BEE-spoke-data/govdocs1-by-extension huggingface dataset:
# Presentation: 673696

## GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATIONCENTRALIZED HOUSEHOLD GOODS TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT PROGRAM

***C  H  A  M  P***

## How to Increase Scope of Operations

-  Change in business culture
- 5 year anniversary of approval into the CHAMP program
- CSI score over 105 (International carriers did not have this option until 2002.

## GSA HEARD YOU!January 2002

-   GSA Opened one-time only window for international carriers to increase their scope
- 21 Carriers Applied
- 151 Countries added carriers with new or additional authority
- In excess of 110,000 Service area pairs were added

## GSA FORM 3080Household Goods Carrier Evaluation Report

***Relocating Employee’s Response***
**Quality of packing**
**Delivery of items with damage**
**Courtesy of workers**
**Delivery within timeframe**
**Communication of services**
**Responsive in resolving problems**
**Overall quality of service**

***RTO Response***
**Courteous help for tracing**
**Informed of changes in move**
**Flexibility**
**Overall quality of service**

## CUSTOMER SATISFACTION INDEX“CSI”

**Between 95.00 - 105.00:  Average quality performance**** **
**Above 105.00:  Better than average quality performance**** **
**Below 95.00:  Below average quality performance**

## CSI CALCULATIONS

**Scores for each element are totaled and divided by the number of 3080s received to create an average score for each element**** **

## CSI CALCULATIONS

**Each average score is then taken against an 18 point weight scale, which results in weighted averages for each element**
**Employee responses 1-6 have a weighted average of  1**
**Employee response number 7, “Overall Satisfaction” has a weighted average of 8**
**RTO responses 1-3 have a weighted average of .5****RTO response number 4, “Overall Satisfaction” has a weighted average of 2.5**

## CSI CALCULATIONS

## CSI CALCULATIONS

**A program average is created by completing the same process for all GSA Forms 3080 received**** **
**Each carrier’s raw score is divided by the program average and multiplied by 100 to establish the CSI****Carrier raw score  =  78.4375  ****Program average  =  79.7601****78.4375/79.7601*100 = 98.3418   Carrier CSI  =  98.34**** **

## Contacts in KC

- Robyn Bennett Team Leader
- Kim Chancellor HHGs
- Brian Kellhofer HHGs
- Carey Deforest Freight
- Vernon Short Misc.
- Email addresses
- _first name.last name@gsa.gov_
- WEB Addresses
- _[www.moveit.gsa.gov](http://www.moveit.gsa.gov/)_
- www.kc.gsa.gov/fsstt

## Ed HodgesDirectorProperty & Traffic Management DivisionKansas City, MOed.hodges@gsa.gov816-823-3646

## MAHALO“thank you”
# Presentation: 107530

## Rare Isotope Accelerator Project

- Krista Cruse
- Gustavus Adolphus College
- July 27, 2006

## Rare Isotopes

## Current Production

- RHIC

- LINAC

- Cyclotron

## Slide 4

## Proposed Layout

- Proposed Layout

## Proposed Sites

- Michigan State University
-    - adjacent to National Superconducting Cyclotron Laboratory

- Proposed Sites

## Proposed Sites

- Argonne National Lab – DuPage County, Illinois

## What makes RIA unique?

-     Superconducting LINAC
-     256 drift tubes
-     Multiple charge state beams
-     Longitudinal and transversal phase space
- Gas-stopping chamber
-    capture and sorting of isotopes

## Superconducting LINAC

## Collection Area with gas-stopping chamber

- Collection Area with gas-stopping chamber

## Applications

- The Standard Model of the nucleus is still considered incomplete

## Applications

- Intrinsic properties of nuclei

## Applications

- Origin of the universe, stars, and elements

## Applications

- Measuring nuclear reactions in
- real time

## Detectors

## Future?

- ?$$$$$$$$$$$$$$?

- Over 800 current members of the RIA users group
# Presentation: 525557

## S p a c e   E x p e r i m e n t   P l a t f o r m 

- S p a c e   E x p e r i m e n t   P l a t f o r m

**Allison Odyssey, Space Florida Project Manager**
**SPFL Bldg M6-306, Rm 9030, **
**Kennedy Space Center, FL 32899**
**Email: aodyssey@spaceflorida.gov**

**James E. Ball, NASA Project Manager**
**Mail Code: TA-A3**
**Kennedy Space Center, FL 32899**
**Email: james.e.ball@nasa.gov**

**  ****Approximate volume of 36x24x24 inches**
**  ****Total payload mass less than 300 lbs.**
**  ****Accommodates two single middeck lockers**
**  ****Can be configured for one double locker**
**  ****Stackable design offers maximum adaptability**
**  ****Self-contained (up to 3 hrs) 28 volt DC power**
**  ****Can switch to external ground or vehicle power**
**  ****Provides standard interfaces for user-furnished**
**    ****middeck locker equivalents (MDLE)**

- Currently in development by NASA Kennedy Space Center (KSC) and Space Florida, this new experiment support system is designed to provide an adaptable, robust carrier.
- It offers a safe, reliable, and efficient system to contain and operate experiments aboard research aircraft, suborbital launch vehicles, and other spacecraft. FASTRACKTM and its development team offer this new capability in support of:
-   NASA space science, exploration, and operations research and technology
-   NASA’s FAST (Facilitated Access to the Space Environment for Technology and Training) Program
-   Independent commercial and academic research and space product development
-   Experiment and support hardware/software in development for the International Space Station (ISS) and the ISS National Lab
- Scheduled availability is March 2009.

*FASTRACKTM  Engineering Unit. FASTRACKTM  is a*
*trademark of the National Aeronautics and Space*
* **Administration.*
# Presentation: 078387

## Nutramax Laboratories, Inc.

**Nutramax Laboratories, Inc.**
**-****	****Initiated use of the combination of glucosamine & chondroitin sulfate**
**Dedicated to quality**
**Committed to research to demonstrate effectiveness**
**Over 20 research papers published using Cosamin® DS/Cosequin® specific chondroitin sulfate & glucosamine hydrochloride**
**Specific chondroitin sulfate being used in NIH GAIT Study**
**Has over 10 years of experience with method development & validation for chondroitin sulfate & glucosamine**
**-****	****Supports accuracy in testing, truth in labeling****	**

## Recommendation

- Nutramax Laboratories, Inc. recommends that both health claim petitions be _denied_ due to questions and uncertainty related to the proven efficacy and exact composition of the specific materials cited in the petitions.

