Paul working for you.

Tuesday, February 28, 2017

Lying Liars Strike Again!

Lying Liars Strike Again!

 Below is the posting from the town's website regarding the opening and closing of the annual town meeting warrant (May 13, 2017):

This notice was posted at 8:44 am on February 14, 2017. Article II - Town Meetings Section 5:

The warrant for both special and annual town meetings "shall be open for a minimum of 14 days before closing and posting the warrants." You do the math. Wouldn't be the first time there was a mathematical error in posting the warrants!

 According to a long standing Farrell tradition of submitting citizen petitions  for the annual town meeting warrant, I went to town offices at around 6:30 pm to submit four citizen petitions.

The Selectmen meeting was in progress. Instead of disturbing the meeting, I approached the town clerk to see if she would accept the citizen petitions. The town clerk kindly got the assistant to the town administrator to open up the selectmen office so I could submit my citizen petitions.

According to the notice on the town's website my citizen petitions were time-stamped. When I got home, I noticed the time stamp was incorrect!  FEB 27 PM 7:48 Such a surprise!


Which is why I sent the assistant to the town administrator this email:

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Julie Farrell

Date: Mon, Feb 27, 2017 at 7:23 PM
Subject: Time stamp on citizen petitions
To: Holly Young
, Holly
Cc: Jeff Bennett
, petefrrll@gmail.com


Hi Holly,

 I dropped off four citizen petitions and you time stamped and gave me copies. When I got home I noticed the time stamp was incorrect.

The time stamp is 7:47 pm . You time stamped them at 6:47 pm.
The time stamp on this email will be 7:24 pm. I do not have a time machine.

Julie

 

Can't Make This Sh%$ Up! 



A bigger and more disturbing question is the inaccuracy of the time stamp. This is a big problem. When projects go out to bid, the bids are time stamped as they are received. There is a drop dead date and time that all bids must be submitted by. If a bid is received too late, then that bid can not be accepted. The way to verify when bids are received is to time stamp the bids as they come in.

Maybe this issue will be covered by the  Inspector General  training on March 8th?

Monday, February 27, 2017

Lying Liars Club - Again

See what more lies may be uncovered at tonight's meeting of the Liars Club!

At the working meeting of the Liars Club meeting last Wednesday February 22nd, the townspeople were assured that at least one selectmen reviews the vendor warrant carefully, before signing off on it. 

So that means at least one selectman was aware of the legal invoices below and what they contained and what they tried to stop the public from learning.

Yes, this group of elected officials conspired to stop discussion of Article 8 at the October 20, 2016 STM using public money and town counsel. 

Please drop the charade of "Open, Honest and Transparent".
Original post below:
******************************************
Lying Liars Club

 Well it only took 4 appeals and orders from the Division of Public Records to finally receive appropriately redacted legal invoices from the time period of August 2016 through October 2016.

Here is the link to the partially redacted LEGAL INVOICES

So I made the request on October 25, 2016, and this response is dated February 21, 2017. Open? Honest? Transparent? - You decide! 

Anyone remember Article 8 at the October 20, 2016 Special Town Meeting? Here's a refresher:


Does anyone else RECALL being told that citizen petition articles are NOT reviewed by Town Counsel? Absolutely NOT! THAT never happens! Right?

You be the judge:

"10/20/16 PDR Work on memos to Selectmen regarding Article 8 STM".

Somebody seems to be lying! 

Interestingly the entry for 10/24/16 :

"PRD  Attention to questions from town administrator: WHETHER LEGAL BILLS ARE PUBLIC RECORDS, ..." 

OOPS!

Isn't it Ironic?

Meetings the Week of February 27, 2017


Meetings the Week of February 27, 2017

Monday  2/27/17
Ag. Com                       JK Crossroads                  6:00 pm
Liars Club                    PCS Town Hall*              6:30 pm
 
Tuesday  2/28/17
Planning                      PCS Town Hall*              6:30 pm

