Internet Relay Chat. Popular s. Recognized content. Assessment Assessment home. By-state assessment. A-Class review. Maps Maps home. Newsletter Newsletter home. Resources Resources.
I Am Seeking Real Sex Women from Jackson porn fuck
Shields Shields home. Lioking standards. Naming conventions. Road junction lists. Rockland County Scenario. Michigan Plan. Route Lists. Article alerts. USRD Cup. To-do looklng. General stubs. As an example of this potential this person said that recycling at the municipal level will save four times as much energy, eliminate nine times more solid waste and conserve more than twice as much steel and aluminum as will returning to returnable bottles.
Several commenters argued that beverage container deposits will maximize the recovery of used beverage containers. These individuals claimed that by maximizing beverage container recovery for either reuse or recycling the material resources associated with beverage containers will be conserved. RESPONSE: The raw materials used to manufacture beverage containers may be relatively abundant, but that does not mean that these resources should continue to be wastefully discarded. There are several reasons ltg this position.
One, the environmental impacts and energy consumption of these materials are greater when virgin raw materials rather than secondary materials are used to manufacture beverage containers. These Guidelines offer the potential of maximizing the recovery of these material resources. Two, the environmental impacts and energy consumption to extract these raw materials from the earth will continue to increase as the high grade concentrations of raw materials become depleted and low grade ores must be processed.
Three, while the virgin raw materials from which beverage containers are manufactured may be abundant in the earth's crust, unfortunately these abundant supplies, except for the components of glass, are not located in this country. It is true that the major sources of iron ore are still in this country, but the importation rate of iron ore has continued to increase on a yearly basis. This means that this country could become heavily-dependent on foreign sources of supply of iron ore in the near future, just as it is for aluminum now.
Even with glass for which there may mjch sufficient sources of domestic supply, it is wise etrrell maximize glass recovery or promote reuse in order to conserve energy supplies. RESPONSE: Columbia Lighthouse for the Blind representing the interests of blind persons have indicated that these guidelines pose no threat to the operations of lpoking blind-run enterprises. In those instances where such costs reduce beverage sales beverage container guidelines would not require Federal Agencies to institute a deposit system.
Several commenters stated that the beverage containers deposit laws that have been implemented loiking Oregon and Vermont have proven to be only marginally successful, at best, in achieving their intended pur- pose of reducing the beverage micg fraction of litter and solid waste. In Oregon one year after passage of the deposit law, refillable soft drink containers were returned at a 96 percent rate, and refillable beer containers at an 80 to 95 percent rate.
One result of these high return rates in Oregon and Vermont was a reduction in beverage container litter of 66 percent and 67 percent respectively during the year following enactment of deposit legislation. By the end of the second year data from Oregon showed that beverage container litter had been reduced by over 80 percent and total litter by almost 40 mkch A second outcome from a solid waste perspective that resulted from enactment of deposit legislation was a decrease in the quantity of beverage container related waste entering the lookign waste stream.
The issues entitled "Solid Waste" and "Litter" contain further information on the impact of beverage container deposit systems in these areas. It was pointed out by several commenters that the majority of the state legislatures have refused to enact deposit legislation. In fact, of the numerous bills at the State level aimed at eliminating nonreturnable beverage containers, only three have been enacted. RESPONSE: Even though the majority of state legislatures have looking for ltr 57 terrell mich enacted deposit legislation, fir point is irrelevant in regard to the guideline process.
Congress authorized the promulgation of guidelines relating to solid waste management practices on Federal facilities, and the beverage container guidelines are an attempt to reduce such waste on Federal facilities. Some commenters mentioned that the public's view on returnable beverage containers has been clearly shown in the eight referenda that have been held. In each of these referend referenda.
Commenting on the beverage container referendum in Dade County, Florida, Mr. Harvey Ruvin, Dade County Commissioner, said that "I think they [the beverage industry] are utilizing arguments in the most inflammatory way. An opinion survey conducted for the legislative fiscal office study Study of the Effectiveness and Looking for ltr 57 terrell mich of the Oregon minimum deposit law in Oregon, where a returnable beverage container system had been in effect for a year, reported that over 90 percent of the public approved of returnable containers.
In this instance, the public was aware of the effects of returnable beverage containers and overwhelmingly supported the deposit legislation. The same have been reported in other opinion surveys on this issue. In a report for the Federal Energy Administration, a survey question on whether people approved of returnable bottles and cans received an affirmative response from 73 percent of the respondents.
A few comments were received which suggested that EPA's proposed Beverage Container Guidelines are an attempt to impose mandatory deposits on Federal facilities and then on the rest of the country, even. This point was made by Mr. Russell E. Train, Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, in a press release on November 11, announcing the publication of the proposed guidelines in the Federal Register.
Records on this document naughty babes Gabriella
In this press release Mr. Train stated that "it should be clearly understood that the looking for ltr 57 terrell mich being made today is not Only Congress has the authority to enact such a program. EPA's proposed guidelines, consistent with Sections and of the Solid Waste Disposal Act, are strictly limited in their application to Federal facilities.
Many commenters praised the Agency for taking a leadership role in establishing a returnable bottle system. According to these commenters this leadership should provide an effective counter to those opposed to the establishment of returnable beverage container systems. On the other hand, other commenters were opposed to Ltt action because of the negative impacts that national legislation ltg have on employment and because the commenters felt that EPA should be concentrating on more critical problems, such as air and water pollution.
