text:
The smarty-pants answer is that it happens all the time. There's no security check at Communion stations. Ushers seldom rack up more than a couple of Communion-line tackles in a long career. So every Sunday just about everyplace, a Lutheran or Presbyterian or Druid sneaks in. Perhaps the person has not read the statement of the U.S. bishops printed in the worship aid about who's in and who's out when it comes to Holy Communion. Perhaps they are operating on the theology of their own churches, which can be summed up by saying that once you're in the water, you're at the table.
At a Catholic Mass Orthodox Christians are officially welcome to receive, but they probably shouldn't, since their own church sometimes levies a sentence of excommunication for those who receive Communion with us. Polish National Catholics and the Assyrians of the East are likewise welcome, and we can receive the sacraments from them if we are gravely ill. So far, that's it, with some exceptions.
There are five conditions set down in canon law by which a baptized Christian who is not Roman Catholic can receive with us. Like all church law these conditions are meant to be interpreted through the lens of charity.
Two of these conditions are that the person first must share our Catholic faith in the meaning of the Eucharist, and they must lack normal access to a minister of their own faith tradition. Think of the widow of a Catholic at his funeral, or a devout lady who is gravely ill in a nursing home whose minister never visits, the prisoner isolated from the church community, or a soldier who worships at Mass with his or her comrades on the eve of a dangerous mission. In each case the canonical provisions suggest that the desire to receive sometimes trumps our Catholics-only policy.
But at this point in ecumenical relations, each situation has to be handled individually, normally in consultation with a priest, and ideally in dialogue with the bishop. This remains a pastoral problem that is under constant investigation and study.
For now a diocesan bishop is free to resolve individual cases and to craft general norms that do not conflict with current church law. One who expresses a desire to receive Communion or an attraction to the Eucharist may in fact be articulating a desire to be received into the full communion of the Catholic Church. For many new Catholics the desire to receive was the first step into the life of our community of faith, and their hunger and thirst for the Lord has helped many lifelong Catholics see how tremendous a gift we have in the Eucharist.
This article appeared in the December 2008 issue of U.S. Catholic (Vol. 73, No. 12, page 41).
Image: Flickr cc via Alan Creech


text:
The Five Horizons Concert Chronology
updated: August 3, 2005
Copyright © 1996-2004 Jean Bruns, All Rights Reserved
copyright registered & received from the U.S. Copyright Office 1997
origin | navigation | updates | help | can't seem to place it | bootlegs | trading | sellers
Update: Although the CC content remains in place as an archive on Five Horizons, all updates, corrections and such will be found on TwoFeetThick at www.twofeetthick.com/cc . That is where to go if you are looking for shows after 2004.
The Concert Chronology is an ongoing study of Pearl Jam tours, performances and appearances with an interesting history of its own:
The starting point of this work was the text-based tourbook that Caleb maintained. The tourbook was a listing of show dates with descriptions gleaned from the now defunct fanzine, Release with updates from the online community. As Caleb became too busy with school to continue with the tourbook, he ceased updating it beyond the 1995 tour. This coincided with the conception of Five Horizons and with his blessing, the tourbook formed the starting point for the Five Horizons Concert Chronology. We listened to shows in our own tape libraries and kept notes, searched every media source (including the print 'zines Footsteps, Dissident and Tickle My Nausea), worked with the taping community and solicited firsthand reviews. The more we studied, the more discrepancies we discovered in early documentation. Additions and corrections to setlists, dates, venues and opening acts were put in place. Long show descriptions were edited down to more succinct "notes" to help people distinguish one show from another.
After nine months of research and fine-tuning, the Concert Chronology went live when Five Horizons surfaced in September 1996, just before the No Code tour launched. Thousands of corrections and additions have been submitted by fans and verified over the past five years. Some of the most interesting updates are lost shows that have been "found" from the early days. It is an ongoing, evolving research document.
Every effort was made to put setlists and notes online very quickly after a show has ended. This meant lining up volunteers in advance to write down setlists, being available to receive long distance phone calls at ridiculous hours, skipping after-show gatherings to put updates online and similar sacrifices that were made freely because this is a labour of love.
Brief comments about each show are included with occasional links to more detailed reviews, often including photos. The Concert Chronology also includes links to articles, unique ticket scans, tour posters and occasional soundbytes of interest. Poster and ticket stub scans can also be found in the Memorabilia section. Shows and appearances tagged with this icon: mean that it was videotaped and is circulating among the trading community.
5h does not buy, collect or possess information about bootleg CDs and feel they are quite unreliable for a number of reasons. See Why Bootlegs Suck for more info on this. Therefore, questions about boot CDs will not be answered. 5h does support trading tapes of shows. Additionally, PJ does allow for audience taping. If you want to learn more, you might be interested in Advice for Aspiring Tapers.
Every show from the 2000 and 2003 tours was professionally recorded by the band and can be purchased. These are the "official bootlegs" which 5h enthusiastically endorses!
The fact that a show is listed here does not necessarily mean that 5h possesses it. Please do not write to ask for copies of these shows. To learn more about trading, visit the 5h Guide to Tape Trading. There are many resources for trading available, particularly for online fans. 5h encourages everyone to trade and share show tapes. To learn if a particular show was taped, check the excellent Hard To Imagine. Have fun sharing.
sellers beware!
NOTE TO ONLINE AUCTION SELLERS: If you excerpt, quote, or otherwise reference Five Horizons in your online auction of live tapes or CDs, your auction will disappear. It's a copyright violation. You do not have permission to use 5h content to sell your items. You have been warned.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
The Union of Concerned Scientists today issues a response to some of the recent criticisms about the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. (We also recently posted a set of pro and con columns on the expansion of nuclear power in conjunction with the UPC.) Rather than paraphrase the report, we've posted it in full below. Please add your comments below and if you'd like to reply in a more full manner, please contact us.
Attacks on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Obscure Real Science
Over the last few months, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has been attacked for minor errors in its sprawling 2007 report on climate change. To set the record straight and provide appropriate scientific context, the Union of Concerned Scientists has assembled a series of explanatory backgrounders on specific allegations about the report.
Overall, the IPCC's conclusions remain indisputable: Climate change is happening now and human activity is causing it. Nations around the world will have to adapt to at least some climate change, including sea level rise, changes in precipitation, disruptions to agriculture, and species extinctions. But if we dramatically reduce our emissions, we can prevent the worst effects of climate change.
- What is the IPCC?
- Himalayan glaciers won't be gone by 2035, but glaciers around the world are retreating
- The IPCC got the science right about drought and fire threats to Amazon, but got its citations wrong
- More extreme weather from climate change will cause expensive damage
- Chinese temperature records are reliable and consistent with global warming
The IPCC is the world's leading body for assessing climate science. It was established in 1988 by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and the U.N. Environment Programme (UNEP) in recognition of the problem of global warming. Through the IPCC, climate experts from around the world synthesize the most recent climate science findings every five to seven years and present their report to the world's political leaders. Thus far, the IPCC has issued comprehensive assessments in 1990, 1995, 2001 and 2007.
The IPCC's 2007 report is the most comprehensive synthesis of climate change science to date. Experts from more than 130 countries working over six years contributed to the assessment. More than 450 lead authors received input from more than 800 contributing authors, and an additional 2,500 experts reviewed the draft documents.
The 2007 report is comprised of three sections, or working groups, that focus on the scientific basis of global warming (Working Group I), its consequences (Working Group II), and options for mitigation (Working Group III). The IPCC released summaries of the three working group documents over the course of 2007, culminating in the publication of the final "synthesis report" at the end of the year.
The inclusive and transparent process by which IPCC assessments are developed, reviewed and accepted by experts and governments helps ensure scientific credibility and value for informing officials when they formulate climate policies. As with any human endeavor, errors are possible. It is a testament to the quality of the IPCC that errors have been few, and when identified, they have been corrected. A concerted effort to improve the quality of the IPCC process is essential.
Himalayan glaciers won't be gone by 2035, but glaciers around the world are retreating
The second of three 2007 IPCC reports included a statement that the likelihood that Himalayan glaciers will disappear "by the year 2035 and perhaps sooner is very high." It is not clear how this unsupported assertion made it into the report, although it was openly challenged by some researchers during the review and editing process. On January 20, the IPCC released a statement (pdf) on this issue. It says, in part, "The Chair, Vice-Chairs, and Co-chairs of the IPCC regret the poor application of well-established IPCC procedures in this instance."
The claim was part of the full review of climate science and impacts provided in the dense, 3,000-page report, but was not mentioned in its highly visible summaries for policymakers. Presumably the working group did not consider the 2035 Himalayan glaciers claim to be reliable enough for its policymaker summary. The statement in the summary was much less specific. "If current warming rates are maintained," it stated, "Himalayan glaciers could decay at very rapid rates."
Given the sprawling nature of the IPCC, it is not surprising to find relatively minor errors. Such mistakes do not undermine the overall conclusions of the organization's reports, which are subject to an exhaustive review process.
What should not get lost is the fact that glaciers around the world are melting rapidly.
A 2005 global survey of 442 glaciers from the World Glacier Monitoring Service found that only 26 were advancing, 18 were stationary, and 398 were retreating. Overall, about 90 percent of the world's glaciers that scientists have measured are shrinking as the planet warms.
Because scientific understanding of how fast snow and ice is responding to global warming is still developing, the IPCC largely left the effect of melting glaciers and ice sheets out of its sea-level rise projections in 2007 and primarily considered the effects that thermal expansion has on the ocean.
New analyses indicate that the shrinking land-based ice could lead to a sea-level rise of 2.6 feet (0.8 meter) by the end of the century; and, although 6.6 feet (2.0 meters) is less likely, it is still physically possible.
