Integrated Renewable Resource Management for U.S. Insular Areas

Total Page:16

File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb

Integrated Renewable Resource Management for U.S. Insular Areas Chapter 2 Introduction CONTENTS Page Insular Relationships to the Federal Government . 39 Commonwealths. 39 Unincorporated Territories . 40 Freely Associated States . 40 The Importance of U.S.-Affiliated Islands to US. National Security . 41 Economic Development in U.S.-Affiliated Islands: The Problem . 41 Ecological Factors . 42 Geographical Factors. 43 Socioeconomic Factors . 43 Goals of Renewable Resource Management and Development . 45 Chapter 2 References . 46 Tables Table No. Page 2-1. United States-Insular Area Relationships . 39 2-2. General Characteristics of Islands . 42 Figure Figure No. Page 2-1. Comparison of Typical Population Pyramids . 44 — Chapter Introduction INSULAR RELATIONSHIPS TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT The U.S.-affiliated tropical islands have a is represented by a nonvoting Resident Com- wide range of relationships to the U.S. Govern- missioner. The Resident Commissioner and ment (table 2-1), Two are commonwealths— Delegates sit in the House of Representatives, Puerto Rico and the Northern Mariana Islands have a voice in legislation pertaining to their (NMI)–having local autonomy but voluntarily islands, and can vote in Committee. While the associated with the United States. The U.S. Vir- territories are eligible for many Federal pro- gin Islands, American Samoa, and Guam are grams on the same basis as a State, the islanders unincorporated territories (to which only cer- do not contribute to the national treasury tain provisions of the U.S. Constitution have through Federal income taxes, been expressly extended) under the administra- Determination of U.S. policy for the territo- tion of elected Governors. Finally, the Repub- ries is within the jurisdiction of Congress. Al- lic of the Marshall Islands (RMI), and the Fed- though Congress has given the Secretary of the erated States of Micronesia (FSM) (which, Interior certain authorities and responsibilities together with the NMI and the Republic of toward these territorial governments (exclud- Palau form the former Trust Territory of the ing Puerto Rico), and many Federal programs Pacific Islands) have signed agreements with are available to them, the territories are not the United States to become Freely Associated 1 agencies or instrumentalities of the Executive States. Branch of the Federal Government. The peoples of Puerto Rico and the territo- ries of Guam and the U.S. Virgin Islands are Commonwealths U.S. citizens, those of Palau and American Samoa are U.S. nationals. Guam, American A U.S. commonwealth is an autonomous Samoa and the USVI are represented in the U.S. government in voluntary association with the Congress by nonvoting Delegates. Puerto Rico United States. It is responsible for its own wel- fare and has full legislative authority. Puerto 1Although Puerto Rico is a Commonwealth of the United States, Ricans were granted U.S. citizenship in 1917 it is referred to as “Estado Libre Asociado” or free associated and Puerto Rico’s Constitution was approved state. This should not be confused with the legal relationship defined by free association with the Freely Associated States by the electorate in 1952. The Northern Mari- in the Pacific. ana Islands in effect became a commonwealth Table 2-1.—United States Insular Area Relationships Relationship to the Insular area Initiation of U.S. administration United States Puerto RICO . ... 1898 (ceded to the United States) Commonwealth U.S. Virgin Islands 1917 (purchased from Denmark) Unincorporated territory American Samoa 1900 (ceded to the United States) Unincorporated territory Guam . .. 1898 (ceded to the United States) Unincorporated territory Northern Mariana Islands 1946 (U.S. Strategic Trusteeship) Commonwealth Marshall Islands 1946 (U. S, Strategic Trusteeship) Freely Associated State Federated States of Micronesia 1946 (U.S. Strategic Trusteeship) Freely Associated State Palau 1946 (U.S. Strategic Trusteeship)) Strategic Trusteeshipa a Expected to become Freely Associated State in 1987 SOURCE Office of Technology Assessment 1987 39 40 . Integrated Renewable Resource Management for U.S. Insular Areas in 1978,2 but remained officially a part of the dissolved, the United States retains its respon- Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands until its sibility to promote the economic advancement dissolution in 1986. and self-reliance of these islands. The trusteeship was intended as a temporary Unincorporated Territories arrangement under which the United States ac- Unincorporated territories are not integral cepted the responsibility of advancing the TTPI parts of the United States and no promise of —politically, socially, economically, and edu- statehood or a status approaching statehood is cationally—toward greater self-reliance, includ- held out to them. Only certain parts of the U.S. ing undertaking obligations to: Constitution apply to unincorporated territo- . promote the economic advancement and ries. And, unlike States