Wednesday 3/1/17
Adv. Com                    PCS Town Hall*             6:30 pm        

Thursday 3/2/17



* Pauly Cosentino Sr. Town Hall

Sunday, February 26, 2017

Taxachusetts: Bay State Politician Wants to Soak Gun Owners

Friday, February 24, 2017
SUPPORT NRATaxachusetts: Bay State Politician Wants to Soak Gun Owners
In an attempt to further punish Massachusetts’s beleaguered gun owners, on January 20, Massachusetts State Senator Cynthia S. Creem filed SD.1884. The legislation includes a raft of gun control measures, not the least of which is a 4.75 percent “sin tax” on all lawful firearms-related activity.
SD.1884 requires, “an additional surcharge of 4.75 percent shall be imposed on sales at retail of all ammunition, rifles, shotguns, firearms or parts thereof.” Contemplating that law-abiding gun owners would seek to avoid this surcharge by purchasing goods in neighboring states, the legislation also makes clear, “an additional surcharge of 4.75 percent shall be imposed on the storage, use or other consumption of ammunition, rifles, shotguns, firearms or parts thereof… purchased from any vendor or manufactured, fabricated or assembled from materials acquired either within or outside the commonwealth for storage, use or consumption within the commonwealth.” 
Massachusetts already has a sales and use tax of 6.25 percent. Therefore, a Massachusetts gun owner would be subject to an 11 percent state tax on the purchase of firearms, ammunition, and related accessories. All gun owners are already subject to an 11 percent federal excise tax on firearms and ammunition under the Pittman-Robertson Act. The mere idea of a 22 percent tax on the exercise of the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms is shameful in a state so critical to the founding of this great nation.
Of course, the Pittman-Robertson 11 percent federal excise tax on firearms and ammunition is for the benefit of the shooting sports, and is used to provide hunting and shooting opportunities for all Americans. Conversely, the surcharge imposed by SD.1884, would be used to fund a “Firearms Violence Prevention Trust Fund,” which state officials would employ to “establish an annual municipal grant program to support municipal violence prevention programs.” It does not take a pessimist to imagine how, under the stewardship of the Massachusetts state government, such a fund might devolve into a vehicle under which the state’s gun owners would be forced to directly finance the abrogation of their own rights.
In explaining her tax to the Salem News, Creem likened the exercise of the constitutional right to keep and bear arms to tobacco use, noting, “It's like the tobacco tax, which is used for smoking cessation programs.” Creem added, “To me, it's the same thing as paying a toll on the bridge for using the roads.”
Creem’s defense of her legislation has been disjointed. At one point she told Wicked Local Newsbank, “I look at this as a way to still enjoy the lawful use of firearms.” However, at another she admitted that her intent with SD.1884 is to curtail both legal and illegal gun ownership, stating, “I've filed gun legislation every session. I want to make it harder and harder to get guns in and get guns into the hands of people who shouldn't have them.”
As an attorney, Creem should know that the U.S. Supreme Court has frowned upon attempts to curtail constitutionally-protected behavior through targeted taxation. In Minneapolis Star Tribune Co. v. Minnesota Commissioner of Revenue, the Court held that a Minnesota use tax on paper and ink used in publishing violated the First Amendment. The Court explained, “A power to tax differentially, as opposed to a power to tax generally, gives a government a powerful weapon against the taxpayer selected.”
The Court came to this decision despite the fact that there was “no legislative history and no indication, apart from the structure of the tax itself, of any impermissible or censorial motive on the part of the legislature.” With SD.1884, Creem has been explicit about her motive of reducing lawful gun ownership.
And that is all that Creem could hope to accomplish with her tax, as criminals procure firearms outside the normal stream of commerce. A Department of Justice survey of state prison inmates found that the overwhelming majority (nearly 80 percent) obtained firearms through a “street/illegal source” or through “family or friend[s].” Drug dealers and armed robbers don’t typically file 1040s, and any firearm sales or use tax can expect a similar level of underworld compliance.
Moreover, such taxes wouldn’t affect criminal firearm use even in the unlikely event that the criminal element subjected themselves to it. In his widely-celebrated 1994 essay for the Atlantic Monthly, titled, “The False Promise of Gun Control,” George Mason University School of Law Professor Daniel D. Polsby pointed out that criminals are the least likely segment of the population to be affected by gun controls that raise the cost of firearms ownership.
Polsby noted,
Where people differ is in how likely it is that they will be involved in a situation in which a gun will be valuable. Someone who intends to engage in a transaction involving a gun—a criminal, for example—is obviously in the best possible position to predict that likelihood. Criminals should therefore be willing to pay more for a weapon than most other people would… The class of people we wish to deprive of guns, then, is the very class with the most inelastic demand for them—criminals—whereas the people most likely to comply with gun control laws don’t value guns in the first place.
Of course, all gun controls in some manner raise the cost of lawful firearm ownership, with taxation of firearms and ammunition merely being one of the more direct and visible methods. As for less direct - but even more substantial - costs, Creem’s legislation provides several.
The bill would require gun owners to conduct all firearm transfers through a licensed dealer pursuant to a background check. Massachusetts gun owners are already required to obtain a Firearms Identification Card, which is issued only after the applicant has been found to have met the state’s onerous licensing requirements and passed a background check.
The legislation also imposes a “smart gun” mandate on future handgun sales. The bill requires that in six months from “commercial availability” of handguns “equipped with personalized firearm technology,” the state’s approved handgun roster shall not include “any newly manufactured” handguns that are not equipped with such technology. The more intelligent gun control advocates have abandoned this approach, contending that a similar New Jersey mandate has stifled development of this technology.
SD.1884 would make it unlawful to “sell, purchase, rent, lease or possess a .50 BMG rifle or .50 BMG cartridge.” To justify the proposed ban, Creem relied on her feelings, telling a media outlet, “I can't see a credible reason why a civilian needs that kind of firearm.” The proposal prompted the Massachusetts Gun Owners Action League’s Jim Wallace to point out that .50-caliber rifles are often used in the shooting sports, and ask, “Has there ever been a crime committed with a .50 caliber firearm in Massachusetts? What's the problem we're trying to solve?”
This is apt question, given that crime committed using rifles is exceedingly rare in Massachusetts and the rest of the country. In 2014 and 2015 a total of one homicide was committed using a rifle of any kind in Massachusetts. Unfortunately, these figures have not deterred Creem from pursuing her legislation, and did not deter Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey from perverting existing state law to ban several types of commonly-owned rifles in 2016.
In recent years, gun control advocates have taken to describing nearly every proposed restriction, as “common sense.” In describing her bill, Creem told a reporter, “Some of these are just common-sense thoughts.” Gun control advocates should take issue with Creem’s use of this rhetoric. Using this language in an attempt to conceal the aims of such an uncommonly senseless piece of legislation threatens the little remaining credibility of broader movement’s carefully orchestrated messaging efforts.

