BEE-spoke-data/govdocs1-by-extension huggingface dataset:
# Susan G. King, M.S.

Nassau County Department of Health

Mineola, NY, 11501

## Biography

Susan G. King currently serves as Director of Environmental Health for
the County of Nassau, New York. She directs a staff of 135 environmental
health professionals who serve a suburban population on Long Island of
nearly 1.4 million people adjacent to New York City with a budget of
over eight million dollars. Sue has been with the Nassau County Health
Department since 1976, starting in the Marine Ecology Lab, supervising
in the Bureau of Land Resources Management and then assuming the
position of Assistant to the Director of Environmental Health and Deputy
Director prior to her current assignment.

Sue has been a member of the National Environmental Health Association
and is Vice Chair of the New York State Conference of Environmental
Health Directors. Besides her duties in environmental health, Sue serves
on the Executive Committee for Geographic Information Systems in the
County and is actively involved in the day-to-day planning of Emergency
Response.

Sue holds Bachelor's and Master's degrees in Earth Sciences from Adelphi
University. She lives in Wantagh, NY where she has been an active
participant in a number of community affairs.

## Leadership Development Opportunities

Besides the obvious benefit of being able to share the work of my
agency, EPHLI has enabled me to come in close contact with other
environmental health professionals whose efforts to overcome real world
problems and challenges have become an inspiration to me. I believe I am
learning far more from EPHLI than I am contributing to it, and in doing
so I am firming up the foundation upon which I have built my career. In
working on my project, I have learned to extend my reach by partnering
with local key stakeholders to protect public health. Systems thinking
has put into context the processes used to define and resolve a conflict
and has clarified for me the need to be more open minded, look for the
long term solution and create paths to success (Don't say "No!", ask
"How?"). I have become acutely aware of the different roles played by
leaders and managers and encourage my subordinate staff to share and
develop new ideas. EPHLI has helped me to realize that while we are all
faced with similar obstacles, such as budget and personnel constraints,
bureaucratic red tape and political decision making, we all manage to
find creative and effective ways to deal with them. It is heartening to
know that we are truly "all in this together!"
**Elementary, Secondary, and Adult Education**

**§18.431 Application.**

Sections 18.431 through 18.439 apply to elementary, secondary, and adult
education programs or activities that receive Federal financial
assistance from the Department of Veterans Affairs and to recipients
that operate or receive Federal financial assistance for the operation
of such programs or activities.

\[45 FR 63268, Sept. 24, 1980, as amended at 68 FR 51370, Aug. 26,
2003\]

**Supplement *Highlights* reference**: 58(1)

**§18.432 Location and notification.**

A recipient that operates a public elementary or secondary educational
program shall annually:

\(a\) Undertake to identify and locate every qualified handicapped
person residing in the recipient's jurisdiction who is not receiving a
public education; and

\(b\) Take appropriate steps to notify handicapped persons their parents
or guardians of the recipients's duty under §§18.431 through 18.439.
**DA 04-741**

**Released: March 19, 2004**

**TELECOMMUNICATIONS RELAY SERVICES (TRS) VOLUNTARY REPORTING
REQUIREMENTS APPROVED BY THE OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET**

**CC Docket No. 98-67**

On February 20, 2004, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approved
for three years the information collection requirements contained in the
*Telecommunications Relay Services and Speech-to-Speech Services for
Individuals with Hearing and Speech Disabilities,* Declaratory Ruling,
CC Docket No. 98-67, FCC 03-190, 18 FCC Rcd 16121 (rel. August 1, 2003)
(*Declaratory Ruling)*. *See* OMB No. 3060-1053. These information
collection requirements relate to voluntary reporting requirements
concerning the TRS mandatory minimum standards, which apply to the
providers of TRS. *See* 47 C.F.R. sections 64.604 (a)(1) and (a)(3)
(reporting required if waiver sought of various requirements). As stated
in the *Declaratory Ruling*, the effective date of these newly approved
TRS rules is the date notice of the OMB approval is published in the
Federal Register.

For further information, contact Dana Jackson or Cheryl King of the
Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-2517 (voice), (202)
418-7898 (TTY).

**FCC NOTICE REQUIRED BY THE PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT**

As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507), the
FCC is notifying the public that it received approval from OMB on
February 20, 2004 for the collection(s) of information contained in the
Commission's voluntary reporting requirements in 47 C.F.R. sections
64.604(a)(1) and (a)(3). The OMB Control Number is 3060-1053. The annual
reporting burden for the collection(s) of information, including the
time for gathering and maintaining the collection of information, is
estimated to be: 1 respondent, an average of 8 hours per response per
annum, for a total hour burden of 8 hours, and no annual cost. If you
have any comments on these burden estimates, or how we can improve the
collection(s) and reduce the burden(s) they cause you, please write to
Les Smith, Federal Communications Commission, Room 1-A804, 445 12^th^
Street, SW, Washington, DC 20554. Please include the OMB Control Number,
3060-1053, in your correspondence. We will also accept your comments
regarding the Paperwork Reduction Act aspects of the collections via the
Internet, if you send them to <Leslie.Smith@fcc.gov> or call (202)
418-0217.

Under 5 C.F.R. section 1320, an agency may not conduct or sponsor a
collection of information unless it displays a current valid OMB Control
Number. No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply
with a collection of information subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act
(PRA) that does not display a valid OMB Control Number. The OMB Control
Number is 3060-1053.