Melting glaciers and the resulting sea-level rise are a threat to coastal communities around the world. According to the U.S. Global Change Research Program's 2009 review of climate impacts in the United States, "Sea-level rise and storm surge place many U.S. coastal areas at increasing risk of erosion and flooding, especially along the Atlantic and Gulf Coasts, Pacific Islands, and parts of Alaska. Energy and transportation infrastructure and other property in coastal areas are very likely to be adversely affected."
Melting glaciers also will threaten drinking water supplies. An August 2008 Geophysical Research Letters study that examined the impact of the melting Himalayan Naimona'nyi glacier concluded, "If Naimona'nyi is characteristic of other glaciers in the region, alpine glacier meltwater surpluses are likely to shrink much faster than currently predicted with substantial consequences for approximately half a billion people."
The IPCC got the science right about drought and fire threats to Amazon, but got its citations wrong
A sentence in Chapter 13 of the 2007 IPCC Fourth Assessment Report on Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability states: "Up to 40 percent of the Amazonian forests could react drastically to even a slight reduction in precipitation; this means that the tropical vegetation, hydrology and climate system in South America could change very rapidly to another steady state, not necessarily producing gradual changes between the current and the future situation."
In other words, climate change makes drought in the Amazon basin more likely. In drought years, trees are more likely to die and forests become more susceptible to fires. In wet years, fires often stop at the forests' edge because the forest soil is so moist.
The passage cites a report from the World Wildlife Federation (WWF) and the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), an organization that includes more than 1,000 government and NGO member organizations, and nearly 11,000 volunteer scientists in more than 160 countries. (News stories have inaccurately described the report as a sole product of WWF.)
It would have been preferable for the IPCC to have cited the original scientific peer-reviewed literature rather than the WWF-IUCN report. Further, the WWF-IUCN report was scientifically correct, but it did not cite the correct papers by Dan Nepstad, a senior scientist at the Woods Hole Research Center on Cape Cod, and his colleagues.
John Cook, the editor of SkepticalScience.com, summarized the citation error in the WWF-IUCU report:
"The WWF correctly states that 630,000 km2 of forests were severely drought stressed in 1998 -- this figure comes from Nepstad et al. 1999. However, the 40 percent figure comes from several other papers by the same author that the WWF failed to cite. A 1994 paper estimated that around half of the Amazonian forests lost large portions of their available soil moisture during drought (Nepstad et al. 1994). In 2004, new rainfall data showed that half of the forest area of the Amazon Basin had either fallen below, or was very close to, the critical level of soil moisture below which trees begin to die (Nepstad et al. 2004). The results from these papers are consistent with the original statement: 'Up to 40 percent of the Brazilian forest is extremely sensitive to small reductions in the amount of rainfall.'"
It is also worth nothing that Nepstad and other researchers further confirmed the link between drought and fire in papers published after the IPCC's deadline for research that could be included in this section of its 2007 report.
Cook continues:
"Subsequent research has provided additional confirmation of the Amazonian forest's vulnerability to drought. Field measurements of the soil moisture critical threshold found that tree mortality rates increase dramatically during drought (Nepstad et al. 2007). Another study measured the effect of the intense 2005 drought on Amazonian biomass (Phillips et al. 2009). The drought caused massive tree mortality leading to a fall in biomass. This turned the region from a large carbon sink to a carbon producer. The paper concluded that 'such events appear capable of strongly altering the regional carbon balance and thereby accelerating climate change.'"
While the IPCC should have cited the original peer-reviewed literature, not a summary of that literature by WWF and IUCN, the basic science was sound. And regardless of how the IPCC cited the references, tropical forests are increasingly vulnerable to drought and fire because of climate change as well as from forest degradation from destructive logging practices.
More extreme weather from climate change will cause expensive damage
There is a clear scientific consensus -- based on the conclusions of many peer-reviewed papers -- that climate change is causing an increase in storms with heavy precipitation. This is due in part because warmer air retains more moisture, setting the stage for heavier rain and snow storms in areas that typically experience rain or snow. Between 1958 and 2007, New England saw a 67 percent increase in heavy precipitation events and the Midwest experienced a 31 percent increase, according to the 2009 federal report "Global Climate Change Impacts in the United States." The report documented a 20 percent average increase for the entire country.
The 2007 IPCC report also was clear about how climate change would affect hurricanes. It concluded that hurricane intensity worldwide likely would increase, and that there could be fewer weak hurricanes. The report included numerous references to peer-reviewed studies that draw this conclusion, which was confirmed by studies conducted by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and other institutions.
The science linking climate change to increased severity of extreme weather is well-substantiated in peer-reviewed literature. Even so, some contrarians have recently cited another, older controversy to try to give the false impression that these findings are in question. That controversy centers on how the 2007 report characterized the economic cost of an increase in severe weather. Contrarians specifically point to a complaint by Roger Pielke Jr., a University of Colorado environmental studies professor, that the 2007 report misrepresented the reasons why economic losses from natural disasters have significantly increased over the years. Pielke says that the primary drivers for increased costs are economic factors, such as changes in wealth and population along the coasts.
The IPCC report did not dispute that fact, and it prominently cited Pielke's research. It also cited one study that suggested that factors other than economic ones may be driving costs, but included a number of caveats in that citation. This is in keeping with the IPCC's task of presenting a balanced view of the literature. Specifically, the report concluded in its "Summary for Policy Makers" section: "Costs and benefits of climate change for industry, settlement [cities and towns] and society will vary widely by location and scale. In the aggregate, however, net effects will tend to be more negative the larger the change in climate." And it found: "Where extreme weather events become more intense and/or more frequent, the economic and social costs of those events will increase, and these increases will be substantial in the areas most directly affected."
Pielke specifically objected to the IPCC including unpublished material on economic costs of natural disasters in its 2007 report. This practice, however, is not unusual for the IPCC. IPCC procedures state that "…it is increasingly apparent that materials relevant to IPCC reports, in particular, information about the experience and practice of the private sector in mitigation and adaptation activities, are found in sources that have not been published or peer-reviewed (e.g., industry journals, internal organizational publications, non-peer reviewed reports or working papers of research institutions, proceedings of workshops, etc)." The IPCC provides guidelines for the inclusion of such research, including clear citation. In any case, more published research is needed on the economic costs of climate change.
Chinese temperature records are reliable and consistent with global warming
Climate contrarians are falsely claiming Eastern Chinese temperature data first published in a 1990 Nature paper is compromised by the "urban heat island" effect. The term refers to the fact that buildings and asphalt are darker than surrounding countryside, often making cities and population centers hotter. Scientists have studied this effect since the mid-1800s and it is extensively referenced in the scientific literature. Overall, climate science indicates that the urban heat island effects has no bearing on global temperature trends and is insignificant compared to other adjustments routinely made to make temperate records more accurate,
When scientists measure global warming, they examine how much temperatures have changed over time. For instance, an urban station may have warmer thermometer readings compared with a rural station in the region, but global warming will cause temperatures to rise at both stations. To determine trends, scientists compare the difference between the temperatures at stations today and their average temperatures in the past.
Scientists worldwide, including those at leading American institutions, routinely correct station data for changes such as shifts in station location, different elevation, different time of daily observation, different latitudes, and instrument changes over time. For example, after such adjustments for stations across the United States, there was no detectable difference between urban and rural stations comparisons in each region.
Climate contrarians are using the Eastern Chinese temperature data to try to link manufactured controversies over citations in the IPCC's 2007 report and the content of stolen emails from the University of East Anglia's (UEA) Climatic Research Unit that were published online late last November. UEA has issued a statement rebutting these claims and addressing some freedom of information concerns raised by a recent story in the Guardian, a British newspaper. According to UCS, UEA could do more to be transparent, particularly by making relevant documents related to these and other charges easily accessible online.
The 2007 IPCC report does cite papers on the Eastern Chinese data -- along with thousands of other papers. And some of the stolen emails included passages that mentioned the Chinese data. But just like the previous manufactured controversies, these accusations shed little light on the science in question.
In fact, the Eastern China temperature data referenced in the Guardian article and other news stories are reliable and are only a minuscule part of the global temperature record data that indicate that the Earth's average temperatures are rising. It should be noted the "urban heat island" effect does not in any way affect the vast number of temperature records measured outside of cities or in the ocean.
Eastern China is warming in a way consistent with the rise in global average temperatures. The 1990 Nature paper in question was backed up by several other studies, as the University of East Anglia noted.
When University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit Director Phil Jones and other researchers conducted their 1990 research, they found little difference in temperature between 42 urban stations and 42 suburban temperature stations in Eastern China. A 2008 study by Jones and other researchers, which examined 728 temperatures stations in Eastern China, confirmed that there was an insignificant difference between temperatures in urban and suburban areas. However, by comparing the difference between all the Eastern China land stations to the nearby ocean temperatures, the 2008 paper did find significant warming from increased urbanization on the land -- 0.1 degrees Celsius per decade between 1951 and 2004. Overall, the study found Eastern China warmed 0.8 degrees Celsius over the same time period largely due to global warming.Chinese temperature records are reliable and consistent with global warming


text:
Yusuf Amir
Yusuf Amir | |
Appearances |
GTA IV The Ballad of Gay Tony |
Full Name | Yusuf Amir |
Gender | Gender::Male |
Date of Birth | 1977 |
Place of Birth | Dubai, United Arab Emirates |
Age Now | 47 |
Nationality | Emirati |
Home | Algonquin, Liberty City |
Family | Abdul Amir (Father) |
Main Affiliations |
Luis Fernando Lopez Anthony Prince Tahir Saeed (formerly) Ahmed Khalil (formerly) Playboy X Leslie Mitchell Jonelle |
Vehicles |
Golden Super Drop Diamonds Golden Buzzard Swift Skylift APC Train Car Lycan with flame paintjob White and Black Maverick Black Infernus |
Businesses |
Real estate Nightclub Owner Billionare Playboy |
Voiced by | Omid Djalili |
Yusuf Amir (Arabic: يوسف امير) is a character mentioned in Grand Theft Auto IV and first appears in The Ballad of Gay Tony. He is voiced by British-Iranian comedian Omid Djalili.