## Two Fundamental Questions

**Two Fundamental Questions**
**	**
**	****1.  What is actually in the bottle?**
**	****	****identity: need for specific test**
**	****	****quantity: need for accurate test**
**	****	****quality: low levels of other materials**
**	****2.  Does it really work?**
**	****	****clinical testing**
**	****	****bioequivalence**

## Glucosamine & Chondrotin 

**Sulfate Health Claim Petition Issues**
**No known published bioavailability studies on petitioner’s chondroitin sulfate and/or glucosamine**
**No known published clinical studies on petitioner’s chondroitin sulfate and/or glucosamine**
**No evidence provided by petitioner for repair & rebuild claim**
**Limitation on assays**

## Chondroitin Sulfate Assay

**	****1.****	****CPC- detects sulfated glycosaminoglycans;**
**	****	****lacks specificity**
**	****2.****	****Identity- proof that material quantitated **
**	****	****by CPC is actually CS**
**	****3.****	****Demonstrate absence of other GAGs (purity)**

## Glucosamine Sulfate Health

**Claim Petition Issues**
**NIH GAIT Study – Chose to study Glucosamine HCl **_**NOT**_** Glucosamine Sulfate**
**Glucosamine HCl vs.  Glucosamine Sulfate**
**Assay Issues**
**Form of Glucosamine Sulfate**

## Assay Issues – 

- Glucosamine Sulfate
- 1.  Glucosamine hydrochloride used as reference
- 2.  Lack of specificity in assay submitted by petitioner
- 3.  Need for uniformity in methods

## Glucosamine Sulfate Form

- 1.  For what form of glucosamine sulfate (i.e., production method) is the health claim petition applicable?
- 2.  Are mixed salts or co-crystals equivalent
- 	(stability) to the original sulfate salt?
- 3.  Actual content of glucosamine base or
- 	hydrochloride should be stated on label
# Presentation: 145089

## Status of FIMS at

**Status of FIMS at**
** ****Los Alamos National Laboratory**

## Los Alamos National Laboratory maintains: 

- 935 Building Records  (9,028,597 GSF)
- 357 Trailer Records     (   471,663 GSF)
- 1008 OSF Records
- 9 Land Records
- ~40 square miles

## Performance Based Incentive (PBI)

## Performance Based Incentive (PBI), Cont.,

## Federal Real Property Council (FRPC) 

- FIMS Data Validation was conducted on January 15 – January 16, 2008.
**TEAM:**
*Adrienne Nash from the DOE Area Office *
*Noah Buck MSS-MSE*
*Lorenzo Viramontes IP-SMFP*
*Donna Sanchez IP-SMFP*
*Melissa Trujillo IP-SMFP*
- Sample Size consisted of 25 structures

## Slide 6

## Slide 7

## Slide 8
# Presentation: 213570

## “Quality of life” umbrella often refers to self-reports of 

- associated with disease and treatment

- Symptoms
- Functional status
- Perceptions
- Opportunities

## Alternative Concepts or Different Concepts?

*Health Status*: death, disease, disability, discomfort, dissatisfaction (5 D’s)
*Functional Status*: performance of social roles and activities
*Well-Being*: wellness, feelings
*Quality of life*: safe environment, adequate housing, guaranteed income, respect, love, freedom, spirituality, meaning and purpose
*Health-related quality of life*: those aspects of quality of life attributed to health and the importance of health

## Concepts Intertwined

- Most aspects of life involved in life-threatening illness and some chronic illnesses
- Patients and clinicians use language that mixes concepts, e.g. “getting up at night to urinate”
- Symptoms (*G. symptoma) *may be mixed with signs (*L. signum*) as subjective phenoma that may or may not be seen, heard, or measured

## Symptoms and QoL

- Symptoms sometimes confounded with function and perceived quality of life in measurement
- Symptoms can be viewed as related to but separated from function and perceptions
- Symptoms important to patients and clinicians in diagnosis and evaluating treatment effectiveness

## Toward Conceptual Clarity

- Health status and quality of life are different and useful in distinguishing proximal and distal impacts of treatment
- Symptoms, functional status and perceptions often called QoL, can be highly related, but are not equal
- Best chance of sorting out relationships is to label carefully and evaluate separately
# Presentation: 500768

## Welcome to the DØRACE Workshop

- John Womersley
- Fermilab
- DØ Collaboration Meeting, February 2002

## Why remote analysis?

- Demographics
- Technological evolution

## Demographics

- The DØ collaboration is more distributed, more international than ever before
- We have 77 active institutions in 17 countries
- 585 collaborators of whom only 216 are resident at Fermilab
- I know that at least some U.S. institutions plan to reduce the fraction of time their graduate students spend at Fermilab during the later stages of the run

## Technological evolution

- Ian Foster in Physics Today, February 2002:
- 	*“**A useful metric for the rate of technological change is the average ****period during which speed or capacity doubles**** or, more or less equivalently, halves in price. For ****storage, networks, and computing power****, these periods are around ****12, 9, and 18 months****, respectively. The different time constants associated with these three exponentials have significant implications. *
*	*
*	**The annual doubling of data storage capacity, as measured in bits per unit area, has already reduced the cost of a terabyte (10**12** bytes) disk farm to less than $10 000. ****Anticipating that the trend will continue, the designers of major physics experiments are planning petabyte data archives****.”*
- 		(that’s us, by the way)

## Ian Foster, continued ...

- 	*“**Such large data volumes demand more from our analysis capabilities. Dramatic improvements in microprocessor performance mean that the lowly desktop or laptop is now a powerful computational engine. Nevertheless, computer power is falling behind storage. By doubling "only" every 18 months or so, computer power takes five years to increase by a single order of magnitude. ****Assembling the computational resources needed for large-scale analysis at a single location is becoming infeasible. ***
- 	***The solution to these problems lies in dramatic changes taking place in networking****. Spurred by [...] innovations [...]  and by the demands of the Internet economy, the performance of wide area networks doubles every nine months or so; every five years it increases by two orders of magnitude.“*
- The message for us is clear