**THE FOREGOING NOTICE IS REQUIRED BY THE PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT OF
1995, PUBLIC LAW 104-13, OCTOBER 1, 1995, 44 U.S.C. SECTION 3507.**

To request materials in accessible formats for people with disabilities
(Braille, large print, electronic files, audio format), send an e-mail
to <fcc504@fcc.gov> or call the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau
at (202) 418-0531 (voice), (202) 418-7365 (TTY).

**- FCC -**
**PATTERSON**

A. Lumpkin, G. Decker, E. Kahana, D. Patterson, W. Sellyey, X. Wang, Y.
Chung, \"Charged-Particle Beam Diagnostics for the Advanced Photon
Source (APS),\" 14th International Free Electron Laser Conference, 1993,
Kobe, Japan, Aug. 23-28, 1992, pp. 797-802, Nuclear Inst. And Methods in
Physics Research A331

A. Lumpkin, G. Decker, E. Kahana, D. Patterson, W. Sellyey, A. Votaw, X.
Wang, Y. Chung, \"Overview of Charged-Particle Beam Diagnostics for the
Advanced Photon Source (APS),\" 1992 Accelerator Beam Instrumentation
Workshop, Berkeley, CA, Oct. 27-30, 1992,AIP #281, pp. 150-157 (1993).

D. Patterson, \"Preliminary Design of the Beam Loss Monitor System for
the Advanced Photon Source,\" 1992 Accelerator Instrumentation Workshop,
Berkeley, CA, Oct. 27-30, 1992,AIP Conf. Proc. #281, pp. 194 203 (1993)

A. Lumpkin, Y. Chung, E. Kahana, D. Patterson, W. Sellyey, A. Votaw, X.
Wang, \"Results of Prototype Particle-Beam Diagnostics Tests for the
Advanced Photon Source,\" 1993 Particle Accelerator Conference,
Washington, D.C., May 17-20, 1993, Vol. 3, pp. 2112-2114 (1994).

A. Lumpkin, D. Ciarlette, E. Kahana, D. Patterson, W. Sellyey, X. Wang,
\"Diagnostics for the APS Undulator Test Line,\" 1994 Accelerator
Instrumentation Workshop, Santa Fe, New Mexico, Oct. 20-23,1993, pp.
211-219 (1994)

A. Lumpkin, X. Wang, W. Sellyey, D. Patterson, E. Kahana, \"Summary Test
Results of the Particle-Beam Diagnostics for the APS Subsystems,\" 1994
European Particle Accelerator Conference, London, UK, June 27 -- July 1,
1994, Vol. 2., pp.1509-1511 (1994).

D. Patterson, \"Design and Performance of the Beam Loss Monitor System
for the Advanced Photon Source,\" Beam Instrumentation Workshop,
Vancouver, Canada, pp. 300-306 (1995).

A. Lumpkin, Y. Chung, E. Kahana, D. Patterson, W. Sellyey, T. Smith, X.
Wang, \"Initial Diagnostics Commissioning Results for the APS Injector
Subsystems,\" 1994 Beam Instrumentation Workshop, Vancouver, Canada,
pp.181-187 (1995).

A. Lumpkin, D. Patterson, X. Wang, E. Kahana, W. Sellyey, A. Votaw, B.
Yang, R. Fuja, W. Berg, M. Borland, L. Emery, G. Decker, S. Milton,
\"Initial Diagnostics Commissioning Results for the Advanced Photon
Source (APS),\" 1995 Particle Accelerator Conference, Dallas, Texas, May
1-5-1995, Vol. 4, p. 2473 (1996).

D. Patterson, \"Initial Commissioning Results from the APS Loss Monitor
System,\" Beam Instrumentation Workshop \`96, May 6 -- Sept. 1996
**[(?)]{.underline}** Argonne, IL, Mar. 1997, pp. 6460-467
**Claims and Applications**

**§21.5730 Applications, claims and time limits.**

The provisions of subpart B of this part apply with respect to claims
for educational assistance under the educational program described in
§21.5701, VA actions upon receiving a claim, and time limits connected
with claims. (Authority: 10 U.S.C. 2141, 2149; 38 U.S.C. 5101, 5102,
5103)

\[51 FR 27026, July 29, 1986, as amended at 64 FR 23772, May 4, 1999\]

**Supplement *Highlights* reference**: 42(1)

*Next Section is §21.5740*
**\[DOE LETTERHEAD\]**

May 7, 2007

The Honorable A. J. Eggenberger

Chairman

Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board

625 Indiana Avenue, NW, Suite 700

Washington, DC 20004-2901

Dear Mr. Chairman:

On June 26, 2006, you requested the Department of Energy (DOE) review
DOE Standard (STD) 1027, Change Notice 1, *Hazard Categorization and
Accident Analysis Techniques for Compliance with DOE Order 5480.23,
Nuclear Safety Analysis Report*, to ensure defense nuclear facilities
are applying the standard consistently and correctly.

In a letter dated October 25, 2006, we forwarded you a list of potential
areas for improvement in DOE-STD-1027 that included those identified in
your June 26 letter and others identified by the Chief of Defense
Nuclear Safety and the Chief of Nuclear Safety, and committed to
establish a working group to evaluate them. Furthermore, we committed to
establish a path forward to: (1) revise DOE-STD-1027, as appropriate,
(2) identify any defense nuclear facilities affected by problems
implementing DOE-STD-

1027, and (3) ensure the standard is correctly implemented to prevent
problems in the future.

