, only drawing a constrained portion of the source image. So to draw only the first frame use the expanded version of drawImage that let's you specify a rectangle in the source image. Since our cat animation is made up from 6 frames each 96 x 96 pixels in size, we can do:
ctx.drawImage(img, 0, 0, 96, 54, canvas.width/2 - 48, canvas.height/2 - 48, 96, 54);
The key thing here is the starting
0, 0, 96, 54. That limits the image being drawn
to just the first frame of our cat animation. I've also adjust the centering to be based
on a single frame as well (the 48's) rather than the entire image size containing all
six frames.
Now the fun bit. To make the animation work we need to track which frame to draw, then as time progresses advance the frame number. To do this we'll need to go from a static page to one that is cycling on a timed basis.
Let's start by doing things the old fashioned way. Add an interval timer with a cycle time equivalent to 60 frames per second (1000ms divided by 60). To make sure we only start cycling the animation after the image has loaded, put the call in the loaded function:
function loaded() {
imageReady = true;
setTimeout( update, 1000 / 60 );
Adding an update function can then step forward the frame, and call for the redraw:
var frame = 0;
function update() {
if (frame >= 6) frame = 0;
setTimeout( update, 1000 / 60 );
After the draw and frame has been advance the timeout is set again.
Next, modify the draw image to move the source window according to which frame we want to draw (the key piece being the source X position being set to frame multiplied by the size of the frame (in this case frame * 96):
function redraw() {
ctx.fillStyle = '#000000';
ctx.fillRect(0, 0, canvas.width, canvas.height);
if (imageReady)
ctx.drawImage(img, frame*96, 0, 96, 54,
canvas.width/2 - 48, canvas.height/2 - 48, 96, 54);
And the result:
Our evil undead-vampire-kitty lives! At super-cat speeds even.
Now we have an animation going let's do some improvements.
setTimeout is good, and it works well in just about every browser, but there's an
even better method, requestAnimFrame.
requestAnimFrame basically acts as a
setTimeout, but the browser knows you're
rendering a frame so it can optimize the draw cycle, as well as how that interacts
with the rest of the page reflow. It will even detect if the tab is visible and not
bother drawing if it's hidden, which saves battery (and yes, web games cycling at
60fps will burn battery). Under the hood, the browsers also get the opportunity to
optimize in other mysterious ways they don't tell us much about. In my experience
with heavier frame loads (hundreds of sprites especially) there can be substantial
gains in performance; especially on recent browser builds.
One caveat I'd add is that in some cases
setTimeout will outperform
notably on mobile. Test it out and config your app based on the device.
The call to use
requestAnimFrame is distinct across different browsers so the
standard shim (thanks to Paul Irish) to detect this is:
window.requestAnimFrame = (function(){
return window.requestAnimationFrame ||
window.webkitRequestAnimationFrame ||
window.mozRequestAnimationFrame ||
window.oRequestAnimationFrame ||
window.msRequestAnimationFrame ||
function( callback ){
window.setTimeout(callback, 1000 / 60);
There's also a built-in fall back to plain old
setTimeout if requestAnimFrame support
is not available.
You then need to modify the update method to repeatedly make the request:
function update() {
if (frame >= 6) frame = 0;
Calling the
requestAnimFrame before you actually carry out the render/update tends
to provide a more consistent result.
On a side note, when I first started using
requestAnimFrame I searched around for
how it would be timed, but couldn't find anyting. That's because it isn't. There's
no equivalent to setting the MS delay you'll find with
setTimeout, which means
you can't actually control the frame rate. Just do your work, and let the browser
take care of the rest.
Another thing to watch out for is if you are using
requestAnimFrame from within
your own closure, then you'll need to do a native wrapping to call it, such as:
my.requestAnimFrame = (function () {
var func = window.requestAnimationFrame ||
window.webkitRequestAnimationFrame ||
window.mozRequestAnimationFrame ||
window.oRequestAnimationFrame ||
window.msRequestAnimationFrame ||
function (callback, element)
window.setTimeout(callback, 1000 / this.fps);
// apply to our window global to avoid illegal invocations (it's a native)
return function (callback, element) {
func.apply(window, [callback, element]);
Time-based Animation
Next we need to solve the speed at which poor kitty has been running. Right now the animation frame advances according to the frame rate, which is going to jump around on different devices. That's bad; if you're moving a character and animating at the same time, things are going to look weird and inconsistent across different frame rates. You can try to control the frame rate but in the end basing animation on real timing is going to make for a better all round experience.