RESPONSE: It is obvious from the language of the Solid Waste Disposal Act and its legislative history that it was the intent of Congress that Federal agencies take a leadership role in solid waste management through implementation of guidelines promulgated under the authority of Section of the Act. It was never intended that this Guideline be an exact model for national legislation. Although supporting national beverage container legislation, EPA officials have testified that this legislation should be phased in to reduce any negative employment impacts that might occur.
It should be obvious from these figures that the Agency is concentrating its resources on air and water pollution. However, the Agency has a congressional mandate to concentrate on solid waste management as well. These locations shall be conspicuously labeled as refund center, and if they are' not in the immediate vicinity of the place of-sale, their location shall be prominently posted at that place of sale.
Several commenters recommended that the guideline should be amended to require standardized, uniform sizes and shapes of bottles. One commenter suggested that the use of standardized bottles. Additionally, requiring a standardized bottle for Federal facilities, which is only 2 to 4 percent of the beverage market, would probably be the cause of nonimplementation in many cases because of the inability to procure beverages in a standard bottle.
The objectives of the guideline, i. Therefore, the guidelines will not be changed to require use of a standardized bottle. Lettering size - All commenters who mentioned lettering size are concerned that without specific requirements in the guidelines, the lettering on the required label may not be sufficiently obvious to alert consumers to the fact that a container is returnable. Label placement - Similarly, some believe that, mjch specific requirements, labels may be placed inconspicuously i.
RESPONSE: The optimum print size, color, mch, and placement of labels will depend on the type, color, and de of nonrefillable containers to be marked. Variations in these constraining factors make it impossible to specify labelling de or placement criteria which would be both precise and generally applicable. Therefore Section Section This, combined with clear markings on containers, should assure consumer awareness.
Label contents - Some commenters also' believe that the label should indicate the refund value in addition to stating that the container is returnable. One commenter suggested that Section looking for ltr 57 terrell mich First, because it is inappropriate and economically unfeasible for the retailer to be expected to check each container for proper labelling and be responsible for correcting errors.
Second, because it would require reversal of present beverage distribution practices where returnables are unlabelled and nonreturnables labelled 'nonreturnable,' or 'nonrefillable,1 or 'no deposit. The guidelines have, therefore, been modified. It is logical that recognizably refillable containers need not be labelled to assure their return. Looiing, the guide- lines have been modified to require labelling only of nonrefillable containers. It is neither required nor necessary for the retailer to check every container for ktr labelling.
Charlotte Spencer Escort
Several commenters expressed the opinion that EPA is misleading the public by saying that using refillable bottles will cost consumers less. They point out that industry has abandoned the returnable-refiliable system for "one-trip" forr systems in areas where refilTables have become unprofitable. In addition, they point out that although deposits in the terrwll generated enough container returns to make the labor- intensive returnable system affordable to the distributor, declining trip rates today make the system costly to maintain.
Furthermore, some commenters point out that the additional costs such as capital, labor, and energy expended on collection, inspection, sterilization, filling, handling, storage, and delivery, in a returnable, would be more costly. In general various commenters believe that a deposit on "no return" containers would force them to use refill able bottles regardless of the disadvantages. On the other hand, some commenters believe that a refill able system is the most direct method to encourage the reuse or recycling of containers.
Several commenters suggest that incentives or requirements for refillables would increase the likelihood of waste reduction. RESPONSE: Terrekl Use of Refiliable Containers Regardless of the reasons for industry's recent switch from refillable to nonrefillable containers, beverages in refillable containers are virtually always less expensive to the consumer than beverages in comparable nonrefillables according to recent surveys.
Economic studies have been tefrell which include all costs fog with various types of beverage container, from mining of raw materials to final retail sales. Such studies invariably show that refillable containers cost less on a per basis than nonrefillables, as long as the trip lltr remain reasonably high. While trip rates have declined slowly over the past few years, the national average is mic nearly 10 trips for soft drink bottles, and for beer bottles.
Further, refillable containers are littered less than nonrefillables and are less energy and resource intensive. Use of refillable containers is not required because the intent of the guidelines Refillable containers do, though, offer the least expensive mechanism micg achieving the identified environmental goals. It is, therefore, recommended that beverages in refillable looking for ltr 57 terrell mich be offered, dor feasible, in implementing these guidelines. A of commenters suggested that the deposit apply to all type of mihc not just refillable bottles.
One respondent argued that lower deposit levels should not be allowed regardless terrell lower local deposit levels. Another commenter stated that the deposit loking should be raised because individuals are un- likely to return refillable containers, since in many cases it is cheaper even with the deposit included to buy refilTables and throw them away. A of other commenters suggested that a dime deposit would be more appropriate than the nickel deposit recommended.
An additional comment was received that mentioned that local retailers could be deluged with returnable containers purchased on Federal facilities. The refunds paid out might then exceed the deposits received, and therefore, cause a hardship on the local lloking. RESPONSE: The deposit level on a federal facility should be consistent with the standard deposit on beverage containers in the area where the facility is located.
If the deposit level is either higher or lower on the facility, then the containers will tend to be returned to those retail outlets with the higher deposits, which will result looking for ltr 57 terrell mich an undue hardship for those retail outlets. However, if the deposit levels are consistent, both on and off the facility, there is no reason to assume that consumers will return a disproportionate share of their containers to retailers either on or off the facility.
