Datasets:

ontocord

/

aurora-m2

like 1

Follow

Ontocord.AI 22

Exploration Park to Host Space Technology and Commerce Kennedy Space Center, Fla. NASA's Kennedy Space Center announced Thursday its plan to seek private-sector partners to develop a space technology and commerce park to be named "Exploration Park at John F. Kennedy Space Center." The park is expected to attract tenants engaged in space technology, space commerce, space education and otherwise involved in promoting and implementing the Vision for Space Exploration. Exploration Park will be located along Space Commerce Way, behind the KSC Visitor Complex. "Exploration Park will be a site where the private sector brings both traditional and non-traditional work to Kennedy Space Center in support of both our NASA programs and commercial space initiatives that find value in locating their operations here," said KSC Director Jim Kennedy. KSC expects to formally solicit development proposals soon. "This concept offers a front door at Kennedy Space Center for organizations that expect to be involved in NASA's exploration activities, or for commercial ventures that seek to support the vision and develop low earth orbit," said Spaceport Development Manager Jim Ball. "It's also an ideal site for support services and other uses that require close proximity to KSC facilities and personnel." For information about NASA and agency programs, visit: - end - text-only version of this release To receive status reports and news releases issued from the Kennedy Space Center Newsroom electronically, send a blank e-mail message to [email protected]. To unsubscribe, send a blank e-mail message to [email protected]. The system will confirm your request via e-mail.

Exploration Park to Host Space Technology and Commerce Kennedy Space Center, Fla. NASA's Kennedy Space Center announced Thursday its plan to seek private-sector partners to develop a space technology and commerce park to be named "Exploration Park at John F. Kennedy Space Center." The park is expected to attract tenants engaged in space technology, space commerce, space education and otherwise inv

History in Slow Motion For more than 40 years, the twin crawler-transporters at NASA's Kennedy Space Center have traveled the gravel track between the massive Vehicle Assembly Building and the two launch pads at Launch Complex 39. These mammoth beasts carried all the Apollo Saturn V rockets, and later each space shuttle, on the last Earth-bound leg of their journeys to space. On Oct. 19, 2009, a new chapter in the crawler history was written as the first test rocket of the Constellation Program -- the Ares I-X -- was transported slowly along that same gravel track. The towering 327-foot-tall launch vehicle, bolted to its mobile launcher platform, road majestically into the spotlight atop one of the crawlers as it exited the huge building where the rocket was assembled. The combined weight of the Ares I-X, mobile launcher platform and the crawler itself was a whopping 16 million pounds. Moving at less than 1 mph, the crawler safely delivered its precious cargo to the launch pad, just as it had so many times throughout the years. The technology used to build the huge, reliable crawlers capable of such Herculean tasks was deeply rooted in the coal fields of Ohio. There, mammoth machines were used to excavate and extract the precious coal veins running through that part of the country. But it's doubtful that the crawlers' designers from the Marion Power Shovel Company could have ever imagined their creation would still be moving launch vehicles in the 21st century as yet another generation of rockets prepare to take flight. Phil Koehring, son of the crawlers' engineering designer, said upon the vehicle's 40th anniversary, "This was a machine that was built to last. There were a lot of naysayers about this program in the early days, and all I can say is, 'We've shown them!'" You can learn more about the history of the crawler , what it takes to drive the mammoth vehicle , and follow the Ares I-X flight test Cheryl L. Mansfield NASA's John F. Kennedy Space Center

History in Slow Motion For more than 40 years, the twin crawler-transporters at NASA's Kennedy Space Center have traveled the gravel track between the massive Vehicle Assembly Building and the two launch pads at Launch Complex 39. These mammoth beasts carried all the Apollo Saturn V rockets, and later each space shuttle, on the last Earth-bound leg of their journeys to space. On Oct. 19, 2009, a n

Hubble Opens New Eyes on the Universe NASA's Hubble Space Telescope is back in business, ready to uncover new worlds, peer ever deeper into space, and even map the invisible backbone of the universe. The first snapshots from the refurbished Hubble showcase the 19-year-old telescope's new vision. Topping the list of exciting new views are colorful multi-wavelength pictures of far- flung galaxies, a densely packed star cluster, an eerie "pillar of creation," and a "butterfly" With the release of these images, astronomers have declared Hubble a fully rejuvenated observatory. Sen. Barbara A. Mikulski, D-Md., unveiled the images at NASA Headquarters in Washington, D.C., on Sept. 9, 2009. With its new imaging camera, Hubble can view galaxies, star clusters, and other objects across a wide swath of the electromagnetic spectrum, from ultraviolet to near-infrared light. A new spectrograph slices across billions of light-years to map the filamentary structure of the universe and trace the distribution of elements that are fundamental to life. The telescope's new instruments also are more sensitive to light and can observe in ways that are significantly more efficient and require less observing time than previous generations of Hubble instruments. NASA astronauts installed the new instruments during the space shuttle servicing mission in May 2009. Besides adding the instruments, the astronauts also completed a dizzying list of other chores that included performing unprecedented repairs on two other science instruments. Now that Hubble has reopened for business, it will tackle a whole range of observations. Looking closer to Earth, such observations will include taking a census of the population of Kuiper Belt objects residing at the fringe of our solar system, witnessing the birth of planets around other stars, and probing the composition and structure of the atmospheres of other worlds. Peering much farther away, astronomers have ambitious plans to use Hubble to make the deepest-ever portrait of the universe in near-infrared light. The resulting picture may reveal never-before-seen infant galaxies that existed when the universe was less than 500 million years old. Hubble also is now significantly more well-equipped to probe and further characterize the behavior of dark energy, a mysterious and little-understood repulsive force that is pushing the universe apart at an ever-faster rate. > Gallery of all images > Read the NASA press release Space Telescope Science Institute

Hubble Opens New Eyes on the Universe NASA's Hubble Space Telescope is back in business, ready to uncover new worlds, peer ever deeper into space, and even map the invisible backbone of the universe. The first snapshots from the refurbished Hubble showcase the 19-year-old telescope's new vision. Topping the list of exciting new views are colorful multi-wavelength pictures of far- flung galaxies, a

A CONVERSATION WITH WILLIAM H. GERDTS SCHOLAR, CURATOR, AND COLLECTOR WILLIAM H. GERDTS is the author of over twenty-five books on American art. An expert in American Impressionism, he is also well known for his work on nineteenth-century American still-life painting, of which he is a distinguished collector as well. He is also a bibliophile. An expert recently looked over his personal library of illustrative books on painting, sculpture, and graphic art, and called it the greatest American art library in the world. PART ONE: THE COLLECTOR AS A YOUNG MAN BRUCE COLE: Where did you grow up and how did you first become interested in art? WILLAM H. GERDTS: I was born in Jersey City. After my first nine years in Jersey City, my parents moved to Jackson Heights, Queens, and I went to Public School 69. It was the first public school in the city of New York to give both French and typing. My French teacher was Miss Maloney, which is one reason my French has an Irish lilt to it. Miss Maloney used to rap the knuckles of all the students. A good teacher though. Then I went to Newtown High School—a public school—and I took French. And then I went to Amherst College, and you had to take a foreign language, so I took French. And they said, “What French are you going to take?” And I said, “Intermediate.” And they said, “No, we’re going to put you into Advanced.” Strangely enough, the man who taught it was named Reginald French. We read French writers like Lamartine, and we looked at French paintings like the Impressionists’, and when I came home to New York about once a month, I would go to the museums. Cole: Did you have any art in your home? Gerdts: No. If it had not been for Reginald French, I might not have become interested. I wanted to go to Harvard Law School. And I knew you had to have very good grades to get in. In my first five semesters at Amherst, I took easy courses and I got good grades. So, I thought, in my last three semesters, I could take courses that were more challenging. Amherst has a very, very fine collection of American paintings that were left to them by the Pratt brothers of Standard Oil. Herbert Pratt collected American paintings up to the Civil War, and George from the Civil War through Bellows and the Ashcan School. Charlie Morgan ran the department more or less single-handedly, and ran the art museum, which is now the Mead Art Museum. He was a classicist. But he gave a course in American art because he had the collection, and he felt he ought to teach with it. I took the course, and I loved it. So that’s what got me into American art. Cole: Why did you love the course? Gerdts: I thought the pictures were beautiful and varied, and because they were there. I was living with them. It was a summer course. And I took it in order not to go home. Taking it meant that I would graduate in February, but law school wasn’t going to begin until September. I had to do something with the next several months. Now, I liked Amherst, and it’s very attractive there and all. So I went around and asked for a job. The art department was the only place that had a full-time job, because they were moving into the new Mead Art Museum. And they gave me the job of re-cataloging the collection. Which sounds like it’s sort of nothing, and it sort of was. They just sat me in the back room of this building where they kept all the furniture and all the paintings and everything, waiting for the Mead to open. But I could do cataloging. Because I had taken typing in high school. And I really got to love what I was doing. I remember there was a shaving cabinet, an eighteenth century shaving cabinet with one drawer. The drawer was locked, and there was no key. I picked it up and shook it. And there was something in it. So, in true conservation fashion, I got a screwdriver out and pried open the drawer and probably destroyed it. But inside was a miniature by James Peale. I brought it to the director. And what did he care about the shaving cabinet? He had a James Peale miniature. Well, things like that happened. So that really got me into American art. Cole: You were actually sitting in a room where there was real art and you were trying to figure out for yourself, through cataloging, what it was. Gerdts: Yes. And, I guess, I must’ve felt that I had some kind of a visual sense. A visual sense to which art appealed and with which I felt I could make judgments. I think there are an awful lot of art historians who don’t have an eye. You know, like being tone deaf, I think you can be eye deaf. Cole: What does it mean to have an eye? Gerdts: It’s the ability to see quality in works of art that might not ordinarily appeal to even the average art historian. It has to do with being able to recognize the hand of an artist, even when they’re not at their most typical. It means being able to enjoy the richness, the color, the forms, to get an idea of what the artist was thinking when the artist did the picture. Why the artist put the line there, rather than here. And this color there, rather than that color there. Cole: You went to law school? Gerdts: I went to law school in September 1949. And classes, particularly for first-year students, are in huge auditoriums, you know, for three hundred students. And then, down there at the end was somebody at a lectern, talking about tarts or torts. And around the rooms, these huge rooms, were these portraits of eminent jurists, and portraits of other people too, including portraits, by the way, that I had studied at Amherst. After four days of that, I left at noontime, or whatever, and went over to the dean, the graduate dean, and said, “Listen, I’m in the law school. But I think I want to go into fine arts.” Fortunately, the dean wasn’t there. There was an assistant dean, who was young. He thought this was very funny. He said, “Well, if the fine arts department will let you in, it’s okay with us. We’ll just transfer the funds from the law school to the graduate school.” Everything was serendipitous, incredibly so. The dean’s office was right next to the Fogg Art Museum. So, I just went into the next building. Mary Wadsworth, the secretary, was there. She might not have been, but she was. I said, "I’d like to see the head of the department," who was Charles Kuhn, who might not have been there, but he was. He let me in. I explained my story. In his graduate work, one of his fellow students had been Charles Morgan, who was head of the art history department at Amherst. So, they knew each other fairly well. He picked up the phone, called Charles Morgan. Charles Morgan might not have been there, but he was. And he said, “Charlie, I’ve got this kid sitting here, and he said he took these courses from you. And that he worked for you for seven months in the museum. And he wants to come into our program. Should I let him in?” Charles Morgan said, “Yes. He did that. And yes, let him in.” And so Prof. Kuhn said to me, “You’re in.” And then I called home. Mother flew to Boston, and she didn’t use an airplane. Cole: And then what? Gerdts: My interest was American art. But at Harvard they gave practically no American art courses. It’s quite different now, of course. But the only American art I ever saw was in a back corridor, which was lined with some American pictures. There was a wonderful teacher there named Ben Rowland. Ben’s field was Asian art, southern Asian art—India and Southeast Asia. And his second field was Trecento, Italian. He was also a professional watercolorist. We have one of his paintings at home. He showed it at Doll and Richards Gallery in Boston. The powers that be at Harvard called Ben in and said, “We need somebody to teach an occasional—and very occasional—American art course. You’re an American artist, therefore, you teach the course.” So he taught this course. I never took it. Because it was the same as the one I had already had with Charlie Morgan at Amherst. Instead, I was his assistant. I was a TA for him. But I pursued American art by taking tutorials with Ben. PART TWO: AMERICAN ART AND SCHOLARSHIP Cole: During this period when all the American art at Harvard was in some back corridor, when no one was teaching American art, what was the state of American art history? Gerdts: In 1948, when I was studying under Charlie Morgan, I’ll bet you couldn’t have found twelve other courses in American art being given in the United States. Cole: Was this because American art was seen as kind of a stepchild of the great European tradition? Gerdts: More than this: a stepchild, imitative, and a rather poor reflection thereof. When my wife—who’s ten years younger than I—was an undergraduate, she wanted to do an honors thesis on John Singer Sargent’s watercolors. The professor told her Sargent wasn’t worth working on. Cole: But there’s no doubt that American art is now deemed worthy of study. Because, all of a sudden, we’re no longer ashamed of our art. We no longer see it as derivative. And we start to celebrate our art. How did that all come about? Gerdts: Obviously, there’s no single cause. But one of the major issues was the formation of the M. and M. Karolik Collection at the Museum of Fine Arts in Boston. Maxim Karolik was a Russian opera singer who came over to this country in 1922 and married a very wealthy Bostonian lady of a very high family, and then had lots and lots of money. And it was a very good marriage, strangely enough. And they built up various collections. There was a collection of American decorative arts. There was eventually a collection of American drawings, watercolors, etc. But the collection that’s best known is the collection of American paintings, particularly from about 1825 to 1875. There were art historians before the Karolik show. One of the greatest in our field, Lloyd Goodrich, had become interested in Winslow Homer as early as 1924. This is obviously an oversimplification. But there were two triumvirates. There was Eakins, Homer, and Ryder; and there was Whistler, Sargent, and Cassatt. But, of course, Eakins, Homer, and Ryder were better artists, because they stayed home. While Cassatt, Sargent, and Whistler expatriated. But they were all—the six of them were recognized as American artists who transcended the usual second-rateness of American art. George Inness might be thrown in as a seventh. But that would be it. Cole: Did Karolik collect American art because he didn’t have the prejudice that a lot of Americans had towards American art? Gerdts: I think so. I think he got into Boston society and started looking around at Boston art. And not just Boston art. But a lot of it is was New England art. And, mind you, he had a lot of money. But I know he was buying these pictures—$200, $300—pictures that, if he was still alive, might go for a million dollars now. Cole: The good old days. Gerdts: I got into collecting in the 1950s. The man I had lunch with today, he’s sort of the last surviving member of a group of collectors. He didn’t have a lot of money. “In 1948, when I was studying under Charlie Morgan, I’ll bet you couldn’t have found twelve other courses in American art being given in the United States.” We used to go to a shop on Third Avenue, run by a man named George Guerry, and we’d go there about once a week. He didn’t have pictures on his walls. There would be a stack of pictures, ten here, ten here, ten here, and we would—this wasn’t exactly a plan—we would all find ourselves there on Saturdays, passing through these, and buying pictures at $35, $50, and whatnot. We were all friends. And we were all collecting nineteenth-century American paintings. Then around 1960, the market really started to hit the big time, and it started primarily because of Dan and Rita Fraad, and Ray and Margaret Horowitz. Dan was a businessman, actually in the cleaning business. I mean he cleaned out airplanes and other big stuff. Ray was his lawyer. And it was something like, Dan said to Margaret, who was beginning to collect paintings, you know, I’d like to buy Ray a picture. Here’s some money. Would you pick something? And she did. The Horowitzes concentrated on American Impressionist paintings. That helped put the American Impressionist market on the map. Then other collectors started to emulate them. And the prices started soaring from a thousand dollars, maybe, for a Twachtman to a million dollars for a Twachtman, in a very short period of time. With this growth of interest among the collectors who were also, of course, benefactors to institutions, the institutions started doing exhibitions of American art. And because the institutions were doing exhibitions of American art, the schools began to have a lot more courses in American art, in part to train students to become museum people. It was a snowball. Cole: The change was collector-driven. Gerdts: Collector-driven. And dealer-driven. It all started with portrait shows in the 1880s. They continued in the ’90s. There would be a portrait show every year. Portraits of beautiful women, portraits of lovely children, often to benefit orthopedic hospitals or something like that, you know, that kind of thing. And it stayed portraiture well into the early years of the twentieth century. Finally, there was a big show in 1945, shared by the Art Institute of Chicago and the Whitney Museum, which was on the Hudson River School. Actually, it was a very funny show, because it wasn’t on the Hudson River School. It was on all of nineteenth-century American landscape. The Fogg Art Museum, for some reason, sometime in the 1930s, did a small show on American genre painting. There were these isolated examples. But the Karolik Collection was a huge collection. The opening of it at the Boston Museum was a tremendous opening. John I. H. Baur, one of the great scholars in our field, he and Lloyd Goodrich were very close. Lloyd was director of the Whitney Museum, John was assistant director, but he had been the curator at the Brooklyn Museum and did some wonderfully innovative shows there in the 1940s. John Baur wrote the catalog for the Karolik Collection. And it was three or four inches thick. I’m sure it was the biggest book that had to do with American art at the time. And that came out in the late ’40s. For all my collectors in the ’50s, that was their prime book. Because there wasn’t much else. There were a few other survey books, surveys for American art. Cole: What was it in our culture that allowed us to become not only interested but proud of American art? Gerdts: What led Americans to value their own art? One could be very crass about it and say that when Americans could no longer afford the Monets and the Cézannes, then they started buying the Childe Hassams. Money was one factor. But there is also an element of national pride. I’ve never even thought about this before, but as American-born Abstract Expressionism became the dominant contemporary art form, it may have led historians and collectors to look back and say, “Well, hey, maybe we weren’t so bad in the olden days.” Because the two happen at the same time, you know. Cole: Is there a one-volume history of American art that you can recommend to our readers? Gerdts: Well, there are many of them now. And different people have different favorites. Milton Brown wrote a book on American painting, but then the publisher had him reduce that book in size, and add photography, decorative arts, architecture, sculpture, and whatnot. And I think that book [American Art] is pretty good. There is a woman named Frances Pohl, who, in the interests of political correctness, has written a book [Framing America] which totally distorts both the developing of the arts in this country and denigrates its most significant figures, in order to deal almost totally with gender, racial, social, political, and economic issues, but seldom artistic ones. Thus, America’s most celebrated neoclassic sculptor, Hiram Powers, is reduced to one reproduced image, while the very minor, and far less talented Edmonia Lewis (but half Native American, half African American) has three images on view. Washington Allston, our first and most original painter of historical, grand-manner painting, internationally celebrated in his time, is reduced to one reproduction, this of an attractive but minor landscape. His most celebrated picture, Belshazzar’s Feast, is not even mentioned. Winslow Homer, unarguably our finest and most original painter of the sea—works that many scholars here and abroad consider America’s greatest pictures—is represented by three early works. But none of his finest and most original pictures are illustrated or discussed since they cannot sustain the preordained ideological issues the author has imposed upon her so-called history of American art. But this book is used in a lot of courses now. Cole: So what’s the state of scholarship on American art today? Gerdts: Well, I really don’t like art history anymore. Because I find that most art history that I read falls—this is obviously a generalization—into two categories. Either it’s repetition of what has been said over and over, but it’s for a different catalog or a different essay, or whatnot. And that’s boring. Or it goes so far out of its way to try to reinterpret art history, usually in the most bizarre manner. This is really Jules Prown’s fault, although I think he started out very well, with great intentions, with his wanting to define American art within material culture and its political ramifications, and whatnot. Cole: How might the works of someone like Winslow Homer be related to what’s happening in American art scholarship today? Gerdts: Oh, well, you see now what’s happened with Homer is that instead of expounding upon his tremendous achievements, the latest articles on Homer have to do with, Who was that girl I saw you with last night? They have to do with this model that appears in a number of his pictures. Was she his real girlfriend or not? Was that Helena de Kay that he was in love with? Or was it the school teacher he wrote about in one of his letters? Or, possibly, was he homosexual and did he dress up men as women? I mean, What the hell has that got to do with what he achieved? You know, we pointed out that this sudden—not sudden, but fairly sudden—explosion of interest in American art was as much collector- and dealer-driven as it was academic-driven. There is now a tremendous gap. I mean, the collectors and the dealers have absolutely no interest in what the art historians are bulls—ing about. Cole: One more thing about Homer before we move on, if you don’t mind. It seems to me that Homer is a quintessential American artist. But what is it that makes him so American? Or, put another way, what is American about American art? Gerdts: Obviously there are certain things that are very American, like pictures of the Rocky Mountains, pictures that do not look like the Swiss Alps. Once upon a time, I was called into a gallery to look at a picture—a picture by Bierstadt of Mount Hood, a big vertical picture, rather close up. And I was asked what do I think of that picture. I said, “Well, it’s a very nice picture. And, nice Bierstadt. “But I really wonder if it’s Mount Hood,” because there’s a little path going around the edge of it. And there’s this lady, in a peasant costume, with her laundry on her head—that kind of thing. And that didn’t seem awfully American Indian to me. The next time I saw that picture at the same gallery, the picture was still there. But they had obviously put a very heavy coat of varnish over it. So, you didn’t see it nearly as well. Cole: What about Americans and nature? Gerdts: Americans were, particularly in the early and middle years of the nineteenth century, very interested in nature, because they didn’t have any history. So, relatively speaking, nature was the big subject. The Hudson River School and even after. Cole: Well, I know you’re very interested in regional art. Gerdts: There has been a tremendous renewed interest in regional art. Part of it, again, but only part, has to do with the finances. Because if you can’t buy a Hassam now because they’re in the millions, possibly you could buy a Connecticut Impressionist painting for only a hundred thousand dollars. But what I find fascinating—and I have no explanation for it, so don’t ask—is the lack of consistency in the interest in regional art. I mean, Californians are incredibly fascinated by California. There must be two hundred galleries in California that deal with nothing but California art. Indiana is very interested in Indiana art. Illinois is not interested in Illinois art. Cole: Go figure, right? Gerdts: The other aspect I wanted to emphasize, though, is an area where I am more and more interested: the interrelationship of American and European art. For instance, the essay I’m most proud of having written in recent years was one that was in that Sargent in Venice catalog, which was not on Sargent, but was on the artistic milieu in Venice at the time of Sargent. Actually, what I got most interested in, and I’m not kidding about any of this or exaggerating, are the Venetian paintings of the late nineteenth century, which are magnificent. There was a real renaissance, hardly Titian or Tieopolo, but a real renaissance. And it’s totally unknown in this country. PART THREE: ART AS PROPERTY Cole: When did you start to collect art? Gerdts: The earliest picture in my collection I acquired in 1950. It was a still life, which is mostly what I collect. But then I didn’t collect another until 1956. I was at the Newark Museum. There’s a little shop in Newark that I used to spend a lot of time in, a frame shop, occasionally it had shows. And I used to spend a lot of my lunch hours there. I went in there once, and they had a little still life. I didn’t know who did it, although I think I do now. It was $35, and I bought it. The next week I came in, and they had four pictures by a better known artist. In fact, at least one of them went to the Newark Museum, a big Cropsey landscape. But they had a pair of still lifes by David Johnson, who was a pretty well-known landscape painter, and didn’t do still lifes. There were only about half a dozen still lifes known by him. But two of them were there. And I said, “How much are they?” And they said, “A hundred dollars.” And I said, “I don’t have a hundred dollars.” They said, “Well, we’ll sell you one for fifty.” And I said, “Well, I really can’t pay fifty.” I worked for a museum. I said, “But last week you sold me one for $35.” They said, “Okay. You can have one of them for $35, and we’ll charge $65 for the other one.” Interestingly, my associate director for the museum bought the other one. It is now on the market for about $250,000. Cole: So you’ve been collecting ever since? Gerdts: It was when I bought that second picture, the David Johnson, that I knew I was hooked. The first time, maybe not. My first wife, a lovely woman, used to complain occasionally that I was taking food out of the mouth of our son. Cole: Was that true? Gerdts: Yes. Well, you can’t win them all. Cole: Can a person who is not wealthy still collect American art? Gerdts: Of a certain type, and provided you don’t have to fill in gaps which are going to be just way over the top for you. Cole: Do you collect systematically? Gerdts: We collect American still-life paintings of the 1850s, ’60s, ’70s, ’80s, post-Peale, pre-Harnett, because I love them. I mean, I love the look of them. I love the way they are crafted. I like how they differ one from another. How I can tell the style of William Mason Brown from George Hall, and all that sort of thing. But there is a financial element there. I never could’ve afforded the Peales to begin with. I never could’ve afforded the Harnetts at the other end. But I could afford what went in between. Cole: What were people doing with those still lifes in those days? And where were they putting them? Gerdts: In dining rooms. Cole: Did many houses have them? Gerdts: Oh yes. Now, the other side of this is that still-life painting was looked upon as the least original form of art, because it was seen as only imitative. Cole: Yes. And just decoration too, right? Gerdts: Decoration and imitation. In other words, the artist sets up three peaches and a lemon, and then he paints three peaches and a lemon. I understand that. And I appreciate it. But I see it differently, because obviously I see that the way that Brown painted three peaches and a lemon is different from the way Hall painted three peaches and a lemon. So, it’s not the same thing. It’s not just a photograph of three peaches and a lemon. Cole: And you like pears too, right? Gerdts: Oh, I’m a pear freak. Yes. Pears in all forms, including to eat. Cole: How were these still lifes received in their day? Gerdts: It became a big thing in America with Harnett. And it became a big thing not because of his showing them in exhibitions so much. He did a little showing, but in more popular venues like state fairs or barrooms. Cole: Was that because they were so realistic? Cole: That’s what people really loved about them, right? Gerdts: Yes, yes. Cole: They fooled the eye. Gerdts: Yes. For the fool-the-eye. Gerdts: There’s an element of fool-the-eye in practically all nature representational painting. Our kind of still life has relatively little. Cole: And who was painting these still lifes? Were they still-life specialists? Gerdts: We have about 250 works of art, but that includes drawings and prints and things like that. Let’s say we have a 100 or 110 still lifes. The majority of them were painted by still-life specialists, but I have a couple of subcategories, one of which is still lifes by artists who didn’t paint them, like the David Johnson. Gerdts: Sanford Gifford, who was a very prolific landscape painter, only painted one fruit still life. And I’ve got it. And that’s sort of fun to have. Cole: It’s unique. Cole: Nobody was collecting still lifes when you started, right? Gerdts: No. And there were no still-life collectors in the nineteenth century. Cole: So, what have you learned from buying that you don’t learn by looking at art in a book or by going to an exhibition? Gerdts: Well, first of all, it has trained me not only to see the difference between a Brown and Hall, but between any two of the artists that are represented. Or to see that an artist in their early years might be different from their later years. And to see how they got from one to the other. I’ve learned to love these pictures with a passion. And they are minor pictures. I say minor pictures because there used to be a hierarchy, a thematic hierarchy that lasted for two or three hundred years, where history painting was at the top and still life was at the bottom. And I like the perversity of liking the bottom. Cole: “An ill-favoured thing, sir, but mine own.” Gerdts: Yes, exactly. It’s not that I don’t like history painting. I think Washington Crossing the Delaware is a great picture. But in one sense, it’s no greater than my three pears and an apple by Hall. Cole: That wouldn’t fit into your apartment anyway. Or would it? Gerdts: No, unless we had a bigger couch. Cole: Do you have plans for your collection? Gerdts: It is going to the National Gallery. Gerdts: It was going to go to Amherst College. That’s where I got my degree, and then they gave me an honorary degree, and all that. They were going to enlarge the art building, but they never did it. And it’s not just pique that they didn’t do it. We were up there after they had a big capital campaign. They did all sorts of things to all sorts of buildings, and practically nothing to the art museum except to install good climate control, which actually ate up a little bit of the space. And we were taken through the museum with the then curator, a friend of ours. The building wasn’t quite open, but it was beyond hard hats. So we went in through the loading dock entrance. And we’re in this huge, huge room. And she says, “This is where the storage is.” I thought that was very impressive, until we got half way through the room and she says, “Well, that’s painting storage and the rest is decorative art storage.” And then we said to the curator, “Well, if you get our paintings, what are you going to do with them?” I don’t mean hang them, exhibit them. “Where are you going to store them?” And she said, “Well, it’s the best we can do.” Shortly thereafter, Nick Cikovsky, then curator of American art at the National Gallery, was visiting us. He looked at all the pictures very carefully. And said, “So, what are you going to do with them? ” I said, “Well, we were going to give them to Amherst, but not now." He said, “Well, what about the National Gallery? ” And I said, “Are you kidding? ” I mean, the Ganz Collection, the Horowitz Collection, the Gerdts Collection! I don’t think so. He said, “No, I’m serious. ” He said, “We would be very interested.” He and Frank Kelly came up several times. And they don’t take whole collections. They made their selection from our collection. And, then, they added to it, as we’ve added some things to it. So the best of our collection will go to the National Gallery collection. The rest will be sold to create an acquisition fund for the National Gallery. And the National Gallery is the only museum I know of that puts in their annual financial statement, “We do not deaccession.” Cole: Thanks. This has been fascinating.

A CONVERSATION WITH WILLIAM H. GERDTS SCHOLAR, CURATOR, AND COLLECTOR WILLIAM H. GERDTS is the author of over twenty-five books on American art. An expert in American Impressionism, he is also well known for his work on nineteenth-century American still-life painting, of which he is a distinguished collector as well. He is also a bibliophile. An expert recently looked over his personal library of

- What is depression? - Signs and Symptoms of Depression - What is a stroke? - How are depression and stroke linked? - How is depression treated in people who have had a stroke? - What is vascular depression? - For More Information on Depression - For More Information on Stroke How is depression treated in people who have had a stroke? Depression is diagnosed and treated by a health care provider. Treating depression and other mental disorders may help with stroke recovery.5 After a stroke, treatment with antidepressant medications or problem-solving therapy (a type of psychotherapy, or talk therapy) may prevent serious depression before it begins.5 Problem-solving therapy helps people identify problems that interfere with daily life and contribute to depressive symptoms and find ways to solve those problems. Recovery from depression takes time but treatments are effective. At present, the most common treatments for depression include: - Cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT), a type of psychotherapy, or talk therapy, that helps people change negative thinking styles and behaviors that may contribute to their depression - Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI), a type of antidepressant medication that includes citalopram (Celexa), sertraline (Zoloft), and fluoxetine (Prozac) - Serotonin and norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor (SNRI), a type of antidepressant medication similar to SSRI that includes venlafaxine (Effexor) and duloxetine (Cymbalta). While currently available depression treatments are generally well tolerated and safe, talk with your health care provider about side effects, possible drug interactions, and other treatment options. For the latest information on medications, visit the U.S. Food and Drug Administration websiteExternal Link: Please review our disclaimer.. Not everyone responds to treatment the same way. Medications can take several weeks to work, may need to be combined with ongoing talk therapy, or may need to be changed or adjusted to minimize side effects and achieve the best results. More information about depression treatments can be found on the NIMH website. If you think you are depressed or know someone who is, don’t lose hope. Seek help for depression.

- What is depression? - Signs and Symptoms of Depression - What is a stroke? - How are depression and stroke linked? - How is depression treated in people who have had a stroke? - What is vascular depression? - For More Information on Depression - For More Information on Stroke How is depression treated in people who have had a stroke? Depression is diagnosed and treated by a health care provider.

Nature & Science LBJ Library photo by Yoichi Okamoto The natural environment and cultural heritage of the Texas Hill Country is protected and maintained through a regional network of private and public stewardship. Lyndon B. Johnson National Historical Park is a full partner in the research, resource preservation and technical assistance integral to sustaining public awareness of the connection between influence of place and the programs of the Johnson Administration. The park possesses a complete natural resource bibliography, a vascular plant inventory, and a vertebrate inventory. Precipitation and meteorological data collection is on-going, and the park sponsors a Remote Automated Weather Station at the LBJ Ranch for the Texas Forest Service. Did You Know? President Johnson flew home to his Texas ranch 74 times during his 5 years in office, living and working for 490 days—or about one-fourth of his presidency—at the Texas White House. Here he confers with Gen. William Westmoreland on May 30, 1968. Lyndon B. Johnson National Historical Park

Nature & Science LBJ Library photo by Yoichi Okamoto The natural environment and cultural heritage of the Texas Hill Country is protected and maintained through a regional network of private and public stewardship. Lyndon B. Johnson National Historical Park is a full partner in the research, resource preservation and technical assistance integral to sustaining public awareness of the connection be

|FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE| September 10, 2012 New York City Public Hospitals and Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services to Host Medicare 101 Workshops Free learning sessions will help senior citizens, healthcare providers, and community members understand how to get the most out of Medicare benefits Open enrollment is October 15 to December 7 New York, NY – The New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation (HHC) and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) will host free public workshops at HHC hospitals and large health centers throughout the city just in time for the Medicare open enrollment period to help senior citizens, other beneficiaries and their caregivers apply for Medicare and get the most out of their benefits. Health Insurance Specialists from CMS will conduct 13 Medicare learning sessions at HHC hospitals and health centers in Manhattan, the Bronx, Brooklyn and Queens before and during open enrollment October 15 to December 7. In Queens, workshops will be held at Elmhurst and Queens Hospitals. The workshops will provide Medicare information and materials that are current, accurate and consistent for beneficiaries, healthcare professionals, including coming-of-agers (people approaching age 65, when they become eligible for Medicare), and those who want a refresher course. The sessions will also cover updates brought about by the Affordable Care Act, the healthcare reform law passed by the U.S. Congress in 2010 and upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in June. "Seniors are a significant and growing part of our patient population and we are providing this important information to assist them in making informed decisions about their healthcare," said HHC President Alan D. Aviles. Workshop participants will learn: - The benefits of the Medicare program and how to apply. - The parts of Medicare: Part A: hospital insurance; Part B: medical insurance – outpatient visits, lab work, preventive services; Part C: health plans; and Part D: prescription drug coverage. - The Medicare appeals process. - The Medicare programs in place for people with limited income and resources. CMS is the federal agency that provides health coverage for 100 million people through Medicare, Medicaid, and the Children's Health Insurance Program. Medicare is a health insurance program for people age 65 or older, people younger than 65 with disabilities, and people with end stage renal disease who require dialysis or a transplant. “These workshops are an excellent way to inform beneficiaries, caregivers, coming-of-agers, and all who serve people with Medicare,” said Norma Harris, CMS health insurance specialist. “Through education, CMS is committed to continuing the important work involved in transforming health care delivery systems and helping to ensure a healthy future for all Americans.” Here is the schedule for the Manhattan. All workshops will be held 8:30 a.m. to 1 p.m.: Thurs., Oct.11, Elmhurst Hospital Center, 79-01 Broadway RSVP: http://medicare101elmhurst.eventbrite.com Tues., Oct.23, Queens Hospital Center, 82-68 164th Street RSVP: http://medicare101queenshospital.eventbrite.com Participants may also RSVP by calling 212-788-3450. The New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation (HHC) is a $6.7 billion integrated healthcare delivery system with its own 420,000 member health plan, MetroPlus, and is the largest municipal healthcare organization in the country. HHC serves 1.4 million New Yorkers every year and more than 475,000 are uninsured. HHC provides medical, mental health and substance abuse services through its 11 acute care hospitals, four skilled nursing facilities, six large diagnostic and treatment centers and more than 70 community based clinics. HHC Health and Home Care also provides in-home services for New Yorkers. HHC was the 2008 recipient of the National Quality Forum and The Joint Commission's John M. Eisenberg Award for Innovation in Patient Safety and Quality. For more information, visit www.nyc.gov/hhc.

|FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE| September 10, 2012 New York City Public Hospitals and Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services to Host Medicare 101 Workshops Free learning sessions will help senior citizens, healthcare providers, and community members understand how to get the most out of Medicare benefits Open enrollment is October 15 to December 7 New York, NY – The New York City Health and Hospitals

|OSHA requirements are set by statute, standards and regulations. Our interpretation letters explain these requirements and how they apply to particular circumstances, but they cannot create additional employer obligations. This letter constitutes OSHA's interpretation of the requirements discussed. Note that our enforcement guidance may be affected by changes to OSHA rules. Also, from time to time we update our guidance in response to new information. To keep apprised of such developments, you can consult OSHA's website at http://www.osha.gov. May 16, 2011 The Honorable Charles E. Grassley United States Senate Washington, D.C. 20510 Dear Senator Grassley: Thank you for your August 12, 2010, letter to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) on behalf of your constituent, Mr. Alan J. Smith, regarding the use of sweep augers in grain storage bins. Mr. Smith asked for definitions of "guarded and non-guarded" sweep augers, referring to a December 24, 2009, OSHA letter of interpretation (copy enclosed). That letter of interpretation addressed an inquiry about a specific scenario involving a sweep auger, which OSHA's correspondent described as an "unguarded screw auger." A sweep auger is a horizontal auger used to push grain remaining at the bottom of a storage bin toward the bin's discharge sump opening. It rotates around the discharge opening to "sweep" the grain toward that opening. Although the screw portion of the auger is often at least partially covered by some type of guard, the entire assembly consisting of the screw and the guard rotate around the bin. In addition, a guard cannot cover the entire screw assembly portion of a sweep auger, or the auger would not be able to function. Therefore, it is correct to describe a sweep auger as an "unguarded ... auger." Mr. Smith's letter seeks guidance on when workers may be inside a grain storage bin while a sweep auger is operating. OSHA's grain handling standard, 29 CFR 1910.272, contains specific requirements that must be met before workers may enter most grain storage bins. This includes the requirement that "all mechanical, electrical, hydraulic, and pneumatic equipment which presents a danger" to the workers be "deenergized and ... disconnected, locked-out and tagged, blocked-off or prevented from operating by other equally effective means." 29 CFR 1910.272(g)(l)(ii) (emphasis supplied). Although Mr. Smith's letter refers to "non-automated" sweep augers, OSHA believes the vast majority of sweep augers, if not all of them, are powered by electrical or other energy covered by this standard. There is no question that sweep augers present a danger to workers who are present while the augers are operating. Indeed, OSHA is aware of many fatalities, amputations, and other serious injuries resulting from workers entering grain storage structures to conduct maintenance or adjustments on sweep augers, even when those augers are equipped with guards. Most often, these occur when a worker's clothing, shoestring, or body parts become entangled in the rotating screw of the auger. The hazard is heightened because workers performing these operations are also susceptible to slip/trip hazards from uneven or moving grain. Workers who enter grain storage structures to ensure that the machinery will resume moving forward have also been injured when they pushed the sweep with their feet or hands, or picked up a running auger. Other workers have been caught and injured by suddenly-starting, fast moving sweep augers operating in storage structures with near empty grain levels. In some cases, an auger may sweep the worker into the discharge sump, resulting in a grain entrapment. At least 26 workers were killed in grain entrapments last year, and the number of entrapments is increasing, according to researchers at Purdue University. There were more grain entrapments in 2010 than in any year since the researchers started collecting data on entrapments in 1978. OSHA does not agree that its grain handling standard means that employers are unable to use sweep augers, as Mr. Smith suggests. If an employer can demonstrate that a worker in a storage structure is not exposed to hazards presented by the equipment, the standard does not require the equipment to be deenergized. For example, a worker would not be exposed to engulfment or entanglement hazards by standing on a guarded platform or catwalk that is sufficiently far away from areas where grain is being drawn from storage. See 61 Federal Register 9581, March 8, 1996 (copy enclosed). In addition, there are alternatives to sending workers into a grain storage structure to conduct maintenance or adjustments to an energized sweep auger. For instance, an employer may choose to use a sweep auger with a higher horsepower, or use remotely operated tractors that can push a sweep auger through the grain. Nor is a sweep auger the only means of removing grain from a mostly empty storage facility. Removal can also be accomplished through the use of a vacuum system, or workers can manually shovel and/or sweep remaining grain from a bin once the equipment is deenergized and locked out. Please keep in mind, however, that if the means of removing grain requires a worker to enter the grain storage structure, all hazards, including all engulfment hazards, must be controlled. See 29 CFR 1910.272(g)(6) and the enclosed OSHA Fact Sheet. Additionally, if an employer has a different way of protecting workers, it may request a variance from a standard, or portion of the standard, authorized by section 6(b)(6)(A) of the OSH Act. Iowa operates its own occupational safety and health program under a plan approved and monitored by Federal OSHA and administered by the Iowa Division of Labor Services (DLS). Under this plan, Iowa's DLS promulgates and enforces, under authority of State law, occupational safety and health standards that are at least as effective as those of Federal OSHA, and is obligated to enforce its standards as effectively as Federal OSHA does. You may contact Iowa's DLS at the following address for more information about requesting a variance: Iowa Division of Labor Services 1000 East Grand Avenue Des Moines, Iowa 50319-0209 PH: (515) 242-5870 FAX: (515) 281-7995 The Iowa OSHA office would also be able to answer any questions about the specific citation Mr. Smith's employer received. For small businesses, OSHA's On-site Consultation Program offers free and confidential advice on health and safety solutions with priority given to high-hazard worksites, including grain handling facilities. Through this program, small and medium-sized employers can obtain free advice on addressing hazards. On-site consultation services exist in every state, and they are independent from OSHA's enforcement efforts. On-site Consultation Program consultants, employed by state agencies or universities, work with employers to identify workplace hazards, provide advice on compliance with OSHA standards, and assist in establishing safety and health management systems. More information is available at www.osha.gov or 1-800-321-6742. We hope this response is helpful to you and your constituent. Thank you for your continued interest in occupational safety and health. If we can be of further assistance, please have your staff contact Sharon Block in the Office of Congressional and Intergovernmental Affairs at (202) 693-4600. David Michaels, PhD, MPH

|OSHA requirements are set by statute, standards and regulations. Our interpretation letters explain these requirements and how they apply to particular circumstances, but they cannot create additional employer obligations. This letter constitutes OSHA's interpretation of the requirements discussed. Note that our enforcement guidance may be affected by changes to OSHA rules. Also, from time to tim

Pinal Never Received or Distributed Recalled H1N1 Vaccine FLORENCE, AZ – Sanofi Aventis, one of several manufacturers of the H1N1 vaccine, today issued a voluntary recall of certain pediatric vaccine. Routine testing of the vaccine revealed that its potency or effectiveness had diminished and it may not be strong enough to prevent infection. “This particular vaccine formula and dosage is not among the vaccines distributed to Pinal County or to medical care providers in Pinal County,” Tom Schryer, Pinal County Public Health Director said. “No one who received the vaccine in Pinal County received vaccine affected by the recall.” Pinal County maintains and updates its website with all the latest information to keep you informed on Public Health and other important information. Visit and bookmark www.pinalcountyaz.gov to stay informed. Pinal County Residents Can Now Schedule Appointments through Citizen Contact Center FLORENCE -- Pinal County residents can now schedule appointments to receive an H1N1 immunization at their local public health clinics. The focus group for these vaccinations continues to be those who are 24 years old and younger as well as pregnant women. However no one will be refused an H1N1 immunization unless they have a medical condition that would make it unwise to administer the vaccine. Pinal County Public Health Services Director Tom Schryer said that in addition to the public health clinics, there are 46 other locations where residents can receive an H1N1 immunization. Those places include pharmacies, doctor’s offices and several urgent care centers. To schedule appointments at a Pinal County Public Health Clinic, please call 520-509-3555, Monday through Friday between the hours of 8:00 am and 5:00 pm. Private providers vary in their policies on appointment requirements but many urgent care centers are providing the vaccine on a walk in basis. Additionally providers vary on billing insurance or other charges. Pinal County Public Health clinics are providing vaccination free of charge. For information on H1N1 vaccinations at other locations you can call 877-764-2670 or check www.fluaz.org. For a listing of Pinal County Public Health Clinics visit: Pinal County has an H1N1 Information Hotline with a recorded message featuring the latest H1N1 flu news. For the most recent information on vaccine availability within your area of Pinal County, please call the H1N1 Information Hotline toll free 1-888-840-8795 for English or 1-888-840-8796 for Spanish. 2009 H1N1 (referred to as “swine flu” early on) is a new influenza virus causing illness in people. This new virus was first detected in people in the United States in April 2009. This virus is spreading from person-to-person worldwide, probably in much the same way that regular seasonal influenza viruses spread. On June 11, 2009, the World Health Organization (WHO) signaled that a pandemic of 2009 H1N1 flu was underway. Spread of 2009 H1N1 virus is thought to occur in the same way that seasonal flu spreads. Flu viruses are spread mainly from person to person through coughing or sneezing by people with influenza. Sometimes people may become infected by touching something – such as a surface or object – with flu viruses on it and then touching their mouth or nose. Take these everyday steps to protect your health: - Cover your nose and mouth with a tissue when you cough or sneeze. Throw the tissue in the trash after you use it. - Wash your hands often with soap and water. If soap and water are not available, use an alcohol-based hand rub. - Avoid touching your eyes, nose or mouth. Germs spread this way. - Try to avoid close contact with sick people. - If you are sick with flu-like illness, CDC recommends that you stay home for at least 24 hours after your fever is gone except to get medical care or for other necessities. (Your fever should be gone without the use of a fever-reducing medicine.) Keep away from others as much as possible to keep from making others sick. Si usted desea mas informacion sobre H1N1 (gripe procina) por favor regrese aqui.

Pinal Never Received or Distributed Recalled H1N1 Vaccine FLORENCE, AZ – Sanofi Aventis, one of several manufacturers of the H1N1 vaccine, today issued a voluntary recall of certain pediatric vaccine. Routine testing of the vaccine revealed that its potency or effectiveness had diminished and it may not be strong enough to prevent infection. “This particular vaccine formula and dosage is not among

Industrial Pretreatment Program Environmental Services issues permits to industries based on their wastewater characteristics or amount of discharge. The permits require industries to monitor for pollutants of concern and to comply with reporting schedules, along with general conditions listed in the permit. Permitted Industrial User types include: - Significant Industrial Users (SIUs) - regulated based on process flow or treatment plant loading as defined in Code of Federal Regulations Title 40 Part 403 - Categorical Industrial Users (CIUs) - must comply with federal standards as listed in Code of Federal Regulations Title 40 Part 403 - Non-Significant Industrial Users (Non-SIUs) - regulated by local limits based on discharging pollutants of concern - Extra Strength Sewer Charge (ESSC) Industries - monitored for their high-strength waste discharges to the treatment plant, and charged fees to recover the costs of treatment - Batch Discharge Industries - have limited discharge amounts and are allowed to discharge their waste under managed conditions. For a look at the City of Portland’s legal authority to implement and enforce this program refer to: - City Code Chapter 17.34.070, Industrial Wastewater Discharges - City Code Chapter 17.36.110, Extra-Strength Wastewater Charges The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) and the Clean Water Act have regulated water quality since the early 1970s. This federal program identifies and regulates water pollution from point sources (such as the sewage treatment plant and outfall pipes) and non-point sources (stormwater runoff from streets). The City of Portland has NPDES permits for its two sewage treatment facilities, the Columbia Boulevard Wastewater Treatment Plant and the Tryon Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant. The permits require the city to manage discharges to the treatment plants. In 1982, Portland began permitting industrial users and requiring them to pretreat wastewater discharged to the sewer system. Pretreatment reduces the amount of pollutants and neutralizes wastewater to meet discharge requirements. Types of pretreatment include pH neutralization, solids separation, metals removal and oil/water separation. Many industries have installed pretreatment systems and control mechanisms to reduce pollutants in their discharge to meet the standards. Pretreatment Program Activities - Permits - The city requires businesses to submit a permit application and an environmental survey, along with baseline pollutant monitoring. City permit managers use this information to develop fact sheets identifying regulation issues, discharge limits and monitoring requirements. Pretreatment staff write permits based on regulation of the wastewater characteristics and compliance with discharge standards. - Inspections- The pretreatment staff regularly inspects all permitted industries, and sewer system users that may require permit oversight. Permit managers inspect wastewater processes, discharge points, and pretreatment equipment. In conjunction with other environmental programs, the staff performs stormwater and recycling inspections at the permitted industry, and periodically assists the field operations crew with industrial sampling. - Permit Reporting and Administration-- Permit managers develop reporting forms and track pollutant monitoring to determine permit compliance. The Pretreatment Section submits an annual report to the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality to show city NPDES compliance with pretreatment regulations. - Compliance and Enforcement-- Staff manages industrial compliance with wastewater permits and issues enforcement actions to bring industries back into compliance. The city is required to produce an annual list of industries that are in Significant Non-Compliance (SNC) with discharge standards or with the permit schedules. - Program Development and Technical Assistance-– Permit managers work to improve business relations between the city and local industries. They work to streamline reporting and monitoring schedules, while maintaining maximum discharge requirements. The permit staff meets with industry representatives and environmental associations, and stays current on process improvements and upcoming regulations. Permit Fees and Extra Strength Surcharges The City of Portland has implemented cost recovery mechanisms to alleviate the burden on sewer ratepayers of maintaining the sewer system. The city charges industries annual permit fees to pay for a portion of pretreatment program administrative and sampling costs. The city determines fees for each industrial customer using a risk-based tier system. The Industrial Extra Strength Sewer Charge (ESSC) Program targets industries that discharge high-strength wastewater to the sewer system. These industrial customers may or may not have discharge limits, but the pretreatment staff monitors them for five-day Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD) and for Total Suspended Solids (TSS) concentrations. Discharges exceeding 300 mg/L BOD or 350 mg/L TSS are subject to the ESSC program. The city calculates extra strength services charges using flow rates and monitoring results. For more information, contact Industrial Pretreatment at [email protected].

Industrial Pretreatment Program Environmental Services issues permits to industries based on their wastewater characteristics or amount of discharge. The permits require industries to monitor for pollutants of concern and to comply with reporting schedules, along with general conditions listed in the permit. Permitted Industrial User types include: - Significant Industrial Users (SIUs) - regulated

- Press notices New national travel trends research published 3 December 2012 New research which shows trends of how people travel in Britain has been published today. 'On the Move: making sense of car and train travel trends in Britain', co-sponsored by the RAC Foundation, the Office of Rail Regulation (ORR), the Independent Transport Commission and Transport Scotland, highlights how rail travel has increased over the past decade, fuelled by more people taking the train rather than existing passengers travelling more frequently. ORR’s Director of Markets and Economics, Cathryn Ross, said: “As the number of passenger journeys continues to increase - 1.5 billion passenger journeys took place last year, growing 8% from the previous year - it is vital that there is a solid understanding of the reason for rail’s growth and popularity. It is only through examining and understanding rail use that the industry can ensure it is providing what passengers, taxpayers and funders need and want. “Huge investment has gone into the rail industry and the benefits can be seen. Hundreds of thousands of people across Britain rely on trains to get them from A to B, for business and for leisure. “This research shows how more and more people, across ages, parts of the country, income groups and for a wide range of reasons, are opting to travel by rail. It is hugely beneficial, helping the rail industry establish the factors prompting people to choose trains and helps develop a greater understanding of rail travel and its relationship with other forms of transport.” To view the report in full, visit: http://www.rail-reg.gov.uk/server/show/ConWebDoc.11059

- Press notices New national travel trends research published 3 December 2012 New research which shows trends of how people travel in Britain has been published today. 'On the Move: making sense of car and train travel trends in Britain', co-sponsored by the RAC Foundation, the Office of Rail Regulation (ORR), the Independent Transport Commission and Transport Scotland, highlights how rail travel

Horse Flies and Meteors August 10, 2009: Splat! There goes another bug on the windshield. Anyone who's ever driven down a country lane has seen it happen. A fast moving car, a cloud of multiplying insects, and a big disgusting mess. The next time that happens to you, instead of grossing out, try thinking of the experience as an astronomy lesson. Your car is Earth. The bugs are tiny flakes of comet dust. The carnage on your windshield ... it's a meteor shower! Right: A fiery meteor? No. It's a horse fly. From "That Gunk on your Car: A Unique Guide to Insects of North America," by Mark E. Hostetler. [more] Earth, like a speeding car, races around the Sun sweeping up everything in its path. There are no insects in space, at least none that we know of, but there are plenty of meteoroids, little flakes of dust from comets and asteroids. They hit Earth's atmosphere and--splat!--they disintegrate as fiery streaks of light called meteors. This week lots of meteors will appear over Earth's northern hemisphere when our planet plows through a swarm of dust shed by periodic comet Swift-Tuttle. It's the annual Perseid meteor shower, which peaks on August 11th and 12th. Earth has a windshield? It's the atmosphere, which protects us from solar wind and comet dust much as a car's windshield protects passengers from wind, rain and bugs. Earth's front windshield is the early morning sky. Earth circles the Sun dawn-side first, scooping up whatever lies on that side of the planet. That's why it's usually best to look for Perseids just before dawn. A good time to see Perseids this year is before dawn on Wednesday morning, August 12th, when Earth's front windshield is overhead. You could see dozens of meteors despite the glare of a 66% gibbous Moon. Side windows, the ones to the left and right of passengers in cars, are good, too. Zooming down a bug-infested lane, side windows don't intercept many insects, but the ones they do gather are worth examining. Bugs that strike side windows do so at a shallow angle, leaving long and colorful streaks. This also happens to meteors. When the constellation Perseus (the source of the Perseids) hangs low near the horizon, meteors streaming from Perseus will skim the the top of Earth's atmosphere, much like a bug skimming the side window of an automobile. Astronomers call these meteors "Earthgrazers." They tend to be long and colorful. Look for Perseid Earthgrazers on Tuesday night, Aug. 11th, between about 9:00 and 11:00 pm local time. Earthgrazers don't come in large numbers. The special geometry required to produce them keeps counts low, but even one or two is enough. A breathtaking Earthgrazer is the sort of meteor you're likely to remember for years. Best of all, there's no gooey residue. The Perseids are Coming -- (Science@NASA) NASA's Future:US Space Exploration Policy

Horse Flies and Meteors August 10, 2009: Splat! There goes another bug on the windshield. Anyone who's ever driven down a country lane has seen it happen. A fast moving car, a cloud of multiplying insects, and a big disgusting mess. The next time that happens to you, instead of grossing out, try thinking of the experience as an astronomy lesson. Your car is Earth. The bugs are tiny flakes of comet

Aucune traduction disponible A checklist and legal guidelines to ensure that Pacific Island Countries and Territories have a strong legislative basis for pandemic preparedness, were completed under PRIPPP. A strong public health legislative framework will ensure that countries can legally undertake measures such as controlling vectors, quarantine and manage orders, and undertake surveillance and notification of cases in humans and animals. This framework supports combined action by human and animal health agencies and workers, as well as other officers, for example customs and biosecurity. This is important in effective everyday work and essential in emergency situations. The law must give the agencies the powers they need to respond appropriately and quickly and in proportion to the risk posed by an incident or outbreak. The guidelines also support good practice in the event of pandemic influenza and/or HPAI outbreaks, and comply with the International Health Regulations (2005). Additionally, the guidelines provide a useful starting point for updating public health legislation in PICTs. English and French versions of the legal guidelines and checklist are in development. Draft PRIPPP legal framework guidelines-English (2.38 MB) Sante PRIPPP legal framework guidelines-French (2.8 MB)

Aucune traduction disponible A checklist and legal guidelines to ensure that Pacific Island Countries and Territories have a strong legislative basis for pandemic preparedness, were completed under PRIPPP. A strong public health legislative framework will ensure that countries can legally undertake measures such as controlling vectors, quarantine and manage orders, and undertake surveillance and n

Last Update: 6/22/09 (Transmittal I-1-58) To obtain the Social Security Administration's (SSA's) approval to charge and collect a fee under the fee agreement process in a claim resulting in more than one favorable decision, the representative or the claimant must have filed the agreement with SSA before the date of the first favorable decision SSA made after the representative's involvement began. SSA generally considers the representative involved in a claim when SSA receives the claimant's written appointment of that person as representative. Unless the representative or the claimant files the fee agreement before the date of the first favorable decision SSA made after the representative's appointment, SSA presumes he/she will either waive a fee or use the fee petition process to obtain SSA's approval to charge and collect a fee. If the representative or claimant does not file a fee agreement before SSA makes a favorable decision on a claim with which the representative is involved, yet files a fee agreement before SSA makes another favorable decision in that claim, the decision maker will disapprove the fee agreement for the following reason: The Social Security Administration did not receive the written agreement before making the first favorable decision that the representative worked toward achieving in this claim. SSA initially decided that the claimant was not disabled. The claimant appointed a representative, who requested reconsideration. On July 2, 2009, SSA notified the claimant that she had been found disabled as of a date later than she alleged. The representative requested a hearing and, for the first time, presented a fee agreement specifying a fee equal to the lesser of 25 percent of past-due benefits or $6,000. After a hearing, the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) found the claimant disabled as of the onset date alleged. In this case, the ALJ should disapprove the agreement because the first favorable decision SSA made after the representative's involvement began is dated July 2, 2009. Neither the representative nor the claimant filed the fee agreement before the date of that determination. Therefore, the representative must file a fee petition to obtain SSA's approval to charge and collect a fee for services provided in connection with the claim. SSA initially decided that the claimant was entitled to a period of disability and disability insurance benefits for a closed period. The claimant disagreed that her disability had ended, and appointed a representative to assist her in appealing. The representative filed a request for hearing, the Form SSA-1696-U4 (Appointment of Representative), and a copy of the fee agreement specifying a fee equal to the lesser of 25 percent of past-due benefits or $6,000. The ALJ decided that the claimant's disability did not cease, but continued through the date of the decision. Assuming the fee agreement meets the other requirements for approval, the ALJ should approve the fee agreement because the representative filed it before the date of the first favorable decision SSA made after the representative became involved in the claim. Based on an application filed on July 9, 2009, SSA decided that the unrepresented claimant became disabled on January 1, 2007, and was entitled to a period of disability and disability insurance benefits. After the claimant received that determination, he appointed a representative. In addition, he submitted a fee agreement and requested that SSA reopen the unfavorable hearing decision dated March 15, 2009, issued on the application he had filed on December 12, 2007. The ALJ reopened the hearing decision and found the claimant entitled to benefits based on the 2007 application. If the agreement meets the other requirements for approval, the ALJ should approve the fee agreement because the representative filed it before the date of the first favorable decision SSA made after the representative became involved in the claim. The decision maker's approval of a fee agreement can remain in effect for any subsequent favorable decision SSA may issue on the same issue or issues, if there has been no change in pertinent circumstances and if the approval was proper. Accordingly, if a fee agreement was approved in connection with a favorable initial or reconsideration determination or a hearing decision, and an ALJ or the Appeals Council (AC) issues a subsequent favorable decision on the same issue or issues, no further action is required on the fee agreement unless the initial fee agreement approval was improper. The component that effectuates the subsequent decision will determine if the representative(s) is due any additional fee based on the subsequent decision. If an ALJ has properly approved a fee agreement and the AC issues a subsequent decision that is either more or less favorable than the ALJ's, the fee agreement will not require a second approval by an Administrative Appeals Judge (AAJ). However, if the ALJ's approval was improper under the statute and the exceptions listed in I-1-2-12, or if there was a change in circumstances subsequent to the approval such that an exception applies, the AAJ should rescind approval of the fee agreement.

Last Update: 6/22/09 (Transmittal I-1-58) To obtain the Social Security Administration's (SSA's) approval to charge and collect a fee under the fee agreement process in a claim resulting in more than one favorable decision, the representative or the claimant must have filed the agreement with SSA before the date of the first favorable decision SSA made after the representative's involvement began.

Dear Friends and Colleagues, We wanted to share with you news of a new and additional United States contribution of $1 million to the United Nations’ Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA). As you know, OCHA is the arm of the United Nations responsible for bringing together humanitarian assistance agencies to promote coherent responses to alleviate suffering in disasters and emergencies. This note comes from the three of us, as each of our Bureaus shares the view that our broad involvement with voluntary agencies dealing with humanitarian response (such as the UN High Commissioner for Refugees [UNHCR], the International Organization for Migration [IOM], the International Committee of the Red Cross [ICRC], and the World Food Program [WFP]) must be matched by a deep commitment to enhance the tools for coordination of the proliferation of humanitarian responders who are trying to safeguard lives and create the conditions for sustainable recovery around the world. And while there are varying perspectives on the precise responsibilities that OCHA should take on, there is no argument that the agency has a critical role to play in system-wide responses to humanitarian crises. This new U.S. contribution, through the Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration, reaffirms our collective desire for active engagement with OCHA – especially as it is directed to its under-resourced general fund and is designed to support OCHA's efforts to strengthen and improve humanitarian coordination. . The contribution also reflects our desire to work closely with OCHA’s new leader, Valerie Amos, as well as with our partners in the NGO community as we consider ways to enhance the coherence and effectiveness of international humanitarian response. The United States is consistently among OCHA's top five major donors annually. In fiscal year 2009, the United States provided about $17.5 million to OCHA, including $13 million from USAID’s Office of U.S. Foreign Disaster Assistance and $3.4 million from the Department of State. .

Dear Friends and Colleagues, We wanted to share with you news of a new and additional United States contribution of $1 million to the United Nations’ Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA). As you know, OCHA is the arm of the United Nations responsible for bringing together humanitarian assistance agencies to promote coherent responses to alleviate suffering in disasters and em

© All Rights Reserved Utrecht Åland is an archipelago in the Gulf of Bothnia, halfway between Sweden and Finland. Though it is officially an autonomous region of Finland, the island group has strong cultural ties with Sweden. Until the early years of the 19th century, Ǻland was a part of the Swedish kingdom and Swedish is still the language spoken in Ǻland today. With a population of under 30,000 (and that is record population, in Ǻland terms), the islands operate at a calm pace. For travellers, Ǻland is the sort of place where the main attraction is the well-preserved flora and fauna. With thick woodland areas and miles upon miles of coastline, the islands offer a getaway from the modern world. A visit to a local shipwright, whose work seems to have changed little over the past century, will make you believe you have landed in the 19th century. The Åland archipelo was used by Sweden as a stepping stone to colonize Finland. In 1809 when Finland was annexed by Russia, the Åland island, who were governed from Finland moved to Russia aswell. After the Crimean war, it was decided that the islands, that had always been of great strategic importance were to be demilitarisised. When Finland gained its independence in 1917, many people on the islands wanted the group of islands to go to Sweden. The case was presented to the League of Nations, which ruled that Åland should remain Finnish territory, but that the Swedish language and the culture was to be respected. Åland also gained an autonomous and strictly neutral status. The Åland Islands is located about halfway between Stockholm and Turku in southern Finland. The archipelago consists of about 6,000 islands, many of which are not more than a rock and basically too small to live on. About 80 islands are inhabited. The archipelago is connected to Åboland archipelago in the east, adjacent to the southwest coast of Finland. The surface of the islands is generally rocky and the soil thin. There are several harbours. The islands' landmass occupies a total area of 1,527 square kilometres and about 90% of the population live on Fasta Åland (the Main Island), which is also the site of the capital town of Mariehamn. Fasta Åland is the largest island in the archipelago, extending over 1,010 square kilometres, more than 66% of the province's land area. It measures approximately 47 kilometres from north to south and 34 kilometres from east to west. Åland consists of 16 municipalities spread across its islands. © All Rights Reserved davidx Kastelholm Castle is located in the northern part of the main island and is worth paying a visit. Partly a ruin today, it was founded in the 1380's and home to many Swedish kings who reigned the combined kingdom of Sweden and Finland from this place. There are guided tours, also in English, but it's only open during the busier summer months. When the Russians took the islands in the beginning of the 19th century they agreed not to fortify them. In Sund the Russians broke the treaty and started to build a fortress in 1832. Although 22 years later, in 1854, during the Crimean War the still uncompleted fortress was destroyed. Today people can visit the the remains of the Bomarsund Fortress and see many nice cannons. Looking for some discounts? Then go on the ferry between Sweden and Finland and make sure it makes a stop at Åland, which all of them do. If the ferry stops in one of the major cities then it is possible to purchase some tax free goods. One of the few cheap deals in all of Scandinavia. The Pommern Museum is located in a unique four masted sailing vessel that was named the Pommern. Built in Glasgow, Scotland this fine ship was launched in 1903. In 1923 she was purchased by Gustaf Erikson in Mariehamn. The ship mainly carried wheat between Australia and England till 1939 when World War II broke out. Since 1957 the Pommern was moored next to the Åland Maritime Museum in the western harbour of Mariehamn. Because of its location in the waters between Sweden and Finland, the Aland Islands have milder climate than comparable places as far north as this. This means that summers are a little cooler compared to mainland Finland or Sweden, but winters are relatively mild. Summer is from June to August, with average daily highs of around 17 °C or 18 °C while nights are generally around 10 °C. Winter is from December to March, with temperatures during the day around or slightly above zero, while nights are around -5 °C on average in February, the coldest month. Rain (and snow during winter) falls quite evenly throughout the year, but tends to increase from June to December and be a bit lower during the later wintermonths and spring. Although obviously you can drive to Åland directly, the ferry described below offers you to bring your own car. This gives you maximum freedom on the islands and you don't need to rent a car. There are numerous options of getting there by ferry from Sweden, Finland and Estonia. Cars can be rented on several of the islands and on some routes you can take your car between the islands. Both international and local companies offer rental cars and you need your national driver's licence or international driving permit. Traffic drives on the right and rules are strictly obeyed. RBS biluthyrning offers the best deals and friendly services. They have a wide range of cars and special 24-hour deals. There are 4 main roads on the mainland, conveniently number 1 to 4. Number 1 goes from Mariehamn to Eckerö, number 2 from Mariehamn to Godby, Kastelholm, Bomarsund and onwards to the ferry to Vardo, number 3 between Mariehamn and Langnas and number 4 branches off from Godby (route 2) towards Geta in the northwest of the mainland. All these roads and most minor roads are paved and well signposted. A better option than renting a car, is to take a bike and ride yourself across many of the rather flat islands, using a combination of ferries and bikes. There are many designated bike paths and routes and you'll find several places that rent bikes in the capital and a few outside. Note that, although it's rather flat, it generally goes up and down a bit and outside the summer season it is generally too cold and a rental car is a better option. Also, with just a few days on the main island, it's better to rent a car if you want to see some more remote parts. Buses operates on most islands and you can find schedules, routes and prices at the Alandstrafiken website. Buses usually run once every 2 hours on most routes and if there is room, you can also take your bicycle. There are a number of ferries operating services between the islands. You can find ferries, schedules, routes and prices at the Alandstrafiken website. The ferries are always free to passengers and bicycles (and to motorists if they are staying on any of the smaller islands). A few small short routes are free as well for cars if not staying on any island, like the one to Vardo. As an autonomous region of Finland, the same rules apply to the Åland Islands. See also: Money Matters Åland has adopted the Euro (ISO code: EUR, symbol: €) as its official currency. One Euro is divided into 100 cents, which is sometimes referred to as eurocents, especially when distinguishing them with the US cents. Euro banknotes come in denominations of €5, €10, €20, €50, €100, €200, €500. The highest three denominations are rarely used in everyday transactions. All Euro banknotes have a common design for each denomination on both sides throughout the Eurozone. The Euro coins are 1 cent, 2 cents, 5 cents, 10 cents, 20 cents, 50 cents, €1 and €2. Some countries in the Eurozone have law which requires cash transactions to be rounded to the nearest 5 cents. All Euro coins have a common design on the denomination (value) side, while the opposite side of the 1 cent, 2 cents, 5 cents, 10 cents, 20 cents, 50 cents coins has the image of the heraldic lion on it, as it can also be found on the coat of arms of Finland. On the €1 coin, two swans fly above a typical Finnish lanscape, and on the €2 coin an image of the fruit and the leaves of the cloudberry is printed. Although the image side is different from other countries, all Euro coins remain legal tender throughout the Eurozone. There is a €5 commemorative coin that was issued in 2006 to celibrate the 150th Anniversary of Demilitarisation of the Åland Islands. It's unlikely that you will encounter this coin, as most of them ended in the hands of collectors. While the Euro is Åland's official currency, the Swedish Krona (SEK) also circulates freely in the country. Check the Swedish Currency for details. Although Åland is a semi-autonomous region that officially is part of Finland, most people speak Swedish. Outside Mariehamn, you will find few places other than some small supermarkets open for business outside the May-September period. In the capital though there are several good choices, from decent restaurants to take-away places. Many sleeping options are only open from around May (some even later) to early September. From October to April, you will find many places, especially outside Mariehamn, closed for business. |Bomans Gästhem||Vardobyvag 75 Vardo||Guesthouse||-| See also: Travel Health There are no vaccinations legally required to travel to Aland. It is recommended to have a vaccination against tick borne encephalitis when you go hiking and/or camping for 4 weeks or more in the period of March to November. See also: Travel Safety Åland is probably one of the safest areas anywhere on this planet and it doesn't even have the same city problems you can face in neighbouring Sweden or Finland. Just keep you valuables with you and not unattended on a beach or in your car, and you are unlikely to face any problems. Quite a few hotels, restaurants and bars offer wifi. You won't find dedicated internet cafes on the islands, but the library in Mariehamn and a few smaller local ones usually have 1 or several computers where you can use internet for free (mostly there is a time limit). See also: International Telephone Calls Help contribute to this article to share the ad revenue. We don't currently have any Travel Helpers for Åland Except where otherwise noted, content of this article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 License

© All Rights Reserved Utrecht Åland is an archipelago in the Gulf of Bothnia, halfway between Sweden and Finland. Though it is officially an autonomous region of Finland, the island group has strong cultural ties with Sweden. Until the early years of the 19th century, Ǻland was a part of the Swedish kingdom and Swedish is still the language spoken in Ǻland today. With a population of under 30,000

Telecommunications Regulatory Commission of Sri Lanka Issuance of Licence for Ask Cable Vision(PVT) Ltd The Telecommunications Regulatory Commission of Sri Lanka (“the Commission”) was set up as the independent regulator under the Telecommunications (Amendment) Act No. 27 of 1996, and was is responsible for regulating telecommunications sector in Sri Lanka including managing the radiofrequency spectrum. Ask Cable Vision(PVT) Ltd has applied for a licence under Section 17 (2) of the Sri Lanka Telecommunications Act, No. 25 of 1991 (“the Act”) to operate a telecommunications system to provide Cable Television and Data Communication Service in Sri Lanka. The Commission is satisfied that Ask Cable Vision(PVT) Ltd has fulfilled the requirements set out in the Guidelines and Procedures for issuing, renewal and modification of licences under the Act, published in Gazette No. 1435/20 dated 10.03.2006. Therefore, the public is hereby noticed under Section 17 (3) (a) of the Act that the Commission proposes to recommend to His Excellency the President the grant of a licence to Ask Cable Vision(PVT) Ltd for a period of five years. The public is hereby further noticed that representations or objections to the grant of licence to Ask Cable Vision(PVT) Ltd may be made not later than 22.09.2012. The representations and objections should be in writing and addressed to Director General, Telecommunications Regulatory Commission of Sri Lanka. A draft of the proposed licence is available to the public on the Commission’s official web site, www.trc.gov.lk. By Order of the Commission Telecommunications Regulatory Commission of Sri Lanka, No 276, Elvitigala Mawatha, Tel: 2689345 Fax: 2689341

Telecommunications Regulatory Commission of Sri Lanka Issuance of Licence for Ask Cable Vision(PVT) Ltd The Telecommunications Regulatory Commission of Sri Lanka (“the Commission”) was set up as the independent regulator under the Telecommunications (Amendment) Act No. 27 of 1996, and was is responsible for regulating telecommunications sector in Sri Lanka including managing the radiofrequency spe

Timothy G. Massad TARP’s bank investment programs played a critical role in stabilizing the economy during the 2008-09 financial crisis. And – though cost isn’t our ultimate measure of success – those programs have also earned a significant profit for taxpayers. Treasury invested a total of $245 billion and has already recovered $268 billion through repayments, dividends, and other income – representing a $23 billion positive return for taxpayers to date. Of course, TARP was always meant to be a temporary, emergency program. The government shouldn’t be in the business of owning stakes in private companies for an indefinite period of time. That’s why, after we extinguished the immediate financial fire, we began moving to exit our investments and replace temporary government support with private capital. Earlier this year, Treasury outlined its strategy for winding down its remaining TARP bank investments through the Capital Purchase Program (CPP). Today, we wanted to provide you with an update on that process and our plans for the year ahead. Our Progress to Date When we first outlined our wind down approach, we said that Treasury had three basic options: (1) We can wait for banks to repay; (2) We can sell our investments; or (3) We can restructure our investments in order to facilitate a repayment or sale. We also noted that community banks typically face greater difficulty than larger banks raising private capital to repay taxpayers. And that banks cannot be compelled to repay under the terms of the program, which was necessary for our investments to be considered high-quality capital. Therefore, in order to wind down the program, we said that we’d employ each one of those three strategies, including conducting auctions for our investments in banks that we do not expect to repay us in the near term. And that’s exactly what we’ve done. - Since March 2012, when we conducted our first preferred stock and subordinated debt auction, Treasury has auctioned its investments in 91 banks for taxpayer proceeds of $1.5 billion. (Those 91 banks have also paid more than $300 million in dividends and interest to taxpayers over the life of the investment.) - Over that same period (March 2012 through December 2012), 49 banks repaid Treasury at the full par value of the original CPP investment for taxpayer proceeds of $6.9 billion. - Since March 2012, in a few cases, we’ve restructured our CPP investments – typically tied to a merger or a plan for the bank to raise new private capital. But only when it represented the best deal possible for taxpayers. When we first outlined our strategy, some expressed the view that, once Treasury began auctioning its investments in certain banks, the rest of the banks would refuse to repay. Based on the data, however, that fear hasn’t come true. Banks have continued to repay at par and we expect that additional banks will do so moving forward. Some had also expressed the view that Treasury shouldn’t sell its investments at a discount to the original par value. But both Treasury and the non-partisan, independent Congressional Budget Office had already estimated that the value of those investments is less than par. And we ultimately receive what the market determines these investments are worth through open auctions. In fact, in part because we’ve had such robust demand, we’ve actually received more than we originally estimated those investments were worth in our pre-auction financial statements, which are audited by the independent Government Accountability Office. Moreover, it’s important to note that since banks cannot be compelled to repay, and a number of banks are not expected to repay in the near term, there is no way to wind down the program without Treasury selling its investments in certain banks. The Path Forward Today, there are 218 banks remaining in TARP’s Capital Purchase Program – down from an original total of 707. We expect to conduct auctions for Treasury’s CPP preferred shares or subordinated debt in approximately two-thirds of the remaining banks next We also expect that the majority of the remaining banks that are not auctioned will repay Treasury’s CPP preferred shares or subordinated debt at par. We’ll continue to hold onto those investments. And when it represents the best deal possible for taxpayers, we’ll also continue to engage in a limited number of restructurings. We believe that the approach we’ve outlined is good for taxpayers and good for our nation’s community banks. Indeed, as we’ve previously noted, selling these investments can be beneficial for community banks that don't have easy access to the capital markets because it attracts new, private capital to replace temporary government support. That means that the government is able to exit its stake and recover taxpayer dollars, while the bank is able to keep the capital on its books. The bank can then continue to use that capital to help it lend to families and businesses in its local As with all our investments, Treasury’s wind down plans are subject to market conditions. We regularly evaluate our investments in all the remaining banks, so these expectations may be revised as necessary. But we’re confident that we’ll have made significant additional progress winding down our remaining TARP Capital Purchase Program bank investments by the end of next year.

Timothy G. Massad TARP’s bank investment programs played a critical role in stabilizing the economy during the 2008-09 financial crisis. And – though cost isn’t our ultimate measure of success – those programs have also earned a significant profit for taxpayers. Treasury invested a total of $245 billion and has already recovered $268 billion through repayments, dividends, and other income – repres

The Drylands Ambassador programme raises awareness among decision makers and the public at large about the importance of combating desertification, land degradation and mitigating the effect of drought. These issues are vital to solving major global challenges such as poverty alleviation, sustainable water management, food security and greening energy. Dryland Ambassadors emphasize the opportunities generated by sustainable land management (SLM), land rehabilitation and reclamation. Drylands Ambassadors also help reach target groups such as youth, children and women. Some Dryland Ambassadors are targeting the public at large, while others are drawing the attention of decision makers to the importance of topics such as land management within relevant policy agendas, and as a priority for increased investment. Highly regarded Drylands Ambassadors could draw attention to the issues upheld by the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD) and provide the impetus needed to fully implement the objectives of the UNCCD 10-Year Strategy. "There are a lot of people, who go hungry, and yet there is land they could be utilizing profitably. It is part of my obligation to learn about the land and how it can be better utilized." Deborah Fraser, South African gospel singer “I will, in particular, hope to contribute to the Secretariat's efforts to highlight the role of agroforestry, evergreen agriculture, and farmer-managed natural regeneration as critical opportunities for making vast progress on the ground in the regeneration of healthy farms and ecosystems.” Dennis Garrity, Former Executive Director of World Agroforestry Centre (ICRAF) “Desertification is one of the most severe and most serious problems we are now facing. We are trying to stand up in action in preventing and combatting decertification. We are dedicated and devoted and determined to do every effort to prevent desertification.” Byong Hyon Kwon, Former Korean ambassador and chairman of the NGO Future Forest "I am humbled and honored to be called upon to serve as a Drylands Ambassador for the Convention." Leila Lopez, Miss Universe 2011 “There are many human lives at stake. While many countries fight against desertification, we must be all united to support them with all our energies. I am very proud to add my humble help to this cause.” Carlos Marchena, Spanish football player and World Cup winner "Drylands are absolutely in the frontline of the most vulnerable position with regard to global anthropogenic climate change, not in the future, but now.” Jeffrey Sachs, Economist and Director of the Earth Institute

The Drylands Ambassador programme raises awareness among decision makers and the public at large about the importance of combating desertification, land degradation and mitigating the effect of drought. These issues are vital to solving major global challenges such as poverty alleviation, sustainable water management, food security and greening energy. Dryland Ambassadors emphasize the opportuniti

For Immediate Release MASERU – After nine-months in the making, Pusha Love has arrived! A movement that celebrates healthy living as a means to achieving individual dreams, Pusha Love promises to change the way each of us thinks about our health, life, relationships, and what it means to love oneself and others. One unique feature of Pusha Love is its use of real people to communicate how health and healthy choices are linked to our future successes as individuals and a community. “We decided to feature real people who are working everyday to fulfil the ideals of the Pusha Love movement,” explains Pusha Love spokesperson, Manthati Phomane. “These people have real stories about the challenges most us of face when we’re trying to improve our lives. How each of them is working to overcome these challenges and stay on-track to achieve success is really inspiring,” Ms. Phomane continues. Through these stories, Pusha Love invites every Mosotho to join the conversation about their dreams, what they are doing today to achieve those dreams, and how we as a community can better support each other to stay healthy. In its first phase, Pusha Love will feature the stories of four Ambassadors: Kamohelo, a young man with aspirations of becoming a soccer star; Limakatso, a married mother of two children who studies part-time to improve her chances of better employment; Manaleli, a young woman who dreams of becoming a teacher; and, Lehlohonolo, a married teacher with one child who’s working to start up his own business. “What will surprise many people is that these Pusha Love Ambassadors are not paid for sharing their stories and voices. These are real people who are so invested in the movement that they’re sharing their stories only because they want to make a difference,” adds Ms. Phomane. Everything about Pusha Love promises to be different. “People are tired of health campaigns that tell them what to do without even asking what they want. Instead of following that path, we want to give people options and introduce fresh, new ways of communicating about health,” says Itumeleng Mafa, another member of Pusha Love. “Just look at how we launched this movement—not with speeches but with unexpected, high energy events. We had chalk art drawings with the Pusha Love logo, living statues showing up in unexpected places, and dance mobs appearing from nowhere to get us moving. People have already taken notice and know that Pusha Love is offering something different.” Pusha Love will be active at many levels. The mass media program, which features the Ambassadors, includes a radio magazine program called Pusha Love Blomas, which will air every Tuesday and Thursday starting at 7:00pm on PCFM. Listeners can tune-in to hear the stories behind each Ambassador and add their voice to the conversation. Pusha Love also produces the S’moko Feela radio drama, which launched back in late 2012 and will rebroadcast and continue starting in February 2013. And over the coming months, Pusha Love will establish Youth Clubs to connect young people with the movement, engage communities and individuals in the conversation, and work with corporate clients to promote healthy options for their employees. “Eventually, Pusha Love will be everywhere so people should be on the lookout for opportunities to join the movement. They can also stay connected by following us on Facebook” says Ms. Phomane. Officially launched on January 21, Pusha Love is a production of a consortium of local organizations and agencies that have been working in different areas for years but wanted to try something new. “We informally call ourselves the ‘House of Pusha Love’ because just like a family living under one roof, we couldn’t have done something this big or this ambitious alone,” says Pusha Love member Morongoe Masilo. “But in the end, it’s the Basotho who join the movement that make it what it is,” she added. Pusha Love is funded through a grant from USAID and works in partnership with the Lesotho Ministry of Health. Press contact: Manthati Phomane Phone: +266 5913 7918 In-box at: [email protected] Last updated: March 15, 2013

For Immediate Release MASERU – After nine-months in the making, Pusha Love has arrived! A movement that celebrates healthy living as a means to achieving individual dreams, Pusha Love promises to change the way each of us thinks about our health, life, relationships, and what it means to love oneself and others. One unique feature of Pusha Love is its use of real people to communicate how health a

The Colorado River The Colorado River rises in the snowcapped mountains of north central Colorado and zigzags southwest for more than 1,400 miles before reaching the Gulf of California. The river and its tributaries - the Green, the Gunnison, the San Juan, the Virgin, the Little Colorado, and the Gila Rivers - are called the "Colorado River Basin." These rivers drain 242,000 square miles in the United States, or one-twelfth of the country's continental land area, and 2,000 square miles in Mexico. Seven western states and Mexico have beneficial interests in the Colorado River Basin. The Colorado River Basin states are: Arizona, California, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming. Each state is party to the Colorado River Compact entered into in Santa Fe, New Mexico, on November 24, 1922. The Colorado River Compact divided the Colorado River Basin into the Upper Basin and the Lower Basin. The division point is Lees Ferry, a point in the mainstem of the Colorado River about 30 river miles south of the Utah-Arizona boundary. The "Upper Basin" includes those parts of the States of Arizona, Colorado, New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming within and from which waters naturally drain into the Colorado River system above Lees Ferry, and all parts of these States that are not part of the river's drainage system but may benefit from water diverted from the system above Lees Ferry. The "Lower Basin" includes those parts of the States of Arizona, California, Nevada, New Mexico, and Utah within and from which waters naturally drain into the Colorado River system below Lees Ferry, and all parts of these States that are not part of the river's drainage system but may benefit from water diverted from the system below Lees Ferry. The Colorado River Compact apportioned to each basin the exclusive, beneficial consumptive use of 7,500,000 acre-feet of water per year from the Colorado River system in perpetuity. In addition, the Compact gave to the Lower Basin the right to increase its annual beneficial consumptive use of such water by 1,000,000 acre-feet. The Colorado River Compact did not apportion water to any State. On October 11, 1948, the Upper Basin States entered into the Upper Colorado River Basin Compact, which apportioned use of the Upper Basin waters among them. The compact permits Arizona to use 50,000 acre-feet of water annually from the upper Colorado River system, and apportioned the remaining water to the Upper Basin States in the following percentages: Colorado, 51.75 percent; New Mexico, 11.25 percent; Utah, 23 percent; and Wyoming, 14 percent. The Lower Basin States of Arizona, California, and Nevada were not able to reach agreement. In 1952, Arizona filed suit in the United States Supreme Court to determine how the waters of the Lower Basin should be divided. In October 1962, the Court ruled that of the first 7,500,000 acre-feet of mainstem water in the Lower Basin, California is entitled to 4,400,000 acre-feet, Arizona 2,800,000 acre-feet, and Nevada, 300,000 acre-feet. The United States has contracted with the States of Arizona and Nevada and with various agencies in Arizona and California for the delivery of Colorado River water. These contracts make delivery of the water contingent upon its availability for use in the respective States under the Colorado River Compact and the Boulder Canyon Project Act. The United States and Mexico entered into a treaty on February 3, 1944, which guarantees Mexico 1,500,000 acre-feet of Colorado River water annually. This entitlement is subject to increase or decrease under certain circumstances provided for in the treaty. In Black Canyon on the Colorado River, about 30 miles southeast of Las Vegas, Nevada. It is 726.4 feet from foundation rock to the roadway on the crest of the dam. The towers and ornaments on the parapet rise 40 feet above the crest. More than 6,600,000 tons. A concrete arch-gravity type, in which the water load is carried by both gravity action and horizontal arch action. 45,000 pounds per square foot. Three and one-quarter million cubic yards. There are 4,360,000 cubic yards of concrete in the dam, powerplant, and appurtenant works. This much concrete would build a monument 100 feet square and 2-1/2 miles high; would rise higher than the Empire State Building (which is 1,250 feet) if placed on an ordinary city block; or would pave a standard highway, 16 feet wide, from San Francisco to New York City. The first concrete for the dam was placed on June 6, 1933, and the last concrete was placed in the dam on May 29, 1935. Approximately 160,000 cubic yards of concrete were placed in the dam per month. Peak placements were 10,462 cubic yards in one day (including some concrete placed in the intake towers and powerplant), and slightly over 275,000 cubic yards in one month. More than 5 million barrels. The daily demand during construction of the dam was from 7,500 to 10,800 barrels. Reclamation had used only 5,862,000 barrels in its 27 years of construction activity preceding June 30, 1932. By embedding more than 582 miles of l-inch steel pipe in the concrete and circulating icewater through it from a refrigeration plant that could produce 1,000 tons of ice in 24 hours. Cooling was completed in March 1935. The dam was built in blocks or vertical columns varying in size from about 60 feet square at the upstream face of the dam to about 25 feet square at the downstream face. Adjacent columns were locked together by a system of vertical keys on the radial joints and horizontal keys on the circumferential joints. Concrete placement in any one block was limited to 5 feet in 72 hours. After the concrete was cooled, a cement and water mixture called grout was forced into the spaces created between the columns by the contraction of the cooled concrete to form a monolithic (one piece) structure. More than 5,500,000 cubic yards of material were excavated, and another 1,000,000 cubic yards of earth and rockfill placed. By feature, this included: Excavation for the diversion tunnels, 1,500,000 cubic yards; for the foundation of the dam, powerplant, and cofferdams 1,760,000 cubic yards; for the spillways and inclined tunnels, 750,000 cubic yards; for the valve houses and intake towers, 410,000 cubic yards; earth and rockfill for the cofferdams, 1,000,000 cubic yards. In addition, 410,000 linear feet of grout and drainage holes were drilled, and 422,000 cubic feet of grout were placed under pressure. The principal materials, all of which were purchased by the government, were: reinforcement steel, 45,000,000 pounds; gates and valves, 21,670,000 pounds; plate steel and outlet pipes, 88,000,000 pounds; pipe and fittings, 6,700,000 pounds or 840 miles; structural steel, 18,000,000 pounds; miscellaneous metal work, 5,300,000 pounds. The foundation and abutments are rock of volcanic origin geologically called "andesite breccia." The rock is hard and very durable. In the upstream cutoff trench, it was 139 feet. The remaining excavation depths average 110 to 130 feet. Five years. The contractors were allowed 7 years from April 20, 1931, but concrete placement in the dam was completed May 29, 1935, and all features were completed by March 1, 1936. An average of 3,500 and a maximum of 5,218, which occurred in June 1934. The average monthly payroll was $500,000. (1) Construction of Boulder City to house both Government and contractor employees; (2) construction of 7 miles of 22-foot wide, asphalt-surfaced highway from Boulder City to the damsite; (3) construction of 22.7 miles of standard-gauge railroad from the Union Pacific main line in Las Vegas to Boulder City and an additional 10 miles from Boulder City to the damsite; and (4) construction of a 222-mile-long power transmission line from San Bernardino, California, to the damsite to supply energy for construction. The high-water line is at 1,229 feet above sea level. At this elevation, the water would be more than 7 feet over the top of the raised spillway gates, which are at elevation 1221.4 feet. All lands below elevation 1,250 have been retained for reservoir purposes. At elevation 1221.4 feet, the reservoir covers about 158,500 acres or 248 square miles. At elevation 1221.4, Lake Mead extends approximately 110 miles upstream toward the Grand Canyon. It also extends about 35 miles up the Virgin River. The width varies from several hundred feet in the canyons to a maximum of 8 miles. At elevation 1221.4, it would contain 28,945,000 acre-feet. An acre-foot is the amount of water required to cover 1 acre to a depth of 1 foot, or approximately 326,000 gallons. The reservoir will store the entire average flow of the river for 2 years. That is enough water to cover the State of Pennsylvania to a depth of one foot. Below elevation 1,229, about 1,500,000 acre-feet of storage capacity is reserved exclusively for flood control; about 2,547,000 acre-feet for sedimentation control; about 18,438,000 acre-feet for joint use (flood control, municipal and industrial water supply, irrigation, and power); and 7,683,000 acre-feet for inactive storage. The Bureau of Reclamation operates and maintains the dam, powerplant and reservoir. The National Park Service administers Lake Mead as part of the Lake Mead National Recreation Area. Between 1935 and 1963, about 91,500 acre-feet of sediment was deposited in Lake Mead each year. With closure of Glen Canyon Dam, about 370 miles upstream, the life of Lake Mead is indefinite. Tunnels, Towers, Penstocks and Spillways The river was diverted around the damsite through four 50-foot diameter tunnels, two on each side of the river drilled through the canyon walls. The tunnels, with a total length of 15,946 feet, or about 3 miles, were excavated to 56 feet and lined with 3 feet (300,000 cubic yards) of concrete. The tunnels could carry over 200,000 cubic feet - more than 1.5 million gallons - of water per second! The river was diverted through the two Arizona tunnels on November 14, 1932. The inner tunnels were plugged with concrete approximately one-third their length below the inlets, and the outer tunnels were plugged approximately halfway. The two inner tunnels contain 30-foot diameter steel pipes which connect the intake towers in the reservoir with the penstocks to the powerplant and the canyon wall outlet works. The downstream halves of the two outer tunnels are used for spillway outlets. The inlets of the two outer tunnels are permanently closed with 50- by 50-foot bulkhead gates. Each gate, with steel frame, weighs about 3,000,000 pounds, and required 42 railroad cars for shipment. At the outlets of the two inner tunnels, 50- by 35-foot Stoney gates are installed. These gates can be closed when the tunnels need to be emptied for inspections or repairs. They are four reinforced-concrete structures located above the dam, two on each side of the canyon. The diameter of these towers is 82 feet at the base, 63 feet 3 inches at the top, and 29 feet 8 inches inside. Each tower is 395 feet high and each controls one-fourth the supply of water for the powerplant turbines. The four towers contain 93,674 cubic yards of concrete and 15,299,604 pounds of steel. By 30-foot-diameter penstocks installed in 37- and 50-foot diameter concrete-lined tunnels. The upstream intake towers are connected to the inner diversion tunnels by 37-foot-diameter inclined tunnels; 37-foot-diameter tunnels also connect the downstream towers to penstocks and outlet works. Through two cylindrical gates, each 32 feet in diameter and 11 feet high. One gate is near the bottom and the other near the middle of each tower. The gates are protected by trashracks. Total weight of the gates is 5,892,000 pounds; the trashracks weigh 7,024,000 pounds. There are 4,700 feet of 30-foot-diameter pipe and 2,000 feet of 8.5-foot-diameter pipe. Maximum thickness of the largest pipe is about 3 inches. By sixteen 13-foot-diameter platesteel penstocks installed in 18-foot-diameter concrete-lined tunnels. Total length of these penstocks is 5,800 feet. Forty-four thousand tons of steel were formed and welded into 14,800 feet of pipe varying from 8 to 30 feet in diameter. Each length of the largest pipe - 12 feet long, 30 feet in diameter, and 2 inches thick - was made from 3 steel plates, of such weight that only two plates could be shipped from the steel mill to the fabricating plant on one railroad car. Two such lengths of pipe welded together make one section weighing approximately 135 tons or, at intersections with the penstocks, as much as 186 Four 72-inch needle valves in each inner diversion tunnel plug outlet; and two 84-inch needle valves each in the Arizona and Nevada canyon wall valve houses. The needle valves in the canyon walls are about 180 feet above the river. These valves are designed to bypass water around the dam under emergency or flood conditions, or to empty the penstocks for maintenance work. About 118,000 cubic feet per second: 32,000 cubic feet per second for power generation and 86,000 cubic feet per second of valve discharge. One cubic foot per second of water equals nearly 7 gallons passing a given point in one second. Concrete-lined open channels about 650 feet long, 150 feet wide, and 170 feet deep on each canyon wall. More than 600,000 cubic yards of rock were excavated for the spillways. The spillway walls are lined with 18 inches of concrete and the floors with 24 inches; 127,000 cubic yards of concrete were placed for the spillways. Into the outer diversion tunnels through inclined shafts 50 feet in diameter and 600 feet long. The discharge is controlled by four automatically or manually operated 100- by 16-foot, 500,000-pound drum gates on each spillway crest. Maximum water velocity in the spillway tunnels is about 175 feet per second, or 120 miles per hour. Five hundred and eighteen thousand ft3/s. Each spillway can discharge 200,000 ft3/s. If the spillways were operated at full capacity, the energy of the falling water would be about 25,000,000 horsepower. The flow over each spillway would be about the same as the flow over Niagara Falls, and the drop from the top of the raised spillway gates to river level would be approximately three times as great. In a U-shape structure at the base of the dam. Each powerplant wing is 650 feet long, 150 feet above normal tailrace water surface, and 299 feet (nearly 20 stories) above the powerplant foundation. In all of the galleries of the plant there are 10 acres of floor space. There are 17 main turbines in Hoover Powerplant. The original turbines were all replaced through an uprating program between 1986 and 1993. With a rated capacity of 2,991,000 horsepower, and two station-service units rated at 3,500 horsepower each, for a plant total of 2,998,000 horsepower, the plant has a nameplate capacity of 2,074,000 kilowatts. This includes the two station-service units, which are rated at 2,400 kilowatts each. One cubic foot of water falling 8.81 feet per second equals one horsepower at 100 percent efficiency. Through four pressure penstocks, two on each side of the river. Shutoff gates control water delivery to the units. Maximum head (vertical distance water travels), 590 feet; minimum, 420 feet; average, 510 to 530 feet. Installation was completed in 1961. With the uprating completed in 1993, there are fifteen 187,000 horsepower, one 100,000 horsepower, and one 86,000 horsepower Francis-type vertical hydraulic turbines. There are thirteen 130,000 kilowatt, two 127,000 kilowatt, one 61,500 kilowatt, and one 68,500 kilowatt generators. All machines are operated at 60 cycles. There are also two 2,400 kilowatt station-service units driven by Pelton water wheels. These provide electrical energy for lights and for operating cranes, pumps, motors, compressors, and other electrical equipment within the dam and powerplant. An electrically operated cableway of 150 tons rated capacity, with a 1,200-foot span across the canyon, lowered all heavy and bulky equipment. The cableway is still used when necessary. The average annual net generation for Hoover Powerplant for operating years 1947 through 2000 is about 4 billion kilowatt-hours. The maximum annual net generation at Hoover Powerplant was 10,348,020,500 kilowatt-hours in 1984, while the minimum annual net generation since 1940 was 2,648,224,700 kilowatt-hours in 1956. It is a unit of work or energy equal to that done by one kilowatt of power acting for one hour. A kilowatt is 1,000 watts or 1.34 horsepower. The powerplant is operated and maintained by the Bureau of Reclamation. The States of Arizona and Nevada; the City of Los Angeles; the Southern California Edison Co.; the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California; the California cities of Glendale, Burbank, Pasadena, Riverside, Azusa, Anaheim, Banning, Colton, and Vernon; and the city of Boulder City, Nevada. Arizona - 18.9527 percent; Nevada - 23.3706; Metropolitan Water District of Southern California - 28.5393 percent; Burbank - 0.5876 percent; Glendale -1.5874 percent; Pasadena - 1.3629 percent; Los Angeles - 15.4229 percent; Southern California Edison Co. - 5.5377 percent; Azusa - .1104 percent; Anaheim - 1.1487 percent; Banning - 0.0442 percent; Colton - 0.0884 percent; Riverside - 0.8615 percent; Vernon - 0.6185 percent; and Boulder City, Nevada - 1.7672 percent. To pay all operation and maintenance expenses and to repay the major part of the construction cost of the dam and powerplant, at interest not exceeding 3 percent. The cost of construction completed and in service by 1937 was repaid on May 31, 1987. All other costs, except those for flood control, will be repaid within 50 years of the date of installation or as established by Congress. Repayment of the $25 million construction cost allocated to flood control is currently deferred. In addition, Arizona and Nevada each receive $300,000 annually in lieu of taxes. Hoover Dam Sculptures One of the highlights for many of the people who visit Hoover Dam each year is the sculpture work they find. While most people are impressed by these works, they often ask the question, "What do they mean?" Much of the sculpture is the work of Norwegian-born, naturalized American Oskar J.W. Hansen. Mr. Hansen fielded many questions about his work while it was being installed at the dam. In response to those questions, he later wrote about his interpretation of his sculptures. Hoover Dam, said Hansen, represented for him the building genius of America, "a monument to collective genius exerting itself in community efforts around a common need or ideal." He compared the dam to such works as the great pyramids of Egypt, and said that, when viewing these man-made structures, the viewer often asks of their builders, "What manner of men were these?" The sculptor, according to Hansen, tries to answer this question objectively, by "interpreting man to other men in the terms of the man himself." In each of these monuments, he said, can be read the characteristics of these men, and on a larger scale, the community of which they are part. Thus, mankind itself is the subject of the sculptures at Hoover Dam. Hansen's principal work at Hoover Dam is the monument of dedication on the Nevada side of the dam. Here, rising from a black, polished base, is a 142-foot flagpole flanked by two winged figures, which Hansen calls the Winged Figures of the Republic. They express "the immutable calm of intellectual resolution, and the enormous power of trained physical strength, equally enthroned in placid triumph of scientific accomplishment." "The building of Hoover Dam belongs to the sagas of the daring. The winged bronzes which guard the flag therefore wear the look of eagles. To them also was given the vital upward thrust of an aspirational gesture; to symbolize the readiness for defense of our institutions and keeping of our spiritual eagles ever ready to be on the wing." The winged figures are 30 feet high. Their shells are 5/8-inch thick, and contain more than 4 tons of statuary bronze. The figures were formed from sand molds weighing 492 tons. The bronze that forms the shells was heated to 2,500 degrees Fahrenheit, and poured into the molds in one continuous, The figures rest on a base of black diorite, an igneous rock. In order to place the blocks without marring their highly polished finish, they were centered on blocks of ice, and guided precisely into place as the ice melted. After the blocks were in place, the flagpole was dropped through a hole in the center block into a predrilled hole in the mountain. Surrounding the base is a terrazzo floor, inlaid with a star chart, or celestial map. The chart preserves for future generations the date on which President Franklin D. Roosevelt dedicated Hoover Dam September 30, 1935. The apparent magnitudes of stars on the chart are shown as they would appear to the naked eye at a distance of about 190 trillion miles from earth. In reality, the distance to most of the stars is more than 950 trillion miles. In this celestial map, the bodies of the solar system are placed so exactly that those versed in astronomy could calculate the precession (progressively earlier occurrence) of the Pole Star for approximately the next 14,000 years. Conversely, future generations could look upon this monument and determine, if no other means were available, the exact date on which Hoover Dam was completed. Near the figures and elevated above the floor is a compass, framed by the signs of the zodiac. Hansen also designed the plaque commemorating the 96 men who died during the construction of Hoover Dam, as well as the bas-relief series on both the Nevada and Arizona elevator towers. The plaque, originally set into the canyon wall on the Arizona side of the dam, is now located near the winged figures. It reads: "They died to make the desert bloom. The United States of America will continue to remember that many who toiled here found their final rest while engaged in the building of this dam. The United States of America will continue to remember the services of all who labored to clothe with substance the plans of those who first visioned the building of this dam." The five bas-reliefs on the Nevada elevator tower, done in concrete, show the multipurpose benefits of Hoover Dam flood control, navigation, irrigation, water storage, and power. On the Arizona elevator tower is a series of five bas-reliefs, also in concrete, depicting "the visages of those Indian tribes who have inhabited mountains and plains from ages distant." Accompanying the illustrations is the inscription, "Since primordial times, American Indian tribes and Nations lifted their hands to the Great Spirit from these ranges and plains. We now with them in peace buildeth again a

The Colorado River The Colorado River rises in the snowcapped mountains of north central Colorado and zigzags southwest for more than 1,400 miles before reaching the Gulf of California. The river and its tributaries - the Green, the Gunnison, the San Juan, the Virgin, the Little Colorado, and the Gila Rivers - are called the "Colorado River Basin." These rivers drain 242,000 square miles in the Un

Co-Occurring and Homeless Branch Department of Health and Human Services, SAMHSA The Co-Occurring and Homeless Branch shares a vision of systems of care for persons experiencing co-occurring disorders with homelessness. The Branch issues grants and sponsors other projects to advance the field. The Branch also provide grantees and the field with state-of-the-art technical assistance to help individuals and entities to address homelessness and co-occurring disorders (COD), two public health issues that warrant significant attention. Technical Assistance provided by the Branch is generally open to those who need it.