You'll also find that timing in general in games is going to apply to everything you do: firing rate, turning speed, accerlation, jumping, they'll all be better handled using proper timing.
To advance kitty at a regulated speed we need to track how much time has passed, and then advance the frames according to the time allocated to each one. The basics of this is:
- Set an animation speed in terms of frames per second. (msPerFrame)
- As you cycle the game, figure out how much time has passed since the last frame (delta).
- If enough time has passed to move the animation frame forward, then advance the frame and set the accumulated delta to 0.
- If enough time hasn't passed, remember (accumulate) the delta time (acDelta).
Here's this in our code:
var frame = 0;
var lastUpdateTime = 0;
var acDelta = 0;
var msPerFrame = 100;
function update() {
var delta = Date.now() - lastUpdateTime;
if (acDelta > msPerFrame)
acDelta = 0;
if (frame >= 6) frame = 0;
} else
acDelta += delta;
lastUpdateTime = Date.now();
If you load this up, our little kitty has calmed down to a more reasonable speed.
Scaling and Rotating
You can also use the 2D canvas to perform a variety of operations on the image as it's rendered, such as rotation and scaling.
For example, let's make some kittens by scaling the image down by half. You
can do this by adding a
ctx.scale(0.5, 0.5) to the draw call:
function redraw()
ctx.fillStyle = '#000000';
ctx.fillRect(0, 0, canvas.width, canvas.height);
if (imageReady)
ctx.drawImage(img, frame*96, 0, 96, 54,
canvas.width/2 - 48, canvas.height/2 - 48, 96, 54);
Since the scaling is changing, you'll notice I also added a
ctx.save() before the
scale call, then a ctx.restore() at the end. Without this, the calls to scale will
accumulate and poor kitty will quickly shrink into oblivion (try it, its fun).
Scaling also works using negative values in order to reverse and image. If you change the scale values from (0.5, 0.5) to (-1, 1) the cat image will be flipped horizontally, so he'll run in the opposite direction. Notice that translate is used to flip the starting X position to offset the reversal of the image.
function redraw() {
ctx.fillStyle = '#000000';
ctx.fillRect(0, 0, canvas.width, canvas.height);
if (imageReady) {
ctx.translate(img.width, 0);
ctx.scale(-1, 1);
ctx.drawImage(img, frame*96, 0, 96, 54,
canvas.width/2 - 48, canvas.height/2 - 48, 96, 54);
You can use rotate to do (duh) rotation. Here's kitty climbing the walls:
ctx.rotate( 270*Math.PI/180 );
ctx.drawImage(img, frame*96, 0, 96, 54,
-(canvas.width/2 - 48), (canvas.height/2 - 48), 96, 54);
In this case, by rotating the context, the coordinates are rotated as well, not just the image, so the drawImage call offset for this by making the inverting the x position of where the kitty will be drawn.
Such a talented kitty (though vampires are supposed to be able to climb walls right).
The scaling and rotation is cool. Man I can do anything! Well, not really. It's awesome, but it's also slow and will have a pretty dramatic impact on rendering performance. In a production game there's another trick to handling this, and a bunch of other rendering performance issues you might encounter: prerendering.
Pre-rendering is just taking images that you would have rendered during your regular draw cycle and assembling them or manipulating them before hand. You do the expensive rendering operation once, then draw the prerendered result in the regular draw cycle.
In HTML5, you need to draw on a separate invisible canvas, and then instead of drawing an image, you draw the other canvas in its place.
Here's an example of a function that prerenders the kitty as a reversed image.
var reverseCanvas = null;
function prerender() {
reverseCanvas = document.createElement('canvas');
reverseCanvas.width = img.width;
reverseCanvas.height = img.height;
var rctx = reverseCanvas.getContext("2d");
rctx.translate(img.width, 0);
rctx.scale(-1, 1);
rctx.drawImage(img, 0, 0);
Notice a canvas object is created, but not added to the DOM, so it wont be displayed. The height and width is set to the original spritesheet, and then the original image is drawn using the render buffer's 2D context.