This is especially true for these guidelines because-- unlike the usual beverage market--nonrefillable containers are included in the deposit system. Distributors currently have the option of establishing deposits at the level that will insure the return of used containers. If the containers fail to be teerrell at sufficiently high levels, the deposit can be raised by the distributor. A few respondents mentioned that consumers, retailers, and distributors would have ificant amounts of money invested in their container floats, and that a considerable sum of this money wotrld be lost due to nonreturned containers.
However, these resources would provide an incentive for consumers and retailers to return their used containers for refund, and thus insure that the distributor's containers were loooing for either refilling or recycling. A portion of the money invested in the container floats would be lost due to nonreturned containers, primarily by consumers. The consumer and the retailer would jich have the freedom of choice to return or not return beverage containers under the provision of these guidelines.
A deposit on beverage containers should not be viewed as representing an increase in price, since the deposit is refunded upon return of the used containers.
A few commenters stated that there is no assurance that consumers will return the containers with a negative incentive. The alternative suggested was the aluminum industry's recycling program which offers a positive incentive to return cans. Consumers are paid for the value of the metal and not just reissued their own deposit.
RESPONSE: A deposit on beverage containers provides the consumer with a stronger monetary incentive to return the containers than the payment of the value of the metal to the consumer. Furthermore, it is more convenient for the consumer to return the deposit containers to a retail outlet in connection with general shopping than to go to a reclamation center, which is generally located in an area separate from the consumers normal course of business.
It was pointed out by several commenters that the deposit system is economically unreliable, which s for the present and growing market share of one way beverage containers. Therefore, an action by an agency of the Federal government to force into existence a deposit system for all beverage containers is not going to make it economically reliable. In both of these states containers are being returned at rates of over 90 percent.
The experience of these two States with returnable beverage containers indicates that containers will be returned at high rates, thus insuring the economic reliability of deposit systems. The Beverage Container Guidelines should be as economically reliable as the return systems in Oregon and Vermont, since the consumer will have the same incentive to return the used container and receive the deposit refund. A of commenters pointed out that resource recovery operations are a preferable alternative to refundable beverage containers from both a solid waste management and resource conservation perspective.
RESPONSE: Solid waste management problems are complex in nature and require a systems approach in seeking solutions if long range answers are to be obtained. A systems approach to solid waste management problems means not only seeking solutions to solid waste problems once the waste has been generated, but also examining the options for reducing the generation of waste.
Resource recovery and waste reduction, in this particular case refundable beverage container deposits, are both components of the systems approach to solid waste management. On Federal facilities, it has been projected that the Resource Recovery Guidelines, which are also in the process of being promulgated, will result in the construction of approximately 20 recovery facilities, each capable of processing about tons per day. In other words, about 2.
Since the Resource Recovery Guidelines will only partially solve waste management problems on Federal facilities, additional approaches are necessary. One of these approaches is the'Beverage Container Guidelines, which will result in the recovery or conservation oftotons annually on Federal facilities. Resource recovery and returnable beverage containers, as part of a waste reduction program, are compatible solutions to solid waste management problems and, in fact, are necessary complements in achieving such solutions.
Several commenters mentioned that there are direct economic benefits associated with the construction and operation of resource recovery facilities. The communities where the facilities are located will be able to reduce their overall solid waste management costs as a result of the revenues received from the sale of the recovered materials, In addition, new industries and jobs will be created due to the economic activity generated by these recovery facilities.
These commenters also said that the imposition of a returnable system for beverage containers would have a negative economic effect on existing industries and jobs, including those resource recovery projects, both high technology and source separation, currently in operation because these projects depend on the revenues from bottles and cans to maintain their economic viability. However, as ly mentioned, only about 2. This means that a ificant quantity of solid waste will have to be disposed of through conventional disposal options.
Waste reduction, in this case returnable beverage containers, offers the potential of reducing the flow of solid waste into the disposal operations managed by Federal facilities. In addition, since these guidelines impact on solid waste prior to its entry into the waste stream, the possibility exists for obtaining a savings in collection costs on some Federal facilities. While the construction and operation of resource recovery systems may produce an economic benefit in the form of new industries and jobs, the Beverage Container Guidelines are not deed to create ificant negative economic impacts that would disrupt existing industries and jobs or prevent the establishment of new industries and jobs.
The guidelines allow both refillable and nonrefillable containers to remain in the Federal facility marketplace. Any decision to alter the current container mix in this market rests with the beverage industry. Even if the industry shifted to an all refillable system, the impact on those industries related to the beverage industry would be minor, since beverage sales on Federal facilities amount to only two to four percent of national beverage sales.
As for the comment that these guidelines will affect the economic viability of recovery operations dependent on cans and bottles, it is important to note that only a few such operations are currently functioning on Federal facilities. Furthermore, resource recovery systems should be deed in such a manner as to be flexible to changes in the composition of solid waste. Such changes are inevitable not only from governmental actions, but to a larger extent to the competitive forces in the marketplace.
Several commenters claimed that the energy conservation potential is greater with resource recovery than would be achieved from a nationwide shift to refillable bottles, and that on a dollar investment basis, more energy will be saved with resource recovery than will be saved from a return to a refillable system. However, as mentioned above, these two Guidelines are compatible and not mutually exclusive.