Background and Personality
Yusuf Amir was born in 1977 (making him 31 in the game) in Dubai, UAE to Abdul Amir, an extremely wealthy real estate developer. Throughout his life he seeks to impress his father, a highly conservative businessman who frowns upon Yusuf's life as "a reckless orgy of sex, drugs and spending". He was likely born wealthy, as he claims to have had a golden train set as a child.
In 2008, during Grand Theft Auto IV, he moved from Dubai to Liberty City to further develop luxury properties. His first project's construction site was locked down by Messina Family construction unions, until Playboy X hired Niko Bellic to kill them all hoping to gain favor with Yusuf. He would not meet with Playboy, instead temporarily shutting down the site and building a memorial for the workers.
In The Ballad of Gay Tony, Yusuf finally becomes a major supporting character. He wants to franchise Gay Tony's nightclub Maisonette 9, and hires Prince's bodyguard Luis Lopez as a mercenary. He takes a very fast shining to Luis in particular, seeking to impress him with his possessions and sometimes white lies (for example, in High Dive he claims that 1 week ago he was exhausted from test driving "sexy cars" and for 2 weeks, flew to Vice City with prostitutes). After only meeting Luis twice in Sexy Time, he is quick to say that they are like "brothers". Towards the end of the game, he gives Luis his gold-plated Super Drop Diamond and brings his machine gun helicopter to aid Luis in a large gunfight, very rare and profound of his otherwise selfish nature.
Yusuf is used as a plot device to symbolize extreme wealth, materialism and the temptation for Tony and Luis to sell out their beliefs (especially towards the ending). Unlike Ray Bulgarin, whose character shares some of these themes, Yusuf is a good guy in that he is clearly out to help Tony and Luis, as well as a more lighthearted comic relief almost like Roman Bellic.
Yusuf is somewhat well-known for his lavish, excessive real estate developments. Despite being an ideal candidate for I'm Rich, he does not seem to be famous outside circles of architecture or real estate buffs. His developments include:
- Persian Gulf: "Hanging Gardens of Amir", an apartment complex suspended by hot air balloons.
- Dubai, UAE: Yusuf "made headlines around the world" when he built the world's tallest building in 2005, only to tear it down the following day just to prove he could. The real world's tallest building, Burj Dubai, cost between $1.5 and $4 billion.
- Qatar, Persian Gulf: An 11-star underwater hotel and casino. It is meant to be Liberty City-themed, in the shape of a tiger, and contain a genuine Liberty City subway train to give tours of a delicate coral reef. It is mainly a parody of Hydropolis, a planned $500 million underwater resort near Dubai that was unfortunately cancelled. It may have also been inspired by Posiedon in Fiji or Jules' in Florida.
- Outer Space: He is seriously considering several zero-gravity developments in space, much like the real-life Galactic Suite project. He also says he wants a Maisonette 9 on the moon, if allowed to franchise the clubs.
- Liberty City, USA: Yusuf plans to build sixty luxury condo towers in Algonquin. He also discusses building a zoo alongside Luis with "sabre-toothed dodos and shit, women in gold cages, you name it!".
- Castle Gardens, Liberty City, USA: Yusuf's first project in the US, called the "Imperial Amir Towers". It will feature mostly solid gold and jewel-encrusted features, a floor-to-ceiling aquarium in the lobby, a dolphin pool with glory holes, and a Roman-style vomitorium (a common feature in stadiums that isn't directly associated with vomiting). Their services will include 24-hour plastic surgeons, dwarf bellhops, all furniture thrown out and replaced daily (including "chaise lounges with seal skin coverings moisteurized daily by the moistness of Icelandic virgins"). Air is imported from the Himilayas. It is meant to be taller than Rotterdam Tower. It was quickly surrounded by controversy, after local groups criticized that it will "ruin the skyline of Castle Gardens"[1] and it became the site of a union strike massacre.
Yusuf's own residence is an ultra-luxury two story penthouse in Middle Park East, filled with his collection of gold-plated items (a cell phone, an Uzi and a scale model of Liberty City, among others), arcade machines and a big screen television (showing the end credits of GTA IV), and a unique flame painted Lycan (inaccessible to the player). He refers to a billion dollars as "chump change" when talking to a real estate businessman, also telling Luis in Caught with your Pants Down "If only [my father] gave me a few billion I could really call my own, then maybe I would grow up". In a conversation with his father during High Dive, he refers to $10 million as "maybe a little bit too much to spend in a month, but it was necessary!".
- Leslie Mitchell, a Weazel News reporter, claims Yusuf Amir is a personal friend of hers, and as a result, does not restraint herself in defending Yusuf's construction project in Castle Gardens, calling groups who are not in favor of Yusuf's project as "leftist loonies" who are arresting property development in the city.[1]
- Yusuf enjoys using gangster lingo, including "nigga" to Luis' irritation. Despite Luis' request to stop using this particular term, Yusuf continues to use it in his vocabulary.
- Yusuf likes the song "Arab Money," and is seen in cutscenes playing the song and dancing to it. He also sings the song in the end cutscene of For the Man Who Has Everything.
- Yusuf is an experienced helicopter pilot, as seen in Departure Time.
- In his pre-release trailer, during scenes from the mission Departure Time, he's seen flying in a black Buzzard. In the final version of the game he flies a Gold version.
- He is a user of cocaine as it is seen in cutscenes from the missions Sexy Time and Caught with your Pants Down.
- In a photo attached to a newspaper article about Yusuf, he is pictured beside a black Infernus with a black Maverick helicopter in the background. This picture is taken outside a house in Northern Alderney suggesting either that he also owns this house in addition to his penthouse apartment or that Rockstar had originally planned to have him live there.
- In one of Yusuf's cut scenes, on his TV, you can see either Grand Theft Auto IV end credits or "The History of Liberty" end credits.
- In GTA IV Playboy X describes him as a serious and overworked man, but in TBOGT he is relaxed and free.
- His name is an Arabic name spelled slightly different, Yūsuf. His name translates to Joseph in English.
- His surname is a variation of Emir, which is the English spelling of a middle-eastern term for "prince" or "commander".
Mission appearances
- The Ballad of Gay Tony
- Chinese Takeout
- Sexy Time (boss)
- High Dive (boss)
- Caught with your Pants Down (boss)
- For the Man Who Has Everything (boss)
- Not So Fast (voice only)
- In the Crosshairs (can be called afterwards)
- Departure Time
- Credits
- ↑ 1.0 1.1 "A-mir $5 Million for a Penthouse View of Hell" by Leslie Mitchell, Weazel News (www.weazelnews.com) (In game website.)
External link


text:
Participating Organization(s) |
National Institutes of Health (NIH) |
National Institute on Aging (NIA) |
Funding Opportunity Title |
Revision Requests for Active Alzheimer's Disease Core Centers (P30) |
Activity Code |
Center Core Grants |
Announcement Type |
New |
Related Notices |
Funding Opportunity Announcement (FOA) Number |
Companion Funding Opportunity |
None |
Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) Number(s) |
93.866 |
Funding Opportunity Purpose |
The National Institute on Aging invites revision applications (formerly called competing supplements) to ongoing NIA-supported Alzheimer's Disease Core Centers (P30) in order to expand the scope of the existing award. Revision applications may propose a new core or changes to an existing core. Revision applications may not request support beyond the end date of the Parent P30 award. |
Posted Date |
August 30, 2013 |
Open Date (Earliest Submission Date) |
December 26, 2013 |
Letter of Intent Due Date(s) |
Not Applicable |
Application Due Date(s) |
Standard dates apply, by 5:00 PM local time of applicant organization. Applicants are encouraged to apply early to allow adequate time to make any corrections to errors found in the application during the submission process by the due date. |
AIDS Application Due Date(s) |
Not Applicable |
Scientific Merit Review |
Standard dates apply |
Advisory Council Review |
Standard dates apply |
Earliest Start Date |
Standard dates apply |
Expiration Date |
New Date October 19, 2016 per issuance of PAR-17-019. (Original Expiration Date: January 08, 2017) |
Due Dates for E.O. 12372 |
Not Applicable |
NIH's new Application Submission System & Interface for Submission Tracking (ASSIST) is available for the electronic preparation and submission of multi-project applications through Grants.gov to NIH. Applications to this FOA must be submitted electronically; paper applications will not be accepted. ASSIST replaces the Grants.gov downloadable forms currently used with most NIH opportunities and provides many features to enable electronic multi-project application submission and improve data quality, including: pre-population of organization and PD/PI data, pre-submission validation of many agency business rules and the generation of data summaries in the application image used for review.
Required Application Instructions
It is critical that applicants follow the instructions in the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide, except where instructed to do otherwise (in this FOA or in a Notice from the NIH Guide for Grants and Contracts) and where instructions in the Application Guide are directly related to the Grants.gov downloadable forms currently used with most NIH opportunities. Conformance to all requirements (both in the Application Guide and the FOA) is required and strictly enforced. Applicants must read and follow all application instructions in the Application Guide as well as any program-specific instructions noted in Section IV. When the program-specific instructions deviate from those in the Application Guide, follow the program-specific instructions. Applications that do not comply with these instructions may be delayed or not accepted for review.