To setup the prerender you can call it from the loaded function.
function loaded() {
imageReady = true;
Then when you make the regular redraw call, use the reverseCanvas, instead of the original:
function redraw() {
ctx.fillStyle = '#000000';
ctx.fillRect(0, 0, canvas.width, canvas.height);
if (imageReady) {
ctx.drawImage(reverseCanvas, frame*96, 0, 96, 96,
(canvas.width/2 - 48), (canvas.height/2 - 48), 96, 96);
Unfortunately, when we reversed the image the animation now plays backwards as well, so you'll need to reverse the animation sequence as well:
function update() {
var delta = Date.now() - lastUpdateTime;
if (acDelta > msPerFrame) {
acDelta = 0;
if (frame < 0) frame = 5;
} else {
acDelta += delta;
lastUpdateTime = Date.now();
If you need to, you can convert the canvas into an image by setting its source to use a data url containing the encoded image data. Canvas has a method to do this, so its as easy as:
newImage = new Image();
newImage.src = reverseCanvas.toDataURL("image/png");
Another nice image manipulation is to play with the actual pixel data. The HTML5 canvas elements exposes the image data as an array of pixels in RGBA format. You can gain access to the data array form a context using:
var imageData = ctx.getImageData(0, 0, width, height);
Which will return an ImageData structure containing width, height and data members. The data element is the array of pixels we're after.
The data array is made up of all the pixels, with each pixel being represented by 4 entries, red, green, blue and the alpha level, all ranging from 0 to 255. Thus an image which is 512 wide by 512 high will result in an array that has 1048576 elements in it – 512x512 equals 262,144 pixels, multiplied by 4 entries per pixel.
Using this data array, here's an example where the specific red component of image is increased, whilst the red and blue components are reduced, thus creating our level 2 monster, the hell-spawn-demon-kitty.
function prerender() {
reverseCanvas = document.createElement('canvas');
reverseCanvas.width = img.width;
reverseCanvas.height = img.height;
var rctx = reverseCanvas.getContext("2d");
rctx.translate(img.width, 0);
rctx.scale(-1, 1);
rctx.drawImage(img, 0, 0);
// modify the colors
var imageData = rctx.getImageData(0, 0, reverseCanvas.width, reverseCanvas.height);
for (var i=0, il = imageData.data.length; i < il; i+=4) {
if (imageData.data[i] != 0) imageData.data[i] = imageData.data[i] + 100; // red
if (imageData.data[i+1] != 0) imageData.data[i+1] = imageData.data[i+1] - 50; // green
if (imageData.data[i+1] != 0) imageData.data[i+2] = imageData.data[i+2] - 50; // blue
rctx.putImageData(imageData, 0, 0);
The for loop is interating over the data array in steps of 4, each time modifying the three primary colors. The 4th channel, alpha, is left as is, but if you like you can use this to vary the transparency of certain pixels. (Note: in the JSFiddle example below, we use a dataURL for the image data, specifically to avoid cross-domain issues with direct pixel manipulation. You won't need to do that on your own server.)
Here's our level 2 boss kitty:
Since manipulating an image using the pixel array requires iterating over all the elements, this the case of hell kitty, that's over a million times, you should keep things pretty optimized: precalulate as much as possible, don't create variables/objects and skip pixels as much as possible.
The combination of canvas drawing, scaling, rotating, translating and pixel manipulation, along with the performance option of using prerendering gives a range of powers to make cool, dynamic games.
As an example, I used these techniques in one of Playcraft's demo games recently, a 2D 4-way scrolling space shooter. The artists produced only a single frame of each ship (player and enemy fighters), which I would then rotate and prerender according to how many degrees, and thus how smooth, we wanted the ships to turn. I could adjust the number of angles based on the type of ship at run time – by default, player ships rendered with 36 turning angles (very smooth), whereas enemy and opponent ships at only 16 angles (choppy). I also added an option to let players on more powerful computers choose to increase the smoothness angles to 72 all round (super smooth). In addition, I dynamically recolor the emblems and markings on the ships (the cool big stripes along the wings) according to the team you're on. This again saves on rendering and resources, but also allows the ship colors to be dynamically adjusted based on a user selected team color.