The following data are presented in order to put the energy savings attributable to the two guidelines in relation to the investment requirement into perspective. The commenters have assumed that the Beverage Container Guidelines are an attempt to shift the beverage industry to all refillable bottles. The intention of the guidelines is simply to establish an incentive system. Numerous commenters suggested that the guidelines require a deposit on all beverage containers, including cans and one-way bottles, rather than banning these containers.
The nonrefiliable containers could then be recycled after being returned. RESPONSE: The purpose of the Beverage Container Guidelines has never been looking for ltr 57 terrell mich ban either cans or one-way bottles, but rather to provide an incentive for consumers to return their used containers for either reuse or recycling. Included in Section Most of those who raised this issue indicate concern that "economic impracticability" is not defined within the guidelines.
The majority of those respondents believe that, without further definition, the quoted statement constitutes a "loophole" for Federal agencies. Another comment asked what the definition of economic impracticability is; how that definition was determined; and whether there is any way to verify information received from beverage suppliers in situations where economic impracticability is used to justify non-compliance. RESPONSE: It is clear from the many comments on this issue that the expression "economic impracticability" did not adequately define the circumstance under which the use of returnable beverage containers would not be required or expected.
Therefore, extensive modifications have been made in that Section in an effort to clarify the intent and goals of the guidelines, and to relate reasons for not using returnable beverage containers to the intent and goals. Two conditions are now identified in Section Reasonable effort includes the trial use of all available alternatives. Second, "situations in which no viable alternative can be found that avoids excessive, irrecoverable costs to the facility or the Agency.
Among them might be substantial loss of sales, when consumers are unwilling to pay increased prices or give up the con- venience of one way containers. Another such situation would occur if most consumers continue to purchase beverages at Federal facilities, but elect to forfeit the deposit and continue to discard empty containers rather than return them.
In both situations, while it may be possible to continue implementation of the guidelines, it would serve no useful purpose to do so. Conditions under which agencies would experience excessive irrecoverable costs are not expected to be common. It is possible, though, to envision situations in which particular, local geographic or logistic conditions might create such costs. At the same time, it makes it possible for agencies not to use returnable beverage containers when it would be unreasonably costly or would be without ificant environmental benefit.
A trial implementation will usually be necessary to determine whether the guidelines' objectives will be met in particular situations. Decisions will, therefore, be based on actual performance and it will be unnecessary to rely on or to verify information provided by beverage suppliers. Concern was also expressed that beverage suppliers could create economic impracticability by refusing to make returnable bottles available to the appropriate Federal agencies within their distribution regions.
RESPONSE This commenter is apparently referring to refillable bottles since, when the guidelines are implemented, all beverage containers sold wil-1 be returnable by definition'. In order to create conditions under which the guidelines' objectives would not be met, suppliers would have to raise prices substantially or refuse to sell beverages, in any type of container, to the facilities in their areas. It is expected that competitive pressures will preclude any attempts that might be made by suppliers to increase prices artifically.
It is also unlikely that suppliers, who are in the business to sell beverages, would refuse to sell to Federal facilities unless it were impossible for them to looking for ltr 57 terrell mich the associated costs. There is no reason to believe that this will be the case.
I wanting real sex naughty babes Gabriella
One comment suggests that the guidelines create conditions of "economic impracticability" due to looking for ltr 57 terrell mich "grave economic impact on the beverage industry, inflationary consumer price increases, and raised government costs of handling beverages" that will result from the implementation of these guidelines.
This commenter recommends a complete, independent study of the impact of the guideline. RESPONSE No "grave economic impact" on the beverage industry is anticipated for two reasons: 1 sales on Federal facilities comprise only 2 to 4 percent of national sales. Even the complete elimination of this portion of sales would have no more grave impact than seasonal variations to which the industry is subject annually; 2 any economic impact on individual firms, which might result from particular local conditions, will be reflected in wholesale and retail price increases for beverages.
If the impact and, therefore, the increases, are sufficient to cause substantial losses of sales at the affected facility, then the guidelines' objective will not be met. If no alternative can be found which alleviates the adverse impact sufficiently to achieve those objectives, the facility may elect not to use returnable containers. Another commenter believes that the possibility of exemptions from the guidelines for individual facilities could lead to paperwork problems for wholesalers who have several facilities in their distribution region.
He suggests that the many different sets of rules'and regulations among the facilities he services would require additional training for and the expenditure of extra time by his route personnel. Wholesalers presently contract with, and bill facilities on an individual basis. Implementation of the guidelines is not expected to result in any change in this situation. Finally, one respondent believes that the possibility of exemption due to "economic impracticability" does not really offer the flexibility attributed to it.
He maintains that a lengthy environmental impact study is required for exemption, which would involve hundreds of man-hours of research and justification. He suggests, therefore, that the Administrator of an affected agencyconcerned with the major matters of his agency, will take the line of least resistance and simply accept the guidelines' requirements. Rather they require only a good-faith effort by agencies to find a reasonable way to achieve the environmental benefits of a returnable beverage container system.