## Remote analysis

- We have a responsibility to the collaboration to fully support and facilitate remote physics analysis
- We have a self-interest in doing so: it will maximize the physics output from the experiment
- In the longer term, a growing reliance on remote resources is almost certain to be critical if we are to provide adequate computing for DØ (not just for analysis)
- What I would like to see come out of this workshop
- Establish a direction for remote physics analysis in 2002
- Input to the upcoming review on DØ computing needs for “Greater Run 2” (2003-7)

## Opening Remarks

- John Womersley
- Fermilab
- DØ Collaboration Meeting, February 2002
# Presentation: 718302

## Veterans

## Leave No Man Behind?

- More than 60,000 veterans waiting for a medical appointment
- 560,000 disabled veterans hurt by “disabled veterans tax”
- 20 percent of National Guard members with no health insurance
- An average of 14,000 veterans have been waiting more than 15 months to get their disability claims finalized
- One million children in military families denied the expanded child tax credit

## Democratic Salute to Veterans and Armed Forces

- Provides $1.8 billion this year and $10 billion over 10 years to fund veterans health care
- Completely ends the disabled veterans tax
- Expedites disability claims and give veterans kept waiting $500 a month
- Permanent increases in imminent danger and  family separation pay
- Child tax credit for all military families

## Some Bipartisan Successes

- $1.1 billion increase in veterans' health care
- Temporary increase in imminent danger and family separation pay
- TRICARE eligibility for National Guard and Reserves if they have no other health insurance
- Health care for National Guard and Reserves for six months after leaving active duty

## Not Even Half a Loaf

- Republican budget leaves many veterans behind
- Concurrent receipt compromise helps just _one-third_ of eligible veterans
- Veterans’ health care still underfunded
- Veterans’ programs subject to across the board cut
- Republicans oppose a $1500 bonus for troops serving in Iraq and Afghanistan

## Republican Concurrent Receipt Plan Leaves Out Two-Thirds of Eligible Veterans

- 170,000 Veterans Helped—But Over 10 Years

- 393,000 Veterans Left Out

- Source: House Government Reform Committee, Democratic Staff

## Shortchanging Veterans’ Health Care

- Funding in billions

- Independent Budget

- Congressional Budget

- House Republican funding level

- Final Compromise

- FY2004 Discretionary Spending

## Shortchanging Veterans’ Health Care

- 	“Veterans are condemning House Republicans' failure to deliver a $3.2 billion boost for the Veterans Affairs Department that would have shrunk the agency's waiting list for medical care. ‘A shameless betrayal’ is how AMVETS sums it up. ‘A moral outrage,’ the American Legion said. ‘Abominable’ is the word from the Non Commissioned Officers Association. “*** ***
*	**--Gannett New Service, 8/18/03*

## Taxing Disabled Veterans

- 	“Creating a two-tiered benefits system, that favors one group of service-disabled military retirees over another, is not the answer.  Creating a commission to study VA’s disability-compensation system - a system which requires medical evidence to prove a claim and is scrutinized by congressional Veterans’ Affairs committees, an appeals process, and a federal court - is not the answer.  The answer is to repeal the tax for all service-disabled military retirees.”
*	**--American Legion Press release, 10/16/03*
# Presentation: 275178

## Effects of reimportation on new drug development

- Frank R. Lichtenberg
- frank.lichtenberg@columbia.edu
- Columbia University and
- National Bureau of Economic Research

## Hypothesis

- Reimportation will reduce incentives to develop new drugs, which will slow the rate of increase of longevity and quality of life

## New drug development:causes and consequences

- Expected
- market size

- Expected
- drug price

- Expected
- profits

- Number of
- drugs
- developed

- Patient
- Outcomes
- (e.g., survival)

## Expected price and expected market size have similar effects on innovation incentives

- Profit = (P – c) Q – F
- P: price
- c: variable cost per unit (manu. & marketing cost)
- Q: quantity (market size)
- F: fixed cost
- Given c and F, Profit is reduced when either P or Q is reduced  evidence about the effect of market size on drug development can provide insight into the probable effect of reimportation (or price controls) on drug development

## Previous evidence

- Scherer: link between profits and R&D investment in the pharmaceutical industry
- Lichtenberg: link between market value of pharma firms (which reflects PDV of expected future profits) and R&D investment
- Danzon, Wang, and Wang: drug launch decisions are affected by expected price and market size

## Illustration

- Using data on 14 cancer sites, examine relationship between incidence and number of drugs to treat that type of cancer

##               Drug data: Micromedex DRUGDEX DRUG EVALUATIONS 

| Cancer site | Incidence per 100,000 people, 1996-2000 | Number of drugs labeled for use at site, 2004 |
| --- | --- | --- |
| breast | 73.9 | 26 |
| prostate | 73.7 | 12 |
| lung | 62.6 | 13 |
| colon-rectum | 54.2 | 8 |
| lymphoma | 21.8 | 27 |
| skin-melanoma | 16.6 | 6 |
| leukemia | 12.1 | 36 |
| pancreas | 11.1 | 4 |
| ovary | 9.1 | 12 |
| brain and central nervous system | 6.4 | 4 |
| esophagus | 4.5 | 1 |
| testis | 2.6 | 7 |
| bone | 0.9 | 0 |
| eye | 0.8 | 0 |

- Source: Incidence data: _[http://seer.cancer.gov/csr/1975_2000/results_single/sect_01_table.04_2pgs.pdf](http://seer.cancer.gov/csr/1975_2000/results_single/sect_01_table.04_2pgs.pdf)_
-               Drug data: Micromedex DRUGDEX DRUG EVALUATIONS