For more information on what you can do with canvas check out the Canvas Element API.


text:
James H. Cassedy
Billings, John Shaw (12 April 1838–11 March 1913), army medical officer, library organizer, and public health activist, was born near Allensville, Indiana, the son of James Billings, a farmer and storekeeper, and Abby Shaw. Despite spotty secondary schooling, he ultimately went to Miami College (Ohio), where he earned his B.A. in 1857. He was awarded the M.D. by the Medical College of Ohio in 1860. Billings remained with the latter institution for a year as an anatomical demonstrator, but after the outbreak of the Civil War he joined the U.S. Army as a contract surgeon. In 1862 he was commissioned first lieutenant and assistant surgeon and went on to make army service his career. Also in 1862 he married Katharine Mary Stevens; they had five children....


text:
Hauptseminar Soft Matter SS 2019
Jump to navigation Jump to search
|Participants need to register through CAMPUS.
- Type
- Seminar (Student-prepared talks, followed by discussion)
- Date and Time
- Fridays at 14:00
- Location
- Institut für Computerphysik, room 01.079
- Credit Points
- 2 SWS = 6 ECTS for M.Sc. Physik
- 3 ECTS for M.Sc. PHYSICS
- Teachers
- Prof. Dr. Siegfried Dietrich (MPI-IS/ITP4)
- Prof. Dr. Christian Holm (ICP)
- Organizer
- Christoph Lohrmann (ICP)
- Modules
- Hauptseminar for M.Sc. Physik
- Seminar in Physics for M.Sc. PHYSICS
- Advanced Seminar in Physics for M.Sc. PHYSICS
- Language
- English
- Description
- Soft matter is the field of physics that concerns itself with systems that are deformable by energies on the scale of thermal fluctuations. This includes liquids, polymers, colloids, and much of biological physics. More recently, the sub-field of active matter has emerged, which studies the behavior of microswimmers and other self-propelled particles, including bacteria. While quantum phenomena are typically negligible at soft matter's relevant length scales (~1 µm), Brownian motion is important, while hydrodynamics and electrostatics play a role too. The interplay of these effects can lead to complex effects such as clustering or phase separation. In this seminar, we aim to provide an overview of the field, covering topics from hydrodynamics on small length scales, individual polymers and colloids and their dynamics all the way to the collective behavior of microswimmers and the interaction with their environment. The seminar will include analytical models that capture the essentials of the most important soft matter systems and state-of-the-art numerical methods that can solve the full physical problems.
- Requirements
- We expect the participants to have fundamental knowledge in classical and statistical mechanics, thermodynamics, electrodynamics, and partial differential equations.
Schedule, speakers and resources
Getting the credit points
To get the credit points for the seminar, the following criteria must be met:
- All participants must
- make an appointment to meet with their tutor at least 8 weeks before giving the talk. At this meeting, the breadth and depth to cover the topic will be discussed, so the participant must already have taken a look at the literature provided on the website.
- hand in a draft of their handout and presentation slides to their tutor 2 weeks before the talk
- hand in the final version of their handout to the Hauptseminar organizer 1 week before the talk
- give their talk at the arranged time
- be present at all talks
- take part in the discussions following the talks
- give a five-minute summary of the previous week's talk on approximately one occasion (see below)
- Optional
- Participants may give a trial talk, the location and date are then to be arranged with the tutor.
- The handout
- consists of 8 to 10 A4 pages (5 pages for students from PHYSICS international M.Sc.) including pictures. The formatting is 11 pt font, single-spaced text.
- describes the contents of the talk, written out in full
- is written in English
- must correctly and in a standard scientific style cite all sources used. Any pictures used must have a citation in the caption.
- The talk:
- has a length of 45 minutes
- is prepared with a slide deck in electronic form
- is held in English
- must cite the author underneath any picture used. Text content should not have citations, but all sources must be listed in the handout.
- The five-minute summary:
- After each session, one student is randomly designated to open the next session
- In the following week, that student will have five minutes to give a brief summary of the previous talk.