The DOE-STD-1027 working group has completed its evaluation and has
recommended several improvements in DOE-STD-1027. These improvements are
summarized in Enclosure 1. Most of the recommended changes are
consistent with the intent and fundamental elements of DOE-STD-1027 but
provide amplifying guidance. For these changes, the Office of Health,
Safety and Security has developed supplemental guidance for DOE-STD-1027
for use in supporting consistent implementation of DOE-STD-1027
throughout DOE (Enclosure 2). This guidance can also be utilized by DOE
elements to evaluate whether any current facilities hazard
categorizations may need to be revised to ensure that the areas of
DOE-STD-1027, which may have been misinterpreted (Enclosure 3), did not
result in inappropriate hazards categorizations.

We also plan on revising DOE-STD-1027 to incorporate the supplemental
guidance and the other improvements, which impact the intent or
fundamental elements of the standard.

However, this will be an extended effort; and we therefore believe the
issuance of the supplemental guidance is warranted at this time.

If you have further questions on our efforts on this issue, please
contact me at (301) 903-3777 or have your staff contact Dr. James
O'Brien at (301) 903-1408.

Sincerely,

***Glenn S. Podonsky***

***Chief Health, Safety and Security Officer***

***Office of Health, Safety and Security***

[Enclosures](../tb07y07a.pdf)
**Students at Denver Schools Take a Break from CSAP Tests to Read Dr.
Seuss, Receive 1754 Donated Books**

In an effort to improve literacy in Colorado\'s schools, employees of
the U.S. Department of Energy\'s (DOE) Golden Field Office, Denver
Regional Office, and National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) today
delivered a total of 1754 books to two Denver Public Schools: Columbine
Elementary and Lake Middle School.

The donations were the result of a voluntary drive among DOE and NREL
employees during February to collect new and used books for local
schools in need. The effort coincides with DOE\'s nationwide initiative
of conducting book drives to benefit local schools.

\"We\'ve conducted the book drive for the past three years and this has
been the most successful year yet,\" said Frank Stewart, manager of
DOE\'s Golden Field Office. \"Having greater access to books at school
and home will help encourage kids to read and become better readers.
Today\'s students will be the scientists and engineers we will need to
keep our nation strong, and the first step must be to teach them to
enjoy reading.\"

Following the presentation of 880 books to Columbine, students took a
break from the Colorado Student Assessment Program (CSAP) tests to
participate in \"Read Across America\" Day and Dr. Seuss birthday
activities, including reading Dr. Seuss books with staff from DOE and
NREL. Read Across America is a nationwide campaign held every year on
March 2 to emphasize the importance of community involvement in helping
motivate children to read.

Columbine and Lake plan to use the books for their library and in
classrooms and to give to students who don\'t have access to books at
home.

For more information contact:

Sarah Manion, 303-275-4709
September 2, 2008

Exemption No. 7897C

##  Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2002-12728

Mr. Douglas Carr

Vice President, Safety, Security and Regulation

National Business Aviation Association, Inc.

1200 Eighteenth Street NW., Suite 400

Washington, DC 20036-2527

Dear Mr. Carr:

This letter is to inform you that we have granted your petition to
extend Exemption No. 7897, as amended. It explains the basis for our
decision and describes its effect.

# The Basis for Our Decision

By letter dated July 14, 2008, you petitioned the Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA) on behalf of National Business Aviation
Association, Inc. (NBAA), for an extension of Exemption No. 7897, as
amended. That exemption from §§ 91.409(e) and 91.501(a) of Title 14,
Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) permits NBAA members to operate
small civil airplanes and helicopters of U.S. registry under the
operating rules of §§ 91.503 through 91.535 and to select an inspection
program as described in § 91.409(f), subject to certain conditions and
limitations.

In your petition, you indicate that there has been no change in the
conditions and reasons relative to public interest and safety that were
the basis for granting the original exemption.

The FAA has determined that good cause exists for not publishing a
summary of the petition in the [Federal Register]{.underline} because
the requested extension of the exemption would not set a precedent, and
any delay in acting on this petition would be detrimental to NBAA.

# Our Decision

The FAA has determined that the justification for the issuance of
Exemption No. 7897, as amended, remains valid with respect to this
exemption and is in the public interest. Therefore, under the authority
provided by 49 U.S.C. 40113 and 44701, which the FAA Administrator has
delegated to me, I grant your petition.

# The Effect of Our Decision

Our decision extends the termination date of Exemption No. 7897, as
amended, to

September 30, 2010, unless sooner superseded or rescinded.

All conditions and limitations of Exemption No. 7897, as amended, remain
the same. This letter must be attached to, and is a part of, Exemption
No. 7897.

Sincerely,

/s/

John M. Allen

Acting Director, Flight Standards Service
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: NEWS MEDIA CONTACT:

June 13, 2002 David Fiske at 202-418-0513

Mike Balmoris at 202-418-0253

**STATEMENT OF MICHAEL POWELL, CHAIRMAN OF THE FCC, REGARDING DENIAL OF
AT&T WAIVER REQUEST CONCERNING UNIVERSAL SERVICE REFORM**

Washington, DC -- I support the Wireline Competition Bureau's decision
to deny AT&T's request to alter how it contributes to the universal
service fund. The waiver request -- if granted -- would increase the
universal service line item on phone bills for all customers of AT&T's
competitors. To support this petition would be to shelter one particular
carrier's customers from the evenhanded application of our rules at the
expense of customers of other carriers. Complex problems require long
term reform, not short term fixes.