Co-Occurring and Homeless Branch Department of Health and Human Services, SAMHSA The Co-Occurring and Homeless Branch shares a vision of systems of care for persons experiencing co-occurring disorders with homelessness. The Branch issues grants and sponsors other projects to advance the field. The Branch also provide grantees and the field with state-of-the-art technical assistance to help individ

Register a birth You are legally required to register your baby's birth within forty-two days of the date of birth. The birth must be registered in the registration district in which it occurred. If the baby has been born in the Wandsworth district, then you should register the baby at the Wandsworth Register Office. It would be helpful to bring the discharge notes or the red book from the hospital with you and your passports, but do not worry if you do not have them. If it is not convenient to come to the Wandsworth Register Office, then you can go to any register office in England and Wales to provide the particulars required for the registration. How to get to the Register OfficeWandsworth Town Hall Please use entrance 1 on the map for Town Hall

Register a birth You are legally required to register your baby's birth within forty-two days of the date of birth. The birth must be registered in the registration district in which it occurred. If the baby has been born in the Wandsworth district, then you should register the baby at the Wandsworth Register Office. It would be helpful to bring the discharge notes or the red book from the hospita

Under the Water Management Act 2000 all water sharing plans require performance indicators to assess whether the plans have been effective in meeting their objectives. The NSW Office of Water is preparing a series of reports on ecological and socio-economic performance monitoring and evaluation in each valley. To find out more about outcomes of water sharing for valleys in New South Wales select and click on the relevant area in the map below or open the valley progress report in the table underneath. Map of NSW valleys Environmental flow response and socio-economic monitoring progress reports These progress reports summarise activities undertaken in the previous water year, providing an interim assessment of outcomes from investigations. They also identify priority needs for future monitoring and evaluation activities. The progress reports are provided below in an interactive format or select the summary PDF for an introduction.

Under the Water Management Act 2000 all water sharing plans require performance indicators to assess whether the plans have been effective in meeting their objectives. The NSW Office of Water is preparing a series of reports on ecological and socio-economic performance monitoring and evaluation in each valley. To find out more about outcomes of water sharing for valleys in New South Wales select a

Public-Private Session to Focus on Prizes, Challenges, and Open Grantmaking Policymakers in more than 25 Federal agencies and Departments are poised to get a mix of education and inspiration at an all-day session to be held later this week that will focus on the use of prizes and other incentives to generate solutions to pressing problems. The event, co-sponsored by the Office of Science and Technology Policy, the Domestic Policy Council, and the Case Foundation, is an outgrowth of President Obama’s Strategy for American Innovation, released in September. That plan called upon agencies to increase their ability to promote and harness innovation, in part by using policy tools such as prizes and challenges. The concept is simple: Offer a reward—including some measure of fame and boasting rights—to the first person or team to achieve a difficult goal. Then step back as players who might otherwise not have shown interest rise to the challenge and race to the finish line, in many cases getting there faster and at less expense than would otherwise have occurred. This week’s event also has roots in the Open Government Directive issued by the White House in December, which called upon agencies to use new approaches such as open grantmaking to tap the expertise and ingenuity of the American people and bring the best ideas to bear on our Nation’s most pressing problems. Like prizes and challenges, open grantmaking techniques aim to identify novel ideas from unexpected places to get more and better results for the budgetary buck. These strategies have already been used to great effect by the private and philanthropic sectors and a handful of forward-leaning government offices but are still largely unexplored by Federal agencies and Departments. Now that is about to change. On Friday, some of the world’s top experts in prizes, challenges, and open grantmaking will descend on Washington to inspire and guide more than 100 creative policymakers from across the Executive Branch. These visiting experts, from a number of high-profile companies and organizations, will candidly discuss their successes as well as their difficulties and lessons learned. Federal participants will also have the opportunity to share with these mentors some of the ways they are considering using these techniques in their home agencies, and get feedback on their plans. The benefits of these approaches are potentially large. As outlined in an Office of Management and Budget guidance (pdf) released last month, the Administration believes that prizes and challenges can help the government: - Establish an important goal without having to choose the approach or the team that is most likely to succeed; - Pay only for results; - Increase the number and diversity of the individuals, organizations, and teams addressing a particular problem or challenge; - Improve the skills of the participants in the competition; - Stimulate private sector investment that is many times greater than the cash value of the prize; - Further a Federal agency’s mission by attracting more interest and attention to a defined program, activity, or issue of concern; and - Capture the public imagination and change the public’s perception of what is possible. Preliminary details about Friday’s event are posted here, with additional details to come out later this week. Robynn Sturm is United States Assistant Deputy Chief Technology Officer Rick Weiss is Director of Strategic Communcations and a Senior Policy Analyst in the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy White House Blogs - The White House Blog - Middle Class Task Force - Council of Economic Advisers - Council on Environmental Quality - Council on Women and Girls - Office of Intergovernmental Affairs - Office of Management and Budget - Office of Public Engagement - Office of Science & Tech Policy - Office of Urban Affairs - Open Government - Faith and Neighborhood Partnerships - Social Innovation and Civic Participation - US Trade Representative - Office National Drug Control Policy

Public-Private Session to Focus on Prizes, Challenges, and Open Grantmaking Policymakers in more than 25 Federal agencies and Departments are poised to get a mix of education and inspiration at an all-day session to be held later this week that will focus on the use of prizes and other incentives to generate solutions to pressing problems. The event, co-sponsored by the Office of Science and Techn

President Obama Highlights the American Jobs Act Remarks by the President on the American Jobs Act in Denver, Colorado Abraham Lincoln High School 2:20 P.M. MDT THE PRESIDENT: Hello, Denver! (Applause.) What a beautiful day. Thank you so much. How’s it going, Lancers? (Applause.) I hear the Lancers have a pretty good ball team. That’s the story I’ve heard. (Applause.) Well, listen, there are a couple of people here I want to acknowledge who are just outstanding public servants. First of all, a hometown hero who is now one of the best Secretaries of the Interior that we’ve ever had, Ken Salazar. (Applause.) One of the best governors in the country, John Hickenlooper. (Applause.) Two outstanding senators, Mark Udall -- (applause) -- and Michael Bennet. (Applause.) Congresswoman Diana DeGette. (Applause.) Congressman Ed Perlmutter. (Applause.) Your own hometown mayor, Michael Hancock. (Applause.) And former friend and -- or current friend, former mayor -- (laughter) -- and one of the finest public servants in Colorado history, Federico Peña. (Applause.) So it is good to be back in Colorado, especially on a gorgeous day like this. (Applause.) It’s always like this in late September, isn’t it? (Applause.) Absolutely. It’s an honor to be here at Lincoln High School. (Applause.) And I want to give a special thank you to Amelia for that wonderful introduction. (Applause.) I was just talking to Amelia. She’s a senior this year. And she’s planning to go to college and planning to be a doctor, and I am absolutely certain she is going to succeed in everything that she does. And she’s an example, a great example, of how smarter courses and better technology can help guarantee our kids the foundation that they need to graduate and compete in this new global economy. So we couldn’t be prouder of Amelia and we couldn’t be prouder of all the students here at Lincoln. (Applause.) Now, I came here today to talk about the economy. I came to talk about how we can get to a place where we’re creating good middle-class jobs again -- (applause) -- jobs that pay well and jobs that offer security. We’ve got a lot to do to make sure that everyone in this country gets a fair shake and a fair shot and a chance to get ahead. And that’s the number-one thing that I think about each and every day. Your lives, your opportunities -- that should be the number-one thing that every public servant in Washington is thinking about. There’s so much that we could accomplish together if Washington can finally start acting on behalf of the people. (Applause.) We’ve got to get that city to stop worrying so much about their jobs and their careers and start worrying about your jobs and your careers. (Applause.) And that’s why I sent Congress the American Jobs Act. Now, I know it’s kind of thick, but it boils down to two things: putting people back to work and putting more money in the pockets of working Americans. Every single thing in the American Jobs Act is the kind of proposal that’s been supported by Democrats and Republicans in the past. Everything in it will be paid for. It’s been two weeks since I sent it to Congress; now I want it back. (Applause.) I want it back, passed, so I can sign this bill and start putting people back to work. (Applause.) I’ve already got the pens all ready, all lined up on my desk, ready to sign the bill. And every one of you can help make it happen by sending a message to Congress, a simple message: Pass this jobs bill. (Applause.) Look, pass this jobs bill, and right here in Colorado, thousands of construction workers will have a job again. (Applause.) This is one of the most common-sense ideas out there. All over the country there are roads and bridges and schools just like Lincoln that are in need of repair. (Applause.) One of the reasons we came here was this is the fastest-growing school in one of the fastest-growing school districts in Colorado. (Applause.) So Lincoln has been adding new AP courses and new language courses, and the wonderful principal and administrators here have been making sure -- and the teachers here have been making sure that kids have upgraded computers and learning software that’s necessary to prepare all of you students for the jobs and the economy of the future. But you know what? Things like science labs take money to upgrade. The science labs here at Lincoln High were built decades ago, back in the ‘60s. I don’t know if you’ve noticed, but science and technology has changed a little bit since the 1960s. The world has changed a little bit since the 1960s. So we need to do everything we can to prepare our kids to compete. We need to do everything we can to make sure our students can compete with any students, anywhere in the world. And every child deserves a great school -- and we can give it to them. (Applause.) We can rebuild our schools for the 21st century, with faster Internet, and smarter labs, and cutting-edge technology. And that won’t just create a better learning environment for students -- it will create good jobs for local construction workers right here in Denver, and all across Colorado, and all across the country. There are schools all throughout Colorado in need of renovation. But it’s not just in this state. Last week, I visited a bridge in Cincinnati that connected Ohio to Kentucky. Bridges need renovations. Roads need renovations. We need to lay broadband lines in rural areas. There are construction projects like these all across this country just waiting to get started, and there are millions of unemployed construction workers ready to do the job. So my question to Congress is: What on Earth are you waiting for? Let’s get to work. (Applause.) Let’s get to work. Let’s get to work. Why should our children be allowed to study in crumbling, outdated schools? How does that give them a sense that education is important? We should build them the best schools. That’s what I want for my kids; that’s what you want for your kids. That’s what I want for every kid in America. (Applause.) Why should we let China build the newest airports, the fastest railroads? We should build them right here in America, right here in Denver, right here in Colorado. (Applause.) There is work to be done. There are workers ready to do it. So tell Congress: Pass this jobs bill right away. (Applause.) Let’s pass this jobs bill and put teachers back in the classroom where they belong. (Applause.) Places like South Korea, they’re adding teachers in droves to prepare their kids for the global economy. We’re laying off our teachers left and right. All across the country, budget cuts are forcing superintendents to make choices they don’t want to make. I can tell you the last thing a governor like John Hickenlooper wants to do is to lose teachers. It’s unfair to our kids. It undermines our future. It has to stop. You tell Congress: Pass the American Jobs Act, and there will be funding to save jobs of thousands of Colorado teachers and cops and firefighters. It’s the right thing to do. Pass the bill. (Applause.) If Congress passes this jobs bill, companies will get new tax credits for hiring America’s veterans. Think about it -- these men and women, they leave their careers, they leave their families. They are protecting us and our freedom. And the last thing they should have to do is fight for a job when they come home. (Applause.) That’s why Congress needs to pass this bill -- to make it easier for businesses to hire our veterans and use the skills that they’ve developed protecting us. (Applause.) Pass this bill, and it will help hundreds of thousands of young people find summer jobs next year to help them build skills. (Applause.) It provides a $4,000 tax credit for companies that hire anybody who’s spent more than six months looking for a job. It extends unemployment insurance, but it also says if you’re collecting benefits, you’ll get connected to temporary work as a way to build your skills while you’re looking for a permanent job. Congress needs to pass this bill. (Applause.) Congress needs to pass this bill so we can help the people who create most of the new jobs in this country -- America’s small business owners. It’s all terrific that corporate profits have come roaring back, but small companies haven’t come roaring back. Let’s give them a boost. Pass this bill, and every small business owner in America gets a tax cut. (Applause.) If they hire new employees, or they raise their employees’ salaries, they get another tax cut. (Applause.) There are some Republicans in Congress who like to talk about being the friends of America’s job creators. Well, you know what, if you actually care about America’s job creators, then you should actually help America’s job creators with a tax cut by passing this bill. (Applause.) Right away. Now finally, if we get Congress to pass this bill, the typical working family in Colorado will get more than $1,700 in tax cuts next year; $1,700 that would have been taken out of your paycheck now goes right back in your pocket. (Applause.) If Congress doesn’t act -- if Congress fails to pass this bill -- middle-class families will get hit with a tax increase at the worst possible time. We can’t let that happen. Republicans say they’re the party of tax cuts. Well, let them prove it. Tell them to fight just as hard for tax cuts for working Americans as they fight for the wealthiest Americans. (Applause.) Tell them to pass this jobs bill right now. (Applause.) So let me summarize here. The American Jobs Act will lead to new jobs for construction workers, jobs for teachers, jobs for veterans, jobs for young people, jobs for the unemployed. It will provide tax relief for every worker and small business in America. And by the way, it will not add to the deficit. It will be paid for. (Applause.) Last week, I laid out a plan that would not only pay for the jobs bill but would begin to actually reduce our debt over time. It’s a plan that says if we want to create jobs and close the deficit, then we’ve got to not only make some of the cuts that we’ve made -- tough cuts that, with the help of Mark and Michael, we were able to get done -- but we’ve also got to ask the wealthiest Americans and biggest corporations to pay their fair share. (Applause.) Look, we need to reform our tax code based on a simple principle: Middle-class families shouldn’t pay higher tax rates than millionaires and billionaires. (Applause.) Warren Buffett’s secretary shouldn’t pay a higher tax rate than Warren Buffett. A teacher or a nurse or a construction worker making $50,000 a year shouldn’t pay higher tax rates than somebody making $50 million. That’s just common sense. (Applause.) And keep in mind I’m not saying this because we should be punishing success. This is the Land of Opportunity. What’s great about this country is that any of these young people here, if they’ve got a good idea, if they go out there and they’re willing to work hard, they can start a business, they can create value, great products, great services. They can make millions, make billions. That’s great. That’s what America is all about. Anybody can make it if they try. But what’s also a quintessentially American idea is that those of us who’ve done well should pay our fair share to contribute to the upkeep of the nation that made our success possible -- (applause) -- because nobody -- nobody did well on their own. A teacher somewhere helped to give you the skills to succeed. (Applause.) Firefighters and police officers are protecting your property. You’re moving your goods and products and services on roads that somebody built. That’s how we all do well together. We got here because somebody else invested in us, and we’ve got to make sure this generation of students can go to college on student aid or scholarships like I did. We’ve got to make sure that we keep investing in the kind of government research that helped to create the Internet, which countless private sector companies then used to create tens of millions of jobs. And you know what? I’m positive -- I’ve talked to them, most wealthy Americans agree with this. Of course, the Republicans in Congress, they call this class warfare. You know what? If asking a millionaire to pay the same tax rate as a plumber makes me a class warrior, a warrior for the working class, I will accept that. I will wear that charge as a badge of honor. (Applause.) The only warfare I’ve seen is the battle that’s been waged against middle-class families in this country for a decade now. Ultimately, Colorado, this comes down to choices and it comes down to priorities. If we want to pay for this jobs plan, put people back to work, close this deficit, invest in our future, then the money has got to come from somewhere. And so my question is: Would you rather keep tax loopholes for oil companies? Or do you want construction workers to have a job rebuilding our schools and our roads and our bridges? (Applause.) Would you rather keep tax breaks for billionaires that they don’t need? Or would you rather put teachers back to work, and help small businesses, and cut taxes, and reduce our deficit? (Applause.) It’s time to build an economy that creates good middle-class jobs in this country. It’s time to build an economy that honors the values of hard work and responsibility. It’s time to build an economy that lasts. And, Denver, that starts now. And I need your help to make it happen. (Applause.) I just want you to -- just remember, Republicans and Democrats in the past have supported every kind of proposal that’s in here. There’s no reason not to pass it just because I proposed it. We need to tell them it’s time to support these proposals right now. There are some Republicans in Washington who have said that some of this might have to wait until the next election. THE PRESIDENT: Maybe we should just stretch this out rather than work together right now. Some even said that if they agree with the proposals in the American Jobs Act, they still shouldn’t pass it because it might give me a win. Think about that. Give me a win? Give me a break! That’s why folks in Washington -- that’s why folks are fed up with Washington. (Applause.) There are some folks in Washington who don’t get it. This isn’t about giving me a win. This is about giving Democrats and Republicans a chance to do something for the American people. It’s about giving people who are hurting a win. That’s what this is about. (Applause.) It’s about giving small business owners a win, and entrepreneurs a win, and students a win, and working families a win. (Applause.) Giving all of us a win. (Applause.) The next election is nearly 14 months away. The American people don’t have the luxury of waiting that long. There are folks here in Colorado who are living paycheck to paycheck, week to week. They need action and they need it now. So I’m asking all of you, I need you to lift up your voices. Not just here in Denver, but anyone watching, anybody listening, anybody following online -- I need you to call, email, tweet, fax, visit -- tell your congressperson, unless the congressperson is here, because they’re already on board -- tell them you are tired of gridlock, you are tired of the games. Tell them the time for action is now. Tell them you want to create jobs now. Tell them to pass the bill. (Applause.) If you want construction workers on the job, pass the bill. (Applause.) If you want teachers back in the classroom, pass the bill. (Applause.) If you want a tax cut for small business owners, pass the bill. (Applause.) If you want to help our veterans share in the opportunity that they defended, pass the bill. (Applause.) It is time to act. We are not a people who sit back and wait for things to happen. We make things happen. We’re Americans. We are tougher than the times that we live in, and we are bigger than the politics we’ve been seeing out of Washington. We write our own destiny. It is in our power to do so once more. So let’s meet this moment and let’s get to work, and let’s show the world once again why the United States of America is the greatest nation on Earth. Thank you. God bless you. God bless the United States of America. Go Lancers! (Applause.) 2:40 P.M. MDT May 9, 2013 May 8, 2013 May 8, 2013 May 8, 2013 May 7, 2013 May 7, 2013 May 6, 2013 May 5, 2013

President Obama Highlights the American Jobs Act Remarks by the President on the American Jobs Act in Denver, Colorado Abraham Lincoln High School 2:20 P.M. MDT THE PRESIDENT: Hello, Denver! (Applause.) What a beautiful day. Thank you so much. How’s it going, Lancers? (Applause.) I hear the Lancers have a pretty good ball team. That’s the story I’ve heard. (Applause.) Well, listen, there are a cou

Dr David Heymann is the Assistant Director-General for Health Security and Environment and Representative of the Director-General for Polio Eradication. Prior to this, from July 1998 until July 2003, Dr Heymann was Executive Director of the WHO Communicable Diseases Cluster. From October 1995 to July 1998, Dr Heymann was Director of the WHO Programme on Emerging and other Communicable Diseases, and prior to that he was the chief of research activities in the WHO Global Programme on AIDS. Before joining WHO, Dr Heymann worked for 13 years as a medical epidemiologist in sub-Saharan Africa on assignment from the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Dr Heymann also worked for two years in India as a medical epidemiologist in the WHO Smallpox Eradication Programme. Dr Heymann holds a B.A. from the Pennsylvania State University, an M.D. from Wake Forest University, a Diploma in Tropical Medicine and Hygiene from the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, and has completed practical epidemiology training in the two-year Epidemic Intelligence Service of CDC. In 2004 he received the American Public Health Association Award for Excellence and was named to the United States Institute of Medicine. In 2005 he was awarded a Welling Professorship at the George Washington University School of Public Health and the 2005 Donald Mackay medal by the American Society of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene. In 2007 he received the Heinz Award in the Human Condition category.

Dr David Heymann is the Assistant Director-General for Health Security and Environment and Representative of the Director-General for Polio Eradication. Prior to this, from July 1998 until July 2003, Dr Heymann was Executive Director of the WHO Communicable Diseases Cluster. From October 1995 to July 1998, Dr Heymann was Director of the WHO Programme on Emerging and other Communicable Diseases, an

U.S. Department of Energy - Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Federal Energy Management Program Federal Operations and Maintenance Working Group The Federal Operations and Maintenance Working Group helps Federal agencies integrate operations and maintenance (O&M) best practices to ensure optimum energy efficiency and life-cycle cost effectiveness within Federal programs. Specifically, the O&M Working Group serves to: - Educate Federal energy managers on O&M best practices - Document the benefits of O&M in meeting Federal mandates - Develop outreach materials - Measure and verify successes and prove real value - Communicate the business case for O&M investments The O&M Working Group charter is available. Chaired by Ab Ream of FEMP, the Federal Operations and Maintenance Working Group consists of representatives from the Federal Government, national laboratories, private industry, academia, and others as needed to meet working group goals. Meetings and Resources O&M Working Group information is available across the following categories:

U.S. Department of Energy - Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Federal Energy Management Program Federal Operations and Maintenance Working Group The Federal Operations and Maintenance Working Group helps Federal agencies integrate operations and maintenance (O&M) best practices to ensure optimum energy efficiency and life-cycle cost effectiveness within Federal programs. Specifically, the O&M

This item is available under a Creative Commons License for non-commercial use only Food and beverages, 5.3 EDUCATIONAL SCIENCES The principal rationale for this research paper is to discuss the link between a lecturers Doctoral research activity and its perceived benefits or drawbacks for undergraduate students in todays’ Higher Education Institutions (HEI’s).The perceptions that six Doctoral academics have with regard to the impact their work has on such students was specifically investigated. In-depth interviews with them gleaned research results which demonstrate the degree to which their research activities have positive or negative consequences for undergraduate students. Broadly speaking, three main types of activities were identified as having a positive impact, First was the topic-specific ‘cutting-edge’ knowledge that was perceived as beneficial to students. Secondly, the broad-based liberal learning ethos they brought to their teaching added value, whereby some students basked in their ‘reflected glory’.Thirdly,their specific research methods skills were of benefit, especially to Dissertation students. A contrary perspective identified the following three drawbacks. Firstly, sometimes a Doctoral research academics knowledge was ‘pitched’ at inappropriate or too high a level for undergraduate students’ abilities. The inaccessibility of such staff to these students was a second issue that was problematic.Thirdly, a disconnect between such academics and the actual ownership and relevance of such their work to the students and their future careers was examined. McCauley, J.: How do Doctoral Research Academics Perceive their Research Activities to be of Benefit to Undergraduate Students? Proceedings of Inted 2011. International Technology, Education and Development Conference. Valencia, Spain. 7th-9th March, 2011.

This item is available under a Creative Commons License for non-commercial use only Food and beverages, 5.3 EDUCATIONAL SCIENCES The principal rationale for this research paper is to discuss the link between a lecturers Doctoral research activity and its perceived benefits or drawbacks for undergraduate students in todays’ Higher Education Institutions (HEI’s).The perceptions that six Doctoral aca

In his opening remarks to over one hundred Christian leaders at the White House Prayer Breakfast, President Obama said that “I’m even more grateful for the work that you do every day of the year — the compassion and the kindness that so many of you express through your various ministries.” Many of the ministries that the President referred to are focused outside of the U.S. They are ministries, organizations and initiatives that partner with and complement the work of USAID. From efforts to increase the bounty of agricultural work with Feed the Future, to helping provide medical care that helps children reach their fifth birthday with the Global Health Initiative to literally freeing persons chained into human trafficking together with our Counter Trafficking in Persons efforts, the leaders and their supporters strengthen and extend their own goals of the goals of USAID. After the Prayer Breakfast, the religious leaders took part in a briefing that included hearing about the tremendous progress that has been achieved in the last few decades in child survival from USAID Deputy Assistant Administrator for Global Health Amie Batson. In the past two decades child deaths have fallen dramatically, from 12 million in 1990 to 7.6 million in 2010. In fact, the goal of ending preventable child deaths is possible – if the world works together. Along with strong country ownership, partnership with faith-based and community organizations will be critical to make this a reality. This is where you can help! In close collaboration with UNICEF, the United States is co-convening a Call to Action in June 2012 to set the course towards the end of preventable child deaths. We need your help to raise awareness and drive collective action! If you’re interested in learning more and want to partner with us, please email: [email protected] for more information. Echoing the President’s remarks, thank you for you continued leadership, passion and dedication to helping the most vulnerable. Together we can create a world where every child, no matter where he or she is born, has an equal opportunity to survive and grow.

In his opening remarks to over one hundred Christian leaders at the White House Prayer Breakfast, President Obama said that “I’m even more grateful for the work that you do every day of the year — the compassion and the kindness that so many of you express through your various ministries.” Many of the ministries that the President referred to are focused outside of the U.S. They are ministries, or

SEMS/NIMS/ICS Combined Course Training Curriculum The California Emergency Management Agency (Cal EMA) Training Division, in conjunction with the SEMS Training & Exercise Specialist Committee made up of State and Local government subject matter experts, are continuously working to provide the resources necessary to meet both the requirements of the National Incident Management System (NIMS) and the California Standardized Emergency Management System (SEMS). As you are aware, SEMS and NIMS require that certain courses be completed by all who may be tasked during an emergency; response through recovery. Please review the training matrix on this website for State and Federal guidance on who should take which course. In order to facilitate this, Cal EMA has developed the SEMS/NIMS/ICS, A Combined Course. This comprehensive course compares and contrasts SEMS, NIMS, and ICS. Your trainers may conduct one course that will meet the requirements of SEMS Introductory Course, ICS 100, and the NIMS Awareness course by using this curriculum. Ensure that the target audience’s needs and prior training and experience are taken into account when deciding which pieces of this curriculum you choose to use. Since the NIMS Awareness course objectives are included in this material, participants may fill out a FEMA scan-tron, available at FEMA IS Program - Request Blank OpScan Sheets and mail to FEMA for a certificate, or fill out the test questions and final exam available at this link http://training.fema.gov/EMIWeb/IS/is700.asp. This will ensure IS700 compliance documentation. IG Module 1 - Course Introduction Version 2 IG Module 2 - ICS Introduction Version 2 IG Module 3 - ICS Version 2 IG Module 4 - SEMS Introduction Version 2 IG Module 5 - NIMS Introduction Version 2.0 IG Module 6 - NIMS Preparedness Version 2.0 IG Module 7 - Resource Management Version 2.0 IG Module 8 - Public Information Version 2.0 IG Module 9 - Communications Info Management Version 2.0 IG Module 10 - Action Planning Version 2.0 IG Module 11 - Trainer Resources IG Module 12- Examination; SEMS_NIMS_ICS T4T TOC TTT Module 1 - Course Introduction Version 2 TTT Module 2 - ICS Introduction Version 2 TTT Module 3 - Incident Command System Version 2 TTT Module 4 - SEMS Introduction Version 2.0 TTT Module 5 - NIMS Introduction Version 2.0 TTT Module 6 - NIMS Preparedness Version 2.0 TTT Module 7 - NIMS Resource Management Version 2.0 TTT Module 8 - Public Information Version 2.0 TTT Module 9 - NIMS Communications Info Management Supporting Tech Version 2.0 TTT Module 10 - Action Planning Version 2.0; Grocery Store Small Group Activity NIMS Awareness Test For SEMS certification, follow your agencies current procedures for documenting training and issuing certificates. It is recommended that a SEMS training record-keeping system include: 1. An individual training record for each person, kept either in their personnel file or in a separate training record file. The name of the course, instructor, location, and date should be included in the training record. 2. Maintenance of the individual training record for as long as the person is employed in a position that involves an emergency response role. Records of personnel involved in an actual emergency should be kept at least until any training compliance issues have been resolved. 3. Documentation of the agency's SEMS training program including copies of the training materials used, such as; instructor syllabus, lesson plans, participant manuals, exercises, and tests. Additional materials are being developed by Cal EMA and the SEMS Training & Exercise Specialist Committee and will be added to this website on a regular basis.

SEMS/NIMS/ICS Combined Course Training Curriculum The California Emergency Management Agency (Cal EMA) Training Division, in conjunction with the SEMS Training & Exercise Specialist Committee made up of State and Local government subject matter experts, are continuously working to provide the resources necessary to meet both the requirements of the National Incident Management System (NIMS) and th

The CFTC Glossary is intended to assist the public in understanding some of the specialized words and phrases used in the futures industry since many of these terms are not found in standard reference works. The CFTC Glossary is not inclusive, and if you cannot find the term you are looking for or have any other comments, please let us know. A PDF version of the glossary is also available. Definitions are not intended to state or suggest the views of the Commission concerning the legal significance or meaning of any word or term and no definition is intended to state or suggest the Commission’s views concerning any trading strategy or economic theory. Accommodation Trading: Non-competitive trading entered into by a trader, usually to assist another with illegal trades. Aggregation: The principle under which all futures positions owned or controlled by one trader (or group of traders acting in concert) are combined to determine reporting status and compliance with speculative position limits. Agricultural Trade Option Merchant: Any person that is in the business of soliciting or entering option transactions involving an enumerated agricultural commodity that are not conducted or executed on or subject to the rules of an exchange. Algorithmic Trading: The use of computer programs for entering trading orders with the computer algorithm initiating orders or placing bids and offers. Approved Delivery Facility: Any bank, stockyard, mill, storehouse, plant, elevator, or other depository that is authorized by an exchange for the delivery of commodities tendered on futures contracts. Arbitrage: A strategy involving the simultaneous purchase and sale of identical or equivalent commodity futures contracts or other instruments across two or more markets in order to benefit from a discrepancy in their price relationship. In a theoretical efficient market, there is a lack of opportunity for profitable arbitrage. See Spread. Arbitration: A process for settling disputes between parties that is less structured than court proceedings. The National Futures Association arbitration program provides a forum for resolving futures-related disputes between NFA members or between NFA members and customers. Other forums for customer complaints include the American Arbitration Association. Assignable Contract: A contract that allows the holder to convey his rights to a third party. Exchange-traded contracts are not assignable. Assignment: Designation by a clearing organization of an option writer who will be required to buy (in the case of a put) or sell (in the case of a call) the underlying futures contract or security when an option has been exercised, especially if it has been exercised early. Associated Person (AP): An individual who solicits or accepts (other than in a clerical capacity) orders, discretionary accounts, or participation in a commodity pool, or supervises any individual so engaged, on behalf of a futures commission merchant, an introducing broker, a commodity trading advisor, a commodity pool operator, or an agricultural trade option merchant. Auction Rate Security: A debt security, typically issued by a municipality, in which the yield is reset on each payment date via a Dutch auction. Audit Trail: The record of trading information identifying, for example, the brokers participating in each transaction, the firms clearing the trade, the terms and time or sequence of the trade, the order receipt and execution time, and, ultimately, and when applicable, the customers involved. Automatic Exercise: A provision in an option contract specifying that it will be exercised automatically on the expiration date if it is in-the-money by a specified amount, absent instructions to the contrary.

The CFTC Glossary is intended to assist the public in understanding some of the specialized words and phrases used in the futures industry since many of these terms are not found in standard reference works. The CFTC Glossary is not inclusive, and if you cannot find the term you are looking for or have any other comments, please let us know. A PDF version of the glossary is also available. Definit

Archive for 'Myth busters' The myth: The Sun and Daily Telegraph have suggested that Defra funded a marketing campaign to ask travellers not to eat their own horses. The truth: It was nothing to do with eating horses. The campaign explained changes to EU rules which meant owners needed to have their foals and any previously unidentified horses micro-chipped [...] The Myth: The Daily Telegraph today claims that as part of their “zero waste” policy, the Coalition wants ‘slop buckets’ in every kitchen. The Truth: This is completely and utterly wrong. There is nothing in either the Coalition agreement or in the Government’s Waste Review which supports the Telegraph’s claim. We’ll help councils deliver the [...] The myth: Animal Aid has used undercover filming to show abuse at a slaughterhouse, and is criticising Defra for not seeking a prosecution – with the implication that the department does not care about animal welfare. The truth: This is not true. Animal cruelty is completely unacceptable, and we vigorously pursue action wherever we can. [...] The myth: The Daily Mail alleges that the Government has u-turned on plans to introduce deposit funds on drinks containers and force stores to charge for carrier bags. Myth bust: The Daily Mail’s Stephen Glover today claims that everyone will be “forced” to use food waste bins The Myth: The Daily Mail’s Stephen Glover today claims that everyone will be “forced” to use food waste bins. The myth: The Daily Mail has claimed today that ‘every home will be ordered to use a slop bucket under Coalition plans’. The myth: Media reports have suggested that the Government position on badger culling has changed. The myth: The Guardian reports that milk from cows testing positive for tuberculosis (TB) would be introduced into the human food chain under reforms suggested by government advisers. The myth: The Times claims that Defra is secretly helping local authorities who want to stop beaches being designated as ‘swimming’ beaches – which would mean water quality wouldn’t be tested to ensure it’s clean enough to swim in. The myth: there have been reports in the media that important environmental regulations in legislation such as the Wildlife and Countryside Act, National Park Act, Clean Air Act and the Climate Change Act could be scrapped as part of the Government's Red Tape Challenge.

Archive for 'Myth busters' The myth: The Sun and Daily Telegraph have suggested that Defra funded a marketing campaign to ask travellers not to eat their own horses. The truth: It was nothing to do with eating horses. The campaign explained changes to EU rules which meant owners needed to have their foals and any previously unidentified horses micro-chipped [...] The Myth: The Daily Telegraph toda

Directive 2012/29/EU of the European Parliament and the Council of 25 October 2012 establishing minimum standards on the rights, support and protection of victims of crime, and replacing Council Framework Decision 2001/220/JHA. The purpose of this Directive is to ensure that victims of crime receive appropriate information, support and protection and are able to participate in criminal proceedings. - EU Open Door Day 2013: EU Addressing Trafficking in Human Beings Dates: 04/05/2013 - 04/05/2013 - Iinternational Conference for facilitating experience exchange on trafficking in human beings for forced labour Dates: 14/05/2013 - 15/05/2013 - more »

Directive 2012/29/EU of the European Parliament and the Council of 25 October 2012 establishing minimum standards on the rights, support and protection of victims of crime, and replacing Council Framework Decision 2001/220/JHA. The purpose of this Directive is to ensure that victims of crime receive appropriate information, support and protection and are able to participate in criminal proceedings

Ashok Gadgil Named New EETD Director Ashok Gadgil has been named Director of Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory's (Berkeley Lab's) Environmental Energy Technologies Division (EETD). Serving as the Acting Division Director since October, he replaces Arun Majumdar who is now Director of the DOE's Advanced Research Projects Agency—Energy (ARPA-E). Gadgil is a Professor in Civil and Environmental Engineering at UC Berkeley and joined EETD in 1988. He is recognized for his work as a researcher, inventor, and humanitarian. Dr. Gadgil has substantial experience in technical, economic, and policy research on energy efficiency and its implementation—particularly in developing countries. Among his several patents and inventions are the "UV Waterworks"—an effective, inexpensive technology to disinfect drinking water to reduce life-threatening diseases in developing countries, and the Berkeley-Darfur cook stove for safer indoor use in Darfur, Sudan. His research interests also include experimental and modeling research in indoor airflow and pollutant transports. He serves on several international and national advisory committees dealing with energy efficiency, invention and innovation, and development and environmental issues. In announcing the appointment, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory Director Paul Alivisatos wrote, "As Division Director, Gadgil's leadership on energy and environmental research and his projects bringing solutions to the developing world will continue to align the division well with Berkeley Lab's energy and environmental initiatives. Please join me in congratulating Ashok and in wishing him well in this important leadership position." View Gadgil's home page.

Ashok Gadgil Named New EETD Director Ashok Gadgil has been named Director of Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory's (Berkeley Lab's) Environmental Energy Technologies Division (EETD). Serving as the Acting Division Director since October, he replaces Arun Majumdar who is now Director of the DOE's Advanced Research Projects Agency—Energy (ARPA-E). Gadgil is a Professor in Civil and Environmental E

In 2005, the Chinese government announced an ambitious goal of reducing energyconsumption per unit of GDP by 20% between 2005 and 2010. One of the key initiatives forrealizing this goal is the Top-1000 Energy-Consuming Enterprises program. The energyconsumption of these 1000 enterprises accounted for 33% of national and 47% of industrialenergy usage in 2004. Under the Top-1000 program, 2010 energy consumption targets weredetermined for each enterprise. The objective of this article is to evaluate the program designand initial results, given limited information and data, in order to understand the possibleimplications of its success in terms of energy and carbon dioxide emissions reductions and torecommend future program modifications based on international experience with similartarget-setting agreement programs. Even though the Top-1000 Program was designed andimplemented rapidly, it appears that – depending upon the GDP growth rate -- it couldcontribute to somewhere between approximately 10% and 25% of the savings required tosupport China's efforts to meet a 20% reduction in energy use per unit of GDP by 2010.

In 2005, the Chinese government announced an ambitious goal of reducing energyconsumption per unit of GDP by 20% between 2005 and 2010. One of the key initiatives forrealizing this goal is the Top-1000 Energy-Consuming Enterprises program. The energyconsumption of these 1000 enterprises accounted for 33% of national and 47% of industrialenergy usage in 2004. Under the Top-1000 program, 2010 energy

Definitions: REDs, IREDs, and TREDs When EPA completes its review of a pesticide for reregistration or tolerance reassessment, the Agency issues a risk management decision document known as a RED, an IRED, or a TRED. EPA publishes Notices of Availability in the Federal Register. REDs (Reregistration Eligibility Decisions) When EPA completes the review and risk management decision for a pesticide that is subject to reregistration (that is, one initially registered before November 1984), the Agency generally issues a Reregistration Eligibility Decision or RED document. The RED summarizes the risk assessment conclusions and outlines any risk reduction measures necessary for the pesticide to continue to be registered in the U.S. IREDs (Interim Reregistration Eligibility Decisions) EPA issues an IRED for a pesticide that is undergoing reregistration, requires a reregistration eligibility decision, and also needs a cumulative assessment as a result of FQPA because it is part of a group of pesticides that share a common mechanism of toxicity. The IRED, issued after EPA completes the individual pesticide's aggregate risk assessment, may initiate risk reduction measures -- for example, reducing risks to workers or eliminating uses that the registrant no longer wishes to maintain -- to gain the benefits of these changes before the final RED can be issued, following the Agency's consideration of cumulative risks. TREDs (Reports on FQPA Tolerance Reassessment Progress and [Interim] Risk Management Decisions) A TRED may be issued as a document if no changes in the tolerances for a pesticide are required as a result of EPA's review. If tolerance revisions are required, then the TRED may be issued as a Federal Register Notice. EPA issues a TRED for a pesticide that requires tolerance reassessment decisions, but does not require a reregistration eligibility decision at present because: - the pesticide was initially registered after November 1, 1984, and by law is not included within the scope of the reregistration program; - EPA completed a RED for the pesticide before FQPA was enacted on August 3, 1996; or - the pesticide is not registered for use in the U.S. but tolerances are established that allow crops treated with the pesticide to be imported from other countries. Like IREDs, some TREDs will not become final until EPA considers the cumulative risks of all the pesticides in the cumulative group.

Definitions: REDs, IREDs, and TREDs When EPA completes its review of a pesticide for reregistration or tolerance reassessment, the Agency issues a risk management decision document known as a RED, an IRED, or a TRED. EPA publishes Notices of Availability in the Federal Register. REDs (Reregistration Eligibility Decisions) When EPA completes the review and risk management decision for a pesticide t

News & Policies > For Immediate Release Office of the Press Secretary January 31, 2001 Statement by the Press Secretary The Scottish Court presiding over the trial of the two Libyans accused of bombing Pan Am Flight 103 on December 21, 1988, has found Abdel Basset al-Megrahi guilty of murder. The court found conclusively that the defendant caused an explosive device to detonate on board Pan Am flight 103 and murdered the flight's 259 passengers and crew as well as eleven residents of Lockerbie, Scotland. Al-Megrahi will now face a mandatory sentence of life imprisonment under Scottish law. With respect to Al-Amin Khalifa Fahima, the Court concluded that the Crown failed to present sufficient evidence to satisfy the high standard of "proof beyond reasonable doubt" that is necessary in criminal cases. This does not mean that he is innocent of the crime charged. This verdict is a victory for an international effort and has resulted in the conviction of a member of the Libyan intelligence services. The Government of Libya must take responsibility. The United States and the United Kingdom have made clear to the Government of Libya that the delivery of a verdict against the suspects in the Pan Am 103 trial does not in itself signify an end to UN sanctions against Libya. UN Security Council Resolutions call on Libya to satisfy certain requirements, including compensation to the victims? families and the acceptance of responsibility for this act of terrorism, before UN sanctions will be removed. The Government of Libya has not yet satisfied these requirements. The United States and the United Kingdom will consult closely and then approach the Government of Libya in the near future to discuss the remaining steps Libya must take under the UN Resolutions. We want to express our deepest sympathy to the families of those lost in the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103. Nothing can undo the suffering this act of terrorism has caused. But we hope that this verdict will help reduce the anguish and uncertainty that the family members have endured since December 21, 1988, and that they are able to find some solace in the measure of justice achieved by this decision. The President congratulates the Scottish prosecution team, thanks the Dutch Government for their assistance and the entire United States Government team who contributed to this outcome. # # #

News & Policies > For Immediate Release Office of the Press Secretary January 31, 2001 Statement by the Press Secretary The Scottish Court presiding over the trial of the two Libyans accused of bombing Pan Am Flight 103 on December 21, 1988, has found Abdel Basset al-Megrahi guilty of murder. The court found conclusively that the defendant caused an explosive device to detonate on board Pan Am fli

Standing at the peak of Mount Mansfield in Vermont on a crisp October day, crimson reds, golden yellows, and brilliant greens form a blanket on the surrounding mountains and the valley floor, right up to the edge of Lake Champlain. The eastern forests and woodlands are known for this colorful fall display of leaves. Covering from Maine to Florida and west to the Mississippi River, these forests once stretched almost unbroken across the region, but now coexist with people in some of the most heavily populated areas of the world. The deciduous trees that make these forests famous include oaks, maples, beech, birches, and hickories. While evergreen conifers, such as spruce and firs, do live in the eastern forest, they are not as common or dominant as the deciduous trees except under particular types of local conditions. The eastern forests ecoregion includes a range of landscapes from the rugged Adirondack Mountains in New York and the Appalachian Mountains that span the entire eastern seaboard, to rolling hills, valleys, and plains. Each of these landscapes has varying climates, soils, altitudes, and frequencies of fire, all of which play key roles in determining the composition of trees that make up forest stands. In general, the eastern United States has cold winters and long warm summers. Possibly the most important feature in determining the makeup of the eastern forests is precipitation in the form of rain and snow. Total precipitation throughout the year is higher in the eastern forests than anywhere else in North America, except for the tropical and subtropical areas to the south and the temperate rain forest found along the Pacific Coast. These deciduous forests are rich in species due to the abundance of food and shelter provided by the trees that produce fruits, nuts, and berries to eat, and multiple forest layers in which animals can live. Species include migratory birds on their journeys north and south, as well as year-round residents such as red northern cardinals, gray squirrels, black bears, white-tailed deer, raccoons, red foxes, and opossums. All of these species depend on the trees to provide them with food and shelter. Changes in climate that affect the eastern forests will thus also affect the plants and animals that live in and use them.

Standing at the peak of Mount Mansfield in Vermont on a crisp October day, crimson reds, golden yellows, and brilliant greens form a blanket on the surrounding mountains and the valley floor, right up to the edge of Lake Champlain. The eastern forests and woodlands are known for this colorful fall display of leaves. Covering from Maine to Florida and west to the Mississippi River, these forests on

Safe Infant Sleep Information for Parents As a parent or caregiver, you can take steps to create a safe sleep environment for your baby. When you put your baby "safe to sleep" for every sleep, you reduce the risk of sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS) and other causes of sleep-related infant death. The steps below help protect your baby in a variety of ways. Some make your baby less likely to suffocate accidentally during sleep. Others help your baby avoid infections or wake up more easily from sleep. In addition to preventing sudden death, most of these steps have extra health benefits for babies and their caregivers. What You Should Do to Reduce the Risk of SIDS and Other Sleep-Related Causes of Infant Death: - Always place your baby on his or her back to sleep, for naps and at night. - Use a firm sleep surface, covered by a fitted sheet. - Do not let your baby sleep in an adult bed, on a couch, or on a chair alone, with you, or with anyone else. Room sharing—keeping baby's sleep area in the same room where you sleep—reduces the risk of SIDS and other sleep-related causes of infant death. If you bring your baby into your bed to breastfeed, make sure to put him or her back in a separate sleep area in your room, such as a safety-approved crib, bassinet, or portable play area, when you are finished. - Keep soft objects (including crib bumpers), toys, and loose bedding out of your baby's sleep area. - Get regular healthcare during pregnancy. (more) - Do not smoke, drink alcohol, or use illegal drugs during pregnancy or after the baby is born. Do not allow smoking around your baby. - Breastfeed your baby. (more) - Give your baby a dry pacifier that is not attached to a string for naps and at night. (If you are breastfeeding your baby, wait until your baby is one month old or is used to breastfeeding before using a pacifier.) - Do not let your baby get too hot during sleep. - Follow healthcare provider guidance on your baby's vaccines and regular health checkups. - Avoid products that claim to reduce the risk of SIDS and other sleep-related causes of infant death. - Do not use home heart or breathing monitors to reduce the risk of SIDS. - Give your baby plenty of "tummy time" when he or she is awake and when someone is watching. Tummy time helps your baby's head, neck, and shoulder muscles get stronger and helps prevent flat spots on the head. - Spread the word. Tell grandparents, babysitters, child care providers, and other caregivers to always place your baby on his or her back to sleep to reduce the risk of SIDS. Babies who usually sleep on their backs but who are then placed on their stomachs, even for a nap, are at very high risk for SIDS—so every sleep time counts. - Consider requesting a free, confidential home visit to ask questions and get help setting up a safe sleep environment. (more) What We Do - Conduct free, confidential home visits for pregnant women and families with children up to age three. Home visitors can work with you to set up a safe sleep environment for your baby. (more) - Provide breastfeeding support for eligible women through the Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) Program. (more) - Offer support to help people quit smoking. Check with the Department of Behavioral Healthcare, Developmental Disabilities, and Hospitals for information about treatment services for alcohol and drugs. - Partner with healthcare providers, birthing hospitals, child care providers, social service providers, home visitors, and community-based organizations to promote safe infant sleep practices. - Convene a statewide team of experts to review all cases of child deaths and to identify ways to prevent similar deaths from occurring.

Safe Infant Sleep Information for Parents As a parent or caregiver, you can take steps to create a safe sleep environment for your baby. When you put your baby "safe to sleep" for every sleep, you reduce the risk of sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS) and other causes of sleep-related infant death. The steps below help protect your baby in a variety of ways. Some make your baby less likely to suff

Swift Technical Handbook The Swift Technical Handbook contains detailed information about the Swift Mission, the three scientific instruments onboard, and their capabilities, results of calibration, and performance. It is available in two ways: Read on the Web:Start with the Table of Contents of the Swift Technical Handbook. Download as a file:The Swift Technical Handbook is available for download in PDF and PostScript formats from our Web site (click link) or via anonymous FTP to ftp://legacy.gsfc.nasa.gov/swift/nra_info/technical_appendix/. If you have a question about Swift, please contact us via the Feedback form.

Swift Technical Handbook The Swift Technical Handbook contains detailed information about the Swift Mission, the three scientific instruments onboard, and their capabilities, results of calibration, and performance. It is available in two ways: Read on the Web:Start with the Table of Contents of the Swift Technical Handbook. Download as a file:The Swift Technical Handbook is available for download

Downtown Smyrna, Georgia, a town that's poised to see big savings thanks to their investment in biodiesel. | Photo by Ken Cook “We sat down and actually met with several people out of the biodiesel industry and found out how amazingly simple it was for us to do this. To take a product that normally is a waste by-product of the cooking business and typically gets poured down drains or hauled off in drums to be disposed of otherwise, can be processed and turned into some of the cleanest burning fuel for diesel engines.” That’s how Michael McNabb, councilman and chairman of the public works committee in the Smyrna, Georgia, recently described the city’s decision to invest in biodiesel. A community of 51,000 located just northwest of Atlanta, Smyrna will soon begin producing biodiesel made primarily from used cooking oil in order to cut fuel costs and reduce fossil fuel consumption. The city is using $184,000 of the city’s $208,000 in Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant funding to create space for two 55-gallon processors that will turn cooking oil into biodiesel. In addition to the facility improvements, funds will be used for associated start-up costs such as collection containers and drums. General public participation by local restaurants will be vital to the success of the program but citizens will be able to participate in the program. Once the processing plant is operational, the city will slowly introduce B20 biodiesel into the service fleet. Once the service fleet is operational on B20, the city plans to make a portion of the service fleet fully operational on B100 biodiesel. The city is targeting the conversion of their service fleet from diesel fuel to biodiesel. With the two biodiesel processors, the city estimates the maximum production of biodiesel to be 2,200 gallons of biodiesel per month or 26,400 gallons per year. The city is hoping to reduce diesel fuel consumption by approximately 27 percent per year at a savings of approximately $32,000 (at January 2010 rates). Besides reducing fuel consumption costs and fossil fuel emissions, the proposed program will enhance the life of the city’s service vehicles, provide the city the opportunity to produce fuel during fuel shortages, and improve the operation of the city sewer system by reducing the amount of cooking oil entering the system.

Downtown Smyrna, Georgia, a town that's poised to see big savings thanks to their investment in biodiesel. | Photo by Ken Cook “We sat down and actually met with several people out of the biodiesel industry and found out how amazingly simple it was for us to do this. To take a product that normally is a waste by-product of the cooking business and typically gets poured down drains or hauled off in

A BiPAP machine is a relatively small device that assists with a patient's breathing. It is connected by flexible tubing to a face mask worn by the patient (as illustrated). The BiPAP machine helps push air and oxygen into the lungs and then helps to hold the lungs inflated, thereby allowing more oxygen to enter the lungs. BiPAP may be used to support breathing for a number of patient conditions including Example of a full face mask These images sourced through Google using 'bipap' as keyword When is a BiPAP Machine Used? A BIPAP machine is used when a patient can not breathe effectively enough to maximize the transport of oxygen into the lungs and then into the blood. It can at times be used instead of a ventilator(breathing machine). Patients can be given short breaks from the BiPAP mask which will normally then be replaced with an ordinary oxygen mask. How Long is a BiPAP Machine Used? The Intensive Care doctor determines how long the BIPAP machine is used. It has been used successfully for periods varying from several hours to several weeks in the Intensive Care Unit. BiPAP machines may also be used in specialised respiratory wards. Similiar machines can be used at home for long periods. Are There Any Complications? All Intensive Care interventions and procedures carry a degree of potential risk even when performed by skilled and experienced staff. Please discuss these issues with the medical and nursing staff who are caring for the patient. Of course, if you have any questions or concerns, please discuss them with the ICU nurses and doctors. To print this page use the Print Icon located top RHS of page. NB These translations are based on an earlier version of this description. The information contained on this page is general in nature and therefore cannot reflect individual patient variation. In addition it reflects Australian intensive care practice which may differ from that of other countries. It is meant as a back up to specific information which will be discussed with you by the Doctors and Nurses caring for your loved one. ICCMU attests to the accuracy of the information contained here BUT takes no responsibility for how it may apply to an individual patient. Please refer to the full disclaimer. BiPAP Version 1.4 First published June 2004 Reviewed October 2011 Reviewed by Kay Johnson CNS ICCMU

A BiPAP machine is a relatively small device that assists with a patient's breathing. It is connected by flexible tubing to a face mask worn by the patient (as illustrated). The BiPAP machine helps push air and oxygen into the lungs and then helps to hold the lungs inflated, thereby allowing more oxygen to enter the lungs. BiPAP may be used to support breathing for a number of patient conditions i

The Deethylatrazine/Atrazine Ratio as an Indicator of the Onset of the Spring Flush of Herbicides into Surface Water of the Midwestern United States By E.M. Thurman and J.D. Fallon The ratio of deethylatrazine to atrazine (DAR) may be used to record the first major runoff of herbicides from non-point-source corn fields to surface water in the Midwestern United States. The DAR dramatically decreases from -0.5 to <0.1 upon application of herbicide and the first major runoff event of a basin. The DAR then gradually increases to values of approximately 0.4-0.6 during the harvest season. Furthermore, the DAR may be used in studies of surface water movement to give a temporal indicator of water moving into reservoirs for possible storage of herbicides. It is hypothesized that deethylatrazine, which accounts for only 6% of the degradation of atrazine, becomes a significant metabolite in surface water (ž50% of parent compound) because of its selective removal from soil. This removal process may be an important concept for consideration in studies of herbicide contamination of rivers and reservoirs. KEYWORDS: atrazine, deethylatrazine, hydroxyatrazine, metabolites, surface water, and runoff Additional information about the Organic Geochemistry Research Laboratory can be found at: http://ks.water.usgs.gov/pages/9-Research-Lab Thurman, E.M. and Fallon, J.D., 1996, The Deethylatrazine/Atrazine Ratio as an Indicator of the Onset of the Spring Flush of Herbicides into Surface Water of the Midwestern United States [abst.]: International Journal of Environmental Analytical Chemistry, v. 65, p. 203-214. To request a paper copy of this journal article, email: [email protected]

The Deethylatrazine/Atrazine Ratio as an Indicator of the Onset of the Spring Flush of Herbicides into Surface Water of the Midwestern United States By E.M. Thurman and J.D. Fallon The ratio of deethylatrazine to atrazine (DAR) may be used to record the first major runoff of herbicides from non-point-source corn fields to surface water in the Midwestern United States. The DAR dramatically decrease

||Association of Flight Attendants - CWA ||The Association of Flight Attendants-CWA is the largest flight attendant union in the world, representing 46,000 flight attendants at 26 airlines. AFA-CWA negotiates and enforces labor contracts, and represents flight attendants' interests before Congress and federal agencies. AFA is known within our industry and around the world as a strong and positive advocate for flight attendants and our issues. From demanding fair treatment to winning industry-leading contracts, from investigating aircraft accidents to lobbying for onboard safety protections. AFA-CWA is the leading advocate for flight attendants. ||June 1, 2006 - November 29, 2006 United States--Politics and government--2001- ||Access restricted to on-site users at the Library of Congress |URL at time of capture: Election 2006 Web Archive

||Association of Flight Attendants - CWA ||The Association of Flight Attendants-CWA is the largest flight attendant union in the world, representing 46,000 flight attendants at 26 airlines. AFA-CWA negotiates and enforces labor contracts, and represents flight attendants' interests before Congress and federal agencies. AFA is known within our industry and around the world as a strong and positive

To link to this article, copy this persistent link: (Oct 05, 2012) On August 13, 2012, According to the Provisions, the SFDA and its provincial-level counterparts will publish drug safety blacklists on their official websites. The blacklists are to contain information on pharmaceutical manufacturing and trading companies on which administrative penalties have been imposed due to their serious violation of laws and regulations regarding medicine and medical devices, as well as information on their directly responsible personnel. ( The Provisions specify the circumstances under which a violator will be added to the blacklist, including: 1. having had a certificate or licenses for the manufacture or trade in medicine or medical devices revoked due to manufacturing or distributing counterfeit drugs or sub-standard drugs or medical devices or manufacturing medical devices without a license; 2. concealing relevant information or providing false materials when applying for relevant administrative permits; or 3. providing false documents, cheating, or giving bribes to obtain relevant administrative permits. ( art. 7.) Id. The SFDA and its provincial-level counterparts will add the information about a violator to their respective blacklists within 15 days of the date on which an administrative penalty decision takes effect. ( |Author:||Laney Zhang More by this author| |Topic:||Health and safety More on this topic| |Jurisdiction:||China More about this jurisdiction| Search Legal News Find legal news by topic, country, keyword, date, or author. Global Legal Monitor RSS Get the Global Legal Monitor delivered to your inbox. Sign up for RSS service. The Global Legal Monitor is an online publication from the Law Library of Congress covering legal news and developments worldwide. It is updated frequently and draws on information from the Global Legal Information Network, official national legal publications, and reliable press sources. You can find previous news by searching the GLM. Last updated: 10/05/2012

To link to this article, copy this persistent link: (Oct 05, 2012) On August 13, 2012, According to the Provisions, the SFDA and its provincial-level counterparts will publish drug safety blacklists on their official websites. The blacklists are to contain information on pharmaceutical manufacturing and trading companies on which administrative penalties have been imposed due to their serious viol

For the more information about water resources in the National Park Service, please visit http://www.nature.nps.gov/water/. Water Resources Publications The Water Resources Division of the National Park Service produces several different types of reports. Many of these are available here and in the NPS Integrated Resource Management Applications (IRMA) portal as PDF files. We also keep a collection of resource materials located in our Fort Collins office. The following reports are available in Adobe PDF format. You will need Adobe Reader to access these files. Click here to dowload the free Reader. Printed copies are available by contacting the Water Resources Division. Water Resources Division Summary of Accomplishments Summary of Accomplishments Archive Plans and Reports Last Updated: February 28, 2013

For the more information about water resources in the National Park Service, please visit http://www.nature.nps.gov/water/. Water Resources Publications The Water Resources Division of the National Park Service produces several different types of reports. Many of these are available here and in the NPS Integrated Resource Management Applications (IRMA) portal as PDF files. We also keep a collectio

NIH Research Matters October 6, 2006 Progress on Human Avian Flu Vaccine When combined with an immune-boosting substance called an adjuvant, low doses of an experimental vaccine against a strain of avian influenza provoked a strong immune system response in humans. The result brings researchers one step closer to creating vaccines that can protect people from emerging avian flu viruses. In 1999, two children in Hong Kong became infected with H9N2, a strain of avian influenza that hadn’t previously been detected in humans. People have little or no natural defenses against avian influenza viruses like H9N2 or the more deadly H5N1 because they’ve historically circulated only in birds. If one of these viruses were to acquire the ability to spread easily from person to person, it could cause a pandemic. In 2004, NIH’s National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) asked Novartis Vaccines and Diagnostics (formerly Chiron Corporation) to produce an experimental H9N2 vaccine. Dr. Robert L. Atmar and his colleagues at the NIAID-supported Viral Respiratory Pathogens Research Unit at Baylor College of Medicine set out to test the vaccines in a Phase I clinical trial. Phase I vaccine trials are designed to assess a vaccine’s safety and ability to stimulate the immune system. The researchers vaccinated 48 volunteers, aged 18 to 34, with H9N2 vaccine made from inactivated virus at one of four dosages. Another 48 people received vaccines at one of the same four dosages prepared with Novartis’s MF59 adjuvant, which is designed to boost the immune system’s reaction. The volunteers were vaccinated twice, with each shot 28 days apart. To measure the immune system responses, the researchers measured the levels of antibody each person produced against the virus. Antibodies are molecules produced by the immune system to help ward off infection. In general, the higher the level of antibodies made in response to a vaccine, the more protective the vaccine will be if the person later encounters the virus Their results were published online on September 25, 2006, in Clinical Infectious Diseases. The side effects of the vaccinations were generally mild. Antibody levels in people who received the “adjuvanted” vaccine were significantly higher than in those who received the vaccine without adjuvant. The adjuvanted vaccine raised antibody levels after a single dose to ranges the researchers suggest may be able to protect people against infection. Phase I vaccine trials, however, aren’t designed to see whether a vaccine can prevent infection, so future studies will have to look at that question. “The results of this clinical trial add to the growing body of information demonstrating the potential value of adjuvanted avian influenza vaccines,” says NIAID Director Dr. Anthony S. Fauci. Currently, MF59 is licensed for use as a vaccine adjuvant in Europe but not in the U.S. These findings suggest that MF59 deserves further study. NIH Research Matters Bldg. 31, Rm. 5B64A, MSC 2094 Bethesda, MD 20892-2094 About NIH Research Matters Harrison Wein, Ph.D., Editor Vicki Contie, Assistant Editor NIH Research Matters is a weekly update of NIH research highlights from the Office of Communications and Public Liaison, Office of the Director, National Institutes of Health.

NIH Research Matters October 6, 2006 Progress on Human Avian Flu Vaccine When combined with an immune-boosting substance called an adjuvant, low doses of an experimental vaccine against a strain of avian influenza provoked a strong immune system response in humans. The result brings researchers one step closer to creating vaccines that can protect people from emerging avian flu viruses. In 1999, t

Requires warning labels on fireplace glass panels advising consumers of the grave risk of burns when the fireplace is operating. Sponsor: ZELDIN HOUSING, CONSTRUCTION AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Law Section: Executive Law Law: Amd S378, Exec L Law Section: Executive Law Law: Amd S378, Exec L - Jan 4, 2012: REFERRED TO HOUSING, CONSTRUCTION AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT - Mar 14, 2011: REFERRED TO HOUSING, CONSTRUCTION AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BILL NUMBER:S4029 TITLE OF BILL: An act to amend the executive law, in relation to requiring warning labels on fireplaces and fireplace enclosures that have glass viewing panels PURPOSE OR GENERAL IDEA OF BILL: This legislation would require fireplace manufacturers to affix a bright orange warning label to the glass panel of all glass-paneled factory manufactured fireplaces. This label would alert consumers to the grave risk of burns that could result from touching the glass viewing pane while the fireplace is in operation. Removal of the label by anyone other than the owner of a dwelling where the fireplace is installed would result in a civil penalty. SUMMARY OF PROVISIONS: This legislation would add a new subdivision 17 to Section 378 of the executive law to read as follows: 17. Standards for factory manufactured fireplaces and fireplace enclosures which have glass viewing panels requiring that every such fireplace and enclosure, sold or installed after the effective date of this subdivision, shall have affixed to the glass panels thereof, a conspicuous orange warning label advising the consumer of the grave risk of serious burns posed by touching such glass panels when a fireplace is operating. No such warning label shall be removed from the glass of a fireplace or fireplace enclosure by any person; provided, however, that when such a fireplace or fireplace enclosure is installed in ,an owner occupied dwelling, such warning may be removed by the owner who occupies such dwelling. Any person who violates the standards established pursuant to this subdivision shall be liable for a civil penalty not to exceed two hundred fifty dollars. JUSTIFICATION: While the dangers of an open flame are well known, many people do not harbor the same concerns with respect to the glass that encloses gas fireplaces. While in operation, glass panels or enclosures of gas fireplaces reach temperatures of up to 500 degrees. The 500-degree limit was voluntarily imposed by the fireplace industry to prevent the glass from cracking under extreme heat and not with consumer safety in mind. The temperature of the glass is so extreme that when touched, skin is likely to melt and stick to the glass, causing devastating injuries. What is especially unfortunate is that many of the accidents involving superheated glass affect children, who are drawn to the fire but likely view the glass as a safe barrier from the flame. Since 1999, over 2,000 children under the age of 6 have suffered burns from glass fireplace enclosures. Under current law, there is no requirement or mandate to warn consumers of the danger posed by superheated glass panels on gas fireplaces. Voluntary standards adopted by the industry itself are the only protection currently in place and they fail to adequately address the safety of the consumer. Existing warnings are placed in obscurity, near the pilot light or in the manual, and are usually overlooked by the consumer. Absent adequate self-imposed regulations by the industry, protecting consumers against these tragic incidents falls on the legislature. This legislation would add a requirement that would mandate factory fireplace manufacturers to warn the consumers of this grave danger in a way that would legitimately ensure that the consumer sees the warning and is on notice of the possible resulting harms. LEGISLATIVE HISTORY: New Bill. FISCAL IMPLICATIONS: Minimal. EFFECTIVE DATE: This act shall take effect on the first of January next succeeding the date on which it shall have become a law; provided, that any rules and regulations necessary to implement the provisions of this act on its effective date are authorized and directed to be promulgated, amended and/or repealed on or before such date. S T A T E O F N E W Y O R K ________________________________________________________________________ 4029 2011-2012 Regular Sessions I N SENATE March 14, 2011 ___________ Introduced by Sens. ZELDIN, GOLDEN -- read twice and ordered printed, and when printed to be committed to the Committee on Housing, Construction and Community Development AN ACT to amend the executive law, in relation to requiring warning labels on fireplaces and fireplace enclosures that have glass viewing panels THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, REPRESENTED IN SENATE AND ASSEM- BLY, DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Section 378 of the executive law is amended by adding a new subdivision 17 to read as follows: 17. STANDARDS FOR FACTORY MANUFACTURED FIREPLACES AND FIREPLACE ENCLO- SURES WHICH HAVE GLASS VIEWING PANELS REQUIRING THAT EVERY SUCH FIRE- PLACE AND ENCLOSURE, SOLD OR INSTALLED AFTER THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS SUBDIVISION, SHALL HAVE AFFIXED TO THE GLASS PANELS THEREOF, A CONSPICU- OUS ORANGE WARNING LABEL ADVISING THE CONSUMER OF THE GRAVE RISK OF SERIOUS BURNS POSED BY TOUCHING SUCH GLASS PANELS WHEN A FIREPLACE IS OPERATING. NO SUCH WARNING LABEL SHALL BE REMOVED FROM THE GLASS OF A FIREPLACE OR FIREPLACE ENCLOSURE BY ANY PERSON; PROVIDED, HOWEVER, THAT WHEN SUCH A FIREPLACE OR FIREPLACE ENCLOSURE IS INSTALLED IN AN OWNER OCCUPIED DWELLING, SUCH WARNING MAY BE REMOVED BY THE OWNER WHO OCCUPIES SUCH DWELLING. ANY PERSON WHO VIOLATES THE STANDARDS ESTABLISHED PURSU- ANT TO THIS SUBDIVISION SHALL BE LIABLE FOR A CIVIL PENALTY NOT TO EXCEED TWO HUNDRED FIFTY DOLLARS. S 2. This act shall take effect on the first of January next succeed- ing the date on which it shall have become a law; provided, that any rules and regulations necessary to implement the provisions of this act on its effective date are authorized and directed to be promulgated, amended and/or repealed on or before such date. EXPLANATION--Matter in ITALICS (underscored) is new; matter in brackets [ ] is old law to be omitted. LBD08760-02-1

Requires warning labels on fireplace glass panels advising consumers of the grave risk of burns when the fireplace is operating. Sponsor: ZELDIN HOUSING, CONSTRUCTION AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Law Section: Executive Law Law: Amd S378, Exec L Law Section: Executive Law Law: Amd S378, Exec L - Jan 4, 2012: REFERRED TO HOUSING, CONSTRUCTION AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT - Mar 14, 2011: REFERRED TO HOUSIN

- Parliamentary Business - Senators & Members - News & Events - About Parliament - Visit Parliament Note: Where available, the PDF/Word icon below is provided to view the complete and fully formatted document Aboriginal Education (Supplementary Assistance) Amendment Bill 1995 House: House of Representatives Portfolio: Employment, Education and Training Commencement: Royal Assent The amendments proposed by this Bill relate to funding for the Aboriginal Education Strategic Initiatives Program (AESIP). This program provides funds to organisations and institutions to supplement the cost of delivering educational services to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. The main amendment will: increase the appropriation for the funding period 1 January 1996 to 30 June 1997 from $0.256 million to $83.636 million. The Government's National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Policy (AEP) commenced in 1990 and was developed on the basis of the recommendations of the Aboriginal Education Policy Task Force. The Task Force was established in April 1988 and reported in July of that year. It concluded that Aboriginals were largely disadvantaged in education opportunities. The AEP was developed in conjunction with the States and Territories and it was followed by the enactment of the Aboriginal Education (Supplementary Assistance) Act 1989 which provides funds to the AESIP. The AEP has four long term objectives: increasing the involvement of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in educational decision making; ensuring equality of access to educational services; achieving equity of educational participation; and enabling equitable and appropriate education outcomes. The AEP sets down 21 agreed goals for Aboriginal education covering all education sectors, to be pursued by all governments. State and Territory government responses to the education related recommendations of the Royal Commission into Black Deaths in Custody indicate that the AEP has continuing support from all governments. AESIP, which underpins the AEP, provides funds to organisations and institutions to supplement the cost of delivering educational services to Aboriginal people. The program supports pre- schools, primary and secondary schools, and technical and further education. The funding is provided by the Commonwealth as a supplement to the normal provision of funds for education to the State and Territories and is committed on a forward triennial basis. The second triennium of the AEP covers the period 1993/94 to 1995/96 and the Commonwealth has committed $253.142 million for the triennium. 1 For the second triennium, the Commonwealth has nominated three national priorities: responding to the relevant recommendations of the Royal Commission into Black Deaths in custody; implementing the National Aboriginal Languages and Literacy Strategy, the AEP components of which are: the Aboriginal Literacy Strategy which provides for an intensification of efforts to improve English literacy among Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander school children and adults with limited experience at school; the Aboriginal Languages Education Strategy promotes and facilitates the teaching of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander languages in school, develops bilingual education programs, and will move towards the teaching of aboriginal languages in TAFE and higher education; and implementing the National Reconciliation and Schooling Strategy. Specific recommendations of the Royal Commission into Black Deaths in Custody, which discussed funding under the Aboriginal Education (Supplementary Assistance) Act 1989, included increased employment of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander education workers from 1993 and an expansion of pre- school services from 1994. The National Reconciliation Schooling Strategy provides for: the development of appropriate and consistent Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander curriculum studies for all schools from preschool to year 12; the development of consistent teacher education courses; the establishment of a sister schools scheme; and a grass roots campaign to promote greater understanding by students of their local Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander community and its history. 3 As well as AESIP, the other major Aboriginal education program funded by the Commonwealth is the Aboriginal Study Assistance Scheme (ABSTUDY) which provides income support to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students aged 14 years or over undertaking primary education, students undertaking secondary education, and full and part- time tertiary education. Only the funding for AESIP is effected by this Bill. +=5"> Main Provisions Item 1 of the Schedule to the Bill decreases the amount appropriated for the funding period 1 January 1995 to 30 June 1996 from $84.131 million to $83.861 million (- $0.27 million). The rationale for the decrease given in the Explanatory Memorandum is as follows: Funding available in respect of the 1995 calendar year would be adjusted to reflect a decision to transfer to the Department of Communications and the Arts, in the 1995- 96 financial year, an amount of $0.54 million, from funds appropriated under the Act. The funds transferred to the Department of Communications and the Arts would be used to establish the National Institute for Indigenous Performing Arts Training. As a consequence of the transfer of the $0.54 million to the Department of Communications and the Arts for the 1995- 96 financial year, the appropriation under the Act for the 1995 calendar year will be reduced by $0.27 million to reflect the half yearly effect of the transfer of the funds from 1 July 1995. Item 2 of the Schedule to the Bill increases the appropriation for the funding period 1 January 1996 to 30 June 1997 from $0.256 million to $83.636 million. 1. Paper Circulated by the Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs, Social Justice for Indigenous Australians 1994- 95, p. 101. 2. Paper Circulated by the Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs, Social Justice for Indigenous Australians 1993- 94, p. 49. 3. Paper Circulated by the Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs, Social Justice for Indigenous Australians 1994- 95, p. 104. Ian Ireland (06 2772438) Bills Digest Service Parliamentary Research Service 13 July 1995 This Digest does not have any legal status. Other sources should be consulted to determine whether this Bill has been enacted and, if so, whether the subsequent Act reflects further amendments. Commonwealth of Australia 1995 Except to the extent of the uses permitted under the Copyright Act 1968, no part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, including information storage and retrieval systems, without the prior written consent of the Parliamentary Library, other than by Members and Senators of the Australian Parliament in the course of their official duties.

- Parliamentary Business - Senators & Members - News & Events - About Parliament - Visit Parliament Note: Where available, the PDF/Word icon below is provided to view the complete and fully formatted document Aboriginal Education (Supplementary Assistance) Amendment Bill 1995 House: House of Representatives Portfolio: Employment, Education and Training Commencement: Royal Assent The amendments pro

Individual differences | Methods | Statistics | Clinical | Educational | Industrial | Professional items | World psychology | The frustration–aggression hypothesis, otherwise known as the frustration–aggression–displacement theory, attempts to explain why people scapegoat. It is a theory of aggression proposed by John Dollard, Neal E. Miller et al. in 1939, and further developed by Miller, Roger Barker et al. in 1941 and Leonard Berkowitz in 1969. According to Yale Group, frustration is the "condition which exists when a goal-response suffers interference," while aggression is defined as "an act whose goal-response is injury to an organism (or organism surrogate)." However, aggression is not always the response to frustration. Rather a substitute response is displayed when aggressive response is not the strongest on the hierarchy. Furthermore, this theory raises the question if aggression is innate. However, this theory has some problems. First, there is little empirical support for it, even though researchers have studied it for more than sixty years. Another issue is that this theory suggests frustrated, prejudiced individuals should act more aggressively towards outgroups they are prejudiced against, but studies have shown that they are more aggressive towards everyone. The theory also has limitations, for example it cannot say why some outgroups are chosen to be scapegoats and why others are not. The frustration-aggression theory has been studied since 1939, and there have been modifications. Dill and Anderson present a study that questions whether frustration that is justified or not plays a role in future aggression. The experiment consisted of three groups of subjects performing a folding origami task that was timed. The participants were split into the control, justified frustration and unjustified frustration groups. In each condition the experimenter states how they will only present the instructions one time and then start the timer. At a predetermined fold the confederate in the condition interrupts the experimenter and asks them to please slow down. In the unjustified group, the experimenter responds, “I cannot slow down. My girlfriend/boyfriend is picking me up after this and I do not want to make them wait.” In the justified condition the experimenter responds, “I cannot slow down. My supervisor booked this room for another project afterwards and we must continue.” Finally, the experimenter in the control condition responded, “Oh, okay I did not realize I was going too quickly. I will slow down.” The subjects were then given questionnaires on their levels of aggression as well as questionnaires about the quality of the research staff. They were told that these questionnaires would determine if the research staff would be award financial aid, or would result in verbal reprimands and a reduction in financial award. The questions presented on the questionnaire were designed to reflect the research staffs ability and likeability. Dill and Anderson found that participants in the unjustified frustration group rated the research staff to have less ability and likeability, knowing this would affect their financial situation as graduate students. The justified frustration group rated the staff as less likeable and having less ability than the control group. However, the results were not as extreme. These results support the hypothesis that frustration can lead to aggression. This study presents data concerning behavioral aggression as well as introducing the level of frustration that needs to be taken into account. - ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 Whitley & Kite, 2010 - ↑ Dollard, Miller et al. (1939). The hypothesis suggests that the failure to obtain a desired or expected goal leads to aggressive behavior.Frustration and aggression, Yale University Press, New Haven, ISBN 0-313-22201-0 - ↑ Miller, Barker et al. (1941). Symposium on the Frustration-Aggression Hypothesis, Psychological Review, No. 48, pp. 337-366 - ↑ Berkowitz, Leonard (1969). The frustration-aggression hypothesis revisited, in: Berokowitz (ed.), Roots of aggression, Atherton Press, New York - ↑ PASTORE, NICHOLAS, A neglected factor in the frustration-aggression hypothesis: A comment. , Journal of Psychology, 29 (1950) p.271 - ↑ 6.0 6.1 6.2 6.3 Dill & Anderson, 1995 - (1995). Effects of Frustration Justification on Hostile Aggression. Aggressive Behavior 21: 359–369. - (2010). The Psychology of Prejudice and Discrimination. - PASTORE, NICHOLAS, A neglected factor in the frustration-aggression hypothesis: A comment., Journal of Psychology, 29 (1950) p. 271 |This page uses Creative Commons Licensed content from Wikipedia (view authors).|

Individual differences | Methods | Statistics | Clinical | Educational | Industrial | Professional items | World psychology | The frustration–aggression hypothesis, otherwise known as the frustration–aggression–displacement theory, attempts to explain why people scapegoat. It is a theory of aggression proposed by John Dollard, Neal E. Miller et al. in 1939, and further developed by Miller, Roger B

Methods | Statistics | Clinical | Educational | Industrial | Professional items | World psychology | The lecture method is a teaching method. A lecture is an oral presentation intended to present information or teach people about a particular subject, for example by a university or college teacher. Lectures are used to convey critical information, history, background, theories and equations. A politician's speech, a minister's sermon, or even a businessman's sales presentation may be similar in form to a lecture. Usually the lecturer will stand at the front of the room and recite information relevant to the lecture's content. Though lectures are much criticized as a pedagogical method, universities have not yet found practical alternative teaching methods for the large majority of their courses. Critics point out that lecturing is mainly a one-way method of communication that does not involve significant audience participation. Therefore, lecturing is often contrasted to active learning. But lectures delivered by talented speakers can be highly stimulating; at the very least, lectures have survived in academia as a quick, cheap and efficient way of introducing large numbers of students to a particular field of study. Lectures have a significant role outside the classroom, as well. Academic and scientific awards routinely include a lecture as part of the honor, and academic conferences often center around "keynote addresses", i.e., lectures. The public lecture has a long history in the sciences and in social movements. Union halls, for instance, historically have hosted numerous free and public lectures on a wide variety of matters. Similarly, churches, community centers, libraries, museums, and other organizations have hosted lectures in furtherance of their missions or their constituents' interests. The noun "lecture" dates from 14th century, meaning "action of reading, that which is read," from the Latin lectus, pp. of legere "to read." Its subsequent meaning as "a discourse on a given subject before an audience for purposes of instruction" is from the 16th century. The verb "to lecture" is attested from 1590. The noun "lectern" refers to the reading desk used by lecturers. In British English and several other languages the noun "lecture" must grammatically be the object of the verb "to read." The practice in the medieval university was for the instructor to read from an original source to a class of students who took notes on the lecture. The reading from original sources evolved into the reading of glosses on an original and then more generally to lecture notes. Throughout much of history, the diffusion of knowledge via handwritten lecture notes was an essential element of academic life. Even in the twentieth century the lecture notes taken by students, or prepared by a scholar for a lecture, have sometimes achieved wide circulation (see, for example, the genesis of Ferdinand de Saussure's Cours de linguistique générale). Many lecturers were, and still are, accustomed to simply reading their own notes from the lectern for exactly that purpose. Nevertheless, modern lectures generally incorporate additional activities, e.g. writing on a chalk-board, exercises, class questions and discussions, or student presentations. The use of multimedia presentation software such as Microsoft PowerPoint has changed the form of lectures, e.g. video, graphics, websites, or prepared exercises may be included. Most commonly, however, only outlines composed of "bullet points" are presented. Critics contend that this style of lecture bombards the audience (as critics such as Edward Tufte put it) with unnecessary and possibly distracting or confusing graphics. Others simply think this form of lecture is non-spontaneous and boring. Bligh, in What's the Use of Lectures? argues that lectures "represent a conception of education in which teachers who know give knowledge to students who do not and are therefore supposed to have nothing worth contributing." Based on his review of numerous studies, he concludes that lecturing is as effective, but not more effective, as any other teaching method in transmitting information. Nevertheless, lecturing is not the most effective method for promoting student thought, changing attitudes, or teaching behavioral skills. Many university courses relying on lectures supplement them with smaller discussion sections, tutorials, or laboratory experiment sessions as a means of further actively involving students. Often these supplemental sections are led by graduate students, tutors, Teaching Assistants or Teaching Fellows rather than senior faculty. Those other forms of academic teaching include discussion (recitation if conducted by a Teaching Assistant ), seminars, workshops, observation, practical application, case examples/case study, experiental learning/active learning, computer-based instruction and tutorials. See also Edit - Donald A. Bligh: What's the Use of Lectures? (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2000). ISBN 0-7879-5162-5 - Konrad Paul Liessmann: Über den Nutzen und Nachteil des Vorlesens. Eine Vorlesung über die Vorlesung (Vienna: Picus, 1994) ISBN 3-85452-324-6 . - Edward R. Tufte: The Cognitive Style of PowerPoint: Pitching Out Corrupts Within (Cheshire, Connecticut: Graphics Press, 2006, 2nd edition). ISBN 0-9613921-5-0 The Cognitive Style of PowerPoint - lecturefox.com: free university lectures (videos, podcasts, notes) - World Lecture Project (wlp°): free academic lectures from around the globe, covering all faculties - videolectures.net: free academic lectures, especially on Computer Science - Lecturefinder: Search academic and college grade lectures online. |This page uses Creative Commons Licensed content from Wikipedia (view authors).|

Methods | Statistics | Clinical | Educational | Industrial | Professional items | World psychology | The lecture method is a teaching method. A lecture is an oral presentation intended to present information or teach people about a particular subject, for example by a university or college teacher. Lectures are used to convey critical information, history, background, theories and equations. A pol

Methods | Statistics | Clinical | Educational | Industrial | Professional items | World psychology | Suspension trauma (Syn. "orthostatic shock while suspended"), also known as harness hang syndrome (HHS), or orthostatic incompetence is an effect which occurs when the human body is held upright without any movement for a period of time. If the person is strapped into a harness or tied to an upright object they will eventually suffer the Central Ischaemic Response (commonly known as fainting). If one faints but remains vertical, one risks death due to one's brain not receiving the oxygen it requires. People at risk of suspension trauma include people using industrial harnesses (fall arrest systems, abseiling systems, confined space systems), people using harnesses for sporting purposes (caving, climbing, parachuting, etc.), stunt performers, circus performers, and so on. Suspension shock can also occur in medical environments, for similar reasons.[How to reference and link to summary or text] Prevention of suspension trauma is preferable to dealing with its consequences. Specific recommendations for individuals doing technical ropework are to avoid exhausting themselves so much that they end up without the energy to keep moving, and making sure everyone in a group is trained in single rope rescue techniques, especially the single rope pickoff, a rather difficult technical maneuver that must be practiced frequently for smooth performance. If someone is stranded in a harness, but is not unconscious or injured, and has something to kick against or stand on (such as a rock ledge or caving leg-loops) it is helpful for them to use their leg muscles by pushing against it every so often, to keep the blood pumping back to the torso. If the person is stranded in mid-air or is exhausted, then keeping the legs moving can be both beneficial and rather dangerous. On the one hand, exercising the leg muscles will keep the blood returning to the torso, but on the other hand, as the movements become weaker the leg muscles will continue to demand blood yet they will become much less effective at returning it to the body, and the moment the victim ceases moving their legs, the blood will immediately start to pool. "Pedaling an imaginary bicycle" should only be used as a last-ditch effort to prolong consciousness, because as soon as the "pedaling" stops, fainting will shortly follow. If it is impossible to rescue someone immediately, then it is necessary to raise their legs to a sitting position, which can be done with a loop of rigging tape behind the knees or specialized equipment from a rescue kit. When rescuing a victim it is paramount to let the blood flow to the brain and heart. A suspended victim is more likely to be injured by not raising their legs when rescuing. No change in ABC management should be undertaken based on the above theoretical risk of suspension trauma. The British Health and Safety Executive (HSE) has done an extensive review of this topic 2009 which contradicts its earlier statement 2002. - Reflow syndrome, which occurs when toxins that accumulated in pooled blood suddenly return to the body when the patient lies down following suspension trauma - Compartment syndrome, a dangerous condition that sometimes occurs with suspension trauma - Orthostatic intolerance - Suspension Trauma Article on the Prevention and Treatment of Suspension Trauma - Harness suspension: review and evaluation of existing information - Harness Hang Syndrome: Fact and Fiction - Will Your Safety Harness Kill You?, from Occupational Health & Safety magazine, Vol. 27, No. 3, pages 86-90, March 2003 |This page uses Creative Commons Licensed content from Wikipedia (view authors).|

Methods | Statistics | Clinical | Educational | Industrial | Professional items | World psychology | Suspension trauma (Syn. "orthostatic shock while suspended"), also known as harness hang syndrome (HHS), or orthostatic incompetence is an effect which occurs when the human body is held upright without any movement for a period of time. If the person is strapped into a harness or tied to an uprigh

|View south from Spider Mountain to Le Conte Glacier spilling down off Old Guard and Sentinel Peaks, carved from metamorphosed igneous rocks of the Triassic Marblemount pluton. The low line of jointed cliffs in the foreground are underlain by Cascade River Schist. Both units are in the Chelan Mountains terrane. On the left, glacier-covered Dome Peak rises behind Old Guard and the Le Conte Glacier. Its west ridge culminates in Spire Point (middle background, center right). Both Dome Peak and its ridge are eroded from the Miocene Cloudy Pass batholith. The skyline peak in the center of the photo is Glacier Peak volcano. All these peaks and ridges are in the Glacier Peak Wilderness Area. (Photograph by R.W. Tabor, 1958.)| The north-south-trending regionally significant Straight Creek Fault roughly bisects the Sauk River quadrangle and defines the fundamental geologic framework of it. Within the quadrangle, the Fault mostly separates low-grade metamorphic rocks on the west from medium- to high-grade metamorphic rocks of the Cascade metamorphic core. On the west, the Helena-Haystack melange and roughly coincident Darrington-Devils Mountain Fault Zone separate the western and eastern melange belts to the southwest from the Easton Metamorphic Suite, the Bell Pass melange, and rocks of the Chilliwack Group, to the northeast. The tectonic melanges have mostly Mesozoic marine components whereas the Chilliwack is mostly composed of Late Paleozoic arc rocks. Unconformably overlying the melanges and associated rocks are Eocene volcanic and sedimentary rocks, mostly infaulted along the Darrington-Devils Mountain Fault Zone. These younger rocks and a few small Eocene granitic plutons represent an extensional tectonic episode. East of the Straight Creek Fault, medium to high-grade regional metamorphic rocks of the Nason, Chelan Mountains, and Swakane terranes have been intruded by deep seated, Late Cretaceous granodioritic to tonalitic plutons, mostly now orthogneisses. Unmetamorphosed mostly tonalitic intrusions on both sides of the Straight Creek fault range from 35 to 4 million years old and represent the roots of volcanoes of the Cascade Magmatic Arc. Arc volcanic rocks are sparsely preserved east of the Straight Creek fault, but dormant Glacier Peak volcano on the eastern margin of the quadrangle is the youngest member of the Arc. Deposits of the Canadian Ice Sheet are well represented on the west side of the quadrangle, whereas alpine glacial deposits are common to the east. Roughly 5000 years ago lahars from Glacier Peak flowed westward filling major valleys across the quadrangle. Download the 67-page descriptive pamphlet for this map as a Portable Document Format (PDF) file (1.2 MB) Download sheet 1 as a PDF file (12.1 MB) or as an Encapsulated PostScript (EPS) file (37.4 MB) Download sheet 2 as a PDF file (420 KB) or as an EPS file (3.2 MB) Jump to USGS Data Series 188: Database for the Geologic Map of the Sauk River 30-Minute by 60-Minute Quadrangle, Washington (I-2592) For questions about the content of this report, contact Rowland Tabor Download a current version of Adobe Reader for free | PDF help | Publications main page | Western I-Maps | | Privacy Statement | Disclaimer | Accessibility | | Geologic Division | Earth Surface Processes Program | This report is also available from U.S. Geological Survey, Information Services Box 25286, Federal Center Denver, CO 80225 | Department of the Interior | U.S. Geological Survey | URL of this page: http://pubs.usgs.gov/imap/i2592/ Maintained by: Michael Diggles Created: June 11, 2003 Last modified: Tuesday, June 13, 2006 (mfd)

|View south from Spider Mountain to Le Conte Glacier spilling down off Old Guard and Sentinel Peaks, carved from metamorphosed igneous rocks of the Triassic Marblemount pluton. The low line of jointed cliffs in the foreground are underlain by Cascade River Schist. Both units are in the Chelan Mountains terrane. On the left, glacier-covered Dome Peak rises behind Old Guard and the Le Conte Glacier.

2007 Annual Report 1a.Objectives (from AD-416) Expand the use of animal fats, vegetable oils, and their coproducts by developing new and/or alternative processes to exploit the potential of these feedstocks as biobased products and biofuels. Targeted areas include: producing lipids with improved physical and/or nutritional properties; introducing branching into the linear fatty acids common to natural fats and oils; producing polyol fatty acids, amides, as functional or metalworking fluids; using natural and/or modified phospholipids as metalworking fluids and/or lubricant additives; developing alternative processes for producing biodiesel from intact oils and fats and/or less expensive lipid feedstocks; developing methodologies for improving the quality and performance of biodiesel fuels; and developing new uses for glycerol. 1b.Approach (from AD-416) New technologies will be developed for the production of nutraceutical lipids and high-energy lipids or low/zero trans fats using directed enzymatic transesterification and fractionation techniques. Use enzyme immobilization techniques for developing continuous lipid modification processes in bioreactors. Biocatalytic and biomimetic reagents will be applied to produce carbon-carbon and carbon-oxygen branched fatty acids, targeting materials with enhanced lubricity while preserving biodegradability. Incorporate oxygen or phosphate functionalities into fats and oils or their constituent fatty acids to increase their hydrophilic character. Technologies will be optimized to improve the economics of biodiesel from low-cost, agriculturally derived lipid feedstocks using conventional alkali-catalyzed transesterification or alternative methods. Develop an enzymatic/alkali-catalyzed process for the conversion of free fatty acid (FFA) containing feedstocks into biodiesel fuels. Compositional analysis and engine performance studies will be conducted to gather a body of data required to determine: a) the suitability of whole vegetable oils as fuels; and b) the efficacy of additives on the performance of intact oils and biodiesel. Use heterogeneous catalysts to synthesize biodiesel. Produce fuel oxygenates and biodegradable lubricants. Identify origin of sulfur species and develop protocols for their removal from biofuels and/or feedstocks. Produce glycerol-based prepolymers; oligomerize glycerol with itself or other bifunctional monomers to produce hyper-branched polymers. Saturated branched-chain fatty acids, or "isostearic acids," are used as biodegradable lubricants, emollients, and hydraulic fluids. CWU researchers developed efficient, high-yield catalytic processes for their synthesis from unsaturated fatty acids using a ferrierite zeolite catalyst. After hydrogenation, the mixture is recrystallized, methylated, and distilled to remove byproducts. Studies continued on the scope, aspects, and optimization of the direct production of biodiesel from lipid-bearing materials. Efforts focused on cost reduction through investigation of the ability of feedstock pretreatment to reduce the amount of alcohol required in the process. CWU scientists continued to collaborate with Philadelphia Fry-O-Diesel, LLC, a research and pilot scale firm investigating biodiesel production from trap grease. Tasks successfully undertaken included refinements to the technologies developed, devising methods to achieve high quality biodiesel, and overcoming issues of contamination of the final product. CWU scientists have responded to requests from industry members, both producers and users, for assistance in helping to determine the causes of sporadic local poor performance with biodiesel. To this end, field samples were forwarded to unit scientists for their assistance in analyzing them. Conveying the results to collaborators and to the biodiesel research community in general has raised industry awareness regarding fuel quality issues. CWU researchers, with on-site engineers, continued their development of quantitative computer-based models for the production of biodiesel from lipid feedstocks. The models provide a baseline against which to compare the results of feedstock cost and alternate conversion technologies. Over 50 copies of the model for biodiesel from refined soybean oil were requested the past year. CWU researchers established the feasibility of synthesizing a series of diacid-glycerol prepolymers. The prepolymers were first produced under reduced pressure without solvent using titanium butoxide catalyst, but using a solvent increased the overall yield and molecular weights of the glycerol-based oligomers, facilitated recovery of unreacted acid; increased product yield; and improved the properties of the oligomers. Two acid catalysts (titanium butoxide and dibutyltin oxide) were employed to optimize the synthesis of the oligo(diacid-glycerol) prepolymers. This paragraph serves to document research conducted under Cooperative Agreement #58-1935-7-0748N (1935-41000-066-02N) between ARS and Tuskegee University CWU scientists participated in animal feeding studies conducted at the university. The work seeks to identify at the cellular level the effect of selected fatty acids on cardiovascular disease and type-2 diabetes. This paragraph serves to document research conducted under Cooperative Agreement #58-1935-6-0630N (1935-41000-066-01N) between ARS and the University of Georgia. Trans fatty acids have been implicated as factors in the development of atherosclerotic diseases. To this end CWU researchers collaborated with the university researchers to develop a series of trans free fats from common fats and oils. Synthesis of biodiesel from greases: Biodiesel (BD), a renewable and biodegradable diesel fuel, is primarily synthesized from refined vegetable oils and fats. Their costs add prohibitively to that of the final fuel cost. Greases are lower-cost feedstocks and hence are attractive candidates for producing BD, although their high free fatty acid (FFA) content makes it difficult to produce BD using conventional methods. Unit scientists overcame this hurdle by identifying a series of immobilized acid catalysts, developed in collaboration with a university partner, that are highly efficient in esterifying the FFA in grease to biodiesel. Greases can thus be readily converted to biodiesel via a straightforward simplified process superior to existing approaches. This novel technology has the potential of advancing the use of greases and other second use fats and oils as biodiesel feedstocks. (National Program 307: Bioenergy & Energy Alternatives; Component II. Biodiesel; Problem Addressed: Reduce Cost of Feedstocks) Production of medium-chain fatty acids: There is much interest in the development of environmentally benign and economically viable methods for converting common long-chain-length unsaturated fatty acids of fats & oils into higher-valued medium-chain length fatty acids. To achieve this goal, researchers at the Eastern Regional Research Center, Wyndmoor, PA, are developing new catalytic processes for converting oil-derived fatty acids to high-value biobased intermediates for important consumer products such as detergents. The researchers showed that the common fatty acids can be converted into shorter chain-length fatty acids and hydrocarbons by reaction with ethylene under pressure. The demonstration of the feasibility of such conversions should spur commercial interest in optimizing the process to open new markets for the utilization of agricultural fats & oils. (National Program 306: Quality and Utilization of Agricultural Products; Component 2: New Processes, New Uses, and Value-Added Foods and Biobased Products; Problem Area 2c: New and Improved Processes and Feedstocks) Biodiesel fuel quality: The biodiesel industry continues to seek rapid and universal test methods for monitoring the quality of biodiesel fuels; both neat and as blends in petrodiesel. To this end, unit researchers have expanded their previously developed high performance liquid chromatographic method for measuring bound glycerol in biodiesel fuels to include the determination of free glycerol at the ASTM specified limit of 0.02 wt%. With this newly developed method, the total glycerol in a biodiesel, which is the sum of free and bound glycerol, can be determined in less than one hour. The method has the potential of becoming a standard test method for determining the percentage of biodiesel in a blend. (National Program 307: Bioenergy & Energy Alternatives; Component II. Biodiesel; Problem Addressed: Fuel Quality Testing and On-line Process Control) Emissions properties of biodiesel: Biodiesel has been shown to have emission advantages over petrodiesel with one exception. Some studies have indicated that combustion of biodiesel produces elevated amounts of oxides of nitrogen (NOx) compared to the combustion of petroleum diesel. This perception can impede the widespread adoption of biodiesel. To address this concern, CWU researchers produced biodiesels whose molecules had been chemically modified, and conducted engine testing to determine if NOx emissions were reduced. One modified fuel, containing an increased number of hydroxyl groups, exhibited a 4.5% reduction in output compared to the unmodified biodiesel from which it was obtained. This offers a route to reduce the NOx emissions of biodiesel. (National Program 307: Bioenergy & Energy Alternatives; Component II. Biodiesel; Problem Addressed: Combustion and Exhaust Emissions) Reducing emissions, improving stability, and also improving the suitability of soy biodiesel for non-U.S. use: The content of double bonds in a biodiesel directly increases its output of NOx while also reducing its field stability. This has led some countries to limit the content of unsaturated fatty acids in this fuel. Soy biodiesel slightly exceeds these limits. An industrially common and chemically minor chemical modification (partial hydrogenation) was applied to soy oil and its effect on the properties and performance in specification tests of biodiesel made from this oil was determined. The modified fuel met the desired specifications and exhibited desirable fuel properties. This work offers a means of overcoming possible export barriers to the wider use of biodiesel, potentially expanding the global market for soy-based biodiesel. (National Program 307: Bioenergy & Energy Alternatives; Component II. Biodiesel; Problem Addressed: Combustion and Exhaust Emissions) 5.Significant Activities that Support Special Target Populations |Number of new CRADAs and MTAs||1| |Number of active CRADAs and MTAs||1| |Number of invention disclosures submitted||1| |Number of patent applications filed||2| |Number of web sites managed||1| |Number of non-peer reviewed presentations and proceedings||18| |Number of newspaper articles and other presentations for non-science audiences||14| Ngo, H., Jones, K.C., Foglia, T.A. 2006. Metathesis of unsaturated fatty acids: synthesis of long chain unsaturated alpha, omega-dicarboxylic acids. Journal of the American Oil Chemists' Society. 83(7)629-634. Piazza, G.J., Foglia, T.A. 2006. One-Pot Synthesis of Fatty Acid Epoxides from Triacylglycerols Using Enzymes Present in Oat Seeds. Journal of the American Oil Chemists' Society. 83(12):1021-1025. Ngo, H., Nunez, A., Lin, W., Foglia, T.A. 2007. Zeolite-Catalyzed Isomerization of Oleic Acid to Branched-Chain Isomers. European Journal of Lipid Science and Technology. 108:214-224. Zafiropoulos, N.A., Ngo, H., Foglia, T.A., Samulski, E.T., Lin, W. 2007. Catalytic synthesis of biodiesel from high free fatty acid-containing feedstocks. Journal of the Chemical Society Chemical Communications. 3670-3672. Moser, B.R., Haas, M.J., Winkler, J.K., Jackson, M.A., Erhan, S.Z., List, G.R. 2007. Evaluation of partially hydrogenated methyl esters of soybean oil as biodiesel. European Journal of Lipid Science and Technology. 109:17-24. Haas, M.J., Scott, K.M. 2007. Moisture removal substantially improves the efficiency of in situ biodiesel production from soybeans. Journal of the American Oil Chemists' Society. 84(2):197-204. Wyatt, V.T., Nunez, A., Strahan, G.D. 2010. The Lewis acid catalyzed synthesis of hyperbranched Oligo(glycerol-diacid)s in aprotic polar media. Journal of the American Oil Chemists' Society, 87(11):1539. Lee, J., Jones, K.C., Foglia, T.A., Nunez, A., Lee, J., Kim, N., Vu, P., Lee, K. 2007. Separation of Triacylglycerol Species from Interesterified Oils by High Performance Liquid Chromatography. Journal of the American Oil Chemists' Society. 84(3):211-217. Hess, M.A., Haas, M.J., Foglia, T.A. 2007. Attempts to Reduce NOx Exhaust Emissions by Using Reformulated Biodiesel. Fuel Processing Technology. 88(7):693-699. Piazza, G.J., Marmer, W.N. 2007. Conversion of Phosphatidylcholine to Posphatidylglycerol with phospholipase D and Glycerol. Journal of the American Oil Chemists' Society. 84(7):645-651. Haas, M.J., Scott, K.M., Foglia, T.A., Marmer, W.N. 2007. The general applicability of in situ transesterification for the production of fatty acid esters from a variety of feedstocks. Journal of the American Oil Chemists' Society. 84(10):963-970.