- The student may reuse up to two slides from the talk they are summarizing or one slide they created themselves.
- The slide(s) must be loaded onto the main speaker's laptop before the session starts.
- The summarizer is also the chair of the session. Therefore, at the end of their summary, the chair will introduce the main speaker of the session, giving the speaker's name and topic and (if applicable) saying a sentence or two about how the talk connects to previous talks. Furthermore, it is the chair's job to manage the questions at the end by calling the people who raise their hands and by ensuring that the questions stay on topic.
- Participants are graded according to
- the quality of the presentation and the handout (80 %)
- the quality of their participation in the discussion and of the five-minute summary (20 %)


text:
Laptop Store Details
Laptop Store is the best place to buy all original spares and accessories for all laptop models. We are the team of dedicated and highly equipped professionals' renders quality repair services of all laptop models such as Apple, Dell, Lenovo, HP, Sony etc. Our experts have the capable of handling all problems and fix within the deadline.
Are you looking for the reputed Laptop Store for repair services and purchasing laptop spares in T Nagar? If yes, you are here at the right place. Our team of professionals will help you to provide quality services at considerable price. Call Us Now. We are here to help you for 24*7.
Facebook Youtube


text:
Wales Parry of Poston Herefordshire Welsh Family Crest Blackout Curtains with Hooks Luxury Marble A7
Parry of Poston Herefordshire Welsh Family Crest Blackout Curtains with Hooks Luxury Marble
The curtains are light-shielding, UV-resistant and provide privacy.
- Made of Polyester
- Fabric weight: 265g/m²
- Shading
- The width includes two pieces curtain's. In 140x160cm(55.1"x63"), 140 is the width and 160 is the height
- Hooks and rings will be sent with the curtain
- Single-side printing.
- Care Instruction: machine wash cold with similar colors, do not bleach, tumble dry low, do not iron, do not dry clean.
- This product is made on demand, with no minimum order quantity.
- Multiple shipping methods available, and fees vary depending on the location and the shipping method selected.
- Please Notice: a variety of factors may cause slight differences between the actual product and the mock-up, including but not limited to colors and precision of elements position.
🚀 Fast Shipping: Packages will arrive at you in about 1 - 3 weeks. All packages will always be carefully packed and shipped by DHL / Fedex Express. Learn more
🚀 Spend 150$ to Unlock Free Expedited Shipping
🚀 Easy Returns : In the case that you are not happy with your purchase, you should contact us via email@example.com. Rest assured that we will promptly reply to your request. Learn more
🚀 If you have questions please check out our F.A.Q or Contact us via: firstname.lastname@example.com


text:
Straight Arab Auditions For Porn and Jerks His Hairy Cock
The Casting Room has a new video featuring a sexy Arab with a big cock, doing a jerk off show just for you. Hossam is a straight young man who has been trying to get into modeling for the last few years. When that didn't work, he decided to audition for porn. Hossam loves to have his body admired and he doesn't seem to care if it is men who are getting off on watching him get off. After a short audition interview, Hossam strips out of his clothes where you get to admire his naked Arab body. As he poses for the camera, he shows off his muscular arms and hairy armpits. Hossam even gets on all fours and spreads his hairy ass cheeks apart so that you can see his hairy virgin ass. After showing off his hairy ass, he sits back in the chair and thumbs through a porn magazine and he starts stroking his big Arab cock. It doesn't take long for Hassam to get hard and stroking the hell out of that thick cock. When he is ready to shoot his load, he moans and leans back as cum starts shooting out of his big Arab cock. Fucking hot!


text:
Top Stories: Congressional Budget Deal; Farewell To Mandela
Good morning, here are our early stories:
-- As Mandela Lies In State, South Africa Says Goodbye.
-- 'Something For Everyone To Dislike' In Budget Deal.
-- Pope Francis Is Person Of The Year, 'Time' Says.