The Commission's effort to reform how we collect money for the universal
service fund in the long term is already underway. I look forward to
working with my state commission colleagues and interested parties to
ensure that our assessment methodology continues to be equitable,
nondiscriminatory, and predictable and that it is sufficient to preserve
and advance universal service in a period of dynamic and fundamental
changes in the telecommunications markets.
**F. EXAMPLE PROJECTS WHICH BEST ILLUSTRATE PROPOSED TEAM\'S**

**QUALIFICATIONS FOR THIS CONTRACT**

*(Present as many projects as requested by the agency, or 10 projects,
if not specified.*

*Complete one Section F for each project.)*

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

A.  EXAMPLE PROJECT KEY NUMBER:

B.  TITLE AND LOCATION (*City and State):*

C.  YEAR COMPLETED - PROFESSIONAL SERVICES:

D.  YEAR COMPLETED - CONSTRUCTION *(If applicable):*

23a. PROJECT OWNER\'S INFORMATION - PROJECT OWNER:

23b. PROJECT OWNER\'S INFORMATION - POINT OF CONTACT NAME:

23c. PROJECT OWNER\'S INFORMATION - POINT OF CONTACT TELEPHONE NUMBER:

24. BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT AND RELEVANCE TO THIS CONTRACT
    *(Include scope, size, and cost):*

25. FIRMS FROM SECTION INVOLVED WITH THIS PROJECT

  ----------------------- ----------------------- -----------------------
  \(1\) FIRM NAME         \(2\) FIRM LOCATION     \(3\) ROLE
                          *(City and State)*      

                                                  

                                                  

                                                  

                                                  

                                                  

                                                  
  ----------------------- ----------------------- -----------------------
## Security Equipment Knowledge

+-------------------------------------------+--------------------------+
| Competency Definition                     | Position Associated      |
+-------------------------------------------+--------------------------+
| Knowledge in operation of security        | -   AFSD for Screening   |
| equipment (e.g., passenger X-ray          |                          |
| technology, baggage X-ray technology,     | -   DFSD                 |
| Explosive Trace Detection, passenger      |                          |
| screening wands, magnetometer / walk      | -   FSD                  |
| through metal detector, two-way radios).  |                          |
|                                           | -   LTSO                 |
|                                           |                          |
|                                           | -   Scheduling           |
|                                           |     Operations Officer   |
|                                           |                          |
|                                           | -   Security Manager     |
|                                           |                          |
|                                           | -   STSO                 |
|                                           |                          |
|                                           | -   Training             |
|                                           |                          |
|                                           |   Coordinator/Specialist |
|                                           |                          |
|                                           | -   TSO                  |
+-------------------------------------------+--------------------------+
| OLC Component Titles                      |                          |
+-------------------------------------------+--------------------------+
| The OLC Catalog does not currently have   |                          |
| additional component titles to supplement |                          |
| basic TSO training on this competency.    |                          |
+-------------------------------------------+--------------------------+
+--------------------------+-------------------------------------------+
| > **\"Richard Hornung\"  |                                           |
| > \<Richa                |                                           |
| rd.Hornung@cchmc.org\>** |                                           |
| >                        |                                           |
| > 02/11/2008 10:00 AM    |                                           |
+--------------------------+-------------------------------------------+

> To
>
> DIETRIKN@UCMAIL.UC.EDU, Jee-Young Kim/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA
>
> cc
>
> Karen Martin/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Deirdre Murphy/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA,
> Zachary Pekar/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Mary Ross/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, David
> Svendsgaard/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA
>
> Subject
>
> Re: Request for additional information on Lanphear et al. (2005)

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------

> Young
>
> I am including the statistics that you requested for concurrent blood
> Pb. They are as follows:
>
> [N mean 5% 50% 95%]{.underline}
>
> \<7.5 103 3.24 1.30 3.00 6.00
>
> \>=7.5 1230 12.92 3.50 10.05 34.00
>
> \<10 244 4.30 1.40 4.15 8.00
>
> \>=10 1089 13.93 4.30 11.03 35.40
>
> Let me know if this satisfies your needs.
>
> Rick
>
> Professor of Environmental Health
>
> Director, Biostatistics & Data Management Core
>
> Div. of Gen. & Community Pediatrics
>
> CCHMC
>
> 3333 Burnet Ave
>
> Mail Location 7035
>
> Cincinnati OH 45229-3039
>
> 513-636-1948
>
> Fax: 513-636-4402
>
> \>\>\> \<Kim.Jee-Young@epamail.epa.gov\> 2/7/2008 4:49:49 PM \>\>\>
>
> Dear Drs. Dietrich and Hornung,
>
> As a follow-up to my conversation with Dr. Dietrich, here is the
> e-mail
>
> specifying the additional information we would like to request from
>
> Lanphear et al. (2005). The paper states that the concurrent median
>
> blood lead concentration for the study population was 9.7 ug/dL
>
> (5th-95th: 2.5-33.2). Would you please provide us with the concurrent
>
> median (5th-95th percentile range) blood lead concentrations for the
>
> subsets \<10 ug/dL and \<7.5 ug/dL as well?
>
> As you are aware, the Pb NAAQS review is on a very tight court-ordered
>
> deadline. We would greatly appreciate your prompt response.
>
> Many thanks,
>
> Young
>
> Jee Young Kim, Sc.D.
>
> U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
>
> National Center for Environmental Assessment
>
> Telephone: 919-541-4157
>
> E-mail: kim.jee-young@epa.gov
**Market No. Market No. Market No.**

