Aviation and Airport Development Law : Aviation Lawyer & Attorney : Dr. Barbara E. Lichman : Airport Development, Environmental Law

On October 20, 2011, the California Air Resources Board (“CARB”) adopted a new set of rules, called “cap-and-trade,” implementing the requirements of AB32, California’s groundbreaking climate change law. Enacted in 2006, AB32 requires reduction in carbon emissions, usually credited as the cause of “global warming,” to 1990 levels by the year 2020. The new cap-and-trade regulations will be implemented in phases, with the State’s largest emitters required to meet the caps beginning in 2013; and remaining emitters, collectively about 85%, required to begin compliance in 2015.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

In National Resources Defense Council v. Southern California Air Quality Management District, 2011 W.L. 2557246 (C.A. 9 (Cal.)), the National Resources Defense Council (“NRDC”) sought to call the Southern California Air Quality Management District (“SCAQMD”) to account for purportedly using invalid “offsets” for emissions increases resulting from new stationary sources. A panel of the Federal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals found, however, that: (1) the District Court’s decision refusing to hold SCAQMD to a validity standard for its internal “offsets” for emissions increases was correct because such a validity standard is not required by the Clean Air Act (“CAA”), 42 U.S.C. section 7503(c) (“Section 173(c)”); and (2) ironically, the District Court lacked jurisdiction to reach that decision where original jurisdiction lies in the Courts of Appeals pursuant to CAA section 7607.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

On 40^th Anniversary of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), Jim Tankersley of the Los Angeles Times wrote that

The White House is poised to order all federal agencies to evaluate any major actions they take, such as building highways or logging national forests, to determine how they would contribute to and be affected by climate change, a step long sought by environmentalists.

The Presidential Order would most likely issue from the Council on Environmental Quality, an organization set up by NEPA to oversee the NEPA process. Mr. Tankersley’s article goes on to report that that

The head of the White House Council on Environmental Quality, Nancy Sutley, said in an interview this week that federal agencies "should think about both the effect of greenhouse gas emissions, and the effects of climate change, on decisions they make."

She added that the administration's decision was not yet final.

The White House was originally petitioned in 2008 to formally recognize climate considerations under NEPA, but the White House has not taken any action since then.

However, federal agencies may already be required to include an analysis of climate in their Environmental Impact Statements (EISs) and Environmental Assessments (EAs). NEPA does not mention specific areas that federal agencies must analyze to complete EISs and EAs. Instead, it states that the federal agency shall analyze the effect the federal project will have on the environment, without specifically mentioning any particular areas that need to be examined. Thus, it could be argued that federal agencies should already be examining the effect of the federal project on climate change since that is an “environmental effect” within the purview of NEPA.

As Mr. Tankersley’s article points out, some federal agencies have already taken upon themselves to consider effects on climate. Moreover, there is a growing body of caselaw indicating that the courts are beginning to rule that federal agencies should consider the effect their projects will have on the environment. The U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit recently held in Center for Biological Diversity v. National Highway Transportation Safety Administration that the NHTSA was required to examine in its EIS the effect of greenhouse gas emissions from the federal project. In coming to that conclusion, the 9^th Circuit summarized the following findings from International Panel on Climate Change reports and other sources:

Carbon dioxide concentrations increasing over the 21st century are virtually certain to be mainly due to fossil-fuel emissions;

The average earth surface temperature has increased by about 0.6 degrees;

There have been severe impacts in the Arctic due to warming, including sea ice decline;

Global warming will affect plants, animals, and ecosystems around the world. Some scientists predict that it will cause 15 to 37 percent of species in certain regions to be extinct;

Global warming will cause serious consequences for human health, including the spread of infections and respiratory diseases;

Climate change is associated with increasing variability and heightened intensity of storm such as hurricanes;

Climate change may be non-linear, meaning there are positive feedback mechanisms that may push global warming past a dangerous threshold (the“tipping point”).