## A 10% decrease in incidence is associated with a 10% decrease in the number of drugs

## Implications

- A 10% decrease in incidence (market size) is associated with a 10% decrease in the number of drugs
- This suggests that a 10% decrease in drug price would result in *at least* a 10% decrease in the number of drugs
- Suppose that reimportation would reduce U.S. drug prices by 40% (Canadian drug prices may be about 40% lower than U.S. prices)
- This would substantially reduce the number of drugs developed in the future, and, consequently, the longevity and health of Americans and others

## Conclusions

- Reimportation will reduce incentives to develop new drugs, which will slow the rate of increase of longevity and quality of life
# Presentation: 363817

## MITC Charge to the HSRB

- 	MITC is an irritating compound that has a limited animal database for toxicity via inhalation, the key route of exposure. MITC can be used as a pesticide directly to treat wood poles, but the major pathway of exposure to MITC is from degradation of several fumigant pesticides (i.e., metam sodium, metam potassium, and dazomet). Due to its volatility, MITC has the potential to move off-site, which can result in exposure to bystanders near treated areas and, through ambient air, to people far away from treated areas. Use of the soil fumigants also results in exposure to those handling the pesticides or working in treated fields.

## MITC Charge to the HSRB

- _1.  Scientific considerations_
- The Agency’s WOE document and DER for MITC describe the study design and results of the MITC odor threshold and eye irritation human studies. The WOE document also discusses the Agency’s conclusions that the eye irritation study is useful for the assessment of potential effects on bystanders and workers from exposures to MITC during acute (1-day) intervals.

## MITC Charge to the HSRB

- _1.  Scientific considerations, cont’d_
- The Agency has concluded that the odor threshold study is less useful than the eye irritation study for assessing the human health effects of MITC, since the odor detection threshold for humans is higher than the level that causes eye irritation. The Agency has decided, however, to use the results of the eye irritation study for assessing the inhalation exposure of MITC.
- Please comment on the scientific evidence that supports this conclusion.

## MITC Charge to the HSRB

-  _2. Ethical considerations_
- The Agency requests that the Board provide comment on the following:
- 	a. Is there clear and convincing evidence that the 	conduct of the human eye irritation study with 	MITC was fundamentally unethical?
- 	b. Is there clear and convincing evidence that 	the 	conduct of this study was significantly deficient 	relative to the ethical standards prevailing at the 	time the research was conducted?
# Presentation: 251753

## Drinking water (not evaluated)

- Dermal contact

- Adult Occupational:
- driving, sweeping, digging
- holes for signs and fences,
- picking up trash, removing
- sediments, etc.

- Adult Recreational:
- biking, running, walking,
-   roller blading, hiking, horseback
- riding

- Child Recreational:
- biking, walking, roller blading,
- playing, hiking, horseback
- riding

- Ingestion

**Figure 1.  Conceptual Model for EECA UPRR Trail from Mullan to Plummer, ID**

- House dust *(not evaluated)*

- Diet                  *(not evaluated)*

- Drinking water *(not evaluated)*

- Ambient air               *(not evaluated)*

- Trail soils

- Residential and community-wide soils                  *(not evaluated)*

- Surface and groundwater *(not evaluated)*

- Mining and smelter  activities (including railroad transportation)

- Crustal weathering

- Paint          *(not evaluated)*

- Industrial, automotive, and consumer sources
# Presentation: 454424

## Visitor Cues

- The Driving Force

- Developed by the Eppley Institute for Parks and Public Lands, Indiana University, Bloomington, IN

**Interpretive Development Program**
**National Park Service**

## What’s the big deal about visitor cues?

- The visitor is sovereign.
- Inflicting interpretation may prevent visitors from caring about and for the resource.
- They inform how we should proceed

## How do visitors communicate their needs?

- Verbally – statements and questions
- Tone of Voice
- Non-verbally – body language
- Behaviors

## Verbal Communication

- The question behind the question
- What time is the 1 o’clock movie?
- Are bears dangerous?
- What is here to see and do?
- Can you tell me where to go?
- What time of the year do deer turn into elk?
- Where is the orientation video?

**Notes:**
Movie – Should I come early to see the movie at 1?
Bears – Do I need to be concerned about bears here?
See and do – Please tell me what I shouldn’t miss.
Where to go – Please tell me what I shouldn’t miss.
Time of year – I need more information about those animals out there. What are they? What is the difference between deer and elk?
Orientation video – body language will help answer this question. If they are looking around and pointing away from you, they probably want a short answer. If they smile and lean on the VC desk, they may be trying to start a conversation about what there is to do at the park.

## Body Language

- A major part of how we communicate.
- Difficult to understand: is someone who crosses their arms bored, angry or just cold?
- Look for multiple body language cues.
# Presentation: 828889

## HELP!!!

- (Help) Not just anybody,
- (Help) You know I need someone...

**BEATLES - 40th Anniversary Tribute to “1964”**

- If you missed the Beatles at Red Rocks on August 26, 1964, here’s your chance to relive the incredible experience _40 years to the day_, with the #1 Beatles Show in the World, **“1964” The Tribute**.  Choosing songs from the pre-Sgt. Pepper era, “1964” recreates an early 60s live Beatles concert with period instruments, vintage costumes, hairstyles, onstage mannerisms, speaking voices, and unmistakable harmonies of the “Lads from Liverpool”.  This 40th Anniversary celebrates Red Rocks Amphitheatre as one of four original concert sites still remaining from the Beatles’ first American tour in 1964.  Come experience the past....

**KBDI Channel 12** in partnership with the **Denver Federal Executive Board**, invites all Federal Employees (civilian, military, and postal) to attend this concert.  All Federal Employees will receive a $3 discount on tickets using the code **“DFEB”**.