Part 1. Overview Information
Part 2. Full Text of the Announcement
Section I. Funding Opportunity Description
Section II. Award Information
Section III. Eligibility Information
Section IV. Application and Submission
Section V. Application Review Information
Section VI. Award Administration Information
Section VII. Agency Contacts
Section VIII. Other Information
The National Institute on Aging (NIA) invites current NIA Alzheimer's Disease Center awardees to submit revision applications to expand the scope of the current award. The proposed topic must both be related to the current focus of the Center and be relevant to the mission of the Center Program and the National Institute on Aging. The revision may propose to create a new or modified core. Revision applications should be submitted as appropriate to the science being proposed. So, for example, if two different ideas are being considered then they should be submitted as two different revisions. On the other hand, if a single concept spans several cores, then that concept should be submitted as a single revision. A new core or core modification would augment or enhance the present capabilities of investigators using center resources to make possible new activities at the center itself as well as for other grants affiliated with the center. There should be a detailed discussion of the project(s) that will use resources of an additional core. Some examples of research support that core components could provide are: (1) development of tools and/or technologies used for therapy development; (2) imaging; (3) tissue and/or cell culture facilities; (4) complex instrumentation, e.g., electron microscopy, mass spectrometry, electrophysiology; (5) sequencing or microarray facilities; (6) transgenic animal or cell preparation; (7) genetics; and (8) caregiving.
A revision application may be submitted only after the Parent P30 has been funded.
Funding Instrument |
Grant: A support mechanism providing money, property, or both to an eligible entity to carry out an approved project or activity. |
Application Types Allowed |
Revisions The OER Glossary and the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide provide details on these application types. |
Funds Available and Anticipated Number of Awards |
The number of awards is contingent upon NIH appropriations and the submission of a sufficient number of meritorious applications. |
Award Budget |
Application budgets are not limited, but need to reflect the actual needs of the proposed core. |
Award Project Period |
The maximum period of support is limited by the time remaining on the Parent award and may be no more than five years. |
NIH grants policies as described in the NIH Grants Policy Statement will apply to the applications submitted and awards made in response to this FOA.
Only currently active Alzheimer's Centers with at least a year remaining on the active award are eligible to apply.
Non-domestic (non-U.S.) Entities (Foreign Institutions) are
not eligible to apply.
Non-domestic (non-U.S.) components of U.S. Organizations are not eligible
to apply.
Foreign components, as defined in the NIH Grants Policy Statement, are not allowed.
Applicant Organizations
Applicant organizations must complete and maintain the following registrations as described in the SF 424 (R&R) Application Guide to be eligible to apply for or receive an award. All registrations must be completed prior to the application being submitted. Registration can take 6 weeks or more, so applicants should begin the registration process as soon as possible. The NIH Policy on Late Submission of Grant Applications states that failure to complete registrations in advance of a due date is not a valid reason for a late submission.
Program Directors/Principal Investigators (PD(s)/PI(s))
All PD(s)/PI(s) must have an eRA Commons account and should work with their organizational officials to either create a new account or to affiliate an existing account with the applicant organization's eRA Commons account. If the PD/PI is also the organizational Signing Official, they must have two distinct eRA Commons accounts, one for each role. Obtaining an eRA Commons account can take up to 2 weeks.
This FOA is limited to PDs/PIs of currently funded NIA Alzheimer's Disease Research Centers.
Multiple PD(s)/PI(s) are not allowed on NIA Alzheimer's Disease Core Center grants (P30).
This FOA does not require cost sharing as defined in the NIH Grants Policy Statement.
Applicant organizations may submit more than one application, provided that each application is scientifically distinct.
NIH will not accept any application that is essentially the same as one already reviewed within the past thirty-seven months (as described in the NIH Grants Policy Statement), except for submission:
Applicants can access the SF424 (R&R) application package associated with this funding opportunity using the Apply for Grant Electronically button in this FOA or following the directions provided at Grants.gov.
Most applicants will use NIH's ASSIST system to prepare and submit applications through Grants.gov to NIH. Applications prepared and submitted using applicant systems capable of submitting electronic multi-project applications to Grants.gov will also be accepted.
It is critical that applicants follow the instructions in the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide, except where instructed in this funding opportunity announcement to do otherwise and where instructions in the Application Guide are directly related to the Grants.gov downloadable forms currently used with most NIH opportunities. Conformance to the requirements in the Application Guide is required and strictly enforced. Applications that are out of compliance with these instructions may be delayed or not accepted for review.
For information on Application Submission and Receipt, visit Frequently Asked Questions Application Guide, Electronic Submission of Grant Applications.
Component Types Available in ASSIST |
Research Strategy/Program Plan Page Limits |
Overall |
6 |
Core |
6 |
Additional page limits described in the SF424 Application Guide and the Table of Page Limits must be followed.
The following section supplements the instructions found in the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide, and should be used for preparing a multi-component application.
The application should consist of the following components:
When preparing your application in ASSIST, use Component Type Overall .
All instructions in the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide must be followed, with the following additional instructions, as noted.
SF424 (R&R) Cover (Overall)
Complete entire form.
PHS 398 Cover Page Supplement (Overall)
Note: Human Embryonic Stem Cell lines from other components should be repeated in cell line table in Overall component.
Research & Related Other Project Information (Overall)
Follow standard instructions.
Project/Performance Site Location(s) (Overall)
Enter primary site only.
A summary of Project/Performance Sites in the Overall section of the assembled application image in eRA Commons compiled from data collected in the other components will be generated upon submission.
Research & Related Senior/Key Person Profile (Overall)
Include only the Project Director/Principal Investigator (PD/PI) and any multi-PDs/PIs (if applicable to this FOA) for the entire application.
A summary of Senior/Key Persons followed by their Biographical Sketches in the Overall section of the assembled application image in eRA Commons will be generated upon submission.
Budget (Overall)
The only budget information included in the Overall component is the Estimated Project Funding section of the SF424 (R&R) Cover.
A budget summary in the Overall section of the assembled application image in eRA Commons compiled from detailed budget data collected in the other components will be generated upon submission.
PHS 398 Research Plan (Overall)
Introduction to Application: For Resubmission and Revision applications, an Introduction to Application is required in the Overall component.
Note that a single Introduction to the entire application is allowed whether or not the revision application is requesting multiple new cores or a single core.
Note on Resubmissions: Follow PHS SF424(R&R) instructions to mark changes in the text from the prior version. If the structure of cores has changed identify the cores consecutively (using letters) according to how they are arranged in the current application. Show the correspondence to the prior structure.
Resubmitted Revisions: Introduction: Provide an overview of major changes in the application. If cores have been deleted or added indicate that here and explain the changes under Significance (below).
All Applications: Introduction: The Introduction should provide an overview of how the revision relates to the funded award. Identify whether a new core(s) or core modification(s) is being proposed and how the proposed change would augment the funded award.
Specific Aims: Describe how the aims of the revision application extend the aims of the Center.
Research Strategy:
Significance: Focusing on the revision as a whole address (i) the importance of the problem or critical barrier to progress in the field that the proposed revision addresses, (ii) how the revision will improve scientific knowledge, technical capability, and/or clinical practice in one or more broad fields, (iii) how the outcomes of the Center will be enhanced by the proposed work on this revision.
Innovation: Considering the revision as a whole, show how the proposed research seeks to shift current research or clinical practice paradigms through use of novel concepts, approaches, methodologies, instrumentation, or interventions. Are these concepts, approaches, methodologies, instrumentation, or interventions novel to the research field or novel in a broad sense? Does the proposed work refine, or improve, or apply in a new way, the concepts, approaches, methodologies, instrumentation, or interventions proposed in the parent grant?
Approach: Describe progress on the funded award that is relevant to the aims of the revision and any overall change in approach or new approach proposed in the revision application. Show how the approaches of proposed cores complement each other and the parent grant. Describe the mechanisms that will ensure the coherence of the overall Center and maintain a multidisciplinary focus.
Resource Sharing Plan: Individuals are required to comply with the instructions for the Resource Sharing Plans (Data Sharing Plan, Sharing Model Organisms, and Genome Wide Association Studies (GWAS)) as provided in the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide.
Appendix: Do not use the Appendix to circumvent page limits. Follow all instructions for the Appendix as described in the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide.
When preparing your application in ASSIST, use Component Type Core.
All instructions in the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide must be followed, with the following additional instructions, as noted.
SF424 (R&R) Cover (Cores)
Complete only the following fields:
PHS 398 Cover Page Supplement (Cores)
Enter Human Embryonic Stem Cells in each relevant component.
Research & Related Other Project Information (Cores)
Human Subjects: Answer only the Are Human Subjects Involved? and 'Is the Project Exempt from Federal regulations? questions.
Vertebrate Animals: Answer only the Are Vertebrate Animals Used? question.
Project Narrative: Do not complete.
Project /Performance Site Location(s) (Cores)
List all performance sites that apply to the specific component.
Note: The Project Performance Site form allows up to 300 sites, prior to using additional attachment for additional entries.
Research & Related Senior/Key Person Profile (Cores)
Budget (Cores)
Budget forms appropriate for the specific component will be included in the application package.
Note: The R&R Budget form included in many of the component types allows for up to 100 Senior/Key Persons in section A and 100 Equipment Items in section C prior to using attachments for additional entries. All other SF424 (R&R) instructions apply.
PHS 398 Research Plan (Cores)
Introduction to Application: For Resubmission and Revision applications, an Introduction to Application is allowed for each component.
The Introduction should be a summary response to the global concerns expressed about the core.
Specific Aims: Identify which other research project grants the core will assist and indicate the overall role of the core both in the revision and in the parent center.
Research Strategy: Organize the Research Strategy into sections on: Significance; and Approach
Note on Resubmitted revisions: All changes in the Specific Aims and in the Research Strategy must be clearly marked by bracketing, indenting, or changing type font, unless the changes are so extensive that they include most of the text. Deleted sections should be described but not marked as deletions. This exception should be explained in the overall Introduction. Changes should not be underlined or shaded and should meet the page limit.
