text:
Cat and Mice
Lying on the bed
Follow-Up Postings:
- Posted by oscarthecat z7MD (My Page) on Sat, Jul 9, 11 at 3:37
Hey that is a good one. Steve in Stevens County |
My cats and I think your poem is lovely. (In the fourth line, what is the word that begins with f? It shows strange symbols here.) |
I hate those strange symbols! It refers to the gentle breeze of the fan... |
- Posted by west_gardener (My Page) on Sat, Jul 9, 11 at 19:28
Lilod, luv the poem. I see the strange characters in your post. You_are_not_alone. Lol, look at the link below. |
Here is a link that might be useful: Star Wars?
There is apparently no way to determine what any given computer reads as far as symbols go. Wording that line: "In the gentle breeze of the fan" of course would have ruined the rhythm of the whole poem and would have made it just a paragraph. I copied it from my notes in Works, I think that is the trouble, have to put it in notepad. Just as an experiment, I will copy it to notepad and post it again, see what happens |
A L:ittle Poem for Cats Lying on the bed |
Didn't work |
- Posted by west_gardener (My Page) on Sat, Jul 9, 11 at 20:23
Lilod, I looked at the source code for your GW post, and the characters are actually in the source code.I don't how they ended up in the source code. |
- Posted by west_gardener (My Page) on Sat, Jul 9, 11 at 20:40
lilod, is this the way you wanted it to read? A Little Poem for Cats Lying on the bed In fans gentle breeze |
Yes, that's it, |
I'm typing the line this time: The fan's gentle.... |
I guess it's best to type my messages and quotes and all and spell-check and proof-read Oh well |
No matter, Lilo. Your poem was lovely--purrfect, in fact. |
- Posted by west_gardener (My Page) on Sun, Jul 10, 11 at 19:44
lilod. I like your poems and it drives me nuts when the computer gremlins goes and messes up. |
Please Note: Only registered members are able to post messages to this forum. If you are a member, please log in. If you aren't yet a member, join now!
Return to the The Garden Party Forum
Information about Posting
- You must be logged in to post a message. Once you are logged in, a posting window will appear at the bottom of the messages. If you are not a member, please register for an account.
- Please review our Rules of Play before posting.
- Posting is a two-step process. Once you have composed your message, you will be taken to the preview page. You will then have a chance to review your post, make changes and upload photos.
- After posting your message, you may need to refresh the forum page in order to see it.
- Before posting copyrighted material, please read about Copyright and Fair Use.
- We have a strict no-advertising policy!
- If you would like to practice posting or uploading photos, please visit our Test forum.
- If you need assistance, please Contact Us and we will be happy to help.
Learn more about in-text links on this page here


text:
Over fifteen years ago, Riverdance tapped onto a stage in Dublin and captured the imagination of all who watched. Since that time, Riverdance has continued to enrapture audiences as completely as it did on that first night on stage. New dance numbers are intertwined with scenes originally choreographed by Michael Flatley and Jean Butler. Riverdance is an incredibly powerful production, and its message has touched the hearts of audiences all over the world for years. Find Riverdance tickets today!
Riverdance has stepped out of obscurity and into popular culture since its 1994 premier in Ireland. At its core, Riverdance exists to tell the story of Ireland through dance, but it also incorporates other forms of dance into the show, including flamenco and American tap. The powerful music and pounding rhythm speaks to people around the world. Even when Michael Flatley left in 1999 over "creative differences" and created his own competing dance show called Lord of the Dance, Riverdance flourished. Look for Riverdance tour tickets above.
All Dates
?Need help ordering? Call 1-888-456-8499

subset: commoncrawl


text:
LINCOLN SPEEDWAY Abbottstown, PA
Sat., February 21, 2015 (2 PM) 2015 LINCOLN SPEEDWAY SEASON OPENER 410 Sprints Gates open at Noon
Content on this page requires a newer version of Adobe Flash Player.
2013 Lincoln Speedway URC/358 Challenge
Saturday August 3, 2013 (Racing at 7:30 PM, Warm-ups 7 PM, Gates open at 5:30 PM)
Feature 25 Laps
TIME TRIAL SHOW Show
Tire Rule:
American Racer 4 corners for all 360 and URC registered 358s. (360s on a TP must run AR on LR & RR, Fronts open)
Lincoln 358 sprints require American Racer RR ONLY!
1,475 lbs. WITH driver
1,525 lbs. if running a Vacuum oil pan system
Engine Rules:
URC Rules per Rule Book (http://www.urcsprints.com/ >Go to Competitors)
358 motor rules to follow strictly Lincoln Speedway rules
358 Sprints must meet all other URC car specification rules (5x5 wing optional)
For URC Members
URC Incentive Bonus money (Heats & B Main money, etc.) to be paid to valid URC card holders
Heats 8 Laps
B-Main 10 Laps
Feature 25 Laps
TPs for 360 Sprint Non-Regulars $50 Does not apply for Lincoln 358 sprint drivers
Full points show Plus 50 appearance points - - URC
All Lincoln 358 sprint entraints will receive credit for one (1) week regarding handicapping
© Copyright 2010 by Sel-Wil, Inc. Top of Page
Sel-Wil, Inc., 134 Sarasota Circle, Carlisle, PA 17015 • Track: (717) 624-2755 • Office (717) 796-2001• COPYRIGHT 2013 Sel-Wil, Inc. All rights reserved


text:
If the Addams family had a garden, we imagine the blooms would look a lot like the Goth-inspired florals that sprouted all over the fall runways. Darkly romantic, yet still vibrant in their own way, these brooding botanicals are the perfect match for the season's moody color palettes.
Floral Prints Get A Moody Makeover Just In Time For Fall
Shop this Story


text:
The Wars of Autumn
The Earth rolls in its silent groove about the sun.
The planet spins. It leans 23 degrees off plumb. The northern hemisphere tilts away from the warm hearth of its star. Grass steppes begin to grow stiff, to yellow. Temperatures drop. Winter deepens the long blue shadows of the barren hills. In one corner of a continent, on an iron plain where civilization was born, a war bleeds into its fourth year. Intelligent animals kill each other en masse. With metal pellets propelled by exploding gases. With flying machines. With swords.
My new walking guide, Murat Yazar, and I retreat from it. We step briskly, aiming north, for the ...


text:
cause he's "too good" for his fans.
Why can I never seem to find Nemo to get his autograph?
cause he's "too good" for his fans.
Why can I never seem to find Nemo to get his autograph?
He is hiding at the bottom of the splash mountain drop.
Why isn't the Swiss family Robinson tree house at EPCOT since its from Switzerland?
Whatever happened to Roger Rabbit?
Really small Imagineers!
Where can I get a beer in the Magic Kingdom?
The Country Beer Jamboree.
Why did Chicken Little cross Main Street?
To get away from the Turkey leg cart, just in case they thought he was a Turkey.
Are the brooms that the street sweepers use, out of work actors from the Fantasia movie?
No, they are from a splinter group. Splinter group! :lol: I'm here all week, folks!
Where is the Main Street Electrical parade located?
Parrallel to the womain electrical parade. Thank You!
What's the next question?
are vinylmations really made out of vinyl?
No, they are made out of old 'Buena Vista' Records.
Do people get sore after riding Soarin?
Only if they soar.... sore... too long! (;
Why do they call it Splash Mountain when it's actually a hill???
Because calling it Splash Hill would sound too correct!
Can someone remind me which park has a gigantic Mickey Sorcerer's Hat in it again?


text:
Nobody ever comments on re-writes of chapters.
Except me.
I love the new art style though, compared to the old version of this chapter. Now just put this in color and it'll be perfect.
10 Reader Comments On This Page
Comment ID #188707
Comment ID #188728
@rockin' gamma hell yeah too bloody damn right -.-
Comment ID #189086
i really like even without color, it`s great to see the older chapters again with new style
Comment ID #192930
Aww anger teacher is soft and smiling for once! Yayyy emotions!
Comment ID #208452
Paulo must REALLY love that doll if he bought a carriage.
Comment ID #211729
Ive always liked Paulo. He says what everyone wants to say but is too afraid to. He would also make an awesome parent! Please Lucy x Paulo!!!!!
Comment ID #229522
Woo my best comment rank! Number 7!
…I don't know if it counts on a dead thread though
Comment ID #232047
Wow,that so sweet, DONT YOU FREAKINGEN ME OR PAULO
Comment ID #274616
Funny how Daisy went with Paulo as Allegria's father but Allegria's face expression totally represents the DaisyxPaulo shipping
Comment ID #284877
yay paulo's a good father…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………….*crying* i miss lucy ……………………


text:
Excel Recovery Software 5.0.1
Excel file repair software restores corrupted or damaged excel files that fail to open due to virus attacks and unexpected system shutdown. Excel recovery software easily restore damaged .xls files when the excel file shows errors like ?file cannot be accessed? and user can not able to open the corrupt excel file. Excel file recovery program successfully repairs data from all damaged corrupt excel files.
See also: Excel repair, repair corrupt excel, xls, files, corrupt files, recover data, excel recovery, excel fix, fix, repair, excel file, recover corrupt excel, Microsoft Excel, file repair software, rebuilds, restores, opened, extracts, text, heavily, damage
Damaged powerpoint presentation recovery 5.0.1
PowerPoint file repair software repairs damaged corrupted unopenable .ppt fixes or corrupted PowerPoint files and restores corrupted PowerPoint presentation files. Software provide user friendly interface with full install and uninstall support. Software restore damage Corrupt PowerPoint Presentations, rebuild PPT files, retrieve PowerPoint files that can not be open due to virus attacks. GUI interface supports all major versions of MS PowerPoint
See also: ppt repair utility, rebuilds powerpoint presentation files, damaged ms powerpoint, .ppt file, inaccessible, open, repairs, errors, fails, repair corrupt ppt files, damaged and inaccessible .ppt, recovers ppt files, restore corrupt ppt files, extract
Access File Repair 5.0.1
Corrupted access database repair software damaged mdb repair tool retrieve ms access databases files that are corrupt or damaged due to unexpected system shutdown, virus attacks. Access database repair software repairs all versions of Microsoft Access database files such as MS Access 2000, MS Access 2002 and Access XP. Repair access data utility is very powerful tool for database administrators and helps when jet database is corrupt and not open.
See also: Repair corrupt mdb files, restore corrupt database, access database recovery, mdb repair, fix corrupt mdb, rebuilds, restore, corrupted mdb files, damaged .mdb, open, repair, file repair utilities, repair corrupt mdb files, mdb database repair tool