which write their own self-sufficiency of the inhabitants, and to this constitutions, the laws and principles that pre- end shall regulate the use of natural resources; scribe the nature, functions, and limits of a ter- encourage the development of fisheries, agri- ritorial government are determined by Con- culture and industries; [and] protect the inhabi- gress (13). tants against the loss of their lands and re- sources (Trusteeship Agreement for the United Guam was annexed from Spain at the close States Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands, Ar- of the Spanish-American War. Although rela- ticle 6(2)). tions between the Government of Guam and The United States also was charged with pre- the U.S. Government also are conducted under paring the Micronesians for a political status the jurisdiction of the Department of the In- of their own choosing. terior, residents of Guam elect their own offi- cials. Most aspects of the U.S. Constitution ap- Civilian administration of the TTPI was the ply to Guam. Similar to Guam, the American responsibility of the Department of the Interior, Samoa Government is semiautonomous and but each administrative district was given the operates under a constitution adopted in 1960. opportunity to determine its own form of gov- American Samoa has been administered by the ernment and degree of independence from the United States since 1900. The U.S. Virgin Is- United States. By January 1981, each emerg- lands were sold by the Danish Government to ing entity had installed a constitutional govern- the United States in 1917. U.S. citizenship was ment with democratically elected officials. granted to Virgin Islanders in 1927, The Commonwealth of the Northern Mari- ana Islands was established and separated from Freely Associated States the other existing TTPI entities in 1978, al- The Freely Associated States, along with the though some relations between the Northern Northern Mariana Islands, comprise the Trust Marianas and the U.S. Government continued Territory of the Pacific Islands (TTPI), the last under the jurisdiction of the Department of the of 11 trusteeships established under United Na- Interior. Two of the remaining political enti- tions’ sanction after World War II. Despite pre- ties—the FSM (Yap, Truk, Pohnpei, and Kos- liminary agreements, the Compact of Free rae), and the RMI—have signed Compacts of Association with the Republic of Palau has not Free Association with the United States; the yet received 75 percent Palauan approval in a FSM and RMI compacts were approved by the United States in early 1986 and put into effect plebiscite vote and, therefore, has not been ap- 3 proved by the United States or the United Na- at the end of the year. tions. Until the Compact with Palau is approved Free association allows the polities full con- by the United Nations and the trusteeship is trol of internal and external affairs while de- — ‘The Northern Mariana Covenant (Public Law 94-241) was 3Because approval of a Compact of Free Association with the passed by Congress in 1976, but the major part of the Covenant Republic of Palau is expected shortly, Palau shall be referred did not become effective until 1978 when the Commonwealth to as a Freely Associated State in the remainder of this assess- government was installed. ment unless otherwise indicated. Ch. 2—Introduction . 41 fense and security responsibilities are delegated ing from the United States (15 years for the RMI to the United States. They become eligible for and FSM and 50 years for Palau) part of which foreign aid from international organizations, must be directed to planning long-term eco- such as the Asian Development Bank. Finally, nomic development. they are guaranteed a specified level of fund- THE IMPORTANCE OF U.S.-AFFILIATED ISLANDS TO U.S. NATIONAL SECURITY The U.S.-affiliated islands are of considerable Although the U.S.-affiliated Pacific islands importance to national security, and the United do not play an important role in current or pro- States is committed to their defense and to jected Department of Defense programs, they maintaining lines of communication to and might likewise be viewed as the United States’ through them. The islands vary in strategic im- fourth border. According to the Annual Report portance, but all represent the U.S. presence of the Secretary of Defense to Congress for fis- in spheres of strategic interest. cal year 1986, at least 30 percent of U.S. trade is conducted with the nations of East Asia, and The U.S.-affiliated Caribbean islands are of five of our mutual security treaties link us with special security significance to the United States, East Asian countries (9). Only a few islands (e.g., primarily because of their close proximity to Guam, Kwajelein) have major U.S. bases; the Caribbean and Central American countries. U.S. Navy, however, has a keen interest in cer- Puerto Rico is of particular significance due tain contingency base rights in the Northern to the presence of major naval installations Mariana Islands and Palau. (See app. B for a there and its location astride major routes of brief discussion of military installations and communication.