**Pennsylvania:**

**Allentown 4 Altoona 95 Bethlehem 4**

**Clearfield 95 Erie 141 Greensburg 20**

**Harrisburg 46 Hazleton 51 Johnstown 95**

**Lancaster 46 Lebanon 46 Philadelphia 4**

**Pittsburgh 20 Reading 4 Scranton 51**

**State College 95 Wilkes-Barre 51 Williamsport 51**

**York 46**

**Rhode Island:**

**Block Island 50 Providence 50**

**South Carolina:**

**Aiken 115 Allendale 115 Anderson 35**

**Beaufort 100 Charleston 104 Columbia 86**

**Conway 116 Florence 116 Georgetown 104**

**Greenville 35 Greenwood 35 Myrtle Beach 116**

**Rock Hill 28 Spartanburg 35 Sumter 86**

**South Dakota:**

**Aberdeen 114 Brookings 114 Eagle Butte 152**

**Huron 114 Lead 175 Lowry 152**

**Martin 175 Mitchell 114 Pierre 114**

**Rapid City 175 Reliance 114 Sioux Falls 114**

**Vermillion 114 Watertown 114**

**Tennessee:**

**Chattanooga 84 Cleveland 84 Cookeville 30**

**Crossville 63 Greeneville 92 Hendersonville 30**

**Jackson 184 Jellico 63 Johnson City 92**

**Kingsport 92 Knoxville 63 Lebanon 30**

**Lexington 184 Memphis 40 Murfreesboro 30**

**Nashville 30 Sneedville 63 Tazewell 63**

**Tullahoma 33**

**Texas:**

**Abilene 163 Alvin 11 Amarillo 126**

**Arlington 7 Austin 61 Baytown 11**

**Beaumont 137 Big Spring 150 Blanco 37**

**Brownsville 102 Bryan 94 College Station 94**

**Conroe 11 Corpus Christi 128 Crockett 108**

**Dallas 7 Decatur 7 Del Rio 37**

**Denton 7 Eagle Pass 38 El Paso 96**

**Farwell 126 Fort Worth 7 Fredericksburg 37**

**Galveston 11 Garland 7 Harlingen 108**

**Houston 11 Irving 7 Jacksonville 107**

**Katy 11 Kerrville 37 Killeen 94**

**Lake Dallas 7 Llano 61 Laredo 191**

**Longview 75 Lubbock 146**
**Session V -- Effective Pest (Pathogen, Insect, Weeds) Management --
Poster V-5**

***Fusarium langsethiae* Infection and Mycotoxin Contents of Oats**

Päivi Parikka^\*1^, Veli Hietaniemi^2^, Sari Rämö^2^ and Heikki Jalli^1^

MTT Agrifood Research Finland, ^1^ Plant Production Research and ^2^MTT
Agrifood Research Finland, Laboratories

FI-31600 Jokioinen, Finland

\*Corresponding Author: phone 358 3 4188 2552, e-mail:
paivi.parikka@mtt.fi

# Abstract 

*Fusarium langsethiae* was first detected in Finland in 2001. In a
survey of *Fusarium* species and mycotoxins in Finnish cereals the
species was detected most often in oat grain samples. It was present in
all the cereal producing regions, but its prevalence varied depending on
the weather conditions.

In the field trial in 2004-2006 comparing cultivation practices *F.
langsethiae* was the earliest *Fusarium* species detected on oat
panicles. The species was first isolated at panicle emergence and it was
the most common *Fusarium* species on oats during the early development
of kernels. The prevalence of *F. langsethiae* decreased towards grain
ripening, and contamination detected in grain was usually low. In the
dry conditions of 2006, however, *F. langsethiae* was fairly abundant in
harvested, dried grain. It was present both on oats grown in
traditionally tilled and direct drilled areas.

As a whole, more infection was seen in late cultivars than in early
ones. The prevalence of *F. langsethiae* varied: in 2004 it occurred
slightly more commonly in tilled than in direct drilled areas, but in
the dry conditions of 2006 direct drilling seemed to produce more
infected kernels and grain than tillage. The oat cultivars 'Roope',
'Freja', 'Veli' and 'Belinda' were nearly equally infected by *F.
langsethiae* during grain development. However, 'Belinda' exhibited the
highest contamination during early development in 2004 and through the
whole grain development in 2006. Both late cultivars, 'Belinda' and
'Freja', were more infected in 2005 than 'Veli' and 'Roope'. The T2/HT-2
contents of 'Belinda' were also slightly higher than those of other
cultivars.

*F. langsethiae* seems to be a more important producer of T2 and HT-2
toxins on oats in Finland than *F. sporotrichioides*. The content of
these mycotoxins analysed in oats was 950 μg/kg, which exceeds the
maximum content proposed by the European Commission (500 μg/kg). In the
survey of *Fusarium* species and mycotoxins, even higher T2+HT-2
concents were detected. In 2006, the T2+HT-2 contents were higher in
direct drilled than in tilled plots. Direct drilling seems to favour *F.
langsethiae* infection of oats and may be a risk for the quality of oat
grain, especially if oats is produced without good crop rotation. The
highest toxin contents can be detected in small grain and cleaning the
grain can reduce mycotoxin contents to an acceptable level.
Stations, we have Carl Cook. (C O O K) Mr. Cook is the Mitigation
Director for FEMA Region X. Mr. Cook has three tracks for us today in
which he celebrates the new NFIP CRS rating for Tillamook County.

In track one, Mr. Cook briefly explains the benefits of the Community
Rating System. The track runs 31 seconds; the outcue is, "... in that
community."

COOK:

FEMA is presenting Tillamook County with a plaque during a celebration
next week to celebrate their becoming a Class 6 in the Community Rating
System. The Community Rating System is a program within the National
Flood Insurance Program that rewards communities who take actions above
and beyond the minimum required to participate in the program. And what
they get in return for that is a reduction in premium for all the people
who have flood insurance policies in that community.