And here are our early headlines:
Deaf Interpreter At Mandela Service Was A "Fake". ( Mail and Guardian)
NTSB Opens Hearing On July Plane Crash In San Francisco. ( Businessweek)
Pro-Government Protesters In Thailand Set To Take Bangkok Streets. ( Reuters)
Ukrainian Police Back Off From Protests In Kiev Square. ( New York Times)
Biden Announces Millions Of Federal Dollars For Mental Health Treatment. ( Washington Post)
Clark Wins Special Mass. Congressional Election For Markey Seat. ( Politico)
Millions Of Children Lack Birth Certificates Worldwide. ( UNICEF)
Copyright 2020 NPR. To see more, visit https://www.npr.org.


text:
Our Cause
Our Cause
Our Principles
Our Positions
Our History
Our Leadership
Our Strategy
Our Strategy
Current Context
Challenges We Face
Setting the Record Straight
Our Initiatives
Intact 2022 Conference
Don't Ask. Don't Sell®
MADE to STICK™
"Voices" Column
Circumcision Debate™
CGC as an ACE
Media Outreach
NYC Pridefest
COVID-19 Response
Learn More
Our Blog—Stay Informed
By Georganne Chapin
Your "Voices"
Resources For You
Suggested Reading List
Foreskin Restoration
The Simple Facts
8 Things You Need to Know
Falsehoods & Facts
Do You Know?
Am I Circumcised?
Talking Points – I
Talking Points – II
Talking Points – III
Take Action
Subscribe to Newsletter
What You Can Do
To Donate
Ways to Give
Select Page
Learn More
menu placeholder
Sort By Blog Categories
Sort By Blog Categories
Select Category
"Voices" (39)
Advocacy (28)
Ask Marilyn (25)
Blog (230)
By Georganne Chapin (48)
Do You Know? (35)
IA in the News (3)
Intactivist of the Month (65)
Press Releases (32)


text:
For centuries, knowledge of mathematics has been essential for the study and practice of science and engineering. It is essential in many other areas of study as well. Students in such fields as psychology, sociology, economics, computer science, actuarial science, and information science are using algebra, calculus, matrix theory, and differential equations to express concepts more clearly and precisely, to analyze and interpret complex relationships, and to arrive at conclusions concerning the meaning and significance of data.
The courses offered in mathematics are intended to meet a variety of needs. Some students will wish to concentrate in mathematics in preparation for teaching the subject, for pursuing a career in business or industry, or for further study at the graduate level. Others will want only to take courses which will provide the mathematical skills needed for concentrated study in other areas.
Mathematics Major
Mathematics Major with Data Science Concentration
Data Science and Analytics Minor
Mathematics Minor


text:
Ron Paul fans can bid on his car
Former Republican Congressman Ron Paul is auctioning off a piece of "little-known congressional history": his 1979 Chevrolet Chevette, the proceeds of which will benefit the Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity.
The former presidential candidate framed the auction in a post to his institute's website Monday, saying his classic car was a key part of a personal story between Paul and former House Speaker Tip O'Neil. During the height of the 1979 gas shortage, O'Neil's "behemoth" vehicle towered over Paul's much smaller Chevette — a comparison immortalized in "cheeky" photo, which upset O'Neil, Paul wrote in his post.
"Well, you would have thought I was Ed Snowden," Paul wrote. "There was a huge blow-up."
Paul said despite having it for so long — and repainting it after his youngest daughter took it to college — the vehicle only has 69,000 miles on it.
"But it starts and runs, and is as cute as when Tip wanted to bomb it," Paul wrote.
The car will go to whomever makes the largest donation to the Institute for Peace and Prosperity, and will come with Congressional license plate. Donations must be submitted by Oct. 15.
"So drive history forward, and make your pledge," Paul wrote.


text:
I have listed a new property at 410 121 SHORELINE CIR in Port Moody.
Welcome home to Seafront Villa located in the highly sought-after Harbour Heights Village of Port Moody! This almost 1,100 SF home has 2 bedrooms, a den that can be used as an office or a 3rd bedroom, 2 full bathrooms & a laundry room with side by side machines. Nicely updated with laminate flooring throughout plus a renovated kitchen & newer appliances. The layout is spacious & open concept with a large, private, south facing patio for your added enjoyment. Bonus: cozy gas fireplace included in your fees. 1 parking & 1 storage locker included! The amenities here are fabulous including an upscale community clubhouse & tennis court. Great location! Walking distance to parks and schools. Easy access to all kinds of transportation, shopping and dining.