Resource Sharing Plan: Individuals are required to comply with the instructions for the Resource Sharing Plans (Data Sharing Plan, Sharing Model Organisms, and Genome Wide Association Studies (GWAS)) as provided in the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide.
Appendix: Do not use the Appendix to circumvent page limits. Follow all instructions for the Appendix as described in the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide.
Planned Enrollment Report (Cores)
When conducting clinical research, follow all instructions for completing Planned Enrollment Reports as described in the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide.
PHS 398 Cumulative Inclusion Enrollment Report (Cores)
When conducting clinical research, follow all instructions for completing Cumulative Inclusion Enrollment Report as described in the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide.
Part I. Overview Information contains information about Key Dates. Applicants are encouraged to submit applications before the due date to ensure they have time to make any application corrections that might be necessary for successful submission.
Organizations must submit applications to Grants.gov (the online portal to find and apply for grants across all Federal agencies) using ASSIST or other electronic submission systems. Applicants must then complete the submission process by tracking the status of the application in the eRA Commons, NIH's electronic system for grants administration.
Applicants are responsible for viewing their application before the due date in the eRA Commons to ensure accurate and successful submission.
Information on the submission process and a definition of on-time submission are provided in the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide.
This initiative is not subject to intergovernmental review.
All NIH awards are subject to the terms and conditions, cost principles, and other considerations described in the NIH Grants Policy Statement.
Pre-award costs are allowable only as described in the NIH Grants Policy Statement.
Applications must be submitted electronically following the instructions described in the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide. Paper applications will not be accepted.
For information on how your application will be automatically assembled for review and funding consideration after submission go to: https://grants.nih.gov/grants/ElectronicReceipt/files/Electronic_Multi-project_Application_Image_Assembly.pdf.
Applicants must complete all required registrations before the application due date. Section III. Eligibility Information contains information about registration.
For assistance with your electronic application or for more information on the electronic submission process, visit Applying Electronically.
All PD(s)/PI(s) and component Project Leads must include their
eRA Commons ID in the Credential field of the Senior/Key Person Profile
Component of the SF424(R&R) Application Package. Failure to register
in the Commons and to include a valid PD/PI Commons ID in the credential field
will prevent the successful submission of an electronic application to NIH.
The applicant organization must ensure that the DUNS number it provides on the
application is the same number used in the organization's profile in the eRA
Commons and for the System for Award Management (SAM). Additional information
may be found in the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide.
See more
tips for avoiding common errors.
Upon receipt, applications will be evaluated for completeness by the Center for Scientific Review, NIH. Applications that are incomplete will not be reviewed.
Applicants requesting $500,000 or more in direct costs in any year (excluding consortium F&A) must contact NIH program staff at least 6 weeks before submitting the application and follow the Policy on the Acceptance for Review of Unsolicited Applications that Request $500,000 or More in Direct Costs as described in the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide.
Applicants are required to follow the instructions for post-submission materials, as described in NOT-OD-13-030.
Important Update: See NOT-OD-16-006 for updated review language for applications for due dates on or after January 25, 2016.
Only the review criteria described below will be considered in the review process. As part of the NIH mission, all applications submitted to the NIH in support of biomedical and behavioral research are evaluated for scientific and technical merit through the NIH peer review system.
For this particular announcement, note the following: Reviewers will provide an overall impact rating to reflect their assessment of the likelihood for the revision considered as a whole to exert a sustained, powerful influence on the research field(s) involved, considering the following five core review criteria, and additional review criteria (as applicable for the core proposed).
They will give weight both to the merits of the individual cores and to the extent to which the revision advances the aims of the parent center grant. The criteria below will guide their assessment of the overall impact of the revision application as a whole. An application does not need to be strong in all categories to be judged likely to have major scientific impact. For example, a core that by its nature is not innovative may be essential to advance a field.
Cores: Overall Impact: Reviewers will provide an adjectival rating of high, moderate, or low enthusiasm. Central ("Core") Review Criteria: Reviewers will consider four of the five review criteria below in the determination of scientific and technical merit. As cores are generally resources to enable or to advance research, Innovation is not considered routinely as an independent review criterion for cores. Innovative cores may be valuable and that value will be assessed under Significance or Approach as appropriate
Reviewers will provide an overall impact score to reflect their assessment of the likelihood for the revision to exert a sustained, powerful influence on the research field(s) involved, in consideration of the following review criteria and additional review criteria (as applicable for the core proposed).
Reviewers will consider each of the review criteria below in the determination of scientific merit, and give a separate score for each. An application does not need to be strong in all categories to be judged likely to have major scientific impact. For example, a core that by its nature is not innovative may be essential to advance a field.
Does the revision address an important problem or a critical barrier to progress in the field? If the aims of the core are achieved, how will scientific knowledge, technical capability, and/or clinical practice be improved? How will successful completion of the aims change the concepts, methods, technologies, treatments, services, or preventative interventions that drive this field?
Are the PD(s)/PI(s), collaborators, and other researchers well suited to the work proposed? If Early Stage Investigators or New Investigators, or in the early stages of independent careers, do they have appropriate experience and training? If established, have they demonstrated an ongoing record of accomplishments that have advanced their field(s)? If the project is collaborative or multi-PD/PI, do the investigators have complementary and integrated expertise; are their leadership approach, governance and organizational structure appropriate for the project?
Does the application challenge and seek to shift current research or clinical practice paradigms by utilizing novel theoretical concepts, approaches or methodologies, instrumentation, or interventions? Are the concepts, approaches or methodologies, instrumentation, or interventions novel to one field of research or novel in a broad sense? Is a refinement, improvement, or new application of theoretical concepts, approaches or methodologies, instrumentation, or interventions proposed?
Are the overall strategy, methodology, and analyses
well-reasoned and appropriate to accomplish the specific aims of the revision?
Are potential problems, alternative strategies, and benchmarks for success presented?
If the project is in the early stages of development, will the strategy
establish feasibility and will particularly risky aspects be managed?
If the revision involves clinical research, are the plans for 1) protection of
human subjects from research risks, and 2) inclusion of minorities and members
of both sexes/genders, as well as the inclusion of children, justified in terms
of the scientific goals and research strategy proposed?
Will the scientific environment in which the work will be done contribute to the probability of success? Are the institutional support, equipment and other physical resources available to the investigators adequate for the project proposed? Will the project benefit from unique features of the scientific environment, subject populations, or collaborative arrangements?
As applicable for the core proposed, reviewers will evaluate the following additional items while determining scientific and technical merit, and in providing an overall impact score, but will not give separate scores for these items.
Protections for Human Subjects
For research that involves human subjects but does
not involve one of the six categories of research that are exempt under 45 CFR
Part 46, the committee will evaluate the justification for involvement of human
subjects and the proposed protections from research risk relating to their
participation according to the following five review criteria: 1) risk to
subjects, 2) adequacy of protection against risks, 3) potential benefits to the
subjects and others, 4) importance of the knowledge to be gained, and 5) data
and safety monitoring for clinical trials.
For research that involves human subjects and meets the criteria for one or
more of the six categories of research that are exempt under 45 CFR Part 46,
the committee will evaluate: 1) the justification for the exemption, 2) human
subjects involvement and characteristics, and 3) sources of materials. For
additional information on review of the Human Subjects section, please refer to
the Guidelines
for the Review of Human Subjects.
Inclusion of Women, Minorities, and Children
When the proposed core involves clinical research, the committee will evaluate the proposed plans for inclusion of minorities and members of both genders, as well as the inclusion of children. For additional information on review of the Inclusion section, please refer to the Guidelines for the Review of Inclusion in Clinical Research.
Vertebrate Animals
The committee will evaluate the involvement of live vertebrate animals as part of the scientific assessment according to the following five points: 1) proposed use of the animals, and species, strains, ages, sex, and numbers to be used; 2) justifications for the use of animals and for the appropriateness of the species and numbers proposed; 3) adequacy of veterinary care; 4) procedures for limiting discomfort, distress, pain and injury to that which is unavoidable in the conduct of scientifically sound research including the use of analgesic, anesthetic, and tranquilizing drugs and/or comfortable restraining devices; and 5) methods of euthanasia and reason for selection if not consistent with the AVMA Guidelines on Euthanasia. For additional information on review of the Vertebrate Animals section, please refer to the Worksheet for Review of the Vertebrate Animal Section.
Reviewers will assess whether materials or procedures proposed are potentially hazardous to research personnel and/or the environment, and if needed, determine whether adequate protection is proposed.
For Resubmissions, the committee will evaluate the application as now presented, taking into consideration the responses to comments from the previous scientific review group and changes made to the core.
Not Applicable
For Revisions, the committee will consider the appropriateness of the proposed expansion of the scope of the Center. If the Revision application relates to a specific line of investigation presented in the original application that was not recommended for approval by the committee, then the committee will consider whether the responses to comments from the previous scientific review group are adequate and whether substantial changes are clearly evident..
As applicable for the core proposed, reviewers will consider each of the following items, but will not give scores for these items, and should not consider them in providing an overall impact score.
Applications from Foreign Organizations
Not Applicable
Select Agent Research
Reviewers will assess the information provided in this section of the application, including 1) the Select Agent(s) to be used in the proposed research, 2) the registration status of all entities where Select Agent(s) will be used, 3) the procedures that will be used to monitor possession use and transfer of Select Agent(s), and 4) plans for appropriate biosafety, biocontainment, and security of the Select Agent(s).
Resource Sharing Plans
Reviewers will comment on whether the following Resource Sharing Plans, or the rationale for not sharing the following types of resources, are reasonable: 1) Data Sharing Plan; 2) Sharing Model Organisms; and 3) Genome Wide Association Studies (GWAS).