Center for Biological Diversity v. NHTSA, 508 F.3d at 522-23. To the Court, these findings indicate that emission of greenhouse gases substantially contribute to climate change, and climate change is expected to result in widespread adverse environmental effects. Therefore, it should be mentioned in the EIS. See also, Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Mosbacher, 488 F.Supp.2d 889 (N.D. Cal. 2007); Border Power Plant Working Group v. Department of Energy, 260 F.Supp.2d 997 (S.D. Cal. 2003); and Mid-States Coalition for Progress v. Surface Transportation Board, 345 F.3d 520 (8^th Cir. 2003).

In addition, NEPA contains a provision that could be taken to require federal agencies to consider the impact of the greenhouse gas emissions created by the federal project. Section 102(F) of NEPA, 42 U.S.C. 4332(F) states that “all agencies of the Federal government shall:”

Recognize the worldwide and long-range character of environmental problems and, where consistent with the foreign policy of the United States, lend appropriate support to initiatives, resolutions, and programs designed to maximize international cooperation in anticipating and preventing a decline in the quality of mankind’s world environment.

To be sure, an order from the White House would be beneficial in establishing a nationwide policy and prompt recalcitrant agencies to require consideration of climate change in their EISs and EAs. At least in the Ninth and Eighth Circuits, however, one could argue that the courts have taken the view that NEPA already requires exactly what the order would seek to implement.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

I.        Introduction

In the grand scheme of things, aviation may not represent a huge source of concern with respect to climate change. But neither should the aviation industry (airports included) ignore the fact that aviation does contribute to climate change not only through the emission of carbon dioxide (CO2) but also through the emission of nitrogen oxides (NOx), aerosols and their precursors (soot and sulfate), and increased cloudiness in the form of persistent linear contrails and induced-cirrus cloudiness. The intent of this series of articles is to examine the effect aviation has on climate change, outline the regulatory and legal framework that is developing, and to suggest avenues for the aviation industry to pursue in the future.  The first challenge is to clear up some misconceptions about aviation and climate change so that we can move forward with accurate and up-to-date information.

II.      Some Facts About Aviation and Climate Change

In Aviation and Climate Change: the Views of Aviation Industry Stakeholders, the aviation industry makes several claims regarding the impact aviation has on climate change. First, the industry claims that “over the past four decades, we have improved aircraft fuel efficiency by over 70 percent, resulting in tremendous savings.” As a result, the industry continues, “given the significance of fuel costs to the economic viability of our industry, our economic and environmental goals converge.” Second, the industry claims that “because of our aggressive pursuit of greater fuel efficiency, greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from aviation constitute only a very small part of total U.S. GHGs, less than 3 percent.” However, in order to assist the industry in its obligation “to further limit aviation’s greenhouse gas footprint even as aviation grows to meet rising demand for transportation around the world,” those claims of progress need to come under a microscope.

        A.            Contribution of Aviation to Climate Change Remains Subject to Debate

First, how much aviation contributes to climate change is still up to debate. Several governmental and aviation industry organizations have been reporting a “less than 3%” number for quite some time while environmental groups, particularly in Europe, claim that the percentage is anywhere from 5 to 9%. In examining the claims and counterclaims concerning emissions of GHG, one has to be very careful about the language and the metrics used in determining the “impact” any given industry will have on “climate change.” Many reports and studies focus only on CO2, since the amount of CO2 produced both naturally and by humans is overwhelming. However, as just about everyone knows by now, there are other gases and anthropogenic actions that exacerbate climate change. For example, the U.S. EPA recently proposed regulations that would require major emitters of six “greenhouse gases” to report their emissions to the EPA on an annual basis. Those six greenhouse gases are: carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), sulfur hexafluoride (SF6), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorochemicals (PFCs), and other fluorinated 20 gases (e.g., nitrogen trifluoride and hydrofluorinated ethers (HFEs)). It also should be kept in mind when discussing climate change, especially with respect to aviation, that water vapor is estimate contribute anywhere from 36% to 72% of the greenhouse effect. This is important because the radiative forcing effect of cirrus cloud formation from the aircraft is a significant contributor to the greenhouse effect. As pointed out above, it is generally accepted that for aviation the GHGs of concern are CO2, nitrogen oxides (NOx), aerosols and their precursors (soot and sulfate), and increased cloudiness in the form of persistent linear contrails and induced-cirrus cloudiness.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (8)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