2007 Annual Report 1a.Objectives (from AD-416) Expand the use of animal fats, vegetable oils, and their coproducts by developing new and/or alternative processes to exploit the potential of these feedstocks as biobased products and biofuels. Targeted areas include: producing lipids with improved physical and/or nutritional properties; introducing branching into the linear fatty acids common to nat

Frank N. Meyer (1875-1918)Frank N. Meyer (1875-1918) In 1901, Frans Nicholas Meijer emigrated from the Netherlands to America where he became Frank Meyer. Almost immediately, Meyer went to work for the United States Department of Agriculture's Erwin F. Smith, known internationally for his groundbreaking work in bacteriology. In 1902, Meyer began working at USDA's Plant Introduction Station in Santa Ana, California. The period from 1905 to 1908 marked the beginning of Meyer's expeditions to Asia, where he collected plants in China, Russia, and Japan, as well as other countries. During his second expedition from 1909 to 1912, he collected in Europe, Russia, and in China. From 1913 to 1915, he explored and collected plants in Russia and China. Meyer's fourth and final expedition took place from 1916 to 1918. The purpose of this journey is stated in the accompanying typescript, dated July 25, 1916. Meyer died an untimely death in June of 1918. A passenger on the Feng Yang Maru Japanese riverboat, destined for Shanghai, he fell overboard into the Yangtze River. His body was recovered, but the circumstances of his death will always remain a mystery and source of speculation. Honored the world over for his contributions as a plant explorer, Frank Meyer's work touches us all everyday. From apricots to wild pears, his introductions number over 2,500. Meyer, Frank Nicholas and David Fairchild. South China explorations: typescript, July 25, 1916-September 21, 1918. NAL Call Number: aSB108.C6 M48 Cunningham, Isabel Shipley. Frank N. Meyer, plant hunter in Asia. Ames: Iowa State University Press, 1984. NAL Call Number: SB63.M55 C86 1984 Frank N. Meyer Typescript of South China Explorations The 233 page typescript includes correspondance between Meyer and his superior, Fairchild, regarding Meyer's exploration trip to South China from 1916-1918. These letters allow us to glimpse a part of Meyer's personality - his excitement discovering plants as well as his lonliness in the foreign wilderness. The typescript also contains small black and white photographs of plants found in China, as well as personal letters and accounts of Meyer's death during the expedition. Special Collections of the National Agricultural Library (NAL) acquires, arranges, describes, preserves and makes available rare materials significant to the history of agriculture. Materials are obtained through donation or active collection in accordance with the established Special Collections collection development policy. Special Collections staff organize and describe materials according to archival principles and create descriptions and indexes to enhance access. Staff do not edit or otherwise modify the original materials. The views expressed in the collections do not necessarily reflect the policies of the National Agricultural Library or the United States Department of Agriculture.

Frank N. Meyer (1875-1918)Frank N. Meyer (1875-1918) In 1901, Frans Nicholas Meijer emigrated from the Netherlands to America where he became Frank Meyer. Almost immediately, Meyer went to work for the United States Department of Agriculture's Erwin F. Smith, known internationally for his groundbreaking work in bacteriology. In 1902, Meyer began working at USDA's Plant Introduction Station in Sant

Fig. 3.3 A colour photograph of the camera head with the TEK CCD mounted. The small carriage with the autoguider eyepiece and optical adjustments is attached to the probe and moves in the X direction as the X position is shifted. You will observe most comfortably when this carriage is in front of you, or to your right or left. Note that this image has been rotated 90° clockwise relative to Fig 3.1, in order to put it in the same orientation as Figure 3.2.

Fig. 3.3 A colour photograph of the camera head with the TEK CCD mounted. The small carriage with the autoguider eyepiece and optical adjustments is attached to the probe and moves in the X direction as the X position is shifted. You will observe most comfortably when this carriage is in front of you, or to your right or left. Note that this image has been rotated 90° clockwise relative to Fig 3.1

1 This publication presents national crime statistics relating to victims of a selected range of offences that have been recorded by police. These offences may have been reported by a victim, witness or other person, or they may have been detected by police. The statistics do not provide a total picture of crime, as not all crime comes to the attention of the police, nor do all incidents which are reported to police get recorded as a crime. 2 In order to gain a more comprehensive picture of the nature and extent of crime, these statistics should be complemented with information from other sources such as crime victim surveys. ABS household-based crime and safety surveys estimate the extent to which incidents of crime were reported to police. Whether the most recent incident in the last 12 months has been reported is widely used as a guide to the overall preparedness of victims to report crime. 3 Further care should be taken in interpreting police statistics as fluctuations in recorded crime may be a reflection of changes in community attitudes in reporting crime, changes in police procedures or changes in crime reporting systems, rather than a change in the incidence of criminal behaviour. 4 The aim of national crime statistics is to provide one view of crime in Australia, as well as comparable data across States and Territories. These statistics are indicators of the level and nature of recorded crime in Australia and provide a basis for measuring changes over time. 5 In order to ensure comparability between jurisdictions, the statistics have been compiled according to national standards. These have been developed by the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) in collaboration with each police force, an Advisory Group of expert users and a Board of Management comprising Police Commissioners and senior officers of the Commonwealth Government and State Governments. 6 The national offence definitions (see Glossary) and counting rules (see paragraphs 23-33) vary from those used in each jurisdiction. Hence, the statistics presented in this publication may be different to those published by police forces in individual States and Territories. National crime statistics are compiled on a victim basis in that they count the number of victims for each national offence category rather than the number of breaches of the criminal law. 7 Given the diverse capacities of the statistical information systems used by each police force, a staged approach has been adopted in the production of national crime statistics. Only those offence categories for which comparable national standards have been developed are presented. The Stage 1 dataset, used in the 1993 and 1994 national crime statistics publications, consisted of 11 national offence categories, the initial type of location where the criminal incident occurred, and information on the use of a weapon in the commission of offences. The Stage 2 dataset, introduced in the 1995 national crime statistics publication, included the additional offence categories of assault and other theft with a dissection of unlawful entry with intent (UEWI) into UEWI involving the taking of property and other instances of UEWI. Age and sex of the victim, and the relationship of offender to victim were also introduced at this stage. The Stage 3 dataset, introduced in 1996, included outcome of police investigation statistics for all offence categories. Additional data concerning crime will be progressively added to the national collection as comparability is achieved. 8 Data on victims are derived from the information on individual offences recorded on official crime reports prepared by police. These data are provided to the ABS in aggregate form by the reporting authorities in each jurisdiction. For further information regarding police recording systems and national comparability refer to the Appendix of Recorded Crime, Australia, 1999 (Cat.no.4510.0). 9 The reporting authorities are the police forces of the States and Territories of Australia. They are responsible for recording information about offences that have been reported to police, and collating statistics in accordance with national requirements. 10 National requirements specify that offences should be counted in the State or Territory in which the offence occurred, regardless of which law enforcement agency completes the crime report or undertakes the investigation. There is some indication that this may not always be the case, particularly for offences such as motor vehicle theft which occur near State and Territory borders. However, investigations suggest that the problem is small. 11 National crime statistics are compiled on the basis of the date an offence is reported. This corresponds to either the date the offence was reported to police by a member of the public or when it was detected by police. The report date may not necessarily be the date when the offence occurred. This is particularly so for homicide and related offences and sexual assault offences, where in some instances the time lag between when the offence(s) occurred and the report/detection date may be substantial. 12 Statistics produced on the basis of date reported may be affected over time by lags in completing and/or processing some crime reports. Where offences reported in the reference year are not processed for inclusion in the national statistics until the following year, revised data are included in subsequent publications and noted accordingly. 13 National crime statistics are produced annually on a calendar-year basis. The reference period for this publication relates to offences that have been reported between 1 January and 31 December 2001. Data compiled on a financial-year basis are also available from the ABS (see paragraph 40). 14 The offence categories used for national crime statistics in this publication are based on the Australian Standard Offence Classification (ASOC) (Cat.no.1234.0). The ASOC was released in October 1997 following a complete review of the previous classification, the ABS Australian National Classification of Offences. The ASOC was implemented into the recorded crime statistics collection from 1 January 1999 and provides a uniform national statistical framework for classifying offences, as well as overcoming jurisdictional differences in laws and offence classifications. The national offence definitions are descriptive and may not correspond with legal or police offence definitions in a particular jurisdiction. 15 The national offence categories included in the national crime statistics collection in respect of 2001 include: homicide and related offences (which includes murder, attempted murder, manslaughter and driving causing death); assault; sexual assault; kidnapping/abduction; robbery; blackmail/extortion; unlawful entry with intent; motor vehicle theft; and other theft. Offences against Commonwealth laws processed under Commonwealth jurisdiction are excluded from the scope of the collection. 16 With the exception of the motor vehicle theft offence category, statistics for the offence categories in the national crime statistics collection relate to completed offences and attempted offences (i.e. where the intent is not fulfilled). Attempted motor vehicle thefts are excluded from the collection due to difficulties in distinguishing these offences from criminal damage. 17 Attempts to commit an offence are classified to the same ASOC subdivision/group as completed offences. The only exception is for murder where attempted murder is counted and published separately. 18 Offences may include those which at a later point in time are determined to be unfounded (i.e. false or baseless) or are withdrawn by the complainant. Data on the status of the recorded offences (outcome of investigations) are included in this publication. 19 The national crime statistics collection excludes: 20 For all the national offence categories, rates are presented per 100,000 of the Estimated Resident Population (ERP) for each of the States and Territories (refer Australian Demographic Statistics, June Quarter 2001 (Cat. no. 3101.0)). As the population changes over time, the denominator used for the calculation of rates will vary, depending on the reference period. The ERP for the midpoint of each reference period is used to calculate the rates. Yearly rates for the period 1 January to 31 December 2001 have been calculated on the basis of the June 2001 ERP, while the June 2000 ERP is used for the period from 1 January to 31 December 2000. For the preceding year's data, the revised ERP has been used to recalculate rates. 21 Rates enable comparisons of national offence categories to be made across the States and Territories. Rates expressed per 100,000 persons generally accord with international and State and Territory practice. 22 The risk of victimisation varies depending on the age and sex of the victim. These statistics include details of the age and sex of the victim, and age and sex specific victimisation rates have been included. These are calculated using estimates of the age and sex breakdown of the population. For offence categories such as robbery and blackmail/extortion, where the victim may be a person or an organisation, victimisation rates have been provided for person victims only for the age and sex breakdown in table 3 of the publication. 23 With the implementation of the ASOC beginning with Recorded Crime, Australia, 1999 (Cat.no.4510.0), data have been presented at the national offence category level (refer to Glossary), without further disaggregation to the ASOC Group level. 24 The statistics in the national crime statistics collection measure the number of victims per national offence category for offences recorded by police during the reference period. The national counting rule is that each victim within a distinct criminal incident is counted once to the most serious offence within each national offence category. The most serious offence within the national offence category is the one with the lowest ASOC code. For example, murder (0111) is a more serious offence than manslaughter (0131). Counting within a national offence category 25 For criminal incidents involving homicide and related offences, assault, sexual assault or kidnapping/abduction offences, one victim is counted within each national offence category. For example, if a person is indecently assaulted (one form of sexual assault) and then raped (another form of sexual assault), only one victim of sexual assault is counted. 26 Where a victim is subjected to multiple offences of the same type within a distinct criminal incident (e.g. in the case of assault this may be due to attacks by several offenders or being repeatedly assaulted by the same offender) the victim is counted only once. Similarly, the victim is also counted once where multiple offences of the same type (e.g. long term abuse) occur to the same victim repeatedly over a period of time. However, if the victim reports the offences to police at different times, then a count is made for each separate report. 27 For each criminal incident involving the national offence category of robbery, one victim is counted for each person/organisation victimised. For example, if a bank with several customers present is robbed, this is counted as one robbery with the victim being the bank. If personal property is also taken from two customers, there are three victims, the bank and the two customers, hence the number of robberies counted is three. 28 For each criminal incident involving the national offence category of blackmail/extortion, one victim is counted for each person/organisation victimised. 29 For each criminal incident involving the national offence category of unlawful entry with intent (UEWI), one victim is counted for each place/premise victimised. A place/premise can consist of either a single structure (e.g. house), part of a single structure (e.g. flat) or multiple structures (e.g. farmstead with house, barns and sheds). The same property containing the same structure(s) can be counted differently depending on the occupancy arrangements at the time. The following guidelines relate to the counting of UEWI offences. - conspiracy offences: the local offence classifications used in jurisdictions do not generally enable the identification of the substantive offence category to which the conspiracy relates; - threats to commit an offence: these differ from offences like robbery, kidnapping/abduction and blackmail/extortion wherein an element of threat is implicit in the nature of the crime. The exception to this is assault, where threats of assault are included in counts of assault offences; and - aid, abet and accessory offences: these offences relate to the role of offenders in connection with an offence and are not considered to be offences committed directly against a victim. 30 For each criminal incident involving the national offence category of motor vehicle theft, one victim is counted for each motor vehicle stolen. For example, if five cars are stolen from a car yard, this is counted as five motor vehicle thefts. 31 For each criminal incident involving the national offence category of other theft, one victim is counted for each person/organisation victimised. Counting across national offence categories 32 If a victim is subjected to multiple offences belonging to different national offence categories during the same criminal incident, the victim is counted once under each category. For example, someone who has been kidnapped, raped and murdered, while it is one person they will be counted three times according to the national counting rule; once in the kidnapping/abduction offence category, once in the sexual assault offence category, and once in the homicide and related offences offence category. 33 Note that the national crime statistics do not measure: - For UEWI to multiple structures on the same property and having the same occupant(s), one victim is counted regardless of the number of separate structures entered. Examples include UEWI to: house, attached or unattached garage and the backyard shed located on the one property; warehouses occupied by a sole organisation located on same property. - For UEWI to multiple structures on the same property but occupied by more than one household or organisation, one victim is counted for each separate household or organisation. Where a business premise has an attached residence that is occupied by the same person(s), the registered business is considered to be a separate victim. - For UEWI to individual areas in a building that are rented, leased or occupied separately, one victim is counted for each separate tenant. For example, in a block of 10 flats which are leased by 10 different tenants where three flats are unlawfully entered, there is a count of three. If unlawful entry to the building itself is recorded, an additional offence of UEWI to that building is counted. Examples include UEWI to: apartments in one building; offices of several commercial firms in one business building; shops in a shopping complex; hotel rooms; and lodging houses. - the total number of individual victims, since the same victim may be counted more than once. This occurs, as per the example in paragraph 32 or a victim may be counted more than once within the same national offence category if the multiple offences relate to different criminal incidents or are reported to police at different times; - the total number of offences recorded by police. Not all types of offences are included in the national crime statistics collection. Furthermore, if a criminal incident involves multiple offences which belong to the same national offence category and are committed against the same victim, only one count is included in the national crime statistics; or - the charges resulting from a criminal incident (e.g. aid and abet or accessory offences). Data comparability and significant events 34 National crime statistics are compiled in order to maximise comparability of statistics across jurisdictions. Although jurisdictional differences have been mainly overcome through the introduction of national standards, some legislative, interpretive and processing differences inevitably remain. As part of its quality assurance program, the ABS, in conjunction with statistical staff of each State and Territory police force, investigates these differences between the jurisdictions in order to further improve comparability of national crime statistics. 35 A review of local offence codes used by Victoria Police during 2001 identified that attempted assaults had not been included in the assault offence category, as well as four local police offence codes needed to be removed from the assault offence category because they did not imply intent, which is necessary under the ASOC definition of assault. These two adjustments have impacted on the revised 2000 and the 2001 data in the assault category. 36 The increase in Tasmania in the recording of the local offence Assault/Resist/Obstruct Police (non aggregated assault) was due to new business processes introduced to support the Forensic Procedures Act 2000 which enables Deoxyeibo Nucleic Acid (DNA) & other samples to be taken from offenders charged with 'serious offences'. Previously not all Assault/Resist/Obstruct Police offences were entered into the Offence Reporting System. 37 In August 2000 the Northern Territory introduced a Juvenile Diversion program which has led to the recording of local offences where cautions are issued and/or diversionary conferences are established. These local offences, many of which related to UEWI and other theft may not have been recorded previously. 38 There continues to be an impact on offence and victim recording due to the ongoing implementation of the Police Realtime Online Management and Investigation System (PROMIS) system in the work practices of Northern Territory police (refer to paragraphs 13-15 of the Appendix in Recorded Crime, Australia, 1999). 39 Operation Anchorage was carried out in 2001 by the Australian Federal Police, targetting burglary offences. Since the introduction of the police operation the number of burglary and motor vehicle theft offences has declined in the Australian Capital Territory. 40 A standard set of additional tables containing State and Territory wafers of the tables in this publication, as well as a financial year table for 2000-2001, is available. Special tabulations can be produced on request to meet individual user requirements. For further information, contact the National Centre for Crime and Justice Statistics (NCCJS) by email [email protected]. This page last updated 20 June 2006

1 This publication presents national crime statistics relating to victims of a selected range of offences that have been recorded by police. These offences may have been reported by a victim, witness or other person, or they may have been detected by police. The statistics do not provide a total picture of crime, as not all crime comes to the attention of the police, nor do all incidents which are

Australian Bureau of Statistics 9314.0 - Sales of New Motor Vehicles, Australia, Jan 2004 Previous ISSUE Released at 11:30 AM (CANBERRA TIME) 19/02/2004 |Page tools: Print Page Print All RSS Search this Product| 5 Seasonal adjustment is a means of removing the estimated effects of normal seasonal variation from the original time series so that the effects of other influences can be more clearly recognised. It does not remove the effect of irregular or non-seasonal influences (e.g. the introduction of new models, industrial disputes) from the series. Irregular influences that are highly volatile can make it difficult to interpret the movement of the series even after adjustment for seasonal variation. 6 Extreme care should be exercised in using the seasonally adjusted series for new motor vehicle sales in Tasmania, the Northern Territory and the Australian Capital Territory. The small numbers and volatile nature of these data makes reliable estimation of the seasonal pattern very difficult. 7 Seasonally adjusted series are calculated for the 'Passenger vehicles', 'Other vehicles' and 'Total vehicles' series for each state and territory and are aggregated to obtain the total for Australia. 8 From the November 2003 reference month, the way in which seasonally adjusted and trend estimates are calculated was changed from the Forward Factor to the Concurrent method. The Forward Factor method relied on an annual seasonal reanalysis of the original time series estimates to derive seasonal factors that were to be applied in the forthcoming twelve months. Under this method, the projected seasonal factors, or forward factors, were not updated until the next annual seasonal reanalysis. The Concurrent method uses the most up to date original time series estimates available at each reference period to rederive seasonal factor estimates. The Concurrent method eliminates the need to use projected seasonal factors. 9 The smoothing of seasonally adjusted series to create trend estimates reduces the impact of the irregular component of the seasonally adjusted series. The trend estimates are derived by applying a 13-term Henderson-weighted moving average to the respective seasonally adjusted series. These trend series are used to analyse the underlying behaviour of the series over time. 10 While this smoothing technique enables trend estimates to be produced for the latest month, it does result in revisions to the trend estimates for the most recent months as data for subsequent months become available. Generally, subsequent revisions become smaller and after three months, usually have a negligible impact on the series. Changes in the original data and re-estimation of seasonal factors may also lead to revisions to the trend. For further information, refer to Information Paper: A Guide to Interpreting Time Series - Monitoring Trends, 2003, (cat. no. 1349.0). 11 For a more detailed break-down of the original monthly figures presented here, inquiries should be made to the Manager, VFACTS, Federal Chamber of Automotive Industries on (03) 9829 1234. Annual data on total vehicle registrations are published in Motor Vehicle Census, Australia (cat. no. 9309.0). These documents will be presented in a new window. This page last updated 20 June 2006

Australian Bureau of Statistics 9314.0 - Sales of New Motor Vehicles, Australia, Jan 2004 Previous ISSUE Released at 11:30 AM (CANBERRA TIME) 19/02/2004 |Page tools: Print Page Print All RSS Search this Product| 5 Seasonal adjustment is a means of removing the estimated effects of normal seasonal variation from the original time series so that the effects of other influences can be more clearly re

ECOLOGICAL, CHEMICAL AND MOLECULAR APPROACHES TO REDUCING TICK BITES AND TICK-BORNE DISEASES Title: Effects of tick control by acaricide self-treatement of white-tailed deer on host-seeking tick infection prevalence and entomologic risk for Ixodes scapularis-borne pathogens | Gatewood, A - YALE, NEW HAVEN, CT | | Rollend, L - YALE, NEW HAVEN, CT | | Papero, M - YALE, NEW HAVEN, CT | | Daniels, T - LOUIS CALDER CENTER, NY | | Mather, T - CVBD,UNIV. RHODE ISLAND | | Schulze, T - SCHULZE INC. NEW JERSEY | | Stafford, K - CT AG STAT, NEW HAVEN CT | | Fish, D - YALE, NEW HAVEN, CT | Submitted to: Vector-Borne and Zoonotic Diseases Publication Type: Peer Reviewed Journal Publication Acceptance Date: December 17, 2008 Publication Date: August 4, 2009 Citation: Gatewood, A.G., Rollend, L., Papero, M., Carroll, J.F., Daniels, T., Mather, T.N., Schulze, T.L., Stafford, K.C., Fish, D. 2009. Effects of tick control by acaricide self-treatement of white-tailed deer on host-seeking tick infection prevalence and entomologic risk for Ixodes scapularis-borne pathogens. Vector-Borne and Zoonotic Diseases. 9:431-437. Interpretive Summary: Blacklegged ticks (deer ticks) are the principal vectors of the pathogen causing Lyme disease and also transmit human granulocytic anaplasmosis (ehrlichiosis). Most cases of Lyme disease in humans are due to being bitten by infected blacklegged tick nymphs. The efficacy of ‘4-poster’ deer self-treatment devices, developed by researchers at the USDA, ARS Knipling-Bushland U. S. Livestock Insects Research Laboratory , Kerrville, TX, was tested in field trials at locations in five states. Host-seeking blacklegged ticks collected from treatment and control sites annually were tested for the presence of Borrelia burgdorferi, the pathogen causing Lyme disease. Populations of blacklegged ticks were reduced at ‘4-poster’ sites during the USDA Northeast Tick Control Project (1998-2002). The density of nymphs infected with the Lyme disease pathogen was reduced 68% compared to untreated control areas, as was the entomologic risk of Lyme disease. These findings are of interest to researcher, public health officials and the general public living or working in areas where Lyme disease is prevalent. The ‘4-poster’ technology is now commercially available. We evaluated the effects of tick control by acaricide self-treatment of white-tailed deer on the infection prevalence and entomologic risk for three I. scapularis-borne bacteria in host-seeking ticks. Ticks were collected from vegetation in areas treated with the ‘4-Poster’ device and from control areas in 5 geographically diverse study locations in the Northeastern US and tested for infection with two known agents of human disease, Borrelia burgdorferi and Anaplasma phagocytophilum, and for a novel relapsing fever-group spirochete related to B. miyamotoi. Approximately 2,000 adults and 4,000 nymphs were assayed over the 6-year project period. Overall, 38.2% of adults and 12.5% of nymphs were infected with B. burgdorferi; 8.5% of adults and 4.2% of nymphs were infected with A. phagocytophilum; and 1.9% of adults and 0.8% of nymphs were infected with B. miyamotoi. In most cases, treatment with the 4-Poster device was not associated with changes in the prevalence of infection with any of these three microorganisms among nymphal or adult ticks. However, the density of nymphs infected with B. burgdorferi, and consequently the entomologic risk for Lyme disease, was reduced overall by 68% in treated areas compared to control areas among the 5 study sites at the end of the study. The frequency of bacterial co-infections in ticks was generally equal to the product of the proportion of ticks infected with a single bacterium, indicating that enzootic maintenance of these pathogens is independent. Controlling ticks on deer by self-application of acaricide results in an overall decrease in the human risk for exposure to these three bacterial agents that is due solely to a reduction in tick density.

ECOLOGICAL, CHEMICAL AND MOLECULAR APPROACHES TO REDUCING TICK BITES AND TICK-BORNE DISEASES Title: Effects of tick control by acaricide self-treatement of white-tailed deer on host-seeking tick infection prevalence and entomologic risk for Ixodes scapularis-borne pathogens | Gatewood, A - YALE, NEW HAVEN, CT | | Rollend, L - YALE, NEW HAVEN, CT | | Papero, M - YALE, NEW HAVEN, CT | | Daniels, T -

GCR 99-780 - Estimating Social and Private Returns from Innovations Based on the Advanced Technology Program: Problems and Opportunities 4. ERRORS IN FORECASTING DEVELOPMENT COST, TIME, AND PROFITS Forecasts of the private rate of return from an investment in new technology depend on, among other things, how much will be spent on development and how long. Development will take, as well as on the probability of technical success, commercialization, and economic success. Further, it depends on the profitability of the new products and processes, if any that stem from the investment. Probably the most important reason why sophisticated models have proved so difficult to apply is that firms have not been able to make reasonably reliable forecasts of-development cost and time, or the probability of success, or the profitability of new products or processes. During the 1960s and 1970s, my students and I collected a substantial amount of detailed data regarding the size of errors in forecasting these items. Since these data seem to be all that are currently available, I have no choice but to use them, although the need for updating them is clear. However, for what it is worth, a small sample of R&D executives (that I interviewed in connection with this paper) felt that the situation in this regard had not changed very much.8 Indeed, many of them thought that such forecasts tend to be poorer now than in the 1960s and l970s, because down-sizing at many R&D laboratories has lowered the capability to do such forecasting. Development Cost and Time To illustrate our findings regarding development cost and time, consider the results of an early study in the drug industry (Mansfield et al, 1971). Very detailed data were obtained for a major ethical drug firm and a major proprietary drug firm concerning the errors in the cost and time estimates made at the beginning of drug-development projects. For over 80 percent of the projects in the ethical drug firm, the actual cost and time exceeded the estimated values. The average ratio of actual to estimated cost was 1.78; the average ratio of actual to estimated time was 1.61. Cost and time estimates were less reliable for new chemical entities than for compounded products and alternate dosage forms. In the proprietary drug firm, the average ratio of actual to estimated cost was 2.11, and the average ratio of actual to estimated time was 2.95. Again, the overruns were greater for more ambitious projects. When we compared the overruns in these two drug firms with those in weapons development, we found that the cost overruns for new drug products were less than those in weapons development and that the time overruns were greater than in weapons development. However, it is important to note that the cost overruns in the drug firms began to approximate those for military projects when entirely new types of projects or larger technical advances were attempted. For example, the average ratio of actual to expected cost was 2.25 for new chemical entities in the ethical drug firms, 2.75 for new products in the proprietary drug firm, and 3.2 for a sample of airplane and missile projects. Turning to time overruns, we found the average ratio of actual to expected time was 1.89 for new chemical entities, 3.24 for new products in the proprietary drug firms, and 1.4 for the airplanes and missiles. In the ethical drug firm, we tested various hypotheses concerning the effects of various factors on the size of a project's cost overrun. In accord with these hypotheses, it turned out that technically more ambitious projects tend to have greater cost overruns than technically less ambitious projects. Also, products with wider spectra of activity tended to have larger cost overruns than single-market products, and projects with small estimated costs or longer duration tended to have larger cost overruns than projects with large estimated costs or shorter duration. In the proprietary drug firm, there was also a significant tendency for technically more ambitious projects and projects with smaller estimated costs and longer duration to have larger cost overruns. When the same kind of model was used to analyze development time, the results were rather similar to those for development cost In the ethical drug firm, there was a significant tendency for products with wider spectra of activity and projects with smaller estimated lengths to have greater time overruns. In the proprietary drug firm, there was also a significant tendency for projects with small estimated lengths to have greater time overruns; moreover, there was a nearly-significant tendency for new products to have larger time overruns than product improvements. Probability of Technical Completion Let's turn now to estimates of the probability of technical completion of R&D projects. To illustrate our findings, consider the proprietary drug laboratory cited in the previous section, where records of many completed projects included an estimate of the probability of achieving the technical objectives, as stated in the project proposal. This estimate was made at the time of formal project proposal. Data for 79 completed projects indicated that the estimated probability of technical completion was on the average , a very good indicator of actual outcome, the average estimated probability of technical completion (0.81) being very close to the actual proportion of projects that were completed (0.76). However, the fact that the average estimated probability of technical completion was close to the actual proportion of projects that were completed does not mean that the estimates were useful in predicting which projects were more likely to be completed. In fact, the estimated probabilities of technical completion were of some use in predicting which projects would be completed and which ones would not. But they were not of much use. Even if they were employed in such a way that the probability of an incorrect prediction was minimized, they predicted incorrectly in about 30 percent of the cases. (One would have expected to have made incorrect predictions in only 36 percent of the cases by chance.) We also compared the actual proportion of projects that were technically completed with the average estimated probability of technical completion for projects attempting small, medium, and large technical advances. For those attempting small technical advances, the estimated probability of completion, on the average, overstated the risk of failure. On the other hand, for those attempting medium or large technical advances, the estimated probability of completion, on the average, understated the risk of failure. Discounted Profits from New Processes and Products To complete this brief survey of our findings during the 1960s and 1970s regarding forecasting errors, let's turn to the accuracy of forecasts of discounted profits from new processes and products. Consider one of the largest firms in the country.9 During the 1960s and 1970s, this firm made a careful inventory of the major new products and processes it developed each year and forecasted the discounted profits from each such technological development. Moreover, in each subsequent year, it revised these forecasts in the light of new information. For example, after making its initial estimate in year 2 of the discounted profits from each process or product developed in year 1, revised estimates of this sort were made in year 3, year 4, year 5, and so on. Because these estimates were systematically and carefully updated, they provided a relatively unique opportunity to study how quickly forecasts of this sort converge on their true value. Unfortunately, because of reductions in available resources, this analytical effort was reduced by the firm during the 1980s, and terminated in the early 1990s. Based on an early study of this firm's experience (Beardsley and Mansfield, 1978), there frequently have been rather significant revisions of the profit forecasts during the first five years after a new product or process has been developed, but, as one would expect, these revisions have become more minor as time goes on (and more and more of the uncertainties have been resolved). By nine years after the development process ends, it appears, in this firm at least, that a reasonably definitive estimate can be made of the discounted profits from the new technology. In very few cases were any significant revisions made in this profit estimate in the tenth to thirteenth year after termination of development. Thus, we could safely use the estimate of a new product's or new process's discounted profits made nine years after its development as an adequate approximation to its actual discounted profits. To see how rapidly the forecasting errors diminish as time goes on (after the development of a new product or process), we divided the forecast made one year -later, two years later, and so on, for each product or process by its actual discounted profits (i.e., the forecast nine years after development). Then, as a simple measure of the size of the forecasting errors, we calculated the proportion of cases where this ratio was greater than or equal to 2.0 or less than or equal to 0.5. Figure 1 shows the decrease that occurred in this measure of forecasting error as one revision after another was made in the forecasts. The initial forecasts—those made one year after development—were generally quite poor, the proportion in Figure 1 being 0.50 for processes and 0.62 for products. During the first four years after the initial forecast, the size of the forecasting error, as measured by this proportion, decreased at a relatively constant rate. By five years after development, this proportion was 0.06 for processes and 0.15 for products. Figure 1 shows that the initial profitability estimates for individual product and process innovations developed by this firm were not very accurate. To see whether the firm's initial estimates improved over time, we categorized the 57 new processes and products by the year they were developed, and calculated the frequency distribution of the ratio of initially forecasted to actual discounted profits in each such category. The results indicated that there was no tendency (at least during this period) for the initial estimates to improve over time. To see how closely correlated the initial forecasts were with the actual discounted profits from each of the new processes or new products and to estimate the relationship between them, we regressed the initial forecasts on the actual discounted profits. For new products there was a surprisingly low correlation between the initial forecasts and the actual discounted profits, R2 being only .14. In the case of new processes, the correlation was much higher, R2 being about .87. Thus, the initial forecasts for processes tended to relate more closely to the actual outcomes than those for products. Both for processes and products, the initial forecasts tended to be relatively optimistic in cases where actual profits were small and relatively pessimistic in cases where actual profits were large. Specifically, the forecasts underestimated the profitability of new processes that had discounted profits exceeding about $3 million and of new products where they exceeded about $1 million, and over-estimated the profitability of less profitable new products and processes. Date created: June 15, 2006 NIST is an agency of the U.S. Commerce Department

GCR 99-780 - Estimating Social and Private Returns from Innovations Based on the Advanced Technology Program: Problems and Opportunities 4. ERRORS IN FORECASTING DEVELOPMENT COST, TIME, AND PROFITS Forecasts of the private rate of return from an investment in new technology depend on, among other things, how much will be spent on development and how long. Development will take, as well as on the p

Cutaneous Radiation Injury (CRI) Injury to the skin and underlying tissues from acute exposure to a large external dose of radiation is referred to as cutaneous radiation injury (CRI). Acute radiation syndrome (ARS) 1 will usually be accompanied by some skin damage; however, CRI can occur without symptoms of ARS. This is especially true with acute exposures to beta radiation or low-energy x-rays, because beta radiation and low-energy x-rays are less penetrating and less likely to damage internal organs than gamma radiation is. CRI can occur with radiation doses as low as 2 Gray (Gy) or 200 rads 2 and the severity of CRI symptoms will increase with increasing doses. Most cases of CRI have occurred when people inadvertently came in contact with unsecured radiation sources from food irradiators, radiotherapy equipment, or well depth gauges. In addition, cases of CRI have occurred in people who were overexposed to x-radiation from fluoroscopy units. Early signs and symptoms of CRI are itching, tingling, or a transient erythema or edema without a history of exposure to heat or caustic chemicals. Exposure to radiation can damage the basal cell layer of the skin and result in inflammation, erythema, and dry or moist desquamation. In addition, radiation damage to hair follicles can cause epilation. Transient and inconsistent erythema (associated with itching) can occur within a few hours of exposure and be followed by a latent, symptom-free phase lasting from a few days to several weeks. After the latent phase, intense reddening, blistering, and ulceration of the irradiated site are visible. Depending on the radiation dose, a third and even fourth wave of erythema are possible over the ensuing months or possibly years. In most cases, healing occurs by regenerative means; however, large radiation doses to the skin can cause permanent hair loss, damaged sebaceous and sweat glands, atrophy, fibrosis, decreased or increased skin pigmentation, and ulceration or necrosis of the exposed tissue. With CRI, it is important to keep the following things in mind: - The visible skin effects depend on the magnitude of the dose as well as the depth of penetration of the radiation. - Unlike the skin lesions caused by chemical or thermal damage, the lesions caused by radiation exposures do not appear for hours to days following exposure, and burns and other skin effects tend to appear in cycles. - The key treatment issues with CRI are infection and pain management. 3 Stages and Grades of CRI CRI will progress over time in stages and can be categorized by grade, with characteristics of the stages varying by grade of injury, as shown in Table 1. Appendix A gives a detailed description of the various skin responses to radiation, and Appendix B provides color photographs of examples of some of these responses. Prodromal stage (within hours of exposure)—This stage is characterized by early erythema (first wave of erythema), heat sensations, and itching that define the exposure area. The duration of this stage is from 1 to 2 days. Latent stage (1–2 days postexposure)—No injury is evident. Depending on the body part, the larger the dose, the shorter this period will last. The skin of the face, chest, and neck will have a shorter latent stage than will the skin of the palms of the hands or the soles of the feet. Manifest illness stage (days to weeks postexposure)—The basal layer is repopulated through proliferation of surviving clonogenic cells. This stage begins with main erythema (second wave), a sense of heat, and slight edema, which are often accompanied by increased pigmentation. The symptoms that follow vary from dry desquamation or ulceration to necrosis, depending on the severity of the CRI (see Table 1). Third wave of erythema (10–16 weeks postexposure, especially after beta exposure)—The exposed person experiences late erythema, injury to blood vessels, edema, and increasing pain. A distinct bluish color of the skin can be observed. Epilation may subside, but new ulcers, dermal necrosis, and dermal atrophy (and thinning of the dermis layer) are possible. Late effects (months to years postexposure; threshold dose ~10 Gy or 1000 rads)—Symptoms can vary from slight dermal atrophy (or thinning of dermis layer) to constant ulcer recurrence, dermal necrosis, and deformity. Possible effects include occlusion of small blood vessels with subsequent disturbances in the blood supply (telangiectasia); destruction of the lymphatic network; regional lymphostasis; and increasing invasive fibrosis, keratosis, vasculitis, and subcutaneous sclerosis of the connective tissue. Pigmentary changes and pain are often present. Skin cancer is possible in subsequent years. Recovery (months to years) |Grade||Skin dose *||Prodromal stage||Latent stage||Manifest illness stage||Third wave of erythema †||Recovery||Late effects| |I||> 2 Gy (200 rads) ‡||1–2 days postexposure or not seen||no injury evident for 2–5 weeks postexposure §|| 2–5 weeks postexposure, lasting 20–30 days: redness of skin, slight edema, possible increased pigmentation 6–7 weeks postexposure, dry desquamation |not seen||complete healing expected 28–40 days after dry desquamation (3–6 months postexposure)|| possible slight skin atrophy possible skin cancer decades after exposure |II||> 15 Gy (1500 rads)||6–24 hours postexposure with immediate sensation of heat lasting 1–2 days||no injury evident for 1–3 weeks postexposure|| 1–3 weeks postexposure; redness of skin, sense of heat, edema, skin may turn brown 5–6 weeks postexposure, edema of subcutaneous tissues and blisters with moist desquamation possible epithelialization later | 10–16 weeks postexposure, injury of blood vessels, edema, and increasing pain epilation may subside, but new ulcers and necrotic changes are possible |healing depends on size of injury and the possibility of more cycles of erythema|| possible skin atrophy or ulcer recurrence possible telangiectasia (up to 10 years postexposure) possible skin cancer decades after exposure |III||> 40 Gy (4000 rads)||4–24 hours postexposure, with immediate pain or tingling lasting 1–2 days||none or less than 2 weeks|| 1–2 weeks postexposure: redness of skin, blisters, sense of heat, slight edema, possible increased pigmentation followed by erosions and ulceration as well as severe pain | 10–16 weeks postexposure: injury of blood vessels, edema, new ulcers, and increasing pain |can involve ulcers that are extremely difficult to treat and that can require months to years to heal fully|| possible skin atrophy, depigmentation, constant ulcer recurrence, or deformity possible occlusion of small vessels with subsequent disturbances in the blood supply, destruction of the lymphatic network, regional lymphostasis, and increasing fibrosis and sclerosis of the connective tissue possible skin cancer decades after exposure |IV||> 550 Gy (55,000 rads)||occurs minutes to hours postexposure, with immediate pain or tingling, accompanied by swelling||none|| 1–4 days postexposure accompanied by blisters early ischemia (tissue turns white, then dark blue or black with substantial pain) in most severe cases tissue becomes necrotic within 2 weeks following exposure, accompanied by substantial pain |does not occur due to necrosis of skin in the affected area||recovery possible following amputation of severely affected areas and possible skin grafts|| continued plastic surgery may be required over several years possible skin cancer decades after exposure |* Absorbed dose to at least 10 cm 2 of the basal cell layer of the skin † Especially with beta exposure ‡ The Gray (Gy) is a unit of absorbed dose and reflects an amount of energy deposited in a mass of tissue (1 Gy = 100 rads). § Skin of the face, chest, and neck will have a shorter latent phase than the skin of the palms of the hands and the skin of the feet. The signs and symptoms of CRI are as follows: - Intensely painful burn-like skin injuries (including itching, tingling, erythema, or edema) without a history of exposure to heat or caustic chemicals Note : Erythema will not be seen for hours to days following exposure, and its appearance is cyclic. - A tendency to bleed - Possible signs and symptoms of ARS As mentioned previously, local injuries to the skin from acute radiation exposure evolve slowly over time, and symptoms may not manifest for days to weeks after exposure. Consider CRI in the differential diagnosis if the patient presents with a skin lesion without a history of chemical or thermal burn, insect bite, or skin disease or allergy. If the patient gives a history of possible radiation exposure (such as from a radiography source, x-ray device, or accelerator) or a history of finding and handling an unknown metallic object, note the presence of any of the following: erythema, blistering, dry or wet desquamation, epilation, ulceration. Regarding lesions associated with CRI be aware that, - days to weeks may pass before lesions appear; - unless patients are symptomatic, they will not require emergency care; and - lesions can be debilitating and life threatening after several weeks. Medical follow-up is essential, and victims should be cautioned to avoid trauma to the involved areas. Localized injuries should be treated symptomatically as they occur, and radiation injury experts should be consulted for detailed information. Such information can be obtained from the Radiation Emergency Assistance Center/Training Site (REAC/TS) at www.orau.gov/reacts/ or (865) 576-1005. As with ARS, if the patient also has other trauma, wounds should be closed, burns covered, fractures reduced, surgical stabilization performed, and definitive treatment given within the first 48 hours after injury. After 48 hours, surgical interventions should be delayed until hematopoietic recovery has occurred. A baseline CBC and differential should be taken and repeated in 24 hours. Because cutaneous radiation injury is cyclic, areas of early erythema should be noted and recorded. These areas should also be sketched and photographed, if possible, ensuring that the date and time are recorded. The following should be initiated as indicated: - Supportive care in a clean environment (a burn unit if one is available) - Prevention and treatment of infections - Use of the following: - Medications to reduce inflammation, inhibit protealysis, relieve pain, stimulate regeneration, and improve circulation - Anticoagulant agents for widespread and deep injury - Pain management - Psychological support Recommendations for Treatment by Stage The following recommendations for treatment by stage of the illness were obtained by summarizing recommendations from Ricks et al. (226) and Gusev et al. (231), but they do not represent official recommendations of CDC. Prodromal Stage —Use antihistamines and topical antipruriginous preparations, which act against itch and also might prevent or attenuate initiation of the cycle that leads to the manifestation stage. Anti-inflammatory medications such as corticosteroids and topical creams, as well as slight sedatives, may prove useful. Latent Stage —Continue anti-inflammatory medications and sedatives. At midstage, use proteolysis inhibitors, such as Gordox®. Manifestation Stage —Use repeated swabs, antibiotic prophylaxis, and anti-inflammatory medications, such as Lioxasol®, to reduce bacterial, fungal, and viral infections - Apply topical ointments containing corticosteroids along with locally acting antibiotics and vitamins. - Stimulate regeneration of DNA by using Lioxasol® and later, when regeneration has started, biogenic drugs, such as Actovegin® and Solcoseril®. - Stimulate blood supply in third or fourth week using Pentoxifylline® (contraindicated for patients with atherosclerotic heart disease). - Puncture blisters if they are sterile, but do not remove them as long as they are intact. - Stay alert for wound infection. Antibiotic therapy should be considered according to the individual patient's condition. - Treat pain according to the individual patient's condition. Pain relief is very difficult and is the most demanding part of the therapeutic process. - Debride areas of necrosis thoroughly but cautiously. Treatment of Late Effects After immediate treatment of radiation injury, an often long and painful process of healing will ensue. The most important concerns are the following: - Pain management - Fibrosis or late ulcers Note : Use of medication to stimulate vascularization, inhibit infection, and reduce fibrosis may be effective. Examples include Pentoxifylline®, vitamin E, and interferon gamma. Otherwise, surgery may be required. - Plastic/reconstructive surgery Note : Surgical treatment is common. It is most effective if performed early in the treatment process. Full-thickness graft and microsurgery techniques usually provide the best results. - Psychological effects, such as posttraumatic stress disorder - Possibility of increased risk of skin cancer later in life For More Assistance Technical assistance can be obtained from the Radiation Emergency Assistance Center/Training Site (REAC/TS) at (865) 576-3131 (M-F, 8 AM to 4:30 PM EST) or (865) 576-1005 (after hours) , or at http://www.orau.gov/reacts/ , and from the Medical Radiobiology Advisory Team (MRAT) at (301) 295-0316. Also, more info rmation can be obtained from the CDC Health Alert Network at emergency.cdc.gov or 1-800-311-3435. Gusev IA, Guskova AK, Mettler FA, Jr., editors. Medical Management of Radiation Accidents. 2 nd ed. New York : CRC Press, Inc.; 2001. Hall EJ. Radiobiology for the Radiologist. 5 th ed. New York : Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2000. International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP). The Biological Basis for Dose Limitation in the Skin. ICRP Publication 59. Annals of the ICRP Volume 22, No. 2. New York : Pergamon Press, 1991. National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP). Biological Effects and Exposure Limits for “Hot Particles.” NCRP Report No. 130. Bethesda , Maryland : NCRP, 1999. National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP). Management of Terrorist Events Involving Radioactive Material. NCRP Report No. 138. Bethesda , Maryland : NCRP, 2001. Ricks RC, Berger ME, O'Hare FM, Jr, editors. The Medical Basis for Radiation Accident Preparedness: The Clinical Care of Victims. REAC/TS Conference on the Medical Basis for Radiation Accident Preparedness. New York : Parthenon Publishing, 2002. Walker RI, Cerveny TJ, editors. Textbook of Military Medicine: Part 1: Warfare, Weaponry, and the Casualty. Medical Consequences of Nuclear Warfare. Armed Forces Radiobiology Research Institute (AFRRI). Bethesda , Maryland : 1989. Acute epidermal necrosis (time of onset: < 10 days postexposure; threshold dose: ~550 Gy or 55,000 rads)— Interphase death of postmitotic keratinocytes in the upper visible layers of the epidermis (may occur with high-dose, low-energy beta irradiation) Acute ulceration (time of onset: < 14 days postexposure; threshold dose: ~20 Gy or 2000 rads)—Early loss of the epidermis— and to a varying degree, deeper dermal tissue—that results from the death of fibroblasts and endothelial cells in interphase Dermal atrophy (time of onset: > 26 weeks postexposure; threshold dose: ~10 Gy or 1000 rads)— Thinning of the dermal tissues associated with the contraction of the previously irradiated area Dermal necrosis (time of onset > 10 weeks postexposure; threshold dose: ~20 Gy or 2000 rads)— Necrosis of the dermal tissues as a consequence of vascular insufficiency Dry desquamation (time of onset: 3–6 weeks postexposure; threshold dose: ~8 Gy or 800 rads)— Atypical keratinization of the skin caused by the reduction in the number of clonogenic cells within the basal layer of the epidermis Early transient erythema (time of onset: within hours of exposure; threshold dose: ~2 Gray [Gy] or 200 rads)— Inflammation of the skin caused by activation of a proteolytic enzyme that increases the permeability of the capillaries Epilation (time of onset: 14–21 days; threshold dose: ~3 Gy or 300 rads)— Hair loss caused by the depletion of matrix cells in the hair follicles Late erythema (time of onset: 8–20 weeks postexposure; threshold dose: ~20 Gy or 2000 rads)— Inflammation of the skin caused by injury of blood vessels. Edema and impaired lymphatic clearance precede a measured reduction in blood flow. Invasive fibrosis (time of onset: months to years postexposure; threshold dose: ~20 Gy or 2000 rads)— Method of healing associated with acute ulceration, secondary ulceration, and dermal necrosis that leads to scar tissue formation Main erythema (time of onset: days to weeks postexposure; threshold dose: ~3 Gy or 300 rads)— Inflammation of the skin caused by hyperaemia of the basal cells and subsequent epidermal hypoplasia (see photos 1 and 2) Moist desquamation (time of onset: 4–6 weeks postexposure; threshold dose: ~15 Gy or 1500 rads)— Loss of the epidermis caused by sterilization of a high proportion of clonogenic cells within the basal layer of the epidermis Secondary ulceration (time of onset: > 6 weeks postexposure; threshold dose: ~15 Gy or 1500 rads)— Secondary damage to the dermis as a consequence of dehydration and infection when moist desquamation is severe and protracted because of reproductive sterilization of the vast majority of the clonogenic cells in the irradiated area Telangiectasia (time of onset: > 52 weeks postexposure; threshold dose for moderate severity at 5 years: ~40 Gy or 4000 rads)— Atypical dilation of the superficial dermal capillaries Figures 1 & 2 . Erythema. These photos display the progression of erythema in a patient involved in an x-ray diffraction accident, 9 days to 96 days postexposure. The day following the exposure (not shown), the patient displayed only mild diffuse swelling and erythema of the fingertips. On day 9, punctuate lesions resembling telangiectasias were noted in the subungal region of the right index finger, and on day 11, blisters began to appear. Desquamation continued for several weeks. The patient developed cellulitis in the right thumb approximately 2 years following exposure. The area of the right fingertip and nail continued to cause the patient great pain when even minor trauma occurred to the fingertip, and he required occasional oral narcotic analgesics to manage this pain. He continued to experience intense pain resulting from minor trauma to the affected areas for as long as 4 years postexposure. (photos courtesy of Gusev IA and reprinted with permission) Figure 3. 3 days Figure 4. 10 days (photos courtesy of Ricks RC and reprinted with permission) Figures 3 & 4. Acute ulceration. These photos show acute ulceration in a Peruvian patient who inadvertently placed a 26-Ci (0.962-TBq) irridiun-192 ( 192 Ir) source in his back pocket, 3 days and 10 days postexposure. The source remained in the patient's pocket for approximately 6.5 hours, at which time he complained to his wife about pain in his posterior right thigh. He sought medical advice and was told he probably had been bitten by an insect. In the meantime, his wife sat on the patient's pants (her case appears on the next page) while breastfeeding the couple's 1½-year-old child. The source was recovered several hours later by nuclear regulatory authorities, and the patient was transported to Lima for treatment. This patient exhibited a drastic reduction in lymphocyte count by day 3 postexposure, and a 4-by-4-cm lesion appeared on day 4. Eventually he suffered with a massive ulceration and necrosis of the site with infection, and his right leg was amputated. Grade II and III CRI was also evident on his hands, left leg, and perineum, but he survived and returned to his family. Figure 5. 26 days postexposure Figure 5. Moist desquamation. This patient is the wife of the previous case study, 26 days postexposure. She was exposed to the 192 Ir source when she sat on her husband's pants (still containing the source) for approximately 20 minutes after he had changed clothes that evening. Figure 6: 2 years postexposure Figure 6. Necrosis, fibrosis, and telangiectasia. Same patient, 2 years following exposure. (photos courtesy of Ricks RC and reprinted with permission) - See “Acute Radiation Syndrome: A Fact Sheet for Physicians” at emergency.cdc.gov/radiation/arsphysicianfactsheet.asp. - Both the Gray (Gy) and the rad are units of absorbed dose and reflect the amount of energy deposited in a mass of tissue (1 Gy = 100 rads). In this document, the absorbed dose refers to that dose received by at least 10 cm 2 of the basal cell layer of the skin. The referenced absorbed dose levels in this document are assumed to be from beta, gamma, or x-radiation. Neutron or proton radiation produces many of the health effects described herein at lower absorbed dose levels. - On occasion a patient might also be contaminated with radioactive material. To address patient decontamination, please go to the following Web site: http://www.orau.gov/reacts/emergency.htm. - Page last updated June 30, 2005 - Page last reviewed May 10, 2006 - Content source: Radiation Studies Branch (RSB), Division of Environmental Hazards and Health Effects (EHHE), National Center for Environmental Health (NCEH), Coordinating Center for Environmental Health and Injury Prevention (CCEHIP) Get email updates To receive email updates about this page, enter your email address: - Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 1600 Clifton Rd Atlanta, GA 30333 TTY: (888) 232-6348 - Contact CDC-INFO

Cutaneous Radiation Injury (CRI) Injury to the skin and underlying tissues from acute exposure to a large external dose of radiation is referred to as cutaneous radiation injury (CRI). Acute radiation syndrome (ARS) 1 will usually be accompanied by some skin damage; however, CRI can occur without symptoms of ARS. This is especially true with acute exposures to beta radiation or low-energy x-rays,

The OER University The OER university: Kiwi ingenuity leads a low cost, low risk but high impact solution for open education futures worldwide The OER university (OERu) will provide free learning opportunities for all students worldwide using courses based solely on open educational resources (OER) and open access (OA) materials with pathways for learners to earn credible degrees. The OER Foundation, headquarted in New Zealand, is leading an international innovation partnership of accredited universities, polytechnics and community colleges committed to providing more affordable education for learners currently excluded from the formal higher education sector. Open Educational Resources (OER) are materials used to support education that may be freely accessed, reused, modified and shared by anyone (Downes 2011). Creative Commons licenses are enabling an international network of accredited universities and polytechnics to widen access to more affordable degrees. The OER Tertiary Education Network, the driving force behind the OER university (OERu) collaboration have adopted the Free Cultural Works approved licenses (CC BY and CC BY-SA) as the default for OERu courses. With OER, the marginal cost of replicating digital learning materials is near zero and sharing development costs improves cost efficiencies. Consequently, an international network of accredited institutions would be able to leverage significant savings in the cost and time required for the assembly and maintenance of OER courses combined with significant efficiency gains when operating at scale. Moreover, OER provides a viable solution for education institutions to respond to their educational mission of social inclusion. The scale is guaranteed because of the unsatisfied global demand for higher education. Researchers at UNESCO and the Commonwealth of Learning conservatively predict that over the next fifteen years, the post-secondary education system will need to provide for an additional 100 million places. The conventional model of higher education provision is simply not able to respond to this level of demand for education. The confluence of these economic and digital technology enablers provide fertile ground for designing a sustainable open education ecosystem whereby institutions can provide free access to learning opportunities. Building on Professor Emeritus Jim Taylor’s 2007 ideas to provide assessment on demand, the OERu concept was conceived. Individuals are free to learn from digital materials hosted on the open web. The problem is that learners who access digital OERs on the web and acquire knowledge and skills either formally or informally, alone or in groups, cannot readily have their learning assessed and subsequently receive appropriate academic recognition for their efforts. OERu learners will gain free access to high quality courses that are designed for independent-study using OER. OERu learners will receive student support through a global network of volunteers and peer support using social software technologies. Students can be assessed for a fee by participating institutions and earn a credible credential. Using OER it is possible to build a parallel learning universe to provide more affordable education for learners currently excluded from the formal education sector. With a healthy dose of our Kiwi “can do” attitude which favours pragmatism above pretence, in November 2011, the OER Foundation convened an open meeting of founding anchor partners to plan the practical implementation of the OERu. With funding support from UNESCO, this landmark meeting was streamed live on the Internet modelling open participation and collaboration on a global scale. Five tertiary education institutions in New Zealand have embraced their responsibility to ensure more sustainable education futures, by joining the OERu network as founding anchor partners. Nelson Marlborough Institute of Technology, NorthTec the Open Polytechnic, Otago Polytechnic and the University of Canterbury are the New Zealand institutions who are leading open education futures in New Zealand. The OERu network, now numbering 20 contributing institutions will be able to accredit OER learning on five continents mapped to the credentialing frameworks of 20 different countries. The vision of the OERu collaboration has now turned into reality with the recent announcement of the the launch of the first OERu course, Regional Relations in Asia and the Pacific (AST1000) developed by the University of Southern Queensland. Professor Jan Thomas, Vice Chancellor and President of the University of Southern Queensland (USQ) noted that: “USQ is proud to give students worldwide, the ability to access university level courses and where cost has been removed as a barrier to learning”. University leaders and administrators are concerned with how to ensure sustainability of OER initiatives on campus. Indeed, if OER projects are managed as an add-on to existing operations, the sources of funding to sustain OER projects can be a challenge. However, the strategic solution is to embed OER development as an integral component of business as usual. From an investment-decision perspective, participation in the OERu does not require new money, but rather a reallocation of existing staff time to releasing selected development outputs under open content licenses for the OERu network as part of mainstream operations. The OERu model anticipates that no more than 1% of existing budget time would be required for release under open content licenses. The institutional costs of assessment and credentialisation services are recouped on a cost-recovery basis from student fees and/or other sources. Consider for example that the average tuition fees for a 4-year bachelor degree at a public university in the United States is US$26,312, excluding accommodation and textbook costs. At Otago Polytechnic, the full tuition cost of a 4-year degree equivalent is approximately US$19,452. The summative assessment and credentialing services for the first OERu prototype course would equate to a 4-year bachelor degree costing US$6,759. As the OERu network grows and begins to leverage economies of scale, it is feasible that further cost reductions can be implemented. The OERu network has succeeded in shifting the strategic focus of open education from how to achieve sustainable OER projects to how institutions will remain sustainable without the mainstream adoption of OER. The OERu model is inspired by the concept of “smart philanthropy”. While the OERu is primarily designed to widen access to learning in higher education through the social inclusion and community service agenda, our approach encourages member institutions to reintegrate the lessons learned into mainstream operations. Tacit knowledge and capability gained through the OERu’s open design and development model can be reinvested back into the core business operations to improve effectiveness of the higher education sector and generate new business opportunities now possible with the OERu model. The OERu network is an exemplar for low cost, low risk, but high impact innovation. For more information: OERu Founding Anchor Partners Athabasca University (Canada); BAOU (Gujarat’s open university, India); Empire State College (State University of New York) (USA); Nelson Marlborough Institute of Technology (New Zealand); NorthTec (New Zealand); Open Polytechnic (New Zealand); Otago Polytechnic (New Zealand); Southern New Hampshire University (USA); Thompson Rivers University (Canada); University of Canterbury (New Zealand); University of South Africa (Republic of South Africa); University of Southern Queensland (Australia); University of Wollongong (Australia); OER Foundation (International); BCcampus (Canada). OERu Anchor partners Excelsior College (USA); Open University of Catalonia (Spain); Thomas Edison State College (USA); University of Glamorgan (United Kingdom); University of the South Pacific (Representing 12 Pacific Island Nations). Image licences, in order of appearance: OER Global Logo by Jonathas Mello is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution Unported 3.0 License. OER University Concept by Jim Taylor is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike 3.0 License. OER Initiatives Photo by Ronda McLaren is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution Unported 3.0 License. Jan Thomas by University of Southern Queensland is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike 3.0 License. Leave a Reply Click here to cancel reply. Search your site Subscribe to talk and updates If you'd like to subscribe to our 'old school' and off site discussion list, you can do that right here. To subscribe to regular updates from Creative Commons Aotearoa New Zealand, enter your email address below and press submit.

The OER University The OER university: Kiwi ingenuity leads a low cost, low risk but high impact solution for open education futures worldwide The OER university (OERu) will provide free learning opportunities for all students worldwide using courses based solely on open educational resources (OER) and open access (OA) materials with pathways for learners to earn credible degrees. The OER Foundati

Chinese Military Power Secret, but Growing By Jim Garamone American Forces Press Service WASHINGTON, July 19, 2002 A report to Congress detailing the military power of the People's Republic of China is filled with words and phrases like "approximately," "roughly," "likely" and "is believed to be." This is because despite tremendous strides in economic growth, the Chinese government is still extremely secretive and opaque about military matters. "The official Chinese military budget is $20 billion," said a defense official. "But the actual money invested could be as much as four or five times greater. The $20 billion is just a start." Very little is really known not only about finance, but also about capabilities. Military-to-military exchanges between the United States and the People's Republic are another example of the secrecy the Chinese exhibit. "In the past, we have shown Chinese counterparts U.S. capabilities," said the official. "When we went for reciprocal visits, we saw only showcase units. We didn't see any operational training exercises." The Chinese have one of the most vibrant economies in the world, growing at about 8 percent each year. Chinese leaders have committed to a long-range plan to improve military capabilities. According to the annual report to Congress, military modernization is behind other priorities such as development in agriculture, industry, science and technology. The report states this is done with the idea that improvements in these areas would necessarily improve the long-term status of the Chinese military. However, preparing for a potential conflict in the Taiwan Strait is the primary driver for China's military modernization, and the focus is on reunifying with Taiwan on Beijing's terms, according to the report. The People's Republic wants to stop further moves by Taiwan toward independence. "Beijing assesses that the permanent separation of Taiwan from the mainland could serve as a strategic foothold for the United States," the report states. "At the same time, securing control over Taiwan would allow (the People's Republic of China) to move its defensive perimeter further seaward." The report says the growth of the Chinese military is aimed at a "coercive" approach to Taiwan. The People's Republic has repeatedly stated it will resort to force against Taiwan if the island declares independence. The long-term Chinese goal is to modernize the military with "homegrown" capabilities. To that aim, the government has dedicated much money to research and development. In the meantime, the Chinese military has upgraded capabilities through arms sales. Russia is the largest foreign supplier to the People's Republic. Russia has sold state-of-the-art Su-30 jet fighters to the Chinese as well as Sovremennyy-class destroyers and very quiet diesel submarines. The report says that the equipment coming in from other nations of the former Soviet Union allow the Chinese to reverse-engineer more modern weapons and systems. Years ago, it was a given that the People's Liberation Army was a good force, but was only effective as far as it could walk, said a DoD official. That is changing. The PLA has been cut dramatically, freeing up money for modernization and allowing the remaining forces to train to higher standards. Money from various accounts outside the official budget is going into modernization. China is building and designing its own weapons systems. The Chinese military is building homegrown destroyers, frigates and submarines. U.S. officials expect the expertise to grow and the systems to become more sophisticated. As that happens, officials expect the purchase of foreign arms will drop. Areas of significant growth in the People's Republic's military include: Missiles the Chinese have about 350 short-range ballistic missiles, and this is growing by about 50 per year. China is also replacing its ICBM force with longer-range versions. Air power China has bought Su-30 fighter aircraft from Russia and is producing the Russian Su-27 jet. China is also beefing up the capabilities of the locally produced F- 7 fighter-bomber. The Chinese have developed an airborne early warning aircraft and is looking to buy the A-50 Mainstay AWACS plane from Russia. Training for aviation assets is getting more realistic, the report says. Naval forces China has replaced its World War II era landing ships with about 600 military and civilian landing craft. China has bought Russian destroyers and a Kilo-class diesel submarine. Land forces China has upgraded the main gun on more than 1,000 tanks and will continue to effort. At the same time, China expects to field 1,800 new Type 96 tanks by 2005. The PLA is also working on improving amphibious tactics and equipment. U.S. officials say Chinese secrecy is disturbing, but not surprising. They say this secrecy continues a long tradition and fits in with new strategic decisions.

Chinese Military Power Secret, but Growing By Jim Garamone American Forces Press Service WASHINGTON, July 19, 2002 A report to Congress detailing the military power of the People's Republic of China is filled with words and phrases like "approximately," "roughly," "likely" and "is believed to be." This is because despite tremendous strides in economic growth, the Chinese government is still extrem

- Nationwide public awareness campaign to raise awareness to the indicators of terrorism and terrorism-related crime and to emphasize the importance of reporting suspicious activity to local law enforcement authorities. Report Suspicious Activity Contact Local Law Enforcement or Call 9-1-1. DHS, through FEMA, continues to support the state, local and tribal officials and first responders in Oklahoma as they respond to and recover from severe storms. FEMA encourages those in affected areas to apply for disaster assistance. Learn how DHS helps keep our nation safe by air, land, sea and in cyberspace every day in “A Day in the Life of Homeland Security.” Throughout 2013, DHS is commemorating its tenth anniversary by recognizing key initiatives and employees who have contributed to successes while considering new and innovate ways to achieve its mission. The Department of Homeland Security’s National Resilience Award for superior leadership and innovation by a non-governmental individual or organization who exemplifies the qualities and achievements of Rick Rescorla. Nominations are due May 31, 2013. DHS is supporting Presidential actions to strengthen the security and resilience of critical infrastructure against evolving threats through an updated and overarching national framework. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS), as part of the Administration’s Digital Government Strategy, has reached key agency milestones to enable a more efficient and coordinated digital service delivery.

- Nationwide public awareness campaign to raise awareness to the indicators of terrorism and terrorism-related crime and to emphasize the importance of reporting suspicious activity to local law enforcement authorities. Report Suspicious Activity Contact Local Law Enforcement or Call 9-1-1. DHS, through FEMA, continues to support the state, local and tribal officials and first responders in Oklaho

- Victim Assistance - Consumer Protection - Media Center - Topical Index Training for Educators & School Liaison Officers to Focus on Social Networking Sites, Netsmartz, Cyber Bullying, Physical & Emotional Signs - What to Watch For Thursday, May 14, 2009 Plaza Hotel & Suites 1202 West Clairemont Avenue The U.S. Attorney's Offices for the Eastern & Western Districts of Wisconsin, the Wisconsin Department of Justice, and the Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction are collaboratively sponsoring a one-day training session for Wisconsin Educators and School Liaison Officers. The training will provide information and experiences for educators to use within their classrooms and school libraries and with parents and the community to build safe skills among students as they research, communicate and share with others in the Internet world of the 21st Century. Training sessions will focus on Social Networking Sites, Netsmartz (Internet Crimes Against Children) and Cyber Bullying. A copy of the agenda for the training is available at

- Victim Assistance - Consumer Protection - Media Center - Topical Index Training for Educators & School Liaison Officers to Focus on Social Networking Sites, Netsmartz, Cyber Bullying, Physical & Emotional Signs - What to Watch For Thursday, May 14, 2009 Plaza Hotel & Suites 1202 West Clairemont Avenue The U.S. Attorney's Offices for the Eastern & Western Districts of Wisconsin, the Wisconsin Dep

Sacramento - The California Energy Commission today released the Draft Initial Study of the city of Riverside Public Utilities proposal to build a peaking power plant. The draft analysis of the Riverside Energy Resource Center project is available on the Energy Commission website at: The Energy Commission staff concludes that with the implementation of the recommended licensing conditions for most of the necessary technical areas analyzed, the construction and operation of the power plant would not result in any significant impacts to public health and safety or the environment. The staff notes in the draft report that they expect to receive a Historical Survey Report for Cultural Resources, an FAA Determination and a Riverside County Airport Land Use Commission Determination in mid-July to complete work on the Final Initial Study. That study is scheduled for release on July 28, 2004. The Riverside Energy Resource Center is being reviewed under the Energy Commission's Small Power Plant Exemption process. The Energy Commission may exempt power plant proposals of up to 100 megawatts from the siting process if it determines that the project will not create a substantial adverse impact on the environment, public health or the transmission system. If granted the exemption, Riverside Public Utilities will be responsible for obtaining all necessary permits to build and operate the power plant. Local and state agencies will use the Energy Commission's final environmental document to issue their respective permits. The Riverside Energy Resource Center is proposed for a 12-acre site next to the city's wastewater treatment plant, about one-half mile north of Riverside airport. The simple-cycle power plant would produce 96 megawatts from two natural gas-fired turbines when demand for electricity is greatest. The facility would be cooled by reclaimed water from the treatment plant next door. A zero-liquid discharge system would eliminate the need to release any wastewater from the power plant. More information on the project is available at: The next step in the Energy Commission review process will be a public workshop to discuss the Draft Initial Study on: Thursday, July 15, 2004 11:30 a.m. to approximately 3:00 p.m. Riverside Public Utilities Water Quality Treatment Plant Multi-purpose Room 5950 Acorn Avenue Written comments on the Draft Initial Study must be submitted by July 28, 2004 to the Energy Commission in care of: James W. Reede, Jr. Ed.D, Project Manager California Energy Commission 1516 Ninth Street, MS-15 Sacramento, California 95814 Public participation is an important part of the Energy Commission power plant licensing process. To find out how to get involved, contact the Energy Commission's Public Adviser, Margret J. Kim, at (800) 822-6228 or by e-mail at: Once the Energy Commission staff receives comments from all interested parties on the Draft Initial Study, along with the information still outstanding, the analysis will be finalized and presented to the Committee of two Energy Commissioners overseeing the project review. The Committee will then prepare a proposed decision. Please address media inquiries to Chris Davis in the Energy Commission Media and Public Communications office at (916) 654-4989. The Energy Commission is continuously updating the media database to which we send news releases and news advisories. Members of the media who wish to be added to the database, have their contact information updated, or deleted, should send an e-mail to: Please indicate the types of information in which you are interested, such as Inland Empire power plant cases.

Sacramento - The California Energy Commission today released the Draft Initial Study of the city of Riverside Public Utilities proposal to build a peaking power plant. The draft analysis of the Riverside Energy Resource Center project is available on the Energy Commission website at: The Energy Commission staff concludes that with the implementation of the recommended licensing conditions for most

Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program The refinery sector consists of facilities that produce gasoline, gasoline blending stocks, naphtha, kerosene, distillate fuel oils, residual fuel oils, lubricants, or asphalt (bitumen) by the distillation of petroleum or the redistillation, cracking, or reforming of unfinished petroleum derivatives. GHG process emissions from this sector include emissions from venting, flares, and fugitive leaks from equipment (e.g., valves, flanges, pumps). Besides the emissions from petroleum refining processes, the sector includes combustion emissions from stationary combustion units located at these facilities. Emissions from hydrogen production plants that are located at refineries are included in the chemical manufacturing sector. Emissions from industrial waste landfills and industrial wastewater treatment at these facilities are included in the waste sector. |Refineries Sector — Greenhouse Gas Emissions | Reported to the GHGRP (all emissions values presented in million metric tons CO2e unless |Number of facilities:||145||145| |Total emissions (CO2e):||182||181| |Emissions by greenhouse gas (CO2e) CO2 emissions from the combustion of biomass are NOT included in emissions totals provided above.

Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program The refinery sector consists of facilities that produce gasoline, gasoline blending stocks, naphtha, kerosene, distillate fuel oils, residual fuel oils, lubricants, or asphalt (bitumen) by the distillation of petroleum or the redistillation, cracking, or reforming of unfinished petroleum derivatives. GHG process emissions from this sector include emissions from ven

|FHWA > Highway History > Maryland's Bank Road| Maryland's Bank Road Let's get something straight: Baltimore was not the terminus of the National Road! The initial road went from Cumberland, Maryland, to Wheeling, Virginia (later West Virginia). It was eventually extended west to Vandalia, Illinois. It didn't go east to Baltimore. The Rambler wishes to put that myth to rest right here and doesn't want to see it in anything written after this article-not even on the Internet! As the 18th century ended, the roads to and from Baltimore were a source of public complaint. The American Guide Series volume on Maryland (1940) described the problem: The public roads leading from Baltimore Town to the western part of the State were virtually impassable during the wet seasons and winter months because of the passage of heavy freight wagons. Passengers in stagecoaches had to lean out of the carriages, first on one side and then on the other, to keep the vehicles from upsetting; the worst ruts were usually filled in with saplings and covered with a layer of earth. The first improved roads were turnpikes authorized by Acts approved during the 1804 Maryland Assembly. The Frederick, Reisterstown, York, and Falls Road turnpike companies improved the game and Indian trails through the dense forests that had been early routes of travel. State and city officials wanted to lure western commerce to the port of Baltimore instead of its larger rival, the port of Philadelphia, to the north. The problem was that access to the Ohio Valley was blocked by the lack of a river connection between the Potomac and Ohio Rivers. The need to transfer from river to land and back to river was a strong deterrent to commerce. The city's break came when President Thomas Jefferson signed legislation in 1806 authorizing the Federal Government to construct the National Road from Cumberland to Wheeling, where travelers could take the Ohio River west. Cumberland was the eastern terminus because at the time, it was the closest that ships on the Potomac River could take travelers to the Northwest Territory (the land north of the Ohio River, east of the Mississippi River). With the National Road, the General Government was offering to improve the portage between the two rivers. But that would only help Baltimore if a good road became available to provide the link to Cumberland. This need gave renewed interest to the Frederick turnpike. Secretary of the Treasury Albert Gallatin, in his 1808 report on internal improvements, discussed the road: The capital of the "Fredericktown" turnpike company amounts to $500,000, and the company is authorized to open the great western road as far as Boonsborough, beyond the Blue Ridge, and sixty-two miles from Baltimore. The angle of ascent will not exceed four degrees; the road has a convexity of nine inches; and on a breadth of twenty-two feet is covered with a stratum ten inches thick of pounded stones not exceeding three inches in diameter, over which are spread two inches of gravel or coarse sand. The first twenty miles next to Baltimore have cost at the rate of $9,000, and the next seventeen miles are contracted for at the rate of $7,000 a mile. The report also discussed the extension to Cumberland: The distance from Boonsborough to Cumberland, at the foot of the Allegheny mountains, following the present road, is seventy-three miles; and, although the company is not yet authorized to extend the turnpike to that place, the ground has been surveyed, and it is ascertained that the road may be continued with an angle of ascent not exceeding four degrees. The ascent of the road laid out by the United States from Cumberland to Brownsville on the Monongahela does not exceed five degrees, and the distance is seventy-two miles; making the whole distance of a turnpike road from Baltimore to the navigable waters of the Ohio two hundred and seven miles. To finance it the rest of the way, a State Senator reasoned, "Who in Maryland besides the banks has that kind of money?" The banks resisted at first, but agreed to buy stock in the Cumberland Turnpike Company in exchange for extension of their charters to 1835. Construction of the National Road began in 1811 and was completed to Wheeling in 1818. The "Bank Road" reached Cumberland in 1820, with only a few gaps from Cumberland to Baltimore. One of the gaps was a 10-mile section between Hagerstown and Boonsboro. A turnpike company was formed to close the gap, with the banks again buying the stock in exchange for another extension of their charters (to 1845). This section of the Bank Road has the distinction of being the first use in the United States of the principles of road building conceived by John Loudon McAdam, whose name gave the pavement its name, macadam. According to historian Albert Rose: The work consisted of resurfacing a former county road. This section was in a sad state of deterioration, in 1821, and in winter, stages required from 5 to 7 hours to cover the 10 mile distance. Contracts for reconstructing the road were advertised by William Lorman, the first president of the turnpike company, in September 1822. The superintendent of construction was John W. Davis of Allegany County, Maryland. The surfacing was completed in 1823. Soon, Conestoga wagons were carrying wheat, corn, and pork from the West to Baltimore, and returning with manufactured goods needed in the Ohio Valley. The advantages, however, of overland travel were threatened when New York's Erie Canal opened in 1825 and drew the western trade to the harbor at New York City. To compete with the canal for the western commerce, a group in Baltimore received a charter in February 1827 for the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad Company. The railroad reached Cumberland in 1842 and Chicago in 1874, enabling the city to retain its hold on at least some of the western market. To this day, many accounts of the National Road/Cumberland Road identify Baltimore as its eastern terminus. When you see such accounts, you are hereby entitled to laugh or even sneer at the author because you know that from Cumberland to Baltimore, the extension was a separate facility developed by the State. This page last modified on 04/07/11

|FHWA > Highway History > Maryland's Bank Road| Maryland's Bank Road Let's get something straight: Baltimore was not the terminus of the National Road! The initial road went from Cumberland, Maryland, to Wheeling, Virginia (later West Virginia). It was eventually extended west to Vandalia, Illinois. It didn't go east to Baltimore. The Rambler wishes to put that myth to rest right here and doesn't

|Accelerating Infrastructure Innovations| |Federal Highway Administration > Publications > Focus > February 1999 > University Transportation Centers: Building on Success| University Transportation Centers: Building on Success Among the many significant steps taken under last year's Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21) was the expansion of the University Transportation Center (UTC) program. TEA-21 established 13 new UTCs, and reauthorized 14 existing UTCs and 6 centers that were formerly known as University Research Institutes. For the highway community, these 33 centers will serve as valuable sources of innovative research and technology transfer programs. Twenty-three of the centers will be located at universities named in TEA-21. Ten existing regional centers will compete against other universities in 1999 for selection as the 10 new regional centers authorized under TEA-21. This competition will be conducted by the Department of Transportation (DOT). The centers reflect the following goals: TEA-21 authorized up to $194.8 million for the UTC program in fiscal years 1998-2003. Centers are required to match the Federal grants with outside funding. The UTC program started in 1987 with the goal of educating tomorrow's transportation professionals and advancing the skills of current practitioners. The program also aims to address transportation challenges through research covering all modes of transportation, accompanied by technology transfer initiatives that put the research into action. The centers' work spans a range of transportation issues. The University of California Transportation Center, for example, is devoting its research and education activities to improving accessibility to transportation for all citizens. Current research projects include "Measuring the Role of Transportation in Facilitating the Welfare-to-Work Transition" and "Towards an Accessible City: Removing Functional Barriers for the Blind and Vision-Impaired." The Mack-Blackwell National Rural Transportation Study Center at the University of Arkansas-Fayetteville is focusing its research on such issues as rural transit for the low income and elderly and safety standards for rural local roads. For more information on the UTC program, contact the DOT's Research and Special Programs Administration at 202-366-4434. Information can also be found on the Web at utc.dot.gov. UNIVERSITY TRANSPORTATION CENTERS The University Transportation Centers are currently hosted by the following universities: United States Department of Transportation - Federal Highway Administration

|Accelerating Infrastructure Innovations| |Federal Highway Administration > Publications > Focus > February 1999 > University Transportation Centers: Building on Success| University Transportation Centers: Building on Success Among the many significant steps taken under last year's Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21) was the expansion of the University Transportation Center (UT

|The Mountain-Prairie Region| U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 134 Union Boulevard Lakewood, Colorado 80228 August 7, 2006 Contact: Valerie Fellows, 202/208-5634 State Wildlife Agencies Receive Grants to Work With Landowners to Conserve At-risk Species The Kansas Department of Wildlife and Parks will receive $680,000 The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service announced nearly $19 million in competitive funding for 37 States and Puerto Rico and U.S. Virgin Islands fish and wildlife agencies under the Bush Administration's innovative Landowner Incentive Program (LIP). The program supports cooperative efforts with private landowners interested in conserving natural habitat for species at risk, including Federally listed endangered or threatened species and proposed or candidate species. "Conservation, especially conservation of imperiled species, must be a partnership between the American people and their government," said Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne. "By providing these grants, we empower citizens to restore habitat on their land and take other steps to protect and recover endangered, threatened and at-risk species." LIP, funded through competitive grants with money from the Land and Water Conservation Fund, establishes or supplements existing landowner incentive programs that provide technical or financial assistance to private landowners. All grants need to be matched by at least 25 percent from a non-Federal source. Landowners interested in participating in LIP should contact their State fish and wildlife agency. For more information about the grant programs, please visit http://federalaid.fws.gov/lip/lip.html. The Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance reference number is 15.633. A brief summary of the projects in the Mountain-Prairie Region follows (for the complete list, please visit the Service’s web site at http://www.fws.gov): The Colorado Division of Wildlife will receive nearly $946,000 and match $945,760 to provide financial support for private landowner projects to protect and manage wildlife habitat on private lands for species-at-risk. The LIP program focus areas will include the Gunnison Basin, Front Range Riparian Corridors, and short-grass prairie in the central and southeastern portion of the state. Conservation easements and habitat restoration work will be pursued to benefit species-at-risk that include Gunnison sage grouse, Preble’s meadow jumping mouse, mountain plover, burrowing owl, Ferruginous hawk, greater sage grouse, lesser prairie chicken and other associated shortgrass prairie species. The Kansas Department of Wildlife and Parks will receive $680,000 and match $226,000 to provide private landowners with technical support to implement projects in the Shortgrass Prairie Conservation Region and the Central Mixed Grass Prairie Conservation Region identified in their Wildlife Action Plan. At-risk-species to benefit from habitat enhancement and restoration work include lesser prairie chicken, black-tailed prairie dog, Ferruginous hawk, northern pintail, American avocet, black tern, Cassin’s sparrow, whooping crane, green toad, flathead chub, Arkansas darter, and Topeka shiner. The Montana Fish, Wildlife, and Parks Department will receive $180,000 and match $60,000 to identify priority habitat restoration needs for sagebrush grassland and Big Hole habitats and then to provide technical assistance, outreach, and coordination to landowners to help restore and protect those habitats on their lands. The Nebraska Game and Parks Commission will receive $945,000 and match $501,250 to implement projects on biologically unique landscapes identified in their Legacy Plan that will benefit at-risk species which include Massasauga rattlesnake, Greater prairie chicken, Henslow’s sparrow, regal fritillary butterfly, western prairie fringed orchid, American burying beetle, whooping crane, long-bract green orchid, wild sarsaparilla and Iowa moonwort. The Wyoming Game and Fish Department will receive $945,000 and match $1,583,000 to provide private landowners with technical support to benefit at-risk species on private land. Funds will also enable coordination with private landowners to establish on the ground LIP projects. Wyoming will focus on projects throughout the State’s grasslands, sagebrush, and prairie aquatic habitats. At risk species to benefit from habitat enhancement and restoration work include black-tailed prairie dogs, swift fox, burrowing owls, upland sandpipers, greater sage grouse, brewer’s sparrow, sage sparrow, shovelnose sturgeon, flathead chub, plains minnow and silvery minnow. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is the principal Federal agency responsible for conserving, protecting and enhancing fish, wildlife and plants and their habitats for the continuing benefit of the American people. The Service manages the 95-million-acre National Wildlife Refuge System, which encompasses 545 national wildlife refuges, thousands of small wetlands and other special management areas. It also operates 69 national fish hatcheries, 64 fishery resources offices and 81 ecological services field stations. The agency enforces federal wildlife laws, administers the Endangered Species Act, manages migratory bird populations, restores nationally significant fisheries, conserves and restores wildlife habitat such as wetlands, and helps foreign and Native American tribal governments with their conservation efforts. It also oversees the Federal Assistance program, which distributes hundreds of millions of dollars in excise taxes on fishing and hunting equipment to state fish and wildlife agencies. -- FWS -- Email Us: [email protected] Region Press Releases FWS Mountain-Prairie Region Home Page • FWS National Website Privacy • Department of the Interior • FirstGov • Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) Who We Are • Questions/Contact Us

|The Mountain-Prairie Region| U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 134 Union Boulevard Lakewood, Colorado 80228 August 7, 2006 Contact: Valerie Fellows, 202/208-5634 State Wildlife Agencies Receive Grants to Work With Landowners to Conserve At-risk Species The Kansas Department of Wildlife and Parks will receive $680,000 The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service announced nearly $19 million in competitive fund

Public health emergencies, such as floods, hurricanes, and health pandemics, are unpredictable. Taking steps to protect health and safety is a top priority in every emergency situation. There are simple things that you and your loved ones can do to better prepare for and respond to any public health emergency. Prepare for an emergency by gathering supplies, including a flashlight and extra batteries, first-aid kit, food and water, essential medicines, and copies of important documents stored in waterproof containers. (more) During an emergency, it is important to know how to reach family members. Pick meeting spots and designate a family emergency contact. Gather and make copies of contact and medical information for each family member. Make a plan for your pets. Make sure everyone is familiar with evacuation routes. (more) During an emergency situation, listen to the radio and/or the TV and follow the advice of local or state officials. Check the Department's news page for the latest health information.

Public health emergencies, such as floods, hurricanes, and health pandemics, are unpredictable. Taking steps to protect health and safety is a top priority in every emergency situation. There are simple things that you and your loved ones can do to better prepare for and respond to any public health emergency. Prepare for an emergency by gathering supplies, including a flashlight and extra batteri

- In the Library with the Lead Pipe - http://www.inthelibrarywiththeleadpipe.org - Making Connections: YAAN as a Paper Blog? Posted By Cindy Welch On April 14, 2010 @ 6:00 am In Uncategorized | Comments Disabled Brooke Shields is a descendant of Louis XIV; Emmett Smith is seven percent Native American; and Matthew Broderick’s ancestor fought at Gettysburg. We learn these things courtesy of a new television show called “Who Do you think You Are?,” which follows the rich and famous as they trace their family trees. For me, one of the most interesting aspects of the show is how each celebrity reacts to revelations about familial connections. It fascinates me that people who are believed to have everything consistently indicate that some dimension of their lives is incomplete and that learning their family history adds something invaluable to their identity. This is what history does; it gives us more of ourselves and we know and understand how we came to be who we are today. Everything has antecedents, even blogs. In this article you’ll meet one of In the Library with the Lead Pipe’s second cousins, twice removed, an adolescent known as the Young Adult Alternative Newsletter (YAAN), published from 1973-1979. What familial traits does YAAN share with In the Library with the Lead Pipe (or blogs in general)? The essence of blogging – the need to be heard, to connect, to share and communicate – is something that has deep roots. Other characteristics include humble beginnings, a desire to challenge the status quo while inspiring the growth of the field, and the need to make connections with people of shared interests. In the Library with the Lead Pipe’s stated mission, “To explore new ideas and start conversations; to document our concerns and argue for solutions,” also works as an elegant summary of YAAN’s purpose, as stated in Volume 1, Number 1: This is the first in a series of newsletters to get YA librarians in touch with each other, learn what’s going on around the country, and (hopefully!!) be a motivating factor to increase YA services, local and national (PUSH, PUSH, PUSH)—climb on the bandwagon, here goes … (Starr, 1973, p. 1). YAAN was created, lived, and ceased in the 1970s, before blogs—or even widespread access to or interest in personal computers—existed. The Internet was known as ARPANET and was used by a limited number of military units and higher educational institutions, and the World Wide Web still waited to be born. Professional development for librarians consisted of twice yearly ALA conferences (which people may or may not have had the funds to attend—sound familiar?), perhaps a state or regional conference, professional reading, and for really pressing needs, the telephone or letter, delivered by the U.S. Postal Service. Like its cousin In the Library with the Lead Pipe (Bonfield, 2009), YAAN was born at a conference when a group of young adult librarians at the 1973 American Library Association Midwinter Meeting in Washington D.C. sat late into the night discussing their work. This conversation was priceless since many of them were isolated in their home libraries by the unique (and mostly unappreciated) nature of their clients (teens), and a professional environment in which “developmental opportunities” were limited to picking through mainstream publications such as School Library Journal and Wilson Library Bulletin for the few articles and stray columns dedicated to work with young adults (YAs). According to author and former YA librarian Patty Campbell, it was a “very lonesome business” working with teenagers in public libraries (P. Campbell, personal communication, May 25, 2009). Carol Starr, at that time the teen librarian from Menomonee Falls, Wisconsin, was so excited by the conference conversations that, upon returning home, she powered up her IBM Selectric typewriter and wrote three pages of single-spaced text about conference news, YA programs, and membership in the Young Adult Services Division (YASD). A few short weeks later, she mailed the first issue of the Young Adult Alternative Newsletter (YAAN) to approximately 300 teen librarians in “any city of any major size whatsoever” (C. Starr, personal communication, January 22, 2005). Starr’s passion for serving teens and connecting her fellow YA librarians resulted in a publication that was a veritable buffet of YA programs, free materials, success stories, and affirmation. Over the years YAAN’s content evolved from bite-sized news bits to longer feature articles and guest editorials. Every issue included reports of or ideas for programming, updates on YASD (which would later become YALSA) division news, recommended professional resources, and free materials that could be sent for or shared between readers. In contrast to most youth publications of the time, there was evidence of Starr’s decidedly feminist political leanings – and the occasional curse word. According to Mary K. Chelton, noted YA services expert, Top of the News and School Library Journal and everything—they simply weren’t specific enough and personal enough. There was an idiosyncrasy to YAAN that gave it a personality all its own. You didn’t have to write in a box, there wasn’t a style manual necessarily, and as long as you weren’t screaming obscenities you could say anything you pleased … you felt like you were talking over the back fence to people (M.K. Chelton, personal communication, June 4, 2009). That openness and inclusiveness, much like blogs, was pronounced and deliberate. Starr wanted to mirror the radical practitioner approach to YA services. “Rather than go through ALA and have it run by people in their 40s, entrenched in their ways, we wanted to have more control … we could publish it ourselves and we owned it” (C. Starr, personal communication, January 22, 2005). Like blogs, which build on the interaction between the creators and readers, original material came from library front lines, energizing and affirming practitioners who discovered they had valuable information to share. YAAN served as a catalyst for creating a large, reflective community of practice, and much of the material in YAAN is an exchange of “here’s how I did it, how did you do it” correspondence. Many contributors were leaders—or later became leaders—in the field. Julia Losinski, Dorothy Broderick, Regina Minudri, Mary K. Chelton, and Patty Campbell, all winners of the distinguished Scholastic Library Publishing Award (formerly the Grolier Award) for outstanding contributions to work with children and young adults, all were contributors to YAAN. YAAN had approximately a thousand subscribers across the United States and Canada and Chelton declared that, “until [Starr] started the Young Adult Alternative Newsletter, I never realized what a national community of practitioners would mean intellectually or politically … [she created] a vehicle for an entire generation of YA librarians to communicate with each other” (Chelton, 2007, p. 32). Starr produced YAAN with a little help from her friends. She typed and mailed the first three issues herself from Wisconsin, but when she moved to a new YA position with Alameda County Public Library in California, she was able to get a bit of institutional support. Starr paid her secretary, Marilyn Mansouria, to type the newsletter and, while she was at it, Mansouria added embellishments and dividers that made YAAN at once more decorative but also easier to read. Supervisor Regina Minudri allowed Starr to use library facilities to print it; Don Nunes and Carol Yuen were briefly credited with help on design and production; and Mike Smith, a family friend, was given credit for original artwork. Other artwork came from Forest Grove (California) nursery and elementary schools. Paper, printing, and postage costs for YAAN were also offset by subscriber fees, which were $3.00 per year in 1973 and rose to $5.00 ($6.00 if billed) by 1979, but YAAN was mostly a labor of love. Any extra money generated by YAAN subscriptions was used, according to Starr, to help other fledgling newsletters such as Inside/Outside, and Women Library Workers, which became Starr’s next project. She remained YAAN’s sole “employee.” In the same way that blogs reflect the immediacy of the times in which we live, YAAN was very much a publication of its time. The 1970s were a dynamic and dramatic period in the development of young adult services in public libraries. Federal funding initiatives from the 1960s created opportunities for new buildings and collections, and the social upheaval that continued into the 1970s encouraged libraries to expand or create new services—among them more specific services and collections for teens. This funding and increased social awareness coincided with the first young adult literature “golden age,” when books such as A Hero Ain’t Nothin’ but a Sandwich (Childress, 1973), The Chocolate War (Cormier, 1974), and Forever (Blume, 1975) made their appearance. There was strong motivation to be socially conscious and public libraries, ever rooted in their communities and society at large, developed outreach services and collections that reflected a broader spectrum of the general population. Experimentation and reform was particularly welcome among young adult librarians, whose client group was actively pushing for change. According to Patty Campbell, teen librarians “were in sync with what was happening that decade. We were ‘with it,’ and we were looking at the kids to find that out” (P. Campbell, personal communication, May 25, 2009). Miriam Braverman, in her 1979 book, Youth, Society and the Public Library, indicated that YA librarians became “sensitive to the culture and concerns of youth, broke through the constraints of the ‘conventional wisdom’ in young adult work, and developed exciting and original programs and services” (p. ix). YA librarians scandalized fellow staff members by collecting films such as About Sex and Ninety-Nine Bottles of Beer, (Starr, 1975, p. 4) and circulating educational comic books about sexually transmitted diseases. Innovative programming from across the country included opportunities for teens to make films, discuss rock music, and learn about health issues (VD, acne, diet) and drug abuse. When I interviewed former YA librarian and noted booktalking expert Joni Bodart, she recalled conflict at her California library over water “couches”—they weren’t allowed to call them water ”beds” – in the teen rooms. As blogs have had to do, YA librarians also had to earn credibility while they celebrated their divergence from the mainstream. Bodart crowed, We started in the 60s, and in the 70s we were all outrageous and it was hard to convince average librarians that we were worth something … We were very proud of the fact that we were unconventional, that we were different, free (J. Bodart, personal communication, May 25, 2009). Mary K. Chelton noted that [t]hose of us who had not come out of children’s services … were desperate to free ourselves of the sort of hidebound excessive deference kind of crap you got in children’s … [they] wouldn’t know a real kid if they fell over them. They loved children’s literature and that was it, and it drove us crazy. No matter what we did we were always seen as irreverent non-deferential outcasts (M.K, Chelton, personal communication, June 4, 2009). YAAN’s publication was greeted with a swift and affirmative response. Editor Starr noted that the first issue generated an additional 300 names for her mailing list. San Diego YA librarian Nathalie Gushikuma gushed, “Isn’t it nice someone knows I exist?” She appreciated YAAN’s informal appearance and liked that “others have the same questions I do about YA work and are trying to get answers that we can all see” (Gushikuma, 1973, p. 7). Its message was heralded by reviews and recommendations in professional journals, both alternative and mainstream. In the 1976 joint issue of Booklegger Magazine and Emergency Librarian that focused on library education, Carole Leita listed YAAN among titles of the “library free press … a network of free-speaking library periodicals which you can use to keep in touch with reality—and hope.” Readers were encouraged to “take a walk on the wild side” (Leita, 1976, 24). Emergency Librarian, in another issue that same year, called YAAN “irresistible to those struggling in an attempt to serve YAs” (“Small Mags,” 1976, p. 24). Wilson Library Bulletin, a mainstream journal, called YAAN a “lively alternative … [a] peppy informative newsletter … written in good socko style” (“Librarians Monthly,” 1974, p. 356). Even Top of the News, the official journal of the Young Adult Services Division of ALA, whose job it was to publicize and support youth services, indicated that YAAN had already done more to generate ideas and reinvigorate the mutual supportiveness which has always characterized the YA field. It has also raised the expectations of many librarians who have felt the need for the newsletter on YA services, and who now hope that YAAN will not only continue to meet this need, but that it will also expand and become a forum for the debate of issues as well (Varlejs, 1974, p. 437). YAAN continued to inspire a new generation of YA librarians throughout its seven-year run. Mary K. Chelton used it as a resource in her YA service classes at Rutgers, and as a model for an internal newsletter in her day job with the Westchester County (New York) library system. YASD included YAAN in a 1976 packet of basic materials it marketed as the YASD Survival Kit. Professor Larry Amey, who along with his students created the Canadian publication, Young Adult Hot Line, declared that The Young Adult Alternative Newsletter (YAAN) pointed the way toward a new model for youth service … the yellow-colored, long-format newsletter was packed with descriptions of exemplary and original YA programs, tips for practicing librarians, and avant-garde advocacy for teens. YAAN was outspoken, hard-hitting, and committed. It was practically the only publication available in the field at the time, and it was eagerly read by subscribers across North America. YAAN provided the model for the newsletter I created … (Amey, 2002, p. x). YAAN was arguably one of the most important professional education tools in a young adult librarian’s arsenal. Diane Tuccillo calls YAAN a predecessor to modern blogs and Web sites, saying it was “one of the earliest forms of networking … a real foundation for what we ended up with now” (D. Tuccillo, personal communication, May 22, 2009). Its content was fresh and contemporary, timely and specific for a particular audience. Like today’s blogs, it was able to target a particular user group and successfully engage and motivate that group. In fact, one 1978 article identified YAAN readers as “the vanguard in young adult services” (Kingsbury, 1978, p. 22). According to Joni Bodart, “YAAN was ‘us’; all the others were ‘them’ … If something came up in YAAN, somebody was speaking the ‘real’ truth, he or she ‘knew where it was at’” (J. Bodart, personal communication, May 25, 2009). YAAN ceased publication on November 15, 1979, primarily because of a change in the editor’s interests. While Starr was doing YAAN, she also co-edited the Women Library Workers Newsletter with Carol Leita, and as we sometimes see in the blogosphere, she left her first ‘child’ – “with some sad feelings and a sense of needing a ‘new challenge’” (Starr, 1979, p. 1) – to focus on expanding her second. Another factor in her decision was her commitment to battling Proposition 13, which dealt a major blow to libraries in California in 1978. (For a quick snapshot of the effects of this tax law on libraries, check the California State Library’s assessment, done in 1979, which appears as an ERIC opinion paper.) Starr, who had moved from YA services to directing her own library, felt that from all of my young adult work, things that I’d been preaching about to my young adult librarians about going out and getting involved in the community … it was like, well, here was a different local thing and I needed to work on that (Starr, personal communication, January 22, 2005). She didn’t desert YA librarians, instead directing them to Voice of Youth Advocates (VOYA), created by Dorothy Broderick and Mary K. Chelton in 1978, noting that its appearance meant “the YA librarian will continue to have a publication devoted solely to YA needs” (Starr, 1979, p.1). Teen librarians practicing today are largely unaware of YAAN, in spite of the fact that much of the model of programming and services practiced today finds its roots in the 1960s and 1970s, and its energy in the pages of this publication. Part of the issue is that YAAN is difficult to find. According to WorldCat there are about twenty libraries in the world that admit having copies of YAAN, some of them probably only partial runs. I came across it in 2004 and was fortunate enough to interview Carol Starr in 2005. Out of the kindness of her heart she sent me the first five issues and I was hooked. There is some scholarly interest in it, so hopefully it will find its way into the digital world, where everyone can experience, in 1970s parlance, the ‘real thing.’ Starr, herself, is alive and well and still living in California, having retired from library work in 2007. As in the case of Shields, Smith, and Broderick, we may not know what is missing until it is shown to us. That’s my hope: that by exploring the history of the development of teen services in public libraries, and writing about it for all sorts of audiences, I can add value to the good work being done today. I also hope that by making connections between the past and present —as in the case of YAAN and its newer shinier cousin In the Library with the Lead Pipe—I’m helping to keep the history alive, demonstrating its relevance to today, and inspiring future generations of librarians to be the next history we write. This essay contains content previously published as “Dare to Disturb the Universe: Pushing YA Books and Library Services—with a Mimeograph Machine,” in the Winter 2010 Issue of The ALAN Review, and is reused with permission of NCTE, the publisher of The ALAN Review. Thanks to my on-site reviewer, Dr. Rachel Fleming-May, Assistant Professor at the University of Tennessee School of Information Sciences, and to Brett Bonfield for his initial interest and insightful reading of a draft of this article. Amey, L. (2002). Foreword, Hot, hotter, hottest: The best of the YA Hotline reprint V. Howard (Ed.). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2002. Bonfield, B. (2009). So you want to write about libraries. [Weblog entry.] In the Library with the Lead Pipe. December 2, 2009. (www.inthelibrarywiththeleadpipe.org/2009/so-you-want-to-write-about-libraries/) Accessed April 4, 2010. Braverman, M. (1979). Youth, society, and the public library. Chicago: American Library Association. Blume, J. (1975). Forever. New York: Bradbury Press. Chelton, M. K. (2007). Remembering YALSA: The view of “The oldest living YA librarian.” Young Adult Library Services 6(1), Fall 2007, 32-4. Childress, A. (1973). A hero ain’t nothin but a sandwich. New York: Coward, McCann & Geoghegan. 1973. Cormier, R. (1974). The chocolate war. New York: Knopf Books for Young Readers. Gushikuma, N. (1973). Letter to the editor, Young Adult Alternative Newsletter, April 1, 1973, 7. Kingsbury, M. E. (1978). Those who do … & those who teach. School Library Journal, 25(3), November 1978, 22-5. Leita, C. (1976). Liberated fronts. Booklegger Magazine 3(13), January/February 1976, and Emergency Librarian, 3(3), January/February 1976, 24-5. (Joint publication) Small Mags. (1976). [Column] Emergency Librarian 4(2), November/December 1976, 24. Starr, C. (1973). Young Adult Alterative Newsletter 1(1). 1973: 1. Starr, C. (1975). Selected films for young adults 1975. Young Adult Alternative Newsletter 3(2), March 15, 1975: 4. Starr, C. (1979). Young Adult Alternative Newsletter 7(4). 1979: 1. Varlejs, J. (1974). Young Adult Alternative Newsletter. Top of the News 30(4), June 1974, 436-7. Young Adult Services Division. (1977). Directions for Library Service to Young Adults. Chicago: American Library Association, 1977. Article printed from In the Library with the Lead Pipe: http://www.inthelibrarywiththeleadpipe.org URL to article: http://www.inthelibrarywiththeleadpipe.org/2010/making-connections-yaan-as-a-paper-blog/ This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial 3.0 United States License.