text:
You make not be able to travel to the sun, but this solor bouquet of energy is an impact of Cherry Brandy roses with hot cala lillies.
Related categories:
This products can be delivered to most addresses in mainland UK between 8am and 9pm. Timed deliveries are available for a surcharge. However, an exact delivery time cannot be guaranteed. Your delivery can be tracked via My Account.
Due to availability of stems, in rare circumstances the received product may vary from that shown in the picture. If a substitution is necessary, flowers of similar style, quality and value will be used. Sundry items may differ from those shown in the picture.
Items you might like
Order NOW for delivery on Monday
Standard - £49.99
A delicious selection of handmade truffles beautifully wrapped in gold giftwrap and finished elegantly with a pink bow.
A selection of delicious luxury pralines presented in a gold presentation box.
A perfect gift to celebrate the arrival of a baby girl. A pink, plush teddy bear with ribbon.
Hand Tied Vase H20cm W13cm made from good quality thick glass.
The Frozza family make expressive, artisanal wines of the highest order - graceful, aromatic and produced solely from the Prosecco grape (unusual these days) from 100% estate vines of up to 50 years of age . Lovely floral aromas, peaches, pears, tangerine, and the lightly-sparkling frizzante style adds a gentle freshness. The perfect aperitif?
Have your gift delivered in a stylish birthday box
A fashionable high quality clear glass vase guaranteed to provoke admiring glances. height: 26cm
A perfect gift to celebrate the arrival of a baby boy. A blue, plush teddy bear with ribbon.
Complete your gift with one of our balloons.Whatever the occasion a `Congratulations` balloon is sure to make someone`s day!
Gorgeous teddy in classic style. 16cm sitting
Gorgeous Teddy in classic style. 20cm sitting
You can always change your mind later
Superb apparently
My customer was blown away by the gorgeous arrangement. Outstanding!
Service rating : As always excellent choice and priceProduct : Arrived on the date specified, fresh, bright, but would have preferred handed to the person in a wrapped bouquet rather than wrapped in a box
MintriLeeds, Oulton05/09/2014
Good suggestion
absolutely beautiful nicest flowers I have ever received


text:
NASCAR drivers looking for an advantage for the Checker Auto Parts 500 will be testing at Phoenix International Raceway beginning Oct. 18.
PIR officials said the drivers scheduled to test include some involved in the "Chase for the Championship."
The drivers who have committed thus far are Jeff Gordon, Jimmie Johnson, Matt Kenseth, Kevin Harvick, Rusty Wallace, Dale Jarrett and Greg Biffle.
The Nov. 7 race will be critical because it is the third-to-last Cup race of the season.
Fans who have a ticket for the race can attend testing for free to watch from the grandstands. If fans don't have tickets, entry to the test session can be purchased for $20. A race-day ticket can be purchased for $35, which would gain free entry to the testing session.
The racing weekend also includes the S outhwest Series Cruise America 125 on Nov. 4, the Craftsman Trucks Silverado on Nov. 5 and the Busch Series Basha's Supermarkets 200 on Nov. 6.
The installation of lights at PIR will be entering its final stage following NASCAR weekend, PIR officials said.
The next phase will include all the wiring required for the lights to gain electricity and the installation of lights on top of the Bobby Allison grandstands.
PIR officials expect the process should be completed by January.
Sunday's Subway 150 winner Scott Lynch said he will run in the Craftsman Truck Series race during NASCAR weekend. . . . PIR just finished resurfacing about 1.3 million square feet of parking lot.


text:
Monday, November 5 2007
Wrinkle Neck Mules: The Wicks Have Met
Richmond, Virginia's Wrinkle Neck Mules have returned with their third album, The Wicks Have Met -- thirteen songs that meld bluegrass and rock n' roll in country anthems and twangy, slow-burn ballads.
Thursday, August 10 2006
Wrinkle Neck Mules: Pull the Brake
The strongest feature of Pull the Brake is its everyman appeal -- you can sing along from your Prius, your pickup, your Porsche, or the paddy wagon. And that's what country music is about, yes?


text:
Picture is of similar home under construction in North Hudson. Home can be completed in 120 days or less. Options to pick out siding, roof, trim, cabinets, carpet and counter tops.
Click for more info
Information deemed reliable but not guaranteed.
"Copyright 2015 Regional Multiple Listing Service of Minnesota, Inc. All rights reserved."
Listing data provided courtesy of the Broker Reciprocity Program of the Regional Multiple Listing Service of Minnesota, Inc.
The information being provided is for consumers personal, non-commercial use and may not be used for any purpose other than to identify prospective properties consumers may be interested in purchasing.
Data is updated as of 1/25/2015.


text:
Sunday February 24, 2013 was the Seattle Food and Wine Experience at the Seattle Center. A montage of cuisine and beverage kept me busy for about 4 hours. Join me in some of my favorites from the event.
From The Barking Frog – Favorite Main Dish
Braised Boneless Beef Shortribs from Double R Ranch with a parsnip and celeriac soup and truffle gremolata.
Lovely to the eyes and the taste!!! I haven't been out to the Barking Frog yet, but am now even more inspired to take a Woodinville adventure!
From The Cookie |Box| - Favorite "Dessert"
Harmony Cookie made with sweet potato, cranberry, and Chinese black pepper. A savory dessert treat, the flavors in this cookie are to die for! It's a mix between a savory cracker and a soft cookie. Would you believe they made them up the night before the show?!?!
I hear these taste really good with Bourbon. I plan to test that suggestion…when they are available for purchase.
The other Cookie |Box| flavors I recommend:
Tamara | apricot, orange + pumpkin seed
Pearl | pear, thyme + pink peppercorn
Alex | bittersweet chocolate, aged balsamic + basil
Check out their website and order some for your next party or gift. You WON'T be sorry! (and your friends will LOVE you!!)
From Blue Mountain Cider Company - Favorite Beverage
My favorite beverage of the day…and I'm not really a cider fan…the Cherry Cider from Blue Mountain Cider Company. I nice soft flavor with real cherry taste, not too sweet, not too bitter. PERFECT!
From Watermill Winery – Favorite COLOR (You KNEW I had to have a favorite color of the day, right?)
A great tasting wine…but the COLOR of that label!!! I mean come on. It's like the PERFECT blue! It lured me in from across the room and the Cabernet didn't disappoint.
But again, that COLOR! Swoon!!!!
From 44 North Vodka – Favorite Design
I loved the clean design of this bottle and logo! Sophisticated clear. (…and blue again!) This blue label vodka is the Mountain Huckleberry Flavor. I drank all of my sample shot, straight up, and was delighted by the fruity flavor. Not heavy. Not fake. Light and fresh.
Buy some of this for your next party and find some fun mixers and herbs to add in.
Thanks SFWE for a great event and to all the participants for feeding and "hydrating" me!


text:
What is Onshore Wind? Onshore wind turbines capture the kinetic energy from the wind and convert it into electrical energy for use in our homes and businesses. There are over 160 onshore wind farms in Scotland ranging in size from individual small scale turbines which can power a few homes to large scale sites such as Clyde or Whitelee, which are the biggest in Europe, and have the potential to power tens of thousands of homes and businesses. | |
Onshore Wind Community Benefit Protocol Scottish Renewables is committed to ensuring we, as an industry, maximise the benefits of renewable energy for people across Scotland. As part of this commitment, we have worked together with our members to produce an agreed industry protocol for community benefits from new onshore wind developments. This protocol outlines a consistent approach to community benefits, ensures recognition is given to the value of the partnerships between the onshore wind sector and local communities in Scotland, and encourages further exploration of the potential for community ownership. The protocol states that onshore wind developers in Scotland will:
This protocol should be reviewed after three years. Scottish Renewables will continue to consult with industry on the details of the protocol and on potentially extending participant eligibility to all new projects as part of the Good Practice Guidance. *This applies to projects:
| |
Why is Onshore Wind Important? Onshore wind is now a fundamental part of our energy mix and our economic and environmental ambitions for the future. The facts speak for themselves; onshore wind accounts for two thirds of our total renewables capacity, generation in 2012 was equivalent to over one fifth of our gross electricity consumption, and investment broke the one billion pound barrier for the first time. Onshore wind's growth has now meant that renewables are the second biggest generator of electricity in Scotland, ahead of coal and gas. In the next two to three years, thanks largely to planned and consented onshore wind projects, we expect renewables to generate more electricity than any other technology, a position which some said wasn't possible only a short time ago. This progress is also having a real and lasting impact on our economy with more than 2,000 people employed directly in the sector and many thousands more in the supply chain and working on developing and upgrading Scotland's grid network. What is exceptional about this industry is that this progress and growth is sustainable: generating electricity from renewables in Scotland, rather than from traditional sources, meant that in 2011 we prevented over 8 million tonnes of carbon dioxide, equivalent to 15% of Scotland total emissions. Recent analysis showed that voluntary community benefit payments from onshore wind projects in Scotland topped some £5m per year. | |
What is SR doing? Scottish Renewables works with our members to promote the development of the onshore wind energy sector in Scotland. We also work with the Scottish and UK Governments, their enterprise agencies, and other relevant organisations such as Scottish Natural Heritage and SEPA to secure the optimal conditions to maximise the development of responsibly sited onshore wind farms. Much of our work is directed by Scottish Renewables' Onshore Wind Strategy Group, with input and advice from the Planning Work Group and Environment Work Group. All work groups contain SR member companies who help shape the direction of our work and provide invaluable input and expertise. For more information on the group please contact Joss Blamire. | |
SR recent achievements in the Onshore Wind sector
| |
Meet The Team
E: firstname.lastname@example.com | |
- Publications
- SR response to SNH Corporate Plan discussion paper
- Scottish Parliament draft Scottish Budget – written evidence
- Building Britain's Renewable Future
- Scottish Renewables' Response to the Draft National Peatland Plan
- Scottish Renewables: CfD the basics
- News
- Renewables industry awards recognise best and brightest
- More than 50 shortlisted for revamped green energy awards
- Prestigious renewables award ceremony revamped with new categories
- Rumoured Conservative onshore wind pledge would raise bills and cost thousands of Scots jobs
- "Best-ever" year for Scottish renewables
- Events
- SR:AM Engagement with the UK General Election 2015
- Young Professionals Green Energy Awards 2015
- James Blyth Lecture
- Young Professionals in Renewables Networking Reception
- SR Annual Conference, Exhibition & Dinner 2015
Contact Details
Joss Blamire
Senior Policy Manager:
Onshore Renewables
Tel: 0141 353 4001
E-mail: jblamire@