**Where**:      Red Rocks Amphitheatre
**When**:       **Thursday, August 26, 2004, at 7:30 p.m.**
-                   Gates open at 5:30 p.m.
**Cost**:         $15.50 (this includes the $3 discount)
**Tickets**:    Call Channel 12 at 303-296-1212
-                   Use the Email event discount code **“DFEB”**

*Proceeds benefit Denver’s public television station KBDI-Channel 12*
# Presentation: 196456

## Relativistic Electron Forecast Model

**Relativistic Electron Forecast Model**

**Chris Smithtro and Terry Onsager**
- NOAA Space Environment Center

**Performance Statistics**

**Summary**

**Main Points**

**How REFM Works**

**Demonstration of the Flux Correction Factor**

**Example of an REFM Web Page**

** ****Coefficients are created from historical data by solving a set of linear equations to minimize the prediction filter’s error (Levinson, *****J of Mathematics and Physics*****, 1947)**
** ****A summation over the filter interval (30 days) of average daily solar wind speed times the corresponding coefficient gives the raw forecast **
** ****In the normal mode, measured solar wind values from the ACE spacecraft are used to create a 1-3 day forecast **
** ****In the Wang Sheeley mode, predicted solar wind speed values supplement the measured ones to extend the forecast to 2-8 days**
** ****To account for additional physical processes, a correction factor is introduced.  The factor is calculated by taking an average of the ratios of previous raw forecasts to the observed electron fluences.  This permits the model to respond to physical changes in the magnetosphere and greatly improves the prediction efficiency  **

**Sudden change in electron fluence.  Forecast does not respond.**

**With correction included, forecast responds quickly**

**1 Day Forecast Without Correction**

**1 Day Forecast With Correction**
# Presentation: 442584

## Method 203

- Quality Assurance/Quality Control Requirements for Continuous Opacity Monitoring Systems (COMS)

## Background/History

- Proposed in October, 1992
- Addition to 40 CFR Part 51, Appendix M
- Specified quality assurance requirements/procedures
- After initial demonstration of compliance with PS-1

## Background/History, cont’d

- Minimum quality control (QC) and quality assurance (QA)
- Assess and assure the quality of COMS performance

## Requirements

- Daily checks
- Zero and span (upscale)

## Requirements, cont’d

- Quarterly performance checks
- Optical alignment
- Optical surface dust accumulation
- Zero and upscale response
- Zero compensation
- Stack exit correlation error
- Calibration error

## Requirements, cont’d

- Annual checks
- Zero alignment

## Monitor Acceptance Criteria

- Out-of-control periods
- Daily checks
- Quarterly performance audits
- Annual checks
- Data capture
- 95 percent valid data capture

## Recent Activities

- Reopened comment period
- March 2001
- Established Stakeholders Workgroup
- Monthly conference calls
- Re-write and re-propose Method 203

## Revised Method 203

- Requirements
- Eliminate optical surface dust accumulation, stack exit correlation error, zero and upscale response
- Optical alignment
- Checked when stack temperature is +/- 20 percent of typical operating temperature
- Zero alignment
- Required to be done off stack every 3 years

## Revised Method 203, cont’d

- Monitor acceptance criteria
- Out-of-control periods (Calibration Drift)
- The beginning of the period corresponds to the completion of the daily calibration drift check
- Out-of-control periods (Quarterly Performance Audits and Annual Checks)
- No change

## Revised Method 203, cont’d

- Data Capture
- 95 percent of the source’s operating hours per quarter
- Allow the use of substitute monitors
- Previously certified to meet PS-1
- Perform calibration error check
- Check calibration drift on a daily basis

## Revised Method 203, cont’d

- Corrective action procedures
- Describes corrective action required to return an opacity monitor to normal operation
- Specifies four classes of maintenance and repair procedures
- Routine/preventative maintenance
- Measurement non-critical repairs
- Measurement critical repairs
- Rebuilt or refurbished analyzers

## Current Schedule

- Re-proposal package published in the Federal Register – December 2002
- Promulgation package published in the Federal Register – December 2003
# Presentation: 708692

## Characteristics of PediatricAntidepressant Trials

**Gregory M. Dubitsky, MD**
**Division of Neuropharmacological Drug Products **
**FDA**

## Objective

- Descriptive only.
- Will _not_ address effect of study characteristics on suicidality risk:
- See Dr. Hammad’s Presentation

## Study Pool

- •  23 placebo-controlled studies conducted between 1984 and 2001.
- •  9 drugs.
- •  5 indications (major depression, OCD, GAD, SAD, ADD).

## Common Design Features

- • Randomized.
- • Double-blind.
- • Placebo-controlled.
- • Parallel group.
- • Flexible-dose.

## Basic Study Design 

**See Handout: Table 1**
- • Drug, study, indication.
- • Age range.
- • Number of patients in analysis by TX.
- • Duration of double-blind TX.
- • Protocol-specified dose range.

## Screening and Key Exclusionary Criteria 

**See Handout: Table 2**
- • Extensive diagnostic screening.
- • Placebo lead-in preceding DB TX (and exclusion of placebo responders).
- • Exclusionary criteria: H/O treatment resistance, current suicide risk, H/O suicide attempt, bipolar disorder, family H/O bipolar disorder.

## Other Study Features (see Appendix to my review)

- • study dates/location/number of centers.
- • stratified randomization by age group.
- • exclusionary criteria:
- 	-homicidal risk.
- 	-psychotic symptoms.
- 	-alcohol/drug abuse.
- 	-borderline personality disorder.
- 	-eating disorder.

## Notable Study Differences

- • Prozac HCCJ (MDD): small & terminated early.
- • One active-control study:
- 	- Paxil 329 (MDD) (imipramine).
- • Two studies included inpatients:
- 	- Celexa 94404 (MDD) & Wellbutrin 75 (ADD).
- •Three studies used extensive DX screening:
- 	-Prozac X065 & HCJE; Paxil 329 (all MDD).

## Post-DB Phase TX Options

- Variable across trials:
- 	• Taper of acute TX (8 trials).
- 	• Abrupt D/C (7 trials).
- 	• Open-label TX (5 trials).
- 	• Continued DB TX (3 trials).
- Also variable within trials:
- 	• e.g., Paxil 329 (MDD) - responders continued DB TX, non-responders tapered.
- Variable follow-up hindered W/D effect analysis.

## No study was specifically designed to assess suicidality.

- • suicide attempts and ideation detected only by routine safety monitoring:
- 	-treatment-emergent adverse events.
- 	-suicide-related items on depression scales (CDRS-R, K-SADS, HAM-D, and MADRS).
- • AE description often incomplete or vague.