- In the Library with the Lead Pipe - http://www.inthelibrarywiththeleadpipe.org - Making Connections: YAAN as a Paper Blog? Posted By Cindy Welch On April 14, 2010 @ 6:00 am In Uncategorized | Comments Disabled Brooke Shields is a descendant of Louis XIV; Emmett Smith is seven percent Native American; and Matthew Broderick’s ancestor fought at Gettysburg. We learn these things courtesy of a new t

|Table of Contents | Words: Alphabetical - Frequency - Inverse - Length - Statistics | Help | IntraText Library| Code of Canon Law IntraText CT - Text §3 All Christ's faithful, especially those who in any way take part in the management or use of the media, are to be diligent in assisting pastoral action, so that the Church can more effectively exercise its office through these means. Can. 823 §1 In order to safeguard the integrity of faith and morals, pastors of the Church have the duty and the right to ensure that in writings or in the use of the means of social communication there should be no ill effect on the faith and morals of Christ's faithful. They also have the duty and the right to demand that where writings of the faithful touch upon matters of faith and morals, these be submitted to their judgement. Moreover, they have the duty and the right to condemn writings which harm true faith or good morals. §2 For Christ's faithful entrusted to their care, the duty and the right mentioned in §1 belong to the Bishops, both as individuals and in particular councils or Episcopal Conferences; for the whole people of God, they belong to the supreme authority in the Church. Can. 824 §1 Unless it is otherwise provided, the local Ordinary whose permission or approval for publishing a book is to be sought according to the canons of this title, is the author's proper local Ordinary, or the Ordinary of the place in which the book is published. Can. 825 §1 Books of the sacred Scriptures may not be published unless they are approved by the Apostolic See or the Episcopal Conference. The publication of translations of the sacred Scriptures requires the approval of the same authority, and they must have necessary and sufficient explanatory notes. §2 With the permission of the Episcopal Conference, catholic members of Christ's faithful, in cooperation with separated brethren, may prepare and publish versions of the Scriptures, with appropriate explanatory notes. §2 To republish liturgical books or to publish translations of all or part of them, it must be established, by an attestation of the Ordinary of the place in which they are published, that they accord with an approved edition. Can. 827 §1 Without prejudice to the provisions of can. 775 §2, the publication of catechisms and other writings pertaining to catechetical formation, as well as their translations, requires the approval of the local Ordinary. §2 Books dealing with matters concerning sacred Scripture, theology, canon law, church history, or religious or moral subjects may not be used as textbooks on which the instruction is based, in elementary, intermediate or higher schools, unless they were published with the approbation of the competent ecclesiastical authority or were subsequently approved by that authority. §3 It is recommended that books dealing with the subjects mentioned in §2, even though not used as basic textbooks, and any writings which specially concern religion or good morals, be submitted to the judgement of the local Ordinary. §4 Books or other written material dealing with religion or morals may not be displayed, sold or given away in churches or oratories, unless they were published with the permission of the competent ecclesiastical authority or were subsequently approved by that authority. Can. 828 Collections of decrees or acts published by any ecclesiastical authority may not be republished without first seeking the permission of the same authority and observing the conditions which it lays down. Can. 830 §1 Every local Ordinary retains the right to appoint persons whom he considers competent to give a judgement about books. The Episcopal Conference, however, may draw up a list of censors who are outstanding for their knowledge, right doctrine and prudence, to be available to diocesan curias; it may even establish a commission of censors whom the local Ordinary can consult. §3 The censor must give an opinion in writing. If it is favourable, the Ordinary may, in his prudent judgement, give his permission for the work to be published, adding his own name and the date and place of the permission. If he does not give this permission, the Ordinary must inform the author of the reasons for the refusal. Can. 831 §1 Unless there is a just and reasonable cause, no member of Christ's faithful may write in newspapers, pamphlets or periodicals which clearly are accustomed to attack the catholic religion or good morals. Clerics and members of religious institutes may write in them only with the permission of the local Ordinary. §2 It is for the Episcopal Conference to lay down norms determining the requirements for clerics and members of religious institutes to take part in radio and television programmes which concern catholic doctrine or morals. Table of Contents | Words: Alphabetical - Frequency - Inverse - Length - Statistics | Help | IntraText Library Best viewed with any browser at 800x600 or 768x1024 on Tablet PC IntraText® (V89) - Some rights reserved by Èulogos SpA - 1996-2007. Content in this page is licensed under a Creative Commons License

|Table of Contents | Words: Alphabetical - Frequency - Inverse - Length - Statistics | Help | IntraText Library| Code of Canon Law IntraText CT - Text §3 All Christ's faithful, especially those who in any way take part in the management or use of the media, are to be diligent in assisting pastoral action, so that the Church can more effectively exercise its office through these means. Can. 823 §1

04 Aug 2010 The Implications of the Fayyad-Plan The International Community has paid lip service to the Fayyad-Plan but has so far shied away from integrating it properly into the Middle East peace process, Andrin Hauri comments for ISN Security Watch. By Andrin Hauri for ISN Security Watch With the security situation in the West Bank improving, Benjamin Netanyahu promoted the idea of an “economic peace” with the Palestinians during the last Israeli parliamentary election in 2008 and again in his foreign policy speech to the nation in June 2009, arguing that economics, not politics, is the key to peace. Underlying this talk is the logic that “economic peace will support and bolster the achievement of political settlements down the line.” For Netanyahu, this was a convenient way of avoiding more contentious issues such as final borders or the status of Jerusalem, which in turn was a necessity for him to be able to form the current Israeli government coalition with the participation of Shas and Yisrael Beiteinu. No tough choices would have to be made in the short- and medium-term as long as economic development in the West Bank was considered the way forward to peace. Confronted with these realities and reflecting on the experiences of 20 years of negotiations without an end, the PA have adapted their strategy and begun to pursue other roads besides the ongoing US-brokered indirect ‘proximity talks’ between Israel and the PA. On the one hand, the PA have started to back non-violent initiatives aimed against Israel by the re-emerging, politicized Palestinian civil society in the West Bank, such as boycotts of settlement products. On the other hand, the Palestinians have turned towards the international stage, and in autumn 2009 floated the idea of a UN Security Council resolution which would either outline a final settlement or recognize a Palestinian state within the 1967 borders. Part of these efforts by the PA to pursue its cause on the international stage is the so-called Fayyad-Plan, named after its promoter, Palestinian Prime Minister Salam Fayyad, which was published in August 2009. This ambitious 65-page plan envisions the establishment of a de facto Palestinian state by August 2011 through the creation of new and the improvement of existing government institutions and the reinforcement of the economic, social and security foundations of the PA. Amongst other things, it calls for an international airport in the Jordan Valley, new rail links to neighboring states, a unified tax and social security system, and a generous tax regime for foreign investors. By making the governmental institutions more efficient and promoting the private sector, the plan intends to develop a PA government less dependent on external aid and a Palestinian economy independent from Israel. With its focus on economics, it mirrors to a certain degree Netanyahu’s call for bottom-up peace-making through economic development. However, the rationale behind the Fayyad-Plan is twofold. Firstly, it is supposed to demonstrate to the international community that the Palestinians follow its rules, indicating that in return it is expected to do its part when the moment comes. It also aims at falsifying claims by the Israeli right that the Palestinians are not ready to establish a state, or that the PA does not constitute a reliable and active partner for a political settlement. Secondly, it provides the PA with an alternative means of unilaterally advancing Palestinian interests should negotiations with Israel lead nowhere. Even limited success of the plan could enable the Palestinian side to portray Israel to the rest of the world as an unaccommodating country that continues to employ the jaded argument of security in order to deny the Palestinians a state. In theory, the creation of an integrated Palestinian economy and a transparent government backed by a professional and effective security force will allow the PA to press its case more strongly on the global level, take the PA deeper into international organizations, and thus could potentially make it impossible for Israel to deny Palestinians an independent state in the West Bank. The proactive, unilateral creation of facts on the ground by the PA and the underlying strategy “to end the occupation, despite the occupation” marks an important departure from the Palestinian policy of the last 20 years and the old western credo that negotiations in themselves already constitute progress. By trying to create a de facto state, and hence pressuring the international community to live up to its commitment to a two-state solution, Fayyadism intends to achieve a de jure Palestinian state through recognition by the international community, hinting at the possibility of sidelining the negotiations with Israel should no progress be made. Thus this allegedly non-political plan for economic development and good governance in the PA territories, with its clear deadline, has in fact the potential to change the very dynamics of the deadlocked peace process should it be genuinely supported by the US and the EU. In the Israeli reading, the plan is at odds with the history of Israeli-PA relations and the paradigm of reaching a settlement through negotiations and reciprocal steps. However, as the Israeli right is unified in its perception of the plan as a legal, political and security threat to Israel, with Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman categorically ruling out the “chance of reaching a Palestinian state before 2012”, others, most prominently Defense Minister Ehud Barak from Labour, see in it an important opportunity. For obvious reasons, economic peace proponent Netanyahu has thus far voiced only cautious criticism, arguing that any unilateral steps by the PA will entail unilateral steps by Israel. This is important insofar as any meaningful progress of the Fayyad-Plan ultimately depends on the cooperation of the occupying power Israel. The US stance on the matter is somewhat ambiguous. Officially, the White House still banks on direct negotiations and warns against unilateral steps from either side. Yet, since the split of Hamas and Fatah in 2007, the US has heavily bet on a ‘West Bank first’ approach in its support of the Palestinians. It seems it is largely US pressure on the Israeli government to improve the daily life of Palestinians in the West Bank through the removal of checkpoints, etc. that has enabled the, albeit very limited, success of the Fayyad-Plan so far. Furthermore, Fayyad, a technocrat with no significant political base, also appears to have gained a reputation as a harbinger of peace in the West due to his efforts, thereby becoming the desired candidate of the US for PA presidency in the post-Abbas phase. Astoundingly, the Middle East Quartet (MEQ) - consisting of the US, Russia, the EU and the UN - the position of which is traditionally strongly shaped by Washington, goes out of its way to back the Fayyad-Plan. On 19 March this year, the Quartet stated that it “continues to support the PA’s plan of August 2009 for building the Palestinian state within 24 months” and fully endorses “the efforts of the Quartet Representative in support of Prime Minister Fayyad’s state-building and economic development program.” However, the Quartet has so far left open how it intends to move forward after the 24-month deadline has expired should Fayyad’s efforts prove successful. The EU, as the largest donor of the PA and the traditional key sponsor of economic development in the Palestinian Territories, also backs Fayyad’s plan as it gives Brussels the chance to demand political improvement from both sides and generally enhances its role in the peace process. However, given the very different stances on and interests in the peace process of the 27 EU member states, it seems not all have understood how contentious the plan at hand could be should it receive genuine support from the EU. Such credible backing would necessitate EU action against the impediments which prevent an end to the occupation somewhere down the line - most likely a step not all EU states are actually ready to take. The main stumbling block for economic development in the West Bank is the presence of Israeli settlements. The control of over 42 percent of West Bank land by them and the restrictions their existence imposes on the Palestinians makes sustainable development through Fayyadism almost impossible. Without pressure from the outside, it is rather unlikely that the current Israeli government will shift its position on this issue. Thus, the MEQ needs to clarify whether it genuinely supports Fayyad’s plan for state-building. If so, public US backing for it has to be secured and the MEQ must integrate it into the framework of the peace process through a comprehensive strategy. With the MEQ no longer insisting on strict reciprocity in the fulfilment of the Roadmap, the Fayyad-Plan with its clear deadlines could, for example, be incorporated into the MEQ’s 2003 plan or become part of an eventual renewed US peace initiative. The MEQ would also have to openly state where it ultimately intends to go with this plan once its deadline has expired - not only if it proves successful but also should it fail. Finally, the Israeli government and public must decide whether they want to stop at a fragile economic peace or truly pursue a two-state solution with the tough decisions the latter entails. Whether the current Israeli government coalition would survive such a pursuit remains to be seen. However, as the door for a two-state solution is quickly closing, the peace process may not be able to afford the luxury of another missed opportunity. Andrin Hauri is a research assistant for the Center for Security Studies, ETH Zurich. He holds a master’s of philosophy in political science from the University of Lausanne. The views and opinions expressed herein are those of the author only, not the International Relations and Security Network (ISN). Creative Commons - Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 Unported

04 Aug 2010 The Implications of the Fayyad-Plan The International Community has paid lip service to the Fayyad-Plan but has so far shied away from integrating it properly into the Middle East peace process, Andrin Hauri comments for ISN Security Watch. By Andrin Hauri for ISN Security Watch With the security situation in the West Bank improving, Benjamin Netanyahu promoted the idea of an “economic

The Municipal Art Gallery strives to both promote and encourage contemporary artists and to create a place where everyone can enjoy American and Mississippi art for what it is: a true reflection of our people and our lifestyles. Our Goal Our goal at the Gallery is to provide a place where artists can exhibit their work and to be a stepping stone for emerging artists.Gallery Information The Gallery, originally built in the 1860's as the stately home of John and Sarah Ligon, stands today as one of the oldest surviving historical structures in Jackson. As the Municipal Art Gallery, it has become a cultural focal point for local artists and attracts 20,000 visitors to the downtown area every year. The permanent art collection includes art works by Karl and Mildred Wolfe, Andrew Bucci, William Hollingsworth, and Marie Hull, to name a few. Different visiting art exhibits are displayed each month. Contact the Art Gallery for the exhibit on display during any given month. Tuesday - Saturday, 9:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m. Closed MondaysAdmission is free. For more information call: 601-960-1582

The Municipal Art Gallery strives to both promote and encourage contemporary artists and to create a place where everyone can enjoy American and Mississippi art for what it is: a true reflection of our people and our lifestyles. Our Goal Our goal at the Gallery is to provide a place where artists can exhibit their work and to be a stepping stone for emerging artists.Gallery Information The Gallery

Ananda Alert Making StridesAugust 4, 2009 The Ananda Alert programme is making strides in reuniting missing children with their families. Of the 82 children, who were reported missing from their homes since the programme's launch in May, 44 have been successfully reunited with their families. The number includes 14 teenagers, who had gone missing during the months of February, April and July 2009. Alert System for Missing Children LaunchedMay 20, 2009 The Ananda Alert System, Jamaica's response to reports of missing children, was officially launched today (May 19), at a ceremony held at the Office of the Prime Minister in Kingston. Minister of State in the Office of the Prime Minister, with responsibility for Local Government Hon. Robert Montague, explained that the Ananda Alert System is triggered when a child goes missing and a call is made to the police. Government to Get Assistance from Microsoft Corporation for Ananda Alert ProjectMay 19, 2009 Microsoft Corporation will be providing Jamaica with the software called the Child Abducting Tracking System - CATS, which is used by major police forces worldwide to help track missing children. This was disclosed by Minister of State who has responsibility for the Department of Local Government in the Office of the Prime Minister, Hon. Bobby Montague. The software valued at an estimated J$18-million (US$200,000) provides data that links all police forces throughout the world and will allow Jamaica to tap into that source to access information that will assist in the search when a child goes missing. Microsoft will also provide training for members of the Jamaica police force and will be responsible for upgrading the equipment. Curfew for School Children in Uniform Proposed Under Ananda Alert SystemFebruary 25, 2009 A draft document on a curfew for school children in uniform, under the Ananda Alert System, has been developed by the Office of the Prime Minister (OPM). The proposals were introduced at a meeting on Ananda Alert, at the office of the Department of Local Government, Hagley Park Road, Kingston, yesterday (Feb 23) by Civil Military Cooperation Officer at the Jamaica Defence Force (JDF), Major Charlene Steer, who chaired the sub-committee on the curfew proposals. No Evidence of Ring Committing Rapes and Abductions - LewinNovember 11, 2008 Commissioner of Police, Rear Admiral Hardley Lewin, has said that there is no evidence to suggest that there is an organised ring committing rapes and abductions. The Commissioner, who was addressing the 21st annual conference of the Neighbourhood Watch Council held on (Nov. 8), at Kendal Camp and Conference Centre in Manchester, said that persons should be careful how they pass on information regarding recent incidents. He warned that irresponsible persons can cause serious harm if they create hysteria. PM Golding Appeals for Calm and Announces Action Plan to Deal With Reports of AbductionNovember 10, 2008 Prime Minister, Bruce Golding, is reassuring the country that the security forces have stepped up their vigilance and investigations into reports of abduction of children from a number of schools around the island. He is calling on citizens to remain calm. JIS Community Meetings Addressing Child Safety and SecurityNovember 10, 2008 The Jamaica Information Service (JIS) has embarked on a month-long series of community meetings aimed at heightening awareness of child safety and security, particularly in rural areas. The first meeting took place at the Miracle Ministry Full Gospel Mission Church in Nutts River rural St.Thomas on Thursday, November 6 and was done in collaboration with the Social Development Commission. PBCJ to Start Five-Minute Programme on Missing PersonsNovember 10, 2008 The Public Broadcasting Corporation of Jamaica (PBCJ) will shortly develop a five- minute programme on missing persons in Jamaica as a means of educating the public about abductions. "On the PBCJ we currently have a show on missing persons called 'Missing' which is approximately 15 to 20 minutes long. What we plan to do is cut it down to about five minutes so that this way we can get a little more exposure from it. We will of course be distributing this to all the other TV stations, print media and whoever else that would have the opportunity to use it. Once we get the programme out there people will put faces to the names," Chief Executive Officer of the PBCJ, Leighton Thomas, informed JIS News. Govt. to Double Efforts to Deal with Abductions - Senator NewbyNovember 05, 2008 Parliamentary Secretary in the Ministry of Information, Culture, Youth and Sports, Senator Warren Newby, is assuring Jamaicans that the Government would be doubling its efforts, to address the spate of abductions and attacks on the nation's women and children. "We are committed to carrying out a multifaceted approach that will bring about a solution. The Prime Minister has put together a Task Force to look at different aspects of child safety and the recommendations that have come forward from them. Our own Ministry has been given a number of initiatives that we should undertake and among them is sensitisation, not only of communities, but of our youth," he informed. Abduction Alert System to be Launched in NovemberOctober 25, 2008 Minister of State with responsibility for Local Government Reform in the Office of the Prime Minister, Robert Montague, has informed that he would be working with various stakeholders to establish an islandwide child-abduction alert system. The system, which is to be launched during Local Government Month (November), will be spearheaded by the Department of Local Government in the Office of the Prime Minister, in conjunction with the Association of Local Government Authorities (ALGA), which is the representative body for the island's 14 Local Government Authorities, and the Jamaica Constabulary Force (JCF). Minister Grange Makes Renewed Plea to Nation to Protect the ChildrenOctober 23, 2008 The Honourable Olivia "Babsy" Grange, Minister of Information, Culture, Youth and Sports, is appealing to members of the society to get involved and become proactive in the fight to protect the children. Addressing the Caribbean Child Research Conference at the Jamaica Pegasus yesterday (October 21) Minister Grange said that "no matter what we do as Government, and at conferences such as these, the society itself has to play the larger role."

Ananda Alert Making StridesAugust 4, 2009 The Ananda Alert programme is making strides in reuniting missing children with their families. Of the 82 children, who were reported missing from their homes since the programme's launch in May, 44 have been successfully reunited with their families. The number includes 14 teenagers, who had gone missing during the months of February, April and July 2009.

- Core Services - Online Services - Contact Us Through its permanent exhibitions, this museum specializes in the historical theme and history of Labuan. The lower-storey historical theme will consist of the six-stage transition period beginning from the pre-historic era and the Brunei Sultanage through the declaration of Labuan as a Federal Territory and an International Offshore Financial Center (IOFC). The cultural theme for the upper-storey exhibitions will exhibit the socio-cultural aspects and socio-economy of the local society through six galleries each representing the Bruneian Malays, Kadayan, Cina, Kadazan-dusun, Indians and Sikh. Among the focal points are people migration history, prominent individuals as well as the the theme and cultural artifacts through the concept of harmony in a multi-racial society. View Muzium Labuan in a larger map Labuan Museum, Jabatan Muzium Malaysia Wilayah Labuan, U 0364, Jalan Dewan, 87008 Wilayah Persekutuan Labuan. Person Incharge:Sitti Rabia binti Abd Rahman

- Core Services - Online Services - Contact Us Through its permanent exhibitions, this museum specializes in the historical theme and history of Labuan. The lower-storey historical theme will consist of the six-stage transition period beginning from the pre-historic era and the Brunei Sultanage through the declaration of Labuan as a Federal Territory and an International Offshore Financial Center

It’s an honor and a pleasure to be here with all of you today to mark the 30th anniversary of Plyler v. Doe, the U.S. Supreme Court’s historic decision making clear that all children, regardless of their immigration status, must be made welcome in our nation’s schools. I want to thank the ACLU for organizing this symposium, and Laura Murphy for the gracious welcome. At the Civil Rights Division, we work to break down the barriers that keep so many from fully participating in American life - in the voting booth, the workplace, and of course, in the classroom. For the past three decades, Plyler has kept the door to opportunity open for millions of children across America. Plyler has stood for the proposition that public schools serve all children in this country, no matter where they were born. Plyler has represented the promise that the American dream should be accessible to all. Plyler reflects the deeply American notion that all young people deserve the chance to advance as far as their hard work and talent can carry them. Every day, we hear about and work with students who, thanks to Plyler, are able to complete elementary and high school; who, without the benefit of financial aid, find a way to get a college degree, and who push on to fulfill a dream of becoming an architect, teacher or even a lawyer. These students are daily beneficiaries of Plyler, and their achievements are an inspiring example of why its holding is so critical. Just over one year ago, together with our partners at the Department of Education, we issued guidance on the right of all students to enroll in school regardless of their or their parents’ immigration status. The guidance reminded schools of their obligations under Plyler and federal civil rights laws more generally and made clear that: We issued the Plyler guidance to help schools meet these obligations – because it’s the law, and because there’s so much at stake. No one benefits when a child is kept out of the classroom. The cost to that child, and to all of us, is just too great. Three decades ago, the Plyler court noted the folly of depriving innocent children of the basic tools to contribute to society: “By denying these children a basic education,” the court said, “we deny them the ability to live within the structure of our civic institutions, and foreclose any realistic possibility that they will contribute in even the smallest way to the progress of our Nation.” Thirty years later, countless children have benefited from the Plyler decision, receiving an education and with it, a chance at a better life. Indeed, throughout this country, we see the promise of Plyler borne out. We see young people graduating from high school and reaping many of the benefits that come with a high school diploma. We see students pursuing their dreams of college and beyond, despite sometimes daunting obstacles. Because of Plyler, these young people are getting the opportunity to advance based on their individual merit – the essence of the American dream. The benefits of Plyler are felt by all of us, wherever we or our ancestors were born. Three decades after Plyler, immigrant students have made and continue to make vast and deep contributions to America’s cultural, civic, and economic landscape. Studies show that over time, the economic contributions of children of immigrants – who enter the labor force and pay far more in taxes than they receive in benefits – are on par with those of their classmates. In the schools, these children and their classmates reap the documented benefits of a diverse school environment. All over the country, we see immigrant children and their families contributing richly to their schools and the cultural, social, and economic fabric of this country. Thirty years after Plyler, the wisdom and moral strength of its holding are clearer than ever. Undocumented children and c hildren from immigrant families, however, continue to face barriers to enrolling in, and attending, school. For example, in 2011, Alabama passed a law known as H.B. 56, and in doing so, placed a road block at the school house door. H.B. 56 is Alabama’s immigration law – a law that, among other things, directly targets students by requiring schools to verify the immigration status of enrolling children and their parents. Right after H.B. 56 went into effect, the Civil Rights Division had boots on the ground. I attended a town hall meeting at an Alabama elementary school. There, I listened to parents, students and teachers share the deep and immediate impact H.B. 56 had on their lives. In Birmingham, which occupies a central place in the history of the civil rights movement, I heard from a diverse group of civil rights, faith and education leaders who were unified in condemning the effect of H.B. 56 on Alabama’s schoolchildren. We sought data on enrollment and attendance from the Alabama State Department of Education to get a more systemic sense of the impact of H.B. 56. Just last month, we shared our review with the state. While H.B. 56 was only in effect for a short time before being enjoined by the courts, the data revealed that the law had a major and lasting impact on Alabama’s schoolchildren, particularly Hispanic students and English Language Learners. Absences among Alabama’s Hispanic students tripled after the immigration law went into effect, while staying flat for other groups of students. Withdrawals of Hispanic children also spiked when compared with previous years, with more than 13 percent of the state’s Hispanic students withdrawing between the beginning of the school year and February 2012. Our conversations with students and parents underscored the dramatic picture painted by the state’s data. Students told us they stayed home or withdrew from school out of fear that they or their parents would be questioned about their immigration status. Others returned to school but told us they couldn’t concentrate in class and that they no longer felt safe and welcome in their classrooms. Parents told us about watching their honors students’ grades drop in the aftermath of H.B. 56. We also met with Alabama teachers and administrators -- educators who know just how much every school day counts in the life of a student. They are deeply committed to keeping students engaged, to getting parents involved, and to promoting inclusive environments at school. They felt that H.B. 56 has frustrated their efforts. And they told us about the tremendous time spent and the emotional toll of comforting children whose schoolmates have disappeared from the classrooms. We will continue to closely watch and respond to the developments in Alabama as well as in any other states where students’ access to education is curtailed. Alabama presents a dramatic challenge to the goals and values of Plyler, but across the country we see the persistence of barriers that limit educational opportunities. At the Civil Rights Division, these are challenges that we are working to address. In the year since we issued the Plyler guidance, we have provided technical assistance to schools about their responsibility to enroll students regardless of their immigration status. We have investigated complaints about schools that have requested social security numbers from students and/or parents, thereby discouraging - if not directly prohibiting - many undocumented students from coming to school. We have also investigated complaints that schools have not made their registration procedures accessible to parents who have limited proficiency in English. These are the day-to-day barriers that immigrant students face as they try to receive an education and start down the path of a better future. Our efforts to remove these barriers continue in districts throughout this country. For example, in states like North Carolina and Kentucky, we have worked with schools to revise enrollment policies and remove requirements that students produce social security numbers. In the Palm Beach County, Fla. School District, we have worked to ensure that the district’s requirements for proving residency do not create barriers for immigrant students, and that policies and forms are translated for parents who are not proficient in English. These districts are taking proactive steps to make sure that students and their families are welcomed in school, regardless of background. To fully realize the goals and the promise of Plyler, we must do even more as a nation. We must come together in honor of the young men and women who were not yet citizens of the U.S. yet risked – and lost - their lives in the Iraq war. They fought and died for their country before they were allowed to call it their own. For those young people who hope to continue on to college, or to bravely serve our nation in the armed forces, we must continue to break down barriers. The President has spoken about the simple justice and common sense of the DREAM Act. The DREAM Act would provide a path to citizenship for immigrant students who aspire to higher education, or who serve with valor in the U.S. military. These talented young people truly represent the best of what America has to offer. More than anything, they want to pursue their dreams and contribute to this country, a country that they know and love as their own. Passing the DREAM Act, and passing comprehensive immigration reform to fix our broken immigration system, will bring us closer to the ultimate value that underlies the Plyler decision -- that every child should have the chance to succeed to the very limits of his or her talent and ambition. Plyler represents the best of our collective ideals as a nation. Those ideals of equality, justice, and fairness are central to the mission of the Civil Rights Division. Although countless children – and our country as a whole – have directly benefited from Plyler’s holding, the past year has shown us that we still have far to travel. At the Civil Rights Division, we will continue to use all tools at our disposal to fulfill the promise of Plyler, and to keep the schoolhouse door open to all.

It’s an honor and a pleasure to be here with all of you today to mark the 30th anniversary of Plyler v. Doe, the U.S. Supreme Court’s historic decision making clear that all children, regardless of their immigration status, must be made welcome in our nation’s schools. I want to thank the ACLU for organizing this symposium, and Laura Murphy for the gracious welcome. At the Civil Rights Division, w

The oxygen-producing Elektron in of the International Space Station was restarted today after a troubleshooting procedure by Expedition 9 Commander Gennady Padalka, but shut down again after operating for just over an hour. Russian specialists decided to forego further troubleshooting until Monday to give them more time to determine why a gas analysis mechanism in the system commanded the Elektron to shut down two other times after Padalka had cleaned and flushed lines in the device. Despite the intermittent performance of the Elektron, there is plenty of oxygen in the Station’s cabin atmosphere. U.S. flight controllers slightly increased nitrogen levels on board with nitrogen from the Quest airlock tanks, but no further repressurization of the cabin atmosphere is required in the near future. The Elektron’s temporary shutdown has no impact to any Station operations. After several hours of work on the system in the Zvezda Service Module this morning, Padalka told Russian flight controllers that the reassembled Elektron, which separates water into oxygen for the Station and hydrogen that is vented overboard, had twice run for about five minutes before shutting down. Eventually, Padalka and flight controllers disabled an Elektron gas analyzer sensor system, and the device continued to operate for just over an hour before it commanded itself to shut off again. The Elektron originally shut down on Wednesday, prompting Padalka’s maintenance work. At the moment, Russian flight controllers believe that a modification in the software that regulates commanding for the gas analyzer could fix the problem early next week. On Wednesday, Padalka used spare parts sent up on a Russian Progress resupply ship last May to bring a spare liquids unit for the Elektron back to operational status. There are no plans to use the backup unit at the moment, but it is available, if needed. The Progress currently docked to the Station has full oxygen and air tanks and additional oxygen is available in two high-pressure tanks on Quest, if they are needed. A total of 84 Solid Fuel Oxygen Generator canisters, a 42-day supply of oxygen for the crew, also are available, but there are no plans to use any reserve oxygen supplies. Earlier in the week, Padalka and NASA ISS Science Officer Mike Fincke conducted routine housekeeping tasks and a few post-spacewalk tasks, including the stowage of spacewalking tools and the servicing of the Russian Orlan space suits. Fincke also conducted optional science activities, including some remaining data takes with a Dutch experiment that helps to characterize the performance of a grooved heat pipe in microgravity. The experiment was brought up to the Station by European Space Agency astronaut Andre Kuipers in April. Both crewmembers worked with other science and medical experiments this week. Padalka conducted the PLANTS experiment as well as the PROFILAKTIKA experiment. It is designed to study countermeasures to negative physiological effects of lengthy spaceflight. Fincke also performed proficiency training for the Advanced Diagnostic Ultrasound in Microgravity medical experiment and on Thursday, both crewmembers participated in a bone scanning procedure. That research will not only assist with onboard medical situations but is being developed for possible use in remote areas on Earth. Padalka and Fincke wrapped up their week with a televised conversation with Native American students at the United Tribes Technical College in Bismarck, ND. It was the featured event during the 35th Annual United Tribes International Powwow. NASA representatives from the Johnson Space Center and the Langley Research Center attended the powwow and tribal meetings to promote NASA education and Explorer Schools. Padalka and NASA ISS Science Officer Mike Fincke completed their 145th day in space today and their 143rd day aboard the complex. For information on the crew's activities aboard the Space Station, future launch dates, as well as a list of opportunities to see the Station from anywhere on the Earth, visit: For details on Station science operations provided by the Payload Operations Center at NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, Ala., visit: The next ISS status report will be issued on Friday, Sept. 17 or earlier, if events warrant. - end -

The oxygen-producing Elektron in of the International Space Station was restarted today after a troubleshooting procedure by Expedition 9 Commander Gennady Padalka, but shut down again after operating for just over an hour. Russian specialists decided to forego further troubleshooting until Monday to give them more time to determine why a gas analysis mechanism in the system commanded the Elektron

NASA Updates Media On Shuttle Implementation Plan April 30 Allard Beutel | Johnson Space Center, Houston April 27, 2004 |NOTE TO EDITORS: The latest version of "NASA's Implementation Plan for Space Shuttle Return to Flight and Beyond" will be released publicly Friday morning, followed by a media telephone conference in the afternoon. The plan and the teleconference will outline the agency's progress in safely returning Space Shuttles to flight. The updated Space Shuttle implementation plan will be available April 30 at 9 a.m. EDT on NASA's Return to Flight Internet web site at: http://www.nasa.gov/news/highlights/returntoflight.html The media teleconference will follow at 3 p.m. EDT. The participants will be Wayne Hale, Space Shuttle Program deputy manager and John Casper, deputy of the Return to Flight Planning Team and manager of the Space Shuttle Program Management Integration and Planning Office. News media who want to be included in the teleconference should call the NASA Johnson Space Center Newsroom at 281/483-5111 by Noon EDT Friday April 30. Media representatives who do not want to ask questions can use NASA's "monitor only" phone lines: 321/867-1220/1240/1260. - end - text-only version of this release NASA press releases and other information are available automatically by sending a blank e-mail message to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this mailing list, send a blank e-mail message to [email protected]. Back to NASA Newsroom | Back to NASA Homepage

NASA Updates Media On Shuttle Implementation Plan April 30 Allard Beutel | Johnson Space Center, Houston April 27, 2004 |NOTE TO EDITORS: The latest version of "NASA's Implementation Plan for Space Shuttle Return to Flight and Beyond" will be released publicly Friday morning, followed by a media telephone conference in the afternoon. The plan and the teleconference will outline the agency's progre

Packaging and Labeling The Fair Packaging and Labeling Act (FPLA) and other Federal laws and regulations govern the labeling requirements for most consumer products; however, many products fall only under state laws. Fair Packaging and Labeling Act (FPLA) The FPLA relates only to the net quantity of contents information on packages, goods, or commodities that are sold on the basis of weight or measure (i.e., it does not apply to such products as electronic or industrial equipment that have contents sold by the quantity of their contents and appliances). Labeling requirements for packaged goods are applied to packages based on who will be the ultimate consumer. There are two classifications of products: one class is “consumer” packages that are intended for sale in retail stores, such as food or department stores. The other class is “non-consumer” packages that are intended for sale in wholesale trade, such as by a manufacturer who packages 25 kilogram bags of chemicals for sale to another manufacturer for use in producing another product. The FPLA requirements are not applicable to all packaged goods. The FPLA was amended in 1992 to require that metric (SI) units be displayed on packages to familiarize consumers with metric units so that they could learn to equate familiar quantities to the metric units of measure. Some manufacturers have included metric units on package labels for more than 30 years. The metric units have proven informative and have helped consumers learn to relate metric quantities to the equivalent inch-pound quantities. Metric Labeling in the U.S. Marketplace In an effort to characterize current U.S. marketplace labeling practices, the net quantity of contents statement labeling of at least 1137 packages was examined in 19 retail stores, including those that sell food, home and personal care products, hobby and arts and crafts products, automotive, hardware, office products, and pet supplies. The assessment found that retailers across the United States are selling both domestically packaged and imported products labeled with only metric units in the net quantity of content statement. Of those packages examined, 17 % declared the net quantity of contents in only metric units. Almost 57.5 % of those metric packages were found to be noncompliant with current FPLA dual labeling requirements. The majority of the parties responsible for manufacturing or distributing 61 % of the metric products were U.S. companies. Metric packages are present in the U.S. marketplace and consumer exposure to metric packaging is growing as demonstrated by their availability in a broad range of retail stores. Marketplace Assessment - Metric Labeling on Packages in Retail Stores Proposal to Amend the FPLA for Permissible Metric Labeling Proposed FPLA amendments would give U.S. manufacturers and packagers greater flexibility to provide labeling information that meets the needs of their diverse consumers, allowing them to label their products with either metric units or with both metric and inch-pound units. The proposed amendments do not to apply to unit pricing, advertising, recipes, nutrition labeling, other general pricing information, or require changes in package sizes. Voluntary Metric Labeling 2002 Letter: New Zealand, Ministry of Consumer Affairs Uniform Packaging and Labeling Regulation (UPLR) The National Conference on Weights and Measures (NCWM) has eliminated barriers to the use of metric units in trade and commerce in all of its model laws and regulations so that the marketplace is free to use metric (SI) units when consumers and business decide to change. Since January 1, 2000, the Uniform Packaging and Labeling Regulation (UPLR, NIST HB 130 - 2013) has allowed metric net quantity declarations on consumer packages not subject to Federal regulations. The UPLR has allowed metric labeling on non-consumer packages (those packages marked for wholesale and industrial trade) for more than 20 years. Today, under state and local laws, all scales, gas pumps and other weighing and measuring instruments used in trade and commerce can be calibrated to weigh or measure using the SI. Also, unit pricing for products sold by weight can be by the price per kilogram or price per 100 grams (e.g., if a product costs $7.69 per pound its unit price in metric units would be shown as $16.95 per kilogram or $1.69 per 100 grams). NIST has developed Special Publication 1020 Labeling Guides to aid packagers, label designers, manufacturers and others in understanding the method of sale and labeling requirements under the UPLR in NIST HB 130 - 2013, which is the basis for the labeling regulations in most states. Each guide provides examples of how to correctly label packages in both metric and inch-pound by weight, measure (e.g., length, width, thickness and area), fluid volume, dry volume, and count. 2002 Presentation: National Conference of Weights and Measures (NCWM) - Metric in the Marketplace By selecting these links, you will be leaving NIST website. We have provided these links to other web sites because they may have information that would be of interest to you. No inferences should be drawn on account of other sites being referenced, or not, from this page. There may be other web sites that are more appropriate for your purpose. NIST does not necessarily endorse the views expressed, or concur with the facts presented on these sites. Further, NIST does not endorse any commercial products that may be mentioned on these sites. Please address comments about this page to [email protected] Dual and Metric Packaging Examples - Juice A and B feature a dual net quantity of contents statement in the label, which is required under the current FPLA. Juice C features a metric label, which is currently permitted under the UPLR, but prohibited by the current FPLA. The proposed FPLA amendment would permit U.S. manufacturers to choose either dual or metric labeling for their products. Read More.

Packaging and Labeling The Fair Packaging and Labeling Act (FPLA) and other Federal laws and regulations govern the labeling requirements for most consumer products; however, many products fall only under state laws. Fair Packaging and Labeling Act (FPLA) The FPLA relates only to the net quantity of contents information on packages, goods, or commodities that are sold on the basis of weight or mea

SETTLEMENT TO TRANSFORM WETLANDS AND FORESTS AROUND LINDEN LANDFILL INTO FOCAL POINT FOR URBAN GREENWAY (07/21) LINDEN - Department of Environmental Protection Commissioner Lisa P. Jackson today announced a major settlement that will result in the final closure of the Linden Landfill and sets the stage for preservation of surrounding woods and wetlands along the heavily urbanized Rahway River for public enjoyment. "Through this settlement, Linden is making a significant investment in a healthier environment for its residents while creating a destination that will enhance the quality of life in one of New Jersey's most densely populated areas," said Commissioner Jackson, who made the announcement in conjunction with Earth Week. "This settlement is in keeping with the spirit of Earth Week by demonstrating the state's commitment to finding creative ways to correct past environmental The Administrative Consent Order between Linden and DEP requires the city to finish properly closing the landfill and to enhance 50 acres of surrounding forest areas and wetlands that will be the core of a Linden City Greenway. city also agreed to pay $1 million to settle past violations of DEP landfill closure requirements. The settlement sets aside an additional $2 million to create opportunities for the public to enjoy fishing, hiking trails, boating, and wildlife viewing. greenway and interpretive programs established through the settlement will be important components of a future greenway network that will enhance public appreciation and enjoyment of the Rahway watershed. "Thanks to the commitment of environmental groups and local government, the Rahway River is recovering from its industrial past," Commissioner Jackson added. "While the river remains vital to commerce, this settlement recognizes its importance in supporting wildlife, providing drinking water, and satisfying the recreational needs of area residents." the Administrative Consent Order requires: - Payment by the city of a $1 million penalty for DEP violations, including improper closure of the landfill and disturbance of wetlands caused by installation of a clay containment wall; - Linden's commitment of an additional $1 million for greenway access projects and establishment of education and interpretive programs in conjunction with a non-profit environmental group; - DEP commitment of $1 million in matching money for greenway projects that comes from a separate settlement with Merck & Co. for natural resource damages associated with contamination of ground water in the area. Ten additional acres of wetlands preserved as part of this settlement will be made part of the greenway. Linden Landfill, encompassing 55 acres on Lower Road, began accepting municipal waste more than 50 years ago, prior to state oversight of landfills as authorized by the Solid Waste Management Act. It was one of the last of the old municipal landfills to close when it ceased operations on Jan. 1, 2000. Over the years, the city made significant progress toward closing the landfill by installing the containment wall and systems to control leachate and storm The DEP-approved closure plan allowed the city to use material dredged from the Arthur Kill for grading in preparation for final capping. The city began placing the material on the landfill in But the city and its contractor did not follow conditions for acceptance of the material and other requirements of the closure plan. DEP issued a series of violation notices and civil penalty The settlement requires the city to verify that contaminated soil and processed dredged material that migrated off the landfill and into surrounding wetlands have been cleaned up. The city must complete all closure activities by June 1, and provide long-term post-closure

SETTLEMENT TO TRANSFORM WETLANDS AND FORESTS AROUND LINDEN LANDFILL INTO FOCAL POINT FOR URBAN GREENWAY (07/21) LINDEN - Department of Environmental Protection Commissioner Lisa P. Jackson today announced a major settlement that will result in the final closure of the Linden Landfill and sets the stage for preservation of surrounding woods and wetlands along the heavily urbanized Rahway River for

Advanced Combustion and Fuels Projects NREL's advanced combustion and fuels projects bridge fundamental chemical kinetics and engine research to investigate how new vehicle fuels and engine technologies can deliver more energy-efficient transportation systems and meet stringent emission standards. NREL uses a systems approach to this research in its efforts to decrease U.S. dependence on imported petroleum. Advanced combustion and fuels research activities include: - Developing and characterizing research-grade reference fuels, surrogate fuels, and advanced alternative/renewable blending streams - Developing experimental and simulation research platforms to enable efficient combustion and diversification of fuel options - Developing and validating accurate, efficient fuel ignition and combustion kinetic models - Using engine-based studies to correlate data for experimental and simulation efforts - Studying combustion-related fuel properties. Ignition Kinetics, Combustion, and Fuel Properties More energy-efficient and environmentally friendly vehicles call for simultaneous increases in powertrain efficiency and reductions in emissions, requiring significant advances in internal combustion engines. In turn, advances in engine combustion rely on thorough understanding of fuel properties, especially ignition kinetics behavior. Advanced alternative and renewable fuels that have the greatest potential for petroleum displacement behave much differently than traditional petroleum-based fuels in engines and the combustion process. NREL's researchers are building a better understanding of the relationships among fuel chemistry, engine performance, and emissions in order to eliminate technological and marketplace barriers for advanced combustion engines and alternative fuels. Lab researchers focus on the intersection of fuel physical and chemical properties, ignition kinetics, combustion, and emissions. This work supports simultaneous development of biofuels, advanced petroleum-based fuels, and advanced combustion engines. For information about related projects, see Biofuels and the Renewable Fuels and Lubricants (ReFUEL) Laboratory. The U.S. Department of Energy Vehicle Technologies Office's Fuels and Lubricants subprogram supports NREL's advanced combustion and fuels research activity. NREL's researchers also collaborate closely with industry stakeholders, academic researchers, and other national laboratories.

Advanced Combustion and Fuels Projects NREL's advanced combustion and fuels projects bridge fundamental chemical kinetics and engine research to investigate how new vehicle fuels and engine technologies can deliver more energy-efficient transportation systems and meet stringent emission standards. NREL uses a systems approach to this research in its efforts to decrease U.S. dependence on imported

Worms May Hold Clues to Neurological Disorders Basiru Leigh is conducting research on motor neuron disease in the Columbia University lab of Oliver Hobert, thanks to an NSF-supported Harlem Children Society science and engineering mentoring program September 22, 2010 Basiru Leigh peers into a microscope in the lab of Oliver Hobert of Columbia University in New York. Leigh is examining mutant ground worms from a species known as C. elegans. "There! You see?" he exclaimed. "They are moving abnormally--in a circle instead of a U-shape." This uncoordinated movement is a symptom of the worms' motor neuron disease; Leigh is trying to find the cause. His hypothesis: two transcription factors, proteins that regulate the expression of other genes, play a role in the mutant worms' abnormal movements. Some of the most vexing and horrific human diseases, such as Spinal Muscular Atrophy (SMA) and Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis (ALS), are neurological disorders that result from the degeneration and death of motor neurons, the cells that control muscle activity like speaking, walking, breathing and swallowing. Understanding the root causes of these diseases would be one benefit of the research taking place in Hobert's lab at Columbia. Under Hobert's guidance, post-docs and graduate students--and a handful of younger students like Leigh--are trying to figure out how neurons develop and differentiate in C. elegans, a microscopic worm whose nervous system is analogous in many ways to that of humans. Leigh has the opportunity to work in Hobert's lab thanks to Harlem Children Society, a National Science Foundation (NSF)-funded program created 10 years ago by Sat Bhattacharya, a molecular geneticist at Memorial Sloan-Kettering. The goal of the non-profit is to encourage low-income and minority high school students (95 percent minority; more than 58 percent female) to pursue careers in science, technology, engineering and math (STEM) and allied disciplines through a unique, hands-on program that includes paid research internships at leading institutions and weekly workshops and seminars. Harlem Children Society began in New York City, but has expanded and customized its program to meet local needs at rural and urban sites across the United States and the globe. Leigh began with Harlem Children Society five years ago, when he was 15 years old and entering his sophomore year at the Bronx High School for Medical Science. He credits the program with his success at City College, where he just completed his second year with a double major in biology and computer science. This summer, Leigh is one of two Harlem Children Society students working in Hobert's lab. Leigh is working under the direct mentorship of Paschalis Kratsios, a post-doc whose research focuses on the role of several transcription factors in motor neuron development and survival. Transcription factors are critical because of their role regulating the expression of so many other genes. An understanding of how they work could allow scientists to control the process of neuron development and, ultimately, find treatments for neurological diseases like Parkinson's, Alzheimer's and ALS. Kratsios has designed a simple but important project that Leigh can complete during the 12-week duration of his mentorship: a study of transcription factors Vab-15 and Zag-1 and their role in coordinating the movements of C. elegans. C. elegans is a particularly useful organism for neurological research because it has a simple nervous system (a total of 312 neurons) and a three-day developmental cycle. It also has transparent skin, which is helpful when examining motor neurons under a microscope. Leigh began his research looking at the role of Transcription Factor Zag-1 using a basic genetic experiment. First, he bred genetically normal worms, whose motor neurons were marked with green florescent proteins (GFPs), with mutant worms missing Zag-1. Then, Leigh separated out the progeny demonstrating the same uncoordinated movements as their mutant parents. The progeny's motor neurons were now all marked with GFPs and, using a florescent microscope, Leigh was able to count them to find out if the uncoordinated progeny had fewer motor neurons than their normal parents. Leigh's finding was surprising: the uncoordinated offspring did have all their motor neurons. Leigh was now able to conclude that the absence of Zag-1 does not affect the survival of motor neurons. The uncoordinated movements of the mutant worms could instead result from some or all of the motor neurons not working correctly. But in exactly what way are they dysfunctional? This question is what Leigh hopes to answer in the next phase of his research. To answer it, Leigh will conduct another genetic experiment. This time, he will breed Zag-1 mutant worms with normal worms bearing GFPs activated only when motor neurons release their neurotransmitters. Leigh expects that when he examines the uncoordinated progeny of this new pairing, some of their motor neurons will not light up with GFP. This result would indicate that the absence of Zag-1 affects the neurotransmitter pathway in C. elegans' motor neurons. Leigh said the experience of working with a mentor in a real lab is invaluable: "Dr. Kratsios explains everything in detail--I have learned so much more about genetics here than in class." And, Leigh is thrilled to have the opportunity to conduct his own research: "At my age, to get this chance to do my own research...it's the best." But for Leigh, who hopes one day to be a neurosurgeon, the most exciting thing about the experience is participating in research that might one day contribute to treatments for diseases like Parkinson's. "Muhammad Ali is one of my heroes," Leigh said, "so it's really cool to do something that could one day help him." -- Georgia West Stacey, Harlem Children Society, [email protected] This Behind the Scenes article was provided to LiveScience in partnership with the National Science Foundation. Harlem Children Society Innovative Technology Experiences for Students and Teachers #0737668 The Harlem Children Society (HCS) Science and Engineering Mentoring Program LiveScience.com: Behind the Scenes: Worms May Hold Clues to Neurological Disorders: http://www.livescience.com/health/motor-neuron-disease-worms-100910.html

Worms May Hold Clues to Neurological Disorders Basiru Leigh is conducting research on motor neuron disease in the Columbia University lab of Oliver Hobert, thanks to an NSF-supported Harlem Children Society science and engineering mentoring program September 22, 2010 Basiru Leigh peers into a microscope in the lab of Oliver Hobert of Columbia University in New York. Leigh is examining mutant groun

NTSB Identification: ANC96LA126. The docket is stored in the Docket Management System (DMS). Please contact Records Management Division Accident occurred Saturday, July 13, 1996 in KOTZEBUE, AK Probable Cause Approval Date: 02/18/1997 Aircraft: Piper PA-18-150, registration: N2561N Injuries: 1 Uninjured. NTSB investigators may not have traveled in support of this investigation and used data provided by various sources to prepare this aircraft accident report. The pilot reported directional control difficulties while landing the tundra tire equipped airplane at a rural airstrip used to support his mining activities. The airplane's right main landing gear subsequently collapsed, and the right wing spar, right wing struts, and a portion of the fuselage were damaged. The pilot elected to make temporary repairs to the landing gear by using water pipe, and to the lift struts by taping boards to them. He ferried the airplane from the mining strip to Mc Grath, Alaska, where he obtained fuel. Upon departing Mc Grath, the main landing gear collapsed, and further damaged the airplane (NTSB Accident Report ANC96LA105). The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable cause(s) of this accident to be: The pilot's failure to maintain directional control while landing. Full narrative available Index for Jul1996 | Index of months

NTSB Identification: ANC96LA126. The docket is stored in the Docket Management System (DMS). Please contact Records Management Division Accident occurred Saturday, July 13, 1996 in KOTZEBUE, AK Probable Cause Approval Date: 02/18/1997 Aircraft: Piper PA-18-150, registration: N2561N Injuries: 1 Uninjured. NTSB investigators may not have traveled in support of this investigation and used data provid

Airline Passengers' Bill Of Rights Law Takes Effect Last year, I supported the "Airline Passengers’ Bill of Rights" legislation in the State Senate to provide passengers stranded on airplanes at New York airports with certain basic amenities to make their wait more tolerable. The legislation is now law and is effective as of January 1, 2008. The new law sets basic customer standards that all major airlines should follow, while providing important consumer protections for passengers. All airlines at New York airports would be required to provide snacks and water, fresh air and power, and working rest rooms to passengers on any plane that has been delayed for more than three hours. The law also creates the Office of Airline Consumer Advocate within the New York State Consumer Protection Board to provide the public with a New York State-based consumer advocate and contact person who can help to coordinate with the appropriate airline industry officials, federal agencies and the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey in the event an incident occurs. Passengers will have an Airline Ombudsman Office to whom they can turn to if they feel that an airline is violating these rights. Airlines that do not follow the law will face penalties of up to $1,000 per passenger per violation. New York is home to some of the world’s busiest airports, and I am glad that we were able to adopt measures that will make air travel as comfortable as possible for passengers. This new law will help protect passengers on delayed flights and ensure that they are not held hostage without amenities, but rather are treated with respect.

Airline Passengers' Bill Of Rights Law Takes Effect Last year, I supported the "Airline Passengers’ Bill of Rights" legislation in the State Senate to provide passengers stranded on airplanes at New York airports with certain basic amenities to make their wait more tolerable. The legislation is now law and is effective as of January 1, 2008. The new law sets basic customer standards that all major