text:
Federal Register: July 23, 2003 (Volume 68, Number 141)
DOCID: FR Doc 03-18558
Treasury Department
CFR Citation: 19 CFR Parts 4, 103, 113, 122, 123 and 192
NOTICE: Part II
DOCUMENT ACTION: Proposed rule.
Required Advance Electronic Presentation of Cargo Information
DATES: Written comments must be received on or before August 22, 2003.
This document proposes to amend the Customs Regulations to provide that Customs and Border Protection (CBP) must receive, by way of a CBPapproved electronic data interchange system, information pertaining to cargo before the cargo is either brought into or sent from the United States by any mode of commercial transportation (sea, air, rail or truck). The cargo information required is that which is reasonably necessary to enable highrisk shipments to be identified so as to prevent smuggling and ensure cargo safety and security pursuant to the laws enforced and administered by CBP. The proposed regulations are specifically intended to implement the provisions of section 343(a) of the Trade Act of 2002, as amended by the Maritime Transportation Security Act of 2002.
Homeland Security Department, Customs and Border Protection Bureau,
Section 343(a) of the Trade Act of 2002 (Public Law 107210, 116 Stat. 933, enacted on August 6, 2002), as amended by section 108 of the Maritime Transportation Security Act of 2002 (Public Law 107295, 116 Stat. 2064, enacted on November 25, 2002), and codified at 19 U.S.C. 2071 note, requires that the Secretary endeavor to promulgate final regulations not later than October 1, 2003, that provide for the mandatory collection of electronic cargo information by the Customs Service (now part of the Bureau of Customs and Border Protection (CBP)), either prior to the arrival of the cargo in the United States or its departure from the United States by any mode of commercial transportation (sea, air, rail or truck). Under section 343(a), as amended, the information required must consist of that information about the cargo which is determined to be reasonably necessary to enable CBP to identify highrisk shipments so as to prevent smuggling and ensure cargo safety and security pursuant to the laws that are enforced and administered by CBP.
Consequently, for the purposes set forth in section 343(a), as amended, and within the parameters prescribed in the statute, as highlighted below, this document proposes to amend the Customs Regulations in order to require the advance electronic transmission of information pertaining to cargo prior to its being brought into, or sent from, the United States.
CBP Authority for Issuance of Proposed Rule
When the Trade Act of 2002 was enacted (Public Law 107210; August 6, 2002), CBP was part of the Department of the Treasury as the Customs Service. Thereafter, the Homeland Security Act of 2002 was enacted (Public Law 107296; November 25, 2002), which created the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). Section 403 of the Homeland Security Act (the Act) transferred to the newly created Department the functions, personnel, assets, and liabilities of the Customs Service, including the functions of the Secretary of the Treasury relating thereto. Customs, later renamed as CBP, thereby became a component of DHS. Furthermore, the Department of the Treasury recently issued an order (Treasury Order 10016, dated May 15, 2003) delegating to DHS certain Customs revenue functions that were otherwise retained by the Treasury Department under sections 412 and 415 of the Act. In accordance with the Homeland Security Act and this transfer and delegation of functions, certain matters, such as this proposed rule which is designed to ensure cargo safety and security rather than revenue assessment, now fall solely within the jurisdiction of DHS.
Therefore, inasmuch as CBP is an integral component of DHS, and in view of the subject functions transferred/delegated in this regard from Treasury to DHS, this proposed regulation is being issued by CBP with the approval of DHS. Nevertheless, CBP has also coordinated the development of this proposed rule jointly with the Treasury Department. Statutory Factors Governing Development of Regulations
Under section 343(a), as amended, the requirement to provide particular cargo information to CBP is generally to be imposed upon the party likely to have direct knowledge of the required information. However, where doing so is not practicable, CBP in the proposed regulations must take into account how the party on whom the requirement is imposed acquires the necessary information under ordinary commercial practices, and whether and how this party is able to verify the information it has acquired. Where the party is not reasonably able to verify the information, the proposed regulations must allow the party to submit the information on the basis of what it reasonably believes to be true.
Furthermore, in developing the regulations, CBP, as required, has
taken into consideration the remaining parameters set forth in the statute, including:
[sbull] The existence of competitive relationships among parties
upon which the information collection requirements are imposed;
[sbull] Differences among cargo carriers that arise from varying
modes of transportation, different commercial practices and operational
characteristics, and the technological capacity to collect and transmit information electronically;
[sbull] The need for interim requirements to reflect the technology
that is available at the time of promulgation of the regulations for
purposes of the parties transmitting, and CBP receiving and [[Page 43575]]
analyzing, electronic information in a timely fashion;
[sbull] That the use of information collected pursuant to these
regulations is to be only for ensuring cargo safety and security and
preventing smuggling and not for determining merchandise entry or for any other commercial enforcement purposes;
[sbull] The protection of the privacy of business proprietary and
any other confidential cargo information that CBP receives under these
regulations, with the exception that certain manifest information is
required to be made available for public disclosure under 19 U.S.C. 1431(c);
[sbull] Balancing the likely impact on the flow of commerce with
the impact on cargo safety and security in determining the timing for transmittal of required information;
[sbull] Where practicable, avoiding requirements in the regulations
that are redundant with one another or with requirements under other provisions of law; and
[sbull] The need, where appropriate, for different transition
periods for different classes of affected parties to comply with the electronic filing requirements in the regulations.
Additionally, the statute requires that a broad range of parties, including importers, exporters, carriers, customs brokers, and freight forwarders, among other interested parties, likely to be affected by the regulations, be consulted and their comments obtained and evaluated as a prelude to the development and promulgation of the regulations. In furtherance of this, by a notice published in the Federal Register (67 FR 70706) on November 26, 2002, the United States Customs Service, which is now merged into CBP, announced a series of public meetings in accordance with section 343(a) to assist in the formulation of these proposed regulations. The meetings were also announced on the Customs Web site.
Separate meetings were scheduled and held to address specific issues related to the advance electronic presentation of information prior to the arrival or departure of air cargo (January 14, 2003), truck cargo (January 16, 2003), rail cargo (January 21, 2003) and sea cargo (January 23, 2003). ``Strawman'' proposals were offered by Customs at the meetings and were made available on the Customs Web site. In the meetings, members of the importing and exporting community made many significant observations, insights, and suggestions as to what CBP should consider and how CBP should proceed in composing the proposed regulations. Also, at the meetings and on the Customs Web site, suggestions and comments were solicited from the public. The CBP received numerous submissions via email which similarly provided valuable insights and recommendations regarding the development of the proposed rule.
Moreover, an extensive number of meetings were held with workgroups of the subcommittee on advance cargo information requirements of the Treasury Advisory Committee on the Commercial Operations of the U.S. Customs Service (COAC), which greatly assisted CBP in its development of these proposed regulations. Indeed, much of the input and recommendations from those members of the trade who participated in the public meetings, the various workgroups of the COAC subcommittee, as well as the views expressed in the many email submissions in this matter, are reflected in these proposed regulations.
In this regard, what follows is a review of, and CBP's response to,
the most salient issues and recommendations that were presented
pursuant to this consultation process, along with an overview of the
proposed programs for advance information filing for cargo destined to,
or departing from, the United States by vessel, air, rail or truck. Public Comments; General
Costs of Automation; Economic Analysis
Any implementing regulations compelling the advance presentation to CBP of electronic information for cargo destined to the United States, under section 343(a), as amended, would impose substantial automation costs on the carrier trade. The CBP should conduct an economic impact analysis to this effect.
CBP Response
As is set forth below, there are electronic data transmission systems already in place in many of the modes. When coupled with the fact that much of the trade already uses these systems, it does not appear that requiring advance electronic cargo information would impose substantial costs on the trade.
Nevertheless, Customs and Border Protection (CBP) has conducted an economic analysis to determine whether the proposed rule is an ``economically significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866 and whether the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) would apply to this rulemaking. It has been determined, as a result of the initial analysis conducted, that this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact upon a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. This economic analysis is attached as an Appendix to this document. For the reasons set forth in the analysis, the agency does not make a certification at this time with regard to the regulatory requirements of 5 U.S.C. 603 and 604. Comments are specifically requested as to the impact of the proposed rule on small entities.
This rule is a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive
Order (E.O.) 12866 and has been reviewed by the Office of Management
and Budget in accordance with that E.O. However, it is our preliminary
determination that the proposed rule would not result in an
``economically significant regulatory action'' under E.O. 12866, as regards the impact on the national economy.
Protection of Confidential Information Presented to CBP
Cargo manifest data collected by CBP under section 343(a), as amended, should be kept confidential by the agency and not be released to the public.
CBP Response
Section 343(a)(3)(G), as amended, expressly requires that CBP in its implementing regulations protect the privacy of any business proprietary and any other confidential cargo information that is furnished to CBP in accordance with section 343(a), except for any manifest information that is collected pursuant to section 431, Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1431), and required to be available for public disclosure pursuant to section 1431(c). It is emphasized in this connection that the application of section 1431(c) has been effectively limited only to vessel cargo manifest information (Sec. 103.31, Customs Regulations (19 CFR 103.31)).
As thus mandated by the law, CBP intends to accord full protection to the privacy of air, rail, or truck cargo information that is collected under section 343(a), as amended; to this effect, CBP has included in this document a proposed amendment to part 103, Customs Regulations (19 CFR part 103) (see proposed Sec. 103.31a)). Information Technology; Interface With Other Government Agencies Comment
The regulations should avoid redundancy requirements with those of [[Page 43576]]
other Federal agencies. There should be one filing procedure for all
Federal agencies (e.g., the Food and Drug Administration (FDA); and the
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS)). All data elements
to be required by Federal agencies, both within and without the
Department of Homeland Security (DHS), for traffic entering the United
States should be coordinated through a single entity, preferably CBP.
Toward this end, the notification requirements of other Federal
agencies should be integrated into the CBP regulations for section 343(a), as amended.
CBP Response
To the extent feasible, CBP will continue to explore ways and methods to harmonize and synchronize information collection requirements among the several agencies involved, so that the cargo information CBP collects under section 343(a), as amended, may be provided by electronic means to other Federal offices. Indeed, efforts in this regard are already underway in connection with the development of the Automated Commercial Environment (ACE) and the International Trade Data System (ITDS) (a single system that will fully integrate all requisite information about goods entering and exiting the United States). These discussions may ultimately lead to a sole portal (``single window'') for receiving all inward cargo information that may be required to assist other agencies in administering and enforcing statutes enacted to further combat threats to the safety and security of the nation.
However, at present, CBP is of necessity operating under severe time constraints in endeavoring to comply with the statutory deadline for promulgating final regulations under section 343(a) as a national security imperative. Given the limited time available, the construction of a fullyintegrated, comprehensive multiagency electronic data interchange system does not, at this moment, appear to be a practicable or feasible concept, especially in view of the multitude of technological modifications and substantial reprogramming that would be needed for existing systems in order to effectuate this; and withholding the implementation of the final regulations pending the completion of an undertaking of such magnitude would quite clearly be inconsistent with the urgency of the legislation.
The CBP notes that other agencies, such as FDA, have different
statutory requirements regarding advance notice of imports. The CBP
further notes that, due to these different statutory requirements,
these agencies may have different information needs to accomplish their
different statutory mandates. For example, some of the information
requirements in section 307 of the Public Health Security and
Bioterrorism Preparedness and Response Act of 2002 to address food
safety and security assessments, are different from those required by
CBP. In some instances, the time needed by other agencies to receive,
review, and respond to this information to accomplish their statutory
mission may be different from the time required by CBP to assess and
respond to information needed to achieve CBP's statutory mission. To
the extent possible, CBP will work with other interested agencies to
share the information collected under section 343(a), as amended, with other Federal agencies.
Postal Shipments
The advance cargo information provisions for incoming cargo should apply to air/vessel shipments through the United States Postal Service (USPS).
CBP Response
As prescribed in section 343(a)(3)(K), as amended, CBP has the authority, in consultation with the Postmaster General, to require advance cargo information for shipments by the USPS. The CBP still has this issue under consideration. Should a determination be made to extend the advance electronic cargo information mandate to USPS shipments, such postal shipments would be the subject of a separate notice of proposed rulemaking.
Overview; Electronic Filing; Shipper on Master/House Bills
Pursuant to section 343(a)(1), as amended, cargo information for required inbound and outbound shipments must be transmitted to CBP by means of a CBPapproved electronic data interchange system. In this document, CBP is proposing that cargo information be transmitted or presented through existing CBPapproved data systems. As is further elucidated infra, for each incoming mode and for all outbound modes, these existing data systems are as follows:
Outbound, all modes: Automated Export System (AES);
Inbound vessels: Vessel Automated Manifest System (Vessel AMS);
Inbound aircraft: Air Automated Manifest System (Air AMS);
Inbound rail: Rail Automated Manifest System (Rail AMS);
Inbound truck: Free And Secure Trade System (FAST); PreArrival Processing System (PAPS) (which employs the Automated Broker Interface (ABI)); Border Release Advanced Screening and Selectivity program (BRASS, modified as appropriate); and Customs Automated Forms Entry System (CAFES) or ABI inbond reporting.
In this latter regard, and to the additional extent that future approved automated data systems are to be implemented, CBP, either generally or on a portbyport basis, as applicable, will give advance notice of the effective date of implementation of the specific system at particular port(s) of arrival by publishing a notice to this effect in the Federal Register.
Master Bills/House Bills
Generally speaking, a master bill of lading refers to the bill of
lading that is generated by the incoming carrier covering a
consolidated shipment. A consolidated shipment would consist of a
number of separate shipments that have been received and consolidated
into one shipment by a party such as a freight forwarder or a Non
Vessel Operating Common Carrier (NVOCC) for delivery as a single
shipment to the incoming carrier. The consolidated shipment, as noted,
would be covered under the incoming carrier's master bill; and this
master bill could reflect the name of the freight forwarder, the NVOCC
or other such party as being the shipper (of the consolidated
shipment). However, each of the shipments thus consolidated would be
covered by what is referred to as a house bill. The house bill for each
individual shipment in the consolidated shipment would reference the
name of the actual shipper (which would be the actual foreign owner and
exporter of the cargo to the United States). As will be seen from the
data elements as proposed in this rulemaking, it is this latter
information as to the identity of the actual shipper from the relevant house bill that CBP is seeking for targeting purposes.
Public Comments; Vessel Cargo Destined to the United States Summary of Principal Comments
Most of the comments received concerning the advance information reporting requirements for incoming vessel cargo evidenced an intent to revisit the ``24hour rule'' that was issued and became effective last year (T.D. 0262, 67 FR 66318; October 31, 2002).
In brief, it was principally requested that advance cargo information filing by
[[Page 43577]]
Non Vessel Operating Common Carriers (NVOCCs) be eliminated, due to a
number of operational problems experienced by incoming carriers, that
have resulted from limitations said to be inherent in the Vessel
Automated Manifest System (AMS) when NVOCCs, as opposed to the vessel
carriers, transmit shipment information to CBP; at the same time,
though, it was advocated that importers should be permitted, at their
discretion, to file through AMS certain information that would likely
best be known to them as to the identification and nature of the
incoming cargo. Also, it was asked that definitions be added to the
regulations regarding those data elements pertaining to shipper and
consignee information. In addition, it was asked that Department of
Defensecontracted conveyances be exempted from the 24hour rule. CBP Response
In sum, CBP stands by the 24hour rule for incoming vessel cargo and does not contemplate any major change to it under this rulemaking, with one exception: to introduce the mandate that vessel carriers file their advance cargo manifest information with CBP electronically.
As explained in the final rule (67 FR at 66319), the 24hour pre lading requirement for incoming vessel cargo, especially containerized vessel cargo, is tied inextricably to the ContainerSecurity Initiative (CSI). CSI was developed to secure an indispensable, but vulnerable, link in the chain of global trade: containerized shipping. Annually, more than 6 million cargo containers are off loaded at U.S. seaports. A core element of CSI is to prescreen such containers at the port of departure before they are shipped. To enable this prescreening to be done fully and effectively, it is essential that the required advance cargo declaration information be presented to CBP at least 24 hours prior to lading the cargo aboard the vessel at the foreign port.
With the implementation of CSI and the 24hour rule, CBP has been able to identify shipments that have posed potential threats; and securityrelated seizures of problematic shipments have occurred. In short, these programsCSI coupled with the 24hour rulehave become a critical bulwark against threats to the safety and security of United States seaports, trade, industry, and the country.
Non Vessel Operating Common Carriers (NVOCCs)
In consideration of the competitive relationships that exist in the international freight forwarding field, those NVOCCs that seek to file required business proprietary and other confidential cargo information for their incoming shipments directly with CBP should be allowed to do so, rather than having to furnish such information to vessel carriers for electronic presentation to CBP. The CBP is confident that operational issues that have arisen in relation to the implementation of the 24hour rule will over time be satisfactorily addressed; toward this end, CBP will continue to be available to assist the trade in resolving such issues.
There is no consensus in the trade community as to whether importers should provide sea cargo data to CBP. When this split is coupled with the current design and functionality of the AMS system, CBP finds that allowing importers, at their discretion, to participate in advance electronic filing through the system would at this time be neither advisable nor practicable.
Government Vessels
Government vessels falling within the purview of Sec. 4.5(a),
Customs Regulations (19 CFR 4.5(a)), are exempt from the requirement to
make entry, and, as such, they would already be exempt from having to
comply with advance cargo declaration reporting under the 24hour rule
(see 19 CFR 4.7(a), (b)(2)). For purposes of enlarging upon those
vessels that would be subject to such exemptions, it is noted that by a
separate, interim rule, CBP will expand the definition of government vessels.
Data ElementsShipper, Consignee; Date and Time of Departure
With reference to the identity of the shipper, at the master bill level, for consolidated shipments, the identity of the Non Vessel Operating Common Carrier (NVOCC), freight forwarder, container station or other carrier would be sufficient. For nonconsolidated shipments, and for each house bill in a consolidated shipment, the identity of the actual shipper (who is both the owner and the exporter) of the cargo from the foreign country would be needed. To elaborate, the foreign owner of the goods just before they are delivered for export, and who initially consigns and ships them from the foreign country, is the party who ultimately decides that the goods are to be disposed of in another country, such as the United States. The foreign shipper and owner of the goods is, therefore, the exporter, because this is the party initially responsible for causing the export. Section 4.7a(c)(4)(viii), Customs Regulations (19 CFR 4.7a(c)(4)(viii)), would be revised to include the additional meaning of this data element.
In addition, with reference to the identity of the consignee, for consolidated shipments, at the master bill level, the identity of the NVOCC, freight forwarder, container station or other carrier would be sufficient. However, parties identified as ``consolidators,'' even though they may also be NVOCCs, may not participate in Vessel AMS.
For nonconsolidated shipments, and for each house bill in a consolidated shipment, the consignee would be the party to whom the cargo would be delivered in the United States, with the exception of ``FROB'' (Foreign Cargo Remaining On Board). If the name of the consignee, as described, is available, the carrier must disclose this information. However, where cargo is shipped ``to the order of [a named party],'' which is a common business practice, the carrier must report this named ``to order'' party as the consignee in the advance cargo information submission; and, if there is any other commercial party listed in the bill of lading for delivery or contact purposes, the carrier must also report this other commercial party's identity and contact information (address/phone number) in the ``Notify Party'' field of the advance electronic data transmission to CBP, to the extent that the CBPapproved electronic data interchange system is capable of receiving this data. Section 4.7a(c)(4)(ix) would be revised to include the added meaning of this data element.
Also, Sec. 4.7a(c)(4) would further be amended to require the date
and time of the departure of the vessel from foreign, as reflected in the vessel log.
Overview; Vessel Cargo Destined to the United States
Electronic Filing Mandate
Under this proposed rule, in principal part, the 24hour rule would
be amended to provide that vessel carriers must present their cargo
declarations to CBP by means of a CBPapproved electronic data
interchange system, 24 hours before lading the cargo aboard the vessel in the foreign port.
Transition/Timetable for Compliance With Electronic Filing Mandate
Within 90 days of the publication of this advance electronic cargo
information requirement as a final rule in the Federal Register, all
ocean carriers, and NVOCCs choosing to participate, must be automated on the Vessel AMS system at all ports of entry
[[Page 43578]]
in the United States where their cargo will initially arrive. Comments; Air Cargo Destined to the United States
Time Frame for Presenting Advance Cargo Information to CBP
The time frames for presenting electronic cargo information to CBP for air cargo prior to the cargo's arrival in the United States that were set forth in the ``strawman'' proposal (12 hours in advance of foreign lading generally, and 8 hours in advance of foreign lading in the case of express courier shipments) were excessively long. Such lengthy advance time frames would destroy ``justintime'' delivery systems. Instead, it was chiefly recommended that the time frame be one hour prior to arrival in the United States; other commenters, however, thought that the time frame for transmission should be determined on a countrybycountry basis, or, in the alternative, at the time of ``wheelsup'' on the aircraft.
Also, it was asserted that the advance notice time frame should be consistent within each mode of transport; alternatively, it was suggested that the advance filing time frame for charter flights should be shorter than for other flights, and that there should be special procedures for timesensitive cargoes (short haul).
CBP Response
The time frames in the ``strawman'' proposal were put forth only for purposes of stimulating a dialogue with the importing trade regarding the development of an appropriate time frame for the electronic submission of information for inbound air cargo. This issue is central to the implementation of section 343(a) of the Trade Act of 2002, as amended.
Accordingly, after considering the feedback received from the
importing trade in response to the ``strawman,'' CBP is proposing in this rulemaking that information for inbound air cargo be
electronically presented no later than the time of departure of the
aircraft for the United States (no later than the time that wheels are
up on the aircraft, and it is en route directly to the United States),
in the case of aircraft departing for the United States from any
foreign port or place in North America, which includes locations in
Mexico, Central America, South America (from north of the Equator
only), the Caribbean, and Bermuda. For aircraft departing for the
United States from any other foreign area, information for the inbound
air cargo would be required to be electronically presented to CBP no
later than 4 hours prior to the arrival of the aircraft at the first port of arrival in the United States.
At present, CBP believes that these time frames (no later than ``wheelsup'' or 4 hours prior to arrival, as applicable) should enable CBP to properly conduct a risk assessment for incoming air cargo and, if found advisable, to make preparations to hold the cargo for further information or for examination, as required to ensure cargo safety and security under section 343(a), as amended. At the same time, CBP has determined that these time frames should realistically accommodate the concerns of the trade, and should not disrupt the flow of commerce. Indeed, an important reason for the different time frames proposed is the need to obviate disruptions in the flow of commerce; given this consideration, the effect on ``justintime'' (``JIT'') delivery systems should be nonexistent.
The time frames proposed for submitting electronic information to
CBP for inbound air cargo would thus be consistent for all air cargo
shipments regardless of the type of operator or the nature of the
cargo; the time frames would differ based only upon the foreign area
from which the incoming air carrier was departing for the United States.
Parties Required/Eligible To Participate in Advance Cargo Information Filing
It was asked whether freight forwarders to the United States would be required to participate in advance cargo information filing. In the alternative, it was requested that advance electronic shipment information be supplied to CBP by the foreign shipper (the exporter to the United States) or by the U.S. importer. In addition, it was recommended that freight deconsolidators (Container Freight Stations) be allowed to transmit inbond information electronically to CBP at the house air waybill level. In this overall context, it was further mentioned that CBP would need to specify what type of bond would be required for any noncarrier commercial participants in advance electronic cargo information filing under section 343(a), as amended. Also, two commenters urged that cargo information be supplied to CBP by the foreign country (government).
It was also generally stated that some parties in the air environment would simply be unable to comply with the advance electronic cargo information requirements. In any case, it was asserted that any liability for the accuracy of the information that a party presented to CBP should fall upon the entity that supplied the information to the presenting party.
CBP Response
Inbound air carriers that are otherwise required to make entry under Sec. 122.41, Customs Regulations (19 CFR 122.41), would be required to file advance cargo information electronically with CBP. The existing automated air cargo manifest system (the Air Automated Manifest System (Air AMS)) was originally designed and structured to receive electronic data directly from the incoming air carrier.
Nevertheless, in addition to the incoming air carrier's mandatory
participation in presenting advance electronic air cargo information,
CBP has concluded that one of a number of other parties would be able
to voluntarily present to CBP a part of the electronic information
required for the inbound air cargo. These parties could consist of one of the following:
(1) An ABI (Automated Broker Interface) filer as identified by its
ABI filer code (this entity could be either the importer of the cargo or the importer's authorized Customs broker);
(2) A Container Freight Station/deconsolidator as identified by its
FIRMS (Facilities Information and Resources Management System) code;
(3) An Express Consignment Carrier Facility likewise identified by its FIRMS code; or
(4) Any air carrier as identified by its IATA (International Air
Transport Authority) code, that arranged to have the incoming air carrier transport cargo to the United States.