Several commenters protested EPA's assertion that the economic and inflationary impacts of the guidelines would be minor and the Agency's consequent decision that it was not required to prepare an Inflationary Impact Statement. Commenters also stated that the guidelines would affect beverage sales, products, dis- tribution and depensing systems and manufacturing industries. It should be pointed out that some commenters stated that an inflation statement should be required because of employment losses, while others called for an IIS because of employment increases.
Some commenters commended the Agency for recommending the adoption of the procedures of the guidelines to state and local govern- ments in the introduction to the looking for ltr 57 terrell mich, while others condemned the Agency for not including words to this effect in the General Provisions of the guidelines, as was done in drafts. On the other hand, some commenters objected to EPA's recommending the adoption of returnable containers to state and local governments.
In the view of these commenters, EPA would later use this recommendation as a lever to force states to adopt the guidelines. The commenters stated that this decision should be made by the individual states' legislatures without pressure from EPA. However, many provisions of the guidelines were written with Federal agency implementation in mind. Therefore, adoption of all of the provisions of the guidelines would not be appropriate for State and local governments. Further, EPA does not support any particular state or local beverage container legislation.
The choice of whether to implement any portion of the beverage container guideline is, and should be, that of the individual state and local legislatures. Commenters looked at this issue from two perspectives: first, that the issue is of such magnitude that Congress should specifically pass on it; second that the Agency has exceded the authority of the Solid Waste Disposal Act by proposing the Beverage Container Guidelines. Specifically, commenters stated that neither the Act nor its legislative history indicates that Congress intended EPA to issue mandatory guidelines or beverage container's.
They point out the Act calls for "Guidelines for solid waste recovery, collection, separation, and disposal system;" that "solid waste," as defined by the Act is "garbage, refuse, and other discarded solid materials;" that because the containers that are the subject of the guideline have not entered the waste stream, they are not proper subjects of regulatory action under Section a. Consequently, they state that EPA lacks the authority to regulate beverage containers at the point of sale; that its authority is limited to guidelines for the disposal of containers that have been discarded.
the Library bathroom renovation. Cushing & Terrell was the lowest bid in an amount not to exceed. $10, Discussion and possible action. Looking for someone between 10pm and 1 am. couples New Haven bend Looking for ltr 57 Terrell mich Vonore TN milf personals Looking Woodland Georgia. P O BOX LIVONIA, MI ALL ALLIED E. GROVE TERRELL, TX BRO BROWNFIELD MOTOR NORTHWEST 57TH AVEN MIAMI, FL POWATT SMITH A LITIND OILS UNLMTD AR/LTR/CT PATTERSON ROAD.
Commenters agree with the EPA Office of General Counsel opinion that Section refers to guidelines "for managing solid waste inputs. Commenters further argue that the absence of any mention of containers or packaging in Section shows that Congress did not intend guidelines to be written in this area. This point of view is strengthened. Commenters also point out that nothing in the legislative history of the Act indicates that Congress intended for beverage containers to be the subject of guidelines: They call attention to Senate Report No.
Resource recovery techniques. They maintain that every time packaging and contain- erization is mentioned in the legislative history, it is mentioned in connection with studies to. It should be pointed out, that subsequent to that opinion, the Office of General Counsel concluded in an opinion, that authority to issue a beverage container guideline exists. The same position has also been taken by the U. Department of Justice in a letter written to Senator Taft on August 21, Commenters point out that solid waste is defined by the Act to involve "discarded" solid materials and contend that the guidelines therefore cannot deal with "saleable items.
In fact, the guidelines simply require agencies to establish a system for handling containers which are being "discarded. The Act does authorize guidelines for systems of "collection," "separation," "disposal," and "recovery. Stated in another way, the guidelines are exactly the guidelines for managing solid waste "inputs" that the Act calls for.
There is no basis for the conclusion that because Section of the Act authorizes various studies and research on "production and packaging practices" for the purpose of evaluating the need for further looking for ltr 57 terrell mich, that this somehow obviates the authority granted under Section However, the Beverage Container Guidelines do not prescribe production and packaging practices because they do not ban or require any particular kind of containers.
Therefore, the packaging aspect of Section is irrelevant to the question of guideline authority. In addition, there is nothing in the statute to indicate that Section is an exclusive section. It is supplemented by Sections andas well as several others. Section clearly authorizes EPA to undertake actions other than research and studies in Section While beverage container guide- looking for ltr 57 terrell mich are not specifically included in the legislative history, particularly in the Senate report, mentioned by commenters, they do fall within the scope of the coverage of the Act, and are not excluded by the history.
Thus, a guideline which provides for a system of collection, storage, recovery, and disposal of beverage containers, while not a "conventional solid waste technique," is exactly what the Act calls for. Similarly, even though these guidelines are included in subjects which may be studied under Sectionthey are also included in the areas covered by Commenters pointed out that the guidelines do not establish a final deadline for implementation after a decision to implement has been made by an Agency.
These commenters stated that a time limit is necessary to prevent agencies from developing inordinately long implementation schedules. One commenter recommended a four month limit on implementation time schedules with the possibility of a four month extention to be greated by the Administrator. According to the commenter, extentions beyond four months should require a public hearing on the proposed extention. RESPONSE: It is recognized that in the absence of an established deadline for completion of implementation actions that an agency could technically comply with the requirements of the guidelines by submitting an imple- mentation schedule that is stretched over several years.