Recommended publications
  • OGC-98-5 U.S. Insular Areas: Application of the U.S. Constitution
    United States General Accounting Office Report to the Chairman, Committee on GAO Resources, House of Representatives November 1997 U.S. INSULAR AREAS Application of the U.S. Constitution GAO/OGC-98-5 United States General Accounting Office GAO Washington, D.C. 20548 Office of the General Counsel B-271897 November 7, 1997 The Honorable Don Young Chairman Committee on Resources House of Representatives Dear Mr. Chairman: More than 4 million U.S. citizens and nationals live in insular areas1 under the jurisdiction of the United States. The Territorial Clause of the Constitution authorizes the Congress to “make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property” of the United States.2 Relying on the Territorial Clause, the Congress has enacted legislation making some provisions of the Constitution explicitly applicable in the insular areas. In addition to this congressional action, courts from time to time have ruled on the application of constitutional provisions to one or more of the insular areas. You asked us to update our 1991 report to you on the applicability of provisions of the Constitution to five insular areas: Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (the CNMI), American Samoa, and Guam. You asked specifically about significant judicial and legislative developments concerning the political or tax status of these areas, as well as court decisions since our earlier report involving the applicability of constitutional provisions to these areas. We have included this information in appendix I. 1As we did in our 1991 report on this issue, Applicability of Relevant Provisions of the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • The Sovereignty of the Crown Dependencies and the British Overseas Territories in the Brexit Era
    Island Studies Journal, 15(1), 2020, 151-168 The sovereignty of the Crown Dependencies and the British Overseas Territories in the Brexit era Maria Mut Bosque School of Law, Universitat Internacional de Catalunya, Spain MINECO DER 2017-86138, Ministry of Economic Affairs & Digital Transformation, Spain Institute of Commonwealth Studies, University of London, UK [email protected] (corresponding author) Abstract: This paper focuses on an analysis of the sovereignty of two territorial entities that have unique relations with the United Kingdom: the Crown Dependencies and the British Overseas Territories (BOTs). Each of these entities includes very different territories, with different legal statuses and varying forms of self-administration and constitutional linkages with the UK. However, they also share similarities and challenges that enable an analysis of these territories as a complete set. The incomplete sovereignty of the Crown Dependencies and BOTs has entailed that all these territories (except Gibraltar) have not been allowed to participate in the 2016 Brexit referendum or in the withdrawal negotiations with the EU. Moreover, it is reasonable to assume that Brexit is not an exceptional situation. In the future there will be more and more relevant international issues for these territories which will remain outside of their direct control, but will have a direct impact on them. Thus, if no adjustments are made to their statuses, these territories will have to keep trusting that the UK will be able to represent their interests at the same level as its own interests. Keywords: Brexit, British Overseas Territories (BOTs), constitutional status, Crown Dependencies, sovereignty https://doi.org/10.24043/isj.114 • Received June 2019, accepted March 2020 © 2020—Institute of Island Studies, University of Prince Edward Island, Canada.