Unlike Vessel AMS, as explained above, and Rail AMS, as discussed below, Air AMS has the existing design capabilities and functionality to, and in fact already does, accept information from parties other than the importing carrier for inward cargo shipments. The CBP expects to make this capability to supply data available to a wider group of trade members, as appropriate, and to make any systems modifications necessary to accommodate possible variations in the order in which data might be received.
Hence, along with the incoming air carrier for whom participation
in Air AMS is compulsory, any one of the foregoing parties could elect
to supply certain data for air cargo to CBP, provided that the party
established the communication protocol required by CBP for properly
presenting electronic data through the system, and provided further that the party, other than an
[[Page 43579]]
importer or broker, was in possession of a Customs international
carrier bond containing all the necessary provisions of 19 CFR 113.64.
However, in the case of cargo shipments transported under a consolidated master air waybill, only one party could supply information for all such cargo so shipped.
It is observed that the importer or its authorized agent would be the party in the United States most likely to have direct knowledge as to particular information about the nature and destination of the cargo. Secondly, a facility, such as a Consolidator or an Express Consignment Carrier, that handled the shipment and/or arranged for its delivery to the incoming carrier, would also have access to particular information about the cargo, more so than the incoming carrier. Generally speaking, for consolidated shipments, information in the direct possession of such a facility would consist of data from its house air waybill(s) that would not be directly known by the incoming carrier.
Thus, in recognition of possible competitive relationships that a party such as a container freight station, freight forwarder, or express consignment or other carrier, might have with the incoming air carrier, such party would have the opportunity, if it so elected, to present the required information directly to CBP, as opposed to having to present this information to the inward air carrier or a service provider who would, on its behalf, transmit this information for the cargo to CBP.
In any event, it would not be realistic or feasible to seek to obligate a foreign country (government) to transmit advance cargo information for commercial cargo sent from that country to the United States; and it is submitted in this connection that section 343(a)(3)(B), as amended, clearly envisages the electronic filing of cargo information by appropriate commercial or business entities, rather than foreign governments.
Since the party from whom electronic air cargo information would be required might not necessarily, in all situations, be the party with direct knowledge of that information, CBP would take into consideration how, in accordance with ordinary commercial practices, the electronic filer acquired such information, and whether and how the filer was able to verify this information. Where the party electronically presenting the cargo information to CBP was not reasonably able to verify such information, CBP would permit the party to electronically present the information on the basis of what the party reasonably believed to be true.
There should be an exemption from the advance cargo filing requirements for aircraft that are owned or leased by the Department of Defense.
CBP Response
Aircraft, including public aircraft as defined in 19 CFR 122.1(i), that are exempt from entry under 19 CFR 122.41 would be exempt from advance cargo information filing under this proposed rule. It is noted that by a separate, interim rule, CBP will expand upon those aircraft that are subject to such an exemption from entry.
Participants in the CustomsTrade Partnership Against Terrorism (C TPAT), and related parties, should be excluded from the advance cargo information requirement or should be subject to a reduced time frame within which the advance cargo information must be transmitted. CBP Response
The CBP disagrees with this suggestion. However, participation in CTPAT would be considered as one factor in targeting whether cargo needed to be held upon arrival pending the receipt of further information or for examination. Such additional information, if required, would have to be made available at the port of arrival. Required Cargo Information; Availability/Correction of Data Transmitted Comment
For freight forwarders that might participate in the advance electronic filing of cargo information, it was asked what information they would specifically be required to transmit to CBP.
CBP Response
The specific data elements that would be required from a participating party are enumerated below under the heading ``Overview; Air Cargo Destined to the United States'' (see ``Additional Data Elements from Incoming Carriers; Other Participants''); and these data elements are also set forth in proposed Sec. 122.48a(d). A freight forwarder could be included among those parties that could participate voluntarily in electronic cargo information filing, provided that the freight forwarder was either an ABI filer, a Container Freight Station/ deconsolidator or an Express Consignment Carrier Facility; that it had posted a Customs international carrier bond containing all necessary provisions of 19 CFR 113.64; and that it had established the communication protocol required by CBP for properly presenting electronic data through the system.
The CBP should clearly define the meaning of those data elements which must be presented for inbound air cargo.
CBP Response
The CBP believes that the proposed data elements to be required in advance for incoming air cargo are fairly well known; however, a number of the data elements set out in the proposed regulations are accompanied by detailed explanations as to their meaning. Should it be called for, CBP will include additional definitions for those elements about which the importing air community might prefer greater elucidation.
Therefore, CBP requests comments in response to this proposed rule especially concerning those data elements contained in proposed Sec. 122.48a(d) for which the importing air community seeks additional guidance.
Most of the necessary data for incoming cargo would not necessarily be available prior to its lading aboard the aircraft. Moreover, the lineitem Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS) number for air cargo would not be available prior to the departure of the aircraft. The air carrier would not always have information for cargo at the house air waybill level; and CBP should allow intransit consolidations to be reported at the master air waybill level. Also, CBP should permit an air carrier to submit electronic cargo data for shipments brought in by truck.
CBP Response
Because CBP proposes to require advance cargo information for incoming aircraft either no later than the time of ``wheelsup'' or no later than 4 hours prior to arrival in the United States, as applicable (and not prior to the foreign lading of the cargo aboard the aircraft), the commenters' concerns as to the availability of the necessary data for the cargo prior to foreign lading are addressed.
Nevertheless, concerning the possible unavailability of the 6digit
HTS number for the cargo prior to foreign departure, it is emphasized
that either a precise description of the cargo or its HTS 6digit
tariff subheading would be sufficient. In any case, under the [[Page 43580]]
proposal, as already explained, the lineitem HTS number for the cargo
would essentially not be required prior to the departure of the aircraft for the United States.
As to the carrier not always having cargo information from the house air waybill, should another party, such as an ABI filer, elect to participate in advance automated cargo information filing, the carrier would only be responsible for transmitting information from the master air waybill. However, if another electronic filer did not participate in transmitting needed cargo information to CBP, the incoming carrier would need to obtain the house air waybill information from the relevant party for presentation to CBP.
Intransit consolidations of inbound cargo typically present the same issues of cargo safety and security as other inbound shipments. Thus, the complete house air waybill information would be required from the carrier or the other party electing to participate in advance cargo information filing. Also, should an air carrier choose to ship freight by truck, advance cargo information would be required to be presented to CBP through the truck processing system (see proposed Sec. 123.92); electronic air documents would not be accepted in lieu of advance electronic truck cargo information.
If cargo were bumped from one flight to a later flight, there should be no need to retransmit related cargo information that was previously transmitted to CBP.
CBP Response
Given the time frames proposed, since cargo information would essentially not be required prior to the departure of the aircraft for the United States, this issue should not present a significant concern. Comment
The CBP should allow changes and additions to electronically transmitted manifest information in accordance with current manifest discrepancy reporting policies.
CBP Response
Complete and accurate information would need to be presented to CBP
for cargo aboard the aircraft no later than the time period specified
for the particular foreign area from which the aircraft departs for the
United States. As for any changes in the cargo information already
transmitted for a flight, the procedures for discrepancy reporting will be the subject of a separate rulemaking.
PreDeparture Screening of Cargo; Cargo Inspections in the United States
Air cargo security is already highly regulated by the Transportation Security Administration (TSA), the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), and other agencies and foreign governments. As such, there should be no predeparture screening process required for incoming air cargo. In the alternative, it was advocated that CBP should consider a CSI (Container Security Initiative)type program for air cargo. In the event that predeparture/lading information is necessary for prescreening purposes, CBP should provide a positive load/noload message to the electronic filer. Also, for cargo that may be identified as high risk, CBP should not compel inspections of such cargo at locations in the United States that are merely technical stops.
CBP Response
There will be no predeparturescreeningandhold process applied to air cargo under this proposal. While CBP may consider the possibility of developing a CSItype initiative for air cargo based on a number of factors, including the terrorist threat, the success of industry security programs, and the success of this rulemaking and related CBP security efforts, such a proposal falls outside the scope of this rulemaking.
In addition, inspections of cargo in the United States conducted for the purpose of ensuring cargo safety and security and for the prevention of smuggling would only be conducted if the cargo had been identified as potentially posing a safety, security or smuggling risk; and CBP would work with the carrier and other affected Government agencies to determine an appropriate location to examine such potentially highrisk cargo. In appropriate cases, however, landing rights could be denied to an incoming carrier if advance cargo information was not timely, accurately, and completely presented to CBP (see proposed Sec. 122.14).
The possible need for a carrier to retain cargo in a staging/ storage area at a foreign location in order to comply with a pre departure advance information requirement for inbound cargo would create a security risk for the cargo that would not otherwise exist. CBP Response
As indicated, the time frames proposed for the advance reporting of
air cargo information have been designed so as to preclude any need to
retain cargo in a foreign area in order to comply with the prearrival reporting mandate.
Requested Exemptions/Exclusions From Electronic Filing Requirements Comment
Advance electronic information should not be required for inbound air cargo in diplomatic pouches. Merchandise brought in by the air carrier for its own use should be exempt as well from the advance electronic information provisions. Also, letters and documents should be exempted from the detailed advance electronic cargo information submission. It was further asked whether the advance filing requirements would apply to handcarried merchandise or merchandise checked in passenger baggage.
CBP Response
For purposes of this rulemaking, all air cargo shipped under an air
waybill, regardless of its nature, would be subject to the advance
electronic reporting provisions. This would include diplomatic pouches
and letters and documents. Also, merchandise brought in by an air
carrier for its own use would be subject to the same advance cargo
information filing requirements that would apply to other incoming
cargo. However, handcarried merchandise and merchandise contained in
passenger baggage would not be subject to the advance cargo information
requirements in this rulemaking; such merchandise would be included in the passenger baggage declaration.
Required Information Technology; Trade Support; Transition Periods Comment
It was asked whether CBP would provide staffing for data/targeting analysis and related trade support on an aroundtheclock basis; and two commenters were insistent that CBP conduct extensive training in Air AMS filing procedures at all ports. Various concerns were also expressed as to the ability of CBP to effectively analyze advance cargo information.
CBP Response
An automated targeting system for performing a risk assessment for
incoming air cargo will be fully in place upon the effective date of
the final regulations. Automated data/targeting analysis for risk
assessment will be available at all times. Related trade support will be available during regular
[[Page 43581]]
port hours; and CBP will conduct any training that CBP personnel might need in Air AMS procedures.
To effectuate the filing of electronic cargo information under section 343(a), as amended, CBP should consider integrating advanced information technology (IT) products into its current automated manifest filing system. Additionally, the Automated Commercial Environment (ACE) system should be compatible with the implementing regulations. Also, there should be a grace period given under the implementing regulations in order to afford trade participants the chance to make suitable changes to their computer programming; and there should likewise be a grace period allowed during which such trade participants could bring the detail and accuracy of their advance information filing up to the level that CBP would require.
CBP Response
While disposed to explore any advances in IT products, CBP will largely rely, at least initially, upon the Air AMS, with appropriate future modifications, as the principal vehicle to achieve the goal of advance air cargo information presentation under section 343(a), as amended. However, any new system developed within the framework of ACE will be compatible with the implementing regulations. For this reason, therefore, the implementing regulations will refer generally to a CBP approved electronic data interchange system (rather than to Air AMS, specifically).
The CBP contemplates that, pursuant to section 343(a)(3)(J), as amended, the effective date that would be set for the final implementing regulations following their promulgation should afford sufficient time for Air AMS participants to make suitable changes to their programming for the advance transmission of cargo data; and the effective date would similarly incorporate a reasonable grace period within which Air AMS participants should be able to bring their advance data filing up to the level of detail and accuracy that CBP seeks. Specifically, the proposed effective date, and the provisions for delaying the effective date, for compliance with the advance presentation of electronic air cargo information to CBP under section 343(a), as amended, are contained in proposed Sec. 122.48a(e). Overview; Air Cargo Destined to the United States
Electronic Systems To Be Used
Air carriers, and certain other parties authorized for voluntary participation in the program, must transmit through a CBPapproved electronic data interchange system advance cargo air waybill information, in accordance with the ``Transition and Implementation Timeline'' discussed below. The current CBP system for transmitting air cargo information is the Air Automated Manifest System (Air AMS). Also, certain express consignment carriers have proprietary electronic data systems which CBP personnel can access. The CBP will permit the use of these electronic proprietary systems, provided that the participants are capable of providing the data in a suitable electronic format to CBP for the purposes of ensuring cargo safety and security and preventing smuggling, unless CBP determines that it is necessary to migrate those participants to Air AMS. In addition, these express consignment carriers will be required to provide CBP with an electronic record of the data in a CBPapproved storage medium. All other express consignment carriers, including those that currently submit information to CBP using paper documents, will be required to participate in Air AMS.
Data Submission Timelines
Air carriers and other parties electing to participate in the
program would transmit the required information to CBP no later than
the time of departure (``wheelsup'') for aircraft that are departing
for the United States from any foreign port or place in North America,
including locations in Mexico, Central America, South America (from
north of the Equator only), the Caribbean, and Bermuda. For aircraft
departing for the United States from any other foreign area, such
carriers and other parties would transmit the required information to
CBP no later than 4 hours prior to the arrival of the aircraft at the
first port of arrival in the United States. This amount of time should
enable CBP to conduct an adequate analysis of the data and to select
individual shipments for further document review or physical
examination, while not disrupting the flow of commerce and ``justin time'' delivery systems.
Parties Required/Eligible To Present Advance Electronic Cargo Information
All carriers required to enter under Sec. 122.41, Customs Regulations (19 CFR 122.41), would be required to participate in the electronic data interchange system and present the necessary cargo information to CBP.
The carrier will only need to be automated at each port where entrance and clearance of the aircraft is required. Incoming air carriers and other authorized parties who choose to do so may participate in Air AMS until CBP migrates to a different processing system. For this reason, the implementing regulations will refer only to a ``CBPapproved electronic data interchange system'' in order to accommodate the future migration to any superseding data processing systems.
In addition to an incoming air carrier for whom participation will be mandatory, one of the following parties may elect to transmit particular data to CBP for incoming cargo: an ABI filer (importer or its Customs broker); a Container Freight Station/deconsolidator as identified by its FIRMS code; an Express Consignment Carrier Facility likewise identified by its FIRMS code; or an air carrier as identified by its IATA code, that arranged to have the incoming air carrier transport the cargo to the United States. To be qualified to file cargo information electronically, the party would need to establish the communication protocol required by CBP for properly presenting electronic information through the data interchange system; and, except for an importer or broker, the party would have to possess a Customs international carrier bond containing all the necessary provisions of 19 CFR 113.64.
Consequently, the carrier will either have to obtain all the needed cargo shipment information for presentation to CBP, or the carrier will need to obtain the unique identifier of the party that will separately transmit to CBP a portion of the required data for the cargo; the other party's unique identifier code would have to accompany the carrier's data transmission to CBP, so that CBP could associate the subject cargo shipment with both electronic transmissions related to the cargo.
Permission to unlade all or part of the cargo could be denied or delayed, and penalties and/or liquidated damages could be assessed, where the air carrier or other electronic filer transmitted inaccurate, incomplete or untimely information to CBP.
Information Required From Air Carriers
An incoming air carrier would need to transmit all of the necessary
information for nonconsolidated air waybills. For consolidated
shipments: the carrier would have to present to CBP all the required information from the master air
[[Page 43582]]
waybill record; and the carrier would supply all the information for
associated house air waybill records where another authorized party did
not electronically transmit information for the associated house air
waybills directly to CBP. If another approved party did transmit the
information, the carrier would not be required to electronically supply such information.
The carrier would still be required under 19 U.S.C. 1431 to have a manifest for all cargo aboard the aircraft, whether that cargo was manifested under a nonconsolidated air waybill or a house air waybill that was part of a consolidation.
These proposed regulations apply to air cargo that would be entered into the United States, as well as to intransit air cargo including any cargo which remained aboard the aircraft on the same through flight.
Specific Data Elements; Air Carriers
In the following listing of data elements for air carriers, an
``M'' next to any element indicates that the data element would be
mandatory in all cases; a ``C'' next to the data element indicates that
the data element was conditional and would be transmitted to CBP if the condition were present for that particular air waybill.
(1) Air waybill number (M) (The air waybill number is the
International Air Transport Association (IATA) standard 11digit number);
(2) Trip/flight number (M);
(3) Carrier/ICAO (International Civil Aviation Organization) code
(M) (The approved electronic data interchange system supports both 3
and 2character ICAO codes, provided that the final digit of the 2 character code is not a numeric value);
(4) Airport of arrival (M) (The 3alpha character ICAO code
corresponding to the first airport of arrival in the Customs territory
of the United States (for example, Chicago O'Hare = ORD; Los Angeles International Airport = LAX));
(5) Airport of origin (M) (The 3alpha character ICAO code
corresponding to the airport from which a shipment began its
transportation by air to the United States (for example, if a shipment
began its transportation from Hong Kong (HKG), and it transits through
Narita, Japan (NRT), en route to the United States, the airport of origin is HKG, not NRT));
(6) Scheduled date of arrival (M);
(7) Total quantity based on the smallest external packing unit (M)
(for example, 2 pallets containing 50 pieces each would be considered as 100, not 2);
(8) Total weight (M) (may be expressed in either pounds or kilograms);
(9) Cargo description (M) (for consolidated shipments, the word
``Consolidation'' is a sufficient description for the master air
waybill record; for nonconsolidated shipments, a precise cargo
description or the 6digit Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS) number must be provided);
(10) Shipper name and address (M) (for consolidated shipments, this
may be the name and address of the consolidator, express consignment or
other carrier, for the master air waybill record; for nonconsolidated
shipments, this must be the name and address of the actual shipper (the
owner and exporter) of the merchandise from the foreign country);
(11) Consignee name and address (M) (for consolidated shipments,
this may be the name and address of the container freight station,
express consignment or other carrier, for the master air waybill
record; for nonconsolidated shipments, this must be the name and
address of the party to whom the cargo will be delivered, with the exception of ``FROB'' (Foreign Cargo Remaining On Board));
(12) Consolidation identifier (C);
(13) Split shipment indicator (C) (this data element includes
information indicating the particular portion of the split shipment
that will arrive; the boarded quantity of that portion of the split
shipment (based on the smallest external packing unit); and the boarded
weight of that portion of the split shipment (expressed in either pounds or kilograms));
(14) Permit to proceed information (C) (this element includes the
permittoproceed destination airport (the 3alpha character ICAO code
corresponding to the permittoproceed destination airport); and the
scheduled date of arrival at the permittoproceed destination airport);
(15) Identifier of other party which is to submit additional air waybill information (C);
(16) Inbond information (C) (this data element includes the
destination airport; the international/domestic identifier (the inbond
type indicator); the inbond control number, if there is one (C); and the onward carrier identifier, if applicable (C)); and
(17) Local transfer facility (C).
Additional Data Elements From Incoming Carriers; Other Participants
In addition to the data elements listed in items ``1'' through
``17'' above, the incoming air carrier, or another eligible electronic
filer electing to do so, must transmit the following information to CBP for the inward cargo:
(1) The master air waybill number and the associated house air
waybill number (M) (the house air waybill number may be up to 12
alphanumeric characters (each alphanumeric character that is indicated
on the paper house air waybill document must be included in the
electronic transmission; alpha characters may not be eliminated));
(2) Foreign airport of origin (M) (The 3alpha character ICAO code
corresponding to the airport from which a shipment began its
transportation by air to the United States (for example, if a shipment
began its transportation from Hong Kong (HKG), and it transits through
Narita, Japan (NRT), en route to the United States, the airport of origin is HKG, not NRT));
(3) Cargo description (M) (a precise description of the cargo or
the 6digit Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS) number must be provided.
Generic descriptions, specifically those such as ``FAK'' (``freight of
all kinds''), ``general cargo'', and ``STC'' (``said to contain'') are not acceptable);
(4) Total quantity based on the smallest external packing unit (M)
(for example, 2 pallets containing 50 pieces each would be considered as 100, not 2);
(5) Total weight of cargo (M) (may be expressed in either pounds or kilograms);
(6) Shipper name and address (M) (the name and address of the
actual shipper (the owner and exporter) of the cargo from the foreign country);
(7) Consignee name and address (M) (the name and address of the
party to whom the cargo will be delivered in the United States, with the exception of ``FROB''); and
(8) Inbond information (C) (this data element includes the
destination airport; the international/domestic identifier (the inbond
type indicator); the inbond control number, if there is one (C); and the onward carrier identifier, if applicable (C)).
Advance Electronic Information for Letters and Documents
For purposes of compliance with the advance cargo information
filing requirements under section 343(a), as amended, letters and
documents would be subject to the same procedures as all other types of
cargo. Such ``letters and documents'' comprise the data (for example,
business records and diagrams) described in General Note 19(c),
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS); personal
correspondence, whether on paper, cards, photographs, tapes, or other
media; and securities and similar evidence of value described in subheading 4907, HTSUS, but not
[[Page 43583]]
including monetary instruments covered under 31 U.S.C. 53015322. Electronic Freight Status Notifications
If the facility (carrier, deconsolidator, or other party) currently holding the goods was automated, that party would have to honor all freight status notifications transmitted by CBP. Cargo could not be transferred to another facility, moved under the provisions of the in bond regulations or released to the consignee except upon electronic status notifications from CBP. Should the cargo be transferred to a nonautomated facility (e.g., a Container Freight Station, a carrier facility in another port, or the like), that facility would be required to accept only paper documents for the disposition of the cargo. Transition and Implementation Timeline
All air carriers, and those authorized parties that choose to participate in presenting advance cargo information electronically to CBP through the approved automated system, would be expected to comply with the provisions of these regulations on and after 90 days from the date that the final rule in this matter is published in the Federal Register. However, CBP could delay the implementation of the final regulations at a given port until the necessary training had been provided to CBP personnel at that port. Also, CBP could delay the effective date of the final regulations in the event that any essential programming changes to the applicable CBPapproved electronic data interchange system were not in place. Finally, CBP could delay the effective date of the regulations if further time were required to complete certification testing of new participants. Any such delay would be the subject of a notice provided through the Federal Register Electronic System Failure; Downtime
Should the approved electronic data interchange system go down, the
incoming air carrier and, if applicable, any other electronic filer
would have to submit a hard copy equivalent of all required electronic
cargo information to CBP either no later than ``wheelsup'' or no later
than 4 hours prior to the arrival of the aircraft in the United States,
depending upon the foreign area from which the incoming aircraft departs for the United States.
Comments; Rail Cargo Destined to the United States
Time Frame for Transmitting Information; Impact on Commerce Comment
Various suggestions were made regarding the time in which advance rail cargo data would need to be electronically presented to CBP. Specifically, the following time frames were put forth: 4 hours prior to departure for the United States; 4 hours prior to arrival in the United States; 2 hours prior to arrival; and under 2 hours prior to arrival. By contrast, it was stated that the time frame set forth in the ``strawman'' proposal (24 hours prior to lading in the foreign country) was unworkable/unrealistic. It was also stated that any time frame that CBP proposed should not adversely impact ``justintime'' shipping practices.
CBP Response
The time frame in the ``strawman'' was put forth only as a perfunctory proposal, merely for the purpose of eliciting feedback from the trade in order to assist CBP in developing an appropriate time frame for inclusion in the proposed regulations. After considering the various recommendations from the rail trade, CBP agrees with those commenters who recommended that electronic cargo data for incoming rail cargo be presented no later than 2 hours prior to the arrival of the cargo at a United States port of entry.
The CBP is of the opinion that this minimum 2hour period for presenting rail cargo information electronically in advance of arrival is a reasonable and practical time frame for the submission of the necessary cargo data, and one that should not disrupt the flow of rail commerce into the country. This view is based in large part on the understan
Legal matters: Glen E. Vereb, Office of Regulations and Rulings, (202) 5728724;
Trade compliance issues:
Inbound vessel cargo: Kimberly Nott, Field Operations, 202927 0042;
Inbound air cargo: David M. King, Field Operations, 2029271133;
Inbound truck cargo: Enrique Tamayo, Field Operations, 202927 3112;
Inbound rail cargo: Juan CancioBello, Field Operations, 202927 3459;
Outbound cargo, all modes: Erika Unangst, Field Operations, 202 9270284;
For economic impact issues: Daniel J. Norman, Field Operations, 2029274305.