Federal Registers - Table of Contents| | Publication Date:||06/02/1994| | Publication Type:||Proposed Rules| | Fed Register #:||59:28594-28677| | Standard Number:||1910; 1917; 1918| | Title:||Longshoring and Marine Terminals| DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Occupational Safety and Health Administration 29 CFR Parts 1910, 1917, and 1918 [Docket No. S-025] Longshoring and Marine Terminals AGENCY: Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). ACTION: Proposed rule; Notice of informal public hearings. SUMMARY: The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) proposes to revise its Safety and Health Regulations for Longshoring and, to a far lesser extent, to amend its Safety and Health Regulations for Marine Terminals. The proposed rule covers cargo handling and related activities conducted aboard vessels and at Marine Terminals. The proposed amendments to the Marine Terminals standard are intended primarily to provide regulatory consistency with the proposed Longshoring ship-board rules. The proposed rules would be "vertical" standards which apply to longshoring and marine terminal activities only, except for those general industry provisions referenced within this proposed rule. This proposal contains requirements for longshoring and marine terminal operations; the testing and certification of specific types of cargo lifting appliances and associated auxiliary gear; other cargo handling equipment such as conveyors and industrial trucks; access to vessels; working surfaces; and personal protective equipment. Additionally, specialized longshoring operations such as containerized cargo, roll-on roll-off (Ro-Ro) and menhaden are specifically addressed. The principal hazards addressed by this proposal are injuries and accidents associated with cargo lifting gear, vehicular cargo transferral, manual cargo handling, hazardous atmospheres and materials, and finally, those hazards posed by the more modern and sophisticated cargo handling methods brought about by intermodalism. This provides notice of OSHA's intent to schedule informal public hearings on OSHA's proposed rulemaking on Longshoring and the related Marine Terminal provisions. DATES: Written comments on the standard must be postmarked on or before September 23, 1994. Notices of intention to appear at the informal public hearings must be postmarked by August 24, 1994.Written comments, testimony, and all evidence which will be offered into the hearing record must be postmarked by 21 days prior to the date of the hearing to be attended. The hearings will begin at 9:30 a.m. and be held in the following cities, beginning on the following dates: Charleston, South Carolina on September 20, 1994; Seattle, Washington on October 19, 1994; and Requests for public hearings in locations other than the above must be received by July 11, 1994. Parties who request more than 10 minutes for their presentation at the informal public hearing and parties who will submit documentary evidence at the hearing must submit the full text of their testimony and all documentary evidence, postmarked on or before 21 days prior the date of the hearing to be attended. ADDRESSES: Written comments and requests for additional hearings should be submitted to the Docket Office, Docket S-025, Room N-2625, U.S. Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, 200 Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20210. Telephone: (202) 219-7894. Comments of 10 pages or less may be faxed to the Docket Office, if followed by a hard copy. The OSHA Docket Office fax number is (202) 219-5046. Notice of intention to appear, testimony and documentary evidence to be submitted at the hearing are to be sent to Mr. Tom Hall, OSHA Division of Consumer Affairs, Docket No. S-025, Room N-3647, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue N.W., Washington, DC 20210, telephone (202) 219-8615. Actual addresses for the locations of the regional hearings in Charleston, South Carolina, Seattle, Washington, and New Orleans, Louisiana will be announced in a later Federal Register document. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. James F. Foster, Director, Office of Information and Consumer Affairs, OSHA, U.S. Department of Labor, Room N-3647, 200 Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20210. Telephone (202) 219-8148. As a result of the high number and serious nature of accidents occurring to port workers in the United States, Congress, in 1958, amended the Longshore and Harborworker's Compensation Act (LHWCA) (33 U.S.C. 901 et seq.) to provide a large segment of port based employees with a safer work environment. The amendments (P.L. 85-742, 72 Stat. 835) significantly strengthened Section 41 of the LHWCA (33 U.S.C. 941) by requiring employers covered by that Act to "furnish, maintain and use" equipment, and to establish safe working conditions in accordance with regulations promulgated by the Secretary of Labor. Two years later, the Labor Standards Bureau (LSB) of the Department of Labor issued the first set of safety and health regulations for longshoring activities as 29 CFR part 9 (25 FR 1565). These standards were amended on several occasions between 1960 and 1971. Since 1971, there have been no substantive changes to these provisions. The Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (the Act) (29 U.S.C. 650 et seq.), which established the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), directed the Secretary of Labor to adopt, under the authority conferred by section 6(a) of the Act, "Any established Federal standard" as an OSHA standard during the first 2 years of the Act. The Longshoring standards, then codified as 29 CFR part 1504, were adopted by OSHA under section 6(a) in 1971, and were recodified as 29 CFR part 1918. The longshoring industry has changed dramatically since 1971. The methods of cargo handling and the equipment associated with those methods have undergone significant modification. Vessels designed specifically for the carriage of intermodal containers, vehicular rolling stock, and even barges, are now the most common types of ships calling at U.S. ports. By contrast, the established Longshoring standard was designed largely for activities being conducted using methods and equipment that have been overshadowed or replaced by more modern methods of cargo handling. The proposal being published today will seek to modernize OSHA's regulatory approach to deal with these changes in the industry. It is important to consider, however, that some of the older, more conventional vessel configurations, equipped with features and aspects that are addressed in the current standard, continue to call at U.S. ports. For that reason, the Agency will retain in this proposal a number of provisions whose utility, although diminished, will continue to be necessary. Nevertheless, the Agency requests the public to comment on certain provisions that it considers obsolete and no longer in use. For example, the Agency is considering deleting the provisions that address the manually lowering or topping of booms based on a determination that these operations are no longer performed as a part of longshoring work. On July 5, 1983, OSHA published its final rule for Marine Terminals (48 FR 30886)(Ex. 1-101). These rules were designed to address the shoreside segment of marine cargo handling. Since the Marine Terminal standards currently address equipment and situations (i.e., powered industrial trucks; conveyors; passage between levels and across openings; etc.) that have shipboard counterparts, appropriate provisions from those standards are incorporated into this proposal for shipboard cargo handling, as well. Accordingly, the Agency will rely upon background material and data used to substantiate OSHA's rule for Marine Terminals, and incorporates the docket (S-506) developed in that rulemaking. This proposal seeks to provide a practical continuity as it addresses the more conventional and time proven methods of cargo handling along with those more modern and revolutionary. The Agency welcomes all suggestions on how to better meet this goal. Traditionally, the longshore industry has been notable in terms of its accident experience. The work environment found in the marine cargo handling sector exposes workers to a greater risk of injury than is true for most other industries. In fact, in the last calendar year for which industrial illnesses and accidents are fully tabulated, this industrial sector had one of the highest rate of lost workdays in the nation. The following tables found in BLS reports (Exs. 1-109, 1-110, 1-111, 1-112, and 1-113) are useful in making a comparative assessment: In 1985, OSHA requested the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) to initiate a survey that could be used to develop common aspects of accidents occurring within the current longshore sector (Ex. 1-73). This survey helped to point out that in spite of the increases in automation that have occurred in the industry, injuries and lost workday cases continue to remain high and the break bulk type of operation still accounts for a major portion of the injuries that occur aboard ship. OSHA sought to validate even further the conclusions it could draw, both from this survey and from regularly published BLS occupational safety and health statistics. In so doing, the Agency reviewed data published in Seafarer magazine (April 1987). In an article entitled "WGMA reports safety statistics for 85-86 contract year" (Ex. 1-14), that periodical listed a number of pertinent figures that serve to corroborate the other accident information OSHA has secured. The West Gulf Report, prepared by Mr. Hal Draper, Director of Safety; Health and Training for the West Gulf Maritime Association, addressed the accident experience of several ports from Lake Charles, Louisiana to Brownsville, Texas. Quoting directly from the article: West Gulf Report. Draper's report on West Gulf longshore accidents during the 1985-86 contract year covered a total of 1,192 incidents. According to his analysis, 70% of the accidents occurred on board ships; the remaining 30% on the dock or in the warehouse/terminal. Cargo was involved in 30% of the accidents, 64% of which involved sacks/bags, and 12% steel/pipe. Two hundred and forty of the incidents (20%) involved the individual being struck by a moving object; 221 (19%) resulted from lifting, pushing, pulling or bodily reaction; 208 (17%) from falls from the same level-slip or trip; 142 (12%) from striking against, or stepping/jumping on an object; 130 (11%) from being struck by a falling object; and 109 (9%) from being caught in, under, or between objects. Thirteen percent of all accidents involved stevedore gear/equipment. Another way the Agency attempted to identify the major sources of longshoring accidents for rulemaking purposes was to examine a number of fatal or near fatal accidents reported to OSHA from this industry sector during the period July 1972-March 1992. In conducting this analysis, OSHA examined these case files to determine the precise cause of the accident. A brief summary of a few of the more than 250 such accidents reviewed is provided below. Boston, Massachusetts - August 1974. A longshoreman, seriously injured while working in the hold of a bulk cargo vessel, was placed aboard a stokes basket stretcher to be transported ashore by the vessel's cargo hoisting gear. The stokes basket had no effective means to secure the injured worker to the stretcher. While in transit, the injured worker fell out of the litter, back into the hold (Ex. 1-90). Port Elizabeth, New Jersey - June 1978. One employee was killed and one seriously injured when an intermodal container lifting beam, being lowered to hoist the container both men were standing on, suddenly fell. The device, weighing in excess of 4 tons, crushed both employees. Compliance with proposed 1918.81(k) would have prevented this accident (Ex. 1-87). Port Newark, New Jersey - August 1976. An employee aboard an elevator Ro-Ro ship, while in the process of discharging automobiles, drove into what was thought to be an available elevator to gain access to the ramp or discharge deck. The elevator was actually at a higher deck. The employee and vehicle fell into the shaft and down three decks. Barricading of the open deck spaces could have prevented this accident (Ex. 1-88). San Juan, Puerto Rico - August 1978. An employee aboard a seagoing, multi-deck Ro-Ro barge was run over and killed by a tractor trailer while the trailer was being maneuvered into its stowage position. No signalman was provided to protect employees from the hazard that ultimately killed this lasher (an employee engaged in securing cargo). Additionally, illumination was severely lacking within the confines of the vessel's below deck cargo spaces. The use of proper illumination and a signaller for this operation could have prevented the fatality (Ex. 1-89). Port Elizabeth, New Jersey - August 1984. Two workers, while driving in a vehicle within a large Ro-Ro vessel, fell from the end of an elevated internal ramp back down to deck level. These employees thought the ramp could take them to the next higher deck, however, the ramp was not so positioned. The car they were operating landed on its roof. One employee was killed, the other was injured. Barricading of the ramp could have prevented this accident (Ex. 1-86). Houston, Texas - July 1987. Two longshoremen were killed while positioned atop a deck stowed intermodal container. As they were performing their work, an empty forty foot container being passed over their heads became disengaged from the lifting gear and fell on them. These fatalities could have been prevented if the employees had stayed clear of the overhead drafts (Ex. 1-74). Port of Los Angeles, California - March, 1992. One longshoreman was killed while working on top of a stack of containers on the deck of a container vessel. A container top safety device was available, but the longshoreman was not attached to it. The safety device, which was attached to the container crane spreader bar, moved and became hung up. When it released, it catapulted the longshoreman off of the stack of containers and onto the dock. This incident could have been prevented if the employee had not been working on the top of the container, or had been using fall protection if it were necessary to be working there (Ex. 1-108). Based on the BLS data, the West Gulf Maritime Association's accident analysis, and OSHA's own analysis of fatal or near fatal accidents in the cargo handling industry , OSHA concludes that regulatory action is necessary in order to meet its mandate under the Act. See Section III, Statutory Considerations, below, for a complete discussion of OSHA's "significant risk" findings. II. General Format of the Standard A. Vertical vs. Horizontal Standards This proposed Longshoring standard has been drafted in a manner that will allow it to stand by itself, i.e., to be a "vertical" standard. Vertical standards are those that apply specifically to a given industry, in lieu of any other OSHA standard. In several areas of coverage specified in the proposal's scope section, OSHA's General Industry standards are incorporated by reference. This approach follows OSHA's other marine cargo handling standard, Marine Terminals, 29 CFR part 1917 (48 FR 30886). Vertical standards can encourage voluntary compliance because they are directed to the particular problems of the industry, and because they only contain provisions that are appropriate to the industry in question. On the other hand, since many industries covered by OSHA do in fact use the same or similar equipment and processes, and therefore have employees who are exposed to the same hazards, it is usually a more efficient use of the Agency's resources to develop "horizontal" standards (those applying across industry lines). It is also more efficient to train field personnel in general safety programs tailored to the horizontal General Industry standards than to train field staff in individual programs designed for specific industries. In 1983, OSHA promulgated a vertical standard for the shoreside aspect of marine cargo handling (48 FR 30886) - OSHA's rules for Marine Terminals. As was the case in that rulemaking, the Agency is proposing the inclusion of a list of applicable General Industry standards which will supplement the specific provisions in part 1918. This provides coverage for hazards for which the marine cargo handling industry is neither unique nor different from other industries. As an example, OSHA proposes to adopt by reference 1910.95, titled "occupational noise exposure." The detrimental effects of prolonged high levels of noise is the same whether the exposure takes place aboard a vessel or in a factory. The exposure may not be as constant or the workforce may not be subjected to the same type of noise day after day, however the potential for overexposure is there. OSHA does not feel it is necessary to write a "vertical" standard that covers exposure to noise when the General Industry standard will suffice. This is entirely consistent with the current coverage provided by OSHA rules for Marine Terminals (part 1917). The majority of this proposed Longshore standard is a "vertical" standard. The work environment aboard ship is unique in many respects. Longshore workers must continually work in the harsh environment of the waterfront, which requires exposure both to work-related hazards, such as falling cargo, and to environmental hazards, such as drowning and working around machinery in bad weather. Longshore workers perform some of the same high-hazard tasks, and confront many of the same heavy-industry hazards, as those typically associated with the construction industry. Examples of such hazards include falls, and crushing and caught-in injuries. Cargo handling and construction work are also both weather-dependent and have a high proportion of part-time and transient employees. The extremely high occupational injury and illness incidence rates for the marine cargo handling industry, mentioned in the previous section, testify to the hazardous nature of the longshoring industry. OSHA has decided to continue a vertical standard for many aspects of this high-hazard industry, supplemented by general industry standards where necessary and appropriate. The Agency believes that this approach is necessary to adequately address the unique hazards and working conditions of this industry. OSHA also has a vertical standard for the construction industry (29 CFR part 1926), another hazardous industry with a large workforce. OSHA solicits comments both as to the merits and the limitations of a vertical standard for longshoring operations. B. Performance vs. Specification The format and substance of this standard reflect OSHA's effort to eliminate unnecessary regulations and to simplify and update others. To achieve these goals, the Agency has adopted a performance approach to writing new rules and revising existing ones. A performance-based standard identifies a hazard and the level of control required to protect against the hazard, without specifying the precise means of achieving such control, while a specification standard stipulates design and construction criteria to be met to achieve a particular safety objective. The lack of flexibility in many specification standards fails to take into account the adequacy of many existing operations and work practices and discourages innovation. In keeping with OSHA's commitment to clarity, flexibility, and in order to encourage employers to comply with the standards, this longshore industry proposal has adopted the performance approach except in those cases in which employee safety would be enhanced by more specific requirements. The Agency is interested in receiving comments from persons who feel that certain of the proposed provisions would benefit from a greater degree of specification or from a more goal-oriented approach. III. Statutory Considerations A. Introduction. Throughout this proposal, OSHA describes the hazards confronted by employees who are engaged in longshoring activities and the measures required to protect affected employees from those hazards. The Agency is providing the following discussion of the statutory mandate for OSHA rulemaking activity to explain the legal basis for its determination that the Longshoring standard, as proposed, is reasonably necessary to protect affected employees from significant risks of injury and death. Section 2(b)(3) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act authorizes "the Secretary of Labor to set mandatory occupational safety and health standards applicable to businesses affecting interstate commerce", and section 5(a)(2) provides that "each employer shall comply with occupational safety and health standards promulgated under this Act" (emphasis added). Section 3(8) of the OSH Act (29 U.S.C. 652(8)) provides that: . . . the term 'occupational safety and health standard' means a standard which requires conditions, or the adoption or use of one or more practices, means, methods, operations, or processes, reasonably necessary or appropriate to provide safe or healthful employment and places of employment. In two recent cases, reviewing courts have expressed concern that OSHA's interpretation of these provisions of the OSH Act, particularly of section 3(8) as it pertains to safety rulemaking, could lead to overly costly or under-protective safety standards. In International Union, UAW v. OSHA, 938 F.2d 1310 (D.C. Cir. 1991), the District of Columbia Circuit rejected substantive challenges to OSHA's lockout/tagout standard and denied a request that enforcement of that standard be stayed, but it also expressed concern that OSHA's interpretation of the OSH Act could lead to safety standards that are very costly and only minimally protective. In National Grain § Feed Association v. OSHA, 866 F.2d 717 (5th Cir. 1989), the Fifth Circuit concluded that Congress gave OSHA considerable discretion in structuring the costs and benefits of safety standards but, concerned that the grain dust standard might be under-protective, directed OSHA to consider adding a provision that might further reduce significant risk of fire and explosion. OSHA rulemakings involve a significant degree of agency expertise and policy-making discretion to which reviewing courts must defer. (See for example, Building § Constr. Trades Dept. AFL-CIO v. Brock, 838 F.2d 1258, 1266 (D.C. Cir. 1988); Industrial Union Dept. AFL-CIO v. American Petroleum Inst., 448 U.S. 607, 655 n. 62 (1980).) At the same time, the Agency's technical expertise and policy-making authority must be exercised within discernable parameters. The lockout/tagout and grain handling standard decisions sought from OSHA more clarification on the agency's view of the scope of those parameters. In light of those decisions, OSHA believes it would be useful to include in the preamble to this proposed safety standard a statement of its view of the limits of its safety rulemaking authority and to explain why it is confident that its interpretive views have in the past avoided regulatory extremes and continue to do so in this rule. Stated briefly, the OSH Act requires that, before promulgating any occupational safety standard, OSHA demonstrate based on substantial evidence in the record as a whole that: (1) the proposed standard will substantially reduce a significant risk of material harm; (2) compliance is technologically feasible in the sense that the protective measures being required already exist, can be brought into existence with available technology, or can be created with technology that can reasonably be developed; (3) compliance is economically feasible in the sense that industry can absorb or pass on the costs without major dislocation or threat of instability; and (4) the standard is cost effective in that it employs the least expensive protective measures capable of reducing or eliminating significant risk. Additionally, proposed safety standards must be compatible with prior agency action, must be responsive to significant comment in the record, and, to the extent allowed by statute, must be consistent with applicable Executive Orders. These elements limit OSHA's regulatory discretion for safety rulemaking and provide a decision-making framework for developing a rule within their parameters. B. Congress concluded that OSHA regulations are necessary to protect workers from occupational hazards and that employers should be required to reduce or eliminate significant workplace health and safety threats. At section 2(a) of the OSH Act (29 U.S.C. section 651(a)), Congress announced its determination that occupational injury and illness should be eliminated as much as possible: "The Congress finds that occupational injury and illness arising out of work situations impose a substantial burden upon, and are a hindrance to, interstate commerce in terms of lost production, wage loss, medical expenses, and disability compensation payments." Congress therefore declared "it to be its purpose and policy ... to assure so far as possible every working man and woman in the Nation safe ... working conditions [29 U.S.C. section 651(b)]." To that end, Congress instructed the Secretary of Labor to adopt existing Federal and consensus standards during the first two years after the OSH Act became effective and, in the event of conflict among any such standards, to "promulgate the standard which assures the greatest protection of the safety or health of the affected employees [29 U.S.C. section 655(a)]." Congress also directed the Secretary to set mandatory occupational safety standards [29 U.S.C. section 651(b)(3)], based on a rulemaking record and substantial evidence [29 U.S.C. section 655(b)(2)], that are "reasonably necessary or appropriate to provide safe ... employment and places of employment." When promulgating permanent safety or health standards that differ from existing national consensus standards, the Secretary must explain "why the rule as adopted will better effectuate the purposes of this Act than the national consensus standard [29 U.S.C. section 655(b)(8)]." Correspondingly, every employer must comply with OSHA standards and, in addition, "furnish to each of his employees employment and a place of employment which are free from recognized hazards that are causing or are likely to cause death or serious physical harm to his employees [29 U.S.C. section 654(a)]." "Congress understood that the Act would create substantial costs for employers, yet intended to impose such costs when necessary to create a safe and healthful working environment. Congress viewed the costs of health and safety as a cost of doing business.... Indeed, Congress thought that the financial costs of health and safety problems in the workplace were as large as or larger than the financial costs of eliminating these problems [American Textile Mfrs. Inst. Inc. v. Donovan, 452 U.S. 490, 519-522 (1981) (ATMI); emphasis was supplied in original]." "[T]he fundamental objective of the Act [is] to prevent occupational deaths and serious injuries [Whirlpool Corp. v. Marshall, 445 U.S. 1, 11 (1980)]." "We know the costs would be put into consumer goods but that is the price we should pay for the 80 million workers in America [S. Rep. No. 91-1282, 91st Cong., 2d Sess. (1970); H.R. Rep. No. 91-1291, 91st Cong., 2d Sess. (1970), reprinted in Senate Committee on Labor and Public Welfare, Legislative History of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, (Committee Print 1971) ('Leg. Hist.') at 444 (Senator Yarborough)]." "Of course, it will cost a little more per item to produce a washing machine. Those of us who use washing machines will pay for the increased cost, but it is worth it, to stop the terrible death and injury rate in this country [Id. at 324; see also 510-511, 517]." [T]he vitality of the Nation's economy will be enhanced by the greater productivity realized through saved lives and useful years of labor. When one man is injured or disabled by an industrial accident or disease, it is he and his family who suffer the most immediate and personal loss. However, that tragic loss also affects each of us. As a result of occupational accidents and disease, over $1.5 billion in wages is lost each year [1970 dollars], and the annual loss to the gross national product is estimated to be over $8 billion. Vast resources that could be available for productive use are siphoned off to pay workmen's compensation and medical expenses....Only through a comprehensive approach can we hope to effect a significant reduction in these job death and casualty figures. [Id. at 518-19 (Senator Cranston)] Congress considered uniform enforcement crucial because it would reduce or eliminate the disadvantage that a conscientious employer might experience where inter-industry or intra-industry competition is present. Moreover, "many employers - particularly smaller ones - simply cannot make the necessary investment in health and safety, and survive competitively, unless all are compelled to do so [Leg. Hist. at 144, 854, 1188, 1201]." Thus, the statutory text and legislative history make clear that Congress conclusively determined that OSHA regulation is necessary to protect workers from occupational hazards and that employers should be required to reduce or eliminate significant workplace health and safety threats. C. As construed by the courts and by OSHA, the OSH Act sets a threshold and a ceiling for safety rulemaking that provide clear and reasonable parameters for agency action. OSHA has long followed the teaching that section 3(8) of the OSH Act requires that, before it promulgates "any permanent health or safety standard, [it must] make a threshold finding that a place of employment is unsafe - in the sense that significant risks are present and can be eliminated or lessened by a change in practices [Industrial Union Dept., AFL-CIO v. American Petroleum Inst, 448 U.S. 607, 642 (1980) (plurality) (Benzene); emphasis was supplied in original]." When, as frequently happens in safety rulemaking, OSHA promulgates standards that differ from existing national consensus standards, it must explain "why the rule as adopted will better effectuate the purposes of this Act than the national consensus standard [29 U.S.C. section 655(b)(8)]." Thus, national consensus and existing federal standards that Congress instructed OSHA to adopt summarily within two years of the OSH Act's inception provide reference points concerning the least an OSHA standard should achieve (29 U.S.C. section 655(a)). As a result, OSHA is precluded from regulating insignificant safety risks or from issuing safety standards that do not at least lessen risk in a significant way. The OSH Act also limits OSHA's discretion to issue overly burdensome rules, as the agency also has long recognized that "any standard that was not economically or technologically feasible would a fortiori not be 'reasonably necessary or appropriate' under the Act. See Industrial Union Dept., v. Hodgson, [499 F.2d 467, 478 (D.C. Cir. 1974)] ('Congress does not appear to have intended to protect employees by putting their employers out of business.') [American Textile Mfrs. Inst. Inc., 452 U.S. at 513 n. 31 (a standard is economically feasible even if it portends 'disaster for some marginal firms,' but it is economically infeasible if it 'threaten[s] massive dislocation to, or imperil[s] the existence of, the industry')]." By stating the test in terms of "threat" and "peril," the Supreme Court made clear in ATMI that economic infeasibility begins short of industry-wide bankruptcy. OSHA itself has placed the line considerably below this level. (See for example, ATMI, 452 U.S. at 527 n. 50; 43 FR 27360 (June 23, 1978). Proposed 200 ug/m(3) PEL for cotton dust did not raise serious possibility of industry-wide bankruptcy, but impact on weaving sector would be severe, possibly requiring reconstruction of 90 percent of all weave rooms. OSHA concluded that the 200 ug/m(3) level was not feasible for weaving and that 750 ug/m(3) was all that could reasonably be required). See also 54 FR 29245-246 (July 11, 1989); American Iron § Steel Institute, 939 F.2d at 1003. OSHA raised engineering control level for lead in small nonferrous foundries to avoid the possibility of bankruptcy for about half of small foundries even though the industry as a whole could have survived the loss of small firms.) Although the cotton dust and lead rulemakings involved health standards, the economic feasibility ceiling established therein applies equally to safety standards. Indeed, because feasibility is a necessary element of a "reasonably necessary or appropriate" standard, this ceiling boundary is the same for health and safety rulemaking since it comes from section 3(8), which governs all permanent OSHA standards. All OSHA standards must also be cost-effective in the sense that the protective measures being required must be the least expensive measures capable of achieving the desired end (ATMI, at 514 n. 32; Building and Const. Trades Dept., AFL-CIO v. Brock, 838 F.2d 1258, 1269 (D.C. Cir. 1988)). OSHA gives additional consideration to financial impact in setting the period of time that should be allowed for compliance, allowing as much as ten years for compliance phase-in. (See United Steelworkers of America v. Marshall, 647 F.2d 1189, 1278 (D.C. Cir. 1980), cert. denied, 453 U.S. 913 (1981).) Additionally, OSHA's enforcement policy takes account of financial hardship on an individualized basis. OSHA's Field Operations Manual provides that, based on an employer's economic situation, OSHA may extend the period within which a violation must be corrected after issuance of a citation (CPL. 2.45B, Chapter III, paragraph E6d(3)(a), Dec. 31, 1990). To reach the necessary findings and conclusions that a safety standard substantially reduces a significant risk of harm, is both technologically and economically feasible, and is cost effective, OSHA must conduct rulemaking in accord with the requirements of section 6 of the OSH Act. The regulatory proceeding allows it to determine the qualitative and, if possible, the quantitative nature of the risk with and without regulation, the technological feasibility of compliance, the availability of capital to the industry and the extent to which that capital is required for other purposes, the industry's profit history, the industry's ability to absorb costs or pass them on to the consumer, the impact of higher costs on demand, and the impact on competition with substitutes and imports. (See ATMI at 2501-2503; American Iron § Steel Institute generally.) Section 6(f) of the OSH Act further provides that, if the validity of a standard is challenged, OSHA must support its conclusions with "substantial evidence in the record considered as a whole," a standard that courts have determined requires fairly close scrutiny of agency action and the explanation of that action. (See Steelworkers, 647 F.2d at 1206-1207.) OSHA's powers are further circumscribed by the independent Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission, which provides a neutral forum for employer contests of citations issued by OSHA for noncompliance with health and safety standards (29 U.S.C. 659-661; noted as an additional constraint in Benzene at 652 n. 59). OSHA must also respond rationally to similarities and differences among industries or industry sectors. (See Building and Construction Trades Dept., AFL-CIO v. Brock, 838 F.2d 1258, 1272-73 (D.C. Cir. 1988).) OSHA safety rulemaking is thus constrained first by the need to demonstrate that the standard will substantially reduce a significant risk of material harm, and then by the requirement that compliance is technologically capable of being done and not so expensive as to threaten economic instability or dislocation for the industry. Within these parameters, further constraints such as the need to find cost-effective measures and to respond rationally to all meaningful comment militate against regulatory extremes. D. The proposed revisions of the Longshoring and Marine Terminal standards comply with the statutory criteria described above and are not subject to the additional constraints applicable to section 6(b)(5) standards. Standards that regulate hazards that are frequently undetectable because they are subtle or develop slowly or after long latency periods, are frequently referred to as "health" standards. Standards that regulate hazards, like explosions or electrocution, that cause immediately noticeable physical harm, are called "safety" standards. (See National Grain § Feed Assn., v. OSHA (NGFA II), 866 F.2d 717, 731, 733 (5th Cir. 1989). As noted above, section 3(8) provides that all OSHA standards must be "reasonably necessary or appropriate." In addition, section 6(b)(5) requires that OSHA set health standards which limit significant risk "to the extent feasible." OSHA has determined that the proposed revisions of the Longshore and Marine Terminal standards are safety standards, because these standards address hazards, such as falling, falling objects and crushing, that are immediately dangerous to life or health, not the longer term, less obvious hazards subject to section 6(b)(5). The OSH Act and its legislative history clearly indicate that Congress intended for OSHA to distinguish between safety standards and health standards. For example in section 2(b)(6) of the OSH Act, Congress declared that the goal of assuring safe and healthful working conditions and preserving human resources would be achieved, in part: ... by exploring ways to discover latent diseases, establishing causal connections between diseases and work in environmental conditions, and conducting other research relating to health problems, in recognition of the fact that occupational health standards present problems often different from those involved in occupational safety. The legislative history makes this distinction even clearer: [The Secretary] should take into account that anyone working in toxic agents and physical agents which might be harmful may be subjected to such conditions for the rest of his working life, so that we can get at something which might not be toxic now, if he works in it a short time, but if he works in it the rest of his life might be very dangerous; and we want to make sure that such things are taken into consideration in establishing standards. [Leg. Hist. at 502-503 (Sen. Dominick), quoted in Benzene at 648-49]. Additionally, Representative Daniels distinguished between "insidious 'silent killers' such as toxic fumes, bases, acids, and chemicals" and "violent physical injury causing immediate visible physical harm" (Leg. Hist. at 1003), and Representative Udall contrasted insidious hazards like carcinogens with "the more visible and well-known question of industrial accidents and on-the-job injury" (Leg. Hist. at 1004). (See also, for example, S.Rep. No. 1282, 91st Cong., 2d Sess 2093 (1970), U.S. Code Cong. § Admin. News 1970, pp. 5177, 5179, reprinted in Leg. Hist. at 142-43, discussing 1967 Surgeon General study that found that 65 percent of employees in industrial plants "were potentially exposed to harmful physical agents, such as severe noise or vibration, or to toxic materials"; Leg.Hist at 412; id. at 446; id. at 516; id. at 845; International Union, UAW at 1315.) In reviewing OSHA rulemaking activity, the Supreme Court has held that section 6(b)(5) requires OSHA to set "the most protective standard consistent with feasibility" (Benzene at 643 n. 48). As Justice Stevens observed: The reason that Congress drafted a special section for these substances ... was because Congress recognized that there were special problems in regulating health risks as opposed to safety risks. In the latter case, the risks are generally immediate and obvious, while in the former, the risks may not be evident until a worker has been exposed for long periods of time to particular substances. [Benzene, at 649 n. 54.] Challenges to the grain dust and lockout/tagout standards included assertions that grain dust in explosive quantities and uncontrolled energy releases that could expose employees to crushing, cutting, burning or explosion hazards were harmful physical agents so that OSHA was required to apply the criteria of section 6(b)(5) when determining how to protect employees from those hazards. Reviewing courts have uniformly rejected such assertions. For example, the Court in International Union, UAW v. OSHA, 938 F.2d 1310 (D.C. Cir. 1991) rejected the view that section 6(b)(5) provided the statutory criteria for regulation of uncontrolled energy, holding that such a "reading would obliterate a distinction that Congress drew between 'health' and 'safety' risks." The Court also noted that the language of the OSH Act and the legislative history supported the OSHA position (International Union, UAW at 1314). Additionally, the Court stated: "We accord considerable weight to an agency's construction of a statutory scheme it is entrusted to administer, rejecting it only if unreasonable" (International Union, UAW at 1313, citing Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. NRDC, 467 U.S. 837, 843 (1984)). The Court reviewing the grain dust standard also deferred to OSHA's reasonable view that the Agency was not subject to the feasibility mandate of section 6(b)(5) in regulating explosive quantities of grain dust (National Grain § Feed Association v. OSHA (NGFA II), 866 F.2d 717, 733 (5th Cir. 1989)). It therefore applied the criteria of section 3(8), requiring the Agency to establish that the standard is "reasonably necessary or appropriate" to protect section 3(8), requiring the Agency to establish that the standard is "reasonably necessary or appropriate" to protect employee safety. As explained in Section I, Background, above, and Section V, Summary and Explanation of the Proposal and in Section VIII, Preliminary Regulatory Impact Analysis and Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, below, OSHA has determined that marine cargo handling activities pose significant risks to employees (18 fatalities and 7,593 injuries annually) and that the provisions of the proposed rule are reasonably necessary to protect affected employees from those risks. The Agency estimates that compliance with the proposed revisions of the Longshoring and Marine Terminal standards will cost $4.7 million the first year and $1.8 million annually thereafter and will reduce the risk of the identified hazards (preventing 3 fatalities and 1,262 injuries annually). This constitutes a substantial reduction of significant risk of material harm for the population at risk of approximately 93,000 employees. The Agency believes that compliance is technologically feasible because all of the provisions of the proposed standard can be met by using currently available equipment, facilities, supplies, and work practices. Additionally, OSHA believes that compliance is economically feasible, because, as documented in the Regulatory Impact Analysis, all regulated sectors can readily absorb or pass on compliance costs during the standard's first five years, and economic benefits will exceed compliance costs thereafter. As detailed in Section VIII, Preliminary Regulatory Impact Analysis and Regulatory Flexibility Analysis and Table 1, below, the standard's costs, benefits, and compliance requirements are consistent with those of other OSHA safety standards, such as the Hazardous Waste Operations and Emergency Response (HAZWOPER) standard. OSHA assessed employee risk by evaluating exposure to marine cargo handling hazards. The Agency acknowledges that some industries covered by the proposed revisions of the Longshoring and Marine Terminal standards have more documented marine cargo handling injuries or fatalities than do others. OSHA does not believe that the risk associated with exposure to marine cargo handling related hazards varies according to the number of incidents documented for a particular SIC code. OSHA has set the scope of the proposed revisions of the Longshoring and Marine Terminal standards to address those situations where employees are exposed to marine cargo handling hazards, regardless of the relative frequency of incidents. The Agency believes, based on analysis of the elements of the hazards identified, there is sufficient information for OSHA to determine that employees in the covered sectors face significant risks marine cargo handling activities. Therefore, the Agency has determined that all employees within the scope of the proposed standard face a significant risk of material harm and that compliance with the proposed revisions of the Longshoring and Marine Terminal standards is reasonably necessary to protect affected employees from that risk. IV. Review of General Industry Standards for Longshoring Operations Applicability Of all the work environments OSHA regulates, the shipboard workplace ranks high among those that do not track easily with many of the regulations that comprise 29 CFR part 1910 (General Industry standards). For instance, subjects such as scaffolding; powered platforms; power presses; wood working machinery; abrasive wheels; forging machines; pulp and paper mills; bakery equipment; laundry machinery; sawmills; logging; telecommunications; and spray painting, all of which receive comprehensive discussion within the text of part 1910, are virtually non-existent concerns in shipboard longshoring operations. Essentially longshoring is a transport industry and, as such, is free from many of the hazards found in general industry. Accordingly, these provisions are not included in this proposed rule. In some areas where there is current coverage in part 1918, there is similar coverage in part 1910. OSHA's primary concern is to make sure that the 1910 provisions needed to supplement the 1918 coverage are included in the proposal. For instance, subjects such as ladders; slings; conveyors; industrial trucks; cranes and personal protective equipment, which are fully addressed within part 1910, are presently addressed with a specific regard for the maritime workplace, within OSHA's current Longshoring rules. This proposal seeks to update and revise the existing part 1918 and in some instances has relied in substantial measure upon part 1910 language. In other instances, such as when addressing container and roll on/roll off operations, entirely new concepts have been developed to take account of the sometimes unique operational aspects of the modern stevedoring community. Where the hazards present in shipside cargo handling are directly parallel to those encountered in the shoreside aspect of marine cargo handling, such as in sanitation considerations, OSHA is proposing that the language of provisions designed to address such shoreside hazards be the same as in the Marine Terminal standards in 29 CFR part 1917. Interested parties are requested to submit any information related to the coverage of this proposed revision of the Longshoring rules. For example, are specific hazards adequately addressed in this proposal? Are longshore worker exposed to safety and health hazards which this proposal does not adequately address? Have unnecessary provisions been included in the proposal? Are there any areas of general industry coverage that have not been included in the proposal that should be? OSHA would particularly appreciate information on these issues. V. Summary and Explanation of the Proposal Subpart A - Scope and Definitions Section 1918.1 Scope and applicability. Proposed 1918.1 describes the scope and applicability of the Longshoring standard. The Longshoring rules apply from the foot of the gangway up, to include all cargo handling related activities aboard a given vessel. It is important to remember, however, that in ship to shore/shore to ship cargo transfer operations using shore based material handling devices, all lifting device specific aspects of such transfers will be covered by the part 1917 rules. When cargo transfer is accomplished using ship's cargo gear, the part 1918 rules shall apply. In keeping with the concept outlined in the foregoing section of this preamble (II. General Format of the Standard), certain selected provisions currently found in OSHA's part 1910 standards have been identified to have application to shipboard longshoring operations. Sections 1918.1(b)(1) through (4), (b)(6) through (8), and (b)(10) through (12) provide coverage for hazards for which the marine cargo handling industry is neither unique nor different from other industries. These hazards are not otherwise addressed by existing maritime standards. The hazards addressed by 1918.1(b)(5) (Tools) and (b)(9) (Machine Guarding), on the other hand, are addressed by existing maritime standards but do not receive the comprehensive treatment afforded by part 1910, subpart P, (Hand and Portable Powered Tools and Other Hand-Held Equipment) and subpart O, (Machinery and Machine Guarding). OSHA is proposing to delete the current requirements for hand tools, 1918.72, titled Tools, and replace it with Subpart P of 29 CFR part 1910, titled Hand and Portable Powered Tools and Other Hand-Held Equipment. OSHA believes that the general Industry Subpart P regulations are more comprehensive and afford better protection. OSHA proposes to do the same in the Marine Terminal regulations by replacing the paragraphs under the sections heading Hand tools, 1917.51 and replacing them with 29 CFR 1910 subpart P. For the same reasons, OSHA is also proposing to remove the requirements under 1917.151 titled Machine guarding, and replace them with Subpart O of the General Industry standards, part 1910, titled Machinery and Machine Guarding. OSHA is also proposing to include Subpart O, Machinery and machine guarding, to the Scope and Applicability section of part 1918. OSHA promulgated the hazardous waste operations and emergency response (HAZWOPER) standard on March 6, 1989 (54 FR 9294). OSHA'S decision to cover all emergency response was based upon the high risk associated with emergency response by untrained and unprotected employees and the need for proper training and equipment to be provided for emergency response to hazardous substance releases. This standard currently applies in its entirety to shipboard longshoring operations. HAZWOPER divides emergency response into three separate areas: (1) Response at uncontrolled hazardous waste sites (1910.120(l)); (2) response at Resource, Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (RCRA), as amended, facilities (42 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.) 1910.120(p)(8); and (3) response to emergency hazardous substance releases not covered by the previously noted paragraphs 1910.120(q). Since the activities described in the first two areas of the HAZWOPER standard do not represent marine cargo handling activities within the scope of part 1917 or part 1918, OSHA is proposing to only apply 1910.120(q) to longshore (part 1918) and marine terminal operations (part 1917). Paragraph (q) covers employees engaged in toxic substance emergency response no matter where it occurs. This paragraph, essentially, requires employers to develop and implement an emergency response plan to handle anticipated toxic substance emergencies prior to the commencement of emergency response operations. If employers decide to evacuate their employees from the danger area when an emergency occurs and do not permit their employees to assist in handling the emergency, they are exempt from the requirements of this paragraph if they provide an emergency action plan and meet other requirements in accordance with 1910.38(a) which states: The emergency action plan shall be in writing * * * and shall cover those designated actions employers and employees must take to ensure employee safety from fire and other emergencies. Simply stated, if an employer decides "not to fight a fire" (i.e., not to respond to an emergency), then 1910.120(q) does not apply but 1910.38(a) does. OSHA is proposing to delete the current requirements for hand tools, 1918.72, titled Tools, and replace it with subpart P of 29 CFR Part 1910, titled Hand and Portable Powered Tools and Other Hand-Held Equipment. OSHA believes that the general Industry subpart P regulations are more comprehensive and afford better protection. OSHA proposes to do the same in the Marine Terminal regulations by replacing the paragraphs under the sections heading Hand tools, 1917.51 and replacing with 29 CFR part 1910 subpart P. For the same reasons, OSHA is also proposing to remove the requirements under 1917.51 titled Machine guarding, and replace them with subpart O of the General Industry Standards, part 1910, titled Machinery and Machine Guarding. Proposed 1918.2 carries over many of the definitions from the current Longshoring regulations. However, there are some new definitions or some modifications to existing definitions that reflect changes in current custom and practice in the Longshore industry. For example, the term "designated person", which is not used in the current longshore regulation, is used in this proposal. The term is used to identify a person who has a special skill in a particular area and has been so noted by the employer. Because of this skill, this employee is assigned to perform specific tasks in this area of expertise. While the concept of "designated person" is found throughout the current requirements, it is expressed in many different ways. This proposal tightens up the use of this concept by its consistent use of the term "designated person" throughout the standard. Some examples of the use of the term are: 1918.51(b) requires that a designated representative, in lieu of the employer, shall inspect vessel's cargo gear before use and at intervals during use; and 1918.55 (c)(7) where a designated person is one with knowledge in crane operations, specifically when using two or more cranes to hoist in unison, along with knowledge in rigging. In addition, the current references to the "Federal maritime jurisdiction" and "navigable waters" in the definitions of "employee" in paragraph (e) and "employer" in paragraph (f) are being dropped. The current rules were originally promulgated under the Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act (33 U.S.C. 941) for which the navigable waters was a jurisdictional prerequisite. With the promulgation of the OSH Act, which applies to private sector employment in workplaces in a covered jurisdiction, however, such a prerequisite was no longer necessary. Therefore, OSHA is proposing to update these rules by eliminating the reference to navigable waters in this definition. Additionally, several new or substantially revised definitions are found in paragraphs (d), (g), (h), (j), (k), and (n) of this section. The definitions for enclosed space and fumigant are added to this section for clarity since these terms are used in the standard. In addition, they are virtually identical, with the exception of the examples, to those found in the Marine Terminal standards. The term "hazardous cargo" has been expanded to reflect the Marine Terminal's definition of "hazardous cargo, materials, substance or atmosphere." This definition goes beyond the current part 1918 definition by including references to subpart Z as well as oxygen-deficient atmospheres. Additionally, it is, in turn, consistent with the Hazardous Communication standard found at 29 CFR 1910.1200. Another new definition is integral to the major impetus for revising part 1918, as discussed above: "intermodal container." The definition for "intermodal container" reflects both the definition found in the International Labor Organization (ILO) Code of Practice for Safety and Health in Dock Work, (Ex. 1-135) and the definition found in International Standards Organization (ISO) Standard 830, Freight Containers-Terminology, (Ex. 1-134). This definition is also being proposed to replace the current definition for "intermodal container" found in the Marine Terminal standard, 1917.2(u). The definitions of "dockboards" and "ramps", currently found in the Marine Terminal standard, are being proposed for Longshoring, as well, with minor modification. Certain definitions currently in part 1918 would be deleted. Existing definitions referring to the existing 1918.13, certification of shore-based material handling devices were deleted because they were superseded by the Marine Terminal standard. The existing definition of the term "shall" is being deleted as unnecessary. Subpart B - Gear Certification A. Section 1918.11 Gear certification. Since 1960, safety and health regulations designed to protect U.S. dockworkers (with particular regard to vessel's cargo handling gear) have relied upon the documentary proofs of tests and examinations mandated by International Labor Organization (ILO) Convention 32 (Ex. 1-34). In Article 9 of that Convention, units and articles comprising ship's cargo handling gear are enumerated and assigned an annual/quadrennial schedule of tests/examinations that must be attended and attested to by individuals judged to be "competent" by the national authorities of the vessel's registry. Although not a signatory to that Convention, the United States has conformed to this Convention via regulation promulgated by: (1) the U.S. Coast Guard, with regard to inspected U.S. flag vessels; and (2) OSHA, with regard to foreign flag vessels (1918.12). The Coast Guard has promulgated cargo gear regulations that exceed those found in Convention 32, namely 46 CFR part 91, that promote safe and unencumbered operations for U.S. flag vessels trading at foreign ports. On foreign flag vessels trading at U.S. ports, however, OSHA has sole responsibility for regulating and enforcing rules that address the cargo gear U.S. longshore workers utilize. Under Convention 32, proof load testing(1) was only required initially before being taken into service. Thereafter, components such as derricks, goosenecks, mast bands, derrick bands and any other difficult to disassemble fixed gear, were to be "thoroughly examined" every four years and "inspected" every 12 months. Other hoisting machinery, such as cranes, winches, blocks, shackles, and any other accessory gear, were to be "thoroughly examined" every 12 months. Footnote(1)Proof load testing, as used here, means lifting an known weight that is in excess of the safe working load (SWL) of the lifting appliance being tested. Under Convention 32, the vessel's cargo handling gear was proof load tested initially, and then perhaps never again. After that initial test, such gear received various degrees of visual scrutiny, complemented on some occasions by non-destructive testing, i.e., a hammer test. Convention 152, adopted June 25, 1979, requires that such proof load testing is to occur at least every five years, and applies to all ship's lifting appliances. Within Article 3 of the new Convention, the term "lifting appliance" is defined as follows: Lifting appliance covers all stationary or mobile cargo-handling appliances, including shore-based power-operated ramps, used on shore or on board ship for suspending, raising or lowering loads or moving from one position to another while suspended or supported. (Ex. 1-5, pg.2) Thus, the extent of cargo handling equipment found aboard ship requiring testing and certification, heretofore restricted to specific assemblies and components (i.e., derricks, cranes, winches, etc.) is being expanded in this proposal to include all "lifting appliances" under the terms of the newer ILO Convention. This would include forklifts and other powered industrial equipment used to handle cargo that might be carried by a Ro-Ro vessel; and elevators found on Ro-Ro vessels used to move cargo from one deck level to another - in addition to vessel cranes and derricks. Under this proposal in 1918.11, all this equipment would be required to be tested and thoroughly examined initially before being put into use; retested and thoroughly examined every five years; and thoroughly examined every 12 months. In those situations where one container is used to lift another container, using twist locks, then the upper container and twist locks become, in effect, a lifting appliance and must be certified as such. As is the case with all Federal agencies whose regulations impact international trade, OSHA has developed this proposal in light of international considerations. Through both law and policy, the United States has decided that standards-related activities shall not unnecessarily be a barrier to trade. The Trade Agreements Act of 1979 (19 U.S.C. 2501 et seq). addresses technical barriers to trade with regard to federal regulation. This Act states in Title 19 of the U.S. Code as follows: 2532. Federal standards-related activities No Federal Agency may engage any standards related activity that creates unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United States, * * *. (1) Nondiscriminatory treatment. * * * * * * * * * * (2) Use of international standards. - (A) In general. * * * each Federal agency, in developing standards, shall take into consideration International standards and shall, if appropriate, base the standards on International standards. Additionally, and consonant with this country's position on barriers to international trade, the United States is a signatory to the Multilateral Convention on the Facilitation of International Maritime Traffic (1965) (Ex. 1-3). As a contracting government, the United States has agreed to: * * * Undertake to cooperate in securing the highest practicable degree of uniformity in formalities, documentary requirements and procedures in all matters in which such uniformity will facilitate and improve international maritime traffic and keep to a minimum any alterations informalities, documentary requirements and procedures necessary to meet special requirements of a domestic nature. (Article 3) Mindful of these international aspects, OSHA sought to formulate an acceptable approach to the vessel's cargo handling gear issue, and to other issues. The Agency requested the Department of State (Ex. 1-7) to present OSHA's tentative approach to all foreign nations whose flags may enter U.S. ports. This exercise was conducted in hope of ascertaining global acceptance. Reports back from responding foreign nations (Ex. 1-6) indicated overwhelming support for the Agency's approach to these issues, and OSHA has incorporated it in this proposal. Most nations, although stipulating that they had not as yet ratified the more recent ILO Convention, indicated that national laws recently ratified or those currently in the legislative process were at least as strong, and in some cases more stringent, than Convention 152. In consideration of this widespread international acceptance of ILO Convention 152's approach to testing and certification of cargo gear, OSHA has decided to propose it in this revision of the Longshoring standards. The Agency is interested in any additional comment on this issue that interested parties may be in a position to offer. Subpart C - Means of Access Section 1918.21 Gangways and other means of access. This proposed section joins together two similar sections (1918.11 - Gangways and 1918.21 - Gangways and Other Means of Access) of OSHA's current Longshoring rules. Clarity is improved in that rules addressing the same specific issue will no longer be situated in two different subparts of part 1918. As is the case in the current rules, gangway dimensions and characteristics are set out in proposed paragraph (a) to provide the safe access to vessels necessary for longshore workers. By using a blend of specification with performance based alternatives, the proposal lends the flexibility needed in accommodating foreign vessels. Language has been added that allows the use of materials that have been developed since the current rule was written, as long as the material has a strength equivalent to those that are listed. Proposed paragraph (b) carries over language from the current rules, as well as the term "trimmed" found in the Joint Maritime Safety Code of the New York Shipping Association/International Longshoremen's Association (NYSA/ILA Safety Code) (Ex. 1-2) part M, paragraph 1), and requires that despite changing conditions brought about by tides, cargo operations, etc., the gangway and its components must be wholly serviceable. Proposed paragraphs (c) through (k) are similar to the language found in the current rules. Some paragraphs have been modified to address some problems associated with the current language. Paragraph (d) has been modified to require a safety net or suitable protection when the gangway overhangs the water in such a manner that there is a danger of employees falling between the ship and the dock. The net is required to prevent an employee from falling to a lower level. This is consistent with ILO'S "Safety and Health in Dock Work," (Ex. 1-138). A new paragraph (i) has been added to address the hazard associated with slippery handrails and walking surfaces on gangways. Paragraph (j) references 1918.92 for illumination requirements on a gangway. In summary, these paragraphs address the requirement for a safe passage from the dock to the deck. Proposed paragraph (l) recognizes the U.S. Coast Guard's authority relating to jurisdictional matters aboard vessels having a current and valid certificate of inspection. Notwithstanding, for the purpose of this rule, if access is attained other than by the vessel's regular gangway, that access shall conform to the entirety of this section. Proposed 1918.22 carries over language from the current rules. Both paragraphs of this section contain the standard universal criteria for rope ladders, also known as "Jacob's ladders", namely, that such ladders be either double-runged or flat-treaded, so as to provide a more substantial tread surface; that they be well maintained and properly secured to available fittings; and that they not be permitted to hang from their lashing points with slack in them. It is often the case that such ladders are provided by the vessel when a more traditional means of access cannot be utilized. Notwithstanding, under these proposed rules the employer (who is often a contractor rendering a service to the vessel) must comply with this proposed section before employees are permitted to use these ladders. Proposed 1918.23 also carries over language from the current rules. Paragraph (a) sets out criteria for ramps used to gain vehicular access to or between barges. Of primary importance is that such ramps be of sufficient strength for the intended load. These ramps must be equipped with sideboards that will prevent vehicles from falling. They must also be well maintained and properly secured during use. Paragraph (b) addresses employee passage to and from certain floating craft. Under favorable conditions, it is sometimes possible to pass to and from such vessels without the aid of any device. In other than favorable conditions, however, this paragraph sets forth the criteria to provide safe passage. Of significant importance is the exception included at the end of the paragraph. That exception recognizes practical difficulties encountered on the Mississippi River system in providing traditional means of access on all occasions. When originally promulgated in 1960, the longshore rules (Ex. 1-39) took no cognizance of these special difficulties. In 1965, the Labor Standards Bureau published the following proposed clarification, (Ex. 1-40): In order to provide practical solutions in cases where current requirements cannot be met, because of local river and bank conditions (this section) should be amended by the addition of a provision. (p.7609) A provision to that effect was published in the Federal register in final form on May 21, 1966 (Ex. 1-41). Historically (Ex. 1-98), this exception has been based on tidal and current conditions on the Mississippi system (see definition at proposed 1918.2(s)). OSHA's experience has thus far concluded that such exceptional conditions prevail only on this inland system; however, the Agency solicits comments from interested individuals with other information on this issue. A sentence has been added to proposed 1924.23(c) that requires no more than two Jacob's ladders for any single barge, raft, or log boom being worked. This proposal is consistent with the requirements in 1918.25(a) which requires a maximum of two access ladders in a hatch. The term "gang" is used here and several other places in this proposal. It refers to a group of longshore persons that are assigned to a particular hold, deck, etc. on a ship for the purpose of loading or discharging cargo. A new paragraph (e) has been added to this section to address the problem associated with the lower rungs of a Jacob's ladder being crushed between the barge and another structure by requiring that a spacer or equivalent means be used to prevent it from occurring. If the lower rungs are crushed, this could cause an employee to fall between the barge and other structure. Another new paragraph (f) has been added to this section. This paragraph requires the a net or equivalent protection if there is a space between the vessel, barge or other structure when using a Jacob's ladder to prevent an employee from falling into the water. Proposed 1918.24 combines the current language of the existing longshore provisions for bridge plates and ramps with the terms that apply to similar shoreside equipment within 29 CFR part 1917 (Marine Terminals, 1917.124). In the adoption of such parallel rules, OSHA hopes to enhance the uniformity of regulation that is critical to safety performance both shipboard and shoreside. Throughout this proposal, the Agency has attempted to foster such uniformity and requests comments as to how this goal can be better achieved. Paragraphs (a)(1)(iv) and (b)(1)(v) would be revised to require sideboards that are at least 6 inches (.16 m) high. This height is the same as found for bull rails that were in place at the time of the effective date of the Marine Terminal standard, found in 1917.112. OSHA believes that specifying the height of the sideboards will provide the necessary protection to prevent vehicles and equipment from accidently falling off the edge. OSHA requests comment from the public concerning appropriateness of the height of the sideboards. OSHA is also proposing to require the same 6 inch (.16 m) sideboards for dockboards and ramps that are in the Marine Terminal standard, 1917.124. Proposed 1918.25 combines the current requirements for portable ladders contained in the existing Longshoring rules with the similar rules of 1917.119. For fixed ladders, however, there is a distinction between the proposed and current Longshore standard which has to do with clearance in back of the ladder rungs. The existing requirement is 4 inches (.11 m), but the proposed clearance is 6 inches (.16 m), which reflects the current ILO Standard. Consistent with ILO's Guide to Safety and Health in Dock Work, (Ex. 1-129), OSHA is proposing that vessels built after December 5, 1981, (the date when ILO Convention 152, Occupational Safety and Health in Dock Work was put into effect), have a 6-inch (15 cm) clearance between the ladder and the surface to which it is fastened. Vessels built prior to December 5, 1981, however, may have a 4 inch (10 cm) clearance between the ladder and the surface to which it is fastened. OSHA encourages comment on this issue. (It should be noted where a fixed ladder has inadequate clearance, a suitable portable ladder could be used.) Generally, proposed 1918.25 includes much of the current language for ladders with some modifications. Provisions have been added that reference ANSI standards for manufactured portable ladders. There are also proposed provisions for ladder maintenance and usage that are similar to what is in the Marine Terminals standard, but are new to Longshoring. In paragraphs 1918.25(c) and (e) the phrase "positively secured against shifting or slipping" has been changed to "positively secured or held against shifting or slipping while in use". This change acknowledges that a worker(s) may hold a portable ladder in place while another worker is climbing the ladder in situations where the ladder cannot be secured and is consistent with the PMA-ILWU Safety Code, Rule 1506 (Ex. 1-145). In addition, for the purpose of clarifying paragraph (e), where the employer can demonstrate that employees can safely use the cargo itself to climb in and out of the hold (often referred to as "safe cargo steps"), a straight ladder is not necessary. Paragraph (j)(8) on, ladder usage, acknowledges that while some ladders may not have slip-resistant bases, they can be readily secured by lashing them in place to prevent slipping or shifting when being used. Subpart D - Working surfaces OSHA clearly understands that many of the falling hazards addressed in part by this and other subparts, represent working environments and physical characteristics no longer observed with the type of frequency that was the case when the current Longshoring rules were last revised. Nonetheless, conventional cargo handling methods together with more traditional vessel designs are still encountered at U.S. ports. For this reason, OSHA proposes to retain current provisions that still have application. As an example, proposed 1918.31(c) prohibits employers from allowing work to be conducted on surfaces comprised of missing, broken or poorly fitting hatch covers. Currently, it is relatively rare to experience a vessel trading at U.S. ports, fitted with the type of removable hatch covers this provision addresses. Despite that rarity, such situations do arise. Proposed 1918.31(d) prohibits the placing of poorly fitting hatch covers and hatch beams that would constitute a work surface. As a practical matter, it is rare to see vessels at U.S. ports fitted out with hatch beams. In those instances, however, identifying marks are usually permanently fixed to such equipment. Those marks correspond to marks found on receptacle fittings on the vessel proper. In all cases, notwithstanding the presence of corresponding marks, the employer must make sure that all hatch beams and covers are seated securely, providing a strong and stable work surface. Proposed 1918.32(a) carries over language from the current Longshoring rule. Frequently cargo must be landed on temporary surfaces, generally presented by other cargo stows, prior to its ultimate place of rest. When this is so, it is important that employees have enough available space to work in safety upon such a surface, and that the temporary table is strong enough to safely support the loads being imposed. There are obviously many strength and size possibilities, which will be dictated by the size and weight of the drafts being landed. Proposed 1918.32(b) has been revised to address changes that have occurred in technology and work practices. Employees working on the tops of containers are now covered by 1918.85(j), Container top safety. (For a full discussion see the preamble to 1918.85(j) below). When employees working in cargo holds, are exposed to falls of more than 8 feet (2.4 m), the edge of the working surface must be guarded by a safety net, or must be otherwise rendered safe (such as by providing guardrails or fall arrest systems) to prevent employee injury. It should be noted that proposed 1918.32(b) does not include employees working on the top of intermodal containers in a hold as this is also covered under 1918.85(j). Of prime importance is that the intent of this provision is satisfied, rather than providing just the appearance of compliance. Many times, particularly when safety nets have been rigged, they have been allowed to become very slack, and have sometimes been secured only at their top ends. The improper rigging of safety nets compromises or even removes the protection provided to falling employees. In these very critical fall hazard situations, this provision insists that fully considered precautions are taken. The Pacific Coast Marine Safety Code (PCMSC) Rule 1016 (Ex. 1-145) is very similar in construction. This paragraph has also been revised to distinguish between the purpose and use of vertical safety nets, which rise at right angles at the perimeter of a work surface thus preventing employees from falling, and trapeze nets, which are designed to be placed horizontally below a raised work surface to prevent falling employees from striking the surface below. Additionally, this section requires that any nets used for purposes of fall protection meet the applicable requirements. Proposed 1918.33(a) and (b) are carried over from the current Longshoring rules. As the heading of this section indicates, these provisions address the safe performance of work on or around deck loads. Provisions for work performed by employees atop deck-stowed intermodal containers will be found at proposed 1918.85(j). OSHA is proposing to change the title and text of 1918.34. The current title of this section is "Skeleton decks." OSHA has consulted, without success, numerous individuals from the maritime community and researched several maritime publications, textbooks, etc. in an effort to define the terms "skeleton deck" and "mechano deck." OSHA feels that the use of these terms and the practice of working cargo on these particular types of decks are obsolete. Since the hazards remain even though these terms do not, OSHA is proposing to change the title of the section to "Other decks" in order to group unique or uncommon decks; using generic language to address the hazards associated with landing cargo on such decks that are not designed for such use. OSHA encourages the public to comment on whether the terms "skeleton deck" and "mechano deck" should be kept in the text of the standard and on whether these provisions are necessary. Proposed 1918.35 addresses hazards longshore workers face when conducting operations around open weather deck hatchways. Vessels calling at U.S. ports are of varied designs and capabilities. Some vessels have coamings, which are the vertical structure that surrounds the hatch opening on a ship, that are substantially higher than the proposed section's minimum acceptable range (36 to 42 inches) (.92 to 1.07 m) other vessels may have no hatch coamings at all, but rather flush decks or decks with an abbreviated sill, which present substantial fall hazards to longshore workers. On such vessels, when workers work around the perimeter of open hatchways, appropriate guarding must be provided. This proposal stipulates that taut lines or guardrails attaining the acceptable range be erected on all but the working side of the hatch. This proposal mandates that stanchions or uprights used in their construction be supported or secured in a manner that will prevent them from coming accidentally loose. Proposed 1918.37 addresses the fall hazards associated with working on the decks of lighters and barges. Proposed paragraph (a) retains language from the current rule. It prohibits the use of marginal (less than 3 feet (.92 m) wide) deck space along the sides of covered lighters or barges on all such vessels having coamings over 5 feet (1.5 m) high. Alternately, an employer must provide a taut handline or, as is most often the case, the vessel must be fitted with a serviceable grab rail. Proposed paragraph (b), also retains language from the current rule. It prohibits working or walking on unsound surfaces. This can be a particularly important consideration on barges, in that powered industrial trucks are often brought aboard to assist in operations. The proposed rule requires a visual check of such decks before loading operations begin. If during the course of discharge operations an unsafe surface is discovered, work must be discontinued until protective measures are taken (such as bridging the unsafe surface with steel plate or barricading a deck section deemed unsafe). Proposed 1918.38, as well as 1918.88 titled "log operations" are entirely new sections addressing log loading operations and reflect current industry practice. Section 1918.38 is based on Rules 640 and 641 of the PCMSC (Ex. 1-145); on a report on log operations submitted to OSHA's Maritime Safety Standards Office by Region X (Ex. 1-146); and a training video on log operations produced by the PMA and ILWU (Ex. 1-147). Loading logs from water presents very serious falling and drowning hazards. Thus, safe walking working surfaces are extremely important to longshore workers who are positioned offshore during log loading operations. Sound footing is essential during access to and while working on log rafts, which are in fact the cargo. The proposed requirements provide for safe access to the worksite and a safe working surface area. The working surface must be wide enough to allow for stable footing, securely fastened together, and substantial enough to support the weight of the employees on it. OSHA has concluded that the basic requirements for providing such safe surfaces should be included in this rulemaking, and seeks comment on their completeness. Subpart E - Opening and closing hatches Proposed 1918.41 addresses coaming clearances and provides requirements to protect longshore workers from fall hazards and from being struck by falling cargo during the process of opening up and closing hatches. Proposed paragraph (a) addresses weather deck clearances. When a smooth-sided deck load is stowed within 3 feet (.92 m) of the hatch coaming, and the available coaming height is < 24 inches, a taut handline shall be provided so that employees are able to safely remove or replace hatch beams and covers. Similar language covering such situations is found in the NYSA/ILA Joint Maritime Safety Code - part C/Rule 38 (Ex. 1-2) and the PCMSC - Rule 1007 (Ex. 1-145). Throughout this proposal, OSHA has specified that "taut" lines or "taut" handrails or guardrails be provided in certain situations where available walking or working space is compromised because of inevitable stowage or vessel design considerations. In using the term taut, as with other terms commonly encountered in maritime safety codes, OSHA is using language which is familiar in the industry under current practices. Where necessary, OSHA is proposing definitions for various terms used in the proposed standards, to ensure that these terms are uniformly understood. To be as clear as possible with regard to its intention in utilizing the term "taut" in connection with the subject lines, handrails and guardrails, the Agency states that "taut" connotes tightly and securely drawn, and as length and distance may warrant, securely fastened at intervals. The idea behind providing these taut lines, etc., is to allow an employee to rely on these objects in maintaining or regaining a stable balance in a constrained work area. Generally, guardrails successfully serve their purpose when their height can stay within a serviceable range (42 to 36 inches) (1.07 m to .92 m). "Taut" handrails and "taut" lines, however, are sometimes required to be fitted to objects and structures of varying dimensions (such as deck cargo and the sides of covered lighters) for the purpose of enabling an employee to maintain balance and footing. Proposed paragraph (b)(1) addresses intermediate deck hatchway clearance, and requires that a 3 foot (.91 m) clear work area be provided between stowed cargo and hatch coaming at both sides and one end of hatches with athwartship beams, and at both ends of hatches with fore and aft beams, while employees are engaged in opening or closing the hatchway. Proposed paragraph (b)(2) makes it clear that the 3-foot (.91 m) working surface under proposed paragraph (b)(1), is not required when a fall hazard is not present. Proposed paragraph (b)(3) recognizes that fitted grating over-decking, such as the type used in some perishables trades, can be considered part of the actual deck or working space (for the purposes of assessing compliance with proposed paragraph (b)(1)), if they are properly placed within the 3-foot clearance area and if they are in good condition (flush fitting and presenting a level work surface). OSHA has dropped the reference to "banana" gratings because OSHA feels it is an unnecessary reference. Proposed paragraph (c) would require grab rails or taut hand lines to be provided where, because of wing-space structures or spare parts storage, coaming clearance is minimized. Proposed paragraph (d) advises that this proposed section is inapplicable in situations that permit the opening and closing of hatches without employees having to place or remove individual sections manually. It cautions, however, that whenever the 3-foot clearance is lacking, cargo which is likely to shift or fall must be blocked or otherwise restrained. Proposed 1918.42, similar to 1918.41, is carried over substantively in its entirety from the current longshore rules, although some editing has been done for clarity. Provisions in this section addresses the hazards associated with handling hatch beams and pontoons, such as falling into the hatch or being struck by these removable items. Equivalent rules can be found on section 2 of the PCMSC (Ex. 1-145) and parts C and O of the NYSA/ILA Joint Maritime Safety Code (Ex. 1-2). In summary, it is proposed that hatch beam and pontoon bridles be long enough to easily fit their attachment points. Hatch beam bridles must be equipped with attachment devices that cannot become accidentally dislodged, such as toggles. Pontoon bridles are required to have the appropriate number of legs to conform to the design of the cover. All such legs must be utilized when lifting. If all legs of a bridle cannot be used due to the design of the cover, the spare leg(s) must be prevented from free swinging. Finally, as for the construction of these bridles, OSHA requires that for proper manual guidance, at least two legs be fitted with a fibre rope lanyard, and that the bridle end of the lanyard (the end attached directly to the bridle) be constructed of chain or wire rope. Proposed 1918.43 is generally carried over from the current longshore rules, with some changes made for clarity, a revision to paragraph (j), and the addition of a new paragraph (i). Provisions in this section address the hazards associated with handling and stowing of hatch boards, hatch beams, and pontoons, such as falling into the hatch or being struck by improperly stowed items. Similar requirements are found in Section X of the PCMSC (Ex. 1-145), part O of the NYSA/ILA code (Ex. 1-2), and ILO Convention 152. In revised paragraph (j), tarpaulins may be used to reduce the dust emissions of bulk cargoes instead of night tents if the vessel lacks cargo gear. In these situations, OSHA requires positive means, such as placards or barricades, be taken to prevent employees from walking on the tarpaulin that is covering an open or partially open hatch. Verbal warnings or instructions do not satisfy this provision. A new paragraph (i) is being proposed to address the hazards of unsecured materials falling from hatch covers when they are being moved overhead. Subpart F - Vessel's Cargo Handling Gear Proposed subpart F would apply to all gear and equipment used in cargo handling that is the property of the vessel. Examples of this type of equipment can include cranes, derricks, specialized bridles, winches, wire rope, and shackles. This subpart addresses hazards associated with the use of that gear. This would include such hazards as using faulty gear, overloading or improperly rigging cargo gear, or improper operation of cargo gear, which can result in serious injury or death. (See Ex. 1-103.) Proposed 1918.51 contains general requirements that apply to all cargo handling equipment that is permanently attached to a vessel. Proposed paragraph (a) stipulates that the safe working load of the gear, whether marked on the lifting appliance itself or specified in the required certificates/gear register, shall not be exceeded. Proposed paragraph (b) requires that each component of ship's cargo handling gear be inspected by the employer before use, and at intervals during use. This requirement is more clearly worded than the existing requirement by specifying the employer's obligation to perform a visual inspection. Also, this new language more closely parallels the shoreside requirement found in 29 CFR 1917.42(a)(2). The paragraph also prohibits the use of unsafe gear. Proposed paragraph (c) provides criteria for splicing wire rope and for wire rope configuration characteristics. Additionally, the paragraph conforms the Longshore regulations to some current use criteria for wire rope that appear in OSHA's rules for the shoreside aspect of marine cargo handling (Marine Terminals - 29 CFR part 1917). Proposed paragraphs (d), (e), and (f), also parallel the shore side rules. OSHA believes that the new language in this section enhances the safety of the worker in several ways. In paragraph (c), new and more stringent requirements are proposed for wire rope that is part of the ship's cargo handling gear. In addition, the new provisions (paragraphs (d), (e), and (f)) set replacement criteria for wire rope slings, natural and synthetic fibre rope slings, synthetic web slings, chains and chain slings, none of which are addressed by the existing standard. Proposed 1918.52, 1918.53, and 1918.54 and all address the subject of rigging and operating vessel's cargo handling gear. By and large, the requirements of these sections are found in the existing rule. Some language modifications have been made to enhance clarity. In addition, some paragraphs have new language that enhances the understanding of the provision which promotes greater compliance and eases enforcement burdens. For example, proposed 1918.53(e) adds to the existing reporting requirement of a defective winch, the following requirement "... and the winch shall not be used until the defect or malfunction is corrected." Similarly, paragraph (i) adds a monitoring requirement during operation and (k) removes a feasibility exception based on design that is no longer necessary today due to technological improvements. OSHA wishes to raise the issue and solicit comment from the public regarding whether or not to delete 1918.52(b). This paragraph addresses the use of chain topping lift stoppers and clamp type stoppers that are used to manually lower and raise the boom. This method of topping the boom is a potentially dangerous operation and has been largely replaced by the use of electric topping lift winches, which do not require the use of stoppers. However, OSHA understands that as a result of the breakup of the Soviet Union, vessels which had not been allowed to sail into the U.S. because of restrictions placed on Soviet bloc countries, are now calling on various ports of the United States. In some cases, these vessels are old, and have types of cargo handling gear that had been largely replaced by more modern gear. In light of this occurrence, OSHA solicits public comment on this issue. A new paragraph has been added, 1918.54(a), that addresses the hazard associated with the poor practice of rigging guys or preventers so that they chafe against other guys, preventers, or stays. This practice can cause the vessels's cargo gear to fail as the chafing can cause the wires to separate. This can lead to serious injury or death as the gear and cargo fall down on the deck or into the hold. Proposed 1918.55 covers deck cranes permanently affixed to a vessel. The existing rule only addresses one of the hazards - the guarding of the swing radius. The new requirements more completely address the hazards encountered in the use of ship's cranes. These rules become necessary due to the widespread replacement of winches and booms by ship's cranes on newer vessels. In addition, the new provisions closely parallel similar shoreside requirements in part 1917 and other OSHA crane standards. This section prohibits the use of cranes which develop a visible or known defect that impacts on its safe operation. In addition, the operator's position must be well maintained, with good visibility provided through the operator cab's glass. During cargo operations, areas that are within the swing radius of the body of revolving cranes and are accessible to employees must be guarded to prevent an employee from being caught between the body of the crane and any fixed structure, or between parts of the crane. Paragraph (c) of 1918.55 also addresses the danger of employees being caught between shipboard gantry cranes, such as would be found on a LASH (Lighter aboard ship) vessel or a self contained container ship, and fixed structures on deck along the path of the cranes travel. (Ex. 1-103, cases 26 and 27). Crane brakes must be monitored throughout the workshift. If they are unable to hold the load, the crane must not be used. If cranes are used in tandem, a designated person (see definitions) must direct the operation with special emphasis on positioning, rigging and movement. Subpart G - Cargo Handling Gear and Equipment Other than Ship's Gear Proposed Subpart G applies to all cargo handling gear utilized in cargo operations that is not part of the vessel (ship's gear). Proposed 1918.61 is very broad in its coverage. In paragraph (a) it stipulates that all gear and equipment brought aboard a vessel must be inspected before and during its use by the employer or a designated person to determine its condition. If, upon inspection, an unsafe condition is found, the gear must not be used until deficiencies are corrected. Proposed paragraph (b)(1) is carried over from the current longshore rules and requires that the Safe Working Load (SWL) of the gear not be exceeded. Proposed paragraph (b)(2) is new. This paragraph requires the marking of the SWL on special stevedoring gear with a safe working load (SWL) of over five short tons. OSHA believes that this is a basic requirement (Ex. 1-151), and that most gear in use is already marked with the SWL on it. Paragraph (c), which is similar to the current language, stipulates that the weight of any article of stevedoring gear that exceeds 2,000 pounds (1 short ton) must be plainly marked with the weight of that article before being hoisted by the ship's gear. Examples of such stevedoring gear are container handling lifting frames and certain multi-point engagement bridles. It is important to consider the weight of such articles when evaluating safe working loads of the ship's cargo gear. This is because the weight of the gear must be added to the weight of the load being lifted to determine the actual load, which together cannot exceed the SWL. Proposed paragraphs (d) and (e) remain unchanged and address certification and certification procedures. Proposed paragraph (f) addresses special stevedoring gear fabricated of components that are not common, off-the-shelf type items. For example, gear room constructed spreader bars for heavy lift cargo, special lifting devices for unique pieces of cargo, or bar pallet bridles will have some components that are not marketed or purchased with a specific cargo handling use in mind. Such certification must be performed in accordance with paragraphs (d) and (e) by an agency accredited by the Department of Labor under 29 CFR part 1919 before being put into use. Also, all intermodal container spreaders that are supplied by the stevedore for hoisting afloat shall be similarly inspected, tested, and certificated. Special stevedoring gear with a SWL of five short tons or less can continue to be inspected and tested as a unit by a designated person. OSHA is also proposing that all cargo handling gear covered by 1918.61(f) with a SWL greater than 5 short tons be inspected and proof load tested every four years in accordance with the chart found in paragraph (f) of this section. This inspection and proof load test may be done by an agency accredited by the U.S. Department of Labor under 29 CFR part 1919, or it can be done by a designated person. This change to the existing longshore regulations parallels similar requirements found in 29 CFR part 1917, Marine Terminals. For consistency between the two parts, OSHA is proposing in this rulemaking, to change 1917.50(b)(5) to reflect the 5 long ton exemption that is being proposed in 1918.61 and to require the periodic testing of special stevedoring gear and container spreaders every four years by a designated person, shoreside as well as shipside. OSHA feels that this will provide additional protection for those employees that use special stevedoring gear and will eliminate any confusion that may currently exist by requiring special stevedoring gear with a SWL greater than five long tons and spreaders supplied by the employer to be inspected, tested, and certificated whether it is used by shore-based material handling equipment or by cargo handling gear afloat. Proposed 1918.62 covers all miscellaneous gear that is not part of ship's gear, such as all slings, shackles, hooks, blocks and pallets (loose gear), employed aboard a vessel for use in cargo handling operations. The hazards addressed by this section are those generally associated with an employee's being struck by falling objects, i.e. dunnage, gear or cargo, when the gear fails. The provisions in this section helps to assure that loose gear used in the longshoring operation is both adequate in strength and size and in good enough condition to safely perform the operation. To foster uniformity, the Agency proposes the same requirements for miscellaneous gear as required in shoreside cargo handling at 29 CFR 1917.42. (See 46 FR 4194 and 48 FR 30895 for a full discussion of the rationale for these provisions.) OSHA proposes a comprehensive system of tables (See Appendix II) that will be utilized in the event that manufacturer's recommendations/certificates are not immediately available at the worksite for safe working load assessment. The tables are primarily based on ASME B30.9-1990 (Slings), (Ex. 1-148), as well as requirements applying to wire rope clips and shackles currently contained in the Agency's rules for Marine Terminals. It is OSHA's position that the manufacturers's recommended use and safe working load criteria, given the wide universe of international fabrication of all miscellaneous gear, are the most reliable factors to utilize in determining safe usage. However, the Agency appreciates that certificates or manufacturers' use recommendations may not be instantly available in certain circumstances. For instance, when inbound pre-slung drafts of cargo are ready for discharge at a given port, certificates or use recommendations might not be found aboard the vessel. Because such pieces of miscellaneous gear are not "ship's gear," it is likely that no data on them will appear within the ship's collection of certificates. Likewise, such gear cannot be properly classified as "stevedore supplied gear," for the stevedore will not have known the characteristics of the slings until the hatch section is actually observed. In these circumstances, the tables found in Appendix II can be relied upon to provide a realistic safe working load. In accordance with I.L.O. recommendation 160 (Ex. 1-8), OSHA, in proposed requirement 1918.62(h)(5)(ii), has added wording to prohibit the use of wrought iron in new parts of lifting appliances or loose gear. As a practical matter, wrought iron is rarely seen on vessels that are trading today. However, as with many of the regulations in this rule that have reduced application, there is the possibility that such conditions may still exist, and for that reason the relevant standards are being left in the proposal. OSHA invites the public to comment on this matter. Finally, a new paragraph is proposed to be added, (g)(2)(vi), that adds an additional criterion to cause a synthetic web sling to be removed from service. If warning threads or markers that the manufacturer has designed to indicate excessive wear or damage are visible, than the sling must be removed from service. Proposed 1918.63 and 1918.64 provide requirements for the use of chutes, rollers and both gravity and mechanically powered conveyors. OSHA proposes to bring into part 1918 the requirements that cover such pieces of equipment within the shoreside (29 CFR 1917.48 and 1917.49) rules. In this manner, no regulatory disparity will exist with equipment that often physically originates on shore and extends onto the ship. (See 46 FR 4208 and 48 FR 30900 for a full discussion of the rationale for these provisions as adopted in the Marine Terminal standard.) Notable among the changes brought about by bringing those shoreside rules aboard vessels, is the requirement that powered conveyors be locked out and tagged during most maintenance, repair, and serving. Also, that same procedure would be required in most situations that require the removal of a jam or overload on the powered conveyor system. Proposed 1918.65 covers the use of all mechanically powered vehicles brought aboard vessels to conduct or assist in cargo handling operations. Included in this category of equipment are all industrial trucks and all bulk cargo moving vehicles. In that these same vehicles are similarly utilized in the shoreside aspect of marine cargo handling, the hazards are essentially the same. These would include, among others, exceeding the safe working capacity of the vehicle; cargo falling on the operator either from stowage on the vessel or from being handled by the vehicle itself; improper maintenance which could lead to unsafe operation of the vehicle; and the falling hazards associated with the lifting of personnel by mechanically powered vehicles. Therefore, OSHA has proposed to track the requirements found in 1917.43 that are applicable to this class of equipment. (See 46 FR 4197 and 48 FR 30896 for a full discussion of the rationale of these provisions as adopted in the Marine Terminal standard.) Additionally, the Agency is proposing a requirement for roll-over protection on bulk cargo moving vehicles (such as the type used to trim and position bulk cargo in underdeck spaces). Such protection is required on similar pieces of equipment used in construction industry settings, where the hazard posed by turnover also exists. OSHA seeks comment on whether this provision provides adequate protection shipside and whether similar protection is needed shoreside. OSHA is proposing, in 1918.65(g), that vehicles purchased after the effective date of the final rule shall be equipped with parking brakes. OSHA believes that, although most older equipment may not be equipped with parking brakes, equipment that is currently being manufactured is generally equipped with such brakes. A parking brake is especially important when working Ro-Ro type vessels where the ramps can have a steep grade. Proposed 1918.66 covers all cranes and derricks which are not part of a vessel's permanent cargo handling gear, but are placed aboard a vessel temporarily to conduct cargo operations. As an example, mobile and crawler type cranes are at times positioned upon barges and thereupon transported to locations adjacent to a vessel to load and discharge cargo. Given that these hoisting devices are identical at both the shoreside and shipboard location, the hazards associated with the operation of this equipment are basically the same. These would include, among others, exceeding the safe working capacity of the crane or derrick; improper operation; improper maintenance; exposed mechanical moving parts; falling hazards associated with lifting personnel; and crushing hazards. Therefore, OSHA has relied upon its rules for cranes and derricks found in 29 CFR 1917.45 to provide regulatory consistency to the marine cargo handling industrial sector. (See 46 FR 4201 and 48 FR 30897 for a full discussion of the rationale of these provisions as adopted in the Marine Terminal standard.) In one obvious departure from the foregoing principle, the Agency has chosen not to propose requirements for load indicating devices within this section for shipside cargo handling. Usually such devices rely upon boom radius (outreach) as a component determinant in arriving at a load indication. When afloat, however, boom radius can be compromised by load and stability factors, resulting in indications that are not accurate. OSHA seeks comment from interested persons as to whether this approach provides adequate safety. In addition, the Agency solicits comment on alternative means of preventing overloads of cranes used aboard ships. Are there reliable alternate devices (that do not use radius as a central component in arriving at a load indication) that are sufficiently developed to accurately indicate the weight of the load? Would load moment indicators provide equal or better protection. Are some systems more precise than others? What other procedures could be employed to prevent overload conditions? Additionally, proposed 1918.66(c)(2) requires that the hoisting mechanism of cranes and derricks, when being used to hoist personnel, shall operate in the power up and power down mode with automatic brake application when stopped. This provision is similar to the requirements found in the personnel hoisting section of the OSHA Construction standards at 29 CFR 1926.550(g)(ii)(D). Earlier OSHA had proposed such a rule for all cranes in the Marine Terminal Proposal (46 FR 4237) but comments and other record evidence convinced OSHA that, at the time, this would be infeasible for mobile cranes. The final Marine Terminal standard, promulgated in 1983, therefore, only applied this provision to overhead and container gantry cranes. However, in 1988, OSHA issued its Construction standard for Crane or Derrick Suspended Personnel Platforms, (29 CFR 1926.550(g); 53 FR 29116). This rulemaking reexamined the feasibility of the controlled load lowering provision and, based on the record evidence, OSHA determined that controlled load lowering was both feasible and necessary when using cranes to hoist employees. For a detailed discussion, see 53 FR 29122. In light of these findings, OSHA is proposing to include the controlled load lowering provision in this part, and to amend part 1917 (1917.45(j)(2)) to cover all cranes and derricks, including mobile cranes. OSHA wishes to emphasize that hoisting employees by crane is not a safe practice and should be used only where other means are not feasible. OSHA solicits comment on this issue. Proposed 1918.66(c)(3) is a new requirement has also been taken from the from OSHA's Construction Safety standards applicable to hoisting personnel. This requires that a crane used to lift personnel be equipped with an anti-two block device. This is a device which prevents the hoist block from coming into contact with the head block of the boom. Such "two-blocking" can occur when the operator is not paying attention to how high the hoist block is in relation to the head of the boom. After contact, continued hoisting of the block can cause the block to separate from the load line, or break the load line itself, causing the hoist block and load to fall. OSHA feels that this requirement is necessary to prevent serious injury or death to employees being hoisted by a crane. In the 1988 construction rulemaking, this requirement was also found to be both necessary and feasible. Proposed 1918.67 carries over the exact requirements currently found in OSHA's Longshoring rule at 1918.75. Paragraphs (a) and (b) both provide that the employer must obtain permission from the officer in charge of the vessel whenever internal combustion or electrically powered tools, equipment or vehicles are brought aboard, and whenever the ship's power is needed for operating the employer's electrical tools or equipment. These requirements are prudent, in that such employer-provided equipment may be incompatible with vessel systems and could lead to electrical and ventilation problems, among others. Proposed 1918.68 provides for the effective grounding of all portable electrical equipment, such as saws, drills, grinders, etc., through a separate equipment conductor that either runs with or encloses both circuit conductors. This represents a clarification of the current rule. Double-insulated tools and battery-operated tools are excluded from the requirements. Proposed 1918.69 is a section titled "Tools." The current requirements with the same title are found in 1918.72, which addresses the safety devices that are required on portable tools, generally, and portable circular saws specifically. OSHA believes that the current OSHA General Industry standards, subpart P, titled "Hand and Portable Powered Tools and Other Hand-Held Equipment" comprehensively address the subject of portable tools. The hazards presented by these tools in this industry are no different than in general industry. Rather than repeating these requirements here, OSHA has decided to reference them in this proposal. Subpart H - Handling Cargo Proposed Subpart H specifically covers the cargo handling process. These sections (1918.81-89) address the hazards encountered by longshore workers while loading and unloading cargo. The primary hazards involve situations where the employee falls or is struck by cargo during the operation. In this subpart, OSHA is proposing to retain many of the rules currently found within subpart H of the current Longshoring standards (part 1918); to carry over applicable regulatory language from the Agency's rules for the shoreside segment of marine cargo handling (part 1917); and to add new requirements to account for occupational situations that are both unique to the shipboard workplace setting and up to date in their coverage of intermodal transport systems. Sections 1918.81 through 1918.84 address those hazards common to the handling of break bulk (or general) cargo. They require proper slinging, building, bulling and stowing drafts of cargo in order to prevent cargo from coming loose from the draft and falling on or tipping over on workers. Proposed paragraph (a) of 1918.81 is a general requirement for safety in the hoisting of slung drafts (loads hoisted by a sling or slings). Many factors can result in an unsafely slung draft. For instance, the wires of the sling may be placed on or around the cargo in a manner that causes a load to become unstable once it is hoisted. Such a situation can be recognized and effectively handled simply by rearranging the placement of the sling. Also, multi-tiered drafts are sometimes hoisted in a very unstable condition that is caused by one tier resting off center of another. Even a slight slacking of the gear can cause drafts slung in this manner to come apart. Readjustment of such drafts before hoisting can easily remedy that unsafe condition. Proposed paragraph (b) requires that slings attached to the lifting gear for handling more than one draft in succession be positively engaged to the hoisting system. This is usually accomplished by shackling the bridle (or sling) directly into the falls. Mousing (closing off) the throat of the cargo hook assembly, is not permitted. Proposed paragraph (c) provides protection for a common hazard encountered in break bulk cargo operations; that of being struck by sliding pieces of cargo or dunnage (shoring materials) that fall from the draft while in transit. There are at least two ways to correct such a situation: the first is to reconfigure the sling so that the top layer of the cargo is effectively engaged; the second is to secure the potential "sliders" to themselves (by banding them, for instance) or to the more substantial part of the draft. Proposed paragraphs (d), (e), and (h) are virtually identical to the current rules but are modified somewhat for clarity. Proposed paragraphs (f) and (g), on the other hand, are derived from the Marine Terminal standard which address the hoisting of "unitized loads." Unitized loads are loads that are banded or strapped together into a unit. Hoisting hazards with such loads occur when the bands are used to hoist the load but were not designed to do so; and when hoisting is performed when the banding is damaged. (See full discussion at 46 FR 4189.) Proposed paragraph (i) requires that loads not be hoisted unless the crane or winch operator can clearly see the draft at all times, or, alternatively, can clearly see the signals given by a signal person who is observing the draft. This is particularly important in that many break bulk vessels in current use and under construction are being fitted with revolving deck cranes. When using booms rigged in union purchase (the rigging of two booms together to be used as one lifting unit) the position of the boom head (and thus the location of the load's ultimate place of landing) is pre-determined, rarely changed, and fairly reliable. By contrast, in using deck cranes, the position of the boom bead can be varied easily. Loads, therefore, can be landed at many more locations, causing increased exposure of personnel to being struck by loads. Effective signaling requires a clear observation of the load by the signalperson and of the signalperson by the operator. Proposed paragraph (k) provides that the employer must require employees to stay clear of the area beneath overhead drafts or descending lifting gear. The employer is obligated to train certain employees in correct and safe procedures associated with the job, and to require that employees adhere to the well established and enforced work rules that are contained in that training. (See full discussion at 46 FR 4194.) OSHA is also proposing to include the same language in the Marine Terminal standard in 1917.13(h). Proposed paragraph (l) prohibits riding of the load or the cargo engaging means. This precludes the utilization of any cargo or any cargo engaging device (hook, clamshell, grapple, etc.) as a personnel conveyance. This proposed paragraph does not cover, however, the riding of loaded intermodal container spreaders, which is addressed in 1918.85(g). In accordance with proposed 1918.23(b), specific latitude is afforded longshoring operations taking place on the Mississippi river system, where the use of a personnel basket may be used. However, careful consideration and consultation with the Agency is important in the exercise of that latitude. Proposed 1918.82 and 1918.83 (a) and (b) address the hazards of cargo becoming inadvertently dislodged from an improperly built draft or improper stowage and falling or shifting, thus striking workers. The language is virtually identical to the current longshore rule. 1918.83(c), however, addresses a different hazard - losing workers in the hold of a ship. Such a hazard is greatly enhanced when the worker is working alone or in an isolated area, such as in tanks or reefer compartments. Also, workers trimming grain could be lost in the cargo. To deal with these hazards, the proposed and current rules require an employee check-in, check-out system or frequent checks thereby accounting for the safety of employees working in these conditions. Proposed 1918.84 addresses the "bulling" of cargo. Bulling is the horizontal dragging of cargo (across a deck space) with none of the weight of the cargo supported by the hoisting wire(s). In practice, this procedure is accomplished with power generally provided by the cargo winch (with the hoist runner led out through the heel block), and then to an angled system of "fairleads" that provide mechanical advantage in achieving a horizontal pull on the cargo. The paragraphs that comprise this section are all taken from the current part 1918 regulations, but have been somewhat clarified and reordered into a more logical sequence. They are also covered (in part) within the NYSA-ILA Safety Code (Ex. 1-2) and the PCMSC (Ex. 1-145). Proposed 1918.85 applies to containerized cargo operations of any form. The proposed paragraphs track both the current Longshoring standards of part 1918, as well as the shoreside requirements found in the Marine Terminals rule (part 1917). In summary, each intermodal container (see definition at 1918.2(h)) must be marked with its gross, net, and tare (empty) weights. Generally, containers must be weighed before being hoisted aboard a vessel, to arrive at an actual gross weight. No container is permitted to be hoisted aboard a vessel if its actual gross weight exceeds either the maximum gross weight marked on the container or the safe working load of the gear that is being utilized to load the ship. In the case of containers coming from foreign ports, container weights must be determined by utilizing data provided in shipping documents or, as is most often the case, by weights shown on cargo stow plans. Proposed paragraph (b) addresses the topic of overloaded intermodal containers. This issue has raised a good deal of international concern (Exs. 1-120, 1-121, 1-122, 1-123, 1-124, 1-125, 1-126). The proposed provisions largely reflect the current rules in both the Longshore and Marine Terminal standards. OSHA feels that the protection afforded by its rules as they pertain to outbound (export) containers, namely that with few exceptions all are weighed before hoisting, will permit very few overweight loads going out from U.S. ports. The reliability of manifested or stow plan weights of containers coming into U.S. ports, however, appears to be in serious question as documented by the previous exhibits. The question then becomes, whether there is a better method of determining the actual weights of these containers, and how should such a method be implemented in the standards. The Agency requests interested persons to submit comment into the record concerning both as to the Agency's perception of the problem, and what better regulatory approach OSHA may take in seeking resolution. For instance, instead of relying upon the proposed language of this section, should OSHA require that container handling gantry cranes (currently exempted from the rule requiring a load indicating device - 1918.74(a)(9)(viii)) be fitted with such a piece of equipment? In addition, a new proposed 1918.85(b)(6) has been added as a result of OSHA Instruction STD 2.2 dated July 3, 1989 (Ex. 1-114). Prior to the issuance of this instruction, the rule required closed containers loaded only with automobiles to be weighed. This instruction (and the language of this paragraph) allows closed dry van containers that have been loaded with vehicles to be loaded onto a vessel without being weighed on a scale. By contrast, other loaded containers, other than open top containers and containers solely used for the carriage of compressed gases, have to be weighed on a scale before being loaded onto a vessel. The reasoning behind the Instruction and this paragraph is that the weight of the vehicles inside a container will not exceed the net weight that the container itself is designed to carry. There are, however, three conditions that must be met in order for this exception to apply. First, the container must only contain assembled vehicles and no other cargo; second, the container must be marked on the outside so that an employee can readily discern that the container is carrying vehicles; and finally, the vehicles must have been loaded at the marine terminal. This paragraph is also to be proposed to be put into the Marine Terminal standard as 29 CFR 1917.71(b)(6). Proposed paragraph (d) addresses the hazard of handling a defective container. Although existing 1918.85(d) addresses the inspection of both outbound and inbound containers for visible defects, the proposed language does not mention the limitation of outbound or inbound. With regard to outbound containers, the hazards associated with handling a defective container are effectively covered by 1917.71(g) of the Marine Terminal standard. In this paragraph, OSHA chooses not to limit the inspection requirement to only inbound containers since certain other containers, including possibly defective ones, may need to be shifted in order to discharge an inbound container. Since a defective outbound container can create an identical hazard to the worker as does a defective inbound container, this proposal makes no distinction between the two. Finally, the provisions for handling a defective container remain the same as the current requirements: special safe handling or emptying of the container. In proposed paragraph (e), the Agency would require that employees be required to stay clear of the area beneath suspended containers. Accidents of an extremely serious nature have occurred in recent years (Ex. 1-37, 1-87) that highlight the need to propose this provision. Additionally, the Agency has such a requirement in its shoreside rules (1917.71(d)(2)). Proposed paragraph (f) on lifting fittings contains identical language to that found in the Agency's shoreside rules (1917.71(f)). Discussion is warranted, however, on the need to apply paragraph (f)(1)(i) on board ships. Often, particularly in below deck stowage on conventional break bulk vessels, it may be tempting to utilize ship's gear or shoreside mobile cranes and rig four leg bridles with hooks (engaging the four top corner castings) to facilitate easier stowage. In handling loaded containers, this practice is dangerous and is prohibited. The International Cargo Handling Coordination Association (ICHCA), has published a paper entitled "The Safe Handling of ISO Freight Containers with Hooks * * * " that clearly outlines the inherent dangers of this practice (Ex. 1-13) as well as methods to accomplish stowage safely in such situations. Additionally, other international standards exist (Exs. 1-115, 1-116 and 1-117) that recommend that loaded containers only be lifted vertically when being handled from the top. Any method of lifting containers that is not vertical places undue stress which could lead to failure of the container. OSHA believes that this regulatory approach is well taken and reasonable. In proposed paragraph (g), the Agency requires that a safe means of access and egress be provided to each employee who, due to the nature of the work, must work atop stowed containers - both above and below deck. In practice, most employees gain such access by riding aboard safety platforms installed on container crane lifting frames. Such means are permissible when conducted in a manner consistent with design requirements found in the shoreside rules (1917.45(j)). While the shoreside rules already apply whenever a shore-based crane acts as the personnel conveyance, this proposed paragraph (which incorporates by reference the shoreside design criteria) provides for the same requirements to apply whenever shipboard equipment carries out the same function. Proposed paragraph (h) applies on vessels so equipped, to any loaded intermodal container spreader. It is well known throughout the industry that there are significant risks associated with riding a loaded container spreader. "Free falls" (or the unintended release of a container from a spreader), although infrequent, occur only while under load (Exs. 1-25 and 1-26). Additionally, having riders aboard a loaded spreader adds to the responsibilities of the crane operator, and whose attention is already occupied with the task of getting the containers to their intended location. The Agency is proposing a similar prohibition for the shoreside aspect of marine cargo handling (part 1917) as part of this proposal, proposed 1917.45(j)(9). In proposed paragraph (i), OSHA would require (when safer methods are available) that ladders not be used to gain access to the tops of containers that are stowed greater than two high. The Agency deems gaining access by means of a properly designed and conveyed personnel platform (such as those often found on intermodal container spreaders) as being safer than employing ladders in climbing to heights that can attain 50. ft or more (Ex. 1-10). Proposed paragraph (j) covers the hazard of falling from the tops of intermodal containers. This hazard has long been recognized by the stevedoring industry as both extremely dangerous and difficult to prevent. Although constituting a small percentage of the total number of shipboard accidents in the United States, falls from the tops of containers have resulted in a number of serious occupational injuries and fatalities (Exs. 1-18, 1-19, 1-20, 1-21, 1-22, 1-23, 1-24, 1-43, 1-67, 1-68, 1-100, 1-108). As early as 1968, U.S. terminal operators recognized the need to improve container top safety. Matson Terminals, Inc., in conjunction with their parent ocean operator, Matson Navigation Company, developed the first system of container top fall protection within the worldwide intermodal network (Ex. 1-53). In that system, Matson provided for a "D" ring fixture to be installed within the roof of each company-owned intermodal container. Employees working aloft were provided with a safety belt and lanyard that could be secured to the "D" ring anchorage. For a number of reasons, use of the system proved to be difficult, and it is not widely used today. In 1970, OSHA's predecessor agency, the Bureau of Labor Standards, was contacted by the Coast Labor Relations Committee of the International Longshoremen's and Warehousemen's Union, who raised this issue specifically. In their letter of August 24, 1970 (Ex. 1-50), the Coast Committee asserted: Consider if you will the dangers attendant to working atop containers. They are not equipped with skidproof surfaces, there are no protective railings, and there are no requirements that safety belts be provided. In dry warm weather such work is dangerous enough, but the dangers are critically compounded when workers must labor atop these during windy and wet weather. At the very least, BLS regulations ought to provide that * * * safety belts be [required] for men working aloft. As the containerized transport revolution progressed during the 1970's and into the 1980's, and intermodal containers become more common in the cargo handling trades, container top exposures increased proportionately. At that time, there was no specific container top safety provision in the Longshoring standards. The Agency issued citations under the General Duty Clause (Section 5(a)(190) of the Act and 1918.32(b) of OSHA's rules for Longshoring (Exs. 1-139). The latter provision states, in the context of applying to stowed cargo and temporary landing platforms: When the edge of a hatch section or stowed cargo more than 8 feet high is so exposed that it presents a danger of an employer falling, the edge shall be guarded by a safety net of adequate strength to prevent injury to a falling employee, or by other means protection equal protection under the existing circumstances. Although there were questions regarding the applicability of 1918.32(b) to container operations, it was determined that the provision did indeed have application to container top on-deck exposures. In an Instruction to the Field (CPL 2-1.17) dated August 30, 1982, the Agency's policy on the issue was spelled out (Ex. 1-49). In that instruction, OSHA determined that although the 1918.32(b) provision applied, there would be situations where the abatement of the container fall hazard was not feasible. In such situations, the instruction noted: A violation (of 1918.32(b)) shall not be issued; however, OSHA should recommend and encourage the employer to work toward a solution and assist the employer in every way possible to effect a means of protection by advice, consultation and dissemination of information obtained during other inspections. With the onset of containerized cargo handling, it became necessary to secure containers (not placed in cell guides) to each other to prevent unintentional movement during transit. To achieve this stability, workers placed stacking cones in the corner castings of the container ("coning") while the containers were being loaded on the ship. While the containers were unloaded from the ship, workers removed stacking cones from the corner castings of the container ("deconing"). The original stacking cones were replaced in the early 1970's by conventional twistlocks which eliminated the need for some lashing but still required workers to climb on top of the containers to place or remove them. Today twistlocks are the most commonly used fitting for securing freight containers onboard vessels (Ex. 1-140). Semi-automatic twistlocks, developed in the mid 1980's, eliminate the need for some lashing but also eliminate the need for workers to go on top of the containers for the purposes of coning and deconing. While some work performed on container tops remains unaffected by the use of SATLs, most of the work that would otherwise require workers to go atop containers could be eliminated. The use of these devices could, effectively, "engineer out" exposure to container top falling hazards. Industry efforts to find feasible methods for container top fall hazard abatement received a significant impetus when, on June 27, 1985, Longshore Division members of the International Longshoremen's and Warehousemen's Union (ILWU) called a work stoppage that put at a standstill all container operations at the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach, California. The work stoppage (Ex. 1-42) punctuated the ILWU's concern over a series of work related deaths that occurred over a 14-month period. Although only one of these occupational fatalities was attributable to container top exposure, the labor union insisted that an effective work rule to minimize the hazards associated with container top work be instituted, and asserted that such a work rule was central to averting a continued work stoppage. On July 1, 1985, the ILWU and the Pacific Maritime Association (PMA), acting as management's representative, agreed upon a package of 25 work rules that were specifically designed to enhance safety at container terminals. That successful management and labor agreement led to the resumption of work. Internationally, a number of national and multi-national organizations are aware of and have acted upon the problem. The International Labor Organization, in its Code of Practice for Safety and Health in Dockwork (Ex. 1-130) specifically requires that: A person gaining access to the top of a container should be adequately protected against the danger of falling where appropriate by wearing a suitable safety harness properly tethered, or by other effective means, whilst on the container. In its Directions for Safety in Dockwork, the National Swedish Board of Occupational Safety and Health (Ex. 1-131) provides, in pertinent part, that: Work on top of a container is only permissible if measures have been taken to prevent falling down. In the Netherlands, the Inspectorate of Dock Labor notes (Ex. 1-44) that: For general containertop [sic] safety in most cases the recommendations of I.L.O. and ICHCA are followed. In the port of Hamburg, Germany, a "lash basket" designed by a dockworker (Ex. 1-45) rides underneath the container spreader and moves between container stows, minimizing containertop exposures. Also, in the port of Bremerhaven, a specially designed "rigger box," which is similar in configuration to some U.S. designs, protects dockworkers who go on top of containers in that port (Ex. 1-52). In the wake of a fatal accident that occurred in a New Zealand port in 1979, the New Zealand section of ICHCA responded by conducting and publishing a study, entitled: "Container Top Safety - An Overview" (Ex. 1-46). In that study, ICHCA analyzed the problem and a number of possible solutions, among them having the employee tethered to a fixed anchorage. Other tentative solutions arrived at by a number of worldwide locales were also discussed. OSHA believes that longshore workers who work on container tops are exposed to fall hazards that can cause serious injury or death. Containers are typically stacked from one to nine below deck and one to six above deck. The loading and unloading procedures typically require a worker to place and remove container stacking alignment cones in and from the container's corner castings. This means that workers performing these tasks are regularly exposed to falling hazards of up to 90 feet (27.3 m). Within the last few years, advances have been made in the technology of securing intermodal containers which have had a dramatic effect on container top safety. The use of positive container securing devices or systems, such as semi-automatic twistlocks (SATL) and above deck cell guides, can nearly eliminate the need for workers to work on the tops of containers thereby eliminating the falling hazard. Although OSHA has participated in an ongoing dialogue with industry, labor, the international cargo handling community, and others interested in how these technologies can improve worker safety, actual record evidence is somewhat limited. However, OSHA's information does include a comprehensive study prepared by a safety expert under contract to OSHA that addresses the hazards associated with containerized cargo handling (Ex. 1-139); an ICHCA Safety Panel Research Paper addressing the use of semi-automatic twistlocks (Ex. 1-140); a time-and-motion study comparing the use of conventional twistlocks (also referred to as manual twistlocks) with semi-automatic twistlocks (Ex. 1-141); safety information produced by the United Kingdom (U.K.) addressing jammed container fittings (Ex. 1-142); an article published by a U.K. terminal association that addresses the freeing of jammed twistlocks (Ex. 1-143); and a newsletter from an insurance company addressing container twistlocks (Ex. 1-144). The ICHCA study is the most comprehensive study on the SATL experience (Ex. 1-140). This study defines SATL at page 3 as follows: Semi-Automatic Twistlock (SATL) - A twistlock which will automatically engage in the locked position when the locking mechanism has been triggered by the weight of the container as it is landed onto another container or deck foundation. Since prototypes were first developed in Japan in the mid 1980's, manufacturers around the world have made improvements on the design which enhance both durability and reliability. (Id.) In fact, the ICHCA study indicates the existence of approximately 22 different models of SATLs (Id. P. 6). Manufacturers indicate that, with proper use and maintenance, the average lifespan of the SATL in the marine environment would be about the same as a conventional twistlock - about 10 years (Id. p. 59). As indicated in both the ICHCA study (Id.) and the OSHA study (Ex. 1-139), the use of SATLs is widespread throughout the world and the United States. In fact, OSHA estimates that over 25 percent of ships calling in U.S. ports are already utilizing SATLs. Proponents of the use of SATLs argue that the device avoids accidents and saves money. Unlike conventional twistlocks, which must be inserted by workers on top of the container and manually locked, semi-automatic twistlocks are inserted into the bottom of the container by workers standing on the dock and lock automatically when placed upon another container. Both SATLs and conventional twistlocks can be unlocked by workers standing on the deck of the ship using an actuator pole. In the case of unloading with the conventional twistlock, the upper container is then removed leaving the twistlocks on the top of the lower container. The major operational distinction is that workers must remove conventional twistlocks from the top of a shipboard container before the spreader can attach to the corner castings, while the SATL is designed to remain attached to the bottom of the container being unloaded. SATLs are then removed by workers standing on the dock. This operation using SATLs, therefore, eliminates worker exposure to falling hazards. Finally, proponents argue that the use of SATLs enhances productivity and reduces lashing costs. (Ex. 1-140, p. 76; Ex. 1-141). In fact, a time-and-motion study that compares the performance of conventional twistlocks to that of SATLs indicates an increase in productivity in the range of 25 to 29 percent. This translates to a 11.1 percent reduction in stevedoring costs (Ex. 1-141, p. 4 and 5; Ex. 2). To the extent that this study is representative of all container cargo handling operations affected by this rule, it indicates substantial reductions of fall hazards by the use of SATLs. OSHA seeks comment from interested parties including any additional data or studies that address this issue. As indicated above, another advancement in securing containers in transit that eliminates the need for workers to go on top of containers is the development of above deck cell guides. Cell guides are rigid, structural members that form cells where containers are stowed. These cell guides allow for the ready placement of containers in a manner that prevents movement once so placed. Although cell guides in the hold are common in container ships, above deck cell guides are far less common, constituting only 2 percent (Ex. 2, pgs. 2-19) of container ships calling at U.S. ports. In addition, OSHA is aware of the existence of positive container securing devices other than those discussed above, such as the SeaLand framing system (Ex. 1-57), OSHA believes that use of the term "positive container securing devices" is broad enough to allow for innovative technological improvement. While the use of SATLs is the most widespread method of positively securing containers that eliminates the fall hazard, OSHA is aware of certain problems that have been encountered with their application, use and design. (Ex. 1-140, 1-142, 1-143, 1-144). The Agency is working closely with those international standards setting organizations responsible for developing design and use specifications. In this rulemaking, OSHA solicits relevant information regarding the use of SATLs. Proposed 1918.85(j) addresses the hazards associated with working on the tops of containers. In keeping with OSHA's hierarchy of controlling hazards, this paragraph requires the use of feasible engineering controls. In proposed paragraph (j)(1) a definition for "fall hazard" is provided in a footnote. The definition seeks to narrow the elevated work surfaces where fall hazards exist in order to reflect the reality of a changing work surface. A longshore worker working on the top of containers for the purpose of loading or unloading a layer of containers is working on an elevated work surface that can increase or decrease at the rate of 320 square feet (29.4 m((2)) every few minutes. OSHA believes that such a rapidly changing elevated work surface is unique to this industry. For example, five 40-foot containers stowed side by side present a work surface of approximately 40 foot (12.2 m) by 40 foot (12.2 m) (1600 square feet)(147.2 m(2)). According to this definition, falling hazards (absent weather considerations) only exist within 3 feet (.92 m) of the perimeter or 3 feet (.9 m) by 148 feet (45.1 m) (444 square feet) (40.8 m(2)). By contrast, the hazardous area on top of a single container is 252 square feet (23.4 m(2)) of the 320 square feet (29.4 m(2)). The definition makes it clear that it is the unprotected edge where the hazard exists, and not necessarily the entire work surface. Additionally, any gap of 12 inches (.31 m) or more on a horizontal surface formed by containers is considered an unprotected edge and a falling hazard would exist under this definition. (For further discussion of the gap issue see 51 FR 42685 and 53 FR 48186). Finally, OSHA believes that any work within 3 feet (.92 m) of the unprotected edge constitutes a hazard (See Ex. 1-139). Another important element of this definition is the vertical distance necessary to constitute a fall hazard. OSHA believes that, in this industry and in this work operation, 10 feet (3.0 m) is the appropriate vertical distance. There are several considerations that leads OSHA to this conclusion. The height of the overwhelming majority of intermodal containers range from 8 feet (2.4 m) to 9 1/2 feet (2.7 m) (Ex. 1-139). Therefore, an employee working on top of a one-high container where the surface is less then 10 feet (3.04 m) would not, by definition, be exposed to a fall hazard. However, such containers are usually worked off ladders, not the top. Also, if such a container is stowed on a raised surface, such as a hatch cover or pedestal, that puts the top of the container at 10 feet or over, then any workers on top would, by definition, be exposed to fall hazards. The unique working surface in this operation coupled with heightened awareness of the longshore worker and the absence of accident data at this distance further assures OSHA that 10 foot is the appropriate height. OSHA is aware that an opposing view exists. Labor is of the opinion that OSHA should make this vertical height 8 feet (2.4 m) to be consistent with the proposed requirement 1918.32(b) where a fall hazard is considered to exist over 8 feet (2.4 m) when handling non-containerized cargo (Ex. 1-150). OSHA wishes to fully assess all factors attendant to this issue, and solicits all pertinent views and data on the appropriate height for fall protection. Two final considerations in the definition of a fall hazard are with regard to the elements and the "adjoining surface." When weather conditions are such that the vision or footing of workers on top of containers is impaired then a fall hazard will, by definition, exist. The proposed standard requires such workers to be protected by fall protection, regardless of the fall distance or their proximity to the edge. OSHA notes that unsure footing on container top work surfaces created by oil or grease is addressed in the housekeeping section, 1918.91, of this proposed standard. In addition, in the Marine Terminal standard, OSHA defers to adverse weather conditions by prohibiting terminal crane operations in high-wind conditions (1917.45(g)). The other consideration involves the measurement of the vertical distance from "the adjoining surface." Informal discussions between OSHA staff and various affected parties have indicated concern that this phrase must be carefully defined in order to avoid confusion in the maritime community. An enforcement concern is a that vertical height measurement might be made from the elevated surface to an adjoining surface which would not be the landing surface in the event of a fall. Should the term, "adjoining surface" be further clarified by adding either performance or specification language? For example, the term could read, "adjoining landing surface (in the event of a fall)"; or "adjoining surface with a minimum 8 by 8-foot area (2.4 m by 2.4 m)." OSHA solicits comment on this issue. In view of the recent technological improvements in positive container securing devices indicated above, OSHA feels that many work operations, notably coning and deconing, that exposed workers to container top fall hazards can now be eliminated. As noted above, SATLs have proven to be particularly effective when container gantry cranes are utilized (Ex. 1-140). In fact, the use of these devices in these circumstances can, in most instances, eliminate the need for workers to go on top of containers. In light of this, three years after the date of publication of this proposal, proposed 1918.85(j)(1) would prohibit the performance of any work, notably coning and deconing, on top of containers that can be eliminated by the proper use of these devices. OSHA has estimated that over 25 percent of ships calling at U.S. ports already utilize SATLs (Ex. 2). Since it is OSHA's policy to allow a reasonable time to come into compliance with final standards, the proposed compliance date for the implementation of engineering controls would be three years. OSHA is optimistic that exposures to container top fall hazards will significantly decrease with the expanded deployment of positive container securing devices worldwide. At the same time, the Agency is sensitive to the magnitude of a phase-in process for SATLs. Consequently, OSHA is proposing a lengthy effective date of this section of three years from the date the proposed standard is issued. Consonant also with the Agency's policy, OSHA will continue to disseminate information to employers and employees in this industrial sector, as to how other operations throughout the nation and the world are approaching the problem. OSHA recognizes that positive container securing devices will not entirely eliminate the need for workers to go on the top of containers. Certain container placement or securing tasks, in addition to coning or deconing, must be performed. In these situations (e.g., securing bridge clamps or releasing jammed twistlocks), a comprehensive fall protection program must be implemented. Where cranes other than container gantry cranes are used to handle containers, OSHA recognizes that the use of SATLs may not be feasible. Precise placement capabilities of a container gantry crane are far superior to other lifting devices, thus facilitating the use of SATLs. This enhanced capability is due to the four point suspension system of the gantry crane, which provides greater stability and control of the container being handled, enabling the crane operator to place the container without assistance. Container operations where the spreader is suspended from a single point, on the other hand, have far less stability and control and typically requires the assistance of other employees in the placement of containers. In these circumstances, employees can frequently be exposed to fall hazards. In light of the discussion above, even when the use of SATLs is feasible when other than gantry cranes are being utilized, the need for employees to work on container tops in the handling of containers may not be eliminated. Therefore, OSHA would not require the use of positive container securing devices when containers are not being handled by container gantry cranes. Nonetheless, there is nothing in the proposed standard that would prohibit an employer from employing SATLs where a single point suspension is in use. However, under these circumstances, SATLs in the container being placed have been shown to jam or puncture the top of the container below with improper alignment (Ex. 1-140). OSHA solicits all pertinent views and information on all issues. With regard to the feasibility of fall protection, OSHA recognizes that, in this industry, there may be particular instances when even fall protection may not be feasible. An example of circumstances where fall protection may not be feasible is the placement of an overheight container on a chimney stow using gear that requires the manual release of hooks. In these situations the proposed standard requires the employer to: 1. Make a determination that an employee will be exposed to a fall hazard but that the use of fall protection is not feasible; 2. Alert the exposed employee about the hazards involved; and 3. Instruct the exposed employee how to best minimize the hazard. OSHA wishes to emphasize that such a situation is not common and that when they occur, the burden is on the employer to fully comply with these requirements prior to the actual exposure. In fact, the OSHA study indicated that a "specific set of circumstances could not be framed" where fall protection might not be feasible (Ex. 1-139, p. 1). Furthermore, situations that will be considered infeasible for fall protection will be narrowly construed in the enforcement context. A footnote in the standard refers to non-mandatory Appendix III which provides examples of situations where it may be considered infeasible to use fall protection. Where feasible, however, OSHA will require that fall protection be provided. Proposed 1918.85(k) establishes the technical requirements necessary to provide a fall protection system that is tailored to the handling of containers. Most of the requirements in this paragraph are basic to any occupationally related fall protection system. These include all of the paragraphs with the exception of (k)(7) and (k)(10), and are based on the PCMSC (Ex. 1-145), American National Standards Institute (ANSI) consensus standard Z359.1-1992 and the OSHA standards 1910.66 and 1926.104. Essentially, these requirements address the design, selection, care and proper use of a personal fall protection system. In addition, 1918.85(k)(7) and (10) have been specially crafted for the container top situation. Paragraph (k)(7) addresses the situation where a container gantry crane, or its extension, is being used as the anchorage point for the fall protection system in use. Under these circumstances, the crane must be placed in the slow speed mode and equipped with a remote shut-off switch in the control of the tied off employee. In addition, an indicator must be present to inform the employee when the remote is operational. OSHA seeks comment on whether the indicator should reflect that both the slow speed mode and the remote shut-off are operational. The other proposed requirement unique to this work operation, paragraph (k)(10), addresses the situation where the employee is being transported by a device, such as a safety cage, attached to a container gantry crane spreader. Such a device is required to have a means of attachment to the spreader in place in addition to the primary attachment mechanism of the spreader (hydraulic twistlock mechanism) to prevent accidental disengagement. OSHA is aware of several instances where accidental disengagement of a load has occurred (Ex. 1-25, 1-26). This secondary means of attachment is intended to minimize the potential for injury if accidental disengagement were to occur. A final issue for discussion in this section is Paragraph (k)(13) where an employee retrieval procedure in the case of a fall must be established. It has been suggested that local emergency response personnel be consulted in the development of this procedure in order to assure that rescue or retrieval efforts do not exacerbate any injury. OSHA believes that such a consultation would be prudent. OSHA invites comment on all issues related to container top safety and encourages the submission of relevant views and information. Proposed 1918.85(l) addresses container operations that require employees to work along unguarded edges other than on container tops. In these situations, fall protection meeting the requirements of paragraph (k) of this section must be provided where the fall distance is greater than 8 feet (2.4 m). This primarily addresses work operations such as lashing or locking and unlocking twist locks from other surfaces, or signalling to direct the placement of containers. Frequently, this work operation requires employees to work in elevated positions that remove the fall protection that would have normally been provided by the ship's coaming or railings. OSHA recently investigated a fatality where an employee fell 34 feet (10.3 m) from a lashing platform that was inadequately guarded (Ex. 1-149). Proposed 1918.86 is a new section that addresses operations aboard vessels that accommodate Ro-Ro (Roll-on/Roll-off) traffic. The emergence of Ro-Ro vessels is a fairly recent development and were not addressed in the current rules. Along with container operations, this section proposes new provisions that address advances in modern technology in the marine cargo handling industry. Examples of such vessels are car carriers, which facilitate the import and export automobile trades, and stern or side port combination carriers, which provide water carriage for wheel mounted as well as containerized cargo. Commonly such vessels are fitted with ramps that extend to the dock or wharf, and are fitted with ramps internally or, alternatively, are fitted with cargo elevators (lifts). In this manner, cargo is either driven through the vessel from deck to deck until reaching its final stowage location, or hoisted by cargo elevator to its proper deck and then driven to its final stowage location. Once positioned in its stowage location, the wheeled cargo is lashed to securing fittings that are provided on the deck. In such operations, lashing personnel are exposed to being struck by vehicular traffic. In addition, other workers involved with loading or unloading wheeled cargo, both drivers and pedestrians, are exposed to traffic hazards. OSHA is aware of a number of accidents (Ex. 1-78, 1-89) that are attributable to this process, wherein employees are interspersed with vehicles in a closely confined, marginally illuminated and poorly traffic managed space. In proposed paragraph (a), OSHA would require an organized system of traffic control to be established and maintained at each entrance and exit ramp. The confluence of vehicular and pedestrian traffic in Ro-Ro operations, and thus the area where substantial accident potential is most pronounced, is the area on and around access ramps. With this mode of cargo carriage on the increase, accident potential is expected to increase proportionately. Ramps inside the vessel, although generally not as congested as ship-to-shore access lanes, must also be addressed by the traffic control system if they experience a periodic traffic flow that warrants such control. In developing this rule, OSHA considered positions taken by the International Labor Organization in their Code of Practice for Dock Work (Ex. 1-106), which provides that: A system of movement control of vehicles used in loading and unloading ships should be effectively and continuously applied. In assessing other national requirements, the Agency found that Sweden in its Dock Work Directions issued by the National Board of Occupational Safety and Health (Ex. 1-136), also requires that: A traffic guard shall be stationed wherever motor vehicles need to be directed, e.g., on roll on-roll off ramps, narrow wharves and places where there is traffic crossing and the view is limited. Clearly, shipside traffic control is just as necessary as it is in the shoreside environment. In OSHA's preamble to the Marine Terminals standard, the Agency emphasized (46 FR 4200) in its assessment of the importance of traffic control at the shoreside marine terminal setting: * * * the importance of these practices to employee safety cannot be over estimated. Given the close relationship between shoreside and shipboard vehicular utilization, it is appropriate that OSHA's rules addressing the two be complementary. Proposed paragraph (b) addresses the hazard of exceeding the capacity of the ramp used to transfer cargo. As a result of ramp failure, the likely injury to occur is drowning or being crushed in the vehicle. Ramps must be plainly marked with their load capacity and these capacities must not be exceeded (Ex. 1-5). Proposed paragraph (c) provides protection for employees that use the ship's ramp for access. In such situations, OSHA proposes that a physical separation, i.e., a barrier, be provided to separate the employee and the vehicles. Often vessels are fitted out in this manner (Ex. 1-84). However, should it be the case that a particular vessel is not so fitted, it is a matter that is easily rectified. When the design of the ramp prevents physical separation of pedestrians from vehicles, a signalperson shall direct traffic, and shall not allow concurrent use. Additionally, OSHA proposes to require that such ramps utilized for pedestrian access be fitted out in the same manner as would a traditional pedestrian gangway (see 1918.21). Proposed paragraph (d) requires that ramps be properly maintained and secured. This is consistent with 1918.24(b) which addresses maintaining and securing portable ramps. Proposed paragraph (e) recognizes that in many of the modern generations of Ro-Ro vessels, internal ramps are elevatable. Such a construction feature allows for multiple access destinations, depending upon the placement of the ramp. If a ramp is placed in such a manner as to allow access to a given deck, thereby creating a void in another access route (that could perhaps lead to a substantial drop or fall), this paragraph provides that the incomplete route be clearly identified and barricaded. OSHA has investigated at least one (Ex. 1-86) occupational fatality in which this circumstance was apparent. Paragraph (f) requires that all brake air lines be connected and tested prior to commencing operations. The proper operation of brakes is necessary when operating inside a Ro-Ro vessel that typically has ramps with steep grades. Proposed paragraph (g) requires that flat bed and low boy trailers be marked with their cargo capacity and not be overloaded. These operations typically employ the use of trailers not designed for over-the-road use such as low boy trailers (sometimes referred to as "mafi's") that allow access to low deck height spaces found in Ro-Ro vessels. Proposed paragraph (h) is analogous to OSHA's current weight requirement for intermodal containers. It would require that cargo to be handled via the ship's ramp be either marked with its weight or have such weight clearly marked in a written record. As a practical matter, vessel stow plans most always contain such data. Proposed paragraph (i) requires tractors to have sufficient power and braking capacity to safely operate on Ro-Ro vessels. As previously noted, this is especially important in negotiating tight spaces and steep grades on Ro-Ro vessels. Proposed paragraph (k) would require that internal combustion engine vehicles only be operated when adequate ventilation exists or is provided. It also provides guidance in determining acceptable levels of air contaminants generated by the internal combustion process, by referring the reader to the appropriate section of this part and part 1910, subpart Z (which is referenced in subpart A of this proposal. In most situations, the vessels themselves are fitted out with ventilation systems at all decks. It has been the Agency's observation that a number of purpose built Ro-Ro vessels possess ventilation systems that function remarkably well (Ex. 1-72), monitoring ambient air for various air contaminants as well as explosive properties. Proposed paragraph (l) would require that cargo be secured to prevent sliding loads. This addresses the specific hazard of cargo falling off trailers while in transit on Ro-Ro vessels. Proposed paragraph (m) would require that authorized persons, equipped with high visibility vests (or equivalent protection), be the only employees permitted on any deck where Ro-Ro operations are being conducted. Requiring only high visibility vests (or equivalent protection) and eliminating the allowance of using decals or reflectors is a departure from what has been allowed in the Marine Terminal standard. As is noted in Section VI of this preamble, OSHA proposes to eliminate the allowance of decals or reflectors in 1917.71(e) because of problems experienced with the use of decals, reflectors, and similar items. The reflective area of a decal on a hard hat is obviously less than that of a vest. Also, the reflective value is lost during daylight hours or whenever the wearer takes off the hard hat. A number of serious accidents (Exs. 1-78, 1-89) have occurred in the past due to the nature of the work involved in such cargo operations. This paragraph, along with the signalling requirements in proposed paragraph (n) that follow, are expected to enable employers to avoid vehicle-related accidents onboard ships. Paragraph (n) addresses signalling requirements for maneuvering vehicles into stowage positions while other personnel are in the adjacent vicinity. In proposed 1918.87, OSHA sets out requirements for the utilization of shipboard elevators (lifts). Elevators are most common on a number of different Ro-Ro and Combination carrier vessel designs. The hazards addressed by this section are cargo falling from an improperly loaded elevator; and from wheeled cargo or employees falling into open spaces in the deck created by a moving elevator. In approaching the issue of elevator usage, the Agency remained mindful of foreign vessel design prerogatives. Consequently, the four paragraphs proposed within this section, are protective of U.S. longshore workers obliged to use such installations, but are not expected to have an impact on any other nation's vessel designs. In summarizing this section, OSHA would require that safe working loads of elevators be determined and adhered to. As a "lifting appliance," shipboard elevators are part of a complement of gear that comes under considerable discussion in ILO Convention No. 152 (see discussion of Subpart B - Gear Certification). As such, shipboard installations of elevators will require certification of safe working loads as well as the posting of elevator capacity. In practical terms, the employer's responsibility with regard to this paragraph is relatively simple to discharge. The requirement for evenly distributing the weight(s) to be lifted, particularly when considering the various drive mechanisms providing power to the elevator platforms, is an important provision. Proposed paragraph (c) also is an important requirement that, while allowing the driver of a vehicle to remain at the vehicle's controls, prohibits other persons from riding the elevator to other decks. Of necessity, the sides of many shipboard elevators are unguarded while in transit. Riders, therefore, would be exposed to falls from sometimes significant heights. The ILO's Code of Practice for Dock Work (Ex. 1-107) addresses this issue in much the same manner. In proposed paragraph (d), OSHA addresses a problem that both this Agency and the earlier Labor Standards Bureau have recognize as needing attention (Ex. 1-82). This provision would require that if fall hazards are created by open decks during the operation of shipboard elevators, the decks shall be barricaded. OSHA believes that under current international practice most installations will already be effectively guarded. In those situations, however, where the installation falls short in providing this safeguard, the employer must take the initiative in acquiring and effectively utilizing the required barrier protection. Proposed 1918.88, "Log operations," as previously mentioned in the preamble discussion of proposed 1918.38 "Log rafts," is also an entirely new section addressing the hazards associated with loading logs from the water into a vessel. This is a particularly hazardous operation both because of the location where it occurs (on the water) and the nature of the cargo. Logs that are loaded from the water usually have been in the water for a long period of time, causing them to absorb water. The extra water adds to their weight and also loosens the bark, making the log surface very unsure and slippery. The proposed provisions of this section have been taken from both existing longshore regulations and from the ILWU-PMA Pacific Coast Marine Safety Code (PCMSC) (Ex. 1-145). In addition, these new requirements are supported by record evidence developed by OSHA personnel in Region 10 (Ex. 1-146). Proposed paragraph (a) is taken from PCMSC Rule 417 (Ex. 1-145) and addresses the hazards associated with unstable logs that could be in the hold of a vessel creating a situation where employees could be injured or killed should the logs shift. Employees must not be in spaces in the hold when and where logs being loaded could strike them. Proposed paragraph (b) addresses the hazard associated with the physical condition of the log surface, which may be slippery if there is no bark, or otherwise hazardous if the bark is loose and slides off the log as the employee is stepping on it. Employers must provide appropriate footwear to employees that have to climb on the log. Such footwear typically are spiked, also known as "caulked" shoes, may be styled like a sandal that attaches to existing footwear, and specifically designed for working logs (Ex. 1-146, pp.13-14). Proposed paragraph (c), which is taken from the current longshore 1918.96(f), requires that lifelines be furnished and hung over the side when working log booms or cribs. Proposed paragraph (d) is also taken from the current longshore regulation 1918.23(c), and requires that a Jacob's ladder be provided for each gang when working a log boom. However, in accordance with the provision in proposed 1918.23(c), no more than two Jacob's ladders are required for each log boom being worked. Proposed paragraph (e) has also been taken from the current longshore regulations, 1918.96(e), and requires that a U.S. Coast Guard approved life ring with at least 90 feet (27.4 m) of line be in the vicinity of the work area. The final paragraph, (f), requires that a rescue boat be available when employees are working on log rafts or booms. This requirement is similar to that found in Rule 638 of the PCMSC (Ex. 1-145). This addresses the hazard of employees falling into the water while loading logs and being carried away by the river current and possibly drowning. The requirement of a rescue boat would allow an employee who falls into the water to be quickly rescued. Much of the proposed language in this section is based on rules found in the Pacific Coast Marine Safety Code (PCMSC) (Ex. 1-145), which has been negotiated by the Pacific Maritime Association and the International Longshoremen's and Warehousemen's Union. In addition, OSHA believes that the proposed requirements reflect the current safe industry practice. OSHA requests comment from the public concerning the completeness of these proposed regulations pertaining to handling logs from the water. Proposed 1918.89, addressing hazardous cargo, is carried over from the existing Longshore standard (1918.86). The same language is found addressing this issue when at shoreside cargo handling operations (1917.22). Proposed 1918.89 and the Hazard Communication rule that is referenced in the "Scope and Applicability" paragraph, 1918.1(b)(6), complement one another in covering employee notification and procedures for handling hazardous cargo. OSHA requests comment from the public on whether 1918.89(a) and (c), and similar language in 1917.22(a) and (c) is repetitious in light of the Hazard Communication rule, keeping in mind that HazCom is referenced in both Parts. (In addition, the exposure of employees to toxic and hazardous substances is addressed in subpart B of part 1917, in proposed subpart I of part 1918 and in subpart Z of part 1910.) Subpart I - General Working Conditions In 1987, OSHA extended the coverage of the Hazard Communication standard (HazCom) (29 CFR 1910.1200) to all employers with employees exposed to hazardous chemicals in their workplaces. As a result, subpart I of part 1918 was amended to include the requirements of that standard as 1918.90. Basically the HazCom standard requires such employers to provide information to their employees concerning hazardous chemicals by means of hazard communication programs. These programs would include the use of labels, material safety data sheets (MSDS), training and access to written records. In addition, distributors of hazardous chemicals are required to ensure that containers they distribute are properly labeled, and that a material safety data sheet is provided to their customers. On August 24, 1987, OSHA, in expanding the coverage of this rule, also made certain revisions that address the handling of sealed containers of hazardous materials, such as is usually done in longshoring work. Specifically, OSHA stated at 52 FR 31861: There are a number of work situations where employees only handle sealed containers of chemicals, and under normal conditions of use would not open the containers and would not expect to experience any measurable exposure to the chemicals. Such work operations include, for example, warehousing, retail sales, marine cargo handling, and trucking terminals. (Emphasis added.) OSHA recognized, nonetheless, that even under these circumstances, the potential for a hazardous exposure could occur. It is reasonable to assume, however, that all such containers are subject to leakage and breakage, and these employees are in fact potentially exposed by virtue of the presence of these hazardous chemicals in their workplaces. Because of this potential exposure, they need information to protect themselves form the hazards of these chemicals in the event such an emergency situation occurs. (Id.) Proposed 1918.90 consists solely of a cross-reference to the Scope and Applicability section of the proposal, specifically 1918.1(b)(6), which references the Hazardous Communication standard, 1910.1200. OSHA has decided to reference the Hazard Communication standard in the scope section of this proposal as one of the part 1910 provisions applicable to longshoring. This would have no effect on either the enforceability or the applicability of HazCom to longshoring. OSHA proposes to do the same in the Marine Terminals standard (part 1917). The primary HazCom obligations that apply to longshoring are found in 1910.1200(b)(4). This paragraph sets out the basic duties of employers: (1) not to remove or deface labels affixed to containers of hazardous chemicals; (2) to maintain and provide access to any MSDS's that are received for hazardous chemicals while the chemicals are in the workplace; and (3) to obtain an MSDS when one is not received but an employee requests one. In addition, the employer must train employees in accordance with the provisions of the rule to ensure they are protected in the event of a spill or leak. The Agency seeks comment on this different approach. Proposed 1918.91 addresses housekeeping. In assessing the types of accidents that most occur in shipboard cargo handling, one fact has remained constant: many involve slips, trips, and falls (Exs. 1-14, 1-73). Housekeeping factors cause a substantial number of such accidents. Staying with the principle of providing a uniform regulatory approach to shipboard and shoreside occupational safety and health, OSHA proposes, in this section, to bring into part 1918 those applicable provisions of part 1917 that cover