Do You Trust Snopes? You Won’t After Reading This.

Do You Trust Snopes? You Won’t After Reading This.

The big players in the GMO and agrochemical industry – Monsanto, Bayer, Dow, Syngenta, DuPont – are engaging in an extensive public relations, advertising, lobbying and political campaigning to make sure that genetically engineered crops (GMOs), and the chemical pesticides they require, continue to proliferate in the U.S.

To improve their public image, they are attempting to manipulate everything we see and hear about GMO crops and pesticides in the media and on TV, the internet and print articles – using propaganda-laden commercials, “mommy-blogger” articles, farmer endorsements, hired operatives to change Wikipedia, and front group websites. The biotech industry is feeling threatened, and their profits hang in the balance. They are trying to silence the truth!

We now have evidence that the website Snopes.com is being manipulated by the industry too. But first, let’s examine what Snopes really is…

A lot of people trust the website Snopes.com and use it to fact-check things they hear on the internet. For no reason whatsoever, this mom-and-pop website has been put on a pedestal as if they are the be-all and end-all of truth on the internet.

Facebook recently teamed up with Snopes, allowing them become an arbitrator of fake news circulating on their network, essentially elevating them as an authoritative source of information. I find this development alarming on many levels:
  • While there is some fake news on the internet, this opens up the possibility that op-ed’s and independent journalism will get labeled as “fake news” if Snopes doesn’t agree with an opinion.
  • Articles can be deemed “false” if Snopes conducts sloppy fact checking. When it comes to the topic of food, it is imperative that everyone understands that this field is rampant with corrupt paid-off scientists and front groups that are working to protect profits of corporations at the expense of our health. You can not always trust information coming from self-proclaimed independent experts, and sources must be vetted extensively. 
  • We all have the ability to use critical thinking skills while reading news on Facebook or any other online platform – and should determine for ourselves what is false and what is the truth – instead of relying on the work of websites like Snopes to do that for us.
  • Everyone should feel empowered to seek out the truth on their own. Especially when it comes to our health, we need to be our own advocates and investigate the food that we are eating. 
  • This is treading too close to the line of censorship and can stifle our freedoms to express our ideas. 