text:
"Those who can, build. Those who can't, criticize," was a famous line of the late Robert Moses. Although he never held elected office, Moses charted the course of urban planning and development of New York City for the best part of the twentieth century. For those too young to remember, or too far from the Big Apple to have lived its transformations during Moses´ long trajectory as the eminence grise of New York City government, I recommend Robert Caro´s monumental biography, a visit to New York Transit Museum's exhibition The Triborough Bridge: Robert Moses and the Automobile Age, on view until April, 2008, or at least a quick scan of his 1981 New York Times obituary.
It was Moses' "cherished ambition… to weave together the loose strands and frayed edges of New York's arterial tapestry," according to the transit authority press release for the exhibition, a sentiment that could be used to describe Sweden based multinational corporation Skanska AB´s relationship to the same city. Just as few people identified Moses as the man behind the changing landscape of New York from the 1930s to the 1960s, few people today would relate the name of Skanska with the renovation of the Lexington / 53rd St. subway station, The World Trade Center transportation hub project at Ground Zero or the transformation of the FDR Drive. In the most recent issue of its own company magazine, "Worldwide", the company suggests that, "Skanska could well be New York's best kept secret," and lists no less than 27 Skanska projects in the greater New York area.
Skanska is perhaps the best kept secret of New York but it is also one of the world's most responsible and transparent corporate giants. It was the first construction-related company in the world to extend ISO 14001 environmental certification throughout its entire global operations, no small feat, with over 80,000 employees located throughout approximately 60 countries. That was in 2001, at a cost of over 10 million dollars. In 2005, when a list of the 100 Most Sustainable Global Corporations was established, Skanska was the only corporation in the construction sector to make the list.
Although its role in transforming the infrastructure of the Big Apple is as significant as Moses´ was in his time, its projects in New York represent only 1% of Skanka´s business worldwide. In fact, none of its vast projects in New York is its largest. The most ambitious Skanska endeavor to date is being developed with the British National Health System in London, a projected ten-year development project involving the Saint Bartholomew's and Royal London medical centers.
For those of you thinking, "Why don't I work for a company like that?" maybe you could. The company has an in-house promotion policy, but a bright new MBA in responsible business theory might get you a foot in the door of the recruiter's office.