## Conclusions

- Potential influence of study design characteristics on suicide risk:
- See Dr. Hammad’s analysis.
# Presentation: 203054

## SCIAMACHY ozone column retrieval 

**and the 2005 ozone hole**

**Henk Eskes, **_**Arjo Segers**_**, Ronald van der A, **
**Pepijn Veefkind, Johan de Haan and Ellen Brinksma**
- Topics:
- •	SCIAMACHY ozone column retrieval at KNMI:
- 	the TOSOMI algorithm
- •	Ozone hole 2005

## SCIAMACHY retrieval, validation, assimilation 

*Eskes et al., **Atmos. Chem. Phys. Discuss, 5, 4429-4475, 2005*

## TOSOMI DOAS algorithm 

- Based on the OMI-DOAS operational algorithm (P. Veefkind)
- • Implementation for GOME
- 	TOGOMI - P. Valks
- • Implementation for SCIAMACHY + FRESCO
- 	TOSOMI - H. Eskes and R. van der A
- Innovations compared to e.g. GOME Fast Delivery, vs 3
- • New treatment of Raman scattering (J. de Haan)
- • Empirical air-mass factor approach
- • TOMS v8 ozone profile data base
- • Radiative transfer improvements
- • ECMWF temperature profiles

## Tosomi vs Brewer, Dobson ...

- World-wide validation for 2 years of SCIA-Tosomi ozone columns
- (Ellen Brinksma)

- Main conclusions:
- • Tosomi 1.5% lower than ground based
- • RMS about 5%
- • No clear geographical location or seasonal dependence !
- • Stable product

## Tosomi vs Brewer, Dobson ...

**Tosomi vs Brewer, Dobson ...**

- Dobson
- Syowa
- Antarctica

## Tosomi vs GOME GDP-4

- latitude

- Day since 1 Jan 2003

- Good
- agreement
- GDP-4 and
- Tosomi
- High SZA shows
- differences algo's
- After day 140:
- Offset due to
- GOME GDP-4

## Tosomi vs GOME Togomi

- latitude

- Day since 1 Jan 2003

- Variations
- small
- RMS 0.7%
- Bias -1.3%
- TOSOMI,
- TOGOMI
- and
- GDP-4
- in good
- agreement

## Tosomi vs assimilation

## ECMWF:Assimilation of SCIAMACHY-TOSOMI

**ECMWF:Assimilation of SCIAMACHY-TOSOMI**

- TOMS

- No SCIA

- With SCIA

- 23 May 2004

- Antje Dethof

## Ozone hole 2005 

- Operational ozone data assimilation since 2000,
- available on:
- www.temis.nl
- www.gse-promote.org

## August 2005: very early start of ozone hole

- SCIAMACHY
- assimilation
- (grey:
- large analysis error)

## August 2005: very early start of ozone hole

- As seen by OMI ...

## 8 November 2005

## Ozone hole area, 10 Nov 2005

## Ozone minimum

## Temperature (ECMWF)

- From WMO ozone bulletin #5

## In summary ... 

- Total ozone columns from SCIAMACHY form:
-  stable and accurate product;
-  useful extension of the GOME period ...
-  ... and prequel for OMI;
-  available on www.temis.nl
# Presentation: 911846

## NDSU’s Approach toDisaster Resistant Universities

- Kent Theurer
- Research Assistant

## Vision

- sustainable university.

- _Vision_

## Goal

- To create and upgrade infrastructure to ensure the disaster resistance, resilience and continued sustainable development of the university.

## Organizing Resources

- Tasks
- Create planning team and advisory board
- Develop methodology for data gathering
- Study best practices currently utilized by peer institutions
- Examine local mitigation plans

**Complete**

**Complete**

**Complete**

**On-going**

## Hazard Risk Assessment

- Tasks
- Identify all potential hazards
- Examine university disaster history (vulnerability)
- Establish previous costs as a portion of cost/benefit analysis
- Examine and establish risk assessment methodology
- Conduct risk assessment for campus

**Complete**

**Complete**

**Complete**

**On-going**

## Vulnerability & Risk Assessment

- Evaluation of Buildings
- Structural
- Social
- Security
- Network-Cyber
- Administrative

- Evaluation of Grounds
- Electricity
- Water
- Sewer/Storm
- Transportation

## Developing the Plan

- Tasks
- Identify mitigation projects
- Feasibility
- Historical/Environmental impact
- Rank mitigation projects based on risk assessment and cost/benefit analysis

## Implementing the Plan

- Tasks
- Develop necessary support to adopt the plan
- Implement the plan
- University impact analysis of projects
- Apply for PDM to advance mitigation strategy

## University Background

- Student population
- Around 12,000
- Faculty and staff
- 500 faculty and 1000 support staff
- Campus
- 89 Buildings on main campus spread over 258 acres
- 22,053 total acres of North Dakota
-  including the main Agricultural Experimental Station in Fargo and seven research centers located throughout the state.

## University Information

- Division One Reclassification
- Academic
- Athletic
- Phoenix International Research Location
- Manufacturing Plant for Alien Technologies

## Major Disaster History

- At Least 7 Major Fires Since 1909
- An F5 Tornado in 1957
- 3 Major Rain/Flood Events

## Thanks for your kind attention

- 		          		     Contact info:
- Arthur Oyola-Yemaiel, Ph.D. 			  Kent Theurer
-         (701) 231-5847				(710) 231-5759
- _[arthur.oyolayemaiel@ndsu.edu](mailto:arthur.oyolayemaiel@ndsu.edu)_		       _[kent.theurer@ndsu.edu](mailto:kent.theurer@ndsu.edu)_
- 			  Emergency Management Program
- 			      North Dakota State University
- 				  P.O. Box 5075
- 		             		Fargo, ND 58105
# Presentation: 652340

## Please note: this presentation has not received Director’s approval and is subject to revision.

## “It is the subtle ratio between rainfall and evaporation that

- “It is the subtle ratio between rainfall and evaporation that
- is the final secret of water in the Glades “
- Marjory Stoneman Douglas, 1947

- Everglades ET
- Ed German, U.S. Geological Survey

## Timeline

- <date/time>

_**Timeline**_

**1995-97:  Install and operate 9 sites**
**1998-99:  Report, & operate 4 sites**
**2000:        Install new sites - shark valley**
**2001-2003:   Operate new sites**
**2004:   Final report**