President Obama took a huge step toward reversing the Bush Administration's recently promulgated regulation allowing Federal agencies to forego consultation with the Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service with respect to whether the Federal agencies' activities will have an impact on the Endangered Species Act.  In his memo to "Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies," President Obama requests that the Departments of Interior and Commerce "to review the regulation issued on December 16, 2008, and to determine whether to undertake new rulemaking procedures with respect to consultative and concurrence processes that will promote the purposes of the ESA."

Since the Bush Administration rule was issued as a regulation, President Obama cannot through the use of an Executive Order rescind or overturn the regulation.  Thus, as an interim measure President Obama asked "the heads of all agencies to exercise their discretion, under the new regulation, to follow the prior longstanding consultation and concurrence practices involving the FWS and NMFS."

As a side note, it should be pointed out that the Senate is currently considering an Omnibus Appropriations Bill from the House that would allow the Obama Administration to rescind both the ESA rule and a rule issued in conjunction with last year's listing of the polar bear as threatened under the ESA.  That rule exempted greehouse gas emissions and oil devleopment from regulation under the ESA even if they harmed the bears and their melting habitat.

Full text of President Obama's Memorandum, as reported by the L.A. Times, follows on the next page.

Previous related Posts:

• Skipping Consultations Regarding Endangered Species Okay with Bush Administration
  

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The U.S. House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure has proposed H.R. 915, the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2009.  Since funding authorization for aviation programs and authorization for taxes and fees that provide revenue for the FAA expired at the end of fiscal year 2007 and revenue collections and FAA programs have been extended several times (until March 31, 2009), this bill is a priority item for the FAA. What follows is a summary of the provisions of the Reauthorization Bill.

Funding & Financing

• Taxes on aviation users will be increased - Passenger flight segment tax increased to $3.60; International departure and arrival taxes increased to $16.10; Alaska Hawaii facilities tax increased to $8.00.
• Provides historic funding levels for the FAA’s programs between 2009 and 2012, including $16.2 billion for AIP; $13.4 billion for Facilities and Equipment; $38.9 billion for operations; and $1.35 billion for Research, Engineering and Development.

Airports

• Makes several modifications to the current AIP distribution formula that provide significant increases in AIP funding for smaller airports, which are particularly reliant on AIP for capital financing, as well as more AIP discretionary funding.
• Increases Passenger Facility Charge from $4.50 to $7.00.  This provision was strongly supported by Jim Elwood, representing the American Association of Airport Executives.

ATC Modernization and NextGen

• Provides $13.4 billion for the FAA's Facilities and Equipment account.
• Increases the authority and visibility of the Joint Planning and Development Office.
• Requires the JPDO to develop a work plan that details, on a year-by-year basis, specific NextGen-related deliverables and milestones.
• FAA wants to emphasize "infrastructure" improvements at the nations' airports, which includes a full roll-out of NextGen.

Safety

• Includes several safety provisions, such as authorizing additional funds for runway incursion reduction programs and the acquisition and installation of runway status lights.
• Increases the number of aviation safety inspectors and requires safety inspections of foreign repair stations at least twice a year.
• Directs FAA to commence a rulemaking to ensure that covered maintenance work on air carrier aircraft is performed by part 145 repair stations or part 121 air carriers.
• Creates an independent Aviation Safety Whistleblower Investigation Office within the FAA charged with receiving safety complaints and information submitted by both FAA employees and employees of certificated entities.
• Directs FAA to modify its “customer service initiative” to remove air carriers or other entities regulated by the FAA as “customers.”
• Adds a two-year “post-service” cooling off period for FAA inspectors and requires principal maintenance inspectors to rotate between airline oversight offices every five years.