    [Show full text]
  • Veterinarian Shortage Situation Nomination Form
    Shortage ID VMLRP USE ONLY NIFA Veterinary Medicine National Institute of Food and Agriculture Loan Repayment Program (VMLRP) US Department of Agriculture Form NIFA 2009‐0001 OMB Control No. 0524‐0050 Veterinarian Shortage Situation Expiration Date: 9/30/2019 Nomination Form To be submitted under the authority of the chief State or Insular Area Animal Health Official Veterinary Medicine Loan Repayment Program (VMLRP) This form must be used for Nomination of Veterinarian Shortage Situations to the Veterinary Medicine Loan Repayment Program (VMLRP), Authorized Under the National Veterinary Medical Service Act (NVMSA) Note: Please submit one separate nomination form for each shortage situation. See the State Animal Health Official (SAHO) section of the VMLRP web site (www.nifa.usda.gov/vmlrp) for the number of nominations permitted for your state or insular area. Location of Veterinary Shortage Area for this Nomination Location of Veterinary Shortage: (e.g., County, State/Insular Area; must be a logistically feasible veterinary practice service area) Approximate Center of Shortage Area (or Location of Position if Type III): (e.g., Address or Cross Street, Town/City, and Zip Code) Overall Priority of Shortage: ______________ Type of Veterinary Practice Area/Discipline/Specialty (select one) : ________________________________________________________________________________ For Type I or II Private Practice: Must cover(check at least one) May cover Beef Cattle Beef Cattle Dairy Cattle Dairy Cattle Swine Swine Poultry Poultry Small
    [Show full text]
  • Nigeria's Constitution of 1999
    PDF generated: 26 Aug 2021, 16:42 constituteproject.org Nigeria's Constitution of 1999 This complete constitution has been generated from excerpts of texts from the repository of the Comparative Constitutions Project, and distributed on constituteproject.org. constituteproject.org PDF generated: 26 Aug 2021, 16:42 Table of contents Preamble . 5 Chapter I: General Provisions . 5 Part I: Federal Republic of Nigeria . 5 Part II: Powers of the Federal Republic of Nigeria . 6 Chapter II: Fundamental Objectives and Directive Principles of State Policy . 13 Chapter III: Citizenship . 17 Chapter IV: Fundamental Rights . 20 Chapter V: The Legislature . 28 Part I: National Assembly . 28 A. Composition and Staff of National Assembly . 28 B. Procedure for Summoning and Dissolution of National Assembly . 29 C. Qualifications for Membership of National Assembly and Right of Attendance . 32 D. Elections to National Assembly . 35 E. Powers and Control over Public Funds . 36 Part II: House of Assembly of a State . 40 A. Composition and Staff of House of Assembly . 40 B. Procedure for Summoning and Dissolution of House of Assembly . 41 C. Qualification for Membership of House of Assembly and Right of Attendance . 43 D. Elections to a House of Assembly . 45 E. Powers and Control over Public Funds . 47 Chapter VI: The Executive . 50 Part I: Federal Executive . 50 A. The President of the Federation . 50 B. Establishment of Certain Federal Executive Bodies . 58 C. Public Revenue . 61 D. The Public Service of the Federation . 63 Part II: State Executive . 65 A. Governor of a State . 65 B. Establishment of Certain State Executive Bodies .
    [Show full text]
  • Veterinarian Shortage Situation Nomination Form
    4IPSUBHF*% AK163 7.-3164&0/-: NIFAVeterinaryMedicine NationalInstituteofFoodandAgriculture LoanRepaymentProgram(VMLRP) USDepartmentofAgriculture FormNIFA2009Ͳ0001 OMBControlNo.0524Ͳ0046 VeterinarianShortageSituation ExpirationDate:11/30/2016 NominationForm Tobesubmitted undertheauthorityofthechiefStateorInsularAreaAnimalHealthOfficial VeterinaryMedicineLoanRepaymentProgram(VMLRP) ThisformmustbeusedforNominationofVeterinarianShortageSituationstotheVeterinaryMedicineLoanRepaymentProgram (VMLRP),AuthorizedUndertheNationalVeterinaryMedicalServiceAct(NVMSA) Note:Pleasesubmitoneseparatenominationformforeachshortagesituation.SeetheStateAnimalHealthOfficial(SAHO)sectionof