In track two, Mr. Cook gives a brief tells Tillamook's flood history and
what they have done to change that. The track runs 59 seconds; the
outcue is, "... this CRS ceremony."

COOK:

Tillamook County is the most flood-prone community in the state of
Oregon. They're legendary; if ever there's a flood in the state, it
always happens in Tillamook County. And, because of that, there are
around 1100 flood insurance policies in Tillamook County. With Tillamook
County taking these advanced measures, buying up flood-prone structures,
elevating flood-prone structures, passing development standards that are
tougher than the minimum required for the flood insurance program,
they've been rewarded by a reduction of 20% on everybody's flood
insurance policy. That means that every year Tillamook County saves
\$92,000 for the people who have flood insurance in the county. We think
that the county deserves a lot of credit for taking these measures,
they've been at it for a while, we're pleased that we can recognize the
county with this CRS ceremony.

In track three, the final track, Mr. Cook explains the rating system and
how Tillamook County got it's rating. The track runs 55 seconds; the
outcue is, "... before flood season."

COOK:

When they first come in to the CRS program, they're Class 9. Each step
in the rating system provides another 5% in premium reduction. So a
Class 6 equates to 20% reduction in flood insurance premiums. A Class 1
would be the best; there are no Class 1s in the country. The Class 6
makes Tillamook County the best rating that has been achieved by any of
Oregon's 36 counties. They have passed building standards that exceed
the minimum. For instance, the minimum standard requires that properties
be elevated so that their floors are at the flood level or higher and
Tillamook County requires one foot above that for all their structures.
They have undertaken some very aggressive annual flood insurance
purchase initiatives to get the word out before flood season.
![](media/image1.png){width="2.1243055555555554in"
height="2.102777777777778in"}

### Office of Congressman Jeff Flake

***News Release***

**FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:** Wednesday, June 8, 2005

**CONTACT :** Matthew Specht (202) 225-2635

# **Congressman Flake Spotlights Egregious Earmark of the Week**

## *\$50,000 for Workforce Development at Fashion Business, Inc. in Los Angeles, California*

**Washington, D.C.** - Arizona Congressman Jeff Flake, who represents
the state's Sixth District, today highlighted another pork project
contained in the massive omnibus spending bill that Congress passed for
fiscal year 2005.

This week's egregious earmark: \$50,000 for workforce development at
Fashion Business, Inc. in Los Angeles, California.

**"Earmarks like this make me wonder when it went out of fashion for us
Republicans to be fiscally responsible,"** said Flake.

\###
**DA 05-1672**

**June 16, 2005**

**MEDIA BUREAU ANNOUNCES EFFECTIVE DATE OF**

**DIGITAL STATION IDENTIFICATION REQUIREMENT**

**(MB Docket 03-15)**

In the *Second DTV Periodic Review Report and Order*, released September
7, 2004 (19 FCC Rcd. 18,279) ("*Order*"), the Commission amended 47
C.F.R. 73.1201(b)(1) and (c)(1) to address station identification in the
digital context. These regulations require digital television stations
to follow the same rules for station identification as analog television
stations. Thus, identification of digital stations must include the
station's call letters followed by the community or communities
specified in the station's license as the station's location. Stations
may insert the station's frequency, channel number, name of the
licensee, and/or the name of the network between the call letters and
the community of license. Stations that choose to multicast may include
additional information in their announcements identifying each program
stream.

In addition, the Commission indicated that the changes to rule section
47 C.F.R. § 73.1201 required approval by the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) before they become effective.

This Public Notice announces that the Commission has received the
required approval from OMB. Therefore, as announced in the Federal
Register on May 25, 2005 (70 Fed. Reg. 29985), station identification
requirements for digital television stations in 47 CFR § 73.1201(b)(1)
and (c)(1) are effective July 1, 2005.

*Accessibility Information*. To request information in accessible
formats (computer diskettes, large print, audio recording, and Braille),
send an e-mail to fcc504@fcc.gov or call the FCC\'s Consumer and
Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-0530 (voice), (202) 418-0432
(TTY). This document can also be downloaded in Word and Portable
Document Format (PDF) at: [http://www.fcc.gov](http://www.fcc.gov/).

For further information, contact Kim Matthews of the Policy Division,
Media Bureau, at 202-418-2120 or via email at <Kim.Matthews@fcc.gov> or
Nazifa Sawez of the Video Division, Media Bureau, at 202-418-1600 or via
email at Nazifa.Sawez@fcc.gov.
> June 13, 2007

**Stop Subsidizing Union Contractors**

**Support the Repeal of the Davis Bacon Act**

Dear Colleague:

In the 109^th^ Congress, I introduced legislation \-- H.R. 4643, the
Davis-Bacon Repeal Act -- abolishing the Davis-Bacon Act (which requires
that the locally prevailing wage rate be paid to various classes of
laborers and mechanics working under federally-financed or
federally-assisted contracts for construction, alteration, and repair of
public buildings or public works).  My bill would also repeal any
reporting requirements associated with Davis-Bacon.

More specifically, the Davis-Bacon Act, a Depression-era wage subsidy
law, requires that each public works contract over \$2,000 contain a
clause that establishes the minimum wages to be paid.  Contractors and
subcontractors are to pay workers a minimum wage based on the local
\"prevailing wage.\"  These wages rarely resemble local market
conditions because they are based on union recommendations.  Davis-Bacon
has overwhelmingly favored large, urban and unionized contractors. 
Small businesses are discouraged from bidding on public projects by the
complex and archaic rules set forth by the act.  The inflated wage
requirements and significant paperwork burdens of Davis-Bacon close
small employers out of the federal construction market. In addition, the
costs of public construction projects are inflated.