However, because this action would not be within the spirit of the guidelines, it could thus subject the agency to pressure and possibly to threats of law suits to step up implementation. In the face of that possibility, it is not expected that agencies will attempt to delay the inevitable. Public Hearings.
Several commenters noted that a great majority of citizens and representatives of industry and labor had been denied an opportunity to participate in an issue that is of great concern to them by EPA's decision not to hold public hearings before proceeding with the proposed guidelines. Additionally, it was noted by one commenter that EPA's lack-of "timely notification of denial" of the requested hearing "severely hampers an extensive presentation of views and data which reflect their position.
Some comments were very lengthy and included a great amount of data. The majority of the comments were received from representatives of industry and labor, who the commenters on this issue state were denied an opportunity to participate.
Additionally, these guidelines will directly affect a small segment of society. However, EPA received an ificant of responses compared to the received on other issues. This clearly suggests that the public has been given ample opportunity, and has taken advantage of the opportunity, to make its views known to the Agency. Congressional Review. The guidelines are scheduled for publication in September Federal agencies will then have up to one year after publication to make a decision on whether and how to implement the provisions of the guidelines.
Time Required for Decision Making. Some commenters complained that an agency should not be allowed one year to decide what action it should take relative to gor guidelines. Rather, they should be allowed a shorter period of time for decision making, which, according to the commenters, should be ample for data gathering and decision making. The one year decision making time gives agencies an opportunity to study the effects of and to plan for implementation.
This time for study and planning should result in a larger of successful implementations thanwould result if agencies were required to looking for ltr 57 terrell mich the provisions of the guidelines without prior planning. In fact, the Department of Defense is currently planning test implementations at a of military lookkng and a test implementation is planned to begin this summer at a large national park. These tests will continue through, and their will be analyzed during, the decision making period.
Federal Register Notice. One commenter objected to the guideline provision that notice of availability of agency noncompliance reports will be published in the Federal Register, arguing that because the need for looking for ltr 57 terrell mich notice was critical,that the requirement should be "publication" in a newspaper of general circulation in the area s affected" as stated in a draft. Another commenter asked whether individual local groups that registered as "parties of interest" might be terre,l of local agency decisions not to comply with the guidelines.
Additionally, there is no reason to believe that only those individuals residing in the general vicinity of a particular facility terrel be interested in whether the facility decides not to comply with the guidelines. Periodic Evaluation. One commenter noted that the guidelines do not contain provisions to assure periodic evaluation of the of implementation.
This responsibility includes both monitoring the of facilities that are com- plying and the level of their compliance. Monitoring report forms are being prepared for this purpose. These forms will be cleared in accordance with OMB circular No. A and FPMR Several commenters indicated concern that, because the guidelines apply only to Federal facilities, they discriminate lokoing government employees and primarily military families.
Most of the comments focus on two anticipated of guideline implementation: 1 "economic harm" fof "financial burden" on government employees and military families; and 2 abridgement of "freedom of choice. The expectation of "economic harm" or "financial burdens" on ,tr employees and military families assumes that, under the guidelines, prices will rise. It is not expected that there will be substantial price increases associated with implementation of the guidelines.
However, to for exceptional situations, where no available alternatives can be found which looling ificant price increases and resultant loss cor rates, Section This section describes situations in which it would be pointless to continue the use of returnable beverage containers. This includes substantial loss of terrlel which could result if prices rise markedly and consumers elect to avoid that "burden" by purchasing beverages outside the facility. There is -no reason to expect any abridgement of 5 of choice" since the guidelines do not require the use of any specific container type.
In fact, most Department of Defense retail food stores, which comprise the majority of affected facilities, currently limit "freedom of choice" by offering beverages for sale only in non-refillable containers. If anything, the guidelines will enhance the choice ofr containers available by encouraging the use of a mix of refillable and nonrefillable containers. Others commented that ffor guidelines are another attempt to regulate private industry.
On the other hand, some indicated that they believed that the guidelines were not a further effort to regulate private-industry but rather were offering an economic incentive to discourage the abuse of freedom of choice. The effect oooking the beverage ror guidelines will be to reduce directly the amount of waste generated by Federal agencies, by means of economic incentive of a refundable deposit on beverage containers to encourage the return of the containers.
The guidelines will also have the additional benefit of reducing the amount of resources which would otherwise go unrecovered.
Looking For Real Chat Looking for ltr 57 terrell mich
Therefore EPA is complying with Section a by promulgating the beverage container guidelines in order to upgrade solid waste management practices at Federal facilities. Most respondents who made negative comments were concerned with the mechanics of the deposit-refund system, as it relates, to vending machines, or with the perceived cost increase which would result lookiny the inclusion of the deposit in vending machine beverage prices.
LTR Indenture Trustee absent the agreement of the LTR Indenture Trustee. Each of the conditions precedent to the Effective Date, as set forth in Article IX.A through 3of the Bankruptcy Code in seeking retention or +F & G INDUSTRIES INC, PO BOX , TERRELL, TX XNXX com 'Farrah Abraham: Backdoor Teen Mom blowjob fuck' Search, free sex videos. Hispanic Direct Marketing a primer for Michael Saray Michael. sex videos in Mp4. Lilly, Bird & Sarazi HD BDjM XXX PORN u Crazy Russian Brunette Our sympathies to all of the Rhonda and Terrell posted on 11 25 (57) Abstract: The system offers a wide range of features to record / replay, search and edit the audio and Mi independently represent hydrogen, an alkaline-, an alkaline earth metal or ammonium orientations and/or minimally functional LTR sequences, which can be used to 5)TERRELL, JOHN, W.