Is Snopes a credible and authoritative source of information? 

  • Snopes now has a hired team of suspect fact checkers who collaborate to debunk falsehoods that are trending on the internet.

The recent series of events below demonstrates how Snopes has been influenced by Monsanto into manipulating the public opinion about the dangers of their bestselling product, Roundup weedkiller (aka glyphosate).

can-you-trust-snopes

Monsanto has made BILLIONS off of the weedkiller Roundup (aka glyphosate) along with their Roundup-Ready GMO seeds, but sales have been plummeting since the truth about this toxic product is coming out. They are doing everything they can to keep those profits coming in!

Food Democracy Now! and The Detox Project conducted a report showing how this popular weedkiller is present in many popular American foods and when my blog post went viral (Millions of views!), Snopes came out with an article claiming that it was a “MIXTURE” of truth and fiction. 

snopes

Snopes suddenly changed their assessment to FALSE about 24 hours later:

snopes-false
Did the facts really change? Why would they call this information FALSE?

When you compare both versions of Snopes’ article, you see that they edited it to suit a narrative that fits Monsanto’s agenda – it’s outrageous!

It’s as if Monsanto edited it themselves and sent it off to Snopes for publication. Entire sentences and paragraphs were removed that were hurtful to Monsanto. Important data was removed entirely. The wording was changed to make the findings of an independent FDA-registered laboratory seem less scientific or credible…
snopes-comparison-1
The data about how Cheerios and Stacy’s Pita Chips were found to have MORE glyphosate than the level permitted by the U.S. government in drinking water (700 ppb) was completely removed! Apparently Snopes believes it’s not factual or important to mention that some foods were found to have more weedkiller in them than even our lax regulations allow…
snopes-comparison-8
snopes-comparison-
In this first revision, Snopes makes a huge mistake in stating that the World Health Organization’s International Agency For Research on Cancer’s (IARC) finding that glyphosate is probably carcinogenic to humans was “overturned in March 2016”, which is NOT TRUE…
snopes-comparison-3

Snake colony plan remains slippery for Wildlife board


Snake colony plan remains slippery for Wildlife board
Chris Villani Thursday, February 23, 2017

Credit: Courtesy

BITING COMMENT: The state plans to place a colony of timber rattlesnakes, pictured, on Mount Zion Island.
The plan to plant a colony of timber rattlesnakes on an island in the Quabbin Reservoir is slithering sideways as the state’s Fisheries and Wildlife Board explores other sites to jump-start the venomous serpents’ dwindling Bay State population.

“We are backing off and looking at all the options,” Joseph Larson, the board’s chairman and chairman of the recently established Rattlesnake Review Group, told the Herald. “We will come out with an assessment of each of the existing sites where snakes are still living and address the kinds of (snake) mortality that occurs at each site.”

The board’s initial proposal to introduce a small colony of snakes to Mount Zion, a 1,300-acre island in the middle of the Quabbin that is off-limits to humans, was met with considerable pushback from area residents rattled by the thought of the rattlers winding up in people’s back yards.

The plan is for young snakes to be raised at the Roger Williams Zoo in Rhode Island until they are large enough to avoid being an easy snack for a hawk or an owl, Larson said, and then introduce them to an area where the population can grow.

While saying “all options are being considered,” Larson suggested the Blue Hills, an existing snake habitat, may not be an ideal destination, as setting snakes free in the area in the past has not caused an uptick in the population due to human-induced mortality.

Friday, February 24, 2017

Bait and Switch

Bait and Switch


"What Violates The Consumer Protection Law?

What type of business actions violate Chapter 93A? The law does not list them in any definitive fashion but states that "unfair or deceptive practices" are illegal. Well then, what is "unfair" or "deceptive?" Like most legal questions, this one is answered by that age-old adage "it depends." A court's analysis of what is unfair or deceptive will not be limited to merely contract, negligence or breach of warranty claims...."