Small Communities

• Increases the total amount authorized for Essential Air Services each year from $127 million to $200 million.
• Requires 50% of over-flight fees collected in excess of $50 million be dedicated to EAS.
• Authorizes the Secretary to enter into long-term EAS contracts that would provide more stability for participating air carriers.
• Reduces local share of AIP projects from 10% to 5% for economically depressed communities.
• Includes several provisions to mitigate the effects of increases in aviation fuel costs by increasing the existing $200 per passenger subsidy cap.
• Extends the Small Community Air Service Development Program through fiscal year 2011, at the current authorized funding level of $35 million per year.

Consumer Protections

• Includes several provisions to ensure passenger needs are met including a mandate that air carriers and airports submit emergency contingency plans and detail in their plans how they allow passengers to deplane following excessive delays.
• DOT is required to publicize and maintain a hotline for consumer complaints, establish an Advisory Committee for Aviation Consumer Protection, expand consumer complaints investigated, and require air carriers to report diverted and canceled flight information monthly.
• DOT Inspector General is asked to report on the causes of air carrier flight delays and cancellations.

Environmental Provisions

• Includes several provisions related to the environment, noise mitigation and land use initiatives, including:
  • An environmental mitigation pilot program;
  • The phasing out of noisy Stage II aircraft;
  • An aircraft departure queue management pilot program;
  • Broadened AIP eligibility to include several energy saving terminal projects; and
  • Requirements for the FAA to build sustainable air traffic control facilities.
• Allows airport operators to reinvest the proceeds from the sale of land that an airport acquired for a noise compatibility purpose, but no longer needs for that purpose, giving priority, in descending order to:
  • Reinvestment in another noise compatibility project;
  • Environmentally-related project
  • Another otherwise-eligible AIP project;
  • Transfer to another public airport for a noise compatibility project; or
  • Payment to the Trust Fund.
• Provides authorization for the Continuous Lower Energy, Emissions and Noise (“CLEEN”) Engine and Airframe Technology partnership to develop, mature and certify CLEEN engine and airframe technology for aircraft over the next 10 years.

Labor

• Modifies the dispute resolution process for proposed changes to the FAA personnel management system, and replaces it with a new dispute resolution process.
• Applies the new dispute resolution process to the ongoing dispute between NATCA and the FAA. That is the changes implemented by the FAA on and after July 10, 2005, would be null and void and the parties will be governed by their last mutual agreement.
• Amends the Railway Labor Act to clarify that employees of an “express carrier” shall only be covered by the RLA if they are employed in a position that is eligible for certification under FAA’s rules and they are actually performing that type of work for the express carrier.
• Requires an assessment of training programs for controllers and air traffic technicians.
• Requires that FAA include employee unions as stakeholders in the development and planning for NextGen.
• Requires the establishment of a Task Force on Air Traffic Control Facility Conditions to determine whether employees are exposed to dangerous environmental conditions in their work place.
• Requires the Secretary to establish within the FAA a working group to develop criteria and make recommendations for the realignment and consolidation of services and facilities.

Aviation Insurance

• Extends requirement until September 30, 2012, that the FAA provide U.S. airlines’ aviation insurance from the first dollar of loss at capped premium rates, after which the requirement becomes discretionary until September 30, 2019.
• After December 31, 2019, such insurance must be provided instead by airline industry-sponsored risk-sharing arrangement approved by the Secretary.

Next Article: Summary of Comments regarding Safety Provisions.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks (1)
• Share Link

The California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) is once again under attack.  Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, in a letter to President-Elect Obama, has conditioned agreement to a budget reconciliation package on the suspension of CEQA compliance for 10 highway projects, ranging from carpool lanes on Routes 50 in Sacramento and 805 in San Diego, to road widenings in Fresno and San Joaquin, to a fourth bore in the Caldecott Tunnel in San Francisco.  The Governor’s initiative is already under siege from myriad environmental organizations including the Sierra Club, the Planning and Conservation League and the National Resources Defense Council.

The Governor partially justifies his actions on the grounds that most of the projects would have to comply with the Federal equivalent of CEQA, the National Environmental Policy Act (“NEPA”).  The well hidden flaw in the Governor’s argument is that he has requested that President-Elect Obama provide funding for the projects under various Federal statutes, and simultaneously suspend Federal environmental compliance standards as well.