## Site 7, Shark Valley Slough

**Site 7, Shark Valley Slough**

## Slide 5

## Priestley-Taylor model

******E = ******** F ( R****n**** – G )**

******E is the latent heat,**
****** ****is the Priestley-Taylor coefficient,**
**F is a function of air temperature and pressure,**
**(R****n**** – G) is the available energy**

## Model for 

****** ****= C****o**** + C****1****S + C****2**** R****s**** + C****3**** R****s****2**

**S ****	****: water level,**
**R****s**** ****	****: incoming solar radiation,**
**C****i**** ****	****: site regression coefficients, in relation:**

******E = ******** F ( Rn – G )**

## Solar intensity = 1000 watts/m2

## Slide 9

## Comparison of two dry sites

## Comparison of available energy at two sites

**Comparison of available energy at two sites**

## Comparison of ET at two sites

**Comparison of ET at two sites**

## Comparison of ET fraction 

**Comparison of ET fraction**

## The Present Network

## Slide 15

## Site Characteristics

- _Site      Lia         Characteristics          Hydroperiod_
- Ing        --           Sparse Sg, R             Dry late winter
- P33       --            Medium Sg              Wet
- S1         --            Medium Sg              Wet
- X1.5      1.2         Medium Sg               Dry late winter
- X2         0.5         Sparse Sg,R              Dry late winter
- L1          0.2        Very sparse R           Dry late winter

## Models: 1996-97 Vs 1998-2000

## Models: 1996-97 Vs 1998-2000

## For Sale
# Presentation: 556031

## CINT

**CINT**

- Eubank Blvd.

- Wyoming Blvd.

**I-40**

- Central Ave.

- Tramway Blvd.

- Southern Ave.

- Juan Tabo Blvd.

- Costco
- Taco Bell/Pizza Hut
- Carl’s Jr.
- Subway
- Raley’s Supermarket
- Dion’s
- Starbucks
- Einstein Bros. Bagels
- Smith’s Supermarket
- McDonald’s
- Waffle House
- La Hacienda Mexican Restaurant & Cantina
- Kentucky Fried Chicken
- Blake’s Lotaburger
- Weinershcnitzel
- Sonic Drive-In
- Chen’s Chinese Restaurant
- The Olive Garden
- Owl Café
- Wendy’s
- Wal-Mart
- Boston Market
- Sam’s Club
- Taco Bell/Pizza Hut
- Popeye’s Chicken
- Subway
- Bob’s Burgers
- Twister’s
- Sonic Drive-In
- Golden Pride
- Teriyaki Chicken Bowl
- Blake’s Lotaburger
- McDonald’s
- Bea’s Mexican Restaurant
- Griff’s Hamburgers
- Bea’s 2 Mexican Restaurant
- Pizza Hut
- Lee’s Chinese Restaurant
- Chili’s Bar & Grill
- Walgreen’s

- 1

- 24

- 22

- 20

- Chico Rd.

- 27

- 28

- 16

- 39

- 26

- 6

- 3

- 10

- 31

- 12

- 15

- 2

- 25

- 33

- 7

- 8

- 4

- 17

- 13

- 18

- 30

- 19

- 29

- 11

- 37

- 23

- 21

- 9

- Zuni

- 36

- 40

- 5

- 14

- 35

- 38

- 32

- 34

**Notes:**
Costco
Taco Bell
Boston Market
Wendy's
# Presentation: 696925

## Mentoring in the Physics Division

*C.J. (Kim) Lister*
*Argonne National Laboratory*
_*[lister@anl.gov](mailto:lister@anl.gov)*_
*630-252-4040(4020)*

## Introduction

- 		Physics Division Post-Docs
- 		The Mentoring Concept
- 		Implementation
- 		Results

## Physics Division Post-Docs

-     We have ~10 Post Docs in the division at any one time
- 		~5 Low Energy  (Nuclear. Structure, Reactions, Astro, Fund Ints)
- 		~3 Medium Energy (Nucleon Structure, Fund. Ints)
- 		~2 Theory (quarks to nuclei)
-     Post Doc experience differs group-to-group, so I will focus on our Low Energy group, as that is what I do.

##  Concepts for Post-Docs

- 	A) Broadening the vision:-
- 		Get involved at a lower level in “non-mainstream” projects
- 	B) Understanding Stages of “Taking Charge” of research.
- 	       Undergraduate  -  Graduate  -  Post Doc  -   Professor
- 	C) Develop your own “Career Project”
- 		Need leadership and a good, original project.

## What Mentoring Can do

- 			Avoid Slavery.
- 			Avoid “Falling through the cracks”
- 			Ensure credit for good experiments goes right.
- 			Assist with “exposure”
- 			Help focus on “WHAT IS NEXT” early.
- 			Help with letters of recommendation later in career.

## What Mentoring Cannot do 

- 			Make a post-doc life easy (it NEVER is, or was)
- 			Guarantee a successful ANL experience.
- 			Guarantee a successful career after ANL
-    At the end of the day.....the post-doc years will always be a demanding and time consuming venture, which require extraordinary dedication.
- 		....and you need blind faith it will all work out.......

## Mentoring Day-by-day

- Mentoring is a relationship:
-     Like all relationships, what you get out of it is closely related to the effort you put in.  Both ways!!!
- 	In a good mentoring relationship, post docs come and visit me ~every four weeks.......mainly just to tell me what is going on in research.
-    We talk about physics (during which I lean a lot), gossip in the division (which I learn a LOT), plans for “exposure” at conferences etc...
-    At job time, we discuss opportunities, applications, CV writing, and we do practice interviews and talks.