Some Examples

Although each case is judged on its own merits, some examples of unfair or deceptive practices that might fall under Chapter 93A would be when:
  • A business charges a consumer higher rates than the marked, published or advertised price.
  • The refund/return policy is not clearly posted where it can be readily noticed and understood.
  • A business does not meet its warranty agreement.
  • A business fails to tell you relevant information regarding your product or service or misleads you in any way.
  • A business uses "Bait and Switch" advertising - a technique by which the seller advertises an item for sale at a particularly good price or terms but does not really want to sell that item. The seller discourages the purchase of the advertised item and instead tries to convince the buyer to purchase a different item for a higher price or on less favorable terms.
These are some classic examples. Many other scenarios may also implicate Chapter 93A.

Hmm. Misleads you in any way. Interesting.

So what are the consequences if the funding can't be obtained to build the elementary school? What exactly happens? Does anyone know? Why don't we know?

One of the consequences if the funding magically appears to build the elementary school, is that the town will be "broke". Templeton will not be able to fund any capital project for any department or enterprise for a very, very long time.

The residents in Templeton were sold a bill of goods, based on very faulty, misleading and deceptive information. Residents were told that "Free cash" would be certified; residents were told we would have our bond rating restored by the time we needed to borrow money; residents were told "The Audits are coming! The Audits are coming!" Not so much. Didn't happen. 

So off to the MFOB to borrow money for the elementary school project. Now that's not looking too promising to say the least. Templeton has too much debt to qualify for State Guaranteed Bonds. Our local aid doesn't cover the amount of money Templeton has already borrowed and needs to borrow to build the school.

Residents in Templeton voted on a state of the art elementary school with a $47 million dollar price tag. It's as if residents were promised a shiny new Ferrari with all the bells and whistles, but when it came time to leave the dealership, a small problem arose. 

"BTW, you have to be able to pay for that new Ferrari! After running Templeton's financial numbers, Templeton only qualifies to purchase a used Subaru with about 200,000 miles on it." Let's hope the used Subaru has a non-interference motor and the head gasket was recently replaced.

What Are the Risks from Swallowing Fluoride?

What Are the Risks from Swallowing Fluoride?





Fluoride has long been known to be a very toxic substance. This is why, like arsenic, fluoride has been used in pesticides and rodenticides (to kill rats, insects, etc). It is also why the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) now requires that all fluoride toothpaste sold in the U.S. carry a poison warning that instructs users to contact the poison control center if they swallow more than used for brushing.

Excessive fluoride exposure is well known to cause a painful bone disease (skeletal fluorosis), as well as a discoloration of the teeth known as dental fluorosis. Excessive fluoride exposure has also been linked to a range of other chronic ailments including arthritisbone fragilitydental fluorosisglucose intolerancegastrointestinal distressthyroid disease, and possibly cardiovascular disease and certain types of cancer.

While the lowest doses that cause some of these effects are not yet well defined, it is clear that certain subsets of the population are particularly vulnerable to fluoride’s toxicity. Populations that have heightened susceptibility to fluoride include infants, individuals with kidney disease, individuals with nutrient deficiencies (particularly calcium and iodine), and individuals with medical conditions that cause excessive thirst.

To see a complete list of FAN’s research on fluoride’s health effects, click here. 

Thursday, February 23, 2017

Lying Liars Club

Lying Liars Club

Well it only took 4 appeals and orders from the Division of Public Records to finally receive appropriately redacted legal invoices from the time period of August 2016 through October 2016.

Here is the link to the partially redacted LEGAL INVOICES

So I made the request on October 25, 2016, and this response is dated February 21, 2017. Open? Honest? Transparent? - You decide! 

Anyone remember Article 8 at the October 20, 2016 Special Town Meeting? Here's a refresher:


Does anyone else RECALL being told that citizen petition articles are NOT reviewed by Town Counsel? Absolutely NOT! THAT never happens! Right?

You be the judge:

"10/20/16 PDR Work on memos to Selectmen regarding Article 8 STM".

Somebody seems to be lying! 

Interestingly the entry for 10/24/16 :

"PRD  Attention to questions from town administrator: WHETHER LEGAL BILLS ARE PUBLIC RECORDS, ..." 

OOPS!

Isn't it Ironic?


 

Cabin Fever


Wednesday, February 22, 2017

What's in YOUR Vehicle?