For some time, the Education and Workforce Committee has maintained a
watchful eye on the Davis-Bacon Act.  Past investigations by the
Committee have shown that the Davis-Bacon wage setting process is flawed
and that it invites fraud and abuse.

Please be a fighter for an equal-playing-field for non-union businesses
to compete and join me as an original cosponsor of this legislation.  I
invite you to contact Paula Steiner at 5-4426 to sign onto this
important legislation.

                                                            Sincerely,

                                                            Steve King

                                                            Member of
Congress
**Comments on NuMI Kicker Option Review**

**February 1, 2002**

**Robert J. Ducar**

General Comments:

This review centered on NuMI's choice to utilize recovered ceramic beam
tubes for the single turn extraction kicker at location Q602 in the Main
Injector enclosure. The decision to utilize recovered tubes is a good
one given the inability to procure new tubes of the required length. The
decision not to pursue shorter tubes is well advised given the lack of
readily available space in the Main Injector lattice that would be
required in addition to required new design effort. Execution of the
plan will yield two or three spare long ceramic tubes -- a more than
adequate level of comfort.

Discussion of the PEEK and Pyrex alternatives to ceramic was interesting
but not really pertinent to the decision at hand. Additional R&D effort
is necessary here to make the best choice. Use of PEEK or Pyrex for the
NuMI kicker appears to be precluded at this time.

Specific Comments:

1\. The only significant point of concern relates to the monel to kovar
weld. While a successful weld has been made and found to be vacuum
tight, the sample weld should be tested for reliability. Separate
discussions with Mike May, now retired, revealed some past experience
that Mike has had with such welds. Mike's corporate memory should be
mined to avail yourselves of his experience.

2\. Once all of the tubes have been recovered, each should be measured
for straightness. Clearly the best tubes should be selected for the NuMI
application.
**DA 07-1097**

**March 13, 2007**

**WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS BUREAU GRANTS 36 VHF PUBLIC COAST AND
LOCATION AND MONITORING SERVICE LICENSES**

**Auction Event No. 39**

**Report No. AUC-39 (Auction No. 39)**

On June 13, 2001, the Federal Communications Commission completed the
auction of sixteen VHF Public Coast ("Public Coast") and 201 Location
and Monitoring Service ("LMS") licenses in the VHF Public Coast and
Location and Monitoring Service Spectrum Auction.[^1] After a
preliminary review of the FCC long-form applications (FCC Form 601),
applications for 201 licenses were accepted for filing.[^2] On January
26, 2007, the Bureau announced it was prepared to grant the Telesaurus
Holdings GB, LLC ("Telesaurus") applications upon full and timely
payment.[^3] Upon further review, we find that the applications filed by
Telesaurus, listed in Attachment A to this Public Notice, are complete
and conform to the Commission's rules. Furthermore, the Commission has
received full payment, as required by Section 1.2109(a) of its
rules,[^4] for the licenses listed in Attachment A.

Accordingly, by this Public Notice, we announce the grant of the
licenses listed in Attachment A. We grant these licenses pursuant to
Section 309(a) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. § 309(a), and
section 0.331 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 0.331, because it
will serve the public interest, convenience, and necessity.

> This Public Notice includes the following Attachments:

Attachment A: Applications and Licenses the Wireless Telecommunications
Bureau Is Granting.

Attachment B: Instructions for Searching for the Applications Listed in
Attachment A Using ULS.

Attachment C: Instructions for Searching for Granted Licenses Listed in
Attachment A Using ULS.

Attachment D: Instructions for Accessing the FCC Network Using Windows
95/98/2000/XP.

Please contact Erin McGrath, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau,
Mobility Division, at (202) 418-2042, for questions regarding legal
matters and licensing issues.

[^1]: *See* VHF Public Coast and Location and Monitoring Service
    Spectrum Auction Closes: Winning Bidders Announced, *Public Notice*,
    DA 01-1443 (rel. June 15, 2001).

[^2]: *See* VHF Public Coast and Location and Monitoring Service
    Spectrum Auction: Applications Accepted for Filing, *Public Notice*,
    DA 01-1884 (rel. Aug. 8, 2001); The Wireless Telecommunications
    Bureau Announces That Applications for the VHF Public Coast Service
    Licenses Are Accepted for Filing, *Public Notice*, DA 01-1871 (rel.
    Aug. 6, 2001).

[^3]: *See* Wireless Telecommunications Bureau Announces It Is Prepared
    to Grant 36 VHF Public Coast and Location and Monitoring Service
    Licenses Upon Full and Timely Payment, *Public Notice*, DA 07-200
    (rel. Jan. 26, 2007); *see also* Letter from Erin A. McGrath,
    Assistant Chief, Mobility Division, Wireless Telecommunications
    Bureau, Federal Communications Commission, to Warren C. Havens,
    President, Telesaurus Holdings GB, LLC (Feb. 27, 2007).