The Governor’s proposal has far reaching implications.  First, and most obvious, are the potentially undocumented and unanalyzed, but nonetheless significant, noise and air quality implications of highway expansions.  Second, the decision as to what projects to exempt from environmental review would be made by a commission of executive appointees who would be charged with picking and choosing, without legislative oversight.  As we are all painfully aware, “power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.”

Finally, the Governor’s initiatives need not be limited to highways.  If the development and/or expansion of airports are granted the same reprieve from environmental regulations as that currently envisioned for highway projects, on the pretext that it is necessary to ensure California’s financial integrity, the sky is literally the limit for environmental impacts around dozens of airports including Los Angeles International Airport, San Diego International Airport and San Francisco International Airport.

CEQA has successfully fought of such attacks in the past.  It is critical, however, that those persons and entities that will be impacted by the proposed suspension of environmental regulations, either now or in the future, contact the Governor’s office at (916) 445-2841 or by sending him an e-mail, and/or their State Legislator, to register their firm opposition to such an opportunistic, but ultimately ineffective solution to California’s budget woes.
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

On Thursday, December 11, 2008, the Bush Administration issued final regulations that will allow federal agencies to skip having to consult with either the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service or the National Marine Fisheries Services before making a determination that no harm will come to an endangered species.  This change will have an impact on projects at airports that use federal funds.

In his prepared statement announcing the final regulations, Interior Secretary, Dirk Kempthorne emphasized that the responsibility to initiate consultation will still be with the federal agency undertaking the action.  The only difference, he stated, was when the federal agency determined that when:

• an action is not anticipated to harass, harm, kill or otherwise “take” a listed species; and
• The action has no effect what-so-ever on a listed species or critical habitat, such as replacing a culvert when the species is not present; or
• The action is completely and totally beneficial, such as expanding the no hiking zone from 15 yards to 30 yards around nesting sites; or
• The effects of the action are so insignificant that they can’t be detected or measured, such as when a federal project generates noise at such low levels that scientists can’t accurately detect its harm to a species; or
• The effects of the action are the result of global processes that are too broad to measure.

This, however, is a marked change from the current rule where federal agencies first determine if their proposed action may affect a listed species or critical habitat.  If so, they must then proceed with either formal or informal consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service or the National Marine Fisheries Service.

How will this affect airport planning?  Since compliance with the Endangered Species Act is part of NEPA requirements, all Environmental Impact Statements are required to state whether the FAA has consulted with the Fish and Wildlife Service or the National Marine Fisheries Service and indicate their response.  Under the new rule, the FAA can make its own determination that the proposed action (i.e., runway expansion, terminal project, etc.) will not harm any endangered species.  The question remains, however, whether federal agencies, like the FAA, have the resources to make such a determination.  Moreover, because the FAA is not an expert in the field of endangered species, it will, most likely, provide another avenue of attack for opponents to a particular proposed project.

An Interior Department spokesman, Chris Paolino, said that the regulations were an "attempt to refocus the resouces, time and manpower of both the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries to focus on those projects that have a measurable, adverse impact on endangered species."

Needless to say, environmental groups were not too pleased that in the last hours of the Bush Administration

Andrew Wetzler, Director of the Natural Resources Defense Council's Endangered Species Program, commented on the NRDC's website:

This administration has rejected anything with a whiff of science -- so before sulking out the back door, they are going after rules that require Fish and Wildlife Service scientists to prevent harm to our last wild animals and places. Despite today’s feel-good statements, we remain convinced that these changes are illegal. We will look at the final language when it is published tomorrow, but I think we will see them in court.