## PHY Success!!!!

- 	We measure success by our students going to the careers THEY want, as it is often the case that one only find out what one wants (and what you are really good at) during the post-doc years
-    Of course, as academics, we are very happy when students stay in scientific careers.
- 	>80% of our post docs do....~30% academics, 30% Nat Labs, 30% in
-                                                   medical imaging and other industry.
-    In the last 10 years we have tenure track (or tenured professors) at:
-    Yale, Notre Dame(2), FSU, UIC, DePaul, Lake Forest Coll,  ANL(4)
-    U. York (UK), U. Cologne (Ger), U Jyvaskyla (FIN), U. Calcutta (IN)
# Presentation: 489827

## KOPIO EXPERIMENT AT BNL

- CAROL SCARLETT
- BROOKHAVEN NATIONAL LABORATORY
- UPTON, NEW YORK

## CP VIOLATION IN SM

## HISTORY & EXPECTATIONS

## HISTORY & EXPECTATIONS

- Published
- Experimental
- Limit

## HISTORY & EXPECTATIONS

- Published
- Experimental
- Limit

- Grossman-Nir
- Limit

## CP VIOLATION IN SM

## HISTORY & EXPECTATIONS

- Published
- Experimental
- Limit

- Grossman-Nir
- Limit

- SM Prediction

## HISTORY & EXPECTATIONS

- Published
- Experimental
- Limit

- Grossman-Nir
- Limit

- KEK 391
- Goal

- SM Prediction

## HISTORY & EXPECTATIONS

- Published
- Experimental
- Limit

- Grossman-Nir
- Limit

- KEK 391
- Goal

- SM Prediction

- KOPIO
- Design Goal

## EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN

## EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN

## EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN

## EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN

## EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN

## EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN

## EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN

## EXPECTED SIGNAL/NOISE

## EXPECTED SIGNAL/NOISE

## EXPECTED SIGNAL/NOISE

## EXPECTED SIGNAL/NOISE

## ENHANCING THE SIGNAL

## COLLABORATION

***Arizona State University  ***J.R. Comfort
***Brookhaven National Laboratory  ***D. Beavis***, ***I-H. Chiang, A. Etkin,  J.W. Glenn,  A. Hanson, D. Jaffe, D. Lazarus,    K. Li, L. Littenberg, G. Redlinger, C. Scarlett, M. Sivertz,  R. Strand
***University of Cinncinnati ***K. Kinoshita
***IHEP, Protvino******* ***G.Britvich, V. Burtovoy, S.Chernichenko, L, Landsberg, A. Lednev, V. Obraztsov, R.Rogalev, V.Semenov, M. Shapkin, I.Shein, A.Soldatov, N.Tyurin, V.Vassil'chenko, D. Vavilov, A.Yanovich
***INR, Moscow*** A. Ivashkin, *D.Ishuk*, M. Khabibullin, A. Khotjanzev, Y. Kudenko, A. Levchenko, O. Mineev,               N. Yershov and *A.Vasiljev*.
***INFN-University of Perugia ***G. Anzivino, P. Cenci, *E. Imbergamo*, A. Nappi,  M. Valdata
***KEK ***M. Kobayashi
***Kyoto University of Education**** R. Takashima
***Kyoto University*** *K. Misouchi, H. Morii*, T. Nomura, N. Sasao, *T. Sumida*
***Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State University*** M. Blecher, *N. Graham*, A. Hatzikoutelis
***University of New Mexico*** B. Bassalleck, N. Bruner, D.E. Fields, J. Lowe, T.L. Thomas
***University of Montreal**** J.-P. Martin
**State University of New York at Stony Brook** N. Cartiglia, *I. Christidi*, M. Marx, P. Rumerio, D. Schamberger
***TRIUMF  ***P. Amaudruz, M. Barnes, E. Blackmore, A. Daviel, M.Dixit, J. Doornbos, P. Gumplinger,   R. Henderson,  N. Khan,  A. Mitra, T. Numao, R. Poutissou, G. Wait
***University of British Columbia  ***S. Begin, D. Bryman,  M. Hasinoff, *J. Ives*
***University of Virginia*** E. Frlez, D. Pocanic
***University of Zurich *** P. Robmann, P. Trüol, A. van der Schaaf, *S. Scheu*
***Yale University***  G. Atoyan, S.K. Dhawan, V. Issakov, H. Kaspar, A. Poblaguev, M.E. Zeller
# Presentation: 760563

## BSE: update on US surveillance

- FDA TSE Advisory Committee
- Silver Spring, MD
- February 8, 2005
- Lisa A. Ferguson, DVM
- Senior Staff Veterinarian
- USDA, APHIS, Veterinary Services

## Total BSE cases worldwide

- Cumulative total – greater than 189,000 cases
- Greater than 96% in United Kingdom
- Greater than 89% occurred in 1996 and before
- OIE website lists current reported totals:
- _[www.oie.int](http://www.oie.int/)_

## BSE National Surveillance Plan

**GOAL: **
**Obtain as many samples as possible from the targeted high-risk population in a 12-18 month period**

## BSE Surveillance Plan

- Targeting population where disease is most likely to be diagnosed – most efficient
- Assumption if we cannot find disease in targeted – or most likely – population, even more unlikely to be found in non-targeted population
- Use data obtained to extrapolate information about broader cattle population

## BSE Surveillance Plan

- Targeted high-risk population – estimated 446,000
- Adult cattle population – 45 million

## BSE – Targeted Surveillance

**Non-ambulatory animals**
**Dead stock**
**Field CNS Cases and on-farm suspects**
**Veterinary Diagnostic Laboratory data**
**Public health laboratories**
**Ante-mortem condemns at slaughter**

## BSE Surveillance – May 1990 – FY2004 (thru 5/31/2004)

**20,543**

**19,990**

**5272**

**2681**

**17,121**

**1302**

**1080**

**2713**

**1143**

**744**

**692**

**736**

**40**

**175**

**251**

## Surveillance: NVSL Bovine Brain Submissions FY 93-04 (through 5/31/04)

## Enhanced BSE Surveillance

- Total – ELISA and IHC tests conducted since June 1, 2004 – through February 3, 2005
- All negative results (3 inconclusives)
- 221,131
- (216,922 ELISA and 4,209 IHC)

## Enhanced BSE Surveillance

- Evaluating for appropriate geographic distribution;  populations as expected
- Vast majority of samples from deadstock, non-ambulatory animals – as expected
- Good representation from all collection sites, with majority from animal disposal facilities as expected

## www.aphis.usda.gov