[^4]: 47 C.F.R. § 1.2109(a).
BROOKHAVEN NATIONAL LABORATORY

Energy, Environment, and National Security Directorate

Department of XXXXX

Upton, New York 11973-5000

Operated by

Brookhaven Science Associates

Under Contract No. DE-AC02-98-CH10886

with the

U.S. Department of Energy

P R O P O S A L T I T L E

A Proposal Submitted to

Sponsor

Date

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_
\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

Name, Principal Investigator Name, Chairman

Department of XXXXX Department of XXXXX

Division XXXXX Telephone: (631) 344-XXXX

Telephone: (631) 344-XXXX Fax: (631) 344-XXXX

Fax: (631) 344-XXXX Email: XXXXX@bnl.gov

Email: XXXXX@bnl.gov

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_
\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

Name, Division Head Ralph James

Department of XXXXX Associate Laboratory Director for

Division XXXXX Energy, Environment, and National Security

Telephone: (631) 344-XXXX Telephone: (631) 344-8633

Fax: (631) 344-XXXX Fax: (631) 344-5584

Email: <XXXXX@bnl.gov> Email: rjames@bnl.gov

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_
\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

Antoinette Fridae, Business Operations Mgr. Richard Melucci, Budget
Officer

Energy, Environment, and National Security Brookhaven National
Laboratory

Telephone: (631) 344-2817 Telephone: (631) 344-2911

Fax (631) 344-3021 Fax: (631) 344-3503

Email: <fridae@bnl.gov> Email: melucci@bnl.gov
Poster Presentation 6-42

**Affinity Foam Fractionation for Selective Separation of *Trichoderm*a
Cellulase**

[Qin Zhang]{.underline}, Chi-Ming Lo and Lu-Kwang Ju\*

Department of Chemical Engineering, The University of Akron, Akron, OH
44325-3906

Phone: 330-972-7252 email: lukeju@uakron.edu

Foam fractionation, which involves bubbling air or an inert gas into
liquid solutions, is a simple, low-cost and environmentally friendly
separation/purification process. Surface-active substances partition
onto bubble surfaces and become enriched in the collected foamate. When
applying foam fractionation to cellulase separation, we found that
cellulase is surface-active but not the most hydrophobic in the
fermentation broth. To enhance their selectivity and enrichment, we have
developed a new technology, affinity foam fractionation. Cellulose
hydrolysates and analogs, carboxymethyl celluloses (CMC) with different
molecular weights (MW) and degrees of substitution (DS), are added to
bind the cellulase selectively and form hydrophobic complexes that
readily partition onto bubble surfaces. The effects of cellulase
concentration (FPU), hydrolysate/analog-to-FPU ratio, type of
hydrolysate/analog, and presence of cells are evaluated. The foaming
properties measured included foaming speed, foam stability and dryness,
foamate volume and FPU, and enrichments of FPU and individual cellulase
components. Foamate FPU could be as high as 4 folds of that in the
broth. Among cellulase components, exoglucanase was enriched the most (3
folds), endoglucanase the next (2.3 folds), and -glucosidase the least
(1.4 folds). With CMC, those having low DS and high MW performed better.
More detailed results and correlations will be presented.
## Request for mip eloma Access

Please submit to the eLOMA Coordinator for processing by mail, fax, or
email at:

Federal Emergency Management Agency, Attn: eLOMA Coordinator, 3601
Eisenhower Avenue, Suite 130, Alexandria, VA 22304-6439.

Fax \# 703-960-9125

Email -- <MIPHelp@mapmodteam.com>

**Items in bold print with asterisk (\*) are required**.

**New User** **Modify Current User**

## MAIN Contact Information 

  --------------- ---------- ---------------- ----------- --------------- ------------ -------
  **\*Company                                                                          
  Name:**                                                                              

  **\*Certifier   **\*Last                    **\*First                   **Middle          
  Contact:**      Name:**                     Name:**                     Initial:**   

  **\*Street                                                                           
  Address, City,                                                                       
  State, and Zip                                                                       
  Code:**                                                                              

  **\*E-mail                                                                           
  Address:**                                                                           

  **\* Phone:**                                                                        

  Cell Phone:                                                                          
  --------------- ---------- ---------------- ----------- --------------- ------------ -------

**\*License Information**

+--------------------------+----------------+---------+---------------+
| License Number           | License Type   | State   | Expiration    |
|                          |                |         | Date          |
|                          | (Engineer or   |         |               |
|                          | Surveyor)      |         | (D/M/YYYY)    |
+--------------------------+----------------+---------+---------------+
|                          |                |         |               |
+--------------------------+----------------+---------+---------------+
|                          |                |         |               |
+--------------------------+----------------+---------+---------------+
|                          |                |         |               |
+--------------------------+----------------+---------+---------------+
|                          |                |         |               |
+--------------------------+----------------+---------+---------------+

***The eLOMA Coordinator will review the request and, if approved, the
user will receive an e-mail with setup information.***
1\. I am a retired individual and although I employ someone to prepare
my tax return, I am very aware of the complexity of the return. Putting
the Fair Tax into law would do away with needless hours of work and a
lot of expense.

2\. The current tax code encourages companies and wealthy individuals to
lobby Congress and push for perks that only enhance their businesses. I
am an investor in many Public companies, but believe that if decisions
were made on the basis of what is good for the business, rather than
what can be gained by tricking the system, business would benefit and
therefore consumers would benefit.

3\. As a past owner of a business, I can attest that items like the
Investment Tax Credit certainly stimulate making decisions that may or
may not be good for the business. The depreciation schedule is
arbitrary, and the write-off of an acquired asset should be left up to
the individual business. Individual Savings are surpressed because of
our current tax code. Building a business, and then being required to
sell it to pay inheritance taxes is not healthy for this nation.

4.  The main goal would be to get Government out of the business of
    deciding how private capital should be invested. The private sector
    is much more efficient than any group of politicians in Washington
    could ever be. Taxing Consumption, rather than penalizing saving, is
    a good thing.

William C. Gaston

2582 Red Valley Road, N.W.

Atlanta, GA 30305

March 9, 2005