This action eviscerates key protections that have helped safeguard and recover endangered fish, wildlife and plants for the past 35 years.
Our government is founded in a system of checks, balances and accountability.  President Bush has violated each of these principles by finalizing this rule in his waning days of power.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

On October 28, 2008, Acting FAA Administrator Bobby Sturgell rolled out the FAA's 2009-20013 "Flight Plan" at a speech in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma.  The "Flight Plan," in which FAA sets goals for itself, is "the strategic plan for the agency, the plan to help [the agency] prepare for the future."  In the past year, for example, as Acting Administrator Sturgell pointed out, the FAA "reached 25 out of 29 goals," with the remaining goals "probably" being achieved by November 20, 2008.  In other words, the goals set in the Flight Plan are projects and issues that the FAA has good reason to believe it can achieve over the stated planning horizon.

Priority one, according to the Flight Plan, is "dealing with congestion and delays . . . both in the air and on the ground.  Toward that end, the FAA plans to "identify and address capacity-constrained airports and metropolitan areas."  The FAA has identified Atlanta, Chicago Midway, Fort Lauderdale, John Wayne Orange County (CA), Las Vegas, Long Beach, Oakland, Phoenix, San Diego and San Francisco as being "capacity constrained" and provided these airports with a "toolbox" which includes "technological, procedural, and infrastructure improvements to be considered for implementation at airports based on additional capacity needs in the future."

In addition, in FY 2009, the FAA plans to "increase aviation capacity and reduce congestion in the 7 metro areas and corridors that most affect total system delay."  Those areas are:  San Francisco, Los Angeles, Las Vegas, Chicago, Charlotte, New York and Philadelphia.  Apart from continuing the controversial airspace redesign for the New York/New Jersey/Philadelphia Metropolitan area, and the slot auctions for JFK, Newark and LaGuardia, which all spawned lawsuits, the FAA plans on moving forward with the redesign of the airspace for the remaining 7 metro areas.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (AB 32) designated the California Air Resources Board (CARB) as the lead agency for  its implementation.  The next milestone for CARB is developing a Scoping Plan outlining California's strategy to achieve the 2020 greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions limit.  So on October 15, 2008, CARB published its Climate Change Proposed Scoping Plan:  A Framework for Change.  The Scoping Plan contains the main strategies California will use to reduce the greenhouse gases that cause climate change. Since this plan has the potential to affect just about every sector of California, CARB is seeking the public's comments.  Comments on the Scoping Plan are due no later than December 10, 2008.  The Scoping Plan will be presented for approval at the CARB’s December 11, 2008, meeting

The Scoping Plan proposes a comprehensive set of actions designed to reduce overall greenhouse gas emissions in California.  Among the solutions it proposes are "improving our state's infrastructure, transitioning to cleaner and more secure sources of energy, and adopting 21st century land use planning and development practices."  Moreover, CARB lists as the key elements of its recommendations:

• Establishing targets for transportation-related greenhouse gas emissions for regions throughout California, and pursuing policies and incentives to achieve those targets;
• Developing a California cap-and-trade program that links with other Western Climate Initiative partner programs to create a regional market system; including California's clean car standards, goods and movement measures, and the Low Carbon Fuel Standard;
• Adopting and implementing measures pursuant to existing State laws and policies,
• Expanding and strengthening existing energy efficiency programs as well as building and appliance standards;
• Achieving a statewide renewables energy mix of 33 percent; and
• Creating targeted fees, including a public goods charge on water use, fees on high global warming potential gases, and a fee to fund the administrative costs of the State's long term commitment to AB 32 implementation.

Noticeably absent from the Scoping Plan is any mention of airports or aircraft.  This is due to the CARB's perceived inability  to do much about airports and aircraft due to FAA's pre-empting the field.  Indeed, about the only mention of airports and aircraft in the AB 32 materials comes in Appendix C of the Draft Scoping Plan:

Emissions from the fuel used in planes is an important consideration, however, the State does not have regulatory authority over aviation. ARB has not identified aviation specific measures; however, successful deployment of High Speed Rail could divert some air passengers to rail.

Draft Proposed Scoping Plan, Appendix C, p. C-21.  Nor does the Scoping Plan take the emissions of aircraft have while they are in air.

As a final note, there will be a public hearing on the Scoping Plan on November 20, 2008, in Sacramento, to consider the AB 32 Scoping Plan to reduce Greenhouse Gas emissions in California.  Click here for the Agenda.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link