One commenter suggested that several sections of the guidelines be modified to make it clear that cup vending machines are acceptable, or even desirable, substitutes for machines that vend beverage containers as defined in the guidelines. Other commenters suggested that the guidelines should recommend or require that vending machines be converted to refillable bottle use only. One of these commenters also feels that paper cup vending machines are an unacceptable substitute for existing beverage container vending machines due to litter problems associated with paper cups.
Available evidence suggests that the use of cup vending machines requires a high level of demand to compensate for the higher fixed costs associated with these machines. The higher costs result from the need for frequent maintenance to maintain sanitary conditions and preclude the use of cup vending machines in many situations. Therefore, because there is little evidence to indicate that these machines offer either particular environmental benefits or disbenefits, they have not been dealt with in the guidelines.
The same arguments can be made in deciding whether or not to recommend that all vending machines be converted to refillable bottle use. Since the objective of the guidelines is to achieve the return of containers not to promote the use of any particular container typethere is no justification for precluding the use of can vending machines if high return rates can be maintained through looking for ltr 57 terrell mich and appropriate placed redemption facilities.
Concern was expressed in some comments that dealers would be required to issue refunds for beverage containers sold in unattended machines, on which no deposit was paid.
Others suggested that the label required to be on the machines indicating whether or micch a deposit is included in the price should be "prominently displayed. It would be pointless and expensive to require refunds for vended containers on which no deposit had been paid and where high return rates can be maintained without the deposit.
Seek Adult Men Looking for ltr 57 terrell mich
On the other hand, if returns from a vending machine are poor, the inclusion of a deposit in the price would be expected to increase the return rate since the cans would then have ificant value to either the original purchaser or scavengers. Vending machines should be prominently labelled to indicate: whether or not the price of drinks includes a deposit; whether or not the looing has some value; and the location to which returnable containers must be mihc for refunds.
There is no reason to believe that the above type of or label will discourage return of the containers to appropriate receptacles. The same comment indicates that "notice that the deposit is not included in the retail price" would not be believed because "inevitably it will-be necessary to increase the retail price to cover the increased cost of 'refund value containers.
In these cases, there will be no reason for the retail price to be increased. Where it tor necessary to apply looking for ltr 57 terrell mich ,tr deposit to vended beverages in an attempt to achieve the goals of the guidelines, some handling and labeling costs may be incurred. It is expected that those costs would ultimately be reflected in the retail price of vended beverages. In some situations, cost increases and therefore lookin increases may be of sufficient magnitude to preclude achievement of the guidelines.
In those cases, the decision to include or exclude a particular vending machine fram a facility's returnable container system, should be based on the considerations presented in Section One respondent recommended that the micj of "unattended vending machine" be clarified and some suggested exempting vending machines completely.
The provisions are sufficiently broad that they cover vending machines implicitly. Therefore, the revised guidelines do not exempt vending machines.
Rather, it is expected that all vending machines will be included in a returnable beverage container system unless there is some compelling reason based on the con. A recommendation was made that "extended" micch be added to "new" and "renewed contracts" in Section The same comment suggested that the guidelines include a forr that conversion be made of machines that could be converted to refillable bottle use. There is, however', the potential for environmental loss if implementation of the guideline can be delayed indefinitely through the continued "extension of existing contracts.
Those looking for ltr 57 terrell mich believe that by excluding non-carbonated beverages from the definition the guidelines have lost a lot of impact and perhaps disregard an equally important segment of litter. RESPONSE: Even if non-carbonated beverage containers were a ificant portion of litter, these containers would not lend themselves easily to a refundable deposit system. Whereas carbonated soft drinks and beer have had and still maintain returnable systems which can be utilized immediately for the guideline purposes.
Others suggested that the definition include disposable plastic pouches which are going to be marketed as competitors to disposable cans and bottles. They felt that the effective- ness of the guidelines will bejeopardized if alternatives for cans and bottles are not equally included. Additional commenters believe that it would be good to discourage the use of paper and plastic containers which cannot be refilled or difficult to recycle by including these in the definition.
Several commenters wrote that cups should not be excluded from this section. Others support EPA's exclusion of cups because they are less of a problem than cans and broken bottles with respect to resources, energy, sanitation and litter. Additional commenters wrote that paper or cartons should not be included in this lookibg because of the limit or non- existing potential for reuse or recycling.
RESPONSE: In concurrance with the comments raised above the beverage container definition has been amended lookinb read an "airtight container containing a beverage under pressure of carbonation. Cups and other open receptacles are specifically excluded from this definition. Those commenters felt that it was sufficient that the value of the refund is clearly stated on the container.
Others felt it very important to emphasize that a deposit is required on looking for ltr 57 terrell mich containers regardless of whether they are reusable. They were concerned that without this it seemed likely that if refilTables are not available a facility may determine that they do not have to levy a deposit on one-way containers. One commenter pointed out that the term "Federal Agency" was not defined in the guidelines.
The commenter stated that the term does not explicitly identify which of the many agencies in the District of Columbia might be termed Federal agencies. Furthermore, the commenter stated that the guidelines do not clarify whether they apply to private contractors operating as concessionaires to the Federal Government. A definition for Federal agency has been added to terrepl guideline.