Budget and Period of Support
Reviewers will consider whether the budget and the requested period of support are fully justified and reasonable in relation to the proposed research.
Applications will be evaluated for scientific and technical merit by (an) appropriate Scientific Review Group(s)convened by the National Institute on Aging and (assignments will be shown in the eRA Commons), in accordance with NIH peer review policy and procedures, using the stated review criteria. Assignment to a Scientific Review Group will be shown in the eRA Commons.
As part of the scientific peer review, all applications will receive a written critique.
Applications will be assigned on the basis of established PHS referral guidelines to the appropriate NIH Institute or Center. Applications will compete for available funds with all other recommended applications submitted in response to this FOA. Following initial peer review, recommended applications will receive a second level of review by the National Advisory Council on Aging. The following will be considered in making funding decisions:
After the peer review of the application is completed, the PD/PI will be able to access his or her Summary Statement (written critique) via the eRA Commons.
Information regarding the disposition of applications is available in the NIH Grants Policy Statement.
If the application is under consideration for funding, NIH
will request "just-in-time" information from the applicant as
described in the NIH Grants
Policy Statement.
A formal notification in the form of a Notice of Award (NoA) will be provided
to the applicant organization for successful applications. The NoA signed by
the grants management officer is the authorizing document and will be sent via
email to the grantee's business official.
Awardees must comply with any funding restrictions described in Section IV.5. Funding Restrictions. Selection
of an application for award is not an authorization to begin performance. Any
costs incurred before receipt of the NoA are at the recipient's risk. These
costs may be reimbursed only to the extent considered allowable pre-award costs.
Any application awarded in response to this FOA will be subject to the DUNS, SAM
Registration, and Transparency Act requirements as noted on the Award
Conditions and Information for NIH Grants website.
All NIH grant and cooperative agreement awards include the NIH Grants Policy Statement as part of the NoA. For these terms of award, see the NIH Grants Policy Statement Part II: Terms and Conditions of NIH Grant Awards, Subpart A: General and Part II: Terms and Conditions of NIH Grant Awards, Subpart B: Terms and Conditions for Specific Types of Grants, Grantees, and Activities. More information is provided at Award Conditions and Information for NIH Grants.
Cooperative Agreement Terms and Conditions of Award
Not Applicable
When multiple years are involved, awardees will be required to submit the Non-Competing Continuation Grant Progress Report (PHS 2590 or RPPR) annually and financial statements as required in the NIH Grants Policy Statement.
A final progress report, invention statement, and the expenditure data portion of the Federal Financial Report are required for closeout of an award, as described in the NIH Grants Policy Statement.
The Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006 (Transparency Act), includes a requirement for awardees of Federal grants to report information about first-tier subawards and executive compensation under Federal assistance awards issued in FY2011 or later. All awardees of applicable NIH grants and cooperative agreements are required to report to the Federal Subaward Reporting System (FSRS) available at www.fsrs.gov on all subawards over $25,000. See the NIH Grants Policy Statement for additional information on this reporting requirement.
We encourage inquiries concerning this funding opportunity
and welcome the opportunity to answer questions from potential applicants.
eRA Service Desk (Questions regarding ASSIST, eRA Commons registration, submitting and tracking an application, documenting system
problems that threaten submission by the due date, post submission issues)
Telephone: 301-402-7469 or 866-504-9552 (Toll Free)
Web ticketing system: https://public.era.nih.gov/commonshelp
Email: firstname.lastname@example.com
Grants.gov Customer Support (Questions
regarding Grants.gov registration and submission, downloading forms and application
Contact Center Telephone: 800-518-4726
Email: email@example.com
GrantsInfo (Questions regarding application instructions and
process, finding NIH grant resources)
Telephone: 301-710-0267
Email: firstname.lastname@example.com
Nina Silverberg, PhD
National Institute on Aging
Telephone: 301-496-9350
Email: email@example.com
Ramesh Vemuri, Ph.D.
National Institute on Aging
Telephone: 301-402-7700
Email: email@example.com
Deborah Stauffer
National Institute on Aging
Telephone: 301-496-1472
Email: email@example.com
Recently issued trans-NIH policy notices may affect your application submission. A full list of policy notices published by NIH is provided in the NIH Guide for Grants and Contracts. All awards are subject to the terms and conditions, cost principles, and other considerations described in the NIH Grants Policy Statement.
Awards are made under the authorization of Sections 301 and 405 of the Public Health Service Act as amended (42 USC 241 and 284) and under Federal Regulations 42 CFR Part 52 and 45 CFR Parts 74 and 92.
Weekly TOC for this Announcement
NIH Funding Opportunities and Notices
| ||||||
Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) |
NIH... Turning Discovery Into Health® Note: For help accessing PDF, RTF, MS Word, Excel, PowerPoint, Audio or Video files, see Help Downloading Files. |


text:
(CNN) -- A much-awaited review of Haiti's disputed presidential election made public on Tuesday suggests the government-backed candidate should be eliminated from contention.
The review, completed by an Organization of American States monitoring team, has not yet been delivered to Haitian authorities and won't likely be in the hands of President Rene Preval until after Wednesday, the first anniversary of the devastating 2010 earthquake.
But the Washington-based Center for Economic and Policy Research posted a leaked copy of the report on its website, slamming it as a sham.
"This report can't salvage an election that was illegitimate, where nearly three-quarters of the electorate didn't vote, and where the vote count of the minority that did vote was severely compromised," said Mark Weisbrot, co-director of the center.
Colin Granderson, head of the OAS mission in Haiti, said he would not comment on the election report until the Haitian government has been informed.
"I am still going by the terms of reference which prevent me from speaking publicly about the report and its context," he said. "We don't have a fixed appointment as of yet. That is what we are awaiting at this moment."
The center said it analyzed 11,181 tally sheets from the November 28 vote and found the election seriously flawed. It said the OAS report cannot help determine the outcome of the first round of Haiti's election.
Haiti's Provisional Electoral Council released preliminary results in early December that gave former first lady Mirlande Manigat a win with 31.4% of the vote. Jude Celestin, Preval's handpicked successor, came in second with 22.3% while popular musician Michel Martelly was third with 21.8%.
The OAS review said in actuality, Martelly had won 22.2% of the vote to Celestin's 21.9%, affording Martelly a spot in a runoff election with Manigat.
The Center for Economic and Policy Research said the OAS found 12% of the tally sheets were either not received by the electoral council or were quarantined -- a much larger number of lost votes than either OAS monitors or the council had previously acknowledged.
But the center found the OAS review problematic because it tossed votes from a region that was favorable to Celestin and did not examine all of the 11,181 tally sheets.
Weisbrot said the margin of difference between Martelly and Celestin in the OAS's recount -- 0.3%-- was too small to statistically distinguish between the two.
"This appears to be a political, and not a professional, decision," he said.
Granderson said the leaking of the report complicated what has already been a difficult electoral process.
The nine-member OAS team included a statistician and an analyst, both from the United States. Despite the "magnitude of problems" and "the irregularities," the election need not be invalidated, Granderson said.
The OAS report is nonbinding but comes at a pivotal moment as Haitians mark the grim first anniversary of the earthquake and the troubled nation's political future hangs in the balance.
Some fear more unrest similar to what unfolded in the days that followed the announcement of the preliminary results. Violent protests erupted on the streets of Port-au-Prince and other Haitian cities and threw the nation, already reeling from earthquake devastation and a cholera outbreak, into further chaos.
Many who took to the streets were disgruntled with Preval and the government's perceived lack of response to crises.
Martelly said he believed he had defeated Celestin and accused the electoral council of manipulating votes.
Allegations of fraud prompted the OAS team to take on the review. A runoff, originally scheduled for January 16, has now been postponed.
Journalist and author Amy Wilentz said in a CNN commentary that she met with Preval on Tuesday and that he had already seen the OAS review. She said Preval seemed to suggest he would abide by a runoff between two candidates.
"There must be a loser," he told her. "And we must offer him proof that he lost. I have no preferred candidate."
Martelly has said he was optimistic the OAS review would reflect what he called the true results of the November 28 vote. He said he would welcome a chance to face Manigat in a two-way race.
"A second round of voting between Michel Martelly and Mirlande Manigat will reflect the voice of the people," he said. "My point is that it doesn't really matter when the second round of voting will take place," he said. "We don't want to rush into something and find out it is not legitimate."
Haiti's constitution mandates a new presidential term starting on February 7. It is unclear whether that will happen.
The European Union appealed for calm Tuesday, the eve of the earthquake anniversary.
"Today, we are extremely concerned by the political situation," said an EU statement. "The current instability prevents EU humanitarian aid to reach the people in need and makes the reconstruction process slower and more complex.
"This strongly harms our common will to place Haiti in a stronger position to embark on the longer path to stability, human development and sustained poverty reduction. We therefore want to urge the authorities of Haiti to ensure the conditions for free and transparent elections, and we call people of Haiti to remain calm and to participate to the second round of elections peacefully."
CNN's Moni Basu contributed to this story.


text:
Five more Democrats announced they will be voting against health care on Tuesday—leaving House opponents just 11 votes shy of the majority needed to kill the bill— but there's one former "no" whom President Obama can now count on to say "yes": Dennis Kucinich, who had previously opposed the bill from the left.
It was amazing. Every story on the front page of Monday's New York Times told the story of the Age of Greed during which a system known as capitalism is slowly, but surely, killing us:
Insurance company greed: " Millions Spent to Sway Democrats on Health Care"
War profiteers: " Contractors Tied to Effort to Track and Kill Militants"
There's no profit in repairing our infrastructure: " Repair Costs Daunting as Water Lines Crumble"
China, the bank: " China Uses Rules on Global Trade to Its Advantage"
You mean NAFTA didn't improve life in Mexico: " Two Drug Slayings in Mexico Rock US Consulate"
What happens when Big Food profits from hurting kids: " Forget Goofing Around: Recess Has New Boss"
I wish the president and the Democratic leadership would just stand up and say, "We're sorry, America. We didn't get the job done you sent us here to do."