the same hazards on shore. Those remaining provisions, which are vessel-specific, would be retained from the current part 1918. In addition, OSHA considers lashing gear that is used with containers, roll-on, roll-off cargo, and, in particular, automobiles, to be "equipment," as referred to in paragraph (a). Proposed 1918.92 provides illumination requirements for cargo handling work aboard vessels. Here again, OSHA remains consistent with its shoreside rules in requiring 5 footcandles (average) (54 lux) of illumination at cargo operations. In proposing this standard, OSHA believes that it will not only remain uniform with its shoreside rule (1917.123), but also remain consistent with good illumination safety principles. (Ex. 1-152) In crossing from one location to another, in this case shore to ship, it is a well-recognized safety practice to provide uniform lighting. On this topic, the American National Standard practice for Industrial Illumination (ANSI/IES RP-7-1991) (Ex. 1-152) states the following: Alternate areas of extreme luminance differences are undesirable because it tires the eyes to adjust to them. .... uniformity permits flexibility of functions and equipment and assures more uniform luminances. Proposed paragraph (c) would require that lighting provided aboard ship does not shine into the eyes of personnel in key positions of cargo control, such as crane and winch operators. Certainly it is extremely important to allow a clear and unencumbered view to those that are in control of the cargo transit. With the same principle in mind, it would also be required that stationary lights (those not mounted on vehicles) on Ro-Ro vessels not shine into the eyes of drivers. In addition, the proposed requirements for portable lights and entry into dark areas closely parallel the provisions in the existing standard. Proposed 1918.93, Hazardous atmospheres and substances, is designed to provide protection from atmospheric hazards which are not specifically addressed in other proposed sections. In as much as these hazards are virtually identical to those found in marine terminals, the language of this section largely tracks the requirements found in 1917.23. Since the promulgation of the Marine Terminal standard, OSHA has promulgated a Permit-Required Confined Spaces standard for General Industry (58 FR 4462, Jan. 14, 1993). Since both the Marine Terminal and Longshoring standards currently addressed hazards associated with confined spaces, OSHA did not intend the General Industry standard to apply to these workplaces. However, OSHA also had planned, in its ongoing development of this longshore proposal, to conform the relevant longshore requirements to the more explicit and protective marine terminal requirements. Furthermore, this approach is consistent with the vertical nature of these maritime standards. The use of the phrase "the employer is aware" that a hazardous condition exists means that the employer is or should be aware of the hazardous condition. This section establishes requirements for the determination of the hazard, the testing during ventilation, and the procedures for entry into hazardous atmospheres. In addition, the hazards associated with emergency entry, inadvertent entry and asbestos spills are also addressed. Proposed 1918.94 provides requirements for ventilation and atmospheric workplace conditions. Proposed paragraph (a) specifically addresses the hazards associated with carbon monoxide (CO) aboard ship. Longshoring work frequently involves the use of internal combustion-powered equipment to facilitate the stowage and removal of cargo. This equipment would include fork lift trucks, bulk cargo movers and the cargo itself (vehicles on Ro-Ro ships). Occupational fatalities and disabling illnesses still appear on the waterfront (Exs. 1-76, 1-77, and 1-81) due to high levels of (CO) accumulating from these sources in cargo spaces. Currently OSHA's limit for (CO) in General Industry, Construction, and Shipyards is 50 ppm as an 8-hour TWA. The limits in Marine Terminals and Longshoring are a 50 ppm and, in confined spaces, a 100 ppm ceiling. The ACGIH-1986 has a TLV(R) -TWA of 50 ppm and a TLV(R) -STEL of 400 ppm for (CO) (Ex. 3-8). NIOSH (Ex. 3-1) recommends an 8-hour TWA limit of 35 ppm and a 200 ppm ceiling. For both Longshoring and Marine Terminals, OSHA is proposing to lower the PELs for CO to 35 ppm (8-hour TWA) and is proposing a 200 ppm (ceiling, measured over 5 minutes) in outdoor, non-enclosed spaces. OSHA is proposing to retain the 100 ppm ceiling for CO in enclosed spaces in Marine Terminals and Longshoring. NIOSH concurs (Ex. 3-2) that the proposed limits are appropriate. Carbon monoxide is a flammable, colorless, practically odorless gas. It is used as a reducing agent in metallurgical operations, in the manufacture of metal carbonyls and zinc-based white pigments, and as a chemical intermediate. Most occupational exposures to this ubiquitous substance are the result of the incomplete combustion of organic material (HSDB 1990; Ex. 3-18). Carbon monoxide has caused a large number of industrial fatalities as a result of its tendency to combine readily with hemoglobin to form carboxyhemoglobin (COHb). The Immediately Dangerous to Life and Health (IDLH) level for carbon monoxide is 1500 ppm (Ex. 3-3). At levels above this, workers quickly lose consciousness; if exposure is not terminated immediately, death by asphyxiation follows quickly. In experimental animals, asphyxiation occurs when the air-borne concentration of CO exceeds 3 percent (30,000 ppm) (HSDB 1990). CO also causes reproductive and developmental effects in animals. The LD(50) in rats is 1807 ppm for 4 hours (Ex. 3-4). Excessive accumulations of COHb cause hypoxic stress in healthy individuals as a result of the reduced oxygen carrying capacity of the blood. In patients with cardiovascular disease, such stress can further impair cardiovascular function. A number of studies show that 8-hour TWA exposures to 50 ppm carbon monoxide generally results in COHb levels of 8 to 10 percent. Such levels are not generally associated with overt signs or symptoms of health impairment in healthy individuals with strong cardiovascular systems who are working under nonstressful conditions. However, the ACGIH believes that a TLV(R)-TWA of 25 ppm, which results in COHb levels of 4 percent or less, may be necessary to protect workers with cardiovascular disease, because this condition places workers at higher risk of serious cardiovascular injury (Ex. 3-8, p. 1106). The NIOSH REL of 35 ppm TWA is also aimed at protecting workers with chronic heart disease (CHD); NIOSH believes that such workers should not be allowed to have carboxyhemoglobin levels that approach 5 percent. In the part 1910 air contaminants rulemaking, several commenters questioned the need to lower the 8-hour TWA and to add a STEL. In response to these commenters, OSHA quoted the ACGIH (Id.): Each molecule of CO combining with hemoglobin reduces the oxygen carrying capacity of the blood and exerts a finite stress on man. Thus, it may be reasoned that there is no dose of CO that is not without an effect on the body. Whether that effect is physiologic or harmful depends upon the dose of CO and the state of health of the exposed individual. The body compensates for this hypoxic stress by increasing cardiac output and blood flow to specific organs, such as the brain or the heart. When this ability to compensate is overpowered or is limited by disease, tissue injury results [emphasis added]. Exposure to CO sufficient to produce COHb saturations in the 3-5% range impairs cardiovascular function in patients with cardiovascular disease and in normal subjects. * * * The primary effect of exposure to low concentrations of CO on workmen results from the hypoxic stress secondary to the reduction in the oxygen-carrying capacity of blood. * * * Workmen with significant disease, both detected and undetected, may not be able to compensate adequately and are at risk of serious injury. For such workers, a TLV of 25 ppm * * * might be necessary. Even such a concentration might be detrimental to the health of some workers who might have far advanced cardiovascular disease. * * * It would appear to the Committee that the time-weighted TLV of 50 ppm for carbon monoxide might also be too high under conditions of heavy labor, high temperatures, or at high elevations (Ex. 3-8). Thus, the ACGIH also regards a lower limit for CO as necessary to protect workers with cardiovascular or pulmonary disease or those working under stressful conditions. OSHA believes that it is clearly necessary to set a CO level that protects workers who have CHD because (1) a large percentage of employees have it, (2) it is often not diagnosed or diagnosable, and (3) it is frequently fatal. The 35 ppm 8-hour TWA is designed to protect employees with asymptomatic CHD. The term CHD is generally used to refer to the process of atherosclerosis of the coronary arteries, which leads to disturbances in the myocardial blood supply. The general worker population in the United States is composed of a very significant number of persons with CHD. Since the identification of such persons in the absence of overt clinical symptoms is virtually impossible, it is necessary to assume that the average worker has asymptomatic CHD, especially when his/her first clinical symptom may be sudden death (Ex. 3-1). Several studies demonstrate the significant risk associated with CO exposure, particularly with respect to coronary heart disease. A study of firefighters in Los Angeles (Ex. 3-10) suggests that CO exposure during firefighting may be responsible for the high incidence of heart disease in firefighters. In some fires, peak exposures were occasionally as high as 3000 ppm CO, with 40 percent of peak values in the 100-to 500-ppm CO range. However, in some fires, the peak CO exposure was below 100 ppm. Although these peak exposures in firefighters were high, firefighters are likely to be exposed overall for fewer hours than the workers of concern in this rulemaking. A prevalence study was recently performed on angina pectoris, ECG changes, and blood pressure that involved 1,000 workers from 20 foundries (Ex. 3-11). A clear dose-response was found with regard to the prevalence of angina (as obtained by history on a World Health Organization-recommended questionnaire) and CO exposure in workers (both smokers and nonsmokers). NIOSH conducted a prospective cohort mortality study among 1,558 white male motor vehicle examiners who were employed in New Jersey for a minimum of 6 months between 1944 and 1973 (Ex. 3-12). Industrial hygiene surveys indicated that the examiners were exposed to carbon monoxide at a time-weighted-average (TWA) of 10 to 24 ppm. Using a modified life table technique, the expected deaths were compared to the expected deaths through August 1973. The overall deficit of mortality observed (SMR180) in this occupational cohort during the first 10-year period was to be expected as a result of the widely accepted "healthy worker effect." However, the component SMR for cardiovascular disease deaths (134) was unexpected, since the "healthy worker effect" had been most significantly associated with decreased cardiovascular disease mortality (Ex. 3-13). This evidence suggests that slightly elevated COHb may contribute to excess cardiovascular disease rates in a healthy population that is of average fitness (since the work is not physically hard). A recent study (Ex. 3-14) reviewed the epidemiological evidence for an association between carbon monoxide and heart disease and concluded that carbon monoxide exerts acute and possibly reversible short-term effects that can increase the risk of cardiovascular disease. In another recent study, male volunteers aged 35 to 75 with stable exertional angina pectoris and positive exercise treadmill tests were exposed to CO concentrations designed to cause 2.2 to 4.4 percent COHb levels after exercise. The subjects performed a symptom-limited exercise test on a treadmill, followed by exposure for 1 hour to CO, and then performed a second treadmill test. All subjects who completed the study (N=63) showed significant decreases in time to onset of ischemic ST-segment changes; in the 2 percent COHb group, this change equalled 5.1 percent, and in the 4 percent COHb group it averaged a 12.1 percent decrease (Allred, Bleecher, Chaitman, Dahms, Gottlieb, Hackney et al. 1989, in Res. Rep. Hlth. Effect. Inst. 25:79). As pointed out above, cardiovascular disease (detected or undetected) and pulmonary impairment are widespread in the general population in this country, in workers as well as other sub-populations. In addition, OSHA is particularly concerned about the adverse effects of CO because workers regularly encounter complex and stressful situations at work, including heat stress, jobs demanding heavy exertion, and tasks requiring both judgment and motor coordination. OSHA standards are intended to protect workers of average and below-average fitness and those who engage only intermittently in heavy physical labor and who do not therefore receive the benefit of physical conditioning. OSHA thus has determined that, in Longshoring and Marine Terminals, the proposed 8-hour TWA of 35 ppm for carbon monoxide is needed to reduce the significantly increased risk of cardiovascular disease that is associated with overexposure to CO. The Agency also believes that a ceiling of 200 ppm in outdoors, non-enclosed spaces is necessary to ensure that peak CO exposures are kept below the 1500 ppm IDLH level by a reasonable safety factor. The ceiling limit will also assist in keeping COHb levels below 5 percent; the ceiling will be measured over 5 minutes to permit the use of simpler monitoring techniques. Based on this evidence, OSHA is proposing an 8-hour TWA of 35 ppm and a ceiling of 200 ppm in outdoor, non-enclosed spaces as the PELs for carbon monoxide in the longshoring and marine terminal industries. In these industries, however, most employees regularly enter and work in a compartment, hold, or other enclosed space, in which CO levels can increase rapidly if uncontrolled. CO, therefore, presents an especially great danger of death from IDLH levels of CO. Consequently, OSHA is retaining the 100 ppm ceiling for CO in such spaces, as well as the provision requiring monitoring of these spaces. The Agency would continue to require that the employer monitor the ambient air within any cargo space where internal combustion engines discharge their exhaust. Therefore, when concentrations of CO in these enclosed spaces reach 100 ppm, work shall be suspended and the workers removed from the spaces. Work shall not resume until concentrations of CO, as determined by actual monitoring, have been reduced to within the allowable limits. The Agency believes that these limits will ensure that the COHb levels of exposed workers (especially of non-smokers) in these sectors are maintained at or below 5 percent, which will protect those workers at greater risk because of cardiovascular or pulmonary impairment. In addition, these revised limits will protect healthy workers in the affected sectors who must work in environments involving intermittent exertion, heat stress, or other strenuous conditions. OSHA believes that these limits are necessary to substantially reduce the significant occupational risk associated with both chronic and peak exposures to carbon monoxide in the workplace. The hypoxic stress associated with exposure to carbon monoxide clearly constitutes a material impairment of health and functional capacity. For a more complete discussion of these health effects see 57 FR 26371. If natural or vessel supplied ventilation is not sufficient to maintain levels within the allowable limits, the employer must utilize supplemental methods until such levels are reached (generally accomplished with portable blowers). It should be noted that the proposed requirement deletes the language "before work is resumed." This is to make the requirement reflect more clearly the actual industry practices being employed to control exposure to CO through the use of engineering controls. The longshoring work itself generates CO through the use of the loading equipment. In reality, then, it is not the circumstance that 100 ppm is routinely reached, the hold is cleared of workers, supplemental blowers are used to clear the air and then the workers return to work. Rather, when a sustained build-up of CO is detected, even at much lower levels, the supplemental blowers or other additional means are employed to maintain the exposures to within the allowable limits. Portable ventilating equipment must be guarded to prevent employee injury, and they must be effectively grounded by a grounding conductor run with or enclosing the circuit conductors. In situations where portable ventilating equipment is run by vessel supplied power, the grounding conductor must be bonded to the structure of the vessel. Given the shipboard environment, careful attention must be paid to the electric cords of portable equipment, making certain they are not worn or otherwise unserviceable. OSHA is proposing to retain the requirement for recording tests of the atmosphere. The stevedoring community is successfully using such testing logs as a frame of reference in assessing atmospheric conditions from one point in time to the next. In proposed paragraph (b), OSHA addresses the longshoring hazards associated with handling grain that has been treated with fumigants. Grain is subject to infestation by insects and rodents during storage and shipping. Fumigants used to control infestation can be liquid or solid compounds that release poisonous gases and can be applied in the form of sprays, fogs or gases or by direct contact (Ex. 1-104). * * * these gases are harmful, possibly fatal, to humans as long as they remain potent. Therefore, they constitute a safety hazard from the time of application throughout the duration of their potency - which may last for several days. (Id. p.36). Here, OSHA would require that the employer determine whether or not grain to be loaded or discharged aboard a vessel had been fumigated. Such a determination shall be based on direct communication with knowledgeable persons from both the grain elevator and the vessel. When a cargo has been fumigated, an employer shall designate a person (see 1918.2(c)), who is thoroughly familiar with the characteristics of the fumigant being used and how to properly assess contaminant levels; fully aware of the manufacturer of the fumigant's use recommendations and warnings; and knowledgeable about the proper personal protective equipment which must be worn to safely guard against the possible effects of the fumigant. The designated person must test the vessel's compartments after loading begins, but before longshore employees (generally trimmers) enter. Subsequent tests must be made to ensure that fumigant concentrations to exposed personnel never attain levels that are beyond the allowable limits. Records of those tests are retained by the employer for a period of 30 days. Whenever the concentration in any compartment reaches the level specified as hazardous by the fumigant manufacturer or by subpart Z of 29 CFR part 1910, whichever is lower, all employees shall be removed from such compartments and shall not be permitted to re-enter until such time as tests demonstrate that the atmosphere is within allowable limits. Consistent with 1917.25 of the Marine Terminal standard, during emergencies or while tests are being undertaken in compartments that have hazardous or unknown concentrations of fumigant, the designated person entering the compartment must be properly outfitted with personal protective equipment, (See criteria at proposed 1918.94(b)(3)(v)), and must be observed while conducting such tests by two standby employees, who are themselves properly outfitted. The personal protective equipment used by the designated person and the observers, will be required to be readily available wherever fumigated grains are handled. In situations where it is necessary to carry out insecticide or pesticide treatment of a localized nature, such as in rodent control, paragraph (b)(4) would require that employees conducting the treatment and those that may be exposed to the chemical(s) applied, be equipped with personal protective equipment that meets the specifications set out by the manufacturer of the chemical(s) being used. In proposing these rules covering fumigated grain cargoes, the Agency has relied upon the existing rule for longshore employment (Ex. 1-39) but has also utilized the Agency's experience in promulgating the general industry Permit-required Confined Space standard (29 CFR 1910.146, 58 FR 4549), together with accident data (Ex. 1-104) relating to fumigated grain cargoes aboard ship. Finally, these rules are further supported by similar provisions found in the Pacific Coast Marine Safety Code (Ex. 1-145) and the U.S. Coast Guard's "Interim Regulations for Shipboard Fumigation," 46 CFR-147A (Ex. 1-105). In proposed paragraph (c), the Agency proposes requirements for handling cargoes of fumigated tobacco. Tobacco cargoes, both ported and exported, are shipped most typically in bales, in hogsheads, and in intermodal containers. OSHA's proposed Longshoring requirements apply when cargoes are break-bulk, i.e., piece lots of bales or in hogsheads. When such cargoes are containerized, OSHA addresses employee exposure in the Marine Terminal standard (29 CFR 1917.25(g)). In the case of break-bulk fumigated tobacco cargoes, the employer would be required to determine (by written notification) if the cargo has in fact been fumigated. If so, the employer would be further required to obtain a written warranty from the fumigator(s) that the cargo has been sufficiently aerated (concentration of fumigant is within allowable limits.) OSHA notes that this practice is currently in place at all longshore operations in the U.S. handling tobacco. In the case of containerized shipments of fumigated tobacco, OSHA is proposing new language that can be found in the proposed changes to the Marine Terminal regulations, 1917.25(g), which is part of this proposal and which is discussed in Section VI of this rulemaking. Proposed paragraphs (d) and (e) remain virtually identical to the existing provisions. Paragraph (d) involves a work practice to discover hazardous exposures to fumigants of any cargo other than grain and tobacco while paragraph (e) involves the use of personal protective equipment to protect against heavy concentrations of dust. Proposed paragraph (f) addresses operations aboard vessels engaged in the menhaden trade. Menhaden is a term that refers to several species of trash fish. Menhaden is used to produce, among other products, fertilizer, pet food and fish oil. (See 46 FR 4213.) As cargo to specialized menhaden marine terminals, menhaden presents a health hazard to longshore workers when it decomposes, generating hydrogen sulfide (H(2)S). As recently as 1987, a hydrogen sulfide incident aboard a menhaden vessel led to serious injury and a fatality (Ex. 1-80). OSHA's current limit for hydrogen sulfide in Marine Terminals is 20 ppm as an 8-hour TWA; the current Longshore standard is silent with regard to both H(2)2S and menhaden. The 1986 ACGIH TLV(R)s for hydrogen sulfide are 10 ppm as an 8-hour TWA and 15 ppm as a 15 minute STEL (Ex. 3-8); NIOSH has a 10-ppm, 10-minute REL for this substance (Ex. 3-3). OSHA is proposing an 8-hour TWA of 10 ppm in Longshoring and Marine Terminals with a STEL of 15 ppm. Promulgation of these PELs will make OSHA's limits for hydrogen sulfide consistent with the best available evidence on the hazards of H(2)S exposure. Hydrogen sulfide is a colorless, flammable gas with the odor of rotten eggs. It is widely used as a chemical intermediate, an analytical reagent, and in the manufacture of "heavy water" (H(2)O(2)) in the utilities sector. In agriculture, it is used as a disinfectant (HSDB 1985). It is also generated by the fermentation of animal manure. Many farm workers have been exposed to this substance while working in the vicinity of liquid manure storage pits and have been asphyxiated as a consequence (Ex. 4-1). Hydrogen sulfide also is encountered in natural oil and gas deposits and in sewers, caissons, tunnels, and other construction sites (Grant 1986, p. 495). When used in pesticidal applications and as directed on the label, this substance is regulated by the EPA under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). In longshoring, the hazard is brought about by the generation of hydrogen sulfide gas, caused by the decomposition of the menhaden (and similar species) catch. Hydrogen sulfide's effects on experimental animals are similar to those seen in exposed workers: conjunctivitis, pulmonary irritation, acute poisoning, and death by chemical asphyxiation (Ex. 4-2). The LD(50) in mice is 673 ppm for 1 hour (Ex. 4-3). A number of experiments have demonstrated that exposure to hydrogen sulfide concentrations of 50 to 100 ppm for several hours (or sometimes longer) causes damage to the corneal epithelium of dogs, cats, rabbits, and guinea pigs; animals are believed to be somewhat less sensitive than humans to hydrogen sulfide's ocular effects but may be more sensitive to its pulmonary effects (Grant 1986, p. 1496). When inhaled at concentrations exceeding 500 ppm, exposure to hydrogen sulfide has caused respiratory paralysis and death. Acutely poisoned individuals who recover may experience headaches, fatigue, dizziness, and nystagmus; eventually, however, recovery is usually complete (Ex. 4-4). The 1986 ACGIH Documentation (Ex. 1-3, p. 1318) cites several reports (Ex. 4-6) of the occurrence of adverse ocular effects, including conjunctivitis, caused by exposure to 20 ppm or less of hydrogen sulfide. A study by Poda and Aiken (Ex. 4-7) reports that the adoption of a voluntary limit of 10 ppm in two heavy-water plants eliminated exposure problems at those facilities. An early study by Flury and Zernik (1931f) reports that the conjunctivitis caused by the exposure of volunteers to 10 to 15 ppm of hydrogen sulfide for six hours endured for several days; however, this substance is not known to have caused irreversible eye damage. The author of the best-known general source on the toxicology of the eye (Grant 1986) states that "where the concentration [of hydrogen sulfide] is regularly kept below 10 ppm in air, it is rare to have any irritation of the eyes" (p. 1496). OSHA believes that the proposed STEL will ensure that concentrations are maintained close to the 8-hour TWA and that excursions above irritant levels are thus minimized. Based on this evidence, OSHA believes that the current 10-ppm 8-hour TWA limit alone does not adequately protect workers in Longshoring and Marine Terminals against the adverse ocular effects associated with exposure to concentrations of hydrogen sulfide above 10 ppm. OSHA believes that the eye irritation and conjunctivitis associated with such exposures represent a significant risk of material health impairment to these workers because they may experience pain and other ocular effects and be forced to seek medical treatment after such exposures. OSHA is accordingly proposing an 8-hour TWA limit of 10 ppm for hydrogen sulfide with a short-term limit of 15 ppm in these parts 1917 and 1918. Based on available information, the Agency has determined that these limits are necessary to provide protection from the significant risk of exposure-related ocular effects, including conjunctivitis, corneal edema, and distortion of vision, associated with occupational exposure to hydrogen sulfide. Since the hazard this paragraph seeks to avoid is brought about by the generation of hydrogen sulfide gas, caused by the decomposition of the menhaden (and similar species) catch, the requirements are not applicable to operations aboard vessels with operable refrigerated compartments used to hold the catch. Paragraph (f) requires that tests be performed before and during discharge, by designated personnel who are trained and competent in their understanding of the potential hazards involved within the catch hold(s). The test would include assessments of hydrogen sulfide and oxygen content of the atmosphere(s) within the hold(s). Employers would be prohibited from sending employees into the hold(s) unless the hydrogen sulfide level was kept below 10 parts per million on a time weighted average with a short term exposure limit of 15 ppm measured over a 15 minute sampling period. Oxygen levels must be maintained to at least 19.5 percent. In arriving at these proposed requirements, OSHA utilizes information that supported similar requirements for the shoreside aspect of menhaden operations in the Agency's rules for Marine Terminals (1917.73; See discussion at 46 FR 4213). Also, in the development of the proposed requirements, the National Fish Meal § Oil Association was clearly supportive of the proposed regulatory posture. In communications between that group and the Department of Labor, and in memoranda to the association's membership (Ex. 1-56), it is clear that industry practice is quite consistent with OSHA's proposal. Proposed 1918.95 contains requirements for sanitary considerations at all longshoring operations. OSHA believes that the hazards associated with poor sanitation and sanitary practices are well established and need not be elaborated here. The proposed provisions are fully consistent with the current regulations for shoreside cargo handling (1917.127), providing the uniformity that is necessary between the two segments of marine cargo handling. OSHA is proposing in both 1917.127 and 1918.95 to include tables which specify the number of toilet facilities according to the number of employees at the worksite. This table has been taken from the sanitation section in OSHA's Construction Safety Regulations, 29 CFR 1926.51(c). OSHA requests the public to comment on the inclusion of this table in this proposal. Summarizing the section, OSHA would require that employers provide their workers with washing and toilet facilities that are equipped with hot and cold (or tepid) running water; soap; clean hand towels (or warm air blowers); clean and functional toilets (that offer separate compartments with a latched door), and clean drinking water (with no common cups). The consumption of food or drink would continue to be prohibited wherever hazardous materials are stowed or being handled (see definition at 1918.2(g)). Additionally, cargo handling operations are to be separated (by barriers) from the vessel's uncovered refuse and, in the unlikely event of a sanitary line overboard discharge, from it as well. Since longshoring work is performed adjacent to a marine terminal, if the marine terminal's sanitation facilities are available for longshore employees' use, this would constitute compliance with 1918.95. (Section 1917.127, which covers sanitation at marine terminals, is virtually identical to proposed 1918.95.) Because longshoring operations generally take place in a location with restricted space, i.e., aboard a ship, other non-associated but often necessary work (such as ship's maintenance and repair) must be conducted carefully, with due deference to the cargo handling being performed. In such circumstances, employees may be exposed to hazards associated with excessive noise leading to impaired communications, excessive light or heat from hot work, overspray from abrasive blasting or spray painting, or non-ionizing radiation. In OSHA's current rules for Longshoring (1918.95), the Agency has prescribed requirements to account for the hazards that can be anticipated when maintenance and repair work are concurrently undertaken with cargo handling. Those same rules are proposed in 1918.95 (with very minor change) to be included in the revision of this part. Summarizing them, longshoring operations would be prohibited when noise produced by such concurrent work interferes with the communication of warnings or instructions; when falling objects could fall on cargo handlers from such work being conducted overhead; when welding slag, burning sparks or welding rod flash could injure cargo handlers; and when abrasive blasting or spray painting is being performed in the vicinity of cargo operations. Additionally, OSHA is proposing to prohibit cargo handling operations where the employees are exposed to electromagnetic (non-ionizing) radiation that is emitted from the radio and radar equipment on the vessel. This could be especially dangerous when employees are working on the tops of containers while work is being done to the radar or radio equipment. OSHA is also aware of the dangers associated with non-ionizing radiation emitted from radio and television towers that are close to marine cargo handling facilities and has included the words "or from radio or television transmitting towers ashore" in this paragraph. OSHA issued a Hazard Information Bulletin on September 5, 1990, concerning a non-ionizing radiation incident caused by radio transmitting towers that were near a cargo handling facility. The radio frequency emissions were aimed in the direction of the cargo handling operation and the radiation caused longshore workers touching the crane wires and hooks to be burned. This situation was corrected by having the transmissions directed away from the cargo handling area, however other options were available such as, insulating the cargo hook, or providing proper personal protective equipment (Ex. 1-137). Proposed 1918.97 sets out requirements for first aid and lifesaving, and parallels closely the same considerations set out by OSHA in its rules for the shoreside aspect of marine cargo handling (1917.26). The hazards that this section is meant to address are those that would occur in the absence of first aid or rescue; that is, following an accident, this section is intended to mitigate the extent of injury to the employee. In summarizing this proposed section, the employer would be required to direct all employees to report all injuries. A first aid kit would be required to be available at each vessel being worked, with at least one person holding a valid first aid certificate also available to administer first aid. OSHA does not stipulate who the certificate's issuing organization must be, but remains consistent with its position taken while developing the Marine Terminals rule, wherein the agency stated at 46 FR 4193: No particular first aid course or approving agency is designated, so long as the certificate is issued by a responsible organization which requires successful completion of a course as evidence of qualification. OSHA sets out no specific criteria for the contents of the required first aid kit(s). The Agency does, however, propose to have those needs individualized by a physician who, in consultation with the employer, can customize first aid kit contents to the hazards to be encountered. This is consistent with the approach taken by OSHA in its General Industry (1910.151(b)) and its Construction standards (1926.50(d)(1)). OSHA believes this approach to be not only more flexible, but more protective as well. It should be noted that OSHA is proposing to amend the Marine Terminal regulations to read the same as what is being proposed in this draft in regards to first aid kits and emergency stretchers. Requiring weekly checks of the contents of first aid kits is again consistent with OSHA's Safety and Health Regulations for Construction, 1926.50(d)(2). Additionally, OSHA proposes to include more specific requirements addressing strength and design characteristics of emergency stretchers (Stokes baskets). These requirements reflect the terms of an agreement between the West Gulf Maritime Association and individual locals of the I.L.A. operating on the Gulf of Mexico, which OSHA considers to be appropriate for inclusion in the proposal. The requirement that the stretcher have at least four sets of "effective" patient restraints means that the restraints must be able to secure the patient to the stretcher even if the stretcher and patient is being lifted vertically. In an accident cited earlier in the preamble, (Ex. 1-90), where the employee was being carried vertically in the stretcher, the restraints were not effective and the patient fell off. In proposed 1918.98, OSHA sets out requirements for the qualifications of machinery operators, i.e., crane or winch operators, industrial truck drivers, conveyor operators, etc., and provides proposed language to require the training of supervisory personnel, i.e., gang foremen, stevedore superintendents, etc., in accident prevention. The hazards addressed by this section arise from inexperienced, untrained or inappropriate operators of cargo handling machinery; and hazards created by improperly trained supervisory personnel. These hazards can readily lead to accidental injury or death. Both topics originate in the shoreside rules (1917.27), and focus on very important aspects indisputably tied to safe cargo operations. The proposed provisions would require that all employees (except supervised trainees) be familiar with signs, signals and operating instructions before operating cargo handling machinery or before giving signals to operators. OSHA would require that employee competency to perform such work be determined by the employer, using training and experience as criteria in making such a determination. The employer would be prohibited from allowing employees with a known incapacitating ailment, such as heart disease or epilepsy, or employees with defective uncorrected hearing or eyesight, from operating that equipment. Because supervisory training is considered to be essential to reducing the amount of accidents in any industrial setting, the Agency proposes to set requirements for the shipboard cargo handling workplace that will complement such requirements already in place for shoreside work. OSHA asks the public to comment on the effectiveness of the shoreside supervisory programs and benefits that have been derived. In proposing this requirement, the Agency notes that the great majority of supervisory persons already trained in accident prevention under the part 1917 rules, are those same individuals who would be covered by the training requirement under this proposal. The Agency requests interested persons to submit comment on the proportion of supervisory employees for whom such training would actually be required. The same built-in transition periods established for training within the Marine Terminals rule (two years after the promulgation of the final rule and after that date 90 days after supervisory assignment), are proposed also for shipboard application. The criteria for course content is performance-based, allowing for instruction to be tailored to the particular operation(s). The recommended topics included as a footnote are considered to be rudimentary to most shipboard cargo handling operations. It should be noted that current 1918.98 entitled "Grain fitting" is being deleted by this proposal. OSHA believes that this type of longshoring operation is obsolete and no longer exists. OSHA, however, recognizes that interested parties may have differing views regarding this deletion and invite comment on this point. Subpart J - Personal Protective Equipment All proposed sections of this subpart are based in the requirements for personal protective equipment found in the shoreside requirements for marine cargo handling (1917.91, 1917.92, 1917.92, 1917.93, 1917.94, and 1917.95). The hazards addressed by this section are those that personal protective equipment can eliminate or ameliorate by its proper use. For example, eye protection can prevent the loss of an eye; foot protection can prevent a broken foot; respirators can prevent toxic poisoning; and so on. As was the case in that rulemaking, (48 FR 3-03), OSHA again sets out the principle that whether the PPE costs must be borne by employers depends largely on whether the employee has possession, responsibility and control over the specific piece of equipment. As an example, items such as protective gloves and foot wear are among pieces of gear that employees may bring home for personal use between work shifts, but the employees would be protected by the gear while at work. As such, the employer has to make available and assure that employees wear such equipment, but the standard does not require the employer to furnish it free of cost. Other items however, such as respirators, fall protection systems and special protective clothing, are pieces of gear that the employer is required to furnish and maintain. These are items that do not leave the workplace and are always under the control of the employer. Such items are those for which the employee is not obligated to bear any cost under the standards. OSHA understands that various arrangements exist for shared cost responsibilities and sole cost responsibilities at different parts of the Nation's waterfront, and leaves to the employers and employees the right to resolve such issues. Proposed 1918.101, would require employees performing work which is hazardous to the eyes be provided with protection that meets the requirements (evidenced by marking or labeling) of the American National Standard for Occupational and Educational Eye and Face Protection (ANSI Z87.1-1989). Such eye protection would be required to be maintained in good condition, with cleaning and disinfection performed prior to issuance to another worker. Proposed 1918.102 refers to 1918.1(b)(12), which adopts by reference OSHA's General Industry standard for respiratory protection (1910.134). The shipboard cargo handling environment is not unique in the selection or use of respiratory protection. In proposed 1918.103, the Agency requires that employees whose heads are exposed to hazards associated with impact or electric shocks or burns be equipped with and be required to wear protective hats that meet the design requirements (evidenced by marking or labeling) of American National Standard Requirements for Protective Head Wear for Industrial Workers (ANSI Z89.1-1986). It also requires that cleaning and disinfection be performed when reissued to another worker. Proposed 1918.104 addresses foot protection, requiring that employees exposed to impact or puncture hazards wear safety footwear meeting the design requirements of the American National Standard for Personal Protection - Protective Footwear. ANSI Z41-1991. In this rulemaking, OSHA also proposes to update the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) references that are in the Marine Terminal standard so that they are the same as in the proposed Longshoring standard; 1917.91 (Eye protection); 1917.93 (Head protection); and 1917.94 (Foot protection). In proposed 1918.105, other forms of protective measures for personnel are addressed. In summary, OSHA adopts a general approach to all additional protective clothing which requires that the employer provide and see to the proper use of all such measures. The Agency would require that all additional protective clothing be cleaned and disinfected before reissuance. It notes, however, that some types of equipment, such as disposable coveralls, require no cleaning or disinfection since they are single use items and discarded once used. Also, in some instances protective clothing may be issued, but because never worn or soiled, necessitates no further sanitary measures. Personal flotation devices would be provided by the employer and required for all employees whose work exposes them to falls into the water in any of the following circumstances: when they are working in isolation (such as when adjusting by oneself mooring lines of a small craft abreast of a larger vessel); where physical constraints posed by limited working or walking area creates a fall hazard (such as when securing lines at the outboard edge of a barge having a narrow fore and aft walkway, or where the work area is obstructed by cargo or other obstacles in a manner that does not allow employees safe footing (such as when securing boom tie-downs at the outboard edge of a floating crane whose deck is congested with auxiliary hoisting equipment). OSHA is also proposing to add that personal flotation devices be worn by employees that are doing any work on the deck of a barge. There are numerous incidents of drowning which have occurred when employees have fallen overboard from a barge. Often these falls from a barge occur in the river system, where rapid currents increase the danger of drowning (Exs. 1-103, Case Nos. 13, 17, 18, 72, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 101, 130, 136, 139, 143). OSHA feels that the danger of falling overboard while working on the deck of a barge (as opposed to working on the deck of a ship where the edge of the deck generally is guarded by a bulwark and railing) is sufficiently great as to add this proposed language. All personal flotation devices would be required to be a Coast Guard approved preserver or vest, and would be expected to be maintained in a safe and serviceable condition (no rips, rot or punctures and all closure devices in good order). In all cases, it is clearly not enough just to have PPE available; the equipment needs to be used. The standard requires the employer to enforce the wearing of each type PPE whenever it is needed. Appendices I, II, and III Appendix I is a non-mandatory appendix that sets out the format of vessel cargo gear registers and certificates, under the terms of ILO Convention 152 (Ex. 1-33), discussed earlier in reference to 1918.11. Major changes from the original ILO Convention 32 (Ex. 1-34), include a new Form (Form No. 2 (U) which is a certificate issued by a "competent person" (most often a surveyor under the employ of a vessel classification society or inspection surety service) that contains the results of testing and examination of derricks used in union purchase. In the case of foreign flagged ship's gear with which U.S.longshore workers load or discharge cargo, OSHA acts in the role of the "competent authority" in determining which "competent person(s)"/"responsible person(s)" are in fact qualified to witness tests/exams and execute certificates and registers. For this purpose, as a practical matter, OSHA recognizes persons and organizations acceptable to the Nation under whose laws the particular vessel is registered. In the event that a given flag has no laws that specifically apply (Ex. 1-91), OSHA would rely upon the vessel having a register and certificates endorsed by an entity approved for that purpose by the Commandant of the U.S. Coast Guard (see 46 CFR 91.37) or, alternately, an organization accredited by OSHA under part 1919 of this chapter (see proposed 1918.11). Another significant change from the original Convention, is the interval between tests of cargo handling gear. Such gear, under the terms of Convention 32, was required to be tested (for the assignment of a safe working load) initially before being taken into use. Because OSHA's current rule adopts the testing and examination requirements for vessel's cargo gear contained in Convention 32 (see 1918.12(a) of the current rules), the Agency can presently require that such gear is initially tested but, absent special circumstances, the gear is not required to be tested again. As a practical matter, most vessels (those operating under the rules of classification societies and international inspection services) have been operating under a quadrennial test schedule. With the advent of Convention 152, the international standard has shifted to "at least once in every five years," giving latitude to all organizations desiring to maintain the four year cycle. In proposing to stay in step with the international standard, OSHA offers this Appendix to assist employers and employees in correctly ascertaining the form and content of registers and certificates prescribed for in the newer Convention. Appendix II, which is also non-mandatory, is offered as an aid to employers and employees in arriving at strength values of various pieces of gear used aboard ship in longshoring operations. Although the primary source for information on component gear strength is "the manufacturer's recommendations" or "the manufacturer's recommended ratings," the Agency appreciates that instances will arise wherein such recommendations or ratings will not be available (such as when some preslung cargoes are to be discharged from foreign ports). In such instances, proposed Appendix contains tables which can be used to evaluate hoisting equipment. Many of the tables appearing in this Appendix are taken directly from the latest American National Standard (ASME B30.9-1990 and addenda titled, Slings) (Ex. 1-148). The balance of the tables (those for allowable chain wear; shackle safe working loads; and wire rope clips) are derived from an amalgam of other OSHA rules for Longshoring, Construction (1926.251), and General Industry (1910.184). These tables have been carefully assessed by OSHA as to their appropriateness for cargo handling applications, and the Agency believes that they will serve as fully protective criteria. Appendix III, which is also non-mandatory, recognizes that, in some very limited situations, the use of fall protection may be infeasible. OSHA has listed two narrowly defined situations where it feels that fall protection may not be feasible. OSHA solicits comment from the public regarding the appropriateness of these two examples and whether there are additional examples of infeasibility. In addition, OSHA would consider this as an appropriate place to include any other advisory information regarding container top safety and solicits comments accordingly. VI. Proposed Amendments and Corrections To Marine Terminal Standards Several of the proposed amendments to the Longshoring standard (part 1918) address marine cargo handling hazards that should be reflected by a corresponding provision in the Marine Terminal standard (part 1917). For example, both parts currently do not explicitly prohibit employees from riding the hook or the load. By contrast, proposed 1918.81(l) prohibits this practice as does proposed 1917.45(l). The basis for this prohibition is discussed above. For the purposes of this discussion, when the basis for a proposed amendment is treated in the preamble above, it is not necessary to repeat it here. OSHA is requesting comment from the public on proposed amendments to Marine Terminals (part 1917) standards. A new paragraph (d) has been added to 1917.11 that addresses the hazards associated with protruding nails that may be left in materials, such as dunnage, that have ben removed from the vessels and placed ashore. This paragraph has been taken from language that is in the current Longshoring regulations and is in the proposal at 1918.91(h)(2). Currently in both parts, the allowable exposure limits for carbon monoxide is 50 ppm over an 8-hour time weighted average with a ceiling of 100 ppm. OSHA is proposing to change the 8-hour time weighted average to 35 ppm while leaving the ceiling limit at 100 ppm. This change is reflected in both proposed parts in 1918.94 and 1917.24. (See above.) In another example, currently in both 1918.96 and 1917.26, the contents of a first-aid kit are specifically listed. In proposed 1918.96, however, the contents of a first-aid kit are to be determined by a physician. OSHA feels that the proposed part 1918 standard is more protective and proposes to amend 1917.26 to be consistent. OSHA would also incorporate into part 1917 the more extensive provisions that are found in proposed 1918.96 pertaining to the requirements for stokes basket stretchers. In 1917.45(j)(2), OSHA is proposing to require that all cranes used to hoist personnel be equipped with and operate in the power up and power down mode and have the brake apply automatically when not hoisting or lowering. This is consistent with proposed 1918.66(c)(2). OSHA is proposing a new requirement in 1917.50(i)(1), that prohibits exceeding the safe working load of cargo handing gear which is similar to language found in proposed 1918.61(b)(1). OSHA is also proposing a new requirement in 1917.50(i)(2), which requires the safe working load be marked on cargo handling gear with a safe working load greater than 5 short tons. This proposal is similar to proposed 1918.61(b)(2). See the discussion on these proposed requirements in the preamble for 1918.61. In 1917.71(e), OSHA is proposing to allow only high-visibility vests (or equivalent protection) to be worn and remove the words "decals or reflectors." This would be in agreement with proposed 1918.86(n). As indicated above, the reflective area of a decal on a hard hat is obviously less than that of a vest. Also, the reflective value is lost during daylight hours or whenever the wearer takes off the hard hat. A number of serious accidents (Exs. 1-78, 1-89) have occurred in the past due to the nature of the work involved in such cargo operations. Additionally, OSHA is proposing to amend the language found in 1917.71(f)(5) to reflect the language found in proposed 1918.86(f), which requires that all brake air-lines be connected when pulling trailers equipped with air brakes. OSHA is proposing to change 1917.73(a)(2) to read 10 ppm of hydrogen sulfide to agree with proposed 1918.94(f)(4). As recently as 1987, a hydrogen sulfide incident aboard a menhaden vessel led to serious injury and a fatality (Ex. 1-80). (See discussion of this for 1918.94(f) in Section V of this proposal). OSHA proposes to carry over to 1917.71 the provision found in proposed 1918.86(g) that requires that flat bed and low boys trailers (mafi's) be marked with their cargo capacities and not be overloaded. OSHA also seeks public comment on two proposed rules to be included in the Marine Terminal standard that do not have analogous rules in the proposed Longshoring standard. First, OSHA proposes to require that seat (lap) belt restraints be installed in the crane operators seat in high-speed container gantry cranes. High speed container gantry cranes are now capable of hoist speeds of 360 feet per minute (110 m/min) (without a load) and trolley speeds of 500 feet per minute (152 m/min). OSHA is concerned that the operator may be exposed to potentially injurious effects of sudden stops and starts (Ex. 1-133). OSHA believes that operator restraints will minimize the hazard and seeks comment from the public on this issue. In the case of shipments of tobacco that have been containerized and then fumigated, OSHA is proposing, in 1917.25(g), that such containers be aerated (before being loaded on a ship) as follows: (1) If in unsealed bales or in hogsheads, aerated (with doors open) for 48 hours after fumigation has been completed, and, (2) if contained in a plastic enclosure, aerated (with doors open) for 72 hours. In proposing these requirements, OSHA relies on studies performed by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agriculture Research Service (Ex. 1-70). These studies concluded that intermodal containers so treated required 48 to 72 hours aeration to be free of hazardous fumigant levels. Past and recent communications (Ex. 1-95) with the Tobacco Association of the United States, also show that organization in accord with the 72-hour aeration required for tobacco shipped in polyethylene or similarly lined boxes carried in intermodal containers. Upon the publication of the final Marine Terminal standard, several technical drafting amendments were treated in the preamble that were not consistently picked up in the subsequent regulatory text. OSHA is now proposing that these amendments be made. Several paragraphs have been corrected by removing the phrase, "The employer shall ensure...", from the beginning of the paragraph. See the discussion for this in 48 FR 30888-30889. The paragraphs that have been corrected in this manner are: 1917.18(a); 1917.43(e)(1)(i); 1917.44(o)(3)(ii); 1917.44(o)(4); 1917.126(b); 1917.152(f)(1); 1917.152(f)(2) and 1917.152(f)(3)(iv). In addition, several paragraphs are being proposed to be revised by changing the phrase, "shall be available at the terminal" to the phrase, "shall be made available for inspection". See the discussion for this in 48 FR 30889. The proposed paragraphs that reflect this change are: 1917.24(d), 1917.25.(c), 1917.42(b)(4), 1917.42(c)(1), 1917.42(d)(1), 1917.42(h)(4), and 1917.42(h)(5). OSHA is also aware of several typographical errors that are in the current 29 CFR part 1917 and intends to correct those in this rulemaking. For example, one of these corrections is in 1917.42. A square root sign has been added to the formula found in paragraph (d)(2), correcting an error that is in the current formula. OSHA seeks public comment on any other areas in the Marine Terminal standard that are affected because of the changes proposed to the Longshoring standard in this rulemaking. VII. Other Issues A. OSHA is raising the issue of the possible harmful effects of diesel exhaust on employees, especially those employees who work Ro/Ro vessels where exposure to such exhaust is probably the greatest. OSHA is aware that studies have been done concerning the effects of diesel exhaust by the Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) in the mining industry. OSHA is not aware of any studies relating to the longshoring industry, (although the International Cargo Handling and Coordination Association (ICHCA) is in the process of drafting a paper entitled "Fumes in Ships", which will address this topic), and requests the public to submit pertinent information. OSHA requests information of the following: 1. What are the health effects of diesel exhaust? 2. What are the typical timeframes where employees are exposed to diesel exhaust? 3. Is mechanical ventilation sufficient to eliminate any harmful effects? 4. What other methods can be employed to reduce any harmful effects? B. OSHA is aware of the problem of picking up the chassis and fifth wheel along with the container due to the failure of the container and chassis to separate during a loading operation. This is due to one or more of the chassis's twistlocks being in the locked position or one or more of the twist locks "hanging up" while in the unlocked position. Unfortunately, the driver of the fifth wheel is in the cab as it is being lifted and often sustains injuries when the cab and chassis fall back to the ground before the crane operator can lower everything back down. OSHA requests information on the following questions: 1) How frequently does this problem occur;? 2) OSHA believes this is primarily a problem on the West Coast. Is this true and why;? 3) OSHA is aware of several devices that have been developed to shut the crane down once the device detects the fifth wheel being raised off the ground. OSHA seeks information on the effectiveness of these devices in eliminating the problem, and the cost to purchase and install these devices; 4) Are there other ways to eliminate the problem, such as better "monitoring" of the chassis twistlocks under the hook through training and work practices, or requiring the driver to get out of the cab until the container is lifted clear of the chassis? C. OSHA has long recognized the utility of comprehensive occupational safety and health programs, and adopted non-mandatory guidance for safety and health program management on January 26, 1989 (54 FR 3904). These guidelines were based on a distillation of safety and health management practices used by employers that have implemented successful comprehensive programs. The major elements OSHA identified in the guidelines for effective occupational safety and health programs are: 1) management commitment and employee involvement; 2) worksite analysis to anticipate and identify potential hazards; 3) hazard prevention and control; and 4) safety and health training. Successfully implemented programs generally result in facilities that have a lower incidence of occupationally related illnesses and injuries. In particular, OSHA has found that companies which have implemented comprehensive safety and health programs and are participating in its Voluntary Protection Programs (VPP) have lost-workday rates that range from one-fifth to one-third the rates experienced by average worksites within their industrial classification. In addition, participating sites have reported improved employee morale, product quality, and productivity as some of the secondary benefits of their safety and health management activities. Occupational safety and health standards and guidelines, whether mandatory or developed as voluntary consensus activities, traditionally have tended to focus on specific problems or hazards rather than taking a broad, program-oriented approach. In recent years, however, OSHA has promulgated a number of generic standards that have program requirements. There is now increasing evidence that a requirement for all employers to address occupational safety and health programmatically can provide an effective supplement to specific hazard-related requirements, and provides an added degree of safety and health for employees. Properly designed and implemented comprehensive programs focus the attention of both employers and employees on safety and health in the workplace. With increased awareness of safety and health concerns, and the commitment to alleviate the hazards by implementing appropriate controls, workplace-related safety and health injuries and illnesses are expected to decrease. While the specific elements of existing comprehensive occupational safety and health (COSH) programs may vary, the general concept is the same. COSH programs are designed to coordinate and integrate all facets of occupational safety and health into the management practices for the facility. Rather than addressing problems on a one-by-one basis, implementation of a COSH program requires company management to systematically review all hazards in the facility, and develop a plan to prevent or control them. All employees of the facility must be involved in the development and implementation of the plan, and there must be a company-wide commitment to controlling or eliminating occupational safety and health problems. The program is implemented on a continuing basis, that is, there are provisions for ensuring that the situation in the facility is monitored on a regular basis to ensure that the program is working. Program evaluation activities to assess effectiveness are also part of the concept. The logic of this approach is simple - prevent adverse effects from occurring by identifying hazards, and implementing a plan to eliminate or minimize them. By doing this systematically, resources are not duplicated or wasted, and a coordinated, integrated strategy can be implemented. Effective functioning of such a program depends largely on the commitment and involvement of all members of the organization, beginning with the highest level of management. OSHA believes the COSH program approach can be applied in any establishment, and in any size facility. The complexity of the specific program in a particular establishment will depend on the nature of the business, the number of employees, and the types of hazards present. While the basic components of a COSH program would be the same in, for example, a marine terminal and an automobile manufacturing plant shop, the methods used to implement them would vary based on the different needs of the facilities. Every type and size of establishment should nevertheless have a systematic approach to addressing occupational safety and health concerns. All workplaces, from office situations to health care facilities, restaurants to stevedoring operations, can benefit from the development and implementation of an appropriate COSH program. Request for Comments and Information OSHA is raising this issue to solicit public input on COSH programs. The Agency is particularly interested in learning about the experiences of employers who have already implemented such programs, and those of employees who work in facilities where these programs have been implemented. The purpose of collecting these comments is to determine whether OSHA should adopt mandatory requirements for comprehensive occupational safety and health programs; what the components of such programs should be; what problems employers have had in implementing such programs, and what can be done to alleviate those problems; the benefits of implementing COSH programs; methods that can be used to evaluate the effectiveness of the programs; the costs and economic feasibility of such programs; the impacts on small businesses; and suggestions regarding existing OSHA rules that could be consolidated or modified as a result of promulgating requirements for mandatory COSH programs. Format of Questions and Responses The specific questions asked are designed to elicit the information OSHA believes would be helpful in determining appropriate elements for COSH programs in longshoring work. The questions are in some cases directed towards specific audiences, such as employers who have implemented programs. Other questions have more general applicability. Interested persons may also submit other information or opinions which they believe are relevant. OSHA asks that commenters respond to the specific questions enumerated, and to number responses in accordance with the number of the question to which the response is addressed. In addition, it would also be helpful for OSHA to receive copies of written materials to supplement these responses, such as copies of written programs, examples of forms used, and sample evaluations. 1) OSHA would like to receive information and data regarding the respondents to this notice in order to properly profile the responses. If you are submitting comments in response to this notice on behalf of an employer or group of employers that have implemented a COSH program, or employee or group of employees working in such a facility, please provide the following specific information. If you are not one of either of these groups, please indicate your role or relation to COSH programs. a) The size of the facility by number of employees; b) When the program was implemented; c) Why the program was implemented (e.g., voluntary decision, state requirements, insurance carrier's requirements, etc.); d) What the major components of the existing program are; e) What the initial and annual costs of implementing each of these components have been, and how you derived these costs; f) What resources have been required to operate the programs; and, g) What cost savings, illness or injury reductions, or other benefits (e.g., changes in productivity, absenteeism, turnover, insurance, etc.) have accrued due to implementation of the program, and how you derived these benefits. Components of a COSH Program As described above, OSHA has published and distributed guidelines for safety and health management programs which include four major elements. OSHA would like comments on whether these elements are appropriate; whether more specific information should be provided regarding what should be addressed under each of these elements; and what other elements may be appropriate for inclusion in COSH programs. Management commitment and employee involvement. The first element included in the guidelines is management commitment and employee involvement, or management leadership. Management commitment is expected to be stated in a worksite policy which outlines the organization's priority on safety and health, and indicates who has primary responsibility for implementation of various aspects of the policy. Other facets of this element include establishing and communicating clear goals and objectives for the program; providing visible management involvement; ensuring employee involvement; providing adequate authority and resources for those responsible; holding those responsible accountable; ensuring contract workers are protected; and reviewing and evaluating the program at least annually. 2) Please comment on the inclusion of management commitment and employee involvement as a major element of a COSH program. It has been OSHA's experience and that there is no situation where these considerations are inappropriate. 3) Is this a common program component? How is it implemented? Is the program integrated into the overall management of the workplace? How well does this work? 4) Who is responsible for managing the program? What skills and knowledge must this person have to be the program manager? What is the role of the President or Chief Executive Officer? The facility manager? The supervisor? The employee? Do performance evaluations include an assessment of performance with regard to safety and health? Are managers and employees held accountable for safety and health performance? How? 5) Are written policy statements prepared and distributed? Please provide examples. Are there situations where a program can operate effectively without having a written plan? 6) What was the primary motivation for implementing the program (e.g., voluntary, state requirements)? Have insurance companies encouraged adoption of COSH programs? How was this done? 7) How is employee involvement ensured in existing programs? Are labor-management committees used? If so, please provide details about how the committees are formed and are operating. What other suggestions do you have for ensuring employee involvement? 8) How are existing programs evaluated to determine whether or not they are effective? Are worksite program audits conducted? What do the audits include? How often are workplace conditions reevaluated after the initial assessment? Please provide copies of any evaluation procedures that may be available. What are the criteria for determining that the program is or is not effective? What type of evidence is required to demonstrate that each program element has been implemented? Is the program integrated into the overall management of the workplace? 9) Have any problems been encountered in implementing this element in existing programs? If so, how were these problems solved? Is the guidance provided in the voluntary guidelines sufficient to implement this element appropriately? What other information would be useful? Worksite analysis. The second element in the guidelines is worksite analysis. Employers must identify all worksite hazards by conducting an initial and subsequent periodic comprehensive baseline worksite surveys for safety and health. The surveys would vary by the type of workplace, and the nature of the hazards present, but would include an assessment of both safety and health hazards. Examples of situations that would have to be assessed would include: exposure to chemicals; exposure to noise, radiation, or other physical hazards; ergonomics hazards; procedures to handle chemicals that have physical effects such as flammability and reactivity; machine guarding; shoring of trenches; and potential for falls. Programs must include provisions for regular worksite inspections to determine if existing controls are working, and to identify uncontrolled hazards; investigations of accidents, or other unusual incidents; analysis of planned and new facilities, processes, materials and equipment; job hazard analysis; an employee hazard reporting system; and analysis of injury and illness trends. 10) Do existing programs you are familiar with include worksite analysis? How is it implemented, and who is responsible for doing it? Please provide examples of how this element is being implemented in existing programs. What criteria are used to determine what hazards are present? Are there OSHA standards, guidelines, or other documents you can recommend to assist employers? What do you consider to be the most significant hazard in the workplace? 11) Do existing programs include chemical exposure assessments as part of the worksite analysis process? Should further guidance be provided for exposure assessment? What criteria for exposure assessment are used in existing programs? Is exposure monitoring conducted? What criteria are used to determine when monitoring is to be done? Who is performing exposure monitoring? What training or background did they have to prepare them for this? Are other types of hazards subject to monitoring (such as noise, radiation)? What criteria are used to monitor these hazards? 12) Do existing programs include an ergonomics component? How are ergonomics problems identified? What criteria are used? Who does the evaluation, and what is their relevant training or background? 13) Has any illness/injury trend analysis been undertaken in facilities with COSH programs? What have the trends shown? What action was taken as a result of the findings? Please provide any trend data you have to demonstrate the effect of such programs. 14) What problems have been encountered in implementing this element in existing programs? How were these problems solved? Is the guidance provided in the voluntary guidelines sufficient to implement this element appropriately? What other information would be useful? Hazard prevention and control. Once the hazards have been identified, the third element the COSH program must address is hazard prevention and control. The current and potential hazards must be corrected or controlled in a timely manner, using engineering techniques where feasible and appropriate. Procedures for working safely are to be established, and all affected parties must understand and follow them. Personal protective equipment is to be made available where appropriate; administrative controls are to be used when necessary; provision is to be made for repair and maintenance of equipment; emergency preparedness is to be addressed; and a medical program must be available. 15) Do existing programs you are familiar with include hazard prevention and control? How is it implemented, and who is responsible for doing it? Please provide examples of how this element is being implemented in existing programs. In particular, please provide any available information about how hazards and risks are defined, and how risk reduction goals are set. Who decides what control measures are implemented? What criteria are used? Does the program include an evaluation of occupational safety and health implications when new facilities, processes, materials, or equipment are planned? 16) Do existing programs include standard operating procedures for repair and maintenance? 17) Are their programs for emergency preparedness? If so, how are they compiled and made available? Is there a plan for emergency response? If so, what types of emergencies are addressed? Please provide samples of your standard operating procedures and emergency preparedness and response plans. 18) Is a medical program available? What is the scope of the program, e.g. does it cover assessments related to workplace conditions, wellness programs, etc.? Are medical services provided in-house, or are they contracted out? What types of health professionals are involved in delivering occupational health services? What are their respective roles and what is their relevant training or background? 19) Does the medical program include preplacement medical surveillance? Periodic medical surveillance? What criteria are used to determine what surveillance is done? Who decides what surveillance is to be done? Are medical records reviewed to determine if there are trends in injuries and illnesses? Who conducts the review? What is done with the results? 20) Have problems been encountered in implementing this element in existing programs? If so, how were these problems solved? Is the guidance provided in the voluntary guidelines sufficient to implement this element appropriately? What other information would be useful? Safety and health training. The last major element in the voluntary guidelines for COSH programs is safety and health training. In order to ensure that the program works effectively, all employees must be trained to understand the safety and health concerns in their workplace; the plan to minimize or eliminate those concerns; and their roles in implementation of the plan. This includes training for those in supervisory or management roles. Responsibilities must be clearly described, and the lines of authority appropriately drawn. OSHA has published Voluntary Training Guidelines to provide employers with information about designing and implementing an appropriate safety and health training program. (See Training Requirements in OSHA Standards and Training Guidelines, OSHA 2254 (Revised), 1992.) 21) Do existing programs include safety and health training? How is it implemented, and who is responsible for performing and implementing it? Please provide examples of how this element is being implemented in existing programs, including the type of training, such as classroom instruction, on-the-job work practices training, videotapes, or interactive videos. Does the type of training vary with the type of operation? Have OSHA's Voluntary Training Guidelines been used in designing and implementing the safety and health training program? 22) Is safety and health training conducted prior to workplace assignment? What does it include in this situation? Are training requirements for various programs combined into one training program? Approximately how long does the initial training take for managers? For supervisors? For other workers? Is periodic training conducted? How often? How long does periodic training take? What is included in the periodic training? 23) Do you have workers who are subject to training certification requirements? How has this worked? 24) Is the training evaluated to determine whether or not it is effective? How is this done? 25) What qualifications do the trainers have? 26) Have problems been encountered in implementing this element in existing programs? If so, how were these problems solved? Is the guidance provided in the voluntary guidelines sufficient to implement this element appropriately? What other information would be useful? Issues Related to Regulation If OSHA determines that it would be appropriate to promulgate a standard for COSH programs, there are a number of other issues which will have to be addressed. Comments from the public are solicited on the following: 27) Should the voluntary guidelines OSHA issued in 1989 be the primary basis for any future regulatory activity in this area? Based on your experiences, what modifications to the guidelines would be necessary in order for OSHA to use them as a basis for regulation? Are there additional elements that should be included in a COSH program? What other information do you think employers would need to implement an appropriate program? 28) The current guidelines are very generally written, and OSHA believes they can be applied in any type of industry or workplace. Do you think that industry-specific guidelines are required? If so, what should the breakdown be, and what is the rationale for different program requirements? 29) The current guidelines are also applicable to all sizes of industries. Do you think that small businesses should be treated differently? If so, why, and in what way? 30) It has been suggested that if OSHA promulgates requirements for COSH programs, there are existing OSHA standards that could be revised, modified, consolidated, or otherwise changed as a result. Without diminishing employee protections under current OSHA standards, what rules do you think could be reconsidered if the Agency promulgates a new rule requiring COSH programs? Commenters are requested to be specific, and provide the rationale for any suggestions. 31) If OSHA promulgates a rule for COSH programs, what type of outreach or compliance assistance materials would you suggest be made available to employers? What would be the most effective way for OSHA to reach small employers who do not belong to trade associations or professional societies? D. OSHA is aware of the increased usage of Flexible Intermediate Bulk Containers (FIBC's) which are used to handle bulk chemical solids. Some of the FIBC's are designed only to be used for one voyage while others are designed for repeated usage. OSHA wishes to know: 1) What means are used to mark and identify the one use only type of FIBC, and are they adequate? and 2) What are the current industry practices regarding the testing of FIBC's and should OSHA incorporate them into this regulation? E. OSHA issued a standard for the control of hazardous energy sources (lockout/tagout) that applied to general industry employment under 29 CFR part 1910 as 1910.147 (54 FR 36645). This standard addresses practices and procedures that are necessary to disable machinery or equipment and to prevent the release of potentially hazardous energy while maintenance and servicing activities are being performed. The standard requires that lockout be utilized for equipment which is designed with a lockout capacity, and tagout may be used for equipment which was not designed to be locked out. Servicing and maintenance activities are necessary adjuncts to the industrial process. They are needed to maintain the ability of all machines, equipment, or processes to perform their intended functions. OSHA believes that these types of operations present the employee with the same types of hazards of unexpected activation, re-energization, or the release of stored energy, regardless of the type of industrial setting. For these reasons, OSHA is soliciting public comment regarding the appropriateness of including "The control of hazardous energy (lockout/tagout)" in the "Scope and applicability" sections of both 29 CFR part 1917 (Marine Terminals) and 29 CFR part 1918 (Longshoring). While OSHA recognizes that marine terminal activities are more likely to contain work operations where lockout/tagout hazards are present, it also sees the potential to occur in some longshoring related operations. OSHA wants to know: 1) should 1910.147 be included in Marine Terminals and why or why not, and 2) should 1910.147 be included in longshoring and why or why not? F. As indicated earlier, OSHA contracted a safety expert, A. J. Scardino, to conduct a study of the fall hazards associated with the cargo handling of intermodal containers. (Ex. 1-139). The development of the data, that was used in formulating the opinions and recommendations of this study, involved the visiting and documentation of the activities at 20 major ports in the United States. Those ports were: Gulfport, MS, Houston, TX, Barbers Cut, TX, Galveston, TX, Miami, FL, Miami River, FL, Port Everglade, FL, Charleston, SC, Savannah, GA, Norfolk, VA, Portsmith, VA, Elizabeth, NJ, New Jersey, NJ, Long Beach, CA, Los Angeles, CA, Seattle, WA, Tacoma, WA, Oakland, CA, San Francisco, CA, Honolulu, HI. As part of the data gathering process the contractor conferred with: members of the Technical Committee of the National Maritime Safety Association, representatives of Labor Associations, individual Stevedores, Longshore personnel, and Port representatives. Of the many areas of inquiry that resulted in positive recommendations, the issue of the location of the fixed anchorage point in relation to the working surface was addressed: When feasible the attachment point of the fall protection system shall be located "above" the head of the employee. Every effort should be made to assure that the attachment point for the system is located no lower than the vertical height position of the harness "D" ring. According to "Humanscale 7a", for the 50th percentile male, this would be 1.4 meters (55.4 inches). In support of this position, the study cites the National Safety Council in its Accident Prevention Manual for Industrial Operations 9th. Edition (the Bible on Safety) states: (p. 347) "A belt or harness is worthless unless it is being worn at the time that a fall is possible and attached to a lanyard or fall arrestor with an adequate overhead anchorage." (Emphasis added; Id. p. 3.) In addition Mr. Scardino indicates the importance of pre-exposure planning by citing Best's Safety Directory 1994 Edition which states: (p634) "A fixture point above head height always should be planned." (Id.)(Ex. 1-153). With regard to current practice, many fall protection systems in use could meet the raised attachment requirement recommended by Mr. Scardino "* * * approximately 70 to 75% of the existing operations that employ various fall protection techniques would be able to meet * * *" the requirement. (Id.) Some existing systems have attachments to devices that are installed on the work surface. Recommendations addressing these systems include: The use of systems that are at foot level, thereby creating a tripping hazard, should be discouraged. If these systems are to be used, then, the components that make up the system should be of a high visibility color. This field study further determined that these systems were not reliable and created a sense of false security. While it is recognized that there is in existence, fall protection that does not meet this criteria, steps should be taken to meet these minimums within a three year period. In light of these recommendations, OSHA wishes to raise an additional issue. To what extent is it necessary and appropriate to add an additional criteria to those found in 1918.85(k) requiring an elevated anchorage point in order to assure worker safety. VIII. Preliminary Regulatory Impact and Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Note: Numbered references that appear in brackets in this Section VIII, Preliminary Regulatory Impact and Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, are to the References that appear at the end of Section VIII. A. Executive Summary Executive Order 12866 and the Regulatory Flexibility Act require OSHA to analyze the costs, benefits, and other consequences and impacts associated with proposed standards. Consistent with these requirements, OSHA has prepared this regulatory impact analysis for the proposed revisions to the Longshoring and Marine Terminals standards. This analysis includes a description of the industries affected by the regulation, an evaluation of the risks addressed, an assessment of the benefits attributable to the proposed revisions, the determination of the technological feasibility of the new requirements, the estimation of the costs of compliance with proposed revisions, the determination of the economic feasibility of compliance with the proposed revisions, and an analysis of the economic and other impacts associated with this rulemaking. The requirements of the proposed revisions apply to all establishments involved in marine cargo handling. As classified by the 1987 Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) manual, this industry consists of establishments in SIC 4491 as well as establishments in other SICs conducting marine cargo handling activities. Evaluation of Risk and Potential Benefits An estimated 7,593 injuries and 18 fatalities occur annually during marine cargo handling activities. The proposed revisions to the Longshoring and Marine Terminals standards are expected to result in the prevention of 1,262 injuries and 3 fatalities, annually. Many additional fatalities and injuries would be prevented through full compliance with existing requirements retained in the proposed standards. Most of the injuries occurring during marine cargo handling activities could be prevented through compliance with the existing as well as with the proposed standards. In addition to the unquantifiable benefits associated with the reduction in pain and suffering associated with these incidents, the prevention of these injuries will result in savings of over $18 million dollars, annually. This estimate includes savings related to wage and productivity losses, medical costs, administrative expenses, and other costs associated with accidents. Since the proposed requirements can be met using existing equipment and methods, the proposed new requirements are considered to be technologically feasible. The estimated costs associated with the proposed revisions to the Longshoring and Marine Terminals standards amount to less than $4.7 million for the first year and less than $1.8 million, annually, after the first year. These costs primarily reflect the sum of various minor expenditures associated with modifications to existing standards. New provisions involving compliance costs include requirements for sideboards on dockboards and ramps, required certification of fall protection systems, requirements for the vertical application of lifting forces to containers, requirements for high visibility vests, and requirements to provide personal flotation devices, among others. Compliance with the proposed new requirements of the Longshoring and Marine Terminals standards has been determined to be economically feasible and is not expected to produce any significant adverse economic impacts. The costs that are imposed by the regulation should be a minimal burden on marine cargo handling establishments. The total estimated first-year costs of compliance represent less than 0.06 percent of revenues associated with marine cargo handling activities and less than 1.19 percent of profits. Total annualized costs for subsequent years represent less than 0.03 percent of revenues and 0.46 percent of profits. Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act, OSHA has made an assessment of the impact of the revised standards and has concluded that it would not have a significant impact upon a substantial number of small entities. The estimated compliance costs do not involve large capital expenditures, and there is no significant differential effect on small firms relative to that on large firms. B. Industry Profile This section provides an overview of affected establishments, classifications of affected vessels, population at risk, wages of affected workers, gang sizes and cargo handling rates, operating revenues and shipping costs. Overview of Stevedoring and Marine Terminals Marine terminals are designated areas of ports which include wharves, bulkheads, quays, piers, docks and other berthing locations. Adjacent storage or contiguous areas associated with the primary movements of cargo or materials from vessel to shore or shore to vessel, and structures devoted to receiving, handling, holding, consolidating, loading or delivering waterborne shipments are considered part of the marine terminal. Marine terminals are the facilities owned or leased by stevedores or marine terminal operators (MTOs). MTOs and stevedores provide most of the portside services that shipping lines require. They provide the equipment and machinery for conducting cargo handling at multi-use terminal facilities, in addition to specialized terminals designed to handle specific types of cargo . Stevedores are persons or firms contracting with a ship owner or agent for the purpose of loading or unloading ships or barges in ports. Stevedores are direct employers of longshore labor and contractors to ship owners. Basically, they are middlemen between the entity requiring the service and the longshore workers who perform the physical labor. The stevedore's role is to provide the cargo handling expertise and the equipment required to load or unload all types of cargo safely and efficiently. The stevedore may also be the MTO. The functional roles and activities of stevedores and MTOs vary throughout the United States and often cannot be distinguished. The stevedore contractor and the MTO may be distinctly different entities, the same entity, or corporately related. In some cases, public entities or port authorities may be the MTOs. These entities may also act as stevedores or lease the terminals to private operators . Compliance with the proposed revisions to the Longshoring and Marine Terminals standards will affect two areas where marine cargo handling operations occur. Activities that occur off the dock (work aboard vessels) are covered under OSHA's Longshoring standard (29 CFR part 1918) and those which occur on the dock fall under the Marine Terminals standard (29 CFR part 1917). The Longshoring standard covers establishments classified under SIC 4491 (marine cargo handling), as well as various establishments in manufacturing; transportation; communications; electric, gas and sanitary services; and wholesale trade. Data on the exact number of stevedoring companies currently operating in the United States are not available. For the purposes of this analysis, the number of marine terminals estimated by the Maritime Administration (MARAD) was used as the estimate of the total number of firms affected by the Longshoring standard. According to MARAD, there are a total of 3,700 marine terminals in the United States . Establishments engaged primarily in marine cargo handling are classified under Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) 4491, Marine Cargo Handling. The Bureau of the Census estimated that 746 establishments are classified under SIC 4491 . To identify other affected industry sectors, Kearney/Centaur screened OSHA inspection data for non-SIC 4491 sectors where 29 CFR part 1918 citations were issued. Non-SIC 4491 establishments primarily engage in activities other than longshoring, although longshore work is a small part of their overall operation. For example, manufacturing establishments which load their products directly onto barges are covered by the OSHA's Longshoring standard, though these operations represent only a very small part of their total activity. Kearney/Centaur estimated the distribution of the remaining establishments among affected industry sectors according to the distribution of non-SIC 4491 29 CFR part 1918 citations issued in other sectors. The estimated number of affected establishments is shown in Table B-1 by industry and in Table B-2 by region. Although only 20 percent of establishments affected by the longshoring standard are in SIC 4491, the majority of affected workers, as discussed below, are accounted for in SIC 4491. Of the industry sectors covered by the Longshoring standard, most also fall under the scope of the Marine Terminals standard, with the exception of manufacturing establishments and some wholesale trade establishments. Approximately 1,928 of the 3,700 marine terminals covered by the Longshoring standard are estimated to fall under the scope of the Marine Terminals standard . The stevedore/MTO typically hires longshore workers, usually on a daily basis, from a hiring hall or labor pool of union or nonunion members. Labor force size varies directly with the amount of work contracted to be performed. This method of hiring creates difficulty in determining the size of the affected establishments. No data were available on the number of small stevedoring firms. To estimate the number of small firms, the percent of establishments in SIC 4491 classified by the Bureau of the Census as employing fewer than 20 workers, is used. Fifty-six percent of affected establishments are estimated to be small establishments . Types of Vessels This discussion describes the affected vessels calling at U.S. marine terminals. The proposed rule will be applicable to five broad vessel categories. Four of these categories are self-propelled vessels: bulk carriers, freighters, combination passenger/cargo ships, and cruise ships. The fifth category consists of non-self-propelled dry cargo barges. Descriptions of these vessel categories, as well as important subcategories, are presented in Tables B-3 and B-4. Tankers and tanker barges are excluded since these vessels are primarily under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Coast Guard. Table B-5 shows the number of self-propelled vessels of 1,000 gross tons (GTs) and over in the world fleet, by type of vessel. Of the 692 U.S. flag vessels, approximately two-thirds are privately owned and the remaining one-third are Government owned. Only 11 of the 225 Government owned vessels were active as of mid-1992 and were being used by several Government agencies, state maritime academies, or private steamship companies under various forms of agreement with the Maritime Administration. All U.S. flag vessels are owned either by the Government or U.S. firms. However, U.S. firms also own a substantial number of merchant vessels that are registered under foreign flags. As shown in Table B-5, 313 of the 23,549 foreign flag vessels are owned by U.S. parent companies. Although no data were available on the total number of self-propelled vessels in the world fleet of under 1,000 Gts, data were available on the number of vessels calling at U.S. ports. According to Bureau of the Census data , approximately 1,980 U.S. flag and 9,593 foreign flag self-propelled vessels called at U.S. ports in 1992. The total number of non-self-propelled vessels is shown in Table B-6. Of the 31,017 non-self propelled vessels, 87 percent are dry cargo barges, 13 percent are tanker barges, and less than 1 percent are railroad car floats. Nearly 86 percent of all non-self-propelled vessels in the United States operate on the domestic river and intracoastal waterway system and carry nearly all of the waterborne cargo transported on the inland waterways. Thirteen percent of the non-self-propelled vessels (4,158 vessels) in the United States operate on the Atlantic, Gulf and Pacific coasts. The remaining 1 percent of non-self-propelled vessels operate in the Great Lakes. Containers and Container-Carrying Vessels Over recent years, there has been an increase in the volume of containerized cargo handled. Containers are large, standard size metal boxes, equipped with corner castings, into which cargo is packed for shipment. Containers are designed to be moved with common handling equipment enabling economical, high-speed intermodal transfers in large units between ships, railcars, truck chassis, and barges, using a minimum of labor. The container, therefore, serves as the transfer unit rather than the cargo contained therein. Most containers in the U.S. inventory are either 20-foot (6.1 m) containers (56 percent) or 40-foot containers (12.2 m) (42 percent). Containerships are vessels equipped with permanent container cells. They have little or no space for other types of cargo. Partial containerships are multi-purpose ships where one or more, but not all, compartments are fitted with permanent container cells. The remaining compartments are used for other types of cargo. Several other types of vessels also carry containers. Table B-7 presents the number of liner service container-carrying vessels calling at U.S. ports by type of vessel, flag of vessel (U.S. or foreign), and container capacity. Vessels in liner service operate on fixed routes to advertised ports on published schedules. As shown in the table, 1,020 container-carrying liner service vessels with a total container capacity of approximately 1.7 million TEUs (twenty-foot equivalent units) called at U.S. ports in 1992. Virtually all containerships, partial containerships, bulk/containerships, RO RO/containerships and barge carriers are in liner service, and essentially, the entire container capacity of these types of vessels are accounted for in liner services. Break bulk freighters and RO-RO ships also carry containers. Although RO-RO ships are generally in liner service, break bulk carriers are not. Data on the number and container capacity of non-liner service break bulk carriers were unavailable. However, based on the proportion of container traffic accounted for by break bulk freighters, the estimated number of voyages made annually to the United States by these vessels, and their average container capacity, Kearney/Centaur estimated that 544 non-liner service break bulk freighters with a container capacity of 78,336 containers called at U.S. ports in 1992. Combining the number of liner service and non-liner service container-carrying vessels, OSHA therefore estimates that a total of 1,564 container-carrying vessels, with an overall container capacity of 1.76 million TEUs, call annually at U.S. ports . Population at Risk Based on employment data from the Bureau of the Census and OSHA inspection data, approximately 93,427 workers are estimated to be affected by the Longshoring standard, over 58 percent of which are employed in SIC 4491. Kearney/Centaur estimated that about 70,140 of these workers would also be covered by the Marine Terminals standard, 78 percent of which are in SIC 4491. Estimates of full-time equivalent workers, as well as the population at risk are shown in Table B-8, by industry and in Table B-9, by region. Gang Sizes and Cargo Handling Rates Table B-10 summarizes the average stevedoring crew sizes by type of operation. These estimates include both off-the-dock and dockside workers directly involved in the loading or unloading of cargo. Average cargo handling rates are also presented. Based on cargo handling rates, and the types and total tonnages of cargo handled, Kearney/Centaur estimated that approximately 54 million person-hours of exposure occur during longshoring loading and unloading activities, annually. Wages of longshore workers vary among regions and ports. Two primary factors account for this variation. First, local union contractual agreements vary in wage rates, holidays, and other rules or benefits which affect the wages and earnings of longshore workers. Second, the number of hours worked per year varies by port and region, resulting in variations in overtime wage payments. The average national wage rate of longshore workers, including overtime and benefits, is estimated to be $40.30 per hour. The average supervisor wage rate, including overtime and benefits, is estimated at $50.78 . Operating Revenues and Shipping Costs Statistics on shipping costs were estimated based on vessel operating revenue data for domestic water carriers compiled by The U.S. Department of Transportation. Table B-11 presents operating revenues and tonnage data, by region, for 1990. As shown, operating revenues were nearly $3.0 billion for Coastal regions, $2.9 billion for Inland waterways, and $0.6 billion for the Great Lakes region. The operating revenues per ton of freight hauled were $10.27, $4.57 and $5.33, respectively. The cost for shipping a 40-foot (12.0 m) container with FAK (freight-of-all-kinds) worth $100,000 and weighing 10 long tons from New York to Rotterdam was estimated to range from $277.40 to $300.50 per long ton. The cost for the same shipment from Los Angeles to Tokyo was estimated to range from $243.60 to $288.30 per long ton . C. Technological Feasibility and Costs of Compliance All of the requirements of the proposed standard can be met using currently available equipment, facilities, tests, inspections, supplies, and work practices. OSHA's analysis of the technological requirements of each provision indicates that none of the proposed provisions will create any problem of supply or availability of equipment, facilities, or personnel. Although the proposed standard will require the expenditure of resources to fully comply, there are no technological constraints associated with full compliance with the proposed regulation. Costs of Compliance This section presents preliminary estimates of costs that will be incurred by firms to come into compliance with the proposed revisions to the Longshoring and Marine Terminals standards. The costs of the proposed revisions to the two standards are shown in Total first-year costs are estimated to amount to less than $4.7 million. After the first year, affected establishments will incur costs of approximately $1.8 million, annually. These costs were estimated using a baseline of full compliance with existing rules and estimates of current practice for those cost elements not required under previous standards(2). OSHA welcomes comments on the preliminary costs and assumptions presented in this analysis. Footnote(2) This is not intended to suggest that all establishments are fully complying with existing regulations. However, the costs presented in this analysis reflect only those costs which are attributable to to proposed revisions to existing regulations. A side-by-side comparison of the proposed and existing rules was conducted to identify revisions to the existing rules. In addition, a profile of current industry practices was developed to enable estimates of incremental compliance costs to be made. The data used in this preliminary analysis of compliance costs were obtained from three studies conducted in 1986, 1989 and in 1994 by OSHA's contractor, Kearney/Centaur. In 1986 and 1989, analyses were performed on proposed requirements identified as changes to existing standards. These studies were conducted through field visits and telephone surveys of U.S. ports. The 1994 study was conducted to update information collected in previous studies and to collect information on the impact of proposed revisions made recently to the Longshoring and Marine Terminals standards. Efforts included interviews with industry officials to gather information on key cost issues, and calls to equipment manufacturers, suppliers, and professional service providers. Three general types of costs were identified: first-year costs, capital costs, and recurring annual costs. First-year costs are training and workplace analysis costs that which are expected to be incurred in the first year after promulgation of a final rule. Capital costs are costs for equipment with a working life of more than one year. Recurring annual costs are costs that will be incurred each year after promulgation of a final rule. The majority of compliance costs are expected to be borne directly by stevedoring companies, although vessel operators may incur some short-term costs. Revisions to 29 CFR part 1918: Longshoring This section presents preliminary cost estimates attributable to proposed revisions to OSHA's Longshoring standard. Provisions for which costs are not specifically addressed are not expected to have any incremental costs beyond those estimated for workplace analysis and general training. General First-Year Costs Proposed revisions to the existing Longshoring standard will result in general costs for workplace analysis and training. Total first-year costs for these activities are estimated at $1,607,563, and will most likely be borne by stevedoring firms. Workplace analysis involves evaluating an establishment to determine what needs to be done to achieve compliance with the proposed rule. Preliminary costs for this activity are estimated using the hourly wage rate of a safety consultant or safety engineer. The average hourly fee for a safety consultant is estimated to be $87.50, based on a range of $50 to $125 per hour . The average time per establishment to have a safety consultant conduct such an analysis is estimated to be about an hour and a half . This yields an average cost per facility of $131.25. The total first-year workplace analysis cost across all 3,700 affected establishments is estimated to be $485,625. This cost will most likely be borne by stevedoring firms. First-year costs will be necessary to train supervisors on the new requirements of the proposed rule. No recurring annual training costs are estimated since interviews with industry officials indicated that longshore supervisors receive regular safety training, and training in new requirements will replace safety training related to the existing rule. Kearney/Centaur field visits, and telephone interviews with longshore safety experts and industry officials revealed that supervisors will assure implementation of proposed requirements. No additional training time will be required for longshore workers. The proposed rule will result in three types of training: (1) general training in new requirements; (2) additional safety training for RO-RO and containerized operations; and (3) accident prevention proficiency training for supervisors overseeing five or more workers. The costs of additional training for container and RO-RO operations, and accident prevention proficiency training will be discussed under the appropriate subparts. OSHA assumes that first-year supplementary general training will be required to familiarize supervisors with the new requirements of the proposed rule. The number of supervisors that will need general training is estimated using a 10 to 1 employee to supervisor ratio. As discussed in the Industry Profile, approximately 93,427 workers are estimated to be at risk. Hence, 9,343 supervisors are estimated to require general training. Kearney/Centaur estimated that less than one hour of training, in addition to regular safety training, will be necessary to train each supervisor. Using an average supervisor wage rate of $50.78, the total first-year cost of supervisor time to receive general training is estimated at $474,438. In addition to the cost of supervisor training time, the cost to provide safety instruction is estimated. The fee for an instructor is estimated to be about $175 per hour of training . The total cost for general safety instruction is estimated at $647,500. Subpart C: Means of Access Most of the proposed revisions to this subpart are not expected to impose additional costs on affected establishments. For example, proposed requirements for portable ladders are already addressed in the existing Marine Terminals standard. Since portable ladders used on the vessel are typically the same ladders used on the dock, no incremental costs are expected to be incurred. No additional costs are expected to result from requiring 6 inches (15.2 cm) or more of clearance in the back of ladder rungs. This requirement can be met using portable ladders, which are currently available on-site . The proposed requirement for 6 inch (15.2 cm) sideboards on dockboards and ramps is expected to impose additional costs on stevedoring firms. Based on Kearney/Centaur interviews with regional industry representatives, approximately 1,070 ramps will need to be retrofitted at a unit cost of $1,000 . The incremental capital cost for this provision is estimated at $1,070,000. Subpart D: Working Surfaces In the existing rule, 29 CFR 1918.32(b) requires fall protection for workers exposed to fall hazards at the edge of a hatch section or stowed cargo over 8 feet (2.4 m) high. Although changes to the regulatory text are being proposed for clarification purposes, the proposed language does not impose additional responsibilities upon employers. Hence, no incremental costs are attributed to this provision. This is consistent with court interpretations, as found by the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission in its decision of October 24, 1979, OSHRC Docket No. 15242 concerning 1918.32(b) citation of Seattle Crescent Container Service, and the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit in Long Beach Container Terminal Inc. v. OSHRC and Brock, February 23, 1987. Proposed revisions to Subpart D also include requirements for "walking sticks" (floating walking and working surfaces) for employees working logs out of the water. However, local rules in ports affected by this requirement currently include these requirements, and affected establishments are already in compliance . Subpart E: Opening and Closing Hatches The proposed rule includes several revisions to this subpart. Proposed revisions impose more restrictions on working spaces along coamings, more flexibility on covering hatches with tarpaulins, and more flexibility on securing hatch covers. The proposed revisions would also require that all unsecured materials be removed before moving hatch covers. Such changes in work practices are not expected to result in incremental costs other than first-year costs for general training discussed earlier in this chapter . Subpart F: Ship's Cargo Handling Gear Proposed revisions to this subpart address changes in work practices. Costs attributed to changes in work practices are accounted for in the general first-year cost estimates. Subpart G: Cargo Handling Gear and Equipment Other Than Ship's Gear This subpart covers all employer-provided gear and equipment used in longshoring operations aboard vessels. The majority of the gear used aboard vessels is also used on the dock. To the extent that proposed revisions to the Longshoring standard covering this gear are addressed by the existing Marine Terminals standard, no incremental costs are estimated. The proposed rule would require that all special stevedoring gear purchased or fabricated 90 days or more after publication of a final rule, and having a safe working load of 5 short tons or over, be certified by an OSHA accredited agency in accordance with 29 CFR part 1919. Most gear covered under this subpart is either also used on the dock and therefore, already required to be certified under 29 CFR 1917.50, or already certified prior to purchase by the manufacturer. Although situations do arise in which special gear is manufactured and used only on the vessel, such occurrences are rare and the overall cost to affected establishments is expected to be minimal. Two requirements, however, are expected to impose costs on affected establishments. The proposed requirements for the quadrennial testing of special stevedoring gear and the lockout/tagout of powered conveyors are expected to generate compliance costs. OSHA assumes that only the 746 establishments classified under SIC 4491 will be affected by the proposed requirement for quadrennial testing of special gear and equipment. Testing is estimated to take an average of five hours per affected establishment. Assuming that a designated person with an average wage rate of $40.30 will do the testing, the average cost per establishment is estimated to be $201.50 every four years, or $50.38 annually. The total annual cost for affected establishments to comply with this provision is estimated at $37,583 . Compliance costs are also expected to result from the proposed revision requiring the lockout/tagout of powered conveyors. Those conveyors with master shut-off switches used only aboard vessels and not on the dock will be affected. Kearney/Centaur estimated that existing switches on a total of 60 powered conveyors would need to be replaced by general duty 240 volt/100 amp, 3 pole, fused, lockable safety switches. The unit cost for switch replacement, including installation charges, is estimated to be $315 each ($130 for materials cost, $112 direct labor, $73 overhead and other charges) . OSHA estimates that the total capital cost associated with the lockout/tagout of powered conveyors is $18,900. This cost will most likely be borne by stevedoring firms. Subpart H: Handling Cargo Nine proposed revisions to the existing rule were identified as substantive changes to the existing rule. Vertical Lifting of Containers The proposed rule requires that, when containers are being hoisted by the top fittings, lifting forces must be applied vertically from at least four such fittings. Since container gantry cranes provide vertical lifts, only non-container cranes will be affected. Stevedores using non-container cranes currently use either box spreaders, or wires and hooks to lift containers. The use of box spreaders would provide vertical lifts. Approximately 423 non-container gantry cranes are used to lift containers. However, box spreaders would only need to be purchased for 8 to 20 percent of these cranes . Approximately one 20 foot (6.1 m) box spreader and one 40 foot (12.2 m) box spreader will need to be purchased for 59 cranes (14 percent of non-container cranes). Kearney/Centaur estimated, based on an interview with a box spreader manufacturer, that a 20-foot (6.1 m) box spreader costs about $8,800 and a 40-foot (12.2 m) box spreader costs about $9,800. The total cost per crane to purchase one 20-foot (6.1 m) box spreader and one 40-foot (12.2 m) box spreader is, therefore, estimated at $18,600 ($8,800 + $9,800). Thus, the total capital cost that will be incurred by stevedoring companies to comply with this provision is estimated at $1,101,492 . Prohibiting Work On Top of Containers to the Extent Feasible The proposed rule would eliminate work on top of container stacks, to the extent feasible, through the use of engineering controls. Compliance with this proposed requirement is considered feasible, for most operations, when container gantry cranes are used to move containers. To secure stacked containers, twistlocks are placed in the corner castings of each container. When manual twistlocks are used, workers are placed, usually by crane, on top of each container to place or remove (cone or decone) twistlocks. The use of semi-automatic twistlocks (SATLs) and above-deck cell guides would eliminate the need for workers to go atop containers for the purpose of coning or deconing. These engineering controls would greatly reduce the time spent on top of containers and thus, reduce the fall hazards. The use of such controls would also eliminate the need to use personal protective equipment (PPE) for the purposes of coning and deconing. Kearney/Centaur conducted a time-motion study comparing the use of SATLs with the use of fall protection using tie-off. Through field visits to eight ports, Kearney/Centaur observed various container operations on different types of vessels. Activities that directly affect the total time to complete a project (activities on the critical path) were identified, and the average time to complete each of these activities was estimated. Operations that delay the crane are activities on the critical path. The study demonstrated that the use of SATLs would result in significant decreases in crane delay time, since workers would no longer need to be placed on each container to cone or decone. This finding is consistent with other studies conducted on the use of SATLs [1, Appendix E]. The unit cost of a SATL is about $20 more than the cost of a conventional twistlock. Thus, the incremental cost per SATL is estimated to be $20 . An estimated 177 U.S.-owned vessels and 350 foreign-owned vessels will need to purchase SATLs. The total annualized investment cost to purchase SATLs is estimated at about $2 million for U.S. vessel operators and $4 million for foreign operators. The use of SATLs is expected to result in cost savings to vessel operators, as well as to stevedores, in terms of productivity increases. The total dollar value of the cost savings depends on the time savings per vessel, the vessel configuration, the number of containers carried, the number of container cranes used to load or unload the vessel, and the number of trips made to U.S. ports. In each case, as analyzed in Kearney/Centaur's study, cost savings exceed the annualized cost of purchasing SATLs. Even under the worst case scenario, annual productivity increases more than offset the annualized investment cost of the SATLs. The use of SATLs also results in reduced damage to containers. Conventional twistlocks are often thrown or dropped onto the tops of containers, often damaging them. Since SATLs are placed and removed on the dock, such damage would be avoided. Furthermore, interviews with industry officials revealed that shipping lines are already rapidly converting to the use of SATLs. Approximately 47 to 55 percent of all containerships calling at U.S. ports are currently using SATLs. An estimated 22 to 26 percent of U.S. flag containerships and 74 to 78 percent of foreign flag containerships currently use SATLs. In addition, major shipping lines are currently in the process of fully converting to the use of SATLs . In conclusion, based on the Kearney/Centaur study, the annual productivity gains realized as a result of using of SATLs are expected to exceed the annualized investment cost to purchase SATLs. OSHA requests additional data and comments on this issue. Certification of Fall Protection Systems The certification of fall protection systems used in container operations is also expected to result in compliance costs. The proposed rule would require that all fall protection systems be certified by a registered professional engineer as being capable of sustaining at least twice the potential impact of an employee's fall. Based on Kearney/Centaur interviews with industry officials, compliance with this provision would require, on average, one annual certification per establishment involved in container operations. Each certification is expected to take about two hours. Approximately 277 establishments are estimated to be involved in container operations . The services of a registered professional engineer to conduct the required testing and provide certification are estimated to cost about $50 per hour, or $100 per establishment, annually. In addition, there may be a $200 documentation fee and a 15 percent administrative surcharge. This results in an average cost of $345 per establishment, and a total annual recurring cost of $95,565 for stevedoring firms. Secondary Attachments for Safety Cages The proposed standard requires the use of secondary attachments for safety cages attached to container gantry cranes which are used to hoist employees. Few safety cages have secondary means of attachment. The installation of padeyes on cages to allow them to be attached to the spreader by chains and hooks would satisfy this requirement. Approximately 75 to 100 safety cages are currently in use, 90 percent of which lack secondary means of attachment . Applying this percentage to 88 safety cages (the midpoint of the estimated range of safety cages in use) yields an estimate of 79 cages that will need to be retrofitted. The installation of padeyes is estimated to cost $200 per safety cage. No costs are attributed to the purchase of hooks and chains since these items are readily available from existing inventories of equipment. The total capital cost to comply with this provision is estimated at $15,840. This cost would is likely to be borne by stevedoring companies . Marking of Load Capacities on RO-RO Ramps The proposed provision requiring that RO-RO ramps be marked with their load capacities is expected to impose first-year costs primarily on vessel operators. Field visits and interviews with industry representatives indicated that virtually none of the vessels have load capacities marked on their ramps. The Bureau of the Census reported that 147 RO-RO vessels called at U.S. ports in 1992. Approximately 120 of these are RO-RO car carriers, and 27 are heavy capacity RO-RO vessels. On average, car carriers have about four ramps each and heavy capacity RO-RO vessels have 1.5 ramps each. Thus, an estimated 521 ramps would need to be marked. Industry officials indicated that this procedure would require about 0.5 hour per vessel to obtain the necessary information, and 0.5 hour to mark each ramp. Thus, a total of 334 labor hours would be required. Using a labor rate of $40.30, the total estimated first-year cost for vessel operators to comply with this requirement is $13,460. Separation of Vehicles and Pedestrians on RO-RO Ramps The proposed rule also requires that pedestrians and vehicles be physically separated on RO-RO ramps. When no physical separation is present or feasible, a signal person would be required to direct traffic, disallowing concurrent use. Although some heavy capacity RO-RO ramps have pedestrian walkways built into them, most are relatively wide and are often used concurrently by pedestrians and vehicles. For car carriers, ramps are narrow and many do not have room to designate both a pedestrian walkway and a car lane. Discussions with car carrier foremen indicated that, currently, a gang member is assigned the duty of directing traffic and coordinating the movement of vehicles. Consequently, no incremental costs are expected to be incurred for a signal person. However, decreases in productivity may result since vehicles, which would normally be driven onto ramps when pedestrians are present, would have to wait until all pedestrians clear the ramp. Kearney/Centaur indicated that productivity decreases would be in the form of additional personnel rather than vessel delays. Based on the number of vehicles imported to and exported from the United States each year, the probability that pedestrians and vehicles would concurrently use a ramp, and the average delay time that would result for each incident, Kearney/Centaur estimated that this proposed requirement would result in a total annual delay time of about 2,178.7 hours . Applying an average longshore worker wage rate of $40.30 to the total time delay yields a recurring annual cost of about $87,801. Marking Flat Bed and Low Boy Trailers The proposed rule requires that flat bed and low boy trailers (mafis) be marked with their load capacities. Kearney/Centaur concluded that the 307 establishments involved in container and RO-RO operations will be affected by this requirement, 80 percent of which are already in compliance . To mark all mafis would take about eight hours per establishment. Using an average hourly wage rate of $40.30, the first-year incremental cost of this requirement is estimated at $19,795. High Visibility Vests The proposed rule would require that high visibility vests be used during RO-RO and container operations. Kearney/Centaur estimated that one vest would be required, annually, for each affected worker . OSHA estimates that about 75 percent (40,963 workers) of SIC 4491 workers are involved in container or RO-RO operations. The average unit cost of a high visibility vest is estimated to be $6.50 . Therefore, the annual recurring cost for high visibility vests is estimated at $266,260. Additional Training in Container and RO-RO Safety Since there are several revisions proposed for container and RO-RO operations, additional training is expected to be needed. OSHA estimates that 75 percent of longshore workers employed in SIC 4491 (40,963 workers) engage in either container or RO-RO operations or both. Assuming one supervisor will need to be trained for every 10 workers at risk, 4,096 supervisors will need additional training. Additional training in container and RO-RO operations is not expected to exceed 0.5 hour . Applying an hourly supervisor wage rate of $50.78 yields a first-year cost of approximately $103,997. A first-year cost to provide safety instruction is also estimated. An estimated 307 establishments will need instructors for container and RO-RO safety training . Using an hourly instruction fee of $175 per hour of training provided, the estimated instruction cost is $26,863. The total first-year cost for additional container and RO-RO safety training is estimated to be $130,860, and will most likely be borne by stevedoring firms. Subpart I: General Working Conditions According to industry officials, most lighting situations meet the proposed requirement of 5 footcandles (54 lux) of illumination. The existing rule requires that "adequate" lighting be provided at all times. OSHA assumes that establishments not using at least 5 footcandles (54 lux) of lighting would be in violation of the existing rule. Thus, no incremental costs are estimated for this provision. The proposed standard includes specifications on the number of toilets that would need to be available to longshore workers. Kearney/Centaur interviews with industry representatives indicated that current practice already meets this proposed requirement, with the exception of certain situations in the Gulf region. Compliance with this requirement can be achieved through semi-monthly rentals of portable toilets at a rental cost of $65 each. The total recurring annual cost to comply with the proposed sanitation requirements is estimated to be $1,560 for stevedoring companies operating in the Gulf . First Aid Kits The proposed rule would require that first aid kits be checked at least weekly and that contents be approved by a physician. Industry officials indicated that first aid kits currently in use are stocked on the basis of recommendations by first aid and safety professionals and are expected to already meet physicians' recommendations. Thus, kit contents are not expected to change as a result of proposed revisions. Incremental costs are expected to result in the form of labor time necessary to perform weekly checks of the contents of each kit. This procedure is not expected to take more than 5 minutes per week per establishment. Applying an average hourly wage rate of $40.30 yields an annual cost of $174.63 per establishment per year. The total recurring annual cost for all 3,700 establishments to comply with this requirement is estimated at $646,143. Incremental costs are expected to result from the proposed requirement that stretchers be equipped with four sets of working patient restraints. Costs are estimated assuming that 25 percent of the affected workplaces would need to retrofit their stretchers. Approximately one stretcher per establishment would need to be retrofitted at an average cost of $400 each . The total capital cost for this requirement is estimated at $370,000. Accident Prevention Proficiency Training for Supervisors The proposed rule would require that all supervisors overseeing more than five workers complete a course in accident prevention. This training is currently required under the Marine Terminals standard. Kearney/Centaur field visits indicated that approximately 75 percent of supervisors already receive accident prevention training . Each course is estimated to take two hours. At an average supervisor wage rate of $50.78 per hour, the cost for 2,336 supervisors to receive this training is $237,244. The average fee to provide instruction is estimated to be $175 per hour of training. Assuming that 25 percent of the affected establishments (925 establishments) would require such training, the cost for instruction is estimated at $323,750 ($175 x 2 x 925). The total first-year cost for accident prevention proficiency training is, therefore, estimated to be $560,994 and is expected to be borne by stevedoring companies. In addition to first-year costs, annual recurring costs are expected to be incurred as a result of supervisor turnover. Kearney/Centaur estimated that the turnover rate for longshore supervisors is about five percent per year. The resulting annual cost of supervisor time is estimated at $11,883. The annual cost to provide instruction is $16,188, assuming that five percent of establishments would need such instruction. The recurring annual cost for accident prevention proficiency training is, therefore, estimated at $28,070. Subpart J: Personal Protective Equipment The proposed rule would broaden the existing scope to require that personal flotation devices be used in more situations where workers may be at risk of falling into the water. Since the existing rule already requires the use of personal flotation devices in the Gulf/Mississippi region, no incremental costs in addition to general training costs are expected to be incurred by establishments in this region. To estimate the number of flotation devices that would be needed, OSHA assumes that 50 percent of employees not working in the Gulf/Mississippi region (19,386 workers), would need personal flotation devices. The average unit cost per life vest meeting the required specifications is estimated at $55 . Thus, the total capital cost to purchase personal flotation devices is estimated at $1,066,230. As shown in Table C-2, the total first-year cost of the proposed revisions to the Longshoring standard is estimated at $4,088,445. After the first year, establishments will incur an estimated $1,755,773, annually. Revisions to 29 CFR Part 1917: Marine Terminals Several of the proposed revisions to the Marine Terminals standard are not expected to generate any specific costs. Some of the costs of the proposed revisions are included in the cost analysis of the proposed Longshoring standard. For example, the first aid kits and stretchers used for workers aboard vessels are the same ones used in marine terminals. Also, Kearney/Centaur concluded, based on interviews with industry representatives, that many of the proposed requirements reflect current practices. For example, current industry practice prohibits riding the load and hoisting workers by hooks. In addition, industry officials indicated that lowering the 8-hour time-weighted average exposure limit of carbon monoxide from 50 ppm to 35 ppm would not be a problem. Compliance with most of the proposed revisions to the Marine Terminals standard can be met through workplace analysis and general training. Specific compliance costs are expected to be generated from the proposed requirement for seat belts in high speed container gantry cranes. Costs for workplace analysis and general training are based on the assumption that 1,928 establishments and 70,140 workers (see Industry Profile), would be affected by proposed revisions to the Marine Terminals standard . The total first-year cost for these activities is estimated at $515,485. Approximately one hour, on average, is estimated to be required for a safety consultant, familiar with the proposed rule, to evaluate an establishment. At an average fee of $87.50 per hour, the total estimated first-year cost for workplace analysis is $168,700 . One supervisor per every 10 workers (7,014 supervisors) would receive supplementary general training in the proposed new requirements. General training in the proposed requirements is estimated to take about 0.5 hour. Using an average supervisor wage rate of $50.78, the total first-year cost of supervisor time for additional training is estimated at $178,085. The cost per establishment to provide instruction, using an average fee of $175 per hour of training, is estimated at $168,700. Thus, the total first-year cost of general training is estimated at $346,785, and will most likely be borne by stevedoring firms. The proposed rule requires that seat belts be placed in the operators' seats of high-speed container gantry cranes. Kearney/Centaur estimated that 40 percent of the 411 container gantry cranes in U.S. ports are already equipped with chest harnesses. Based on interviews, the cost to retrofit one crane is estimated at $500. The total capital cost to retrofit 247 container cranes is estimated to be $123,500. Proposed revisions to the Marine Terminals standard are estimated to result in first-year costs totalling $535,585 and annualized costs totalling $20,099 (Table C-3). The proposed revisions to the Longshoring and Marine Terminals standards are expected to reduce the numbers of injuries and fatalities in the marine cargo handling industry. Since affected workers are involved in both off-the-dock (covered under 29 CFR part 1918) and on-the-dock activities (covered under 29 CFR part 1917), separate analyses are presented on accidents that occur in each area of operation. Injuries and Fatalities As presented in the Industry Profile, approximately 87,951 full-time equivalent (FTE) longshore workers, based on a 1,436 hour work-year, are affected by the Longshoring standard. Approximately 67,974 of these workers are also covered by the Marine Terminals standard. About 54,617 of affected workers are employed in SIC 4491, while the others are employed in establishments classified under other industry sectors. A summary of injuries occurring among affected workers in the marine cargo handling industry is shown in Table D-1. As shown, a total of 18 fatalities and 7,593 injuries occurred among workers affected by the Longshoring and Marine Terminals standards. The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) provided the 1991 injury rate for SIC 4491. This rate was 13.6 for every 100 FTE workers, based on a 2000 hour work-year . The lost workday and non-lost workday injury rates per 100 FTE workers were 8.4 and 5.2, respectively. An average of 38.9 lost workdays occurred per lost workday injury. BLS also conducted a study of longshore-related injuries processed under the Federal Longshoremen's and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act . According to this study, 49 percent of longshore-related injuries occurred off the dock, while 51 percent occurred on the dock. Since BLS injury rates are per 100 FTE workers based on a 2,000 hour work-year, the number of FTE workers based on a 1,436 hour work-year must be converted to FTEs based on a 2,000-hour work-year. The conversion results in 63,148 FTE off-the-dock workers and 48,805 FTE on-the-dock workers. Off-the-Dock The number of off-the-dock injuries was estimated by applying 49 percent of the BLS injury rate to the 63,148 FTE off-the-dock workers (based on a 2,000 hour work-year). As a result, 4,208 annual injuries are estimated to occur off the dock. Of these, 2,599 are lost workday cases resulting in 101,109 lost workdays, and 1,609 are non-lost workday cases. On-the-Dock The number of FTE workers affected by the Marine Terminals standard, based on a 2,000 hour work-year, is 48,805. Applying 51 percent of the BLS injury rate to the 48,805 FTE workers on the dock yields 3,385 annual injuries occurring on the dock. Of these, 1,294 are non-lost workday cases and 2,091 are lost workday cases resulting in 81,332 lost workdays. Although BLS did not provide a fatality rate for SIC 4491, data were available on the total of number of 1992 fatalities that occurred in SIC 4491. BLS indicated that 13 fatalities occurred among SIC 4491 workers . Since 54,617 FTE workers (based on a 1,436 hour work-year) are estimated to be employed in SIC 4491, a fatality rate of 0.0238 per 100 FTE workers (based on a 1,436 hour work-year) was derived. Off-the-Dock To determine the number of off-the-dock fatalities occurring annually, 49 percent of the fatality rate was applied to the 87,951 FTE longshore workers (based on a 1,436 hour work-year). This results in 10 fatalities occurring, annually, off the dock. To estimate the number of fatalities occurring among the population covered by the Marine Terminals standard, OSHA used 51 percent of the fatality rate estimated above. As a result, approximately eight fatalities are estimated to occur on the dock, annually. The proposed revisions to the Longshoring and Marine Terminals standards are expected to reduce many of the risks involved in marine cargo handling operations. Reductions in fatalities and injuries are expected as a result of proposed revisions to the two standards. In reviewing OSHA's first reports of serious accidents in the marine cargo handling industry, Kearney/Centaur estimated the percent of fatalities that would have been prevented by proposed revisions to the existing standards. Approximately 30 percent of off-the-dock fatalities and injuries could have been prevented through compliance with proposed requirements. Thus, an estimated 3 fatalities are expected to be prevented, annually, by the proposed requirements. In addition, an estimated 1,262 injuries would be prevented annually through compliance with proposed new requirements. Many additional fatalities and injuries would be prevented through full compliance with existing requirements retained in the proposed standards. Summary of Benefits All of the proposed revisions to the Longshoring and Marine Terminals standards are likely to reduce the risk of injuries occurring in the marine cargo handling industry. The proposed new requirements are expected to prevent approximately 3 of the 18 fatalities and 1,262 of the 7,593 injuries occurring annually among affected workers. Approximately 779 lost workday injuries involving 30,303 lost workdays are expected to be prevented, annually. An additional 483 non-lost workday cases are also expected to be avoided. Many additional fatalities and injuries would likely be prevented through full compliance with existing requirements retained in the proposed standards. E. Economic Impacts Compliance with the requirements of the proposed revisions to the Longshoring and Marine Terminals standards are not expected to produce any significant adverse economic impacts. The costs that are imposed by the regulation should be a minimal burden on all affected establishments. The total annual revenues and profits associated with longshoring operations are approximately $7.8 billion and $388.9 million, respectively . The total estimated costs of compliance with the proposed revisions to the Longshoring and Marine Terminals standards rules are less than $4.7 million for the first year after promulgation of the final rules and less than $1.8 million annually, thereafter. Thus, the total first-year costs of compliance with the proposed revisions represent less than 0.06 percent of the revenues and 1.19 percent of the profits of the industry. Compliance costs for subsequent years represent less than 0.03 percent of revenues and less than 0.46 percent of profits. Current practices in the marine cargo handling industry indicate that the requirements of the proposed standard can generally be met without significant hardship. Many employers already comply with the proposed requirements and presumably are not imposing substantial disadvantages on themselves. Since stevedoring establishments engaging in similar cargo handling operations in the United States would be subject to the same regulations, no competitive disadvantages between industries or with regard to international trade are projected. Costs are expected to be passed through as an increase in the costs of cargo handling and shipping, and the effect on profits and prices should be negligible. The estimated compliance costs would represent an average increase in cost of less than 25 cents for shipping a loaded container in or out of U.S. ports, which costs an average of about $3000. On the whole, the costs of marine cargo handling operations for society would actually decrease as fewer accidents would mean less lost time and wages and fewer medical and legal resources necessary for a given amount of cargo shipping and handling. The estimated savings to society attributable to the prevention of injuries and fatalities would far outweigh the costs of preventing these incidents. According to the National Safety Council, the total costs associated with occupational injuries and deaths in 1992 were $115.9 billion, or an average cost of over $15,000 per case. This estimate includes wage and productivity losses, medical costs, administrative expenses, and other costs associated with accidents. The estimated benefits anticipated from proposed requirements include unquantifiable reductions in pain and suffering, plus estimated savings of over $18 million annually. REGULATORY FLEXIBILITY ANALYSIS Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (P.L. 96-353, 94 Stat. 1164 (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.)), OSHA has made an assessment of the impact of the proposed revisions to the Longshoring and Marine Terminals standards, and has concluded that they would not have a significant impact upon a substantial number of small entities. The important criterion that governs a Regulatory Flexibility Analysis is whether the proposed standards would impose significant costs upon small entities. "Significance" is determined by the effect upon profits, market share, and the entity's financial viability. In particular, the effect of the proposed revisions upon small entities relative to their effect upon large entities needs to be specifically evaluated. That is, OSHA must determine whether the proposed requirements would have a relatively greater negative effect upon small entities than they would have upon large entities, thereby putting small entities at a competitive disadvantage, and if so, whether there are ways to minimize any differentially adverse effects without increasing the risk to employees. If the costs of compliance are proportional to firm size and are insignificant to small firms, then there is no significant differential burden on small firms relative to that on large firms. In those cases involving large absolute costs (typically capital equipment costs), financing may be more difficult to obtain for small entities than for larger entities and in such cases of economies of scale in compliance, the burden on small firms will be greater than the burden on large firms. The proposed changes to the Longshoring and Marine Terminals standards, however, require minimal capital expenditures and generally impose costs that are proportional to firm size and the amount of business done. In addition, these costs would be a minimal component of the overall costs of operations. As a result, small entities would not be put at a competitive disadvantage to large entities due to these compliance costs. Thus, OSHA concluded that the proposed revisions to the Longshoring and Marine Terminals standards would not have a significant adverse impact upon a substantial number of small entities. F. Other Impacts Impact Upon International Trade OSHA determined that compliance with the proposed revisions to the Longshoring and Marine Terminals standards would not have any measurable impact upon international trade. The compliance costs are minimal and are not expected to affect exports, imports, or international competitiveness. To the extent that compliance with the proposed rule would increase cargo handling efficiency and reduce the number of injuries and fatalities associated with these operations, shipping costs may be reduced and result in a general increase in the competitiveness of U.S. firms. 1. Kearney/Centaur, Division of A.T. Kearney, Inc., Economic Assessment of OSHA's Proposed Longshoring Standard, prepared for the U.S. Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, Office of Regulatory Analysis, Contract No. J-909F-1-0015. 2. U.S. Department of Transportation, Maritime Administration, "The U.S. Stevedoring and Marine Terminal Industry," January 1993. 3. U.S. Department of Transportation, Maritime Administration, "Merchant Fleets of the World: Oceangoing Steam and Motor Ships of 1,000 Gross Tons and Over as of January 1, 1992." 4. U.S. Department of Transportation, Maritime Administration, "A Report to Congress on the Status of the United States 1990-1991," December 1992. 5. U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Foreign Trade Division, computer printout on the number of vessels calling at U.S. ports in 1992, May 4, 1993. 6. U.S. Department of Transportation, Maritime Administration, "Inventory of American Intermodal Equipment 1990," April 1991. 7. U.S. Department of Commerce, Economics and Statistics Administration, Bureau of the Census, County Business Patterns 1990 - United States. 8. SAFECO, Inc. Occupational Health and Safety Products Supply Catalog. 9. U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, "Injuries Involving Longshore Operations," Bulletin 2326, May 1989. IX. Environmental Impact The proposed revisions to the Longshoring and Marine Terminals standards have been reviewed in accordance with the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), the regulations of the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) (40 CFR Part 1500), and DOL NEPA Procedures (29 CFR Part 11). No significant negative impact is foreseen on air, water or soil quality, plant or animal life, the use of land or sea, or other aspects of the environment. X. Recordkeeping Requirements Part 1320 of title 5 of the CFR sets forth procedures for agencies to follow in obtaining OMB clearance for information collection requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. The proposed Longshoring standard requires the employer to allow OSHA access to records. In accordance with the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act and the regulations issued pursuant thereto, OSHA certifies that it has submitted the information collection to OMB for review under section 3504(h) of that Act. Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average five minutes per response to allow OSHA compliance officers access to the employer's records. Send comments regarding this burden estimate, or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to the Office of Information Management, Department of Labor, Room N-1301, 200 Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20210; and to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs Management and Budget, Washington, D.C. 20503. XI. State Plan Requirements Those of the 25 states with their own OSHA-approved occupational safety and health plans whose plans cover the issues of maritime safety and health must revise their existing standard within six months of the publication date of the final standard or show OSHA why there is no need for action, e.g., because an existing state standard covering this area is already "at least as effective" as the revised Federal standard. Currently five states (California, Minnesota, Oregon, Vermont and Washington) with their own state plans cover private sector on-shore maritime activities. Federal OSHA enforces maritime standards offshore in all states and provides onshore coverage of maritime activities in Federal OSHA states and in the following state Plan States: Alaska, Arizona, Connecticut(3), Hawaii, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Maryland, Michigan, Nevada, New Mexico, New York(4), North Carolina, Puerto Rico, South Carolina, Tennessee, Utah, Virginia, Virgin Islands, and Wyoming (all states with state plans must also extend coverage to state and local government employees engaged in maritime activities.) Footnote(3) Plan covers only state and local government employees. Footnote(4) Plan covers only state and local government employees. The standard has been reviewed in accordance with Executive Order 12612 (52 FR 41685; October 30, 1987) regarding Federalism. This Order requires that agencies, to the extent possible, refrain from limiting State policy options, consult with States prior to taking any actions that would restrict State policy options, and take such actions only when there is clear constitutional authority and the presence of a problem of national scope. The Order provides for preemption of State law only if there is a clear constitutional authority and the presence of a problem of national scope. Additionally, the Order provides for preemption of State law only if there is a clear Congressional intent for the agency to do so. Any such preemption is to be limited to the extent possible. Section 18 of the Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSH Act), expresses Congress' clear intent to preempt State laws relating to issues with respect to which Federal OSHA has promulgated occupational safety or health standards. Under the OSH Act a State can avoid preemption only if it submits, and obtains Federal approval of, a plan for the development of such standards and their enforcement. Occupational safety and health standards developed by such Plan-States must, among other things, be at least as effective in providing safe and healthful employment and places of employment as the Federal standards. The Federal standards on longshoring and marine terminal operations address hazards which are not unique to any one state or region of the country. Nonetheless, those States which have elected to participate under section 18 of the OSHA Act would not be preempted by this final regulation and would be able to deal with special, local conditions within the framework provided by this performance-oriented standard while ensuring that their standards are at least as effective as the Federal standard. XIII. Public Participation Interested persons are requested to submit written data, views and arguments concerning this proposal. Responses to the questions raised at various places in the proposal are particularly encouraged. These comments must be postmarked by September 30, 1994. Comments are to be submitted in quadruplicate or 1 original (hard-copy) and 1 disk (5 1/4 or 3 1/2) in WP 5.0, 5.1, 6.0 or Ascii. Note: Any information not contained on disk, e.g., studies, articles, etc., must be submitted in quadruplicate to: The Docket Office, Docket No. S-025, Room N-2625, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20210, Telephone No. (202) 219-7894. All written comments received within the specified comment period will be made a part of the record and will be available for public inspection and copying at the above Docket Office address. Notice of Intention to Appear at the Informal Hearing Pursuant to section 6(b)(3) of the OSH Act, informal public hearings will be held on this proposal in: Charleston, South Carolina on September 30, 1994. Seattle, Washington on October 31, 1994. New Orleans, Louisiana on November 29, 1994. Actual addresses for the locations of the regional hearings in Charleston, South Carolina, Seattle, Washington, and New Orleans, Louisiana will be announced in a later Federal Register notice. Persons desiring to participate at the informal public hearing must file a notice of intention to appear by August 31, 1994. The notice of intention to appear must contain the following information: 1. The name, address, and telephone number of each person to appear; 2. The capacity in which the person will appear; 3. The approximate amount of time required for the presentation; 4. The issues that will be addressed; 5. A brief statement of the position that will be taken with respect to each issue; and 6. Whether the party intends to submit documentary evidence and, if so, a brief summary of it. The notice of intention to appear shall be mailed to Mr. Thomas Hall, OSHA Division of Consumer Affairs, Docket No. S-025, U.S. Department of Labor, Room N-3647, 200 Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20210, Telephone (202) 219-8615. A notice of intention to appear also may be transmitted by facsimile to (202) 219-5986, by the same date, provided the original and 3 copies are sent to the same address and postmarked no later than 3 days later. Individuals with disabilities wishing to attend the hearings should contact the hearing management officer, Mr. Tom Hall, to obtain appropriate accommodations at the hearing. Filing of Testimony and Evidence Before the Hearing Any party requesting more than ten (10) minutes for presentation at the informal public hearing, or who intends to submit documentary evidence, must provide in quadruplicate the testimony and evidence to be presented at the informal public hearing. One copy shall not be stapled or bound and be suitable for copying. These materials must be provided to Mr. Thomas Hall, OSHA Division of Consumer Affairs at the address above and be postmarked no later than 21 days prior to the date of the hearing. Each submission will be reviewed in light of the amount of time requested in the notice of intention to appear. In instances where the information contained in the submission does not justify the amount of time requested, a more appropriate amount of time will be allocated and the participant will be notified of that fact prior to the informal hearing. Any party who has not substantially complied with the above requirement may be limited to a ten-minute presentation and may be requested to return for questioning at a later time. Any party who has not filed a notice of intention to appear may be allowed to testify for no more than 10 minutes as time permits, at the discretion of the Administrative Law Judge, but will not be allowed to question witnesses. Notice of intention to appear, testimony and evidence will be available for inspection and copying at the Docket Office at the address above. Conduct and Nature of Hearing The hearing will commence at 9:30 a.m. on the first day. At that time, any procedural matters relating to the proceeding will be resolved. The nature of an informal rulemaking hearing is established in the legislative history of section 6 of the OSH Act and is reflected by OSHA's rules of procedure for hearings (29 CFR 1911.15(a)). Although the presiding officer is an Administrative Law Judge and questioning by interested persons is allowed on crucial issues, the proceeding is informal and legislative in type. The Agency's intent, in essence, is to provide interested persons with an opportunity to make effective oral presentations which can proceed expeditiously in the absence of procedural restraints which impede or protract the rulemaking process. Additionally, since the hearing is primarily for information gathering and clarification, it is an informal administrative proceeding rather than an adjudicative one. The technical rules of evidence, for example do not apply. The regulations that govern hearings and the pre-hearing guidelines to be issued for this hearing will ensure fairness and due process and also facilitate the development of a clear, accurate and complete record. Those rules and guidelines will be interpreted in a manner that furthers that development. Thus, questions of relevance, procedure and participation generally will be decided so as to favor development of the record. The hearing will be conducted in accordance with 29 CFR part 1911. It should be noted that 1911.4 specifies the Assistant Secretary may upon reasonable notice issue alternative procedures to expedite proceedings or for other good cause. The hearing will be presided over by an Administrative Law Judge who makes no decision or recommendation on the merits of OSHA's proposal. The responsibility of the Administrative Law Judge is to ensure that the hearing proceeds at a reasonable pace and in an orderly manner. The Administrative Law Judge, therefore, will have all the powers necessary and appropriate to conduct a full and fair informal hearing as provided in 29 CFR part 1911 including the powers: 1. To regulate the course of the proceedings; 2. To dispose of procedural requests, objections and comparable matters; 3. To confine the presentations to the matters pertinent to the issues raised; 4. To regulate the conduct of those present at the hearing by appropriate means; 5. In the Judge's discretion, to question and permit the questioning of any witnesses and to limit the time for questioning; and 6. In the Judge's discretion, to keep the record open for a reasonable, stated time (known as the post-hearing comment period) to receive written information and additional data, views and arguments from any person who has participated in the oral proceedings. OSHA recognizes that there may be interested persons or organizations who, through their knowledge of the subject matter or their experience in the field, would wish to endorse or support the whole proposal or certain provisions of the proposal. OSHA welcomes such supportive comments, including any pertinent data and cost information which may be available, in order that the record of this rulemaking will present a balanced picture of public response on the issues involved. List of Subjects in 29 CFR parts 1910, 1917, and 1918 Cargo, Cargo gear certification, Intermodal container, Longshoring, Maritime, Marine terminal, Hazardous materials, Labeling, Occupational safety and health, Protective equipment, Respiratory protection, Signs and symbols. XIV. Authority and Signature This document was prepared under the direction of Joseph A. Dear, Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, D.C. 20210. Accordingly, pursuant to sections 4, 6(b), 8(c), and 8(g) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 653, 655, 657); Sec. 107, Contract Work Hours and Safety Standards Act (Construction Safety Act) (40 U.S.C. 333); Sec. 41, Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act (33 U.S.C. 941); and 29 CFR part 1911 and Secretary of Labor's Order No. 1-90 (55 FR 8033), OSHA proposes to amend 29 CFR parts 1910, 1917 and 1918 as set forth below. Signed at Washington, D.C. this 12th day of May, 1994. Joseph A. Dear, Assistant Secretary of Labor For the reasons set out in the preamble 29 CFR Chapter XVII would be amended as follows: PART 1910 - [AMENDED] 1. The authority for part 1910 would continue to read as follows: Authority: Secs. 4, 6 and 8 of the Occupational Safety and Health Act, 29 U.S.C. 653, 655, 657; Walsh-Healey Act, 41 U.S.C. 35 et seq; Service Contract Act of 1965, 41 U.S.C. 351 et seq; sec. 107, Contract Work Hours and Safety Standards Acts (Construction Safety Act), 40 U.S.C. 333; Sec. 41, Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act 33 U.S.C. 941; National Foundation of Arts and Humanities Act, 20 U.S.C. 951 et seq.; Secretary of Labor's Order No. 12-71 (36 FR 8754), 8-76 (41 FR 1911, 9-83 (48 FR 35736), or 1-90 (55 FR 9033) as applicable. 2. Paragraphs (a) and (b) of 1910.16 would be revised to read as follows: 1910.16 Longshoring and marine terminals. (a) Safety and health standards for longshoring. (1) Part 1918 of this chapter shall apply exclusively, according to the provisions thereof, to all employment of every employee engaged in longshoring operations or related employment aboard any vessel. All cargo transfer accomplished with the use of shore-based material handling devices shall be regulated by part 1917 of this chapter. (2) Part 1910 does not apply to longshoring operations except for the following provisions: (i) Toxic and hazardous substances. Subpart Z applies except that the requirements of subpart Z of this part do not apply when a substance or cargo is contained within a sealed, intact means of packaging or containment complying with Department of Transportation or International Maritime Organization requirements.(1) Footnote(1) The International Maritime Organization publishes the International Maritime Dangerous Goods Code to aid compliance with Interational legal requirements of the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea, 1960. (ii) Access to employee exposure and medical records. Subpart C, 1910.20; (iii) Commercial diving operations. Subpart T of this part; (iv) Electrical. Subpart S of this part; when shorebased electrical installations provide power for use aboard vessels; (v) Hand and Portable Powered Tools and Other Hand-Held Equipment. Subpart P of this part; (vi) Hazard Communication. Subpart Z, 1910.1200; (vii) Hazardous waste operations and emergency response. Subpart H, 1910.120(q). (viii) Ionizing radiation. Subpart G, 1910.96; (ix) Machinery and Machine Guarding. Subpart O, 1910.211; (x) Noise. Subpart G, 1910.95; (xi) Nonionizing radiation. Subpart G, 1910.97; and (xii) Respiratory protection. Subpart I, 1910.134. (b) Safety and health standards for Marine Terminals. Part 1917 of this chapter shall apply exclusively, according to the provisions thereof, to employment within a marine terminal, except as follows: (1) The provisions of part 1917 of this chapter do not apply to the following: (i) Facilities used solely for the bulk storage, handling and transfer of flammable and combustible liquids and gases. (ii) Facilities subject to the regulations of the Office of Pipeline Safety Regulation of the Materials Transportation Bureau, Department of Transportation, to the extent such regulations apply to specific working conditions. (iii) Fully automated bulk coal handling facilities contiguous to electrical power generating plants. (2) Part 1910 does not apply to Marine Terminals except for the following: (i) Abrasive blasting. Subpart G, 1910.94(a); (ii) Access to employee exposure and medical records. Subpart C, 1910.20; (iii) Commercial diving operations. Subpart T of this part; (iv) The control of hazardous energy (lockout/tagout). Subpart J, 1910.147; (v) Electrical. Subpart S of this part; (vi) Grain handling facilities. Subpart R, 1910.272; (vii) Hand and Portable Powered Tools and Other Hand-Held Equipment. Subpart P of this part; (viii) Hazard Communication. Subpart Z, 1910.1200; (ix) Machinery and Machine Guarding. Subpart O; (x) Noise. Subpart G, 1910.95; (xi) Respiratory protection. Subpart I, 1910.143; (xii) Safety requirements for scaffolding. Subpart D, 1910.28; (xiii) Servicing multi-piece and single piece rim wheels. Subpart N, 1910.177; and (xiv) Toxic and hazardous substances. Subpart Z applies except that the requirements of Subpart Z of this part do not apply when a substance or cargo is contained within a sealed, intact means of packaging or containment complying with Department of Transportation or International Maritime Organization requirements.(1) Footnote(1) The International Maritime Organization publishes the International Maritime Dangerous Goods Code to aid compliance with Interational legal requirements of the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea, 1960. PART 1917 - MARINE TERMINALS 1. The authority citation for part 1917 would continue to read as follows: Sec. 41, Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act (33 U.S.C. 941); secs.4, 6, 8, Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 653, 655, 657); Secretary of Labor's Order No. 12-71 (36 FR 8754), 8-76 (41 FR 25059), or 9-83 (48 FR 35736), as applicable; 29 CFR part 1911. Section 1917.28 also issued under 5 U.S.C. 553. Subpart A - Scope and Definitions 2. In 1917.1, the introductory text of (a) and paragraphs (a)(2)(i) through (a)(2)(x) are proposed to be revised and paragraphs (a)(2)(xi) through (a)(2)(xvii) are proposed to be added to read as follows: 1917.1 Scope and applicability. (a) The regulations of this part apply to employment within a marine terminal as defined in 1917.2(u), including the loading, unloading, movement or other handling of cargo, ship's stores or gear within the terminal or into or out of any land carrier, holding or consolidation area, any other activity within and associated with the overall operation and functions of the terminal, such as the use and routine maintenance of facilities and equipment. All cargo transfer accomplished with the use of shore-based material handling devices shall be regulated by this part. * * * * * (2) * * * (i) Abrasive blasting. Subpart G, 1910.94(a); (ii) Access to employee exposure and medical records. Subpart C, 1910.20; (iii) Commercial diving operations. Subpart T of part 1910; (iv) The control of hazardous energy (lockout/tagout). Subpart J, 1910.147; (v) Electrical. Subpart S of part 1910; (vi) Grain handling facilities. Subpart R, 1910.272; (vii) Hand and portable powered tools and other hand-held equipment. Subpart P of part 1910; (viii) Hazard communication. Subpart Z, 1910.1200; (ix) Hazardous waste operations and emergency response. Subpart H, 1910.120(q); (x) Ionizing radiation. Subpart G, 1910.96; (xi) Machinery and machine guarding. Subpart O of part 1910; (xii) Noise. Subpart G, 1910.95; (xiii) Nonionizing radiation. Subpart G, 1910.97; (xiv) Respiratory protection. Subpart I, 1910.143; (xv) Safety requirements for scaffolding. Subpart D, 1910.28; (xvi) Servicing multi-piece and single piece rim wheels. Subpart N, 1910.177; and (xvii) Toxic and hazardous substances. Subpart Z of part 1910 applies, except that the requirements of subpart Z of part 1910 do not apply when a substance or cargo is contained within a sealed, intact means of packaging or containment complying with Department of Transportation or International Maritime Organization requirements.(1) Notwithstanding the rules for Hazard Communication (1910.1200) shall apply. Footnote(1) The International Maritime Organization publishes the International Maritime Dangerous Goods Code to aid compliance with the International legal requirements of the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea, 1960. 3. In 1917.2, the paragraph designations to each definition are proposed to be removed and the definitions placed in alphabetical order, definitions for the terms Employee and Employer are proposed to be added, and the definition for the term Intermodal container is proposed to be revised to read as follows: * * * * * Employee means any longshore worker, or other person engaged in marine terminal operations or related employments. Employer means an employer any of whose employees are employed, in whole or in part, in marine terminal operations. * * * * * Intermodal container means a reusable cargo container of rigid construction and rectangular configuration; fitted with devices permitting its ready handling, particularly its transfer from one mode of transport to another; so designed to be readily filled and emptied; intended to contain one or more articles of cargo or bulk commodities for transportation by water and one or more other transport modes without intermediate cargo handling. The term includes completely enclosed units, open top units, fractional height units, units incorporating liquid or gas tanks and other variations fitting into the container system. It does not include cylinders, drums, crates, cases, cartons, packages, sacks, unitized loads or any other form of packaging. * * * * * Subpart B - Marine Terminal Operations 4. Section 1917.11 is proposed to be amended by adding paragraph (d) to read as follows: * * * * * (d) Dunnage, lumber, or shoring material in which there are visibly protruding nails shall be removed from the immediate work area or if left in the area, the nails shall be rendered harmless. 5. Section 1917.13 is proposed to be amended by revising paragraph (g) and adding paragraphs (h) and (i) to read as follows: * * * * * (g) Intermodal containers shall be handled in accordance with 1917.71(f). (h) The employer shall require employees to stay clear of the area beneath overhead drafts or descending lifting gear. (i) Employees shall not be permitted to ride the hook or the load. 6. Section 1917.17 is proposed to be amended by revising paragraphs (i), (j), and (k) to read as follows: 1917.17 Railroad facilities. * * * * * (i) If powered industrial trucks are used to open railcar doors, the trucks or the railcar doors shall be equipped with door opening attachments. Employees shall stand clear of the railcar doors while they are being opened and closed. (j) Only railcar door openers or powered trucks equipped with door opening attachments shall be used to open jammed doors. (k) Employees shall not remain in or on gondolas or flat cars when drafts that create overhead, caught-in, caught-between or struck-by hazards are being landed in or on the railcar; end gates, if raised, shall be secured. * * * * * 7. Section 1917.18 is proposed to be amended by revising paragraph (a) to read as follows: 1917.18 Log handling. (a) Structures (bunks) used to contain logs shall have rounded corners and rounded structural parts to avoid sling damage. * * * * * 8. Section 1917.20 is proposed to be revised to read as follows: 1917.20 Interference with communications. Cargo handling operations shall not be carried on when noise-producing maintenance, construction or repair work interferes with the communication of warnings or instructions. 