theVMLRPwebsite(www.nifa.usda.gov/vmlrp)forthenumberofnominationspermittedforyourstateorinsulararea. LocationofVeterinaryShortageAreaforthisNomination Kenai Peninsula, Alaska LocationofVeterinaryShortage: (e.g.,County,State/InsularArea;mustbealogisticallyfeasibleveterinarypracticeservicearea) ApproximateCenterofShortageArea Kenai or Soldotna: area extends from Portage (just south of Anchorage down to (orLocationofPositionifTypeIII): Homer at the tip of the Kenai Peninsula) (e.g.,AddressorCrossStreet,Town/City,andZipCode) OverallPriorityofShortage: @@@@@@@@@@@@@@Critical Priority TypeofVeterinaryPracticeArea/Discipline/Specialty;ƐĞůĞĐƚŽŶĞͿ͗ @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@Type II: Private Practice - Rural Area, Food Animal Medicine (awardee obligation: at least 30%@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ FTE or 12hr/week) &ŽƌdLJƉĞ/Žƌ//WƌŝǀĂƚĞWƌĂĐƚŝĐĞ͗ Musƚcover(checkĂtleastone)
    [Show full text]
  • Tribal and Insular Area Grants: Diesel Emissions Reduction Act (DERA) Request for Applications
    &EPA United States Office of Transportation and Air Quality Environmental Protection March 2021 Agency Coming Soon: Tribal and Insular Area Grants: Diesel Emissions Reduction Act (DERA) Request for Applications Request for Application (RFA) opens late April 2021 The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is excited to announce plans to request applications for projects that achieve significant reductions in diesel emissions. EPA anticipates awarding approximately $5 million in total DERA funding and plans to have no mandatory cost share requirement for projects. Eligible Organizations Eligible entities include tribal governments (or intertribal consortia) and Alaska Native villages, or insular area government agencies which have jurisdiction over transportation or air quality. Insular areas include the U.S. Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands. 2021 Tribal and Insular Area RFA Highlights TRIBAL GOVERNMENTS (OR INTERTRIBAL INSULAR AREA GOVERNMENTS CONSORTIA) AND ALASKA NATIVE VILLAGES • Approximately $4.5 Million • Approximately $500,000 • Funding Limit per Application: $800,000 • Funding Limit per Application: $250,000 • Two Applications per Applicant • Two Applications per Applicant Although funding for both tribes and insular areas is planned under this single RFA, the applications will be competed separately. Tribal and insular area applications will be reviewed, ranked, and selected by separate review panels. Anticipated Timeline and Dates Description Date* RFA Opens Late April, 2021 Informational Webinars EPA will host three webinars to accommodate the different time zones and schedules RFA Closes – Applications Due Early July, 2021 Anticipated Notification of Selection Mid August, 2021 Anticipated Award October-December 2021 *Finalized dates will be posted online at www.epa.gov/dera when the RFA officially opens.
    [Show full text]
  • Veterinarian Shortage Situation Nomination Form
    4IPSUBHF*% TX175 7.-3164&0/-: NIFAVeterinaryMedicine NationalInstituteofFoodandAgriculture LoanRepaymentProgram(VMLRP) USDepartmentofAgriculture FormNIFA2009Ͳ0001 OMBControlNo.0524ͲϬϬϱϬ VeterinarianShortageSituation ExpirationDate:ϵͬϯϬͬϮϬϭϵ NominationForm Tobesubmitted undertheauthorityofthechiefStateorInsularAreaAnimalHealthOfficial VeterinaryMedicineLoanRepaymentProgram(VMLRP) ThisformmustbeusedforNominationofVeterinarianShortageSituationstotheVeterinaryMedicineLoanRepaymentProgram (VMLRP),AuthorizedUndertheNationalVeterinaryMedicalServiceAct(NVMSA) Note:Pleasesubmitoneseparatenominationformforeachshortagesituation.SeetheStateAnimalHealthOfficial(SAHO)sectionof theVMLRPwebsite(www.nifa.usda.gov/vmlrp)forthenumberofnominationspermittedforyourstateorinsulararea. LocationofVeterinaryShortageAreaforthisNomination Coke, Crockett, Glasscock, Mitchell, Reagan, Sterling, Upton, TX LocationofVeterinaryShortage: (e.g.,County,State/InsularArea;mustbealogisticallyfeasibleveterinarypracticeservicearea) ApproximateCenterofShortageArea Sterling City, 76951 (orLocationofPositionifTypeIII): (e.g.,AddressorCrossStreet,Town/City,andZipCode) OverallPriorityofShortage: @@@@@@@@@@@@@@High Priority TypeofVeterinaryPracticeArea/Discipline/Specialty;ƐĞůĞĐƚŽŶĞͿ͗ @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@Type II: Private Practice - Rural Area, Food Animal Medicine (awardee obligation: at least 30%@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ FTE or 12hr/week) &ŽƌdLJƉĞ/Žƌ//WƌŝǀĂƚĞWƌĂĐƚŝĐĞ͗ Musƚcover(checkĂtleastone) Maycover ■ BeefCattle BeefCattle DairyCattle DairyCattle