text:
About | Projects | Docs | Forums | Lists | Bugs | Get Gentoo! | Support | Planet | Wiki
Hey guys and gals, I was hesitating to try gcc-4.5.3 on a CentOS 4.9 with stone aged glibc-2.3 when I am bootstrapping it. In the past my experience with a couple of old machines is that >=gcc-4.3 never emerge with <=glibc-2.5 without USE vanilla. A thread discussed this too[1]. It was a failure of CentOS 5, which makes CentOS 4 more scaring. To my surprise, gcc-4.5.3 USE 'fortran mudflap nls nptl openmp' worked! Maybe we can make a prefix gcc / glibc version compatibility matrix to track these reports :) Yours, Benda 1. http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.alt/6110/focus=6119 -- XU Benda Research Center for Neutrino Science Tohoku University JAPAN http://www.awa.tohoku.ac.jp/~benda
Updated Jun 18, 2012
Summary: Archive of the gentoo-alt mailing list.
Donate to support our development efforts.
Your browser does not support iframes.


text:
New Revised Standard (NRS) | New International Version (NIV) |
20 Leaving the scroll in the chamber of Elishama the secretary, they went to the court of the king; and they reported all the words to the king. | 20 After they put the scroll in the room of Elishama the secretary, they went to the king in the courtyard and reported everything to him. |
New Revised Standard Version Bible, copyright 1989, Division of Christian Education of the National Council of the Churches of Christ in the United States of America. Used by permission. All rights reserved. (New Revised Standard Bible Version Online) | Scripture quoted by permission. Quotations designated (NIV) are from THE HOLY BIBLE: NEW INTERNATIONAL VERSION®. NIV®. Copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984 by Biblica. All rights reserved worldwide. (New International Version Bible Online) |