9. Section 1917.23 is proposed to be amended by revising paragraphs (b)(1) and (d) introductory text to read as follows: 1917.23 Hazardous atmospheres and substances. * * * * * (b) Determination of hazard. (1) When the employer is aware that a room, building, vehicle, railcar, or other space contains or has contained a hazardous atmosphere, a designated and appropriately equipped person shall test the atmosphere before employee entry to determine whether a hazardous atmosphere exists. * * * * * (d) Entry into hazardous atmospheres. Only designated persons shall enter hazardous atmospheres, in which case the following provisions shall apply: * * * * * 10. Section 1917.24 is proposed to be amended by revising paragraphs (a) and (d) to read as follows: 1917.24 Carbon monoxide. (a) Exposure limits. The carbon monoxide content of the atmosphere in a room, building, vehicle, railcar, or any enclosed space shall be maintained at not more than 35 parts per million (ppm)(0.0035%) as an 8-hour timeweighted average and employees shall be removed from the enclosed space if the carbon monoxide concentration exceeds 100 ppm (0.01%). The short term exposure limit in outdoors, non-enclosed spaces shall be 200 ppm (0.02%) measured over a 5 minute period. * * * * * (d) Records. A record of the data time, location and results of carbon monoxide tests shall be available for at least 30 days. Such records may be entered on any retrievable medium and shall be available for inspection. * * * * * 11. Section 1917.25 is proposed to be amended by revising paragraphs (a) and (c) and adding paragraph (g) to read as follows: 1917.25 Fumigants, pesticides, insecticides and hazardous preservatives. (See 1917.2(p)) (a) At any time the hold concentration in any compartment reaches the level specified as hazardous by the fumigant manufacturers or by Table Z-1 of 29 CFR 1910.1000, whichever is lower, all employees shall be removed from such holds or compartments and shall not be permitted to re-enter until such time as tests demonstrate that the atmosphere is safe. * * * * * (c) Results of any tests shall be available for at least 30 days. Such records may be entered on any retrievable medium, and shall be available for inspection. * * * * * (g) In the case of containerized shipments of fumigated tobacco, the contents of the container shall be aerated by opening the container doors for a period of 48 hours after the completion of fumigation and prior to loading. When tobacco is within shipping cases having polyethylene or similar bag liners, the aeration period shall be 72 hours. The employer shall obtain a written warranty from the fumigation facility stating that the appropriate aeration period has been met. * * * * * 12. Section 1917.26 is proposed to be amended by revising paragraphs (c) and (d) to read as follows: 1917.26 First aid and lifesaving facilities. * * * * * (c) First aid kit. First aid kits shall be weatherproof and shall contain individual sealed packages for each item that must be kept sterile. The contents of each kit shall be determined by a physician and such contents shall be checked at least weekly. Expended items shall be promptly replaced. (d) Stretchers. (1) There shall be available for each vessel being worked, one Stokes basket stretcher, or its equivalent, permanently equipped with bridles for attaching to the hoisting gear. (2) Stretchers shall be kept close to vessels and shall be positioned to avoid damage. (3) A blanket or other suitable covering shall be available. (4) Stretchers shall have at least four sets of effective patient restraints in operable condition. (5) Lifting bridles shall be of adequate strength, capable of lifting 1,000 pounds (454 kg) with a safety factor of five, and shall be maintained in operable condition. Lifting bridles shall be provided for making vertical patient lifts at container berths. Stretchers for vertical lifts shall have foot plates. (6) Stretchers shall be maintained in operable condition. Struts and braces shall be inspected for damage. Wire mesh shall be secured with no burrs. Damaged stretchers shall not be used until repaired. (7) Stretchers in permanent locations shall be mounted to prevent damage and protected from the elements if located out-of-doors. If concealed from view, closures shall be marked to indicate life saving equipment. * * * * * 13. Section 1917.27 is proposed to be amended by revising paragraph (a)(2) to read as follows: (a) * * * (2) No employee known to have defective uncorrected eyesight or hearing, or to be suffering from heart disease, epilepsy, or similar ailments which may suddenly incapacitate the employee shall be permitted to operate a crane, winch or other power-operated cargo handling apparatus or a power-operated vehicle. * * * * * 14. Section 1917.28 is proposed to be amended by removing the regulatory text and revising the section heading to read as follows: 1917.28 Hazard Communication. Subpart C - Cargo Handling Gear and Equipment 15. Section 1917.42 is proposed to be amended by revising paragraphs (b)(4), (c)(1), (d), (h)(4), (h)(5), and (j) to read as follows: 1917.42 Miscellaneous auxiliary gear. * * * * * (b) * * * (4) Where wire rope clips are used to form eyes, the employer shall adhere to the manufacturer's recommendations, which shall be made available for inspection. If "U" bolt clips are used and the manufacturer's recommendations are not available, Table C-1 shall be used to determine the number and spacing of clips. "U" bolts shall be applied with the "U" section in contact with the dead end of the rope. * * * * * (c) * * * (1) The employer shall ascertain the manufacturer's ratings for the specific natural fibre rope used and have such ratings available for inspection. The manufacturer's ratings shall be adhered to and a minimum design safety factor of five maintained. * * * * * (d) Synthetic rope. (1) The employer shall adhere to the manufacturer's ratings and use recommendations for the specific synthetic fibre rope used and shall make such ratings available for inspection. (2) Unless otherwise recommended by the manufacturer, when synthetic fibre ropes substituted for fibre ropes of less than 3 inches (7.62 cm) in circumference, the substitute shall be of equal size. Where substituted for manila rope of 3 inches or more in circumference, the size of the synthetic rope shall be determined from the formula: Where C= the required circumference of the synthetic rope in inches, C(s)= the circumference to the nearest one-quarter inch of a synthetic rope having a breaking strength not less than that of the size fibre rope that would be required by paragraph (c) of this section and C(m)= the circumference of fibre rope in inches which would be required by paragraph (c) of this section. In making such substitution, it shall be ascertained that the inherent characteristics of the synthetic fibre are suitable for hoisting. * * * * * (h) * * * (4) Chains shall be repaired only under qualified supervision. Links or portions of chain defective under any of the criteria of paragraph (h)(3)(iii) of this section shall be replaced with properly dimensioned links or connections of material similar to that of the original chain. Before repaired chains are returned to service, they shall be tested to the proof load recommended by the manufacturer for the original chain. Tests shall be performed by the manufacturer or shall be certified by an agency accredited for the purpose under part 1919 of this chapter. Test certificates shall be available for inspection. (5) Wrought iron chains in constant use shall be annealed or normalized at intervals not exceeding 6 months. Heat treatment certificates shall be available for inspection. Alloy chains shall not be annealed. * * * * * (j) Hooks other than hand hooks. (1) The manufacturer's recommended safe working loads for hooks shall not be exceeded. After October 3, 1983, hooks other than hand hooks shall be tested in accordance with 1917.50(c)(6). * * * * * 16. Section 1917.43 is proposed to be amended by revising paragraph (e)(1)(i) to read as follows: 1917.43 Powered industrial trucks. * * * * * (e) Fork lift trucks. (1) Overhead guards. (i) When operators are exposed to overhead falling hazards, fork lift trucks shall be equipped with securely attached overhead guards. Guards shall be constructed to protect the operator from falling boxes, cartons, packages, or similar objects. * * * * * 17. Section 1917.44 is proposed to be amended by revising paragraphs (a), (i), (o)(3)(i), (o)(3)(ii), and (o)(4) to read as follows: 1917.44 General rules applicable to vehicles.(4) __________ Footnote(4) The United States Coast Guard at 33 CFR 126.15 (d) and (e) has additional regulations applicable to vehicles in terminals. (a) The requirements of this section apply to general vehicle use within Marine Terminals except in cases where the provisions of paragraphs (c) and (l) of this section are preempted by applicable regulations of the Department of Transportation.(5) Footnote(5) Department of Transportation regulations in 49 CFR part 393, Subpart C-Brakes, address the immobilization of trailer road wheels prior to disconnection of the trailer and until braking is again provided. Section 49 CFR 393.84 addresses the condition of flooring. These DOT rules apply when the motor carrier is engaged in interstate commerce or in the transport of certain hazardous items wholly within a municipality or the commercial zone thereof. * * * * * (i) A distance of not less than 20 feet (6.1 m) shall be maintained between the first two vehicles in a check-in, check- out, roadability, or vessel loading/discharging line. This distance shall be maintained between any subsequent vehicles behind which employees are required to work. * * * * * (o) * * * (3) * * * (i) Only employees trained in the procedures required in paragraph (o)(4) of this section and who have demonstrated their ability to service multi-piece rim wheels shall be assigned such duties. (ii) Employees assigned such duties shall have demonstrated their ability by the safe performance of the following tasks: (4) Servicing procedures. The following procedures shall be followed: * * * * * 18. Section 1917.45 is proposed to be amended by revising the section heading, paragraphs (f)(4)(iii), (f)(5), (f)(7), (f)(13)(ii), (i)(5)(i) introductory text, (j)(1)(iii)(D), (j)(2), and by adding paragraph (j)(9) to read as follows: 1917.45 Cranes and derricks. (See also 1917.50.) * * * * * (f) * * * (4) * * * (iii) Stairways on cranes shall be equipped with rigid handrails meeting the requirements of 1917.112(e). * * * * * (5) Operator's station. (i) The cab, controls and mechanism of the equipment shall be so arranged that the operator has a clear view of the load or signalman, when one is used. Cab glass, when used, shall be safety plate glass or equivalent and good visibility shall be maintained through the glass. Clothing, tools and equipment shall be stored so as not to interfere with access, operation, and the operator's view. (ii) [Insert date 90 days after publication of the Final Rule] A seat (lap) belt, meeting the requirements of 49 CFR 571.208-210 for a Type 1 seat belt assembly, shall be installed on the operator's seat of high speed container gantry cranes where the seat trolleys. * * * * * (7) Outriggers. Outriggers shall be used according to the manufacturer's specifications or design data, which shall be available. Floats, when used, shall be securely attached to the outriggers. Wood blocks or other support shall be of sufficient size to support the outrigger, free of defects that may affect safety and of sufficient width and length to prevent the crane from shifting or toppling under load. * * * * * (13) * * * (ii) Each independent hoisting unit of a crane, except worm geared hoists, the angle of whose worm is such as to prevent the load from accelerating in the lowering direction, shall, in addition to a holding brake, be equipped with a controlled braking means to control lowering speeds. * * * * * (i) * * * (5) Operating near electric power lines. (i) Clearance. Unless electrical distribution and transmission lines are de-energized and visibly grounded at point of work, or unless insulating barriers not apart of on an attachment to this crane have been erected to prevent physical contact with lines, near cranes may be operated near power lines only in accordance with the following: * * * * * (j) * * * (1) * * * (iii) * * * (D) Equipped with a device to prevent access doors, when used, from opening accidently; * * * * * (2) Except in an emergency, the hoisting mechanism of all cranes or derricks used to hoist personnel shall operate in power up and power down, with automatic brake application when not hoisting or lowering. * * * * * (9) Employees shall not be hoisted on intermodal container spreaders while a load is engaged. * * * * * 19. Section 1917.48 is proposed to be amended by revising paragraph (d)(2) to read as follows: * * * * * (d) * * * (2) Conveyors using electrically released breaks shall be constructed so that the breaks cannot be released until power is applied, and that the brakes are automatically engaged if the power fails or the operating control is returned to the "stop" position. * * * * * 20. Section 1917.50 is proposed to be amended by revising paragraphs (c)(5) and (i) and adding paragraph (j) to read as follows: 1917.50 Certification of marine terminal material handling devices. * * * * * (c) * * * (5) Special gear. (i) Special stevedoring gear provided by the employer, the strength of which depends upon components other than commonly used stock items such as shackles, ropes, or chains, that has been purchased or fabricated after [Insert date 90 days after publication of Final Rule], and has a Safe Working Load (SWL) greater than 5 short tons (10,000 lbs. or 4540 kg.), shall be inspected and tested as a unit in accordance with the following table before initially being put into use: (ii) Special stevedoring gear provided by the employer, the strength of which depends upon components other than commonly used stock items such as shackles, ropes, or chains, with a SWL of 5 short tons (10,000 lbs. or 4540 kg.) or less shall be inspected and tested as a unit in accordance with this section or by a designated person, in accordance with the table in 1917.50(c)(5)(i) before initially being put into use. (iii) Every spreader not a part of ship's gear and used for hoisting intermodal containers that has been purchased or fabricated after [Insert date 90 days after publication of Final Rule], shall be inspected and tested to a proof load equal to 25 percent in excess of its rated capacity before being put into use. In addition, any spreader that suffers damage necessitating structural repair shall be inspected and retested after repair and before being returned to service. (iv) All cargo handling gear covered by this section with a SWL greater than 5 short tons (10,000 lbs. or 4540 kg.) shall be proof load tested according to the chart in paragraph (c)(5)(i) of this section every 4 years in accordance with paragraph (b) of this section or by a designated person. * * * * * (i) Safe working load. (1) The safe working load of gear as specified in 1917.50 shall not be exceeded. (2) All cargo handling gear provided by the employer with a safe working load greater than 5 short tons (10,000 lbs. or 4540 kg.) shall have its safe working load plainly marked on it. (j) The certification requirements of this section do not apply to the following equipment: (1) Industrial trucks and small industrial crane trucks; and (2) Any straddle truck not capable of straddling two or more intermodal containers 16 feet (4.8 m) in width. * * * * * 21. 1917.51 is proposed to be amended by removing the regulatory text and revising the section heading to read as follows: 1917.51 Hand tools. (See subpart P of 29 CFR part 1910.) 22. Section 1917.71 is proposed to be amended by revising paragraphs (b)(6), (b)(7), (c), (e), (f)(1)(i) and adding paragraphs (b)(8), (f)(4) and (f)(5) to read as follows: 1917.71 Terminals handling intermodal containers or roll-on roll-off operations. * * * * * (b) * * * (6) Closed dry van containers carrying vehicles are exempted from paragraph (b)(4) of this section provided that: (i) The container carries only completely assembled vehicles and no other cargo; (ii) The container is marked on the outside in such a manner that an employee can readily discern that the container is carrying vehicles; and (iii) The vehicles were loaded into the container at the marine terminal. (7) The weight of loaded inbound containers from foreign ports shall be determined by weighing or by the method of calculation described in paragraph (b)(4)(ii) of this section or by shipping documents. (8) Any scale used within the United States to weigh containers for the purpose of the requirements of this section shall meet the accuracy standards of the state or local public authority in which the scale is located. (c) No container or containers shall be hoisted if its actual gross weight exceeds the weight marked as required in paragraph (a)(2) of this section, or if it exceeds the capacity of the crane or other hoisting device intended to be used. * * * * * (e) Employees working in the immediate area of container handling equipment or in the terminal's traffic lanes shall wear high visibility vests (or equivalent protection). (f) * * * (1) * * * (i) When hoisting by the top fittings, the lifting forces shall be applied vertically from at least four (4) such fittings. * * * * * (4) Flat bed and low boy trailers (mafis) shall be marked with their cargo capacities and shall not be overloaded. (5) Air brake connections. Tractors shall connect all brake air lines when pulling trailers equipped with air brakes. * * * * * 23. Section 1917.73 is proposed to be amended by revising the section heading and paragraph (a)(2) to read as follows: 1917.73 Terminal facilities handling menhaden and similar species of fish. (See 1917.2(p).) (a) * * * (2) Before employees enter a dock tank, it shall first be drained, rinsed and tested for hydrogen sulfide and oxygen deficiency. The hydrogen sulfide content of the atmosphere in a dock tank, compartment, or any enclosed space shall be maintained at not more than 10 parts per million (ppm)(0.0010%) as an 8-hour time weighted average. The short term exposure limit shall be 15 ppm (0.0015%) measured over a 15 minute period. The oxygen level must be maintained to at least 19.5 percent. * * * * * 24. Section 1917.91 is proposed to be amended by revising paragraph (a)(1) to read as follows: 1917.91 Eye protection. (a)(1) When employees perform work hazardous to the eyes, the employer shall provide eye protection equipment marked or labeled as meeting the manufacturing specifications of American National Standards, Practice for Occupational and Educational Eye and Face Protection, ANSI Z-87.1-1989 and shall require that it be used. * * * * * 25. Section 1917.93 is proposed to be amended by revising paragraph (b) to read as follows: 1917.93 Head protection. * * * * * (b) Protective hats shall bear identifying marks or labels indicating compliance with the manufacturing provisions of American National Standards, Requirements for Protective Headwear for Industrial Workers, ANSI Z-89.1-1986. * * * * * 26. Section 1917.94 is proposed to be amended by revising paragraph (b) to read as follows: 1917.94 Foot protection. * * * * * (b) Protective shoes shall bear identifying marks or labels indicating compliance with manufacturing provisions of the American National Standard for Personal Protection - Protective Footwear-ANSI Z41-1991. * * * * * 27. Section 1917.112 is proposed to be amended by revising paragraph (a)(1) to read as follows: 1917.112 Guarding of edges. (a) * * * (1) Vehicle curbs, bull rails, or other effective barriers at least 6 inches (15.24 cm) in height, shall be provided at the waterside edges of aprons and bulkheads, except where vehicles are prohibited. Curbs or bull rails installed after October 3, 1983, shall be at least 10 inches (25.4 cm) in height. * * * * * 28. Section 1917.118 is proposed to be amended by revising paragraphs (d)(2)(i) and (f)(2) to read as follows: 1917.118 Fixed ladders. * * * * * (d) * * * (2)(i) Ladders installed before October 3, 1983, shall have rungs evenly spaced from 9 to 16 1/2 inches (22.9 to 41.9 cm) apart, center to center. * * * * * (f) * * * (2) Form a continuous ladder, uniformly spaced vertically from 12 inches to 16 inches (30.5 to 41 cm) apart, with a minimum width of 10 inches (25.4 cm) and projecting at least 4 1/2 inches (11.43 cm) from the wall; * * * * * 29. Section 1917.119 is proposed to be amended by revising paragraphs (b)(1), (d)(2), and (f)(4) to read as follows: 1917.119 Portable ladders. * * * * * (b) * * * (1) Rungs of manufactured portable ladders obtained before October 3, 1983, shall be capable of supporting a 200-pound (890 N) load without deformation. * * * * * (d) * * * (2) Are capable of supporting a 250-pound (1120 N) load without deformation; and * * * * * (f) * * * (4) Individual sections from different multi-sectional ladders or two or more single straight ladders shall not be tied or fastened together to achieve additional length. * * * * * 30. Section 1917.121 is proposed to be amended by revising paragraph (b)(3) to read as follows: 1917.121 Spiral stairways. * * * * * (b) * * * (3) Minimum loading capability shall be 100 pounds per square foot (4.79 kPa), and minimum tread center concentrated loading shall be 300 pounds (1334 N); * * * * * 31. Section 1917.124 is proposed to be amended by adding paragraphs (c)(5), (c)(6), and (d)(5) and revising the section heading and paragraph (d)(1) to read as follows: 1917.124 Dockboards (car and bridge plates). * * * * * (c) * * * (5) Dockboards shall be equipped with side boards that are at least 6 inches (15.2 cm) high along the space bridged. (6) Dockboards shall be well maintained. * * * * * (d) Ramps. (1) Ramps shall be strong enough to support the loads imposed on them, provided with sideboards that are at least 6 inches (15.2 cm) high, properly secured and well maintained. * * * * * (5) Ramps shall be well maintained. 32. Section 1917.126 is proposed to be amended by revising paragraph (b) to read as follows: 1917.126 River banks. * * * * * (b) Where working surfaces at river banks slope so steeply that an employee could slip or fall into the water, the outer perimeter of the working surface shall be protected by posting or other portable protection such as roping off, and that employees wear a personal flotation device meeting the requirements of 1917.95(b). 33. Section 1917.127 is proposed to be amended by revising paragraph (a)(1) introductory text and adding a table at the end of paragraph (a)(3) to read as follows: (a) Washing and toilet facilities. (1) Accessible washing and toilet facilities sufficient for the sanitary requirements of employees shall be readily accessible at the worksite. The number of toilet facilities shall be provided in accordance with the table at the end of paragraph (a) of this section. The facilities shall have: * * * * * (3) * * * * * * * * 34. Section 1917.151 is proposed to be amended by revising the section heading to read as follows: 1917.151 Machine guarding. (See 29 CFR part 1910, subpart O.) * * * * * 35. Section 1917.152 is proposed to be amended by revising the section heading, the introductory text of both paragraphs (f)(1) and (f)(2) and (f)(3)(iv) to read as follows: 1917.152 Welding, cutting and heating (hot work).(8) (See 29 CFR 1917.2(p)). __________ Footnote(8) The U.S. Coast Guard, at 33 CFR 126.15(c), requires prior permission of the Captain of the Port if welding or other hot work is to be carried out at a facility where dangerous cargoes as defined by 33 CFR 126.07 are located or being handled. * * * * * (f) * * * (1) Mechanical ventilation requirements. General mechanical ventilation or local exhaust systems shall meet the following requirements: * * * * * (2) Except as specified in paragraphs (f)(3)(ii) and (f)(3)(iii) of this section, when hot work is performed in a confined space: (3) * * * (iv) Employees performing hot work in the open air that involves any of the metals listed in paragraphs (f)(3)(i) and (ii) of this section shall be protected by respirators in accordance with the requirements of 1910.134, and those working on beryllium-containing base or filler metals shall be protected by supplied air respirators, in accordance with the requirements of 1910.134. * * * * * 36. Section 1917.153 is proposed to be amended by revising the section heading to read as follows: 1917.153 Spray painting. (See 29 CFR 1917.2(p)). 37. Section 1917.156 is proposed to be amended by revising paragraph (b)(3)(iii)(D) to read as follows: 1917.156 Fuel handling and storage. * * * * * (b) * * * (3) * * * (iii) * * * (D) Leakage at valves or connections; and * * * * * 38. Section 1917.157 is proposed to be amended by revising paragraph (n) to read as follows: 1917.157 Battery charging and changing. * * * * * (n) Chargers shall be turned off when leads are being connected or disconnected. * * * * * 39. Part 1918 is proposed to be revised to read as follows: PART 1918 - SAFETY AND HEALTH REGULATIONS FOR LONGSHORING Subpart A - Scope and Definitions Sec. 1918.1 Scope and applicability 1918.2 Definitions Subpart B - Gear Certification 1918.11 Gear certification. Subpart C - Means of Access 1918.21 Gangways and other means of access. 1918.22 Jacob's ladders. 1918.23 Access to barges and river towboats. 1918.24 Bridge plates and ramps. 1918.25 Ladders. Subpart D - Working Surfaces 1918.31 Hatch coverings. 1918.32 Stowed cargo and temporary landing platforms. 1918.33 Deck loads. 1918.34 Other decks. 1918.35 Open hatches. 1918.36 Weather deck rails. 1918.37 Barges. 1918.38 Log rafts. Subpart E - Opening and Closing Hatches 1918.41 Coaming clearances. 1918.42 Hatch beam and pontoon bridles. 1918.43 Handling hatch beams and covers. Subpart F - Vessel's Cargo Handling Gear 1918.51 General requirements. 1918.52 Specific requirements. 1918.53 Cargo winches. 1918.54 Rigging gear. 1981.55 Cranes. Subpart G - Cargo Handling Gear and Equipment Other Than Ship's Gear 1918.61 General. 1918.62 Miscellaneous auxiliary gear. 1918.63 Chutes, gravity conveyors and rollers. 1918.64 Powered conveyors. 1918.65 Mechanically powered vehicles used aboard vessels. 1918.66 Cranes and derricks other than vessel's gear. 1918.67 Notifying ships's officers before using certain equipment. 1918.68 Grounding. 1918.69 Tools. Subpart H - Handling Cargo 1918.81 Slinging. 1918.82 Building drafts. 1918.83 Stowed cargo; tiering and breaking down. 1918.84 Bulling cargo. 1918.85 Containerized cargo operations. 1918.86 Roll-on roll-off (RO-RO) operations. 1918.87 Ship's cargo elevators. 1918.88 Log operations. 1918.89 Hazardous cargo. (See also 1918.2(j)). Subpart I - General Working Conditions 1918.90 Hazard communication (See 1918.1(b)(6)). 1918.91 Housekeeping. 1918.92 Illumination. 1918.93 Hazardous atmospheres and substances. (See also 1918.2(j)). 1918.94 Ventilation and atmospheric conditions. (See also 1918.2(j)). 1918.95 Sanitation. 1918.96 Longshoring operations in the vicinity of maintenance and repair work. 1918.97 First aid and lifesaving facilities. 1918.98 Personnel. Subpart J - Personal Protective Equipment 1918.101 Eye protection. 1918.102 Respiratory protection. (See 1918.1(b)(12)). 1918.103 Head protection. 1918.104 Foot protection. 1918.105 Other protective measures. Appendix I to Part 1918 - Cargo Gear Register and Certificates (Non-mandatory) Appendix II to Part 1918 - Tables for Selected Miscellaneous Auxiliary Gear (Non-mandatory) Appendix III to Part 1918 - Container Top Safety (Non-mandatory) Authority: Sec. 41, Longshore and Harbor Worker's Compensation Act (33 U.S.C. 941); Secs. 4, 6, 8, Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 653, 655, 657); Secretary of Labor's Order No. 1-90 (55 FR 9033). Subpart A - Scope and Definitions 1918.1 Scope and Applicability. (a) The regulations of this part apply to longshoring operations and related employments aboard vessels. All cargo transfer accomplished with the use of shore-based material handling devices shall be regulated by part 1917 of this chapter. (b) Part 1910 of this chapter does not apply to longshoring except for the following provisions: (1) Toxic and hazardous substances. Subpart Z of part 1910 applies except that the requirements of subpart Z of part 1910 do not apply when a substance or cargo is contained within a sealed, intact means of packaging or containment complying with Department of Transportation or International Maritime Organization requirements.(1) Footnote(1) The International Maritime Organization publishes International Maritime Dangerous Goods Code to aid compliance with the International legal requirements of the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea, 1960. (2) Access to employee exposure and medical records. Subpart C, 1910.20; (3) Commercial diving operations. Subpart T of part 1910; (4) Electrical. Subpart S of part 1910; when shore-based electrical installations provide power for use aboard vessels; (5) Hand and Portable Powered Tools and Other Hand-Held Equipment. Subpart P of part 1910; (6) Hazard Communication. Subpart Z, 1910.1200; (7) Hazardous waste operations and emergency response. Subpart H, 1910.120(q). (8) Ionizing radiation. Subpart G, 1910.96; (9) Machinery and Machine Guarding. Subpart O, 1910.211; (10) Noise. Subpart G, 1910.95; (11) Nonionizing radiation. Subpart G, 1910.97; and (12) (12) Respiratory protection. Subpart I, 1910.134. (a) The terms hatch beam or "strongback" mean a portable transverse or longitudinal beam which is placed across a hatchway and acts as a bearer to support the hatch covers. (b) The term bulling means the horizontal dragging of cargo across a surface with none of the weight of the cargo supported by the fall. (c) The term designated person means a person who possesses specialized abilities in a specific area and is assigned by the employer to perform a specific task in the area. (d) The term dockboards (car and bridge plates) mean devices for spanning short distances between, for example, two barges, which do not expose employees to falls greater than 4 feet (1.2 m). (e) The term employee means any longshore worker, or other person engaged in longshoring operations or related employments other than the master, ship's officers, crew of the vessel, or any person engaged by the master to load or unload any vessel under 18 net tons. (f) The term employer means a person or company that employs workers in longshoring operations or related employments, as defined herein. (g) The term enclosed space means an interior space in or on a vessel, other than a confined space, that may contain or accumulate a hazardous atmosphere due to inadequate natural ventilation. Examples of enclosed spaces are holds, deep tanks and refrigerated compartments. (h) Fumigant is a substance or mixture of substances, used to kill pests or prevent infestation, which is a gas or is rapidly or progressively transformed to the gaseous state, even though some nongaseous or particulate matter may remain and be dispersed in the treatment space. (i) The term gangway means any ramp-like or stair-like means of access provided to enable personnel to board or leave a vessel, including accommodation ladders, gangplanks and brows. (j) The term hazardous cargo, materials, substance or atmosphere means: (1) Any substance listed in 29 CFR part 1910, subpart Z; (2) Any material in the Hazardous Materials Table and Hazardous Materials Communications Regulations of the Department of Transportation, 49 CFR part 172; (3) Any article not properly described by a name in the Hazardous Materials Table and Hazardous Materials Communication Regulations of the Department of Transportation, 49 CFR part 172, but which is properly classified under the definitions of those categories of dangerous articles given in 49 CFR part 173; or (4) Any atmosphere with an oxygen content of less than 19.5 percent or greater than 23 percent. (k) The term intermodal container means a reusable cargo container of rigid construction and rectangular configuration; fitted with devices permitting its ready handling, particularly its transfer from one mode of transport to another; so designed to be readily filled and emptied; intended to contain one or more articles of cargo or bulk commodities for transportation by water and one or more other transport modes. The term includes completely enclosed units, open top units, fractional height units, units incorporating liquid or gas tanks and other variations fitting into the container system. It does not include cylinders, drums, crates, cases, cartons, packages, sacks, unitized loads or any other form of packaging. (l) The term longshoring operations means the loading, unloading, moving or handling of cargo, ship's stores, gear, etc., into, in, on, or out of any vessel. (m) The term public vessel means a vessel owned and operated by a government and not regularly employed in merchant service. (n) The term ramp means other flat surface devices for passage between levels and across openings not covered under the term "dockboards". (o) The term related employments means any employments performed as an incident to or in conjunction with longshoring operations, including, but not restricted to, securing cargo, rigging, and employment as a porter, clerk, checker, or watchman. (p) The term Secretary means the Secretary of Labor. (q) The term small trimming hatch means a small hatch or opening, pierced in the 'tween-deck or other intermediate deck of a vessel, and intended for the trimming of dry bulk cargoes. It does not refer to the large hatchways through which cargo is normally handled. (r) The term vessel includes every description of watercraft or other artificial contrivance used or capable of being used as a means of transportation on water, including special purpose floating structures not primarily designed for or used as a means of transportation on water. (s) For the purposes of 1918.21, 1918.23, 1918.35, 1918.37, and 1918.43(f)(2), the term "barge" means an unpowered, flatbottomed, shallow draft vessel including river barges, scows, carfloats, and lighters. For the purposes of these sections the term does not include ship shaped or deep draft barges. (t) For the purposes of 1918.21 and 1918.23, the term "river towboat" means a shallow draft, low freeboard, self propelled vessel designed to tow river barges by pushing ahead. For purposes of these sections the term does not include other towing vessels. (u) For the purpose of 1918.11, the term "vessel's cargo handling gear" includes that gear which is a permanent part of the vessel's equipment and which is used for the handling of cargo other than bulk liquids. It does not include gear which is used only for handling or holding hoses, handling ship's stores or handling the gangway, or boom conveyor belt systems for the self-unloading of bulk cargo vessels. It does include all stationary or mobile cargo handling appliances, including shore-based power-operated ramps, used on shore or on board ship for suspending, raising, or lowering loads or moving them from one position to another while suspended or supported. (v) For the purpose of 1918.23(b), the term "Mississippi River System" includes the Mississippi River from the head of navigation to its mouth, and navigable tributaries including the Illinois Waterway, Missouri River, Ohio River, Tennessee River, Allegheny River, Cumberland River, Green River, Kanawha River, Monongahela River, and such others to which barge operations extend. Subpart B - Gear Certification 1918.11 Gear certification. (See also 1918.51). (a) The employer shall not use the vessel's cargo handling gear until it has been ascertained that the vessel has a current and valid cargo gear register and certificates which in form and content are in substantial accordance with the recommendations of the International Labor Office, as set forth in Appendix I of this part, and as provided by International Labor Organization Convention No. 152, and which indicates that the cargo gear has been tested, examined and heat treated by or under the supervision of persons or organizations defined as competent to make register entries and issue certificates pursuant to paragraphs (c) and (d) of this section. (b) Public vessels and vessels holding a valid Certificate of Inspection issued by the U.S. Coast Guard pursuant to 46 CFR part 91 are deemed to meet the requirements of paragraph (a) of this section. (c) With respect to U.S. vessels not holding a valid Certificate of Inspection issued by the U.S. Coast Guard, persons or organizations competent to make entries in the registers and issue the certificates required by paragraph (a) of this section shall be only those persons currently accredited by (OSHA) U.S. Department of Labor, as provided in part 1919 of this chapter. (d) With respect to vessels under foreign registry, persons or organizations competent to make entries in the registers and issue the certificates required by paragraph (a) of this section shall be: (1) Those acceptable as such to any foreign nation; (2) Those acceptable to the Commandant of the U.S. Coast Guard; or (3) Those currently accredited by OSHA U.S. Department of Labor, as provided in part 1919 of this chapter. Subpart C - Means of Access 1918.21 Gangways and other means of access. (a) The employer shall not permit employees to board or leave any vessel, except a barge or river towboat, until the following requirements have been met: (1) Whenever practicable, a gangway of not less than 20 inches (.51 m) in width, of adequate strength, maintained in safe repair and safely secured shall be used. If a gangway is not practicable, a substantial straight ladder meeting the requirements of 1918.25 of this subpart and extending at least 36 inches (.92 m) above the upper landing surface, and adequately secured against shifting or slipping shall be provided. When conditions are such that neither a gangway nor straight ladder can be used, a Jacob's ladder meeting the requirements of 1918.22 may be used. (2) Each side of such gangway, and the turntable, if used, shall have a railing with a minimum height of 33 inches (.84 m) measured perpendicularly from rail to walking surfaces at the stanchion, with a midrail. Rails shall be of wood, pipe, chain, wire, rope or materials of equivalent strength and shall be kept taut at all times. Portable stanchions supporting railings shall be so supported or secured as to prevent accidental dislodgement. (b) The gangway shall be kept properly trimmed at all times. (c) When a fixed flat tread accommodation ladder is used, and the angle is low enough to require employees to walk on the edge of the treads, cleated duckboards shall be laid over and secured to the ladder. (d) When the gangway overhangs the water in such a manner that there is danger of employees falling between the ship and the dock, a net or suitable protection shall be provided to prevent employees from falling to a lower level. (e) If the foot of the gangway is more than 1 foot (.30 m) away from the edge of the apron, the space between them shall be bridged by a firm walkway equipped with railings with a minimum height of approximately 33 inches (.84 m) with midrails on both sides. (f) Gangways shall be kept clear of supporting bridles and other obstructions, in order to provide unobstructed passage. If, because of design, the gangway bridle cannot be moved in order to provide unobstructed passage, than the hazard shall be properly marked to alert employees of the danger. (g) When the upper end of the means of access rests on or is flush with the top of the bulwark, substantial steps, properly secured, trimmed and equipped with at least one substantial hand rail 33 inches (.84 m) in height shall be provided between the top of the bulwark and the deck. (h) Obstructions shall not be laid on or across the gangway. (i) Handrails and walking surfaces of gangways shall be kept free of oil, grease, bulk cargoes or other substances that could cause an employee to slip and fall. (j) The means of access shall be illuminated for its full length in accordance with 1918.92. (k) If possible, the vessel's means of access shall be located so that suspended loads do not pass over it. In any event, suspended loads shall not be passed over the means of access while employees or others are on it. (l) Gangways on vessels inspected and certificated by the U.S. Coast Guard are deemed to meet the requirements of this section. 1918.22 Jacob's ladders. (a) Jacob's ladders shall be of the double rung or flat tread type. They shall be well maintained and properly secured. (b) A Jacob's ladder shall either hang without slack from its lashings or be pulled up entirely. 1918.23 Access to barges and river towboats. (a) Ramps for access of vehicles to or between barges shall be: (1) Of adequate strength for intended loads; (2) Provided with side boards; (3) Well maintained; and (4) Properly secured. (b) When employees cannot step safely to or from the wharf and a float, barge, or river towboat, either a ramp meeting the requirements of paragraph (a) of this section or a safe walkway meeting the requirements of 1918.21(e) shall be provided. When a walkway cannot be used, a straight ladder meeting the requirements of 1918.25 of this subpart and extending at least 36 inches (.92 m) above the upper landing surface and adequately secured against shifting or slipping shall be provided. When conditions are such that neither a walkway nor a straight ladder can be used, a Jacob's ladder meeting the requirements of 1918.22 may be used. Exception: For barges operating on the Mississippi River System, where the employer demonstrates that these requirements cannot reasonably be met due to local conditions, other safe means of access shall be provided. (c) When a barge, raft or log boom is being worked alongside a larger vessel, a Jacob's ladder meeting the requirements of 1918.22 shall be provided for each gang working alongside unless other safe means of access are provided. However, no more than two Jacob's ladders are required for any single barge, raft or log boom being worked. (d) When longshoring operations are in progress on barges, the barges shall be securely made fast to the vessel, wharf, or dolphins. (e) When a Jacob's ladder is used as the means of access to a barge being worked, spacers (bumpers) shall be hung between the vessel, barge, or other structure to which the barge is tied alongside, or other equally effective means shall be taken to prevent damage to the bottom rungs of the ladder. (f) When a Jacob's ladder is being used in such a manner that there is a danger of an employee falling between the vessel, barge, or other structure (pier), a net or other equivalent protection shall be provided. 1918.24 Bridge plates and ramps. (See also 1918.86). (a) Bridge and car plates (dockboards). Bridge and car plates used afloat shall be well maintained and shall: (1) Be strong enough to support the loads imposed on them; (2) Be secured or equipped with devices to prevent their dislodgement; (3) Be equipped with hand holds or other effective means to permit safe handling and; (4) Be equipped with side boards that are at least 6 inches (.16 m) high along the space bridged. (b) Portable ramps. Portable ramps used afloat shall be well maintained and shall: (1) Be strong enough to support the loads imposed on them; (2) Be equipped with a railing meeting the requirements of 1918.21(a)(2), if the slope is more than 20 degrees to the horizontal or if employees could fall more than 4 feet (1.2 m); (3) Be equipped with a slip resistant surface; (4) Be properly secured; and (5) Be equipped with side boards that are at least 6 inches (15.2 cm) high. (a) There shall be at least one safe and accessible ladder for each gang working in a hatch. However, no more than two such ladders are required in any hatch. An effective means of gaining a handhold shall be provided at or near the head of each vertical fixed ladder cannot serve this purpose. (b) When any fixed ladder is visibly unsafe, the employer shall identify such ladder and prohibit its use by employees. (c) Where portable straight ladders are used, they shall be of sufficient length to extend 36 inches (.91 m) above the upper landing surface, and positively secured or held against shifting or slipping. When conditions are such that a straight ladder cannot be used, Jacob's ladders meeting the requirements of 1918.22 may be used. (d) When 6 inches (15.2 cm) or more of clearance does not exist in back of ladder rungs, the ladder shall be deemed "unsafe" for the purpose of this section. However, for vessels built prior to December 5, 1981, the ladder shall be deemed "unsafe" when 4 inches (10 cm) or more of clearance does not exist in back of ladder rungs. Alternate means of access (for example, a portable ladder) must be utilized. (e)(1) Where access to or from a stowed deckload or other cargo is needed and no other safe means is available, ladders or steps of adequate strength shall be furnished, and positively secured or held against shifting or slipping while in use. Steps formed by the cargo itself are acceptable when the employer demonstrates that the nature of the cargo and the type of stowage provides equivalent safe access. (2) Where portable straight ladders are used they shall be of sufficient length to extend at least 36 inches (.92 m) above the upper landing surface. (f) The following standards for existing manufactured portable ladders must be met: (1) Rungs of manufactured portable ladders obtained before [insert effective date of the Final Rule] shall be capable of supporting a 200-pound (890 N) load without deformation. (2) Rungs shall be evenly spaced from 9 to 16 1/2 inches (22.9 to 41.9 cm), center to center. (3) Rungs shall be continuous members between rails. Each rung of a double-rung ladder (two side rails and a center rail) shall extend the full width of the ladder. (4) Width between side rails at the base of the ladder shall be at least 12 inches (30 cm) for ladders 10 feet (3.05 m) or less in overall length, and shall increase at least one-fourth inch (0.6 cm) for each additional 2 feet (0.61 m) of ladder length. (g) Standards for manufactured portable ladders. Portable manufactured ladders obtained after [insert effective date of the Final Rule] shall bear identification indicating that they meet the appropriate ladder construction requirements of the following standards: (1) ANSI A14.1-1990, Safety Requirements for Portable Wood Ladders; (2) ANSI A14.2-1990, Safety Requirements for Portable Metal Ladders; (3) ANSI A14.5-1992, Safety Requirements for Portable Reinforced Plastic Ladders. (h) Standards for job-made portable ladders. Job-made ladders shall: (1) Have a minimum and uniform distance between rungs of 12 inches (30 cm) center to center; (2) Be capable of supporting a 250-pound (1100 N) load without deformation; and (3) Have a minimum width between side rails of 12 inches (30 cm) for ladders 10 feet (3.05 m) or less in height. Width between rails shall increase at least one-fourth inch (0.6 cm) for each additional 2 feet (0.61 m) of ladder length. (i) Maintenance and inspection. (1) The employer shall maintain portable ladders in safe condition. Ladders with the following defects shall not be used, and shall either be tagged as unusable if kept on board, or shall be removed from the vessel: (i) Broken, split or missing rungs, cleats or steps; (ii) Broken or split side rails; (iii) Missing or loose bolts, rivets or fastenings; (iv) Defective ropes; or (v) Any other structural defect. (2) Ladders shall be inspected for defects prior to each day's use, and after any occurrence, such as a fall, which could damage the ladder. (j) Ladder usage. (1) Ladders made by fastening rungs or devices across a single rail are prohibited. (2) Ladders shall not be used: (i) As guys, braces or skids; or (ii) As platforms, runways or scaffolds. (3) Metal and wire-reinforced ladders with wooden side rails may not be used when employees on the ladder might come into contact with energized electrical conductors. (4) Individual sections from different multi-sectional ladders or two or more single straight ladders shall not be tied or fastened together to achieve additional length. (5) Except for combination ladders, self-supporting ladders shall not be used as single straight ladders. (6) Unless intended for cantilever operation, non-self-supporting ladders shall not be used to climb above the top support point. (7) Ladders shall be securely positioned on a level and firm base. (8) Ladders shall be fitted with slip-resistant bases or lashed in place to prevent slipping or shifting while in use. Subpart D - Working Surfaces 1918.31 Hatch coverings. (a) No cargo, dunnage, or other material shall be loaded or unloaded by means requiring the services of employees at any partially opened intermediate deck unless either the hatch at that deck is sufficiently covered or an adequate landing area suitable for the prevailing conditions exists. Except, that in no event shall such work be done unless the working area available for such employees extends for a distance of 10 feet (3.05 m) or more fore and aft and athwartships. (b) Cargo shall not be landed on or handled over a covered hatch or 'tween-deck unless all hatch beams are in place under the hatch covers. (c) Missing, broken, or poorly fitting hatch covers that would jeopardize the safety of employees shall be reported at once to the officer in charge of the vessel. Pending replacement or repairs by the vessel, work shall not be performed in the section containing the unsafe covers or in adjacent sections unless the flooring is made safe. (d) Hatch covers and hatch beams not of uniform size shall be placed only in the hatch, deck, and section in which they fit properly. (e) Small trimming hatches located in intermediate decks shall be securely covered or guarded while work is proceeding in the hatch in which they are located, unless they are actually in use. 1918.32 Stowed cargo and temporary landing surfaces. (a) Temporary surfaces on which loads are to be landed shall be of sufficient size and strength to permit employees to work safely. (b) When the edge of a hatch section or of stowed cargo (excluding intermodal freight containers) is more than 8 feet (2.4 m) high and so exposed that it exposes an employee to fall hazards, the edge shall be guarded by a vertical safety net, or other means providing equal protection, to prevent an employee from falling. When the employer can demonstrate that vertical nets or other equally effective means of guarding cannot be used due to the type of cargo, cargo stowage, or other circumstances, a trapeze net shall be rigged at the top edge of the elevation or other means shall be taken to prevent injury if an employee falls. Safety net systems and their use shall comply with the appropriate provisions of the American National Standard for Personnel and Debris Nets (ANSI A10.11-1989). (c) When two gangs are working in the same hatch on different levels, a safety net shall be rigged and securely fastened so as to prevent employees or cargo from falling. 1918.33 Deck loads. (a) Employees shall not be permitted to pass over or around deck loads unless there is a safe passage. (b) Signalpersons shall not be permitted to walk over deck loads from rail to coaming unless there is a safe passage. If it is necessary to stand or walk at the outboard or inboard edge of the deck load having less than 24 inches (.61 cm) of bulwark, rail, coaming, or other protection exists, any signalpersons shall be provided with an equivalent means of protection against falling from the deck load. 1918.34 Other decks. (a) Cargo shall not be worked on decks that were not designed to support the load being worked. (b) Grated decks shall be properly placed, supported, maintained and designed to support workers. 1918.35 Open hatches. Open weather deck hatches around which employees must work, which are not protected to a height of 24 inches (.61 cm) by coamings, shall be guarded by taut lines or barricades at a height of 36 to 42 inches (.92 to 1.07 m) above the deck, except on the side on which cargo is being worked. Any portable stanchions or uprights used shall be so supported or secured as to prevent accidental dislodgement. 1918.36 Weather deck rails. Removable weather deck rails shall be kept in place except when cargo operations require them to be removed, in which case they shall be replaced as soon as such cargo operations are completed. (a) Walking shall be prohibited along the sides of covered lighters or barges with coamings or cargo more than 5 feet (1.5 m) high unless a 3-foot (.91 m) clear walkway or a grab rail or taut handline is provided. (b) Walking or working shall be prohibited on the decks of barges to be loaded unless the walking or working surfaces have been determined by visual inspection to be sound structurally and maintained properly. If in the course of discharging a barge and an unsound deck surface is discovered, work shall be discontinued and shall not be resumed until means have been taken to ensure a safe work surface. 1918.38 Log rafts. (See also 1918.88.) When an employee is working logs out of the water, walking sticks(2) (safety sticks) shall be provided as follows: A "walking stick" is two logs bolted or otherwise secured together with two or three planks firmly attached on top that serves as a floating walking and working surface and that is used in the loading of logs onto vessels from the water. (a) They shall be planked and be no less than 24 inches (60.9 cm) wide; (b) They shall extend along the entire length of all rafts on the offshore side of the vessel, and to the means of access to the log raft(s); and (c) They shall be buoyant enough to keep the walking surface above the waterline when employees are walking on them. Footnote(2) A "walking stick" is two logs bolted or otherwise secured together with two or three planks firmly attached on top that serves a a floating walking and working surface and that is used in the loading of logs onto vesseols from the water. Subpart E - Opening and Closing Hatches 1918.41 Coaming clearances. (a) Weather deck. If a deck load (such as lumber or other smooth sided deck cargo) over 5 feet (1.5 m) high is stowed within 3 feet (.91 m) of the hatch coaming and employees handling hatch beams and hatch covers are not protected by a coaming at least 24-inch (.61 m) high, a taut handline shall be provided along the side of the deckload. The requirements of 1918.35 are not intended to apply in this situation. (b) Intermediate deck. (1) There shall be a 3 foot (.91 m) working space between the stowed cargo and the coaming at both sides and at one end of the hatches with athwartship hatch beams, and at both ends of those hatches with fore and aft hatch beams, before intermediate deck hatch covers and hatch beams are removed or replaced by employees. (2) The 3 foot (.91 m) clearance required by paragraph (b)(1) of this section is not required on the covered portion of a partially open hatch, nor is it required when lower decks have been filled to hatch beam height with cargo of such a nature as to provide a safe surface upon which employees may work. (3) For purposes of paragraph (b)(1) of this section, fitted gratings which are in good condition shall be considered a part of the decking when properly placed within the 3 foot (.91 m) area. (c) Grab rails or taut handlines shall be provided for the protection of employees handling hatch beams and hatch covers, when bulkheads, lockers, reefer compartments or large spare parts are within 3 feet (.91 m) of the coaming. (d) This section does not apply to hatches which are opened or closed by hydraulic or other mechanical means. However, in all cases in which the 3 foot (.91 m) clearance does not exist, means shall be taken to prevent stowed cargo which is likely to shift from falling into the hold. 1918.42 Hatch beam and pontoon bridles. (a) Hatch beam and pontoon bridles shall be: (1) long enough to easily reach the holes, rings, or other lifting attachments on the hatch beams and pontoons; (2) of adequate strength to safely lift the load; and (3) properly maintained, including covering or blunting of protruding ends in wire rope splices. (b) Bridles for lifting hatch beams shall be equipped with toggles, shackles, or hooks, or other devices of such design that they cannot become accidentally dislodged from the hatch beams with which they are used. Hooks other than those herein described may be used only when they are hooked into the standing part of the bridle. Toggles, when used, shall be at least 1 inch (2.5 cm) longer than twice the longest diameter of the holes into which they are placed. (c) Bridles used for lifting pontoons and plugs shall have the number of legs required by the design of the pontoon or plug, and all legs shall be used. Where any use of a bridle requires fewer than the number of legs provided, idle legs shall be hung on the hook or ring, or otherwise prevented from swinging free. (d) At least two legs of all strongback and pontoon bridles shall be equipped with a fibre lanyard at least 8 feet (2.4 m) long and in good condition. The bridle end of the lanyard shall be of chain or wire. 1918.43 Handling hatch beams and covers. Paragraphs (f)(2), (g), and (h) of this section apply only to folding, sliding, or hinged metal hatch covers or to those hatch covers handled by cranes. (a)(1) When hatch covers or pontoons are stowed on the weather deck abreast of hatches, they shall be arranged in stable piles not closer than 3 feet (.91 m) from the hatch coaming except, when on the working side of the hatch, they are spread one high between coaming and bulwark with no space between them and with not less than a 24-inch height of hatch coaming maintained. Under no circumstances shall hatch covers or pontoons be stacked higher than the hatch coaming or bulwark on the working side of the hatch. (2) On seagoing vessels, hatch boards or similar covers removed from the hatch beams in a section of partially opened hatch during cargo handling, cleaning or other operations, shall not be stowed on those left in place within that section. (b) Hatch beams shall be laid on their sides, or stood on edge close together and lashed. Except that: This paragraph (b) shall not apply in cases where hatch beams are of such design that: (1) The width of the flange is 50 percent or more of the height of the web; and (2) The flange rests flat on the deck when the hatch beam is stood upright. (c) Strongbacks, hatch covers, and pontoons removed from hatch openings and placed on the weather deck shall not obstruct clear fore and aft or coaming to bulwark passageways and shall be lashed or otherwise secured to prevent accidental dislodgement. Dunnage or other suitable material shall be placed under each tier, to prevent strongbacks and hatch covers from sliding, when stowed on steel decks. (d) Hatch covers unshipped in an intermediate deck shall be placed at least 3 feet (.91 m) from the coaming or they shall be removed to another deck. Strongbacks unshipped in an intermediate deck shall not be placed closer than 6 inches (15.2 cm) from the coaming, and if placed closer than 3 feet (.91 m), they shall be secured so that they cannot be tipped or dragged into a lower compartment. If such placement or securement is not possible, strongbacks shall be removed to another deck. (e) Any hatch beam or pontoon left in place adjacent to an open hatch section being worked shall be locked or otherwise secured, so that it cannot be accidently displaced. All portable, manually handled hatch covers, including those bound together to make a larger cover, shall be removed from any working section, and adjacent sections, unless securely lashed. (f)(1) The roller hatch beam at the edge of the open section of the hatch shall be lashed or pinned back so that it cannot be moved toward the open section. (2) Rolling, sectional or telescopic hatch covers of barges which open in a fore and aft direction shall be secured while in the open position against unintentional movement. (g) Hinged or folding hatch covers normally stowed in an approximately vertical position shall be positively secured when in the upright position, unless the design of the system otherwise prohibits unintentional movement. (h) Hatches shall not be opened or closed while employees are in the square of the hatch below. (i) All unsecured materials such as dunnage, lashings, twist-locks, or stacking cones shall be removed from the hatch cover before the hatch cover is moved. (j) When a hatch is to be covered, hatch covers or night tents shall be used. Any covering which only partially covers the hatch, such as alternate hatch covers or strips of dunnage, shall not be covered by a tarpaulin. Except that: A tarpaulin may be used to cover an open or partially open hatch in order to reduce dust emissions during bulk cargo loading operations, provided that employees are prevented from walking on top of the tarpaulin. Subpart F - Vessel's Cargo Handling Gear 1918.51 General requirements. (See also 1918.11). (a) Neither the safe working load as specified in the cargo gear certification papers, nor any safe working load marked on the booms, shall be exceeded. Any limitations imposed by the certificating authority shall be adhered to. (b) All components of cargo handling gear, including tent gantlines and associated rigging, shall be inspected by the employer or by a designated representative of the employer before each use and at intervals during use. Any gear which is found to be unsafe shall not be used until it is made safe. (c) The following limitations shall apply to the use of wire rope as a part of the ship's cargo handling gear: (1) Eye splices in wire ropes shall have at least three tucks with a whole strand of the rope and two tucks with one-half of the wire cut from each strand. Other forms of splices or connections which provide the same level of safety may be used; (2) Except for eye splices in the ends of wires, each wire rope used in hoisting or lowering, in guying derricks, or as a topping lift, preventer, segment of a multi-part preventer, or pendant, shall consist of one continuous piece without knot or splice; and (3) Wire rope or wire rope slings exhibiting any of the conditions specified in 1918.62(b)(4)(i) through (vi) shall not be used. (d) Natural and synthetic fibre rope slings exhibiting any of the conditions specified in 1918.62(e)(1) through (7) shall not be used. (e) Synthetic web slings exhibiting any of the conditions specified in 1918.62(g)(2)(i) through (v) shall not be used. (f) Chains, including slings, exhibiting any of the conditions specified in 1918.62(h)(3)(iii), (iv), and (h)(6) shall not be used. 1918.52 Specific requirements. (a) Preventers. (1) When preventers are used they shall be of sufficient strength for the intended purpose and secured to the head of the boom independent of working guys except when, in the case of cast fittings, the strength of the fitting exceeds the total strength of all lines secured to it. Any tails, fittings, or other means of making the preventers fast on deck shall provide strength equal to that of the preventer itself. (2) Wire rope clips or knots shall not be used to form eyes in, nor to join sections of, preventer guys. (b) Stoppers. (1) When used, chain topping lift stoppers shall be in good condition, equipped with fibre tails, and of a length to allow not fewer than three half-hitches in the chain. (2) When used, chain stoppers shall be shackled or otherwise secured in such a manner that their links are not bent by being passed around fittings. The point of attachment shall be of sufficient strength and so located that the stoppers are in line with the normal topping lift lead at the time the stopper is applied. (3) When used, patent stoppers of the clamp type shall be suited to the size of the rope used. Clamps shall be in good condition and free of paint and dirt which would prevent their being drawn tight. (c) Falls. (1) The end of the winch fall shall be secured to the drum by clamps, U-bolts, shackles, or some other equally strong method. Fibre rope fastenings shall not be used. (2) Winch falls shall not be used with fewer than three turns on the winch drum. (3) Eyes in the ends of wire rope cargo falls shall not be formed by knots and, in single part falls, shall not be formed by wire rope clips. (4) When the design of the winch permits, the fall shall be so wound on the drum so that the cargo hook rises when the winch control lever is pulled back and lowers when the lever is pushed forward. (d) Heel blocks. (1) When an employee works in the bight formed by the heel block, a preventer of at least three quarter inch (1.9 cm) diameter wire rope shall be securely rigged, or equally effective means shall be taken, to hold the block and fall in the event that the heel block attachments fail. Where physical limitations prohibit the fitting of a wire rope preventer of the required size, two turns of one-half inch (1.3 cm) diameter wire rope shall be sufficient. (2) If the heel block is not so rigged as to prevent its falling when not under strain, it shall be secured to prevent alternate raising and dropping of the block. Except that: This requirement shall not apply when the heel block is so located as to be at least 10 feet (3.0 m) above the deck when at its lowest point. (e) Coaming rollers. Portable coaming rollers shall be secured by wire preventers in addition to the regular coaming clamps. (f) Cargo hooks. Cargo hooks shall be as close to the junction of the falls as the assembly permits, but in no case farther than 2 feet (.61 m) from it. Except, that this provision shall not apply when the construction of the vessel and the operation in progress are such that fall angles in excess of 120 degrees do not normally occur. Overhaul chains shall not be shortened by bolting or knotting. 1918.53 Cargo winches. (a) Moving parts of winches or other deck machinery shall be guarded. (b) Winches shall not be used if control levers operate with excessive friction or excessive play. (c) Double gear winches or other winches equipped with a clutch shall not be used unless a positive means of locking the gear shift is provided. (d) There shall be no load other than the fall and cargo hook assembly on the winch when changing gears on a two gear winch. (e) Any defect or malfunction of winches that affects safety shall be reported immediately to the officer in charge of the vessel, and the winch shall not be used until the defect or malfunction is corrected. (f) Temporary seats and shelters for winch drivers which create a hazard to the winch operator or other employees shall not be used. (g) Except for short handles on wheel type controls, winch drivers shall not be permitted to use winch control extension levers unless they are provided by either the ship or the employer. Such levers shall be of adequate strength and securely fastened with metal connections at the fulcrum and at the permanent control lever. (h) Extension control levers which tend to fall of their own weight shall be counterbalanced. (i) Winch brakes shall be monitored for performance. If winch brakes are unable to hold the load, the winch shall not be used. (j) Winches shall not be used when one or more control points, either hoisting or lowering, is not operating properly. Employees shall not be permitted to tamper with or adjust control systems. (k) When winches are left unattended, control levers shall be placed in the neutral position and the power shall be shut off or control levers shall be locked at the winch or the operating controls. 1918.54 Rigging gear. (a) Guy and preventer placement. Each guy or preventer shall be placed so as to prevent it from making contact with any other guy, preventer, or stay. (b) Guys. When alternate positions for securing guys are provided, the guys shall be so placed as to produce a minimum stress without permitting the boom to jackknife. (c) Boom placement. The head of the midship boom shall be spotted no farther outboard of the coaming than is necessary for control of the load. (d) Preventers. (1) Preventers shall be properly secured to suitable fittings, other than those to which the guys are secured, and shall be as nearly parallel to the guys as available fittings permit. (2) Unless the cleat is also a chock and the hauling part is led through the chock opening, the leads of preventers to cleats shall be such that the direction of the line pull of the preventer is as nearly as possible parallel to the plane of the surface on which the cleat is mounted. (3) Guys and associated preventers shall be adjusted so as to share the load as equally as practicable where cargo operations are being conducted by burtoning. Except, that where guys are designed and intended for trimming purposes only, and the preventer is intended to perform the function of the guy, the guy shall be left slack. (e) Cargo falls. Cargo falls under load shall not be permitted to chafe on any standing or other running rigging. Exception: Rigging shall not be construed to mean hatch coamings or other similar structural parts of the vessel. (f) Bull wire. (1) Where a bull wire is taken to a gypsy head for the purpose of lowering or topping a boom, the bull wire shall be secured to the gypsy head by shackle or other equally strong method. Securing by fibre rope fastening will not be acceptable in meeting this requirement. (2) When, in lowering or topping a boom, it is not possible to secure the bullwire to the gypsy head, or when the topping lift itself is taken to the gypsy head, multiple turns, of at least five shall be used. (g) Trimming and deckloads. When deck loads extend above the rail and there is less than 12 inches (30.48 cm) horizontal clearance between the edge of the deck load and the inside of the bulwark or rail, a pendant or other alternate device shall be provided to allow trimming of the gear without going overside. (See also 1918.11). The following requirements shall apply to the use of cranes forming part of a vessel's permanent equipment. (a) Defects. Cranes with a visible or known defect that affects safe operation shall not be used. Defects shall be reported immediately to the officer in charge of the vessel. (b) Operator's station. (1) Good visibility shall be maintained through the cab's glass (or equivalent). Cranes with broken, cracked, or scratched glass (or equivalent) that impair operator visibility shall not be used. (2) Clothing, tools and equipment shall be so stored as to not interfere with access, operation or the operator's view. (c) Cargo operations. (1) Accessible areas within the swing radius of the body of a revolving crane or within the travel of a shipboard gantry crane shall be physically guarded during operations to prevent an employee from being caught between the body of the crane and any fixed structure, or between parts of the crane. (2) Limit switch bypass systems shall be secured during all cargo operations. (3) Under all operating conditions, at least three full turns of rope shall remain on ungrooved drums, and two full turns on grooved drums. (4) Crane brakes shall be monitored for performance. If crane brakes are unable to hold the load, the crane shall not be used. (5) Cranes shall not be used if control levers operate with excessive friction or excessive play. (6) When cranes are equipped with power down capability, there shall be no free fall of the gear when a load is attached. (7) When two or more cranes hoist a load in unison, a designated person shall direct the operation and instruct personnel in positioning, rigging of the gear and movements to be made. (d) Unattended cranes. When cranes are left unattended between work periods, 1918.66(b)(4)(i) through (v) shall apply. Subpart G - Cargo Handling Gear and Equipment Other Than Ship's Gear (a) Employer provided gear inspection. All gear and equipment provided by the employer shall be inspected by the employer or designated person before each use and, when necessary, at intervals during its use, to ensure that it is safe. Any gear which is found upon such inspection to be unsafe shall not be used until it is made safe. (b) Safe working load. (1) The safe working load of gear as specified in 1918.61 through 1918.66 shall not be exceeded. (2) All cargo handling gear provided by the employer with a safe working load greater than 5 short tons (10,000 lbs. or 4540 kg.) shall have its safe working load plainly marked on it. (c) Gear weight markings. The weight shall be plainly marked on any article of stevedoring gear hoisted by ship's gear and weighing in excess of 2,000 lbs (908 kg). (d) Certification. The employer shall not use any material handling device listed in paragraph (f) of this section until it has been ascertained that the device has been certificated, as evidenced by current and valid documents attesting to compliance with the requirements of paragraph (e) of this section. (e) Certification procedures. The certifications required by this section shall be performed in accordance with part 1919 of this chapter, by persons then currently accredited by OSHA as provided in that part. (f) Special gear. (1) Special stevedoring gear provided by the employer, the strength of which depends upon components other than commonly used stock items such as shackles, ropes, or chains, that has been purchased or fabricated after [insert date 90 days after publication of Final Rule], and has a Safe Working Load (SWL) greater than 5 short tons (10,000 lbs or 4540 kg.) shall be inspected and tested as a unit in accordance with the following table before initially being put into use: (2) Special stevedoring gear provided by the employer, the strength of which depends upon components other than commonly used stock items such as shackles, ropes, or chains, with a SWL of 5 short tons (10,000 or 4540 kg.) or less shall be inspected and tested as a unit in accordance with this section or by a designated person, in accordance with the table in 1918.61(f)(1) before initially being put into use. (g) Every spreader not a part of ship's gear and used for handling intermodal containers that has been purchased or fabricated after [insert date 90 days after publication of Final Rule] shall be inspected and tested to a proof load equal to 25 percent in excess of its rated capacity before being put into use. In addition, any spreader that suffers damage necessitating structural repair shall be inspected and retested after repair and before being returned to service. (h) All cargo handling gear covered by this section with a SWL greater than 5 short tons (10,000 lbs. or 4540 kg.) shall be proof load tested in accordance with the chart in paragraph (f) of this section every four years in accordance with paragraphs (d) and (e) of this section or by a designated person. (i) Certificates attesting to the required tests shall be available for inspection. 1918.62 Miscellaneous auxiliary gear. (a) Routine inspection. (1) At the completion of each use, loose gear such as slings, chains, bridles, blocks and hooks shall be so placed as to avoid damage to the gear. Loose gear shall be inspected and any defects corrected before reuse. (2) Defective gear shall not be used. Distorted hooks, shackles or similar gear shall be discarded. (b) Wire rope and wire rope slings. (1) The employer shall ascertain and adhere to the load ratings indicated on the vessel's wire rope certificates for all wire rope and wire rope slings comprising part of ship's gear. (2) The employer shall adhere to the manufacturer's recommended ratings for wire rope and wire rope slings provided for use aboard ship, and shall have such ratings available for inspection. When the manufacturer is unable to supply such ratings, the employer shall use tables for wire rope and wire rope slings found in Appendix II to this part. A design safety factor of at least five shall be maintained for the common sizes of running wire used as falls in purchases, or in such uses as light load slings. (3) Wire rope with a safety factor of less than five may be used only as follows: (i) In specialized equipment, such as, but not limited to, cranes designed to be used with lesser wire rope safety factors; (ii) In accordance with design factors in standing rigging applications; (iii) For heavy lifts or other purposes for which a safety factor of five is not feasible and for which the employer can demonstrate that equivalent safety is ensured. (4) Wire rope or wire rope slings provided by the employer and having any of the following conditions shall not be used: (i) Ten randomly distributed broken wires in one rope lay or three or more broken wires in one strand in one rope lay; (ii) Kinking, crushing, bird caging or other damage resulting in distortion of the wire rope structure; (iii) Evidence of heat damage; (iv) Excessive wear or corrosion, deformation or other defect in the wire or attachments, including cracks in attachments; (v) Any indication of strand or wire slippage in end attachments; or (vi) More than one broken wire in the close vicinity of a socket or swaged fitting. (5) Protruding ends of strands in splices on slings and bridles shall be covered or blunted. Coverings shall be removable so that splices can be examined. Means used to cover or blunt ends shall not damage the wire. (6) Where wire rope clips are used to form eyes, the employer shall adhere to the manufacturer's recommendations, which shall be available for inspection. If "U" bolt clips are used and the manufacturer's recommendations are not available, Table 1 of Appendix II to this part shall be used to determine the number and spacing of clips. "U" bolts shall be applied with the "U" section in contact with the dead end of the rope. (7) Wire rope shall not be secured by knotting. (8) Eyes in wire rope bridles, slings, bull wires, or in single parts used for hoisting shall not be formed by wire rope clips or knots. (9) Eye splices in wire ropes shall have at least three tucks with a whole strand of the rope, and two tucks with one-half of the wire cut from each strand. Other forms of splices or connections which are shown to be equivalently safe may be used. (10) Except for eye splices in the ends of wires and endless rope slings, each wire rope used in hoisting or lowering, or bulling cargo, shall consist of one continuous piece without knot or splice. (c) Natural fibre rope. (1) The employer shall ascertain and adhere to the manufacturer's recommended ratings for natural fibre rope and natural fibre rope slings provided for use aboard ship, and shall have such ratings available for inspection. When the manufacturer is unable to supply such ratings, Appendix II to this part provides guidelines for fibre rope ratings. (2) If the manufacturers recommended ratings and use recommendations are unavailable, Table 2 of Appendix II to this part provides guidelines to determine safe working loads of natural fibre rope slings comprising part of pre-slung drafts. (3) Eye splices shall consist of at least three full tucks. Short splices shall consist of at least six tucks, three on each side of the centerline. (d) Synthetic rope. (1) The employer shall adhere to the manufacturer's ratings and use recommendations for the specific synthetic fibre rope and synthetic fibre rope slings provided for use aboard ship, and shall have such ratings available for inspection. When the manufacturer is unable to supply such ratings, the employer shall use Tables 3A and B of Appendix II to this part. (2) If the manufacturers recommended ratings and use recommendations are unavailable, Tables 3A and B of Appendix II to this part shall be used to determine the safe working load of synthetic fibre rope and of synthetic rope slings comprising part of pre-slung drafts. (3) Unless otherwise recommended by the manufacturer, when synthetic fibre ropes are substituted for natural fibre ropes of less than 3 inches (7.62 cm) in circumference, the substitute shall be of equal size. Where substituted for natural fibre rope of 3 inches (7.62 cm) or more in circumference, the size of the synthetic rope shall be determined from the formula: Where C=the required circumference of the synthetic rope in inches (centimeters); C(s)= the circumference to the nearest one-quarter inch (.6cm) of a synthetic rope having a breaking strength no less than that of the size natural fibre rope that would be required by paragraph (c) of this section; and C(m)= the circumference of natural fibre rope in inches (centimeters) which would be required by paragraph (c) of this section. In making each substitution, it shall be ascertained that the inherent characteristics of the synthetic-fibre are suitable for hoisting. (e) Removal of natural and synthetic rope from service. Natural and synthetic rope having any of the following defects shall be removed from service: (1) Abnormal or excessive wear including heat and chemical damage; (2) Powdered fibre between strands; (3) Sufficient cut or broken fibers to affect the capability of the rope; (4) Variations in the size or roundness of strands; (5) Discolorations other than stains not associated with rope damage; (6) Rotting; or (7) Distortion or other damage to attached hardware. (f) Thimbles. Properly fitting thimbles shall be used when any rope is secured permanently to a ring, shackle or attachment, where practicable. (g) Synthetic web slings. (1) Slings and nets or other combinations of more than one piece of synthetic webbing assembled and used as a single unit (synthetic web slings) shall not be used to hoist loads in excess of the sling's rated capacity. (2) Synthetic web slings shall be removed from service if they exhibit any of the following defects: (i) Acid or caustic burns; (ii) Melting or charring of any part of the sling surface; (iii) Snags, punctures, tears or cuts; (iv) Broken or worn stitches; (v) Distortion or damage to fittings; or (vi) Display of visible warning threads or markers designed to indicate excessive wear or damage. (3) Defective synthetic web slings removed from service shall not be returned to service unless repaired by a sling manufacturer or an entity of similar competence. Each repaired sling shall be proof tested by the repairer to twice the sling's rated capacity prior to its return to service. The employer shall retain a certificate of the proof test and make it available for inspection. (4) Synthetic web slings provided by the employer shall only be used in accordance with the manufacturer's use recommendations, which shall be available. (5) Fittings shall have a breaking strength at least equal to that of the sling to which they are attached and shall be free of sharp edges. (h) Chains and chain slings used for hoisting. (1) The employer shall adhere to the manufacturer's recommended ratings for safe working loads for the size of wrought iron and alloy steel chains and chain slings and shall have such ratings available for inspection. When the manufacturer does not provide such ratings, the employer shall use Table 4A of Appendix II to this part to determine safe working loads for alloy steel chains and chain slings only. (2) Proof coil steel chain, also known as common or hardware chain, and other chain not recommended by the manufacturer for slinging or hoisting, shall not be used for slinging or hoisting. (3)(i) Sling chains, including end fastenings, shall be inspected for visible defects before each day's use and as often as necessary during use to ensure integrity of the sling. (ii) Thorough inspections of chains in use shall be made quarterly to detect wear, defective welds, deformation or increase in length or stretch. The month of inspection shall be indicated on each chain by color of paint on a link or by other equally effective means. (iii) Chains shall be removed from service when maximum allowable wear, as indicated in Table 4B of Appendix II to this part, is reached at any point of a link. (iv) Chain slings shall be removed from service when stretch has increased the length of a measured section by more than five percent; when a link is bent, twisted or otherwise damaged; or when a link has a raised scarf or defective weld. (v) Only designated persons shall inspect chains used for slinging and hoisting. (4) Chains shall only be repaired under qualified supervision. Links or portions of chain defective under any of the criteria of paragraph (h)(3)(iv) of this section shall be replaced with properly dimensioned links or connections of material similar to that of the original chain. Before repaired chains are returned to service, they shall be tested to the proof test load recommended by the manufacturer for the original chain. Tests shall be performed by the manufacturer or shall be certified by an agency accredited for the purpose under part 1919 of this chapter. Test certificates shall be available for inspection. (5)(i) Wrought iron chains in constant use shall be annealed or normalized at intervals not exceeding six months. Heat treatment certificates shall be available for inspection. Alloy chains shall not be annealed. (ii) No new part of a lifting appliance or item of loose gear shall be manufactured of wrought iron. (6) Kinked or knotted chains shall not be used for lifting. Chains shall not be shortened by bolting, wiring or knotting. Makeshift links or fasteners such as wire, bolts or rods shall not be used. (7) Hooks, rings, links and attachments affixed to sling chains shall have rated capacities at least equal to that of the chains to which they are attached. (8) Chain slings shall bear identification of size, grade and rated capacity. (i) Shackles. (1) If available, the manufacturer's recommended safe working loads for shackles shall not be exceeded. In the absence of the manufacturer's recommendations, Table 5 of Appendix II to this part, shall apply. (2) Screw pin shackles provided by the employer and used aloft, except in cargo hook assemblies, shall have their pins positively secured. (j) Hooks other than hand hooks. (1) The manufacturer's recommended safe working loads for hooks shall not be exceeded. Hooks other than hand hooks shall be tested in accordance with the provisions of paragraphs (a), (c) and (d) of 1919.31 of this chapter, except, that manufacturer's test certificates indicating performance to the criteria in 1919.31 (a), (c) and (d) of this chapter shall be acceptable. (2) Bent or sprung hooks shall be discarded. (3) Teeth of case hooks shall be maintained in safe condition. (4) Jaws of patent clamp-type plate hooks shall be maintained in condition to grip plates securely. (5) Loads shall be applied to the throat of the hook only. (k) Pallets. (1) Pallets shall be made and maintained to support and carry loads being handled safely. Fastenings of reusable pallets used for hoisting shall be bolts and nuts, drive screws (helically threaded nails), annular threaded nails or fastenings of equivalent holding strength. (2) Reusable wing or lip-type pallets shall be hoisted by bar bridles or other suitable gear and shall have an overhanging wing or lip of at least 3 inches (7.6 cm). They shall not be hoisted by wire slings alone. (3) Loaded pallets that do not meet the requirements of this paragraph shall be hoisted only after being placed on pallets meeting such requirements, or shall be handled by other means providing equivalent safety. (4) Bridles for handling flush end or box-type pallets shall be designed to prevent disengagement from the pallet under load. (5) Pallets shall be stacked or placed to prevent falling, collapsing or otherwise causing a hazard under standard operating conditions. (6) Disposable pallets intended only for one use shall not be reused for hoisting. 1918.63 Chutes, gravity conveyors and rollers. (a) Chutes shall be of adequate length and strength to support the conditions of use, and shall be free of splinters and sharp edges. (b) When necessary for the safety of employees, chutes shall be equipped with sideboards to afford protection from falling objects. (c) When necessary for the safety of employees, provisions shall be made for stopping objects other than bulk commodities at the delivery end of the chute. (d) Chutes and gravity conveyor roller sections shall be firmly placed and secured to prevent displacement, shifting, or falling. (e) Gravity conveyors shall be of sufficient strength to safely support the weight of materials placed upon them. Conveyor rollers shall be installed in a manner that prevents them from falling or jumping out of the frame. (f) Frames shall be kept free of burrs and sharp edges. 1918.64 Powered conveyors. (a) Emergency stop. Readily accessible stop controls shall be provided for use in an emergency. Whenever the operation of any power conveyor requires personnel to work in the immediate vicinity of the conveyor, the conveyor controls shall not be left unattended while the conveyor is in operation. (b) Guarding. All conveyor and trimmer drives which create a hazard shall be adequately guarded. (c) Approved for location. Electric motors and controls on conveyors and trimmers used to handle grain and exposed to grain dust shall be of the type approved by a nationally recognized testing laboratory for use in Class II, Division I locations. (See 1910.7 of this chapter.) (d) Grain trimmer control box. Each grain trimmer shall have a control box located on the weather deck in close proximity to the spout feeding the trimmer. (e) Grain trimmer power cable. Power cables between the deck control box and the grain trimmer shall be used only in continuous lengths without splice or tap between connections. (f) Portable conveyors. Portable conveyors shall be stable within their operating ranges. When used at variable fixed levels, the unit shall be secured at the operating level. (g) Delivery and braking. When necessary for the safety of employees, provisions shall be made for braking objects at the delivery end of the conveyor. (h) Electric brakes. Conveyors using electrically released brakes shall be so constructed that the brakes cannot be released until power is applied, and that the brakes are automatically engaged if the power fails or the operating control is returned to the "stop" position. (i) Starting powered conveyors. Powered conveyors shall not be started until all employees are clear of the conveyor or have been warned that the conveyor is about to start. (j) Loading and unloading. The area around conveyor loading and unloading points shall be kept clear of obstructions during conveyor operations. (k) Lockout/tagout. (1) Conveyors shall be stopped and their power sources locked out and tagged out during maintenance, repair, and servicing, unless power is necessary for testing or for making minor adjustments. (2) The starting device shall be locked out and tagged out in the stop position before an attempt is made to remove the cause of a jam or overload of the conveying medium. (l) Safe practices. (1) Only designated persons shall operate, repair or service powered conveyors. (2) The employer shall direct employees to stay off operating conveyors. (3) Conveyors shall be operated only with all overload devices, guards and safety devices in place and operable. 1918.65 Mechanically powered vehicles used aboard vessels. (a) Applicability. This section applies to every type of mechanically powered vehicle used for material or equipment handling aboard a vessel. (b) General. (1) Modifications, such as adding counterweights that might affect the vehicle's capacity or safety, shall not be performed without either the manufacturer's prior written approval or the written approval of a professional engineer experienced with the equipment, who has consulted with the manufacturer, if available. Capacity, operation and maintenance instruction plates, tags or decals shall be changed to conform to the equipment as modified. (2) Rated capacities, with and without removable counterweights, shall not be exceeded. Rated capacities shall be marked on the vehicle and shall be visible to the operator. The vehicle weight, with and without counterweight, shall be similarly marked. (3) If loads are lifted by two or more trucks working in unison, the total weight shall not exceed the combined safe lifting capacity of all trucks. (c) Guards for fork lift trucks. (1) Except as noted in paragraph (c)(5) of this section, fork lift trucks shall be equipped with overhead guards securely attached to the machines. The guard shall be of such design and construction as to protect the operator from boxes, cartons, packages, bagged material, and other similar individual items of cargo which may fall from the load being handled or from stowage. (2) Overhead guards shall not obstruct the operator's view, and openings in the top of the guard shall not exceed 6 inches (15.2 cm) in one of the two directions, width or length. Larger openings are permitted if no opening allows the smallest unit of cargo being handled through the guard. (3) Overhead guards shall be built so that failure of the vehicle's mast tilting mechanism will not displace the guard. (4) Overhead guards shall be large enough to extend over the operator during all truck operations, including forward tilt. (5) An overhead guard may be removed only when it would prevent a truck from entering a work space and if the operator is not exposed to low overhead obstructions in the work space. (6) Where necessary to protect the operator, fork lift trucks shall be fitted with a vertical load backrest extension to prevent the load from hitting the mast when the mast is positioned at maximum backward tilt. For this purpose, a "load backrest extension" means a device extending vertically from the fork carriage frame to prevent raised loads from falling backward. (d) Guards for bulk cargo-moving vehicles. (1) Every crawler type, rider operated, bulk cargo-moving vehicle shall be equipped with an operator's guard of such design and construction as to protect the operator, when seated, against injury from contact with a projecting overhead. (2) Guards and their attachment points shall be so designed as to be able to withstand, without excessive deflection, a load applied horizontally at the operator's shoulder level equal to the drawbar pull of the machine. (3) Guards shall not be required when the vehicle is used in situations in which the possibility of the seated operator coming in contact with projecting overheads does not exist. (4) Bulk cargo-moving vehicles shall be equipped with roll-over protection of such design and construction as to minimize the possibility of the operator being crushed as a result of a roll-over or upset. (e) Approved vehicle. (1) "Approved power-operated vehicle" means one listed as approved for the intended use or location by a nationally recognized testing laboratory. (2) Approved vehicles shall bear a label or other identification indicating testing laboratory approval. (3) When the atmosphere in an area is hazardous and the provisions of U.S. Coast Guard regulations 49 CFR 176.78 do not apply, only approved power-operated vehicles shall be used. (f) Maintenance. (1) Mechanically powered vehicles shall be maintained in safe working order. Safety devices shall not be removed or made inoperative except as otherwise provided in this section. Vehicles with a fuel system leak or any other safety defect shall not be operated. (2) Braking systems or other mechanisms used for braking shall be operable and in safe condition. (3) Replacement parts whose function might affect operational safety shall be equivalent in strength and performance capability to the original parts which they replace. (4) Repairs to the fuel and ignition systems of mechanically powered vehicles which involve fire hazards shall be conducted only in locations designated as safe for such repairs. (5) Batteries on all mechanically powered vehicles shall be disconnected during repairs to the primary electrical system unless power is necessary for testing and repair. On vehicles equipped with systems capable of storing residual energy, that energy shall be safely discharged before work on the primary electrical system begins. (6) Only designated persons shall perform maintenance and repair. (g) Parking brakes. All mechanically powered vehicles purchased after [insert effective date of the Final Rule] shall be equipped with parking brakes. (h) Operation. (1) Only stable and safely arranged loads within the rated capacity of the mechanically powered vehicle shall be handled. (2) The employer shall direct drivers to ascend and descend grades slowly. (3) If the load obstructs the forward view, the employer shall direct drivers to travel with the load trailing. (4) Steering knobs shall not be used unless the vehicle is equipped with power steering. (5) When mechanically powered vehicles use cargo lifting devices that have a means of engagement hidden from the operator, a means shall be provided to enable the operator to determine that the cargo has been engaged. (6) No load on a mechanically powered vehicle shall be suspended or swung over any employee. (7) When mechanically powered vehicles are used, provisions shall be made to ensure that the working surface can support the vehicle and load, and that hatch covers, truck plates, or other temporary surfaces cannot be dislodged by movement of the vehicle. (8) When mechanically powered vehicles are left unattended, load-engaging means shall be fully lowered, controls neutralized, brakes set and power shut off. Wheels shall be blocked or curbed if the vehicle is on an incline. (9) When lift trucks or other mechanically powered vehicles are being operated on open deck type barges, the edges of the barges shall be guarded by railings, sideboards, timbers, or other means sufficient to prevent vehicles from rolling overboard. When such vehicles are operated on covered lighters where door openings other than those being used are left open, means shall be taken to prevent vehicles from rolling overboard through such openings. (10) Unauthorized personnel shall not ride on mechanically powered vehicles. A safe place to ride shall be provided when riding is authorized. (11) An employee may be elevated by fork lift trucks only when a platform is secured to the lifting carriage or forks. The platform shall meet the following requirements: (i) The platform shall have a railing complying with 1917.112(c) of this chapter. (ii) The platform shall have toeboards complying with 1917.112(d) of this chapter, if tools or other objects could fall on employees below. (iii) When the truck has controls which are elevated with the lifting carriage, means shall be provided for employees on the platform to shut off power to the vehicle. (iv) Employees on the platform shall be protected from exposure to moving truck parts. (v) The platform floor shall be skid resistant. (vi) A truck operator shall be at the truck's controls when employees are elevated, unless the truck's controls are elevated with the lifting carriage. (vii) While an employee is elevated the truck may be moved only to make minor placement adjustments. 1918.66 Cranes and derricks other than vessel's gear. (a) General. The following requirements shall apply to the use of cranes and derricks brought aboard vessels for the purpose of conducting longshoring operations. They shall not apply to cranes and derricks forming part of a vessels permanent equipment. (1) Certification. Cranes and derricks shall be certificated in accordance with part 1919 of this chapter. (2) Posted weight. The crane weight shall be posted on all cranes hoisted aboard vessels for temporary use. (3) Rating chart. All cranes and derricks having ratings that vary with boom length, radius (outreach) or other variables shall have a durable rating chart visible to the operator, covering the complete range of the manufacturer's (or design) capacity ratings. The rating chart shall include all operating radii (outreach) for all permissible boom lengths and jib lengths, as applicable, with and without outriggers, and alternate ratings for optional equipment affecting such ratings. Precautions or warnings specified by the owner or manufacturer shall be included along with a chart. (4) Rated loads. The manufacturer's (or design) rated loads for the conditions of use shall not be exceeded. (5) Change of rated loads. Designated working loads shall not be increased beyond the manufacturer's ratings or original design limitations unless such increase receives the manufacturer's approval. When the manufacturer's services are not available or where the equipment is of foreign manufacture, engineering design analysis shall be performed or approved by a person accredited for certificating the equipment under part 1919 of this chapter. Engineering design analysis shall be performed*MDBR* by a registered professional engineer competent in the field of cranes and derricks. Any structural changes necessitated by the change in rating shall be carried out. (6) Radius indicator. When the rated load varies with the boom radius, the crane or derrick shall be fitted with a boom angle or radius indicator visible to the operator. (7) Operator's station. The cab, controls and mechanism of the equipment shall be so arranged that the operator has a clear view of the load or signalman, when one is used. Cab glass, when used, shall be safety plate glass or equivalent and good visibility shall be maintained through the glass. Clothing, tools, and equipment shall be stored so as not to interfere with access, operation, and the operator's view. (8) Counterweights or ballast. Cranes shall be operated only with the specified type and amount of ballast or counterweights. Ballast or counterweights shall be located and secured only as provided in the manufacturer's or design specifications, which shall be available for inspection. (9) Outriggers. Outriggers shall be used according to the manufacturer's specifications or design data, which shall be available for inspection. Floats, when used, shall be securely attached to the outriggers. Wood blocks or other support shall be of sufficient size to support the outrigger, free of defects that may affect safety and of sufficient width and length to prevent the crane from shifting or toppling under load. (10) Exhaust gases. Engine exhaust gases shall be discharged away from the normal position of crane operating personnel. (11) Electrical/Guarding. Electrical equipment shall be so located or enclosed that live parts will not be exposed to accidental contact. Designated persons may work on energized equipment only if necessary during inspection, maintenance, or repair, otherwise the equipment shall be stopped and their power sources locked out and tagged out. (12) Fire extinguisher. (i) At least one portable approved or listed fire extinguisher of at least a 5-BC rating or equivalent shall be accessible in the cab of the crane or derrick. (ii) No portable fire extinguisher using carbon tetrachloride or chlorobromomethane extinguishing agents shall be used. (13) Rope on drums. At least three full turns of rope shall remain on ungrooved drums, and two turns on grooved drums, under all operating conditions. Wire rope shall be secured to drums by clamps, U-bolts, shackles or equivalent means. Fibre rope fastenings are prohibited. (14) Brakes. (i) Each independent hoisting unit of a crane shall be equipped with at least one holding brake, applied directly to the motor shaft or gear train. (ii) Each independent hoisting unit of a crane shall, in addition to the holding brake, be equipped with a controlled braking means to control lowering speeds. (iii) Holding brakes for hoist units shall have not less than the following percentage of the rated load hoisting torque at the point where the brake is applied: (A) 125 percent when used with a controlled braking means. (B) 100 percent when used with a mechanically controlled braking means. (iv) All power control braking means shall be capable of maintaining safe lowering speeds of rated loads. (15) Operating controls. Crane and derrick operating controls shall be clearly marked, or a chart indicating their function shall be posted at the operator's position. (16) Booms. Cranes with elevatable booms and without operable automatic limiting devices shall be provided with boom stops if boom elevation can exceed maximum design angles from the horizontal. (17) Foot pedals. Foot pedals shall have a non-skid surface. (18) Access. Ladders, stairways, stanchions, grab irons, foot steps or equivalent means shall be provided as necessary to ensure safe access to footwalks, cab platforms, the cab and any portion of the superstructure which employees must reach. (b) Operations - (1) Use of cranes together. When two or more cranes hoist a load in unison, a designated person shall direct the operation and instruct personnel in positioning, rigging of the load and movements to be made. (2) Guarding of swing radius. Accessible areas within the swing radius of the body of a revolving crane shall be physically guarded during operations to prevent an employee from being caught between the body of the crane and any fixed structure or between parts of the crane. (3) Prohibited usage. (i) Equipment shall not be used in a manner that exerts sideloading stresses upon the crane or derrick boom. (ii) No crane or derrick having a visible or known defect that may affect safe operation shall be used. (4) Unattended cranes. The following steps shall be taken before leaving a crane unattended between work periods: (i) Suspended loads, such as those hoisted by lifting magnets or clamshell buckets, shall be landed unless the storage position or maximum hoisting of the suspended device will provide equivalent safety; (ii) Clutches shall be disengaged; (iii) The power supply shall be shut off; (iv) The crane shall be secured against accidental travel; and (v) The boom shall be lowered or secured against movement. (c) Protection for employees being hoisted. (1) No employee shall be hoisted by the load hoisting apparatus of a crane or derrick except on a platform meeting the following requirements: (i) Enclosed by a railing or other means providing protection equivalent of that described in 1917.112(c) of this chapter. If equipped with open railings, the platform shall be fitted with toe boards; (ii) Having a safety factor of four based on ultimate strength; (iii) Bearing a plate or permanent marking indicating maximum load rating, which shall not be exceeded, and the weight of the platform itself; (iv) Equipped with a device to prevent access doors, when used, from opening accidentally; (v) Equipped with overhead protection for employees on the platform if they are exposed to falling objects or overhead hazards; (vi) Secured to the load line by means other than wedge and socket attachments, unless the free (bitter) end of the line is secured back to itself by a clamp placed as close above the wedge as possible. (2) Except in an emergency, the hoisting mechanism of all cranes or derricks used to hoist personnel shall operate in power up and power down, with automatic brake application when not hoisting or lowering. (3) All cranes and derricks used to hoist personnel shall be equipped with an anti-two blocking device. (4) Variable radius booms of a crane or derrick used to hoist personnel shall be so constructed or secured as to prevent accidental boom movement. (5) Platforms or devices used to hoist employees shall be inspected for defects before each day's use and shall be removed from service if defective. (6) Employees being hoisted shall remain in continuous sight of and communication with the operator or signalman. (7) Operators shall remain at the controls when employees are hoisted. (8) Cranes shall not travel while employees are hoisted, except in emergency or in normal tier to tier transfer of employees during container operations. (d) Routine inspection. (1) Designated persons shall visually inspect each crane and derrick on each day of use for defects in functional operating components and shall report any defect found to the employer. The employer shall inform the operator of the findings. (2) A designated person shall thoroughly inspect all functional components and accessible structural features of each crane or device at monthly intervals. (3) Any defects found during such inspections which may create a safety hazard shall be corrected before further equipment use. Repairs shall be performed only by designated persons. (4) A record of monthly inspections shall be maintained for six months in or on the crane or derrick or at the terminal. (e) Protective devices. (1) When exposed moving parts such as gears, chains and chain sprockets present a hazard to employees during crane and derrick operations, those parts shall be securely guarded. (2) Crane hooks shall be latched or otherwise secured to prevent accidental load disengagement. 1918.67 Notifying the ship's officers before using certain equipment. (a) The employer shall notify the officer in charge of the vessel before bringing aboard ship internal combustion or electric powered tools, equipment or vehicles. (b) The employer shall also notify the officer in charge of the vessel before using the ship's electric power for the operation of any electric tools or equipment. The frames of portable electrical equipment and tools, other than double insulated tools and battery operated tools shall be grounded through a separate equipment conductor run with or enclosing the circuit conductors. (See Scope and Application, 1918.1). Subpart H - Handling Cargo (a) Drafts shall be safely slung before being hoisted. Loose dunnage or debris hanging or protruding from loads shall be removed. (b) Cargo handling bridles, such as pallet bridles, which are to remain attached to the hoisting gear while hoisting successive drafts, shall be attached by shackles, or other positive means shall be taken to prevent them from being accidentally disengaged from the cargo hook. (c) Drafts of lumber, pipe, dunnage and other pieces, the top layer of which is not bound by the sling, shall be slung in such a manner as to prevent sliders. Double slings shall be used on unstrapped dunnage, except when, due to the size of hatch or deep tank openings, it is impractical to use them. (d) Case hooks shall be used only with cases designed to be hoisted by these hooks. (e) Bales of cotton, wool, cork, wood pulp, gunny bags or similar articles shall be hoisted only by straps strong enough to support the weight of the bale. At least two hooks, each in a separate strap, shall be used. (f) Unitized loads bound by bands or straps may be hoisted by the banding or strapping only if the banding or strapping is suitable for hoisting and is strong enough to support the weight of the load. (g) Additional means of hoisting shall be employed to ensure safe lifting of unitized loads having damaged banding or strapping. (h) Loads requiring continuous manual guidance during handling shall be guided by guide ropes (tag lines) that are long enough to control the load. (i) No draft shall be hoisted unless the winch or crane operator(s) can clearly see the draft itself or see the signals of a signalman in observation of the draft's movement. (j) Intermodal containers shall be handled in accordance with 1918.85. (k) The employer shall require that employees stay clear of the area beneath overhead drafts or descending lifting gear. (l) Employees shall not be permitted to ride the hook or the load. Except that: As provided for in 1918.85(g). 1918.82 Building drafts. (a) Drafts shall be built or means shall be taken to prevent cargo from falling from them. (b) Buckets and tubs used in handling bulk or frozen cargo shall not be loaded above their rims. 1918.83 Stowed cargo; tiering and breaking down. (a) When necessary to protect personnel working in a hold, stowed cargo in ship's holds which is likely to shift or roll shall be secured or blocked. (b) In breaking down stowed cargo, precautions shall be taken to prevent remaining cargo from falling. (c) Employees trimming bulk cargo shall be checked in and out by the foreman. Before securing any reefer compartment, a check shall be made to ensure that no employee remains inside. Frequent checks shall be made to ensure the safety of any employee working alone in a tank or cargo compartment. 1918.84 Bulling cargo. (a) Bulling cargo shall be done with the bull line led directly from the heel block. However, bulling may be done from the head of the boom when the nature of the cargo and the surface over which it is dragged are such that the load cannot be stalled, or when the winch actually does not have sufficient strength, with the purchase used, to overload the boom. (b) Snatch blocks shall be used to provide a fair lead for the bull line so as to avoid unnecessary dragging of the bull line against coamings and obstructions. (c) Snatch blocks shall not be used with the point of the hook resting on the flange of a beam, but shall be hung from padeyes, straps, or beam clamps. Snatch blocks or straps shall not be made fast to batten cleats or other insecure fittings. (d) Beam frame clamps shall be so secured as to prevent their slipping, falling, or being pulled from their stationary attachment. (e) Falls led from cargo booms of vessels shall not be used to move scows, lighters or railcars. 1918.85 Containerized cargo operations. (a) Container markings. Every intermodal container shall be legibly and permanently marked with: (1) The weight of the container when empty, in pounds; (2) The maximum cargo weight the container is designed to carry, in pounds; and (3) The sum of the weight of the container and the maximum cargo weight, in pounds. (b) Container weight. No container shall be hoisted by any lifting appliance unless the following conditions have been met: (1) The employer shall ascertain from the carrier whether a container to be hoisted is loaded or empty. Empty containers shall be identified before loading or discharge in such a manner as will inform every supervisor and foreman on the site and in charge of loading or discharging, or every crane or other hoisting equipment operator and signalman, if any, that such container is empty. Methods of identification may include cargo plans, manifests, or markings on the container. (2) In the case of a loaded container: (i) The actual gross weight shall be plainly marked so as to be visible to the crane or other hoisting equipment operator or signalman, or to every supervisor or foreman on site and in charge of the operation; or (ii) The cargo stowage plan or equivalent permanently recorded display serving the same purpose, containing the actual gross weight and the serial number or other positive identification of that specific container, shall be provided to the crane or other hoisting equipment operator and signalman, if any, and to every supervisor and foreman on site and in charge of the operation. (3) Every outbound container which is received at a marine terminal ready to load aboard a vessel without further consolidation or loading shall be weighed to obtain the actual gross weight, either at the terminal or elsewhere, before being hoisted. (4)(i) When container weighing scales are located at a marine terminal, any outbound container with a load consolidated at that terminal shall be weighed to obtain the actual weight before being hoisted. (ii) If the terminal has no scales, the actual gross weight may be calculated on the basis of the container's contents and the container's empty weight. The weights used in the calculation shall be posted conspicuously on the container, with the name of the person making the calculation, and the date. (5) Open top vehicle carrying containers, and those built specifically and used solely for the carriage of compressed gases, are excepted from paragraphs (b)(3) and (b)(4) of this section. (6) Closed dry van containers carrying vehicles are exempted from paragraph (b)(4) of this section provided that: (i) The container carries only completely assembled vehicles and no other cargo; (ii) The container is marked on the outside in such a manner that an employee can readily discern that the container is carrying vehicles; and (iii) The vehicles were loaded into the container at the marine terminal. (7) The weight of loaded inbound containers from foreign ports shall be determined by weighing, by the method of calculation described in paragraph (b)(4)(ii) of this section or by shipping documents. (8) Any scale used within the United States to weigh containers for the purpose of the requirements of this section shall meet the accuracy standards of the state or local public authority in which the scale is located. (c) Overloaded containers. No container or containers shall be hoisted if its actual gross weight exceeds the weight marked as required in paragraph (a)(3) of this section, or if it exceeds the capacity of the crane or other lifting appliance intended to be used. (d) Container inspection. (1) Containers shall be inspected for any visible defects in structural members and fittings which would make the handling of such container unsafe. (2) Any container found to have such a defect shall either be handled by a special means to assure safe handling; or shall be emptied before handling. (e) Suspended containers. The employer shall direct employees to stay clear of the area beneath a suspended container. (f) Lifting fittings. Containers shall be handled using lifting fittings or other arrangements suitable and intended for the purpose as set forth in paragraphs (f)(1) through (f)(3) of this section, except when damage to an intermodal container makes special means of handling necessary. (1) Loaded intermodal containers of 20 feet (6.1 m) or more shall be hoisted as follows: (i) When hoisted by the top fittings, the lifting forces shall be applied vertically from at least four such fittings. (ii) When hoisted from bottom fittings, the hoisting connections shall bear on the fittings only, making no other contact with the container. The angles of the four bridle legs shall not be less than 30 deg. to the horizontal in the case of 40 foot (12.2 m) containers; 37 deg. in the case of 30 foot (9.1 m) containers; and 45 deg. in the case of 20 foot (6.1 m) containers. (iii) Lifting containers by fork lift trucks or grappling arms from above or from one side may be done only if the container is designed for this type of handling. (iv) Other means of hoisting may be used only if the containers and hoisting means are designed for such use. (2)(i) When using intermodal container spreaders that employ lanyards for activation and load disengagement, all possible precautions shall be taken to prevent accidental release of the load. (ii) Intermodal container spreader twistlock systems shall be designed and used so that a suspended load cannot accidentally be released. (g) Safe container top access. A safe means of access and egress shall be provided for each employee required to work atop an intermodal container. Unless ladders are used for access, such means shall comply with the requirements of 1917.45(j) of this chapter. (h) Employee hoisting prohibition. Employees shall not be hoisted on intermodal container spreaders while a load is engaged. (i) Portable ladder access. When other safer means are available, portable ladders shall not be used in gaining access to container stacks more than two containers high. (j) Container top safety. (1) Employees shall be protected from fall hazards in the following manner: A fall hazard shall exist whenever employees are working within 3 feet (.9 m) of the unprotected edge of a work surface that is 10 or more feet (3 m) above the adjoining surface and twelve (12) inches (.3 m) or more, horizontally, from the adjacent surface; or weather conditions may impair vision or sound footing of workers on top of containers. (i) After June 2, 1997, employees shall not go on top of containers to perform work, notably coning and deconing, which can be eliminated through the proper use of positive container securing devices; (ii) Work which requires employees to go on top of container tops shall be eliminated, to the extent feasible, through the proper use of positive container securing devices, which includes, but is not limited to, semi-automatic twist locks and cell guides; (iii) A fall protection system meeting the requirements of paragraph (k) of this section shall be implemented to protect the following employees: (A) Employees engaged in work on containers that is not described in paragraph (j)(1)(ii) of this section(4) that presents exposure to fall hazards; or Footnote(4)Examples of work that may not be eliminated by positive container securing devices, where employees may be required to work on top of containers include, but are not limited to: installing or removing bridge clamps; hooking up or detaching overheight containers; or freeing a jammed semi-automatic twist lock. (B) Employees engaged in work on containers that are not being handled by container gantry cranes. (2) Compliance with paragraph (j)(1)(ii) of this section shall be considered feasible when containers are being worked by container gantry cranes. (3) Where the employer determines in the particular case that an employee will be exposed to a fall hazard but that the use of a fall protection system meeting the requirements of paragraph (k) of this section is not feasible(5) the employer shall alert the exposed employee about the hazards involved and instruct the employee how to minimize the hazard. Footnote(5) See non-mandatory Appendix III to this part for examples of situations where the use of a fall protection system may prove infeasible. (k) Fall protection. When fall protection systems required by paragraph (j) of this section are employed, the following shall apply: (1) Each fall protection system component, except anchorages, shall have fall arrest/restraint as its only use. (2) Each fall protection system subjected to impact loading shall be immediately withdrawn from service and not used again until inspected and determined by a designated person to be undamaged and suitable for use. (3) Each fall protection system shall be rigged to minimize free-fall distance so that the employee will not contact any lower level stowage or vessel structure. (4) Each fall protection system adopted for use shall have an energy absorbing mechanism that will produce an arresting force on an employee of not greater than 1800 pounds (8 kN). (5) Each fall protection systems' hardware shall be designed and utilized so as to prevent accidental disengagement. (6) Each fall protection systems' fixed anchorages shall each be capable of sustaining a force of 5,000 (22.2 kN) pounds or be certified as capable of sustaining at least twice the potential impact load of an employee's fall. Such certification must be made by a registered professional engineer. When more than one employee is attached to an anchorage, the foregoing limits shall be multiplied by the number of employees attached. (7) When "live" (activated) container gantry crane lifting beams or attached devices are used as anchorage points the following requirements apply: (i) The crane shall be placed into a "slow" speed mode; (ii) The crane shall be equipped with a remote shut-off switch, capable of stopping all crane functions, in the control of employee(s) attached to the beam; and (iii) A visible or audible indicator shall be present to inform the same employee(s) when the remote shut-off is operational. (8) Fall protection system components shall be certified as a unit of being capable of sustaining at least twice the potential impact load of an employee's fall. Such certification must be made by a registered professional engineer. When more than one employee is attached to an anchorage, the foregoing limits shall be multiplied by the number of employees attached. (9) Each fall protection system shall incorporate the use of a full body harnesses. (10) Each device, such as a safety cage, that is used to transport employee(s) by being attached to a container gantry crane spreader, shall have a secondary means of attachment in place and engaged to prevent accidental disengagement. (11) Each fall protection system shall be inspected prior to each day's use by a designated person. Any defective components shall be removed from service. (12) Before using any fall protection system, the employee shall be trained in the use and application limits of the equipment, proper hook-up, anchoring and tie-off techniques, methods of use, and proper methods of equipment inspection and storage. (13) The employer shall establish and implement a procedure to safely retrieve personnel in case of a fall. (l) Working along unguarded edges. Fall protection meeting the requirements of paragraph (k) of this section must be provided when container operations require employees to work along unguarded edges (other than on the top of a container), where the fall distance is greater than 8 feet (2.4 m). 1918.86 Roll-on roll-off (RO-RO) operations. (See also 1918.24.) (a) Traffic control system. An organized system of vehicular and pedestrian traffic control shall be established and maintained at each entrance/exit ramp and on ramps within the vessel as traffic flow warrants. (b) Ramp load limit. Ramps shall be plainly marked with their load capacity. The marked capacity shall not be exceeded. (c) Pedestrian traffic. Stern and side port ramps also used for pedestrian access shall meet the requirements of 1918.21. Such ramps shall provide a physical separation between pedestrian and vehicular routes. When the design of the ramp prevents physical separation, a signalperson shall direct traffic and shall not allow concurrent use. (d) Ramp maintenance. Ramps shall be properly maintained and secured. (e) Hazardous routes. Prior to the start of Ro-Ro operations the employer shall ascertain any hazardous routes or areas that could be mistaken for normal drive-on/drive-off routes. Such hazardous routes shall be clearly identified and barricaded. (f) Air brake connections. Each tractor shall have all air lines connected when pulling trailers equipped with air brakes and shall have the brakes tested before commencing operations. (g) Trailer load limits. Flat bed and low boy trailers shall be marked with their cargo capacities and shall not be overloaded. (h) Cargo weights. Cargo to be handled via a Ro-Ro ramp shall have its weight plainly marked in pounds (kilograms). Alternatively, the cargo stow plan or equivalent record containing the actual gross weight of the load may be used to determine the weight of the cargo. (i) Tractors. Tractors used in Ro-Ro operations shall have: (1) sufficient power to ascend ramp inclines safely; and (2) sufficient braking capacity to descend ramp inclines safely. (j) Safe speeds. Power driven vehicles used in Ro-Ro operations shall be operated at safe speeds compatible with prevailing conditions. (k) Ventilation. Internal combustion engine driven vehicles shall be operated only where adequate ventilation exists or is provided. (Air contaminant requirements are found in 1918.94 and part 1910, subpart Z of this chapter.) (l) Securing cargo. Cargo loaded or discharged during Ro-Ro operations shall be secured to prevent sliding loads. (m) Authorized personnel. Only authorized persons shall be permitted on any deck while loading or discharging operations are being conducted. Such authorized persons shall be equipped with high visibility vests (or equivalent protection). (n) Signalling requirement. When a driver is maneuvering a vehicle into a stowage position while other personnel, such as lashers, are working in the adjacent vicinity: (1) the driver shall be under the direction of a signaller; and (2) No driver shall be signalled to advance or reverse motion while any personnel are in positions where they could be struck. 1918.87 Ship's cargo elevators. (a) Safe working load. The safe working loads of ship's cargo elevators shall be ascertained and adhered to. (b) Load distribution. Loads shall be evenly distributed on the elevator's platform. (c) Elevator personnel restrictions. Drivers of vehicles who remain at the controls of those vehicles shall be the only persons permitted to travel on the elevator's platform with the vehicle. (d) Open deck barricades. During elevator operation, each opened deck which presents a fall hazard to employees shall be effectively barricaded. 1918.88 Log operations. (See also 1918.38.) (a) Working in holds. In holds where logs are being loaded, no employee shall remain in spaces for the placement of logs using dumper devices when the possibility of logs striking, rolling upon, or pinning them exists. (b) Footwear. The employer shall provide employees that are working logs appropriate footwear, such as spiked shoes. (c) Lifelines. When employees are working on log booms or cribs, lifelines shall be furnished and hung overside to the water's edge. (d) Jacob's ladder. When a log boom is being worked, a Jacob's ladder meeting the requirements of 1918.22 shall be provided for each gang working alongside unless other safe means of access are provided. However, no more than two Jacob's ladders are required for any single log boom being worked. (e) Life-ring. When working a log boom alongside a ship, a U.S. Coast Guard approved 30 inch (76.2 cm) life-ring, with no less than 90 feet (27.4 m) of line shall be provided either on the floating unit itself or aboard the ship in the immediate vicinity of each floating unit being worked. (f) Rescue boat. When employees are working on rafts or booms, a rescue boat shall be immediately available. 1918.89 Hazardous cargo. (See also 1918.2(j).) (a) Employer preparations. Before cargo handling operations begin, the employer shall ascertain whether any hazardous cargo is to be handled and shall determine the nature of the hazard. The employer shall inform employees of the nature of the hazard and any special procedures to be taken to prevent employee exposure, and shall instruct employees to stay clear of and to notify supervision of any leaks or spills. (b) Handling hazardous cargo. Hazardous cargo shall be slung and secured so that neither the draft nor individual packages can fall as a result of tipping the draft or slacking of the supporting gear. (c) Emergency procedures. If hazardous cargo is spilled or its packaging leaks, employees shall be removed from the affected area until the employer has ascertained the specific hazards; has provided any equipment, clothing and ventilation, and fire protection equipment necessary to eliminate or protect against the hazards; and has instructed cleanup employees in a safe method of cleaning up and disposing of a spill and disposing of leaking containers. Actual cleanup or disposal work shall be conducted under the supervision of a designated person. Subpart I - General Working Conditions 1918.90 Hazard communication. (a) General. Active work areas shall be kept free of equipment and materials not in use, and clear of debris, projecting nails, strapping and other sharp objects not necessary to the work in progress. (b) Slippery surfaces. The employer shall eliminate conditions causing slippery walking and working surfaces in immediate areas used by employees. (c) Free movement of drafts. Dunnage shall not be placed at any location where it interferes with the free movement of drafts. (d) Dunnage height. Dunnage racked against sweat battens or bulkheads shall not be used when the levels of such racks are above the safe reach of employees. (e) Coaming clearance. Dunnage, hatch beams, tarpaulins or gear not in use shall be stowed no closer than 3 feet (.91 m) to the port and starboard sides of the weather deck hatch coaming. (f) Nails. (1) Nails which are protruding from shoring or fencing in the immediate work areas shall be rendered harmless. (2) Dunnage, lumber, or shoring material in which there are visibly protruding nails shall be removed from the immediate work area, or, if left in the area, the nails shall be rendered harmless. (g) Ice aloft. Employees shall be protected from ice which may fall from aloft. (a) Walking and working areas. Walking, working, and climbing areas shall be illuminated. Unless conditions described in the regulations of the U.S. Coast Guard (33 CFR 154.570) exist in the case of specific operations, illumination for cargo transfer operations shall be of an average minimum light intensity of 5-foot-candles (54 lux). Where occasional work tasks require more light than that which is consistently and permanently provided, supplemental lighting shall be used. (b) Intensity measurement. The lighting intensity shall be measured at the task/working surface, in the plane in which the task/working surface is present. (c) Arrangement of lights. Lights shall be arranged so that they do not shine into the eyes of winch-drivers, crane operators or hatchtenders. On Ro-Ro ships, stationary lights shall not shine directly into the eyes of drivers. (d) Portable lights. Portable lights shall meet the following requirements: (1) Portable lights shall be equipped with substantial reflectors and guards to prevent materials from coming into contact with the bulb. (2) Flexible electric cords used with temporary lights shall be designed by the manufacturer for hard or extra-hard usage. Temporary and portable lights shall not be suspended by their electric cords unless the cords and lights are designed for this means of suspension. Connections and insulation shall be maintained in safe condition. (3) Electric conductors and fixtures for portable lights shall be so arranged as to be free from contact with drafts, running gear, and other moving equipment. (4) Portable cargo lights furnished by the employer for use aboard vessels shall be listed as approved for marine use by the U.S. Coast Guard or by a nationally recognized testing laboratory. (e) Entry into darkened areas. Employees shall not be permitted to enter dark holds, compartments, decks or other spaces without a flashlight or other portable light. The use of matches or open flame lights is prohibited. 1918.93 Hazardous atmospheres and substances. (See 1918.2(j).) (a) Purpose and scope. This section covers areas in which the employer is aware that a hazardous atmosphere or substance may exist, except where one or more of the following sections or sub sections apply: Section 1918.89, Hazardous cargo; 1918.94(a), Carbon monoxide; 1918.94(b), Fumigated grains; 1918.94(c), Fumigated tobacco; 1918.94(d), Other fumigated cargoes; 1918.94(e), Catch of Menhaden and similar species of fish. (b) Determination of hazard. (1) When the employer is aware that a space on a vessel contains or has contained a hazardous atmosphere, a designated and appropriately equipped persons shall test the atmosphere before employee entry to determine whether a hazardous atmosphere exists. (2) Records of results of any tests required by this section shall be maintained for at least 30 days. (c) Testing during ventilation. When mechanical ventilation is used to maintain a safe atmosphere, tests shall be made by a designated person to ensure that the atmosphere is not hazardous. (d) Entry into hazardous atmospheres. Only designated person shall enter hazardous atmospheres, in which case the following provisions shall apply: (1) Persons entering a space containing a hazardous atmosphere shall be protected by respiratory and emergency protective equipment meeting the requirement of subpart J of this part; (2) Persons entering a space containing a hazardous atmosphere shall be instructed in the nature of the hazard, precautions to be taken, and the use of protective and emergency equipment. Standby observers, similarly equipped and instructed, shall continuously monitor the activity of employees within such space; (3) Except for emergency or rescue operations, employees shall not enter into any atmosphere which has been identified as flammable or oxygen deficient (less than 19.5% oxygen). Persons who may be required to enter flammable or oxygen deficient atmospheres in emergency operations shall be instructed in the dangers attendant to those atmospheres and instructed in the use of self-contained breathing apparatus, which shall be utilized. (4) To prevent inadvertent employee entry into spaces that have been identified as having hazardous, flammable or oxygen deficient atmospheres, appropriate warning signs or equivalent means shall be posted at all means of access to those spaces. (e) Asbestos cargo leak. When the packaging of asbestos cargo leaks, spillage shall be cleaned up by designated employees protected from the harmful effects of asbestos as required by 1910.1001 of this chapter. 1918.94 Ventilation and atmospheric conditions. (See also 1918.2(j).) (a) Ventilation with respect to carbon monoxide. (1)(i) When internal combustion engines exhaust into a hold, intermediate deck, or any other compartment, the employer shall see that tests of the carbon monoxide content of the atmosphere are made with such frequency to ensure that dangerous concentrations do not exceed allowable limits. Such tests shall be made in the area in which employees are working by persons competent in the use of the test equipment and procedures. If operations are located in a deep tank or refrigerated compartment, the first test shall be made within one half hour of the time the engine starts. In order to determine the need for further testing, the initial test in all other cargo handling areas shall be taken no later than one hour after the time the engine starts. (ii) The carbon monoxide content of the atmosphere in a compartment, hold, or any enclosed space shall be maintained at not more than 35 parts per million (ppm)(0.0035%) as an 8-hour time weighted average and employees shall be removed from the enclosed space if the carbon monoxide concentration exceeds 100 ppm (0.01%). The short term exposure limit in outdoors, non-enclosed spaces shall be 200 ppm (0.02%) measured over a 5 minute period. (A) The term time weighted average means that for any period of time in which the concentration exceeds 35 parts per million, it shall be maintained at a corresponding amount below 35 parts per million for an equal period of time. (B) The formula for "time weighted average" for an 8-hour work shift is as follows: Where: E is the equivalent exposure for the working shift. C is the concentration during any period of time T where the concentration remains constant. T is the duration in hours of the exposure at the concentration C. (iii) When both natural ventilation and the vessel's ventilation system are inadequate to keep the carbon monoxide concentration within the allowable limits, the employer shall use supplementary means to bring such concentration within allowable limits, as determined by actual monitoring. (2) A record of the date, time, location and results of the tests required by paragraph (a)(1) of this section shall be maintained for at least 30 days after the work has been completed. Such records may be entered on any retrievable medium, and shall be available for inspection. (3) The intakes of portable blowers and any exposed belt drives shall be guarded to prevent injury to employees. (4) The frames of portable blowers shall be grounded at the source of the current by means of an equipment grounding conductor run with or enclosing the circuit conductors. When the vessel is the source of the current, the equipment grounding conductor shall be bonded to the structure of the vessel. Electric cords used shall be free from visible defects. (b) Fumigated grains. (1) Before commencing to handle bulk grain in any compartment of a vessel in which employees will or may be present, the employer shall: (i) ascertain from the elevator operator whether the grain has been or will be fumigated at the elevator; and (ii) ascertain from the vessel's officers, agent, or other knowledgeable source whether those compartments, or any cargo within them that was loaded at a prior berth, have been treated with a fumigant or any other chemical. (2) If such treatment has been carried out, or if there is reason to suspect that such treatment has been carried out, it shall be determined by atmospheric testing that the compartment's atmosphere is within allowable limits. (See paragraph (b)(3) of this section.) (3) A test of the fumigant concentration in the atmosphere of the compartment shall be made after loading begins and before employees enter the compartment. Additional tests shall be made as often as necessary to ensure that hazardous concentrations do not develop. (i) Tests for fumigant concentration shall be conducted by a designated person, who shall be thoroughly familiar with the characteristics of the fumigant being used, the correct procedure for measurement, the proper measuring equipment to be used, the manufacturer's recommendations and warnings, and the proper use of personal protective equipment employed to guard against the specific hazards. (ii) A record of the date, time, location and results of the tests required by paragraph (b) of this section shall be maintained for at least 30 days after the work has been completed. Such records may be entered on any retrievable medium, and shall be available for inspection. (iii) At any time the concentration in any compartment reaches the level specified as hazardous by the fumigant manufacturer or by part 1910, subpart Z of this chapter, whichever is lower, all employees shall be removed from such compartments and shall not be permitted to re-enter until such time as tests demonstrate that the atmosphere is within allowable limits. (iv) No employee shall be permitted to enter any compartment in which grain fumigation has been carried out, or any compartment immediately adjacent to such a compartment, until it has been determined by test that the atmosphere in the compartment to be entered is within allowable limits for entry. (v) In the event a compartment containing a hazardous or unknown concentration of fumigants must be entered for the purpose of testing the atmosphere, or for emergency purposes, each employee entering shall be protected by respiratory protective equipment in accordance with the provisions of 1918.102, and by any protective clothing or other personal protective equipment recommended by the fumigant manufacturer for protection against the particular hazards. At least two other employees shall be stationed outside the compartment as observers, to provide rescue services in the event of an emergency. The observers shall be equipped with similar personal protective equipment. (vi) One or more employees on duty shall be equipped and trained to provide any specific emergency treatment stipulated for the particular fumigant. (vii) Emergency equipment required by this subparagraph shall be readily accessible wherever fumigated grains are being handled. (4) In the event that a compartment is treated for local infestation before loading grain by a chemical other than a fumigant, the employee applying the treatment, and any other employees entering the compartment, shall be provided with and required to use any personal protective equipment which may be recommended by the manufacturer of the product to protect them against the effects of exposure. (c) Fumigated tobacco. The employer shall not load tobacco until the carrier has provided written notification as to whether or not the cargo has been fumigated. If break-bulk tobacco cargo has been treated with any toxic fumigant, loading shall not commence until written warranty has been received from the fumigation facility that the aeration of the cargo has been such to reduce the concentration of the fumigant to within allowable limits. Such notification and warranty shall be maintained for at least 30 days after the loading of the tobacco has been completed, and shall be available for inspection. (d) Other fumigated cargoes. Before commencing to load fumigated cargo other than the cargo specifically addressed in paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section, the employer shall ascertain that such cargo does not contain a concentration of fumigants in excess of allowable limits found in subpart Z of part 1910 of this chapter. (e) Grain dust. When employees are exposed to concentrations of grain dusts in excess of allowable limits found in subpart Z of part 1910 of this chapter, they shall be protected by suitable respiratory protective equipment in accordance with the requirements of 1918.102. (f) Catch of Menhaden and similar species of fish. (1) The provisions of this paragraph shall not apply in the case of vessels having and utilizing refrigerated holds for the carriage of all cargo. (2) After a vessel has arrived at berth for discharge of menhaden, but before personnel enter the hold, and as frequently thereafter as tests indicate to be necessary, tests shall be made of the atmosphere in the vessel's hold to ensure a safe work space. The tests shall be performed for the presence of hydrogen sulfide and for oxygen deficiency. (3) Tests required by paragraph (f)(2) of this section shall be made by designated supervisory personnel, trained and competent in the nature of potential hazards and the use of test equipment and procedures. (4) The hydrogen sulfide content of the atmosphere in a compartment, hold, or any enclosed space shall be maintained at not more than 10 parts per million (ppm)(0.0010%) as an 8-hour time weighted average. The short term exposure limit shall be 15 ppm (0.0015%) measured over a 15 minute period. The oxygen level must be maintained to at least 19.5 percent. Employees shall not be permitted in the hold unless these conditions are met and maintained. (a) Washing and toilet facilities. (1) Accessible washing and toilet facilities sufficient for the sanitary requirements of employees shall be readily accessible at the worksite. The number of toilet facilities shall be provided in accordance with the table found in this section. The facilities shall have: (i) Running water, including hot and cold or tepid water at a minimum of one accessible location (when longshoring operations are conducted at locations without permanent facilities, potable water may be provided in lieu of running water); (iii) Individual hand towels, clean individual sections of continuous toweling, or warm air blowers; and (iv) Fixed or portable toilets in separate compartments with latch-equipped doors. Numbers of toilet facilities shall comply with the Toilet Facilities Table. Separate toilet facilities shall be provided for male and female employees except when toilet rooms will be occupied by only one person at a time. (2) Washing and toilet facilities shall be regularly cleaned and maintained in good order. (b) Drinking water. (1) Potable drinking water shall be accessible to employees at all times. (2) Potable drinking water containers shall be clean, containing only water and ice, and shall be fitted with covers. (3) Common drinking cups are prohibited. (c) Prohibited eating areas. Consumption of food or beverages in areas where hazardous materials are stowed or being handled is prohibited. (d) Garbage and overboard discharges. Work shall not be conducted in the immediate vicinity of uncovered garbage or in the way of overboard discharges from the vessel's sanitary lines unless employees are protected from the garbage or discharge by a baffle or splash boards. 1918.96 Longshoring operations in the vicinity of maintenance and repair work. (a) Noise interference (See also 1918.1(b)(10)). Longshoring operations shall not be carried on when noise interferes with communications of warnings or instructions. (b) Falling objects. Longshoring operations shall not be carried on in the hold or on deck beneath work being conducted overhead whenever such work exposes the employee to a hazard of falling objects. (c) Hot work. Longshoring operations shall not be carried on where the employee is exposed to injurious light rays, hot metal, or sparks, as a result of welding or cutting. (d) Abrasive blasting and spray painting. Longshoring operations shall not be carried on in the immediate vicinity of abrasive blasting or spray painting operations. (e) Non-ionizing radiation. Longshoring operations shall not be carried on when there is a danger that non-ionizing radiation (electromagnetic radiation) from a vessel's radio or radar, or from radio or television transmitting towers ashore could harm employees that are involved in cargo handling operations. 1918.97 First aid and lifesaving facilities. (a) Injury reporting. The employer shall direct each employee to report every injury, regardless of severity, to the employer. (b) First aid. A first aid kit shall be available at or near to each vessel being worked, and at least one person holding a valid first aid certificate, such as one issued by the Red Cross or other equivalent organization, shall be available to render first aid when work is in progress. (c) First aid kit. First aid kits shall be weatherproof and shall contain individual sealed packages for each item that must be kept sterile. The contents of each kit shall be determined by a physician, based on the hazards anticipated at the worksite. The contents of the first aid kit shall be checked at least weekly. Expended items shall be promptly replaced. (d) Stretchers. (1) There shall be available for each vessel being worked, one Stokes basket stretcher, or its equivalent, permanently equipped with bridles for attaching to the hoisting gear. (2) Stretchers shall be kept close to vessels and shall be positioned to avoid damage. (3) A blanket or other suitable covering shall be available. (4) Stretchers shall have at least four sets of effective patient restraints in operable condition. (5) Lifting bridles shall be of adequate strength, capable of lifting 1,000 pounds (454 kg) with a safety factor of five, and shall be maintained in operable condition. Lifting bridles shall be provided for making vertical patient lifts at container berths. Stretchers for vertical lifts shall have foot plates. (6) Stretchers shall be maintained in operable condition. Struts and braces shall be inspected for damage. Wire mesh shall be secured with no burrs. Damaged stretchers shall not be used until repaired. (e) Life-rings. (1) The employer shall ensure that there is in the vicinity of each vessel being worked, at least one U.S. Coast Guard approved 30 inch (76.2 cm) life-ring with no less than 90 feet (27.4 m) of line attached and at least one portable or permanent ladder which will reach from the top of the apron to the surface of the water. (2) In addition to the provisions of paragraph (e) of this section, when working a barge, scow, raft, lighter, log boom, or carfloat alongside a ship, a U.S. Coast Guard approved 30 inch (76.2 cm) life-ring, with no less than 90 feet (27.4 m) of line shall be provided either on the floating unit itself or aboard the ship in the immediate vicinity of each floating unit being worked. (f) Communication. Telephone or equivalent means of communication shall be readily available. (a) Qualification of machinery operators. (1) Only those employees determined by the employer to be competent by reason of training or experience, and who understand the signs, notices and operating instructions, and are familiar with the signal code in use, shall be permitted to operate a crane, winch, or other power operated cargo handling apparatus, or any power operated vehicle, or give signals to the operator of any hoisting apparatus. However, employees being trained and supervised by a designated person may operate such machinery and give signals to operators during training. (2) No employee known to have defective uncorrected eyesight or hearing, or to be suffering from heart disease, epilepsy, or similar ailments which may suddenly incapacitate the employee, shall be permitted to operate a crane, winch or other power operated cargo handling apparatus or a power-operated vehicle. (b) Supervisory accident prevention proficiency. (1) After [insert date two years after promulgation of final standard], immediate supervisors of cargo handling operations of more than five persons shall satisfactorily complete a course in accident prevention. Employees newly assigned to supervisory duties after that date shall be required to meet the provisions of this paragraph within 90 days of such assignment. (2) The accident prevention course shall consist of instruction suited to the particular operations involved.(6) Footnote(6) The following are recommended topics: Safety responsibility and authority; elements of accident prevention; attitudes, leadership and motivation; hazards of longshoring, including peculiar local circumstances; hazard identification and elimination; applicable regulations; and accident investigations. Subpart J - Personal Protective Equipment 1918.101 Eye protection. (a)(1) When employees perform work hazardous to the eyes, the employer shall provide eye protection equipment marked or labeled as meeting the manufacturing specifications of American National Standards Practice for Occupational and Educational Eye and Face Protection, ANSI Z87.1-1989, and shall require that it be used. (2) For employees wearing corrective spectacles, eye protection equipment required by paragraph (a)(1) of this section must be of the type which can be worn over spectacles. Prescription ground safety lenses may be substituted if they provide equivalent protection. (b) Eye protection shall be maintained in good condition. (c) Used eye protection shall be cleaned and disinfected before issuance to another employee. 1918.102 Respiratory protection. 1918.103 Head protection. (a) The employer shall require that employees exposed to impact, falling or flying objects, or electric shocks or burns wear protective hats. (b) Protective hats shall bear identifying marks or labels indicating compliance with the manufacturing provisions of American National Standard Requirements for Protective Headwear for Industrial Workers, ANSI Z89.1-1986. (c) Protective hats previously worn shall be cleaned and disinfected before issuance by the employer to another employee. 1918.104 Foot protection. (a) The employer shall require that employees exposed to impact, falling objects, or puncture hazards wear safety shoes, or equivalent protection. (b) Protective shoes shall bear identifying marks or labels indicating compliance with manufacturing provisions of the American National Standard for Personal Protection - Protective Footwear ANSI Z41-1991. 1918.105 Other protective measures. (a) Protective clothing. (1) The employer shall provide, and shall require the wearing of special protective clothing for those employees engaged in work in which such protective clothing is necessary. (2) When necessary, protective clothing shall be cleaned and disinfected before reissuance. (b) Personal flotation equipment. (1) The employer shall provide, and shall require the wearing of personal flotation devices for those employees engaged in work in which they may fall into the water: (i) When such employees are working in isolation; or (ii) Where physical limitations of available working space creates a hazard of falling into the water; or (iii) Where the work area is obstructed by cargo or other obstacles so as to prevent employees from obtaining safe footing for their work; or (iv) When working on the deck of a barge. (2) Personal flotation devices shall be United States Coast Guard approved Type I PFD, Type II PFD, Type III PFD, or Type V PFD, or equivalent, in accordance with 46 CFR part 160 (Coast Guard Lifesaving Equipment Specifications) and 33 CFR part 175.23 (Coast Guard table of devices equivalent to personal flotation devices). (3) Personal flotation devices shall be maintained in safe condition and shall be considered unserviceable when damaged so as to affect buoyancy or fastening capability. Appendix I to Part 1918 - Cargo Gear Register and Certificates (Non-mandatory) Note: This Appendix is non-mandatory and provides guidance to part 1918 to assist employers and employees in complying with the requirements of this standard, as well as to provide other helpful information. Nothing in this Appendix adds or detracts from any of the requirements of this standard. The tests, examinations and inspections indicated in this register are based on the requirements of I.L.O. Convention 152 and Recommendation 160. They are intended to ensure that ships having lifting appliances are initially certified by a competent person, and to establish periodically that they continue to be in safe working order to the satisfaction of a competent person acceptable to a competent authority. A Register of lifting appliances and items of loose gear shall be kept in a form prescribed by the competent authority, account being taken of this model recommended by the International Labour Office. This Register and related certificates shall be kept available to any person authorized by the competent authority. The Register and certificates for gear currently aboard the ship shall be preserved for at least five years after the date of the last entry. 1. Initial Examination and Certification 1.1. Every lifting appliance shall be certified by a competent person before being taken into use for the first time to ensure that it is of good design and construction and of adequate strength for the purpose for which it is intended. 1.2. Before being taken into use for the first time, a competent person shall supervise and witness testing, and shall thoroughly examine every lifting appliance. 1.3. Every item of loose gear shall, before being taken into use for the first time, shall be tested, thoroughly examined and certified by a competent person, in accordance with national law or regulations. 1.4. Upon satisfactory completion of the procedures indicated above, the competent person shall complete and issue the Register of lifting appliances and attach the appropriate certificates. An entry shall be made in part I of the Register. 1.5. A rigging plan showing the arrangement of lifting appliances shall be provided. In the case of derricks and derrick cranes, the rigging should show at least the following information. (a) the position of guys; (b) the resultant force on blocks, guys, wire ropes and booms; (c) the position of blocks; (d) the identification mark of individual items; and (e) arrangements and working range of union purchase; 2. Periodic Examination and Re-testing 2.1. All lifting appliances and every item of loose gear shall be thoroughly examined by a competent person at least once in every twelve months. The particulars of these thorough examinations shall be entered in part I of the Register. 2.2. Re-testing and thorough examination of all lifting appliances and every item of loose gear is to be carried out; (a) after any substantial alteration or renewal, or after repair to any stress bearing part, and; (b) in the case of lifting appliances, at least once in every five years. 2.3. The retesting referred to in paragraph 2.2(a) may be omitted provided the part which has been renewed or repaired is subjected by separate test, to the same stress as would be imposed on it if it had been tested in-situ during the testing of the lifting appliance. 2.4. The thorough examinations and tests referred to in paragraph 2.2. are to be entered in part I of the Register. 2.5 No new item of loose gear shall be manufactured of wrought iron. Heat treatment of any existing wrought iron components should be carried out to the satisfaction of the competent person. No heat treatment should be applied to any item of loose gear unless the treatment is in accordance with the manufacturer's instruction; to the satisfaction of the competent person. Any heat treatment and the associated examination are to be recorded by the competent person in part I of the Register. 3.1. Regular visual inspections of every item of loose gear shall be carried out by a responsible person before use. A record of these regular inspections is to be entered in part II of the Register, but entries need only be made when the inspection has indicated a defect in the item. 4.1. The certification forms to be used in conjunction with this Register (Form No. 1) are as follows: (Form No. 2) - Certificate of test and thorough examination of lifting appliance. (Form No. 2(U)) - Certificate of test and thorough examination of derricks used in union purchase. (Form No. 3) - Certificate of test and thorough examination of loose gear. (Form No. 4) - Certificate of test and thorough examination of wire rope. (a) The term "competent authority" means a minister, government department, or other authority empowered to issue regulations, orders or other instructions having the force of law. (c) The term "competent person" means a person appointed by the master of the ship or the owner of the gear to be responsible for the performance of inspections and who has sufficient knowledge and experience to undertake such inspections. (d) The term "thorough examination" means a detailed visual examination by a competent person, supplemented if necessary by other suitable means or measures in order to arrive at a reliable conclusion as to the safety of the lifting appliance or item of loose gear examined. (e) The term "lifting appliance" covers all stationary or mobile cargo handling appliances used on board ship for suspending, raising or lowering loads or moving them from one position to another while suspended or supported. (g) The term "loose gear" covers any gear by means of which a load can be attached to a lifting appliance, but which does not form an integral part of the appliance or load. The Following Are Sample Forms of Certificates As Recommended by the ILO [Part I - Thorough Examination of Lifting Appliances and Loose Gear] Identity of National Authority or Competent Organization Form No. 2 Certificate No. ______________ Name and address of the firm or competent person who witnessed testing and carried out through examination I certify that on the date to which I have appended my signature, the gear shown in Col. (1) was tested and thoroughly examined and no defects or permanent deformation was found: and that the safe working load is as shown. Note: This certificate is the standard international form as responded by International Labour Office in accordance with ILO Convention No. 152. Reverse of Form No. 2 Instructions Reverse of Form No. 2 1. Every lifting appliance shall be tested with a test load which shall exceed the Safe Working Load (SWL) as follows: 2. In the case of derrick systems, the test load shall be lifted with the ship's normal tackle with the derrick at the minimum angle to the horizontal for which the derrick system was designed (generally 15 degrees), or at such greater angle as may be agreed. The angle at which the test was made should be stated in the certificate 2.1. The SWL shown is applicable to swinging derrick systems only. When derricks are used in union purchase, the SWL (U) is to be shown on Form 2 (U). 2.2. In the case of heavy derricks, care should be taken to ensure that the appropriate stays are correctly rigged. 3. In the case of cranes, the test load is to be hoisted, slewed and luffed at slow speed. Gantry and traveling cranes together with their trolleys, where appropriate, are to be traversed and travelled over the full length of their track. 3.1. In the case of variable load-radius cranes, the tests are generally to be carried out with the appropriate test load at maximum, minimum and intermediate radii. 3.2. In the case of hydraulic cranes where limitations of pressure make it impossible to lift a test load 25 percent in excess of the safe working load, it will be sufficient to lift the greatest possible load, but in general this should not be less than 10 percent in excess of the safe working load. 4. As a general rule, tests should carried out using test loads, and no exception should be allowed in the case of initial tests. In the case of repairs/replacement or when the periodic examination calls for re-test, consideration may be given to the use of spring or hydraulic balances provided the SWL of the lifting appliance does not exceed 15 tones. Where a spring or hydraulic balance is used, it shall be calibrated and accurate to within + or - 2 percent and the indicator should remain constant for 5 minutes. 4.1. If the test weights are not used, this is to be indicated in Col. (3). 5. The expression "tone" shall mean a tone of 1000 kg. (2000 lbs) 6. The terms "competent person", "thorough examination", and "lifting appliance" are defined in Form No. 1. Note: For recommendations on test procedures reference may be made to the ILO document "Safety and Health in Dock Work". Identity of National Authority or Competent Organization Certificate No. _______________ Reverse Form No. (U) Instructions 1. Before being taken into use, the derricks rigged in Union Purchase shall be tested with a test load which shall exceed the Safe Working Load (SWL (U)) as follows: 2. Tests are to be carried out at the approved maximum height of the triangle plate above the hatch coaming or at the angle between the cargo runners and with the derrick booms in their working positions, to prove the strength of deck eye plates and the Union Purchase system. These heights or angles must not exceed the values shown on the rigging plan. 3. Tests should be carried out using test loads. 4. The expression "ton" shall mean a ton of 1000 kg. (2000 lbs.) 5. The terms "competent person", "thorough examination" and "lifting appliance" are defined in Form No. 1. Note: For recommendations on test procedures, reference may be made to the ILO document "Safety and Health in Dock Work". Identity of National Authority or Competent Organization Certificate No. _________________ Name and address of makers or suppliers: Name and address of the firm or competent person who witnessed testing and carried out thorough examination. I certify that the above items of loose gear were tested and thoroughly examined and no defects affecting their SWL were found. Note: This certificate is the standard international form as recommended. Reverse Form No. 3 Instructions Certificate No. _________________ Name and address of the firm or competent person who witnessed testing and carried out thorough examination. I certify that the above particulars are correct, and that the rope was tested and thoroughly examined and no defects affecting its SWL were found. Note: This certificate is the standard international form as recommended by the International Labour Office in accordance with ILO Convention No. 152. Reverse Form No. 4 Instructions 1. Wire rope shall be tested by sample, a piece being tested to destruction. 2. The test procedure should be in accordance with an International or recognized National standard. 3. The SWL of the rope is to be determined by dividing the load at which the sample broke, by a co-efficient of utilization, determined as follows: These coefficients should be adopted unless other requirements are specified by a National Authority. 4. The expression "ton" shall mean a ton of 1000 kg. (2000 lbs) 5. The terms "competent person", "thorough examination" and "lifting appliance" are defined in Form No. 1.Appendix II to Part 1918 - Tables for Selected Miscellaneous Auxiliary Gear Note: This Appendix is non-mandatory and provides guidance to part 1918 to assist employers and employees in complying with the requirements of this standard, as well as to provide other helpful information. Nothing in this Appendix adds or detracts from any of the requirements of this standard. Appendix III to Part 1918 - Container Top Safety (Non-mandatory) Note: This Appendix is non-mandatory and provides guidance to part 1918 to assist employers and employees in complying with the requirements of this standard, as well as to provide other helpful information. Nothing in this Appendix adds or detracts from any of the requirements of this standard. Due to the almost limitless physical possibilities dictated by such factors as vessel design; container type; container stowage; types of container hoisting gear, etc., there may be instances during vessel loading/discharge operations when it is not feasible to utilize container top fall protection devices. As a result, a case by case and event by event approach must be utilized in assessing the feasibility of providing such devices. The following are examples of situations where fall protection may not be feasible: * When hooking up to or disconnecting from an overheight container using "special" gear, where attaching fall protection to the cranes spreader bar is not allowed by the owner of the crane (for example a Port Authority). * When handling containers, "in a chimney stow" on a break bulk vessel, with ships gear, when a personnel basket is not sufficient to be used as an anchorage point. [FR Doc. 94-13058 Filed 6-1-94; 8:45 am] Federal Registers - Table of Contents|