There's now a daily parade of news like this—well, not really "news," more like the media division of large corporations shoving your face into the dirt that is your life. You already know the schools are a disaster and the war is a boon for the Halliburtons and a bust for you. You don't need a newspaper to tell you the roads and electrical lines and the local sewage plant is in miserable disrepair.
And by now you've figured out that you don't really have any say in this, that what we call the "democratic process" is mostly a sham, pretty words that get repeated in the hopes we will all still fall for it. But the fix is in and we don't fall for it anymore. Admit it: Wall Street owns "our" Congress lock, stock, and big barrel o' campaign cash. You want a say in this? Well, I don't see you on the Forbes 400, so shut the f@*& up and go fetch me another bottle of bubbly.
Within days, the House of Representatives will vote to pass the Senate health-care "reform" bill. This bill is a joke. It has NOTHING to do with "health-care reform." It has EVERYTHING to do with lining the pockets of the health insurance industry. It forces, by law, every American who isn't old or destitute to buy health insurance if their boss doesn't provide it. What company wouldn't love the government forcing the public to buy that company's product?! Imagine a bill that ordered every citizen to buy the extended warranty on all their appliances? Imagine a law that made it illegal not to own an iPhone? Or how 'bout I get a law passed that makes it compulsory for every American to go see my next movie? Woo-hoo! Who wouldn't love a sweet set-up like this windfall?
Well, the insurance companies—get this—don't like the Democrats' bill! That alone should be reason enough to vote for it.
Now, you would think these thieves would love this bill—but they are actually fighting it. Why? Because it doesn't give them ONE HUNDRED PERCENT of what they want. It only gives them... 90%! YOU SEE, pure greed demands all or nothing.
The insurance industry hates this bill because it puts a few minor restrictions on them. Six months after its passage they won't be able to deny children coverage if they have a pre-existing condition. How awful! Government interference! SOCIALISM!
But, hey, they'll still be able to deny these children's parents coverage until 2014! So if a parent gets sick and dies in the next four years, I'm sure someone will step in and raise these already-insured orphans.
And how big will the fines be if the insurance companies do deny someone coverage for having a pre-existing condition? Are you sitting down? A hundred dollars a day! That's it! So if you're the insurance company, and Judy is a customer of yours, and Judy needs an operation that will cost $100,000, what do you do? You take the fine! Let's say Judy lives another year after you've sentenced her to death, your $100-a-day fine will only cost you $36,500! That's a savings of $63,500! And trust me, my friends, that's EXACTLY what's going to happen.
There are some good things in this bill. Parents will be able to keep their children on their policy until the kids turn 26. A few things like that. So, yes, pass that.
But don't insult me and 300 million Americans by calling this "health-care reform." At least you've stopped calling it "universal health care." We will not have universal health care or anything close to it. I wish the president and the Democratic leadership would just stand up and say, "We're sorry, America. We didn't get the job done you sent us here to do. We're weak and scared and unable to communicate the simplest of messages to the American people. Therefore, our bill will guarantee that 12 million of you will still have NO health insurance. And that's because we have decided to leave the greedy, private insurance industry in charge of our system. Forgive us for this and for continuing to allow profit to be the determining factor as to whether a patient gets the help she or he needs."
Please, Democrats—just say that—then pass this poor excuse of a bill.
Pass it because, if President Obama takes a fall on this one, I don't know if he'll be able to get back up. And then NOTHING will get done. We can't have that. (And thank you Dennis Kucinich for hanging in there right up to the end and being the only one out of the 435 members to speak the awful truth.)
On the front page of Tuesday's New York Times, the dateline was, sadly, once again, "Flint, Michigan." The story was about how doctors are no longer accepting Medicaid patients. Which means tens of thousands of poor can no longer go to the doctor. Last year, the State of Michigan also prohibited doctors from accepting Medicaid patients who had anything wrong with their vision, their hearing, their feet or their teeth. In a 16-county area northwest of Flint, there will soon be not one single hospital that will allow you to give birth there if you're on Medicaid. The official unemployment rate in Flint is 27 percent (unofficially, closer to 40 percent).
This is an American tragedy. And, as I've warned you for years, this tsunami is heading your way—if it's not there already.
I've just turned on my new iPhone and it informs me that it has "apps" it would like to suggest I buy. One is called "Scanner." It will allow me to listen in on police scanners anywhere across the country. I buy the app. I see that the Flint police scanner is part of this. I turn it on out of curiosity. And this is what I hear, at one in the morning: A woman is being beaten by her husband... A home invasion is taking place ("16-year-old black male, wearing a white skull cap")... A child has been missing since noon today... Another woman is being beaten by her boyfriend... A diabetic, obese man is having trouble breathing and needs to be rushed to the hospital (there will be three more of these obese diabetics in the hours to come; the entire town is ill)... One more woman calling, screaming for help, "officers urged to use caution..."
...And on and on and on. This is what I have listened to before going to bed. I am filled with despair and helplessness as I hear my former neighbors crying out for help. I hate it. I have to turn it off. I start to cry. Thank you, iPhone. Thank you, Democrats. I'll sleep better knowing that you're looking out for all of us.
Michael Moore is an Academy Award-winning filmmaker and author. He directed and produced Roger & Me, Bowling for Columbine, Fahrenheit 9/11, and Sicko. He has also written seven books, most recently, Mike's Election Guide 2008.


text:
New look login page and more in Mainchain 4.20
Version 4.20 delivers increased personalisation, with customizable grids and new options to filter your information, making it quicker and easier to access the details you require. It also includes an important update to the Logistics Order entry screen.
- See the information you want and how you want with Customisable grids
- Easier access to the latest status with search result filters
- More data – View Sender and receiver references in expanded widget and search results
- New Consignee look up for Logistics Orders, including editing and updating address details for saved consignee
Customisable Grids - Design your own grid to view your information as you need it
Drag and drop columns enable you to order your columns in any order. Click on the column and drag it to it new location.
Manage Grid Column's Select which columns to display using the Manage Columns
Refine your searches with in grid filters – drill down to the detail with the new multi column filters.
Logistics Order Entry
Create, look up and NOW edit consignee details with the new consignee section – To Details
See Below to download the Consignee guide so you can get the benefits of the new features.
Also included in this release, bug fixes and minor enhancements
- Updated supported browser pop up message
- New Password reset screen
- Container search fix
- User Management section refinements
- Time out rule changed to be 1 hour from last activity
We are interested in getting your feedback and suggestions about how we can improve Mainchain for you.
If you have any feedback, let us know. Use the feedback option in Mainchain or contact our Mainchain Support Team


text:
Horse road safety campaign gathers momentum
The campaign comes after the charity reveals that it received more than 2,000 reports in the past five years of road incidents involving horses, with 36 causing rider deaths and 181 resulting in horses dying or being put down.
Lee Hackett, BHS Director of Policy, said: "This petrol pump advertising campaign has the potential to reach millions of our target audience – UK drivers. By slowing down around horses, drivers can keep everybody on the roads safe; horses and riders as well as drivers and their passengers."
On the day of the advertising launch, Liz Saville-Roberts MP submitted an Early Day Motion (EDM) on behalf of The British Horse Society to Parliament, asking Government to support the British Horse Society in with policies aimed at improving safety of riders and horses on UK roads.
Liz Saville-Roberts, MP for Dwyfor Meirionnydd, said: "I am delighted to be supporting the British Horse Society's 'Dead Slow' campaign. 36 horse rider deaths on the UK's roads have been reported to the charity in five years – this is 36 too many. I am calling on Parliament to provide greater road safety measures for horse riders across the UK so that we can prevent more unnecessary deaths from happening."
The British Horse Society has produced a video demonstrating how to safely pass a horse on the road.


text:
Power and the headscarf
The "hijab" is a very complicated piece of cloth. Since its inception a few millennia ago, it has carried with it many meanings. It has been an expression of male dominance, an act of religious piety, a manifestation of female oppression, a limitation to a female's power of seduction, an icon of cultural pride, a slogan of resistance to colonialism, imperialism and globalisation, an indicator of a worthy wife, an evasion of feminine competition, a marker of otherness and a discouragement to harassers. Different meanings constructed in different epochs for different social and political reasons by different actors with different motivations.
If anything, this makes it quite difficult to speak of the "hijab". Instead, one ought to speak of "hijabs", each using a "cloth" but each assigning to it so many meanings that it is impossible to make any generalisation, no matter how mild it may be. It is worth noting that every generalisation I make here has multiple exceptions.
Yet despite those many differences, there seems to be one constant about the hijab: it is about women and for women; only women. Men do not put on a hijab. They may cover their heads or even their faces, but that is another thing. The hijab is not the cloth that covers a head, or hair, or even the face. The hijab is something else altogether.
A man in a hijab
Just over a week ago, I was engaged in a discussion about female sexual harassment. My argument was that harassment – just like many sexual crimes – was not a function of natural seduction, rather a pathological expression of power (in a way most expressions of power are pathological). The hijab cannot, therefore, protect women from the violence of men's sexuality. The hijab was most likely incepted as an expression of men's power over women.
To sum up my argument, I tweeted: "A world in which women rule, men shall wear the veil." And to drive the point home, I put on my daughter's abaya, took a picture of myself, and used it as my profile picture on Twitter and Facebook. My intention was to remind people that the hijab was originally an expression of power, and that had women ruled, things might have been different.
The comments I got were revealing. Some women and men interpreted it as a stance of solidarity with women. Some thought I was objecting to the very idea of hijab. Some even flirted. There were also angry comments. It was as if I was posing nude in Times Square.