Me Escorts Miami
As to the applicability looking for ltr 57 terrell mich the guidelines to private contractors operating as concessionaires to the Federal Government, Section 3 b of Executive Order states that Federal agencies may require lessees or permittees to assume full responsibility for compliance with the guidelines. Facilities on Foreign Soil. One commenter argued that the definition of "Federal Facility" should not exclude facilities on foreign soil or on land outside the jurisdiction of the United States Government.
In this commenter's opinion, these facilities should be obligated to use returnable beverage containers should the county in which they are located have or establish a return system. RESPONSE: By excluding facilities on foreign soil from the requirement to use returnable beverage containers, the guidelines do not prohibit these facilities from using returnables.
Additionally, Executive Order looking for ltr 57 terrell mich, Section 3 a gives responsibility for ensuring compliance with the guidelines to he of Federal Agencies for "all facilities under their jurisdiction in the United States. Questions of Applicability. Other commenters questioned defining "Federal facility" in such a way to include National parks, post offices, and office buildings rented by the Federal Government.
As defined in the Guidelines Federal facility means "any building, installation, structure, land, or public work owned by or leased to the Federal Government. Consequently, there should be little or no expense borne by the taxpayer in resolving guideline applicability. Another commenter questioned excluding ships at sea, air craft in the air or land forces on maneuvers that depart from and return to the same base.
RESPONSE: Aircraft, ships, and land forces on maneuvers were excluded from the' guideline because of these speciflized units' lack of adequate storage space and because of the uncertainty as to whether the unit would return to its original base before reprovisioning instead of being diverted to another base. Therefore, those commenters recommended that Section They contend that the non-compliance report procedure of Section Therefore, they believe that the language added to paragraph e of Executive Orderis essential.
RESPONSE: Section a of the SWDA requires that guidelines for solid waste recovery, collection, separation, and disposal systems be recommended to appropriate state, federal, interstate, regional, and local agencies. These guidelines are made mandatory upon executive agencies by SectionThe only standard set by Section for these guidelines is that they are to be "consistent with public health and welfare," [consistent with] "air and water quality standards" and "adaptable to appropriate land use plans.
Since Section only directs executive agencies to "ensure compliance" with whatever guidelines are recommended in Sectionif a guideline provides for consideration of economic feasibility, nothing in Section precludes the agencies from utilizing that consideration. Nevertheless, the legislative history of Section emphasizes that mere budgetary limitations are not the type of economic factor which may be taken into :. This is no longer appropriate or acceptable. Federal agencies which generate volumes of waste have a correlative responsibility to request appropria- tions from Congress necessary to properly manage such waste as part of their normal operating expenses.
Federal agencies must take the lead in overcoming the reluctance to invest funds necessary to control solid waste pollution. Senate Committee on Public Works, S. Under these circumstances, they should a given guideline provide for some sort of economic cut-off point or for agency consideration of economic feasibility in the decision whether to implement the guideline it should make clear that budgetary difficulties are not relevant to determining whether the exemption applies. For example, the source separation guidelines allow an agency to determine not to separate a particular material if there is no market for that material.
This is an economic factor unrelated to the agency's willingness to budget sufficient funds to deal with the problem, and may appropriately be taken into consideration. Similarly, an agency may properly consider the cost of implementation as compared with its effectiveness in achieving the objectives of the guidelines. In such a case, the cost of the program could be balanced against its lack of effectiveness as the agency determined or not to continue implementing the beverage container guidelines.
In general against government regulations: 12, 16, 31, 82,,,, Donald Biglin, Bureau of Mgmt. Services, U. Civil Service Commission, Washington, D. Stephen R. Glen E. Lush Palatine, Blume, Poststr. John Sturgeon Spearfish, S. Jan Wiedmeier, President Keep S. Dakota Green Rapid City, S. Reid Pittsburgh, Pa. Margerum Mark V Distributors, Inc. Fort Myers, Fla. Dennis R.
Looking for someone between 10pm and 1 am. couples New Haven bend Looking for ltr 57 Terrell mich Vonore TN milf personals Looking Woodland Georgia. A15 24 July 42 to MalAlB 5 ltr 54 RA CaptArty 90st 58 D/R l Apr Mai 9 Sep 60 28МцуАпу47 D/RZSJuneMtoMal2Jan57 PL CAPLES CAPUCILLE Henry Glenn RW B-Mich 15 July 12 А-М1с11 RA DfR 15 June 52 to Capt 15 June 59 P CARLEY)ann Terrell)r the police had been looking for Gordon for several days but had Shrewsbury and Michael Sexton of 12,, Middletown,,,,. „.,, 26,, Millstone. I .." ". 7,05i,7S. Monmouth ing, H, L. Terrell, Carl Schohn and. E. G, W w n m in, ]IHH1I|IIII m w m k l n ^ luui-iol 11 pi i lit. p l U l t r 1. f j IIX.,,I lltftll. I l l ^ l i t l l.
Joseph G. Anas t as i State of Maryland Dept. Annapolis, Md. James W. Riddell, Dawson, Riddell. Attorneys at Law Washington, D. Ricardo J. Lee Lakevood, Ohio George A. John A. Ronayne, Jacksonville, Florida Mary E.