text:
Wed, Feb 8, 06 at 8:22
Seems as though everyone has deserted the embroidery forum. This is not a good thing since I got my machine and need to pick some brains. I think I have read every post on the board and need more ideas and pictures of what everyone has been doing. (I'm just a little creatively challenged).
Come on back everybody!! |
Follow-Up Postings:
- Posted by islay_corbel (My Page) on Wed, Feb 8, 06 at 11:53
I'm here! I was also wondering why it was so quiet! Anything I can help you with? |
- Posted by lilylover_ar (My Page) on Wed, Feb 8, 06 at 12:09
HI there, just wondering where everyone has ventured off to. No help needed right at this moment, I'm still in the practice stage, afraid to attempt anything permanent right now. I love playing around with the machine, trying out new designs but still intimated by it a bit. Some of the alphabets I would like to be a bigger size but I think that will come once I decide on which ultimate box to get. So many great designs out there I want to try. Do you download a lot of your designs or do you have the programs already? |
I think I have bought all of 2 designs...the rest I got from the internet! Lisa |
I bought 2 CDs of redwork but everything else has been free. I haven't done too much with the machine yet. I am more heavily involved in quilting and have added embroidery to that. I made a baby quilt with the redwork alphabet and the other Redwork CD has larger designs that I want to put in a quilt. I also put embroidery in some corner sashing blocks to make a Christmas quilt. What kind of projects do you make with the embroidery? Linda OH |
Hi! I'm still here. I usually check in each evening, but don't respond to a post unless I have something useful to say. I do enjoy reading all the posts, though. It seems that I'm so busy with work and other things that I haven't been embroidering much lately. I did do little valentine shirts for the twins, but didn't take a picture. Maybe I can take one with them wearing the shirts. MaryAnn |
- Posted by islay_corbel (My Page) on Thu, Feb 9, 06 at 2:37
I've been doing a lot of "in the hoop" projects. The patchwork club that I'm part of are having a sale to raise some money and I've been doing embroidered sachets to put little lavender bags in, hot mitts, and fabric trays. I've also done some blocks to make into a quilt and some fishy scenes to frame. I LOVE this hobby! It's as addictive as quilting. AARRGGHH not enough time in the day. |
I'm like Linda - bitten bad by the quilting bug right now. So many projects, so little time! I joined my local quilt guild a year ago and that seems to have really sparked my interest in quilting. Need to get out the embroidery unit and dust it off! Donna |
Just bought a thimbleberries quilt that is a combination of piecing and machine embroidery, but it has to wait till some of the other projects are done! I also made bright green shorts for 3 of my boys and put embroidery on the left front, were they ever a big hit! One thing I have learnt about embroidery for garment construction is to cut the pattern peice (if you have to) bigger than is needed and then cut it down to size afte you embroider. Embroidery causes shrinkage. I avoid this by tracing out the pattern piec o I get placement and then cut out when I am done, seems to work so far! -Joanne |
Please Note: Only registered members are able to post messages to this forum. If you are a member, please log in. If you aren't yet a member, join now!
Return to the Embroidery Forum
Information about Posting
- You must be logged in to post a message. Once you are logged in, a posting window will appear at the bottom of the messages. If you are not a member, please register for an account.
- Please review our Rules of Play before posting.
- Posting is a two-step process. Once you have composed your message, you will be taken to the preview page. You will then have a chance to review your post, make changes and upload photos.
- After posting your message, you may need to refresh the forum page in order to see it.
- Before posting copyrighted material, please read about Copyright and Fair Use.
- We have a strict no-advertising policy!
- If you would like to practice posting or uploading photos, please visit our Test forum.
- If you need assistance, please Contact Us and we will be happy to help.
Learn more about in-text links on this page here