I tend to think that what angered some is the fact that I, for a fraction of a second, may have blurred the gender differences between men and women. I may have reminded men and women of the dominance one has over the other. Both are disconcerting. Maybe this is why in some religious traditions it is sinful for a man to dress as a woman, or for a woman to dress as a man, in other words that it is sinful to blur the constructed gender differences.
A brief history of the hijab
The hijab is a very old practice. The Assyrians, the Babylonians, the Persians, the Greeks and the Romans all had certain forms of veiling. So too did the Jews and the Christians. So although people today associate it with Muslims, in reality, Muslims inherited the practice and its meanings from other cultures.
In the beginning, the hijab was mainly about class. Women of the upper classes had to wear it so as to be distinguished from lower classes. Such women belonged – in a literal sense – to the noble class and the hijab branded them. By being branded as such, she was also protected. Men would tread carefully before they harassed a woman who belonged to an upper class. To keep the class function of the hijab, laws prohibited women of lower classes to wear it. If such women wore it, they were punished.
In some traditions, the veil explicitly indicated that the wearer belonged to a husband. In others, it signified the authority of the male. Then there were those who blamed Eve for having men banished from heaven and thus demanded that a woman hide her allure. So when Muslims came on the scene, they already had a very rich reservoir of meanings associated with the hijab, which they adopted with some modifications.
Muslim women wore the hijab to show that they belonged to the class of new believers. In the early years of Islam, this protected women. A woman also wore the hijab to preserve her beauty for her husband, who owned her and her seductive capacity. Moreover, the hijab was not a universal practice, nor was its purpose to diminish seduction in a public space. Slave women – who were many – were not obliged to wear a hijab. They could even walk in the streets with their breasts out. Hijab was mainly a class issue amongst Muslims, in the same way it was with previous communities.
Political and pragmatic hijabs
The historic meanings of the hijab dominated till the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries when some colonisers decided that it was their duty to liberate women in their colonies. One of those was Lord Cromer, who considered the hijab to be the epitome of women's oppression in Egypt. Interestingly, back in England, Cromer was part of The Women's National Anti-Suffrage League, which worked to stop women from getting full voting rights.
Cromer practically ruled Egypt from 1878–1907, thus the discourse generated by his opinions and positions vis-à-vis the hijab greatly impacted the way many Westerners and Muslims/Arabs viewed the hijab. He contributed to the birth of the view that the hijab was a symbol of social oppression and backwardness. In return, local Egyptians – and then other Muslims – reconstructed the hijab as an emblem of identity and a sign of resistance.
The hijab became part of a cultural identity for communities whose sense of self was lost due to the violent disruption of colonialism. It also became a way to assert rejection of the coloniser. The hijab developed related meanings when some Muslim elites and rulers adopted the view that the hijab was a sign of backwardness and fought it in their own countries. In addition to its new meanings for identity and resistance, it also broke away from its class origins. Instead of being a dress for higher classes and imposed by higher classes, it now became a dress for the common people and a sign of social modesty.
Furthermore, a new meaning was created when Islamic parties were set up. Now, the hijab became a sign of belonging to the party, and the widespread presence of the hijab became an indication of a party's communal authority. The most recent important development in the history of the hijab was when France banned its use in public places. Although this did not add any new meanings to those that had already existed over the previous one hundred years, it did deepen old ones.
The hijab also developed more mundane pragmatic meanings. Power and politics are not uppermost in the minds of many women who wear the hijab. Most women are not even aware of its original and new social/political meanings. Some women wear it because, according to them, it protects them from harassment. Others say they wear it because it reduces the need to purchase a variety of clothes and to compete with other women in the fashion stakes. There are those who say it gives them better marriage opportunities. Men, they say, might like to flirt with pretty unveiled women, but when it comes to building a family, they prefer women who are modest and compliant. Other women say they wear it because God commands them to.
Moving forward to the past
In the beginning, there were humans. They had different physical features. That difference generated different expectations. Some humans were able to bring children into the world; a very important asset for survival. Other humans had stronger bodies and were better at gethering food.
As a result of a social process, about which no one knows anything, humans decided to become male and female. Males provided food and protection; females provided children. Then, as society developed and became more sophisticated, another difference was created. Females had to belong to males and to act in certain ways. Males had to belong to other males, but also to act differently to females and to other males as well.
Now we had man and woman; we had gender. Expectations were set; roles were fixed; characteristics were divided according to male and female; and borders were drawn between both. Individuals who sought to breakdown that barrier – such as homosexuals – were ostracised.
It may not be possible in the near future to move forward to our previous pristine state of nature where gender did not exist. Nevertheless, it is important every now and then to be reminded that our current state is in no way natural, nor healthy. It is vital that we cross the constructed boundaries between men and women. There are many ways of doing that in Western and Eastern communities. A man wearing the hijab is one of them.
Abdullah Hamidaddin
© Babelmed 2014
Editor: Aingeal Flanagan/Qantara.de


text:
Create a Website Account - Manage notification subscriptions, save form progress and more.
Homeowner's doing work on theirown primary residence need to follow all applicable codes including obtainingproper permits.
Show All Answers
Building permits are required for most construction in theCity of Green River. The best way to find out if you need a permit is to call theDevelopment Services Department at 307-872-6140. The staff is there to assist the public.
A Building Permit is generally not required for items such as wallpapering, painting or similar finish work, carpet or flooring replacement, and replacement or repair of existing fixtures. Note however, that adding new fixtures does require a permit. To find out more information what does not require a building permit click here . Again, the best way to determine if your project needs a permit, please call 307-872-6140.
Withthe issuance of your permit, you may receive an "Orange Card". The orange cardis to be placed within a window that is visible from the street. The Orange Card will outline any specialinstructions relative to the type of project, such as the requiredinspections. Upon receiving the orangecard or a copy of your approved permit, construction on your project maybegin. During your project, depending onthe work being performed, inspections will need to be made at various timesoutlined in the permit notes or on the orange card. It is the responsibility of those intendingto construct, enlarge, alter, repair, move, demolish, or change the occupancyof a building per the permitted work to call the Development ServicesDepartment to schedule all required inspections. Inspections should be calledin a minimum of 24 hours in advance of the desired time of requested inspectionat 307-872-6140.
Permit issuance varies based onthe type of project. Some projects, suchas re-roofing, can be permitted over-the-counter, meaning the permit is issuedas soon as it is submitted. On theother hand, projects such as renovations, additions, and new construction thatrequire plans to be submitted and reviewed may take up to 14 days for the firstreview. Plans are reviewed by theBuilding Inspectors in the order in which they are submitted. Planning aheadand providing detailed and accurate plans will help ensure you get through theprocess faster.
All contractors operating within the City of Green River are required to hold and maintain a City of Green River issued Contractor's License (holding a Rock Springs Contractor's License does not negate this requirement). When selecting your contractor ask them who their sub-contractors will be for the project (i.e. electrician, plumber, etc.). Ask the contractor to provide copies of their Contractor's License (for them as well as the sub-contractors). You can also contact the Development Services Department at 307-872-6140 to find out the licensing status of any contractor. In addition to their Contractor's License, ask to see their Certificate of Insurance. This will allow you to see how they are insured.
2018 International Building Code
2018 International Residential Code
2018 International Plumbing Code
2018 International Mechanical Code
2018 International Existing Building Code
2018 International Property Maintenance Code
2018 International Fuel Gas Code
2018 International Fire Code
2017 National Electric Code
Possible link to City Code ofOrdinances
Codebooks may be obtained from the International Code Council at www.iccsafe.org. There arealso copies of code books available to the public that are retained in theDevelopment Services offices building division for reference
All businesses doing businesswithin the City of Green River are required to have a business license (TaxOccupation Permit) including:
The application process variesdepending on the type of business and location of the business.
1. Submit a completed Business License application.
2. Obtain zoning approval. Zoning approval insures that the business you wish to conduct is appropriate for the location you have chosen, whether you chose to operate from a business location or your home.
Download the Contractor LicenseApplication.
A home-based business (homeoccupation) may be allowed depending on the zoning district your property islocated in and the type of business.
For additional information regarding the home occupation licensing process & requirements, clickhere.
Zoning is the tool that the Cityuses to ensure that the vision of the City's Comprehensive Master Plan isconsistently met. Zoning regulatessetbacks, the building footprint, changes to the existing footprint of thebuilding, types of uses, and open space/lot coverage. Zoning review andapproval are generally the first step of any proposed development or projectprocess.
· All new buildings and structures
· All additions to existing building and structures
· Covered Deck, Patio, Porch, & Steps/Stairs
· All accessory structures (Shed, Detached Garage, Gazebos, Green House, etc.)
· Making any alterations to exterior development
· Change in use a property.
It is the responsibility of theindividual property owner to determine the location of their property lines.However, the City can direct a property owner to a subdivision plat that mayprovide further insight of a property's boundaries. If you cannot locate your property pins, youwill need to contact a licensed land surveyor to survey your property.
Building setback is the minimumdistance that a building can be from your property line. Building setbacks can vary by zoningdistrict, building type (primary vs. accessory), and the nature of the adjacentproperty.
All setbacks are measured fromthe property line. Never assume that an existing fence and/or sidewalk are theproperty line.
Any use or structure in existencein the city on the effective date of this ordinance that complied with allpreviously applicable legal and safety requirements is deemed to be legally nonconforming(grandfathered).
All new fence construction must comply with the height requirements outlined in the Zoning Ordinance. To verify to compliance a FenceCompliance Agreement Form must be completed and submitted to the Development Services Department.
Please click on the handout linkproviding information on permit requirements for fences. If you still havequestions, please contact the Planning and Zoning Department at 307-872-6140.