Federal Registers - Table of Contents| | Publication Date:||06/02/1994| | Publication Type:||Proposed Rules| | Fed Register #:||59:28594-28677| | Standard Number:||1910; 1917; 1918| | Title:||Longshoring and Marine Terminals| DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Occupational Safety and Health Administration 29 CFR Parts 1910, 1917, and 1918 [Docket No. S-025] Longshoring and Marine Terminals AGENCY: Occupational S

Residential water meters in the Otay Water District’s service area are now read via an automated system. Automated Meter Reading meters (AMR) transmit water use data via a one-way radio signal from the meter to a meter reader up to a half mile away. These meters are read once a month by a District vehicle driving down the street. The meter transmits a signal containing its data to an antenna on the vehicle. A laptop computer in the vehicle then records data from all meters along the specified route. This well-proven and cost-effective technology helps the District increase productivity, reduces costs and improves customer service. With the AMR system, field representatives are able to read approximately 2,500 meters in 4 hours versus 700 meters in 8 hours, depending upon the route. Multiple routes can also be merged and completed in the same time it took to read just one route. As part of the District’s ongoing commitment to quality control, the meter reading team does a comparison of the radio read to a manual read once every 18 months.

Residential water meters in the Otay Water District’s service area are now read via an automated system. Automated Meter Reading meters (AMR) transmit water use data via a one-way radio signal from the meter to a meter reader up to a half mile away. These meters are read once a month by a District vehicle driving down the street. The meter transmits a signal containing its data to an antenna on th

Weatherization experts evaluate the heating system of a home in Loveland, CO. (Photo: Dennis Schroeder, NREL) The Department of Energy completed weatherizing more than 600,000 low income homes three months ahead of schedule. With $5 billion in Recovery money to add to its ongoing Weatherization Assistance Program, DOE focused on quickly reducing energy waste in low income homes by installing upgrades such as insulation, air-sealing, and more efficient heating and cooling systems. The goal was to weatherize 607,000 homes by March 2012. DOE announced it had reached that goal in December 2011. “On average, the program reduces energy consumption for low-income families by up to 35 percent, saving them more than $400 on their heating and cooling bills in the first year alone,” DOE said. “Nationwide, the weatherization of 600,000 homes is estimated to save more than $320 million in energy costs in just the first year.” Worker dons protective mask and covering as he prepares to weatherize a home in Lafayette, CO. (Photo: Dennis Schroeder, NREL) Estimates from an Oak Ridge National Laboratory study in March 2010 projected that energy savings will likely exceed the program’s costs. The extra Recovery funding significantly expanded and accelerated DOE weatherization activity. For example: - 30,500 Wisconsin homes weatherized; Recovery funds covered costs for 21,600 - 16,000 Washington homes weatherized; Recovery funds covered costs for 12,300 - 6,800 Montana homes weatherized; Recovery funds covered costs for 3,300 Back to Featured Stories

Weatherization experts evaluate the heating system of a home in Loveland, CO. (Photo: Dennis Schroeder, NREL) The Department of Energy completed weatherizing more than 600,000 low income homes three months ahead of schedule. With $5 billion in Recovery money to add to its ongoing Weatherization Assistance Program, DOE focused on quickly reducing energy waste in low income homes by installing upgra

Born: 1899, Gateshead, United Kingdom Michael Terry served in the Great War from 1917 to 1918 with the RNAS Armoured Cars and foreign service in Russia where he was captured by Bolsheviks in Russia. He migrated to Perth, Western Australia, in 1918. From 1923 to 1925 Terry led fourteen inland Australian expeditions, mainly working for Adelaide mining companies seeking minerals. The South Australian Museum Archives includes correspondence, field books, maps, negatives and log books.

Born: 1899, Gateshead, United Kingdom Michael Terry served in the Great War from 1917 to 1918 with the RNAS Armoured Cars and foreign service in Russia where he was captured by Bolsheviks in Russia. He migrated to Perth, Western Australia, in 1918. From 1923 to 1925 Terry led fourteen inland Australian expeditions, mainly working for Adelaide mining companies seeking minerals. The South Australian

332 W. Commerce San Antonio,TX 78205 Population-based Services Area Mission: To assess and identify the health needs of the San Antonio Community, and to provide evidence-based resources to assure optimal health and well being. Chronic Disease Prevention The Chronic Disease Prevention Program was created in 2009 to tie together the efforts and resources of new and existing projects focused on chronic disease prevention and wellness promotion. The Program provides health information, education and programs related to nutrition, physical activity, diabetes and other chronic disease prevention. Community health assessment is conducted continuously in San Antonio and Bexar County. Using a combination of information from many sources, Metro Health annually compiles the Health Profiles report, which details area demographics, education, disability, maternity statistics, child abuse, immunization rates, obesity, asthma, communicable diseases, and deaths. Learn more Healthy Start is a federally-funded initiative to decrease infant mortality. It is a case management program that works with pregnant women in their homes, to help them accomplish their goals and have healthier pregnancies and healthier babies. The San Antonio Healthy Start Program targets its efforts in 15 zip codes in Bexar County that have the highest infant mortality rates. The program has four main components: Outreach, Health Education, Case Management, and Community Consortium. Learn more Project WORTH (Working on Real Teen Health) is a program designed to help the youth of San Antonio and Bexar County make healthy choices and postpone pregnancy. The program focuses on both parents and teens and emphasizes abstinence, parent communication, and healthy youth development. Learn more The School Nurse Liaison works between Metro Health and San Antonio area school districts and child care facilities to promote positive health outcomes, among students, families, and staff. Learn more The Tobacco Prevention and Control Program is working in partnership with non-profit organizations, health systems, substance abuse centers, and advocacy groups across San Antonio to reduce the burden of tobacco-related illness in our community. Metro Health recently received a grant from the Texas Department of State Health Services to fund the development of a tobacco prevention and control program and a community-based coalition, San Antonio Tobacco Control and Prevention Coalition (SA-TPCC), that will lead the effort. Through a combination of awareness campaigns, tobacco cessation programs, tobacco use prevention education, and public policy changes, Metro Health and the SA-TPCC will create an appropriate and effective program to serve the San Antonio community and its multicultural needs. See SA-TPCC website WIC is the non-emergency Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC). Those who qualify for WIC assistance receive food vouchers (redeemable at grocery stores for certain nutritious foods), nutrition education and counseling, breastfeeding promotion and support, and health care referrals at no cost. WIC services are available to pregnant women, postpartum women, breastfeeding women, and infants and children under five years old. Learn more

332 W. Commerce San Antonio,TX 78205 Population-based Services Area Mission: To assess and identify the health needs of the San Antonio Community, and to provide evidence-based resources to assure optimal health and well being. Chronic Disease Prevention The Chronic Disease Prevention Program was created in 2009 to tie together the efforts and resources of new and existing projects focused on chro

Achievement and Attainment Tables for GCE/VCE/Applied A/AS and Equivalent Results in England Contain school and college level statistics on the performance of pupils reaching the end of their Key Stage 5 education in England. Achievement and Attainment Tables for GCSE and Equivalent Results in England: Contain school and college level statistics on the performance of pupils reaching the end of their Key Stage 4 education in England. Achievement and Attainment Tables for National Curriculum Assessments at Key Stage 2 The Achievement and Attainment Tables provide information on the achievements of pupils in local primary schools, how they compare with other schools in the Local Authority (LA) area, and in England as a whole. Admission Appeals for Maintained Primary and Secondary Schools in England This SFR provides information about appeals lodged by parents during the academic year against non-admission of their children to their preferred school. It includes all appeals lodged during the academic year across all year groups. Figures are provided at both national and local authority level. Anti-social Behaviour Family Intervention Projects - Monitoring and Evaluation (NatCen) Anti-social Behaviour Family Intervention Projects - Monitoring and Evaluation Attainment by Pupil Characteristics This Statistical First Release (SFR) provides information on attainment by different pupil characteristics, specifically gender, ethnicity, eligibility for free school meals (FSM), special educational needs (SEN) and English as a first language Awards of Key Skills Qualifications This presents statistics on Awards of Key Skills Qualifications cover qualifications obtained in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. Behaviour in Schools in England Figures in this release are drawn from the Ofsted inspection judgement "The behaviour of learners - school level"/ "How well do pupils behave". This publication reports each eligible school's most recent judgement and therefore differs from Ofsted's published annual data, which shows inspections within a given academic year. This publication was previously titled: National Indicator 86, Secondary Schools judged as having Good or Outstanding Standards of Behaviour. Benchmarking Tables Of Local Authority Planned Expenditure The Benchmarking Tables of planned expenditure are drawn from the published Children, Schools and Families Financial Data Collection budget statements and are primarily aimed at School Forums and Local Authorities. The tables give detailed information on each authority's planned expenditure on education in a form which enables comparison between authorities. Characteristics of Children in Need in England This publication contains figures on the numbers of children referred and assessed by children's social services. It includes information on the characteristics of children in need and information on children who were the subject of a child protection plan for year ending March.

Achievement and Attainment Tables for GCE/VCE/Applied A/AS and Equivalent Results in England Contain school and college level statistics on the performance of pupils reaching the end of their Key Stage 5 education in England. Achievement and Attainment Tables for GCSE and Equivalent Results in England: Contain school and college level statistics on the performance of pupils reaching the end of the

Title 30 TAC 117 Rule Change, May 22, 1997 Permanent Rule AdoptionPreface to Outdated Chapter 117 (Regulation VII) 1. Purpose. This change transmittal provides the page(s) that reflect changes and additions to the Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission (commission) Volume of Permanent Rules. 2. Explanation of Change. The commission adopted the repeal of § 117.550, concerning Standard Construction Permits for Nitrogen Oxides Reasonably Available Control Technology Projects. The repeal is adopted without change and will not be republished. 3. Effect of Change. The commission adopted this revision to Chapter 117, concerning Control of Air Pollution from Nitrogen Compounds, and to the State Implementation Plan in order to streamline rule requirements. The Chapter 117 standard permit was adopted as an expedience in 1993 because at the time there was no standard permit for pollution control projects in Chapter 116. The two standard permits are largely duplicative. The more logical location for a standard permit is in Chapter 116, which concerns Control of Air Pollution by Permits for New Construction or Modification. Concurrent with this repeal, the commission adopts revisions to the Chapter 116 standard permit which are designed to allow greater flexibility in making the demonstration that a project is environmentally beneficial. Questions? We Can Help If you have questions contact us.

Title 30 TAC 117 Rule Change, May 22, 1997 Permanent Rule AdoptionPreface to Outdated Chapter 117 (Regulation VII) 1. Purpose. This change transmittal provides the page(s) that reflect changes and additions to the Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission (commission) Volume of Permanent Rules. 2. Explanation of Change. The commission adopted the repeal of § 117.550, concerning Standard Const

Haymarket was originally developed in the seventeenth century with a hay market operating here until 1830. Today the conservation area's mixed character and appearance reflects its historical development; it is dominated by buildings dating from the late nineteenth and early twentieth century, most notable being the Burberry shop on Haymarket of 1912. There are also a number of earlier buildings of interest, including No. 34 Haymarket, a mid eighteenth century townhouse and 8 Oxenden Street which dates from 1643, although has been re-fronted. The area was first designated as a conservation area in 1968 as part of the Regent Street and St James Conservation Areas, and re-designated in 1990 as the Haymarket Conservation Area. |Publications and Documents:| |Haymarket Conservation Area Map| |Haymarket Mini Guide| |Haymarket Conservation Area Directory| Was this useful? Whatever your interest, Westminster City Council welcomes and encourages you to get in touch with suggestions for improvements to the site. Please tell us how useful this page was to you.

Haymarket was originally developed in the seventeenth century with a hay market operating here until 1830. Today the conservation area's mixed character and appearance reflects its historical development; it is dominated by buildings dating from the late nineteenth and early twentieth century, most notable being the Burberry shop on Haymarket of 1912. There are also a number of earlier buildings o

Nutrition for older persons Defining the specific nutritional needs of older persons Older persons are particularly vulnerable to malnutrition. Moreover, attempts to provide them with adequate nutrition encounter many practical problems. First, their nutritional requirements are not well defined. Since both lean body mass and basal metabolic rate decline with age, an older person’s energy requirement per kilogram of body weight is also reduced. The process of ageing also affects other nutrient needs. For example, while requirements for some nutrients may be reduced, some data suggest that requirements for other essential nutrients may in fact rise in later life. There is thus an urgent need to review current recommended daily nutrient allowances for this group. There is also an increasing demand worldwide for WHO guidelines which competent national authorities can use to address the nutritional needs of their growing elderly populations. Malnutrition and older persons Many of the diseases suffered by older persons are the result of dietary factors, some of which have been operating since infancy. These factors are then compounded by changes that naturally occur with the ageing process. Dietary fat seems to be associated with cancer of the colon, pancreas and prostate. Atherogenic risk factors such as increased blood pressure, blood lipids and glucose intolerance, all of which are significantly affected by dietary factors, play a significant role in the development of coronary heart disease. Degenerative diseases such as cardiovascular and cerebrovascular disease, diabetes, osteoporosis and cancer, which are among the most common diseases affecting older persons, are all diet-affected. Increasingly in the diet/disease debate, the role that micronutrients play in promoting health and preventing noncommunicable disease is receiving considerable attention. Micronutrient deficiencies are often common in elderly people due to a number of factors such as their reduced food intake and a lack of variety in the foods they eat. Another factor is the price of foods rich in micronutrients, which further discourages their consumption. Compounding this situation is the fact that the elderly often suffer from decreased immune function, which contributes to this group’s increased morbidity and mortality. Other significant age-related changes include the loss of cognitive function and deteriorating vision, all of which hinder good health and dietary habits in old age. Elevated serum cholesterol, a risk factor for coronary heart disease in both men and women, is common in older people and this relationship persists into very old age. As with younger people, drug therapy should be considered only after serious attempts have been made to modify diet. Intervention trials have shown that reduction of blood pressure by 6 mm Hg reduces the risk of stroke by 40% and of heart attack by 15%, and that a 10% reduction in blood cholesterol concentration will reduce the risk of coronary heart disease by 30%. Dietary changes seem to affect risk-factor levels throughout life and may have an even greater impact in older people. Relatively modest reductions in saturated fat and salt intake, which would reduce blood pressure and cholesterol concentrations, could have a substantial effect on reducing the burden of cardiovascular disease. Increasing consumption of fruit and vegetables by one to two servings daily could cut cardiovascular risk by 30%.

Nutrition for older persons Defining the specific nutritional needs of older persons Older persons are particularly vulnerable to malnutrition. Moreover, attempts to provide them with adequate nutrition encounter many practical problems. First, their nutritional requirements are not well defined. Since both lean body mass and basal metabolic rate decline with age, an older person’s energy requirem

Sun Sends Out Mid-Level Solar Flare The sun emitted an M7.7 class solar flare on July 19, 2012. This video, taken by the Solar Dynamics Observatory (SDO), shows the flare in 304 and 335 wavelengths. Credit: NASA/SDO A coronal mass ejection (CME) was also associated with the July 19, 2012 flare. A CME is another solar phenomenon that can send solar particles into space and can reach Earth one to three days later, affecting electronic systems in satellites and on the ground. Initial NASA research models show that this CME is not headed toward Earth, but could impact STEREO-A. NOAA's Space Weather Prediction Center (http://swpc.noaa.gov) is the United States Government official source for space weather forecasts and alerts. Space Weather Prediction Center reports "Region 1520, now past the west limb, continues to erupt. It produced an R2 (moderate) Radio Blackout and a CME earlier today. Although not clearly Earth-directed, forecasters are analyzing it for tangential effects on the geomagnetic field. An S1 (minor) Solar Radiation Storm soon followed the eruption." More information on different types of space weather including Solar Radiation Storms and Radio Blackouts: http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/sunearth/news/storms-on-sun.html › Link to high-resolution media › View larger This image was captured by NASA's Solar Dynamics Observatory (SDO) on July 19, 2012 of an M7.7 class solar flare. The image represents light in the 131 Angstrom wavelength, which is particularly good for seeing flares, and which is typically colorized in teal. Credit: NASA/SDO The sun emitted a mid-level solar flare on July 19, 2012, beginning at 1:13 AM EDT and peaking at 1:58 AM. Solar flares are gigantic bursts of radiation that cannot pass through Earth's atmosphere to harm humans on the ground, however, when strong enough, they can disrupt the atmosphere and degrade GPS and communications signals. The flare is classified as an M7.7 flare. This means it is weaker than the largest flares, which are classified as X-class. M-class flares can cause brief radio communications blackouts at the poles. Increased numbers of flares are currently quite common, since the sun's standard 11-year activity cycle is ramping up toward solar maximum, which is expected in 2013. It is quite normal for there to be many flares a day during the sun’s peak activity. Updates will be provided as they are available on the flare and whether there was an associated Earth-directed coronal mass ejection (CME), another solar phenomenon that can send solar particles into space and affect electronic systems in satellites and on Earth. What is a solar flare? What is a coronal mass ejection? For answers to these and other space weather questions, please visit the Spaceweather Frequently Asked Questions › View Past Solar Eruptions Karen C. Fox NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, MD

Sun Sends Out Mid-Level Solar Flare The sun emitted an M7.7 class solar flare on July 19, 2012. This video, taken by the Solar Dynamics Observatory (SDO), shows the flare in 304 and 335 wavelengths. Credit: NASA/SDO A coronal mass ejection (CME) was also associated with the July 19, 2012 flare. A CME is another solar phenomenon that can send solar particles into space and can reach Earth one to th

Pandemic Influenza Planning in the United States from a Health Disparities Perspective Philip Blumenshine*1, Arthur Reingold†, Susan Egerter‡ , Robin Mockenhaupt§, Paula Braveman‡, and James Marks§ Author affiliations: *Weill/Cornell Medical College, Ithaca, New York, USA; †University of California, Berkeley, California, USA; ‡University of California, San Francisco, California, USA; §Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, Princeton, New Jersey, USA; The opinions expressed by authors contributing to this journal do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, the Public Health Service, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, or the authors' affiliated institutions. Use of trade names is for identification only and does not imply endorsement by any of the groups named above.

Pandemic Influenza Planning in the United States from a Health Disparities Perspective Philip Blumenshine*1, Arthur Reingold†, Susan Egerter‡ , Robin Mockenhaupt§, Paula Braveman‡, and James Marks§ Author affiliations: *Weill/Cornell Medical College, Ithaca, New York, USA; †University of California, Berkeley, California, USA; ‡University of California, San Francisco, California, USA; §Robert Wood

Australian Bureau of Statistics 1301.0 - Year Book Australia, 2009–10 Previous ISSUE Released at 11:30 AM (CANBERRA TIME) 04/06/2010 |Page tools: Print Page RSS Search this Product| In Australia, cereals are divided into autumn-winter-spring growing (winter cereals) and spring-summer-autumn growing (summer cereals). In temperate regions winter cereals such as wheat, oats, barley and rye are often grown in rotation with pastures, such as subterranean clover, medics or lucerne, and with other winter crops such as canola, field peas and lupins. Rice, maize and sorghum are summer cereals, often being grown in rotation with winter cereals in some areas. Wheat is produced in all states but primarily on the mainland in a narrow crescent known as the wheat belt. Inland of the Great Dividing Range, the wheat belt stretches in a curve from central Queensland through New South Wales, Victoria and southern South Australia. In Western Australia, the wheat belt continues around the south-west of the state and some way north, along the western side of the continent. Graph 16.17 shows wheat production in Australia from 1908 to 2008. In 2007-08, farmers planted 12.6 mill. ha to wheat and harvested 13.6 mill. tonnes. Western Australia planted and harvested the most wheat followed by New South Wales and South Australia (table 16.16 and graph 16.18). In 2007-08, just over half of Australia's wheat was exported for human consumption. A small proportion of production is used domestically for human consumption, with lower quality grain being used for domestic stock feed. New varieties of wheat have enabled it to be grown in more marginal areas. In particular the development of dual purpose winter wheat varieties which, like oats, allow grazing of the plant up to a few months prior to harvest, have become very popular in some areas. 16.18 WHEAT PRODUCTION AND AREA, By state - 2007-08 Oats are traditionally grown in moist, temperate regions. However, improved varieties and management practices have enabled oats to be grown over a wider range of soil and climatic conditions. Oats have a high fodder feed value and, with the exception of dual purpose varieties of wheat, produce a greater bulk of growth than other winter cereals. They need less cultivation, and respond well to superphosphates and nitrogen. Oats have two main uses - as a grain crop, and as a fodder crop. Fodder crops can either be grazed in the initial stages of growth and then locked up for a period prior to harvesting for grain, or else mown and baled for hay or cut for chaff. The majority of Australian oats harvested for grain is used domestically for stock feed purposes. A small proportion of high quality grain is used either domestically or exported for human consumption. In 2007-08, farmers planted 1.2 mill. ha of oats and harvested 1.5 mill. tonnes. Western Australia produced the most oats (840,000 tonnes), followed by Victoria (335,000 tonnes) (table 16.16 and graph 16.19). 16.19 oats production and area by state - 2007-08 This cereal contains two main groups of varieties, 2-row and 6-row (the number of rows referring to the number of rows of seed on each stalk). The former is generally, but not exclusively, preferred for malting purposes. Barley is grown principally as a grain crop, although in some areas it is used as a fodder crop for grazing, with grain being subsequently harvested if conditions are suitable. It is often grown as a rotation crop with wheat, oats and pasture. As barley has a short growing period, it may provide quick grazing or timely fodder supplies when other sources are not available. Barley grain may be crushed to meal for stock feed or sold for malting. In 2007-08, 7.2 mill. tonnes of barley were harvested from 4.9 mill. ha (table 16.16 and graph 16.20). The largest areas planted were in Western Australia (1.4 mill. ha), South Australia (1.2 mill. ha), and Victoria (1.1 mill. ha). Production was highest in Western Australia with 2.7 mill. tonnes, followed by Victoria and South Australia, 1.8 mill. tonnes and 1.7 mill. tonnes of barley respectively. 16.20 barley production and area by state - 2007-08 The sorghums are summer growing crops which are used in a number of ways: grain sorghum for grain; sweet or fodder sorghum, Sudan grass and Columbus grass for silage, green feed and grazing; and broom millet for brooms and brushware. However, the grain is used primarily as stock feed and is an important source for supplementing other coarse grains for this purpose. Grain sorghum was only grown during 2007-08 in significant quantities in Queensland and New South Wales, with the former growing 2.5 mill. tonnes on 661,000 ha (table 16.16 and graph 16.21). 16.21 grain sorghum production and area by state - 2007-08 Almost all of Australia's rice is grown in New South Wales, with production centred in the Murrumbidgee Irrigation Area. Rice production is dependent on supplies of irrigation water and, therefore, is significantly affected by reductions in irrigation water allocations available to farmers. In 2007-08, rice plantings covered 2,000 ha and produced 18,000 tonnes (table 16.16). Australia produces an extremely wide variety of vegetables, driven largely by demand from a cosmopolitan population. Many vegetables, such as spring onions, mushrooms and fresh tomatoes are grown close to major capital cities, taking advantage of proximity to markets and low transport costs. However, the majority of vegetables are produced in the major irrigation areas of each state and territory, where access to land and water are the key drivers of investment. In 2007-08, potatoes were by far the largest vegetable crop in terms of both area and production, covering 38,200 ha and growing 1.4 mill. tonnes (table 16.14). South Australia, Victoria and Tasmania produced almost 80% of the total potato crop. Tomato production ranked second with Victoria and Queensland producing 80% of the 382,000 tonnes grown nationally. Fruit (excluding grapes) A wide variety of fruit is grown in Australia, ranging from tropical fruit such as mangoes and bananas in the north to pome, stone and berry fruits in temperate regions. The most significant crops in terms of production weight in 2007-08 were oranges, apples and bananas (tables 16.14 and 16.15). Grapes are a temperate crop requiring predominantly winter rainfall and warm to hot summer conditions for ripening. Almost all grape production in Australia depends on irrigation water as a supplement to rainfall. An absence of late-spring frosts is essential to prevent the loss of developing fruit. Grapes are grown for winemaking, drying and table use. The better known grape producing areas include the Adelaide Hills, Barossa Valley, Clare Valley, Riverland, McLaren Vale and Coonawarra (all in South Australia); Sunraysia and the Yarra Valley (Victoria); the Hunter and Riverina (New South Wales); the Swan Valley and Margaret River (Western Australia); and the Tamar Valley and Coal River Valley (Tasmania). In 2007-08, Australia's vineyards produced 2.0 mill. tonnes of grapes on 166,000 ha. Tables 16.22 and 16.23 show the area of vines and the quantity of grapes produced. South Australia produced 41% of the total grape harvest with 812,000 tonnes while New South Wales (554,000 tonnes) and Victoria (477,000 tonnes) also produced large quantities (table 16.24). Canola is Australia's most commonly grown oilseed crop and is used in the production of oil and as a protein source in stock feed. Over the past four years canola has accounted for about 90% of the value of all oilseed production. Canola was first planted in Australia in 1980 but it was not until the late 1980's that high yielding blackleg-resistant varieties started to became available. By the early 1990's, production was becoming more widespread and canola was emerging as the main oilseed crop. From a production level of 70,000 tonnes in 1990-91, the record high of 2.8 mill. tonnes was achieved nine years later in 1999-2000. In 2007-08 farmers harvested 1.2 mill. tonnes, just over double the previous year's crop weight (table 16.14 and graph 16.25). Cotton is grown mainly in inland areas of northern New South Wales and southern Queensland, primarily for its fibre (lint), and relies heavily on irrigation water to produce profitable yields. When the cotton is mature, seed cotton is taken to a gin where it is separated (ginned) into cotton lint and cotton seed. The lint is used for yarn while the cotton seed is further processed at an oil mill, where the short fibres (linters) remaining on the cotton seed after ginning are removed. These fibres are too short to make into cloth, but are used for wadding, upholstery and paper. The seeds are then separated into kernels and hulls. The hulls are used for stock feed and as fertiliser, while the kernels are crushed to extract oil. The oilcake residue (crushed kernels) is ground into meal, which is a protein roughage, and is used as a stock feed. In 2007-08, cotton lint production was estimated at 119,000 tonnes from 69,000 ha harvested (table 16.14). New South Wales was the dominant growing state with 65% of total production (77,000 tonnes) on 40,000 ha. Queensland harvested 29,000 ha and produced 42,000 tonnes of cotton lint. Sugar cane is grown commercially in Australia along the east coast over a distance of more than 2,000 kilometres from Maclean in northern New South Wales to Mossman in Queensland. Small quantities are also grown in the north of Western Australia. In 2007-08 a total of 381,000 ha of sugar cane was cut for crushing (table 16.14). More than 90% (29.8 mill. tonnes) of the 32.6 mill. tonnes of sugar cane cut in 2007-08 was grown in Queensland from 355,000 ha (table 16.16). Cattle, sheep and pigs are the main livestock grown in Australia and have been present since the earliest days of European settlement. Tables 16.26 and 16.27 show the number of cattle, sheep and lambs, and pigs from 2005-06 to 2007-08. Cattle farming occurs in all states and territories. While dairy cattle are restricted mainly to southern and coastal districts, beef cattle are concentrated in Queensland and New South Wales. Beef cattle production is often combined with cropping, dairying and sheep. In the northern half of Australia, cattle properties and herd sizes are very large, pastures are generally unimproved, fodder crops are rare and beef is usually the only product. The industry is more intensive in the south, with higher stocking rates per hectare, improved pastures and use of fodder crops, rotational grazing practices and increased inputs such as fertiliser and animal health products. Cattle numbers in Australia increased to a peak of 31.8 mill. in 1976 after which time seasonal conditions and profitability saw numbers drop dramatically. For the five years from 1984 the size of the herd remained relatively stable. Between 1989 and 1998 cattle numbers increased gradually, despite unfavourable weather conditions continuing in many parts of Australia. After a slight decline in 1999, cattle numbers increased to 27.9 mill. in 2002. Dry conditions over much of the country in 2002-03 saw cattle numbers fall but improved conditions in some regions in the following three years resulted in the national herd reaching a 30 year high of 28.4 million head. A return to drier weather has since seen numbers decline. Graph 16.28 shows total cattle (milk and meat) numbers in Australia from 1888 to 2008. 16.28 CATTLE(a) - 1888 to 2008 By 30 June 2008, the Australian cattle herd numbered 27.3 mill. head consisting of 2.5 mill. milk cattle and 24.8 mill. meat cattle. Victoria had the most milk cattle (1.6 mill.) while Queensland grazed the most meat cattle (11.7 mill.) (table 16.27 ). Sheep numbers reached a peak of 180 mill. in Australia in 1970. In general, numbers have fallen since then. Poor market prospects for wool after 1990 had a marked impact on the flock size with sheep numbers falling rapidly until 1995, after which there was a gradual decline until 1999. By 30 June 2003, sheep and lambs had fallen to 99.3 mill. with numbers being severely affected by drought conditions throughout much of the country. Following a slight recovery in 2004 and 2005, sheep and lamb numbers in 2008 fell to 76.9 mill.head - their lowest level in 88 years - as the industry, already feeling the effects of drought, reacted to falling demand for wool and higher lamb prices. New South Wales carried the most stock with 26.4 mill. head followed by Western Australia (17.7 mill.) and Victoria (16.8 mill.) (table 16.27). Graph 16.29 shows total sheep and lamb numbers in Australia from 1888 to 2008. 16.29 SHEEP AND LAMBS(a) - 1888 to 2008 Pig farming is a highly intensive industry. The majority of pigs are grown in specially designed sheds which provide a controlled environment conducive to the efficient production of large numbers of animals. Recent changes in the Australian pig industry have seen many smaller producers leave the industry and existing producers increase their size of operations in an attempt to remain viable. In 2008, pigs numbered 2.4 mill. head with New South Wales the dominant state (770,000 head), followed by Queensland (610,000) and Victoria (394,000) (table 16.27). Poultry farming is also a highly intensive industry, with the majority of poultry raised in large sheds which provide the birds with a stable environment protected from the elements. The poultry farming industry consists of two streams - meat production and egg production - both being major users of feed grains. Egg production has begun to move towards layer hens being housed in non-caged systems. In June 2008, poultry farmers were holding 73.9 mill. chickens for meat production and 14.8 mill. for egg production (table 16.30). Dairying is a major Australian agricultural industry. The estimated gross value of dairy production at farm-gate prices in 2007-08 was $4,572m (table 16.31), which was a 44% increase on the previous year and represented 11% of the gross value of agricultural production. Most dairy production occurs in high rainfall coastal fringe areas where climate and natural resources allow production to be based on year-round pasture grazing. This enables efficient, low-cost milk production. With the exception of several inland river schemes, pasture growth generally depends on natural rainfall. Feedlot-based dairying is expanding, although it remains uncommon. Milk production over the last decade has been in decline following industry deregulation and several years of less than favourable seasonal conditions. In 2007-08, the trend continued with total milk production falling 370 million litres (4%) to 9,212 million litres (table 16.31). Average annual per person milk consumption has stabilised at around 100 litres since the mid-1980's. According to Dairy Australia data for 2007-08, Australians consumed 104 litres of milk, 11.8 kilograms of cheese, 6.9 kilograms of yoghurt and 4.1 kilograms of butter/blends per person. In 2007-08 Australia exported dairy products valued at $2.6b (1.4% of total merchandise exports). Milk, cream and milk products (excluding butter and cheese) contributed $1.4b, while cheese and curd, and butter and other fats and oils derived from milk brought in $968m and $195m respectively. Meat production and slaughterings Tables 16.32 and 16.33 show details of slaughtering and meat production from abattoirs, and from commercial poultry and other slaughtering establishments. They include estimates of animals slaughtered on farms and by country butchers. The data relate only to slaughtering for human consumption and do not include animals condemned or those killed for boiling down. Production of beef in 2008-09 was virtually static at 2,120,000 tonnes (table 16.33). In 2008-09, lamb production decreased 12,000 tonnes (3%) to 423,000 tonnes while mutton production decreased 23,000 tonnes (9%) to 235,000 tonnes. Significant changes have taken place in the pig meat producing industry in recent years. Capital investment and corporate takeovers have seen the emergence of a few large companies producing a significant proportion of all pig meat sold in Australia. These moves, and the trend to more intensive and efficient production techniques, have seen pig meat production rise steadily since the mid -1970's when production dipped to a low of 174,000 tonnes. Recently there has been a reduction in pig meat production with a fall of 14% to 324,000 tonnes in 2008-09. Table 16.34 shows the gross value of livestock slaughterings over recent years. The 2007-08 value of total slaughterings and other disposals decreased by 2% to $12.1b. Poultry slaughterings increased by 26% in 2007-08 to $1.6b, while cattle and calf slaughterings decreased by 8% to $7.4b. Table 16.35 shows the volume of exports of fresh, chilled or frozen meat. In 2008-09, beef was again Australia's major meat export with shipments of bone-out beef being the major component at 955,200 tonnes, 4% more than the previous year. Exports of bone-in lamb fell back 2% in 2008-09 after the previous year's record and exports of pork meat fell by 17%. As in recent years, Japan, the United States of America and the Republic of (South) Korea continued to be the best customers for Australian beef. In 2008-09, Japan imported the most Australian beef with 368,000 tonnes although shipments were 2% less than the previous year. The United States of America was Australia's next best customer with 281,000 tonnes, an increase of 16% on the previous year. The Republic of (South) Korea purchased 127,000 tonnes. Table 16.36 shows the number, gross weight, gross value and unit value of live sheep and cattle exported for slaughter. The number of live sheep exported for slaughter in 2008-09 numbered 4.1 million head - on par with the previous year - while the gross value of these exported sheep increased 18% to $339m. The number of live cattle exported for slaughter in 2008-09 increased 20% to 857,700 head, the highest level since 2002-03. Australia is the world's largest wool producer, accounting for about a quarter of total production. In the last twenty years wool production has more than halved, to around 459,000 tonnes in 2007-08. Almost all of Australia's wool is exported, the major markets being China, Italy and India. Graph 16.37 shows total wool production for the years 1908 to 1973 and then shorn wool from 1974 onwards. 16.37 Wool Production(a) - 1908 to 2008 Shorn greasy wool contains an appreciable amount of grease, dirt, vegetable matter and other material. The exact quantities of these impurities in the fleece vary with climatic and pastoral conditions, seasonal fluctuations and the breed and condition of the sheep. It is, however, the clean wool fibre that is ultimately consumed by the textile industry, and the term 'clean yield' is used to express the net wool fibre content present in greasy wool. The gross value of wool produced in 2007-08 increased 1% on the previous year to $2.3b (table 16.38), approaching a third of the $5.9b recorded in 1988-89, the peak year in the wool boom of the 1980's. The total amounts of taxable wool received by brokers and purchased by dealers in recent years are shown in table 16.39. They exclude wool received by brokers on which tax had already been paid by other dealers (private buyers) or brokers. This page last updated 21 January 2013 Unless otherwise noted, content on this website is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 Australia Licence together with any terms, conditions and exclusions as set out in the website Copyright notice. For permission to do anything beyond the scope of this licence and copyright terms contact us.

Australian Bureau of Statistics 1301.0 - Year Book Australia, 2009–10 Previous ISSUE Released at 11:30 AM (CANBERRA TIME) 04/06/2010 |Page tools: Print Page RSS Search this Product| In Australia, cereals are divided into autumn-winter-spring growing (winter cereals) and spring-summer-autumn growing (summer cereals). In temperate regions winter cereals such as wheat, oats, barley and rye are often

Discover the cosmos! Each day a different image or photograph of our fascinating universe is featured, along with a brief explanation written by a professional astronomer. 2004 March 12 Explanation: Above, the ringed planet Saturn shines in x-rays. Otherwise beyond the range of human vision, the eerie x-ray view was created by overlaying a computer generated outline of the gas giant's disk and ring system on a false-color picture of smoothed, reconstructed x-ray data from the orbiting Chandra Observatory. The data represent the first clear detection of Saturn's disk at x-ray energies and held some surprises for researchers. For starters, the x-rays seem concentrated near the planet's equator rather than the poles, in marked contrast to observations of Jupiter, the only other gas giant seen at such high energies. And while Saturn's high energy emission is found to be consistent with the reflection of x-rays from the Sun, the intensity of the reflected x-rays was also found to be unusually strong. Outside the planet's disk, only a faint suggestion of x-rays from Saturn's magnificent ring system is visible at the left. Authors & editors: NASA Web Site Statements, Warnings, and Disclaimers NASA Official: Jay Norris. Specific rights apply. A service of: LHEA at NASA / GSFC & Michigan Tech. U.

Discover the cosmos! Each day a different image or photograph of our fascinating universe is featured, along with a brief explanation written by a professional astronomer. 2004 March 12 Explanation: Above, the ringed planet Saturn shines in x-rays. Otherwise beyond the range of human vision, the eerie x-ray view was created by overlaying a computer generated outline of the gas giant's disk and rin