    [Show full text]
  • States and Sovereignty in the Middle East: Myths and Realities
    States and sovereignty in the Middle East: myths and realities LOUISE FAWCETT* To many observers the Middle East state system since the Arab uprisings stands at a critical juncture, displaying contradictory patterns of fragility and durability. The uprisings, which started late in 2010, were undoubtedly revolutionary in their initial impact, but beyond Tunisia, it is the counter-revolutionary movement that has proved the more durable.1 The region has witnessed multiple regime changes alongside high levels of popular mobilization, violence and transnational activism. The results have been highly destabilizing, resulting in challenges, not only to regimes, but also to the very sovereignty and territorial integrity of states. This situation, in turn, has contributed to a shifting regional balance of power and repeated episodes of external intervention. Some commentators have argued that the whole regional system, always fragile and contested, is finally undergoing radical transformation; others point to its resilience.2 This article evaluates the latest wave of instability and its consequences for Middle Eastern states, their sovereignty and regional order, introducing themes and discussions taken up in other articles in this special issue. It argues—connecting directly to the article by I. William Zartman3—that despite recent upheavals (and multiple predictions to the contrary), it is likely that the Middle East system of states and borders will remain largely intact—at least in the medium term. This does not mean that states are necessarily ‘strong’ in a Weberian sense, or that sovereignty at different levels is uncontested, but that continuity—state (even regime) survival and border preser- vation—is likely to prevail over major change.
    [Show full text]
  • CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— Extensions of Remarks E800 HON
    E800 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — Extensions of Remarks August 28, 2020 Under Mark’s leadership, the laboratory as- the community to eliminate poverty and create Additionally, besides the changes being sembled the power source for the Mars 2020 social change through advocacy and essential made by new Postmaster General, the ongo- Perseverance Rover, continues to meet the services, envisioning a thriving, equitable and ing COVID–19 pandemic that has befuddled Army’s needs for tank armor, is helping DoD diverse community free from poverty and in- this Administration also poses a clear threat to explore the use of microreactors, and is pro- justice informed by the values of equity, dig- the short-term and long-term fiscal health of ducing new nuclear fuels and materials. nity and diversity, service, inclusion and com- the Postal Service. I am pleased that the bill A personal priority of mine has been revital- munity action. Specifically, Doug has served before us today includes needed funding to izing the lab’s infrastructure and putting INL’s as the Program Director of CAB’s Santa Cruz address mail volume declines to support the talented workforce into world-class facilities. County Immigration Project (SCCIP, promoting Postal Service and its workers through these Mark has been a great ally in this process, an the wellbeing of the immigrant community by trying times. innovator and collaborator. helping immigrants acquire legal status, reunit- We need to protect and maintain a strong He brought the Department of Energy and ing immigrant families, and making U.S. Citi- Postal Service which is what this bill does.