text:
RESCHEDULED - Crossroads of Religion and Politics Lunchtime Discussion with Rachel McCleary
"Competition in U.S. International Aid: the State and NGOs." Rachel McCleary is Senior Research Fellow, Taubman Center, Harvard Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University. She will discuss both her work on NGOs and her current research and the study of the economics of religion.
Location: Robertson Hall, Bowl 015
Date/Time: 02/13/12 at 12:15 pm - 02/13/12 at 1:00 pm
This event is limited to Princeton University students, with preference given to CSR fellows and WWS students. Please contact Jenny Legath at email@example.com.
Category: Discussion
Department: Crossroads of Religion and Politics Lecture Series


text:
The Message (MSG) | New International Version (NIV) |
17 Following the king's orders, they quarried huge blocks of the best stone - dressed stone for the foundation of The Temple. | 17 At the king's command they removed from the quarry large blocks of quality stone to provide a foundation of dressed stone for the temple. |
Published by permission. Originally published by NavPress in English as THE MESSAGE: The Bible in Contemporary Language copyright 2002 by Eugene Peterson. All rights reserved. (The Message Bible Online) | Scripture quoted by permission. Quotations designated (NIV) are from THE HOLY BIBLE: NEW INTERNATIONAL VERSION®. NIV®. Copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984 by Biblica. All rights reserved worldwide. (New International Version Bible Online) |