Auto Loan Bubble Bursting, And Lenders Know Where Your Car Is At All Times

Open Space Feedback Session March 2, 2017

Monday, February 20, 2017

Help Senator Anne Gobi fix AG Healey's "MISTAKE"




NRA-ILA: Institute for Legislative Action

Massachusetts: Legislation Introduced to Challenge AG Healey’s Gun Ban



The Massachusetts General Court’s 2017 legislative session is in full swing with the introduction of numerous pro- and anti-gun bills.  Among the pro-gun bills are Senate Docket 1157 and Senate Docket 1889.  Both SD 1157 and SD 1889 seek to challenge the gun ban set forth last summer by Attorney General Healey’s “enforcement notice,” which greatly expands the Commonwealth’s definition of “assault weapon.”  AG Healey alleges that the ban’s definition of “copy” or “duplicate” “assault weapons” have been misinterpreted for the last 18 years and she is simply the first law enforcement official to discover this incorrect interpretation.  In response, several legislators wrote a letter to AG Healey voicing their strong opposition.  SD 1157 and SD 1889 take their opposition a step further by challenging AG Healey’s unilateral decision making through legislation. 
It is important that you contact your state Senator and state Representative and urge them to support these bills when they come up for a vote.  Please click the “Take Action” button below to contact your state legislators!
SD 1157, sponsored by state Senator Don Humason (R- Second Hampden and Hampshire), would remove the Attorney General’s authority to regulate firearms and would repeal the previous regulations.
SD 1889, sponsored by state Senator Anne Gobi (D- Worcester, Hampden, Hampshire and Middlesex),would eliminate the term “copy” from statute, thereby, eliminating the premise behind the Attorney General’s actions.  
Please stay tuned to www.nraila.org and your email inbox for further updates on these bills.

Citizen Action Turns the Tide on Massive Landfill Expansion in Southbridge


Citizen Action Turns the Tide on Massive Landfill Expansion in Southbridge

Kirstie Pecci


On Monday night, more than 100 people from the south-central Massachusetts towns of Sturbridge, Charlton, and Southbridge turned out for an emergency meeting of the Sturbridge Board of Health. They came to express their anger to the Regional Director of the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MassDEP) that the 19 home wells in the Sturbridge neighborhood located closest to the Southbridge Landfill had tested high for lead, a dangerous neurotoxin proven to do irreversible harm to fetal and child development. What’s more, recent tests had also revealed that a probable carcinogen – 1,4 Dioxane – was found in 6 wells in the same testing area.

Some residents whose wells had been contaminated were in tears, because they may be forced to use bottled water for drinking, cooking, and brushing their teeth for years, like their neighbors in Charlton, yet they still must bathe their children in contaminated water. Others expressed deep concern because their own wells had not yet been tested, leaving them in limbo as to what level of contamination, if any, might be found in their water.

The anger, fear, and frustration in the room were especially poignant because this was not the first time the Board of Health and MassDEP have heard from concerned residents on this issue. More than a year ago, in the fall of 2015, home wells in Charlton were found to have high levels of toxic contaminants – 1,4 Dioxane and trichloroethylene, among others. Then, as now, residents asked MassDEP over and over, “What is it going to take for you to shut the Southbridge Landfill down?”

MassDEP Makes the Right Decision for Local Citizens

At issue on Monday night was not just the current contamination issues linked to the state’s largest landfill, but plans by the site’s owner, Casella Waste, to dramatically expand the facility. The landfill has expanded before, most recently in 2008, when it began accepting more than 400,000 tons of waste each year, a huge increase over its previous max of about 26,000 tons annually. The current expansion proposal – which is proposed in multiple phases – would see the landfill accept another 4 million tons of waste over the next 10 years. MassDEP was on track to approve the site for expansion when local residents requested Monday’s emergency Board of Health meeting to once again air their anger and concerns.

Meetings the Week of February 20, 2017


Meetings the Week of February 20, 2017

Tuesday  2/21/17
Veterans                        Legion                                6:30 pm
 
Wednesday  2/22/17
Ecomonic                    PCS Town Hall*                9:00 am     
Liars Club                   PCS Town Hall*                6:30 pm

Thursday 2/23/17
Cable                          PCS Town Hall*                6:00 pm        



* Pauly Cosentino Sr. Town Hall

Sunday, February 19, 2017

Quarantine Powers


CDC Publishes Final Rule on Quarantine Powers