    [Show full text]
  • FY21 Tribal and Insular Area RFA Priority County List (April 2021)
    &EPA Office of Transportation and Air Quality United States April 2021 Environmental Protection Agency FY21 Tribal and Insular Area RFA Priority County List In order to receive points under Section V, Criterion #2.B of this RFA, vehicles or equipment proposed for funding must be operated a majority of the time in one of the priority areas listed below. These areas were identified as priority locations for the DERA program because they are designated, as of the release date of this RFA, as Nonattainment Areas or Maintenance Areas for the following National Ambient Air Quality Standards. Data is sourced from EPA’s Green Book of Nonattainment Areas for Criteria (https://www.epa.gov/green- book). a) PM2.5 1997 Standard (Annual: 15 µg/m3, 24-hour: 65 µg/m3) b) PM2.5 2006 Standard (Annual: 15 µg/m3, 24-hour: 35 µg/m3) c) PM2.5 2012 Standard (Annual: 12 µg/m3, 24-hour: 35 µg/m3) d) Ozone (O3) 2008 Standard (8-hour: 0.075ppm) e) Ozone (O3) 2015 Standard (8-hour: 0.070ppm) 2015 8-Hour 2008 8-Hour State County 2012 PM 2.5 2006 PM 2.5 1997 PM 2.5 Ozone Ozone AK Fairbanks North Star Borough X AL Jackson County X AL Jefferson County X AL Shelby County X AL Walker County X AR Crittenden County X AZ Gila County X AZ Maricopa County X X AZ Pinal County X X X AZ Santa Cruz County X AZ Yuma County X CA Alameda County X X X CA Amador County X CA Butte County X X X CA Calaveras County X X CA Contra Costa County X X X CA El Dorado County X X X CA Fresno County X X X X X CA Imperial County X X X X CA Kern County X X X X X CA Kings County X X X X X CA Los Angeles
    [Show full text]
  • Defining and Describing Regions
    OECD Regions at a Glance 2011 © OECD 2011 Defining and Describing Regions Territorial grids In any analytical study conducted at sub-national levels, the choice of the territorial unit is of prime importance. To address this issue, the OECD has classified two levels of geographic units within each member country (Table A.1 in Annex A). The higher level (Territorial level 2 [TL2]) consists of 362 larger regions while the lower level (Territorial level 3 [TL3]) is composed of 1 794 smaller regions. All the territorial units are defined within national borders and in most of the cases correspond to administrative regions. Regions at the lower level (TL3) are contained within the higher level (TL2).* This classification – which, for European countries, is largely consistent with the Eurostat classification – facilitates greater comparability of geographic units at the same territorial level. Indeed these two levels, which are officially established and relatively stable in all member countries, are used as a framework for implementing regional policies in most countries. Due to limited data availability, labour-market indicators in Canada are presented for groups of TL3 regions. Since these groups are not part of the OECD official territorial grids, for the sake of simplicity they are labelled as non-official grids (NOGs) in this publication and compared with TL3 for the other countries (Table A.1 in Annex A). The OECD has recently started to extend the regional classification to new member countries and emerging economies. More precisely TL2 regions have been identified and statistics collected in Chile, Estonia, Israel and Slovenia (new OECD members); Brazil, the Russian Federation, India, China and South Africa (the BRICS countries).
    [Show full text]
  • List of Commonwealth Countries, British Overseas Territories, British Crown Dependencies and EU Member States
    List of Commonwealth countries, British Overseas Territories, British Crown Dependencies and EU member states Commonwealth countries1 Antigua and Barbuda Kenya St Vincent and the Grenadines Australia Kiribati Samoa The Bahamas Lesotho Seychelles Bangladesh Malawi Sierra Leone Barbados Malaysia Singapore Belize Malta* Solomon Islands Botswana Mauritius South Africa Brunei Mozambique Sri Lanka Cameroon Namibia Swaziland Canada Nauru Tonga Dominica New Zealand Trinidad and Tobago Fiji Nigeria Tuvalu Ghana Pakistan Uganda Grenada Papua New Guinea United Kingdom* Guyana Republic of Cyprus* United Republic of Tanzania India Rwanda Vanuatu Jamaica St Christopher and Nevis Zambia St Lucia Zimbabwe *Although also EU member states, citizens of the UK, Cyprus and Malta are eligible to be registered to vote in respect of all elections held in the UK. 1 Citizens of Commonwealth countries that have been suspended from the Commonwealth retain their voting rights. Their voting rights would only be affected if their country was also deleted from the list of Commonwealth countries in the British Nationality Act 1981 through an Act of the UK Parliament. British Overseas Territories Anguilla Pitcairn, Henderson, Ducie and Oeno Islands Bermuda St Helena, Ascension and Tristan da Cunha British Antarctic Territory South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands British Indian Ocean Territory Sovereign Base areas of Akrotiri and Dhekelia on Cyprus Cayman Islands Falkland Islands Turks and Caicos Islands Gibraltar Virgin Islands Montserrat British Crown Dependencies
    [Show full text]